Kaspar Copper 223's page

This order is still pending. I know we just worked out a kink with this, and then my bank just threw in another one. But I have sorted it out now and it should still go through.

I was going through the Pathfinder Bestiary earlier today, when I came across the Half-Celestial entry. Now after I read it, the entry spurred a question: Does the Half-Celestial ability bonus stack with the ability bonuses of being a Human, Half-Elf, or Half-Orc, or would the Half-Celestial ability bonus replace the one you get from the base classes, as it says: "A half-celestial creature retains the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted Here."?

Anyway, if anyone could chime in on this, it would be appreciated.

Thanks.

We are still bringing the various items on your order together. The confirmation email for this order stated that it should ship out in 5 to 11 business days from the date the order was placed. Your order was placed on 11/21, and (with the holiday last week) today is the 5th business day since the creation date.

Your order should be shipping out later this week, or early next.

Thanks,
cos

Alright, thanks for letting me know.

So does this mean my order can finally be shipped out?

This is me checking Customer Service.

When I look this up in my order history, it says that all the items in the order are pending, and that there is a shipping exception and I need to check with cs. So I would like to know what's up with the shipment.

I apologize for the mixed up order!

I will put a replacement Arcadian Avenger in with order #1285952. Please feel free to keep the mistakenly shipped Deep Legionnaire with our apologies.

Thanks,
cos

Thanks!

I recently received the shipment for this order and I got everything in it that I had ordered except the Arcadian Avenger... But something strange happened with this; the card for the Arcadian Avenger came with the shipment, but instead of the Arcadian Avenger mini, I got a Deep Legionnaire mini from the same set. So I was wondering how that even happened, and what I should do.

Actually, I just got it in the mail, but it's still not showing up in my order history... Anyway, I just thought you guys should know in-case there's a problem with the system.

I had purchased a Pathfinder Core Rulebook through the scratch and dent sale, and the order is not showing up in my order history. Is this because you ran out, or is there some other error? I don't mean to be rude, but I was really looking forward to getting it, so I just want to know what happened. Because I was going to start a Pathfinder Campaign with my friends this week. Please help. BTW that's Paizo Order #1264543

I hope you get your flumphs.

I'm happy that modrons are gone, so I'm good to go.

That being said, it was 1e Fiend Folio.

If it was in the fiend Folio, Gary didn't have anything to do with it. as the fiend folio was created over seas.

What about the poor Wizard (prohibited school-divination) that has say "identify" in their spell book, spends 2 slots that morning creating a scroll of "identify? Now on top of the RAW penalty, when they attempt to recast from the scroll they get another penalty?

If that is the direction you're going, alright. Just curious. I mean - as a wizard if I defeat some random bbg and take his spell book, am I not going to try to transfer his spells into my spellbook? RAW?

Brian

As I recall, the divination school no longer counts as two schools for being an opposing school... but anyway, the penalties, I believe, only impart a chance that the spell will not successfully be transferred, not that it can't, period... This way you can still do it, but because of your psuedo-neglect in the school of divination, as you're sacrificing your research in that school for your specialization, you're still getting something to show for you lack of a knowledge base in the subject.

And the concern here is mostly about keeping the flavor of wizards and specialization schools. That way it's good compromise between two ends of what I think Paizo is trying to achieve with Pathfinder.

Kaspar Copper 223 wrote:

The slashing rapier is actually, or at least can be likened to, a FENCING SABRE, and with that you could definitely parry other blades as long as you did it right, using the side of the blade, and not the cutting edge... I guess I should have said single weapon fighting with a piercing weapon, as the Duelist practically relies on having one; and not an edged weapon.

The sabre as used in combat would be closer to a scimitar than a rapier, because a sabre is designed primarily for cutting from horseback. It would have little if anything in common with the sabre used in sports fencing and would be used entirely differently.

I don't think it's entirely different. After all, the fencing sabre did evolve from the sabre that was used by cavalry. That's why the target area for sabres in fencing is anything above the waste. Really, the only difference is the integrity of the blade for parrying. With cavalry sabres, you didn't really have to worry about parrying, because it was all ride-by attacks, and generally you either hit an opponent or you didn't. If you managed to pull off a parry, it was likely either blade would be useless thereafter. But no one said anything about dual wielding rapiers on horseback, so I would assume that it was a given that we weren't talking about cavalry sabres.

Well, in terms of game combat either being used as a scimitar or a slashing rapier, the mechanics would pretty much be the same. (1d6 slashing damage, 18-20/x2) really, the difference would be in the weight. The Fencing Sabre, in terms of game mechanics, for Pathfinder, should probably be something along the lines of the same stats as a rapier, but you could use it for piercing OR slashing. But if we're looking at this from a 3.5 standpoint (as detailed by Arms & Armor) it is EXACTLY the same as the rapier. Same price, weight, damage, crit. range and multiplier EXCEPT that it IS a light weapon, and it STILL does piercing damage, which brings us all the way back to where this thread began... And finally answers why rapiers aren't light weapons, btw... Wow; and I purely mean this as a jab at myself, and no one else; it's amazing how far a little research goes by just looking at one book for a few seconds... :)

LazarX wrote:

Then again, I really don't see this as an issue. Using spell completion and spell trigger items is nowhere near the complexity of task as actually preparing the spell for standard casting. So I really have no reason to get bent out of shape for casters using forbidden school items.. it's a good drain on treasure and I see no reason to complicate things further by borking casters this way.

We are discussing ideas for a house rule for folks who feel otherwise, not debating whether or not it is appropriate. If you feel the current rule is good then that's great, this thread really isn't for you.

LazarX wrote:

I will say however that if a Wizard who has Abjuration as a forbidden school is going to attune and recharge a Staff of Abjuration, he is going to suffer the specialist breaking penalty for the day.

Assuming the caster has recharged the staff of a given day he will be shy 2 slots for recharging the item.

To me, it seems more logical that they can still use some of the items, OR have spells cast from an opposing school on them, for that matter. HOWEVER I do agree that scrolls of an opposing school should have some kind of penalty, because a wand is a wand, its rudimentary usage is fundamentally the same, as is a staff, or some other item that grants usage of spells, yet scrolls still require pretty much the same verbal components, rather than just a command word, or a button. So for scrolls, I might say, a Wizard using a scroll of an opposing school, might incur the same penalties as a Wizard casting a spell without their bonded item.

I might also do something similar for recharging items with spells from an opposing school, because that is a different matter.

Well, I remember reading in the sword-fighting manuals of John Clements that he generally discouraged, when dealing with one-hand cruciform swords (the D&D 'longsword'), parrying with the blade. By his method, it was preferable to either use your shield (that's what it was for, after all) or dodge out of the line of the cut. Parrying with the blade was discouraged because a) it got you out of the habit of outright avoiding your opponent's weapon, and b) you could damage your own blade in doing so. With two-handed sword fighting, the parrierhakken (Parrying hooks) were designed to trap your opponent's blade so obviously blocking the enemy's swing was part of the design. Since most rapiers had no cutting edge, there was no risk in striking an opponent's blade with your own and indeed was the most effective way of deflecting a thrust. Likewise, a rapier would be grabbed with gloved hands or caught by a cloak or even by various parts of clothing.

The classic Three Musketeers "slashing rapier" was a 'cut and thrust' sword, or side-sword. Indeed, it is this weapon, paired with a buckler that coined the term 'swashbuckler'.

The slashing rapier is actually, or at least can be likened to, a fencing sabre, and with that you could definitely parry other blades as long as you did it right, using the side of the blade, and not the cutting edge... I guess I should have said single weapon fighting with a piercing weapon, as the Duelist practically relies on having one; and not an edged weapon.

I'm torn between thinking that more sophisticated fighting styles would improve the game and thinking that two-weapon fighting is simplified to its current state because the rules can't easily support something more sophisticated than attack-or-combat maneuver without becoming unwieldy(the old grapple rules) or unbalanced(substituting a parry/disarm maneuver for an offhand attack).

I think when WOTC had it, they just didn't want to deal with the complications that would imply, However with Paizo I think it was more about balance and not getting needlessly complicated. However, with the twf, I think that's where the two-weapon defense came in... But as for the single weapon fighting, I think that's what the duelist prestige class is for... however, the duelist always kinda struck me as needing you to be a bit too advanced for... Needless to say I am REALLY looking forward to Pathfinder coming out with the Swashbuckler base class because that's how I was taught to be a fighter. I just can't comprehend needing to be such a high level to be able to do something so simple as parrying a blade, you know.

With some added emphasis:

PRD wrote:

A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar. An animal companion cannot also function as a familiar.

First bolded bit pretty much throws this idea out the door; magical beasts can't be animal companions. A RAW weasel might point out that it's only a magical beast for the purpose of effects, and argue that "being an animal companion" isn't an effect; so let's refer to the last sentence. It doesn't say "an animal companion cannot be selected as a familiar." Rather, it clearly states that no creature can ever be both at once.

No, it states that an animal companion cannot function as a familiar, it does not state that a familiar cannot function as an animal companion. The above statement is implying that if it is a companion it cannot then be chosen as a familiar. It does not, however, state that once it's a familiar, it can't be chosen as an animal companion once you take your first level in Druid if you started out as the class that gave you access to the familiar, because the Druid class abilities would then superscede the first class's abilities.

Kaspar Copper wrote:

One of the best unintended consequences of starting this thread is that people have chimed in with their real world experience with similar weapons and fighting styles. It might be very worthwhile to start another thread and find out the ways that actual two-weapon fighting is paralleled by the mechanics of the game.

(dual-wielding piercing weapons seems logically untenable though historically accurate for a handful of fencers, but what of the rapier/short sword combination that is mechanically sound but seems questionable aesthetically?)

Traditionally, it was not rapier/short sword, it was a Rapier with a dagger with an extended crossbar called a parrying dagger... but in terms of game mechanics, it would be more like using a Rapier/Dagger combination with the dagger primarily just being used to parry. But it does seem like once everybody started using that style it would make more sense just to stick with only the rapier... again, target areas etc.

Jandrem wrote:

If the Rapier was considered a light weapon, nobody would ever use a short sword, dagger, scimitar, etc. ever again (except for flavor). Sorry for being so blunt but after 50+ posts of flavor debate after someone already stated the reason, I wanted to say something.

*EDIT Credit to Udalrich for stating the above first, and better. Mine is simply for emphasis!

You can be as blunt as you like, but I think the 50+ posts generated on the subject should be a strong indication that "simple, cold mechanics" are not and never have been the sole reason for anything. If they were, it wouldn't be a roleplaying game. I'm not trying to restart a very old argument here(one that long predates this thread and has yielded two very different styles of gaming), but I can't disagree strongly enough. I think that mechanics are a factor, but they are not the sole factor and it's a little silly to claim otherwise.

Someone in this very same thread pointed out earlier that the kukri used to be an exotic weapon(rightfully so by your reasoning), but was upgraded because of its popularity. It has not completely replaced the dagger(and never could, as the dagger is a simple weapon and has a throwing range), although it certainly shows up in a lot of enemy statblocks in spite of flavor considerations. Your points are well-made, but your absolute certainty in your argument is misplaced.

While mechanics are definitely a factor, I think with WOTC the cold hard mechanics are the only reason they did it. (I just don't think we can credit Wizards with an overabundance of thought on the matter... or much else, for that matter.) HOWEVER, I am a long time fencer, and would have to agree that the length of the blade just makes it to unseemly to use in an off-hand twf manner. (I have tried.) and the fact that the style with which you fight with a foil or an epee, makes it almost useless, if not a hindrance, to fight with another foil or epee in the off-hand. Also, your off-hand is just too far away from the enemy, and unnecessarily exposes more of your target area to them than is advisable. Hence, I agree that it is not a light weapon for the purposes of twf. I also agree, that mechanics aren't the only reason Paizo didn't put it in the light weapons category and that power attack with it represents aiming the attack better for slightly more damage.