STraveler's page

Floyd, with all due respect, someone gave you a link where SKR stated that, essentially, if everyone that is responding to you is saying one thing, then you are to trust that statement and, "not insist on an "official answer" from the staff."

In case you missed it or didn't bother reading it: SKR's statment.

Everyone that has responded to you has told you exactly how the rule works. You're not going to get an "official answer" because you've already gotten the answer for almost two whole pages. TWF+FoB does not stack.

There was even a huge argument between the developers and the players BECAUSE the developers stated that FoB was TWF with extra restrictions and required two weapons. This was only later changed to allow one weapon after a lengthy debate, and even then it's still TWF.

Medicine is just poison used to heal. At least, that's what I've known doctors to say.

I'm set, unless you need anything else from me.

Do we know what advances we have to start with? I thought there was contention over that.

Moidel? Duntra? Everiel? Dria? Aevus?

Awesome! Thank you. When will the game start?

:: laughs :: Thank you? 'Twas the GM's idea, however. I also considered Naga, Drakes, and Jabberwockies at various points, but alas.

Er, crud. Sorry. I had reformatted my drive unexpectedly, and so my notes were lost. I had to pull it from my previous entry. It will be edited in a second.

Here is the tribe revised with a different predator, advisor, and an addition of small children often riding backs of colony members. Cassarah has a trait. I honestly didn't see any of the other traits from the other categories that I have access to fitting her.

Bah... The traits I selected were from the same category, which is what I'm assuming the 'type' is. I'll need to reselect. I may only take one or go back to taking none.

You can select a race that someone else has already selected. You just need to make a tribe as per the GM's rules, and he'll select everyone. You can find what he wants on page 3, and what classes you can be on page 2 of this thread.

Are they also a level 2 PC class with a 20 pt buy?

I was not expecting, rather.

Do you want an adviser as well? I was expecting one in how this tribe operates, but I could add one easily.

I still need to give Cassarah traits, then. I'll post her again with the alignment change and new traits.

Cool. Playing up on starting with a blur between understanding sentience and non-sentience could further play into the fact that their whole mindset may seem alien to a lot of races. We'll assume Cassarah is LN, then.

More than likely the non-sentient. I kind of viewed them as being relatively new to this whole, 'not mindless vermin,' thing, however. I'm fine with modifying the alignment as you see fit.

I saw that as I was developing them. However, I couldn't see putting them as 'good' because they can and will eat other sentient creatures. Just... not in an angry or perverse way and more of a, 'this is how we survive' kind of way. Similar to how actual spiders would view a fly. The life of one sustains another. There's no malice in it, and it's really the only way to redeem a betrayal.

Edit: And, you know, a penchant for poisons. Not always seen as a 'good' thing.

We can take out the Rocs, then. We can do Wyvern, Drakes, or both. We can add Naga in as well, if you want. They are cannibalistic, and will consume other sentient creatures, but they don't have a word for cannibalism. To them, it's just a sacrifice (in their colony) or eating as normal to other creatures. Sacrifice if it's a leader of another species that betrayed them (though I'm not planning to run around trying to cause problems or eat other players/tribes). It's a little more... I guess, noble, than that in their view.

One last thing, and then I will put forth my opening idea: Are legal archetypes allowed? Such as a Beastmaster Trapper Ranger? Or are we limited to standard classes from the previous list?

Will our leaders alignments shift over time as the trials of the world change them, or will they be relatively set in stone?

Oh, Thank you. It sounded like that was the kind of GM you were and where you were going with it, but I wanted to confirm, since I know there'd be no way I'd make it home in time otherwise.

Is it a first come, first serve basis, or will you be picking from those that sign up based on their idea?

That's good. Because I've been doing a lot of research (if Driders are on the table, and yes I understand they are a 35rp race and am fine with being level adjusted 2 levels from 1-5 and 1 level from 6-10, as per how page 220 (ARG) seems to imply) and am putting together a 'how these people might survive' for such a tribe. However, I do admit I'm having a hard time putting together a culture, and therefore a general alignment.

So will a lot of that be expected to develop over the course of the game?

About how much liberty will you allow us with the various 'tribes'? For instance, would a normally 'all evil' race be allowed in your brand-new world as mostly neutral with some evil?

I would like to know as well, as I won't be home for another 30 minutes to an hour after the specified start time.

I would like to do Driders as a race that adheres to the more primal side of nature. In the beginning, I see many of them as being druids (especially feral, if allowed), witches, rangers, and fighters (with maybe a few anti-paladins). Familiars and animal companions are often vermin, and alchemy is a common profession, while scholarly pursuits (at least at first) are a bit harder to come by.

Their society will be very 'look out for everyone,' in a way, similar to social spiders. I see them as building their houses from up to down in outcroppings (overhead or otherwise), along waterfalls, or in trees and caves.

Their leadership is a combination of strength and legacy, with anyone able to try to be a leader, but the leaders are usually people considered higher up in society. Leadership would be for life, or until you ticked enough people off that they all revolted and ripped off your head and consumed your body (the only proper way to deal with someone who has betrayed you, obviously). Leadership is generally an unspoken agreement of the colony or quickly decided in mass gatherings, but may come down to challenges that often result in someone dying.

I have some ideas for how they choose the acquisition of territory and diplomatic relationships, but don't really want to go into that, as for all I know I may actually make the sign-ups in time.

I could see them following a few possible deity ideas, such as a deity of poison and medicine. Probably a spider god somewhere in there, but that may not be their main deity.

I apologize for dwelling on this, but do you know about what time of day you would start recruiting?

Do you know about how many people you will be taking?

I would be greatly interested, and willing to play any race, honestly, if there is room for one more.

Edit: Especially if I could be Tengu or Driders from the ARG.

At the bottom of the Druid entry, it will discuss exactly what Druid animal companions get. Nowhere is a template listed. You don't get templates just for leveling up, nor does the animal companion get class levels, even if Hero Lab allows it.

Further, from the official prd Half-Dragon entry:

Half-dragons are only rarely the result of dragons mating with other creatures—most are the result of strange magical experiments. In most cases, a successful creation breeds true with others of its kind, as with the dreaded dracolisk.

Creating a Half-Dragon

“Half-dragon” is an inherited or acquired template that can be added to any living, corporeal creature (referred to hereafter as the base creature). A half-dragon retains all the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

Technically, yes, it can be applied to anything. But it is either inherited from birth, or it was in some way placed upon the creature. Unless your Druid was given some crazy weird power by nature or did some ritual without you knowing, I cannot think of any way he gave that template.

Further, your the GM. If you say no, it's no.

EDIT: Fixed a spelling error. Because I'm nit picky.

From the PRD:

"Witch Hunter (Ex): While raging, the barbarian gains a +1 bonus on damage rolls against creatures possessing spells or spell-like abilities. This damage bonus increases by +1 for every four levels the barbarian has obtained. A barbarian must have the superstition* rage power to select this rage power."

Does this mean that at level 4, when you could take the rage power if you didn't take 'Extra Rage Power' at level 3, that you would have +2 damage, or +1?

I could see arguments for both.

STraveler wrote:

BigJohn42 wrote:

I was looking at Elemental Fist as a separate question, since they are two separate abilities. That has nothing to do with the cestus question, since nowhere in Elemental Fist states that it has to be an unarmed attack.

Okay. I apologize then.

Apology accepted. I'm really glad this isn't devolving into some kind of flames. I really hate when that happens.

Yeah. Quasi-healthy, possibly passionate debate == awesome.

Cestus shouldn't refer to "unarmed" attacks at all. Just strike "unarmed" and "rather than nonlethal damage" from its description and it'll be clear than monks don't use their unarmed damage with this weapon, it always does the listed damage.

Hmmm... Well, I don't think it's that big of a stretch to consider a cestus capable of Scorpion striking either. Apparently this is a nuance that, in light of SKR's statement, probably needs to be addressed.

Though I always saw the cestus as a weapon a fighter would take so he didn't have to use an amulet of mighty fists to have enchanted fists but still fight unarmed.

It seems a case of RAW being confusing, and RAI being that the Cestus shouldn't be the default weapon on monks, so it doesn't work with unarmed attacks.

I'm sorry, but I really disagree here. They describe a cestus as:

The cestus is a glove of leather or thick cloth that covers the wielder from mid-finger to mid-forearm.

That's closer to a regular punch than a gauntlet, and is only a bit less unarmed than a brass knuckle. Both the gauntlet and brass knuckles are also considered unarmed strikes.

Considering the cestus speaks of unarmed strikes multiple times in its entry, RAI seems much closer to it being considered an unarmed attack.

STraveler wrote:

I was looking at Elemental Fist as a separate question, since they are two separate abilities. That has nothing to do with the cestus question, since nowhere in Elemental Fist states that it has to be an unarmed attack.

Okay. I apologize then.

PRD wrote:

While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage.

You are considered armed when wearing cestus, due to the bolded part above. It doesn't really get any clearer than that.

Okay. Then explain to me one thing:

If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage.

If a cestus attack is not considered an unarmed attack, what is the purpose of this line?

I fail to see how the Elemental Fist entry means that a cestus attack isn't considered an unarmed attack and how it wouldn't work with Scorpion style.

I ask that if you are using that to prove your point, please explain the connection.

STraveler wrote:

PRD wrote:

While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage.

So if the cestus isn't an unarmed attack, does this mean that if I hit someone with my knees I can consider my knees piercing? An attack with a cestus is still an unarmed attack, but it deals normal damage and doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

That being said, it will work with Scorpion style.

I think it's reasonable to assume that, in order to use the qualities of a weapon, you would have to attack with the weapon. A dual-wielding fighter with a club (bludgeoning) and a dagger (piercing/slashing) doesn't get to make all of their attacks as bludgeoning when fighting a skeleton (who has DR 5/bludgeoning). Basic logic dictates that kneeing someone wouldn't be considered piercing because of something you were wearing on your hand. Similarly, that knee attack would be considered unarmed, and be eligible for monk damage (or Scorpion Style).

If a cestus attack was considered unarmed, then the monk would be able to do their unarmed damage with them... and there wouldn't be the specific language stating that you are, in fact, armed. A monk can use Scorpion style while wearing cestas, just like they could while holding a quarterstaff... they just can't use those weapons for the attack

Yes, but in the cestus description, it directly states that if you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed attacks can be piercing or bludgeoning.

I would assume that would mean a cestus attack is considered an unarmed attack. But according to you, it is not. So if I assume you are right, then that line either is a horrible, horrible mistake, or that as long as I am proficient with a cestus, any unarmed attack I make can be piercing.

Much like it is common sense to assume that if I dual wield a dagger and club, I only pierce with a dagger and only bash with the club, it appears common sense to assume that the cestus is an unarmed attack. Otherwise, why would they talk about unarmed attacks at all in the cestus entry?

While wearing a cestus, you are considered armed and your unarmed attacks deal normal damage. If you are proficient with a cestus, your unarmed strikes may deal bludgeoning or piercing damage.

So if the cestus isn't an unarmed attack, does this mean that if I hit someone with my knees I can consider my knees piercing? An attack with a cestus is still an unarmed attack, but it deals normal damage and doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons are designed to fit comfortably around the knuckles, narrowing the contact area and therefore magnifying the amount of force delivered by a punch. They allow you to deal lethal damage with unarmed attacks... Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them.

Brass knuckles directly state that they use Monk unarmed damage. They also are considered unarmed attacks, but you aren't considered armed while using them.

But even if the Aasimar is supposed to be better than the Core Races (CR1/2 instead of 1/3 -- a poor design choice), it's still better than the Tiefling which is EXACTLY the same as an Aasimar in Fluff.

They are CR 1/2 (just like the Tiefling, Hobgoblin, and Tengu) because the base stat block given is a PC class and not an NPC class. An NPC class Aasamir would be CR 1/3, like a goblin. You know, since they aren't majorly powerful like a Svirfneblin or Drow Noble or horribly weak like a Kobold (which gets a -3 docking to NPC CR). NPC class CR == HD-2. PC class CR == HD-1, roughly.

Also, Tiefling sorcerers effectively get to ignore their charisma penalty for sorcerer casting/abilities via Fiendish Sorcery. Not huge, but notable since they still get +2 Dex and Int.

Not realy that wild of idea

So an ability that has absolutely nothing to do with damage dice should increase damage dice of another ability?

Agian same point not that wild of and idea

I fail to see how that is the same point as my previous point, considering that the previous example doesn't share the same similarities.

STraveler wrote:

Granted, the Ranger or Druid ability don't say they stack. I could argue that you have to use one or the other. Much like if you have a natural bite attack of 1d2 and get the Barbarian rage bite attack of 1d3, it would be silly to say you should have a collective bite attack of 1d4 (or whatever the next step up is). Use one or the other.

Again same point not that wild of and idea several spells and feat do that exact same thing.

How is this at all the same point I previously made?

Cover in the 4 th post... and let them stack as far as casting defesively still not that wild.

No, that wasn't covered in the fourth post. That was me essentially saying, with your logic, if I had three levels Bard, three levels Wizard, and three levels Druid that my caster level for determining the capabilities of my spells and for qualifying for feats should be 9. I'd only have access to second level wizard spells, but my damage dice and ranges would increase because I have 9 levels of caster classes. If you don't like the comparison, I can make that 3 Bard/3 Sorcerer/3 Wizard, as they are all arcane casters.

It is a flaw in the game that need to be fixed which is why pointing out. So It can be fixed. Like ton of other threads out there.

Actually, it's a mechanical aspect you don't like. A flaw implies something is broken/unbalanced, lacks a ridiculous amount of sense, or is vague/not discussed. A defect.

The Wizard: Necromancer channel, the Oracle of Life channel, the Cleric channel, and the Paladin Channel are all different abilities. They don't stack. Personally, I'm fine with that. Especially with the differences that the Necromancer channel and Paladin channel have in relation to the Cleric channel.

So are you also saying, by extension of them both channeling negative energy, that my Clerics Channel Negative Energy should increase in total dice based on my Wizard level?
Considering the Wizard ability has nothing to do with damage/heal dice, that seems absurd.

Also, the Ranger and Druid Wild Empathy is the exact same ability. It uses the exact same mechanics save one uses Ranger level and one uses Druid level. All other abilities that do stack follow suit or directly say they stack (that I know of).

Granted, the Ranger or Druid ability don't say they stack. I could argue that you have to use one or the other. Much like if you have a natural bite attack of 1d2 and get the Barbarian rage bite attack of 1d3, it would be silly to say you should have a collective bite attack of 1d4 (or whatever the next step up is). Use one or the other.

Otherwise having levels in Druid, Bard, and Wizard should make my caster level equal to my total class levels for feat qualification and spell capabilities. After all, they are all called caster level and your caster level is only dependent on how many levels in a casting class you have.

Either way, the official ruling is that they don't stack. If that's a problem, let them stack in your games. Or ask your GM if they could stack. Or don't play a Paladin/Cleric in a PFS game.

But its uses per day are not 'x times per day.' It's 'two uses of Lay on Hands.' It's directly related to Lay on Hands. The Cleric's channel isn't. It's not the same ability. So why should it stack? While an arguably small change, it's still a change. Much like the Necromancer Wizard's Channeling probably and shouldn't stack with a Clerics channeling for determining how many undead the Necromancer can take control of.

EDIT: Took out second paragraph after rethinking it.

Keep in mind, Paladins' uses of Channel are based on the uses of Lay on Hands they have left. So it's not the same ability when you really think about it. The Cleric Channel is a whole separate ability to itself, and the Paladin Channel is directly linked to/from Lay on Hands.

Might I recommend the Gravewalker Witch archetype in Ultimate Magic?

It uses a small doll as a familiar and has abilities to directly control undead. It might add a bit of a voodoo vibe to her, which may or may not work for what you're going for.

Half-orcs. Flavor-wise, I just find them too awesome. I love the savage aspect to them that's mixed with the possible social stigma. Mechanical wise, no real downside to them. Also, it was hilariously fun to play a half-orc sorcerer that walked around either growing claws or carving people with a great axe.

Thank you. I had already went back and read it, but I had always interpreted it as the level the spell was prepared on, not the base level of the spell itself, which in retrospect was probably silly.

Happy gaming to you, too. Thank you.

I didn't think you were being a jerk. I think you were being unreasonable. And I still do.

I can see how what I said would be viewed as that. I realize the wording on my part was horrible. All I was intending to ask for was for what Lipto did. He re-explained it and it was made more clear.

However, it's easy to assume that you did think I was being a jerk, especially with your own reaction which was quite jerk-like.

Granted, calling my statement unreasonable wasn't jerk-like and would have led to me to reconsider what I said. As it did.
But I realize that many people aren't used to other people being able to take direct criticism.

STraveler wrote:

Can we get a double confirmation on this?

A "double confirmation"? Seriously? Wow. Just...wow.

I apologize. It wasn't my intention to be disrespectful or to imply that Mr. Reynolds was wrong. After reviewing it, I saw what I misread (my mind ended up skipping over a sentence in one of the prior posts), but at the time it seemed like the statement he made was contradictory.

Can we get a double confirmation on this? Because I always thought that you simply didn't have spell slots at all unless your casting stat was equal to 10 plus the spell level you were wanting to cast at...

Isn't that why armies don't historically have super master-crafted equipment?