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

graystone's page

Organized Play Member. 6,749 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 6,749 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

willuwontu: Desna's states you make a SINGLE attack and multiple damage rolls... You can keep going round and round but it's STILL A SINGLE ATTACK... If the damage rolls were actual strikes then they could crit, have sneak attack added [and add flaming] each 'effective strike'.

Unless and until you can PROVE that "make a single attack" and "If the attack hits" somehow means multiple attacks, then I have nothing else to say to you: I disagree and think you are 100% wrong as flaming only adds damage once per attack.

PS: site acting funny, ate 1/2 of post... :(

EDIT: I think you rely on strike meaning hit/attack but look at Magic Missile once: "A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage." A strike without a hit/attack. So we're in a squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares scenario. Even if you can prove 100% that attacks are strikes, that in no way proves strikes must be attacks or hits. You can't sneak attack with a magic missile, but with strike = hit it would be possible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Omnius wrote:
graystone wrote:
*Thelith wrote:

If he critically failed his jump then he basically just tripped over the side...which means he is within arms reach of the wall he just tried to jump away from....

If it was a running jump he might of just fallen prone BEFORE he got there. You know how often people forget how to run... [5%]...
Oh, yeah, and those seven hundred and twenty times yesterday that my heart got a natural 1 on their beat checks for the round and I died!

Sorry what did you say? I must have rolled a 1 on my linguistics and forgotten how to read...

willuwontu wrote:
And regardless I have shown that the feat itself makes strikes (or successful hits) against the target if the attack roll succeeds.

No you haven't... You've proven 'effective strikes' and have brought 0% proof that 'effective strikes' adds multiple flaming damage.

"extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit" Desna has you make "make a single attack": Why do you count strikes 'hits' and discount the part of the feat that actually talks about hits? "the attack hits"...

Single attack, single hit, multiple damage rolls: Fire only activates on that single hit the feat [and flaming] tells you that you make.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
*Thelith wrote:

If he critically failed his jump then he basically just tripped over the side...which means he is within arms reach of the wall he just tried to jump away from....

If it was a running jump he might of just fallen prone BEFORE he got there. You know how often people forget how to run... [5%]...

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Why is anyone still engaging with this thread anymore?

It's kind of like a truck wreck that's then hit by a meteor that sets fire to the fireworks in the back... You have places to go and you WANT to move along but you can't help yourself...

dragonhunterq wrote:
Goemon Sasuke wrote:

I'm interested to see how you guys would handle Basic/1st/2nd AD&D, seems like many of you would flip your s+~+ because there's no confirmation rolls.

Point of order. There were no confirmation rolls in 1e/2e because criticals were not a part of the core rules. There were a number of optional systems in various sources (most far more unwieldy than a simple confirmation roll - it struck me as quite streamlined), but it was never a core rule.

A surprising number of players here have a lot of experience with older editions. It is ...unwise... to make assumptions about your audience and especially in such a brash manner.

Some of us are from far enough back that we played the blackmoor pamphlets... ;) [and still have them!]

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Goemon Sasuke wrote:
The fact is you don't understand probability is what it comes down to, but I use table dice (my dice, your dice, their dice; doesn't matter).

I think your posting some dice rolls to 'prove' that anyone in your world that climbs any significant distance isn't doomed to 'critical failure' and imminent bodily harm is painting a very clear picture of who doesn't understand probabilities...

willuwontu wrote:
Extremely relevant

Not really as it's different mechanics: apples and oranges.

willuwontu wrote:
you're saying weapons that deal damage multiple times simultaneously somehow lose their damage on later simultaneous strikes.

Desna's not making multiple hits just damage rolls. Line weapons make multiple attacks vs multiple creatures checking hits vs a single roll.

willuwontu wrote:
It's been pointed out that strikes are considered successful hits.

It's been pointed out, but not proven. I still haven't seen anything to convince me it's true. In fact it's easily provable it's not as successful hits that are crits roll critical damage and precision-based damage could be added to each hit.

willuwontu wrote:
What is irrelevant is the fact that ammunition gains their enchantments from their launching weapon, as a starknife is a melee weapon that can also be thrown not ammunition. And melee weapons don't lose their enchantments out of the blue.

It's relevant as parallels have been drawn between desna's and multishot.

As to losing enchantments... I have no idea what that has to do with ANYTHING...

willuwontu wrote:
What needs to be proven for you to be satisfied about how this works, now that you've already been shown that strikes do equal successful hits?

Well first you'd have to actually prove what you think you did as it's the exact opposite of that IMO. You have to prove 'effective hits' are virtually identical to 'hits' for this ability and then prove why 'effective hits' was used if there is in fact no reason to because they aren't any different than actual hits.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
willuwontu wrote:

Thanks toastedamphibian

That shows that flaming is applied to each strike.

If you're using it as a melee weapon, then you'd only be able to use one arrow at a time for each attack, just like how you can only shoot one arrow at a time unless you have a feat that lets you shoot otherwise, and even then it's still limited.

A manyshot from a Flaming bow deals 2D6 if both arrows hit, because both arrows have that property. Again, 2 projectiles having the property doesn't do the same damage as one projectile (AKA the starknife).

Yep, I agree.

"Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition": So each arrow is bestowed with flaming from a flaming bow. No such rule exists for 'effective strikes' from a single attack, bestowing the enchantment on multiple 'usual damage' rolls from a single attack.

PS: toastedamphibian I'm sure most DM's would count a bundle as a single object/weapon. Secondly, improvised weapons don't get to use enchantments. You need to wield a weapon to activate its abilities and for ammo, that's by loading it into a ranged weapon. Stabbing someone with a magic arrow is as useful as stabbing someone with a non-magic one.

Goemon Sasuke wrote:
graystone wrote:
Well I wouldn't call it a critical failure as skills don't have that mechanic.

We established by RAW, yes. But if it's considered a critical failure... then it's going to likely be a (not-so)fantastic fail.

I really wish I had a mathematical mind, but it's filled with pop culture, history, martial arts and roleplay material (mostly). All I can say is, this;

Hypothetical 800ft Climb rolls (1):
18, 16, 16, 15, 15, 15, 14, 14, 12, 11, 11, 9, 8, 5, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 3
20, 20, 19, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 13, 10, 12, 5, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2
19, 19, 19, 18, 18, 18, 17, 16, 15, 15, 13, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10, 8, 8, 6, 3
19, 18, 17, 17, 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 2, 2

Hypothetical 800ft Climb rolls (2):
20, 20, 18, 17, 17, 16, 16, 16, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11, 10, 9, 9, 6, 3, 3
20, 20, 19, 19, 17, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 9, 8, 8, 7, 7, 6, 3, 3
20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 18, 15, 14, 13, 13, 12, 11, 9, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 3, 2
20, 20, 19, 19, 18, 17, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10, 7, 5, 3, 2

So 160 or so rolls and according to you (and those here), I should have rolled a 1 at least 3-4 times and only rolled a 20 just as many times.

Organized the rolls high-low for reasons of neatness, that's all.


14 + 18 + 20 + 6 + 6 + 3 + 6 + 12 + 12 + 7 + 16 + 20 + 16 + 11 + 13 + 4 + 4 + 15 + 3 + 12 + 6 + 20 + 7 + 16 + 2 + 7 + 7 + 12 + 10 + 4 + 19 + 13 + 10 + 19 + 14 + 17 + 11 + 9 + 7 + 9 + 19 + 20 + 1 + 1 + 6 + 11 + 6 + 17 + 17 + 7 + 3 + 5 + 11 + 16 + 19 + 16 + 16 + 4 + 13 + 5 + 15 + 2 + 15 + 15 + 6 + 2 + 11 + 20 + 2 + 6 + 5 + 2 + 19 + 4 + 9 + 15 + 15 + 4 + 18 + 4

1 + 1 + 10 + 1 + 20 + 9 + 10 + 18 + 11 + 19 + 12 + 16 + 9 + 8 + 19 + 15 + 17 + 17 + 17 + 12 + 1 + 17 + 11 + 18 + 11 + 14 + 5 + 20 + 2 + 18 + 4 + 10 + 9 + 18 + 14 + 10 + 12 + 14 + 20 + 17 + 9 + 1 + 14 + 1 + 10 + 12 + 17 + 9 + 9 + 4 + 19 + 18 + 1 + 12 + 4 + 4 + 10 + 8 + 7 + 18 + 4 + 6 + 9 + 18 + 5 + 20 + 2 + 1 + 13 + 6 + 13 + 1 + 19 + 3 + 2 + 17 + 15 + 6 + 10 + 4

SO... I got 11 1's and somehow you got none... Either you have crappy rollers/dice or someone fudged the dice... :P And for the record, you should have rolled @8 1's.

willuwontu: Sneak attack FAQ and the weapons section show that magic weapon bonus dice are treated like precision-based/critical hit damage.

Next lets look at flaming... "extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit": Desna's only make a single roll to hit with 1d4 strikes, hence a SINGLE 1d6. Strikes ARE NOT HITS, HITS are HITS.

"extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit" + "As a full-round action, you can make a single attack with a thrown starknife, rolling 1d4 to determine how many effective strikes you gain with the attack (if you roll a 1, then only one blade strikes). If the attack hits, all of the effective strikes damage the target."

"you can make a single attack": one

"If the attack hits": attack hits, not attacks hit.

"Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon's normal damage are never multiplied.": you don't get multiple "extra dice" in an attack.

"A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." + "Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon abilities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit.": flaming isn't "usual damage" and isn't added more than once per attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:

Ok, so following the rules is softballing: got it.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Retraining is optional and costs gold

Cheap and tends to help out martials more than casters.

Ryan Freire wrote:
gold on "cheap" items starts to add up pretty quick.

We're talking a SINGLE cheap item... It adds up once and you can switch the language if need be 1/day. I'm not seeing the issue.

Ryan Freire wrote:
The ability to perform other actions is the primary strength/versatility of summons which makes summons you dont communicate with sub optimal.

True... And how many languages does that require? Maxed out ranks or a few well picked languages?

I can't help but see this as making a mountain out of a molehill. Between a few well picked languages, a super cheap SINGLE item to fill in for exceptions and truespeak on many summons, it's truely not an issue.

Talonhawke wrote:
And Manyshot does 2 simultaneous attacks but we have people arguing its treated differently for extra damage so we still have incongruity between the two for no reason other than the term "effective" and "two arrows"

The difference is that they aren't equivalent abilities. Arrows are treated as their own weapons and the bow transfers enchantments to them. As such, manyshots is an attack with multiple 'weapons', each with the enchant on them. This isn't the case with desna's as it's a single weapon/enchant.

So one ability is treated as if you hit simultaneously with multiple weapons and one is treated as if you hit simultaneously with the same weapon: you only get weapon enchants once/weapon/attack.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Java Man wrote:
So what precisely is the rule question here?

It seems to be: "Why does a new character react badly when I spring houserules on them? Please validate my right to punish people for rolling a 1..."

Several of us have flagged this thread to move it. ;)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
But its the usual case, people softball primary casters then complain about how OP they get.

No, the DM's following the rules.

"It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."

The creature automatically attacks your foes and you get to pick where it shows up: so it's pretty easy to have them attack who you want even without communication.

Secondly, it's not like the summoner MUST max out ranks in linguistics: a few languages can cover all the creatures you summon. Add to that retraining that allows you to straight out pay GP to learn int + 1 languages and pretty cheap items to speak [1550gp for slotless Traveler's Translator] and I don't see an issue with languages.

Goemon Sasuke wrote:
You can fail without rolling a 1, but a 1 is a critical failure. You don't call it a critical failure and say you just failed...

Well I wouldn't call it a critical failure as skills don't have that mechanic...

Goemon Sasuke wrote:
And yet, many professional athletes get injured or killed on said falls

No one is arguing that, just the frequency. 5% is WAY, WAY to high. Call it probability or percentage, you're making it a daily occurrence instead of a lifetime mistake.

In pathfinder, even creatures with the climb skill have to make a check every round. That means even a creature 30' climb has a 5% of falling to their death on a SINGLE 600' climb. The poor human climbing it makes 80 checks to fall to their death... Ask your teacher friend to figure out THAT probability: hint it's over a 90% chance of critical failure from a single climb, let alone a lifetime of mountain climbing.

Goemon Sasuke wrote:
We've actually talked about this before in our group, the issue is people are confusing probablity with percentage.. or something like that. One of our players is a math teacher so I'm not keen on the language, but there's a difference anyhow. Thus why not everyone rolls a 1 every 20 rolls much as they don't roll a 20 every 20 rolls.

I'm an electrical engineer with years of math under my belt. I'm quite capable understanding the math and it's you that's skewing it. While a 5% doesn't mean a consistent 1 in 20 failure, meaning literally every 20th is a one, it means that it effectively does when looked at it over time. Effectively, your houserule makes people fail horribly 5% of the time when they aren't meant to even automatically fail.

Java Man wrote:
Archives of Nethys gives source info for each item.

Yep, it should be just what's neded. For instance the race is listed as Advanced Race Guide/Pathfinder RPG Bestiary while alternate stats list Source Blood of Fiends and the FCB list Advanced Race Guide and Alternate Racial Traits have Agents of Evil, Inner Sea Races, Blood of Shadows or Advanced Race Guide.

So for Tieflings it should be as easy a a trip to Nethys.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
toastedamphibian wrote:
Well it's his own fault, he should get better at rolling dice, like his dm!

True, with years of training I'm sure he could LEARN to not roll one's... By the time he's middle level, I bet he can roll a 1 less than 1%!!! [of course it requires the PLAYER have several ranks in sleight of hand or bluff ;)]

Cyrad wrote:
I could agree with you if the monk was paralyzed or unconscious

It's worse than paralyzed or unconscious... He rolled a ONE!!!! He's lucky he didn't choke on his tongue because he forgot how to breathe when he jumped!!! :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just have one thing to say: BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner...

"Many factors must be considered when determining the price of new magic items. The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide."

Nothing can possibly be closer than an item mechanically identical varying only in the fluff department...

Core PRD: "Additional Damage Dice: Some magic weapons deal additional dice of damage. Unlike other modifiers to damage, additional dice of damage are not multiplied when the attacker scores a critical hit."

Additional damage dice from magic weapons isn't counted as part of "all your usual bonuses" as per core combat and magic item sections, being counted the same as Precision damage.

"A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together."

"Exception: Precision damage (such as from a rogue's sneak attack class feature) and additional damage dice from special weapon abilities (such as flaming) are not multiplied when you score a critical hit."

Now add the sneak attack FAQ:
"Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target)."

"Extra damage" only gets added once per simultaneous attack and Desna's Divine Fighting Technique mark II does 1d4 simultaneous attacks...

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I could make a lot of comments here but it would just feel like dogpiling on the OP. I'll just say, critical failures for skills is a VERY, VERY bad idea in any context as it makes even SUPER SIMPLE tasks fail 5% of the time... If that happened in real life, every 20th slice of bread you bought would be mangled and every 20th time you bought gas the pump would malfunction and every 20th time you walk outside your door you'd trip and fall over your paper... Professional swimmers don't start to drown 5% of the times they try to swim...

Jeraa wrote:
graystone wrote:
Secondly, the cost of a 30% reduction on 1d8+4 is 200gp - 60gp = 140gp and not 35gp. So either way, the price is WAY, WAY off.

I was going by Claxons post, not the OPs.

If you did 1d8+1 you're just looking at a potion of CLW that has been re-flavored to work on constructs. So that should be 50 gp minimum. I would argue for a slight increase in cost since being a construct is supposed to be more difficult for healing.
CL 1 potion, not CL 4. Then applying a discount for only affecting a single race instead of all living creatures.

Even assuming a CL 1, it's still too cheap at 30gp as it's a custom spell that allows 'normal' healing to affect a construct. You can't get the "only affecting a single race instead of all living creatures" when they aren't living creatures and can't be healed by the spell... At best you can try to take a 30% discount on a spell that would normally heal constructs [make whole] and THEN restrict it to just Wyrwoods. That however requires a 2nd level spell.

Jeraa wrote:
That could justify the "requires specific class or alignment" discount (-30%), if you decide a specific race qualifies. That would make a CLW potion equivalent for Wyrwoods only cost 35gp.

That would only be correct if it was an effect that could already be used on a wyrwood but was then limited to them. This isn't the case here as it's an effect that they CAN'T normally use. If anything the spell level should be bumped up for a custom spell or using make whole as the base, making it 300gp with NO reduction as the spell is already limited to overcoming the races usual healing limits.

Secondly, the cost of a 30% reduction on 1d8+4 is 200gp - 60gp = 140gp and not 35gp. So either way, the price is WAY, WAY off.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well a potion of healing that heals 1d8+4 is 200gp. So 30gp is far to cheap.

Now a potion of infernal healing will give fast healing 1 for 1 min, for a total for 10hp healed at a 50gp cost.

So my suggestion is treat it like that potion of internal healing made as an oil: the oil fast heals 1 for 1 min and costs 50gp. This method is simple and something a 1st level character can make for 25gp. You just have to have the brew potion feat and the infernal healing spell [cleric 1, magus 1, wizard 1, summoner 1, witch 1].

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

Greystone just beat me to it. ^_^

I pick that trait in PFS like other people pick Reactionary. Just can't get enough of it.

I LOVE the trait. I was making up a true neutral Asmodean Advocate [thanks to Pact Servant] and tripped across that trait and it couldn't have been more perfect.

toastedamphibian wrote:
graystone wrote:

So someone with a climb speed must technically roll climb checks each round with that +8. Lots of people ignore that unless the surface climbed is especially difficult but you should roll every climb action.

Heck no! Unless the surface is 'particularly difficult' you should take 10 every round, as a climbspeed allows.

No reason to risk a bad roll when you gain nothing from a good one.

Take ten is still a 'roll' as in you have to check your climb skill every movement: It just sets that 'roll' at ten.

With the quote from the skill in my post that listed take ten as an option, I didn't feel I needed to reiterate that in my 'roll' comment.

That said, I do agree that it's best to take 10 is you think it's an auto-pass and best not to is you're unsure. A good option is to start by taking 10 at the start [assuming not in combat]: if you fail, you don't make any progress and are in no danger of falling and that you need to start rolling actual dice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Take Brevoy Bandit trait: It adds a ability score’s modifier to the roll.

So take your highest non-wisdom stat and add that bonus to your profession.

Under the special section of the climb skill:

"A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks. The creature must make a Climb check to climb any wall or slope with a DC higher than 0, but it can always choose to take 10, even if rushed or threatened while climbing. If a creature with a climb speed chooses an accelerated climb (see above), it moves at double its climb speed (or at its land speed, whichever is slower) and makes a single Climb check at a –5 penalty. Such a creature retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) while climbing, and opponents get no special bonus to their attacks against it. It cannot, however, use the run action while climbing."

So someone with a climb speed must technically roll climb checks each round with that +8. Lots of people ignore that unless the surface climbed is especially difficult but you should roll every climb action.

Conductive: "When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type"

Desna's Divine Fighting Technique: "you can make a single attack with a thrown starknife"

The number of strikes doesn't matter, it only activates once per attack and only once per round. Desna's technique only makes one attack. So it WOULD allow a few extra d4+stat of damage which isn't bad: it's just not going to give multiple blasts/round.

toastedamphibian wrote:

Exactly. This isn't a class feature, or even a feat chain. It's a favored class bonus being way stronger than intended.

Huge damage from low level spells with no real investment.

FCB is equivalent to a feat [Toughness/Cunning]. For a single feat [Additional Traits], you can reduce your metamagic level by 2 for a spell, so you could take that fiery shuriken and add empowered it for FREE as an equivalent ability/power. So I'm not really seeing 'way stronger than intended'.

We can look at regular FCB if you wish: catfolk monk FCB adds 1/2 level to claw/clawblade damage rolls. At 15th level, a monk can make those same 8 attacks [flurry, haste, ki] adding the same bonus to each attack. As such, it really doesn't seem stronger than intended.

EDIT: and don't forget that by 15th, what doesn't have fire resistance anymore. A simple resist 5 chops off 40 fire from 8 hits...

Cevah wrote:
mardaddy wrote:

I have great interest in BOTH GM and Player aspects, so... I may be about half-satisfied (lol.)

It seems that every time I get with a group where the possibility of making constructs is viable, I start up a PC that can take advantage of that and the game falls apart or players can suddenly no longer make it by around 3rd or 4th level (not their own fault, life, job, etc., I get it...)

But I am left with a thirst for the lost possibilities...

Check out the trait Protector of the People. For a bit of money, you get Craft Construct at a very low level.

Getting the cash, is a different problem. :-)


Story feat, not trait.

mardaddy wrote:
I have great interest in BOTH GM and Player aspects

Myself, I have little interest in DM aspects. As such, 7/8th of the book [4 for items, 4 for archetypes] isn't going to be used by me. :(

This disappoints me as the description of the book made it seem MUCH more player oriented IMO. If a bestiary/background fluff book is someone's thing, that great, but for me I'm passing on this.

Steve Kilings wrote:
I'm wondering if a wyrwood could become a shifter, more specifically an oozemorph?


blahpers wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:

You really don't see a problem with .5×level becoming .5xlevelxlevel?

5 bonus damage per spell at level 10 is a nice use of your favored class bonus, 50 bonus damage per spell is whacky and clearly not intended. 10 skill points for +50 damage a round is not in the ball park of balanced.

I don't quite follow. How are you getting 50 bonus damage (.5 * level * level) exactly?

This is what I'd like to know: I'm keenly interested in what fire spell you can cast that allows 10 attack rolls from a 10th level character.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
already done with Multiweapon Fighting, saying you get one main hand and everything else is off-hand, and the Improved and Greater TWF feats add one attack with the listed penalties.

It gives off hands but does it also give more hands of effort? I've seen opinions on both sides.

Then does using up your hands of effort also use up all your free/off hands? Say like spell combat with a vestigial arm as spell combat doesn't use an offhand but a free hand. Does attacking with a boulder helmet/unarmed strike and a longsword prevent you from using your other hand as a free hand for deflect arrows? And if it doesn't, why is one free hand requirement different than another?

James Risner wrote:
The vestigile FAQ combined with Hands of Effort FAQ clarify a PC has one primary and one offhand plus some number of natural weapons.

For me, I'd like to see something clarifying how 'hands of effort' interacts with creatures with more than 2 arms.

James Risner wrote:
You can’t use an offhand feature like Spell Combat or TWF if you are using your offhand already.

Spell combat is using a free hand though, not an offhand. Magus' spell combat is a strange mix of two weapon combat and casting and I'm not sure we can apply the usual 'offhand' usage to spell casting. Really the whole thing is odd as you still need a free hand even with no somatics.

This, like a lot of rules, could stand an 'update' in light of the 'made from whole cloth' 'hands of effort' FAQ to explain the ramifications of that FAQ's adding a new kind of 'hand' to the mix.

They magically get a supernatural hair piece/wig. My Wyrwood's styling with an dayglow afro!

toastedamphibian wrote:
Blood of the Bloodless?

Clockwork codex! Construct compendium? Blood, sweat and gears...

Alchemist 23 wrote:
Before anyone links it the Construct Builder's Guidebook is just construct bestiary and will have little to no player use according to the author.

Yes, it saddened me to hear the contents. It sounds like it'll be a pass for me. :(

toastedamphibian wrote:
Could you refresh my memory graystone? Which side do you come down on re: sacred weapon and leadblades? Do you feel these questions are related?

lead blades increases your weapons base damage not the sacred weapon dice.

Related? Identical except for the -4 levels part.

toastedamphibian wrote:
Shifter Claws...

Shifter's claws are a bit different. It's checking her natural form's claws vs the claws from her new shape. As such, it's the natural forms size and not the current forms size that matters.

Ah... I misread the FCB. I was thinking it was giving a bonus to unarmed damage [like the catfolk monk FCB]. Now that I look again, it's a bump in level for checking damage. So yes, I was wrong on #3.

#3 Yes, it checks 4 levels lower than your effective level for unarmed damage.

PS: On size, a generic brawler check 2 things: size and level. Both these affect base damage. This is why actual size changes affect the results. It doesn't say "she uses the unarmed strike damage of a medium brawler 4 levels lower", so you need to make the size check to get the base damage.

"The unarmed damage values listed on that table are for Medium brawlers. A Small brawler deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large brawler deals more damage; see the following table.": both tables together list base damage for small, medium and large brawlers.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
I figured while we were on the topic, to continue it.

Things often change drastically in 3 years and what was true and good advice might be horribly wrong because of new material, FAQ's, errata, ect. You also have the issue of replying to people that aren't even here to reply in some cases or to those that don't even recall what they were thinking that long ago.

So it's MUCH, MUCH better to start or add to a current thread than 'bring one' back from the dead: I know I normally don't even read a 'necro' over a few months old for these very reasons.

PS: When people link to a former thread it's mostly a situation when a writer, developer, editor, FAQ, errata, ect posted a reply or answer to the topic or when they are linking to one of their own posts on the subject because they don't want to take the time to make a new post.

Dr Styx: So... Where does it say you can repair one 'as though they were magical items'? It's the SAME thing with the construct.

Construct notes that constructs can be repaired through the use of the Craft Construct feat and healed through spells such as make whole. There is NO mention of destroyed constructs being affected. Using make whole on a constructs does exactly what it says: it heals it. And that does the same thing it would do if you heal a dead 'living' creature: not a darn thing as you need something MORE to revive a creature then just healing.

"she uses the unarmed strike damage of a brawler 4 levels lower". I take this as meaning you use the number from the class chart 4 lower than your level adjusted for size.

#1 enlarge changes the chart so yes.
#2 no, it doesn't modify the chart.
#3 No, you get the base die, not bonuses.
#4 No, it's not modifying the chart.

So you check your unarmed damage based on actual size for a generic brawler of 4 levels lower: that's it.

Dr Styx wrote:
Construct is a Magic Item as per its Feat Chain.

By that theory, every construct can be either used as a weapon or worn as armor... :P

Make Whole wrote:
Make Whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item.
Dr Styx wrote:
Before the Technology Guide came out (over 5 years), so before Memory of Function, Make Whole was how Destroyed Constructs were Repaired.

Not by the official rules. Maybe by your house rules. Make whole is unable to fix destroyed creatures.

Dr Styx wrote:
Now you have to be of sufficiently high level to cast Make Whole to do this. All Constructs other than the Wyrwood have a CL. It should be easy for a GM to set a CL for one depending on it CR.

CL is meaningless to the debate as that section is specifically about magic items and not creatures. A CL of 1 and 20 are equally as useless in bringing back a construct with make whole.

PS: And as toastedamphibian points out, if we use your logic you can drink an ooze as a standard action since it requires brew potion to use Craft Ooze...

Dr Styx wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:
Make Whole can fix destroyed Objects, but Constructs are Creatures.

Why would you say that?

Make Whole Target wrote:
one object up to 10 cu. ft./level or one construct creature of any size

Make whole does 2 things:

#1 "This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6)."

#2 "Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item."

Make whole can repair objects and constructs. However, the spell NEVER says it can 'fix destroyed constructs'. Mending doesn't affect constructs at all.

toastedamphibian wrote:
Dr Styx wrote:

Alchemist 23 wrote:
So for example would a Wyrwood with the blood line be capable of being resurrected...?
I’m just still trying to understand why this is an issue. As a Wyrwood has no Soul (nor would it want one). There are less powerful spells out there that can bring back constructs, after they are destroyed (not killed).

There are? Could you link them? I went looking after reading this, and only thing I found was Memory of Function from the technology guide, and it is 7th level with a 10k gold material component.

Make Whole can fix destroyed Objects, but Constructs are Creatures.

Yep, it's the same level as Resurrection, with the same cost but requires a whole body [no significant portion may be destroyed] while while resurrection only needs a small portion. An actual destroyed construct is out of luck while a disintegrated living creature is fine with Resurrection.

As for as a lower spell, there is reboot but it only bring the construct back for 1rd/level.

Redblade8 wrote:
@graystone, Very good point. But if a DM is gonna bust my hump over those weapons having no group, I'd take that as a large, flashing neon warning sign.

It's not a matter of 'hump busting' really but being on the same page.

For instance a DM might make a leafblade a light blade or close while making a thorn blade a heavy blade. It's a total matter of taste since it's not official so they might not fall into the same group in the DM's mind. This might make one 'better' depending on other rules that requires different groups or what weapon training you take. IMO its best to confirm so both you and the DM can plan ahead.

There is also the matter of games like PFS: I'm unsure how they deal with oddities like this that have nebulous rules, as they're meant to be played 'by the rules' but this is missing some info.

As to what the "ELFIEST ELF" would do... They'd focus fire with bows and spells and once the foe falls down, they move in and coup de grace their leaf/thornblade. ;)

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Redblade8 wrote:


I'm intrigued by these two additions to the elven arsenal. How would one make best use of those weapons on an elf with a focus on face-stabbing? Could one go fighter, focus hard on Dex/Int, and use the Elven Battle Style feats to good effect?


Ghorrin Redblade (Leafblade? Redleaf?)

The issue with fighter or brawler and those weapons is they have no official weapon group as far as I know: as such, some class features aren't going to be of much use. Make sure to have your DM rule on a weapon group before you go too far with a character using them.

Unofficially, the creator of the weapons said she'd put them in the light blades group.

Isabelle Lee wrote:
As the creator and writer of both blades, I'd say light blade for both. I'm not an official rules authority, though, so don't cite my opinion as anything but advisory. ^_^

1 to 50 of 6,749 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.