Brennan Ashby's page

Thank you so much for your responses. My game is actually still in its infancy, and is just a hodge-podge of random ideas, rules, and stat blocks at the moment. I just wanted to get a better idea of what I was actually able to do with the game in regards to the Pathfinder rule set that the game is designed around once development becomes more dedicated and structured.

You gave me a lot of useful information, which really helps in the direction that the game's development will take. Again, thank you so much.

If I wanted to design and publish a futuristic campaign setting that used the Pathfinder RPG rule set as its basis, and was granted a compatibility license, what would be the validity of the following alterations? Would these changes breach the compatibility license? And if so, how could I alter them so that they don't breach the license, but keep their integrity?

- Did not use Pathfinder's races, player-classes, feats, or spells (by name), but used some of their mechanics in my own campaign-specific classes, races, feats, and spells? Pathfinder's races, player-classes, and all related feats would not be allowed, used, or referenced in the campaign setting at all, by name at least (i.e. there would be no 'magic' in the campaign setting, so arcane and divine spellcasters, or feats that pertain to abilities of those classes, would not exist, nor could they)?

- Did reference Pathfinder's rules for character creation, or the fact that character creation in my campaign setting used Pathfinder's rules for character creation, but did not reprint them in the campaign setting source books?

- Did create new campaign-specific skills that combined the mechanics of two or more Pathfinder skills (similar to how Stealth combined Hide and Move Silently from 3.5)?

- Changed the name of a skill like "Heal" to something that better fit the flavor of the campaign setting, like "Medical", but kept the skills mechanics?

- Did omit certain Pathfinder skills that did not pertain to the campaign setting, such as "Use Magic Device", "Spellcraft", or "Craft"?

Rogues:

"I'm a rogue of many talents. And right now, you're giving me a Strong Impression."

"Don't worry about my Snap Shot; I have a Sniper's Eye."

"I'm a Charmer with Fast Fingers. Watch as I work some Major Magic."

"Oh that? That's just my Stand Up talent."

Eager rogue working a bra: Rolls Disable Device.

Suave rogue working a bra: Rolls Sleight of Hand.

The initial post is specifically relating to the Resist Energy spell, not natural resistance.

A fireball spell is cast. The caster rolls 20 for damage. The white dragon saves, reducing the damage to 10.

Vulnerabilties (Ex or Su): A creature with vulnerabilities takes half again as much damage (+50%) from a specific energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure. Creatures with a vulnerability that is not an energy type instead take a –4 penalty on saves against spells and effects that cause or use the listed vulnerability (such as spells with the light descriptor). Some creatures might suffer additional effects, as noted in their descriptions.

Even though the white dragon saved, it still takes +50% damage. The fire damage that would be applied to the white dragon's hit points is instead 15 due to his vulnerability.

However, since your white dragon has cast the Resist Energy spell...

The subject gains resist energy 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature's hit points.

...the 15 fire damage is reduced by 10, totaling 5 fire damage taken. 5 fire damage is applied to white dragon's current hit points.

-------------------------------------------------

Natural monster resistance reads in a similar way...

Resistance (Ex): A creature with this special quality ignores some damage of the indicated type each time it takes damage of that kind (commonly acid, cold, electricity, or fire). The entry indicates the amount and type of damage ignored.

... so 'damage taken' is the same thing as "applied to creature's hit points", because 'damage taken' is determined after resistance, DR, or hardness is applied.

'Damage Dealt' - 'Protection' = 'Damage Taken'

It reads the same way during gameplay:

- Player: "I deal 20 slashing damage to the skeleton."
- DM subtracts 5 from 20 due to skeleton's DR 5/bludgeoning, totaling 15.
- DM reduces skeleton's current hit points by 15.
- DM tells players the result of the attack/damage.

For sure, amulet of natural armor (natural armor) and ring of protection (deflection) apply their bonuses vs. brilliant energy.

Mage Armor and bracers of armor may be a force effects, but still apply an armor bonus. Same with Shield spell.

(Dexterity, deflection, dodge, natural armor, and other such bonuses still apply.)

Better question is: "What constitutes as 'other such bonuses'?" I would still prefer an official ruling on this, but as a GM, I would just house-rule what those bonuses were. Not everything has to be completely spelled out by the game developers; your GM has ultimate say on RAI.

I'm not sure I understand your question here.

At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

The magus selects another one of his spellcasting classes. The magus can use his spellstrike and spell combat abilities while casting or using spells from the spell list of that class. This does not allow him to cast arcane spells from that class's spell list without suffering the normal chances of arcane spell failure, unless the spell lacks somatic components. The magus must be at least 6th level and must possess levels in at least one other spellcasting class before selecting this arcana.

A magus can learn spells from a wizard's spellbook, just as a wizard can from a magus's spellbook. The spells learned must be on the magus spell list, as normal. An alchemist (see the Alchemist description) can learn formulae from a magus's spellbook, if the spells are also on the alchemist spell list. A magus cannot learn spells from an alchemist.

For any spellcasting class to cast a spell from the class spell list, he must use his class spell slots to prepare/know those spells. Magus spells are any spell cast from the magus spell list.

Oracles cast spells from the cleric spell list, but any spell the oracle knows becomes an oracle spell, cast from the oracle's spell list of spells known.

If a magus/wizard has Broad Study, he can only cast wizard spells from the wizard spell listthrough Spell Combat that are prepared using wizard spell slots. If the magus/wizard has not prepared any of his wizard spells for that day, he can't cast them normally or through Spell Combat.

Even though the magus spell list and the wizard spell list have overlap, a spell is still considered a "magus spell" or "wizard spell" depending on which class spell slot was used to prepare the spell. Shocking Grasp is both on the magus spell list and the wizard spell list, but if you use your magus spell slots to prepare Shocking Grasp, it becomes a magus spell.

If you prepare Shocking Grasp using both a magus spell slot and a wizard spell slot, Shocking Grasp is both a magus spell and a wizard spell at that time, but is only a magus spell when cast from the magus spell slot.

Spell Combat and Spellstrike specifically say "spells from the magus spell list." Since spells from the magus spell list are derived from the magus class, magus spells are from the magus class. Anything under a class header, such as "MAGUS", comes from that class. Therefore, it is a MAGUS-class ability or MAGUS-class feature.

A lot of the rules have understood implications, so slightly varying wording doesn't always mean something is completely different. If the rules don't immediately clarify the different wording, or state exceptions, then most likely the slightly varied wording isn't any different.

Hope this helped.

The current main villain in my campaign is a necromancer (sorcerer) hunting down relics of a powerful and ancient lich (the PCs will eventually discover that the necromancer is a descendant of the lich, thus his undead bloodline).

In the first boss-fight encounter with the necromancer, the PCs engage him just after he has recovered one of the lich's relics, a mummified hand. The villain proceeds to cut off his own hand, in front of the PCs, attaches the mummified hand (which magically fuses), has a typical villain dialogue, cripples an NPC ally to players with one spell, cackles, and then initiative is rolled.

It is important to note that the PCs just came from a difficult minion fight, directly to the boss fight (so no recover other than dumped healing spells).

So now the villain (solo, no minions), who was already about 1.5 CR above the party, now has some of this lich's power (the hand grants spectral hand at-will [for long-range necro touch spells], increases all necro spell DC by +1, and empowers all necromancy spells without changing spell level).

So now the PCs are weak from the fight before, the npc cleric is incapacitated in one-shot, and the villain is on the other side of a 80 ft long cave (free to take pot-shots with touch spells as they approach).

Villain's first turn, ghoul touch on tank, hits, tank is paralyzed for 5 rounds and everyone behind him becomes sickened (poor saves).

The DPSer charges in, stops within throwing range to throw an axe. Axe hits, villain is un-phased.

Villain's next turn, DPSer is cripple by ray of enfeeblement, PC fails save, loses 6 strength (out of 14 I believe), now practically useless.

Rogue runs in, hits, gets ghoul touched, out.

Eventually the ranger landed a couple of arrows, so then the villain ran, claiming that he needs to find the rest of the artifacts to become more powerful.

If the ranger hadn't dealt enough damage to make the villain flee, he would have just weakened everyone with spells, and then would have left, humming a happy tune, as the party lay crippled or paralyzed until they recovered naturally.

This encounter was designed to prove that the PCs weren't strong enough to take the villain yet (and as a hook to find the other relics before the villain did). If the encounter also involved minions, the PCs probably would have been killed or captured.

Going against the solo boss, and then losing (but not getting killed), is a real humbling experience to players. The best way to go about that though, is to make the boss-fight cinematic. Although the ranger technically knocked out the villain, a portrayed a cinematic were the villain hunched over in pain, proclaimed that he needed more power, and then escaped.

You are the DM, you have the last say on life or death. Even if you kill your PCs, you can still say that they aren't dead (perhaps the villain and his minions left them for dead). That is my suggestion.

There was a similar post about this a while ago where I broke down the rules for designing piecemeal armor.

Found here: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4r68?Piecemeal-Armor-guidelines#4

I actually used normal full-plate vs. piecemeal full-plate as justification for my ruling on Armor Check Penalties.

In summary, I believe you take the worst ACP from all pieces. If all pieces of the suit are of the same type (light, medium, or heavy) then the final ACP is reduced by 1. This ruling makes piecemeal full-plate have the exact same stats as normal full-plate.

I wanted to clarify that attack rolls made with Telekinesis are not the same as attack rolls normally made with a telekinesed weapon. Since Alchemist fire is a splash weapon, you would normally make a ranged touch attack. However, your Wizard is not physically throwing the splash weapon, he is projecting it toward a foe with the spell (which is its own unique attack roll).

The math was for argumentative purposes. I wanted some mathematical facts to support certain statements. If you were to argue if disarming with sustained force or violent push was easier (and thus unfairly cheaper) than using the Telekinetic Disarm maneuver, then there would be mathematical fact there.

I believe the whole "option of letting go or not" argument is moot. The chance at a Will saving throw represents that decision for the opponent. He is making a Will save to attempt to hold onto his weapon. If he fails, then the weapon is magically wrenched from his possession.

The Wizard isn't trying to move the wielder of a weapon, he is just trying to move his weapon. If the Wizard wanted to move the wielder as well as his weapon, then you would have to factor in the weight of the wielder as well.

If the wielder could always just "choose" to hold on to his weapon, then what is the point of the Will save? If that were the case, you would always have to factor in the wielder's weight when attempting to move an object it possesses, which defeats the purpose of the spell to begin with.

Regardless, if you wanted to be silly and evoke the "letting go or going with" option, then yes, you might have to factor in the weight of the wielder as well. The wielder choosing to go with the item would represent a creature willingly forgoing a saving throw so that he himself is also affected by a spell.

I can see this determined two ways:

In the first case, the Wizard would have to figure in the wielder's weight and would also have to determine if moving the wielder with his weapon is possible with his allowed number of targets and allowed weight. Could the Wizard then use the wielder as a projectile as well? If you allow it, then the Wizard gets a free projectile to play with.

In the second case, the Wizard wouldn't have to figure in the wielder's weight. Would you then have to determine if the wielder is even strong enough to hold on with a Strength check as the weapon flies through the air? What would be the DC of the Strength check? Would it be the spell's Will DC? If he isn't strong enough, where does he fall off? Does he move at all with the weapon? If he is strong enough, and goes with the weapon, can the Wizard still use him as a projectile?

...

Hopefully you see that you are over complicating the mechanics of this spell. The Will DCs and Maneuver rolls, as they are written, should already help you determine the outcome of anything you want to do with the spell.

In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.

So I would say YES, if it functions like a spell, then at least feats and abilities like Elemental Focus would apply. Unless the spell-like ability states what school of magic it is from, I don't think Spell Focus should apply.

The Orc bloodline would work with elemental ray, but the Draconic or Primal Elemental bloodlines will not. The reason is because of two details:

First, elemental ray doesn't have any descriptors. In other words, even though it may do fire damage, it is not technically a fire-descriptor spell.

Second, Draconic and Primal Elemental bloodlines specify that they only boost the damage of spells with an energy descriptor matching your bloodline choice.

Because elemental ray doesn't have any descriptors, any ability that requires a specific descriptor will not work. The Orc bloodline, however, boosts all spell damage, and thus it would work.

On the other hand, a bloodline ability such as Boreal's snow shroud, which duplicates a spell (fire shield in this case) inherits that spell's descriptors, and thus any abilities that key off those descriptors would affect them.

I would disagree. If a spell-like ability deals energy damage, then it would have to have that energy descriptor, because spell-like abilities function just like a spell.

If Elemental Ray deals fire damage, and is a spell-like ability, then it functions just like a spell with the Fire descriptor; a Fire Spell-like ability.

I think I see what DM Chris is trying to get at with this spell. He is asking if each use of the spell can be used to essentially disarm an opponent, but then also function normally with the now disarmed object.

Sustained Force: Disarm and then instantly move disarmed object.
Combat Maneuver: Disarm and then have disarmed object fall at opponent's feat.
Violent Thrust: Disarm and then instantly hurl disarmed object toward foe or at the opponent you just disarmed.

Am I right in this DM Chris?

If so, lets look at the numbers... say your a 9th level Wizard with a +4 Int mod:

If the target's are two level 9 Bandits (Warrior), medium-size, +2 Str, +3 Dex, and +4 Will (+3 base, +1 Wis); its CMD would be 24 (10 + 9 BAB + 2 Str + 3 Dex). You would need to roll an 11 or higher to perform Telekinesis Maneuver. The Bandit would need to roll a 15 or higher to resist itself being affected by the spell or have its possessions affected.

Sustained Force Disarm: Will DC 19 - You move the (disarmed) longsword 20 feet vertically.

Combat Maneuver Disarm: +13 vs. CMD - The target drops its longsword (main-hand) into it's square. If you succeed by 10 or more, the target also drops its shortsword (off-hand).

Violent Thrust Disarm: Target: Two alchemist flasks on the bandit A's belt. Will DC 19 for each flask - You hurl each flask (Two Attacks = +8 vs. AC 10 [secondary target = square occupied by bandit B] or vs. AC 16 [secondary target = Bandit B wearing studded leather and a +3 Dex mod])

NOTE: Since you are using the Telekinesis spell, and not throwing the Alchemist Fire as a splash weapon, the attack roll is not treated as a ranged touch.

If you hit, you deal 1d6 fire [Alchemist Fire, if direct hit] plus 1 fire splash damage

OR 1 fire splash damage [Alchemist Fire, if targeting square]

Alternatively, you target the Bandit A's longsword. Will DC 19 - You hurl the (disarmed) longsword at Bandit B, One Attack = +8 vs. AC 16; Hit = 1d8 damage [Longsword]

So the question is, do we allow the two other forms of Telekinesis disarm and then function? Or can we only target unattended objects?

The rules state we can target attended objects carried if the creature carrying the object fails the Will save. However, the Will save is slightly more difficult for the Bandit to make than the Wizard overcoming the Bandit's CMD.

This means it is slightly easier to disarm using the two non-maneuver versions of the spell. However, for violent thrust, the Wizard also has to succeed several attack rolls (rolling ~8 or higher for each). With more rolls comes a higher probability of failure.

Hmmm. I'm having issues trying to translate a Black Skeleton's DR as per the rules of Armor as DR.

The Black Skeleton as a natural armor of +6 which by itself should translate to 6/magic, but it also has natural DR of 10/bludgeoning and good.

ARMOR as DR rules:

A creature that has both DR from a source other than
armor and a natural armor bonus gains the effects of an
enhanced form of DR, similar to how the composition of
the armor grants special DR/armor defenses (see Table
5–1). If a creature has magical armor, natural armor,
and DR, it takes the best form of the special protection
provided by both its armor and its mix of DR and natural
armor to its DR/armor.
For instance, if a creature has natural armor and DR/
magic and is wearing adamantine armor, that creature’s
DR/armor functions as DR/—, and can be bypassed by
Gargantuan or larger creatures, since the adamantine
armor provides the best of the two damage reductions.

Anyone have any clue how this would translate? I have a few, but not sure if it is correct.

Thanks for input.

I would say his DR would be DR/bludgeoning and good. Good-aligned weapons are more specific than magic weapons. DR/bludgeoning and good is even more specific still. In the rules, DR/- trumps DR/magic because that states that no weapon can bypass it, magic or otherwise (unless the weapon is gargantuan or colossal).

The rules for aid another DO state that you can aid an ally "when he is affected by a spell". So I guess what we are trying to figure out here is what qualifies as "affected".

It doesn't say targeted by a spell (unless the spell is against AC, i.e. touch attacks), which is the case when aiding an ally's AC against an attack. The opponent has to target your ally, and then has to overcome the ally's new AC total. I wouldn't say that the ally is affected by the attack until after he was hit, right?

So this logic implies that the ally has already been hit (and thus affected) by the spell, and just now qualifies the use of Aid Another. The bonus to saving throws would then be used to help end the effects of spells that allow multiple saving throws to end (charm effects first come to mind).

In order to grant this bonus to saving throws, I don't see why you would have to roll anything. Why can't you just simply spend a standard action in order to grant an adjacent ally a +2 bonus to his next saving throw?

Black_Lantern wrote:

it's like build a bear workshop bro. Just mix and match whatever the hell you want.

That's what I mean. How do I go about it? For each piece, which should have the check penalty, which shouldn't, what would be the Max Dex bonus for each piece and armor bonus, etc.

Do I have to make that up? If so, that's no good. I don't like to do that. Not unless I am sure I know what I am doing. Too bad they don't have guidelines. Oh well.

What are you trying to make that isn't in the rules?

Here are the guidelines, broken down:

ARMOR PIECES AND PROFICIENCY

If you are proficient with an armor category, you are also proficient with the armor pieces of that category. For example, if you are proficient with light armor, you are proficient with all light armor pieces. Some torso armor pieces (such as chain, plate, and agile plate torso armor pieces) are a category lighter if worn alone (treat as a chain shirt, breastplate, and agile breastplate, respectively).

When a character is wearing at least one armor piece of a type with which he is not proficient, he takes the armor check penalty of that piece on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving. If he is wearing more than one armor piece of a type with which he is not proficient, he takes the worst armor check penalty from among the pieces he is not proficient with on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.

ARMOR PIECES AND ARMOR SUITS

The piecemeal armor system splits up armor into three general types of armor pieces. An armor piece is a small group of armor parts, rather than simply being any discrete part of the armor.

A single armor piece comprises the armor parts one needs to protect its corresponding area—either the arms, the legs, or the torso (including the head); a single arm or leg armor piece provides armor for both arms or both legs, respectively.

A plate arm armor piece typically consists of pairs of pauldrons, gardbraces, rerebraces, vambraces, and gauntlets along with bits of chainmail and padded armor, while a chain lamellar arm armor piece consists of two chain sleeves, gauntlets, and perhaps pairs of pauldrons and couters. Both protect the arms, though they have a different number of specific parts and types of overall components.

If a character has only one armor piece, that piece is considered the totality of her armor, and she uses the statistics of that piece as her armor.

Example: Leather Arm armor; 2gp, +0 armor bonus, +6 max Dex, 0 ACP, 10% ASFC, No speed penalty, 2 lbs.

This armor is light armor.

If a character is wearing more than one armor piece, she adds the armor costs, armor bonuses, and weights of the armor pieces,

and takes the worst maximum Dexterity bonus, arcane spell failure chance, and speed limitations from among the various armor pieces

to determine the full statistics and qualities of the armor she is wearing.

Example: Leather Arm + Padded Legs + Studded Leather Chest armor;

We will call this... Thug Armor

Cost: 18 gp = (2gp Leather Arms + 1gp Padded Legs + 15gp Studded Leather Chest)

Armor Bonus: +1 = (0 Leather Arms + 0 Padded Legs + 1 Studded Leather Chest)

Weight: 20 lbs. = (2 lbs. Leather Arms + 3 lbs. Padded Legs + 15 lbs. S-Leather Chest)

Max Dex: +5 = (+5 S-Leather Chest < +6 Leather Arms < +8 Padded Legs)

ASFC: 15% = (15% S-Leather Chest < 10% Leather Arms < 0% Padded Legs)

Speed Penalty: None = (all no reduction)

NOTE: They forgot to specify the rules as to how Armor Check Penalty is calculated, so I am going to make a ruling and say it is similar to Max Dex and ASFC; you take the worst ACP from among the various armor pieces. I made this ruling based on these rules, stated above:

If he is wearing more than one armor piece of a type with which he is not proficient, he takes the worst armor check penalty from among the pieces he is not proficient with on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.

And because if you piecemeal plate arms, plate legs, and plate chest together, the total ACP should NOT be -14 (-7 plate arms + -3 plate legs + -4 plate chest), when a normal full plate has a check of -6.

I am also going to make a ruling that if you wear an entire, non-mixed suit of piecemeal armor, then the ACP is reduced by 1. This should make piecemeal plate armor jive with normal plate armor (piecemeal plate would have a ACP of -7 otherwise, which is silly when all other stats for piecemeal plate mirror normal full-plate using piecemeal rules).

So therefore,

ACP: 0 = (all 0 penalty)

As long as she is wearing a single armor piece, she is considered to be wearing armor for any effects that rely on wearing armor (such as the fighter class's armor training and armor mastery).

If a character is wearing all three categories of armor pieces, she is wearing a suit of armor.

Suits of armor can have all armor pieces of the same type (all three plate pieces make a suit of full plate), or a mixture of armor pieces (a plate arm armor piece and torso armor piece combined with a chainmail leg armor piece creates a suit of half-plate).

Wearing an entire suit, whether its pieces are mixed or the same type, grants a +1 armor bonus on top of the protection the combination of pieces already grants the wearer.

INSERT: Wearing an entire suit of the same type reduces the suit's armor check penalty by 1.

Wearing a mixed suit of armor increases the arcane spell failure chance by 5% because of the awkwardness of the design.

Wearing less than a full suit of mixed armor does not increase the wearer's arcane spell failure chance.

So with that info, our Thug Armor stats total to:

THUG ARMOR
Light Armor
Cost: 18gp
Armor Bonus: +2 (+1 for armor, +1 because it comprises an entire suit)
Max Dex: +5
ACP: 0
ASFC: 15% (the suit is all light armor pieces, therefore it is NOT mixed)
Speed: 30ft/20ft
Weight: 20 lbs.

Now I realize this armor is completely uses compared to other light armors, but it serves my point well enough.

Hope this helped clear things up.

ShadowcatX wrote:

Yes he could wield unarmed strike as a light melee weapon.

Improved Unarmed Strike does not turn your fist into a light or one-handed melee weapon.

For example, "You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes"

So you cannot unarmed spell combat, but you can technically unarmed spellstrike, though that doesn't really do very much other than let you punch during the round you cast the spell (Any caster can unarmed strike to deliver a held charge).

One could argue that a monk's unarmed strike works for Spell Combat, though I don't know that Spell Combat really "enhances or improves" the strike, rather than being a requirement.

But yes, brass knuckles and gauntlet work, but you have to make your Spell Combat iterative attacks using that weapon. (You can't wear the knuckles to use SC, then make your attacks with an unarmed strike elbow or bite or something)

Unarmed attacks are always light.

... First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat ...

Therefore you could Spell Combat or Spell Strike as long as you had the Improved Unarmed Attack feat, and/or were using gauntlets. Essentially, you just need to be considered "armed" in at least one hand to be able to use Spell Combat or Spell Strike.

Brennan Ashby wrote:

No. Because as the Full Attack texts also states in the next sentence,

Full Attack wrote:

If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

So the -10 off-hand attack can come before the -6 primary attack. TWF is not tied to BAB order.

No way. All that states is that either weapon can be the primary weapon and then the second weapon is the off-hand weapon.

Since no where in the rules does it state that you have to designate before combat which is your primary hand and which is your off-hand, it can be assumed that this is a fluid concept that can change each round. Now you are going to have some problems if both your weapons are not light weapons, since if you attack with your non-light weapon as the off-hand you take higher penalties.

The example being the double weapon. The first attack has to be the primary because that is the highest attack, the other end would then qualify for the off-hand attack.

Also, no where does it state that THF bypasses BAB. Therefore you have to take into account the attack order for BAB.

You are correct. My mistake. This is what I meant:

Since no where in the rules does it state that you have to designate before combat which is your primary hand and which is your off-hand, it can be assumed that this is a fluid concept that can change each round.

You can choose your off-hand weapon as the primary attack, and your main-hand weapon as the secondary attack.

I also never meant to claim that TWF bypassed BAB. I was just stating, according to the rules of Full Attack, that if you are wielding two weapons, you can choose to make the off-hand weapon the primary attack, and the main-hand weapon the secondary. Your secondary, off-hand attack is made at your highest BAB - TWF penalty (+4 MH/-1 whichever/+4 OH), so you can interchange the main-hand and off-hand attacks because they are both +4, but they are made before the -1 attack.

ImperatorK wrote:

Quote:

Why? Again, please indicate where it says that if I make normal attacks in sequence with different weapons, this is true.

TWF rules. 1st part of 1st sentence is the condition for TWF penalties incuring (the 2nd part is just a benefit).

You are always wielding two weapons. We've been over this. The idea that simply wielding two weapons causes penalties is ludicrous.

Unless you fight in the manner described by the entire first sentence, and not just the parts convenient to your argument, you do not suffer penalties.

EDIT: Hangar, attack order is based on bonus according to Full Attack rules, not necessarily BAB. However, Brennan Ashby looks to have made us both wrong on that regardless.

I agree, ludicrous! So are you telling me that a duelist, that wields ONE weapon in ONE hand, constantly takes the TWF penalties because he CAPABLE of making an unarmed off-hand attack? Does a sword/shield warrior constantly take the TWF penalties because he is CAPABLE of shield bashing?

I think not.

@KrispyXIV - Full Attack order is indeed based on your BAB, not total attack bonus. It is so because "because your base attack bonus is high enough" qualifies the condition of multiple attacks.

Just because your off-hand shortsword has a +8 total bonus (+5 enchantment, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon Training, +1 second iterative attack), and your primary hand axe has a +6 total bonus (+6 first iterative attack). Does not mean that you MUST make the off-hand attack first. You can freely choose (at the start of your turn, before your attack) which weapon is to be the primary and which is to be the off-hand. So therefore the iterative attack bonus is mute in your calculations.

Quote:

Since the extra TWF attack is not tied to your BAB, you can make that attack whenever you'd like.

Not true. You have to make the attacks in oder from highest attack bonus to lowest. And your extra attack is tied to BaB. Evey attack uses BaB. What's the extra attacks attack bonus? BaB + mods.

The extra attack is made at your highest BAB - 2. But again, the Full-Attack text that you quoted earlier stated,

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest.

Attacks gained through TWF do not rely on your High BAB (it's a prerequisite to the improved/greater feats, but not to taking the TWF action).

A 1st level character can use TWF to gain 1 extra attack. So which one does he take first? Does he have to take the primary attack at -6 because it is higher than the off-hand attack at -10?

No. Because as the Full Attack texts also states in the next sentence,

If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

So the -10 off-hand attack can come before the -6 primary attack. TWF is not tied to BAB order.

Think of attacks per turn as a resource... If you have a BAB of +6/+1, you have two attacks to spend on your turn. If you declare TWF, then you have three attacks to spend on your turn (one of which must be an off-hand attack), incurring the TWF penalties to all attacks. If you have Improved TWF, you have four attacks to spend on your turn (now two of which be off-hand attacks). Attacking with any weapon (primary or off-hand)consumes one attack.

Choosing to make a TWF attack is the same thing as choosing to using Rapid Shot. Before your full-attack you say "Hey, I want to plug two arrows into that dude." You make your first attack roll at -2, crit, confirm, it's dead. Second attack options: 1) Shoot at different dude. 2) Shoot at dead dude's corpse. 3) End turn and revel in the victory of your kill. 4) PROFIT!

Same goes for TWF, you say "Hey, I want two swing both weapons at the dude." So before the attacks, you take the TWF penalties.

If you have a BAB of +6/+1, you can say "Hey, I attack the dude." You can then choose primary weapon to attack twice, primary and then off-hand, or off-hand twice. In this case, according to RAW, you would have to make the +6 attack first, and then the +1.

BUT WAIT! You are holding two weapons! You COULD gain an extra attack with your off-hand... nope, too late. You didn't state that before your attack rolls.

Next round: "Hey, I want to attack the dude, and use TWF for the extra attack." OK now your options look like this (with TWF Feat: +4/-1/+4). Since the extra TWF attack is not tied to your BAB, you can make that attack whenever you'd like. Your best option, however, is to make it right after your primary attack, as two attacks with a +4 will have a better chance of hitting a target and killing it in two hits. You don't HAVE to make them in order (+4 Prim/+4 Off/-1 whichever).

So if you drop the dude in two hits, you now have that -1 attack. This can be used to hit a different dude, an ally, a wall, yourself, or... nothing. End Turn.

Furthermore, all penalties/benefits associated with TWF occur only after you declare that you are using a full-attack to make an extra attack with your off-hand (shield, fist, head, torch, a goblin you have dangling by the ankles). Just like with Rapid Shot, Cleave, Power Attack, etc., YOU MUST DECLARE THAT YOU ARE USING THE SPECIAL ABILITY BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR ATTACK ROLLS.

Whatever happened to playing a race/class combo because you liked the roleplaying aspect of it? If I wanted to play optimized characters, I would play WoW! :)

The recent Errata on Snap Shot (allowing all of your Attacks of Opportunity if you can reload as a Free Action) makes me wonder if my Fighter with Quick Draw and Snap Shot (and a fistful of shortspears) is able to perform the same basic technique-

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Can a character with Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?

Yes. As long as you can reload your weapon with a free action you can reload your weapon as part of the ranged attack attack of opportunity you are making with the Snap Shot feat.

End of my turn:

(Attacked with Shortspear in Melee)
Enemy's One Turn Provokes: Throw a shortspear
(A) Enemy's Two Turn Provokes: (Draw and) throw another shortspear?

Or, more conveniently,

End of my turn:
(Attacked with Handaxe in Melee)
(B) Enemy's One Turn Provokes: Draw and throw a shortspear?

My opinion is this:
Given the number of Feats required to even get here, it seems like an entirely reasonable expectation that both (A) and even (B) are allowed. It seems that the wording of Snap Shot might insist that, to make (B) work, I should declare free action(s) to switch from the Handaxe to the Shortspear at the end of My Turn. Though this seems like it would be a largely repetitive declaration.

I love the idea of a Fighter in the middle of melee, mixing it up, then throwing the occasional knife/javelin/whatever as an Opportunity Attack, and this was immediately what came to mind when I read Snap Shot.

What do you guys think? Is the Errata's "reload" language clear enough to include reloading Thrown weapons?

To "load" a thrown weapon, you simply have to have the weapon in your hand. A thrown weapon in hand is "loaded".

"Loading" a sheathed thrown weapon is normally a move action (or a standard action if the weapon is also hidden), as you are essentially drawing the weapon as normal. If you have a thrown weapon in each hand, then you can make ranged AoO with each thrown weapon (assuming your have Combat Reflexes), because both weapons are "loaded".

As the Quick Draw feat states:

Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action. You can draw a hidden weapon (see the Sleight of Hand skill) as a move action.

A character who has selected this feat may throw weapons at his full normal rate of attacks (much like a character with a bow).
Alchemical items, potions, scrolls, and wands cannot be drawn quickly using this feat.

Reloading a bow is a free action, so with Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes, you can make multiple AoO. With Quick Draw, you can "reload" a non-hidden thrown weapon as a free action, and thus use Snap Shot and Combat Reflexes to make multiple AoO with them.

Since thrown weapons can count as ranged attacks, your AoO gains the benefit of feats such as Point Blank Shot or Deadly Aim (however, I'd assume you'd still take the normal penalties for firing into melee if your ally is also adjacent to the provoking enemy?).

Do they truly mean Ranged Weapons only for this feat and Snap Shot? Or can a thrown dagger player join in on the fun, too?

Yes, technically you could throw your drawn daggers, then draw your other (poisoned? >:D ) daggers from their sheathes as free actions, and then throw all of them as AoO with the Snap Shot, Quick Draw, and Combat Reflexes feats.

Although, unless you had other ranged attack feats (such as Point Blank Shot), I would just make melee attacks with your drawn daggers (If you are a thrown dagger player, I'd pray you had other ranged attack feats :P).

Callarek wrote:

Arnim Thayer wrote:

Reading the Core rules I found this, which I never paid much attention to...

Core Rules, pg. 55 wrote:

Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a f ighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one.

So the question is, do the Weapon and Armor Proficiencies granted by the class count as "bonus" feats? Can a fighter exchange heavy Armor Proficiency for a new Bonus feat?

Good question, especially with your later quot eof the Heavy Armor Profiency text, but my understanding is it only refers to the feats that you have a choice of gaining, the ones gained at 1st level, 2nd level, and every even numbered level thereafter as "Bonus Feats" in the level-up table.

The RAI is definitely the feats from the Bonus Feats Class Feature, but the RAW may allow it. The deciding factor is if the bonus feats mentioned in the clause are only the ones from the Bonus Feats Class feature, or any and all Bonus feats. With a reading of the latter definition, you could theoretically retrain ranger or monk bonus feats if you were to take 4 levels in Fighter. I would rule that this would not be allowed, although YMMV.

The Heavy Armor Pro feat states that fighters and paladins automatically HAVE the feat, not that they automatically LEARN it. Also, they are not getting the bonus feat through the Fighter's 'Bonus Feat' class feature, they are getting the feat as a bonus simply because they are a member of the Fighter class.

Also, if the feat replacement rule appears under the Fighter's 'Bonus Feat' class feature heading, I'd say that the replacement rule only applies to feats 'learned' through the Fighter's 'Bonus Feat' class feature.