Derklord's page

Any ideas on how this should be handled, or how a DM has done it in their game?

I see three main ways:

I want to increase the level of my cleric domain(s). The real question is, is the entire domain increased by the feat or just 1 power within the domain?

I think +4 levels (≤HD) but only for domain powers (qualifying and effects), not domain spells, would be reasonable.

Affecting domain spells would give spells at higher level than the part-Cleric has spell slots, so they must be excluded.

"Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack." CRB pg. 216

It says spell but that part of the rules applies to all effects.

Spymaster's Handbook contains optional rules on using knowledge to identify class features, look here under "Recall Intrigues".

The Rogue wouldn't take Ability Focus because they're a martial, and feats are precious. Especially since I honestly expect half the feats to be used for Extra Hex.
Like I said, you could play a Sylvan Trickster focused on offensive hexes, and it would be strong. But outside of a special "no magic" campaign (or a "no tier 1 classes" campaign), I don't see why anyone would do that.

The Rogue can't take the items because they ask for a Witch. A Sylvan Trickster has no levels in Witch, and thus is not a Witch. The Spell Mastery FAQ makes it very clear that just because a feat would work and make sense for you, doesn't mean you can take it.

And +4 to Armor Class is nothing to sneeze at.

Unlike an Eldritch Scoundrel, a Sylvan Trickster can wear armor just fine.

It doesn't say so, so RAW it isn't. Logically, it should be, though.
But really? Ask your GM. You need to talk to them about the archetype anyway, plus all the other players, because his is the single most potentially campaign breaking archetype in the entire game.

My character has an int of 14, which is fairly normal for an unchained rogue that wants to be a skill monkey. So saves for hexes are lower than for a witch, but not outrageously so.

Maybe at first, but the difference will become significant.
At first level it's 4-6 less Int, so -2 or -3 DC. But a Sylvan Trickster likely won't put pips into int, and if not using ABP, get headbands later. And there's a ton of stuff that increases a Witch's hex DCs that a Sylvan Trickster won't get: DC increases form archetypes (SWD is +1 at 1st level, Invoker +1 each at 1st, 8th, and 16th level), Ability Focus (although the Rogue could), Hexing Runes, and Corset of Dire Witchcraft come to mind. Plus, Split Hex, and the Rogue likely won't have free hands for hexing rods, and will probably not take Accursed Hex.

Looking at what else I've rated as a 3, I can see an argument for giving Slumber and Ice Tomb that rating, plus probably Swine as well (which i always forget does not have a once/24h limit).

Was it you who rated the best class features as-

1 full spell casting
2 eidolon
3 witch hexes?

Yes. Well, I said that Eidolon and Witch hexes are the best non-spellcasting class features, I don't think I ever made a ranking where I separated full and 6/9 casting.

The issue with rankings is that versatility and raw power are very different, and either can be stronger in a given situation/for a given task.
Arcane Trickster would depend on the build. Sylvan trickster has higher raw power than an Eldritch Scoundrel, but loses out when it comes to flexibility.

With your skill points per level, a maxed out int and lots of skill unlocks [which allow you do a lot]you are the ultimate skill monkey.

If only this was true...

But it is a SoD with a 30' range, a scaling saving throw and ignores SR. Taking an enemy out at range like that is something a rogue can't do. So despite the lower save it is still very good as it adds an alternative way to defeat enemies that a rogue normally has nothing like.

I just don't think it's all that often useful in combat. You have maybe a 50% chance of landing it, and in most cases it doesn't last all that long. Plus, you should have the Flight hex, so you can reach anyone.

Of course, my ratings are strongly influence by the assumption that you want to play a Rogue, and have the ability scores according to that. If you want to make the most powerful Sylvan Trickster you can, the rating would be much different... but you'd basically play a spell-less Witch.

Although looking at what I have rated as a 3, putting Slumber and Ice Tomb up there would be perfectly justified. Maybe even Swine, which I always forget does not have a once-per-24h limit (and another hex on the very same page in the book does, so not just a clear oversight), although it will have a fairly short duration.

But then the other question is whether you can use Hex Strike (a Swift Action) on a successful Attack of Opportunity?

Well, only during your turn...

On hexes in regards to sylvan trickster, I would be interested in your material since I am presently playing one.

Here you go:

Sadly, neither the Hexcrafter or Sylvan Trickster has the "hex class feature" that Hex Strike requires. I believe only the witch herself has that.

Going beyond what the others said, we actually have something official on the topic: This FAQ sets a clear precedence that a class feature with a different name still counts for a feat if the mechanics match/reference what's asked for. A necromancy school wizard's respective ability is called "Power over Undead", and yet the FAQ explicitly says you can apply the effects of Extra Channel which has prereqs of "channel energy class feature" to it.

I have a full list of ratings and comments for hexes in regards to a Sylvan Trickster, if you like.

I grok do u wrote:

There are a few PrCs that advance features such as Hex and Patron Spells like Evangelist and Winter Witch.

...But a Mystic Theurge, say, would be SOL?

Any ways to circumvent this?

Nope. It was a deliberate design goal of PF to give base classes good enough features to make prestige classes a subpar option outside of specific niches.

In the Witch's case, any prestige class that doesn't advance hexes is virtually unusable.

For patrons only you can somewhat get around by picking a patron that has the good spells at low level, e.g. Time which has Silence at 4th and Haste at 6th, but lacks good higher level spells outside of Time Stop at 18th.

IIRC, it was better/worse than that: It granted an extra Standard action, which you could trade for a move (or not).

In effect, yes. In 3.0, a standard action allowed both a move and an attack/spell/etc. (a full-round action would omit the move portion). Haste granted an extra "partial action", which is basically a PF standard action, so a 3.0 Hastened caster could indeed cast two spells (or use the partial action to move or partial charge and then make a full attack with the regular standard action turned full-round action).

Unfortunately, using evil spells to animate or create undead is an evil act.

Rule quote on this please.

You are infusing evil elemental spirits into the corpses to animate them.

Huh? Is that actually said somewhere?

The casting aligned spells may be optional, but I seem to remember that creating undead is an evil act. I think back in the days when developers actually participated in the 1E boards they made that clear.

Well, if they wanted to make that a rule, they could have made that a rule. Honestly, if it's not a rule, it's not "made clear".

is there any ability ,feat or class that can help you not lose your alignment due to casting evil spells Ex; a wizard casting animated dead but if he keeps casting it he will lose alignment !.like how to prevent the alignment change ???

Have you talked to your GM?

Enlarge Person is transmutation school, but is not under polymorph subschool

The last sentence of the rule quote is the one that actually applies here, "In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell." You simply cannot enlarge a polymorphed target.

While it can be assumed that he gores with his bite, there is no text saying what it uses to gore.

It's a boar. It gores with its tusks. With no game term definition, we fall back to the regular meaning of the English word, and for "gore", that's "to wound a person or another animal with a horn or tusk".

There is a piece of the template that implies that it gets a bite attack:

[...]
but 0 support for a rule that says that the wereboar gets to use both simultaneously.

The lycantropy template does not grant a bite if the animal doesnt have a bite. The bite in this stat block comes from the Animal Fury rage power that the wereboar has.

The rules say "you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack" (CRB pg. 182). A bite would be made with different teeth than the gore (it's not as if real life boars can't bite something).
Where does one body part end and another begin?

The unwritten rule seems to be that you can make 1 attack (or iterative attack) for each limb you possess.

This FAQ[/b], when making a (non-exclusive) list of body parts, has both fist and elbow. This tells us a body part is not an entire limb, but a smaller portion.

The FAQ that is being referred to is this one.

Half-Orc--Toothy: Does this alternate racial trait stack with the Razortusk feat (page 168) granting you two bite attacks?

This is one of those areas where we tried to get at the same idea multiple ways. In this case, the answer is no, unless you somehow manage to get an extra mouth. Generally speaking, natural weapons can only be used once per round each. This also applies to the Animal Fury barbarian rage power (Core Rulebook, page 32).

Huh, I did not know that FAQ. Thank you!

It's amazing how much they managed to not make a general ruling here, and I'm in awe how the sentence "Generally speaking, natural weapons can only be used once per round each." is able to simultaneously sound on-topic yet not doanything.

Still, it's a "close enough to RAW" on at least that front.

You can use the same body part in some situations, however no monster used the exact same location on the body that I can recall.

I already linked one above, the hybrid form wereboar, which uses teeth for bite and gore.

generally with this kind of thing if there isn't a Rule allowing it, it is not allowed.

The options say you gain natural weapons, and the general rules say "you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack" CRB pg. 182. The problem is that nothing definies where one body part ends. This is really a case where you need a rule to disallow it.

Tell that to spell manifestations which I STILL haven't found actual rules for.

FAQs can change CRB rules. Well, at the very least FAQs on the CRB.

I have to disagree with this. Many of the latter books have rules systems that do limit how the game works.

There are some optional rules that come with restrictions build in, limiting what characters can do if the optional system is used. But no book has the 'authority' to impose general limitations on earlier books.

Like there are traits that state you were bullied growing up or a feat to say you have good powers of perception (alertness).

Ambidexterity is indeed something that would work perfectlyfor a trait... but just like how you can make a character that was bullied without using the trait, a potential Ambidexterity would not be mandatory.

Well, in order for characters to not be (alowed to be) ambidextrous by default, there'd need to be a general rule in the CRB that says so. Feats and traits, etc.) don't make rules, and later books can't actually limit things or impose limitaitons on things that would affect all characters, even those in a CRB only game.

To my knowledge there is absolutely no rules for this. There are official statblocks with creatures having multiple different NAs on the same body part (gore with horn + bite is rather common), and also at least one with bite+gore form the same mouth (hybrid form Wereboar)). Stat blocks don't make rules, of course, and are known to be erroneous.

The closest FAQ I could find references the hypothetical of having x2 Bite Attacks rather than a Bite Attack and a Gore attack or a Claw and Slam attack.

Which oen do you mean? I don't know of any FAQ that actually addresses this. We have the claws vs talons FAQ, but that doesn't actually say you can't have two claws on a single hand.

I mean, the rules are clearly written with the unwritten "common sense means you can't hate the same NA more than once per body part" rule in mind, but nothing actually says this. No one thinks that a human Lesser Abyssal Blood + Lesser Beast Totem Barbarian should get four claws, but RAW?

Where does it say whether your character is right-handed or left-handed? Where does it say your character isn't ambidextrous already?

Mechanically, every character is equally good with all hands. Even something like TWF, which locks a "main-hand" and "off-hand" is only for the current full-attack, you can use the hands the other way around next turn for no penalty.

The bolded line in the Sheillagh description is not about enforcing a special restriction on wielding it, but rather about enforcing a special restriction on who can use it (i.e. only the caster).

I've been thinking about class abilities that are really powerful, so much so that Paizo hardly lets any other archetypes or feats poach them.

You're way overrating this aspect. Not only is this not at all an indication of power, some abilites are or would be less powerful on every classes.

The strongest non-spell-casting class feature is Eidolon, nothing even comes close.
I'd actually put Witch hexes as second strongest, but unlike Eidolon, you can't make them work at full power on every character. Hexcrafter Magus and Sylvan Trickster Rogue are martials, they neither have a maxed out Int, nor can they afford to spend most of their actions in combat on using hexes. Well, they can, and are actually fairly strong doing so, but at that point you could just play a Witch. Divine Scourge Cleric only gets a limited list of hexes, and Oracle an only grab one Witch hex, which severely reduces the impact.

Also very high on the list is the Summon Monster SLA, various Wild Shape variations (shoutout to the Weretouched Shifter version), and Ki Powers (invisibility, walk-through-walls, and flight at 4th level anyone?).

There are no "extra vigilante talent" feats out there, and the only archetypes of other classes I know of that can access them can get one specific talent. Paizo really limits access to them, and for a reason: just one talent can contain the equivalent of 2-4 feats, and abilities that are found practically nowhere else in the game.

Vigilante Talents are weaker than similar class's selectable class features (Rage Powers, Ki Powers, etc.). Being stronger than feats is totally normal (that Rogue Talents aren't is one of the class's main issues, actually), it's just that most of them are significantly different from what you can get from feats and thus you can't take Extra X with every feat lest you end up to unbalanced. VTs beign often nothing but a feat with some added benefit meansyou don't have that issue, and thus players would be much more likely to take Extra VT with every feat slot - which would be a critical design error.

For my two cents I'd just like to add Opportune Parry and Riposte. One of my personal favorite examples of "the best defense is a good offense". Pump up your attack and Charisma (and Intelligence if you're going Inspired Blade) and suddenly when it really matters nothing can hit you. As far as I'm aware there aren't ways for other classes to get this, though I could be wrong about that.

Magus can get it, and via VMC Monk can get it with stronger pool recovery. Of course, such a Monk would usually rather spam Accurate Strike and make all their many, many attacks against touch AC, even when the enemy was across the room.

My whole point is that looking only at combat for the rogue ignores what the class is really about. You want to make sure you can contribute in a meaningful way, but trying to match the dedicated martial is a mistake.

Yeah, I got that. But my point was that a couple of skill points and an increased ability score (that the Rogue doesn't otherwise profit from) doesn't give the group any reason to take the Rogue along, as others can easily provide that, too. Therefore, every Rogue (and every other character, for that matter) should strive to contribute to combat in a meaningful way.

Sure, you won't match the Barb in damage done in a vanilla fight. But what if the enemy is flying? The Barb is probably reduced to throwing javelins or something, while the Sylvan Trickster activates the Flight Hex and is suddenly miles ahead in damage done!
My point: Don't be satisfied with being bad in combat just because you have more skill points and class skills than most. Find a way to overcome the class's shortcomings!

If the cleric in the party is dead but had a scroll of raise dead, would you rather have a barbarian that deals massive damage, or a CHA based rogue with maxed out UMD in the party?

I'd rather have a Bloodrager with massive damage and maxed-out UMD... of course, with the massive damage from the Barbarian, the enemy that kiled the Cleric probably would have died first.

In what universe is a Rogue cha-based, though?

Also house ruling that Aspect of the beast stacks with Imp Natural attack and cat folk examplar (for 1d8 damage).

That's not really helpful. Each of those is +1 average damage per attack, that is not worth the price of a feat. Especially for the class with the highest bonus damage in the game.

Even then though I'm not sure it's viable when my party will be getting (hypothetically) three or four iterative attacks

It's not just the number of attacks that's the issue, but the Rogue's general weaknesses. No pounce, no flight, low attack roll bonus, low fort save, low will save, d8 HD with no defensive boosts, no in-class means to ensure sneak attacking is possible...

My recommendation: Take the Sylvan Trickster archetype, which lets you select Witch hexes. The Flight hex grants you, well, flight, and can help you flank with Press to the Wall. Greater Gift of Consumption grants you to all but immunity to fort-save effects. And especially for your build important, Animal Skin allows polymorphing into an animal, and conveniently cats grant pounce, and hey, you've already selected claws for dex-to-damage, so you can select bite with your 11th level Finesse Training and have 3 attacks at full BAB with dex-to-damage. Other notable options are Murksight if you can get your hands on a Saltspray Ring, and Hag's Eye to be actually good at scouting for once.

True that. But do you really think this is the only rule they're wrong on?

'No you don't get more attacks as you level. Oh the number behind your BAB at lv 6? Yeah that just means you can choose to make your attack at BAB +1 or BAB +6. Like if you want to deal less damage with power attack'

This is actually closer to the truth than you may think. It is the case that nothing says the numbers after the slashes in the BAB entries are for iterative attacks. Which is actually problematic because because iterative attacks from BAB are in the rules... but the penalty isn't. At all!

It just makes no logical sense to me.

Your GM is either an idiot, or a cowardly jerk.

What does your GM say the line "which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she’s using to cast the spell" means, if not what it says?

A warpriest's sacred weapon, a magus's arcane pool, even other standard action abilities like a paladin's divine bond all have one thing in common: the abilities that can be added to the weapon come from a fixed, limited list for that class. Warrior Spirit is "add any weapon ability."

It's not unique, though - Occultist's Transmutation School Implement can also add any enchantment.

Isn't melee DPR for Dex builds based more around # of attacks/round and add-ons like Sneak Attack though?

It's not directly about dex, it's about limiting weapons. Strength-based builds with two-handed weapons have a high base damage from the weapon, Str, and PA. You can't have too much bonus damage or to many bonus attacks with that without it becoming imbalanced. Thus, such options need to limit what weapon they can be used with, and many of those options coincide with 'finessability'.

There are str-based builds with high damage bonus (e.g. Jabbing Style) and high number of attacks (e.g. natural weapons, Monks).

If you are building a DPR monk you probably want to go with Dragon Style and take Power Attack.

No, if you want to build a (good) DPR cMonk, you go Pummeling Style. Power Attack is not actually good for cMonk. And by the way, Dragon Style is actually the one unMonk build where you don't want Power Attack (not counting Jabbing Style which doesn't want it but has to take it).

Trench Fighter Fighters are not actually proficient with Firearms in most campaigns.

Important point, but this does not mean Gunslinger 5 was superior - a single level of Gunslinger fixes the proficiency. Gunslinger 1/Trench Fighter 3 does basically the same as Gunslinger 5, at one fewer levels.

Multiclassing for 3 levels delays the other gunslinger class features.

The what now?

Not sure about wildshape allowing you to breathe air when you take an aquatic form by RAW

RAW, it does. "If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing." CRB pg. 212 That's the only rule on the topic. It says "maintain" (i.e. keep something you already have), and no rule says you lose the ability to breath air.

It makes no sense, of course, as how to breathe is a feature of the body, and thus should be dictated by the body. Not by what your pre-polymorphed body was or that your mind knows how to breath air.

Snake, Constrictor Snake Melee bite +5 (1d4+4 plus grab)

Dire Tiger Melee 2 claws +18 (2d4+8 plus grab), bite +18 (2d6+8/19-20 plus grab)

Hm, three chances to grab at or one... damn, tough decision!

I should have been more specific (my bad!), but the point still stands. The stock standard large combat form is way better than any snake when it comes to grappling.

Too many people overlook the power of smaller forms.

Too many people overlook post dates.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with this thread. This is a rule question thread, not a general advice thread on overlooked uses of Wild Shape.

Snakes make good battlefield control with Venom, or by grappling someone and constricting for damage.

Poison is too slow to be good in most battles, and snakes are not good at grappling at all. I you want to grapple, you want something with the Grab ability.

That seems like a completely arbitrary judgement.

Not arbitrary at all. If it is ruletext, it has to have an effect on the game, otherwise, it does not fit the definition of rule text. So what does it change?

The Unarmed attack rules on pg 182 of the CRB says "Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon". This defines what unarmed attacks are. Then later the "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" rules say this: "A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed".
A touch attack is not a punch, kick, or headbutt, and thus isn't classified as a unarmed attack in the first place. A natural attack is not a punch, kick, or headbutt, and thus isn't classified as a unarmed attack in the first place. The rule that says "Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack" does not apply to either because they aren't classified as unarmed attacks to begin with, no "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section required.
A Monk or character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat don't provoke AoOs because IUS says "you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed.", no "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section required.

The last line of this rule subsection says "Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)." But IUS says "You are considered to be armed even when unarmed" which already overrides the rule that makes you not be able to make AOOs with unarmed strikes ("If you’re unarmed, you don’t normally threaten any squares and thus can’t make attacks of opportunity." CRB pg. 180, the AoO rules), no "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section required.

It's not like the 'basic description' of a feat, or the description of a race. It's right there in the combat section of the rulebook amidst rules that are clearly meant to be followed.

Take Vital Strike as an example: It says "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus". But the attack action description already says "Making an attack is a standard action.", and nothing says the BAB is reduced for it, thus the "you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus" in the Vital Striek rule text does not change anything.

I could list countless other instances. Like how bonus feats say "These bonus feats are in addition to the feats that a character of any class gets from advancing levels." (this one's form the Wizard) - that text completely superfluous because a bonus feat is in addition to others per definition of the word "bonus".

There are even more extreme examples where we outright need to ignore text if we go otuside of the (overly narrow) parameters the author assumed. The Animal Fury rage power says "If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at the barbarian’s full base attack bonus –5." This is clearly meant to remind you that natural attack in combination with weapon attacks make the former secondary attacks which come with a -5 penalty, and is not meant to impose a penalty when you make the bite as part of a full attack consisting of only natural attacks. It makes no sense to view the text I quoted as rule text rather than mere reminder text that does not change things.

I haven't found any clear examples where the terms "unarmed attacks" and "unarmed strikes" are used in a way that contradicts one being a subset of the other.

There's text in the cMonk description that says "unarmed attack" where it very clearly refers to unarmed strike only ("A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks"), although that was copied from DnD 3.5.

What you same seems to make sense, I'll have to look if that has any unwanted consequences.

The reason I saw a gray area in this particular scenario is because of the wording under unarmed attacks; It seems to omit characters that are both armed and making unarmed attacks except for those specifically mentioned as "Armed" unarmed attacks. The section highlighted suggests that being armed includes one in the category of making "armed" unarmed attacks, which don't provoke. A natural weapon puts you into that category whether you use it or not, no?

In short, the "“Armed” Unarmed Attacks" section is not ruletext, it has literally no effect on the game. It exists only to prevent people from wrongly believing "unarmed strikes provoke, and touch spells don't use a weapon just like unarmed strikes, so the attack must provoke, too!".

Basically, the relevant rules are these:

1) Unarmed strikes provoke AoOs and can't be used to make AoOs.
2) You are considered "Unarmed" for the sake of the Catch Off-Guard feat if you don't currently possess a means to make AoO.

That's it.
To my knowledge, the state or armedness being check is only ever done by Catch Off-Guard and nothing else. Only the actual "unarmed strike" option counts as such, nothing else (no natural attacks, no touch spells). The game consistently fails to make a distinction between "unarmed strike" and "unarmed attack", but when you folow the above, you can simply treat them as the same.

2) The character is an Occultist and wishes to know whether to apply Legacy Weapon or Aegis (Effectively a weapon enhancement bonus or armor enhancement bonus) particularly for use with the Shielded Gauntlet Master feat, which uses this enhancement bonus for extra shield AC.

That is actually a very complicated matter... because a gauntlet isn't actually a weapon. Even if it is, you don't attack with it, and you attack with an unarmed strike, and nothing says you apply the gauntlet's enhancement bonus to the US.

I already pointed out that you could try to argue the "a", but that's really pretty flimsy.

"a tail slap attack" is singular, there's nothing flimy or language bending about that. What's flimsy is seeing "You can make a tail slap attack with your tail." and trying to argue that for multiple tails this means multiple tail slaps. That's simply not how the rules work.

I'm more curious if this uses anything other than the natural attack rules.

Oh, wait, I didn't actually talk about that part...

The text about "augment his natural attack" appears to be flavor text/explanatory text, and the actual rule text says "Tail attachments are light weapons".* Thus, they behave like other manufactured weapons.
This also clears up any doubts about how many attacks you get, because having more than two manufactured weapons never grants additional attacks.

*) Tail attachments are light weapons and can be improved by feats that can improve weapon attacks (such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization). All kobold tail attachments make up a kobold tail attachment weapon group that can be improved by the fighter’s weapon training class ability. Tail attachments can be constructed of special material and made into masterwork or magic items. ARG pg. 135

1) is there a good rules reason that all 9 tails cannot use a tail weapon

You can wear a kobold tail attachment on all nine tails, but it doesn't do anything.
"A kobold with the Tail Terror feat (see below) can slip this device over the tip of his tail to augment his natural attack." Note that it says "augment", meaning it doesn't grant an attack. The only thing in your build that grants a natural attack with a tail is the Tail Terror feat, which says "You can make a tail slap attack with your tail." "a" is singular, meaning the feat only ever grants one natural attack. The feat doesn't make any mention of picking a tail, so you could wear different tail attachments and pick which one to use, but that's it.

3) how would the tail weapons work with change shape? Would they be absorbed into your body until shapeshifting back to kitsune?

Depends on what you turn into. In any case, you won't get any extra attacks (and if the form doesn't have a tail you can't use tail attachments at all).

My thoughts are change shape being used to smuggle weapons into secure areas by keeping them small and melded into your body. No search check would find them

It works, but only when turning into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical

The feat Multiweapon Fighting is what you need.

It does absolutely nothing here. Well, it does nothing for 99.99% of PCs, so no surprise there. If you want to use it on a PC, it actually reduces the number of attacks you can make...

As I pointed out earlier two weapon fighting does not remove the penalty for more than the first extra attack, and it is questionable if the character can take Multiweapon Fighting. That part of the build is a lot more questionable.

Two-Weapon Fighting only works with exactly two weapons, and there simply is no similar option for more weapons. A Kitsune doesn't qualify because the feat requires three actual hands, but even if the character had those and thus would qualify, it just never, ever helps.

Honestly, remove the feat form your mind. It is a relic of DnD 3.5 that got broken with the conversion to PF, and is useless for PCs.

The Advanced Player's Guide table of feats explicitly says that the benefits of Elemental Fist only apply to unarmed strikes. The expanded feat description omits that specific limitation, but it is in the book.

The same thing happened to Pummeling Style, the table says "Pool all unarmed strikes into a single powerful blow" but the full description made no mention of unarmed strikes... something that was FAQ'd and later errata'd. FAQs don't technically carry over, but this one sets a very clear precedent.

It cannot be referring to the Elemental Strike feat, since Elemental Fist is in Advanced Player's Guide (released August 2010) and Elemental Strike is in Inner Sea Races (released September 2015).

In general, if a book references something from another non-CRB book, it indicates so with a superscript abbreviation.

I have a question regarding quick draw. It doesn't specify weather the weapon has to be on you specifically. Could you draw the weapon as a free action if it's attached to your mount while riding it?

This isn't actually a Quickdraw question, but rather a question about drawing weapons in general.

"Draw or Sheathe a Weapon
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item."
CRB pg. 185

It doesn't count every thing a monk can strike with.

This FAQ (which is newer than the posts in this thread) says otherwise: "a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes."

Unless I misunderstood you... yoru post wasn't exactly clear.

That you try to use a Griffon, a magical beast, as an example of a rule regarding creatures of the animal type, shows that you do not understand the rules. I have tried to explain them, but I recognize not desire on your part to actually learn. Therefor, I will not further respond here.

Darklord, I never said that the handle animal skill ceases to work just because you could verbally instruct your animal companion once it is intelligent and has the ability to understand your language (which is now prohibited according to Ultimate Campaign, even though having an animal companion that is intelligent and can understand your language is not, an odd state of affairs, to be sure).

You're operating under the believe that as per the CRB only, the Handle Animal skill serves the sole purpose of communicationg your wishes to the animal. This is not the case! An animal's behaviour is primarily dictated by it's nature. You need the skill to make an animal go against it's nature, and this nature exists whether it has Int 2, Int 3, of Int 15.

And sure, the CRB doesn't explicitly state the above... but it implies it, by not limiting the Handle Animal rules to low-int animals, and by making Speak with Animals spell making no mention of making the Handle Animal skill unnecessary. Ultimate Campaign does not change the rules, it only prevents people from misunderstanding them.

I think it would make better sense to just make the

Crit range 18-20 the same as a natural 20.
" Oh you rolled a 18, that's the same as a natural 20,
roll confirmation." Because, really why wouldn't it.

Because high crit range weapons are already better in practise than high crit damage weapon even at same theoretical average, so you're making the game balance worse for no benefit.

A critical hit is about the double (or higher) damage. A natural 20 is about the guaranteed success.

Since virtual size increases don't stack, the "as if it were one size category larger than it actually is" is not mere explanatory text but actually relevant rule text, and thus must be heeded. This means "A weapon that bears this rune multiplies its hit points by 2, as if it were one size category larger than it actually is." produces an invalid result when applied to something that doesn't double HP by being one size larger, and thus no HP increase happens.

Indeed, the "by 2" is actually reminder text (and thus not part of the RAW), as you could remove it without changing the effect.

zza ni wrote:

{casting Rune of Durability:T3 on a creature to increase HPs}

no, that doesn't work. The spell targets manufactured weapons.

The spell has the exact same target line as Magic Weapon, which explicitly says that it works on a Monk's unarmed strike (based on the Monk ability, not a specific aspect of the spell). This means that without any doubt Rune of Duarbility can be cast on a Monk's or Brawlers unarmed strike.

Exploring the manor sounds like the only logical thing to do. Everything you need (food, water, equipment, information, safety) is more likely to be found indoors than out in the unknown woods.

As you can see, it's all about grappling your opponent.

I think you already gave yourself the solution: It's already there, in the grappling rules.

I have the Martial Arts Handbook, the Advanced Player's Guide, and Ultimate Combat, but I wanted a European Martial Art for my Eberron Campaign.

Honestly? No such thing. Real unarmed combat isn't fancy or uses complicated moves, it's mainly kicking, punching, and grappling - and this unarmed combat is universal.

Indeed, the Monk class isn't really an eastern martial artist - the ki stuff is firmly based in east asian culture and folklore, but the fighting itself isn't. Your run-of-the-mill Pathfinder Monk uses punches, kicks, and elbow slams, all of which are geographically universal moves.

I'm not really sure what exactly you're for looking here. The Brawler is basically the "european Monk equivalent", and if you want inspiration for a Monk without east-asian flavor, the Martial Artist archetype could serve as an alternative blueprint (just be aware that it's weak).

in fact, it's not so much that he can worship her that questions me. I saw that there was the auspicious companion animal companion archetype which allows him to use a level 1 domain power of the chosen deity. therefore, if this archetype exists, by deduction I conclude that nothing prevents an animal companion with 1 intelligence of 3 from being able to take the beneficent gift of the believer which grants the same power as the auspicious archetype companion.

Pathfinder religion doesn't work like real life religion. The gods are real and they can and do impact mortals in a scientifically measurable way. A deity can bestow power to someone who isn't capable of understanding where the power comes from.

I... why does Paizo do these things? Ultimate Campaign is just casually adding new restrictions to Pathfinder Core rules.

It does no such thing. There is nothing in the CRB that says Handle Animal only applies to int 1 or 2 animals, and therefore it applies to all animals regardless of intelligence unless otherwise specified. The line in UCam does not change the rules, it merely points out something in them that GMs/players might not have realized.

According to the Pathfinder Core rules, anything with 3 intelligence that can understand you is a valid target to use the Diplomacy skill upon in order to request specific forms of aid.

That it does. What it doesn't say is that the recipente is able to provide the "specific forms of aid" you request.

To be honest, these rules run into issues once you deal with Beast Speaker and Monstrous Mount feats that let you have animal companions that are magical beasts that start with 5 or 7 int.

Which rules? The Handle Animal rules simply don't apply because they (again) work for animals. A magical beast that serves as an animal companion is still not an animal when it comes to rules.

"It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC."

In Pathfinder rules, cursive indicates a spell name. That means the only thin affected by that line in the Shield spell description is the spell "magic missile" and things that explicitly imitate/function as the spell.

I'm trying to think of how to figure out the penalties

The penalty is only having one hand. No two-handed weapons, no casting while holding a rod, stuff like that.

But that's should be it, barring situational stuff like lifting something where you absolutely can only use your hands.

This may be an almost negligible penalty or a huge hinderance, depending on the class. But that's fine, finding ways to compensate is what people with such disabilities have to do. An unarmed strike using Monk for example would work virtually unhampered, polymorphing can "regrow" the arm for a limited time, fleshcrafting could help, archetypes like the one Melkiador linked...

what sort of tools they could have to make up for the missing hand (like could they have a clamp or some such to grab on to a weapon?).

Not without magic of pseudomagic. Effectively using a weapon requires way more than just holding it, with the possible exception of some projectile weapons.

the only difference is that the alchemist (or mutant warrior in my case) can not attack with the 4 armes more times each round then a 2 handed person with the same build can. and a kasata can.

Absolutely not. There is no rule in the game that allows a kasatha (or any other creature with more than two hands) to make more attacks with manufactured weapons than other characters. The only rule that allows bonus attacks due to the number of manufactured weapons is the "two-weapon fighting" option on pg. 212 of the CRB, and there is no "three-weapon fighting", "four-weapon fighting" or similar rule option. The rule that 3.5 had was removed for Pathfinder.

And becasue it gets brought up every single f%&@ing time: No, the Multiweapon Fighting feat does not change that. It's effect only reduces penalties and doesn't even mention "attack", and the normal section is not rule text becasue no normal section ever is, as is described in the feat rules.
Also, no, stat blocks do not make rules, so don't even bother posing a creature that attacks with four weapons or something.

that bolded part about two weapons and a claw (as i mentioned above) was in the first part of the faq that DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE EXTRA ARM DICOVERY AT ALL. it also didn't say anything about 2 attacks and a claw but 2 attacks and a tentacle, because it first talked about the tentacle discovery, which like the extra arm is limiting the amount of attacks the alchemist make.

"At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round.
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs"

Do you not read this? The FAQ does mention claws, and does so in the paragraph about Vestigial Arm. You are objectively and quite frankly obviously wrong.

In my games, flying/levitating enemies (which in e.g. caves can't go any higher), and enemies on ledges, walls, cliffs etc., exist.