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

4,383 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mr Babadook wrote:
But he was born a normal monkey. He eventually transcended to godhood by becoming immortal an so powerful.

Well, "born" in that he came from a stone egg birthed from a magic stone that sat absorbing the energy of heaven and earth since the beginning of time...

Quote:

Sun Wukong, or Monkey, was born from a magic stone that sat on the top of a mountain, that had been receiving the powers of the heavens and the earth since the beginning of time and had thereby gained miraculous powers. The stone stood 36 feet and 5 inches representing the degrees of the heavens and 24 feet round representing the division of the solar calender. With nine hole in it for the nine trigrams. The stone developed a magic womb, which burst open one day to produce a stone egg about the size of a ball.

When the wind blew on this egg it turned into a stone monkey, complete with the five senses and four limbs. When the stone monkey had learned to crawl and walk, he bowed to each of the four quarters. As his eyes moved, two beams of golden light shot towards the Pole Star palace and startled the Supreme Heavenly Sage, the Greatly Compassionate Jade Emperor of the Azure Vault of Heaven, who was sitting surrounded by his immortal ministers on his throne in the Hall of Miraculous Mist in the Golden-gated Cloud Palace. When he saw the dazzling golden light he ordered Thousand-mile Eye and Wind-accompanying Ear to open the Southern Gate of Heaven and take a look. The two officers went out through the gate in obedience to the imperial command, and while one observed what was going on the other listened carefully. Soon afterwards they reported back...

So he hardly started as just a normal monkey; he was the condensed energy of the universe that merely took the form of a monkey.

As far as Jingu Bang, it might take some houseruling to get it just right. Impact is a must, it flat-out treats the weapon as 1 size category bigger. Transformative, but instead of the normal function of the ability, it allows it to gain an additional size category over Impact, though he now must wield it in two hands (Staff Mastery makes it 1-h but it's 1 category too big so back to 2-h). So, in instances where he isn't going to use Spell Combat, he can enlarge the staff for more damage and maybe even reach. So, ideally, it would be a +3 Transformative Impact Quarterstaff and I think that would be a pretty good fit for the source material.


I'll presume by Monkey King, you're talking about Sun Wukong. Well, there are a couple of iconic aspects of the character. 1) He can create clones of himself from his hair. 2) Ruyi Jingu Bang, his transformative bo staff. 3) Magical abilities. Magical abilities, naturally, are already accounted for; you're a Magus. Notably, he had control over water and ice and could ward off demons so look for spells along those lines. He could also create clones out of his hair so spells like mirror image would be ideal. It's Jingu Bang which is the most difficult because I haven't found quite a close analog which also meshes well with the Magus class.


NikolaiJuno wrote:
If your fighting just a full caster wouldn't being in an anti-magic field completely protect you from just about everything dangerous he can do to you?

Yes, that's another point. What if you're using an AM field defensively? If you are using it to protect yourself from magic, while still being able to shoot out of it, you're going to want a decent +1 or +2 Str rating on your bow. It's really a rather small investment to be able to fall back on a +1 or +2 Str composite bow than to just have a +0 composite bow and completely rely on the adaptive enhancement.


The Anti-magic spell isn't the only source magic cancellation. Magically dead planes, Wall of Suppression, Magicbane Bandersnatch, etc. Also, being pinned down in an anti-magic field by a martial can be bad; it's probably not just the caster you need to deal with.


Just keep in mind that, if subjected to anti-magic, Adaptive would shut off and you'd be left with just a +0 Str bow. Probably be a good idea to make it +1 or +2 base (based on your Str at the time) and then just put adaptive on it when your Str surpasses that.


Helaman wrote:
You can't use it without the profiency and if you have the proficiency must use it two handed, can't be one handed... however there MAY be a loophole with the Barb archetype that allows two handed weapons in one hand

Nope, Titan Mauler doesn't work for this because Jotungrip, which allows you to wield a 2-h weapon one-handed, only works for properly-sized weapons. So a Medium character could wield a Medium BS one-handed (at -2 attack), but it has no effect on a Large BS.


How it may be used in combat has no bearing on factors contributing to construction. A Bastard Sword is a 1-h weapon, but in the hands of an un-proficient user, it is considered a 2-h weapon. But for construction purposes (ie, hp, hardness, etc.), it is always a 1-h weapon. Same goes for the Chakram; it is a ranged weapon and, as such, has the physical characteristics of a ranged weapon only, regardless of what else it may be treated as for the purpose of making attacks.


For those interested, rope dart demonstration


I'm pretty sure MacFarland himself was the one who said that developer comments in the forum don't amount to official stances by the dev team. So the only ruling that carries weight in this matter is an official errata or FAQ. Glancing at the FAQ list for ARG (the book from which the feat comes), no such FAQ exists. I'm not aware of any errata concerning it either. Thus, we can only go on what is explicitly written in the book. It says, "When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit -or- you can choose an alternate class reward." (emphasis mine) So, normally, you choose either one or the other of +1HP or +1SP, or you get an alternate class reward (in lieu of your choice between HP or SP). The first clause of Fast Learner states you get both HP and SP in place of your choice between the two, but the second clause simply states you gain an alternate class reward without specifying that you forego the normal options available to a character without the feat. Thus, we have the following breakdown:

W/out feat: (+1HP or +1SP) or ACR
W/ feat, first option: [(+1HP or +1SP) (+1HP and +1SP)] or ACR
w/ feat, second option: [(+1HP or +1SP) or ACR] and ACR

The options provided by the feat are in blue. This is the most reasonable interpretation of the feat that both works as written and also doesn't create awkward situations such as being denied benefit of the feat just because you want to pick an ACR rather than HP or SP. Now, granted, if the dev team wants to make an official ruling on the matter that goes along with MacFarland, they are free to do so. But it would make far less sense, from a logical perspective, than the above parsing.


"Magical" darkness is considered "opaque" by the FAQ. So if someone casts Darkness, it creates an inky black sphere that you cannot see past. But just normal, every-day darkness is a non-issue because visibility is based on the light level at the location of your target, not you personally. So, from the cover of darkness, you could shoot a character holding a torch at no penalty and they, since they can't see you, are denied dex for the attack. If you were standing on a hilltop, at night, you could see the lights of a town, even if you were a mile or two off. Sure, you couldn't see details between you and the town, but the town, if lit up well enough for the night, is perfectly visible.


Jeff Merola wrote:
First, Earth isn't an antimagic zone. People from Golarion going there can use magic fine. Second, Alchemy isn't magic. Third, metal cartridges are alchemical cartridges.

Which, of course, leads us back to the subject at hand. Metal carts are Alch carts. Alch carts reduce reloading by 1, therefore Metal carts, as a type of Alch cart, reduce reloading by 1. So either advanced firearms have move-action reloading and then, additionally, reduce that by 1 to a free action, or, advanced firearms actually have an un-stated standard-action reloading, reduced to de facto move actions; in which case, Rapid Reload works for at least 1-h advanced firearms.


Weight is more of an abstracted term and it's probably better to think of it more as A.U.M.s (arbitrary unit of mass). So a Dagger doesn't weight 1 lb, it weighs 1 aum (1 arbitrary unit of mass). In this sense, the "weight" is for balance purposes only; not an objective representation of the physical mass of the object but, rather, a subjective value that makes more valuable or useful objects more difficult to carry around. So just use common sense; you wouldn't stuff a suit of full-plate into a backpack; you'd need some kind of crate or card to haul that around if you aren't wearing it. But a longsword may stick out past the flap of the backpack so long as the bulk of it is contained within the confines of the container and, as was stated previously, a bedroll would be fixed to the top of the pack, hooks would carry certain kinds of items (ie. kettle, lantern, etc), loops would hold other kinds of items (ie. axe, utility knife, etc.). And don't forget pouches; and purses. Remember that, in medieval times, you had a little bag to hold your money, universally referred to as a purse (regardless of gender of the holder). It would often be tied by a short rope to your belt; hence the term "cutpurse" who would sneak up and cut the rope with a knife to liberate the whole purse and carry it off. For larger amounts of money, a sack would be more commonly used. For very large amounts, you'd use crates or chests (the "chest of gold" trope). Backpacks are used for organized supplies of various kinds for which you'd commonly need to fetch a specific item while sacks and chests are more just dumping grounds for large quantities of un-sorted goods, often just to be sold off.


Light/one-handed/two-handed apply only to melee weapons (one-handed firearm and two-handed firearm are considered to be a completely different set of designations despite sharing the "one-handed" and "two-handed" phrase, like Race traits and racial Traits). While a Dagger is a light melee weapon that can be thrown as a ranged weapon, a Chakram is a ranged weapon first which just so happens to be able to be used as a melee weapon with specific guidelines (an exception to normal rules regarding ranged weapons). So a Chakram isn't a light nor a one-handed weapon because those categories only apply to weapons that base melee weapons. Therefore, I'd say no, a Chakram can't be made of obsidian because it is neither a spear tip, nor an arrowhead, nor a light or one-handed weapon. For that matter, since it isn't a one-handed weapon, you can't wield it in two hands to get 1.5x Str and Power Attack and since it isn't a light weapon either, you can't use it as a light off-hand with reduced penalties for TWF. Furthermore, this makes rational sense given the nature of the material and impracticality of making such a weapon out of fragile volcanic glass.


There are the called shots rules to determine what penalties to apply if a person's leg is cut off (or rendered unusable).

Debilitating blow to the leg:

PRD wrote:
Debilitating Blow: A debilitating blow to the leg knocks the creature prone. The blow renders the leg entirely useless until healed unless the target succeeds at a Fortitude saving throw. If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the leg is severed or otherwise mangled such that only regeneration or similar effects can repair it. If the save succeeds, the target is instead lamed and moves at half speed until the leg is healed, or until it receives a successful DC 20 Heal check. A creature with a useless or severed leg moves at half speed if it still has more than half of its legs usable; otherwise, it cannot stand up and must crawl to move. The target also suffers the effects of a called shot to the leg (if the leg remains usable) for 2d6 minutes.

Though it isn't stated, I'd also say that having the leg rendered useless also imposes the penalty of a critical called shot to the leg so long as it is unuseable; which means 1d4 Dex damage and -2 on checks involving movement (acrobatics, swim, etc). Since the character in question, presumably, has only 2 legs before the "accident", half of 2 legs is 1 leg and she doesn't have more than 1 leg still useable; thus she can only do land-travel under her own power by crawling. Otherwise, she'd need to be pulled in a cart, carried, or get some means of levitation, flight, etc. She suffers 1d4 Dex damage and an additional -2 on acrobatics, swim, climb, etc. No statement on bleeding so I'd say it's probably best not to even touch that; she's got enough going against her as is. Same goes for max HP. And, of course, the Regeneration spell will correct all these problems. If they don't have access to that spell just yet, maybe a side-quest is in order? Local temple could do it, but you must perform a task for them first? Maybe a split branch side-quest, the option to get either Regeneration cast or get some swanky automail with a cannon in the knee.


Roll stats and calculate the equivalent point-buy value. Use this as an index to determine how difficult or easy it is for said character to earn Hero Points. For example, a character who rolls up 10/12/16/13/9/11 could buy that array with 15 point buy so his "heroic index" is 15. Another character rolls up 11/10/8/11/12/7 which is -2 point buy. Another character gets 18/17/16/15/16/13 which is 60 point buy. The 15-index character has an average time earning hero points; appropriate "heroic tasks" are what one would expect. The 60-index character needs to do exceedingly unreasonable tasks to qualify as "being heroic". Meanwhile, the -2-index character earns hero points just for surviving breakfast without choking. Also, characters with low index have the option to buy templates, treating each +CR of the template as equivalent of 4 points of a stat. So a +1CR template costs 5 points (same as raising a stat to 14) and a +2CR template costs 17 points (raising a stat to 18). The Young template, which is -1CR, could drop the heroic index and counts for -6 point-buy.


Hmm, I think I misread that as 1d8+7. So, to correct my above post, your spread range is 8-13.


Ichthyodactyl wrote:
@Kazaan - the Scarred Witch Doctor idea is pretty cool, definitely not for this character though. The second suggestion is very similar to how I plan on already roleplaying Quincy. He may not be the classiest person ever, but he thinks he is. However when he finds himself in a rough spot, he is more likely to revert to his baser instincts as long as he wins, because then he gets to gloat afterwards and extol is honor, even if the way he won was less than honorable.

Sounds a bit like Mr. Satan from Dragonball; he's played up as the "strongest man in the world" and, to his credit, he's probably the strongest person that doesn't use ki. But he's deluded in that, even confronted with energy-blast throwing supercharged martial artists, he still keeps trying to rationalize their skills as "tricks". Just replace "power" and "tricks" with "class" and "honor" and you've got a good archetype for your character.


Kinda depends on what you end up with. 1d6+7 will give you an even spread range from 8-15 so you end up with one guaranteed 14 Stat and 8-15 in all others. Question: Do you roll 6 times and then choose which roll to replace with the 14, or are you only rolling 5 times? If rolling 6 times, that's, essentially, replacing your lowest roll with 14; as well as the (exceedingly rare) chance of getting 15 for all 6 scores (0.002% chance). Many classes rely on a particular attribute score for uses/day (ie. casters have their casting stat, Barbs have rage rounds based on Con, bards have performance based on Cha, etc). But Rogues and Fighters aren't as closely tied to a particular score. If you happen to get at least 2 scores 12 or higher (including your granted 14) and at least 1 more 10 or higher, that could make a workable fighter or rogue. Less, and probably go full-caster. More, and maybe go for something like Ranger or Inquisitor. A very good array can make a decent Paladin or Monk.


Well, they're not quite what you've described, but they're along the same lines of interesting social-dynamic concerning those of orcish heritage so maybe it'll give you a couple of inspirations.

1) A Human w/ Racial Heritage(Orc) as a Scarred Witch Doctor. He's a pretty standard, run-of-the-mill Human normally, but when he wears his mask, he shifts to an altered persona very much like an Orc, very brutish and crude. He speaks Orcish, but if he isn't wearing his mask, he will claim that he doesn't understand as he doesn't speak Orcish. He responds to a different name while wearing the mask and also refers to the mask itself by this name, often carrying on a conversation with the mask as if it were actually a person.

2) A Half-Orc (or full-Orc) who actually, legitimately is classy and gentlemanly... but also happens to be a Wild Rager Barbarian. When he Rages, he totally abandons the gentlemanly persona. Reminiscent of Berserker from 8-Bit Theater.


I think it comes down to how you interpret the line talking about what feats/abilities you can/can't utilize with Cold Call. Extra Channel and Improved Channel are fine because they don't fundamentally alter the manner in which it functions, but rather add to the values, such as uses/day and DC. Channel Smite isn't adding to the channel ability, but rather fundamentally changing how it is used, thus I'd say Cold Call isn't valid as a prereq for Channel Smite.


I've always felt that it would be appropriate to spend a move action to "brandish" a defending weapon to benefit from the Defending property. Because the whole message of the FAQ is that, if you aren't making attacks with it, there's zero draw-back to funneling all the enhancement bonus into AC. In that case, total defense is functionally identical to just holding it while doing other actions. In fact, total defense more so because you won't even worry about AoOs. The concept of the Defending property is a give-and-take between enhancement to attack/damage and AC bonus.


The idea behind the defending weapon is that the act of swinging it is what defends you. It doesn't just put up a force-field, it's intercepting attacks as you swing it to attack. Same goes for the arrow-catching shield; it isn't going to make arrows go all "cartooney" and make a sharp swerve to your flank to embed themselves in the shield. You kinda gotta have the shield "up" in defense position, not down holding the butt end of your longspear. This one actually does make sense.


I've always viewed spiritual mechanics thusly:

The "soul" is the quintessential "you". When you say, "I exist", your soul is the "I". The "spirit" is more like a reflection, echo, or imprint your soul makes upon the fabric of existence, the aether. It isn't "you", but it remembers what you experienced and it is "imprinted" with your decision-making process. In essence, it is a ghost as depicted by Rowling in Harry Potter; not the person themselves but a remnant that acts like they would have. Or, alternatively, a metaphysical AI based on an actual human brain if that works better for you. Now, typically, raising of the dead in fantasy settings binds the former soul back to their body, but keeps it "disconnected" from the spirit. The soul "powers" the body so you kind of need it in order to get a zombie or other undead moving. But, from their perspective, it's the classic, "I'm trapped in my body" trope; the soul is there, aware and watching, but powerless to exert its own will over the body. This, btw, is what you get around by using "white necromancy", where you call back a soul to willingly reanimate their own body, fully fusing them and granting the soul itself control, (ie. raise a slain knight as a willing zombie so he can complete his mission and rest in peace) or, alternatively, using your own soul to power the undead, in which case damage to the undead produces "feedback" which damages you.


What about going the other way as well? 'Crude' could work as anti-masterwork, imposing a malus to attack rolls, but reducing the cost of the item (and, consequently, the time to make). A master craftsman should also be able to "fudge" the normal values for a weapon, such as making a Longsword that has increased crit range or some such. Maybe even, instead of just a simple "masterwork" (or "crude" as mentioned above) quality of weapon, maybe a broad range of ranks for the mundane qualities of the weapon. An E through A ranks would be crude through masterwork quality while S, SS, and SSS rank would be tiers above what we now consider masterwork.

E: Exceedingly low-quality, probably crafted by syphilitic monkeys. Suffers -3 to attack/+3 ACP, has half the normal HP and hardness, and has Fragile property. Barely counts as a weapon/armor.
D: Low-quality, a fine example of bugbear craftsmanship. Suffers -2 to attack/+2 ACP and has Fragile property.
C: Average, the work of an inexperienced journeyman. Suffers -1 to attack/+1 ACP.
B: Above-average, the work of an experienced journeyman. No bonus or penalty.
A: Masterwork, the quality that gets a journeyman recognized as a master. +1 attack/-1 ACP.
S: Superior, quality that only an experienced master can pull off. Weapons gain +1 attack and damage. Armor gains -1 ACP and +1 AC.
SS: Rare, limited edition quality produced by a highly experienced and competent master. Increase hardness and HP by 50%. Weapons gain +2 attack and +1 damage. Armor gains -2 ACP and +1 AC.
SSS: Legendary, the stuff of legends. If a Journeyman's masterwork gets him recognized as a Master, then this quality gets a Master recognized as a Legend. Doubles hardness and HP. Weapons gain +2 attack and +2 damage. Armor gains -2 ACP, +2 AC, and +1 max Dex. May also "fudge" one quality of the gear up or down by one increment, or "fudge" two up and one down. For example, the weapon may have one step larger damage dice, crit range, crit multiplier, an additional +1 damage, etc. Armor may have additional AC or max Dex, lower ACP, 10% lower ASF, etc. Either weapons or armor may have an additional 50% HP or Hardness (150% including the default bonus for this rank), or 25% less weight.


I should point out that this strongly breaks precedent regarding humanoid+non-humanoid breeding. In almost all cases I've found, Humanoid + Other Type yields a Humanoid type offspring. For example, Dhampir (Humanoid + Undead) and Changeling (Humanoid + Monstrous Humanoid). The only cases I came across where the offspring inherited the non-Humanoid type were those handled by templates; Half-Fiend, Half-Celestial, and Half-Dragon. You may want to take that into consideration.


Basically, if it's an effect you want on all projectiles you shoot, put it on the launcher. If it's for special purposes, put it on the ammo. Bane and Holy arrows would probably be first and foremost. Not to mention you might find yourself denied your enchanted bow and forced to rely on a mundane one. A +1 Flaming Arrow is still +1, even if fired from a non-magical bow.


He's only going for core classes, as a self-imposed limitation.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

FAQ says:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

So no - you are incorrect.

You were asking about threatening AoOs so I answered about AoOs. Do you want to talk about threat and AoO or do you want to talk about TWF?


GM Fiat; he's rusted to the point that he can't move because the GM says so. Mechanically, he basically has total Dex damage; he's still "conscious" and can talk, if barely (if we're going with the concept of the original story), but having Dex damage equal to (or in excess of) your Dex score causes you to be paralyzed and unable to move.


Ckorik wrote:

I see arguments about greatswords and bows and monks and such - but really this boils down to using armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet to threaten close while using a reach weapon.

That is the corner case that the ruling is meant to lock down - although the knight with a greatsword and a boot knife and a spiked helm and a spiked gauntlet and elbow spikes and such I'm sure was another concern.

Honestly there are some things I think are silly but they are what they are - take 'wielding' for example - I hate that in order to get the benefit from a defending weapon you have to make an attack with it. But it does prevent certain cheese from making it's rounds which makes defending weapons less useful for certain builds.

Using Armor Spikes (or other non-hand-associated weapons) works because they don't require a hand to wield. Using a spiked gauntlet or other weapon that, while being hand-associated, still leaves the hand available for grasping purposes, doesn't work for threatening because (and only because) the hand is "occupied" with wielding a weapon. So if you have both hands on your Greatsword, you threaten with the Greatsword, but not with the Spiked Gauntlet because your hand is occupied holding the Greatsword. For that matter, if you simply "hold" the Greatsword in one hand, and that happens to be the hand with the spiked gauntlet, you don't threaten with either weapon. If you hold the Greatsword in one hand and have a Spiked Gauntlet in the other, you threaten with the gauntlet but not the sword. However, if you wield a Greatsword in both hands, you can threaten equally with both sword and armor spikes (or any other non-hand-associated weapon).


graystone wrote:
Dude I LITERALLY posted the last sentence you posted. I don't know what you wish me to read. Let me repost your post. Where ARE all those sentences after the one I quoted? Please take note of that last sentence.

Previously, on DWARVEN BOULDER HELMET AND TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING:

graystone wrote:

"The Fighter knows nothing of economy. Characters don't know anything about action or attack economy or the grid or checks or anything; those are all tools of the players. There are no "rounds" for the character, all combat happens seamlessly.":

I see a LOT of mention of players in this fine example of your post. Rereading it lead to the same conclusion as before

After what you quoted, I wrote, "But us, as players, need ways to translate the seamless world of the characters into something we can work with. Thus, we [players] need rounds and initiative, grids and reach, uses per day and action economy, etc. You [the player] are not your character. This is not a simple game... if you really are the kind of person who just wants to smash things, honestly, you're playing the wrong kind of game." So the line you quoted includes a sentence directly regarding players. After what you quoted, all following sentences include a direct reference to the player. What happened here was that I wrote something you read it in a superficial manner, taking it out of context and inserting condescending tone that was never there in the first place. You misrepresented me in your response so I corrected you. The only condescension here is what you erroneously perceived. I was neither condescending then nor am I now; I merely state facts and correct people when they misinterpret things. I don't clutter rational writing with unnecessary emotions; it detracts from the lesson.


Go for a Fighter w/ Rough-rider archetype. He used to be a Knight, dubbed, "King of the Cavalry" because he was such a competent cavalier, but he fell into a life of gambling and debauchery until he was stripped of his title for being a social disgrace. His motto is, "Once a King, always a King, but once a Knight is enough."


@Mala: You didn't address my example; If you could swing a Greatsword and throw a kick, why can't you swing a pair of daggers and throw a kick? It takes the same number of limbs and the daggers, combined, weigh a quarter what the Greatsword weighs. The purpose of most non-hand weapons such as Boot Blades, Armor Spikes, Boulder Helmets, etc. isn't to be able to TWF with a 2-h weapon; it's to have a free hand for other purposes such as handling a shield, maneuvering a horse by the reins, manipulating an item, etc. Or, alternatively, to allow you to threaten adjacent while wielding a 2-h reach weapon. I hate made-up, spurious, un-thought-out rules changes as well; I called them out on their half-breed FAQ, among others. But this issue doesn't qualify for that. You are the one expressing the emotional, knee-jerk reaction. How, precisely, does this make PF "worse"? You've thrown that around a few times, but I haven't seen a single explanation on it. From where I sit, this reinforces a sense of mechanical consistency where the number of attacks you can make isn't tied to physical limbs but rather a consistent economy of attack. And the only "casualties" are what you've already admitted are sub-par, corner-case builds. How is that "worse"? Quite frankly, if you really must consider this a change, it is nothing other than a change for the better. Or, alternatively, nothing has changed except that now we know we've been wrong all along, simply because we got used to an obsolete precedent. In no case can I see any valid evidence for the claim that it worsens the game.


Imbicatus wrote:

I understand that specific exceptions apply and are delineated explicitly. It makes logical sense from game balance perspective. It does not make sense from a perspective of realism.

The exceptions should be the general rule as "hands" is a construction that makes no sense in a real combat. You can make an attack with a two-handed weapon and kick something.

Moreover, this is a common move in fantasy fiction and films. You should not be forced to rely on natural attacks, the monk/brawler class, or bizarre racial weapons that prevent you from walking to do such a move.

You keep saying, "It works in real life," as if these rules prohibit you from kicking and swinging with a Greatsword. You can do that. You can attack with the Greatsword in round 1, then Kick in round 2. If your BAB is +6 (or greater), you can swing a Greatsword and follow up with a Kick using your iterative attack. Nothing is breaking the idea that you can both swing a sword and kick. So the only thing left is the matter of mechanical balance and consistency (which you stated you agree on and understand). Look at it this way; If you can use a Greatsword as your main-hand attack and a Kick as your off-hand, why can't you use a pair of Shortswords as your main-hand and Kick as your off-hand? The same number of limbs are being utilized in both cases and you claim that Greatsword+Kick should be allowable as a main/off-hand combo, so do you say that 2x Shortsword+Kick should also be allowable?

graystone wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Graystone, replace superficial understanding with a deeper and more intellectual analysis. Now re-read my post.

"The Fighter knows nothing of economy. Characters don't know anything about action or attack economy or the grid or checks or anything; those are all tools of the players. There are no "rounds" for the character, all combat happens seamlessly.":

I see a LOT of mention of players in this fine example of your post. Rereading it lead to the same conclusion as before
That just means you read it wrong again.

"This is not a simple game... if you really are the kind of person who just wants to smash things, honestly, you're playing the wrong kind of game.": This was your ONLY mention of a the player, in an otherwise character oriented post. If that last sentence was your point, maybe you should have expanded on THAT and not made the main thrust about the character's perspective. You can come down off your high horse now, the air must be getting thin up there.
Only mention of the player? Try the sentence immediately following that one... and the one after that... in fact, all sentences after this one you quote are about the player directly. Say nothing about how the whole paragraph needs to be taken as an integrated whole to be fully understood; it is about the relationship between character and player, not just one or just the other.

That first post, where I suggested rereading it was NOT meant as snarky. Your post read (and still reads) to me that you didn't get his point. After the "replace superficial understanding with a deeper and more intellectual analysis", THIS post has the appropriate amount of snarkiness though.
You read what I wrote and came to a superficial conclusion; that's not snark, it's a fact. You zeroed in on certain sentences, failed to comprehend how ideas are inter-related and can't be properly analysed in a vacuum unto themselves, and then came to an incorrect conclusion.

I proposed that you attempt looking past superficial understanding for a deeper understanding and fully utilize your intellectual capacity to properly analyse what I wrote. It's unfortunate that this seemingly offended you, but I still won't sit idle while a deep and cogent piece that I wrote is taken out of context and misrepresented due to lazy reading.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Note that I specified making the terminology mechanically consistent. Yes, the mechanics were there, but they weren't precisely what Paizo wanted. But they didn't take the time to make sweeping changes throughout the book so they just left it like it was on the gamble that people would figure it out. We didn't. The creators of 3.5 made a FAQ that showed one thing, but Pathfinder isn't 3.5. If everything that applied to 3.5 applied to Pathfinder, there would be no purpose in having Pathfinder... we'd just continue using 3.5. The fact that Pathfinder exists indicates there were undesirable elements of 3.5 that warranted changing.

See, I get that Paizo wanted to change some things and wanted to leave some other things the way they were.

I even worked out a method how I could tell one from the other: if they wanted a rule to change, then they changed the words that were written. If they wanted to keep how a rule worked unchanged, then they left the words unchanged.

Can you explain how the fact that they left this entire section of the rules unchanged means that PF players would 'figure out' that these rules were now meant to be understood differently than the way they had been shown they work before?

Oh, that's quite easy to explain. Your fundamental premise, your "method" is incorrect. If it were correct, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. After all, they didn't change the wording of the Lance between versions, did they? But in 3.5's FAQ, they say that a Lance wielded in one hand while mounted counts as a 1-h weapon whereas, in Pathfinder, it still counts as a 2-h weapon (and this makes more sense, given the presumption of having a lance brace). No change, yet two different interpretations by the FAQs. TeamPathfinder read the rules from 3.5, and interpreted them their own way and presumed that other players would interpret them similarly. They may have been incorrect in their estimate of how many people would interpret them this way, but that doesn't change the fact that their interpretation is, for the sake of mechanical consistency, a better option. After all, how much sense, mechanically, does it make that a person wielding a Greatsword can manage to swing the sword and also throw a kick while the person wielding a pair of daggers can't swing both daggers and throw a kick?


graystone wrote:
Kazaan, replace fighter the character with the player running the fighter. Now reread Murdock Mudeater's post.

Graystone, replace superficial understanding with a deeper and more intellectual analysis. Now re-read my post. I know precisely what Murdock was saying. I was describing how his stance is fundamentally flawed because this is a complex, in-depth game. He wants to play checkers and complains about the complexity of the rules of chess. Pathfinder is like a game of chess. If all you want to do is play something simple, like checkers, it would be more prudent to choose a simpler game. Furthermore, if, as mentioned, all he wants to be is a Fighter that bashes stuff, why would he be concerned about what has been repeatedly called out as a sub-standard corner case anyway? You don't need to really concern yourself that much with attack economy if all you're doing is swinging around a Greatsword. Just swing your Greatsword according to your BAB iteratives, and sometimes bonus attacks granted by Haste, and don't even concern yourself with TWF. But no, we have people insisting on playing chess, then having their pawn jump over the opposing rook and saying, "King me".

Imbicatus wrote:

The problem is that "hands" make no logical sense at all, especially when you look at natural attacks and other things that specifically break the "hands" rules.

If a Tengu can make an attack with a two handed weapon and a bite, why does it make any sense that a dwarf can't make an attack with a two handed weapon and a boulder helmet? It's the same amount of effort.

If a Monk making a flurry of blows to two-weapon fight can make an attack with a Sansetsukon and a kick, why can't the unarmed fighter?

If a gillman can make a two-weapon attack with a spear and a sea-knife, why can't a human make a two-weapon attack with a spear and armor spikes?

The rules are inconsistent, confusing, and the unwritten rule of hands of effort is unrealistic and doesn't help matters.

That said, I am all for a FAQ that deal comprehensively with this issue, even if it means that certain combinations that should work don't, just so we can stop having this argument over and over again.

Natural attacks just work on different rules. You could just as easily say, "If a creature with BAB<6 can attack with a claw on each hand without taking TWF penalty, why can't I attack with a dagger in each hand without taking TWF penalty? Monks also follow different rules because their class ability, FoB, states that they do. Sea-Knife also follows different rules and, moreover, has built-in limitations in that you can only use it while not needing to use your legs for walking. The rules aren't inconsistent; they are consistent because they provide explicit exceptions to default rules. Default is that you can't use a 2-h weapon in conjunction with TWF. Specific exceptions apply and are delineated explicitly. It's not a problem of consistency. It makes logical sense, the problem is in the logical capacity of those reading it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sepharoth wrote:

I know I'm a bit late but recently was looking at the titan mauler and the jotungrip says you wield a 2h weapon in 1h and is treated as a 1 h weapon so surely you could wield a 2 h weapon 1 size larger but with a -4 not -2. Does anyone else agree or am I just mental.

Jotungrip only applies to weapons properly sized for you. So, for a Medium character, it applies to their Medium Greatsword, allowing them to wield it as if it were a 1-h weapon, but it doesn't apply to a Large Greatsword because that isn't properly sized for them.


The Fighter knows nothing of economy. Characters don't know anything about action or attack economy or the grid or checks or anything; those are all tools of the players. There are no "rounds" for the character, all combat happens seamlessly. But us, as players, need ways to translate the seamless world of the characters into something we can work with. Thus, we need rounds and initiative, grids and reach, uses per day and action economy, etc. You are not your character. This is not a simple game... if you really are the kind of person who just wants to smash things, honestly, you're playing the wrong kind of game.


BigDTBone wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
You didn't answer my question. Why exactly should a bow take up all of your attack economy? This is an incredibly important point about separation of terms.
While ranged weapons don't have "effort to wield" categories like melee weapons, there is still a certain amount of implied parity between the two. A Bow requires both hands in order to use. Moreover, they require both hands regardless of size so even if you use a bow one or two sizes too small for you, it still takes both your hands to operate it. Since this is a matter of wielding and making attacks, we can consider this a matter of not only requiring physical hands to grasp/manipulate the item, but also a matter of attack economy. It's a matter of parity; the same rule should apply in a consistent manner. As I said previously, based on my discussion with SKR, you could potentially attack with a weapon requiring your full attack economy and still make an attack with an off-hand weapon, but you lose one off-hand attack for each two-handed attack made. So if you have three iteratives and three off-hand attacks, you could attack twice with a Bow, then once with an off-hand punch or kick (or stab with your arrow as an improvised weapon), but that first off-hand attack would be at -10 (the one from GTWF) because your standard and ITWF attacks were "eaten" when you made two attacks with the Bow. After your -10 off-hand, you have a "debt" that obligates you to make your remaining main-hand attack one-handed. Since a Bow can't be used in only one hand, your only option would be to use a different weapon (ie. unarmed strike, armor spikes, drop the bow and quickdraw, etc). It's all a matter of mechanical consistency.
So, the only thing that is indicating to you that a bow should consume your full attack economy is that it must be held in two hands? And you think that hands and attack economy are seperate things which could be easily separated if only the terms were less ambiguous?...

I've said this a few times already, but I guess you didn't catch it so I'll reiterate. If attacking with the weapon requires the use of both hands, then "hands" in this case refers to occupying both your physical, grasping appendages at the ends of your arms and subsuming the potential attack economy of your off-hand. That's the basic rule that Paizo, apparently, would have wanted to put into the CRB if they had not been in such a time/space crunch. And these kinds of rules should apply consistently with a sense of parity so, it just so happens that it applies to the Bow as well, not because the bow itself gets extra Str to damage from the subsuming of the off-hand attack economy, but because it's a general rule that should apply across the board and exceptions should be specifically delineated. Say nothing of the fact that ranged weapons in general, most of which needing two hands (again, both hands for holding and restricting use of your off-hand attack economy), are superior to melee weapons for DPR considerations; and the bow foremost among even those.

@Mala: Note that I specified making the terminology mechanically consistent. Yes, the mechanics were there, but they weren't precisely what Paizo wanted. But they didn't take the time to make sweeping changes throughout the book so they just left it like it was on the gamble that people would figure it out. We didn't. The creators of 3.5 made a FAQ that showed one thing, but Pathfinder isn't 3.5. If everything that applied to 3.5 applied to Pathfinder, there would be no purpose in having Pathfinder... we'd just continue using 3.5. The fact that Pathfinder exists indicates there were undesirable elements of 3.5 that warranted changing. TeamPathfinder wanted a consistent, sweeping rule that drew a dividing line between 2-h weapons and TWF. There are a few exceptions, but they are spelled out consistently. The Barbazu Beard allows you to use it as an off-hand weapon despite using a 2-h weapon explicitly. Furthermore, it has additional restrictions to its use that weapons don't normally have such as provoking. Same goes for the Sea Knife. The logic and reason was that they wanted to avoid people trying to get the "best of both worlds" regarding 2-h weapons and TWF. So they delineated a method by which they were functionally separate. How is that an "emotional response"? The emotional response is from the people who appeal to 3.5 FAQs and bring up statements like, "It's not an optimal way to fight anyway... it's worse than either option so I should be able to do it." If it's worse than either option, why would you want to do it? That's not a rational reason to get upset, it's an emotional one.


BigDTBone wrote:
You didn't answer my question. Why exactly should a bow take up all of your attack economy? This is an incredibly important point about separation of terms.

While ranged weapons don't have "effort to wield" categories like melee weapons, there is still a certain amount of implied parity between the two. A Bow requires both hands in order to use. Moreover, they require both hands regardless of size so even if you use a bow one or two sizes too small for you, it still takes both your hands to operate it. Since this is a matter of wielding and making attacks, we can consider this a matter of not only requiring physical hands to grasp/manipulate the item, but also a matter of attack economy. It's a matter of parity; the same rule should apply in a consistent manner. As I said previously, based on my discussion with SKR, you could potentially attack with a weapon requiring your full attack economy and still make an attack with an off-hand weapon, but you lose one off-hand attack for each two-handed attack made. So if you have three iteratives and three off-hand attacks, you could attack twice with a Bow, then once with an off-hand punch or kick (or stab with your arrow as an improvised weapon), but that first off-hand attack would be at -10 (the one from GTWF) because your standard and ITWF attacks were "eaten" when you made two attacks with the Bow. After your -10 off-hand, you have a "debt" that obligates you to make your remaining main-hand attack one-handed. Since a Bow can't be used in only one hand, your only option would be to use a different weapon (ie. unarmed strike, armor spikes, drop the bow and quickdraw, etc). It's all a matter of mechanical consistency.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

When you require two hands to attack with a weapon, this doesn't mean that you need to grip it in two hands when you're not attacking with it.

Since it's a free action to let go/re-grip a weapon with one hand while holding it in the other, and since multiple attacks are sequential rather than simultaneous (yes, that includes the bonus off hand attacks from TWF), then according to the rules actually in the CRB you can attack with a weapon in two hands AND attack with bonus off hand attacks granted by TWF, as long as you don't have to draw/let go of that secondary weapon (meaning it's worn or is an unarmed strike).

The FAQ disagrees.

Yep.

The fact that the FAQ disagrees with me shouldn't bother anyone (else).

The fact that the FAQ is making a ruling which introduces elements not in the game rules (the imaginary 'hands of effort', two-handed weapons 'consuming' an off hand attack, 'unwritten rules' being used to justify a prohibition against using a 2H weapon in TWF, knowing that the people who designed the game showed step by step in a FAQ of their own exactly how using a 2H weapon in TWF is done, throwing out the 15 years of knowing that the number of attacks you get in a full attack is based on BAB and feats/abilities/TWF and not 'hands of effort) should bother us.

Not so much. They were in a crunch to get the CRB out so they didn't take a lot of time to refine it and make all the mechanical terminology consistent. They thought that players were smart enough to figure that TWF and 2-h weapons don't work together. And now, they don't want to drastically change the CRB and create conflicts with old issues. So, they present a FAQ that explains how the rules ought to be parsed by a competent and intelligent player. I, for one, as I admitted, originally thought that you could very well attack with a 2-h weapon plus a non-handed off-hand. I was incorrect in my assessment. The explanation the FAQ gave was reasonable, and thus I changed my stance, as any intelligent person would. "The wise man changes his mind; the fool, never." -Spanish proverb. You've been asked by the Paizo rules team to be a wise man. If that bothers you... well, there's always the other option. Now, if it were a ridiculous explanation that they provided, such as the FAQ concerning bonuses from the same attribute score and "layered sources", or a contradictory explanation such as when they said the same phrase, "effects related to race", meant something different in cases that should have been the same, I'd be right there with a torch and pitch fork. But this isn't one of those cases. It's a matter of system balance and consistency; pure and simple.


Nothing I found in the Siege Engines section indicates that they use anything other than the Attack Action to actually fire them. It may take multiple full-round actions to load and aim, but once it's ready to go, it's just a standard attack action to pull the trigger. Vital Strike isn't listed as precision damage; it's just extra damage dice so the prohibition on Siege Weapons dealing precision damage is inconsequential. Thus, I see no reason to conclude that a siege engine does not benefit from Vital Strike.


While they did a terrible job of explaining it, the fundamental basis of the relevant TWF FAQ is that you have an "attack economy" (informal term). Using a 2-h weapon eats your "attack economy" so, even if you have a weapon not wielded in the hand (ie. Boot Blade, Armor Spikes, Boulder Helmet, etc), you lack the attack economy to attack with it. It'd be like saying, "I have a potion in each hand, can I drink them both on the same turn?" The answer is no because you don't get two standard actions per turn; you lack the action economy to do this, even if you have the potions in hand and ready to go. Now, what you could do would be to wield a Longsword, a Boulder Helmet, and a Buckler and TWF with the sword and helmet while using the buckler for defense. Or you could guide a mount by the reins or do whatever else you'd need a free hand to do. Essentially, non-handed weapons like Armor Spikes or the Boulder Helmet only free up a hand, not your attack economy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your fundamental premise is flawed. Half-Elf, as a core race, does indeed mean that you are a Humanoid(Human, Elf). Regardless of whether your parents were Elf/Human, Elf/Half-Elf, Human/Half-Elf, or Half-Elfx2, Half-Elf the race is different from 1/2 Elf as a description of your racial heritage. The offspring of an Elf and Orc would be neither a Half-Elf nor a Half-Orc but a custom race that needs to be built from the ground up. It would be of the type Humanoid(Elf, Orc) and, as such, it would qualify for prerequisites requiring either Elf or Orc.


BigDTBone wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

@Kazaan

The question was actually can you two-hand a great sword and then attack with armor spikes or a kick. And in 3.5 the clarifying FAQ specifically allowed it, PDT changed it.

They still addressed using a gauntlet with a 2-h weapon in the same FAQ. And the fact still stands that if you think of it in terms of attack economy and hands, rather than "hands" vs hands, there is no confusion whatsoever.

It would take care of it if they were easily separable terms and the confusion was just over the designation. But that's not the case here.

PROOF: If attack economy and hands were ACTUALLY easily separable then there would be no question that one could attack with a longbow using both of their physical hands and part of their attack economy and then attack with armor spikes using 0 physical hands and the rest of their attack economy.

If you really think it's that clear then start a thread asking about longbow and armor spikes and see what happens. I'll wait here.

There wouldn't be confusion if you think of it in terms of using a Bow requires the attack economy of a 2-h weapon. Now, person A understanding it in those terms and not being confused doesn't mean that person B who fails to comprehend it in those terms will have their confusion alleviated, mind you. It's up to each player to adjust things in their own mind and read between the lines. But it's pretty obvious that if it has to do with attacking, you consider attack economy (and usually, hands as well). If it doesn't have to do with attacking, it's just hands. In some rare cases, it's attack economy but not hands (ie. attacking with a kick or other non-hand unarmed strike, armor spikes, boulder helmet, etc). If you are still confused, you haven't properly adjusted your thinking in the way I described; try it again, but this time with feeling.

rainzax wrote:

Kazaan,

in your own game, would you allow a character to attack with a greatsword and a kick using the TWF feat?

if so, what would be their bonus to damage?

The TWF feat doesn't grant off-hand attacks; it just reduces the penalties imposed. So what you meant to ask was whether I would allow someone to attack with a Greatsword and a non-hand Unarmed Strike using the TWF rules elements which are available to anyone by default. Before the relevant FAQ came out, I would have said yes, fine, go ahead. If your unarmed strike is the off-hand, your Str to damage would be 1.5x for the main-hand and 0.5x for the off-hand. If you used the 2-h weapon as the off-hand, it'd be 1.0x for both (using pathfinder math, 1.5x + (0.5 - 1)x = 1.0x). After the FAQ clarified things for me, I adjusted my understanding of it and, now, I wouldn't allow it quite that way. Based on a question posed to, iirc, SKR during the time the FAQ first came out, I got the clarification that one could potentially make an off-hand attack after having wielded a 1-h weapon in both hands. Essentially, what our discussion boiled down to was that for every 2-h attack you make, you "lose" your next off-hand. To illustrate, if you make 2 iterative attacks with a Longsword in two hands, but you have GTWF for 3 total off-hand attacks, you can throw a kick or even a punch by removing one hand, but that first off-hand attack for the round will be the BAB-10 one from GTWF as you "skipped" the standard and ITWF off-hands when you made your two main-hand attacks with the Longsword two-handed. Likewise, if you make an off-hand attack, you are obligated to make an equal number of one-handed main-hand attacks (a sort of "off-hand debt") before you can wield it in two hands. SKR noted that, while technically within bounds of the rules, it's very cumbersome and hard for most players to keep track of so, as a general rule of thumb, it's best to stick with the idea that wielding in two hands doesn't mesh at all with TWF.

P.S.
@BitDTBone: This is a method of mental sorting carried out by the player, not an inherent part of the game. You've got to intelligently substitute, in your own mind, the times when hand is used in the rules to refer to attack economy and when it is actually referring to having an unoccupied hand. It shouldn't be too hard for anyone, save for those with the intellectual capacity of horseradish.


BigDTBone wrote:

@Kazaan

The question was actually can you two-hand a great sword and then attack with armor spikes or a kick. And in 3.5 the clarifying FAQ specifically allowed it, PDT changed it.

They still addressed using a gauntlet with a 2-h weapon in the same FAQ. And the fact still stands that if you think of it in terms of attack economy and hands, rather than "hands" vs hands, there is no confusion whatsoever.


They may be born of Humans, but how you qualify for feats and other rules elements based on race isn't based on who you're born to but, rather, the more mechanically rigorous type and subtype system. In order to count as Human, you need the Human subtype. Aasimar born to Humans may be "called" Humans, but that doesn't make them mechanically count as such. Half-Elves, on the other hand, have the Human subtype by default. So even a Half-Elf who is particularly close to their Elven side (ie. child of a Half-Elf and an Elf) still counts as Human mechanically. But an Aasimar's outsider heritage is too strong and blots out the Humanoid heritage unless they take the Scion of Humanity alternate trait which allows them to mechanically count as both an Outsider(Native) as well as a Humanoid(Human) (or, arguably, Humanoid(some other type) in the case of non-Human-born Aasimar).


While the "hands" terminology is an unfortunate result of the overly "casual" language and lack of rigor in utilizing consistent mechanical terminology in making the system; especially starting with the CRB being nearly a direct rip from 3.5; the whole reason they needed to make such a distinction was because of people exorcising willful ignorance and trying to hyper-parse the rules into meaninglessness, asking about ridiculous things like TWF with a Greatsword and the hand holding the Greatsword. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. The stupid question, in this case, was, "If I'm swinging away with a Greatsword in two hands, can I also use one of those hands to throw a punch?" That completely disregards basic understanding of the game, first off, because, while the attacks are dealt in series due to the functional limitations of the game, the main-hand and off-hand attacks are, cinematically, being delivered in parallel just as each character's turn is actually simultaneous with each other character's turn. We may adjudicate them one after the other, but regardless of whether it's 1v1 or 20v20, the whole round plays out over the same 6s time interval and all actors are acting simultaneously. The same applies to TWF; we may roll attacks in sequence, but the main-hand attacks are being delivered simultaneous with the off-hand attacks. Secondly, it's just basic principals of mechanical balance that you either wield a 2-h weapon, or you wield a 1-h weapon and either an off-hand, a shield, a magic device, horse reins, or some other item with your other hand. Only on explicit exception should this be overridden.

That having been said, how I would have handled it (no pun intended), would be to rename the "metaphorical" hands and mechanically categorize them as "attack economy". You have a certain "attack economy" normally based on BAB for attacks with unarmed strikes and manufactured weapons, or on how many natural weapons you possess. If you choose to two-weapon fight (mechanically distinct from making iterative attacks with two (or more) weapons without using TWF rules elements), you get a main-hand attack economy and an off-hand attack economy. Otherwise, you get a single pool of attack economy. Some things force you into a single pool of attack economy. Wielding a weapon with two hands subsumes the potential action economy of your off-hand. That's obvious on the face of it; both arms are applying effort to wield the weapon; the second hand isn't just there incidentally. Back to attack economy, this covers even non-handed weapons. Armor spikes are not, nor were they ever intended as being a way to TWF with a 2-h weapon. They are, instead, a way to TWF while leaving a free hand for other purposes (horse reins, shield, deflecting arrows, etc). Thus, your armor spikes, while not requiring a hand, still require either main-hand or off-hand attack economy.

Thus, you can use this ad hoc system to rationalize how the "hands" vs hands thing works. Substitute the term, attack economy where appropriate and just use hands to refer to matters of grasp. So deflecting/catching an arrow, holding an item, maneuvering a horse by the reins, etc. all require a hand, but not attack economy. Wielding a 2-h weapon requires both your hands and prevents you from utilizing your off-hand attack economy. Wielding a non-hand weapon such as armor spikes or a non-hand unarmed strike utilizes attack economy, either main-hand or off-hand, but does not occupy a hand. Think of it that way, and it suddenly all becomes clear.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Half-Elf Orc Sorcerer with Racial Heritage(Dwarf) counts as Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Orc, arguably Half-Orc, and Dwarf. With a little creative thinking, a Half-Elf born Aasimar with Scion of Humanity gets to count as both outsider(native) and humanoid(human, elf), then add in all the other stuff as well.


Here's how it all works out.

First, the Lance is always a 2-h weapon, regardless of whether you are unmounted or wielding it "in one hand" due to being mounted. This is explicitly different, as clarified via FAQ, from a 2-h weapon being "wielded one-handed". Wielded in one hand means it is still, mechanically, a two-handed weapon for all rules elements except only how many hands are occupied by wielding it. So a lance, while mounted, still counts as a 2-h weapon for things like Shield of Swings, Overhand Chop, etc. This also means you still get 1.5x Str and Power Attack bonus, but you cannot wield an off-hand weapon because those don't mesh with 2-h weapons; your free hand can only be used for guiding your mount, using a shield, etc. By contrast, wielding a 2-h weapon one-handed means it no longer counts as a 2-h weapon for any rules elements related to wielding and use but, instead, counts as a 1-h weapon.

Now, regarding Spinning Lance, keep in mind that this does not say it makes the weapon count as a Double weapon. It just gives the weapon an additional "mode" of attack. So, with 3 iterative attacks, you could divide those 3 attacks at BAB/BAB-5/BAB-10 into any combination of reach/adjacent attack modes. But it doesn't let you TWF with the lance alone. The Lance is still a 2-h weapon so Shield of Swings still functions properly. The only thing to note is that a Club (which the adjacent attacks are treated as) is a 1-h weapon so, arguably, if you make only adjacent attacks as with a Club and no attacks using the weapon at reach, you aren't attacking with a 2-h weapon since you are attacking with a "virtual" 1-h weapon. That, however, is the only wrinkle to consider.

1 to 50 of 4,383 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.