meatrace's page

Yes you can use it. I think they mean concentration in the spellcasting use of the term. No spells or SLAs. No reading books, no figuring out puzzles JUST SMASHING RAWR!

Which Power Attack is all about.

Not Ron. I like Ron. He's the only politician besides Sanders I think actually believes in what he says. Both of them don't give a rat's ass what anyone thinks about them and they both speak truth to power.

The rest? Mealy mouthed douches who should all burn in hell for constantly lying to us and making our country s@&+.

Speaking as a former constituent, I really liked Russ Feingold. He's about the most honest guy you'd ever meet. He was the only senator to vote against the patriot act. There's a lot of clamor right now for him to run for Governor against Scott Walker here in Wisconsin, but he's said he isn't interested. He did his stint as Senator and he's done with public office. Precisely the kind of politician we never see any of anymore.

But I agree, I feel the same way about Paul and Sanders. It's sad that the list of politicians we really respect, at least on a national level, is that short.

meatrace wrote:

Until it's answered in a FAQ I won't take anything JJ says seriously. He has a pretty horrible track record of being wrong about damn near everything.

Comments like that are why he doesn't post here any more, to the detriment of us all.

If you look at the rules as programming code for us rule-processing-robots to compile, then a lot of the rulings don't really make sense.

If you look at them as guidelines for everyone to have fun at the table, then pretty much everything JJ says is good advice.

That's kind of my point. The way he talks he expresses an opinion, but often he presents this opinion as an official ruling, even when it is obviously contrary to the rules.

I'd just as soon he didn't post general play advice in a rules forum, especially not masquerading as an official ruling.

James Jacobs (Creative Director) wrote:

without the Exotic Weapon feat, you simply can not use a bastard sword in one hand.

James Jacobs has ruled that it changes size (also here and here, which seems to be a change of heart from back in 2008 here) even going so far as to say it's an official clarification for PFS.

That makes it a quantum object. If you're proficient, it's small, if not, it's medium. So a proficient bard could snag one using Improved Whip Mastery, because he views it as a small object (one-handed weapon). But a non-proficient bard couldn't snag the same sword using the same feat, because he views it as a medium object (two-handed weapon). Two otherwise identical clerics cast Animate Objects, the proficient cleric animating 11 medium bastard swords, while the non-proficient cleric can only animate 5 of them.

I maintain that this doesn't make any sense, but them's the rules.

This is pretty hilarious.

Until it's answered in a FAQ I won't take anything JJ says seriously. He has a pretty horrible track record of being wrong about damn near everything.

No. It is not.
The chart says it gains an enhancement bonus.

You are the only person EVER to suggest that it is not a magic item.

And you are a moron.

I've never played the original Tomb of Horros, but I have played the 3E update. It was mind-bogglingly brutal. There is a pit trap that, if you fall down (and pardon my memory if I'm not 100 accurate) you get hit by like 1d10 spikes, each of which do 1d6 CON DRAIN. Like...ow? And that's like in the opening foyer.

Our DM had to give us all "extra life" tokens because he wanted us to actually get through it, cuz a TPK every combat is no fun.

This came up in our game Saturday so I'm going to resurrect this thread with the following observation: The Black Blade does not gain an enhancement bonus outside the spell pool. It shows it on the chart, yes, but you'll notice that the chart follows exactly the arcane pool progression. Under the Black Blade Basic section it shows a description and explanation of every ability on the chart *except* the enhancement bonus. With that specifically excluded, the black blade has no inherent enhancement bonus of its own. If the designers' intent was for the blade to have its own bonus, there would be a section describing it in the black blade write-up.

--JD

The black blade is a magic weapon.

That you don't realize this given the write up for Bladebound Magus and the chart YOU REFERENCED boggles me. If they don't get a magic weapon, what is the point of this archetype?

Grick... he didn't drop ALL of them.. he dropped all but two.

Likewise since you want to have your PCs 'wiping the sweat off their brow' then a PC that's picked up a polearm by the tip of the blade (say stretching to reach it) is then able to flip it into both hands and full attack with it?

-James

Not in the same turn, of course. It takes a move action to pick up a weapon from the ground, which wouldn't leave him with a full attack.

In that round he could pick up the weapon and attack once, however.

I never said the BS could not be wielded. I said it can not be wielded in one hand without EWP. Well actually the book is saying that. My assertion is that is not fluff, but a rule.

Too large to wield in one hand without feat X means "you can not do it" without feat X. You read it is "very hard to do" without feat X.

"Too" normally applies to hard limits not just more difficulty. If something is too high for me to reach without a ladder then it is out of my reach. It does not mean it is hard for me to reach. The last sentence assumes I am not climbing shelves by the way.

If something it too heavy for me to lift until I get stronger(EWP) that does not mean I can lift it with difficulty. It means I can not lift it.

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.

Say there's a hypothetical 1H exotic weapon.
Can you wield it without being proficient? Of course, you just take a -4.

What YOU are saying is that the bastard sword is a SPECIFIC EXCEPTION to the rules that can't even be wielded by taking the nonproficiency penalty. Every other 1H exotic weapon, which IS WHAT THE BASTARD SWORD IS, can be wielded by someone not proficient in it with a -4 penalty, but not the bastard sword because you read the description to say that it's too heavy to be wielded in one hand PERIOD.

I'm not attacking your position, merely trying to confirm it, and if you don't actually address my posts and answer questions posed we can't really move forward with the debate.

@ meatrace

What wraithstrike is saying is that it work like weapon finesse.
You can't use a weapon with weapon finesse taking a -4. You either have the feat and then you can use it with together with your dexterity modifier or you haven't it and then you use it with your strength.

That's an ENTIRELY different scenario. In that scenario we are not talking about proficiency. So your example is nonsensical.

Sure it does. AND I gave an example of a weapon that when properly wielded requires a move action (baring a feat) to wield in a different way.

That seems EXACTLY on track. Why does it take a move action there to change your grip, but not for ANY other weapon in your world?

Consistent with that are the actions required to make a weapon wielded from not being wielded.

meatrace wrote:

While a bow isn't a technically two handed weapon, it EXPLICITLY states that it requires two hands to wield it, and thus fire it.

Incorrect it requires two hands to USE it.

You might picture someone gripping a bow in two hands (like a quarterstaff) but that's not how it works. I've seen 'rules' lawyers' attempt this argument before.. the rules don't support them.

So, for your world, a cleric can start a combat round with light shield and mace having threatened the prior round. They then start a full attack action, in the middle toss the mace into the other hand, cast a quickened spell, then toss the mace back to their primary hand and continue the full attack action. That must seem reasonable to you for anyone to be able to do... for me it does not.

-James

OK I've gone over your quotes and I can't tell what weapon you're talking about.

What weapon in the core rules requires a move action to grip a different way?

As for your other point, now YOU'RE saying that using does not mean wielding. We can't have it both ways for the purposes of this argument. If use doesn't mean wield a weapon then wraithstrike's argument is invalid since it never says you can't wield it in one hand, it says you can't use it, which is apparently, by your reckoning, a completely different thing that is not explained in the rules.

You can be proficient with it as a martial weapon. You just can't use it in one hand. Only EWP allows you to do that for this weapon. I know you think it is fluff when they say you can't do it, but it does not read as fluff/flavor to me. If they would have said it was difficult then I would agree.

So.

What you are suggesting is that the bastard sword, on top of being an exotic 1h weapon that can be wielded 2h as a martial weapon, has a special clause that appears nowhere else in the rules that prevents it from being used one-handed at all without EWP:Bastard Sword.

Every other weapon in the game, every single one exotic, martial, or simple, can be wielded without proficiency with a -4 penalty, but not the Bastard Sword, it is a special case. Furthermore, it can't even be wielded as an improvised weapon for someone with the proper feats because it SIMPLY CANNOT BE USED without EWP:BS.

Is that your assertion?

No to both. If you want to make outlandish claims then back them up so they can be seen for what they are.

To the first, the first quote was drawing or sheathing a weapon.. which is perfectly relevant as you will see what the quote IS, rather than simply reacting to someone disagreeing with you.

The second, is spurious and false, frankly I have no idea where you're trying to leap there... perhaps you're confusing a bow for a 2 handed weapon?

What is outlandish?

NONE of the examples you gave are analogous to taking a weapon, ALREADY IN HAND, and placing an additional hand on it. Your examples are of taking something from a sheath, from a sack, from the ground, etc. and wielding them or manipulating them in some way.

Your logic doesn't track.

While a bow isn't a technically two handed weapon, it EXPLICITLY states that it requires two hands to wield it, and thus fire it.

IF you are required to use two hands to wield something (i.e. a bow).
AND IF, when you hold it in one hand, it is not wielded.
AND IF it requires a move action to wield something that you are already holding in one hand (the bow again).
THEN it follows logically that IF you take one hand off your bow it takes a move action to wield it once again.

IF THIS IS SO then every time you try to knock an arrow it will require a move action to wield your bow once again, even though you are holding it in one hand, because getting an arrow from a quiver DESPITE BEING A FREE ACTION requires you to take one hand off your bow.

THUS you can NEVER fire more than one arrow in a turn. Ever.
THUS archery doesn't work, as per your interpretation.

Please feel free to point out flaws in my logic, but I have laid it pretty plain and resorting to personal attacks get us nowhere.

None of your examples are relevant as they are all of putting something away, as in no longer in your hand.

Also, see above. If what you propose is true, archers don't work RAW.

You go beyond inflating the value of quickdraw, you make it absolutely necessary for anyone who ever wants to participate in combat on any level, because wiping your brow or pointing out oncoming enemies to your allies would, at best, cost you a move action to re-grip your weapon. Which is, to be frank, absurd.

I'd say it's definitely cheating to use that knowledge to gain advantage in that game, and I'd further say you'd have to be an extraordinary individual to be able to compartmentalize player and character knowledge that efficiently to be able to prevent yourself from doing so.

It's an age old question.

Is the Bastard Sword an exotic 1h weapon that has a special clause about being wielded two-handed as a martial weapon?

Or is it a 2h martial weapon that has a special clause about taking EWP to wield it in one hand?

Since it is listed on the table of Exotic Weapons, One-Handed, I would say the first proposition seems correct. In fact, even in your quoted text, it says in no uneven terms that "thus it is an exotic weapon." If it is an exotic weapon by default then anyone can wield it one-handed with a -4 non-proficiency penalty.

Get my logic? Probably explained it better this time.

My intepretaton is that the weapon is made as a two-handed weapon, but due to its design if you have special training you can weild it in one hand. That also fits the raw description, otherwise they could have just said in no uncertain terms that it is a one-handed weapon requiring the EWP feat to use it in one hand with no penalty.

If you can't use it then how can you wield it? That is like saying I can't use a scroll, but I can cast the spell from the scroll. If I am wielding the weapon or casting the spell are both not being used?

And my interpretation is that it can be wielded in one hand with a non-proficiency penalty. The language you bolded sounds like flavor text before the semicolon and rules text afterwards. The fluff is describing the mechanics and written in more informal terms, the mechanics being that it requires EWP to wield in one hand.

If someone asked you "what does it mean if I'm not proficient in longbows" and they were a new player, what would you say? That they can't use longbows? Or that they get a -4 penalty if they use it?

It's all silly anyway since bastard swords suck :P

As to your other post, that's precisely what James Maissen was saying. You need a move action to wield a 2h weapon you already hold.

One more thought.

IF it takes two hands to wield a weapon.
AND IF any time you don't have two hands on it you are not wielding it.
AND IF going from merely holding such a weapon to "wielding" it takes a move action.

You could never get more than one attack with a bow. Bows require two hands to wield, and unless you have someone else feeding arrows into your bow you would have to release your grip with one hand to retrieve an arrow (free action) and then use a move action to re-wield it, and a standard to fire.

prd wrote:

Sword, Bastard: A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. A character can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

The feat makes it into a one handed-weapon. Otherwise it is a two-handed weapon.

This is the height of pedantry. My interpretation is that the bolded section is, in fact, merely describing non-proficiency. In other words it's just additional language to describe its existence as both a martial and exotic weapon. Notice the semicolon? They are part of the same thought.

If we REALLY wanted to get pedantic, we could say that you can't USE the bastard sword, but the wording doesn't say you can't WIELD it.

Grick wrote:

If the paladin moves up next to the terrible fiend, points his finger at it, declares his intent to smash it with the holy fury of his deity, are you really going to not let him attack because he needs another move action to put his hand back on his sword?

The mighty barbarian draws then drinks a potion of strength, you're going to leave him unarmed because he needs another move action to put his hand back on his axe?

Yep, that would be the short of it.

-James

That makes no sense from a simulationist view.

That has no precedent in the rules.
I have never even heard it suggested that drawing a weapon is a separate action from wielding it, and this interpretation has no basis in RAW.

I'm proud to say I've been with you guys every step of the way, or at least since the first Paizo issue of Dragon.

Here's to 10 more years!

Diego Rossi wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Arcane mark actually possesses combat applications, including quite literally marking your target so their ability to escape or conceal themselves from you and your party is diminished; as you can put a big glowing rune on them that can be seen even if they are invisible, can be used for scrying,

Nice list of things that Arcane mark don't do.

Well, if you want glow... use the Light cantrip. It's a touch spell. ;)

As has been discussed, you cannot target a creature with that spell, only an object.

They range.
/thread

meatrace wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

It work RAW.

I still think the idea was using the spellstrike ability with limited resources (level 1+ spells) and not unlimited use cantrips, but that is another argument.

It's generally only worth it with higher level spells, specifically those that do damage or inflict a status effect. However using Arcane Mark is a way for a Magus, who can't use 2h weapons or 1h weapons 2h-ed, to have an additional trick in their arsenal at very low levels when those spells are at a premium. It's in no way game breaking or overpowered, so why not allow it? Effectively it's a crappy version of TWF where you need to succeed in a Concentration check to pull it off. Big whoop.

Actually there is nothing prohibiting him from using a 1 h weapon with 2 hands, 2 weapons or a two handed weapon beside his interest in keeping a hand free to cast spells.

So if he is willing to pay the feat tax he can use 2 weapons (spiked gauntlet and 1 h weapon and he will still be capable to cast), use a bastard sword and switch his grip when it is convenient or grip a 1 h weapon in two hands for the extra damage if he has the strength to make that worthwhile.

You totally didn't get what I was saying.

IF he uses Spellstrike and Spell Combat to cast Arcane Mark to "cheese" an extra attack, he cannot 2h his sword on that attack.

Monks.
UGH!

You could just roleplay the sword as not really liking her PC and kind of being nasty and sarcastic all the time, like it is being put upon to serve as her sword.

The bartender says "We don't serve time travelers here."
A time traveler walks into a bar.

It work RAW.

I still think the idea was using the spellstrike ability with limited resources (level 1+ spells) and not unlimited use cantrips, but that is another argument.

It's generally only worth it with higher level spells, specifically those that do damage or inflict a status effect. However using Arcane Mark is a way for a Magus, who can't use 2h weapons or 1h weapons 2h-ed, to have an additional trick in their arsenal at very low levels when those spells are at a premium. It's in no way game breaking or overpowered, so why not allow it? Effectively it's a crappy version of TWF where you need to succeed in a Concentration check to pull it off. Big whoop.

meatrace wrote:

concerro wrote:

Cure light wound is a touch attack spell when fighting undead. Arcane Mark is never a touch attack spell. If you want to argue that the word "attack" should have been left out you can, but as is I think it is shows intent, and was not an accident that it was there.

There is NO LANGUAGE in CLW that says it requires a touch attack. At all. Even when used to harm undead. Just like Arcane Mark.

And what you mean with that?

Are you implying that you touch automatically the target?

/boggle

No, that's what YOU'RE implying. By saying that not all touch spells are touch attack spells then you are saying that some spells with a range of touch will NOT require an attack roll.

The interpretation, to me, is clear. A spell with a range of touch against a target that doesn't want to be touched for whatever reason, requires a touch attack, whether he doesn't want to be Harm-ed or doesn't want Bull Strength or doesn't want Arcane Mark.

There are some spells that are ONLY offensive in nature and have a range of touch, for example Shocking Grasp or Touch of Fatigue. Those spells additionally call out in the spell text that they require a touch attack. Spells that are only helpful have no such text. However it is telling that a spell that could be both helpful and harmful, Cure Light Wounds, also has no such text.

Therefore, not all touch attack spells specifically call out for an attack roll in the spell text.

Therefore we cannot conclude from the absence of such language in Arcane Mark that it is not meant to be used offensively.

That's all. Clear with my logic now?

It doesn't matter whether it's an armed attack or not to the Magus, who delivers it through his weapon.

Cure light wound is a touch attack spell when fighting undead. Arcane Mark is never a touch attack spell. If you want to argue that the word "attack" should have been left out you can, but as is I think it is shows intent, and was not an accident that it was there.

There is NO LANGUAGE in CLW that says it requires a touch attack. At all. Even when used to harm undead. Just like Arcane Mark.

I bought mine roughly september '09. I carried it around with me for a little over a year, to and from gaming and using it there. It is utterly trashed and I keep IMMACULATE care of all my books. I have no other books that are falling apart that badly, not even my 3.0 and 3.5 PHBs which I used constantly during their eras. The CRB is just too big for its britches.

I put all that in a spoiler because I wanted to keep this thread about the Elven Curve Blade. I could argue Google all day, but the tinfoil hat comment makes it pretty clear you don't want to take it seriously,

I am unable to take it seriously because it's so nonsensical. Mustn't use google's search engine lest they peep through my windows?

http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=rhys+the+ redeemed#/d49z89d

This is the best picture I could find of Rhys the Redeemed. The only problem is, his curved blade looks like a one-hander. So, I'm guessing it's a larger version of that.

** spoiler omitted **

Believe me, the government already had pictures of your house, you sunbathing, your mother's birthday party, your new car, etc. All google does is provide an open sharing of that information. Not going to google.com doesn't prevent any of that from happening.

But please, don't let me prevent you from being paranoid. Might I suggest a tinfoil hat as a fashion accessory?

I was thinking altruist/egoist . . . but I like communitarian/individualist.

egocentric perhaps, not egoistic. egoism is the principle that every rational being, when confronted with a choice, makes the choice that has the most utility for him. the idea that altruism doesn't truly exist, because those who behave altruistically have made the choices they have for the benefit of themselves, their genes, their tribe, if perhaps only psychologically or emotionally.

meatrace wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

I'm not impressed either, mostly because he took vital strike. He could do more damage with two attacks. By swing twice he also doubles his chance to crit which is the best reason to take a high crit weapon.

Yeah. I've had a couple players seem determined to go the Vital Strike route. With archery even!!! I don't know why it takes such effort to convince them it's a trap feat.

Depends on what you take it for. If you still intend to full attack when possible and intend Vital Strike as something to use when you can't, and you expect a fair number of such situations, it isn't a trap at all.

One of the biggest benefits of archery is being able to almost always full attack. The only time I've seen Vital Strike be viable is with a character that wielded a Swatter (Dark Sun weapon with 2d8 base damage) and routinely enlarged himself. Rolling 6d8 for weapon damage is actually pretty cool and viable because it allows you to be mobile. Shooting one arrow at 2d8+X vs 1d8+8 isn't spectacular when your strength is in shooting as many as possible.

For the record though, this was a player who thought he could make a "sniper" type archer who would get one big attack with a load of dice. I gave him 3.5 scout skirmish ability and he took vital strike and STILL did far far less damage than if he just full attacked.

I'm not impressed either, mostly because he took vital strike. He could do more damage with two attacks. By swing twice he also doubles his chance to crit which is the best reason to take a high crit weapon.

Yeah. I've had a couple players seem determined to go the Vital Strike route. With archery even!!! I don't know why it takes such effort to convince them it's a trap feat.

You get a Gargantuan Eidolon. Hope you have a fig big enough.

I was gonna say Flumph.

You might be able to post the entire thing to google docs and just point people there.

Me, too. Sent you an email, Greystaff. The origin should be obvious when you get it.

meatrace wrote:

He could be a Bladebound magus, in which case he could totally have a +3 Keen or +3 Flaming, though still not both, weapon. I'm really not sure why anyone WOULDN'T be a Bladebound Magus.

Let's see:

1. I want the full arcane pool.
2. I don't want to wait until 6th level for my first arcana.
3. I want to enchant my weapon with something like spell storing.

Bladebound is nice around level 13-15 for dancing, but that can be handled for around 3k gold and using 1 arcane pool point by that point or merely a total of 12k gold.

Personally I see it as overrated unless you see sundering a lot, etc.

-James

As I've already pointed out

1)Can be remedied with a single feat.
The others are legit, but not a problem I experience or am able to really understand.

Bladebound is nice at level 5...cuz you can have a +4 weapon at level 5...which is awesome? The ability to do pure energy damage and bypass DR is very nice as well.

To tell you the truth its the intelligent weapon part that really turned me off of the bladebound magus. The higher you go the more influence the weapon can potentially have on you. I have played with DMs that would rub their hands with glee over the potential trouble such an item could cause. Even a relatively benign intelligent weapon can get its dander up about something if it pertains to its specific mission witch is supposed to be chosen by the DM in most cases.

I am not saying that the DM should go out of his way to make your life miserable with the weapon but it is one of the balancing factors of the archetype. So it should pop up at least from time to time.

If it bothers you that much, crank your Will save. Even at high levels the ego isn't outrageous for what your saves should be at that point anyway.

Otherwise it's just an excuse to role play more.

Meatrace, the last time I tried to figure out a magus wouldn't be a bladebound I settled on the answer of diminished arcana pool as well as not getting your first arcana until level 6. You can't even take Extra Arcana until then, and that hurts!

The diminished arcana pool is minor. At let's say level 10 you're looking at 3+int vs. 5+int. That's fixed by a single feat. I think a free intelligent weapon that can't be lost or broken and levels with you is worth a feat, yeah?

As to the arcana thing, I can see that. I'm playing one right now and I haven't felt it though. Most of the arcanas aren't great, but there's maybe 4 I can picture myself taking.
Still think the weapon>one arcana.

He could be a Bladebound magus, in which case he could totally have a +3 Keen or +3 Flaming, though still not both, weapon. I'm really not sure why anyone WOULDN'T be a Bladebound Magus.

They are a strong class, don't get me wrong, but they're still not quite up there with full casters. They're about in line with Inquisitor, which is in the APG.

I see no real problems with allowing it, just make sure you read and reread the rules and that the player does as well so he doesn't get away with anything he shouldn't.

It's much easier to make a class archetype than a new base class.

If anything, you should make it a Monk archetype. Give it full BAB with his mastered weapon, maybe let him flurry with it, and weapon training like a fighter on top of it, and then crib the rest of the class from the tweaks Magus made, using Ki pool instead of Arcane pool. Bing, bang, done!

as to the OP:

It depends! Slow tends to hurt others more than haste helps you. If an opponent has more than 2 attacks, it just absolutely demolishes him.

The fact that Haste always works is not to be underestimated. However, other than the increased movement which is always nice, the main benefit (extra attack) will likely only be taken advantage of by half the group. Whereas with Slow you can cherry pick your targets based on their perceived threat and/or ability to save.

Honestly? It's a toss-up for me.

Quote:

Haste. It always works. Slow requires a save.

This!

PS: I liked your other avatar much better, wraith. This one's disturbing...

oh sh-- I didn't even realize that was him!

no way, this new avatar is awesome. 3 thumbs up!

My party due to problems with the owner of the home where we play no longer has a rogue.

I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions how I can still use traps as non monster encounters without having a rogue who can deal with them.

You could just not include magical traps. Anyone can find and disarm regular, mundane, mechanical traps. Only rogues can disarm magical ones. Translate magical traps into equal CR mechanical traps. Make sure someone in the party, not necessarily the same guy, has a decent Perception and Disable Device.

Alternately, give XP for creative solutions to magical traps, like just running through and hoping for the best. Don't put in any magical traps that are lethal or reset themselves. As long as, when they set the trap off, they aren't killed by the ensuing damage and can be assured it won't go off again, all is copacetic.

What about stats for Sam Axe?

I don't know, is there a racial trait for Chin of Doom?