Search Posts
your abjurer was automatically doing it because it was using a feat to counter it by using the same school rather than the counterspell/same spell. Counterspell (Su): By expending one point from her arcane reservoir to attempt to counterspell a spell as it is being cast. The arcanist must identify the spell being cast as normal. If the check is successful, the arcanist can then use an immediate action and expend an available arcanist spell slot of a level equal to or higher than the level of the spell being cast. To counterspell the spell, the arcanist must make dispel check as if using dispel magic. If the spell being countered is one that the arcanist has prepared, she receives a +5 bonus on the dispel check. The arcanist is far from guaranteed, they are a handful of ways of boosting your caster lvl beyond your lvl, but mostly they are expensive, or just not really available. You can't even arcane empower it... If he fails and uses the spell tinkering like you're discussing, again he's using an action... and resource... but he's also gotta be adjacent... or in the effect. I do suspect the suspension part they may change the action on, but I honestly wouldn't care if they didn't. It's a kewl ability that has zero impact if it affects the wizard for the most part... since the ones you're going to be upset if he suspends tend to prevent him from doing so.
do me a favor and for your stats, use parenthesis to denote when you're raging and regular for not raging. ie str 18(22) Greatsword +4(+6) [2d6+8(11)] etc (I also think you might have your greatsword damage off, unless you're not wielding it two handed. But looks fine otherwise. -edit- also it appears you may have too many skill points. If you're listing any skills, please just list the ones you have actually put skill points in, any not there I'll assume are being defaulted to. Also you count as a barb or sorc basically, so for favored class feel free to select from human alt options.
No it is only reading into things, because there's no actual text to read that says you may do this thing. If it weren't the case this discussion wouldn't have lasted this long, and you would of simply said "page 666, book of op" As it stands, you merely point to your conjecture and ignore people telling you there is no rule to support what you're saying, and that your reading into the lines can easily lead to a different conclusion... one that apparently doesn't agree with the folks posting here, because then your character would require more than just extra arms...
Yes this point hasn't been made or addressed. there's of course your ability to "infer" all these extra attacks, but there are other plausible rationals too behind this feat than "zomg I get an attack for every limb!"
I'm not sure what you guys are suggesting. I'm pretty sure you get the bonus though. consider the following trait: Devotee of the Green: Your faith in the natural world or one of the gods of nature makes it easy for you to pick up on related concepts. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (geography) and Knowledge (nature) checks, and one of these skills (your choice) is always a class skill for you. When you put a skill in a class skill per the book you get a untyped +3 bonus on the check. The trait grants a +1 trait bonus as well. I see no reason to think they do not stack and wouldn't indeed give you a total of +4 + ranks
Well when you refer people who haven't read the other threads to something that just simply doesn't apply to the argument, and use that as your proof... you're going to be called out by someone who doesn't know these other points. as it stands, I still find it funny that we're discussing PFS play, and he says that the very rules I've been pointing to are probably the ones that are used... And lets be honest there's no other situation other than PFS that doesn't have GM fiat in it in regards to pathfinder. The errata has removed the unarmed strike mentions from everything but gauntlets, so the "official" non random forum developer rulings hold that true with those still...
As for which version of brass knuckles PFS uses, I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's the most recent source, which is APG + errata.Sean K Reynolds (Designer) Jun 12, 2012, 04:22 AM since our little spat here, I've read what he's stated on the topic, and there are several quotes which are more apt and specific to what you're trying to convey than what you quoted. like If you want an item that enhances multiple unarmed attacks, it's the amulet of mighty fists. We're not going to introduce a new item that enhances multiple attacks at a lower price than the amulet. If you want to make a new item that does the same thing as the amulet, but in the chest slot, that's fine, but something that does what the amulet does at a lower price is a better item than the amulet, and we're not going to introduce an item that's clearly better than a core item or this would of been a much better link
Funny how I can find much better answers, and counter answers (see most recent statement up top about PFS...)
What I'm saying is that's what he meant, it should of been errated to reflect that in the PRD, which is the go to resource for PFS GMs. IF the only resource the GMs have available says "monks do their damage" what are they to do aside from accept [it]THAT[/i] as the defining rule, since it's in their rules and is "up to date"? He must be wrong if it hasn't been clarified in what the GMs have access to in the year since he said it. Or that his quote doesn't mean what you think it means... namely that they were trying to remove ambiguity from the rules, and exchanged one vague wording for another.
Also the FAQ removes mention to unarmed attacks, so that you're not confused if you're armed or not while wielding them. (you're armed, because the FAQ removed it from the "unarmed" category and also removed the words unarmed) Which fits snug with what SKR was saying Treating brass knuckles, gauntlets, spiked gauntlets, cesti, and rope gauntlets as "unarmed attacks" doesn't make a lot of sense (because you're not unarmed, you have metal/leather/rope/etc. there). your quote once I got to thinking about it actually does nothing to clarify anything, all it does is say that it makes it confusing to players as to what bonuses they get, and what damage they are doing and how it interacts with other items... It never once says you do not do unarmed damage with it. Reading over the corrections though, since unarmed damage/strike etc is now omitted in those, that leaves only the gauntlet as a option that can't be argued over.
okay, if the APG was current as of THIS YEAR, 6 weeks ago... why would you bring out quotes from even further back, ie over a year ago? The thing you're calling an "old version" was up until ultimate equipment, the most current version, more current than a 1 year old quote. Second, it's presented as a clarification. There's nothing in the wording of it, which is it is allowing your unarmed strikes to do something different, IE become lethal. The monk ability modifies unarmed strikes to deal more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would now lets look again at the brass knuckles, cestus, and gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. Is there anything in your Ultimate equipment that reads differently? I care not one iota if the clarification that was present in the PRD that was up to date less than two months ago is there or not. The critical wording is all that matters.
yeah you're right, one had a clarification just in case you couldn't figure it out on your own, the new one does not... that doesn't change the ability for monks to deal their improved unarmed damage while wielding the knuckles. the relevant point for brass knuckles is not the point you want to quib over, it's this: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. Is that stated differently in the Ultimate equipment guide? Hell I'd even argue that gauntlets let you deal monk damage as well, since you can do unarmed strikes that become enhanced due to the gaunt, and also it specifically makes mention that those attacks can be lethal or not, and attacks with the gauntlet (ie not the unarmed) are also considered unarmed. But again that's getting into minor points. Regardless of what your linked quote says, more recent things supersede it, and there's nothing in even the most recent thing to lead you into thinking otherwise. Also, look at this way, the monk unarmed attack reads as follows: A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would So any time he does a unarmed strike he deals more damage correct? So any weapon that says its treated as a unarmed strike, now benefits from the monks improved damage of unarmed strikes no? Even by your logic, the gauntlet would be enchantable I'm assuming
SKR was clearly wrong when the most up to date version of brass knuckles said otherwise a year later... (if not sooner than that date I provided) Regardless of what he posted the most recent material until ultimate equipment said otherwise, and this version says nothing to the contrary of the version prior to that.
What I'm saying is where in brass knuckles do you see wording that indicates it doesn't do unarmed attacks? That when you equip a brass knuckle you're not performing a unarmed strike? In the prior versions they specifically spelled out you could do unarmed damage (more recent than your dev comment link) and in the most recent ultimate gear book, there's nothing to the contrary.
They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks. Seems pretty conclusive to me that it does unarmed damage. Hell the damage listed is the default damage profile for unarmed attacks... now lets look at monk unarmed attacks A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would I'm not sure how you look at the wording of brass knuckles and get any conclusion other than they let your unarmed attacks do lethal damage, and that they are infact unarmed damage just lethal rather than nonlethal. Considering the wording never the extra bit for you to logically conclude you can do your unarmed damage while wielding it, doesn't make its absence suddenly make the monk stop doing unarmed damage with it.
considering adventurers armory book and UEQ aren't part of core assumption, it would seem whatever book your using even if the gear is listed in other books that you'd go off of what's errated in that book. There's nothing in what you listed either saying that they don't do unarmed damage, they specifically mention that your unarmed can now do lethal damage... I see nothing between that and APG to disallow a monk from using it and enchanting it in PFS play... specifically since the main resource for GMs specifically allows it.
the PRD says
And PRD also says
|
