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

Weirdo's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,353 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,353 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

I like Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson myself. All he wants is to be a good copper, and for others to embrace lawfulness and compassion for each other. He is so honest that it's at times unclear whether he understands what lying is.

I used to think of Commander Vimes as a paladin, but now I'm pretty sure he's a LG inquisitor (streetwise and fights dirty). Still, a good place to mine for ideas if you're looking for a grittier, grumpier paladin.

"Beating people up in little rooms…he knew where that led. And if you did it for a good reason, you’d do it for a bad one. You couldn’t say ‘We’re the good guys’ and do bad-guy things."

"People know about you, commander. Descendant of a watchman who believed that if a corrupted court will not behead an evil king, then the watchman should do it himself [...] Sam Vimes once arrested (his boss) for treason. And Sam Vimes once arrested a dragon. Sam Vimes stopped a war between nations by arresting two high commands. He's an arresting fellow, Sam Vimes. Sam Vimes killed a werewolf with his bare hands, and carries law with him like a lamp [...] Watchmen across half the continent will say that Sam Vimes is as straight as an arrow, can't be corrupted, won't be turned, never took a bribe..."

mechaPoet wrote:
I've rarely seen people talk about non-male paladins when discussing paladins generally (although I have seen paladins talked about generally with a male assumption, and you can see that in some of the posts in this thread). And I've never seen any of these great paladin stories/examples with non-male paladins.

Let me tell you about Alejandra.

Alejandra started off as a simple fighter, but when her eldest son was sent to his death by an immoral commander, she turned to the church of Sarenrae and became a paladin. She gave up bloodletting and became a sacred shield for innocents and those doing good work in the world.

Her most dramatic act of heroism was dying not once but twice in combat with a demigod of necromancy trying to bring about the apocalypse. Gotta love Breath of Life. But for me her defining moment was when we were fighting a band of insane and bloodthirsty pirates, and they were escaping on their ship. Alejandra, having never dealt lethal damage to a living and thinking creature in the course of the game, used a magical ring to ignite the powder on the ship, killing all those on board. She fell to her knees in sorrow and begged my druid to take the ring from her, for she did not want a thing that could cause such destruction. I had to talk her out of it.

Shadow Lodge

A non-flying creature unsupported in midair is about as environmentally doomed as a fish out of water - it could survive, but so could the fish. A good rule of thumb, IMO, is whether the creature is doomed in absence of action from any nearby creatures. Being turned into a fish in a desert, an iguana in the arctic, or a squirrel in midair - yes. Being turned into one of these things in the middle of a bunch of predators or enemies - no.

I would allow the squirrel to control the Fly spell at least well enough to land safely. Not only does Fly not contain the rule in Air Walk about animals needing training, but that rule simply establishes that an animal needs training to Air Walk confidently enough to be used as a mount.

I would probably not allow a +4 bonus to the Fort save if magic that negates the environmental doom is present (such as the Fly spell on the squirrel). It feels a bit meta, but then again so does the bonus on the save if it's a hostile environment to your new form.

I agree the +4 applies to the Fort save only.

Shadow Lodge

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert - that sounds less like reflavouring and more like just giving your paladin an unusual personality.

What's in the box? wrote:
Several of the summoner spells I reflavored to have ice/cold aspects: Grease was slippery ice and Glitterdust became Blinding Blizzard etc.

I do enjoy reflavouring spells, it makes it easier to make thematically diverse spellcasters without locking them into a specific mechanical role.

Devilkiller wrote:
I like using the Tentacle evolution and discovery for stuff like a prehensile tail or a Tongue attack with Reach and Grab.

A friend of mine did that for his eidolon! The eidolon looked a bit like a winged horse at first glance but got... weird.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Quickened spell is a swift action.

Swift actions follow the same rules as free actions as far as when they are allowed.

Quote:
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
Yeah, many people probably don't realize you can do this.

I feel like I knew that but had forgotten it. Thanks.

Shadow Lodge

Archpaladin Pardieu wrote:
Wierdo, that is not how the 3.5 of Smite worked. Killoren's worked the way 3.5 Paladin's worked. Smite was a single attack action. The one you just quoted is the PF version of smite where it persists for a duration.

You're right, I was looking at too many smites.

Still, the point stands - the race is balanced for a 1/day attack boost, and it's not necessary for all Smite abilities to work like the paladin's Smite. The celestial template may grant a longer duration smite but it still doesn't come with the DR bypassing ability that the paladin has, or the double damage on the first attack against undead, dragons, etc.

Castilonium wrote:
Oracle is an excellent gestalt for paladin. A popular and effective build is the Oradin, which keeps the party healthy with good action economy. If your gestalt is bard, you will have to contend with the fact that you can only cast bard spells in light armor, and you'll have to spend a standard action to activate bardic performance. Unless you're higher level.

An archer paladin will probably want to wear light armour anyway because of their high Dex, and if you want to use oracle spells in combat that will take a standard action (unless you're higher level and spend resources on Quicken). The bard gestalt gives you all good saves, lots of skills, and a better selection of group buffs than the oracle, including haste, heroism, and good hope. Voice of the Wild gives you access to archery spells like Gravity Bow or Abundant Ammunition, as well as a number of other thematic nature spells.

The classic oradin Life Link build is extremely strong, but paladin/bard is also a very good combination, depending on what the OP wants to do.

Shadow Lodge

Ughbash wrote:
See Kobold and Goblin.
Goblins wrote:
Fast: Goblins are fast for their size, and have a base speed of 30 feet

This wording suggests that the default speed for a small creature is 20ft and that goblins are a special exception to this.

However, the ARG does pretty distinctly state that 20ft speed and strength penalties are just typical qualities of small creatures and not actually a direct result of the size:

Race Builder wrote:
Small (0 RP): Small races gain a +1 size bonus to their AC, a +1 size bonus on attack rolls, a –1 penalty on combat maneuver checks and to their CMD, and a +4 size bonus on Stealth checks. Small races have a space of 5 feet by 5 feet and a reach of 5 feet.

Plus smaller weapons, carrying capacity, +2 to Fly checks, and a -4 relative penalty to intimidate small or medium creatures. Maybe one or two other things scattered through the rules.

Personally without the speed change I think being small is advantageous for most characters. Most characters will benefit from +1 to attack and AC more than the -1 CMB/CMD and approx. -1 weapon damage will hurt, you can avoid making intimidate checks more easily than stealth checks, and carrying capacity doesn't actually change much because items like armour are lighter for small characters.

Shadow Lodge

Quickened spell is a swift action.

Shadow Lodge

Don't change the Killoran's smite to match the paladin's. It's clearly unbalanced, and celestial/fiendish creatures also kept the 3.5 version of smite:

Celestial Creature Template wrote:
Special Attacks The creature may smite evil 1/day as a swift action (it adds its Cha bonus to attack rolls, and a damage bonus equal to its HD against evil foes; smite persists until the target is dead or the celestial creature rests).

Snap Shot lets you avoid AoO when attacking with a bow, and also threaten adjacent squares. It's not a melee attack, but it lets you use a bow in melee range without problems.

Druid isn't the best gestalt for an archer paladin, even if you can take a feat to change paladin to a Wis-based class. Consider Oracle with the Nature Mystery, or Voice of the Wild bard.

Shadow Lodge

I don't reflavour that much as a player, but as a GM I turned a swarm of crows into a swarm of animate bone shards, skeletal hands, and skulls.

I also made a shadow-themed sorcerer NPC whose shield and magic missile spells manifested as solidified shadow.

Shadow Lodge

Entryhazard wrote:
Given that for the Kensai weapon focus is free Slashing Grace would be better for scimitars anyway as it does not require to burn two ranks in Perform and making the scimitar count as piercing opens up Flamboyant Arcana and Arcane Deeds as viable options

Dervish Dance does make the scimitar count as piercing.

Dervish Dance wrote:
Benefit: When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls. You treat the scimitar as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s precise strike ability). The scimitar must be for a creature of your size. You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.

Shadow Lodge

I let way too many meaningless things make me feel stupid, can we skip that?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All living things deserve respect and care, and we should feel a sense of fellowship with and empathy for them. The idea we are separate from nature is destructive to us and to it. We should share nature's bounty, and not exploit it for personal gain. While we should learn from the suffering present in nature we should not seek to add to that suffering.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
The word 'grant' is used very specifically in Pathfinder. If you browse through the magic item list, spells, and other enhancements, you'll find almost as a uniform rule that the word 'grant' is used to give the subject some specific benefit, something that they otherwise would not have.

Why is granting the ability to make an iterative AoO against a single provocation not sufficient?

_Ozy_ wrote:
If the extra AoO were not free, the words would say 'this uses up one of your AoOs', or 'use may use an AoO to take an extra attack ... '

Would you require that wording to be added to Snake Fang, or Crane Riposte?

Shadow Lodge

I agree it's possible that the enhancement was intended to give you an AoO that doesn't count against the normal maximum. (In which case the wording should be fixed to reflect that)

However I think that would be more powerful than suggested by a +1 enhancement. (Which is why I believe my interpretation is correct.)

Mighty Cleaving
1) Only works when you have a specific, not very good feat
2) Gives you an extra attack when you are fighting three enemies adjacent to each other
3) The extra attack is at full BAB
4) The extra attack isn't compatible with Haste (because you use a standard action to cleave)
5) The extra attack is used against a different opponent.
6) The extra attack requires two consecutive hits.

Fortuitous (my reading)
1) Only works when you have a good, commonly taken feat, or a similar ability
2) Gives you an extra attack when your opponents provoke at least one AoO, but fewer than your maximum allowed AoO. (eg, one provocation if you have 2 AoO, one or two provocations if you have 3 AoO)
3) The extra attack is at BAB -5
4) The extra attack is compatible with Haste (because you can full attack and also get AoO)
5) The extra attack is used against someone you've already attacked, potentially piling quite a bit of damage on them. In some situations, this would allow a reach fighter to eliminate an approaching opponent before that opponent actually gets to attack them, since often one attack won't down a foe but a second will.
6) The extra attack requires one hit.

Fortuitous wins for 1, 4, 5, and 6 and in my experience (2) as well - I'm currently in a party with a bloodrager with Quick Reflexes and a paladin with Cleave and the paladin rarely gets to use cleave, while my bloodrager often uses 1 of 2 AoO in a turn. (3) is in favour of Mighty Cleaving, but I believe in total my reading of Fortuitous makes it already better than Mighty Cleaving, a +1 ability.

In fact, in some situations my reading of Fortuitous is better than Speed, a +3 ability! Speed doesn't stack with Haste, so if you have someone who can cast Haste as a party buff (or a cheaper item) Speed is useless to you. Speed also only works with a Full-Attack, while one common tactic for AoO builds is to make AoO instead of full attacking. For example, the reach cleric wants to cast spells, so they use AoO instead of spending their standard or full action to attack.

AoO are circumstantial benefits, and for a build that plans to make AoO, increasing the number of circumstances in which you will get AoO is very useful. This is why reach weapon users often take the Pushing Assault feat.

If you remove limitations (1) and (2) it becomes a really good ability and probably worth at least +2. Note how the main benefit of Holy (+2) over Bane (+1) is that the former applies in more situations than the latter.

Shadow Lodge

It's not whether "more AoO" is fluff or rules.

The problem is that it's a general statement that could be specifically fulfilled in one of two ways:

1) You get more AoO per provoking opportunity.

2) You get more AoO than your normal maximum per round.

The text indicates that (1) is the case, and this is sufficient to make the statement "A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity" true.

It is not necessary for (2) to also be the case. There is no requirement for that statement to apply in all situations. A bane weapon "excels against certain foes", but I wouldn't expect a verminbane sword to help me fight a swarm of fine vermin, which are immune to weapon damage. Spell Storing allows you to store a spell in the weapon, but you still must follow the normal limitations of casting spells and if you can't somehow cast spells you can't use the Spell Storing weapon. These abilities are affected by limitations within the larger rules, and would need to specifically call out those limitations in order to break them.

Shadow Lodge

@UnArcaneElection - my post was directed at the OP.

Korthis wrote:
The problem is that it is a coliseum. Any character dependant mostly on spells per day is likely to be screwedish.

Is this something the GM has told you, or something you've assumed? To me, "coliseum" doesn't necessarily mean that you will be having a lot of drawn-out fights that exhaust all your resources.

Shadow Lodge

1. I don't believe so. See this FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?

No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.

I believe that a familiar's ability to deliver touch spells counts as an ability that modifies a spell, so it wouldn't work with scrolls.

Shadow Lodge

Second really clear wording for Fortuitous wrote:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe as a at a –5 penalty. This attack doesn't count against the attacks of opportunity the wielder can make in a round.

This is much clearer and more specific than the ambiguous "allows the wielder to make more AoO in a round." I think I suggested it earlier, but if you really think it's important for the attack to count as an AoO for whatever corner cases, but not use an AoO attempt, this is the wording you use.

"More AoO" can be interpreted in more than one way and thus can't specifically overrule the general rule about AoO per round limits.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
1) It makes perfect sense with the current wording classifying the extra attacks as a AoO.

I think the current debate is proof that the current wording doesn't make perfect sense.

_Ozy_ wrote:
3) assumption, not supported by raw unless you accept the AoO classification. Specifically, if you look at interrupting spellcasting, unless it's a full round cast time you need to use interrupting actions like AoOs or readied actions. Free weapon attacks are not listed as interrupting actions.

(3) is a conclusion derived logically from premises (1) and (2). If you disagree with the premises, fine, but (3) itself is not an assumption.

(Premise 1) Free action X can be used off-turn.

(Premise 2) Free actions that can be used off-turn can be used during an AoO.

(Therefore) Free action X can be used during an AoO.

Alternatively since the whole point is looking for better wording, follow the example of Spell Storing:

Really Clear Fortuitous wrote:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can immediately make a second attack with this weapon against that foe as a free action at a –5 penalty.

There is no question of whether it is limited by the number of AoO you can make. There is no question when this attack takes place. It takes fewer words than the original and resolves all the possible ambiguities we have currently considered.

Do you see a problem with this wording? Do you agree that this is the wording that should have (and probably would have) been used if the only purpose of classifying the attack as an AoO was to indicate that it could interrupt other actions?

EDIT (this is moving way too fast for me):

It's unclear whether the AoO resulting from Fortuitous would count as an AoO "caused when you move out of or within a threatened area" so I don't find Mobility compelling.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
What? Where in RAW does it say that free attacks interrupt actions? Readied attacks, sure. AoOs, sure. But 'free attacks'? I don't think so. If you have RAW otherwise, feel free to link it. If you can't find it, which I don't think you'll be able to, then surely you have to agree that this provides the motivation for the somewhat more complex words classifying this free attack as an AoO.

It's not just a free attack, it's an attack made as a free action triggered by the AoO you just made.

Relevant FAQ:

Quote:

Free Actions: Can you take free actions during an attack of opportunity? For instance, can you use the Grab, Trip, Pull, or Push universal monster rules after hitting with an attack of opportunity, since they require free actions and free actions can’t be used off-turn? What about Rock Catching? That seems like it could only work off-turn.

While you can’t take most free actions off your turn, Grab, Trip, Pull, Push, and Rock Catching’s free actions can all be used off-turn. This will be reflected in future errata.

Note the justification here. The relevant question is whether a particular free action can be performed off turn.

1) Fortuitous obviously can be used off turn, since it activated when you hit with an AoO. It makes zero sense to interpret "when you hit with an AoO, you can make an attack as a free action" as "when you hit with an AoO, you can make an attack as a free action sometime during your next turn" or even "when you hit with an AoO during your turn, you can make an attack as a free action."

2) Grab etc can be used off-turn, therefore they can be used with AoO.

3) Since Fortuitous can be activated off-turn, it can be used at the same time as an AoO, and specifically the AoO that activated it.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:

I agree that wording seems clearer to me as well. There may be specific pathfinder rules concerning AoOs that they wanted this extra attack to fall under. Off the top of my head, the ability to interrupt actions.

For example, a spellcaster starts to cast a spell I get an AoO with a Fortuitous weapon. I hit, great! Damn, he made his concentration roll. Ok, now I get a free attack.

When does it go off? If it's not an AoO, there's nothing to say that it interrupts the spell and has a chance to disrupt it. It's certainly not a 'readied action'. However, if it is classified as an AoO, then the timing is already adjudicated in the rules.

You've already hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, therefore you're already interrupting the action. EDIT: if it's a free action triggered by your AoO it can also interrupt, just like if you ready an action to cast a touch spell you can deliver that touch (a free action made in the same round as casting) as an interruption. If you think this is in doubt we can start another thread.

The other thing that occurs to me is that you can't take AoO in certain situations, such as when you are blind. However, since you have to hit with an AoO in order to activate Fortuitous, those are also not a factor.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:

Because the attack is taken as a normal AoO, just with an additional penalty. Unlike Panther Claw, you don't get to attack for non-provoking actions using the enchantment.

Effectively, it gives you a free iterative AoO.

That's why it's called an AoO.

What does it mean to take something as an AoO, if not that you can take a specific number of AoO per round?

? It means that you get an extra AoO to attack at a -5 during an action that provokes. I don't know how any more clear I can be, since I essentially just repeated myself.

What would you call it?

If it doesn't count against the number of AoO you can take in a turn, I would call it a free attack.

As in:

This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack with this weapon against that foe as a free action at a –5 penalty.

This is clearer and more concise. Why was this wording not used, if it's not meant to be limited by the number of AoO you can take in a round?

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:

I told you what I found unreasonable about it.

It's patently false for the majority of PCs.

Even for PCs with combat reflexes, it DOES NOT give you more AoOs, it allows you to use the AoOs you have in more situations.

Therefore in no manner, shape, or form is it 'granting' you 'more' AoOs.

It's not the only weapon that leads with a general statement that is not true for all users:

Furious wrote:
A furious weapon serves as a focus for its wielder's anger.

But only if you have the rage ability, otherwise it won't focus your anger.

Or try armour:

Hostelling wrote:
A suit of armor or shield with this special ability hides living animals within its iconography to keep it safe.

But only if that animal is granted by a class feature.

These abilities proceed to clarify exactly how the item does the general thing described in the first sentence. For example, the furious weapon increases its enhancement bonus when its wielder uses rage. The Fortuitous Weapon lets you take a second AoO against an opponent you have just taken an AoO against.

The fact that it says "you can make more AoO" doesn't guarantee all users will be able to make more AoO in all situations.

After all, if no one provokes in the round, you get no AoO, with or without Fortuitous.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:

Because the attack is taken as a normal AoO, just with an additional penalty. Unlike Panther Claw, you don't get to attack for non-provoking actions using the enchantment.

Effectively, it gives you a free iterative AoO.

That's why it's called an AoO.

What does it mean to take something as an AoO, if not that you can take a specific number of AoO per round?

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:

I've yet to see you naysayers provide a reasonable interpretation for this phrase:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

grant: to give something

more: extra, additional

Just what the hell do you guys claim this sentence means? Nothing?

I have repeatedly told you what I believe it means. What do you find unreasonable about this interpretation? Unless you can tell me specifically why you do not find it even remotely plausible, I cannot continue this discussion because there's simply no new points to argue.

Weirdo wrote:
If you didn't have a Fortuitous weapon, you would only be able to take one AoO per provoking action. Thus, the Fortuitous weapon allows you to make an extra AoO that you would not have been able to make earlier. I have a bloodrager who gets 2 AoO per round, and even with a reach weapon and Snake Fang I find I more often run into situations where only one AoO is provoked than situations where 3 or more are provoked. Fortuitous would therefore, in most situations, allow me to make more AoO.
Weirdo wrote:
I am fighting one opponent. I have 2 AoO per round. The opponent leaves my threatened square. I make an AoO against him. With a Fortuitous weapon, I make a second AoO at a -5 penalty (consuming my second available AoO). I have now made more AoO this round thanks to my Fortuitous weapon.
Weirdo wrote:
...the opportunity to take more than one AoO per provoking action results in more AoOs taken, even if you're still limited by the same maximum number of AoO in a round.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:

Read those feats again, notice what is missing from them that is present in the Fortuitous enchantment in the parts that you bolded.

Also realize that you missed this part of the Fortuitous enchantment:

'A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity.'

Now, please point out to me similar verbiage in either snake fang or crane riposte.

And finally, please tell me why Fortuitous, but none of the other feats you listed are restricted to 'Once per round'. Could it perhaps be because those other feats are naturally limited by your AoOs, whereas Fortuitous GRANTS an AoO, and therefore can only GRANT an extra AoO once per round?

Nah, that would make way too much sense.

Why call it an AoO if it's not intended to be limited by the number of AoO you can take per round?

Compare Panther Claw, which gives you something that looks like an AoO but doesn't follow the same limit:

While using Panther Style, you can spend a free action, instead of spending a swift action, to make a retaliatory unarmed strike. You can make a number of retaliatory unarmed strikes on your turn equal to your Wisdom modifier.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Of course your bard can cast cure serious wounds into a spell storing weapon, all he needs is a scroll of cure serious wounds and a UMD check. Nothing in the spellstoring ability modifies your ability to cast spells, unlike the fortuitous enchantment that specifically and deliberately modifies the number of AoOs granted to the wielder.

We disagree on the bolded point. I believe that a specific modification of the AoO you can take would look like "this attack of opportunity doesn't count against the number of AoO you can make in a round."

I do not believe "this weapon allows you to make more AoO" qualifies as being specific and deliberate since I have presented a plausible alternative interpretation, namely that the opportunity to take more than one AoO per provoking action results in more AoOs taken, even if you're still limited by the same maximum number of AoO in a round.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Vicious Stomp shows it is possible for an opponent to provoke from only one person (and that it's possible for an ability of person A to cause person B to provoke AoO). Combat Maneuvers also provoke only from the target of the maneuver, and Snake Fang and Crane Wing allow you to make an AoO against your opponent, but your allies don't get this opportunity.

And you know what's common among all of those things you list? I'll highlight it for you:

Quote:
Benefit: Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you.

The use of the word provokes is not common among all those things.

Snake Fang: While using the Snake Style feat, when an opponent’s attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity.

Crane Riposte: In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent.

Fortuitous: Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.

If I can use Snake Fang to take an unlimited number of attacks against people who miss me (one per miss), because it says I get to make an AoO, not that my opponent provokes one, great! I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, though.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Why do you need to do more than your share of melee? Needing to survive in melee is one thing, but why does this group need more melee damage? A scarred witch doctor with the healing patron makes a pretty tough arcane healer but isn't the best for damage.

2) Did your GM indicate what kind of arcane magic he expects? Druids, despite being divine casters, are quite good at battlefield control (a typical wizard thing), have some nice defensive buffs, and are capable of melee. Conversely bards are fantastic buffers but lack a lot of the traditional battlefield control.

You can also ask the rest of the group to pick up combat maneuvers, demoralize, Bodyguard, teamwork feats, or other things that expand their roles besides pure damage without changing the core concept.

Consider reading the Forge of Combat if you haven't already.

Shadow Lodge

_Ozy_ wrote:
How on earth would an enchantment that you are wielding cause a foe to provoke again? For doing what? That operates completely against the rules for provoking. Secondly, if it did cause a foe to provoke a second time, then that foe would provoke AoOs from ALL potential attackers around it.

Vicious Stomp shows it is possible for an opponent to provoke from only one person (and that it's possible for an ability of person A to cause person B to provoke AoO). Combat Maneuvers also provoke only from the target of the maneuver, and Snake Fang and Crane Wing allow you to make an AoO against your opponent, but your allies don't get this opportunity.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Quote:
When the wielder spends a swift action to channel energy through the weapon
again, the relevant necessary ability is specifically called out. Where again is combat reflexes mentioned in the fortuitous enchantment?

It's not appropriate to mention because it works if you have the Quick Reflexes rage power, the Superior Reflexes kensai ability, the elven battle training feat (and are using the appropriate weapon), or, as you pointed out, the shaman wandering battle spirit. Combat Reflexes is not actually required.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Tell me, if I don't have combat reflexes, which of course the enchantment never mentions, how do I get 'more' attacks of opportunity, which is what the RAW says.

I explained that.

I am fighting one opponent. I have 2 AoO per round. The opponent leaves my threatened square. I make an AoO against him. With a Fortuitous weapon, I make a second AoO at a -5 penalty (consuming my second available AoO). I have now made more AoO this round thanks to my Fortuitous weapon.

_Ozy_ wrote:

I'm saying that the enchantment does exactly what it says you can do because specific overrides general. You get two attacks for one provocation, basically you get a second iterative AoO attack at -5.

Otherwise this enchantment would be in every way worse than combat reflexes. Thus it would be useless for those without the feat, and now useless for those with the feat.

It's fine to allow a second AoO if and only if you have AoO remaining. In these cases it's useful when you:

1) Have an ability that grants you multiple AoO in a round
2) Often do not use up all those AoO because your opponents don't provoke frequently enough.

I have two characters currently who could use this enchantment, a reach bloodrager (with the Quick Reflexes rage power, not Combat Reflexes) and a tripping monk (with Combat Reflexes).

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

I'm inclined to think the weapon grants the extra attack and the author just got a little wordy. It probably should read:

Quote:
This special ability can be placed only on melee weapons. A fortuitous weapon grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity. Once per round, when the wielder of a fortuitous weapon hits with an attack of opportunity, he can make a second attack of opportunity with this weapon against that foe at a –5 penalty.

It's possible that's the intent, however it's not what the property actually says. Hence, FAQ.

Shadow Lodge

It was unclear, and so it was clarified. It continues to follow the holding the charge mechanics until all charges are expended.

Cevah wrote:
Actually, there is a question. Specifically, are the special attack touches [plural] in agreement with the Targets: Creature [singular].

You mean:

are the special attack touches [plural] in agreement with the Targets [plural]: Creature [singular].

The target(s) line is not in agreement with itself. Therefore the sensible thing is to read the line as plural, but one at a time, since this would agree with the rest of the text within Frostbite.

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:

small government, distrust for DISTANT authority, and individual rights are not inherently Chaotic. Such things can be quite lawful if adhered to by the community and respected in other communities as well. If you go into every town in your state, and nobody pays much attention to the governor, but everyone respects the mayor and local sheriff, that can be quite lawful. Empires don't make people lawful, although lawful people love making empires.

It's when you get the will of the individual being seen as more important then the will of the state/community/whatever that you have chaotic.

I agree - though I'd point out that there's a correlation. People who dislike big government and distant authority often do so because they think that these things are more likely to result in the will of the state overpowering the will of the individual.

Aelryinth wrote:
"I'm pissed and gonna burn down my house despite the risk of setting the town on fire" is pretty chaotic, but Chaotics tend not to think about the reasons behind laws, or disregard them entirely.

You don't need to think about the reasons behind laws to realize that if you set your house on fire your neighbour's might go up, too. You know, old Widow Sally who watched your kids while your wife was sick and who makes such lovely apple fritters?

Shadow Lodge

Interesting, I'd missed that. Ultimate Magic? My first thought was that's not the intent - the normal item creation rules say that you "must" meet all prerequisites, but then say that you can skip them by taking +5 to the DC. However full context is aware of that:

Building Constructs wrote:
Like when crafting magic items, a creator with a sufficiently high skill bonus may ignore these requirements. Each missing requirement increases the Craft DC by 5. Regardless, the creator must meet all item creation feats and minimum caster level requirements.

Makes sense as an extra limiting factor given how powerful constructs can be - though it feels a bit like a stealth errata given that there's no indication in the Bestiary (where Craft Construct is found) that it doesn't work like other item creation feats where you can ignore caster level requirements.

Shadow Lodge

I personally believe that "you may make an AoO" means the same thing as "your opponent provokes an AoO." As I pointed out on the linked thread, the Greater Trip + Vicious Stomp FAQ (found here) uses "take an AoO" when the feats themselves use "provokes an AoO", suggesting the two phrases are interchangeable. If it meant for the attack not to consume one of your available AoO it would have said "you may make a free attack with the weapon" or "you may make an additional attack with the weapon as a free action."

However as there seems to be some disagreement I'll mark it as an FAQ.

More abilities with the "make an AoO" wording, which might be affected by a ruling that you can make an AoO without using an AoO:

Combat Patrol:
Benefit: As a full-round action, you may set up a combat patrol, increasing your threatened area by 5 feet for every 5 points of your base attack bonus. Until the beginning of your next turn, you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity. You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed. Any movement you make provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.

Crane Wing:
Benefit: You take only a –1 penalty on attack rolls for fighting defensively. Whenever you are fighting defensively, and you use Crane Wing to add a dodge bonus against an opponent, that opponent’s first attack that misses you provokes an attack of opportunity from you. In addition, when you deflect an attack using Crane Wing while taking the total defense action, you may make an attack of opportunity against that opponent (even though you could not normally do so while taking the total defense action).

Snake Fang:
Benefit: While using the Snake Style feat, when an opponent’s attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity. If this attack of opportunity hits, you can spend an immediate action to make another unarmed strike against the same opponent.

Sergeek The Mad wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Mighty Cleaving is a good example.
It specifically calls for the Cleave feat though.

Yes, because it needs to. The cleave feat is its own action. Combat Reflexes is not it's own action, it improves your ability to use the AoO action, thus referring to the AoO mechanic (which is limited in use) is sufficient. And it's not the only effect that grants extra AoO - others include the Quick Reflexes rage power and the Kensai's Superior Reflexes ability, and Elven Battle Training.

_Ozy_ wrote:

Only on these boards can a sentence that says:

"grants the wielder more attacks of opportunity"

be read as not granting the wielder more attacks of opportunity.

If you didn't have a Fortuitous weapon, you would only be able to take one AoO per provoking action. Thus, the Fortuitous weapon allows you to make an extra AoO that you would not have been able to make earlier. I have a bloodrager who gets 2 AoO per round, and even with a reach weapon and Snake Fang I find I more often run into situations where only one AoO is provoked than situations where 3 or more are provoked. Fortuitous would therefore, in most situations, allow me to make more AoO.

Shadow Lodge

Creating constructs works just like creating a magic item, using the Craft Construct feat.

Individual golems should have the specific construction requirements - see the stone golem.

CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Construct, antimagic field, geas/quest, limited wish, symbol of stunning, creator must be caster level 14th; Skill Craft (sculpture) or Craft (stonemasonry) DC 19; Cost 55,000 gp

Sso to make this golem, you need a total of 55,000gp of raw materials (some of which is the actual stone), the four listed spells, and must have a caster level of 14+. Like normal for making magic items, you can skip the spells or the caster level requirement by adding 5 to the DC for each pre-requisite you lack. Crafting takes 55 days.

Shadow Lodge

Sounds good, but I'd let your players know up-front that not all items will be available at the listed prices, especially if they're unusual.

Shadow Lodge

Personally, I would consider Combat Expertise to be active from the point at which you ready an action to make a melee attack. This is based on how I interpret the spirit of the rule.

I believe that the reason Combat Expertise functions only when declaring an attack is to prevent someone from benefiting from Combat Expertise while doing something other than attacking in melee, such as casting a spell or using a supernatural ability.

If you ready a melee attack, you are not doing anything other than attacking in melee. You might not actually get the attack (as is the risk with readied actions) but you are committed to melee combat, and if you declare that you are using Combat Expertise from the point at which you ready the attack you have committed to a defensive strategy. You are taking a combat stance that is well suited to defense, and have a melee weapon prepared to ward off attack.

Shadow Lodge

Mighty Cleaving is a good example. It gives you an extra attack only while using the Cleave feat, and is thus only useful to characters with that feat, and only useful to them in a situation where they are using that feat while facing three or more enemies that are all adjacent to each other.

Fortuitous is probably useful to more PCs more of the time than Mighty Cleaving.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, in most games players expect that the market values of things are pretty well standardized, know those values, and be unlikely to accept prices above market value for things. Unless you introduce price variation and a good amount of haggling, it's best to keep things like lowballing as characterization for an occasional important merchant.

It might be easier to get PCs to buy upgrades or items they don't really need, depending on the players. But keep in mind that the more significant a chunk of their wealth an item represents, the less likely they are to be talked into buying it. A greatsword specialist whose greatsword is currently +1 isn't going to be talked into a +1 keen dagger as a backup weapon. You also want to tread carefully with this one. You don't want to frustrate the players, so you should either make sure they're getting something legitimately cool out of the exchange (even if it's not something they thought they wanted) OR that they get a chance to get back at the merchant somehow.

For some added fun I suppose you could let the player in on the joke and sell them an item that the player thinks is neat but the character wouldn't necessarily want - like an intelligent item with an attitude.

Shadow Lodge

My favourite colourful item was a pair of boots that cast Knock on anything you kicked with them.

Shadow Lodge

Yes, context is important and I'd stick with the RAI that fatigue is intended to be caused by environmental cold and effects that specifically mimic it (like Frostbite), not that any cold damage that happens to become nonlethal causes fatigue. I probably should have stopped at the fatigue stacking rule, but I wanted to point out that if you took environmental cold damage twice it would stack to exhausted.

Note the wording on the parallel rule for heatstroke, for which the RAW is more clear:

Heat Dangers wrote:
A character who takes any nonlethal damage from heat exposure now suffers from heatstroke and is fatigued. These penalties end when the character recovers from the nonlethal damage she took from the heat.

Heat exposure, not nonlethal fire damage.

Back to the main topic:

Cevah wrote:
As to your links, they are all about the Magus class abilities and not really about the chill touch/frostbite spell under normal usage.

The only thing that the magus changes about Frostbite and Chill Touch is that it can deliver the charges through a weapon. In fact, if Frostbite worked as you described the Magus could not use it with Spellstrike as described in those threads, because the touch charge would grant a Frostbite attack upon the person touched (struck with the weapon). A magus can deliver charges of a touch spell through their weapon, not special attacks delivered by a melee touch.

Cevah wrote:

They did have a link to JJ's opinion:

JJ, Not a Rules Guy wrote:
stuff
He thinks that the attack effect charges are not a held charge of a spell but something else.

He was specifically overruled by the FAQ linked earlier. Because he's not a rules guy. Some posts on the thread posted use JJ's earlier, overruled opinion because at the time there wasn't a clear official FAQ.

However there's no question over whether Frostbite, like Chill Touch, is considered a touch spell that grants multiple touches to deliver cold damage and fatigue.

Shadow Lodge

There's no consensus. Law and Chaos are very poorly defined in the rulebook, which leads to a lot of variation. From what I hear people are very unlikely to hassle you for not being lawful enough in PFS - they're much more concerned about evil acts. So you can take what you like from this thread and probably be fine.

My personal take on lawfulness:

  • Values order - likes plans, lists, regulations. They want a sense that things are under control. In the absence of outside authority they will create these things.
  • Respects authority. Not necessarily all authority, but the idea that someone should be in charge. Most but not all lawful characters will recognize at least one authority that they personally follow. For a monk, this is often their teacher(s), or possibly the church or Irori.
  • Believes that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and that each person should support the collective. Value for tradition for its own sake can fall in this category since it reflects a respect for the continuity of the collective.

While chaotics:

  • Do not want to feel restricted - they play it by ear and respond to the situation.
  • Do not think that anyone has a right to speak for, make decisions for, or control others.
  • Believe that loyalty to a group is a distraction, whether from your own desires or from the needs of the other individuals in the group.

EDIT: I can see the argument for deontological vs consequentialist ethics but it doesn't quite feel right to me.

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:
Respect for tradition can be lawful if the *tradition* is lawful. An American who is into traditional American values like small government, distrust for authority, and individual rights is both traditional *and* chaotic.

Are they in favour of small government and individual rights because they think these are good things, or because that's the American Way and it says so in the Constitution? If the latter, they're espousing a chaotic value for a lawful reason, which is an amusing paradox.

deusvult wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The ends do not justify the means versus the ends justifying the means. This is how I see Law and Chaos.
See, I'd call that good vs evil.

Many people who think deontologically would.

Shadow Lodge

Cevah wrote:
The language disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold occurs in a number of spells. So does disallowing Exhaustion from Fatigue by other things. So far as I understand, you cannot get Exhaustion from Fatigue by cold damage unless specifically called out.
Fatigued wrote:
A fatigued character can neither run nor charge and takes a –2 penalty to Strength and Dexterity. Doing anything that would normally cause fatigue causes the fatigued character to become exhausted. After 8 hours of complete rest, fatigued characters are no longer fatigued.
Cold Dangers wrote:
A character who takes any nonlethal damage from cold or exposure is beset by frostbite or hypothermia (treat her as fatigued).

Taking cold damage (environmental or from Frostbite) = "doing anything that would normally cause fatigue." Thus a specific rule is necessary to prevent Frostbite (or similar spells) from stacking with itself to cause exhaustion.

cevah wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

You/Your: I'll ask explicitly then.

Do you believe, as a general rule, that the word "you" in spells means something other than "the caster"?
General? No. Bad editing? Quite possible.

If "you" by default means the caster, and Frostbite does not say anything that would change that default, then "you" means the caster in the case of Frostbite.

Frostbite has been widely used as a touch spell with multiple charges, like Chill Touch, rather than as a spell granting a touch attack. See here and here. If this were a widespread misunderstanding due to poor editing, it would have been noticed by now and corrected. Therefore the RAW ("you" is the caster) is almost certainly also RAI.

Shadow Lodge

Any particular reason? Heretic is an odder choice for a paladin multiclass.

Shadow Lodge

That sounds like a good time for a (possibly young and naive) paladin to develop some street smarts and improved judgment.

Shadow Lodge

Maybe it would be helpful to point out that one of the other PCs is playing a gargoyle, and a third is playing this custom giant race.

Giant:
Standard Racial Traits

  • Tribal giants gain +8 Str, +4 Con, +4 Wis, and -2 Cha.
  • Type: Tribal giants are humanoids with the giant subtype.
  • Size: Tribal giants are Large creatures and thus take a -1 size penalty to their AC, a -1 size penalty on attack rolls, a +1 bonus to their CMB and CMD, and a -4 size penalty on Stealth checks. They take up a space that is 10 feet by 10 feet and have a reach of 10 feet.
  • Speed: Tribal giants have a base speed of 40 feet.
  • Languages: Tribal giants begin play speaking Dwarven and Giant. Tribal giants with high intelligence scores can choose from the following: Common, Elven, Orc, or Undercommon.

Defense Racial Traits

  • Natural Armor: Tribal giants have a +3 natural armor bonus to their Armor Class.
  • Rock Catching: Tribal giants can catch Small, Medium, or Large rocks (or projectiles of similar shape). Once per round, a tribal giant that would normally be hit by a rock can make a Reflex saving throw to catch it as a free action. The DC is 15 for a Small rock, 20 for a Medium rock, and 25 for a Large rock (if the projectile provides a magical bonus on attack rolls, the DC increases by that amount). The tribal giant must be aware of the attack in order to make a rock catching attempt.
  • Stability: Tribal giants receive a +4 racial bonus to their CMD when resisting bull rush or trip attempts while standing on the ground.

Offense Racial Traits

  • Rock Throwing: Tribal giants are accomplished rock throwers and have a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls with thrown rocks. A tribal giant can hurl rocks up to two categories smaller than her size. A "rock" is any large, bulky, and relatively regularly shaped object made of any material with a hardness of at least 5. A thrown rock has a range increment of 120 feet. The tribal giant can hurl the rock up to five range increments. Damage from a thrown rock is 2d6 plus 1-1/2 times the tribal giant's Strength bonus.
  • Hatred: Tribal giants receive a +1 racial bonus on attack rolls against humanoids of the goblinoid and orc subtypes.
  • Weapon Familiarity: Tribal giants are proficient with dire flails, greataxes, greatclubs, and greatswords.

Senses Racial Traits

  • Low-Light Vision: Tribal giants can see twice as far as a race with normal vision in conditions of dim light.

The flavour definitely feels like it could use some tweaking. As it is they sound like idealized loners who are terribly misunderstood but also better than everyone else (both in terms of being a powerful race and being generally enlightened). Which... I guess is interesting to some people? I'm not a fan. As Marco Polaris pointed out at minimum you need to reconcile the reclusivity with the value for knowledge.

+2 to all ability scores seems a bit boring to me - I generally like races that have some suggested strengths and weaknesses (even if the weakness is just a lack of a bonus).

I'd give them a dodge bonus instead of a natural armour bonus - their Con already makes them much tougher than normal elves and dodge just feels more elven than... thick skin? Maybe the Dodge feat for free, if you want to encourage the race to take the resulting feat chains.

Shadow Blending should definitely not be allowed to stack with Concealed in Shadow - Blending's power is based on the assumption that it's a circumstantial bonus. It might be a good idea to pick one or the other.

Shadow Weapon is neat but could stand to scale a bit, gaining a few extra abilities according to character level, otherwise it'll become almost useless very quickly and that's no fun. See (if you haven't already) the shadow weapon spell; consider scaling as such with a saving throw equal to 10 + 1/2 character level + Cha.

I agree that covering oneself for Enemy of the Sun should have downsides attached, whether mechanical or social, because otherwise the disadvantage is pretty meaningless.

A +1 bonus to caster level for (shadow) spells seems extremely appropriate.

Compared to the Giant it's significantly lacking in offensive power but very strong on the defense (especially Concealed in Shadow). This makes it pretty good for a caster/rogue as you described on the other thread, but be careful how the player multiclasses - it's very easy to mess up a rogue/caster compared to a giant bruiser, so the nightstalker character could easily be underpowered compared to the giant. (Same for the garyogle, really - it's a pretty neat race but needs more thought to build well than "get two-handed weapon, point at enemy")

Shadow Lodge

It's fluff, or more accurately a generalization. The inquisitor class is good at trickery and guile, but individual inquisitors are not required to use either.

Barbarians are allowed to put ranks in Profession (Soldier) despite the fact that their description reads "they are not soldiers or professional warriors."

Slayers are not required to take combat maneuver feats, despite the fact that they "spend most of their time honing their weapon skills, studying the habits and anatomy of foes, and practicing combat maneuvers."

Gunslingers don't have to be bold, and rangers don't have to be patient, and bards don't have to be quick-witted, despite these adjectives being used in their class descriptions.

The code of conduct for inquisitors is as follows:

Ex-Inquisitors wrote:
An inquisitor who slips into corruption or changes to a prohibited alignment loses all spells and the judgment ability. She cannot thereafter gain levels as an inquisitor until she atones (see the atonement spell description). An inquisitor who becomes an ex-inquisitor can, with the GM’s permission, take the heretic archetype, replacing her class abilities with the appropriate archetype abilities. If the character atones or joins a different faith, she loses her heretic abilities and regains her previous inquisitor class abilities.

Though an inquisitor has a wider range of allowable behavior than a paladin, an inquisitor isn't required to do anything that a paladin wouldn't do, and in fact slipping into corruption could easily involve falling as a paladin as well (since corruption is typically dishonourable).

Inquisitors typically have different roles and methods within a church than paladins do but they are not incompatible. In fact when combined you'd get the ideal law enforcement - someone with an incorruptible sense of justice, compassion for others' suffering, the ability to read people and recognize deceit, and the force of personality to encourage others to follow their example. (Of course, such a person would be rare - not least because this class combination is very MAD!)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP is the GM.

The rules normally do not permit an evil character to have a good familiar. Base (animal) familiars default to neutral, and improved familiars must be within one step of their master on either alignment axis. A TN master can have a LG familiar, but a LE master cannot have a LG familiar because that's two steps on the Good-Evil axis.

If you think it would be interesting for your NPC then go ahead, but I would make sure that players who know the rules aren't blindsided. If this is in character generation phase, or a player is considering Improved Familiar, tell them that you have a houserule in play. If mid-game you may want to remind them that a familiar's alignment doesn't always match their master's (perhaps by introducing an NPC with a different-alignment familiar with a different rationale, eg trying to redeem an imp) and/or show the familiar acting odd in some way. In particular if you're talking about the Dominate spell, a DC 15 sense motive check will reveal the enchantment - and be prepared for the players to remove the Dominate effect.

This is especially true if he is a covert antagonist and you expect that the good familiar will make the PCs overlook this.

You should also consider carefully how Dominate might affect the psychic link between master and familiar, which is assumed to be consensual.

Shadow Lodge

Dahak makes sense, for the same reason as Aspu.

Wasn't Lamashtu's favoured weapon just the falchion, with the kukri being secondary?

Gods and Magic wrote:
She carries two blades: one shrouded in fire called Redlust; and the other in frost called Chillheart. The length of each blade varies from that of a standard kukri to that of a falchion.
Faiths of Corruption wrote:
The favored weapon of the faith is the falchion, though some also carry kukris in emulation of Lamashtu herself.

I'm also pretty sure that "druidic weapons" isn't the mechanical favoured weapon for the Green Faith, just the weapons that they tend to use.

Shadow Lodge

I was talking about the HAND crossbow.

Hand Crossbow wrote:

Load: Loading a hand crossbow is a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

Note: You can draw a hand crossbow back by hand. You can shoot, but not load, a hand crossbow with one hand at no penalty. You can shoot a hand crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two light weapons.

This seemed to me to be the best analogy because like a pistol, it is a ranged weapon designed to be fired in one hand. It's also notable that hand crossbows and one-handed firearms are both as easily concealed as light weapons:

Firearms wrote:
Concealing Firearms: Like light weapons and hand crossbows, one-handed firearms are easy to conceal on your person.

While this doesn't have any direct impact on their use in TWF it does say something about their general bulkiness.

I can see three conclusions:

1) Firearms are universally not intended to be easy to use with TWF - thematically because of their "kick"

2) The coat pistol, like the hand crossbow, is specifically designed to be lighter/smaller than comparable weapons at the cost of some stopping power. Thus the coat pistol, but no other firearms, should be treated as a light weapon for TWF.

3) One-handed firearms, like the hand crossbow, are designed to be fired with one hand and can be concealed like light weapons. Some are a bit heavier than a hand crossbow, but not heavier than a light crossbow which can also be used as a light weapon when TWF. The extra -2 penalty on the light crossbow is not significant to the question of whether firearms are light because the light crossbow, unlike a one-handed firearm, is not designed to be fired with one hand.

I would rule (3) as a GM but I would accept any of the three.

1 to 50 of 3,353 << 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.