There's a few advantages
1) Its one weapon proficiency/specilization/focus
2) On those rounds where you can't make a full attack, its like holding a two handed weapon, so you get 1.5x your strength without having to drop/switch weapons
3) Its a light weapon (usually with better damage than a shortsword/shortsword combo)
Of course the major disadvantage is that both ends are treated as separate weapons for enchanting. So if you enchant your double sword to be +1, its only +1 at one end, and not at the other. You need to enchant the other end if you want it to be +1
People don't know that by RAW sneak attack leads to loss of dex which leads to sneak attacks.Can you cite that, please?
Cite that people don't know it or cite the rules to stealth leading to sneak attack?
|
Cite that people don't know it or cite the rules to stealth leading to sneak attack?People don't know that by RAW sneak attack leads to loss of dex which leads to sneak attacks.Can you cite that, please?
As you wrote it the first time, sneak attack lead to sneak attack,a nd that phrase baffle me (an Howie23 I think).
I did write it incorrectly.
Stealth leads to a loss of dex to AC, which leads to sneak attack.
If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.
<---This also reinforces point number two which is in the link.
|
|
Three things I didn't know.
1. The way touch spells work. For the longest time, I thought they were standard actions to cast them and use. But technically, that means it would provoke. Didn't make sense, so we looked it up. Apparently the actual touch attack is a free action.
2. Touch Spells can crit. On a 20 and x2. Holy @$$crackers
Maybe I am not reading you correctly, but:
1) what kind of cation is casting a touch range spell depend on the spell, most of them are standard actions, but metamagic effects can change that.
2) when you use them as a touch attack it always count as a armed attack, independently by what the spell do (i.e. if for some weird reason you are casting invisibility onto an enemy, the touch used to deliver the spell count as a armed attack and don't provoke an attack of opportunity [and this was a recent discovery for me, I thought you had to use a offensive spell]).
3) If you cast a touch range spell as a offensive action you get 1 touch attack as part of the action of casting the spell, if it is used as a spell shared between willing targets you can touch up to 6 targets in a round [this can generate some weird effect for a sorcerer using a metamagic on the spell, I will start a thread about that].
4) only spells tat deliver some kind of damage can get a critical (no bull strength critical, sorry) and it should not be a effect giving penalty (like ray of enfeeblement).
5) Both touch spell and ranged touch spell can get a critical if they satisfy 4).
|
|
If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.<---This also reinforces point number two which is in the link.
Ah. I think my confusion is stemming from the some ambiguity in your statement. It sounded like you were saying that a rogue, by using stealth, was himself denied Dex to AC, which made him a target of sneak attack.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Diego,
Here's what he's referring to:
When you cast a spell with a range of "touch", you don't have to make the touch attack in the same action that you used to cast the spell. For instance, if it's a spell with a casting time of one standard action, you can cast, then take a move action, then make your touch attack as a free action after moving.
Note that you only get to make that "free" attack once; if you miss (or don't use it on the round you cast the spell), then you're "holding the charge" and have to spend the normal actions to make additional attacks in subsequent rounds.
Lots of people don't know about that first-round freebie and the fact that there can be a move in between.
This is actually, I think, a hold over from 3.5.
But most people do not realize that your perception check to notice a creature standing 5 feet from you is 0. That means that some min/maxed characters may not notice someone standing 5 feet in front of them.
Example, MinMax the Mighty Barbarian sold off his Wisdom down to 6 to bump his strength up to 20. He put no ranks into Perception. He has a perception modifier of -2. He can actually miss seeing a creature standing 5 feet in front of him, even if the creature is not hiding, if he rolls a one on his perception check.
Related, people seem to always forget the distance penalties. So the guy standing in the woodline 200 feet from you, but not hiding, actually has a DC 20 to be noticed by your character (Visible Creature = 0, +20 range modifier).
I think that is less that people forget it and more that the players don't know how far away things are they are "looking for". It should be one of those thing the DM takes care of without even mentioning it to the players.
Well, when I say people forget, I mean mostly GMs on the distance mods.
I do think players forget about the whole not seeing the dwarf hiding behind his own war-hammer when they dump Wisdom though. :)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played a stealth-focused rogue in a campaign with a character who had a very low perception. He decided that because his perception was so low, and my stealth was so high, that he didn't actually know I was in the party. I'm not sure that any of the other characters ever actually convinced him that I was "real".
If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.<---This also reinforces point number two which is in the link.
This is highly debated.
This is highly debated.If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC.<---This also reinforces point number two which is in the link.
It might be debated, but nobody has presented anything to counter it yet, and to my knowledge these collection of points has never been presented together before.
Seeing as how you need 3 chapters to put it together I see why also. I do wish the information for losing dex to AC had been placed directly under the stealth skill which I did not even need to reference. Instead I had to go to the perception skill. <makes unhappy face>Another little known rule.
Magic items being subject to damage on a roll of nat vs AoE effects is also not common knowledge. I remember some of the more knowledgable posters having related discussion about it, and what a good HR would be. Other said they were glad no such rule existed so I hooked them up with a quote
Another little known rule.
Magic items being subject to damage on a roll of nat vs AoE effects is also not common knowledge. I remember some of the more knowledgable posters having related discussion about it, and what a good HR would be. Other said they were glad no such rule existed so I hooked them up with a quote
Do many-eyed fiends shatter many-wide dreams? :P
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is highly debated.
That doesn't really mean much. Lots of things have been highly debated that never really needed to be. (Did you see the threads leading up to the TWF FAQ? And did you see the ones that came AFTER it? Oy.)
Conversely, plenty of things are NOT highly debate but are wrong anyway - such as, oh, just about everything this thread was made for. ;)
]
It might be debated, but nobody has presented anything to counter it yet, and to my knowledge these collection of points has never been presented together before.
Seeing as how you need 3 chapters to put it together I see why also. I do wish the information for losing dex to AC had been placed directly under the stealth skill which I did not even need to reference. Instead I had to go to the perception skill. <
Yes, we have, including the Dev blog on the proposed rules changes, and the RAW which sez “It's impossible to use Stealth while attacking, running, or charging.”. The whole bit about “reacting” occurs in the rules about surprise and being flatfooted, which in PF only occurs in the first round of combat. After the surprise round or first round, then everyone apparently gets to “react’ to any foe that is not invisible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it is tempting to use this thread to attempt to gain validation to one side or the other of a given argument, particularly when a matter seems settled and clear to one side of the debate, and yet still has opponents. I fear I've been guilty of this myself at times, hopefully only early on. In general, this thread retains its value by presenting those matters for which elements have changed between editions, are often overlooked, or have been ruled upon.
In the matter of Stealth and Sneak Attack, Wraith has done a great job of outlining the argument in the referenced thread. Please take additional conversation on the matter to that thread. Rules matter that are debated to the point of suggesting the need for a FAQ, ruling, or errata, are best identified in this other thread.
(Edited for links)
Right. The idea of this thread is “What are some things about the Pathfinder rules that you think most people do not know?” as opposed to “What are some things about the Pathfinder rules that are confusing or highly debated?”
If someone posted “You know, In PF you can’t cleave a Mirror Image”, then, no matter what side I was on, the point is- that is hugely debated and the rules aren’t clear. So, then neither cleaving mirror images nor Sneak attack from stealth belongs here- either side, no matter how well argued by either.
However, Howie, you should also link to the Blog on this very subject, rather than just a thread:
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lcml&page=7#306
Here's something most people don't know. You can't cleave Mirror Image in Pathfinder.
Here's something most people don't know. You can't cleave Mirror Image in Pathfinder.
Ok, you got me there, but that was only FAQed a day or so ago! And, it clearly needed a FAQ. Good one, thanks!
|
|
I don't want ot get off topic
3E specifically went the other direction. PAizo just reveresed that decision officially a month or two ago.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Found this out recently, which nerfs an apparently broken character concept:
To all the characters who splash into the synthesist summoner class, when you fuse with your eidolon you use your eidolon's BAB, which can make it almost impossible to hit at even mid levels.
Thats only for your summoner levels IIRC just like with a monks flurry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please read the FAQ's.
A Synthesis summoner uses his Eidelon's BAB while fused PLUS any BAB from other classes if he's multiclassed.
Synthesis Summoner Questions FAQ
Note how many FAQs this archetype generated. The whole class, as much as I like the concept, needs a serious overhaul.
|
|
Citation? I don't see this in the special ability or universal monster rules for DR or Overcoming DR.
Not sure if this is carried over from 3.5 or not.
A rogue does not add sneak attack unless his regular attack makes it through all of the targets Damage Reduction.
It totally makes sense. Just learned that at pfs last week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Citation? I don't see this in the special ability or universal monster rules for DR or Overcoming DR.
Not sure if this is carried over from 3.5 or not.
A rogue does not add sneak attack unless his regular attack makes it through all of the targets Damage Reduction.
It totally makes sense. Just learned that at pfs last week.
I have the anti-citation.
|
|
Flurry of Blows works differently between PF and 3.5. Flurry of Blows in in 3.5 results in an additional attack or attacks that can all come from one weapon or from multiple weapons. Flurry of Blows in PF gives an additional attack or attacks that follow the rules for TWF; if using a manufactured weapon or weapons, then the additional attacks have to come from separate weapons than the primary weapon or from unarmed strikes.
This is a recent developer clarification of an existing rule that was often overlooked and which is rubbing some people the wrong way. Please take debate and complaint to the Thread That Discusses The Topic.
Flurry of Blows works differently between PF and 3.5. Flurry of Blows in in 3.5 results in an additional attack or attacks that can all come from one weapon or from multiple weapons. Flurry of Blows in PF gives an additional attack or attacks that follow the rules for TWF; if using a manufactured weapon or weapons, then the additional attacks have to come from separate weapons than the primary weapon or from unarmed strikes.
This is a recent developer clarification of an existing rule that was often overlooked and which is rubbing some people the wrong way. Please take debate and complaint to the Thread That Discusses The Topic.
Heh, I was waiting for this to pop up here.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The text for magic fang specifically states that you must pick one individual weapon, and even lists "fist" as one of your options.
And those of us who didn't play 3.5 did figure it out on our own, so let's not start in with the "but the rules don't say" stuff.
The text for magic fang specifically states that you must pick one individual weapon, and even lists "fist" as one of your options.
And those of us who didn't play 3.5 did figure it out on our own, so let's not start in with the "but the rules don't say" stuff.
One of you who didn't play 3.5 (you) got the interpretation that the devs said they intended all along. That's not the same as every or even most people who hadn't played 3.5 getting the "right" answer here.
Aww, I was hoping that the 1000th post would be a cool fact :-(
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
One of you who didn't play 3.5 (you) got the interpretation that the devs said they intended all along. That's not the same as every or even most people who hadn't played 3.5 getting the "right" answer here.The text for magic fang specifically states that you must pick one individual weapon, and even lists "fist" as one of your options.
And those of us who didn't play 3.5 did figure it out on our own, so let's not start in with the "but the rules don't say" stuff.
It's about as close as the claims I've been seeing all day that "everybody" was doing it the wrong way. Seems fair, no? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That Bestiary is really spelled Bestiary. For months I thought it was supposed to be Beastiary and I just got a misprinted copy, until I checked my dictionary lol.
That Bestiary is really spelled Bestiary. For months I thought it was supposed to be Beastiary and I just got a misprinted copy, until I checked my dictionary lol.
Hear hear! Still pronounce Beast-iary though. I'd feel a bit like a snob if I started correcting everyone around me :)