![]()
![]()
![]() Due to the fact that I can see this from both points of the argument, I've decided to post in the ask in the James Jacobs thread, now normally I only give a slightly higher opinion to it than normal but in this case I'm going to suck it up and accept that more people with a greater understanding of the rules disagree with me and that I should concede the point, should he agree with your ruling. EDIT:- Secane Valid point, I was going to suggest that a bit back but after the thread got move to the general discussion board I figured it was pretty dead and didn't matter much, however we should be done pretty soon I get the feeling I've more or less conceded anyway. ![]()
![]() My point, I feel I should clarify, is that some-one being denied there dex bonus is certainly a clear indicator of whether you can sneak attack, but considering how the two sentences are rather different, that doesn't mean it's the ONLY way too gain one it's fairly clear that not all of the dexterity bonus needs to be denied for you too sneak attack. And please don't use the "no-ones brought it up before" fallacy (not sure the exact name for that one), as my surprise with Cheapys statement has risen from never having realised some people associated sneak attack with a very defined set of conditions that cause you to lose dex to ac, rather than the losing dex to ac part. ![]()
![]() I'm not sure I agree with this, simply because the language doesn't match up. In sneak attack it only says they need to be denied a dexterity bonus to armour which implies only a fraction of it, not that they need to be denied their dexterity bonus which would imply all of it, the language isn't matching up. Do you have anything official on this i could check out? I could well just be reaching a incorrect conclusion on the basis of "That'd pretty much makes ranged sneak attack pointless". I can sort of see where your conclusion is coming from, but it doesn't seem worded in sneak attack like you think. And my view wouldn't mean that you lose your dodge bonus, as the conditions for sneak attack and losing dodge bonus are in fact differently worded. "The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC" "Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses." Further I find it's hard too argue that if you have a penalty you aren't being denied something by the very definition of the word "denied" being refusing to be allowed something. EDIT:- I would also like too point out that snap shot doesn't actually allow you to count as flanking something, since flanking is only gained on melee attacks, so ranged sneak attack is basically impossible to be viably used before improved invisibility with the way you are interpreting this. ![]()
![]() "Dexterity: Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws. The penalty also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious)." "Sneak Attack If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)" I'm having trouble seeing how dexterity damage reducing some-ones ac wouldn't count as denying them a dex bonus too ac. ![]()
![]() Actually, like i said, with pressure points they'd have a dexterity penalty of 2, and thus would be viable for sneak attacks. Pressure Points* (Su): A ninja with this trick can strike at an opponent’s vital pressure points, causing weakness and intense pain. Whenever the ninja deals sneak attack damage, she also deals 1 point of Strength or Dexterity damage, decided by the ninja. Unlike normal ability damage, this damage can be healed by a DC 15 Heal check. Each successful check heals 1 point of damage caused by this trick. A ninja with this trick receives a +10 insight bonus on this Heal check. ![]()
![]() Good catch, I forgot it's actually a benefit on ranged attacks, however I have trouble seeing exactly why it's improbable. If I don't (with my dex focused build) attack first, then they have to beat a dc of a fairly decent level +2 for every attack I land on them, and that's all assuming I don't just have a ally too back me up. Remember, once I've made two sneak attacks against a target he's now a free hit for basically the whole fight, and that's not even including things like snap shot etc. And honestly this is just stuff I've come up with tidbits I've heard from other peoples discussions, with a bit of research I'm sure I could find a more reliable method. ![]()
![]() Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:
Ah, the English language, making life hard for foreigners in every small way imaginable, because nothing says "screw you" like a word that can mean two drastically different things in the exact same sentence. ![]()
![]() Well, honestly I'd probably rely on poison more. In a serious fight you could easily coat each of your first volley of ammunition with any of the following poisons, and for each one that hits after the first the dc goes up by 2. And my main control methods I was actually thinking of was trip to be honest, or any of the "ice" style spells that lower dexterity, or anything that applies conditions of a relevant nature. (If you manage to go before the target none of this matters of course). Poisons :-
![]()
![]() The most reliable method is to of course have a controller in the group, since many of the strongest controller techniques reduce dexterity in some form or another, if that isn't the case a wand of blindness could be picked up, and of course just making sure you go first with the amount of damage you can do will cause a lot of pain. The main problem is without a team mate to back you up, until level 10 anyway, you would have to give up a turn to use something like a wand of blindness. On the other hand, with the pressure points ninja trick every time you deal sneak attack damage you can lower dexterity by 1, so all you need is to go first and your safe, since it's a dex based build that isn't outside the realm of possibility. ![]()
![]() Just off the top of my head cheapy,
2) Now I'm not sure how thrown weapons work for enchanting, but if you can enchant them for cheaper than normal you could instead choose too enchant shurikens up to your highest amount of attacks per turn with returning, dual wield shurikens and use flurry of stars for an extra two attacks, of course this build deals with a problem hitting it's targets, though not a unsurmountable problem. 3) My personal favorite, requires the most money too get going but by far the most effective once you can, dual wield 2 guns with gloves of storing for reloading, add rapid shot, and the ninjas attack allowing at level 8 about 6 attacks before haste, at the touch ac. Of course these all deal with having to get ranged sneak attacks which is far from a certain thing at low levels, and being within 30(+10 per talent you are willing to give up) feet and are far from properly sorted out builds (a bit of a reliance on sniper goggles I'll admit), just some random things I threw together for you. I can try and see if I can make them work properly at a later time. ![]()
![]() karkon wrote:
Smitten is in fact the correct word, but it has a secondary meaning of "being awe struck by" which has led to its second usage. ![]()
![]() Alienfreak, how often do you come up against something with epic (which is what I assume you mean) drs? Considering one source is the essential end boss for level 20 characters, and the other is a good creature you rarely find yourself fighting, and most campaigns tend to end around level 12ish, or at least most of mine and people I've talked with on the forums do. And if I'd been frequently coming up against say, undead, then of COURSE my weapon is a bludgeoning weapon. But yeah I'd use a +4 furious weapon, since i believe that gives you +6 while raging counting it as a Epic weapon, though I'm iffy on the rules there. EDIT:- Y'know this little back and forth thing we've got going here is really kinda pointless, because at the level that things have good and bludgeoning dr, and epic dr, etc, unless it's about 30 or something if I really want I could just build a character that quite happily deals so much damage it doesn't even matter. ![]()
![]() Trikk wrote:
Actually with a nice team mate he can do it for free too, but yeah generally rogues do in fact need a investment too keep up in combat with other classes. The money is just something he can grab later game too make life easier for him... On the other hand i'm fairly certain I can make a ninja that leaves any bomb throwing alchemist in the dust, and if I wanna be mean I could do it with a Vivisectionist just to rub it in. ![]()
![]() Well, I had a separate weaker weapon for dealing with chaotic creatures, but honestly I've played a lot of Call and watched a lot of supernatural, so when I find myself commonly encountering a type of enemy the first thing I do is go and find a weapon that can make it bleed, it just so happens that cold iron, silver, magic, good and adamantine generally covers the things my barbarian was fighting in that campaign. Hell if I'm a archer I'm often carrying various slaying arrows or the like for what i've figured i'm most likely too come across. I'm just saying, if your character has a intelligence over 12, and at least some-one has a relevant knowledge skill it often isn't hard to get around any form of Damage Reduction. And that's not even getting INTO the various archtypes, feats and class feature that can let you just straight up ignore them. ![]()
![]() Honestly, if you want moral ambiguity I think pathfinder requires a certain amount of house-ruling too truly be a viable system for that. I mean, we have Angels, living gods, demon lords, magic that operates on the concept of "good/bad" etc. But yeah, unless he repents in some way he's lawful evil. Think of it this way, if you replaced "arcane spellcaster" for "scientist" all through your back story and you had a inquisitor that murdered scientist just for studying science, would he be a good person, even though in his day all science did was propagate lies, and develop destructive weapons? ![]()
![]() Gotta admit, it may be my over-bearing amount of free time, my long history with RPGs in every form, or just the sheer amount of books I've read, but I almost never encounter anything that I don't have a prepared weapon for. Hell I had a barbarian once who had a adamantine +1 furious holy weapon that allowed me to bypass pretty much everythings DR. (+3 enhancement when raging so counts as cold iron, silver, adamantine, magic and good aligned for the purposes of bypassing dr) and that's only a total +4 weapon. ![]()
![]() Ughbash, the simple fact that it says "fighting defensively as a standard action" should have had you click that you can do it as other actions "Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round." ![]()
![]() Actually with a half decent team, a wand of blindness, or any access to a form of improved invisibility which with UMD isn't exactly hard to get yes a rogue can, and a rogue can get sniper goggles meaning he also deals +2 damage per sneak attack die rolled. Now I'm not trying to say a rogue is that strong, but of course a ninja or a vivisectionist alchemist has far more damage dealing capability than the alchemist bomb class feature. Edit:- and ANYONE can take a level of fighter for heavy armour if they so wish. That is hardly a grounds for claiming something is powerful. ![]()
![]() Personally? No. The alchemist bombs are on average dealing less damage per hit than a rogue sneak attack, in exchange they gain a much higher chance too hit. Does your GM think that rogues are overpowered? Remember that on average a 1d6 of damage is +3.5 damage, and the large number of dice being rolled can throw people off in how effective the damage actually is. Honestly, any character with limited resources can feel very strong when the encounters a day stay low enough to not force them too manage their resources, but Kingmaker defiantly has key situations where you will find yourself having to ration your bombs, and when it does you should see a bit more balancing coming into play. Remember that throwing a bomb is a ranged attack and provokes attacks of opportunity just like any other ranged attack. ![]()
![]() This does raise another interesting question, With mounted skirmisher does a character charging essentially get too make a full attack and gain the benefits of charging on his first attack after his mount charges, or all his attacks, aka like pounce? I'd say only the first attack but it could go either way. ![]()
![]() Interesting, I'm not fully decided but I'm leaning towards Ravingdork here. Further the ability too cast a touch spell through a attack is not actually required to be during a full attack action, spell strike the level 2 magus ability is what does that and all it says is:- Spoiler:
"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." So theoretically, if mounted and the magus used spell strike too channel the spell as an attack after the mount charged he'd gain all the benefits of charging on that attack. Whether the shocking grasp gains x3 damage though is a bit more iffy. ![]()
![]() Certainly valid logic and I can see why you'd rule it that way. I believe destroyed should definatly been cleared up as apart from a few scattered statements around the core book (the only truely defining one being in the magic items section that states any magic item loses it's abilites once it becomes "destroyed"), they seem to leave it up to each group to decide exactly what it does. ![]()
![]() I agree, i'm pretty stubborn, but I've been proven wrong before and will be again, and I would prefer if any errata that came out they did make the blade immune to being destroyed as I believe it fits better and was more likely to be the intended rules, sadly in any situation involving PFS it's the rule as they are now that count until we get some errata. ![]()
![]() I have already stated I was planning to just ignore any of your arguements where you are trying to say that this sentence "Most craftsmen charge one-tenth the item's total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined)." Means that Ruined/destroyed (which I haven't actually made a solid stand on, but yeah I can agree those are probably the same thing) is a sub condition of broken. Not only have you made up the idea of a "sub condition" which doesn't actually exsist anywhere, the closest being more extreme versions of a condition such as fatigued upgrading to exhausted (which i will point out, being immune to fatigued does not make you immune to exhausted, go read the lame oracle curse and see how it has to upgrade over later levels). Mr Green, you are the only one attempting to hold this stance everyone else has already agreed and moved on and I in my stubborness am the only one still attempting to convince you of this point so I shall make my final points and leave you to believe what you will. 1. You seem to have at least dropped the idea that "Immune to broken" means "immune to taking damage", that's a start. 2. On the other hand you have decided that the last line of the broken condition, which merely states that a more damaged version of a item may at gm discretion, cause a item to cost more to repair, some-how makes destroyed a "sub condition" of broken. Sub conditions don't exsist for one but if you are really going to argue on this point I don't see what I can say other than, does it say anywhere that destroyed is a part of broken? No? Does it say ruined is? No? And no, using the word once in the last line of the description does not count. 3.Even if some-how it DID make it a "sub-condition" then I'd have no choice but to follow the examples of other related conditions, which as i have already shown being immune to a less extreme version does NOT make you immune to the more extreme. No matter how you look at it, this doesn't work how you think. And at that I shall back out from this discussion a hell of a lot later than I should have. ![]()
![]() "Broken Items that have taken damage in excess of half their total hit points gain the broken condition, meaning they are less effective at their designated task. The broken condition has the following effects, depending upon the item. If the item is a weapon, any attacks made with the item suffer a –2 penalty on attack and damage rolls. Such weapons only score a critical hit on a natural 20 and only deal ×2 damage on a confirmed critical hit.
Mr green, am i correct in saying that you argue destroyed is a sub-set of broken because of the line saying that a "ruined item costs more to repair"? And one poissble other line where destroyed and ruined is interchangeable? If so i'm just going to move on and leave this because it doesn't really seem worth discussing. Also "Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect Format: Immune acid, fire, paralysis; Location: Defensive Abilities." Nothing in there says that you become immune to what CAUSES a condition OR that you even can't gain a condition, just that you are immune to it's EFFECTS. Frankly Mr.Green, it's fairly obvious you've come into this with a strong view of how things SHOULD work and a reasonable intepretation of the rules, you are however completely dis-regarding how things actually work and either mis-understanding or making up how things are actually written. If this interpretation is how things are run at your table then by all means, I can see where you are coming from it does require a lot less micro-managing but please do not spread blatant mis-information on the forums, as it can lead to confusion if people learn how a rule works incorrectly then start attempting to make arguements from that standing espically in PFS games. ![]()
![]() First up, go read what immune does. It makes you immune to the effects and the secondary effects of something, it DOES NOT make you immune to what causes the condition, or even stop you gaining the condition. Just makes you immune too the effects. Secondly you've quoted in a way as to throw off what is actually written. "A damaged object remains functional with the broken condition until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed." Once again NOTHING here suggests that destroyed is in any way a sub condition, this is your interpertation and you are of course welcome too it, but please do not try to state that it is the raw, the Broken condition is fully described in the conditions index, and if destroyed was a sub section of it it would be in there, not in a section that has nothing to do with broken except to explain the conditions that can cause it. ![]()
![]() Nothing in there states that destroyed is a form of broken. Destroyed is a condition in the same way Dead is a condition.. it doesn't exsist (noticed this part is wrong, but my point still stands), and apart from a passage in the magic item section that states a destroyed magic item loses its magical propertys, doesn't technically do anything. Go read the Sunder section in the combat chapter. Despite this most people can figure out what it does. EDIT:- Further, it's immune to broken so it can't take hit point damage really? Well a barb is immune to fatigue at level 17, obviously that means he's immune to "leaving rage", following that logic, jeez. "Sunder You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver. If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition." ![]()
![]() I believe I am personally in agreement with you Abraham, there are far too many fuzzy areas here, and at least one that seems to go against the RAW. I could certainly see a DM and a player working together to sort something reasonable out, but I do not believe it is poissble by the wording of the raw. ![]()
![]() Yes, they get a reflex to avoid the falling damage caused by the Orb hitting them. It doesn't say anything about whether it counts as a throw that will actually trigger the necklace. And further, since it says "generally the range increment is 20 feet" it still falls too a gm fiat if you can even use this too make an attack at the range required too make this even viable. Nothing has been solved, and it seems fairly obvious from the language and statements above that these rules where assumed in previous points made. Edit:- I will note that I certainly didn't think to look at those rules, and I'm just assuming on whether the others did or did not, if anything though i'd say it further disproves using the dropping method as an attack. ![]()
![]() Well, if AM is off the table then I agree with Cheapy. She's a alchemist/monk who can quite litrelly rip the dragons wings right off the poor things body. http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/advice/theDragonStyleVivisectionistBeastmorphFeralMutagenAlchemistAnExer ciseInRidiculousness/v5748gbijjjbx/favorites Watch out for any auto-spacing in there. Also consider a Bow focused paladin with dragon slaying arrows, I've heard they can give dragons quite the headache... Edit:- Darn ninjas. ![]()
![]() The rules are fairly simple, the cohort is a NPC who follows a character because of the leadership feat, without that he is just a normal NPC and falls back under the complete control of the dm, which means this isn't so much a Rules question as a role-playing question. What do you think the cohort WOULD do now that this character has died? How did the PC die? Does he know they plan to ressurect him?
|