1) Yes. But expect funny looks.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
You're both saying something to the effect of "yes, with DM approval" - but what if I'm talking about an Organized Play character?
For PFS, from what I recall you can actually craft your bonded item, you should be able to craft your staff (at 11th level). You should be able to make all the spells selections/charge costs so longs as its legal.
You'll not be able to use the Shadow Stencils as a bonded item, because its not one of the listed objects.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Can anyone answer my questions?
Yes, your GM.
You should be able to make any staff you could with the craft staff feat. So you could pick the spells, charges requirements, and caster level (still with a minimum of 8 and a max of your caster level).
As a GM I'd let you consider your Shadow Stencils your bonded item. I'd be less likely to say you could enchant them as a staff or wand. If you want a staff or wand choose that. I might let you attach the Shadow Stencil ability to staff for a significant +gp cost but certainly not for free.
Activating bit of luck is a standard action. Then for a duration of one round, every time the target would roll a d20 he instead rolls two d20s and can pick which of the two to use.
Vult Wrathblades wrote:
There are lots of other +AC feats, and I don't think any of them reach the +3 level. Much less +4 for cover, or total cover ala a tower shield which immunity from a number of attack.
I might suggest, making the feat give a +1 shield bonus to AC (and nonfunctional vestigial wings) available at level 1. And have the feat scale to +2 if the user has the angelic wings feat, and +3 with metallic wings. I think cover/total cover is a bit much especially if you don't translate over the tower shield attack penalty.
They typically don't print a two-weapon fighting or multiweapon fighting attack line unless they have the feat. But yes it could make attacks with all 4 arms.
It would be unarmed strike -1 (1d6+1), 3 unarmed strike -5 (1d6).
How have people had abundant amunition work with gunslingers? Obviously it will work on bullets, but what about the black powder that goes with it, etc?
The majority of time they use it with alchemical cartridges. Which is a nice all in one piece of ammunition.
I imagine most people consider black powder to be part of the ammunition for purposes of abundant ammunition though it might technically be incorrect, I tend to think that it falls within the RAI of the spell.
Staves suffer from two problems.
1st) they are essentially a bigger better wand. This was more true in 3.x than Pathfinder, but a lot of it holds over. Like taking an 11th level caster level to create them, and the minimum caster level 8. So your low level casters are expected to use wands rather than staves.
2nd) They try to do too much (at least for Paizo published staff), and thus the cost greatly out paces their usefulness. Chances are when you look at a staff, you see one spell you want to cast for the charges, and the rest are of minimal usefulness. Thematically it might be cool that the staff of fire casts burning hands/fireball/wall of fire but you really only care about the fireball and paying for the other spells more than doubled the price for stuff you don't care all that much about.
(And the staff of fire is generally considered one of the more reasonable priced staves in the core book.)
If you custom create staves with a single spell, I think they'd see a lot more use. Or if you significantly reduced the cost of secondary spell (especially if they are thematically similar).
I think its a interesting conceptual item that could provide for fun interaction. I also think its potentially game breaking. I'd be much more tempted to give the item unlimited mage hand. I can generate most of the same interactions and it does not have nearly the same effect on game balance.
As far as pricing it. I'd price I think Ravingdork has the right item its kind of like casting telekinesis with the familiar meta magic unlimited times. So about 8*15*1800 or 216,000 gp. Then discounted by 50% because its the bonded item.
You do know that Seeker of Secrets (the first source book for Boon Companion) was part of the Core Assumption that every player was suppose to have had, listed right next to the core rulebook for Pathfinder Society play for seasons 0,1,2 and beyond. Its since been removed, as its many years out of print, but I expect an awful lot of players to own it because of this.
In general its much better to ask someone how they accomplished something than to baldly accuse them of dishonesty.
The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Very true. If you don't want firearms to be viable weapons or comparable in damage output to a bow. Then limiting their reloads to significantly fewer than the bow will certainly accomplish that.
If the FAQ stated: We want the bow to be undisputed king of all ranged weaponry. Therefore all weapons except for the bows are subject to this free action limitation. Then there would have been far less confusion. And no one would have mistaken believed they were only trying to reign in double barrel/two weapon fighting firearms.
The 10 / 03 / 13 FAQ suggests drawing an arrow 3 times is the max you can draw is a reasonable limit.
If the comparative fighter with a bow can deal an average X points of damage a round at any given level. Then a fighter with a gun (any poor sod who wants to use a ranged weapon other than a bow) needs to be able to deal about an somewhere in the ballpark of an average X points of damage in a round.
If you limit the firearm user to a half number of shots of the bow, then it should be dealing about twice the damage per shot. But the reasonable answer isn't half. Half would scale with the archer. A limit on free actions doesn't scale.
If the firearm wielder is balanced at level 6 with 3 shots, to the archer with 4 at level 6. Then the archer is going to be miles ahead with 7 at level 16 if the firearm wielder is still at 3.
If you limit the firearm wielder to 3 shots, then the firearm will go the way of the crossbow, and be the weapon of wizards and clerics. No competent full BAB character would ever even consider it as an alternative. Much like crossbows/slings have been for the past decade. If you want firearms to be like unused.
Are we really arguing whether or not the developers intended to have so many free actions for using firearms when they just made a FAQ about free actions entirely due to using firearms basically saying "No, that's not intended"?
I really don't think it was entirely due to firearms. Free actions can be abused. And the question does come up. I've seen people try to just fast mount/dismount to get free movement by jumping over horses. I've seen people quickdraw 15 weapons and drop all as free actions in a round, so they have ammunition for telekinesis. Free actions can be abused and the question comes up enough, I don't remotely think a FAQ post about free actions is at all unreasonable.
The only thing the FAQ really says about firearms in particular is the reloading is a repetitive action. And of course the universally reviled idea of loosing reloads for speaking. And if only reading the FAQ I could easily see reloading any weapon be exchanged for a reloading a firearm.
And I am sorry. But yeah I have to believe when they designed the class they had the full attack action in mind. Maybe they thought 'Dead Shot' would have been the action that gunslingers used in the majority of combat rounds, but that's just vital strike as a full round action and vital strike isn't very popular for a reason. I have to believe any amount of research or play testing would have come to a similar conclusion.
Same thing goes for the proposed 3 shot limit. With a 3 shot limit the high level gunslinger is in a worse position that the crossbowman. In terms of damage per round against a reasonable AC. Targeting touch AC looses a lot of benefit if you dramatically reduce the number of attacks. A full BAB character your first attacks (1st attack, haste attack, rapid shot) are hitting on 2+ on a huge percentage of targets at levels 11+. If you wanted a class to replace bards/monks as the perceived worst class in the game then this suggestion should get you there.
.... No one uses lightning reload (other than to save 1gp a round on ammo costs). They use the feat rapid reload, and alchemist cartridges (and rapid reloader if a musketeer).
They had to expect a 4 attacks + rapid shot + haste. And since firing that many shots would take 12 free actions (6 to draw ammo/6 to load). Discounting whatever free actions it takes to free up hands for the various tasks.
And I just can't fathom what they were thinking when printing double barrel guns. Or I should rephrase that, the double barrel gun (particularly the shotgun) is a staple of firearm history. But the mechanic of doubling your attacks per round is crazy powerful and just begs for abuse. They knew about this when they printed the double crossbow and I really think double barrel deserved an errata from day 1. (ie take a standard action to fire both barrels at once)
I can honestly see two weapon fighting slipping under the radar. I mean no one really does it with crossbows (I have seen this done, but it was never a build people would recommend to friends), despite having similar rules about reloading and hand usage. And anyone who actually describes what is happening.. well I know I can't due it with straight face while claiming its reasonable.
I thought the balancing factor to firearms was suppose to be the misfire chance. I find most firearm builds become game breaking at the point you ignore misfire. Either by having a Greater Reliable firearm or by being a 13th level pistol/musket archetype. When you misfire it does impact your rate of fire, because the a 2nd misfire in a round is a significant setback.
If the misfire chance increased with every shoot per round fired (and it couldn't be ignored) it would serve to decrease the rate of fire of firearms. Instead of ourtright immunity to misifres, give gunslingers a scaling reduced misfire chance. Perhaps -1 at 1st level, and an addition -1 every 5 level after representing their progression of attacks. And perhaps wielding a firearm as an offhand weapon could increase its misfire chance.
The double barrel firearms should go the way the double crossbow, ie have rules that prevent it being reloaded as a free action.
As to free action abuse. I would have an example of something actually abusive that you are trying to prevent. My standby example is using fast mount/dismount to move to the other side of a horse (or a line of horses) as a series of free actions. Despite being free actions, your character is moving up to 15' and that should cost you a move action not just 2 free actions and its reasonable of a GM to state such.
1a) The examples use: speaking, dropping prone, dropping weapon/shield, creasing to concentrate, dismount (w/ ride check), and reloading a firearm (w/ appropriate feats and equipment). That's a fairly diverse list of free actions that doesn't appear to be focused on firearms in particular.
1b) Firearms have the same reload speeds as crossbows in game mechanic terms. So I don't find firearms to be the slowest ranged attack. Rather they are inferior to bows, which are ONLY ranged weapon the functions without additional game mechanic support (quickdraw, rapid reload, warslinger etc) for character with multiple attacks.
2) If someone makes a suggestion you think is terrible, is it bad to tell the person you think its terrible? My suggestion is that people entirely ignore this FAQ entry, because its bad for the game to set a hard cap on reasonable free actions.
If you edit the FAQ, and ignore the examples and reasonable guidelines then its fine. But as it stands, I see very few people defending the idea of taking away reloads(or any of the other examples of free actions) if a character should use an unrelated free action such as speaking.
I am not really opposed to killing off the gunslinger class or firearms. I think it was a really novel way that Paizo presented them. But if they aren't working out as expected, and the feeling is they are bad for the game, then kill them off. Pass them off like piecemeal armor or words of power, as idea or concepts but not worth including in future book/products. Attacking them through use of free actions disrupts a lot of other parts of the game that I do not feel are problematic.
I think reducing the number reload actions away from a person because they use a free action to speak is terrible.
I think the idea of GM setting a hard cap on the number of free action a player can take is a bad idea. I think the 'reasonable' suggestion of 3/5 are far too low to even consider.
If not a single person is going follow the guideline given in response to the FAQ its not a good guideline.
Why is a defender of the FAQ post calling a GM who enforces a free action count more lenient than the "reasonable" 5 or 3 if repetitive free actions suggested in the FAQ as a "Mythical Evil GM."
Since you think no one would play with the Mythical Evil GM, why should the official FAQ suggest a guideline to make GM's so evil no one will play with them.
You ignore that its a free action to drop each of your starting guns.You ignore that its a free action to draw each cartridge before you can load them.
Steve Geddes wrote:
SKR made a substantive post in the OMG I can't speak thread (which got locked) but is probably worth reading.
I'd walk away from the game where the adjudicator made the rulings set forth as examples. I believe I can convince every GM I come across the examples in the FAQ are not worth considering. Taking away reloads because someone speaks. That's not a game I want to be apart of.
I see virtually no one who is defending the FAQ, actually defending the examples listed in the FAQ, nor are they defending the suggested numbers 3 or 5. Does anyone think the examples in the FAQ represent "free action abuse" that the FAQ is suppose to help curtail?
Or does anyone think the "reasonable" limit of 3 or 5 free actions per turn is a good limit on all on free actions regardless of if you consider them abusive or not?
I person don't find the examples to be abusive use of free actions. Nor do I think a hard limit on free actions per turn is a good idea. The idea of taking away reloads from a player because they speak to be particularly flawed.
So I find that it is a poorly written guideline that I would encourage all GMs to ignore, even though I agree with the sentiment that a GM should have the power to limit the number of free actions a person takes in a given round.
Could you point out where that line is in the FAQ.
No I heard you. You spoke. So one fewer reload for you. And I notice you conveniently ignore that picking up that alchemical cartridge was a free action too. Bad form.
The example given is terrible. The suggested numbers are silly. I truly believe there are better ways to address the problems. Yeah they probably involve erratas which are more problematic that FAQ entries, but this FAQ is worse than if they had said nothing at all.
The example in the FAQ pretty clearly does refer to standard reloading. And don't think reloading a bow doesn't require a hefty amount of free actions.
Remove hand from bow (free)
Now those were all different free actions, so if you follow the example given you can still speak. However releasing your grip would put you on the repetitive free action track and you've already spent 3 free action.
I'd much prefer a rule along the lines of if you use a hand to load a weapon in a given action you cannot use that hand to wield or load a weapon other than than the one it loaded for the duration of that action. This would prevent TWF with guns with less than 4 hands. Also prevents similar issues with crossbow or people trying to justify wield 'small' bows one-handed.
A double barrel X, needs a load restriction like Double Crossbows have, so even if you have the feats/items to free reload. It should not just double your number of attacks.
Weapon cords should be move actions to retrieve. The advantage should be your weapon can't be taken away, or throw, or dropped to the bottom of a cliff as easily. Not that they can be drawn faster than normal from sheath/holster. That said I'd limit them to light weapons, the idea of a polearm dangling from a 2 foot cord just scares me. (A dagger would be problematic enough).
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If you think the examples given even mildly resemble a gentle reminder we live in different worlds.
As I see the examples: Should a ranged character have more attacks than you think he should tell him he's limited to X attacks. And if that ranged character had the audacity to speak make that X-1. And the developers who write the FAQ think X=3 is a good starting point.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
If this is the case I think the wording of FAQ is extremely poorly written. The FAQ appears to me to target free actions across the board, from speech to firearms. I see nothing in the FAQ that would lead me to believe other ammunition using devices or other attack patterns using repetitive free actions (like thrown weapons) would not be included.
I find this to be an terrible suggestion to how Pathfinder should be played. And if a GM told me he was enforcing this FAQ any where near as written I would decline to play any ranged martial character.
I despise the double barrel gun mechanic and weapon cords but I find this FAQ a disaster in the making even if it is an attempt to fix items I perceive as problems with the game.
You can make it into a potion. However the drinker would also be the target of the shocking grasp, so drinking a potion of shocking grasp would deal xd6 damage to the drinker and probably isn't what the original post had in mind.
When setting a automatic free trigger into an item, you should probably figure the price of a contingency spell as well as not having to expend any actions is a significant benefit and should have a cost associated with it.
Example 2 could be as simple as a wizard putting a wall of stone or force up against an existing wall or maybe with an inch or so of spacing. That would be 2 separate and distinct walls.
Sigh. I guess we can't let you use the word wall either. Think line of effect blocking object. If a line of effect blocking object is made, part of wood, part of stone, part of iron, and part of force you cannot shoot the gap in the atoms between one material and the next. If it blocks line of effect it blocks line of effect.
If there is an "inch or so" of space there is an endpoint. Where 'object that blocks line effect' meets 'space not blocking line of effect' there you hand an endpoint. You effectively have an area to make a ranged attack through. And you would draw this but not having the small gap in the line. When you use W to represent a line of effect blocking object I assume its continuous. If it has holes in it, then you should state such.
Let's take your example. Suppose a wizard puts up a 5' wall in the space between the walls. This is a separate and distinct wall from the other 2 and may have an inch or so of space between them.
If it connects to existing line of effect blocking objects its not separate and distinct. If you leave gaps between the new line of effect blocking object and the old line of effect blocking object then you have line of effect moving between the gaps. If you do not leave gaps then it become part of the same object line of effect blocking object regardless of what material it is made off.
Example 2 is just stupid. At least as it appears to me the wall is continues it just turns. A person in 10' by 10' by 10' cell with no doors or windows cannot make a ranged attack out it to attack a person in an adjacent cell. Even if the wall is depicted as line with no width. If the wall is not suppose to continuous you should mark the window or gap somehow on the map by a break in the line.
You seem to be hung up on the term corner. Corner in D&D terms refers to grid intersections. Not where a wall turns.
In example 1, you are not dealing with a corner so much as the end point of a line.
Consider this: (A,B = med sized character; 0= open space; | = wall along a grid line.) Does A have cover from B or vice versa? They shouldn't is far as I am concerned. Despite the fact the going from the upper corners of A to upper B (or lower to lower) intersects the endpoint of wall.
If you can draw a line to 99.99+% of the target square then you don't have to deal with cover. If you are a GM and don't want to deal with this, don't end your lines at grid intersections.
In all honesty the way you should determine lack of cover is if you can draw a line from ANY point in the attackers square to EVERY point within the target square excluding the boarders of the target square. You have to get infinitely close to the borders of the target square but never actually on it.
And determine line of sight/effect by being able to draw a line ANY point in the attackers square to ANY point in the target square.
This eliminates a lot of stupid things associated with the borders, like the ground/ceiling providing cover to combatants on the same vertical plane. But writing that into a manual is more mathematically complex than desirable.
A beak attack that a tengu gets is a natural weapon, yet a tengu monk can make an unarmed strike as a headbutt (mine does) and get unarmed strike damage and flurry. I see no reason why you can't get the hair, a natural weapon on the end of a part of your body that is essentially a limb, to punch things (or kick or however you want to say it).
If you want to make an unarmed strike with your hair and its mechanically identical to an unarmed strike with your elbow, foot, or whatever then I doubt anyone has a problem with it.
However, if you want to take advantage of the properties (reach, damage die, damage type etc.) of a natural weapon then it ceases to be an unarmed strike.
You would count from the closest corner of the attack to the closest square of the target.
From what you described to me. The target is is sqaure (4,4) from the attacker at (-1,0),(0,0),(-1,1),(0,1). Ignoring the third axis because you weren't using it.
5' distance would hit: square (1,2)
Driver 325 yards wrote:
I would not considered you to be wielding a bow if you are not dedicating 2 hands to the task. Just as I would not consider you to be wielding a greatsword if you were carrying it in one hand.
Crane Wing requires you have a free hand. I have to believe the intention of requiring a free hand was to prohibit wielding a 2 handed weapon/two weapon fighting.
I don't mind you making a ranged attack with an AoO, but to make it with a weapon you are not wielding with the required number of hands when the AoO is triggered, is a nonstarter. If it makes you feel better I'd say the same thing to great sword wielder. Who want to leave a hand off his weapon for cranestyle but still make AoO with it.
The sohei (monk archetype) can use flurry of blows with any weapon he has weapon training with. And the nodachi (esentially superior to falchion in nearly ever way) is classified as a polearm and thus usable with a sohei monk flurry.
Its much easier to quantify DPR in a message board setting than, how to measure how much you 'help the party.' As helping the party is incredibly dependent on the party, and what a party needs help with can very drastically from party to party.
Can my Titan Mauler's evade reach ability make a medium creature's 5-foot reach be reduced to 0 feet so that they can no longer attack me without entering my square?
Lol. Technical yes it would appear to. I don't know that I've ever seen anyone actually rule or even attempt to use it that way however.
Penalties don't stack with themselves. In this case the source of the penalty is Evil Eye (su). If they don't agree you attack them with a horde of Archons and see how they survive -2*horde penalty on Attacks/AC/Saves.
Did you ask a question? I think you handed it correctly. Attempting to sunder a possessed object (cut hand off the held corpse) should break invisibility.
If you wanted to side with the thiefa bit, I might be tempted to say carrying a corpse (to the point where it is considered an attended object, and thus have some protection from invisible thievery) takes two hands and would prevent wielding a weapon at the same time unless they threaten some other way (monk or natural weapons) not dependent on arms.
I tend to think retrieving the ring should have been a sleight of hand check or a steal combat maneuver but clearly they player had more thug like intentions.
Simply not true. Casino use some of highest quality dice possible (they balance the material removed for the pips, remove them from play after a certain amount of use etc.) These are technical superior to most polyhedral gaming dice by a notable margin. They still ask you throw the dice a considerable distance bounce them off of 2 surfaces (one curved) for a reason. And even with that, skilled players can generate numbers they desire far more often then would be mathematically probable so that they are often asked to leave the casino.
The key has to be a desire not to manipulate the system. If the user doesn't try to manipulate the outcome of a die roll, or a reasonable random number generator then he will get results close enough to random it doesn't really matter that there are tiny imperfections in the die and/or RNG system they are close enough to random that the inaccuracies are irrelevant.
If the user does try to manipulate the system, than its just a matter of how much effort the user puts into hiding his efforts to manipulate the system. And if you think this is an issue you probably need to look at your gaming table and decide if you are at the right one.
You can view threads on the subject without too much effort. I typically believe an electronic roller usually is more random than the generic die, but its also easier/less obvious when it is manipulated.
If using an electronic roller, I ask that players choose an app that produces results at least as visible to the rest of the players as a die roll, and the player declare what the die roll is for before making it (preferably with a sound effect so people know he is rolling). I have found that players find it too tempting to roll repeatedly if its silent/not visible.
As a GM I use an electronic rolling program because I got tired I hunted down an summing up 12d6 or 5d8 etc. Though I generally still roll single d20 rolls. I find it sped up game play a bit. I generally use a mini projector and picture stand to display my rolls and the initiative order and find it takes up less space than the dice would.
First and foremost I want the players on a level field. All of paizo rule mechanics are available to at least read online. This isn't true to 3 party books. "I don't want to deal with players saying if I knew that was available I would have done things differently." Of note, I also define what materials that you have to build you character from when the campaign starts if Paizo releases something new afterward, I ask that waits for the next campaign.
Second peer review. I read the message boards, you read the message boards. Something printed by Paizo gets 100x the review by players that any 3rd party source does. So while I don't own (and have not read cover to cover all the books I do own) every book I stand a much better chance of least having heard of the complications that come from a Paizo source than from a 3rd party source.
Third power gaming. I've been talked into allowing custom things before (which is what I consider most 3rd party material). But I want to have a really firm idea (and the player to have the same idea) of where are particular custom rule is heading. Getting surprised by an elaborate combo of things I didn't see coming later on in the campaign. And crushing these things hopes before the character has invested months working up to them makes for a better gaming environment, then crushing them after the investment.
Combat trained dire bat is 450gp. Probably the cheapest flying option.
I'd state it has to be in effect for the duration of the crafting processes. I could probably be argued that a bonus you have for a fraction of the total time spent, would get you the same fraction of the bonus to the final check. The crafting check is suppose to represent the entire time spend crafting.
Otherwise I can just see all the farmers in town making all going to to same farmer shrine to touch the masterwork plow, once a week to make their profession check collect their pay (with bonus), then sleep away the entire next week, because it doesn't matter how they do the other 99% of the time.
The trick to making it useful, is knowing what you face, or at least knowing what you fear enough to invest a potion a day into.
My short list:
The only creature that has its initiative altered by the controller is the mount. As there are no special rules regarding Familiar/Eidolon/Animal Companion initiatives they follow the standard rules and as they are combatants they make their own initiative checks.