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

cnetarian's page

972 posts (976 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 972 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

You cannot charge (a full round action) and cleave (a move action) without some way of getting both a full and attack action in the same round. Cleaving finish is not a cleave attack, but an additional attack after finishing a foe - note that cleaving finish does not have the adjacency restriction of cleave. Cleave is a standard action so you can move and cleave, just not charge.


pennywit wrote:
Limnen_euron wrote:
Greylurker wrote:


It's like Batman+Ghost Rider+The Punisher in one sexy package.

Very well put. I picture an inquisitor of Calistria as the ultimate hard-boiled fiction private-eye, dealing in secrets, imparting vigilante/poetic justice and willfully dealing with both the best and worst human nature has to offer.

Basically the guy you turn to when everything and everyone else has failed you. Scorned lovers, wronged victims whom traditional justice has turned its back on, those whose freedom has been taken away are all people who could seek a Calistrian inquisitor's help.

I would see such a character very well contextualized in a Sin city-like setting, for example.

"I am vengeance!!! I am the night !!! I am ... Well, hello there, good-looking ... "

The chief weapon of the Calistrian Inquisition is that so many think Calistria is all about the sex and forget that prostitution is only part of the Lady In The Room's portfolio.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I favor translator, translating words and gestures into "something else". For something more unconventional you might consider an artist who converts the images in his or her mind to reality. If the mage is of the proper type they could be considered an illustrator who takes words written on the pages of books and creates things that people can see.


Played with an inquisitor of Calistria before and the only piece of advice I have is "do not leave the inquisitor alone to torture someone for information." Hours of torture and she forgot to ask any questions.

Anywho, holy spies sounds a lot like inquisitors to me, and that is a time-worn path for followers of the Sacred Sting.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Infused only lasts 1 min

As does a CL 1 abundant ammo spell. since 1) many a 6 BAB gunslinger fires 3 times/round as the default 2) alchemical infusion only becomes a free action at alchemist level 15 (move action until level 6 when it becomes a swift action) and 3) there is no reason to believe that a grenadier can infuse an alchemical mixture in a pack into a bullet in a firearm the AA/infused combination seems to be the way to make the grenadier/gunslinger combination work best. It still takes a round of buffing to infuse a bullet and use a wand of AA, but it allows the grenadier/gunslinger to infuse every shot.


HangarFlying wrote:
Although the grave dirt does kind of muck up the tuxedo a wee bit.

What, your vampire doesn't have skill:craft(pottery) to make ceramic accessories from his native/grave soil? I suppose it would be mostly ashtrays because they go with a coffin'.


note: it seems to be legal to combine infused ammo (from second level grenadier ability) with the Abundant Ammo spell (alchemical liquids and powders are not magical). A first level spell and alchemists have UMD as a class skill...


I could see it as an option if you needed a level of arcane casting for a prestige class, the only option to get magic fang and arcane spell casting or something similar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Loros wrote:

The Synthesist states in the write-up that it uses the eidolon's physical scores and base attack bonus, though.

So if you were a 19th level Paladin who threw on the 'exosuit' then your attack bonus would drop 18 points.

So a dip into that archetype would actually be pretty painful.

no, there was a FAQ or dev post that the eidolon's BAB was added to the BAB from classes other than summoner. cannot recall where it was, but some search fu should turn up the answer.

edit:It was a FAQ


GM fiat.

There are 3 approaches which I split fantasy game worlds into:

1) this is a rich world where even peasants have magic items
2) this is a poor world where adventurers will maybe see a magic item once per year, if they adventure enough
3) forget about how it works, the rules are reasonably balanced and, more importantly, fun to play.

If having a nonsensical economy makes for an unfun game for you, then create rules for a realistic economy (warning: your fellow players might not find it fun). D&D based games usually don't worry about realistic economies because it takes a considerable amount of time and effort that could be spent adventuring and most players would rather do the adventuring. If spending the time needed to set up a working economy interests you it might be a good idea to lay your hands on the Chivalry & Sorcery rules, buried in that set of rules is some good info on how to make a realistic medieval based fantasy economy (although the C&S economy simulation is not perfect).


The 'returning' weapon enchant. Sounds good until you realize it is almost completely useless since it returns at the end of the turn.


an anatomy doll is a 1,000GP and a wand of CLW is 750GP. The wand heals much faster, but the doll doesn't have charges. By the time a PC goes through their first CLW wand the anatomy doll user is taking so long to get healed that the rest of the party is beginning to complain - healing 30 points of damage with a +8 WILL save (70% chance of breaking the connection when used) takes about 10 minutes.


At low levels works fine, once the dhampir gets a decent will save it becomes more a hassle than a heal since there seems to be no way to not save to break the link. Note that it only works with living (not undead) creatures, there are very few living creatures with a negative energy affinity.


Wait, they knew the Red Mantis was after them and one of them went off alone to pee? When will people learn:

Quote:
Well, you're not going to be alone any more, right? If you pee, I pee. Is that clear?


Captain Morgan wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable for some things to attack casters, but dumb monsters probably shouldn't be ignoring the thing that just slashed them. I mean, a pack of wolves will use pack tactics, but they won't know that the big guy with the sword is hitting harder and faster because of the scrawny guy he's defending.

But pack tactics against groups usually work out to distracting the strong and isolating a weak straggler for the kill.


Zwordsman wrote:

also I don't think alchemists have shuriken proficency so you'd need to spend a feat or something to get it.

To draw daggers quickly you might wanna get quick draw feat though

There are ways to get shuriken proficiency, like half-elf ancestral arms. The primary (not only) reason I say shuriken are superior to daggers is the abundant ammo spell, poison is outrageously expensive and even alchemical infusions cost more than a scroll of abundant ammunition. There are areas where daggers are superior too, especially in terms of enchantments, but I think shuriken can be made to work better with the character concept. This is all moot however if the OP feels that shuriken are not acceptable as throwing knives.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
cnetarian wrote:

Does it have to be knives, because mechanically shiruken would work better?

How do you figure? Daggers do more damage, fly just as far, and don't count as ammo so they don't break when you throw them. The shuriken's only advantage can be negated with quick draw.

not having to take quick draw at level 3 is a big advantage for the feat poor alchemist class.


Does it have to be knives, because mechanically shiruken would work better?


The Grenadier archetype can build towards the transformations and such but focuses on combining weapons with alchemy.


dunno if it is intended to allow a move action or a move action, but I read it as a move action which is the first type of move action listed in the CRB.


Nicos wrote:
cnetarian wrote:

Baring the odd freak critical and characters built around making AoOs, bypassing the martials is not going to kill most monsters.

And bypassing the other party memebsr will not make most monster kill the caster in one movement.

Usually if I have a monster move next to a spellcaster it will trip them, then trip them again if the spellcaster tries to stand up or AoO them during the cast if they try to cast while prone and force a concentration check. Spellcasters are usually pretty weak in the CMD so it works fairly well.


anlashok wrote:

So basically if the martial doesn't have combat reflexes and if the martial doesn't have a good AoO and if the martial isn't within 10 feet (15 feet with a reach weapon, heaven forbid they're enlarged) of the caster and if the caster doesn't have any defensive buffs or features ready the tactic is flawless.

Eh, maybe.

huh? rather the exact opposite, take your formulation convert the 'and's to 'or's and try it again. A player can only make one AoO without combat reflexes & even with combat reflexes to make more than 1 AoO needs other tricks to turn bypassing them into a death sentence. Baring the odd freak critical and characters built around making AoOs, bypassing the martials is not going to kill most monsters.

Is it always a good idea to bypass the martials? Of course not, but it isn't suicide either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A note to GMs, do not let allow houses to be used as a PC race, everyone will want to play one and then you will have a house party.


Ascalaphus wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

This strategy sounds like the monsters don't actually care if they survive, just as long as Team Monster gets to kill some PCs. They'll gladly charge through the gauntlet of AoO-ing martials just on the off chance they survive to reach the wizard at the rear. Most of them die in the process.

Meanwhile, the GM piously claims that the monsters are just doing what's smart. That's not true though; they're doing what's good for the boss of the monsters (who has more sacrificial minions available), not what's good for the individual monsters.

Unless the party is full of people who have combat reflexes, great positioning and strange tricks, the most a monster is going to eat is one AoO per party member, which is frequently a better choice than letting a caster get off a spell. And once monster A has run the gauntlet partway feasting on some of the AoOs then monster B can run the first part of the gauntlet safely because all the AoOs have been used up.

So from the monster's perspective, it's okay that the first one is just going to get killed running in, hoping that the second one can kill the wizard with one hit? Because if you don't, you've just surrounded yourself with PCs about to engage in a full attack.

These tactics smell like a suicide bomber trying to do the most damage, not monsters being smart and caring about their own survival.

Why equate taking AoOs with death? I'd much rather take an AoO or two from smashy smash types than an maximized scorching ray from a member of the bathrobe brigade. Unless fighting well positioned dexterity martials with combat reflexes, charging through to a caster is also far less deadly than letting a barbarian slice-and-dice you with a full attack. Buying the AoOs and putting yourself in a position where the martials cannot make a full attack on you is a defensive tactic, winding up in a position where you can stop a spell is an even better defense.


unless the wizard completely tanked his physical stats this should let him feel relevant for a while.


Ascalaphus wrote:

This strategy sounds like the monsters don't actually care if they survive, just as long as Team Monster gets to kill some PCs. They'll gladly charge through the gauntlet of AoO-ing martials just on the off chance they survive to reach the wizard at the rear. Most of them die in the process.

Meanwhile, the GM piously claims that the monsters are just doing what's smart. That's not true though; they're doing what's good for the boss of the monsters (who has more sacrificial minions available), not what's good for the individual monsters.

Unless the party is full of people who have combat reflexes, great positioning and strange tricks, the most a monster is going to eat is one AoO per party member, which is frequently a better choice than letting a caster get off a spell. And once monster A has run the gauntlet partway feasting on some of the AoOs then monster B can run the first part of the gauntlet safely because all the AoOs have been used up.


Nicos wrote:
Atarlost wrote:


A group of NPCs should also not be involving themselves in a fight with the PCs unless they believe they will emerge victorious. Two or three opponents hitting the caster probably will drop him in a round if they have any business in the fight in the first place. It is, again, always best to eliminate force multipliers first, though if they knew they were up against a pure SoD or blasty caster with no force multiplier or domination capabilities at all a group might not prioritize him.

Are we talking about going for the caster even if that means eating an AoO? because trading three of your group to take down one of the other group does not sound smart unless your number are high enough. If they are strong enough to kill a caster that way, then losig them is big hit for the enemy group.

There is nothing wrong with eating an AoO, I get amazed at the worry some people have about it. Your opponent has to seriously outclass you* if an AoO is going to put you out of a fight. The problem is not taking an AoO to make the attack, it is leaving yourself in a position to eat a full-attack.

*well not at the first few levels when one lucky hit can take out anyone, as I discovered when a @#$% level 1 commoner with a scythe crit for 32 points.


Krodjin wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
seeing as a sap is a light weapon, a feat which says "[y]ou can use your sling as a sap" probably lets you treat it as a light weapon - thus finessable.

This is really the big question as far as I'm concerned... If attacking with your sling in this way is an attack with a light weapon, it makes a switch-hitter style build a possibility.

It also obsoletes the slingstaff... Well, this feat combined with the FAQ on the Warslinger alt. racial trait for halflings obsoletes the slingstaff entirely.

To clarify my answer, failing some official pronouncement otherwise you should treat the sling used as a sap as if it was a sap in being a light weapon.


seeing as a sap is a light weapon, a feat which says "[y]ou can use your sling as a sap" probably lets you treat it as a light weapon - thus finessable.


CommandoDude wrote:
If you are going to take advantage of mounted combat, there is significant feat investment to make the best out of it. Additionally, not using a lance means you will do less damage early game and much less damage late game (in fact, late game Lance & Spirited Charge is the ONLY thing that keeps your charges relevant when it comes to damage as Full Attack classes will start to quickly outclass you)

so make full attacks at high levels instead of charging, got it.

the OP wanted to know if there were any tricks to making a viable cavalier using a glaive instead of a lance and fights from the back of a mount. while there are several better builds (even something as simple as switching to a nodachi) that isn't what the OP wants to know. upon re-reading the original post the OP might not even require the cavalier class, so if the OP is still around can we use other classes? in which case there are plenty of good options for a mounted glaive wielding melee fighter.


Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:

I've put together a few throwing builds that are pretty good.

They all suffered from the problem they didn't really start to shine until you get the lesser belt of mighty hurling, which is like a level 7 item. Also, DR was always an issue pre-clustered shots, because unlike a bow its impractical to enchant them. Throwing also has a feat tax built in and is still beat by archery.

I can make a few that are DECENT pre-level 7, but I don't like the 6 level valley of suck.

That said pretty sure bows > throwing every time. Doesn't mean you can't make a competent one, just that there's a lot of incentive to not try.

** spoiler omitted **

have you considered grafting 2 levels of spherewalker onto that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While houses may seem overpowered, someone must found an easy way to kill them, otherwise there wouldn't be so much house wine.


I'm not certain what Justynthyme is referring to, but a comment which might be on point: alchemical cartridges do not seem to interact with lightning reload - the description makes no mention of changing the reloading speed of swift actions.


graystone wrote:

As to where it's from, it's the inner sea combat book. And the others got it right. Unfolding wind strike is in the style line that starts with perfect style. perfect style also grants electricity resistance 5.

As far as double the range increment from both, I don't know of a reason they wouldn't both work. Neither mentions not working with similar effects.

No reason in the rules, but combining the two gives some odd results like a javelin that goes further than an arrow from a composite longbow or a chakram with twice the range of a shortbow.


Zwordsman wrote:
graystone wrote:
MoMS two levels can get you Perfect Style + Unfolding Wind Strike for "Double the range increment of thrown weapons".
I can barely find much info on perfect style where is it from or what does it do? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/perfect-style-combat-style is all I can find. I assume it's not the resistance your referring to, so it must be some house (whatever that be) but I can't find much on that.

That seems to be the one, the reason to take perfect style is that 1) it is required for unfolding wind strike and 2)it gives the character a ki pool. Not sure if the unfolding wind strike bonus stacks with the distance enchant.


A few tarrot based non-combat encoutners

Wheel of Fortune could be an actual wheel of fortune with each player having the option to take a spin. Gain a week long enhancement bonus to a characteristic or take a similar penalty, gain or lose 10% of wealth and so on.

The Moon, of course, is an illusion, perhaps an combat style encounter.

The Chariot could be the party being surrounded by a ring of fire which does 1d6 damage until the party walks through it (describe the heat getting stronger) taking no damage.

The Priestess would be something hidden, perhaps a hidden door.

The Tower could sex-change all of the members of the party (I was thinking alignment but that could cause problems).

The Hermit would be something which separates the party so that each player must face an individual challenge, perhaps two internal voices talking to the player and the player having to decide which internal voice to listen to.


Bob Bob Bob wrote:
Nobody else pictures a dude triumphantly whipping off his belt and his pants falling down?

Not until you mentioned it, but that is probably because it is a rare character of mine who is willing to risk their health by wearing trews.


The main advantage I found to using a lance in mounted combat is not the damage bonus to charge but that when mounted the lance is a 1handed reach weapon. (too bad it won't work for a swashbuckler.) If you want to go glaive then it is pretty much the same as a regular cavalier just don't go with one of the charge through focused builds, use a charge then full attack style build.


Don't ignore the classic teleporting treasure of temptation, the one that lures the party deeper and deeper into the dungeon.

I've been thinking of how to integrate an old character of mine from 1st ed. days. He had a sword which reduced his height (but only his height, weight, speed, jump distance and such remained the same) by 1% each week he owned it. When last seen in the campaign he was down to 3'2", but I wanted to get him down to about 6".

The rubber chicken of paladin slaying.

The X-rated Deck of Many Things. May have been a deck of illusions now that I think about it.

Aphrodite's Girdle, would reskin for PF to Calistria's Nightgown. 50% chance when donned of transforming the wearer physically into Calistria for 1 hour allowing the wearer to seduce just about anyone. 50% chance when donned of transforming the wearer mentally into Calistria for 24 hours forcing the wearer to act like the Sacred Sting.

The Water Repellant Sword enchant - this enchantment seems nice, it will keep the sword from rusting by repelling bits of water with mass less than the sword and repelling the sword away from bits of water with mass greater than the sword. Most creatures have a significant amount of water in their tissues and the sword is unable to hit them.

The Ferret Pocket Curse. Anytime someone with this curse reaches into a pocket, hole, bag, etc (basically anything that can be reached into) a ferret comes into existence right where they are reaching.


Majuba wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
In a low magic setting using slashing grace build you might find that the short sword is better until you can get improved critical, but that will depend on how low the amount of magic is.
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
A 5th human fighter can achieve this with no magic. He will need a 20 DEX but only a 10 STR which is easily done. He takes weapon finesse, slashing grace, piranha strike, double slice, and two Weapon fighting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Shortsword or Kukri qualify for Slashing Grace. Neither are one-handed slashing weapons (shortsword is piercing).

You are correct, I mention the slashing grace build because a strength focused build would likely have a higher static bonus, which shifts the balance to the kurki being the superior choice.


In the long run the kurki is better.
Without improved critical (or keen) the formula is 1.1(3.5+x) for the short sword (10% of hits become critical) and 1.15(2.5+x) for the kurki (15% of hits are crits), so when x (damage bonus) equals 20 they do the same and when x is less than 20 the short sword is better.

With improved critical the formula becomes 1.2(3.5+x) vs 1.3(2.5+x), so when x (damage bonus) is above 10 the kurki is better.

Also any effects which trigger on a critical favor the kurki, but that is beyond a straight numbers comparison. In a low magic setting using slashing grace build you might find that the short sword is better until you can get improved critical, but that will depend on how low the amount of magic is.

---forgot to mention that the formula changes if there are bonuses to confirming crits, bonuses to confirming crits favor the kurki, but I cannot think of any likely to be available before level 9.


Reid Richter wrote:

Sooo the dream is down the drain...

At least monks kan slashing-grace a temple sword, maybe they will be less MAD now.

Well there is still the agile weapon enchant route to get DEX to damage.


leo1925 wrote:
While both the dagger of doubling and the blinkback belt are good solutions, they aren't perfect. The dagger is a specific magic weapon so you can't enhance it further and the belt eats up your belt slot, which is your stat boosting slot.

Until getting into the +6 range I've never found the loss of the belt slot to be a big deal - the belts provide enhancement bonuses which can also be obtained by low level spells (bulls strength, cat's grace), potions, at least one ring (ring of the beast), ioun stones (deep red sphere) and no doubt dozens of other magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Human Diversion wrote:
A few answers to that ... beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So beauty is a copyright issue? Is it because the essential ingredient for a beauty spell can only be found in non-OGL monsters? More seriously while there are what are called universal factors of what constitutes beauty for humans, they are not actually 'universal' (apply to all humans) but only general (apply to most humans), but this only peripherally related to your point.

Assuming there is a formula for universal beauty, then ugliness is variation from the formula. In a world where extreme variation from the ideal exists then a person who has eyebrows which are 1 cm higher than the idea would still be considered beautiful (close to the ideal), while in a world where everyone is very close to the ideal someone would be ugly because their eyebrow is 2 microns higher than the ideal.

WRT to the original post I suspect if Aesthetic Wizards roamed the land, then ugliness would become more prevalent. The problem is that polymorph and similar spells do not change the true nature of the polymorphed person. A human polymorphed into a cat that has children would not have kittens because they are still a human and would pass that humanity onto their children. The ugliest would be most motivated to use Aesthetic magics, but since these do not change the true nature (read genes in RW terms) they would still have ugly children. But since the most beautiful people would be those with ugliest nature, and beautiful are sought as mates, those with the ugliest natural forms would have more children and those children would reflect their true nature.


graystone wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
The only way I know of to reasonably make a deck resemble a bonded item involves using the cartomancer(witch) 3rd level deliver touch spells returning ability. The problem is that cards are treated as darts, which are ammo and thus destroyed on a successful hit, even if they have the returning quality, for everyone but a cartomancer.

You got a couple of things wrong.

Darts are thrown weapons, not ammo. The cards are destroyed because they are cards not because they are ammo.

The third level of cartomancer prevents the cards from being destroyed. It's in the ability that grants you returning. "the card is not destroyed and gains the returning weapon special ability

Funny the SRD lists them as ammo and my CRB has them on the weapon list but has no description, as does the PRD for the Core Rule Book, although there is a description in Ultimate Equipment. Given the description in UE, the SRD must be wrong, so you are right that darts aren't ammunition. Have to make a note on that.


The only way I know of to reasonably make a deck resemble a bonded item involves using the cartomancer(witch) 3rd level deliver touch spells returning ability. The problem is that cards are treated as darts, which are ammo and thus destroyed on a successful hit, even if they have the returning quality, for everyone but a cartomancer.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Ah, but there have been reprints of the weapon.

Such as:

Varisia, Birthplace of Legends pg. 14,
Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide pg. 11,
Pathfinder Campaign Setting pg. 209,
Curse of the Crimson Throne Player's Guide pg. 13,
Adventurer's Armory pg. 18,
Inner Sea World Guide pg. 290,
and Ultimate Equipment pg. 18.

aye, and you could check through them to see when it became no longer clear that there were two modes of use if that served a purpose, but it was clear in Crimson Throne. since the question hinges on what is intended by 'counts' in the most recent mention of the weapon we can look at the earlier rules for guidance on RAI (and this is still RAW). For the purposes of the question asked, 'counts' should be interperted as "a martial slashing weapon", which would not be in the close weapon group.


A klar is NOT a spiked shield. If you check the description on p.13 of Crimson Throne you find

Quote:
Klar:You can attack an opponent with a klar, using it as an off-hand, martial slashing weapon. For the purpose of attack roll penalties, treat a klar as a light weapon. If you use a klar to make an attack, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). Both segments of a klar can be enhanced separately. An enhancement bonus on the shield does not improve the effectiveness of the blade and vice versa.

So a klar can be used as a weapon, in which case it is a one-handed martial slashing weapon (with light weapon penalties to attack) OR it can be used as spiked light shield with all the rules associated with that like doing piercing damage.

---edit: so NO, when used as a spiked shield (close weapon possible) it does piercing damage, and when used as a blade it is not a close weapon.


BadBird wrote:
Vigil wrote:
Spell-storing is a melee-only enhancement. It doesn't work when you throw it.

Is there anything that actually prohibits a spell-storing melee weapon from triggering when you throw it? Spell storing just says:

"Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires."
It makes sense that ranged-only weapons can't do it for various reasons, but I don't see anything conceptually or rules-wise that would prevent throwing a spell-storing spear at something to deliver a payload. Its actually a really satisfying, flavorful move in my opinion.

As far as thrown-weapon tactics go, a character with Named Bullet and a decent attack (EK, Inquisitor, etc) can lay a really ugly hit on his mark - a great shot at a x3 spear crit, plus extra bonus damage from the spell. If you can slap a stored spell in there, that's a really, really bad day for someone.

don't know about spell storing but a similar question was asked a few months ago on these boards cocerning the agile weapon enchant, and the consensus seemed to be that it applied when thrown. If you're interested a search for thrown agile weapon might turn up the thread.


Zwordsman wrote:
cnetarian wrote:
if the questionably legal combination of blinkback belt and two weapon throwing is used it is possible to create a throwing focused build which is competitive in DPR, not going to win any olympics but can keep pace with and often pass an archer (as long as the fight takes place in the thrower's close range).

why is that questionably legal? technically with quickdraw, and a blinkback belt you could throw the same dagger with TWF ( each attack is resolved, teleports back you draw it with your other hand and throw. Doesn't disrupt twf's rules at all to me. Or is there some lil thing somewhere about not using the same weapon despite the attacks not going off at the same time period and your drawing it with the new hand?

The two weapon fighting rules start: "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand" which certainly implies a first weapon and a second weapon. This isn't definite though, it is only implied and the rules could be read to encompass either interpretation - that is why I said "questionably legal". Mind you the blinkback belt can carry multiple weapons and while have two enchanted weapons on it would work if one won't then you wind up having to enchant two weapons.

1 to 50 of 972 << 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.