Skallycap's page

9 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


Grick wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Well, without errata, I guess dm fiat is all I have.

Why would they errata what is already clear in the rules?

Natural Attacks: "You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword."

The d20pfsrd words it differently. This is much clearer. Going to start using this website too. I love having multiple sources by which to win arguments against my powergaming players.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I hear the term munchkin a lot. What does it mean to you?
Wikipedia wrote:

Munchkin (role-playing games)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Munchkin (disambiguation).

In gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills", and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Wait, if I have a BAB of +6, I can attack with boot blade, armor spikes, then claw, and claw. Now I do the same thing, let's say longsword, dagger, drop both, then claw, and claw, I am breaking the rules? How does this break anything? Why would I need extra rules, extra penalties? If there is errata or such that now contradicts this, then let me know.

If you want to take three feats (or a level of a class that gets martial weapon prof's free and one feat) just so you can use two crappy extra weapons (1d6 x2, and 1d4 x2... Woohoo) and then make all of your natural weapons -5 to hit (or -2 with multiattack feat) with half your strength bonus, be my guest. In fact, I would encourage it. Call it law of natural PC selection.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
If that be so, then could one simply claw, the quick draw a weapon, then attack with it. As long as the right conditions are met, why does it matter which happens first? There is no extra attack beyond what is already available, why would it be denied?

No.

I honestly don't know why I'm arguing about this. Any DM who would allow this should turn his DM license in at the office.

If you give up your natural attack to use a weapon in a limb, then the reverse typically will hold as well. If you make a natural attack then you forgo all weapon attacks in that limb that round.

Munchkining like this is why I took the time to get my rules lawyering degree in the first place. Gotta nip this kinda stuff in the bud early as a GM, and munchkins don't tend to let things stand at "because I said so."


Astral Wanderer wrote:
Beastman wrote:

From the Bestiary - Universal Monster Rules:

"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam).

Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type."

So to the OP's question:

I would say yes, but only if you would be eligible to multiple attacks because of a high BAB...

Same.

And I would add this:
With the claw attack suffering a -5 penalty (regardless of the Multiattack feat, if present), or -10/-15 if the character made two/three weapon attacks. Plus, if the penalties are equal to or greater than the character's base attack bonus, no claw attack can be made. Thus, if you have +5 BAB or less (thus no more than one weapon attack per round), you cannot use the claw. With +6 to +10 you can do it; with +11 to +15 you can attack twice with weapon and one with claw (or just one with weapon and one with claw with -5 to hit, rather than -10), and so on.

I think this is a no brainer.

for·go/fôrˈgō/
Verb:
Omit or decline to take (something pleasant or valuable); go without.
Refrain from.
Synonyms:
renounce - forego - relinquish - waive - resign
More info »Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

I can hear the player in my group asking about this, I even know who would be stupid enough to try it, "Wait, but it says you forgo natural attacks with the limb that's clutching the weapon, if I drop the weapon, I'm no longer clutching it and therefore can attack with it later in the round!"

If you forgo an attack, you can't take it back later in the round. You've already decided not to take that attack. You LOST that attack (actually, you voluntarily refrained from taking it, so it wasn't lost).


Here's a related question, does this count as cannibalism, and as such is it considered both a chaotic and evil act? Would you have to periodically atone to regain your druidic abilities?


pfsrd website wrote:
At 2nd level, a ranger must select one of two combat styles to pursue: archery or two-weapon combat. The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.

By the exact wording: [a ranger] can chose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.

This does not say: [a ranger] can chose feats from his selected combat style when he is awarded bonus feats, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.

This is purely 'letter of the law' Lawful Evil interpretation. The spirit of the rules is up for interpretation and should be decided on by each individual GM (I personally would allow it, I think if a player can come up with a clever loophole that I can't exploit for my own purposes then they should reap the benefits).


UndeadViking wrote:

From a game balance perspective, it could be argued that it's overpowered.

Stupid tiny creatures shouldn't be standing in one square then.


I've played female characters before, but now avoid it out of habit. Mostly as a kind of "mental self-defense" more than anything else.

I've been in games where the slavering geek greedily asks the GM "So the barmaid, is she hot?" and proceeds to make everyone at the table incredibly uncomfortable, so i tend to avoid the whole sex thing as a personal rule. I've also played a female character and had everyone at the table hit on me constantly (including the GM, which just got to be way too weird)... so I tend to avoid anything which could incite the geeks now out of habit (even though I play with a much more emotionally stable group now). If i make female characters it's usually the incredibly low charisma, burn scars, built like a brick house, half-orc or dwarf barbarian types (and I usually make them lesbians, though that can get awkward if the uber-geeks make female characters as well).

It's not homophobia, it's avoiding mental scars (you should see some of the people I've played with, even my gay friends would be homophobic with them in the room).


If you really want to play a defensive "tank" character you need to move past the MMO mindset and think more outside of the box.

As a DM I will definitely allow a fighter or paladin to issue a challenge to a foe right off the bat (using either insults or whatever), but as a fight goes on no amount of insulting is as infuriating as a lightning bolt to your face or a puny guy behind you sticking daggers in your kidneys. You can scream insults at me all you want, but I'm still going to turn around and smack the crap out of the rogue, or run over and put a hurting on the dude in a dress slinging spells at me.

But... a dude with a guisarme that keeps tripping me while somehow staying just out of reach is going to really tick me off (imp. trip).... and a paladin that just broke my +4 Longsword of hereditaryness my daddy gave me might make me more willing to concentrate on him (imp. sunder)... the dual wielding elf that keeps knocking my weapon out of my hand could do wonders to make me angry (imp. disarm).... oh, and don't forget the stubby looking dwarf with the greataxe that's foaming at the mouth and somehow seems to be able to push me around the battlefield like I'm some kind of rag doll (imp. bull rush and overrun).

Yes, this mostly only works with large and smaller creatures (unless the wizard has enlarge spells ready), but with the bigger targets you have the option of being between it and the squishies (with the exception of really large battlefields).

Of course none of this will save a rogue... but as I rogue I always kept at least 30-40k worth of diamond dust on me at all times, or invested in a good light crossbow for anything we couldn't kill in 2-3 rounds.

And if all else fails, they can always run away while you beat on it from behind.