Kazaan's page

If the issue is just with the number of dice to roll, at that point, I think it's permissible to just average it out. So 7d6 will just average to 24 damage.

Now, there are specific ways to force a target to become flat-footed in-combat. Shatter Defenses and certain class abilities will do it. But the major point is that it must be flat-footed, not just denied dex to AC because flat-footed involves a whole lot more than just losing dex to AC.

...As in the previous section, what is presented here is a set of alternative benefits that characters of each race may choose instead of the normal benefits for their favored class. Thus, rather than taking an extra hit point or an extra skill rank, players may choose for their characters to gain the benefit listed here. This is not a permanent or irrevocable choice; just as characters could alternate between taking skill ranks and hit points when they gain levels in their favored class, these benefits provide a third option, and characters may freely alternate between them.

That's also explicit. You're allowed to sub in alternate racial bonus any time you'd have the option to take the HP-or-SP favored class bonus. Since alternate bonuses were released in the same version, your logic would only be valid if they were explicitly prohibited by the feat wording. Specific only trumps general when the specific makes an explicit change, allowance, or exception to the general. General is that it's allowed. Specific doesn't say that it isn't allowed, hence general rule still stands.

No, but what a H-Elf can do is take the Eclectic feat from APG. Since H-Elves are Humanoid(Elf, Human), they can qualify for feats with both Elf and Human prerequisites (Eclectic has Human prereq). By doing this, they can have a total of 3 favored classes.

"Favored Class" is a mechanically significant term. If the feat is giving you a second Favored Class, you gain any and all benefits thereof unless one is explicitly prohibited. If it had said, "...and gain +1 HP or +1 SP favored class bonus, but not an alternate racial favored class bonus." then that would fly. But it says you gain a second favored class and that takes precedence over any omission.

Let me see if I got the story straight:

You initially designated Monk as your Favored Class, thus gaining your choice of a bonus HP, bonus SP, or +1/4 Ki per level of Monk. Note that you get to choose which every level. You could take +1 SP at Monk1, then +1/4 Ki for Monk2-Monk5 if you so desire or any combination of applicable bonuses; just in case you didn't know that. The Eclectic feat allows you to choose an additional favored class. So you choose Druid as your favored class. Now, when you take a level of Druid, you can gain your choice of +1 HP, +1 SP, or {+1/2 Diplomacy and Intimidate to change attitude) and when you take a level of Monk, you get your choice of +1 HP, +1 SP, or +1/4 Ki.

There are some who have proposed that the class you actually take a level in doesn't have to match the alternate bonus you claim such that if you have both Monk and Druid as favored classes and take a level of Druid, you can gain +1/4 Ki for that level of Druid because Monk is on your list of favored classes. Aside from that ambiguity (which hasn't really been clarified officially, to my knowledge), the rest is pretty straight forward.

Cleave/Greater Cleave should be able to approximate this. At low level, you can move up next to a target and attack both him and a creature adjacent to him (that you can reach) and the 10' reach will work well with that. It won't be a "charge" action, per say, but it will mimic what you're trying to accomplish. Later, if you take Greater Cleave, you can tag a number of different creatures in the same scope (though, it may involve running "past" a target to position yourself correctly, provoking AoOs).

From a cinematic standpoint, keep in mind that bodies typically offer significant resistance. Just holding a large-sized greatsword out to the side and running is not going to give you the cutting power to just mow through bodies. For one, the force is being applied to the far end of the "bar". For another, straight swords are designed more for thrusting rather than slicing. If you wanted to do something like this, it would, realistically, require an incredibly sharp and heavy blade that stuck out from both ends of a handle and the blades would need to be curved for proper cutting surfaces. Still, it's a game system, system being an important term, and it doesn't allow for that by default.

Ok; so the Disintegrate spell creates a Ray that affects the first creature or object it strikes. It will typically hit the breastplate before the thing wearing it so the breastplate is the first thing it strikes because that's what I'm "aiming" the ray at. I'm not targeting the ray, but I'm pointing it towards a particular thing I'm intending to hit. Think about it; it hits the first thing along the path, but you still need to make a roll to see if you hit. If there are two valid "affectees" in the same spot (ie. a person and a breastplate), how do you determine which one was hit? Or are people trying to imply that a "worn" breastplate will be disregarded by the spell and the "energy" will channel either through or around the armor to affect the creature wearing it while a breastplate lying on the ground will be instantly affected by the spell, even if a person were, say, sitting behind it? Even without a declared "target", you still have to aim the spell and you still have to make a roll against the target's AC. How do you know what target to check AC against if there's no target "at all"?

That text is NOT in the spell. Nice try.

Did you just make it up?

edit:There is no autotargeting for ranged touch attacks. So once again show rules that would explain how to target an attended object with a ranged attack. I am sure you can't.

Are you serious? Look at the spell and try reading. I quoted it right there and you can clearly read online that Disintegrate has the (object) tag. If you want to come up with a counter-point, fine, do that. But don't outright lie when a simple check of the PRD can verify what I'm saying. Here, I'll link the appropriate sections for those interested.

DISINTEGRATE

School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 6
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a lodestone and a pinch of dust)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect ray
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude partial (object); Spell Resistance yes
A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature's equipment is unaffected.

When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as a 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field.

A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated.

Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.

Source

Saving Throw

Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect. The saving throw entry in a spell description defines which type of saving throw the spell allows and describes how saving throws against the spell work.

Negates: The spell has no effect on a subject that makes a successful saving throw.

Partial: The spell has an effect on its subject. A successful saving throw means that some lesser effect occurs.

Half: The spell deals damage, and a successful saving throw halves the damage taken (round down).

None: No saving throw is allowed.

Disbelief: A successful save lets the subject ignore the spell's effect.

(object): >>>The spell can be cast on objects<<<, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are >>>attended (held, >>>worn<<<, grasped, or the like)<<< by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.

(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

Source

If a Spell lists (object) after the save, "The spell can be cast on objects which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, >>>WORN<<<, grasped, or the like)..."

Here, I'll say it again for anyone who didn't quite get it the first time... or the second... or third or fourth... If a spell can target objects (which Disintegrate can), it can be cast on worn objects (such as armor) and held items (such as weapons). There are rules saying this can be done. There are no rules saying it cannot be done. Therefore, you can cast Disintegrate directly at a person's weapon or armor. Since it is an attended object, its AC is based on the holder/wearer's Dex score. Period. End of story, end of discussion.

So how, exactly do you cast a spell against an attended object? There's rules for how to adjudicate the damage; the target's Touch ac is based on the attendee's stats as is the item's saves. So clearly, attended objects (ie. weapons, armor, held items, etc) are intended to be targetable by spells. And you think it makes sense to say that with all those rules in place, there's no actual mechanic to target the spell against those items? You can Smash an unattended object, Sunder an attended object, or cast a spell against either. Period.

Disintegrate

...
Saving Throw Fortitude partial (object); Spell Resistance yes

(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.

"The spell can be cast on objects... (held, WORN, grasped, or the like)"

Need it be more clear than that? Srsly ppl.

Being happy with it as it is and looking forward for potential improvement are not mutually exclusive. Your question is, therefore, inherently flawed. There are types of people who never even consider there to be an "as it is" stage and any game or even a series of games (from original D&D through present) are seen as an analog continuum to be taken as a whole unit rather than discrete segments. For these kinds of people, there's nothing but improvement and they are happy with it "as it is" because "as it is" is the state of being improved upon.

Kazaan wrote:

What's the difference between affecting a living target by hitting them in the breastplate and hitting the breastplate lying unattended on the ground? How does the spell distinguish if it's "intended" to hit the creature or the object? Magic, that's how.

That is nice, but you need to quote rules in the Rules forum. So far the closest anyone has come is Ravingdork, and his findings suggest you need to make it into a melee attack.

The relevant rules have already been quoted by others. To summarize, Disintegrate can target an object, so you simply use the normal spell rules for targeting an object and, since the object is attended, it uses the AC of the attendee and their saves. Blake then went on to counter that position by claiming a spell can't distinguish affecting the breastplate or the person wearing it because Touch AC disregards said breastplate; so long as the ray touches any part of the target creature, body or worn items, the disintegrate effect affects the creature primarily and only damages gear if they roll a nat-1. I provided a counter-point that it's the intent of the caster what they want to affect. If they're casting "at the creature", then the ray will affect the creature even if it hits their armor. However, if they're casting "at the armor", the ray will affect the object as per normal affecting object rules. I illustrated an example of how magic understands the intent of the user in how a weapon can have Freezing, Flaming, and Shocking all triggered by the command "Fuhugumagu" but if you use a standard to command it with "Fuhugumagu" to activate Flaming, the weapon knows which enchantment you're intending to activate. Thus, Blake's counterpoint is disproved by counterexample and the most relevant position is that casting a spell at a worn item follows normal targeting of attended objects.

What is the difference between aiming a touch spell at a creature and aiming a touch spell at a creature's equipped item?

Nothing.

Or put it another way, why does a ranged touch attack ignore Armor? Answer: not because it finds a hole in the armor and sneaks inside, but because the spell's effect is triggered whenever it strikes the creature, regardless of whether it hits him in the eyeball or in the shield or in the breastplate. The armor doesn't matter and the creature is entirely affected by whatever the spell is.

There is no game rule that allows you to fire a ray spell (ranged touch) through the armor-wearer's eye slit, or under his gusset, or whatever. You don't need to. Rays ignore armor. This is a good thing or else Scorching Ray would never hurt a guy dressed in full plate with a tower shield.

So, back to my original question, what is the difference between aiming a touch spell at a creature and aiming a touch spell at a creature's equipped item?

Nothing - either way, the "magic" of the spell affects the creature, regardless of whether it's a Scorching Ray that fries the guy inside his full-plate oven or a Disintegrate that turns the guy, but not his armor, into a trace of fine dust.

Is that RAW or "fluff"?

Both. It's fluff because I described it so eloquently. It's RAW because of what Corbin Dallas quoted above - you cannot affect attended equipment unless the spell says so, and Disintegrate does not say so.

Houserule it however you want, but the RAW is fairly clear here.

What's the difference between affecting a living target by hitting them in the breastplate and hitting the breastplate lying unattended on the ground? How does the spell distinguish if it's "intended" to hit the creature or the object? Magic, that's how.

2. You can give several actions the same command word, but that doesn't get around the standard-action-to-activate-each. It just means you only have to remember one word, not multiple words (which means your allies have an easier time using those items to save your life if you're bleeding to death).

Source

How is it that you can have a weapon with Flaming, Frost, and Shocking all activated by the same command word, say, "Fuhugumagu" and the weapon "knows" which you intend to activate with a given standard action? If this is possible, then it means it must also be possible to target a Disintegrate ray at a person's armor in particular and the magic will "know" that you intend to disintegrate the armor as an object rather than the wearer as a creature.

The expense is the cost.

" When you hit with a charge attack, you can expend all of your remaining uses of lay on hands to deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per use of lay on hands expended + your Charisma bonus. This damage comes from holy power and is not subject to damage reduction, energy immunities, or energy resistances."

When you hit with a charge attack, you can expend X... [in order] to... Y.

If you had an ability that allowed you to "expend 2 uses of {whatever} to do X", you wouldn't say that you can use it even if you have fewer than 2 remaining uses of that ability. Or, at least, you shouldn't say that... since it would be dumb. So to say you can use the Radiant Charge ability even though you have no remaining uses of LoH to expend is similarly unintelligent.

Because those same rules limit the threat range of a weapon (bow) by using the threat range of an entirely different weapon (unarmed strike) to determine threat range. Ergo, if I can use bow attacks on AoO in squares threatened by Unarmed STrikes, then why not use Longspear attacks in the same manner?

If it works for one it works for the other. You can't say the rules apply to the bow but not the spear. You don't get to bend the rules to your liking just to deny attacks of opportunity beyond 5ft with a zen archer's longbow, not without breaking the game in another area, such as reach and attacks of op.

Reflexive Shot is a specific ability that allows you to make an AoO with a weapon that doesn't normally permit AoOs. In order to allow for an AoO, it must define the squares you threaten because a Bow doesn't threaten any squares by default. So it defines the threat area of a Bow as the area of your Unarmed Strike reach. A Longspear needs no alternate definition of its threatened area; it threatens squares 10' away... period. You can threaten a square 5' away with a spiked gauntlet, IUS, etc. but a longspear can't make the attack there so it doesn't apply. By a similar token, the Whip Mastery feat allows you to threaten your natural reach + 5' with a whip (also a weapon that doesn't threaten except with a feat). Even though the whip can physically attack into the 15' square, it you don't threaten that square so you can't make an AoO into it with the whip.

Throw in IUS and the Enforcer feat. It will allow you to still attack and defend yourself before you've drawn your weapon to preserve your Iaijutsu for when you need it and Enforcer will allow you to get an intimidate check on an enemy when you hit them with a non-lethal unarmed strike to leave them shaken and possibly frightened. If you use this as an AoO, it opens them up to a world of hurt on your next turn when you can shatter their defenses on the first strike and hit them with sneak damage on all attacks. In lieu of IUS, you could dip 1-2 levels of Monk (I'd suggest either Martial Artist to get around alignment restriction or some combo that swaps out Flurry (as you won't rely on it)) for better unarmed damage dice.

"Bonus" is a mechanically significant term that always refers to a positive modifier. So if you have a non-positive modifier (zero or negative), you have no bonus to add. If it just said add your 'modifier', then it would apply to both negative and non-negative so you'd lose damage with a negative modifier (penalty). The fact that it specifies you add your 'bonus' means that you add the modifier if and only if it is positive; otherwise you add nothing.

"The monk still threatens [with your bow] squares he could reach with his Unarmed Strike". It doesn't need to state that you are capable of threatening and making AoOs with Unarmed Strike even while wielding a bow because you could already do that without the ability and the presence of the ability doesn't hinder that; hence the stated clause is codifying the effective range for AoOs when making them with the bow, not giving you permission to still do what you could even without the skill. If you were a Large creature with a 10' natural reach, you'd threaten 5-10' with Unarmed Strike and, via Reflexive Shot, with your bow. If you use the Lunge skill and tripped an opponent 10' away and you had Greater Trip, you could take the Greater Trip AoO with advantage of the Lunge and trip the target at 10' (though, you couldn't do a Vicious Stomp regardless of how much reach you have, natural or otherwise, because that ability specifies 5' only).

It isn't +({LoH_remaining}d6) + (Cha_bonus). It's +({LoH_remaining}d6+Cha_bonus). The Cha bonus is joined to the {LoH_remaining}d6, not a separate, segregated bonus. By the same token, when you score a Crit, you add your damage dice an extra number of times (determined by the crit multiplier) and this dice includes static bonuses. If you deal 1d8+5 damage with your attack and score a x2 crit on it, you deal (1d8+5) + (1d8+5). Claiming that you gain the Cha bonus on a charge even when you don't qualify to use Radiant Charge is like saying you can always double your static weapon damage because even a normal hit is a crit x1.

Physical capacity to speak wouldn't prevent an entity from benefiting from levels in Linguistics. If it did, then a mute character would be prohibited from taking the skill. The Rat in question is, in essence, a mute character. It can have levels in linguistics and have the mental capacity to speak, write, read, and understand spoken language, but lack the physical capacity to speak due to vocal chord structure and write due to lack of motor skills but it could still comprehend and read. Hell, housepets learn to understand language. You can't presume that just because your cat or dog can't reproduce spoken language that they haven't picked up basic meanings of words after hearing you talk for X number of years. So it isn't outside the realm of believability for an Int 7 Rat being able to understand and read a given language, despite not being able to speak or write it.

Huh, can't see how to edit my post, so sorry for the double.

I'm curious if combat maneuvers can be performed at reach with a weapon. Improved Trip is low-hanging fruit for my build, and I'm wondering if I can use the dorn dergar to trip someone from 10' away. If I CAN, that would sort of make Improved Trip partly moot, since I presume I wouldn't be provoking an AoO anyway unless the target of the maneuver has reach himself.

Afaik, if you're using the weapon for it, you base it on the weapon's attack reach. So, not only are you "able" to use your reach weapon to trip at 10', you are "unable" to trip at 5' with a reach weapon (unless it's a Whip) and you'd have to do a normal, "non-weapon" trip (gaining no bonuses from weapon focus and the like) or use a backup non-reaching weapon (Unarmed Strike, shorten your Derger, alternate weapon, etc).

As far as Scorpion Style goes, it's typically better to bypass it entirely since Monk bonus feats allow you to disregard prereqs and just get Medusa when you get to it since you can apply the needed status effect using Stunning Fist and Medusa can be used as part of Flurry whereas Scorpion and the second one in the chain can only be performed as standard Attack actions.

It's pretty hard to make someone flat-footed mid-combat. One method I know of is Shatter Defenses.

Shatter Defenses (Combat)

Your skill with your chosen weapon leaves opponents unable to defend themselves if you strike them when their defenses are already compromised.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, base attack bonus +6, proficiency with weapon.
Benefit: Any shaken, frightened, or panicked opponent hit by you this round is flat-footed to your attacks until the end of your next turn. This includes any additional attacks you make this round.

This requires the target to be shaken, frightened, or panicked first, then you hit them and BAM, they're flat-footed to all further attacks from you for the rest of the round. So, how do you get a target shaken, etc. reliably?

Enforcer (Combat)

You are skilled at causing fear in those you brutalize.
Prerequisite: Intimidate 1 rank.
Benefit: Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action. If you are successful, the target is shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt. If your attack was a critical hit, your target is frightened for 1 round with a successful Intimidate check, as well as being shaken for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.

Non-lethal damage lets you Intimidate for free and make them shaken (and possibly frightened). So, if you're already next to them, first attack will flat-foot them with a successful intimidate, then all subsequent iteratives get sneak attack tacked on (since they're flat-footed). Very nice when coupled with a Merciful Sap or Unarmed Strike w/ Merciful AoMF. More better if you use a bludgeoning non-lethal weapon (ie. Sap, Unarmed Strike) and have the Sap Adept/Master feats.

It looks like it's considered a melee weapon equivalent so you'd presumably add Str and any other bonuses to melee attack rolls.

Furthermore, AoO "preempts" the triggering event so the AoO would occur "before" the target falls prone, thus you aren't attacking them with the prone penalty in the first place.

The additional Charisma damage is "joined at the hip" to the damage dice from the ability. Say, for example, you have 3 uses of LoH remaining and +5 Cha bonus. The bonus damage dice for Radiant Charge will be (3d6+5) taken as a single unit. If your weapon damage is 1d8 and you get +10 from various damage bonuses, then your "whole" weapon damage dice is (1d8+10). In other words, the +Cha is a part of the {remaining_LoH}d6 damage dice.

If you have iterative attacks, you can throw one ranged weapon with each iterative attack at no penalty (other than the built-in fact that your BAB is lower each time). You need the Quick Draw feat to do this, otherwise drawing each weapon is a move action which prevents you from taking a full-round action to attack.

One clarification to make here. If you have 2 iterative attacks, you can hold a throwing weapon in each hand and use them both without needing to draw a new one. This does not count as Two-Weapon Fighting since you're only taking your 2 normal Bab-iterative attacks, thus you take no TWF penalty on either attack. You could also do this if you have only 1 iterative attack and Rapid Shot; you'd only take the Rapid Shot penalty, not TWF on top of it. Only if you're going for more total attacks than you have arms do you need Quick Draw.

Split the difference. A Darkwood Buckler has all the stats of a Light Shield, but it's treated as a Buckler in determining what actions it interferes with. A Darkwood Shield has all the stats of a Heavy Shield, but it is treated as a Light Shield for action interference.

It isn't it's own standard action, but it is the Attack action which is a specific standard action. You could combine multiple effects that all affect the Attack action (ie. combine Vital Strike with Overhand Chop) whereas you couldn't do it in conjunction with Cleave which is a standard Use Feat action. So it's your average, every-day single-hit Attack action which takes a standard to perform; you cannot use it for the first strike of a Full-Attack which is what people used to think you could do until a FAQ cleared it up.

The Darting Viper feat allows you to change reach as a Swift action with the Dergar if you're using it 2-handed or as a move if you're using it one-handed through the DD Master feat.

And it's always "bathe". Wall-covering light sources never seem to "fill" a room, just "bathe" it. And it always seems to be light of a particular color, like dark green or something.

Well, that makes sense. Bathe, in this sense, is synonymous with Suffuse which means to "spread over" with liquid, color, etc. People in a fantasy universe (and, for that matter, people even in modern day) tend to not know or disregard the fact that light photons actually cross the intervening space between source and object and then again from object to our retina. From the perspective of a hapless peasant, the light source has an effect only on the surface of objects facing the source; the surface is bathed in light rather than the whole room being filled with light photons. Also, by the old model of vision, we send out "vision beams" originating from our eyes and striking a surface which allows us to "see" it (this is the origin of the myth of the "evil eye" that a malicious person could send out a curse along with their vision beams). For light to "fill" a room, it would have to be perceptible not only against surfaces but also the photons themselves, in transit. Quantum Vision.

"Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands."

Logically, this statement only tells you how to calculate str bonus when you are wielding a weapon two-handed. It says nothing of how to calculate it when wielding a weapon (including exceptional cases with 2-h weapons) one-handed, nor does it specify what kind of weapon other than to specifically exclude Light weapons. So the presence of this sub-section does not preclude the notion of still getting 1-1/2 Str bonus on a 2-h weapon being wielded with only one hand. Therefore, the other pertinent passage regarding two-handed weapons specifically takes precedence; stating the two primary defaults of two-handed weapons: A) They take two hands to wield and B) They get 1-1/2 Str bonus to damage. Some abilities single out part A, others single out Part B, and a select few apply to both. Overhand Chop specifies that you get 2x Str bonus on Attack or Charge actions; it affects part B only. It doesn't call out the manner of wielding, only the category of weapon. So a two-handed Fighter, logically, could use a Lance one-handed while mounted and still benefit from this ability. And before anyone starts up nonsense about how "You don't chop overhand with lances so that doesn't make sense...", first off, "...dragons...", and secondly, you also don't "chop" with a bludgeoning weapon but you can still use Overhand Chop with those. The name itself is fluff; the crunch is that you use the weapon in such a way that it gives greater Str bonus than normal, whatever that manner is for the weapon in question (for a Lance, you'd be leaning as much weight into it as you can to push it forward at the moment of impact).

Another possibility is to leverage the Hero Point system. It will be rather easy for your other players to earn Hero Points for while it will be rather hard for the Gargoyle player to do so because very little will be sufficiently "heroic" enough given the capabilities. In essence, what is "performing above and beyond" for everyone else will be the expected standard from the gargoyle. Then, you can offer encounters that will be a reasonable challenge for the gargoyle and the other players have an edge by spending their Hero Points to keep up. Also, whereas Heroes have Hero points, Villains can also have "Villain Points". If they're up against a mid-boss or the BBEG, you can apply Villain Points to make a particularly strong, lynch-pin enemy "softer"; ie. he wastes a round with a villainous monologue or a "barely killing blow" gets fudged down. These will also be spent more to the benefit of the "normal-tier" party members and the gargoyle player likely won't benefit from such fudging.

A bastard sword is not "both a one-handed and two-handed weapon". It is a one-handed exotic weapon only with the caveat that if you lack EWP(Bastard Sword) but you have Martial Proficiency, you can use the 1-h weapon in two hands without the -4 non-prof penalty. But it is only EVER a 1-h category weapon; same as a longsword.

Two-Handed:

(Part 1) Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively.
(Part 2) Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon.

Two separate sentences. Certain abilities and caveats allow you to disregard the first part, but specify no change to the second. Other abilities and caveats allow you to disregard the first part and specify additional caveats regarding the second part. You say that the ability to wield a 2-h weapon in one hand doesn't [magically] make you able to function better than wielding a 1-h weapon; while the magical nature may be debatable given the fact that "...dragons...", more to the point, who's to say it doesn't give you that ability? Now sure, Jotungrip does specify not only a penalty in accuracy but also calculating Str bonus to damage as if it were a 1-h weapon because that's just what you're doing, you're swinging around a "too big" weapon and you'll swing it just as hard using one hand as you'd swing a 1-h sword. However, if you're using a Lance from horseback, you're leveraging support from the horse itself to aid in wielding the weapon with the proper force behind it. Same goes for Thunder and Fang; you're leveraging a style of fighting using a Klar as a counter-balance to wield an otherwise two-handed weapon effectively in one hand. Both the wielding of a Lance from horseback and the wielding of an Earthbreaker using Thunder and Fang lack the explicitly stated caveat from Jotungrip that specifies calculating Str bonus and Power Attack as if using a 1-h weapon; they also lack the -2 attack penalty that Jotungrip has.

Alignment debates are something of a point of contention among players of games with such a system, especially when that system has more than fluff-based effects within the game (ie. classes and abilities tied to a specific alignment). One of the biggest points is the situation of "Evil" aligned characters as part of a Heroic party. You've got the Paladin, champion of justice and morality, you've got your disciplined if morally neutral Monk, your morally motivated Cleric who's willing to bend the rules to help people... and your Sorcerer who doesn't care who gets hurt so long as his own goals are met. LG, LN, NG, and NE all in the same party going off to kill the BBEG for the sake of the hapless peasants. How do we, as Roleplayers and from the angle of the mechanical RPG system reconcile the option to have Evil aligned characters in an otherwise good-motivated party? There are many standpoints on the issue. "Just don't do it". Forbid the option of taking an Evil character on a heroic quest. "Let it all play out". Let the Evil character in and it's up to him to hide his alignment from the others. "Evil Party". The whole group is evil and is looking to beat the BBEG just so they can install themselves as the new tyrants. But is all this really necessary? Is Evil destined to be the alignment of Villains while Good be the alignment of Heroes?

Good vs Evil:
At its core, the morality system of games like this comes down to a distinction between a respect for individual life and well being or a fundamental disregard. Respecting life doesn't mean you never take life; we have to eat, of course and that involves killing a living thing (animal or plant) and it's justified to take another life if it's a clear and present danger to yourself or another (after all, respect for life includes respect for your own life). Disregarding life, likewise, doesn't mean you're always out to kill something; preferring a dead enemy over a live one doesn't mean you go out actively seeking conflict for the sake of killing and the belief that people should live or die by their own power rather than rely on others doesn't mean you hope that they die, just that they should try their hardest rather than be so reliant on others for their well being.

Heroism vs Villainy:
This is the thing that always trips people up; they presume that Good = Hero and Evil = Villain. This is the same frame of mind that presumes Light = Good and Dark = Evil. Sure, it's natural for a Good-motivated person, a person who respects the sanctity of life and tries their best not to kill out of hand, to be a Hero. But does that mean that the guy who says, while he doesn't look for a fight, he'll kill dead anyone who challenges him because that's the goal of a fight, is any less a hero? It also works from the other angle; that of the Villain. Sure, the Evil villain who is out for his own power or just to see the world burn is clearly a villain. But what about the villain who wants to end suffering and crime by setting up a totalitarian, martial state or wants to usurp the power of the Gods because he thinks he can do a better job of "herding the flock"? Is he any less a villain for his Good motivations? Was Robin Hood any less heroic for going against the law of the land? Was Darth Vader any less villainous for wanting a galaxy ruled by strict law so the people wouldn't suffer tragedy and loss?

Reconciliation:
How do you reconcile the idea of the Good Villain or the Evil Hero? Well, what, exactly, makes a Hero or a Villain? I think that, in a fantasy universe at least, Heroes and Villains are those who are guided by some sort of destiny; those "picked out" by the universe as focal points for events. The Hero who is a hero just so he can kill and maim without getting in trouble for it is still a Hero. The Villain who thinks he can do better for the people than the Gods is still a Villain. In that sense, just being the PCs establishes you as the "Heroes" and it shouldn't matter what alignment you have; you're in a party pursuing a shared goal. Now certainly, there may be contention when a Paladin bound by oaths has to fight alongside a Barbarian who thinks nothing of cleaving down any in his way, the fact that the Barbarian is a member of this party, fighting towards a Heroic goal means that he's already decided that this is what he "wants" to do and it's too much trouble for him to have a run-in with the Paladin; so even a CE Barbarian who's thirsty for blood will say, "Yeah, I can do that later, right now, I'll just kill the guys the Paladin says are OK to kill" and it's perfectly justified regarding the alignment. That's where responsibility to the player comes in; If you're going to play a Chaotic and/or Evil alignment as a member of a Heroic party, you're kind of obligated to remember that you are a Hero first and foremost. Trying to deny that and falling back on "CE means I can do whatever I want regardless of consequence" is bad role-play because you're failing to remember that you're a Hero and not just a Hapless who somehow got filed into a Heroic party due to a Celestial Bureaucracy error. Again, your failure isn't in acting CE but in not acting Heroically CE. Furthermore, there's no reason for non-Evil or non-Chaotic party members to "automatically distrust you" just because they find out you're "evil" or "chaotic" or even both. Remember, these are terms that we, as players, utilize to categorize aspects of play. Unless they have a specific ability that lets them "see" your alignment, characters don't have signs on their foreheads spelling out their alignment. It's a pretty standard trope that if the players are all in the same party, it's presumed they are all "on the same side" regardless of individual motivations towards sanctity of life and order. Yeah, the Evil guy might decide to stab you in the back if it suits him... but so could the Chaotic guy. Sure, a CG character may not literally injure you, but he could benignly go do his own thing that suits his own goals. And the Evil guy isn't likely to be working with you in the first place if he's just going to double-cross you first opportunity; he would have just attacked you right off. If he does intend to double-cross you, well, that's a plot element right there. It's usually pretty meta-gamey to preempt plot elements just because you know alignment, especially from the mindset of Good doesn't necessarily mean Hero and Evil doesn't necessarily mean Villain.

For example, suppose your party (including a Paladin) come across a Demon's lair. Every encounter they've had leads them to conclude that this Demon is the source of ills for the nearby village which has contracted the party to investigate the source of their problems. So you bust into the Demon's lair, and bust him up. He then pleads that he wasn't the source of the problems and offers to help you find the real source if you let him go. Now, the conventional logic would say, "Demon = Evil = Villain. He's lying, destroy him." However, your party being "chosen out by destiny" to be Heroes, if this Demon really is telling the truth (selfishly motivated, for sure) there will be some indication for you as a party of heroes to know to spare him (This is the GM's responsibility). That is the core of storytelling and roleplay; understanding that it is a story subject to certain tropes and cliches and you are obligated to portray your character in a believable light. It's rather poor behavior as both a gamer and as a person in general to just say, "To hell with anyone else, I'll play the game however I want regardless of who's fun it ruins," and just proceed to vent all your pent up sociopathic behavior on a fantasy world because it, "doesn't really matter." Save that attitude for playing Elder Scrolls and going on a rampage after saving your game; it has no place on an RPG table. Once that attitude of "I'm Chaotic and/or Evil, I can do whatever I want" is removed, it makes room for the idea of separate duality between Good/Evil, Law/Chaos, Hero/Villain to fall into place and see common use.

Talonhawke wrote:

Please hit FAQ regardless of opinion.

This is going to come off jerky, but I promise I'm being 100% serious.

Why would I hit FAQ regardless of opinion? If I don't think the question is worthy of developer attention, I would rather not encourage their attention on an issue when I'd rather they were paying attention to something else.

He's saying that regardless of whether you think it's one way or the other, FAQ anyway because there's the chance that you may be wrong. Of course, he misused the term 'opinion' because this isn't a matter of opinion; If one person claims that you can and another person claims you can't, they can't both be right, hence it's a matter of 'fact' rather than 'opinion'.

Regarding the question at hand, I'd say "no", you can't pick out an option from an archetype; only the vanilla class. The reason for this is that archetype abilities specifically call out "trading" certain abilities for others. Even if no trade is listed, it still involves more complicated training than just a "dabbler" which is what cherry-picking an ability through a feat or some such is about. So no deed from the Pistolero archetype. Another concept supporting this view is the difference between an Alternate Class and an archetype. Ninja, Samurai, and Anti-Paladin are "alternate classes" to Rogue, Cavalier, and Paladin, respectively. I feel there's a reason they didn't just say that these are Archetypes and the most pertinent reason is that, being "alternate classes" you could take abilities from them if a feat allows you to because there's no "ability swapping" going on; it's a brand new class that's, none the less, inexorably linked to an existing class. This sets the stage for an ability that lets you do something "as if you were a Ninja" as opposed to "as if you were a Rogue with the Ninja archetype".

"Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands."

This means that, so long as it isn't a light weapon, when you wield a weapon in two hands for whatever reason, you apply 1-1/2 Str bonus to your damage. That establishes a default scenario.

"Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon."

This means that if it's a weapon of the 2-h category, you apply 1-1/2 Str bonus to your damage, regardless of how many hands you actually use to wield it. It also establishes a default scenario.

So, by default if you are wielding a two-handed weapon either normally (with two hands) or exceptionally (with one hand), you apply 1-1/2 Str bonus unless explicitly instructed otherwise. Flurry of Blows stating you gain 1x Str bonus on all attacks and Joutungrip stating you treat the weapon as a 1-h category weapon would be examples of explicit exceptions. This would cover Lances wielded 1-handed while mounted and Earth Breaker using Thunder and Fang, allowing them to still get 1-1/2 Str bonus to damage.

Also, by default if you are wielding any non-light weapon and use it with two hands, you apply 1-1/2 Str bonus to damage. Since all 2-h weapons are covered by the above previously discussed rule, this one refers entirely to 1-h weapons being wielded in two hands. Again, exceptional rules still apply (ie. wielding a 1-h weapon with 2 hands during Flurry of Blows).

So, the default is that a 2-h weapon gets strength and a half whether it's wielded in one hand or two. At the end of the day, that's what RAW says so any change would have to be via a FAQ stating that RAW is incorrect and how it "should" be read or an Errata changing it to read some other way.

I know, a lot of people are hung up on RAW. I'd prefer RAI. It's really that simple. A 6 pound sword is a huge sword. *shrug*.

It's actually heavier than most definite 2-handed swords.

Give me an example of a 2-h sword that's lighter than a Bastard Sword.

If it's partly a secret technique, you'd probably have to be trained to do it; but presuming you are, I don't see a reason you couldn't. Druidic is a secret language, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to learn; just very difficult to.

Do you understand what a semantics argument is?

Do you? A semantics argument comes into play when the semantics are ambiguous or otherwise unclear. For example:

Power Attack: You get 1.5x the power attack bonus when using a two-handed weapon, one-handed weapon in two hands, or a natural attack that deals 1.5x str damage.

Semantically, this can be read in two ways:

A) You get 1.5x the power attack bonus when using a (two-handed weapon, one-handed weapon in two hands, or a natural attack) that deals 1.5x str damage.

B) You get 1.5x the power attack bonus when using a two-handed weapon, one-handed weapon in two hands, or a (natural attack that deals 1.5x str damage).

In reading A, it's parsed such that only weapons that end up dealing 1.5x Str damage benefit from 1.5x power attack bonus. When using Flurry of Blows, you deal 1x str damage even with a 2-h weapon and, by reading A of Power Attack, you'd get normal Power Attack bonus damage when flurrying with a 2-h weapon. Reading B, on the other hand, associates the 1.5x str damage with natural attacks specifically and it has no bearing on the other two options. In that case, a Flurry with a 2-h weapon will get 1x Str damage but 1.5x Power Attack damage. That is a matter of semantics. Moreover, it's a completely pertinent and important matter of semantics.

There's no ambiguous semantics in the case of handedness of a Bastard Sword. It's listed as a 1-h Exotic weapon on the weapons table and it is explicitly stated to be an exotic weapon in its description. Text trumps table, but in this case, text backs up table. Moreover, it goes on to say that an untrained person can wield it in two hands and treat it as a martial weapon. Not a 2-h martial weapons, but wield the 1-h exotic weapon in two hands and treat is at just a martial weapon. That's a third strike against the idea that it's a 2-h weapon by default because if that were the case, it would state that you can take EWP(Bastard Sword) and wield it in one hand. The only matter of semantics here is whether the statement about it being too heavy to wield in one hand without EWP is fluff (you can, but you take -4 penalty) or crunch (you can't at all); and that isn't pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Do you know what semantics means?

Semantics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form.

Semantics is what the words mean or convey. The rules are written using words. Semantics is what those rules mean or convey. The difference is semantics, but that makes it no less applicable to the rules. And, in this case, semantics dictates that the rules say it is not a 2-h weapon in the same way that a Longsword is not a two-handed weapon when wielded with two hands.

It's not exactly a hard concept here.

A Falcata, for example, is a 1-h exotic weapon. You need EWP(Falcata) to wield it proficiently, either with one hand or with two hands.

A Bastard Sword is also a 1-h exotic weapon. EWP(Bastard Sword) will let you wield it proficiently either with one hand or with two hands. But, it has a special caveat that if you're proficient with martial weapons in general, you can wield it with two hands without non-proficiency penalty. It hasn't "become" a 2-h weapon, there aren't separate entries for 1-h bastard swords and 2-h bastard swords. You can still wield a Bastard Sword in one hand even if you have no proficiency with it, you'll just take a -4 non-proficiency penalty doing so.

Also, like I said, if you had, say, an Agile AoMF with a +4 Dex mod and a +4 Str mod, you'd only get +4 from the Dex through Agile (since it's no longer a Str bonus to damage) rather than +6 from Dex; but you still get +2 from Str because of Ferocity because that's a separate thing.

You know, reading this thread, I can't help but think of an Aes Sedai and her Warder from Wheel of Time.

If you have, say, 1d4 HD and a -2 penalty for Cha, you'd gain the following:

Dice - Total
1 - 1
2 - 1
3 - 1
4 - 2
That's what "minimum of 1 HP per level" means. So the poison will never take you into negative max HP due to con loss. If you're level 5, your max HP will hit 5 and then you don't lose anymore due to Con damage.

So, if the duration is 6 and you were tagged twice, the total duration is 9 rounds. You've gone 5 rounds already, so you have 4 rounds remaining. You've got 7 of 14 con remaining (lost 7 points) which means you've lost 20 max HP leaving you with 8. 1 more point of Con will cost you 5 HP which would otherwise drop you to 3, but since you get 1 HP per level as a baseline, it will only drop you to 5 and that's it, you'll be at 5 max HP until you recover or die, whichever comes first.

The abilities seem to work for any spellcaster, not just a witch.

Ok, I did a close reading and found the following:

Dragon Style increases your normal Str bonus from 1x to 1.5x for the first unarmed attack of the round.

Dragon Ferocity, on the other hand, adds an untyped bonus to all your unarmed strikes, equal to half your Str bonus.

What this means is this: If you had, for the sake of example, an Agile or Guided AoMF (or some other effect that swaps Str bonus on damage rolls for some other stat), then Dragon Style would not give you extra bonus because it increases your normal Strength damage bonus (which you don't have anymore, you traded it for Dex, Wis, etc). Dragon Ferocity, on the other hand, would still add an untyped bonus of half your strength bonus regardless of what stat you're now using in place of regular strength bonus to damage. Now, going back to just using strength as a Dragon style user should be doing, you'd net 2x Str on your first unarmed strike for the round, be that a normal attack or an AoO; 1.5x Str as a base because of dragon style plus an additional 0.5x Str from ferocity. All subsequent unarmed strikes will net 1.5x Str, including AoOs.

Well, lets consider a weapon that nets 1d8+5 damage. Going against 12 AC with +5 to hit, we get the following:

16-20/x2 crit, 17.5% chance to crit; average damage per attempted hit: 7.44

15-20/x crit, 21.0% chance to crit; average damage per attempted hit: 7.60
20% more likely to crit

-----------------

14-20/x2 crit, 22.75% chance to crit; average damage per attempted hit: 7.67

12-20/x2 crit, 31.5% chance to crit; average damage per attempted hit: 8.07
38% more likely to crit

-----------------
For the difference on a base 19-20 crit chance between the two methods, the stack the ranges method beats out the +1 range per additional effect by only 20% in terms of how much more often you'll trigger an "on-crit" affect. Average damage difference is negligible. Even for the base 18-20, you're just shy of 40% more likely with my method of getting a crit-proc'ed effect on any given hit and damage difference is still close to negligible.

I like the addendum better. One multiplier at most, all others are +1 ranges, something like 14-20 (both Keen and Improved Critical) is the maximum allowed.

So, you'd end up with the following, if I'm reading you right:

As opposed to straight up stacking of both which would be:
20 / 19-20 / 18-20
19-20 / 17-20 / 15-20
18-20 / 15-20 / 12-20

Honestly, they seem pretty close already. I'd almost say it isn't worth it to make a more complicated rule of determining which effect applies in full and others simply give +1 to the range. Just let them stack straight because all that extra crit range is going to start bumping against AC misses soon enough and you can't crit if you don't hit their AC (remember, only nat-20 auto-hits).

Tripping Staff (Combat)

You can make a trip attack with your quarterstaff.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Weapon Focus (quarterstaff), base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: You treat quarterstaves as if they had the trip special feature.
Special: If you are a magus with the staff magus archetype, you can use spellstrike on any trip combat maneuver you make with the staff.

If we presume that this feat is properly written, it implies that you don't discharge a touch spell by combat maneuver, regardless of whether that maneuver involves touching or not. It's a similar situation to something that came up recently regarding using a command to activate special properties (ie. Flaming) on weapons. The way the rules are written seems to imply that speaking (a free action) could trigger a command-property on a weapon. But we got dev feedback that it requires a standard action to activate a property so even if you use the activation command in casual conversation (as implied by the rules), it won't outright activate the item unless you spend a standard to "say it right", presumably involving intonation and maybe dramatic gesticulation of the weapon. By the rules, you must deliver a touch attack via a melee touch attack. That's a free action on the turn you cast the spell, and a standard action any other time. Further, it permits you to deliver via Unarmed Strike or a Natural Attack using a normal melee attack. But trip replaces your melee attack so you are no longer meeting the "melee attack" requirement to deliver the charge, thus you don't deliver it. This is backed up by the existence of the special clause for Tripping Staff.

Conclusion: You can replace your free melee attack with a trip, but it will not deliver the charge unless you have a special ability/feat that permits you to do so on a trip maneuver. Tangentially, you don't deliver a touch charge via unarmed trip nor grapple because neither is a melee attack.

I think, from a strict reading of the rules, you'd lose any extra action economy you have if you decide to take a full-round action.

It's clearly stated that when you take the Full-Round action, the only other actions you can take are Free, Swift, Immediate, or Non-Actions. It doesn't say it "consumes" or "combines" a single standard with a single move action to generate a full-round action. Therefore, on your turn, you may choose between A) A full-round action or B) as many move and standard actions you have available to you unless there is an explicit statement in the effect that grants you additional move or standard actions that indicates the action may be taken in addition to a full-round action. But just having something available doesn't mean you're always able to use it. It was recently clarified by official FAQ that you do not get the bonus attack from Haste when performing Spell Combat because Spell Combat is a full-round Use Special Ability action rather than the Full-Attack action which Haste requires for the bonus attack. Just the fact that Haste grants a bonus attack for a particular action doesn't mean you can take the bonus attack even when you don't perform that action. By the same token, just because a spell gives you an additional move action doesn't mean you can use it in a situation where you wouldn't normally be able to take a move action; and taking a full-round action for your turn is a situation that, by RAW, you wouldn't normally be able to take a move action.