Some archetype feats in other books have the skill trait, allowing you to take them in place of a skill feat rather than a class feat. A skill feat still counts to satisfy the requirement of the dedication. There are also class archetypes that can modify your class’s abilities as soon as 1st level. You can never have more than one class archetype.
I too found it easy to miss since it speaks about Class Archetypes in the same paragraph.
Maybe it's a difference in interpretation because to me 'Allowing you to do x rather than y' means y is still on the table.
It might just come down to
> A general feat with the skill trait improves your skills and their actions or gives you new actions for a skill. A feat with this trait can be selected when a class grants a skill feat or general feat. Archetype feats with the skill trait can be selected in place of a skill feat if you have that archetype’s dedication feat.
Superseding the permissive text in other locations, but it would be nice if they put it all in one location with a clear cut answer.
It seems like the answer to my question is no, but I hope it's understandable where my confusion came from. Hopefully they errata it to make it super clear, like adding [Class] tag to the archetype feats or changing the other text to say "Archetype feats with the Skill tag can only be taken in place of a skill or general feat granted by your class."
My reading of it is that no, You cannot take them with the extra feats from Free Archetype. The Feats with the [Skill] trait are skill feats and as per the rules written above, They are not Class Feats.
This is because the extra feats from Free Archetype as per PG.84 which you quoted are for Class Feats.
GM Core pg. 84 (2.0) wrote:
The only difference between a normal character and a free archetype character is that the character receives an extra class feat at 2nd level and every even level thereafter that they can use only for archetype feats.
Which is further proved by the first quote
Quote:
Occasionally, an archetype feat works like a skill feat instead of a class feat. These archetype feats have the skill trait, and you select them in place of a skill feat, otherwise following the same rules above. These are not archetype class feats (for instance, to determine the number of Hit Points you gain from the Fighter Resiliency archetype feat).
The bolded wording points to a character being unable to pick them where they would otherwise pick a class feat, regardless if that class feat comes from Free Archetype or otherwise.
EDIT: Apparently the same text is present within the second quote to.
Player Core pg. 461 (2.0) wrote:
A general feat with the skill trait improves your skills and their actions or gives you new actions for a skill. A feat with this trait can be selected when a class grants a skill feat or general feat. Archetype feats with the skill trait can be selected in place of a skill feat if you have that archetype’s dedication feat.
The first quote was removed from the remastered books as best as I can tell. I cannot find it anywhere, not in the GM core on page 84 where the variant rule exists, nor in player core page 215.
The thing I'm trying to ascertain is whether or not the removal of that text means they are now able to be taken with the archetype class feats.
Maybe this needs an errata because archetypes are the only place in the game you'll find feats that are both marked as a class feat [Archetype] and a skill feat [Skill]. These feats have both tags, and if [Archetype] is not a class feat tag, then technically you can't take any archetype feats with the free class feat variant rule.
It appears that the restrictive wording has been removed as best as I can tell, and I cannot find the following text anywhere:
Quote:
Occasionally, an archetype feat works like a skill feat instead of a class feat. These archetype feats have the skill trait, and you select them in place of a skill feat, otherwise following the same rules above. These are not archetype class feats (for instance, to determine the number of Hit Points you gain from the Fighter Resiliency archetype feat).
The Skill tag itself says:
Player Core pg. 461 (2.0) wrote:
A general feat with the skill trait improves your skills and their actions or gives you new actions for a skill. A feat with this trait can be selected when a class grants a skill feat or general feat. Archetype feats with the skill trait can be selected in place of a skill feat if you have that archetype’s dedication feat.
Given the wording that is now present:
GM Core pg. 84 (2.0) wrote:
The only difference between a normal character and a free archetype character is that the character receives an extra class feat at 2nd level and every even level thereafter that they can use only for archetype feats. You might restrict the free feats to those of a single archetype each character in the group has (for a shared backstory), those of archetypes fitting a certain theme (such as only ones from magical archetypes in a game set in a magic school), or entirely unrestricted if you just want a higher-powered game.
If the group all has the same archetype or draws from a limited list, you might want to ignore the free archetype's normal restriction of selecting a certain number of feats before taking a new archetype. That way a character can still pursue another archetype that also fits their character.
Free-archetype characters are a bit more versatile and powerful than normal, but usually not so much that they unbalance your game. However, due to the characters’ increased access to archetype feats, you should place a limit on the number of feats that scale based on a character’s number of archetype feats (mainly multiclass Resiliency feats). Allowing a character to benefit from a number of these feats equal to half their level is appropriate.
Does this mean that we can now take [Archetype] feats with the [Skill] tag with the free archetype class feats given at every even level with the variant rule, and additionally pick up [Skill] tagged archetype feats with traditional skill feats if we wish?
The remote operation spell states that it targets a "one operable technological device no larger than a vehicle that is not a starship" but I was curious if it could allow a technomancer to man an empty station in starship combat, if say an empty gunner's seat controlling one of the guns counts for targeting or if the 'not a starship' clause completely disables any use of the spell within a starship.
I'm brainstorming character concepts for an upcoming campaign and I thought of something I'd find entertaining to play but I'm unsure if it could even work.
I'd like to build him as a bard using oratory as his performance, and the idea is he'd be monologing about what a great and powerful wizard he is as magic Springs to life around him.
Is there a way I can conceal/bluff my casting so that my party members and anyone we come across would believe I'm a wizard?
Is monologing even a valid Bardic performance?
I've been browsing the feats bit so far I haven't found anything that could let me feasibly pass myself off as a wizard once I "cast" my first spell.
Secondly if my character was raised and trained (incorrectly) to believe that he is indeed a wizard, would a bluff check be necessary to state he is one?
Thanks for any tips you can give me.
If this is a terrible concept please let me know too. I'm not sure how this would float in a party especially once one of the members manages to see through his unknown charade
If you cast a spell with a duration of say 10 days, when the next day comes do you get the slot back?
Or would preparing a new spell in the slot used to create the original effect make the effect expire?
I ask because I'm looking at Delayed Consumption for the alchemist.
Delayed Casting wrote:
CASTING
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components S
EFFECT
Range personal
Targets you
Duration 1 day/level (D) or until discharged
DESCRIPTION
When you consume this extract, you quickly consume another extract of your choice-this second extract's effects do not come into effect until a later point. You must consume this second, companion extract on the round following delayed consumption or waste the extract. The companion extract can be no higher than 4th level, and you must pay any costs associated with the companion extract when you consume it.
At any point during the duration of this extract, you can cause the companion extract to take effect as an immediate action. You can only have one delayed consumption in effect at one time. If a second is consumed, the first is dispelled without any effect.
I have a party of 3 including myself.
My question is thus:
I hand out 3 of these infusions plus another infusion to actually use it with (6 infusions total) to provide each person with their own little 'contingency' effect.
When the next day comes, do I get all my extract slots back and do the delayed consumptions still stay in effect?
Pinned = bound. This is explicitly called out in the rules.
Bound = helpless. This is also explicitly called out.
Truck = Vehicle.
Vehicle = Car.
Car =/= Truck
Sorry, that form of logic doesn't really work.
You've given an instance where the commutative logic breaks.
I argue that I haven't.
Either way a FAQ would be greatly appreciated.
It just doesn't follow that the helpless condition would list 'bound' as a trigger if actually being bound doesn't make you helpless.
It would be 100% clearer if the word 'bound' was either absent from the helpless condition or if 'bound' was it's own separate condition rather than a meta condition created by the wording of other rules.
It's the same for sleeping.
As far as I can tell, actually laying down and just going to sleep isn't listed anywhere but it's definitely referenced.
The only thing that mentions it is the spell 'sleep' and that could easily be said to be referring the magical sleep being applied through that spell, as it's rules are all in the context of that spell. If they wanted to say 'sleeping makes you helpless', why not put that in the conditions section under a new condition: 'sleeping'.
Did the dev team think the wording of the helpless condition was clear enough?
Sleep and bound are these 'meta' conditions not actually laid out in the conditions section of the PRD but are referenced by other effects.
This might seem super silly for me to be having an issue over the the terms of sleeping but it doesn't make any sense to have such a huge general rule (sleeping = helpless) tucked away into a spell description that most people might not even find unless they were looking to play an arcane caster.
My issue is while Read as Written does not explicitly say it gives helpless, it very clearly does so indirectly. I think otherwise the first sentence of helpless is confusing and needs to be stricken from the condition entirely.
As I said earlier I lean more on the fence that RAI is 'no you can't CDG from pinned' but I also think it's RAI that you can CDG someone tied up by rope. PFS seems to think so if their website is anything to go on. On inspecting the wordings further, it appears pinned and caught in rope is the same thing mechanically. This is where my hangup is.
Yeah, bound is not a specific condition and sounds like it covers a wide range of restricted movement.
PRD, Conditions, Bound wrote:
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions.
PRD, Conditions, Helpless wrote:
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy
I'm not pulling rules out of my bum here. These are pulled from the exact texts.
Pinned = bound. This is explicitly called out in the rules.
Bound = helpless. This is also explicitly called out.
If you have to have an effect specifically call out it applies the 'helpless' condition, then going to sleep at night does not make you helpless.
The only reason it gets applied is because the helpless condition calls out 'sleeping' as one of it's triggers.
Think of it as an always-running status checker. Is the character triggering any of the requirements for helpless? If so, then the character is helpless.
No, you are inventing that rule for distraction. Nowhere does it say performing two activities at the same time is distracting, and I know from my own experience as well as the several examples in this thread that people can routinely do two things at once without significant chances of failure.
The rules define what is distracting: combat
You can call your interpretation 'reasonable' if you like, but it's house rules, and it also removes player agency. That's a bad thing to do.
The rules do not define what is distracting. They give combat as an example. If the rules just said "You can Take 10 except in combat", we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Quote:
When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.
The reason that wording is in there is to give a DM the power to say 'no you can't take 10' when they would like to, and that seems perfectly fine.
If a DM has a reason to deny someone taking 10, there's the part of the sentence they can point to when a player asks why.
Reading SKR's posts on the subject of taking 10, it sounds like the only thing that's going to stop you from doing so is if someone is actively shooting you in the face or trying to lop off your limbs.
People are getting wayyyyy too hung up on the FAQ regarding the one specific spell and the spell text has been officially updated to expressly prohibit taking ten. The FAQ about contact other plane should be completely disregarded now that a more recent and still official source has superseded the FAQ.
If anyone hasn't done so I would highly recommend going back and reading SKR's posts on the concept and intent of taking 10. DEXRAY posted jiggy's links to each post.
Penalties due to failing will never stop you from taking 10. The FAQ about contact other plane was superseded by the updated ruling.
Is pinned a condition? If answer is yes, then it is not helpless. If the result of a grapple should have been helpless, devs would have said so; instead they created the pinned condition.
Stating that pinned equates to helpless is a houserule. 2+2 equates 4. Stating that 'O' equates '0' just because they look alike is not true.
I read the rules the same way.
"pinned" and "helpless" are two different conditions. And only 1 of them allows CDGs.
The helpless condition is never applied on it's own.
The helpless condition applies itself whenever any one or more of the following situations happens:
Paralyzed
Held
Bound
Sleeping
Unconscious
You guys are ignoring the fact that the rules say bound creatures are helpless.
The way the rules are written if tieing someone up grants helpless (bound) then pinning does.
If pinning doesn't then neither does tieing someone up with rope.
The more I think about it the less crazy it seems too. It requires a successful grapple first. Next round requires a successful maintain and if you have greater grapple feat you can start the CDG. Next round after that you have to finish it.
Its a three round minimum process to initiate the CDG in this manner and you can't even accomplish this without greater grapple.
It also provokes two sets of AOO from splitting the cdg over two rounds, and gives the bad guys a huge chance to save their buddy from the guy bear hugging him.
The victim in question gets 2 cmb / escape artist checks vs the grappling and a Fort save vs the cdg. Of he survives the cdg he gets another check vs the grapple.
A single success on either of the first or after the cdg starts the entire chain over again.
Seems like several orders of power less than a lot of lower level spells out there.
Plus at higher levels cmd values get hilariously high.
Compare that to casting suffocation:
Standard action cast time
Ranged
Can be done without provoking
Save or go unconscious for three rounds in a row. If you succeed you're staggered and making another save vs the spell next round.
If pinned makes you helpless, then when you are pinned you have a zero dex. Why would the pinned instead impose a lesser penalty when it is completely superseded by being helpless?
Pinned doesn't need to apply zero dex. Nothing needs to give you zero dex to make you helpless.
If that's how it worked then sleeping would not give you helpless.
Pinned makes you bound. Bound confers the helpless condition.
I'm trying to convey that, as written, pinned indirectly makes you have 0 dex but does not directly apply that effect. It applies helpless which then does the application of 0 dex.
Correct, if being tied up with rope doesn't treat your dexterity as 0, then you are not helpless according to the rules.
Think about it. If you have a positive dexterity, that means you can wiggle around, avoid a blow. You are not helpless.
Whether that means being tied up with rope should be FAQ'ed to being helpless (0 Dex), or whether being pinned should also do the same is up to the devs. But as of now the rules do not impose that condition.
I didn't miss any 'or' in the statement I quoted. It is a complete statement that defines the helpless condition: you are treated as if your Dex is 0. Any condition that does not impose a Dex of 0 is not the helpless condition.
The rules impose helpless by the very definition of 'bound'.
Helpless wrote:
Helpless
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
You are massively confusing the effect of a condition with the trigger for a condition.
Triggers that cause a target to be helpless:
Paralyzed
Held
Bound
Sleeping
Unconscious
If none of these are met, but the creature is "otherwise at my mercy" then it also applies.
The effect of helpless:
Dex is treated as 0.
If the conditions worked as you are saying they do then taking any random -2 would impose 'shaken' or 'fatigued' or any number of other conditions.
The conditions themselves are not a result of the penalties they impose. They are a result of any effects applying them.
In the case of helpless, whenever any single one of the triggers are met, they are helpless.
the rules say Pinned and Tied-Up make the target bound.
If a target is bound, then the target is helpless. Helpless would then make the target have 0 dexterity.
@ hydro it's a perfectly valid 'read as intended' interpretation, but it's not explicitly stated anywhere, so it's not a 'read as written' statement. It is also directly countered by the helpless description further reading "opponent is completely at their opponent's mercy," and the pinned condition reading "can take few actions." You can (potentially) break a pin, so if you are pinned you are not necessarily helpless (completely at your opponent's mercy). RAW this is a stronger reading than that the word "bound" appears in both descriptions.
You can however be both pinned and helpless.
You can also potentially break the rope tying you if you succeed on a nice CMB check. Does this mean you also are not helpless by the rope?
_Ozy_ you ignored the fact that it says "or" rather than "and".
It doesn't matter if they're not 'otherwise completely at my mercy'. If they are currently suffering any qualifier for helpless whatsoever they are helpless.
"Bound" is one of those qualifiers, and Pinned gives that in it's wording.
The fact that a pinned creature is not treated as dexterity 0 does not matter for qualifying a target for helpless. (This is where I think RAI and DM adjudication take over. It's very very clear that pinned is not intended to give helpless)
_Ozy_ wrote:
Is a pinned creature treated as if it has a dexterity of 0? No? Then it is not helpless, period.
Then rope doesn't work in your eyes. This is the wording of tie-up:
PRD, Combat, Grapple, Tie-Up wrote:
If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus (instead of your CMD). The ropes do not need to make a check every round to maintain the pin. If you are grappling the target, you can attempt to tie him up in ropes, but doing so requires a combat maneuver check at a –10 penalty. If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check.
Tied up with rope is identical to pinned with the following exceptions
- Removes rolling to maintain
- sets new DC to 20 + pinner's CMB rather than just pinner's CMD
- removes auto-success from nat 20 for the one trying to escape
To say pinned would not grant helpless from a RAW standpoint is to say that being tied up does not grant helpless.
When a Martial artist gains immunity to fatigue, that brings up some interesting possibilities.
If you stayed up for several days, since you never get fatigued from it, do you ever progress to exhausted?
If you are force marching or running continually, do you ever become exhausted? While I realize with this you're still probably taking that temporary damage and need to rest/heal it somehow later.
You get exhausted as normal. fatigue is applied as normal, the effects are not It's like the Black Blade's immunity to the broken condition. The condition is applied and can lead to the destroyed condition but the effects are not. But once broken or exhausted come into play, the effects are applied full force.
You're comparing apples to oranges. The reason that the Black Blade's immunity works the way it does is because it's not immune to damage as well. The broken condition is never applied. The 5th level Martial Artist is immune to fatigue, flat out, so it takes an effect that goes straight to exhausted to make them so.
I understand where he's coming from, though.
Barring the summoner there are extremely few player immunities handed out, most of the available ones being capstone abilities at level 20.
The types of effects he is confusing actual immunity with are a little more common. (not suffering the side effects of, but still having the actual condition).
Like I mentioned, by the exact wording pinned would also apply helpless.
I also mentioned it's pretty stupid for that to happen and should definitely not be run that way.
This is why DM adjudication exists, to catch this kind of silly crap. Otherwise it would be possible to CDG in 2 rounds anything you could grapple/pin with alarming regularity. (Though, the respective balance of CDG vs say the suffucation spell is something else to debate entirely. They are both save or die. One can just be done as a standard action. And from range. And later, multiple targets.)
Continuing the discussion going on, though!
As for the MMA fighter example, pathfinder player characters are a lot stronger than mma fighters if they've got a decent strength score.
A str score of 22 beats the current world record for dead lifting (1017 lbs is the current record. You can 'lift, and stagger around with' up to twice max load. 22 str grants max load of 520. 1040lb 'deadlift str').
There are also pins out there that are effectively an automatic win lest you get a joint snapped in two. (See: arm bar)
I think the idea is that if you're able to get rope and tie someone up while they're being pinned it's entirely possible to use something like a dagger to slash a neck.
EDIT:
@ Trekkie90909 the wording of pinned saying they are 'tightly bound' and the wording of helpless saying 'a creature is helpless if they are .... held, bound ..... or otherwise completely at your mercy. I posted it just a little while ago. RAW would say yes this is possible.
If you tie someone up, that would count as bound. You can do so after having pinned someone.
Everyone please keep in mind that specific grappler builds can pin a target in a single round. If pinning counted you could have two creatures work in tandem to kill another before it was even able to act.
Pinned condition states the creature is tightly bound.
PRD: Conditions wrote:
Pinned
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
Emphasis mine.
Here's the text on Helpless:
PRD: Conditions wrote:
Helpless
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
Emphasis mine again.
It seems to me that Pinned applies Helpless as well whenever pinned gets applied. Probably is NOT intent but the text seems clear.
I understand you perfectly well. You are saying the penalty from possibly failing is what is stopping taking 10.
I'm not saying that. What I and the FAQ is stating is that possibly failing and suffering severe consequences is distracting / a threat. You're free to believe that ignoring the pathfinder design team is the proper way forward, but the FAQ is still part of the rules.
I think you are misinterpreting the design team if you think being harmed by failing stops taking 10, which is the same thing as the penalty stopping it. There is no real difference.
The penalty for failing the Contact Other Planes check is getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked.
Getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked(the penalty for failure) is a significant and distracting threat.
Therefore one reasonable interpretation is that severe penalties like dying or getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked prevent taking 10 because they represent significant and distracting threats.
Can you think of any other reasonable explanation as to why getting your spellcasting and ability scores nuked on failure is a significant and distracting threat? If you can't, then severe penalty=can't take 10 is the ONLY reasonable interpretation.
Ravingdork wrote:
That FAQ entry needs to be abolished, as it causes more confusion than it resolved, which is the antithesis of any FAQ.
The FAQ is basically unneeded now - the rules text of Contact Other Plane in the CRB now includes a "Can't take 10" clause. It should definitely go.
What constitutes a severe penalty? At what point does a 'standard penalty' (that can be circumvented by a take 10) become a severe penalty? The taking ten text clearly says it's there for when you know there is a risk of failure. Whether or not there are penalties for failing is irrelevant in the text of take 10.
Being unaware of a threat should not disallow taking ten on the skill check in question.
As stated in earlier in the thread taking 10 signifies being able to devote a level of attention to a task that threats and distractions would prevent.
Going back to the example on the first page, if there was an undetectable invisible ninja following someone around, that person should still be able to take 10 on skills.
It's patently absurd to think that a PC is somehow cosmically aware of things he is not aware of and that such a threat would cause him to not be able to devote the effort to taking 10 in an undistracted and unthreatened way.
By RAW 'ignoring the penalties' would allow him to re-enter rage without incurring any additional penalties. Not being able to rage while fatigued is definitely a penalty.
Now, if the spell ended for some reason, that's a different story.
Rage does not give you immunity to fatigue, so regaining the fatigue from the spell ending or leaving its effect or being in a silenced area (so on so forth) would immediately knock him out of rage and subject him to exhaustion for the number of rounds of the new fatigue.
- Barb rages for 5 rounds
- Barb leaves rage for whatever reason
- Barb is suffering from 10 rounds of fatigue
- Cleric casts Recentering Drone the round after the rage ended (9 left)
- Cleric is now locked into using all of his standards to maintain the spell
- Barb Re-enters rage and spends a further 4 rounds raging (5 left on the original fatigue)
- Cleric is needed elsewhere! Oh no! Spell stops
- Barb is hit with 8 rounds of fatigue while suffering from 5 from the original rage, and is now exhausted for 8 rounds per the 'fatigued' condition in the BRB.
- Barb is pretty much useless until this is over.
This seems balanced, what with trading the majority of a clerics entire action economy and the threat of backfire being MASSIVE.
The PC's using this need to be REALLY careful how they do this, lest they end up with an exhausted barbarian.
just my 2cp but pin should be help less because its pretty easy to prove IRL. BUT and a big one here a 3rd party would be necessary because holding some one down in any way to also count pinning them down does not leave you any thing you can also do. i not saying i a mast in MMA i just saying i have got in a fight with my brother a few times.
There are definitely ways to pin leaving one of your hands free and able to wield a weapon. I could totally see allowing light weapons to do this or rather small things like daggers as those would actually be believable in this scenario.
This is all How I Would Play It land at the moment now though.
James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?
Kchaka, why do you think a creature with 2 arms holding 1 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes?
There is no such thing as 3 handed and 4 handed weapons as your line of reasoning seems to suggest.
A creature with more than two hands may in fact use a two handed weapon with two hands. There is zero support anywhere for having use 3 or 4 hands for a two hander.
I wasn't suggesting holding a 2HW with 3 or for hands, I suggested holding #3 Two-Handed Weapons, one on each hand, and having a 4th hand free to grip the one you want to attack with, but you still would have to abide by some other rules that would limit your attack choice options.
D&D 3.5 Savage Species gives the rules for holding a weapon with 3+ hands. Each hand adds STR x0.5 bonus to damage, so 4 hands would do STR x2.5 . Unfortuanlly, they didn't say anything about a medium creature wielding a Large 2HW with 4 hands.
Oh that's not in reply to you, I hit the wrong reply button heh.
I meant to reply to Mr. Risner.
The large 2HW is interesting. The rules on handedness would actually leave a ground work for this (2 medium hands equals 1 large hand essentially) but this is definitely not written and is unofficially capped off at 2 hands being used at a time.
James, why do you think a creature with 4 arms holding 3 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 4th hand as a free action to change which weapon it's going to attack with?
Kchaka, why do you think a creature with 2 arms holding 1 2HW would not be able to switch grips with the 2nd hand as a free action to attack with armor spikes?
There is no such thing as 3 handed and 4 handed weapons as your line of reasoning seems to suggest.
A creature with more than two hands may in fact use a two handed weapon with two hands. There is zero support anywhere for having use 3 or 4 hands for a two hander.
And here I thought PF had eliminated all the stupid alignment restrictions.
Guess that's one more houserule on the books.
Alignment restrictions are not stupid, they add to the value and flavor of the class. otherwise why have classes at all.
The alignment restriction of the Paladin I can respect. Kind of awkward to need to homebrew new classes for Divine Champions with other alignments, but I can respect that a Paladin is a Paladin.
But there's no good reason a Barbarian shouldn't be able to be lawful. Even if we stick to the [weak as hell] default fluff of a Barbarian being a tribal warrior, many tribes have very strong law codes which their warriors are expected to honor.
Are the really frequent outbursts of rage that makes him non-lawful.
He fundamentally lacks any self-discipline, but it also permits the barbarian to unleash greater raw strength
Except that makes zero sense whatsoever.
Agreed.
The following is all anecdotal evidence so keep that in mind.
I'm not sure barbarians refer to themselves as barbarians. In almost every fantasy setting I've ever encountered with barbarians in them, they don't refer to themselves as such, and often take offense to being called such.
To call someone a barbarian is to call them uncultured, uncivilized.
Every setting I've seen them in, barbarians have quite a strong culture with tribal laws, elders, rites and rituals, and a code of honor regarding combat.
Heck the literal definition of a barbarian is either uncivilized people or tribes that existed outside of the great empires.
To rear an animal means to raise a wild creature from infancy so that it becomes domesticated. A handler can rear as many as three creatures of the same kind at once. A successfully domesticated animal can be taught tricks at the same time it’s being raised, or it can be taught as a domesticated animal later.
While the rule is there as a basis this is going to have to be adjudicated by your DM.
That said, we might be able to do some digging for some sort of groundwork base price and rearing time.
Please take note that none of this is RAW. Nowhere in the book is this mentioned or ruled for. This is my assumptions based on other parts of the books.
The "Handle Animal" skill mentions a DC of 15+HD of the animal you are attempting to rear. I'm not sure if this relies on the hitdie of a fully grown adult or if it's just 16 for a young one.
It would make sense to me that the DC would start at 16 and for every hit die it gains under your care the DC to continue rearing it would increase by one.
As far as cost goes, under the Griffon in the bestiary it says the following:
Griffon, bestiary wrote:
Despite the inherent danger, trade in captured griffons and stolen eggs is brisk, with their eggs worth up to 3,500 gp apiece and live young twice that.
Mind you griffons are VALUABLE and hard to tame so we can't use them as an example for selling past that but we can assume that live young of a marketable species would be twice the value of an egg of that same species.
The best way forward after that would most likely be working out a system based on the number and type of hit die of the creature in question with the 'young' template.
I'll post again when I do more research into this, but this question intrigues me and I hope I've helped.
I would say pinned would count, because you can't do anything and are at the mercy of whoever is pinning you. But I also don't think the grappler can deliver the CDG, another person would have to. (I'm pretty sure you need to spend a standard action to maintain the grapple. So if you spend a full round action instead on CDG you release the grapple, losing the condition for CDG to work)
So it takes at least two rounds, with multiple grapple rolls, and occupies two people. Guess that's why it's not standard tactics.
The following is assuming that pinning a foe satisfies the 'at your mercy' clause for helpless/coup de grace.
If you're mythic you could possibly pull it off as the grappler.
It would cost 1 or 2 mythic points and 2 rounds, dependent on GM call.
Use your standard to maintain the grapple, and buy another standard to 'start a full round action.' I'm pretty sure CDG is allowable by the split-fullround rules.
On your next turn you could spend your standard to deliver the CDG, but I think most GM's would ask you to spend that standard to maintain your grapple for the round and then buy another standard to 'finish' the CDG.
Being able to reliably CDG is... powerful. I could see it costing 2 mythic points easily.
Mind you this is HIWPI, and I think it's a case of 'raw probably works, but rai could go anywhere on this.'
That said, THIS would be more reliable if you've pinned your target (assuming pinning = 'at your mercy' as others above me have made a case for)
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.
Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action
Spend your move on maintaining, standard on initiating CDG, then finish the CDG next round, and use your move afterwards to maintain again if the opponent didn't die.
Use the unchaind monk with two two-handed monk weapons. It looks and feels like twf but its even better. 1.5 STR bonus on all attacks, full bab, no attack penalities, no rule problems.
That's..... actually pretty genius.
Wow.
Thanks man!
I'm still exploring the concept for my character. I know I'm playing a kasatha but I'm undecided on what build to go.
We're starting at lvl 6, and so far I've built a Brawler and a two weapon warrior fighter.
I'll try statting out the monk and see how I like it, but it'll be a big tossup losing the martial flexibility feature.
Basically I want a shock-trooper. He charges in before the rest of the party and attempts to murder the healer or fight the leader of the group.
The setting is a steam-punk post war nation, with border skirmishes popping up. When the war was still active he would charge enemy defensive lines and disrupt them.
While a Dog with 3 intelligence is very intelligent for a Dog, it's still a Dog.
The Sidebar on Intelligent animals in Ultimate Campaign points out that even an animal intelligent enough to understand speech and given the ability to speak will generally not do so autonomously. Even when having the ability to use tools they are more inclined to use their natural abilities. (Example given in the book is a Gorilla is more inclined to use it's slam than it would be to use a sword even if it has the ability to do so). It's a very smart animal not a low-intelligence person.
Activating a magic item would require more complex thinking than a non-awakened animal would be capable of, even if it is a very smart one.
If the companion can speak, teach it a trick to speak the command word when you tell it to.
Handle Animal wrote:
Perform (DC 15) The animal performs a variety of simple tricks, such as sitting up, rolling over, roaring or barking, and so on.
Sounds entirely reasonable that 'roaring or barking' can be 'speaking' if the animal in question knows how to speak.
You don't need to name the opponent for your readied action; it is adequate to just say "the first foe..." or even "the first armed foe" or "the first spellcasting foe" or "the first for with a reach weapon" or whatever you like - the more specific you are, the more likely you are that it never happens and you wasted your readied action, so try to keep it simple.
So your readied action to trip the first foe to enter your designated 5x5 area is just fine.
AoOs never prevent your own actions, even readied ones.
Blake is correct.
I'm curious, though.
Say enemy passed within the 5x5 area you designated triggering your readied action. You step up and strike them. Does the enemy have to attempt to continue moving towards his destination or can he stop his movement there and take the rest of his turn?
I think he can stop if my memory of the movement rules is correct, but this is a situation that does not often come up.
"Sure, they're demon worshipping cannibals who mate with animals for the glory of Lamashtu, but I wouldn't call them Evil, at least not while there's a Paladin around."
This raises some questions.
Would a wildshaped druid mating with animals be considered an evil act? What about if the animal isn't exactly opposed to it? (If you've ever heard of 'mr hands' you'll know what I'm talking about)
Cannibalism could be seen as efficient too. What if that's their culture? Who is deciding this is evil?
Even without the npc from divinity drive, it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.
This is disingenous. You can't use an example to prove your point and then decide to ignore it when it turns out to prove the opposite.
Sorry, I thought I had typed that as an admission to your finding of the incorrect stat block.
My followup question after that was posed with the statblock being tossed as it was an illegal statblock per the rules.
It was my opinion at least that if one portion of the stat block is incorrect, then the whole thing probably can't be trusted as it would be a little screwy to say the statblock doesn't allow for TWF to be taken and then say the statblock proves something else.
That's fair both ways, yeah. NPC stat blocks don't really prove anything in pathfinder most of the time (see vital strike debacles) other than 'even the designers don't get too hung up on the rules'.
Yeah it seems they go with the rule of cool more often than most players would hahaha.
That said, I got DM clearance to do double greatswords at 1.5x each already.
I still really want a FAQ on this though.
@Durngrun Stonebreaker
Yeah it doesn't mention "main hand" or "off hand" just "two hands."
I can see how you'd infer that but it doesn't make any mention of it.
While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
Quote:
While bloodraging, a bloodrager cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
The question becomes does channel energy or lay on hands require "patience or concentration".
I'm not sure there is a clear cut answer, but I lean towards yes you can use them.
Doesn't seem like they require any kind of concentration to do. I've always imagined channeling as a sort of explosion of your presence.
An actual cleric/barb combo may have difficulty though.
CRB, Cleric, Channel Energy class feature wrote:
Regardless of alignment, any cleric can release a wave of energy by channeling the power of her faith through her holy (or unholy) symbol. This energy can be used to cause or heal damage, depending on the type of energy channeled and the creatures targeted.
...
A cleric must be able to present her holy symbol to use this ability.
Whereas an oracle of life with the channel energy revelation can do it without a symbol.
At the same time I see no reason why a weapon can't be a holy symbol, especially if it's one of your deities favored weapons.
If you're invoking the fractional base bonuses for your campaign, then I believe dragon disciple is bumped to full BAB (holy crap hellooooo nice PrC).
That said, I don't think intent was to make the Drag Disciple that much more awesome and you would be well within your means to disregard the rule for that class.
The "Multiclass character's BAB will only ever improve" bit might actually make me think otherwise though.. Perhaps that is there to prevent the new rule from actually nerfing certain classes unintentionally.
That sounds hilariously not-useful. Seems like it's correct from what I can see though (shaman stuff is different for a number of things..)
Wouldn't sound like an unreasonable house rule to say it engages when the target reaches either Half, Quarter, One Tenth, or 1 HP depending on how much more powerful you'd like it to be.
Maybe not bother with taking it though. Even the oracle's version is... marginal at best until you combine it with Energy Body to give yourself 1d6+Oracle Level fast healing as long as you spend the move action to heal yourself.
Binding would almost certainly work if willing to pay the cost. Alternatively, if this isn't PFS, most GMs would be willing to work with you; I be you can get one to agree to a lesser hag a monster cohort. Alternatively, I suspect if you do enough work a GM would allow you to form a coven without a hag, seems like a silly restriction anyway.
But if you have a stickler for the rules I believe a summoned night hag would work while it is present or the iron collar. But under the RAW you will be waiting a while.
+1 for working with your DM.
Stuff like this is COOL. I would be under the opinion that if you provided the necessary effort in both out of game written backstory, in game effort, and in game role-play, 9 out of 10 DMs would work with you on where you want this to go and how far you're willing to take it.
They might not even charge you much in the gold department or require you to get a hag cohort.
If I were running your game and you spent several (in-game) weeks tracking down a hag and offering to band around it as it's coven, that hag would probably be willing to listen.
Even without the npc from divinity drive, it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.
This is disingenous. You can't use an example to prove your point and then decide to ignore it when it turns out to prove the opposite.
Sorry, I thought I had typed that as an admission to your finding of the incorrect stat block.
My followup question after that was posed with the statblock being tossed as it was an illegal statblock per the rules.
It was my opinion at least that if one portion of the stat block is incorrect, then the whole thing probably can't be trusted as it would be a little screwy to say the statblock doesn't allow for TWF to be taken and then say the statblock proves something else.
A further question, if it says 'replaces' does that not mean all instances of the phrase "two-weapon fighting" are replaced with "multi-weapon fighting" where it is mentioned?
Would this not replace the required feats for ITWF and GTWF to have MWF as a pre-req?
It would be a little crazy to say: You have four arms. Therefore you must take MWF rather than TWF. Here's your list of banned feats because MWF can't qualify you the same way TWF can.
Bashing Finish
Break Guard
Dorn-Dergar Master
Double Bane
Double Slice
Two Weapon Rend
Two Weapon Feint
ITWF
ITW Feint
GTWF
Pinpoint Poisoner
Shield Slam
Two Weapon Defense
Archaeik wrote:
Except the AP is not written this way.
If you're going to cite it as precedent, then use what was printed.
I hadn't looked at the damage, only the attack string.
Even without the npc from divinity drive, it's RAW to use 1.5x damage on the offhand greatsword. Two handed weapons do not care what kind of hands are wielding them. Only that there are two.
The only real question at this point I feel is the MWF=/=TWF issue and wether or not a DM would force you to take a bestiary feat and then ban the list of feats above from you.
The creature itself has NOT taken MWF and honestly I don't think any gm's I know of allow the use of monster feats anyways.
This varies wildly as I don't know a dm that wouldn't allow them.
PC's can get winged flight (flyby, hover, wingover and druids can get huge enough for snatch), get multiple natural attacks (Improved Natural Attack, multiattack), natural armor (Improved Natural Armor), SLA (Ability Focus, Empower Spell-Like Ability, Quicken Spell-Like Ability) and awesome blow is already built into the brawler. Even looking at core races/classes, you can get all the abilities to qualify for every one except multiweapon fighting.
Perhaps this is just coming from the DM's I've played with.
I'd still be allowed to take TWF I think unless the DM forced the text of the "MWF replaces TWF" on my character, but at that point I'd withdraw from the campaign if he further disallowed ITWF and GTWF because MWF is not TWF.
Looking at that exact text of MWF, if an alchemist has 2 arms and takes TWF, then gains an extra arm through vestigial arm, he would auto-replace TWF with MWF at that point (even though Vestigial Arms do not allow extra attacks, he still meets the requirements for MWF replacing TWF.)
Remove Sickness would suppress the sickness for it's duration (10 minutes/level).
Legalistic doesn't state anywhere the sickness is impervious to magical effects.
As far as I can tell it's magical sickness with a variable duration (24 hours or until you meet your obligation.)
Per the rules, Heal or something similar to it would straight up remove the sickness.
As a DM though, I would feel a bit irked at a legalistic oracle constantly shirking the penalties of their curse. Perhaps whatever power caused the oracle's curse in the first place would make a visit.
Until there's a official FAQ on the subject (and it may never will), I suggest writting a few options and asking other to click "Favorite" on the one they think is best.
*There is no obligation to use either the Greatsword of the Greataxe as always the Main Hand, you can choose which you'll use as the Main Hand every round, but once you chose one and made your first attack as Main Hand, the other weapon must be used as Off-Hand in this round.
The best we have is a precedent in The Divinity Drive (part 6 of the iron gods adventure path.)
RAW, the off-hand greatsword would receive full 1.5x str because the rules for 'half damage' are strictly tied to one-handed and light weapons.
What you've listed about off hands being only worth 0.5 str and mainhands being worth 1.0 str is nowhere near what the book has stated or implied written or otherwise.
Damage modifiers are tied to the type of weapon being used, hence the rules for damage modifiers being listed only in the equipment section.
I would think if it were any different they'd be listed with the TWF rules or in the combat section of the CRB.
Equipment: Weapons: Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons wrote:
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon's size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat). Add the wielder's Strength modifier to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or half the wielder's Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder's primary hand only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.
Two-Handed: Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon
Take special note that nowhere does it specify main or off hands regarding 2 handed weapons, just that a 2 handed weapon will require 2 hands to wield effectively.
Spoilers for the iron gods:
Spoiler:
The creature in question has:
15 BAB, Weapon Focus (+1), Greater Weapon Focus (+1), weapon training III (+3) for a total of +20 to their attack.
The listed attacks go:
+16/+11/+6 +16/+11
As per TWF and ITWF using two non-light weapons. (-4/-4, -9/-9, -14/x)
The creature itself has NOT taken MWF and honestly I don't think any gm's I know of allow the use of monster feats anyways.
But if it's not PFS I'm sure your DM would be willing to allow you to take them, especially if your character concept revolves around your racial choice.
This is one of those things where it would 'make sense' but it's not allowed by the rules.
