Beastman's page

225 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Anyone knows what printing (version) the reprints are based on and do the reprints have the latest errate/update incorporated?

See, this why I'm getting slowly tired of those rule's heavy RPGs. Make a spellcraft check, the shield is invisible, no it is not, etc... In the good old times, it was the GM's job to be creative.

He could have said: "your sword strikes the dragon, or so it seems, but just an inch before its point would have pierced the scales, the blade suddenly stopped as" or "your hit the dragon with a good hard blow, but your swing unnaturally bounced back so that your blade comes dangerously close to your own hide..." or "or blade hits an previously unseen barrier, but with your strike, causes blue sparks to fly through the air."

the GM would give clues and the players would have to guess. but in these days the Gm seems to be the slave of the rules...

Back on topic:

If you consider the spell text rule mechanics, then yes the shield is invisible as described in the rules. Technically speaking, the fighter cannot see it (visually). Now, the fighter could be allowed to make a Spellcraft check (but only if he is trained in Spellcraft) to get a clue.

But could it perhaps be, that this is just for flavor? Well, if the shield is invisible, does it cackle with energy when hit?

From the Bestiary - Universal Monster Rules:

"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam).

Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type."

So to the OP's question:

I would say yes, but only if you would be eligible to multiple attacks because of a high BAB...

:-/ I was exited about the basic mini set. but only 4 iconics? no monsters?, i'm somewhat disappointed. i will buy a set purely out of love of paizo but think about it: isn't his product aimed at the beginner? now the beginner gets four characters (featured in the rpg box) and has no use for them because he cannot pit them against the monsters (featured in the rpg box's adventure)? i hope i'm missing some information about the mini-box, there surely must be more minis in there....

Elorebaen wrote:
Enpeze wrote:

Eg what a good cultural sourcebook needs to deliver is: the way people are dressing, thinking and speaking, their relationships to other cultures, their technology, their approach to religion, art and architecture and the unique form of their settlements



Next week I'm going to start LoF with my group of players. I have read all over the books again: Campaign setting book, LoF adventures, Dark Markets, Gezetter, etc...BUT I have than damn feeling I can't get the setting right because I have no clue about such an "eastern / oriental" land and the people's habits...I fear the mood transported to players (who also do not have a clue about such lands) of LoF will be rather another medieval europe style campaign in the desert sprinkled with a bit of oriental flavor like turbans and scimitars and genies...worst thing of all, i have barely time to prepare for adventurs, lest alone searching the internet for various sources that could help out. Soit would be a good thing if books dealing with "lands" had some more information of the things mentioned bye elorebean above...

If your target audience are kids:

A few posts before I have tried to enforce the need to offer such an intro game in large toy-stores or supermarkets such as toy'r'us here in germany. There is one thing you should not ignore, but i don't know who will handle this paizo or ulissesd: we need a german version of the intro game.

i also mentioned miniatures and forgot to mention that these should be plastic, preassembld (and perhaps prepainted). Kids like figurines not paper tokens that's at least my experience with a 4-year old and a 6 year old boy and a 7 year old girl.

For the girl you should include a fairy and unicorn ;-)

Could you please provide a page where all errata and faq's for the PRPG-like are collected. I have to click on every single product page to check if there is a link to an errata or not such as in PFRPGC Adventurer's Armory - and i have nearly all books on my shelf...that's alot of work, especially if you don't check every day if there is something announced...or did i miss such a page...?

Uh, guess I posted in the wrong here it goes again (sorry for double post - feel free to remove one)...

Hi @all,

if you want to "grow the crowd" i think it is essential for an Intro Set to not only be available at specialized shops, but also at larger stores, such as Toys'R' Us or something similar (don't know any store names in US/England). Here in Germany a lot of children go to such stores with their parents. I never saw parent and children in a RPG-specialized shop...So, to get their attention, you need a boxed set (not a book) because a boxed set looks like a game.

There should be some minatures in it: one hero for each of the classes and a small sample of monster miniatures. Best if they are prepainted, so that the box can have some transparent part at the top where the heroes are displayed. This will draw attention to the product...

The box has to be an eye-catcher and should be rather "big" or it will drown within all the other boxed games...But your marketing department should know better ;-) of how to "draw attention"...

Now to what should be in:

- an erasable battlemat
- charaktersheets (perhaps erasable too)
- an eraser pen
- a set of funky dice
- adventure (1 dungeon, 1 village to shop
- a PRPG rules light version: My suggestions:
- Races: the basics (elf, human, dwarf, gnome)
- Classes: the basics (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard)
- No alignment
- Stripped down list of skills, spells, feats, equipment.
- Covering of levels 1 to 10
- Remove AoO, no combat maneuvers

That's it from the top of my head...

Hi @all,

if you want to "grow the croud" i think it is essential for an Intro Set to not only be available at specialized shops, but also at larger stores, such as Toys'R' Us or something similar (don't know any store names in US/England). Here in Germany a lot of children go to such stores with their parents. I never saw parent and children in a RPG-specialized shop...So, to get their attention, you need a boxed set (not a book) because a boxed set looks like a game.

There should be some minatures in it: one hero for each of the classes and a small sample of monster miniatures. Best if they are prepainted, so that the box can have some transparent part at the top where the heroes are displayed. This will draw attention to the product...

The box has to be an eye-catcher and should be rather "big" or it will drown within all the other boxed games...But your marketing department should know better ;-) of how to "draw attention"...

Now to what should be in:

- an erasable battlemat
- charaktersheets (perhaps erasable too)
- an eraser pen
- a set of funky dice
- a PRPG rules light version: My suggestions:
- Races: the basics (elf, human, dwarf, gnome)
- Classes: the basics (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard)
- No alignment
- Stripped down list of skills, spells, feats, equipment.
- Covering of levels 1 to 10
- Remove AoO, no combat maneuvers

That's it from the top of my head...

*cough* *cough* *cough*

nice - *mmm* - costume. even nicer what's in it...however,

try imagine how "seoni" is walking with those high heels through a dungeon or wilderness ;-)

mmm:-/ perhaps she is levitating or flying?

Denim N Leather wrote:

If you had a player who perhaps heard something said a long time ago (months in RL) and now has to recall it in-game, how would you have them roll for it if you wanted to remind them but not just give it away?


I only do Recall-Rolls if absolutely necessary. I have made the experience, that my players do no longer rely on their memories and no longer make notes about an adventure/campaign if they are allowed to constantly make such rolls. There were times, where they even didn't bother to note down/or memorize the names of important NPCs. If the info is important to an adventure's progress, i make fake-rolls and give them the info anyway.

James Risner wrote:
And I see them all, by RAW, as circumstance bonuses.

Well, I can also see them as circumstance bonuses BUT NOT by RAW. By RAW circumstance bonuses (or penalties for the matter) as designated as such. But as it stands, cover grants an UNTYPED bonus to AC and thuis this bonusis not applied to CMD as per RAW. On a personal matter (as mentioned before), i would allow the bonus granted by cover to apply to CMD.

anthony Valente wrote:
I'm not sure what was intended.

Me too. In addition, Acrobatics can be used untrained, even when tumbling as mentioned in the skill's chapter and also PRD. But in the combat chapter there is sentance under the "Moving through a Square" section that reads: "Tumbling: A trained character can attempt to use Acrobatics to move through a square occupied by an opponent (see the Acrobatics skill". So, can untrained characters use Acrobatics to tumble or note?

PRD wrote:

CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier
...A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.

So going strictly by the rules: no bonus to CMD because of cover, armor, shield or natural armor.

Personally however, I say that it would make sense to add a cover bonus to CMD.

Pax Veritas wrote:

This question might sound silly, but, a Feral Troll that moves gets how many attacks?

This came up in last night's Pathfinder RPG game.

Can't find a Pathfinder Feral Troll nor a 3.5 Feral Troll, so assuming you mean the "norma" Troll. Regardless of monster, if a monster moves (spends a move action) it can normally take only a standard action and this means only one attack. In case of a "normal" troll: one bite attack or one claw attack (and thus No rend attack).

Loyalty1 wrote:
That makes sense to me, kinda what I was leaning toward, so I guess that magic bonuses to weapons would also add to the CMB to trip/Disarm/sunder.

I would say so, too.

Loyalty1 wrote:

Hey There,

I am trying to figure out how combat maneuvers work when fighting with 2
weapons. If I am fighting with 2 warhammers would My CMB have a -4 when dual wielding as well? and would things like masterwork and weapon focus factor in?

From PRD:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.

This means YES to Two-weapon fighting penalties, YES to masterwork and YES to Weapon Focus but only to Disarm, Sunder, and Trip.

Turey wrote:
I could really use some help on this.

Don't know if i have it right but here it goes:

Tail attack is always a secondary attack, regardless of the fact that it is made as a single standard attack or part of a full attack or in combination with or without a weapon attack.

If the salamander drops his weapon, he can make an unarmed attack as a primary attack at full BAB and STR-bonus (but not at BAB and 1-1/2 STR-bonus because he also has the tail slab attack - also see below).

The text you are referring:

This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one.

I interpret as follows:

The creature can make two or more attacks and thus no full BAB and no 1-1/2 STR. "Takes one" refers to the creature ony making one single attack from among his multiple attacks, such as when only be able to take a standard action.

dulsin wrote:
I am not aware of that distinction.

Example: Class - Barbarian - Uncanny Dodge: "...She still looses her DEX-bonus to AC if immobilized...still looses his DEX-bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the faint action..." or Skills - Acrobatics: "...While using Acrobatics...and lose your DEX-bonus to your AC (if any)..."

And as per Rogue - Sneak Attack: "... anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC."

so is loosing = denied (or in other words: if an opponent looses DEX-bonus can a rogue sneak attack) ???

Spacelard wrote:

"denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"

This is the phrase which confuses me as it implies that it doesn't matter the actual amount but anything which will deny a bonus gives you an opportunity to sneak attack. You are entangled and denied a DEX bonus to AC ergo you can be sneak attacked.

Jumping in with another question:

Is there any difference between "being denied a DEX-bonus" and "loosing a DEX-bonus" ? I encountered these two rules-portions several times while reading the book and i'm unsure about this, especially in combination with sneak attacks.

Andrew Bay wrote:
Are there any other downsides that I'm missing? What other pitfalls should I throw in?

Well my dwarf fighter moved into the malachite fortress, hired some guards to man the gate to the underdark and to repair the damage dnone by the characters when using the pulverizer. in addition work was started on a new tunnel to the surface because using ghelves house and moving through jzadirune is too "complicated" (although he bought ghleve a new house and took over so the entrance into the city remains). the monthly income from dwarven goods manufactured in the forges roughly covers the expenses but he has to spent gold from his adventuring. this is good because the party has started to teleport to greyhawk to sell magic items abnd buy new ones, sometimes "en mass". until the volcanoe broke out and part of cauldron was destroyed during the fiery sanctum chapter nothing serious happened, although pilrak showed up at the doors (the fled the characters during the first (?)chapter) to look for his old slave-merchant. he was surprised to see the fortress occupied and was chased down into the underdark where he led the party to a small slave-outpost. In this mini adventure the party destroyed the outpost and killed pylrak.With the damaging of cauldron some cracks showed up in the fortress but it survived rather unscathed (determined randomly) - so no problem to repair the damage.In addition my brother-in-arms, a cleric of Moradin, has started to build a small temple.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hi @all

Already searched the internet, but dind't find anything at all, so here is my request:

Next week, my players will (very likely) defeat Ardimarchus and return to Cauldron, finishing the Shackled City AP. Unfortunately there is very little information in the book of what happens after the heroes's return.

After two years of gaming I want to give the players and their heroes proper respect and a great celebration. There is already mentioning of statues in their honor in the book, but i need something more:

I need a rousing speech honoring the heroes of Cauldron (written by Jenya because she was elected temporary "ruler" until a proper one is determined - but it is not that important that the speech is written from her perpective).

Does anyone has an idea where to get "demo-speeches" or does someone did something similar and can send me a pdf or something?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank You.

The Grandfather wrote:
I do not know if this has been adressed previously. But here I go.

If I read all the separate passage as one i come to this conclusion:

If Grappled:

Cast a spell with a verbal component (184)
Cast a spell with a somatic component if one hand free (184)
Cast a spell with material/focus component if one hand free (184)

If doing so - make a concentration check (567)

Instead breaking or reversing a grapple you can cast a spell (as per 184+567)


If Pinned:

Cast spell with verbal component (568)

If doing so, make Concentration check (568)

Hi all,

on p.316 (Nightmare spell) there is mentioning of a "condition" called "defenseless". here is the relevant text (this is repeated by another spell whose name i forgott):

"You are defenseless, both physically and mentally, while in the
trance. (You always fail Reflex and Will saving throws, for example.)"

So what exactly IS defenseless. Unless I'm blind, this condition is nowhere explained and the given examples are insufficient.

I would assume it is like helpless plus the given examples plus something more? something less? something completely different?

Any thoughts, hints, clarifications? Thanx

veector wrote:
According to the Rules as Written, is it allowable for a wizard to craft a wand of empowered (+2 spell lvl) fireball (3rd level spell)? The cost to create it comes out to 20,000 gp and change.

No because wand can hold only 4th level spells and empowered fireball is 5th and here is the relevant passage from the rules (feat chapter):

Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic version of a spell in a scroll, potion, or wand. Level limits for potions and wands apply to the spell's higher spell level (after the application of the metamagic feat). A character doesn't need the metamagic feat to activate an item storing a metamagic version of a spell.

Krome wrote:
Touch spells rules are ones that seem darn clear, then I read them again and start wondering what if... then my head hurts.

Perhaps this is more clearly formulated (or not). From WotC's FAQ:

"Touch Spells: The duration for a touch spell doesn't begin until the caster touches a subject and delivers the spell to a recipient. Attempting to touch a recipient requires a melee touch attack and that is part of the action used to cast the spell during the round when the spell is completed. If the recipient is willing to be touched, it's usually best to just assume the caster touches the recipient.

If the caster does not touch a recipient then (either because she doesn't try to or the melee touch attack fails), she must use an action (usually the attack or full attack action) to touch a recipient during a later round. This is called "holding the charge." A caster holding a charge is considered armed and can use an attack of opportunity to make a melee touch attack and deliver the spell.

Whenever the caster touches anything, the held charge is discharged, even if what the caster touches isn't a valid target for the spell (in that case, the spell is wasted). The charge also is lost (and wasted) if the caster casts another spell. Otherwise, a caster can hold a charge indefinitely. DMs should feel free to set some reasonable limit to how long a character can hold a charge, perhaps 1 hour or until the caster has to go to sleep (or trance in the case of elves).

A very few touch spells (water breathing, for example) can be partially discharged. If so, this will be mentioned in the spell's target entry and its descriptive text, or both.

As a full-round action you can touch up to six friends willing creatures, object that willing creatures hold, or objects just lying round by themselves), provided that all the recipients are within the caster's reach. (The caster can extend her reach a little by taking a 5-foot step during the process.) To use this option, you must first cast the spell and hold the charge. Because the recipients are willing, no melee touch attack is required. You must decide how to distribute the spell's effect before touching anything."

neceros wrote:

I'd have to agree.

The blinking is a different source, and normally I wouldn't allow concealment to double stack like that, but he's already got the downside of concealment versus himself.

I'd have to say that normal concealment, no matter the source, doesn't stack, but blinking gets another check simply because you may not actually be there psychically.

I would say the following:

From PRD - Combat - Concealment: "...Multiple concealment conditions do not stack." AND

1) If attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures:
Cloak of Displacement grants displacement which works like BLUR and (20% concealment)and BLUR grants concealment (20%) and Ring of Blinking 20% concealment).
So: 20% final miss chance.

2) If not capable of striking ethereal creatures:
Cloak of Displacement grants displacement which works like BLUR and (20% concealment)and BLUR grants concealment (20%) and Ring of Blinking (50% MISS CHANCE but NOT concealment - you are simply not there to be attacked).
So: 50% final miss chance for determining if you are there and can be hit at all and then 20% miss chance from cloak because of concealment.

Diego Winterborg wrote:

Interestingly, there are several occurances of this in the book and the further i read, the more unsure i became about EXCEED or MEET OR BEAT. Perhaps with so many occurances it was intentional after all?

Nevertheless, I decided to ignore all EXCEED-ocurrances and go with MEET OR BEAT. I don't want to punish "active" character by denying them a +5% success chance and the rules were ALWAYS MEET OR BEAT.

Brodiggan Gale wrote:

Actually I can't think of a single Prestige class or base class, off hand, that has that line for Evasion. Every occurrence of Uncanny Dodge on the other hand, includes a similar line.

(Though I don't have any of my old 3.5 books anymore, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong about the absence of that line in all occurrences of Evasion)

You are right. There is and was no such line for Evasion, only for Uncanny Dodge.

stuart haffenden wrote:
You can "hold the charge" after casting the spell-like ability with touch as the means of delivery, but before you move and actually touch with it, thus avoiding any AoO's.

Just some hint:

the act of using the sp-ability provokes Aoo as pointed out earlier BUT the act of touching the opponent with such an ability does not because:

Combat Chapter - Cast A spell - Touch Spells In Combat - Touch Attacks says:

"Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity."

So cast defensively and no AoO are provoked. The problem (already mentioned) is what spell level is to be used to determine DC for spell-like abilities.

3.5 says: "the level of the spell the ability duplicates". So it would be nice to have "spell level" in the abilities description to avoid searching for appropriate spells.

sempai33 wrote:
...want to perform a sunder with his improve sunder and his sword, has to exceed the AC of the weapon

No. He makes a combat maneuver check against the opponent's combat maneuver defense. If successfull, he deals damage to item. The items hardness is deducted from the damage roll result and any excess damage reduces the item's hit points. And yes, if your fighter with 2d6+13 damage potential sunders successfully, there is a good chance he destroyes the weapon (but only if he chooses to do so) - indeed he automatically would destroy any light or one-handed weapon.

kefka360 wrote:
what happens to spells if a sorcerer mutliclasses in to a wizard?


If he casts a sorcerer spell, he casts it at his sorcrer class level.

If he casts a wizard spell, he casts it at his wizard class level.

The charcater essentially has two caster levels: one for his sorcrer and one for his wizard class.

The character has two spells per day "tables" (one for his sorcerer based on his sorcrer class level and charisma and one for wizard based on his wizard class level and intelligence.

In short: there is nothing cumulative or stacking and each class is treated as a separate "entity" for each and everything relating to spells.

I have some questions about evasion:

1) in the druid animal companion entry, it is not stated if the animal can only use evasion if wearing no armor, light armor, etc. When can the animal companion use evasion?

2) In the ranger class feature, evasion can be used with no armor, light armor and medium armor. In the rogue class feature, evasion can only be used with no armor and light armor. When can a multiclass ranger/rogue use evasion?


Kaelas Rilyntlar wrote:
Spell Point system for all magic-users.

I doubt it. I guess this is something to put in an UA-like book. If you read the blog-entry we will see additional options for existing classes (plus the new classes) but no variant rules. Anyway...

here is may list of wishes (most of them already requested):
- more sorcerer bloodlines
- more wizard schools (such as aeromancer, geomancer, pyromancer, etc.)
- racial substitution levels for all classes (including the new ones)
- if not in the pfrp gamemaster guide rules for building, maintaining and running your stronghold / own little realm / army
- Alternate class features for all classes such as the urban ranger already mentioned here

Quandary wrote:

"grappled" is a condition ALL parties to a grapple SHARE

(bar creatures not considered grappled themselves, e.g. due to size differential)
there is NO "grappler" / "grappled" differentiation by the rules.
if a rake creature is "grappled" at the beginning of their turn, they can rake.
it doesn't matter who started it.

Mmmm. Then why that part from the combat maneuver grappling section of the combat chapter "If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature" ?

Cainus wrote:

Can you use the rake attack when you are being grappled? Or do you have to be the grappler?

The rules make it seem like you have to be the grappler, but anyone who's had to wrassle a cat into a cat carrier knows they can bring those back claws into play at almost any time.


There was a similar thread about Pounce & Rake, perhaps we can draw a conclusion from it (relevant parts bolded):

Pounce & Rake

Q: How do the Pounce and the Rake ability interact? The Rake description says, that a creature doesn't get to use rake unless it started its turn grappling while pounce says a creature gets to use all of its attacks, including the rake.

Does this mean that a pouncing creature gets its rake attacks as additional attacks without the need of grappling its opponent or does it simply mean that a creature that grapples a foe while pouncing gets to use its rake?

A: There are two times when a rake attack can be used:
-during a grapple

-during a pounce, without needing to grapple first (if the creature can pounce)

The ability to use a rake during a pounce isn't mentioned in the description of "Rake" because some creatures can rake but not pounce (e.g. a behir).


Furthermore from the rake description: "...gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe."

"If you succeed, you break the grapple and can act normally. Alternatively, if you succeed, you can become the grappler, grappling the other creature."

In a grapple you are either the grappler or the grappled creatures.

I would say, the creature must be the grappler to use rake.

glenstryder wrote:


I want to be a druid dedicated to his pet (I roll a 8 in strength, so I don't think I can be an effective combative shifter).
Hence I would like to be a crafter that crafts items for the pet.

Is it possible for me to craft item for my pet that works with command word and activate them while worn by my pet?

I ve read the "on command" description and nothing specifies that the word needs to be spoken by the wielder of the object :)


Depends, because PRD says under Magic Items, specifically Magic Items on the Body: "Many magic items need to be donned by a character who wants to employ them or benefit from their abilities." So, i guess it's a GM's decision.

If you can do it with your pet's magic items, why not activating an enemies magic items (provided you know a command word) - so a nono for this one.

On the other hand:

Take Celestial armor for example granting the wearer flight an command. I would allow you to activate via command word if you are currently sitting on your mount, so you can fly with your mount - although with some heavy penalties if the mount is a non-flying creature.

Archade wrote:

Thanks Beastman!

Did the Pathfinder rules mistakenly omit this detail?

Your' welcome. One Thing: the "*" on the settlement table means: Adult population. Depending on dominant race of community the number of nonadults range from 10-40% of this figure"

Archade wrote:

Hi all,

Our campaign just wrapped up and I'm looking at starting fresh with the Pathfinder final rules this coming Sunday, but I have a conundrum.

Where in the rules or on the SRD does it detail how much population is needed to have a Large City, Hamlet, metropolis, etc?

Some info for you...

DMG p. 137:

Town Size I Population* I GP-Limit
Thorp I 20-80 I 40
Hamlet I 81-400 I 100
Village I 401-900 I 200
Small town I 901-2000 I 800
Large town I 2001-5000 I 3000
Small city I 5001-12000 I 15000
Large city I 12001-25000 I 40000
Metropolis I 25001+ I 100000

DMG II p.107 - Area of settlement
As a general rule, you can assume that a single Small or Medium citizen takes up about 1,500 square feet.

DMG II p.108 - Number of Buildings (ratio people to building)
Crowded: 20:1
Standard: 10:1
Sparse: 5:1

James Risner wrote:

There are no class abilities that are natural abilities.

Is it supposed to be "are" instead of "aren't"?

Why write it using additional words if that is true? Why didn't it just say
"You lose all class features except BAB, HP, saves."

There are class abilities that are natural, for example the rogues sneak attack or trapfinding class features because they are not Ex, Su, or Sp.

From PRG p.221 "Natural Abilities: This category includes abilities a creature has because of its physical nature. Natural abilities are those not otherwise designated as extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like."

But one can argue about the "...physical nature." - part...

PRD: wrote:
Reach Weapons: Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren't adjacent to him. Most reach weapons double the wielder's natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

I always wondered why a character wielding a reach weapon cannot use it to attack adjacent foes (or more preciscely, targets within his "natural reach") - I would imagine that you can use such a weapon against such enemies by simply holding the weapon at a position more toward its damage dealing end or you could knock the weapon's haft cross-wise into the enemies face.

For a houserule I propose the following:
You can switch between using your reach weapon do either attack foes as per the normal reach-weapon rules or to attack foes within your natural reach. This is a move-action.
When attacking foes within natural reach, you treat the reach weapon as an improvised weapon (a character using an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls). A hit deals the weapons normal damage, but a critical is changed to 20/x2). You can also not benefit from a weapon's disarm or trip special abilities.

Anything to take into consideration?

Greater Penetrating Strike (rulebook p. 125):

Is there missing the "Special" entry telling you something like this:

"You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take this feat it applies to a new weapon with which you have already taken the Penetrating Strike feat" ?

Environment Chapter - Dungeon Terrain - Ledge (in rulebook and PRD):

"A character who is next to a railing gains a +2 circumstance bonus on his opposed Strength check to avoid being bull rushed off the edge."

There is no opposed STR check when bullrushing. Should read: "+2 circumstance bonus to his CMD..."


Equipment Chapter - Weapons - Intro (in rulebook and PRD):

"If this second attack roll exceeds the target's AC, the hit becomes a critical hit, dealing additional damage."

Shouldn't it be "If this second roll is also a hit - meaning meeting or exceeding the target's AC..."?


Skills chapter - Skill checks - Opposed checks (in rulebook and PRD):

"When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target."

Should't it read "...if your check result meets or beats the result of the target." ?

udalrich wrote:
One workaround for that which seems like it should work (but I've never seen used) is a Small character on a Medium spider.

Ulala. I had a 3.5 player with a halfling fighter on a riding dog trained as a combat mount, a lance and mounted combat feats (i recall one being a feat allowing to charge even when not moving in a straight line - was from one of the splat books). DEVASTATING comes to mind - even in dungeons...

sempai33 wrote:

Once again I'm sad to read nothing on the fact to fight on a horse (without the fact to have a +1 bonus). I think if there were some rules on "riding fight", it would give a new option for the PC, concerning a gain in AC, or concealment, or the location of the damage on the horse or PC.

I think that there is not only fight on the ground, but using a mount can be a good alternativ that the PC don't use because of a lack of rules, like for the fight with a shield (no interesting feat or damage bonus).

But but...but there ARE rules...Specifically:

Ride skill (Skill chapter)
Mounted Combat (Combat chapter) and
(Some) Feats (Feat chapter)

Locksathy wrote:

From the rules: Some skill checks are opposed by the target's skill check. When making an opposed skill check, the attempt is successful if your check result exceeds the result of the target.

I find this strange. I always played opposed skill checks as requiring "equal" or better than the target. This was following the logic that all the D20 system works the same way across the board and that to succeed at a skill check you need to equal a DC. So for example: someone using sneak and rolling 23. This would become the DC of the perception check.

Now whit the way its written, the DC would be 24.....

Comments anyone???

you played right. it was always meet or beat.

the same happened with critical confirmation rolls in the weapon's description overview equipment chapter). to confirm, you should exceed the target's ac, although this is corrected later in the combat chapter under critical hit (equal or greater).

i would say, exceed is wrong. equal to or greater than is correct. for attack rolls, skill checks (opposed or not), saving throws, critical confirmation rolls, ability checks...etc.

I remember asking this same question in a thread about this awhile ago. Now I have "an official anser". Thank you Paizo. No more discussions with my players about this *g*...

"Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. "

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Vital Strike says: "Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). "

Is that list meant to be exhaustive, meaning that other damage bonuses (e.g. enhancement and Weapon Specialization) are doubled? Or is it supposed to be in the vein of 4e's 2[W] damage codes, only doubling the weapon's base damage?

Have thought about this too and came to the conclusion, that you only use a weapon's damage dice as listed in the weapon's table PLUS any enhancement bonus (since this is not a weapon ability as per my gut feeling).

All other bonuses or penalies are derived from a wielder's ability (i.e. class feature, feat, other "training") and are not inherent to the weapon itself or are weapon abilities which are explicitely forbidden to be added.

However, something "official" would be nice.

1) Quivering Palm: I assume this class feature can only be used with an unarmed attack?

2) Cleric Aus: I assume the Auras level is equal to the cleric's class level.

3) If 2) is correct, I assume a Paladins/Cleric levels of a multiclass character's Aura stacks?

4) Companion Animals Tabe (p.86): The natural AC bonus: cumulative or total bonus?

and finally:

5) Channel Energy: Cleric class level and Paladin level stacks for a multiclass Cleric/Paladin?

Thanx for answering. PErhaps more if a read on...

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

- Move less than half and remain flying...
- Hover
- Turn greater than...
- Fly up...

1 to 50 of 225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>