I am the GM in my group, and we all agree at my table that they stack with eachother. I was unaware that it was already asked about for years, but at the rate in which they've been answered FAQs, I figured it was worth a shot if enough people showed interest, but if no one on the board cares, I'll stop wasting my time.
Tarantula, my point is for effects that actually increase a creature's size(enlarge person, righteous might, divine vessel, and animal growth for animal companions), there is a specific rule that says those spells don't stack, so a medium human can become large from enlarge person, and can also become large from righteous might, but he cannot combine the 2 to become huge, he takes the better spell. However, there is no specific rule for effects that TREAT a creature as being larger for the purposes of damage not stacking with eachother, nor does it say that they overlap(protection from/resist energy both have a specific rule for overlapping as well). Since there is no specific rule that says they won't stack, they should. I am willing to admit that I might be wrong, and they just glossed over the subject, which is why I created this thread in hopes of getting it answered officially, and if I'm wrong, all I want is a specific rule that says they don't stack, like what they did with the enlarge person and protection from energy spells.
That's not the point, the point is it's a problem that should be addressed. Please don't spawn another argument here, I'm only trying to get it clarified here.
So if I have a human fighter wielding a spiked light steel shield, which treats the shield as 1 size category larger for the purposes of damage rolls with the shield, what happens if that same shield is later enchanted with the bashing special ability?
My belief is that the spiked shield is treated as a large shield for the purposes of damage, and the bashing special ability would then treat it as 2 size categories larger than large for the purposes of damage, but there are those people that disagree with me, saying that the 2 effects don't stack.
A similar example is a large wolf that takes improved natural attack and has strongjaw cast on it. would that treat the wolf's bite as if it were a colossal creature(3 size categories larger), or gargantuan(2 sizes)?
Please help me get this answered, and press the FAQ button, so the matter can be resolved once and for all.
The rules don't say that they don't stack, and they also don't say that 1 effect overlaps the other, so the logical assumption is they both stack.
Medium creature gets bashing on its spiked shield, which was treated as large, is now treated as 2 sizes larger, so large shield is now gargantuan shield.
show me absolute proof that this isn't the case.
They do not stack. Click the link I provided above.
Where in the Core Rulebook does it say a spiked shield and bashing don't stack? It doesn't, it only says that effects that actually increase a character's size don't stack, as I already stated in my above post. Thanks for reading that thoroughly by the way. Also, your link is just your opinion, there is no actual clarification of the matter at hand contained within it. If you can show me the rule that says "effects that treat a character as x size categories larger do not stack with effects that treat a character as x size larger", then I'll agree with you, and cease from pressing the matter further.
Actually the original cavalier's ability is written badly. The Gendarme clarifies what happens when the Gendarme with spirited charge AND the level 20 ability charges, the standard Cav doesn't. It seems like you're following the same logic people used to justify the 2 handed fighter archetype using overhand chop getting double their strength bonus on top of already doing strength and a half with a 2 handed weapon, and that's just silly.
You can't choose to use the bludgeoning part of a spiked shield, you have to shield bash with the spikes. That's already been confirmed in an older thread. As far as shield spikes and bashing, a spiked shield is still a shield, and still qualifies for the bashing property, and since the size of the item is not actually being changed, but only being treated as larger, then they stack.
Let me put it another way: I have a Wolf animal companion. The AC has a bite attack that does 1d8. Later on, I have it take Improved Natural Attack(bite), which treats its bite as 1 size category larger for the purposes of damage, making the bite deal 2d6 now. I cast Animal Growth on the AC to increase its size, so now it's a huge wolf, and its bite would do 2d6, but since it still has INA(bite), it's still treated as 1 size category larger, so its bite actually does 3d6, because the 2 effects aren't both changing the size of the creature, 1 is only treating it as being larger thus bypassing the rules that says "multiple effects that increase a creature's size don't stack.
I don't think Supreme Charge and Spirited Charge can be combined...
Spirited Charge says: When mounted and using the charge action, you deal double damage with a melee weapon (or triple damage with a lance).
Supreme Charge says: At 20th level, whenever the cavalier makes a charge attack while mounted, he deals double the normal amount of damage (or triple if using a lance).
They're both calling out the same action, so they shouldn't work together. Furthermore, the Gendarme archetype for Cavalier specifies in its 20th level ability:At 20th level, a gendarme represents the epitome of Mounted Combat. Whenever he makes a charge attack while mounted, he deals triple the normal damage (quadruple if using a lance); this damage includes all increases from the Spirited Charge feat and from the use of a lance.
Now as to how much damage you should do on a crit using supreme charge with a lance, it seems that you would still only be doing 5x your normal damage.
I just discussed this in another thread. If you put Bashing on a Klar, the damage dice only go up one, because a spiked shield already counts as one step higher.
Incorrect, it goes up as if it were 2 size categories larger. You're probably thinking along the lines of Enlarge Person, which says "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack". The Bashing Special Shield Ability however, treats it as 2 size categories larger for the purposes etc... Note that it's not actually changing the size of the shield, like Enlarge Person would, but treating it as if it were larger. Therefore, a Klar with the Bashing property would be doing 2d6 damage on a shield bash.
Imagine Assassins in Pathfinder being able to take out PCs because they grew some weeds and put it in their stew.
At the same time, you can 5-foot step into and out of a threatened square no problem, but a 5-foot step is different than a move action. Think about it this way; is it any easier to start walking into a swamp than it is to start walking out? In both situations, your movement will become hampered. you're not gonna stop being hampered by the swamp until you're not in the swamp anymore.
Wait what? It doesn't matter if you're moving into Difficult Terrain or moving out of it, both of those situations count as moving through Difficult Terrain, so there is no taking a 5-foot step out of it without some special ability that lets you do so.
Benefit: Whenever you are using bardic performance to create a spell-like or supernatural effect, allies within 30 feet of you deal an extra 1d6 points of sonic damage with successful weapon attacks. This damage stacks with other energy damage a weapon might deal. Projectile weapons bestow this extra damage on their ammunition, but the extra damage is dealt only if the projectile hits a target within 30 feet of you.
So long as you have the skill ranks, the answer seems to be yes.
GM Arkwright wrote:
They get spell recall when they would normally get improved spell recall.
Or bows are just way better than they look on paper.
once PCs start getting lots of wealth, a dual-wielding Gunslinger can put an archer to shame with the number of attacks they're getting, and they don't need to invest in strength to get a static damage bonus to their shots. Gunslingers become awesome later on, whereas Archers get better a fairly normal rate.
"One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant
Sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless in some fashion."
So Slow is cast, and everyone but Valeros makes their save. then Haste is cast; the fact that only Valeros is affected by slow should mean that slow has made haste irrelevant while the duration of slow runs out, but since the affect of slow didn't hit everyone else, it has no way of making Haste irrelevant on them, so they should still benefit from Haste. the only person who remains normal(until such a time as the duration of Haste or Slow expires)is Valeros. Is this wrong?
There are ways to sneak attack someone without having to flank them...the most obvious being feinting in combat, the less obvious using intimidate to demoralize while utilizing the Shatter Defenses feat, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
I can 5-foot step in the middle of my whirlwind attack, can you 5-foot step in the middle of your cleave?
Rage Prophet only requires a BAB of 5, not 6, so you could do Barb 4/Oracle 2, or Barb 2/Oracle 4. both of those are good choices, though the latter invests a bit more in spellcasting, while the former gets to rage a bit more often without having to sacrifice spells. which do you prefer?
They get wild shape at 6th, and when they wild shape, they treat what they can wild shape into as their druid level-2(beast shape 1 for shamans), but if they wild shape into their totem animal, they treat their druid level as 2 higher(beast shape 2 or 3). it also affects the duration for how long you can maintain wild shape accordingly.
Your understanding is right; if he targets an enemy, it hits him and does splash damage to all adjacent squares of the enemy(this doesn't mean it's 9 squares total, since there are creatures bigger than medium), but if he targets a grid, it only hits 4 squares. I disagree however, with the assumption that it's too powerful, as a properly built fighter can do more damage than an alchemist's splash damage with a simple cleave, and even if it was powerful, it's limited, so it shouldn't be changed.
I think them being flat-footed represents enough of a penalty already, and NPCs are unpredictable, they could move at any point in time, which can mess up your shot. Walls however, don't move at all, unless acted on by an outside force.
No one's mentioned Ranseur yet? the bonus to disarm has saved one of my characters quite a few times from charging barbarians/minotaurs who suddenly find themselves weaponless in the middle of a charge. The Bardiche can also be a lot of fun, especially if you like improved crit/lunge/whirlwind attack. Longspears are nice for people who are only proficient with simple weapons, but the glaive is a better choice for martial characters. I'm also a huge fan of the ripsaw glaive. if you're strong enough, the bonus damage will last you almost a whole combat.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
That's how I've interpreted it. It's a nice way to boost your damage prior to combat(if you've got the jump on your enemies), but terrible in combat, because it takes too many actions to pull off that by the time you're ready to go, you could have already shot your bow several times.
I think if you're going that route, the two-handed weapon combat style is a better choice, since ancestral weapon only affects 1 weapon at a time, and TWF with 2 dorn dergars means you're taking a -4 penalty to each attack.
Yeesh, I have a hard time processing the idea of making a 3/4ths BAB class into a pure caster. It's like trying to turn a Fighter into a Skill Monkey to me. However the 1 good idea I've seen is a cleric that makes liberal use of Sacred Summons and nothing but buff/battlefield control spells. It can be done, but you'll always be behind a pure arcane caster in terms of raw power, cleric spells just don't have the oomph to compete.
Pay close attention to the wording here. notice how it says reduced below 0 hit points. now watch me re-word it to fit your theory:Benefit: While raging and at or below 0 hit points etc...
You take the damage first, then if it is enough to reduce you below 0 hit points, you start converting. Don't put the Wagon before the Horse.
TWF is tough on a vivisectionist since they don't get many things to add to it, but it is doable. have you considered the Feral Mutagen Discovery? When using a mutagen, you grow a bite and 2 claws. that's 3 attacks at level 5 at your full attack and damage bonus. compare that to the 2 attacks you get from TWF which are at your full attack bonus-2, and your off-hand attack only does /strength bonus on damage rolls. an amulet of mighty fists+1 is technically cheaper than 2 +1 weapons, and it applies to all of your natural attacks. As for your other discovery, infusion is a nice way to share your extracts with party members. I'd personally stat the character as follows:
So Guarded Life instead gives you non-lethal damage, which knocks you out anyways, but you're auto-stabilized when brought below negative hp? That latter half replicates exactly what diehard already does, in fact it's worse to take the non-lethal, because with diehard, you already have the choice to fight on or fall unconscious and be stable, but with guarded life, you're unconscious no matter what you do.
You should read the rules for Feinting in Combat before asking this:
Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made on or before your next turn.
I know that Greater Feint treats them as flat footed until the beginning of your next turn, but the intent of Feinting is that you get to take advantage of them falling for your bluff, not anyone else.
To the Funny Farm, where life is beautiful all the time...
There are two contrary faqs. One says that Racial Heritage counts for taking racial archetypes. The other says that Half-Elves and Half-Orcs don't qualify for the parent race archetypes. But this also flies in the face of the rules for Humanoids listed in the ARG that says a racial subtype qualifies you for any race-based prerequisite so the half-breed FAQ is the odd-man out because the reason it cites, racial archetypes not counting as an "effect" is both directly contradicted by the pre-existing FAQ on Racial Heritage (which hasn't been retracted) and the ARG which allows it not based on the "effects" term but the "prerequisite" term which can't be so easily dismissed.
You should press the FAQ button on my thread about that issue, as I'm trying to raise awareness of and eliminate the contradiction.
It has come to my attention that there is a flaw in the way the rules for racial archetypes are supposed to work, according to the FAQs responses for both the Racial Heritage feat, and certain "Half-Races" Selecting Racial Archetypes of their parent races:
FAQ 1: Racial Heritage
FAQ 2: Racial Archetypes
Racial Heritage states:which according to FAQ 1, implies that racial archetypes are an effect related to race, even though in FAQ 2 it clearly states that racial archetypes do not count as an "effect". So the question remains; which of these 2 are supposed to be true? please hit the FAQ button on this thread if you'd also like this answered. I know I do.
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
I could have sworn the FAQ said that unless you are specifically the race that has the racial archetype, you can't select it, like only elves being ancient lorekeepers, and only dwarves being Foehammers?