CountofUndolpho's page

515 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

'Please Ignore' pulled me in, bit like a button with 'Do not push' printed on it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good spot @Gisher didn't remember it'd been FAQd

1 person marked this as a favorite.
quibblemuch wrote:

Since it is a full round attack to TWF, you cannot use TWF during an AOO. However, it should be noted that if you have already used TWF during that round, the relevant penalty still applies to the single attack you make as an AOO. This is the case until your next turn, when you can decide to TWF or just use one weapon and eliminated the TWF penalties.

I don't think this is correct, the AoO is at your full attack bonus

"You make your attack of opportunity at your normal attack bonus, even if you've already attacked in the round."

There is no TWF text that states the penalty exists outside the full round attack they are taken in, compare to Power Attack "You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn"

"An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of actions in the round" So you can use either weapon at your full attack bonus less any penalties like power attack.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This might help

The Core Campaign

1 person marked this as a favorite.

(IMHO) Summary of this and many other discussions on this forum:-

I don't mind being restricted by the rules. Working within the (clear or implied) limitations makes me use my imagination and tactics to get the most out of the game.


I dislike being restricted by the rules because I want to be able to optimise everything and build the character I want to get the most out of the game. I only want to be limited by my imagination so any limitations in the rules must be clear and irrefutable.

Different styles of play that can make rules discussions quite awkward.
I tend towards the former because I started wargaming playing D&D Basic - just the rulebook not the box, it had 48 pages...

Dungeons and Dragons - Basic Rulebook (first edition by Gary Gigax)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't roll to hit the eye's, you just 'cause the light to burst in front of a single creature', so all you need is line of effect to that creature. It's effectiveness is decided by Fortitude not Reflex; armour, cover (apart from total) etc. do not affect the spell.

No need to overcomplicate it's a 0 level minor debuff.

Edit: missed a comma

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TOS+ laptop sheet does pretty much all necessary calculations and you can apply effects; spells, feats and situational stuff etc.

When I first moved to PFRPG it was a godsend as I'd pretty much jumped straight from Second ed with a brief dip into 3.5 and keeping track of all the new stuff was a nightmare. We still use it to check effects we are unsure of like how ability damage works and so on.

I've used it to do some cheat sheets for other players - we have a dyslexic on the team as well as a chap whose post heart op meds make him a little fuzzy. It cross checks my maths which is handy.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People aren't trying to have a civil discussion they are telling me I'm wrong. The civil/uncivil discussion has been done before. Letric was actually asking so I answered him.

If you were wielding and therefore threatening with both weapons at the same time you should be able to TWF with them. If you can't you aren't wielding them simultaneously, so you can't threaten with both simultaneously. To me it's obvious to many people on here it's nonsense. I'm not saying I am right and they are wrong, just that's how I and everyone I've ever played with* see it and play it. So without a FAQ expect table variance.

*It hasn't actually come up that much so I'm assuming there, I'll ask next time my present group play and let you know.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See "heavy shield" on the Martial Weapons table for the damage dealt by a shield bash with a heavy shield. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon.

The specific entries for shield do not say they are counted as a one-handed or light weapon per se but only "For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls" it is called out as a specific case for a specific type of attack, shield bash. It's inclusion in the weapon tables is explained in that way as well.

The RW or not stuff is beside the point if it was just to be counted as any other weapon weapon it should be "Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning one-handed weapon".

To me it's you chaps that are house ruling due to exploiting the wording of the shield entry to allow you to do something you want rather than what was intended.

But hey as you say that's just me and my opinion, you won't ever play in a game with me, forget I spoke.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe if you chaps didn't have so much invested in arguing for 10' & 5' AoOs, you wouldn't react so vehemently and things wouldn't get so heated.
Perhaps if you had all chilled out found where he was misunderstanding the rules and then pointed it out politely most of this thread wouldn't have been needed.

Leaping down someone's throat, sneering at them and shouting them down isn't usually the best way to get your points across, even when you are right.

Straph listened, discussed and admitted he was wrong when the proof was given, then when badgered used sarcasm and when bullied further said you win and left.....

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Ganryu The panic for a non combat trained mount in battle is automatic it has no DC. As per kadance's quote it is The Rule not a House Rule.

As for what "in Battle" means that is up to the GM; in the Combat rules Battle starts when you roll initiative and visa versa.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you! I blush to say I had actually not thought of using Find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Low Magic Historian / The Old School Game

Slightly different but much the same result and yes, one of my pet hates.
Getting to 8th level as a Fighter before you manage to trade a +1 Long Spear and some cash for the weapon you specialise in at....+1

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As long as it's the same as far as mechanics goes and doesn't waste too much time with needless explanations i.e. verbal description and gestures representing gun juggling every combat then who cares? More flavour can be more fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Perhaps old age, and a favor for older editions, has left you with a bias.

It's something to consider.

In other words "you are wrong because you are old and biased". Which could be taken as an ad hominem attack, or as a convenient way to dismiss my points - purely because they come from me.

My editions of Pathfinder are digital and therefore the latest editions.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It refers to an asterisk * the books were referred to as *books to denote them being non-core.
I was going on the old AD&D definition which was if it wasn't in the original 3 books it was a splat. Though I'm unsure now I'm thinking on it if we actually used the term at the time or picked it up later...memory and old age eh?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think you'll find what you are looking for as there isn't a description that says a shield bash acts as a Light or One-Handed Weapon for anything other than attack roll penalties.

Improvised weapon is the only way I can see it working and if I was DMing I would probably count a shield as (at least) one size larger due to the size, shape and weight as per the Improvised weapon rules.

Improvised Weapons

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thread I linked to above covers all the arguments put forward so far.
Please find the post that roughly equates to both your point and level of politeness, then find the response which you prefer depending on your willingness to debate/need for conflict. Thus obviating the need to continue the same debate in this thread.

Ay up @BlackBloodTroll we did that discussion already, remember?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another one Squeezing through a space that is less than half the size of your usual space.
"To squeeze through or into a space less than half your space's width, you must use the Escape Artist skill. You can't attack while using Escape Artist to squeeze through or into a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty to AC, and you lose any Dexterity bonus to AC."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Helpless Defenders section in Combat states that a Helpless foe is also Flat-footed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was just going through Sneak Attack rules and got into a bit of a tussle over the wording.
RAW is "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."

Now I've always taken that to mean a condition that reduces a target's Dex bonus to AC for example Entangled gives a -4 to Dex.
In discussion I find that most people take it to mean that the sentence should be read "would be denied its Dexterity bonus etc"

So I had a look through conditions and made the following list


(Attacker not target)
Paralyzed (Helpless)

And of course Flatfooted from Surprise.

Bold are where the formula loses/denied its Dex bonus to AC is used, except Helpless where it is explicitly stated that Sneak Attack can be used.
The others all include penalties to Dex (up to -6) but don't use that formula or mention Sneak.

Assuming my original premise was incorrect does anyone know of any more conditions that use the correct formula/mention Sneak Attack/render you Flatfooted?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Blueluck +1

1 person marked this as a favorite.

SKR as ever gives a nice rational take on why things are the way they are.
Cheers Sean! Into the Lion's den and all that.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a quick scan to see if this had come up in the thread but didn't find it and so

Quandary wrote:

Here´s what I found:

Mark Moreland wrote:

Armor spikes are treated as light weapons for the purpose of threatening adjacent squares. Light weapons require the use of limbs, so you would only be able to make attacks with them if you have a free hand. Thus, wielding a two-handed reach weapon would negate your ability to "wield" (and thus threaten with) armor spikes. This isn't necessarily clear in the rules, but I just discussed it with Jason, and we're both on the same page about the intent.

Jason Bulmahn later followed that up (after much b+@!&ing in the thread) with:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Everybody,

Alright everybody. Lets just take it down a notch. I got a few quick points.

- We are currently looking into the whole armor spike/misc non-hand weapons and how they threaten. This was a slightly bigger issue than I first thought when I gave an off the cuff opinion.

- The thing to remember here, that I want to stress, is that generally speaking, the only places where a PFS judge is required to follow rulings is the rulebooks, updates, FAQ posts, and PFS rules documents. Everything else is left to judge discretion at the table. There is no way around this. We cannot ask our judges to be familiar with every ruling or thought from every messageboard post, even if it comes from a staff member.

- For you home game, you don't even have to pay attention to the above sources. Its your game after all.

I hope to get a FAQ on this issue soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

That's from 2011 and I don't see a FAQ on it? I also note that many of the same faces appear in each thread that touches upon this.

So I'll take the same view as Jason and Mark (which is easy as I agree with it) and until a definitive FAQ appears that's how I'll play it, when I GM. I won't spend long arguing the toss about it when a player, as it causes bad blood.
Been an informative thread though and most entertaining.