| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spiked Tentacles of Forcible Intrusion.
Well, they can get unlimited use of Comprehend Languages, Speak with Animals, Unseen Servant, Produce Flame or Chill Touch. It's a nice gig for a low-level mundane.
Your attack stat is you fourth highest and your racial bonus went into your third/fourth highest stat.....this is painful to me.
It really depends on the game style you are all playing. If your playgroup is Tactics focused, then your halfling barbarian is probably not a good fit without some really clever build ideas. (At least more clever than I can come up with ATM.). If your playgroup is less tactically inclined, the character might have a lot of plot hooks and roleplay opportunities. A well-built barbarian is just as capable of having plot hooks and roleplay opportunities as a poorly built one. More capable, in fact, because he's more likely to stick around for a while.
Keep in mind that the overall change to an unchained cleric should probably be a nerf.
Yes. EDIT: The standard action required to free yourself is the standard action required to break a grapple, with auto-success. If you can break grapples in another way, you can use that method against the unmanned mancatcher as well.
RAW(I): The idea that my myopic reading of a particular sentence fragment trumps context, consistency, obvious intent, expressed designer intent and everything else. RAW(II): The idea that my interpretation, see part (I), trumps each and every GM and the right of my fellow players to get on with the game and enjoy themselves.
Oberoni fallacy: The claim that bad rules are not a problem, because the GM can just change them.
They could have just answered the Accellerated Drinker question with "No. Drinking an extract specifically takes a standard action, no matter how quickly your character can drink other liquids. Only abilities that specifically change the time for extracts can change that." Boom, done, futureproofed.
Kill her kids, leave a bloody dagger with the crest of a rival noble house, boom done what could possibly go wrong.
Counting deaths tells us f@$$-all. "turns able to meaningfully contribute" and "non-combat situations able to meaningfully contribute" are the metrics of the situation.
Note that most SU and EX abilities are 10 + ½ HD + Stat, so increasing HD increases DC directly.
No such rule. That said, rolling HP is a terrible mechanic for games with a high level of deliberate character design.
Sigh. "Caster edition" indeed.
Here is my first draft of a Bulette Style user. Race: Dwarf (Relentless alternate trait)
Levels:
Feats:
Equipment of Note: +2 Str Belt, Gauntlets of the skilled maneuver, +1 Full plate armor, a hammer, some potions. When raging, he overruns at +27 (+6 bab +7 str +2 racial +2 class ability +2 imp overrun +2 greater overrun +4 bulette charge style +2 gauntlets), doing 1d8+15 (from Bulette Rampage) +7 (from overbearing advance), with an AoO against anyone knocked over (by beating their CMD by 5+).
Give the money to your friends, as partial compensation for being such a liability.
If you're unconcerned with noise, unconcerned with the opened chest or lock being obvious, and unconcerned with the repair bill, there is no reason to mess around with lockpicks. If you're not enforcing with those concerns, trying to enforce lockpicking instead of brute force is going to feel artificial and gamey.
1). Arcane Caster Level is a specific combination of words that is literally used nowhere else in the rules. it is a copy-paste from the 3.5 version, which is itself a copy-paste of the 3.0 version. And in the 3.0 PHB, "Arcane Caster" was synonymous with "class that has a familiar"*. *"But what about bards?". "Lol, f%#+ Bards" was the stance of everyone writing magic rules for 3.0. Just look at metamagic feats for an example.
I assume that your question is as follows: IF the prerequisite is "Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bohemian Earspoon", AND IF I am already proficient with the Bohemian Earspoon, but without having taken the feat,
It certainly SHOULD work that way, and some writers and a lot of players think it DOES work that way. I don't think I've ever seen a gunslinger burn a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency before taking Rapid Reload, for example.
"Ten shocking errors that you won't BELIEVE made it into the Core!!!!" ...yeah, that wasn't the best way to write the thread title.
One attack, total. Except for a very few, very explicit exceptions, Full Attack is the only way to make more than one attack on your turn.
Assuming that "must be a spellcaster" is even a rule and not a description of the common use case, my Cleric buddy can use the scroll for me. Yes, one could say that I'm moving the goal posts here by requiring a teammate to have spent a skill point in one of the 3 top skills in the game, but all of this UMD nonsense goes out the window with a single level of Ranger or Hunter anyways.
80 is an absurd number. It was picked to make the costs match. The point is that the bracers are a terrible waste of gold. A Ring of Spell Storing allows the wearer to cast the stored spells, whether or not he's a caster. That's the point. It takes a caster and/or a scroll to recharge it. And I am arguing from an assumption of actual play, so the UMD is really not an issue as long as I don't have to do it in combat time.
I see post like the first one, and I really wonder if this is why Paizo 'rebalancing' is accepted. Like are you happy that the item is made entirely unviable now? There's very few people saying that the items weren't broken (jingasa could have been 2 items easily), but is this salt the earth level of errata really acceptable to some people who just didn't like something? Wouldn't you rather seen something simply made good instead of broken rather than broken bad instead of broken good? 2.000 gp for 80 scrolls of Aspect of the Falcon. 2.000 gp for a cracked vibrant purple prism.You can now recharge your stone outside of combat (so a single skill rank and a total modifier of +1 or better is all the UMD you need, assuming no-one in your party has the spell on their list), you're not limited to 1/day, you can use your stone for even better buffs, and you have a free wrist slot.
But that's hardly a Jingasa issue, that's a Pugwampi issue. Crafter's Fortune is 1. level, last 24 hours, and provides a luck bonus.
Whoever wrote the archetype probably used formatting, which was then edited out to save space. Just put in the obvious paragraph breaks back in, and the ability becomes clear. Like this: Elemental Flurry (Su): At 1st level, an elemental ascetic gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. He gains the kinetic fist form infusion and it costs 0 points of burn instead of 1 point of burn. When using the kinetic fist form infusion with a full attack, he can make a flurry of blows as the monk class feature. He must use only his fists to make this flurry, no matter what other abilities he possesses. Like a monk, he can use this ability only when unarmored, not using a shield, and unencumbered. He can’t use his kinetic blast without a form infusion, nor can he ever use his kinetic blast with the chain, extended range, extreme range, foe throw, flurry of blasts, many throw, or snake form infusions, or with any other form infusion that requires a ranged attack roll or ranged touch attack roll. This ability alters kinetic blast and replaces elemental overflow.
You and NN are arguing, in this thread, that spiked shields follow ONLY the rules assigned to the spiked shield in the weapon table and its attendant weapon description; conversely, that the descriptions of "shields" and "shield spikes" in the shields & armor section have no bearing on "spiked shields". If you're going to argue that spiked shields aren't shields with spikes on them, in order to escape the as-if, you cannot also argue that they are, in fact, shields. Even if they have "shields" in their name, by extension of the Warslinger FAQ. If they are only martial weapons from the weapon section, they are only martial weapons from the weapon section.
So, pretending for a moment that anyone is still arguing in good faith that spiked shields and shields with spikes on them are not the same thing, here's a list of things that don't work with spiked shields if they are their own unique weapons: (unclear or partial, or do nothing) Feats:
Traits:
Classes:
Other:
Playtesting is really cheap if you get volunteers to do it for almost-free (not quite free, you lose the opportunity to sell the material to the playtesters). Besides, Paizo staff "playtests" like my grandmother drives to church.
Yep. While about half of these items were underpriced, that means you should increase the price, not nerf them into uselessness. Some of the nerfs would have been livable with free action activation. But it's like some of the PDT don't realize how enormously expensive a standard action activation is for a short-term effect.
Page references: How do they work? The relevant section starts at shield bashes on p. 152, and continues to shield spikes on p. 153. Page 10 of UE talks about armor spikes, not shield spikes. What page it wants us to refer to is unknown. Obvious editing errors, how do they work? It means I can completely disregard everything, right? Don't let anyone stop you from bringing your own brand of awesome to the table. Make sure legally, it's technically correct, the best kind of correct, and take your place as a paying customer who is obeying the rules. Pathfinder Society GMs are supposed to go by RAW, never their personal notions about what the designers meant to say. If you can show your interpretation is legal, they are supposed to allow it, even if they don't like it. PFSGMs are referees, not defenders of the faith. Paizo publishing and your local gaming store won't make money if they allow their paying customers to get bullied away from the game. Bullying, being a paying customer, organized play, getting outside your troll basement and interacting with other humans, how do they work? There is so much wrong in your statement, I will just pick one: "If you can show your interpretation is legal, they are supposed to allow it". No. If you can show that your interpretation is correct and other possible interpretations are incorrect, using the entire suite of interpretative tools available, then they're supposed to allow it. Furthermore, I've repeatedly raised a question that you two keep dodging: What is the weight and price of a spiked shield, and how do you know?
Wov, this pro-stacking "spiked shields are not shields with armor spikes" argument is even less worthy than I thought. N.N. quoted Ultimate Equipment section of the PRD at me, with the aim of proving the existence of "spiked shields" as something existing solely as weapons without the "as if" clause. Working from d20pfsrd, I pointed out to him that you can't actually buy those spiked shields, because they dont have complete cost and weight information, information that you can only get from the shield entries. He countered with quoting that the prices were for steel and wooden shields which, a) doesn't solve the lack of information, b) can only be known from reading the shield entries. Now, I've just looked up "spiked shield" on the PRD, in UE and in the CRB, and N.N.'s (and Swoosh's) level of ...selective... reading and quoting is staggering. UE (print or PRD), Heavy Spiked Shield: Cost 57/70 gp, weight: Special. Description: bla bla bla, See the armor spikes entry on page 10 for details. (Armor spikes? nice editing. But we know what you mean). CRB, Heavy Spiked Shield: Cost special, Weight special. Description: Bla bla, see p. 152 for details. Every single entry for a spiked shield is literally telling you, explicitly and repeatedly, that "this entry is not the full rules, those are in the armor and shields section" Saying that you are buying "spiked shields", not shields with spikes on them (because the as-if is in the shield spikes entry but not the spiked shield entry), is A) silly, B) literally impossible because of critical information not existing in the entry, C) flagrantly against the printed rules-as-written. |