Can the creature taking over the fighter use the fighter's feats? The wording isn't clear.
Toughness? Yes.. it's tied to the body.
Power Attack? No.. it's part of the creature's knowledge.
Gwaihir Scout wrote:
Are there any reasons why I shouldn't take the item away?
Every single one.
The item is perfectly fine. So is snake style. And you didn't 'give' him anything, it sounds like his character paid an NPC to enchant an item for him. There were no gifts here.
But I would imagine that your approach is not fine. You seem to assume a kind of adversarial position whether feigned or real.. in either event that's not good.
I would suggest that you NOT look for ways to 'thwart' but rather present reasonable challenges and let the dice fall as they may. This way characters can shine without you having to force it, and they can also suffer for lacks without you feeling the need to make a safety net.
In essence, present the world and the NPCs. If the world has skill boost items for all skills, then it does. This is not conditional on how useful the skill is for a given person, etc. It is absolute.
DMing is not telling your story to an audience (the PCs), but rather giving a backdrop for the players to tell the story of their characters within a framework of rules and limitations.
I'm making the assumption that the devs meant that the weapon needed to be wielded in two hands for the bonus, thank you.
Why on earth would you make that assumption?
power attack wrote:
This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
Here they specifically separate out a two-handed weapon from a one handed weapon using two hands. If your assumption were to be true, then they've purposefully obfuscated things here AND made the wording more convoluted than it would need to be for no reason.
Likewise the section on weapon categories: if two-handed weapons were to be different based on the number of hands used to wield them, then simply taking the SAME text from one handed weapons would work.
Lastly, again in the spirit of 'does it make sense modeling' do you feel that the designers intended characters to use a lance more effectively with two hands rather than just one?
To me the last seems silly, though perfectly within the rules and something that most everyone would do with your assumption in place.
This part of the rules is crystal clear. Whether it is palatable to you or not, depends on how you feel about encouraging characters to use a lance with two hands while mounted.
Again the only ambiguity in my mind is what happens when a two-handed weapon (used in two-hands) is the off-hand weapon in terms of STR bonus to damage.
N N 959 wrote:
No. That's your straw man.
You simply let people play at a harder tier if they wish. The rewards would be a fixed function of character level.
Your supposition is that everyone will always play on the easiest tier available regardless of ability.
I say that you are wrong.
Those that want a challenge, will seek a challenge.
The race to get more than people next to you by gaming the system is not the race or challenge that organized play seeks to embrace.
Those that want to brag about how they did this or that, will *need* to play up for it to hold *any* water. In fact the reverse will hold true in those circles for those that do not. Their race won't be that they have the gear of a level 17 PC with their level 12, but rather that their level 7 with level 7 gear can play and meaningfully contribute with the level 12s.
Those that eschew that race for optimization will still have a place. And according to their ability (and their character's ability) will have the opportunity to play at the appropriate level. If they found that taking that level of non-caster for their wizard is now near worthless as they get higher and higher level, they aren't perpetually gimped by it.
The change in difficulty from season to season doesn't solve anything. It just changes who is currently happy with the level of challenge.
Perhaps you would be happy to throw out most, if not all the seasons' scenarios. I think that would be a shame.
This allows you to keep all of them, let them all be equally valid for everyone out there.
And change the rules, rather than simply present the current rules clearly and cleanly which is the only problem.
A question on your proposed change to stealth: does the skill user become observed after their turn?
While the stealth skill section does need to be rewritten, as far as this question goes it should not be primarily within the stealth section. Rather it should simply spell out directly the consequences for the target when they do not perceive the attacker.
This would then have confirming and supportive texts through-out the rules (as it already does) and added in some places that need work (e.g. the stealth skill).
N N 959 wrote:
Mike Mistele wrote:
My opinion, based on LG, LFR, Blackmoor, and a half a dozen other organized campaigns is that this trend is easy to fall into for organized campaigns.
An organized campaign should give entertaining scenarios that:
1. Deliver a fairly steady amount of challenge based on the rating of the scenario.
2. Offer the freedom to self-select the amount of challenge that your character is prepared to handle.
I'm sure that remember that you had crazy swings in LG that varied by region, meta-region, and within regions. You never knew what to expect, so perforce you loaded for bear. Thus for some mods you blasted through them, because you didn't know what to expect. In others some judges would immediately soft-ball as they seemed so out of whack, while others wouldn't.
It just seems wrong. It seems that the scenarios should advertise what level of challenge that they offer, and then they should let you choose to play the ones that are appropriate for you.
This way the players who want to push their characters can do so, and those that don't want to can also do that as well. If you reasonably self-select, then everything is great for everyone. If you don't, then you're not a victim of the system, but instead someone who made a bad choice.
That said, given two ways to read a line you should elect to go with the one that makes sense understanding two things: this is not the work of a sole author or set of authors, and no set of authors elected to write the rules as adversarial 'laws', but instead far more loosely.
How about it being an NPC?
It's an intelligent item
Magic items sometimes have intelligence of their own. Magically imbued with sentience, these items think and feel the same way characters do and should be treated as NPCs.
And certainly the black blade can conflict with the player's desires for his/her PC: Blackblade.
Likewise summoned creatures by summoners, cohorts of nobility domain clerics (outside of PFS), etc.
Being granted by a class feature does not make it a Player character, and it is no reason for it not to be an NPC.
Animals will actively choose to flank other creatures. Wolves especially will do so.
The flank trick does not empower the animal to be able to flank. Unintelligent skeletons benefit from flanking, they just don't seek it out.
The trick changes the animal's priorities in combat from what they normally would be.
Read the flank trick. Read it carefully.
The animal following the dictates of the flank trick does far more than merely choose between two squares one giving flanking and the other not.
This is getting missed by people, and the tricks are getting misunderstood.
A large wolf animal companion enlarged via animal growth to size huge in ordered:
Situation A: To attack enemy A.
In case A, the wolf will go up to A, possibly charging to attack them. He's likely 10ft away (his natural reach) while making this attack. On a successful hit, the wolf's trip ability activates and he tries to trip. If he has choice of squares, he will choose not to provoke AOOs to get to A, and will choose to attack from a square that gives his attack flanking.
If he would normally decide to attack and enemy A is the enemy he would have then decided to attack, then nothing has changed from issuing no orders. The attack order is to ensure that these decisions (to attack, to attack enemy A) were made.
In case B, the wolf will go to be adjacent to A. Always move to a flanking square when another is fighting A. Always save his AOO in case that enemy A provokes.
This is nothing like case A in that the wolf will provoke AOOs to achieve position. He will give up a full attack action in order to provide flanking (and receive it). He will be adjacent to the enemy rather than simply threaten them (so he could not charge even if he had wanted to do so). He won't let others 'fool' or 'distract' him away from his target.
This is not merely accepting flanking, or easily shifting to a square for flanking.
This is akin to the party cleric provoking multiple AOOs to give a flank for the party rogue. It's certainly not the movement/action that the cleric would take without understanding that the rogue needs this flank and that it is worth it for him to do so. The animal wolf is worse off than the party cleric in this regard. Fortunately he can be told via handle animal that this otherwise 'stupid' action on his part is what he needs to do for his companions/pack.
On the other thread people are complaining that now there is a trick to specifically order a companion to do some combat maneuver it wouldn't normally do, that this is limiting them.
To whit: they were having their animal companions do combat maneuvers when the PC would have wanted the NPC companion to do so without anyway to inform the companion whether this round they wanted them to do so or not.
So, I'll say yes that a majority of such players will metagame without even realizing it. The more options that handle animal gives them, the less it is telepathy between their PC and their second PC.
But I'll go one step further: players should not control more than one character. Many times a PC will have a point of view/information that they cannot (or do not wish to publicly) convey to others. If you, the player, has this information then how do you determine what you would have done without it?
Responsibly you defer to not making leaps and conclusions. Yet, in reality, without that outside information you very well might have done so.
I've judged for many players that want me to minimize the amount of outside information that they receive for just this reason.
A purchased animal is much much different than an animal companion. I don't think I'd control some random raven I bought at the pet store and only a lenient GM would even let me use the thing to do something crazy.
You mean the pup my PC lovingly raised from birth is just some 'random' dog, because there isn't a mechanical empathic bond? All your arguments about personality, how they fight, etc suddenly don't apply?
Meanwhile the animal companion that the druid decided to have for this current adventure (as perhaps he changes them out before each and every one) is sacrosanct?
They are both NPCs. These NPCs may matter or may not matter to your PC and their story.
However, you do not get full control over them because you're attached to them. You get to run your PC, and the DM gets to run them. If you can't trust the DM to run the scenario, then get another DM. If you have problems with local judges, then work on them not demanding to run NPCs because they won't do the right job.
If you'd have that degree of trouble from their poor judging skills, does this really circumvent it or just delay it? After all if the DM is merely over their head, they'll likely let you run some of these NPCs to lighten their load anyway.
only a lenient GM would even let me use the thing to do something crazy.
I keep coming back to this phrase. What exactly do you mean by it? Could you give an example?
Yes you did. The critter knew how to use its feats.
It still does, just your PC doesn't have a psychic link to telepathically impart to it when to use it.
The trick just lets your PC order the companion to use the maneuver.
If you are feeling like you are now restricted, then somehow you were imparting that knowledge between your PC and the animal without such a trick before.. right?
The player should be in control of his class feature, and the player should remember its its own separate character.
The NPC isn't the class feature, the bond is. It alters and changes the NPC in many ways, but it doesn't make the NPC into a PC. You don't get two PCs, just the one... though people seem to confuse that fact.
Likewise the summoned creatures are not the class feature for the Summoner, the spell-like ability to summon is.
It is exactly an NPC.
Just as much as a cohort from the leadership feat is an NPC, a wizard's familiar, an ally, and everything that is a character but not a player character.
It was bad enough having to pay 2 tricks just to get it to attack, now you also end up in the position of having to use extra tricks just to get it to use Feats it knows.
Before you had no way to order/make your companion use the combat maneuver rather than a normal attack routine.
Now you do.
Of course, if before you had a psychic link between your animal and your PC so that you automatically conveyed this knowledge to the NPC.. well then, yes you are now more limited in this ability that your PC does not have.
The DM should run the NPCs... and the DM should be impartial.
The NPC might learn things that the players have not, as just one example.
And if your DM has problems, then you will always have problems with the table.
You can easily give your new judge an outline of your faithful NPC, and then they can decide how much of that they will use. If you don't trust the judge with an NPC, then simply don't sit at the table.
At the mention of it some have stated that they would get up a leave the table, others would purposefully try to destroy the game, etc.
These are, shall we say, fairly strong reactions?
Someone wants their riding dog to be a 'war pig', and it makes them happy to call it as such.. and they don't seek any mechanical advantage out of it. That's reskinning. Maybe it means different things to different people.
The idea of the 'war pig' is something that makes it fun for them. Now should they be bent out of shape if a DM doesn't like this? No. They certainly should accept that this won't fly with everyone.
Should they be able to get mechanical advantage from it? Certainly not. And in an organized campaign, I can understand a blanket disallowing of such. However, if brought forward with the understanding that one judge to the next could easily disallow such it wouldn't be as much of an issue. It's all about expectations here, and whether it is a 'may I' rather than a default until countermanded.
The latter brings forth these strong reactions, and in some cases it seems people purposefully deciding to be jerks.
Now, you want your companion to have a certain personality. This may be innocuous, or it may cross a line. Both of these are possible. Just like the idea of 'reskinning' something can do. Should you gain a mechanical advantage from this? Certainly not, nor do I imagine that you would look for one.
Will judges have a problem with it? Unlikely, but if they do then you respect that rather than throwing a fit (as we are adults here). As to how often will it happen? I don't think many DMs will object to the party running party allied NPCs, but I do see an advantage to having it be known that the DM doing so is the default.
Do people get upset when they move from a table where a player kept track of initiative to a table where the judge does? Do they impose upon the judge that someone else (perhaps a specific someone) should be doing so? Or is it understood that while the judge can delegate this he/she does not need to do so, let alone to a specific person at the table.
However, witnessed by the comments here.. I think that many people would elect to 'act out' if the DM were to be the one moving the allied NPC, making choices for the NPC based on what they were given, etc.
The animal companion is an animal NPC that is bonded to the PC. The player does not get to run two PCs, but rather they run their PC and their PC can in-game direct their PC's companion just as much as they can direct an allied NPC.
If your PC charmed/dominated an NPC would you be upset when your PC orders the NPC that the DM is still running the NPC? What if the charm or dominate ability were a class feature rather than a spell? Would this change things?
I frankly don't see it. In fact I hear the opposite on how people see issues with summoners (small s) as the summoner's player is controlling too many creatures. The house rule in PFS limiting a PC to one fighting companion seems to have its basis here. Otherwise I would think that it wouldn't be much of an issue and one simply left for each judge to decide what they would care to handle (in case someone tries to be purposefully disruptive, which until this thread I wouldn't have believed).
But then again, this could be another issue of what the default is perceived to be. If the default is 'as many as the player likes' then the judge saying no can be seen 'as being a jerk'. Meanwhile if the default is 1, but could be higher if the judge can handle it.. then when the judge says '1' it is not 'being a jerk'. The black-and-white outcome doesn't change, but the ripple-effects certainly do.
Mike Clarke wrote:
If he doesn't want to show his rolls, he does not have to.
It's simple.. if the DM doesn't want to show his rolls, then let the oracle force rerolls after the success is announced.
It's an easy solution for this that shouldn't ruffle either side of the issue,
Wally the Wizard wrote:
If I'm fighting an orc with 25 hp and i can take a VS that does 30 damage or a full attack that does 50 than the VS is the better option since i still have my move action to set up my attack on a new enemy next round.
To nitpick here.. I'd rather do the full attack action so that the Orc is dropped, rather than leave him standing. Stubborn beasts don't know when to stop fighting.
The core rules for Gnome Magic says, "Gnomes add +1 to the DC of any saving throws against illusion spells that they cast." Would you grant this bonus to a gnome shadowdancer's Shadow Illusion, Shadow Call, and Shadow Power spell-like abilities?
While I would not have done so.. when they introduced the Summoner class they had augment summoning apply to their spell-like ability.
For consistency, I would then allow the +1 DC to apply here.
What's to debate?
Make Whole will expressly restore a destroyed magic item even with the magic intact.. not just damaged, but destroyed.
So, what's to debate here?
A 'destroyed' arrow is not vaporized. In fact, by RAW it's only effectively destroyed... make whole certainly can fix that.. mending arguably can as well.
You can't do that! There's a significant gp investment here!
Don't destroy the thing.. STEAL it.
Please.. next you'll tell me about all the traps you destroy/bypass/leave behind...
I'm not asserting that the Barbazu beard is a worthwhile weapon.. it's not. It's a flavor weapon and a bit of a joke.
However, it expressly spells out the general rule there.
It's not a question about what is optimal as frankly, none of these are optimal. As you note the DEX and Feat investment make TWFing a poor choice in general without something like sneak attack or significant extra damage per attack behind it.
Rather it is a question about what the core rules are. And armor spikes bother people to the extent that many allow their vision of the RAW to become clouded and confused on this subject.
This isn't a complaint.
Glad to hear it. Many people will turn and metagame and contrive to neuter PCs that don't fit into their own mold when it's really the players' game. The game can be played many ways simply on a strategic level.. if the party has elected to go one route vs another that is a valid choice for them that you should not deny.
Imho it is not your job to 'fix' the fighter or the like.. but rather to present the world to them and to roleplay the NPCs.
What would the creature do based on what it perceives? That is the question that you should be asking.
When I DM I like the players to describe their characters visually to me so that I don't think of the PC as 'archer cleric' but rather as 'elf with light armor, bow, and holy symbol followed by a number of dogs/animals'.
That way when I run the bad guys I can have them make guesses (like 'ranger' for the above). When you guess 'wrong' but validly for the NPC's perspective the group gets more invested into the world. Sometimes the most neutered combats are the most enjoyable despite no longer being 'epic' because the players can see themselves doing and falling for things like the NPCs did. It adds to the 'realism' of the world.
The creature that had 3 attacks that kept missing the fighter.. what was it thinking and what were its goals? Why was it doing what it was doing?
Not in PF. You'll notice the level 5 archer I posted has the teamwork feat 'lookout' as does his mount.
In situations where another archer would be surprised (no actions), he is sadly limited to a partial, in which case a buffing action or a ready against casting is reasonable.. but when he isn't surprised he gets a full round action in the surprise round. It's a wonderful feat for archers, especially those with perception as a class skill.
So let us consider that we are now limited to this situation where not only is there a surprise round, but you are also surprised by it. This is a very narrow case, and a far cry from the claim that a 3/4BAB can be overcome because they can spend a standard action in the first round to cast divine favor/power.
As to the summoner.. sure give yourself 2 rounds to self-buff then you will be great.. for the mop up, because those first two rounds are the most important in the combat. Mind you spending the first round casting haste is not a bad action (depending on the party), but the real archer will be the one receiving the haste rather than granting it.
If you plan for your first round's action to be doing something other than shooting, then you are not an archer. Rather you are that something other that later supplements it with arrows. Archers shoot first. Put another way.. in terms of characters there are those that are Han Solo, and there are those that are Greedo. Shoot first. An archer brings damage to the table. In general he does not bring combat presence (AOO, control, etc) like a melee damage dealer would, so he has to deliver damage better as he is bringing less to the table.
Steel Forged Games wrote:
Does anyone else feel this is possibily too good of a feat?
Some do, but it's mostly because it looks like it gives more than it does.
Do you consider weapon focus to be too good of a feat?
Let's consider how Furious Focus looks for a fighter:
As others have said Weapon Focus is strictly superior at levels 1-3. Depending on your view you might like Furious Focus at levels 4-5 over weapon focus, but it is still a bit of a toss up when you figure in AOOs and potential haste spells.
During levels 6-7 you gain a sum of around 2 pips on d20 roll(s) where you would do better for having either feat. If you have a full attack then weapon focus achieves the same advantage as Furious Focus. If the enemy provokes an AOO, or if you are hasted then Weapon Focus wins decidedly (being 50% to 100% better).
Levels 8-10 should find you hasted for more combats than levels 6-7, and thus winds up being a bit of a wash there. Moreover, this is when you might start to see certain 'soft' targets that you can hit on a 4 or so (say ACs in the mid to low 20s), thus Furious Focus won't give it's full bonus to you as natural 1s always miss. Meanwhile as iterative attacks are at -5, weapon focus will (almost) always deliver an advantage even if a dwindling one. Between the two, and the good potential for AOOs again Furious Focus loses a bit out.
At level 11 the fighter picks up an iterative attack, and likely at this stage is sporting boots of speed. Furious Focus strictly loses here until 12th where it still is subpar whenever AOOs are seen. Even then you will find more and more 'soft' targets, as if they are not soft for a fighter then they shut out 3/4BAB PCs from combat.
The only place where Furious Focus will give an advantage is for the rounds where the fighter is being denied a full attack. Even then at low levels this is mitigated by AOOs, and at high levels this should be mitigated by abilities that enable the fighter to deliver more full attacks.
In conclusion, I don't see Furious Focus as anything more impressive than Weapon Focus, and in many ways it is far less. This isn't mentioning fighter builds that go for whirlwind, reach weapon builds that expect AOOs, mobile fighter/ dervish archetypes, etc.
What you are seeing here is that 'flash' gets more press than 'steady', while the later can be more impressive,
There is a difference here:
If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move.
Note it is not 'movement' but a regular move.
Stealth is part of 'movement' which includes the 5' step, which directly calls itself that:
If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round that you move any distance.
5' step is clearly movement, and stealth clearly says it can be done as part of movement.
You might not like the answer, but RAW is clear.
Would you allow any of the following:
1. An immobilized creature to 5' step?
2. A creature to 5' step but then claim the stealth bonus for not moving?
3. A creature to 5' step but not trigger a readied action for 'when he moves'.
There is a difference between a move action, and a 5' step. However both are movement.
Stealth does not require a move action, but rather can be done as part of movement (note: movement and not move action).
There is nothing wrong with doing this, assuming that somehow you meet the requirements for stealth.
For example, fighting a blinded opponent a character could full attack, and then quietly 5' step. They would be at penalty for doing so (full speed), but it would be possible. The blinded creature would not automatically hear which was square to which they moved.
It is something that is hard for a character to obtain, based on the requirements of stealth, but it is quite possible.
The same example would also work if the character were greater invis'd, or in the dark against someone without darkvision, or finally if they had someway to use stealth avoiding the normal requirements (i.e. HiPS).
As to simultaneous claims: they are incorrect. These are sequential occurrences. A character dropping from say fireshield damage does not get to 5' step before falling unconscious. Right? Why not? If the attack and 5' step were simultaneous they would be allowed to do so.
If this last disturbs you, then the whole creature closing to a character then the character being able to full attack even though the prior round the creature was not fully there... would be untenable to you as well. That's not how the game works, and really there's not a nice fix in the combat system to allow for it.
Glove of storing on the main hand.
Now we're up to 55k of your gold.. and you still can't spell combat.. again not a problem.
That's also assuming you are alright with dropping and leaving unattended a 35k gold metamagic rod (and are prepared to cry if it is hit with a fireball, picked up and walks away, etc).
And at the end of the day.. you still aren't dealing omg level damage.. but you are woefully underdefended, etc..
No, a move action is the standard to direct a spell which is what you're doing.
The rules are an interesting hand-me-down of several versions piled on top of one another. There is no consistency between reminders of standard rules and only including exceptions to standard rules.
The feat section is, perhaps, the nicest in this regard giving an entry for what would normally be the case.
Okay, the first step is to define 'stealth'.
Stealth: a skill to allow one to remain unseen when otherwise they would be automatically noticed.
To have a chance (opposed rolls) to remain unseen, someone must maintain at least some degree of cover and concealment to the potential observer at all times.
The blur spell grants the target of the spell concealment. This will suffice for the requirement just as much as a light fog, dim light, and the like would relative to the potential observer.
People don't tend to feel that this is 'right', though it plainly is in the rules. Moreover, watch the movie 'predator' and think of his ability as the blur spell. Once you've picked him out, you can follow his movements until you lose sight of him. Then you need to 'find Waldo' again so to speak.
Hope this helps,
No, it wouldn't. It has 3HD. And a wizard's familiar doesn't have more than the normal HD for a little critter of its base type either.
Nor would it be accurate to what it was giving and not giving to create the shadow companion for the shadow dancer.
If you advance it's HD then it would get different saves that might be better than the shadow dancers, right? This does not happen.
If you advance it's HD then it would get its own skill ranks, right? This does not happen.
If you advance it's HD then it could (in abstract theory) have a higher BAB than the one granted to the shadowdancer. This does not happen.
These are all 'derived' stats from HD. Now if you compare the wizard familiar, it doesn't get any of these either.
Because the wizard's familiar doesn't get extra HD either!
Hit Dice: For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master's character level or the familiar's normal HD total, whichever is higher.
Note this is not the same as the creature gaining HD.
Now, likely because this was a changed ability, this wording was not added to the shadow dancer ability as no one thought about it. As it stands a shadow is low HD for purposes of spells that solely rely upon HD (halt undead, etc). But who knows, perhaps this was intended as a limitation on the increased shadow.
But there is no precedent for the shadow or a familiar actually GAINING HD.
Derek Boobyer wrote:
You mean unlike a non-specialized magic item that is commonly available to purchase such as a mithril urgosh that is +1 flaming frost on the axe end and +2 holy dueling on the other? Or a +1 light fortification fire resistant darkwood light shield with adamantine spikes enchanted with dueling and +2 flaming, defending, and holy?
The line in the sand looks fairly arbitrary.
Simply make them available based on gp-value like most things. Leaving it to chronicles that could not possibly cover even 1% of the possibilities is inane and random. Should a 3rd level wand of extended mage armor be harder to obtain (if EVER possible) than major magic items? Insanity.
There's a reason that you don't need to get access to everything via chronicles. They just aren't the right medium for it... especially not something as wildly varying as all consumables. Purposefully gimping consumables not only skews the game, but teaches bad lessons to the players about how to handle them. PFS should be about elevating the game, not downgrading it.
It's like those rules on what could or could not apply to day job rolls that changed so often. Why? Because the rules were ad hoc and never shared. There were lines there that never made any sense, but change was resisted simply because it was change.
There's a reason that the default should simply be 'by the core rules', and where exceptions occur they should have a clear and stated reason. As the game evolves those reasons, plain to all, should be discussed and debated on these forums.
What's wrong with a CL3 wand of magic missiles? Or an extended mage armor scroll? How does the game break or degrade with them in it as they are in the core rules?
How can all the chronicles that ever will exist even cover 1% of all of these items that have no reason to be banned from the game?
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Been thinking about this after another thread discussing hate/love for consumable items.
Grouping all 'consumables' in one pile is part of the problem.
Segregate them into at least 3 categories:
1. Every day use.
The price of the consumable relative to the income of the character will help determine into which category an item falls. This will change with the income of the character as they level.
A potion of fly starts out as not worth the price, then becomes a panic button escape, then the character levels into using it as a specific tool when really needed, and finally it gets to the stage where if there's a need to use it then it gets used.
People confuse these categories by not recognizing them. They use a potion of fly as an every day item when for them it should be a panic button. Then they bemoan how it was too pricy.
Consumables are force multipliers. When used they allow parties to tackle encounters that they normally could not, and be in better shape after the encounter than they would otherwise be.
This is a problem that many gamers fall into.. 'interesting' but 'good'.
I would suggest that you go from another angle.. work out the character of the character. Then add on the mechanics... have them meet in the middle.
You can have the most vanilla build in the world. It could be the same as your last 4 PCs, but the character and persona of the character is what can make this one different, unique, and 'interesting'.
Think of a persona for the character. Go with that a bit.
Now to that you want to add what mechanics? What roles do you want him to have in the party? You want him to be the tank and damage dealer? Easy to go from there.
Might as well house rule a lot of whirlwind attacks as not viable. The whip in the first place would need to recover and lash out again, any stabbing weapon, polearms in general, etc.
Likewise you can force (as another houserule) polearm users to declare facing as there's no reasonable way to have them spinning around in a narrow corridor to threaten both in front of them and behind..
Sorry, accept it. But if you don't want to, enjoy your game.. but it doesn't have that much place in a rules' discussion. The 'I would not allow it' as a house rule doesn't have much of a purpose here. You might as well not allow a character to take all their iterative attacks before another can act (to make the interchange 'more reasonable') etc.
In other words, this is way into house rules in that you are wanting your picture to dictate the rules, rather than the converse.
Its worse, as the DM is entrusted with more responsibility.
Part of that responsibility is to roleplay the NPCs.. and they certainly should not be omniscient. Honestly some of the most fun I've had on either side of the 'screen' is where the players see an NPC making an understandable mistake from what information they must have.
To the original poster:
The game changes as the party levels. Some people are less comfortable and ready for certain levels of the game. Don't play or run those until you are.
Zog of Deadwood wrote:
I have a longstanding 14th level PC I have played since 3.0.
Understand that the crafting rules for magical items changed in Pathfinder. You can craft while adventuring. This should make your life a bit nicer.
Also, you might ask since there are special options available to wizards in pathfinder for their bonus feats if you might swap out a feat or two for one of those..
Also Pathfinder has 'traits', you might wish to see if your DM would allow everyone to pick up one or two. There is one that can offset the loss of caster level that you have (though not the actual casting).
During a surprise round when you can't act as much, while you are staggered, or when you are slowed you can ready a charge.
However, during a normal turn when you are at full capability then you are not limited to only a standard action and as such a charge is a full round action for you.. thus you cannot ready one.
This doesn't work for me, and I readily believe that a character should be able to voluntarily limit themselves to a standard action for their turn and thus be able to do, when they are hale, things that they can do when they are debilitated.
An easy house rule has always been to allow a character to restrict themselves to a standard action.
A character should not GAIN options by being disabled.
Because it is a game rather than a legal document. Repetitions are made to make things easier.
People make mistakes with the game rules when they clearly are spelled out (like here) so not spelling them out is always a disservice.
Shallowsoul, I'm sure that if you went through the feats and spells that you would find for yourself many, many instances of such repetition. Do so, and see what we mean.
Because its written plain as day?
It makes no such allusions that you wish to attribute to it. The writer clearly believed just as everyone else in this thread.
You also know full well that rules will have reminders but when it serves your desires you will elect to purposefully misread it? Shame on you.
I think that the rules in this case are clear to everyone that wishes to read them.
Could you go back and read my post? Because I don't think you fully did. In what you quote.. are there ANY off-hand attacks even mentioned? No.
It's also ignoring the intent of the restriction on armor spikes which was to avoid confusion- if you have two off-hand weapons could you (without ITWF) make two extra off-hand attacks? It was trying to say, no you don't get that. At least that is how I read the intent there.
You would be wrong here... as it never says any such thing.
You could certainly elect to do the following:
Main attack: longsword
Just like you could, starting the round holding a longsword and mace:
Full attack action (full round action):
All the while having the mace in the other hand. This is not on SKR's FAQ list however.
What he is saying is that the following would not be valid:
Though honestly, I don't see the point in such a restriction.
Thomas Writeworth wrote:
Have whatever traps you put in make sense.
You have 3 categories hand made, fixed up, and left over.
In hindsight have it clear which is which.
Placement of traps needs to make sense as much as placement of creatures!
I have read the item.
It clearly has 'requiring no hands to use' stated, and then lists as a consequence that it can be used alongside a two-handed weapon.
Likewise (iirc) there is a 3rd ed FAQ where an example is wielding a longspear in two hands while using armor spikes.
This is not new. It is not unknown. It is not surprising at this point.
To answer your inquiry: I feel the same way. I see nothing there that makes it an exception, but rather it seems clearly to be a reminder. If it was meant to be an exception to an unstated rule, then it is in need of errata... but then again so would TWFing.
Do you somehow think that because the weapon provokes (like say an unarmed strike) that somehow this makes a conclusion an exception??
Ciretose, sometimes the text is giving you exceptions and sometimes it is reminding you of the rules.
In this case it is spelling it out so there can be no misunderstanding.
The current devs may elect to change the rules, but as they stand it's perfectly legal. You have a Paizo product spelling it out AND you have a 3rd Ed FAQ directly using it if I recall correctly.
Now this might not fit your desire or viewpoint, but such happens. I happen not to like Paizo's change to QuickDraw, but I can't ignore what the RAW clearly are. I shouldn't need a dev to tell me that, nor should you in this case.
Also, when 2WF, your off-hand attacks only do .5 Str damage without Double Slice
Well that's what off-hand says, but two-handed weapons says 1.5x STR and unlike light and one-handed weapons makes NO allowance for the change if wielded as an off-hand weapon.
The bonus from power attack would be normal, as BOTH the addition AND the subtraction would occur.
Clearly, it wasn't really considered as an option when the rules were written.
And I didn't claim it would be 'breaking' just that it would be interesting from a rules' point of view, as its a situation that reasonably wasn't considered when it was written.
I have no conceptual problem with it. We all know that the combat round represents simultaneous action, but we are forced to 'take turns' to make the game playable.
So you believe that it is tactically foolish to have both hands on pne's weapon?
Moreover, you believe that devs who have said "merely holding in one hand" and thus not threatening were wrong and you are right?
And this is based upon an unwritten belief that while one must hold a weapon properly in one hand, one need never hold it in the second hand excepting for the instant of attack?
And for all of these lines you have drawn you have absolutely no support, and are ignoring dev statements and prior 3e FAQs to do so?
I'm sorry, but call it a house rule, or bemoan that the rules don't spell things to your liking,
Could you explain this some more.
Situation: A cleric has a HEAVY shield, a mace, and wants to cast. Can they? Not a somatic component spell.
This doesn't change anything here.
Now you say.. make the *heavy* shield a light shield instead.
So you are saying that they need to make a concession here (no heavy shield) to do this.
Either they can cast the somatic component with the light shield hand, or (if unallowed by the DM) they make a similar concession and use a buckler.
What am I missing here?
I think that you have a conclusion and you are trying to force things to support it.
Honestly, this game has trade-offs and always has. That an average human cannot juggle weapons during combat without loss of optimal effectiveness I do NOT find a compelling reason to demand changing the move action cost down to a free action.
If you want it to be a free action, then why not take quick draw? It seems as if this is entirely predicated upon wanting the benefits of a feat without actually taking the feat...
Do your partymembers? No?
Why would it effect your weapon?
The keyword in that sentence is"you" rather than "all purposes"