Alphaohtwo's page

Interestingly, if you go with the oldest etymology, before the negative connotations, warlock broke down to "ward" + "lock," which is to say, a caster who specialized in binding and protection spells, which is an abjurer in D&D/Pathfinder terms.

I know this is bit of necro for a frivolous reason but...NO. This is the the Etymology of the word Warlock. NO etymology of this word has ever been positive. The Word derives from old english wærloga; meaning roughly "Oath breaker". It isn't until the 1560's that it came to be used as "Male equivalent of witch".

The old English words Ward and Lock by way are weard and Lucan respectively. There really is no way to get "Warlock" Out of those words, at best the combination of those words would be "Wearluc" which would come out to mean "Closed Guard".

Random Language lesson. Sorry folks

Okay, maybe in real life, you just shoot a guy, but the fantasy cowboy has been building a really romanticized image over the years in which they're almost like a (equally stylized) samurai, and that's the gunslinger that Paizo seems to be playing to.

N0. Just no.

Just because both interpretations include standing in the street for a duel, does not make them equivalent to each other.

Even with the modifier "Considered", it still doesn't really change anything because it says you are flanking; which requires a melee attack. So it grants you explicitly the correct positioning but it does not even imply that you are making the correct attack.

The Rule it self speaks only about your position.It makes no modification explicitly or Implicitly in regards to the type of attack made. It modifies only ONE of the flanking conditions.

If it only modifies ONE of the conditions, then it is safe to assume that it Does NOT modify the other condition.

You are 100% correct. It does not say anything in regards to ranged or melee. This isn't an allowance to assume that it changed....with the absence of a modifier...nothing is modified. Ergo the Default remains. The Default in this case is "Flanking is Melee and Position". The rule has one modifier (your right, it's a clarification...of what exactly is happening in the rule. Which is your position is considered "Flanking" even though it would not normally be considered normally) That modifier states that your position is considered flanking, even if you are not actually flanking.

If you wana rule it that way, go right ahead. That's your prerogative. But in my view, ruling it that way is not only a misinterpretation but broken.

From that Ruling, anyone who can make an attack at all get's flanking. So Ranged, melee, Ranged Touch attack spells...all of it.

It doesn't say that this new flanking bonus isn't extended to Ranged weapons, either..

Honestly it shouldn't have to...Flanking is for Melee...The Rule is talking about positioning and positioning alone. Its clear the rule was written to remove the positioning requirements for flanking.

In the case of feats, they override the actual rules.

Yes, if they explicitly state so.

As written, I must disagree with you. When the feat says 'You are considered to be flanking', I interpret it as 'You receive a flanking bonus'.

That makes no sense, the feat changes your positioning, it doesn't suddenly turn your ranged weapon into a melee weapon.

This feat says absolutely nothing about ranged or melee.

Yes it does actually. It says flanking. Flanking is done with melee. The Feat implies melee.

I agree an Errata is needed, but there is plenty of reason to not allow the feat to grant bonuses to ranged weapon. Flanking can only be done with melee. That's reason enough for me. That's how i'll keep ruling it until I see an Errata or something similar.

Flanking has two conditions. Melee, and Positioning. This feat only drops one of those Conditioning. It doesn't say flanking is now extended to Ranged weps.

Flanking
"
When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner."

Flanking with Gang Up

"When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature."

Frank Castle (See how Marvel came up with that name?)

To be fair...his name is actually Francis Castiglione

for something like this i prefer the method of starting hitpoits being con score + full HD at level 1. Then hp is normal from 2 onward. It means the pcs can take a hit or two without going down, and ofcourse it means the tough guys are still tougher then the not tough guys since its still based on con.

I agree with this, and If I recall the Core Rules even suggest it as well.

Giving Starting Characters 20 Extra HP at first level seems like it would suggest strategies to players which would then take away from the whole experience of being lvl 1. A Potential of 30+ HP as a first level fighter? Man....Screw waiting for the party find traps, and forget about tactical movement....i've got 20 hp's of Buffer Tank!

Ya. sounds twinkish to me.

Though not to quite the same extent, I run into the same issue playing my Caviler. I made Card stocks for my teamwork feats that look like Field Order Documents, and i had them out when I use my Tactician ability.

And then I actually made a Banner and attached it to my mini...and when ever they would forget I would point at the banner.

Although when I DM, any player that buffs and doesn't do anything to remind his party of the buff (be it verbally or a card stock)I assume to be NOT buffing the player he didn't remind.