Kazaan's page

5,631 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 792 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Seems legal, but is there any reason you can't just do 1,3,2 instead? I thought you only had to take your individual hands' attacks in BAB order, not your overall attack sequence.

Also, Gun Twirling lets you holster as a free, so you can instead draw, shoot, and holster your first gun, then do it all again with your second gun.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you might say you're looking for... Clericfication?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight Magenta wrote:

Sort of related, but it always irked me that wide crit range weapons have so much more support then high crit multiplier. Swashbucklers regain grit on crits, and there are all sorts of crit fishing feats - but there is nothing for the dude with a hammer.

To add insult to injury, high crit weapons are generally worse since much of their power gets wasted on overkill.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you don't mind borrowing a concept from another game for homebrew material, maybe toenail golems? Toenails are dead cells, but they are generated by a living body. If you get a whole bunch of people producing an abundant supply of tonails, you could animate an army of toenail golems.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
The new LE ridesharing app.

He'd definitely need the Travel domain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

No, it doesn't make sense at all. If it gave you adrenaline, you wouldn't still be staggered.

And what about immunity to sleep spells?

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PRD wrote:

Diehard

Benefit: When your hit point total is below 0, but you are not dead, you automatically stabilize. You do not need to make a Constitution check each round to avoid losing additional hit points. You may choose to act as if you were disabled, rather than dying. You must make this decision as soon as you are reduced to negative hit points (even if it isn't your turn). If you do not choose to act as if you were disabled, you immediately fall unconscious.
When using this feat, you are staggered. You can take a move action without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other action deemed as strenuous, including some swift actions, such as casting a quickened spell) you take 1 point of damage after completing the act. If your negative hit points are equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you immediately die.

-----------------------

Disabled: A character with 0 hit points, or one who has negative hit points but has become stable and conscious, is disabled. A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions, but he can still take swift, immediate, and free actions). He moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn't risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the GM deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character's hit points, he is now in negative hit points and dying.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
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.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your current and max HP is 10. If you take 11 non-lethal damage, you'll accrue 10 nonlethal damage to your character because 10 is the max non-lethal he can sustain. The 1 remaining is converted to lethal so now, your current HP is 9, max is still 10, nonlethal damage to the character is 10. Since your nonlethal damage is greater than your current HP, you fall unconscious (had you only taken 10 nonlethal damage, you'd be staggered, but conscious because your nonlethal = current HP). You can still sustain 9 more lethal damage before you're at 0 HP, and then as much lethal damage as you have Con score before you're outright dead.

Another way to look at it is to think of a Health bar and a Stagger bar in a fighting game. Your Health bar depletes as you take lethal damage and your Stagger bar fills up as you take non-lethal. Both bars are the same length and one is situated right under the other. If the stagger bar builds up to the point that it's even with your remaining Health, you're staggered. If it builds up over that, then you're KO. And if the Stagger bar is full, any extra nonlethal is deducted from your health bar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Halek wrote:
If antipaladin counts as an archetype of a paladin wouldnt you be able to use it without the UMD? A hospitaler paladin is still a paladin. An antipaladin is still a paladin. No UMD required.

But an Antipaladin "swapped out" LoH for ToC, so UMD is necessary to emulate a class feature.

EDIT: I'm not familiar with the antipaladin archetypes, so I'm not sure what the OP wants to do works, but he does still need LoH to "use" the item, thus UMD comes into play. Just like if there was some magic belt that did something separate from Evasion but required Evasion to use the item, a rogue with an archetype that swapped out Evasion would need UMD to emulate the missing class feature.

Anti-Paladin trades LoH out for ToC, but ToC specifically says it benefits from feats, abilities and effects that modify LoH. The bracers ability would be an effect that modify LoH so that's no problem. Anti-Paladin already counts as a Paladin due to being an alternate class so that's no problem. And, moreover, the Insinuator Anti-Paladin archetype trades ToC out for Selfish Healing (functionally, instead of trading LoH for ToC, you're trading LoH for Selfish Healing instead) which further states it works exactly like LoH, except you can only use it on yourself. You wouldn't need UMD for any of this to work; neither to use the bracers to beef up your ToC (a fitting bastardization of the item for a champion of evil and corruption), nor to use it to beef up your "I heal only those who are important... and I'm the only one who's important" ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sticking your arm though the bars would interfere with somatic components sufficiently enough that you wouldn't be able to cast the spell while you hand is in the window. However, it would be feasible that if you are adjacent to the door, it could be a melee touch attack in place of a ranged touch to "hit" the opening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The GM is wrong and the rest of the group is wrong for agreeing with him. End of story. This is a clear-cut example of a GM who's in way over his head and doesn't understand his role in the game; broadly and clumsily applying rules in vindictive ways. It doesn't matter how many people in the group agree with him as agreement doesn't equate to correct; no matter how many people believe the Earth is flat or is the center of the solar system doesn't make it so. In other words, your whole group is pretty much a lost cause and, if I were in your shoes, I'd drop them like a bad habit.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Basically, you aren't Metagaming; they got that wrong when they claimed that you were. But what you are doing is you're the guy in the movie theater who's seen the film a dozen times and you keep nudging the people next to you saying, "Ooh, here comes the really good part," for all your favorite scenes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, we can deconstruct it using the Creating New Weapons rules from WMH. A Martial Tetsubo would get 8 DP (5 for martial + 2 for 2-h) while an Exotic one gets 9 DP (6 for exotic + 2 for 2-h). It has no special properties or additional damage types so the only things we need to account for are the increased damage and crit multiplier. x4 Crit costs 6 DP. Now, it needs a few damage increases. It will take four damage increases to get it where it needs to be:
1) 1d3 -> 1d4
2) 1d4 -> 1d6
3) 1d6 -> 1d8
4) 1d8 -> 1d10

Improved Damage costs 1 DP each time so that's four DP for this. Thus, the total DP necessary for this weapon is 10: 6 for the x4 crit and 4 for the improved damage. It starts off with either 8 or 9 depending on whether it's a martial or exotic. So, as a Martial weapon, it needs Additional Design Points 2 times, increasing the GP cost by a total of 30. As an Exotic weapon, it only needs ADP 1 time, increasing the GP cost by 15. The base cost for a 2-h Martial weapon should be 8 while for a 2-h Exotic weapon should be 9. Thus, the proper cost, based on these rules, should be 38 gp for a Martial Tetsubo or 24 for an Exotic Tetsubo. The standard Tetsubo presented in UC costs 20.

So, from a purely mechanical perspective, it's an Exotic weapon because of the price. You could just as easily make a Martial version that costs about twice as much as the standard (seemingly discounted) version presented in UC.

Alternatively, considering the nature of the weapon, it actually does take significant skill and training to use a Tetsubo properly; focusing on strength and balance. An improper swing that misses can leave you open to counter-attack. So a fitting houserule would be that if you lack Exotic proficiency for it, you can use it as a martial weapon, but you provoke an AoO if you miss by 5 or more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
This is one of those confusing legacy wording issues that comes up. It is much easier on you if you think of light, one-handed, two-handed weapons as light, medium, and heavy weapons. This separates weapon category from how many hands (or equivalent limbs) you need. Light weapons can only be used in one hand. Medium weapons use one hand, but are treated as heavy weapons if you use two hands. Heavy weapons require two hands. Increasing/decreasing weapon size changes the weapon weight category by one step. Lances would then be a special heavy weapon that requires only one hand while mounted, but is still a heavy weapon in all other ways. This is why you cant use a large lance, since medium creatures cannot wield a large heavy weapon.

One thing to note, a "medium" weapon wielded in two hands would not qualify as a "heavy" weapon. It would require both hands as well as subsuming your potential off-hand attack economy, but it wouldn't qualify as a "heavy" weapon for rules elements that require the use of a "heavy" weapon (eg. Overhand Chop, Pushing Assault, etc.). Other than that, it's a very good model to understand the situation more clearly. With that, we would get the following breakdowns:

Lance: Heavy weapon, can be wielded in one hand while mounted.
Quarterstaff Master: Can wield quarterstaves as Medium weapons.
Jotungrip: Can wield properly sized Heavy weapons as Medium weapons.
Bastard Sword: Medium weapon, must be wielded as Heavy martial weapon if you lack exotic proficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a diagram I made a while back illustrating how LLV and Darkvision interact.

Light Level Diagram

On the left are miss chances for a creature without LLV, such as a Human or Dwarf. They use the normal radii for a light source and, in addition, if they have Darkvision, they can see perfectly just within that radius. On the right are miss chances for a creature with LLV, such as an Elf or Dhampir. The light levels are the same but, in essence, a creature with LLV can see normally in dim light and, additionally, treats an amount of darkness the way other creatures would treat dim light, getting reduced visibility and 20% miss chance in a circle of darkness around the light source. In the diagram, the Dhampir on the right would be able to clearly see the Dwarf on the left because the Dwarf is standing in dim light. If the Dhampir has a ranged weapon, they could shoot the Dwarf and they'd suffer no miss chance due to concealment because he's standing in an area of dim light and the Dhampir has LLV. But the Dwarf cannot see the Dhampir because it is standing in darkness and the Dwarf doesn't have LLV, nor is he close enough to use his Darkvision. Now, if it were an Elf instead of a Dwarf, the Elf would be able to see the Dhampir dimly and would suffer a 20% concealment miss chance on a ranged attack.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Great Old One, Cthulhu wrote:

Whenever someone brings up the Charisma vs. Physical Beauty issue to me, I just remind them that I'm a horrible tentacle monster and I have 34 Charisma. Then they usually die in my Unspeakable Presence...

My Unspeakably Sexy Presence...

To be fair, there's a big market for tentacle hentai.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

When Charisma says it measures your appearance (among other things), that is a matter of quantity, not quality. The quality of the appearance is subjective. Whether a person is beautiful, ugly, intimidating, imposing, demure, or any other qualitative description might be applied is subjective to the viewer. But, whatever qualifier applies, Charisma measures how strongly you present that qualifier. If someone finds you attractive, then high Charisma means they find you very attractive while low Charisma means they find you just a little bit attractive; you're still attractive no matter how high or low your Charisma goes. In other words, Charisma determines only how much, not what kind. You need high Charisma in order to be incredibly beautiful but you also need high Charisma in order to be incredibly ugly.

Charisma is more about confidence than anything else. Confident people have certain body language, expressions, tone of voice, etc. and they act with certainty. High Charisma means you know your physical appearance and you can flaunt it to maximum effect. Low Charisma means you lack confidence and will have body language, expression, tone, lack of certainty, etc. that causes you to have less of an effect. Even physical defects depend on your attitude towards them. One feat that gives you a scar causes a penalty to certain Cha-based skills because it is a physical reminder of a time when you failed; it damaged your confidence a little bit. But another feat that gives you a scar causes a bonus to certain Cha-based skills because it is a reminder of a time when you avoided failure by just ever so slightly; you pulled through in a pinch and succeeded and have this awesome scar that is a well-earned source of pride.

So the real solution to the problem is about properly understanding the Charisma attribute and how it provides a quantitative metric and is not a slider with "ugly" on the left and "beautiful" on the right. The "ugly" and "beautiful" are in a drop-down menu (along with all other appearance descriptors) and Charisma is a slider going from "less <whatever>" to "more <whatever>".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

First thing to remember is that Charisma represents a valuation of something, not a type. Lower numbers mean less and higher numbers mean more; not a sliding scale between two different kinds. So it's inaccurate to say, "someone with high Charisma is attractive while someone with low Charisma is repulsive." It's also inaccurate to say, "someone with high Charisma is charming while someone with low Charisma is rude." If you're attractive, then high Charisma means more attractive and low Charisma means less attractive. You're still attractive no matter how high or low the Charisma; just more or less so. Charisma measures how strong or weak some subjective value is; not what that subjective value is. If you're trying to be a leader, Charisma determines how strong or weak of a leader you are. If you're trying to be intimidating, Charisma determines how strong or weak your intimidation is. It takes high Charisma to be very attractive, but it also takes high Charisma to be very repulsive.

Ideally, your roleplay shouldn't really be all that different. Just keep doing the things you were doing before and it's the response that should change. Before, with 8 Charisma, you'd try bluffing at cards and the average person would probably catch on, but you'd likely fool a dullard. Now, with 2 Charisma, you'd try bluffing at cards, but even a particularly dull person could catch on. Before, with 8 Charisma, you might tell the bouncer, "let me pass, I have business here," and have a 35% chance to convince the him if untrained in Diplomacy. Now, with 2 Charisma, you say the exact same thing, but you have only a 20% chance to convince him. Same exact words, but significantly lower chance of success. Your physical appearance has not changed, but people respond to you differently because of subconscious cues like expression, tone, body language, and general air of confidence (or lack thereof in this case). In other words, your character's confidence and self-valuation is almost entirely shattered. You could do the same exact things as you did before, but whereas before you just had a tiny little thought of failure, now you have an expectation of failure. And, due to that expectation, you're more likely to fail at Charisma-based rolls. Your type of personality hasn't changed, but your power to express that personality and have it impact the world around you has dropped significantly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clerics are trained, but they also need divine mojo. That's why they are in the third starting age category, along with wizards, monks, etc. So it takes study, faith, and understanding to know how, but they also need a source for that mojo. Paladins are self-taught; they figure out for themselves how to be a conduit for divine mojo. It takes practice and, probably, a bigger dose of mojo to make up for the lack of formal training and certification. That's why they have such a strict code; to handle all the extra mojo. Oracles are intuitive; they get the mojo forcibly crammed into them with absolutely no training or preparation (or even consent in nearly all cases). That's why they have a curse to go along with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
actually, he has proficiency in a single martial or exotic, but there's nothing that forces that particular weapon to be his chosen weapon... he could still choose a simple one like the staff or club, lackluster as the choice might be. (Is Kensai stackable with staff magus?)

That's what's called "splitting hairs". The Kensai is described as mastering the use of one specific weapon. You choose proficiency with a single martial or exotic weapon in weapon/armor proficiency. Then, nearly all of their abilities reference their chosen weapon as the foundation of their effects. It's willful ignorance to claim that the weapon you choose under weapon proficiency wouldn't be your chosen weapon, especially since no where else in the Kensai's ruleset does it mention the actual choosing of a weapon. If you really want to take the ridiculously pedantic argument and claim that the weapon you choose under weapon proficiency isn't your chosen weapon, then you don't even have a chosen weapon since nowhere in the rule block for Kensai does it mention actually choosing your chosen weapon.

Your chosen weapon is the martial/exotic weapon you choose under weapon proficiency. And, honestly, this explanation shouldn't really even be necessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't.

"Wield as a one-handed weapon" and "treat as a one-handed weapon" are both functionally identical. They mean that, so far as usage goes, you act as if the weapon were a one-handed weapon. As a result, you can do the following:

1) Wield them with just one hand
2) Not compromise your off-hand attack economy
3) Apply feats/abilities that require the use of a one-handed weapon

However, as a drawback, the following also apply:

1) You don't get 2-h Str or Power Attack damage when wielding it one-handed
2) You can't use feats or abilities that require the use of a two-handed weapon while wielding it one-handed

In regards to its physical properties as an item, that isn't affected by how you wield it. Its HP is still that of a two-handed weapon. Lastly (and pertinent to this discussion), you can't pick it as a valid option for Slashing Grace because it isn't "always" a one-handed weapon; it's only one for how you wield it. Slashing Grace requires you to pick a one-handed weapon. That is not a matter of wielding the weapon. This is the same logic behind the FAQ on changing the attribute of a skill; it is only changed when you use it. So even if you get "all Int skills as class skills", changing Intimidate from Cha to Int isn't enough to qualify it under that blanket as a class skill. It is certainly an Int skill when you use it and would benefit from rules that specifically say they apply to Int skills. Likewise, the scarf is only a one-handed weapon when you use it; not when you're picking your feats and need to select a one-handed weapon for Slashing Grace.

PS: The difference between this and wielding a Lance while mounted is that the Lance says you may wield it "in one hand" while other rules elements say you may wield the weapon "one-handed", "as a one-handed weapon", "treated as a one-handed weapon", etc. In other words, if it specifically uses "one-handed", it's treated fully as a one-handed weapon (except for physical properties and a valid weapon option for certain feats/abilities). If it says, "one hand", it just means that it's overriding the specific need for a two-handed weapon to use two hands (grasping appendages), as is the case with the Lance while mounted as well as a Polearm with the Choke Up weapon trick.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Holy water is just regular water after you've boiled the hell out of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:
Is a pollaxe a poleaxe that makes you answer a question when it hits you?

Apparently, "Poleaxe" is a linguistic corruption of the original term "pollaxe" wherein "poll" is a Germanic word for "head". It is a militant variant of a farming implement used to smack a cow over the head to kill it. Eventually, the term became bastardized such that "poll" was mistaken to be "pole" referring to the long handle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's just fluff. "Bloodline Arcana: Some undead are susceptible to your mind-affecting spells. Corporeal undead that were once humanoids are treated as humanoids for the purposes of determining which spells affect them." That's a complete description of the arcana. It establishes that it's talking about mind-affecting spells and then goes on to clarify the effect. So you'd be able to put a Human Skeleton to sleep, but you wouldn't be able to use Vampiric Touch on them to heal yourself or Cure Light Wounds to heal them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In game terms, wielding a larger weapon "without penalty" also applies to the "penalty" of changing the effort category of the weapon. So a Medium Tiefling with Oversized Limbs would wield a Large Greatsword as if it were a Medium Greatsword; that is, he takes neither a penalty to his attack roll nor does he consider it unwieldable. Likewise, if you were to pick a Large Longsword, it would still be wielded one-handed. If you look at the Redcap, it is a Small Fey that has an ability worded functionally the same to Oversized Limbs, save that instead of referring to Large weapons, it refers to Medium weapons since Medium would be one size bigger compared to a Small Fey. The Redcap is shown as having a Medium Scythe as its weapon which, if "without penalty" didn't also apply to the effort category of the weapon, it wouldn't be able to wield. Thus, "without penalty" must allow the Redcap to wield a weapon that would ordinarily be too big for such a creature to wield. Ergo, just as a Small Redcap can wield a Medium weapon with no effort category change, even a medium 2-h weapon, the same can be said for a Tiefling w/ Oversized Limbs wielding large weapons. Keep in mind, though, that this change only affects large weapons and offers nothing towards wielding Huge weapons. So a tiefling wielding a Huge Dagger would still suffer two rounds of oversized weapon penalty, taking -4 to attack and treating it as a 2-h weapon. Anything your GM says in contradiction is a houserule, not a default part of the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The half-elf archetype Bonded Witch could work. Just pick the firearm as your bonded object.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saethori wrote:

So we have super-virile hundred year old wizards. Great.

(Also, one can definitely say that impotency is a penalty to a physical ability.)

Well, to be fair, most wizards will, at some point, look for a spell to do that. I think the verbal component is abraviagra.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of it is that there is no "facing" in Pathfinder. Your character basically has "Schrodinger's Field of Vision" such that their perception roll shows whether or not they happened to glance in your direction as you were sneaking up to them. Likewise, the flanking bonus represents the increased likelihood that they aren't paying close enough attention to you when you attacked them. But your opponent doesn't really have "back" for you to stab.

Also, keep in mind that there are other things that can deny Dex to AC as well. A climbing character is denied Dex so they are vulnerable to sneak attacks. Using a Seven Branch Sword's special Trip variant to render a foe flat-footed will open them up to sneak attacks. Shatter Defenses can also render an opponent with a fear status (shaken, frightened, or panicked) flat-footed. It's really should be re-named, honestly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bear in mind that it's still a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

PRD wrote:
A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature's throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

So if your goal is to avoid the need for a full-round action to use the potion on an unconscious creature, you aren't gaining anything by using an oil instead.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

99 bottles of beer on the wall...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Sanchez:
Actually...

FAQ wrote:

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.
...
Alternate Ability Score-Based Checks: If I change the key ability score of a skill (or other check), for example, if I change Knowledge from Intelligence to Charisma, is it no-longer an Intelligence-based check? Is it now a Charisma-based check?
Generally yes—at the time of rolling a check, if you substitute the ability score, the check is now based on the new ability score. In the example, at the time of rolling, Knowledge would now be a Charisma-based skill and not an Intelligence-based skill for you, which would affect things like feats, spells, or items that grant bonuses on checks based on their key ability score (like circlet of persuasion). However, if you are adding a second ability modifier to a check, this is not the case. For instance, when adding both Wisdom and Dexterity on initiative checks, initiative is still a Dexterity check, not a Wisdom check. Also, this changes the check only at the time of rolling, so this does not change static class features or options made during character building such as your class’s class skills. Classes that receive “all Intelligence-based skills” as class skills, for instance, are the victim of sloppy writing, and furthermore sometimes effects might muddy the water by only changing the ability dependency sometimes and not others, which is why you check the new dependency only for a specific given roll.

So no, basing your Diplomacy and Bluff on Wis instead of Cha makes them no longer Cha skills. They are now considered Wis skills so rules elements that give a benefit to Cha skills no longer apply and those that give benefit to Wis skills will apply. They are still considered Diplomacy and Bluff checks so rules elements affecting those particular skills still apply as normal. And, (though a lot of people generally disagree with the logic on this one), the other FAQ states that when some rules element lets you add "<ability score> in addition to the normal ability score", it counts the ability scores as the "source" of the bonuses. For example, when you normally add your Charisma modifier to a Bluff check, the Charisma score, itself, is the source of that bonus. When Guileful Lore allows the Inquisitor to add their Wisdom modifier on top of that, their Wisdom score is the source of the additional bonus. So the base skill bonus comes from Cha and the additional bonus comes from Wis so there is no source conflict. But when you use both Guileful Lore and Charm of Wisdom, now the base skill bonus comes from Wis and the additional bonus also comes from Wis so there is a source conflict. However, this would not happen if the additional benefit were typed (eg. competence bonus, enhancement bonus, etc). And, again, I strongly disagree with this interpretation because I view Guileful Lore, Charm of Wisdom, et al, themselves, as the source and the ability score modifier as the value of the bonus. But, officially, both the abilities and the stat modifiers are counted as the source of the bonus if they are untyped. So, while you're kind of right on some things, you might want to pick up the mic and put it back on the stand where it goes.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaisoku wrote:
And that's all *I personally* need from a player.. to actually participate in the roleplaying, instead of treating this game like an excel spreadsheet.

Well there's your problem; you're treating it like someone who doesn't "try hard enough" at roleplay is doing you a personal disservice and you feel inclined to take revenge upon them for it. No one at the table is playing for your personal entertainment; they are there to play the game primarily for themselves. They will roleplay to the extent of their personal social comfort. Some players are very vocal and outgoing and they will elaborate on everything that their character does, because they are good at doing so and enjoy it. Others will try to elaborate where they can despite not being so great at it. And a few will be very introverted and can't really articulate their character very well. But at the end of the day, how well you roleplay has no significant bearing on the mechanics of the game. A GM's authority to impose circumstantial penalties isn't for the sake of punitive measures because you think their personal beliefs on how to play the game are badwrongfun. It's leeway for the GM to guide the narrative and properly represent situational benefits or hindrances. If Derpface the fighter with 7 Charisma says something offensive in trying to help at the social interaction, and he flubs it by 5 or more, then simply reduce the guard's attitude (which, in turn, raises the DC of the primary face's check). But if he only fails by 1-4, no need to give additional penalty beyond what's already there just because you feel the player isn't addressing your personal needs.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

10% of lawyers give them all a bad reputation. This is true in both justice systems as well as game systems. Most rules lawyers are just looking for system parity. Nothing is worse than building a character based on the rules and then getting thrown for a loop because the GM misinterprets those rules. But there are a few who are looking to get an undue advantage based on technicalities. My first few times playing Pathfinder were rather rough because the other players (including the GM), while used to other RPG systems, were relatively new to Pathfinder and burdened with limited understanding of the new system. Our GM though that characters in a grapple shared the same space and that attacks against the opponent had a 50% chance to hit the grappled ally instead. This lead to a number of undesirable situations. There were plenty of other things wrong (not least of which the GM in question was of the "GM vs players" mentality), but having someone who fully and objectively understood the rules would have probably made things go a lot smoother. There are just certain types of people who want a more structured, sturdy, and rigid rules framework and, as such, they naturally will study and seek complete understanding and competence with the rules; and expect others to, if not do that, at least trust those who actually did so. Another part of the problem is the way GMing has become treated. The GM is a referee, he adjudicates the rules, but the game doesn't belong to him. He's a player; just one with a specific job in the game, like the dealer in Blackjack. "The GM is always right" is just as wrong a mentality as "the customer is always right". Too many GMs get butthurt when someone else at the table demonstrates better system mastery and are quick to jump on them for being a bad rules lawyer trying to take advantage of other players' lack of system mastery, even though those individuals are just a minority of rule lawyers in general.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that bothers many people is the legacy of incorrect sword terminology that rose out of D&D and has been perpetuated throughout games, both tabletop like Pathfinder as well as working its way into computer-based RPGs. So what would a proper sword spectrum look like for Pathfinder? First off, we must take into consideration that the "short" and "long" in shortsword and longsword didn't really refer to the length of the blade so much as the length of the handle. A Shortsword has enough room for only one hand while a Longsword has a long enough hilt that it can be wielded in two hands. The fact of the matter is that what we call the Longsword in D&D, Pathfinder, and similar games isn't even a Longsword at all. What we'd call a Greatsword or a Bastard Sword is more akin to what would have historically been called a Longsword, and what we call a Longsword is more akin to what would have been a Bastard Sword or maybe an Arming sword. And we really don't have a good example of what would have actually been called a Greatsword. A true, historical Greatsword is more like a short Polearm than an actual sword. So, a more correct "spectrum" of swords would be as follows:

1) Shortsword: light martial weapon, 1d6(p) damage, 19-20/x2 crit No change needed; this one they actually got right
2) Arming Sword: 1-h martial weapon, 1d6(p or s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, no benefit from using two-handed but, if proficient, is treated as light for TWF penalties, treated as shortsword for feats and abilities. This is your real knight's sidearm, meant to be used in conjunction with a shield.
3) Bastard Sword: 1-h martial weapon, 1d8 damage(p or s), 19-20/x2 crit, treated as Longsword for feats and abilities (eg. Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, etc). Actually takes the place of the old Longsword, a Bastard Sword was a hybrid of a proper Shortsword and proper Longsword.
4) Longsword: 1-h exotic weapon, 1d10(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, if lacking exotic proficiency, you must treat is as a 2-h martial weapon, treated as full 2-h weapon when wielded in two hands. Takes the place of the old Bastard Sword and is more properly used as a 2-h weapon for 2-h techniques (eg. shield of swings, pushing assault, etc). You'd only one-hand it if you were using your free hand for assisting maneuvers like a grab, shove, etc.
5) War Sword: 2-h martial weapon, 1d10(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, brace, treated as Longsword for feats and abilities. Takes the place of the old Greatsword with some added features and properly represents a midway point between a proper Longsword and a proper Greatsword
6) Greatsword: 2-h exotic weapon, 2d6(s) damage, 19-20/x2 crit, brace, can be used as if you have the Lunge feat, if you actually have the Lunge feat you can use it without taking AC penalty (for this weapon only), in Polearms fighter weapon group. What a proper Greatsword should be, more a polearm than a sword and used against charges


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Just got an idea to expand on this. If you actually manage to get all the way down the Spear Dancing Style feat chain, Spear Dancing Reach lets you give the Reach property to your weapon -- even if it didn't originally have that property. And conveniently, some Spears can be wielded one-handed, so that you don't have to get Quarterstaff Master and Weapon Focus (Quarterstaff), but this doesn't hurt the usage of them with Spear Dancing Reach. One disadvantage is that Spear Dancing Reach eats a Swift Action every turn (not just to start using it). 6/10?

2 things. Spear Dancing Reach can only be used if you're fighting with it as a double weapon and, regardless of handedness of the weapon, you must wield it in two hands to use it as a double weapon. So even if it's a 1-h weapon, you'd still need to wield it in two hands in order to handle it as a double weapon in order to benefit from reach. Also, the original question was about the prospect of using a Nodachi for a Magus and, while a Katana might be similar, other spears/polearms wouldn't really be. Regarding the use of the swift action, you only need to eat it if you need to attack an enemy at reach. That isn't necessarily every turn. And it's an option for your swift action that could be used at any given opportunity; as opposed to other Magus options for which you have limited uses per day. It gives you versatility and you get more mileage out of your action economy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You have a few options. First, the black and white.

Spell Combat requires you to wield either a one-handed or light weapon in your other hand. Now this can be an actual one-handed or light weapon, or a functional one-handed or light weapon (it "works as" or is "treated as" one-handed or light). Also, the "in your other hand" actually means it has to be a hand-based weapon and your setup must be that you are casting a spell using one hand and wielding the weapon (again, one-handed or light) in the opposite hand. Now, I will note that multi-armed races are a little bit ambiguous in how they function but, as a good rule of thumb, just presume that Spell Combat takes up all your off-hand attack economy so you wouldn't be able to two-hand your weapon with spell combat any more than you could mix TWF and 2HF normally. That having been said...

1) Just use a Katana. You can still wield it 2-h for rounds in which you aren't using Spell Combat, but it doesn't outright lock you out of Spell Combat like a full 2-h weapon would. 7/10

2) 2 level dip into Titan Mauler Barb for Jotungrip. This lets you treat 2-h weapons sized for you as 1-h weapons for -2 attack. But the attack penalty is kinda bad because your BAB is 3/4 already. 6/10

3) Tiefling w/ Oversized Limb and Large Katana. Oversized Limb removes all penalty for wielding a Large weapon (both the attack penalty and the handedness change). So you'll still treat the Large Katana as if it were a 1-h weapon, but it's more comparable in size and damage to a Nodachi. No brace, though. 7/10

4) Spear Dancing Spiral + Quarterstaff Master. Spear Dancing Spiral lets you treat a polearm as a quarterstaff for interaction with feats and abilities and Quarterstaff Master lets you wield a Quarterstaff one-handed. Feat intensive and you'll need +5 BAB (which you won't have until lvl 6 and no feat slot until lvl 7). But you'll have a lot of versatility because you'd be able to wield the Nodachi as a 1-h weapon, a 2-h weapon, or TWF with it as a doubel weapon. If you take Spear Dancing Reach, you can grant it reach as a swift action when using it double. 5/10

5) Unarmed Strike and use Glove of Storing or Gauntlets of Weaponmaster to "store" the Nodachi until you need to wield it. You could use Quick Draw, but that only allows drawing it quickly; you'd need to drop it to free up your hands for Spell Combat. Helps if you can magically enhance your unarmed strikes. 5/10

6) Use a Small Nodachi. You'd wield it as a one-handed weapon with a -2 attack penalty. It does less damage, but retains Brace. Most other options are mechanically superior. 5/10

6 alternate) Use Enlarge Person and "release" the Nodachi in some manner so it either reverts to or retains its original size. That way, you're Large and your Nodachi is medium. You'll get more natural reach, but your attack and defense suffers. Note, you need a humanoid race for this option. 6/10

Note that it was recommended above to use Choke Up, but that requires making no attacks with your other hand and Spell Combat explicitly states that casting the spell is your off-hand attack so the two are technically incompatible.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
silverrey wrote:
You forgot the part about it also being the only weapon you can't enchant.

Well, lets see...

Advanced Class Guide/Skullcrusher Gauntlets wrote:
These bloodstained gauntlets are made of a combination of blackened steel and polished white stone. They are slightly over-sized and somewhat bulky, though still suitable for combat. They function as +1 gauntlets. Once per day, the wearer can unleash a devastating attack with the gauntlets that can instantly knock a target unconscious. The wearer must announce her intent before making her attack roll, and creatures immune to critical hits can't be affected. To make the attack, the wearer makes a single melee attack at her highest base attack bonus as a full-round action. If the strike hits, the target takes 4d6 points of force damage and must succeed at a DC 15 Fortitude save or fall unconscious until the end of its next turn. Even if the target succeeds at the Fortitude save, it is staggered until the end of its next turn. When worn by a brawler with the knockout class feature, the DC to resist the brawler's knockout increases by 2.
Dirty Tactics Toolbox/Constrictor's Gauntlets wrote:
These +1 gauntlets are made of snakeskin and grant a +1 enhancement bonus on grapple checks. Once per day as a standard action, the wielder of a pair of constrictor's gauntlets can target a single creature wearing medium or heavy armor within 30 feet. The target must succeed at a DC 16 Will saving throw or its armor shrinks and constricts, dealing 1d6 points of bludgeoning damage to the target if it's wearing medium armor or 1d8 points of bludgeoning damage if it's wearing heavy armor. The armor deals this damage each round for 3 rounds, and then returns to its normal size. The armor's armor bonus, maximum Dexterity bonus, armor check penalty, and other attributes do not change while it is shrunken.
Crown of the Kobold King/Grasp of Granite wrote:

This left-handed black iron gauntlet appears little more than a dull soot-stained plated glove at first glance, but in truth it is a powerful boon granted by a god to his most faithful subjects.

Placing the glove on your left hand causes excruciating pain as your appendage curls into a tight fist and then slowly transforms to supernaturally hard black stone. You cannot use your left hand for anything beyond smashing it into objects or creatures (you cannot carry a shield or secondary weapon and you take a –4 on skill checks that usually require two hands).

The gauntlet cannot be removed without a successful casting of remove curse, break enchantment, or a similar spell. The gauntlet grants you a +2 enhancement bonus to Strength and acts as a +1 adamantine gauntlet. The item also grants you the ability to use the gauntlet as a secondary natural attack. In addition, the Grasp of Granite allows its wearer to use stone shape once per day.

Armor Master's Handbook/Shielded Gauntlet Master wrote:
While using Shield Gauntlet Style, you no longer lose your shield bonus to AC when you attack with your gauntlet (or spiked gauntlet) or use it to hold a weapon. In addition, you add your gauntlet’s enhancement bonus to the shield bonus to AC granted by this feat as if it were a shield enhancement bonus.

No, it doesn't look like I actually forgot anything. That thing about not being able to enchant them seems to be a load of hokum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Kazaan wrote:


A Gauntlet is a light weapon. Period. So Weapon Focus (Gauntlet) is, indeed, a thing. Gauntlets, while part of certain pieces of armor, are not armor in and of themselves. They cannot be enhanced as armor, they don't provide an armor bonus, they don't interfere with Monk abilities, etc. A Gauntlet can make your Unarmed Strikes (just Unarmed Strike, a sub-element of Unarmed Attacks; not natural attacks or any other sub-element of Unarmed Attack) deal lethal damage, but that doesn't change anything else about your Unarmed Strikes. They still provoke unless you have IUS, you still don't threaten with them, and they still use Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) and similar feats, etc. And lastly, when you attack with the Gauntlet, it counts as an Unarmed Attack (not an Unarmed Strike, but an Unarmed Attack). This means that, while an attack with a Gauntlet doesn't benefit from AoMF, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Monk unarmed damage, etc.; it also doesn't interfere with delivering a touch spell, and can deliver effects that ride on Unarmed Attacks (eg. Stunning Fist).
If these are the rules, then it's silly. If gauntlets are light weapons then they should use the rules of light weapons and should not provoke AoO when you use them.

I get the feeling you misread something. Making an attack with a Gauntlet, as the light weapon Gauntlet doesn't provoke, any more than attacking with the light weapon Dagger would provoke. But when you use the Gauntlet not as an a weapon in its own right, but as a means to make your Unarmed Strike (totally different weapon) deal lethal damage, that's the only thing the Gauntlet confers. Using the Gauntlet to make Unarmed Strike deal lethal damage doesn't make the Unarmed Strike threaten, not provoke, benefit from Weapon Focus(Gauntlet) or the like, benefit from enhancement bonuses or enchantments (eg. flaming) on the Gauntlet, etc. It only changes nonlethal to lethal on your Unarmed Strike; nothing more. The Unarmed Strike is still an Unarmed Strike. But if you attack with it as a Gauntlet, that has everything that the Gauntlet has to offer and nothing that the Unarmed Strike has to offer, save for the caveat that an attack with a Gauntlet counts as an unarmed attack for any benefits singular to that capacity (eg. delivering a Stunning Fist).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Grapple/Bull-Rush/etc being Unarmed Attacks

Full stop.

There is no rule saying they are Unarmed Attacks, so they are not.

Unarmed attacks are attacks without a normal melee weapon. If the grapple/bull-rush/etc. is being made without a normal melee weapon, then it is consequentially an unarmed attacks. In other words, while it may not explicitly state that maneuvers are unarmed attacks, that doesn't mean that the rules don't say they are Unarmed Attacks. It's a clear implication and that does count, contrary to what some people incorrectly believe. Not everything is stated explicitly because that's not how English works.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ARG wrote:

Humanoid races have few or no supernatural or spell-like abilities, but most can speak and have well-developed societies. Humanoids are usually Small or Medium, unless they have the giant subtype, in which case they are Large. Every humanoid creature also has a subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu. If you are making a new humanoid race, you should either find an existing subtype to match or make a new one by using the name of the race as the subtype. If you are making a half-breed race, it should have the racial type of both parent races. For example, a half-elf has both the human and the elf subtypes. Subtypes are often important to qualify for other racial abilities and feats. If a humanoid has a racial subtype, it is considered a member of that race in the case of race prerequisites. A humanoid race has the following features.

--------

Elf: Drow are humanoids with the elf subtype.

Basically, any time you see "Prerequisite: Elf", replace that with "Prerequisite: Humanoid w/ Elf subtype" But, honestly, I think the system would benefit a lot from having a distinction between biological prerequisites based on type/subtype and social/cultural prerequisites based on having experienced and lived in the society. Fantasy stories abound with people having been raised by some race other than their own and sharing their culture. In the case of Elves and Drow, particularly, Drow are still Elves in the sense that they are extremely in tune with their environment, with magic in general, and have keen senses. So Elf racial elements that revolve around those principals should be a perfect fit for a Drow. But Elf racial elements that revolve around being part of the normal, tree-hugging Elven cultural should not be automatically available to Drow; but could be made available to a character of any race that has successfully integrated into Elven society.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So lets put this all together.

Unarmed Attacks
- Unarmed Strikes
- Natural Weapons
- Touch attacks
- Maneuvers that don't involve a weapon

A Gauntlet is a light weapon. Period. So Weapon Focus (Gauntlet) is, indeed, a thing. Gauntlets, while part of certain pieces of armor, are not armor in and of themselves. They cannot be enhanced as armor, they don't provide an armor bonus, they don't interfere with Monk abilities, etc. A Gauntlet can make your Unarmed Strikes (just Unarmed Strike, a sub-element of Unarmed Attacks; not natural attacks or any other sub-element of Unarmed Attack) deal lethal damage, but that doesn't change anything else about your Unarmed Strikes. They still provoke unless you have IUS, you still don't threaten with them, and they still use Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) and similar feats, etc. And lastly, when you attack with the Gauntlet, it counts as an Unarmed Attack (not an Unarmed Strike, but an Unarmed Attack). This means that, while an attack with a Gauntlet doesn't benefit from AoMF, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Monk unarmed damage, etc.; it also doesn't interfere with delivering a touch spell, and can deliver effects that ride on Unarmed Attacks (eg. Stunning Fist).

That having been said, a Spiked Gauntlet could not be used to deliver a Stunning Fist or a Touch attack because it lacks the caveat from the Gauntlet description that lets it count as an unarmed attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So let me get this straight. This player thinks that a "partial charge" involves moving up to the character's speed in a straight line and not through rough terrain, all to do... what, exactly? Run up to another creature and smile at them aggressively? He's basically reading Partial Charge as a mechanically inferior Move that takes up your Standard action. How many times was he dropped on his head as a kid?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*you're. Unless you intend to suggest a filing system for deceased party members, you wanted "Tag, you're dead."

1 to 50 of 792 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>