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

4,330 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,330 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

"Mundane" ventriloquism is very much an act of misdirection like most parlor tricks. You "distract" the audience by moving the mouth of the puppet while they see your own mouth isn't significantly moving. To accomplish this, the timing of the "lip flaps" of the puppet must be very well in time with your speaking. I'm not entirely sure the bond between a summoner and eidolon will encompass such fine motor control coordination.

Now, that having been said, here's how I'd go about implementing it; keep in mind, this is entirely houserule/GM fiat territory. It should be an opposed check by the listeners' Perception or Sense Motive vs your Perform(Act) skill. Your Eidolon is required to Aid Another in you making this check (also Perform(Act)), except that instead of giving you a bonus if he succeeds, it imposes a penalty if you fail; your Eidolon's mouth-flaps weren't up to par so he made the whole attempt less convincing. One check should be suitable for 1 minute of conversation.


Physical stats are straight-forward and concrete enough that people should get them easily so I won't even mention them. I'll focus on the mental stats since they are so much more abstract and, quite frankly, very difficult for people to wrap their heads around (especially Charisma).

Intelligence: How easy it is to figure out new information and how easily you can recall previously learned knowledge. This is probably the easiest of the mental stats. High intelligence means you are knowledgeable, learned, and have enough memory to recall this info. Keep in mind, you aren't necessarily good at putting this info into good practice or with "intuitive" knowledge (gut instinct). A classic example is the absent-minded professor; high Int but low Wis makes him a literal storehouse of knowledge with little in the way of common sense. When applied to a spellcaster, they are "hacking" the magic pathways of the world, forcing them into certain desirable configurations based on knowledge and understanding of cause/effect relationships.

Wisdom: How easy it is to apply what you know to "real-life" situations and how well you discipline and control your mind. High wisdom means you have a strong, disciplined mind and are good at "practical applications" of what you know. You may not be a storehouse of eclectic knowledge, but you can apply everyday things in everyday situations. This also covers knowing what things "should" be like so that you can notice when they are not as they should be (perception, sense motive, etc). For Spellcasters, it is about seeing the natural pathways as they are and invoking natural responses with minimal tampering, usually conveying prayers and wishes to spiritual and/or divine beings.

Charisma: This is the hardest for people to wrap their minds around for two reasons. 1) It covers many things that, at first glance, seem disparate. 2) The unfortunate wordage used in the book, linking "appearance" (a physical characteristic) to this ability score. In studying the system, I've found that the best word to boil Charisma down to is confidence. Charisma is a matter of confidence in yourself, and confidence that other people will behave predictably. High Charisma means you have a great force of Ego, a great confidence in your actions, your words, your demeanor, and a confidence in others to react to you accordingly. Low Charisma means a lack of confidence, a person plagued to a greater or lesser extend, by pessimism. Naturally, someone is going to bring up, "How does appearance work into it"? Well, first off, even linking a subjective term like "appearance" to a number, you must keep in mind that it isn't a matter of a bigger number means a more likable appearance while a lower number means a less likable appearance. The number isn't a determination of the subjective quality of appearance (whether you are pretty or ugly) but rather a quantitative measure; whatever qualitative description applies to the character, Charisma measures how strong that quality is. So if it's an ugly character, high Charisma means very ugly and low Charisma means still ugly, but just in a "eww, gross" sort of way rather than a mind-shatteringly grotesque sort of way. To illustrate, consider a pair of beautiful blonde twin babes, physically identical in all ways, but with differing Charisma scores. Even though they each look the same, the one with the higher Charisma score will be perceived as more beautiful. How does this work? Because confidence. She is more confident that she is, indeed, a beauty and people very well should be smitten with her. She has a confident way that she carries herself, speaks, and acts and other people subconsciously respond to these subtle cues of body language more strongly because they convey a greater sense of confidence, as compared to the less confident twin. Another example is telling jokes. Some rude, crass guy tells an inappropriate joke and, because of his personal confidence (high Cha), uproarious laughter is the response. A different, equally rude, crass guy could tell the same joke to the same room (pretend they haven't already heard the joke), but they don't find it as funny. He didn't stutter or flub it, but his delivery left a certain subconscious component wanting. So high Confidence isn't necessarily talkative nor polite and low confidence isn't necessarily rude nor crass; both measures of the score can cover any and all qualities of expression. The Cha score only determines how powerful and effective those qualities of expression are. Another thing to consider is that Disguise, the ability to draw notice away from your actual physical features, is a Cha skill. You need Charisma to make yourself less attractive than you really are because there will be that much of a difference in subconscious response.


Well, fight defensively is normally a standard action. So, with dizzying defense, you can fight defensively as a swift action (make a single attack and get a dodge bonus) with the listed increases over the standard bonus to fight defensively. As written, this leaves you able to take two attacks (swift + standard + move) with defensive bonus and still move, double move and one attack (swift + 2x move), or full-attack plus one extra attack (swift + full-round).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Invisible, the condition, doesn't inherently go away when you attack. It's the block in the spell invisibility that causes it to do so. There's no such condition as "greater invisible". So if the ring says it makes you "invisible", that's a condition. So go to the glossary and look up "invisible", the condition, and you'll see everything that it does. Whatever is in that block happens, and nothing that isn't in that block is, inherently, part of the condition. It doesn't need to specify it makes you invisible "as if using greater invisibility" because that's the default anyway. What it would need to do is specify that it makes you invisible "as if using the invisibility spell" if they wanted it to go away upon attacking. Thus, as written, the invisible condition provided by the Decoy Ring does not break on attack.


You must move to a spot from which your weapon can reach. So, for example, a whip can attack out to 15' but has a 10' threat with the Whip Mastery feat. Combat Patrol adds, we'll say for example, 10' of threat so you now have 15' reach and 20' threat. If someone provokes within 15', you need not move; you can just take your AoO from where you stand. If someone provokes at 20', however, you must move to within 15' of them before you make your AoO. You may not move farther than your speed so, if your speed is 30' and you use up all 30' of movement in moving to take your AoOs, you can't move anymore until your next turn comes around (though, you can still make AoOs within your attack reach). Additionally, your threat radius is based on your dynamic position, not just the spot you started from. So if you move to make an AoO, your threat is measured from the new position where you end up; thus your "threat field" moves with you.

Regarding "normal" reach weapons that exclude adjacent targets, the feat says it "increased" your threat radius, not that it covers squares within the minimum radius. So you cannot say that an adjacent creature provokes and take a step away to deliver the AoO. But if movement to deliver an AoO to a valid provocation moves you away from a previously adjacent target, such that it is now positioned within your new threat field, you may now deliver AoOs to that creature if it subsequently provokes.


Try this:

Give them max HP at lvl 1 as per normal, then on subsequent levels they roll and whatever the difference between the roll and a max roll, give them extra skill points. So, for example, if they have d10 HD, their first level they get an automatic 10. Then on lvl 2, lets say they roll an 8, they get 2 bonus skill points. Then, on lvl 3, lets say they roll a 1, they get 9 bonus skill points. So, basically, the HP and SP they get each level will always add up to 10 with a d10 HD.


Avoron wrote:

Wow.

I wish I could rant with such clarity.

The key is to use bold for emphasis rather than CAPS. It pops, but doesn't convey the implication that you are YELLING. Proper grammar and spelling are a must and a strong, erudite vocabulary helps greatly. Additionally, know how to vary sentence structure; semicolons are a boon if you know how to properly use them.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Oh, it isn't?

It is not listed, as an One-handed weapon?

It doesn't have the hit points of an One-handed weapon, without a feat?

It can't be a Blackblade, without a feat?

Does not a Monk of the Empty Hand treat it as a Club?

No, it isn't, because we're talking about wielding, not its category as an item. Just as a Large Longsword doesn't change in HP or hardness because of virtual category when wielded by a Medium character as opposed to a Large character, a Bastard Sword, as an item, is always and forever a one-handed weapon whether you consider it lying on the ground or in the hand of a creature. However, in regards to wielding it, it may be virtually considered something other than a 1-h weapon based on applicable rules elements and one of those rules elements, specific to the Bastard Sword (along with the Katana, Dwarven Hammer, and certain others), is that you treat it as if it were a 2-h weapon if you lack EWP and determine proficiency based on whether or not your character is proficient with martial weapons.

So, once again, a Bastard Sword is a 1-h weapon as an item regardless of who wields it so things that must be considered even if the weapon is lying unattended use this criteria. A Huge Bastard Sword can be a black blade, even if its "chosen Magus" is incapable of wielding it. If a weapon enchantment requires that the weapon be a one-handed or light weapon, it can be put on a Bastard Sword. HP and Hardness consider it as a 1-h weapon and crafting DC considers it as an exotic weapon. But a completely different list of rules elements that apply to how it is wielded come into play that may or may not agree with its "handiness" category as a weapon. So it can be a 1-h exotic weapon when regarding HP, Hardness, DC to craft, and whether or not it can be a Black Blade, but simultaneously a 2-h martial weapon when considering how a specific individual may wield it and what abilities and rules elements it does or doesn't cooperate with. And, since wielding an improvised weapon is a matter of wielding, we must consider its effort to wield category specific to that character. Thus, you can't "dodge" the proficiency requirement by saying, "I'm swinging it around as an improvised weapon" because for that specific character, while it may as an item be a 1-h exotic weapon with all physical and magical qualities thereof, they wield it as a 2-h weapon and it interacts with feats, abilities, and other rules elements pertaining to making attacks as if it were a 2-h weapon.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Greatsword is not an One-handed Weapon.

Neither is a Bastard Sword, for a character lacking EWP(Bastard Sword).


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, with this FAQ, one could reasonably wield a Bastard Sword, in one hand, without proficiency, as an improvised weapon.

How is that reasonable? Could one wield a Greatsword as an improvised weapon in one hand? If the Bastard Sword is big enough that, without specialized techniques, it is treated as a 2-h weapon, why would it be "reasonable" to disregard that and just treat it as a 1-h weapon when you're swinging it around as if it were a greatclub? If you're going to use it as an improvised weapon to deal, say, bludgeoning damage, you'd treat it as a 2-h weapon and nothing in that FAQ conveys otherwise, neither explicitly nor implicitly. And, likewise, an Empty Hand Monk would treat it as a quarterstaff because it is, virtually, treated as if it were a 2-h weapon for one who lacks EWP for it. The Monk would only treat it as a club if he took EWP for it and even then, it's arguable that exotic technique required to wield it one-handed is predicated on the notion of wielding it "properly as a bastard sword" and not in whatever manner an EH Monk would use it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Damn One-Handed weapons that cannot be wielded in one hand.

They can be... you just need exotic proficiency. If you don't have exotic proficiency, you treat it as if it were a (virtual) 2-h martial weapon and you can't wield a (virtual) 2-h weapon in one hand except by special abilities like Jotungrip. For "standard" 1-h weapons like a longsword, it doesn't get treated as a virtual 2-h weapon just for lacking proficiency so you can simply wield it non-proficiently as its normal category.


Lightning Reload will let any gunslinger do it, but only once/round.


A few things.

1: It takes 19 Str to deadlift (lift off the ground, but not overhead) 700 lbs. This is achievable by a lvl 1 Human with 17 Str +2 racial.

2: Professional weightlifters are probably not lvl 1. A lvl 4 Human could have started with 16 Str +2 racial and put his lvl 4 boost into Str.

3: Professional weightlifters probably focus more on carrying capacity and probably invest in feats/abilities/gear that boost carrying capacity. Muleback cords/Heavyload Belt, syringe of potion of Ant Haul, etc can boost effective Str score for determining carry capacity as can traits like Muscle of the Society.

4: Abilities that boost Str like Rage can temporarily increase carry capacity. An Urban Barbarian can use controlled rage for maximal Str score in such a manner, getting +4 to Str right from lvl 1.

So, a lvl 1 character with Muscle of the Society for +2 "carry Str" Heavyload Belt for triple encumbrance can start with a natural 12 Str, including racial bonus (a considerably strong "normal" human by PF standards), and add an effective 2 to that bringing them to 14 and, with constant Ant Haul from the belt, with 14 Str, he can lift 525lbs overhead and 1050lbs deadlift while still only having 12 "actual" str for determining combat attack and damage rolls. I doubt Arnold or most other body-builders would fare well in actual combat even if you gave them a Greatsword.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, let me explain this for people still confused.

A Longsword is a one-handed weapon, as an item. It doesn't matter if it's a medium Longsword, a tiny Longsword, or a Gargantuan Longsword, it is a one-handed weapon for anything concerning it as an item; HP and hardness, crafting, etc. Now, when a creature wields a Longsword of appropriate size, we're talking about "effort to wield", an informal term used to designate the relative size category. A Medium Longsword is a one-handed weapon and, consequently, a Medium creature treats it as a one-handed weapon. That's simple enough, right? A Tiny creature treats a Tiny Longsword as a one-handed weapon and a Gargantuan creature treats a Gargantuan Longsword as a one-handed weapon. Now, the effective effort to wield changes if you wield an inappropriately sized weapon. A Medium creature wielding a Large Longsword takes a -2 penalty and treats it as if it were a Medium Two-Handed weapon. So it now qualifies for feats and abilities that demand the use of a two-handed weapon (ie. Shield of Swings, Pushing Assault, Overhand Chop, etc) but no longer counts for any abilities that would require using a one-handed weapon (ie. Spell Combat).

Now that a simple example is out of the way, we get to the case at hand; the Bastard Sword. The Bastard Sword is, as an item, a one-handed weapon. That means that for HP, Hardness, crafting, enchanting, and things pertaining to "the item itself", you treat it as a one-handed weapon at all times. It doesn't matter if it is for a Medium, Tiny, or Gargantuan creature. So a Bladebound Magus could, within the rules, be a medium creature with a Large Bastard Sword, a Gargantuan one, a Tiny one, whatever. This is allowed, but it would undoubtedly create problems for the character in question so it's not a very good idea unless you are going for a more comical character (an unlucky bladebound magus who was "chosen" by a weapon too big/too small to actually wield). But when it comes to handling and rules elements pertaining to the wielding of the weapon, that changes based on certain rules elements. A Bastard Sword is a one-handed weapon, but when wielding it two-handed, instead of treating it as a one-handed weapon in two hands, you actually treat it as a two-handed weapon. So it counts for abilities calling for use of a 2-h weapon. In this way, it counts as both a 1-h and 2-h weapon. If you lack EWP for it, you may only wield it as a 2-h weapon and, when doing so, you use martial weapon proficiency to determine whether or not you take a proficiency penalty. Now, when considering an oversized bastard sword, you must shift now only the normal category based on its handiness as an item, but also the "virtual" category that is special to the BS (and other similar weapons). So for a Medium creature, a Large Sword goes from being a 1-h/2-h weapon to a 2-h/unwieldable. The 2-h "virtual" category makes the same shift that an actual 2-h weapon like a Greatsword would make. Just as a Large Longsword is still a 1-h weapon that is just "treated as" a 2-h weapon in the hands of a Medium character, a Large Bastard Sword is still a 1-h(virtual 2-h) weapon "treated as" a 2-h(virtual unwieldable) weapon where you must use the virtual category if you lack EWP. Thus, a Large Bastard Sword may be treated as a 2-h weapon and, thus, Titan Fighters can wield an oversized BS in the same way that a Titan Mauler can apply Jotungrip to a correct-size BS by considering it by its virtual effort category.

However, this same Titan Fighter couldn't wield a Huge Bastard Sword even with EWP because their class ability only applies to Large weapons (weapons one size up) and simply has no effect on anything larger.


Secret Wizard wrote:

The question is understandable, I used to ask stuff like that too.

You can't do the double move thing because Rapid Attack says you can combine FULL ATTACK with a move action. So you are basically full attacking + a move, not move + full attacking.

If you play to lvl 20, then you can do full-attack as a standard action. So you can move, then mix another move into your now-standard full-attack (or vice versa). That is, effectively, a double-move+full-attack at the cost of your highest-BAB attack; at lvl 20. The only thing to consider is that you only get to distribute one move-worth of movement into your full-attack because the movement attached to the full-attack-as-standard-action must be self-contained. So you could move 30 feet, then shuffle your next 30 feet into the attacks, or shuffle up to 30 feet into your attacks, then move 30 feet after your last attack, but you can't shuffle all 60 feet of movement into your attacks.


Are you all reading the same passage I am? It's not something that only applies when you need to make an actual concentration check. It's something that applies at all times. So if you're in harsh weather, you make a SoH check. If you are injured, you make a SoH check. If you are struck while casting a spell, you make both a concentration check for the spell and a SoH check for the juggling. If you botch just the concentration check, you lose the spell but not the items. If you botch just the SoH check, you lose your items but not your spell. If you botch both, you lose both. Basically, it's saying that juggling requires concentration and anything that would break concentration for a spell applies to break concentration for your juggling and the SoH check is a stand-in for a concentration check.


LoneKnave wrote:

@ShroudedInLight: Add +3 for being trained, and 22DEX without magic items, so add those too (should be +4, but probably +6). You could also get a nice+4 enhancement bonus from some magical trinket to your Sleigh of Hand relatively easily on top of that. I'm also probably missing a bunch of spells bards could pull off, not to mention feats (though I understand that you probably don't want to spend feats on it).

So, maybe saying it's trivial is a bit much, but it's really not that difficult, especially compared to ability checks.

@Kazaan: that's what the etc. is for.

What you wrote didn't quite seem clear then. It seems, on reading it, that you're saying that taking damage doesn't prompt a concentration check.


shadowkras wrote:

Magic Items, about wands (Spell Trigger items):

Quote:
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

The Cleric class can cast Protection from Evil, even if that specific Cleric can't due to their Deity choice. It's not about the capacity to cast the spell, it's about the potential; the Cleric understands the magical process of casting the spell, even if trying to do so would auto-fizzle. He can still prepare the spell and can still attempt to cast it and waste his action. The Wand, however, doesn't care if you can actually cast the spell at the moment; it is concerned with whether you have knowledge of the principal of casting this kind of spell.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Wasp, bee, potato, potahtoe.

d00d... bees are bros, wasps are congealed evil. Everyone knows that. Also, you spelled potato wrong. Reference


LoneKnave wrote:

I thought they only need to make the sleigh of hand if they need to concentrate to cast spells defensively, etc. I mean, you don't usually need to make a concentration check when hit, and it doesn't say anywhere that you treat juggling as casting a spell.

However, doing so does make sense. It's a moot point, you'll reliably make the check (seriously, stop exchanging ability checks for skill checks, the math does NOT work).

Casting defensively isn't even remotely the only condition that demands a concentration check. Taking damage during casting or from an AoO or other contingient action (ie. readied action) in response to casting triggers a concentration check which gets harder the more damage you took. Being pinned or grappled, experiencing harsh movement such as on a racing chariot, extreme weather, lots of things can prompt concentration checks. Reference.


Tectorman wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Conjuration is about, among other things, calling things from other planes. Positive and negative energy can be called from other planes. Positive energy, in particular, is called via the Healing sub-school of Conjuration for the purpose of re-vitalizing tissues to their former living state. There's a Fetchling-specific spell that calls negative energy + shadow matter and it is also conjuration. Necromancy is a school that deals with the manipulation of negative energy in particular. Maybe Necromancy should be a sub-school of conjuration with Healing focusing on manipulation of positive and Necromancy concerning negative.

Yeah, but when you cast an evocation spell, aren't you calling energy from the planes as well?

Your fireball is a mote from the Elemental Plane of Fire, conjured into the Material Plane and released in all its fiery glory.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. That's why the fireball doesn't "explode" and creates no shockwave beyond the edge of the area; it simply "creates" elemental fire in an area without displacement of any sort.


Claxon wrote:
I would say ships (which generally can't hide, disregarding weather) are seen at the maximum distance that sight allows. I would allow a hand held telescope to double the distance.

The maximum distance that sight allows? I don't know about that, considering that the stars in the night sky are millions of light-years away. Probably better to use the maximum distance the horizon allows. The DC to spot a person is 0 already so the DC to spot something bigger than a person is going into negatives. Perception, as a skill, wasn't really made to handle this kind of situation; it is for "fine" details and otherwise "miss-able" stuff, not spotting large, obvious things like ships and islands. Also, a telescope doesn't let you see past the horizon; unless we're using a high-tech orbital satellite telescope with radio transmission capability.

So, for an average person standing on solid ground, they can see out roughly 2.5-3 miles. From the deck of a ship about 10 feet up, that extends to about 4 miles. From up in the masts about 100 feet up, that goes out to about 12 miles. So, for practical purposes, 12 miles is a good benchmark for how far one can see from up in the crow's nest. Now, if it's rainy and visibility is unfavorable, I can still see a good couple of miles up the road. I may not be able to spot details, but I could spot a lone semi-truck on an otherwise deserted road even in the rain. So we want an average joe to be able to see about 2 miles out with a DC that is satisfied with a take-10. Unfavorable conditions are +2 so we want distance to equate to 8. That means +1 DC per quarter-mile for spotting large, obvious objects in less than clear conditions. So, going out to 3 miles, you'd need to roll 14 to see a ship a ship at the horizon for a layman with 10 Wis and no investment in perception skill. The expert with +20 could do it regardless of his roll. At 4 miles, it's 18 DC and our expert could still do it regardless of roll. Out to 12 miles, that's a DC 50 check meaning even an expert spotter up in the masts wouldn't be able to spot a ship or island all the way out at the horizon; he could do 8.5 miles tops and that's with a thorough search (take 20). So, the use of a telescope, in this case, would ideally make it so it's only +1 DC per half mile which makes this a 18 DC check and our expert can make it. That sounds reasonable.


Conjuration is about, among other things, calling things from other planes. Positive and negative energy can be called from other planes. Positive energy, in particular, is called via the Healing sub-school of Conjuration for the purpose of re-vitalizing tissues to their former living state. There's a Fetchling-specific spell that calls negative energy + shadow matter and it is also conjuration. Necromancy is a school that deals with the manipulation of negative energy in particular. Maybe Necromancy should be a sub-school of conjuration with Healing focusing on manipulation of positive and Necromancy concerning negative.


Well, the DC to notice a visible creature is 0 so, for an average joe getting a 20 for his perception check, the creature would need to be 200 feet away to be unnoticeable. For an expert lookout with 40 perception, that goes to 400 feet away. But this is a person, presuming a medium creature, we're talking about as opposed to a ship. Perception is used for noticing fine details, not coarse details. You aren't going to fail your perception check and fail to notice a mountain a few miles off in clear weather. There's no hard and fast rule that I'm aware of, so I'd say do this, for spotting otherwise easy-to-spot targets like a ship at sea, islands, villages, mountains, etc, make it automatic success in normal or favorable conditions and change the distance modifier to +1 DC/half-mile for unfavorable or terrible. So, say an island 7 miles off. That's a 16 DC check with unfavorable conditions or a 19 in terrible meaning an average joe will spot an island 7 miles off on a moonless night with thorough searching, but an expert can do it even with casual searching and, if searching thoroughly, can spot an island 17 miles off or so on a moonless night. That sounds close enough for government work.


Sounds reasonable to me. You're not casting the spell by your own divine power, you're using a spell stored in the wand itself and knowledge of the process of actually casting, if not the ability to do so in practice, allows you to activate the wand without UMD check. And, given that you're not actively promoting 'Good' with your use of the wand, it's protection from evil for purely self-serving purposes, you're not really running against possibly offending your deity (using a wand to create undead would probably upset Pharasma, for instance). Thus, I see no rule that would prohibit this act and also no RP reason for Urga to get upset by it.


You may be able to use a reach weapon to "cross check" an opponent, but as far as bull-rush at reach, I find it hard to see using a spear to do so. Remember, that while a reach weapon may be used as an improvised weapon to "butt" an opponent, you suffer -4 penalty for using it in an improvised manner and you gain no weapon-usage bonuses (ie. no enhancement, weapon focus, etc). It's hardly viable to "push" an opponent back harmlessly using the point of a spear. However, holding a reach weapon won't interfere with your capacity to execute a bullrush; you'd do it the same as if you were wielding a longsword or even nothing at all, even without IUS because bullrush doesn't even use Unarmed Strike; it is, by default, weaponless.


Just use a finer grid. Instead of 5' squares, use 1.25' squares. Medium creatures take up 4x4 and reach becomes a lot more granular. Small creatures are 3x3 and tiny are 2x2.


I like to give circumstantial bonuses for acting within alignment and, sometimes, penalties if acting strongly against alignment. For instance, if you are Evil, spells with the Evil descriptor tend to work better for you and those with Good tend to work worse. So a Good wizard casting Infernal Healing may need to make a concentration check even when uncalled for whereas an Evil wizard gets a bonus when making their concentration check. If the spell requires a save, you get a bonus or penalty to the DC and if it requires an attack roll, a bonus or penalty to the attack roll. A neutral character gets versatility in that they are neither benefited nor penalized so they have a broad swath of spells to utilize equitably. A Good character may get a circumstantial bonus to a roll to save someone or a Chaotic character may get a penalty for being convinced to do something they really don't want to do because of some social obligation or the like.


I guess it depends on whether 'speed' in the subordinate clause is referring to all speed types (land, swim, climb, fly) generally, or if it is using 'base speed' as an antecedent. Is there any precedent regarding a Dwarf maintaining their swim or climb speeds regardless of load/armor penalty? If so, it would mean that it is general and, thus, a Dwarf would get full fly speed regardless of armor. I'm going to lean on the side that it's referring to their land speed particularly because I can't rightly see a dwarf swimming or flying unhindered just because he knows how to walk/run efficiently while carrying a load.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Quote:
So, you must simply ask yourself, "Can I make an attack with this weapon as it sits now?" If you are holding a bow, but your arrow is still in the quiver, the answer is 'no'.

You are inventing this requirement out of nothing but your imagination.

It exists nowhere in the rules, and is contradicted by both the RAW feat wording and the FAQ clarification, which specifies threatening with a wielded weapon, and drawing as part of the AoO.

It would have been trivial for them to state an arrow/bolt must be nocked/loaded to threaten and gain an AoO. They chose not to.

It's fine if you want to reason that way and apply that rule to your games, but it ain't RAW.

It doesn't need to exist in the rules because of simple logic. They don't need to explain every single thing as if the reader had the IQ of horseradish; certain logical matters still apply. It is not contradicted, neither by RAW nor the FAQ. You are putting the cart before the horse so let me break it down into simple terms for you to understand.

In order to make an AoO, you must threaten. The rules of threatening state that you must use a melee weapon and be capable of making an attack. Snap Shot only changes the requirement of using a melee weapon to open up using a ranged weapon; it does not negate the necessity to be able to attack. So, can you attack with an unloaded crossbow? The answer is 'no'. Therefore, you do not threaten. So it is entirely inconsequential that you can reload as a free action as part of the AoO because the AoO never even comes into play; you don't threaten, thus you can't make an AoO, thus you can't reload as part of that AoO. You are claiming that, even without threatening, you can make an AoO with an unloaded crossbow by presuming the AoO happens and then reloading as a free action as part of the AoO. That is classic petitio principii (begging the question fallacy). You are trying to prove that you can reload as part of an AoO at the beginning of the AoO and provide, as evidence, the fact that you can reload at the beginning of your AoO thus making the attack valid, which means you threaten, which means you can take your AoO and, consequently, reload before making your attack. Drawing an arrow or shuriken from your quiver/pouch is a free action and separate and distinct from the attack. Nocking the arrow to the bow is a non-action associated with an attack with a bow, but drawing the arrow to hold in hand, ready to be nocked, is a completely different matter. You must be already holding your arrow or shuriken, or already have your xbow or firearm loaded and ready to fire in order to threaten via Snap Shot. We usually smooth over the idea of drawing the arrow from the quiver before firing for the sake of simplicity, but these distinctions do have certain implications when you get down to it which must be reconciled.

In short, the rules do state that you must have either arrow or shuriken in hand, crossbow or firearm loaded, or a magical ranged weapon capable of generating its own ammo as part of an attack in order to threaten; just not in the words you are looking for.


This is the result of a phenomenal misunderstanding of the nature of Karma. In actual Hindu and Buddhist beliefs, Karma isn't some metaphysical "tit-for-tat" with ledgers and balances; it doesn't even remotely work like that. In Hinduism, Karma is what you earn by performing your Dharma, which is your duty in life and determined by the caste you were born into. A warrior is supposed to fight proudly on the battlefield so a Warrior-caste's Dharma is satisfied when he goes out and fights and kills. If a Warrior-caste wants to be a pacifist, that's going against his Dharma. So in one life, it may be good Karma to kill in battle but in another life, it may be bad Karma to kill because you're not a warrior. Furthermore, it isn't a matter of "2 good Karma and 2 bad Karma cancel each other out." The universe records every single solitary action you perform across all your lives. There is no balance, there is no adding or subtracting. A single bad act reverberates throughout all your future lives; it never goes away no matter how well you act within your Dharma subsequently.

For Buddhism, there is no caste system to deal with but, instead, the concept of Karma was adapted. This is closer to the layperson's understanding of "Karma is points for being a good person", but you still have that concept of "bad Karma" never going away. You can atone for past sins, but that doesn't erase them.

Think of it this way; two wrongs don't make a right. So if this were truly a character that believed in moderation and balance, he'd see extreme good as wrong and extreme evil as wrong as well. So performing one wrong act (according to his beliefs) isn't overridden by performing a different kind of wrong act. Thus, he's not even internally consistent. If he views all these extreme acts as bad, and he continually and willingly does bad deeds, he's no different than the LE character who considers himself a "fine, upstanding member of society". This is the most shallow, base concept of roleplaying a "neutral" character; essentially the same as Lawful Stupid or Awful Good and I'd strongly, strongly suggest you reconsider your enthusiasm for attempting it.


Don't make a chakram a 1-h weapon because then, it opens up wielding one in 2 hands for 1.5x Str and Power Attack; and that just isn't feasible given the design of the weapon.


graystone wrote:
Kazaan: The feat maybe? It says you threaten with a ranged weapon, NOT a loaded ranged weapon.

It also doesn't say you need a clear line of fire to the target. But it doesn't need to because that's already covered in normal mechanics of ranged weapons. Likewise, the weapon being loaded to shoot is also covered; it doesn't need to be spelled out for you every single time. Drawing ammo and Preparing ammo are different actions by RAW. Drawing is a free action:

PRD/Combat wrote:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.

Drawing ammo for use with a ranged weapon is a sub-part of the Draw a Weapon action.

By contrast:

PRD/Combat wrote:
Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

Loading a hand or light crossbow is a move action, heavy or repeating is a full-round. There is no loading for a shuriken because it is a thrown weapon (though drawn as if ammo). So, you must simply ask yourself, "Can I make an attack with this weapon as it sits now?" If you are holding a bow, but your arrow is still in the quiver, the answer is 'no'. If you are holding a magic bow that produces its own ammo out of thin air, then the answer is obviously 'yes'. If you are holding an unloaded crossbow, the answer is 'no'. If you are holding a loaded crossbow, the answer is 'yes'. You must threaten first in order to take the AoO and then, the FAQ specifically delineates an exception to the standard rule of not taking free actions out of turn by saying, as part of an AoO, you can draw ammo. You must be capable of taking the AoO first in order to draw ammo as part of the AoO; no bootstrapping or circular reasoning allowed. So you must have your arrow or shuriken in hand or have your xbow loaded in order to threaten with it because that's in the rules of threatening; you can't make an attack with an unloaded xbow nor with a bow without an arrow.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
So, Ozy... you say that the "threaten with ranged weapon" of snap-shot is all-inclusive; that you threaten even with an unloaded crossbow and completely bypass the "able to make an attack" portion of the threatening rules. By that logic, I threaten with an unloaded crossbow when I'm paralyzed and there is total cover between me and the enemy square, right? Because the feat clearly says, "you threaten with a ranged weapon" and that allows me to threaten even with my unloaded crossbow, right? Even if I can't make an attack, right? Even when there's no clear line between me and the target, right? RIGHT!?

Not all inclusive, just replacing the normal 'must be able to make a melee attack into the square'.

It doesn't affect normal game rules like line of effect, or ability to take actions.

We already went over this, you must have missed the discussion.

I guess I did. So explain to me again how holding an unloaded heavy crossbow allows you to threaten with Snap Shot?


So, Ozy... you say that the "threaten with ranged weapon" of snap-shot is all-inclusive; that you threaten even with an unloaded crossbow and completely bypass the "able to make an attack" portion of the threatening rules. By that logic, I threaten with an unloaded crossbow when I'm paralyzed and there is total cover between me and the enemy square, right? Because the feat clearly says, "you threaten with a ranged weapon" and that allows me to threaten even with my unloaded crossbow, right? Even if I can't make an attack, right? Even when there's no clear line between me and the target, right? RIGHT!?


They wanted to keep the concept of "the increased BAB doesn't let you grab feats early". So, even though feats like Power Attack and Combat Expertise will use your modified BAB to determine their effects, TWF feats don't use BAB to determine effect. So you get your iterative attacks based on full-BAB but you gain your ITWF and GTWF "effective feats" based on mid-BAB; that's why they're out of order. Furthermore, consider the following; a full-BAB class (ie. Pally) would get +6/+1 iteratives at lvl 6, but couldn't take ITWF until lvl 7 because you get feats at odd levels. So the progression for a Pally is 1-6-7-11x2-16-17. Only classes that get bonus feats at the same level they get their iteratives are going to match up nicely. That being said, considering the "effect of twf feats" aren't a matter of "taking" those feats but just getting their benefit, it would probably have been a better idea to just give Monks 1x2/6x2/11x2/16 and call it a day. If they really wanted to be nice, maybe also give 16x2... you know, if they wanted to be nice and supportive of Monks... *snicker*.


I think some people are mixing up their terminology. It's a free action to draw a piece of ammo. That is, to take it from its container (quiver, pouch, etc) and hold it in hand. This applies to any and all ammo; arrows, crossbow bolts, sling stones, shuriken, etc. In the case of a Bow, it's a non-action to "nock" the arrow to the bow, performed as part of the attack with the bow. In the case of a crossbow or firearm, it's greater than a free action by default, depending on the category of weapon. Now, the Snap Shot FAQ was specifically addressing the question that, if one made an AoO via Snap Shot off-turn, could they not draw another piece of ammo as a free action and then, subsequently, reload that ammo if they had the proper feats, since free actions must be performed on-turn; or was this a necessary exception to standard rules to make the system function properly. The answer ended up being the latter; after expending your shot on an AoO, you may draw an arrow as a free action (so now you're holding bow in one hand, arrow in the other), reload a crossbow or firearm with the appropriate feats, etc. That would, logically, include the act of drawing a shuriken (a free action) in preparation to throw another one. But it doesn't imply that you may preemptively draw ammo to make an AoO. Logically speaking, if, at the end of your full-attack with a bow, you neglected to draw an arrow, you wouldn't threaten with your bow even with Snap Shot. We presume, for the sake of simplicity and smoothness in the game, that the character is going to draw their next arrow in preparation to make another shot. But if you, for whatever reason, leave your hand free (say to use Snatch Arrow), then you don't threaten with your Bow using SS because you aren't properly armed with it. Likewise, with a crossbow, it needs to be already loaded in order to fire as an AoO; no matter how fast you reload, you aren't going to be able to reload and fire in response to a provoking action. You fire as response, and then reload. Same applies to Shuriken; you must have one already in-hand with which to threaten, but then subsequently you may draw replacements in the same manner you'd draw arrows from a quiver.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rage, along with Barbarian, is a bit of a misnomer. Yes, it deals with emotion, but it doesn't hinder tactical thinking. It interferes with tasks that require patience and concentration like picking a lock or casting a spell, but that's it. It doesn't turn you into a slathering idiot. It's probably a better idea to think of it as "battle trance" rather than "rage". The "recklessness" of the state is reflected in the AC penalty; that's all. You are putting more focus into attack than you are into defense, but you can still think tactically, consider flanking position, and even retreat if the need arises. Hell, there are even rage powers concerned with climbing and flying; tasks which demand tactical awareness. Even the Wild Rager who's rage can impose confusion doesn't lose tactical awareness outright. He may be inconvenienced by confusion at an inopportune moment, but at times where he is lucid, he functions like any other raging Barb who, in turn, functions like any other martial save for the inability to cast spells or do patience-related tasks.


PRD wrote:
Head: This slot consists of circlets, crowns, hats, helms, hoods, masks, and other items that can be worn on the head.

Masks are in the Head slot. So I presume it can mimic any Head slot wondrous item.


If you had the capacity to adequately and mechanically wield a 2-h weapon as an off-hand, it would get 1x Str to damage because, using Pathfinder math, 1.5x (2-h factor) + 0.5x (off-hand factor) = 1x. You can also easily understand this by looking at the balance of Str bonus; when using normal, two-armed TWF, you get 1x on your main-hand and 0.5x on your off-hand. Using a 2-h weapon, the bottom line is that you just add those together and get a 1.5x factor. Well, for a 4-armed race, using two 0.5x off-hands to wield a single weapon, they add up to 1.0x.


First, addressing tyranny, being a tyrant isn't necessarily lawful in nature. A tyrant rules harshly over the people and doesn't really give a lick about their well-being; just his own. But there is another angle in which the leader is harsh and rules with an iron fist because he feels that is what is needed for society to function because people are scum and must be forced to behave. The difference is that the first one is a tyrant for selfish reasons while the second is a like a tyrant, but with a (self-proclaimed) social purpose.

Second, action and alignment are reciprocal. It isn't a "chicken or the egg" kind of situation; they both coexist and are mutually defining. Good people tend towards good actions and people who perform good actions tend towards Good alignment. If a Good person starts doing evil actions, the Good alignment will work to pull them back; this is called a moral struggle. Sometimes, the alignment wins and they repent, atone, and make amends. Other times, the actions win out and pull the alignment to Neutral or Evil.

Third, regarding the "codes"... they're really more like guidelines. But seriously, Lawful is all about discipline; doing what needs to be done even if you'd rather not. Chaotic, on the other hand, is about doing what you want to do even if you shouldn't. So the Lawful type needs some kind of structure to direct their actions. They may or may not like to perform those actions, but their Lawful nature will compel them to perform them regardless of preference. But the Chaotic type is, by definition, doing what he wants. To illustrate, a Paladin will save the children in the orphanage because it is the right thing to do but he wants to do it anyway (he'd save them even if the children were rude, surly little brats). The Chaotic type will save them if he wants to. If he's supposed to or not doesn't matter. Thus, we get to the AP. He does what he wants and he wants to do evil. The "code" is basically that he needs to keep "wanting evil and acting on that" in order to continue deriving anti-pally powers from The Evil, in the same way that a pally needs to "do good things, even when you don't like to" in order to keep drawing powers from The Good. If the AP suddenly decides one day that he's tired of being an Evil-fueled force of destruction and dismay, it isn't a violation of his alignment; he's perfectly free to change his mind. But he can't continue using the powers that were fueled by that mindset anymore; the same as a CE cleric worshiping a NE deity who shifts to CN. He's free to shift; in fact it's very in keeping with alignment to change because he wants to, but he leaves his deity behind in the process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Driver_325yards wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
You'd get an additional attack, but at a -10 instead of a -5. In other words, there's no reason to do it. In fact, GTWF is generally thought to be a useless feat since that additional attack will almost never hit.
GTW fighting says you get a third offhand attack. Saying that you get a third attack naturally implies that you get a second attack as well does it not.

No, it doesn't. You are allowed one off-hand attack just by standard rules. ITWF gives you a 'second' one which means it must be performed after the first; you can't swap the order and do your -5 attack first followed by your standard off-hand. GTWF gives you a 'third', but that doesn't tacitly allow you to make a 'second'. In fact, what it means is that you are allowed to make a third off-hand after making your first two, but you are incapable of performing the second so it's like that old saying, "God said there would be good women found in all corners of the Earth... and then he made the Earth round and laughed." So, hypothetically, if you had an ability other than ITWF that granted a second off-hand attack, then you could make that second attack followed by your GTWF off-hand... but why would you want to jump through crazy hoops like that in the first place?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One opponent that deals 16 damage per hit and blocks one space is not as dangerous as two opponents that deal each 9 damage per hit and block two spaces. First and foremost, a single opponent can't flank. So even if it's the toughest creature on the block, if he's on his own, he gets an effective penalty to hit compared to a pair of less powerful flanking buddies. Furthermore, all you have to do is surround him and his movement is locked down; he can't even run.

Second, if you have a single creature that can attack, heal, and cast spells, he can still typically only perform one function per round. By contrast, a well balanced party of four can cover all bases each round.

Third, consider the power of choices. Give them ultimatums. Give them two tasks that must be done at the same time but, also, in different places; the Fork Tower scenario. This forces them to split up the party if they want the reward.

Fourth, force them to be on the defensive for a change. Force them to pick the place but the enemies to pick the time.

Fifth, theft. If you really want to throw them for a loop, have an NPC thief rob them. That's a good way to get them to go somewhere you want them to go if they absolutely won't go. They will chase that thief to the ends of the Earth given half the chance. It will also make them reckless. Mind you, this trick will probably only work once with any particular group.

Sixth, if you can't overpower them, have enemies retreat. Many groups will get overconfident and try to follow them to "get the kill". This will lure them out of position.

Seventh, bait them. Try to get them to become reckless against what they think is an "easy win", then spring a "creature trap" where a bunch of archers spring out of cover when the party is out of position.

Eighth, social traps. If they are optimized for combat, give them situations that combat simply can't solve. Force them to go through social interaction acrobatics in order to get information or special items. Given their combat focus, they probably aren't as prepared for social interaction.


Ok. I was under the impression based on the thread that half-outsider templates applied alignment subtypes. If they don't, then it's basically the same concept as having an evil Aasimar or a good Tiefling; no planar energy mechanics to consider at all.


Remember that 'Good' and 'Evil' aren't just abstract, ephemeral concepts in Pathfinder. They are tangible forces just as real as gravity and electro-magnetism are to us. Celestials aren't just 'Good' in a moral sense; they are made of Good. Half-Celestials, likewise, are made partially of Good; that is, the "Good energy" of the Good planes. That gives them a strong lean towards Good morality, but it can be compromised just as can happen with a fallen angel. Usually, though, this entails a reversing of polarity and the 'Good energy' becomes 'Evil energy'. Fallen Angels become Evil outsiders; their original 'Good energy' does a 180 and turns Evil. They trade out their Good outsider powers for Evil outsider powers. For all intents and purposes, a Half-Celestial would have a very strong innate force that compels them to do good, but if they are subject to a VERY powerful influence towards Evil, they would effectively change from Half-Celestials to Half-Fiends.


Normally, replacing, say, a part of a benefit gained at a certain level, is considered separate from the ability as a whole. For instance, if one archetype replaced a Fighter's Bonus Feat gained at 1st level and another archetype replaced a Fighter's Bonus Feat gained at 2nd level, these stack together fine. Another example is adding options. If one archetype adds to your list of bonus feats, and another archetype replaces the bonus feat gained at lvl 2, those don't contradict. But Snakebite striker, though it replaces maneuvers gained at specific levels, ends up replacing all the maneuvers so, effectively, it is trading out the whole ability, just in bits and pieces. If it had left just one level of Maneuver Training for you, then you could combine the archetypes but, as it stands, they don't combine.


Personal codes of honor are still a Lawful trait. Lawful has codes; for Chaotics, they're really more like guidelines. But, since Lawful are guided by discipline (doing what should be done regardless of personal preference), they are reliant on some definition of "should be done". By contrast, Chaotics define their actions by what they want to do, so, literally, anything that they want to do is, by definition, what they do. Should or should not, both by external and internal code, don't enter the equation. So, for example, Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave back to the poor not because he felt it was his "duty" but because that's what he wanted to do and would do so regardless of what "duty" proscribed.


In a different game I played, there was a monster called a Vampire Mosquito. It wasn't truly a vampire, but rather a regular mosquito that fed on a vampire. In the Pathfinder system, that'd likely be a normal living vermin type (not undead) creature with Negative Energy Affinity a few other fitting abilities.


Cranky Dog wrote:
So the paladin's first reaction is to go for the kill on the unarmed non-aggressive bugbear with poor communication skills?

...go for the kill on the unarmed non-aggressive bugbear...

...unarmed non-aggressive bugbear...

...NON-AGGRESSIVE BUGBEAR...


Quite frankly, we've adequately explained how the system works correctly. At this point, if Hero Labs refuses to correct their system based on their incorrect analysis, that's a failing on their part and their part alone.

1 to 50 of 4,330 << 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.