I came across 1.1. somehow (https://paizo.com/download/PZO2102%20001-029-1.pdf), but can't find 1.2.
Search Posts
I initially wanted to create a Gnome Paladin of Brigh (Clockwork lady come to life), but she's a neutral diety and therefore (as I understand it) can't have paladins. I was trying to make a distinctly Gnome paladin. Gnomes are often chaotic, but they often pursue chaos *through* order, i.e. science or arcane arts. Even humor is built upon understanding laws, and bending them. The principle I wanted to play with was that well-structure machines give rise to innovation. "Life births from Machines," be they clockwork like Brigh, or natural like Gozreh, or arcane like Nethys. But of course all those deities are neutral, hence they don't have paladins, and hence my dilemma. If we knew the diety that give Brigh her divine spark in the first place (if that's what happened), that would be a good candidate, *except* I imagine it would likely be a chaotic aligned diety. Bummer. So I'm looking for a diety that fits this Gnome's concept. The obvious options to consider are
This post was initially super long so I just rewrote it, but important things to add: Gnome has 7 int. So whatever the motto is, it has to be one this simple Gnome can grasp.
I want to be able to hint to my players that a splinter group of thieves are actually noble group of secret agent good-guys. One way to do this would be to have one of the thieves be a paladin who could bust out recognizable paladin powers. The lay-on-hands and cha-bonus to AC would be especially useful if the PCs are about to TPK this underpowered but information-rich NPC group. The idea is to give the players a hint, but not give the NPC group plot-armor. So I want to have at least one of this crew be a paladin, but I feel the traditional paladin class will have to be changed a bit. It's important to me that these NPC thieves be more like stealthy thieves and not brutal bandits. I'd also like them to appear more scrappy and under-dog esque, because while they may be cool and involved in dire work, they won't succeed without the players. So I was thinking about some hybrid between paladin and rogue, or paladin and monk. I feel that for a paladin to tolerate being among thieves he'd have to be very quite and subdued, minding his own business and trying to get away with acts of goodness as much as he was able hoping his fellow thieves didn't object. This would mean spending much time helping or healing others on the fringe, and spending more time within himself rather the engaging with the corrupt world around him. I don't expect this character was formally trained as a paladin, but that he came to this path naturally and spontaneously due to his own nature and devotion. This is the whole 'unexpected underdog' thing. And for that reason I'm imagining a character more like a monk. But a paladin who can do sneak attack damage would definitely surprise players and give them something to gawk about, and often times I think that's basically half the job of the GM. Am I overthinking the need to make a fusion class? Could I realize this character concept simply through multi-classing a paladin, monk, and rogue? Or is there a vigilante archetype I should consider?
So is the alternate racial trait "not that useful," or "completely useless" in PFS? For example, could I obtain an item at character creation, and just say that my character crafted it? Or if I use a craft(weapons) skill for my dayjob check and earn X gp, could I use that X gp to purchase a weapon and just say that my character crafted it?
How about this interpretation: A staff can function as a weapon (i.e. staff or cudgel), but not a *masterwork* version of that weapon? That would preclude most permanent magical enhancements, if indeed that's what the designers wanted to do (and I don't know that it is). I'm bumping this thread as well, and also asking the following question:
Thank you both, so I understand that if (in PFS) my character purchased an int-boosting item that also came pre-programmed with a language... ...well, wait. So does the headband only have 1 language, or does it have 20, and they're each unlocked as the character levels up? Does the player chose these, or roll randomly? And say my character already had 2 ranks in linguistics and had used his racial ability to learn 4 new languages. When he gets an int-headband at (say) level 7, how many new languages does he learn, assuming the "pre programmed" language(s) is not one he already knows? His ranks in linguists go from 2 to 7, which is a change of 5 ranks. Does he learn 5 new languages instead of the 10 he'd learn from investing ranks naturally? Or does he learn 7 languages, because they were pre-programmed into the headband, and he has sufficient ranks to unlock them?
Suppose a character has a racial trait that allows them two languages whenever they level up linguistics, and then give them a headband that boosts int, and provides ranks in linguistics. Are the languages pre programmed into the headband, or does the user learn the languages they want, as allowed by their racial ability? Once the languages are chosen, say the user removes the headband, and then puts it on again. Will the headband have to re acclimate to the user? Does the headband then have the same languages pre programed into it for that user, or does the user get to choose again?
Apparently there are rules for creating weapons in the Weapon Master's Handbook, and the sample weapons using that system include a gnome flick mace.
Gnome Flick-Mace
I don't think the op still cares now that it's almost three years later. I would like to say for anyone still reading this thread, all of my advice that was correct when posted is now illegal due to rules changes. SLAs no longer allow archance strike, and pcs are unable to get final embrace thanks to requirement changes. Yeah thanks for the update. I was wondering. Can Produce Flame still work well with Unarmed Strikes and Flurry of Blows?
When did Master Tinker become legal?!? Anyways, Campaign Clarifications clarifies that it's an exclusive gun buyers club, not crafting. Source? I admit I'm not adept at finding all this rule stuff. How do you guys find 'em? I'd much rather be able to find this stuff myself rather than embarrass myself on the forums. Master Tinker is from the Advanced Race guide, and as per the "Additional Resources" page (which could be made more user friendly), I read the following: "Gnomes: all alternate racial traits, racial subtypes, and favored class options are legal for play; all racial archetypes except experimental gunsmith are legal for play; all gnome equipment, feats, and spells are legal for play; all gnome magic items except amazing tools of manufacture are legal for play; Ring of craft magic may be used for Day Job checks." Also on that page, "The following two feats function differently in Pathfinder Society Organized Play than they do in regular games:
Why is that 1 rank in Craft [alchemy] required? To me, it seems intuitive that it's in homage to the fantasy of what's happening. Pathfinder Society is first and foremost a fantasy role playing game, right? Similar to using Craft checks for day-job checks. Is not the lore that one is actually crafting items and selling them?
I've been scouring the forums and not finding answers. Ultimately, I've decided to look to the double chained kama and the meteor hammer in order to figure out how the weapon worked. The rope dart and sansetsukon also come into play. The sickle is a kama, and can be used as a kama, and can also be thrown to make a single reach atrack, as either a melee or thown attack. That means one can use weapon finesse with it, and can attack at range using dex as well. When attacking at range, the weapon is not considered a double weapon, as per the double chained kama description. It can still be used as a reach weapon with flurry of blows, similar to a rope dart, and the errata that a monk can use a single two handed weapon as part of a flurry of blows. When being used as a reach weapon, I would apply 1.5 x str Mod to damage, as one would with the sansetsukon and the meteor hammer. It's a two handed reach weapon. When being used as a double weapon, it's more akin to using two separate weapons. I would let the player designate which weapon is in the primary hand. When attacking at range with the ball end, the kama provides a plus 1 shield bonus to AC, as described in the meteor hammer description, and in the kusarigama section where the kama end is described as being used to block. The kama and ball ends can be used in similar ways, except the ball end can also be used to grapple, but does not provide a shield bonus when the kama is being used as a reach weapon. The kama does more damage than the ball end. The kama does slashing damage, while the ball does bludgeoning damage. What do you guys think? Is that a fair interpretation, given the ambiguity of the kusarigama description, and the text of other weapons that are described similarly? Edit. Looking at the iconic ninja, she does not apply weapon finesse to the kusarigama, and holds the sickle in the off hand. It would seem that the ball does more damage than the sickle, which is in line with the table entry, of S/B. But if the sickle is a light weapon being held in the off hand, then it should be eligible for weapon finesse.
That was actually incredibly helpful! I hadn't considered subdomains before, and I found an Oceans subdomain of water that fit my concept pretty well. I've ended up with the Oceans and Weather domains which actually seem to fit well with Shimye-Magalla, an amalgamation of Gozreh and Desna from Sargava. "It’s generally known that Shimye-
Good new aside, I'm still interested in the original topic, of legal and effective ways to make use of the 'speak to animals' cleric ability.
I've read that the Gunsmithing feat allows players in PFS to buy some types of primitive firearms at full price (if they have the appropriate level of fame). My question is about the lore surrounding this. Are players with the Gunsmithing feat part of a special "you can buy guns" club, or are they supposed to have crafted the weapon themselves, paying the full price in materials and time used? This would matter to a gnome with the Master Tinker alternate racial trait.
On the subject of asymmetric design, I understand that when applied to the different classes, but to the races? Actually, now that I think about it, I guess so. It's in line with the original DnD where not all races could be all classes. It's also a good reason to explain why the core races began cooperating so much: Each had something the others needed in order to survive and thrive. That said, would the game be worse if we could make more interesting gnome fighters be more effective?
It seems like it'd be so much easier to just treat all the Gnomes of Golarion weapons as gnome weapons. Or maybe make other races take feats in order to be able to craft them, or to reduce the DC for crafting them. Anything to make them more available to gnomes than to other races. Any word on the decision behind why the weapons in the Gnome book weren't gnome weapons? Was that intentional, or was it an oversight?
That sounds cool. The Gnome Flick-mace sounds like just that. So would a hammer that can be used as an anvil. Or a flute that's a spoon.
It seems that a Cleric with the Animal Domain can't really make much use of his ability without also having around pet animals who are already inclined to obey or cooperate with him. Is this true? What's involved in obtaining these pets, and readying them to be of use? And how, then, can I use them? Preferably, I'm looking for options that could fly in PFS. A LITTLE RESEARCH
The spell takes a standard action and verbal and somatic components, and "A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise." Speaking is a free action. "Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action." "Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request." QUESTIONS
2. What would it take to use this ability in combat? A standard action to trigger the ability, and a free action to speak to the animal, or a move action, as with handle animal? 3. Would this ability provide any help in training an animal? IDEAS
I could ask: "What may I call you?" which could make it easier to issue commands later. Perhaps useful for an animal I have just come into contact with. These things, at least, would be universally allowed by just about any GM. Beyond this I'm uncertain.
I'm late to return to the thread, but I really want to offer a great THANKS to everyone involved. On the gnome side of things, I've gathered that > Adoptive Parentage (gnome) racial trait replaces human bonus feat. Grants extra languages (gnome and sylvan) and weapon familiarity (gnome hooked hammer, at the very least). For a fighter, this frees up exotic weapon proficiency. > Racial Heritage (gnome) feat lets you count as a gnome for the purpose of taking feats and archetypes and whatever else. It provides no other benefits. > Gnome Weapon Focus might be a feat that a human with racial heritage (gnome) could take, and as far as I can tell, it'd stack with weapon focus. > Ancestral Weapon Mastery requires a weapon familiarity racial trait, which Adopted Parentage grants. It grants proficiency with the familiar weapons, and Weapon focus with one of the weapons if you're already proficient in them. Potentially replaces Weapon Focus. On the subject of archetypes, I did some research and found that a Free-style Fighter archetype gets the Brawler's martial flexibility. The flexibility seems promising, assuming I could use a gnome snarl shield for disarming, a flail pole, gnome hooked hammer, or battle ladder for tripping, and a piston-maul for sundering.
Discussing new gnome weaponry sounds like a great topic, and in fact there's an alternate racial trait that lets the gnome be proficient with any weapon he or she makes, practically encouraging a player to make something new, provided the GM allows it. If that sounds OP, I suppose it's limited by the fact that the gnome has to craft it his or herself, and that takes time. The time could be reduced if one makes a weaker or broken version of the weapon. Or if the GM lets the player treat the new quick invention as an improvised weapon. But alas, often rules get in the way, less GMs come to the rescue. Discussing new gnome weapons is fun, but sort of limited if there's no effective way for players to use them. Hence why I'd ALSO (not only) discuss archetypes that could make use of these weapons. For example, say there was an inventor archetype which let the gnome make or cobble together weird weapons, and then let other characters have proficiency in those weapons, so long as the inventor was guiding or coaching them in their use, sort of like a bard or sensei monk. Inventions would only last a certain number of rounds of use, and thus would be more like spells. I've elsewhere described sticking a bear trap onto the end of a great hammer...
I couldn't figure out how to make a Gnome fighter, so I thought the next best thing would be to make a human fighter, raised by gnomes, using gnome weapons and techniques, as per the Gnomes of Golarion book. I mainly have questions about the order in which I should position my feats, but also, I'm not sure how much of this is PFS legal, and to what extent I'll have to develop contigencies in case GMs rule against aspects of my build. I hope I can use a whole host of gnome weapons, but am prepared to only use the gnome hooked hammer. I think tripping is a must, and reach weapons are preferred. TWF is optional, but also perhaps required, if I'm going to be using a signature double weapon. The point buy:
The str is a bit high for the concept I initially imagined, but for a melee fighter, I sort of feel like I have no choice. I considered dropping it by 2 to raise CHA by 2, but I don't think I have the feats and skill points to make use of bluffs and feints anyway. The dex is enough for TWF, and I can also take advantage of armor training, and combat reflexes. The int is high enough for combat expertise, and the trip feats. Conservative feats:
I don't really see any room for feinting feats in there, or much of anything else. What I really want, instead of those first two feats:
Ideally, I could use the ripsaw glaive, the flailpole, and the battle ladder, if I so chose. But I understand there's some uncertainty as to what's a "gnome weapon," so I want to be able to swtich to the Gnome Hooked Hammer on the fly if I need to. If a GM did not count the other gnome weapons as part of the weapon familiarity, could I reasonable ask the GM to consider my ripsaw glaive as a guisarme, my flask thrower as a sling, and my battle ladder as a quarter staff? This would let me eventually buy masterwork weapons without fear. Armor track
Weapons
Is there a good reason to save some money, and only buy an 8gp guisarme and maybe a spiked gauntlet? Or should my first level feat be TWF, and start off dual wielding a club and a wooden stake, or a quarter staff? I chose Combat Expertise first because it basically kept things simple for me, cancelling out with Weapon Focus if I just wanted to increase my AC by 1.
Agree. I was making the point that if you don't want to invent new ones, adopt or adjust old ones. For example, Orcs are proficient with falchions, not "orc falchions."
I love it. Makes perfect sense. ...But in that context, the description of how gnomes use the gnome-hooked hammer is ... way, way gruesome. But still, not incompatible with your notion, and of course for those gnomes who do turn to combat, they'd have to find something in it they enjoy (turning their childlike curiosity into cracking skulls).
I meant it as a Fighter (Class) Archetype, unique to Gnomes, where bonus feats are replaced with Weapon Familiarity feats. The unique features of the other races would be earned, just as Humans can earn them with an alternate racial trait that currently replaces their bonus feat. So there's some precedent. If general "Weapon Familiarity" feats are too powerful for most races, I propose that with gnomes, that power will be kept more in check.
I don't, personally, but there must be some way to measure restraint, and reasons to limit things which would otherwise fit the lore of gnomes.
Thanks. I've posted there. But there are still some issues which may be discussed here, rather than a rules thread. I've gathered some comments from other threads. I kind of want to get more behind the design intent of monks, as well as looking at the power curve. Do monks really get better damage, movement, and AC than, say, fighters? And thus more means of empowering them would be overkill? I imagine there are awesome things about the monk that I'm just not seeing, and that's being taken into considerations when it comes to FoB rulings. In my mind, I figured monks do more damage with their unarmed strikes, and used their weapons for combat maneuvers, or hitting at range. Well I did ask the team to explain why knuckles aren't to be considered unarmed strikes but you have to use a unarmed strike to use them, your performing a punch.
This is fair and frankly if the Bodywraps they did release weren't even worse for a Monk than the Amulet I'd be okay with that but it really does feel like every change to the Monk has be a hatred induced nerf-batting in the back alley. It really makes you wonder why they bothered including the Monk in the game.Backward compatibility, plus the monk IS a difficult class: defensively, monks ARE quite strong. Not quite as strong as paladins, but very strong. Give them strong offence as well and they are unstoppable. A sizable minority still thinks monks are fine, because you can build a monk that is nigh-on un-hittable. Unfortunately the game mechanics reward offence over defence, and the builds for the monk that work this way are hard to achieve.
Thank you. This was my question. The latest I've found has been comments by Sean K Reynolds in this thread, where he states towards the end that These changes have apparently been reflected in the descriptions for the cestus and the brass knuckles, yet the description for gauntlets remains:
Emphasis mine. As far as RAW, it seems clear that gauntlets modify unarmed strikes only to allow lethal damage, as long as one is proficient with them. RAI, it was effectively stated that gauntlets are intended as light weapons that provoke attacks of opportunity when used, and which don't threaten AOOs. However, the rules haven't been changed to reflect this (5 years later?). Or have they? I'm no expert in this. How do things work? And what are my rights for using the rules RAW? It's my interpretation that the rules for the cestus and brass knuckles were changed, but the rules for the gauntlets were not.
What's the latest on this? Paizo's online rules still describe gauntlets as unarmed strikes, whereas brass knuckle and cestus entries have been appropriately changed. Any updates? Has this old issue now been clarified in a FAQ? And I'll confess I'm not a wizard at tracking down faqs and rule changes, so any help would be appreciated.
(emphasis mine) To me, it makes sense that Gauntlets would be distinguished from brass knuckles. With one you're not armed, and with one you are. With one you don't threaten AOOs, and with one you do. You can wield other weapons with one, but not the other. Is there some special ruling that gauntlet attacks are unarmed attacks, and yet monks cannot use them with their unarmed attacks, but use the as separate weapon attacks?Or are the guantlets getting a major power boost, in order to prevent monks from using them? And what exactly are the rules or precedent by which we'd consider Sean's statements in this thread? Because frankly, I don't like them, don't agree with them, and the RAW (in my book and on the website) flatly states otherwise. So I want to ignore them when it comes to the humble gauntlet, unless I'm informed that this thread counts as an official ruling, or there are power-curve considerations for why monks should not do unarmed damage with gauntlets. IMHO, this would all go away if the gauntlet entry was changed to encompass
Really, you should just consider making a rules thread. I'm considering it. Here's the thing, though. I think the rules are pretty clear, and yet can be interpreted in the opposite ways. If you consider the design-team comments that haven't yet been turned into a FAQ, then that clearly states that gauntlets are armed attacks. Yet the description of gauntlets, and I think ancillary evidence(discussed below), does not reflect that. If I were to go to a PFS game with core rule book in tow, what conflict-resolution mechanic is there that whoever was in charge could deny my claim? The rules are the rules, and there's no faq.As far as the rules are concerned, it's all a matter of butting stubborn heads, and so the best I can hope for is people talking past each other. That's not quite what I want. Whatever you guys say or don't say won't affect my games. I just want conversation. I want to discuss what the rule should be, more so than what the rule is. I think this is a case where the two don't line up.
Agreed with Ssalarn, on all accounts (and implying that I don't feel there's much to gain from a rules thread). And in a "general discussion" thread, I think it's appropriate to discuss the history of the ruling, and its appropriateness, which is something I take issue with. Of course I get to do whatever I want in my own games, but here I want to discuss it. The first issue is that RAI and RAW disagree. That could and should be easily fixed, and confirmed with a FAQ, which Paizo refuses to do. So currently, not all the rules are written. For example, is what Sean K Reynolds stated in the thread a rule? If it is, then it is and should be errata'd in, or put in a faq. But if he's saying "there's no need to state this rule, because it's obvious and makes sense," then I think he's purposely giving himself and the team wiggle room. And with their wiggle room, they've changed something, but not others. They've fixed the Brass Knuckles rules, but not the gauntlet rules (as far as I know), and if they did change the gauntlet rules, then it seems they'd remove any key difference between a brass knuckle and a gauntlet. I.e. you're armed with brass knuckles, and you provoke, vs. you're unarmed with gauntlets, and you don't provoke. So I think it makes sense that the gauntlet description is left as is, because it has to be, else the brass knuckle would be identical, yet objectively worse. Furthermore, they'd be powering up the gauntlet to be able to do armed attacks. Is it true that there's no response required? That's one thing we could discuss here. Ultimately, I'd feel a lot better about this if I read the team wanted to give monks higher unarmed damage at the expense of not being able to apply special properties to those attacks until later levels in the game. And all they'd have to do, officially, is state that "monks can't do unarmed damage with gauntlets." Otherwise I feel there's genuine confusion, and unnecessary reasons for players to butt heads. Gauntlet...is listed in the Close Fighter Weapon Group, along with the unarmed strike...Why would they need to list both, if they were the same thing? There are many items that are different, and are yet treated as the same thing, or used as the same thing, or with the same proficiency. I.e. Shortbows and Composite shortbows? So features that apply to a shortbow user wouldn't apply to a composite shortbow user? Or consider any weapon Y that is "treated as weapon X, unless a user is proficient with it, in which case they can also use it as Y." They're two different weapons, X and Y, and yet one can use Y as X. And it's ok for gauntlets and unarmed strikes to not be the same thing. A monk who's not proficient in gauntlets would nonetheless be proficient in unarmed strikes, and so could perform unarmed strikes while wearing gauntlet, even without the benefit of the gauntlet (which he does not need, since he can already do lethal damage if he wishes anyway). He would not be able to apply any enchantment bonuses of the gauntlet, because he's not proficient with it, is how I'd rule. Add proficiency (by feat or class-dip), and that changes. The example above could be repeated for any character not proficient in gauntlets. Or consider a sorcerer wearing an amulet of mighty fists, and striking with a gauntlet.
That makes sense, and is incredibly valid. Thank you. A counter argument could be that it's a piece of equipment that's described as altering an attack, and is considered a weapon for the purpose of enhancements and the like. I think this interpretation is inline with all the explicitly stated rules. A second point is that my description of it as "equipment" was mere clarification, and would not override RAW. By RAW, a gauntlet is a weapon (that when armed with, one is yet unarmed) that often comes with armor (yet when worn, one is yet unarmored), and that enhances unarmed strikes. But by the updated RAI, gauntlets were not intended to allow monks to enhance their unarmed flurry of blows. That's valid too. My counter to that is that the RAI needs to be reconsidered, as the stated rationale doesn't seem to be more well-thought out than "we didn't intend that when we created the item." Additionally, it doesn't make immediate sense, as any rational reader of the rules would have to accept my interpretation as a valid interpretation of what's written. --As a matter of etiquette, I think the issue should be addressed in a FAQ, and the reasons for the ruling (that gauntlet strikes are not considered unarmed strikes for the monk) should be stated as game-balance, rather than "what makes sense." Paizo can claim superiority in the rules, but best they avoid claiming superiority in reason, if only for the sake of diplomacy.
ok, but WHY? I want to believe you. Give me a reason to. Don't make me feel like a jerk just because I'm reading the rules. EDIT: After doing some more searching regarding brass-knuckles, here's the best I've gotten:
Except that in the case of gauntlets, it makes perfect sense. Weapon descriptions for the Cestus and Brass Knuckles were changed to exclude references to unarmed strikes, but gauntlets weren't, probably in part because it doesn't make sense to. Else they could (and perhaps should) simply change the description of how gauntlets are used to say "strikes with gauntlets provoke attack of opportunities," rather than have all that language about "with unarmed strikes" or "are otherwise unarmed strikes." It does make sense that paizo wants to limit aspects of the flurry for game balance or reasons of fairness, which is excellent. But then that should be clearly stated, rather than making appeals to "what makes sense," and meeting continued requests for a FAQ with "no reply required." I think this is lazy, flippant, and disrespectful. If paizo wanted to simplify the matter, they could have (and perhaps should still) simply describe that: and not make mention of unarmed strikes. That would solve all problems. By dismissing the need to address a known problem in a FAQ, they've wasted my time, in terms of PFS. most if not all people you meet will agree with us that gauntlets aren't unarmed strikes and have nothing to actually do with unarmed strikes. I dare say the reason for this would be bullying and peer pressure, or they haven't read the description for gauntlets. Else one of you would have been able to direct me to the ruling I linked above sooner.
You don't cast spells from a wand. They are spell trigger items that require activation. This is my question too, and I'd like confirmation on it. At first glance, it doesn't seem like those are two mutually exclusive things: "Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity." I see the "from a wand" part, but it's still the user, not the wand, that's casting the spell.
I'm peeved that my gnome fighter in PFS can't use a battle ladder or ripsaw glaive without taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency, but here I want to try and rationalize that decision. I think just about any (perceived) deficiency in the rules can be overlooked, as long as they support a strong and authentic lore. Ditto with the opposite case. Weapons in the Gnomes of Golarion book are described as being lesser-known... So they could be lesser known, even among gnomes... Honestly, I'm not buying it. I started this thread so that others could help me justify the decision for myself, because I'm failing on my own. The thing is that if reach tactics are so obviously vital to gnomes, then it seems weird to me that there's no common gnome reach weapon. The flail pole, at least, should be a gnome-flail-stick, or whatever. And I suppose gnomes are more whimsical now and less innovative, and so sticking two weapons together, or using objects in unusual ways (see Gnome Hooked Hammer, Flail Pole, or even Battle Ladder) are the best they can do. But then how does the Gnome Pincher get through? And if innovation IS something that's common in gnome society, then we need that flask thrower, or that shrillshaft javelin, or that ripsaw glaive. I just wish the judgement of gnome weapon (gnome pincher, gnome hooked hammer) vs non-gnome weapon (battle ladder, flash thrower) was more consistent. Meh.
Perhaps my biggest issue is that I'm confusing DnD 3.5 gnomes with Pathfinder Gnomes. In 3.5, each gnome basically had a PhD is something, according to the Races of Stone (or whatever). They even seemed (iirc) to devalue magic, as to them, the real world was much more interesting. The PF gnomes would probably share the latter trait, but in contrast, are always on the move, perhaps not settling down and thus missing out on the advantages of a steady workshop, or industry. And hence no steam-punk mechs. But with all the moving around, and with all the trying to know and accept other races, it'd be fantastic for gnome weapon familiarity to encompass ALL other races' weapon familiarities. Perhaps that could be some sort of fighter archetype. Well anyway. It doesn't make sense to me that the symbol of gnome ingenuity is a hammer combined with a hook. Or rather, if it is, then I don't see why gnomes can't have multiple favored class bonuses, given their lack of focus, and their desire to combine things. At least let there be a feat that allows this, the way there is for humans. Is the issue of making Gnomes OP? I know that they currently start off with the most race points, thanks in part to their inherent magic.
Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike) does not apply to attacks with Gauntlets Source? If you're just repeating a mantra, then obviously that's not going to be enough to sway me. But enough people have said this, that I believe there has to be a source out there. It's just that no one's shown it to me, nor referenced it. @BBtroll: A foot is not an unarmed strike either. A foot is a foot. But an unarmed strike can be done with a foot, just as it can be done with a gauntlet. See text in the description for the gauntlet. And being equipped with a gauntlet does not mean that one is armed. These are all, as far as I am concerned, specifically stated. @Callum: See description of gauntlet, where it influences attacks done with unarmed strikes. Gauntlet strikes are, in fact, unarmed strikes. They are described as such, and are also described as NOT being the opposite, as in, they are not armed attacks. That's RAW. More specifically, a guantlet is a piece of equipment, and less so a weapon in and of itself. The onus now is to state, explicitly, that gauntlets are not compatible with Flurry of Blows, because by default (being unarmed strikes), they are.
If I were Two Weapon Fighting with a Battle Ladder (that has the trip property), can I do two trip attacks instead of two melee attacks? Or if I were TWF with a gnome hooked hammer, could I make one hammer attack, and one trip attack with the hook, as a full-round action?
That all makes sense to me. I'm convinced. For the record, though, the message spell describes: "Saving Throw: none; Spell Resistance: no," so the issue is ambiguous. I hope that in the future we get a spell called "Eavesdrop." I don't know why don't have one already.
Are Gnome weapon focus and Weapon focus feats that stack, or do they replace each other, in terms of applying for subsequent feats? I.e. Weapon specialization? And I'm also trying to get confirmation that the text "You gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls with gnome weapons (weapons with "gnome" in the title)," applies to the "gnome weapons" described in the Gnomes of Golarion book, even though the word "Gnome" isn't written as part of their description.
"It's since been stated none of the weapons listed in the book count as Gnome weapons because they don't have the word "Gnome" in the title." Wow... really? Even though the table describes them as "New Gnome Weapons," and are referred to in the text as "specialized gnome weapons?" That's a bummer. Anyone actually know the source for this ruling? Are Halfings the only group that got a line like "All of the items below count as halfling weapons for the weapon familiarity halfling racial trait?" Sorry for the grave dig, but I can't be expected to both search the forum for a topic, AND find the most recent version of the topic. Other thread:
I was going to bump that thread, but this one is where we got someone definitively saying that GoG weapons aren't affected by the Gnome weapon familiarity trait. So I figure here is where I'd get closer to the truth.
We seem to have gotten a disagreement about Gauntlets and Flurry of Blows. Is there any official ruling on this? RAW indicates that a gauntlet ("metal glove") serves no purpose other than to "let you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes," and "a strike with[or "using"] a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." This means they modify no feature of the unarmed strike other than the damage type (possibly at the user's option), and they are, in fact, unarmed strikes. Otherwise, one would be arguing that "unarmed attack == armed attack," which is absurd. Note: Brass knuckles are significantly different from gauntlets, in that one armed with a brass knuckles are armed, and threaten AOOs. To the extent that "gauntlets are weapons," well, so are unarmed strikes, and unarmed strikes aren't listed with the "monk" property in the weapons table, either. That's my take on it, RAW. RAI, I can go so far as to believe that monk's are not proficient in using gauntlets from the get-go, and if there's a game-balance reason for delaying monks from powering their unarmed attacks, then I could perhaps get behind that as well. What are the best reasons for denying monks gauntlets, by RAI?
How would the target of the spell indicate that they are replying, or their will to reply? The spell is described as only transmitting sound, but are you suggesting that the spell has a telepathic/mind-reading ability as well? If so, then can the Message spell be used with Silent Spell (metamagic) feat, given that one could still effectively mouth the words? My impulse would be "no," since the spell is described as "transmitting sounds," but then by that measure, I interpret the "choice" of the target of the spell being to speak, or not to speak (within a few moments of being whispered to), and that the spell has no additional telepathic element to determine whether the targets intend to reply either to the caster of the spell, or any of the other targets included in the spell. Further question: Isn't the verbal component of the spell the whisper itself? And isn't the somatic component the pointing?
"A flask thrower significantly extends the range of thrown substances...such as ... thunderstones." But the range of a flask thrower seems to be 20ft, and thunderstones apparently can be thrown at "a range increment of 20 feet." So what exactly is the benefit?
I'm looking around and getting nothing but confused, concerning the Flurry of Blows (FoB). I don't know what old information is valid, and what's changed. Is the FoB strictly equivalent to
1. Can the FoB be used with a single weapon alone? I.e. a single temple sword, used to make iterative attacks? Can this weapon be held in two hands to do 1.5str damage? 2. Can the FoB be used with a single weapon, as long as it's used as a two weapons (i.e. a double weapon), in order to make separate attacks with different components of the weapon? Must this weapon be wielded to do 1str damage on each attack? 3. Can the FoB be used to deliver one attack with a quarter staff (2H), and another attack with an unarmed strike (i.e. feet)? Is this one important way in which FoB differs from TWF? 4. Can the FoB contain any combination of ranged shuriken attack, melee monk weapon attack, and combat maneuver for trip, disarm, or sunder? 5. Can gauntlets be used as part of flurry of blows? [Unless it's stated somewhere otherwise, I think the answer's an obvious yes]
In terms of discussions about monks vs. fighters, to me, it makes sense that Monks trade AC for better damage, in 'stand-your-ground' combat. Also note that monks don't get any reach weapons (unless they take exotic weapon proficiency with monk weapons, or simple weapon proficiency etc). And they don't even get bows or crossbows or slings. It's not even certain if they're proficient with gauntlets. And they have an effective -1BAB to hit on single attacks. Essentially, pit a monk against a fighter, and even in rough terrain and whatever, I don't see how the monk stands a chance. Monk's don't initially have medium ranged options, so Deflect Arrows is a defense mechanism at best. Once they get within 10 ft, the fighter has access to his reach weapon. And closer than that, the fighter has better AC and higher damage output, and likely higher relevant stats too. The monk does have some cool 'save or suck' options (combat maneuvers or stunning fist), but a fighter with a spiked gauntlet for back up seems like they'd do just fine. Monks do have higher saves, and some justification for running around naked, avoiding armor check penalties. So perhaps the thoughts are Spellcaster > Fighter > Monk > Spellcaster?
@ Casual Viking regarding "new" description: Changed from their original form, apparently to remove references to 'unarmed attacks.' @ DM_Blake, @ "how does your sorcerer ever cast a spell?: Do you mean to say that spells with somatic components can't be used if the sorcerer has two hands full with wands? Therefore it would be the wands, not the brass knuckles, that prevent him from casting? @ Casual Viking: "You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object"
On the subject of "wielding" wands, "Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. ... To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand... and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole." That action (holding and pointing) is not described as being an attack, nor is it described as anything that a brass knuckle would prevent. On the subject of "wielding" some other non-weapon object, like, say, a Wayfinder's compass, I imagine it'd be a free action to loosen your grip enough to use the compass, and a free action to switch back into action mode, and therefore it seems that one could still use the wayfinder while having a brass knuckle equipped, although you couldn't "wield" the wayfinder as an improvised weapon. I imagine this would be the design intent of the brass-knuckle. But are we sure that the brass-knuckle threatens? Is it essentially a Bludgeoning alternative to the spiked gauntlet, and thus superior to the normal gauntlet, in that it has no relation to 'unarmed strikes?' That's really the rules question I'm not sure about.
If my sorcerer is wearing brass knuckles on both hands, and is also holding a wand in each hand, does she threaten attacks of opportunity?
Then what would be the rules on *inventing* new weapons, and using them without proficiency? Would abilities that relate to improvisation apply to them as well?
So how strong (or what str score) would a character have to be in order for the item to not be unwieldy? For interesting real world reference, see these weird illustrations of shield/spike/staffs Notice how the shields are being held in such a way that their weight is balanced, making it less unwieldy for the user.
Well yes, But
Enchancement bonuses do not stack. The question is:
----------------------------
1. there needs to be some specific text telling me that "unarmed strikes are not considered weapons," for me to say that unarmed strikes are not weapons. 2. And while we're at it, I'd also need text telling me that "unarmed strikes with gauntlets are not considered unarmed strikes," because the description I read says exactly the opposite. So yes, gauntlets are weapons. And they modify unarmed strikes, which are also weapons. Edit: Looking at the Magic Weapon spell, "You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell." Even if the issue might be ambiguous for non monks, for monks it seems certain. Unless you're going to argue that Amulet of Mighty Fists only applies to weapons and not unarmed strikes, and monk's unarmed strikes are weapons, and so monks can't used the Amulet of Mighty Fists... But this whole thing is getting ridiculous.
@ Gauntlets != Unarmed strikes: Is that ruling settled yet, or is it still to be determined? If it's still determined, can this thread progress for the time-being *with the assumption* that gauntlets modify unarmed strikes? I don't have a problem putting an asterix on this thread, saying that it's findings are subject to change. Otherwise, by RAW, I'd point to "Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage...with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack." So by that wording, I don't punch a goblin with a gauntlet, I punch him with an unarmed strike, which the metal glove lets me modify to do lethal damage with. And I read the "otherwise" portion of the quote to mean that nothing else about the unarmed strike, including damage output, is changed. This is supported by the damage of the gauntlet and the unarmed strike being identical in the table. It would be weird to read that portion and interpret it as "an attack with a gauntlet is a modified unarmed strike that is (otherwise) an unarmed attack, BUT it is also an attack with a weapon that is different from your unarmed strike." The latter part is unwritten, AND counters everything that was actually written in the rules, and so I cannot, without an official errata, give it credence. If there's a better RAW or RAI interpretation out there, awesome. But otherwise, let's at least assume for the time being that gauntlets modify unarmed strikes. If we house-rule that in a home game or something, how would or could Amulets of Mighty Fists and masterwork gauntlets stack, according to the rest of the rule set? If the amulets and gloves overlapped, could one get a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists, and stack it with a gauntlet which has a different elemental enhancement to each finger?
I read that multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. I read that the amulet of mighty fists grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons. Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. I read that gauntlets modify unarmed strikes, and thus can be used by monks with their unarmed strikes. My interpretation is that a monk CANNOT use a +5 amulet with a +5 gauntlet to get +10 to attack with unarmed strikes. However, do melee weapon special abilities stack? Is there any reason to have both enchanted gauntlets, AND an amulet of mighty fists?
By the rules, must improvised weapons be limited to club-like bludgeoning weapons, or can we try and cobble together more exotic weapons, with features like blocking, trip, or even monk? What if I want to tie a kitchen knife to the end of a 10ft pole in order to gain reach?
Are there any special rules that would make this possible? Say, a gnome's alternate racial trait to be proficient with any weapon he crafts? What if he straps a bear trap to the end of a hammer, to make a snapping hammer? (The hammer's a standard weapon, but what the gnome's done is make an "improvised exotic weapon?")
@ 5, what I mean is, can both proficient and non-proficient users both benefit from the AC bonus, AND the ability to lay down total cover as a standard action?
1) If a Tower shield weighs maybe 45 lbs, how strong would a character have to be to reasonably wield it as an improvised weapon, while NOT having it strapped to his arm, or otherwise "equipped" as a shield? (So we're not talking about a shield bash, we're talking about using a two handed improvised weapon of some sort). 16 str means a character carries heavy objects with one arm.
2) How much damage would such a weapon do? It's heavier than anything I've seen in the weapons table, but it's weight is distributed in a more balanced way. In my mind, I'm imagining Proto Man (brother o Mega Man) using his signature shield as a weapon. 3) To switch between having the tower shield equipped as a shield, and having the tower shield equipped as an improvised weapon, is a move action all it'd take? 4) If someone is simply holding the tower shield without having it equipped as a shield, could it be used to grant partial cover? 5) If someone is non-proficient with a tower shield, can they use it as normal, except without the ability to also attack?
If I take
1) Can I use magical, enhanced arrows as *improvised* daggers, and on a successful hit add the 1d4 bleed damage, as well as get the special effects associated with the arrow? I imagine that the arrows break anyway after a melee hit, anyway. And ditto for using arrows as improvised thrown weapons. 2) Would I forgo the +1 to attack from the masterwork quality of the arrows, since "masterwork" improves an item's effectiveness at it's intended task, and I'm using the arrows in a manner different from what it was specialized for? All other bonuses from the arrow remains though, right? 3) Can I draw arrows as a free action, even though I may use them as improvised melee weapons (or thrown weapons)?
I searched and this was the best I could find. Do you have an answer for me?
To me, it seems like a buckler is like all other shields *except in the following ways,* i.e. you can wield a bow or cross bow, and you can wield a two handed weapon with -1 penalty, a one handed weapon in your off hand takes a -1 penalty, you can't shield bash, etc. It doesn't say anything about combat maneuver checks, therefore I'd assume it works like other shields. But that seems way too restrictive, right?
The RAW of the ability DOESN`T cover what happens if you don`t try to make an iterative attack with manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes, but instead want to combine it with other natural weapons. I`m not going to look up the quote, but Paizo has stated that the ability is indeed just another natural weapon, so in that case the bite would be another primary weapon at full STR mod to DMG, with no penalty to BAB. (If you already have a Bite attack, the ability doesn`t do anything besides the synergy with Grapple, unless you somehow had a bite attack that was below par for your size, in which case it would be raised to the damage value given in the ability) This was my question. Is it confirmed now that this bite attack, when used as a full round attack action with only natural attacks, is made at full BAB? Is it with full STR to damage, or only 1/2? |