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

Matt Bray's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 11 posts (4,760 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm Drizzt 274853 and so's my wife!

Silver Crusade

If you intend to use two-weapon fighting to get an extra attack with an off-hand weapon, you must take the appropriate attack penalty for that weapon for that attack. After the attack you may take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks.

If you made your first attack without that penalty, you can't later get an extra attack with your off-hand weapon in that round. You could still use that weapon for one or more of your iterative attacks; the penalties only apply if you want to take an EXTRA attack with the off-hand weapon.

Technically, if you use two-weapon fighting, you only need to specify which weapon counts as your off-hand weapon for this round. Although it's usually obvious there are times when it's not.

You don't need to designate a 'primary' weapon. The 'primary' weapon is simply any weapon you use that round that isn't the weapon you designated as your off-hand weapon. Only the off-hand weapon you designated can make the extra attacks granted by TWF (and the other feats in the TWF tree). If this weapon is light your penalties for TWF are two points less.

Any weapon EXCEPT your designated off-hand weapon can be used, in any combination, to make your other attacks.

Imagine you have a base attack of +11, TWF, Improved TWF and Quick Draw. You designate the short sword in your left hand as your off-hand weapon for this round. This sets your TWF penalties at -2 for the round. It also means that both the extra attacks granted by TWF and ITWF may only be taken by the weapon in that hand. Your other attacks could be with your battle-axe at +11, then you could drop it as a free action, Quick Draw a dart and throw it at the Mage at +6, then Quick Draw a longsword and 5-foot step up to the Orc and hit it at +1.

This usually doesn't come up simply because people use their big sword as their 'primary' and their small sword as their off-hand every time they TWF and there is usually no need to change it.

Silver Crusade

DM_Waife_the_BiPolar wrote:
I would only allow it if the prone target had attacked the 'flanked' target that round or still had his action left in that round. Otherwise, if he had attacked someone else, i would draw the line there and say no.

Why?

The rules are clear. What justification do you have for breaking them? Have you found a rule that limits a prone character's melee attacks beyond the -4 penalty? Is there a rule which says flanking is different for prone creatures?

Or is that just a houserule?

Silver Crusade

: )

Happy flanking!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Core rulebook wrote:-

'' A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can't use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round''.

Of all the ambiguous rules in the game, this is not one of them.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mid-air is not an illegal square.

Although your jumping distance cannot be greater than your move, it's entirely possible to move, say, 20 feet then make a horizontal jump of 20 feet without breaking that rule, even if you have a move of only 30 feet. Of course, at the end of your move you'd be half-way across the bottomless chasm (because, before you moved, your attack action took out the guard that was in your way).

It makes no sense to enforce a vertical fall just because the game mechanics say my turn has ended.

The rules abstract the constant, simultaneous actions of multiple combatants. No-one thinks a running character moves 120 feet in a fraction of a second, then stays where he is for six seconds, then carries on stopping and starting for his entire run. But that's how it looks on the game board. Why? Because 24 simultaneous combatants whose actions are calculated using advanced calculus is less easy than 'taking turns'! : )

So, if we are happy to all attack that runner in the same square because he's finished his turn, we should be happy to let someone seem to 'hang in mid-air' because he couldn't finish his jump in that arbitrary six-second chunk of game time.

Of course, we don't want 'hovering monks' to ruin our games!

The declared intent of 'taking a running jump to attack the flying creature who's out of reach otherwise', sounds like the charge full-round action to me!

Requiring a charge to do this fits with the concept and prevents hovering monks. Also, as you make the acrobatics check to jump, calculate the landing square as normal. After the attack at the end of the charge, your turn ends (yes, in mid-air). On your next turn the first action you must take is a move action to continue your jump as calculated previously. If one move isn't enough you must keep using move actions until you land. After landing you may use any remaining actions normally. When you take that move action to complete your jump you provoke AoOs for movement normally. All skill checks are rolled normally, as part of movement.

How do you think that would work?

Silver Crusade

Mage Evolving wrote:
Matt Bray wrote:


The bonus for flanking is +2, not +4. So the net penalty to attack would be -2. Your ally would flank as normal.
As I said my Inquisitor has Outflank. Giving me a +4.

Ah! I missed that!

Please accept my apologies.

Does the rest make sense?

Silver Crusade

In order to count as flanking you must threaten the square containing the opponent you want to flank.

In order to threaten a square you must be able to attack that square at that moment.

Being prone gives you a -4 penalty to attack; therefore you MAY attack!

Therefore a prone character threatens adjacent squares as if he was standing, but attacks at -4.

The bonus for flanking is +2, not +4. So the net penalty to attack would be -2. Your ally would flank as normal.

Silver Crusade

If the rules for the bastard sword were along the lines of ''treat it as a one-handed weapon if you have the exotic weapon proficiency; treat it as a two-handed weapon if you don't'',then Jotungrip would let you use it at -2 without the EWP.

I admit that I sometimes conceptualise it that way. But that is NOT how it works in the game! Here's what it says, again:-

''Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.''

I think that even the devs conceptualised it to work as we would like it to work. But that is not the rule. The rule is that a bastard sword is a one-handed weapon. Period. And an exotic weapon to boot. The special rule for bastardsword let's you USE it in two hands without a penalty if you are proficient in martial weapons, but it doesn't turn into a two-handed weapon! It remains a one-handed weapon being used two-handed, just like you can use a longsword two-handed but that remains a one-handed weapon.

Jotungrip doesn't make you proficient in any weapon at all! If you are not proficient in a weapon before you use Jotungrip, you are still not proficient with it while using Jotungrip.

If you are not proficient with a meteor hammer or a bo staff or any other exotic two-handed weapon, would using Jotungrip make you proficient? Would using Jotungrip allow you to avoid the non-proficiency penalty?

If you are not proficient with a nine-section whip or an urumi or any other exotic one-handed weapon, would using Jotungrip make you proficient? Would using Jotungrip allow you to avoid the non-proficiency penalty?

If you use a bastard sword in one hand without proficiency (which requires EWP) then you take a -4 penalty to attack rolls.

If you use a bastard sword in two hands without proficiency (which requires MWP) then you take a -4 penalty to attack rolls.

Jotungrip does not give you proficiency in any weapon. It does not turn one-handed weapons into two-handed weapons which can be used one-handed!(?). In fact, Jotungrip doesn't apply when using one-handed weapons at all!

If you wonder at the apparent unfairness of the Jotungripper using (one-handed) a longsword at -0, a bastard sword at -4, and a greatsword at -2, then simply understand that he is proficient with the longsword and the greatsword, but he is not proficient with the bastard sword.

If you want to houserule it that way, go ahead. RAW, he's taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty. Best start saving up your pennies for that greatsword.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:

Odd-bonus ability score bonuses are deliberately not in the game.

It's one of those unwritten rules, much like "anything over 200,000 gp is an artifact" and "you can only ride a creature one size category larger than you".

A good reason to not do it is because it's worth different things to different people. For someone with 15 Dex, a +3 Dex belt is worth the same as a +4 belt. For someone with 14 Dex, it's worth the same as a +2 belt.

Cheapy, thankyou for the link. I made the mistake of clicking on it, then reading the entire 231 post thread! That's two hours of my life I'll never get back!

So, no rules quote then? I'd swear I saw somewhere a rule about it only being even numbers, and it maxing out at +6 for non-epic items, but without a rules quote it's a bit shaky.

The nearest I've got is p.234 of the Magic Item Compendium for 3.5. This is a table which makes clear how to price incremental increases to worn items which improve AC, resistance bonus to saves, natural armour bonuses, ability bonuses, etc.

e.g. Cloaks of Resistance are priced at:-
+1=1000gp
+2=4000gp
+3=9000gp
+4=16000gp
+5=25000gp
because the formula for pricing this bonus is (bonus squared)x 1000gp

But the table on p.234 is to aid those improving an already enchanted item, so this table says:-
+1=1000gp
+1 to +2=3000gp
+2 to +3=5000gp
+3 to +4=7000gp
+4 to +5=9000gp

Get the idea? Good!

Now my point is this: in all cases of items that give enhancement bonuses to abilities the table says:-
+2=4000gp
+2 to +4=12000gp
+4 to +6=20000gp

You see? There are no mentions of +1, +3 or +5 as even possibilities!

Pathfinder is supposed to be backwards compatible with 3.5. Do you guys think this is convincing?

Silver Crusade

When creating a magic item that gives an enhancement bonus to an ability score the base price is listed on p.550 of the CRB as:-

'Bonus squared x 1000gp'

The only examples in the book (belt of strength etc.) are +2, +4 and +6.

In our regular campaign our wizard is about to level up to 3rd and wants to take the feat Create Wondrous Item, and he's saying he can create a belt which gives a +1 enhancement bonus to Str, which would be worth 1000gp, according to the formula.

I told him that this items must give an enhancement bonus which is an even number. When he challenged me to show him the rule which says so, I couldn't find it.

I'm sure I've seen a rule like this, but where? Did I imagine the whole thing?


©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.