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

4,633 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 4,633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Just a Guess wrote:

The game divides effects into th two, spread or emanation. So for the game it should be treated as one of those.

For reality it is a mix as you showed but the rules are no real life simulator.
So within the rules you have to choose one of the effect types. And, for me, spread makes more sense.

False. The game divides AoE effects into three categories; Spread, Burst, and Emanation. The Light spell (and any derivatives thereof) is not an AoE spell despite affecting an area. It creates an effect and that effect is to change the light level. Furthermore, we're talking about light from both magical and mundane sources. You're mixing your apples with your oranges.

Compare to the Titan Mauler's Massive Weapons ability:

PRD wrote:
Massive Weapons (Ex): At 3rd level, a titan mauler becomes skilled in the use of massive weapons looted from her titanic foes. The attack roll penalty for using weapons too large for her size is reduced by 1, and this reduction increases by 1 for every three levels beyond 3rd (to a minimum of 0). This ability replaces trap sense.

Massive Weapons specifically singles out the attack roll penalty. Also consider the wording of wielding a double weapon:

PRD wrote:
Double Weapons: Dire flails, gnome hooked hammers, and two-bladed swords are examples of double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Some have argued that "penalties" is only limited to the penalty to attack rolls. If that were the case, then the rules for double weapons would only give you a penalty to attack rolls with the two ends of the weapon, but not affect anything else (ie. the fact that you are actually wielding a 2-h weapon). Without understanding that "penalties" isn't necessarily limited to numeric penalties on dice rolls, you'd have to interpret the rules for using a Double weapon for TWF to mean that, while you suffer -2/-2 penalties to attack (presuming you have the TWF feat), you still get 1.5x Str for using a 2-h weapon and it still qualifies for feats/abilities like Pushing Assault. However, looking at stat blocks of NPCs wielding double weapons, they all follow convention of treating each end of the weapon as one-handed str-to-damage rather than two-handed.

Just a Guess wrote:

The question should be:

Is light an emanation or a spread effect?
The rules are silent on it but I would treat it as a spread because I think it fits better.

It's neither, but somewhere in-between. As has been stated, the direct light from the source will not go significantly around the corner. You'll get a diagonal line into the first space into the corridor, but that's all the direct light that will enter the corridor. What we're talking about is indirect light. If you were sitting down a dark corridor as illustrated above, and someone were moving along the right-angle corridor with a light source, coming closer to the junction, you'd see, gradually, your dark corridor starts to light up a very little bit. The closer the light source gets, the more it lights up, but it isn't direct, normal-level light but rather indirect dim light. Once the light source hits the junction, then the full illumination radius will flood into your corridor. So it's "like" a spread, but not a full spread like a cloud spell. It's like an emanation, but not a full emanation because light is randomly bouncing off walls into the dark corridor.

There's no hard and fast rule for applying it, but I would say that it works as follows:

Presuming Sunrod w/ 30' Normal Light and 30' more +1 current level.
Count diagonally across the corner as normal light if it's within the "normal light" radius of the light source. Additional spaces after this first diagonal are counted as "+1 level" out the the extend of the first radius. No effect beyond this. To illustrate;

20' away from opening of corridor

15' away

10' away

5' away

So, basically, count out the first full 30' radius (in the case of a Sunrod) and squares after the "first diagonal" around the corner are treated as dim light if starting from darkness (normal light if starting from dim) and the "+1 level" ends at 30' (where, ordinarily, the normal light would end). This roughly simulates the reflection of light around the corner if the walls are smooth enough. For particularly rough or otherwise non-reflective walls, cut the "+1 level" area in half.

If you want to be a "tank" character, you need two things; armor plating and a large caliber gun.

PRD wrote:


NE Fey
Melee Medium scythe +10 (2d4+10/×4), kick +4 (1d4+6)
Heavy Weapons (Ex) A redcap can wield weapons sized for Medium creatures without penalty.
d20pfsrd wrote:

Fiendish Heritage

You have oversized limbs, allowing you to use Large weapons without penalty.

"without penalty" includes both the -2/size category penalty as well as size step-up. If it didn't, then a Redcap would not be able to wield its medium scythe since a scythe is a 2-h weapon for its intended size of wielder and, normally, step-up would make it unwieldable for a creature smaller than the intended size.

However, adopted won't give it because adopted only gives you a race trait, not a racial trait. Adopted is a trait and lets you spend your "social" trait slot to get something from the Race trait slot, but it's a trait for a trait. Racial Traits like variant abilities are a whole different animal. Furthermore, because of the wording of the variant ability, it only works on Large weapons; it bears no effect towards other size categories. So, while a Large 2-h weapon would be fine, that doesn't mean you can wield a Huge 1-h weapon and take only -2 on the attack roll. To illustrate, while a Large light weapon would still be wielded as a light weapon and suffer no penalty to attack, a Huge light weapon would jump up two categories to 2-h and it would take -4 to attack (2 categories difference).

He should take Catch Off Guard and carry a big jug with him to use as an improvised weapon.

Katydid wrote:
What happens when I throw a kyoketsu shoge?

You open a jumbo can of worms.

Probably a brain fart. It should be 15/10/5

There has been a lot of discussion and debate on this topic. The pertinent lines say that you get a default -2 across the board (to maneuvers only). This applies whether or not you make that first additional maneuver. But I take the line "At 8th level, a maneuver master may attempt a second additional combat maneuver, with an additional –3 penalty on combat maneuver checks," to mean that the -3 additional penalty doesn't apply until you actually take that second combat maneuver. Same goes for the third. So, by my reckoning, your penalties would depend on where in your routine you took your additional maneuvers. To illustrate:

Additional maneuvers in blue, maneuvers in general in [brackets]:

No iteratives replaced with maneuvers, bonus maneuvers at end:

Iteratives replaced with maneuvers, bonus maneuvers at end:

Bonus maneuvers in middle:
The first two melee maneuvers are done as normal, but the last one drops from +8 to -2 beacuse it's taking an additional -10 penalty (-3 and -7).

Bonus maneuvers shuffled:
The second iterative gets only the -3 penalty because it happens after the second bonus, but before the third.

Taenia wrote:

I will suggest thinking about this from a balance point of view.

Is the larger character getting some greater benefit for the extra cost?

Is the tiny or smaller character getting some lesser benefit from the armor for the cost?

In each cast the answer is no. It is the same armor, the same benefit, the same effects. Should they pay more for the same, I don't think so.

For tiny and smaller, the benefit of the material doesn't change. Regardless of what it is made of it will give them half the AC bonus.

If it is mithral it weight less, then itgives the same reduction in ACP and the same increase in Max Dex. This is consistent regardless of size. A bigger or smaller character should not pay more or less for the exact same benefit.

Large armor doesn't give any more AC than medium armor so, by your logic, why should you pay more for Large armor at all, mithral or otherwise? Because being large is a significant benefit in and of itself.

Gauss wrote:
Question for those who believe that the multiplier applies to all cost, do you also believe it applies to the Masterwork cost?

I compared the rules for masterwork vs the rules for mithral. Masterwork says:

PRD wrote:
A masterwork suit of armor or shield costs an extra 150 gp over and above the normal cost for that type of armor or shield.

While Mithral and other cost-by-type materials calls the extra cost an "Item Cost Modifier". When you make a piece of equipment from one of these materials, you are modifying the cost. Again, it is the same as when you modify your Strength modifier with some bonus. You wouldn't multiply your Strength modifier by 1.5 for a 2-h weapon and then add the bonus from Bull's Strength, would you? So why would you multiply the cost for a larger/smaller size and then add a modifier to that cost? Masterwork is apparently different because it isn't a modifier to cost. The difference would be kind of like a bonus to Strength vs Weapon Training bonus. You add the bonus to Strength first, then multiply by 1.5 for 2-h bonus, then add Weapon Training bonus.

The line, "you may alternate attacks..." serves the purpose of saying you don't need to be using TWF rules to benefit from the class ability. Whether you are making off-hand attacks using TWF, or making all your attacks via iteratives, you still get the ability bonus to applicable weapon(s).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
born_of_fire wrote:

TWF penalties apply when you are making an attack over and above the attacks you are granted by your BAB. If he's only making the first attack at +6 and the iterative attack at +1, there is no penalty for using one weapon in your main hand and one weapon in your offhand.

Note: If it were a melee weapon, he'd be getting only 0.5 Str damage to his offhand attack but it's not so that's a whole other discussion.

Correction; if you're not using TWF rules to get extra attacks, you have no off-hand weapon so neither weapon gets reduced Str or Power Attack to damage. That only applies if you're using TWF rules (take a penalty on attack to get extra attacks).

Unarmed Fighter will give you a free base style feet. A 2 level dip into MoMS can get you two style feets (base or chain) and the capacity to use up to two different styles simultaneously. I hear Kraken style is pretty good for grapplers. 3 levels (1 in unarmed fighter, 2 in MoMS) will get you one base style from fighter and two style or style chain feats. So you could get one base style from Fighter, one base from Monk 1, then a chain in one of those from Monk 2. Of course, that calls for 3 levels which might be too rich for your blood.

Alright, so in all your games, if a character has 18 Str (+4 modifier) and they get a +4 bonus to Str (+2 to Str modifier), they still only get +8 damage from Str on their Greatsword (4 * 1.5 + 2 = 8), rather than +9 [(4 + 2) * 1.5 = 9] because multiplication occurs before addition. Gotcha.

Chess Pwn wrote:

And the tiny mithral is 1/10 the weight of medium mithral shirt so it should only cost 1/10 right since less material was used? Or off the normal pricing for half. So now I'm using 10% of the weight of medium mithral but at 50% of the cost - makes no sense at all.

550 gp vs 1100 gp (modify then multiply) or 1050 vs 1100 (multiply then modify). Using 10% of the weight, but still costing 95.5% makes less sense than costing 50%.

large mithral shirt weighs 400% of the weight of a Small mithral shirt but would costs 200% of the cost - makes no sense at all.

Again, 2200 vs 1100 (modify then multiply) or 1200 vs 1100 (multiply then modify). For it to weigh 400% but cost only 109% would make less sense than weighing 400% but cost 200%.

I feel if there's no change in cost for medium to small mithral, then likewise there's no increase in the cost for large mithral. Mithral price is outside the price of armor.

Comments with 100% more bold flavor.

Only part of the cost involves weight; the rest is the cost of the service of the craftsman and his profit margin. But the system isn't discrete enough to separate all that. To claim that, since there's no change in cost from medium mithral to small mithral, there's likewise no change in cost from medium mithral to large mithral is comparable to claiming that since there is no change in cost from medium steel to small steel, there's likewise no change in cost from medium steel to large steel.

The modifier to cost for special materials changes the cost of the type of armor. So, while a Medium Chain Shirt has a cost of 100, a Medium Mithral Chain Shirt has its actual cost modified up to 1100. So a Large version would double the cost, which is no longer 100, but 1100 because it has been modified. This also makes sense, since an armor twice the size would, presumably, take more mithral to construct.

When you say "charge and use a dirty trick", do you mean actually using the Charge action? Because Dirty Trick is a standard action, not a melee substitute, so you can't do a Dirty Trick on a Charge. You could move and then take a standard to DT, but you won't get the Charge bonus. A 1 level dip into Unarmed Fighter will give you Dragon Style and Feral Combat Training(Claws) will let you apply the Dragon Style bonus to your claws (1.5x Str on first Claw attack of the round). 1 level of MoMS will then grant you Dragon Ferocity which bumps up the Str multiplier of all your Claw attacks by 0.5 (first claw is at 2x and second claw is at 1.5x). If you're willing to dip 4 levels (actual or virtual) into Fighter, you can pick up Martial Versatility which lets you apply FCT to all Natural Weapons so the Dragon Style effects work on your bite as well (and any other natural attacks you manage to pick up).

The extra cost for Mithral is referred to as a modifier while the adjustment for size is a multiplier. So, lets say you're talking about a Chain Shirt that normally goes for 100 GP. Mithral cost modifier for light armor is +1k. What we're dealing with here is a Medium Chain Shirt costing 100 GP and a Medium Mithral Chain Shirt costing 1100 GP. Scale it up to Large, and we're applying the multiplier to the "net cost" (base + modifier). This is the same as when you apply a multiplier to your Strength bonus to damage when using a 2-h weapon. If your normal Strength bonus is +4, you multiply that up to +6 when using a 2-h weapon. Now, say you got a +2 modifier added onto your base +4 Str bonus from a belt. Where would you add that +2 Strength, before you multiply for 2-h or after? Before, of course. Thus, for a Large armor, you multiply the composite cost which includes the base plus any modifiers (ie. special materials, armor spikes, any other applicable rules elements).

BigDTBone wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
So we are left to conclude that the "measure of effort" section in the above quoted passage does not apply to ranged weapons, and therefore its useage restrictions do not apply either.
Your logic concludes that a Fine creature (<6 inches tall) is capable of wielding a Colossal Longbow (64+ feet) just so long as it takes the -16 penalty; thus your logic is incorrect.

The rules absolutely support that case. Is it silly? Yes. Is it within the rules? Yes.

Logic is never incorrect just because you dislike the outcome. That's one of logic's biggest strengths.

False, because of argumentum ad absurdum. It isn't a matter of me "not liking it", it's a matter that your conclusion is absurd.

BigDTBone wrote:
Kazaan wrote:

Hmm, deja vu or there's another thread floating around on a similar subject. Anyway, lets apply some much needed logic and correction here.

Firstly, just because a ranged weapon doesn't have a handedness category doesn't mean that a fine creature can wield a colossal longbow just so long as it takes the -16 cumulative attack penalty. The principal of a weapon being too big or too small to handle still applies.

Source cite?

My magnificent brain.

Ok, give me a mechanical definition of "object" then. There's one for creature, but no definition for object. "Or" and "exclusive or" are two very different logical terms. If the Target line of a spell lists "Creatures", it doesn't logically follow that it cannot target objects, only that it cannot target objects that are not, also, creatures. Or would you say that you suffer no harm if a dead dragon falls on you because it isn't an object?

BigDTBone wrote:
So we are left to conclude that the "measure of effort" section in the above quoted passage does not apply to ranged weapons, and therefore its useage restrictions do not apply either.

Your logic concludes that a Fine creature (<6 inches tall) is capable of wielding a Colossal Longbow (64+ feet) just so long as it takes the -16 penalty; thus your logic is incorrect.

Hmm, deja vu or there's another thread floating around on a similar subject. Anyway, lets apply some much needed logic and correction here.

Firstly, just because a ranged weapon doesn't have a handedness category doesn't mean that a fine creature can wield a colossal longbow just so long as it takes the -16 cumulative attack penalty. The principal of a weapon being too big or too small to handle still applies. In the case of ranged weapons, we can determine their equivalent handedness category by looking at their size. A Medium Longbow, for instance, is of a size that would make it a Medium object. As a rule of thumb, a two-handed weapon has the same size as an object as the size of its intended wielder so we can conclude that a Longbow is equivalent to a two-handed weapon. A Shortbow would be equivalent to a one-handed weapon. However, both bows need two hands, regardless of relative size. You can't say, "Oh, I'm wielding a Small or Tiny Longbow, so I can use it with just one hand." So, a medium creature would be able to wield a Small, Medium, or Large Shortbow or a Tiny, Small, or Medium Longbow.

Secondly, regarding Tieflings Large Limb, when it refers to "penalties", that is all-inclusive, not just "penalty to attack rolls". You don't step-up size; you count both Medium and Large weapons as being "appropriately sized". It is phrased exactly the same as the Redcap's ability which does the same thing, save for the Redcap's ability calls out Medium weapons since the Redcap is small. A Redcap can wield Medium weapons without penalty, and its stat block gives it a Medium Scythe. A Scythe is a 2-h weapon so a Small creature would, ordinarily, not be able to wield a Medium Scythe due to size step-up. If the Heavy Weapons ability didn't include the handedness change as a penalty, then the Redcap would be incapable of wielding its scythe. Don't fall into the trap of thinking "Penalty" is just numeric penalties; it is a broader term than that. For instance, a double weapon says you take the penalties of wielding a 1-h and light weapon when you TWF using a double weapon. Now, if you presumed that "penalties" are just the numeric values subtracted from your attack roll, you get into a number of problems because you're wielding a two-handed weapon; that means you get 1.5x Str and Power Attack on each attack if "penalties" doesn't include reducing the effective category from two-handed to one-handed and light.

Regarding the character concept in question, a Large Shortbow would be applicable, though functionally inferior to just wielding a Medium Longbow as the two would do the same damage, but the Shortbow gets -2 inappropriate size penalty. The Tiefling option is still valid so you could get up to a Large Longbow. I couldn't find a magic weapon that would fit, so a custom job may also apply; perhaps the handedness-spoofing property of the Sun Blade translated into a Large Longbow?

BigDTBone wrote:
The longbow has an explicit rule. It says that you wield it in 2 hands regardless of size.

"In two hands" and "two-handed weapon" are two very different terms in the mechanics of pathfinder. A Longsword can be wielded "in two hands", but doing so doesn't qualify it as a two-handed weapon for, say, Shield of Swings or Pushing Assault. Likewise, when wielding a Bow, you must use two hands regardless of size doesn't make it a two-handed weapon regardless of size. It just means that even if it is small enough to count as a one-handed or even a light weapon for you, you still need to devote both hands to operating it.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Flesh to Stone specifies the target as "one creature". As objects are not creatures, the spell does not work on objects; ergo, the spell does not work on undead.

There's no rule that states "object" and "creature" are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, even if they were, Undead are still creatures because the game defines "Creature" as "An active participant in the story or world". Being alive is neither a prerequisite nor a consequence of being a creature. Undead and Constructs are creatures despite not being alive while a mundane plant is alive despite not being a creature. An "object" is anything visible or tangible with relatively stable form. I'm pretty sure a person qualifies as would an animal and anything else corporeal. But there's no rule anywhere that sets up some dichotomy between object/creature. So you're incorrect on two fronts.

lemeres wrote:

Lunge is amazing with reach. It does not increase your threatened area, but allows you to strategically place enemies in a sweet spot where you can get more AoOs.

Normally, with a polearm, you end your turn with an enemy 10' away. That means they only need a 5' step to reach you, which prevents an AoO and allows them to full attack. If you attack first, you do not get an AoO.

With lunge, enemies end up 15' away. Many will need to spend a move action to move 10' to reach you. That means they draw an AoO and they most likely lose their full attack. That is offense and defense in one. Also, if you attack first, you can still get in an AoO.

Pushing assault also has similar advantages- if an enemy gets right next to you, you only need to take a 5' step back, full attack, and push them back 5'. They are back in the sweet spot 15' away. This lets you set up enemies for AoOs again and again.

Another note- lunge also has the stated advantage of expanding your reach- you can full attack anything in a 45' wide circle (reach+lunge+5' step+ you square in the middle). While reach is a great defense... you are no turtled up monk or sword and board user. You still ahve a 2 handed weapon, and you are very good at using it.

Final advice- get a fortuitous weapon. This +1 property lets you get in 2 AoOs for the same action (second one at BAB-5), and it does this 1/round. That is basically a small full attack against anything that crosses your threatened area. This truly exemplifies 'the best defense is a good offense'.

Lunge only works until the end of your turn. So you won't increase your threat radius against enemy movement; just for stuff that happens during your turn. For example, you could combine it with Greater Trip to take an AoO against an enemy that you trip during your turn.

I don't see what Card Caster has to do with any of this, but I can say that you are misinterpreting the archetype. Card Caster doesn't use Spell Combat with cards at all; period. It wasn't designed to. Your problem is that you cling to the paradigm of "Shocking Grasp Spell Combat". There are other uses of Spell Combat besides using a Spellstrike touch spell. You could use a buff or debuff, for instance; hit them with a support spell or even throw out something like Burning Hands before moving in for melee with a normal melee weapon. When using Harrowed Spellstrike, you're doing so as just a normal standard action. It simply doesn't combine with Spell Combat in the way that a vanilla Magus can do. Same goes for the Myrmidarch.

Back to the discussion at hand, as I've said repeatedly, the RAW vs RAI debate is a phantom; that is not the problem in the first place. If you're going to say "strict RAW interpretation" (presumed to mean explicit interpretation only) then you cannot wield an improperly sized ranged weapon because, since you can't step-up or step-down the size, your result is, by definition, going to be "something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed" and, thus, you cannot wield the weapon.

Regarding Weapon Training, would you say that Monk training only covers the weapons as melee weapons? If so, what is Shuriken doing in there? Weapon Training covers all uses of the applicable weapons; if you're trained in the use of thrown weapons, that covers using them as melee weapons if they can be used as such. Otherwise, you'd have to specify whether your Weapon Focus(Dagger) applied to throwing a dagger or attacking in melee, but not both. Intent is a nice thing to know, but the writer of Titan Mauler had his intent outright overridden by the rules team and the wording of his archetype was changed accordingly. It's great when RAW (both explicit and implicit) matches RAI, but if there is a disconnect, it is the responsibility of Paizo to change it because it is their commercial product and it is mechanically valid to follow RAW (both explicit and implicit) until such a change occurs because they can't be expected to chime in on every RAW vs RAI debate and say, "Yes, we really did mean it the way it is written."

This kind of hearkens back to the original meaning of -mancy which is "divination". Necromancy is divination through the dead (ie. asking spirits, interpreting entrails, etc). Aquamancy would be divination through observations of water, pyromancy would be divination through fire, etc. He brought them back not to serve, but to live. Such a character can be an agent who helps restless spirits finish their life missions and correct mistakes they made in life so they can find rest. Another thing to consider is that not every single individual in the village would want to come back; this character doesn't seem to be the kind that would force everyone back regardless of their wishes. Maybe someone was still "on the fence" about coming back and decides to not come right back into a corporeal state, but rather hung around as an incorporeal (Arrule's idea). Of course, not having a "meat tank" sit there and guard you can have its own problems.

Another option is that maybe he did jump the gun and the first person he raised turned out evil (ie. he tried doing it at level 3 rather than waiting until level 4 when he gets the "not evil, just misunderstood" class power). It still obeys his commands, but it serves as a constant reminder for him the line that he walks with his magic, as well as playing "bad conscience" if it is intelligent. This undead could constantly be trying to convince him that violent revenge and slaughter aren't so distasteful and he shouldn't knock it till he's tried it. Maybe he constantly tries to isolate himself from Tim so he can act out without Tim ordering him to stop, maybe with a catch phrase like, "Unfortunately, Timmy's stuck in the well."

Serisan wrote:

So, if I'm reading the rules quotes so far, you can wield a colossal longbow on a medium character if I take the appropriate penalties? After all, it's 2 handed regardless of size. Thus, it never "sizes out" like a 2h weapon normally would. Time for Gravity Bow!

This question comes up all the time at the table in really weird ways. The chakram is a prime example. Can I wield it as a melee weapon with two hands for 1.5x STR to damage? I would guess no, since it's not listed as a one-handed weapon. Can I TWF with it effectively? Well, it's not a light weapon, so you operate like it's a one-handed weapon with -4/-4. But I thought it wasn't a one-handed weapon because I couldn't use it in two hands?

This was something I thought was going to be addressed in UE and didn't actually happen.

No, way off the mark. Just because ranged weapons don't follow the light/1-h/2-h size categories doesn't mean that a fine creature can wield a colossal longbow just by taking the net -16 penalty to attack. You still are obligated to consider that a weapon is too big or too small for the creature to wield. In the absence of explicit rules stating how, we must rely on implicit rules and those implicit rules work quite well as I outlined in my initial posting. A Longbow, for instance, is "equivalent" to wielding a 2-h weapon meaning you can't wield an over-sized one, though you could conceivably wield one up to 2 sizes smaller (but it still requires 2 hands). So a Medium creature could wield a Tiny, Small, or Medium Longbow. Large or bigger is too big to handle while Diminutive or smaller is too small.

Regarding the Chakram, we have no real indication of size in the rules. Real-life Chakram are described as ranging from 5-11 inches which would actually put it in the category of diminutive. We can chock this up to the fact that it is a circle rather than a "long" weapon so we'll call that Tiny for working purposes. So, as far as relative size goes for "how big/small of one can I wield", we can say that a Chakram is equivalent to a light weapon, meaning you can throw one up to 2 size categories larger. As far as wielding it goes, however, it is technically neither light nor one-handed. It is just "wielded as a melee weapon" so it neither benefits as a light weapon for the purpose of off-hand penalties, weapon finesse, etc. nor does it benefit as a one-handed weapon for using two hands to get 1.5x Str or Power Attack. It is, quite literally, the worst of both worlds for making melee attacks. And, given the nature of the weapon, this is understandable. Using it as a melee weapon is a contingency, not an advantage. This is a Plan C at best, maybe even a Plan D; wielding a Chakram as your melee weapon should never be your Plan A unless it is a particularly flamboyant and/or self-limiting character.

Kaiin Retsu wrote:
The issue is, as we have been discussing in another thread Kazaan, that there is not spot actually written where it explains this. Trust me that I agree with you Kazaan, I actually went in to a long tirade about how the sizes of the weapons compared to the sizes of the wielder interact, but this does not change the fact that it is not in the rules. As far as the rules say, bows require two hands to wield no matter what size they are. The issue with handedness is the fact that a certain Tiefling trait allows you to wield a large weapon without penalties, and according to the rules, any bow of any size only requires two hands, so they are not actually listed in the penalty section. Like I said, I completely agree with you, and I can not see how it could be any other way, but it is true that the rules do not specify.

In order for the rules to explicitly specify every esoteric possibility that could come up at any time, ever, it would take a book weighing approximately 12 metric f%@!tons. The problem that people have is that they can't wrap their minds around the idea that RAW can be implicit as well as explicit. Implicit doesn't automatically mean "not RAW" or "RAI". Implicit RAW is just as valid as Explicit RAW.

Regarding the issue at hand, there is no explicit rule to apply, but there are implicit rules which I outlined in my post. If you want to go with absolute explicit-only rules, then you cannot wield a weapon not designed for your size (or virtual size in the case of Tiefling, Redcap, Centaur, etc) at all because...

PRD wrote:
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature wields a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon (it still takes the –2 penalty for using an inappropriately sized weapon). If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Ranged weapons have no applicable handedness category so the size change in either direction would automatically change it to "something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed"; thus, unwieldable. But then, if you look in the writeup of a bow...

PRD wrote:
At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow can't be used while mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. You can apply your Strength modifier to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow, but not a regular longbow. A longbow fires arrows.

Why even bring up the size of a Longbow if a Medium creature would be incapable of wielding a Small Longbow in the first place? The answer is that the interpretation that results in a Medium creature being unable to wield a Small Longbow is incorrect and must be re-evaluated. I've already done all the heavy lifting in this regard. I crunched the data and outlined it in my post. If they are arguing otherwise in some other thread, then let them have fun being incorrect.

Normal US damage vs Large shield.

Cevah wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
If you roll 20 times with a magic device, you're going to activate it at some point before you hit 20. It isn't just a series of 19 "1"s followed by a 20. It's a simulated number of tries. But if you have, say, a 60% chance of success by rolling, then you're going to use up 12 charges of your wand in trying to get a 20. If you're using a one-time-use item, there's a 60% chance that it goes off whether you have your desired 20 or not.

You won't use up extra charges because when the first activation occurs, you stop trying. If you fail to activate a wand (or scroll), no charge is expended. If you fail to activate blindly by 10 or more, you get a magical mishap, so you cannot Take-20 if a mishap is a possibility.


Are you saying that that first activation is guaranteed to be a 20? Because if not, this isn't "take 20".

As a rule of thumb, a light weapon is 2 size categories smaller than the intended user. One-handed weapons are 1 size category smaller, and two-handers are the same size category. So a Medium Longsword would be a Tiny Object. A Shortbow, for instance, is 3 feet in length which would correspond to Small size. Thus, a Shortbow could be counted as a one-handed weapon in regards to relative size category (though, bows have the caveat that they require two hands to use regardless of relative size). So a Medium creature could use either a Small, Medium, or Large creature's Shortbow. A Longbow, however, is a Medium object so it would be equivalent to a 2-h weapon. So a Medium creature would be able to use a Tiny, Small, or Medium Longbow, but not a Large one, for example. Some weapons don't list a length from which to derive object size so we need to do some guess work there. A Heavy Crossbow can be fired one-handed, but with -4 to attack and can be used with TWF as if using a non-light off-hand. A Light Crossbow gets -2 to attack using one hand, and is treated as light for TWF penalties. So a heavy crossbow in your off-hand gets a total of -8 to attack while a light gets a total of of -4. -4 corresponds to wielding a one-handed off-hand so I'd say that a light crossbow is equivalent to a one-handed weapon with special caveats as listed. Heavy crossbows are equivalent to two-handed weapons.

There's no rule stating that Creature and Object are mutually exclusive. Creature is defined as "an active participant in the story or world", but "object" is not mechanically defined; thus we must resort to the standard English definition, which is "anything that is visible or tangible and relatively stable in form." By that definition, nearly all creatures, from Humanoids to Constructs to Dragons, would also be considered Objects. Incorporeal creatures would be creatures, but not objects. Thus, adamantine's ability to bypass hardness would still affect creatures with hardness except for the very unlikely scenario of an incorporeal creature with hardness.

Shar Tahl wrote:
This is the heart of the problem, and it can be clearly seen where you stand and you can't see why it's not being misunderstood (from the previous attack on the literacy of GMs who disagree). Be aware though, that there is a chance you could be wrong in your interpretation. The other side of the coin is the chance that the Knowledge skill is the one needing the amendment to remove take-10 and that the take-10 rules for combat would still apply to the bard.

Of course there is a chance I could be wrong in my interpretation. But it doesn't change the fact that this is the most reasonable interpretation given the facts available. If presented with new facts, I will adjust accordingly. But what I have presented is what the rules currently say. If the intent is different, it is Paizo's responsibility to change the relevant rules to more accurately reflect their intent.

Cevah wrote:
Implication is not RAW but RAI.

Incorrect. Explicit or implicit writing means nothing as to whether or not it is RAI.

Imply: involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood.

Implication still relies on what is written. Both explicit meaning and implicit meaning are matters of RAW. The problem is that people arrive at a conclusion that isn't implied but call it implied. But this is not one of those cases. The line clearly states that Lore Master allows the Bard to take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in. So, "I'm in combat, can I take 10 on this Knowledge check?" "Yes, because Lore Master says you can take 10..." "I'm running across a collapsing bridge, can I take 10 on this Knowledge check?" "Yes, because Lore Master says you can take 10..." Now, whether or not RAI agrees with either explicit or implicit RAW is another discussion altogether.

If they specifically call out target:creature, they mean it to affect a creature. That creature may also happen to be an object, but even if the creature isn't an object, that is inconsequential. You couldn't, for instance, use it on a ficus. But you could use it on an incorporeal creature (provided it's a magic, force, or other kind of effect that can affect incorporeal). You can have a red door. You can also have a door that isn't red, or something that is red, but not a door. You can even have something that is neither red, nor a door. If the Target were "Door", it wouldn't matter whether or not the door is red. If the target were "red or door", that doesn't mean it wouldn't affect a red door.

Byakko wrote:


The rules don't always make perfect sense. For example, they give a flank bonus to a visible person who has an invisible flanking ally. At least in this situation, it kinda makes sense.

Note that the flanking bonus doesn't result from simply having two nearby foes. Heck, a character can easily have FOUR+ adjacent foes yet remain unflanked. In order to flank, the attackers have to be in very specific positions and operating in unison to facilitate the flank.

So while you may not be completely ignoring the total defense guy, he's not operating in conjunction with his ally well enough to cause a serious distraction. Thus, no flank.

Again, this is mostly fluff to explain the rules that almost everyone actually uses. The rules themselves could use some clarification, as mentioned before.


Btw, a character who double moves is still in an actively aggressive stance. He may not have had time to attack normally, but he's still looking for a chance to hit his enemies given the opportunity.

Who says he isn't working in conjunction with his ally well enough? What part of the description of Total Defense says that?

PRD wrote:

Total Defense

You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.

Nothing in there indicates that you stop threatening, that you "aren't working with your teammates", or anything of the sort. You get a +4 dodge bonus for 1 round, you can't make AoOs, and you can't combine it with fighting defensively or combat expertise. That's all. Flanking is contingent on only two things; position and your potential to attack. Are you paralyzed or under some other condition that prevents you from attacking? No. Are you in the proper position? Yes. Therefore, you provide flanking. No muss, no fuss.

The check penalty for the Chameleon Suit is already 0. Light Proficiency only serves a purpose if the ACP is >0. So you can still drop proficiency and wear the suit without issue.

Regarding having an undead horde, the first consideration is logistics. How good are you at tracking stats for several "sub-characters"? If you don't feel confident with handling a large horde, you'll drastically slow down the game. I'd say stick to a single, strong champion, maybe with a handful of extras for when you need them. And you probably have beefier characters in your group so it's not like it's "all up to you" to be a damage dealer or a tank. Your undead champion will simply defend you while you do your controller thing. Give him a reach weapon to keep enemies at bay while you toss out your spells and maybe some shots with your blaster (such an uncivilized weapon).

Will your GM allow a mithral Chameleon suit? It doesn't seem to be made of metal.

How about a Half-Giant with Racial Heritage(Halfling) who takes Underfoot Adept. At level 4, he counts as Huge to determine the max size he can trip (so he can trip Gargantuan).

If you roll 20 times with a magic device, you're going to activate it at some point before you hit 20. It isn't just a series of 19 "1"s followed by a 20. It's a simulated number of tries. But if you have, say, a 60% chance of success by rolling, then you're going to use up 12 charges of your wand in trying to get a 20. If you're using a one-time-use item, there's a 60% chance that it goes off whether you have your desired 20 or not.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The difference is due to the reach, more than the size. If a large creature lacked reach, it would be affected by the corner just as anyone else would be.

Well, seeing that this is a sci-fantasy setting, it'd probably be fitting for you to invest in some kind of firearm training. You'll also want a way to reliably be able to create the proper light conditions to use your shadow abilities. But if you want to go full-on sci-fi necrolord, there's two major options; with undead minions or without. That choice, in a way, comes down to two major considerations. 1) how does your group feel about minions, and 2) how does your character feel about undead slaves? Regarding the first point, I've seen groups that feel minions slow the game down too much and, while not outright banned, they tacitly agree not to focus on minion-heavy builds (ie. swarm summoners, undead horde lords, leadership-centric, etc). If they're fine with minions, then the more the merrier as they are, literally, a meat shield between you and the things trying to hurt you. If they prefer fewer minions, then focus on making yourself some kind of "champion" undead or just go with a controller necro and let your group capitalize on it all rather than your minion(s).

Save-or-Suck spells will be good. If you don't go for a gun, pick up Acid Splash for an always-available ranged attack (the other one, Ray of Frost, is evocation which is an opposed school for you).

I see that you have the Orator feat, but it lists Skill Focus(Linguistics) as a prereq which you don't seem to have. Is this a houserule or an oversight? If an oversight, I'd suggest dropping light armor proficiency and take the Human alternate trait that trades their free feat at 1st level for Skill Focus three times (1st, 8th, and 16th lvl). You can wear a silken ceremonial armor (or haramaki). They have 0 ACP so, whether or not you are proficient in light armor, they carry no penalty anyway, and they have 0% ASF (light proficiency doesn't remove ASF unless your class grants it and it explicitly says so (ie. Bard) and, even then, only for that class's spells).

Cause Fear is pretty standard for a fear-based controler. I'd also go for Color Spray to handle trash and Blindness/Deafness is a decent save-or-suck for its level, nice for crippling a single attacker.

Byakko wrote:

Democratus' line of argument is actually quite reasonable.

Most of us have a pretty good sense that going full defense prevents you from flanking. On the other hand, we understand that a character who is out of attacks of opportunities still does flank. This seems to be an apparent paradox. How can we justify our intuition on how this works?

What is the difference between a character in full defense and one who is out of attacks of opportunity?

Normally a combatant is actively trying to attack and impede nearby foes all throughout the round. So even though a person's level of skill may only allow them to make one effective attack of opportunity, they are nevertheless attempting to attack enemies continuously in their non-turn based version of reality.

In contrast, a character in full defense has ceased all attempts to actively harm their foes. While they might have a special talent to get in a quick attack(perhaps), their primary focus during the round is defense. This isn't just fighting defensively, but full-on turtling with no effort to strike others. The complete lack of effort to attack is what causes opponents to no longer need to pay attention to and be distracted by the individual, resulting in the loss of the flanked condition.

Now while I believe the above explanation is close to the Rules as Intended, the RAW isn't really that clear at all. We generally all accept this is how it works, but the rules could use an extra sentence to spell out this difference, imho.

Except that the flankee isn't going to just say, "Oh, he has completely turtled up so I can completely disregard him and focus entirely on the other guy for the next 6 seconds." If you, yourself were in a fight, caught between a couple of flankers, and one seemingly went fully on defense, would you ignore him and turn your back on him to completely focus on the other guy? I certainly wouldn't. I'd still want to keep an eye on him, even if it compromises my defense, because I have no idea what tricks he has up his sleeve.

Furthermore, what's the difference between a character in full-defense and a character who double-moves? A double-move doesn't involve attacking any more than total defense does. But no credible argument can be made that a character taking a double-move or other non-attacking action combination would cease flanking unless it specifically says you no longer threaten.

The important thing to remember is that AoOs are based on your capacity to attack while flanking is based on the flanked character's wariness that you have the potential to attack. I think it would be nice to be able to "break" a flank by allowing yourself to be flat-footed to one of the attackers, but that is, ultimately, a houserule.

thejeff wrote:
With time and effort, that may change, but it won't on its own and pretending it already doesn't matter doesn't help the process. It just lets prejudice be hidden.

It isn't a matter of "pretending". It's a matter of affirmation. What holds us all back is the attitude of it being in some far off, nebulous future. Progressive attitudes begin with the affirmation of a correct situation in the present. Then, you make progress. Never think for a moment that this is about "pretending everything is fine" because it isn't. It's about affirming that everything is fine because if you set the desired result in your mind as being in the present, you'll empower yourself. If you leave it as a "sometime, maybe" then you blunt your own efforts. People may be proud of their differences, but that doesn't mean that it's always appropriate. Especially when their pride goes hand-in-hand with criticizing the divisive culture.

wraithstrike wrote:
Kazaan just to be clear is your argument just for the sake of discussion or do you really think spells that call out creatures or objects are intended by the devs to also affect something in the other category?. And do you also think it is really hard to distinguish between when something is a creature or an object in an actual game?

"Or" is not the same as "Exclusive Or". They don't list "creatures or objects" as a matter of distinction, it's a matter of inclusion. They want both creatures that aren't objects as well as objects that aren't creatures to be included, but there is a vast area of overlap in between. And no, I don't think it's hard to distinguish whether something is a creature or an object. It's just two Boolean values: Creature (1/0), Object (1/0). Valid permutations are (Creature:true, Object:true), (Creature:true, Object:false), (Creature:false, Object:true), and (Creature:false, Object:false). There are other Boolean values that I listed such as "Living" and "Item". There's no such thing as an argument "just for the sake of discussion". In order to be defined as an argument, it must be a meaningful position so the sake of determining a correct conclusion. I used the data available, analyzed it, and established my logical position. If someone can provide additional meaningful data or a valid alternate interpretation, I'll change my mind. But a person that spawns a conflicting idea merely for the sake of conflict is a troll and to do that would be anathema to me. So, from now into perpetuity, you can rest assured that if I present a conflicting interpretation, it is because of brainpower and not boredom.

End that discussion once and for all... in 2019

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My wife saw a documentary recently which was originally in Spanish but was dubbed into English. She took Spanish in highschool so she caught right away when a pair of siblings, a boy and a girl, were translated as "brothers" and figured that the translation was done just by the script. In Spanish, "chico" means boy and "chica" means girl. If you have a bunch of girls, it'd be "chicas" but if you had a mixed gender group, it always pluralized to "chicos", even if it's just one boy and however many girls there are. The translators saw "chicos" without context beyond the fact that they were siblings, so translated it as "brothers", not knowing that they were brother and sister.

By contrast, Japanese has a whole culture of tropes revolving around a person of ambiguous gender being confused for one or the other and the hilarity that ensues (see Ouran Highschool Host Club) and also gender-nonspecific constructions. They can pull it off because of the "that person" pronoun constructions. They're often translated (lazily) to "he" or "she" to illustrate the assumption that the characters are making; you might talk about "that person" who is a great hero and come save us and the characters presume it's a big strong man but then a petite girl who had been discounted previously turns out to be the big damn hero. A lazy translator will just translate "that person" to "he" in this example, but that is technically incorrect because the person never specified gender in the first place. The characters who were mislead would usually continue to use "that person", but the gender in mind for each person will differ.

If you want to really get an idea of what I'm trying to say here, consider Raven Symone's comment in the infamous Oprah interview, "I'm tired of being labeled. I'm an American. I'm not an African American; I'm an American." She extricated herself from that paradigm of exclusion and separatism, both on a racial level as well as regarding her sexual orientation. She isn't "gay" and she isn't "African-American". She's a person; a person who has a particular heritage and is of a particular sexual orientation, but refuses to be defined by the associated labels. To make a "token gay character" is not progressive any more than a "token black guy" would be. Regardless of your language, we should try to view people as "people" and not sub-divide arbitrarily just for the sake of being different. If someone is really driven by the idea that they don't want to be marginalized by society, they do themselves no favors by trying to re-enforce the divisions that marginalize them.

Why exactly is an untrained, DC 10 knowledge check autofail if you take 10? You still get your Interest bonus, you know. 12 Int let's you succeed at a DC 10 check if you take 10.

Regarding the prohibition on trying again, knowledge checks kind of represent Schrödinger's Knowledge. If you succeed at the check, the character didn't learn the info on the spot; he had known it for a long time, possibly for years. You, the player didn't know that he knew, but the character did. Metagaming works both ways. That's why additional skill ranks doesn't increase your actual knowledge on the subject; it only increases the chances that you have already learned about it in the past. But if a creature spits fire at you, no additional knowledge check is necessary to know that it breaths fire.

1 to 50 of 4,633 << 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.