I like the idea of enemies being unwilling by default if they don't know what spell is being cast. However, an intelligent enemy would easily recognize that the spell just cast healed the party and if they see the same spell cast again (which should be obvious based on the auditory/visual aspects of the spell) they would probably be willing the next time it is cast whether or not they identify the exact spell.
Am I suppose to post here instead of recruitment? I've been waiting for a response there thinking that this was only for people with characters in the campaign...
Dumptruckman - I have to admit that I'm a little dubious about allowing it, but I'm also insanely curious as to how it will play out. So I'm going to allow the doppelganger with the caveat that if I think it's affecting the group's fun that we can work out switching the character out.
Awesome! I agree, if it is causing problems we should take steps to rectify it. Also, sorry for the delay in response. I just started school this week so it's been a little hectic.
Mimic
You have the supernatural ability to change your shape. You may take on the physical form and appearance of any similarly sized humanoid who you have encountered. You still use your normal stats and you may revert to your original form or change to another form at any time. In addition, your ability is...
* Versatile: you can change what your clothes and belongings look like.
* Perfect: you take on the voice and mannerisms associated with the appearance.
Read Thoughts
When you discern realities by magically prying into someone’s mind, you may ask additional questions from the following list. On a 7-9, you also arouse suspicion from the target.
* What secret are they desperately keeping?
* Who do they trust most?
* What are their goals?
* Who is their greatest enemy?
Stretchy Hide
Your natural form has unusually malleable skin that protects you from harm in any form. When not wearing other armor, take +1 armor.
Stalker
When you shadow someone to learn of their habits, roll +WIS. On a 10+, take +1 forward when acting on what you learn. On a 7-9, you still take +1 forward but choose one:
* The target gets the feeling they’re being followed.
* Someone else notices your odd behavior.
* You lose sight of the target.
Well, it kinda looks like the BSF role is filled here. Perhaps I will look for something besides the Barbarian. In the mean time, I have significantly reworked the Doppelganger and wanted to see if perhaps it is more acceptable now.
Alright. As I said I don't mind to play something else; I've been wanting to try the Barbarian.
I would point out that the Druid's Shapeshifter ability, while requiring a roll, does not ever prevent them from taking an animal form. The roll confers Hold which is only used when making a move that the form grants. I poured over the Druid to try to strike balance in the Doppelganger playbook which is why Natural Shapeshifter does not grant any moves by default. Obviously, however, being able to take the form of another person will confer advantages in social situations which is what Comfortable in Someone Else's Skin is there for. The trigger, being put in a spot, gives the GM wide berth for just about anything they want causing the move to trigger and forcing a roll.
For example, maybe the Doppelganger, wearing Sue's appearance, is chatting with Bob. In the background behind the Doppelganger, Bob sees Sue walk by. Awkward! - now roll.
Anyway, I am also concerned about the power level but am trying my best to figure out how to make it "balanced".
I am interested! I dunno how you'd feel about it but I've lately been obsessing over doppelgangers (of all things...) and I decided to make a DW playbook for them for fun. I'm interested in playing a sort of person with mysterious motives who no one knows the true identity of.
I hate that I found out about volunteering so late. I have never been to Gen Con before though I've always wanted to go. This is likely my last opportunity to go for quite some time as I'll be having my first child in December and I doubt I would be able to make this kind of time after that. Please consider my volunteer application if it's not too late!
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed. ...
You can't take a free action (speaking) before you have had a chance to act.
No where in this rules quote does it say you cannot take a free action. It merely states that flat-footed is the condition you have before you have had a chance to act. It also specifically defines "act" as "before your first regular turn in the initiative order".
There are a lot of great examples that support both sides of the argument in a simulationist sense. However, with speaking being allowed "when it isn't your turn" and "act" being defined as "before your first regular turn in the initiative order", I'm very inclined to allow speaking while flat-footed until a official source says otherwise.
On a separate note, the narrow ground thing in Acrobatics causing flat-footed is just bizarre. Flat-footed seems to be only intended for the beginning of combat. I think there was a bit of disconnect in the design team when all this was originally written. On a similar note, Arcane Trickster's level 10 ability only works vs. flat-footed but it seems like it is probably intended for when target is denied dex bonus to AC.
Unaware Combatants: Combatants who are unaware at the start of battle don't get to act in the surprise round.
Attacked or not, you don't get to act.
PRD wrote:
Flat-Footed: At the start of a battle, before you have had a chance to act (specifically, before your first regular turn in the initiative order), you are flat-footed.
And before your first initiative you can't act.
Unfortunately these two bits together really just muddle things more. There's nothing defining that "act" means "taking actions". The closest thing there is seems to indicate that "acting" means taking your first turn. Speaking (a free action that can be taken when it is not your turn) and non-actions do not have any specific stipulations that they cannot be used while flat-footed. This is in contrast to immediate actions which do specify that they cannot be used while flat-footed.
All this vague rules text leaves us with GM interpretation, which is easily evidenced by this thread. Since having it one way can make a significant difference to the party's survival, I believe it should be clarified in the FAQ. Please click the FAQ button if you agree!
The big difference is in yelling some kind of informative warning. This would allow you to influence your parties' actions before your turn. When fighting a Remorhaz, it sure would be nice to warn the meleers to not engage it in melee BEFORE they go in and demolish themselves or their weapons.
The biggest issue I've seen with it is not allowing knowledge check to identify creatures and warning your party until your turn.
It's already exceedingly clear that the knowledge check can be done instantaneously upon perceiving the creature. It's just that apparently speaking about what I know has to wait until my turn since I'm flat footed.
"Knowledge checks on your turn" is how the majority of my PFS lodge's GMs run it and I am trying to show that this is not RAW.
In my reading of the rules, at worst it is subject to GM interpretation due to flat-footed stating "unable to react normally to the situation." At best, you can speak while flat-footed because there aren't rules saying you can't.
This seems to be a point of contention for a lot of people. Flat-footed condition states you are "unable to react normally to the situation." Some people argue that since you cannot take immediate actions while flat-footed, you also cannot speak. I argue that since speaking doesn't say you can't do it while flat-footed AND that since it is POSSIBLE to ATTACK while flat-footed through use of Combat Reflexes, it is POSSIBLE to SPEAK while flat-footed.
I'd love to see this FAQ'd so I can stop dealing with it all the time. D:
Can a Tiefling with a prehensile tail use the tail to shoot a Kinetic Blast or does having hands exclude them?
If having hands excludes them, is there anything in PFS that prevents you from making a character who has lost both arms? In this case would having prehensile tail allow for Kinetic Blast?
OK... Consider me curious. Why?
Cause you normally can't attack with prehensile tail. It's something different, for sure.
Can a Tiefling with a prehensile tail use the tail to shoot a Kinetic Blast or does having hands exclude them?
If having hands excludes them, is there anything in PFS that prevents you from making a character who has lost both arms? In this case would having prehensile tail allow for Kinetic Blast?
Played Jamil - Level 1 Human Telekineticist
Went with a jackpot build for the hell of it.
Stat Array - 7 18 19 7 12 7
Feats - Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot
Wild Talents - Extra Range
Skills - Perception, Sleight of Hands
Master of the Fallen Fortress was probably the best suited scenario/module for Jamil due to heavy focus on combat. Had there been any non-combat things to bother with, he'd most likely been left out pretty bad.
Overall, Jamil performed relatively well in combat. His blast damage was on the high end of single attack damage for the group. Precise shot makes a big difference in such a crowded space, evidenced big time by the Sylph Aerokineticist who did not have the feat and maybe got 1 hit on an enemy the entire module.
Extra Range was entirely useless in this module but I suspect it will be a most handy addition in most scenarios. I would have liked to have Light Touch to at least show off a little more flavor with the character and I will be picking that up at level 2.
I think the class suffers from too heavy a focus on combat and not being exceptionally good at it compared to others with similar focus on combat - fighters, barbarians, archers, etc..
Based on discussions I've had I think the following changes could shore up this class quite well:
Let Amulet of Mighty Fists apply to blast, remove SR from elemental blasts (they're essentially conjuring after all), separate combat and utility talents and give more specifically for utility, maybe bump to 4+int skills, give a "combat style" where they can gain precise shot, weapon finesse or improved unarmed strike at level 1
With those changes, they could overcome some of the glaring problems like SR and special material DR as well as have a more significant role outside of combat.
Right now the class feels like I do literally 1 thing only (though this will change at higher levels it seems.)
Telekinetic blast states that "You throw whatever unattended object that happens to be nearby".
1) Does this mean I can throw any object within the range of the blast to any point within the range of the blast? In other words, any object within 30 ft of me to any target within 30 ft of me.
2) If so, does that mean I can change the point of origin of the attack, potentially negating cover?
3) If not, what is the intent of "nearby objects"? Must it be in my square or in an adjacent square?
The problem with 'Weapon Focus (improvised)', is that an improvised weapon is not a single type of weapon.
This is why I've pointed out several times that you would have to take it for each individual improvised weapon. So like Weapon Focus (Frying Pan) or Weapon Focus (Mop).
because Improvised isn't a weapon in the sense of a normal weapon.
However, Combat Scabbard is a weapon and an improvised weapon. The fact that this thing exists as both is a head scratcher, particularly if it is ruled that you cannot be proficient with any improvised weapons.
How does the monk archetype "monk of the empty hand" and the feat from the campaign setting "Dervish Dance" interact? I suspect that it allows the monk to flurry a scimitar using Dexterity for attack and damage (albeit the weapons threat range is reduced from 18-20 to just 20). But I'd like to hear how others read it.
Doesn't at all. When a monk of the empty hand uses a scimitar as an improvised weapon... it's an improvised weapon, not a scimitar. The benefits granted by Dervish Dance only apply when you're wielding a scimitar, and as such, they would not interact at all with a monk of the empty hand's ability to wield weapons in ways they weren't intended to be wielded.
This gives credence to improvised weapons not being able to be magical, even if they are an enchanted normal weapon being used as an improvised weapon. A flaming sword's hit is not also flaming, for instance.
I just want to reiterate something that ought to be very telling.
James Jacobs, the Creative Director for Paizo, says:
James Jacobs wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:
Dear James Jacobs:
True or false? Monks of the empty hand take a -4 penalty to attacks when wielding improvised weapons.
The monk of the empty hand treats improvised weapons as if she were proficient in them, and can wield normal weapons as improvised weapons. This effectively has the same end effect as the Catch Off-Guard feat, but isn't a feat and thus doesn't use up a feat slot since it's a variant class ability. Thus, they do not take a nonproficient penalty when using improvised weapons. The text is not as clear as it could have been, I guess, but hopefully common sense can step in to bolster that if someone doesn't read this post?
(We COULD have simply said, "The monk of the empty hand gains "Catch Off-Guard" as a bonus feat, I guess, but that would have lost the flavor bit about how they often wield normal weapons as improvised weapons.)
Basically, it looks like he is saying that, hey, they screwed up the wording here, and that the Monk of the Empty Hand is proficient with improvised weapons and that Catch Off-Guard does the same thing. This seems pretty clear to me that Catch Off-Guard grants proficiency with improvised weapons.
The problem is that James Jacobs is not the final authority for rules questions which is why I didn't just take that as fact. Though based on how he worded it (basically "we screwed up"), it sounds like he's pretty confident of his answer.
I have only really asked this here, hoping to get an official response, due to the many voices who don't agree, who would end up telling me my character is not legal for play (in PFS.)
In case you don't like the simple no answers, read this line carefully:
Quote:
you can perform a bewildering show of prowess as a full-round action.
In other words, you're not simply attempting to demoralize an opponent, you're performing a bewildering show of prowess.
If you'd like to reduce the action cost of Dazzling Display, Cavalier's Order of the Cockatrice gets the feat for free at level 2 and can use it as a standard action (and without a weapon.)
The developers have also stated that common sense should be applied
Common sense tells me it's possible to be really damn good at hitting people with a frying pan. It also tells me that for any class/archetype that focuses on using improvised weapons is going to be proficient with them.
Some people seem to get caught up on the name Monk of the Empty Hand as literally meaning that they are meant to fight with unarmed strikes even when the description reads
Monk of the Empty Hand wrote:
The monk of the empty hand eschews normal weapons in favor of whatever is lying around—rocks, chair legs, flagons of ale, even a simple quill pen all become deadly weapons in the hands of such a monk.
If their whole shtick is using improvised weapons, wouldn't you think they should be pretty good at it?
My point, is that no where in those feats, does it explicitly say that "you are proficient".
Isn't it right there in the feats name ?
It does say proficiency in the name of the feat but in my opinion, the feat only does what is listed in the "benefit/normal/special" section, the rest is just description/fluff. Perhaps the fact that the feat's name contains "proficiency" is enough to grant proficiency but I've never before had to rely on a feat's name to tell me what the feat does.
SlimGauge wrote:
dumptruckman wrote:
The feats simply remove the penalty for non-proficiency, which is the same thing that Catch Off-Guard does.
So you're saying that the feat named Martial Weapons Proficiency (weapon) doesn't actually grant proficiency, but only remove the penalty.
What I'm saying is that it seems like removing the penalty causes one to be proficient. I have linked my evidence supporting this theory in the OP. The quote from James Jacobs is very supportive of this theory. Also, the Dwarf Oracle Favored Class Bonus sort of points in this direction.
However, the more and more I read into this, strictly RAW, those feats do not grant proficiency, they merely remove the penalty for using them, which seems incredibly counter-intuitive and completely unintended (intention based on naming of feats.)
My point, is that no where in those feats, does it explicitly say that "you are proficient". The feats simply remove the penalty for non-proficiency, which is the same thing that Catch Off-Guard does. I had detailed this rather thoroughly in the OP, I thought.
SlimGauge wrote:
Rules wrote:
any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it
Rather hard to argue intent when this specifically states that you're considered to be non-proficient.
Most character classes are proficient with all simple weapons. Combat-oriented classes such as barbarians, cavaliers, and fighters are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon.
This basically implies that you are non-proficient with everything unless you are explicitly proficient with it. So, improvised weapons reminds you that you are non-proficient which means -4 to hit and again Catch Off-Guard removes this -4 penalty.
I'll restate that the root of this issue seems to lie in the fact that Weapon Proficiency is not well defined, which is why I believe there should be clarification.
Basically, you have to be proficient with a weapon to take weapon focus, and the rules for improvised weapons state that users are considered non-proficient. Barring some new feat or feature that specifically overrides that, we're kinda stuck.
RAW, the only thing that grants weapon proficiency (with any weapon) are Race and Class features. There is not a feat that grants "proficiency" of any kind. The question is, is this the intention? Maybe it is, and you really are not proficient without something saying very specifically "you are proficient with...". Surely this is not the intention however or Exotic Weapon Proficiency would not work how many people have been assuming it does (allowing weapon focus and such with exotic weapons).
Yeah, that pretty much seals it. There's non-standard English ways of explaining the RAW and noting that the feats don't grant proficiency, but then you're being pedantic for... no real purpose. PFS would almost have to accept the ruling that not taking the penalties is the same as being proficient.
12 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
Is it possible to become proficient with improvised weapons (through means such as the feat Catch Off-Guard or Monk of the Empty Hand archetype)? If so, is it then possible to take Weapon Focus (and other feats which require weapon proficiency) with an improvised weapon?
This is apparently quite a controversial topic and could really use some clarification. The rules do not make it clear what "weapon proficiency" even is which I think is the root of the problem.
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
Catch Off-Guard does the exact same thing as the proficiency feats by simply removing the penalty from attacking with improvised weapons. You may even relate that -4 penalty to being a non-proficiency penalty when you look at this taken from the rules for Improvised weapons:
Improvised Weapons wrote:
Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.
To me, it seems like Catch Off-Guard essentially negates that line, which would mean they are no longer non-proficient and thus they are, instead, proficient.
The monk of the empty hand treats improvised weapons as if she were proficient in them, and can wield normal weapons as improvised weapons. This effectively has the same end effect as the Catch Off-Guard feat, but isn't a feat and thus doesn't use up a feat slot since it's a variant class ability. Thus, they do not take a nonproficient penalty when using improvised weapons. The text is not as clear as it could have been, I guess, but hopefully common sense can step in to bolster that if someone doesn't read this post?
(We COULD have simply said, "The monk of the empty hand gains "Catch Off-Guard" as a bonus feat, I guess, but that would have lost the flavor bit about how they often wield normal weapons as improvised weapons.)
Basically, it appears that to be considered proficient with a weapon, you must not incur the -4 penalty with it. Based on this information, it would seem like Catch Off-Guard does grant proficiency with improvised weapons. Unfortunately, there are a great number of folks (at least one 5 star GM included) that disagree.
If it is ruled that you can be proficient with improvised weapons, then you should be able to take Weapon Focus with them (for one improvised weapon per feat, of course), but it seems necessary, given the history, to go ahead and clarify that question also.
Is it possible to become proficient with improvised weapons (through means such as the feat Catch Off-Guard or Monk of the Empty Hand archetype)? If so, is it then possible to take Weapon Focus with an improvised weapon?
This is apparently quite a controversial topic and could really use some clarification. The rules do not make it clear what "weapon proficiency" even is which I think is the root of the problem.
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
Catch Off-Guard does the exact same thing as the proficiency feats by simply removing the penalty from attacking with improvised weapons. You may even relate that -4 penalty to being a non-proficiency penalty when you look at this taken from the rules for Improvised weapons:
Improvised Weapons wrote:
Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object.
To me, it seems like Catch Off-Guard essentially negates that line, which would mean they are no longer non-proficient and thus they are, instead, proficient.
On top of all this, you have James Jacobs stating that, essentially, the Monk of the Empty Hand is proficient with improvised weapons, and that they could have simply given it Catch Off-Guard to reflect this.
In my opinion, based on the given information, it would seem like Catch Off-Guard does grant proficiency with improvised weapons. Unfortunately, there are a great number of folks (at least one 5 star GM included) that disagree.
If it is ruled that you can be proficient with improvised weapons, then you should be able to take Weapon Focus with them (individually, of course), but it seems necessary, given the history, to go ahead and clarify that question also.
