Quandary's page

What does `she isn’t really built for role-play` mean?
I assume you think lots of skills is necessary for that?
Ignoring the role-playing potential of characters who aren`t skillful?

Why do you need to be so competitive with the other players?
What is wrong with doing similar things to them, but they are statistically slightly better?
I mean, that you guys rolls stats SHOULD suggest that you are OK with discrepancies, right?

I don`t see a game-balance problem with your build.
Whether you go all-out Monk, or go into Cleric more seems equally workable. (one or the other)
Exactly who else in your group has Stunning Fist?
Besides the Paladin, everybody else probably has pretty crappy Will Saves.
If other characters are doing skill `jobs` routinely better than you, that`s a decent recent to rationalize not putting further ranks into them (since you don`t practice it as much if they do the job) which you can put into other generally useful things. Or keep being decently good at that stuff... whatever.

I would say that you can`t expect 1 level of Cleric to let you be better at healing than even `lesser` healing Classes (who are single-classed). Guess what? There`s lots of other Cleric spells, which you should be memorizing anyways since Cure spells are spontaneously substitutable. Longer term, the main thing you will get out of 1 level of Cleric is the Domain abilities and NON healing usages for 1st level spells.

There are options to allow for greater Cleric/Monk synergy, such as the +1 equivalent weapon enhancement allowing WIS to hit, if that is your highest stat... Also the Feat that allows Flurrying with your Deity`s Favored Weapon. If you are DEX-focused, that could also synergize with the Dervish Dance Feat which allows DEX to DMG. You would have lower damage dice than UAS at high levels, but better crit range (which is more powerful at higher levels... except vs. Elementals and such Crit-Immune creatures ;-) )

Unbreakable is nice. If you didn´t notice, Paizo decided that they had done enough ´Fighting Style´ Archetypes... You know, the ones where you get even better in one style (which the game encourages you to do anyways) in exchange for Weapon Training versatility and Armor Training. So this was one of their ´let´s develop an Archetype extending A DIFFERENT ASPECT OF FIGHTERS´. Namely, Bravery in this case. Some people decide that they don`t need even bigger numbers to attack/dmg (Weapon Focus) or need to Tumble in heavy Armor (Armor Training) but what Unbreakable grants is their sort of thing.

The Archetype gives you stuff that Samurai can´t compare too.
...Negating effects which happen even on failed Saves!?
You probably can make the case that Samurai as a whole gets more stuff. (mostly irrelevant to Unbreakable trope)
The real question is: can they pass appropriate CR challenges, such as found in Paizo APs?
I haven`t seen anybody complain that they can`t do that.

I don´t see it as a Class Ability modifying when Burning Hands is cast, and changing it.
You can still learn Burning Hands normally and cast it normally.
It´s just a Bonus Spell Known, i.e. you know this spell that works like Burning Hands but different.

I would treat it as a unique spell researched by the Sorceror.
As such, it´s still a Sorceror/Wizard spell, that a Wizard could hypothetically cast.
Burning Hands (altered) has all the properties of Burning Hands except as modified.
The Class Spell Lists it is on is a property of Burning Hands.

Whether or not you treat the mundane existence of the spell as known by X Bloodline Sorcerors as a reason to state that the ´modified´ version should be mundanely available (via scroll, etc) to any Caster is your GM call, I guess. I guess that question would be nice to be officially known from Paizo re: Golarion (and PFS).

I can sympathize with both sides.
Your personal ability shouldn´t need to correlate to the PC´s abilities.
But if the lines you come up with just break the role-playing immersion for everybody, that sucks too.
(the GM doesn´t want to hand-wave the NPC as temporarily dropping to INT/WIS/CHA 3)

Anyways, assuming that won´t change... Why can´t you play this character?

I mean, if you already have tons of ranks in those skills that is somewhat of a disparity, and perhaps you can talk to the GM about implementing some sort of ´Character Fault´ Bonus Feat (some new thing you choose) to compensate for applying some big penalty to those Skills (to make their ranks match the PC´s demonstrated ability in those areas). Or just ask to re-allocate skill ranks. Even if the GM is a stickler on not hand-waving (in favor of dice roll) horribly not-convincing attempted bluffs, they can probably see the conflict just as much as you, and probably would be happy to find a solution that maintains crunch/RP coherency. Just because they like a certain style of game immersion doesn´t mean they´re against you personally... Certainly nothing you wrote suggested that to me.

In any case, you can decide to continue playing the character as horribly bad in said areas, and not put any more Ranks in those areas, which over several levels should result in them matching the actual (played out) skills. Why can´t you play a Bard who can´t Bluff? That seems a perfectly reasonable character personality to me. Perhaps the PC Bard has until this point THOUGHT that they were a really good bluffer, and played off all their failures on other factors, but why can´t they come to terms with reality and admit they are a horrible bluffer? Or NOT, and CONTINUE to think of themselves as a great bluffer, even though they are not? Another great character concept to me. Whatever the case, or how you want to develop this character personality, there isn´t anything wrong with not being good at Bluffing.

Don´t the rules for cover say you can use any corner you want for determining cover only for Reach weapons?
At the least, it would make sense to unify the rules so at least Reach Weapon Flanking used that rule as well.
Besides actual changes to game-play, unified rules for stuff based around the same idea is just a good idea.

The example does show how finnicky the current rules are with regards to diagonal Flanking.
I think using Hexes removes that inequality re: corners vs. sides, but as pointed out, if the end-points of the line are more flexible then even square grids no longer have that inequality.

-----------------------

EDIT:

Aooo

oEEo
oEEo
Booo

A straight line drawn from the center of A to the center of B does not touch the border of E at all. Despite that both A and B are adjacent to corners on opposite sides of E, the straight line drawn from the center of A to the center of B does not touch those corners.

So the point there is that the corners they are next to are not opposite corners, but adjacent corners... even though each corner touches an opposite side of the target, the sides aren´t crossed by the line.

For flanking counts the square where you are or the square where you can land your attack?

This is already covered.

1) you must threaten the potentially Flanked target, otherwise you don´t exist for purposes of Flanking.
2) the line between your position and your flanking partner´s position must pass thru opposite sides/corner.

the other possibilities for lines between allies (which don´t qualify as Flanking) are:
line passes thru adjacent(touching) sides, and line doesn´t pass thru sides of target at all

Right. Besides the stuff that Abe mentioned, or any other optional material that changes the Flank rules,
the ´valid Flanking line´ never changes, you always must be on opposite sides of the opponent.
The only thing that Reach changes is how far away you can be on that line...
I think there is also SOME ´flexibility´ in valid squares that still count as being on opposite sides,
and Reach (along with being Large or bigger, i.e. occupying multiple squares) increases that flexibility somewhat,
but you still have to follow the same rule: on opposite sides of the enemy.
The crux is not where you threaten (though you need to threaten the target), but where you yourself are located.

i would say when you are polymorphed, you lose all aspects of bloat/blood pool EVEN IF the form you choose naturally has blood... based on ¨ you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form ¨. it doesn´t say you keep such abilities if the form you choose is similar to your normal form in X manner that is relevant to the ability.

if you view bloat/blood pool as NOT being dependent on form, then it should carry over NO MATTER WHAT form you polymorph into. who is to say that you don´t have blood in elemental form? elemental form 3 and 4 provide immunity to bleed, but 1 and 2 don´t, and even immunity to bleed doesn´t mean you don´t have blood to use with blood pool. bloat mage doesn´t really have any pre-req re: creature type or having quality of blood.

if it is somehow not dependent on form, but dependent on having blood available and elemental form is considered to not have blood, that really needs s specific FAQ to convey.

sure... shapeshifter isn´t quite my thing, but i thought I´d mention it as well, especially since it can stack with all the other stuff... certainly well beyond what Feats do.

not quite free, but skirmisher (APG) lets you choose:
Surprise Shift (Ex): The ranger can move 5 feet as a swift action. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity and does not count as a 5-foot step. (1/2 ranger level + WIS usages per day normally, expandable via Feats I THINK, although the base amount is more than enough for single-class Ranger IMHO)

also shapeshifter (APG) lets you choose:
Form of the Jackal: The ranger becomes thin and hyperactive, his movements taking on a nervous spryness. While in this form, the ranger can spend a move action to move up to 1/2 his speed without provoking attacks of opportunity. (and eventually all your movement period doesn´t provoke)

and also the guide (APG) grants:
Inspired Moment (Ex): At 11th level, the guide can have an inspired moment once per day as a free action... His speed increases by 10 feet. He can take an extra move or swift action on his turn. He gains a +4 bonus to AC and on attack rolls, skill checks, or ability checks. Finally, he automatically confirms any critical threat he scores. He can use this ability one additional time per day at 19th level. (AC bonus stacks with Mobility if the bonus to Acrobatics wasn´t enough)

note that guide and skirmisher are compatable archetypes, thus you can leverage Inspired Moment´s extra swift action for a THIRD 5´ step (that doesn´t count as a 5´ step, so enemies can´t Step Up, etc?) ...while getting +4 to hit, auto-Crit Confirm, +4 AC and skills, etc... I´m PRETTY sure that as an Ex ability, anything that gives you a full day´s rest would let you start over on daily usages of Inspired Moment, although I´m not sure... Inspired Moment is likewise compatable with the Form of Jackal Move Action ability, and AFAIK you can take Shapeshifter along with Guide and Skirmisher since they replace different stuff (Fav Enemy, Terrain, Hunter Bond, Evasion, Quarry, Camouflage, Spells). YIKES.

Uh... by ´he can get cleric domains´ I would assume he´s talking about Archetypes that allow that.
ALL Paladins don´t get domains, but some do, and you ´can´ choose those Archetypes if you so wish.
Just as you ´can´ choose the Vengeance Oath option for the benefits he mentions.

So, as I thought, it comes down to Feat Fixation.
Personally, I quickly realized that for the most part, you can get alot of Feats as ´low lying Fruit´ and Class Abilities can equal or surpass bonus Feats of a Fighter. Fighters can still not have enough Feats for everything they want as well.
What Feat gives CHA to Saves and Immunities to boot?
What Feat gives free additional 5´ steps to be used as you want?
Taking an Archer Ranger, they can decide to never take Point Blank Shot, for example.
Domain Paladins can gain bonus Feats from Domain in some cases.
If your group uses alot of PRPG books, you really have to compare all the Archtype options for these classes, which allows you bypass the Favored Enemy/Terrain restriction if you don´t like those... Although the baseline for the game, as seen by Paizo´s own APs is the GM informing players of good choices for those.

The entire Paladin class in utterly intertwined with role-playing concerns... If you aren´t into roleplaying and just like war gaming vs. any and every enemy, i.e. don´t care about pursuing a personal quest agaisnt Evil, Paladin isn´t really your class. But Pathfinder IS called a role-playing game, not a tactical war game, for a reason: it assumes role-playing is a serious part of your game.

SOME of them have an additional bonus ability, e.g. Darkness grants Blind-Fight, Glory boosts Channel DC by 2.
Since most don´t, I would just make 2 tiers of Feats here, those Domains with an extra ability/bonus should roll it into one of them... If there is balance questions, roll it into the 2nd Feat... or just ditch the un-named Power (or make it a choice between the un-named Power and the 1st named power). Regardless, you would need to clarify the language used to indicate these: ALL Domain Powers are ´Granted Power´ of that Domain, and ´the first granted power´ would be Blind-Fight for Darkness... Probably ´the first (second) named Granted Power´ would work to distinguish those.

You have the requirement that you can´t take Domains that you already have (good), but I´d also say if you have Domains from some source (Cleric, Inquisitor, etc), you could only choose additional Domains that would be a valid choice for you, i.e. granted by your Deity/Divine Power Source. I guess there´s nothing stopping a Cleric/Inquisitor multi-class from worshipping two different gods (???) but I don´t want to introduce that type of thing just via Feat. Non-Domain Class characters should actually have to be worshippers of the God who grants said Domain, and stay in good graces of said God as per Clerics normally.

Over-all, I am very ´MEH´ it just feels like checking off a box where-by all Class Features are equivalent.
I would rather see a Feat that allowed non-Domain-granting Class Levels to (partially?) count towards Domain advancement, but you actually have to gain the Domain via normal means, e.g. multi-class in Cleric/etc.

does anybody use string to physically deal with movement limits?
i haven´t yet ever, but it seems like it could work,
just a matter of how/where you stretch the string amongst the field of mini´s etc...
the string also lets you drop the diagonal movement rules and just use the real distance.
players could have specific strings for single move, double, etc,
and a general string marked off with 5´ increments could be used for everything else...???

i think templates, whether wire or pipe-cleaner or whatever are very good... players (or GMs!) micro-managing intersections is a drag, and just physically plopping a template down really does allow most of the accuracy you want, within the reasonability of doing the targetting AND the rest of your actions within a 6 second round.

i´m not sure if string for movement distance couldn´t be combined with templates for threat area to deal with movement AoO´s... maybe if you by default put a (stackable) wire template on each mini that was placed on the board?

Yeah...
Honestly, I fail to see how Paladins or Rangers are any less min-maxable than Fighters... If anything they are MORE.
I think the issue may be that the OP is less of a min-max freak than his fellow players,
and his fellow players are possibly still operating under 3.x assumptions where Feats were King...

I`m also interested in what sort of opposition the GM is throwing at you... Assuming such a min-maxing group, he pretty much NEEDS to be throwing higher CR opposition at them routinely, in one way or another. The base-line for balance is 15 point buy... If you are above that, NPCs also should be, and if you guys optimize hard then the NPCs should also be above par and be using intelligent tactics where appropriate. If NPCs are throwing min-maxed Will Saves around, how exactly would the Fighter be so great? Is the assumption accurate that the group feels having ONE person with Skill X maxed is sufficient? And the GM`m game style accomodates that?

And actually, I don`t think the OP ever said: what are the other classes in the group that are most over-shadowing him? Not that other Classes certainly can`t make themselves shine, but each class should be able to challenged... Perhaps the Gm just isn`t doing that. Tough opposition should be able to 1-shot Crit Kill most Casters... does that ever happen? Are the other players constantly getting to play out their `uber optimal full damage routine`? Because they shouldn`t, the game is supposed to be varied enough that one trick doesn`t always work, and if you start on your back foot you may well scurrying to catch up.

Honestly, if the difference is really just a difference in min-max `knowledge`/preference, that is something that is independent of class choices... Because you can certainly build Rangers and Paladins that utterly rock on any metric you want to choose. As I first wrote, they definitely do not do worse in large groups... It doesn`t matter if you have a Cleric, Paladin still is useful, it doesn`t matter if you have a Rogue and a Druid, Ranger can still be useful.

Likewise, if you are using Favored Enemy/Terrain, 99% of GMs should give you a list of stuff that will be somewhat useful... not necessarily in ranked order, but you will get use out of that stuff. If your GM refuses (maybe he doesn`t know where the campaign is going) there are Archetypes that don`t depend on those things. If you are a Paladin, you should be fighting Evil that you can Smite, and probably `Big Evil` to boot. If you aren`t running into that (Neutral opposition) it doesn`t seem like the Campaign would actually hold a real Paladin`s interest very long, and he should go roam to where he can pursue his calling.

OK; I think it is poor form for players to ´re spawn´ clones of their dead PCs,
mostly because it strongly indicates a lack of dedication to real role-playing vs. a videogame mentality,
but assuming you DO want to allow this sort of thing, the question becomes:
OK, there apparently IS a bunch of NPCs walking around who happen to be totally identical to your PC. So what is stopping you from meeting these guys BEFORE said PC dies? Running into exact clones, with exact PC stats and gear, etc, who may or may not be allies or enemies (depending on situation) is the sort of thing to hilight the world-consistency and believability problems that come with ´style´ of play. Role-playing, the PCs back-story can be brought up for some reason, and the NPC would respond ´OH MY GOD! MY LIFE IS JUST LIKE YOURS!!!´ ...repeat that a couple of times, and the world-consistency situation should be clear to everybody involved.

...It sounds like thru talking it out, you guys came to your own solution that keeps everybody happy, so good on you! :-)

I think part of it is that each player can enjoy the story as a whole, independently of the power-level, etc, of their PC. That means that if their PC is under-power, that can be part of the story... Immediately returning to optimal power-point, with identical (optimal) build is less of an issue than story continuity. Sure, the player may still not want to play ´the weakling character´, but when the power of the story is the main thing, each person involved (players and GM) wants to see how they can best further the story, rather than shove that aside solely in the interest of how many big numbers are on their character sheet.

BTW: Even though I disagreed with basiclly all your points, I thought the OP´s original posts was well written and good mannered: something I wish was true of more posters. That is obviously how he honestly has come to view the class from his experience... But I felt he wrote it being equally open to confirmation OR differing opinions, which is what helps to bring about actual communication IMHO. Welcome to the boards, Kakitamike!!! :-)

Yeah, I think it´s just your playing style/group...

Firstly, if you are playing a spell-casting Ranger/Paladin, the spells outside of Core are SIGNIFIGANTLY more useful than just Core spells. You also can swap out spell-casting for useful Class Abilities if you want to. If you do retain spell-casting, even ignoring the UNIQUE spells that work really great to augment a ´fighter type´, the ability for the Ranger/Paladin to cast those spells is usually better than having a FulL Caster do so: most of those spells are things that you either achive the effect or you don´t: The Full Caster can´t really do that ¨better´ than the Ranger/Paladin. And honestly, of all the thigns Full Casters can do with their spell slots, they have alot more powerful options (even with low-level slots) than doing stuff that Rangers/Paladins can replicate... So having a spellcasting Ranger/Paladin in the group DOES free those slots for other things.

...But if the spell-casting doesn´t seem useful to you, swap it out!

EDIT:

The alignment is still an issue, because i can play a lawful good fighter, but i am allowed to occasionally look the other way on a choice and it doesn't wreck my character. Lawful good for every class but a paladin is a guideline, but for a paladin it's non-negotiable.

Paizo made it more explicit that Paladins can work with Evil people, who presumably do Evil stuff sometimes. If you use Deity-specific codes, it´s even clear that some Paladins´ Code is even borderline by most people´s definition of Lawful Good (Torag vs. enemies of Dwarves). Not saying that a Paladin may not be more of a hard-ass than a ´typical´ LG Fighter, but there isn´t such a dividing line... And if you approach it from a role-playing/personality perspective, that LG Fighter may very well hold himself to a Code a well: I would expect there to be as many LG Fighters who DO that as those who don´t. Again, cooperating with Evil characters IS allowed, and you just need to be more comfortable with confronting that conflict IMHO. If other players aren´t willing to EVER accomodate you as a player of a Paladin, YES, you will have problems... but same thing if they aren´t willing to accomodate any other in-character belief (such a choice of worhsip of gods, vegetarianism, etc). Paladins, as sworn enemies of Evil, are going to go where they can carry own with battle most succesfully. If one PC is so much in conflict that they can´t work together to further the Paladin´s main goals, either the Paladin should go or the other PC should go... Given that the Paladin probably has a decent CHA, I´d say they are in the best position to Diplomatize the rest of the party to follow the Paladin and now the other PC has a problem not the Paladin. This is aside from the fact that, yeah, if every body just rolls up some totally random character concept whose goals and ideals don´t coincide, then yeah, they don´t really have any reason to work together... Having a Paladin Code is really just a specific example of that.

I'm i'm making a ranger, and the campaign starts with us in prison, or on a boat, should the DM make an exception for me and tell me the terrain and native creatures of wherever we're landing,or should he tell the party, and let them change their characters using the new information because I didn't want to pick a useless favored enemy or terrain?

Paizo does in fact give a list of recommended Favored Enemy types for their APs.

You can just as equally apply this to many other classes abilities, including Feats that may be useless, or spell choices that may be useless, etc. Rangers also DON´T HAVE TO HAVE Favored Enemies or Terrains, there are Archetypes that swap those out. Bypassing DEX requirement is indeed not actually useful for Archer Rangers, but bypassing BAB requirements IS useful (as already mentioned), not to mention that not all Rangers/Fighters are Archers: 2WF Rangers are very viable for that reason, and Sword and Board Rangers get to bypass requirements that even Shielded Fighters don´t get too (although the Archetype reads as if they SHOULD, e.g. 2WF pre-reqs for Shield Feats).

If you are ´only playing Core´ (no Archetypes), then Archer Fighters are wasting their Class Ability, since a max-DEX Archer Fighter will not use Heavy Armor and thus the ability to move un-encumbered in such is of no use to them, as is proficiency in Heavy Armor to begin with.

Yeah, sorry... I was mixing up Over-Run with Bull Rush.

Still, Imp Over-Run says:

You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing an overrun combat maneuver.
Normal: You provoke an attack of opportunity when performing an overrun combat maneuver.

Over Run says:
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square. ...If you do not have the Improved Overrun feat, or a similar ability, initiating an overrun provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your overrun attempt fails, you stop in the space directly in front of the opponent, or the nearest open space in front of the creature if there are other creatures occupying that space.

THe Feat directly says that you do not provoke an AoO when performing an Over-Run.
Over-Run includes moving thru their space, which includes leaving threatened area (presuming they are armed).
So IF YOU HAVE Imp Over-Run, it doesn´t really matter whether the AoO for initiating an Over-Run is separate from that for leaving a threatened square, Imp Over Run says you don´t provoke when performing Over-Run.

If you DON´T have Imp Over-Run, the question would be if you could potentially provoke 2 AoO´s.
Since the description of Over-Run is clear that ´initiating´ the maneuver happens when you TRY TO LEAVE THE THREATENED SQUARE (and failure leaves you in your original square), to me that is clear that in this case the Maneuver AoO is identical to that for leaving a threatened square, the provoking action is exactly the same, and there is no way to separate them (one happens, and then the other happens after the first one). I suppose that could be clarified though.

Ummm.... No. (@OP)

As mentioned, Rangers bypass Feat Pre-Reqs. They can share their Class Abilities with allies if they so wish... The benefit of which scales up the more allies they have. If they have an Animal Companion, said Companion has more opportunities to Flank, possibly before Rangers´ own Initiative, with more party members.

Same goes for Paladins... I mean... Hello, AURA OF JUSTICE!?!?!?!? Paladin Mercies are also useful the more people you have in your party, since the Paladin themself is more unlikely to NEED them themself (given awesome saves, immunities), the more people in the party = the more people likely to need the Mercies in the first place. Things like Paladin Detect Evil is statistically more beneficial to large parties because the Paladin using their own action economy to Detect Evil impacts the OVERALL party action-economy less with large parties than with small parties.

More party members also means more ways to use both of each class´ spells.
More party members means that it´s easier for each PC to specialize more, meaning both Ranger and Paladin need to worry less about covering some group-useful ability, and can spend their fewer Feats wherever they want without worry, knowing that somebody else who is better at that job can cover that niche.

-------------------------------

re: Alignment, I don´t see the issue. You can just as easily have somebody in your small group who will conflict with your Code/etc. Maybe there is more chances in a large group, but you either have that conflict or you don´t... In a large group you may well have another party member who happens to be ideal at convincing/tricking said conflicted PC into ´playing along´ with your Code, so I´d say it pretty much equals out. If anything, large groups are more robust because the relation with a given party member CAN break-down in a situation, but there is more PCs to continue as a group (and the group is less impacted by the loss of 1 PC).

...So that about sums it up, it looks like :-)

I´m not sure, but I think ´marijuana´ exists as such IN GOLARION itself...

Beyond that, I would question why it should be classified as ´adult content´.
In the US, marijuana is equally illegal for adults and children.
Mentioning it´s existence is therefore not especially ´adult´.
I beleive there are ADDITIONAL laws against providing drugs to children, but those same laws prevent providing ALCOHOL and TOBACCO to children... I don´t think those laws would mean you can´t mention alcohol or tobacco in your game-world.

You could PERHAPS view explicitly mentioning providing alcohol, tobacco, AND marijuana to minors as being verboten ´adult content´, but I wouldn´t agree... That is simply a crime under US statute, not ´adult content´ (appropriate for adults but not children) per se. Murder is also a crime for both adults and children, but mentioning murder shouldn´t be against Paizo´s licence policy. Paizo doesn´t say you fantasy worlds have to conform to US statute in all ways... Further who is to say that ´minor´ has the same definition in your game world, or even exists as a legal concept? Further, imagine a REAL WORLD country where pot is fully legal as you imagine it in your game world: is mentioning this fact about this country ´adult content´ that can´t be expressed openly to children? No, that´s Orwellian nonsense. Mentioning that X country has different laws re: WHATEVER isn´t itself adult content, it´s basic facts that belong in an encyclopedia.

I think Paizo is pretty much talking about explicit sexual content when they say adult content.
i.e. they don´t want you publicly distributing content including Golarion stuff that goes beyond a ´R´ rating.

In any case, it sounds like you´re working on a world setting product. Even if you use PRPG rules-relevant statistics in some parts of this product (it sounds like you´re not doing so re: pot) that doesn´t mean you actually have to mention PRPG, Pathfinder, or use any of the product trademarks... Which means you have no need to use the Pathfinder game licence (game mechanics aren´t protected per se, so you can be fully compatible with PRPG without using a licence... as long as you don´t use their trademarks) . And as mentioned, the other CUP is for GOLARION WORLD content which you obviously also don´t need. I would guess you don´t need to worry about any licence requirements whatsoever.

PRPG Over-Run no longer ´enters the square´ of your target, so that AoO never happens.
*IF* the target has a Reach advantage vs. you, it seems that you WOULD need to leave a threatened square before starting the Over-Run, so in that case it seems that per RAW the target would get an AoO vs. you before you start the Over-Run (but that is the same for ANY normal melee attack, and this AoO from movement doesn´t apply DAMAGE to the Over-Run DC as if they took and AoO provoked by the Over-Run maneuver itself).

Apart from this, I think the exact action order of Over-Run could be cleared up, as it seems like you are ´uniquely´ taking the Standard Action DURING a Move Action, yet that isn´t actually specified / allowed by the RAW. This also goes for Over-Runs allowed DURING another action such as a Charge - an action is being ´injected´ within normal movement in that case, which is a pretty wierd event rules-wise, wierd enough that it needs to be called out. Wierd exceptions to rules are OK, but it needs to be clear, other wise, normal rules re: sequential/modular actions ´SHOULD´ apply in all cases (which would make Over-Run kind of s*~#ty if your movement immediately stops in order to use it)

There is no "rogue version" or "barbarian version" of uncanny dodge, or the two wouldn't be able to stack.

I´m not so sure about that...

There is a specific wording difference between the two, although I´m not sure if that is intended.
(if not intended, it should be Errata´d)
The fact that they stack doesn´t get around that wording difference (or need for Errata).
They can in fact work differently... But the fact that they explicitly stack means that even though the Class Abilities normally work differently, you can stack the Class Levels together, effectively meaning Class Levels of the weaker (Barbarian) version apply when considering the strength of the stronger (Rogue) version. Doesn´t matter if one is weaker, the Class Levels of the weaker version stack towards deterimining the strength of the stronger version, that would be true even if the Barbarian version was ridiculously weaker (such as if all it did was grant you a +1 AC bonus but you still count as Flat-Footed and Denied Dexterity).

The issue is that the templates do not add the subtype.

Exactly.

Celestial Template doesn´t mention anything about Good Sub-Type, which is what Sacred Summons cares about.
Good Sub-Type says: This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the good-aligned outer planes.
Celestial Template Animals aren´t Outsiders, they are still of the Animal Type.

Good (or other Alingment) Sub-Type Outsiders have a special role in the game, they are literal exemplars of that Alignment from every fiber of their being, in a way that merely having that Alignment is not... And merely being Native to the same (Alignment) Plane that said Outsiders usually live on isn´t the same as having an Alignment Sub-Type, because said Alignment Sub-Type Outsiders can also be Native to the Material Plane... You can ´say´ Celestial Animals are somehow ´closer´ to Good Sub-Type Outsiders, but it isn´t the same...

So per RAW, Sacred Summons doesn´t apply to Celestial Animals... And I don´t see a problem with that. Just because Celestial Animals live on the same Plane as Good Sub-Type Outsiders doesn´t mean they should be treated the same for all effects. Good Sub-Type don´t have the Celestial Type, either... Those are separate things. Yes, Celestial Animals and Good Sub-Type Outsiders will usually be good buds (as much as Animals and intelligent Outsiders can be) because they have similar Alignments, but they aren´t the same thing.

I still FAQ´ed it for you.

Only thing I would add is that Energy Body is rather limited in duration,
and when it ends, you would no longer be Immune to Paralysis...
Just being temporarily Immune wouldn´t end the Paralysis´ duration IMHO (???).

I don´t believe that Su abilities require any movement, so that´s OK.
I think TKD is mis-quoting the actual ability name, and he doesn´t actually mean using Elemental Body (Polymorph spell), but the Energy Body Su ability which DOES actually grant full abilities and actual type (explicitly) although no Stat Bonuses... Energy Body isn´t really using the Polymorph rules at all.

I think that (unlike 2 Polymorph effects), you CAN combine Energy Body with another Polymorph effect, at the least retaining the Elemental Type from Energy Body (since Polymorph doesn´t change Type) and POSSIBLY still applying the positive energy vs. undead and allies (and light effect)... those aren´t clear if they depend on your ´form´ or not (and thus would be replaced by a Polymorph effect). Energy Body is pretty amazing given how Polymorph has otherwise changed in PRPG... I´ve considered a Life Mystery Rage Prophet just because of it, in fact.

I think part of getting people to accept character death is keeping the dead PC as part of the game world.
They will be buried with proper rites. NPCs will inquire as to the missing PC. (good and bad intentions)
Perhaps the party will seekout the PC´s heirs/family. Future encounters will remind them of the PC in some way.
The PCs can invoke the memory of their fallen comrades where appropriate.
With all of this, players can feel that the death of the PC was MEANINGFUL, which is the main difference with the ´respawn´ player mentality which treats PC death as a meaningless speed-bump (with whatever minor mechanical penalties apply).
If stories of the brave death of the PC continue as a point of the game, players don´t feel like it was a failing of THEM as players when their PC dies. Spectacular deaths can and should be scattered along the adventure path of a band of heroes.

On a related tanged, you COULD read the Shielded Fighter´s ability to ´mix sword and shield attacks´ within a Full Attack, not gaining extra attacks ala 2WF but not needing those Feats either (except as Pre-Reqs for Shield Feats... whoops), as precedent to show that Full Attacks normally CAN´T be swapped between different attacks.

Of course, that restriction doesn´t actually exist in the Core Rules, and imagining it to be so would seem to impose harsh restrictions on throwing weapons/quickdraw or when your main weapon is just disarmed and you want to UAS with your remaining attacks (etc). Given that the Polearm Fighter Archetype also ´seems´ to grant an ability to Trip with Polearms that in fact ALL Polearms already have (clarified per latest FAQ), I will take the wording in Shielded Fighter to be superfluous (even if unfortunately that ability was judged as one of the ability the Class Archetype grants, i.e. the Class is wasting it´s ´budget´ on granting something all characters already have) and thus read that there ISN´T any such ´switching weapons within Full Attack´ restriction.

Both of those Archetypes (Polearm and Shield) should really be Errata´d in that case though.

Hmm... On one level, you can read that bit from the PFS Guide: Finishing Touches, Religion
"Characters can elect to worship any deity listed in a table of gods in the Core Rulebook, Inner Sea World Guide, Gods & Magic, or any other source listed as an official Additional Resource... characters who do not receive powers from a divine source may choose to be atheists or to have no deity at all."
If you read that closely, you realize it doesn´t actually proscribe that characters with divine powers must worship a deity, the wording only points out that characters without divine powers may be atheists/not have a god, while characters WITH divine powers are still technically under the general rule: that they MAY worhsip a deity, but there is no proscription to do so. that reading means the above text is just very superfluous... I agree that it´s reasonable to think that whoever wrote that passage DID intend for divine powered characters to NEED to worship a deity, even if that wasn´t strictly stated.

if you accept that latter reading (re: intent), that´s actually against what paizo has written on this topic re: how Golarion works. I believe James Jacobs was originally staunchly against the idea of atheist Paladins (not sure about his position on Rangers), but that was effectively over-ruled and atheist Paladins and Rangers were said to be A-OK officially in Golarion.

if this is a change to that ruling, and all Paladins and Rangers (with divine spells) must worship a deity in PFS, i hope that can be explicitly clarified. Oracles would also seem to require worshipping a Deity (if you accept the not-RAW intent of the PFS Guide), which seems to hugely clash with the concept of Oracles.

afaik, if you use an archetype that gets rid of divine spells, then none of the remaining class abilities are actually explicitly ´divine´, and thus you would be OK in any case.

On a similar note, right after the 1st printing a bunch of messageboard posts were made by Jason Bulmahn and other Paizo staff, explaining some of the details about the Attack Action / Vital Strike stuff. The Combat Chapter still puts general attack rules e.g. for Crits, Ranged vs. Melee/Natural Attacks, etc, all under the Attack Action, which is contrary to the official reading of Attack Action. There still is NO FAQ on this subject, even though it`s obvious a crucial one that confused alot of people... Why shouldn`t there be an official FAQ? A new player is unlikely to `happen to` dig up the multi-year-old messageboard posts explaining the implications. Ideally, ANY Paizo messageboard posts explaining rules should be in the FAQ.

Yeah, I can see that reading... It´s definitely arcane enough that by any reasonable standard for rules editing, that needs to be spelled out directly because it´s not just a normal application of common rules, but rather something that is probably totally unique and doesn´t come up anywhere else in the game but here. Calling out how Improved Unarmed works here hardly seems a huge drag on the rules, and would make it 100% clear to EVERY player/GM, rather than something easily over-looked/mis-interpreted/etc.

I would say DON´T take Agile Maneuvers at Level 1, and DEFINITELY take Weapon Finesse if you have a DEX heavy build. Waiting till 6th level to grab Weapon Finesse is absurd, most all of your attack will be suffering a -4 effective penalty until that point, i.e. you will be attacking like a weakling Commoner.

I suspect Harte035 isn´t familiar with the distinction, but since Trips are delivered via weapons, including Unarmed Strike, you don´t need Agile Maneuvers to use DEX on your Trip attacks, Weapon Finesse works just fine: and applies to all normal attacks (with Finesse Weapons, such as Unarmed Strike). Taking Agile Maneuvers makes no sense because the only benefit it offers vs. Weapon Finesse is that it applies to Grapples, Bull-Rushes, etc, i.e. maneuvers not normally delivered via (Finesse) Weapons... But Harte035 isn´t taking any Feats to actually be good at those types of Maneuvers, so I see absolutely no point in his early selection of Agile Maneuvers.

The Agile Weapon enhancement is OK, but it overlaps with Weapon Finesse - If you get Weapon Finesse first (which I recommend), there is no point, and if you get Agile Weapon enhancement first, but pick up Weapon Finesse later, your investment in Agile eventually is wasted. Since using your DEX modifier on all attacks from Level 1, instead of having ZERO attack bonus, is a really nice thing, that´s the route I recommend.

Combat Reflexes can be nice eventually, but having the opportunity for more than 1 AoO isn´t that common especially at low levels, ESPECIALLY if you don´t have a Reach Weapon, which it doesn´t seem like you do.

Actually, that is very good advice: even if you plan on using Unarmed Strike most of the time, which makes sense as a Monk since I don´t think there is many Monk Reach Weapons (although there probably is now in Ultimate Combat), simply holding onto a non-Monk Reach Weapon is incredibly useful because it doesn´t impede your Unarmed Strike Flurries but gives you an extra opportunity for an Attack of Opportunity vs. enemies moving thru your expanded Reach area - and that AoO can be a Trip. If you find a Monk Reach weapon, you can now Flurry against both opponents in your normal Reach AND within your extended Reach Weapon area - and don´t forget you can 5´ step at any point... meaning you can maximize Full Attack/Flurries vs. more enemies.

Eventually, with alot of AoO´s, and a high speed from being a Monk, you may well want to consider Combat Patrol, which works extremely well with expanded Reach via a Reach Weapon (and Enlarge Person = 20´ Reach).

I believe there is some Feat that let´s you treat your God´s Favorite Weapon as a Monk Weapon, I´m not sure if that requires multi-classing in Cleric or Inquisitor, but both of those are more than viable as dips in my opinion, with the benefit of Domain(s) and Spells which incidentally use WIS, your 2nd favorite stat as a DEX-focused Monk.

Thanks, I was confused with all the talk of Monk Weapons, etc...

I agree that IUS wouldn´t get around the -4 penalty, to say so would require considering IUS to both simultaneously NOT be a weapon (to allow grabbing the weapon) and being a weapon (to avoid the penalty). Both of those aspects of unarmed Disarm are right next to each other, as mentioned, and since IUS is such an obvious, core part of the rules, if you weren´t meant to apply one of those aspects (while applying the other), I would imagine it would say so directly.

I was going to make Blueluck´s 2nd point... Since the Whip has Reach (although doesn´t threaten until you have Improved Whip Mastery: also note that doesn´t threaten as large an area as a real Reach weapon, rather just your natural Reach +5´, so Enlarging yourself will not yield the same Threat Area as a real Reach Weapon) your targets won´t be able to take the AoO for not having the Improved Maneuver Feats. You may want to take them eventually, for the +2/+4 to CMB, but you don´t need them right away. I´m not sure if the benefit of Greater Disarm (sending the weapon to a random square within 15´ instead of dropping to the ground) is REALLY worth taking the Feat... EVER.

I don´t think Tripping Strike is that useful. Whips aren´t a high-crit-range weapon to begin with, and the nature of Trip is that you only can do it once to a given opponent and if you want them Prone you can just choose to Trip them in the first place. Once you get Greater Trip, your succesful Trip will give you a free AoO agaisnt them (although technically this runs into problems with the Whip´s Threat Area), so I see that being a more useful route than attacking them ´normally´ to begin with and hoping you Crit in order to get a Trip - Whips don´t do as much damage as other weapons, so might as well concentrate on what they do best: Trip enemies first, thena attack normally once they are Prone.

Without Tripping Strike, and given that Whips aren´t a high-crit-range weapons, Improved Crit: Whip isn´t that useful a Feat. You might want to hold onto both a melee weapon and the Whip, and then you can take a feats like Improved Critical: Scimitar to use when you want high damage output and don´t care about the Whip´s Maneuvers, etc (many creatures are immune to Trip or just have too-high CMDs, and Scimatars can Trip just as well as Whips actually).

You don´t need Combat Reflexes until AFTER you have Improved Whip Mastery, because you don´t threaten with the Whip until then, so extra AoO´s aren´t that useful to you until that point.

Without all those Feats, you can take some other stuff that isn´t directly related to your desired schtick, but will give you some more breadth, which is always good. Iron Will never hurts... Combat Patrol would be a good way to effect ´Area Lock-Down´ with your Whip/Trip AoO´s. Lunge is another one that you can get early, and expands your Reach (although not threat area for AoO´s) even more than the Whip´s natural 15´ (30´ enlarged), which can make your Full Attacks even more useful vs. dispersed enemies.

Kaisc006: You seem to be quoting me... but aren´t actually, that´s what Submit2me wrote.

Anyhow, besides the 2 points I made, I think that technically you can´t GRAB THE OPPONENTS WEAPONS as part of the Disarm... Not even Greater Disarm does that, and although I have a feeling there exists SOME Feat to let you do this, I don´t think you will be doing it at 2nd level... at least without a lenient GM. Per RAW, if the weapon drops in an adjacent square you can pick it up, but that would be a Move Action and not be something you can do mid-Full Attack/Flurry and continue attacking.

1) i´m not sure if it has been clarified yet exactly how flurry of maneuvers works.

2) regardless, ANYBODY, whether they are a normal monk flurrying, or a non-monk full attacking, can substitute disarms for any attack they make (attack action, iteratives, AoO´s) regardless of the weapon they are wielding. this has always been the case in PRPG.

Sounds like it works fine to me.
¨A magus can cast magus spells while wearing medium armor without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. ¨ is pretty straight forward. Mithril Full Plate is medium armor for everything except proficienty, and the above rule quote about casting in medium armor seems to fit into ´everything except proficiency´ pretty well. Mithril calling out a lower ASF% /doesn´t mean/ that the Mithril Armor isn´t treated as one category lighter for class abilities that bypass ASF% in X classes of Armor, the category reduction still applies, even if that makes the exact ASF% irrelevant: all Light Armors exact ASF% is already irrelevant from Level 1 of Magus.

You can also do a similar trick at earlier levels, using Mithril Breastplate while your spells only ignore Arcane Spell Failure in Light Armor.

`eye-witnesses` are notoriously un-reliable.
some people couldn`t tell a coup-de-grace from a chocolate cake if their life depended on it ;-)

there are already other robes that do provide armor bonuses to AC (robe of the archmagi, another one I can't remember), so I don't see why you couldn't add it to the monk's robe, too.

But those don`t offer special armor enhancement abilities, they just come with the stated bonus, so claiming that he is `entitled` to apply armor bonuses to the monk`s robe (or robe of archmagi) is certainly not a sure thing... People get bracers of armor for that kind of thing, which this character is free to do as well.

i`m under the impression that robes DON`T use the same slot as armor.
saying it should require proficiency in crafting armor even though it offers no AC protection seems strange to me. wondrous item seems spot on for what it actually does.

you may be able to craft a robe that has AC boosts using special custom item crafting rules, but I would say you are well within your rights to say that the monk`s robe is not an armor item that takes armor enhancements, and that you as a GM are not allowing custom slot armor items besides what is in the book, and that special armor enhancments (either +x equivalent or fixed cost) only apply to armor using craft magical armor.

Please, authors-of-about-half-a-dozen-posts-so-far, stop taking "don't go out of your way to do X" to mean "don't ever ever do X for any reason".

I`m pretty sure that Jiggy is accurately channelling what the ghost of Michael Brock would say :-)

Believe me, I definitely agree that the STR bonus rules should be described in ONE section only*, but the rules we have DO unfortunately describe it in an over-lapping way in 2 separate Chapters,
in a way such that logically there is no reason to restrict 2-Handed bonus from Thrown weapons.
(any more than there´s a reason to not apply the off-hand STR penalty to Off-Hand Thrown Weapons, as Grick pointed out)

Hopefully Paizo can clarify this...
AFAIK, the intent COULD well be that Thrown Weapons never benefit from 1.5 STR bonus, regarless of wielding or weapon type. OR, the Feat could be written by a free-lancer who mistakenly thought that the Core Rules had such restriction, and the wording about `Normal` functioning isn`t totally accurate...????

* since `normal STR to DMG` is already described in the general DMG section in the Combat chapter, it seems most efficient to put it all there rather than NOT mention STR to damage anywhere except in the Equipment chapter, especially given that Natural Attacks aren`t Equipment... although that is purely my OPINION :-) and either chapter would be clearer than BOTH of them.

exactly, it`s about consistent standards for reading the rules. sometimes the rules repeat themselves, some times they don`t... we can`t actually rely on that to correctly read the rules, because such an approach would create failures in other areas of the rules... so we have to rely on the actual logical statements of the rules themselves. to say that off-hand does apply to thrown weapons, but 2-handed wielding doesn`t, when there is no wording difference to support that is silly.

i don`t think you can really throw a spear with two hands, but that`s what the rules say you do (2 handed weapon requires using 2 hands, which invokes 2 handed DMG bonus in that case both via Combat chapter and 2 Handed Weapon type). Obviously in some cases we want to diverge from the rules somewhat, but for Throwing Hammers wielded with 2 Hands, I don`t see any obvious reason to do so, i.e. applying 2 Handed Wielding rules seems fine and reasonable.
If there IS some intended paradigm contra to Throwing + 2H STR bonus, I don`t see why it can`t be stated up-front, just like Ligth Weapons are excluded from 2Handed STR bonus.

But honestly, I have NO IDEA what Paizo`s actual intent on the subject is.
They sub-contract out alot of material, so perhaps it was merely the person who wrote the Two Handed Thrower Feat who was under that impression, and Paizo doesn`t intend for there to be any such restriction on 2-Handed Throwing STR bonus. I can`t answer this question definitively, only Paizo. I know I`ve always played allowing appropriate Thrown 2-Handed Weapons to get that benefit (STR bonus), and I`ve never seen anybody suggest otherwise, until this new Feat is released.

PRD wrote:

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

As soon as you drop, throw, chunk, heave, hurl, get rid of, remove from hands your weapon, you are no longer wielding said weapon. When taking in conjunction with the prior instance of the break down on STR modifiers from the equipment section, it makes sense.

I knew somebody would respond with that, but my post was already too long.

OK, let`s look at the Thrown weapon section:
Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).
I think thrown weapons are still wielded.

The `Wielding a Weapon 2-Handed` section is a sub-section of the general `Strength Bonus` section, which explicitly applies to melee AND THROWN. It is excluded from applying to Light Weapons (which the general section on STR bonus DOES apply to), but not Thrown Weapons. Why would you read such a restriction into the section? Wouldn`t it be trivially easy to say `you don`t get this with Light Weapons or Thrown Weapons?` But it doesn`t say that.

Example of good grammar to force a reduced/limited functioning, right next door:
Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.
So Off-Hand Weapons say that you add ONLY 1/2 your STR bonus (within the scope of STR modifier, which this a sub-section of)... Meaning no other STR modifiers apply, ONLY the `minimized` 1/2 STR applies, even with Double Weapons wielded with 2 hands. But ONLY isn`t used in the case of Thrown Weapons, only wording that is equivalent to that applicable to ALL weapons (Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result.), i.e. it`s logically superfluous with the base Strength Modifier rules, not written to supersede it.

Well, I don`t see any logical difference between the rule saying this in one place:
Damage
Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result.

and in another place:
Thrown Weapons (type): ...The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).

So I would read those as just superfluous re-mentioning of how things work, which we can see for 1-handed/2-handed melee weapons as well, so I wouldn`t be suprised by superfluous rules in this case... SKR I believe has underlined that the rules are often superfluous like that (in explaining how the Core rules originally never precluded non-Trip Weapons from delivering Trips, previous to the short lived FAQ changing that, which was itself later changed).

The first section (general rule for STR to DMG) is modified by the following:
Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

How does that not apply to Thrown Weapons?
The section otherwise competently excludes things that it isn`t meant to apply to.

-------

I started my first post with a question: is this Errata or not, is the Feat actually changing a Core rule paradigm or not?
i.e. I`m happy for anybody to answer that question differently than I would.
I extensively lay out the relevant quotes and interpretation because I`m definitely NOT infallible... If I beleived I was, I wouldn`t need to take the time to explain why I thought like I do. In some cases, I have indeed misread the rules or over-looked some part (easy to do in this game), and people clarified the mistake... Made easier by the fact that I layed out the exact thought process so the exact area I was making a mistake could easily be seen. In any case useful to show how some players are reading the rules, i.e. even when the rules LOGICALLY work, sometimes they aren`t presented as clearly as they could be (e.g. Attack Action).

I`m completely open to anything showing that the Core rules indeed have some restriction on 2 handed bonus and throwing, but your response that throwing weapons invoke STR to damage doesn`t actually logically suffice for that. If the 1-handed Weapon category DIDN`T superfluously mention the benefit of wielding it in 2-hands, that wouldn`t stop the rules for wielding non-Light weapons with 2 hands (a subset of a rule that specifically applies to melee and thrown weapons) from applying to 1-handed weapons (in melee). Same for Thrown Weapons.

AFAIK, Paizo DOES PLAN on removing the superfluous Trip Weapon description part saying they can Trip, which is in line with position on the subject all along: that it would be clearer to remove that part, or actually anunciate a restriction in the Trip section itself. Assuming they do so, what is the problem with referring to that as Errata?

My original position on the Trip/Trip Weapon thing was that the rules technically functioned all along as per the latest FAQ, but were unclear/confusingly written because of the Equipment section`s vague implication (not actually sufficient to impose a restriction on non-Trip Weapons). I left (which reading to support) up to Paizo to clarify, because it was clearly written badly, I just couldn`t state with certainty what was the intent even if the current FAQ is in line with what the Core Rules actually directed. I`m not sure what your problem is with my stance on that... Bringing the issue up actually led to it`s clarification. What is bad about that?

Two-Handed Weapons as a weapon class indeed say that. But COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLY the Combat section (which I quote) says ANY NON-LIGHT Weapon WIELDED IN 2 HANDS applies 1.5 STR to DMG... As a sub-section of the STR to DMG rule which applies to... Melee and Thrown weapons. Thrown Weapons are specifically mentioned in that section, and never excluded. The Thrown Weapon class description isn`t incomptable with being modified as per how the weapon is being wielded (2H vs. 1H).

The separete invocation of 2-Handed DMG bonus runs into other issues, such as when people wield Lances (2 Handed weapons) in 1 hand.

...I don`t know if that is my response `every time something is different` (than I think it should be?)
I know that I have critiqued many aspects of rules presentation without calling them Errata, such as the descriptive strategy for CMB/CMD and it`s relation to attacks/AC/bonuses.

If you want to explain how you see the Core rules are actually directing a limitation against 2-Handed dmg for Thrown Weapon in the Core Rules, feel free. I don`t see how, but let me know if I`m missing something.

If there is a possible Intent (not reflected in the rules I`m quoting) for restricting 2-Handed Bonus and Throwing Weapons, as reflected by newer Feats (and their portrayal of `Normal` functioning), I don`t see what it hurts to call attention to a mis-match between RAW and Intent. Maybe there IS some obscure Glossary entry that does convey that restriction, that I totally missed... Posting my take on it at least brings to attention that at least one player, and likely many others who just look at the rules that I quoted, could quite reasonably infer no such restriction: If the designers think that such restriction should exist, perhaps they might consider that the rules don`t clearly convey that restriction to a sub-set of players, and could be clarified. What else should I write to bring that to attention?

This is the core of what I wrote, followed up by details:
So is this stealth Errata or what?
The Core Rules don`t say anything that changes the `use 2 hands = apply 1.5 STR mod unless using Light Weapon rule`.

Question: Is this Stealth Errata or not? Yes/No.
Statement: Conjecture about what the Core Rules say, followed by detailed reading.
If that`s wrong, anybody can inform me of where it`s wrong.
Or disagree about by question if the new Feat is Stealth Errata or not.
Is that rubbing you wrong? I`m not sure why you would want to question that appraoch in general?

Quandary wrote:

Kodger wrote:

Fourth, why not have seven players play the next tier up?

This kind of seems the solution that is already waiting to be used... But it seems reasonable to CODIFY it, i.e. require it.

The current system cares about Average Party Level, but doesn`t care about Party Size... i.e. ignores half of the CR vs. APL equation. Why not institutionalize the other half of that equation?

Playing up is frequently suicidal. I can think of at least one mod where 3-4 puts a single target in danger, but playing up to 6-7 gets the entire party hit by a 9th level empowered fireball in the surprise round.

Well, OK, but that is just STANDARD PATHFINDER RULES.

People apparently want the right to play with 7 player tables...
And honestly, I don`t see what is stopping 8 or 9 player tables if 7 is allowed. Fine.
But BY STANDARD PATHFINDER RULES, if you have a party that big, you should expect higher CR monster groups in opposition, otherwise APL+4 will just be dead easy. CAN application of NORMAL rules for party size * level vs. CR result in challenges that overly deadly to SINGLE characters? Sure...
But I`d rather have that dynamic in place and essentially allow A NATURAL LIMIT to large size parties, in place of IGNORING NORMAL RULES and allowing huge parties whose over-all power-level stream-rolls any opposition (if you only use APL and ignore party size). Maybe it`s good to ALLOW people to play with big groups when they really need to. But realizing that the challenge is scaled accordingly may motivate people to NOT play in such large groups if they realize that the sweet-spot REALLY IS at 4 players, as is stated and designed around.

re-posted from other thread:

Benefit: Whenever you use two hands to throw a one-handed or two-handed weapon, you gain a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus....

Normal: You add your Strength bonus on thrown weapon damage, regardless of available hands. Throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.

So is this stealth Errata or what?

The Core Rules don`t say anything that changes the `use 2 hands = apply 1.5 STR mod unless using Light Weapon rule`.

The Thrown Weapons section in Equipment says ¨The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).¨ but that is just re-iterating the normal STR mod to DMG rule, and not SPECIFICALLY negating the rule for using 2 hands (in the Combat section), which says:
¨Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.¨
...NO mention of not applying to thrown weapons. If the Thrown Weapon section said `you ONLY apply STR bonus` there would be a case for excluding the 2-Handed bonus, but IT DOESN`T. There`s no reasonable case for reading the Core rules as excluding 2 Handed bonus DMG from applying to Thrown weapons.

---------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, if this IS supposed to be Stealth Errata, it`s unfortunate that they still haven`t clarified the unclear language about action types for throwing, and what actual weapons that applies to.

The 2 Handed Thrower Feat says:
¨Using two hands to throw any weapon requires only a standard action for you. If you also have the Quick Draw feat, you can throw two-handed weapons at your full normal rate of attacks...
Normal: ...Throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.¨

The Thrown Weapons section in the Core Equipment Chapter says:
¨...It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.¨

In context, we can see that the specific action types to throw light/one/two-handed weapons is in the context of weapons NOT MEANT TO BE THROWN, since this info follows the shift of subject to weapons `not designed to be thrown`, and is located amidst the -4 attack penalty, and modification of Crit stats (to match Improvised Weapons, although you still do normal base damage in this case).
Weapons that ARE meant to be thrown, and thus have a listed Range stat, thus SHOULDN`T BE SUBJECT to the action limitation... I.e. a Club, which has a listed Range, can be thrown (2 Handed, with appropriate damage bonus) via Iterative Attacks (or Vital Strike`d Attack Action) and not simply as a single thrown attack as a Full-Round Action (as `Improvised Throwing Weapons` must be). You don`t need the 2-Handed Thrower Feat to do that, although you may run out of Clubs to throw unless you have Quickdraw.

But the new text in 2 Handed Thrower AGAIN makes the same error, by main-lining these action restrictions without clarifying that they only apply to `Improvised Throwing Weapons`. The Throwing Weapons section in Equipment really should be at least Errata`d to have a line-break just before the line that says ¨It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown...¨, and ideally should have a TITLED SUB-SECTION that MAKES CLEAR the subject is now shifting to `Improvised Thrown Weapons`.

Benefit: Whenever you use two hands to throw a one-handed or two-handed weapon, you gain a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus.

Normal: You add your Strength bonus on thrown weapon damage, regardless of available hands. Throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.

So is this stealth Errata or what?

The Core Rules don`t say anything that changes the `use 2 hands = apply 1.5 STR mod unless using Light Weapon rule`.

The Thrown Weapons section in Equipment says ¨The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons).¨ but that is just re-iterating the normal STR mod to DMG rule, and not specifically negating the rule for using 2 hands (in the Combat section), which says ¨Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.¨ ...NO mention of not applying to thrown weapons. If the Thrown Weapon section said `you ONLY apply STR bonus` there would be a case for excluding the 2-Handed bonus, but IT DOESN`T. There`s no reasonable case for reading the Core rules as excluding 2 Handed bonus DMG from applying to Thrown weapons.

---------------------------------------------------

Incidentally, if this IS supposed to be Stealth Errata, it`s unfortunate that they still haven`t clarified the unclear language about action types for throwing, and what actual weapons that applies to.

The 2 Handed Thrower Feat says:
¨Using two hands to throw any weapon requires only a standard action for you. If you also have the Quick Draw feat, you can throw two-handed weapons at your full normal rate of attacks...
Normal: ...Throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.¨

The Thrown Weapons section in the Core Equipment Chapter says:
¨...It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.¨

In context, we can see that the specific action types to throw light/one/two-handed weapons is in the context of weapons NOT MEANT TO BE THROWN, since this info follows the shift of subject to weapons `not designed to be thrown`, and is located amidst the -4 attack penalty, and modification of Crit stats (to match Improvised Weapons, although you still do normal base damage in this case).
Weapons that ARE meant to be thrown, and thus have a listed Range stat, SHOULDN`T BE SUBJECT to the action limitation...
I.e. a Club, which has a listed Range, can be thrown (2 Handed, with appropriate damage bonus) via Iterative Attacks you may have and not simply as a single thrown attack as a Full-Round Action (as `Improvised Throwing Weapons` must be). You don`t need the 2-Handed Thrower Feat to do that, although you may run out of Clubs to throw unless you have Quickdraw.

But the new text in 2 Handed Thrower AGAIN makes the same error, by main-lining these action restrictions without clarifying that they only apply to `Improvised Throwing Weapons`. The Throwing Weapons section in Equipment really should be at least Errata`d to have a line-break just before the line that says ¨It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown...¨, and ideally should have a TITLED SUB-SECTION that MAKES CLEAR the subject is now shifting to `Improvised Thrown Weapons`.