Dreamscarred Press Announces: Path of War Expanded!


Product Discussion

951 to 1,000 of 1,152 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

This is my thought process on this. It's really pedantic, and I could be wrong in my interpretation of it, but using Red Zephyr's Strike as an example:

Red Zephyr Strike wrote:
...movement which does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Piercing Thunder Style wrote:
...enemies provoke attacks of opportunity for moving into your threatened area.

Since Piercing Thunder Style is not a general rule (you don't normally provoke for moving into a square), there's an ambiguity on which of these two is more specific and thus trumps the other. I feel that it's possible to interpret this as Piercing Thunder Style being more specific, as it defines a specific action and target rather than the more general statement of Red Zephyr Strike.

Ultimately, I think this is just the rules lawyer in me being really overly pedantic, but I can see some players arguing over it.

(I did double-check teleportation and 5 foot steps. Teleportation is okay, and the language for 5 ft. steps is more specific than I thought it was, so that's fine too. My apologies for my hasty interpretations on those.)


I appreciate the concern. Sometimes it's better to be too specific rather than not specific enough.

Liberty's Edge

This ability alters the general rule of what provokes an AoO, it does not supersede anything that normally prevents an AoO, such a tumble or a 5ft step.

Dark Archive

I still think that Hone Weapon needs specific wording that allows you to use whetstones on magical weapons, because whetstones normally have specific wording that clearly states you cannot.

Unless that's intentional, then I'll shut up.


I have a couple of questions regarding The Veiled Moon combat style feat. Does it take a standard action to use or can it be used on any attack once per round? If it can be used on strikes does that mean every target hit has the 50% miss chance? My DM is a bit worried about an almost guaranteed 50% miss chance from my opponent every round without a saving throw.

PS Thanks for the great work!


Seranov wrote:

I still think that Hone Weapon needs specific wording that allows you to use whetstones on magical weapons, because whetstones normally have specific wording that clearly states you cannot.

Unless that's intentional, then I'll shut up.

Not intentional. Adding the wording. Thanks!

Masked Mudpuppy wrote:

I have a couple of questions regarding The Veiled Moon combat style feat. Does it take a standard action to use or can it be used on any attack once per round? If it can be used on strikes does that mean every target hit has the 50% miss chance? My DM is a bit worried about an almost guaranteed 50% miss chance from my opponent every round without a saving throw.

PS Thanks for the great work!

You declare use of the style's ability while making an attack so I'm going to assume RAI is that it's part of the attack action (Elric, we may need to clarify this). That said, it can be used on martial strikes definitely. You do have to successfully make an attack for it to work, and yes its 50% miss chance against that one specific opponent.

We also may need to figure out how this interacts with maneuvers that hit multiple foes, or energy based maneuvers that throw down cones and such. :/

-X


I'm honestly not too fond of Veiled Moon Style right now. The way ErrantX explained it is correct, but I'm going to try and get a new feat out either today or tomorrow (most likely tomorrow), so keep your eyes peeled.

Sczarni

Might be too late now, but would it be possible to add more options for the Myrmidon's grit _either through feats or as automatic ones-? Adding grit has made fighter playable again,, so I was curious whether adding more options could be viable.


I've got a new idea for the veiled moon style feat for you all:

Veiled Moon Style [combat, style, teleportation]
Prerequisites: Stealth 3 ranks, 1 veiled moon maneuver known
Benefit: While this style is active, whenever you move you may make up to 5 ft. of that movement as teleportation. This teleportation may be taken at any point during your movement.

I'm a little concerned about the RAW vs. RAI of the feat, so the intention is to allow you to teleport during a small portion of your movement, which should be useful for allowing fun stuff like charging through an ally/enemy, avoiding difficult terrain, avoiding an AoO from movement, or 5 ft. stepping into difficult terrain. Thoughts?


I think raw would not allow you to teleport mid charge:
You cannot start a charge if the path isn't clear before you begin it or something along those lines.

For the veiled moon, maybe something like this would work?:
Whenever you take an action that contains movement, or a 5ft step, you can become ethereal as "not an action" for 5ft of that movement. You must declare the usage and exact position of those 5ft as part of starting the initial action.

Still don't know if it will allow for charge, and the wording is weird but eh...

Why don't you go the extra mile and have the feats in general formatted like:
Name:
Req:
Fluff:
Rules:
rai:

It would simplify things a bit and clearly convey what a featvis supposed to do without having the GM and players to play lawyer


I love Veiled Moon Style, as it fits the entire teleportation and evasion theme of the discipline incredibly well.


Late to the party, daunted by the sheer amount of fury GLS invoked, and curious if, in light of the 1/round d trigger, if considerations were in place to allow supplimentary investment to increase the utility - additional feat with skill or level dependence or the like?

My interest in this regards is in the direction of, for example, emulating some of the more notable moments of the Musou series of games, where two individuals could better combination email their might against the teeming masses.

In essence, a version that can't be emulated with class features that share teamwork feats, literally requiring both to have the actual feat to achieve the greater effect? Or is that not plausible / too specific?

My apologies if the matter is not up for discussion - I am still playing catch-up.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

shroudb wrote:

I think raw would not allow you to teleport mid charge:

You cannot start a charge if the path isn't clear before you begin it or something along those lines.

This is my basic concern as well; that the teleportation doesn't actually overcome the RAW limitations of charging.

Here's the problematic text:

"You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge."

Bolded the most pertinent part. The charging rules reference the line of movement, so that needs to be referenced in the feat for it to work as intended, maybe with verbage exempting the square you teleport through from the normal restrictions.


shroudb wrote:

I think raw would not allow you to teleport mid charge:

You cannot start a charge if the path isn't clear before you begin it or something along those lines.

For the veiled moon, maybe something like this would work?:
Whenever you take an action that contains movement, or a 5ft step, you can become ethereal as "not an action" for 5ft of that movement. You must declare the usage and exact position of those 5ft as part of starting the initial action.

Still don't know if it will allow for charge, and the wording is weird but eh...

Ethereal both is and isn't a thing in pathfinder. The only thing Etherealness does is give you the [incorporeal] condition. And the incorporeal condition is very different from [teleportation] effects. Incorporeal creatures still provoke AoOs and they still can't 5 ft. step through difficult terrain, or allow you to charge through enemies (I'm not 100% sure on that last one though). Essentially being incorporeal doesn't do any of the things I want the feat to do.

shroudb wrote:

Why don't you go the extra mile and have the feats in general formatted like:

Name:
Req:
Fluff:
Rules:
rai:

It would simplify things a bit and clearly convey what a featvis supposed to do without having the GM and players to play lawyer

Because that is far beyond the boundaries of what we are allowed to do with the rules of the game.


I just switched teleport to ethereal for the additional reason of facing:
I could see arguments saying that you run straight but teleport facing in an angle p.e. and continue the run since your character never actually "turned" just the entry/exit points of teleporting had different orientation.

I'm always on favor of "simplicity is the best".
So you can always put a:
Special: you can use this feat midcharge and disregard an obstacle of up to 5ft for charging requirements. You must use your teleport ability to bypass this obstacle.

Edit:
Ethereal plane is a thing:
From ethereal jaunt spell:

Quote:

You become ethereal, along with your equipment. For the duration of the spell, you are in the Ethereal Plane, which overlaps the Material Plane. When the spell expires, you return to material existence.

An ethereal creature is invisible, insubstantial, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down, albeit at half normal speed. As an insubstantial creature, you can move through solid objects, including living creatures. An ethereal creature can see and hear on the Material Plane, but everything looks gray and ephemeral. Sight and hearing onto the Material Plane are limited to 60 feet.

So you most certainly pass through creature's and obstacles while ethereal

Since you are at a different, overlapping plane, one must be able to view in ethereal plane and strike you with a force effect only in order to threaten with an AoO, u don't see that happening often

Dark Archive

That reminds me. I was browing /tg/'s Pathfinder thread last night, and someone was arguing that Primal Warrior Stance stacks with Impact/Lead Blades/etc. I was under the impression that it didn't, that it worked the same as that weapon enchant/spell.

Additionally, they were discussing the upcoming changes to Primal Fury as a whole. Is there any little tidbits of info you can give us about those changes, or is it still all up in the air?


Yes the Ethereal Plane is a thing, but it doesn't apply in this case. That's why I said it both is and isn't a thing. You can become Ethereal but for purposes of interacting with the material plane, all that does is make you incorporeal.


Seranov wrote:

That reminds me. I was browing /tg/'s Pathfinder thread last night, and someone was arguing that Primal Warrior Stance stacks with Impact/Lead Blades/etc. I was under the impression that it didn't, that it worked the same as that weapon enchant/spell.

Additionally, they were discussing the upcoming changes to Primal Fury as a whole. Is there any little tidbits of info you can give us about those changes, or is it still all up in the air?

It's a virtual size increase, so it doesn't stack with Lead Blades etc. It was written before that FAQ came out, and we were trying to future/stupid proof against people being locked out of stacking it with actual size increases, which proved unnecessary.

I don't have any information for you on what changes will be made to existing disciplines. We've got a lot to work on already.


Also, I still agree with AGC on GiTP about how Lackluster Primal Fury Style is... honestly I wish I could tell AGC to wait until we have a more finalized version of the feats, then do another style feat review, as he has been magnificently on point with it so far.


I don't see where it says that.
"You become insubstantial" is different than "you become incorporeal"

Xills p.e. as natives of ethereal plane are considered outsiders. When on their own plane they cannot be seen, interacted, etc, except by force effects. They plane shift to material.

True seing has a special clause to shift your eyes in the ethereal plane and etc.

So when you go to ethereal plane you simply planeshift elsewhere.


Just wanted to check, but Katana Expertise (increase by 1 die step) doesn't count as a virtual size increase, right? So it's still possible to do the following:

2d6 Large Katana (Dip Aegis 1: Powerful Build, Use +1 Sized Weapons w/o Penalty)
|-> 3d6 Large Katana (Katana Expertise)
|-> 6d6 Large Katana (Primal Warrior Stance)
|-> 12d6 Gargantuan Katana (Augmented Psionic Expansion)

Thanks :).

Also, one more question:

Thrashing Dragon Pounce wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you initiate a strike that allows you to make a only single melee attack, you can make an extra attack with your offhand weapon at your highest base attack bonus as a free action. If you do so, your attacks take two weapon fighting penalties as normal for fighting with two weapons.

I'm guessing that the extra attack doesn't carry any +Xd6 damage, save or suck, or any of the other added effects of the maneuver.

However, what happens when you use it with a maneuver that only makes one attack but hits multiple targets, like Goring Strike?

If the maneuver allows you to make one attack at range but still count as melee (for example, Silver Wave), does the second attack also get this range increase, or would you have to make your second attack against an actual reachable target for the off-hand weapon?

Similarly, if a maneuver increases your reach for one attack, will the off-hand attack get this?

(There's also a grammar error in the text at "make a only single melee attack".)

Finally, just clarifying the intent of Thrashing Dragon Style:

Thrashing Dragon Style wrote:
When you make a standard attack against an opponent, you can make an additional attack with your off hand weapon. If you do so, all attacks you make this round take the normal penalties for two weapon fighting.

When it says "standard attack", does it mean anything that only allows one attack action and isn't a maneuver (which would include Vital Strike, Cleave, Attacks of Opportunity, and such), or does it only apply to the "attack action" without any of the garnishing.

If it does include standard attack actions like Vital Strike or Cleave, would the off-hand attack gain the special properties of these attacks?

Thanks, and sorry for the wall of questions :p.


Update to the new Veiled Moon Style:

Veiled Moon Style [combat, style, teleportation]
Your secret knowledge of ethereal pathways allows you to slip through cracks in this world and come out the other side.
Prerequisites: Stealth 3 ranks, 1 veiled moon maneuver known.
Benefit: While this style is active, whenever you move you may make up to 10 ft. of that movement as teleportation. This teleportation may be taken at any point during your movement and cannot exceed the total movement you would normally be allowed to make. You must have line of sight to your destination in order to teleport and cannot teleport into an occupied square.
Special: If using the charge action, you may use this feat to allow you to bypass a square occupied by an enemy, ally or obstacle that takes up 5 ft. treating that square as unoccupied for purposes of determining if the line of your charge is clear.

This should hopefully clear up most of the issues with the feat as far as RAW vs. RAI goes.


The new Veiled Moon Style feat sounds nice! Any possibility of having that teleport count as a Veiled Moon maneuver in regards to Mirror of the Moon? Cause that would be hilarious :>.


Felyndiira wrote:

Just wanted to check, but Katana Expertise (increase by 1 die step) doesn't count as a virtual size increase, right? So it's still possible to do the following:

2d6 Large Katana (Dip Aegis 1: Powerful Build, Use +1 Sized Weapons w/o Penalty)
|-> 3d6 Large Katana (Katana Expertise)
|-> 6d6 Large Katana (Primal Warrior Stance)
|-> 12d6 Gargantuan Katana (Augmented Psionic Expansion)

Thanks :).

Also, one more question:

Thrashing Dragon Pounce wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you initiate a strike that allows you to make a only single melee attack, you can make an extra attack with your offhand weapon at your highest base attack bonus as a free action. If you do so, your attacks take two weapon fighting penalties as normal for fighting with two weapons.

I'm guessing that the extra attack doesn't carry any +Xd6 damage, save or suck, or any of the other added effects of the maneuver.

However, what happens when you use it with a maneuver that only makes one attack but hits multiple targets, like Goring Strike?

If the maneuver allows you to make one attack at range but still count as melee (for example, Silver Wave), does the second attack also get this range increase, or would you have to make your second attack against an actual reachable target for the off-hand weapon?

Similarly, if a maneuver increases your reach for one attack, will the off-hand attack get this?

(There's also a grammar error in the text at "make a only single melee attack".)

Finally, just clarifying the intent of Thrashing Dragon Style:

Thrashing Dragon Style wrote:
When you make a standard attack against an opponent, you can make an additional attack with your off hand weapon. If you do so, all attacks you make this round take the normal penalties for two weapon fighting.

When it says "standard attack", does it mean anything that only allows one attack action and isn't a maneuver (which would include Vital Strike, Cleave, Attacks of Opportunity, and such), or does it only apply to the "attack action" without any of the garnishing.

If it does include standard attack actions like Vital Strike or Cleave, would the off-hand attack gain the special properties of these attacks?

Thanks, and sorry for the wall of questions :p.

Katana Expertise is, by RAW, not a size increase although I'm not sure that matters as far as paizo's ruling is concerned.

Thrashing Dragon Pounce's extra attack does not carry any riders from the maneuver used to activate it. This includes maneuvers like goring strike or silver wave. You get one extra attack (you can choose who to target) but it must be a legal target. Reach works differently though, because it's treated as inherent to the creature, not the weapon so if you have increased reach from a maneuver it would apply to Thrashing Dragon Pounce's extra attack.

Thrashing Dragon Style only applies to "attack action" attacks, not vital strike, cleave or attacks of opportunity.

Masked Mudpuppy wrote:
The new Veiled Moon Style feat sounds nice! Any possibility of having that teleport count as a Veiled Moon maneuver in regards to Mirror of the Moon? Cause that would be hilarious :>.

No, the feat already has enough moving parts as is.


Size increases come in two flavors as far as the FAQ goes. Actual and effective, if something isn't an actual size increase it is an effective size increase. Primal stance and katana expertise compete so the largest one would be what you use.

Quote:

Size increases and effective size increases: How does damage work if I have various effects that change my actual size, my effective size, and my damage dice?

As per the rules on size changes, size changes do not stack, so if you have multiple size changing effects (for instance an effect that increases your size by one step and another that increases your size by two steps), only the largest applies. The same is true of effective size increases (which includes “deal damage as if they were one size category larger than they actually are,” “your damage die type increases by one step,” and similar language). They don’t stack with each other, just take the biggest one. However, you can have one of each and they do work together (for example, enlarge person increasing your actual size to Large and a bashing shield increasing your shield’s effective size by two steps, for a total of 2d6 damage).

Liberty's Edge

Katana Expertise wrote:
"Increase the damage die of katanas you wield by one die step"

This isn't a size increase, effective or otherwise. Just MO damage.

A size increase starting at medium is 2 die steps from the original and one for each after that.


Flashohol wrote:
Katana Expertise wrote:
"Increase the damage die of katanas you wield by one die step"

This isn't a size increase, effective or otherwise. Just MO damage.

A size increase starting at medium is 2 die steps from the original and one for each after that.

It is an effective size increase. Even Elricaltovilla mentioned that RAW it doesn't matter the way the FAQ is worded.

The FAQ even used an example of a bashing shield if you took the 30 seconds to read it. Bashing shield doesn't increase the size of the weapon but it increases the damage done as if the size were increased, thus the "effective" size increases.

Liberty's Edge

I'm at work my time to research things is limited, and it uses wording I'm unfamiliar with as I don't play summoners. My bad.

So chill on the hostility, please and thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nothing in my post was hostile, I even made sure to include the FAQ because of the example. You're welcome.


That's unfortunate, and makes Katana Expertise quite a bit less attractive now. Granted, I could understand why they made the ruling (Improved Natural Attack on eidolons), though it still leaves a bit of a bad taste.

Thanks for the FAQ confirmation though, and the clarification on Thrashing Dragon style feats :).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly don't think eidolons had anything to do with it. Druids on the other hand...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Felyndiira wrote:

That's unfortunate, and makes Katana Expertise quite a bit less attractive now. Granted, I could understand why they made the ruling (Improved Natural Attack on eidolons), though it still leaves a bit of a bad taste.

Thanks for the FAQ confirmation though, and the clarification on Thrashing Dragon style feats :).

I know why Paizo made the ruling they did, but I'm personally not a fan of it. It messes up things like shield spikes (which don't stack with bashing now) and other stuff. Honestly, Size stacking builds were some of my favorite builds, they didn't really get out of hand, just had lots of dice on the table at once. Which I always enjoy rolling :P


To be fair, with all those new virtual increases out there it could be ridiculous:
Stacking oversized weapon, with enlarge person, with either lead blades/impact, with the stance, we are already talking about 5 size increases without using oversized katana/bastard sword+effortless lace for a 6th.

A great sword with 5 size increases is 2d6->3d6>4d6>6d6>8d6>12d6

At p.e. lvl 6 you could vital strike/crimson for 24d6+x


shroudb wrote:

To be fair, with all those new virtual increases out there it could be ridiculous:

Stacking oversized weapon, with enlarge person, with either lead blades/impact, with the stance, we are already talking about 5 size increases without using oversized katana/bastard sword+effortless lace for a 6th.

A great sword with 5 size increases is 2d6->3d6>4d6>6d6>8d6>12d6

At p.e. lvl 6 you could vital strike/crimson for 24d6+x

That's why I said I understand why they did it, but I still disagree with the way it was handled. I once built a warpriest to pull of those size shenanigans, and even with Mythic greater vital strike he was still doing less than half the damage of the other frontliner in the party's full attack, a TWFing fighter.

Like I said, I enjoy rolling big piles of dice though. That's a personal thing and I'm not going to subject anyone else to that preference unless they're in a game with me :P


yeah "lotsofdices" can be fun, i can agree to that.
they are also good for newer players that go "woah i roll so many damages i rock!" (common sneak attack syndrom: sneak attack does a ton of damage! look at how many dices i roll!)

but they did have to draw the line somewhere, unfortunatly, especially when it comes to martials, this line is drawn quite harshly and ruins so many fun builds to fix the one broken build...


Elricaltovilla wrote:
Like I said, I enjoy rolling big piles of dice though. That's a personal thing and I'm not going to subject anyone else to that preference unless they're in a game with me :P

I guess this is not really the right place to ask why does claws of the beast use special (and significantly less powerful at higher levels) size-damage table when it could use regular one, but I'll ask anyway.


Inherited levels of stupid, sadly. That's math from 3.5, and the Bosses wanted to keep as true to the original as they could while still making needed changes, but not necessarily all the changes that they could have made.

-X


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is also easily augmented for damage and when you are a larger size you have the capacity to be a "persistent fireball" through reach and things like Whirlwind Attack.

Claws of the Beast is in a position to be fairly easy to abuse being a first level power. It is a prime example of how you want to give martials (psiwar) nice things but have to be conscious of the fact it is is such a low hanging fruit, a caster could cherry pick it so you aren't just helping the martial.


Ummm, so if I grab Katana Expertise, what does the damage dice of the Katana become?


Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Ummm, so if I grab Katana Expertise, what does the damage dice of the Katana become?

1d8 becomes 2d6

you just can't stack it with other virtual increases in sizes (like lead blades, impact weapon enchant, primal warrior stance and etc)

you can stack it ONCE with an actual size change (like if you become enlarged) but if you find a way to enlarge only the sword, pick it up, and then enlarge yourself again, the blade won't grow any bigger (1 virtual+1 actual size increase)


shroudb wrote:
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Ummm, so if I grab Katana Expertise, what does the damage dice of the Katana become?

1d8 becomes 2d6

you just can't stack it with other virtual increases in sizes (like lead blades, impact weapon enchant, primal warrior stance and etc)

you can stack it ONCE with an actual size change (like if you become enlarged) but if you find a way to enlarge only the sword, pick it up, and then enlarge yourself again, the blade won't grow any bigger (1 virtual+1 actual size increase)

To expand on that, you cannot stack it, but if another ability does the same thing better (for instance the stance treats your weapon as 2 sizes larger) you get the better of the two. Which isn't a horrible thing as that keeps you from being reliant on the stance 100% all the time.


from what i gather, the maximum you can reach with a katana thus would be something like this:

katana is a one handed weapon.
so you can get an oversized katana and wield it two handed. (you cannot in pf do that if the weapon is actually two handed, unless you have a class feature allowing you to do so)

you get a -2 to attack, but if you use an effortless lace (which you can use on a katana because it is still a one handed weapon) to remove that penalty

so the base damage goes to 2d6
then use the stance, for two sizes increase 2d6->3d6->4d6

then enlarge yourself for another increase so 4d6->6d6


The Mithral Current Document has been updated and includes all the final changes that will be made to the discipline before it gets sent off to get PDF'd with the Mystic.

I'd like to thank Forrestfire (from GitP) for helping me with the grammar, and let you all know this is the last opportunity to find any grammar or mathematical errors in the discipline. Please remember that we are past the point of suggesting major changes, such as new maneuvers, changes to existing maneuvers or any reworking of core mechanics.


Here's some errors (mostly inconsistencies between the short (table) description and the full text) that I found in the document:

***

Short Descriptions: Some short descriptions capitalize the first letter after the hyphen that delineates the maneuver type (stance, counter, etc.) and the actual text, and some do not. For example:

Mithral Current wrote:

Flowing Creek: Counter - Use a Perform (dance) check in place of AC when attacked, and if your opponent misses, you may take a free 5 ft step.

Following Wake: Boost - when you charge a foe make a free trip attempt against them, using Perform (Dance) in place of CMB roll. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Full Text: There are times when you switch between past and present tense in the same maneuver description. This happens very often with the verb "draw". For example:

Quote:

1st Level

Swift Current
Discipline: Mithral Current (Strike)
Level: 1
Initiation Action: 1 standard action
Range: Melee attack
Target: One creature
Duration: Instantaneous
One of the basic tenets of the Mithral Current is that all momentum can be turned into a powerful offensive tool. As an initiate of the discipline, you can use the momentum of drawing your blade from its sheath to increase a strike’s power. Make a melee attack. If it hits, it deals weapon damage as normal plus an additional 1d6 points of damage. If you drew your weapon as part of this strike, your target is considered flat-footed against this attack.

***

Swift Current: Comma splice error in short description. It should read "[...] Attack an opponent and deal +1d6 damage. If you draw your weapon as part of initiating this maneuver..."

Ready the Draw: Short description says "can sheathe weapon as a free action." Full description does not have this.

Dual Crash: Short description says "make an extra attack at full BAB." Full description says "...with a –2 penalty on the attack roll."

Ride the Wake: Short description says movement provokes AoO. Full description says it does not provoke.

Riptide Strike: Short description does not mention +2 bonus to CMB for trip attack.

Flowing Water Stance: Short description says that the free sheathe must be at the end of the turn. The full text allows you to do it anytime.

Rushing Wake: Grammar error in short text:

Rushing Wake wrote:
When you charge an opponent, and make a free trip attempt against each opponent adjacent to you during your movement.

Disruptive Wave: Short text says +2 to concentration DC. Full text says +4.

Blinding Reflection: Short text says +4d6 damage. Full text says +6d6 damage.

Quicksilver Wave: Short text does not mention the additional trip.

Endless Current: Listed as 'Endless Wake' in the short text.

Mithral Current Stance: Short text does not mention the free weapon sheathing.

Crashing Wake: Comma splice in short text. Should be "[...] Move up to 30 ft in any direction your normal movement allows. Make a single attack against each opponent within reach..."

Flowing River: Short text still shows two counterattacks at +5d6 and +3d6. Should be only one counterattack at +5d6 if you draw weapon, as listed in the full text.

Flowing River: Missing an 'and'. Should be: "Make a Perform (dance) check in place of a Fort, Ref or Will Save, and if successful, move adjacent to the enemy..."

Mithral Wave: Short text has incorrect listed damage at +12d6 (instead of +14d6) and does not mention the knocked prone rider effect.

Mithral Lightning Stance: Short text does not include the free re-sheath.

Riptide Slice: Short description says "your opponent is considered flat-footed against this attack." Full description says "this attack is made against your opponent’s touch AC." These are different due to interactions with Uncanny Dodge.


So... any chance for a changelong?


Also. Loving Mourners, especially with the Nordic pantheon being used here. I have to admit I'm curious as to what our Paladin is becoming mechanically. Is she getting the martial adept Paladin archetype? Or is she Paladin, multiclassed into something like Warder or Warlord?


I apologize for not being on here recently. For some reason, I can't access the paizo forums from anything except my phone. If I try to log in all I get is a failure to connect screen. I'll work on fixing this as soon as I can.


Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Also. Loving Mourners, especially with the Nordic pantheon being used here. I have to admit I'm curious as to what our Paladin is becoming mechanically. Is she getting the martial adept Paladin archetype? Or is she Paladin, multiclassed into something like Warder or Warlord?

She's currently a standard Paladin, in the process of re-training into Knight-Disciple.


Elricaltovilla wrote:
For some reason, I can't access the paizo forums from anything except my phone. If I try to log in all I get is a failure to connect screen. I'll work on fixing this as soon as I can.

Can you read forums and other pages that are on http, not on https like login and reply pages? If so, update your browser(s). Paizo stopped supporting some old encryption method for https recently. Now I can't post from my necroOpera too -_-


Nyaa wrote:
Elricaltovilla wrote:
For some reason, I can't access the paizo forums from anything except my phone. If I try to log in all I get is a failure to connect screen. I'll work on fixing this as soon as I can.
Can you read forums and other pages that are on http, not on https like login and reply pages? If so, update your browser(s). Paizo stopped supporting some old encryption method for https recently. Now I can't post from my necroOpera too -_-

I'll see if that works. Thanks. There's a new Kluk story I out up yesterday too for those of you who care AND don't go to GitP.

951 to 1,000 of 1,152 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / Dreamscarred Press Announces: Path of War Expanded! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.