Gregg's page

Thank you For your input Greg, I have no counterpoint for anything you presented. The weapon would be intended to be used once at the beginning of a combat. I would also expect the full round and strength check to be used to reset the trap.

Out of curiosity, How would you operate attacks with the weapon, and the various scenarios that could play out with it actually latching to a target?

I think your two attack solution is solid in terms of delivery. Critical hits would be an issue I'd have to think about for a while... like both attacks have to threaten in order to get a confirmation roll (if critical hits are even possible with such a device).

I wouldn't slow a target hit but probably play around with the good ol' -2 circumstantial penalty to attack rolls and/or AC. In my mind the slow effect comes from a severe injury to the leg, not unlike caltrops. I guess even applying a penalty would actually depend on where you hit the target. I'd say any additional effect from a bear-trap-on-a-stick would only really work on extremities. For example: if you just hit the back of your target the flesh would be ripped off (represented by hp loss). The trap's fangs would however probably not remain lodged in the wound but rather cut through the meat.

So, tough call really. In the end you should really just check with your GM and work something out with her/him. It doesn't really matter what I have to say on the topic of houseruling something for your group, especially since I'm not the one having to enforce said rules. The simpler the better should be the motto here.

Hmmm... I'd probably allow it.

I'd require at least a full-round action with a DC 20 Strength check to reset it (including FUN in case the check fails by 5 or more).

I don't mind creative/excentric weapon designs but I would make sure to convey through various means that there is a reason existing weapons are so common. They are proven. There's a good chance I'd design a wear and tear system to reflect the fact that "complex" weapons with moving parts (in a somewhat medieval era setting) are hard to replace and probably not all that reliable compared to say a lance, which basically really is just a pointed stick.

Not saying that bear traps are uncommon, but they're not designed for what you're planning to do.

Protipp: When your wife's in labour, don't keep eyeballing your wristwatch claiming "This shouldn't even take a minute!" if you value your life ^^

Still feel they should've gone with 'parasitic infection' but that's just me.

Anarac wrote:

All,

How often can cows mate? How long are they pregnant?
Thanks,
A

Pregnant isn't a condition in pathfinder...

babies may literally come from storks.

This

I love this homebrew entry considering which classes can cast remove disease o.O

The Will-o-wisp doesn't do unarmed strikes. It says what it does in the stat block which you clearly ignore.
The universal monster rules also make clear that there are exceptions to the universal monster rules for attacks.

By your own point Monster do natural attacks or unarmed strikes. Since the Will-o-wisp doesn't do an unarmed strike by your own definition it must be doing a natural attack.

Well, the only example they provide (dragons) specifically mentions the changes to the natural attack. The giant whiptail centipede's tail whip is also specifically pointed out to differ from the standard rules.

The Will o' Wisp's attack does sorta look like the Vampiric Mist's attack which I'd say isn't a natural attack.

EDIT: Found another one... the Blue Whale's tail slap. My point is if it were a natural attack, there should be a line that clarifies how Shock behaves. The fact that it doesn't, implicates (to me at least) that it is just an (probably (Ex)) ability that is treated like an attack, the effect of which is 2d8 electricity damage.
I guess this only holds up as long as there isn't a counterexample of a bestiary monster which attacks differ from the universal monster rules and aren't pointed out.

The way I understood it was that the mount charges, not the rider. However the rider still gets both the benefits and penalties of charging and is allowed to make an attack additional to the attacks made by the mount.

So I'd say it doesn't stop 1 square away since the mount needs to be adjacent to the target to deliver its attack.

Be that as it may... assuming we're talking a horse occupying 2 squares, you can still deliver attacks with reach weapons since you're considered to be in any one of the two squares.

Hi!

I'm playing around with the idea to include a suicide bomber/human torch in one of the encounters.

The initial idea was to have one dude, preferably a raging orc barbarian, put on a bandolier containing like a dozen of alchemist fires, moving adjacent to the PCs, crash one flask and possibly (or rather likely) have the rest ignite as a chain reaction and do splash damage to the surrounding creatures. If he survives that for some reason, like being the target of a Resist Energy - Fire spell, the now aflame orc would grapple the nearest victim.

Imagine the Hulk charging at you screaming, explode right in front of you, setting you on fire, then putting you in a full nelson while whispering "This is gonna burn..." into your ear.
It's as silly as it is frightening.

Unfortunately my plans are being foiled by the rules. Alchemist's Fire doesn't provoke the catching on fire reflex save or the burning condition (except for the one being hit directly and even that is only for a maximum of one round) and so far I have not found anything covering the whole grappling while on fire issue.

So here are my questions:

1. How does Resist Energy work when multiple instances of damage hit you at the same time? e.g. is it 3d6-10 or (1d6-10)+(1d6-10)+(1d6-10)?

2. Does the Burn monster ability apply to all characters on fire or is that part exclusively reserved for critters with that special ability? I'm looking at that part about hitting a burning creature specifically.

3. How can I still implement my plans with as little magic as possible?