paizo.com Favorited Posts by Killsmithpaizo.com Favorited Posts by Killsmith2016-11-27T20:12:23Z2016-11-27T20:12:23ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: Sunder is an attack action = Sunder is a standard action?Killsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p0r0&page=23?Sunder-is-an-attack-action-Sunder-is-a#11112012-11-08T23:35:03Z2012-11-08T23:26:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Grick wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Sunder replaces that attack. </p>
<p>It doesn't work the other way, because sunder is <i>still</i> replacing the attack you get from the attack action, so Vital Strike has nothing left to effect. </p>
<p>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Am I way out in left field here?</p>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...Killsmith2012-11-08T23:26:02ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: If Monks have trouble hitting...Killsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ot74&page=18?If-Monks-have-trouble-hitting#8932012-10-22T23:58:51Z2012-10-22T23:34:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD wrote:</div><blockquote>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).</blockquote><p>There's no qualification on when unarmed strikes count as light weapons. They're always light weapons.
<p>As for haste, I'm not sure why it still reads that way a year after <a href="http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/2011/september/v5748dyo5lcom&page=3?Combat-Maneuvers-and-Weapon-Special-Features#118" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">THIS</a> post.</p>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.Killsmith2012-10-22T23:34:47ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Combat really only 3 rounds?Killsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p2hn&page=3?Combat-really-only-3-rounds#1312012-10-23T02:38:11Z2012-10-22T21:07:06Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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.Killsmith2012-10-22T21:07:06ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Is any level of point of origin spell precision unreasonable?Killsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oyqr?Is-any-level-of-point-of-origin-spell#472012-10-06T05:29:06Z2012-10-04T16:24:44Z<p>Each part of the game is unrealistic in different degrees, which is fine.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Things like that make it really hard to map even the more mundane parts of the game to real life.</p>
<p>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.</p>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...Killsmith2012-10-04T16:24:44ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Is any level of point of origin spell precision unreasonable?Killsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oyqr?Is-any-level-of-point-of-origin-spell#232012-10-03T00:58:30Z2012-10-01T20:54:25Z<p>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?</p>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?Killsmith2012-10-01T20:54:25ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Archers getting even better!Killsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oooq?Archers-getting-even-better#172012-08-21T08:17:45Z2012-08-17T17:51:49Z<p>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.</p>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.Killsmith2012-08-17T17:51:49ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Clustered Shots Too Powerful?Killsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oglv?Clustered-Shots-Too-Powerful#162017-06-03T05:24:04Z2012-07-13T17:00:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cheapy wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>There are spells to shut down <i>anyone</i>. That's not a proper argument. </blockquote><p>I don't know of any spells that completely negate melee combat or spells and only those forms of combat. Could you please list a few spells that shut down any number of attackers using melee or spell combat? Bonus points if they're 3rd level or lower.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cheapy wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Schroedinger's Ranger has a quiver full of arrows to bypass the material DR. Not so much the combination DRs, the alignment DRs, the epic DR, - DR, etc. </blockquote><p>Combinations are trivial for a ranger. You're really only looking at epic and untyped. The versatile weapon spell and a +5 bow get you past everything except those two. Versatile weapon and a holy weapon get you past most combination DR until you get a +5 weapon.
<p>An archer fighter on the other hand, can only do piercing damage with his arrows. He doesn't have abundant ammunition for unlimited arrows of any type. Now, he has three feats that can bypass damage reduction at range. He'll ignore almost all damage reduction with those 3 feats.</p>
<p>Also, everyone is forgetting the real disadvantage to ranged combat. You use Dex to hit, and Strength for damage at a much lower rate. Composite bows with deadly aim give you Strength to damage and a +2/-1 damage/hit ratio. A two handed fighter on the other hand, gets Strength to hit, 1.5xStrength to damage, and +3/-1 with power attack. That's huge.</p>Cheapy wrote:There are spells to shut down anyone. That's not a proper argument.
I don't know of any spells that completely negate melee combat or spells and only those forms of combat. Could you please list a few spells that shut down any number of attackers using melee or spell combat? Bonus points if they're 3rd level or lower. Cheapy wrote:Schroedinger's Ranger has a quiver full of arrows to bypass the material DR. Not so much the combination DRs, the alignment DRs, the epic DR, - DR,
...Killsmith2012-07-13T17:00:37ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Clustered Shots Too Powerful?Killsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2oglv?Clustered-Shots-Too-Powerful#42017-06-03T05:21:26Z2012-07-13T14:44:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cheapy wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The feat completely removes one of the main balance factors of bows.</p>
<p>It's a massive boost to already probably the strongest fighting style in the game.</p>
<p>TBH, the entire archery line needs to be taken out back, shot, and zombiefied into something that isn't so marginalizing. In my main game, we have 10 players. The archer does over 50% of our entire party's damage.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>On the other hand, there are a few spells that stop archery dead in its tracks. Clustered shots is powerful, but as an archer, you've already got an arsenal of arrows for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction anyway. In the end, all you're really doing is making a feat that allows a fighter to do what a ranger can do by casting versatile weapon.Cheapy wrote:The feat completely removes one of the main balance factors of bows.
It's a massive boost to already probably the strongest fighting style in the game.
TBH, the entire archery line needs to be taken out back, shot, and zombiefied into something that isn't so marginalizing. In my main game, we have 10 players. The archer does over 50% of our entire party's damage.
On the other hand, there are a few spells that stop archery dead in its tracks. Clustered shots is powerful, but as...Killsmith2012-07-13T14:44:50ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: What is the state of FOBKillsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o75w?What-is-the-state-of-FOB#442012-06-01T15:27:51Z2012-06-01T14:00:16Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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.Killsmith2012-06-01T14:00:16ZRe: Forums/Pathfinder First Edition: General Discussion: Some people just don't get optimizationKillsmithhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2o1gt?Some-people-just-dont-get-optimization#502012-05-02T08:40:22Z2012-05-01T19:03:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ravingdork wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Adamantine Dragon wrote:</div><blockquote><p>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.</p>
<p>I suspected that was not the case.</p>
<p>I wanted it to be explicitly clear.</blockquote><p>Well, why didn't you just say that?
<p>We will probably be fine even without enlarge person, but we could be BETTER. </blockquote><p>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?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...Killsmith2012-05-01T19:03:22Z