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

4,247 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Male vs Female GM is a matter of Male vs Female psychology. There are certain trends when it comes to gender psychology and if you average it all out, you'll find that Male and Female minds have distinct differences. Sure, there are some Females who lean farther into the "male" circle than some Males, but the statistical trend is pronounced. In general, Females are more imaginative and interconnected in the way that they think. Males, on the other hand, are more concrete and compartmentalized. Both methods have strong and weak points when it comes to GMing. Women will make more detailed, involved stories and will keep track of the better part of it. Men, on the other hand, will keep track of hard-fast rules and systems more easily. Again, keep in mind that these are general trends, not absolutes. Some Men are better at making detailed, involved stories than some Women, but most Women are better than most Men.

Another thing to consider is temperament. Are you introspective or extraverted? Are you objective, tough-minded, and systematic or are you subjective, friendly, and reactive? Are you sensory and concrete or are you intuitive and abstract? Which order do you prefer, making a decision and then looking for evidence for or against that decision, or do you look for data points first and make your decision afterwards based on analysis? Knowing your order of mental functions can help in understanding what kind of GM you'd likely be. Visit www.mypersonality.info and take their temperament quiz. I also recommend David Kiersey's 'Please Understand Me II'.


ShroudedInLight wrote:
True, I figured it was worth asking after since logically fighting defensively with two Tonfa would be better than fighting with one.

Not really any better than fighting with a shield on each arm. You can only significantly block with one tonfa at a time.


I'm just gonna call it now: this answer is as colossal a mistake. As much so as the disparity between half-breeds and racial heritage as well as the monk flurry w/ single weapon, both of which eventually had to be reversed.


Also, if you actually listen to the music being played, it's quite clear that the Devil won the contest as his playing was objectively better. But since he had so much fun, he "admitted defeat" as an excuse to leave Johnny alive and come back for another round later (though, 'The Devil Came Back to Georgia' wasn't quite as good in my opinion).


Lord Vukodlak wrote:

All advanced firearms reload to capacity as move action doesn't matter if its one handed or two-handed or has six barrels. So the musket master has no effect on advanced firearms.

Again... as has already been presented several times... if reloading an advanced firearm is a move action (regardless of handiness, number of barrels, etc), and alchemical cartridges reduce the reload speed by one step, then using metal cartridges (which are alchemical cartridges) reduces the reload speed of advanced firearms from move to free. That is the main point of the issue being discussed here. Is it really a move action to reload an advanced firearm? Or is it a move action only after taking into consideration the metal cartridges and it's printed as "move action" since you always use metal cartridges and, thus, it would always end up at move action?


Tarantula wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
But the square needs to be threatened in order to make an AoO. If you need to be able to make an AoO into the square in order for it to be threatened, but it must first be threatened in order to make an AoO, then you can never make an AoO and you never threaten... ever; Catch 22.
Are you capable of making an attack of opportunity? Yes? Then you threaten squares. Are you prohibited from taking an AoO? (Grappled, Flat-footed, Paralyzed, etc? Then you don't threaten.

Except that you're basing threatening on capacity to make an AoO which is a Catch-22 since making an AoO is based on the capacity to threaten. "Are you capable of making an AoO?" I don't know... do I threaten any squares? Because if I don't threaten, then I am incapable of making an AoO. You have set up a closed loop.

PRD/Combat wrote:
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.

Two very important things to note here. 1) "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack," is an independent clause while "even when it is not your turn." is a subordinate clause and, more specifically, an adverbial clause rather than a noun clause. You (subject) threaten (verb) "all squares into which you can make a melee attack" (direct object noun clause) "even when it is not your turn" (adverbial clause modifying threaten). "Even when it is not your turn" is modifying "threaten", that is to say you threaten even when it is not your turn. It is not modifying the direct object clause; if it did, there would be no comma and you'd take, "all squares into which you can make a melee attack even when it is not your turn" as a single clause (note the lack of comma).


Nicos wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Nothing's changed here, really. Jumping is a part of movement. If you're charging and part of that charge needs to be a jump, that's fine. You'll just need to make the appropriate Acrobatics DC to make the jump; if you fail the jump, obviously your charge is wasted.

Yeha, thread necro and all that.

Do the "no reply required" mean that JJ answer is the official one?

Not necessarily. Back then, they only had two options for FAQs: Answered in FAQ and No Reply Necessary. Sometimes, if they just needed to clear out their FAQ queue, they'd mark it just for the sake of getting rid of it. Now, they have more options and a better system for managing the FAQ queue, though, so a new thread dedicated to the question would probably be in order. The preferred format is to present the question as clear and straight-forward as possible, preferably in bold text and then maybe supplemental information or arguments for one side or another afterward. Also, avoid titles like "FAQ request" because it implies that your question is more deserving of a FAQ answer than those of others. It's the garnering of enough attention that makes it a Frequently Asked Question; otherwise, it's just a question that one person is asking. That having been said, I'd say that it's pretty much common sense that you can jump over difficult terrain to make a charge so long as the last square from which you attack isn't difficult terrain. Additionally, there's some question as to whether you can "short" your jump since distance is determined by your roll result. If you roll for a 20' jump, you may not be able to go to 15' and then just plop straight down; you jumped far and may have overshot your target square.


Tarantula wrote:

I understand the point of the rules forum. I am saying that if we take threaten as separate from AoO, then a flat-footed character who has a weapon ready (such as IUS) threatens and can provide flanking even though they haven't had a chance to act yet.

1) This has not been clearly demonstrated.
"Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn." If you cannot make a melee attack into the square, then you don't threaten it. I'll withdraw the surprise example, as surprised characters are don't get to act. Therefore, they cannot make a melee attack in that round. However, a flat-footed opponent who has not yet gone in the first round of normal combat, according to you does threaten squares, even though they cannot yet attack into those squares.

The character being flanked doesn't know if the opponent is or is not surprised. Characters have no awareness of "initiative order" or "flat-footed"; those are tools for us, the players. If you stepped between two opponents, you'd keep your eye on both of them because you don't know if they are ready to react and rip you a new one or if you caught them totally off guard. Thus, you are flanked and they get a bonus because your head is on a swivel trying to keep an eye on both of them to protect yourself.

Tarantula wrote:
2) Agreed. It states you cannot make an AoO. If you cannot make an AoO how can you threaten a square? You can't attack into the square so you shouldn't threaten it.

But the square needs to be threatened in order to make an AoO. If you need to be able to make an AoO into the square in order for it to be threatened, but it must first be threatened in order to make an AoO, then you can never make an AoO and you never threaten... ever; Catch 22.

Tarantula wrote:
3) Same as 2. You can't make an AoO. If you can't attack into the square (when its not your turn) then you don't threaten the square (when its not your turn).

Also same as 2; you need to threaten in order to make an AoO so if you don't threaten, you can't make an AoO. If you can't make an AoO, you can't attack. If you can't attack, you don't threaten. Thus you have an unbreakable loop that prohibits both threatening and AoOs wholesale.


Tarantula wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Additionally, you also threaten if you are flat-footed; that is to say flat-footed only prevents making AoOs, it does not prevent you from threatening. Other things such as not yet being armed may prevent you from threatening, but not just being flat-footed. As further support for this, consider Combat Reflexes. It only allows you to make AoOs while flat-footed. If you didn't threaten just because you are flat-footed, Combat Reflexes doesn't take away that prohibition; it just takes away the prohibition against AoOs. Therefore, in order for Combat Reflexes to properly allow you to make AoOs while flat-footed, you must threaten while flat-footed.

I disagree with this. I think that having the ability to make an AoO into the square is what makes you threaten it. If you can not make AoOs due to being flat-footed or grappled, then you should not threaten squares, because you cannot make attacks into those squares at the moment.

On the other hand, I don't think you must have an available AoO left in the turn to threaten. A creature doesn't know if you have combat reflexes or not, so the fact that you might be able to attack into that square is enough to threaten.

I am unsure how much RAW support my position has. That is kind of the point of the thread. I see the Attacks of Opportunity section defining the general case. Generally, in a combat, you can make attacks of opportunity, and threaten the squares adjacent to you as a result. Flat-footed and grappled specifically change this, to say that you can not make Attacks of Opportunity. I reason that because threatened squares is defined in the context of Attacks of Opportunity, if you are prohibited from taking an AoO you do not threaten squares.

There is no RAW to support your position. Threatened squares may be defined under AoO, but they are not exclusive to AoOs as other rules elements call back to them; flanking being just one. Threatened square is defined as a square into which you may make an attack and goes on to clarify that it counts as being threatened even if not on your turn (since you can't normally make an attack out of your turn). How can threatened square be contingent on making an AoO if making an AoO is contingent on the square being threatened? The square must be threatened to make the AoO, otherwise you cannot make an AoO. To say that it is threatened because you can make an AoO into it is putting the cart before the horse; you're bootstrapping. Therefore, threatened squares are threatened regardless of capacity to make an AoO and are based solely on your capacity and potential to make an attack during your turn. Only things like being paralyzed or disarmed which prohibit actions can deny you your threatening capacity (and, by extension, your AoO capacity). But other rules elements may take away your AoO potential while leaving threatening untouched.


Ok, for those still confused, it works like this:

We have Human A, Orc B, and Goblin C. All are armed with standard weaponry so all threaten adjacent by default. Human A and Orc B are standing adjacent; they threaten each other. Nothing is stopping Human A from attacking Orc B during Human A's turn, thus Human A satisfies the requirement for threatening. It does not matter whether or not Human A decides to attack Orc B during his turn, or does something else. He could cast a non-attack spell, rummage in his backpack or just stand there picking his nose; he still threatens both during his turn and also between turns so long as he'd have the option to attack the Orc during his turn. So grappling the Orc does no prevent him from threatening the Orc, nor any other adjacent square because it's about the potential to attack, not the actuality of the attack. So if Goblin C walks up to the two while they grapple, Human A will still threaten Goblin C despite being locked in a grapple.

This is because all turns happen in parallel; the sequential order is only for our benefit as players but from the character's perspective, it's a single 6s round that they all share and act simultaneously, off-set only by a very small margin which represents initiative. When Orc B, who got higher initiative, moves 60 feet away from Human A, and then Human A moves 60 feet to be adjacent to Orc B's new position, Human A didn't wait until Orc B got 60 feet away before he started moving. Human A was hot on Orc B's tail the whole way through and arrived at the new location just a moment after Orc B did. So there really isn't a "between your turns" interval to consider here; just the abstraction of sequential turn order used to adjudicate simultaneous actions. This is why threatening is based on your ability to attack on your turn; because other characters' turns are happening at the same time as your turn. Thus, grappled characters still threaten, even if they are prevented from making AoOs.

Additionally, you also threaten if you are flat-footed; that is to say flat-footed only prevents making AoOs, it does not prevent you from threatening. Other things such as not yet being armed may prevent you from threatening, but not just being flat-footed. As further support for this, consider Combat Reflexes. It only allows you to make AoOs while flat-footed. If you didn't threaten just because you are flat-footed, Combat Reflexes doesn't take away that prohibition; it just takes away the prohibition against AoOs. Therefore, in order for Combat Reflexes to properly allow you to make AoOs while flat-footed, you must threaten while flat-footed.


That's an interesting interpretation of the Shield Fighter ability that I hadn't considered before. Most people already know that anyone can alternate between weapon and shield using iterative attacks and it isn't considered TWF, but I haven't seen the reading that even when TWF, you can disregard the main-hand and off-hand designation and just make all your attacks with a single weapon a'la flurry of blows. And, honestly, I don't really see a logical failing in it. Nice catch on that one.

Another option is to use a Heavy Shield two-handed. No rule states you must use your shield with another weapon and a Heavy Shield is a 1-h weapon which means you can wield it in two for 1.5x Str and +50% Power Attack. ISB and PA are a must for this build.


Orc Ranger with TWF style. Skip the Dex prereqs and go full-on Strength. Give him an Orc Double-Axe and he gets the best of both worlds; he can use it as a 2-h weapon if he needs to (ie. needs to move and attack or charge, TWF penalties are preventing him from hitting, etc) and he has the option to TWF.


No. Taking the bonus feat for the Ranger only disregards prereqs if using the style-granted bonus feat slot. If the Ranger, say, at lvl 3 decided he wanted to take TWF, he'd need to satisfy the prereqs. If he took it as a bonus feat via Ranger TWF style, he would not need to satisfy the prereqs. Same goes for Monk. A Monk only disregards prereqs if he takes the feat via his Bonus Feats class ability; not if he uses a general odd-level feat slot.

PS: This restriction also applies to the Slayer. He can't take any feat from the list sans prereqs unless he takes it via the talent. He still needs to satisfy prereqs if he takes it with a general feat slot.


Ravingdork wrote:
More seriously though, it's made clear by nearly every source in the game that halts your aging that you no longer take the physical penalties. The same is not necessarily true of the mental bonuses, however.

You gain physical penalties and mental bonuses when you advance in age category. The only abilities I found (with 1 exception I'll bring up later) that let you skip the physical penalties but keep the mental bonuses didn't halt your aging; you'd still die when you reach your max life span. Monk/Druid Timeless Body, Aging Resistance, Alchemist Eternal Youth, Wizard Immortality, they all remove penalties and enable bonuses, but do not exempt you from dying at the end of your natural life; you'll just be really healthy when you do so. By contrast, Monk of the Four Winds gets his own version of Immortality which explicitly states he remains in his current age category forever. He keeps any penalties/bonuses accrued, but since he never changes category, he doesn't gain anymore penalties/bonuses. The only break in this pattern I found was Longevity in which you still age and gain bonuses, but both negates penalties and you never die of old age... it's a mythic ability and those are kind of special. I don't think that every single Undead gets a benefit equivalent to a 1st tier mythic ability just as a matter of course.


How does the spell differentiate what part of the Arrow is Arrow and what part isn't? After all, an Arrow is really just a sharp stick; how does the spell know to also replicate the fletching and an arrowhead? Furthermore, poisoned arrows don't just have liquid poison dabbed onto them. It's thick and paint-like or tar-like and is applied in layers, not just a quick dab with a cottons swab; I'd say that effectively makes it part of the arrow, no different than a painted design.


Chill Touch and similar are holding the charge; just with a special rule that they aren't completely discharged after a single touch. That's a specific exception to a general rule. Generally, held charges discharge after a single touch. Specifically, these spells override that and they only discharge after a floating variable number of touches. Keep in mind that you are holding the charge even on the turn you cast the touch spell, between casting and delivering that first free touch attempt.

Chill Touch et. al. only state that you may use this melee touch attack up to one time per level. It does not say that, if converted to a close ranged touch attack that you may hold said ranged touch attack; that's a different rules element.


The Slayer is a blend of Ranger and Rogue. It makes sense that you don't get the full gamut of Ranger style feats as a full Ranger would. You won't get enough to be "great" at it, you'll get enough to supplement your other abilities. That having been said, the correct reading is that you can take the talent up to three times. This clause: "At level 6, he may select this talent again" that pretty explicitly says that it's that particular rules element that gives him permission to select it a second time. Same goes for the "At level 10" line. It isn't an open invitation to just take it at every level you get a talent.


PRD/combat wrote:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

No. Reach metamagic only increases the range from a melee touch to a ranged attack; it doesn't change the rule that ranged touch attacks can't be held until a later turn. So, Reach is probably a very poor choice for Chill Touch or the like since you'll only get one iteration of the damage. Better to use it on a "standard" touch attack like Shocking Grasp.


Ravingdork wrote:
This is wholly untrue. If it were true, a lich wouldn't be able to gain new character levels.

Incorrect. Your premise, "If it were true, a lich wouldn't be able to gain new character levels." is fundamentally flawed. As Lemeres said, the Lich only gains new ways to do things, but not new insights. He gains new class powers because those are ways to do things. He does not gain aging bonuses because those are age-related insights. You missed the entire point of what he wrote and based your counter-argument on a misinterpretation.


You can threaten a square, even if you can't make an AoO because threatening isn't contingent on making an AoO; it's contingent on being able to attack if it were your turn. However, you can't make an AoO if you don't threaten.

When it says, "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn," what it is saying is that you can't say, "Oh, you can only make attacks on your turn so you only threaten during your turn." You threaten between turns based on your ability to attack during your turn. It also calls out the ability to make an attack, not that you have actually made an attack. Regardless of whether you just decided to stand there and not act or you spent your standard action on something else like casting Prestidigitation, you still threaten so long as you had the valid option to attack on your turn. If some condition prevents you from even taking the option to attack (ie. you are paralyzed), that blocks threatening.

So, since you can still make attacks even while grappled (albeit, with certain restrictions), you threaten even if you have the grappled condition. That means you provide flanking and satisfy any other requirement requiring threatened squares.


GoldEdition42 wrote:

Thread resurrection.

A 7th level sorcerer (straight sorcerer) can is only a 3rd level caster in that he can cast 3rd level spells, correct? His HD is 7 so Magical Knack would work on this class?

Or has my DM been wrong for all these years?

Urk... I threw up in my mouth a little. A lvl 7 Sorc is CL7. A Sorc 3/Fighter 4 is CL3. A Sorc 4/Bard 5 is CL4 for Sorc spells and CL5 for Bard spells. That's one thing. Now, for something completely different. Spell levels. A Sorc1 (CL1) can cast up to lvl 1 spells. A Sorc4 (CL4) can cast up to lvl 2 spells. A Sorc6(CL 6) can cast up to lvl 3 spells. If your lvl 3 spell says it deals 2d6 damage plus 1d6 per two caster levels, then a Sorc6 gets it right out the door at 5d6 damage and it goes up by 1d6 for every 2 sorc levels he takes thereafter. So Spell Level, Caster Level, Class Level, and Character Level are four totally separate and distinct things that, sometimes, interrelate but must never be conflated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

It's funny because Paizo has specifically said on numerous occasions they're not going to fix the actual flaws in the system.

And are you seriously trying to tell me the ACG has no errors?

It would be REALLY hard to take you seriously after that.

Gonna need a citation on that to make sure they're saying what you think they're saying. I think it's far more likely that they're saying they aren't just going to cave in to anyone who has a "problem" with how the system works. I neither explicitly stated nor implied that ACG has no errors. What I said was that someone claiming that it is an error doesn't necessarily mean it is an error. Paizo has to sift through all the "error" claims to see which are legitimate errors that need to be fixed and which are just empty kvetching circles; ignoring inaccurate or frivolous claims of "error" is completely rational and, thus, your scorn of the practice is misplaced. Consider going to the doctor. Some people have legitimate medical complaints; headaches, nausea, whatnot. Others are just chronic complainers. The Doctor needs to distinguish what is actually a medical issue from what is psychogenic in nature. That's a drastic difference between, "Prone Shooter removes a penalty that never existed in the first place and needs to be fixed," and, "I don't like the way this rules element works so it needs to be fixed." Granted, Paizo doesn't do everything right... but no person nor organization does. But, as I like to say, "The customer is always right... so if you're wrong, you must not be a customer."


You'd need to invest in Ride a bit so you can guide effectively with your knees if both hands are occupied with Pistols. Furthermore, dual pistols give you reloading headaches. While you can take two iterative attacks, one with each pistol, before needing to reload, you must either juggle with weapon cords or sheathe/re-draw. Presuming you're just using Alchemical Cartridges and don't yet have Rapid Reload, that's two move actions to reload each weapon, plus two move actions to re-ready them (if using weapon cords or sheathe/quickdraw) or 4 move actions if you lack both weapon cords and quickdraw. That's 4-6 move actions to reload both firearms just so you can take 2 iterative attacks. By contrast, with Rapid Reload, Rapid Shot, and Alchemical Cartridges, you can get three attacks at lvl 6 using just one pistol. Now, if you get a couple of Pistols of the Infinite Sky, I could see using TWF maybe, but that's a costly option. Your best bet is a single pistol with Rapid Reload (should be standard for all Gunslingers, really) and Rapid Shot if you're going to go with Pistol. Musket Master still kind of blows it out of the water.


Rynjin wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Honestly if Paizo can't manage their resources well enough to prevent these problems or start addressing them then maybe they need to seriously rethink a few of their business practices. Clearly what they're doing right now just isn't working.
Or maybe Paizo just doesn't think it is that much of an issue….. Just because they don't respond to every "I think this is broken, therefor Paizo sucks" thread doesn't mean they haven't seen the thread or given it a few brief moments thought before ignoring it.

If they were seriously ignoring the thread that lists every single one of their mistakes in that book you could rest assured they'd never get another g#$ d!$n red cent from me.

Thankfully they don't seem to be that shortsighted.

Someone claiming that their thread lists every single mistake in their books, and said thread actually listing every single mistake are two very different things. If some stranger came up to you on the street and offered you a book titled "All the mistakes in your life (and how to fix them)", would you just take it at face value? Especially if the first sentence is, "OMG, you totally suck at life!" People will gripe about perceived rules errors (that really aren't) all the time; that doesn't make them legitimate issues. If Paizo dedicated significant time to pursuing every single thread purporting to reveal a "critical flaw" in the system, they'd never have the time to correct the actual flaws in the system.


Regarding the Efficient Quiver statement:

Did you mean the Abundant Ammunition spell? You cast it on a Quiver (or other ammo storage container) and any ammo you use from it is replaced at the start of next round. So you could make yourself a pile of 10 poisoned/alchemical arrows, stick them in a Quiver, cast Abundant Ammunition, and suddenly you have infinite poison/alchemical arrows, up to 10 per round, for 1 min/lvl. You could then cast Greater Magic Weapon on the Quiver and they all get the GMW bonus as well. But, AFAIK, there is no Wonderous Item that replicates the effect of the spell permanently.


Consider the following:

PRD wrote:
Immortality (Su): At 20th level, a monk of the four winds no longer ages. He remains in his current age category forever. Even if the monk comes to a violent end, he spontaneously reincarnates (as the spell) 24 hours later in a place of his choosing within 20 miles of the place he died. The monk must have visited the place in which he returns back to life at least once. This ability replaces perfect self.

At lvl 20, the Monk of the Four Winds attains Immortality and remains in his current age category forever. This is worded distinctly different from Timeless Body:

PRD wrote:
Timeless Body (Ex): At 17th level, a monk no longer takes penalties to his ability scores for aging and cannot be magically aged. Any such penalties that he has already taken, however, remain in place. Age bonuses still accrue, and the monk still dies of old age when his time is up.

Timeless Body allows you to continue gaining age bonuses (but not penalties) until you die of old age. Immortality fixes you in your current age category and makes no mention of continuing to gain bonuses. Would one argue, "Well, just because the Monk is immortal and has ceased to age, doesn't mean he doesn't get smarter and wiser as normal." Keep in mind that the growth of mental stats doesn't represent you getting "smarter" per-say. It shows an increase in your potential for knowledge. Getting +1 Int from age bonus doesn't mean you know more, it means it's easier for you to learn and retain more (which is somewhat unrealistic because most old people I encounter have trouble learning new things and get forgetful in their old age).

Or, consider it from another angle. Why does it take a Human 18 years to go from middle-age to old-age and gain +1 to Int, Wis, and Cha, but it takes a Dwarf 63 years? It takes an Elf 88 years. All for just +1 Int/Wis/Cha. Because of different developmental factors. What are the developmental factors of Undead? They don't really develop with age in a biological sense. Powerful, intelligent Undead like Liches or Vampires simply learn to access powers they already had but hadn't yet figured out how to access. But, physically, their bodies and minds are in a state of stasis; constant and unchanging.


Rushley son of Halum wrote:

Again, you're not listening. I'm talking about a feat that you get as a bonus feat for the archtype that doesn't even operate except in specific circumstances, and which you don't even meet the perquisites for.

Shield master is a shield champion bonus feat. But you can't use it unless you yourself use a feat to pick up shield slam. Neither of which work at all unless you're flurrying apparently.

Do you still really not see the issue here?

Name one other archtype or class that gains bonus feats that they can't even use unless they take other feats. In this case im referring the need to take shield slam, which im not even sure I can.

Well, Two-Weapon Warrior comes to mind. All of their abilities revolve around two-weapon fighting; but they don't actually get any TWF feats as bonuses at all. All their class abilities rely on two-weapon fighting, but you must take the feats as either fighter bonus feats or normal feats. So the Shield Champion needs to take Shield Slam in order to use his Shield Mastery which is given as a bonus. So what? A Roughrider Fighter needs to provide their own mount. They don't get a free mount like Cavaliers despite the archetype being designed around mounted combat. What about the Savage Warrior archetype? It revolves around natural weapons which you must provide either by race or by some other class's ability (ie. Druid). Not every archetype is going to hand you everything on a silver platter; some require you to BYOB. We're used to bonus feats being granted "without prerequisites", but in this case, they apparently determined that the combination was too strong for their view of the class and, so, required you to meet the prereqs in order to get the bonus feat; in essence, you're only saving a feat slot, not the necessity to satisfy the prereqs.


If you want Shield Master to apply even outside of Flurry, then you must take TWF as a regular feat rather than relying on Flurry providing it. It's no different than not being able to use Power Attack unless you're Raging. Or, alternatively, what if an ability gave you +2 Str, but only when you make a full-attack? You could take, say, Power Attack even if you had only 11 Str, but it only "kicks in" when you make a full-attack. For standard attacks, AoOs, etc. you can't use Power Attack.


Roll for confirmation. If you pass the roll, it triggers Vorpal. If you don't, Quarry (or other abilities) trump the roll and you score the critical anyway (though not the Vorpal effect). It's basically an extension of this rule:

PRD wrote:
Magic Weapons and Critical Hits: Some weapon special abilities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect also functions against creatures not normally subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon's regular damage.

Against creatures normally immune to critical hits, you roll to confirm anyway but only for the magic effect; you disregard the additional critical damage but something like Flaming Burst would still do its AoE damage. So if your ability automatically confirms a critical, it doesn't matter as far as the damage goes; that's going to be critical damage. But it may be pertinent to magic effects so you roll specifically for that.


It's no different from wearing a Belt of Giant Strength to increase your Strength so that you meet a prereq. You don't "have" the Strength, but you're being granted it by your equipment. If you really want to question it, say that at the moment you gained a level and picked your feats, you performed a brawler's flurry at the nearest wall and took your new feat while you had the TWF feat from brawler's flurry.


You always use your full Strength (or other stat if using a stat sub ability for attack rolls like Weapon Finesse) regardless of it being main-hand or off-hand. The Half Bonus to off-hand is damage only. Now, if you lack the TWF feat, you take -6 to your main-hand and -10 to your off-hand weapon, but these have nothing to do with your Str modifier; it's still the +4 Str mod to each attack roll and the -6/-10 apply on top of this. Using a light weapon in the off-hand (there's almost never a good reason to not do this) drops these penalties by -2 each so -6/-10 becomes -4/-8. Having the TWF feat takes -2/-6 off these penalties so -6/-10 becomes -4/-4. Having both TWF feat and a light off-hand nets you -2/-2. These still have nothing to do with your Str mod so it's +4 Str -2 TWF penalty on both main-hand and off-hand weapons. Separately, it's +4 from Str bonus on your main-hand weapon and +2 from Str bonus on your off-hand weapon.

Lastly, remember that TWF =/= Fighting with two (or more) weapons. You can fight with any number of available weapons (ie, a weapon in each hand, Armor Spikes, and a Boot Blade) and stay within your BAB allowance (BAB/BAB-5/BAB-10/BAB-15) and it isn't two-weapon fighting; all these attacks get full Str bonus to damage (1.5x Str if applicable) and none suffer TWF attack penalties. It only becomes two-weapon fighting if you are trying to go above your normal attack allotment from BAB.


It's a bit unclear as to whether you can trip "without a weapon at all". But if you lack IUS and you're using Unarmed Strike to execute your trip, that'd provoke as well for the same reason as using the Whip without ITrip or casting a spell that has a ranged attack (ie. Scorching Ray). If you can, just make a Trip maneuver but not using any particular weapon. But if you must use a weapon, using Unarmed Strike will provoke anyway so you might as well utilize the reach of the whip (that's kind of the point of using a whip).


Two-Handed is an effort category. A medium creature wielding a medium greatsword wields it as a two-handed weapon and its base effort category is also two-handed (for item HP, crafting purposes, etc). So it's a two-handed weapon being wielded as a two-handed weapon. A Small Greatsword is also a two-handed weapon when it comes for item HP and crafting purposes, but a medium character wields it as a two-handed weapon. This is a virtual wielding category, but so is a properly sized Greatsword; it's just that in this case, the virtual category happens to be different from the base category. But all of these, a small creature wielding a small Greatsword, a Medium creature wielding a medium Greatsword, and a Medium creature wielding a Large Longsword are effectively wielding two-handed weapons and, thus, gain +50% Power Attack bonus. Likewise, a character wielding a Lance while mounted uses different terminology; in one hand. In one hand and one-handed are functionally different as the Lance FAQ states. In one hand means that it's still a two-handed weapon, but you are exempted from devoting two physical hands to wielding it. As such, it still gets 1.5x Str to damage, still gets +50% Power Attack, and still counts for abilities that explicitly call out requiring a two-handed weapon (ie. Shield of Swings, Overhand Chop, etc). However, it is still a two-handed weapon and, thus, requires two hands worth of effort, even if not requiring two physical hands to be applied. This means you can't TWF with a Lance even if wielded while mounted because it only frees up a physical hand; not your attack economy. It still eats an off-hand attack to attack with the Lance. So it's only freeing up the other hand to guide your horse, use a shield, or hold some other object (even another weapon, though you can't use the two for TWF).

An off-hand weapon is an off-hand weapon regardless of Double Strike as Double Strike is a specific exception to a specific rule (off-hand weapons get half Str to damage). It doesn't make off-hand attacks like main-hand attacks. Monk Unarmed Strikes, on the other hand, explicitly do make off-hand unarmed strikes be treated like main-hand attacks. So a Monk using TWF but not Flurry will still get full Str bonus and Power Attack to off-hand Unarmed Strikes.


Yondu wrote:

Thanks for your point of view and clarifications on the differences.

My view is when you are stronger it is easier to move around with heavy load, to move with something heavy on you, and my view on Max Dex was that the weight is responsible of the limit and the restricitiveness was linked to the ACP.
Heavy Armor Feat permit you to wear a heavy armor, I'm OK with it, but with not enough strength, you will not be able to even move in armor, but if you are stronger than the common people you do not benefit of the strength, it not logic that you are penalized for low strenght and not benefit of high strength... That's my issue...

Your issue stems from looking at it through too narrow a scope. You segregate the issues and examine them in a vacuum rather than integrating them with the system as a whole. Strength doesn't benefit you wearing more restrictive armor because the restrictiveness isn't going to be lessened by being strong. It doesn't limit your max Dex because it's heavy, it limits you because it is stiff. Imagine the following; you are bound in a pillory. It stiffly restricts your movement. Would being stronger allow you to dodge more effectively while bound in the stocks? Of course not; strength may allow you to break the stocks, but it won't help you utilize more of your dexterity. Likewise, having more Strength won't logically help you apply more of your Dexterity to evade a hit while wearing full plate armor; not so much because it is heavy but because it is stiff. This is why you don't suffer additional penalty for both wearing heavy armor and carrying a heavy load; you only take the worse penalty that applies.

Secondly, the benefit of high strength exists, but in a different scope. The benefit of more restrictive armor is that you focus less on Dexterity and can focus more on Strength which allows you to deal more damage in combat. So a heavy armored character needs just enough Dex to meet the max Dex allowed by his armor, and then can dump the rest of his resources into pumping up Strength. By contrast, character with light armor affords enough Strength just to carry his load adequately, and focuses the rest into supplementary attributes like Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. You can't just say, "higher Strength doesn't let me use more Dex bonus to Armor, therefore there is no benefit for higher Strength." It's a matter of opportunity cost; saving resources from needing to go into Dex means I have more resources to go into Str which, while not benefiting me defensively, benefits me offensively instead. It's really no different than using a composite bow; if you are under the Strength requirement, you suffer a penalty to attack but if you are over the Strength requirement, you are capped at how much Str you can apply to your bow shots.


If you want to play a tank, invest in Profession(Driver) and just buy yourself a big armored vehicle with a mounted cannon.


Weight and restrictiveness are two different concepts. Throw ACP in there as well for consideration. Max Dex is a reflection of how flexible the armor is. Consider the Wooden Armor at +3 AC/+3 MaxDex/-1 ACP and 25 lbs. Compare that to the Chain Shirt at +4 AC/+4 MaxDex/-2 ACP and 25 lbs. The Chain Shirt is no heavier than the Wooden Armor but it has higher Max Dex rating. Conversely, it also has a higher ACP rating. You could say that Max Dex is how restrictive the armor is for coarse motion like dodging while ACP is how restrictive the armor is for fine motion like sneaking. In neither case does "weight" enter into it. It's about how the shape of the armor may, for instance, prevent you from enjoying your full range of motion. It doesn't matter how strong you are, if the form of your armor prevents you from raising your hands above your head, forcing it through strength is just going to bend and ruin your armor. This example, mind you, the joints preventing you from lifting your hands up over your head, is an example of ACP in action. The armor may be, otherwise, very flexible material and wouldn't prevent you from ducking and dodging from side to side... just so long as you don't lift your arms up in the process.


Driver_325yards wrote:
Can you wield the shield as a weapon and not utilize it as a shield to avoid the ACP?

Can you wield armor spikes without actually wearing the armor?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
PRD wrote:
A full-round action requires an entire round to complete.

So, if the full-round action of Spell Combat takes an entire round to complete, you have to have a free hand for the entire round.

I'm not sure how that can be any clearer.

Full-round action and "1 round action" are different concepts. For instance, if you TWF, you only take the penalties to your attacks during your full-round action. You do not take penalties on AoOs. Speaking of AoOs, if you are unarmed for your full-round action, and then quickdraw a weapon afterwards, before the end of your turn, you still threaten between turns. It's kind of a Schrodinger's Mechanic, but there is nothing to suggest that there's any difference between having a shield equipped and doing nothing on your turn and equipping the shield after you've performed a full-round action; in both cases, you get your Shield bonus to AC. By contrast, a spell that takes "1 round" to cast really does occupy you for the duration of your turn and the interval between this turn and the next.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
It's obviously intended to be drawn as a free action with quick draw. It's not obviously intended to be stown as a free action.
Every shield can be drawn as a free action with the quick draw feat. The quickdraw shield can also be put away as a free action with the quick draw feat.

How do you figure that? A weapon can be drawn as a free action using quick draw, but how does that let you wear a shield as a piece of armor as a free action?

PRD/Combat wrote:

Draw or Sheathe a Weapon

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
...

Ready or Drop a Shield
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or drop a shield as a free action combined with a regular move.

Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action.

These are two different move actions, Draw or Sheathe a Weapon and Ready or Drop a Shield. Quick Draw only changes Draw a Weapon, not Ready a Shield. So a character with a Heavy Shield, for instance, couldn't strap it to his arm as a free action just because he has Quick Draw. The only thing left to question is whether or not you can bash with a shield that isn't strapped on properly. I'd venture that it is implied that, just as how a Cestus needs to be properly worn to be wielded and Armor Spikes require you to actually wear the armor in order to attack with the Armor Spikes, you'd actually need to be properly wearing the shield in order to bash with it. A Shield is both weapon and armor; that means it must obey both sets of rules. You can't logically say that, since a Shield is a weapon, you can disregard otherwise applicable rules for Armor nor vice versa.


Matt is correct. For a character proficient with Shields as a weapon, but not as armor, they take ACP as a penalty to attack rolls, but otherwise do gain the bonus to AC and don't suffer the -4 non-proficiency penalty. Conversely, a Druid who has proficiency with Shields as armor but not blanket Martial proficiency doesn't suffer the ACP penalty to attack but takes -4 non-proficient penalty on Shield Bashes.


Two things to note.

1) Multiclassing two classes that have important class-based progression (ie. Challenge and Spellcasting) is more detrimental than beneficial because you are constrained by action economy. You only have a standard and move or a full-round each turn regardless of how many options for action you have available to you (barring certain explicit exceptions).

2) You're going to be stretched thin getting all the ability scores to back up your abilities. Str for melee, Dex for defense, Con for HP and Fort Saves, Cha for casting. You'll end up being sub-par in all categories.

So, since you don't want to tank Wis since everyone needs perception and will saves, your only real option is Int. Then, it comes down to which are you going to favor. I strongly, strongly suggest, that if you're going to do this, you do not go for a 50/50 split. I'd say no closer than 25/75 so you'll want to end up with either a Sorc 5/Samurai 15 or a Sorc 15/Samurai 5. So it's really a matter of which do you want more, casting or martial. Next, of course, is the matter of action economy. For this, you can take a page from the Reach Cleric's book. The Reach Cleric uses his standard action for spellcasting and wields a Reach weapon (ie. Longspear) with Combat Reflexes to make his melee attacks as AoOs. You could easily pull this off using a Naginata. If you're going to rely on touch spells (melee or ranged), then you won't need Cha quite as much since you don't need to worry about high DCs.

Another option, if you don't mind dropping the spellcasting, is Eldritch Heritage. That gets you the Bloodline Powers. Then you could be an Abyssal, Orc, Shadow, whatever heritage that meshes well with a martial class (Samurai in this case). Lastly is the prospect of Gestalt class; a set of houserules in which you take full progression in two separate classes. So at lvl 1, in your case, you'd be a Samurai 1/Sorc 1. At lvl 2, you'd be a Samurai 2/Sorc 2, so on and so forth. You take the best BAB, Saves, Skill Points, HP etc. between the two classes (so BAB and Fort Save from Samurai, Will save from Sorc, and roll both their hit dice and take the higher result). It tends to be a bit unbalancing, especially if there are other non-gestalt characters so most GMs won't really go for it unless it's a whole Gestalt campaign. You also suffer more from action economy, again because broader options are constrained by the same standard/move|full-round limitations.

So what, exactly, are you looking for? A Martial who supplements with spellcasting? A Caster who is a little more competent at melee?


PRD/Combat wrote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Furthermore...

FAQ wrote:

Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?

As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account.

Lastly, the Sea Knife and Barbazu Beard are talking about making off-hand attacks in conjunction with attacks with a 2-h weapon, not just having your hands full. The Boot Blade and Armor Spikes lack such verbiage so you can't TWF combining a 2-h weapon with Boot Blade/Armor Spikes, but that doesn't mean you can't use these weapons if you are carrying ostrich eggs in both hands or just holding a Greatsword or even making Iterative attacks with both Greatsword and Armor Spikes (ie. Greatsword +11/Armor Spike +6/Greatsword +1). Likewise, since an Unarmed Strike is your whole body so even if your hands are occupied, you can kick. If both hands and feet are occupied, you can headbutt. Or, you can just say, "I use Unarmed Strike" and it doesn't really matter which appendage it uses. A Gelatinous Cube, with no limbs to speak of, can still use Unarmed Strike if it so chooses, as can an Animated Bowling Ball.


That's why I feel it's better to interpret that particular Monk line to mean that a Monk (or Brawler) doesn't "eat" his off-hand attacks when attacking with a two-handed weapon since anyone can make unarmed strikes with their hands full just using feet or other non-hand body parts. So a Monk could totally TWF (even not using Flurry) with a 2-h weapon + Unarmed Strike. But the Devs said they were going to look into the validity and balance of that interpretation and get back to us but, to my knowledge, we haven't heard any update as of yet.


Ok, here's the breakdown.

Any character can attack with two different weapons (ie. Longsword in one hand, Shortsword in the other) and neither are considered "off-hand" so long as he stays in his normal BAB allowance. For example, you could make your first attack at full BAB with your Longsword, your second at BAB-5 with the Shortsword, then your third at BAB-10 with the Longsword again. This is not TWF so you get full Str to damage and suffer no additional penalties to attack rolls. If you use TWF rules to get extra attack(s), then you must decide which weapon is your off-hand weapon (doesn't have to be the same one each round) to determine what penalties you take and your off-hand weapon gets half Str to damage while your main-hand gets full Str to damage. Main-hand and Off-hand weapons only exist in the context of TWF and whereas the +1 Flaming Shortsword in one hand may be your off-hand this round, the +1 Holy Shortsword in the other hand may be your off-hand another round. Unarmed Strikes are special in that you can TWF with Unarmed Strikes alone. They are also completely abstract so they can be punches, kicks, headbutts, or pelvis thrusts or just an undistinguished "unarmed strike". This is true for any character, not just Monks and Brawlers, so even a Fighter can make an Unarmed Strike with his hands full and call it a Knee, Kick, or even just an "unarmed strike, not using my hand" and this only matters if, for some reason, you must use your hand to get some benefit (ie. Spell Combat must be Unarmed Strike using the hand, not kicks).

Next, holding or even attacking with a Longspear or other two-handed weapon doesn't interfere with your ability to attack with or threaten with unarmed strike or any other non-hand weapon. For instance, you can make iterative attacks with your Longspear at a target at reach combined with unarmed strikes at adjacent targets. You cannot, however, TWF with a 2-h weapon and a non-hand weapon. But you still threaten (since you can still make mixed iteratives) with both Longspear at reach and Unarmed Strike adjacent (provided you have IUS). However, you can't re-grip your weapon as part of an AoO so you couldn't, for instance, be wearing a Cestus or Gauntlet and wielding a Longspear and threaten with both; either your Cestus/Gauntlet hand is free and you threaten with that, or your are properly wielding your Longspear in both hands which makes your Cestus/Gauntlet unavailable.

Last, Monks (and Brawlers) have special rules. Monks treat both main-hand and off-hand unarmed strikes as main-hand weapons so they get full Str to damage, full Power Attack, etc. for all their unarmed strikes; main-hand or off-hand. However, the line about "Monks can attack even with their hands full" is a bit superfluous since any character can do that anyway. It only really has meaning if we interpret it to say that a Monk can TWF with a 2-h and Unarmed Strike, but that idea has been under debate by the Devs last time I checked.

One final note, while you can't TWF with a 2-h weapon and Unarmed Strikes, one of the Devs (either SKR or JB, I can't remember) did give tacit agreement that you could use a 1-h weapon wielded in two hands for two-weapon fighting under certain constraints. You basically have an "attack budget" such that for every attack with, say, a Longsword in two hands you make, you "skip" your next off-hand attack and for every off-hand attack you make, you have a "debt" to make your next main-hand attack one-handed. To illustrate, with 3 iteratives and 3 off-hands, you could attack once with your Longsword in two hands (iterative 1), skip your first Off-hand, then make your second off-hand (at BAB-5) which earns you a debt for which you must make your next main-hand attack with your Longsword one-handed. He also said that this is a complex situation and, while it is technically allowed, most players would do better to just go with a rule of thumb of "no 2-h + TWF for all practical purposes".


A lie is an attempt to deceive someone, not just an untrue statement. It is possible to say something untrue without lying. It is possible to lie with a statement that isn't untrue. If you are talking about something without the intent to deceive, it isn't a lie. However, in the case of the Convincing Lie Rogue talent, it is a "lie by proxy" which is a specific case and calls for an "indirect bluff check". To illustrate, telling someone, "The sun is rising" isn't a lie, despite the fact that the sun isn't actually rising; the planet is rotating it into view. If guards are chasing you and you turn a corner and quickly disguise yourself and happen to notice a random stranger ahead walk around a corner, the guards may pass you, fail to beat your disguise check, and think you are a witness. They may ask you if you saw someone come by. You may tell them you saw a person go around the corner up ahead. It is technically true, but it is still deceptive because you know very well what they are talking about; so this case wouldn't dodge the necessity to make a bluff check.


Just as with the Myrmidarch, most people misunderstand the concept of the Skirnir. It breaks the normal paradigm of "high crit range weapon + shocking grasp" and has a much stronger emphasis on buff or disabling spells. You're also intended to use only the shield up until you get Shielded Spell Combat, in which case you can pick up a supplementary weapon and use the shield hand itself as your casting hand. For instance, instead of the normal pattern of Spell Combat>Shocking Grasp>Attack w/ Scimitar, you might cast Touch of Idiocy and deliver it with a Heavy Shield wielded in two hands. So, whereas a standard Magus is much more of a Hammer in the Forge model and can go for either Arm or Anvil as his minor role, a Skirnir is an Anvil or Arm primarily (based on how he builds) and the other as his minor role.


PRD wrote:
Swarms made up of Diminutive or Fine creatures are susceptible to high winds, such as those created by a gust of wind spell. For purposes of determining the effects of wind on a swarm, treat the swarm as a creature of the same size as its constituent creatures. A swarm rendered unconscious by means of nonlethal damage becomes disorganized and dispersed, and does not reform until its hit points exceed its nonlethal damage.

That was exactly how it should be handled; wind is special when it comes to swarms of Diminutive or Fine creatures in a similar way to how they take +50% damage from AoE damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Spell Combat wrote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.
FAQ wrote:

When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.

A hand-associated natural weapon is considered "wielded in the hand."

No the FAQ states you can use the natural weapon for this class ability. The two are not interchangeable nor does a FAQ specifically for the Magus class mean that it is a blanket rule sadly. It means for this specific instance it can be considered to be that way. Extrapolating anything beyond what it says leads to debate on RAI.

"For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat." The answer is not stating that these weapons are considered wielded in the hand for the purpose of Spell Combat and Spell Combat only. It is stating that because they are wielded in the hand (general, blanket matter of logic), Spell Combat works as stated. This is not making an exception to a general rule; it is clarifying the general rule for the purpose of saying, "it's always worked like this, you just didn't understand the rules."


... crap. Yeah, I wrote that while I was in the process of drinking coffee so either just omit that last iterative attack or we'll say the character has a BAB of +11 but only 8 Strength.


More to the point, remember that Hardness =/= Strength. The same Diamond that is the hardest substance known to man, unable to be scratched except by another diamond and very good at lining drill bits for the purpose of grinding, will shatter if struck with a hammer (or fracture cleanly if carefully cut by a good jeweler). And then, different materials have different kinds of strength. Concrete has great compression strength; it is hard to compress concrete. However, it has poor tensile strength; if you try to bend it or pull it apart, it breaks easily. By contrast, steel has high tensile strength; it resists bending and pulling. But it is easier to compress steel than it is to compress concrete. This is why we use rebar in concrete; it's the best of both worlds combining the tensile strength of the rebar with the compression strength of the concrete. So not only does Hardness not equate to Strength, but Strength doesn't even equate to Strength.

1 to 50 of 4,247 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.