lantzkev's page

Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 2,816 posts (3,841 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 10 Organized Play characters. 16 aliases.


1 to 50 of 2,816 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

gnoams wrote:

Putting the thief back into the rogue as part of the base class assumption really bothered me. I want to be able to play a rogue without "you're a criminal" as a class feature. Some archetypes for rogue to remove that would be welcome.

Vexing dodger was my favorite Pf1 archetype, because climbing on people as a fighting style for small characters is awesome.

well it's not that you are that, but most people who develop those skills are that....

At any rate, it's flavor you get to decide I'm playing a barbarian rogue bounty hunter right now... he's not a theif, he just uses rogue skills to get to bail hoppers.


I think an archetype that turns you into a golemn, or a lich, etc are pretty cool ideas.


btw synthesist evil? hell no, early surgeon learning about anatomy in a professional sense. take it with chuirgeon lol


Synthesist Summoner, super customizable and can make any flavor work.


No mention for kinetisits archetypes? Shame! Lol crap class with archetypes that often make it worse!


Yeah I was taking the train for charisma to will vs charm/compulsion. This game won't go past lvl 15 probably. I am a big tiefling fan specially with armor of the pit feat, and the fiendsight let's you Ally with some cool cats and go deeper darkness and kick ass.


Yeah, kind of my thoughts too but didn't know if anyone else had clever ideas to add to it. I was debating using asetic style and a reach monk weapon but I like the unarmed feel more and it leaves dragon style to ignore terrain and allies


Yeah but what you describe is a focus on strength and not wis/Dex also loses some ability to trigger the martial arts the Dr bypass ability and loses on Bab. Pounce doesn't come online at a one lvl dip no? The point is high ac and good dps not just dps


So what is the advantage of a martial artist over a Unchained monk 5 Rogue 3 as I understand it you're giving up at least one or two base attack bonus the ability to bypass in Hindi yars, but I I get that with the style strike so I'm assuming you mean the immunity to fatigue I'm not sure where the advantages are though perhaps you can show me


so was looking at trying to optimize this guy, and I think we finally have a good choice in dips for monks with unchained rogue 3 for dex to damage for unarmed strike.

The downside is losing out on unarmed fist progression, which I believe is made up for in the 2d6 sneak attack and dex to dmg, and the delay in ki powers and dr bypassing.

I personally am not soo enamored by the flying kick (you move your bonus speed, big woo, it's what 10-20-30ft? that's not enough for a charge most the time, but it is helpful after combat starts, so I started with shattering punch for the first style strike (hey let me get that door for you....)

basic gist is
str 10
dex 18 (started 15+ racial for tiefling and +1 at lvl 4)
con 14
int 9 (11 but -2 racial tiefling)
wis 10
charisma 18 (racial tiefling and +1 at lvl 8)

Feats picked up armor of the abyss for +2 ac
darksightx2 for see in dark and darkvision/low light 120ft (come on! it's cool as hell) and then dodge

Archetype wise, took the scaled fist, and took dragon style and combat reflexes for the first two bonus feats, for rogue took weapon focus unarmed first.

Debating gear start out, as much as I love monk robes, for 13k at lvl 8 might be best to wait until later, critiques or suggestion for gear is appreciated, or alternate builds revolving the 3 lvl rogue dip for dex to dmg is appreciate (and dex to hit)


yeah can't wait to see railguns.


Humphry B ManWitch wrote:

So weather or not you think they don't stack. They actually do

Hero lab Users try it out.

Each is a different source. And they all differently do the same thing and stack

At 10th level hero lab gives me 8D8 damage add. Vital strike that's 16D6 damage

I wouldn't expect paizo employees to bother with explaining how why a 3rd party app like hero labs does or doesn't work.

Bashing and Impact do not stack as the targets of the enchantment are completely different targets.

You can enchant the spike on the shield with impact, but not bashing.
likewise you can enchant the shied that has the spike with bashing but not impact...


Are there any sources of abiity dmg/drain that happen without a save, or are they all tied to a save for the most part?




♣♠Magic♦♥ wrote:

I'm not building him exactly. Just using that is a general idea of what I was looking for ability wise.

Hey, Lyn. I know Ephebe is a cleric spell-gunner who's proper name is escaping me. What are the odds of Gian being able to learn that?
And then at the same time, Nero is retrained to a Magus instead of fighter.
Future stuff that doesn't just involve them being split up. :)

arm shots don't do any damage but auto force drop of items in it =D


♣♠Magic♦♥ wrote:

That works!

Is it feat equivalent to do no damage on a called shot that would normally do damage?

Well vash didn't have a way of doing non-lethal damage when he shot folks, he just incapacitated them from the fight without killing them, but he still shot plenty of folks.


♣♠Magic♦♥ wrote:

That was more of a call to see if anyone had ideas for how to do it.

This system really isn't helpful to noncombatants. :/
Especially when it's not magic.
A merciful weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of damage, but all damage it deals is nonlethal damage. On command, the weapon suppresses this ability until told to resume it (allowing it to deal lethal damage, but without any bonus damage from this ability).

Also simply the abilities of gunslingers to shoot parts of the body work without any real effort to do "vash" just using called shots constantly.


Jess Messel wrote:

No manuevering gear?


please say pain taster lol


you'll probably be awake as I'm going to bed, so if you can do 20dmg to ac 20 you'll kill him before he can attack again. (also I'm assuming you have a method of full attacking on a charge?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
Yeah, but before they made the official ruling that bloodline arcana affected other class spellcasting abilities, people probably felt the same way about that idea. It's ridiculous. Until it's in the FAQ.

There's a large difference between an ability that says "it does this to all spells of this type" and "this class may do this as part of it's class, this class can spontaneously lose it's prepared spells..."

one refers to spells in a general sense, the other in a specific sense of it's own class (and thus it's spells)

A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time.
Abberant Arcana: Whenever you cast a spell of the polymorph subschool, increase the duration of the spell by 50% (minimum 1 round). This bonus does not stack with the increase granted by the Extend Spell feat.

The difference is large, one is refering to the classes spells and the other is just referring to any polymorph subschool spell.


6 people marked this as a favorite.



An alternate class is just a more complicated archetype, you can't take a lvl in rogue and a lvl in ninja...

If a archetype replaces abilities present in an alternate class, you can use that archetype was the point. Despite it being "ninja" you're also a rogue.


does point blank shot give a type? (the answer is no so it's untyped)

the feat lets you do things that require range within your first range increment. IE rather than sneak attack at only 30ft, now you can sneak attack within the first range increment of say a longbow, or a Rifle, etc... including after doing things to increase that range increment.

Remember though, you're only allowed a single attack as that full round action. So at the point you're diong this, you're sacrificing 2 or more shots for one with the precision based damage.


BigP4nda wrote:
My GM allowed me to use the Rogue Class' 'Sniper Archetype for my Ninja since the abilities that were replaced all had the same advancements. So if the abilities replaced by the archetype fit with another class' abilities then it's possible for a GM to house rule it, though going by RAW it is not.

Ninja is actually a rogue archetype and not a class. You can actually play a ninja scout per the rules. But technically not sniper because you lack trapfinding and trapsense to replace.

Gm fiat is one thing, but your gm basically just let you be a non-compatible archetype ontop of another archetype.


To prepare or cast a spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a cleric's spell is 10 + the spell level + the cleric's Wisdom modifier.
To learn or cast a spell, a bard must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a bard's spell is 10 + the spell level + the bard's Charisma modifier.

To learn or cast a spell, a witch must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a witch's spell is 10 + the spell level + the witch's Intelligence modifier.

....Unless otherwise noted, using a hex is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. The save to resist a hex is equal to 10 + 1/2 the witch's level + the witch's Intelligence modifier.

A scarred witch doctor uses Constitution instead of Intelligence when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, her spell save DCs, number of spells known at 1st level, and any effects of her hexes normally determined by her Intelligence.

The class feature of a scarred witch doctor only applies to what the witch would use intelligence for casting and hexes. Much how you don't ask if the bard or clerics ability would affect an oracles spells.


fireater wrote:
So is there a rule that says that archetypes only affect the class there from.

No because there is no need.

This rule question of yours is as such.

Scarred witch doctor replaces con for int for casting and hex dcs of the Witch class. Does this replacement of the casting stat of the witch doctor class affect other classes...

The answer is no, because the other classes are not scarred witch doctor classes.


Ok here's a question for you, if you're a lvl 1 wizard, a lvl 1 cleric, and a lvl 1 sorcerer, what casting stat do you use?

The answer is Int, Wisdom, and charisma...

If you took Empyreal bloodline sorcerer (cast wis rather than charisma) the answer would be int, wisdom, wisdom. Archetypes are written in a self referencing manner.

Constitution Dependent: A scarred witch doctor uses Constitution instead of Intelligence when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, her spell save DCs, number of spells known at 1st level, and any effects of her hexes normally determined by her Intelligence.

A witch doctor... not a sorcerer, not a oracle, not a wizard etc. Only the witch doctor classes count towards this.


just from the witch

It's the same as if you were the sorc blood line that uses wisdom instead, it only affects the casting stat of the class the archetype is modifying.


INSAIN, you do realise you can already flurry with any monk weapon you're proficient with right? lol.


I've always felt the ruling regarding brasknuckles etc from skr's statement a bit silly.

There are serveral d10 with higher crit threats/etc monk weapons that you can flurry with.

It's not until lvl 12 that you surpass that damage die. Likewise you never surprass the crit threat and crit ranges.


wraith I normally agree with you but in relation to this, I'm pretty sure it's not the case.

Unlike feats that have clear designated flavor text, enchantments don't really have that.


Well I suppose then if you want to ruin your flurr/monk speed drinking a potion of shield would ruin your day then eh? (of course not)


they still get cover because you physically can't see them exactly, it wouldn't matter if the weapon is passing through the cover or not =D so you're both right move on =D


Chemlak wrote:

So, just so I'm clear, your argument is that a character cannot do the following:

Make a full attack, during which he takes a 5-foot step, and then drop prone.

I know you knocked this line of reasoning earlier, but you are currently contending that it is not the use of a move action that prevents a 5-foot step, but instead it is the movement of the whole body that prevents it. You need to demonstrate that dropping prone isn't whole body movement to support your position.

Good luck.

I'd argue you could do that because you haven't moved when you take the 5ft step, and dropping prone has no restriction on prior movement.

This is identical to my earlier mention of being able to 5ft step while prone and then stand up. Dropping prone or standing up from prone have no riders prohibiting them from happening if you have moved already.

All these are variations on moving your speed, whether by walking, climbing, swimming, flying, running, withdrawing, crawling, charging....any way you move from square to square, using up your movement (typically 30-feet/6 squares as a 'walk'). These are the 'other kinds of movement' your quote refers to.

So can you 5ft step with dimensional agility after using dimension door?


And by your same ridiculous pedantic argument regarding movement, readying or dropping a shield requires movement.

I've quite clearly stated that changing your position from one position to another is the furthest I would declare movement. Unlike the others here I'm not making a distinction on the action type taken that caused that movement, merely that you have moved and thus cannot 5ft step.

, there is clear indication even in just the PF rules that by "movement" they meant only moving a physical distance, not merely moving a body part.

I understand that completely, it's interesting you keep going to parts of a body moving rather than the whole body, which I have repeatedly and clearly stated is not what I'm talking about, and that I'm including a complete move of the body's orientation.

It's been demonstrated to be so in pretty much every response you've gotten.

No it has not, it's been amply demonstrated that in 3.5 there was an example that made it clear you could perform a 5ft step after standing up despite that being considered movement in any rational sense of the word movement and that the restriction on movement bmust then be in regards to distance moved in squares etc...

Which is why the 5-foot step rules refer to "moving any distance", and don't, say, claim that you must not move your arms.
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement.

The 5ft step makes no mention to DISTANCE as is the key to your argument, but movement. A definition of which fretgod99 has already provided and most literate readers already are aware of.

The entire basis of your claim here is that "stand up" is a "move action". Nothing which isn't a move action is even remotely related.

You must clearly not be reading what I'm saying let me re-summarize for you.

you may not 5ft step when you perform ANY KIND OF MOVEMENT. Regardless of the action taken, standing up from a prone position is "changing your position" and is an form of movement.

If we accept that we can 5ft step except where excluded from it, ie how charging, moving your speed, etc all say "you may not also 5ft step" then that means that after you use dimension door with dimensional agility, you can then promptly 5ft step if you wish.

We know that cannot be true because as 5ft step says, you cannot do it when you move. So the exceptions listed with movement and charge are unnecessary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

/sarcastic on

I think we should ban everything but fighters and no races but human, elf, and dwarf are allowable.

/sarcastic off

I'd honestly be looking at things that should be allowed, expanding options rather than restricting is always more enjoyable for most.


3) You have argued that in the real world standing from prone is considered movement. You have offered no evidence that the same is true with respect to the rules other than to repeat it over and over again.

The game is based to model its self somewhat after our world. It uses our language as its base to convey that. The book does not need to define movement unless it wants to create a distinction different than the norms of society.

So we look and see there is no definition of movement, so we must assume that our understanding of movement in the real world translates just fine. If it doesn't it would have to include an example to show how it works differently. IE the old tordek example.

In a similar vein we have many concepts not defined because our understanding of it outside of the rulebook is adequate to understand what it is that's being done. Things like smelling, tasting, drinking, et al, do not need "defined" unless they want them to mean something different than they do in the real world.

There is no need to prove that a change in position which is movement in the real world is movement in the game. There is only the need to prove that it isn't considered movement in the game, to wit no one has done so except in the example of tordek which is not in the Pathfinder game.


What in stand up from prone makes it different from any of these? (And I mean what in the rules makes it distinct)?

The English language tells us a change of position is movement, ie prone to sitting to standing to supine etc.

Andrew Christian wrote:

So. Can we leave the the op with the comment:

If it isn't clear 100% in the rules, then its up to the GM to interpret the rule. Therefore expect table variation.

Just because almost 100% of other GMs will interpret it different from him, doesn't mean we can't put this discussion to rest by invoking table variation.

that's never an appropriate answer to any rule discussion here.

The description for the 5-ft. step says you can't take one if you perform any other type of movement. Within the context of the rules, this is in reference to the various modes of movement made with the Move "Move Action": climbing, swimming, flying, etc.

Any other type of movement is never described in an absolute term. Likewise I still see everyone dancing around the dimension agility and being able to 5ft step afterward. I'm assuming it's because everyone of you realize that regardless of how you personally are defining movement, it is movement and prevents you from 5ft stepping afterwards, even though it contains no restriction against 5ft stepping afterwards.

So the whole argument of only movement that conflicts with 5ft stepping calls it out in its text is inherently flawed.

Lastly reducing an argument to an absurd level does not make it always a valid argument. In particularly since I clearly defined the limits, taking it past those limits is not arguing anymore it's just masturbation.


I'd rather have two +1s to be honest...

I could start with a stat of 18 and another of 16 without any dumping lol.


And your attempt to reinterpret dimensional agility is just getting silly.

So your contention is that you can use a 5ft step after using Dimension door with that feat? I find it amusing that you acknowledge this question, but promptly ignore it and dismiss it without addressing anything related to it or why you are dismissing it.


You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

Its interesting that in the combat section, standing up is listed as a move action not a move equivilant.

But wait you say! the Glossary says move equivilent...

Let's read about AoOs first.

Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.

Then we go to the glossary of prone...

Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.

So we have one area of the book that says it's a move action, and then another that says it's equivelant to moving for AoO.

Even with your perspective of movement only means actual distance, we realise that standing up is a special form of movement at this point.

So all they do is phrase it as a restriction; if you take the "move" kind of move action, then you cannot take a 5-foot step. Otherwise you moved no actual distance and you can.

I'd argue that the language its self about "you cannot take a 5ft step when you move" was unnecessary language because of the language of 5ft step precluding its use with any movement that turn.

In specific lets look at this ability.


Dimensional Agility

Teleportation does not faze you.
Prerequisites: Ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door.
Benefit: After using abundant step or casting dimension door, you can take any actions you still have remaining on your turn.

It has no restriction on 5ft step, so should I assume that I can 5ft step when I use Dimension Door? After all, I haven't used a "move" move... and I have a swift, move, and free actions available now.

If your answer is anything other than "of course not because you've moved" you've already proven that it's unnecessary language and that the 5ft step language is all you need to know if you can do it or not. Not an ability telling you "you can't 5ft step" after doing this.


Who knows?

That's kind of the point of this.

Insisting people not only be familiar with the 4 core pathfinder books, but also be familiar a book from a different publisher, from a prior edition to understand what they can or can't do while 5ft stepping seems pretty silly.

If you're going to insist on debating this and relying on DnD 3.5 or later... please don't bother with this debate. It has no merit.



My contention is that when you stand, you're moving your whole freaking body. From a horizontal to a standing position. This is movement.

And this contention is just plain wrong.

Care to site something? The book says nothing on this matter, and the real world says that is movement.

There you are: The thing, in Pathfinder, that absolutely and unequivocally distinguishes between move actions which prohibit a 5-foot step, and move actions which allow it.

Don't paraphrase, quote it then... you have no quotes. Stop arguing with me with quotes from a different game (even if this game is based on it) and don't tell me what you think it says, provide a quote.

I've done you and everyone else the courtesy of providing quotes, unfortunately all I've got in reply are quotes from DnD, and a few inferences. My inference of movement from the mythic book interestingly enough didn't warrant a comment one way or the other even though it's one of the most telling points and the move-equivelant point of standing up.


You think it's obstinate that I want an answer from the rulebooks I've purchased and not from a different rule book/system entirely?

When I ask A question about pathfinder in this forum, if the answer comes from somewhere other than pathfinder or a pathfinder representative, it's not relevant one bit.


I'd consider just about anything that broke RAI as a form cheese regardless of if the end result is weaker

That's an interesting stance.

Even when a FAQ acknowledges that "it's ok, we know this lets you access some prestige classes early and that's fine because it's generally a weaker option than the class?" by the ones writing the game, is somehow breaking intent?

Most people accept the term cheese or broken as a term to mean getting a benefit that exceeds what you should be able to achieve or that the rules normally restrict you from getting.

But you view cheese as merely anything that doesn't go with what you think rai is regardless of relative power to someone not using cheese...


Did you just say you can 5ft step and then still move?

I said you could 5ft step and then perform any movement that wasn't restricted by prior movement or 5ft steps... which is essentially just the move action along with charge and a few others spelled out, can't be performed after a 5ft step

I didn't address your point specifically because I didn't feel it added anything that wasn't stated by prior posters and addressed already. IE that prone is a condition and that standing up is movement not "counted" in the gamm is not indicated anywhere in the book.

There is no directive that movement should only be counted in terms of tacticle, overland, and exploratory.


I'd also point out that the Glossary clearly spells out that standing from prone is a "move-equivalent action", as opposed to a "move action"

yeah I brought up that this is the closest the book comes to saying one way or the other.


A new RPG? Why not just stick with 3.5?

In a sense, that's exactly what we are doing. All Pathfinder products will be written for the 3.5 rules set until August 2009, at which point new releases will transition to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules. That means that Legacy of Fire (the current Adventure Path) uses the 3.5 rules, but Council of Thieves (which begins in August, 2009) will use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Both rules sets are similar enough that conversion between the two will be an easy affair for most Game Masters.
The core rulebooks for the 3.5 rules system are already out of print, and we feel it is important to keep a core game available to new players. Plus, as great as 3.5 is, there remains room for improvement. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game enjoyed a year of open, public playtesting, making it the most robustly playtested game in the history of tabletop RPGs! We're sure you will find many of the changes intriguing and worth consideration for your campaign.

One can assume that if something was added or removed, it was for the sake of "improving" the game... or if we're cynical, that it was simply space constrainted, editing errors, or other human reasons unrelated to a vision of changing some 3.5 rules.

The reference point people bring up to prove their point of Tordek taking steps etc... could of directly been ported over with a "Valeros taking steps etc..."


So the question is answered in 3.5 and thus answered in Patherfinder as there's no overriding rules.

This is not an answer. Also your link is to a poster of pathfinder what's the relevance there?

You know a question doesn't need FAQ'd when only 3 people click the FAQ request. Now Overrun, now there's an item that needed FAQ'd in 3.5 (maybe 3.0 even), let alone Pathfinder.

number of faq clicks is not an indicator of need of an FAQ. You should know this if you've seen what's been FAQ'd with little to no clicks, and what hasn't with hundreds of clicks...

Do you have anything to contribute other than the only point others have of "a different RPG system that this one is based on said you could so you can"?


If you do either one first, the other is automatically excluded. However other forms of movement are not excluded, teleporting, standing/dropping prone.

No where do I say you can move then 5ft step? check yourself son.

Even the post from the dude who (I assume) was originally arguing you can't stand and 5ft step is now arguing you can?

go re-read things.

"if you do either one first the other is automatically excluded" refers to the prior mentioned movement or 5ft step which specicially exclude each other from being performed if you have done either one.

5ft step specifically says you can't do it if you have moved at all (not will move at all) so you can 5ft step and then do any movement that's not restricted specifically.

ie how you can't perform a move if you've 5ft stepped.

prone/stand up are not precluded from being done if you've moved prior, like wise neither is reloading/sheathing etc.

1 to 50 of 2,816 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>