Contract Devil

HectorVivis's page

420 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.



1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brain in a Jar wrote:

Here in the description it clearly mentions that when used as a weapon it is a One Handed, Bludgeoning, Martial Weapon.

None of those qualifiers stop it from being used with two hands to gain 1.5 STR mod.

So unless that text includes a sentence that specifically says it can't be used with two hands, it can regardless of if you like it or not.

The text is not written that way. It's not written "when you shield bash, your shield is a one-handed martial bludgeoning weapon", but "For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon."

There's a difference. By my reading, a shield bash is like a "special attack" you must make with your shield (no joke!), and is calculated as a one-handed attack for feats and such.

I'll repeat it: I'm not against a 2-handed shield bash, it's not game breaking and all, but I'm still not convinced it's RAW.

FAQ ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's another debate. I personally like Vital Strike, even without furious finish. Suboptimal most of the time, but I like it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At work so I can't read earlier posts in this thread, but the medium occupied my mind for an hour already, so I come here.

The fact that the GM take the control seems, IMO, a great idea... But potentially it can be a real pain for some games.

If you have several session to play the same day, it means a player is just out of the game, and it can truly be a pain for GM's too.

I would propose alternatives (to keep it RAW and ease some GM's mind), like being afflicted by a major curse (for the day only ?), a spellblight, or other afflictions.

It let the player be in game, even if it sucks hard, and you don't bother GM's that don't want to lose time/play the character of someone else.

PS: I can't grasp how you can have an unlimited amount of influence, but in fact limited to 4. If there isn't any means to get more than 4 levels of influence, you should block it to 4 IMO. But I must say I hope some spells or items that could augment the influence of spirits, be it for bonus, or because it's a malediction.

Sidenote on auras: I wouldn't give the "aura" class feature, because I feel it is more about embodiments of a deity's dogma. I mean, even the bloody inquisitor doesn't have it (and I feel it's a real shame)!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Strange, I can't find the rule you quote Just a Mort.

PRD wrote:
Demoralize: You can use this skill to cause an opponent to become shaken for a number of rounds. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. If you are successful, the target is shaken for 1 round. This duration increases by 1 round for every 5 by which you beat the DC. You can only threaten an opponent in this way if they are within 30 feet and can clearly see and hear you. Using demoralize on the same creature only extends the duration; it does not create a stronger fear condition.

You just can't increase the fear level with another demoralization, that's all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Splendor wrote:

Yes but any of the 12 ranks I suddenly gained could go into Linguistics and suddenly I speak Ignan! Heck I could suddenly speak 12 new languages!

Do you need to make which ranks came from the stat increase? Because what happens if someone breaks the items? Your INT would drop and you'd lose the ranks (just like a drop in CON drops your max HP).

The headband of intelligence is specifically created with a single skill per +1 modifier. If you remove the item or it is destroyed, you lose those ranks, and the indirect benefices such as languages.

Remember that RAW you could totally apply all your skill ranks from a new level in linguistic, and know a bunch of languages out of nowhere. That's no different. It's even more logic with a magic item: It's magic.

In a way, you can say that their is a change of philosophy from 3.5 to PF:
Your maximum skills are not bound to an event fixed in time (when you level up), but to your current status. When you increase your intelligence, you are able to train back what you could have learn before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did like my Vital-strike oriented barbarian.

I used "Furious Finish" and an "invigorating" weapon.

References:
Ultimate Combat wrote:

Furious Finish

You channel all of your rage into one massive blow to crush your enemy.

Prerequisites: Rage class feature, Vital Strike, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: While raging, when you use the Vital Strike feat, you can choose not to roll your damage dice and instead deal damage equal to the maximum roll possible on those damage dice. If you do, your rage immediately ends, and you are fatigued (even if you would not normally be).

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

Invigorating

Price +2 bonus; Aura faint enchantment; CL 5th; Weight —

This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. After an attack with this weapon drops a living foe (kills it or drops it to negative hit points), the weapon infuses its wielder with vigor. If its wielder is fatigued, the weapon removes the fatigue. If exhausted, the wielder becomes fatigued instead. If neither exhausted nor fatigued, the wielder gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls and a +10 foot enhancement bonus to all modes of movement possessed until the end of the wielder's next turn.

Construction Requirements
Cost +2 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, good hope

I called my style the "Move'n'Splotch!". It's not the most powerful, but you still can enjoy your fight.

Another way of using Vital strike is with a "sniper". You only make standard action to fire, then you roll to stealth with your -20 (or reduced bonus with some races). Pretty funny with a double-hackbut. Rolling 4 to 8d12 is always something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoeJ wrote:

To me, the code is not something that paladins follow because it's required, but because they believe it is the right thing to do. There's never a contradiction between following the code and seeking the greater good; the code is the greater good. This is a matter of faith, not knowledge. A paladin isn't omniscient; it's doesn't matter that she doesn't understand how refusing to answer the monster's question about the delicious child is a better choice than lying. She simply believes that it is.

By this view, a paladin doesn't fall because she committed an act that violated the code, but because she stopped believing that the code is the greater good. If she just doubted in a moment of weakness, well that's what Atonement is for. But if she stops believing that the world will be a better place if she lives according to the code than if she doesn't, then she has definitely fallen.

It's one of the best comment in this thread IMO.

Yeah, a paladin with the Core Code would not lie, because it's not an option.

Some thoughts a paladin could have about lying:
- If I lie, my god won't be able to help the poor child.
- A lie is a step to Chaos and Evil. And soon enough I'll be no better than this monster.
- A lie is a step to Chaos and Evil. It will give powers to monsters like this thing, or even more powerful. I can't allow that.
- If I lie, one or more people will be harmed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Just so you know.

The writer of the archetype has stated that he intended the archetype to let you wield large weapons.

Yet the dev team deliberately decided to avoid that kind of things and changed the wording accordingly. Just so you know too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
The RAW is that you cannot take a 5' step if you have moved any distance, i.e. taken the action named Move.

I'm in the camp of "stand up is not a movement", but this it false.

Just one example: Bull Rush
Spoiler:
Bull rush rules, PRD wrote:
If your attack is successful, your target is pushed back 5 feet. For every 5 by which your attack exceeds your opponent's CMD you can push the target back an additional 5 feet. You can move with the target if you wish but you must have the available movement to do so. If your attack fails, your movement ends in front of the target.

Nefreeti wrote:
I can't like Malachi's post enough, so I figured I'd link it.

+1


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm sorry I didn't catch your point with the "free action as part of an action".

Still, I'm not convinced an attack of opportunity is an action, as it is repetitively described as a "free attack", "it interrupts the flow of action", etc...

And the "attack action" seems irrelevant, or you're arguing you can use a vital strike on an AoO, and we know it doesn't work thanks to a FAQ.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9pyy

Quote:

Vital Strike: Can I use this with Spring Attack, or on a charge?

No. Vital Strike can only be used as part of an attack action, which is a specific kind of standard action. Spring Attack is a special kind of full-round action that includes the ability to make one melee attack, not one attack action. Charging uses similar language and can also not be used in combination with Vital Strike.

In the charge and Spring Attack, the description is making a single melee attack, the exact same words in the attack of opportunity description.

Quote:
Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basic rule:
CRB, Magic weapons wrote:
Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by wielding (attacking with) it. If a weapon has a special ability that the user needs to activate, then the user usually needs to utter a command word (a standard action). A character can activate the special abilities of 50 pieces of ammunition at the same time, assuming each piece has identical abilities.

I don't know what to think about this problem.

Basically, I had on my mind you couldn't use the weapon propriety of a gauntlet while using another weapon (example: Using the glaive 2-handed), but you gained it back just after the attack (because how could you use multiple magic thrown weapon if it wasn't?).
And, surprise (madafaka)! The CRB says nothing about weapon slots, so no problem about stacking 2 weapons in one hand.

So again we're left only with the "usually your enhancement works when you're attacking" from the PRD, and the FAQ about defending weapons. Not very satisfying.

Just one thing:
The "stop bashing X because you think martials can't have nice things" just infuriates me. It's not about the power of something or how we want something to work, it's about rules. Blame the devs if something isn't as good as it could/should, or better, ask them to make a better support for martial classes. It's a rule forum.

I really want some better stuff for rogues or martials. But it's not our responsibility to change how the rules work on the "by the book" level. You can houserule if you want, rules 0 is here for that.
Stop denying us the right of objectivity while we report a potential flaw in the rules. It's insulting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazumetsa Raijin wrote:
He tried his best to convince me Total Defense was a full-round action >_>

3.5 was like that, IIRC. I see a lot of ex-3.5 players confusing the old and the new rules, who don't even bother to check when they argue rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the big hammer stuff:

Paizo seems to avoid like Hell the possibility of a medium character wielding a large two-handed weapon, thus the specificity of the wording on the Titan Mauler and the bastard sword.
The day Paizo will be okay with it, they'll make a class/archetype/feat for that with a clear description that it is the intent.

IMO, you're just trying to do that by taking away a sentence in a bad written feat about TWFing 2 specific weapons, and that's not cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll stop arguing on this thread anymore, we won't agree on this topic and we're more talking about RAI than RAW, on the rules forum.

Just on the disguise arguing:

RAW: You can be monstrous and don't need a disguise check.

IMO, yeah, people can suspect you're not human anymore when you've got metallic skin, wings, tails and stuff. If you want to pass as a traditional [Insert your race here], make your disguise check.

But, to be suspected of being something more powerful than a human can have its benefices too, btw. Still, it's my way of playing.

Sidenote on the restriction part: To whoever doesn't like restrictions, that's fine, but IMHO Pathfinder is the best Paper RPG for someone who prefers more freedom and Role-Play.
Me, I like rules and restrictions. Even more as a player for the challenge it brings, as soon as it feels coherent to me, and it is not plain stupid. This is why I like Pathfinder, and 3.5 before it. My players/GMs are aware of that, and it's fine. Tastes and stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By RAW, you don't count as having the crafting feats for anything else than crafting. So you'll need at least 1 crafting feat to take Mythic crafter.

For the +5, I'm less sure, but I think it's still a no for the same reason: You're considered as having the feat for the craft only, not for the effect/prerequisite/else of a feat.

The two are still good investment IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO, the lion's shield part is not exactly relevant: Both wooden and steel shields are "basic" shields. It's not about special material.

I agree with Ilja on this one, the magic item tinkering part of UCamp is pretty much a guideline for GM before anything else.

And because you like big copy-paste:

Introduction to Magic Item Creation from Ucamp:

Spoiler:
Page 170 wrote:

Magic Item Creation

If you have item creation feats (or access to those feats
from cohorts or other NPCs), you might want to use time
between adventures to craft magic items, either to create
new items from scratch or add abilities to existing items.
If the desired item is something out of the Pathfinder RPG
Core Rulebook and you have the appropriate feats, the GM’s
role is mainly to approve or disapprove the creation of the
item (for example, if the GM has decided that the desired
item is rare, requires exotic ingredients, or is illegal or
forbidden where the downtime takes place)
. If there is
a chance for you to accidentally create a cursed item by
failing the skill check by 5 or more, the GM should roll
the check in secret so you don’t know whether or not the
item is cursed.
If you want to create an entirely new type of item
(such as a ring that allows you to cast acid arrow three
times per day) or add properties to an existing item
(such as adding the flaming property to a holy avenger),
the process is more complex and requires discussion
and cooperation between you and the GM.
The following
sections address common concerns and problems about
magic item creation.

Plus, this chapter of UCamp is described as a compendium of option:

Spoiler:
Page 5 wrote:

Chapter 3—Campaign Systems: Chapter 3—Campaign Systems: This chapter provides

an array of options to enhance your campaign. If you’ve
been looking for things to add to your game like rules
for sandbox-style exploration, gradual alignment
shifts, complex relationships, fame and codes of honor,
retraining characters, and so on, look no further. Each of
these 15 optional systems adds a new dimension to your
campaign—whether you just use one, grab a few, or even
get crazy and add them all in. These optional systems
modify different parts of the game, changing the way you
handle character creation, time spent in settlements, the
results of characters’ actions, lengthy travel, and so on.
Naturally, these are the sort of options you can introduce
and leave behind as your campaign requires.

So, RAW, it's up to your GM.
Like the retraining part which give you the ability to go crazy on buildings at high levels, or like the Hero Points. And It's not a problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oups, I just figured out I confused the description of archetype with the rage power. Silly me. >.>

This rage power seems to imply your character is a little paranoid even when you're not raging, and the rage just amplify it to a more extreme level.

Barbarian is all about instincts, IMO. Here is a paranoid instinct against magic, so yeah, I would make the barbarian try the save vs potions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scimmy wrote:

PC has obstacle.

PC spends cash/drains item.
PC tells GM that the party is now below expected WBL
GM looks at notes and says "no you aren't"
Game moves on

1)you shouldn't ever be given more loot just because you spent yours...play kingmaker and learn what loot starved truly is
2)you are not supposed to magically find X amount of gold around each level. WBL is a guideline.

It would have been true if it was a "Treasures Found by Level". Except it's not. I'll be a little off-topic and tell about consumables, but you'll see my point after:

Using wealth to buy consumables have others downside:
1. You need to be able to find/buy the stuff (probably the problem in Kingmaker, that I didn't play, and I think it's in the theme of this adventure).
2. It's often bond to specific situations.
3. It consume your standard action most of the time for bonus the next round(s), so I find it pretty risky sometimes.
4. If you use it, you can't use it anymore before you can resupply. (See point 1)

Not rewarding players for how they use their characters, and their money (as soon as they contribute to the success of a group) is IMO really strange. The same for the sundering maneuvers.
I don't say you need to be cool all the time with your players. It's really easy to hit them in the weak spot when they play like that.

Anyway, someone found that be at WBL = 1 point of CR for your group.
And spare me "you're not suppose to find X value". Yes you are, the encounter system is build like that. And you've got monsters with various amount of treasures with them, sometimes more to compensate. Plus, you're the DM, nope ?

Now, about consume magic more specifically:
It shares a lot of those downsides, but I find it a little better, because you can scrap/keep the useless stuff you find without hesitation, and swap it for better use for your group.

Scimmy wrote:
4)to the person that compared trap sense to consume magic items I say "nay". Trap sense is always active and provides you a bonus in the proper situation without any cost to you and scales with your level. Consume magic item requires a standard action plus a magic item of value, and only returns a small benefit regardless of level.

According to me, Consume magic item "scales" with your level, because it fuels better abilities.

Trap sense is maybe passive, but if you take the trap spotting talent of the love (I find it mandatory), it is near useless. It's just a benefice for you, for things you shouldn't have to deal with. And you can't have the choice to not take it (Except if you take an archetype, true). Just disappointment when you read you got something else at a level, then discover it's THAT ability.

The standard action/small benefit argument, I redirect you to my early points, except the benefice: Madafackin' counterspell! Raggamuffin' "I don't like your spell effect so "nope!""! The benefices are here!

But maybe it's a matter of taste and stuff, probably driven by how we see WBL, but I like it. But yep, I hope for a superior exploit to improve the benefices. That would be really cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scimmy wrote:
The point is a class feature should not be something you use in emergencies only. Especially when that class feature is used to power another class feature.

Two words: Trap Sense

It's at least at the same level of use than this one. Both can be lifesavers depend of the situation. The good point with Consume is you can chose to take it or not.

Sidenote: an item that let me have one use of lay of hand, so access to all my mercies ? Hell yeah, I keep a bundle as I level up!