Rhatahema's page

Rhatahema wrote:

(rend questions)

Rend is pretty ambiguous, so it's definitely good fuel for a FAQ. I've generally run it as a separate damage instance, but you are correct that Improved Rending Fury has weird wording (it is honestly weird to mention not multiplying on a crit no matter how you slice it; I've never seen rend multiplying on a crit to begin with, and extra dice don't multiply by default).

Yeah, you also need to be able to crit with a rend for the Combat Trick of Improved Rending Fury to have any purpose. I may start a thread about rend as a potential FAQ candidate.

If the development team ever has time, a blog post on monster abilities (like rend, rake, and trample) would be really useful. Before looking at Monster Codex I couldn't be sure what damage bonuses applied to rend, and it's never explicitly stated how the damage is typed for DR and regeneration. To a similar extent, the same questions apply to constrict and trample damage. Trample has unclear movement rules since it was changed in the Pathfinder revision to be based on overrun, resulting in conflicting action costs. This is on top of the gaps in rules for overrun itself. I ended up just reverting to the 3.5 rules in our home game, which remain totally usable. Anyway, lots of monster rules that just don't gain as much FAQ traction.

Thanks for the reply!

This is where it would be nice for magic to include the Display mechanics of Psionics, which tell you exactly what perceptible effects the power has. Personally, I'd like to see a "subtle" descriptor for certain spells, which would denote when the components could be disguised as something mundane (such as charm person). Presently, the rules just don't handle it too well. It should be very difficult to determine who in a crowd of people cast summon monster as a spell-like ability, but probably not who cast scorching ray.

I remember discussing this during the playtest, and Mark Seifter's statements at the time implied that intimidate would indeed shut down spells with an emotion component. (link). I would guess that hasn't changed, and that calling out the "fear descriptor" instead of the more general "fear effect" was an oversight. If they wanted to restrict it to only spells, they'd have called that out explicitly.

@Tarantual: If martial versatility stated "one combat feat that applies to a selected weapon", rather than "specific", I'd totally agree. But they're two different terms, and I don't agree that using weapon focus as an example sets the precedent that the chosen feat must allow a selection.

Then go ahead and take shield master with longswords. That should work too right?

I'm not claiming martial versatility is going to make sense with every choice. Some choices will result in nonsense. Others will work pretty sensibly (such as using dervish dance with a longsword). Just arguing that the feat is worded in such a way that those feats are options. I'd say it's similar to racial heritage in that way. It opens up unprecedented combinations. As far as what martial versatility can apply to, I'd handle it on a case-by-case basis, personally.

ANYWAY, not saying I disagree with the logic of the proposed restriction. I just don't agree that's what's written. Maybe that was the intent though, I don't know.

Rhatahema wrote:

Yes, you qualify. See this post by Jason Bulmahn.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).

If this was in the playtest forum, why didn't this make it into the final release (I ask as I realize there are even still typos that were pointed out that didn't get fixed for release...)?

I would say it did make it into the final release. The relevant text in the final print is identical to the text in the 2nd playtest document. It states the brawler "has" the feat, as opposed to the 1st playtest, which stated you were "treated as having" the feat. I think the developers assumed their intent would be clear from how the ability is worded. From the number of times the question has come up in the forums, it could use an FAQ.

I'm not understanding what this class excels at. If I'm building an occultist, what do I build around? Do I build an occultist like I'd build a wizard? What options make up for the class having only a 6th level spell progression?

It seems like a lot of effort to plan as well. You need to consider what order to learn new schools by looking over what spells are available at each level from each school, and then what focus abilities open up at a given level from each school. That requires a lot more deliberation than just picking a new spell or discovery.

Also, many of the focus powers just feel like spells, or are variants of existing spells. And yet few of them feel unique enough to warrant passing on a class with 9th level spellcasting and a larger spell list. But maybe I'm missing something important?

So, let me see if I can distill each side's conclusions drawn from the following text:

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Conclusion A: If it's treated as a natural weapon, it must be treated as either primary or secondary, because all natural weapons are either primary or secondary.

At this point, not sure there are many arguments left unstated.

I would suggest handling it with circumstance modifiers. For instance, say the character succeeds on a perception check to hear a distant call from some creature. If they wanted to ID the creature based on its call, you might up the knowledge DC by +2 for identifying through sound only, and +2 for the difficulty hearing the noise. Keep note of the character's check, and when they encounter that same creature up close, compare that check to the lower DC to see if they learn any additional information.

Some creatures have distinctive sounds, smells, silhouettes, etc., others don't. I'd adjust DCs on the fly and most of all keep things simple. If it's important for the creature's identity to remain a mystery, up the DC liberally. If not, up the DC by less.

From a post made by Jason Bulmahn back during the playtest. The relevant bit:

• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).

...

I just think thats a really bizzare way for it to operate and doesn't sound like as intended. Either we have a feat or we don't. It shouldn't be conditional.

I don't see how conditional feats are at all complicated, and as stated, martial versatility revolves around the idea. I also consider it a big improvement over the language of flurry of blows, which works as if you were using a feat.

It should also be noted that certain monster attacks that deal large numbers of dice of damage CAN be modified by Vital Strike. Eye Rays for example are activated using the attack action (See the Jabberwock), so if the monster has an Eye Ray that does, say, 15d6 damage and Greater Vital Strike he could use the two together for a total of 60d6 damage.

Kingmaker spoilers:
** spoiler omitted **

Odd that it calls this tactic out in Kingmaker. By the rules I'm reading, it shouldn't be possible

The jabberwock can project beams of fire from its eyes as a ranged touch attack as a standard action, with a range increment of 60 feet.

That's definitely not an attack action. Unless I'm missing something, the AP writer seems to have made a mistake.

Rather than ruling what classes will or will not be allowed based on what they have access to, why not simply ban spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities? If a class grants one of those abilities, the player can't use it. Then leave it up to the player if it's a worthwhile option.

First, you can't make a crossbow keen.

Only piercing or slashing melee weapons can be keen.

Good news is, Bracers of Falcon's Aim is an inexpensive and comparable alternative. I'd suggest seeking in place of keen, for dealing with all non-concealment based miss chance.

Quick draw does not decrease the time it takes to sheath a weapon.

Bolt Aces get Vigilant Loading as a first level deed, so no need to worry about provoking while reloading. Point-blank master would keep you from provoking while firing, but with your mobility I might not worry about it.

Signature Deed requires 11 levels in gunslinger. If you stick with Bolt Ace till level 11, inexplicable reload can reduce the reload time of a crossbow from a free action to "not an action", which looks to mean your crossbow is loaded automatically, with no action on your part (it is called inexplicable reload, after all). If so, no need for gloves of storing for TWF.

Not sure I see the need for the ricochet shot deed and signature deed (ricochet shot). You're already investing in a mount for the mobility, so you should be able to get line of effect without it. I'd go for improved precise shot instead, and if you stick with Bolt Ace to 11, signature deed (sharp shoot). You've got a high attack bonus, but hitting touch AC is never a bad idea. It also cuts the need for blind-fight.

Otherwise, looks solid! Haven't investigated the ranger levels.

Haven't noticed any archetypes from the book that are "must have", honestly. Some are very, very good, but nothing that you'd be a fool not to take it. Mutagen Warrior comes close to being a class upgrade, but it keeps you from taking other nifty archetypes (and is thematically problematic for a lot of fighter-lovers).

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't care for martial flexibility, wandering spirits, and other such abilities that let you reselect major class features. I feel like it erases what should be character defining choices. (I've always had a similar feeling towards prepared casters)

This . . . oh wow. Given that you can choose to change your target as each attack resolves, this ability is pretty weird. You should know whether you dropped a foe after the second hit. If the foe doesn't drop, but would drop if you changed targets (thereby limiting the number of hits on that target to 2 and adding extra damage) . . . Ugh, my head hurts. I guess you're supposed to apply the damage, then retroactively remove it and add it to the third hit if the foe didn't drop on the second hit? *headdesk* Was this really necessary?

Worse than that, the bonus damage is always added to the last attack made against the target in the round. Basically, for each successful attack, you roll the jabbing style damage, then on the next successful attack, retract the jabbing style damage and reroll it.

Here's a weird example. Say you're fighting a goblin with Roll With It. On your second hit, the goblin uses Roll With It and fails its reflex save. You hit it with a third attack, but after retracting the damage from the second attack, you find that the goblin would have succeeded on his reflex save, and so it rolls out of range, taking no damage from the second hit and being out of range for the third.

Not sure how this is meant to be resolved. I guess the developer looked at hammer the gap and thought "How can we make this complicated enough monks will want it?"

I'm shocked people are still discussing this...

The OP has his answer. It is the purpose of this thread to answer to him, not a single detractor that has hijacked this thread with a refusal to hear the rules as they are. This thread may as well be locked at this point, or left to die. It has served it's purpose, and is now simply serving to fuel arguments and negative feelings.

I agree with this, except I think that there would be less of a consensus on how the two class features interact if everyone hadn't spent several pages rallying together over plain as day rules mechanics (needing to be a certain level in a class to get that class feature).

For instance, I think it's less clear how the two class features merge, if at all. Typically, when you have two class features of the same name but slightly different mechanics, the text will tell you how those class features stack and interact. I think you can apply rules logic to make some reasonable conclusions, but there's an absence of concrete rules here.

Though to discuss that, you'd need a ceasefire over the whole Sohei 6 thing, and it seems that for every person who realizes arguing further is pointless, another steps in.

Hm, I'm a bit confused. So a Bard (Magician) can now only use expanded repertoire to select spells already on the bard spell list? It only says you add the spell to your spells known, not your spell list.

Expanded Repertoire (Ex): At 2nd level and every four levels thereafter, a magician can add one spell to his spells known from the spell list of any arcane spellcasting class. The spell must be of a level he can cast. This ability replaces versatile performance.

I think another way to look at the question is "Does a dwarf need weapon familiarity to treat the dorn-dergar as a martial weapon?". I think the intent is that yes, you need weapon familiarity as a racial trait, and that the line in the description of the dorn-derger is simply reiterating the function of weapon familiarity.

I agree that a recipient of raging song should simply be allowed to activate their own rage ability instead of the skald's, save that they receive the benefit of bonus rage powers. I think that's balanced, because while barbarians are gaining a superior benefit, it's also something they've already invested their resources into (unlike classes without rage).

This is a simple idea, but what about a couple more songs? Maybe a "furious casting song" that boosts spell damage? Basically, any way for the skald to buff a party of gishes and casters. As a support class, their utility shouldn't be so narrow.

I really like the idea of making the skald a divine caster. Mostly because that really carves a unique niche for future archetypes. I've found myself wanting to play a divine bard, and was disappointing that wasn't an option.

Headfirst wrote:

It's interesting that you say many of the hybrids cannot be adequately expressed using multiclassing, yet each one is specifically called out as being the love child of two existing classes and, as you said in an earlier post, often includes "cut and pasted" features from each. :)

Thats exactly why they exist. The multiclassing rules do not permit these concepts to be fully expressed and the hybrids are attempting to do them justice. Using features from the parents is part of that experimentation. We are evaluating its effectiveness and decided where to push that line going forward.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I suspect a lot of the pushback is due to love for the archetype system. What hybrid classes attempt is a lot of what archetypes have been used for, and many of us would just like to stick to that system. For instance, the concept of "bard" or "fighter" is general enough to allow a multitude of archetypes. To me, half of the hybrid classes feel too similar to their parents in concept to allow meaning expansion through archetypes. I could of course be wrong, that's just my impression.

That said, I'm not arguing against the release of the product. That ship has sailed (which has been stated more than once). I know none of the classes will be scrapped, but I at least hope you're willing to make some meaningful changes to the framework of the mechanics, rather than only minor tweaks. Otherwise, it would be good to know that now and be saved the effort of unsolicited design advice. :)

My disappointment with the hybrid classes isn't so much that I was looking for entirely new concepts (as seen in classes like alchemist and summoner), but more that I was expecting a book of magus-like classes. To me, magus is a success for mostly two reasons:

1. It combines two class concepts (fighter and wizard) in a way that results in something unique in both function and effect.
2. It allows for a character archetype that is otherwise unsupported.

So to be worth-while, I feel that these hybrid-classes need to excel on one or both points. Without getting into specifics, I feel that most of the new classes are pretty distant from one or the other goal. Abilities that are familiar are good for game balance, but it's not something that motivates me to pick up a class.

Edit: My question is really more along the lines of: can you make an attack with armor spikes and a two-handed reach weapon at the same time? I'm inclined to say no, for the same reason that you cannot two-weapon fight with them. Rhatahema, I'm not questioning that if you can make an attack, you threaten. I'm questioning if you can make the attack at all. I don't think...

The truth (as I see it) is that the Paizo Development Team decided that two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes was an overpowered combination, and so they said "No." You can't do that. From all the rules that I'm familiar with, there is no reason you can't except that the FAQ says you can't. So I think the implications you've read into this are going much further than the developers intended. I would instead consider the FAQ ruling an exception to that one specific rule, not something which has a ripple effect on attacks of opportunity.

I mean, you wouldn't allow someone with a valid two-weapon fighting combo (example: longsword & short sword) to use the longsword without two-weapon fighting penalties on his turn and then make an Attack of Opportunity with the shortsword without apply the two-weapon fighting penalties... so why would an invalid two-weapon fighting combo get to?

If I remember correctly, a character decides what hand is their "off-hand" only when using two-weapon fighting, which is a special combat action and typically only occurs during a full-attack. Furthermore, if they use two-weapon fighting, the penalties end at the end of their turn. It's possible to be armed with a weapon in each hand, attack with either weapon interchangeably in a full-attack, and never actually use two-weapon fighting.

As to the original question, I would say that yes, you can threaten both within 5' and 10' if armed with both a reach weapon and armor spikes. The FAQ ruled that you can't use two-weapon fighting with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes, but didn't clarify why. As such, I'd just assume everything else works as normal.

Acid: You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon... A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the acid hits takes 1 point of acid damage from the splash.

Throw Anything (Ex): ...An alchemist adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any. This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.

An alchemist throwing a flask of acid would deal 1d6+Int Mod damage on a direct hit, and 1+Int Mod splash damage, no save. No alchemist class feature alters the saving throw of mundane splash weapons. The reflex save for half splash damage is particular to bombs.

I think that the average person might think of themselves as a "good" person. D&D/Pathfinder is more cynical; the average human is neutral. So TN might be getting characterized as more extreme than it commonly is.

An average person (neutral) will do some good some of the time, and some bad some of the time, but will mostly do neutral things. Work a job for sustenance, indulge in leisure activity when available, and look out for the people close to them. They might donate to a charity, but they're not dropping their hobby to make time for volunteer work. Being Good reflects a more intense commitment, I think. Someone who builds their life around protecting and serving, giving to the needy, fighting injustice, etc. So it's not that a TN character never commits acts of good, evil, law, or chaos, but that these principles don't shape his character in a substantial way.

I'm not complaining about the rule that's been in print for 10 years, but about the specific guidelines suggested by the FAQ entry, and the example given.

Cheapy, I think you're right. It'd just be nice to get some clarification. I'd like to be able to build a Sound Striker bard without first going to my DM and saying "Ok, so this ability doesn't have an audible component, but it should. And the section on audible components says that it's language dependent and requires the target to be capable of hearing, but in this case, it shouldn't. Also, the damage should be subject to DR, even though the section on supernatural abilities says it shouldn't, because SKR says it should, though it's not in the errata. Except that as a supernatural ability, it should overcome damage reduction /magic, even though that's no where in the rules." Which is in addition to the explanation that I'd be making ranged touch attacks with sound that isn't sonic damage, and a dozen other bard questions. (I'll stop before I start ranting! No good in that.)

So I'm playing an alchemist, and I decided to write up a description for the Tanglefoot Bomb discovery that covers everything, rather than going back and forth referencing the tanglefoot bag. I assume that tanglefoot bombs deal damage in addition to the listed effects, but I'm not certain. At any rate, I wanted to know if this interpretation of the bomb's function was correct. For reference: Tanglefoot Bomb, Tanglefoot Bag