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

5,511 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 5,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Azten wrote:
On the plus side, since it's still a two-handed weapon by those rulings, you can get more damage out of Power Attack with it.

No, it isn't and you don't. It's wielded as a one-handed weapon so you'd treat it as any other one-handed weapon. It's only when you wield it in one hand (eg. Lance while mounted, polearm with Choke Up trick) that it still counts as two-handed for power attack, str to damage, Pushing Assault, etc.

It's a common misconception that plasma is a "super-hot gas". But that's not the case. Plasma is an entirely separate state of matter from Gas. Saying Plasma is super-hot gas is like saying that gas is a super-hot liquid or a liquid is a super-hot solid. Plasma doesn't behave like gas does. For one thing, it sticks together because it's electrically charged. If you get hit with a puff of gas, the gas disperses. But if you get hit with a "clump" of plasma, its kinetic energy isn't readily dissipated; it's more like getting hit by a ball of ooblek (really, really HOT ooblek). So it makes sense that there is a physical damage component to plasma damage.

Part of the problem is that real-world physics doesn't translate well into the Pathfinder system. In the real world, we have matters like electrical conductivity and the electro-magnetic force. Infrared radiation is a part of the electro-magnetic spectrum, as is visible light, ultra-violet, gamma rays, etc. Cold is just a relative absence of electromagnetic energy (usually referring to infrared, but "cold" can refer to any relative absence of the EM spectrum). And both acids and bases are ionic solutions that are conductive and caustic. But in Pathfinder, Fire, Cold, Electricity, and Acid are fundamental energetic forces of the meta-verse (as are Force, Positive, Negative, Good, Evil, Chaos, and Law).

Technically speaking, a lightning bolt electrically charges the gasses in the air so much that they are very briefly boosted into the Plasma state of matter, but this very quickly dissipates as the plasma settles back down into a gaseous state. The same can be said of certain kinds of plasma weaponry; they set up a conductive feeder line in the air and briefly "snap" the gasses in the air into plasma. This would be the "fire/electric" type of plasma because you aren't really "launching" it at a target so much as you are creating a plasma conversion close enough to them that they take damage from the dissipated energy. By contrast, other types of weaponry would be capable of generating and maintaining a mass of plasma which is then "launched" at a target and impacts them while, at the same time, dissipating heat into the target. So both approaches are valid and can coexist, based on the nature of the weaponry.

You can't.

"Wield as a one-handed weapon" and "treat as a one-handed weapon" are both functionally identical. They mean that, so far as usage goes, you act as if the weapon were a one-handed weapon. As a result, you can do the following:

1) Wield them with just one hand
2) Not compromise your off-hand attack economy
3) Apply feats/abilities that require the use of a one-handed weapon

However, as a drawback, the following also apply:

1) You don't get 2-h Str or Power Attack damage when wielding it one-handed
2) You can't use feats or abilities that require the use of a two-handed weapon while wielding it one-handed

In regards to its physical properties as an item, that isn't affected by how you wield it. Its HP is still that of a two-handed weapon. Lastly (and pertinent to this discussion), you can't pick it as a valid option for Slashing Grace because it isn't "always" a one-handed weapon; it's only one for how you wield it. Slashing Grace requires you to pick a one-handed weapon. That is not a matter of wielding the weapon. This is the same logic behind the FAQ on changing the attribute of a skill; it is only changed when you use it. So even if you get "all Int skills as class skills", changing Intimidate from Cha to Int isn't enough to qualify it under that blanket as a class skill. It is certainly an Int skill when you use it and would benefit from rules that specifically say they apply to Int skills. Likewise, the scarf is only a one-handed weapon when you use it; not when you're picking your feats and need to select a one-handed weapon for Slashing Grace.

PS: The difference between this and wielding a Lance while mounted is that the Lance says you may wield it "in one hand" while other rules elements say you may wield the weapon "one-handed", "as a one-handed weapon", "treated as a one-handed weapon", etc. In other words, if it specifically uses "one-handed", it's treated fully as a one-handed weapon (except for physical properties and a valid weapon option for certain feats/abilities). If it says, "one hand", it just means that it's overriding the specific need for a two-handed weapon to use two hands (grasping appendages), as is the case with the Lance while mounted as well as a Polearm with the Choke Up weapon trick.

Just because two things are equivalent doesn't mean they are freely interchangeable. For instance, Infernal Healing requires either a dose of Unholy Water or a drop of Devil's Blood. So that also sets up an equivalency between those two. But that doesn't mean that Devil's Blood functions as Unholy Water nor that the one is always interchangeable with the other as a spell component. Likewise, just because you are allowed on a normal turn to take either A) a move + standard, or B) a full-round action, on your turn doesn't automatically mean that, on a non-normal turn (eg. a surprise round turn) where some exceptional rule allows you to take both a move and a standard, you gain the unstated option of a full-round action as well.

I'd say that, in order to keep things reasonable, initiative should begin either when the opponent notices the invisible rogue, or when the rogue takes his move to get into position; whichever happens first. So if the opponent aced his perception roll and noticed that someone was there, he'd participate in the surprise round. But either way, the Rogue spends his single action during the surprise round on a move to get into position. Alternatively, if the Rogue were next to an unsuspecting opponent and suddenly tried a cheap shot; if it turns out to be a surprise round, then the Rogue is obligated to "step down" his full-attack into a standard Attack action or delay his action until the first normal round to get the full-attack.

Well, are you going for Golden Age Gatsu or after that "thing" happened? If we're going for Gatsu during his time as a merc, I'd say 2 levels of Titan Mauler, and the rest Unbreakable Fighter and give him a Greatsword. Unbreakable is kind of his schtick as "the Struggler" so it's the most thematic fighter archetype for him. Titan Mauler 2 lets him one-hand the Greatsword when needed (as he did sometimes).

But if we're talking about post "event" Gatsu, I honestly think he goes beyond the scope of "normal" classes. He obviously is still just as "Unbreakable" as before but he also needs Titan Fighter's ability to wield a Large Greatsword. But those two archetypes don't jive together. Additionally, we need something to represent the mark of the offering. So it's going to take something a bit... unorthodox to represent all this.

I'd say the best way is to do a modified Gestalt coupling Titan Fighter and Unbreakable. So instead of getting the benefits of two completely different classes, you're getting the benefit of two archetypes that normally conflict. To represent the power of the Mark, you could go either for Eldritch Heritage (Abyssal) or VCM Sorcerer (Abyssal). Then, give him a Large Greatsword, a hand crossbow, and a prosthetic arm with a cannon and you're good to go.

CBDunkerson wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Even if you could combine, both TWF and Spell Combat consume your offhand action economy and are therefore incompatible with each other.

Ah, I see.

I assumed 'Spell Combat + Flurry of Blows' was being envisioned with the off-hand casting the spell and the other hand making a normal series of unarmed or 'weapon usable with flurry' attacks based on iterative BAB.

Obviously, Spell Combat must always take up 'one hand worth' of attack activities... I'm just saying it could as easily take those activities out of a FoB as any other full attack action... IF that was the intent of the 'Spell Combat = Full Attack Action' FAQ.

Even if you were going to try something like, "I get my full BAB from flurry, but forego the extra attacks because I'm using Spell Combat to cast a spell too," it wouldn't work because Flurry requires all attacks be made with either Unarmed Strike or a weapon with the Monk special property and "casting a spell" is neither.

The traditional Four Horsemen were, in order, the Conqueror, War, Famine, and Death. "Pestilence" was actually just one of the types of death that the Horseman of Death represented.

Yrrej86 wrote:

If you want to be technical, the wording on the monk Unarmed Strike states as follows:

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."
So technically FoB does not take up an off-hand slot. (For any arguments related to offhandedness, Monk Unarmed Strikes makes it irrelevant)

Also, as Calth stated, the wording on Spell Combat states as follows:
"he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty"

With all of this being said, it obviously depends on GM discretion in this instance.
The default would be that you can opt to either do a FoB & gain the additional attacks, or forgo the additional attacks to cast a spell per Spell Combat.
GMs could allow them to both stack stating that you take the penalties for both (-4 to attacks) to gain both the additional attacks & the ability to cast a spell.

Not precisely. Monk Unarmed Strike specifies, "...for a monk striking unarmed." FoB attacks can be made either with Unarmed Strikes or with weapons that have the Monk special property. It also explicitly calls out that it's based on using TWF. What the line for unarmed is referring to doesn't mean that Monks can't make unarmed strikes as an off-hand attack; just that they aren't adjudicated like off-hand attacks. They're adjudicated as if they were main-hand attacks, meaning they get full Str and Power Attack and other benefits that would ordinarily be restricted to your main-hand attacks. If you really want to take it far, a Monk making a non-FoB full-attack using TWF with unarmed strikes wouldn't take -4/-8 penalties since the off-hand unarmed strike is treated as if it were main-hand so it would take the -4 main-hand penalty and you'd functionally end up with -4/-4 unarmed strikes even without TWF, both of which getting full Str and Power Attack bonuses.

Alright, in all seriousness, lets break this down.

PRD wrote:

School transmutation [good]; Level cleric 1, paladin 1

Casting Time 1 minute
Components V, S, M (5 pounds of powdered silver worth 25 gp)
Range touch
Target flask of water touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)
This transmutation imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with positive energy, turning it into holy water.


School necromancy [evil]; Level cleric 1
Casting Time 1 minute
Components V, S, M (5 lbs. of powdered silver worth 25 gp)
Range touch
Target flask of water touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)
This spell imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with negative energy, turning it into unholy water (see Equipment). Unholy water damages good outsiders the way holy water damages undead and evil outsiders.

So here's what we have to work with. First of all, as was mentioned, both spells use 5lb powdered silver (25 gp worth) as a material component. This is a material component of the spell itself so it's not like you're just stirring 5 lb of silver glitter into the water and calling it Good (or Evil, depending); the silver is consumed by the energy of the spell which, in turn, infuses the water with either positive or negative energy. So what's so important about Silver? Traditionally, silver is considered a metal of purification. That's the basis for vampires casting no reflection in a mirror; mirrors were polished silver coated with glass. The silver wouldn't reflect the corrupt image of a vampire. Silver was also associated with the Moon (counterpart to Gold associated with the Sun). But I think the most important aspect of Silver is its conductivity. Silver, along with Gold, is highly conductive of electricity. If you convert that to a spiritual/esoteric principal, it could be considered conductive of the fundamental energies in the Pathfinder system. So the silver acts as a conductor for the positive or negative energy that is being used by the spells.

Next, the spells themselves carry the Good and Evil descriptor. This indicates that they utilize Good and Evil energies (which are real and tangible forces in Pathfinder). While the effect of the spell is to infuse either Positive or Negative energy into the water, the magic energy to do so is based on either Good or Evil energy and, as such, there would likely be some kind of "magical scaffolding" established within the water. The scaffolding would be made of a combination of either arcane and good energy for Holy Water, or arcane and evil energy for Unholy Water. This scaffolding would hold in place either Positive energy or Negative energy.

Lastly, once you "use" the water, the energy scaffolding breaks down and dissipates. This could be either because you used the water as a material component and your spell consumed those energies it contained. Or, it could be because you splashed the water and physically disrupted the magical framework.

I don't think it'd be too infeasible to just consider raw distances rather than a grid. In fact, some things might even be easier to adjudicate, such as reach threatening on diagonals. The only difficulty would be in regards to "leaving" a threatened square. Honestly, I think an easier method would simply be to make the grid higher resolution. Instead of small and medium characters taking up 1 square, bump them up to 4x4 and 5x5 respectively and shift all other sizes accordingly. Other people like hex grids. I've been wondering about a completely board-less system with no grid or pieces or anything; just determine who is "deadlocked" with whom.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Holy water is just regular water after you've boiled the hell out of it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
Is a pollaxe a poleaxe that makes you answer a question when it hits you?

Apparently, "Poleaxe" is a linguistic corruption of the original term "pollaxe" wherein "poll" is a Germanic word for "head". It is a militant variant of a farming implement used to smack a cow over the head to kill it. Eventually, the term became bastardized such that "poll" was mistaken to be "pole" referring to the long handle.

Well, the article you linked indicates that a Pollaxe is distinct from Halberds and Bardiches. It was designed to breach armor so I'd say we're looking for something that grants a Sunder bonus vs armor. It's also not likely an exotic weapon so the primary focus should be in the 2-h Martial weapons with reach. The closest one would be the Lucerne Hammer, though it is distinctly a hammer on the end rather than an axe blade.

Thus, while we can get close, there doesn't seem to be a representation for that particular weapon. Thus, one would need to design it specifically to reflect the real-world counterpart. Basically, take the Lucerne Hammer as a chassis and change the damage from (B or P) to (S or P).

Snowlilly wrote:

I am inclined to disagree.

With Calcific Touch you are not holding a charge. It is a duration spell operating under its own rules, as defined within the spell.

Ask yourself: How many charges is the caster holding?

The answer is, none. The spell has no specified number of times it can be discharged. It has only a duration and a restriction on number of uses/round.

None of that matters. The exception to certain aspects of holding the charge doesn't make it not holding the charge. Normally, you can hold a charge indefinitely or until you deliver it, whichever happens first and the charge is dispelled if you cast another spell. Calcific Touch provides the explicit exception that you can hold it for a set duration and it can be delivered once per round for the extent of that duration. It's still holding the charge. Same reason that spells like Chill Touch or Frostbite are still holding the charge; their exception is that you have a set number of discharges based on caster level, but all other rules for holding the charge apply as normal. Calcific Touch's mechanics change the default rules for holding the charge; they don't replace them.

Snowlilly wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Correct, but there is no restriction on two-handing a one-handed weapon. The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm would allow a magus to two-hand a one-handed weapon while using spell combat.
It's the off-hand attack economy that restricts two-handing a one-handed weapon. Wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands also subsumes your off-hand attack economy which is already being used by the off-hand spell.
People with more than two hands have .... more than two hands available.

And a Magus with ITWF and GTWF, who normally has a larger pool for off-hand attacks, still can't use them in conjunction with their spell because the spell subsumes all off-hand attack economy (even if you have multiple hand's worth).

Snowlilly wrote:
Correct, but there is no restriction on two-handing a one-handed weapon. The alchemist discovery Vestigial Arm would allow a magus to two-hand a one-handed weapon while using spell combat.

It's the off-hand attack economy that restricts two-handing a one-handed weapon. Wielding a one-handed weapon with two hands also subsumes your off-hand attack economy which is already being used by the off-hand spell.

Based on the wording of the ability and the various FAQs concerning these matters, the melee weapon you use during Spell Combat must be either a one-handed or light weapon. That could be an actual one-handed or light weapon, or it could be a "counts as" one-handed or light weapon (eg. Quarterstaff w/ Quarterstaff Master, Greatsword one size too small, etc.). Besides that, you need to use your weapon in one hand and you cast spells in your other hand and the spell-casting hand must be kept free for the duration of the action. This means you can't use a shield in one hand, make unarmed strikes with your other hand, and also cast your spell with that same punching hand. Therefore, your entire off-hand attack economy is subsumed by the casting of the spell. Therefore, you can't use your off-hand attack economy either to make off-hand attacks with another weapon (in the case of a >2 armed Magus) nor can you subsume it to make two-handed attacks (neither with a two-handed weapon nor a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands). Magus simply wasn't written with >2 armed characters in mind.

Now, that having been said, a racial archetype centered around the Kathasa (or another similar race) would certainly be appropriate.

PhD. Okkam wrote:

Kraken has great charisma. But can we call it beautiful?

You can not consider charisma as appearance.

You can but, as I said, one needs to understand that it doesn't determine the type of appearance, it just measures the impact. If you're ugly, then low Charisma means you're only kinda-sorta ugly. You're "forgettable" ugly. Medium Charisma means you're the kind of ugly that is going to attract some notice and attention, "wow, that guy is really fugly." High Charisma means you are extremely ugly and repulsive and people just can't look away; you're like a 15 car pileup of ugly... with fatalities. Extremely high Charisma means you are sanity-breakingly ugly; that's the eldritch abominations of Lovecraftian nature. The numeric scale doesn't go from "ugly" at low numbers to "beautiful" at high numbers. It goes from "less <insert appearance qualifier>" to "more <insert appearance qualifier>" and the appearance qualifier is subjective and varies from person to person.

For a more mundane example, imagine a set of triplets who, by all accounts, would be considered "hot". They're blonde, they're sun-kissed, they've got nice-sized... eyes. But one dumped Charisma and has an 8, one invested a little bit and has a 13, and the last turbo-charged it up to 20. They are identical triplets so, physically, they all look exactly the same. But, while they are all clearly beautiful, people will have a very strong tenancy to find the 20 Cha triplet the most beautiful among the three. It's mostly due to the way she carries herself and her body language. High Charisma means she's overflowing with confidence. She's hot and she knows it and she knows other people know it. So she'll flaunt it. She takes advantage of it. Meanwhile, her poor sister with only 8 Charisma doubts her appearance. So she doesn't show off; quite the opposite, her posture and body language are trying to hide and cover up. And the middle one, well, she's just kind of there. Now, if you really can't stand blonde hair, you're probably not going to like any of them. If you're an Orc and find Humans repulsive in general, you'd probably find the 20 Cha blonde bombshell the most repulsive because she's always flaunting it and, as mentioned, you find humans repulsive because you're an Orc. The shy one standing in the corner might be tolerable because she seems to be the least ugly (still ugly, but tolerably so to an Orc).

BadBird wrote:
A low charisma score could mean a character is ridiculously ugly in a way that makes them hard to take seriously, but otherwise quite personable; or that they've got an undefinable uncomfortable vibe to them but are otherwise attractive and friendly; or that they're attractive and pleasant, but strangely distant socially.

Low Charisma could mean the character is ugly to the point they aren't taken seriously, but they could also be pretty to the point that they aren't taken seriously. But a Hag is ugly to the point that you must take them seriously. Charisma represents, in part, appearance, but it is a quantitative measure, not a qualitative one. It doesn't say what "kind" of appearance because that isn't the kind of thing that can be expressed with a number. If you ask, "Well, what did she look like," and the response is, "Well, she had 30 Charisma," that could be an extremely talented and beautiful sorceress or it could be a Hag or maybe even a Lovecraftian abomination. Charisma says "how much" after you've subjectively decided on "what kind". If you're trying to be intimidating, Charisma helps determine how much. If you're trying to lie, again, how much. Even if you're trying to disguise yourself and draw attention away from who you really are, Charisma helps determine, how much. It isn't a numerical scale with 1 being ugly and 18 being beautiful.

Furthermore, to go back to the example given about the 7 Cha barbarian threatening to rip your limbs off vs the 20 Cha Bard, the Barbarian can get a significant bolster to his threat if he knows exactly when to flex those pecs to maximum effect. But the Bard doesn't even need to threaten physical violence. It isn't about whether or not he could make good on the threat, it's about whether or not the other person believes he would. The Bard might tell one of his companions, "Do me a favor. While I'm... handling... this situation, fetch me some hemp rope, a sewing needle, and some salt *wink*." And then he leaves it up to the threatenee's imagination what, exactly, he intends to do with the "salt *wink*". Or, a personal favorite of mine, Teal'c from Stargate SG-1 rolling intimidate just by sitting across the table and staring at you, silently.

It'd be pretty tight with all the feats needed. So first, lets consider a baseline and then follow up with what we have room to add.

The bare minimum you want are Jabbing Style, Circling Mongoose, and flying kick. This sets up your basic routine as you can use Stunning Fist with Flying Kick since Stunning Fist doesn't actually require a "punch", just any unarmed strike. This also means you don't necessarily need to start adjacent to your target or provoke an AoO (which the foe can choose not to take) with Panther Style, meaning you don't even need the Panther Style line. You'll also need Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, and 13 Dex minimum for the prereqs. Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack you can get from Monk Bonus Feats, but Spring Attack won't be available until lvl 10 by this method so it's a little better to just take it as a normal feat since the prereqs are easy. Also, I'd kick out Greater Trip because, while you can get Improved without prereqs, you can't get Greater without 13 Int. Lastly, you can get Mantis Style in place of Panther Style to beef up your Stunning Fist DC. So lets break it down:


UnMonk 1-15
1) Monk 1: Combat Reflexes (monk), Jabbing Style (lvl 1), 2 hit flurry
2) Monk 2: Dodge (monk)
3) Monk 3: Mantis Style (lvl 3)
4) Monk 4: +1 Wis
5) Monk 5: Style Master (lvl 5) (flying kick strike)
Note: This completes your basic opener. Start in Mantis Style to Flying Kick in with Stunning Fist, then switch to Jabbing and spend 1 ki to net 2 more attacks with extra damage.
6) Monk 6: Mobility (monk), 3 hit flurry (+1 ki)
7) Monk 7: Spring Attack (lvl 7)
8) Monk 8: +1 Wis
9) Monk 9: Circling Mongoose (lvl 9), (leg sweep strike)
Note: At this point, you have a decent foundation routine going. Your opener gets you in his face and shuts him down. Then use Circling Mongoose with impunity for flanking bonus and Jabbing style for extra damage on 3 more attacks. In the next round, you can renew Stunning Fist with a leg sweep for additional attack bonuses (if he survives). Beyond this, you're just improving your fundamental routine.
10) Monk 10 : Medusa's Wrath (monk)
11) Monk 11: Jabbing Dancer (lvl 11), 5 hit flurry (+2 medusa, +1 ki)
12) Monk 12: +1 Wis
13) Monk 13: Power Attack (lvl 13), (elbow smash strike)
14) Monk 14: Improved Trip (monk)
15) Monk 15: Jabbing Master, 2 style strikes/round
Note: at this point, you basically have all you need from Monk. You have both bonus attacks for Flurry, 2 style strikes/round, and all necessary Monk bonus feats. You deal severe Jabbing damage with Jabbing Master, good chance to stun if you bolster your Wisdom, good chance to trip an already crippled target, and 9 attacks/round (6 of which are full BAB). Anything else is just gravy. You could go Brawler Fighter the rest of your levels if you want for extra feats and Weapon Training. Or, continue with monk for all 20 levels to get Paralyze for Stunning Fist and your other high-level Monk abilities.
Monk 20 lvls
16) Monk 16: +1 Wis, 6 hit flurry (+2 medusa, +1 elbow, +1 ki)
17) Monk 17: Vicious Stomp/Mantis Wisdom (lvl 17)
18) Monk 18: (Monk bonus feat of your choice), (style strike of your choice)
19) Monk 19: Mantis Wisdom/Vicious Stomp (lvl 19)
20) Monk 20: --
Monk 15/Brawler Fighter 5
16) Monk 15/Fighter 1: +1 Wis, Mantis Wisdom/Vicious Stomp (fighter), 6 hit flurry (+2 medusa, +1 elbow, +1 ki, +1 Vicious stomp?)
17) Monk 15/Fighter 2: Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) (lvl 17), Vicious Stomp/Mantis Wisdom (fighter)
18) Monk 15/Fighter 3: Weapon Training (close)
19) Monk 15/Fighter 4: (feat of your choice) (lvl 17), Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike)
20) Monk 15/Fighter 5:

You want enough Wis to beef up the DC on stunning fist, 13+ str for Power Attack, and 13+ Dex for Circling Mongoose, and 15 Wis for Mantis Wisdom. Enough Con for some HP buffer means that Cha and Int are going to be low (but I suggest don't dump Int because you'll need some skill points. Even though you're feat-hungry, I'd suggest going Human but trading out your starting feat and skill point for an extra +2 stat since Monks are so MAD. So, lets go with the following:


Human Monk w/ double +2 ability score
20 pt buy
Str *16* (5)
Dex 14 (5)
Con 14 (5)
Int 10 (0)
Wis *17* (7)
Cha 8 (-2)
25 pt buy
Str *17* (7)
Dex 14 (5)
Con 15 (7)
Int 10 (0)
Wis *18* (10)
Cha 7 (-4)

So, with all this, you'll end up with a good 11 attacks, 7 at full-BAB, the rest at varying degrees of reduced BAB. The first one after your opener will get 2d6 bonus and the rest after that will get 4d6 as long as you keep landing hits. And with Stunned/Paralysed, flanking, and prone, you will keep landing hits. I also suggest you carry some kind of reach weapon. UnMonks get proficiency with all Monk weapons so pick one with reach (eg. Kusarigama, Double-Chain Kama). You don't need to attack with it in your routine, just end the round holding it with both hands so you threaten both adjacent an 10'. This will help you get the most out of Combat Reflexes.

Charisma really boils down to one thing; confidence. Charisma controls how confident you are, both in yourself as well as your interactions with others. Confidence leads to success while lack thereof leads to failure. It's confidence that convinces people, motivates them, and intimidates them. So, ultimately, if your character has low Charisma, they have low confidence. They set low personal standards. But a lot of this is already reflected in the mechanics. It's never about what you say, it's about how effective it is. Character A with 7 Charisma tells the guard to unlock the door and the guard is unconvinced. Character B with 18 Charisma tells the guard to unlock the door, and the guard complies. So how your character roleplays doesn't really matter. Play him off as whatever you want, just keep in mind that it's the result of Cha skills that determine how others around you respond. You could spend 5 minutes coming up with the most eloquent speech you can and, if you flub your roll, your audience thinks you're just being pretentious. Or, you just say, "Hey, vote for me. You could do worse," ace your roll, and get a standing ovation. In other words, it's the response, rather than the words themselves, that make the roleplay.

Saethori wrote:

Because they didn't want to hand players Martial Weapon Proficiency as a trait.

It's not the first suspension of disbelief they've forced in favor of balance, and it won't be the last.

That's a valid point, but it also means that they are weighing martial proficiency and simple weapon proficiency equally. The Simple Weapon Proficiency feat gives proficiency with all simple weapons so proficiency with a single simple weapon is worthy of a trait. But it's kind of non-sensical that proficiency with a single martial weapon that happens to be a family heirloom doesn't translate to other weapons of the same type. A better option would be to change up the trait in a way that depends on 1) whether you pick a simple or martial weapon, and 2) whether or not the character has proficiency with that kind of weapon.

Proposed change to Heirloom Weapon:
You carry a non-masterwork simple or martial weapon that has been passed down from generation to generation in your family.

Benefit: When you select this trait, either a simple or martial weapon. You begin play with the weapon of your choice at no cost and gain the following benefits.

If you pick a simple weapon, you are considered proficient with that type of weapon. If you pick a martial weapon, your character is proficient with that specific weapon and also reduces non-proficiency penalty for that type of weapon from -4 to -2.

Additionally, choose one of the following:

a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity with that specific weapon
a +2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver when using that specific weapon.

If your character is already proficient without the trait, or later gains proficiency by other means, you gain both additional benefits.

Saethori wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
With that verbiage, a person could potentially even argue that you can wield large weapons without ANY penalties whatsoever (regardless of source). Not proficient? Doesn't matter! :P
How far can you get down the list of wielding two large longswords you're not proficient in, fighting TWF without the feat, fighting defensively, while using both Power Attack and Combat Expertise, before your GM decides to lob heavy objects at you?

Don't forget to close your eyes so you can ignore total concealment miss chance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's just fluff. "Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them." That's a complete description of the arcana. It establishes that it's talking about mind-affecting spells and then goes on to clarify the effect. So you'd be able to put a Human Skeleton to sleep, but you wouldn't be able to use Vampiric Touch on them to heal yourself or Cure Light Wounds to heal them.

Just killing an opponent should be OK, but something like the Gory Finish feat, "By drawing upon wells of savagery, you can slay your foe in creative and horrifyingly gruesome manners, intimidating nearby foes." would be out-of-bounds.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In game terms, wielding a larger weapon "without penalty" also applies to the "penalty" of changing the effort category of the weapon. So a Medium Tiefling with Oversized Limbs would wield a Large Greatsword as if it were a Medium Greatsword; that is, he takes neither a penalty to his attack roll nor does he consider it unwieldable. Likewise, if you were to pick a Large Longsword, it would still be wielded one-handed. If you look at the Redcap, it is a Small Fey that has an ability worded functionally the same to Oversized Limbs, save that instead of referring to Large weapons, it refers to Medium weapons since Medium would be one size bigger compared to a Small Fey. The Redcap is shown as having a Medium Scythe as its weapon which, if "without penalty" didn't also apply to the effort category of the weapon, it wouldn't be able to wield. Thus, "without penalty" must allow the Redcap to wield a weapon that would ordinarily be too big for such a creature to wield. Ergo, just as a Small Redcap can wield a Medium weapon with no effort category change, even a medium 2-h weapon, the same can be said for a Tiefling w/ Oversized Limbs wielding large weapons. Keep in mind, though, that this change only affects large weapons and offers nothing towards wielding Huge weapons. So a tiefling wielding a Huge Dagger would still suffer two rounds of oversized weapon penalty, taking -4 to attack and treating it as a 2-h weapon. Anything your GM says in contradiction is a houserule, not a default part of the system.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The half-elf archetype Bonded Witch could work. Just pick the firearm as your bonded object.

I've got to go with Claxon on this. You need an actual "dose" or sample of the poison to render it harmless. Poison Lore isn't about neutralizing the poison after you've already been affected by it. It's rendering it harmless before you've been subjected to it. For instance, an investigator can examine his food or beverage before eating or drinking and determine whether or not it's been poisoned, that kind of poison it is, and he can make it safe to consume. But if he eats first and asks questions later, he'll actually need some source of Neutralize Poison to counter the effects.

Anything can make unarmed strikes. Even a slime with no arms or legs to speak of could make an unarmed strike (though, it's mechanically inferior to using its normal natural weapons). There are some that claim that the Monk unarmed strike entry is an exception that proves the rule, but I disagree. The description of Unarmed Strike in the Combat section of the rules already declares that punches, kicks, and headbutts are all Unarmed Strikes already and the FAQ on Magic Fang goes on to declare that your Unarmed Strike is your whole body and making an Unarmed Strike is agnostic to what body part you use. It "could" be a specific body part if you rely on a specific rules element like the necessity to use a hand-associated weapon in Spell Combat, but it could just as easily just be an abstract "unarmed strike" with no particular body part called out because it bears no mechanical significance. I would interpret the "knees, elbows, etc." line for Monks as supporting the "hands full" part and, as a conclusion, I'd say that a Monk, even without using Flurry of Blows, can make off-hand unarmed strikes even if using a two-handed weapon to make his main-hand attacks (in this interpretation, "hands full" is referring to his attack economy).

But, ultimately, given that it doesn't exclude other forms of attack nor restrict it exclusively to natural weapons, it's reasonable to conclude that the reach evolution can applies to any melee attack method available to you without exception. Same goes for other evolutions such as Bleed.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
There is a distinction between "wield one-handed" and "wield in one hand" with the former counting the weapon as one-handed for all rules elements and the latter only freeing up one of your hands for other purposes (eg. using a shield, drinking a potion, etc). This is established by the various FAQs on the matter.

Great! It's "established". That means someone can actually quote/link the FAQ(s) which spell this out. Right?

'cuz I don't buy it.

The mounted lance still gets 1.5x strength when used one-handed. So far as I can tell, nothing else does... and I CAN cite (and have cited) a FAQ saying that.


FAQ - Power Attack: If I am using a two-handed weapon with one hand (such as a lance while mounted), do still I get the +50% damage for using a two-handed weapon?

CRB - A lance deals double damage when used from the back of a charging mount. While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
FAQ - Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.
Various rulebooks:
Phalanx Fighting (Ex): At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon. This ability replaces armor training 1.

Quarterstaff Master
Benefit: By employing a number of different stances and techniques, you can wield a quarterstaff as a one-handed weapon. At the start of your turn, you decide whether or not you are going to wield the quarterstaff as a one-handed or two-handed weapon. When you wield it as a one-handed weapon, your other hand is free, and you cannot use the staff as a double weapon. You can take the feat Weapon Specialization in the quarterstaff even if you have no levels in fighter.

Not everything is going to be spelled out explicitly because the Paizo staff doesn't operate under the presumption that people reading their books are morons who need everything spelled out in painfully exacting detail. But you can logically arrive at a valid conclusion by looking at the available rules and FAQs. And that logical conclusion is that "wield one-handed" and "wield in one hand" are treated as significantly different situations in the rules. Light, one-handed, and two-handed are categories of weapons. Both light and one-handed weapons are normally wielded "in one hand". One-handed weapons get the added benefit that they can be wielded "in two hands" and the rules outline what you get for doing so. But a one-handed weapon wielded "in two hands" is not a two-handed weapon and, by the same reasoning, a two-handed weapon wielded "in one hand" is not a one-handed weapon. That is why a Lance still deals full Str and Power Attack even when wielded in one hand while mounted. That is why Power Attack needs to single out both wielding a two-handed weapon and wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands for increased benefit. It isn't an "exception", it is a distinction. By contrast, a rules element that specifically uses the term "one-handed" or "two-handed" are referring to those weapon categories rather than a manner of usage. A two-handed weapon wielded "one-handed", "as a one-handed weapon", or any equivalent construction stops counting as a 2-h weapon and starts counting as a 1-h weapon. So a 2-h weapon is wielded with two hands. A 1-h weapon is wielded with one or two hands. A light weapon is wielded with one hand. Some rules elements change how many hands are required without changing the handedness category. Other rules elements change the handedness category itself. Your failure or refusal to accept this is your own lapse in reasoning, not ours.

There is a distinction between "wield one-handed" and "wield in one hand" with the former counting the weapon as one-handed for all rules elements and the latter only freeing up one of your hands for other purposes (eg. using a shield, drinking a potion, etc). This is established by the various FAQs on the matter. However, Kaouse is correct in noting that Choke Up actually uses the same phrasing as the Lance:

WMHB wrote:
Choke Up: You can take a –2 penalty on attack rolls and damage rolls until the beginning of your next turn in order to choke up on and wield a two-handed polearm sized for you in one hand, as long as you do not make attacks with your other hand.

So Choke Up actually counts the same as a Lance; it still gets two-handed Str and Power Attack and can use rules elements requiring a two-handed weapon (eg. Pushing Assault, Overhand Chop, etc) and still subsumes your potential off-hand attack economy, but it doesn't count it as a one-handed weapon for rules elements requiring one (eg. Spell Combat).

When I first read the topic and OP, I thought you were asking how much a pound of phosphorous or magnesium would weigh.

Anyway, there are a few ways to figure it out. If you note a Magnesium Golem, it takes 1,000 lbs of magnesium to construct (mixed with other rare chemicals) which costs 4,000 gold. Depending on what proportion of the cost is taken up by those non-magnesium materials, the cost of pure magnesium is no higher than 4 gold/lb if bought in bulk.

Next, there's this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Weapons: There are melee weapons in Ultimate Combat (pages 131 to 132) with a weight of "—". If these weapons are primarily metal (like the kerambit), how do you calculate the cost of creating mithral versions of these weapons?

Treat these weapons as 1/2 lb weapons for the purpose of creating a mithral version of the weapon.

If you go buy this rule, two doses of alchemical magensium or phosphorous would be one lb; the Magnesium would cost 2 gold/lb and the phosphorous would cost 4 sp. The Magnesium certainly falls within the expected range as it is less than 4 gold/lb. However, there are exceptions. For instance, 20 arrows is, by default, 3 lbs (0.15 lb/arrow). Crossbow bolts are 1 lb/10 (0.1 lb/bolt) and repeating bolts are twice that. So the half pound figure probably serves best for an upper-bound for the weight as anything higher than a half lb would likely have already been rounded up to a full pound.

Another example is the Skydragon Firework. It's 10 lbs and consists of a cardboard tube filled with the alchemical preparation which consists of 100 total doses of ingredients which are calcinated (burned down). The weight of the wrapping is likely negligible so that would suggest that the weight of the ingredients after being burned down is around 10 units/lb (thus, fewer units/lb of unprocessed ingredients).

Personally, I think a good balance point is probably 4 units/lb. So 1 alchemical "dose" of an ingredient with "-" weight is about 0.25lbs. This matches the price of the magnesium golem at 4 gold/lb of magnesium and counts the price of the "rare chemicals" as negligible next to the shear bulk of magnesium being used (and probably matches whatever you save by getting bulk magnesium).

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saethori wrote:

So we have super-virile hundred year old wizards. Great.

(Also, one can definitely say that impotency is a penalty to a physical ability.)

Well, to be fair, most wizards will, at some point, look for a spell to do that. I think the verbal component is abraviagra.

Timeless Body(Monks and Druids wrote:
After attaining 15th level, a druid/monk no longer takes ability score penalties for aging and cannot be magically aged. Any penalties she may have already incurred, however, remain in place. Bonuses still accrue, and the druid/monk still dies of old age when her time is up.

These are the hallmarks of Timeless Body. Your physical age is frozen at whatever stage it was at when you received the ability. You continue to mentally develop, though. You aren't "ageless" so you'll still die at your maximum lifespan, it's just that you might look 20something years old when you do so.

Immortality(Monk of the Four Winds) wrote:
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 is actual immortality. Even if you are killed, you get better. You no longer gain years to your age (meaning no aging bonuses either). If you are killed, you auto-reincarnate.

Immortality(Wizard) wrote:
You discover a cure for aging, and from this point forward you take no penalty to your physical ability scores from advanced age. If you are already taking such penalties, they are removed at this time. This is an extraordinary ability.

The only thing this stops is the physical penalties of aging, both going forward and retroactive. You'll still age and accrue mental bonuses and, when your time comes, you'll still die (because it doesn't explicitly say that you don't). It isn't aptly named because it isn't really "immortality". Alchemist's Eternal Youth discovery does the exact same thing and is a more apt name.

There are a few others, mostly through archetypes or prestige classes. Also, mythic has some flavors. But, generally, if it doesn't say you stay in your current age category or that you don't die of old age, then you still die of old age.

Khudzlin wrote:
@Kazaan I'm not even sure you can wield a two-handed weapon with 2 off hands (you have only 1 primary hand, all the others are off hands).

There's a lot of debate on that, but it only matters if you're using TWF rules. If you aren't declaring an off-hand to get extra attacks above and beyond your iteratives, then it isn't TWF (or MWF in the case of a 3+ armed creature). For example, if you have three iterative attacks (+11/+6/+1) and two weapons available (even if those are two 2-h weapons on a four-armed creature), you can make your three attacks with any weapon to hand. That could be all three with one weapon, all three with the other, or two with one and one with the other. So a four-armed creature wielding a Halberd and a Greatsword could make their iterative attacks without using TWF with any combination of their two weapons (three, technically, because they always have Unarmed Strike available). If you do want to use MWF, to avoid unnecessary debate, it's probably best to use a 2-h weapon and a pair of light weapons.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of it is that there is no "facing" in Pathfinder. Your character basically has "Schrodinger's Field of Vision" such that their perception roll shows whether or not they happened to glance in your direction as you were sneaking up to them. Likewise, the flanking bonus represents the increased likelihood that they aren't paying close enough attention to you when you attacked them. But your opponent doesn't really have "back" for you to stab.

Also, keep in mind that there are other things that can deny Dex to AC as well. A climbing character is denied Dex so they are vulnerable to sneak attacks. Using a Seven Branch Sword's special Trip variant to render a foe flat-footed will open them up to sneak attacks. Shatter Defenses can also render an opponent with a fear status (shaken, frightened, or panicked) flat-footed. It's really should be re-named, honestly.

By default, no. Remember, it's more about leverage than it is about shear weight. Even if you were to wield a Large Greatsword with four hands, how would you swing it? The additional hands on the hilt would interfere with your swings more than they would assist. Mechanically speaking, the best you could probably do as a four-armed creature would be to wield a properly sized two-handed weapon for adjacent foes, and also a two-handed reach weapon. That way, you threaten both at reach as well as adjacent. You don't even need TWF for it; just stick to your iterative attacks.

The thing is... this isn't exactly a narrative; it's an interactive story. When you read a book, the entire book is already set in place. The end of the story is already established from before you even open the cover. Often, future books are also set in place. The conclusion of a whole series of books is often one of the first things an author writes. When you read the great stories of history, you don't read about the people who failed ignobly. You read about the ones who accomplished something; usually against significant odds. But when you're playing an interactive story, you don't yet know if you're a success that will be told in stories for the ages, or if you're just some schmuck who tripped and fell over a cliff and died. The character you play is separate from you, the player. So yes, it does make sense that one bad roll can severely compromise or even kill you. It's the rare characters who succeed at something amazing that are talked about for a long time, but not every single character is going to be entitled to that privilege. So any argument stemming from the nature of the game as a "narrative" is already way off-point.

Regarding Scion of Humanity and Pass for Human, they apply for all things. Whether it's feat prereqs, racial archetypes, what Bane and Favored Enemy types you're vulnerable to, everything. That's what "effects related to race" means in the Pathfinder system; all rules elements that are restricted to a particular race or work differently if you are a particular race. It isn't going to explicitly and exhaustively list every single thing in the game that it applies to.

Alright, lets break it down. First off, no, you don't get multiple AoOs if you have combat reflexes because it states that if the opponent attacks you while they have the bonus and the bonus explicitly goes away when they attack you. So their first attack has the bonus, but another attack wouldn't; thus no second AoO provocation.

Second, arguably, yes. It doesn't really "not make sense" that you wouldn't count as your own ally in this case. Not making sense to count as your own ally would be, for example, giving an ally a leg-up to grant them a bonus to their climb skill; it wouldn't make sense to give yourself a leg up. But it would totally make sense that, if you are feigning at being an easy target so that your opponent's attack will be predictable to your allies, that you, yourself would also find it predictable. So each ally (with the feat) that threatens the opponent will be able to take an AoO, including yourself.

Third, I don't see any leeway for the opponent to forego the bonus because it isn't at their discretion. There's a difference between "you may gain a +2 bonus to your attack" and "another character has granted you a +2 bonus to your attack". The bonus isn't based on the opponent's actions so they don't really control its application. Otherwise, why would the opponent ever take advantage of that bonus? Now, it'd be different if there were some kind of sense motive check to determine whether you are faking or legitimately injured; succeeding at the check would let the opponent know that you're hamming it up to bait them while failing would make the opponent believe your ruse. But there's no such check; so they get the bonus whether they want it or not; making it an opportunity cost for them whether or not to attack you.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bear in mind that it's still a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

PRD wrote:
A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature's throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

So if your goal is to avoid the need for a full-round action to use the potion on an unconscious creature, you aren't gaining anything by using an oil instead.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

99 bottles of beer on the wall...

I'm not sure that would work. You aren't using the armor or shield as a weapon, just adding their armor enhancement bonus to the damage done by the maneuver.

The stacking bonuses FAQ wouldn't apply because these aren't bonuses that are being added to anything. You aren't dealing damage and adding your Str bonus to it, you're dealing damage equal to your Str bonus. And it isn't an AoO so there's no issue with multiple triggers on the same action. You simply apply them in sequence, causing three separate instances of damage all of which are equal to your Str bonus. That also means that DR applies three times and you get no benefit from your any weapons to overcome it since the damage isn't attached to a weapon.

If you're only dipping 1 level into Sorc, I'd suggest the Human alternate class bonus which gives you one additional cantrip. It's the only alternate bonus that takes only one level investment (all the others are fractional bonuses). You can take Human or Elf alternate favored bonuses as a Half-Elf. If that isn't worth it, it might be a good idea to go Human since you take Dual Talent to trade their starting feat and Skilled racial traits for an extra +2 ability modifier. That really helps MAD classes like Monk.

The hybrid classes were originally planned with the concept of being an alternate class of both parents in mind, but that idea was dropped in development. If they had kept that idea, then the hybrid classes would not be able to multi-class with either parent class and they would be eligible for archetypes of either parent class provided they had all the class features to trade out. However, that's all moot since the hybrid classes count just as any other base class.

To really make it worth-while, the illusionist would need a partner with a readied action triggered by someone attempting a reflex save or some ability that makes the target of the lightning bolt provoke an AoO if they attempt a save. Ideally, said partner would need some ability that makes their readied action more effective than just attacking like normal. That sets up a choice; if they forego the save, it "might" be another illusion or it "might" be an actual lightning bolt. If they attempt the save, they open themselves up to an attack; needlessly if it were an illusion, and they might get hit by both if they fail the save too.


FAQ wrote:

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
Alternate Ability Score-Based Checks: If I change the key ability score of a skill (or other check), for example, if I change Knowledge from Intelligence to Charisma, is it no-longer an Intelligence-based check? Is it now a Charisma-based check?
Generally yes—at the time of rolling a check, if you substitute the ability score, the check is now based on the new ability score. In the example, at the time of rolling, Knowledge would now be a Charisma-based skill and not an Intelligence-based skill for you, which would affect things like feats, spells, or items that grant bonuses on checks based on their key ability score (like circlet of persuasion). However, if you are adding a second ability modifier to a check, this is not the case. For instance, when adding both Wisdom and Dexterity on initiative checks, initiative is still a Dexterity check, not a Wisdom check. Also, this changes the check only at the time of rolling, so this does not change static class features or options made during character building such as your class’s class skills. Classes that receive “all Intelligence-based skills” as class skills, for instance, are the victim of sloppy writing, and furthermore sometimes effects might muddy the water by only changing the ability dependency sometimes and not others, which is why you check the new dependency only for a specific given roll.

So no, basing your Diplomacy and Bluff on Wis instead of Cha makes them no longer Cha skills. They are now considered Wis skills so rules elements that give a benefit to Cha skills no longer apply and those that give benefit to Wis skills will apply. They are still considered Diplomacy and Bluff checks so rules elements affecting those particular skills still apply as normal. And, (though a lot of people generally disagree with the logic on this one), the other FAQ states that when some rules element lets you add "<ability score> in addition to the normal ability score", it counts the ability scores as the "source" of the bonuses. For example, when you normally add your Charisma modifier to a Bluff check, the Charisma score, itself, is the source of that bonus. When Guileful Lore allows the Inquisitor to add their Wisdom modifier on top of that, their Wisdom score is the source of the additional bonus. So the base skill bonus comes from Cha and the additional bonus comes from Wis so there is no source conflict. But when you use both Guileful Lore and Charm of Wisdom, now the base skill bonus comes from Wis and the additional bonus also comes from Wis so there is a source conflict. However, this would not happen if the additional benefit were typed (eg. competence bonus, enhancement bonus, etc). And, again, I strongly disagree with this interpretation because I view Guileful Lore, Charm of Wisdom, et al, themselves, as the source and the ability score modifier as the value of the bonus. But, officially, both the abilities and the stat modifiers are counted as the source of the bonus if they are untyped. So, while you're kind of right on some things, you might want to pick up the mic and put it back on the stand where it goes.

The Bewildered penalty would also apply to AoOs taken by the Rogue during the effect's duration.

1 to 50 of 5,511 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.