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

Protoman's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,392 posts (1,401 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 1,392 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

<Crosses fingers that the avenger keeps full BAB>
I would hate to rebuild my PFS playtest vigilante hate an average BAB. I'm currently having fun with a tripping fiend with Dirty Tactics, Improved Trip, Vicious Stomp + Fist of the Avenger, and Vital Punishment + greatsword. Average BAB would totally mess that up.

Ability score increases are retroactive.

James Jacobs wrote:
All bonuses are retroactive when an ability score increases, be they bonuses to damage, to skill ranks, to hit points, to saves, to skill checks... all of them. Skill ranks not being retroactive are a 3.5 convention we specifically removed from the game because it was a weird exception to the rule, and since now there are no exceptions to this rule, there's no need to specifically state that skill ranks are retroactively granted if your Intelligence goes up.

On another note, "The Bay of the Yeth Hound" would sound like an great Golarion mystery novel.


It would probably still follow commands like an animal companion.

Linguistics bonus would probably help.

From this FAQ, I'd say your case of someone holding an object in each hand is allowed.

FAQ wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

As long as you don't try doing a two-handed attack (for 1.5 x Str damage) with one attack and trying to do an off-hand attack in the same round.

Don't forget the alchemist losing Throw Anything would also loses access to Throw Anything's sweet +1 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made with thrown splash weapons which would have include bombs.

Arcutiys wrote:
Protoman wrote:

Hydrokineticists don't even actually get hurt by water just for being submerged in it and demanding to be able to breathe the stuff sooner than a pyro ever could with fire/smoke (currently never).

"But this other thing isn't the same, so you can't want to fix this!"

Are you serious? Is this your "gotcha!" moment? Sure. Giving fire kineticists the ability to not choke on their own flames would be good. Make it a part of fire sculpting or something.

Arcutiys wrote:

So interacting with bodies of water is not the focus of the class literally named "water"

They're interacting with it. It's called swimming. Look, they're pretty decent in it with a talent. They become even better swimmers with a second talent. Oh! A second interaction, creating it out of nothing!

Can geos live underground breathing in dirt? Nope. Pyros with fire? Nope. Hydros with water? With a talent? Void with void? Talent. Phytos with plant matter? Nope, well ignoring photosynthesis, I guess. Should they? Elementals don't get "breathe element" automatically so why should a kineticist? Some kineticists can at certain levels with talents. Not that big a deal.

I'm not being entirely serious about the "breathing in one's element" thing since I don't expect it as a given for a kineticist to get it. Plus even if it's available in low levels and not part of some combo ability packaged with another talent, there's an opportunity cost on picking that talent over more useful utility (or infusion if via Extra Wild Talent feat) talent. Still it shouldn't be built right into basic kinesis talents either as that'll be way more useful for some elements than others: most useful for hydro and void and earth and phyto (I guess?), than pyro or aero or aether (who breathes aether?).

Kineticists are supposed to be emulate elementals, what with pulling matter from the elemental planes and increasing percentage chance to ignore critical hits or sneak attack depending on burn points. Elementals can skip on the whole breathing thing cuz they're frickin' elementals. Kineticists are whatever they start type/subtype they start as in character creation, not actually turn one into an elemental and get all perks of that monster type.

That's just elemental overflow. I meant using a burning infusion on myself or using another means of "lighting one on fire" for an actual 1d6 fire damage to simply be ignored thanks to heat adaptation and 3 points of burn. Or better yet, fire immunity.
Hydrokineticists don't even actually get hurt by water just for being submerged in it and demanding to be able to breathe the stuff sooner than a pyro ever could with fire/smoke (currently never).

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yea pyros don't breathe smoke or can be fully immersed in lava with no issues unlike a hydrokineticist with greater waterdancer. Geos with earth glide still gotta hold their breath.

Hydros can create water and submerge themselves with no issues at level 1. Can breathe in it at level 10 if they so choose.

I want my pyro to be walking around on fire all the time, but then I got people throwing questions/complaints at me like:
"Are your clothes and magic items on fire or taking damage? It's not like those things have energy resistance or immune to fire."
"How do you hold scrolls? Or other note-taking devices."
"Your burning body's light is giving away our location."
"If you swim in lava you're eventually gonna be burned to death."
"It's counter-productive to the game for you to set everything on fire just so you can feel like you're in your element. That village did nothing to you." I guess 99% of games involve the party NOT adventuring into a fire zone for a whole adventuring day. The potential 1% is going to the Plane of Fire.


CN_Minus wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
You can't "convert" your Move action to a swift action to do this faster.
Where is this rule?

The rule that allows it is in 4th and 5th edition D&D. It didn't exist in 3rd/3.5 Edition D&D and doesn't in exist in Pathfinder.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm totally ok with it. Kineticists call upon their elemental matter from the elemental plane. Aerokineticists get continuous supply of air at level 2, everyone breathes air at level 1, but aerokineticists get air to go with them everywhere a level later. Void kineticists gets to not breathe at all at level 4. Hydrokineticists summon water, but they don't get to breathe in it like a fish til level 10, that current talent combines with water walk. Mark suggested "a solitaire water-breathing talent that didn't also cover water walking could certainly be lower level than the current one that gives both."

Pummeling Style and Charge are pretty good reasons for punching.

Absalom would be a good one.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Sidestep secret got clarified in the FAQ to use Charisma for CMD so it's better than nature's whisper in that it's adding Charisma to CMD, AC, and Ref. HOWEVER, sidestep secret's Charisma bonus to AC is stated to be limited by max Dexterity bonus of the armor, whereas nature's whisper doesn't have that stated limitation, so a nature oracle could be benefiting from a real high AC in full plate thanks to a great Charisma bonus and a proficiency feat investment.

Protoman has it wrong. The FAQ says. what is quoted in the OP

"sidestep secret revelation uses her Dexterity to calculate her CMD"

Sidestep secret still uses the DEX for CMD. So it's answer 3,
Nature's whisper applies only to AC and CMD and not REF


Side Step Secret applies only to AC and Reflex saves and not CMD.

Both give you 2 out of 3.

Oh whoops totally misread that FAQ.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monks can't have nice things.

Sidestep secret got clarified in the FAQ to use Charisma for CMD so it's better than nature's whisper in that it's adding Charisma to CMD, AC, and Ref. HOWEVER, sidestep secret's Charisma bonus to AC is stated to be limited by max Dexterity bonus of the armor, whereas nature's whisper doesn't have that stated limitation, so a nature oracle could be benefiting from a real high AC in full plate thanks to a great Charisma bonus and a proficiency feat investment.

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

In fact, you have to take burn specifically to fill the buffer. So it's really not going to affect things as much as someone might think.

The current method is to accept burn the "day before" and fill the internal buffer. Internal buffer doesn't get emptied when you rest and lose the regular burn, so it's meant to be stockpiled.

Yay a new samurai archetype. I couldn't get excited about ever playing a sword saint once I read the rules. But the yojimbo? I'm curious to see how it'll pan out. My PFS samurai just earned his axebeak mount so I wont be retraining it out for a mount-less archetype, but would totally make another samurai (there's such a dearth of samurais in PFS) for a yojimbo if it's cool and functional.

Kahel Stormbender wrote:

Kinetic Healing for example you can't reduce with infusion specialization. And I'm still unclear on if you can gather power to lower the cost of kinetic healing, for example. Since it specifically says "wild blast talent", I'm thinking it only works with infusions.

Which would mean that your utility talents can't have the costs reduced. Which again would provide a hard limit on how much you could spam your utility talents.

Gather power only works for actual blasting. Kinetic healer would add in the elemental overflow bonuses though. And yea, the only way to "reduce" utility wild talent cost is with internal buffer.

If you're a telekineticist, then it's worthwhile. Unless you got a better idea for a decent burn investment when one's committed to pick up 3 burn at level 6 for elemental overflow. The defense talents are awesome for that. Even pyros like searing flesh for that reason and that does nothing to stop damage.

Plus it regenerates and will be a lil useful almost every fight.

If you're doing it as expanded defense considerations, force ward probably isn't best choice over investing in flesh of stone or whatever initial defense talent you start with.

Energy damage and weapon damage are two different damage factors that can be reduced by effects that specifically state reduces those damage types.

Damage reduction applies to only the weapon but not energy damage, so a flaming sword's fire damage would be unaffected.

Energy resistance (fire) applies against the fire damage, but the sword's weapon damage would be unaffected by the spell.

Both energy damage and weapon damage are affected by hardness, so both factors get affected independently. The damage isn't all summed up into one damage attack for hardness just like it isn't summed up for one attack damage number when dealing with things affecting only one of the factors.

KainPen wrote:

"Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion."

This is why you use DR for creatures, to avoid the smashing/sundering rules which are different and allow GM to decide how energy does damage. If a robot has hardness listed instead of DR it must be a typo, unless robots are not creatures in which case they should be sunders are smashed then use those rules. which means the energy damage is effective by hardness however GM says they do ignore, half, whole or double ect.

Yeaaaaa all that would be house-rule talk. While most constructs, such as golems, have damage reduction; animated objects and lots of robots (a specific subtype of construct) however do use hardness rules. They're creatures and not objects, and not a lot of GMs are really gonna have a problems differentiating between the two categories.

Cwethan wrote:

Does hardness provide double protection against weapons that deal additional energy damage?

I.e. If I stab a robot with hardness 5 with a flaming short sword do I deal d6+d6-5 or d6-5+d6-5?

Yes, just like how DR would apply the reduction to just the short sword damage while the fire would get past no problems. Hardness would affect both.

For a robot, (d6 weapon -5) + (d6 fire -5)
From the Year of the Sky Key Q&A, the developers of the game addressed the robot hardness issue. It's not just a PFS clarification.

Year of the Skey Key Q&A wrote:

How does hardness work for creatures? Does energy damage such as cold deal half damage to creatures with hardness (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 173-174) even before applying the flat numerical reduction?

When a creature with hardness sustains damage, subtract its hardness from the damage dealt. The rules for halving damage, doubling damage, dealing damage with ineffective tools, immunities, and the like only apply to damaging inanimate objects.
(This is apparently a question the Design Team has received a few times during the development of Iron Gods, so they were ready to go with an answer!)

For an object (d6 weapon -5) +(d6 fire/2 -5)

PRD. Smashing and Object wrote:
Energy Attacks: Energy attacks deal half damage to most objects. Divide the damage by 2 before applying the object's hardness. Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily. Sonic might do full damage against glass and crystal objects.

Oooo new cover. I like. Haven't seen Hayato in a while.

RaizielDragon wrote:

If I'm going to be fairly melee-focused, would Annihilator be recommended? I know that it gives up utilities, and that can be a major hindrance to the flexibility of the class, but I do want to be a potent enough threat to draw attention.

Are there any utilities that I should be interested in that add to the toughness/survivsbility of the character? Or would giving up random utilities for some more offensive capabilities be recommended?

To answer that question, look at what utility wild talents you might want. If that list has a number of items greater than 3, you'd probably wanna skip the archetype. Regular kineticists do fine with damage (even the energy-based blasts) that they earn the ire of players and GMs alike when they don't know enough of the class to know how hard you're working to avoid over-accumulation of burn and the action economy you're working to ensure decent damage (gather enery + metakinesis).

Yeeeeaaaa. There's a lot of Adventurer's Armory specific things. A lot of them useful. You're gonna have to search in the list one at a time to see if it's exclusive. Maybe narrow it down to what sounds useful or look over your players equipment. There may be a database out there, but until then you can either start clicking or check with your players' equipment and write down what you're thinking of checking up on next time.

If you're hoping for posters to help narrow it down for you, you're going to have to, at the VERY LEAST, describe what the players are doing with the item instead of saying what book it's from.

You can find a list here of Adventurer's Armory stuff. Bunch of stuff in there has been copied onto Ultimate Equipment, but it was on the Armory first.

I think you're better off focusing on what infusions and utility wild talents you'd pick at which levels at this point and pick your feats after that. Those are gonna affect your survivability and general sense of fun more than any of your feats beyond toughness and AC. I still can't tell what if you're gonna be melee focused or not from your comments, and if so, combat reflexes by level 7 or so is probably gonna be the most important feat investment with kinetic whip.

That's because mithral itself doesn't change the armour type or proficiency, just that its treated as one category lighter for movement and other limitations. For example mithral breastplate counts for armour expert trait because it's still medium armour and also can't qualify for light armour only enhancements, like brawling.
Stuff like eleven chain or celestial armour specifically state they're light armour and so don't need medium armour proficiency.

Never want to accept burn? Normally I'd say use the Overwhelming Soul archetype.

But sounds like you want to be a dwarf and still benefit from ok Con but want to use feats like Diehard and Flagellant...Why would you want to be in the negative hit points range and still standing and be a viable target for GMs everywhere? Sure you can never take burn, but you'd lose out on elemental overflow which would really enhance the Constitution bonus, the biggest advantage of playing a dwarf kineticist. I'm playing a human pyrokineticist at level 10 in PFS and he's pretty much a tank (though with crappy AC). Currently sitting at a 26 Constitution thanks to +4 belt and elemental overflow. At level 11 it'll be a 30 Con with a +6 belt and upgraded overflow. Diehard would be an absolute waste of a feat cuz he hardly ever gets to negatives.

I vote play your dwarf kineticist (I assume it'll be a melee build for you wanting to "tank" and worrying about negative hit points and burn) with some armor proficiency feats to up the AC and be conservative with burn (like EVERY kineticist does when actually played after all the over-worrying theorycrafting is over). Before level 6 you'll probably be tempted to up the flesh of stone defense talent for more DR with burn. By level 6, it's gonna be damn tempting to increase 2 physical stats with +2 size bonuses for a measly 3 burn.

Wow. The new iconic fits the look for my Crimson Falcon PFS vigilante perfectly!

I had a similar idea where the the portal was the entrance to a large box. That was an animated object. That flew. And occasionally teleports.

I wanted a T.A.R.D.I.S.

You might be better off wearing a spiked gauntlet and just punching enemies that get too close when you're out of ammo.

There can be male witches. It's not gender-specific.


I love my PFS pyrokineticist. Just levelled him up to level 10. While I'm fine with kineticist rules, that's only because I followed Mark Seifter's clarification posts whenever I can (I favourited a lot of them to find them easier), I understand that they're confusing. I've seen 3 other kineticists so far in my lodge and had to help with 2 of them on the rules (one of them was passing the other wrong info in another part of the city). I find the part that kineticist level has to be twice the talent spell level to be most confusing for new players because that ruling is in the wild talent section but not also in the infusion section (which new players miss are also wild talents).

I've yet to see any of the other occult classes in play though. I know some players wanna try them out but still too confusing or have other stuff they're wanting to play first.

Advanced Class Guide sees a lot of action around these parts. Swashbuckler and investigators are definitely the most popular. Once Fencing Grace got introduced loads of investigator level dipped inspired blade swashbucklers. I personally like the daring champion more than swashbuckler for slashing grace use. I had fun with the investigator, but I typically volunteered to do my skill checks last after everyone else in the party had a chance to succeed first as I felt bad/awkward dominating the out-of-combat stuff when I didn't have to. I got kinda bored with the build. If I do investigator again, I think I'll forgo rapier and do an unarmed brawler type. Make him more of a noir PI feel (anyone read Garrett PI?). That or a psychic investigator but I'd have to think of a concept for it first for me to commit to it.

I like the brawler. Doing a Captain Andoran (well still just a Lance Corporal) shield champion and having loads of fun with it. Great damage thanks to brawling armor and decent range options with the shield. Martial flexibility is incredibly awesome, but sometimes not obviously so. I was trying to convince another player a while back of its strengths and how she shouldn't swap it out for mutagenic mauler; it wasn't until she played Serpent's Rise as the brawler and forced to try out flexibility and essentially saving several Aspis butts that she agreed how great it is with combat maneuver options.

I like the unchained monk. Feels more viable than regular monk (not including all the niche archetypes). Still a tad MAD even without having to worry about Con as much. Often I miss the brawler's ability to wear brawling armor to enhance weapon damage. I'm sad Ascetic Style from Weapon Master's Handbook isn't allowed for PFS as it would allow him to branch off more on weaponry (also seriously, why isn't a temple sword in the monk weapon group?). Having ki pool a level earlier than regular monk saved my butt when encountering DR/magic a little earlier than I could afford magic weapons yet.


Wraith235 wrote:

the one thing I have yet to see officially - if we have an entry affected by these new Rulings are we allowed Retrain / refund etc. on them

Boots of the Earth is my personal example

Boots of the Earth can be refunded for the full amount.

Not sure about the other clarifications.

Just a Guess wrote:

That only tells us that he can use the base damage if he wants to.

Close Weapon Mastery (Ex) wrote:

At 5th level, a brawler's damage with close weapons increases. When wielding a close weapon, she uses the unarmed strike damage of a brawler 4 levels lower instead of the base damage for that weapon (for example, a 5th-level Medium brawler wielding a punching dagger deals 1d6 points of damage instead of the weapon's normal 1d4). If the weapon normally deals more damage than this, its damage is unchanged. This ability does not affect any other aspect of the weapon. The brawler can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of her adjusted unarmed strike damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made.

the bashing shield is still a bashing shield and as such the damage is increased by 2 steps.

I know that people don't like shields doing much damage. The spiked/bashing discussion and following FAQ showed that. But even after rereading the rules several times I can't follow your interpretation.

edit: Would you say that a close weapon wielded by a brawler is immune to the hollow blades spell because only the base damage is reduced? It uses the same wording as lead blades which, according to your argumentation should not work.

Bashing shield base damage would go up 2 steps, it just wouldn't stack with close weapon mastery; you're using one or the other, not both at the same time. It's use the brawler's unarmed damage table (with -4 levels) or the shield's new base damage that's been increased virtually by bashing.

For the hollow blades spell situation, the spell affects the target when using any of its melee weapons. Not the weapon itself being affected. A brawler's unarmed damage would be reduced in size by one step as the brawler is treated as one size smaller, so close weapon mastery would be reduced in size by one step also, and subsequent use of close weapon attacks (base damage or with close weapon mastery).

Lead Blades would work with close weapon mastery, as the brawler is treated as one size larger, so a level 8 brawler can shield bash for 2d6 as per lead blades. I'm not sure which applies) damage as the unarmed damage goes up (level 8 brawler does d10 unarmed damage, close weapons would be d8, size change would be 2d6), it just wouldn't change anything with bashing shield itself. (cuz that spell is a virtual size change for the weapon which wouldn't stack with bashing and you use the unarmed table -4 levels or the base damage of the weapon).

EDIT: Got confused by the brawler unarmed damage size table. Fixed up the damage.

Just a Guess wrote:

As the unarmed strike damage -4 levels now IS the shield damage it should apply. Is this your interpretation or can you quote the rules on that?

I would always treat damage increases by things like close combat mastery and warpriest's sacred weapon as the new base damage.

If the "new base damage" doesn't apply when someone else uses the shield/weapon, then it's not base damage. Sacred Weapon and Close Weapon Mastery are class abilities that allows the player to use their own class ability progression on damage rather than the weapon's base damage. Which Sacred Weapon and Close Weapon Mastery even states as such:

Sacred Weapon wrote:
The warpriest can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made.
Close Weapon Mastery wrote:
The brawler can decide to use the weapon's base damage instead of her adjusted unarmed strike damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you go unarmed focused, get brawling armor of some sort as soon as you can. It stacks with the amulet of mighty fists' bonus to attack and damage, but it's a way cheaper way to get a +2 bonus.


Yea I'd wanna know if the Boots of the Earth clarification counts as 'PFS' errata so that I can full-gp refund on it.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Check out the robots in Golarion.

That doesn't provide any sort of proof that they're any separate from Constructs. That page actually says they're Constructs, but of a separate sub-type, which means they're still constructs. That's like saying Elves aren't Humanoids, because they have the Humanoid (Elf) subtype. And that sub-type doesn't provide any mention of them receiving Hardness, meaning it would be a creature-specific subject, such as Animated Objects.

Now Animated Objects, I can understand having Hardness, because they count as both a creature and an object for all intents and purposes. But full-on Constructs as a whole? Unless they're powered down, then they can't be treated like Objects, which means any Hardness rules would not apply unless they're specified, as is the case with Animated Objects. And last I checked, Hardness doesn't have an entry in the Universal Monster Rules, so I don't know how you're pulling all of this out of thin air. Perhaps you should use a step-by-step process.

@ Aelryinth: I don't think the sword was permanently stronger by making its material better, especially when at the end of the episode and the combat was over, the magic that imbued the sword (besides its innate properties, of course) went away. It makes more sense to upgrade it to a +5 instead of the +3 that the OP is originally suggesting, as it still does bypass the DR in question. It could be a simple Divine Bond or Greater Magic Weapon boon that Jack called upon in some outlandish Deific Obedience feat chain or what have you.

No one's saying robots aren't constructs. But robots with Pathfinder rules do have hardness as a defensive feature unlike other constructs in general. Which if you actually checked the statblocks for several of the robots, you'd see a hardness score listed.

Check out the robots in Golarion.

Some classes (such as (magus and and investigator) got psychic magic archetypes. More occultish archetypes in the Occult Adventures and Occult Origins books.

Zonugal wrote:
If we presume that Adamantium is just adamantine for our purposes, how do we adapt this scene?

Adamantine only ignores hardness of 19 and lower. Anything of 20 or higher and even an adamantine weapon will have to do 21 points of damage in one attack to do 1 HP damage.

So in Episode 18's example, robots had 20 or higher hardness. Jack and his sword (even if made from adamantine) was having a tough time getting through it to do significant damage. Extor gives him a gauntlet that gives a significant bonus to Jack's strength score so that he can do more damage per hit.

If the robots/constructs had DR/- or he'd still have a tough time without the strength bonus.

As long as the brawler is using his unarmed attacks to disarm, sunder, or trip (the three maneuvers that use weapons and would benefit from any enhancement bonus to attack), then yes.

In the case of grappling, the brawling armor specifically states a +2 bonus to grappling because grappling doesn't by default use a weapon (unarmed or not) and don't benefit from weapon enhancement or other bonuses to attack. So that was considerate of the writer of the brawling armor quality.

Comparing kinetic blade/whip with annihilator will require a lot of numbers with the annihilator having the option to Two-Weapon Fight or two-hand for 1.5xCon damage. Good luck Chess Pwn or anybody else daring to do so.

Actually, Mark, if the Annihilator decides to two-hand his melee devastating infusion for 1.5xCon damage, would that still count as a light weapon or would it have to be considered a one-handed weapon? I'm assuming the latter to keep it in line with regular light weapon rules regarding Strength modifiers.

Zonugal wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
Flat +2?

I'd like to but his blade in the cartoon can't cut through adamantium, so I'd like to stay true to that.

Neither could a +5 weapon cut through adamantine? Heck, an adamantine weapon can't automatically cut through adamantine.

But since we're talking about Jack's sword:

Samurai Jack Wikia wrote:
The sword has the power to cut through any mundane substance, given that there is enough force behind it (Jack was unable to cut through the tough armor of the Ultra-Bots in episode XVIII without artificial strength enhancement). Likewise, similar magically enhanced objects also prove immune to being cut by the sword (for instance, the Scotsman's blade was imbued with magic runes and proves impervious). The sword's main purpose is to destroy Aku and defend the innocent; however, one very important aspect that Jack had failed to consider in his first battle with Aku, was that the sword is nothing without it's wielder.

Sounds like mechanically it could be argued the blade could be made of adamantine. Anything it can't cut through easily can be argued/handwaved that they got a hardness of 20 or higher.

But for a +2 specific quality, maybe phase locking so Aku can't teleport away easily.

Valder wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
No. an Urumi is not a finessable weapon and being able to apply feats that apply to unarmed strikes wouldn't change that. However, you could finesse one by taking Fighter's Finesse advanced weapon training. You would need to be a Sohei to take it as a monk though.
I'm more looking at the section of Ascetic Style that says "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks." My interpretation is that we are not finessing the 1h weapon, we are finessing a weapon that is being treated if it were an unarmed strike.

It'd be treating it as an unarmed strike that is not a light weapon and benefiting from 1.5 x Str mod.

Neo2151 wrote:

I should clarify:

How do you work with spells like these without selfishly asking your entire party to gear specifically for spells that you may or may not actually prepare/cast that day.

Obviously there is gear that offsets such effects, but that's either expensive, or asking the party to give up a "big 6" item, or potentially both.
That's rough. :/

You should also ask the party, "If I WASN'T the one casting those spells, are you gearing up to get past those spells being cast at us?"

If they simply shrug and say, "I'll deal with it later" AND not wanting you to prep those spells because it gets in their way, they're basically liabilities at higher tier because they have no reasonable knowledge of high tier play. You should prep and cast those spells anyways before they get cast on you, cast them on enemies while they're still at a distance and melee party members still needed time to get to them anyways (for concealment spells, maybe single out one or two enemies to not be affected so ranged party members can focus fire on them).

1 to 50 of 1,392 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.