Isaiah Overseas's page

Wondering also - Bardic knowledge doesn't seem to specify that you get the rank when you gain a BARD level..
Fairly big distinction, and if it's meant to be that way, then woohoo for 1 class level providing an endless source of ranks in a Knowledge Skill for Prestige Classes!
Not meaning to threadjack, just figured the two things were related.

agreed (that Speak Language should be split out of Linguistics).
I also think of the character that has no "skill" per se with the mechanics of Language, he just grew up learning an extra one or two. This guy wouldn't know how to decipher something if the key hit him in the face - his family just always spoke (whatever) around the house.

Who here is currently in a campaign using the Pathfinder RPG rules? Are you the GM or a player? Which rules are you using?

For me, I'm currently a player. We're using all the rules: races, classes, feats, etc. GM's currently running us through the CotCT AP.

I'm GMing a group through CotCT, using all rules. Just heading into the dead warrens, after 6 sessions or so (We're really slow).

These are absolutely fantastic! Thanks so much.
and by the way, some of the quotes are pretty epic. :)

sorry, should have clarified a couple of things:
/sarcasm and relenting to peer pressure
-Allow the player to whip NPCs to his heart's content, success on a grapple check allows the player to toss a grapplee up to his maximum encumbrance with a 10' range increment. Touch attack to hit other mobs with the poor sod, then opposed strength check to knock them all prone (and deal 10d6 damage to all involved).
/end sarcasm and relenting to peer pressure

and my powergaming is completely within the RAW.

Appreciating the discussion here, i quite like the idea of enemies making some sort of check to catch the "projectile" to reduce the damage. Lastknightleft, if i yield on this, i'll likely use your mechanic though. It's well thought out and balanced.
I think i'm going to stick with a modified bull rush though. Reasons:
-simplicity
-heavy projectiles don't generally have a chance to knock down opponents, why should a living one?
-Despite my players burning conviction that HE (as a player) could toss a struggling foe, i'm utterly unconvinced. And even though his character has "a strength of 18!!!"(his emphasis) and is able to carry the foe as a Heavy Load, that doesn't mean that tossing is automatically a reasonable combat action.

I'll allow him to take the Fling Foe feat, but only pertaining to Small or smaller creatures, but i don't like the idea of giving someone an ability that others would have to purchase (through feats or class) to use. And i'll tell him that any enlarge person effects + that feat = tossing to your hearts content (medium creatures). I'm sure we'll have this fight again though once he's enlarged and wants to toss trolls.
:)

I'll continue to welcome more viewpoints!

Implication is that they're actually easier to hit, -4 to Dex.
So RAW, no. no. and no.
:)

I need to clarify, the player didn't call me anything disrespectful, i just DM with a style that says "NO" as a knee-jerk reaction (usually followed by a tenative "maybe" the next day or so), and my players know that an initial 'no' is not necessarily a definite 'no'; and i end up feeling stupid the next day because it was actually a fun and good idea, that seems wonderful in the light of day. I have a grand group of players, but they're very much for things that end up having to be adjudicated. The barbarian's player in particular has a flair for unorthodox thinking, and tends to either take classes that are less powerful -or- cripple a character just to see if he can "find another way"; Examples: He's played both a 1st level commoner, and a 65 year old fighter. He's played too many LARPS, i think, and free-form is how he thinks. :) I love my players, don't get me wrong. And while i'm a pretty big proponent of playing the game you want to play (i'm a notorious powergamer whenever i can be, though usually well within the RAW), i usually like to find something that makes more sense to the rules than to the fun.

Having said all that, i'll return to the original topic.
Narrowed down to these options so far (unless someone else has more):
-Allow Combat Maneuvers (Bull Rush, Disarm, Sunder, Trip) by a grappler using typical rules, but including the +5 circumstance bonus if the opponent doesn't break the grapple. Throw is treated as a Bull Rush (through the air).
-Use the judo flip option found on Wizard's page mentioned by hogarth.
-Disallow throwing without a feat or class feature to allow it.
-Allow the player to whip NPCs to his heart's content, success on a grapple check allows the player to toss a grapplee up to his maximum encumbrance with a 10' range increment. Touch attack to hit other mobs with the poor sod, then opposed strength check to knock them all prone (and deal 10d6 damage to all involved).
-Some other, mysterious, spooky option.

What do you all think?

You may or may not want to bullrush an ooze, however I can always see a bonus to getting out of an "enveloped" situation (grapple) being a good thing.

Favored Enemy gives +attack. It wouldn't be a stretch to see it cover CMB as well.

I'd like to know if there's an official ruling on this, one of my players is curious too.

Hmmm...interesting.

Sounds like metamagic with no spell level increase to me!

A bit overpowered, IMO.

How about "Ordered Evil?"
Honestly, i have no preference one way or the other what it's called, i'd just as soon switch over to Palladium's alignment system.

Oh wait! i already have! :)

Once again, i thank you. :)
That article was quite helpful!

There are feats in Races of Stone (Fling Ally, Fling Foe) that allow this (prerequisite: Large size or larger), as well as maneuvers (Setting Sun school) in the Tome of Battle that do something similar.

I wouldn't allow it with a simple grapple check, though.

Thanks hogarth! i had an inkling that i wasn't just being a jerk, that certain things (ie things that can only be done with a feat or class feature) should not be able to be adjudicated down to an improvised roll or two.

Appreciating any input.

Not sure if this is the best place for this thread... hopefully it is!

So we're playing along (Curse of the Crimson Throne), and it becomes clear that our party's now 3rd level half-orc barbarian (Str 18) exists solely (in the mind of his player) to fling enemies that he's grappled around the battlefield.
I'm unsure what to do with this - i would think it would be REALLY hard to throw a struggling foe any distance at all, plus i'm worried about abuse if i say he IS able to throw them. If the throw-ee is flung at a group of NPCs, knocking them all off of a tower just because Barbarian's grapple is higher, isn't that a bit ridiculous? One of my players suggested just considering it a Bull Rush (that wouldn't provoke an attack of opportunity), an idea that i'm going to try, but i wanted to get the advice of some of the fine people here on the boards. :)
Also, the hulking hurler class gives the ability "Really Throw Anything" which gives a much more clear picture of what can be thrown, but only with that particular prestige class (which requires Large size or larger)..

Basically, i'm wondering:
-whether to allow it at all (especially noticing that it's no longer possible to move your enemy when you're grappling or grappled)
-what mechanic to use (Bull Rush makes the most sense in my mind)
-whether he would be able to cause damage (to the projectile, to the people he hits, or both)
-what kind of range would be appropriate(??)

Would love some input, thanks in advance!

Just discovered the clincher.. "Cannot use more than one combat feat in a round" pg34.

That balances it out pretty nicely in my mind with that limitation.
Solved.

Ever watch a Jackie Chan flick.....

Hehe true, but don't you think even Jackie would pick up a sword if he really wanted to lay some horrible wasting down (and there was one available)?

/snip
In short:
-Sides connect: no cover
-Centers connect, but a side does not: light cover +2
-Centers don't connect: heavy cover +5
-Centers connect, but both sides don't: heavy cover +5
-Ranged attacks ignore adjacent obstacle to allow sniping

A final note:
This "tangency" system can also be use to determine flanking. If both tangency lines of attackers pass through the defender, the attackers are flanking.

I'm a big fan of this - for some reason this seems much easier to my brain to figure out. Also, for gridless play this is SUPERB.

Aforementioned rogue hides behind a rock this time. Rock is approximately 20' to a side (big rock). Would a ranged attack ignore this adjacent obstacle? (Presumably only if he was at an edge, correct?)
Perhaps it would be good to mention that at least one line must be able to be drawn from some point on each mini to the other in order to have LOS. Common sense, i know.

Is it just me, or are others seeing visions of characters wandering the streets with household items that far outclass any of the weapons that are available?
I could be wrong - just seems a bit over the top...

"Mug? that's a 1d6 bludgeoning weapon that crits on 18-20 for x3!
And it's free!

A Chair?! What are you, nuts? that's more likely than not a 1d10 weapon with the same crit chance and multiplier! When the city guard catches you with that kind of heavy ordinance, they'll call in the Fireball brigade for sure!

Just don't train to use it, or you'll just look like a fool carrying furniture down the street."

Just one voice among a whole bunch, but here's my opinions.

Changes/tweaks that i'm loving:

-Scent of Evil shown by Jason Nelson 20(Completely fixes Detect Evil without a severe nerf, in my opinion).
-Special Mount vs Hallowed Blade options (It really does work for rangers, why not for paladins? Additionally, i have a player who has made 3 paladins over the course of playing almost SOLELY for the mount. He'd be devastated if it were to go. Having said all that, if i played a paladin the last thing in the world that i would want is a warhorse to lug around).
-Kicking out spells (Useless? not completely. but close).
-Oaths for Powers option that Nighthunter mentioned (Reward players for behaving well! This doesn't fall too far from the whole concept of paladin, does it? God: "Be good!" Paladin-to-be: "Ok." God: "Cool. Here, go waste evil in my name." Paladin: "Wicked!... i mean Righteous!").
-Also liked the idea of giving a single domain for actual Deity flavor (makes a paladin more specific to a God without adding a metric ton of work and pages to a rulebook, though i'm not sure if that would be far too much if combined with Oaths for Powers - my initial thought is yes).

Other things:

I'm of a solid persuasion that "Paladins" should be lawful good, though i'm certainly not opposed to other lawful alignments having Paladin-like variants. Kind of a fan of anti-paladins too. But concerning non-lawfuls? Not a chance. It's not a stretch to require that monks need a lawful alignment because they devote themselves to training. Barbarians on the other hand, are prohibited from having a lawful alignment because rather than devoting themselves to chaos, they abandon themselves to it.

Hope this gets heard amidst all the other voices, even though it's just 2c.
In other news, i'm loving all the discussion! This is how things get well thought out - by examining all the angles!