CountofUndolpho's page

I think you are extrapolating too much, the EP is not called out as being an unarmed attack at any point. It doesn't make an unarmed strike do piercing damage or give the wielder the choice c.f. Cestus; it turns an unarmed strike into a piercing attack.

The full quote is "The ring prevents the wielder from being disarmed and turns unarmed strikes into piercing attacks."

You must be armed to be disarmed.

I can think of nothing in the rules that allows the Monks extra unarmed strike damage with any normal weapon. When flurrying Monk weapons allow you to bypass damage reduction, unarmed strikes do extra damage.
My knowledge is not exhaustive though and I've been proved wrong before.

Default damage unless there is a rule to say otherwise.

Assuming similar size you can't move through or end movement in an occupied square, so you could not land in or emerge into or choose to stop on the invisible creature's square. They would know there was something there and could avoid it, use a manoeuvre etc. if they had the movement or actions to spare. If not they would remain in the last legal square they occupied.

In the case of the Charge, it is a full round action and would cease when A encountered the obstacle - ending the movement and the round for A.

Are universal Burrow rules described anywhere in Pathfinder?

Grease also doesn't mention hampering running characters does that mean you can run through it?
Grease gives you two options walk at half or stay still.

The Horn of Goodness/Evil casts one of two spells but isn't aligned when it does so.
There are plenty of examples in the Rules of Good and Evil not being able to coexist but I can't think of any examples showing that they can.

How would you make it? You must be good to make a Holy Weapon and Evil to make an unHoly one. And how could a weapon be Good Aligned and Evil Aligned etc at the same time?

I'll go with your Heck No! response

From the PRD a slightly different RAW

You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword.

B by my understanding.
If you are doing both armed and natural, then the natural are secondary and as such resolved after the Primary attacks. If you are using the 'claw' limbs to throw you can't then use them to claw. Starting or finishing with empty hands doesn't matter it's what you do with those hands within the round that counts. If it was a bite you'd be cool.

'Failure means it can't move that round (and must then make a Reflex save or fall), while failure by 5 or more means it falls (see the Acrobatics skill for details)'
Any movement requires an acrobatics check.

There are no Core rules for the aesthetics of what is summoned, the only choice is the kind of creature summoned in most of the summoning spells. So by the GM's fiat only I would say.

As long as it was Oak I'd say 'yes' RAI and 'probably' RAW

Donning Armour depends on the armour not it's 'type'. So Banded and Splint are Heavy but you don't need help to don them for example

Eureka! Thanks @zza ni

I can't find the FAQ page at present...

It's a metal glove that comes as part of Medium or Heavy Armour and weighs a pound per glove. "A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack" does not equal a gauntlet is an unarmed strike. Brass knuckles have the same text but have the Monk property, a cestus is a very similar item but again has the Monk property. In Ultimate Equipment the Gauntlet is under Light Weapons rather than Unarmed Attacks

A monk can only flurry with weapons with the monk property, which gauntlets don't have.

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

Worth the resurrection just for the laugh picturing someone trying to walk about with a Tower Shield on one arm and an ordinary one on the other gave me.

You guys and 'your well it doesn't say you can't' logic. Can't wait to tell the Ermine Street Guard about it.

I stand corrected

If you have to make a check in order to move whether or not it's an automatic success, how is that not difficult ground/hampered movement? Is there any other movement you need a skill check to do that doesn't count as difficult ground? I mean you'd have to take a climb check to move your 5' step.

PRD

Take 5-Foot Step wrote:

You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.

With a climb speed greater than 5', you can do a 5' step via climbing.

/cevah

As you still need to do a climb check even with a climb speed I don't think you can take a 5' step.

I found this in the Can I use a Long Spear at 5' and 10' FAQ

You could choose to wield your longspear as an improvised blunt weapon. In this case, it threatens only your adjacent squares, and not the further squares. If you are wielding it as a longspear, though, to threaten the further squares, then your grip precludes the use as an improvised blunt weapon. The rules are silent on how long it would take to shift between the two, but switching between a one-handed and a two-handed grip with a one-handed weapon like a longsword is a free action (and can thus be only taken on your turn), so it should take at least as long as that, thus preventing you from simultaneously threatening all of the squares at once.

Do a lot of people think a double weapon with reach at one end and not at the other would be overpowered?

Not necessarily overpowered as much as there isn't any other weapon that acts in the same way. The spiked chain was nerfed to avoid it doing 5' and 10', meteor hammer has specific text to stop you being able to do it and there are the FAQs on 2H weapons and Armour spikes and long spear at 5' & 10'. All of which implies a design choice to not have weapons that do 5' & 10' at the same time.

Doesn't clarify it enough to not have discussions like this about it though does it? I'm with @Melkiador better not to use it than have to argue it out or not have to argue and then have the GM try to nerf it at a later date when he realises what she/he's done.

I wouldn't give you reach and close at the same time as a GM unless it was pointed out in no uncertain terms within the rules.

I haven't heard of this before... the vast majority of the weapons function perfectly fine, no "houseruling" required. Some people may disagree with the designers and want their weapons to have more / different weapon properties, or want a greater degree of realism in their fantasy games, but to call them out as "unusable" seems a bit silly. Granted there are likely one or two weapons that are the exception, but that isn't the case here.

Yet you are (sorry the op is) here asking and no one has a definitive answer, so in order to use it you will have to iron it out with your GM or House rule it in other words. I personally would use the Meteor Hammer rules for swapping between single long range ring attack (ooer) and double close range weapon and just ignore the off-hand bit. It's a bit silly I know but hey ho.

Many of those eastern martial arts weapons are a bodge job without the information to use them as RAW. You have to house rule them to use them. Like it has Grapple but not Disarm even though the description describes entangling weapons and so on. There a number of threads calling them out as unusable as written.

Your GM shouldn't put you in that position but I think you can and you assume correctly.

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

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.

This might help

The Core Campaign

(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.

v

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)

I'm quoting the description of Barbarian in the rules.

CRB Barbarian PRD version

John Wick is not in the rules. As far as I can see tranquil fury isn't in the rules. If it was why would you need Moment of Clarity as a Rage Power? Neither is patience as a condition/rule, you are expected to make some judgement calls when reading the rules.

No, my "none" was that the Barbarian doesn't need to "Concentrate" to hit at any range increment, just like any other shooter or archer doesn't need to.

You absolutely do not have to concentrate to hit a target 300ft away from you in Pathfinder.

A cold tranquil fury is still fury and rage, just because I'm not screaming at the top of my lungs doesn't mean I'm not angry enough to kill someone. By saying people playing barbarians have to play them as raging frothing at the mouth berserkers is entirely a house rule you are insinuating, not anything supported by the rules.

Can you give me PF examples of actions that require patience? Where patience is stated in the rules and is not just common sense? Just curious.

Can you also give me something from the rules that says your tranquil fury is in the PF rules? It certainly doesn't indicate that version of rage in the description of a Barbarian or his role. "For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war" Who coldly, tranquilly but furiously reload their muskets and shoot people 300' away...

Seeing how shooting at increasing range increments doesn't take any extra concentration or actions over their standard abilities, none.

You don't shoot then? Barbarian rage doesn't just call out Concentration purely in the PF spell use sense as they add the proviso patience. If you want to hit a target at 300' you definitely have to concentrate whatever you are using.

If the intention was a "cold tranquil fury" why wouldn't they be able to do things that require patience? Or even concentration. I'm not sure I'd give players a "cold tranquil fury" option in my games at least not one that gave them Rage bonuses.

Yeah I get those archetypes doing it, it's what they are designed to do after all. I suppose you are right about the adaptive enchantment as well, I hadn't thought of that. It still seems out of the Barbarian's idiom, at what range would you say that you need to concentrate to hit the mark?

I always think of Sláine from 2000AD when thinking Barbarian rage, or the numerous accounts of Viking berserkers or Indonesian Amoks. All of whom (to me) have more similarity to the PFRPG idea than 'Tranquil Fury' if you read the blurb in the CRB.

I still don't get the bow/ranged rather than thrown thing, do you chaps mean you have actually played as/with a Barbarian in a game where they have gone into a rage to shoot a bow or crossbow etc? which wouldn't benefit from the bonuses Rage provides. Why would they do that rather than just fire at them and then go into a Rage when they get within melee range?

If your GM goes by RAW you'll have a chance if by RAI, maybe not

Role: Barbarians excel in combat, possessing the martial prowess and fortitude to take on foes seemingly far superior to themselves. With rage granting them boldness and daring beyond that of most other warriors, barbarians charge furiously into battle and ruin all who would stand in their way.

So you are arguing a version of Rage that boosts Dex rather than Strength would still preclude the use of Dex based skills?

*nods*

I just felt that pointing out archetypes specifically built around ranged weapons (that don't modify anything about what you can do in a rage) would be more poignant :3

"Focused Rage (Ex): While raging, a primal hunter gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls with ranged weapons. This bonus increases to +3 at 11th level and to +4 at 20th level. While raging, a primal hunter can attempt Stealth checks but doesn’t gain a morale bonus on Will saves. This ability alters rage."

Primal Hunter and Savage Technologist would like to have words with you.

"Rather than exploding with anger, primal hunters focus their rage to strike distant targets. "

" A savage technologist can enter rage as a barbarian, except she gains a morale bonus to Strength and Dexterity instead of Strength and Constitution, and she does not take a penalty to Armor Class. She retains the bonus on Will saving throws. When a barbarian ability would increase the savage technologist’s Strength while raging, it increases her Dexterity instead. This ability alters rage."

Apples and oranges

CountofUndolpho wrote:

I agree - however long it takes it definitely is a dex based thing even if you argue familiarity obviates concentration.

So you disallow ranged attacks while raging, because those are Dex based.

Apples aren't oranges. Thrown attacks of course but I've never encountered a raging Barbarian wanting to fire a bow/crossbow let alone reload one why would they?

I'm not sure from that if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me on movement AoOs. I agree with the rest of your statement.

I agree - however long it takes it definitely is a dex based thing even if you argue familiarity obviates concentration.

A single enemy only gets one AoO per movement no matter how many of the squares you move through he threatens. I'm presuming from withdraw and a round being so short etc. it's the first threatened square you leave that gives the AoO rather than they can pick or choose which square they want to react to you leaving. Anything else would just prove unwieldy to GM.

Tridents are one handed which makes a net being 2H even more bizarre.
Hoplites would be equally handicapped as their 7' dorys would render them unable to hold a shield (at least in core).

..

CountofUndolpho wrote:

Nothing that says you need both hands to use a net so you'd only have to drop the wand not empty both hands.

Well...

"Normal: A net is a two-handed ranged weapon."

Yet no mention of two hands in the weapon description in either the CRB or the UE? We tend to only play Core so I hadn't read that feat before. How strange! Worth a FAQ maybe? though the UE has so many weapons that need clarifying it might take a while.

Roman history? They kept pretty detailed records of training techniques, as well as poetic descriptions of matches. It's hard to say exactly how they were used, but combat scholars have done pretty impressive recreations. There's a ton of them on youtube (though most are badly filmed and badly performed). There's also some very cool Retarius fights in the Spartacus TV show.

I was sort of angling for something more specific as I studied the Roman era and it's archaeology at University. But thankyou anyway.

...(can't use it without dropping both hands items clearly)...

Nothing that says you need both hands to use a net so you'd only have to drop the wand not empty both hands.

A 6lb net with its 10' of trailing rope isn't really like a light shield which straps to your forearm and allows you to hold an object. It also needs to be folded in a certain way to be used and can entangle a creature one size larger. So I'm not convinced it's obvious you should be able to hold both. A net is a lot of clutter, unlike say a javelin, torch or dagger which are basically tubes.