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

Serisan's page

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. FullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 1,979 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,979 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Inner Sea Gods wrote:
Though she allows resurrection, the Lady of Graves opposes undeath as a desecration of the memory of the flesh and a corruption of a soul’s path on its journey to her judgment.

If you're going Shadowdancer, I would recommend against using the shadow unless you can justify it in-character for a specific scenario. As a GM, I would expect you to dismiss it once it has served its purpose and, as such, deal with the relevant Fortitude save.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh snap, monks will just have to get Clear Spindles like the rest of us.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Enchant the Haramaki, then give it the broken condition.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How many citizens will have both the Trapfinding class feature and the ability to make a 31 Perception check to find the magical trap? Moreover, if most of the citizens fail the check, but someone does find the trap, what is the likelihood that the affected citizens will think that this was terrible? After all, they're going to interpret it in the most favorable way possible because they're charmed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sniggevert wrote:
No...but you can use a Harakami or Silken Ceremonial armor as a base line "clothes" type item that is armor. It's also base AC +1.

It's worth noting that these two options have absolutely no drawbacks, even with non-proficiency.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dr. Johnny Fever wrote:
The class really deserves to have a 9 level spell list with this new reduced eidolon; I believe it would be very in line with the power levels of the other 9 level 3/4 BAB classes (shaman, cleric, druid, oracle).

I only want to focus on this statement as I haven't seen the book yet. Because the summoner is an arcane caster, keeping it at 3/4 BAB and moving to 9 levels of casting would be breaking the design rules.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blind Kobold wrote:


* Cross out the list of added feats from the archetype for the "Bonus Feat" archetype and legalize it from there.

I like this option a lot.

*

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blind Kobold wrote:

Well if its just an expanded repertoire of feats that are siege/vehicle related that could be preventing it from being legal, why not change it for legalization in PFS? It wouldn't be much different than an Alchemist losing out on the Brew Potion feat and it gets replaced with the Extra Bombs feat.

Like:

In addition to combat and grit feats, a buccaneer can select from the following general feats as her bonus feats:...

It already says almost exactly that.

Buccaneer archetype wrote:
Bonus Feat: In addition to combat and grit feats, a buccaneer can select from the following feats as her bonus feats:

*

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hrothdane wrote:
I assumed it was the bonus feat list of all-illegal feats. ather than give replacements for the whole list, management felt lazy that day and just disallowed the archetype.

It's not an exclusive list of feats, though. They're in addition to the standard combat and grit feats.

Let's blame Sea Legs at level 1. That's gotta be it. ;-)

*

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Playing at my FLGS, the typical attitude is only to audit items of concern. For example, my level 3 character was audited for the purchase of an adamantine weapon, which I had proper documentation for on-hand. Roughly a 3 second audit, honestly, and one of the other players even stood up for me on that ("He has practically no other gear"). Frankly, we spend so much time talking about our characters out-of-game that there's no particular need to audit most of the time.

That said, we also have 2 VOs at this store regularly and people who are regularly tapped to help new players with rules questions before/during/after sessions, so there's minimal concern. We help each other stay compliant.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Typically a 1 level dip in Cleric or Paladin.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The general rule, as Brf said, is that the creature should not provide XP for killing it. That said, if the party kills the Fiendish Boon critter and the Antipaladin runs away, they get full experience for defeating the Antipaladin encounter.

*

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

IMO, the ban on illiterates is not so much a table disruption issue, but an in-game fluff rejection: the Pathfinder Society requires agents who can reliably report in the form of chronicles. They are an employer and, while there are certainly characters who are opportunistically there with low intelligence and no desire to read/write, these characters are able and can ostensibly handle that job duty.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We have been rediscovered by the spambots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Could always go the old fashioned way to get more speed. Nothing says speed quite like mounted flight.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Obbu wrote:

Slight monk/grapple noob here, but:

Currently even without kraken style entering the equation, you can coup de gras on the second round after a rapid+greater grapple using tie up?

(Move) Initiate Grapple
(Standard) Pin
(Swift) Tie Up

granted, that's two full rounds + grapple check + provoke on the coup, but isn't it in roughly the same ballpark?

If you use delay with another melee, you can do it same round, provided you eat the provoke, or stay out of threat.

Is this not allowed?

You've got your move and standard swapped, but yes that's legal. Alternatively, if you have Greater Grapple only, you can standard to initiate, move to tie up with a -10 penalty on the check.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you're concerned about movement speed, are you willing to take the Travel domain via any of its available options? How about a level in Barbarian or Bloodrager? Flame Oracle for Cinder Dance?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thomas Graham wrote:

A +1 haramaki (or Silken Ceremonial Armor) is cheaper (by lots) than bracers and eventually you get up to something like +3 haramaki an folks don't have to worry about being caught out without mage armor or a dispel magic being left out.

My wizard (admixture 12/PF Agent 1) has +3 Glamered Silken Armor to do just that. Mage Armor (and bullet shield, and the rest) are good.. but sometimes you have to have something in reserve.

And beside.. Glamored means she's never out of costume. :D

Stole the words right from my head.

Does that make me a goblin now?

*

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just wanted to see if anyone had written up a briefing for level 8 and beyond at this point. If not, I'll post what I prep for level 8 in 2 weeks.

*

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So far, here's the results from my tables:

1: 4-6 hours, dependent on party races
2: 5 hours
3: 4 hours
4: 30 min-4 hours
5: Data unreliable. My players broke the scenario.
6: 4 hours
7: 2-3 hours (seriously, this level was disappointingly short.)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Otherwhere wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Otherwhere, why do you recommend Chokehold? Unless you have some way of preventing an enemy from holding their breath, the only practical benefit of Chokehold is preventing speech. Preventing speech is useful if shutting down casters is absolutely a top priority for you, or if you're trying to take down sentries without raising an alarm, but those seem pretty circumstantial to me. It simply takes too long (10+ rounds) for a person to run out of breath and actually suffer the effects of suffocation.

For exactly the "silence my foe" aspect, not for the excruciatingly long choke.

The Kraken Throttle debate is over. It is merely another chokehold. (The foe gets to hold their breath before the suffocation begins.)

For PFS, a statement of developer intent is non-binding. A FAQ, errata or blog post needs to be made in order for the statement of developer intent to matter. Thus, it's left to "expect table variance."

A RAW reading of the feat does not support the developer intent, however. Moreover, errata and FAQs are extremely infrequent for the Player Companion line. There isn't even an area for FAQs for that product line. As such, it would be down to a clarifying blog post.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

GSP explains Kraken Style.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
DrSwordopolis wrote:
DualJay wrote:

I'm not 100% sure, but isn't there a normally terrible feat or ability or something that lets you knock the air out of someone and make the spend a load of their rounds of breath by hitting them?

I may be thinking of some 3.5 material. IDK.

Yep. Breathtaker, from People of the River.

It's still terrible, even with Kraken Style. Less terrible, admittedly, but you're still looking at 4 or 5 rounds of grappling before getting to con checks.

Actually...no it's not.

A 1st level Barbarian probably has 22 Str while raging. 24 by 6th.

Call that 2 attacks, -14 rounds of breath.

Is a grappling barbarian making melee attacks when maintaining a grapple chokehold via Kraken Throttle? The answer is "expect table variation."

Is the barbarian assisting a monk who is choking the target by making melee attacks against the target? If so, then I would expect the attacks to do much, MUCH more than the chokehold will.

Two words: Rapid Grappler.

Move action maintain, Swift and Standard attack.

Granted, it's not GREAT, but it's at least USABLE.

That's a long time to wait for that feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrSwordopolis wrote:

Serisan, against a caster, sure, they're almost out of breath at that point, but a grappled caster is a dead caster anyway. Against a martial type, then you're still probably only halfway there after a round.

If you're succeeding in at least three successive grapple checks, then grapple/pin/tie up is probably going to be a better option than grapple/choke/choke/fort save vs unconsciousness/repeat until unconscious.

And that's assuming you either have a friendly barbarian full attacking your grappled target (in which case damage is probably going to kill it before it reaches its fort save range) or you yourself are raging and using greater grapple to perform a couple of successful grapples (or other attacks) against the target.

Edit: Ninjaed!

Exactly my point. I'm glad that dev intent is not PFS-binding outside of a FAQ or blog post, honestly, because dev intent in this case turned something novel and interesting into something terrible. I mean, nobody was going to take the 3rd feat in the chain (lol hardness), but at least 2 feats in the style were good enough to consider when put together.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
DrSwordopolis wrote:
DualJay wrote:

I'm not 100% sure, but isn't there a normally terrible feat or ability or something that lets you knock the air out of someone and make the spend a load of their rounds of breath by hitting them?

I may be thinking of some 3.5 material. IDK.

Yep. Breathtaker, from People of the River.

It's still terrible, even with Kraken Style. Less terrible, admittedly, but you're still looking at 4 or 5 rounds of grappling before getting to con checks.

Actually...no it's not.

A 1st level Barbarian probably has 22 Str while raging. 24 by 6th.

Call that 2 attacks, -14 rounds of breath.

Is a grappling barbarian making melee attacks when maintaining a grapple chokehold via Kraken Throttle? The answer is "expect table variation."

Is the barbarian assisting a monk who is choking the target by making melee attacks against the target? If so, then I would expect the attacks to do much, MUCH more than the chokehold will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, here's my problem: the way the game is designed, things are exceedingly generous on resistance to the mundane to prevent people from drowning, etc., but completely ridiculous when it comes to anything magical.

The fact that you have to roll to maintain a grapple turn over turn? No basis in reality. Maintaining a grapple IRL is simple if you can prevent your opponent from escaping. The fact that there is, according to the dev intent, no way to choke someone out in 6 seconds? Ditto. Literally anyone can learn how to do it and I know children who have done it. Note that 8 year olds should probably not be taught how to choke kids out because they'll use it over petty things. Not even kidding.

The part where it really becomes a problem for me is that, as written, a spellcaster can be deemed to still be "holding their breath" while casting a spell if they're able to make the concentration check. That's some magical breathing techniques there, with no basis in reality again, but I can easily see some rules lawyer (not unlike myself, really) saying that all it does is reduce the number of rounds by 1 because it's a standard action.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Serisan wrote:
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Serisan wrote:
If you could please clarify which part of the suffocation rules are intended to be invoked, that would be appreciated. Specifically, does the target have the opportunity to hold their breath?
You cut off their air. They get to hold their breath, 2 rounds per point of Constitution, -1 if they take a standard or full-round action.
I see. That pretty much makes this feat worthless.
Or just a middle of the road feat for grapplers instead of an insta-kill feat.

Would you take 2 feats for WIS+2 damage during a grapple?

On a 10 CON target, the choke will offer 20 attempts to escape, essentially: 10 from you, 10 from the grappled target (or 20 from you, if they opt not to struggle and lose air). If you can only fail to maintain on a 1 and the target can only succeed on an escape on a 20, that's still only a 36% chance of holding the grapple until they get to their CON checks, which is still at least 1 minute out. If the target has a CON of 13? Now we're down to 26%. CON 15 is down to 21%.

If the failure to maintain happens on 1-2 and the escape happens on 19-20, a 10 CON opponent will hit their CON checks 12% of the time. You are quite literally more likely to kill them with the damage than the choking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Serisan wrote:
If you could please clarify which part of the suffocation rules are intended to be invoked, that would be appreciated. Specifically, does the target have the opportunity to hold their breath?
You cut off their air. They get to hold their breath, 2 rounds per point of Constitution, -1 if they take a standard or full-round action.

I see. That pretty much makes this feat worthless.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:

Since there's a process for official FAQs that goes with highest priority first, and as far as I can tell only a few folks have hit a FAQ request on this even, this is not an official FAQ. It is a declaration of intent of one of book's the two developers.

Kraken Throttle should be read to cutting off air from the target, and thus activating the "Suffocation" rules on 445. Yes, as written one could claim that since it uses the word "suffocate" it actually refers the very last step of that process "In the third round, she suffocates." No, that's not what is intended. Since most people agree it doesn't mean "make two checks (in the same round if you have Greater Grapple) and you kill anyone," I'm hope it's not a surprise that it was never intended to mean "make two checks (in the same round if you have Greater Grapple) and you KO anyone, and kill them 1 round later."

The main utility of the feat is that it adds 2 hp to the damage dealt by Kraken Style. This is the same size boost as Weapon Specialization, and enough to make the feat useful in the builds it's designed for even without the ability to choke someone to death over a couple of minutes. It certainly doesn't need to become the first 1-round-kill-no-save-feat in order to have fair utility.

Also, if you have questions about a Player Companion rule, I'll see it sooner if it's in that product's thread. I do scan the rest of the forums, but I can;t get to every thread every day. :)

If you could please clarify which part of the suffocation rules are intended to be invoked, that would be appreciated. Specifically, does the target have the opportunity to hold their breath?

*

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My interpretation of the word "must" in this context is that you cannot use the original roll if it was higher, not that it prevents you from using further abilities to generate rerolls. I can certainly understand where the more conservative interpretation comes from, though, and would caution ETV to players.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Entryhazard wrote:

Do you want the maximum cheese?

Artful dodge as written says that you can use Int in place for Dex for feats that require a minimum Dex, but it does not say that counts only for the prerequisite itself, so you can use Int in every place the feat says Dex as long as the feat itself has a minimum Dex prerequisite.

Artful Dodge + Weapon Finesse + Slashing/Fencing Grace = BAM INT TO HIT AND DAMAGE

I, for one, welcome my new Int-based Magi overlords

From rules lawyer to rules lawyer, I just want to say that this is a willful misinterpretation. :-p


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malag wrote:

@DrakeRoberts

The way I see it is this. You (a player) declare what and how you do it to NPC or monster. Then I (a GM) decide if what condition it gets. You don't get to choose condition. GM arbitrates it completely. In some cases, I might mention that such trick isn't possible (because NPC doesn't have any pants on), but that seems about it. This is why, there is no "fluff" in ability description. Every part of text is mechanical explanation.

A player can very reasonably state what they're intending to do with the action, but yes, the GM can shoot you down on the pantsing if the target is wearing a onesie or something. Similarly, if something has no eyes (like a skeleton, perhaps) or too many eyes (like a gibbering mouther), you could say the "sand in the eyes" option will not work.

The GM should inform the player of this before allowing the player to take that action, though, unless it would be reasonable to require a knowledge check to know it first.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
draxar wrote:

In PFS the ruling is apparently no, you can never stack on a Demoralise shaken condition, the best you can do is extend it:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jsox&page=10?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-20-F AQ#491

But I don't know how much people apply the rulings from that to wider gaming. It's the only ruling I could find when googling to see if I could stack the Shaken from Frightful Presence atop Demoralise.

Never trust Josh Frost, the man of Raging Skeletons. Morale bonus what?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hey guys, remember how I said I re-read the text and retracted the silly longbow discussion? That's because it actually says this:

UE wrote:
You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.

"At least" breaks the silliness.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

I wish this Feat did work as some are suggesting because this plus Grabbing Style would be hilarious.

DOUBLE WINDPIPE CRUSH HUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Only on the MoMS.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Have you considered just doing Weapon Master Fighter? It goes right along with your existing theme.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malag wrote:

@Serisan

I am not sure how is "The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver..." a fluff text. Please elaborate. Pulling the pants down might not be possible in some conditions, for example, the opponent might not have any pants on.

Because that statement is in the context of making up effects. Full text of that paragraph:

Quote:
You can attempt to hinder a foe in melee as a standard action. This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short period of time. Examples include kicking sand into an opponent's face to blind him for 1 round, pulling down an enemy's pants to halve his speed, or hitting a foe in a sensitive spot to make him sickened for a round. The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver, but it cannot be used to impose a permanent penalty, and the results can be undone if the target spends a move action. If you do not have the Improved Dirty Trick feat or a similar ability, attempting a dirty trick provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

That paragraph is to tell the player/GM that this is a catch-all maneuver for things not otherwise covered in the rules. The mechanical crunch of the ability is in the 2nd paragraph.

Quote:
If your attack is successful, the target takes a penalty. The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened. This condition lasts for 1 round. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD, the penalty lasts 1 additional round. This penalty can usually be removed if the target spends a move action. If you possess the Greater Dirty Trick feat, the penalty lasts for 1d4 rounds, plus 1 round for every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD. In addition, removing the condition requires the target to spend a standard action.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Malag wrote:

Just don't forget!

Dirty Trick wrote:
The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver...

While that is true, it's referring to the fluff part of the action (pull down pants, sand in the eyes, etc.). The important part is that it does have a mechanical backbone:

Quote:
The penalty is limited to one of the following conditions: blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened.

But, as stated in the fear status, they stack unless they say they don't.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The better option, IMO, is that Bounty Hunter archetype of Slayer, which will allow you to get multiple DTs per round while still attacking. It's one of the few places where you can justify TWF. The trick is to go first or get a flank fast.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I know a guy who takes off and puts on his Mask of Stony Demeanor depending on whether he needs to lie. I'd love to see that play out in real life.

Go to neighbor's house, check for the door for traps, check to see if the door is unlocked, barge in with weapon drawn.

Cemetery? JACKPOT! I pull out my crowbar and pry open the tomb door.

Bashes the corpses at funerals with a mace just to make sure.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fear Effects, Glossary, CRB wrote:
Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative. A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead.

Looks legit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaiin Retsu wrote:
Serisan wrote:
That said, there is no mechanical construct for "temporary damage dependent on condition" in Pathfinder.
For one, everything you just responded to me had nothing to for with your option 1, just option 2. However, I just in good faith could never say someone who was grappled for 2 turns is sitting permanently at 0HP unless someone helps them. It is completely illogical for what the move itself is doing. Suffocating kills without damaging the person. Why should they be dropped to 0HP, from lets say 45HP, just because they were grappled for 2 rounds? Where did that 45 points of physical damage come from? It is not magic, so that is not the answer, so tell me how do they magically disappear? I understand this is not written, but this is what needs clarification. As written, right now, the feat makes no sense as to how it is supposed to work.

I was saying what option 1 appears to be based on the discussion so far. I favor option 2 or 3 as how the rules actually work. The whole point of my post is that there was imprecision in how you addressed the issue.

"How should" and "how do" are very different questions when it comes to how the rules function. This feat is a display of creep in the way that the rules are understood.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaiin Retsu wrote:

For the two of you who want me to clarify why I say the unconscious state is temporary:

PRD wrote:
Unconscious: Unconscious creatures are knocked out and helpless. Unconsciousness can result from having negative hit points (but not more than the creature's Constitution score), or from nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points.
Kraken Throttle says they drop to 0HP and fall unconscious. While whether or not the HP is temporary or not is debatable, but to me, as a DM I would say that the person never took damage and thus was only temporarily damaged to 0. If the choke is then released while the person is at 0HP, regardless of whether or not the person gets their health back, they are conscious according to the definition of Unconscious. Hell, if it were not for the feat saying they were unconscious, they would not be until they are already dying and at -1HP. Honestly, I can see the fact that you can attack them at that point and move on. Once they are to the dying phase of the choke, they would not regain consciousness due to the fact that this is when anyone would be unconscious.

That's not what Kraken Throttle says. The text in question is:

Quote:
This suffocates your opponent.

There's a question of where in the Suffocation rules the target ends up. So far, I've seen 3 interpretations:

  • The target starts the Holding Your Breath rules.
  • The target "begins suffocating" and follows the 3 round until dead routine.
  • The target suffocates and immediately dies.

In terms of direct word match, option 3 is correct. It is an exact word match. In terms of logical progression, option 2 makes sense. It seems to be a big jump from grapple to dead and 3 rounds emulates the Suffocation spell, despite the mismatched wording of "suffocates" vs. "begins to suffocate." I'm still not sure why people are advocating option 1 other than the section header.

That said, there is no mechanical construct for "temporary damage dependent on condition" in Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
I don't see what Card Caster has to do with any of this, but I can say that you are misinterpreting the archetype. Card Caster doesn't use Spell Combat with cards at all; period. It wasn't designed to. Your problem is that you cling to the paradigm of "Shocking Grasp Spell Combat". There are other uses of Spell Combat besides using a Spellstrike touch spell. You could use a buff or debuff, for instance; hit them with a support spell or even throw out something like Burning Hands before moving in for melee with a normal melee weapon. When using Harrowed Spellstrike, you're doing so as just a normal standard action. It simply doesn't combine with Spell Combat in the way that a vanilla Magus can do. Same goes for the Myrmidarch.

I only brought up the cardcaster because I have a player that laments its current status and how it is unlikely to be errata'd.

Quote:
Back to the discussion at hand, as I've said repeatedly, the RAW vs RAI debate is a phantom; that is not the problem in the first place. If you're going to say "strict RAW interpretation" (presumed to mean explicit interpretation only) then you cannot wield an improperly sized ranged weapon because, since you can't step-up or step-down the size, your result is, by definition, going to be "something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed" and, thus, you cannot wield the weapon.

I just re-read the text. I'm retracting this humorous interpretation. It's ambiguous enough to apply logic. "You need at least two hands" is not the same as "is a two-handed weapon." That said, there is an (admittedly silly) mechanical difference in the game between a small longbow and a medium shortbow.

Quote:
Regarding Weapon Training, would you say that Monk training only covers the weapons as melee weapons? If so, what is Shuriken doing in there? Weapon Training covers all uses of the applicable weapons; if you're trained in the use of thrown weapons, that covers using them as melee weapons if they can be used as such. Otherwise, you'd have to specify whether your Weapon Focus(Dagger) applied to throwing a dagger or attacking in melee, but not both. Intent is a nice thing to know, but the writer of Titan Mauler had his intent outright overridden by the rules team and the wording of his archetype was changed accordingly. It's great when RAW (both explicit and implicit) matches RAI, but if there is a disconnect, it is the responsibility of Paizo to change it because it is their commercial...

I wasn't doubting whose responsibility it is to address the question. It's simply important for Paizo to know that it is a question.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Otherwhere wrote:
Feral wrote:
This is similar to the chokehold feat which is also terrible. The ability to choke out a 10 con wizard over (best case) 5 rounds is not helpful.
As written, Chokehold both pins and effectively silences your victim, which makes it far harder to deal with. (Pinned being a more severe form of grappled.) Still not great for 20+ rounds, but does have some benefit in the "unable to speak or cast spells" aspect.

And yet, all it takes is one natural 20 or one natural 1 to break that Chokehold. :-p


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Xena Thor, the cardcaster magus, would like a word with you. Yes, the archetype so poorly written, the only way you get to use Spell Combat is if you start in melee, then 5' to range.

The issue here is there's a RAI vs RAW argument going on. Obviously, I have no intention of bringing a colossal longbow ranger to the table, but the rules are written such that a strict RAW interpretation says it's legal. It's certainly not intended. Most GMs would call shenanigans on that. There's about 30 or so realism arguments to be made against it, not least of which is getting stuck in hallways. That said, if you're in a RAW-restricted format, like PFS, there are corner-cases like this that need to be addressed. The specifics of the bow trump the general rules regarding weapon size here. Any sane RAI GM is going to just laugh at someone who brings something that ridiculous to the table, and rightfully so, but it's one of the linguistic issues that's hung around because legacy.

At the same time, though, there are questions to be had regarding more rational resizing and other features. What is the maximum size chakram that a medium creature can wield? Does Weapon Training: Thrown help the fighter when using a dagger as a melee weapon? The RAW answer is unclear on the first question, but certainly positive on the second. Is that actually intended though? Is training for throwing weapons the same as training for melee use?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So, if I'm reading the rules quotes so far, you can wield a colossal longbow on a medium character if I take the appropriate penalties? After all, it's 2 handed regardless of size. Thus, it never "sizes out" like a 2h weapon normally would. Time for Gravity Bow!

This question comes up all the time at the table in really weird ways. The chakram is a prime example. Can I wield it as a melee weapon with two hands for 1.5x STR to damage? I would guess no, since it's not listed as a one-handed weapon. Can I TWF with it effectively? Well, it's not a light weapon, so you operate like it's a one-handed weapon with -4/-4. But I thought it wasn't a one-handed weapon because I couldn't use it in two hands?

This was something I thought was going to be addressed in UE and didn't actually happen.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The main thing is that you take the existing Swashbuckler damage and add Challenge to it. It was an extension of my complaint about archetypes that steal the entire class, just like the Exploiter Wizard does to the Arcanist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Found some useful language in an unexpected place.

Glossary, Poison section wrote:
Creatures can attempt to hold their breaths while inside to avoid inhaling the toxin. Creatures holding their breaths receive a 50% chance of not having to make a Fortitude save each round. See the rules for holding your breath and suffocation in Environment. Note that a character that would normally suffocate while attempting to hold its breath instead begins to breathe normally again.

This states that holding your breath and suffocation are two separate rule sets in the Environment chapter, even if they're under the same heading. As such, one can discount the holding your breath rules because Kraken Throttle does not reference them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Combat chapter, CRB wrote:
Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat, you can add your Dexterity bonus to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

Just putting the full section up. There are other relevant things in there that address the situation that I've bolded.

1 to 50 of 1,979 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.