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

3,996 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 3,996 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

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

Things to consider:

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

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

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

Tiaburn wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

Magicdealer wrote:

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

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

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

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

Kazaan wrote:

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

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

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

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

SKR wrote:

English is a very fluid language.

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

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

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

thaX wrote:

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

That is a rhetorical question, BTW.

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

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

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

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

ElementalXX wrote:

First, error in writing is a posibility, it wouldnt be the first time.

Second i defend your take, thats gonna be my houserule on my homegames, but is not raw, im aware of it. What is written is written, what is not written is not. Your logic would make nothing on PFS, please stop saying an interpretation is raw, if yout interpretation is raw, then it has to be written somewhere, quote it, if you failt to do that then it-is-not-written.

Your logic is one i like, but is not impartial and many times not what its used.

You should read the "Sohei" threads to see what i mean

There is the possibility of an error in the writing, but since we have a valid alternative that works, such an error would need to be brought up by the Dev team as it is not a default position to use. Such was the case with the Sunder FAQ; before the FAQ was issued, all logic pointed to Sunder only being used with the Attack action. After the FAQ, they removed the Attack action restriction, stating it was an artifact of a previous take on the combat maneuvers and should have been removed in a later revisement. I'm not saying there's no possibility of there being an error, but it's not an irreconcilable error as with Prone Shooter which removed a penalty that simply didn't exist in the game.

Second, all writing is a matter of interpretation. You cannot read something without interpreting it and the writing itself is a conveyance of the interpretation of the writer. In interpretation, we use both explicit cues and implicit cues. If the book were written entirely in explicit language, it would be approx. 1 billion pages long because the English language is not meant for purely explicit conveyance of ideas. The rules state that the Mutation Fighter can take the Wings mutation. That is explicitly written. But no sane person will stand on the presumption that a written rule is not intended to function so we can also take from RAW that the archetype is supposed to be able to use those wings. Any reading of RAW that results in him not able to use his class ability is absolutely and utterly wrong. As wrong as can be. In PFS, it's still wrong. If I played PFS and a GM told me I couldn't use my class ability, I'd refute him on it. It's a simple matter of logic and, as SKR said, "You're not stupid. So don't read the rules as if you were stupid." This is the correct logic to use; period. It doesn't matter how many times people fail to use it; that does not make them correct, it just makes them more frequently wrong.

When it says you may not make more than one AoO for a given opportunity, it's referring to the specific instance, not that trigger for the whole round. If someone makes a ranged attack, you can't burn all 4 of your AoOs on the single ranged attack, but you most certainly can take a second AoO if they make a second ranged attack. If they make four ranged attacks, you can use your 4 AoOs, one on each trigger. The followup trip counts as its own trigger.

ElementalXX wrote:
If on a multiple choice question there are two correct answers then the answer is not clear, in this case the answers can be two.

Multiple choice questions often have more than one answer that is correct, but only one will be fully correct. Others may be correct, but only in part and in an insignificant manner. The answer that gets you points is the one that fully answers the question; you don't get partial credit for the technically correct, albeit incomplete, option(s). The ability explicitly lets you select the Wings discovery; so any reading that results in Wings being non-functional for a single-classed Mutation Fighter is inherently incorrect. It may be a possibly valid reading by a narrow reading of RAW, but since it doesn't result in a functional use of the class ability it is not correct. Period. You must logically default to the option provided by implicit understanding; that you use your Fighter level in determining your effective Alchemist level for the purpose of using the ability. Since such an option exists and does not contradict any other rules elements, take it.

English is a fluid language. "Comes back to life" and "raised" or "resurrected" effectively means the same thing. The spell doesn't affect the target "before it dies", it works in the short time between death and the soul leaving the body. For Outsiders, this phenomenon explicitly does not happen; there is no soul leaving the body for them because their body IS their soul and vice versa. With half-Constructs, it's a bit more wishy washy, but the same principal applies; they are dead and can't be "raised" by the normal methods; they must be brought back with a Wish or Miracle.

It helps if you look at it using the Declare/Determine/Resolve model. Declare is when you state what your action will be and spend your action economy. At this point, you've committed to your action and, if something prevents you from following through, you can't get back your standard, move, that attack in your full-attack, whatever. Determine is when you roll to see if you succeed or fail. You don't apply the results of the success or failure at that point, mind you, but you roll a success or failure and hold on to that result. Resolve is when you actually apply the results of success or failure determined in the Determine phase. Now, when we say an AoO interrupts the flow of combat, what it really means is that it occurs between trigger and the next phase. For example, when making a ranged attack, you provoke on the Declare phase. So the enemy gets their AoO between Declare and Determine. If they trip you, you will be considered Prone when making your ranged attack (if that matters, ie. using a Bow). In the case of Greater Trip, the trigger is a successful Determine phase so the AoO occurs between Determine and Resolve; after you've succeeded but before you apply that success to make them fall prone. Vicious Stomp triggers on the Resolution phase so it occurs after Resolution but before any other action can take place. That having been said, there's no rule that says you can't trip a prone target. The issue is that it has no appreciable effect because the flow would be as follows:

1) Declare: stand up.
2) Provoke: AoO
3) Declare AoO: trip.
4) Determine AoO: Success.
5) Resolve AoO: target gains redundant Prone condition.
6) Determine: nothing prevents successful stand up action so auto-success.
7) Resolve: clear Prone condition.

So the Trip was successful and, thus, if a successful trip triggers any AoOs (as from Greater Trip), they may be performed. It would be exactly as you put it; you hooked their foot and, as they were stumbling, you hooked their other foot and made them stumble in another direction. Or, if they were already prone, you caused them to stumble as they were getting up, but they still managed to get to their feet; not as gracefully as they would have liked, but there it is.

The prone condition is applied after the Bull Rush. So you don't benefit from their prone penalty to AC on the Bull Rush check. Ki Throw states you drop them prone in a spot you threaten. Spinning Throw states you move them to a new spot, then make a bull rush, then they fall prone (either after a successful bull rush, or in the reposition spot in case of failed bull rush). I use the Declare/Determine/Resolve model to illustrate combat flow. So the flow would be as follows:

Using just Ki Throw
1) Declare Trip using Ki Throw.
2) Determine trip check: success.
3) Resolve trip result: target falls prone.

Using Spinning Throw
1) Declare Trip using Ki Throw.
2) Determine trip check: success.
3) Declare Spinning Throw
4) Determine Spinning Throw bull rush: success.
5) Resolve bull rush.
6) Resolve trip.


4) Determine Spinning Throw bull rush: fail.
5) Resolve trip.

Basically, Determine means you're rolling to see if it succeeds or fails, but you haven't yet resolved the action. If there is an interceding action, you play it out fully in stack fashion so you fully declare, determine, and resolve the Bull Rush before you continue on to resolve the Trip. The trip has succeeded, but mechanically you haven't dropped them prone yet until you resolve that success. Using this method for action management clears up about 99% of confusion and mishaps.

Bunch of casters working in a power plant.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElementalXX wrote:
It wouldnt be an error per se but it would be a nonsense sugestion, having said that you are defining RAI, which is logical interpretation of the rules. However as far as RAW goes, it prevents this discovery of working unless you multiclass as Alchemist. This is the current state of things, however raw and rai have obvious disparities...

It would most certainly be an error to suggest something that were impossible. Moreover, what I defined is not RAI. Implicit RAW is not necessarily the same as RAI. Intent is what it was meant to allow you to do. Written is what it actually allows you to do. Explicit means it says it straight out. Implicit means you need to parse what is written and read between the lines. No reading of the rules should ever, ever result in them being non-functional. If a reading results in a rules element being non-functional, there are only two possibilities; 1) it was written wrong, or 2) you're reading it wrong. Or, as SKR said, "You're not stupid. So don't read the rules as if you were stupid." The RAW carries with it the distinct implication you use your Fighter level as a virtual Alchemist level for the purpose of the Discoveries. It doesn't need to state it outright for this to be the case because the alternative renders the ability broken. Argumentum ad absurdium; if accepting the premise as true results in an impossible or absurd situation, it can be logically deduced that the premise is not true.

Oh... powered armor. I came into the thread expecting something completely different... something more, alchemical in nature.

Presumption 1: the rules are intended to function.

This should be your very first, go-to presumption in analyzing any rules elements.

Presumption 2: RAW can be explicit or implied.

Sometimes, something can be written in an implicit manner or an explicit manner. It's always best to look for an explicit rule but, should an explicit rule not be found, but lacking it violates presumption 1, look for implicit meaning in the rules. These are the "unwritten" rules; they're "written", per say, but not in an explicit manner so a person looking for explicit and only explicit rules may completely overlook them.

Presumption 3: Only when explicit or implicit rules are contradictory should it be presumed that the rules are in error.

Should there be absolutely no reconciling the rules (ie. Prone Shooter), then you may presume that there was an error in writing; this naturally requires an errata to correct the error.

We have an implicit rule via Presumption 2 that you can use your Fighter level as your effective Alchemist caster level in order to make these rules elements function. Ergo, that is the most logical conclusion to take barring new information. Should new information be brought to light that triggers Presumption 3 (new information yields an irreconcilable contradiction), then we have a situation much like the Half-Breed FAQs which would need to be addressed by either fixing the error in writing or fixing the error in the new information. So feel free to use the Fighter level as effective Alchemist caster level for the purpose of adjudicating Alchemist discoveries that utilize Alchemist caster level as it is the most logical conclusion to use. Should new information come to light (ie. they errata it to be effective Alchemist caster level = Fighter Level - X), use that instead when it is made available. Should they try to clarify it by saying the Fighter has no effective Alchemist level, that effectively means that the suggestion to use the Wings discovery is the error and implicit RAW is that you can't use any discoveries reliant on an Alchemist caster level.

In standard grammar, a semicolon is used to separate lists that, themselves, are already separated by commas. So this basically just follows standard grammar rules with the first list being entirely necessary and the second list only necessitating one of the items as indicated by the 'or' conjunction.

1) No. Impact only works on non-light weapons and Unarmed Strikes, along with natural weapons, are counted as light weapons.

2) Not quite. It allows the first unarmed strike in a given round to get 1.5x Str to damage instead of the usual 1x. It doesn't count as 2-h for other rules elements such as Power Attack.

3) No. Damage for Awesome Blow is based on a Slam (a type of natural attack). If you have a Slam, you'd use your default Slam damage, otherwise, use the standard Slam for a creature of your size. It doesn't use your Unarmed Strike. If you do get a Slam from some source, you could take Feral Combat Training for it and it will "count as" an unarmed strike so you could do your Unarmed Strike damage as well as Dragon Style in conjunction with it.

4) See #1.

5) Awesome Blow is a standard Use Feat action, not the standard Attack action. Vital Strike requires the standard Attack action and can only be used in conjunction with other abilities that also modify the Attack action (ie. Overhand Chop). You cannot combine AB with VS.

A Magus doesn't need to deliver the Touch spell with the free hand; they can do so with their main-hand weapon. Moreover, it states that they can't make an attack with a weapon in the other hand; an Unarmed Strike isn't wielded "in" the hand. Arguably, you could combine Precise Strike with Armor Spikes, Boot Blade, or other non-hand-associated weapons.

The best build I've seen utilizing an oversized weapon revolves around the special property of the Sunblade that, despite having the size and impact of a Bastard Sword, is wielded as if it were only the weight and effort category (light) of a Shortsword. A Medium character can wield a Huge light weapon, thus a Medium character could wield a Huge Sunblade as a 2-h weapon. Throw in Enlarge Person and you have a Large character wielding a Gargantuan Sunblade. For frame of reference a Huge Sunblade is about the size of a Cessna's wing and a Garguantuan Sunblade would be the length of the entire wingspan tip-to-tip. You'd have a -4 to attack, but a Titan Mauler could get over that. Furthermore, a Ranger could get access to Lead Blades which would further increase that to the relative damage of a Colossal Bastard Sword.

The balor entry looks to be an error as that's the same reach that it would have with any reach weapon such as a Longspear. The explicit purpose of the Whip is that it has longer reach than standard reach weapons. It should have been listed as 30' and is in need of an errata.

Claxon wrote:
At this time, both work with Haste just fine. But they can never be used together because both require their own full round action to perform.

That would be a valid point, except for the fact that the FAQ states spell combat counts as making a full-attack action for haste and other effects. Back during the whole debate as to whether the FAQ should be changed, after the Devs reversed their ruling, I specifically asked them if the change was targeted at Spell Combat, making the sequence of attacks essentially a subordinated full-attack within the larger full-round Use Special Ability action for Spell Combat, or if the change was targeted at Haste instead to change it from "full-attack" to "any instance in which you make iterative attacks". The reply I got from the Devs amounted to, "We're not sure at the moment, we'll get back to you." I never saw any further address of the situation. So the topic is still, technically, in Limbo; if Spell Combat "contains" a full-attack, then any ability that modifies the full-attack action would, arguably, work with Spell Combat. On the other hand, if the change was aimed at Haste and Haste-like effects instead, then Spell Combat would not mesh with any ability that modifies full-attack.

However, regarding Flurry of Blows in particular, the whole argument may be moot because, even if Spell Combat has a subordinated full-attack, the spell being cast "counts as" your off-hand attack and, since FoB can only be made using Unarmed Strikes and/or Monk quality weapons, a spell qualifying as neither, you couldn't combine the two anyway. But the question still stands as to whether more open alterations such as Mobile Fighter's Rapid Attack or Fight Defensively would still work with Spell Combat.

Reach and Natural Reach are two different concepts. Medium (and small) creatures have a Natural Reach of 5' while Large creatures typically have a Natural Reach of 10'. This means that a Large creature can, with a standard non-reach weapon, attack at both 5' and 10'. What the Reach special property does is take the normal Natural Reach and make it "too close to attack" while that same distance is added on top as your new reach distance. So a Large creature with a reach weapon, instead of attacking at 5' and 10', omits 5' and 10' and attacks at 15' and 20' instead. One notable exception is the Whip which triples your reach with no minimum so a Large creature with a Whip, instead of just attacking at 5-10', attacks at 5-30'.

On the other hand, Reach increases like Lunge don't scale with size. It's just a flat 5' increase no matter what size you are and it isn't scaled by a Reach weapon. Remember that Pathfinder is a game of mechanically pertinent terms. Just as the Attack action is a specific type of standard action and not just any old attack, and just as wielding a 2-h in one hand is distinct from wielding it one-handed, so too are Reach and Natural Reach distinct terms. I did a quick search of the PRD and found only one non-size-based ability that increases Natural Reach; the Oathbound Paladin's Oath Against Savagery gives Holy Reach which increases your Natural Reach by 5' and this, being Natural Reach, would be factored into a Reach weapon. Such a Paladin would attack at 15-20' with, say, a Longspear while omitting 5-10' from his reach.

########## < 40/40 HP: conscious

#####XXXXX < 20/40 HP: conscious

XXXXXXXXXX < 0/40 HP: conscious, but staggered

XXXXXXXXXX -4 < -4/40 HP: unconscious and dying

#####XXXXX < 20/40 HP, 8 nonlethal: conscious

#####XXXXX < 20/40 HP, 20 nonlethal: conscious, but staggered

####XXXXXX < 16/40 HP, 20 nonlethal: unconscious, but not dying

####XXXXXX <16/40 HP, 40 nonlethal: unconscious, but still not dying

Quatar wrote:
If he'd be using a Bastart Sword as a Martial 2hd weapon, he could then decide to use it one-handed. He would take the -4 non-proficiency penalty on it however, unless he also has the EWP feat for it.

Nope. There's a FAQ that explicitly contradicts this. You can't wield a Bastard Sword one-handed at all, not even with the -4 non-prof penalty, if you lack EWP. Lacking EWP, you MUST treat it as a virtual 2-h weapon, even though it's technically a 1-h weapon.

Regarding the issue at hand, there is absolutely no allowance within the rules for what this Barb wants to do unless he has a feat or ability that explicitly gives him allowance to do so (ie. Jotungrip). And you won't find a rules citation that states you "can't" because Pathfinder is a game of permissions; it would take billions of pages to list each and every contingency of what you can't do so they list things you can do and, if something isn't listed, then you simply can't do it. Moreover, even if he were to have a Large 1-h weapon, such a weapon is treated as a 2-h weapon for a Medium character. Again, just as with the Bastard Sword, it's a virtual consideration; the weapon itself is still a 1-h weapon, but you virtually "step-up" for each size category difference. It would be considered a light weapon in the hands of a Huge creature (and benefit from all benefits thereof such as getting better TWF penalties, being easier to conceal, etc). What he wants is a Medium Longsword or other appropriately sized 1-h weapon if he simply wants the best smack for his full-attack.

Ok, lets say your character has 40 HP and 14 Con for the sake of example.

After taking 40 lethal damage, he'd be staggered and at 0 HP. One more damage after that sets him in Dying and once he hits -14 HP, he dies outright. Now, when he has his full 40 HP and is fresh and energetic, he can suffer 40 points of nonlethal damage before becoming staggered. If he has only 20 HP left, though, he can only suffer 20 nonlethal before becoming staggered because his reserves are a bit drained. However, he can still take 20 more nonlethal after going unconscious because nonlethal doesn't start converting to lethal until your nonlethal tally equals your total HP. So with 20 current HP, you can suffer 40 nonlethal and still not be counted as Dying. You'd have to suffer a total of 61 nonlethal, 21 of which is converted to lethal, before you start bleeding out. Reverse case; say you're at 30 current HP but have 20 nonlethal. You've still cruisin' with the bruisin'. Then you take an arrow to the knee which drops you down to 19 current HP. You're unconscious because you just don't have the physical reserves after the previous nonlethal injuries so this new damage is just too painful and you drop unconscious. So it is, in fact, the case that if your Lethal + Non-Lethal damage exceeds your total HP, you are unconscious, but not necessarily dying until your Lethal damage exceeds your total HP. And keep in mind that there's a limit to how much non-lethal you can take before it bleeds over into lethal damage.

Even if you have a Paladin, you don't necessarily need to take full levels in Pally. Try this on for size:

2 lvl dip in Paladin for Divine Grace: +Cha to all saves
1 lvl dip in Nature Oracle for Nature's Whispers: Cha in place of Dex for CMD and AC
Scion of War feat: Cha in place of Dex for Init.

Put the 14 in Dex, 18s in Str and Cha, 17s in other stats. Then, you can take whatever class you really want to focus on. I'd suggest Monk followed by Champion of Irori. You'll have hella saves from both Monk and Divine Grace, hella AC fueled by Wis and AC, you can TWF with a single weapon, use Ki for smites, etc. Though, you said your GM required you to take leadership for your harem... that conflicts with the Champion's CoC. You might need to either get that handwaived or see if these "followers" can be following you of their own volition and not through your Leadership feat.

Alternatively, try the Gladiator fighter archetype. You can have performance combat (relying heavily on Cha) even if you don't have an audience.


Also true for anyone with a weapon that isn't hand-associated, such as a Boot Blade, Armor Spikes, Boulder Helmet, along with a multitude of natural attacks (bite, talon, wing, tail, etc).

Yup. He can threaten at reach with his reach weapon as well as adjacent with his Unarmed Strikes.

You need 2000 gold for a +1 enhancement and 8000 gold for a +2 enhancement. You only really have enough for a +1. If you can, grab yourself an Adamantine Nodachi. It's +3000 on top of the base price of the weapon so just over 5k will get you a +1 Adamantine Nodachi. Later, you can apply that 2000 you paid for the +1 towards the balance to get a +2; it costs 8k for +2, you already paid 2k for +1, so you pay 6k to bump your +1 to a +2. Once you hit +3, it will count against both silver and cold iron DR despite not being made of either material. That's really the optimum point; a +3 adamantine weapon will defeat DR Adamantine, Cold Iron, Silver, and Magic.

You are correct in what kind of reach you'd have. Since you can't "double" or "triple" a natural reach of 0 (since the result is still 0), it basically says that you treat the reach as 5' but shift it down by 1 square. So a Tiny creature with a normal reach weapon can attack out to 5' and with a whip can attack out to 10'. A Diminutive creature would need a whip just to attack out to 5' from their home square. A Fine creature would need a weapon with 20' of reach (ie. Witch's Hair hex) to attack out to 5'.

it would deal a flat 1 point of damage as its weapon damage, plus whatever applicable static modifiers apply. As far as damage type goes, the jury is still out on whether Weapon Versatility makes the weapon count as a piercing weapon or if it just lets it deal piercing damage but still is counted as its base weapon type (slashing, in this case).

Looks to me like an unintentional omission; possibly an error on the part of the PRD.

Look at it mathematically. Under normal crit rules, you have a bell curve that has the peak around the maximum of the normal damage and a relatively small chance to get the full double damage (for a 2x crit weapon). So just saying a 2x crit weapon gets automatic full damage isn't such a wild idea. How that would translate to 3x and 4x crit weapons is simply that you have to look at where the bell curve rests compared to the maximum damage. A 3x crit weapon would sit at about 50% more than max damage so a 1d8 weapon x2 would crit for 8 damage while a 1d8 x3 would crit for 12 damage. x4 would crit for 16 damage. Then, you simply multiply the static bonuses applicably and BAM, you've streamlined your crits to presume an average bellcurve damage roll.

Well, remember, it's probably written from the perspective of having a shield + non-shield. If you've got a +3 Bashing Arrow Catching light shield and a Longsword, you can still make a shield bash with the shield and retain the Bashing and Arrow Catching properties; you only lose the +4 net shield bonus to AC. You have no other shield to consider in this case since your other weapon is a Longsword. So you'd bash with the shield and treat it as a 1d6 weapon with +1 to attack and damage. Now, if you had Shield Master, the Bashing property would be quite redundant since you'd be using the +3 shield enhancement anyway which beats out the +1 effective weapon enhancement that Bashing gives. It would make for a good weapon before you get Shield Master, but once you have that feat, it'd be better to get a different enchant that gives you better function. And then, on your "off-hand" shield, the one used only as a weapon, just stack it up with weapon enchants like Furious, Courageous, Bane, etc and enhance it as a weapon only. Also, the Bashing property, though retained if on the primary magic shield, only effects the shield it is placed on; it isn't written to give general benefit. So it wouldn't translate to your off-hand shield as well.

But, generally speaking, people find it better to just get a Heavy Shield and two-hand it if you want to go with a Shield only build. A +3 Bashing Adamantine Spiked Heavy Shield would cost you about 19k and, even before you get Shield Master, you can attack with it as a +1 2d6 weapon that defeats DR/Adamantine and DR/Magic. Once you get SM, you treat it as a +3 2d6 weapon that defeats Adamant, Cold Iron, Silver, and Magic DR; AND you retain the shield bonus. If you use it in conjunction with a Cestus, then you have the option to either TWF with Shield + Cestus or two-hand the Shield if you need some extra "umph" in your attacks. Brawler (the fighter archetype) would probably be best for that since both Cestus and Shields are Close weapons so both would mesh well with his abilities.

Normal Power Attack:
-1 penalty/+2 damage

w/ Furious Focus:
no penalty first attack/+2 damage

w/ Reckless Rage:
-1 penalty and -1 additional penalty/+2 damage and +2 additional damage

w/ FF & RR:
no penalty first attack and -1 additional penalty/+2 damage and +2 additional damage

So, with both, on your first attack you only suffer -1 penalty to get +4 damage (or +6 w/ 2-h weapon) and subsequent attacks get the full -2 net penalty. But they are still counted as separate penalties/bonuses since, as you can see, it requires a caveat stating the additional bonus damage from RR is still modified by normal Power Attack bonus damage factors (+50% for 2-h, -50% for off-hand). If it were a change to the base value, that caveat would not be necessary or, at least, would be worded differently.

If it states "without penalty", that includes both the penalty to attack rolls and the "penalty" of size step-up (light is treated as 1-h, 1-h as 2-h, 2-h as unwieldable). Redcap sets the precedent so any ability that mirrors the verbiage used also mirrors the mechanical results. This includes Tieflings with Oversized Limbs, Ogrekin, Half-Giants, etc. By contrast, the Titan Mauler's Massive Weapons ability singles out "penalty to attack rolls" which means it has no effect on the effective effort to wield but only reduces the -2 attack roll penalty per size category difference. However, Oversized Weapons only affect Gargantuan weapons so you cannot have a Huge Cloud Giant wield a Huge Greatsword as an Undersized weapon in one hand because it is a Huge Greatsword rather than a Gargantuan Greatsword. So he can wield a Huge Greatsword as a 2-h weapon and also a Gargantuan Greatsword as a 2-h weapon, but a Colossal Dagger still counts as 2 sizes too big and is treated as a 2-h weapon with -4 to attack and he cannot wield Colossal 1-h or 2-h weapons at all.

Correct; except for one small thing. Bashing isn't a weapon enhancement, it's a shield enhancement. So it would only function if it's on your primary defensive shield. The others you listed are, indeed, weapon enhancements so they would function on either shield.

Trying to channel the raw energy of life/death if you have less than 12 Cha would result in your brain collapsing and your heart exploding.

Magic item slots aren't just for Wondrous Items; there is a designated slot for magic Armor. Weapons are a different subject altogether, but both Magic Shields and Magic Armor do, indeed, have their own magic item slots. However, should a Shield be enhanced as a weapon, even though you "merge" the enchantment levels so far as pricing and max enchantment, nothing states that those offensive enhancements are reliant on the shield magic item slot because you're using the shield in its capacity as a weapon rather than in its capacity as a shield. It'd be no different than wearing gauntlets over gloves; you can enchant the gauntlets as weapons but still get the magic effect of the gloves underneath and it doesn't suppress the offensive magic quality of the gauntlets. But you can't pair a wonderous item gauntlet with gloves and get both effects.

@Darksol: I'm not entirely sure where you stand based on your post, but it seems that, though you disagree with most of it, you've got the big picture mostly nailed down. So lets illustrate exactly how this works for the sake of clarity.

So Ironjohn Shieldpants has himself a Heavy shield and a Light shield. The Heavy shield is +2 Arrow Catching and the Light shield is +3 Bashing. Now lets say, round 1, he declares his Heavy shield as filling his Shield Slot so it is what counts as his Magic Shield. So long as he doesn't attempt a shield bash with his Heavy Shield, he gets +4 Shield bonus to AC (+2 from shield, +2 from enhancement) and the benefit of the Arrow Catching effect. So he could defend with the Heavy Shield and make attacks with the Light shield just fine (though he would not get the benefit of the Light Shield's Bashing effect since it isn't the active magic item). If he decided he needed extra attacks, he could drop the defense and attack with the Heavy Shield as well using TWF rules. He no longer benefits from the +4 shield bonus to AC, though nothing states you'd lose the Arrow Catching benefit since the Shield Bash section only states you lose your AC bonus; not the additional magic effects. Now lets say, for whatever reason, he decides he wants to attack with just the Heavy Shield but it's still designated as his Shield Slot. He'll lose the +4 AC from the Heavy Shield, but he can get +1 AC from the Light Shield since it's still a shield. However, the +3 and Bashing on the Light shield doesn't function because it isn't designated as your active magic shield; you can defend with it as if it were an unenchanted shield and get the base +1, but not the full +4 you'd get if you switched your magic shield slot to use the Light Shield.

Now, certain feats and class abilities can provide exceptions to base rules elements such as allowing you to retain shield function even when using them to attack. Improved Shield Bash is one example. It lets you retain your Shield bonus to AC even when making a Shield Bash. This isn't talking about your Magic Item shield slot so, even if Sir Shieldpants designated his Light Shield as his magic item, he could still hypothetically claim the shield bonus of the Heavy Shield over that of the Light Shield (albeit, sans +2 enhancement bonus) by use of the ISB feat (though, in this case, the numbers just don't work in his favor so there's no point; but a sub-par option is still an option). Likewise, for Shield Master, the first part talking about attack penalties makes no mention of your Magic Item slot for Shields so it applies equally to both shields you are wearing. The second part, talking about your Shield's enhancement bonus, is a different story, though. Here, we get a little ambiguity. Does the Shield still have its Enhancement Bonus if it's not currently the active magic shield? Does the magic "shut down" due to interference from the active shield or is it still latent on the inactive shield but simply not being used? If the magic is completely subverted and shut off due to having another shield as your active, you technically have no enhancement bonus to use as equivalent weapon enhancement so, in this case, Shield Master only lets you transfer the enhancement bonus of your active Magic Item Shield to attack rolls. Consequently, this means it would be more optimal to enhance one shield as a defensive tool and always use it as your "primary shield" and the other one should be enhanced as a weapon instead of as a shield. On the other hand, if the magic is still "there" but just not being used, then his Heavy Shield would get its +2 bonus and his Light Shield would get its +3 bonus as effective Weapon Enhancements to Attack and Damage rolls because the enhancement is attached to the shield itself, not the character's magic item slot. That's really the only subject for debate here.

Well, that and what kind of action it is to "change slots" between two magic items. It wouldn't matter if this were two magic shields or two magic amulets. There are two reasonable options: Standard Activate an Item action and Move Manipulate an Item action. Activate an item is usually used for use-activated things like potions or wands, but I could see it translated to spend one round "posing" with the shield to let the audience know you're activating the magic. So one standard action and it persists as the active magic shield thereafter. Alternatively, a move action to Manipulate an Item if it's more of a gentle, quick flourish that can be done concurrently with an attack or other standard action.

Don't bother with the Dan Bong; its borken. It gives +2 to grapple checks, but since you don't have both hands free, you suffer -4 to your grapple check. That's a net -2 to the check.

1 to 50 of 3,996 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.