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. 2,277 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Disliking having levels in a class forced on you can be a reflection of playing a character.

For example, his paladin might distrust arcane magic, perhaps seeing it as a prideful trespass on divine domain, believing that power without moral limitation leads to temptation and evil, or having had personal bad experiences with arcanists. The character thus would deeply dislike being granted any kind of arcane power, even if it's totally free.

Alternatively, if the new arcane class levels slow down the progression of other classes in some way, even a paladin who likes arcane magic may feel that this represents a distraction from their chosen calling. I know an engineer who was annoyed by the required "arts credit" in his degree program for this reason.

And I do think that giving a large power boost to only part of the party - or worse, the whole party but one member - is unfair, even if it's part of a story. Neat story-related power treats are great but it's not fun to be left out. The more significant the treat, the more important it is to be even-handed. Would you think it fair for a GM to introduce a multi-session side quest for each character's backstory, but leave one PC out? Not without confirming with the player that they didn't mind missing out on that part of the game.

While some people do are only about the story or only about tactics/build, most PF gamers I've met care about both and being significantly behind other players in power can detract from enjoyment of the game, particularly if you get to the point where the underpowered player feels useless or as if their character's actions have no significance. I personally played a character whose main contribution to the end boss fight consisted of shopping for consumable items, and another who was left behind when the end boss and another party member ethereal jaunted away to have a several round one-on-one duel. Though this didn't spoil otherwise enjoyable games it certainly detracted from those encounters.

If your player is OK with just not using the scrolls, and feels he is still contributing to the game, then that's OK, but if not then figure something else out.

Renvale987 wrote:
Recently, we have been playing a certain Pathfinder module that grants a +1 to WIS or CHA after a certain event. I am playing a fighter in that game and those ability scores were useless to me from a pure stats point of view. However, my character's wisdom went from a 10 to an 11, and I started to role-play her being a little bit more cautious (wiser).

Repeatedly, or only after one specific event? One stat boost once is not a huge power increase, so it's not that big a deal if some characters find it more useful than others.

Levels, plural, in a class is a big power boost.

Shadow Lodge

I use Realmworks. I love it, I'm only using half its current features, and it's going to keep getting better since it's a new release and they're still adding features.

I think it's exactly what you're looking for as long as you're willing to pay for the software (IMO it's worth it) - though I'm not sure how an iPad interface would work.

Quote:
I haven't yet found an app that gives me the kind of detail and interconnectedness that I'm looking for. For example, I have an NPC cleric who has a merchant father that she recently contacted because of something the PCs did. Her father is doing something behind the scenes, and I want to keep track of it for later in-game repercussions.

Interconnectedness is a big feature - it supports linking topics like locations or NPCs like a webpage would, and can create the links automatically (by recognizing the name of an existing topic) or manually. It also allows you to annotate images, for example placing landmarks, which in turn link to those pages.

Quote:
How do other DMs who have big homebrew campaigns document their game? I was considering looking into making my own wiki, but with something like that I would like to be able to limit what other users could see unless they log into a username that gives them more access.

Realmworks has a neat thing called "Fog of World" that makes it easy to mark off what your PCs have discovered, or where they have explored on a map. Players currently can't access the info, BUT adding a player access mode where players can look up the info revealed to them is in development. (At first it'll only work with the software but a web interface that's free for players is planned, and revealing info to specific players is also in development.)

Shadow Lodge

Tacticslion has an excellent post.

I'd like to add an extra suggestion: CN or CG outsider that happens to be identical to a nymph except for type and getting Cleric spellcasting and the Charm domain instead of Druid casting and Wild Empathy. You can name the nymph-outsider if you like or just say it's a unique creature, since the sword appears also unique. This represents his identity before getting dragged into this demonic transformation - you indicated that he had at least mentally begun the transformation even before using the sword to strip the succubus' nature away. As a happy-ish ending this and her turning human make the most sense, and this is more interesting than human.

However if you want ultimate pathos/knife twisting she definitely ought to be simply killed or remain somehow CE/demonic (since he's already tainted by CE and can't properly purify her).

I also second the thought that he needs to find a LG creature to willingly sacrifice itself to reverse the transformation. You shouldn't be able to redeem yourself through an evil act.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

To answer the original question, we need them for the same reason the game needs other items like waterskins, backpacks, bedrolls, mundane arrows, and torches.

Can you easily get rid of needing them? Yes. Do many groups handwave them or ignore them? Yes. But they are the kind of things it makes sense for adventurers, especially low level adventurers, to carry and equip themselves with.

Yeah, but why bother with the tedious tracking? Just say 'you've got the basics unless circumstances dictate you wouldn't' and move on.

Some people enjoy a bit more wilderness exploration / survival in their game. The CRB includes information on simple survival gear for these groups. You don't have to use it if you don't want to, but it's more convenient to have such basic elements there and ignored by half the tables than not there and have half the GMs just make something up.

You don't even have to be too precise about your tracking to want to include trail rations - you can have a player state that their character always carries one week's rations, and then if they are delayed in the wilderness for 10 days you know that they are going hungry. My group often isn't picky about rations, but we do keep track of in-game time which makes it easy to spot trips that drag on longer than planned.

Shadow Lodge

What I would do is:

1) Don't allow Extra Evolution or wild tricks with the wild hunt combat style ability. Combat style feats should be combat style feats. Teamwork feats are OK, but I suggest requiring the Faerie Beast take the feat as well rather than automatically sharing the Feywarden's feat.

2) Take a lot of the unique abilities and put them into a "wild tricks" or "wild talents" ability modeled on Rogue Talents, Alchemist Discoveries, or Rage Powers. Split some of the abilities up into multiple tricks/talents/powers so each one is individually a bit weaker.

This should include: all the wild tricks, wild lore, fey foundling, seeming (split into alter self / basic, beast shape / improved, and invisibility / greater), Woodsman (minus trackless step) and Trackless Step separately, Faerie Wings, Wild Stride (basic and improved version applying to magical terrain), Long Step, Elision (or Evasion and a Will save equivalent separately), Fey Heritage (the three separately), Timeless Body, and Bandersnatch. Add one or two trickster-type Rogue Talents or Ninja Tricks. Add Extra Evolutions to the list, as well as Merciful Greentouch and an ability letting the Feywarden share Teamwork feats with their Beast for free.

Grant one of these abilities every 2-3 levels.

You mentioned avoiding too much customization earlier, but if you're approaching this as a new base class rather than as an alternate class you have room for customization, the Talents/Discoveries/Powers system is well-established, and people looking at homebrew classes are probably looking for more customization anyway. This allows a player to pick which of the fun and flavourful abilities to "trim" by not taking them. You can always provide a list of suggested power sets (perhaps based on the fey focus mentioned in the linked post) to make it easier for someone to dive in.

Shadow Lodge

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
If you have sacred cows (to butcher another cultural trope) then kill them and eat them immediately.

Bad idea. Killing and eating your sacred cow means you will have no beast of burden to pull your plow next planting season, and you will starve in the long term.

Making an effort to understand other cultures and the reasons for certain practices does more than prevent you from offending people. It adds complexity and verisimilitude to your worldbuilding.

Shadow Lodge

Sure, given that a Cold Weather Outfit gives a whole +5 I think +1 for a torch isn't too overgenerous (though it is a little generous).

Shadow Lodge

Lyra Amary wrote:
I'm glad someone else likes the Cavalier. I have a player running a Cavalier in my campaign and it works really well. It's frustrating how many people seem to think that the mount is the only thing ever worth using a Cavalier for and that they suck otherwise.

I've never played one, and only seen one played for a few low levels, but I had an Order of the Dragon Cavalier cohort I really enjoyed - my bard's bodyguard, Sir Didymus.

Shadow Lodge

While I don't think we needed the witch class to represent witches, or the inquisitor class to represent a religious inquisitor, I think that having these classes as options is a good thing. With the witch class, I can still make myself a character of the druid class who identifies as a "witch," but now I also have an option to use that class and its mechanics. I could also make a member of a druid circle or an alchemical society using the witch class, with appropriate hex selection. Likewise, having the inquisitor class doesn't mean I can't make a cleric/rogue "inquisitor," it just means I have one more option for doing so.

After all, I could make a "druid" character with the cleric class simply by choosing the Animal and Plant domains, preparing appropriate spells, and using thematic weapons, but I still like having the druid class. A "bard" could be represented by a rogue/sorcerer or rogue/wizard with high Cha, but the bard class is still interesting and useful.

It also makes it easier for new players to use these concepts without having to struggle through the complexity of multiclassing or trying to fit a class into a role it wasn't quite designed for.

sgriobhadair wrote:

- Inquisitor - I think you can do pretty much all of this with a specialist cleric.

...Some of the Inquisitor's specialties can be reproduced by other classes.

But it's very difficult to reproduce more than one or two, and Discern Lies (immediate action) and Detect Alignment (at will, all alignments) can't be properly reproduced at all.

Details:
As pointed out previously, the Inquisitor's 6 skill points/lvl require an Int 18 for a cleric to match. If you take the Cloistered Cleric archetype you only need Int 14, but you loose armour, shield, and weapon proficiencies, which makes it harder to melee as effectively as an inquisitor. Skill Focus helps with Sense Motive and Intimidate, but if you want both you need to spend two feats - except Intimidate still isn't a class skill (and neither is Survival, which Inquisitors also get an extra bonus to in the form of Track). Multiclassing helps a bit, but it takes two rogue levels for every cleric level to give an equal number of skill points, so it's mostly good for picking up class skills.

The Inquisitor's Discern Lies has two big advantages over the spell. First, it's activated as an immediate action, which means that rather than casting it prior to an interrogation, you can do a quick "lie check" in reaction to a suspicious statement. Second, you can use it for a non-continuous number of rounds per day based on your level, which makes it easier to interrogate multiple people over the course of a day.

sgriobhadair wrote:
- monster lore - unless you have high Int AND Wis (and optimisers probably don't have high Int here), this doesn't really offer anything more than any other class with Knowledge Nature and Knowledge Dungeoneering.

It amounts to probably +2 to +4 to your checks to identify monsters, which isn't fantastic but it's not bad for a minor class feature. It's more useful if you invest skill ranks in monster knowledge skills but you don't have to do so to get the bonus, so you don't need high Int - and if you do have a high Int you still get to add that to your knowledge checks as well.

Black_Lantern wrote:
Because usually having 6+int skills in pathfinder when spells exists is redundant, people put too much value on skills because they're used to them and enjoy them mechanically, but the vast majority of encounters don't require you to have an absurd amount of skills points. Detect lies and sense motive are overlapping class abilities that don't make up the power level gap between 6th and 9th level spells. Bane ability has nothing on save or die spells and the utility that a cleric brings to a table. It's not that the cleric does the inquisitors job, it's that he can be flavored as an inquisitor and be more versatile.

I don't care if 9 levels of spellcasting are technically more powerful or versatile. It's fun to be a human lie detector and to be able to pin down someone's exact alignment by staring into their soul.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ellis Mirari wrote:
Don't ignore the mechanic and flavor differences, though. Witch Hexes make them play very differently from other casting classes. It COULD have been working into an existing class, but it would have to be chopped down in order to fit, and ultimately the same could be said of everything other than "Fighting Man" and "Magic User".

To elaborate on the distinct mechanical options that make these classes worthwhile as stand-alones:

An alchemist archetype for the wizard would probably swap out the bonus feats for Brew Potion, swift/instant alchemy, and maybe poison use, resistance, and immunity. Then the school benefit would be swapped for either a mutagen or bombs, or a watered-down version of both. The wizard wouldn't be as good in melee with a mutagen as the alchemist due to lower BAB, HD, and no armour proficiency, and most of the fun of bombs comes from discoveries. Quite simply, the wizard's 9 levels of spellcasting are too powerful to accommodate what makes the alchemist interesting to most people.

While a witch's familiar and hexes might be possible to model as a bloodline, a witch thematically should have a very different spell list from a sorcerer, and that's difficult to do with an archetype.

The summoner's entire purpose is the eidolon - it's the "arcane combat pet" class. And since the summoner and wizard are the two classes most frequently accused of being overpowered, I can't help but think that giving an eidolon to a wizard would be unbalanced without either stripping the wizard of all non-casting abilities and maybe adding diminished spellcasting, watering down the eidolon, or both. And watering down the eidolon makes it hard for people who want to play the eidolon as being more interesting than the summoner - as was the case for the first summoner/eidolon I saw in play.

And they're big enough fantasy concepts that they can stand alone, compared to the Siege Mage, Zen Archer, or other archetypes.

Shadow Lodge

Samy wrote:
So, essentially, whether you take a little ant or T-Rex (if they were choices), they always have the same BAB and HD that is just based off your druid level? How powerful the normal animal is plays no role in animal companions? (Other than the small adjustments in ability scores and such?)

Yes, this is to allow a wider range of animal companions without actually making them unbalanced compared to each other.

I find it helps to think of animals like the lion as being a younger animal until they reach their 4th or 7th-level growth spurt. Or in the case of a few animals, you can find smaller but poorly-known species that are very similar - my druid had a Zuniceratops companion instead of a Triceratops because a Large-size instead of Huge-size Triceratops didn't make sense to me.

Shadow Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
While I would not say I like them all, I would have no reason to ban any of them at my table, except perhaps the Summoner due to power level and 'lets play a few rounds of Mario Kart while Fred does his turn'.

I've played with one summoner and am currently GMing for another, and I haven't noticed them taking longer than the other PCs.

Don't seem OP either.

Shadow Lodge

Freedom of Movement does give you a free pass out of manacles.

However it doesn't make you immune to the staggered condition here, because nothing is binding you or otherwise impeding you physically, it's hitting you mentally.

Shadow Lodge

I've got these in my current campaign. I just change all the references to Good/Evil to Law/Chaos, and assign Paladin or Antipaladin progression in a similar way to how a cleric selects which energy type to channel - good ones get Paladin progression, evil get antipaladin progression, and LN pick at first level and then stick with it.

I think the only abilities that swing are Channel/Lay on Hands vs Touch of Corruption, Mercies vs Cruelties, and the Auras (Bolstering vs Destructive).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not familiar with the Class Guide. I like all the others, though I've got a soft spot for the Inquisitor.

The Ninja and the Samurai are really just major archetypes for the Rogue and Cavalier, respectively

QuietBrowser wrote:
Inquisitor: ...I just cannot, for the life of me, see the point of this class. It's a powerful archetype and all, but I just can't get behind it. I can never really figure out what an Inquisitor actually does when combat rolls around - I guess it's sort of a cleric-spell-casting Rogue. It's very odd because I've seen 4e's Avenger, I can easily imagine fluffing one up as member of their church's inquisition (or an equivalent organization - Warhammer's Witchfinders, for example), and come up with plenty of ideas for that, but trying to do the same for Pathfinder's actual Inquisitor class leaves me... well, stumped.

I'm not sure what you're confused about here. The general idea behind the inquisitor is to have a more skilled divine caster. They have a variety of things to do out of combat, including some pretty incredible interrogation potential. Their Intimidate and Sense Motive can easily go sky-high, they get Diplomacy and Bluff as class skills as well, and they can Detect Lies several times a day as an immediate action (in response to something that sounds suspicious!). They do church inquisition just fine.

Monster Lore and Track also make them decent monster hunters, a la Van Helsing.

In combat they work pretty much like a melee cleric or paladin in that they might activate a buff (Judgement or Bane being big ones) and then typically wade in swinging - though archer inquisitors work too. Monster Lore helps them identify what they're fighting (necessary for Bane) and Solo Tactics adds a little more complexity to their battlefield positioning, mostly being adjacent to or flanking particular allies.

Got a fantastic monk-inquisitor team in a game I'm in right now, with the Monk tripping and getting AoO from Vicious Stomp and the Inquisitor taking his own AoO with Paired Opportunists.

EDIT: Oh, and their easy sky-high intimidate makes anything that gives you fast or area demoralize, like Blistering Invective, loads of fun.

Shadow Lodge

No, for the reason you gave: expending a Stunning Fist attempt is not the same thing as scoring a successful Stunning Fist attempt.

Shadow Lodge

Darn, just missed my edit window.

1) Though I personally would prefer a CG paladin of Cayden to a LG paladin of Cayden, since we are in the Rules forum it's important to note that a LG paladin of Cayden or another CG deity is allowed by RAW (minus PFS-specific restrictions) but a CG paladin is not.

2) When I picture a paladin of Cayden, I'm thinking something like Captain America (honourable, concerned with both justice and freedom - remember he opposed the superhero registration act) plus a strong belief that beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.

Shadow Lodge

Tryn wrote:

A Paladin is THE holy knight (for me), someone who not only knows what honor is, but live it in every second of his live.

Somone who would either die then let his honor be destroyed.
He IS the white knight, the embodiement of pure justice and good.
(for reference see old knight ows in history or fiction (I like the one from dragon heart).

Not something which is very matching to Cayden, the drunken hero. ;)

Plenty of people play LG paladins who drink heavily. Here's an example.

Classic knights are a great way to play paladins but it's perfectly possible to be honourable without being chaste, abstinent, or otherwise fitting into the western knightly ideal. As a really basic example, some Eastern philosophies of warfare espouse taking certain advantages in combat that a classic western knight would consider highly dishonourable - stuff like ambushes or positioning yourself on the battlefield such that the sun is in your opponent's eyes.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
blahpers wrote:
JJ has weird ideas about what constitutes "chaotic".
You don't think not following the dictates of your own religion, which you believe in whole-heartedly, is pretty Chaotic? I do. Lawful alignments are pretty much definitionally more internally consistent and doctrinally rigid than that.

Would you define Martin Luther as chaotic? He thought the entire Church was doing his religion wrong, presented objections in a systematic matter, and spawned a new church. He went up against a lawful organization in a lawful way with the goal of returning it to what he saw as "true" doctrine.

Now, it's a little harder to argue about what the "true" doctrine is when your god can actually send a messenger down and sort it out, but Cayden is well known for not caring too much about how he is worshiped as long as his followers (1) drink and party without being destructive and (2) protect the freedoms of others, and since he doesn't personally empower the paladin (at least not per CRB) he isn't likely to bother himself over this particular eccentric worshiper.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
In summary: I'm cool with CG Paladins, but not LG Paladins of CG gods.

I guess it depends on whether you think chaotic characters can consistently follow a set of moral principles.

If you think they can, CG paladins are just fine.

If you think they can't, CG paladins don't work, but "Chaotic doctrine" becomes an oxymoron so there's nothing for the LG paladin of a CG god to deviate from.

I personally would also prefer CG paladins to LG paladins of CG gods, but I also think that a paladin of Cayden is a legitimate character concept that ought to be allowed one way or the other.

Shadow Lodge

It's less natural opposites, more "the wizard's least favourite school subject."

Shadow Lodge

This one is a matter of interpretation, but I'd go with (d) which should usually also be (c) for a character in a kingdom leadership role related to the ability, unless there's a good reason for the Spriggan to handicap him/herself.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The four corner alignments aren't extreme, because the two different alignment components will limit each other.

Someone who cares ONLY about law, or ONLY about good can more extreme than someone who cares about both law and good, because the combined alignment encourages a character to perform minor evil acts which are lawful, or minor chaotic acts which are good.

Taason the Black wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
There's also no reason that you can't be a paladin of Gozreh, worshipping the inherent beauty and balance of nature, while still being LG.
Because it does not mix one little bit. How do you worship a deity of chaotic behavior while being strict rule abiding yourself?

He's not a god of chaotic behavior, he's a god of alcohol, luck, adventure, and following your conscience no matter what. This happens to lean chaotic because of the focus on individual choice and freedom, but could be very attractive to certain LG characters, namely those who are more about holding themselves to strict standards of orderly behavior than enforcing it on others.

Shadow Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
Nevan Oaks wrote:

If my magus has a +7 weapon and he wants to add brilliant energy {a +4 ability}, he can't by RAW. If we have a 12 ounce cup there is no way we can pour 20 ounces of fluid into it.

Now from there If it is a +7 arrow and a +7 bow, the arrows bonuses are kept as the bows bonuses are added to it (up to the +10 max). So only a total of +3 abilities can be gained from the bow. Emphasis mine

Now which bonuses is not covered by RAW. I house rule players choice. I think of it as if the bow is casting on the arrow. Emphasis mine

LOL, so you are saying exactly what I am saying, we need a rule on how we should be around removing abilities to keep within the +10 limit.

Not quite, he's saying there should be a rule for how to choose which abilities are added on. He clearly states that the bonuses on the arrow are kept, not removed.

Diego Rossi wrote:
The only problem with your solution is that there is no rule support for it.

Which is why he specifically states that it is a house rule.

Diego Rossi wrote:

No rule about removing abilities, no rule about power precedence. Exactly what this thread is trying to get.

And yes, repeating "it can't be done" don't work if we don't have a rule on how we should remove abilities to stay within the +10 limit.

If we don't have a rule, it can't be done, at least not without house rules. If we had a rule saying how to remove abilities from an arrow or other weapon when a new effect enhances it, then it could be done.

By analogy: dragging someone around the battlefield could not be done by RAW using only the CRB (though some groups may have house-ruled it based on the existing maneuver system). Now that the Drag maneuver has been published, we have a rule saying how, so it now can be done by RAW.

If you think that it should be able to be done and that thus we need rules regarding how it should be done, that is a different issue.

Shadow Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

3) Since order of addition is the determining factor, an arrow's properties override a bow's (a bow's properties are added to the arrow when the arrow is fired, so they're always the last property applied).

You have a rule that say that?

Dev citation?

It's pretty darn clear from applying the existing rules.

1) You can't remove an ability (currently, unless the devs say you can and how you decide what's removed).

You can not add an ability simply by not activating or applying the ability.

Therefore, you must not add the new ability (most recent - order matters).

2) General rule - an ability applied to an inappropriate target fails.

A weapon that has too many magical enhancements to enhance further is not a valid target for further enhancement (by definition - it has too many enhancements to enhance further so it cannot be enhanced further).

Therefore, once your weapon reaches +10 equivalent, you cannot add any further magic because it is no longer a valid target. Any attempts to add magic after reaching +10 fails - unless the devs decide to add a rule stating otherwise.

wraithstrike wrote:
I don't think the rules completely cover the situation. When the devs said you can't do it, they kinda expected for you not to try it, but now they may have to make an official ruling. I think a GM will have to make his own rules for it until something official comes out for deciding which properties stay active.

I'm perfectly happy to see the devs add a rule allowing this and saying how it works. But as-is, if they say you can't do it and shouldn't try it, you can't do it and shouldn't try it.

Unless your GM says otherwise. There's a lot of just-fine houserules people are suggesting.

Diego Rossi wrote:
A paladin with a +1 keen speed weapon would be unable to cast holy weapon on it?

Actually, Holy Sword specifically suppresses any and all other magical properties of the weapon - it's the one case I know of where currently present abilities can be suppressed. So the paladin can holy sword his +1 keen speed weapon, turning it temporarily into a +5 holy weapon that can't be further enhanced by Divine Bond.

Shadow Lodge

Gonna copy my posts from the other thread here for reference.

Summary:

1) You can't by RAW suppress a property already on a weapon. RAW doesn't say you can, and it definitely doesn't say how you choose what to suppress.

2) Since you can't by RAW suppress a property, properties are not added after +10 equivalent is reached.

3) Since order of addition is the determining factor, an arrow's properties override a bow's (a bow's properties are added to the arrow when the arrow is fired, so they're always the last property applied).

4) Houserules may be called for. Good options include: enhancement bonus is suppressed in favour of properties, most powerful properties are suppressed first, least powerful properties are suppressed first, or properties are suppressed/applied randomly.

5) Characters should employ good resource management so as not to stack too many weapon enhancement abilities (GMW, arcane pool, divine bond, ammunition).

Post 1

Weirdo's first post:
The bonuses permanently belonging the the weapon are naturally there first. They are present before the temporary bonus is added. Nothing says that you can remove bonuses belonging to a weapon in order to add different temporary bonuses. Thus we should assume that you can't. (In particular, there's nothing directing you how to remove/suppress those permanent bonuses - do you remove enhancement bonuses first, or special abilities? Randomly, or wielder chooses?)

Thus a +5 flaming keen weapon can't have a +4 quality like Brilliant Energy temporarily added to it.

Post 2

Weirdo's second post:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Same thing for spells and general bonuses.

Greater magic weapon is a enhancement bonus, the +1 of the weapon is an enhancement bonus. They overlap.
I can do it.
...
There is no rule that say that having something there first stop you from adding something later. Actually we have some rule that say exactly the opposite, that we can add things later that can overlap the previous bonus.

The problem is that the rules sections you quote don't address the problem of running into a "total bonus cap."

You can certainly cast GMW (+5) on a +2 flaming burst sword and get a +5 flaming burst sword due to overlap of the enhancement bonuses. But you can't cast GMW (+5) on a +2 flaming burst vorpal sword and get a +5 flaming burst vorpal sword because you've exceeded the total bonus cap.

Since there's no rule for suppressing a property on the sword to get a +5 vorpal sword (or a +5 flaming burst sword), we must assume that adding the property (extra enhancement bonus) is not allowed.

(In the case of magic bows and magic arrows, it appears that the bonus from the bow is added to the arrow on firing the arrow, so the bow's bonus is the last applied - meaning it can't be added to a +10 equivalent arrow even if the bow is permanently magic and the arrow is temporarily enhanced.)

Now, you can voluntarily reduce the caster level on a spell to get a +3 flaming burst vorpal sword (though this also reduces duration). A friendly GM might give you the full duration anyway, or let a magus to apply less than the full benefit of their arcane pool. A very friendly GM might let you suppress the powers on your weapon, whether at your choice, randomly, starting with the most expensive property (in this case, vorpal), or some other method. I personally think a choice between applying less bonus than you're entitled or losing the most powerful property on your weapon sounds about right.

But the conclusion most in line with the strict RAW is that the new bonus simply does not stick.

Diego Rossi wrote:
As the goal of the rules isn't to remove class features as you raise in level, I doubt the developers will ever say that.

It doesn't remove class features, it encourages smart use of resources. You can't wear a Headband of Int and a Headband of Wis at the same time. Mage Armour doesn't stack with Bracers of Armour. A Keen Weapon doesn't stack with the Improved Critical feat. Characters who have one of the two gain little or no benefit from the other. Smart play means spending resources on items and abilities that can be used effectively together rather than ones that can't.

Thus a character with the ability to enhance their weapon, whether by Arcane Pool or Divine Bond or Greater Magic Weapon, should not invest so much gold in magic weapons that they do not benefit from these other abilities. Characters with very expensive bows shouldn't buy very expensive arrows, and vice-versa. There are plenty of other things you can spend gold on besides a +10 (or almost +10) weapon.

Shadow Lodge

I really doubt that it's the intent to disallow a magus to reduce the arcane pool bonus if their weapon is too heavily enchanted already. The precedent for being able to reduce spell caster level, and for high-level bards being able to activate bardic music as a move action if they want to perform a different swift action on their turn, both support the idea that you can "dumb down" a class ability if it's beneficial to you. I'd file that under the same category as Oracles using Spiritual Weapon in terms of strict RAW being clearly against intent.

EDIT: actually, I don't think it is RAW that a magus has to add all their bonus.

Arcane Pool wrote:
For every four levels beyond 1st, the weapon gains another +1 enhancement bonus, to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. These bonuses can be added to the weapon, stacking with existing weapon enhancement to a maximum of +5. Multiple uses of this ability do not stack with themselves.

"Can" implies not adding is an option. "These bonuses" implies each point of bonus can be assigned separately, with "do not add" as an option for each bonus.

That said, a magus will still have problem adding the Brilliant Energy property to a +7 or higher equivalent weapon without more significant favourable house rules.

Shadow Lodge

Right, so the Magus arcane pool.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Same thing for spells and general bonuses.

Greater magic weapon is a enhancement bonus, the +1 of the weapon is an enhancement bonus. They overlap.

I can do it.

...

There is no rule that say that having something there first stop you from adding something later. Actually we have some rule that say exactly the opposite, that we can add things later that can overlap the previous bonus.

The problem is that the rules sections you quote don't address the problem of running into a "total bonus cap."

You can certainly cast GMW (+5) on a +2 flaming burst sword and get a +5 flaming burst sword due to overlap of the enhancement bonuses. But you can't cast GMW (+5) on a +2 flaming burst vorpal sword and get a +5 flaming burst vorpal sword because you've exceeded the total bonus cap.

Since there's no rule for suppressing a property on the sword to get a +5 vorpal sword (or a +5 flaming burst sword), we must assume that adding the property (extra enhancement bonus) is not allowed.

(In the case of magic bows and magic arrows, it appears that the bonus from the bow is added to the arrow on firing the arrow, so the bow's bonus is the last applied - meaning it can't be added to a +10 equivalent arrow even if the bow is permanently magic and the arrow is temporarily enhanced.)

Now, you can voluntarily reduce the caster level on a spell to get a +3 flaming burst vorpal sword (though this also reduces duration). A friendly GM might give you the full duration anyway, or let a magus to apply less than the full benefit of their arcane pool. A very friendly GM might let you suppress the powers on your weapon, whether at your choice, randomly, starting with the most expensive property (in this case, vorpal), or some other method. I personally think a choice between applying less bonus than you're entitled or losing the most powerful property on your weapon sounds about right.

But the conclusion most in line with the strict RAW is that the new bonus simply does not stick.

Diego Rossi wrote:
As the goal of the rules isn't to remove class features as you raise in level, I doubt the developers will ever say that.

It doesn't remove class features, it encourages smart use of resources. You can't wear a Headband of Int and a Headband of Wis at the same time. Mage Armour doesn't stack with Bracers of Armour. A Keen Weapon doesn't stack with the Improved Critical feat. Characters who have one of the two gain little or no benefit from the other. Smart play means spending resources on items and abilities that can be used effectively together rather than ones that can't.

Thus a character with the ability to enhance their weapon, whether by Arcane Pool or Divine Bond or Greater Magic Weapon, should not invest so much gold in magic weapons that they do not benefit from these other abilities. Characters with very expensive bows shouldn't buy very expensive arrows, and vice-versa. There are plenty of other things you can spend gold on besides a +10 (or almost +10) weapon.

Shadow Lodge

seebs wrote:

For an extreme example: So far as I can tell, RAW, there's virtually no way to ignite most things without significant fire damage, because there are rules only for igniting light sources and the like. I couldn't even find a rule under which gunpowder would be ignited if you poured it on lava.

But we sort of assume that you can in fact ignite things, and that things will usually maintain their usual properties. But if we were dogmatically restrictive, we would conclude that the Pathfinder setting is the safest humans have ever lived in, because there is no way for a house to burn down.

This is actually a really good example for why (1) strict RAW in and of itself logically has to be restrictive and (2) a strict RAW game with no GM interpretation is impossible, or at least undesirable.

Let's say RAW is permissive. It doesn't say you can't burn down a house with a torch, so you can. But how? How long does it take to ignite? Do you have to apply the torch for the entire duration, or does it become self-sustaining at some point? What about if you want to rig gunpowder and a fuse to detonate the whole thing? By allowing an action without specifying how it is achieved, executing the action with permissive strict RAW fails here.

If strict RAW is restrictive, then because it doesn't say you can burn down a house with a torch, you can't. You don't fall into any problems with allowing a thing but not describing how. It's not terribly satisfying, but it works.

And if we consider that this works the same way whether the house is made of wood or stone, it's obvious that the latter is preferable. Both may sometimes lead to an undesirable conclusion: restrictive RAW does not allow burning a wooden house, and permissive RAW does allow burning a stone house. But only restrictive RAW actually functions as a strict rule set.

Now, this doesn't result in a satisfying or realistic game, so in actual play we invoke the almighty GM and ask him/her to Rule 0 our arson attempt, by permitting it if reasonable (the house is wood) and describing how this will work. And this dependence on the GM is explicitly invoked in the only RAW discussion we have on materials of varying flammability. Under damaging objects: "Some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects, subject to GM discretion. For example, fire might do full damage against parchment, cloth, and other objects that burn easily."

But this doesn't make RAW permissive. It allows the GM to be permissive where RAW is insufficient.

Shadow Lodge

I think it's more accurate to say "The RAW PF is restrictive, but Rule 0."

Pathfinder can't possibly describe every potential action a character might take. Thus it sets up "core rules" describing the most likely actions a PC will take, the baseline understanding for the game. There's a lot of generalization so that a number of related situations can be handled using the same mechanic. But because it's just as impossible to describe every action a PC can't take as it is to describe every action a PC can take, the RAW as a stand-alone entity has to be restrictive. Otherwise players will be able to argue that Grease has to be flammable, that Magic Missile has to allow a Bull Rush maneuver, that the wings from their sorcerer bloodline or racial feat have to come with a natural attack.

But because PF has a GM and not just a computer program merrily executing RAW, the Rules as Practiced are much more flexible. The game explicitly relies on the GM to adjudicate anything not covered by the core rules, and the core rules remind us of this. For example, Dirty Trick says "The GM is the arbiter of what can be accomplished with this maneuver," and the custom item guidelines remind players to check with their GM. The "how to use FAQ" post even re-affirms that "It is not intended to create official rulings for every possible corner case or combination of the rules. Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters."

So what is actually practiced is:

If the rules don't say you can do something, assume you can't UNLESS the GM says you can.

Conversely, if the rules say you can do something, assume you can UNLESS the GM says you can't. (Remember, Rule 0 works in two directions.)

How this relates to the issue above will need to wait for the morning...

Shadow Lodge

leo1925 wrote:
Hawriel wrote:
Your GM told you the type of game he is going to run. You agreed to play in that game. Now you are finding ways to brake his rules because you want stuff. Play the game you agreed to play and stop trying to push him/her into letting you do what ever you want. ...

Are you serious?

Is the OP not being fair for wanting to play with the rules he agreed to when he started playing the campaign?
Is the DM being fair when he creates house rules mid-campaign?

Agreed. The GM told the OP that he was running Pathfinder. Unless he also said that magic item crafting would be restricted, the OP has a right to assume that the normal rules for item crafting will apply. This isn't an entitlement issue, it's just bad communication, and it appears that the communication probelm is being solved.

The GM absolutely has the right to house-rule that crafting is more difficult than described in the core rules, but ideally that should be made clear before the game starts and certainly before a character takes crafting feats.

If the GM didn't realize how easy it was to craft in PF, he still has a right to house-rule it but he should absolutely talk it over with the player and offer a chance to re-train the ability, since the player chose it under the assumption that crafting followed the core rules.

LazarX wrote:
Yes... let the DM worry about it. Item crafting is not supposed to be a dominant part of play.

No, but neither is a druid's animal companion. If a GM were to tell me several levels into a game that my animal companion couldn't participate in combat, or that I couldn't use it for a mount despite it being a size larger than me and quadrupedal, I would want to talk that over and possibly retrain the ability.

Shadow Lodge

Unruly wrote:
Taking 10 is generally considered more of a convenience rule, so in the case of not allowing a Take 10 on crafting I'd say that it's fair.

No, take 10 is a risk-avoiding rule. It's used when a character wants to be confident they won't fail at something, and doesn't care about doing an extra-good job (getting an above average roll).

Taking 10 wrote:
In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10).

You could rule that boats are distracting, but I don't think they're nearly as distracting as combat (the typical situation preventing taking 10).

Unruly wrote:
Oh, and since magic item crafting follows its own set of rules that's different from mundane crafting, I don't think you can actually rush them by RAW. The magic item creation section makes no mention of rushing other than to say that you can't rush your work by spending more than 8 hours. Could be wrong about that, but specific trumping general and how magic item crafting is detailed elsewhere and not under the Craft skill, tells me that rushing isn't possible. It does allow for crafting while out adventuring though. 4 hours of work resulting in the equivalent of 2 hours, so it takes 4x as long to craft, but you can do it while you're out and about saving the world.

You missed something:

Magis Item Creation wrote:
Creating an item requires 8 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof), with a minimum of at least 8 hours. Potions and scrolls are an exception to this rule; they can take as little as 2 hours to create (if their base price is 250 gp or less). Scrolls and potions whose base price is more than 250 gp, but less than 1,000 gp, take 8 hours to create, just like any other magic item. The character must spend the gold at the beginning of the construction process. Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day. This process can be accelerated to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof) by increasing the DC to create the item by 5.

Shadow Lodge

Every day.

If you're using spell slots, you need to expend one every day, which is no problem during downtime but can be a pain if you're crafting while adventuring.

If you're using a scroll to access a spell, you need one scroll per day of crafting. This is expensive, and witches, wizards, and magi will probably want to copy the scroll into their book/familiar instead and then cast it using slots.

If you're using a helper, they need to assist you for the entire duration of crafting (up to 8 hours a day).

Shadow Lodge

Weirdo wrote:

Answer: No. You can only Share Spells with spells you cast. Using a spell from a magic item is not the same as casting the spell.

Also Share Spells only lets you share spells from the class granting an animal companion, and the Paladin doesn't get Expeditous Retreat. You'd need to multiclass into Inquisitor with the Animal domain, Cleric with the Animal and Azata or Exploration domains, or Sorcerer with the Sylvan bloodline.

Realized this might be unclear.

You have to cast the spell (not from a wand) AND the spell needs to be on the list of the class that has the companion with Share Spells.

So if you want to cast Expeditious Retreat on your paladin's mount, you need to multiclass into a class that has Expeditious Retreat on their spell list and grants an animal companion (stacking levels from both classes to determine the strength of your companion/mount). Then you need to cast the spell yourself, not from a wand.

Or, Horseshoes of Speed.

Shadow Lodge

Mydrrin wrote:
Attacks do not have to do damage. Trips make you prone.

Indeed. And grapple makes you grappled. Successive grapple checks can allow a variety of additional effects, including damage, but the core function of grapple is to give you the grappled condition.

Mydrrin wrote:
From your post you believe that grappling damage is a strike. Head butt or opportunistic strike.

Nope, I'm saying that describing damage in grappling as a strike is one way to deal with the flavour explanation for why by RAW the AoMF applies to the grapple damage but not the grapple CMB check. I'm also perfectly happy to say that the activity of jerking a joint lock to break a bone is "close enough" to striking to get the bonus but manipulating the opponent into a joint lock is not "close enough" to striking.

Either way, RAW says that the grapple CMB check is weaponless, but the damage roll is not.

Mydrrin wrote:

The crux of it is whether Unarmed Combat is grappling. Some people contend that grappling is not an attack. When it clearly states it is. I was positing that if grappling is not an attack what would that mean. Grappling damage says you do damage = your unarmed strike, AotMF says that it adds bonuses to unarmed attacks and damage...the only way for grappling damage to get AotMF bonus is if it is an attack. Same for ki strike.

...
Grappling is the method it happens, why wouldn't grappling get the bonuses?

Seriously, look at Dragon Roar.

"While using Dragon Style, as a standard action you can expend two Stunning Fist attempts to unleash a concussive roar in a 15-foot cone. Creatures caught in the cone take your unarmed strike damage and become shaken for 1d4 rounds."

This is not an UAS. It's not even an attack roll, it's an area effect. It's a shockwave. Yet somehow that shockwave does the same damage as your UAS. Clearly it is possible to deal UAS damage without making an UAS attack roll.

Shadow Lodge

+18 spellcraft is probably sufficient. As you said, you haven't got a lot of time for making big items anyway. If you've only got one +1 weapon right now your priority will be more +1 weapons, +2 stat boosters, minor cloaks of resistance. You just need to be selective about what you craft, particularly things that have lots of requirements. See if party members or a cohort can help you with crafting requirements, especially if they aren't crafters themselves. Then look at what you can safely craft and decide whether it's still worth it - and if not, ask your GM to replace the feat since you didn't know about the houserule saying you can't take 10.

Also consider getting yourself a Fortunate Charm if you can afford it.

Shadow Lodge

@thebigragu: Paladin's mount works as an Animal Companion and thus gets Share Spells.

Answer: No. You can only Share Spells with spells you cast. Using a spell from a magic item is not the same as casting the spell.

Also Share Spells only lets you share spells from the class granting an animal companion, and the Paladin doesn't get Expeditous Retreat. You'd need to multiclass into Inquisitor with the Animal domain, Cleric with the Animal and Azata or Exploration domains, or Sorcerer with the Sylvan bloodline.

1) I think that works.

2) This one's not in RAW but either a ranged attack roll by the thrower, a Dex check by the catcher, or both would probably be required. One or both participants would need to spend a move action (for "manipulate an object"). The GM may even require the catcher to ready an action to catch. The thrower and maybe the catcher would provoke AoO.

Shadow Lodge

Shimesen wrote:
Weirdo, in all those weapon quotes, it specifically calls out strength as being changed somehow in the damage rolls because the general rule is that strength is a bonus added to both attack and damage. but for instance, a projectile weapon does not use the strength modifier. the above spoiler quote you made makes mention of how a composite bow applies strength to damage even though the bow is a dex based weapon. this is a case of special vs general.

You're missing the point. It's not a case of specific vs general rules, it's a case of clarifying terminology.

In all those quotes "damage" is used to refer to a damage roll with a weapon. That means that "modifier to damage" and "modifier to damage roll" are interchangeable. If an attack deals "damage equal to UAS damage" it is the same thing as dealing "damage equal to that dealt with an UAS damage roll." AoMF increases the damage dealt with an UAS (or natural attack) damage roll, which means it increases the damage for anything that deals "damage equal to an UAS/natural attack)."

Shimesen wrote:
in the case of the special attacks in question in this thread, there is no general rule on them at all because each is its own special rule. that being said, an attack is still an attack and a melee attack only receives bonuses to attack and damage from the weapon the attack is made with. if i attack with my longbow, i cant apply the bonus from my +3 dagger to damage with it. even if i had a special quality on the bow that said "apply all bonuses you receive to melee attacks" on this bow, i still dont get the +3 from my dagger because its an entirely different weapon.

The +3 enhancement on the dagger isn't an enhancement on melee attacks, it's an enhancement on attacks with that specific dagger (it wouldn't even apply to attacks made with a second dagger in your off-hand). Something that benefits from bonuses to melee attacks generally (such as Power Attack) doesn't benefit from bonuses to attacks with one specific melee weapon. This is the difference between saying that Constrict benefits from an AoMF and saying constrict benefits from Improved Natural Attack (bite) in any creature with a bite attack.

The situation I've suggested is instead is more like "If I have an ability that lets me use my Perform(Dance) skill modifier instead of Acrobatics, does that include the bonus from a Circlet of Persuasion (+3 to cha-based checks) which increases my Perform skill but not my Acrobatics skill?" ("If I have an ability that deals the same damage as my UAS/natural attack, does that include a bonus from an AoMF, which applies to UAS/natural attack damage but not combat maneuvers or special attacks?")

The answer is apparently Yes.

Shadow Lodge

jlighter wrote:
A grapple check is not made with the intent to deal damage. You're making a grapple check to keep the opponent grappled (or pinned), or to grapple/pin the opponent in the first place. Doing damage in the process is incidental and has nothing to do with the grapple.

Yes.

To clarify my above post: when I say "grappling with intent to damage" I mean "making a grapple check to maintain a grapple and deciding to deal damage as your incidental bonus instead of moving, pinning, or tying up your opponent."

Shimesen wrote:
if you think you get the bonus from AoMF on a trample or rend's damage calculation, then its being made with a natural attack. if its being made with a natural attack (even though there is no rule to support that statement) then grapple is being made with something too...

As I said in the other thread and also above here, dealing UAS/natural attack damage does not necessarily mean you are making an UAS / natural weapon attack. Again, for reference: Dragon Roar.

EDIT:

jlighter wrote:
For what it's worth, I'm personally flexible on if the AoMF would apply to damage dealt during a grapple. At the moment, I'm on the side of it would, but I'd switch my views if I saw an argument that convinced me. I do, however, believe that the call about it not applying to the Combat Maneuver roll in the first place is the correct one.

I'd be OK with not applying the AoMF damage bonus in a grapple if and only if stabbing someone with my magic shortsword in a grapple does a flat d6 points of damage. UAS, natural, and manufactured weapons are presented side-by-side as damage options in the grapple rules and should be treated equivalently.

Shadow Lodge

No, some kind of FAQ or errata would be very helpful, but it's not necessary to define these attacks as weapon attacks. For example, it would be completely acceptable for the Devs to rule that:

1) The special attacks are not natural weapon attacks but deal the exact same damage as the creature's most relevant natural attack including DR piercing abilities (without benefiting from effects boosting the natural attack that don't directly improve damage).

2) The special attacks are not natural weapon attacks but do benefit from effects that boost natural weapon damage in general (eg AoMF) including DR piercing, but don't benefit from effects that boost specific natural attacks (eg Improved NA).

3) The special attacks are only supposed to deal damage "based on" natural attacks and can't be enhanced or pierce DR in any way unless enhanced by something that specifically boosts that special attack. While this would be disappointing to many it's not particularly unreasonable.

4) In the case of Rend, the damage is added to the triggering attack in a way similar to SA, which means it doesn't inherently bypass DR but does bypass DR if the triggering attack does and will help the triggering attack overcome the DR threshold if necessary rather than taking DR out of both the weapon and Rend separately.

Ravingdork wrote:

Are constrict and rend even effected by DR to begin with?

The rules are clear that DR only applies against attacks.

So I guess if you interpret these abilities as not being attacks and not getting the bonuses from AoMF, then they bypass DR completely (it just doesn't apply). However, if you hold the opposite viewpoint, then it stands to reason that DR would apply.

I don't think that works. Spells that deal P/B/S damage don't automatically bypass DR, so I don't think special attacks would get a free pass just because they aren't weapon attacks. (Strictly speaking only Constrict specifies a damage type, but Trample and Rend really look like they should be B and P/S respectively)

Shimesen wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

It doesn't have to use a natural weapon to make the attack to have damage equal to a natural weapon.

See for comparison Dragon Roar. Not an UAS, but deals UAS damage.

and now you have added Dragon Roar to the list of special attacks in question.

no, it doesnt have to use the weapon to deal equal damage, but to get the bonus from AoMF, you MUST make the attack with a natural weapon or UAS. so technically, your natural weapon DOESNT HAVE THIS BONUS to damage until you make an attack with it. so the "equal to" part of all these special attacks does not include the bonus because its not there.

I think instead you're getting nervous about the grapple ruling and turning it into a slippery slope.

If you have a bonus to a damage roll made with an UAS or natural attack (the wording on AoMF), you have a bonus to UAS or natural attack damage.

This becomes obvious in the Weapons section, where the terms "damage" and "damage roll" are used interchangeably:

Weapons:
Thrown Weapons: The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Projectile Weapons: Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions). A character gets no Strength bonus on damage rolls with a projectile weapon unless it's a specially built composite shortbow or longbow, or a sling. If the character has a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when he uses a bow or a sling.

...

Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

Shadow Lodge

As long as the campaign doesn't run over 5 years game time you don't have to worry about racial HD - just add levels normally as you go (starting your uncle as a normal wyrmling with no class levels).

So just make sure that your one-shot allows for a campaign on a relatively short time scale should it turn into an extended campaign. This shouldn't be too hard - I've never played in a campaign that took up more than 2 years game time.

Shadow Lodge

Mydrrin wrote:
It would be damage done by the grapple, can be non-lethal like a twisted arm, or lethal like a broken arm is how I picture it. The ruling states that grappling is a combat maneuver that is not an unarmed attack and the bonus only goes to unarmed attacks. If that logic makes sense. You are only doing damage = your unarmed strike and not making an unarmed strike. If grappling was an attack then I would say it would apply.

If you are doing damage = your UAS, then any modifications to your UAS damage would apply by definition of equality.

Would you say that a 20th level monk reverts to d4+Str damage when grappling? No, because when damaging in a grapple you deal damage equal to your UAS which will be 2d10+Str+misc modifiers for a 20th level monk. There is no indication anywhere that you should keep track of a separate "UAS damage during a grapple." It's the same damage.

But dealing UAS damage does not necessarily require you to make an UAS. See Dragon Roar or the similar Genie Style feats (eg Efreeti Touch) which deal your UAS damage without actually making an UAS.

Mydrrin wrote:

My understanding of how it works is that you only get damage bonus if it helps you do the maneuver better. If you don't get the bonus with hitting then how can one get it for damaging, in other words if it doesn't apply to hit then how can it apply to damage.

...
How to explain it better: you are twisting an arm, does your amulet make you better at twisting the arm?

To me, the grappling rules for damage support the enhancement bonus to the combat maneuver grapple.

The UAS weapon is incidental to the grapple check despite being key to the damage because the damage is incidental to the success of the grapple.

Making a grapple check, even with intent to deal damage, is not just about damaging someone. If you were just damaging the grappled opponent, you would make a normal attack roll or full-attack (with all bonuses from the AoMF) and then release the grapple due to failure to maintain it. A successful grapple check requires you to maintain control over your opponent's body. If you are grappling for damage, you are maintaining control over your opponent while also looking for an opportunity to twist an arm, elbow the face, etc. Control is the goal, damage is a bonus.

The amulet's enhancement helps you to strike accurately and to put extra force into damaging. It is unable to help you maintain the grapple because maintaining control in a tight grappling situation requires a different skill set from accurate striking. However, the skill of applying force to a part of someone's body translates much better so the enchantment is relevant to that part.

You could also say that grappling for damage with an AoMF represents a quick opportunistic strike rather than a damaging lock - that by making a grapple check you maneuver someone into a position in which you get a sort of auto-hit with your strike or weapon and deal appropriate damage without making an attack roll (or activating other effects that key off a "hit").

Shadow Lodge

It doesn't have to use a natural weapon to make the attack to have damage equal to a natural weapon.

See for comparison Dragon Roar. Not an UAS, but deals UAS damage.

Shadow Lodge

The grappling rules are intentionally vague to allow all sorts of positioning to be summarized with a successful grapple check. Many kinds of holds could be represented by a successful pin, and damaging during a grapple could be flavoured as pushing one of many locks to the point of actual damage rather than just pain.

Generally PF tends to group similar techniques together under the same rule set because it's cumbersome to represent all the advantages and disadvantages of related techniques (such as those performed when on top of your opponent vs on the bottom, air chokes vs blood chokes, etc). You don't get a penalty for trying to perform a hip throw on someone shorter than you, you just make a trip attempt to perform the most appropriate throw under the circumstance.

Slivan "Sli" Simmeran wrote:
I can house rule it but given the nature of Jiu Jitsu im not sure what would better suite a check. Jiu Jitsu by design is meant to use your challengers strength against him. My time training in the sport I have come across people who relied exclusively on strength and others including myself rely on dex or being flexible.

Agile Maneuvers allows Dex-based grappling.

Slivan "Sli" Simmeran wrote:
Another road block is how would you determine position (advantage/disadvantage) by its nature, just because youre on the bottom doesn't mean youre in danger. You can threaten the enemy from your back with him on top.

And this is why position is solely represented by advantage/disadvantage in the grapple system. If you make a grapple check, you have the advantage, whether that means you're on top or you're on the bottom and applying a technique such as a lock that gives you control over your opponent.

Slivan "Sli" Simmeran wrote:
Example; Orc trips and grapples PC. Orc is on top of PC. Athletics check? or Dex check, to see if the PC successfully pulls orc into his/her guard.

Grapple check to take control of the grapple the orc started.

Slivan "Sli" Simmeran wrote:
Athletics or dex check to set up a triangle? Should the orc make a save vs this check to successfully block the attempt? I guess the CMB could be used over the checks?

Grapple check. The orc's "save" is represented by his CMD.

Slivan "Sli" Simmeran wrote:
]I figure after 1 full round the orc would be choked out (not dead). In the real world it doesn't take long to cut off the blood flow to the brain if the choke is in deep and correct. Or should it be 2 rounds? Should a save be made by the orc to try and fight through the choke and possibly reverse it? Some chokes and arm locks will compromise your position so I try to keep this in mind.

Grapple check to damage.

Or, use Chokehold. The feat clearly an air choke since it starts at the top of suffocation rules, but since it's a bit underpowered to take 20 rounds (2 minutes) of maintaining a grapple to choke out a fighter of average Con I would suggest house-ruling it to start at the constitution check part of the suffocation rules. Every round the choked character succeeds at the Con check they get another grapple/Escape Artist check to escape the grapple (breaking the choke).

The -5 penalty to grapple checks while using chokehold represents compromising your position if necessary to get a choke.

Suffocation:
A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.

When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.

For locks there's also Jawbreaker, Bonebreaker, and Neckbreaker, which talk about striking but could easily also cover joint locks followed through to actual damage (Bonebreaker in particular).

If you want it easier for grapplers to use these tricks without taking a bunch of feats, you may rule that characters without the feats can try the same tricks but at reduced effect and/or at a penalty. For example, a character not trained in applying Chokeholds can use the feat but can only apply air chokes and take a -4 penalty on grappling for the duration (on top of the penalty applied by the feat) because they're not as good at preserving their position while choking.

Shadow Lodge

The ruling says

Pathfinder Devs wrote:
master arminas wrote:

When a character or creature is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists and attempts a grapple maneuver, does the enhancement bonus of the AoMF (if any) add to the character's roll to perform the grapple?

If it does, then does the enhancement bonus (if any) also apply to the character resisting a grapple maneuver?
...

The answer is no. An amulet of might fists "grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons." You make a combat maneuver to grapple.

That sounds to me like they were specifically ruling against using the AoMF bonus on the grapple check (the roll to perform the grapple), the accuracy half of the equation, not the damage roll (after successfully grappling for damage).

I've asked for clarification in the other thread, but given that much of the argument against allowing AoMF to apply to the grapple check is that grapple isn't a weapon-based combat maneuver, and the text under damaging specifically allows the use of a light or one-handed weapon, it seems pretty clear-cut to me that it's a different circumstance.

Shadow Lodge

Mydrrin wrote:

Weird questions like can a monk grappler ever overcome DR?

If the monk's "ki strike allows his unarmed attacks to be treated as magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." can't work because grapple is a combat maneuver and AotMF doesn't work.

The way I read the ruling, it only states that the AoMF bonus doesn't apply on combat maneuver checks made to grapple.

Dealing damage during a grapple still follows the rule "You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon."

This rule clearly specifies that you are using a weapon to damage and benefit from that weapon's enhanced damage (though it appears not the accuracy bonus on the actual grapple check), whether it's a magic dagger or magically enhanced UAS.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Shadow Lodge

Shimesen wrote:
just because a trample uses the same damage calculation that your natural attack does, doesnt mean that it recieves the same bonuses because you arn't actually making a natural attack with it. basically, it gets the base damage+str+size. anything else you get would also have to be aplicable to trample as well as natural attacks.

If that's what the devs intended, they should have worded it as "trample's damage equals the weapon die used for their slam plus their Str mod / 1.5xStr mod." Saying "trample's damage equals slam damage damage" means it gets the whole package - any damage modifiers applicable to slam are applicable to trample. Again, this happens indirectly by definition of equality.

Now, maybe the devs did intend "special attack damage equals natural attack weapon die + Str." They're not technical writers. But as-is there's a better argument for giving Trample an AoMF bonus than not.

fretgod99 wrote:
Things like rend and rake are far less questionable than something like trample or constrict.

Rake isn't questionable at all. As mentioned above it's an ability that grants free natural attacks under certain circumstances. It's just as entitled to an AoMF boost as the free UAS from Vicious Stomp or Panther Style's retaliatory strikes.

Personally, I think it makes more sense to treat Rend like Sneak Attack - a situational bit of bonus damage to a specific attack (the final hit that triggers rend).

Shimesen wrote:
so does a grapple because as far as some of us are concerned, the body is a natural weapon (especially in the case of a slam attack). but its not the weapon used to make a grapple. the same is true about constrict/trample/rend. currently, they do not list any specific weapon as the weapon used to deliver the attack. because of this, they are "weaponless" attacks, just like grapple and overrun.

However, the damage done by grapple is not weaponless.

"You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon.

The clear implication of this is that you are using the strike or weapon to damage. If you are grappling someone with a +1 flaming dagger and you make a grapple check to damage, you may stab them in the kidneys, benefiting from +1+d6 fire damage from the enhancement on the dagger. Likewise if you are grappling someone wearing a +1 flaming AoMF you can punch them in the kidneys, benefiting from +1+d6 fire damage.

This doesn't necessarily mean that you get the +1 bonus on the CMB check to maintain the grapple. And that makes perfect sense. Controlling a grapple is a very different skill from delivering an accurate and damaging strike, as evidenced by the fact that some martial arts styles are considered heavy on grappling (eg Brazillian Jiu Jitsu) while others are heavy on striking (eg Karate). Striking won't help you control your opponent's body in a grapple - but it will help you give them a good knock in the head/gut if the opportunity arises.

I can easily see Trample working the same way - you get the AoMF damage bonus, but not the accuracy bonus.

Shadow Lodge

Claxon wrote:
Now I really want to make a character based off Judge Dredd

Seen one. LN Half-orc inquisitor, max ranks intimidate.

Shadow Lodge

Diego Rossi wrote:

A+B can't be superior to 10. End of the rule. Nothing say you should add first A, then B. Nothing say that the way to comply with the +10 cap is to take A and then add as much of B as possible.

It can be as easily add A and B, then remove enough of one of them that the total is 10.

The bonuses permanently belonging the the weapon are naturally there first. They are present before the temporary bonus is added. Nothing says that you can remove bonuses belonging to a weapon in order to add different temporary bonuses. Thus we should assume that you can't. (In particular, there's nothing directing you how to remove/suppress those permanent bonuses - do you remove enhancement bonuses first, or special abilities? Randomly, or wielder chooses?)

Thus a +5 flaming keen weapon can't have a +4 quality like Brilliant Energy temporarily added to it.

Shadow Lodge

The descriptions of these special attacks don't say the damage is based on the natural attack damage, they say it's equal to.

Equality means that two things share the same value. If they cease to share the same value, they aren't equal. Thus if we have a rule "x is equal to y" and we increase the value of x, we must increase y to satisfy the rule.

If we have the rules: (1) Alice gets a 5% raise every year and (2) Bob is paid equally to Alice, then we must give Bob a 5% raise every year even though there is no separate rule that awards Bob a raise.

The word "typically/usually" might allow for a weird AoMF exception for Constrict and Rend (since wearing an AoMF is not "typical" and thus breaks equality) but Trample does not have this exception in the description, so anything that increases slam damage increases Trample damage by definition of equality. And if Trample is boosted by an AoMF, why the heck shouldn't Constrict or Rend be? This suggests that either "typically/usually" should be removed or else the phrase "equal to" should be changed to "based on" or "derived from" in order to make sure that these things are consistent.

Note that a successful grapple check made to damage the grappled creature invokes the same "equal to" rule. ("You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon.")

Note also that this is separate from the question about whether the AoMF grants a bonus to the CMB check to grapple which is neither an UAS nor "equal to" an UAS attack roll.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rake definitely works.

Universal Monster Rules wrote:
Rake (Ex): A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature’s description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can’t begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.

Since they're explicitly extra natural attacks, they benefit from anything that enhances natural attacks.

I think it works on the damage part of the others, too:

Universal Monster Rules wrote:

Constrict: ... The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.

Rend: ... The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus.

Trample: As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category Smaller than itself. This works just like the overrun combat maneuver, but the trampling creature does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path. Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier....

If the damage for these special attacks is equal to a natural attack, and the natural attack damage is increased, shouldn't that also increase the damage of the special attack?

The Combat Maneuver roll for trample doesn't get a bonus, though, because it's an Overrun maneuver and those don't benefit from weapon bonuses.

Shadow Lodge

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Until they've identified the monster (at least by type) how do the players know which knowledge skill is relevant?

More generally for those that allow asking questions, do you expect players to metagame what they ask or should they ask more generic questions?
I had meant to mention that as one more reason it lies entirely in the GM's purview. The GM will need help, unless he has a detailed list of all PC's Knowledge skills, and religiously checks it. But, part of my point is that the PC doesn't "know" what questions to ask, nor even, as you said, what skill to "use".

It's tricky. I try to keep track of who has what Knowledge skills but often when encountering a monster without an obvious type I'll ask for one of several knowledge checks eg if it's some sort of reptilian thing I'll ask for Nature (animals) or Arcana (dragon or magical beast). Then I'll give info according to the appropriate skill - for example if it turns out it's a dinosaur I'll tell the character who rolled Nature he ID'd it if the roll is high enough. If the character with the right knowledge fails but the one with the wrong knowledge rolls high I'll tell them that they can rule out the relevant types ("This creature doesn't seem magical in nature to you").

kinevon wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Don't fix what ain't broke. The skill says it's not an action to use and that you can't retry.
All I can say to this is: "Know Thy Enemy" which is both a spell and a special ability of one or more class archetypes.

The spell appears to grant a reroll by common sense in that most groups automatically allow a free knowledge check immediately on encountering a monster and the spell describes thinking back to a monster previously encountered. Since it grants a hefty bonus to the check it makes sense that the character might remember something about the monster that he/she hadn't thought of at the time.

Class abilities like those of the Lore Warden or Student of War that allow Knowledge checks as part of a non-free action do not mean that a normal Knowledge check is not made as a free action. Instead these abilities give you the option to increase the time spent identifying the creature, making a more careful than usual study in order to gain special tactical advantages.

1 to 50 of 2,277 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.