Ozymand's page

Just saw my item for the 4th time, but up against a very poor entry, whereas before it was in quite good company, I hope this is not an indication of present ranking...

I am continuously amazed at how many items I am coming across that directly violate one of Sean's explicit no-no's from his advice thread, even after the culling. At this point, should I come across a Feat-granting toy d20 of directional backpacking, I would not be particularly surprised.

I wonder though how public voting will affect the results, since it would appear a majority of entrants did not read the advice and so might have an entirely different idea of what is considered a "good" item. It will interesting to see how much importance is given the public over personal preference of judges.

Approaching this thread's topic from a slightly different angle, there's one particular criticism I've seen that's driving me bonkers.

There's nothing wrong with the criticism itself; I just get a paranoid feeling that this particular criticism is being wrongly applied to my own item.

Such is my fear. It also seems there are trends in the type of items seen by some people, it has been bardic items for myself, and I fear people will vote against my item just because they are tired of seeing something similar, regardless of comparative quality.

I suppose one must trust in the system.

Saw mine again finally, so I made the cut. I'm hopeful that since I've only seen mine twice, whereas there are several I've seen many, many times, that is a sign that mine has a good ranking. I'm not sure that is statistically logical, but I'll hold on to that hope nevertheless. :)

Glad to see I am not the only one employing this sort of logic.

Ozymand wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Flurry of blows states no such thing.

Ahem, "a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham"

Then further down, "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands."

So, you ONLY get the STR bonus when using monk weapons, and the only ranged weapon for a monk listed is Shuriken. So you only get STR bonus, for flurry of blows when using a thrown monk weapon, specifically, shuriken.

As previously stated, the zen master merely adds bows to the list of monk weapons. Thereafter allowing them to be used with flurry of blows and gaining the STR bonus, but only with condition, like every other character, you use a Composite STR bow.

The second passage you linked is actually clarifying that you ONLY get the flurry of blows bonus with bows, and it the ability functions regularly otherwise. (If you chose to throw a dagger using Flurry of blows, you would not get the bonus)

As Seraphimpunk stated, you are trying to bend the rules beyond the obvious for benefit. No right-minded DM will allow it.

"Right-minded DM" is a pretty subjective term, and you still haven't provided me any RAW context for this not working. Is it cheese? of course it is. Would one of my players get a swift slap upside the head if they showed up at my table with the proposed character sheet? Odds are. Is it completely legal by RAW? Sure is.

I just provided the RAW context. You are simply choosing to ignore it. Let me provide further clarification:

Non-zen archer monks only get the STR bonus when using a monk weapon, all monk weapons are of the type you would receive a STR bonus anyway (melee or thrown). It wouldn't matter if the monk gained other proficiencies, or what the weapon is, per the very specific class ability description, you would not receive a STR bonus unless it was a weapon listed in Flurry of Blows.

Modifications to this list, such as made by the Zen Archer or other archetypes, could very well result in different circumstances. But a regular monk does not receive a STR bonus on projectile ranged attacks while flurrying with a non-monk weapon.

Why? Because for you to even consider that ridiculous possibility you have to go the the Zen Archer ability description, which doesn't apply to the regular monk anyway.

Flurry of blows states no such thing.

Ahem, "a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham"

Then further down, "A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands."

So, you ONLY get the STR bonus when using monk weapons, and the only ranged weapon for a monk listed is Shuriken. So you only get STR bonus, for flurry of blows when using a thrown monk weapon, specifically, shuriken.

As previously stated, the zen master merely adds bows to the list of monk weapons. Thereafter allowing them to be used with flurry of blows and gaining the STR bonus, but only with condition, like every other character, you use a Composite STR bow.

The second passage you linked is actually clarifying that you ONLY get the flurry of blows bonus with bows, and it the ability functions regularly otherwise. (If you chose to throw a dagger using Flurry of blows, you would not get the bonus)

As Seraphimpunk stated, you are trying to bend the rules beyond the obvious for benefit. No right-minded DM will allow it.

No, non-zen archery monks do not get STR to ranged attacks, unless it is a thrown monk weapon, as flurry of blows states.

The usual monk does not receive proficiency in a projectile range weapon. The zen archer archetype does, so the passage you linked provides clarification and basically adds bows to the list of items that qualify for Flurry of Blows, including the STR bonus, if, and only if, you have a Composite STR bow. Even so, you would only be able to add as much of your STR as the bow allows, not the entirety of it.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the attitude that anything which pings on the "evil-dar" is safe to smite is actually pretty well justified, in most cases.

I agree. However, by the wording of the spell, a Neutral or even Good aligned creature, who may be considering a terrible act upon a character, registers as evil, and at 5 HD, not 6.

So, the argument becomes, is it ok to kill a creature merely because it intended to do something bad? What if it can be stopped by diplomacy, or even by force. It shouldn't equal a death penalty in those situations. That is my only point.

But, I have spent too much time on the subject as-is, I leave it to others.

When I create my evil fortress of evil I'm going to carve "GO AWAY" on the front door so paladins can't enter.

Paladins are basically vampires in terms of entering homes uninvited, right?

Also "Go away" is not a plea for mercy.

"Please Leave" depending on how it is spoken, combined with the fact the creature did not retaliate after nearly being killed, can most certainly be a plea for mercy, or in the very least, an attempt to show one has no ill will.

If you walk into a room, regardless of where you are, and a creature makes no effort to resist and begs you to leave, and you instead choose to stab it in the face, repeatedly, until it dies. You are especially not acting like a paladin, nor someone with good alignment. That's it, game over.

But, as I said before, that's my and, well, everyone I've ever gamed with's opinion. There are always those who try to argue relative morality in Pathfinder, when it doesn't exist. Doing the above is wrong, just like torturing a captured prisoner is not something someone of Good alignment would want to do (but that's a whole new argument, right?).

The wererat saying "Please leave"* doesn't alter any of those facts.

If the GM expects the player to modify his actions, he should give the player new, additional information. Reasons to doubt what appear to be the prevailing facts.

I am in complete disagreement with you here. In fact, the actions of the wererat were already reason enough to provide doubt to the situation at hand. Why is this evil wererat not attacking? What is the story behind its presence? The player had enough information and, ultimately, it should be up to him/her to pursue those avenues.

In the end, I don't consider the paladin's actions bad for the game, and it could be a great rp opportunity and time for the DM to explain, by that DM's standards, the actions were not in line with the class as a simple warning.

In the end, this is all relative, right? Every DM, every player, sees alignment differently. I choose to see the paladin code as a class feature that differentiates the class, others think good warrior=kill anything that registers evil. Whatever works for your group is what matters. People should just be prepared to realize other groups may see things very differently.

Then by your own definitions, it would be an EEEEEEEVil wererat; since the wererat's killing of evil creatures makes it evil.

Even if it has good reason to believe them to be evil.

Especially if it does so multiple times.

Especially if it does so 'for convenience' (ie not having to go near human towns and risk the wrath of organised militia).

I did not say killing an evil creature makes someone evil. I am assuming here the wererat identifies as evil, as far as the spell detect evil goes. I used the goblin scenario to explain how, just because something "pings" as evil doesn't mean it has been doing what could be considered "evil" things. Killing goblins, wererats, or the like, is not--in and of itself--evil. Killing a foe who has made no effort to attack you and is pleading for mercy is evil.

I merely indicated how, by the tenants of good alignment and the Paladin class, the character was not acting like a Paladin.

A Paladin would never slaughter someone who has attempted surrender and could, possibly, be redeemed. And, according to expanded rules in Pathfinder #45 and Classic Horrors Revisited, there are ways to cure lycanthropy beyond the 3 day period. A paladin would attempt to talk to the creature, toss out a skill check, find out why it is there.

See, that's the difference between playing a LG Fighter, and playing a Paladin. A paladin takes the harder road, and is expected to do so, it is a class feature for Nethys' sake. If you want to play a knight, play a cavalier, or a fighter-cleric, do so. A paladin is neither of these, and anyone who makes an honest attempt to play the class properly, and not just for abilities, understands this.

You specifically use only the cover rules for ranged attacks when using a melee weapon for non-adjacent attacks.

It does not say "treat the attack as ranged." That is a big difference, it is only explaining how to calculate cover, not changing the type of attack you are making.

Thus, no, you can't use the feat, as the attack never classifies as "ranged." Your skin in the game is blinding you to the obvious.

You are ignoring, that through a respect for life, the paladin has a responsibility to protect innocent life.

I am not ignoring anything, I am presenting a scenario where the Paladin can do both. You are the one limiting him by ignoring a Paladin's capacity for compassion and redemption. Your interpretation is a one-dimensional killer who justifies his actions with vague spell wordings.

By RAW, what the Paladin does is in violation of one, but not the other. There is no evidence the wererat is a danger to innocent life. What if the wererat lives in a goblin cave and feeds on them to avoid killing "good" creatures? Or is newly infected and could be easily cured and hasn't done anything evil yet? Once again, killing something because it thought about doing evil is not "good."

It's a were rat, it CANNOT be redeemed. It CAN inflict others, and WILL kill others.... This doesnt require court or long deliberations.

So, if a party member contracts lycanthropy while fighting a den of them, it would be ok to kill that party member without guilt or debate? They would be, by your own standards, beyond redemption and inherently evil from that point forward.

You do not address the alignment facts presented, or my alternate scenarios, because they prove your assumptions are incorrect. There are multiple routes to cure/heal lycanthropy; if left alone, the creature may very well kill others, but that is not your only route.

Plus, your actions while afflicted or changed may be evil, but that does not make the creature evil, especially if it has no control of itself at those times. By that standard, a dominated creature is game to be killed merely because it has been dominated.

Again, detect evil ONLY tells you the creature has "evil intent," an incredibly vague phrase. It does not give you free rein to kill the creature. Again, by your standards, the wererat could be killed, merely because it was a wererat without the detect evil. Because, you know, creatures are never of different alignments.

It very well looks like the DM made a small mistake about Detect Evil. It is easily done, I could see the mistake being made. Even so, a creature detecting as having evil intent does not allow you to murder it.

From the SRD, under alignments:

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.

From the Paladin class description:

Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future.

Showing a lack of respect for life? Check

A vast majority of the Paladin class description deals with being a shining example of morality and discipline, walking the better path regardless of the difficulty, and, despite what others like Pendagast have implied, redemption is as much a part of a Paladin's goals as destroying evil, per the class description. Unredeemable evil should be destroyed, yes, but mindless destruction of one's enemies is NOT Paladin-like, regardless of your opponent's alignment.

If you want to be able to charge in and kill someone because your detect spell "pinged," you are playing the wrong alignment and class. Slaughtering a foe who has surrendered, with no evidence they have committed a crime, because they have "evil thoughts" is not something a good-aligned creature does. period.

In fact, by the vague wording of the detect evil spell, there are many scenarios where a non-evil creature, who happens to be considering an evil act, would come up as evil. For example, if the party was negotiating with a Neutral noble, who had decided to sell the party out to some evil syndicate because he believes it best for his city.

Would he detect as evil?
Is he evil?
What does that mean?
If a diplomacy check could change his mind, is he worthy of death?

What if the wererat was scared, and so was considering killing the PC's, or leading them into a trap? Did he commit a dirty thought crime?

The situation and the scenario matters, but in this circumstance, I struggle with seeing a good excuse for the Paladin's actions. He would lose his abilities for a short period (one gaming session or so) with a warning about thinking about his actions next time, something a Lawful character should be inclined to do anyway.