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

Lune's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,985 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 4 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 1,985 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Joesi wrote:
No I don't consider it to be obscure. I never brought up the word obscure, so I don't know why you're bringing that up.

Because you had said, "Are you saying that because people do those builds that they make sense or are balanced, or what?" Perhaps I assumed incorrectly that the problem you had with these builds is that they were niche corner cases and were obscure. But to answer your question, yes. I do think that they make sense and are balanced (to the same degree as many things in Pathfinder). But then, perhaps I have a more creative and open mind than some others may to such things.

Joesi wrote:
The monk-druid I'd take issue with balance wise, since it would use monk's fist damage modified by monk's size when in my opinion it's assumed the monk is in their natural form when performing such attacks. In addition many creatures don't have the anatomy to perform strikes the way that humanoids do, the only people who are presumed to be able to perform unarmed strikes, since natural attacks are assumed for most non-humanoid shape creatures.

Have you taken a look at prototype00's guide for Bear Fisted fighting? I think you may have underestimated the potential of such a build. I know that your retort will be that you don't think it is balanced but I will remind you that this thread was a rules question. The original poster was asking about the legality of his question. Your opinion on whether it is balanced is not required for it to be legal. ...of course you are still welcome to share it.

And, as has already been pointed out by the others, your opinion is an incorrect reflection of what the rules state.

Joesi wrote:
Lune wrote:
As far as whether it is balanced or not... well, I think that was all considered during the advent of Pathfinder. If the Devs didn't think it was balanced then they wouldn't have wrote it into the rules the way that they did.

No, that is an assumption, and a poor one since they oftentimes write all sorts of things that they change or clarify later on.

In addition, for this game not changing something would just means that it's not imbalanced enough to be an issue, not that something isn't imbalanced at all.

Wait... so you are saying that the reason they put those rules in the book after considering this during the development of Pathfinder is because they thought that it was unbalanced when they made the system? Or just that because they have failed to make any change or update disallowing it since the release of the system that this would be because it is unbalanced?

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense at all. And if the Devs thought that it was unbalanced or misinterpreted they could have done an errata or FAQ. The fact that they haven't makes it a safe assumption that they believe that it is balanced and does not need a FAQ or errata. I would point out that you, yourself are making an assumption thinking that the Devs do believe that it is unbalanced or misinterpreted but I am not even clear if that is what you are saying as there seems to be no basis for this assumption outside of your personal opinion on game balance.

Lune wrote:
If it isn't obvious I fall into the group of people that believe it is just as balanced to allow Unarmed Strikers to use Natural Attacks in combination as it is for Manufactured Weapon users.
Joesi wrote:
That's a poor way of wording your view in my opinion, because it's exactly what I'm advocating as well. The issue I have is in certain scenarios where it's unrealistic that a creature could attack with certain limbs/organs with unarmed strike (for example, how is a tiger supposed to claw, claw, bite, unarmed? kick with its tiger leg?). In addition, polymorphed creatures aren't balanced around being able to perform unarmed strikes.

I'm sorry that you dislike my wording. Once again, I believe this is balanced. Apparently we disagree? Maybe we don't because you say that is exactly what you are advocating? Honestly, I am confused at this point if we have a disagreement.

Nonetheless, I believe it is irrelevant to this thread as the OP is not asking if it is balanced or not. He is asking whether it is legal within the rules.

Joesi wrote:
Doesn't mean I can't contribute my logical opinion. There's all sorts of things that can be broken by simply following strictly what the rules state and ignoring everything else. Reasonable groups or GMs don't allow certain blind "as written" following of rules.

And likewise, I never said you cannot share your opinion. Feel free. I simply stated that it is not relevant to the topic of this thread. People come to a rules thread to find out if something is rules legal or not. Discussing whether or not something is balanced or not isn't typically very helpful to the individual and typically belongs in a different forum. I have a feeling this will not deter you, though... so feel free to keep sharing, I guess.

The rules question has been answered.

Azgara wrote:
Why are so many people focused on rolling, is this not a roleplaying game and not a rollplaying game.

I would like to point out that these two things are not mutually exclusive. A single person can enjoy both things. This is possible.

Neither are so-called "Power Gaming" (aka, making an effective character) and roleplaying. Some people enjoy both things. This is also possible.

To me it sounds like your players are telling me that the change you are suggesting would affect their fun. This has been echoed in by several in the thread. Personally, I agree. I like iterative attacks and taking that away from martials is definitely a nerf. It should matter less what we think though. My concern would be if you were dismissing your player's opinions, though.

Good suggestions have been given here on how to speed up your game. Action economy changes and removal of iterative attacks isn't the solution to this problem. One other suggestion I would like to offer is the use of initiative cards and assigning the tracking of initiative to one player (even perhaps giving him a small reward for doing so).

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You missed "way" in your topic.

SirPeter: Don't feel bad. In the play test you were correct. This was a change they made when the printed version of the book went out. There are several people (including myself) who are strongly opposed to that rule change.

Look, this thread clearly isn't about the original poster. How dare you even bring them into this debate!?

Ellias Aubec, I was going to bring that up as well. It was an issue I had to wrestle with when I did my build for a fox. It is rough because it puts off my first level of Monk until 4th. But at least before then I can wear armor so it isn't a total loss.

Really? Dang... I really need to get that.

Skylancer: That is pretty close to my build that I shared with BNW minus the Unchained bit. I don't have Unchained and doubt it will ever be PFS legal. The character I am playing is for PFS.

Ross: Right you are. I have played many MMOs dating back to EQ and UO. EQ I think was the first that had an agro system similar to what is used today. Unless there was one that predated it that I am unfamiliar with?

Joesi: Did you think that the builds that I actually mentioned were "obscure"? They are all from the Core rule book. I'm not sure what your definition of "obscure" is.

As far as whether it is balanced or not... well, I think that was all considered during the advent of Pathfinder. If the Devs didn't think it was balanced then they wouldn't have wrote it into the rules the way that they did. If it isn't obvious I fall into the group of people that believe it is just as balanced to allow Unarmed Strikers to use Natural Attacks in combination as it is for Manufactured Weapon users. Luckily, the rules agree with me.

By the way, "the issue at hand" is not whether they are balanced or not. That is not the topic of the thread. The OP is asking if it is legal. And the answer to that is an unequivocal and resounding "yes".

Tamur Mirza: Thank you for this. I haven't taken a look at Unchained yet but I plan on it. This is good information in the meantime and certainly has my interest.

Guild Wars doesn't have a very good agro system. I think the term more than likely came from WoW. And while I like the mechanic in a game like that it doesn't belong in a game like Pathfinder.

Hunter hands down will give the most powerful Animal Companion. I particularly like the Primal Companion Hunter. It allows you to get a two headed Trex with (the equivalent of) double Improved Natural Attack.

I also strongly recommend anyone wanting to focus on having a big badass Animal Companion taking a look at the Mammoth Rider PrC. That allows you to get your Animal Companion up to Huge size with a single level. With Animal Growth or similar spells you could get it up to Gargantuan (the size that a Trex should be).

With Strong Jaw you can get your AC's bite attack up by 4 size categories. If you prefer you could go with the Vital Strike line of feats to roll a crazy amount of dice. I would also recommend taking a look at the Lockjaw spell for this kind of AC. Two belts work exceptionally good for this kind of build and it is a tough choice between them. Anaconda's Coils and Belt of Thunderous Charging. The former gives Constrict while the latter gives another size increase to natural attacks while charging. If you are in a home game you could reverse engineer the item and give both qualities to a single belt. Don't forget to get Rhino Hide barding for your AC.

Top that off with the Skirmisher tricks and you can give your AC an extra attack every round for crazy big damage.

I'll second (third? fourth?) the suggestion of Spirit's Gift feat as well. With Hunter if your first 3 feats are Combat Expertise, Pack Flanking and for the Precise Companion Feat take Outflank and now both you and your AC are getting +4 to hit on every attack. Add Broken Wing Gambit to each get an additional attack every round. Take Paired Opportunist and both of you are getting +8 to your AoOs generated from Broken Wing Gambit.

Even if your actual character does nothing except be a feat giving saddle ornament your actual Animal Companioon (you know... the character that you are actually playing) is going to be a total beast. Not much should survive that kind of build.

Be the most desirable target.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a Thorny Trex that a village of Vegepygmies managed to summon as their demi-god in my home game. I decided they would call him Bloodfeast. ;)

To the OP: I highly recommend that there be a Hunter in your Inner World region that has the Primal Hunter Archetype and has Boon Companion and a 2 headed Trex Animal Companion.

The question of the interaction between unarmed and natural attacks isn't one that you have to get very complicated to come up. You don't have to go beyond CORE and it could come up with a Monk 1/Druid 4. Or anyone assuming the form of a creature by any means and then using the Improved Unarmed Strike feat they have in conjunction with natural attacks. Or a Draconic blooded Sorcerer 1 that takes Improved Unarmed Strike and wants to Claw/Claw/Kick. The topic can come up with a pretty basic Core character with no need of "blurring the lines". Saying that it wasn't the "what the intent of the rules was/should be" couldn't be further from the truth. There are several characters who are designed to use natural attacks and unarmed strikes.

I'm sorry, Darkrist. I can't agree with a single thing you said there. This is something that can happen from the earliest levels and from only Core material. It is something that is covered in the base rules as well. While I do not blame Cheapy for posting the question here (mostly due to SKR's old contrary post being confusing when referencing the RAW), the actual printed rules on how this is handled are clear. They are not "aberrant" at all.

Let me try to ask some probing questions here that might help us give you more directly helpful feedback:
1. What role do you want this character to fulfill in your party?
2. Have you considered what tactics you would like your character to employ in combat?
3. What type of weapon are you considering using? 1-handed, 2-handed, two weapon fighting, sword and board, polearm/reach weapon?
4. Are skills important to your concept? Which ones?
5. Is bolstering your party a large part of your concept?
6. Do you have any compunctions about which race you would like to play?
7. What resources are allowed? Is this a PFS game or home game?

Th3taSigma: I answered your question. Did you read Wild Shape? Aside from the other class features that a druid gets after gaining Wild Shape (a more powerful animal companion, Venom Immunity, A Thousand Faces, Timeless Body, more spells, etc.) your Wild Shape ability itself improves.

Wild Shape:

At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

A druid loses her ability to speak while in animal form because she is limited to the sounds that a normal, untrained animal can make, but she can communicate normally with other animals of the same general grouping as her new form. (The normal sound a wild parrot makes is a squawk, so changing to this form does not permit speech.)

A druid can use this ability an additional time per day at 6th level and every two levels thereafter, for a total of eight times at 18th level. At 20th level, a druid can use wild shape at will. As a druid gains in levels, this ability allows the druid to take on the form of larger and smaller animals, elementals, and plants. Each form expends one daily usage of this ability, regardless of the form taken.

At 6th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a Large or Tiny animal or a Small elemental. When taking the form of an animal, a druid's wild shape now functions as beast shape II. When taking the form of an elemental, the druid's wild shape functions as elemental body I.

At 8th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a Huge or Diminutive animal, a Medium elemental, or a Small or Medium plant creature. When taking the form of animals, a druid's wild shape now functions as beast shape III. When taking the form of an elemental, the druid's wild shape now functions as elemental body II. When taking the form of a plant creature, the druid's wild shape functions as plant shape I.

At 10th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a Large elemental or a Large plant creature. When taking the form of an elemental, the druid's wild shape now functions as elemental body III. When taking the form of a plant, the druid's wild shape now functions as plant shape II.

At 12th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a Huge elemental or a Huge plant creature. When taking the form of an elemental, the druid's wild shape now functions as elemental body IV. When taking the form of a plant, the druid's wild shape now functions as plant shape III.

JiCi wrote:
Ok, you're harping on that way too much or you're overthinking about it to the extreme...

It is funny, because I think that is exactly what YOU are doing.

JiCi wrote:

I'll say it again:

1) The Order's abilities
2) The abilities related to helping the group
3) The idea that a cavalier isn't just a Lego-built fighter who STILL can't serve a purpose in a game session
4) The cavalier's roleplay opportunities (yes, to me, that's important)

First of all, saying "I'll say it again" isn't really being truthful, is it? If you look back at every time I asked this question you did not answer it until now. The closest you got was saying "The fluff... and the exclusive abilities." In my last post I was pointing out, as Imbicatus and Chess Pwn (thanx, guys) have reiterated, that the "fluff" is something that you can apply to any character regardless of class. And as far as the "exclusive abilities" goes... well, right now I think we are all wondering which abilities you believe are "exclusive". Also, that answer was pretty vague and still left us guessing what it was you were referring to.

Secondly, as Chess Pwn pointed out this has been answered for you already. He also provided some links that it seems like you must not have been familiar with before. The last chart on this page shows you which Cavalier archetypes replace mount. It also shows you which are Paizo created and which are 3rd party published.

JiCi wrote:
3) A mount is NOT ideal for dungeoneering... regardless of how you look at it. Fine, if you have a wide-open space campaign, but yeah... good luck even predicting this...

Despite the fact that multiple people have pointed out the fact that there are ways to still be mounted while in dungeons you seem pretty stuck on not wanting a mount. That is fine. However, when you say that you want to play a Cavalier in large part because of fluff but not use a mount ...well, that confuses us. It seems like you are declaring some of their class abilities as fluff centric and others not. I wonder how you are deciding this? It really starts to seem like a convenient way of not answering the question of which mechanics you want to keep from Cavalier and which you could do without.

JiCi wrote:
Why WOULDN'T I pick a class for fluff reasons? D&D isn't a video game where everything about your PC is fleshed out for you y'know. THAT's important to consider when creating a character. Maybe you don't care and only see into abilities and how much damage you can deal a round, but I go further than that...

*sigh* You know, I am really trying to remain helpful to you, Jici, but that post is coming close to a personal attack. I do not think you know me well enough to state that I only care about raw numbers on a character. However, I can tell from that that rather short sighted statement that it seems like you belong to the group of people who believe that power gaming (aka making an effective character) and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. That opinion is based on fallacy and I can tell you there are several people on these boards who enjoy both equally, myself included.

When I make a character I typically think of a concept and then I go find rules and mechanics that help to bring that concept to life. I do this not just to make a character effective but also to make that image I have in my head come to life with the abilities that such a concept should have. Many people here do the same thing.

So, when you ask why wouldn't you pick a class for fluff reasons? Well, I think that has already been answered for you.

To try to understand where we are coming from when we are trying to help you: we are not going to be helpful in answering fluff questions? The reason is because you can fluff your character however you want regardless of what the name of the class is that you pick. I think you already know this because despite wanting to play a "Cavalier" you do not wish to have or use a mount. You could do that without modifying the base Cavalier and just never use your mount. But you want other abilities in place of your mount. This is when we have to ask the question of which abilities are you looking for in this character and which abilities do you not want. It really does boil down to you asking a question that is rooted in mechanics, you see.

The sooner any poster realizes that the best route to getting the abilities that they want out of a character may not be the first class, feat or ability they thought of the sooner we are able to get to actually providing useful, helpful feedback. We are not looking to talk you out of playing a Cavalier. We are trying to understand what you want the character to do so that we can provide you with feedback that fits your desires.

I agree with graystone whole heartedly. Your opinion (Kchaka), is fine for a house rule. But that is not the way that the rules are written.

But, at least after your clarification you are being even handed in your house rules; not giving manufactured weapon users an edge over unarmed strikers.

*imagines a world where people can go to a forum and share their opinion on a topic without being told by other posters that you have some kind of thread superiority complex for bumping a thread by pretend thread police or think that a topic may have a part in the martial/caster disparity by someone who was only just recently advocating engaging in dialog with one another*

If you are going to attack me for what I say please attack the content, not my right to say it. If you would like to have some actual discourse on my points I welcome it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

The fluff... and the exclusive abilities. I'm usually a Fighter PC who like to explore some fighting styles, but a cavalier has AT LEAST a flavorful reason to be fighting. You have your whole reputation and hierachy and order to back your story and roleplaying opportunities. Also, the challenges are a great way to battle. Finally, the cavalier is made to be a team player, which, like any spellcaster, is valuable to a group.

The fighter has become your typical shoot-first-ask-questions-later or kick-in-the-door style PC with little to no interesting story to create your character and little to no ability that makes you more than your typical sellsword.

While I do not want to turn this into a discussion about the fighter, these are my reasons: I get a better character in and out of combat with the cavalier... or the samurai to a certain extend.

However, considering the huge amount of dungeonneering, I can't go in with a mounted character, even if the mount is Medium. That's why I'm asking for ideas to replace the mount-related abilities by something else. I'll be doing more climbing and crawling than walking.

You see, I do not actually buy that you are taking the class for fluff reasons. This is mostly due to your desire to throw out more than half of the fluff. So, I would ask you again what reasons you want to go with this class but I kind of tire of asking that question as I do not feel that I will get a straight answer.

I think the issue is that we do not see eye-to eye on this topic. I have never believed that taking ANY class due to fluff was a valid reason to take a class. Ever. Want to know why? Because I do not believe in being force fed the fluff that is written in the book. I can fluff my character however I like to. There is no one who can stop me. Furthermore, I have had personal conversations with several designers and I can tell you that even if they could force you to they wouldn't want to. They believe that these decisions about a character firmly should rest in a player's hands.

You see, "Cavalier" and "Fighters" are just names of classes that we can use to conveniently refer to a set of rules we are using to design a character that we want to play. The designer's job is to throw together these toolboxes that we can use to design the type of character we want to play. Fluff is something you come up with yourself and apply to the character as you see fit.

You want your Breaker Barbarian with the Trap Breaker feat to have a steampunk style? Go for it. Do you need the rules to match up with that? No. Why? Its fluff! Do you want your Cavalier to not be a knight in shining armor type and be more of a drunken murder hobo that happens to have a horse for a friend? Awesome, do it. Do you need rules to back you up? Nope, its fluff. You add it as you like. Like salt and pepper. You don't want the mount anymore because it doesn't fit your fluff? Take a archtype that doesn't give the mount.

Where this falls apart at though is if you are saying you want to go with a Cavalier because you like the "fluff". The mount is more than half of the Cavalier's "fluff". Unless by fluff you are just talking about the way you want the character to act, look and feel. If it is the latter, well... then that isn't Cavalier. That is how YOU make the character look, act and feel. You could do the same thing with a Fighter, a Ranger or a Barbarian. The fluff is up to you.

Now... if we return to the question that I have asked repeatedly:
Why do you want to play a CAVALIER? Like, what mechanics do you want out of the class?

Because if there are no mechanical reasons that you want to go with the class and you do not want to use the mount then I am better that there are a lot better ways to meet the character concept that you have in mind rather than going with a mount focused class.

If you do not answer this question then we are severely limited in the assistance that we can provide.

Larger (or smaller, or more elemental, or more plantish), more frequent and more powerful wild shapes.

I think you put the quoties around the wrong words. It clearly belongs around the word "problem". It is only a problem if you perceive it as such and I definitely belong to the group who does not.

Martials in general are frequently beat with a nerf stick and Monks specifically get the short end of that stick. Allowing martials who use manufactured weapons to get full iterative plus all natural attacks (minus any limbs used to make said iteratives) but not giving Monks (or any character using Improved Unarmed Strikes) the same opportunity seems shortsighted, unnecessarily unfair, and like transparently purposeful childish Monk-hate.

...and for what? Some perceived "problem"? I do not see what problem this can cause for an unarmed striker that is not also caused with a manufactured weapon user. I really would love to quash this debate. It would be better to bring it back on track to something that at least potentially hurts ALL martials rather than just the Unarmed Strikers. Gosh, that was actually hard to say.

Ok, yeah. That looks solid. Definitely recommending that he take another look at this thread.

JiCi wrote:
Lune wrote:

Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?

I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.

My main reason is the fact that riding a mount inside a catacomb, an abandoned temple, a cliffside observatory or a crumbling mine... isn't practical :P Basically, it's to deal with your typical dungeons.

Also, like I stated, the paladin can get either a weapon bond or a mount... but the cavalier doesn't have such an option.

I'm sorry, JiCi, but that doesn't really answer the question. Why do you want to play a Cavalier in the first place?

Out of curiosity why do you want to play a Cavalier if you do not want to use the mount? In other words, what is it that you want out of the Cavalier that you do not think you can get elsewhere?

I ask because it is likely possible to get the abilities you want from a different class.

Kryzbyn: My son is using a lance, buckler and spiked gauntlet on his character. He is a Halfling by the way. What is this feat you are referring to?

Eternatural 1: Still, knowing the parent class isn't required for knowing that bonuses from like named abilities do not stack. That is a rule by itself.

I recommend that along with Zwordsman's suggestions that you also use Lingering Spirit and the Deathless line of feats. Take a single level of Barbarian for Rage and get Berserker of the Society for +3 Rage rounds. For race I recommend Half-Orc and take the Alternate Racial Trait to get Endurance as a free Feat.

Definitely take Ablative Barrier as it goes very well with healing discoveries.

No, YOU aren't contributing anything to the conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the reason is: paying tribute?

Other than fluff I'm not seeing a reason to mention it. It is just a new class that happens to share some of the abilities of other classes.

MOMS Monk for 1 level gets you early entry. It also gets you Wis to AC which I'm sure will be more helpful than not. Unless you plan on your Fox wearing Tiny Barding?

Of course it doesn't allow you to go Barbarian but I think that constant +4 makes up for it.

Same here. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stating that they cannot be combined.

An old post by a Dev giving "clarification" on the rules doesn't fly here. If that is the way the rules work Paizo has had ample opportunity to change the rules. And it would be a change because the existing rules allow it.

Saying, "The statement 'so long as a different limb is used for each attack' is inaccurate." is, in and of itself, not accurate. The book's rules are accurate. And if they are not then they have the opportunity to change them. Oh, they haven't changed the rules? Good. No FAQ needed.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Heh, trunuf.

Honestly, I don't know why they even bother to mention the parent classes anymore. Since they removed the rule after playtest that you can take levels in your parent classes it doesn't make a lot of sense. (a ruling I was strongly opposed to having changed) They might as well be entirely different classes. They are treated that way for everything anyway.

edit: He has a Chocobo (Axe Beak) by the way, so perhaps Final Fantasy References are more accurate. heh

Thank you all for providing you perspective on this guys. I looked it up myself and couldn't find anything that said the language came over. I figured it could have been buried somewhere in the hybrid classes section that I wasn't seeing but dug out my book to double check. I recommended that LordAwesome come to the boards and ask himself.

LordAwesome is my son, by the way. :)

Corvino: I think in his last post he was replying to you. That is the exact combo he is going with. Well, he hasn't decided on Broken Wing Gambit yet, but the rest is there. He is only 2nd level thus far.

Have you considered Monkey Shine?

Ever seen that trick where a magician pulls the sheet off a table leaving all of the dishes and such intact?

...its like that. Except with your skin.

Byakko: I think BBT was mostly referring to Joesi and those who may share an opinion with him (if there are any?). You and BBT (and myself and many others here at least) seem to be of the same opinion.

I have made a couple of posts on this topic recently and have resolved myself to the fact that the rules are on my side. It outright says that you can use Unarmed Strikes with Natural Attacks. Despite several year old posts and ample opportunities to give errata or change rules that are printed this has not been done. This leads me to believe that the rules in the book are the intended rules. Even if someone has a different opinion on what was intended it still doesn't matter. The rules are what is printed and that is what is followed in the overwhelming majority of home games and PFS.

In short: the rules say it works. So it works. People wanting to debate whether or not it works can argue with the Devs to try to institute a rules change if they'd like. But it would necessitate an actual change as status quo is that it works.

People who just want to complain about the fact that it works... well, I don't care. To me this stems from a lack of imagination. There are far more fantastic things that happen in Pathfinder than a bear throwing a roundhouse.

I ran an encounter with the thing and reading that stat block just frustrated me in trying to figure out what they intended...

I thought the same thing but I looked it up on other web resources and it is printed the same way. I do not own the book. Does anyone own the book it is from to check?

Otherwise, I would think that is one of the best creatures ever for reach. Its reach is redonkulous.

On the Canopy Creeper... did you see it's "reach"?

pauljathome wrote:
The phrase is "weapons or tools". To me a shield pretty clearly falls under that definition. It would be more than a lot silly to allow an ape to use a shield but to NOT let it use a fishing stick.

I disagree. I can easily see a gorilla lacking the fine motor control with his big meat hook of hands to properly use a fishing pole. However, a big slap of steel strapped to his arm... no problem.

Now, if you give the ape human level intelligence and spend the proper time teaching it the use of the item in question (thats two feats: extra item slot and shield proficiency) you have made the requisite investment to allow him to use that item. I can see this even working for things he needs fine motor control to use.

claudekennilol: So you believe that because they did not specifically mention shields that they did mean shields?

I'm sorry, that logic doesn't follow.

Divvox2, I hate to tell you this but it is unfortunately likely true in this scenario: expect table variation.

My personal belief is that the rules on this are contradictory. If you look at the chart for animal item slots it has a column for "grasp". It says:
"Some creater body types are able to grasp and carry one object at a time in their paws, claws, or hands including weapons, rods, wands, and staves, though they may not be able to use such items effectively (GM's discretion) and take penalties for nonproficiency as usual."

So I disagree with claudekennilol that it is a straight out "no" in PFS. However, I think that at best something with a "GM's discretion") is going to be just that unless there is a specific PFS ruling.

I think the logical reading of those rules is to believe that with the proper Int and Proficiencies and Feats that your companion would be able to wield a weapon. Actually, I think I can remember some Paizo published material that had an Animal Companion using a weapon but I can't seem to remember where it was from.

...that being said, some PFS GMs tend to have weird interpretations of what RAW means. I recently made a post regarding this very topic where I was concerned about the potential of a PFS GM ruling against Natural Attacks working with Unarmed Strikes, myself. So even though I am pretty clear on RAW and their intention sometimes it doesn't matter how clear I am as I am not the one ruling on something.

My personal feeling is that I am completely unclear what SKR's point was in the linked post. I have read that whole thread more than once and come away more confused than I went in. On the other hand I read the rules and they seem pretty clear to me.

I side pretty firmly with BBT and graystone on this one. The rules allow them to work together unless you are trying to use the same limb for both attacks. If the design team wanted to change the rules then they have had plenty of opportunity to do so since 2012.

And to be perfectly clear, I agree that this would be an actual change or errata if they were to do so. The intention is clear within the rules already. It spells it out plain and simple. Making Natural Attacks NOT work in conjunction with Unarmed Strikes would be a retraction, rules change or errata. It would not be a clarification of intent.

Since that hasn't happened, I'm sticking with RAW. Luckily in PFS they are required to stick to RAW as well. I think I would honestly prefer that a retraction, rules change or errata not happen here. Nonetheless, as there still seems to be confusion in some peoples minds about this (likely due to SKR's post which was ironically meant to quell said confusion) I hit FAQ for their benefit.

Hm. I'll try to remember to post my son's character build.

How about a Circlet of Persuasion?

I second LazarX's suggestion, especially if this is supposed to be a background buffer character.

For a more active role 7crown has good suggestions. But if this is a DM PC then it might be better in the background.

Hm... I was thinking of the Bracelet of Second Chances, but it seems that might be different. Nevermind. Carry on.

1 to 50 of 1,985 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.