Search Posts
I dislike the use of the bluff/sense motive check. I believe it to be ill used in this setting. First, you penalize high initiative/high perception characters that likely have low/lower sense motive in their build. Second, to bluff takes AT LEAST one round. Third, you create this atmosphere of just saying "I attack" anytime there is a conversation because you feel it will give you the edge in the upcoming fight. Fourth, all parties involved are aware of one another. No surprise round.
I concede the point. Also, I prefer your option 1. I am prejudiced against the rapier being on the light blade list.
@mplindustries In answer to which of the light weapons I would call bladed, the answer is simple. All light weapons that are slashing.
@thejeff, thanks for that. With out the drawing, it took me a moment (or maybe I am slow and I lost my initiative). But I did find it humorous.
Look at the question another way. If something is too good to be true, then it is like not true. If you were to get the bonus to AC against a rapier, then a rapier would also qualify to be used by the knife master as a weapon of choice. Many players would then opt to play that guy. There something else about light weapons that is never boldly stated. They are all short. The are up close and personal weapons, or thrown. A rapier doesn't really fit in with them.
Good question. Personally, I would go with weapons listed as light on the weapons charts not the fighter weapon training list.
The only one you can use during initiative is the Temporal Celerity. The rest do not apply. Initiative is "outside" of the game and thus any in-game affects do not apply, and only those specific to initiative, like TC, would apply.
@Gauss, Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat) - You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. When you initiate the combat you describe you are not wielding a separate weapon in each hand and are thus not TWF. This would then preclude you from slipping into TWF for the remaining attacks.
I had a link to some work a person did on this, but the link is now dead. He had researched the math and devised some "complex" formulas for making your own poison DC's. However, there is a much simpler way. Use the standard poisons within the game. I believe Drow poison is a DC11. If you want it to be DC22, just double the price. In other words, take the nDC / oDC * oCost = nCost. (o = old, n = new). This would result in the simplest way to customize DC's. This being said, poison crafting is really broken imo. My GM and I devised a system to make poison crafting similar to magical item crafting (with how much can be made per day, etc. the same as magical items). We are considering working on a full blown "home brew" version and submitting it to Paizo, but I am unsure if that will happen as once played through, it is unlikely I will play a poisoner again in another campaign. Hope this helps somewhat.
@Jeven, it is not the poison that is dishonorable, it is the paladins take on the use of poisons that makes them dishonorable to use.
Poisons are not evil, not even to a paladin. However, a paladin would consider their use dishonorable (ie, against their code to use). Btw, medicine = poison just in a different dose. All that being said, a GM can make his own rules for his own world.
Lunge is specifically not normally available on AoO's. You may only lunge during your turn; although, the penalty lasts for the entire round. And, there are some weird combination of events which might allow you to AoO while it is actually your turn, but not normally speaking.
Double Slice would give you full STR to the off-hand Malachi. While not practical for the long term, it would be rather dramatic when you use it at BaB 11 to do 3 attacks with a great axe/sword using power attack then drop it, quick draw another and do 3 more attacks due to GTWF. Shall my rogue use Butterfly Sting and pass long several auto crits to you as well?
Thank you bbangerter. The trouble is that the FAQ you linked to does not say what Malachi said. Rather is says, "In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
Have a link bbangerter or can you be more specific as to which FAQ, sorry if I missed it above somewhere. Btw, Durngrun brings up a solid point for TWF with 2 greatswords.
Btw, I am with Durngrun on this personally. I do not call what you are doing cheese, nor am I willing to say it is emphatically against RAW. However, if I were your GM I would not allow it, but I also do not allow TWF duel wielding shield builds, nor do I allow lances to be used on anything but a charge and then only for the first successful charge in which it is automatically dropped (left in the opponent).
Malachi, mostly I am being tongue in cheek on this, but can you site where "Just to clarify: whichever weapon you designate as your 'off-hand' weapon for that round cannot take any attack that isn't an off-hand attack, and only the designated off-hand weapon can take the off-hand attacks for that round." comes from?
I disagree with your assertion that it is you that threatens and thus granting you the option to use any weapon at your disposal. If you have a weapon with reach, say a dwarven longaxe and a critter moves around you at 10' distance. You threaten those squares and thus can make an AoO. But, you cannot choose to use a different weapon to do so. Including the use of Quickdraw which is fundamentally limited to only being available on your own turn.
Oh, just to stir things up a little... I am using TWF and a Two-handed weapon as my main hand attack. My BAB is such that I get 3 iteratives plus 2 more off-hand attacks due to ITWF. So, I make my 3 attacks with my main hand weapon. Then as a free action, I remove my main hand from the weapon. Then as another free action, I place my main hand back on the weapon. I now make 2 attacks with my off-hand weapon which happens to be the exact same 2-hand weapon I have been using. Definition of TWF: You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon. For the pedantic would this be legal by RAW? If I was using a 1-handed weapon with 2 hands to start, and then switched, would that make a difference? What if my off-hand attacks only used it 1-handed?
Wraithstrike et al, if you are arguing for Hold Person to allow for "mental actions" and you are defining "delay" as a mental action, are you also saying that a subject under hold person could use su/sp/ex abilities which are mental actions as well? This in turn would then bring up the conundrum of you can't take any actions and yet using a spell-like ability, which is a purely mental action, that consumes a standard action of time, normally.
JJ says Treesmasha is right, and sexah too. Delay is something you have to consciously choose to do. It is, therefore, an action, and therefore is not something you can choose to do while being held. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=664?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#33190
Using Reshar's example of Panic and that his belief is that a Delay is not an action: I am panicked. I must flee when I take an action. I will delay. But you must flee. No, I must flee when I take an action. I haven't taken an action yet. In fact, I will delay until I am no longer panicked.
Wharwick are you saying you have changed your stance from how you ruled it during play?
DM Blake, I would argue that there is no such thing as a non-action. Pedantically speaking, the of Combat Actions lists all actions available during combat to include the No Action action.
Delay IS an action. It's a special initiative action.
OP, I believe you were incorrect in your actions. However, one would hope that would not cause the meltdown your group seemed to have suffered. Hold Person: The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech. Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A winged creature who is paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls. A swimmer can't swim and may drown.
~~~~~~
Further, if you are, say, poisoned while you may still delay you may not delay rolling for the poison effect.
@Reecy, yes, you might see some fighters that go 10 Str and 22 Dex, but not likely many or most. The Dex build is for finesse fighters/users. It has already been proven time and again how powerful a good THF build is vs TWF. The THF could not/would not use a Dex build. While Double Slice is not restricted to just finessable weapons, agile is.
I disagree with the first two posts. I believe that double slice combined with an agile weapon would indeed give you full dex mod to damage on your off-hand attack. Agile:
Note the use of the word "still." This indicates that dexterity is used in the same manner as strength would normally be used. Double Slice:
Normal: You normally add only half of your Strength modifier to damage rolls made with a weapon wielded in your off-hand. I consider the cost to be more than "a +1 enchantment and 1 feat." Rather, it's the cost of 2 weapons with 2 +1 enchantments each and 1 feat. A fairly expensive proposition early on. Now, I am not an expert, and normally I agree with Wraithstrike on things. So, I will sit back and wait for his smashing-my-face rebuttal.
If you have a creature whose dexterity has been reduced to zero or below via a poison, the creature is unable to move but is still conscious. Would that creature still be able to: talk, cast verbal spells, use supernatural abilities, etc?
I believe he won his life in the riddle contest, but he stole the ring plain and not so simple. Thanks for the laughs fellows.
What I would like to know is how you got a 224000gp ring? But that is only because I am jealous.
While I understand the concept of you are your own ally, can you be "the next ally" from your own hits? If not, which is how I read it, you cannot then auto crit for yourself.
Can I use the Butterfly Sting's effect more than once in a round? In other words, assuming I crit'd 4 times in a round, could I pass off all 4 crits? Would it matter if I hit multiple opponents? Feat: Butterfly’s Sting (Critical) You can forgo a critical hit in order to pass it on to an ally. Prerequisite: Combat Expertise. Benefit: When you confirm a critical hit against a creature, you can choose to forgo the effect of the critical hit and grant a critical hit to the next ally who hits the creature with a melee attack before the start of your next turn. Your attack only deals normal damage, and the next ally automatically confirms the hit as a critical.
I have this shirt on my rogue. I had not thought of all the ramifications presented here, nor have I thought about upping it into something more powerful. That being said and having read this, there is another work around for the original poster. At 1000gp buy more than 1. Change your shirt after use when time permits. I don't play that way, but for those that do. There you go. Btw, I use mine for those rare special moments, and a couple of been rather dramatic and party saving. Doing it every round would indeed be overly powerful, and quite frankly, less fun in the end.
If you take James Jacobs comments as correct interpretation of rules, then no he cannot. http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=361?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#18045
For those talking about ignoring an opponent, one of the Devs has commented that that is not the way of things, but for the sake of the argument, if you were to allow it, you would NOT be flat-footed, rather you would be HELPLESS. Meaning, that opponent you ignored could coup de grace you.
The listing in UE would be the same as the APG, and still has the anomaly of a DC20 to open jaws/pull spike in the fluff description and a DC26 in the mechanical description. And thank you for finding it as well.
With the regards to the SRD, in the Traps, Hazard, & Special Terrains section it cost out traps as a 1000gp per CR. It lists 12 bear traps as CR1. From the Adventurer's Armory:
From the Advanced Player's Guide:
Bold sections added by me as directly pertinent to the discussion. I am of the opinion that "Prying open the jaws or pulling the spike from the ground requires a DC 20 Strength check." from the APG is in error.
Shameless bump. I could use some help. Where are you Grick, BlackBloodTroll, Jiggy?
Under the Traps, Hazard, & Special Terrains section of the SRD:
In the Advanced Players Guide:
The Adventurer's Armory says:
Which of the three is correct/current? Further, as 3 of the 4 "standard" bears withing Pathfinder are large creatures, is is safe to assume that a bear trap will work equally well on an ogre as "bear traps work as well for trapping humanoids or monsters." And finally, if I wanted to secure the trap to a tree instead of spiking it to the ground, would you consider the chain that is part of the trap (for spiking it to the ground) is of sufficient length to wrap around a typical tree?
Specifically, are you able to perform either a bull rush or an overrun while you are squeezing? Secondly, while you are squeezing can an ally squeeze past you?
Beware where you go with this. Could a feather falling player have combat rounds with a flying opponent? Unless you can find something official floating around (pun intended), I suggest you read it as while feather falling the only action a player can take is the move action to "fall." Unless of course, this is the style of game you want. Just my thoughts.
Also, if he is attacking at range, he is going to have trouble getting off all the attacks. How is he carrying all the spears? How would he draw 2 additional weapons to throw? The returning spear returns at the beginning of his next turn.
Yes, he can use it against different opponents. However, he can only make multiple attacks as part of a full round action.
As Dust of Appearance would work to reveal the caster, would the spell Glitterdust, which is used to make Dust of Appearance, work as well? It does not specifically say so, but logic would seem to indicate it would.
I am looking for advice on whether or not an NPC in a party should receive loot. Note, I am not in need of a distribution method. It would seem that if the party hired the NPC, then the amount of reward would have been decided in the contract. But what if the NPC is just someone you encountered on the road and happens to be heading your way? For example, Shalelu in the Rise of the Runelords AP (please no specifics, I am a player, not the GM). Is she entitled to loot? It does seem quite clear that Paizo does intend that she NOT take away from the party's XP earned. Also, one might argue that she helps the party and risks life and limb while doing so. But, is she really on par with the rest of the members of the party? Is she geared as a PC would be for her level? Is she of equal level to the party? If not, she is either not pulling a full "share" of the weight, or may in fact be pulling too much of the load (if higher in level and gear). Assuming she is lower in respect to level/gear/power, then she is similar to a cohort. Cohorts don't inherently earn a share of loot, or do they? While the above is my specific situation, I am asking the question with the hopes of finding a more general reply.
If you are really set on the idea of the dual bastard swords, consider playing a dwarf and dual wielding dwarven waraxes and you won't need to use a feat for proficiency.
@Kazejin, Actually, RAI is not open. Per SKR: here. A monster's type (such as undead or construct) tells you what sort of effects it's immune to. If the type doesn't say "immune to illusions" or "immune to blindness/deafness," then it's not immune to those things. Also, note that the ooze type says
whereas the construct and undead types DO NOT say that, so constructs and undead are not blind, and are thus not immune to gaze attacks and so on.
From the Titan Mauler designer here.
@DLH, I think you are at the quandary of reality meets mechanics. What you describe is reality, but what is in the rules is only a mechanic for playing it out. Mechanics are never as good as reality. |
