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

Skylancer4's page

4,129 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Plus, realism-wise, I don't see how you could manage the extra draw on a weapon twice the normal size.

Now that's an argument I can get behind. Draw strength is important, but a large bow is going to have a significantly larger draw length that medium sized creatures simply can't do.

However things like crossbows are still up in the air. Because who doesn't want to tote a ballista around?

Only if you ignore the fact the game has split weapons into very distinct and comprehensive categories like simple/martial, one-handed, two-handed and ranged.

"Could be taken as..." is when you have to stop yourself from making assumptions or taking things for more than they are stated in the rules 99.9% of the time.

All two handed weapons need both hands to make use of, not all weapons that need both hands are mechanically "two handed" however.


The write up is irrelevant. The FAQ as well.

Characters have two "hands" of effort. This has been stated (and often complained about by some) ever since it was explained.

Due to these metaphorical hands, you are unable to take advantage of 2h and TWF/off hand fighting styles. This is intentional and meant to prevent mixing both styles, taking the best of both worlds and negate the drawbacks of each.


Even using the magic staff isn't "fuzzy", it just allows you to use your own CL instead of the items set CL. You are still using the item to create the effect opposed to actually casting a spell.


Activating an item isn't the same as casting a spell. You would be unable to modify the item effects with your class ability.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

This is sort of inherent to the issue when a player has some idea about what the campaign is about. I mean, if players know in advance they're going against a pale gentleman with a pronounced widow's peak named Vlad expect to see a lot of Paladins and Clerics, if the players expect to be in a nautical campaign, expect to see merfolk and hydrokineticists. There's really nothing you can do about it, and you want to give players some idea about what the campaign is about since you don't want someone to end up completely useless by accident.

The real problem with "OP" characters is twofold:
1) They hog the spotlight so that the other players feel superfluous
2) They render combat uneventful.

I sincerely doubt an OP ranger is going to damage either in a meaningful way, so I would allow it. I mean, it's the nature of the "favored [foo]" class features that you are going to try to guess the thing that you're most likely to encounter.

APs specifically have players guides so they know what they will be going up against. It is actually intended for them to have some sort of idea what is coming so they can plan characters accordingly. Nothing like making a ranger with favored enemy (insert the thing you will never see in the AP) and being bummed about never using half your class abilities.

Quite honestly, if the ranger making a decent choice for their class abilities is a legitimate concern and OP, you may want to reconsider running a game. A certain amount of system mastery is pretty much required to GM and if having class abilities online and useful is a problem, you may want to wait until you are a little more comfortable with the game before running.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The vast majority of rules tell you what is allowed/what you can do. When the rules are silent on things, it is because they aren't allowed unless an exception is stated (as in using a standard action to make a move action). This is what an exception based rule set is. If they were to do it the other way (telling you what you cannot do) the game rules would literally be a collection like an encyclopedia set. Obviously that isn't a good idea for a game, for numerous reasons.

In order for an "action" or "event" to be allowed, you need to provide a rule to show you can do it. There is no such rule for using move to free or swift as a blanket statement (there might be a class ability or such that does in very narrow circumstances, I haven't looked as it isn't pertinent to the OPs question).

Basically if you want to do something you need to find the rule that allows you to do it. That is just the way the rules set is made/set up. And it is why the argument of " the rules don't tell me I can't " is so obnoxious, because once someone gets to that point you have to realize that the person saying that doesn't really understand the core fundamentals of the game mechanics/rules.

It absolutely isn't that the rules are "unclear" it is that people want something from the rules for whatever reason, and the rules don't allow it. And because there are no rules regarding it, they try to work in the action they want either with "it doesn't say I can't" or "they obviously meant to allow it and didn't say anything", when it is plain as day that the rules don't have any way to allow the action/event.


It is just as logical that they were cut for space as the pricing is the same as it was.

My argument isn't that they material wasn't removed or republished, it is that that means the pricing is supposed to be different. It wouldn't be the first time something wasn't spelled out explicitly or copied pasted from previous version, but still intended.


Jeraa wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Wonderstell wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

As you can see, the Helm has an +50% increase in price since movement-type enchantments have an affinity with the Feet slot, whereas the Head slot does not.

This was a D&D (3.5, I think) rule which wasn't transferred to Pathfinder. But some items with their prices modified by this rule still remained, so +50% is backed by item examples.

It wasn't OGL so it couldn't be brought into PFRPG IIRC.
Nope. Body slot affinities are in the SRD. Paizo made a deliberate decision to remove them, but just didn't take the time to go through and correct the item prices that were affected.

Or didn't choose to include them (page count even) and left it as is due to backwards compatiblility as the rules are freely available. Omissions aren't always deliberate as has been brought to light numerous times since PFRPG. So unless you are telling us you know for a fact they were intentionally removed and have the quotes to back it up, I'm just going to go with that being your opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

Skylancer4: Having one person be able to reload and another not should rub EVERYONE the wrong way. There should be no reason someone shouldn't ask the question when a new ruling leads to an illogical result.

And to the point, I don't find the current set up "running well". Not being able to fix every problem/issue is no excuse for not trying to fix them or have the game make as much sense as possible.

As to "There are other games that do what you want better", I'd like rule to be as sensible as possible and that's something every game can improve on. A nauseated person forgetting or being able to drop an item or fall prone makes NO sense from a logical, gameplay, or balance perspective because they are limited to a more complex action.

And to be clear, the FAQ is a reversal of the standing rule in the core rules, combat section.

"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal). You can't take a full-round action (though you can start or complete a full-round action by using a standard action; see below)."

Any other time the rules say restricted/limited to a single move action or single standard action that also included the normal free/swift action. For some reason nauseated is the MOST powerful action limiting effect in the game... And to use your logic above, leaving nauseated use the above quote would have been the best way to make the game "simplified to make the game run more smoothly". Making an exception to existing rules doesn't make things rule smoother...

You obviously aren't playing the same game I am, because my PFRPG core rule book is definitely an exception based rule set, where general rules are stated and just about every spell, the majority of feats and class abilities, and pretty much every magic item is an exception to the general rules outlined in the game.

Is that the same game you are playing? Because my game runs pretty damn smooth with what we have in the book. It would take effort to not from what I've seen.


graystone wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

First off, you aren't actually "entitled" to anything. Things in the game become much less "absurd" when you don't have a feeling of entitlement to cloud issues.

The only time you are allowed to "downgrade" is when it is explicitly called out, such as the case of standard into move. Otherwise it is a no go. Actions fit into a category, and you are allowed (or not allowed) specific actions of each category during your round depending on circumstances.

If you can't downgrade, it leads to very "absurd" results. Two people that are nauseated and try to reload their weapon.

Why shouldn't the archer feel "entitled" to take a simpler/easier/less time intensive version of an action that a light crossbowman can do: reload. Unless that light crossbowman trained to do it faster [rapid reload], then getting nauseated means he's less able to reload than an untrained person...

And how many "real world" comparisons actually make a difference in our fantasy GAME where things are typically simplified to make the game run more smoothly? That is the point.

Something in the game rubs you the wrong way, welcome to you opinion. Not all rules need to make sense to everyone. As a matter of fact they NEVER will. That is kinda the point. Can't make everyone happy, but you can make the game run well (and lets face it, that is a job with an expansive rule set). I'll take a game running well over every circumstance making sense in a non simulationist game.

That is my opinion on it, and amusingly enough it is just as valid and "important" as yours. There are other games that do what you want better, if that is the type of gameplay you really desire.


First off, you aren't actually "entitled" to anything. Things in the game become much less "absurd" when you don't have a feeling of entitlement to cloud issues.

The only time you are allowed to "downgrade" is when it is explicitly called out, such as the case of standard into move. Otherwise it is a no go. Actions fit into a category, and you are allowed (or not allowed) specific actions of each category during your round depending on circumstances.


You are probably more likely to see 3pp than official Paizo mythic material.

Mythic took a lot of flak for balance issues as well as being a form of play than isn't particularly wide spread in the grand scheme of things. It took quiet some time to get mythic (which was Paizo's stab at "epic" play as they didn't want to do level 20+ material for reasons they stated awhile ago) and it was made in archetypes as opposed to actual class based to keep it "open" for whatever character wanted to play that type of character. For every option that has a hook from a specific class, there is another (maybe even two) that works for any class.

By no means am I saying it is a bad idea, just that it would probably take resources and significant page space. Opposed to something like an archetype that may take up a page at most. If I buy a book and find 4+ pages of mythic material (that I have no interest in using) I might be a little miffed. And there are people who just plain out hate the Mythic rules, who would take it worse in would imagine.

At best we could hope for one of the "smaller" products being all new mythic material, but then they would have to figure out enough mythic material to fill it and not be either a repeat or "step on the toes" of exisiting stuff AND have enough incentive to do it (AKA is it worth investing the resources vs how many will sell). And I believe they already have the product schedule out (and so it would be awhile until something like that could be stuffed in).

Where as a 3pp has more incentive (cost vs investment) to do such niche products.


Wonderstell wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

As you can see, the Helm has an +50% increase in price since movement-type enchantments have an affinity with the Feet slot, whereas the Head slot does not.

This was a D&D (3.5, I think) rule which wasn't transferred to Pathfinder. But some items with their prices modified by this rule still remained, so +50% is backed by item examples.

It wasn't OGL so it couldn't be brought into PFRPG IIRC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hugo Rune wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Do you have a quote, errata or FAQ about falling being typed? I've never seen it mentioned. It has always been "untyped environmental damage" from anything I've read.

Of course he doesn't, he was using common sense. There's not much difference between a large blunt object striking you and you striking a large blunt object. They're both going to hurt due to the force of the impact and it is a hard argument to rationalise that you have DR one way round but not the other. Unless the entirety of your argument is raw, Raw, RAW RAW!!!!!.

No the argument is it states it protects against combat effects. As it certainly reads as that is the implication.

Saying it protects against things beyond that is just taking the " well it makes sense to me" or thankfully not in this case, " it doesn't say it can't work that way".

There are NUMEROUS things that could make sense one way or another, but aren't intended to happen in the game.

You obviously don't like it, but that is the way it is, like so many other things people don't like about the rules. Someone not liking something isn't really a reason for the rules to all the sudden start working differently than written.


StabbittyDoom wrote:

If you're a lawyer, falling damage is not reduced by DR, and neither is damage from a rock falling on you. If you're a normal sane person, falling damage is physical damage (bludgeoning), DR reduces physical damage, therefor falling damage is reduced by DR.

We're talking about core rulebook rules here, people. These things are famous for wonky wording, odd oversights, clumsy copy-paste, and laughable loopholes. Not as bad as 3.0e, but they still have their moments.

It's already been clarified that DR *does* apply to spells, but only to ones that deal physical damage, and that the line about spells ignoring DR is only because 99% of the time it's energy damage (or untyped, which is also non-physical).

Do you have a quote, errata or FAQ about falling being typed? I've never seen it mentioned. It has always been "untyped environmental damage" from anything I've read.


I'd rule it doesn't count against falling damage, as mentioned above it is more a combat stat. Even the old description of it was "tough hide" "skin heals over right after damage weapon damage" etc. Weapons and attacks are the most common source of damage, but far from the only source.


Deighton Thrane wrote:
Ummm, you can have a ring sundered just as easily as the broom you're riding. It may not make as much sense logically, but mechanically they're equally hard to sunder. Ioun stones are even better, they can be implanted so that they can't even be targeted.

But it still benefits from your protections (AC, CMD, whatever), where as the slotless item doesn't. They have their own (typically much worse) stats.

As for the ioun stone, you changed the paradigm from a normal one to "something" else, so that changes things as well.


Lorewalker wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Cult of Vorg wrote:
Depends on if that is a standard action supernatural ability (so no full attack actions), or a natural attack (since per greater shadow it doesn't get iteratives at bab+6 it's not a normal attack) that they can full attack with to trigger the extra attack from BoF or Haste...
The supernatural ability is Strength Damage, their attack is incorporeal touch. Two different things. Strength damage is just a rider on a shadow's touch.

SU abilities are typically standard actions. Often times if they incorporate attacks that is part of it. As pointed out, the shadow ability is the "typical" standard action, as even when the greater version has the BAB to make multiple attacks they are unable to do so with the touch/damage.

If it is something that is a "rider effect" the creature stat block will make it clear or it will be written up in the ability from what I have seen.

It's a natural attack, not manufactured thus explaining not getting iterative attacks. It is written up in the attack, just as poison would be. The only difference is that a shadows touch attack does not do HP damage so no "D(#) +".

If their touch were an SU ability it would be named such. So, instead of the SU being called "strength damage" it would be called "incorporeal touch". It would also be listed under "special attacks".

If only that were 100% across the board. Not all abilities or stat blocks follow your logic. At best you have solid generalizations unfortunately.


Air0r wrote:
LadyLightning wrote:

I have a question about Emulate Melee Weapon!

If I am using Emulate Melee Weapon to form a mind-wakizashi (from the oriental weapons section of Ultimate Combat), can I still use my Throw Mind Blade class feature to throw that mind-wakizashi (which is a light weapon) with a 20' range increment?

I'd say yes. Cause it is still you mindblade and isn't a two-handed form (though with the right blade skill, even that isn't an issue).

It is definitely your mindblade, but it isn't your "normal" mindblade. It takes on all of the properties of the weapon you changed it into so it counts for that weapon. The mindblade has it's forms, which happen to coincide with weapon types. Basically it doesn't mean one is equal to the other or vice versa.

I admittantly take the more conservative options when things aren't clear, and I don't think allowing it is particularly broken. But I don't believe it is explicitly allowed. It is your mindblade, but it is in wakazashi form (which happens to be a one handed weapon), not your mindblade in it's one handed form. It states "one handed weapon mindblade" which follows the wording that is given in the Form Mindblade class ability. So that is the explicitly allowed form.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Well... no, not taking up an item slot is objectively better than taking up an item slot. That's the reason I was ragging on the Wings of Flying; using them locks you out of the Cloak of Resistance, which is objectively worse than not being locked out of the Cloak of Resistance.

Tell that to the character who plummeted to their death as the broom was destroyed while they were on it (they would say the ring is "better") or the person who fails a save or loses bonuses from losing their ioun stone (they would probably say the slotted items were a " better" choice).

A slotless item alows for more abilities to stack above beyond slotted options, but that doesn't make them 100% "better" in all cases.


I will readily admit I missed the 1xday portion of the OP.

As for "better" it absolutely is subjective. GP value has a modified for no slot yes, but that doesn't mean it is "better." Better is subjective.

Most slotless items are actually a detriment, they can be destroyed or stolen significantly more easily.


master_marshmallow wrote:

The Gem Dragons were part of Monster Manual II which was definitely part of the 3.5 run.

I presume spells/day is meant to keep the design simple, but the text flat out calls for Gem Dragons to have psionic manifesting in place of sorcerous casting.

I any case, DM purview allows me to make monsters how I want. It really doesn't matter, I still don't know where a hypothetical psion's powers known list comes from. This is what I would like to know.

3.5 base game came out in 2003, Expanded Psionics (3.5 version of Psionics) wasn't released until 2004. So if the book came out before that, it obviously wasn't written using the most recent rule set (which had numerous and fundamental changes). I've been a game of Psionics for a very very long time.

Also you are absolutely correct as the GM you can throw together whatever you want... But that isn't why you asked here. You said how it should be done in PFRPG (I read that as it implicated, correctly). And I have explained to you how that is, but the current rules and the reasons. If you want to ignore that, just be aware of what you are doing and that it isn't actually what should happen in our current rule set.

As for how to choose powers, I have explained in a previous post as well as given you a location where the mechanics are listed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Duiker wrote:

Command word activated:

first: (spell level x caster level x 1,800)

then: divide by (5/uses per day)

So: (5 * 9 * 1800)/(5) = 16,200gp

However, the rules also say to compare it to other magic items that do similar things to see if it's fair. The Broom of Flying also provides Overland Flight for 9 hours per day, with a couple of other abilities for 17,000. Since the proposed ring is slotted (and thus less valuable) I'd say that around 16K probably is priced right.

Being less valuable is subjective. They can sunder your broom, they have to kill you to get rid of the ring, etc.

Also the broom is a bad comparison.

A better comparison is Wings of Flying. Slotted, command word activated,60' average maneuverability. 54k gold.

So the ring should at least be around there. Flying is powerful and can trivialize a good portion of encounters. It tends to be very expensive if not counting against the character's daily resources pool.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm not sure if that's correct.

WOTC, Gem Dragons wrote:

Gem dragons are dragons who have innate psionic abilities instead of sorcerous abilities. They are stand-offish and loners as a rule, and they are always most concerned about their own needs. Except as noted below, gem dragons adhere to all the dragon rules indicated in the Monster Manual.

Psionic Powers: A gem dragon knows and manifests psionic powers as a psion of the level and discipline indicated in its variety description, gaining bonus power points for a high key ability score. Even if a particular power noted for a dragon doesn't appear in the Psionics Handbook as a psionic power (instead appearing in the Player's Handbook) the power is considered to be manifested psionically.

Psionics (Sp): The psionic abilities a gem dragon can freely manifest depend on its age and variety. It gains the abilities listed for its age plus all previous ones, using its age category or its psion manifester level (whichever is higher) as the manifester level. The save DC is 10 + the dragon's key ability modifier + power level. All psionic abilities noted for a gem dragon are usable a number of times per day, as noted under each variety.

Emphasis mine.

source

Go look at a psion, how the powers are set up and how many they have. Now go look at the page you linked, where there are powers per day, which is exactly NOT how psion's work. They count as manifester of a discipline because that has some fringe benefits for certain powers. They have a ML, so you know how those powers when used X times per day (for duration, damage, range etc) function.

They are not actually Psions however. They have no psion class levels to add your level of psion to, to increase. Unlike let us say an angel who has a cleric level of 14th and chooses spells each day exactly like a cleric would. Said angel would increase their cleric level.

I understand why you can be confused, but you are still incorrect. Just to add to the confusion, looking at it, that dragon might even be 3.0 not 3.5, as it has mention of attack and defense modes. Those were changed into powers in 3.5. The 3.0 set up for Psionics was completely different.

For 3.5 and PFRPG, it works the way I explained. I'm 100% sure it does not work the way you want it to, and 99.9% sure it works the way I say it does (that .1% is because of it being 3.0 and not being the same system as it is now). If you don't believe me, look up Dreamscarred Press Ultimate Psionics, you can see it at d20pfsrd.com as I mentioned earlier.

As per PFRPG rules, to increase a class level the creature needs to have the effective casting of the class, not certain spells X times per day. As I said before two completely different situations and your dragon is the latter one, so it doesn't get to work that way. Everything you need to know is freely available on that site if you want to learn about the current psionic rules. DSP is about as official as you are going to get as Paizo said they will not be doing Psionics as they don't want to introduce a point based spell casting system (not to mention someone already did a bang up job of them if anyone wants to use them). I've already given you the answer, but it would probably help to learn and understand the system so you can figure out why you are incorrect on this.


JiCi wrote:

Ok, I'm aware that PLAYING a race has guidelines, such as adjustments to your starting level if you have a more powerful race, but what about ENCOUNTERING a race member?

Let's say that I (as a GM) want to have my party encountering a squadron made of humanoid creatures that are actually "super-soldiers". According to the Builder, my homebrewed race would have 40 rps. As a Playable Race, a super-soldier would have to be 3 levels lower for up 5th level, 2 for up to 10th, 1 for up to 15th and none for up to 20th.

But what about CR? Is it +1 CR for 10 rps above 10 rp (+1 CR for 20 rps, +2 CR for 30 rps, +3 for 40 rps)? Is there no adjustment to CR afterall, since it's built as a PC race?

I am talking about a 0HD race here. Think of humans genetically engineered/bred for war, with enhanced abilities and such.

Sounds like you should be using a template actually.


Lorewalker wrote:
Cult of Vorg wrote:
Depends on if that is a standard action supernatural ability (so no full attack actions), or a natural attack (since per greater shadow it doesn't get iteratives at bab+6 it's not a normal attack) that they can full attack with to trigger the extra attack from BoF or Haste...
The supernatural ability is Strength Damage, their attack is incorporeal touch. Two different things. Strength damage is just a rider on a shadow's touch.

SU abilities are typically standard actions. Often times if they incorporate attacks that is part of it. As pointed out, the shadow ability is the "typical" standard action, as even when the greater version has the BAB to make multiple attacks they are unable to do so with the touch/damage.

If it is something that is a "rider effect" the creature stat block will make it clear or it will be written up in the ability from what I have seen.


One of the best "in combat" healers is the oradin build. Passive healing with the ability to "burst heal" as a swift (on yourself) while keeping combat capable.


LadyLightning wrote:

I have a question about Emulate Melee Weapon!

If I am using Emulate Melee Weapon to form a mind-wakizashi (from the oriental weapons section of Ultimate Combat), can I still use my Throw Mind Blade class feature to throw that mind-wakizashi (which is a light weapon) with a 20' range increment?

I want to say no, just because the emulate blade skill effectively changes the mindblade into that weapon and that isn't an option for the new form.


You've got it incorrect. You actually don't stack in this case, the dragon doesn't manifest as a psion of 7th level. It has a set of SP powers that can be used a certain number of times per day and a ML to let you know they work. Those are two distinct situations.

What you end up having is the dragon, with a +2 will save, +d6 hit points, 2(+mod) PP and 3 first level powers.

You can look up the psion on d20pfsrd.com, you can choose any 3 powers on the general psion and discipline list.


I'd actually simplify it and say:
(General rule) 5' step doesn't provoke.
(Exception) If you are tiny and take a 5' step into a creatures space, you do provoke.

Which is exactly how it is written in the book incidentally. The general rule for the 5' and an exception called out in the situation. Imagine that. How many threads to just be told it is how it is written in the book? LOL


If you need a rules quote it is actually buried inside the outsider type traits. Towards the end, so it is easy to miss if you are not actually reading everything.


Tels wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Core rules have a water clock if I remember correctly. I don't believe watch works are a staple part of fantasy. Obviously you can run it anyway the GM allows, but for publication sake, sticking to less controversial or technological flavor is better. The more bland/functional the better, let the home games change it more "drastically" as they want if they want to or can.

Case in point, gunslinger. How many posts have there been about the gunslinger and how it doesn't "fit" the game?

I can cut a my arm off and replace it with a clockwork arm for the low, low price of 6,400 gp. I don't think that adding in a watch will be a problem.

Also, consider the fact that for a long time, guns were actually made by watchmakers as only they had the skill and practised hands to safely create a gun. It's reasonable to assume that if there are gunsmiths, they are also watchmakers.

Anything can be "reasonable to assume" that doesn't mean it has a place in EVERYONE'S game. When publishing material adding in concrete's like ticking clocks when the actual cores rules don't have them can alienate customers. It might be great for YOUR game, but as 99.9% of the players don't play your game, a publisher needs to be cognizant and cater to the greater picture to sell the largest amount of books. Being "campaign neutral" is often the best bet.

I never said it was a bad idea or "wrong", I said it was not the best idea for the final product. If you can't or don't understand that, there isn't much reason for us to continue the discussion. Not everyone plays with splat books, nor would they think it is a " cool" idea. The game is bigger than the people here on this thread.


The Beardinator wrote:
Correction: Inquisitors do not get martial weapons. The Lady's Spiral is still a 1d4 Whip. Whips are Weak!

Eh, damage is able to be tacked on through numerous ways. Unless you are doing something like vital strike where you are multiplying weapon dice, the base damage is usually not that important. Not to mention as a video game, it doesn't translate well into preexisting mechanics which aren't geared towards/designed for the particular genre/game style. He is the only hero and is supposed to win, where as PFRPG is designed for group play and reliance on other people. There isn't one person who is supposed to "win" the encounters.


JakeCWolf wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

No, it works for melee weapons.

FAQ wrote:

From Paizo FAQ:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?
No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.

Update Page 30, in the titan mauler archetype, in the Jotungrip class feature, in the first sentence, insert the word "melee" between "two-handed" and "weapon."

Your quoting the wrong rule, he's asking about Massive Weapons not Jotungrip. And that rule doesn't say the looted weapon has to be a a melee weapon, so I'd say yes, if you can find a giant with a bow and can kill him, you can take it for your own.

Bleh, extremely long night, time to sleep. I just know you cannot do it.

Quote:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Can a Medium titan mauler wield a Large two-handed weapon, such as a Large greatsword?

No. The "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule (Core Rulebook 144) says (in summary) that a creature can't wield an inappropriately-sized weapon if the size difference would increase it one or more "steps" beyond "two-handed." None of the titan mauler's abilities say the character can break the "steps" part of the "Inappropriately Sized Weapons" rule, so the character still has to follow that rule.

Large 2h bow would increase the "step" and cause you to be unable to do it (as mentioned above by taks).


No, it works for melee weapons.

FAQ wrote:

From Paizo FAQ:

Barbarian--Titan Mauler: Does the Jotungrip class feature (page 30) allow the Titan Mauler to use oversized weapons?
No. Jotungrip allows the titan mauler to use two-handed melee weapons in one hand, but only if the weapon is appropriately sized for the character. The massive weapon class feature allows her to use oversized weapons with decreased penalty, but does not allow her to use two-handed weapons of that size in one hand.

Update Page 30, in the titan mauler archetype, in the Jotungrip class feature, in the first sentence, insert the word "melee" between "two-handed" and "weapon."


Core rules have a water clock if I remember correctly. I don't believe watch works are a staple part of fantasy. Obviously you can run it anyway the GM allows, but for publication sake, sticking to less controversial or technological flavor is better. The more bland/functional the better, let the home games change it more "drastically" as they want if they want to or can.

Case in point, gunslinger. How many posts have there been about the gunslinger and how it doesn't "fit" the game?


For chrono, I'd probably do a bubble with everything inside leaving a visual trail as it moves and make the sound worble inside.

That seems pretty common in the time travel books and movies.

Not that sand is bad, it is just seems jarring if there is no reason for the sound of sand to be occurring to me.


Trimalchio wrote:
The argument that "wielded" is not the same as "functions" is ridiculous, does anyone have a glossary citation wherein paizo redefines words to mean something beyond their plain English meaning?

I've repeatedly stated that there is an FAQ regarding Defending weapons which clarified what wield means by the PDT.

It means to attack with. Anything above or beyond that is a person imposing what they want from the term to gain more of a benefit than what the spell states it gives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
At this point the question is contentious enough to need a FAQ. I believe the wording of the mythic version is enough to convey the intent of one designer, but it's not explicit enough for some, and may not be the ruling of the entire design team.

I'd rather the PDT didn't waste their time with something as silly as this. There are definitely things more important to sus through.


SmiloDan wrote:

It's wielded like a scimitar, not a quarterstaff or nunchaku or a glaive or javelin or a standard touch spell.

You can't wield it as a double weapon.
You can't flurry of blows with it.
It does not increase your reach.
You can't throw it.
It is not a touch spell. It creates an effect (a scimitar made out of fire) with which you can make attacks. Because it is a scimitar made out of fire, you can wield it as if it were a scimitar made out of fire.

This is the problem, that isn't what the spell says. That is what you are taking it to say.

The spell creates an effect you can wield as a scimitar is ALL the spell says. Not that you are making a scimitar made of fire.

The two are completely different.


Ablative still wouldn't come into play. Life link isn't an attack on you.


"The rules don't tell me I can't move or take actions when I'm dead, so I can continue to play right?"

Absurd things happen when the rules are pressed, that doesn't mean any and everything is possible unless you are told you can't by RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

The critical threat range of scimitars is specified under the description of scimitars.

Which is great if you were actually using a scimitar, instead of something that allows you to add bonuses and abilities that work with scimitars.

Again, something wielded is not the same as being that something in all ways.

It is a spell, those normally have a 20/x2 unless specifically detailed otherwise. All the spell description does is state [b]wielded[/i] as. It doesn't say "treat this spell effect as a scimitar for all purposes" there is a distinct difference between those two. And there are spells and effects that do that unlike this one.

When I "wield" a defending weapon, it means I attack with it to gain the bonus. That is the games "definition" of wielding. It has nothing at all to do with the statistics of the weapon.

By stating it is "wielded" as a scimitar that means the spell effect has possible drawback of non proficiency penalties, as well as being able to benefit from spells/feats/abilities that would provide bonuses to said weapon.The game rules haven't told us to use the weapon specifications of a scimitar, and as it is an exception based rule set, we just do the bare minimum of what they tell us to. And as we have Dev explanation of what "wielded" means in context of the game, suggesting that the spell has stats of the weapon is actually going far beyond what the spell states it does.


I heard it compared to Exalted in space before, but have never personally looked into Exalted. Might want to look at that system?

For d20, magic tends to be way more prevalent than what is going on in the movies, so a system that didn't rely on magic as much for martials would probably be a better fit. Something less "class based" would probably be the way to go, where you can mix and match abilities a little more freely.


Brain in a Jar wrote:

A Faerie Dragon can certainly use a Handy Haversack.

They are treated as Biped (Hands) in Animal Archive meaning they can use All Item Slots and can manipulate with their hands to carry objects.

It also has the carrying capacity needed to hold it.

Also consider;

"These wondrous items do not adhere to a specific slot, and are often carried by a character in a way similar to a potion or wand, worn on some part of the body that doesn't correspond to an item slot, or are otherwise utilized in a particular way detailed in the item's description. Slotless wondrous items range through the gamut of appearances and functions, and, generally, if a magic item doesn't fit into any other category it appears here.

Anyone can use slotless wondrous items unless specified otherwise by its description. These wondrous items are usually use-activated or triggered by a command word, but details vary from item to item."

To claim otherwise would need some rules quotes to back it up.

And the Rules are written in the assumption that the CHARACTER is the one using or being referred to. Not the familiar or animal companion, the CHARACTER. You even quoted it. That they made rules specifically for the familiar and animal companions to limit which slots they had shows they obviously don't follow all the rules for the CHARACTER in the book.

My book bag, which is smaller than a haversack, is still twice the size of my rather large 20lb cat. You would 1) have to modify it to be able to carry it (oops custom magical item now) and 2) it would significantly impact the movement of the cat while it was on them. It could carry the weight sure, but there would be problems moving like it does normally, which equates to what "encumbrance" does.

If you want to argue that familiars are in all ways the same as characters despite having particular rules about what they can and are... Fine. That doesn't make it a good or valid argument. You ARE leaving the boundaries of the Rules to allow this, no matter what you say or how you reason it. The rules being silent on a subject doesn't give you the ability to do it, because "it didn't say I can't" or make your position RAW. Familiars and animal companions aren't characters, they are class abilities.

Besides why aren't you looking at things like tiny saddle bags of holding (as I believe they exist)?
Oh right, you are looking for a mechanical advantage that the haversack gives.... That right there is an "alarm" that you are starting to get into "bending or twisting" the rules and should make you take pause and reconsider what exactly you are up to.


Mechanically a +2 bonus is nothing more than "favorable" conditions and doesnt make something go from being "sad" to okay.

The rules give the GM the option to grant a +1/+2 bonus on rolls when the players attempt something due to circumstances.

Basically +6 is by no means "sad" despite your (and most people's) desire to have bigger numbers. +6 is actually pretty big bonus in just about all situations especially when it gets tacked on to the numbers you have access to at the level you get Spell Perfection (15th+).


alexd1976 wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

A taser would be a touch attack.

The tip of the taser is what produces the effect.

You wouldn't parry a taser by jamming your hand into the contacts on the tip of the taser.

Right?

You can parry 'touch' attacks.

We've long since gotten past that, we are now on the "my shield should help vs touch attacks, it makes no sense it doesn't help" argument.

Hrm. I sort of agree that shields could help with it... I don't think it would break anything.

Minor tweak, just state that shield bonus adds to touch AC. I like it!

And the other side of that is, for as many reasons it could work, there an equal amount of reasons it might not help.

So they errored on the side of less complicated. I'm all for it (the way it is now)!


alexd1976 wrote:

A taser would be a touch attack.

The tip of the taser is what produces the effect.

You wouldn't parry a taser by jamming your hand into the contacts on the tip of the taser.

Right?

You can parry 'touch' attacks.

We've long since gotten past that, we are now on the "my shield should help vs touch attacks, it makes no sense it doesn't help" argument.


JDPhipps wrote:

Plenty of adventurers are small size. They can wear handy haversacks, why can't a familiar? Besides, in DnD encumbrance is tied directly to your Strength score. It doesn't matter if a small creature is trying to carry something ten times its size, as long as it does actually have the Strength to carry the item it won't be encumbered at all. Also, there are no rules for the fearie dragon that say it can't fly encumbered, as far as I recall. Sure, maybe it can't traditionally fight all that well, but most familiars don't partake in combat in any way that's affected by encumbrance in the first place.

Also, fitting a faerie dragon or something with a Handy Haversack sounds like the silliest thing ever and I want to see it happen, if only to say that I did.

Sizes cover A LOT of ground. Your halfling mage isn't the same size as your small cat familiar regardless of you being the same size category. It is a false comparison on that and at least one other point. Familiars aren't characters (being the other), and up until VERY recently, we didn't even have legitimate magical slots for them rules wise.

"If my character can do it, why can't my familiar?" Is not a particularly sound argument.

Also weight is not the only consideration for whether something is encumbered. Armor can do it, as well as other specific rules and situations. You are arguing that the rules allow it because they don't say you can't do it while dismissing the very real fact that familiars have particular rules and they don't state you can.

By no means am I saying they can't drag or pull or otherwise convey a haversack from one place to another STR score allowing. But actually wearing one as per a character is getting into "house rules" territory as nothing in the books allows for it or even hints it is a possibility.


Casual Viking wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The problem, Devilkiller, is that if touching the shield doesn't count then neither does touching armor.
But there's touching and then there's touching. Apparently.

And mechanically the game dictates what counts and what doesn't.

1 to 50 of 4,129 << 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.