Abraham spalding wrote:
No. You can use somatic components and attack in a Grapple. You can't do either in a Pin. Having a free hand is obviously somatic and a physical action. You can only do verbal, mental, or escape actions in a Pin. It seems quite clear a Paladin can't Lay on Hands in a Pin.
In a Grapple, sure.
RAW according to this post, the DBL-BARREL pistol would work as described in the OP. As in, both barrels can fire with every attack, not just one extra attack on a full action.
So, I believe the OP was generally correct. Personally though, I'd think they'd have added that precision damage couldn't be added when firing a weapon that shoots multiple barrels at once.
Firing two barrels is also a mode. Nothing in the rules suggest they'd by cumulative and logic clearly argues against it.
While penalties stack, there are not penalties here, only one penalty - from shooting double-barreled.
The idea you're putting forth is clearly wrong, and I'm shooting it down.
Since you were playing devil's advocate, you should be thankful :)
From the text that says "a paladin who wilfully commits an evil act, or" it seems very clear that a single evil act is enough to make a paladin fall. Not all requirements must be met, only one which is why it says "or" not "and."
I do like the poster who said that if you have to ask if the paladin should fall, he doesn't. Burning down an orphanage for fun is surely a single qualifying act for which it shouldn't matter if the GM warned the player or not.
This oddly coincided with her exclusive contract with DC expiring.
Batgirl is one of the few books I've been reading, largely because Simone is one o my favorite creators since she made Birds of Prey great with Barbara Gordon, now Batgirl.
Her Batgirl run has meant a lot to people dealing with trauma and survivors guilt, as various reviews have indicated. Maybe DC wanted a simple hero book and not something deep.
Would have loved to see her bring in some of her characters from other series. Secret Six was awesome.
Diego Rossi wrote:
I guess I could see that being true.
Boot blades are those blades that spring from boot tips. ASs would cover your chest, legs, boot tops, elbows, etc.
Though, I can also see allowing TWF with AS for that reason.
There's already a thread for the bastard sword (answer was a large one needs 3 hands to use as a martial weapon for a med creature or have the exotic weapon feat to avoid exotic penalty for using it in two hands). Argue it there please.
Thanks for the other ideas on threatening adjacent. Most helpful. I didn't realize you could quickdraw in an attack of opportunity. Awesome if that works.
Dire Mongoose wrote:
I see a clear difference between "being in a charge" and "when you charge."
One is being part of a charge action (such as riding a charging mount) and the other is when you do the charge yourself.
As a GM, I'd rule this way if ragelancepounce became an unbalancing issue and also possibly because pounce doesn't make sense to me if you're not the one doing the pouncing.
So maybe if the mount had pounce, you could do it, but then you'd be too close to use a lance unless the mount had reach for it's attacks.
Mike Lindner wrote:
That doesn't seem to be true.
Improved Unarmed Strike isn't called Punch. It's called Strike. The ambiguity is there for a reason. There's nothing to suggest that " A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet." isn't simply an expanded description of IUS as available to all. Nothing in IUS suggests otherwise.
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
No, because the requirement in the description about being able to use it in two hands is also subject to the size change. Therefore, two-handed --> Unusable. You can't just look at some of the stats of the weapon, ignoring those which are unfavorable to your argument.A medium guy would need 3-hands to wield a large Bastard sword as a martial weapon.
What you're arguing is that if a one-handed weapon says in its description that it can be wielded with one-hand, then it can be wielded one-handed by a Medium creature even if the weapon is sized up to Huge. What you're doing is using the description text to flagrantly break the physics of the game. What you need to do is also modify the description text appropriately to the weapon size which is what you're not doing.
I believe the RAW do specify the hand requirements. If size increases, change one-handed weapons to two-handed, and two-handed to *impossible*, then a Large bastard sword would require *impossible* hands to wield as a martial weapon instead of two. So, a M creature could only wield a Large bastard sword with two hands with the Exotic WP Feat (or the penalty for not having it). My wording may be off, but it the gist seems very clear.
I agree with Seraphimpunk.
If the rules say you can sometimes be your own ally, sure.
So long as you can draw your weapon and attack on your attack following your TWF attack.
I don't believe spellstrike (not familiar with magus) can be used as one of many attacks in a full attack. If you can, sure. But extra dice from spells aren't mutliplied on Crits (like the dice from Flaming/Frost weapons).
I'd never argue a character should have immunity due to a good/long backstory, but I feel a Hero Point award should be given to such players.
If a DM said a four page backstory was too long or looked down on back stories in general, I'd not want to play in such a hack n slash centric game. If the DM said at the start to keep all backstories to 2 pages or less, that'd be different.
A backstory should be there to give the player RPing guidance and the DM story hooks. The two sentence backgrounds pimped earlier in this thread are lacking in the specific details that I and other DMs find more helpful.
Additionally, I'd allow a player to reuse a background so long as the names of people and places are changed. Being too strict comes across as unfriendly which isn't a good environment for fun. Friendly but fair is preferred.
As hands needed for proper wielding increase with size, a large bastard sword may be wielded by a medium creature as a martial weapon in three hands or two-handed as an exotic weapon.
Even James Jacobs agrees.
The hand requirements in the description must also be sized up. Claiming none of that matters because it's a one-handed weapon when medium-sized is some loony stuff no good GM should allow.
RPG books - Still not as expensive as getting into Games Workshop Miniatures.
People who play Warhammer and complain about being poor . . . The W.H. bit just explained why they have money problems.
As I merely play Pathfinder, the only cost to me is gas to get to the GM's house and time. Even if I were to run it, all the rules are on this site or the prfd20 wiki.
Likewise, I've written my own game which I run and also own plenty of old game books which still work :)
I have personally been great under Obama's presidency and have numerous reasons (from personal to general) to support him for four more years.
I'll go ahead and share those reasons here with links to more on each subject (the links are full of links to support evidence):
The business I work in has seen many jobs lost to cheaper South American competitors. My own job is in constant threat of this outsourcing.
The American Jobs Act is the sort of bill that could help protect my job. It provides tax incentives to bring jobs back to America, among other things. Republicans have been blocking it for a year.
I'm not a rich guy and will likely need to rely on Social Security and Medicare in old age even if I become more wealthy. Romney and Ryan have been talking about privatizing (or partially privatizing) Medicare which non-partisan economists agree will double the out of pocket costs for future retires.
Republican policies are bad for my wife's education and job. When the Republicans cut spending, they cut funding for schools and education. This is what happens when state aid is cut. She still needs to finish college for her job in education-related fields.
It'll be awfully hard to not take personally anyone voting for Republican scumbags this election. Why? Republican policies will cause personal injury to me so those votes are essentially personal attacks on me.
I guess the "positive" side is that the GOP platform will prevent gays from getting married which is none my business nor anyone else's except for the gay couple and the religious freedom of whoever wishes to officiate the ceremony. Also, the GOP will protect the zygotes and fetuses of rapists from the horrible women who wish to abort them. Wait, those aren't good things. There is no positive side to the GOP platform.
Reason #1: Conservatives Suck at Economics
Republicans (and Libertarians) argue that we need to give more tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, not incentives like the American Jobs Act. Fun Fact: Giving corporations more tax breaks doesn't give them any incentive to hire more. It doesn't create more demand for their product or make labor in America any cheaper compared to overseas.
Reason #2: Republican Bigotry Disqualifies Them as a Political Party
It's the easiest litmus test of all to realize that people must not be listened to if they support the oppression or marginalization of any minority in the USA. It's distinctly un-American. Two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religious institutions that want to marry them should have that freedom. It's personal freedom and religious freedom at stake here. Under the guise of religious freedom, Republicans claim that their religious tyranny is otherwise.
Reason #3: Obama's Foreign Policy Is An Example of How It Should Be Done
Libya is where Obama has shined. As part of a UN force requested by Libyan citizens, we helped the Libyan people win their freedom from terrorist supporter Muammar Gaddafi whom Ronald Reagan failed to kill. We did that without any U.S. military casualties (though journalists did die) or troops on the ground. Although our ambassador was killed by an al-Qaeda affiliaetd group using protests against an anti-Islamic movie as a cover, the Libyan people then rallied in support of America and kicked the extremist militias out of their city. Helping people win their own freedom from dictators and gaining the support of people is how an international community should behave.
Reason #4: We're Better Off
Under the Obama administration, I've gotten married and bought my first new car. That seems pretty good for me. We're also better off as a country.
Obama is one of only five Presidents to see the stock market gain over 50% in 3 years. That's a free market capitalist's dream.
Shortly after Obama took office, the Dow hit 6626. It's now at 13,066. The stock market has DOUBLED.
Obama's administration saved the auto industry (without the massive layoffs the Romney plan endorsed), passed universal health care (which Romney endorsed in 2006), and killed the top terrorist in the world (whom Romney says he'd have gotten except that he clearly said he wouldn't have been looking for).
Reason #5: GOP Report Card: Grade F
What have the Republicans done since they were elected to a majority in the House in 2010?
Instead of focusing on jobs, Republicans have been intent fighting abortion rights, gay rights, and worker rights. Apparently, they think the solution to our economic problems is to degrade worker's rights. I guess they'll be happy once we're like China. Battles have been fought in Wisconsin and Ohio, and Indiana. The Republicans have so lost their way on this issue, that they look to Reagan to remind them that: "Where Free Unions and Collective Bargaining are Forbidden, Freedom is Lost."
Reason #6: The GOP Has Been Willing to Hurt the USA in Order to Regain Power
There's evidence that Mitch McConnell sabotaged our government for political gain. Numerous sources have corroborated that he orchestrated obstruction of every vote that Democrats supported. That's right, the Republicans decided to oppose the Democrats on everything before the Obama administration even took office.
Reason #7: Obama and Romney Aren't the Same
Some people claim all politicians are the same, that Obama and Romney are the same or that Obama is Bush the Third. They're fed up with Washington and think nothing ever changes or get done. All one has to do is look at Obama's record and see that change for the better can happen. However, not much gets done when a President has a Congress that won't cooperate or that is gridlocked by obstructionists.
How is it that George W. Bush and Obama are similar?
How is it that Romney and Obama are similar?
If corporations are people as Romney and the conservative Supreme Court say, some corporations practice murder and cannibalism.
One thing that worries me about a Romney Presidency is that the next President will likely appoint two new Supreme Court justices.
So, that could lead to more extreme decisions than corporations are people, strip searches can be done for no reason, and money is free speech. The latter having led to the unprecedented money spent in this election. Imagine all the good that money could have done if it were actually used to improve this country or people's lives instead of on ads and junkmail!
Or two, and it will apply to both.
By all means, let's take away high HPs and overpower magic-users over fighters even more!
I don't think so!
There's nothing wrong with high HPs. They represent both durability and ability to avoid damage. A high level hero should have both!
If in some rules version, a fighter can run across lava by only sacrificing a little luck (hp), that just says to me he's reached Wuxia level. That's good because the game has criticized for having wizards exist in high fantasy while fighters are forced to exist in realism.
Continuing my previous post:
Torture, like most things, is neutral. It depends how it's used. It could be a just punishment for a very evil act.
However, a wise philosopher once said, "There are some acts of justice that corrupt those who perform them." Kind people would damage themselves by torturing others.
Likewise, there's nothing inherently evil in poisoning. We use it today to execute criminals and call it humane.
The soldier who enjoys killing, who doesn't care who he kills so long as it's legal, would be Lawful Evil.
Now, the character Dexter Morgan who only kills evil people could be either Neutral Good or pure Neutral.
The alignment system is pretty clear in most cases of what is good, neutral, and evil.
However speaking in non-game terms, selfishness is the root of all evil and itself evil (though there are degrees of evil).
Evil is when you pursie your happiness at the expense of others who are unwilling. Casting a spell on them to make them unwilling doesn't make it better if they were unwilling to have the spell cast on them. There are greater evils and lesser evils. For example, stealing is generally less evil than murdering children.
When determing how evil stealing, the rightful ownership of something is important. Such, stealing something back that was stolen could be good and taking something that won't be missed wouldn't actually harm another person or infringe on their happiness.
It is the disregard of others which is evil. Now, actions taken to stop evil, in defense of others or oneself, are good when the actions are an appropriate measured response. Killing a murderer is an appropriate response.
Double chained kamas pretty clearly should be finessable, but it isn't. That, plus spiked chain not having reach anymore makes me assume for balance purposes they don't want finessable reach weapons other than the whip.
That is also a conclusion I've drawn. However, it's a conclusion I've sarcastically. The whip weapons reach, though they have two hexes of reach and do 1d4 damage or less.
It more reasonably seems to me that the designers just don't like Weapon Finesse and don't want to support it (or it's just become an accidental oversight).
That may be so, but that doesn't mean Srength ALONE should be the stat to be used. If one must be chosen, Dexterity should be the one because it's role is greater. At the very least, make them a Weapon with which Finesse is an option.
Problem is finesse weapons have to be fairly light and rely on precision over power, and the longer you make a weapon, the heavier it gets. The elven curveblade is the only two-handed weapon that is finesseable, otherwise it's only a few one-handed (like the rapier) and all light weapons.
However, all flexible weapons require coordination to use in the real world over Strength so they should all be usable with Finesse. Perhaps, they should even require Finesse.
This may not solve the problem exactly (and honestly, I'm partial to Int to damage myself), but what about a feat that let you add Dex to damage when your opponent is flat-footed or flanked? It seems like that would be a nice balance between "Dex does too much already" and "it's too hard to be Dex-based." Of course it would make rogues brutal, but A: make it have a BAB requirement and B: I'm kind of okay with that, personally.
This is already covered by the Rogue and Ninja's Sneak Attack dice.
I think a big help to Finesse characters would be more weapons that can actually use Finesse. For example, many of the Eastern Weapons are flexible and/or chain weapons which should be Finesse Weapons, even if they aren't Light. Coordination, not Strength, is used to fight with flexible weapons.
Of course, Weapon Finesse not requiring a Feat would be a big help (or simply taking a Trait).
If Dervish Dance could be applied to other weapons. Having it only be for scimitars is obviously not for balance, but because of Drizzt :)
I support a +1 Bonus Magical Weapon enhancement:
That's because Rogue's don't start with proficiency in Heavy Armor. They're also losing several abilities (evasion, tumble) by wearing heavy armor so it's foolish (my OP). However, most importantly it's because people can actually use their agility because they're born with it. They're not born with heavy armor. Likewise, that's why there are weapon proficiencies.
I'm not sure why you're pointing out a Dex of 12 is not without any Dex bonus. Without Dex, full plate gives the highest AC of standard armors (+9). If you add 1 point of Dex, it's 2 higher than the highest standard armor. A Strength-based guy can still do without any Dex, and depending on the class, may eventually be able to move at full speed in it (heavy armor). That's not to say having a little bonus in every stat isn't a good thing.
It is likely not a game breaker, but it does mess with balance. There is a network of reasons why they chose weapon finess the feat and did not give it to rogues. In 3.5 there was "Intuitive Attack" that lets you use wisdom as opposed to STR do we let all do we just give this to all wis based classes and assume they all get divine insite in battle?
I don't believe that logic applies.
While Weapon Finesse and Agile Mnvrs should be automatic options, not Feats, because they represent natural behaviors, using Wisdom for damage sounds more supernatural.
For example, it's silly to think a Dextrous person need special training to not rely on brute strength to fight, such as trying to club someone with a rapier with which that character is proficient. No, that Dextrous person would naturally rely on his/her agility.
As it is, I'd say non-Light Finesse weapons would require Dexterity be used, not Strength, and let the weapon the determine the proper attribute to be used (and add all flexible weapons to that list since using those are a function of coordination).
But basically, I believe Str should rightfully stay the stat that determines damage. WP Finesse for free doesn't mess with balance how most think it does; however, using a different stat for damage should require a Feat because that would.
Not true that Dex is necessary for a high AC.If you look at the ACs that armors provide and their Max Dex Bonus, most add up to to a +8 AC, combining the armor and Dex.
The notable exception is full plate which gives a +9 WITHOUT any dex bonus (it also lets you add +1 Dex bonus), meaning if your Dex is higher than 12 it's wasted. So heavy armor does give the best AC in the game WITHOUT any Dex.
The OP is correct in his opinion that making these feat automatic functionss of combat should be the rule because it doesn't hurt game balance and only punishes Dex-based fighters.
The argument over AC isn't particularly relevant since Str based fighters can have equally good AC by taking heavier armor.
Speaking of attributes from a point buy perspective if we're discussing balance, one is sacrificing a damage bonus from Strength by putting points into Dex instead and gaining a better reflex save (though a worse defense against grapple).