|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
If I was wearing an animated helmet with a ranged attack, would enemies be able to attack it separately from me or would they need to make a sunder maneuver?
The text for fighting with two weapons includes this:
Combat section wrote:
You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
There you see that the first penalty applies to regular attacks or attacks with the primary hand. That can be read as "all attacks that are not offhand attacks." which would include natural attacks.
casters are overrated on these forums imo. Strong? yes, defiantly. but as strong as people make them seem?.. iii don't think so.
Maybe. But should a level 12 fighter be able to hog the spotlight in a party with two full casters? Not if they are anything but deliberately anti-optimised.
A rimed ray of frost entangles for 0 rounds.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
As has been already said there are several feats whose names are different to what the beenefit is.
Sword and pistol: Can be used with handcrossbow + mace, too.
Should I go on?
The Titan mauler can't even wield one large earth breaker*. So trying to do so yould be outright cheating.Wielding two medium size earth breakers on the other Hand would be something he could do. But until higher Levels he'd get even higher penalties than the T&F user.
*not in the RAW Version, that is. That the archetype's writer intended it to be possible doesn't Change RAW.
RAW seems to say yes, it counts as a round of rage because you can't turn it off out of turn.In fact I've never seen it played that way. We always assume you can decline to pay the additional round of rage and it turns off automaticly.
I was just reversing a childish answer back on the author and he was the one talking about an evil pc afoot.
I just hate the "I play a jerk pc and if you have a problem with it you're immature" crap as much as I hate the "I'm holyer than you and you have to do what I want."
If you build PCs for a group discuss alignment topics and if you want the gm to give you free money discuss that, too and half the flame-wars here on the boards are unnecessary.
Often times players (and GMs) look at problems like this with a modern day moral, which is just as bad a thing as assuming that characters know everything about hygiene and science that is seen as common knowledge nowadays.
What you can do in such a situation depends on your options and on your status.
- Cast an arcane symbol or brand on his face and tell him that his life is forfeit if he is ever seen doing bad things with this mark on him.
- chain him to a sign post and tell someone to go fetch the guard (it seems to have been in a market place). Then go on your way.
- if your status supports that you could execute him. Like if you are a paladin or inquisitor of dammerich, the god of executions.
- take off his sword hand, heal him up so he doesn't die of it and let him go.
- tell him that you can't let him go. So it's fight on (most likely one on one in that case) or die on his knees.
I once had a similar problem while playing a paladin of the god of law in AD&D. We were about to enter a dungeon full of evil stuff when we were attacked by evil cultists bent on killing us. One of them surrendered. We could not deliver him to the authorities because they were some days walk away and our duty was urgent. We could not take him down into the dungeon and we could not leave chained because he would either be freed or (should something befall us) he would die.
So in the end I decided to hold a field trial, condemned him to death for his deeds and executed him personally. Another party member suggested that he could take that burden but I declined because I was the champion of law and if someone had to do it that was clearly me.
After he was dead I buried him under a pile of stones, spoke a prayer for his soul and awaited my god's reaction.
Our GM thought about it and decided that this action was ok under those circumstances and we went on our way, doing our duty by rooting out the evil in the dungeon.
RL in some countries there has (or at least had) to be a certain time between proclaiming the wish to marry and the actual marriage. During this time the intention must be made public.
For me the fact that dazing spell, rime spell and some others exist and don't have any errata is evidence that we have a disparity.You don't just see things like that when looking at what WAS changed but also by looking at was WAS NOT changed.
You would not be implying that dazing spell might be at least as broken as the original crane wing was, would you?
If so you can't be serious because if that was true it surely would have had an errata long ago.
Add dazing to a spell that deals damage over time and it is very strong even with a low level spell. Because the spell's wording seems to indicate that the target is dazed every time it takes damage from the spell.
All in all this feat is just too strong.
A classic barbarian is always good and doesn't need the fancy stuff.
Or, if you want to dump cha.
If you are playing with them, add traits to taste.
For me it seems "rather" clear:
This is a special of ranged spellstrike that seems to work similar to spellcombat but really is something unique.
In other words: From level 11 on the myrmidarch can do what he promises from the beginning. It's just that you can't add all those archery feats like rapid shot, manyshot and the like because you are not making a full attack but a ranged spellstrike.
Perhaps that's because those same people keep on saying that rogues are as strong as wizards. Which tends to undermine their credibility.
Cairen Weiss wrote:
The feats was ok in its old version because most of the time it was just a reason to attack someone else.
I'm a little disappointed in the pathfinder community... Why so much hate? Yes it's different, but it's not bad. Give it a little time, play with it, but don't judge a book by it's cover.
The reasons have already been given. erratas like this kill diversity, pick on the weak and by that cement the excisting power gap.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
We appreciate what you are trying to do. But from the player point of view it really often looks like you were trying to reduce diversity. Interesting builds that add color to the game are being killed by FAQs or erratas. This one was just one too much for some of us.
When, for example, people tried to find an alternative to using the roxxor weapon composite bow and looked at the halfling warslinger trait it was very disappointing when using it with special slings was shot down because this seemed to have no reason than to kill diversity.
Now people that tried to find a defensive build in a game where all out offence seemed to be the only option (for martials at least) you kill this diversity, too.
This is what upsets some of us.
Quoted from another thread:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Like the crane style feat is very personal, easily foiled by spells and lots of other tactics and mostly used by a class known to pose little threat in combat.
Not every one's GM is a Jerk. And writing lol in such a comment doesn't look very grown up.
If the adventure has something that deals cha damage so be it. But none of the gms I game with would insert such a monster just to punish a single player. We are mature enough that the gm can just tell me if he doesn't like my pc before the game starts.
First, nearly everything is more objective than the alignment system.Second, I prefer the HO over the human nearly every time.
No, it's really like:
DM : "You have 2 months downtime. What do you do ?"
Peter Stewart wrote:
Yes, it can be done with enough investment in strength or enough active spells (especially from some paperback sources). Seems like a fairly nitche trick in most campaigns, and the type of thing most Gms would shoot down or associate with some unforeseen difficulties.
Like having Kurgess show up every tiome someone manages to get his strength above 50 and immedietly challenging the one to an armwresting match.A challenge you can't decline of corse. He's a deity after all.
I hope they keep the full CL for the bloodrager.
I would like them to add cantrips, one for each of the first 3 levels. That way you would be a spellcaster from level 1 but with only one cantrip. At level 4 you gain level 1 spells instead of a cantrip giving you 3 cantrips. That would not be too strong, justify the full CL and give you even more out of combat utility.
I could even see the cantrips be fixed for each bloodline.
For example arcane getting arcane mark at level 1, mage hand at level 2 and detect magic at level 3.
@craft cheese: You have some points but I don't think it's as bad as you make it.
I play an arcane bloodrager in our playtest game (only one session yet) and here is what I think:
-Spells: Sure, most combat spells aren't the best for you but even on the magus list there are some good spells for you. I've chosen swift girding (good even with medium armor, better if you gat heavy armor wearers around), keep watch and vanish. I could already use two of those to good effect.
-Bloodline feats: I didn't look at all feat selections but I will be taking disruptive at 6th and am quite happy about it. There are others I was too feat starved until now. Improved initiative for example.
-bloodline powers: they are very different. Perhaps you just took the wrong bloodline. I could see myself playing at least 2 more bloodragers with powers I like. The reason I took arcane is that I always wanted to play a pc using moonlight stalker and when taking blur for my 4th level power I can.
The bloodrager may be a little behind the barb in combat but he has spells in addition, which allow you to do stuff the barbarian can't. Even if most are only good out of combat or in special situations.
As I understoof it the brawler will, most likely, become proficient in all weapons in the close weapon group.
Fighter close weapon group wrote:
Close: bayonet, brass knuckles, cestus, dan bong, emei piercer, fighting fan, gauntlet, heavy shield, iron brush, katar, light shield, madu, mere club, punching dagger, rope gauntlet, sap, scizore, spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, spiked shield, tekko-kagi, tonfa, unarmed strike, wooden stake, and wushu dart.
and there is the spiked armor. Which, I guess, means armor with armor spikes on it.
Edit: Just to be sure: This is meant as a serious answer, too. I sometimes seem to "sound" offensive without wanting to. non-native language problem I guess.
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
The fighter/cleric concept is nice but right now I cnt see anyone take a warpriest over a pure cleric. In my opinion the WP is just bad and if it can't go away it needs to change. Much.
The cleric already can fight well after wasting rounds for buffing. Someone specialized in it should be able to without wasting time.
And all those gods with crappy favored weapons will never see warpriests.
To sum it up: I would prefer the warpriest over a priest but what we see now is no functional warpriest.
I'd rather play with a fun player running a sub-optimal or even downright horrid character over a bleeding-edge optimizer any day of the week.
This depends very much on the personality.I have some times played with a guy who always made very sub-par PCs and called every one who didn't powergamer (not in those words). All of his PCs were in some way antagonistic and tried to cause trouble.
For example in CC he played an unoptimized dwarf fighter rogue who bullied the townspeople in the starting town. He got drunk, went to some shop to buy something and after he had what he wanted he told the shopkeeper he has no money and left without the stuff the shopkeeper had fetched for him.
So it is not always the case that players with sub-optimal builds are better to have around than min-maxers.
Your stonelord stone strike will not work with ranged attacks but if you need to overcome high hardness you can still go melee.
In fact this sounds like a very fun build. Thanks for inspiring me to this. :)
They are stronger than most core races but not so much one should call them over powered.
Ask your GM is you could find a compromise with them getting a trait less (or is you play without traits give everyone 1 trait).
Just use something akin to a spell component pouch.
As long as the archer has his arrow component pouch with him he is assumed to have enough arrows with him.
If something is good for the casters it should be good for the weaker martials, too.
What works well with the Viking is the thunder and fang feat.
Combine that with the trait that increases your shield bash damage by 1 and you should have a nice setup.
If done as a human you can have T&F up and running as fast as no other class. You are already somewhat MAD because of the TWF prerequisite of Dex.
+1 to both!
Crane style is good the way it is.
Druids are not the only class that can do weird stuff.
Any kind of necromancer could, for example kill a camel, use trade (taxidermist) or craft (stuffed animals) on it to keep it from rotting. After that he casts animate dead/create undead or whatever on it and you have a normal looking camel that is in fact undead.
Or a beastbonded witch could posses a camel after having her body killed.
Or a synth summoner could shape his eidolon as a camel.
Not all of those options could cast fireballs but they could result in other weird crap.
As much as German politicians fail in their job I have high hopes that, some day in the future, people here in Bavaria realize that they are better off without the rest of Germany and we become a free sovereign country.
One day the Free State of Bavaria will be free again.