Jasper Phillips's page

Still seems weak for a 4th level spell, especially since stone walls are generally at least a foot thick. It is a 3rd level spell for Druids and Clerics though, which is a bit better.

Making openings doesn't seem like a great use -- consider that a 5'x5'x1' chunk of wall has 8 Hardness and ~23 Hit points (as per pg 411 of the core rules). Your typical 7th level fighter will Power Attack through that in one or two Full Attack actions with a Maul or Pick Axe.

I suppose a more interesting use would be to make something, perhaps part of a building's construction.

Stone Shape says it has an area of 10 cubic feet + 1 cubic foot/level, which at minimum casting level (7) is a brick approximately 2'x2'x4'...

This seems exceedingly small for a 4th level spell!

Is it intended to be 10' + 1'/level in each dimension? So at 7th level it'd be 17'x17'x17' -- 4913 cubic feet?

You've got your timeline backwards, Spacelard.

But again, whatever. I'm /wounded/. You win.

Of course slagging off D&D on a (essentially) D&D forum is going to win friends and influence people. And make people take you seriously.

Like I'm not.

Yeah, whatever. Walk back up the tree and you'll find that I merely suggested a house rule adding more skills to all characters, but limited to often-skipped skills, and some ways to make them more appealing to players. All as a way to encourage players to actually take them, and hopefully make more interesting characters.

But honestly, you don't take me seriously? I'm /wounded/. Heaven forbid anyone should play with house rules!

I despise the fact that people kvetch that Pathfinder penalizes people for making non-combat choices because OTHERS choose to min/max.

Back atcha, buddy.

I'm amused you think your /marginally/ less munchkin D&D characters are much better than optimized D&D characters, simply because you put a few points into a random skill and took a non-combat feat.

From the viewpoint of other systems they're both still munchkin.

All I have to go on is what you say in your posts, which was "Oh come on, how often do you see players put more than a point into such Flavor Skills, when they could instead put them into skills like Perception? This holds especially true for Fighters, who have so few skills."

Maybe you could consider reading the rest of what I wrote, rather than pulling choice bits out of context? I don't think you'll find anything to hang your assertion that I'm some sort of anti-role-playing power-gaming munchkin on. It's /especially/ edifying when you largely ignore the rest of what I wrote and jump straight to the ad hominems.

Thus, the game isn't penalizing you for making believable characters--it's expecting that you're making believable characters.

The characters you're calling "non-optimal" and "believable" I'm specifically calling gamey and not believable card board caricatures. I mean, they're pretty good given the limitations of the system -- but that's it. Oooh! They took a non-combat feat! Such characterization!

D&D in general is just weak at this sort of thing, near the bottom of the pile of the scores of RPGs I've played over the past 30 years, let alone the hundred or so I've read through. That you're trying to argue that D&D is some sort of paradise of role-playing, what with all the campaigns where you're level 1 one month and level 10 the next is, well, it's amusing.

D&D is and always has been Munchkin Utopia, and very clearly the Crunchy Bits are the main draw. Pathfinder /is/ a good step up from 3.5 (and certainly better than 4th edition), e.g. with the addition of things like background traits, and it is /great/ in its crunchy niche, but let's not get carried away and proclaim it to be more than it is.

So yes, the way Pathfinder handles things like Profession (Herbalism) is /decidedly/ weak. Other systems do better, and Pathfinder would /be/ better if it adapted. Simple things, like giving bonus skill points for background non-adventuring skills make a big difference, even though they only address the tip of the iceberg.

It really does work wonders. You end up with things like all character putting substantial points into Knowledge (Local) for places they've lived in, rather than the default -- where you're lucky if players put even a point into it unless they get the +3 in class bonus.

Flame on, Sean K Reynolds! That's some chip you have on your shoulder.

Most recently I play a fighter with Int 14, with points in Farming, Soldiering, and Painting. /Clearly/ I am all about maximizing my damage! I should what, put 18 in Int? :-P

Way to overgeneralize when you know nothing about me -- it's particularly laughable to be lectured about ROLE (sic) playing in a /D&D/ forum.

-

Anyway, my point still stands. D&D heavily penalizes you for making believable characters -- which most systems don't. Now, I suppose you can argue that other systems are just better, which to be frank is largely true, but there's no particular reason D&D can't be tweaked to reduce the impact of its shortcomings. Given the choice, I'd play another system, but that's not always feasible.

Putting 2 points in Calligraphy and spending a couple gold for pretty scrolls makes for a nice bit of color, but what about all the background skills that you should have simply as a matter of growing up in society? A full time warrior should presumably have maxed out something like Profession (Soldier) -- how many D&D characters do you see do something like this?

I'd bet a pint of bitter your Calligraphy Fighter/Rogue ROLE-play character didn't either -- and that's even with the extra skill points from being a Rogue. And why? Because the system penalizes you for making believable characters.

Pathfinder helps this aspect of D&D greatly by vastly reducing the number of skills, but better /can/ be done.

Yes, you can use trip interchangeably during a Cleave, in exactly the same manner you can use Trip during a full attack. The wording about "you deal damage normally..." leaves a bit to be desired, but nonetheless it works.

You can use any Combat Maneuver that takes the place of an attack, just not those that take the place of a standard action.

In my own homebrew campaigns, I give every character 2 extra skill points that can only be assigned to "background" skills (knowledges, crafts, professions, performances). I also have house rule/homebrew systems to take advantage of them, like this one.

That's exactly what I do as well. Works perfectly.

I also like to have relatively long amounts of time pass between adventures, and have such skills be important then. So characters without "flavor" skills tend to be poor.

Might even be a good idea to tie starting wealth to such skills, although I don't do that as I instead have White Wolf style background pools for things like wealth, contacts, etc.

And depending on the game, Scribe or Cook could be rolled more frequently than perception or stealth. I've knowledge(Batorian Pastry) and Knowledge(chocolate) rolls made to game changing effect. And the DCs are so low for most of the tasks, that 1-2 points is all you really need.

Oh come on, how often do you see players put more than a point into such Flavor Skills, when they could instead put them into skills like Perception? This holds especially true for Fighters, who have so few skills.

I'll waste several points of Flavor skills, e.g. for Rise of the Runelords I took Profession (soldier) and Profession (farmer), even though I expect zero use out of them. My experience as a GM is that players /rarely/ even take that much.

As a result characters almost never have the sort of skills that ordinarily would be quite practical to them in their ordinary life between adventures -- skills that they really should have. White Wolf style separate pools of points for background things averts such gaminess nicely.

Temple Swords don't sound like piercing weapons...

This place sure loves acronyms... What is PFCS? Private First Class Smith?

What the heck is a temple sword? I'm intrigued, as I've long wanted to make some sort of monk/sword build...

I just stumbled across the rule for this, at the top left of page 141:

"All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race."

Bit of an awkward location, that.

Everyone is Proficient with Unarmed Strikes -- e.g. they don't get -4 to hit. Unarmed strikes normally provoke opportunity attacks and don't threaten adjacent squares, both of which Improved Unarmed Strike gets around.

I think they actually do get attacks of opportunity by default, per se, it's just that they don't threaten adjacent squares. So if someone in your square tried to drink a potion or flee you'd get to punch them first.

Hrm, I don't see such a rule either, now that you mention it.

If you let someone use the haft of a polearm as an improvised club, that'd mean you actually threatened adjacent squares, and thus could get around the -4 penalty by tripping...

I'm not sure I like the implications of this, and I'd rule that you needed to take a Free Action to "Switch Your Grip", from polearm to an improvised club, much like for Spiked Gauntlets.

After thinking about it, I'd probably also let you use it as a short spear (assuming you had a butt spike). Perhaps this'd be a bit generous though, as after all you can't stab with a longsword.

I'd much rather use an existing feat from the core rules, than dig up a back dragon article for a feat from a different system, and deal with the whole can of worms that opens. As a general rule, I rather despise using feats outside the core rules, as as large proportion are inevitably broken, and they're not worth the hassle of balancing via house rules. Nor am I keen on buying a dozen splat books to keep up with the Joneses.

Also, "Improvised Weapon Mastery" (IMW) requires having "Catch-Off Guard" (or the missile weapon equivalent), and exactly the same mechanism is used to avoid penalties by both. The difference is that IMW works for both melee and missile weapons, and increases the weapon base damage.

Saying "Improvised Weapon Mastery" would work, but not "Catch-Off Guard", is a paradox.

Presumably you mean "Catch Off-Guard"? I don't believe there is a "Improvised Weapon Proficiency" feat per se, but I think Catch Off-Guard's "suffer no penalties for using an improvised weapon" would work.

I like that approach, seems more fitting than taking Improved Unarmed Strike. The only question then is what it would be most like for damage purposes? A Great Club, or a Quarter Staff? Probably a Quarter Staff, as it'd be weird to have it do more base damage than a Guisarme.

I don't think you get to multiply weapon enhancement damage with Vital Strike.

1) The feat says multiply the /dice/ quite clearly
2) It also says you shouldn't multiply weapon abilities (which seems like it would include enhancement)
3) It's quite good enough without stacking such a large amount of extra free damage.

He wouldn't be able to Opportunity Trip in that case -- the Opportunity happens while his foe is still at 10', and so he's out of range...

-

But, were he somehow able to, e.g. if he had a 10' reach from Enlarge Person, then Improved Trip would prevent the opportunity attack incurred for tripping, irrespective of whether a weapon was used to trip or whether the tripper had Improved Unarmed Attack.

Conversely, if he didn't have Improved Trip then he would provide an opportunity, again irrespective of using a trip weapon or having Improved Unarmed Attack.

-

Also, a Trip with your foot is, as recently ruled, /not considered to be made with a weapon/ -- it is a "Trip", and not a "Trip, made with unarmed strike", and thus Focus: Unarmed Strike doesn't add +1 to the CMB.

Put another way, Monks are no better at tripping than anyone else, unless they take Improved Trip.

Just wondering... Why can't reach weapons strike at adjacent targets, again?

I know it's in the rules, but I can't figure out the underlying reason (mainly because I can grasp a polearm closer to its head, or strike with the wooden part).

Because otherwise you can strike an adjacent foe, then tumble away, and get an opportunity attack on them as they try to close. Rinse and Repeat.

Having the reach "hole" means that if you want to attack a target next to you, you can only take a 5' step back -- which means they can then take a 5' to avoid your opportunity attacks. So it's possible to get "inside" a polearm's reach and at least be on equal footing.

I'm guessing this is also the reason why Spring Attack can no longer be used while attacking a foe that started the round next to you.

Easily done! It's a bit weird that the generally /less/ restrictive Free Action can only be done on your turn, while an Immediate action takes long enough you can only do one, yet can do so on your opponents turn.

The rules would be clearer if it were spelled out explicitly under Free Actions that (other than talking) they had to be during your turn.

Ah! Sorry about that, my mistake.

I'm a bit fuzzy on how that'd work in practice. First you'd grapple the rider, then on his turn he can't move, but his horse can... Presumably if you were somehow still grappled on your next turn you could then "move" him off the horse, although he'd still be standing, which is kind of weird.

Actually, as far as I see, there's no provision for using grapple to make someone Prone at all... Rather bizarre for what is essentially wrestling.

And just to be clear, I'm completely fine with requiring being armed or the Improved Unarmed feat in order to make trip opportunity attacks.

In the end, I guess I'm just taking issue with Spiked Armor, and the bizarre manner in which using a polearm coerces you to use it.

The Spiked Gauntlet I'm sort of ok with, with the understanding that you have to decided to be either using them or your polearm at the end of your turn.

A grapple totally doesn't fit. For one thing, you can't grapple someone at 10' reach with a polearm. For another, grappling also leaves you grappled, and would more likely just result in you being dragged along by the horse.

Jasper Phillips wrote:

You only get free actions during your turn, not during opportunity attacks...

Not true, you get free actions at any time. You only get swift actions on your turn.

You're going to have to point that out to me in the rules, as I don't see it.

My point of view isn't clearly spelled out either, although if you look at page 188 at the end of the description of "Free Actions", it's clearly implied (emphasis mine, of course):

"Speak: In general speaking is a free action that you can perform /even when it isn't your turn/."

Generally speaking, there are reasons to limit Free Actions to only being on your turn, both in order to speed up play, but also to avoid things like foes always dropping prone when shot at, etc.

[Edit]
Hmmm, actually, looking more closely, it's spelled out pretty clearly on page 181 that you can only take actions on your turn, with Immediate Actions being a specific exception to this.

[Edit 2]
Incidentally, another place this comes up is with a "Ring of Force Shield", one of which my fighter picked up in Rise of the Runelords. It's a shield you can switch on/off with a Free Action... Being able to switch between the shield's +2 AC and making opportunity attacks with a polearm at will would be a bit much.

Your post pretty much sums up a number of the reasons I dislike the ruling on trip.

And I believe you would be unable to attack with both the spiked gauntlet and a 2 handed weapon at the same time. If you consider yourself weilding the guisarm, you would not get the spiked gauntlets. If you wore armor spikes, however, you could, since they don't need a hand.

I agree, and like how this handles the spiked gauntlet conundrum.

But then, as you point out, armor spikes become the problem. :-/

I think I'd just rule that armor spikes only work while grappling.

In the case of the spiked gauntlet, mechanically it's easy: you let go of the polearm (you can hold it with one hand, just not wield it) with the spiked glove (a free action) and bash them in the face with the gauntlet as it is already in your hand.

You only get free actions during your turn, not during opportunity attacks...

You'd have to have made that decision at the end of your turn, and then wouldn't be able to use the polearm for opportunity attacks.

No offense taken. There are certainly people on these boards who would not intend it as a joke, and I couldn't tell by your tone of voice how serious you were.

Incidentally, welcome to the boards. You ask great questions, provide coherent answers, and seem a decent sort of fellow. I expect Lilith will be by with cookies any time now. (Hint: try the snickerdoodles.)

Glad to hear it!

Clearly I jumped in the muck a bit with my joke; you'd think after so many years on internet forums I'd have learned how easily such things are misconstrued without the aid of nonverbal cues, especially in a new crowd.

Man, what was I thinking opening up the "real life example" can of worms. I'm still kicking myself that I didn't edit that out quick enough.

Suffice to say I think you're all nuts! ;-) The reasons it doesn't work are different than you've outlined, but to be frank, I've zero interesting in discussing them here.

I'm sure you also think I'm nuts, so lets just agree to disagree and move on. :-)

So, basically you could only unhorse foes with a guisarme or whip, otherwise you'd have to trip the horse?

Yeah, I'd thought about that too, but felt it was a bit too restrictive... but then again, perhaps that's not so bad. Using flails to unhorse does seem a bit much.

Kusarigamas don't fit into the rules well; I'd probably just say that's what a Spiked Chain really is, change the damage type to S, and leave it at that. Does seem like they aught to have reach 10' when making trip attacks, but doing so unleashes a bit too much munchkinism for my tastes. Perhaps give them a 10' reach on trips, but keep their actual threatened reach at 5'? Hmmm, actually, that sounds pretty good.

Oh yeah, and not to mention, is that whole recursive opportunity attack trick /really/ how it's supposed to work? How would you even resolve that? Yuck.

I think I'd just rule that the acting character can't make an opportunity attack in reaction to an opportunity attack -- though someone else could. You giving them a good opportunity also gives them a clean shot, even though normally they'd leave themselves open.

-

I like how pathfinder has both streamlined and opened up such combat maneuvers, but the corner cases this has introduced could really use some ironing out...

Hmmm, this all brings up another question. Can you even be considered to be "wielding" a spiked gauntlet while you're using a polearm?

I mean, it's not like you can make additional "off hand" gauntlet attacks while you poleaxe foes...

The whole spiked gauntlet angle strikes me as pretty cheezy, the more I think about it.

1) It's been ruled recently that you can't trip with any weapon -- you need a trip weapon.
2) Trip weapons do not give any bonus to the trip roll.
3) The tripper only falls prone if he missed by 10+, not 5+.

And I realize that if they move out of squares 10' away you get trip attacks. I'm thinking more about foes running circles around you /inside/ your reach, as they setup flank attacks.

Seems pretty clear that said Improved Trip Guisarme Fighter wants to wear a spiked gauntlet, even though he's not intending to actually punch anyone with it.

Knocking someone prone while they're still in the saddle strikes me as colorful, but gamey...

I'm thinking to stick with a trip attack that requires a weapon, and just let any trip weapon do it rather than get overly specific. Partly because then it dovetails with Improved/Greater Trip, which feels right.

Maybe with a special rule that you can't ready such a trip, as otherwise a ready flailman or whatever would have too much edge over a mounted swordsman.

I'm torn on whether to add a Riding Check to stay in the saddle, or give the rider some sort of "saddle" bonus to CMD vs. unhorsing, as a basic check seems a bit too easy, but on the other hand I'd rather not make it too complicated.

So, a fighter is armed with a guisarme, and has Improved Trip. He can trip foes as an opportunity attack as they close from 10' to 5'. However, he can't make such an opportunity trip against foes that move from a square adjacent to him, as they aren't threatened...

But! Give him a spiked gauntlet, and then he can, even though the spiked gauntlet can't actually be used to trip?

Do I have all that right? Or does the opportunity attack have to be with the threatening weapon, meaning you could punch the guy, but not trip him since spiked gauntlets aren't a trip weapon?

-

Another question: If the fighter didn't have Improved Trip, would using a trip as an opportunity attack itself trigger an opportunity attack by the moving foe? What if said foe then went for an opportunity trip himself? Weee!

Seems easiest just to allow reach weapons to hit the diagonals, rather than make the opportunity attack rules even more complex than they already are. Hew too closely to the letter of the rules and you inevitably run into such problems.

Save the diagonal range calculations for ranged weapons, movement, and area effects -- which they are clearly intended for.

It's a joke son, a joke!

If you're offended, you /probably/ need to Chill Out. Maybe even take the chip off your shoulder. Seriously, no offense intended.

And yes, I do call it literalism -- tripping people with swords, daggers, maces, and in general most non-trip weapons is /very/ gamey. In particular, hooks were added to Guisarmes specifically to, among other things, /trip/ people -- they certainly weren't added just so you could drop the weapon if you failed!

Having fenced for a good 15+ years, I find the idea that you can practically trip someone with a sword completely ridiculous.

Hmmm, leaving it to a feat might be the best way to deal with it.

I do still like tying it to Trip though, as that just feels right since you're essentially trying to hook them off. And maybe it's not so bad being able to unseat foes with things like flails...

I also like the effect of dropping your weapon if you fail by too much, which seems fitting.

Anyway, just musing. I guess it shouldn't be too much of a surprise if this hasn't come up before, as D&D's mounted rules have always been a bit of an afterthought, and most action seems to take place where you can't bring a horse anyway.

The Unseat Feat is clearly meant for jousting; Bull Rush makes sense there, but doesn't for hooking somebody off a horse.

I like your generic CMB vs. CMD roll mechanically, but it would mean you could unhorse a foe with /any/ weapon. That seems a bit much. I also don't think the Ride check would apply, per the wording of Ride's "Stay in Saddle" just preventing you from being unhorsed due to damage or a scared horse.

Interestingly the Ride Skill implies you have to roll "Stay in Saddle" whenever you take damage, but I don't see any actual rule to that effect...

If pressed, I'd go with a CMB vs. CMD check like you describe, and fall back on a vague "but you can only do it with a weapon that makes sense!". Which would be a guisarme, halberd, whip, net, and... I guess that's it?

There really aught to be a standard way to do it. I brought up the guisarme as an example because historically that's what their hooks were intended to do.

I don't like the idea of using "your body" to trip a mounted rider -- a warhorse would just trample you; similarly, using Animal Handling feels gamey.

Some sort of opposed trip/riding contest has a certain appeal to it, but something based on CMD would be more in keeping with the spirit of the rules, and I'd like to avoid special case rules as much as possible.

Anyway, mostly I'm looking for an established ruling; surely such a common situation has come up before!

It should probably require a trip weapon though, as doing it with your foot seems a bit off. Although for that matter, most of the trip weapons seem a bit out of place unhorsing a foe too...

Say I want to unhorse a mounted foe with a guisarme...

How do I do this? Is it just a normal trip attack?

Oh, and I completely agree that Tripping with a Reach weapon is a bit overpowered.

I don't see how this ruling does anything to affect that though, as you can just use a magical Guisarme -- and if you can't find one, you get someone in your party to /make/ one.

Quandary's reading that you can still use a 5' step after standing up from a trip is probably a good one (even if I don't agree the letter of the rules read that way), as being forced to crawl forward to get out of the reach-trip trap is a bit silly.

On the other hand, it's no worse than a Monk with Improved Disarm automatically stealing foes' weapons, so that all humanoid foes are forced to use locking gauntlets.

This is one of the reasons I like Pathfinder -- the designers make clean and sensible rulings, with an attention to balance, and without succumbing to literalism.

All you guys trying to argue that you could trip with any weapon were giving in to your inner munchkin. ;-)

Yeah, I think I'll go with the "Quick" Template version here, funny as it is to watch Mauril humorously bend over backward. ;-) Oh yeah, it /totally/ makes sense that a horse has 20 Str, 18 Dex, 21 Con, and 17 Wis.

They aught to just make Warhorse a separate beast, and rename the "Advanced" template to "Champion", which is clearly what it's intended to be used for. Generally I applaud Paizo's efforts to streamline, consolidate and modularize, but they went a bit too far here.

Does the extra d4 bite count as a Secondary Attack?

Also, it seems odd that the "Advanced Template" also gives them +4 to Int, Wis, and Cha... Is that really intended?

Do familiars even get skill ranks?

I thought they just used the higher of their master's and the point or two from their race template.

I've a few questions about trip. The answers seem obvious to me, but it'd be nice to get such ambiguity ironed out for the FAQ.

1) What's the concentration check for a wizard if he's tripped while casting? What if he's tripped and then hacked via Greater Trip?

2) Can you trip during a Cleave? I assume so, but Cleave's wording mentions doing damage...

3) Does Trip really require to /exceed/ your target's CMD, unlike every other DC? Seems like an oversight.

4) Oh, and just for fun -- can you trip with a non-trip weapon? ;-P

Yeah, that's how I'd play it too, despite my guess that the clumsy wording intends otherwise. Fits better with the concept, simpler rules, and makes Lunge useful enough to offset the -2 AC penalty.

As posited at the start of the thread, I'd never take it, unless I was certain there was going to be a substantial amount of "formation" fighting with enemies packed two rows deep, and I already had Whirlwind Attack.