GM Rednal wrote:
...Mythic's Tier 2 ability, Amazing Initiative?
To be fair, Amazing Initiative doesn't let you take more than one attack on an Attack action. It gives you an additional Standard action which could be used to make an additional Attack action and both Attack actions could be Vital Strikes.
But I'd say it's a moot point anyway since Vital Strike also specifies a single attack so, even if you were able to gain multiple attacks with a single Attack action (eg. using a double barreled firearm), you'd only apply Vital Strike to one of them.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
You're only explicitly required to follow BAB order for iterative attacks. But you're implicitly required to follow off-hand order of your single normal off-hand attack/ITWF attack/GTWF atack since ITWF states you gain a second off-hand attack (you can't make a second of something until you've made a first) and GTWF states third. As long as you stick to the order for each hand, you can otherwise shuffle them as you like, as well as shuffling in additional attacks from other sources. The extra attack from Haste could be placed at the very end, for instance.
@Kifaru: Wow, never played Overwatch, huh? Your build concept is very similar to one of its heros called Reaper who uses a pair of guns and when they're empty, he just tosses them aside and draws a new pair instead of bothering to reload.
You've been playing Overwatch, haven't you? As for the build, I see no problem with it. Since you'll only be worrying about 2 off-hand attacks since GTWF is a waste of a feat, I think you're good. Just keep in mind that you're taking a -4 on attack rolls for using a non-light off-hand. Not as bad considering firearms target touch in first range increment, but still something to keep in mind. There's no prohibition on temporarily emptying your hand in order to load a firearm. But how many extra double pistols are you going to be carting around? I'll presume you aren't going to be spending the cash to make them mwk/magical so what's your next step once the lack of enhancement bonus becomes a significant issue? I'd suggest investing in that glove of storing and a Pistol of the Infinite Sky so you can pop out the pistol, fire it, it never needs reloading, then pop it back in and you've got a free hand to reload your main-hand weapon.
It kind of goes with the notion that you can make a version of a foot slot item for a quadruped, say Horseshoes of Flying instead of Sandals of Flying, but the horse would need to wear 4 of them and is still limited to only one "feet" type item. Or how a creature with 4 arms doesn't get to wear two pairs of hand slot items. The only type of item that benefits from more than the standard number of body parts is wielded weapons.
The Monk bonus feats ability specifically lets them disregard prerequisites. Sohei simply adds to the list of qualifying feats. But Fighter's bonus feats ability doesn't excuse you from satisfying prerequisites; you must meet the prereqs of a feat you take via Fighter bonus feats (as well as Eldritch Knight). Blackjack adds Teamwork Feats to the Fighter's list but, other than that, you can't take either Combat or Teamwork feats without the prereqs and you can't get a Teamwork Feat using Eldritch Knight's Bonus Feats ability simply due to being able to do so with Fighter due to a Fighter archetype.
Basically, a modifier that is positive is still a modifier, but it is also a bonus. A modifier that is negative is still a modifier, but it is also a penalty. When the rules state that an off-hand gets half its bonus, that means that if the modifier is a bonus, you only add half the modifier. That doesn't state what to do if the modifier is not a bonus so you simply default to the standard rule that says you apply your modifier (which, in this case, is 0 or less) to your damage without exception. The condition established isn't, "If you wield a 2-h weapon, then you add 1.5x Str bonus to damage." The actual condition is, "If you are adding a Str bonus to a 2-h damage roll, then add 1.5x bonus (instead of simply adding 1x your Str modifier)." If you aren't adding a Str bonus in the first place, the exception doesn't kick in and you still follow the default rule (add your Str modifier to damage rolls).
The lance, a two-handed weapon, is wielded "with one hand" while mounted. That is only exempting you from the number of grasping appendages you must commit to the wielding of the weapon, not any other rules elements having to do with 2-h weapons such as Power Attack, Str to Damage, feats/abilities requiring the use of a 2-h weapon, subsumes your potential off-hand attack economy, etc. By contrast, an ability like Jotungrip or Quarterstaff Master says to wield the weapon as a one-handed weapon. This means you no longer treat it as a 2-h weapon (except for physical properties such as item HP) and treat it, for all purposes, as a 1-h weapon.
According to Magic Jar, intelligent undead have a soul. The implication is that the original soul of the body is bound and trapped to provide the undead created with intelligence. So I'd say that, while you may be able to create several mindless undead from a single corpse, you can only create one intelligent undead.
Knight Magenta wrote:
But overkill is the best kind of kill. Also, keep in mind that leaving an enemy with barely enough HP left to fight is far worse than wasting some damage making sure they are thoroughly dead. An enemy with barely enough HP to fight is still just as much of a threat as a fresh enemy with full HP. Turning an opponent into raspberry jam to make sure they aren't getting back up again is its own reward.
I think you're severely misunderstanding a few rules here.
First, Blackjack doesn't get the ability to take bonus feats without prereqs. They just can choose Teamwork feats or (Improved) Iron Will in addition to the normal option of taking a Combat feat, but just as a vanilla Fighter, they still need to meet prereqs of whatever feat they take.
Second, the Bonus Feats ability for Fighter, modified by the Blackjack archetype, is an entirely separate and distinct class feature compared to the Bonus Feats ability for Eldritch Knight. Even though they are named the same, they are two completely separate abilities and the modifications made to the Fighter version by the Blackjack archetype can't be carried over to the EK version.
Third, I'll presume you're talking about EK's Diverse Training ability, but this doesn't treat your Fighter level higher for accessing Fighter class abilities; only for satisfying feat prereqs. And even if it did allow you access to the Blackjack Tactics ability, that only lets a group of Blackjacks temporarily share a Teamwork feat that one of them possesses among the group. The people being granted use of the feat don't need to meet the prereq, but it relies on someone having the Teamwork feat already, presumably having met the prereqs unless some other rules element says they have it sans prereqs.
That having been said, some Teamwork feats are also Combat feats so EK would be able to access any Teamwork feats that happen to be Combat feats via the EK version of Bonus Feats, and then use that feat with Blackjack Tactics to share with a group of other Blackjacks.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I'm pretty sure the source of a bonus is the rules element that allows you to add it. The claim was that the weapon only serves as a "path" for riders like Spellstrike or Conductive. My counter-argument is that bonuses not inherent to the weapon could also be considered to use the weapon as a "path". The source of your Str bonus to damage isn't the weapon; it's your Strength score. The source of the +1 bonus from Weapon Specialization isn't the weapon, it's the WS feat. You can tell because, if someone who didn't have those bonuses wielded the weapon, they wouldn't get added to the damage. Ergo, being a "path" for the bonus is inconsequential; thus, riders that add additional damage dice are as much part of the weapon's damage as fixed-value bonuses and, thus, subject to Merciful.
There's no rule that says you must use an ability you have, even a passive one. If a creature with Ferocity chooses to not to use its ability to remain conscious, they can go to sleep.
Attack is established in a few different ways within the Pathfinder system.
It can be used as an abreviation for anything that involves an attack roll.
In the Damage section, it states, "if your attack succeeds, you deal damage," but it doesn't explicitly state what, exactly, an "attack" is. It also goes on to list Ability Damage as a sub-topic of Damage, meaning that an "Attack" (whatever that is) is considered to deal HP damage by default, but an "Attack" that deals Ability Damage is considered a variant of such; it still can result from an Attack. All of this is immediately after the section covering Attack Rolls.
Later, other sections also cover "making attacks", "if you have multiple attacks", etc. All these rules reference making attacks, but it hasn't been explicitly defined as of yet.
Then we have the idea of the Attack action. This is a specific Standard action with the name "Attack". Just as you have specific Standard actions called "Cast a Spell", "Light a torch with a tindertwig", "Feint", etc. this is a specific action with a specific purpose. The purpose of Attack (the action) is to make an attack. But, just as all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs, you can't say that the Attack action is the only form of attack there is. Even Full-Attack is its own distinct action and rules elements that reference a reliance on using the Attack action (eg. Vital Strike) don't apply when making a Full-Attack. Other actions can also result in attacks (eg. Cleave, Charge, etc.).
Lastly, we have the statement in the Magic section that calls out spells that refer to "attacks" and goes on to clarify that "attacks" carries a broader meaning than might be implied in the Combat section where "attack" is implicitly linked to making attack rolls and resolving damage rolls (either HP by default or to ability score, as non-lethal damage, or causing status effects in exceptional circumstances). But spells consider "attacks" to be any offensive ability, whether or not it involves an attack roll or causes damage. Hold Person, for instance, would be considered an "attack" for a spell that states you cannot make any attack. And, while it explicitly calls out "spells", later in the Magic section, it goes on to explain Special Abilities:
A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells.
Supernatural Abilities, along with Spell-Like, Extraordinary, and the catch-all Natural, fall under this heading. So it stands to reason that a magical Supernatural ability would operate under the same understanding of an attack as a magical Spell, unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. I see no such clear evidence; only hair-splitting pedantry focusing on "Attack" in reference to the Attack action (and the Full-Attack action which, as stated above, isn't even the Attack action).
The rules are written with a certain degree of "plain language", but it is still a system. We need not split hairs and argue pedantry, but also need not over-generalize and generate procedural errors and artifacts. The ability is meant to protect against "attacks" as some spells already do. There is already an applicable rule for how spells define "attacks" and Special Abilities (including Supernatural abilities) are called out to function like spells. There's no clear evidence to declare that this would be an incorrect application, so the default position would be that "attacks" for BoG carries an equivalent meaning to "attacks" in a spell like Sanctuary. If the BoG ability requires an errata for additional clarity, indicating it was improperly written, that's one thing. But, as it's written, this is the proper conclusion to arrive at.
It doesn't need to because that's what "remains conscious" already means. It doesn't say "remains conscious and can continue fighting if its hit point total is below 0," which would mean that it blocks unconsciousness as a result of HP being in negatives. It says, "remains conscious and can continue fighting even if its hit point total is below 0," which means that it remains conscious despite any other rules element that would render it unconscious with an emphasis that this even blocks unconsciousness caused by being in negative HP.
Does that mean that, with a +1 Merciful Greatsword, I deals 3d6+1 non-lethal damage plus 4 lethal damage from my Strength modifier and 1 lethal damage from my Weapon Specialization feat? Because the source of the Str damage is my Strength modifier, not the weapon. The source of the +1 is Weapon Specialization, not the weapon. If you're going to argue that only damage that is specifically sourced to the weapon, then those don't apply. But with a +1 Flaming Merciful Greatsword, the 1d6 Fire damage is from the weapon. Unless you're going to split hairs and say the 1d6 is from the Flaming Enhancement and it's just using the Greatsword as the "path" for the fire damage.
Its not an attack because attacks are made with the standard Attack action or full-round full-attack action. It is the result of a successful spell being cast.
Good job. AoOs are not attacks. Cleave is not an attack. Spell Combat is not an attack. Iaijutsu Strike is not an attack. Charge is not an attack. Shall I go on?
You mean like the original prone shooter?
The default stance is either that the rules are meant to be useful and should be presumed to work with whatever presumptions are necessary to make them work, and deal with isolated cases of poor writing as they come up, or that the rules aren't meant to work and require hyper-precise writing where any tiny detail omitted causes it to cease to function until the devs address it explicitly. Honestly, I prefer the former. It was entirely reasonable to conclude that the original prone shooter referred to a penalty that was actual in the game because it was written wrong. If it turns out that Diehard and Ferocity are written wrong, that can be addressed. But by default, one should presume that they are written correctly and understand that language has both explicit and implicit parts. This isn't a computer programming class where you need to explain to a computer how to make a PB&J sandwich in excruciating detail because it can only understand the explicit and cannot comprehend the implicit as people do. Ferocity states you don't fall unconscious even from negative HP. That pretty well covers all sources of unconsciousness. It isn't explicitly stated that it's all sources, but the implication is clear and unambiguous. Diehard's implication is a little less clear, but it still states that you act as disabled. Disabled is defined as being either at 0 HP, or negative HP and both stable and conscious. But you must choose to remain conscious (and disabled) or lose conscious as soon as you drop down into negative HP. So Diehard doesn't protect you from unconsciousness unless you decide it does on the spot, triggered by falling into negative HP. So, to address Ozy's concern, if you were asleep beforehand and someone brings you down to negative HP while you're already unconscious, Diehard will wake you up. But if someone casts Sleep on you after you've already used Diehard to stay conscious after being dropped into negative HP, Diehard states that you act as disabled and the Sleep is shrugged off. Additionally, you're staggered while using Diehard because having non-lethal damage greater than or equal to your current HP makes you staggered; Diehard only protects you from going unconscious, not being staggered and, even then, only while you are in negative HP. Deathless Initiate removes the staggered, but you're still Disabled so you still take the 1 damage on strenuous activity. Deathless Master removes the 1 damage from strenuous activity.
Does it make any more sense that Diehard and Ferocity don't work at all? That they were added into the rule book, taking up precious page space, just as a joke? The fact of the matter is that Ferocity explicitly states, "you don't fall unconscious even from negative HP." It doesn't say, "you don't fall unconscious from negative HP," it gives a blanket immunity and additionally clarifies that this even applies to unconsciousness from having negative HP. That means, without a doubt, that it protects you from unconsciousness from any and all sources. Diehard requires a little bit more mental agility to understand it, but it ends up in the same place; you don't suffer a condition that is defined by being stable and unconscious (dying) and, instead, you suffer from a pair of states that both are defined by being stable and conscious (disabled and staggered).
It basically depends on whether or not the clause in Merciful stating, "all damage it deals is nonlethal damage," applies only to the weapon's direct damage or rider effects as well. For instance, would a +1 Merciful Flaming Greatsword deal non-lethal fire damage in addition to the non-lethal damage from the Greatsword? Or would the physical damage from the sword (with the +1d6 from Merciful) be non-lethal with lethal fire damage as a rider? If the latter, then it stands to reason that other rider effects such as a Magus's Spellstrike or the result of the Conductive ability would equally be converted to non-lethal. But honestly, I think non-lethal AoE effects via Conductive wouldn't be too "out there". It'd be like having a grenade launcher that can fire either a normal explosive grenade or a flash-bang round.
Seems that way. Makes sense, though, if you think about it. If you just get conked over the head with non-lethal, it may knock you out, but getting down into negative HP gives you some kind of adrenaline surge because it's significantly life-threatening and it keeps you alert. Same goes for countering sleep; the rush of being so near death will snap you out of sleep, but without that rush, you're susceptible to it as normal. Die-hard relies on that "survival surge" of being in negative HP to kick in. Ferocity kicks in when you use the ability, but is the same kind of a "survival surge", just not contingent on being near-death.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
It's takes a bit more in-depth system understanding of the specific conditions involved, but there's your answer. Ferocity says you remain conscious even if you are in negative HP. That wouldn't be limited to just the unconsciousness from negative HP but, also, unconsciousness from nonlethal and other sources as well. Likewise, Diehard states you act as if disabled and disabled is defined by being stabled and conscious. You can't be both unconscious and disabled so, since Diehard says you function as if disabled, that necessitates being conscious, thus other sources of unconsciousness don't apply.
In most cases, we'll adjudicate attacks in series out of convenience, but in this particular instance, it would probably be best to adjudicate all attack rolls together. So roll all the attacks and then roll to pop images as if all images were still intact for all the attacks and then, finally, adjudicate the results; which rays popped an image and which ones found their mark. Unfortunately, there's no hard rule that allows you to deliberately target each ray at a separate image to burn through them; the rules are predicated on the notion that you're trying to hit the real target, not that you're trying to target each image once. That might be an appropriate use of GM fiat, though, because it's still plausible to try to attack an image deliberately; just because the rules are predicated on a certain default doesn't necessarily mean that your character is bereft of strategy. But if the character isn't familiar with the spell, make sure that you RP out the process of learning and figuring out that the extra images are just figments, otherwise it becomes metagaming.
As I said, it isn't important what kind of weapon it is. Greatswords are two-handed weapons; that only means that, by default, they are wielded as two-handed weapons. If a rules element changes its effective effort category (light/1-h/2-h), you can't also say, "but it's default effort category is still 2-h weapon so I can still gain the benefits of that too." You either use the default category or the modified category. I gave examples of rules elements that can change effort category and Oversized Weapons was one of those examples; it changes the effort category of a "1 size too big Greatsword" from "unwieldable" to "2-h". The bottom line is that there is no functional way to TWF with a pair of Greatswords and have them still count as 2-h weapons for rules elements that require you to use 2-h weapons. The absolute best you could do is TWF with a 2-h weapon and one of a very limited selection of light weapons that explicitly state they can be used for off-hand attacks even while wielding a 2-h weapon. To my knowledge, the only such weapons currently available are the Barbazu Beard and the Sea Knife and both come with pretty significant limitations to use to compensate for the TWF benefit they offer.
Your contention that you did not mean to be rude does not change the fact that you were. There is no element of 'intent' required for rudeness.
Oh, well if that's the rules of the game here, then I say you're being rude; for no other reason than I say so. So you're not allowed to say anything else on the subject because that would be rude. Checkmate.
Neither. It's objective and quite true. You're applying a personal bias to perceive it as "rude". Just as people cram in a presumption on how the rules element in question work, you crammed in a rude intention to what I said where none existed in the first place. Now if you feel insulted by it, that's entirely different. I can't control that. But my original writing was, frankly, devoid of any emotional burden, positive or negative, so if you experienced a negative emotion from it, it comes entirely from your side of the table.
Incorrect. The fact that you can use a shield doesn't overcome the fact that attacking with a 2-h weapon subsumes your off-hand attack economy. You couldn't TWF with both the spear/polearm and the shield any more than you could attack with a 2-h weapon and armor spikes. Shield Brace doesn't free up attack economy; it just frees up the physical grasping appendage in such a way that it can pull double-duty, both holding the shield and grasping the weapon.
You could avoid this problem by saying that they can't attack/TWF with the shield... but the feat doesn't say that. Making the feat... unclear.
No need for this because, as stated, you can't TWF with them anyway; stating it is a waste of space. You could fight with both if you're not using TWF rules, but no penalties apply to using them in such a manner so, again, it's a non-issue.
Again, no need to invent TWF penalties for a situation that can't happen. And who said anything about "nefarious" purposes; I simply offered logical possibilities of what could prompt them to create such a houserule. And, while PFS is entirely within their rights to impose houserules that they feel appropriate (eg. banning certain archetypes, feats, items, etc.; disregarding FAQs, etc.), I'm also entirely within my rights to criticize their reasons for doing so.
The thing you need to keep in mind is that a weapon's qualities as an item are different from their qualities when wielded. For instance, when you wield a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon, it still has the HP of a 2-h weapon. It takes on a virtual handedness category of 1-h for the purpose of how you wield it. So, even though the weapon itself is a 2-h weapon, you're wielding it as if it were a one-handed weapon. That overrides its quality as a 2-h weapon so you can't use it with feats/abilities that require you to wield a 2-h weapon (eg. Two-handed Fighter's abilities, Pushing Assault, Shield of Swings, etc.) but, in exchange, it does interact with feats/abilities that require you to wield a 1-h weapon (eg. Spell Combat).
So a Titan Mauler 2/Two-handed Fighter 7 wouldn't be able to use abilities like Overhand Chop or Back Swing with a weapon wielded one-handed via Jotungrip, let alone with a pair of such weapons. But at Titan Mauler 3, he would be able to use those abilities with an oversized 2-h weapon wielded via Massive Weapons. Likewise, he could use those abilities with a one-handed weapon that's one size too big for him because such a weapon is treated as 2-h, or with a light weapon that's two sizes too big. For example, a Medium character (eg. Human) wields a Large Longsword as if it were a 2-h weapon so it now qualifies for 2-h dependent abilities; same for a Huge Dagger.
On the other hand, there are some rules elements that use slightly (but importantly) different terms. When you wield a Lance while mounted or a polearm via the Choke Up weapon trick, they state you wield them "in one hand", rather than as a one-handed weapon. In these cases, they still count as 2-h weapons for all purposes save for the number of physical grasping appendages required to wield them. You'd be able to wield these weapons using one hand and free the other hand for handling a shield or mount reins or whatnot, but you wouldn't free up your attack economy to make an off-hand attack or equivalent. But otherwise, the weapon still counts as a 2-h weapon and could still be used with 2-h weapon dependent abilities such as those offered by the two-handed fighter in addition to getting 1.5x Str and Power Attack bonuses.
So, in short, you can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to gaining the benefit of using a two-handed weapon and fighting with a pair of two-handed weapons because all abilities that would let you do the latter make them count as one-handed which disqualifies them from the former.
Charisma doesn't represent "what kind", it represents "how much". So never try to apply subjective polar scale to Charisma (eg. Ugly to Beautiful, Rude to Charming, etc.). Pick one single subjective quality that applies to you (or, rather, that someone else would apply to you) and Charisma measures how much or how little of that you project. If someone finds you beautiful, then low Charisma means you're still beautiful, but less so than a beautiful person with high Charisma. If you're ugly, low Charisma means you're somewhat ugly and high Charisma means you're very ugly. If you're annoying, low Charisma means you're somewhat annoying but high Charisma means you're incredibly annoying. If you're imposing and domineering, then low Charisma means only somewhat so and high Charisma means very much so. So on and so forth. My go-to example is a set of identical triplets. All three are beautiful blonde bombshells, but they have drastically different Charisma scores; one is very low (7-8), one is moderate (12-14), and one is extremely high (18-20). They are triplets so their physical appearance is identical, but the subtle differences in their demeanor, body language, subconscious cues, and attitude makes the difference between seeing the 7-8 Cha as just somewhat beautiful but not fantastically so and the 18-20 Cha as super hot. And this is all only if you find these individuals beautiful. If you're really turned off by blonde hair, you'll apply a different subjective qualifier to them but, whatever qualifier you choose, their Charisma will still rank them by how strongly or weakly you'd apply that qualifier to them. If they're Humans, and you're some race that finds Humans amazingly ugly, you'd probably find the high-Cha triplet to be the ugliest among the three and the low-Cha one still ugly, but at least more tolerable.
In other words, it isn't up to you how your low Charisma affects others but, rather, up to them. Instead, just decide how you will present your character based on his own character. Charisma doesn't direct how he acts, it directs how others will respond to how he acts. If you try to tell jokes, they'll invariably be groan-inducing. But if someone with very high Charisma told that very same joke, it'd get riotous laughter. If anything, the combination of Intelligence and Wisdom should do more to direct how you act. If you're smart and you know a lot of information through good Knowledge checks, you'll be valued for your contribution of information but also you might be viewed as a bit of a know-it-all at the same time. If you have an easy time with Sense Motive and Perception, but people might put it a bit off-putting and abnormal. You'd undoubtedly be very strong and tough, but it'd probably be the frightful strength of a monster rather than the heroic strength of a champion.
Think of the differences between Superman and Batman. Both would have reasonably high Charisma, but they present themselves differently and, thus, get different reactions. Batman presents himself in an intimidating and dark manner so high Charisma pushes the impact of those qualities. Superman presents himself in a noble and heroic manner, made that much more impactful by his Charisma. Both are obviously rocking their Disguise skill (Superman probably even moreso than Batman). High Charisma but leveraged in two totally divergent ways.
It isn't unclear, it's just that some people don't know how to read something without cramming in extrapolations that aren't needed.
Benefit: You can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient. The shield's armour check penalty (if any) applies to attacks made with the weapon.
It states that you can use a two-handed weapon (appropriately sized) from the polearm or spears group while also using a light/heavy/tower shield (which which you are proficient). It says nothing about treating it as a one-handed weapon nor about wielding it in one hand; therefore, you do neither. You wield it in two hands, gaining all benefits thereof and also all limitations thereof, save for the singular exception of the limitation of no hand available to handle a shield. It's people throwing in "treat it one-handed" just because they think it ought to be there that generates confusion. PFS's houserule to treat it as one-handed is just that; their houserule. It is divergent from RAW. Now, whether they came up with that due to their own ignorance of how it works, pandering to the ignorance of others, or simply out of pursuit of a different sense of balance is anyone's guess. But it doesn't make that actual rules at hand unclear or inconsistent.
Alex Mack wrote:
While that seems like a noble cause if you're rolling 22d6 Sneak Attack you just might kill someone with NL damage...
You sneak up behind them and punch them squarely in the funny-bone. Unfortunately, because of Sneak Attack, you punched them so hard in the nerve that it threw their entire nervous system into a fit and their convulsions broke their neck and caused severe internal injuries; they died almost instantly.
Rogue: "An attempt was made."
Raven Moon wrote:
It would probably be based somewhat on the Staff Magus chassis, giving the Quarterstaff Master feats but allowing them to work for any Double weapon; or, alternatively, just a class ability that allows them to one-hand a two-handed double weapon. Beyond that, maybe a class ability that grants extra charges to touch spells a la Chill Touch/Frostbite. For example, you might be able to use Shocking Grasp 2-3 times before it's completely exhausted rather than just once. They'd also get the TWF feats gratis but maybe only when using a double weapon.
So, to sum it up, the main points would be as follows:
One error I found. You state in the FAQ section that, once the target has accrued non-lethal damage equal to its current HP, it falls unconscious and any further non-lethal damage is converted to lethal. This is incorrect. A creature will fall unconscious when their non-lethal damage is greater than their current HP, but they can sustain non-lethal damage up to the value of their maximum HP regardless of what their current is. For example, if a character has 15 max HP, 10 current HP, and 0 non-lethal damage, and they take 10 non-lethal damage, their non-lethal will equal their current HP and they will be staggered. If they take between 11 and 15 non-lethal damage, they will be unconscious (regardless of what their current HP might be). Any non-lethal damage in excess of 15, will then "spill over" as lethal damage. They won't start the "dying" process of bleeding out until they've sustained enough lethal damage (either direct lethal or spill-over non-lethal) to expend their remaining current HP and get them down into the negatives.
Tailer Tombs wrote:
What about the Enruned Dagger third party Arcana? Is there any way to make a bastard sword into a light weapon?
A Sunblade is a Bastard Sword that spoofs the handling of a Shortsword. As such, you can treat it as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon (whichever is best for you at the time) and can also use it with "choose a weapon" abilities for either weapon; it will benefit from either Weapon Focus(Bastard Sword) or Weapon Focus(Shortsword), though they won't stack. So maybe a Black Blade Bastard Sword as the main-hand weapon and an Intelligent Sunblade as the off-hand?
If you have an ability that allows you to wield a two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon (eg. Jotungrip), then you can wield a Two-Bladed Sword as a one-handed weapon using only one end of it and it will be compatible with Spell Combat. You'll still be able to wield it two-handed or as a double weapon when you aren't doing Spell Combat. Alternatively, if you use a Two-Bladed Sword that's one size too small for you, you treat it as a one-handed weapon (and take a -2 penalty). You can still wield it with two hands to use it as a double weapon or to get two-handed benefits, but it will never count as a full-on two-handed weapon for abilities that demand the use of an actual 2-h weapon (eg. Pushing Assault).
It depends on what kind of "lustful" we're talking about. Lust is a sin in Christianity, but that doesn't mean that it is inherently chaotic or non-good in nature; especially in a game like Pathfinder. Is he Pepe LePew who has no concept of personal space but has no real bad intentions? Or is he full-on "Grab'em by the pussy"?
And, as has been noted, Arshea (NG) and Lymnieris (LG) both have the Lust subdomain. Arshea is more about embracing sexual release as not being sinful while Lymnieris is more about helping those who have been forced into unwilling sexual encounters to understand that negative individual experiences aren't indicative of sexual practices as a whole. There's also Bolka (NG), the Dwarven patron of marriage, who helps couples of arranged marriages find love; she has the Lust subdomain.
It seems to be that you might be projecting an unfair personal bias upon his character.
When it says "bleed doesn't stack", it means that you use the highest damage bleed. For bleed effects with fixed damage (eg. deals 4 bleed damage), this is simple enough. If one effect causes 4 bleed and another effect causes 3 bleed, you use the 4 bleed. Wounding stacks with itself so it might start out lower, but eventually become the larger. The real hassle comes when you have a variable bleed based on a dice roll. If you have two separate effects that cause 1d4 and 1d6 bleed, some people think that the 1d6 fully and completely trumps the 1d4 since it's a larger dice. But this isn't the case. To figure this out, you roll both dice, but only apply the larger value. If you roll a 4 on the 1d4 and a 2 on the 1d6, you deal 4 bleed damage for that round.
So, with a Wounding Weapon, Bleeding Attack talent, and Bloody Bite, you're getting 3 bleed from Bleeding Attack, 1 bleed per successful attack from the Wounding weapon, and 1d6 bleed from Bloody Bite. So lets say your first round, you walk up and make a standard attack with the Wounding weapon that is a sneak attack. The wounding weapon puts 1 bleed damage on the target and the sneak attack puts 3 bleed via Bleeding Attack. The target takes 3 bleeding damage. Next round, you make a full-attack to TWF with the kusarigama (for the sake of example, I'll assume it has wounding on both ends) and also bite them. We'll presume that both attacks with the Kusarigama hit and the bite also hits. Now they have still have 3 bleed from Bleeding Attack, the Wounding weapon bleed has increased from 1 to 3, and they take 1d6 bleeding from the bite. You'll roll 1d6 for the bleeding from bite and if it's 4 or higher, they take that amount of bleed for the round. If it's less than 3, then Wounding and Bleeding Attack trump it. Now, lets say a teammate comes along and puts a 2d6 bleed on your opponent. Now it has 3/3/1d6/2d6 bleeds on it. Roll both the 1d6 and the 2d6 and, whatever happens to be the highest value, that's how much bleed the target takes. That might be the 1d6 if you roll well on it but poorly on the 2d6. Or that might even be the 3 damage if both the 1d6 and 2d6 roll poorly. Statistically, the 2d6 will roll the best with 7 bleed damage on average and also a central tendency, but it isn't absolute.
A Seven Branch Sword can do a variant of a Trip maneuver that renders the target flat-footed instead of prone.
Shatter Defenses is also a common method when combined with a reliable method of causing Shaken (or worse).
The Scout archetype treats the target of a charge as flat-footed at lvl 4, and at level 8, they treat the target as flat-footed as long he moves more than 10 feet and uses the Attack action.
Multiclass with Unchained Monk lets you use the Spin Kick style strike which makes the target flat-footed for that attack. Requires Monk lvl 5.
Multiclass with Free Hand Fighter lets you use Interference which renders a target flat-footed for 1 round or until they take damage from a melee/ranged attack by using a trip or disarm maneuver as a move action. Requires Fighter lvl 13, but with that heafty of a level requirement, might be better with Gestalt or VMC Fighter(Rogue).
There's one interesting thing I've noted for Sword Saint. The full-round Iaijutsu Strike can be performed using the Start/Complete a Full-Round Action actions.
With Start/Complete a Full-Round Action, you spend a standard action in one round to "start", then another standard action in the next round to "complete" and the Full-Round Action takes place as part of the "complete" action. The Start/Finish actions explicitly exclude Full-Attack, Charge, Withdraw, and Run actions, but Iaijutsu Strike is none of these (it's a Use Special Ability action). So you can move into a good position and issue your challenge in Round 1 and Start Full-Round Action, then in Round 2, you can move into melee range (if needed) and spend your Standard action to Complete and execute the Iaijutsu Strike against your designated target. It makes it a bit easier to execute.
If you have 10 HP and you take 11 nonlethal damage, then you still have 10 HP, but also 11 points of nonlethal damage, knocking you unconscious.
Only if you have 10 current HP and at least 11 max HP. Nonlethal over what you can max sustain (your max HP) spills over and becomes lethal damage. So a character with 10 max HP at full and 12 Con can sustain a total of 32 incoming nonlethal damage; the first 10 fill them up on non-lethal, and the next 22 are converted to lethal damage, first depleting his 10 HP, then an additional 12 damage which brings him to -12 HP, as well as his deity.
@Saethori: You're splitting hairs. The pluralization in that case is a stylistic choice and wouldn't affect how it works. If things stack, the rules will say so. It says your levels in Brawler count as both Fighter levels and Monk levels. So a Brawler 10 benefits from virtual Fighter 10 and Monk 10 levels. But a Brawler 10/Fighter 10 benefits from virtual Fighter 10, Fighter 10, and Monk 10 levels. The 10 levels of Fighter are parallel, not stacked. Or, to put it another way, it's your Brawler levels that are counted as Fighter and Monk levels so, for any applicable prerequisite, you can substitute "<x> Fighter levels" or "<x> Monk levels" with "<x> Brawler levels". You can't wear a 10' stilt on each foot and say you're 20' taller.
I felt the fear touch better jived with the whole "I scare people" motif and incorporeal form would be very good for fighting the incorporeal undead. Paralyzing isn't useful against Undead and neither is bleed and he'd be a Knightly type character wielding a weapon so claws, in and of themselves, aren't going to be a primary weapon. If he were going to be more of an evil character that gave in to his undead aspects, then Ghoul bloodline would undoubtedly be better, but this character is trying to walk a razor's edge, skirting as close to being a monster as he can without fully giving into it.