Hey everyone, just catching up on the latest FAQ rulings and I noticed that there was a very firm FAQ ruling about 2-Handed Weapons and armor spikes recently, so I got to thinking...
Pathinder Core Rules FAQ wrote:
Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?
No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.
Does this concept of handed-ness also apply to Unarmed Strikes (kicks or headbutts)? That is to say, can you TWF with a 2-hander and an unarmed strike?
It seems like you would not be, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion.
Wow, very cool. I think that I might like this section the best... random map generation? Very intriguing. The alignment shifting contacting relationship ideas will be welcomed as well. Definitely liking the reveals for Ultimate Campaign so far!
I don't understand why there's still a question... but I think Sean has a reasonable point. There are even more size categories and not all are listed on the tables.
In the table I linked previously, the last row is an example of a 2d10 medium weapon that scales to 2d6 (tiny) and 4d8 (large). I think it would be logical to assume it scales to 2d8 (Small) based on the scaling pattern.
For verification of this, and using only the Core Rule book, I found that the answer to your question is listed in the Monk Class page by comparison of the 20th lvl monk's Medium Unarmed damage with the sub table of the 20th lvl Monk's Small Unarmed Damage.
It is a little leg work, but if you're already looking in another book, you're already doing plenty. Not all the information can be contained within one section, so be sure to check similar and related sections because the answers may be there.
Thanks for the preview. I have been waiting for news about this book and it is living up to my expectations. I'll be eager to read a bit about the story feat mechanics and I do worry that they could possibly fall by the wayside like other flavorful feats like Fleet (based on my experience with my own players). But I do appreciate the injection of this very flavorful mechanic into the game as I believe that the flavor is perhaps the most important thing in this game of ours.
Everything is a trade-off. I like multi-classing, but I don't think this is more or less powerful than a normal caster at level 20, you could fill your level 9 spell slots with Prismatic Wall and use the same cast on the ground trick you're talking about.
Not sure about your Wail of the Banshee comment, since you cast spells with Imbue Arrow at their normal rate: "A spell cast in this way uses its standard casting time and the arcane archer can fire the arrow as part of the casting." So, you cast your spells as fast as any other sorcerer.
I think we're all agreed on the need for the net to be sundered. However, if you could break free from a net (held by an opponent) without having to overcome the opponent's CMD and just the net's CMD, then my general opinion of nets just declined even further.
oooo... under the FAQ hood. Am I the only one excited here? Seriously, thanks Sean for pulling back the hood and letting us know how to be more responsible in our FAQ tags. I will be much more judicious in FAQing.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I don't know which threads you're talking about, so I don't have any specific answers. However, as there is no option for us to say "this post is a mess and we can't suss out exactly what you're asking," it's possible it may have been marked answered-in-FAQ to purge it from the list (otherwise it would sit in the list forever... the only options for clearing flags are "answered in FAQ," "answered in errata," "not an error/no staff response needed," and "create new FAQ entry for this") with the expectation that a clearer version of the question is in the queue.
In my post with the spoiler above I gave the links to the original posts with the "Answered in FAQ" "errors" in my breakdown.
As advised, I made a new (and theoretically more concise) thread about Overrun and Charge located at the new location - here.
Since making the Overrun in the charge is a 'free action', how many foes can you overrun in the same charge?
Take into account that, as far as I know, free actions are nearly limitless.
This is a little off-topic but I will take a crack at it. Yes, it is a free action, true, and normally there is a lot you can perform, but unfortunately here the rules text for Charge Through is against you.
Benefit: When making a charge, you can attempt to overrun one creature in the path of the charge as a free action. If you successfully overrun that creature, you can complete the charge. If the overrun is unsuccessful, the charge ends in the space directly in front of that creature.
So, even though it is a free action the feat limits us to just one creature in the path of the charge using the charge through feat (and possibly the target of your charge). However, your question does remind me of the Overbearing Onslaught (Barbarian Rage Power) from the APG.
Overbearing Onslaught (Ex): While raging, the barbarian may overrun more than one target per round, with a –2 penalty on her CMB for each overrun check after the first. A barbarian must have the overbearing advance rage power to select this rage power. A barbarian must be at least 6th level to select this rage power.
How this would interact with a standard Charge + Overrun seems quite interesting. Especially,if you could move through enemies with overrun and charge.
I think there is a feat called Charge Through that allows you to do exactly that. I don't think the Paizo staff would create a feat for something you can do without it... and doesn't give bonus/negates AoOs or something...
Just my 2cp
Hey there! Yeah, the original thread is here: Overrun & Charge and you can read my original response to this very question.
Essentially, the way things are written you can overrun 2 targets with Charge Through and attack the last while without it you would only get to overrun the first (and attack it).
Charge Through seems (to me) as a way to get through meat shields to attack a further target, which isn't the issue I'm discussing.
Ok, I re-posted the Overrun/Charge thread in the Rules Forum and marked the first post with a FAQ tag and put my follow up questions on replies to make things hopefully easier for the fAq-Team
5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
Follow-up #1: How can you overrun on a charge, since you have to end your charge at the first legal space you can attack from - and you cannot continue your movement through an enemy? Don't you have to enter the enemy's space to overrun them?
Imagine the headache for a character with a Reach weapon (or even natural reach) trying to overrun.
11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.
This is a restatement of my original post concerning Overrun and Charge that was marked as "Answered in FAQ" seemingly in err, so here goes... (hopefully it is presented in the proper format to be considered FAQqable):
Core Rules Question: If a player chooses to Charge and perform an Overrun attempt during the charge, is the Overrun meant to replace the attack granted at the end of the charge (as with Bull Rush)? Or is an Overrun attempt allowed in addition to the charge attack? The rules are unclear on this.
A short, concise question is much more likely to get a FAQ than a post that is a page of supposition, links to other discussions, and no actual question presented.
Hi Sean, well our main issue in this thread was: Why are some threads marked as answered as FAQ but they are specifically not addressed in the FAQ? And will they be addressed?
Specific Questions for FAQ:
Spoiler:
1. "Overrun & Charge": How can you overrun on a charge, since you have to end your charge and you cannot continue your movement through an enemy? If you overrun during a charge can you legally continue movement through an enemy? Is Overrun supposed to replace the attack on a charge? (like Bull Rush) or is an Overrun attempt allowed in addition to the charge attack?
2. "Effects Related to Race" and Elf/Orc Blood discrepancy: According to the APG FAQ, why does using the Racial Heritage feat (APG) allow "effects related to race" to extend to racial archetypes/traits but being a Half-Orc/Half-Elf does not?
Racial Heritage specifically calls out that effects related to race makes your character that race for "the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on." Directly contradicting the APG FAQ on half-orcs/elves and effects related to race.
3. Oils made of harmful spells: Can you apply a harmful spell oil to an enemy? What kind of action is it? And what must be done to successfully resolve such an attempt? Thirdly, could you throw an oil of fireball/lightning bolt like a bomb?
4. (For fun) Why is the brace weapon feature so specific? Do you have to state specifically that you prepare your spear against a charge? If someone walks up to you, your ready action is essentially wasted. What about if this weapon is readied and hits a charging character it deals double damage?
See you after lunch :)
EDIT: This post was edited many times so I hope you saw the final version. Spoiler tags and links to original threads added for conciseness.
Yea! Wat are these guys doing, gearing up for Con season?! (Jesting)
This is a great thing to consolidate for transparency. There are a few of these threads floating around and I see that the dev team has been busy recently (which I'm thankful for) but some of these issues have been around for ages and haven't gotten a proper looking over.
I hope the team will continue to be diligent and address these threads that have been marked (seemingly in error).
In my charge/overrun thread I have taken up the (admittedly annoying) idea of FAQing every post in the thread since it has been marked as answered for quite literally years.
I agree with almost everything you posted, but we don't possess even one tenth of the survival instincts we once did. Most people, left to their own in the wilderness fare very poorly, where at one time, we flourished.
Wrong. We still have all out DNA instincts. It's been estimated that at any given point in your lifespan, half your behavior is dictated by that same DNA, the other half by experience.
Oh, and that bit about Int 3 needed to speak? That's wrong by a modern psychological perspective, given the distribution of Int scores on 3d6 and the Bell curve. You need at least 6, because at 5 you end up speaking like Cookie Monster. Lower yet, and you can't speak at all.
Eh, there's rules for that:
The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
Your bell curve and averages only work if they apply. Which they do not since a 3 is still fine for literacy. You do not have to speak like Cookie Monster. Although that might humorous.
@Brian: lol. I think the quotes were for humor and not real quotes.
So I guess you missed the previous FAQ ruling that said archtypes and feats are effects related to race- see jason bulhman answer regarding human heritage feat.
Eh, what?
Looks like the wording to me is a bit choppy but Racial Heritage looks like the exception.
If he's participated in one, he may well have some worthwhile knowledge. Of course, adventuring wizards participate in these sometimes as well.
Maybe we should find out if the either of the characters (fighter or wizard) has been in such a battle?
There are a lot of circumstantial back-story moments involved here, and we'll have to get involved in some heavy duty rp to find out :). Hey that janitor was in the national guard!
"The rules doesn't say I can't" is an immature response to give seriously in an actual social scenario, kinda like the obnoxious kids in my junior high going all "the air is free! the air is free!" while pushing their hands a centimetre in front of my face.
Sure, I can't force you to roleplay a certain way. But I am free to tell you "sorry, this doesn't fly at our table. Find somewhere else to play.".
Likewise, your players are entitled to say: "Hey, we disagree, let's talk about this or we'll just find someone else to run the game".
I am not holding up the extremism DM forcing certain RP banner that many have suggested, but your (collective, to a few posters here) unwillingness to even be open to the concept is quite unnerving. There are many ways of interpreting something,
This bears repeating, I don't approve of dump stats, heck I don't even use the attribute allocation system, but I don't think low scores should make some "handicapped" character such as a trained Fighter class character that can't figure out what flanking is. Unless, you've established in your game a system of already demanding ability checks at every turn.
If a player with negative DEX wants to try and RP a stealthy character, let them try. It will probably not go as planned and they will be discovered a lot, but let them enjoy themselves instead telling them they trip over their own cloak and hit every stair on the way down.
A character with STR 7 is weaker but not debilitatingly weak. According to the carrying capacity rules they can: deadlift between 84-140lbs and push or drag 235-350lbs. Not terrible by any stretch, certainly not the hulk, but able.
A charcter with a STR of 10 can deadlift 122-180 lbs.
mdt wrote:
If you want to play a character who can converse like an average person, and has an average person's common sense, and an average person's magnetism, then may I politely suggest that you play a character with average stats? Your argument suspiciously sounds a lot like 'I want the benefit of having low stats (extra points) but I do not want to deal with any negatives from such that I don't have to'. Why are you playing a P&P RPG in this case? Why have a character if you don't want to role play that character?
What I am trying to suggest is that the stats are pretty average, the fall-off between 10 and 7 is not as drastic or detrimental or debilitating as you (and others) make it sound.
mdt wrote:
If you have 7/7/7, then yes you do. Otherwise you're just a smelly, slow-witted, annoyingly gullible person (as a character that is, not a real life person).
You're simply below average, not some denzien outcast rabble. That's the point I'm trying to get across here. There is really no real, meaningful difference between RPing a character win an INT of 10 or 7 called for. You can if you like. Again, I personally use stat arrays because of the way the mechanics work out, but I don't have a problem with someone that has 7 INT (unless they also have 22 str or something).
mdt wrote:
If the DC to open the door is 10, then yes, they do fail often (55% chance, more often than not). If the DC to move the chair is 5, then yes, they fail often (30% chance of failing on a DC 5). My wife is muscularly challenged due to a neuropathy, and she quite often fails to open doors and move chairs, because she has a lower than average strength. Just as 10 to 14 year olds sometimes fail to open a door or move a chair on the first attempt, or if it's heavy enough, they fail repeatedly or take 10 times as long to do the same thing.
As to the crushing a glass, it's quite possible. I have seen drunk football players smash beer bottles to shards just tapping the necks together too hard while drunk, because they forgot how strong they are.
I thought that the game didn't take physical/mental disabilities into account, so while appreciated, your wife's situation is not a parallel to the conversation at hand. Rasmus had a similar point with their autism, and that was pretty summarily dismissed by many of the other posters. As far as the objects, I'm just referring to a regular door or chair, not something that would be considered heavy, but I hope you ask all your players to roll STR checks when they open a door, lift a sword, open a cupboard, etc. Sounds really tedious, imo.
I understand that people can forget themselves and crush things (having done it myself a number of times) but every time? There is some amount of control involved.
Nobody is saying you have to play your 7/7/7 character in a specific way.
People have complained about people wanting to RP their 7/7/7 as a suave, savvy, and smart person.
He is not suave, he is not savvy, and he is not smart.
This is not the case MDT. This would only be the case if you had to roll a d20 INT ability check (or any ability check) every time you spoke or suggested anything.
A lot of conversation and extracurricular things are not defined by the skill system. Your decision making ability is one of them. Your words, vocabulary and course of action are others.
You don't need ranks in skills to be considered suave, savvy or smart. You can have ideas too.
If your character has 7 STR, do they fail at opening doors or moving a chair from a table? If your character has 20 STR do they break glass bottles when they hold them, unable to control the raw power at their disposal?
Archetypes and Feats are not effects, effects stem from things like spells or abilities of magic items.
From the FAQ
Half-Elf or Half-Orc: Can a character of either of these races select human racial archetypes (such as from Advanced Race Guide?
No. While half-elves and half-orcs do count as humans "for any effect related to race", racial class archetypes do not count as an "effect."
—Pathfinder Design Team, 03/15/13 Back to Top
For feats, they specifically have to call out half-orc, half-elf, etc. Like this:
Arcane Talent
Magic is in your blood, and at your fingertips.
Prerequisites: Cha 10; elf, half-elf, or gnome.
Benefit: Choose a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. You can cast this spell three times per day as a spell-like ability. The caster level is equal to your character level. The save DC is 10 + your Charisma modifier.
Supposedly, a 3 can speak. I always felt that was a bit crazy, but it's right there in the rules.
quite.. here's the rules for this stuff... thanks to BNW for parodying the issue..
Here's the relevant information about Intelligence from... the first chapter of the core rules.
PRD - Core - Getting Started wrote:
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:
The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
Similarly, looking through the wisdom score write up, if you have a score of above a 0 you are capable of rational thought. Again, Paizo themselves statted an NPC bard with INT of 8.
Again, you can RP your character anyway you like, but don't force that idea on others, it's not supported in the rulebook. Mechanical INT penalties are already assessed on skill and ability checks.
This reminds me of the idea out there that people with a low CHA are ugly as sin. Not true at all.
Of course a low intelligence character can show cunning. Cats show incredible cunning everyday, but they're less intelligent than humans. They don't make elaborate plans, though. They lack the needed level of intelligence.
A cat has an INT of 2. You're suggesting that more than tripling that intelligence would make you less than a cat?
A lot of people say dogs are as smart as humans.. they also have an INT of 2.
Mechanically, you really just need an INT of 3 to achieve human intelligence levels. Now, if you want to RP a dullard, go right ahead, but you shouldn't force someone to adhere to a standard.
Calvos, the Bard from the NPC codex Bards has an int of 8, he's a street performer not a buffoon. He plays a wind instrument, but only speaks one language.
How is it that it is not shattered every time it is pitted against the metal weapons of medium creatures?
It has to do with engineering, physics and lots of other things that don't come up in PF. Shields are designed to absorb and deflect blows, transferring the energy throughout the mass.
Medium sized weapons aren't all that much bigger, but asking about Large sized weapons vs small shields might get your point across.
Counter question: How are you not immediately splattered to tiny bits if a gargantuan/huge dragon swipes you? There's a certain amount of fantasy, it can't all be real.
It's not about Intelligence, it's about Disable Device.
Indeed, folks are muddling perception of what intelligence should govern in reality, and not taking into account the construct of the game.
@Piccolo: Rolling stats vs arrays, basically the same for assuring people aren't trying to game the system on attribute distribution. Well, maybe too harsh, keeping people honest.
Seems like a 7 intelligence character can excel at things but they will not be diverse. They can skill focus into a knowledge skill but they won't have many points for anything else. But they won't be held back in any way.
Here's a bit from animal companions: Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can purchase ranks in any skill. An animal companion cannot have more ranks in a skill than it has Hit Dice.
Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using. GMs might expand this list to include feats from other sources.
So we can see that 3 int is the cut off for higher level thinking.
I like orfamay's post above mine. It's solid and could further be reinforced by tr fact that our bard is taking big negatives to his INT checks even if he does try to test his knowledge
The real issue is that the GM allowed the backstory and then later decided to ruin the character. Once the backstory is accepted the character is a PC, not an NPC. The GM can only unilaterally alter PCs through the rules framework (eg. by killing them with HP damage).
Yep.
Lord Mhoram wrote:
I build my character to be exactly what I want to play - in mood, approach and such. A GM has no right to change that on me. Results to actions in a mechanical sense yeah. But the other way, before the game starts the GM can tell me what classes, feats, spells and such are allowed or disallowed. I build my character to suit his world.
Another excellent summation of a GM overstepping the shared narrative idea.
Thus, I feel that someone who has 7 intelligence, is not nescesarilly dumb, or slow, or dull, by the RAW, but can be exceptionally intelligent, and simply lack the ability or tools intellectually to apply the intelligence "effectively" at all times.
This is an excellent summation of my thoughts. Thanks Rasmus.
We are getting into a lot of mechanics for something that doesn't involve mechanics.. when someone makes a deal with a devil (think movie not Pathfinder) do they have any sort of special abilities? most often no.. When you read religious stories of divine intervention, they can occur with humble farmers.
Just let the kid play their character, you have a whole world to play with GM.
It's an evil celestial blooded sorcerer for the game purposes, get ready to add a few celestial/devil references.
Just to contribute here, INT of 2 is the "smart" end of animal intelligence (dogs, horses) and 1 is the "dumb" animals, so based on that exponent who can imagine what a score of 3 can be...
IMO, 7 is fine, no RP penalty. You're bad at remembering and picking things up but you function as average.
What we should be talking about are people that roll characters with 20 INT that only have 9 in real life :). How do you play a "smart" character?
It's pretty hard to force these constructs on people and change their logical capabilities.
There are other reasons as well, based on many bad experiences with evil characters and the players who like to play them over the years, but the reason above is the main one.
I am assuming the GM ok'd the play of an evil character.
One of the (many) tasks that I feel "Wrath of the Righteous" needs to accomplish is to provide proof of concept for Mythic Adventures.
The hardcover itself is fine and good, but without us also putting our money where our mouth is and giving an immediate example of how to build an entire campaign based on mythic elements... the hardcover is nothing more than another book of options that would and could rightly be called power creep.
But by showing that using these rules can create brand new storylines that, when the powers available in Mythic Adventures are taken into account, actually ENHANCE the story rather than simply being a power-boost to PCs, I hope that we'll be able to convince a lot of folks of the viability of Mythic Adventures as a legitimate GM storytelling tool, and NOT just as a "shopping list" of new powers for PCs.
This sort of ideology is what attracts me to paizo as a company, I know that you guys will continue to strive to be even greater with each new product line - you're willing to continue to take risks. So I think you've pretty much earned my money, James! Take it!
What actions afterwards might you referring to, Vod? The whole point of celestial betrayal was to GET THE CELESTIAL POWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
We very much agree here RD. Actions afterward are of no import, this is not a paladin or cleric. How you chose to play your character "and their alignment" (as it says in the text) doesn't factor into it.
First, I want to say congrats! You guys pulled one off for the ages, I always love when players can overcome crazy challenges, makes for a great story. Can't imagine how you guys survived all those tentacly attacks!
Second your GM should re-examine the Kraken. I recently got curious and read up on the Kraken myself (never used it in a game before). It has many special abilities that let it overcome trouble and escape back to the safety of the water.
Good gaming! These are the stories that make the game so memorable.
Good question, dork! err RD :). This from the Sorcerer bloodline (Celestial) sums up my view.
PRD: Core: Classes: Sorcerer: Bloodlines wrote:
Celestial
Your bloodline is blessed by a celestial power, either from a celestial ancestor or through divine intervention. Although this power drives you along the path of good, your fate (and alignment) is your own to determine.
Just because you have "good blood" doesn't really mean anything for your fate. Just like a Red Dragon blooded sorcerer could be Lawful Good and help orphans, so too can a Celestial Blooded sorcerer defile places of worship and beat up the elderly.
However, I have encountered GMs that don't seem to get that your bloodline doesn't have to influence your character. Just because my ancestors are ____ doesn't mean I am. I am an individual. Hopefully, the GM will embrace my character in their world.
James, thanks for being so involved in this thread. The discussion is quite fascinating. I too had been wondering about Mythic Rules (leaning on the side of liking them). After reading everything I am decidedly on the side of Mythic and I'd like to thank you at Paizo for creating such a versatile system.
