eirip's page

I am having the same problem with some of mine as well. It is not wear and tear either.

Very nice maps. Thank you.

Don't know about other GMs but I learned right around What Lies in Dust that handing out exp was annoying and tedious. There are set points where the players should be level X, and now I just say "You gain a level" instead of worrying about exp. Just a suggestion...but make sure you make that clear to the group.

I'm old school. Even though it probably makes more sense to handle exp. the way that you do I still hand it out. My players seem to really like it when I hand it out at the ending of a session. I have been thinking about doing it your way for sometime but can't seem to pull the trigger.

Thanks crispus....Benji, I usually pre-roll random encounters, that is why I thought I would change it up and roll randomly. What you speak of does make sense though. I was a little concerned with how long the party should be in the sewers. I guess the answer to that is as long as the party is having fun and they earn enough xp.

I am really looking forward to this AP. These will be my first time running a city campaign and after gming my group through Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire they are ready for a scenario that keeps them in one spot. Thanks again.

Very nice map. Thank you.

I will be GMing this adventure path starting this weekend and I was curious to hear about other people's experience running or even playing in the sewer encounter in The Bastards of Erebus . I was going to pre-roll encounters and sewer features but I think I will go with rolling on the spot.

So tell me please were there any snags running it as the author proposed? How did the players respond to the GM not drawing a map out of the whole sewer system? And most importantly, was it a good time for all?

Thanks much

Very nice recap. I am going to start running this in a month so your review was very much appreciated.

I just looked up snake style. That is just insane.

So I've looked through various rulebooks but I can't seem to find the rules for what kind of action a dragons take-off is. Does anyone have an idea?

A move action.

No, PF has been around long enough that PF is PF and D&D is D&D.

+1

I just purchased the Beginners Box for my nephew and he loves it so far. I was amazed with the simplicity of the rules. He was catching on when I taught him the Pathfinder Core,he will have the Beginners box mastered in no time. An excellent product!

YeaH I wasn't taking into account quick draw or loading bows when I said I limited players to one free action. Like fatespinner I just considered those part of combat.

It's probably been asked numerous times before, but just again...How many free actions per turn is a reasonable amount? If the round is 6 seconds I reckon making 6 free actions finishes your turn...

Suggestions please :)

I only let my players have one free action a round.Normally it is to drop a weapon to spend a move action to draw another one. Would I allow a player to drop a weapon and then say something giving them two free action, sure why not. My players really have never asked for more than this though.I cannot see letting them have unlimited free actions.

My group is past this point now, so this is purely academic at this point:

Is there any reason a group that distrusts Ezer, knows the story of the curse, and knows why Aberzjerax is hanging around can't just give the Impossible Eye straight to the dragon without first freeing Ezer?

That's pretty much what my group did -- I felt like the mod didn't really cover that possibility but maybe I missed something important.

Thanks for the heads up, even though you weren't addressing me. My group is about two sessions away from this point and I did not realize this was even an option. I'll make sure I pay special attention to this when I reread it.

eirip wrote:

Lord Pel wrote:

eirip wrote:

DMFTodd wrote:

Does a Sepid Div take damage from his own Rain of Debris? He's got some DR but that's still going to hurt him pretty good.

I know this is an old post but did you ever get an answer to this?

I vote no.

That is what I was leading towards but from a rules stand point I do not see a reason why he wouldn't.

You are the GM, you don't need a reason!! =)

Ha ha. True enough.

eirip wrote:

DMFTodd wrote:

Does a Sepid Div take damage from his own Rain of Debris? He's got some DR but that's still going to hurt him pretty good.

I know this is an old post but did you ever get an answer to this?

I vote no.

That is what I was leading towards but from a rules stand point I do not see a reason why he wouldn't.

Does a Sepid Div take damage from his own Rain of Debris? He's got some DR but that's still going to hurt him pretty good.

I know this is an old post but did you ever get an answer to this?

I just ran the dinner party encounter a couple of weeks ago and it went pretty well. I had Rayhan bring it up as a suggestion rather than forcing the pcs to have the party. The party, along with the shopping the pcs did in the markets, were some of the best role-playing encounters that we have had.

eirip wrote:

AvalonXQ wrote:

eirip wrote:

The player in question tried the tactic of taking iron hide and then improved natural armor. That is when I told them he could not take INA so he was trying to take iron hide multiple times.

He can't take Iron Hide multiple times, but there's really not any reason not to let him take Improved Natural Armor.

Well my reason is, and it may or may not be a good one, is that it is a feat from the Bestiary and I would rather the pc's stick to feats from the core book and leave the Bestiary feats to the monsters. personal preference I suppose.

Which is perfectly valid -- the monster feats do specify that it is up to the GM to allow or disallow them for players.

This one is rather harmless, but if you want to give your player AC raising options in core:

Shield Focus
Dodge
Greater Shield Focus

All give a +1 bonus to AC.

Nice. I will run that by him, thanks.

eirip wrote:

The player in question tried the tactic of taking iron hide and then improved natural armor. That is when I told them he could not take INA so he was trying to take iron hide multiple times.

He can't take Iron Hide multiple times, but there's really not any reason not to let him take Improved Natural Armor.

Well my reason is, and it may or may not be a good one, is that it is a feat from the Bestiary and I would rather the pc's stick to feats from the core book and leave the Bestiary feats to the monsters. personal preference I suppose.

eirip wrote:

I am the Gm and my player tried taking both iron hide and improved naturAL armor. I said no on both, I just wanted to make sure I was making the right ruling.

Your player could stack Ironhide and Improved Natural Armor if you let them. They'd have to take Iron hide then the Improved Natural Armor feat.

Bestiary - Monster Feats wrote:

Improved Natural Armor (Monster)
This creature's hide is tougher than most.
Prerequisites: Natural armor, Con 13.
Benefit: The creature's natural armor bonus increases by +1.
Special: A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Each time the creature takes the feat, its natural armor bonus increases by another point.

.

The player in question tried the tactic of taking iron hide and then improved natural armor. That is when I told them he could not take INA so he was trying to take iron hide multiple times.

What they said.

On the other hand, if you just want more Natural Armor, that's what the Improved Natural Armor Feat from the Bestiary is for. Assuming your GM lets you have it, of course.

I am the Gm and my player tried taking both iron hide and improved naturAL armor. I said no on both, I just wanted to make sure I was making the right ruling.

eirip wrote:

Can you take the iron hide feat more than once?

Feats generally cannot stack with themselves. See the examples below. Here is Ironhide:

PRD - APG - Advanced Feats wrote:

Ironhide
Your skin is thicker and more resilient than that of most of your people.
Prerequisites: Con 13; dwarf, half-orc, or orc.
Benefit: You gain a +1 natural armor bonus due to your unusually tough hide.

Here is an example of a feat that stacks:

PRD - Feats wrote:

Extra Rage
You can use your rage ability more than normal.
Prerequisite: Rage class feature.
Benefit: You can rage for 6 additional rounds per day.
Special: You can gain Extra Rage multiple times. Its effects stack.

Yes, I had remembered that some feats that stack would have the verbiage in the description saying that they did in fact stack. I just wasnt sure if they included that text in every stackable feat. Thanks for the prompt reply.

Can you take the iron hide feat more than once?

Technically, by RAW, he cannot take Improved Natural Armor at all. It is defined as a monster feat, and thus by RAW is not available to PCs.

If you want to allow PCs to take monster feats (something that many posters on these boards are perfectly okay with, as the feats themselves are balanced), the Character needs to meet the perquisites of the feat: he must have a natural armor bonus.

Assuming he's one of the Core races or one of the Zero HD Monster races from the Bestiary/Bestiary 2, he has a base natural armor of "N/A" (unless he's a kobold). In D&D 3.5, this was understood to be the same as having a natural armor of "+0", but this is no longer the case in pathfinder, so he does not meet the prerequisites of the feat.

You as the GM may of course house rule this; stacking the Improved Natural Armor feat is an incredible waste of feats generally speaking, even for turtle-fighters or dodge-monks; there are much better ways of increasing AC.

Alternatively, if he is a Dwarf or a Half-Orc, he may take a feat from the APG that gives him a +1 natural armor bonus, or he could play a kobold.

Incidentally, having an Amulet of Natural Armor does not allow the PC to take Improved Natural Armor, either, and not because the bonus comes from a magic item - using items to meet the perquisites of feats is perfectly legal by RAW, just remember that the feat turns off if the character no longer meet the requirements.

The Amulet of Natural Armor does not work in this case because it doesn't grant a natural armor bonus, it grants a enhancement bonus to natural armor. The flip side, of course, is that the amulet stacks with the feat, which is nice if he can figure out how to get it.

EDIT: again, as others and myself have repeatedly said, there is nothing mechanically wrong with letting a player take this feat over and over and over again; far from unbalancing, it's actually a bad idea on the whole, as there are much better feat choices....

I agree on a lot of what you say, especially about him needing natural,armor to begin with. I am leaning towards not allowing it. I just wanted to get other peoples opinions on it. Thank you very much.

Thanks everyone. I don't have a problem with him taking it really, I just wondered it if was allowed under Pathfinder rules. This player is always pushing the boundaries of legality, which is fine,as long as he stays on the side of legal.

I have a player in my game who has taken the improved natural armor feat from the Bestiary three times. I like to play by RAW. Is it allowable for a pc to take a feat from the Bestiary?

I understand not wanting to refuse someone a chance to play but 7 player tables are the reason I do not go to the local pfs games in town anymore.

Seems like there has been a ton of questions about acrobatics in Pathfinder RPG. My son brought up something that I was concerned that he read it wrong and more concerned if he read it right.

On page 87 at the end of the first paragraph it says "If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone." Now I know this is in the section that might be called balance but I wondered if this pertained to all acrobatics checks since it is written that way. If it is it really sucks for the poor guy trying to tumble past an opponent since not only would he be hit but he might find himself on his butt very soon. I understand the risk to tumbling past an opponent to be that you might get smacked good if you fail. This seems like a little much to me since there are few way of getting up without attracting another AoO.

I do not have any documentation to support my opinion but I am positive this would not pertain to tumble as you only have to make the one tumble check to avoid the AO. If this was in the "balance" section I would assume it would pertain only to that feature.

eirip wrote:

Dang, I did not even know they had an FAQ out. I can see what the OP means, it is hard to find as I am still looking for it.

You have to go to the specific product page such as the core rule book, and scroll down.

Ah, thank you very much.

Dang, I did not even know they had an FAQ out. I can see what the OP means, it is hard to find as I am still looking for it.

I am playing the lost caverns of Tsojcanth, and my PCs are heading into a maze inhabited by two minotaurs that ride two bulls.

Are there any stats done for bulls? If not PF, 3.5 stats are ok.

Ah I remember that module. Very tough. Played and gm it 20 some years ago.

PathfinderEspañol wrote:

Aretas wrote:

Kilbourne wrote:

Yes; a Combat Maneuver roll can take any attack roll, such as at the end of a charge. The conditional modifiers of the charge also apply.

Does the tripper get an AO if they don't have improved trip? I know if you charge you don't get an AO even from a reach opponent.

The fact of charging doesn't draw an AO, but anything else do or should, it has been discussed before, but I think that you will understand it when you read that small piece of text: Corerule Book, Pag 183, Table 8-2, Note #1.

Btw Note #6 in that table also tells you that you can perform that kind of maneuver when charging.
I know, it is hard to notice, but it isn't an error.

Dude, that note #6 on page 183 answers so many questions and is quite clear, I only wish paizo had put that in the actual description of combat maneuvers. Thank you.

Edited to include the text from the PRD (my emph):

"Some combat maneuvers substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full-attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. Others are used as a separate action."

So am I wrong in assuming that on a full attack you can perform say three trip attempts if you normally have that many attacks?

I am not sure if this will comfort you but I have bought two battle-mats in the past (from a different company) and received them in the same condition that yours came in. I am not sure how long it took but they do spring back into a perfectly flat battle-mat. I remember being pissed as well!

I'll miss Yoda8myhead!

Yeah I am waiting for this as well. I am working on their crypt model right now.

My players and I just finished this adventure path. Like most people I think the pc's enjoyed the Riddleport section the most but the rest of the AP was enjoyable for them as well. One thing I had a problem with was it was a little too combat heavy for my taste, and I am not one of those people who prefer role-playing over combat either. I just like a little role-playing at the very least. But alas that could have been my fault.

We finally rolled into the meat of this module, players attacking the first Glyph (after being tricked into the set piece) rolled 2 on 2d6 for when Project Image shows up. We had to pause tonight for time, but things do not look good for our heroes.

She popped in and dropped the bomb (I didn't want to deal with the prestiege class when I converted her to PFRPG, so just went raw cleric, so the bomb is the Magic Domain's 9th level spell... mage's disjunction...) The cleric is loosing HP fast and in the tentacle of the beast, as is the bard, and a lot of magic items just are not working. Thankfully the wizard rolled 20 on his dispel check for the illusion. Still, 2 weeks until we find out what happens.

The players were, to say the least, a bit unnerved by the giant eye pressed up against the dimensional glass staring at them with evil malevolence. Kudos to the designers, how ever this ends, it won't be forgotten.

Yeah we just finished this a couple of weeks ago. The pc's made it to the final encounter and only one survived, and that was because he teleported away. They would have done much better but they decided they were tired of dealing with the Drow and tried to tackle the final encounter in one try.

Howdy all; I just started my group on Legacy of Fire last night, and I thought other GMs might be able to make use of some of my additions and changes. I’m running the AP for five players, using the Pathfinder system and Medium level advancement.

The first addition I’ve made is to stat out the Kelmarane Expedition. (Nice thing about programs like Hero Lab is that statting out minor NPCs becomes a breeze.) Stats for Dashki, Garavel, and the caravan guards already appear in “Howl of the Carrion King” and “The Jackal’s Price,” so I’ll only include conversion notes here. Beyond that, enjoy! If people like this thread I’ll continue to update it as we progress through the AP.

KELMARANE EXPEDITION NPCs

** spoiler omitted **...

I am starting this in two weeks and will use the conversions. Thanks a lot, these really help!

Thanks all.

I have looked at numerous threads and maybe I missed this so I am going to ask this again. I have a monster who has the grab and constrict abilities. He can do this with each of his three tail lash attacks. Now am I correct in assuming I can do the following on a full attack:

1. Hit with tail #1, use grab, deal constrict damage, release with a free action.

2.Repeat with tail #2.

3.Repeat with tail #3.

To me it seems obvious I should be able to do this since grab allows you to start a grapple as a free action and you can release a grapple as a free action, but everyone knows how much this ruling it up for debate.

The grand finale of Second Darkness today so I need an answer quick please :)

eirip wrote:

As powerful as my pc's are I really do not see my players surviving.

That certainly sounds like we made the adventure too tough! :P

I had forgotten about posting in this thread. Actually so far the pc's have raced through the first two encounters of Allevrah's stronghold and are just about to enter the encounter before the final one. One pc dead so far with another knocked unconscious. I agree with Joey on this, the last battle should be hard.

I have found the whole AP a challenge as far as the pc's being so much more powerful than the npc's. That is to be expected though considering it is a 3.5 AP. I have updated the major npc's to Pathfinder however! The final session is this Sunday after a year and a half. Legacy of Fire next!

We just finished - players kicked a lot of butt but it was still a long and fun fight. The highly anticipated encounter with Alistraxia (marilith) went well - they had already torched the notes when they met her, but could have limited wish'd them back. They were very relieved not to fight her.

Thanks SO much Brian and James for an awesome conclusion, and to all the other authors for the fantastic, exciting, bewildering, disturbing, incredible run!

My players are just about to confront Allevrah's stronghold and I noticed your post saying that the players kicked a lot of butt. That leads me to the conclusion that they won. So, details please. How tough was Allevrah, and did any of the pc's die? As powerful as my pc's are I really do not see my players surviving.

The only difference probably, as mentioned, is the time in transit which in itself can cause damage.

Just more likely to have something happen the longer it is out of Pazio's control or your control.

The whole reason why I switched back to Priority Mail after one shipment not Priority Mail.

Just my theory.

Sean

Yeah I am starting to think I should switch back to priority mail.

I hate to complain because I have received 95% of my orders from Paizo in excellent shape but I feel this must be heard as I have heard of this happening before. When I received my order today, both Pathfinder Adventure Path #35: War of the River Kings (Kingmaker 5 of 6) (PFRPG) Print Edition and Pathfinder Chronicles: City of Strangers (PFRPG) Print Edition the corners were very bent. I downgraded to standard mail delivery after having it shipped the next highest option ( I cannot remember which), and have never had this problem before.

I am not looking for a replacement but I am the type of person who keeps my vast collection of Paizo material in excellent shape. I wash my hands twice before I even open a copy, no joke, a little OCD I suppose.

Anyways, do I need to change my method of shipment or is this just a one time occurrence?

I have sent you an email about your order. Please check your inbox! :)

Thanks,
cos

Yes, I had forgotten how fast you guys were and did not get a chance to make a deposit, I should have waited till after. It is now taken care of.

Thanks again for your excellent customer service.

There seems to be a gap in my subscriptions, is Council of Thieves 6 and Kingmaker 1 shipped?

Thank you,

The Lord of Ooze

The same thing happened to me. Cosmo took care of it pretty quickly. I am not sure what the problem was.

To give you some further information and one you will discover when looking at my account am sure. When I look on my subscription page adventure path 30 is listed and the next one that is listed is 32. Completely skipped over 31.????????

For some reason it appears that my subscription for the new adventure path has been skipped for this month. I look at my subscription page and it starts off with # 32.

Please advise.

I was looking over feat selection, and was wondering whether or not it was worth it to invest in one of the combat maneuver lines. I am relatively low-level at the moment, but was looking at the campaign-long impact it would have. I want to be clear if I'm understanding the math right.

As a full-BAB class, your CMB bonus is identical to your attack bonus...plus size modifiers and feat bonuses for improved trip, etc. It's BAB + Str + All your normal attack modifiers like magic weapons, bless, etc + Improved/Greater Trip + Size.

A monster's CMD is basically it's AC + size modifiers + strength, minus armor, minus shield, minus natural armor.

In PF, after a bit, your first hit (iterative attacks) is almost guaranteed to beat a monster's AC. Given that your CMB is -higher- than your AB, and the CMD you're attacking is probably -lower- than the creature's AC...

...how do you ever miss a combat maneuver at mid-high levels? Wouldn't you pretty much trip/sunder/disarm somebody every single time you tried?

What am I missing here?

-Cross

Beside getting the +2 to the specific maneuver the feat also allows you to avoid the attack of opportunity you would get if you did not have the feat. I think that is what makes the feat the most attractive to people.

I must admit though, this discussion is making me a little curious - what would be the strongest mono-class party (with multiclassing allowed)?

Sorcerers of different bloodlines, of course. :)

As someone whose knee jerk reaction to PF2's announcement was bewilderment and loss, It's lovely that I now have trouble narrowing down my favorite parts of the system. That said...

Changes to full casters: Aha! It was a trick! I couldn't pick just one, but it all fits under this umbrella. Due to re balancing of spell power, the great softening of save or suck via degrees of success, easier levels 1-2, and the dignity of all martials, I feel able to have fun playing a full caster for the first time. This thread has a lot more on the topic.

There seems to have been substantial change in the line of effect rules from first edition (link) to second edition (link). Additionally, line of effect was described differently in the playtest than in either edition. Here are the important differences:
1.) In PF1E, you had line of effect if you could draw a line from any corner of your square through any part of your target’s square.
2.) In the playtest, you had line of effect if there was an unblocked path between you and your target. To calculate if you path was blocked, you were told to calculate as if checking for cover, i.e. a line from your center to the center of your target. A great description of the straitjacketing effect the playtest rules had on spellcasting is presented in this previous post.
3.) Now, in the PF2E CRB, we are told that you have line of effect “unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier.” However, unlike both of the previous definitions, no methodology for calculation is described. I find it currently ambiguous whether standard cover blocks line of effect like it did in the playtest. I think a case can be made for the current Line of effect rules to work similarly to either PF1E or the playtest:

Pathfinder 1E case: If standard cover blocks line of effect, then some of the cover rules do not make sense. Specifically, the following methodology for determining if you have cover from an area spell is provided:

Standard cover gives you a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, to Reflex saves against area effects … Draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target’s space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover … When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect’s point of origin to the center of the creature’s space.

But line of effect is necessary to even be affected by the spell in the first place:

In an area effect, creatures or targets must have line of effect to the point of origin to be affected.

So it is nonsensical to give +2 to AC and Reflex saves to a target behind cover if said cover makes the target immune to the spell’s effects.

You usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called the line of effect. If you need to check whether you have a line of effect, draw a line like you do when determining cover.

When creating an effect, you usually need an unblocked path to the target of a spell, the origin point of an effect’s area, or the place where you create something with a spell or other ability. This is called a line of effect. You have line of effect unless a creature is entirely behind a solid physical barrier.

Furthermore, the rules for cover can still make sense with “playtest line of effect rules” because the text from above: “When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect’s point of origin to the center of the creature’s space.” Can be applied to lesser cover, or future types of unusual cover.

Lastly, a visual way of representing the problem:
W = wall square
C = caster
T = target
X = empty square

X W W W
T W W W
X W W W
X W W W
X C C X
X C C X
X X X X

Does the caster have line of effect to the target (i.e. an “unblocked path to the target of the spell”)?

Developer insight on this issue would be ideal (e.g. in an FAQ or on the Friday podcast), but hope is faint, and I’d greatly appreciate the community’s thoughts on the topic.

An idea - take the combat climbing feat to reduce the number of hands needed to climb to one. Then, whenever someone tries to climb nearby you, use your monastic speed to climb next to 'em, grab 'em by their ankle, and throw 'em 30ft off the wall! Falling damage got buffed, so this might actually kill people.

Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

- that aiming better and missing somehow increases the potency of the bomb

A nearer miss, perhaps?

You're really grasping at straws here. How does a "nearer miss" make the bomb itself more potent? It doesn't. If I miss on an 11 compared to missing on a 10, the minimum damage result would still be the same, which means you can't disprove his point.

A conceptual response to a conceptual complaint. Your critique that my statement has no rules based could also be applied to the post I was replying to.

Nefreet wrote:

You and Darksol are completely within your rights to read it that way, but please don't claim it's the only way it can be read. As I pointed out in my initial post, it can be interpreted in more than one way.

Why should it be? Under what rules paradigm does "add the damage" make more sense than "don't add the damage" ? You can't just say that minimum damage is raw, minimum damage is ambiguous, so you can add.

The thing is, you and Darksol have read the same FAQ and come to different "obvious" conclusions. Nefreet and I have read it and thought a third, different conclusion was true. Perhaps the issue not actually as Crystal clear as you say it is.

You can't just say that minimum damage is raw, minimum damage is ambiguous, so you can add.

As a side note, why can't nefreet use this line of thinking to argue that adding to minimum damage is ambiguous?

Talonhawke wrote:

So if it doesn't apply to the min damage clause then what actually does get to apply to determining splash damage.

You'd still apply everything else that's minimum damage to the total calculations. All the FAQ is saying is that Point Blank Shot does not factor into that calculation whatsoever.

So, expanding on my Alchemist example above, let's say there was an equal level Bard using Inspire Courage with the Alchemist in the party. That 2D6+4 bomb now becomes 2D6+5, and the minimum damage now gets bumped up to 6 (2 dice + 3 Intelligence + 1 Inspire Courage).

Similarly, if the Alchemist somehow acquired Weapon Specialization (Bomb), he'd add +2 to the direct and minimum splash damage totals, since these are not removed from the splash damage calculation.

Without an errata to PBS, I find this viewpoint very hard to accept. What makes PBS different from a design standpoint than other effects which are added such as inspire courage? What would be a potential justification for the "no PBS on splash" FAQ?

Another way to phrase the question in case I am unclear: Without the FAQ, is there an intuitive reason to not add PBS damage to the splash damage?

Chemlak wrote:

Part of his point is simple. Character has +24 to jump. Player says "I want to jump 15 feet". There's no pit, no obstacle, nothing but open flat ground. How far does he jump with a roll of 1?

I do agree with everyone else, though. I just wanted to make that point clearer.

15 feet. For everyone running the game which is not an automaton that must follow parsed lines of code in algorithms without applying common sense, logic and context.

Then such a person, while being wise enough to do what clearly makes sense, would be going against the CRB.

That's the reason why some people want a change.

I agree with what komoda is saying. The wording in the crb is poor, and doesn't say what they were intending.

(And of course, the faq overrules the poorly worded statement.)

You mention that the -2 to str offsets the +1 bonus to hit, implying that you might be missing the strengths of small characters. (pun) There's no need to beat medium characters at their own game, i.e. smashing stuff with a large metal pole.

Small characters are dexterous, and in my opinion the best thing to do is to build around that. Once you have dex to hit and damage, your size is doing very little to actually hinder you (only one step smaller dice) and is a net positive if you include the to hit and ac boost.

If you want to know a true martial terror, I have never built a stronger martial than my halfling monk/druid/Urogue/mouser swashbuckler. He can wild shape all the down to diminutive, getting his dex up to 30. Also, the halfling feat risky striker is power attack vs bigger creatures. As a diminutive animal, anything small or larger counts! Combine this with pirahna strike and your cute little fists will be dealing astounding damage.

CMB isn't all that bad either, considering that diminutive creatures automatically get dex instead of str to cmb.

Anyway, just wated to make the point that comparing str based small characters to str based med characters is missing out on what small characters do best: being super small, hard to hit, and packing a huge punch.

Sundakan wrote:

Majuba wrote:

Sundakan wrote:

I cannot possibly roll my eyes hard enough. The question you asked was "Why don't people like to play Small sized melee types?"

See... he didn't. He asked why people put down the players/characters that play/are small-sized melee types.

That's one facet of a larger discussion, yes. That bit has the simpler answer, and it's broadly applicable.

Q: Why do people make fun of other people for their chosen playstyle?
A: Because people are a$@$*+$s.

You read between the lines at statements like this:

Quote:

why wouldn't a Halfling take up a longsword, throw on some chainmail, and try to become a knight or sellsword.

Quote:

taking something that shouldn't work and let it go. Was he dealing as much damage as a Human or if he would have chosen a ranged build? No, but this was far better in my mind.

And it's pretty clear that from the start this was a discussion of why Small races aren't popular to play as Fighters or other melee sorts. Which is, regardless, a more interesting discussion to have than "Why do people make fun of me for playing Small characters", which as we've established is "Because people are a%~#+@~s".

I wish you guys would quit using the same excuses. You list your math and when the aspect of character building instead of class building is brought up you just fallback on people as being a~@*#%!s. I want to know why be a~++*#%s in the first place? Are they afraid of being shown up by someone who doesn't care about making the best build and proving number crunching is not the reason this game was made? Do you feel that if you have every statically advantage then it permits you to avoid playing smart and instead stride in without a care in the world and hack your way to a hollow 20th level? Choose to play that way but keep it to yourselves.

Im responding specifically to the sentence, "Are they afraid of being shown up by someone who doesn't care about making the best build and proving number crunching is not the reason the game was made?"

I would appreciate your clarification on what you mean because on the surface this is hyprcritical and misinformed.

First, halflings are bad fighters, (the role not the class) objectively. You will stand up nobody who does the same thing as you and is medium. A small barbarian is quite strong, a medium barbarian is stronger.

Secondly, this seems to be a boast about character strength, that also shames people who build for mechanical strength. Are you not afraid of being shown up by someone who builds to be a badass? Of course you might not, but that requires you assume the same for them.

Im helping a friend who is new to pathfinder make a character. After going over some things, he said he wants a character that is good at social skills, knowledge, and combat.

I suggested:

Alchemist
Oracle
Sorcerer
Bard
Investigator
(Lemme know if you have other suggestions)

He decided he liked bards, but then I realized im super un-knowledgeable in bards. (hehe, get it?) I see people often say that bards make good combatants but I just cant see what they mean. If you weigh pros and cons, I see.....

Pros: bardic performance, arcane strike, a few buff spells

Cons: poor weapon and armor choices, 3/4 BAB, no feats, and general lack of help from their class.

What am I missing about the bard that makes most people call them a combat-ready class?

Thanks!

I've been looking through books for feats to aid my intimidate character and I believe I have found a gem.

The feat "cruelty" from ISG gives a +2 morale bonus to hit and damage whenever you successfully intimidate someone.

And, because I love to cheese, combine this with a courageous AOMF for a +3 bonus instead. (2k gold and a feat for a far bigger than appropriate benefit.)

Mr. Jolly ought to add this feat to his guide its so overpowered.

AHG, A KLAR THREAD (no apologies. Kowtow to god 10 times for your temerity!~):

A Klar is a weapon that does d6 slashing damage with a blade. It also provides protection as a buckler.
IF you bash with it, it does damage as a light spiked shield.

So, this is telling you that
1) The d6 slashing weapon is separate from bashing with it, because d6 dmg is NOT light spiked shield damage.
2) It counts as a light spiked shield if you choose to bash, instead of using the blade.
3) it's also a shield for enchanting with it.

Ergo,

1) If you enchant it as a weapon, it affects the whole klar at the same time. Because the klar is basically a weapon, with a shield tacked on, not vice versa.
2) If you enchant it as a shield, it only affects the shield portion of it.
3) Bashing only affects the shield portion of it, so has no effect on the normal blade, only when used to bash. You end up with a d6 piercing shield.

So, you can do d6 19-20/x2 slashing damage, or bash for d4 (d6 with Bashing) 20/x2 piercing damage.

Bashing, as a shield enhancement, has no effect on a non-bashing attack, which the default klar attack is.
===============

I firmly believe that any arguments outside this paradigm is wishful thinking and using a rules loophole to try and create a superweapon.

The mere IDEA that a Klar with Bashing does more damage then a large shield makes me laugh. That's a monstrous attempt at a loophole exploit, and no GM in their right mind will agree with it. "Hi, this tiny weapon on a neo-buckler is now as good as a greatsword!" isn't going to fly. I mean, I have no problem with stacking spikes and bashing on large shields for 2-12 20/x2...it's still an inferior weapon because of the threat range. You're making a non-stacking Klar better then a stacking large shield.

And violating all sorts of irreconcilable language between weapons, bashing and other stuff, all on top of it.

I've spotted a true believer!! I don't understand how you can think bashing doesn't affect the 1d6 blade attack, because bashing doesn't say anything about having to be a shield bash.

IF you had said enchanting the shield part as a weapon did nothing to the blade, then no prob. But you clearly believe that enchanting the shield affacts the whole thing. Why the inconsistency?

They are probably just still friends with that big stupid fighter that kept dragging their ass around dungeons, keeping them safe from level 1 to 5 or so and might feel a sense of obligation to keeping them around.

"Now you're just somebody that I used to know"