|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Many abilities come with the phrase, "may not be used when holding/carrying a weapon or shield in the off hand," or something similar that implies carrying and does not mention wielding.
One example is the Dervish Dance feat:
When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
Bolded for emphasis.
So the question is, if you are carrying a weapon that doesn't require a hand to use (such as a boot blade or armor spikes), then are you always considered to be "carrying a weapon in your off hand" even when not wielding that weapon?
Any FAQ hits are appreciated. :)
This question applies to Oracles and Mysteries as well.
For example, the Trickery domain is wonderful and fun and the god(s) of thieves, assassins, etc. do all have their clergy, but the generic divine spell list is AWFUL for a stealthy, murderous assassin/thief type character.
Or Fire/Sun Cleric having only a tiny handful of fire based options.
The Domain/Mystery bonus spells can only go so far. How do you reconcile the "few-trick pony" divine list with the various supported archetypes that don't fall in line?
Kneejerk assumption was Ninja/Oracle of Waves, but I can't get over just how awful the divine list is for an offensive character.
The bonus skills, spells, revelations, are all great, but the Cleric/Oracle spell list has so very few offensive and/or Ice/Water spells to complement the character.
Would a Sorcerer be a better fit maybe? I'm not sure.
Any advice is appreciated!
How do you feel about this exploit?
Just can't decide if it's really worth it. Thoughts?
Indulge me a moment?
My question - who cares?
Unless you need a summon for a utility feature (flying, burrowing, etc.) then the summons available to you are trash by the time you can actually summon them.
The entire point of an archetype defeated simply because it's focus came too late in the leveling career. Really?
This extends far beyond Greenrager too.
And the argument extends to all classes saddled with stunted spell lists:
Case in point: There is a reason Paladins aren't stuck with a stunted Cleric list.
I'm curious how GMs and Players alike deal with the necromancer's favorite material component, considering fun facts like:
•Onyx isn't a very valuable rock, so 25g/50g chunks are going to be particularly huge (probably not fitting into any eye sockets!).
Looking for tips on build here. Thinking of a Barbarian/Sorcerer base with either Demon-Blooded Tiefling or Half-Elf for race. Just to give a general idea, I'm looking to be as "half-dragon" as I can - meaning not a caster with stat buffs and not a fighter with a couple spells, but sort of a blending of the two. (GM is cool with the Claw power lasting indefinitely, so was thinking of going the Nat Weapon route.)
Also I'm having a little trouble understanding the relationship between Blood of Dragons and Crossblooded Sorcerer. Can someone help me out with that?
This is a 9th level spell.
So, my question is, how do you handle it? How do you make Foresight worth casting in your game?
So my group is starting a 3.5 game that is Pathfinder compatible (as opposed to a PF game that is 3.5 compatible), and my collection of 3.5 books was sold off long long ago!
Why is "00" + "0" considered a 100? Why isn't it a 10? or a 110?
Wait... How did that happen?
If 00 always equals zero, and 0 always equals 10, then you get a possible 1-100 result without ever worrying about changing the die values.
That seems dumb to me.
Consider the spell Dominate Person:
How is this a good thing for the Bard? On the one hand, yes, he can cast it a whole spell-level earlier than the other classes. But what that actually translates to is that while a Wizard/Witch can cast the spell at character level 9, the Bard/Sorcerer has to wait until level 10.
tl;dr - Spell casting is kinda broken for anyone who isn't a full caster. Early Access isn't a good thing. It just turns a ridiculously bad thing into a not-quite-as-bad thing.
Here's the deal:
1- I'm torn between core Bard and Sandman. I really like Slumbersong, Greater Stealspell, Spell Catching, Master of Deception, and Trap Sense. On the other hand, I really hate giving up Versatile Performance, and to a lesser degree, Inspire Courage.
2- I also really wanna play a Halfling, but I really don't want to be an archer. There are just too many "necessary" feats. Obviously I want to be able to contribute in combat, but with the small size and Str penalty, am I just asking for trouble, or is it do-able?
Any feedback is incredibly welcome. :)
Why do all the good and/or fun archetypes have to replace Versatile Performance?
/trying to talk myself into Sandman
Two things concern me about casters (power-level aside):
1- Save DCs are super-awful for low-level spells.
So I'm considering the following:
2- Treat all metamagic feats the way the Spell-like Ability version works. ie: Instead of increasing spell level or casting time or both, they're usable X times per day (X being a value that shifts depending on the power of the feat - Enlarge would be more times per day than Quicken, for example).
Is Spellsteal actually a good ability, or does it 9 times out of 10 end up stealing some random spell that you have little or no use for because knowing what the enemy has prepared is tough to do (and being close enough to touch them is either hard, dangerous, or both?)
(I can totally see how Greater Spellsteal would be awesome. But it's also a 15th level ability and there's a pretty good chance the game doesn't go that long.)
So my group is having some trouble with our "trap handlers" showing up to game recently, so I offered to make a Bard to help with things.
I haven't actually played a Bard since 3.5, so I'm a little ignorant of, and curious about, my options.
What's the difference?
A vampire punches you in the face. It's super-effective! Take d4+str lethal damage and suffer two negative levels!
So I'm playing a Reach Cleric, and it feels like my spell list, with the rare exception (like a well-placed Windwall) feels like a waste.
I'm 6th level wearing +1 Armor, +1 Cloak of Res, and a +2 Longspear (lucky loot roll).
I'm too low of a level for the typical buff spells to be truly useful. I have Sacred Summons but no use for it until 5th level spells (CG alignment).
As the title suggests, there is some hostility floating around surrounding the mechanics behind "attacking defensively as a standard action."
Can we get a clear answer on how this works?
Pathfinder PRD wrote:
Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
Link: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_fighting-defensively-as-a-s tandard-action
Does the above require you to make an attack action (as in, using your simple action attack against a foe such as with the Defender weapon property) or can you just declare you are "attacking defensively" and gain the bonus to AC/penalty to attacks without doing anything other than declaring?
The armor tables seem to suggest that even light armor would limit a wearer's speed, as the "limit" for a character with 30ft speed is 30ft, not "-".
Example of my train of thought: Human Magus is wearing a chain shirt and casts Expeditious Retreat. The spell doesn't have any text that allows a bypass of armor speed restrictions, so wouldn't the wearer still be limited to 30ft?
I know I've always played that "light armor doesn't limit your movement speed at all" but now that I'm thinking about it, I can't actually find any justification for that in the RAW.
So there are a ton of complaints (some from me even) that the errata we tend to see is incredibly uneven.
The Devs, on the other hand, stick like glue to the line that, "We consider everything equally and make changes where needed; we don't target melee more than casters." (paraphrased)
Well, can we prove that here?
Here's what I'm looking for: As many "caster and/or spell nerfs" as you can think of since Pathfinder started. If the nerfs really do come even-handed, then there should be evidence to back that up, yes?
(And yes, before anyone brings it up, the Crane Wing discussions are what make me want to do this. I have a hard time believing that Crane Wing caused more problems for GMs than something like Color Spray, which has gone untouched, afaik, since PF 1.0.)
Snake style lets you use an Immediate Action to replace your AC with a Sense Motive check's results.
Snake Fang lets you make an AoO against a missed attack and then, if you hit with that AoO, use an Immediate Action to make an additional attack.
Except you only get one Immediate Action, so you can't use the benefit of both feats at the same time.
That seems dumb. Was this intentional?
Seems like having a list of options for FE that is 32 choices long seems like a dumb relic that never got polished up from previous editions.
Here's what I'm thinking:
(*Native Outsiders treated as Humanoid and/or Outsider, on an individual basis.)
And honestly, I'd like to either wrap Oozes and Plants together (but can't think of a good "theme" that covers both) or wrap each one into another group. Simply put, no one will ever pick those by themselves, because there just aren't enough monsters of those types to be worth it, ever (oozes especially!).
Thoughts/criticisms welcome. :)
Let me introduce you to the available feats in Pathfinder:
There is literally hundreds of them, and that's not including anything 3rd Party (to my knowledge - I'm not double-checking that list!)
So I'm wondering, would it really break the bank to offer characters a feat every level instead of every other level?
I tried searching but couldn't come up with anything.
I'm curious to know if you can attack with a reach weapon through an allied square.
Is this possible?
So my group's about to do a good ol' fashion dungeon crawl, and I've been itching to play a Reach Cleric.
My only problem is that I haven't played a divine caster since 3.0 was the new kid on the block!
What's a good "standard lineup" of spells for such a character these days? Maybe one lineup for low level and another one for mid level? (I don't expect the game to get into high levels, and I should have a clue by then anyway, lol).
Any help is greatly appreciated. :D
Just wanted to throw these out there and see what other people think:
•Needs more unique names (like it or not SKR ;) ).
•Spell lists need to be somewhat more unique to the class.
Is the Hellknight (Enforcer on d20pfsrd... Don't remember what it's actually called) the only PrC that offers Medium BAB and 10 levels of "+1 level of spellcasting class" or is there another?
I'm trying to build that EK that ends up with 4 iterative attacks and still has access to 9th level spells. My current GM isn't a fan of reflavoring things and "Hellknight" is about as far away from the concept I want to work with as possible (going for that old-school Elven Bladesinger vibe).
(I know Magus is an option, but I'd much rather have the Wiz/Sor spell options instead of the Magus ones, not to mention 4 attacks instead of 3.)