Tharken's page

33 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blackstorm wrote:


Overhand Chop wrote:
Overhand Chop (Ex): At 3rd level, when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls. This ability replaces armor training 1.
PRD, Combat Section, Damage Subsection wrote:

Strength Bonus: When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.

Off-Hand Weapon: When you deal damage with a weapon in your off hand, you add only 1/2 your Strength bonus. If you have a Strength penalty, the entire penalty applies.

Wielding a Weapon Two-Handed: When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus (Strength penalties are not multiplied). You don't get this higher Strength bonus, however, when using a light weapon with two hands.

Check the two wording. They're the same. Your Str bonus never change. Your bonus damage for wielding a 2 handed weapon is equal to 1,5 Str bonus. Your Str bonus never change. Overhand chop says that you add 2*Str bonus to damage when you make a single attack action.

If you're not agree, please, argument, because it's really clear for me.

Yeah, RAW, it appears you get the bonus for two-handed weapon and the bonus for Overhand Chop. Then again, RAW, it appears you get this :

PRD, Combat Section, Damage Subsection wrote:


When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result.

And this :

PRD, Combat Section, Damage Subsection wrote:


When you deal damage with a weapon that you are wielding two-handed, you add 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus

Going by the wording here, and following exactly the same logic, nothing indicates those two bonuses are mutually exclusive either. So technically, any character using a two-handed weapon adds a total of 2-1/2 times his Strength bonus, with Overhand Chop letting you add a total of 4-1/2 times your Strength bonus.

But really, there's a point where the silliness has to stop. In any game worth its salt, by RAW, you get a book to the head.


It does say "Target or Area" in Dispel Magic's description. Then proceeds to say "You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end [...] one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire)."

I see no reason why it couldn't end a Control Weather spell.


Ellis Mirari wrote:
While there isn't a Craft Construct route for alchemist they do have the ability to create body duplicates and things.

Best part is, instead of obeying your orders like a good golem should, your cheap Alchemical Frankenstein will probably run off and kill Elizabeth ;)

Aberrant Templar wrote:
Adding straight mathematical bonuses to a skill is nice, but a bit boring IMHO. I'd rather see an investigator who can use Perception to get additional information from a successful check than an investigator who gets a bunch of bonuses to a die roll.

I'm 100% with you on this. Anything that gives the Investigator more Investigation potential would be great, even if it's in optional talents. It'd be great if you could get all that extra info without having to be a divination caster.


Tirisfal wrote:


Poison Use should be replaced with Alchemic Deduction

I too am on the side of the fence about poison being kinda out of place here. Instead, might I recommend something akin to investigative alchemy? There are a few scenes in the Bob Downey Sherlock Holmes films that call out to "chemical deduction", as well as the scenes in Johnny Depp's Sleepy Hollow where he uses medical science and chemistry to follow clues. Maybe you could brew chemicals that allow you to follow blood trails, footprints, fingerprints, etc.

That's a very good point. I'd love it if the investigator had a bit more actual investigative abilities, besides just skill points. It probably wouldn't hurt to add a couple divination spells to the investigator's extract list.

In the spirit of Tirisfal's idea, something like a 'DNA test' of sorts could work, whether alchemical or magical in nature. Determine the age, race and sex of a person from things like hair, blood, nails and body parts. Check two body parts against each other to determine if they came from the same person...


Chaotic Fighter wrote:
The question is can a Brawler take Weapon specialization at level 4 and, IF the Brawler takes the Elemental Fist feat, How many uses does he get.

Seems to me that's the way Alternate Classes work.

I mean, if a Ninja takes the Rogue Talent ability, he uses his ninja level as his effective rogue level. They basically work like big archetypes.

Those hybrid classes would be very big archetypes, but they still do say they're alternate classes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Martial Maneuvers is going to be a headache with 1) people asking what feats apply and 2) people re writing their character sheets/die rolls as they add feats on the fly.

Not any more than people casting buff spells and having to add the bonuses on the fly. Most brawler players are going to look up interesting feats beforehand, make a list, and then apply as needed.

I really like Martial Maneuvers. Lets you use all those situational feats without having to cripple yourself.


After a quick read, I have two questions :
-How often does the Inspiration pool refresh ? I can't find anything about recharging it.
-Is the Intelligence Inspiration talent really supposed to be (Su), or is that a mistake ?

Overall, it looks like a vivisectionist, with slightly less sneak attack and more skill to make up for it. More skill points, more class skills, bonuses you can apply to skills... Seems interesting.


Even a very low-level wizard can craft the mightiest of magic items, short of scrolls/wands/potions. He just needs the right feat, a half-decent spellcraft score, and piles of gold.

If the item they want isn't available, they can commission just about any crafting wizard to make it for them, as long as they have the money.


Well, melee types don't have to take a -4 to -8 penalty to their attack rolls for mounted archery. And they get the +1 high ground bonus. And if they use lances, they can get some really high damage despite the lack of full attack.
Honestly, I'd say mounts are a lot more useful for melee than ranged. My guess is, it's more the 'optimized archer' part that's being a problem here. Not the 'on a mount' part.

What about the rest of the party ? Is the archer outshining everyone, or just the one underoptimized fighter ?
If the former, I'd ask the archer's player to rebuild his character with slightly less optimal choices. If the latter, I'd ask the melee fighter's player to rebuild more optimally. Maybe ask the archer's player to help him with it ?
Either way, if they're good players and you explain to them exactly why you're not having fun with the current situation, I'm sure they'll comply. Players have a vested interest in keeping the GM happy ;)

Oh, and I think you may be mistaken about the following :

"Werebat wrote:
As written, ranged characters on mounts can effectively get double moves AND full attacks, every round. Moreover, they can make their attacks at any point along their path of movement.
CRB wrote:
In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement.


FAQ wrote:
flanking specifically refers to melee attacks

Hm, tough one to twist. I suppose that sentence can still be technically true without being taken as an addition to the core rules. After all, the "flanking" chapter of the combat rules does specifically refer to melee attacks at some point.

When discussing how to get a flanking bonus.

Robert A Matthews wrote:


The design team isn't going to rule on every corner case. This is close enough to the FAQ for Gang Up that it is relevant.

Yes, of course. If the design team made a FAQ about that, they would clearly rule against my interpretation. But, to be blunt, I don't really care about that. My only aim here is to make the RAW say what I want it to say.

I keep my games RAW, but if I can use obscure ruleslawyery technicalities to make them better, you bet I'll do it.


Remy Balster wrote:
Tharken wrote:


You've just made ranged rogues not completely terrible. Good job.
They'd still need a way to threaten with ranged though. Ie Snap Shot, or Improved Snap Shot.
Are you sure ? The only paragraph that refers to threatening is this :
Quote:
Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.

Unless I missed something, not threatening stops your flanking buddy from getting a flank bonus, but it doesn't stop you from flanking.

Robert A Matthews wrote:


They didn't just say that ranged attacks don't get the +2 bonus. They said that ranged attacks don't benefit from the feat at all. That leads me to believe that it wouldn't work for anything else that would grant flanking from range.

I agree that the RAI here is extremely clear, flanking isn't supposed to work at range. But that one rule is a case of specific beats general. All it says is that the feat doesn't work with ranged attacks, it doesn't change the general rule unless you extrapolate.

I'm going to blatantly ignore RAI and go with RAW on this, because ranged rogues are awful and need the help. They're such a common archetype in media, and they just don't work at all in PF. Well, until now.


David Rowe wrote:

Please note the difference between flanking and flanking bonus.

Nowhere does it require that you must threaten the target to be considered flanking. But your target must be threatened by an ally to gain a flanking bonus when you make a melee attack.

I... wow, I never actually looked this up. You may not get the flanking bonus, nor grant it to another character, but you can still be flanking with a ranged weapon. Which is all that matters for sneak attack.

You've just made ranged rogues not completely terrible. Good job.


A set of Nesa coins and a fast, flying familiar. If no familiars are available, a tiny animated object will do the trick. Since it doesn't get tired, it can easily do some 15-20 mph with the right abilities/flaws.


Yes, I explain this in the Edit's first paragraph. Let me rephrase it again :

If selling the orcs into slavery means a PC is breaking an oath, then it is a chaotic act. And if a PC has sworn to uphold the laws of the land, and those laws forbid slavery (or at least have it tightly controlled), then he is breaking his word when he sells the orcs into slavery, and therefore it is a chaotic act.

If a PC has not sworn to uphold the laws of the land, and he is not breaking an oath or acting dishonorably, then I personally wouldn't label selling the orcs as a chaotic act, even if he is breaking the law.

Edit : Oh, I think I see what you mean. Yes, but people don't really make oaths to follow the laws of the land. I mean it's theoretically possible I suppose, but it just doesn't happen, they swear to uphold them.


Quote:
Law vs Chaos has to do with following the law of the land.

Eh, not really my opinion, but the link between Law and law has been a subject of debate for a long time and we're not going to solve it here. To each their own on that one.

Edit : I feel I may have been unclear. What I meant by 'unless one of the PCs was sworn to uphold the laws of the land' was that if they were, and they were breaking those laws, then it would definitely be a chaotic act for them.
I'm more of the opinion that acting with honor and keeping your word is the most important part of being Lawful, though of course following the local laws can be a part of it too, depending on circumstances.
But your point of view is perfectly fine too.


If this is Golarion, keep in mind that slavery is legal and well-accepted in most places. It's not really a matter of Good and Evil, just like our modern minds don't think putting our prisoners to work is an evil act.

Now, whether the orcs did deserve slavery, that's what decides the alignment of the act imo.
At least Good/Evil wise. I'm not sure Law/Chaos enter into it too much, unless one of the PCs was sworn to uphold the law of the land.


Quote:
The wizard can either be lucky and make one big sell, for 1825 gp, and have 363 days where he can study, research and relax. Or he can be very unlucky and be able to sell only 0-level potions (the worst cost/time magic item), that means he needs 73 working days, the remaining 292 days are left for him to research, study or relax. And this if they land the maximum amount of work.

Let's say this is true. In that case, as far as that wizard knows, you are his big sale. You need a magic sword and you have the money to pay for it. You are a golden opportunity that will not come again for a long time.

If he lets you have your sword without getting anything for it, he loses not just a few days of work, but also his entire yearly salary, by passing on that opportunity.


Pathfinder and the economy. Don't look too deep into it, or it makes no sense.

See, when you set yourself up as a magic item merchant, you only get the GP from your profession check each day. Why ? I don't know, maybe taxes. Whatever the reason, there are somehow huge costs involved that offset the profits. So if the wizard sells you something at half price, even if you gave him the components, he's not just wasting time, he's actually losing a huge amount of money.

I know, it doesn't make sense. But it's just how it is.


blahpers wrote:

I sunder the monk. He gains the broken condition.

I disarm the monk using Greater Disarm, sending his body flying. Alternately, since I have free hands, I am now holding the monk.

That would all fly if it wasn't for this wording :

Quote:
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent.
Quote:
If your attack is successful, your target drops one item it is carrying of your choice

The character's body being a weapon doesn't make it an item, nor does he carry it. Incidentally, that wording is also why you can't sunder or disarm natural weapons.


Besides the paladin method cited above, there's also the Revive word. Any cleric/druid/witch can get it at the cost of a single feat, for free resurrections. It only works until a few hours after death, but it's still pretty useful and you can always keep a few low-level slots open for gentle repose, just in case.


I'm reminded of this.

Having a mount vastly more powerful than the rest of the party looks dangerous to me. Just because it's combat trained doesn't mean it holds any special loyalty to you after all, it'll be combat trained for anyone who mounts it.

All it takes is for someone to knock you off the saddle, hop up on your tiger, and now you're fighting both him and your tiger.


aaronpark wrote:
Would that be considered a cursed item? I thought cursed items could only be made unintentionally

It sounds like the most convenient option for your villain. He could use a permanent magic aura instead, but that gives a will save instead of a boost to Spellcraft DC, and can be vulnerable to a stray dispel.


Also, just so your players don't stab you during the reveal, keep the "Identifying Cursed Items" rule in mind. The PCs will only see the hidden effects on a very high Spellcraft check, beating the normal identification DC by 10+. So that's something like DC 15 + Lich Caster level + 10.


As far as I can see, there's nothing about the description of 'Command Word' Activation that necessarily restricts the command word to the wielder. It's just that most items do it that way.

If you make a custom magic item, I guess there's nothing to stop you from allowing anyone to say the Command Word for it. But it would have to be a slotless item.


Depends on the orders of course.
But if the orders were simply "guard this place", and otherwise left up to the guardian's interpretation, I'd play it that way :

-An undead will kill everyone if his interpretation of the orders allows it, because slaughtering the living is what the undead do.
-An animated item will follow the most efficient way to fulfill his orders. If he just knocks the intruders out and throws them out, there's a chance for them to come back and get through this time. So he'll kill them all too, since that's the path of least resistance.

So in short I'd play it that both of them would kill the intruders, but for different reasons. But that's just a personal opinion.


Just because the weapon doesn't want to be sold doesn't mean you can't sell it.

If the player wants an even share, have him find a buyer that would take his weapon for an amount that would more or less even up the money difference.


Lord Pendragon wrote:

You wake up by making your Perception roll, as already outlined (though without the penalty you'd have for being deaf).

I think I'm going to bow out at this point. I've made my argument as plainly as possible, and understand yours, though I think it's...incorrect.

Agreed, I don't think there's anything for either of us to add at this point. But I'll just point out that there are no rules outlined for waking up by making your Perception roll. Being asleep is a modifier to Perception DCs, that's it.

Of course, by all the laws of common sense, succeeding on that roll will wake a sleeping character up since that's the whole point of noticing opponents and avoiding surprise but, well, we went over this. Neither Perception nor Warsight outright state that they wake you up if you were sleeping, yet both obviously do.


Lord Pendragon wrote:
If you are asleep, you must wake up.

How ?

If you succeed on the perception vs stealth roll, all it does is let you act in the surprise round, the exact same thing War Sight does. If War Sight doesn't wake you up, there is nothing about a successful Perception vs Stealth check that will wake you up either. If we imagine that sleeping is a condition, there is no way to break out of it.

Of course, this is ridiculous. If you pass the perception test to act on the surprise round, you get to act on the surprise round, and that means waking up. Natural sleep is not an imposed condition, it's just sleeping.


Lord Pendragon wrote:
Warsight would allow you to act in the surprise round. That action would be to continue sleeping.

Since "Being asleep" is not listed as an action, rather a lack of one, and since War Sight specifically lets you act, I really doubt that's how it works.

Duskblade wrote:
I guess the issue I'm having is that if you are allowed to 'act' in a surprise round, doesn't that essentially suggest that you are 'aware' that a surprise round is taking place? If so, wouldn't that mean that you are automatically 'awakened' if a surprise round occurs?

Oh, that's what you meant. Yes, you don't have the helpless condition if you can act normally. Just flat-footed until you act.


I'm not sure where you get that War Sight counters deafness ?

Anyway, here's how it goes as far as I can see. There's an opposed stealth check at a +10 bonus against your perception. Since you're asleep, sound is probably the only sense you can use here, and since you automatically fail sound-based perception rolls, you fail this roll. Note that this changes at 10th level when you get scent, then you can roll normally based on that new sense.

So the attacker passed his roll, and as a result he gets a surprise round. Thanks to War Sight you get to act in that surprise round. He gets one action (move or standard), then you get one action (same), then it's off to standard combat initiative. So there's no way to coup-de-grace you in your sleep.


Yeah, non-casters would be even more limited than usual in such a game, crippingly so. If I really wanted to remove magic items for some reason, I'd just make them part of the character progression. Each character picks a number of magic items under his WBL, and when he levels up he gains the effect as a personal ability.

Instead of the fighter buying boots of flying, he just grows wings by tapping into his ancient draconic ancestry or whatever.


I see, makes sense. And no, I'm just a guy who used the system in that wiki for one of his games, but I do know the person who made it. I'll see if I can contact him again.


This was a tremendously helpful analysis, thank you.

I've made a copy of the original wikidot (http://kingmakev2.wikidot.com/) and implemented the following recommendations :
-Removed Triage.
-Changed the BP costs for Fortification Builders, Improved Weapons, -Improved Armor, Healers (which is now limited to 1/battle), Poison.
-Added anti-cavalry tactics.
-Changed Wallsmasher to a +4.
-Moved the rout threshold to 2*CR, which should make Bolstered Resolve and Terror Troops more useful.

I'm surprised that Hold the Line and Defensive Wall are so much stronger than Expert Flankers and Relentless Brutality. Why is that the case ?

-----

Edit : Oh, I see. It's probably because armies use Reckless strategy by default, short of some weird tactics or situations, so you don't really need the extra OM that much to hit reliably in most cases.

I've tried to edit them, but I'm not sure how it'll hold up to analysis.