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

Killsmith's page

120 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grick wrote:

Sunder replaces that attack.

It doesn't work the other way, because sunder is still replacing the attack you get from the attack action, so Vital Strike has nothing left to effect.

You use the attack action, sunder replaces the attack, and since that attack doesn't happen, Vital Strike doesn't do anything. It's not about what order it is, it's about what part they effect. The thing that VS does (makes the attack from the attack action deal extra damage) never occurs.

If you use Vital Strike while wielding a melee weapon, wouldn't you be making an attack action in place of a melee attack? In other words, is it possible that we're separating words that should be left together? I've been reading "as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack" with a comma after attack action but there isn't a comma there.

If Vital Strike with a melee weapon is "an attack action in place of a melee attack", then sunder would just be part of that vital strike. You resolve the attack roll and do damage normally, which would be the normal damage for a vital strike.

In that case, the wording as is would be there to prevent a ranged vital strike sunder attempt, but wouldn't prevent the use of vital strike altogether.

Am I way out in left field here?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PRD wrote:
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

There's no qualification on when unarmed strikes count as light weapons. They're always light weapons.

As for haste, I'm not sure why it still reads that way a year after THIS post.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Our combats are rarely 3 rounds. Usually they're in the 8-15 range. We've got a 5 man party and sometimes have a few npcs.

We're usually either outnumbered 2 or 3 to 1 in combat, or are facing an equal number of custom enemies with powerful abilities. Generally we make good use of tactics, positioning, and choke points.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Each part of the game is unrealistic in different degrees, which is fine.

If you use lifting to determine someone's strength, people would have much higher strength scores than you would expect. I sit behind a desk all day and would still land at 16-18 strength based on the chart. I had an uncle who would have been a 24 STR based on carrying and about a 34 STR based on lifting. That's a rough guess since I don't know how much the car weighed.

Things like that make it really hard to map even the more mundane parts of the game to real life.

That said, fireball is anything but mundane. The spell says it only requires an attack roll under a very few circumstances, so I think placement should be fairly easy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

From the flavor text of the fireball spell, I would assume it's as easy as pointing in the desired direction and making it explode when it has reached the the spot you want. The worst case scenario is that you have to pick a distance beforehand, but this should be as accurate as other spells. When was the last time you told a wizard that he was actually 31 feet away and that his scorching ray stopped just short?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

We still need a +3/-1 damage feat, 1.5xStr composite bows, the ability to get ranged flanking bonuses, a weapon with more than 1d8 damage, and the ability to use one stat for hit and damage. Then we'll be good.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think maybe next time Paizo does a new set of rules, they should seriously consider using a format like the the one used by the NEC (National Electric Code) and other similar standards. It's got things broken down into chapters, articles, parts, and sections. You never use page numbers as a reference.

The great thing is that you can change things and not worry about layout. Also, if you keep things consistent between editions, you can easily refer to previous editions and see what changed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

I wanted RD to specifically indicate if his party actually had a need for the optimization of the magus to make their melee characters better.

I suspected that was not the case.

I wanted it to be explicitly clear.

Well, why didn't you just say that?

We will probably be fine even without enlarge person, but we could be BETTER.

When I read your post, RD, I thought it was pretty clear that your group was fine with or without the enlarge person. After all, why post about optimization when competence is outside your grasp?

©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.