mortus946736's page

This is admittedly a backup character, but as our party comp is a bit messed up I'm designing a selfish frontline, basically a bad influence of an Antipaladin seeking to become ustlavic nobility in ustlav.

Str: 18 (17+ 1@4)
Dex: 10 (8+2)
Con: 12 (14-2)
Int: 9
Cha: 18
Wis: 10

25 point buy, sanity rules in play, any thoughts on basically just going flavor feats after power attack at 1st level? This character will be level 5, and no stat below 8 by house rules.

Any tips or tricks for me?

Hey folks, looking for some build advice. We are about to finish up a campaign and the next DM is running Strange aeons.

Current party is going to be:
LE Arcanist focused on being a necromancer
Two handed slayer, some neutral alignment
Solar Oracle
Dwarf fighter Or barbarian

Obviously we are a fiveman, with a 20 point buy. As close to core rules as possible, everything else needs to run by the DM.

Should I go bad touch Cleric? I worry about the frontline being so crowded already, or should I eat the martial weapon proficiency and go like bardiche?

Now the player is using the argument that since dispel magic was written before words of Power, it's specific rules for counter spelling won't apply. How does words of Power work when interacting with dispel magic and greater dispel magic?

Thanks folks. A third question that came up; Words of Power, and silent spell, from the Oracle curse. The player was arguing that it was a purely mental spell and that people damaged/affected by the spells had no way to know who in fact had hurt them. I believe every spell has a visible component right? Or how would that actually work?

Worm=work, specific lyrics= specifically

Sorry for the spelling errors, I am on my phone at the moment

Hey folks, got a situation I would like some opinions on. We have a party mate who is using the words of Power rules and some situations came up which I have some rule questions about.

1) What is the interaction between the Wounding word tree and Knight of the Sepulcher?

2) This is a more specific scenario: The player in question has made a firm point of taking advantage of the fact that words of Power function and worm very differently from normal magic, but in the case of the Undeath word wants to create Variant undead. I, as the other player in the party with access to a undead creating spell questioned the spell's use for it considering the variant undead creation rules all reference animate dead specific lyrics. I believe RAW the Undeath word can't be used in that manner, and the DM at the time agrees, even though previous DMS allowed it in the past. The DM said he would meet the player halfway and allow him to create Variant skeletons if he was willing to pay the material component cost, to which the player responded that words of Power do not have material component costs. What are your thoughts on the issue/how it was handled?

Ha. The Vigilante Archetype one who throws mystic bolts

So... Any advice the community can give on building one?

For me the Pathfinder Society sheet downloaded, but it was saying 'either the file type is unsupported or the file is corrupt' for the actual book.

How does one fix that, or is there another download source I could use?

Sounds like you just don't like the idea of him getting Dex to the attack roll and damage. This is what that ability and that feat are for, there isn't any other purpose.

Why would it say it applies the benefits of Weapon Finesse to a weapon that can't normally be finessed but not actually get the benefits?

Let me properly break down Weapon Finesse for you

Weapon Finesse

With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

First, a restriction (not a benefit) "With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category"

Then the Benefit "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls"

Then another restriction "If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls."

RAW, a Swashbuckler doesn't apply the ACP of a buckler to his attack rolls, RAI (IMO) he would. This can easily be solved by getting a Mithril buckler (1005gp ). Or better yet, get a Darkwood Quickdraw Light Wooden Shield (258gp), doesn't matter if you aren't proficient, there is no ACP.

Lets see here.

The heart of the matter, once again, comes back to: Does it mean 'benefit' in the english definition of the word benefit, or does it refer the specifically mentioned labeled section of the feat rules, named 'benefit'.

My argument, at it's simplest breaks down to:
There is a specific labeled section of the rules for feats called 'benefit'.

You gain the 'benefits of weapon finesse with light or one handed piercing weapons'

Firstly, my position is based on my knowledge of the way the rules work. When you are referenced to something specific, it means that specific thing, unless it also modifies that thing. Flurry of blows is an excellent example of this, as it acts as though it was a combination of feats, but then precisely states where it changes the rules for them. E.g. allowing you full strength modifier to damage and etc.

Bare in mind the way weapon finesse works as well:

With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

The way the feat works is thus: You have the OPTION, to WHEN USING THOSE SPECIFIC Weapons, use your dexterity modifier instead of strength when determining too-hits.

In order to use this benefit as people are suggesting, requires the following logical sequence:
A) Ignore the fact that Benefit is a specifically labeled rule or set of rules associated with a particular feat
B) Chop up the referenced rule block to remove the factors that make it that particular block of text, and take only what the interpreter wants from it.
C) Perform all of the above points without specific direction to do so, ignoring the fact that pathfinder specifically states when something it is doing violates the rules of what is happening.

In example: (From Order of the Shield, copied from the Paizo SRD)
Stem the Tide (Ex): At 8th level, the cavalier receives Stand Still as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. Instead of making a combat maneuver check to stop the creature from moving, a cavalier with this ability can elect to make a normal attack instead. If the attack hits and deals damage, the target must stop moving, just as if the cavalier had made a successful combat maneuver check.

The relevant bit of information is where the ability goes on to describe precisely how the ability granted differs from normal. Instead of making a combat maneuver check, you make an attack roll. If the attack hits and deals damage, the struck creature stops moving just as if the cavalier had made a successful combat maneuver check.

Other examples of pathfinder being VERY specific in showing where a rule is modified are rather easy to find, if you would like more. The important thing to remember is: Do not do something in pathfinder unless a rule, bit of rule's text in the book, or the dm tells you to do something.

Pathfinder is PERMISSIVE. It tells you, in precise language, exactly what happens, and the mechanics for it. In order for the Swashbuckler's Finesse ability to work as described would require specific language informing you that it overrules the normal rules.

Gaining the option that the benefit of weapon finesse describes does not mean you do not have that option. The fact that the particular option given is not applicable in some or many situations is irrelevant to the discussion. Yes you are granted the option, this is exactly what is said. The caveat becomes, that the option is NOT valid, unless using either a light weapon, or one of the specifically listed ones (Or a weapon which internally states it might be used that way).

Instead of being told to take a subjective read of the feat, we are directed to a specific block of text in a different book. We are told with what sorts of weapons that benefit can be applied. Never are we told to modify that benefit in any way, simply to what weapons the option granted by the benefit is available to.
A rapier is a valid usage of the benefit given, because
A) It is a One Handed Piercing Weapon (Meaning the Option is there)
B) The benefit applied mentions it specifically/The weapon itself mentions it may be used as such (Meaning that the option is a valid use)

If the ability wanted you to break the rules of the benefit applied, it would tell you to do so. It does not. It simply refers the section of text you should use for the ability, and describes which weapons you have access to this option with.

Alright, apologies for switching accounts on you all. This is the original poster, i posted that on my friend's account as I was at his house when the original argument happened. Now that I am home, I can in more detail type out the exact argument. I will start off by saying I'm not looking for a 'Yes it works' or 'No it works'. I'm looking for the rules text saying one way or another WHY it works either direction, to further my understanding of the rules:

Firstly, my argument:

It is based on a few premises based on my understanding of the game.

#1) Pathfinder is a permissive game. The rules define what you can do, what you can not. Spells can be cast because the class feature says you can, not because of an innate understanding. This is true for most aspects of play. Things beyond the scope of the rules can not conflict with the established rules except when story should trump rules.

#2) Exceptions are addressed if they are meant to be applied, things that modify the effects of another thing only exist if specifically mentioned. E.G. Cavalier's tactician ability clearly states that people granted the feat through the usage of the ability do not need to meet the prerequisites. In general, if an effect is going to modify another thing that is specifically mentioned, it will say it is doing so, and how.

#3) It is possible to have a feat that is not possible to be applied to a weapon you are holding. E.G. Having Weapon Focus(Longsword) does not allow you to add the bonus to hit with a Longbow, as it is not the specific weapon chosen in the benefit's description of the feat.

Now then, based on these premises, let us examine the situation:
(For clarification, I am copying direct text from the Paizo SRD)

Feat Descriptions

The following format is used for all feat descriptions.

Feat Name: The feat's name also indicates what subcategory, if any, the feat belongs to, and is followed by a basic description of what the feat does.

Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or anything else required in order to take the feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.

Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.

Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

Slashing Grace (Combat)

You can stab your enemies with your sword or another slashing weapon.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

Now then. My argument is thus:

#1) It is possible to have a feat that a particular weapon you are using is not suited for.

#2) There is no question you receive the 'benefit' of weapon finesse with a piercing weapon that is one handed or light.

#3) The issue is that, in the absence of specific text stating to ignore part of the 'benefit' Why is it assumed you do?

#4a) If we are indeed meant to take 'benefit' as the English definition of the word, and not as the specific rules text, then it is purely a subjective view of what is the 'benefit' of the feat.

#4b) Each feat has a specific 'benefit' listed, word for word, and describes the exact effect produced. The Swashbuckler's Finesse class feature specifically mentions this feat, says exactly what should be taken from it, the 'benefit' section.

#4c) Nowhere mentioned is anything that would modify the 'benefit', an example would be: 'And may use this ability with weapons that would not normally apply.' Instead, we are referenced to a specific feat, and told which section of that feat you gain. The benefit.

#5) Even adding the 'benefits of weapon finesse' to a weapon would not allow it to be used, based on the following logic:
Weapon+Benefit

In example:
Mark is using a long sword. It has the following statistics:

Longsword 15 gp 1d6 1d8 19–20/×2 — 4 lbs. S

Now add to that:

With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Now then. Even with the additional applied rule's text:

Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

Still does not apply. We have added the benefits of weapon finesse to the weapon, and it is still not a valid weapon for that benefit.

You do indeed, yes, add the benefit. But that benefit is not practically useful, because it is invalid for what is trying to be used for.

My position is thus: Without either further text modifying the effects granted, the rule is pushed into the realm of the subjective, and thus beyond the scope of the specific language used.

Yes the benefit of the feat is granted. But that benefit is not a subjective sentence taken at the picker's choice from a particular feat, it is the specific section of the feat that deals with it's effects. And adding that section to attacks made with the example longsword, do not apply.

An example of where they would apply is simple. The whip.

It is
A, Specifically mentioned by the benefit granted by Swashbuckler's Finesse,
B, A valid weapon choice for Slashing Grace
C, Usable with all class features requiring a piercing weapon, as it fulfills all requirements.

Bare in mind in your replies: If the argument originally made was: "This is a really cool effect that i think SHOULD apply in this situation, can we house rule it or come to an understanding that it SHOULD work this way, and run it that way?" I would be fully behind using the above combination. But that argument was not made, and that is not the subject to this post. This post was made because we got into an argument about the mechanics, and I believe based on the points written above, that I am correct.

Thoughts on my logic? I admittedly, can not see and holes in it, but then I am the one making the argument. But based on my knowledge of the game, and the text, that is indeed the way, mechanically it works. The fellow I was arguing with is not very coherent in expressing his thoughts, and admittedly we got a bit heated, so perhaps someone in the online community could provide me with a coherent, well laid out reply?