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

5,439 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Thaine wrote:
Point being, there are several competing systems for classifying swords and each is just as valid as the next.

There's the hitch; that whole, "each is just as valid as the next." If someone's classification system is to call swords over 4' shortswords and those under 4' longswords and those exactly 4' purpleswords, I would not consider that to be "just as valid" as a system where a sword with 5" of grip or less and a blade no more than 2' long is a Shortsword, a sword with 5" of grip or less and a blade longer than 2' but no more than 4' is an Arming Sword, a sword with more than 5" and a blade that will neither strike the ground when rotated down from a proper stance nor impede the grip when grabbing an opponent at arm's length is a Longsword, a sword in between an Arming Sword and a Longsword is a Bastard Sword, a sword at the largest blade length that still qualifies as a Longsword is a War Sword, and a sword with a blade length long enough that it interferes with swings, parries, and other standard sword techniques and must be used more like a polearm than an actual sword (despite still having the profile of a sword) is a Greatsword.

The names of the weapons are more for the benefit of us as players. Your character might just call his weapon a "sword", but in order to adjudicate a game system, we need a good system of classifying weapons. The system that Pathfinder uses, which started mainly with the original D&D, isn't exactly "bad", but I'd say it isn't exactly "good" either.

But, basically, you have 4 major categories of a "hand-held sword-like bladed weapon"; Daggers, Arming Swords, Longswords, Greatswords. Daggers are small and easy to use. Arming Swords have a one-handed grip and are intended to be used as a backup weapon with a shield (for when you lose your primary weapons, your lance and mace/flail). Longswords are named for their longer grip, able to easily accommodate two hands and would be used without a shield but still can be one-handed for free-hand maneuvers. Lastly, Greatswords are so big that they only have the general profile of a sword; they can't be used with most sword techniques. Then you have the hybrid weapons; a shortsword is between a dagger and an arming sword. A Bastard Sword is a longsword that is very close to an arming sword. A War Sword is a longsword that is very close to a Greatsword. And it doesn't help that most RPG systems have a big case of anachronism stew with weaponry spanning several ages, all the way from bronze age weapons to Renaissance and everything in between.

I recommend Sword Names/classification and When a Longsword becomes a Greatsword and, maybe, Medieval Broadsword for a full explanation on the matter.


The floor doesn't just "blink" down to its final level; it has to move gradually (maybe fast, but still gradual). You can't jump on thin air; you need some ground off of which to jump. And if there's still ground that you're jumping off of, then you're still stuck to that ground by the tanglefoot bag.

Here's another thing to keep in mind; explicit isn't the only way the rules function. Implicit rules, as a result of explicit rules co-functioning, are still valid. If one rules element says you can't move and another gives you the opportunity to move, then you can't move. They didn't bother writing in, "Oh, by the way, if you're affected by tanglefoot bags (which don't allow you to move), then you can't actually jump out of the way because that's a type of movement." There's no need to explicitly state everything, especially when a passing understanding of the English language would give you the correct information anyway. Even though things don't explicitly prevent certain saves, they can implicitly prevent those saves.

For instance, if you're using an acrobatics check to jump a gap, and you fail by 4 or less, you can make a reflex save to grab the edge and prevent yourself from falling. But if, as you jump through the air, you are hit by an AoO which renders you unable to respond (unconscious, paralyzed, etc), even though you already made the acrobatics check and the reflex save at the beginning of the jump (or even if you waited until the end of the jump to make the save), you wouldn't say that your unconscious body grabs hold of the ledge would you? So why would you say that you can jump out of the way on a successful save when some other rules element says you can't move (under which jumping out of the way is included).


Brother Sooth wrote:

Another potential issue I notice is that pretty much nobody is going to use the Arming Sword under these rules unless they intend to TWF with their Shield -- at a notable mechanical disadvantage and/or feat tax for doing so.

Oh shoot. I meant to change the arming sword to 1d8 damage. Too late to edit it now.


Dustin Heaton wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
GeneMemeScene wrote:
I mean, a Nodachi is basically just a big Katana. You could just use a Katana and describe it as being really large.
No it is NOT a big Katana, it's practically a polearm with a long blade at the end of it. It's as much a katana as a broadsword is a glaive-guisarme.
A hilt of around 12 inches is definitely not "practically a polearm". Perhaps you're thinking of the naginata?

I recommend you watch this and this. Pathfinder's "Greatsword" (based on D&D legacy) is actually quite dinky compared to actual Greatswords; it's closer to a proper Longsword. But a proper, historically accurate Greatsword would, very much, have been treated as a polearm because that's how you'd need to use it; it's too long to be used as a sword. That's why Nodachi have the Brace feature and are in the Polearms group (something that the Greatsword should also feature).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that bothers many people is the legacy of incorrect sword terminology that rose out of D&D and has been perpetuated throughout games, both tabletop like Pathfinder as well as working its way into computer-based RPGs. So what would a proper sword spectrum look like for Pathfinder? First off, we must take into consideration that the "short" and "long" in shortsword and longsword didn't really refer to the length of the blade so much as the length of the handle. A Shortsword has enough room for only one hand while a Longsword has a long enough hilt that it can be wielded in two hands. The fact of the matter is that what we call the Longsword in D&D, Pathfinder, and similar games isn't even a Longsword at all. What we'd call a Greatsword or a Bastard Sword is more akin to what would have historically been called a Longsword, and what we call a Longsword is more akin to what would have been a Bastard Sword or maybe an Arming sword. And we really don't have a good example of what would have actually been called a Greatsword. A true, historical Greatsword is more like a short Polearm than an actual sword. So, a more correct "spectrum" of swords would be as follows:

1) Shortsword: light martial weapon, 1d6(p) damage, 19-20/x2 crit No change needed; this one they actually got right
2) Arming Sword: 1-h martial weapon, 1d6(p or s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, no benefit from using two-handed but, if proficient, is treated as light for TWF penalties, treated as shortsword for feats and abilities. This is your real knight's sidearm, meant to be used in conjunction with a shield.
3) Bastard Sword: 1-h martial weapon, 1d8 damage(p or s), 19-20/x2 crit, treated as Longsword for feats and abilities (eg. Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc). Actually takes the place of the old Longsword, a Bastard Sword was a hybrid of a proper Shortsword and proper Longsword.
4) Longsword: 1-h exotic weapon, 1d10(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, if lacking exotic proficiency, you must treat is as a 2-h martial weapon, treated as full 2-h weapon when wielded in two hands. Takes the place of the old Bastard Sword and is more properly used as a 2-h weapon for 2-h techniques (eg. shield of swings, pushing assault, etc). You'd only one-hand it if you were using your free hand for assisting maneuvers like a grab, shove, etc.
5) War Sword: 2-h martial weapon, 1d10(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, brace, treated as Longsword for feats and abilities. Takes the place of the old Greatsword with some added features and properly represents a midway point between a proper Longsword and a proper Greatsword
6) Greatsword: 2-h exotic weapon, 2d6(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, brace, can be used as if you have the Lunge feat, if you actually have the Lunge feat you can use it without taking AC penalty (for this weapon only), in Polearms fighter weapon group. What a proper Greatsword should be, more a polearm than a sword and used against charges


Oddman80 wrote:

If you have the ability to MAKE a shield bash with a buckler (such as through the Buckler Duelist archetype of the Fighter Class) then the wording of shield guantlet style would allow you to use your guantlets to buckler bash.

But i am unclear of the "now what"

Keep in mind that SGS states the gauntlet counts as a buckler while receiving the AC bonus. Making a shield bash with a buckler via some ability that allows you to do so would normally deny you the AC bonus which means it doesn't count as a Buckler, which means you can't bash with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Just got an idea to expand on this. If you actually manage to get all the way down the Spear Dancing Style feat chain, Spear Dancing Reach lets you give the Reach property to your weapon -- even if it didn't originally have that property. And conveniently, some Spears can be wielded one-handed, so that you don't have to get Quarterstaff Master and Weapon Focus (Quarterstaff), but this doesn't hurt the usage of them with Spear Dancing Reach. One disadvantage is that Spear Dancing Reach eats a Swift Action every turn (not just to start using it). 6/10?

2 things. Spear Dancing Reach can only be used if you're fighting with it as a double weapon and, regardless of handedness of the weapon, you must wield it in two hands to use it as a double weapon. So even if it's a 1-h weapon, you'd still need to wield it in two hands in order to handle it as a double weapon in order to benefit from reach. Also, the original question was about the prospect of using a Nodachi for a Magus and, while a Katana might be similar, other spears/polearms wouldn't really be. Regarding the use of the swift action, you only need to eat it if you need to attack an enemy at reach. That isn't necessarily every turn. And it's an option for your swift action that could be used at any given opportunity; as opposed to other Magus options for which you have limited uses per day. It gives you versatility and you get more mileage out of your action economy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have a few options. First, the black and white.

Spell Combat requires you to wield either a one-handed or light weapon in your other hand. Now this can be an actual one-handed or light weapon, or a functional one-handed or light weapon (it "works as" or is "treated as" one-handed or light). Also, the "in your other hand" actually means it has to be a hand-based weapon and your setup must be that you are casting a spell using one hand and wielding the weapon (again, one-handed or light) in the opposite hand. Now, I will note that multi-armed races are a little bit ambiguous in how they function but, as a good rule of thumb, just presume that Spell Combat takes up all your off-hand attack economy so you wouldn't be able to two-hand your weapon with spell combat any more than you could mix TWF and 2HF normally. That having been said...

1) Just use a Katana. You can still wield it 2-h for rounds in which you aren't using Spell Combat, but it doesn't outright lock you out of Spell Combat like a full 2-h weapon would. 7/10

2) 2 level dip into Titan Mauler Barb for Jotungrip. This lets you treat 2-h weapons sized for you as 1-h weapons for -2 attack. But the attack penalty is kinda bad because your BAB is 3/4 already. 6/10

3) Tiefling w/ Oversized Limb and Large Katana. Oversized Limb removes all penalty for wielding a Large weapon (both the attack penalty and the handedness change). So you'll still treat the Large Katana as if it were a 1-h weapon, but it's more comparable in size and damage to a Nodachi. No brace, though. 7/10

4) Spear Dancing Spiral + Quarterstaff Master. Spear Dancing Spiral lets you treat a polearm as a quarterstaff for interaction with feats and abilities and Quarterstaff Master lets you wield a Quarterstaff one-handed. Feat intensive and you'll need +5 BAB (which you won't have until lvl 6 and no feat slot until lvl 7). But you'll have a lot of versatility because you'd be able to wield the Nodachi as a 1-h weapon, a 2-h weapon, or TWF with it as a doubel weapon. If you take Spear Dancing Reach, you can grant it reach as a swift action when using it double. 5/10

5) Unarmed Strike and use Glove of Storing or Gauntlets of Weaponmaster to "store" the Nodachi until you need to wield it. You could use Quick Draw, but that only allows drawing it quickly; you'd need to drop it to free up your hands for Spell Combat. Helps if you can magically enhance your unarmed strikes. 5/10

6) Use a Small Nodachi. You'd wield it as a one-handed weapon with a -2 attack penalty. It does less damage, but retains Brace. Most other options are mechanically superior. 5/10

6 alternate) Use Enlarge Person and "release" the Nodachi in some manner so it either reverts to or retains its original size. That way, you're Large and your Nodachi is medium. You'll get more natural reach, but your attack and defense suffers. Note, you need a humanoid race for this option. 6/10

Note that it was recommended above to use Choke Up, but that requires making no attacks with your other hand and Spell Combat explicitly states that casting the spell is your off-hand attack so the two are technically incompatible.


Blindmage wrote:
I think the reason it's not given a type is that it's only a 5ft square, one square, so there's no need, outside of this one way to expand the effect. I'd say burst makes the most sense.

No, there are other spells with areas greater than 5' that don't list Burst, Emanation, or Spread. Flame Strike, for instance, creates a 10' radius, 40' height column of holy fire, but doesn't list it as a Burst, Emanation, or Spread. Those are specific system terms that don't automatically apply to every single area effect. So Flame Strike wouldn't be a valid spell to modify with Widen metamagic.

If you want to negotiate a houserule allowing for it, that's fine, but it's important to understand that it's a houserule and not an automatic part of the rules (in the Rules forum, we try to stick to RAW and away from houserule interpretations). It isn't about, "well, maybe it would be reasonable" or "well, it's not that powerful"; it's about what the rules actually say and how different rules elements interact with one another. Otherwise, we get situations like all Orcs and Half-Orcs being proficient with torches because racial weapon proficiency makes them proficient with any weapon with the word "orc" in its name (torch).


Blindmage wrote:

It's does say a burst of fire and light..

I've got a concept for a Metamagic and cantrip focused sorcerer, he'd have a few 1st lvl spells, but mostly he'd use Metamagic on them and cantrips. It looks like this is a pretty awesome spell for that, since it's got;
Light descriptor
Fire descriptor
Area effect, even if only 5ft
Auto hits
Has a massive range
Can last a whole fight.

I'm trying to find cool, or unique combinations. Like using Eclipsed Spell to make to a dark firework, etc

You're equivocating burst as a generic term in the description of the spell with burst, the system term referring to a specific type of AoE effect. It's a common mistake, similar to conflating humanoid, the general term referring to anything human-shaped (eg. a body, one head, 2 legs, and 2 arms) and humanoid a system term for a creature type. A Golem might be humanoid in shape, but is not of the Humanoid type. Likewise, a spell may be described as a burst of fire and light, but that doesn't make it a Burst AoE effect.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
silverrey wrote:
You forgot the part about it also being the only weapon you can't enchant.

Well, lets see...

Advanced Class Guide/Skullcrusher Gauntlets wrote:
These bloodstained gauntlets are made of a combination of blackened steel and polished white stone. They are slightly over-sized and somewhat bulky, though still suitable for combat. They function as +1 gauntlets. Once per day, the wearer can unleash a devastating attack with the gauntlets that can instantly knock a target unconscious. The wearer must announce her intent before making her attack roll, and creatures immune to critical hits can't be affected. To make the attack, the wearer makes a single melee attack at her highest base attack bonus as a full-round action. If the strike hits, the target takes 4d6 points of force damage and must succeed at a DC 15 Fortitude save or fall unconscious until the end of its next turn. Even if the target succeeds at the Fortitude save, it is staggered until the end of its next turn. When worn by a brawler with the knockout class feature, the DC to resist the brawler's knockout increases by 2.
Dirty Tactics Toolbox/Constrictor's Gauntlets wrote:
These +1 gauntlets are made of snakeskin and grant a +1 enhancement bonus on grapple checks. Once per day as a standard action, the wielder of a pair of constrictor's gauntlets can target a single creature wearing medium or heavy armor within 30 feet. The target must succeed at a DC 16 Will saving throw or its armor shrinks and constricts, dealing 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage to the target if it's wearing medium armor or 1d8 points of bludgeoning damage if it's wearing heavy armor. The armor deals this damage each round for 3 rounds, and then returns to its normal size. The armor's armor bonus, maximum Dexterity bonus, armor check penalty, and other attributes do not change while it is shrunken.
Crown of the Kobold King/Grasp of Granite wrote:

This left-handed black iron gauntlet appears little more than a dull soot-stained plated glove at first glance, but in truth it is a powerful boon granted by a god to his most faithful subjects.

Placing the glove on your left hand causes excruciating pain as your appendage curls into a tight fist and then slowly transforms to supernaturally hard black stone. You cannot use your left hand for anything beyond smashing it into objects or creatures (you cannot carry a shield or secondary weapon and you take a –4 on skill checks that usually require two hands).

The gauntlet cannot be removed without a successful casting of remove curse, break enchantment, or a similar spell. The gauntlet grants you a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength and acts as a +1 adamantine gauntlet. The item also grants you the ability to use the gauntlet as a secondary natural attack. In addition, the Grasp of Granite allows its wearer to use stone shape once per day.

Armor Master's Handbook/Shielded Gauntlet Master wrote:
While using Shield Gauntlet Style, you no longer lose your shield bonus to AC when you attack with your gauntlet (or spiked gauntlet) or use it to hold a weapon. In addition, you add your gauntlet’s enhancement bonus to the shield bonus to AC granted by this feat as if it were a shield enhancement bonus.

No, it doesn't look like I actually forgot anything. That thing about not being able to enchant them seems to be a load of hokum.


Ok, lets go over all of this. First, does a Magus with Greater Spell Specialization qualify for DD? No.

GSS wrote:
By sacrificing a prepared spell of the same or higher level than your specialized spell, you may spontaneously cast your specialized spell. The specialized spell is treated as its normal level, regardless of the spell slot used to cast it. You may add a metamagic feat to the spell by increasing the spell slot and casting time, just like a cleric spontaneously casting a cure or inflict spell with a metamagic feat.
DD wrote:
Spellcasting: Ability to cast 1st-level arcane spells without preparation. If the character has sorcerer levels, he must have the draconic bloodline. If the character gains levels of sorcerer after taking this class, he must take the draconic bloodline.

You still have to prepare your Spell Specialization spell in order to sacrifice it to spontaneously cast any other spell. That pretty clearly doesn't satisfy the "without preparation" requirement for DD.

Next, if you have both spontaneous and non-spontaneous arcane classes, can the DD bonus caster level apply to a non-spontaneous one? Yes.

DD wrote:
At the indicated levels, a dragon disciple gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class. He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained, except for additional spells per day, spells known (if he is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class before becoming a dragon disciple, he must decide to which class he adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.

The ability calls out, in parentheses, if he is a spontaneous spellcaster. If applying the benefit to a spontaneous spellcasting class were a foregone conclusion, there would be no need to call that out. So the Magus wouldn't gain any "spells known" since he's not a spontaneous caster, but he'd still gain spells per day and effective caster level. There is, however, a spontaneous casting Magus archetype which would fully qualify in its own right.

Lastly, regarding gaining entry without the bloodline, DD doesn't actually require that you have the Draconic bloodline. It only requires that, if you are a Sorcerer (or take Sorc levels after taking DD), you must pick Draconic bloodline. So a Bard or Eldritch Scion Magus could qualify in their own right and, essentially, is treated as a lvl 0 Sorcerer with the Draconic Bloodline; to which you add your DD levels. A lvl 10 DD that gained entry without going through a class that grants a bloodline would be treated as having a Sorc level of 10 (10 + 0) for bloodline powers.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
So, what you're saying, if I'm understanding you, is that it is needlessly complicated.

I'd say it's involved certainly, but neither complicated nor needless. Any type of weapon that is worn rather than held is, by its very nature, going to involve a more detailed rule-set that involves things that held weapons don't do. But the most complicated thing about it is imposed by people reading it in a purposefully obtuse manner.

It's not much different than a Sawtooth Sabre which is a 1-h weapon which can be treated as light for specific circumstances. In most situations, wielding a Gauntlet is no different than wielding a Shortsword. It's a light weapon that uses its own damage dice, its own enchantments, and is a valid option for feats and similar abilities that require you to pick a specific type of weapon (ie. Weapon Focus(Gauntlet) is just as valid as Weapon Focus(Shortsword). The only extra features it has are as follows:
1) You can't be disarmed of a Gauntlet.
2) You can still hold another item or weapon in a hand that's wearing a gauntlet (though, you still can't double-dip attack economy)
3) When wearing a Gauntlet, you can let your Unarmed Strikes deal lethal damage instead of non-lethal with no attack penalty (doesn't change anything else regarding Unarmed Strikes)
4) An attack with a Gauntlet (as its own weapon, not using it to make unarmed strikes lethal) counts as an Unarmed Attack (not an Unarmed Strike, which is a specific weapon, but Unarmed Attack which is a category of types of attacks). Functionally, this lets you do things like deliver a Stunning Fist with a Gauntlet attack.

That's all; nothing more and nothing less. It's people over-complicating it that makes the problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Kazaan wrote:


A Gauntlet is a light weapon. Period. So Weapon Focus (Gauntlet) is, indeed, a thing. Gauntlets, while part of certain pieces of armor, are not armor in and of themselves. They cannot be enhanced as armor, they don't provide an armor bonus, they don't interfere with Monk abilities, etc. A Gauntlet can make your Unarmed Strikes (just Unarmed Strike, a sub-element of Unarmed Attacks; not natural attacks or any other sub-element of Unarmed Attack) deal lethal damage, but that doesn't change anything else about your Unarmed Strikes. They still provoke unless you have IUS, you still don't threaten with them, and they still use Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) and similar feats, etc. And lastly, when you attack with the Gauntlet, it counts as an Unarmed Attack (not an Unarmed Strike, but an Unarmed Attack). This means that, while an attack with a Gauntlet doesn't benefit from AoMF, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Monk unarmed damage, etc.; it also doesn't interfere with delivering a touch spell, and can deliver effects that ride on Unarmed Attacks (eg. Stunning Fist).
If these are the rules, then it's silly. If gauntlets are light weapons then they should use the rules of light weapons and should not provoke AoO when you use them.

I get the feeling you misread something. Making an attack with a Gauntlet, as the light weapon Gauntlet doesn't provoke, any more than attacking with the light weapon Dagger would provoke. But when you use the Gauntlet not as an a weapon in its own right, but as a means to make your Unarmed Strike (totally different weapon) deal lethal damage, that's the only thing the Gauntlet confers. Using the Gauntlet to make Unarmed Strike deal lethal damage doesn't make the Unarmed Strike threaten, not provoke, benefit from Weapon Focus(Gauntlet) or the like, benefit from enhancement bonuses or enchantments (eg. flaming) on the Gauntlet, etc. It only changes nonlethal to lethal on your Unarmed Strike; nothing more. The Unarmed Strike is still an Unarmed Strike. But if you attack with it as a Gauntlet, that has everything that the Gauntlet has to offer and nothing that the Unarmed Strike has to offer, save for the caveat that an attack with a Gauntlet counts as an unarmed attack for any benefits singular to that capacity (eg. delivering a Stunning Fist).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Grapple/Bull-Rush/etc being Unarmed Attacks

Full stop.

There is no rule saying they are Unarmed Attacks, so they are not.

Unarmed attacks are attacks without a normal melee weapon. If the grapple/bull-rush/etc. is being made without a normal melee weapon, then it is consequentially an unarmed attacks. In other words, while it may not explicitly state that maneuvers are unarmed attacks, that doesn't mean that the rules don't say they are Unarmed Attacks. It's a clear implication and that does count, contrary to what some people incorrectly believe. Not everything is stated explicitly because that's not how English works.


Snowblind wrote:
Claxon wrote:

Yeah, you should point out to your player that if a partial charge only allowed you to move your normal speed and not make an attack that would literally just be called a Move action. It would literally be no different from just taking a move action.

And that's why he's obviously wrong.

That's not true. It wouldn't be the same as a move action.

It would be a move action with heinous restrictions, an AC penalty and vulnerability to Brace weapons. That is totally different.

Also, it would be a move action with all those restrictions... and it takes a standard action to use.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ARG wrote:

Humanoid races have few or no supernatural or spell-like abilities, but most can speak and have well-developed societies. Humanoids are usually Small or Medium, unless they have the giant subtype, in which case they are Large. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu. If you are making a new humanoid race, you should either find an existing subtype to match or make a new one by using the name of the race as the subtype. If you are making a half-breed race, it should have the racial type of both parent races. For example, a half-elf has both the human and the elf subtypes. Subtypes are often important to qualify for other racial abilities and feats. If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites. A humanoid race has the following features.

--------

Elf: Drow are humanoids with the elf subtype.

Basically, any time you see "Prerequisite: Elf", replace that with "Prerequisite: Humanoid w/ Elf subtype" But, honestly, I think the system would benefit a lot from having a distinction between biological prerequisites based on type/subtype and social/cultural prerequisites based on having experienced and lived in the society. Fantasy stories abound with people having been raised by some race other than their own and sharing their culture. In the case of Elves and Drow, particularly, Drow are still Elves in the sense that they are extremely in tune with their environment, with magic in general, and have keen senses. So Elf racial elements that revolve around those principals should be a perfect fit for a Drow. But Elf racial elements that revolve around being part of the normal, tree-hugging Elven cultural should not be automatically available to Drow; but could be made available to a character of any race that has successfully integrated into Elven society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So lets put this all together.

Unarmed Attacks
- Unarmed Strikes
- Natural Weapons
- Touch attacks
- Maneuvers that don't involve a weapon

A Gauntlet is a light weapon. Period. So Weapon Focus (Gauntlet) is, indeed, a thing. Gauntlets, while part of certain pieces of armor, are not armor in and of themselves. They cannot be enhanced as armor, they don't provide an armor bonus, they don't interfere with Monk abilities, etc. A Gauntlet can make your Unarmed Strikes (just Unarmed Strike, a sub-element of Unarmed Attacks; not natural attacks or any other sub-element of Unarmed Attack) deal lethal damage, but that doesn't change anything else about your Unarmed Strikes. They still provoke unless you have IUS, you still don't threaten with them, and they still use Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) and similar feats, etc. And lastly, when you attack with the Gauntlet, it counts as an Unarmed Attack (not an Unarmed Strike, but an Unarmed Attack). This means that, while an attack with a Gauntlet doesn't benefit from AoMF, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Monk unarmed damage, etc.; it also doesn't interfere with delivering a touch spell, and can deliver effects that ride on Unarmed Attacks (eg. Stunning Fist).

That having been said, a Spiked Gauntlet could not be used to deliver a Stunning Fist or a Touch attack because it lacks the caveat from the Gauntlet description that lets it count as an unarmed attack.


What action economy it takes to move can be decided based on the results. Just as with a full-attack being stepped down to a standard attack action, a double move can be stepped down to a single move if, after moving your speed, you decide against investing that second move action. But the net result is still that the move actions aren't discrete; you spend two move actions in order to move 2x your speed in that round. Remember that all actions taken in a round run in parallel. We adjudicate them in sequence for the sake of the game system so, sometimes, things end up a bit abstracted, but the characters have no understanding of "actions" or "grids" or anything of the sort. If your speed is 30 and you intend to move 45 feet, it takes you 2 move actions to do so. That doesn't mean that, after the first 30 feet, you're opened up to a second AoO provocation from the same person because there is nothing functionally different moving from 25 to 30 feet and moving 30 to 35 feet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So let me get this straight. This player thinks that a "partial charge" involves moving up to the character's speed in a straight line and not through rough terrain, all to do... what, exactly? Run up to another creature and smile at them aggressively? He's basically reading Partial Charge as a mechanically inferior Move that takes up your Standard action. How many times was he dropped on his head as a kid?


Unarmed Attack is to Unarmed Strike as Clothing is to Pants. All unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks, but not all unarmed attacks are unarmed strikes. Rules elements that affect unarmed attacks, by extension, also affect unarmed strikes, natural weapons, and anything else that "counts as" an unarmed strike. But rules elements that affect Unarmed Strike doesn't translate to affecting all other unarmed attacks.

Gauntlets specify that they let your Unarmed Strike deal lethal damage (normally, unarmed strikes deal non-lethal). But that doesn't extend to any other rules concerning unarmed strikes; they still provoke, still don't threaten, and effects focused on the Gauntlet weapon (weapon focus, enhancement bonus, etc) doesn't extend to unarmed strikes. On a completely separate note, Gauntlets also count as Unarmed Attacks (not strikes, but attacks). So any rules element that can be used with an Unarmed Attack can be used when you attack with a Gauntlet.


The key is in the wording. It doesn't say that you move your speed for each of two move actions. It says that, by spending two move actions, you move double your speed. So, with a speed of 30, you aren't really taking one move action to move 30 and then a second move action to move another 30. You're taking two move actions to move a total of 60' in one shot.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*you're. Unless you intend to suggest a filing system for deceased party members, you wanted "Tag, you're dead."


Not a feat to my knowledge, but there are other methods. Several Oracle mysteries include Cha to AC in various circumstances.

Nature gives Nature's Whispers (Ex) which grants Cha in place of Dex to AC and CMD.
Lore gives Sidestep Secret (Su) which grants Cha in place of Dex to AC (but not CMD) and Reflex Saves
Moon gives Prophetic Armour (Ex) which grants Cha in place of Dex to AC and Reflex Saves

Each has benefits and drawbacks. Sidestep Secret is a supernatural ability so it goes bye bye if you are subject to anti-magic whereas Nature's Whispers and Prophetic Armour are both extraordinary abilities so they are always on. Nature's Whispers benefits both AC and CMD so you're not left vulnerable to combat maneuvers, but it offers no benefit to reflex saves. But reflex saves can be addressed by other means (notably Paladin's Divine Grace which lends strongly to Oradin builds). If you're going to go for an Oradin, I'd say go for Nature's Whispers as you'll net Cha to AC, CMD, and Reflex. If you're not going Oradin (or you're using a Pally archetype that gives up Divine Grace), then go for Moon's Prophetic Armour. If you are looking to be the Knowledge person of your group, go for Lore's Sidestep Secret as that will also give you access to Lore Keeper which lets you use Cha in place of Int for Knowledge checks.

Lastly, if you're emphasizing Charisma this much, don't forget the trait Noble Scion of War which lets you use Cha in place of Dex for initiative rolls. If you don't mind throwing a third class into the mix, pick up a few levels of Bard to get Versatile Performance and you can use a Perform(Dance), a Cha skill, in place of Acrobatics and Fly (both Dex skills). Lastly, all this Charisma emphasis can also open up the route for Improved Eldritch Heritage (Orc or Abyssal) which gives you a straight Strength bonus. All in all, you'll only need to focus on Str, Con, and Cha and leave Dex and Wis at 10 (don't outright dump them; you don't need to). Get just enough Int so your skill points are at a happy place and you're good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Throughout much of history, a reigning monarch is viewed as a "vassal of God". Most kingdoms in Europe claim divine right to rule. In Asia, especially China and Japan, it's "Mandate of Heaven". If a lower-ranked cavalier swears to his Lord, and the Lord swears to his King, then the King, in turn, swears to his deity.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:
As for the many arguers against this, I am curious, what is the danger here? I mean, aside from your take of the RAW being against it, are their applications of this that would make allowing this 2-handed martial weapon proficency to unbalance the game or particular class feature?

On thinking about it for a day or so, I thought of one distinct possibility where one could "abuse" this. The Heirloom Weapon trait allows you to start play with a martial or simple weapon of your choice and grants one of three benefits; one of which being proficiency with that specific weapon (eg. you could pick Longsword and be proficient with that longsword, but not with any other longsword you might pick up). If you go with the "Bastard Sword can be counted as a martial weapon" in all cases, then you could take the Bastard Sword under Heirloom Weapon and be proficient with it two-handed only and then, later, pick up EWP to be proficient with any Bastard Sword one or two-handed (including the heirloom you start with). It could serve as a way to temporarily bootstrap your way into a free exotic weapon and postpone the need to be completely proficient with it. So you might start out swinging around your heirloom Bastard Sword just as a two-handed weapon for optimal damage output and wait until later to pick up a shield and EWP to transition to sword-and-board. But still, I have to say that that is simply a natural result of a normal reading of the rules; that if an Elf can treat an ECB as a martial weapon in such cases (eg. taking it as an heirloom weapon, crafting it as a martial rather than exotic, picking it as an option for "proficient with one martial weapon", etc.), then a character should be able to treat a Bastard Sword used as a 2-h weapon as a martial weapon for such cases as well for the sake of symmetrical design.


Caimbuel wrote:
Beware stealing something a character valued can create a player very unhappy. Seen this happen once and it caused that player to get very pissed and leave. Was a bit over reaction imo but it can happen.

Well, if the player reacts like that, it was only a matter of time anyway. Any potential trigger would have prompted that reaction; a sunder attempt, bad save on a save-or-die, whatever. It's probably better that it comes up before getting knee-deep in the plot


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's an idea that you can use, though it tends to only work once on any particular group. If you need them to go somewhere, don't nudge them there... steal something. Fine the opportunity to have a thief steal something of theirs and he runs in the direction you want them to go. Leave a nice trail of breadcrumbs for them to follow, and they will track that thief to the ends of the Earth... and more.

Another possibility is to tell them not to go somewhere. Have their diplomacy checks to gather information get a lot of results of people telling them, "You can go anywhere around these parts... but never go to Plaht Valley. Trust me, never go there. Nothing worth it down there."


MrCharisma wrote:
So does this mean a headband of vast intellect would give you a new language as well? (not just a headband that has linguistics as (one of) it's in-built skill(s))

Yes, though the development team suggests that such items have a language keyed to them just as they would have a specific skill keyed so you couldn't just take it off and put it back on for a brand new language every 24 hours.


From what I recall, PFS has a standing rule (for themselves only) that features from the Advanced Race Guide that are listed under a specific race are limited only to that race. So, for instance, ARG lists the Buccaneer, a Gunslinger archetype for Humans. For PFS, a Half-Elf or Half-Orc couldn't take that archetype, even though it is legal as far as official Pathfinder rules.

I don't think it extends, though, to other rules elements that aren't listed under a specific race. For instance, Breadth of Experience lists "Dwarf, Elf, or Gnome; 100+ years old" as prerequisites. I'm pretty sure that a 100+ year half-elf or a 100+ year Human with Racial Heritage (Dwarf, Elf, or Gnome) would qualify even in PFS.


Wouldn't those claws be primary natural attacks? If so, then the claws and bite would all be at full BAB and full Str if you use just them.

One more thing; if you aren't raging, then the bite is your only natural weapon and, as such, it would get 1.5x Str. This is handy for making AoOs, at least early on before your unarmed strike dice makes up the difference.


Ever read a "Choose your own adventure" book? You get to choose what to do; not every choice leads to a good ending. Most tend to get the main character brutally murdered or killed in some horrific way... or worse. It's all rails; and only some lead to the good ending.


MrCharisma wrote:
Quote:
Objects are immune to nonlethal damage and to critical hits

LINK

I'm fairly sure that applies to precision damage (sneak attacks), but I'm not 100% so anyone who wants to correct/collaborate my words is welcome to.

It was in 3.5, but in Pathfinder, Crits and Precision Damage are considered distinct. Non-lethal is also its separate thing. Objects are immune only to crits and non-lethal; not precision.


Yes because, even though you're damaging the object, the Sunder maneuver is against the creature. It'd be no different than if you sneak up on a flat-footed opponent and Sundered instead of attacked. Objects are immune to critical damage, but not against precision damage (which SA is). Effectively, you are aiming your attack for the weakest structural part of the weapon.


PRD wrote:
Benefit(s): As a swift action while wielding a magic weapon with a weapon special ability that deals extra acid, cold, fire, electricity, sonic damage on a hit, you deal an additional 1d4 points of damage of the same type with each hit you make with that weapon for 1 round.

No because the damage types are discrete. So if you have a +1 Shocking Flaming Longsword, you can spend a swift action to boost its energy damage. Now, does the Longsword deal Electricity damage? Yes. So you've spent the swift action to boost its Electricity damage. Now, if it had listed them with and/or, that would be a different story. But, as it stands, you have to pick one element to boost. And that's pretty much in line in power. It would be rather unbalanced to have a +1 Shocking Flaming Freezing Corrosive Thundering weapon that gets an additional 5d4 damage of varying types just for a single feat and your swift action for the round.


Ammon Knight of Ragathiel wrote:
Also i should add that realistically if you can wield a greatsword in 2 hands you can wield a bastard sword the same way

Well, that gets into notions of cross-training. Strictly speaking, if you get proficiency in one specific weapon, that doesn't translate to proficiency in a similar weapon unless the similar weapon explicitly states so (eg. Aldori Dueling Sword can be treated as martial longsword, Sunblade can be treated as either shortsword or bastard sword, etc). If you wanted to expand on that system, you'd need to create an outline of "base" weapons and "derivative" weapons that shows how crosstraining would work in all cases. For example:

Longsword (base)
- Aldori Dueling Sword
- Rhoka Sword
- Sawtooth Sabre

Shortsword
- Gladius

Greatsword
- Bastard Sword
- Great Terbutje
- Seven Branch Sword

Proficiency with a base weapon would grant partial proficiency with a derivative weapon and rules elements related to the base weapon could translate to the derivative weapon. In reverse, the derivative weapon would grant full proficiency with the base weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've got to side with the MWP valid side on this one. Even if it is normally an Exotic weapon, it says to treat it as if it were a martial weapon if you lack EWP for it. It's no different than an Elf treating an Elven Curve Blade or Elven Branch Spear as martial due to racial weapon proficiency. You wouldn't argue that an Elf must take EWP for an Elven Curved Blade, would you? Or that an Elf Grenadier can't pick the Elven Curved Blade as his martial weapon, right (assuming you allowed an Elf to take a Hobgoblin racial archetype, that is)? It is technically permissible for a Grenadier to pick a Bastard Sword as his martial weapon if he lacks EWP(Bastard Sword); he becomes proficient with the Bastard Sword as a virtual 2-h martial weapon. It's just mechanically inferior to going straight for a Greatsword and, if you later pick EWP(Bastard Sword), then it overwrites and invalidates the previous martial proficiency (effectively, the martial proficiency is now obsolete).


To be more specific, an AoO immediately interrupts the flow of combat. This effectively can "split" an otherwise discrete action in such a manner that it is declared, the AoO interrupts it, then the triggering action is resolved after the AoO. So it doesn't really come "before" the triggering action; that's just a convenient rule of thumb.

So, in your situation, the Brawler and the Rogue both threaten the Opponent while the Fighter and Cleric do not. Your Brawler initiates (declares) a trip against the opponent. Now, the Trip maneuver has begun, but hasn't yet been resolved. Due to Greater Trip, the Opponent provokes an AoO from both the Brawler and the Rogue. If they take their AoOs, you resolve the AoO first. After that (and now, the provocation point has passed), you resolve the effect of the Trip maneuver. Due to Ki Throw, you pick a new spot for them to move to and the Opponent falls prone in that new spot. Since the Trip has already been made and resolved, the Opponent doesn't provoke an AoO from the Cleric or the Fighter due to being tripped; that ship has sailed. However if, hypothetically, either of them have an ability that makes an opponent provoke if they fall prone, that could be a completely different story. If the conditions are met, then falling prone is a new opportunity. In fact, if the Brawler had Vicious Stomp and Combat Reflexes, he could get two AoOs; one because the Opponent provoked by "being tripped by a creature with Greater Trip" and two by "falling prone adjacent to a creature with Vicious Stomp".


Diego Rossi wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
PRD wrote:

Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance. This ability is the most important one for rogues, but it's also useful for characters who wear light or medium armor or no armor at all. This ability is vital for characters seeking to excel with ranged weapons, such as the bow or sling. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).

...

A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

A helpless creature is incapable of moving. So if the reflex save means moving, it can't be done. Luck doesn't make you roll uphill.

To repeat it again, nothing there that say that you can't try a save.

Nothing it the spell that say that you can't try a save if paralyzed.

Make whatever fluff you want: "when the pit open the ship in the floor move you to safety", "your belt has caught in a rock" or whatever. The RAW is that you can try a reflex save.

Kazaan wrote:


Yes, you'd still get a save; but you couldn't move as a result of it even if you succeeded if you have some adverse status that sets your Dex to zero since, as quoted, "A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious)." Even if you succeed at the reflex save, you cannot jump out of the way if you are immobile.

Without a specific rule in the spell, no, you don't need to be ablre to move to benefit from a successful save.

You are inventing rules.
What part of "incapable of moving and is effectively immobile" is so hard to grasp here? If succeeding at a reflex save involves moving and you are unable to move then that is a rule preventing you from moving as a result of a successful reflex save. It's right there; you even included the rule I quoted when you quoted me.
PRD/Combat wrote:
Reflex: These saves test your ability to dodge area attacks and unexpected situations. Apply your Dexterity modifier to your Reflex saving throws.

Ability to dodge. That is what a reflex save is. You can't dodge if you're immobilized. So yes, actually, the rules of the game do, indeed, say that you don't get a reflex save if you are helpless. So I correct my previous statement; it isn't that you get a reflex save, but can't move even if you succeed. You don't even get a reflex save if you are helpless because a reflex save is defined as dodging and, if you are helpless, your Dex = 0 and, if your Dex = 0, you are incapable of moving and effectively immobile (meaning you can't dodge, among other things). Check and mate. [/thread]


Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Wait....Can creatures unable to be tripped voluntarily go prone?

Like could an Ooze go prone if it wanted to?

I can't find any rule that says they can't. I'd say it just sort of spreads itself low and flat over the ground.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bonus languages are also retroactive. And, just like everything in the game, leveling up doesn't mean you're learning your new abilities "on the spot". It represents a culmination of a "Schrodinger's Training" of sorts. Your character has, simultaneously, been potentially studying any valid language for an indeterminate amount of time, as well as studying no language at all and only when you gain your two Int points do all those possibilities collapse into a specific language that you've potentially spent your entire life learning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:

Well this thread is a real disappointment. From the title, I expected horses wielding greatswords.

Or people wielding horses as two-handed weapons.

What if we started talking about centaurs? Would that suit you? Or horse-chucks? Just tie them together by their tails and get to swinging.


A Bastard Sword is an exotic weapon by default. It has a special rule that if you don't have EWP(Bastard Sword), you wield it as a two-handed martial weapon. This is really meant to give advantage to classes with proficiency in all martial weapons; a Fighter could wield a Bastard Sword as a virtual two-handed weapon and be treated as proficient. A Sorcerer could wield a Bastard Sword as a two-handed weapon, but is not treated as proficient. If you took MWP(Bastard Sword), that would limit you to two-handed use; it would not be usable at all one-handed. And, if you're going to do that, you might as well take MWP(Greatsword) as it is mechanically better.


The advantage of the Lance is that you can still use either a shield or guide the mount by the reins while wielding it. Using a two-handed weapon that actually requires both your hands simply means you can neither guide by the reins (you must use guide by the knees, which is a ride check), nor can you use a shield in your other hand (save for something like the Thunderstrike who retains defensive use of a Buckler while using a 2-h weapon). Other than that, you are perfectly fine swinging a Greatsword, Halberd, Bow, TWF, etc. while mounted.


Ridiculon wrote:

And yet they get a save anyway *shrug*. It doesn't make much sense but that's how saves work, having 0 Dex does not prevent you from making a reflex save.

Dex is the modifier you add to ref saves, but you have a base ref score and even if it is 0 (or negative in the case of helplessness) you still get to roll the d20.

Yes, you'd still get a save; but you couldn't move as a result of it even if you succeeded if you have some adverse status that sets your Dex to zero since, as quoted, "A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious)." Even if you succeed at the reflex save, you cannot jump out of the way if you are immobile. Here, I'll set up an illustrative scenario:

A character makes an acrobatics check to jump a gap. They fail by 3 points and are entitled to make a reflex save to grab the edge of the far ledge. But, as they are jumping, a flying enemy takes an AoO as the character jumps past. The AoO renders the jumper paralyzed, unconscious, or any other condition that sets their Dex to zero. Now, by your logic, the jumper, while unconscious or paralyzed, gets a reflex save to grab the far ledge and, if successful, the unconscious or paralyzed character can hold on to the far ledge to keep themselves from falling... while paralyzed... or unconscious. By my logic, while the character is entitled to such a save; they cannot capitalize on success since they are incapable of doing so and, as a consequence, they would fall even if they made their save. Which approach sounds more reasonable?


PRD wrote:

Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance. This ability is the most important one for rogues, but it's also useful for characters who wear light or medium armor or no armor at all. This ability is vital for characters seeking to excel with ranged weapons, such as the bow or sling. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious).

...

A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.

A helpless creature is incapable of moving. So if the reflex save means moving, it can't be done. Luck doesn't make you roll uphill.


Then I guess it depends on whether a bonded weapon counts as "magical" automatically. It's a Supernatural ability meaning it's inherently magical. Also, there's this line:

PRD wrote:
... while a bonded object is an item a wizard can use to cast additional spells or to serve as a magical item.

I'd say that pretty much defines a bonded weapon as de facto magical (which is why it is always masterwork because only masterwork items can be magical).


Ridiculon wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
... movement provokes unless you're told otherwise. It's right there in the rules.

I think your wall of text is beautifully written and the logic checks out. I think Diego's point here,

Diego Rossi wrote:

If your idea that "jump to safety" is some form of movement, a creature that has used all of its movement the previous turn can't make the save? It can't try it if it has used a 5' step? If it is unable to jump?

If it is unconscious? Helpless? Pinned?
None of the above negate the ability to try a reflex saving throw, albeit at high penalties. But they negate the ability to move.
So if we assume that "jump to safety" is a form of movement, de should suppose that you need to be able to move to try the save, something that contradict the rules.

is the next thing that needs to be taken into consideration. It fits with the internal consistency of the rules and (at least my own) logical analysis.

If the reflex save isn't a form of movement then it does not fall under the set of actions that provokes by default. The spell also does not include specific language stating that a successful save provokes in this situation.

So (from my pov) the point in contention here is whether or not the reflex save is a form of movement within the rules system(obviously the character is moving), and I think Diego's evidence strongly suggests that it is not.

Movement is traveling from one square to another. A move action is limited by your speed, but that doesn't logically extend to limiting movement prompted by other rules elements. Now, there are some rules elements that involve moving off-turn and they explicitly specify that you deduct that movement from the following turn, but none of that implies that having used your entire movement on the previous turn prohibits you from using granted movement as part of an off-turn rules element. The previous turn is said and done; it's locked in. The general concept for turn order is that anything that happens off-turn is credited to your next available turn (eg. using an immediate action off-turn is counted as the swift action for your next turn, reacting with a 5' step off-turn counts as the 5' step for your next turn, etc).

As far as unconscious, helpless, or pinned creatures go, they can't do anything anyway. How is an unconscious character supposed to make a reflex save and jump to a nearby square?

It's basically the same argument that Byakko was trying to make; movement as the result of an action vs forced movement being different. Sometimes, forced movement explicitly calls out that it doesn't provoke (see examples I provided above). Other times, it doesn't (eg. a grappler moving you adjacent, reflex save to avoid create pit, etc.) I find that distinction meaningful in that it has been consistently repeated across several books. Now, that having been said, I will allow for the possibility that the movement for the reflex save on Create Pit wasn't intended to provoke; but that is an error in the writing, not a matter of ambiguity in the rules. That's a matter for an errata to correct the error. But, as it's written now, this is the logical conclusion: movement due to the reflex save to avoid Create Pit can provoke an AoO because movement (traveling from one square to another) provokes by default and Create Pit doesn't exempt this movement from that rule (as some other rules elements do). This AoO can, potentially, set up a "double-jeopardy" situation where you succeed at the save, but the AoO renders you incapable of moving (the same as any rules element where succeeding involves a provoking action). And it isn't like a trip is an auto-success; you still have the opportunity for the AoO-er to fail their trip check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bonded weapons are always masterwork and masterwork voids the fragile property. No dice.


Helic wrote:
Take Profession: Masseur.

Kurayami nara kocchi no mon da

1 to 50 of 5,439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.