But a normal precedent for all growing, evolving languages. The true horrid precedent is the addition of "Twerk" to the dictionary.. :(
so, for 10x the cost you gain one other gauntlet and an extra 8 lbs of weight to carry around, and do an average of 1 point more damage?
I think that I would rather just spend 10 GP and buy two spiked gauntlets and just punch people with them if I am in grapple. Heck, spend 10 GP (for a total of 20 GP, still 30 GP less then the armor spikes) and get a barbed vest for that extra 1 point of damage from time to time.
I did state that these where the games I played in and have run. Each gaming group has a different treatment for alignment. Personal preference and all. These personal preferences are why any discussion on alignment on these boards gets so heated if allowed to go on for any real length of time.
I do not mind the flexibility, but I also expect my character choices and actions to have consequences/benefits in both the populous and with divine powers. A character who does evil acts (in according to the views of the deities), will gain the attention of the deities whose portfolios the acts fall in.
In the worlds I have created, monks come from temples/sects and have their own rules that go along with that sect. To play a monk, you must choose which temple trained you, and your powers go with their rules. At high level, if you want to create your own temple as a character "retirement" I expect you to write up the rules that the temple follows, and it will be available to future monks. Also, not all temples have the same alignment requirements, and I tweak some of the rules of the monks to show this (effectively they are all arch-types). If a monk comes from a chaotic based temple, the ki strike goes chaotic instead of lawful for example. I do similar things with other classes, as that is the type of world that I chose to create/run as a GM.
But this is thread is not really about alignment in general, but the effects of removing alignment restrictions from a class. From what I can see, the restrictions are mostly flavor, and if you are going to remove them, go for it, as long as it fits the game style and world flavor you want to run.
The worlds that I have created and run, the PF default world, and many I have played in, all call for "active deities". In these style worlds, Alignment is not a fuzzy line, but a fairly hard line. Your characters alignment dictates what is going to happen to them after death, and how the divine powers treat you. Taking this into account, in worlds like this, a deity would be perfectly within character to deny power to a cleric if they do not match up fairly closely to the alignment of the power (for example the "one step off" rule in PF). Your following of the religion is not based off of your interpretation of the texts, but the deity's. Much harder to cherry-pick then.
This all has very little to do with mechanical balance, and a lot to do with how you want your world to feel/be.
For the most part, this same attitude has gone into creating the base classes. The developer team has had visions on how they want that class to be perceived/played as default, and build some of the RP in accordingly.
I am all for logical changes to the rules depending on the world you want to run and the fun of your gaming group. As long as they are consistent.
At least they dropped the illiterate restrictions on Barbarians. That one always drove me nuts and was ignored often.
the alignement restrictions for classes are mostly flavor and role playing. For monks it is to represent that it takes a lot of discipline to work at perfecting yourself.
they are not really mechanically important. But they are important for the flavor of the class and world. If you as a GM want to allow non Lawfull monks, then go ahead.
BTW, MrSin (just to play devils advocate), would you allow a Chaotic Evil cleric of a good deity? After all, more options are good..
Since Death's kiss is a supernatural ability and not a spell-like or spell, could you do the following:
round 1: Cast an inflict spell and hold the charge.
round 2: use Death's kiss and hit them with the held inflict spell as part of the touch for death's kiss?
I guess then it would be up to the GM to decide which goes off first, the touch for the SU or the touch for the held spell.
From the Core book in combat under Nonlethal damage:
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
gauntlets are weapons that do lethal damage, thus you can do non-lethal damage with them, at a -4 to hit.
You can, of course, also attack without the gauntlets (kick them for example), and do nonlethal, but you would gain none of the benefits that you may have on the gauntlets (for example magic enhancements, etc) or feats that require the gauntlets (improved critical - gauntlets).
Panicked: Characters who are panicked are shaken, and they run away from the source of their fear as quickly as they can, dropping whatever they are holding. Other than running away from the source, their paths are random. They flee from all other dangers that confront them rather than facing those dangers. Once they are out of sight (or hearing) of any source of danger, they can act as they want. Panicked characters cower if they are prevented from fleeing.
He must flee in a random direction away from the source (yeth hounds), try to avoid all dangers, and if they are unable to flee they cower.
to me, if the cleric successfully blocked the fighter, and the fighter had no where else to go, the fighter would cower.
I agree that there are ambiguous readings for the RAW here. I tagged it for a FAQ myself.
Part of the reasoning for how I read it is the lack of the wording "except as follows".
If it read "Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell except as follows." or something similar it would call out that they are changing how the spell normally works. Instead it goes on with "A paladin can, as a move action," which, for me at least, calls it out as a separate activation style from a normal spell like ability.
As I said though, I can see that the RAw can be read many ways. Before now I never questioned mine. I do hope that they can chuck us a quick little FAQ on the RAI for it.
Dropping an item is a free action:
Dropping prone is a free action
So, it is a move action and one, possibly 2 if they have to drop prone, free actions.
Wynd Sister wrote:
While the authors unfortunately forgot to include the words "melee weapon" in the TWF feat description, they did say weapons must "wielded in each hand," not thrown. I do not believe TWF applies to non-melee weapons.
The basic TWF feat only lowers the penalty when trying to get an extra attack.
From the core book:
Victor Zajic wrote:
My favorite is Cloudkill and one of the create pit spells. Since Cloudkill sinks into the pit it makes it "fun" to climb out of. Plus, when the pit spell ends, it ejects the cloud kill onto the people trying to help the poor sap out.
Since a medium Greatsword does 2d6 and a large one does 3d6 I would be tempted to follow the chart in the monster feat "improved natural attack" which is this:
This would put a huge greatsword @ 4d6. The rest of the chart follows the right pattern.
I love it when people put real world stuff into games.
1 acre of wheat (per averages I found on-line, may be wrong) takes about 15 acre/inches of water
This gives us about 1116 Gallons per day (365 days a year) to grow wheat on average. At a book cost of 5 gp per 2 gallons (standard spell casting cost from the core book for a 0 level spell by a 1st level caster) this would cost 2790 GP per day / acre to water.
How much does it cost to dig a well?
Or the 5gp per 2 peoples worth of drinking water (1 gallon a day for hard working people). A poor standard of living per the core book is 3 gp/ month. That water is suddenly very expensive. Much cheaper to either buy a Decanter of Endless Water, or dig a well.
I disagree with people saying that it was intentional. I think that it was just a typo.
I say this since devourer, ghost, Shadows, greater Shadows, lich, mohrg, mummy, skeleton, skeletal champion, vampire, wight, wraith, and zombie all have the "Immune undead traits" listed under defense.
Ghouls and Spectres are both missing it even though I believe that they should also have it.
It is assumed that the grappler is intentional doing things to mess up the spell. So, while it only is verbal, it still takes concentration, so, while you are casting it, they are twisting your arm, jerking you around, and generally messing up your concentration. The better their CMB, the more skilled they are at fouling you up. In a world full of magic and casters, that is probably part of fighter 101.
The term "free action" is used liberally in the books. Everything from dropping a weapon, to the monster ability rock catching. Sometimes it appears to be an action that you can only take on your turn, sometimes it is a reactive action that you take out of turn, sometimes it is grey on where it falls in a turn.
Unless otherwise stated in the ability (for example speaking), is a free action restricted to being taken only on your turn?
Nothing in his statement said that the table was in error for the unarmed strikes, only that gauntlets should not be there.
As for the natural weapons, your rulling of melee weapons only stops all animals or creatures armed with only natural weapons from doing CdG's per RAW.
If you check the FAQ, you see comments like this:
For example, you can trip with a longsword or an unarmed strike, even though those weapons don't have the trip special feature. linkage
this also implies that the dev team think that the unarmed strike is a weapon.
Also, form the equipment section:
Since you can CdG with a light weapon, and an unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon, you can CdG with an unarmed strike per the RAW.
Also, nothing in the books states that Natural attacks are melee weapon attacks (or even considered them for any purpose).
It is, at least, still allowed to ready an action to set the tower shield to provide total cover vs the archer once they fire. That way you can stop all the arrows that they fire with no chance of failure.
Glad that the rules let me move a 45 lb giant wooden shield in place to block the arrow while it was in flight. Also works to block bullets! Per the RAW, I can say "I am readying my action so that as soon as he fires, I will set my tower shield to provide total cover from him, thus stopping the bullet." That must be the fastest tower shield in the land!
It is listed as a simple weapon in the tables, this causes it to be craft-able with a craft skill check DC of 12. Since it is craft-able, you should be able to craft a masterwork version of it.
Personally I think that unarmed strikes should be removed from the "simple weapons" section of the table, it would clear up a lot of questions.
Bardic Dave wrote:
Just for grins:
Unarmed strike is listed in the equipment section along with the rest of the weapons on the table. Pure RAW, there is nothing stating that you cannot have MW unarmed strikes.
Sure, it has a value of -, but then again, so does a club, quarterstaff, and sling, and there is nothing stopping you from making masterwork versions of those. All weapons can have a masterwork version (even if there is not one listed in the rule book).
Can you show me where unarmed strike cannot be masterwork like any other weapon?
So, skipping the parts on DC's, lets see what the book says:
Assuming that you have no ranks in the skills
Bluff: You character is almost incapable of telling a lie. Not that you have to tell the truth, but you are unable to fool anyone with a lie (unless you have ranks in bluff, but even then, you are going to be pretty bad at it).
Diplomacy: you would have the misfortune of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time or are not very good at speaking to people. You may stutter, or get strong "stage fright".
Handle Animal: Animals are going to react badly to you. And punching that horse may not be the best way to get it to calm down.
Intimidate: you are going to have a hard time scaring people. If you go back to that stutter, think of the movie "A fish called Wanda". "I am going to k-k-k-k-k-k-k-kill you" just is not that threatening. This also goes back to the bluff. Your threats are just not very convincing.
Perform: I would not even try.. :P
Disguise: I am not sure how to rule this one.
this is the way that I have worked out how to RP low stats in the past. By taking a look at what skills are effected and playing those up.
Only if the desk or refrigerator are 5'x5' otherwise you could stand in the same square as the desk with no problem..
Here, tape some 5' squares onto the floor, put a stick in one, now stand in the other and pick up the stick. Now try that for the stick being in any location in the square. I think that you will find it easier and less awkward (man, that is an awkward word!) to step into the square and pick it up. Unless you have really long arms (10' reach).
Just a question about the Hold Person spell. I know it says that it affects humanoids but does that cover monsterous humanoids also? Would say a bugbear, goblin, lizardman all be effected or would you need hold monster for that?
Easy way to answer that is to take a look at the bugbear for example:
Hold person would effect it, as the type is humanoid.
If you check in the Bestiary , it gives a list of monsters by type:
Humanoid: boggard, bugbear, cloud giant, cyclops, dark creeper, dark stalker, derro, drow, drow noble, duergar, ettin, fire giant, frost giant, gnoll, goblin, hill giant, hobgoblin, kobold, lizardfolk, merfolk, ogre, orc, stone giant, storm giant, svirfneblin, tengu, troglodyte, troll, wererat, werewolf
So hold person would effect any of those. (along with the normal human, half-elf, etc).
Richard Leonhart wrote:
Here is the whole text for the instant fortress:
you can deactivate it with a command word, so it would return to original (assuming that it was empty).
But for Ragwaine. They only have to make a DC 19 reflex save for half?
Also, it is a standard action to use a command word. So the combat would go like this:
round 1: standard action to toss cube (attack action) to their square
That is actually a +2 hammer. It has to be a +1 hammer before they can add the returning power to it. So, that hammer would have an 8000 GP base cost (4000 GP to craft) plus the price of the masterwork hammer. This is out of a 5th level characters 10500gp average wealth per level.
Also, what other weapon on they going to use, as the returning hammer does not return to them until right before their next turn. Unless they have something else in hand, they are unarmed when dealing with AoO, etc until their next turn.
My other favorite line for invisibility is this:
An invisible burning torch still gives off light, as does an invisible object with a light or similar spell cast upon it.
If you have an object that gives off light, and have it out when you are invisible, people are going to be able to see where you are.
Also, while floured/watered/painted you do remain concealed, the flour/water/paint does not. While you could use stealth, the item covering you cannot, and still remains visible. Sure, you are still hard to hit (50% miss chance, I would lessen that chance if you where 100% covered in flour, but that is neigh impossible to do) since you are now being observed, you cannot use the stealth skill.
Since stealth states:
If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.
Want to use stealth and slink away, get that flour/water/paint off of you (great use for a level 0 spell called prestidigitation).
I thought about posting in here with my point, but at this point, I would feel like Luke walking into Mos Eisley. Debate is fine but arguing is not conducive to getting new ideas into the thread.
But here I go anyway:
From a RAW standpoint, even the WBL chart is only suggested guidelines for running an average game. As a GM, you are required to adjust everything for your gaming group to keep the game fun and interesting for everyone. The rules are not written to act like a computer game, but as set of guides for the GM to run a story around. If you want the more computer like gaming rules for pathfinder, that focus on balance without concern for individual GM and group standards, then play PFS, where crafting does not exist. Otherwise, all you can do is work with your GM and either listen to their end rules or move on to find a GM who games the way that you want.
Regardless of what you qualify it as, it means that you really don't need holy weapons to overcome the DR of devils, etc., which in my mind diminishes that aspect of the creature.
You are right, you only need a +5 weapon to bypass alignment based DR, which can only be made by a character with a caster level of 15+, and has a purchase cost of 50,000 gp. Personally, the holy weapon (a minimum cost of 18,000 GP and a CL of only +3, since it can be +1 holy) is a much better deal and easier to get at lower levels..
It only diminishes stuff if you give out +5 weapons before about level 11 (at least in my opinion).
For the perception check thing. Here is the PRD on it (link here. scroll down to "invisibility):
A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something's there” but can't see it or target it accurately with an attack. It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.
That first part A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. states that you can at least notice that there is an active, invisible creature with 30 feet of you.
Then it goes on to state, It's practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature's location with a Perception check. This tells you that you add +20 to that DC to find the square that they are in.
You can check farther then 30 feet out, but then it adds to the DC. From the perception skill info, you would add +1 to the DC per 10 feet.
Per this FAQ it does allow bombs to be considered a weapon for other feats as well:
Plus, there is this line in the Enlarge person spell:
Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.
Since the SU ability acts just like Enlarge person....
For all of you stating that just wielding two weapons triggers the TWF penalties...
Lets change the OPs' situation around a little, without changing how it plays with the rules. Instead of an axe and a scimitar, lets give him a quarterstaff.
How does this change things?
Does he now have to either always attack with the staff as a two handed weapon or take the penalties for it as if two weapon fighting?
I have always treated it as a percentage roll. For example. If the wizard has 5 images (for a total of 6 options), I would just roll a 1d6 and say that on a 1, it hits the wizards, 5-6 hits an image and destroys it.
If there are 5 total for example, you could still roll 1d6 and just reroll 6's.
I am not going by the table but the description of the gauntlet itself:
the PRD wrote:
Also, if you go by the rest of that thread, your table is still wrong.
Wizard Gauntlet strike: Penalty, provokes.
Wizard Gauntlet strike: Penalty, does not provoke.
Since Sean was taking about removing the "unarmed attacks" reference from both Brass knuckles and gauntlets.