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

4,780 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,780 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Greater Blind Fight lets you treat a creature with total concealment as if they had only concealment. A better way to do what you are intending would be using fog or smoke to create the concealment and use water/fire sight.

It's a simple flow of logic:

If you do not have EWP(Bastard Sword), treat a Bastard Sword as a 2-h martial weapon.

That's the reason you can't one-hand the BS if you lack EWP, because the RAW states that if you lack EWP, it no longer counts as its default 1-h weapon but, rather, as a virtual 2-h weapon. You cannot wield a 2-h weapon in one hand (without special abilities). But it is still, at its base, a 1-h exotic weapon.

However, whereas normal 1-h weapons, like the longsword, don't count as 2-h weapons when a rules element calls out specifically using a 2-h weapon (ie. a Longsword, even in 2 hands, can's make a Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings), a Bastard Sword (and other weapons that are treated as 2-h if you lack proficiency) can still be treated as 2-h weapons even if you are proficient. It wouldn't make sense that it gets treated as a virtual 2-h weapon, but loses that ability once you learn how to use it properly. Basically, you make the determination on an attack-by-attack basis. You could make your first attack two-handed as a Pushing Assault, then switch to one-handed to make use of abilities that rely on using a one-handed weapon (ie. Slashing Grace).

If your GM wants you to be a scout, just take Profession(Scout).

This question relies on a distinction started with Magus's Spell Combat (still not totally resolved). The question I posed at the time was whether Spell Combat (and similar full-round actions that mimic a full-attack) count as full-attacks to allow Haste to work with them, or if Haste was changed to work not just with full-attacks, but also on similar full-round actions. In the case of the former, it means that any action that allows you to make "all your attacks" like Spell Combat or Pummeling Style count for benefits that apply only to full-attacks, whereas in the latter, the change was made to Haste alone. The response I received at the time was that they were "looking into the interactions before making a final decision" but they haven't, to date, addressed the distinction.

So the answer is, "maybe".

Well, there's this from the Magic section:

PRD wrote:
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.

This section would indicate that, specifically for Rays, their use counts as if using a ranged weapon. This would indicate that you do suffer the "firing into melee" penalty since you would take such when using a ranged weapon and any feats or other rules elements that reference "when using a ranged weapon" (ie. PBS) would confer their benefit when using a Ray spell. The same goes for elements that would confer an effect using "weapons" since a ranged weapon would fall under that.

It only specifies this for Rays and I think it provides an interesting play dynamic that some effects don't fall under these considerations.

KenderKin wrote:
'Crimes against the English language.'

Wearing is the present participle of Wear. The Present Participle means an action that is continuously in progress (ie. I am 'thinking'). It carries the meaning that you started doing something and are continuing to do it. Your understanding of the definitions of the word are in error; wearing has nothing to do with whether or not the act is willful. Wearing, as a participle of the base Wear, holds to the definition of the verb Wear, which, in context, is "to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like". 'To Wear' means to carry or have on the body or about the person. Wearing is the present participle meaning you continue to wear the direct object; in this case, the metal armor.

The word for 'the state of being worn' is just 'worn'. This is the Past Participle of Wear being used as an Adjectival Participle. In the phrase, "a worn jacket", worn is a verb being used as an adjective to describe the jacket as 'the state of being worn'.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"That wasn't magic, it was just a trick."


The Druid prohibition on metal isn't a matter of faith or spirits. It physically hampers their nature mojo. All their mystical Naturey stuff gets discharged for 24 hours. It isn't a matter of atonement because they haven't "angered" any deity or spirits or forces of nature or whatever; their battery was forcibly discharged and they need 24 hours to recharge it. Willing or otherwise doesn't matter. Also, keep in mind it only affects SU, SP, and magic; Ex abilities are left intact.

K-kun the Insane wrote:

There's always the roleplaying element. I know a guy playing 5th Edition running around extolling the virtues of his god(s), healing folks, hurting undead, and everything else a Cleric is known for. His party was 100% convinced he was a divine caster. Only he and his DM knew that he was actually a Rogue lying through his teeth and using tricks and wands and such to make it appear he was a Cleric.

Surely you could do the same in Pathfinder.

Did he have a healing shiv?

The thing to remember is that, in Pathfinder metaphysics, "Good", "Evil", "Lawful" and "Chaotic" are tangible forces of the same sort as we would consider gravity or electromagnetism. These are not subjective ethical considerations but real absolutes. A celestial is fueled by the power of "Good" while a fiend is fueled by "Evil". Ethical considerations are an extension of this. Mortals aren't fueled by alignment energies so we are very free to choose what kind of ethics to employ. But a Demon is fueled by raw Evil and Chaotic energies and this has a significant impact on how he behaves as well as how he reacts to other energies. A Demon may overcome the energies that fuel it, usually with a large degree of rationalization of his actions, but those base energies haven't "gone" anywhere. It's kind of like a Dhampir; it may be "alive", but it still reacts to positive/negative energy like an Undead would. A Demon may become good, but it still reacts to Good energy the way a creature with the Evil subtype would.

But there are cases of energy "conversion", where it isn't just an Evil-fueled outsider rationalizing good ethics. The Evil energy gets its polarity switched and creates a whole new entity. This is what happens with Fallen Angels; their Good energy gets converted into Evil energy. Everything is a matter of energy templates. To boil it down, energy has a "shape" and a "consistency". Consistency is about Good, Evil, Positive, Fire, etc. Shape is whether it forms a Demon, Azata, Angel, etc. So the Azata may still have the energy "shape" of an Azata, but the "consistency" or "texture" of the energy has changed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valantrix1 wrote:
Batman doesn't need anyone, and if he does, there is leadership.

There's a reason Batman trained various Robins over the course of his career. He needs a sidekick because it is his ultimate insurance against himself going bad. Batman has plans to counter any and every other superhero going rogue; he has a plan to stop Superman, Flash, Wonder Woman, everyone. But what happens if Batman goes Rogue and someone needs to stop him? Where's Batman's plan for Batman? Robin. Batman has trained Robin to know his fighting style and gadgets inside and out. Robin's ultimate job is to stop Batman if Batman goes over the edge.

That having been said, a Cohort would be nice because, if your main character dies, you already have a backup character ready to go.

Well whaddaya know... guess my GM had been working on a houserule this whole time. When it was first explained to me, they just said add Cha modifier to spell slots and I never bothered to check back on it.

Consider the following: If you're dressed up in armor and wielding a large weapon, how does anyone know whether you're a Fighter PC or a Warrior NPC? Could a Fighter use disguise to pass himself off as a non-adventurer Warrior NPC in order to be taken more lightly? Could a Warrior NPC pass himself off as a Fighter PC to make himself seem more dangerous than he really is?

To elaborate, lets say your Paladin is lvl 7. You get 1+Cha tier 1 spells and 0+Cha tier 2 spells per day. Lets say your Cha modifier is +4. So you can prepare and cast up to 5 tier 1 spells and 4 tier 2 spells per day. So lets say you prepare the following:

Tier 1)
1) Bless Weapon
2) Bless Weapon
3) Endure Elements
4) Protection from Chaos
5) Protection from Evil

Tier 2)
1) Remove Paralysis
2) Remove Paralysis
3) Bull's Strength
4) Zone of Truth

If you want to be able to cast a spell more than once in the day, you need to prepare it in multiple slots. So, in the above example, you could only cast Endure Elements once in that day since you only prepared it once, whereas Bless Weapon and Remove Paralysis were each prepared twice and can each be cast up to twice in that day.

DD was written before the concept of a non-Sorcerer having a bloodline was. It would probably have been a good idea to include a line in Bloodrager that they are treated as a Sorcerer for the purpose of rules elements that concern Bloodlines. If a re-write were to be done, it would be better to change DD to state that if you have the Bloodline ability, you must pick the Draconic bloodline, rather than calling out Sorcerer specifically, since there are other ways to have the stated bloodline. But consistency is only one part of the equation and shouldn't be considered in a vacuum, but rather in conjunction with all other aspects of the game as a gestalt whole.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No. If the prerequisite is "Barbarian", and you are not a Barbarian nor do you count as a Barbarian, you don't qualify. If some aspect of your character says you "count as" a Barbarian, that'd be one thing, but the Hybrid classes, generally, don't automatically "count as" their parent classes. Early in ACG development, they had the idea that the Hybrid class would be treated as an Alternate Class for both parent classes in the same way that Ninja is an Alternate Class of Rogue. In that scope, if you took a level of Bloodrager, you'd count automatically as both a Barbarian as well as a Sorcerer, but could never take levels in either of those classes nor vice versa. But they dropped that idea so the deliberate intent, now, is that being a Hybrid class doesn't automatically allow you to "count as" the parent classes.

From a thematic perspective, a Barbarian taking Berserker of the Society is a matter of single-minded dedication. A Bloodrager, by definition, has a split focus between the Barbarian-themed abilities and the Sorcerer-themed abilities. You lack sufficient focus on the Barbarian Rage to bring it to its full potential using the feat. Full Barbarians probably scoff at the "wannabe" Bloodrager who has trouble "getting it up" without the use of magic. The Fighter scoffs at the Warpriest who has delusions of being a true Defender. The Ranger wonders how a Slayer, so focused on the act of killing, could delude himself into thinking he can harmonize with nature and see the patterns therein.

PRD wrote:

Two-Weapon Fighting

Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

This issue is that, in the Benefits section of the TWF feat, it mentions nothing about whether or not the off-hand weapon is light. The only thing TWF does is reduce your primary hand attack penalty by 2 and the off-hand penalty by 6. The statement saying that you get an additional reduction of 2 if your off-hand is light is not part of any feat, spell, or special weapon ability. To illustrate, Effortless Lace would make a Longsword work with Piranha Strike, but would not allow you to use Slight of Hand to hide a Longsword on your body. Rumpin is pointing out that it's entirely probable, based on how Effortless Lace is written, that you cannot use it to reduce TWF penalties because that portion of the rules is not related to a feat (you can TWF without the TWF feat).

Are you absolutely set on Sorc? If you want something close, Bloodrager would be outstanding for what you're trying to do. Pick Dragonic bloodline and go into Dragon Disciple. The main problem with doing a close-combat Sorc is that you only have half-BAB so your close combat damage output is sub-par and you don't nearly have the hardiness for it. But here are your major options:

1) Paladin/Sorc (Abyssal or Orc)/EK: Paladin is a better option to get your martial prof since Cha synergizes. Remember that an EK isn't so much a melee caster as it is a caster who, in a pinch, is better in melee than straight caster. You're still, largely, going to rely on slinging spells and force your opponent to close the gap rather than you charging in, but then you can shift to melee combat more easily, whereas a full caster needs to keep kiting away and maintain the gap.

2) Sohei Monk/Empyreal Sorc/EK: Swap Cha for Wis to get Monk and Sorc to synergize. Otherwise, same caveats as the standard EK build. Very nice for delivering touch spells via Unarmed Strike.

3) Sorc/Dragon Disciple: Classic melee Sorc. You'll be a bit more on the melee side, but its more conducive to a "charge in and attack" mentality.

Those options all involve actual Sorcerer levels. However, you could get something close if you don't mind taking Bloodrager. A Bloodrager DD, as mentioned earlier, can be quite strong. Another possibility would be to take the Eldritch Heritage feat and garner bloodline powers that way. This is especially useful for Abyssal and Orc bloodlines as their lvl 9 power grants a Strength bonus; very good for a Cha-heavy martial type such as an intimidate build. I'm thinking a Sword Saint Samurai with the Cockatrice order and Shatter Defenses for that option.

Another thing to keep in mind that you don't necessarily need to TWF with them every round. If you're having trouble landing hits, forego the extra attacks from TWF and just do your normal allowance of attacks from BAB; holding or even attacking with the second weapon does not trigger TWF penalties unless you declare that you are using TWF rules elements to get extra attacks. You could even have the two weapons enhanced slightly different, maybe one of them as a defending weapon for an AC boost and the other strictly offensive.

Kalindlara wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Talib Aguiye Ironsi wrote:

It just occurred to me that I have a Sacred Servant/Oath of Vengeance Paladin that might be affected by this.

I know the combination was contentious before, and I've always been prepared to remove one of those Archetypes if it was ruled they didn't stack. I'll have to check into it when I get home.

Sacred Servant and Oath of Vengeance both change the Spells class feature, so it looks like they are incompatible. Interestingly, though, neither change has the "this alters the Spells Class Feature" language.
"This alters" is a relatively new language that we've begun to do every time, but old archetypes, you'll find, will never have them.

Oh, no. No nonono.

Does this mean that Oath paladins are never compatible?

Think of Oathbound as a single archetype, not each individual oath as an archetype. You take the Oathbound archetype and choose an oath(s). Each oath affects spells, but they're not multiple archetypes so that point is moot. It says that you can stack oaths so long as they don't otherwise affect the same class feature. It's pretty straightforward; similar to Qinggong Monk.

Cao Phen wrote:

If you are able to get that feat that will, your DEX is at 14, so you will only be able to Aid Another as an Attack of Opportunity twice per round.

Three times per round. You get one AoO standard, and combat reflexes gives one additional per point of Dex bonus. So with a +2 modifier, you get 1 +2 AoOs/round; three.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The solution is simple; kick him out of your group, select a new GM, and continue the campaign. The GM is a player in the group, the same as any other player. He may have a specific task to fulfill in the game, but that amounts to referee of the game; not this God-image that he seems to have gotten lodged in his head.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

There are some mistakes I'm seeing.

PRD wrote:
Channeling energy causes a burst that affects all creatures of one type (either undead or living) in a 30-foot radius centered on the cleric.

When you channel energy, you decide what type of creature to target, either Living or Undead. You do not choose to either heal or harm; that distinction is determined by your desired target compared to the type of energy you channel. So lets say the Anti-Paladin chooses to target Living creatures. He channels negative energy which normally damages Living creatures. Now NEA doesn't actually cause you to count as Undead for targeting purposes; it only flips what the energy does to you. So Negative energy targeted at you heals while Positive energy harms. But it still needs to be targeted at a Living creature because the Dhampir is alive, not undead. So lets say there is a Dhampir and three creatures without NEA. Our Anti-Paladin channels negative against Living creatures. This will heal the Dhampir, but harm the other three creatures. Then, he channels negative against Undead creatures. Neither the Dhampir nor the other three are affected because none of them are Undead. That is the problem OP has. The solution is selective channel for the Anti-Paladin. He can exclude the horse and just heal the Dhampir.

I find it odd that, despite only decreasing your "effective" Con score, Con damage equal to your Con score will outright kill you. You'd think that, even with a Con score of 14 and 14 Con damage, you'd just be KO'ed. But if Con score damage also affects how many negative HP you can accrue before death, it makes sense because your effective Con score is 0 meaning you die at 0 HP. I suspect that the same logic that applies to temporary ability score bonuses (FAQ says they apply to all the same things as permanent bonuses) also applies to ability score damage.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
this feels kinda like a patch over a hole instead of fixing the hole. :P

Would you prefer they cut the hole out?

Leaving more than one threatened square is not more than one opportunity. Therefore, it (moving out of more than one threatened square) is one or fewer opportunities. It would be absurd to say it is a fraction of an opportunity as well as a negative number of opportunities, and we understand implicitly that moving out of more than one threatened square isn't zero opportunities, therefore we can only logically conclude that "moving out of more than one threatened square" is exactly one (1) opportunity, just the same as moving out of a single threatened square. Just because there are multiple interpretations doesn't mean that those other interpretations are logically sound and/or correct.

Forseti wrote:
LazarX wrote:
It's your choice, but you're only going to get one AOO per move action no matter how many squares are crossed.

I don't feel this is RAW.

You move from a threatened square, you provoke. The rules dictate when you provoke, not the opponent you're provoking. If the opponent doesn't take the opportunity, and you move from another threatened square, he doesn't get another one, because "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent."

The first opportunity, the one not taken by the opponent, doesn't stop being an opportunity.

Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. That means that moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round counts as the same opportunity for that opponent. When you perform a provoking action, reading a scroll for instance, it happens in an instant; one and done. You don't have multiple squares in which to decide to take the AoO. But the act of moving is "spread out" over several squares, but the entire movement counts as a single opportunity. Essentially, each time they leave a square provokes, but the entirety of the movement counts as a single opportunity. So you can decide where you take your AoO under a single caveat; you technically don't know where they are moving to. The moving player is supposed to declare first that they are leaving the square (chance for another character to take an AoO), and then resolve that part of the move by moving to another square. To illustrate:


Character X is facing off two Rogues. X wants to move to spot A. He "could" move straight through the middle, but then he'd put himself into flanking position in which the Rogues could decide to take their AoOs. So X declares, first, he intends to move from his current square. The Rogues will likely pass, for the moment, on their AoOs because they expect X will move right between them. Instead, X moves thusly:


X is now outside of the bottom Rogue's threatened area. He can then skirt around the top Rogue and only risks provoking an AoO from a single Rogue.

Triune wrote:
Also, if you are reading between the lines, that is not rules "as written", as you are referring to things that, by definition, are not written down.

This is precisely what I was talking about; people fail to realize that implied meaning is just as much a part of what is written as explicit meaning. Reading between the lines still relies on the lines. You've gotta use both for a full and complete understanding. If you don't, then you fail to understand. And people failing to understand a concept can definitely spawn pages and pages of debate. Often, people on both sides fail to understand. The whole "written" vs "unwritten" is a false dilemma where, on one side of the debate, you have people who are actually claiming that the rules should be entirely, 100%, explicit (they call it "written" but that is an incorrect label for what they are actually talking about). Meanwhile, the other side talks about rules being "unwritten" but are clarified via FAQ and developer comments (they call it "unwritten" but that is an incorrect label for what they are actually talking about; which is "written, but implicitly").

At the end of the day, the FAQs and developer comments merely illustrate the implicit meaning that was in the rules the whole time. Most didn't see it; hence why it needed to be pointed out. But even after it is pointed out, even after it is stated what "wielded two-handed" implies, people still fail to comprehend. I don't know if it is willful ignorance or a fundamental lack of mental faculties that causes this, but it's a moot point because if a person can't readily fit this concept into their scope of understanding, they are most certainly playing the wrong kind of game.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is a failure to comprehend that language involves both explicit and implicit meaning. Both work hand-in-hand and you cannot distill off the explicit meaning and rely on it and it alone. People often talk about RAW, but what they really mean is the explicit meaning of the rules. But implicit meaning also relies on written rules; thus implicit rules are also RAW. Implicit does not equate to RAI, as most people tend to incorrectly believe. If done correctly, RAI should always be the same as RAW. In some rare cases, this fails to work; such as Prone Shooter. It made reference to a penalty that simply didn't exist within the Pathfinder system. The Intent of the rules was to get around a (perceived) limitation. The RAW, fundamentally, could not match up with the intent because there was never any penalty to remove. But in most other cases, RAI is in line with RAW; but if you only look at the explicit meaning and ignore the implicit meaning, you probably will fail to see it.

To the subject at hand, two-handed weapons state they require two hands to wield. The explicit meaning is that you have to grasp the weapon with both your hands. The implicit meaning is that your two hands provide two attacks worth of attack economy. You can substitute another appendage or even an appendage-agnostic weapon for the use of a hand, but they all work off the same attack economy. Could this be better illustrated? Yes. Is this distinction entirely absent from the rules now? No. You just need to be able to read between the lines and recognize that it doesn't need to be explicit to be RAW. If they tried to distill all the rules down to explicit meaning only, the CRB alone would be about 10 volumes and weigh two tons.

So, basically, if there's going to be a puzzle in the game, the GM should let a high-Int character's player know way ahead of time so that player can have time to research and prepare his answer to be delivered "on the spot" by the character.

Charisma is pretty easy because the words you actually use aren't all that important; social interactions are predominantly determined by rolls. You could very well be confronted by the guards, tell them "stand aside", nail your intimidate roll, and BAM, they'll let you through. In one AP, I was the face and was confronted by the leader of a bunch of bandits. They were guarding a treasure that our party wanted access to. We had just killed a patrol and the leader, with his guards, demanded an explanation. I told him we wanted to join their group. He asked why we killed his men, so I told him, "They died because they were too weak to be part of your group." He said, "I don't have any weak men in my band," to which I replied, "Not anymore, you don't." The GM says, "Really? That's what you're going with? Ok... roll diplomacy." I rolled high, either a 19 or 20 plus modifiers, and the bandit leader was thoroughly convinced, thanked us for "pruning" his group, and lead us back to their mess hall as new members. Conversely, I could very well have put together a psychologically tailored speech guaranteed to convince any person and flubbed the roll; and then it's fighting time.

kestral287 wrote:

Ranged Spellstrike has three clauses; "single target", "touch attack" and "ranged spell". All three have to be met. So Disintegrate works, Ray of Frost works, but Shocking Grasp isn't ranged (Reach Shocking Grasp works though) and Lightning Bolt isn't a touch attack.

Also, Kazaan, Myrmidarch actually has the default Spellstrike too. I'd forgotten about it for a long time, but it's there.

And Quickened doesn't work, because as soon as you cast the spell you have to fire all of your Scorching Rays or what have you. By the time you get to your full attack action you have no rays to fire.

Really the only way it works is to assume that at level 11 Ranged Spellstrike also turns into Ranged Spell Combat, which is... a stretch.

It should work, and a GM can easily houserule it to work, but by the default it doesn't.

Good catch on the spellstrike. I was thinking Ranged Spellstrike replaced Spellstrike. Regarding Ranged Spellstrike, specific trumps general. Ranged Spellstrike, at lvl 11, states you can deliver the rays as part of a full-attack. Since you can't normally make a full-attack as part of casting the spell, this is an exception to the general rule. Given that Quickened Spell is a very specific application of this ability, I'd lean more towards the idea that Ragned Spellstrike incorporates the full-attack into the casting of the spell; that's the only way to intelligently allow it to work. And we must begin with the premise that it does work. Only when we come to a clear and absolute contradiction should we reason that the ability is fundamentally mis-written.

Myrmidarch's Spellstrike works on ranged touch spells. So Scorching Ray is good, but Shocking Grasp isn't. Line spells typically involve saves rather than rolls vs touch AC so they don't apply until lvl 11. Honestly, Myrmidarch is an odd archetype that is geared up to be more of a switch-hitter than use the standard Magus MO. Normally, a Magus will use their spellstrike and spell combat in conjunction. But a Myrmidarch cannot do this; he needs a ranged weapon to use spellstrike, but a melee weapon to use Spell Combat. Presumably, you're supposed to start off spellstriking with your ranged weapon, then switch to melee Spell Combat using support and save spells rather than touch spells+spellstrike as a Magus would normally use.

And, of course, there's the little matter of the multi-target spellstrike. If we start with the basic premise that the ability should do something, we must start with the assumption that it works. Based on that, we can work backwards and figure out how it works. It says that, when you cast a multi-target touch or ray spell, you can affect multiple targets when you use a full-attack. Even though ray spells must be delivered all as part of the casting (different from touch spells, which can be held), specific trumps general. Ranged Spellstrike states you can deliver multiple target ray or line spells as part of a full-attack action in the same round you cast the spell. So, at the very least, casting a spell in such a way that you are left with your full-attack action economy intact is valid; quickened is a good way to do this. Another way to view it, though a bit round-about, is to say that the Cast a Spell action becomes a full-round full-attack action when using it in conjunction with Ranged Spellstrike. Delivering the rays is part of the Cast a Spell action so if a full-attack can be used to deliver the rays, then the full-attack is a de facto part of the Cast a Spell action as well.

There's one more thing to consider; some class features have "sub-features". For instance, Bardic Performance is a class feature, but each individual performance is also counted as a sub-feature under the general Bardic Performance feature. So archetype A might change Inspire Courage and Fascination, and stack with archetype B which changes Inspire Heroism and Death Dirge. But archetype C, which changes Bardic Performance itself, can't stack with either A or B.

So it all comes down to whether or not each class skill is a sub-feature. This is the same dilemma concerning Bonus Feats lists where two archetypes merely add options to the bonus feats list. However, addressing Stranger's point about the Paladin, each individual Oath isn't a separate archetype; but rather Oathbound is the archetype and you can apply multiple oaths to it. So it isn't really a matter of separate archetypes changing Spellcasting.

If class skills aren't included in the scope of "class features", then neither are skill points, alignment, hit dice, BAB, or saves. Personally, I say that these are class features because, if they weren't, they wouldn't be changed by the archetype. Archetypes modify or replace class features; that's what they do. If Class Skills are being changed by the archetype, it must mean that Class Skills count as a class feature along with the other items I mentioned above.

He mentioned he was getting Nature's Whispers, which makes both AC and CMD use Cha in place of Dex. So he should be OK for CMD. Not great, but he doesn't need to be "great"; that's not his job.

Well, on the one hand, a Strength check is a Strength check. There's a gate with a Str check DC of 20 to open. It doesn't matter if the player is or isn't strong enough to open such a gate, he just rolls the check and bingbangboom, gate's open. Puzzles, on the other hand, are different; they are there more for the player to solve rather than the PC. You could make it an Int check to solve the puzzle, but give the player the opportunity to come up with the solution with his own mind if he can.

For example, say you come up against a puzzle in a campaign, and none of the players is able to come up with the answer. Presumably, a character with 24 Int should be able to come up with the answer so, if no player can figure it out, roll an Int check to try to solve it. But then how does that translate into equitable treatment of the Strength check? If you fail your Str check to open the gate, do you go do a bench press or a bunch of pushups to open it anyway? If you fail a Dex check, can you hold a handstand for a minute to force success? Ultimately, it comes down to this; you either need to force the character to use the mental stats of their player for mental challenges, or you boil it all down to a check and take the interactivity and immersion out of the equation. I don't see a real practical way except to do one or both of these things.

FLite wrote:
Komoda wrote:

I thought up something along the same lines for a Hungry Ghost Monk. They can pretty much get away with killing a lot of bugs or other weak creatures.

And another trick was to play with the word "kill". Just dropping something doesn't kill it. First, all damage would be "non-lethal" as to knock someone out (free HP). He would then be the one to finish off creatures at the end of combat (more free HP). He was not a "good" guy.

That doesn't work for hungry ghost monk.

non-lethal damage does not reduce the creatures hit points, and the monk needs to reduce it's hit points to 0.

Non-lethal can deal hp damage if the target has already suffered the max nonlethal amount. If it has 14 max HP, it can take 14 nonlethal, and any additional nonlethal damage dealt is applied to HP.

Julix wrote:
Alright, thanks for the tip. It's rather anoying to have to do that manually. Any reason why the forum technology is so basic? no buttons to just do that for me in by selecting text, a click on the button and a popup that asks which link to add?

They expect that people who play tabletop RPGs prefer doing everything manually.

d20 wrote:
In addition to its more common properties, this weapon can be employed as though the wielder were unarmed: the wielder benefits from feats such as Deflect Arrows or Snatch Arrows (although he can redirect attacks but not catch them if he has no hands free), and a monk treats the blade as a monk weapon for use in his flurry of blows.

You can benefit from anything that requires a free hand, just so long as you don't end up holding or manipulating items in the process. Catch Arrow includes a clause that lets you catch and throw back a weapon, and you can *ping* it back using the BotSS, but you can't catch and "hold" it, nor can you hold and manipulate a wand using your sword. But you count as having a free hand for other purposes. It doesn't count as an unarmed strike any more than brass knuckles do.

The rules text Seifter quotes from UC states that Alternate Classes are "exactly as a base class". While this might be somewhat of a cumbersome construction, it still leads to the concept that the Alternate Class satisfies rules elements just as its associated base class does. ACG further goes on to clarify that an Alternate Class functions just like a very expansive archetype and the only reason it is presented as a class of its own is so that you don't have to flip back and forth between the Base and Alternate class entries; even base class abilities that are not replaced are listed under the Alternate Class. That makes perfect sense and I'm not seeing where Seifter's confusion or suspicion that the line is even in need of errata is coming from.

It's not even a problem with archetypes of alternate classes because they are, technically, not replacing the same class ability. For example; Samurai, at level 1, gains Resolve whereas Cavalier, at level 1, gains Tactician. You could say that Samurai, as an archetype, replaces Tactician. Now lets say we have a hypothetical archetype for the Samurai which replaces Resolve; we'll call it Bladespam for the sake of example. Now, Resolve replaced Tactician, but does Bladespam also replace Tactician? No; Bladespam replaces Resolve (which just so happens to replace Tactician). Another way to look at it is that it's changing the archetype such that, instead of replacing Tactician with Resolve, you're replacing Tactician with Bladespam instead; still no conflict of replacement. Honestly, it seems that Seifter's concerns are misplaced and there is probably a reason that the errata hasn't yet been made. Remember, "marked for errata" is just like "marked for FAQ"; it may very well come back with the answer, "no response required".

Edit: Furthermore, Jason Bulmahn seems to think along lines that say the ACG is not in error:

Hi there all,

James does a pretty good job explaining the point behind alternate classes here, but I want to further explain a few points.

- Alternate classes are really just expanded archtypes. The distinction is that for an alternate class, we represent all of the rules needed to run the class. It is similar to its base, but has a significant number of swaps. There are certainly some archtypes that could have received this treatment, but we chose to leave them as more abbreviated write ups.

- Alternate classes live in the same design niche as their base class. This is the most important part. Although the ninja and the rogue, for example, have a number of differences, they have a number of conceptual and rules niches in common. We did not want to have to invent another version of sneak attack, for example, when the current one works fine for both. Had we invented another, it would have been similar but undoubtedly different in power to sneak attack, which is a bad place to be.

One last thing.. the adversarial tone in this thread (and a few others) can stop now. I don't want to have to close down threads.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

And I'm pretty sure the opinion of the Lead Designer of the game is a bit more telling on the subject.


CRB/class/Paladin wrote:
The antipaladin is an alternate class. Making use of and altering numerous facets of the paladin core class, this villainous warrior can't truly be considered a new character class by its own right. By the changes made here, though, the details and tones of the paladin class are shifted in a completely opposite direction and captures an entirely different fantasy theme, without needlessly designing an entire new class. While a redesign of sorts, this alternate class can be used just as any of the other base classes found in the first part of this chapter.

The antipaladin, the only alternate class available in the CRB, establishes the concept that it is not a "new class" but rather it is a Paladin, but with a polar opposite theme.

ACG/Designing Class/Alternate Class wrote:
Alternate Classes: Sometimes an archetype exchanges so many class features that it almost becomes a new class itself. In such cases, the class might warrant a representation of all of the class features, even those that it shares with its base class. While still technically an archetype, characters who play this class have all the tools they need to advance their character in one convenient location. The antipaladin, ninja, and samurai are all examples of an alternate class.

The ACG clearly and explicitly states that an Alternate class is an archetype of the base class; just one that makes more drastic changes than archetypes typically cover. And, just as you can combine multiple archetypes that don't modify the same class features, you can take Rogue archetypes that only change Rogue features not removed by the Ninja alternate class archetype. This is why they don't ever bother to list alternate favored class bonuses for alternate classes because the base class bonus still applies. The only time they need to list an archetype specifically for an alternate class is when it trades out abilities that only the alternate class has; otherwise all archetypes that apply to the base class also apply to the alternate class (provided the alternate class has the class features to trade/change).

Yes. A Ninja is, for all practical purposes, a type of rogue. You can't even multi class as a rogue/ninja because it would be multiclassing as rogue/rogue. You can also take racial favored bonuses for rogue.

Challenge: Build a Tokusentai (Special Battle Squad) consisting of nothing but Rangers which would be sent out on the most difficult missions for the state.

Criteria: Team must consist of 5 PCs and 1 GMPC. All characters must be single-class Rangers. If desired, the GMPC may be a Slayer. Each character must have a unique point compared to the others. They must also work well as a balanced team (teamwork feats are highly recommended). One of these PCs must be "Red", the leader of the squad. The GMPC is "black", s(he) is more of a lone wolf type who only links up with the group when teamwork is beyond absolutely necessary or as the plot demands. Others should have some kind of a "color" theme appropriate to their skills and personality. They should emphasize the positive aspects of their color more than any negative aspects. For instance, "Yellow" may be a little bit of a coward, but don't focus on that, instead emphasizing traits like cheerfulness or using mental strengths to compensate for physical shortfalls (This site can help with establishing color-based personalities). "Black" starts at level 5, "Red" starts at level 4, and the rest start at level 3. Alignments should be LN, LG, NG, or CG for the PCs while the GMPC can be CG, NG, TN, or CN. Races should be appropriate for a "civilized nation" so predominantly non-vile races should be used. If a race like Orc, Drow, Goblin, etc. is desired, it should have a very good backstory accompanying it. Include ability scores, feats, skills, traits, and equipment load-out (assume normal WBL for each character). Potential missions can include anything from hunting down very dangerous criminals, clearing dangerous caverns near settled areas, patrolling dangerous wilderness, etc. May also be used as elite scouts in very dangerous situations like major battles.

Ready... Set... GO!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
You could break a rope with a Bowling Ball, Adamantine or otherwise.
Not in Pathfinder it can't. It's not bladed, hence an ineffective weapon to damage a Rope.

One more houserule among thousands it would seem.

EDIT for clarity: I'd never let a bowling ball break a rope that was dangling loosely, that's stupid. But a taut rope or one laying against a solid object is fair game IMO

You really need to read the rules, it seems. Not every rule you're unfamiliar with is a houserule, you know. The relevant rules passage is quoted up at the top of this very thread under "Ineffective Weapons" and even bolded.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
You could break a rope with a Bowling Ball, Adamantine or otherwise.

Not in Pathfinder it can't. It's not bladed, hence an ineffective weapon to damage a Rope.

To be fair, PotA was also...

...a predestination paradox because some of the intelligent apes from the future traveled back to the past and it was their child who "taught" all the common apes of the present and near future to be intelligent and to speak.

Back to the topic at hand, maybe some world-changing event like a globe-spanning, unstable, mass Awaken spell first awakened ALL the animals (and plants, I suppose) which then easily evolved into Humanoid races while all the existing Humanoids (that survived) became Native Outsiders, and all the material plane Outsiders (that survived) became material plane Gods. Extraplanar Outsiders would either be "natived" to the material plane, giving Native Demons and Angels and such who just "happened" to be on the Material Plane at the time of the cataclysm, or auto-banished (equivalent to "change or die" for other races). Not sure how to treat Undead, Dragon, Fey, and Construct types, though.

It works differently with sizes smaller than Small as stat blocks consistently list Tiny and smaller creatures with reach weapons as attacking at 5'. As a rule of thumb, for smaller than Small creatures, calculate reach as if the creature had a natural reach of 5', then subtract 5' from the result for each category smaller than Small. So a Tiny creature attacks at 5' with a reach weapon (10' with whip) and a Diminutive creature attacks at 5' with a whip.

claudekennilol wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
A sword might put a scratch in the wall, but it isn't going to be able to pry the edges of that scratch apart. Swords have thickness to them. You know those scenes in cartoons where someone slashes a sword and some object seems intact but then sheers off along a perfect mirror edge? Yeah, that doesn't really happen, especially not with a stone wall. You need to be able to lever and pry the stones apart with an appropriate tool (ie. pickaxe). By contrast, wood is much softer and more pliable, compared to stone, so your adamantine sword would have far less trouble cleaving through it. It's basically the distinction between Hardness and Strength. Diamond is hard, but at the same time fragile. You cannot scratch a diamond and a diamond can scratch anything, but if you smack a diamond with a hammer, it will shatter. A diamond can scratch a steel bar, but that steel bar wouldn't necessarily shatter if struck with a hammer. Adamantine will overcome hardness, but it can't overcome compression or tensile strength.
I'm inclined to say your argument is entirely flawed as the bolded isn't defined at all for pathfinder, but there isn't enough text on the subject to say what's right and what isn't in this regard.

And I'm inclined to invoke the spirit of SKR in saying, English is a versatile language. The game needs not define compression and tensile strength in order for a sufficiently competent person to understand that such concepts exist. Adamantine overcomes hardness; that is all. But a stone wall or door has more than just hardness going for it. You can't bring down a stone wall with an adamantine sword, but you could bring it down with a pickaxe and sufficient strength, adamantine or otherwise. You can't cut a rope with an adamantine bowling ball, but you could cut it with a bladed weapon and sufficient strength, adamantine or otherwise.

You can back-engineer sufficient rules to explain the stat blocks. Essentially, you treat a tiny creature as having (5' -5') natural reach and apply reach multipliers only on the base 5'. So for a non-reach weapon, 5' -5' is 0' and they can only attack in their own square. For a normal reach weapon, 10' -5' is 5' and they can attack adjacent, but not in their own square (no more than a larger creature with a reach weapon could). For a whip, 15' -5' is 10' so they can attack out to 10' with no minimum. Diminutive creatures get -10' instead of -5' so a Diminutive needs a whip to even be able to attack adjacent, but they can attack in their own square with either a non-reach weapon or a non-whip reach weapon. Fine creatures get -15' and couldn't attack out of their own square with any weapon.

1 to 50 of 4,780 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.