Kalthanan's page

That's because at the time that book was written there were no ranged weapons that were both bludgeoning and piercing.

Respecfully, I don't think that's either here or there.

The rule obviously deviates from the standard, but it just as obviously qualifies that the intent is for it to protect from small, ranged piercing weapons. Sure, it could have followed the standard formula and said DR 3/piercing, but then we'd be arguing whether it also protected from rapiers, spears, etc., used in melee combat. I'm not defending the writers, but I think it's clear enough that their obvious choices amounted to:

1. Write it up as they did.
2. Write it up as DR 3/light, ranged piercing

And my guess is that they didn't want to go with #2, since that might lead to them having to change the way they wrote all of the DRs.

I'm asking because these are all the same questions I've been cycling through since this came up when a frustrated GM discovered that this might create some very strange issues in his steampunk flavored PF campaign and wanted to know what on earth the text of the item was actually trying to say.

That's fair, but the GM is always the arbiter of the game. In this case, they have two things going for them:

1. An obvious qualifier for an otherwise oddly-written rule.
2. Common sense.

Best of luck! :)

I read through a number of the older posts, and I genuinely don't understand whatw as driving so many of those debates.

The table outlining how many points starting characters should receive went so far as to qualify what kind of campaign the point buy was appropriate for. Think about the old "Clash of the Titans" movie: with a 10 or even 15 point buy, the PCs aren't Perseus; they're the entourage of ancient Greek fighters that follows him throughout the movie. Alternately, if you're reading Gates of Fire, they aren't playing the Spartan super-soldier/Olympic medal winner Polynikes; they're playing Xeones the helot-squire, who is good at a few things, including shooting the bow, but isn't a particularly impressive specimen physically or mentally.

There's nothing wrong with either direction. Different folks, different strokes and all that. The only thing that matters is that the group know what they're in for at the beginning. If they want their Joe Average characters who happened to get heroic training (hence Core Classes), that's great. If they want the same characters to get thrown into cataclysmic events wherein they'll decide the fate of the world, that's even better. It's just as valid to not want to play an average character who grows into greatness, though. Maybe you want to chance the dice in the hopes that you roll an Achilles (minus the invulnerability), or a Madmartigan, or some other great hero.

Again, I find it very telling that the designers specifically listed small, piercing ranged weapons but not any small, bludgeoning ranged weapons.

Where real world versus Pathfinder is concerned, the argument you're proposing strikes as just a little deliberately obtuse. I put it that way because it's obvious that you're an intelligent individual who is more than capable of framing and expressing their throught succinctly.

What I mean by this, then, is that you're willing to deliberately disregard real-world references and examples (quilted armor was made in such a way as to provide protection against even heavy arrows, etc., at certain distances; by contrast, no armor provided any meaningful protection versus firearms until the 20th century) when it suits a specific argument. On the flip side, however, you are more than willing to accept real-world references and examples by default where many other facets of the game are concerned. For example, I don't imagine you question the understood effects that things ranging from torches to hand-axes have in the game.

I hope you don't take this post as a personal attack. It ties in to the question I asked you earlier, which basically boils down to RAW versus RAI.

Where it's efficacy against bludgeoning effects is concerned, I think it's very telling that the quilted armor entry doesn't refer to a sling's bullets.

I'm not trying to be rude, but what is the intent of this thread? Is it to point out that the statistics for this armor are poorly written (a given), or is to pose the argument that - despite the qualifier they provided regarding the DR applying to small, ranged piercing weapons - the writers genuinely wanted this armor to provide protection against bullets?

Either way you cut it, I can't see how it's not obvious that bludgeoning damage effects are meant to bypass this DR.

Where RAI is concerned, I think it's fairly obvious that the designers don't want quilted armor to provide DR versus firearms. I would be shocked if the intent behind this armor is to function as something other than the historical gambeson/padded jack, which supposedly provided surprising protection against arrows.

What perspective are you asking from? RAW and whether they make sense in this case, or why the RAW was written the way it is as relates to the real-world usage of quilted armor?

I'm all about #5-7, 3catcircus!

What the OP was about is what the followers of those Gods would use as their preferred weapon. These are normally just a standard category of weapon, not a specific magic artifact. The typical followers of Zeus and Hermes are not going to have actual lightning bolts and magic rods.

For a rank and file low level cleric, javelin seems like a decent approximation for Zeus. While Caduceus is technically described as a "staff" and would functionally be most similar to a "rod" in game terms, I think the closest mundane approximation to a stubby little rod with no special magical powers might be to call it a mace.

Ah, man. I'm embarassed now! :D

Well, I guess I would ask the OP how close he wants his realm to resemble ancient Greece.

Beyond that, I would say it's less important to assign weapons that look the closest to what the gods do than it is to capture how the people themselves fought and what their culture was like.

Culture-wise, to name an example, Zeus grew up on the island of Crete. Every Greek knew that. Now, the double-headed axe never had any particular connection with Zeus - since priests of the Dodekatheon/the Olympic gods are never really shown with weapons in the mythos to begin with - but it IS identified with his "homeland", and thus has a more potent association with him than a weapon that was eminently forgetable to the Greeks (the javelin).

Where Greek fighting traditions are concerned, the OP should figure out what ancient Greek era he's trying to emulate. In the heroic Bronze Age, for example, warriors rode on chariots and fought duels on foot. They threw spears (not javelins) at each other. They supplemented them with swords*, axes, and even clubs. Many of them also favored the shortbow as well.

* And not just shortswords; the warriors of Crete fought with long-bladed, one-handed swords.

Both Apollo and Artemis should be using recurved (composite) shortbows. In addition, Apollo's arrows were capable of spreading disease: in the Iliad, he fires arrows at the Achaean camp in retribution for Agamemnon kidnapping his priest's daughter.

Hera is never described as armed, to my knowledge. A better idea might be to remember that the gods often transformed themselves into different creatures. The 3E/3.5E Deities and Demigods even had mechanics for that sort of thing (I think). The same would apply to other Greek gods as well: Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus are never shown armed, to my knowledge.

Hermes' weapon should not be a quarterstaff. It's rod-size, at best, and I imagine it should function as such. There are magical rods that also function as magical weapons, so I imagine they could serve as a good springboard for what a god's weapon might do.

Zeus will require a special at will ability that he (ideally) can perform more than once a round - something like at an at will Lightning Bolt or Chain Lightning, etc.

The problem with Phalanx Fighting is this: we all know that, historically, a long spear could be used with a shield. But...how, exactly? Did they really hold the spear in one hand, or did the shield itself help support the spear?

...
I'm not an historical phalanx-fighting expert, but I suspect that the true case resembles the second. I think that Phalanx Fighting doesn't so much let you use a longspear one-handed, but simply lets you use a shield at the same time as using the spear two-handed.

The Greek hoplite used a proper round shield that was over three feet in diameter. He fought with a spear that was between eight and nine feet long, which he used one-handed and in an over-hand motion. This tradition extended to ancient Italian states and cultures, as well. The Etruscans and the early Romans fought in a way largely indistinguishable from that of their Greek neighbors.

Philip II of Macedon is credited with introducing what is now known as the Macedonian phalanx. He made the shield smaller (though still the size of a Pathfinder small shield), and the spear longer - over 16 feet long, in fact. This spear, called the Sarissa, was used with both hands and was thrust in an under-hand motion.

The hoplite actively used his left arm to defend himself with his shield. The Macedonian phalangite may have had his shield strapped to his arm or may have simply had it hanging from his shoulder (historians don't agree). Either way, it was passive defense, since the phalangite's main consideration was to aim his giant spear (which eventually grew to 22-24 feet in length during the Hellenistic Age) at someone.

I hope this helps! :)

Like I said, I suspect it comes down to a RAW versus RAI argument. It's no different than the differences of opinion you saw in the "Weapon Versatility" thread.

So, in conclusion:

Is the rule written in a way wherein it allows a character to wield two polearms while using a buckler or an animated shield?

Yes.

Does the RAW reflect the RAI?

I sincerely doubt it.

It's another one of those debates that can be discussed ad nauseam, but the only answer that really matters is the one the GM gives you. If your GM is ultimately concerned with RAW, he'll probably allow it. If your GM is ultimately concerned with RAI, he probably won't allow it.

For the most part, I love the optional Armor as Damage Reduction, Called Shots, and Piecemeal Armor rules. If it were my game, I'd see a variant of all three used as the mainstream rules set. In addition, I would re-tool with the basic combat system to allow for changes in initiative and to introduce parrying/blocking.

ABILITY SCORES
Since I'm going with Armor as Damage Resistance, and since I am a fan of more realistic combat, I would take away the bonus to hit from Strength and give it to Dexterity. Brute strength will now be important for hammering through armor, and not somehow indicative of dexterity in the melee.

COMBAT

Initiative
What I would introduce here is means by which an individual could "seize the initiative" as it were. Both in realistic combat and in what we see in books, movies, etc., the initiative shifts in a battle as one combatant gains an advantage only to surrender it to a superior foe later on.

For example, Martel's Initiative roll was 12. Jenna's was 18. At some point, Martel successfuly performs a riposte against Jenna. This "change of the initiative" should reflect in subsequent rounds.

Other examples I can think of could include a successful disarm, or if the character parrying or blocking (see below) not only beat his opponent's attack roll but rolled within his weapon's critical range.

Actions in Combat
Parrying with a weapon and blocking with a shield would become a standard action. Where weapons are concerned, the roll would be based on BaB and would benefit from Weapon Focus, enchantment, etc. Where shields are concerned, the shield bonus would be added to this roll.

ARMOR AS DAMAGE REDUCTION

Defense
I would re-tool this so that it doesn't rely on a flat 10 as its basis. Like the BaB, it would increase by level and would be better for some classes than for others.

CALLED SHOTS
Called shots would actually become the default melee and missile attack - a standard action. A Full Attack action would still a process wherein you take more than one attack (now a called shot) per round. Attacks would receive a penalty to hit appropriate to the target, as outlined under the Variant Rule section of Ultimate Combat.

Obviously, this means no Improved Called Shot and Greater Called Shot feats.

PIECEMEAL ARMOR
Piecemeal armor would be re-tooled to work with Armor as Damage Reduction. The wrinkle would be that you don't gain a bonus for each piece of armor you wear. Rather, each piece of armor provides the appropriate DR for the portion of the body it protects. E.g., Martel wears a proper breastplate. He has DR 8/magic over his chest, heart, and vitals. His arms are unarmored, and so he has no DR for them.

Lots of feats would have to be re-worked or removed entirely. I'm still in the process of figuring out how all this would work. Thematically and stylistically, though, I like it much more than the traditional AC system.

I get where blackbloodtroll is coming from, LoreKeeper, I really do. I just don't necessarily agree with his assessment that RAW equates to RAI where this feat is concerned, or with your feelings about the usefulness of the feat if it's restricted to weapons that "make sense".

Let's go by your reading of the rules for a second. I don't necessarily agree with some of the points you made about weapon features, etc., but no matter.

The implied intent for Weapon Versatility is to allow you to damage something you ordinarily wouldn't be able to with your weapon. That, in and of itself, is nothing to laugh at. The fact that you could avoid a -4 penalty to hit for switching damage types is even more significant. That's not all though. The weapon you switched damage type on is ALSO the one you invested Weapon Focus on. This means you're avoiding another -1 to hit - by not having to switch to a weapon that you might not have invested Weapon Focus on. In fact, if you're talking about a Fighter, you might also be avoiding having to switch to a weapon that's not even in your top weapon group - and that's potentially another -1 (or greater) penalty you're avoiding. Logically, you could take this even farther, in that your "weapon of choice" (the one you've invested two feats on) is also (probably) your best weapon and is very likely master-crafted or magical (meaning, a +1 or greater bonus). And let's not forget that your bludgeoning and piercing longsword still does its normal 1d8 damage and inflicts criticals on a 19-20 - as opposed to the reduced damage and critical likelihood that come with improvised weapons.

I just don't see how doing full damage with a weapon that ordinarily might not damage your foe while avoiding all of the above penalties is anything to laugh at.

That goes without saying. Again, my stance was that it shouldn't just come down to "RAW lets me." :)

No worries; I just wanted to make sure we understood each other.

You are saying that there are some weapons you cannot choose with Weapon Versatility, right?

No. RAW clearly allows you to use ANY weapon. I don't dispute that. What I am advocating is that a GM should be able to rule that weapons that can't plausibly inflict an alternate type of damage don't work with this feat. The basis for my opinion is the descriptive wording of the feat itself, which points to real-world examples of alternate uses for a weapon. Examples:

1. The German long sword and the "murder-stroke" or "half-sword" moves.
2. Rotating the shaft of an axe 180 degrees, so that instead of striking with the blade you strike with the spike that is often found at its reverse.

So far, you seem to be advocating that Weapon Versatility(Club), does not function, right?

I conceded - more than once - that the Pathfinder club has features that should allow a player to use said weapon with Weapon Versatility.

Now, you also seem to suggest, that Weapon Versatility(Longsword) does function, but you can already do different kinds of damage without the feat.

No. Again, I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion. I have consistently cited the longsword as an example of a weapon that works very well with this feat. I did so for two reasons:

1. It has features that allow for alternate (the point of the blade and the pommel for piercing and bludgeoning damage, respectively) types of damage.
2. It is a weapon where you can inflict those alternate types of damage precisely by doing what the feat states you should so: shifting your grip on your weapon.
3. Not only can someone use their imagination to arrive at item number one, there are actual historic examples of these usages.

The weapons you don't want to deal different types of damage, will not, in spite of a feat specifically designed to do just that, and the weapons you want to be able to do different damage, you already allow to do so, without the feat.

My interpretation of the RAI is that this feat should work for weapons that are capable of inflicting different types of damage even if their stat-line doesn't allow for it. I agree with Ed that the interaction between the player and the GM should amount to something other than "RAW lets me do it."

I hope this cleared up matters.

Please go back and re-read my posts. I'm not trying to convince you of anything... I'm just baffled that you continue to think I'm trying to argue something that I quite clearly am not.

My first contribution to this thread was to express support for Ed, who was opposed to this feat working with any weapon on account of RAW. There was never a dispute of RAW, merely a call to use common sense in determining what should work.

The closest I came to challenging RAW in any of my posts was when I argued that RAI should trump RAW.

For some reason, though, you have responded to each of my posts as if I were asserting that RAW for this feat meant something else, or as if I didn't want this feat to work at all... despite several examples that I provided to the contrary. At this point, I don't know how I can be more clear about my position. Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything at this point - I simply don't want someone to wander through this thread and think, "Wow, according to blackbloodtroll, this Kalthanan guy just doesn't want Weapon Versatility to work." :D

blackbloodtroll, I'm going to repeat my question from earlier once more: why do you keep ascribing to me an "all or nothing" mindset? What is it about my stated opinion that makes you think that I want the feat to not function?

This has nothing to do with wizards reigning. For that matter, it has absolutely nothing to do with denying a player the chance to retrain. How on earth do you figure that's something I'm advocating, anyways?

Lastly, I prefer martial over magical characters. I simply think a GM should have the prerogative of applying common sense/RAI where a feat is concerned without having to worry about a heap of accusations (such as those from your last post and from others) from his player.

Malachi, your hypothetical grievance is - no offense intended - neither here nor there. The "feat chain" in question consists of a single prerequisite: Weapon Focus. If, as a player, you chose to spend a feat on a decidedly not-versatile weapon and then felt robbed because your GM decided Weapon Versatility didn't work with it, do you really think you have room to be upset?

Let me put it another way. Check out the weapons available in Chapter Six of the Core Rulebook: there are 77 (I think) weapons listed there - simple, martial, and exotic. If you made the conscious decision to invest Weapon Focus AND Weapon Versatility in one of a handful of weapons that simply weren't designed to do different types of damage, such as (off the top of my head) gauntlet, sap, or sling, do you really think you GM is arbitrarily being a jerk by telling you that his interpretation of RAI trumps RAW?

blackbloodtroll, you still honestly think that anything about my argument is about crushing a martial PC's dreams or about pushing uninformed interpretations of RAI?

Pathfinder has been working for me since it was first released. Before it, D&D 3.5 worked, and before it 3E, and before it the various systems that came with the second edition of the game. :)

I'm not sure why you keep ascribing to me an "all or nothing" mindset. Are there things about this game - regardless of edition - that can't be reconciled with historic combat? Of course - magic, for instance! There are many things that "work" and we take it for granted that they do because there is something profound, superhuman, or perhaps even divine that makes them possible. In many (most?) cases, they are even labeled as such: Extraordinary (Ex) or Supernatural (Su).

I don't have a problem with those things. They don't ruin my suspension of disbelief. :)

There are, however, imperfections in the game that have nothing to do with the clash between what we know to be true in the real world and what is feasible in a roleplaying game. I'm talking about imperfections that arise on account of the fact that none of us are perfect, that the English language isn't perfect, and thus mistakes or omissions find their way in things like game rules. It's why we have a F.A.Q. here.

So, when someone says something along the lines of "Going by RAW, the Weapon Versatility Feat allows you to inflict piercing or slashing damage with a length of wood," I don't feel as if I'm being contrary to the spirit of the game if I argue that one should apply common sense as needed to that Feat, on a weapon-by-weapon basis.

In some cases, you're absolutely right: there will be unexpected applications to certain weapons, ones that you need a little imagination to arrive at. The GM should reward that sort of imagination. In other cases, though, you may very well have to guard against a player who simply wants to exploit a convenient loophole in the RAW, to get around a challenge the game threw at them.

I don't expect to change your mind, but I hope that you no longer think I'm opposed to the RAW "just because", or that my stance boils down to making this feat unworkable.

I think I made it pretty clear (two or three times, in fact) that I believe RAI would allow for the feat in question to work with weapons whose features allow for secondary types of damage. So, since my memory clearly failed me in regards to the official description of the default club, allow me to reiterate:

Yes, if someone had a club with nails (or what have you) embedded in it, I think they should be able to use it in conduction with the Weapon Versatility feat to deal piercing damage.

Where your assertion that my opinion was "uninformed" is concerned, blackbloodtroll, it is informed by historical evidence. When the feat states that you can "shift your grip" to deal a different type of damage, that immediately brings to my mind the same German schools of swordsmanship that other posters referenced earlier in this thread. Adherents of that school literally shifted their grip so that one had grasped the sword along the blade (usually around a ricasso) to achieve greater penetration against plate armor with the point. Alternately, they literally shifted their grip so that they grasped their sword by the blade using both hands, and struck their opponent with the pommel so as to inflict bludgeoning damage (again, against an opponent wearing a heavy "plate" helmet).

I hope that strikes you as a plausible, informed opinion. I daresay it might be more informed than "Common sense, the feat does as written." But then, you've consistently acted as if I've been saying "this feat doesn't work at all", when what I've basically been saying is "people need to be careful about how they use this feat, since it shouldn't logically work with every weapon."

So by all means, if you or anyone else want to argue that one could use a weapon to inflict a sort of damage other than the default on the basis of modification or some plausible angle afforded by the weapon's description, go for it. I'll agree with you on some cases, and I'll disagree with you on others. Don't expect me to accept that every usage of the RAW by a player will be in harmony with RAI, though (where this feat is concerned, at least). Where RAI is concerned, don't hold it against me if I go by what makes immediate sense and by historical examples that sound just like the wording of the text... as opposed to trying to imagine ways by which something unlikely (or even impossible) might happen without the use of magic or the superhuman.

(That last one was probably a run-on sentence. Apologies!)

I absolutely refuse to consider the clearly written use of the feat to be an "exploit".

That seems completely preposterous.

I feel that is an uninformed, and flawed opinion, without any support.

I also see nothing even coming close to going against the "spirit of the rules".

Do you want me to further clarify my position, or is "agree to disagree" a good enough stopping point?

Arachnofiend, please read my posts more thoroughly. I already mentioned that, and in the event that I wasn't clear enough, allow me to go on record here: modifying a weapon to achieve different damage effects would be perfectly acceptable in my eyes - within the realms of common sense. Want to stick a spike through your club to deal piercing damage with this feat? Sounds good. Want to argue that the pointy reverse end of your warhammer's head should do piercing damage? Even better! Want to argue that the un-modified short bow you're being forced to use as an ad-hoc melee weapon somehow does slashing or piercing damage? I'm not with you.

I am disputing RAW on those specific instances when someone is exploiting them achieve something other than RAI. Again, if you think the RAI is for a baseball bat-like club to inflict slashing and/or piercing damage when employed with this feat, let's just agree to disagree. :)

Where RAW is concerned, I don't disagree there is a hole to be exploited. Again, I just think that would be a cheap trick and against the spirit of the game.

I offered you my thoughts above, but here goes again. :)

Most swords are slashing weapons. If they have a point and a pommel, this feat should allow them to be used as piercing (point of the blade) or bludgeoning (pommel) weapons. Someone wielding a morningstar should be able to use it as a bludgeoning (haft) or piercing (spikes) weapon. Someone wielding a baseball bat that wants to do slashing or piercing damage with it needs to get a different weapon... or alter it in some way to justify the request.

You're conflating an extraordinary, superhuman feat that draws on ancient mythos with a banal twist that is contingent on an overly literal reading of game rules.

Different people look for different things from their game. I get that. And we might have to agree to disagree on that basis. That having been said, let's not kid ourselves about what the Paizo designers intended when they came up with an archetype that could wield gigantic weapon versus what Player X is up to when he argues this feat allows him to deal slashing or piercing damage with a club.

Ed Reppert wrote:

"I adjust the grip on my club, and use it to slash the bad guy".

No. Sorry, but no. In order to do slashing damage a weapon (improvised or otherwise) has to have some kind of edge. No edge, no slashing. No point, no piercing. Use a little common sense.

I'd rather do fantasy stuff in a fantasy game, thanks.

Thank you for reducing role playing adventures of heroes, sorcery, and mythical creatures to the level of purposefully misconstruing rules text for the sake of (in this case, at least) making a point.

I'm with you, Ed. I would politely ask the person claiming their otherwise non-edged club can do slashing damage with this feat to kindly leave.

As for house-ruling this feat to do nothing... Common sense. A sword that has a point can be used to pierce instead of slashing. A sword with a pommel can be used to bash instead of piercing or slashing.

Would I, as a GM let you? Questions like this would always come down to whether it makes sense in-game.

Shield of Swings is absolutely ridiculous to begin with. It proposes that someone swinging a sword in a circular motion while also attacking two or more people can somehow gain as good a shield bonus than someone taking their time and fighting behind a tower shield. Making matters worse, the individual pulling off this stunt could actually be a novice combatant: a 1st level Fighter benefitting from a Haste spell, for instance, suddenly becomes just as secure behind his spinning sword (which, by the way, is not spinning that fast) as someone hiding behind a shield big enough to cover their entire body.

That having been said, it is an actual Feat. It's a legal part of the game, and I have to answer the question as such.

Personally, I think its application makes more sense when you're actually not attacking someone - since at least then you could argue that you're focusing your sword-swings entirely toward defense, as opposed to dropping your bizarre form of defense to strike at your foes.

That having been said, don't be surprised if certain individuals try to deny you this from a purely legal point of view. How? Let's look at the definition of the Full Attack action:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

So, Full Attack is a full-round action that allows you to make more than one attack in a round. Now, let's look at the definition of the attack action:

Making an attack is a standard action.

Melee Attacks

With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

The Full Attack action is contingent on making attacks, which someone could argue is contingent on attempting to strike an opponent. Thus, that same someone could tell you can't attack an empty square because you're technically not attacking anyone. I personally rely on a hybrid of common sense and fun when determining my rulings, but I've also noticed - at least on these forums - that epic disagreements can arise from opposing interpretations of words as simple as "can".

Good luck!

Yeah, you're missing the fact that that doesn't say you can direct your mount as part of that check.

I get where you're coming from. I really do. I admit my intent in re-citing that rule could have been more clear. Let me try again:

Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount implies you can make your own attack or attacks normally in a round when you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle. You claim that you can do so after taking the equivalent of a move action - the use of the Handle Animal skill. I contend that the use of Handle Animal is incorrect precisely because it's a move-equivalent action, which would preclude the rider from taking a full attack action, which is what making attacks (plural) would require.

The crux of this debate-within-a-debate is whether Ride allows you to do things more quickly/efficiently than Handle Animal does. Handle Animal requires you to take a move action to command an animal to perform the Attack trick. On that, we both agree. I contend that Ride allows you to essentially do the same thing (order an animal to attack) as a free action. I can live with that because the rider and his mount act very much in concert with each other, whereas Handle Animal covers a broader range of situations.

There are other reasons why I can't wrap my head around use of Handle Animal being a prerequisite for uses of Ride. The only time Handle Animal is directly referenced in regards to Mounted Combat is in page 201 of the Core Rulebook:

Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat.

Every other action related to Mounted Combat directly references the Ride skill. More importantly, in every instance that one skill interacts with another skill (e.g., Bluff and Sense Motive), the relevant second skill is specifically named. The same applies to feats and spells that affect the usage of a skill. This is not the case with Ride and Handle Animal.

Furthermore, I couldn't bring myself to agree with your contention that Ride covers the actions of the rider, whereas Handle Animal covers the actions of the mount. A more accurate take, in my humble opinion, would be:

"The Ride skill covers actions that a rider can take or that his mount can take at his command, while the Handle Animal skill covers actions that an animal can take at a character's command."

The Leap task under the Ride skill is what I had in mind where this point is concerned:

Leap: You can get your mount to leap obstacles as part of its movement. If the ride check to make the leap succeeds, make a check using your Ride modifier or the mount’s jump modifier, whichever is lower, to see how far the creature can jump. If you fail your Ride check to make the leap, you fall off the mount when it leaps and take the appropriate falling damage (at least 1d6 points). This usage does not take an action but is part of the mount’s movement.

It would be great if Paizo could do their own errata to update their version which reflects the old cumbersome version of 3.5 that did not allow Ride to perform functions covered by Handle Animal, or collapsed the Ride and Handle Animal skills together into one cohesive unit. Given that the latter option is very unlikely, an errata to the Ride skill similar to that done back in 3.5 would definitely suffice.

I'm with you on that, but only insofar as it would serve to prevent what I consider to be (please don't take this the wrong way) pointless arguments. On the basis of your last paragraph, it seems to me that we both agree that Ride should cover the applications and actions in question. Absent a spelled out qualifier, though, you believe they should fall under Handle Animal, instead. I mean you personally no offense, but I just don't see the point of reading into the text so selectively as to arrive to a conclusion that something common and reasonably easy suddenly becomes unnecessarily complex, unreasonably difficult, or outright impossible.

In closing, I concede that some additional F.A.Q.ing and text amendments might settle this debate... but had I never noticed this thread, I wouldn't have imagined a need for either it or the F.A.Q. item related to Mounted Charge.

Umm, overly nuanced nothing. It takes a ridiculous amount of nuance to come to the conclusion that any of the rules mentioned outside of Handle Animal allow you to give commands. Nuanced as in "inferring things that aren't actually stated or written because that means things do what I want them to do".

And yet that's precisely what Ride purports to do:

Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.

You seem to interpret the above text as stating the following:

"If you direct your war-trained mount to make an attack as a free action, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage of the Ride skill is a free action, BUT prior to directing your mount to do so, you must nonetheless make a successful Handle Animal check to command your mount to perform the Attack trick, which in turn requires you to expend a move action."

To arrive at your conclusion, you have to assume that the two Skills are contradictory to each other: that a free action (directing a trained mount to attack) is actually a free action on top of a move action.

Am I missing something? If so, you have my apologies! :)

As more than one other person mentioned, one side in this debate has used an overly focused reading of the Rules As Written to arrive to the conclusion that something that was once very common is now, in fact, impossible for the vast majority of PCs and NPCs. The other side is citing the same rules, but has arrived to the conclusion that you still can, in fact, do this very common thing.

Absent any indication that the Paizo game designers are sadists, I'm going to go with the latter crowd. That is, I'll assume their intent here is along the lines of their intent for the Magus and Spell Combat/Spell Strike (hint: it wasn't to say Magi can't do a thing).

Something else. A lot of the argument being brought forth by those who believe charging can no longer be done seems to focus on the idea that the use of the Handle Animal skill (in this case, constituting a move action) is mandatory to the mounted charge process. Personally, I think that's where a lot of the misunderstanding begins.

Handle Animal is a skill that enables a character to teach animals certain tricks and/or to have them perform said tricks. I can't shake the feeling that, while Ride is a skill that always involves a character riding a mount, Handle Animal can involve most any animal, regardless of whether it is acting as the character's mount or not while performing a trick. While only some of the tricks outlined under Handle Animal could feasibly (or logically) be performed by a mount while it is ridden by its master, all of them could be performed by a non-mounted animal.

Handle Animal makes it clear that commanding a trained animal to attack is a move action. This would leave the animal's master with the ability to make a single attack (a standard action) and perhaps some other minor actions. Ride, however, makes it clear that directing one's trained mount to attack in battle is a free action, and that the rider can still their attack or attacks normally. I think this qualified distinction makes it clear that Ride, and not Handle Animal, is the skill that governs the actions a character and their mount can and cannot make in combat.

That is to say:
1. Handle Animal allows a character without the Animal Companion feature to use a move action to order a trained, I don't know, bear to attack someone. While they're at it, the character could also swing an axe at the person they're ordering the bear to attack.
2. That same character would use Ride to direct their heavy horse to attack an adjacent opponent as a free action, and would also be able to swing his axe one or more times (depending on their BaB) as well.
3. That very same character would use Ride, and not Handle Animal, when determining anything involved with a mounted charge.

I am reconciled to the fact that an overly nuanced reading of game rules will always enable individuals to find fault somewhere. I don't disagree that, in a lot of cases, the rules could be written better or more clearly. In this case, however, I have a very hard time agreeing with the OP's point of view.

The biggest issue I'm seeing here is that, once again, there is a competition between the GM and a player.

Look, I get it when one player character gets all the attention, does all the damage, kills all the creatures, etc. It takes the fun out of it for other players, and the number one rule of this game is to have fun. THAT should be the measuring stick for when you need to reconsider your character build, your tactics, your approach, etc. Conversely, you might be served just as well by offering to help the other players develop their characters better.

That aside, though, I'm blown away by the idea that a GM should be planning to defeat a specific PC. How is that the point of the game?

The GM's primary mission is to be a story designer and an arbiter as the story plays out. The intent of the game, first and foremost, is to entertain. Combat encounters are meant as the action portion of the entertainment. They are supposed to challenge, to be sure, but they are meant to entertain. The GM has an obligation to tailor encounters to serve that end.

If the PC is about to fight some BBEG who is (A) well aware of the hero's capabilities and (B) has had the requisite time and resources to prepare the battlefield against him, then by all means: have that epic encounter wherein the evil genius warlord/archmage/whatever pushes the PC to his absolute limits. I find it silly, however, for someone to take the same approach with any given encounter simply to teach a player a lesson. Is there context justifying this approach? Absent such context, doesn't it stretch the imagination for a colony of kobolds (to use an earlier example) to develop the infrastructure to make glass or ceramic bottles and acid? Doesn't it get just as stale when - lo and behold! - every opponent has somehow managed to either optimize themselves or the environment they're fighting in against the party?

The GM also bears responsibility for the build-up to those encounters, and the means by which he accepts, empowers, and enables the character builds the players introduce in his campaign (and, in this situation at least, he happens to oppose). For instance, since when is it a given that a character will find and/or be able to craft or commission the very treasure that he needs to maximize their build?

Well, I think the action is undeniably Evil. In fact, I think everyone can agree on that. But...people can commit a single Evil act without being Evil. Maybe the Wyvern also performs a variety of Good acts to balance out the scales, or (more likely) maybe it doesn't usually do this sort of thing but was having a particularly frustrating day and acted out of anger. Much like the Paladin.

Again, I'm not defending the paladin in this case. :)

I'm pointing out that the GM also has a responsibility to present the antagonists in a manner that is consistent with the rules. The paladin is wrong for wishing to kill the wyvern out of anger for the assault he suffered. The paladin would not have been wrong for killing a wyvern that is attacking random passers-by with lethal force. In an ideal situation the paladin may or may not have used Detect Evil (I personally think it's a moot point given that the monster attacked with lethal force), but in an ideal situation the GM would have had the wyvern attack in a manner consistent with being territorial, aggressive, bullying, but not murderous.

You make that sound like a bad thing, but what other option does a Wyvern (who only speaks Draconic) have besides claiming its territory by dint of brute force? What authority can the Wyvern look to, to recognize/enforce its claim on the hunting grounds it needs to survive?

I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't feel as if I should have to answer this. Why? Because the Bestiary entry for the Wyvern qualifies that such creatures can co-exist with others and don't need to kill whatever enters their perceived territory.

Bringing back the extortionist/racketeer versus murderer example from earlier, one of the oldest draconic tropes out there is of the monster demanding tribute from the local village. A wyvern that nonetheless develops good leanings could even provide a service: beating up on monsters, bandits, and the like in exchange for hunting rights, food, an annual tax, etc., but also doing so because they are fond of the humans. A normal wyvern could be simply mercenary - such as the example of those that serve as bodyguards or mounts for powerful creatures. A wyvern with evil leanings might beat and terrify the villagers into accepting a deal they didn't even seek out with it.

Protecting its territory from a perceived threat can be viewed as a valid reason (from a neutral standpoint) especially if it had been attacked by previous adventurers.

With respect, this is why I have cited the Alignment descriptions. Morality is not a simple topic. Institutions of higher learning offer advanced degrees that require intense study on the topics we're barely skimming on. On the other hand, the Pathfinder game provides guidelines to easily differentiate between good, neutral and evil, and between lawfulness, neutrality and chaos. From the perspective of those guidelines, you can't attack people with lethal force on account of them walking through a forest on which you claim squatter's rights by dint of brute force without being ruled evil.

Okay, I'll try to rephrase: As a standard, killing a sentient being is evil. Circumstantial modifiers may apply and change the final alignment of the act, but without any such modifiers present it will always be evil. (positive circumstantial modifiers include, but are not limited to, self-defense, protection of others, mercy-killing of a consenting being)

That's an injection of OOG morality. The game states:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, ...

Paladins are warriors whose religious conviction is specific to fighting evil. Limiting their ability to slay said evil to incidents of self-defense or mercy-killing cannot be reconciled with this class and its crusading* ethos.

* I mean this in the general sense conveyed by the class description, not as a reference to historic groups and events.

That would be relevant if the creature was evil, it wasn't.

** spoiler omitted **

I never claimed otherwise, Korthis. Nor did I take the side of the player. That much is obvious (I think!) throughout my post. What I pointed out is that, had the player not already expressed a reasoning that was incompatible with a paladin ("I was angry, so I attacked"), there would in fact be justification for a paladin to lethally attack a non-evil creature. :)

Again, not to rehash old points...but neither I nor anyone else have spoken against a Paladin being able to perform summary executions under the right circumstances (and I'd actually peg this exact situation plus an Evil Alignment on the victim as close enough to the right circumstances...I'll explain why in a moment).

I hope my post didn't seem like a direct challenge to any one specific poster - that wasn't my intent. :)

The issue, in this specific situation, is that first the only crime they knew the wyvern had performed (attempted murder) had some mitigating factors, and was the only crime they knew it had committed, now a detectably Evil character who'd done the same thing...you have pretty good evidence he'd done that sort of thing before, and a pattern of theft and murder is a valid reason for execution, interrogating him before executing him would be ideal...but probably not absolutely required. A Neutral person? They might've done this before...or not. Hard to say.

I'm not sure about "mitigating factors". My intent here is not so much to absolve the player (since he did, after all, engage on incorrect reasoning) but to point out that the GM as well bears some responsibility.

I think a truly neutral wyvern would be willing to kill unintelligent creatures for food and/or sport. I think it would use brute force and intimidation to coerce and drive off intelligent creatures it viewed as a threat of some sort. I do not believe that it's tenable, however, to argue that an intelligent creature attacking another intelligent creature with lethal force is not evil - when there is no valid reason for said attack.

And second, the Paladin didn't execute the wyvern to keep it from hurting people or anything like that. He was fine with the other PCs raising it, remember? He did it because it angered him. That's...pretty Evil.

Again, I don't disagree with that point of view at all!

As I recall the only reason this thing is neutral is because its straight out of the bestiary, alignment wise. Something I virulently disagree on. How on earth is something that always resorts to violence first ever neutral?

Someone Someone compared it to organized crime vs a murderer. Both of those fit on the evil spectrum. Heck this thing pretty blatantly falls under neutral evil!

As compared to neutral evil ...

Thomas, you'll note I mentioned a racketeer/extortionist - someone willing to use intimidation and/or violence for profit. The most explicit qualifier for an evil alignment in this game is the willingness to take life.

That having been said, I agree with you that it is difficult to reconcile the wyvern in this specific scenario with a neutral alignment. This ties back to my points earlier, regarding lethal intent and means. A mercenary of neutral alignment who likes to bully and rob peasants could very well make his point by beating them, bashing them with the pommel of his sword, etc. A wyvern could very well try to terrify a traveller by buffeting him with a wing, smacking him with a tail, etc. The second the mercenary starts swinging a naked sword with the intent of hitting that peasant, though, or when the wyvern tries to bite that traveller as hard as it can, all bets are off in my humble opinion. That's when you're attacking with lethal force and showing disregard for the value of human life.

Hence why I felt the GM bore some responsibility for the situation. The Bestiary entry may very well say that the default is Neutral, but the creature's action was evil. The paladin's player ended up acting out with rash reasoning and was wrong but he was nonetheless put in a situation where he could have reasonably gone after the creature.

Aazhog, thank you for your kind words!

Except that it is a treacherous ruling to assume that “fighting evil” is in anyway identical to “slaying evil”. What is the definition of a paladin if not holding to a significantly higher moral compass than the rest of the world? Are paladins not, by their very nature the embodiment of heroic qualities like Honor, Valor, and indeed Mercy?

I don't disagree with those notions on face value. That having been said, I - respectfully speaking - think it takes a stretch to ignore the lethality behind a paladin's convictions.

A parallel that comes to mind is that of a policeman. Ideally, such an individual would be lawful (on the basis of his occupation, serving the law) and good (he is genuinely interested in "protecting and serving" the people of his community). Policemen are expected to act judiciously and proportionately to the situation - it's why they have batons, mace, tasers, and handcuffs in addition to their service sidearms. A police officer claiming that he sought to non-lethally subdue a suspect by shooting him with his pistol would not be taken seriously.

Paladins - from classic Dungeons and Dragons all the way to Pathfinder - don't traditionally arm themselves with bolas or batons; they come to battle with swords, lances, war hammers, axes, and the like. A paladin who enters combat armed thusly is clearly demonstrating lethal intent unless it's qualified otherwise. Much like the police officer and his pistol, it would be at the very least irresponsible for a paladin to attack someone (notice I'm not saying to act in self-defense) with a naked blade if subduing them non-lethally was his intent.

I will admit that I disagree very strongly with permitting a chaotic paladin in the first place, since in my opinion it is the component of LAW that truly makes a paladin a paladin. To speak in broad stroke generalizations, a chaotic paladin that takes lethal action based off of subjective and personal directive is at best an example of vigilante justice, and not an example of a holy crusader that fights for things much larger than him or herself.

I agree wholeheartedly. The paladin, as defined in this game, is a heroic champion whose code of ethics is tied to religious doctrine. Take away the lawful conviction to codified right and wrong, and I agree with you that we're really talking about a different class altogether.

The component of Law in a paladin’s alignment ensures that even a clearly evil force has an inherent right to judgement. Note I said judgement and not trial. Trial indicates a mortal set of laws and stricture to determine guilt of deed. Judgement suggests that there exists accountability and effect stemming from one’s actions, determined by a structured power. That being said, I realize that has little to nothing to do with the question posed by the OP so I won’t elaborate overmuch here.

I agree with you in principle, but we're not so much at odds regarding judgment as we are in terms of the deserved punishment. Again, unless a paladin comes armed to deliver non-lethal punishment, it's at least irresponsible to dispense it with a longsword and hope things play out ideally.

I suppose what I am saying is that if a given player has no interest in following things like moral compasses, codes of conduct, chivalric dogma or in general acting like what I would call the “classic” examples of paladin-like behavior, why would they not play an entirely different class progression?

At the risk of playing Devil's Advocate, you can play a character who has a moral compass, follows a code of conduct, adheres to chivalry, etc., but is nonetheless a very black-and-white individual. I'll grant you that this is a difficult proposition in the real world, but within the confines of the Pathfinder game, it is rather easy to take an absolutist stand against evil and the depravity it represents. Consider:

He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life.

She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience.

A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do.

Unless a paladin and/or his church has access to magic that can permanently/irreversibly change alignment, I have no problem with a paladin upholding the tenets you listed and also lethally dispatching credible threats.

Great conversation! :)

First, I'd like to offer kudos to the GM in question for introducing enemies that are actually willing to parlay, or who don't look down at tactical withdrawals. All too often, pen-and-paper enemies are strangely suicidal creatures.

From there...

ALIGNMENT

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral.

By virtue of its Intelligence score (7), wyvern doesn't qualify as an animal. That same INT score, however, makes them less capable of being reasoned with. This is further complicated by the fact that a wyvern is aggressive, violent, constantly hungry, and will only cease violence when it recognizes superior force or when it is sufficiently bribed.

That willingness to "settle" for someone else's flattery, intimidation, food, and treasure is precisely what makes them non-evil. At the risk of making an ill-advised comparison, consider the difference between a murderer and a thug running protection/extortion rackets in a neighborhood.

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Emphasis is mine.

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

I think we can all agree that gaming alignment doesn't truly capture the nuances of real-world morality. There's admittedly a lot of play allowed by the descriptions above.

For instance, the paladin's player could easily argue he had no obligation to protect they wyvern, since it obviously wasn't innocent. Following the "moral compass" of the chaotic good, he could argue that the wyvern was a clear danger to innocents who might have chanced into its hunting grounds unwittingly and without intent of exploiting the resources the creature claimed for itself. He could argue that an untrained and unarmored peasant/merchant/traveler could have perished from any one of the wyvern's attacks.

That others don't agree with the paladin isn't relevant - that's a key part of being chaotic good. Now, let's say that one of the paladin's allies stood between him and the wyvern and beseeched him to stop, for they had realized that the wyvern's attack had been a misunderstanding. If the paladin attacks his ally - whom he presumably knows to be good and trustworthy - that's a clear-cut evil act. Absent that context, though, the paladin in question is acting to kill a creature that he knows - from first hand experience - is willing to level deadly force without reasonable cause/provocation.

I mention that as my contribution to the ongoing debate. Clearly, though, from what the GM has described the player's response wasn't informed by the above thought process. "I was attacked and it made me angry" is primal and not significantly different from the reaction the wyvern might have if some random adventurer started shooting it with arrows. It is at this point that I believe the GM bears some responsibility. The GM is the director of the storyline, and he is also the arbiter in deciding how the game plays out. He's not the party's opponent - at least he shouldn't be - and (assuming this was a first offense on the part of the player) he shouldn't level punishment on account of ignorance of the rules.

***

Where a coup-de-grace and the paladin are concerned, I don't get the issue. When you attack someone with a lethal weapon, your intent is to kill them. When you are a paladin and you attack someone with a lethal weapon, it should be because that someone is evil and has (presumably) debased or destroyed innocent life in some way. Any decision to spare an evil enemy's life when they become helpless (whether through surrender or through helplessness of some sort) should come down to the paladin's code, which should in turn be informed by their religious doctrine.

Bottom line (well, where my opinion is concerned), if the paladin's god empowers them to seek out evil and kill it, it becomes a bit of a stretch to say they are at fault for doing so when said creature at the paladin's mercy. It's akin to saying, "Well, we'll kill evil if we can do so in the midst of the continuum of combat, and we don't need a judicial process of determining guilt to justify doing so... but if they surrender we have to take them prisoner... and if they are subsequently found guilty we have to lock them up forever, since they're technically at our mercy then and executing them would make us evil."

It takes us right back to the fact that gaming alignment can't capture the nuances of real-world morality. :)

Thanks, anthonydido! That's what I was hoping the answer would be (based on the rules for creating magical weapons), but you never know...

Ignorant question, but...

Are we talking about a maximum of +5 including magical properties (such as keen), or could a Magus who found a +5 longsword use his Arcane Pool to add the Keen property to it?

Infuse life into the process.

Alright, so a player wants to purchase a specific magical item.

Who would make said magical item? What is the setting in which they make said item? Does the authority of their community dictate what they can make or who they can sell it two?

I'd answer those questions first, and go from there. That third one is probably the avenue to a lot of adventures.

As a DM I tend to follow the golden rule of Paizo's message boards "Don't be a jerk." This has kept players from walking away, getting frustrated, getting hurt feelings etc. A game is a social contract. Break the rules and there isn't game.

Only once I've done the "you're captured and all you're stuff is taken away" shtick but the very first priority after escape was getting their stuff back. I think it was A 4, one of the slaver adventures.

Exactly. So much of this topic seems to be centered on games where the focus on Rules As Written trumps the suspension of disbelief that's required for the game to begin with. The game depends on an artificial balance for it to function - hence the challenge ratings for encounters, which ignore conventional logic by increasing proportionately to the characters' own level gains ("Have you noticed how we only seem to be encountering more powerful monsters and enemies lately?"). The challenge is to craft a story - an adventure - that challenges the players without ruining that suspension of disbelief.

In popular fiction, what random cutpurses and cutthroats aligned with the local Thieves Guild (or whatever) have the gall to go after an adventuring band? Generally, the ones too foolish to know what's coming to them if they do. What about in a game, though? The existence of certain Feats and rules systems shouldn't mean that they are suddenly able to pull off these highly-coordinated surgical attacks that focus on specific class and racial weaknesses. That sort of thing should be reserved for meaningful moments in a campaign. If every encounter boils down to NPCs that are remarkably familiar with such rule-driven tactics, then the game itself devolves to power-gaming and trying to maximize a template... as opposed to role-playing.

If that's the game you like, then fair enough! But I think it's fair to say that said style isn't what the OP and players of like mind felt they signed up for. I can't say I blame them.

I hate it when rules as written lean toward balance at the expense of logic... but there you have it. Virtually every combat maneuver is mentioned as doing something "in place of a melee attack".

If I were your GM, I'd say "absolutely, do it!" I'm not, though, and it's up to your own group to figure out if you'd do the same. Where the letter of the law is concerned, though, I agree with SlimJamama.

Ok, one last time:

Sphere of Seven Ghosts
** spoiler omitted **...

Thank you Azhamel. I apologize that I never noticed your response. Your points were very good and I will take them into consideration this year.

Ken