Melkavar's page

Hello everyone , I just got into the pathfinder RPG recently and I am getting ready to start making my first PC.

So I'm looking to make a Half Elf ranger using the classic ability generation. So when distributing my scores should I make them in tune with my class abilities with the higher being in Wis? I just didn't want to get half WA through creation and find out my scores should have been distributed another way.

Ultimately, it depends on what you want to do with the character. Wisdom is an important stat for rangers, yes, because it has a bearing on several of their class skills, including survival and handle animal. However, don't discount your other abilities either.

If you're going to focus on archery, one of your two weapon styles, you should emphasize your dexterity since your ranged attacks are based on it. If you choose to focus on two-weapon fighting, you should instead have a higher strength, since melee attacks are based on strength.

I'd highly recommend you look at some of the Ranger class guides that you can find in the sticky thread at the top of the Advice forum page (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m612?Guide-to-the-Class-Guides). They offer suggestions for different builds that focus on different aspects of each class, and which abilities are important to each build.

I do really like the archaeologist archetype for bards, but the ability to disarm magical traps is at 6th level, which doesn't help out when I'm starting at level 3.

Also, I completely agree with there can be some disconnect between the roles of archer and trap-smith, but ultimately I'm more concerned about having someone in the party to check for traps on doors and chests and be able to unlock things. Basically, I want to be able to move into the next room without resorting to kicking the door in each time.

I think I've decided to go with Trapper for the dip, since this character's background concept is more of a frontiersman than anything roguish. It also adds the track ability, which will be a welcome addition I think.

The only way to use weapons with IUS is during flurry of blows. So most of your argument is invalid. At least unless you wanted to take some nice massive penalties. You know two AOO, and the negatives from two weapon fighting if you use a weapon/knee/kick. If you aren't a monk, or have IUS, TWF, and FOB.

This is exactly where you're completely coming from the wrong direction. Where does the idea that you can only use weapons attacks and unarmed strikes together using flurry come from? Frankly, it's ridiculous. Any character can do it, but you would provoke attacks of opportunity if they use unarmed strikes during a full attack without having the improved unarmed strike feat.

In fact, a monk doesn't even have to use flurry to use a weapon and an unarmed strike. It still falls under the two-weapon fighting rules, so your premise that his argument is invalid is invalid.

And why in the heck would you take two-weapon fighting penalties on an attack of opportunity? It's a single attack action. You can't use two weapons on it, so you will never take that type of penalty on those attacks. Each AOO is a separate action that lets you make a single attack with any weapon you are currently wielding (including unarmed strikes). You've got a very flawed understanding of the AOO rules. You are literally not using anything but the weapon you're attack with, so this idea of "you can't do that because you're also using another weapon" doesn't hold water anyway.

It does say in IUS that you can hold something in your hands and still use IUS. It doesn't say that you can use, or be armed with those items in the hands.

This rule specifically works around that concept of it doesn't say you can't. Even though technically you can't wield both weapons without a feat (multiweapon fighting), and multiple arms.

My misunderstanding of the 5 foot step also makes the above less broken. As you can't continually trip them after taking multiple 5 foot steps each round with a full attack. So it balances slightly better than I thought. Thus I agree that you could do it. As it isn't as broken as I thought it was.

You clearly don't understand the rules regarding AOO if you're still arguing this. IUS does several things for a character: namely, the ability to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks and to be considered armed when not holding a weapon. The feat (or monk/brawler class ability) does not convey the ability to perform an unarmed strike while holding items in both hands. Anybody can do so, but the damage will be non-lethal without the feat or class ability. Your fighter can always opt to kick something rather than swinging his greatsword at it in combat, but it's such an inferior option that why would you ever do it? Okay so far?

Now, all the commentary about flurry of blows has no bearing on AOO whatsoever. FOB is a full-round action, and therefore has nothing to do with AOO, which is a free action in response to an enemy moving through a square that you threaten.

Similarly, TWF has no bearing, because it simply lessens the penalties of attacking with weapons in both hands. It does not convey the ability to do this, it simply makes it easier by lessening the penalties on attack rolls. Again, just as with unarmed strikes, anybody can do this without the feat. Multiweapon fighting goes even a step beyond this, because you need three or more arms to even take the feat. Similar to two-weapon fighting, it makes it easier for a character to attack with multiple weapons, but they can still do it without the feat! If you're holding a weapon that you can potentially swing, even if you're not proficient or it's an improvised weapon, you are still wielding it!

It's ridiculous to assert that if a monk is holding a weapon or weapons, they are not considered to be "armed" with them. That's exactly the opposite of how it works. It's actually part of what makes playing a monk versus creatures with different types of damage-typed DR so great. You can be wielding a pair of slashing or piercing monk weapons (which incidentally, the only thing that the monk special does on a weapon is let you use FOB with it, which as stated above when I was talking about FOB, has nothing at all to do with AOO) and still do bludgeoning damage instead by using kicks or elbow strikes (or even headbutts if that's what you want to use for flavor) with IUS.

Now, getting to the point of all of this: the reason that IUS lets you threaten adjacent squares is that you're considered armed with your unarmed strikes (while those without the feat/class feature are not). Therefore, you can threaten with unarmed strikes. A fighter holding a reach weapon only threatens the squares that are at the reach distance (say 10' for a medium-sized fighter), but not the adjacent (5' away) squares, because while he can still kick or otherwise attack with an unarmed strike, he's not considered armed while using them and therefore does not threaten with them. However, with IUS or the class feature equivalents, you do threaten with unarmed attacks, and therefore you would still threaten adjacent squares, regardless of whatever the monk is wielding any weapons or not. I don't think this is the point that's been disputed. However, if the monk is wielding a reach weapon, he still threatens those adjacent squares in addition to the squares he can attack with the reach weapon. He's obviously wielding the reach weapon, and therefore threatening with it, and he's always wielding unarmed strike by definition. He can't not be considered armed with his unarmed attacks, and he can always use them.

I don't get how this could ever be considered broken, because AOO is a single attack free action that you can only do a limited number of times per turn. You can't move during it, you can't do anything but make a single attack. This just makes it more difficult for an enemy to close in on a monk to attack it, because it can always use the withdraw action to take no AOOs. Please, please, please explain to me why an increased threatened area on a monk is broken? Large creatures with reach have the exact same threatened area!

I'm going to stop now before my head explodes...

I just suffered a TPK this week in a group I play with, and I am in the process of rolling up my new character to re-try the adventure module we were playing. I'm trying to go with an archer that can also take care of spotting and disabling any traps we come across. I generally play dex-based fighters rather than rangers for my archer characters, because I just plain like them more. I'm stuck trying to decide whether I want to dip rogue or something like a trapper archetype ranger to pick up trapfinding and some extra skills. I like the idea of the rogue, because it gives access to more skills (including the ever-popular UMD), but the trapper doesn't lose a BAB bump and gets all the other 1st level ranger abilities (track, favored enemy, etc.) along with trapfinding.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

The text implies its damage total is converted to bleed damage with a duration of 1d6 rounds.

You can't really use the text from AA stand-alone, because it's in the conversion section of the book. You have to look at the Campaign Setting entry as well, which lists the arrows as doing normal damage plus the bleed.

Also:

1) It makes no sense to me to literally have an arrow stuck into you that did no piercing damage at all.

2) If the arrows deal bleed damage only, they are either really terrible (if they deal 1 point of bleed damage for 1d6 rounds) or incredibly powerful (if they convert your bow's damage total, potentially 1d8 or better, to bleed damage for 1d6 rounds - that's potentially 48 bleed damage at 8 damage x 6 rounds, or more if you're using a large-sized bow).

For 1 gp each, doing 1 bleed damage for 1d6 rounds in addition to normal damage may still be on the cheap side in my opinion, but it's much more balanced at that gp cost than doing between 6 and 48 bleed damage over the course of six rounds. It's also much more balanced cost-wise than the insanely overpriced (imo) bleeding arrows, which are 160 gp each.

I think Deighton is right. Thistle arrows deal 1 point of damage for 1d6 rounds and that's it.

Bleeding arrows deal normal damage on hit and 1 point of damage as bleed from then on until dead or healed.

Actually, they are supposed to deal normal damage per the bow that fires them, with the bleed as additional secondary damage. The entry for the arrows in AA is very poorly written, because it is meant to convert the entry from Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (3.5) to Pathfinder RPG rules.

Thistle Arrow: These arrows are a specialty of the Ekujae

shamans, who craft the arrowheads out of the thistles of a toxic
plant that most creatures find highly caustic. They deal normal
damage but then become embedded in the wound and deal an
additional 1 point of damage each round for 1d6 rounds from their
irritating sap. Creatures immune to poison are immune to this
extra damage. A creature can remove an embedded thistle arrow
as a move action without provoking attacks of opportunity, but
doing so deals an additional 1d3 points of damage as the thorny
barbs are pulled free. A DC 12 Heal check (made as a standard
action) can pull free a thistle arrow’s head without dealing any
additional damage. A single thistle arrow costs 1 gp.

Thistle Arrow: Crafted from the thistles of a poisonous

plant, these barbed arrows deal damage as a bleed effect
for 1d6 rounds after a hit.

Emphasis mine. The "after a hit" from AA is emphasized as well, because you have to hit with the arrow (and thus deal your bow's normal damage) before the bleed takes effect.

The key difference between bleeding arrows and thistle arrows is the bleeding arrows' bleed damage doesn't end until a successful heal check or magical healing occurs, but the thistle arrow bleed is short duration. Also, the thistle arrows are much cheaper than bleeding arrows (160 gp per bleeding arrow vs. 1 gp per thistle arrow).

Honestly, I can't understand where the astronomical cost of bleeding arrows comes from.