WelshmanJones's page

I have a player in a campaign I've just started who would like to worship one deity, when in reality his powers and abilities have been coming from another. For example, their daily prayers would go towards Abadar, but their spells and abilities would come from Iomedae. Their character would have no knowledge of this, but it would eventually be revealed to them.

I'm having trouble finding an answer as to whether there is precedent for this in the lore already, mostly because the character is good; if they were evil, then it would be conceivable to me that an evil deity would do this to try and corrupt/convert a good-aligned person. But since they are good, I'd like to keep them worshiping a good or neutral deity, and I can't find a reason as to why such deity would want to deceive someone this way. Thoughts?

This process can be accelerated to 4 hours of work per 1,000 gp in the item's base price (or fraction thereof) by increasing the DC to create the item by +5.

1) Does this mean I can work at a pace of 2,000 gp of the item's base price in 8 hours, effectively halving the amount of days required to make an item? E.g, an item worth 4,000gp being made in two days as opposed to four?

2) Do I need to increase the DC by +5 for every 4-hour-block of accelerated work I complete? Or is it increased once, regardless of how many times I work at an accelerated pace?

Ah I see! My confusion came from the last part of what you quoted:

..or an infusion that lists kinetic blade as a prerequisite

Using the pushing infusion example, my understanding was that, since pushing infusion does not list kinetic blade as prerequisite, it was illegal to use, even in conjunction with kinetic blade. This clears it up though, thank you for your help!

As per the title, can a Kinetic Knight use substance infusions which do not have kinetic blade as a prerequisite? RAW, it seems to me as though the Kinetic Knight can only use infusions, both form and substance, that have kinetic blade as a prerequisite. But I've gotten the impression from others on the message boards that substance infusions do not need to adhere to the kinetic blade-only restriction. Which is the case here?

The main issue I see is you will have things like the fighter taking negative ranks in spellcraft or the weak wizard taking negative ranks in climbing. Or someone loading up on negatives to knowledge skills if they aren't the knowledge monkey.

Or, to put it another way - everyone will just load up on negative in things they never plan to actually use at which point it might as well just be bonus skill ranks if it's not somehow a real tradeoff.

I'm currently playing in OP's campaign and it seems like there's a bit of miscommunication. Players, such as myself, aren't allowed to put negative skill ranks into Trained-Only skills, such as Knowledges or Use Magic Device.

So I couldn't use the "Make All Natural Attacks" action and do Claw/Claw/Maneuver since I only have two claw attacks?

2) You're using different actions. You can avoid a penalty to your maneuver as long as you are using a maneuver that can be used in place of an attack (such as trip or disarm), but you will have to give up one of your attacks to do so.

I was under the impression that two claw attacks meant two acts, and therefore the third remaining act could be used for a combat maneuver. I guess not.

If we put this information together, then yes, you could use one natural attack at full bonus, one at -5, and the maneuver at -10. You could always switch up the order, of course.

Essentially, if you use a Claw and one Maneuver, that's two acts. If you use two Claws and a Maneuver, that's 3 acts. Otherwise, you could attack with both claws with no -5 penalty on the second attack as 3 acts. I hope I'm being clear.

This makes sense, thank you, however I don't understand the reasoning behind this decision. You don't take penalties for having 5 claw attacks, but for some reason using a combat maneuver with your natural attacks suddenly imparts this penalty? Doesn't seem logical, unless I'm missing something here.

Quote:

Make All Natural Attacks (Attack; 3 Acts): A creature that is using only its natural attacks can make all its natural attacks with this action instead of making separate attacks with attack simple actions.

If you aren't using this action then you are taking a cumulative -5 for each attack action after the first. Even with two natural attacks, it's better to use the 3 act option to avoid the penalty.

I never understood it to be meant this way, nor have I used it this way, since natural attacks (in the regular action economy) don't take penalties like this.

Assuming we use your interpretation, would this mean my options are:

Claw/Claw (3 acts)

or

Claw/Maneuver (2 or 3 acts)?

It takes all 3 of your actions in a turn to make use all of your natural weapons.

I believe that's correct, but only if you make 3 or more attacks with natural attacks. If you only have two natural attacks (such as in my case), then you only spend two actions. If you have one natural attack, you spend one action. If you have 10 natural attacks, you need to spend all three actions. I don't recall the rules stating this exactly as I said it, but otherwise it wouldn't make sense for you to have to spend 3 acts to perform one natural attack (which is what it sounds like you're suggesting).

So I'm currently playing a character with two claw attacks. I'm also playing with the Revised Action Economy rules from Pathfinder Unchained.
My question is, can I use both my claw attacks and make a combat maneuver (that is used in place of an attack, such as trip) on the same turn? If I can, do the claw attacks become secondary attacks? If I can't, and I replace one claw attack for a maneuver, does the remaining claw attack become secondary?

My issue comes with the same line you use to make your point Gisher: Attacking with natural weapons beyond the weapon you chose for Slashing Grace also does not work.

To me this meant different types of Natural Attacks, such as a bite or a tail, and not separate instances of the same type of attack. I assumed that because your weapon of choice would be a Claw attack, all Claw attacks would benefit from Slashing Grace, and not just one particular Claw attack.

Regardless, thanks for the help.

So as far as I understand, Slashing Grace can be used with Natural Attacks. If, for example, I wanted Slashing Grace with a Claw attack, that's fine, but I couldn't then use Dex to damage for a bite attack.

However, what if I have two Claw attacks? Am I still allowed to use Dex to damage for both Claw attacks with Slashing Grace? Or am I limited to one Claw attack per round that can use Dex to damage?

So, assuming you have a lvl 20 monk (meaning an extra two attacks from flurry), how would the be placed? Both extra attacks together with the first attack? Would they have a penalty? I'm having difficulty coming up with a way which purely translates the flurry across without making it two powerful (e.g having three attacks at max BAB in one act) or weaker.

The revised action economy rules from Pathfinder Unchained refer to the monk's flurry, however it's not clear whether this monk is the regular CRB monk or the Unchained monk, or both. I assume that it refers to the CRB monk (because the rules described for the flurry are more like the CRB monk than the Unchained one), but it's obviously not clear, or how the Unchained monk would work with these rules.

I've recently downloaded a copy of 'Goblins of Golarion' off of the website, and was surprised to find that PDF was missing several graphics. For example, on page 7, the graphic of the paper/parchment that goes around the list named 'A Dozen Goblin "Treasures"' is missing. On page 8, the paper/parchment graphic is partially missing, with just over a third of the original graphic remaining. On page 17, the names of the various tribes lack the same paper/parchment graphic, only appearing as the text over an opaque black rectangle. These appear to be the only graphical errors on my download. I have made a second download, but the problems are still the same.

I'd like to know if this is a problem on my part (possibly with the PDF reader, I'm using Preview on OSX) or if the source file is corrupted somehow. Thanks.