Arcwin's page

Personally I'd like to see some race-boon allowance in Core. In regular play there's many different races available - those on boons and the seven from Advanced Race Guide, and no matter what race you play there is no feeling of it being anything unusual. In core play it would be.

You would still want to throttle it, of course. What I think would work would be allowance of one boon for one's core play - 1 only at any given time. (Until the character dies, then one could use another such boon.)

It would let people use boons and have something unusual at a core table, but not open the floodgates. And give players a place (for instance) to use character boons now made superfluous by open creation permission in regular play. (kitsune, nagaji, wayang, ifrit, oread, sylph, undine) Right now I have several of those, from GMing at conventions.

Since non-core races generally don't change how things work - they just have their stat bonuses and other minor race things slightly different from other races, it wouldn't be a confusing thing like allowing an archetype, I feel.

I'm still confused about fast healing provided by a magic item. The definitions of natural healing and magical healing seem to say natural healing is long periods of rest, and anything else restoring hp damage is magical healing. Fast healing as an ability says it functions like natural healing (aside from some exceptions specific to it) without really explaining the as natural healing part. To me that suggests that the fast healing amount increases when under long term care of a healer or taking a long rest (24 hours+ in bed, resting)... which seems odd, as unless its a very slow fast healing, even a god would be back to full hp from staggered in less than one night's rest. Fast healing is an ex ability, but though it says it works as natural healing, it doesn't fit the definition, which would put it in the magical healing category, except that it's not because its ex. But then there is a magic item that gives fast healing, which would make it magical healing? Its confusing on the whole, like they decided 'ok we're going to give you magical healing, and call it non-magic. Even though its magic, we'll just say its not.' It certainly seems like the duck test applies...

Definitely need your players on board with the setting.

But for ideas:

One is that druids as a class, and kitsune as a race, might start play in animal form. A druid would pick an animal form to be their base form.. and when they gain wild shape they could learn how to take humanoid forms. It works well for the talking fairy animals theme. Same with Kitsune of any class - start out in fox form, and have to take a feat to become humanoid, analogous to taking fox form as a feat for a normal character. Might work for nagaji druids too.

Characters of the above types could also work with a number of fairy tale themes, like transformed princes/princesses, magically cursed folk, etc. For such characters getting their forms unlocked, have something happen in the flow of the story to allow it - then require them to take the associated feat at their level-up.

As far as magic goes... I've never had the impression magic is only evil. Fairy tales are full of fairy godmothers, wizards, good magicians/sorceresses/etc. They're just usually noted in passing or in the background. Much like university professors and scholars in real life: there's lots of them out there, but its generally the ones that do something bad that you hear about (assuming you're outside their scholarly social circles).

In stories the good wizard might be the object of the protagonist's quest, struggling to reach them to fix some problem or lift an enchantment. Or they might be the master/teacher of the hero, while the latter gets into trouble when they're not around or on some errand they were sent to complete. In a fairy tale setting campaign goodly magic workers fit in just fine. They can take commissions from the heroes just like a normal pathfinder campaign, to make them magical things to help them (armor, weapons, potions, etc.). They can also be adventure hooks, sources of lore, frequent quest-givers to send them to collect this mystical plant/animal, that lost relic, explore unknown places, and so on.

Dwarves in fairy tales: I generally think of some sullen or reclusive, inherently magical beings, very tied to the earth (or rarely fire) usually resentful of intrusion or indifferent to the outside world, and very hardworking. Generally not as slaves, forced to work, or working out of loyalty.. but because its simply their nature. And usually steeped in unfathomable knowledge of the crafting of powerful magical things. Though it does depend on what stories you're reading.

Actually under melee and ranged weapons (CRB pg.141) you'll see they've defined "Ranged weapons are thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee."

Below, under the text on thrown weapons it describes how to treat throwing a weapon not designed to be. A thrown 2-handed weapon attack is a full round action, and for any such it has range increment 10, 20/x2 criticals and -4 to hit penalty. If you look on pg. 144, where improvised weapons are defined it is the same penalty and other stats. So yes, there is a phrase defining your thrown greataxe as a ranged weapon (and thus a firing into melee penalty when applicable.

What there isn't is any text stating that its considered an improvised ranged weapon. It has exactly the same combat rules as for an improvised weapon, and most likely an gm will let Throw Anything cover it, but RAW it doesn't seem to be.

Because the game is played on a grid, simple geometry will tell you what the closest square is from which you can attack. The other thing I would point out is that unless you have abilities that say otherwise, you're charging to make a single attack. The weapon you're attacking with determines how close you have to be to the enemy at the end of your charging movement. A rogue for instance with a rapier in one hand and a whip in the other would charge to either 15' away or 5' away, dependant on which weapon he or she is making the charge to attack with. A player generally gets to choose what they're doing, what weapon they're attacking with, who they're attacking, what feats they are or aren't using, etc. That particular line in the charge rules basically reads "You must move to the closest space (to the space from which the charge originated) from which you can attack the opponent (with the melee attack you've chosen to make)."

Lemartes wrote:

Impressive.

That being said I doubt I'd allow it at my table namely because I think it would interfer with fun for everyone else playing.

How can something as awesome as a songbird beating people up interfere with someone else's fun? Genuinely curious, cause it makes no sense.

They're saying it makes others feel inadequate when an efficiently-designed character struts their stuff.

Its not a totally wrong opinion, but not one I agree with since they're not taking into account that a very focused character is generally only good in one area of play. Any character focused to be good at something is going to "interfere with others enjoyment' in that area, where everyone else doesn't come close. But when you have a group of differently-specialized characters then that's a spotlight that changes from moment to moment.

I usually find that those unhappy-people made their character with no real focus on anything, aiming to be 'well-rounded' or balanced. Those kinds of characters are fine at low levels, but at higher levels the ones who put chains of feats and class abilities together will always outshine them. As that's their own choice, I don't think its right to complain about it when someone else put more thought into their build, and it shows in play.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Q: if a human has no natural attacks but can make an unarmed strike, can a creature with natural attacks make an unarmed strike? isn't such a creature never "unarmed" in the sense of the word? or is "unarmed strike" a type of weapon available to ALL creatures regardless of their shape or form. I'm thinking hummingbirds and say a sentient ooze creature or a golem made entirely of sharp blades, for example... some of these don't seem to have the capacity to make an unarmed attack either due to extreme feathery softness or extreme lethal nature...

Any creature can make an unarmed strike even if it has natural weapons. Do you have cats? Have you ever had one bat you with it's paws without the claws extended? I have.

I'm 80% in agreement with you... I'm just wondering if there's a rule somewhere saying that sharks can't nudge you gently with their fins...

My cat made an unarmed strike against me by jumping up on the couch and headbutting my elbow. This provoked and attack of opportunity from me, and I scratched her behind the ears.

Be glad she wasn't making climb checks on your legs, like my cats are fond of. :)

This is also why (or one of the reasons) the people at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ show references for everything at the bottom. That feat or prestige class you found there and liked? Look at the bottom of its entry, and it will show you what Paizo resource it came from - no need to go slowly searching through a hundred publications trying to find it. Then you can go get that book and have it at the table for your character (or photocopy, or page printed from the pdf).