Neo2151's page

That would be a waste, as the point is to compare Fighter and/or Summoner with a class that fills the same role.

So Fighter vs Ranger/Paladin/Barbarian is a go.
And Summoner vs ...uh, well, what WOULD go here? Magus/Inquisitor? Full casters?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing about the Monk: It didn't take builds to see where it's weaknesses are. People have been saying the same things about the class, for literally thousands of posts, over many years of forum-going even before people started jumping up and down about how you "need to post a build" to prove anything.
And after aaaaall that, they change the price of one item (which is not a Monk-only item btw) and give a single quality-of-life change to the class, without touching any of it's other various problems.
Expect several more years and hundreds more posts to get another minor change. :(

Touché. I'm bowing out then.

We are at a village (500 gp limit) and want to find a wand of magic missile with 33 charges (33 * 15 gp = 495 gp).

Let me stop you right there.

I pretty much agree with everything your saying in this thread, except this.

This is bad/wrong. Please stop suggesting that wands are priced per charges remaining. They are not. At all.

RAW allows you to buy partially used wands (cuz why not?)
NOTHING in RAW allows you to pay less based on how used it is. Wand price is caster level x spell level x 750gp. Nothing in that formula includes charges in any way/shape/form.

Can you do this in your game where the GM lets you? Absolutely! In fact, it's even a fair way of doing it. But it is not RAW, so please stop acting like it is.

(And maybe if I'm lucky, I won't have to post this a third time. /facepalm)

(Edit to fix a number. Twice cuz i'm dumb.)

Imbalanced? Agree with Fighter/Monk/Rogue. Fighter because feats suck compared to class abilities, and they're stuck with feats as their main "class ability."
Monk because they don't, in any way, live up to their description.
Rogues because even though I like the way PF changed Skills overall, those changes made the class obsolete when compared with other "skilled" classes. Also, stealth doesn't work if you don't have darkvision (wtf amirite?)

Anyway, I gotta get two things off my chest:
1 - "Post a build" is a disingenuous request. It's NOWHERE near enough information to actually determine a class's value. Here's the MINIMUM for doing so (assuming 'Fighter vs X' is in question:
One single person creates a Fighter and whatever they're comparing the Fighter to (let's say Ranger). So ONE person builds a Fighter and a Ranger, and applies equal "optimization" to each (as only a single person can do equally).
That person then builds "the rest of the party."
That party, including only the Fighter, is then given to a group to run through an entire career, let's say levels 1-13. Then, after the group is done, the same group (playing the same characters) plays through the exact same career, except the Fighter is swapped out for the Ranger.
At the end of the career, the Fighter/Ranger player explains which class was more beneficial to the party as a whole.
And like I already said, this way is a MINIMUM, because there are tons of ways to build these characters that aren't even taken into account yet.

2 - Buying partial-filled wands is absolutely allowed. HOWEVER, charging partial prices for them is 100% GM fiat, and is absolutely not RAW at all. A wand with 10 charges costs the same as a wand with 50 charges, and anything else is homebrew.
(Wands with special materials aren't priced as, "Special cost x number of charges;" They're priced as, "special cost x 50." Ditto staves.)
(And while yes, you can sell partially used wands, good luck finding a buyer outside of GM fiat. There is no way to determine how many charges are left unless you crafted it and no one else has had an opportunity to use it, so who is going to trust you when you say, "Yeah, there's totally 30 charges left. I wouldn't lie to you, friend.")

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Casters also tend to be a bit feat starved. So sure it makes your bad class abilities less bad, but it's not a "good" buy, by any means.

No, this feat does not say it's only for monsters. Yes, that means PCs could use this feat. But the question is, where?

I don't think it's allowed in PFS. Anywhere else, it's up to the DM, not the player, whether it's allowed or not.

Quicken Spell is a fun idea but it bumps the spell up 4 levels, so a Quickened Darkness (for example) would have to be placed in a 5th level slot and could only be used one time for each time you do that - if you want it 3 times/day you have to use three 5th level spell slots. This means losing other abilities so what you're paying is a feat for the opportunity to trade one or more high-level spells for quickened low-level spells.

Quicken Spell-Like Ability would allow a creature that can cast Darkness as a SLA to use this up to three times with no penalty. No trades, no loss of other ability. Just pay for the feat and Boom! Quickened ability 3/day.

That's pretty powerful. I don't blame any DM for disallowing that on PC abilities.

Wizard: Hey, check this out. I took one feat and now I can replace a 5th level spell with Quickened Darkness. What should I give up, Cone of Cold, Teleport, or my Empowered Fireball?
Drow: Give up, are you kidding me? I took one feat and now I can cast Quickened darkness and I don't give anything up at all. I guess it sucks to be a wizard...

Given the nature of this feat, I'd suggest to anyone to clear it with the DM before you show up one day with it on your character sheet.

Most (all?) classes will not get "Spell-Like Abilities" and spells are treated differently than SLAs. So most characters never actually meet the requirements of Quicken Spell-like Ability.

It's such a dumb problem too. Grappled/Pinned both say the target can't move. Well if you can't move, how are you getting full-attacks off?

I feel your pain, as a grappler is one of two character types I would really like to make work in PF.

Your "#2" assumption is also wrong.
That is what should theoretically happen, 'cuz who likes being grappled? You wanna escape right?

But in reality, whatever you're grappling is going to take advantage of the fact that it can still full-attack you while you cannot full-attack it.

Yay grappling. /golfclap

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Critical success? Do double damage!
Critical failure? Accidentally cut your own spleen open! Bleed to death in 1d4 rounds!

...in case you couldn't guess, I think critical fail charts are the dumbest thing you could ever add to this game. You can tell your DM I said so. :)

If I'm playing a 3/4BAB or lower class that wants to get into combat? It's practically mandatory. (If combat isn't my character goal however, I'll skip it and hope the d20 loves me when I'm thrown into combat.)

If I'm playing a full BAB class, I only ever take it if it's a prereq to a feat that I actually want - never just because of the bonus.

Is that a rule? Can you link it please? (Or are you just assuming that Standard+Move=Full-Round?)

Hope you don't misunderstand - I'm happy to be wrong, but with the way the rules are worded, I don't think I am.

Neo2151 wrote:

The question is, "What happens to that extra Move Action when you instead use a Full-Round Action - an action type that specifically says it uses up all your effort for the round and does not work with any kind of movement other than a 5-ft step?"

It says the "only movement you can take DURING a full-round action". Which clearly does not apply to movement DURING an extra move action.

re "uses up all your effort" is the default rule. The same as "uses up all your effort" that a move+standard or move+move does. If you are granted an extra action, that is clearly an exception to the default rule. Specific trumps general. An extra move action would allow move+full-round, move+move+standard, or move+move+move.

However:

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

This specifically trumps your argument.

I've already explained why the "specific trumps general" logic doesn't really apply here:

However, adding an extra action to your action economy doesn't do what the other abilities do. It doesn't actually make an exception to the rule of Full-Round's not working with Standard/Move actions.

There is no question that something giving a character an extra Move Action breaks the rule that you only have one (or two if you convert your Standard) Move action in a round.

The question is, "What happens to that extra Move Action when you instead use a Full-Round Action - an action type that specifically says it uses up all your effort for the round and does not work with any kind of movement other than a 5-ft step?"

Bumping for more FAQ hits. :)

I know the popular opinion is that they "stack" but it'd be great to get an official response.

Right, which is why things like the Mobile Fighter's ability, or the Oracle of Battle, or Pounce work. Because they're exceptions that specifically say that works.

However, adding an extra action to your action economy doesn't do what the other abilities do. It doesn't actually make an exception to the rule of Full-Round's not working with Standard/Move actions.

(Would appreciate as many FAQ hits as possible, regardless. :) )

Yes, "Movement Action" should be read "Move Action." Sorry! (Edited to correct.)

As to the rest: See, I wonder about that, specifically because of the way "Full-Round Action" is worded. It specifically says (as shown above) that it requires the entire round and that it can't be coupled with a move action. Following a strict reading of the rules, it would seem that you could not take that extra Move Action.
(The logic being that a Full-Round Action is *not* just a combination of Standard+Move, but rather an entirely different action type all unto itself. For example, if you could somehow acquire an additional Standard and an additional Move, you couldn't take two Full-Round Actions in a single round.)

If by some means you get 1 additional move actions and 1 standard actions, how many full-round actions you can take in one round? 1 or 2?

If the answer to above question is "1" then quick runner's shirt can't let you make full round after movement because full attack doesn't require a move + standard, but a full-round that consumes all you effort in the round.

The answer is 1, but the shirt works because you're moving as a Swift Action, which is allowed via everything I've linked to already. (Tired of copy/pasting.)

(Unless activating the shirt is the Swift action - In that case, then no, the shirt would not provide a "Pounce" effect. - Probably better to assume this case, as it says you gain a movement action as a swift action rather than being allowed to "move x feet" as a swift action.)

Gaining an additional Movement action doesn't change the rule that you may not couple a Full-Round Action with a Movement Action.

Pounce specifically allows for that change to happen.

This is why Pounce works. There is nothing flawed about my logic here.

9 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

If you are granted an additional action (such as an additional Move action) during your round, can you perform a Full-Round Action and still have access to that additional Move action?
(ie: Move + Full Attack -or- Move + Summon Monster spell)

Or does the fact that the "Full-Round Action" specifically states that it takes up your entire action and the only movement you can make is a 5ft step mean that any extra granted actions are also lost when you choose to perform a Full-Round Action?

Relevant text:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_full-round-action
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_full-round-actions-list

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step.

Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions detail which actions allow this option.

A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

Besides, look at it from a logical point of view:
If Accelerate works the way you suggest it does, then that means a 2nd level spell is far more powerful than the 3rd level spell it's based on (Haste).
They wouldn't do that.

Full-Round actions consume your entire round. YOUR. ENTIRE. ROUND.

What is so unclear about that? You could have 50 extra move actions granted to you, but if you use a Full-Round Action, then you give them all up, and the only movement you can make that turn is a 5ft step.

And again, please, stop taking everything so personally. This is a rules discussion - there's no need to be calling anyone inappropriate things. :)

I've linked to the relevant rules. I've shown where I'm right. All you've done is disagree without anything to back up your claim that I'm somehow wrong.

If I'm wrong because the rules say so, then show me where.
If I'm wrong because your particular GM doesn't follow the rules as written in his games, then this entire thread is off-topic as it's in the wrong forum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When the basic premise of the question is assuming the rules work in a way that they don't?
Yes, it's extremely hard. :)

Edit- Besides, the OP has already been answered. The fact that you don't like the answers doesn't further change things.

In that case, there is zero point in having this discussion. No one but your GM can comment on things that are houseruled with any sort of accuracy.

And if we're discussing a houseruled rule, then General Discussion is the wrong place. This thread should be moved to Homebrew.

It doesn't work that way.
A full round action is NOT "move + simple = full round"
It is it's own action type, and once you have decided to use either a move or a simple action, you cannot then also make a full-round action.

You're ignoring the definition of "Full-Round Action" (quoted above).
It doesn't matter how many extra actions you've been granted in a round, using a Full-Round action eats them all up.

"A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round."

A Full Attack is a full-round action. Using a full attack makes you sacrifice ALL your movement, except for a single five-foot step, for the turn.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_full-round-action

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

So you could take a Standard and two Moves, or you could take a Full Attack and get an extra attack.

Not both.

The reason Pounce gets to "break the rules" is because it is not a combat option, it is an Extraordinary Ability, and therefore follows it's own set of rules.

Oooooh boy.

So I think it's important to point out that the Accelerate WoP does not work the way Marthkus has been describing:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/wordsOfPower/effectwords/t imeWords.html

Accelerate (Time)

School transmutation; Level alchemist 2, bard 2, magus 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2

Duration 1 round/level

Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)

Target Restrictions selected

The target of a wordspell with this effect word can take one additional move action each turn. This move action can come before, after, or between other actions, but not during a full-round action.

Boost: If the target takes a full-attack action, it can, instead of taking an extra move action, make one additional attack at its highest attack bonus.

You either get an extra Move Action, or instead of that, you get a single extra attack when making a Full Attack action.

Accelerate does not give anyone Pounce.

It doesn't change the party dynamic at all. All it does is make the DM's job a nightmare as the party destroys things way faster than they should.

Nothing can be gained by our further dialog in any topic ever. There is no need or reason for us to communicate further.

You should really, ya know, sit back and take a few breaths. Stop taking everything personally. Etc. :)

Lol, schrodinger's ranger? Hardly. Most of his abilities always work, and there are built-in ways around the ones that don't.
For what it's worth? If the campaign is themed, you build with the theme. If you happen to run into a serious encounter that deviates from the theme, THAT is when you use the Instant Enemy spell. You don't just spam it on every mook that you're stuck fighting that doesn't happen to be part of the theme.

Also PFS is not a good example. Normal games know who they are with and plan out their parties before the campaign begins.

Your group is the exception then. I've never played PFS ever, it's always been home campaigning, and in 20+ years of gaming the only "pre-game planning" I've ever seen done, in my group or in others, was to make sure no one stepped on anyone else's toes class-wise. Otherwise, it's always been, "Build what you wanna play and we'll make it work."

Yes, Superstitious Barbarians have better saves than Rangers. In fact, Superstitious Barbarians can potentially have better saves than Monks and Paladins.
That doesn't change the fact that Fighter's have bad saves. Pointing out that Ranger saves aren't as good as Sup Barb saves also doesn't change the fact that Rangers have better saves than Fighters.
I utterly fail to understand your logic with that one.

As far as the rest of the Ranger class, here's why they're still comparable to Barbarians:
--Their combat bonuses apply to whatever weapon they want, ranged or melee. The only requirement is Favored Enemy, and there is a 3rd level Ranger spell that makes whatever you're fighting into your choice of Favored Enemy. (No, you won't always be getting your full bonuses. In this way they're much like a Smiting Paladin. But no fair-minded GM is going to let someone play a Ranger and then refuse to let them use their largest class ability.)
--Yes, Rage Powers are still better than feats, so the Barb's got the advantage there. But part of the weakness of Feats is their prerequisites. Rangers get to ignore those for their Combat Style options, which is a HUGE boost (for example, you can go down the TWF feat tree without sacrificing a high Str - because you can ignore the huge Dex requirement). Fighter's can't do that. They have to meet the prereqs even with their Fighter Bonus Feats.
--Animal Companions MrSin already touched down on, but you don't have to take a "combat pet." There is a ton of flexibility there. Maybe you take a horse, and now you can do mounted combat without worrying about your horse staying super-weak (A fighter does not get to level his mount). Or maybe you take a scouting pet like a bird or small animal that can get info from places that would be much harder for a class to get to.
--Spells. Spells are the strongest mechanic in the game. Hands down.
--Favored Terrain/Woodland Stride/Swift Tracker/Camouflage/Hide In Plain Sight. These bonuses add up fast, and they are what make the Ranger THE best tracker/scout.
--Evasion/Improved Evasion. Grats on being one of the few classes that gets these abilities. Fighters/Barbs/Paladins can't.

Well I guess I'm seeing the fighter is a little weak but when compared to the barbarian he seems extremely weak. Why play a fighter when a barbarian seems to do everything better with rage powers? Part of that I'm thinking stems from pounce. Out of all martial classes I think not having pounce effects the fighter the most because he lacks other super cool things.

I guess it's a problem with the fighter that you don't really get scaling class features.

And this is exactly what the other thread was supposed to be all about, that is until it got thrown WAY off-course with all the WoP nonsense. ;)

As stated time and time again, in-combat healing means you're losing. Which, in turn, means that casters rarely prepare in-combat bandaids like that. (And once you get past low levels, 1d8+3 goes away REAL fast.)

As far as health goes: When a Barb (any Barb) goes below his non-raging HP + Con score, unless he has something to help mitigate that HP drop, it's just safe to consider him dead.

The thing to remember here is that if you were playing a Fighter, you'd already be dead. The Barb got to keep fighting past his "expiration date."

Rage is not an excuse to just shrug off damage as unimportant. A player who treats it like that is just going to have to deal with character death.

One thing I'm wondering here is if the fighter or other martials are still behind the barbarian in dpr if they now have access to pounce.

Barbarians without Pounce are already ahead of Fighters without Pounce.

Think of it this way-
First, consider +1 to hit is worth about +2 to damage:
A Fighter with his best weapon class is getting +4 to hit and +8 to damage from Weapon Training (for totalish of +16 damage).
A Barbarian is getting +8 Strength from Rage with any weapon he picks up for a +4 Hit/+4(6) damage, depending on 1h or 2h (for a totalish of +12/+14 damage).
The Fighter has a bit better damage but only with one category of weapons. The Barb is slightly lower but can use his bonus with any weapon he wants to.
It's about even.

Once you add magic items, things go WAY in the Barb's favor, but that gives them the same "weakness" (ie: a barb want's his specific weapon because of enchantments and a Fighter wants his specific weapon because of Weapon Training).
In a situation where everything "goes according to plan" then the Barb is ahead. Throw a curveball in there where they have to use weapons they're not used to, and the Barbarian is anywhere from slightly behind to significantly ahead.

So bottom line? Combat ability washes out.

Where the classes REALLY differ is the rest of their abilities, and this is where Barbs pull ahead of Fighter.
Part of the reason is that Armor Training is only as good as your Dex score, which isn't great because you are too worried about pumping Str and Con (and depending on build, you might need that 13 Int for Combat Expertise).
The other part of the reason is that Rage powers are better than feats. Sometimes by a little, sometimes by a lot. (A "maneuver" Fighter has to have a 13 Int, which takes away from his other stats, and has to potentially waste a feat on a prereq feat, and has to take two feats for every maneuver he wants to be great with. In contrast, the Barbarian needs a single Rage Power - and that Rage Power gives him a bonus WAAAY WAY above what the Fighter gets from his many Feats.)
(Another example is that there is no feat that lets you dispel magical effects. But there is a Rage Power.)

And then, to add insult to injury, the Barbarian gets all the other fun things too, like Uncanny Dodge, unconditional Damage Reduction, more skills per level, better class skill options, etc.

So, in summary, both classes are good at making things dead. But the Barb has better defenses and better skills, as well as powers that can be used to great effect even outside of combat.

To answer the original question: It depends.
Does the Barb have his weapon enchants? Then he's ahead. If not, then the Fighter is ahead.
But the important thing to remember is that the Barb can get Pounce all on his own, where as the Fighter can't. The caster in the Barb's group can use that spell slot on something more efficient than buffing the barb, where as in the Fighter's group, the caster still has to cast that spell every time.

Continuous damage from burning also forces a concentration check for a caster trying to use spells.

Concentration DC is only 10 + spell level + half the damage dealt with continuous damage, such as from Burn (rather than full damage such as with a regular attack).

It's a rather easy check to make as far as Concentration checks go.

Or better yet, let's go crazy and (only for the sake of argument) assume that WoP is a ruleset that is a standard part of the game that any player can take without specific GM fiat.
Nothing about that spell says, "May only be cast on the Fighter class."

The complaint about Fighters is that while they're effective, they're not as effective as other "heavy melee" options (ie: Barb/Pally/Ranger).

So, assuming that WoP spell is available, it can be cast on any class. So now the Fighter, Barb, Paladin, and Ranger all have Pounce. We're back to square one: Why play Fighter over the others?

Why does that section of UM specifically say, "Optional?"

If it is intended to just be the rules that are available to everyone all the time without specific GM permission, then why do they feel the need to put that O-word there?
According to you, "optional" doesn't actually mean anything. According to everyone else, it means exactly what it says: "Not standard."

Marthkus, here's your issue: People on these forums assume PFS-legal characters.
YOU might not have to worry about YOUR character being PFS-legal, but the only way that "build A vs. build B" stays a fair argument is if everyone is using the same rules. The best way to do that is just to adopt what is legal in PFS play.

For example, you don't ever see how Fighters are great because of how well he utilized his Leadership feat, because most people just assume that Leadership is banned.
Ditto for casters buying up magic items - It's assumed you use the PFS legal wealth-by-level and that Item Creation isn't allowed.

(Gestalt rules exist as an "optional rule set" as well. Should we just assume because gestalt rules exist that every group can use them if they wish? LOLNO)

Jan Eric, First Level Fighter

** spoiler omitted **

So I hit pretty well in melee, and I can afford a backup ranged weapon and a Chain Shirt and two weapons thanks to the high starting gold. I will need to address my will saves at 3rd level or so, but for now I'm pretty much with everyone else.

A Barb will out damage me when raging with the same feat choices, but will lose AC and not be able to do that very often. And they don't have the starting gold for the armor and two quality weapons.

I may do a monk next. Even I won't try a rogue, but I would love to see what someone else can do. Let me know if this is "good enough" and I'll level it up.

Your Perception is off. It should be a +2, not a +5.

Not really. :/

A Fighter gets 11 Bonus Feats over the course of 20 levels (and most campaigning stops around the lvl 13 mark, so you don't even get to see all of your bonus feats in most games).

If you want to keep up with the Barb/Ranger/Pally then you have to take FOUR* feats that specialize in a single weapon (not a weapon class, but one specific type of weapon... that's lame.)
You can, of course, forgo these feat options but by doing so you're avoiding the one thing that makes the class worth taking over any other "heavy melee" class.

*Reg/Gtr Wep Focus/Spec

i never intended to say Fighters were useless.

If this was in response to me, let me apologize. I wasn't trying to single anyone out - People just usually complain about Fighters not living up to other melee classes and I wanted to put that to bed. :)

As for your arguments about being tied to a specific weapon, I heartily agree. That's something that really should have been addressed in the conversion from 3.5 to PF. Unfortunately, the Devs just didn't go as far as they should have for some of their updates. :(

So I'm gonna ignore all the off-topic talk over the last 12 pages and just get straight to the skinny:

No one should be saying Fighters are bad at combat. They're not. They're actually really good at combat. Corner-cases have other classes beating them (Paladins vs Evil, Rangers vs FE, etc), but generally speaking, Fighters are great at killing things.

The reason Fighter's have trouble keeping up with other classes is that Combat isn't 100% of the game. Every class should theoretically be able to contribute in and out of combat in some way that is a built-in part of the class features. Take a Rogue for example - Their shtick is skills. Sneaking, thieving, etc. The Rogue's forte is non-combat. But they also get Sneak Attack, so that when they're thrown into combat, they don't feel useless compared to the combat-heavy classes.
The Fighter class should be the mirror opposite of the Rogue in this regard, except they're not. Every single part of the Fighter class is dedicated to combat, so when non-combat rolls around, they are left relying entirely on the party for all things. Skills are too low to invest in anything useful, and all the bonus feats you get *must* be Combat Feats.

Now, you may be thinking, "So what? It's a Fighter's job to fight, and he does it well, so why is relying on the rest of the party for other things bad?" The answer is it's not. It's not bad at all. But when you look at the other combat classes, they do just as well as the fighter does. Paladins are amazing defensively and against evil they are unstoppable killing machines. Rangers are anywhere from "just shy of" to "way better than" Fighters depending on what enemy is being faced or what spells are available to the Ranger. Barbarians tend to just out-do Fighters entirely, as the one thing that Fighters have a real advantage on (AC) becomes less important the higher level you get.
And all of these classes have contributions to the party outside of combat as well.
The Paladin and Ranger abilities are obvious as to how they benefit a party outside of combat, and while the Barbarian doesn't have class abilities that help him contribute, he does get twice as many base skill points and his class skills are much more beneficial to a group than a Fighter's are.

I always figured the "Monks don't benefit from Haste effects" was a much bigger question than "Does Ki spending stack with Haste?"

I mean, after all, you can't know the second without knowing the first. :P

Unarmed Strike is not considered a Natural Attack (it follows manufactured weapons more closely).

So as soon as you add a manufactured weapon into the mix (which the Unarmed Strikes count as) then your Primary Natural Attacks are treated as Secondary Natural Attacks, and would all get the -2 penalty.
So you would do:
Main Hand Unarmed Strike: -2
Offhand Unarmed Strike (treated as a light weapon): -2
Bite (normally a -5, reduced to a -2 from Multiattack)
Claw 1 (ditto)
Claw 2 (ditto)

But at level 2, with 5 attacks that can provide Sneak Attack damage (because let's face it... You're doing this because you wanna be a Rogue/Ninja), who cares? lol

Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons.

This.

A monster with a 10ft reach can "reach" 15ft diagonally.
A player with a 10ft reach weapon cannot do the same.

It's dumb and arbitrarily more complicated this way. 3.5 ftw here.

How are you getting two Know skills to a +10?
1 Rank + 3 Class + 5 Int bonus = 9

Also, where is the extra +2 to Initiative coming from?

(I'm assuming the answer to both of these is Traits?)

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can an Oracle of Waves, using the Water Form revelation, still cast spells?