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.
From the PRD a slightly different RAW
B by my understanding.
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
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.
Matthew Downie wrote:
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.
Morbid Eels wrote:
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.
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.
(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'm quoting the description of Barbarian in the rules.
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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
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?
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.
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.
Doomed Hero wrote:
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.