|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It could conceivably incapacitate and bind someone, then hang them before moving onto its next victim.
I'll agree, though, that the rules don't handle the iconic monster that can grip multiple enemies at a time, or hold one foe while attacking others.
The kraken, probably the most recognizable example of this, cannot hold aloft 2 or 3 people while it's destroying a ship. This is a significant failure on the part of the rules to simulate well known myths and monsters.
Classes with 2+Int skills per level. I think it's stupid to balance characters by limiting their skills that much.
What I tend to do is bump the 2+ crowd up to 3+, then give every class an automatically increased skill, or choice between 2 skills. That does a little to allay any concerns rogues and such may have about their territory being encroached upon.
Wizards get Knowledge: Arcana or Spellcraft as an auto-skill, for example.
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Right. A mithral chain shirt has +4 AC and a 10% ASF, so with AAT and a swift action that's 0%, which means you can cast without chance of failure.
A mithral breastplate has +6 AC and a 15% ASF, to with AAT and a swift action that's 5%, which isn't terrible, but still has a possibility of failure.
Nothing stops you from casting in any armor on a wizard or sorcerer, you just suffer a chance of failing to cast any spells with somatic components. If you drop the ASF to 0% you can cast spells regardless of your class. All the bard, magus, and summoner do is wave the ASF for certain classes of armors.
Is +2 AC (breastplate vs. chain shirt) worth the hit to spellcasting by going with a half-caster? Mithral + Arcane Armor Training is 0% failure. It eats up your swift action, but what are you going to be using that on before you acquire Quicken? At that point, there should be some other options.
If this were a home game, I'd try to convince your GM to either allow Arcane Armor Training to work without the swift action, or to include a second feat that upgrades the ability to not requiring an action.
Is there an armor enchantment that reduces ASF like the Twilight property from 3.5?
For number 4, that doesn't follow. Using larger than standard weapons for your size is kind of an awkward mechanic in Pathfinder and D&D 3.x: you could use a much larger weapon, but it technically does NOT grant you increased reach. At my table, I'd probably rule that it does, but there's nothing in the rules to confer that ability.
I think there's a bit of difference between using a swift action while moving (part of a charge), and using one between succeeding on an attack and the damage that stems from that.
The full-round action rules say that you may take a swift action, before, after, or during, and the charge rules include nothing to override that section, so it follows that you can take a swift action at any point during your charge.
Regarding the swapping stances between an attack and the damage thing...I'd say that there isn't anything in the rules that I can think of that would say you CAN'T do that, but my feeling is that they are only divided in game terms. That is, taking a swift action during a full-round action like charging works because a full-round action isn't a real thing, it's just there to help the game flow. In reality, you're taking a minor action while running, before swinging a weapon, or after, whereas damage simply occurs as a result of an attack--you cannot separate those, at least not with a real action, to my mind.
I know that there are some abilities that DO occur between the attack and its damage, but those all seem to be immediate actions (explicitly designed to interrupt another action), and physically more minor than Lay On Hands would be.
Remember that you don't need Read Magic up every time you want to use a scroll--if you read the scroll ahead of time with Read Magic, you can use it later without the spell.
There have been times that I have not prepared Read Magic on my wizard on a day where I know I'll be out adventuring, but rarely.
On my wizard, I tend to prepare Detect Magic all the time. Then I sometimes prep Ghost Sound, and sometimes Light, and if I know I'll be facing humanoids, I'll take Daze (which takes up 2 slots, due to being from a restricted school).
Well, if you're already so focused on Conjurations, go with the Teleportation subschool for the Shift power. Now, you can walk up to the edge of your pit, cast a spell down into it, then take a swift action teleport away from the edge so you're not at risk of falling in.
I really love the Pit spells, but my group isn't such a fan. The biggest problem is the inability to Dismiss the thing. It's frustrating when you effectively control the battlefield by dividing the enemy force in half, but lose all of that goodwill by forcing everyone to stand around twiddling their thumbs for 4 or 5 rounds.
I've had encounters where, when everyone got tired of waiting, we took an archer, tied a rope around his waist and had everyone else anchor him as he walked to the edge of the pit, leaned over and pelted the guys below.
How has this not generated a FAQ yet?
Questions on Glitterdust:
1. Does Glitterdust continue to affect the area of its effect after the initial casting of the spell (if someone enters the area, are they subject to the dust)?
2. Once applied to a creature, does casting Invisibility upon that creature negate the effects of Glitterdust?
3. Does Glitterdust emit its own light?
4. Is Glitterdust a physical substance?
I suppose this interpretation is a little less hard to swallow, but I still really don't understand how one could come to the point from that direction. We have a spell that Blinds a target, and a spell of the same level that removes Blindness from a target. Why would ANOTHER spell of the same level, that grants a benefit, ALSO be able to (sort of) remove Blindness from the target?
Further, Darkvision still isn't claiming to grant the ability to see but to see in the dark, the latter of which is a full clause.
All of them but the first clearly express a modification on the ability to see, not a granting of sight itself.
Also note that if you want to go with the interpretation that the spell grants the ability to see, period, you could also read the description as granting the ability to see normally as well:
The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight.
That could be read as: the subject gains the ability to see 60 feet (even in total darkness). That is, it COULD be read, if you want to employ the same reading process, to simply grant the ability to see 60 ft., and that it specifies, additionally, that this ability extends into total darkness. Therefore, you COULD read this, as being able to grant a Blinded creature the ability to see out to 60 ft. in normal light AND darkness.
That seems patently wrong to me. Does it seem reasonable to you, even merely as a RAW reading? To me, it just feels like breaking up the sentence in such a way as to alter intent.
Question: If a creature did not have eyes, or any access at all to a visual sense organ/ability, would you allow Darkvision to grant that creature the ability to see? Restricted to: in the dark)? Restricted only to 60 ft., regardless of illumination?
I think there are plenty of open-ended rules still available for such purposes, and many things not covered in the rules at all, being entirely up for discussion and variation. On top of that, we come back to the GM having power at his table to make any alterations he or she sees fit. So, barring PFS, nothing is removed by settling a rules debate like this--you're still free to play with it however you like at your own table.
For my part, I think it's stupid to balance classes by denying them minor out-of-combat actions (Skills), and raise all of the 2+Int classes up to 3+Int+1 static skill that increases on its own (for example, clerics would get 3+Int and Knowledge: Religion would keep pace with your max ranks in everything else, because it's silly for a cleric to not know about being a cleric...that's what oracles are for).
There's enough other variation in the game to not render the whole system boring because of this.
The stance is illogical because it is making assumptions without basis, and discarding simply-worded spells and effects in the process.
If you imagine that they both use the eyes, and the definition of being blinded is being unable to use your eyes to see, then wouldn't it follow that, no matter how your eyes perceive the world, if you're blinded, you can't use them for ANY sort of vision?
If you want to differentiate sources of the blind condition as a house rule, that would be fine, and make sense. If the situation ever came up in my game, I might make such a mechanical distinction myself, but this is the RULES forum, so that sort of personal bias lies outside the scope of the discussion. I, and others, have already shown what the rules say, and they brook no argument, to the contrary without resorting to unsupported assumptions or creative reading.
They eye does have many parts, but nothing in the descriptions of the abilities or spells suggests that the parts of the eye have any bearing on the in-game functionality: it could be parts of the brain, or something entirely magical that defies biological explanation. MY point, is that with the rules being nebulous on those facts, one cannot make assumptions one way or the other, and you have to use the rules as they are presented. In this case, it's pretty straight-forward: both descriptions use the word "see", the word "vision" is included in each of the disparate parts, and absolutely no exception or difference is called out for effects such as Blindness, except in a very specific case, which makes that distinction, because it must.
If something says it makes you blind, it makes you unable to see with a visual sense, whether normal, low-light, or darkvision. If something specifies that it only blinds a particular type of vision, then THAT something does what it says. Since it calls out its own exception, its existence doesn't change (and doesn't need to) other rules.
There IS no contradiction here. You have a special substance that specifically calls out a type of vision that it blocks. It doesn't say why, or how, exactly, but that's how it works.
Blindness/Deafness bears no such stipulation.
Darkvision bears no stipulations that would suggest that it would function separately from normal vision, other than that you can see in total darkness, and that you see in black-and-white, and that you may still see normally when light is present.
The game has a hierarchy of rules that works for this item: a more specific rule overrides a the general one.
Also, there's plenty of published material in adventures and such that don't follow the game's core rules, whether because someone made a mistake, or because someone decided to write an unofficial amendment to a rule, or because they wanted to create an individual something that specifically breaks the rules in some way. Spells do this--they break some common-standing rules or the environment, and interaction therewith, to provide characters with unique abilities, yet the system still stands, because it is understood that exceptions do not alter the rules.
The subject gains the ability to see 60 feet even in total darkness. Darkvision is black and white only but otherwise like normal sight.
Blinded: The creature cannot see.
What more is there to discuss? Darkvision allows you to see in a special way, while blindness prevents you from being able to see.
At some point, standard English is sufficient to interpret the game rules when there's really no logical reason to treat the rules otherwise.
Darkvision relies on your eyes. Can you find a creature that has Darkvision, but lacks eyes? Just because Darkvision, low-light vision, and normal sight can function independently of each other doesn't mean they function independently of your eyes!
In order to read this otherwise, you have to make an awful lot of rather tenuous assumptions. The ones you're putting forward, MachOneGames--that darkvision grants you new photoreceptors, that Blindness blocks your existing ones--are making assumptions about how these spells function with absolutely ZERO evidence to back up those assumptions. The Darkvision spell mentions nothing of HOW the new type of vision is gained, it is simply magically conferred. Similarly, Blindness/Deafness does not describe HOW the conditions are imposed. For all you know, Blindness/Deafness can cause the nerve centers of the brain connected to these senses to atrophy, or your eyes to cloud over blocking ALL light from entering your eyes, or your brain becomes incapable of interpreting visual stimuli, or tiny dark clouds appear just in front of your eyes preventing light from passing through.
The point is, the spells have to work regardless of your description of how they work, which means that a single assumption cannot go change the way the spells work, because that would clash with everyone else's assumptions on the same. If you want to rule that darkvision adds new photoreceptors to your corneas, that's fine, so long as that interpretation doesn't differ mechanically from someone who assumes your eyes grow larger, or magical fairies materialize inside your eyes who run back and forth between the viewport of your pupils and your brain, whispering highly detailed descriptions of all that THEY can see.
I know what you were suggesting, but I think it would just make EVERYONE unhappy, instead of making only SOME people unhappy.
Right now, Americans, some Canadians, and some folks in other countries are a-okay with using Imperial measure, because we understand it intuitively and can visualize the differences (to some degree) between different values. Meanwhile, many Europeans, some Canadians, and some folks in other countries are frustrated with using a confusing, antiquated system of measure that they didn't learn while growing up, and that they don't experience in everyday life, and thus cannot imagine the in-world representations of the measurements depicted.
Changing everything to a new system, that isn't as straight-forward as metric, would serve only to unite both of the above groups in their frustration at working with a system that they cannot understand without doing out-of-character calculations and conversions. You'd just make everyone equally unhappy, because you're introducing a system of measures that NO ONE can understand.
If you're going to have some people learn a new system of measure, why not just convert everything to metric? It's easier to understand than your Golarian measures, corresponds to the real world, and is otherwise beneficial as a result.
That could apply in the wilderness as well--the players get attacked by the shadows, and afterwards they stumble across the remains of some unlucky adventurer, or a camp, wiped out by a shadow, which explains why there was more than one attacking them.
Or, just don't give loot for that encounter, then give more for another encounter that makes more sense to you.
I always felt that the wording for readied actions left something to be desired. After-all, you can't really be acting before seeing the action that is supposed to trigger your action has taken place, so, really, it's interrupting that action, taking place after it begins, but before it completes.
In game terms, that means before the triggering action, because we have very few instances of actions that have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and instead have instantaneous effects--THIS HAPPENS.
In the case of A, B, and C, C's casting of DDoor doesn't trigger A's readied action--he's casting a spell, not moving within 100 feet). When B and C appear in front of A (within 100 feet), A's action can trigger, at which point, B's action triggers.
Now, if A assumed that any movement C might take would move him closer, and wished to ready in the event of C's taking an action to approach, then C's casting of DDoor could possibly trigger A's action, if he identified that C was casting a spell that causes movement.
The loot doesn't have to be FROM the creature killed: it could be the loot dropped by past victims, or items that were in the area the incorporeal creature now haunts.
For example, you're in a dungeon previously inhabited by dwarves. The players are making their way through a market district, with a smithy and armorer's to their right, a general store, and a jeweler's to their left. As they approach the area, some number of shadows (either the creatures that killed off the dwarves, or the remnants of the deceased dwarves themselves) emerge and attack the players. After being defeated, the PCs are likely to go investigate these derelict shops, finding some useful oddments, maybe some armor or weapons, some gems and precious metals (possibly in both crafted and raw form), and some coinage in the registers, or on the corpses of the dead proprietors (and even patrons).
As another, the players enter the dormitory of a commander of the city watch, now believed to be haunted by his vengeful spirit. True to the rumors, a wraith emerges from the dust-covered bed and attacks. After eradicating the thing, the players rummage through the ex-commander's dust-covered possessions, finding his old armor and weapons, a half-full coin purse, a ring of Charm Person and a journal noting how stumbling across this beauty of an item turned his career around, and a safe hidden beneath the floorboards containing the man's savings, a deed to a farmstead he was planning on retiring to, and some emergency potions of Cure Light Wounds, Alchemist's Kindness, and Remove Disease.
I think the reason for not doing this is the same reason we see threads like this posted: it's disconcerting, and immersion breaking, when you have to stop and check figures to get a sense of distance, because the measurements aren't in the system you're used to. All that would happen with a system such as you suggest would be that EVERYONE would be frustrated, instead of just the metric crowd (in this case), or the imperial crowd (in the case of Star Wars).
I meant regarding water, and water-based substances. Wine is close to the same density as water, and although we have alcoholic beverages in the game, if we are assuming a medieval-style world, most of these would be somewhat watered down.
After all, the original basis for the 'gram' was based on the weight of water according to a particular volumetric measurement (1 cubic centimeter). Water, being so plentiful, and handle-able, tends to form a basis for measurement, even if it is, itself, frustratingly fluid in its properties. Pun intended.
Oh, and dividing in half and then adding that result to your starting value is easier than multiplying by 9/5 (or by 9, then dividing by 5), and it comes pretty close.
A good breakdown, except for this part.
I find C + 50% + 32 is going to give you a better reading.
Look at your figures:
20 C * 2 = 40, which isn't at all close to 68 F, whereas 20/2 = 10+20+32 = 62, which is kind of close to 68.
Then for the rest...
Going the other way, take 86 F, subtract 32 (54) and divide in half (27 C). It's an extra step, but it yields a better correlation.
I would support the metrification. some arguments mentioned the space requirement but I don't see a bunch of numbers taking so much space
Go into the book and pick out every single instance where a measurement is noted, then write the corresponding conversion, count of the number of new characters used, and compare it to the number of characters on a page. It adds up.
Every spell description would be changed from, say, "(400 ft. + 40 ft./level)" to have appended, "or (121 m. + 12 m./level). That's 25 more characters (including spaces), and nearly every spell has a similar entry. Then, that's ignoring Area and Effect entries for spells, descriptions of equipment, creatures, and settings, anything that references traveling over a distance or speed (character movement, wilderness travel, the effectiveness of mounts and vehicles), etc...
It's a LOT more text, and in many cases, adding that text also means wrapping the line, so you're also eating up another line on the page, which in turn will push some things off to the next page, or require a significant revision by whomever does the layout for the books. Going from an existing edition to a new printing would see page numbers changed for a lot of references in the tome.
If it wasn't for D&D, I wouldn't understand any Imperial measurements :)
I think that if you quizzed a large random sampling of my fellow Americans you would find that many of them don't, either.
I know very few people who know the proper conversion of ounces-->cups-->pints-->quarts-->gallons, and almost NO ONE who can convert those volumetric measurements to their corresponding weights.
Which all leads to the question of why they bothered rolling Hide and Move Silently into one skill without fully readjusting the rules to compensate? MS didn't require cover, concealment, or a distraction, and worked alongside the 360 degree observation rules.
In my opinion, the stealth and perception rules are some of the worst parts of Pathfinder (and were near the top in 3.5 as well).
If you spent points to upgrade the eidolon's ability scores...that would probably carry over to boost your own, but you would not use your eidolon's base mental stats at all.
It's probably also re-referencing your using Str, Dex and Con from the eidolon.
So what I ended up doing, is I took a standard hydra (5 heads),with each head being a different element and color with a breath weapon (I did 3d6 for each weapon), elemental absorption for each element present in a head (that head, and the body absorb the associated element) and applied the following:
Fire (red) - If the head or body is damaged with a piercing or slashing weapon, the attacker takes 2d6 damage as its boiling blood spews out. Anyone that fails their Reflex vs. the breath weapon catches on fire.
Cold (white) - If the head or body is damaged, attacker is subject to a Chill Metal effect (wooden weapons) or 1d4 cold damage (natural or unarmed attack), and anyone that fails the Reflex vs. breath must make an additional Fort save or be Staggered for 1d4 rounds.
Acid (green) - This head and body gain DR 10/-, and anyone that fails Reflex vs. breath must make an additional Fort save or be subject to a (weakened version of) dragon bile poison (DC was same as breath weapon instead of the normally very high DC; and was changed to 2 consecutive saves to end the effect).
Electric (blue) - If the head or body is damaged, attacker is subject to a Shocking Grasp spell (CL = 1/2 hydra's HD), and anyone that fails Reflex vs. breath must make an additional Will save or be Dazed for 1 round.
Sonic (silver) - Head and body gains Spell Resistance 10+HD, and anyone that fails Reflex vs. breath must make an additional Fort save or be Deafened for 1d4 rounds.
Fire or acid could cauterize any of the heads except for those elements, while cold could be used to stop up the fire head's regeneration, and electricity could be used on that of the acid's.
Now, I gave the party some info ahead of time, so they went in with a plan...a group without any previous information would probably struggle a little to figure out which head had which effect, though I made sure to describe the scintillating body, and then note that one color would stop appearing when its associated head was severed.
I think it could have done with a little less retributive damage; I think Cold could have been changed to something else...maybe Lesser Fortification (describe a rime of ice covering its vital areas).
And the SR from Sonic felt...forced. Thinking maybe keep it at just fire, cold, electric, acid, where any additional head rolls 1d4 to determine element (maybe increases the associated effects while multiple heads are up: more damage, higher DCs, more DR or whatever) with heads not being duplicated again until all are doubled. Thus, on a 9-headed hydra, you'd have F, C, E, A, 1d4 (fire), 1d3 (electric), 1d2 (cold), acid, 1d4, ending up with 2 fire, 2 acid, 2 cold, 2 electric and 1 more of any of those.
The players had to decide which heads to target first for sundering (and really wanted to sunder, since attacking the body was dangerous and somewhat ineffective, though characters poor at sundering did that), and combine to get severed heads cauterized by the appropriate element.
The party of 7 players, a level 6 changeling ranger (high Str, 2 flaming claws), level 6 human monk (flowing archetype, Crane Wing), level 6 rogue (tiefling with Slow Reactions and the -1 Str or Dex on sneak attack talents), level 6 fire-specced human magister (sorcerer with some divine healing spells basically), level 6 samsaran oracle (used Aqueous Orb to deliver some damage, buffed people beforehand), level 6 gnome alchemist (fiery bombs and acid flasks for cauterizing),and a level 5 sylph witch (debuffed a lot with Evil Eye on AC, and Ray of Exhaustion) went through probably a little over half of their resources for the day.
The fight began with the ranger being the only one the hydra could see when he approached ahead of everyone, so took all 5 breath weapons, failed vs. two, but had imbibed some Energy Resistance potions, so only got knocked down to about 1/2 HP, and could ignore being set on fire. When the rogue got around to flank on the next round, he turned off the hydra's ability to make AoOs for the rest of the fight. The retributive damage was the most significant output of the fight, I think, because with their buffed AC, the hydra could hardly hit them BEFORE loosing 6 Str, and its AC was fairly pitiful BEFORE losing 6 Dex and getting Evil Eyed...and then losing 3 Dex from the rogue. Its CMD stayed kind of competitive for a couple rounds, but the debuffs took care of that. I think that, without Slow Reactions, it would have been more of a fight, since no one had Improved Sunder. They also had sufficient access to fire and acid damage to ensure no heads grew back.
As it stood, the fight was tough, but not too life-threatening, and everyone said they enjoyed it afterward.
I think they could have taken on another 2-4 heads without too much trouble, especially if I removed one of the retributive damage abilities.
What if it has an acid, fire, cold, electric, and...some other head, each of a certain color. While all the heads are intact, the body's colors shift between those same colors constantly, and the creature gains immunity to all of those elements, and some additional benefits (maybe a sticky body like a mimic for acid, an automatic Heat Weapon effect for fire, an aura of lethargy for cold, shock shield for electric...). If a head is severed, the body no longer cycles to that color, losing the associated benefits. Each individual head only has its own associated effects.
2 heads spring up 1d4 rounds after one dies, but can be cauterized, so, unlike when fighting a normal hydra, where the best strategy is almost always to just go after the body, unless you have a character built to sunder effectively and repeatedly, in this case you'd really want to be targeting specific heads, and stopping them from regrowing, to open the body up to harm.
The added effects I listed are mostly retributive damage, but I'd prefer for that to not be the case, so the heads really pose different options as far as exposing the body. AC, fast healing, DR, debuffs (in an area, or to those who strike it), spell resistance, concealment...these are all options.
For the heads themselves, thinking a breath weapon each that deals 2d6 damage:
How strong do you think it would be to take a 5-headed hydra and apply this to it? CR 8? 9? 10? How much do you think I should lower the base stats to curb the difficulty of the thing a bit?
Zaknafein the Lonely wrote:
Just base it on a beholder, give it a higher AC and skin it as a hydra
That's decent, but I'd really like to tie in the changing colors somehow...give them an opportunity to affect what the thing is spitting out at them, though cutting off heads may just be the way to do that.
That sounds pretty cool!
Hmm...would you have it breath all of them at once? Or just the one for the color of the body? Or should the heads take turns?
I can through something kind of tough at them, as they're pretty sturdy for level 6s, and I have 8 players now that one of my friends' brothers moved to town. Still, I already basically killed one player unfairly by throwing an aurumvorax at them, so I want to avoid something that is too likely to kill someone quickly.
Just had this idea:
A hydra, where each neck and head are a different color, for each element (fire, ice, lightning, acid, maybe add in light and dark, maybe not), while the body is covered in a scintillating rainbow pattern of scales. Each head gets a breath weapon of its respective type.
The body changes colors, but not super-fast, so that while it is one color, it gains resistance to that element and some additional ability (or abilities).
I'm looking for suggestions on what those additional abilities could be, what should trigger a particular color change (it would be interesting if the creature becomes a puzzle, where players try to figure out how to get it to change to, and stay on, the most beneficial color for their particular party, or even have one character change it to an element the party is strong against, and then another change it to one the party resists well), or anything else that seems relevant, interesting, or important.
I think the worst house rule I've run into (and I'm still not sure whether it was a house rule or just lack of knowledge of the rules), was that 5 ft. steps and withdrawing provoke attacks of opportunity as any other movement does.
Had no idea that this was the case (back with 3.x) for the table, and rolled up an archery Ranger. In the first fight we got into, I had a dire boar charge me and nearly kill me in one hit, so I said I was going to withdraw, hoping to get some space and bodies between me and the beast, and was told it gets an AoO. I pointed out that that wasn't how withdrawing worked (that the whole point of the thing was to allow you to get out of combat safely), but was rebuffed. Next, I said I would take a 5 ft. step instead, but was told that that would provoke an AoO. Again, I tried reasoning, to no avail. Finally, I said, fine, I'll shoot the thing, which, of course, provokes an AoO, and I drop to -5 when the thing hits me.
I spent my time unconscious flipping through the rule book to show the section detailing how these actions are SUPPOSED to work, but everyone just kind of glowered at me for being a rules lawyer, and for being disruptive, in my first game with them. That was also my last game with them in the 3.x system.
We should really get around to compiling a list...shouldn't we?
That's a weird FAQ. Titan mauler barbarian archetype calls this one out specifically saying using a 2 handed weapon in one hand treats it as a one handed weapon for damage.
By my count, they have Titan Mauler that calls it out specifically, a FAQ on bastard sword itself, a FAQ on something that allows the use of a two-handed weapon in one hand (same rule as the bastard sword), and a FAQ saying that the lance counts as a two-handed weapon still when wielded in one hand while charging on a mount for Power Attack and Str bonus.
The problem is that the first FAQ I quoted (with the lance) is worded to be a general rule, merely citing the lance as an example, whereas it appears that the developers wish for a weapons' handedness to be based on how many hands are wielding it at the time, so the lance FAQ is misleading. And that is exacerbated even more by the follow-up FAQs not being anywhere near the lance one.
They would have been better served with one FAQ that reads something like:
You determine your damage bonus from Str and Power Attack when wielding a weapon by how many hands you are using to wield it. If you use a bastard sword, or a longsword, in two hands, you gain the +50% bonuses associated with two-handing a weapon, while if you wield them in one hand, you just get the normal one-handed bonuses. An ability that allows you to wield a two-handed weapon (such as a greatsword) in one hand follows the same rule.
The lance is an exception to this rule; even when wielded in one hand, the lance is treated as being wielded in two hands when used while mounted.
That would have left everything clear, and would have helped them avoid writing 2 or 3 more FAQs on the subject.
Never mind. Just saw the FAQ on this further down the page.
I still think the team made a mistake when they made the ruling I quoted, and would have avoided questions like my thread title if they would have just ruled that a weapon's "handedness" is entirely reliant on how many hands you're using to wield it. Thus, a lance wielded in one hand does not receive +50% Str or Power Attack bonuses. Much simpler, and then they don't need to worry about writing FAQs for every other weapon this comes up for.
So, given this FAQ response regarding 2-handed weapons used in one hand:
Does a bastard sword, wielded in 1-hand gain the +50% Power Attack damage? It is, after all, a 2-handed weapon that just can be used in one hand at the cost of a feat.
This sounds pretty good. Could even look to the 3.5 Dervish and cop some of his dervish dance, allowing the swashbuckler to move 5 ft. after a successful attack.
Personally, I've always felt that monks should be able to use Flurry on a standard action attack (perhaps with a feat), allowing a second hit with the base Flurry, and a third when you get the next extra attack during a full-attack. So you could attack 3 times as a standard, or 6+ times as a full-attack.
I've also felt that TWF should get back the ability to make an off-hand attack as part of a standard action attack/charge (there was a feat to do this in 3.5 I believe).
And I've wanted the ability to do the same with Spring Attack (there was a feat chain in 3.5 for this, but it always felt kind of punitive...could just bake it into Spring Attack itself, some other ability worded to work with SA, or add one additional feat to accomplish this).
Oh, and ditto for Manyshot--the 3.5 version was a standard action semi-replacing a full-attack (up to 4 arrows as standard vs. probably 6 as full-attack, and with some better to-hit bonuses on the latter), and I think archers are missing a solid standard action attack. Just allowing the two arrows on a single attack (and in Shot on the Run) I think would be okay.
I don't know, mixing in kicks, elbows, headbutts...that seems kind of swashbucklery to me. More so if those are trips...
Pizza Lord wrote:
I suppose since it mentions conventional and normal attacks then siege weapons would also bypass DR. This would apply to giant-thrown boulders also. So in that case, dropping a boulder on someone might also apply.
It would certainly be very odd if dropping a boulder on someone was more effective than hitting them with a boulder flung from a catapult...
I like this one. Star Wars Saga Edition had a feat like this, Follow Through, that had Cleave as a prerequisite, and allowed you to move up to your speed after dropping someone and then make an attack.
That's disappointing since there are still some kind of big issues with the class including:-a distinct lack of the mobility that is common to the archetypical swashbuckler
-a serious bottleneck in action economy with everything taking up Swift and Immediate Actions
-two poor saves on a front-liner for whom Con is a 3rd or 4th stat, and Wis is a 4th or 5th, and only a weak mechanic to buttress those (again, because its action conflicts with the entire rest of the class)
The swashbuckler really needs a way to move and attack more than once. It needs a way to perform some impressive movement feats, like charging through difficult terrain and around corners/over obstacles, to fight competently while balanced on something and while hanging. It needs abilities that promote that sort of movement.
Maybe something akin to Star Wars Saga Editions Acrobatic Strike (I think that's what it was called), where if you tumble past an opponent you get a bonus on to-hit against them.
Maybe Acrobatic Attacker: If you successfully tumble through an opponent's square, until the end of your turn, you are considered to be flanking that opponent and gain +1d6 damage.