Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Kazaan's page

4,820 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,820 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Michael Hallet wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Kazaan wrote:

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

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

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

TWF isn't meant to work like that.

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

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

FAQ here has all the details.

**EDIT**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


Bandw2 wrote:
i know for a fact...

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


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

The OP does make a grave mistake in his assumption.

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

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

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

FAQ wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup. Unarmed Strikes are totally not weapons.

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


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

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

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

edit: oh wait spell like? hmmm probably not.

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


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


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

PRD wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So carry on with all that in mind.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The OP does make a grave mistake in his assumption.

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

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

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

FAQ wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Aelryinth wrote:

Go reread the crafting rules.

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

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

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

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

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

===Aelryinth

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


graystone wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


A shield is both a weapon and a shield so you need to be able to satisfy both requirements in order to use it. Just because you can draw a weapon as a free action doesn't mean you can wear a shield as a free action because a shield happens to, in addition, count as a weapon. By that logic, you could wear your plate armor as a free action if you put armor spikes on it.


alexd1976 wrote:

I go by the entry of the weapon, not a modified 'treats as' scenario...

HOWEVER, if there was a published entry that said something like:

"Treat two-handed slashing weapons as one-handed weapons in all ways, for example, qualifying for feats..."

then that would override the general rule, as it would explicitly spell it out.

I'm a cautious player/GM, so if it is unclear, I err on the side of caution and stick to the restrictive approach.

The rules don't need to go into that much detail; no need to make the book 12 metric tons spelling out every possible nuance. If it were intended to only allow you to wield it one-handed, but not count it as a one-handed weapon for any other purpose, it would use the Lance terminology and say you can wield it "in one hand". But to wield it one-handed or any congruous verbiage already means "in all ways"; it need not expand on that to be clear. Otherwise, as stated above, if you go by the entry of the weapon and not a modified "treats as" scenario, then the contextual feat or ability doesn't allow you to wield a Greatsword in one hand because Greatswords are two-handed weapons in their entry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

If there was a feat that allowed you to treat Crows as Monkeys, would your pet Crow now be a Monkey?

No.

Being able to treat something as something else does not transform the item into that thing.

However, if I had an ability that allowed me to deal extra damage to Monkeys, and a feat that allowed me to treat Crows as Monkeys, then I would be able to use the first ability to deal extra damage against Crows despite them not actually being Monkeys. Otherwise, an ability that lets you wield a 2-h weapon in one hand wouldn't work because it's "still" a 2-h weapon and 2-h weapons require two hands to wield. But specific trumps general; thus an ability that lets you treat a 2-h weapon as if it were a 1-h weapon, despite it not actually being a 1-h weapon, it still qualifies for use as if it were a 1-h weapon.

To further illustrate, Dwarves treat Dwarven weapons as Martial rather than Exotic. So if you have an ability that requires you to pick a Martial weapon, your Dwarf character could pick one of these Dwarven weapons as a valid option since, for that character, the normal rules categorizing such weapons as exotic don't apply and, instead, they are treated as martial weapons.


There is a distinction made between rules elements regarding the weapon as an item, and rules elements concerning how the weapon is wielded. For instance, the DC to craft a weapon is different for simple, martial, or exotic weapons. Light, one-handed, and two-handed weapons have different amounts of HP. In these cases, it doesn't matter how you are able to wield the weapon; a normal Bastard Sword is always a DC 18 to craft and has 5 HP regardless of whether you wield it as a 1-h or a 2-h weapon.

Transformative is concerned with Shape and Handedness; that is to say, its qualities as an item rather than how it is wielded. So a Bastard Sword can only transform into another 1-h weapon. But for matters regarding to how the weapon is wielded (ie. Slashing Grace), the weapon counts as what you wield it as. If you can wield a 2-h weapon as a 1-h weapon, it counts as a 1-h weapon for abilities (but ceases to count as 2-h for abilities as well). So you could use Slashing Grace with a slashing polearm wielded one-handed via Jotungrip, but you wouldn't be able to use Shield of Swings, Overhand Chop, Pushing Assault, or other rules elements that rely on wielding a 2-h weapon.


He's talking about a Full-Round Use Special Ability action vs a Full-Round Full-Attack action. FoB was always a Full-Attack action, not a USA action. Spell Combat is a USA action which either functions as or contains a full-attack or possibly counts as a full-attack for the purpose of Haste and similar rules elements. The jury is still out on what, exactly, Spell Combat counts as and how it interacts with other rules elements reliant on making a Full-Attack. However, regarding FoB in particular, both normal FoB as well as UFoB are exclusionary of TWF rules elements and Spell Combat is, for all practical purposes, TWF; just with the off-hand attack replaced with the act of casting a spell. If you can't get your off-hand attack while making a FoB (either kind), then you can't Spell Combat to cast a spell as your off-hand attack.


Greater Blind Fight lets you treat a creature with total concealment as if they had only concealment. A better way to do what you are intending would be using fog or smoke to create the concealment and use water/fire sight.


It's a simple flow of logic:

If you do not have EWP(Bastard Sword), treat a Bastard Sword as a 2-h martial weapon.

That's the reason you can't one-hand the BS if you lack EWP, because the RAW states that if you lack EWP, it no longer counts as its default 1-h weapon but, rather, as a virtual 2-h weapon. You cannot wield a 2-h weapon in one hand (without special abilities). But it is still, at its base, a 1-h exotic weapon.

However, whereas normal 1-h weapons, like the longsword, don't count as 2-h weapons when a rules element calls out specifically using a 2-h weapon (ie. a Longsword, even in 2 hands, can's make a Pushing Assault or Shield of Swings), a Bastard Sword (and other weapons that are treated as 2-h if you lack proficiency) can still be treated as 2-h weapons even if you are proficient. It wouldn't make sense that it gets treated as a virtual 2-h weapon, but loses that ability once you learn how to use it properly. Basically, you make the determination on an attack-by-attack basis. You could make your first attack two-handed as a Pushing Assault, then switch to one-handed to make use of abilities that rely on using a one-handed weapon (ie. Slashing Grace).


If your GM wants you to be a scout, just take Profession(Scout).


This question relies on a distinction started with Magus's Spell Combat (still not totally resolved). The question I posed at the time was whether Spell Combat (and similar full-round actions that mimic a full-attack) count as full-attacks to allow Haste to work with them, or if Haste was changed to work not just with full-attacks, but also on similar full-round actions. In the case of the former, it means that any action that allows you to make "all your attacks" like Spell Combat or Pummeling Style count for benefits that apply only to full-attacks, whereas in the latter, the change was made to Haste alone. The response I received at the time was that they were "looking into the interactions before making a final decision" but they haven't, to date, addressed the distinction.

So the answer is, "maybe".


Well, there's this from the Magic section:

PRD wrote:
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.

This section would indicate that, specifically for Rays, their use counts as if using a ranged weapon. This would indicate that you do suffer the "firing into melee" penalty since you would take such when using a ranged weapon and any feats or other rules elements that reference "when using a ranged weapon" (ie. PBS) would confer their benefit when using a Ray spell. The same goes for elements that would confer an effect using "weapons" since a ranged weapon would fall under that.

It only specifies this for Rays and I think it provides an interesting play dynamic that some effects don't fall under these considerations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KenderKin wrote:
'Crimes against the English language.'

Wearing is the present participle of Wear. The Present Participle means an action that is continuously in progress (ie. I am 'thinking'). It carries the meaning that you started doing something and are continuing to do it. Your understanding of the definitions of the word are in error; wearing has nothing to do with whether or not the act is willful. Wearing, as a participle of the base Wear, holds to the definition of the verb Wear, which, in context, is "to carry or have on the body or about the person as a covering, equipment, ornament, or the like". 'To Wear' means to carry or have on the body or about the person. Wearing is the present participle meaning you continue to wear the direct object; in this case, the metal armor.

The word for 'the state of being worn' is just 'worn'. This is the Past Participle of Wear being used as an Adjectival Participle. In the phrase, "a worn jacket", worn is a verb being used as an adjective to describe the jacket as 'the state of being worn'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"That wasn't magic, it was just a trick."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This.


The Druid prohibition on metal isn't a matter of faith or spirits. It physically hampers their nature mojo. All their mystical Naturey stuff gets discharged for 24 hours. It isn't a matter of atonement because they haven't "angered" any deity or spirits or forces of nature or whatever; their battery was forcibly discharged and they need 24 hours to recharge it. Willing or otherwise doesn't matter. Also, keep in mind it only affects SU, SP, and magic; Ex abilities are left intact.


K-kun the Insane wrote:

There's always the roleplaying element. I know a guy playing 5th Edition running around extolling the virtues of his god(s), healing folks, hurting undead, and everything else a Cleric is known for. His party was 100% convinced he was a divine caster. Only he and his DM knew that he was actually a Rogue lying through his teeth and using tricks and wands and such to make it appear he was a Cleric.

Surely you could do the same in Pathfinder.

Did he have a healing shiv?

1 to 50 of 4,820 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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