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

4,835 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,835 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

PFSRD wrote:

Reckless Aim

Prerequisites: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot.

Benefit: When you shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee, you can choose to take a –1 penalty to your AC and gain a +2 competence bonus on your attack roll. However, when you roll a natural 1 on a ranged attack roll made with this bonus, you automatically hit a random adjacent creature that threatens your intended target.

From Blood of Fiends.

Even Reckless aim requires Precise Shot as a prereq. Honestly, I'd say it's a bad idea all around. Don't risk pissing off your group by "accidentally" shooting one in the butt.


Claxon wrote:

I'm also not sure what to do about the fact that it is unlikely that your weapons will always be enchanted at the same rate, which means one hands attacks should be less likely to hit than the other.

I forget if the rules account for that or not.

The lower-bonus weapon is the limiting reagent. If you are using TWF and one weapon has a total bonus of +5 and the other has +3, you roll d20+3 which functions for both weapons. So, in this system, it's best to have your two weapons as close to even in total attack bonus as feasible.


pfsrd wrote:
When fighting with two weapons, use the lower attack bonus of the two weapons. If you score one hit, you also score a hit with your off-hand weapon. If you have Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and score two hits, you also score a second hit with your off-hand weapon, for a total of four. If you have Greater Two-Weapon Fighting and score three hits, you also score a third hit with your off-hand weapon, for a total of six.

The attack penalty of ITWF gets rolled into the normal "beat by 5" paradigm of the whole sub-system. If you beat their AC by 0-4, you score one hit and, if using TWF rules, you deliver two strikes, one with each weapon. What you are doing is just rolling a single attack; essentially, your first attack determines all the rest. And since the ITWF off-hand attack couldn't possibly be your "first attack", the -5 penalty never enters play directly. But it is effectively accounted for because, if you beat their AC by 5-9, you get two hits which, if using TWF rules, delivers 4 strikes, two with each weapon. So, technically, both of you are wrong. You're not "ignoring" the -5 from ITWF because it's already accounted for by the system in the same way that the -5 for the second iterative attack is and you certainly don't need to add it in a second time. But, between the two, a is the less wrong option.

To illustrate, vs 15 AC:

Normal progression:
d20+5; if >= 15, hit
d20+5; if >= 15, hit
d20+0; if >= 15, hit
d20+0; if >= 15, hit

Each weapon has a discrete attack roll for four total rolls

Unchained Iteratives progression:
d20+5; if <= 10, miss; if 10<result<=14, glancing blow; if 14<result<=19, one attack with each weapon (2 total); if 19<result<=24, two attacks with each weapon (4 total)

You only make your first attack roll and determine all subsequent hits on how well that single roll fared; one roll determines all four attacks and the -5 from ITWF is automatically accounted for in the same way that the -5 for the second iterative is.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Paizo has displayed that they generally have a pretty poor understanding of the crunchier side of the game. Many of them have also stated publically that they favor more fluff/rule's light interpretations and guidelines than rules.

Not saying that as an insult, just that everyone has different preferences. It does, however mean that they are generally not a great arbitrator of even their own rules, (although it's not actually their rules).

That's to be expected. They are game designers. When you spend your time designing games, you have less time available to play games. But people who practice playing frequently, to they point that they "master the crunch", would likely come up with a bad game if they tried to sit down and play designer because they lack experience from the design end of things. It's a give-and-take.


"Real" ninja were predominantly peasants. Very often, they died at the job and suffered an ignoble death. Occasionally, one would be highly successful through a delicate combination of skill and dumb luck. And, people being what they are, start to spin fanciful rumors. He ran around a corner and vanished into thin air (found a handy hiding spot and was overlooked). This is where we get tales of "mystical ninjas". Now, the concept of the mystic/magical ninja has become a trope of its own. I'd say that a Ninja/Monk hybrid would, essentially, be this trope; the Mystical Ninja that uses Monk Qi powers liberally and is trained in martial arts. In short, your standard shounen anime ninja (see Naruto).

One of the key points would be what to base the Ki pool on. Monks use Wisdom, Ninja use Charisma. In a normal multi-class Monk/Ninja, you'd pick which to use. I think that fits here as well; you pick either Wis or Cha when you gain your Ki pool and probably have this affect your Armor bonus as well. So you can be a "wise" mystical ninja with higher perception, sense motive, and Will save, or you can be a "confident" one with stronger social skills and maybe some other benefits in-class tied to Cha.

Another aspect of the Mystical Ninja are hand signs. We see this, again, common in Anime where a ninja will make a quick sign by "folding" his fingers together in a specific manner to "cast a jutsu". Rogues already have a talent that lets them learn a Wizard/Sorc spell so it's not hard to wrap that up into Qinggong abilities. Essentially, fold the Ki abilities from Monk in with the Talents of the Ninja.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:

What if they became a lich only to stop a greater evil that they have prophifised to defeat... but in 350 years. So they used lichdom to ensure they would be there, and in the time between now and then, simply continued to commit good acts to try and redeem their "For the greater good" evil acts.

Note: This isn't a hypothetical to just make an extreme example, this was an NPC I've used previously.

Because, given how prophecies work, he'd compromise his morality to become a lich, degrade into maddness, and, 350 years later, the "greater evil" turns out to be said lich.

That having been said, since the cycle of life goes Birth->Life->Death->Rebirth, and becoming Undead essentially throws a spanner into the works, Undead should be Chaotic or, at the very least, non-Lawful because it goes against the natural order of things. Mindless undead could very well be Evil just due to the fundamental nature of Negative energy. But Undead with their mind left intact would could be any alignment within the restrictions previously mentioned (either Chaotic or non-Lawful depending on how stringent you want to make it).

Which, of course, leads to another concept; what, exactly is the nature of Negative Energy? Mathematically speaking, positive and negative are completely relative terms; it doesn't matter which is which so long as you are consistent. Note how we have the Material plane which is, by and large, where living mortals live. Then you have the Ethereal and Shadow planes which correspond to the Material. All three essentially overlap and take up the same space, but at a different "frequency". What if there is a fourth place that follows the same rules? Material<>Ethereal<>Shadow<>Anti-Material. Note that denizens of the Shadow plane are affected by the Sun Blade in the same manner that Undead are. This implies that Shadow Plane entities are powered by Negative Energy. I think that there is a hypothetical Anti-Material plane in which Living creatures are powered by Negative energy while Undead are powered by Positive energy. In essence, a living creature from the Material plane who got himself to the anti-Material would be, from their perspective, an Undead. However, the Shadow plane is the closest you could get and it would be, to them, as the Ethereal plane is to the Material. But that's getting all into theory-crafting and such.


People are conflating "Concentration", "Concentration check", and "concentration to maintain a spell".

Concentration is putting your mind towards a task. Spellcasting, inherently, requires concentration. But other things require concentration as well, such as picking a lock or carefully cutting a gemstone.

Concentration Check is a roll made to determine if your concentration is broken for the purpose of casting a spell.

PRD wrote:
To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.

Some spells have a duration governed by concentration; you must maintain concentration (make a check if concentration threatened) to maintain the spell. But Call Lightening isn't one of these. Therefore, even if your concentration is broken, even if you are concentrating to call down the bolt as a standard action, the spell doesn't end. You don't even lose a bolt in the process.

Now, it would be reasonable to enforce a concentration check to allow you to call down a bolt, but failing the check simply means you fail to call down the bolt; it doesn't mean that you lose the bolt because the rules don't state that, nor that you lose the whole spell because the spell must have concentration in the duration for that to happen. Thus, if you are unable to concentrate, you simply cannot call down a bolt at that time; nothing more and nothing less.


Tvarog wrote:
I'm more bothered by the fact that it only activates on a crit. That means you can have a whole quiver (or several) full of barbed arrows tied to individual ropes, and despite hitting with every one of them (and your target trailing dozens of ropes), you get no grapple check. Near as worthless, IMO.

You can be injured by a glancing blow. There would be no embedding in that case. Furthermore, it needs to embed well enough that pulling on the line won't pull out the arrow. That's what the critical hit represents; hitting them in such a way that the arrow lodges well enough to count them as being grappled.


Arguably, the two parts are separate. It has the Disarm special weapon property and a "see text" property which forwards to the "if you are proficient..." part. They aren't of the same type, thus, without further data, I'd say they stack as it stands. But keep in mind that it might be clarified that both the bonuses come from the "same source" (special properties of the weapon). But, thus far, there is no prescient for all the weapon properties put together to be counted as a single source.


Str 8 (-2)
Dex 17 (7) +1 (lvl 8), +2 (lvl 12), +3 (lvl 16)
Con 14 (5)
Int 9 (-4)
Wis 12 (2)
Cha 13 (7) [+1 (lvl 4)]
--------

Traits) Weapon Finesse, Omen
Weapons: Wakizashi x2
Lvl 1) Unchained Barb 1: TWF
Lvl 2) Barb 2: Lesser Beast Totem
Lvl 3) Barb 3: Skill Focus[Knowledge(Engineering)]
Lvl 4) Barb 4: Superstition
Lvl 5) Barb 5: Eldritch Heritage(Nanite)
Lvl 6) Barb 6: Accurate Stance
Lvl 7) Barb 7: ITWF

The Nanite heritage ability lets you coat your weapon in nanites which, at level 7 (virtual Sorc lvl 5), lets that weapon count as magic vs DR. The poison effect is just gravy. You'll be able to use it for 5 rounds/day with 14 Cha to start. Of course, you're aiming to get GBT for Pounce and Lethal Accuracy for +1 to crit multiplier, which, along with Improved Critical(Wakizashi), gives you a pair of 15-20/x3 weapons at lvl 17. Hide armor might be best to start with and trade it out for something better when the cash and dexterity start rolling in.


Remember that skill ranks, after a few levels, are more important than governing ability score. At lvl 1, with 1 skill rank in a class knowledge skill, sure, a 14 int character gets +6 while a 7 Int gets +2 (3:1 ratio). But at level 5, the ratio is only 5:4 and at level 10, the ratio is 15:13. Beyond that, the only thing really holding her back is number of skill points. High-Int characters have extra skill points to slather around but low-Int characters will need to specialize in just a few fields and have less room to "spread out". That's the real difference, she is more specialized than generalized. She won't go for the fine techniques of greater disarm or greater trip, sticking with just the basic forms, but will, instead, favor the more power-oriented bull rush or sunder and maybe grappling. She already starts knowing Common and Elven and a single point of Linguistics gets her an additional language which might be useful, but it's a high opportunity cost given her limited skill points. But she wouldn't go overboard learning several languages.

As far as characterization, if you want to "act to the stats", she's very perceptive both in regards to her environment and the people around her, she's got a leg up in any profession she might pick up (better at doing a task than making an object), and she's very willful. Not so much on confidence so she puts her trust in the subjects of her training. She trusts nature and she trusts her training, probably without question. Keep in mind that "Monk" doesn't necessarily imply "Monastery". She could be a "self-trained" type who learned from nature itself (many martial arts are based on animal movements). I'd say give her a good dose of Knowledge(Nature) as well as Skill Focus and she is quite the learned sage; just so long as it concerns nature. With any other subject, she likely has the common sense (Wis) to stay silent. Depending on alignment, she might be mistrustful of "civilization" or she might be intent on getting "nature" and "people" to work together. She could have been abandoned to the forest for shame of being a half-breed, or maybe run away from home, or maybe took refuge at a later age due to problems relating to either race.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:


PRD wrote:

Weapon Size: Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

I think this lends some support to any argument that the rocks are indeed light weapons. By these guidelines you can't throw a rock equivalent to a one-handed weapon.

It says right there that a weapon with a size catagory of medium isn't the same thing as medium sized object. The ability specifies that you are throwing things two categories smaller than your own size, not smaller than the size of a two handed weapon sized for you.

A weapon has a size ascribed to it that is not it's size as an object, so to clarify:

A medium sized long sword is a small object, A medium sized dagger is a tiny object. a large longsword is a medium object, a large dagger is a small object.

In reverse that means a tiny object (2 sizes smaller than medium) is a light weapon sized for a medium wielder, or a one-handed weapon sized for a small wielder, or a 2 handed weapon for a tiny wielder.

You can throw a rock up to two sizes smaller than your size. So a Medium creature could throw a Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny rock. But a Diminutive or smaller object would be an effort category below light which would make it unwieldable; so why would they specify the "up to" when they could have just said, "you can throw a rock two size categories smaller than your character"? The fact that they included "up to" means you can throw a rock that is smaller than what would be considered a light weapon. Moreover, ranged weapons don't have effort categories. Some have virtual effort categories; shuriken aren't light weapons, but they are treated as such for the purpose of TWF penalties. Same goes for Hand Crossbows. Thrown weapons that are also melee weapons will adopt the melee weapon's effort category. But the thrown rock isn't a melee/throwing weapon; it's just a throwing weapon and one which doesn't specify that it counts as light for the purpose of TWF penalties. Ergo, it doesn't count as light for the purpose of TWF penalties. Moreover, from a "realism" standpoint, a "Tiny" stone is still going to be about a foot across. A diminutive stone is about a half a foot across and a fine stone is about a quarter foot across (about baseball sized). Thus, a Fine stone is about 1 lb based on common stone density averages, a Diminutive stone is about 8 lb, and a Tiny stone is about 64 lb. Do you think you're going to throw a 64 lb stone as a light weapon? I'd venture as to say that even throwing a 1 lb stone the size of a baseball is beyond the scope of throwing a light weapon.


Mavrickindigo wrote:
Oh nuts that reminds me i think androids wualify for the transforming construct template from advanced bestiary

Unfortunately, they don't because applying templates isn't "for targeting purposes". However, a spell or other effect (ie. Bane, Favored Enemy, etc.) that requires a Construct as a target would work.


The way I see it, it doesn't specify that it is a light weapon, therefore it is not a light weapon. You can still TWF with them, but you take the non-light off-hand penalties.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's correct. Nothing I find contradicts that conclusion. Lycanthropy is a curse which is inflicted by the Curse of Lycanthropy (Su) universal ability which specifies it affects a humanoid target. Androids count as both humanoid as well as construct so far as targeting purposes are concerned, and, since CoL doesn't count out constructs, it must affect Androids. By contrast, if it specified that it cannot affect constructs, then it wouldn't work because, despite also counting as Humanoid, Androids count as constructs for targeting purposes. Therefore, an Android can be afflicted with Lycanthropy.

Which, of course, posits the following: how would Android Lycanthropy manifest? Androids are specified as living and having souls, so if the curse affects them in that manner, it really can change their soul to a transient state between humanoid and animalistic natures. Moreover, the curse could affect the Android Nanites and cause them to prompt uncontrolled, animalistic growth patterns. All sorts of mechanical parts would come sprouting out of the afflicted Android, created from nanites, and arrange themselves into either an animal or hybrid anatomy.


Michael Hallet wrote:

Does Dervish Dance say "wield" or "carry"?

Archives of Nethys has: "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."

That may very well be different than wielding, but I don't have the book in front of me.

It looks like one of those "fine distinction" differences, such as wielding a two-handed weapon one-handed vs wielding a two-handed weapon "in one hand". Wielding a weapon in your off-hand includes both "virtual" wielding as with Spell Combat where the spell virtually counts as an off-hand weapon being wielded as well as weapons not hand-associated such as armor spikes or boot blades or non-punch unarmed strikes. By contrast, "carried" means held in your actual hand so Dervish Dance could very well be used in conjunction with non-hand-associated weapons as well as weapons that aren't "carried" such as a spell being cast by Spell Combat or a Punch.


There's a school of thought that says that, since the characters only have split seconds to react, the players should also have only a few seconds to react to the situation. This school of thought is incorrect. The character has years of combat experience and training under his belt that doesn't translate linearly to how well the player can figure out what to do during their turn. Furthermore, player skill varies. A veteran player can figure out what to do faster than a novice.

That having been said, it might be OK to model it after tournament chess rules. Each player has a "reserve time" for the whole match. Lets say, for the sake of example, 2 minutes of reserve time. They are then given a certain amount of time per turn; say, 30 seconds. They have a special timer to track this. The timer tracks the 30 seconds for the turn and, if you go over that, it starts deducting from your 2 minutes of reserve time. When you finish your turn, you hit a button which stops your timer and starts your opponent's timer. The reserve time and time/turn can be adjusted for the skill level of the player to reflect appropriate handicaps. It'd probably be better to use a stopwatch rather than a sand timer because you need to track whether or not they went into their reserve time. But, unless you have a highly distracted player(s), tracking the time would likely not save you much and may even make it take longer since the GM can't be sitting there calculating time differences when he's supposed to be paying attention to the game.

A better approach would be just to work with your players and teach them how they can pre-figure most of the stuff and work out battle strategies before-hand. Simple rules-of-thumb to help streamline their decisions will probably do the most good overall.


Also, I'd switch the malus from Cha to Int. The Saiya-Jin had incredible self-confidence. They were natural fighters and they reveled in it; especially Vegeta. It was intellectual stuff that was their short suit. Also, don't forget that they get a permanent power boost every time they almost die. What I'd do is this; take out Cornered Fury and fold its effect into Ferocity. Whenever Ferocity kicks in, the character gains +1 to Str, Dex, and Con permanently.


If 3.x material is up for grabs, Vow of Poverty from Book of Exalted Deeds is ideal.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kazaan wrote:

If you had a Double Weapon, were using TWF rules to get an off-hand attack, and also wanted to drop the axe in order to use your Bow with Rapid Shot, you'd do the following:

Axe(main-hand) +6(-4)/Axe(off-hand) +6(-4)/[drop axe, quickdraw Bow] Bow +1(-4)/Bow(Rapid Shot) +6(-4)

Or, you could start with the Bow and switch to the Axe. You only need to order iteratives from high BAB so the remaining attacks can be shuffled where you please.

TWF isn't meant to work like that.

You get two iteratives, one for your Main-hand (which scales as your BAB), and one for your Off-hand (which has its own scale via the TWF feat chain). You must designate ahead of time which weapon (or quiver/container of weapons in terms of thrown ammunition, like daggers or shuriken) you are using for each iterative set, and that you must have them out and ready to use for the entire action (so you can't draw weapons in the middle of your TWF action).

This means you can't use a Bow (which requires two hands) and another weapon that requires a physical hand to use (such as a sword or axe, or even Armor Spikes).

FAQ here has all the details.

**EDIT**

In the interest of covering all of the bases, here's this rule regarding an archetype and it mentions Rapid Shot:

Bow Nomad - Twin Bows wrote:
Extra attacks from other sources, such as those granted by Manyshot or Rapid Shot, can be applied to only one of the wielded bows per round.

Extrapolating that, if you did find a way to wield both a double weapon and a Bow, only the Bow iterative would get the Rapid Shot attack. It would also lead to Multi-Weapon Fighting, and not Two-Weapon Fighting.

So, let's say Orc Double Axe, Unarmed Strike, and Composite Long Bow with Rapid Shot and MWF, would go as follows:

Orc Double Axe +4/-1, +4
Unarmed Strike +4
Composite Long Bow +2/+2

The point is valid only for starting with the Bow. I forgot that it would eat an off-hand attack. But if you have already met your off-hand commitment, additional main-hand attacks may be made two-handed. That comes directly from the devs. Furthermore, you can very well draw new weapons; that's how you TWF with thrown weapons. But if you've only taken penalties for a light off-hand, you must use a light weapon for your off-hand. So I can very well be wielding a pair of Daggers and have ITWF and throw the Daggers for my first iterative and first off-hand, then draw a pair of Shuriken (free action to draw by default since they are treated as ammo) and throw those because I'm still only using light weapons in my off-hand. Additionally, if I were to have 3 iteratives, but only 2 off-hand, I could have a Longsword and a Dagger and do any of the following combinations:

1) Longsword +11(-2)/Dagger +11(-2)/Longsword 2-h +6(-2)/Longsword 2-h +1(-2)
2) Longsword 2-h +11(-2)/Dagger +6(-2)/Longsword +6(-2)/Longsword 2-h +1(-2)
3) Longsword +11(-2)/Dagger +6(-2)/Longsword +6(-2)/Dagger +6(-2)/Longsword +1(-2)

Taking the penalties gives you "permission" to make an off-hand, but you don't necessarily need to have the weapon in-hand. Conversely, just because you have taken the penalty doesn't mean you must follow through.


Two words: "Tucker's Kobolds". Because it's important for kids to learn that life is cruel.


Ancestor mystery is from Ultimate Magic, a main book, while Occult mystery is from Occult Mysteries, a splat book. So the Ancestor is the "basic" form while the Occult is a somewhat more powered up variant for people who laid out the moolah. So, "It's not a typo, it's a feature".


BadBird wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
There comes a point where the diminishing returns of "one more point of AC" needs to be addressed. At a certain amount, it's better to use alternate means of defense such as DR and/or miss chance (ie. concealment). Getting a 20% miss chance on you is equivalent to 25% more than your current AC. Even a 5% miss chance is equivalent to about 5.3% more AC. It's far harder to overcome miss chance than it is to overcome AC.

Mathematically speaking, the higher your AC is the more effective an extra point is relative to your chance of being hit.

If your AC is high enough that you're hit only 25% of the time, then adding one more point of AC means that you're hit only 20% of the time. Therefore, that one point of AC means you're getting hit 20% less often than you were without it (5/25 = 20%), which is roughly equivalent to picking up a 20% miss effect like Blur (technically one also has to deal with the small "-(x+y)" side of the double roll, but whatever, it's pretty close).

You didn't take into consideration that attack bonus scales faster than AC bonus. If you get one more point of AC, your opponents likely also have at least one more point of attack, making it a wash, and maybe even 2 more points of attack meaning you're choosing between going from 25% to 35% chance to be hit, or a 25% to a 30% chance. The opportunity cost of getting that 1 point of AC may be put to better use somewhere else.


If you had a Double Weapon, were using TWF rules to get an off-hand attack, and also wanted to drop the axe in order to use your Bow with Rapid Shot, you'd do the following:

Axe(main-hand) +6(-4)/Axe(off-hand) +6(-4)/[drop axe, quickdraw Bow] Bow +1(-4)/Bow(Rapid Shot) +6(-4)

Or, you could start with the Bow and switch to the Axe. You only need to order iteratives from high BAB so the remaining attacks can be shuffled where you please.


There comes a point where the diminishing returns of "one more point of AC" needs to be addressed. At a certain amount, it's better to use alternate means of defense such as DR and/or miss chance (ie. concealment). Getting a 20% miss chance on you is equivalent to 25% more than your current AC. Even a 5% miss chance is equivalent to about 5.3% more AC. It's far harder to overcome miss chance than it is to overcome AC.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
In practice, this is handwaved by most, but it is easily possible to cheat if you don't. You could roll a d20, and if it's within 2 points of missing then decide it was a normal attack and if it isn't declare it was TWF.

That doesn't work. You don't roll a d20 and then decide what bonuses apply to is. If the roll is d20+16, it's d20+16, not d20 and then +16. In order to be using TWF, you must declare as such and incorporate the TWF penalties into your attack rolls. More to the point, I was illustrating the nature of the difference between what the character knows and what the player knows. Sure, from the standpoint of just looking at the rules of combat, the player is using a full-attack action with the option to step it down to a standard action. But from the meta-perspective, the full-attack never happened; it was always a standard action. You're arguing over nothing.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
I don't agree that it's a state of uncertainty. You certainly choose the full attack full-round action, and then have the opportunity to change it to an attack standard action after your first attack.

Equivocation fallacy. I'm using "certainty" to describe the nature of revealing the actual course of the combat to the player. You are using "certainty" to describe the conviction of the player in choosing their actions. 5 Yard penalty.


Sunder has to be a melee attack unless you have an ability that specifically overrides that restriction. If the item were unattended, the firearm may damage it. But you cannot affect an item in a person's possession with a ranged weapon by default.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
There's a bit of "retcon" and quantum uncertainty involved in adjudicating the turn. Think of this; when you roll a Knowledge check, the character isn't learning the new knowledge "on the spot"; the check reveals whether or not the character already had this knowledge for an indeterminate amount of time. You, the player, don't know whether or not the character knows a particular piece of knowledge until they succeed or fail at the check, in which case they either "already knew" or "never learned" the information in question.
So what you are saying is this is Schrodinger's Attack?

Exactly. Your first attack of the round is in a state of uncertainty until some measurement forces it to pick either the state of being a standard Attack action or the first attack in a full-round Full-Attack action. That measurement could be whether or not you take a move action after the attack, or the measurement could be using a feat/ability that relies on one attack method or the other (ie. Vital Strike, Multi-shot, etc).


There's a bit of "retcon" and quantum uncertainty involved in adjudicating the turn. Think of this; when you roll a Knowledge check, the character isn't learning the new knowledge "on the spot"; the check reveals whether or not the character already had this knowledge for an indeterminate amount of time. You, the player, don't know whether or not the character knows a particular piece of knowledge until they succeed or fail at the check, in which case they either "already knew" or "never learned" the information in question.

Determining what happened in a turn is the same way; the character(s) already lived it. The results of the various rolls just lets you, the player, know what happened since it was in a state of uncertainty. You don't know whether the character took a standard and move action or a full-attack until after it has come to pass, but the character already knew because he lived it. Some decisions can "railroad" the character out of their decision, of course. If you use an ability that relies on making a full-attack (ie. multi-shot), once you gain the benefit of the ability, you are "locked in" on the full-attack sequence; you can no longer "step down" to a standard action. Conversely, an ability like Vital Strike that relies on a Standard Attack action must be declared on use; if you use it, you are already declaring that you are using a standard action. You can't very well say you're making a standard action to use Vital Strike, then renege and say you were making a Full-Attack all along.

As for the assumption that you aren't making a move action, well, sometimes, you need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Never assume that your explanation is foolproof, because fools are very determined to misunderstand you.


Bandw2 wrote:
i know for a fact...

You do now, do you? Where does it specify that verbal components are spoken in any particular language. In what language is "Power Word: Kill" spoken? Is there a particular word in Common that, if spoken, simply kills a person that hears it? Have you studied mystic schools and different occult systems? The commands given may be in normal language, but the actual verbal components of casting the spell are an entirely different animal.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The OP does make a grave mistake in his assumption.

Weapon Focus wrote:
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

The bolded text mentions that rays can be chosen as a weapon as far as the feat is concerned. This implies that rays otherwise are not weapons.

There is also this FAQ here, which makes an important mention:

FAQ wrote:

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

The bolded part is key; it further confirms that rays, although they are considered weapons for certain purposes, they are not actually weapons. So I could not choose them for my Fighter Weapon Group choice for my Weapon Training, for example.

That being said, the answer is cut and dry; if the effect is treated as a weapon for certain purposes (such as rays or weapon-like spells), and it has a range increment listed, then I'm sure it counts.

Well, by that logic, Unarmed Strikes aren't weapons either.
Unarmed Strike wrote:
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

It's also defined in the Weapon Table, as a weapon. It's also defined in the Fighter Weapon Groups, under multiple weapon groups.

Yup. Unarmed Strikes are totally not weapons.

Hence why it is weird that, using the reasoning you presented for why Rays are not actually weapons, could be applied to Unarmed Strikes to say that they are not actually weapons. "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose ->unarmed strike<- or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat." By your rationale, Unarmed Strikes, Grapples, and Rays aren't actually weapons, though they count as such for the purpose of Weapon Focus. Hence, why I specified, "by that logic".


Bandw2 wrote:
noble peasant wrote:
Sooo let's say I'm in a room full of people and no was is detecting magic as it isn't a hostile environment so no one is actively detecting magic because of this or because they simply can't, I cast charm person as a spell like ability and the person fails the save. Is anyone the wiser?

DC 0 perception check to hear you speak the verbal components.

*the guards all look over to you, as they hear the words "please love me" from the shady corner of the room*

edit: oh wait spell like? hmmm probably not.

In traditional magical systems, you wouldn't be speaking in common language phrases. Kabbalah, for instance, involves invoking the names of various angels or names of God. So a caster wouldn't just be saying, "please love me", he'd speak the name of Aphrodite (or equivalent love deity for the world), speak the names of the angelic guardians of the four cardinal directions, something along those lines. It is also "intoned"; this means to vibrate the word in the back of your throat because the impact of the sound waves is just as important as the words themselves. That is the nature of "verbal components" in magic spells; mystically important words that are reverberated in the back of the throat as they are spoken so that they "vibrate the fabric of reality".


Define "physics"? Are we talking about classical, relativity, or quantum? Because there are a lot of things that, viewed under classical physics, like would be considered "breaking physics" whereas, under modern views, are perfectly within the normal bounds. This is especially true when considering quantum theory considerations such as entanglement, particle/wave, etc. It seems to me that 3.5 was operating under the premise of classical physics being "true physics" and (Ex) abilities that would fall more under relativistic or quantum considerations were both non-magical as well as physics-breaking. But under Pathfinder, the definition of "physics" was expanded to include relativistic and quantum mechanics so, what was previously viewed as "non-magical and physics-breaking" is just no longer considered "physics-breaking". So it's the same set of criteria, but with a realization that physics, real physics, that is, is more robust than we thought as well as a lot broader in scope.


Just so everyone talking about contradictory rules is aware...

PRD wrote:

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.

...
Pin Down (Combat)
You easily block enemy escapes.

Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, fighter level 11th.
Benefit: Whenever an opponent you threaten takes a 5-foot step or uses the withdraw action, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If the attack hits, you deal no damage, but the targeted creature is prevented from making the move action that granted a 5-foot step or the withdraw action and does not move.

How, exactly, can Pin Down work if a 5-foot step never provokes an AoO? Look at the Actions in Combat table in the Combat section and read note '1':

PRD wrote:
1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.

Movement provokes, but performing certain actions also provoke. You'll note that the Charge action is listed as not provoking. That means that the Charge action itself doesn't provoke; not that the movement it involves doesn't provoke. If you start in one square and Cast a Spell, that provokes in that square. If you start in one square and Charge, that doesn't provoke in that square, but subsequently provokes from the actual movement involved. The Move action (technically, the Move Move action), however, is listed as provoking. The Move action, itself provokes, in addition to the movement it allows. So you provoke once just for declaring your intent to move, then again for the movement when you try to leave the square.

A 5-foot step, however, explicitly states that it allows you to move without provoking. It is also not listed as an action that provokes. So neither the action provokes, nor, because specific trumps general, the movement it allows either. So what is happening with Pin Down? Pin Down makes the action provoke, not the movement. The movement never provokes, but the Pin Down feat makes the character provoke on declaring intent to make a 5-foot step, not the movement itself which, according to 5-foot step, never provokes.

So carry on with all that in mind.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The OP does make a grave mistake in his assumption.

Weapon Focus wrote:
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

The bolded text mentions that rays can be chosen as a weapon as far as the feat is concerned. This implies that rays otherwise are not weapons.

There is also this FAQ here, which makes an important mention:

FAQ wrote:

For example, a bard's inspire courage says it affects "weapon damage rolls," which is worded that way so don't try to add the bonus to a spell like fireball. However, rays are treated as weapons, whether they're from spells, a monster ability, a class ability, or some other source, so the inspire courage bonus applies to ray attack rolls and ray damage rolls.

The same rule applies to weapon-like spells such as flame blade, mage's sword, and spiritual weapon--effects that affect weapons work on these spells.

The bolded part is key; it further confirms that rays, although they are considered weapons for certain purposes, they are not actually weapons. So I could not choose them for my Fighter Weapon Group choice for my Weapon Training, for example.

That being said, the answer is cut and dry; if the effect is treated as a weapon for certain purposes (such as rays or weapon-like spells), and it has a range increment listed, then I'm sure it counts.

Well, by that logic, Unarmed Strikes aren't weapons either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Normally, the discussion is, "Should the Paladin fall?" which is usually met with very polarized views of "No, don't screw over your player" vs "yes, make him fall and make him fall hard for the slightest transgression". So it's a bit ironic for the discussion to now be, "my player wants his Paladin to fall" and I fully expect to see equally polarized positions of "Yes, let him change to <suggested class>/reflavor a Paladin archetype to be not L/G" and "No, thwart his efforts to fall at every turn, make everything he intends to do wrong backfire and turn out to be correct and justified."


You need to look at the entire statement, not just over-focus on a small phrase.

PRD wrote:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

"A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes." This clarifies exactly what 'no off-hand attack' means in the rules; that all attacks that would otherwise be considered off-hand are treated as if they were main-hand. That doesn't mean that you cannot make off-hand attacks if not using FoB, that does not mean that you can't take reduced penalties for using a light off-hand on account of not having an off-hand at all. What it means is that you apply full Str to damage, full Power Attack, full Piranha Strike, etc. where these things would normally be halved when applied to an off-hand attack. If you don't have the TWF feat which brings the TWF penlties down, then instead of -4/-8 attack penalties, you apply the -4 to your off-hand as well because it is treated as main-hand.

So the Kathasa Monk in question can deliver four unarmed strikes, each with full Str to damage, each with full Power Attack bonus, each using main-hand attack penalties, etc., at least as a normal Full-Attack. FoB follows a progression and was also written without multi-armed characters in mind, so the jury is still a bit out as to whether FoB allows a Kathasa additional bonus attacks. However, given the manner in which Unchained Monk's flurry works, I'd say that it'd be better to err on the side of FoB being a set number of attacks agnostic to how many potential off-hand attacks from extra limbs the character may have.


DualJay wrote:
While I believe Imbicatus and Kazaan are correct, I would personally rule that (most) undead or constructs are tireless.

Well, if you want to go by that approach, it would be more reasonable to say that, with an actual Con score of "none", a Construct or Undead can run for "none" rounds (similar to a caster with -- 2nd level spells cannot cast those spells regardless of how high their casting score is). And this makes sense; the construct has a fixed speed based on its construction and can't "hurry" by using extra energy because it isn't biological and Undead are, well, dead. Their biological processes aren't working any more so explosive muscle power isn't really something that they can do; though, they do use Cha in place of Con for most Con-related rules elements so you might say that an Undead can run but using Cha score for base rounds and making a Cha-based check to determine whether they run out of undead juice.


You don't need to actually have made an attack with a weapon in order to threaten with it. If I double-move on my turn, I can still threaten with my wielded weapon. However, if I were under some condition that would prevent me even the option of attacking with a wielded weapon (ie. Hold Person), that prevents me from threatening. Attacking with a 2-h reach weapon doesn't mean you didn't have the option to, instead, attack with your armor spikes because you had the option to split them between iterative attacks. Thus, even if you attack with a 2-h reach weapon, you still threaten with armor spikes. No rules, neither explicit nor implied, nor any FAQ or errata contradicts this; anyone stating the contrary either doesn't understand the rules or is deliberately spreading disinformation and should probably have their posts removed to preserve the integrity of the community.


You can run for a number of rounds equal to your Constitution score to start with. Undead and Constructs count as having +0 Con modifier for Con-based checks and we can extrapolate that for rules elements based on the score itself, they have a score of 10. Thus, they can run for 10 rounds without issue. After this, they must make a DC 10 Con check which increases by +1 each round. Thus, on round 11, it's a DC 10 check, round 12 it's DC 11, round 13 it's DC 12, etc. With no bonuses from other sources, a construct with a virtual Con score of 10 can run for 10-21 rounds depending on how many consecutive Con checks it passes with the 11th round being a 45% chance to stop and the 21st round being a 95% chance to stop.


Well, the biggest draws of PC gaming, in contrast to Console gaming, are 1) ability to mod, 2) soft hardware caps rather than hard caps, and 3) interface versatility. In my opinion, a PC race (no pun intended) that is inspired by the concept of the PC Master Race would need to reflect these things.

For Ability to Mod, the best example I can come up with is Red Mage from 8-Bit Theater. His whole gimmick was that he is a genre-savvy metagamer constantly "altering his sheet" to give himself an unfair advantage in the actual fantasy world in which they lived. As such, for our PC Master Race to be able to "mod" his experience, he should be able to alter the components of his actual character sheet. I'm thinking something along the lines of, as a swift action, he can use retraining rules "on the fly" and for free. Success may be limited by requiring a slight-of-hand check to accomplish the act.

Regarding soft caps vs hard caps, Console games are often performance-capped in order to accommodate the fixed capacity of the intended console and these caps are often far below the capabilities of a PC (re: the 30fps vs 60fps debate). As such, limitations that apply to other characters in the game should not apply to the player of a PC Master Race. Even if the GM has decided to restrict certain feats, certain books, no third-party, etc. such a character has free access to these resource. If the GM has set a particular point-buy or required rolled stats, such a character may select their own point buy, rolled stats, or whatever stat-determination method he desires.

Lastly, we must address interface. Whereas a console is often restricted to a certain controller associated with that console, PC games can be controlled via keyboard, mouse, USB controllers, joysticks, a multitude of different ways to send commands to the game. As such, the PC Master Race should be able to select from different dice-rolling methods even from other tabletop games. For instance, if he wants to play using 3d6 rather than 1d20, he can do so.

As far as cosmetics, the traditional PC Master Race avatar is glorious and clean with long flowing hair as compared to the dirty console peasant. Thus, any such PC Master Race naturally has a bonus to Charisma. They also have detailed technical knowledge of how computers operate as contrasted with the dirty console peasant who blithely misunderstands technology, trying to justify his console choice by citing blatantly false statistics about consoles vs computers. Thus, the PC Master Race also has a bonus to Intelligence. Therefore, I'd suggest that the Specialized attribute spread from Race Builder would be appropriate, granting a +2 bonus to both Charisma and Intelligence. We need to apply a -2 penalty to one physical score and the most appropriate would likely be Constitution by process of elimination. Dexterity is not a candidate since PC gamers rely significantly on their hands for command input so Dexterity would not be in short order. Between Strength and Constitution, Strength is at least necessary to carry the larger components of a PC rig whereas gamers in general often have the stigma of being less physically fit than most. This even goes along with the idea of them being physically ideal since common beauty "ideals" are often not very healthy (think unhealthy body-builders).

In summary, our PC Master Race PC race has an ability score spread +2 Cha, +2 Int, -2 Con. They have the ability to pull from any rule-set available regardless of GM restriction as well as use any dice combination found in any game at their discretion. As a swift action, once per day, they may attempt a slight-of-hand check to "change their sheet" and, if successful, they may make one change as if using the retraining rules but with no additional time nor money required. Medium size and 30 ft speed seem adequate.


Aelryinth wrote:

Go reread the crafting rules.

============
The basic function of the Craft skill, however, is to allow you to make an item of the appropriate type. The DC depends on the complexity of the item to be created. The DC, your check result, and the price of the item determine how long it takes to make a particular item. The item's finished price also determines the cost of raw materials.

To determine how much time and money it takes to make an item, follow these steps.
1.Find the item's price in silver pieces (1 gp = 10 sp).
2.Find the item's DC from Table: Craft Skills.
3.Pay 1/3 of the item's price for the raw material cost.
4.Make an appropriate Craft check representing one week's worth of work. If the check succeeds, multiply your check result by the DC. If the result × the DC equals the price of the item in sp, then you have completed the item. (If the result × the DC equals double or triple the price of the item in silver pieces, then you've completed the task in one-half or one-third of the time. Other multiples of the DC reduce the time in the same manner.) If the result × the DC doesn't equal the price, then it represents the progress you've made this week. Record the result and make a new Craft check for the next week. Each week, you make more progress until your total reaches the price of the item in silver pieces.

==
1/3 of market price actually approximates reality. That's how most manufacturers price their products...triple raw materials.

Tools basically subs the magical process for the crafting process, they aren't the same thing.

HWalsh: The Craft DC for plate armor is DC 19, or 10+AC. The masterwork component is treated separately and is DC 20.

===Aelryinth

Go read the description of Amazing Tools of Manufacture. Specific trumps general. Generally, it takes 1/3 of the item's price to craft. The tools provide a specific exception, using 1/2 of the item's price but with much better and faster chances of success.


graystone wrote:

The only reason I can see for 'normal' rays not working with Rapid Shot is there inability to be used in a full attack. Not an issue with mystic bolts.

"When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon"

As to the rest, I'd say Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, sneak attack and inspire courage, all things allowed from FAQS, go beyond aiming. If there is a distinction of when a ray is or isn't counted as a weapon, I don't see it. The "ranged weapon" from rapid shot looks the same as the "ranged weapons" from point blank shot, "ranged weapons" from precise shot, the "selected weapon" of Weapon Specialization or the "selected weapon" of weapon focus.

Don't look at it from too narrow a perspective. Sawtooth Sabers say they count as light weapons and, if you ignore the part that specifies, "for determining TWF penalties", you might also make the argument that they count as light weapons for other things like Piranha Strike. Considerations of aiming are explicitly called out and, for those purposes, attack rolls, damage rolls, and AC are most certainly included. That covers Weapon Focus/Spec, Inspire Courage, Shooing into Melee, Cover, and Concealment. Improved Critical would also be included because it affects how you aim your shot; you're not changing your Bow or Arrow to make it, somehow, better at getting a critical hit so you must, therefore, be changing how you aim it.

And Logan Bonner already brought up that Mystic Bolts fall under the same constraints that apply to Rays and, for this reason, you can't use Mystic Bolts with Rapid Shot. That means that you can't use Rapid Shot with Rays, not just because you don't fire rays as a full-attack but because, as I brought up, it's a matter of "aiming" rather than for any and all uses that Rays are treated as ranged weapons.


One small thing that can at least help close the disparity a little, is to have classes working on different experience tables. There are three "categories" of classes; intuitive, self-taught, and trained. These categories govern the starting age for a character, primarily. Intuitive classes should level up faster, but also be very front-loaded. Their levels should mainly improve the stuff they get within the first three levels and not develop too much versatility; basically, they are above average in one thing with not much versatility and get small, steady benefits each level. Self-taught classes should be about the middle-road types, getting a good amount of "goodies" early on and also a solid progression of new abilities and should be a big more versatile than the intuitive classes; above average at one thing and average in a handful of versatility categories. Trained classes should take the longest to level up but are also the most versatile; not so much super powerful at one thing, but above average at several things. Some classes would, naturally, need a power level adjustment. For example, Monks are a trained-tier class and would need a significant power boost to bring them into that "above average at several things" realm. Sorcerers would probably need to be scaled down to reflect a fast-leveling intuitive class.

Just for reference, the class tiers are as follows:
Intuitive: Sorcerers, Barbarians, Rogues, Oracles
Self-Taught: Bards, Cavaliers, Fighters, Gunslingers, Paladins, Rangers, Summoners, Witches
Trained: Alchemists, Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors, Magi, Monks, Wizards


graystone wrote:
As Kazaan quoted, Rays are used "As with a ranged weapon", so the first part doesn't mesh with the second part. AT the very least, we're going to have to get mystic bolts' interaction with feats figured out before the vigilante comes on line.

Well, to be fair, the rules say that Rays are aimed as ranged weapons. So things like the "firing into melee penalty" penalty apply because that's a matter of "aiming" (making your attack roll) but it would still be reasonable to say that other abilities not associated with aiming don't apply. For instance, Rapid Shot has nothing to do with "aiming" your ranged weapon; it's all about getting an extra shot off. But you can't just "get an extra shot off" with Scorching Ray; you have a limited number of rays you can fire based on your caster level. You also don't fire the rays with a full-attack action so Rapid Shot is out on two levels. Hypothetically, distance penalties would apply to Rays, but since the magical effect truncates at the end of what would be the first range increment of the effect anyway, the point is moot. But when it comes to pointing and shooting, what attack bonuses and penalties you get (ie. point blank shot), and what AC bonuses and penalties the target gets (ie. lying prone), cover, concealment, and the like, you treat it no different than firing a bow and arrow.


LoneKnave wrote:
No hands of effort here as far as I can tell. You could literally do 0 hands of effort, as monks can use any body part to attack.

You misunderstand the term. "Hands of effort" is an unofficial term (similar to "action economy") to refer to the concept that you have only so much capacity to make attacks and that off-hand attacks are based on economy, not just limbs. For instance, if you have a longsword in one hand, a shortsword in the other, and a boot blade, you don't get two off-hand attacks because you have two off-hand weapons. Even if the off-hand weapon is a hands-free weapon (ie. boot blade, armor spikes, unarmed strike not using hands, etc), it still uses your off-hand "attack economy" so other things that don't stack in such a way wouldn't work. For example, attacking with a 2-h weapon uses up your off-hand attack economy so you can't use that same attack economy to make an attack with an off-hand weapon using TWF rules. By the same reasoning, since Spell Combat is based, in principal, on TWF rules, casting the spell subsumes your off-hand attack economy. It doesn't matter that you can make attacks unarmed "without using hands"; in fact, non-hand attacks aren't even valid while using Spell Combat as your melee attacks must be made with a hand-associated weapon. Core FoB works on TWF rules, but even UFoB, while no longer based on TWF rules, specifies that it doesn't stack with TWF extra attacks (similar to how using a 2-h weapon doesn't stack).


I'd say that would be anything that prevents (or delays) nonlethal damage is what you're looking for. Ablative Barrier from UC gives DR 5/- vs nonlethal damage sources as well as converts the first 5 points of lethal damage to nonlethal.

Other than that, I find nothing, so any further options would need to be custom spells.


A workaround before you're lvl 10 is to use Start/Finish Full-Round Action. In round 1, use Start a Full-Round Action as a standard action, then in round 2, move up to them and Finish a Full-Round Action to complete it and deliver the strike.


I devised a system once that incorporated both grades of Masterwork as well as grades of "degraded" craftsmanship (basically anti-masterwork that makes gear easier to craft and cost less). I graded it from rank E-C for degraded versions, B was the current "normal" grade of weapons, and A, S, SS, and SSS were three grades of Masterwork. Generally, each grade of Masterwork granted +1 attack, +1/2 damage (max +4 attack, +2 damage at SSS) and degraded versions had the reverse. You could also make alterations to the basic qualities of the weapon such as increase the damage dice by one step in place of two masterwork ranks (or reduce it in place of two degraded ranks) or give it a suitable weapon ability (disarm, monk, deadly, etc), so on and so forth.

1 to 50 of 4,835 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.