Are thrown weapons considered 'ranged weapons' when thrown and thus eligible for feats like Rapid Shot and Point Blank Shot? If so, assuming you have Quick Draw, could you combine the extra attacks from two weapon fighting and Rapid Shot with a thrown weapon in the same round?
Say a second level human fighter has Quick Draw, Two Weapon Fighting, Point Blank Shot(as a prereq), and Rapid Shot... can he use a full attack action to make 3 thrown attacks with 3 star knives at -4(plus any other adjustments for point blank shot or range increments) using a full round action?
I've never delved too deeply into throwing rules before. I've always considered Rapid Shot the archer's version of Two Weapon fighting, so the thought of combining them feels counter intuitive. The only possible barrier to it I can see in the rules is that all of the basic ranged feats from the Point Blank Shot feat chain refer to "ranged weapons" instead of "ranged attacks" and the equipment section defines ranged weapons as "thrown weapons or projectile weapons that are not effective in melee". It lists Javelins as Ranged weapons, but Tridents and Throwing Axes as melee weapons with a range increment. Weapons like the Javelin, while having rules for use in melee, don't have a listed melee category re: light/one handed/two handed, and therefore are problematic to combine with TWF, though I suppose they would default to being treated as non-light one handed weapons. My sense is that the designers were probably not intending to reference the "ranged weapon" definition provided in the equipment section when they use the phrase in the PBS-feat tree descriptions, simply because a character built around throwing axes/javelin's would be forever and utterly hopeless without access to Precise Shot which specifies shooting or throwing ranged weapons.
But then again, Rapid shot specifically uses the phrase "fire one additional time" which could vaguely be construed to exclude thrown attacks. Anyone with insights into an official ruling or rules interpretation care to chime in?
(Pet Peeve: I'm only interested in RAW/rules oriented input. House rules or other GM judgement calls as to what's fair/balanced/reasonable = no thanks.)
I'm trying to bone up what I like to call "game-changing spells" that the PCs get access to. By this, I mean spells that vastly change the kind of encounters and even plot points I can plan for the party as the GM. I don't just mean awesome or powerful combat spells, but rather the predominantly non-combat spells have the potential to prevent specific role-playing experiences, especially if the GM doesn't take them into consideration when writing the adventure.
Anyone care to help me put together a list? The first few that come to mind:
-Speak with dead- Can easily kill a murder mystery plot, if not prepared for.
-Transportation/Transp, Greater- Can easily skip right past travel based encounters.
-Fly/Overland Flight- Can bypass travel based encounters, and pit-styled dungeon barriers,
-Stone Shape- Can bypass dungeon areas, prisons, doors, etc.
-Rope Trip- Pretty much cancels all ambushed-while-camping scenarios.
I'm not sure if this is the right section to post this, as its and error in the PD but also in the core rule book, but...
The spell Crushing Despair list VSM under its component details, but lists no Material component. In the 3.5 SRD, the listed component was a vial of tears, so I'm assuming that's what is intended.
I know it's a pedantic thing to point out, but I thought if someone is still paying attention and updating the PRD, it would be an easy fix.
There are several weapons that I either just really like, or have done a little research on, and think that the rules present them as underwhelming options. I'd be curious to know what weapons other people would like to see get a power bump. Of course I appreciate the extremely difficult balance issues that would make it silly to just start randomly pumping up items in the game, so I'm hoping this thread can be more about wishful thinking, than game balance.
Weapons I'd like to see gain some power are:
Slings- These should be a lot more lethal. The Romans developed a special set of medical calipers just for removing sling stones that had become deeply embedded in their soldiers' bodies. I'd take a chop from a shortsword, way before I'd catch a sling stone. If nothing else they should have a X3 crit.
Butterfly Swords- I mainly just like these, and think they are way too big and heavy and awesome to be dealing 1d4 damage.
Trident- I have a player doing a Retiarus style gladiator (ie net and trident), and after they put out a feat called, Net and Trident, there is still very little mechanical reward for him to choose the trident over his other 1 handed weapon options. Despite his best efforts to make use of them, the tiny range increment and the brace feature have done nothing for him after dozens of encounters some of which intentionally designed with his weaponry in mind, and he would have been getting tons of use out a higher crit range or bigger multiplier. Plus similarly shaped weapons like the sai and ranseur get the Disarm feature. I say give it disarm and increase its range increment a little.
So does anyone else have pet-weapons that they think should be more awesome?
I'm working on a larger chunk of homebrew for my game which will be reliant on me having formalized rules for crouching/ducking in combat. Unless I missed something in one of the books, Pathfinder doesn't seem to explicitly model crouching in the rules. This is what I've come up with so far. Please share your thoughts and suggestions, specifically regarding game balance, realism, consistency with overall PF rules, and overall elegance/smoothness of the mechanics:
New Move Action: Duck:
As a move action You enter a crouching position from a normal standing position. This does not provoke attacks of opportunity. You gain the Crouching position (defined below). If you have a Base Attack bonus of +1 or greater, you may draw a weapon as a part of this action.
New Move Action: Stand from Crouch:
As a move action you may leave the crouching position, losing the Crouching condition and defaulting to a normal standing position. This action provokes attacks of opportunity from those who threaten you. This action is not considered movement, for the purpose of determining if you can take a free 5 foot step in the same round, so you may do so. If you have a Base Attack bonus of +1 or greater, you may draw a weapon as a part of this action.
New Move Action: Stand to Crouch from Prone:
If you are Prone, you may rise to a Crouching position in exactly the same manner that you would rise to a standing position. If do so you gain the Crouching condition.
New Condition: Crouching:
Anytime you enter a prone position, you lose this condition.
This condition provides the following benefits:
+1 to Reflex saves
+1 to melee attacks made with light weapons against non-crouching foes
+1 to AC against attacks from non-adjacent foes
+1 additional AC against all attacks of opportunity
+1 CMD versus all maneuvers made in place of an attack of opportunity
+1 to CMB for Trip and Dirty Trick manuevers
+1 to CMD vs Bull Rush, Trip, Reposition, Drag, Sunder, Disarm,& Dirty Trick
-If you have partial cover from a low wall, you gain full cover.
-You may use a swift action instead of a move action to pick up an object from the ground, and doing so provokes attacks of opportunity.
This position give you the following penalties:
-2 when attacking with two-handed weapons
-2 to CMD against Grapple and Overrun
-2 to AC against adjacent foes
-Land speed is halved
-Spells with somatic components have +10% spell failure (cumulative with armor) and cost an additional round to cast. Special abilities that reduce your spell failure do not apply to this penalty.
I'm a veteran RPG player who made the switch to pathfinder at the beginning of this year. I've ran and played games with origninal D&D, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5, as well a lot of other gaming systems. However, I've never participated in any officially organized play, and from what I've heard over the years it never seemed to make much sense.
As far as I could gather, a bunch of people show up at different staging areas in different cities simultaneously, and a bunch of GMs run the same module using one agreed upon set of rules. They always used phrases to describe this like 'Living Greyhawk' which implied a dynamic level of interactivity that doesn't seem to be there. After all, nothing your character does can actually affect the world at large, because next weeks module is going to be written by someone who doesn't know your character exists, and since every set of players is running the same adventure they'd basically all just have to exist in parallel worlds.
However, I've realized that I let my initial assumptions put me off of even trying to learn more about it, and a lot of people seem to be really into it. So if anyone could clue me in on how it works with the Pathfinder society, and what the appeal is over running your own weekly game with friends, I'd very much appreciate it.
3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
I've been looking at the forums and reading through the Core Rulebook and the Beastiary to get some clarification, but I haven't found it.
Are animal companions ever assumed to gain reach upon becoming large? A number of companions in the core rulebook and the bestiary advance to large size when the Druid is 4th/7th level. None of these have reach listed as a benefit of advancing.
According to the official ruling on the FAQ, the companion doesn't get any racial benefits not explicitly listed in the animal's companion benefits section. One might say that this applies to the reach that's listed for the animal, but not in its companion abilities section, therefore no reach for the companion. However, if that's the case then can we assume the same about the 10 foot spacing associated with an animal's size? How about the attack and AC penalties for being large? If we don't assume some of the traits that go along with being large, what is the point of the animal advancing in size?
I realize a large animal would only get's reach if it is Large(tall) and not if it is Large(long). However, I have found no explicit indicator of rather or not an animal type is inherently long or tall. If this were made explicit, I would have no question: tall large animals get reach, long ones do not- and all other size adjustments would apply.
I can see two ways of determining long vs. tall:
Method one: common sense. An ape stands on two legs so it is tall, a wolf stands on four so it is long. This method breaks down however when the animals are of less familiar shapes. Would a pteradon animal companion get reach with its 7th level advancement? Does anyone know rather pteradon's stood upright? Should the DM have to consult wikipedia to make a ruling that will significantly impact the player's combat abilities? Also what about a large constrictor snake? One could argue that a snake big enough to occupy 10 square feet would be able to reach atleast as well as an ape when it is coiled up.
Method two: check the statted out version of the animal in the beastiary. The problems here are that 1) many of the stated out versions are an even larger size than large, so it seems wonky to base a decision off of, and 2)many of these are counter intuitive. For example, while the apes listed seem to be treated as large-tall, so does the stegasaurus and the ankylosauros(both four legged types, though I could see the tail attack adding to the reach). And then there's the Elasmosaurus. It is a huge creature, which should translate to 15 foot reach if it is tall. However it has 20 foot reach. Should a dm therefore assume that there is an implied 15 foot reach for a large version of the animal?
I'm aware that these problems can easily be houseruled away, but I wanted to make other animal companions that are well balanced to the one's in the bestiary and core rulebook, so I need to know how much combat ability the designers intended for these creature. Please let me know if there's a simple paragraph or something in the book that I've missed that clears this up.
