Does this mean I can use belly button fluff, a rabbit's foot, a live spider, a piece of paper, a rubber band, a common swab, or a wig as weapons that can deal damage?
If I throw a soft plush animal at you does it hurt? If I toss a metal coin at your face does it hurt?
It doesn't need to break the skin or break a bone to cause damage.
Most of what you suggest is more ridiculous than a piece of metal flying at your face.
Quote:
If a throw a grape at someone a hundred times, does this mean that they would die because it's "impossible" to do less than 1 damage?
A grape. Really? Please sir go for a fruit with a tougher exterior than a grape such as a Watermelon, Honey Dew Melon, Grapefruit, or even an Apple or Orange. A grape would bounce harmlessly off, its not of the same as an apple which is actually tougher and can actually hurt more than a simple grape.
I also refer you to the following quote. Not only arrows but other items of fragile materials such as a Crystal Chakram.
Ammunition (Bow): Arrow(s), Durable wrote:
Durable arrows don’t break due to normal use, whether or not they hit their target...
Quote:
Saying that any item is a valid improvised weapon that can deal damage, let alone lethal damage, is illogical.
Unlike several lines of games run by the company known as White Wolf for the World of Darkness universe where there is Bashing/Lethal/Aggravated for damage levels, in D&D/PF there is only Nonlethal and Lethal.
If it cannot do lethal damage as you suggest, it has to deal nonlethal.
Also you know whats really illogical?
IQuarent wrote:
Does this mean I can use belly button fluff, a rabbit's foot, a live spider, a piece of paper, a rubber band, a common swab, or a wig as weapons that can deal damage?
The comment in the beginning of your quote. Its nothing more than a swing at the cheap seats in a flimsy attempt of a rebuttal.
I'll once again point towards the Table: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage. Looking at it, it is in fact possible to take damage to nothing, making the statement "Damage can never deal anything below 1 so long as their is a damage die" 100% false. Look at the table and you see 1 and - damage on the chart. A tiny 1d2 weapon deals NO damage as per the RAW chart. A coin 1/5th the weight of a shuriken should be at least 1 size smaller taking the damage from 1d2 to - and that's before you take in the fact that it's not sharp...
Diminutive Shortsword: 1d2-4 = 1.
It is literally impossible to do damage below 1 unless special conditions are used as well. I list three examples, not all of the possibilities but here they are:
1) Damage Reduction (IE: DR 1/-)
2) Nonlethal on Undead* = No Damage
3) You are attacking a Fine or Diminutive Swarm with a Weapon.
*=Not restricted To Undead, but limited to only any creature immune to nonlethal damage.
Quote:
To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list TO FIND A REASONABLE MATCH. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
The only reasonable match for a coin is 1d1 or 1d2, a Shuriken.
Tactical Monkey wrote:
... (Bludgeoning) 10 Foot Range.
You have two options:
1) Make a needless new rule or to reinvent the wheel
2) Use the blanket statement rule to simplify the process and to prevent rules headache.
If you chose option 1, this is a House Rule and is thus considered invalid in any Sanctioned Play.
Melee shortsword +0 (1d2-4/19-20)
Ranged shortbow +7 (1d2-4)
Str 3, Dex 17, Con 10, Int 6, Wis 11, Cha 10
Sure its conventional weaponry but I wanted to bring up the size, damage for dice, and the STR score.
1d2 for a Diminutive Shortsword.
3 STR (-4 Penalty)
Damage can never deal anything below 1 so long as their is a damage die, no matter how low the STR penalty. The higher the STR score, the more one can deal damage. I can toss a smoothed rock (bludgeoning) of similar size and weight to a coin and it is considered a valid Improvised Weapon to use. If I change the fluff or description of the rock to a coin... "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet".
Weight hardly has any meaning in the matter as magical materials for weapons and armor can halve that weight. Size only reduces the damage die if you go smaller, it increases in the damage die for each size category larger than medium. The second I treat something as an improvised weapon it is assigned a damage dice. No matter how out of the ordinary for conventional combat.
ALSO: This is a fantasy world created by using Fluff and Game Mechanics.
Early Guns exist.
Magic bends the law of physics.
Cthulhu exists.
Gods exist.
Divine Magic exists.
Arcane Magic exists.
Ghosts Exist.
The dead can be raised as Zombies/Skeletons.
People can be resurrected from death's doorstep.
Golems Exist.
Goblins/Orcs/Hobgoblins/Kobolds EXIST.
Alchemical Formulas used to make bombs, mutagens, and extracts... exist.
Every Cryptoid such as Sasquatch, Mothman, or a Chupacabra do indeed... exist.
If you want a realistic world, I hate to break this to you, but Pathfinder is very far removed from what we know in reality as "realistic". That is not to say that people on Golarion eat stones, drink tree sap, never sleep, and never age. Oh no its not that at all. What it is that you take OUR reality and then put it Pathfinder where the entire world gets blended with all the things that we consider SHOULD NOT HAPPEN OR CANNOT EXIST.
So I will ask you, how is it impossible that a coin can be used as a ranged improvised weapon? This is one of the most bizarre arguments I ever seen on here, right up there with the threads that talked about "Can I use my elbows/knees/feet/etc for Stunning Fist?" and how it was argued FOR AND AGAINST being able to do that IS just as baffling.
The reason why people are disbelieving the idea is simple. Shock Value. Its not normal, it works, the concept sounds ridiculous. Simply because in Pathfinder the money is treated as an abstract concept rather than a physical object. It is still used to buy goods and services, however you got people lugging around several thousand Gold Piece coins just to buy some +1 Flaming Sword.
Excuse me, I will be letting myself walk away from this as I nearly gave my headache over this bizarre topic
How exactly would the Hydrophobia spell work if used on a Water Elemental? I mean how would they react with the fear of drowning and that they are made entirely of water. Seeing as how Elementals maybe immune to sleep effects but they are easily affected by most other forms of mind affecting spells.
I can see this spell having some hilarious uses. The bard casts Hydrophobia on a shark or merfolk, the creature fails its safe and seeks to beach itself if possible as it is suddenly afraid of drowning and will thrash in the water as if it were drowning.
So what methods of playing a necromancer are legal?
For now, the necromancer (as a specialist wizard) and most of the necromancy school are legal. Some necro-oriented archetypes for other classes have been banned (undead lord- cleric, vivisectionist- alchemist, etc.) and all blood drinking and flesh eating spells/feats/etc., some being on the grounds of being evil.
The whole point of this thread is simple: If these are evil, yet diabolists and Asmodeus-worshippers are not, I feel no reasonable certainty what will or won't be banned under the evil pretense.
We may actually be switching from PFS format to play Rise of the Rune Lords, with normal rules. Does that mean that PFS is entry-level only (if you want "muture content")? I hope not! I enjoy the idea of the Society, the factions, and the ongoing support for PFS. I hope this ban trend doesn't end up weeding me (or others) out.
Why yes you can play a Tiefling who is a Diabolist and worshiper of Asmodeus that hangs around the Chelaxians. Be a eater of gourmet tongues of all sorts and perhaps some other tasty "treats". You can for a price have a slave that with the right tools and reprogramming will do anything that the master wishes no matter how diabolic. You could dance on peoples graves and give no cares. Perhaps your character would like a couple extra gold pieces, you know, sell some organs you harvested for a quick copper.
What am I getting at? Nothing evil as far as the game is concerned and is part of the accepted norm in that sure some other faction may hate you for being a Chelaxian Devil though its not like playing a Sczarni is a step up from being a slimeball mobster where openly wearing your faction can get you killed like one may wear openly wear a gangs colors.
If I honestly wanted a party of Good Guys that go beat up the Bad Guys, the party might as well be just Paladins. Yeah, those guys who are the pinnacles of Goody Two-ness as far as the game is concerned when the Paladin is not just a straight up murderous jerk.
Am I the only one who sees this in a game to game way?
Grand Lodge Captain: Stabby Mchshankerson, what is your profession?
Stabby Mchshankerson: *Eyes darting back and forth* I like to stick my knives in peoples back.
GLC: Wonderful! Your hired you little angel. Raging Maven, what is your profession?
Raging Maven: *Inaudible growls and howls*
GLC: Hmm I see, you got the spirit were looking for! Last but not least Bob Marsh, what is your profession?
Bob Marsh: Well you see I raise the dea-
GLC: You Horrible Monster! OUT THIS INSTANCE!
So I can be a Half-Elf Paladin (Stonelord, Dwarf Only) or a Half-Orc Druid (Treesinger, Elf Only) because I took the Racial Heritage feat? Interesting.
As written, yes.
In PFS, no.
I'm good with either option, I just don't like this in-between state.
Huh. Sounds like the feat should either be banned or become a rare boon that works as intended.
If I wanted to be redundant in PFS I could be a Half-Elf with Racial Heritage (Elf) and just have a second iteration of my racial trait. In a home-campaign I could be the wiser and be a Half-Elf with Racial Heritage (Elf) so I could go Magus (Spell Dancer).
Once their godly characters died, horribly I might add, they complained. I retorted with telling them exactly what I told them at the beginning: "If you use this character, I am going to go out of my way to try and kill you because it is too powerful and unbalanced compared to the rest of the party."
I don't know who you game with but your actions seem very spiteful and mean-spirited.
How are they going to do the Shaman that is Oracle and Witch?
I mean on one half you got a Divine Spontaneous Spellcaster and a Arcane Spellbook Spellcaster. I hope they will go for mish/mash of the two.
Like you have your familiar that acts the spells you have access to, but you can cast them in a spontaneous way.
Or perhaps like how Kobold Press did their version of the Shaman in that
Quote:
unlike a druid or cleric, a shaman need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet cast all spells per day for that spell level. Shamans need no divine focus to cast spells, even for ones with divine focus (DF) listed as a component.
I would like to see a Warlord class (Bard+Barbarian). Based on the concept of a strong leader, both charismatically and physically, leading his men into battle while providing morale bonuses.
