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

Talonhawke's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,673 posts (4,789 including aliases). No reviews. 3 lists. 1 wishlist. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,673 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So we have a seeming to leaning towards needing a rule to allow extra attacks to gain them. So what is meant by Multi-Armed saying that only one hand is used as primary and all the extra arms are off-hands? Remembering that off-hands only exist inside of the TWF attack system? It was said that a human can have availble more than one off-hand weapon but can only use one per set off attacks. But those are listed as "can be used as an off-hand weapon" but they aren't extra off-hands.

Thats why I'm in the leaning of the extra hands/arms do grant extra attacks. A kasatha has per the multiarmed rule 1 primary and 3 off hands.


It makes about as much sense as Additional Traits being a feat to begin with. For some traits sure it might have just happened. But others are just as weird as your background changing to suddenly pick up.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Arrius wrote:
Be that as it may, the majority of changes in Kirthfinder go too deep to remain modular enough for most home games.
That's true. The whole project started when I said, "Ya know, wouldn't it be nice if the fighter's armor training and so one were choices, analogous to rogue talents?" It sort of snowballed from there. So, yeah, ca. 2009 it was still quite modular -- port in a replacement ranger class, or try out scaling combat feats as an optional rule. Gradually, through evolution, problem-solving, and consolidation of sub-systems, it ended up being its own thing, especially because the core Pathfinder game seemed to be headed in an opposite direction.

Ehh I like it. Honestly I love the inherent flexibility provided even if I'm always DMing and haven't ever gotten to try out my ideas for it.


Yes any variances from normal operations are in the ability sections. For the rules to change for a creature those changes are spelled out somewhere not just plugged in with no accompanying rules. The marillith has 6 off hands nothing spells out that this is a difference than how a future 6 armed construct might work. It does spell out why there are no penalties. If it just broke the rules then it would just have the attacks listed with out explaining the reason why there were no penalties.


Nothing there says monsters just do what they want willy-nilly what it does say is that monsters aren't built by some magic chart, he even gets into what I was talking about if a monster does something that isn't standard in the game, like sundering hyrda heads, its called out in the creature entry not just plugged into the stats with no explanation.


Calth wrote:
Incorrect, bestiary creatures explicitly from designer commentary and the design contests are allowed to break rules that PCs must follow.

Can you actually back that up? Or are you just gonna throw out "the Designers said so" and leave it. Instead of telling everyone why they are wrong show them where or on top of that give an example of such a creature breaking a rule that can't be implied.

EDIT: Added quote


Sure and do it for feats as well. Maybe your going eldritch knight down the line and want to take your caster levels up front. Grab toughness early to keep you hp up and then when you get a few fighter levels switch it for power attack or maybe empower spell.


Calth wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Calth wrote:
You are assuming the existence of a nonexistent rule. The normal condition of MWF in no way grants attacks, it only adjudicates the attack penalties of attacks from another source. Compare it to the normal TWF feat text, which references the TWF combat rule which is the source of the attack.

Correct me if I'm understanding you wrong, but you seem to be claiming that the 'Normal' condition of the MWF feat isn't saying that you CAN make attacks with all of your off hands, but rather only that the penalty for doing so is -10... and there is, in fact, no way to actually make such attacks.

If so, I'll just say that this interpretation seems, to me, highly strained and clearly incorrect. Why even list the penalty if there is no way to incur it? At that... what does the feat even DO if you can't make attacks with those hands to begin with? And before you say, 'the feat just reduces the penalties'... yes, but the penalties it reduces are for "attacks made with all of its [the creature's] off hands" - which you seem to be saying there is no way to do.

In any case, every single creature wielding three or more weapons in every bestiary (and AP/module/other) entry follows the rule stated in the MWF 'normal' condition as I have read it.

You are assuming the normal text of MWF grants attacks. It does not, the creature must have some other way of gaining the attacks that the MWF feat applies to. (For example, the TWF feat modifies the attack granted by the TWF combat rule of the CRB) Bestiary creatures, by virtue of their statblock, can make those attacks, so they benefit from MWF. PCs have no way of gaining those attacks, so they cannot. There is a reason it is a bestiary feat.

Nothing about bestiary creatures inherently breaks the rules. They follow the same permissive ruleset as everything else in the game. Now they can have access to abilities that aren't availble to anything outside their race, but again those are spelled out. Why bother spelling out special if the creature can just have the ability? A 6 armed monster gets to make 5 off-hand attacks because it has 6 arms not because some designer wrote it in the stat block.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.

The dicussion stems from the fact that no rule specificlly allows more than 2 attacks a around without iterative attacks.

We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.

We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.

Having Arms doesn't always mean you gain more attacks. It allows you to take more attacks, assuming you have an available means to attack with those arms, such as by being given an effect that provides Claws. So if I were a Kasatha with both Beast Totem Rage and Feral Mutagen, I could make 4 Claw Attacks without problem.

Note, however, that the FAQ regarding Vestigial Arms states that even if you provide an effect which grants attacks to the Vestigial Arms (such as the Feral Mutagen, which gives 2 Claws that can be put on those arms, granting them attacks), you cannot take those attacks in addition to the ones you would be able to take without those arms, as the source of the attacks is the arms, not the effect granting the Claws.

Which is why I specified Weapon attacks. Can a Kasatha pick up 4 shortswords and swing them all at their opponent at level 1.


To get pedantic then what rule allows you to breathe? We can imply you can breathe because we have rules about holding your breath and what happens if you inhale certain poisons but not one stating you can breathe to my knowledge.


12 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

As a break off of this thread I am making a thread for dicussion and hopefully if enough clicks are gained a definitive answer to the question, can a creature with extra arms make weapon attacks with all of them without using iterative attacks.
The dicussion stems from the fact that no rule specificlly allows more than 2 attacks a around without iterative attacks.

We see several creatures in the bestiary who use x attacks where x is the number of arms in a full attack in the way described above without a special ruling to allow it. We also see some with extra arms who only use 2 in their written attack sequences.

We also see Vestigal Arms which grants arms but gives a specific rule disallowing extra attacks lending to the position that by default extra arms means extra attacks.


Which is where Vestigal arms comes back in by specifically pointing out no extra attacks are gained we see a precedent set that under normal circumstances extra arms means extra attacks granted.


What rule then allows a Marilith to make more than 2 attacks?


Calth wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
PRD wrote:
Multi-Armed (4 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.
Bolding mine
Primary and off-hand do not grant attacks. Those terms govern how much damage is done. A human with 2 real hands can wield at least half a dozen effective off-hands with various weapons.

And as the entire debate about 2wf with a 2hw showed attacks are made based off of the number of hands availble to normal members that race. If extra hands don't grant extra attacks then why does the Alchemist discovery Vestigal hands call out that they don't grant extra attacks.


PRD wrote:
Multi-Armed (4 RP): Prerequisites: None; Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands. Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.

Bolding mine


No if you have greater you roll 4[w]+bonuses damage


graystone wrote:
Byakko wrote:

Guys, retraining as a whole doesn't make sense from an in-character perspective. You can retrain a high level wizard into a fighter or vice versa. Finding a way to swap out some additional traits is a pretty minor thing if you're already allowing retraining.

While you may eek out some minor advantage by swapping out two traits, it's generally not much different than swapping out a feat. Just make sure you do your best to revert any benefits gained, as best you can, and avoid being overly cheese-weasily over such minor stuff.

Pretty much what I've been saying. If you can justify retraining your race, class, bloodlines and feats, traits seems an odd place to draw a line for having special rules based on making sense or relative strength/usefulness since the whole thing can swing wildly in those areas.

Especially with feats like Cleave at low levels getting to hit 2 guys after a move action is great but at higher levels where you may be dealing with a lot more single target fights retraining it into another feat would definitely be beneficial. And also completely allowed.


Trekkie90909 wrote:
At least they're all clearly worded and everyone can easily understand how they work.

....... if that wasn't sarcasm go back and read some of the early threads on that set of feats.


PRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see "Armed" Unarmed Attacks, below).

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Bolding mine basic unarmed strikes include kicks and headbutts.


Since they aren't used normally I don't think this works on a standard monk. However I think the Empty Hand archetype could do it just fine.


I have wondered since that whole thread. If I have a fighter at level 16 with all the TWF feat chain. Is it possible to declare TWF and take the penalties and use a greatsword on attack one(using both "hands") and then use a headbutt and kick as the next set of attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Sword-Parasol might make for a good Chronicle Sheet item down the road.


Secane wrote:

SOME weapons are kinda like armor... they would also be a no go for druids... like the Dwarven Boulder helmet!

Helmet, dwarven boulder
Source Advanced Race Guide
Damage 1d3 (small), 1d4 (medium); Critical x2; Range —; Type B; Special
Description
This heavy, reinforced helmet can be used to make melee attacks. The wearer may also use the helmet when attempting bull rush maneuvers, granting a +2 circumstance bonus on the check, but after completing the maneuver (whether successful or not), the wearer is staggered until the end of his next turn. In addition, the helmet grants a +2 circumstance bonus to the wearer's AC against critical hit confirmation rolls. A dwarven boulder helmet adds 20% to the wearer's arcane spell failure chance. It occupies the head slot and is made of metal, not stone, meaning that it can be crafted from unusual materials as a metal weapon. A dwarven boulder helmet can be enchanted as a weapon (not as armor, despite providing some protection).

I don't think head-slot items count as armor. Now I do understand that this is a helmet and thus armor from a technical stand point but from a rules stand point isn't armor or shield so it shouldn't affect a druid at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep feel free to ask any questions (lord knows I have) and we will be glad to help.


Is there a way to get immediate overrun attacks? If not then no that feat seems pretty useless. Its almost original Prone Shooter.

Galley slave might be useful in an all ship campaign for an "AM" build that is fully focused on alpha strikes to inch out a bit more damage early on.


bookrat wrote:

I thought I remember some rules about this in one of the books, but I can't find it, so maybe it was a past edition.

Anyways, here's some 3PP material that covers it a bit: variant spellbooks

3.5 had some rules on this and variant potions and such. Thing complete Arcane or PH 2


Sorry to be more specific I thought that casting [evil] spells causing alignment shifts was just a Golarion thing.


Also I thought that the evil descriptor thing was not PF specific but was a Golarion specific thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Well speaking of Caster/Martial disparity, my gears get ground when people freak out at a Martial doing anything thats beyond real world capability.

What you mean your monk can punch through a stone wall in 5 mins......anime is influencing the system too much.

Your fighter can fall off a 300 ft cliff and walk away......systems broken.

Your barbarian can swim in lava and not die........too unrealistic.

Your adamantine sword cuts rock better than a mining pick.......it's not a lightsaber bro.

Your wizard can stop time teleport in a demonic horde mind control half the enemy forces and nuke the rest........that's the way they made the game don't be upset just house-rule it.

I would not mind those explanations so much if the gamers who used them would be more honest. If you like casters and the power they wield I can respect that. Just don't tell me that a fighter doing more than swinging and hitting is anime or the system is broken. Or even worse because it's "magic" as if that says and solves everything.

I can agree with that. I have just seen so many times of people tripping out over anything martial not being purely and completely realistic. Kinda like when weapon cords got a nerf in part because a developer couldn't really do it that well with his mouse.


Dammit man too many things I wanna see........and I'm a little scared of bugbearkin.......a lot scared actually.......and why do bears seem to breed with more things than dragons....bugbears, owlbears, whats next dwarf bears?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well speaking of Caster/Martial disparity, my gears get ground when people freak out at a Martial doing anything thats beyond real world capability.

What you mean your monk can punch through a stone wall in 5 mins......anime is influencing the system too much.

Your fighter can fall off a 300 ft cliff and walk away......systems broken.

Your barbarian can swim in lava and not die........too unrealistic.

Your adamantine sword cuts rock better than a mining pick.......it's not a lightsaber bro.

Your wizard can stop time teleport in a demonic horde mind control half the enemy forces and nuke the rest........that's the way they made the game don't be upset just house-rule it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
If we have someone who is a jerk and give him an Iconic/Generic PC, he is still a jerk. He can still ruin everyone's day
You have some people that consider it jerk behavior to do more damage than they do (or in some cases, deal almost as much damage as them) Animal companions are a very easy way to do that.

And we also see in some threads that not doing enough damage can make you a jerk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

I make the best Buttermilk Chess Pie ever:-)

Alas my decade plus in professional kitchens has completely ruined me for chain sit down restaurants, not because I think they're gross or anything like that, I just know I'm a better cook, also I know what they pay for ingredients (it's not much) so I always feel ripped off paying 7 bucks for a burger:-)

While nothing seriously professional I worked the kitchen at our local country club for about 4 years before I moved, and I know the feeling. i would much rather make a burger at home any day of the week.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cracker Barrel.......mmmmmmmm......Yep its biscuits and gravy for supper tonight.


Yeah can't wait to work an anime themed set.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Really awesome post

*Golf Clap*


Nefreet wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Note that Summoning creatures with the Evil descriptor IS an Evil act, however minor/large.
^^^ this.

Is that a specific change from the general rule of evil spells not in and of themselves being evil acts?


The Kaiju subtype rules may have what your looking for.


Only difference I can find is that she didn't agree not to interfere but was told not to interfere.


Looks like she is released on the condition that she not interfere with the issuing of licenses.

Only story I could quickly find on it.


Well it looks like the judge is now ordering her release.


Leftover fried chicken mashed potatoes and Green beans with a buttermilk biscuit.


Muser wrote:
It's really been that long? Dayum, feeling old.

Tell me about


Another option might be to look at the kirthfinder docs in this sub-forum the equipment book has a section on limiting found character wealth similar to what was described above. A character would have a set amount of worth they can attune to anything above that will eventually be lost in some manner or another.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Look over sheet for 15 seconds. " I don't know if you want to clone Rock Lee. Has he ever actually WON a fight?"

Canonically no not that I can remember unless you count the intro fight with Saskuke that got interrupted. Now in filler and movies he is a badass.


Making a note of this Should have some extra cash coming in soon, and I love the work you guys do.


DrParty06 wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
LazarX, I think you may be confused about how the trip special weapon property works. It does not work like the trip ability that some monsters have on their natural attacks, like wolves, where you make an attack roll and if it hits you get a free trip attempt.
Whip doesn't actually have the trip special property. Though you are right in that you can still just make a trip attack by making a CMB roll with the whip gaining the +20 from True Strike, since Combat Maneuvers count as attack rolls (no need to make another attack roll first and no damage is dealt). Not having the trip special ability forces you to fall prone yourself if you fail at the trip vs. CMD by 10 or more (rather than drop the weapon).

What whip are you looking at? The whip pathfinder has up on the PRD is a trip weapon

prd wrote:
Whip 1 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 2 lbs. S disarm, nonlethal, reach, trip

1 to 50 of 4,673 << 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.