Richard McGuffin's page

Thanks for the input guys, good points to consider. While I was fishing around for ideas, I stumbled across a post from someone hinting at the existence of a bayonet weapon in the Dead Suns AP. I don't own it so I don't know the details but I'm thinking about picking it up now just to check out the rules for it.

Thanks again.

Any good house rules for characters who want to combine melee and ranged weapons in a bayonet type fashion?

This is both a crafting and tactical rules question.

This question about two 2nd level operative exploits interacting.

Alien Archive: Double your operative’s edge bonus to your skill checks when identifying a creature and its abilities.

Jack of all Trades: You can use all skills untrained, and you double your operative’s edge bonus when using a skill in which you have no ranks.

So my question is, how large is the bonus a 20th level operative with no ranks in mysticism gets from operatives edge when identifiing a creatures abilities?

+12 because it's essentially the same bonus type so it shouldn't stack.

+18 because two doubling effects are treated as a tripling.

or

+24 because two doubling a doubled number is really 4x who needs ranks anyway?

My thoughts are leaning toward the +18 but I'm searching for clarification.

Thanks in advance.

Richard McGuffin wrote:

Skill Focus bonus meant to count as Untyped or Insight?

Insight 100% sure - not stacking.

Raw this is correct, and I am inclined to agree, but there was an early quote from Seifter that put a big question mark on that. Do you have a link to a qoute from the designers to finalize that? If so I would appreciate it as it would settle a contentious point in my group.

This one post right after the original discovery of the accidental +4 to ghost has lead to more than one headache in my group.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ui01?Starfinder-Early-Impressions#42

It seems like these two issues were among the first to hit the forums and no one is willing to clearly state it one way or the other. The FAQ just went up so I'd prefer to give them week or two to get through Gencon and then FAQ this if it's still neccesary.

Operative: Ghost +4? y/n
Skill Focus bonus meant to count as Untyped or Insight?

Well, yes and no. Operative's Edge grants a +1 insight bonus to initiative checks and skill checks at 1st level. So, yes, you get +1 to all skill checks, but that doesn't stack with other insight bonuses, most notably those granted by the Skill Focus feat, which every operative gets to two skills (depending on your operative specialization) for free at first level.

Additionally, the bonus to skill checks won't stack with the Skill Synergy feat (depending on how you apply the feat), some 1st level skill boosts of other classes (if you choose to multiclass), and a couple spells.

So yeah, Operative's Edge is not a typo, and it is pretty good, but it's balanced by the fact it's difficult to stack skill bonuses from a bunch of different sources. Being competent at many skills is certainly an intended design aspect for the operative.

It has also been stated that Skill Focus was not intended to be an insight bonus. It is strongly suspected that when a FAQ is released in a few months that it will be changed.

Shouldn't the characters have either the arcane or divine skill? I just picked up the deck at my local store and none of the three characters can use spells (a significant portion of their decks). Is there an update I don't know about?

Please tell me there is (Fingers Crossed)

Sorry for the necro, but this was the thread I found with a similar headline so why start another right?

Question is: Does a creature hit by a Dazing Spell + Spiritual Weapon reset the daze counter when hit on consecutive turns? Assuming failed saves of course.

Kinda disappointing that slayers didn't get more love. I picked up the book mostly because it's a relatively new class with few options compared to classes that have existed longer. This product description advertised slayers archetypes along with all of the other classes that got several new options. Slayers only received one archetype.

From product description:
New archetypes for alchemists, bards, druids, hunters, inquisitors, investigators, mesmerists, rangers, rogues, slayers, spiritualists, and more!

The book does have lots of cool rp powers and and new ideas in it. I'm sure it will see use.

Slayers need love too :(

(Bringing the thread back to house rules)

Well, I wouldn't say its a house rule, but one of the most commonly ignored rules I see is the time required to use disable device on a trap.

In PFS and in home games. It's not something the GMs go out of their way to do, it just tends to not matter 90+% of the time. If you are checking for traps usually you have time to do so because there are no other immediate threats in the area. If there are no other threats, and you find a trap, it generally isn't worthwhile to track how long it takes to disable the trap. It just seems unnecessary. So without even discussing the idea of dropping the rule it just gets ignored because it is simply invalid and or inconsequential.

Does Hellcat stealth allow you to get of multiple SA a round? Don't you loose cover after your first attack accoridng to sniping rules?

Edit: not sure if they stack but combining Far Strike Monk and Monk of the Mantis might make for a good build.

It's a matter of some debate. There is a thorough discussion on here somewhere that I believe is inconclusive. It leaned toward requiring a move action after attacking to re-stealth in plain sight after attacking. However it was never completely clear if hiding actually required the move action. If I can find it I'll post it.

Found it

RaizielDragon wrote:

I have a rough concept/idea for a character that would use thrown weapons (shuriken, darts, small knives) and use something like Sneak Attack or poison or some method other than weapon dice and/or ability modifier as their main damage potential (though damage dice + ability mod are not unwelcome for extra damage potential).

I'm thinking some form of Ninja or Rogue might be most fitting, and I'm sure there are plenty of guides out there for ranged combat that can help me with choosing ranged combat feats (Point Blank Shot and up).

I'm just wondering if this is a feasible/workable character, and also wondering if there are any other suggestions on how to build such a character.

With a 3rd level in Ninja, you get an extra 1d6 SA Damage. With 1 level in Brawler with the Snakebite Striker Archetype, you will get another, then take a level in Alchemist with the Vivisectionist Archetype and get another.

Vivisectionist will not grant more SA dice than a Rogue of the same level.

Hmm wonder how long I shall hold the seat of power for.

Not long enough.

Thank you all for the responses. I haven't had a chance to check in on the thread since the posting. You have all given me alot to think about and I appreciate the various points of view.

It sounds like the best thing to do is have frank discussion with the GM and with the other players. If things remain the same I'll likely use retraining rules to shift build choices in favor getting additional re-rolls rather than static bonuses. I still enjoy the group and enjoy playing with them most of the time.

As stated in the OP I'm not sure how many other players are bothered by this practice so it is possible that I am not the only player who doesn't like this practice.

I'd like to point out a few things that varied during the thread that may not have been clear at first.

-The DC's are not raised all the time just when the GM wants it to be a slim chance This may result in only one scene per level (usually crucial story points involving things of custom design like BBEG, custom room environment; and has been applied to: Disable Device, Caster level Check, or Hardness Break DC etc)

-The GM is not Floating DCs for every player independently, the DC's are raised to the Best mod+15.

-This practice is not a secret. However It was not disclosed before the game began. It was implemented during the course of the campaign. I suspect, as a response to players specializing in specific tasks and achieving numbers clearly above the normal range. However the GM made no attempt to keep it secret from the players after they figured it out and asked the GM directly.

-I still don't support this position as it ignores all character build choices. Choices that were made by the player to benefit them.

Thanks again for for your responses, there are several perspectives on closely related topics I had not considered.

I play in a home game where the GM is very fair-minded (Most of the time). However there are times when the GM wants to up the challenge of the situation for I guess what they would call "story" or "drama". During these times the GM will adjust a DC to what he feels is a challenge for our characters. In practice this means taking account of our modifiers and setting the DC such that we can only succeed on a die roll of 15 or better.

What I find unfair about this is it completely ignores all of the choices and investments the player has made to improve that particular roll. For example if a player has Skill Focus, the bonus is disregarded because the number you have to roll on the die with or with out the feat is still 15. So while the feat helped get the player through many trials earlier in the game, when it comes to a time of "drama" say a "Boss Fight" the feat is not really beneficial at a time when the player probably needs it the most.

For the most part I've been quite about it and just been going along with it. What I would like to know is;

Does anyone else do this type of thing when they GM?

How common is this kind of thing in other/your home games?

If you witnessed this as a player what is the right thing to do?

PS: I'm not sure how many of the other players, if any, are bothered by this practice.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

hang on, if the whip is one handed you can quicken a kinetic whip and still generate a standard whip for your regular attacks, letting you dual wield with reach for a round, yeah? It costs three burn (assuming infusion specialization of 2 at level 8 applies to each whip so you only pay to quicken) but when it absolutely, positively needs to die this round...

Quicken doesn't effect whip at all. It's already part of another action. You would need to double it to get that effect, but it's definitely pretty devastating (granted you would need to take a bunch of feats you only use in that contingency, so potentially not worth it compared to making, say, an empowered composite whip instead).

When my whip guy came across a monster that just needed to die, he would either quicken a ride the blast and then full attack with the best boosts he had left, or, if he was already in melee, he would do something like empowered metal whip. Because empowering your full attack that hits for 13d6+13+Con+party buffs+Power Attack if he chooses (before the empower) per hit is fun. It's a lot of burn, though, so only when it really needs to die!

I' a little confused. How did the character get 13d6+13? Are we talking about a 19th level character here? The diadem only adds d6s. Sorry, still learning the ins and outs of the class.

Upon further inspection I'm even more befuddled. the diadem specifically states not to apply the extra damage dice from it to form infusions like K-whip. If the 13d6+13 is a result of the empower that would make sense to me. However I have no idea how you get that total before hand?

Torbyne wrote:

hang on, if the whip is one handed you can quicken a kinetic whip and still generate a standard whip for your regular attacks, letting you dual wield with reach for a round, yeah? It costs three burn (assuming infusion specialization of 2 at level 8 applies to each whip so you only pay to quicken) but when it absolutely, positively needs to die this round...

Quicken doesn't effect whip at all. It's already part of another action. You would need to double it to get that effect, but it's definitely pretty devastating (granted you would need to take a bunch of feats you only use in that contingency, so potentially not worth it compared to making, say, an empowered composite whip instead).

When my whip guy came across a monster that just needed to die, he would either quicken a ride the blast and then full attack with the best boosts he had left, or, if he was already in melee, he would do something like empowered metal whip. Because empowering your full attack that hits for 13d6+13+Con+party buffs+Power Attack if he chooses (before the empower) per hit is fun. It's a lot of burn, though, so only when it really needs to die!

I' a little confused. How did the character get 13d6+13? Are we talking about a 19th level character here? The diadem only adds d6s. Sorry, still learning the ins and outs of the class.

On page 15, it says that the blast wild talents are comprised of simple and composite blasts (or however the editors' exact wording goes; it's just above simple blasts), so gather power works just fine. Remember that metakinesis and infusions add to the blast's cost, so you can just add them in and then reduce them off. In your example, Infusion specialization 5 takes care of 5/6 of the infusions on its own, and supercharge handles the remaining 1 burn from infusions and 1 burn from composite (reduced by composite specialization), so you can do it all for no burn!

EDIT: Protoman is completely correct.

I just want to clarify that nothing reduces the burn cost of Utility Talents, correct? Because otherwise Kinetic Healer would be infinite healing.

So do you add full dex Double Slice for full dmg on your off hand?

I get a lot of mixed input on this. Looking for RAW.

Thanks.

Does unchained sneak attack stack with chained sneak attack? What if the enemy has concealment?

I think the unchained sneak attack dice get through and your standard dice do not. Of course neither type works against total concealment.

I've been proven wrong though, many many times.

Thanks Nefreet,

I guess that means Unchained Rogues cannot used any rogue talents from other sources not listed in the sidebar either then.

I feel I should mention this isn't about one version or another being a better choice. It is simply a rules limitation question regarding PFS.

Sorry if this has already come up before but I didn't see it anywhere.

In Society rules if a class like Investigator, Slayer, or Ninja has the option to choose a Rogue talent are they obligated to choose the original version of the talent, the unchained version of the talent or can they choose either one?

Also if they choose one type or the other does that mean the character has limited its future options to one type or the other?

Thank you in advance.

I never played sea witch but between the hexer's increased bonus to reduce difficulty, recharging pharasma, and cards that increase based on scenario number like Black Spot, our crew sailed through S&S with very few issues. Reducing the difficulty on Barriers played a big role in that game too.

Arcane trickster doesn't need an attack roll for sneak attack with surprise spell

Yep Sorry about that got ahead of myself. (faulty response removed)

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Interesting. The slayer document I sent over to editing had a list of slayer talents and advanced slayer talents (listed in the Slayer Talents and Advanced Talents sections for the class), and "feat" was one of the choices.

I think when I was working on this post, I fiddled with the wording and the end result is unclear. Let's try that again:

Interesting. The slayer document I sent over to editing had a list of rogue talents and advanced rogue talents (listed as additional options for the Slayer Talents and Advanced Talents sections for the class), and "feat" was one of the choices.

In other words, just like in the playtest, slayers selecting slayer talents were originally supposed to also have a list of rogue talents as options.

Sorry, folks, I have to correct myself again. (I blame my insomnia.)

The paragraphs about selecting rogue talents and advanced talents are in the final version of the book, they're just in a different place than they were in my Word document (in the Word doc, they were listed before the first talents). The only difference I'm seeing is that "feat" was an advanced talent choice in the Word doc but isn't now. So that must be why the vanguard lists "feat" as an advanced talent suggestion even though "feat" isn't on the final list in the book (it was in the earlier list, was removed at some point, but vanguard wasn't updated to account for that change).

By any chance is it possible that the original write-up for the vanguard archetype Vanguard's Bond ability was meant to grant a bonus equal to studied target and not the 1/2 value it received?

The reason I ask is it feels similar to the Ranger freebooter archetype. I was wondering if somewhere in the design processes when switching from the ranger bonuses to slayer bonuses the numbers dropped from +2 favored enemy to +1 studied target and were not meant to be halved again in the vanguard's bond ability.

Why does it take a million feats just to fake someone out?

Ha, thats nothing. Play a rogue and try to take something from an NPC. You might think your starting out with a skill check and end with CMB on a dex based 3/4 BAB character. Only to find out that the thing you are taking is subjectively not permissible by the GM. Good things Rogue's have never been known to do that kind of shady stuff.

/rant

Sorry had to get it out.

Havoq wrote:

The penalties do not stack with themselves, but additional attacks that deal sneak attack damage extend the duration by 1 round.

My concern with the class is that it's still feat starved, and very weak on saves. So, you spend a feat on propping up a save... well, you get the idea.

I had forgotten about the duration of the penalty stacking, which does help a little, but you still need to hit in the first place. If the odds of your first attack hitting are roughly 50% before flanking, then your not likely to also land iterative attacks to extend that penalty's duration.

The penalty initially only lasts for 1 round, so it most likely ends before you next turn unless you are lucky enough to land multiple blows in the same round.

Kudaku wrote:

Depending on how you use Major Magic, you should be able to apply the debilitating injury. True strike or vanish requires a round of setup but would otherwise work fairly well, I think?

I use shocking grasp, since it is much more likely to land a hit and thus penalize my foe.

I agree with Ravingdork, the new abilities are nice but they don't go far enough. The one consistent issue rogues have is the ability to hit. Giving the class an ability that activates after a hit is not an improvement on that front. It always comes down to the fact that any other 3/4 BAB class will have assets to help them hit. Burning a class ability like minor/major magic and taking a turn to cast a spell that ensures a single hit isn't good enough when you are back where you started the turn after the hit. The higher the level, the more apparent the absence of an attack bonus becomes.

The class needs a built in attack bonus. Period.

There is no guide. Everyone just says use a ranger build. Heres one of my preferred builds. Feel free to modify it how you want.

20 pt. buy

16,14,14,10,14,10

half-orc
Sacred Tattoo: +1 luck bonus to all saves
Chain Fighter: weapon prof Dire Flail

Traits: (i forgot the names but here's what they do)
+1 will, ignore armor check penalty by -1

1 Iron will
2 Two Weapon Fighting
3 Power Attack
4 Trap Finding
5 Weapon Focus
6 Improved Two Weapon Fighting
7 Furious Focus
8 Blood Reader
9 ??? Your Choice
10 Greater Two Weapon Fighting

*With this build your will save should keep up with your other saves until level 9 or 12 depending on how closely you follow it. your saves should always be around your level or higher if you keep up with the cloak of resistance.
*You should invest in a Mithral breastplate when you have the cash.
*Keep investing in Str as you level, alternatively add 1 to dex and pick up double slice for real damage.
*Carry a sling until you can buy a composite longbow.

You get a variety of attack options using the dire flail power attack and two weapon fighting. Few other classes can accomplish this. (fighter, ranger) With Studied target you can choose to balance out your negative modifiers a number of ways. When you pick up Blood Reader It really starts to pay off to have the math ready so you can choose the correct attack option and not suffer more penalties than you need to.

By level 6 your attacks should look something like this
(+6bab +3str +2studied target +1magic +1 weapon focus)

norm:+13/+8
PA: +11/+6
TWF: +11/+11/+6/+6
PA+TWF: +9/+9/+4/+4

Damage varies by 1 handed and 2 handed math, double slice is highly recommended and completely worth it when you can pick up.

Biggest drawback is the same as all TWF fighters, you spend twice as much on you weapon as anyone else. However your combat options reflect that.

Measured Response is definitely not a first choice on anyone's list. However, the simplest use for it is for characters with high damage variability. If you roll large die types(d10,d12), or large pools of dice (sneak attack) you can avoid the extreme low rolls that sometimes undermine your effort.

Possibly not the best use but if you have the "Blood Reader" ability from Slayer you can decide to use Measured Response to deliver the calculated amount removing chance from the equation altogether. You will know in advance if average is all you need or if average will fall short of your goal.

No to the first and yes to the second questions.

Clearly says intelligence for the ability, and nothing in the shaman gift says it alters that.

And the player would add intelligence once and (assuming you got the shaman power) wisdom once.

No real synergy there. If your intelligence modifier is large enough to be greater than your Wisdom when doubled, skip benefit of wisdom then. But that's a two level dip for no real payoff.

So you think that a character with the first two abilities would roll a knowledge check like this?

Int + Wis + ranks + d20?

Why would it replace one Int mod but not the other? Sorry I'm not that good with replacement effects but would like to understand whats going on here.

Hi guys, by RAW does this work?

Mindchemist 2 Perfect recall:
At 2nd level, a mindchemist has honed his memory. When making a Knowledge check, he may add his Intelligence bonus on the check a second time. Thus, a mindchemist with 5 ranks in Knowledge (history) and a +2 Intelligence bonus has a total skill bonus of +9 (5 + 2 + 2) using this ability. The mindchemist can also use this ability when making an Intelligence check to remember something.

Shaman Lore-Benefit of Wisdom:
Benefit of Wisdom (Ex): The shaman relies on wisdom rather than intellect to gain and retain knowledge. She can use her Wisdom modifier instead of her Intelligence modifier on all Intelligence-based skill checks.

Would a Character with these two abilities add double their Wisdom Modifier to Knowledge checks?

And would that also stack with the Shaman Lore Spirit Ability?

Monstrous Insight (Su): The shaman can identify creatures and gain insight into their strengths and weaknesses. As a standard action, the shaman can attempt a Knowledge skill check to identify a creature and its abilities (using the appropriate skill for the monster's type) with an insight bonus equal to her shaman level. Whether or not the check is successful, she also gains a +2 insight bonus for 1 minute on attack rolls made against that creature and a +2 insight bonus to her AC against attacks made by that creature. These bonuses last for 1 minute. The shaman can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Charisma modifier.

Does anyone else find it odd that "Telekinetic Finesse" lets you use Disable Device but none of the elements have Disable Device as a class skill? The reason this is particularly important is that you cannot use Disable Device untrained.

I really hope it gets a fix that in the final version. It offers a great concept, but it needs to be backed up with proper game mechanics.

By that logic doesn't that mean a Slayer who choose Ranger combat style at level 2 doesn't get the benefit of a Ranger Bonus Feat when he later takes two levels of Ranger?

I'm not really convinced this particular example of slayer rogue would result in a "redundant ability" either.

Would the same happen in a Investigator/Slayer combo? There would be no parent class to conflict with and each time the character selects the option it is coming from a different class. So no I don't see it as the character selecting the same talent more than once. It would be Slayer talent, Rogue talent, Investigator Talent.

If a character has enough levels in Rogue and Slayer the character could potentially select Trap spotter twice and get the same effective benefit again from sleepless detective. So the question is how many times would the GM have to roll? just twice or it is three times?

Rogue Talent: Trap Spotter (Ex)
Benefit: Whenever a rogue with this talent comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should be made in secret by the GM.

Sleepless Detective:Eye for Detail (Ex)

At 4th level, a Sleepless detective's keen eye for detail helps her notice hidden traps, doors, and clues. The detective is entitled to an immediate Perception check to notice such features whenever she passes within 10 feet of them, whether or not she is actively looking. This check should be made in secret by the GM. If the detective would already receive such a check because of an ability from some other source (such as the trap spotter rogue talent), the GM should roll the Perception check twice whenever the Sleepless detective is within 10 feet of a trap and use the higher result.

I am not sure that there is an exact quotable rule to answer this, but here are three reasons the answer is almost surely "no":

1. The first line of the sneak attack description (Rogue class ability) seems to preclude using it to strike items:

"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."

So, if you catch the opponent unable to defend, you strike that opponent's vital spot (not an object).

I challenge you to convince me that the opponent's armor or weapon is his "vital spot".

You mean beside a lich who uses an adamantine shield/sword/helmet as a phylactery? Point is when you do a normal sneak attack you are not required to explain the nature of your attack. The rules only require a a die roll. Any explanation is just flavor.

2. Consider that a sneak attack is an attack that uses your BAB+modifiers, while a Sunder is a combat maneuver that uses your CMB. While Sunder can be used in place of an attack, the very act of declaring the roll and deciding what to roll and what to add is different between sneak attacks and sunder attempts so it is clear that these are different things. Yes, CMB rolls are attacks, but they are handled differently.

You would need to convince me that this difference can be ignored completely before I would agree to adding sneak attack damage to any combat maneuver.

I'm tempted to buy into this except that sunder reads "if your attack is successful deal damage to the object normally." For some characters Precision Damage is part of their normal attack. For other characters precision damage is also sneak attack damage.

3. If you want to hit a shield that is lying on the floor, you make a sunder attempt vs. a very low AC (3, if it's a medium shield). But, except for that weird goblin feat, you CANNOT sneak attack a shield lying on the ground. Ever. Which means you can only do normal sunder damage to a shield on the ground. Now, if some guy picks it up and you manage to catch that guy when he cannot defend himself, you COULD attack the shield with a sunder attempt but it's AC goes up because the guy is carrying it.

If you attempt a sunder and hit the shield, why in the world would it make sense to do MUCH more damage to this carried shield than you could ever do when it was lying on the ground?

I don't think you could ever convince me that the shield is more susceptible to damage when being carried by an unaware guy than it is when it's just lying on the
...

I can't buy into this. You base your example on a rule that doesn't exist. There is no rule that says you cannot sneak attack the unattended shield. There is also no rule that says you can. The confusion is never clearly addressed. A character can sneak attack a construct made of Iron armor but we are never told its impossible to sneak attack the same pile of armor when it is not a construct.

I wouldn't use sneak attack on an object. But not because of anything you said here. I wouldn't do so because there rules don't exist for it as a definitive yes or no and I despise table variation.

Unless there is a rule to affect casting spells into water (which there could be but I don't know about) then if the caster has LoS there is no reason to believe the spell would not function as intended. If you don't think grease makes a floor slippery try taking a shower with baby oil on the bottom of the tub. No reason to over think it. Its only a game its called magic for a reason. The player is using a limited resource, its bought and paid for. No reason to hamper the game by trying to apply "real world" logic to a fantastical thing like magic spells.

There is a goblin feat that lets you use sneak attack on unattended objects. However, that does not "prove" that you can or cannot sneak attack an object. Until someone finds a clear definitive statement somewhere it is not RAW that you cannot sneak attack an object being held.

Goblin Vandal
Prerequisite: Goblin, sneak attack class feature.

Benefit: You treat unattended objects as if they were vulnerable to your sneak attack, but you only deal half as much damage as you would against an actual creature.

For instance, if you rolled 12 extra damage from the sneak attack you would deal an extra 6 damage to the object. This only applies when attacking unattended objects.

Couple Questions but first here is the important Text.

Ranger Combat Style (Ex): The slayer selects a ranger combat style (such as archery or two-weapon combat) and gains a combat feat from the first feat list of that style. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites. At 6th level, he may select this talent again and add the 6th-level ranger combat feats from his chosen style to the list. At 10th level, he may select this talent again and add the 10th-level ranger combat feats from his chosen style to the list.

Q) Can a character who chooses a different slayer talent at level 6 choose it at a later level or is the option gone forever?

Thing is most talents don't call out specific levels, so I'm not sure.

Just want to revisit the fact that the Elven Curved Blade is a two-handed weapon and therefore cannot be used with Slashing Grace.

Does that mean it can be used one-handed if it was down one size category?

thejeff wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?

More specifically, I believe Richard was suggesting bystanders speak up against it, not the woman. Or not just the woman at least. "f you stand by and do nothing", "the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone. "

I know he was. But that also implies that women are weaker than men. It is every bit as sexist as the people he's arguing against.

I found the Troll.

We already addressed your red herrings and I'm not going entertain your argument that helping a victim in a bad situation is sexist. If you want permission to harass women you are not going to get it from me. If you have anything constructive to say that adds to the conversation rather than derails it please do so. Up to this point you've only contributed one-liners that serve to detract. Don't be surprised if I ignore your future comments.

JurgenV wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Simon Legrande,

I know America has free speech so the harrassers are perfectly legal in their harrassment. My point, which you somehow missed, is that racists also have the same right to say what they like, even if its offensive, but as a society America has generally decided that racists who utilise this right are not nice people and socially shun them. Please explain why doing the same to people who are harrassing women with catcalls is a poor idea?

And as Lemmy has defended it

Lemmy wrote:

Kinda... That's part of what I'm talking about. But that's because IMO, causing someone to feel uncomfortable or annoyed is not enough of a justification for a behavior or action to be forbidden or even condemned.

I'm just pointing out that racism, and shouting racist things at random people in the street, is not socially acceptable and want him to explain why doing the same to women is ok in his mind. After all, if reacial minorities weren't out in public with their provocative skin tones, the racists wouldn't need to shout at them.

You choose your clothes not your skin

But you don't choose to be born a woman.

So unless you're really trying to make this all and only about the one woman who said she dressed provocatively and ignore all the others who didn't, then the clothes are irrelevant.

Even if it was about just her, wearing provactive clothes does not equal an invitation for Harrasment.

Richard McGuffin wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Richard McGuffin wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH

Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.

If you stand by and do nothing your are basically condoning the action by remaining passive. By not speaking up you are reaffirming the other persons inappropriate behavior.

If you speak up you are drawing attention to the fact that they are doing something that is not acceptable. The goal is not just to get the target to recognize their behavior as inappropriate/unacceptable but also to the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone.

So you think the women being cat called should be forced to speak up against it, even though they fear that may escalate things?

Not if it risks their safety.

Paul Watson wrote:

Lemmy,

Please stop defending the rights of a*#*$%$%s to be a+#$&!!!s without consequences. People have the right to be racist, sexist, homophbic wankers all they like. They don't have the right to be such and still be considered decent people.

Or would you defend the KKKs right to free expression, and to not be judged racist a~$#+**@s, as strongly as you are people who harrass women on the street? If not, please explain what the difference is.

This comment is almost too stupid to even acknowledge, almost. It looks to me like you've read every comment Lemmy has posted and are willfully misunderstanding them.

Everyone, in the US, has the right to speak freely regardless of the content of their message. EVERYONE. People who are a-holes are not free from the consequences of their stupidity, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a right to be a-holes.

What you said is absolutely true. To think that anyone here is saying anything different from that is truly dumbfounding.

Someone's right to and @$$hole does not exceed someone else's right to feel safe.

Richard McGuffin wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH

Except anyone who does it doesn't care what you think, in my experience.

If you stand by and do nothing your are basically condoning the action by remaining passive. By not speaking up you are reaffirming the other persons inappropriate behavior.

If you speak up you are drawing attention to the fact that they are doing something that is not acceptable. The goal is not just to get the target to recognize their behavior as inappropriate/unacceptable but also to the target of their behavior can benefit from that fact that they are not the only one who is aware and they are not alone.

I think the only viable approach is for the people(men) who aren't actually jerks to not just not participate, but to actively call out the harassment.

TRUTH

Richard McGuffin wrote:

Also although you cannot take 10 on a UMD check there is no penalty for failure when activating a wand or other spell trigger item and may continue to attempt the check until you succeed assuming you are not pressured to do so. The DC is only 20 so just make sure you are training in it and you are good to go.

That last bit isn't quite accurate.

Use Magical Device wrote:

Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge.

Action: None. The Use Magic Device check is made as part of the action (if any) required to activate the magic item.

Try Again: Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.

Special: You cannot take 10 with this skill. You can't aid another on Use Magic Device checks. Only the user of the item may attempt such a check.

Good point. I guess I missed that. Thanks.

::walks off to have friendly chat with player from the other weekend.::

It would be a waste of gold to buy a wand for this reason.

It depends on the situation. If you're playing in PFS and the +5 can give you the best possible outcome. (150gp) then the wand will pay itself off at the end of 5 sessions. Only 1 casting required. I have seen a few alchemist in PFS use the spell on their check at the end of the night so it is legal.

If you seek a reference you can find it in the "Organized play Guide" it is a free download. It specifically calls the spell out as being one of the few way to increase your check.

OPG:
"Permanent bonuses from equipment, feats, racial
bonuses, and traits affect your Day Job check as they would
any check for the rolled skill, but temporary bonuses
such as those granted by spell effects, other than crafter’s
fortune, do not contribute, as the duration over which
the Day Job check is made is undefined and represents
a longer amount of time than a spell’s duration would
permit the bonus to remain. You may take 10 on a Day Job
check, but you may not take 20 nor can you aid another."

Also if you want to start earning gold of the wand from the start you can spend 2 prestige points and get a level one wand for free.

Also although you cannot take 10 on a UMD check there is no penalty for failure when activating a wand or other spell trigger item and may continue to attempt the check until you succeed assuming you are not pressured to do so. The DC is only 20 so just make sure you are training in it and you are good to go.

Wow! Thanks for doing all the research guys.

I guess there is a lot of variance within headbands and how they can be worn. It'll just have to remain in one of those categories of things subject to highly situational modifiers and not guaranteed to be easy, hard, or even impossible. Sometimes that as clear as the rules get and you just have to deal with it.

Thanks again guys I appreciate the effort.

If planning on using this against a player, don't expect it to work more than once. After the first gotcha, every player in the campaign will specify they are using a secured helmet.

Being in the rules forum I assume anything that works well for me might eventually get used against me, be it as a player or a GM. I'm just trying to find out what is considered a fair ruling on either side. Like I said It would be nice if it works well but not too well.

On the other hand as has been pointed out there doesn't seem to be much use for the steal maneuver in general.