Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Kazaan's page

4,032 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,032 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

No.

PRD wrote:

The Most Important Rule

The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
This is actually a rule in the game; you can change the rules to suit your needs. So, technically, all changes, both potential and actual, "exist" in the rules based on this one.
Xzibit wrote:
Yo dawg, I heard you like rules. So I put rules in yo rules so you can follow yo rules while following yo rules.

So you literally cannot come up with a concept that can't be done using existing rules because the rules for such a concept exist as potential rules due to the rule that says you can change the rules to fit your needs. Of course, that brings up the issue as to whether you can change the rule that states you can change the rules. If I can change the rules to fit my needs, that means I can change the rule that states I can change the rules such that I can't change the rules. But then, if I can't change the rules, I can't change that rule. But then, you have to keep in mind that there is an exception to every rule and the exception, here, is that you can't, logically, change the rule that states you can change any rule to its negation because doing so would result in a paradox (argumentum ad absurdum). So what is the exception to the rule that there is an exception to every rule?

Spoiler:
The exception to the rule that there is an exception to every rule is the rule that there is an exception to every rule... there is no exception for that one. Ruleception.


The Cha hit, while an issue early on, will even out later in your character progression. Also, you can rely less on save-based spells and focus more on targeted spells (rays/touch) and personal buffs. The Nanite bloodline seems to be heavily focused on personal transmutation with a defensive slant so it's mainly a "buff myself and become an off-tank blaster". Additionally, wasn't there recently an alternate racial trait released that removed some of their "construct traits" which made them really good as Barbs (because it opened them up to Morale bonuses)? If so, an Android Nanite Bloodrager might be a really good option (granted, he gains certain vulnerabilities, but they are worth the trade).

On a side-note, Sage, the Wildblooded Arcane variant, lets you cast off Int. Empyreal, the Wildblooded Celestial variant, lets you cast off Wis.


Ever play Chrono Trigger?

Spoiler:
Remember the segment just after the Ocean Palace where they were captured by Dalton and taken aboard the airship and all their gear was taken away? Without weapons, no one could attack... except for Ayla since she was, essentially, a Monk.

That's the real purpose of a Monk... the guy who keeps your party able if you're ever deprived of all your nice magic gear. You walk into an Antimagic Field, and BAM, all your magic gear shuts off. That nice +3 Holy Greatsword you're so fond of? It's just a MWK Greatsword now. Sure, the Monk's AoMF shuts off as well, but, while other martial classes beat out a Monk when both are optimized with magic gear, the Monk evens out when the magic gear is taken away.


So you follow standard rules; you make an acrobatics check to see if you are able to Bladed Dash through the enemy-occupied square. If you succeed, you end up on the other side of him. If you fail, you end up on the closer side. No muss, no fuss. Acrobatics checks are made as part of movement and this is movement so there you go.


By strict RAW, it's simply a redundant feature of the archetype. If it had specified, "gain 60' Darkvision -or- extend existing darkvision by 30'", that'd be one thing. But it is only intended to grant a character darkvision if they didn't already have it; it's likely a balance consideration so keep in mind that if you customize that aspect, you may be inadvertently making the archetype stronger than it was intended to be.


Mobile Fighter is the only method I can think of to accomplish this. At level 20, it lets you make a Full-Attack as a standard action. That would validly combine with Flyby Attack (which calls out taking a standard action). The problem, naturally, is getting an AC with 20 levels of Fighter.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Excuse me, I asked Kazaan a question about what he believes. If this were a question about the location of a piece of text, a quote from a movie, or a new way to prove the Pythagorean theorem, then anybody might have the answer and be welcome to provide it.

But I don't think anybody but the believer is qualifies to explain his beliefs.

You don't get to say what Kazaan believes.

You don't get to say what Paizo believes.

And you certainly don't get to say what I believe.

Bandw was absolutely correct in his assessment so don't be rude. This is the benefit of logic and intelligence; other logical and intelligent people can understand because we're all speaking the same language. The same can't be said of illogical arguments; no one other than the person making it takes it seriously because it's in a language that intelligent, logical people don't speak (nor do we want to). You are essentially derailing this whole thread. Whether you're doing it intentionally or otherwise, you should stop. As in now.


Most of which, but not all. That doesn't mean you just pick and choose based on whatever is most convenient for you. It means that there are some that don't follow that pattern, but those exceptions will be clearly and explicitly delineated in the rules.


kinevon wrote:

Four higher than none is still none, in Pathfinder.

Just like having an 18 casting stat does not grant you bonus second level spells until you have at least a 0 in the list of spells per day for second level, rather than --.

To put it another way, "none" and "zero" are mechanically differentiated in the Pathfinder system. A character without Armor Training has "none" and the sash doesn't change this. A character without Monk levels has "none", but Monk Robes effectively change this to "zero". Another example is early access to Eldritch Knight using an SLA. Eldritch Knight grants you +1 arcane spellcasting class level per level past 2nd. But if you are using only an SLA to access the PrC, you have "none" of arcane spellcasting class levels so the +1 is, effectively, wasted. By contrast, if you had an ability that lets you count as "zero" in a spellcasting class that you don't, actually, have any levels in, then Eldritch Knight would, arguably, increase that level so you can access the spells of that class. The closest I can think of for this example is the Arcane Training alternate racial trait for Half-Elves, which only applies to Spell Completion items.


This is exactly why we need a Pathfinder 2.0 which completely re-writes the system from ground-up and addresses the inconsistency of language, conflation of terms, and follows a codified mechanical framework on which every single rules element is anchored.


If they specify "as the Fighter class feature", then it counts as such for rules elements such as the SotWC. Myrmidarch does specify as such. Steelblood, on the other hand, only says it stacks with Fighter's version. So in the case of the Steelblood Bloodrager, you have two separate abilities that just so happen to have the same name, function, and a specific provision that allows them to stack; but otherwise the Bloodrager version doesn't count for rules elements specifically targeted at the Fighter's version. In the case of Myrmidarch, it actually counts as Fighter's Armor Training for the purpose of rules elements that would affect the Fighter's version.


Compare the Sash to Monk Robes:

PRD wrote:

Sash of the War Champion: This bright red strip of cloth, stitched with images of a cheering crowd throwing garlands toward a chariot, fits across the wearer's shoulders and then diagonally down his chest to reach his opposite hip. The wearer treats his fighter level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of the armor training and bravery class features.

...
Monk's Robes: This simple brown robe, when worn, confers great ability in unarmed combat. If the wearer has levels in monk, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the robe lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk (although she does not add her Wisdom bonus to her AC). This AC bonus functions just like the monk's AC bonus.

The Monk's Robes have a provision for a non-Monk to, effectively, gain the class features that Monk's Robes affect. SotWC, on the other hand, has no such provision. Therefore, you must bring your own Armor Training and Bravery class features by some other means. But, as has been stated, there are no other classes (other than maybe 3rd party) that provide these class abilities; they are Fighter exclusives.


If it does P or S damage, you only benefit from an ability that requires a piercing weapon if you're dealing piercing damage because it's a matter of use. If you deal slashing damage with it, you aren't really precisely piercing the opponent, now are you? Now, if it dealt B and P damage, that'd be a whole other story because the ability doesn't say piercing and only piercing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Begging the question fallacy: Using your conclusion as a premise in order to prove the very same conclusion.

Feral Combat Training lets you count your chosen Natural Weapon as an Unarmed Strike for the purpose of feats/abilities that improve Unarmed Strikes. Substituting a Bite for your Unarmed Strike would be an improvement to your Unarmed Strike. Therefore, You can substitute your Bite for your Unarmed Strike. The fallacy here is that you are bootstrapping your whole argument; it relies on the conclusion being presupposed correct in order for the conclusion to be proven logically correct. That's like plugging your power strip into itself and expecting unlimited electricity.


Again, it depends on how Spell Combat is intended to be parsed. It's supposed to be an adaptation of two-weapon fighting (which, inherently, involves attacking with two separate weapons) in which your "attack with an off-hand weapon" is replaced with "casting a spell". So if "cast a spell" = "attack with an off-hand weapon" for purposes of Spell Combat, then it doesn't really matter what kind of spell it is; attack spell or otherwise, the act of casting the spell virtually equates to attacking with an off-hand weapon. This is why you take TWF penalties regardless of whether you cast Haste, Scorching Ray, Fireball, Shocking Grasp, or whatever. Yes, you can make a Precise Strike while holding, but not attacking with, a dagger in your other hand. But you're not just "holding a magic spell in your other hand"; it's a bit more involved which breaks your focus and prevents you from striking precisely.


If you're looking for accurate roleplay, Munchkinism is part-and-parcel because there are real-life Munchkins. There are, indeed, people who play the system, people who hyper-specialize, in real life. So why is it unrealistic to run into a character in a game that is supposed to mimic real interactions among people who has decided to hyper-specialize and take the path of least resistance/highest efficiency to their own personal goal? Such people, in real life, are often rather shallow and one-dimensional individuals as well so the fact that such characters are focused and one-dimensional is no big surprise. So long as they aren't breaking any actual rules, but simply pushing valid rules to their limits, they are playing the exact same game as the rest of us; just differently. In fact, it's just as valid an argument that if you play a sub-par character, highly de-optimized for the sake of "roleplay", one might criticize you for poor roleplay in that such a character wouldn't reasonably go off on some big physically and mentally demanding adventure. That's the other end of the spectrum; the player who is so focused on a particular character roleplay that they forget the mechanical aspect of the game. It isn't a matter of mechanics or roleplay. They are not separate; they are both integral parts of the same game. They are reciprocal; mechanics reinforce roleplay and roleplay, in turn, reinforces mechanics. Keep both in mind and remember that there are extremes on both ends of any spectrum.


Natrim wrote:
The chosen weapon is the dagger pistol itself in this example. It is a double weapon, ergo both ends count as the same weapon for proficiency and feats, essentially for everything besides enchanting, both ends are the same weapon, are they not? So could not a Kensai bladebound with a dagger pistol use Perfect Strike with the firearm aspect of the weapon?

No because Precise Strike concerns Use, not item properties. A Longsword, for instance, is a one-handed slashing weapon. Consequently, it can be used as a one-handed slashing weapon (by a creature for which it is properly sized). You can apply two hands to it, but it's still a one-handed weapon as far as use as well as rules elements concerning it as an object. So for a properly sized Longsword, item properties happen to mesh up 100% with use properties. But if a Medium creature got a hold of a Large Longsword, things get a bit complicated. For rules elements concerning it as an object, it's still a one-handed slashing weapon. However, for rules concerning its use/wielding, it is used as a two-handed slashing weapon. Properties as an object and properties of use are different and, though they may agree 90% of the time, they still must be considered separately for just such situations as this. The Dagger Pistol is a one-handed firearm when considered as an item. But as far as use/wielding goes, it can be used as either a one-handed firearm or a light melee weapon. Here, you can see that use doesn't match up completely with item properties. Precise Strike requires the use of a light or one-handed piercing weapon. The Dagger Pistol, as an item, is a one-handed firearm but can be used as either a one-handed firearm or a light piercing melee weapon. You can only use Precise Strike when using it as a dagger and that doesn't translate over to using it as a firearm. Likewise, if you have a weapon that deals Bludgeoning or Piercing damage, and put Keen on it, you'd only benefit from the Keen's increased crit range when dealing piercing damage. If you switch to Bludgeoning damage to defeat DR/Bludgeoning, you lose the benefit of Keen for such attacks; despite the fact that some uses of the weapon would qualify for Keen, all of them do not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Algar Lysandris wrote:
how about my 3 different case of spell combat usage Kazaan ? the Swashbuckler specifically says: can not attack with a weapon in the other Hand

If you parse that too keenly, you end up with a situation where a he can TWF with a Cestus or Spiked Gauntlet as his off-hand weapon because it isn't wielded "in" his hand (you wear such weapons "around" your hand). As I said, it boils down to how the mechanical term "in your hand" is meant to be parsed. On the one hand (no pun intended), it could refer specifically to a hand-associated weapon such as a dagger, cestus, etc. That would omit non-hand weapons such as Boot Blades and Boulder Helmets as well as Unarmed Strikes. This would also omit all spells other than Rays and other Weapon-like spells (ie. Flame Blade). On the other hand, if it's referring to the abstracted mechanical concept of making an off-hand attack, where the "weapon" used for the off-hand attack is replaced with a spell, that spell still logically serves as the "weapon" in your off-hand (the "in your other hand" they speak of). In that case, any spell, from a ray to a touch to an offensive non-attack-roll spell (fireball, hold person) to a non-attack spell (haste) would qualify as the virtual "weapon" "in your hand", as would any non-hand-associated weapons as, even though they aren't being wielded in a hand, they are being wielded in your off-hand as a mechanical rules element.

So...
1 st case: Spell combat and a buff like spell: ie Shield / bull Str etc...

If "in your hand" is your physical hand, it works.
If "in your hand" is your mechanical rules-element hand, no.

2nd case: Spell combat and attack spell : ie Frostbite / Shocking grasp etc...

And use your off hand to make a touch attack

while you are attacking with off hand a spell isn't considered a weapon (even if you are considered armed because of the touch spell)

Same as case 1

3 rd case: Spell combat and attack spell : ie Frostibe / Shocking grasp etc... Using spellstrike to deliver the spell
you are using the weapon in your main hand to deliver the spell casted. Therefore not attacking with a weapon in your off hand

Same as case 1

4th case: Spell Combat and Ray. Rays are considered weapons, mechanically speaking (you can take Weapon Focus Ray, for instance). So attacking with a Ray could be considered attacking with a weapon in your other hand.

No in either case


I played a game once and found a weapon. They were limited on text box size and the name was too long to display in its entirety so they shortened it. Unfortunately, this particular weapon was a Black Bastard Sword. They wanted to keep the 'Black' descriptor and didn't just want to call it a 'Black Sword'. So... "You have found a Black Bastard." And it occurs to me, that a Magus wielding a pair of Black Bastard Swords... who's nickname is "The Black Bastard" may be ideal for what you're trying to pull off.


Tiemmothi wrote:
Stockvillain wrote:

@Delos:

That is not a Race Trait, from the list of Traits. It doesn't work with Adopted. It's a racial trait, which, as has been pointed out in this thread, is *not* the same thing.
My question regarding this is half elf and half orc, could they take this racial trait even tho they dont have the free human feat to give up?

You're conflating terminology. It's understandable given the terrible mess they made of the naming, but let me try to break it down for you.

Traits (capital T): This is the character traits system introduced in APG. These are divided into several categories such as Social, Combat, Magic, Faith, Race, etc. Except for the Race category, other traits are open to any race. Each one counts as, roughly, half a feat in terms of power. You are typically given two gratis when you make your character and are used to provide plot hooks for the GM with slight mechanical benefit to the character.

Racial traits (lower case T): These are qualities built into each race. Humans get their bonus feat, Elves get immunity to sleep, Dwarves get Darkvision, etc. These are built into the specific race entry and don't cross over into other races. Not even the hybrid races (half-orc, half-elf) get access to their parent race's Racial traits; unless they have an available alternate racial trait that mimics a parent racial trait.

Adopted (Social Trait): This is part of the Traits (capital T) system, under the Social heading. It allows you to select a race and then, as part of this Trait, select one of that race's Race Traits. This is referring to the Race category of the Traits system, not Racial traits which are built-in parts of a Race's entry.

Adopted Parentage (alternate Human racial trait): This is an alternate racial trait for Humans that replaces their Bonus Feat racial trait. It can only be taken by Humans; neither Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Scion of Humanity Aasimar, nor any other creature that mechanically counts as Human can select this.

So remember: Race Traits refers to the Race category of the Traits system while Racial Traits refers to the built-in core elements of each discrete Race. Adopted is a specific Social trait that allows you to select a Race Trait for other than your own race. Adopted Parentage is a Human-specific alternate Racial trait that gives you the Language and Racial Weapon Proficiency of some non-Human race.


When it comes to use and qualifying for feats/abilities, it would make logical sense that using the Axe Musket as a Battleaxe counts for the purpose of feats requiring a one-handed and/or slashing weapon or things like Weapon Focus. So Weapon Focus: Battleaxe would give you a +1 attack bonus when using an Axe Musket, but only for the melee attacks while Weapon Focus: Axe Musket would apply both to use as a musket as well as use as a Battle Axe. A Magus could Spell combat with an Axe Musket, but only making melee attacks with it as a Battle Axe. However, making it into a Blackblade or similar "physical item" quality restrictions would be a no-go for the same reason you can't say, "oh, since I'm using my Bastard Sword as a two-handed martial weapon due to lack of proficiency, it has the HP of a two-handed weapon instead of a one-handed weapon." Likewise, if you had, say, Jotungrip or a similar ability that lets you wield a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, that wouldn't qualify your Greatsword as a valid Blackblade because it must qualify as an appropriate weapon in its own right; not just for wielding purposes. Since there's no provision in Intelligent items for just one head of a double weapon (or virtual double weapon for the purpose of enhancements and construction as with the melee/firearm hybrids) to be made intelligent (intelligent items are all or nothing), the fact that the Axe Musket functions as both weapons doesn't make it count as both weapons for construction or enhancement purposes.


I'd say you're alright with this combo so long as you're not making a direct attack spell. So casting Haste + Precise Strike should be OK while casting Hold Person, a Ray, etc. + Precise Strike wouldn't be. However, if the Precise Strike's use of the phrase "in your other hand" is referring to the abstraction of your "off-hand", it would include not only non-hand-associated weapons (ie. Boot Blade) but also the Magus's spell during Spell Combat which takes the place of an off-hand attack. In that case, even a Touch spell, despite being delivered with the main-hand weapon, is still an attack being made (cast) with the "other hand". We probably need a better criteria for parsing "in your other hand" because, it occurs to me, we have some contradiction in phrasing and explanation by the Devs; "in your hand" sometimes refers to the abstract attack economy which includes not only actual hands but also attacks made with non-hand-associated weapons, but other times as with Spell Combat, the weapon "in your other hand" specifically means a hand-associated weapon and is meant to rule out use of non-hand weapons.


Staff Magus would be a no-go since a Quarterstaff isn't a slashing weapon.


Legowaffles wrote:

FAQ'd.

For what it is worth, I'm a follower of School of Thought 2, with the caveat that wording could prevent it.

For instance, if something replaces X with Y, you can't benefit from another ability stating it replaces X with Y, but you can benefit from another ability stating it adds X to Y (which would effectively give you 2X).

The scenario mentioned came up somewhere recently. . . I forget where though.

Well of course; that goes without saying. If Feat A replaces Str with Dex for attack rolls and Class Ability B replaces Str with Wis, of course you couldn't say, "Ok, I get both Dex and Wis because I replaced Str with both of them." It's either or in that case. Were... were people really trying to do that? Like, not as a joke?


Shimesen wrote:

as much fun as two black blades sounds: if you read into the black blade section, they resent the wielder using any other intelligent items. the two would end up being mortal enemies. more than likely they would either both stop functioning for the user while he still had possession of the other, or on a more extreme note, they would try to kill each other, and in doing so probably injure or kill the user....

...all that said. i love the idea of a character being driven mad by the constant bickering he is forced to her inside his head because his weapons wont stop arguing with each other!

I guess that just makes it that much more interesting to have each end of a double-sword be a blackblade... each is in denial and believes itself to be just a normal Longsword and refuses to acknowledge the other end of the blade.


LoneKnave wrote:
Quote:

This musket features an axe blade at the end of its barrel.

It can be used as both a musket and a battleaxe...

It can be used as both musket and battleaxe. That doesn't make it a one-handed weapon. A Musket is a 2-h firearm and can also be used as a 2-h firearm. A Musket-Axe is a 2-h firearm and can also be used as either a 2-h firearm or a one-handed slashing melee weapon. If there were an ability that required you to wield a one-handed weapon, wielding a Musket-Axe would qualify so long as you only attacked with it as an axe because that is referring to use. So a Magus could wield an Axe Musket as a 1-h melee weapon for purposes of Spell Combat (but only make melee attacks with it, not use it as a firearm). But making a Blackblade isn't a matter of use.


Xemnas wrote:
I always viewed their flavor text of the word significant being at least up to 50 percent. i may have to change the generation if its not. And how would metallic wings work into the full round combat of a two hand wielder. Never thought of doing that before, would it just be thrown in with the weapon slashes?

"Aasimar heritage can lie dormant for generations, only to appear suddenly in the child of two apparently human parents." Outsider heritage kind follows normal genetic rules, but also kind of tosses them completely out the window. I've rationalized it as saying that the Outsider doesn't really contribute "DNA" so much as they contribute a "meta-genetic energy" to your DNA. As such, it isn't reliant on getting a "matching pair" as with recessive traits (ie, you need to get a blue-eye gene from both parents), but rather it sits dormant contributing almost nothing and then, all on its own, it spontaneously springs to full power and generates some kind of genetic effect. It's not talking about significant as in ratio but rather strength; it takes a particularly strong outsider energy to "persist" past the first generation strongly enough to eventually coalesce into an Aasimar. For weaker outsiders, they'd likely spawn a Sorcerer bloodline instead; enough to give magical ability but not to transform the genetics outright.

Regarding the Wings, when coupled with manufactured weapons, all natural weapons would be done as secondary natural attacks regardless of normal use (-5 to attack, 50% str to damage). The wings are normally considered secondary, but if you only have one type of natural attack, it is performed as primary regardless of whether it is actually primary or secondary. So, if you attacked with just the wings (ie, you were deprived of your weapons for some reason), they'd be at full BAB and full Str. If you used them along with your weapons, they'd be at BAB-5 and half Str. And, again, they are simply something to consider if you have spare feats and don't know what else to take; a backup so you still threaten and can attack even if lacking your weapon. And I second the notion to take Eldritch Heritage for Shadow bloodline. It's a lot easier to get into position for TWF zomgwtfbbq when they can't see you coming.

Terry Pratchett wrote:
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”


The Morphling wrote:

Once again, it's a one-handed slashing weapon.

Therefore, it works.

There are no other factors. As I have said before, the ability requires "a one-handed slashing weapon." The ability does not require "a one-handed slashing weapon which is not also a two-handed firearm."

A square is a rectangle. It also has equal-length-sides.

I tell you I require a rectangle, you can hand me a square and fulfill my requirement. Just because some rectangles are longer than they are tall, or are purple, or can be used as a firearm with two hands, doesn't mean you've failed my "give me a rectangle" test.

By that logic, one end of a Double Sword could be made a Blackblade because one end of a double weapon is treated as a one-handed weapon and it is, indeed, slashing. In practice, sensible people know that this is outside the scope of the rules; you need an actual one-handed slashing weapon, not a virtual one-handed slashing weapon, in order to make a Blackblade. Treating it as one-handed or slashing for wielding purposes, such as wielding a dagger one size too big or a 2-h weapon one size too small doesn't count and neither would an ability allowing you to deal slashing damage with an otherwise non-slashing weapon. An Axe-Musket is not a one-handed slashing weapon. It is a 2-h Firearm which, by special rules, can be used (use referring to wielding, not physical or enhancement properties) as if it were a battleaxe. But it still has all the physical properties (ie. HP, hardness, etc.) of a 2-h firearm and is enhanced as if it were a double weapon (though you can't TWF with it as if it were a double weapon).

So, to use your own example, you've got the square and rectangle labels backwards. To make a Blackblade, you require a Square (you claim a Rectangle). A true double weapon would be a Rectangle twice as long as it is wide (ie, 2 squares end-to-end). In cases where you're measuring width, this rectangle is the same dimension as the square weapon. But in cases where you're measuring its length, the double weapon is longer than the the square. The Axe Musket is a pair of triangles that, in certain orientations, can be the same shape as the square. But it's still two triangles being put together; not an actual square. And, as far as wielding goes, they are not put together in the orientation of a square (that's for enhancing costs only).


Wait, he's 1st generation descendant of a full outsider? Wouldn't that make him a Half-Celestial? Aasimar would be second generation at the earliest. Anyway, Fighter gets plenty of feats so you can easily wheedle in the extras for Aasimar racials. Go for Double Slice and Two-Weapon Rend. Quick Runner's Shirt would also be nice as it lets you move as a swift action so you can almost always stay sticky to your target and get more full-attacks in. So here's your shopping list:

Necessary:
- TWF
- ITWF
- Double Slice
- TWR
- WFoc
- WSpec
- Improved Crit

Supplementary:
- Iron Will
- Angel Blood/Skin/Wings
- IWFoc
- IWSpec
- Crit Focus
- 1 Crit feat (Stagger->Stunning recommended)
- Penetrating Strike

To consider:
- Crit Mastery + 2nd Crit feat
- Metalic Wings
- Lunge
- Quickdraw->Wave Strike
- Dazzling Display->Shatter Defenses + SFocus:Intimidate
- Hover

Don't bother with GTWF unless you absolutely, positively have nothing else to do with that feat slot.


SaddestPanda wrote:
The extra arms from alchemist can't be used for wielding weapons.

Technically they can, but it doesn't contribute to your attack economy; only your options for what to attack with. Vestigial arms can let you wield four different weapons, but you can still only make your normal allowance of iterative and off-hand attacks.

Basck to the topic at hand, what this all goes back to is the "Tail Terror" thread. Tail Terror is a Kobold racial feat that lets you use your tail as a natural weapon. But it also presumes that, as a Kobold, you naturally have a tail to use as such a weapon. So there was a question as to whether you'd "sprout" a tail as a Heritage Human upon taking the feat, or if you would have to BYOT via some other means. It was touched upon that it's illogical to "sprout" a tail because there are other abilities that specifically state you do, indeed, "sprout a tail"; verbiage that is missing from Tail Terror. But it's also illogical to claim to have a Schrodinger's Tail which, upon the taking of the feat, you reveal that you've had a tail from birth... mention of which has conveniently never come up until the moment you take the feat. If you have heritage body features non-standard for a Human, I say they must be codified from character creation.

Keep in mind that, even if you take Racial Heritage at lvl 5, that didn't spontaneously drop a Kobold, Kathasa, or other Humanoid into your family tree at that moment; effectively re-writing history. The other race was there all along (to your character's knowledge or otherwise) but the feat simply lets you take mechanical benefit from it which you wouldn't otherwise get. It would be reasonable, I'd say, to create a Human with a Tail, vestigial arms, etc. but they can't benefit mechanically from them until they take Racial Heritage and, even then, you're still restricted based on normal racial mechanics. I'd be willing to say that, for something as mechanically involved as using four arms to dual-wield two-handed weapons or Bows, it's along the same lines as trying to use Tail Terror to "grow" a tail... it just doesn't work.


Your best archetypes for this will be either Two-Weapon Warrior, Weapon Master, or Mobile Fighter.

TWW
Pros:
- Eventually reduce penalty from -4/-4 to -2/-2
- Class abilities revolve around TWF rules elements
- Gets a "for when you can't full-attack" option (Doublestrike) so he has no need of Cleave, Vital Strike, etc.
- Slight defensive focus (Defensive Flurry, Equal Opportunity, Deadly Defense)

Cons:
- Only gets attack/damage bonus when full-attacking (Twin Blades doesn't work for Doublestrike or Equal Opportunity)
- Works a bit better if focusing on different weapon categories (Twin Blades isn't based on Weapon Training Groups) so it's wasted when using same category weapons (weapon training would give same bonus, but works even when not making Full-Attack)

Weapon Master
Pros:
- Accelerated weapon training; good since you're using two of the same weapon
- Good focus on critical hits for a high crit-range weapon
- Very good if you run up against other Katana-users

Cons:
- Stuck with a single damage type into which you're heavily invested
- No decent "if you can't full-attack" option
- You probably won't run up against other Katana-users
- Loses Armor Training

Mobile Fighter
Pros:
- At lvl 11, you'll almost never have a "when you can't full-attack" moment.
- Speed increase and "can always take 10 on acro-check" later on

Cons:
- Most significant class abilities come late in the game
- As with TWW, Leaping Attack has situational reliability whereas Weapon Training is "always on" (albeit, Leaping Attack is easier to satisfy than Twin Blades since it works on Charge and standard attacks as well as full-attacks)
- Loses Armor Training


Moreover, in accordance with this FAQ, all class abilities are written with the presumption of a single-classed character. This is because there's no need to waste space to indicate that an ability is based on "your level in this particular class, but not your total character level" for every bloody class ability. Instead, they spell out the exceptions, "your levels in "x class" stack for determining your effective level for this ability" or "count your total character levels for the purpose of this ability" because that consumes a lot less space. The only stated exception to this is spellcasting, in which bonuses to spellcasting from one class will apply to spellcasting from other classes (if applicable). This is presumably because multi-classing as a caster is bad enough; multiclassing as two casters can be a progression nightmare so such characters were thrown a bone.


9mm wrote:
While easily confused Sean may think that, there is no FAQ/Errata on the cestus to back that up. Until such time, cestuses, brass knucks, and wrist gauntlets modify unarmed strikes.

You may not have known this, but SKR, until recently, was one of the developers of the game. His interpretation carries significant weight on what correct parsing and interpretation of the rules is. He even stated, in a later post, that he discussed it with JB (the head rules developer) who agreed; the use of "unarmed strike" to refer to an attack with the Cestus was illustrative rather than a means to connect the mechanics of Unarmed Strikes to the weapon of the Cestus. In other words, you have Unarmed Strike which is a mechanical term referring to making an attack without use of a manufactured weapon and "unarmed strike" talking more about the act of punching (either bare-handed or with a "hand-worn" weapon like gauntlet or cestus). Punching with a cestus or gauntlet is a non-mechanical "unarmed strike", but it isn't supposed to be considered a mechanical Unarmed Strike. The line "your unarmed attacks deal normal damage" is simply a very poor way of saying "when you punch someone, you're using this weapon instead of your unarmed strike".


9mm wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Only Unarmed Strikes are Unarmed Strikes. Count any and all other weapons as their own unique weapon types. Cestus are Cestus, Gauntlets are Gauntlets, Brass Knuckles are Brass Knuckles, and none of them are nor count as Unarmed Strikes. Omit any verbiage for a particular weapon that designates it as changing or benefiting Unarmed Strike in any manner. You wield a Cestus, Gauntlet, Spiked Gauntlet, Brass Knuckles, etc. in the same exact manner that you'd wield a Longsword, Dagger, or any other manufactured weapon. So Brawling, in no manner, interacts with any weapon other than Unarmed Strike and only Unarmed Strike, not any other weapon, counts as Unarmed Strike.

incorrect. It is always important to read weapon descriptions:

Cestus:
Benefit: While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage. Monks are proficient with the cestus.

regardless of what piece of knuckle jewelry you are using, an unarmed strike is an unarmed strike. so yes you may gain the benefits of the brawling enhancement while wearing a cestus, rope ghauntlet, or brass knuckles.

It's more important to actually read what you're replying to. The devs have weighed in by saying that those terms were vestigial and weapons don't change how unarmed strikes work and they should be disregarded.

The brass knuckles problem stems from the Core Rulebook putting "gauntlet" in the "Unarmed Attacks" category, as brass knuckles are listed as "Unarmed Attacks" because gauntlets are there.

Brass knuckles should be armed (light melee weapon) attacks. (As should gauntlets and spiked gauntlets.)

Which makes it clear that using brass knuckles is not an unarmed attack (and the description of the weapon should not refer to unarmed attacks), and therefore monk's don't get their unarmed damage with them. They can, as others have pointed out, still use them to flurry, and allows for things like silver brass knuckles and +5 flaming brass knuckles.

The cestus description confuses the issue by referring to unarmed attacks; it's clearly a light melee weapon and doesn't relate to unarmed strike rules at all.

Rope gauntlets are light melee weapons and its descriptive text shouldn't confuse the issue by referring to "unarmed strikes."

Later in that thread, he goes on to clarify that mentioning "unarmed strike" in these types of weapons is supposed to be fluff rather than crunch and fell victim to conflation of terms that lead to confusion.


Only Unarmed Strikes are Unarmed Strikes. Count any and all other weapons as their own unique weapon types. Cestus are Cestus, Gauntlets are Gauntlets, Brass Knuckles are Brass Knuckles, and none of them are nor count as Unarmed Strikes. Omit any verbiage for a particular weapon that designates it as changing or benefiting Unarmed Strike in any manner. You wield a Cestus, Gauntlet, Spiked Gauntlet, Brass Knuckles, etc. in the same exact manner that you'd wield a Longsword, Dagger, or any other manufactured weapon. So Brawling, in no manner, interacts with any weapon other than Unarmed Strike and only Unarmed Strike, not any other weapon, counts as Unarmed Strike.


Tels wrote:

So... with episode 4 of volume 2, we know that Yang's Semblance makes her stronger the more damage she takes.

Sounds to me like she has a constant blood rage spell active on her.

And it automatically jumps to full if you mess with her hair.


With nothing else to go on, it's most reasonable to presume it's simply untyped damage, similar to damage you take from falling or being subjected to a cave-in.


Now lets look at it from the other angle; say someone, either Paizo or 3rd party, comes up with a Gunblade. It is listed as a one-handed exotic melee weapon equivalent to a Longsword and can also be used for ranged attacks as if it were a musket. In this case, you could very well make a Blackblade Gunblade and the firearm feature is simply a tacked-on aspect of an otherwise melee weapon.


Things to consider:

1) Tackle should be permitted at the end of a Charge.

2) Restrain, in lieu of using both hands, could utilize both legs as a leg-lock. There's probably some sort of penalty unless you have, say, Greater Grapple.

3) Creatures without grasping appendages can't "grab", but they can tackle or restrain.


Tiaburn wrote:

Sorry for necroposting, but reading a discussion and rules quote, I cannot see, why dim light are should be a function of light source.

I used to play having it like that, but now, I feel that I was wrong. It should be 20 feets after light source for human and twice that much for elfs or other low-light vision race. Dwarfs and orcs will have human-like 20 feet range, if light-source is big enough - for example, bonfire that gives 50' light source.

One more question: Mage have a hooded lantern in his hand, that gives 30' light radius. He use it's mage hand spell and rises lantern 15' above head. How big should light radius become? If it sends lantern 60' above head, will it still give you 30' bright light and 60' dim light area?

Presuming it's a low-light night (ie. moon is out), you can "see" a very long distance. Your vision doesn't "cut off" at a certain point except in darkness or lower. What happens is you suffer a 20% miss chance on attacks due to concealment and suffer additional penalties to Perception checks to notice things. How it should really be run is that you should be rolling Perception to see if you are spotting various things; if you fail the check, you failed to notice it was there. If your perception bonus is bad and the penalties are severe enough, it may be effectively impossible to spot since there isn't auto-succeed on a nat20 for skill checks, but it generally makes a soft, fuzzy, statistical curve that defines your "range of vision", rather than a sharp, clear-cut vision radius.

Regarding the Mage question, you'd need to do some math to calculate the effective sphere of light generated by the Lantern. If the lantern is 60' above you, it is just touching you with the far end of its "increased" radius so, again presuming a low-light night, you yourself would be normally illuminated but it wouldn't help you in a straight radius along the ground. Keep in mind that it's the illumination at the location you're trying to look that determines miss chance and perception penalties. Having your own square illuminated in normal light doesn't help if you're trying to spot something 30' away from you out in the dim light. Likewise, if you're peering out over a moon-lit landscape, spotting a person sitting a half-mile away by a campfire is going to be a normal-light calculation and the only penalty is distance. And this would be a lot easier than trying to spot someone out in the dim light and both are easier than trying to detect someone in darkness because you're relying on non-visual senses (ie. hearing). For reference, a lantern with a Normal radius of 30', 30' in the air, would create a single square of normal light surrounded by about 50' (10 squares) of elevated light level (dim to normal or dark to dim).

0' up: 30 + 30 (60 total)
10': 25 + 35 (60 total)
20': 20 + 35 (55 total)
30': 0 + 50 (50 total)
40': 0 + 45 (45 total)
50': 0 + 35 (35 total)
55': 0 + 20 (20 total)
60': Shining a light upon yourself will not make you enlightened


Also, keep in mind that just holding a non-flurry weapon doesn't prohibit you from using the Flurry. It's just that none of the attacks can involve the non-applicable weapon. For instance, a Monk or Brawler could wield a Longspear so that he threatens at reach, but Flurry with Unarmed Strikes.


I came across this line in Glossary/Invisibility in a moment of serendipity:

A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature's current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown.

If, as a standard action, you can "sweep" your hand (or a weapon) through two adjacent squares in order to find an invisible creature, what exactly is stopping you from doing this at any other time? Shouldn't it be possible to hold a Shocking Grasp charge and attempt to touch two enemies in one "swing"? Of course, only the first one to actually get struck suffers the spell effect, but it's a nice backup in case you miss; you have a chance to touch a second enemy for no additional action economy. Even better if you have a multi-touch spell like Frostbite or Chill Touch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Balacertar wrote:
...For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply +1 bonus to..." it actually asumes an ability score increase exists, it states "ability score increases", and it does not state anywhere that there is no STR increase...
PRD wrote:
Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

If a Permanent Bonus "actually increases the relevant ability", the only way that statement can make sense is if the Temporary bonus doesn't "actually" increase the relevant ability. Therefore, the Temporary bonus doesn't "actually" increase the relevant ability. You have 10 Str with a +0 Str modifier and a +4 temporary bonus gives you 10 Str and you "count as" having a +2 Str modifier. In both cases, 10 Str damage would drop you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This illustrates the difference between a permanent and temporary strength bonus. For a temporary bonus, your actual score remains static. 10 Str is 10 Str so it would take 10 Str damage to drop you whether or not you had Bull's Strength. Since Shadow's str damage has an added effect, that would come into play as well (normally, you'd just be unconscious but for a Shadow's Str damage, if it meets or exceeds your Str score, you die outright). Now, if you had a Belt of Giant Strength (for more than 24 hours), that'd be a different story. That would work as you suggest; if you have 10 base Str, +4 from the belt, and suffer 10 Str damage from a Shadow, you'd still be sitting on an effective 4 Str. However, if you removed the belt, you'd suddenly drop dead and, in 1d4 rounds, you'd be a shadow of your former self.


Chess Pwn wrote:
If you two-hand a weapon you give up all potential off hand attacks. It's one of the newer FAQs I think.

It's complicated. Fundamentally, it works like this: When you make an attack two-handed, you "subsume" your next potential off-hand attack. So, if you have 3 iterative attacks and 2 off-hand attacks, and have a Longsword, you could, for example, make one main-hand attack with the Longsword two-handed and it would "eat" your highest-BAB off-hand attack. If you then switched to one-handing the Longsword, you could make your BAB-5 off-hand attack. In the reverse, if you make an off-hand attack, you've taken on "main-hand debt" such that you must make one one-handed main-hand attack for each off-hand attack you've taken before you are able to two-hand your main-hand weapon. To illustrate, you make an off-hand attack at full-BAB and then must make your full-BAB main-hand attack one-handed. After this, you two-hand your BAB-5 main-hand attack at the expense of your next (BAB-5) off-hand attack. In the case of a two-handed weapon, since you can only wield it in two hands, the topic of "switching" between one-handed grip and two-handed is moot. It only really comes into play with a one-handed weapon and involves either a non-handed off-hand (ie. unarmed strike, armor spikes, boot blade, etc), or dropping/quick-draw of your off-hand weapon. The Devs admitted this as a possibility and, due to the complexity, strongly suggested that you forget it's even possible and just KISS and presume, as a rule of thumb, that two-handed wielding and two-weapon fighting just don't mix... ever.


Magicdealer wrote:

If your possibility about how something works requires rules that you cannot quote, then you are not dealing with raw.

You can certainly make an argument about it being rai, but don't misrepresent yourself about it.

Your argument about all writing being a matter of interpretation is a non-argument. These are the rules forums. raw and rai have clearly understood meanings here.

You're arguing rai, what was intended to happen by the rules. This is great, but accurate raw readings are also necessary to adjust and correct future printings of the book, so that what is written matches together clearly and understandably with what is intended.

Kazaan wrote:


It would most certainly be an error to suggest something that were impossible. Moreover, what I defined is not RAI. Implicit RAW is not necessarily the same as RAI. Intent is what it was meant to allow you to do.

Intent is pretty much the definition of a rai argument. If a strict reading of an ability means that it's impossible to use, that doesn't mean the reading is wrong. It probably means the devs need to go through and fix the ability so that it DOES work.

And arguments about how it's SUPPOSED to work are fine. But, by definition, they fall into rai.

Can you quote the line in the rules that states that the Disintegrate spell causes death? No. It states that the target, if reduced to 0 HP or fewer, is "reduced to a fine dust". It doesn't state that they are dead, ergo they are still alive. By your interpretation, that is. What about Blindness?

SKR wrote:

English is a very fluid language.

In some ways that is helpful because it allows us to express a rule in a natural way in one sentence and in another natural way in another sentence. For example, we can say "if the creature fails its save, it gains the blinded condition," or "this spell blinds the target if it fails its save." Even though "blinds" isn't a condition, you know what that second statement means because you understand that "blindness" and "blind" mean the same thing in the real world and you know that "blindness" and "blind" aren't two different game terms.

The rules make no explicit mention of what Blindness means so, according to you, blindness is a meaningless term in RAW. Any rules element that causes blindness simply does nothing because it isn't explicitly stated what it does. By my view, on the other hand, one can easily get an implicit meaning. An oh, look at that, at least one developer agreed.

The line in the rules that states, implicitly, that Wings uses Mutation Fighter level as Alchemist caster level for the purpose of determining the duration of Wings use per day is the very same line as what gives the Mutation Fighter the ability to use Wings in the first place; so no additional quote is needed. It is implicit, not unwritten. A logical mind can easily figure out what is being said. Sadly, people aren't taught classical dialectic and rhetoric anymore so the ability to figure this stuff out is woefully inadequate for most people. The fact of the matter is that the rules use plenty of implicit language. It is implied that you manipulate a doorknob with your hands rather than your feet or your buttcheeks. But nowhere will you find an explicit statement in the rules that says you open a door using your hands. Now, show of hands, who here thinks that it's viable to operate a doorknob using only their buttcheeks?


thaX wrote:

So, with a Merciful Scythe, doing 8D4 + 88 (Power attack, Weapon Master bonuses, 1.5 str, BAB X 4) Do you think that the 40 HP example has a chance of dying?

That is a rhetorical question, BTW.

Is that what they mean by a "mercy killing"? Here's the rhetorical answer, btw:

80 static damage would take a 40 HP target from full health to 0 (40 nonlethal + 40 spillover lethal). That leaves 8 static damage and 8-32 variable damage for a total of 16-40 damage. If the target has 16 or less Con, they have no chance to survive. With 41 or more Con, they absolutely will survive. Anything between 16 and 40 Con is up to the dice. Certain feats and abilities can change those ranges.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo has "spoken on the issue" regarding Flurry of Blows requiring two weapons (and then reversed their position), on Half-Elves and Half-Orcs not qualifying for racial archetypes while Humans with Racial Heritage do (also changed for consistency), and Haste doesn't work with Spell Combat because it isn't technically the full-attack action (also reversed). If they make a FAQ ruling that is nonsensical, people are fully justified in bringing up the question as to whether that was the correct answer to give. And, sometimes, they change it to a more sensible answer. I think that's the case here. There's a definite pattern to the verbiage used in the Darkness spell that matches up with the pattern of verbiage for the Light/Illumination rules and it points towards a mechanical distinction between Normal being considered Ambient while Increased being, mechanically, a different animal altogether.


When it comes to physical properties of the item, you must go by the base category. An axe musket may count as a melee weapon for the purpose of rules elements that affect melee weapons, but for being a black-blade, you must go by the base weapon category. A feat, for instance, may turn a Longsword from a Slashing weapon into a Piercing or Bludgeoning weapon temporarily, but that doesn't suddenly make its Blackblade quality "turn off" because it no longer meets the requirements. So even if a weapon may "count as" a one-handed slashing weapon for usage and effects such as being the target of a spell, how much effort is required to attack, being used in Spell Combat or other abilities, etc. it doesn't count as a one-handed slashing weapon for physical purposes such as HP, Hardness, or being made into a Blackblade.


Furthermore, the Axe Musket is a ranged weapon. It may be useable as a melee weapon, but it is on the Ranged Weapon list. However, it would be feasible to have a Large Longsword as a Blackblade. A Longsword is a one-handed slashing weapon, it's just wielded as a virtual 2h weapon in the hands of a Medium creature. Likewise, a Small Longsword could also be a Blackblade for a Medium creature.

1 to 50 of 4,032 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.