The Green Faith

the Green Man's page

Organized Play Member. 7 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS


Thanks, that is good info to know..


Can an Oracle take a Religion trait?

The description for the Religion traits says specifically

Quote:
Religion traits indicate that your character has an established faith in a specific deity; you need not be a member of a class that can wield divine magic to pick a religion trait, but you do have to have a patron deity and have some amount of religion in your background to justify this trait. Unlike the other categories of traits, religion traits can go away if you abandon your religion, as detailed below under Restrictions.

However the fluff for Oracle's says that they do not worship one specific god..

Quote:
Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs.
That text in the rules for the Oracle class seems at odds with the guide to PFS play which says
Quote:
Characters can elect to worship any deity listed in the table of gods in the... (list of sources) ..but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity.

Could an Oracle who takes Heavens as their Mystery, which lists "Dieties: Desna, Gozreh, Pharasma, Sarenrae" take the Blade of Mercy trait which is associated with following Sarenrae (goddess of the dawn) ? Or would that not be allowed as the Oracle is not said to be worshiping a single diety?


Steve Geddes wrote:


I appreciate the help - it's just that software installing stresses me (even syncing my Ipad is something I put off as long as possible). I'd much rather pay someone to do it and know I'm not going to break anything.

Don't let is stress you, it really is very simple, chrome doesnt try to include a bunch of crapware you don't need. With a fast internet connection we are talking a minute or two tops.


Steve Geddes wrote:

So for the clueless (or at least one clueless, anyhow). I have Internet Explorer 9 and dont generally upgrade anything until I get a new computer, something I dont really want to change if I can avoid it.

Does that mean I'm no longer going to be able to access my account at all? Or just not the "secure" parts of the website? Will I still be able to buy stuff?

As an Software tester who specializes in web-apps and security (and has a spouse who wrote a book on testing software security) I have one simple response to this.

Download and use Chrome as your default browser.
* It is faster than IE
* it has far better HTML5 compatibility (so just flat out works better with modern websites that use that instead of insecure tech like adobe flash)
* It has a far more robust 'sandbox' which is harder for attackers to break out of, so if you wander into the weeds you are less likely to get owned (unless someone tricks you into downloading and running a trojan, no browser can help you there.)

If you do have to use sites that (rare these days) only work with IE, get the latest IE your OS will support, this is an update worth doing as later versions are significantly improved over older especially in terms of HTML5 support.


Nefreet wrote:


Just to give some historical context, the Designers (capital "D") work off the assumption that a normal, bipedal, humanoid character race has two "hands" worth of utility/effort/ability. Using this two-"handed" paradigm they've built the rules we have now for Two-Weapon Fighting and determining what's (generally) allowable for a basic character.

During most cases when questions about this Designer understanding come up, it's regarding attacks. At several points in the past, Designers have tried to voice how these "unwritten rules" work, but usually to no avail. This leads to the problem of using "unwritten rules" to support an argument. Both sides can rely on them.

In this thread, the assumption that you have two "hands" worth of utility is being extrapolated to cover "holding a shield". One side posits that, if you're gaining a mechanical benefit from using a "hand", that a character no longer has two "hands" of utility/effort/ability. Following this logic, you would not be able to use Two-Weapon Fighting, and benefit from a shield, as that would require three "hands" to pull off.

Most people seem to be on one side of the debate, but probably only because the arguments have been around the ability to attack in the past. Using a shield has come up only once, to my knowledge, and a (now retired) Designer has stated, somewhat off the cuff, that Greatsword/Shield was technically allowed, should a character ever be able to acquire a third arm.

So, hope that helps with the context of why this thread is here. If an FAQ ever comes out regarding the unwritten rules of "hands", it could really go any way, since there haven't ever been any rules on it written before!

(looking forward to your 2nd post!)

yeah I think I see the morass that is the 'handedness' stuff. perhaps best to just steer clear of that entirely in this case. Of course in combat we clearly act with more than just our hands.. martial kicks etc clearly violate that paradigm. And attacking with armor spikes (outside of a grapple) seems a bit like using your entire body, a bit like 'checking' someone in hockey.

Myself I would look at this more like 'types of actions' one of which is called 'off-hand attack' but clearly despite the name does not always have to use the actual off-hand itself given there are other actions like attacking with armor spikes, which also qualify as an 'off-hand attack.

If they had termed that something like 'secondary attack' (gods help me if that is already a term in the game) which included 'attack with off-hand weapon', shield bash with off-hand, attack with armor spikes, etc.) I wonder if we would be having the same discussion?

(given gamers, probably yes I sadly suppose)


Kalindlara wrote:
Armor spikes and shield spikes are two different things. ^_^

for some reason, in reading this I got obsessed on the sheild spikes etc and all the discussion about attacking with the shield.

so to quote Emily Litella "Never Mind"

so yeah, as long as you have the proficiency for the Martial weapon 'Armor Spikes'] the rules clearly say you can attack with them instead of an off-hand weapon, they count as a light weapon, and preclude you attacking with another offhand weapon (and vice versa) So yeah I see no reason with armor spikes that you could not carry a shield, and make your 'offhand' attack with armor spikes when TWF, taking the penalty for a light weapon.

why is this thread 10 pages long?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK so pardon the newbie (to pathfinder) in his first post, but I'm not seeing how there is any question about this.

Core Rulebook, page 153 Shield Spikes: wrote:
"These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash... ...Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack

OK, so to attack with a shield spike is not some special kind of attack but is clearly making a shield bash, and all the rule around that would apply to it.

Core Rulebook, Page 152 Shield, Light/Shield Bash Attacks: AND Page 152 Shield, Heavy/Shield Bash Attacks: (same wording in both places) wrote:
"If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC Bonus until your next turn"

Bold in both quotes is my own, added for emphasis

on the same page it says a light shield is treated as a light weapon for the purposes of penalties on attack rolls, and a heavy shield is a one handed weapon (but clearly not 'light')

So yes you can use the shield as your 'off hand' weapon when TWF. You could (see this thread) even use it in your primary hand, and some other weapon in your off hand and TWF. (yeah, weird but allowed) but unless you have the Improved Shield Bash feat, you are going to lose the shield's AC bonus for the round if you attack with the shield, spiked or not, TWF or not.