While preparing a lengthier post on historically more accurate rules for the Pathfinder polearms in the Core and APG books, I noticed that the Chain Spear has some strange stat line entries.
Here are my questions:
1) Is the Chain Spear a double weapon?
2) Shouldn't the damage type just be piercing instead of piercing AND slashing?
I know it's a bit late, but I already asked these questions when the Adventurer's Armory came out (from which the APG took over the new polearms).
4)Bec de Corbin/Lucerne Hammer:
Here are a few questions about the new rules for Alchemists in the Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat rulebooks. They mainly concern archetypes and feat requirements.
My current group plays Pathfinder in English, but that's because we're all really good at it (native speakers, people with long stays in English speaking countries).
Here are a few points from the rules of the master chymist that I have questions about:
Does this mean that, for the other bomb variables that depend on the number of alchemist levels (number of bombs per day and DC for the reflex save of splash damage), the master chymist does NOT add his alchemist and master chymist levels?
(First of all, there's a typo: the second "together" is redundant)
Does this mean that, if the she starts out in her normal form and either uses her mutate ability or drinks her mutagen to change into her mutagenic form, the duration of the mutagenic form depends solely on the number of her alchemist levels, but if she already is in her mutagenic form and uses her mutate ability or drinks her mutagen the duration depends on the sum of master chymist and alchemist levels?
In the same vein: "(with the new mutagen’s modifiers replacing the current modifiers, and the longer duration taking precedent)"
Is the "longer duration" only due to the renewed use of the ability (thus refreshing the duration) or is it also a reference to the addition of both the number of master chymist and alchemist levels to determine the duration (instead of just using the number of alchemist levels)?
"The chymist remains in her mutagenic form until its duration expires, her magic is interrupted (as with an antimagic field), or she expends another use of her mutate ability."
Does this mean that, in the mutagenic form the mutate ability can be EITHER used to refresh the duration (and possibly change the modifiers) of the mutagenic form OR used to return to the normal form?
- Dual Mind:
Does this mean that, if she has no more uses of the mutate ability, she also loses her +2 Will bonus? Or does "using" dual mind only refer to the re-roll in the next round?
Shouldn't the AC bonus be a dodge bonus and not a natural armor bonus?
I posted a question about special grappling actions in a different thread but there was no answer, so I'm reposting it as a separate thread.
On a side note, I have a question about the special grappling actions (like the "Move" mentioned above). As I understand it, they work the following way:
In order to take a special grappling action, you must succeed at a grapple check AND be the "grappler" (ie the one that can stop grappling with a free action) before you take it.
This whole "two-round-grappling" is because making a grapple check costs a standard action and you can only take one per round, although you would need two: one to become the "grappler" and one to take the special action.
Is that the correct interpretation? The rules could be clearer about this (especially about the whole "grappler" thing).
I'm looking for an alchemical item that is a bomb - a BIG bomb.
As far as I know there are no rules for such an item yet. Anybody have any ideas?
I was thinking of simply extrapolating from the fuse grenade, especially damage and price wise. I'd use the same craft DC of 25. A few differences would be that it can't be thrown, has a longer fuse (maybe freely settable) and maybe even requires several rounds (maybe 10) and a successful alchemy craft check (15 or 20?) to set up and light.
Damage and price extrapolation from the fuse grenade:
What do you think? Is this reasonably balanced?
EDIT: Maybe the bludgeoning damage type should be replaced with force damage, since most damage comes from the shockwave?
The problem I am having is that I post something in the correct sub-forum, only to have it completely ignored, because the sub-forum is visited maybe once a month.
If you ask me there are way too many different sub-forums. The community's attention/activity is focused on only a very few of them.
At least give us the possibility to move our thread from one sub-forum to another.
This is a repost from the official AA thread (it seems to be dead).
As a big polearm fan, I am very happy that so many new ones were added in this book.
However there seem to be quite a few problems with their entries in the weapons table and I am surprised nobody noticed anything.
Some of the issues I have actually touch on a problem in the core book, that up until now I had dismissed as an unavoidable balancing "artifact". However this book flatly contradicts my assumption. What I am talking about is the fact that while the halberd has the "brace" rule, the ranseur and lance don't. My assumption was that they didn't have it because they were "reach" weapons and thus were too long and unwieldy to quickly brace. This book however flatly contradicts this "rule". I would really like a clarification with a consistent argument. By the way, another assumption I made is also contradicted in this book: I always thought that the "brace" rule is only for weapons with piercing damage and an upward facing spear-head.
Another general problem is that in the real world, there are a lot of different designs summarized under the same polearm name. A good example for this is the Guisarme. Originally it was a spear with an attached pruning hook. However there were also voulge- or bill-like designs with blades. Since in the core book the damage is slicing(S), I assumed it referred to the blade variant. Now that this book adds so many new designs, I strongly recommend a change back to the original form of a "spear-and-hook" (giving it piercing(P) damage and maybe "brace" - depending on your answer to the question on reach and brace going together or not).
Here is the list of the polearms in this book that from my perspective seem problematic:
- Bardiche: Historically this weapon had the same size as a halberd (about 5 feet) and should thus not be a reach weapon. It also doesn't have a upward facing spear-head with which one could effectively impale a charging enemy, thus no "brace".
- Bec de Corbin/Lucerne Hammer: In terms of medieval weapons' classifications the difference between these two weapons is very vague. As with most names for medieval weapons, the different denominations are more often due to linguistic/regional differences than distinctive designs. At face value both weapons are the same (one might argue that they favor different ends of their heads, but that is conjecture, as it depends as much on the smith making the weapon and the person commissioning it, than anything else). It would be much better to look at the general class of weapons called pole-axes (to which the halberd also belongs) and then to differentiate by the real differences in design.
- Bill: As a classification for weapons this name is almost as bad as pole-axes. I'll go with the original design, which similarly to the guisarme was due to peasants attaching agricultural tools to poles. In the bill's case they used billhooks (a mix between a knife and an axe, normally used for snedding and limbing). It's defining feature is that the sharp edge is on the side of the hook, thus making it a curved blade.
- Glaive-Guisarme: Essentially this is a glaive with a hook on the dull side of the blade (making it the inverse of the bill). As such it shouldn't have the "brace" rule. It should however have the "trip" rule (like the guisarme). I would also make it slightly heavier than the normal glaive.
That's pretty much it. Hope this helps.
I would like to know if there are specific vital statistics (esp. height and weight) for the different human sub-races published somewhere?
PS: This is a repost. I originally posted this in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting part of the Messageboards (which to me seems the correct place for this question), but there was no reaction whatsoever. There seems to be a real problem with structure of these forums. There are so many branches/sub-forums that some parts are totally devoid of activity.