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

blackbloodtroll's page

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 29,864 posts. No reviews. 5 lists. 1 wishlist. 9 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 29,864 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Sparrow Sundance wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Man, being a Gunslinger in PFS, is rough.
Yeah, but it's still pretty sweet. Try being a paladin to boot!

Well, I have not yet had a chance to run my Paladin yet.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am against DMs telling a player how his PC feels.

Unless forced by a spell, or other mind-effecting effect, this should never happen.

Personally, in such a case, I would walk. If the DM wants to run my PC, I don't need to be there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, that FAQ does not.

If a FAQ causes an entire part of the rules, to simply no longer function, than it is a bad FAQ.

Saying that Take 10 is only an option, if nothing bad would happen if you rolled low, than the entire mechanic is pointless.

You might as well Take 20, or roll a d20, without purpose, as any roll is sufficient.

You would not even need to look at the dice.

No reasonable person would run it this way.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I stated above, how Atheism works in Golarion.

To have a PC live in Golarion, and simply not believe that magic, and gods exist, is not plausible, unless something has caused the PC to be willfully ignorant of all evidence otherwise, and be mentally/psychologically challenged in some way.

Perhaps, he could start out that way, maybe coming into Golarion, and arriving in Alkenstar, but should he leave the magic dead country, the evidence will be indisputable.

Should he arrive in Alkenstar, it would make going Gunslinger even more plausible, and fit well into the concept, and character development.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Has no one read the CRB quoted text I provided?

Fear of a "penalty", or otherwise bad income, from a failed check, does not prevent one's ability to Take 10.

It explicitly states that is one of the reasons one would Take 10.

Can one not see how ruling otherwise, is in direct opposition to the stated rules?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I need to address the entry I posted above, as it shows quite clear, that fear of failure does not prevent one from Taking 10.

In fact, it notes that one might Take 10, because they fear failure.

Fear of failure as a distraction, preventing one from Taking 10, is in direct opposition as to one of the reasons why Take 10 exists, and is explicitly stated as such.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why would the Take 10 rules specifically mention it's use to avoid failure, if possible failure made Taking 10 impossible.

PRD wrote:
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. 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). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.

Relevant text bolded above.

PRD link here..

Please note, that not only does it mention it as a safety measure, but you take the measure because you fear you may fail otherwise.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Page 182, of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook:

CRB wrote:

You can make attacks with natural weapons in

combination with attacks made with a melee weapon
and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used
for each attack.
For example, you cannot make a claw
attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a
longsword. When you make additional attacks in this
way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary
natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus
5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on
damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and
Multiattack (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) can reduce
these penalties.

This is so dang specific, that the combination works, I could not see how one could argue otherwise.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Logically plausible in our world severely limits his options, and would logically, put him at a level cap. At a certain level, PCs of any class, are basically superhuman. Though, you could say the PC eventually adapts, and find that within this realm, he can actually achieve superhuman-like abilities, through training.

So, with that in mind, I am going to suggest Gunslinger.

In particular, a Musket Master.

This is plausible, as one not from Golarion, would seek a weapon that he might understand, and believes has a chance against the fantastical creatures he encounters, and magic slinging Humanoids.

He will work with elements he knows, and has faith that it will protect him.

Later, he will learn to adapt, and assimilate elements of Golarion into his fighting style. Using Alchemical Cartridges, and enchanting his weapon.

The reason a suggest Musket Master specifically, is that it would makes sense to favor a larger weapon, with such a PC.

It also allows him to choose to go the way of Vital Strike, if firing more than once per round deviates from his concept.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Is Skelotel a cousin of Skeletor?

Is not a Gana a servant of Shiva?

Is the "counsisness of course" some kind of incest/cannibalism focused sect of Isis?

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
2) This is debated, due to the language of shield spikes. The only written example says yes, but others say no.

There is debate, but really there shouldn't be.

The FAQ makes it abundantly clear, that the Spiked Shield is a virtual size increase and it won't stack with Bashing.

I believe the "debate" centers around the belief in some people that they intended to let them stack and may have forgot about them when they wrote the FAQ. The original FAQ question was "do spiked shield and bashing or improved natural attack and strong jaw stack?" They answered it by saying "+1 size and +2 size don't stack". Both those examples are +1 and +2 size abilities.

Yeeeeeah, I not going to agree with you on some of that.

I don't really think this is the thread for this debate, but I would avoid using the "abundantly clear" statement.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, the rules are not set to restrict, or dictate, roleplay.

This is entirely on purpose.

First, I must say "this is what my alignment would do" is one of the stupidest things I ever hear at a table. No one, should ever say this.


A character's beliefs, and behavior, determine alignment, not the other way around.

Second, the DM decides the what happens with NPCs, and how roleplay effects the world around the PCs. If the DM decides an action happens before, or after another action(outside of combat), then that's what happens.

The player never dictates order of operations, actions of other players, or NPCs.

If a player says "No, this happens first, the NPC does this, and the other players do this" he/she is forcefully taking away the power, and role, of the DM, and other players.

That's what we call, a "dick move".

So, unless the group decides the dynamic has changed, and one player gets to decide what other players do, what NPCs do, and how the world works, then the player has broken the social contract, and is being a jerk.

So, this is where the DM says "You decide what your PC does, other players decide what their PCs do, and I decide everything else. Got it?"

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Shields are only "weird" in that many want them to function oddly.

As is, there really is nothing too complicated.

Some want them to be bricks of uselessness, tied to the arm, and some want them to be fantastically expensive, for unknown, or illogical reasons.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rub-Eta wrote:

First: Remember that they count as martial weapons for the purpose of being used as weapons.

1. Spikes are a part of the shield, I've seen devs putting it like "you can't enchant the studs in studded leather armour".
1a. I'm pretty sure that a regular +1 shield only grants +1 enhancment bonus to AC, you'll need a seperat weapon enhancment for damage and to-hit chance (otherwise shield would be the cheapes weapon). Don't know if they count towards the same limit though.
2. You are correct. Spikes don't do damage them selves. Spiked shields are seperat items with altered damage type and die to one higher (it wouldn't be 2d6 anyways).
3. It is made as an off-hand attack, just like how some natrual attacks are secondary or primary, shields are not designed as weapons. They would suffer the off-hand penalty even if you only used them and no weapon in main-hand. Due to the nature of how shields are equiped, I wouldn't really allow someone to two-hand a shield. Maybe after some thought, tough they'd still be treated as off-hand weapons in regards of to-hit and x1.0 in damage.

That's all wrong, and all houserules. Also, a bit silly.

Captain America frowns on such silliness.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Consequences of failure, and their prevention of doing so, apply to the rules of Take 20.

Take 20, is not Take 10, and consequences of failure, do not unable one from Taking 10.

How can I make this more clear?

Take 20 is not Take 10.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

1) They make the Shield a piercing Martial Weapon, and deal more damage.
Feats like Weapon Focus(Heavy Shield) apply to both Spiked, and non-Spiked varieties.
1a) Separately.

2) This is debated, due to the language of shield spikes. The only written example says yes, but others say no.

3) Yes, and yes. See this FAQ.

In the end, a shield is a weapon.

It functions as a weapon, can be used with feats that apply to weapons, can be enchanted as a weapon, belongs in a Fighter Weapon Group, and if is an One-handed weapon, like the Heavy Shield, it can be wielded in two hands, for x1.5 Strength to damage, and -1 to +3 Power Attack, just like any other One-handed weapon.

Also, there are no "off-hand only" weapons.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, just get some Armor Spikes.

You will threaten adjacent squares just fine.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, asking for a copy of each player's PC, is not automatically a sign that someone suspects cheating.

There are many reasons for having them.

1) Player's lose sheets. Best to have a back-up.

2) DMs likes to have an idea of what he/she is up against.

3) DMs may want to customize treasure, encounters, or other parts of the game to better suite the PCs.

I know Herolab was mentioned. I have Herolab.

I usually ask other players, if they want to have a digital copy of their PC.
If they say yes, I enter the information into Herolab, and produce a sheet, for them. If there are errors, I first check with the source material, to see if it is Herolab(it's good, but not perfect), and then if not, I tell the player, and volunteer to help them correct the mistakes.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Potions of Sky Swim would be highly effective.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Man, being a Gunslinger in PFS, is rough.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Diminuendo wrote:

really, other than a couple of Rogue Talents a Sanctified Slayer Inquisitor fits the mold of Cleric/Rogue.

If you want Rogue Talents take two levels of Rogue, go the rest SS Inquisitor and take the Extra Rogue Talent Feat as needed.

As long as it's Unchained Rogue, or Slayer. Not Core Rogue.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Just a mistake then.

It happens.

Remember, Masterwork provides only a +1 Enhancement bonus to hit, and not damage.

So, there is no +1 Masterwork, just Masterwork.

Also, outside of the PRD, Archives of Nethys, and d20pfsrd, are great resources.

Make sure there are no hard feelings all around. It sounds like you all are learning.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I would stick something that will give you, and your DM, the least amount of a rules headache.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Do I need enough Fame to purchase it full price, or half?

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you have the PDF, you can download the latest printing.

You can also download errata here.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Do you have an older printing?

My CRB says:

CRB wrote:

You can make attacks with natural weapons in

combination with attacks made with a melee weapon
and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used
for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw
attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a
longsword. When you make additional attacks in this
way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary
natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus
5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on
damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and
Multiattack (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) can reduce
these penalties.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is nothing like this in Pathfinder Society, as there is nothing available in PFS, that does not exist normally in the game.

Who said this?

John Compton?

Just because you play PFS, doesn't make you some kind of authority.

It's not a exclusive group of "master gamers".

I know 10 year olds that play PFS.

If they mean some kind PFS material, it's not in there either.

I scoured the PFS scenarios, and PFS sanctioned modules, there is nothing like this in any of them.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

We know exactly how this works.

Two Claws, with two Boot Blades, or two Unarmed Strikes, functions the same way.

Natural Attacks do not prevent Unarmed Strike attacks.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Unchained Rogue?

If not, you are basically gimping yourself to near uselessness.

Why don't you just describe the concept, and we can see if we can find a better fit, yes?

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber


There is nothing like that in Ultimate Equipment.

If they want to use houserules, at least they could be honest.

I scoured not only Ultimate Equipment, but Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Campaign, Advanced Player's Guide, Advanced Class Guide, and Pathfinder Unleashed.

None contain such a thing, or similar.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
The Storm of Swords wrote:
One is a circumstance and one is insight so yes

No, it's not.

Both explicitly just replace strength for dexterity.

That's it.

EDIT: Whoops, you are not talking about the OP.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I was hoping to nab a Firearm, not available as a Gunslinger starter weapon.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Those are two different sources, creating the same effect.

Replace strength with dexterity, and replace strength with dexterity.

It's like an effect that effect that makes you Invisible, and an effect that makes you Invisible. You don't become "double Invisible".

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Okay, so The Fox's suggestion is the only way to have a Firearm as a Bonded Object?

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You know how Atheism works in Golarion?

To quote the Inner Sea Guide:

Inner Sea Guide wrote:


Atheism is the rejection of the gods. Rather than outright disbelieving in gods (whose existence is a matter of hard fact), atheists in Golarion instead deny that the gods are truly divine and thus not deserving of worship or blind faith. Thus, atheists may be classed as dystheists or misotheists.

Atheism is looked down upon in many parts of Golarion, but is enforced on a state level in the nations of Rahadoum in Garund, Touvette in the River Kingdoms[4], and Bachuan in Tian Xia. The devils known as deimaviggas believe that atheism is a tool to be used to lead mortals away from the gods and into Hell's embrace. Some atheists have learned to heal themselves via mind-over-matter mental techniques in the absence of divine magic.

Despite their lack of faith, atheist souls are still judged by Pharasma. Some become bodiless spirits in the Astral Plane or are reincarnated, but most find their fate in the Graveyard of Souls.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you have a level in Gunslinger, are firearms still not always available?

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Commoner, and you cannot level. Ever.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
jhansonxi wrote:
Sean K Reynolds (designer) comment about unarmed and natural attacks

Yeah, I have read that tons of times.

It is his opinion, but it doesn't make any sense within the rules, and RAW directly disagrees with just about everything he is saying.

Also, that's a thread about the Tentacle Discovery, which has it's own crazy specific rules.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Dekalinder wrote:

I think that a "sane ruling" is one that does not allow Weapon versatility to treat Harpoon as one handed weapons (net adept), does not allow to threaten 10 feat and pin opponent with a morning star (whip mastery chain) and does not let you use pummelling charge with a 18-20 crit weapon (urumi).

But then, everybody has his own concept of "broken" and "sane", so it's up for debate.

Weapon Versatility, is not Martial Versatility.

Those are two different feats.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, the addition of the extra line puts a special restriction.

Pummeling Style is a style feat, in addition to being a combat feat.

They require a Swift Action to activate, and cannot be used with other style feats, without special abilities/feats.

When you use Pummeling Style, you are using the style, in a addition to what are using the feat for. So, when you activate Pummeling Style, you can use the options in the Pummeling Style feat, along with the Pummeling Charge, and Pummeling Bully feats, if you have them.

The additional line in Pummeling Style, basically let's you know the options allowed in the Style(not just the feat), are exclusive to unarmed strikes.

So, it's not as simple.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I think I know what card game you are talking about.

Thing is, everybody has agreed to a social contract, that cheating is part of that game.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I was thinking Mysterious Stranger, into Sorcerer with the Arcane Bloodline.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Even if you could, it wouldn't stack.

Bonuses from the same source, do not stack.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Diminuendo wrote:

"sane ruling" - ?

Tell my why, after a three feat investment, it isn't "sane" to allow me to use a longsword with Dex to hit and damage.

Slashing Grace, more or less, already does that.

Of course, without a level in Swashbuckler, or Daring Champion Cavalier, you will need an Effortless Lace.

I get what you are saying though.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I don't know if I would use Unseen Servant, but it is interesting enough to put more thought into that idea of a Sorcerer dip.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
ZanThrax wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Consequences of failure do not affect one's ability to Take 10.

In fact, it can be the entire reason you Take 10.

It's usually the entire reason that I want to take 10 at least. If a particularly bad roll means that I fail a relatively simple task, and there's no benefit to a particularly high roll, then that is exactly the sort of roll that take 10 was intended to be used for.

But try convincing some GMs of that. I know that I sometimes want to have my characters be good enough at a skill that I can "take 1" and still succeed, just to avoid the next argument of why I should be able to take 10 to jump that 6' gap with my remotely-competent Acrobatics skill without having to accept a 5 or 10 percent chance to fall in and die.

Are you, angrily agreeing with me?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber


I consistently keep printed copies of the latest updated Additional Resources page, so I will likely highlight the noted quotes, to show to any Judge that questions it.

This should quickly solve any potential problems.

Most Judges don't like going online to doublecheck that, during game.

So, having quick, easily read proof helps.

I do similar things with almost all my PFS PCs.

For example, for my Intimidate focused Inquisitor, I keep a copy of all relevant rules, and FAQs, regarding Intimidate.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

We had the "Kanji Dice" guy.

He had a d20 that had Kanji representing each number. Nobody could read them, but him.

So, he consistently rolled well. We eventually made a houserule, that all dice, must be easily read by everyone.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You will have better Saves, more Charisma, for which Shadow Conjuration and Evocation are based off of. Lack of Smite progression does not hurt the build too badly.

Paladin is actually a better martial, all around, than the Fighter.

Now, Ranger is a good choice as well.

I would advise against Fighter, as your Saves will be tough to deal with.

Going Rogue is nearly suicide.

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If I were to dip a caster, I would think that Sorcerer would be the choice.

Go second level in to Sorcerer, choose the Arcane Bloodline, and get a free Masterwork Dragon Pistol.

Along with access to Abundant Ammunition, Mending, and other helpful goodies.

Just a thought.

1 to 50 of 29,864 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.