Gimble

Barry Armstrong's page

Organized Play Member. 902 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 902 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Indeed. Just because a human HAS had a vestigal tail (keep in mind that it's VERY rare, and almost always removed as a birth defect), does not mean that you can automatically claim that your particular Pathfinder Human has a tail. Nor does that mean that the DM must allow it unless he provides you RAW reference to the contrary.

Nor does it mean that tail is of sufficient size and strength to make a tail attack. The closest thing to a human with a tail in Pathfinder is probably a Tiefling, and, guess what? They don't have tail attacks.

Personally, if you took the feats as your level 1 Human feats, I'd allow it as your DM. But without a sufficient backstory or justification, I'd also allow your starting town to kick you out as a "demonic oddity". You have no starting gold or equipment but the clothes on your back. It was confiscated by the town as a mercy tax so your parents wouldn't go to jail. Those merchants that DO choose to sell to you might mark up their goods 10% or more. Certain Clerics and Paladins may refuse to offer you sanctuary or healing services. So on and so forth...


This really boils down to a simple argument:

1) Is there a written rule (RAW) that specifically cites tail growth as a part of RH (K) or Tail Terror?

Answer: No

2) Is there a written rule (RAW) that specifically prohibits tail growth as a part of RH (K) or Tail Terror?

Answer: No

If the answer is NO to both questions, then RAW is not a factor. Somewhere, a rule must either be created or interpreted since the question is posed.

3) Is there ambiguous text that MIGHT allow tail growth as a part of RH (K) or Tail Terror?

Answer: Yes

4) Is there lack of ruling on the issue that requires rule creation?

Answer: No

If the answer is YES to 3, disregard 4. If the answer is NO to 3, proceed to 4 and create homebrew rule if 4 is YES. Answering YES to 3 requires interpretation of an existing rule. RAI is now a factor.

5) Who has ultimate RAI authority within a game?

Answer: The DM

Reference: CRB, Chapter 1, Page 9

"Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."


Charender wrote:
If you are resorting to rule zero, then you are making a decision to change the rules. Thus the only reason to use rule zero is if you don't like RAW and want to change them. If RAW already agrees with you, then you don't need to use rule zero. This forum is about what RAW actually is, not what you can rule zero it into.

Keep in mind that you must also invoke rule Zero to clarify rules that are ambiguous, such as the definition of "effect related to race".

Because that's a DM's job.

Otherwise the player can claim pretty much anything he wants, as long as the DM can't prove it otherwise in RAW.

I'm afraid the rules are written the other way around, my friend. It will never change the fact that the DM is the final interpretation authority for rules that may need clarified.


Charender wrote:

Where exactly do you find the rule that say "You must be a normal human with no statistical deviation from the accept normal for humans."?

A standard human is not left handed. A standard human does not have 6 fingers on their left hand. A standard human doesn't have red hair. A standard human doesn't grow up to be a hero. It has been show several times why the Standard Human test is not only unsupported by RAW, but is also a silly straight-jacket on character creation.

Second, that is your interpretation of "effect related to race", suffice to say, not everyone agrees with that interpretation, or this would have been a much shorter thread.

It's in the same non-existent paragraph that contains the rule that says a player must be granted a tail if he wishes to have one.

A "standard human", as you suggest, has a range of traits. NONE of them include a tail long enough or strong enough to qualify for a tail attack. Nor does any medical science report contain such.

You're trying to exploit a technicality to a common sense argument.

The RAW that must be proven is that the feat "Racial Heritage (Kobold)" gives you access to a tail. Since you're such a proponent of RAW instead of RAI, I ask you to tell me the RAW that allows it.

There is NO WRITTEN RULE that says this feat grants you a tail. In order to say it does, you must INTERPRET the rules, meaning you are also delving into RAI. A no-no in your logic train.

So, pure RAW, unless the feat has the text "grants you a tail" or "grants you the requisite body part to qualify for the feat" or some other such writing, it doesn't exist and it still remains firmly planted in the DM's hands for consideration and interpretation.


el cuervo wrote:
I agree on all counts except in the case of the Orc Double Axe. Weapon proficiencies are racial traits gained by being a member of that race; they are not effects of race but traits tied directly to the race.

Agreed, but remember that Racial Heritage (Orc) also allows you to qualify for those, since for all intents and purposes, you ARE a member of that race.


Having a tail is not an "effect related to race".

Being vulnerable to "Elf-Slaying Arrows" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Elf).

Wielding an "Orc Double Axe" without taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency is an effect related to race if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Orc).

Taking the "Kobold Sorceror Bloodline" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Kobold).

Using the "Stone Lord" archetype is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Dwarf).

A "Standard" Pathfinder Human does not have a tail. Just like your example, a "standard" IRL human does not have a tail. Having one IRL is an extremely rare anomaly. Just like allowing one in PF would be.

There is no RAW that states taking the Tail Terror feat automatically grows a tail, so it becomes RAI on whether to allow it. As far as I know, a DM (even a PFS DM) does not need RAW to deny a character creation request that is an obvious exception to the rule.


Charender wrote:
Depending on how you interpret things, cosmetic features with no direct mechanical benefits could be considered an "effect related to race", thus Racial Heritage: Kobold could allow you to have a Kobold tail.

Correct. Meaning the assumption that a cosmetic feature, like a tail, POOFING into existence just by taking a feat, is also RAI, and not RAW.

So either way you slice it, there is no RAW supporting the growth of a tail through the taking of the feat.

This isn't a case of "Show me where the book says it doesn't grow me a tail". It's a case of what does the RAW actually say. And to be RAW, it must be WRITTEN. Otherwise it's RAI, and subjective interpretation.

It's a case of "Show me where the book says it DOES grow you a tail". A point of fact which no one has produced thus far.

In the end, it's up to the DM to decide whether it does or does not grow you a tail, since it's not expressly written in the Racial Heritage feat description. He must interpret the "effect related to race" and whether the "so on" in the last line applies to growth of a Kobold-like tail.


Charender wrote:
Some humans have tails, thus without a clear rule saying that humans in pathfinder do not have tails, a human can choose to have a tail.

There are humans who naturally have tails?

Where? Can you provide Pathfinder and/or IRL references to this? (Besides the vestigal tail which is normally a birth defect, and certainly not long enough or strong enough to qualify for a "tail slap" attack)

Charender wrote:
In PFS, for example, the allowed limits to rule zero are greatly tightened. This forum is about the what the actual rules of the game are, not what a given DM rule zero's them to be.

Indeed, PFS GM's don't have a "Fiat Rule 0" stamp of denial. Point ceded.

The actual rules of the game don't state that Racial Heritage (Kobold) or Tail Terror feats grow one a tail, either, so what's the problem here?


RAW states that a Human with the feat "Racial Heritage (Kobold)" can, indeed, choose to take the feat "Tail Terror".

However, the taking of the feat is not what grants you the tail. You will have to obtain a tail in some other way, and until you do, the feat is entirely useless.

Your DM can, of course, allow you to have it via the feat, bypassing the RAW in his RAI interpretation. You can grow it via some other magical or monstrous means, exposure to chemicals, etc...

And for those of you that say your character description is all up to the player, keep in mind that the DM is the ultimate judge there. If you say "My elf has blonde hair, blue eyes, and a light covering of fur", it's perfectly within the DM's purview to say "Umm, no you don't".

He can ALLOW you to have it, he can REQUIRE you to justify it, he can pretty much do whatever he wants.

Reference? Rule 0.


Mechanically, this would seem to work. However, I think DM intervention is required here. Powerful build, coming in from 3.5 where reach is calculated differently, needs to be altered to fit ALL pathfinder mechanics, not just combat crunch numbers such as size bonus or CMB/CMD. The reach quality must be examined for functionality.

A longspear still can't be wielded properly just because you have large muscles. Try holding a very long stick with one hand at the very end of the grip, and hold your arm perpendicular to the ground. Does the tip start falling towards the ground? Of course it does. It will regardless of your build size. If you choke up on the weapon to wield it properly, you will lose reach.

Unless you have specific training in using that kind of weapon, such as the Phalanx Soldier does, your effective reach may be compromised.

So it's up to your DM as to whether that weapon retains or loses its' reach property or not.


There's other ways he can escape the acid, but, yes, the basic mechanics would be that the animal companion occupies the block above the enemy, and he has to bypass it somehow to escape.


Redchigh wrote:

@Barry

I played a natural attack ranger once. I enjoyed it, but wanted to try Druid.

@lordmalkov
I'm pretty sure I can only use one natural attack on a charge... Full attacks let me use all of them, but doesn't a charge count as a move action?

In that case, I definitely recommend one of the Shaman classes. Saurian is one of the most popular.

Lordmalkov is correct, an Allosaurus has Pounce, so it can full-attack on a Charge.


Yep. You can definitely do both.


Using your rolled scores:

Level 2 Orc Ranger (Shapeshifter)

STR - 22
DEX - 17
CON - 18
INT - 10
WIS - 14
CHA - 13
BAB - +8/+8/+3 (+1 vs. Favored Enemy)
AC - 18
HP - 26
Sav - +7/+6/+2
Spd - 30 (20 w/armor)
Atk - Claws (2d4+12)/Bite (1d4+3)

Traits: Tusked (1d4 Primary Bite); Any other Non-race trait

Racials: Darkvision - 60ft
Dayrunner - (-2) Ranged Atk Rolls
Smeller - Scent 15ft

Feats: Ironhide (+1 Natural Armor)
Aspect of the Beast: Claws (1d4 Primary Claws)

Class Features: Favored Enemy (Animal)
Tracking (+1 Survival Rolls)
Wild Empathy (+3 Handle Animal)
Combat Style (Natural Weapons)

Armor: Hide (+4AC, +4 Max Dex, -3 Chk Penalty, Spd 20ft) - 15gp

This guy meets your flavor for RP and combat purposes. Doesn't need DM Fiat because his natural weapons are legal. He's animalistic, stealthy, and the only spells he'll cast will be buffs. He's got shapeshifting with his Archetype, and still gets a kick-ass companion at level 4.

I didn't go with any gear to speak of because he should be saving for an Amulet of Mighty Fists, which will boost his Natural Weapons greatly along with feats like Improved Natural Weapons, Rending Claws, etc...


Is the Druid class a dealbreaker? Because I can make this character pretty kick-ass and exactly the flavor you want by going straight Ranger...

Ranger is all about respect for predator-prey, as they are nature-based hunters, you can go Natural Weapon style to avoid manufactured, and Medium Armor has Hide and Scale available to avoid metal.


Bill Schwartz 810 wrote:

I'd have to say BoL would work here. Nothing in the wording for Desintegrate says you can't be brought back from death with magic, so no special rules to consider there.

So if BOL meets it's own criteria to bring you back, you come back.

It's not Disintegrate you have to worry about, it's BoL. BoL has a required target of "creature touched". A pile of dust isn't a creature.

If you have a DM that will stretch the text in parenthesis of the Resurrection spell, where the dusty remains count as a part of the person, then I can see a case for allowing BoL to work.

But, as printed, it doesn't.


Yes. The word "can" makes it optional (beyond the original 5 ft push, which isn't written as optional).


It would appear so. Beyond the original 5ft (which doesn't seem optional) I read the "can" as "You CAN move them more, but you don't have to."

PRD, Bull Rush wrote:
If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD you can push the target back an additional 5 feet.


It's amazing what people try to read into the rules.


Social + Race Traits (Anyone): Adopted + Tusked

Religion Trait (Goblin): Mother's Teeth

Racial Traits (Half-Orc): Toothy

Feats (Human): Racial Heritage (Half-Orc) + Razortusk

I'm pretty sure your best option is to spend a feat for a Draconian bite attack. Your DM might just let you "borrow" Razortusk mechanics and reskin it as a Draconic Bite.


bigrig107 wrote:
Krodjin wrote:

Yes, one extra attack. Only one. So if you have 2 claws and a bite attack, haste would grant you 1 extra attack (either a claw or a bite), not one of each..

Is there a way for PCs to get a bite attack?

About 4 different ways, and thousands of threads on how they work. Each is different. Traditionally, some of the Draconians even had a bite attack. So it's well within the realm of possibility.

Easiest way for ANY character to get one is through Adopted/Tusked. But if you're already level 3, your DM may not let you take traits.

Bottom line: Ask your DM which method he'd accept. Feat, racial ability, or character trait.


Howie 23 and Orfamay Quest have the right of it. Humanoid and Monstrous Humanoid are two different creature types. Per the Bestiary, a creature can only have one type, and then further divided into subtypes. So a creature can only be a humanoid OR a monstrous humanoid. Not both. Separate entries = separate types.

If monstrous humanoid were meant to count as a humanoid, it would not be its' own creature type. It would be listed as Humanoid (monstrous).

Devil's Advocate view: When used as a PC race, Gnolls are listed as Humanoid (Gnoll) per the ARG, following the proper protocol of other humanoid precedents for listing of creature type. When used as a monster encounter or enemy, Gnolls are listed as Monstrous Humanoid and use the Bestiary or specific AP listing.

I can see this going both ways, depending on the role a specific Gnoll plays in your universe.


Ok, got it about repairing the damaged Black Blade, leaving that to the other thread, but everything else I said is absolutely true. It doesn't matter what your "expectation" is, it matters what the RAW states. Your expectation might not be the same as mine. It's an opinion. Which has no bearing on the fact that a Black Blade can be sundered and can be destroyed, by RAW.

Destroyed, while not technically a "condition", is what happens when an item is reduced to 0 hp, per the RAW. There is nothing in the Unbreakable Archetype class feature that turns this off.

There is nothing that says an item has to have the "broken" condition first before it's able to be destroyed. It can go from full hp to destroyed in 1 hit, if it takes enough damage.

There is nothing that says an item immune to the "broken" condition is immune to all damage, or immune to the Sunder combat maneuver.

Therefore, by the direct RAW, even a Black Blade can be damaged. It can be Sundered. It can be destroyed. The only thing the Unbreakable class feature gives you is the ability to use your Black Blade, at full power, and with full strength, all the way to the point of being destroyed. It allows you to skip the limitations of the "broken" condition. That is literally all it does.

Show me, in RAW, where it says something immune to the "broken" condition is immune to being damaged, sundered or destroyed. Not RAI, not your opinion, not your expectation, not your neighbor's sister's dog's homebrew rule. Direct RAW. Or stop arguing.


Sober Caydenite wrote:
Do you think a druid should lose Power Attack while wildshaped? After all, practicing more powerful swings with your arms has nothing to do with biting harder. Lose Dodge? After all, jumping around on two legs is different from four, or with wings. Why so much hate for style feats? There is nothing in the feats that rely on body shape; anything else is just attempting to impose some sort of real-world physics on magic.

First, no. I don't think a Druid should lose Power Attack, Dodge, etc. Those feats are completely different. They are "general" feats.

Style feats, as indicated by name, are based on using your limbs in a very specific manner for a very specific outcome. Those are to be treated as a completely separate scenario as Power Attack, at least with me as the DM.

Second, I don't have any hate for Style Feats. I love Monks. I love Druids. I love diversity in combat and unarmed combat styles. I also love (and even note in my post) that RAW says this still applies.

All I did was specify that it's the DM's call as to what you lose and what you don't. At some tables, this will mean losing your style feat. At others, it won't.

Gauss wrote:

Animals can use unarmed combat just like anyone else. They just do not typically do so. Why would you lose style feats due to being in a different form?

If you practice different forms you would adapt it to that form. Heck, the fact that a Druid bothered to get a style feat is payment enough.

P.S. one of my cavalier builds is based on the idea that a Boar (3 intelligence at level 4) learns both Improved Unarmed Combat and Dragon Style.

First, there is nothing in RAW that specifically limits Style Feats to unarmed attacks, though that is clearly the RAI of how they are set up.

Second, there are limitations to adapting a style feat to a form without the physiological capability to carry out attacks or other abilities given under style feats in that form. It doesn't matter if you have Improved Doorknob Opening. If you're in bear form, you don't have opposeable thumbs and have to bust through the door. That's why it's the DM's call as to what you'd lose and what you wouldn't. It's to be weighed within the realm of reason, common sense, and interpretation.

A Boar with Dragon Style makes complete sense. As would a Dragon with Boar Style. Those "forms" and "functions" are compatible. Others won't be.

I maintain that RAW allows you to do this, technically, and Feral Combat Training even specifies it for ONE of your Natural Weapons, but the Polymorph rules for GM's call still applies.


Lou Diamond wrote:

I meant unbreakable As long as a black blade has one arcane point in its arcane pool it the black blade is unbeakable. Meaning the black blade is immune to the broken condition. Thus it cannot be sundered or broken by any physical means. It can be disjunctioned end or disintrigated.

Show me the rule that says something immune to the broken condition cannot be sundered. I can save you the time. It doesn't exist.

The Unbreakable archetype class feature gives you immunity to the broken condition. It can be used at full strength and with full capabilities all the way down to the point where it is destroyed. Nothing more. No immunity to sunder. No immunity to destruction. No immunity to being damaged.

If you want to debate that, go to the other thread linked in a post above. This thread is about how to REPAIR your damaged Black Blade.

Diego Rossi wrote:
A wizard bonded item has several other abilities that a black blade doesn't have.

Correct. Not in contention. It doesn't have to be the identical item to use the identical mechanics. Notice as well I said it wasn't a rule, or even RAW, but RAI due to the flavor text specifically listing it as a bonded item to the Magus (who is pretty much half Wizard).

Diego Rossi wrote:
If any bonded "thing" is restored to full hit point when you regain spells, a druid or ranger animal companion is restored to full health when he regain his spells.

Incorrect. I never said this would apply to any bonded thing. Those are your words. Mine are specifically to be taken in the context of repairing a bonded weapon by using the existing Wizard mechanics for bonded items. Applying it tangientally to other bonded items or even creatures outside the Magus or Wizard class are absolutely inapplicable. Animal companions have their own hit points and heal using CREATURE healing mechanics. Not ITEM healing mechanics. This example is apples and oranges.

At any rate, if a Black Blade is NOT treated as a Wizard's bonded weapon for the purpose of healing after being damaged, then we are left to Make Whole or Mend as ways to repair it.

Personally, I don't see any unbalancing issue with the Black Blade healing when the Magus reprepares his spells. Does anyone else?


drbuzzard, thanks for answering that one even though it was mistakenly quoted with my name. For the record, I have no personal beef with you, just your reasoning in this case. I agree with the apples to apples comparisons, which is why I didn't open the can of worms of the entire Sword-wielding, spell-slinging, heavy-armor-wearing class we lovingly call the Magus and don't ever dare to call it cheese. But that's a debate for another day and another thread.

Since you're so keen to drag easy to find references out of me, here's the ones I think apply directly:

PRD, Core Rulebook, Equipment Chapter, Weapons Table, Martial Weapons:

Light Melee Weapons

Shield, light; Cost special; 1d2 (s); 1d3 (m); x2 crit; type B

One-Handed Melee Weapons

Shield, Heavy; 1d3 (s); 1d4 (m); x2 crit; type B

Shields listed on the weapon table as light or one-handed, depending on the type wielded.

PRD, Core Rulebook, Equipment Chapter, Weapons, Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons:
Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1 ½ times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Rules for light and one-handed weapons to be used in both hands for purposes of damage bonus, depending on the type wielded.

Playing devil’s advocate, there’s even the reverse situation. Using weapons as a shield:

PRD, Core Rulebook, Feats, Two Weapon Defense:
When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC (increases to +2 for defensive fighting)

(on a tangiental note, I didn’t notice that applied to double weapons until now. I smell an idea brewing involving two-weapon fighting and two-weapon defense using a double weapon. Too cheesy? Maybe...)

Ok, I think we get the point with RAW references that “support my point” of using a shield as a weapon, and even added in the stuff for using it two-handed. To be fair, I re-validate my personal opinion that it does stink like cheese, just a little, even to me. But that stench, to me, is balanced by further mechanics like low base damage, the reliance on feat taxes to be viable and comparable as a weapon yet still retain it's AC, and the reliance on the same feats as the two-handed sword guy to boost that base damage die with extra damage. That's one feat heavy dude, just to smack someone with a shield the same way his twin brother can smack someone with a sword. The sword brother will have feats left over to improve his damage further with critical hits, and the shield brother devotes his feats to retaining his AC with his shield-weapon. *shrug* I see enough balance to make it negligible unless seriously munchkin'd. And saying that because he can get his weapon "cheaper" is cheese, cheesifies those people like Rangers who make their own bows and arrows. Alchemists who brew their own potions. Gunslingers who craft their own ammo, and, by the way, get their gun free. Wizards who pen their own scrolls and make their own wands.

This, like using a shield as a weapon, is nothing more than the opportunity to do more with less. Working smarter not harder.

Let's move on to some real-world references. Sorry the list is small, but I'm at work and have limited access to websites. But it still validates my point of view just fine. If you use the logic that you don't have to prove or disprove every minutia, just demonstrate that it exists, then I can use that same logic to back my own stances.

Read about the Spartan Apsis

More of THIS…IS…SPARTA!

Read the conclusion


I honestly think that's giving them too much credit. I seriously think they just flat-out don't like it (which is fine) and then simply label it as sour grapes (or sour cheese, in this case) to back up their stance.

Clinging to the only valid point that drbuzzard has, the fact that a shield fighter can get his weapon for half cost compared to his peers' weapons, is a weak one. Transferring that logic means that anyone who sees an economic advantage to obtaining their items at half-cost is cheesy.

Sorry, Ranger, if you craft your bows and arrows you're cheesy. Hey, Wizard, if you craft your wands and pen your scrolls yourself, it's cheesy. Alchemist? Put down those glass bottles and go purchase your potions like everyone else. Gunslinger? Well, let's not even talk to you, since you get your weapon free and can craft your own ammo at half cost. You must reek of limburger.

Perhaps the monetary and budgetary savings is what SPAWNED the shield-as-a-weapon style in the first place. Let's say I come from a poor family. I have the skillset for a martial career, but I straight up can't afford both a weapon and a shield.

"Well, son, I want you to live, so I'm buying you the shield. But I want you to be able to win, so let's see if we can't turn the tables on all these naysayers by creating something new."


drbuzzard wrote:
Did anyone ever teach you how to debate in a rational fashion? I proved my point on how to make a cheese build with a 2 handed shield. If you want to prove that it's nothing special, the burden is on you to provide a counter example. First off, that's not a reasonable expectation that I have to meet your demands. Secondly, it is extremely lazy. You want to make a compelling argument, get off your duff.

Yes, in fact someone did. Debate team. So, I'll further debate, and make it rational in order to satisfy your logic. Your stance is that this build is cheese. The majority accepted explanation of this term is to be able to skirt the rules and create something that cannot be normally obtained. I don't think anyone will argue that point.

In order to prove your example as cheese, you have to satisfy both your ability to create something that goes outside the norm, AND compare that against what can be normally obtained. You failed to do that in your first build example. I called you out on it. It's as simple as that.

Secondly, if you're going to say that you "are not impressed" with our arguments, be prepared for the introspective picking apart of your own arguments and ability to impress everyone else. That is how debating works. Point and counterpoint.

Thirdly, I'm not trying or even find it necessary to "get off my duff" or "make a compelling argument" with whatever YOUR definition of those terms are. Why?

The ruleset of the game, and historical examples that can be easily obtained by visiting the internet, already support my argument. I'm already familiar with them. Other posters above me further clarified for you, so I feel no need to repeat their efforts or their hyperlinks. I am already well aware that there are both historical, fantastical, and even in-game precedents surrounding use of a shield as a weapon. You're the one selling it as cheese, so you're the one with something to prove, not I. So you're the one with the obligation to prove your point, not I.

I gave you two points of merit, where fairly due. Just because I happen to agree with you in theory doesn't mean I can't disagree with you in application or logistical analysis. Often times I will agree with something personally, but have to disagree with it professionally.

Such is the nature of debate.


Because that's all the explanation that's necessary. Your entire argument is "I can build something that can exploit it". If you want historical examples, here's your link: www.google.com. Obviously you have the internet. Use it.

I will allow that your build is cheese. I will even allow that 2-handing a shield to use rules and get bonuses like a 2-handed sword stinks of cheese.

Now prove that every person using a shield as a weapon will use your exploitive build, else relenquish that your argument, like everyone else's, is an opinion.

You can be less than impressed all you like, I have no obligation to impress you. Your singular build and arguments don't impress anyone else here, either, so before you go casting stones, make sure you aren't holding a glass shield.

Your build has 3 attacks per round at 1d4 + 27 each. Convince me this is cheese by proving I can't make a build with the same DPR at the same AC, and MAYBE you'll have a valid point.

Otherwise, your argument is just as one-sided as everyone else's. Offer up VALID data and maybe I'll bother putting forth effort to refute it. Until then, we see through the thinly veiled statistics stacking you're trying to pull off to make your stance the only one worthy of note.


Those crying "cheese" and "it wasn't done in real life" obviously haven't done any research on the topic in the Pathfinder rules or in real history.

The shield is a very viable main weapon, and has plenty of real life, historical references.

Not that real life or Earth history has ANYTHING to do with Pathfinder or Golarion.

I think the cheese factor comes in because it isn't someone's "norm", so they have to cry sour grapes. There are mechanics built into the game to be able to use a shield as a viable weapon. It's RAW legal.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's cheese.


PRD, Magic Chapter, Polymorph spells wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed.

GM's discretion as to what you lose and what you don't while wildshaped.

I'd allow the movement through difficult terrain part of dragon style, if you were a bear or lion or creature that could obviously use that advantage.

Other creatures might not be so lucky. Like a snake. As I said, be ready to explain it situationally to your GM, depending on the form you assume. Likely if you can rationally explain it, he'll let you retain it.

But, strictly by RAW, the answer is still technically yes. You're still in that style until dropped or changed, so you'd get the bonuses.


Perfect example of common sense and unwritten rules. The exact RAW of Style Feats don't mention its' exclusive use with unarmed attacks, but that's the clear RAI of it.

In fact, according to strict RAW, once you're in a style, you retain that style until you drop it or change it. Wild Shape or not. So, technically, yes, you retain the style feat benefits.

BUT:

I would say it depends on what you transform into. If it's a humanoid form, I wouldn't argue it at all. But you better have a damn good story as to how exactly a bear manipulates his paws the correct way to utilize tiger style. Or a giant eagle is able to walk across difficult terrain on the ground.


Honestly, I agree with the zero facing anyways. As stated above, it only takes a fraction of a second to turn your eyes, head, and shoulder around in a circle to get very near to 360 degree vision. And you're sure to do that in combat, unless you're unable to see, hear, or detect a threat in a certain direction.

Let's be honest, even if you become incorporeal and come through a wall that the opponent is backed up to, that first attack is going to be "sneaky". The others are not. He's not going to stand still, back still against the wall, looking straight ahead unless he's paralyzed.

I think some people truly believe when it's not their turn, other characters or monsters are literally frozen still. Perhaps it's a side-effect of miniatures battles or other remnants of other rules systems with facing.


Why is this still being debated? Scroll up and read my post. It provides direct RAW references that answer this question without the need for interpretation, table variance, debate, or FAQ. The only debate is not liking what the RAW says and then houseruling it from there.

I'll break it down simpler below:

Can a Black Blade be broken: Yes, but only if the Magus fails to retain 1 Arcane Pool point.

Can a Black Blade be damaged: Yes, but if the Magus retains 1 Arcane Pool point, it cannot gain the broken condition.

Can a Black Blade be sundered: Yes, since there is no rule preventing it.

Can a Black Blade be destroyed: Yes, since there is no rule preventing it.

Are there rules for repairing a broken blade: Yes, see the class feature.

Are there rules for repairing a sundered blade: Well, the class feature says it can be repaired, but it fails to state HOW to repair. The archetype mentions in "Black Blade basics" that it's bonded item like a familiar. And Magus doesn't get Mend on his spell list. So two options: Treat the black blade the same as a wizard's bonded item that is repaired next time he prepares spells (Probably the RAI way to repair it, but it's not RAW), or get a Wand of Mend.

Are there rules for re-creating a destroyed blade: Yes, see the class feature.


PRD, Bladebound Magus, Black Blade Basics wrote:
A black blade is bonded to a particular magus, much like a familiar, but in more of a partnership than a master-servant relationship.
PRD, Wizard, Arcane Bond wrote:
If a bonded object is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the wizard prepares his spells.

While this isn't technically a RULE, I would say it's clear that the RAI is to treat a Black Blade as a wizard's Arcane Bonded weapon for purposes of "healing" it. For all other purposes, the Black Blade is more like a familiar. It's kind of a fusion of both methods of Arcane Bond.

Also concur that a viable alternative is to have a Wand of Mending.


sspitfire1 wrote:
Pounce specifically grants an exception to the rake rules with respect to grab.

This. You're all looking way too deep into this. Pounce specifically allows you to use rake outside the grapple. You can't say Pounce can't be used as written because it contradicts Rake. It's SUPPOSED to contradict normal Rake rules. Think of Rake as the general rule, and Pounce as the specific rule which overrides it. Nothing more.

An Eidolon's Rake is different (as are most Eidolon rules), and should be treated as such.


HangarFlying wrote:
OP: Natural weapons would fall under the "or for some special reason" clause that you quoted.

Yep, you can also use this as your reference justification if you wish. Because natural attacks and manufactured/unarmed use different attack mechanics, it would indeed fall under the "or for some special reason" clause.

However, see my first post for the direct reference which is not at all unclear. :D


Yes, you must take a full attack action to use multiple attacks of any kind. That's why the rules don't bother to specify between natural, manufactured, and unarmed in this case.

Reference:

PRD, Core Rulebook, Combat Chapter, Multiple Attacks wrote:
A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

That is directly from the CRB, and coincidentally directly under the paragraph explaining natural attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, but why is this even a question? The RAW is clear. A Black Blade is immune to the broken condition with the retention of 1 Arcane Pool point via Unbreakable. It is not immune to being sundered or destroyed, because the ability does not state as such anywhere.

The first quote does NOT bypass any of the last three. Ever.

PRD, Blade Bound Magus, Black Blade Abilities, Unbreakable wrote:
As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition.
PRD, Additional Rules, Smashing an Object, Hit Points wrote:
When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined.
PRD, Additional Rules, Smashing an Object, Damaged Objects wrote:
…until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
PRD, Combat, Combat Maneuvers, Sunder wrote:
If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

All of those quotes are direct RAW. No interpretation necessary. No FAQ necessary. No comparative examples or precedents necessary. In fact, the only inconsistency whatsoever is that the "Hit Points" paragraph should really use the word "destroyed" instead of "ruined" (which is not a game term like destroyed is). But that's pedantic.

If this ability said "As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is never reduced to less than 1 hit point" then it would work as you all seem to want it to, and by effect become immune to being destroyed (but still not immune to being sundered down to that 1hp, even though it would retain it's full functionality).

But that's not what it says, so that's not how it works. If you want it to function to that respect, homebrew the wording that way, and it will. But RAW, it is immune to broken, but not sundered or destroyed.


Assuming both sides of your double axe are +1, your full attack pattern, given your bonuses and feats, is:

+11 @ 1d8+6/+6 @ 1d8+6 (primary hand)/+11 @ 1d8+3/+6 @ 1d8+3 (off hand)

Double Weapons:
Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Fighting with two weapons:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.

Two Weapon Fighting Feat:
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See Two-Weapon Fighting in Combat.

Improved Two Weapon Fighting Feat:
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.


ShadowcatX wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
The big question (for me) is can you Gore and Bite in the same round. I know some monsters can, but PCs can't necessarily do what monsters can.
By the rules, only monsters with the ability to bite and gore in the same round listed in their stat blocks can do so. Personally, I think this is an example of what should be house ruled.

Actually, by the rules you can indeed bite and gore in the same round using this exact example. It doesn't require a house rule. It's printed RAW. It would require a house rule to NOT allow it.

PRD, Core Rulebook, Combat Chapter, Natural Attacks wrote:
...you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks).
PRD,Advanced Player's Guide, Barbarian, Lesser Fiend Totem wrote:
While raging, the barbarian grows a pair of large horns, gaining a gore attack.

Emphasis mine. Let's combine the bold parts for clarity:

The Barbarian grows a pair of large horns, gaining a gore attack. He now has an additional body part capable of making an extra natural attack as noted by the ability that grants this attack (Lesser Fiend Totem). It happens to share a limb with his bite attack, if the character has one.

To be fair, this is the only case I've seen in which, by RAW, you have two natural attacks on the same limb. But, you have to remember, it's not LIMITED to one per limb at all times unless you weave natural attacks and manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes (as referenced in the paragraph below the one I quoted from the Combat section). If you use natural weapons only, that limitation doesn't exist.

RtrnofdMax wrote:
One small error in the first post. A medium 1d8 weapon goes to 2d6 when enlarged.

Good catch. 2d6 is better than 1d10 anyways. More min and max dmg.

The only "extra" you'd get by using this ability while Charging is if you have only the gore attack. Then, you'd fall into a special category where you get 1.5xSTR bonus.

If you also have Claws, it gets reduced to wpn dmg + STR bonus (multiple natural attacks). If you Charge and have a greataxe in your hands, it gets reduced further to wpn dmg + .5xSTR bonus (natural + manufactured = secondary attack rules).


Martial, Martial, Martial! wrote:
Whale_Cancer wrote:
Controlled rage does not let you cast spells, it only lets you use skills you would otherwise not be able to use.

From Rage:

While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma, Dexterity, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.

From Controlled Rage:
When using a controlled rage, an urban barbarian gains no bonus on Will saves, takes no penalties to AC, and can still use Intelligence-, Dexterity-, and Charisma-based skills.

What is it there that prevents you from casting spells or using Hexes?

The fact that Rage says "any ability that requires patience or concentration", the fact that Controlled Rage does not overcome that limitation, and the fact that Controlled Rage specifically calls out the ability to used INT, DEX, and CHA based SKILLS.

Spells and Hexes are not skills, and require patience and concentration. No need for FAQ on that, the argument's been exhausted to death, and the clarification is right in the rules. Both spells and hexes require patience and concentration to cast.

To overcome that, however, you simply have to take a "rage power tax" in the form of Moment of Clarity. Easy enough to weave exactly what you want.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP, first, let me say I understand this is your first time behind the DM seat. Let's school you up on a few things you need to know:

This situation is not munchkin. It is optimization, it is powergaming, etc...the difference? Munchkins do it at others' expense. So far, you've included nothing about him impacting the fun of other players, only your own frustration in not wanting to alter the content to cater to him.

There is nothing "WIN" about Super Stealth. There's two pages of suggestions here as to how to combat his one-trick pony. I won't repeat their advice, but I will recommend that you heed it.

Secondly, I respect that you want to stick to the printed Adventure Path (in your case, Kingmaker). However, a good DM tweaks everything to his players. If he's using a strategy that makes it harder for the monsters, it's your job to increase the CR to compensate. Give the monsters more hp, let the "lieutenants and above" see invis, give them deeper darkvision, etc...

Don't just stick to the printed Adventure Path and complain about optimized players being too OP for it. Part of what you owe to your players is to make everything "risky". Otherwise it's just not fun. Even for Super Stealth Halfling Boy. If there's no risk of death, there's no satisfaction of winning a scenario.

I am glad you've discussed progression with him, and his designs to take Hellcat Stealth and other stealth-centric stuff. Make sure he knows your concerns and limitations, and don't worry about him being a rules-lawyer.

The easiest way to combat rules lawyer players is to remind them of Rule 0 and Rule 1. Rule 0 is that all rules are optional if you say so. Rule 1 is that you, and only you, are the final rulebook interpretation authority for your campaign.


keaton13 wrote:

Question:So first, I assume when you have 2 primary attacks you can only use both with a full attack (similar to TWF), now if I read it correctly there isn't a penalty for attacking with both primary attacks like there is with 2 weapons (correct me if I'm wrong please).

Answer: You are not wrong. This is correct.

Question: do both primary attacks add full str to damage, or is it str to one half str to the other (like with duel weapons)

Answer: All primary attacks add full STR to damage. Furthermore, if you only have a single natural primary attack, it does 1 1/2 STR to damage.

Question:Also if the character base attack bonus reaches say 6/1 do you get 2 attacks with each natural weapon or is there a feat for that?

Answer: Monsters or characters using ONLY natural attacks don't get the iterative attacks for high BAB. This is only for using manufactured weapons or unarmed attacks. There is no feat that gets around this. Natural weapon attacks use completely different attack mechanics, and your number of attacks is limited only by limbs or body parts capable of making those attacks.

Question:For the feat "improved natural attack" if I pick claw, is it just for the one claw attack or for both (I think it's both but I want to be 100% sure cause sometimes I can make mistakes)

Answer: Claw attacks are always in multiples of 2. If you take Improved Natural Attack, it improves both claws by 1 damage step.

Question:also any advice for barbarians? and natural weapon ussage? this is my first time with both :P (and yes I am set in using the natural weapons cause I find the idea quite enjoyable)

Answer:As a Barbarian, I recommend a race that starts with natural attacks and/or access to Pounce feats. This will save your investment in feats later on and generally compliments your chosen weapon style. It also saves you from having to choose between Beast and Fiend Totem rage powers. Tengu are a good example, as they can start with Claw/Claw/Beak and use the Fiend Totem rage power to get Gore while raging.


Xaratherus wrote:
The alternative would be that you literally keep track of your character's progression level-by-level, which would result in a pretty massive amount of bookkeeping.

Not really all that massive amount necessary. The Pathfinder Character Folio thing already has a level-by-level progression page. I make my players use it so I know they've met all the prerequisites.

However, I see the point of the swapping out feats thing. But NOT the Sorcerer levels for Dragon Disciple levels.

EDIT: Ninja'd above.


You could dig out some AD&D Spelljammer information and convert it to Pathfinder. Those ships are just Airships with a magical helm.

The conventional weapons, ship-to-ship combat rules, defenses, etc...would be largely translateable.


Cheapy wrote:
The reason was actually word count, from what I remember taking with Russ about. But he thought it fit. Same goes for the fact they archaeologists still can't cast silent spells

I hate how word count would actually play into semantics being left out of a rules book. I understand it, from a publisher's perspective, but it doesn't mean we have to like it.


I think you're reading the feat wrong. A Monk 6/Druid 5's effective druid level is not 11. You don't just add your Monk and Druid levels together, you simply get a +4 level "bonus" to your existing Druid level for Wild Shape.

PRD, Shaping Focus Feat wrote:
Benefit: If you are a multiclassed druid, your wild shape ability is calculated as though your druid level were four higher, to a maximum level equal to your character level.

So, you would wildshape exactly like a level 9 druid would. (Druid 5 +4 levels for Wildshape Focus).


@ Xaratherus: Yep. I understand. And your comparison was definitely relevant, since those archetypes and their abilities have the same mechanical functionality, and on the surface Bard seems to be "missing" the class skill addition, but the other classes give pretty much standard Trapfinding. The Bard Archetype's ability is a bit better, so they balanced it off by subtracting the class skill bonus. That makes it fall a few points behind Rogue and the others, but at a faster rate.

Again, classic Bard move. Jack of All Trades, master of none.


A Bard is not a Rogue. So it definitely smells intentional to me that they be a bit behind rogue on Disable Device as a result, especially when the math equals out to exactly the Disable Device class skill bonus.

He may be able to do it faster, but not BETTER. That's classic Bard. Now, whether that's worth the price of Versatile Performance, that's a different story.

1 to 50 of 902 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>