It's not gonna make much more sense even if I have to do it with an Earth Breaker :D
So we are probably going to play an E6 game sooner or later and I was trying to see if it would be possible to make a Mounted Sap Master Rogue using a Lance for that extra damage.
Swashbuckler could give me proficiency with a martial weapon. Scout could enable flat-footed on charges.
The problem I'm facing is the fact that Sap Master requires a bludgeoning weapon. Is there any way to make a Lance deal bludgeoning damage? Or is there some other weapon that deals bludgeoning damage as well as extra damage when doing mounted charges?
Magic Item Creation wrote:
The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory.
Creating Magic Armor wrote:
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor.
Can you skip the special caster level prerequisite (increasing the DC by 5) when creating magic armor?
Weapon Cord wrote:
Weapon cords are 2-foot-long leather straps that attach your weapon to your wrist. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square. However, you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hp). Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions.
Can you provide the somatic components for a spell using a hand with an attached weapon cord? I would guess you can, that "may interfere with finer actions" seems awfully vague.
As you can see, the quickdraw shield would be a hinderance in that case since it requires a swift action where a regular shield requires a free action. There should be a benefit. I see that benefit as bypassing the 'get the shield out' part.
Not necessarily. Using my interpretation you could combining one move action (move+free draw) and a swift action move your speed while drawing and donning the quickdraw shield. A regular shield would require two move action (with possible movement) to draw and don.
Personally I find these rules confusing and I'm probably just making things overly complicated. The rules use a lot of terms: don, remove, strapping on, unstrapping, put away, draw, readying, carrying, and worn.
If they wanted drawing shields to work the same way as drawing weapons, I wonder why they didn't just make it a general draw action.
We actually discussed this exact problem. The two possibilities being what you suggested and what is shown in the above graph. We found the wording "you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a <type> action" a bit vague. In the end we argued that to be able to don or put away something you have to hold it in your hand. Has this been officially answered or is your way perhaps commonly agreed to be correct?
Thanks for the input. We discussed in-group the drawing, donning, and dropping of shields. We discussed how we thought it worked or should work, and what we ended up with was a graph. Hopefully this will prevent any problem for us when gaming. Not sure it is entirely correct though, feedback welcome.
Quick Draw wrote:
Draw or Sheathe a Weapon wrote:
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.
Are shields in "easy reach" (such as carried by you side or on your back) considered to be "weapon-like objects" and hence drawable as a free action with the Quick Draw feat? Most shields are actually also weapons. Notice that Quick Draw does not disallow shield explicitly.
Double Crossbow wrote:
Benefit: Make one attack roll. If the attack hits, the target takes damage from both bolts. Critical hits, sneak attack damage, and other precision-based damage only apply to the first bolt.
Vital Strike wrote:
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
A medium Double Crossbow's base damage is 1d8 per bolt. Let's assume Vital Strike is used with a medium +1 Double Crossbow on a target with DR 5/-.
How much damage is dealt?
GM Goblin King wrote:
Which according to the description is "determined when the stone is created". At creation it was decided that it is an orison.
Are wordcasters allowed at PFS games? If so consider playing one.I'm playing a sorcerer with the black dragon bloodline as an acid blaster at the moment at it is plenty powerful when it comes to dealing damage.
In any case remember that casters require concentration checks if they are taking ongoing damage.
Some call me Tim wrote:
Since it is already a two-handed weapon, altering the effort required to wield it by two steps increases it beyond a two-handed weapon and therefore it cannot be used.
I'm not forgetting it. If you look at my previous posts you'll find another thread discussing exactly that matter. I thought the discussion in that thread as well as others was one of the reasons they added the more specific "Inappropriately Sized Firearms" section.
You cannot make optimum use of a firearm that is not properly sized for you. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between your size and the size of the firearm. If you are not proficient with the firearm, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies. The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need to use to shoot it, the exception being siege firearms and Large or larger creatures. In most cases, a Large or larger creature can use a siege firearm as a two-handed firearm, but the creature takes a –4 penalty for using it this way because of its awkwardness.
It says you can use siege firearms as two-handed firearms. Not that you can use siege firearm of your size as a two-handed firearm.
But the reason I posed these question is of course that I am unsure how it should be interpreted. Assuming you are correct I guess we could simply change the gargantuan "Bombard, heavy" to a large "Cannon" and try to answer the same questions.
Reading about firearms I came upon the section addressing inappropriately sized firearms.
You cannot make optimum use of a firearm that is not properly sized for you. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between your size and the size of the firearm.
In most cases, a Large or larger creature can use a siege firearm as a two-handed firearm, but the creature takes a –4 penalty for using it this way because of its awkwardness.
So let's assume my Large creature is proficient with firearms (which means he is also proficient with siege firearms).
He is wielding a Gargantuan "Bombard, heavy", an Indirect-Fire Engine.
Since the rules state that he "can use a siege firearm as a two-handed firearm" what about the following:
1) He takes a -4 penalty to attack because there is two categories between the wielder's and the firearms size.
2) He takes another -4 penalty because of using the siege engine as a firearm.
3) The "Bombard, heavy" can be reloaded as a full-round action since it is used as a two-handed firearm and the rules state that two-handed firearms can be reloaded as a full-round action.
4) Does the Rapid Reload feat reduces the reload time?
5) Does the "Bombard, heavy" when wielded like this use an attack roll instead of the indirect firing since two-handed firearms use attack rolls?
6) If so, what are the range increments?
Reading about the Gunslinger on d20pfsrd.com
Rule 1 wrote:
It is a move action to load a one-handed or two-handed advanced firearm to its full capacity.
Rule 2 wrote:
Alchemical cartridges make loading a firearm easier, reducing the time to load a firearm by one step (a full-round action becomes a standard action, a standard action becomes a move action, and a move action becomes a free action), but they tend to be unstable.
Metal Cartridges used in Advanced Firearms seems to be listed in the Alchemical Cartridges table which would seem to imply that they are Alchemical Cartridges and hence that they invoke Rule 2.
I've found nothing that states that Rule 2 does work with Advanced Firearms.
This would imply that the Metal Cartridges reduces (Rule 2) the Advanced Firearms move action (Rule 1) to a free action as default. Am I missing something?
The targets of a wordspell with this effect word are nauseated; they receive another save at the end of their turn to end this effect.
Do the targets
Adam Ormond wrote:
I read it as "her" referencing the "spellcasting character" and "the class she's using" referencing the class of the "spellcasting character" used to cast the spell.
If divided into parts something like:
The sentence is pretty much directly copied from 3.5 except they use "her" instead of "your" and "she's" instead of "you're".
Admittedly English is not my primary language and of course I might be wrong. I agree that the sentence could be written much more clearly. I'd never thought about spells having caster levels at all (only characters) before reading the paragraph in the words of power rules which lead me to read the above line in the Core Rulebook.
Adam Ormond wrote:
Why doesn't a wordspell have a CL when cast? Is this something special for wordspells? I thought normal spells did have a CL?
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong. I read it as casters having a CL that was also used for the spells he casts (unless he chooses to lower it).
I'm a bit confused. What I was trying to ask was if:
maximum number of dice = minimumOf(Caster's CL, Caster's Level)
The text says that "# of dice <= wordspell’s caster level" and "# of dice <= wordcaster level".
Some of these combinations list many dice of damage. I have a question about the following paragraph:
Multiple Effect Words and Damage: If more than one effect word causes the wordspell to deal damage, the total number of dice of damage the wordspell can deal can be no greater than the wordspell’s caster level. The caster can decide which dice belong to which effect word, in any combination, so long as the total number does not exceed his wordcaster level and the number of dice allocated to a specific effect word does not exceed its maximum.
I guess the bold parts means that I need to increase both my caster level and level to increase the maximum number of allowed dice? This probably makes a lot of feat/traits/etc that increases one of those pretty useless for wordcasters.
Also it mentions "total number of dice of damage". Does this mean that RAW spells doing damage each round does damage the first round and then the coming rounds potentially could have used up all their dice? RAI I assume its the dice cap per target for each time you are damaged by the spell.
RAI I agree with you. Instant word + barrier should not create permanent non magical changes. I just think that RAW there is not enough information to tell which way it works.
Barrier + a Fire Effect seems the right way except that all the fire words have instantaneous durations, leaving me with a Wall of flames that winks out of existence moments after I cast it.
RAW I'm not so sure it winks out. Good example would be Wall of Iron. I has a instant duration and create a permanent wall of iron. If the wordspell with the barrier target word + fire effect word works the same way it would create a permanent wall of fire.
By that logic I should neither use the "Table: Size Bonuses and Penalties" to modify AC/Attack, CMB/CMD, Fly Skill and Stealth Skill when using the template as that table is also listed under the "Adding Racial Hit Dice"?
If so that raises another question. Should I increase the damage dice for natural attacks one size category?
The rules seems to have been clarified a bit since the playtest but maybe not for the better. The rules state
If a wordspell has more than one effect word, the shortest of all the effect words’ durations is used for all of the effect words.
A wizard casts the level 5 wordspellSelected, (4)Altered Form (Boost: Selected), (2)Burning Flash (Boost: Damage)
The target obviously takes CL*1d6 fire damage (Boosted for damage).
Question 1: Since Burning Flash has the shortest duration, instant, I assume this causes Altered Form to also have the duration instant. Does this mean the effects from Altered Form are basically made permanent and non-dispellable?
Question 2: Burning Flash states
If the wordspell with this effect word has only a single target, it requires a ranged touch attack to hit and does not allow a saving throw.
It states that the wordspell allows no save, not that the effect word allows no save. Does this mean that there is no save at all for the spell? Normally you would use the save of the highest level effect word requiring a save.
Some typos. Special Defense should be Defensive Abilities. I don't think there's anything called Special Defense?
Channel Resistance (Ex) is a Special Quality that is listed under Defensive Abilities. This means being listed in Special Defense does not equal not being a Special Quality.
I'm pretty sure the Special Attack and Special Defense locations in the monster entries are just there to quickly find what you are looking for and not actual type of abilities. The Special Qualities location is there to handle abilities that don't fit into other locations.
Interesting. I am however interested in RAW (or at least official) in this case . Do you have a reference for this? (as I mentioned I haven't been able to find one)
Where do you get the idea that Spell-Like Abilities are not Special Qualities? Shield Guardian lists the two Spell-Like Abilities Spell Storing (Sp) and Shield Other (Sp) as Special Qualities.
What is the definition of "Special Quality"? I've not been able to find a definition. I know that some abilities, such as Amphibious (Ex), state that they are special qualities but I've not been able to find anything saying that all abilities are special qualities.
I know monster entries have a SQ row. However I do not think this necessarily is all the special qualities the monster has.
Two examples of this:
So, is there a definition of "Special Quality"? If there is not, is there an official response about exactly what counts as special qualities?
Hama, Reefwood I find your reasoning a bit weird. I agree that a spell storing weapon can only holds one spell.
The text reads: "this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities"
If the Woctopus instead was equipping a Flaming Amulet of Mighty Fists would you agree that each of its natural attacks would deal +1d6 fire damage? If so the amulet must have granted the flaming special ability to each natural weapon since they are different weapons.
For fun lets consider a natural Were Giant Octopus in hybrid form.
Whited Sepulcher wrote:
Also check out the APG for the spell component options, you can add a flask of acid and it'll make the grease over time cause 1 point of acid damage for as long as they hold the item (or wearing the armor if you want to be cruel).
This sounds interesting. Where exactly can I find these rules?
How does Hamatula Strike work with
Benefit: Whenever you damage an opponent with a piercing weapon, you can immediately make a grapple check; success means the opponent is impaled on your weapon and you both gain the grappled condition. While the opponent is impaled, as an attack action you may make a grapple check on your turn at a -4 penalty to damage the opponent with your weapon, even if your weapon cannot normally be used in a grapple.
First, I think the rules are badly worded in the Effect Words section. There is no clear distinction between effect word and spell. In all Effect Word Descriptions the text reads "This spell" where it probably should be "This effect word". More so, in the effect word section you can read things like "If the spell has a boost option...". Spells don't have boost options, effect words do.
Some effect words change the spell to require a touch attack when used with the single target word. Let's consider a level 2 spell with the words:
Flame Jet states that "If the spell has only a single target, it requires a melee or ranged touch attack to hit and does not allow a saving throw".
Question 1: It's the Flame Jet effect word's save that is changed from Reflex Half to None not the entire spell's save that is set to None, correct? Resulting in a spell with Will negates save for the Simple Order effect and not a spell with no save. RAW I think you could read this as the spell having no save.
Question 2: The spell requires a melee or ranged touch attack since one of the effects require it?
Question 3: Consider a spell consisting of the single target word and two effect words. One effect word requires a melee or ranged touch attack. The other requires a ranged touch attack. The spell requires a ranged touch attack since this is the only overlapping option?
Prone targets are flat-footed so it kinda balances out, and although it isn't RAW, any GM that invokes that rule in that specific situation (point blank standing over target) isn't worthy of the game. Don't forget there is a spirit to the rules.
1. Where does it say that prone targets are flat-footed? I didn't find it in the prone condition rules.
2. There is no reason why he shouldn't get his +4 bonus to AC. The rules explicitly states so.
Of course I can't stop you from house ruling stuff but you really should write this stuff down before you start playing. I'm pretty sure people wouldn't be happy if they dropped prone to avoid an attack and then the GM totally ignored the written rules.
j l 629 wrote:
How about vital strike?
The way I'm reading it. If you use your standard action on the attack action with a gun loaded with pellets it would only apply Vital Strike to one of the creatures in the cone.
Scatter Special Quality wrote:
A weapon with the scatter special quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. When it attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes one attack per creature within in the cone, and each attack takes a –2 penalty. If any of the attacks threaten a critical, confirm the critical for that creature alone. If a scatter weapon explodes on a misfire, it deals triple its damage to all creatures within the misfire radius.
Vital Strike wrote wrote:
When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.
Yay, common sense prevailed.
This however raises the question about how you interact with ridiculously oversized weapons. The following rules concerns when you become unable to use a weapon
Weapon Size wrote:
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.
Since Stephen seems to have stated that changing a firearms size doesn't change its designation you could reason that you can wield a Colossal Revolver as a one-handed weapon. The only thing that seems to prevent you from normally using a bigger weapon is it being neither a light, one-handed or two-handed weapon for you.
However he also stated that "Guns work different" so they might pull something out of the air against that (and yes, it would make sense to do so).