LearnTheRules's page

Half-Lycanthropes would be great, something along the lines of the shifter race from the Eberron setting would be fantastic if you could do it without getting sued :P

We already have rules for making full lycanthropes but variant abilities would be nice.

Something I feel worth mentioning is that all of this should be usable by the average player, after all it's a PLAYER companion, not GM Companion.

With regard to cantrips/orisons, the latter is correct.

Say you know 6 cantrips but can only prepare 4 per day. That means that you can choose four at spell preparation time which you will be able to cast an unlimited amount of times until you next prepare spells, whereupon you can choose to swap some out for either of the other two.

It is assumed (and part of the rules) that if you have a spell component pouch, you have an unlimited supply of any material component that has no gold cost mentioned. Pathfinder isn't meant to be completely realistic.

Has anyone here even heard of Crimson Exodus?

There is an entire book that goes alongside it called Trauma detailing just about everything bad that could possibly befall your character.

You can die of sepsis or poison without your character knowing about it until it's too late, which it often is in a fantasy world almost completely devoid of decent healing.

It can take an hour just to work out the full effects of one wound, which can frequently lead to retirement-worthy injuries. It does not forgive you for getting hit or picking fights you shouldn't have.

I've never played it because getting a group of people willing to go through all the bookkeeping for injuries is very difficult, but it's a very lethal system.

Thanks James :) Just keep in mind it needs to be one of the first things FAQ'd when yis get around to making those threads, it's not even funny how often Unarmed Strike threads pop up on the rules questions sub-forum :/

Having looked at other polymorph spell chains, I believe they were meant to be written as the Plant Shape ones. You get all the abilities from the previous versions, which are listed superfluously in all the other polymorph spell chains, such as Beast Form and Undead Anatomy.

The druid guides in the advice subforum helped clear this up. I found the spells poorly worded and seemingly contradictory, but Plant Shape is probably how they were meant to be written. No abilities from lower levels are mentioned in the list, making it implicit that you are supposed to get them from the higher levels.

Thanks for the last answer, even if someone did present an extreme situation of RAW twisting to change your mind :(

On the same topic of unarmed strike and TWF, I would like to create a petition to have potential solutions to the problems which undeniably exist with it. Is it worth my while to do this and if so how would I go about it in order to get the maximum amount of attention from the developers working on the FAQs? Note that I believe the current system works exactly as the "fixes" I'm putting forward so it would really only be wording it better. Link to the proposed changes
here

And secondly, completely unrelated: If a lower level polymorph spell offers assumed abilities (i.e the ones given in the list after "If the form to be assumed has any of the following.....) that are not on the list higher level spell in the chain, yet the higher level spell says it counts as the lower level spell, do you get abilities from both level spells?

I'll link to my original question here for the sake of clarity.

Thanks again, sorry 'bout the wall of text.

Thanks Vellas and Ssalarn, I think that makes a grand total of about 5 people on this forum recognising that as an actual rule.

I'm starting to notice that this thread is devolving again, can I please get some feedback on the petition idea rather than having to listen to the last few pages be regurgitated?

@neo
"Fine, it's an off-hand attack." That's houseruling, it is RAW that non-monks can't elbow strike at all but that seems stupid. In fairness, most people wouldn't be able to make an effective elbow strike with their hands full though, it would be pretty awkward trying to do it without hitting yourself with the held item or keeping the item from getting in the way of something. That is why I proposed limbs rather than hands as part of the solution.

It might be the easiest but what about headbutting/kicking using TWF after a great-sword attack or something similar? It's entirely possible to use a bite or hoof attack after swinging a 2h weapon, so it's not exactly a stretch to allow headbutts, or kicks.

Natural attacks are obviously different rules-wise but a bite would if anything take more effort than a headbutt.

I don't like the idea that you have to have a free hand to make unarmed strikes, because a) the rules state they can be kicks or headbutts and b) there is nothing mentioning having to "equip" unarmed strike to a hand.

Here

I'm also thinking that was the intent, after all you get the fiery skeleton abilities from the the 4th spell but wouldn't have DR 5/bludgeoning. It's just poorly worded or else actually missing stuff it should have; the superfluous abilities make me wonder :-/

Ok so I may be missing something here, I'm in the middle of building a shape-shifting wizard who will take almost all the polymorph spells .

I came across one thing which got my attention while looking through the Undead Anatomy spells. While the higher level ones do say that they count as the previous level (and by extension any level under that), some of the abilities assumed are in mentioned in the previous spell, making me confused as to whether or not you can also assume the abilities given in the lower level spells' lists.

To give an example, Undead Anatomy 3 can get rake, but it is mentioned again in Undead anatomy 4. However blood drain is not in either of these lists.

Does this mean that you can only choose from the abilities given in the list of the spell being cast?

Say I'm casting UA 4 to turn into a vampire, which does not have blood drain on the abilities list, yet supposedly counts as all the previous levels of the spell chain. Do I get blood drain or do I only get fast healing 5 and the DR 10/magic and silver from the 4th spell level list?

Ah whoops no offense taken then, yeah I tried to ask it in as much detail as I could and get all the answers but JJ works in mysterious ways :P

Again not a personal attack but Neo you did use a fairly extreme example of twisting the RAW that rarely arises as a problem in most gaming groups.

Might I suggest that we create a joint petition/message on behalf of the community to get the developers to fix unarmed strike, it is unarguably one of the most contentious and confusing part of the Pathfinder system and in its current form it is very hard for any two people to come up with the official ruling on how Unarmed Strike interacts with many rules.

My suggestions:

1. All limbs (including the head) are treated as separate unarmed strike weapons, and as such can be used for TWF, regardless of class.

2. On that note, MWF should be changed to only allow fists for unarmed strikes or held weapons. This stops extreme cheese(TM) from occurring.

Note that I believe these two things to be the case already and they definitely are the most sensible rulings to my mind, however the RAW can be interpreted differently.

I think those two fixes would solve the main issues, although I'm sure others exist. I will create a thread in the next day or two with these suggestions. Feel free to chip in with other problems that need fixing with regard to Unarmed Strike ONLY. Also I'm relatively new to this forum, where do you guys/gals think is the best place to put it to get the developers' attention? And is there any way of creating an actual petition or do we just bump the new thread into oblivion?

Just to clarify I'm thinking we iron the main issues out in this thread, then create the new one. Thank you in advance for any helpful replies :)

I didn't obfuscate anything, JJ quite clearly read it properly the first time. Sorry if my post sounded snarky or anything but I just wouldn't play with people who can't use common sense over RAW. I'm not allowed to make personal attacks on this forum but I'm not at all fond of people who look for loopholes like the MWF example and I don't try to hide it.

Anyway, like StabbityDoom said, let's wait for the official FAQ. In the meantime, those of us who don't try to twist the rules in every possible way should keep calm and allow that second unarmed strike.

It was [url=http://paizo.com]everythingyouseeinmyfirstlink[url]

I left out the / in the brackets at the end because if I don't it creates an actual link as i just did pre-edit. Derp :P

Thanks StabbityDoom :) What was I doing wrong?

/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=442?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Questions-Here#2208 4

I win, at least as far as the first question is concerned :)

Also if someone can fix that link I'd appreciate it, all it does is bring me to the paizo homepage o.O

Oh yeah forgot about that, assumed it was just a standard polymorph spell. I do get the problem with hands and MWF, but it doesn't really come about when you're a normal, two armed humanoid using TWF, which makes you specify which two weapons (or limbs) you use for the attack sequence.

I don't really think MWF is relevant to this discussion but from looking at the Mudra Skeleton it is clear that MWF does allow you to make attacks with all held weapons as if you were TWF. The skeleton has a BAB 0, which with his dexterity bonus becomes 3. Seeing as his short swords are considered light weapons he would be using the "has TWF and light weapon in the off-hand" from the TWF table, with the exception that he has four weapons. This leads to a -2 penalty to all attacks, hence the four attacks being made at +1. The 3 swords in his off-hands get half his strength mod to damage. So it is exactly like TWF with all arms apart form the first one chosen being off-hand. Simple really, thanks for finding a creature we can use to discuss it BBT.

Now to answer your question about undead anatomy, you would have either the 4 claw attacks at full BAB or the 4 weapons at -6 for the primary hand and -10 to the other 3. You can attack with all of the swords but lacking MWF you take massive penalties.

I have put it to JJ, we shall hopefully have clarification one way or the other!

In the meantime, as HangarFlying said, you have to choose two weapons to TWF with, you could use any combination if not TWF, but have to choose which two you use if you are TWF.

If fighting unarmed, you would have to choose two limbs, usually both arms, but if you were wielding a greatsword or something as your primary weapon you could choose to kick for TWF, at least as I see it. Let's wait for JJ's answer before bringing up these tired old arguments though, please.

Me again, I know this will be FAQ'd as soon as you guys get around to doing that but there are far too many threads about this at the moment:

In short, can non-monks TWF using solely unarmed strikes? Many people who can't employ common sense seem to think not, but it seems silly that putting a pair of gauntlets on suddenly means you can get more attacks than fighting unarmed. In the corner of sensible people, we have the idea that two separate limbs are treated as separate weapons, crazy I know!

Also from my reading of both the 3.5 and PF CRB, it is a rule that unarmed strikes can be made using headbutts, kicks or punches regardless of class. Can you please confirm whether or not this is flavour or a genuine rule? It was in the unarmed strike entry of the 3.5 equipment chapter which to me makes it a rule, I'm guessing it is intended to be so again in Pathfinder.

Thanks a bunch, this will clear up so much one way or the other! :)

WoD, old for fluff, new for crunch. All I really want is for the Demon: The Fallen conversion guide to be more like the one for VtM and less like the one for WtA.

It's always the "2 fists" that is the reasoning for most.

Now, that makes sense for some, but the unarmed strike represents more than a clenched fist.
Even in 3.5, there was a Fiendish Gelatinous Cube Monk that was able to perform unarmed strikes, without limbs.
So, a limb based allowance/restriction of unarmed strikes is something that has no real precedence within the game.

I would imagine the cube would simply create pseudopods as needed, as with the seamantle spell. It would be able to TWF with them.

If you actually read the stat-block, it is clearly using a flurry of blows solely comprised of unarmed strikes, I know it is 3.5 but things have not changed that much.

Kicks and headbutts are fine for everyone, it's the whole elbows and knees thing that monks have going for them. Flurry is just the TWF chain by another name limited to a select few weapons and US, and I think seeing as US is allowed to be used by itself for this then it stands to reason it would for the actual TWF chain.

As Talonhawke pointed out it's manufactured weapons that cause problem for flurry; you can't make the full sequence with just a kama, for example, it would have to be split between the kama and something else. That doesn't invalidate using two unarmed strikes, which is what flurry of blows is mainly used for. If you had a hand enchanted by some spell or ability, then you would only be able to take half the sequence with that hand, although there are very few instances of magical abilities only affecting one limb.

Ditto, everyone here agrees that brass knuckles count as separate weapons on both hands. Why then do these small bit of metal suddenly make TWF viable when it wasn't before? It runs counter to common sense. I believe that the RAI treat unarmed attacks from different limbs as distinct weapons, i.e separate and therefore perfectly ok for TWF. I see far more problems with treating unarmed strike as a single weapon. Has JJ seriously never been asked about this (IUS + TWF in general)?

Now my directly quoting the rules indicates I am making things up.

Okay, you win, blackbloodtroll. You win all of the Internet. I think I'll go home while what's left of my sanity is intact.

THAT FEEL

There's nothing to say they can't, as they do get hands from the limbs evolution and have a BAB but you have to remember that those unarmed attacks would only apply half STR bonus damage at -2 to BAB and would only roll a 1d3 for damage. Compare that with an eidolon using four natural attacks at full BAB, full strength bonus and a larger damage die. Balance issues gone.

Multi-weapon fighting is not very clear and I can't think of a monster that uses it, if any of you could find one (not a marilith which uses a unique ability) and link it I'll try to work out how it functions, I don't think Paizo employees even knows how it works. I agree with DeathQuaker's earlier post, BBT, you don't seem to realise that unarmed attacks depend on the iterative sequence, so without TWF or MWF you can have as many limbs as you want and still only be able to make as many UAs as your BAB allows. If we can work out how MWF functions it would help immensely....

And thank you DeathQuaker it's nice to see one person on this forum who has their head screwed on right :)

It's perfectly okay to TWF with unarmed strike(s), you technically (as a non-monk humanoid) have five unarmed strikes you can use (head, 2 arms and 2 legs). I think it's the height of stupidity to say unarmed strike is a single weapon, when races with natural weapons count hooves or claws as separate weapons. Yes natural attacks are treated differently but I just can't see how anyone could justify how someone not having really sharp nails or cloven feet means they treat their entire array of limbs as a single entity.

The Greater Brawler rage power simply gives you TWF, it says nothing specific about requiring a manufactured weapon to work.

My reading of the unarmed and TWF rules is that unarmed strikes can be used on their own for it, so I have to disagree with you BBT.

On a sidenote, not aimed at anyone in particular, I am ****ing sick to death of theses threads. This is a top priority question once Paizo makes official FAQ threads IMO, in the meantime please just use common sense people...

You threaten adjacent squares with unarmed strike if you have IUS.

I know this will spark a huge argument again but you can kick while wielding a 2h weapon. I don't want to hear anyone going on about "equipping unarmed strikes" or "kicks are only flavour"; I've debated this to death on other threads. 3.5 allowed kicks and headbutts by any character, not as flavour but as a rule. It was moved in the Pathfinder CRB but remains just that, a rule.

No spoilers! :P

Malazan Book of the Fallen series by Steven Erikson and his co-writer Ian C. Esslemont, although just about everyone in the series is a badass, regardless of gender.

Alan Campbell's The Deepgate Codex series (First book proper is called Scar Night) also has two very strong female leads.

The Empire series by Feist is also good (and like some other people in this thread I almost fell foul of the sarcasm about his later works :P ).

Pretty much every guide to GMing ever tells you to take aside problem players after or between games and talk to them about what they feel are potential issues. It's as much a part of being a GM as running the game itself, and is vital when introducing new players, who may be anxious about bringing their problems to the GM, an excellent point made by people in this thread.

We can't make assumptions about either the GM or the girl in this scenario, so looking at it objectively we see what appears to be a problem player who happens to be new. Now I'm very good at remembering rpg systems and rules in general, but when I started learning 3.5 (my introduction to the d20 system and rpgs in general) I found it incredibly daunting. A new player may well be reluctant to open such a hefty tome as the pathfinder core rulebook, even though they need only learn a small fraction of it.

Your job as a GM is to find out why the player doesn't want to learn, so just try to get a private moment or even a facebook chat going in which you ask her about it. If she is put off by the size of the rulebook, maybe make a one page appendix of the most basic rolls; attack, saves, skill/ability checks etc (maybe even put in her own BAB, saves and so on as single numbers)... In games I've played with noobs, many of them are intimidated by the character sheet, which to the untrained eye is a confusing jumble of numbers. Most people starting off at 3.X can't level up by themselves, so again put aside some time to go through the process with her.

Now to end my tl:dr post (I am aware and truly sorry :P ), if she herself is unwilling to set aside some time to address these concerns then you have a problem on your hands, and should politely exempt her from the game unless she makes some sort of effort to learn the basics. Some people are not rules-savvy but they should still know a bare minimum of the system to keep the game flowing. It will not happen overnight but as long as she makes some attempt to pick up the basic rules then don't kick her from the game.

There's no clear German stereotype in Pathfinder as far as I can see, although Charlie bell probably got as close to it as he could. Molthune is an expansionist empire run by people with somewhat Aryan features, but they wouldn't be close to the Nazi ideology. They aren't genocidal and allow people (and monstrous races) from different nations equal rights as long as they join them.

Also, no people screaming "RACIST!"? I was expecting a ****storm coming into this thread :P

It's a very basic marketing tactic to draw people's attention, if it was just "In this video series I teach someone to play pathfinder" he wouldn't get nearly as many views from either sex. Instead your curiosity is aroused by mention of the totally stunning noob, regardless of your gender.

I'm well aware of this idea that girl gamers are a spectacle, especially when it comes to your FLGS, but everyone knows attractive women make for good marketing for anything. And yet, in typical internet fashion, people just start blowing this wildly out of proportion, calling it sexist and chauvinistic; to me it just makes sense as a marketing tool. It's scientifically proven that both genders prefer to look at women for the most part; I'm not even going into the whole "sex sells" ideology here, but I don't believe it is inherently sexist to do what DawnforgedCast has done.

looks like a compliment/throw away line got blown out of proportion. The topic is "Hey I've got a web channel that teaches people how to play Pathfinder and roleplaying games in general" which happens to star a new player who happens to be female, who the OP highly compliments.

It's not "HEY WATCH ME TEACH DND TO THIS BIMBO WHILE SHE FLASHES HER CANS! GET YOUR CREDIT CARDS READY!"

Welcome to the internet my friend :P

Whoops my bad I didn't see the ninja somehow, how ironic :P

I'm picturing a clawed tiefling ninja/maneuver master monk who uses the MMM's ability to tack a dirty trick maneuver onto the front of a full attack, blinding the enemy before doing 2 claw attacks with sneak attack damage (or 3 claws if he blows a ki point).

A maneuver master doesn't have flurry of blows so he can't gain extra attacks by spending ki.

You mean taking the claw aspect of Maw or Claw? It grants you two claws, You either attack with both of them at your highest BAB or use a manufactured weapon in one hand for iterative attacks and add on a claw attack after the iterative sequence at -5 BAB.

E.g. Assuming a 6th level tiefling fighter with strength 10 and a longsword for the sake of simplicity, you could, as a full attack, have either:

Claw +6/Claw +6 OR Longsword +6/+1 OR Longsword +6/+1 and Claw +1 (In this last case the claw would be counted as a secondary natural weapon and only gain half your strength modifier for damage).

Well you're lucky to be playing a high-point buy from what I can see, monks really shine in that situation. Assuming you're playing a human you might consider dropping charisma and possibly intelligence or even wisdom for more strength, if you can get it to 18 then you could swap some dexterity for wisdom.

AC is not really a concern for a monk, he can boost it with ki and stat boost items quite easily, though the same could also be said about strength. It is harder for monks to boost consistent damage however, so I'd probably go for more strength and not bother with dexterity and weapon finesse. After all, it's generally better to kill your opponent quickly so that they can't attack you, thus negating the need for AC :P

Just one thing re: boar style. It is widely believed that the first feat is more of a rend ability (i.e. if you hit with two or more attacks it is a once-off 2d6 damage rather than bleed each turn) and I concur. This is most likely a mistake that will be errata'd. You can find plenty of threads about it if you need evidence, perhaps you were already aware of it but many players aren't and build around the feat thinking they'll end up doing 3d6 bleed damage a turn, when bleed damage doesn't actually stack (one of the major pieces of evidence that the feat wording is wrong).

Hope you have fun playing the monk, seeing as you don't have flurry of blows, tiger style and dragon style are both excellent choices as well.

Archetypes are not separate classes. You take levels in Monk (Hungry Ghost/MoMS) rather than taking them separately. You also cannot take two archetypes alongside each other if they both conflict with each other at ANY level, so go through both of them rigorously to make sure it's legal.

Edit: HG/MoMS is a legal option, however note that you lose flurry of blows completely for taking the latter.

*Armour should look

Nope can't find it atm, someone else might be able to but I've gotta go off now, I'll look later.

Personally I wouldn't allow it, a human trying to perform claw attacks with his feet would fall flat on his arse most of the time :P

I'm pretty sure it's stated somewhere that only quadrupeds or something with more than 4 limbs can have claws on their feet. I'll try and find it now.

Kinda just echoing what other people have said here:

I've never had a problem with gender roles in my Pathfinder games, there aren't any roles or classes expected of male or female gamers. I've never come across an rpg that has gender roles with the obvious exception of Deathwatch. Most rpgs don't make assumptions about what a male or female gamer wants, I've played with heavily RP focused males and girls who just want to kill stuff.

Armour is a big issue that most rpgs are guilty of, with chainkinis being the norm for female artwork. This is a stupid concept which needs to be gotten rid of. No sane adventurer would buy such useless crap and no armourer who wants to make a living would produce it. Armour look should more or less the same for both genders. It might occur that a female adventurer does need a slightly "larger" breastplate to accommodate her body shape, but by and large armour covers almost all of an adventurer's body regardless of gender.

Related to the above issue is that of overtly sexualised characters and/or female characters with no personality or confined to traditional gender roles (mostly npcs), i.e. they typically just stand around and look pretty, without having influence or independence. While a medieval fantasy setting would be a bit weird if everyone was treated equally, gender roles should not be as close to real world ones and can be done away with easily.

If you want an excellent example of a fantasy setting where women are on equal footing to men try reading Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series, there's an even mix of male and female main characters, and little to no discrimination. The leader of the main faction in it is a woman, Laseen, who bucks the usual tropes by being very plain, somewhat antisocial and definitely not in need of help in the case of a fight. Women freely serve in the malazan military and are just as badass as the men, often moreso. At the same time, it's not some feminazi fantasy where women rule everything and men are second class citizens. I can't recommend it highly enough, it just doesn't have any gender bias yet is completely believable in that regard.

LearnTheRules wrote:

Hi James,

Would really like an official ruling on two (or three) things:

1. Does Apsu grant divine spells to clerics/paladins? He has domains and a favoured weapon yet Faiths of Purity states he has no clerics or paladins.

2. If he does grant divine spells, what are his official domains and subdomains? Several conflicting sources mix up Scalykind and other domains, and I can't find anything stating his subdomains. Also seeing as creatures are automatically proficient with natural or breath weapons what benefits would they receive in place of proficiency?

3. If no to 1, can we please see in the future a good or neutral aligned deity with the Scalykind domain and Dragon subdomain? Some DMs are sticklers about the setting and I'd like to see a deity with these Domains that's viable for a non-evil campaign.

Thanks in advance I hope :P

1) Apsu grants spells to clerics. Faiths of Purity screwed up there, alas.

2) His domains are listed in the Inner Sea World Guide on page 229, although even there there's an annoying error. His domains are Artifice, Good, Law, Scalykind, and Travel. (The error is that in print, "Artifice" is listed as "Creation," which is not an actual domain in the game.) We haven't yet printed Apsu's official subdomain selections, but I would suggest going with: Archon, Construct, Dragon*, Exploration, Toil, and Trade.
*The Dragon subdomain can be found here.
Regarding his favored weapon, you should also use the Inner Sea World Guide there as well—his favored weapon is "bite or quarterstaff."

Thanks!

LearnTheRules wrote:

It WAS errata'd out

See here?

I think I fixed that for you. The 'See here?' text was my own addition. The link still appears to just link to the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook though.

Yeah when I try to click on the errata it makes me download it o.O No harm in people reading it :P

It WAS errata'd out

/products/btpy88yj?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook

Hi James,

Would really like an official ruling on two (or three) things:

1. Does Apsu grant divine spells to clerics/paladins? He has domains and a favoured weapon yet Faiths of Purity states he has no clerics or paladins.

2. If he does grant divine spells, what are his official domains and subdomains? Several conflicting sources mix up Scalykind and other domains, and I can't find anything stating his subdomains. Also seeing as creatures are automatically proficient with natural or breath weapons what benefits would they receive in place of proficiency?

3. If no to 1, can we please see in the future a good or neutral aligned deity with the Scalykind domain and Dragon subdomain? Some DMs are sticklers about the setting and I'd like to see a deity with these Domains that's viable for a non-evil campaign.

Thanks in advance I hope :P

Yeah I was looking for something able to use all the polymorph spells as class features (SLAs or SUs) and possibly getting minor benefits in their humanoid form (like aspect of the beast). Hopefully we'll get one eventually, wizards, sorcerors and magi don't get full bab and are a bit MAD if you want to turn them into shape-shifting fighters.