MeanMutton's page

Can a canon golem combine its two slam attacks with its two canon attacks? If so, what are the to-hit values? Also, do the canons hit touch AC or regular AC?

Should I just shut up and let people do whatever and let them bend the rules to their favor?

When I play, I generally just keep my mouth shut unless someone asks. I've got a really good handle on the rules so people will frequently ask about a rule and I'll always answer honestly but I'm not going to point things out without being prompted unless it's REALLY egregious.

turing85 wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

Please refrain from putting "FAQ request" in your title.

hmmm, I feel like this is something that, for the most part is, ludicrous. Almost all FAQ request threads have been made with the express intent of putting a nice bow on an issue and making it clear and concise on what rules affect the issue and then requesting a FAQ on it.

likewise, i'm not going to FAQ a post unless the poster intends for it to be used as FAQ content.

I feel that the "don't post FAQ request threads" is entirely out of touch on why they're really made. If a thread generates a item that is a potential FAQ candidate I believe the responsible thing to do is to make a seperate thread expressly to generate buzz on getting it FAQed.

Likewise, if they don't care about the quantity of FAQs then there's no real reason to have the FAQ system in the first place.

it feels like a lame reason to discourage FAQing.

I also feel I need to post this. regardless on whether it is on topic or not.

They're not saying "don't post FAQ request threads". They're saying "don't put 'FAQ REQUEST' in the title of your rules discussion threads".

I'm not a fan of how D&D has always given experience for defeating foes only. Well, 2nd edition gave minor amounts of experience for spells cast. Namely 10 xp per spell cast during the session. The thing is, you don't have to kill everything to defeat the encounter. Manage to talk your way past the evil duke's guards so they'll let you by without a fight? You just defeated the encounter, I'll record the xp. You managed to sneak past the ravenous beast of Aaaaarrrrrggggggh without being noticed? XP is recorded, well done. Did you completely bamboozle the BBEG with your witty repartee and jocular japes to the point he accidentally caught himself in his own Web spell? I'm rather amused, here's your xp (and maybe some bonus xp for such awesome roleplaying).

Getting sidetracked but I hate xp altogether. I'd rather run adventure paths and tell the players to level up their character when the AP says they should.

You can get by with a lot less than 17 cha as a summoner. Especially the unchained version; their spellcasting is very underwhelming. This might let you boost one of your physical stats a bit more.

A lot of it depends on how often you want to use the Summon Monster SLA, which is tied into Charisma.

This is true and in canon with what I wrote. I never denied that a spell can crit, but normally only with a nat. 20. Using the weapon's crit modifier is a HUGE bonus for a spellcaster, especially if the weapon is keen and has a total crit range of 15-20.

Yup. A heightened, maximized shocking grasp crits and basically dead bad guy.

Cainus wrote:

Can you essentially slow an action down? If something is a swift action, can you use a move action to do it instead?

For example, if you have two swift actions you want to perform, can you do one as a move action?

As you can see by the discussion in the thread, this is something that the PDT needs to resolve. On one hand, it's clear that preventing substitution would create design space, failing to allow it creates a sea of idiocy or rather idiotic outcomes, within the game world.

To complicate this matter, one of the lead designers stated that the game must be GM'd with common sense. Dead characters can't take actions and humans don't walk around on their hands. But the nature of the rules has created a cult whose belief is that the rules are strictly Permissive, so if it doesn't say it, you can't do it. The PDT has shown a penchant for ignoring or invoking reality whenever it suits them, so common sense frequently gets hit with 12d6 sneak attack by the PDT because this is art, not science.

Let's look at what the rules say about actions:

PRD wrote:

An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.

Emphasis mine. If we use that framework for adjudicating, then yes, in general any action that takes less time can be performed by consuming an action that takes more time. Why? Because we are operating under the paradigm of needing time to complete actions. Barring a rule preventing a specific substitution, the game has established actions as a function of time expenditure. That point is driven home here:

PRD wrote:

Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move

...

Why do you assume that a swift action is faster than a move action?

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

Suppose a magus casts a spell using spellstrike but misses and holds the charge. Would a subsequent attack still multiply spell damage by 2 on a critical hit, or would just the initial "free" attack be eligible for a crit for the spell?

The wording seems to indicate that just the "free" melee attack is eligible for the spell crit but it's still a little unclear.

Another question would be whether a SLA is eligible for spell combat and spell strike. Can a nabasu magus use their SLA vampiric touch with spell strike for example?

The first sentence allows you to use any attack action, not just your free attack action, to discharge your spell using spellstrike.

The ability explicitly calls out spells so SLAs don't work.

Yes that is talking about meta magic feats. I am very aware of the feats and how they work typically.

I'm specifically talking about Rods which do not increase the spell level. None of your linked FAQ is related to Meta magic rods.

Metamagic Rods work by giving you the ability to use the associated feat a specified number of times per day (with the added benefit that they do not raise the spell level).

Possession of a metamagic rod does not confer the associated feat on the owner, only the ability to use the given feat a specified number of times per day.

small bit information on Arcane Bond

"If a bonded object's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type."

But what if the wizard is bring back to life? If I enchant a bonded ring with ring of invisibility and protection effects will I get those enchantments back upon returning to life or are they gone for good?

by RAW i think nope :( but im not 100% sure about it

From a rules perspective, you appear to be interpreting them correctly. It's likely just a corner case, though, so I would expect a GM not to be nasty about it and just let the bonded item come back when the wizard comes back.

Can you turn off the toughness feat? If so, could dominate monster be used to force someone to turn off toughness?

That's very clearly "obviously self destructive" so Dominate would be right out.

In a recent feat we had a discussion about a feat saying "Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell ..." against "You can choose to take a –1 penalty ...".

I think you can always choose not to use a feat it you want (naturally you lose both the benefit and possible drawbacks) while the other poster thought that if it lack the "You can choose" text you are forced to sue it.

Someone know if there is a official ruling?

I know of no rule that supports the idea that you can selectively turn off feats that explicitly say things like "Whenever you cast a prepared arcane spell".

The relevant rule in place is: "While the spell closes mortal wounds and repairs lethal damage of most kinds, the body of the creature to be raised must be whole. Otherwise, missing parts are still missing when the creature is brought back to life."

So, it's really a GM's call if the halfling's brain that was removed and then put back in place still counts as missing.

No because the spell requires you to jump and if you're paralyzed then you can't move.

DmRrostarr wrote:

You fought a Huge dragon which means you get a choice of the following:
large mwk hide + a shield
medium mwk banded mail + a shield
small mwk half-plate + a shield
tiny mwk full plate + a shield

Yes, I understand that's the rule, but the rule is DUMB.

If you understand the rule then why are you posting a question about the rule in the rules forum?

Shadowlords wrote:

a key point here is to not tell the players how to solve the problem. they should have a firmer grasp on their characters abilities then you do and how to use them in this situation. They know were they are needing to go and have materials around to use to get there. If they dont figure it out in a timely manner or seem stuck, then throw the merfolks at them and either capture them or help them with the aquatic races, but they would "lose" their ship. its the way of life and adventure.

Last time i played a pirate game i lost over a dozen ships over the course of the campaign and at one point ever single item and gold piece i owned. yea it sucked and was annoying but its a game and the story progressed and it makes for a fun tale now of how i recovered and what i learned from the situation.

Some of them are new players and I don't want their first experience to be lost your ship sucks to be you. Normally I would agree. Also they have an NPC cohort who is pretty smart so she may be able to help them (CE level 6 gnome bard)

Why would a CE bard help the party? Why not just grab a lifeboat, murder anyone on board, and sail off to find her own way?

I'd like to create an item and I'm having a heck of a time grasping the cost creation rules.

Here is what I'm trying to create.
Slotted item
3 charges per day
Effect: quickened enlarge person.

Also interested in any variants. Like continuous use, or giving up the quickened aspect. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.

The first step is to find something similar and price it accordingly. Dig through the SRD's area on magic items and see what you find in terms of quickened 1st level spells. Until you do that, the formulas are irrelevant.

Oh, remember to take the Flag Bearer feat.

Generally, bard or cleric is the way to go. Inquisitor, master summoner, or wizard can work, too.

Retire

Okay, I haven't read through Hell's Rebels but I bought a download package from Paizo that included the first three books. Next up after we finish our Skulls and Shackles campaign, we want to do a Spelljammer type game (AD&D in Space).

Obviously, Skulls and Shackles would have been PERFECT for this but we're about two years too late for that.

What about Hell's Rebels? Can we substitute out Cheliax for another evil empire? Maybe Mindflayers or just devil-worshiping humans in space?

I am running ROTRL and I have a question on reading their creatures stat blocks. On top it says something like Thistletop Commandos (Goblin Ranger 1) (2) and to the left it says CR 1. Now does that mean their both together worth a CR 1 encounter or is it two CR 1 encounters. The only reason i ask is because they reference a page previous where a Goblin Commando (Goblin Ranger 1) was a CR 1 encounter. Im confused because i thought adding a PC glass brings a cr 1/3 to cr 1/2. Now i understand that having pc equivalent gear can raise the CR which is probably how the first Goblin Commando was a CR 1 by himself. But if it is two Goblin Commandos and they are together considered one Cr 1 encounter meaning cr 1/2 each. Do i need to lower their gear that is referenced in the printed adventure. Thanks for the help.

A piece of advice that will save you a TON of work. Run the AP as written, ignore XP, and just tell the PCs they level up when the AP says to level up. It'll make for WAY less paperwork.

MeanMutton wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

You can only take one attack of opportunity for each act that provokes, the amount of weapons you wield has nothing to do with it.

Moving only provokes once, no matter how many threatened squares you pass through.

I'd love to get some more detail why you think this. Leaving a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity. The character in this example is leaving multiple squares. I don't understand how that's not separate provocations.

Because the rules explicitly say so.

I missed the quoted rule from Bob bob bob.

As a bit of advice for you, in the future pointing out the explicit rule is useful in rules forum discussions.

"Even if that was an area for rules the metal being black just means the creature is all black. It says nothing that has an impact on the rules."

Any one actually arguing this is just being silly. Clearly the black metal is adamantine.

Wait, you're honestly suggesting that someone saying "a creature is black so therefore it is made of adamantine" is NOT the one being silly in this exchange? REALLY?

Heretek wrote:

Do you really think it's fine for your DM to just suddenly roll your saves for you and then say, "you failed, you died"? It's just numbers right?

The sane response is of course not. You should have the freedom to roll those saves, to fail or succeed is in the die in your hands. Not the DM. You control your charcter, not the DM.

If you distrust your dm that much you really need to find a new one.

Here on the forums, we see LOTS of people advise GMs to cheat the die rolls all the time.

Lakesidefantasy wrote:

I think rolling the dice is a fun aspect of the game that I would rather not take away from the players.

With that said I plan to roll certain Knowledge checks for my players in the future. It annoys me that players gain important information about a creature gleaned from the type of knowledge check they are asked to roll.

How will rolling for them change that?

I'm sorry, are you really asking how rolling for the players will change the fact that rolling their own dice is part of the fun of the game?

Having been on ships in storms, I would say that a climb check while climbing the rigging is not a place for take 10.

Have you been on a ship in a gun fight? Can you compare and contrast the danger and difficulty?

The Lance has different rules while in Mounted Combat, using it One Handed as the character braces it on his shoulder. (The other hand assumingly holding the reins)

Your assumption is invalid. Traditionally, the other hand would be holding a shield and the horse would be guided using the legs. Pathfinder makes no such requirement and you can do whatever you want with the other arm - cast spells (hmmm... mounted magus....), wield another lance, whatever.

MeanMutton wrote:

Rysky wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

Hello, who said you get access to the item?

Any way, the rules on magic have been posted and are perfectly clear in this case. There is no cost listed for the material components for infernal healing, therefore all you need is a spell component pouch or eschew materials. It doesn't matter that there is an unrelated item that costs money, the rules do not say "spells that have a material component without a listed cost are negligible (just kidding ignore this statement and look up everything to make sure)", the rule is "spells with a material component without a listed cost are negligible"

Your logic is completely faulty.

Unholy Water does have a price. Just because it's not listed on that spell doesn't make it free.

1 drop of devil's blood does not have a price and thus would be covered by a spell component pouch or eschew materials.

Maybe?

That's the point of this FaQ. Why have 2 components, one with a price, and one seemingly without? It makes no sense.

There's no "maybe" and no "seemingly". 1 drop of devil's blood very clearly has no price per RAW.

I agree, though, that it makes no sense. But this is neither the first nor last Pathfinder rule that makes no sense.

CWheezy wrote:

Hello, who said you get access to the item?

Any way, the rules on magic have been posted and are perfectly clear in this case. There is no cost listed for the material components for infernal healing, therefore all you need is a spell component pouch or eschew materials. It doesn't matter that there is an unrelated item that costs money, the rules do not say "spells that have a material component without a listed cost are negligible (just kidding ignore this statement and look up everything to make sure)", the rule is "spells with a material component without a listed cost are negligible"

Your logic is completely faulty.

Unholy Water does have a price. Just because it's not listed on that spell doesn't make it free.

1 drop of devil's blood does not have a price and thus would be covered by a spell component pouch or eschew materials.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Cevah wrote:

Clearly, player choice here.

That is utterly absurd. Nothing there hints at players choice. To call that a rules contradiction because you read tone in three words is like calling a teacher out for using a horoscope and not having it match the answers on a math test.

you ARE in immediate danger. It's a statement of fact about the situation. Not an internal frame of reference for your character. That is for the dm to decide.

If you want to have no risk of failure, at all, pump the skill high enough so that you succeed on a 1.

Since the same crowd that disallow taking 10 (because drama) also tend do inflate DCs (because drama), so you will never be able to succeed on a 1.

The arbitrary "inflate DCs" GMs are BY FAR the absolute worst types of GMs.

1) Crafting - I feel crafting is way to easy with take 10. Pushing the "safe craft" zone back 3 levels is actually a giant deal. For instance, my level 3 witch in ROW has blown past WBL cap already and she just got crafting. While she could have bypassed WBL cap even at 7 instead of 10, its unlikely that she would have as she most of what she's crafted she just barely got in for (by 2 or exactly.)

2) I take 20 the room syndrome. Don't know how many time I've been in or GM'd for the take 20 the room on perception people. Dropping it to 15 makes it much less worth it, and players will rarely(maybe never) have done that since I implemented that rule. I don't know why but take 20 the room just annoys me, even as a player.

3) Makes some of the more trivial things less trivial than they should be IMO.

Those are just my things that bug me about it. I don't think its OP or anything, just don't like how it functions and how people use them.

1 - The WBL guidelines include allowances for crafting feats. It's by design that magic items are very, very easy to obtain in Pathfinder.

As a DM, I never roll for my players. I use one of two possible solutions:

1) for most passive uses of perception and sense motive, just assume the player is taking ten.

Just so you're aware, this is a HUGE penalty to the players over the standard rules.

In a typical 4 character party, assume they're 5th level. It wouldn't be unusual to have perceptions of +6, +8, +10, +12. If you have a baddie with a stealth DC of 25, your party has zero chance of finding them. If you let them roll, you'd have about an 83% chance of finding them. So you're taking a near certainty and reducing it to impossibility.]

Wow. Huge nerf to gauntlets here. And once again a significant game change buried in arbitrary threads on the forums.

If it's not in a book, in an errata, or in a FAQ then it's not official rules.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Sigh, why it has refreshed and deleted everything?

Let's check the Giant Octopus against a typical CR 8 monster

Typical values:
hp 100 AC 21 primary attack +15 secondary attack +11 average damage (for a creature with high damage) 35 Primary ability DC 19 Secondary 12 high save +11, low save +7

Giant octopus - CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 81,5 Poison DC 17 fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 17 Saves CR 8

Now the same but with only 1 constrict attack:

Giant octopus CR 8:
hp 90 AC 18 bite 13 tentacles attack 11 average damage , 50 Poison DC 17fort +11 Ref +12, Will +7

HP CR 7 AC CR 5 To hit, CR 8 Damage CR 11 Saves CR 8

The potential damage of a giant octopus that constrict with each attack is that of a CR 17 monster, constricting only once it is that of a CR 11 monster.

Ever assuming that its attack bonus will keep the damage down when it meet higher CR characters the damage is out of scale for a creature of its CR.

I can't really follow your math, but It does not look like you took CMB or attack bonus into account. That is not how you do simulations.

Diego wasn't doing simulations. Diego was comparing the stats of a giant octopus to what the stats of a CR 8 creature should be based on the baselines provided by Paizo.

Also, I would strongly caution your last line of criticism when you lead off with a statement that you don't understand what he's doing. Diego's analysis was much more useful and compelling that what you had provided.

I would say mine is the point system because you have more flexibility and complete control. One of my favorite aspects of RPGs, whether pen and paper or video games, is the ability to shape my character as much as I can. Whether it be picking skill points, choosing feats or determining how many points I want to spend to raise ‘said’ ability score.

With the roll method, it is too random and you lose a lot of control. “Crap, I rolled a 6, where the heck am I going to put that?” Yes, part of the fun sometimes is roleplaying characters with a low ability score, but it’s no fun when you have 3 stats under 10. And with rolls that can sometimes happen.

How about the rest of you?

When GMing, I like point buy but require that no attribute start below 8 after racial modifiers and don't allow the purchase of an 18.

Just looks for builds you see a lot (to often) that your kinda bored with and tired of seeing.

Mine:
1. Small race mounted combat characters, the rules on this are so broken it's practically cheating.

Halfling dual welding rogues. So tired of seeing this character.

Hyper-optimized save-or-suck sorcerer

Anyone else have any thoughts on this recently?

It's legal but I could only see it being used in very narrow situations - a giant octopus, for instance, using his 8 attacks to attack 8 different sailors and dump them off next to him in the water might be reasonable. All on the same target, though, seems like a particularly strong variety of Stilton.

Okay, I'm going to suggest a different direction. Target gift wrap. The back (non-printed side) had a 1"x1" grid. Markers and crayon hold really well on it so you can make your own custom maps and then reuse them later. It works really well in combination with miniatures (trees, houses, etc.) Here's a link to how I used it in combination with minis. My Imgur Gallery

I tend to like building characters who are more than one class. I like blasters who are Sorcerer 1 / Wizard X. I like my Unchained Rogue / Unchained Barbarian. I like my Fighter with a bit of Cleric or Alchemist tossed in there.

That said, going with straight, single classes:

Top 10:

1) Wizard - Magic rules.
2) Sorcerer - Yup, magic still rules.
3) Magus - I always loved the old Elven Bladesinger. I like the cast-and-swing. I don't care that the abilities of the class focus so heavily on maxing out insane shocking grasps and then going nova.
4) Summoner - Master Summoner in particular is just amazing. Regular summoner is meh because I'm not a fan of pet classes.
5) Bloodrager - Let's be honest, this is just to make an insane Dragon Disciple
6) Warpriest - The swift-action self-buffs are awesome.
7) Cleric - I love the domain powers. Great class for a dip. Having a huge spell list of great buff spells and summons makes this class an absolute monster.
8) Unchained Rogue - The new unchained stuff makes them awesome - skill unlocks, debuffs on sneak attacks, etc.
9) Fighter - I like the versatility of the fighter but they're better for a few levels and then mixed up with another class.
10) Alchemist - Really depends on the flavor. Very well balanced, powerful class but I don't like the not-magic for most of my games. Works really well in the right game (like Iron Gods AP).

Bottom 10:
10) Druid - I'm still not a fan of pet classes
9) Witch - I don't like how hexes are balanced. They seem to be either insanely overpowered (Slumber) or insanely underpowered (that one where they can smell children).
8) Investigator - Killed the original rogue. Can't forgive it for that.
7) Bard - I just don't like the "bardic performance" thing.
6) Barbarian - I don't like the way they make fighters basically useless.
5) Skald - So, a barbarian bard? Nah.
4) Monk - I never liked the "Here's an Asian class" mixed in with the traditional "European" inspired classes. That old annoyance has carried through generations of the game.
3) Hunter - I'm still really not a fan of pet classes
2) Slayer - Mechanically, the unchained barbarian / unchained rogue combo that I like does pretty much everything a slayer does but better.
1) Vigilante - It just seems like they took things that should have been RP and skill based and made clumsy game mechanics around them.

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

I'm pretty sure taking a 5 in any stat falls under min maxing already.

If you only do it for mechanical benefits and don't make a thing out of it, roleplay wise. Then yes.

Stormwind fallacy rears its ugly head once again!

No, putting the absolute minimum possible starting stat in one of your stats that you don't care about in order to boost other stats is what that "min" part of "min-max" means.

Dude, calm down. Its talking about creatures with 10'+ reach.

The 'specific actions' are referring to special attacks/spells/abilities that start a grapple, like black tentacles.

Giant Octopus - 20' reach with 8 tentacle attacks, each with the grab ability. Doesn't do a lot of damage but it will clear the deck of your pirate ship incredibly quickly.

So my gaming group has a running joke about how much the PF Rogue just plane sucks. Even the UC Rogue is just a weak Swashbuckler in ALOT of ways. Now during one of these after game BS sessions my DM said he wants to rebuild the Rogue for his next campaign as a 6th level cast. The logic being that a master spy/thief/assassin would have a good understanding of the technology he runs up against and in PF that's magic. I'm just curious what people think of that idea and maybe what they would do for a "magic infiltrator" build?

In what way is an unchained rogue a "weak Swashbuckler"?

The Morphling wrote:

While the various suggestions are interesting, I highly recommend that if you want to dual-wield crossbows, you get both your weapons enchanted with this. It eliminates the need to reload, looks awesome, and the will save isn't that big of a deal. "Minimum damage" isn't that much lower than the average damage, since crossbows get most of their damage from flat, static bonuses (deadly aim, weapon enchants, et cetera).

Sigh, another ability written in a questionable way.

RAI it seem to be aimed at allowing instantaneous reload for all ranged weapons, so that you can make your full iterative attacks with any ranged weapon.
RAW the "only" benefit it give is the creation of ammunition, as it don't say anything about readying the weapon to fire.
The worse problem is that for weapons like a sling or a firearm having the ammunition in the proper place is all you need for benefiting from all your iterative attacks, while crossbows require you to use the lever or the winch, something that is not covered by this ability.

As Endless ammunition is +2 ability and increase the rate of fire, only create new ammunition, I think this ability will only create the ammunition, not ready the weapon to fire. You still need to use your move action to prepare it for firing.

Otherwise a +1 ability is way stronger than a +2.
The "minimum dice damage" effect is relatively irrelevant for a dedicated missile user.

There is no "ready a ranged weapon" action. You just need to reload it. The text of that ability explicitly says you never have to reload it.

But, yeah, dual-wielding pistols is back on the table without all kinds of gimmicks.

Suppose we have Gary the Ghost. He, like most ghosts, most of the time, is incorporeal, so he can move through walls and such.

Suppose a friendly caster sets up Gary the Ghost with some Mage Armor. This force armor is decidedly not insubstantial, and can indeed ward off all sorts of physical attacks. Does this armor, which can rebuff arrows and blades, suddenly let walls and the ground to pass unobstructed?

RAW, there's nothing to say it should get in the way, but common sense, and the intent of spells like Force Anchor would suggest that force effects manifesting in physical forms should anchor incorporeal subjects within a fluid medium (i.e. air or water).

Secondly, do attacks made with ghost touch weapons wielded by incorporeal foes resolve as touch attacks, and if not, do ghost touch weapons similarly anchor their wielders? They are called out as effectively being both corporeal and incorporeal. Ghost touch armor lacks that bit of language and specifically says that its wearers can still move through solid objects.

I really see no rule to support the idea that mage armor on a ghost or other insubstantial creature would cause that to occur.

I also caution anyone from using "common sense" as your basis for making house rules or making rulings when the rules are unclear. You're much better off looking at game balance and fun.

Cayzle wrote:

I think that allowing a casting of mage armor to cancel out the incorporeal creature's ability to pass into solid objects is too powerful. If I can just cast Mage Armor on a ghost to "lock" it in a room, then I've used a first level spell to defeat a powerful ability.

This especially becomes an issue when a necromancer PC or a shadowdancer with a shadow companion wants to buff his incorporeal pal. I do not think that allowing mage armor to work "normally" on a shadow companion breaks the game, considering how few buffs you can give your pal.

Mage Armor can't be used offensively though. It's a harmless spell. If you don't want it, it fizzles, full stop.

The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

If they don't want it, they need to make a Will save.

A bastard sword can be used two handed as a martial weapon. Ergo, martial weapon proficiency with bastard swords, whether from class proficiencies or the feat, is explicitly a possibility.

Except that it is not a martial weapon and thus can't be chosen for the feat.

Back to the OP, though, why would you not want to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency?

I've got a goblin Unchained Rogue / Unchained Barbarian who is a ton of fun to play. The synergy of the new rage works out REALLY well with the Unchained Rogue's dex-to-damage. The enhanced speed helps set up flanking. In all, it works rather well.

Still isn't going to out-damage a strength-based orc barbarian, though but his stealth skill is insane.

So if people can't cast spells while transformed into a Dire Bat or some Wild Shape. Classes like the Summoner can compensate with Eidolons built to ride the Morphed Player. Others can use there Psychic abilities to cast there spells while in a more bestial form. So I ask of you, what do you think is the best class to play if you plan on Staying in a more animal form. The class doesn't necessarily have to have access to a way to transform, I just be useful for if you are playing an animal of sorts, such as if you were turned into a frog.

I mean, martial characters seem pretty obvious. A tiny hummingbird unchained rogue or a boar that's also a barbarian could be rather powerful.

What am I afraid of?

Quicksand. When everything is going good, then one thing goes wrong, then another, then another, until you can't breathe anymore...

Disregard the source.

Hey, now, that horrible movie had some great moments. Like that one.