Zahmahkibo's page

"Myeah, good instinct," the halfling mutters. He squats down to peek under a bunk. The glint of metal catches his eye. A moment later he stands up, turning over a tin bowl too large for his hands. Crushed oats flake off where his fingernail scrapes inside the rim.

"Dry," he observes. "This fella wasn't around for breakfast this morning."

"We may as well crack that lock to the beacon. No one's around to mind. By the looks if it, not for a day and change."

BigDTBone wrote:

If used as an improvised weapon, correct. However, it could also be used as a spear because it is a spear.

The crafter did not craft it to be a weapon. It is nonetheless a weapon, it is a spear. So it may be used as a spear.

Because it was not crafted to be a weapon then it may also be used as an improvised weapon.

It qualifies for both uses.

There doesn't need to be a specific rule to spell that out, just as there doesn't need to be a specific rule to say that a character can have one level of dragon disciple and can also take weapon specialization feat.

As long as the character qualifies for those choices they may take them.

This item qualifies for both a spear and an improvised weapon and can be used as either.

So, let's assume a hill giant is using a medium sized Earth Breaker as a meat tenderizer. Can it qualify as an improvised weapon and a normal Earth Breaker?

Flavor Text

The crude metal of this massive hammer’s head ends in multiple blunt spikes that channel the momentum of a powerful swing.

Yes, but it can be only used in one mode at any given moment.

This is getting pretty far afield of the original debate, but I would allow this method to essentially substitute size penalties for improvised weapon penalties. A large creature could wield a medium earth breaker in its normal weapon mode, taking a -2 size penalty, or as an improvised large club, taking a -4 nonproficiency penalty. This is a bad idea, unless the creature is not proficient with the base weapon. In that case, using it normally would impose both the size and nonproficiency penalties for a net of -6, but improvising it would only impose the latter at -4.

And if the large creature tries to wield this medium two-handed weapon as an improvised one-handed weapon in two hands to get 1.5x Strength to damage...

Because what this topic really needs is to tack on effort-to-wield questions.

but no, really... where was that quote from JJ for 16 pages?

I'd be thrilled to see this question laid to rest, however it's only fair to point out that JJ was answering a question about the monk of the empty hand, which includes the following feature:

Monks of the empty hand are proficient with the shuriken only. A monk of the empty hand treats normal weapons as improvised weapons with the following equivalencies (substituting all of their statistics for the listed weapon): a light weapon functions as a light hammer, a one-handed weapon functions as a club, and a Two-handed weapon functions as a quarterstaff.

This replaces the normal monk weapon proficiencies.

In other words, the archetype explicitly allows/restricts the monk to using normal weapons as improvised ones. Those who believe there exists a rule prohibiting the improvisation of a normal weapon could view this feature as a special exception, and JJ's response as speaking only in that context.

Happy to help. The Throw Splash Weapon rules should explain in detail what happens with missed bombs.

The text you copied for your homebrew feat was copied directly from the Thunder and Fang Feat.

Well, yeah. That was the point.

Zahmahkibo wrote:

thaX wrote:

It doesn't say that you can do it either, just that you have the ability to use a weapon a certain way. Jumping to sliding the scale of the Size disparity or dual wielding weapons when the feat does not say "You can wield two Earth breakers, one in each hand" or "You can wield an oversized Earth Breaker (in two hands)" is, at best, selective reading of the rules or, at worst, ignoring complete sentences and cherry picking phrases and ignoring "fluff."

Imagine that there exists a feat called "One-Handed Earth Breaker Wielding." The rules text of this feat consists of only the following:

"Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon."

This feat would allow you to dual-wield EBs, or two-hand an EB that is one size larger. Thunder and Fang adds a few additional abilities, and some restatement of the rules as they otherwise exist. It does not add any additional restrictions on how the EB can be wielded.

TaF was obviously written in order to allow the EB/klar TWF mode, and only that mode. As printed, it happens to allow the other modes. RAW and RAI are different things, and it is only the former that matters in PFS.

Does it say it turns the Earth Breaker into a one handed weapon, or merely using it as one?

For this purpose, those things are one and the same.

Using your mini example, TaF splits the five-square track into two separte tracks. One of them is titled, "Handedness for the purpose of wielding," and the other is titled, "Handedness for all other purposes." The mini starts in the one-handed square on the first track.

"...as long as your ally is wielding a shield."

"...can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield."

Checks out, I'd say.

Related question: Can a broken weapon have an improvised condition? Can you take a splintered longspear, and use it as an improvised club?

To both questions, I reply with an emphatic yes.

If you snap a leg off a table at the joint, you have both a piece of a broken table, and an intact table leg. As a weapon, it's would be improvised, but not broken--say, as a medium club. If that leg is then sundered, should it retain the same effectiveness? Of course not.

Then again, if the breaking involves actually snapping off another part of the leg, should it even be considered the same type object? There's no quantum of table leg on the books. Maybe the player decides that instead of a wielding a broken, improvised, medium club, they'd rather toss the leg to their gnome companion, who then wields it as an intact, improvised, small club.

Adjudication of improvised weapons already treads that fine line between science and art, and throwing another condition in here doesn't make it any easier, but I don't see anything wrong with the above scenario. Improvised weapons can be broken, and the breaking should impose some penalty--but since the improvised condition is there to stay regardless, I'd allow a player to reduce the damage dice and ignore the broken penalty instead.

We, as a group, are biased against rules finagling to effect an outcome that is not in line with the intent of the rules. (This talks of TWF, inappropriately sized weapons and such as well as the feat itself)

Perhaps this is the root of the problem.

The recently released Peoples of the Sands player companion includes an interesting new trait.

Community Minded (Rahadoum): While some pray to the gods for mercy or prosperity, you follow a different tack—you believe in improving the lives of those around you through earnest labor and the efforts of you and your community. Your hard-earned discipline and the candor of your words affect all who bear witness. Any morale bonuses you confer upon your allies through your own abilities or spells last 2 additional rounds.

"Wait a minute," you might be saying, "isn't that just a souped-up version of Optimistic Gambler, which was already one of the best traits around?"

Yes and no, but yes.

2 rounds is slightly less desirable than 1d4, and you can't extend bonus granted by external sources, including your allies. Your allies, however, will receive extended buffs from *you*. And you have to be from Rahadoum, which I think we can all agree is a bonus. Most crucially, however, Community-Minded, unlike its predecessor, is PFS legal.

Advice Forum, how would you best take advantage of this wondrous boon?

There have already been a haversack of threads discussing Optimistic Gambler + Barbarian rage, and another on Touch of Rage. What are some more esoteric short-duration Morale bonuses that would benefit from this trait?

Manacles are a classic trick, available and affordable from 1st level.

I had no contingency for the situation because I had never faced it before.

Then it sounds like you should start preparing one. This is a rules complaint, not a rules question.

Unsubstantiated and unfounded opinions follow:

Arcanist: Holy crap, what?

Bloodrager: Dynamite!

Brawler: Love the toolbox, hate the Combat Expertise tax.

Hunter: Inquisitors of Gozreh, don't you feel silly.

Investigator: They say he always gets his man, but can he solve The Case of the Pointless Rogue?

Shaman: Hexes all seem quite modest compared to the witch's; this is probably a good thing.

Skald: Beautiful. When he rocks, everyone throws up the horns.

Slayer: The Investigator's #1 suspect.

Swashbuckler: Panache is cool, deeds are cool.

Warpriest: You're gonna need a ranger dip to track all those resources.

Wonderful, it's settled then.

Even if if you had to bump the thread with my post arguing the opposite interpretation at the top of the page. No, PDT, it's totally fine, I'll get someone else to pull this dagger out my back. I just didn't realize you had levels in knifemaster.

This question has been answered in the FAQ.

Half-elves and half-orcs may select racial favored class options, archetypes, traits, and so on, as if they were a full member of both races (a half-elf can select elf and human rules elements, a half-orc can select human and orc rules elements).

No need to decide between one or the other, you can always choose from both.

For class abilities, feats, and other rule elements that vary based on or specifically depend on wielding a one-handed weapon, a two-handed weapon, or a one-handed weapon with two hands, the bastard sword counts as however many hands you are using to wield it.

Weapon Size: The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. [...] If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

"A Medium Creature Trying To Wield A Large Bastard Sword"

Act I, Scene I:

(MEDIUM CREATURE enters, sees LARGE BASTARD SWORD lying on ground.)

MEDIUM CREATURE
Lo, a large bastard sword! I shall attempt to wield it.
(MC approaches LBS.)
But wait, I have only Martial Weapon Proficiency, not Exotic Weapon Proficiency! Still, I must try.
(MC attempts to wield LBS. Because MC lacks proficiency, his effort-to-wield is increased from one-handed to two-handed. Because MC is one category smaller than LBS, his effort-to-wield is increased by one additional step. These two modifiers increase effort required of MC beyond two-handed. MC fails to wield LBS.)

MEDIUM CREATURE
Alas, I cannot wield it even with two hands.
(Exit MC.)

-FIN-

Zahmahkibo wrote:

Not to discourage any PDF purchasing, but for the purpose of discussion, the Lunar mystery is up on Archives of Nethys. And it is legal for PFS, despite what the site says.

Thanks for mentioning this! I don't have an easy way of telling when Additional Resources makes an update (unless there's some button to send me an email whenever they make a change that I'm missing), and none of the new books were up when I first added them. Making all the Blood of the Moon legality changes now. :)

Sure, and thanks for maintaining a useful community resource.

There's no real point in nerfing this one favored class bonus unless you are going to nerf a dozen other powerful favored class bonuses that are available to other races.... and it would all end with everyone reverting back to having to choose between an extra hit point or an extra skill point.

I can't speak for everyone in the 2) camp, but I don't see those as equivalent. Yes, many FCBs are quite powerful, but even the most egregious offenses are largely contained to race balance.

If, thanks to their FCB, a tiefling paladin is much more durable than an elf paladin, or a half-orc alchemist is a much better bomber than a gnome alchemist, that's acceptable if not ideal. Certain races being particularly suited to certain roles is an ancient hallmark of d20 systems.

Sometimes these advantages are great enough to affect class balance. Thanks to his extra spells known per level, a human sorcerer might further eclipse a human barbarian in the mid to high levels. That's unfortunate, but still acceptable.

But there's a concept much important than class balance, a concept that this FCB combo flagrantly disregards: class identity. The barbarian is content with not being the superstar in most situations, as long as he's still the best at barbarian-y things. He's still okay if the rogue might be a bit better at dishing melee damage, since each of those classes are supposed to have their own methods of filling that role. But when the rogue starts raging with more rounds per day and better bonuses, then the barbarian gets sad, even if he's still stronger than the rogue in other areas.

If the elf and aasimar FCB were only for druids (or rangers, or cavaliers, or paladins), I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as it is, it allows the oracle to surpass the druid, etc., not in some shared class feature like divine spellcasting, but in a quintessential druid area, which the oracle only dips into as an afterthought.

It wasn't enough for the oracle to build her mansion right across the street, she had to make it look just like the druid's house but with a bigger garage, a swimming pool, and a helicopter pad.

Jiggy wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

if a player finds a strange combination of abilities. The rules don't cover every combination a player can think of.

Simply using an alternate FCB hardly seems like a "strange combination of abilities".

I was making a general statement. :)

It's pretty complex as far as FCBs go, to be fair. You can apply it to one of 200-ish unique revelations, when the great majority of FCBs just progress one specific stat. It's not unreasonable to assume the designers didn't double-check every single revelation for potential abuse.

I'm gonna chime in at #2. It's probably not overpowered in the grand scheme, but it does seems like a major violation of inter-class balance and identity. One class shouldn't be able to so far outstrip another class in a feature that is only defining to the latter. Yeah, the oracle still doesn't get Wildshape or A Thousand Faces, but the druid will nevertheless feel put out when his companion is so wimpy by comparison.

Even if it caps at 20, how many campaigns get that far? The oracle is showing up the druid from 2 to 19.

Quote:

This is saying that it was already the rule, and the devs have said that this was not a new rule.

The generic rule that this happens to all 0-Hit Dice creatures does not exist. All you have is this referencing that such is the case.

Why does it even matter? So it didn't exist before. The devs thought it did, but it didn't. Now it does. Whether it did or not before is irrelevant now because its validity is not contingent on it being a fully in place rule in the past; it wasn't, so they made it one now. So now it's the rule.

Are you trying to tell me "the rule is only valid if it was previously valid"? Because that is paradoxical.

The argument hinges on whether the ARG rule was "errata" or "clarification," and if the former what methods of publication are acceptable. All the devs I've seen weigh on on this issue have said the latter, though I can see how one might disagree.

The first point is now moot, however, if as James Risner said the troublesome parts of the Outsider entry have been removed from Bestiary 4. The rule is what is even ignoring the ARG, but adding a note to the PRD in lieu of a full update doesn't seem like too unreasonable a request.

Ilja wrote:

DM Becket: Specific overrides general. The general rule is that creatures get the traits of their creature type. The specific rule is that 0HD creatures do not gain certain traits.

However, that specific rule is not published.

The ARG references and reminds you of that unpublished rule.

The issue people are having is that many of us gravitated to Pathfinder because it was cleaning up a lot of sloppy rules that WotC had accumulated over time with 3rd edition but they were unwilling to spend the time and effort to fix them.

It seems as if Paizo has decided to embrace that same mentality. And this is disappointing.

Perhaps another company will take over the d20 material and undertake the task. I know that I, for one, would be far more willing to shell out money for good fixes to bad rules, poor wordings, and ambiguous terms than I would be for some passing flavor of the week, words of power, guns, or the like.

-James

This reads with the bitterness of a player protesting a (perceived) nerf to his to his aasimar and tiefling PCs. That may not be the attitude you're trying to communicate, but it's what is coming across.

These glamoured digs at Paizo, lamenting the tendency towards error that afflicts all mortals and magnanimously offering suggestions on the improvement of business practices, all smack of sour grapes.

The 0-HD rule in Beastiary 1 was not as clear as it should have been, SRMF has acknowledged this. To maintain, however, that this rule does not exist, or does not apply to PCs or NPCs, requires a rather selective interpretation of several rules, including the legitimacy of the Beastiary as a PC reference, the core status of the ARG, the nature of the ARG rule as clarification vs. errata, and the power of Paizo to issue errata on their own previously-published product--and to maintain these interpretations after each one has been clarified by developers in this very thread.

Wait, so is the pencil always a simple one-handed implement, or does it become an exotic two-fingered utensil when used as chopsticks?

The FAQ doesn't say anything like that. Handedness is the only thing that changes.

A bastard sword is about 4 feet in length, making it too large to use in one hand without special training; thus, it is an exotic weapon. You can use a bastard sword two-handed as a martial weapon.

You can use it like a martial weapon, but it's still exotic. Not eligible for heirloom weapon, no FAQ required.

Qinnggong Monk is just a special exception, apparently. Without that explicit allowance in the FAQ, by the PDT's ruling that optional alterations are still alterations, Quiggong Monk would only stack with Sensei and Monk Vows.

Lover of the Law: Not as universally useful at a flat +1 Will save, but if you want to play a Wisdom-dumping martial class, this is a strong insurance policy against getting SoS'd into attacking your own party. The reroll clause is somewhat subjective, so check with your DM on what constitutes "against the law."

Omen: A new class skill with an extra +1 is, in the best case, more than half as good as Persuasive et al., but there are plenty of traits that grant similar bonuses to better skills. While there are a number of classes who can make use of Intimidate and don't get it as a CC (Cleric, Paladin, Oracle, the list goes on), Demoralize as a free action is what sets this trait apart. It may be only 1/day, but compared to feats like Cornugon Smash or Enforcer, it's available from level 1 with no special conditions.

A bard is one approach but I don't think it fully captures the doctor. I'm interested in the more martial side - he's a talker but when pressed can back it up - he's about more than just inspiring others. Though that is part of who he is.

The Doctor is many things, but 'martial' is one of the few adjectives I'd leave off the list. He's a warrior in the philosophical sense, but he rarely if ever engages in direct combat. His problem solving is much more Scooby-Doo than Superman. No weapons, no armor.

In other words, the most faithful representation of The Doctor is going to be pretty crap in toe-to-toe combat. He won't do much, if any direct damage. On the flip side, he's got to be a skill whiz. In particular: Diplomacy, Intimidate, UMD, and Knowledge. For attributes, Intelligence and Charisma should be first and second in some order. Then Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and finally Strength.

All that says full caster. Druid and Witch are probably furthest from the theme, so they're out. The last questions then are divine or arcane, and prepared or spontaneous. I think the divine list fits a bit better, since it de-emphasizes blasting, and while the Doctor is spontaneous in the normal sense, prepared is a better fit to his toolbox approach.

So, cleric. But the core cleric is too combat-focused, with heavy armor proficiency, and too light on the skills, with only 2 + Int per level. Cloistered Cleric fixes both of these problems, while buffing those juicy Knowledge checks. The Doctor is nothing if not well-traveled, so the fluff may not fit perfectly, but mechanically it's pretty damn close, even if Wisdom is your casting stat. There's no 1st-party Time domain, sadly, but Travel and Liberation both fit well enough. The Trade sub-domain is particularly nice, with more boosts to social skills.

Aasimars, as the 'good guy' outsiders, are the clear choice for race.

Another option, if you want to go arcane and get a little clever: take The Doctor's "protector of humanity" identity literally. Aasimar Sorcerer, Scion of Humanity alternate racial trait, Imperious Bloodline. Bam, now you're the outsider who specializes in human affairs. The bloodline powers are both potent, and fantastic thematically. Learn about humans, rally your companions, and cow your enemies, all in a day's work for The Doctor. The cloistered cleric is still closer in mechanics, but this build sounds a lot more fun to roleplay.