Search Posts
Sorry to drag this up again, but I realized that I made a mistake: Although the defending AC bonus is completely untyped and explicitly stackable, I forgot that performing a shield bash negates the shield bonus. Therefore, paying for both armor and weapon enhancements on a single shield can be said to be of little benefit. Turning a sword-and-board fighter into a board-and-board fighter, on the other hand...
The second: Super Ranged Magus Attack. I actually prefer this one. Use spells to fuel Mage Bullets. A 5th level spell on top of a +2 weapon can get you a +5 Seeking Spell Storing gun for 5 minutes. Or a +1 Frost Fire Shocking Vicious Seeking Spell Storing gun. Whichever. For spells, as the Magus, for spell storing barrels, and some crowd control spells, like Web, Fog Cloud (Seeking, suckers!), and Black Tentacles. For feats, as a gunslinger. Wooaaahhh hold on there. This isn't 3.0 anymore: enhancement bonuses don't stack. The barrel of your pistol/musket would get +3 seeking spell-storing, not +5. You also cannot modify any enhancements that are already on the gun.
Whoops or maybe I don't. Seeing as the School of the Gun replaces a standard wizard's opposition schools, do you think one could get around the inability to pick Universal as an opposition school? I don't even know what this question means but it smells like fish. Furthermore, since it doesn't explicitly mention spell sources, do you think the -4 penalty to crafting magic items follows after multiclassing? You're probably going to be using your sorcerer level as your caster level, so the answer is no, but what kind of sorcerer focuses on crafting...especially one that's missing a level?
Going Spellslinger Wizard 1 / Dragonic Sorceer 19 still seems the best deal to me. *Draconic *Sorcerer ...and now I disappear.
IIRC, the bacteria that produce (or at least assist in the production of) cheese convert some fraction of the lactose to lactic acid, which assists in the curdling. So most cheese is low in lactose...or at least lower than the milk it came from.Its all the cheeseActually, rodents are universally lactose intolerant. The More You Know... It's true, and rodents are known to eat cheese...if there are no other options available. The fact that cheese is one of the few things that would keep for very long in a dank cellar is the origin of the myth that it's their favorite thing ever.
It seems necessary to point out that the BMI scale is only really precise when you are dealing with people of average human height. It breaks down pretty soon the farther you go from there. Already at 5'5", it's pretty useless. Same for taller than average people. A 4-foot-tall ratperson would be massively overweight at BMI 27. That's why pediatricians use the Ponderal Index, which divides by height a third time (kg/m^3 vs kg/m^2) to properly account for the square-cube law. Avg. female ratfolk: 1.143m, 29.48kg, PI = 19.74
Now, with a healthy human range of 10.3 to 13.9, one might think that these are somewhat high, but infants and toddlers have even higher PIs, and the reason is their comparatively short limbs. Note that ratfolk are almost always depicted as rather low-set, and that this also does not account for fur or tail. Dwarves, on the other hand, have no excuse for their bulk, with a PI of anywhere from 36.7 to 43.7. Where does it all go !?
Its all the cheese Actually, rodents are universally lactose intolerant. The More You Know...
I suppose that's your call, but my point was that you don't even need houserules to get the same benefits at the same price. To houserule as above would be giving unarmed fellows a monetary advantage. (Not that you couldn't make a case for that, I suppose.)
Just as a point of example, let's see why the following is an inappropriate comparison: From a cost standpoint, it makes sense that it would. A +1 flaming longsword would be 8000 gp; a flaming amulet of mighty fists and a +1 bodywrap of mighty strikes would cost 8000 gp, and the latter bonus would (for a character with a bab lower than 6) only apply to one attack, plus you'd be spreading the bonuses across two items which takes up a lot of your equipment economy. Since monks get the entire TWF series for free, one should consider their unarmed strikes to be equivalent to two identical weapons (although they are even more versatile than that). Thus, here's a more fair comparison: two +1 flaming longswords cost 16630 gp, whereas a +1 amulet of mighty fists and a +1 body wrap of mighty flaming strikes together cost 16000 gp, and confer the same benefits. And as I mentioned earlier, slot economy is indeed a problem, but not an intractable one for a player.
Am I the only one who doesn't see the problem with these items ? If you combine a AoMF +5 and a BWoMS +6 (wasting +1 on the latter so you can get +5 worth of special abilities), you get the equivalent of two +10 weapons, and for very close to the same price (within 4%). Unintuitive as it may seem, as long as you keep the enhancement on the amulet and the special abilities on the bodywrap, you should be able to mix and match while more or less keeping pace with other magic weapon wielders. The only rebuttal I can really foresee is that it uses up slots for other things, like the Monk's Robe. In such a case, simply have someone craft a Monk's Cape for your shoulder slot (at +50% price, if deemed necessary), or wherever else you have an opening.
Got an answer from James. Medium fists, medium strikes.
Does "undersized weapons" affect unarmed damage ? The monster rule specifically mentions manufactured weapons, while the centaur description explains the reason for the rule is that their upper torsos are those of med-sized humans. One could argue that their lower bodies allow them to put additional force into their blows, but that seems more cognate to their strength bonus. Either way, how does this affect monktaurs ? They essentially treat their unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons whenever it's convenient, but what about when it's inconvenient ?
James, how come violating a monk vow is so punishing for the class? I mean, I'd expect that they'd lose the extra Ki points from the vow, but this somehow also drains all their Ki to 0 and prevents them from regaining it at all? That's really harsh, especially considering it might be for a vow like Fasting or Silence that, at max, only gives you 3 extra points of Ki by late game. And why is an Atonement spell alone not enough? Why do they have to atone, THEN wait an entire extra month? That's potentially a LOT of adventuring time during which they're missing out on this feature. I dunno, I'm probably wrong, but it seem that monks already have some problems with everything cool they do requiring Ki, sometimes 2 or 3 points of it at a time. For them to lose it all the instant they take single, minor step out of bounds just seems, well, mean. Hey, paladins have it much worse off. Monks keep their flurry and any non-ki powers; I'd hardly say that "everything cool" requires ki. Also, the month-long probation is only for the vow's bonus ki, not the entire ki pool. I'd hardly call it undue punishment.
The reason I assume the above: Undersized Weapons (Ex) Although a centaur is Large, its upper torso is the same size as that of a Medium humanoid. As a result, they wield weapons as if they were one size category smaller than their actual size (Medium for most centaurs). While unarmed strikes can usually be performed by any appendage, a centaur's kick is already accounted for, so any other attacks would have to come from its human half.
I do have a question about quadrupeds, though. Let's say a centaur gets disarmed and decides to punch someone instead. Centaurs wield Medium weapons, but do they also have Medium unarmed strike damage ? I'm sure this is RAI but the RAW bears clarification.
I'm working on building some custom races for a One-Shot I'll be running with some friends of mine. So while making a Large Race using the Race Building Rules in the Advanced Race Guide, I noticed that there was nothing in the Weakness Racial Traits for Undersized Weapons, an extraordinary trait for making large (or larger) creatures have to use smaller weapons fit for its arms and/or torso compared to the rest of its body. It really seemed odd as this particular Weakness would have been very useful for Paizo's pregenerated custom races of the Drider and the Centaur that they gave us in this section of the book. That's because Undersized Weapons is simply a side effect of being a 'taur, not an independent weakness. You're looking for the Quadruped trait. Also look at Paizo's own formulations for the centaur and drider.
Do yourself a favor and disregard Race Points as a measure of balance. For 2 RP, you can get a better deal than Quadruped (which it may be noted is supposed to be a Monstrous trait) by combining Stability and Fast. I suggest to do what makes sense for the race's flavor, then rebalance if necessary.
FWIW, I specifically mentioned while quoting SKR that you do get diagonal AoO's. By the same reasoning I'd argue that you can also charge diagonally with a longspear (and end up 5ft away, after the attack). The fact that standard diagonal attacks aren't allowed is a potential problem, yes, but many other problems could also be solved by simply not drawing 5-ft wide diagonal paths (or going hexagonal or gridless... *duck*).
For additional context:
Therefore when I say the templates on d20PFSRD are incorrect, I mean specifically that reach never violates the normal distance rules. 10ft reach does not threaten 15ft corners, and this does not affect a pike-weilder's ability to defend from approachers. Insisting that reaching corners is necessary because it would otherwise leave "holes" is a symptom of abstractionitis.
Unless the attacker is a monster, because they DO threaten the 15' diagonal. Another reason to level the playing field by reverting to the 3.5 rules on reach weapons. No...no. Firstly, by RAW the one and only advantage to natural reach is to threaten the entire circle, instead of just the perimeter. This does not include "extra" corners. Secondly, the diagonal problem doesn't exist in the first place per SKR's ruling. IMO the only reason it's not a FAQ is because it should be common sense.
Your figure 1 is correct, though hard to read: Templates Actually it's figure 2. Those templates are incorrect. The Editor's Note quoted on that page spells it out: A reach weapon gives a specific extension to your reach. When you count out squares, since every other square is doubled when you count diagonally, that means that there'll be corners where you can't reach.
A cleric gains one domain spell slot for each level of cleric spell she can cast, from 1st on up. i.e., it's not dependent on cleric level at all. If you still doubt, consider the alternative: a theurge would only get access to any unlocked domain slots when she takes another cleric level. How arbitrary is that ?
Addendum: Sorry, that was actually the d20 SRD. I assume that shield crafting works in much the same way, as the PRD mentions: "An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right." In any case, I forgot to mention that the double AC bonus would require Improved Shield Bash, which is arguably a small price to pay compared to the price of the shield itself.
Wow. I was expecting enlightenment from this thread and got only incoherence. Not even an "official" ruling can put an end to it? For one thing, SKR almost appears to contradict himself:
Obviously shields are typically always used "correctly", i.e. strapped to one's arm. However, what he seems to be trying to say is that because defending is a weapon property, it only applies to items that are used as weapons, i.e. to attack. This is a quite reasonable explanation, even if it could be better worded. This does mean, though, that a magic defending shield weapon can potentially confer a double AC bonus, provided that the full cost for the item was paid: A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.
|
