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

5,548 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 5,548 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Well, to be fair, as was pointed out above, "Disarm" is about actively wresting the weapon out of their hand while forced drops are about removing their capacity to hold on to the weapon. If someone strikes your arm in a way that your grip loosens reflexively or due to injury, or if grease makes the weapon too slippery to hold on to, or if Heat Metal heats up the weapon to the point where you reflexively let go, that doesn't count as a disarm and, realistically, a Weapon Master's training isn't going to allow him to overcome his weapon turning red-hot in his hand or grease removing the friction that prevents it from sliding out of his grip. Immunity to disarm means your fighting style and technique and grip is such that when the enemy is trying to lever the weapon out of your hand with their own techniques and strength, they simply cannot succeed; but they can still cut off your hand or arm with a called shot.

Well, the first thing you need to do is establish an understanding of the terms. "Atheism" is a term often thrown about without fully understanding exactly what it means. Atheism is Theism with the 'a-' prefix attached. This prefix, a variant of 'an-' from Greek, means "without" or "not", as in "asymmetry" (without symmetry) or "achromatic" (without color). Atheism means "without theism"; so to understand that, we need to know what Theism means. Theism comes from the joining form "the-" (variant of "theo-" as in "theocracy"), which means "god" and the suffix "-ism" which is used to form action nouns out of verbs.

Theism, n.
1) the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).

2) belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

So, before going on, we need to understand exactly which definition of Theism we're talking about here. If we're going with the first, then the very nature of multiple deities is an issue of contention. A Theist might believe that there is one supreme God and the rest are pretenders. Alternatively, a Deist might believe that there is one supreme God, but he has not revealed himself and all the deities that have made themselves known are pretenders. But if we're talking about the second definition, merely the belief in the existence of one or more gods, then Atheism simply means "without the belief in the existence of one or more gods". It's attitude-neutral because it only states a lack of belief of the affirmative. That could include a disclaimer of knowledge capacity (agnostic atheist) or it could be an active opposition to the belief (anti-theism). There are also the matters of Gnostic (believes that spiritual knowledge is not limited to empirical evidence/experience) and Agnostic (believes that people can only have knowledge based on empirical evidence/experience and if anything exists beyond our capacity for such, it is unknowable).

So now, we can accurately discuss our options:
Gnostic Theist (1): Believes that one of the "gods" in particular is a True God who created and maintains existence and any others who claim divine authority are lower-order entities and/or pretenders. Also believes the existence of God can be confirmed simply by "knowing" and bypassing empiricism.

Agnostic Theist (1): Believes that one of the "gods" in particular is a True God who created and maintains existence and any others who claim divine authority are lower-order entities and/or pretenders. Also believes they have received some kind of empirically supported revelation of such an entity's true divine authority.

Gnostic Theist (2): Believes in the power and divine authority of all the Gods and that their divinity is directly "knowable" without empirical support.

Agnostic Theist (2): Believes in the power and divine authority of all the Gods because they have revealed and demonstrated their power in a direct manner.

Gnostic Deist: Believes that there is one ultimate creator God who created and maintains existence, but rejection of revelation of such an entity. All of the "gods" are not gods at all, but just very powerful entities. Knowledge of the "True God" is directly "knowable" and bypasses empirical support.

Atheist Deist: Believes that there probably is one ultimate creator God who created and maintains existence, but rejection of revelation of such an entity. All of the "gods" are not gods at all, but just very powerful entities. Suspicion of a "True God" yet unrevealed is based on logic and analysis that is either waiting on empirical support or an understanding that such evidence is likely impossible for people.

Gnostic Atheist: Believes that spiritual knowledge is directly "knowable" and, with such knowledge, has confirmed that no "gods" actually exist. All entities claiming divinity are merely very powerful Outsiders.

Agnostic Atheist: Believes that knowledge must be empirical in nature and that "divinity" either has not or cannot be empirically demonstrated, thus the divinity of the "gods" has not been (and possibly cannot be) confirmed.

Anti-theist: Believes that "divinity" cannot exist if it is not subject to empirical study and that it should be considered not to exist until such observations are made.

There is also one other term to keep in mind:
Henotheism: Worship of a particular god without disbelieving the existence of others.

This is largely what the various "devout" classes (Clerics and Inquisitors, mainly) follow, having a focused worship of a single deity without disbelieving others (though often disavowing those in opposing stance).

Personally speaking, I'm a bit of a gnostic deist as well as an animist/spiritualist in my philosophy. That is, I believe that a creator God exists and, while he hasn't empirically revealed himself, people are capable of varying levels of direct spiritual knowledge to which the burden of empiricism does not apply and I believe in non-physical matters of souls and spirits as being just as real a component of the universe as the physical aspects of observable matter and energy. I have to believe that, in Pathfinder's cosmology, I'd likely end up in Nirvana (NG) on principal alone (without direct "divine" guidance).

Essentially, being disarmed is dropping your weapon but not all dropping your weapon is being disarmed. Consider an ability that causes the target to fall prone. That's not a trip despite both having the same result. So, if you used Targeting on their leg, you wouldn't benefit from Improved or Greater Trip, though you could use Vicious Stomp. Likewise, Targeting at the arm isn't a disarm so Subtle Blade won't protect against it, but also you couldn't use abilities that give bonuses to Disarm attempts like Improved/Greater Disarm.

Was there an errata on Crusader at some point because I swear I remember that they got Weapon Focus with their deity's favored weapon automatically at lvl 1.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically, you aren't Metagaming; they got that wrong when they claimed that you were. But what you are doing is you're the guy in the movie theater who's seen the film a dozen times and you keep nudging the people next to you saying, "Ooh, here comes the really good part," for all your favorite scenes.

Dirty Trick is kind of the Swiss Army Knife of combat maneuvers. It's very versatile so I don't see it as being a bad choice for any front-line combatant; especially one like Fighter with feats to spare.

It also makes sense that a Dwarven gladiator would shy away from the sensationalized performance combat based on Charisma (a Dwarf's short-suit) and, instead, focus on a more straight-forward combat style.

Other than that, I don't see anything else to add. You've picked out a good and flavorful selection of feats and I can't think of any archetype in particular that would serve better than just the vanilla Fighter.

And if you really want Killing Flourish but your GM won't let you take it without actually being a Slayer, the Bounty Hunter Slayer archetype would probably be a very fitting transition. Ex Gladiator turned Bounty Hunter isn't exactly an unheard of character arc.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, we can deconstruct it using the Creating New Weapons rules from WMH. A Martial Tetsubo would get 8 DP (5 for martial + 2 for 2-h) while an Exotic one gets 9 DP (6 for exotic + 2 for 2-h). It has no special properties or additional damage types so the only things we need to account for are the increased damage and crit multiplier. x4 Crit costs 6 DP. Now, it needs a few damage increases. It will take four damage increases to get it where it needs to be:
1) 1d3 -> 1d4
2) 1d4 -> 1d6
3) 1d6 -> 1d8
4) 1d8 -> 1d10

Improved Damage costs 1 DP each time so that's four DP for this. Thus, the total DP necessary for this weapon is 10: 6 for the x4 crit and 4 for the improved damage. It starts off with either 8 or 9 depending on whether it's a martial or exotic. So, as a Martial weapon, it needs Additional Design Points 2 times, increasing the GP cost by a total of 30. As an Exotic weapon, it only needs ADP 1 time, increasing the GP cost by 15. The base cost for a 2-h Martial weapon should be 8 while for a 2-h Exotic weapon should be 9. Thus, the proper cost, based on these rules, should be 38 gp for a Martial Tetsubo or 24 for an Exotic Tetsubo. The standard Tetsubo presented in UC costs 20.

So, from a purely mechanical perspective, it's an Exotic weapon because of the price. You could just as easily make a Martial version that costs about twice as much as the standard (seemingly discounted) version presented in UC.

Alternatively, considering the nature of the weapon, it actually does take significant skill and training to use a Tetsubo properly; focusing on strength and balance. An improper swing that misses can leave you open to counter-attack. So a fitting houserule would be that if you lack Exotic proficiency for it, you can use it as a martial weapon, but you provoke an AoO if you miss by 5 or more.

Tarantula wrote:
What if its an SLA that is a spell on the magus list?

It still isn't cast from the Magus spell list. So, while Frostbite is on the Magus spell list, it's also on other spell lists. If a Magus/Sorcerer, for instance, learned Frostbite through Sorcerer levels, he couldn't use it with Spellstrike or Spell Combat by default because, while it's on the Magus spell list, he's casting it as a Sorcerer (using Sorcerer CL and the Sorcerer spellcasting class ability) rather than as a Magus spell. In other words, the Magus/Sorcerer is a Sorcerer casting Frostbite instead of a Magus casting Frostbite. You'd need the Broad Study arcana to allow the Frostbite learned through Sorcerer levels to be usable with Spellstrike and Spell Combat.

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

There's some weirdness with tech weapons and advanced firearms, but those are basically never assumed.

So, short answer, I'm pretty sure it's working exactly as intended. It follows the same physics as the rest of the game.

Ok, now I'm imagining a lobbing shot using a laser gun.

Regarding SLAs, they won't work because both Spellstrike and Spell Combat specify a Touch spell from the magus spell list.

FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: What spells can I cast when using spell combat?

The relevant text of the ability is:

"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)."

The spell you cast when using spell combat has to be a magus spell you know, and it must be a magus spell prepared with one of your magus spell slots.

(Other magus abilities may modify what spells can be used with spell combat. For example, the broad study magus arcana explicitly states the magus can use spell combat to cast spells from the selected non-magus spellcasting class.)

The major thing to keep in mind is that the CRs for encounters are predicated on the notion that players will be getting those "big six" items. If you simply remove them without compensating monster difficulty, then you've simply gone from an "automatic advantage to players" to an "automatic disadvantage to players". So, if you don't want players to feel "obligated" to get the Big Six and you don't want to use a "baked in" method, you'll need to drop the capacity of each and every monster they face in order to maintain a semblance of balance; otherwise you're just screwing the players over by artificially lowering their relative power around which the entire game is balanced.

666bender wrote:

i didnt understnad how ?

"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. "

the flying kick = a limited times per day of a kick that trip.... how do you get extra 2 attacks? and how jabbing style aid you here? it just add qd6 damage

Ok, I think I've parsed what you're asking here. So, from lvl 5, you've got the following:

- 2 Flurry attacks
- ki pool from which you can spend 1 ki to get 1 extra attack
- Stunning Fist
- Jabbing Style, Mantis Style, and Style Master
- Flying Kick strike

Style Master lets you start the fight right off in Mantis Style which buffs your Stunning Fist DC. Flying Kick lets you move up to your Monk Fast Movement amount as part of an unarmed strike. So you use Flying Kick as the first attack of your Flurry of Blows to get yourself adjacent to a target and you can combine that with Stunning Fist to stun them. This also sets you up for Jabbing Style which requires you to have already hit the target that round with an Unarmed Strike. So that's all your very first attack in a 2-3 hit Flurry (depending on whether you spend the ki point for an extra attack). Then, for the second attack of the Flurry, they are stunned which makes them even easier to hit and you get an extra 1d6 damage on your unarmed strike. If it's advantageous to do so, you can spend 1 ki for a third attack which will also get 1d6 damage. So (presuming all your attacks hit), that's an extra 2d6 damage on top of your three attacks and the foe is stunned, possibly even K.O. if you rolled well on damage. Even if he's just stunned, he can't retaliate so AC isn't as significant a matter.

Also, there is no daily limit on Style Strikes; just round limits. You could do the flying kick opening all day every day if you wanted.

Lastly, this is just the foundation of the build. It grows from there getting more versatile. The extra damage from Jabbing Style increases once you get Jabbing Master. At that point, instead of attacks going "Nothing/+1d6/+1d6/+1d6...", they become "Nothing/+2d6/+4d6/+4d6..." Other feats and abilities focus on adding additional unarmed strikes (eg. Medusa's Wrath adds 2, Elbow Strike adds 1, etc.).

For more AC, you can buy a wand of Mage Armor and pass it off to your party's caster to cast on you when necessary; but when your designated target is either stunned, bodied, or instant-giblets at the end of your turn, especially if it was the major threat, then all you need to do is defend yourself against the mooks.

In retrospect, I thought of one issue you might have with the build. Circling Mongoose requires you to start it adjacent to the target. So, in the first round, you won't benefit from it unless you're already next to the target. Therefore, your choice of opener is either flying kick or using Circling Mongoose, not both. Still, this provides a significant level of versatility. Targets won't be safe regardless of keeping their distance or getting into melee; you'll punish them either way.

There are a few wrong ideas floating around here so lets start off with correcting them.

Vital Strike is not its own special standard action. Vital Strike can be used when you make the Attack action. Attack is a specific action just as Run, Full-Attack, Cast a Spell, etc. are specific actions. Its type is, by default, Standard. Vital Strike kicks in when you make the Attack action, but other rules elements that concern the Attack action can also be used in conjunction. For instance, you can use both Vital Strike and Overhand Chop on the same Attack action. You can also Ready an Attack action and still apply modifiers to it so there is no valid prohibition against readying an Attack action with Vital Strike and Overhand Chop.

Firing both barrels of a double pistol also rides on an Attack action. What this means is that you need the actual Attack action to simultaneously fire; you can't double fire on each attack of a Full-Attack, for instance. If you had 4 iterative attacks, and 2 double-barrel pistols, you could fire all four shots in series following iterative order (+16/+11/+6/+1). But if you had 4 double-barrel pistols and quick draw, you couldn't fire 8 shots by firing double on each of the four iterative attacks. However, Vital Strike also specifies a single attack. I'd interpret this to mean that if you double-fire your double pistol as an Attack action, only one of the shots will benefit from Vital Strike whereas the other will not.

Lastly, regarding the question at hand, Overwatch Style only allows you to ready two attacks, not two Attack actions. So you're still a no-go for this combination. So, while you could take advantage of the two barrels and use the same gun twice without needing to reload between shots (if you lack a means to reload as a free action), you couldn't fire both shots simultaneously for each of the two readied attacks.

You can "turn off" Toughness, but not in the manner people are thinking. Toughness allows you to gain +3 extra HP to start, as well as +1 extra per level at 4th level and up (effectively +1 HP per level). Turning off toughness won't take away those HP any more than turning off the light after you're done in the kitchen meant you were retroactively preparing your sandwich in the dark. Turning off Toughness would mean that, when you level up, you retain the ability to not take the bonus HP if you choose not to (it's a poor decision, but it's yours to make). But after you've taken the bonus HP, it's there to stay. So no, dominating a creature won't allow you to reduce their HP by turning off their Toughness feat, but I can perfectly well see how you should be able to retain the ability to not use a particular feat in a given situation. In order for a feat to be "locked on", it would require an explicit statement to that effect, likely by explicitly stating "You must <whatever the feat does>."

Logically, I'd have to conclude that rules elements that apply to daggers (eg. throwing, Weapon Focus(Dagger), Knife Master archetype abilities, River Rat trait, etc.) would apply to a Dagger Pistol when it's being used as a dagger. Of course, you couldn't apply Weapon Focus (Dagger) when firing it like a pistol and you couldn't apply Weapon Focus (Pistol) when using it for melee/throwing as a dagger, but if you're going to throw it, I see no real reason to not treat it as a dagger when doing so. It already explicitly spells out the limitations of the combination, such as losing the ability to easily conceal it as you could with either a plain Dagger or a Pistol. So, if it wasn't meant to be thrown as a Dagger, I'd presume it would also specify that limitation. Since it doesn't, we can conclude that it is valid to throw a Dagger Pistol just as you would throw a Dagger, using the same parameters as using a Dagger (eg. throwing range increments, dagger crit, etc.). However, one needs to consider the comparative value of the weapon. A Dagger costs 2 gp while a Dagger Pistol costs 740 GP. You throw a Dagger and some goblin grabs it and runs off, well, whoop-de-doo, he ran off with a 2 gp weapon. But if you throw your 740 gp Dagger Pistol and some goblin grabs it and runs off, you're going to be right pissed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
This is one of those confusing legacy wording issues that comes up. It is much easier on you if you think of light, one-handed, two-handed weapons as light, medium, and heavy weapons. This separates weapon category from how many hands (or equivalent limbs) you need. Light weapons can only be used in one hand. Medium weapons use one hand, but are treated as heavy weapons if you use two hands. Heavy weapons require two hands. Increasing/decreasing weapon size changes the weapon weight category by one step. Lances would then be a special heavy weapon that requires only one hand while mounted, but is still a heavy weapon in all other ways. This is why you cant use a large lance, since medium creatures cannot wield a large heavy weapon.

One thing to note, a "medium" weapon wielded in two hands would not qualify as a "heavy" weapon. It would require both hands as well as subsuming your potential off-hand attack economy, but it wouldn't qualify as a "heavy" weapon for rules elements that require the use of a "heavy" weapon (eg. Overhand Chop, Pushing Assault, etc.). Other than that, it's a very good model to understand the situation more clearly. With that, we would get the following breakdowns:

Lance: Heavy weapon, can be wielded in one hand while mounted.
Quarterstaff Master: Can wield quarterstaves as Medium weapons.
Jotungrip: Can wield properly sized Heavy weapons as Medium weapons.
Bastard Sword: Medium weapon, must be wielded as Heavy martial weapon if you lack exotic proficiency.

Diplomacy isn't about getting getting someone to "like" you so much as it is about "convincing" someone. You roll Diplomacy to convince someone to do something. Sometimes, you roll Diplomacy to convince someone of how awesome you are. Furthermore, you can improve your Diplomacy not just by Charisma but also through skill points and feats. A character with no training in Diplomacy would need 24 Charisma to be as good as a character with 10 Charisma, 1 point in Diplomacy, Diplomacy as a Class skill, and Skill Focus(Diplomacy). But the 10 Cha character, while good at convincing others can, himself, be convinced rather easily while the 24 Cha character is absolutely positive that he doesn't need anyone else telling him what he ought to do.

Firebug wrote:

Calcific touch is definitely not like multiple charged spells. Calcific touch specifically calls out that it can only by used once per round, it does not have charges, but has a duration.

Think of it like a buff spell that lets you touch something once per round.

Clacific Touch is "kinda" like Frostbite. It's a touch spell so, by definition, it does have a charge. But, whereas with Frostbite/Chill Touch, your charge is re-usable a number of times based on your caster level, for Calcific Touch, the charge is re-usable based on the duration. But still, as the spell directs, you can only use that charge once per round.

What you're thinking of regarding a buff spell that lets you touch something is Elemental Touch. That one is not a Touch spell; its range is "personal" so rules regarding touch spells don't apply.

Do you mean, specifically, the Fighter class, or are you just referring to a front-line melee class? If the former, archetypes like Gladiator, Learned Duelist, or Lore Warden would probably be favorable. Gladiator will need a bit of Charisma to bolster his performance-based feats while Lore Warden and Learned Duelist will need Int and will focus on the Combat Expertise line of combat maneuvers (disarm, trip, and dirty trick). In all cases, you'll focus on Dex to bolster your defenses. In other words, you won't be a bruiser. Instead, you'll focus on dishing out debuffs on your opponents with maneuvers and/or performance feats.

If the latter, the Brawler hybrid class would probably do pretty well for you.

Correct. Frostbite (and Chill Touch) are exceptional among touch spells in that they aren't completely expended after a single successful discharge. So, for instance, if your CL for Frostbite were 4, you'd get 4 touches. That means that you could Flurry for 2 hits (presuming both land) and each of those two hits will deliver Frostbite damage and you'd still have 2 uses remaining for subsequent rounds. Those uses could be applied on AoOs as well.

Your best bet to accomplish this would be to use a pair of Sunblades that are one size too big. Sunblades are Bastard Swords, but can be treated as Shortswords because they are magically easy to handle. So, for a Medium creature, a Large Sunblade could be treated as a one-handed weapon and either Titan Mauler or Titan Fighter could reduce the size penalty to nothing. For that matter, you could even wield a single Sunblade that's two sizes too big for you as a two-handed weapon. Alternatively, get a large and medium Sunblade (presuming a medium creature) to keep your off-hand weapon light for reduced penalty. Fighting with a Large Bastard Sword in your main hand and a Medium Bastard Sword in your off-hand will still be pretty nifty. Or, if you're really set on a pair of oversized weapons, grab the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype which (eventually) lets you treat one-handed weapons as if they were light for determining TWF penalties. And bonus, Sunblades do really well against undead and shadow plane opponents.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a diagram I made a while back illustrating how LLV and Darkvision interact.

Light Level Diagram

On the left are miss chances for a creature without LLV, such as a Human or Dwarf. They use the normal radii for a light source and, in addition, if they have Darkvision, they can see perfectly just within that radius. On the right are miss chances for a creature with LLV, such as an Elf or Dhampir. The light levels are the same but, in essence, a creature with LLV can see normally in dim light and, additionally, treats an amount of darkness the way other creatures would treat dim light, getting reduced visibility and 20% miss chance in a circle of darkness around the light source. In the diagram, the Dhampir on the right would be able to clearly see the Dwarf on the left because the Dwarf is standing in dim light. If the Dhampir has a ranged weapon, they could shoot the Dwarf and they'd suffer no miss chance due to concealment because he's standing in an area of dim light and the Dhampir has LLV. But the Dwarf cannot see the Dhampir because it is standing in darkness and the Dwarf doesn't have LLV, nor is he close enough to use his Darkvision. Now, if it were an Elf instead of a Dwarf, the Elf would be able to see the Dhampir dimly and would suffer a 20% concealment miss chance on a ranged attack.

The thing to remember is that the Bardic Performances are either Supernatural abilities or Spell-Like Abilities (depending on which type you use). So it isn't just a matter of the physical actions; there is a magical energy suffusing and powering the ability. That's what makes a Bard different from just any minstrel. When the Bard says, "KEEP IT UP, WE'VE ALMOST GOT HIM!" it's a magically charged statement that tangibly causes his allies to perform better. The actual audible or visual components used for it are entirely arbitrary; an audible component could be as simple as a war whoop, a motivational comment, a war song, or just shouting, "LEEEROOOOOOOOOY JENKINS!!!" But it's the magic of the Bardic Performance that makes it real for the listeners/viewers. In other words, the system is agnostic to what, exactly, it is the Bard is doing and just jumps directly to, "Whatever it was you did, it was successful." So it's inaccurate to say that the Bard sang off-key karaoke and it ended up being inspiring anyway. A better example would just be to say that the Bard "motivated" his group by a successful means. What, exactly, that means is is inconsequential. But, in the case of opposed checks like Countersong or Fascinate, where a specific Perform check is called for, he actually is attempting to sing or dance or play a banjo or whatever and either doing it poorly or doing it well.

I think in this case, specific overrides general. Normally, you can't even attempt a Knowledge check if the DC is over 10; it doesn't say you can't succeed at a check with a DC higher than 10. So, in the case at hand, you cast a spell which, in turn, prompts a Knowledge check. That would, consequentially, bypass the DC 10 limit because the effect of the spell says, "make a knowledge check." And, given that the spell is a matter of divine communication, it makes even more sense that it would bypass normal restrictions.

So, logically, I'd have to conclude that, while you gain no benefit from skill ranks or class skill bonus, you can still attempt and, potentially, succeed at the check because, in essence, the spell is forcing the check for you.

Most bardic performances don't use any instrument at all. Inspire Courage, for instance, requires no particular instrument as it involves no Perform check. It just grants its bonus. You only need an instrument if using a performance that requires a check, like Fascinate or Counter Song. And even then, the benefit of using a handheld instrument as opposed to Sing, Dance, etc. is that instruments can be made masterwork for a bonus. And most instruments will require 2 hands anyway. The only particular instrument I can think that can be played with just 1 hand is the bugle. Ideally, a good Bard would be trained in both an instrument-based perform skill and a non-instrument one; say both a guitar and singing. That way, he can pull out the instrument to get its masterwork bonus, but he can also do a non-instrument performance if he needs his hands for other things.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Great Old One, Cthulhu wrote:

Whenever someone brings up the Charisma vs. Physical Beauty issue to me, I just remind them that I'm a horrible tentacle monster and I have 34 Charisma. Then they usually die in my Unspeakable Presence...

My Unspeakably Sexy Presence...

To be fair, there's a big market for tentacle hentai.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

When Charisma says it measures your appearance (among other things), that is a matter of quantity, not quality. The quality of the appearance is subjective. Whether a person is beautiful, ugly, intimidating, imposing, demure, or any other qualitative description might be applied is subjective to the viewer. But, whatever qualifier applies, Charisma measures how strongly you present that qualifier. If someone finds you attractive, then high Charisma means they find you very attractive while low Charisma means they find you just a little bit attractive; you're still attractive no matter how high or low your Charisma goes. In other words, Charisma determines only how much, not what kind. You need high Charisma in order to be incredibly beautiful but you also need high Charisma in order to be incredibly ugly.

Charisma is more about confidence than anything else. Confident people have certain body language, expressions, tone of voice, etc. and they act with certainty. High Charisma means you know your physical appearance and you can flaunt it to maximum effect. Low Charisma means you lack confidence and will have body language, expression, tone, lack of certainty, etc. that causes you to have less of an effect. Even physical defects depend on your attitude towards them. One feat that gives you a scar causes a penalty to certain Cha-based skills because it is a physical reminder of a time when you failed; it damaged your confidence a little bit. But another feat that gives you a scar causes a bonus to certain Cha-based skills because it is a reminder of a time when you avoided failure by just ever so slightly; you pulled through in a pinch and succeeded and have this awesome scar that is a well-earned source of pride.

So the real solution to the problem is about properly understanding the Charisma attribute and how it provides a quantitative metric and is not a slider with "ugly" on the left and "beautiful" on the right. The "ugly" and "beautiful" are in a drop-down menu (along with all other appearance descriptors) and Charisma is a slider going from "less <whatever>" to "more <whatever>".

3 people marked this as a favorite.

First thing to remember is that Charisma represents a valuation of something, not a type. Lower numbers mean less and higher numbers mean more; not a sliding scale between two different kinds. So it's inaccurate to say, "someone with high Charisma is attractive while someone with low Charisma is repulsive." It's also inaccurate to say, "someone with high Charisma is charming while someone with low Charisma is rude." If you're attractive, then high Charisma means more attractive and low Charisma means less attractive. You're still attractive no matter how high or low the Charisma; just more or less so. Charisma measures how strong or weak some subjective value is; not what that subjective value is. If you're trying to be a leader, Charisma determines how strong or weak of a leader you are. If you're trying to be intimidating, Charisma determines how strong or weak your intimidation is. It takes high Charisma to be very attractive, but it also takes high Charisma to be very repulsive.

Ideally, your roleplay shouldn't really be all that different. Just keep doing the things you were doing before and it's the response that should change. Before, with 8 Charisma, you'd try bluffing at cards and the average person would probably catch on, but you'd likely fool a dullard. Now, with 2 Charisma, you'd try bluffing at cards, but even a particularly dull person could catch on. Before, with 8 Charisma, you might tell the bouncer, "let me pass, I have business here," and have a 35% chance to convince the him if untrained in Diplomacy. Now, with 2 Charisma, you say the exact same thing, but you have only a 20% chance to convince him. Same exact words, but significantly lower chance of success. Your physical appearance has not changed, but people respond to you differently because of subconscious cues like expression, tone, body language, and general air of confidence (or lack thereof in this case). In other words, your character's confidence and self-valuation is almost entirely shattered. You could do the same exact things as you did before, but whereas before you just had a tiny little thought of failure, now you have an expectation of failure. And, due to that expectation, you're more likely to fail at Charisma-based rolls. Your type of personality hasn't changed, but your power to express that personality and have it impact the world around you has dropped significantly.

The issue with mithral armor is different because it counts as one category lighter regardless of whether it's being used or not. So you can enchant it with Brawler because Brawler requires it be put on light armor and a mithral medium armor counts as light in and of itself. But if you had, say, a class ability that let you count medium armor as if it were light, that wouldn't let you put Brawler on your medium armor because it isn't light of in its own regard; only in the way your character uses it. So class abilities that are restricted to "in light armor" would work, but not stand-alone improvements such.

And, again, people are conflating "wielded in one hand" with "wielded one-handed". The Lance FAQ refers to weapons "wielded in one hand" (such as lance), which does not make it exclusive to Lances. But it does distinguish it from weapons wielded one-handed for reasons that I have explained ad nauseam. Lances wielded while mounted and polearms wielded with the Choke Up weapon trick are exmaples of weapons that still count as two-handed for any and all purposes (attack economy, power attack, strength to damage, feats that require a two-handed weapon, etc.), save for the singular exception that you can keep one hand (as in grasping appendage, not referring to attack economy) available for other purposes (such as using mount reins, using a shield, holding an item such as a wand or potion, using feats like Deflect Arrows, etc.). Meanwhile, the other FAQs are referring to abilities that let you treat two-handed weapons as one-handed weapons for all matters pertaining to active usage. This includes wielding them in one hand (regarding both grasping appendage and attack economy), power attack, strength to damage, etc. But that wouldn't extend to making them a valid choice for a feat that requires selecting a one-handed weapon since it would need to be a one-handed weapon of its own accord. This is the same logic that governs changing a skill's key ability score; if you gain "all Intelligence based skills" as class skills, and use a feat that lets you use Diplomacy based on Int rather than Cha, that doesn't automatically grant you class skill status for Diplomacy because it only becomes an Int skill when you use it. Likewise, if you have a feat or ability that says you can use a two-handed weapon as if it were one-handed, that doesn't extend to the capacity to select it as a valid choice for some other feat or ability that requires you to pick a one-handed weapon.

Well, it's going to be your clothing and/or hair that burns. Once they burn down to nothing, the fire would go out. What you'd need to do is coat yourself in some flammable substance like oil or maybe have a spellcaster cast grease on you.

@Lax: Just so you're aware, this is a long-dead thread; over 3 years since the last post. You probably found it by searching the forums since the search default is "relevance" which usually digs up old threads. In the future, chance your search to "recent" to get more pertinent results and avoid inadvertent necromancy.

I think that might count as stacking bonuses; hence, no. Normally, you can't apply bonuses from the same source twice. So I don't think that, if the Strangler archetype's first class ability is already letting you add SA damage, that the Strangler feat will let you double-down and add it again. It'd be like wanting to add double fire damage because you have both a Flaming AoMF and Flaming BoMS.

Potentially; yes. But you'd need a way to get 20 natural attacks and/or unarmed strikes in a single round. The benefit of Chill Touch (and Frostbite which works the same way) is that it's a touch attack that isn't fully expended on the first success. But that doesn't mean it gives you 20 attacks in a single round. So you're still limited to delivering once per round as a touch, or delivering via unarmed strikes/natural weapons during a full-round action (or, if you have Spellstrike, using your weapon).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clerics are trained, but they also need divine mojo. That's why they are in the third starting age category, along with wizards, monks, etc. So it takes study, faith, and understanding to know how, but they also need a source for that mojo. Paladins are self-taught; they figure out for themselves how to be a conduit for divine mojo. It takes practice and, probably, a bigger dose of mojo to make up for the lack of formal training and certification. That's why they have such a strict code; to handle all the extra mojo. Oracles are intuitive; they get the mojo forcibly crammed into them with absolutely no training or preparation (or even consent in nearly all cases). That's why they have a curse to go along with it.

Bandw2 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:

Your chosen weapon is the martial/exotic weapon you choose under weapon proficiency.
where is this stated exactly?

In the rule book.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
actually, he has proficiency in a single martial or exotic, but there's nothing that forces that particular weapon to be his chosen weapon... he could still choose a simple one like the staff or club, lackluster as the choice might be. (Is Kensai stackable with staff magus?)

That's what's called "splitting hairs". The Kensai is described as mastering the use of one specific weapon. You choose proficiency with a single martial or exotic weapon in weapon/armor proficiency. Then, nearly all of their abilities reference their chosen weapon as the foundation of their effects. It's willful ignorance to claim that the weapon you choose under weapon proficiency wouldn't be your chosen weapon, especially since no where else in the Kensai's ruleset does it mention the actual choosing of a weapon. If you really want to take the ridiculously pedantic argument and claim that the weapon you choose under weapon proficiency isn't your chosen weapon, then you don't even have a chosen weapon since nowhere in the rule block for Kensai does it mention actually choosing your chosen weapon.

Your chosen weapon is the martial/exotic weapon you choose under weapon proficiency. And, honestly, this explanation shouldn't really even be necessary.

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.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

1 to 50 of 5,548 << 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.