My guns&gears single file download is still in limbo as well. It seems stuck on the "Personalizing... Click link again in 60 seconds to download" part indefinitely.
Search Posts
I was here to say that I'm experiencing the same problem, but it looks like you're already looking at it, so I'll just patient.
I might have been undervaluing Leading Dance due it not being available until level 4. I agree it's great battlefield control. And I think I was quite ironically focusing too hard on Focused Fascination and only considering using Fascinating Performance on a single target because of it. Thanks for the replies.
Let's look at the various ways at level 1 to gain panache. Also worth mentioning is what each path can easily build into to determine relative value. There's also the balancing factor of each style's Exemplary Finisher, which I will not list here. Each style's unique way of gaining panache grants a secondary useful effect, such as the enemy being frightened, flat-footed or given a penalty to attack, grappled/shoved/tripped, given a penalty to Will saves (good party play) and Perception, or... Fascinated. Fascinate is such a bad condition for combat use. It breaks as soon as you or any of your allies takes any hostile action towards the enemy or any of the enemy's allies. While it's in effect it grants a -2 to Perception checks and skill checks and stops actions with the Concentrate tag that wouldn't target you, the source of the Fascinate. I suppose that Leading Dance is nice, but why not just Shove as a Gymnast? Am I correct in thinking that the Battledancer (which has BATTLE in the name) grants nothing useful for combat situations that the other styles don't do better? Or is there some hidden gem of a feat that makes it all beautifully connect as a build that I'm overlooking?
Just make sure that if you want a Master ability, you don't choose a familiar with two familiar abilities; you only get two choices total, pulled from either list. A familiar with a burrow speed (if corrected for the Gnome feat) + Scent would mean no master abilities. Well, yes. That's what it says. I'm glad to see you agree that there's a missing "burrow speed" familiar ability.
If I take a raven familiar, then it doesn't just randomly get a fly speed in addition to the abilities granted by Familiar Abilities.
I would assume that means that familiars don't randomly get extra abilities that don't exist on the chart. A chameleon doesn't get an extra bonus to stealth, a frog doesn't get a bonus to jumping, a bat doesn't get blindsense from echolocation, etc. As something specifically called out in the gnome abilities, I think that maybe the familiar section should have something that grants a burrow Speed. Edit: Also, please note that in Animal Accomplice, it specifically calls out "burrow Speed" not just something like burrowing animal. Speed is capitalized, which means it refers to the game mechanic. There should be mechanical support for called out mechanics, yes?
Consider the situation where you start at A and use Tumble Through, stride to B, wanting to tumble through the monster at C to get to D. |A| | |B|C|D| I think that "The square you started in" is a bad choice of wording, since you start the action of Tumble Through in A, and you did in fact leave A, provoking as normal. If you failed the Acrobatics check, you END the action in B, so the failure line should be updated to reflect that.
A rapport develops between you and an animal, which becomes magically bonded to you. You gain a familiar (see page 287). The type of animal is up to you, but most gnomes choose animals with a burrow Speed. Familiars, according to page 287, gain a ground speed or a swim speed of 25 feet, and can gain a small list of things with the Familiar and Master Abilities. This includes:
So how does a gnome get a burrowing familiar? It's not on the list of options.
#2 is rather disappointing. The only use, as Ashram said, is if you have a rider effect that is negated on a save. I can't think of any that would apply though.
There is another option if a swift action to sheathe is good enough. Buy a Scabbard of Many Blades. Put your good weapon in it and fill the rest of the slots with cheap daggers. Draw your weapon, make your attacks, then use Quickdraw to swap your weapon for a dagger as a swift action. Drop the dagger as a free action and you are good to go. It's half the price of a Glove of Storing. "Samurai=san, every time you attack you drop a dagger on the ground. Your strange fighting style is probably why you're the last of your order."
Weapon Cords (equipment from APG) could also count, since it lets you drop weapons as a free action without actually losing them... but the weapon isn't technically "away" at that point. It's dangling at the end of a weapon cord, and it takes a move action to retrieve, even with Quick Draw.
If you're a gunslinger using a one handed firearm? The Gun Twirling feat.
You can 5 ft step out of Grease, for all the reasons mentioned above by others. Moving at half speed does not affect your ability to 5 ft step. Consider if it did. What if you're under an effect that increases your movement speed such as Haste. Could you then 10 ft step? No, just 5 ft. Similarly, a decrease to your movement speed doesn't restrict you from taking a 5 ft step. I'm with TOZ on this one. And yeah, merfolk cannot 5 ft step.
I get where your DM is coming from. I also get your position. Your DM wants to protect the "fun" of the bad archer's player. You want to play a specific character concept. Between the two, I think that you have more room to be flexible than the DM. If the DM backs off, the other player is stuck playing second fiddle to your archer, which is a position no one likes. If you back off, you can play a different character concept. I'm sure you have multiple characters in your head wanting to be put to paper and played, right? I think that if the other player had a "good" archer build, then things would be more okay if you played an archer or switch-hitter with a bow. But the whole "anything you can do I can do better" line? That's a taunt. People don't like being taunted, even unintentionally. So make something that the DM and other player are able to consider "different" enough from the archer. A gunslinger, a bolt ace, a thrower, a kineticist... An aside: A glaive is different from a greatsword because reach users tend to build for battlefield control... it's slightly different playstyle. A friend recommends a grippli warpriest that uses a blowgun. Use poison, benefit from sacred weapon damage!
Will we be now seeing more Raging Gunslingers with Vital Strike/Furious Finish with double barrel muskets? If firing both is now a standard action, and Vital Strike is a standard action, then no, for the same reason we don't see vital striking cleave builds. They don't work.
I'm confused. That isn't the list of prerequisites that I'm seeing for Greater Grapple.Sorry, was thinking Dirty Trick and typed Grapple. This is correct. You ignore what it says to ignore. It doesn't say to ignore improved feats when taking greater feats. You get to use the list that it gives when taking either of those. Ah yes, this will help animal companions with 3 int and eidolons! Great!
Okay fine, calling for its elimination was a bit hyperbolic, yes. But the fact that they keep coming up with alternatives to it and ways to cheat its prereq tells me Paizo knows this feat has just about no intrinsic value. Maybe it's time to give it some. I'm not claiming I'm smart enough to know what to do, but I bet smart dudes could come up with something. I don't think that Combat Expertise has no intrinsic value. It just isn't useful for builds that need it as a pre-req for other feats. The characters that might want combat expertise as a feat have basically no overlap with the characters who might want Improved Trip. And you'd probably never want to use the two feats together. An AC focused build (although rightfully ridiculed by the community as a very suboptimal idea) might still want Combat Expertise. It gives scaling AC in exchange for excess attack bonus.
The fact that it's been around for 15 years I think is a reason to NOT get rid of combat expertise. Combat Expertise as a feat is fine to keep. Combat expertise as a feat tax is stupid. I like that we have an alternative for it that works for anyone now.
Well, this is a surprise. Dirty Tactics Toolbox has a very interesting feat that I think is a great addition to Pathfinder. I'll transcribe it here so that we can actually discuss it.
What builds does this help out? Is disarming a viable thing to do now? Is it still not worth building full disarm builds? Does this open up additional classes to grappling? Or does the fact that you still have to take 1 feat still overshadow the other feat/ability score taxes on combat maneuvers? I will also point out that this book introduced feats that have things like Prerequisities: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6. That's a lot of stuff we just avoided by taking one feat as a barbarian who doesn't want Dex or Int.
A heavy trebuchet has a 400 ft. range increment. Does that help?
As WRITTEN, androids can provide emotion components, but I would take Mark's side on the issue RAI-wise. Especially seeing as a psionic is shut down by the Calm Emotions spell too.
Jiggy: Your narrative goal of an internationally feared martial character would be accomplished by just having them be sufficiently higher level than the norm for the region. Most NPCs are going to be level 1-3. Honestly, any PC above level 10 with appropriate wealth and a build suitable for their situation could work, if I understand you correctly. That said, I don't feel that really is what you're looking for. Based on what you've been saying in this thread, I think you're right in looking for other systems. OP: Personally I like Pathfinder. I don't love it anymore. I like Golarion, I like Paizo's adventure paths, and I like the rules. I prefer 5E's ruleset because it's more accessible. (Personally I am comfortable with PF's specialized rules for every occasion, but my players, on the other hand...) I'm running two games now. One is Pathfinder, all books I own allowed (which is pretty much everything) going through Iron Gods. The other game is a Jade Regent game but using the 5E ruleset. The conversion from PF to 5E causes more work, but I enjoy the playstyle of 5E more because my players are able to understand their choices better, rather than worrying that obscure rules unknown to them will preclude what they might have otherwise wanted to do. I don't see myself leaving Pathfinder any time soon though, since it's what most of my players know best and because of sunk-cost fallacy. I have too much time and money invested in PF to drop the system.
Vanaras climb slower. Tieflings/Aasimars/Dhampirs age at human rates. A lot of wizard/oracle/sorc favored class options are 1/6 progression instead of 1/2. Um... I'm having trouble finding any other "big" changes in this one.
Here's a thread to discuss the new ARG errata. First big thing I noticed: Scarred Witch Doctor isn't Con based anymore. It's okay though, since we have actual con based casters with the psionics now. Edit: You can find errata here
Interesting question, but I think that comparing the animal companion to the bestiary entry for determining reach is the common sense thing to do. If there's somehow a creature that becomes large as an AC but the bestiary version is only medium, then it might be a real question. Not hitting FAQ either. And large bears totally don't have reach, especially if you're a beastrider cavalier RIDING on the bear. Are you sitting on its shoulders as it lurches awkwardly around on its hind legs? Sure, I get that the game follows its own rules that aren't always reflective of reality (iterative attacks with a muzzle loaded gun), but that's a little silly to me.
I recall that the community found several instances of superfluous wording and inconsistent wording in the core rulebook before, and the dev response was generally, "Yeah, but the rules weren't written by a robot." I think that if you take a very literal interpretation of the rules, you're correct. But I really doubt that was what the author intended when that sentence was written. Why wasn't it revisited ever? Because it's not a rule that comes into play very often. Same reason other core rulebook rules have had to have FAQs and errata.
Hey guys! I think some of you are wrong, and I'm going to explain why I think so. Please don't take it personally. I believe that the AoO from moving into an occupied square is just an AoO as normal from movement. I believe there to be an understood "as normal" in that sentence, such that it reads: The creature provokes attacks of opportunity as normal when doing so. You're reading too far into the rules. I think that your logic would lead to gunslingers using Gunslinger's Dodge provoking twice as well.
Gunslinger's Dodge: Gunslinger’s Dodge (Ex): At 1st level, the gunslinger gains an uncanny knack for getting out of the way of ranged attacks. When a ranged attack is made against the gunslinger, she can spend 1 grit point to move 5 feet as an immediate action; doing so grants the gunslinger a +2 bonus to AC against the triggering attack. This movement is not a 5-foot step, and provokes attacks of opportunity. Alternatively, the gunslinger can drop prone to gain a +4 bonus to AC against the triggering attack. The gunslinger can only perform this deed while wearing medium or light armor, and while carrying no more than a light load.
"Buy a bunch of guns" I don't think is really viable considering how expensive guns are. Hand crossbows, on the other hand, you might be able to pull off. Of course, then you have to justify how you have 25 loaded hand crossbows on your person. To answer the original question, there is not a hard limit on free actions per round. However, taking a lot of free actions as a martial character is something that DMs usually find breaks their immersion. Wizards slinging fireballs around doesn't... but that's a discussion for another thread.
First, here are the rules I'm citing from the PRD: Firearm Descriptions:
There are two general categories of firearms: early and advanced.
Firearms are further divided into one-handed, two-handed, and siege firearms. As the category's name implies, one-handed firearms need only one hand to wield and shoot. Two-handed firearms work best when you use two-hands while shooting them. Two-handed firearms can be shot with one hand at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Siege weapons are typically mounted on some sort of platform, movable or otherwise, and have greater power but a much slower rate of fire—they're detailed in their own section. Scatter Weapon Quality: A weapon with the scatter weapon quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. Cannons with the scatter weapon quality only fire grapeshot, unless their descriptions state otherwise. When a scatter weapon attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes a separate attack roll against each creature within the cone. Each attack roll takes a –2 penalty, and its attack damage cannot be modified by precision damage or damage-increasing feats such as Vital Strike. Effects that grant concealment, such as fog or smoke, or the blur, invisibility, or mirror image spells, do not foil a scatter attack. If any of the attack rolls threaten a critical, confirm the critical for that attack roll alone. A firearm that makes a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire. If a scatter weapon explodes on a misfire, it deals triple its damage to all creatures within the misfire radius. Deadly Aim (Combat):
You can make exceptionally deadly ranged attacks by pinpointing a foe's weak spot, at the expense of making the attack less likely to succeed.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +1.
Gunslinger Archetype: Siege Gunner:
Scattershot (Ex) At 3rd level, if the siege gunner has at least 1 grit point, she can increase the effectiveness of scattering shots from hand-held firearms and blast shots from siege engines. The cone radius of scattering shots or blast shots increases by 5 feet for every three levels the siege gunner possesses (to a maximum of 30 feet at 18th level). Siege Engines:
Blast Shot: Instead of a single hard ball, this ammunition is a bundle of large pellets, balls, or pieces of scrap metal, propelled a short distance by black powder and attacking all creatures and objects within an area. Both cannons and fiend's mouth cannons can fire this kind of ammunition. When such a siege engine fires this ammunition, it hits every creature and object within a 30-foot-cone burst. The siege engine makes attack rolls against each creature and unattended object in the burst. It must miss every creature or target to misfire, and a misfire generates the normal effect. It deals its normal damage on a hit, but does not ignore the hardness of objects. The question is as stated above: Is blast shot the same as the scatter weapon quality? Arguments against: Specific overrides general. Firearm siege weapons are still subject to all firearm rules except where overridden by firearm siege weapon rules. That means that any firearm siege weapons with the scatter quality are subject to its rules. However, the cannon doesn't have the scatter quality. Instead it has a special ammunition that specifically calls out cannons as being able to use it. Arguments for: It's probably RAI Why is this relevant? Basically, can I use Deadly Aim when using a cannon loaded with blast shot? Other interesting side note: A cannon only has to MISS every target using a blast shot to misfire (I assume at least one roll has to misfire). A blunderbuss has to MISFIRE on every target using scatter shot.
Chekhov's Gun doesn't necessarily apply to loot. You found an oil painting of a noble in a gilded frame worth 200 gp. A jade statuette of a kyton worth 175 gp. A scabbard inlaid with filigree and set with the seal of House Kimat worth 120 gp. Chekhov's Gun would imply that the statuette is a lich's phylactery, the scabbard is a plot hook to find the remaining heir of House Kimat, and the oil painting has a secret map hidden in its picture. Sometimes loot is just loot, and it's meant to be sold. Knowledge checks should reveal useful information, Chekhov's Gun style. Most named NPCs should be plot related. The large club hanging over the mantle at the tavern might NOT be plot relevant. It's just there to warn the PCs that if they start trouble, the bartender is trained with the greatclub and isn't afraid to use it. It becomes relevant if the PCs choose to start trouble. So... no for loot, yes for knowledge check results, and mostly for scenery. Anything mentioned as scenery should be a possible Chekhov's Gun, but might not be relevant depending on PC actions.
She hasn't been checking the campaign, and she's currently out of town, but I'll bring it up when she gets back.
I agree with DM_Blake's ruling here. I can't help but feel that the ability is intended to not deal damage, but as written I'd say it does. Also, I'm fairly sure that this AoO has to be with a melee attack, unless you have something that lets you take AoOs with ranged weapons. This affects your attack bonus if you don't have Weapon Finesse and means you can't use it against foes with superior reach.
Ah, a fair point. Discard to explore would certainly have the discard happen immediately, especially by my reasoning. You don't need the card out for reference once you're already exploring. But that changes my conclusion. Oh well. I'll try to come up with another grand unifying theory later.
It makes more sense for a card to be discarded after taking the action that it allows. Consider the following situation:
"But wait," you might say. "How could they forget their bonus that quickly?" Well, perhaps someone else played a blessing, then Harsk used his power, then they got into a lengthy discussion as to whether it was worth it for Valeros to also use an ally. Now he's ready to roll dice, and he doesn't remember how many should be rolled because every relevant card to the roll has already been discarded. For the sake of sanity, I'd discard the sword after its effects have taken place. Basically an active stack, not a queue. Discard or recharge all cards used in a step in reverse order of when they were played, unless the card itself indicates a different timing. To extend that ruling, I would therefore recharge the Staff of Minor Healing after the card that it recharged.
Thanks! I know it's not a great item (it doesn't do anything exciting), but I'm decently happy that my first entry at least least survived the cull. Low expectations.
I don't suppose you saved the text for those items? I made a couple edits to my Bow of the Bard before actually submitting, and forgot to save the final version...
Tortoise armor shouldn't be made of sea turtles. Toad-skin gloves shouldn't be made of frogs. Dogs and wolves. House cats and bobcats. Alligators and Crocodiles. Zebras and horses. African and Asian elephants (although I'm not sure how you'd refer to them in Golarion). Certain animals are commonly thought of as interchangeable, but aren't. Don't name your item after one animal and then make it out of another.
A lot of items that claim in the description to be made from a specific part of a specific creature, but don't list that thing in the crafting requirements. Is that supposed to be in there? I was under the impression that Flame Tongue didn't have "a masterwork iron longsword" in its crafting requirements, even though it's heavily implied that you need a masterwork iron longsword to make a Flame Tongue. Edit: I got ninja-ed quite heavily there.
I'm convinced that anyone from Galt should speak with an outrageous French accent. Vive la révolution!
The plunder chart is super easy to memorize. The numbers go in order of where things are in the box. If you read down the columns, the box contains characters(the first couple might be out of order), ships, scenarios, locations, monsters, villains, henchmen, barriers, weapons, spells, armor, items, allies, and blessings. The "boons" consist of (in order): Weapons, spells, armor, items, allies, and blessings. You just look at the box to remember what a 1-5 means. You can't plunder blessings, so a 6 means "choose." Easy, yes? Lookup tables are much much cheaper to produce than custom d6s. The others already explained that, though.
Toons?MMO-speak for character. Dagnabbit, you kids and your MMOs and your toons and your fancy schmancy DPR calculators. Back in my day we all used the same nomenclature and liked it! Sword Saint Samurai might be another option worth looking into. The samurai class initially seems all over the place, but remember that you don't have to take advantage of every class feature for the class to be good for you. Sword Saint drops a lot of mounted stuff for a rather unique mechanic. They're not the best numbers-wise, but I feel you're not necessarily just looking for the best numbers. I could be wrong. I haven't actually built one for play yet, so I don't know if they end up being a trap option.
The easier house rule is "We both know when you're being silly about this. Stop it." I assume your player has common sense. However, since this is the rules forum: I don't see anything stopping him from doing this, by RAW.
Bob3, you forgot to read the whole section. A character cannot recover from the damage dealt by a cold environment until she gets out of the cold and warms up again. I'm fairly sure that means that you can't recover from the damage by any means. Including natural healing, fast healing, and magical healing. To answer the original question: The game isn't about battling hypothermia. It's something that might possibly happen, but if the PCs have taken precautions then the game pretty much reverts back to "killing monsters and taking their stuff... while wearing a snow hat." Pathfinder is not a nitty-gritty system for the most part. Most environmental ailments are temporary and simply add to the mood, rather than being large threats by themselves. That said... I don't see anything about saves making hypothermia go away. >Character is in a cold environment
I don't know about your bonechill thing.
Look at your wisdom modifier. It's a 3? Look at the line where it says Wis and check three of those boxes. Your wis mod is a 7? Check all 6 of the first line of boxes (marked Wis) (a wizard would check the first 7 of his 9 boxes). Now mark 3 of the second line of boxes (marked Wis-4). It matches up with the "Table: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells" in the core rulebook but with less look-up.
The question is one of intent. Back in 3.5 the rules read thusly:
Second, you and the defender make opposed Strength checks. So here we have it. The combat maneuver system is based on 3.5 special attacks turned into a unified system. But you'll notice that while sunder, disarm, trip, and grapple specifically called for melee attacks, overrun and bull rush were opposed Strength checks. Interesting, yes? Was the change from them being distinctly called melee attacks and checks to combat maneuvers intentional in this particular case? I can't really answer that. But as written in Pathfinder, combat maneuvers don't seem to count as (which is a bit bizarre to me). This post is not meant to draw a conclusion, but rather to shed some light on the origins of the issue. While I appreciate the unified system of combat maneuvers, I think that we lost some amount of clarity in the 3.5/Pathfinder switch, which is causing the problem here.
As a counter-point, SR affects divine and arcane spells the exact same way. A cleric channeling the divine will and power of her god has to contend with the same exact type of resistance as a wizard slinging fireballs that he learned how to do from researching how to manipulate arcane whatever you flavor it as. Arcanoids? Why does SR exist in the first place, instead of supposedly resistant creatures just having really good saves? Balance, plain and simple. If they ever team up with Disney and release a series of books based around the Jedi, who use force powers as a result of their midiclorians, I'm fairly certain the Jedi will be subject to SR as well. Watto has SR, I guess. How 'bout that.
The hit/miss vs success/failure thing I don't think is a real issue.
The rules refer to "hits" as an attack succeeding. So those terms are interchangeable. The lack of damage can be attributed to general vs specific. In general, attacks do damage. However, some attacks don't, such as the melee touch attack from Touch of Fatigue or an attack designated as a combat maneuver. I understand your point with regard to Attacks of Opportunity. If we say "all combat maneuvers are melee attacks," that opens up a possible problem with allowing them all in AoOs. It also allows you to substitute any combat maneuver in a full attack without being a maneuver master monk. That doesn't seem to be the intent. On the other hand, a bull rush is clearly an attack. It is a melee attack. The problem seems to be that we need an errata that differentiates between a "melee basic attack" and other "melee attacks." I hit the FAQ button. Everyone else should too if they haven't already.
I don't really feel we need multiple threads on this, but having a thread specifically dedicated to this question might help get a response on it. I say yes they count. "Combat maneuvers are attack rolls", according to the SRD. They are melee and they are subject to any effects that affect attack rolls. Otherwise you can't parry an unarmed attack either, because those have a separate entry from what you're quoting.
But combat maneuvers also refer to themselves as attacks: If your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD by 5 or more, If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. If your attack exceeds the target's CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more The fact that they interchangeably use the phrases combat maneuver, attack roll, and attack indicates that combat maneuvers are indeed attacks. By your definition an attack from a full attack doesn't count as a melee attack, since that snippet you quoted comes from the entry under the "Attack" action, which is a specific standard action. I think you're confusing the specificity of the Attack action with the definition of a melee attack.
|