Adm.Venge's page

Well, the top of page 24 says, "The following racial archetypes are available to elves"

Now, if her druid is a half-elf, they have the "Elf Blooded" racial trait, which lets them count as humans and elves "for effects related to race". I would let a half-elf play as a Treesinger.

Humans also have acces to the feat "Racial Heritage" which allows them to count as a human and a second race "for effects related to race." So if she was a human, and took this feat and chose "elf", I would let her play as a Treesinger.

As a DM, the final say is with you. As far as "official" rules goes, those are the only exceptions I know of to the "elf only" requirement.

I was talking with another player about the possibility of adding "inapropriately sized" spikes to armor, and we decided it might be something to ask about on the forums.

The description of spiked armor says it "counts as a light weapon" when used to make a regular attack. Does this mean it is always a light weapon, regardless of size (similar to the rules for "inappropriately sized" firearms)?

It also appears on the weapon's table as a light weapon (for appropriately sized creatures). Does that mean it is a one handed weapon if one size larger, and a two handed weapon if two sizes larger? If you are wearing spiked armor that counts as a 2 handed weapon, could you wield it as such? Would you get 1 1/2 Str mod to damage when making a normal attack?

Or is it not possible to add "inappropriately sized" spikes to armor?

Well, to start, DR X/- stacks, so you can take both.

Has this been errata'd? The Core book says "If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack."

Some class abilities specifically say "this damage reduction stacks with x", but unless it does, it should not stack.

Edit: Ninja'd

A Man In Black wrote:

overdark wrote:

Yeah cause thats the logical assumption.

Gold coins take longer to cast than copper coins, if you'd like a less outrageous example.

Again, yeah that the logical assumption. Do you really think a $1 bill costs more to make than a $20 bill. Your just being deliberatly obtuse.

He is referring to the fact that the formula for determining how long it takes to craft something is based on it's market value. Objects with a higher market value take longer to make.

Fantastic materials like mithril, adamantine and dragon skin are (in thier descriptions) rare and uncommon materials. It is not unreasonable to assume that objects made of these materials have hugely inflated prices in relation to thier cost of manufacture.

Everyone is going to have thier own "realism level" when it comes to how long it takes to craft these make-believe materials into something. I believe the current crafting rules are not flexible enough to accomodate these different views.

There is only one archetype I discourage players from taking. Arcane Bomber in UC. Perhaps I just have not figured out the niche it fulfills, but it seems to be terrible at bombs AND being a wizard.

I do agree with the opinions of taking most archetypes as dip classes. The Spellslinger seems a great dip class for a Gunslinger.

Yar.

...Dazzling Display is only there for Shatter Defenses (to make them flat footed as well, for the better chance to hit and the extra 2 damage vs flat footed foes from the Surtova trait), and the occasional time when you want to enter a martial arts pose to intimidate everyone around you instead of just the guy you're pummeling.

:D

~P

And here I thought the Barbarian had Terrifying Howl and Vega was settin' 'em up so the Barbarian could knock 'em down.

Here is a Koan:

8th level Fighter in plate moves 30' for a single move. Using +2 flaming greatsword. Fighter's AC was 10+9+2+1+1+1=24 (9 armor, 2 Dex (armor training raised the limit), 1 each from deflection, nat armor and +1 enhancement on the armor.)

Monk's standard action is a Disarm. Fighter is very surprised, because Monks never take Improved Disarm, because it requires an INT of 13. Who ever heard of a Monk with an INT of 13? Is that allowed? Aren't all Monks built with INT of 7 and CHA of 7?

Fighter's CMD is 10+8+6+2+1+1-2=25 (10+8 BAB, 6 STR, 2 DEX, 1 for Weapon Training, 1 for +1 on sword, 1 for Deflection bonus to AC, -2 for a charge)

Well, that seems a very reasonable Fighter build and CMD vs Disarm, if you are not using optional material in the APG. Most races in the APG give Fighter the favored class option of getting +1 to CMD vs Disarm and/or Sunder, and I generally recommend they take it for this very reason, rather than one more Skill Point or Hit Point per level. Fighters put so much effort into mastering one or two weapons that a successful Sunder or Disarm leaves them in this very situation.

my question would then be how does an NPC know something has Attacks of Opportunity? What if (fake) example, I had already made one AoO, would he then attack? What if I had combat reflexes? Would he attack me then? How would he know? Should I take an AoO against one of my allies to "trick" them into thinking Im out of AoOs, and then no harm would likely come to them?

A more ludicrous question might be "if you were invisible and Antagonized your target, would the target attack?" You COULD have reach, or not. Yes, you can get a bit silly with the interpretation of "attempting to do so would cause it harm". Being threatened by attacks of opportunity are not guaranteed to harm the target, because they could miss. It's not the same as jumping into lava (which would definetly harm most targets).

The target doesnt know how many attacks of opportunity the Antagonizer has. If the Antagonizer has a greater reach than it's target, the target cannot attack without the "possibility" of being harmed. Therefore, I choose to interpret "would cause harm" to include the "possibility" of an AoO, regardless of the actual number of AoO the Antagonizer can make in a round.

Right. Cases where the NPC cannot move and attack the PC include things like:

1)- No path available
2)- NPC cannot "move and attack" the PC. This case might included cases like the PC being ethereal or invisible. Does it mean that if you can't move and attack that round? No, the line about not being able to reach you is clearly handled: so being 70 feet away from a 30 move creature means that, he will, in fact, head on over.

So this means the NPC heads on over, red rover, red rover. That's what the feat means. Now, what about environmental effects? If there's a wall of fire (which isn't much damage) that breaks the effect. Is it just if you can pick a path that takes you through danger? Or is it that if all available paths send you through danger? There are two examples of "danger" listed. Both are sure-fire damage or death to our noble taunted NPC. If your intepretation of "harm" includes "repositioning myself will do me harm", you could make a pedantic argument that you are not affected by the feat. However, in that case, every...

The NPC does NOT head over, red rover. This feat has no clause that says "If the target cannot reach the Antagonizer and attack him/her, it must move its normal/double/run movement."

If you choose to interpret that is what the feat implies, very well. I believe the feat implies what it says. If you cannot move and attack the target on your round, you act normally. If the Antagonizer chooses to extend his effect for 1 round, that does not effect how the target acts now. It means the target must move and attack on it's next round (if able).

I believe the reason for the "extend the effect one round" is because battlefield conditions change, and you can only use this effect one time per 24 hour period. If there is a clear line of travel to you on your turn, and the conditions of the battlefield change before your target's turn, you can still try one more round to get the target to punch you in the face. I see this feat more being used to keep a bad guy from escaping than for some of the odd interpretations that I have seen here.

Incorrect. If you can't be reached, you can spend a swift. That extends it for a second round. After that, you are free of it.

In other words, it's two rounds in most cases.

Edit: to make it plain, if it's it can't reach you (by distance). If they are PREVENTED from reaching you, then they are able to snap out of it. But that's a pretty loaded word, and it's clear that they mean "made physically incapable of".

I dont understand how you are interpreting this feat.

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.

PC uses Antagonize on NPC.

Here's what'd I do with a basic trip fighter with reach somehow (permanent enlarge person or something) to kill wizards, level 6 or higher.

1. Antagonize wizard while between 35 - 60 ft away so the Wizard MUST charge.
2. Wizard charges, provoking AoO while at -2 AC. You likely trip him. You have greater trip, so you attack him (he's now at -6 his normal AC for having charged and being prone). His action ends having been unsuccessful in attacking.

It wont work that way. Since attacking your fighter provokes an AoO, the fighter has the capacity to do harm to the wizard. The effect immediately ends on the wizard's turn.

I realize I am a little late coming to this thread, but I am confused as to the point the OP is trying to make.

He creates a level 20 Eidolon and states that it's damage output is unnacceptably high for a level 20 character. Other posters point out that the numbers are not that out of line for that level. He makes a new build, and attempts to prove the brokenness of a level 20 Eidolon vs a Fighter. Other posters point out the Fighter could do more damage... bickering insues...

The OP finally says that the Summoner should be hit by a nerf bat because it marginalizes and outperforms the Fighter... at level 20. Do I understand his position correctly? The SUMMONER should be NERFED because it makes the FIGHTER unneccessary... at LEVEL 20?

... isnt that what alot of full casting classes do? Why should the summoner be treated more harshly than the wizard. I'm not trying to bring about that dead horse again, I'm just confused as to why the summoner should get the hate for dealing more damage, when the wizard outperforms the Fighter in alot more ways (probably damage too, if he wanted. It's Level 20 for crying out loud).

If you are flying via magical flight and overrun another flying creature, what happens?

If the creature is using non-magical flight, did you collide with it, forcing a Fly check? I think so, but overrun doesnt exactly say "you crash into a creature and knock it over". If you fail your overrun manuver, does that still count as colliding with the creature and still force a Fly check?

If the creature is using magical flight, and you beat it's CMD by 5 or more, does anything happen? Overrun says "you knock the target prone". The prone condition says "the character is lying on the ground". So, if you overrun a flying target, is it immediately knocked out of the sky?

Interested to hear what other players and GMs think.

To bounce a spell requires a swift action, so you can bounce a spell or cast a second quickened spell, but not both. Is bouncing spell as good as casting two spells? I can see the benfit of using up a spell slot 1 level higher vs 4 levels higher, but is the "action economy" better? I would like to see some hard numbers before I make a decision.

Persistant spell is two levels higher, so the target has to make 2 saves vs a lower DC than if the caster just prepared a spell of the same level. Most spells require you to make a new save every round, so they will be making that save at 2 lower than if the caster used a spell of the appropriate level. Is that "optimal"? I dont know.

You mentioned Banishment, but how many spells are abusable? I think this might be the case of figuring out how to "break the game" as it were.

Bah, too long typing. Seems Mr. Spalding beat me to the punch.

Adm.Venge wrote:

Why is it when you make a Charge, you can suddenly attack after making an Overrun attempt? This makes no sense.

This is the way the rules are written. Many that have posted here have expressed concern about the interaction of Overrun and Charge. Liquidsabre's post that affirms this reading of Charge/Overrun and makes this interpretation seem like a somewhat common occurrence. Other posters have been wavering on the issue.

No, that is not how it is written. That is YOUR interpretation, which you are allowed to have. It does not make it RAW, however.

Adm.Venge wrote:

There is no reason to assume you should gain the benefit of 2 standard actions and a double move action during a Charge.

There is in fact no reason not to assume this. If this was *not* to be assumed about Overrun it could have quite easily been written into the rules as the restriction was with Bull Rush. The lack of a similarly restrictive language leads me to assume the proposed interpretation is correct.

I draw my interpretation from the "bigger picture" as it were. The rules for Overrun are on page 201 of the Core Rulebook. Much earlier in the book, on page 181, it states for a normal round, you can make one standard action and a move action or a full round action. The next several pages (prior to Overrun and Charge) give good examples of what constitutes these types of actions and what you can do during these actions. No where does it ever suggest you can make 2 standard actions and 2 move actions in one round.

The Charge rule allows you to make 2 move actions at the cost of significantly reduced options for a standard action, all bundled into a full round action. In my opinion, Charge is much the opposite of a Full Attack action, where you get several standard actions with greatly reduced move options (5 foot).

I am only posing a question based on what the rules currently say.

Further, is getting an Overrun attempt on a Charge so gamebreaking? As I stated before, it normally pales in comparison with Acrobatics which can be used for NO action at any time during combat. The only time it will really shine at all is during a charge, which are infrequent at best. And if you don't have Improved Overrun you'll be provoking AoOs.

And if you have Greater Overrun, you get 2 attacks at the end of your Charge. One from the Greater Overrun ability (if you knock the target prone) and one for the extra attack action you see as intrinsic to the Charge action. Since movement and multi-attack options are rare in Pathfinder, I dont think this is how it was ment to be.

The tumbling rule you are referring to has it's own limitations. You cannot tumble if you have your speed reduced by armor or carry weight. You cant move at full speed unless you are prepared to grant a +10 bonus to the DC of the target you are tumbling past. Moving through the space occupied by the target grants it an additional +5 bonus to it's DC.

At the moment, it seems the only option we have is to settle on individual DM rulings in the absence of a formal response.

This seems to be par for the course in many discussions. I understand your point of view, but I believe it runs contrary to the intent behind the rules. I admit that my argument is based on RAI and the designers should clear it up.

PRD wrote:

Bull Rush:

You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.

Overrun:
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.
[says nothing about replacing the melee attack from a charge]

If then, it says nothing about replacing attacks, we should still be entitled to an attack.

If you perform an Overrun action when not making a Charge, you basically throw away your standard action for the round to make an Overrun attempt during your normal move action.

Why is it when you make a Charge, you can suddenly attack after making an Overrun attempt? This makes no sense. You already gain the benefit of a double move action and a standard action (melee attack, Bull Rush or Overrun). There is no reason to assume you should gain the benefit of 2 standard actions and a double move action during a Charge.

I do like the above sneak attack a day idea, what if it was 3 +Dex Mod per day, that would be sweeeeeeeeet stuff and I dont even think the Rogue is broken, but it really bugs me when they cant sneak just because you cant flank or they arent sneaking... but that is just how it has always been. Should still be identical to a sneak attack in all other ways though in my opinion, otherwise it just becomes MIGHTY SWORD SWING ATTACK! which would worry me... decent thought though

You are welcome to your idea of 3 + Dex Mod/day. I was trying to address SpaceChomp's request for a reason to take more than a few levels in rogue.

Something else that would also help improve the rogue would be some clarification of the Stealth system. I've seen the same arguments for/against certain interpretations of the wording of Stealth for quite some time, even among my own gaming group. Either put forth a definitive FAQ or offer an alternative Stealth system that is clear.

Whatever is done with the Stealth system, I think the rogue should have a limited number of times per day he/she can use Stealth in combat. This would not break Hide in Plain Sight, but would increase the tactical ability of the rogue (who many see as one of the archtype Stealth classes). Depending on your group's interpretation of the existing Stealth rules, this may already be an option for you. I believe if it was RAW, this would make it alot more attractive to players whose GM has a different interpretation of the rules.

How is that any different? If there is no reason to stay in a class then it is at it's core saying that class isn't viable across 20 levels. One of my major concerns that has been brought up several times in this forum is this very topic. Mostly, because the class lacks a certain zazz.

Asking for a blend of mechanics and style that appeal to you is not easy. Everyone has thier own benchmarks for what jumps out and makes a person want to play a particular class. Numerous people have posted that the rogue fulfills the concepts they have in thier mind already.

At a glance, I would suggest something that increases the rogue's versatility as well as provides an incentive to gain more rogue levels. The use of skills and traps will always be determined by the GM. I dont know if you could do more than review what could be done to increase the tactical options available to a rogue in combat. Not increase the rogue's damage, more his versatility.

Straight up fighting is not a rogue's forte. However, I can understand the frustration of always needing to rely on an ally to set up a condition for a Sneak Attack. Perhaps the class could get some innate ability that would just allow you to do a Sneak Attack without needing to flank/be concealed/target is flat footed? One that you could only use for a limited number of rounds per day? Say, one round per day at 1st level and one additional round per day every three levels thereafter? You could not use this ability to Sneak Attack something immune to such attacks; just use it to set up the occasional Sneak Attack.

This would give the rogue a bit of flexibility in combat and might even allow for more archer style builds as well as encourage taking more levels in rogue. I think it would also increase the value of the higher Sneak Attack dice you get at higher levels if you had some means of using Sneak Attack in a reliable fashion.

Great Gygax's knickers, is this debate still going on?

Gentlemen, I put forth the idea that all your current arguments are flawed and thus, unprovable. Let me explain.

So you wish to seduce someone. Well, ciretose is correct. Nothing under Diplomacy allows you to seduce someone. However, nothing under Charisma says you can use it to seduce someone either. In fact, there are no rules in Pathfinder to cover seducing an NPC.

From this, we can come up with at least two courses of action. One, since there are no rules specifically covering seduction, you simply cannot seduce someone, ever. No rule, therefore, it cant be done. The other course of action is to use RAI to find a logical fit for seduction, because it seems highly improbable that seduction is impossible.

Shadowlord applied RAI and found Diplomacy to be acceptable. Ciretose disagrees and argues that raw Charisma score is the correct interpretation. If using Diplomacy to seduce someone is a house rule, by the same argument, so is using Charisma.

RAI discussions very diffucult to prove because they are interpretations of rules intent.

In addition, there are no rules to dictate how a GM should set an NPC's starting reaction. Both sides have admitted this, and yet you continue to debate. If you feel that a PC's Charisma is a deciding factor, then adjust the starting reaction accordingly. If you argue that a PC's Charisma is the reason an NPC wont speak to said character, that IS a house rule. Setting and circumstance is one thing, simply saying "the king will never talk to a PC with 7 Charisma" is a different matter entirely. I dont see anything wrong with this as long as you make it clear to your players prior to character generation that having a low Charisma score will negatively impact thier ability to interact with key figures in your campaign.

There's one difference between magic arrows and an amulet of mighty fists or bracers of armor: enchanted arrows need a +1 enhancement bonus to gain enchantments. Thus you'll always have a enhancement bonus redundance. They are also single use. Amulets and bracers don't have this restrictions.

Pg 496 Core Rulebook

Amulet of Mighty Fists
"...an Amulet of Mighty Fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability equivalents) higher than +5. An Amulet of Mighty Fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability."

I would guess the reason they dont have that restriction is the fact you can only goto +5 in total bonuses on an Amulet of Mighty Fists (which is why they kinda suck compared to actual weapons, which can get up to +10).

I think the best answer is just to leave it up to the GM to keep an eye on things and dont let it be abused.

Mauril wrote:

Correct, kyrt-rider. They are not unarmed attacks. They have a special property that allows monks to use the damage unarmed attacks through them. They need to be +1 ki focus brass knuckles for them to even use Stunning Fist through them.

Benefit: Brass knuckles allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks.

By my reading, the knuckles aren't an independent weapon. They're a tool that augments your unarmed attacks.

Hmm... page 142 Core Rulebook:

Page 177 APG
Simple Weapons
Unarmed Attacks
Brass Knuckles

I think that since Gauntlets, Unarmed Strikes and Brass Knuckles are all listed as "unarmed strikes", the Amulet of Mighty Fists should improve them.