thepuregamer's page

here's the shielder's dpr:

so here is the dpr. its ok but not amazing but I tend to like that every hit is a bull rush which I think is pretty cool. The haste values are just so we can see some of what a party setting can do.

If this were an 11 lvl build, this would be a very different build but in 10 lvls, using ranger was the only way to make this work. :(

Rounds per lvl: displacement and haste
Minutes per lvl:shield, protection from evil, cat's grace, monstrous physique, and mirror image.
hours per lvl: mage armor and stoneskin.

This example is 100% bs because:
1. you are spending 10 spells to do it.
2. only 2 of those buffs are going to last all day.
3. 6 of them you are only going to have up for 10 minutes. which basically means that you are not going to have them up all day or at the beginning of the first encounter.
4. 2 of them are only going to be around for 10 rounds.

So 2 rounds of every encounter you are definitely buffing your ac and 6 more rounds of most encounters, you are also buffing your ac. I am not sure if your party is going to know you are even there.

So yes cartigan, you are currently being a super troll.

If the trait says it gives you a +2 trait bonus to damage against x and another trait gives you a +1 trait bonus damage while using x, the bonus would not stack.

I am not personally familiar with the traits you are mentioning. If these traits do not describe the bonus as a trait bonus you may be ok. Though there may be a general rule for traits that states all bonuses from traits are trait bonuses.

thepuregamer wrote:

Seriously try and find the rule that states that players cannot take monster feats. monster feats like other feats have prerequisites. If the players meet those prerequisites, they can take the feat. A player doesn't need special permission to use a monster feat any more than they would need special permission to take skill focus.

The Bestiaries are not player's book... They are DM only books... So the feat in the MM are not for the players... That's as simple as that for me ;)

As a DM I can authorize some of these feats to my players but they can't choose it as they wish (well since they don't have the Bestiaries they even don't know of them all ;) )

sounds like you were unable to find any rules to support your argument because you didn't quote anything. you can of course modify things any way you want in games you dm. A dm can ban anything he wants. you would be just as justified in banning your players from using weapon focus.

unless the lvl 4 synthesist uses one of the methods I already outlined.

And you think that, as a DM, I will let him do it ? :D
He has to use a DM only books, just for that he has to ask if he can take the feat ;)

They are free to take everything from the player's book (We currently use : Core+APG+UM) everything else is subject to DM approval... ;)

yeah, you can do that as dm. but it is a house rule. which is fine but I do not see why you are touting your opinions as if they are rules in the rules forum.

yeah, at lvl 20, a wizard ends up with an initative result of 30+dex mod+misc without rolling. So I think winning initiative is out of the question. You might want to focus on surviving the first round instead.

Though you are not too screwed. I mean if the wizard goes the option of time stop, he will be mind blanked, invisible + you will be surrounded by multiple summoned or called creatures.

But there is a bright side. The wizard is hardly a winner if he goes the time stop route because this just turns the battle into a stalemate. See once he completes his time stop, you get to start your turn and do exactly the same thing.

If your cleric has the trickery domain, then on your turn you cast time stop and basically do everything he did. Then the battle recommences with both of you being mind blanked/ invisible/ flying with a bunch of called/ summoned creatures at your command.

Now if he tries to take you out in 1 turn, then he will instead do a quickened enervation + a save or die. So then your other contingency should be an item of spell turning so that he eats his own enervation.

you could order your eidolon to nudge you awake every 2 minutes... then he would always be with you.

So many people get hung up on how to calculate durations for PaO, but what about when you use it to turn into things greater polymorph spells does not mention?

What bonuses, abilities, etc do you get when turning into a fey, outsider, or other unmentioned creature?

as the title suggests I was trying to list all the ways one can boost caster lvl for spell effects.
So far I have:
1. Death Knell(temporary +1)
2. gifted adept trait(1 spell)
3. Loreseeker or missionary traits(pick 3 spells)
4. Moon Circlet(situational +/- 1 or 2)
5. Arcane beacon from arcane domain(+1 for arcane spells)
6. orange ioun stone of (+1 cl)
7. greater strand of prayer beads(karma bead- +4 cl for 10 mins, once per day)
8. Varisian Tattoo from the Campaign Setting book and the Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide. It has a prerequisite of Spell Focus in the appropriate school, upping the DC +1 for every spell in that school cast and upping your level +1 in spells from that school. Divination is the only restricted school.
9. (Witch only) coven hex. Lasts 1 rd, needs at least 2 witches, but no maximum boost (+1 per coven witch within 30' aiding )

Are there any others I am missing? I have been adding new ones in as people mention them.

Umm, no, it has been discussed but no definite conclusion has been reached.

But if you compare the descriptions it is pretty much clear:
...
Soo, if you read it so that a smoke bomb deals fire damage in addition to creating a cloud then a frost bomb should do soo too - which is clearly not the case.

I disagree on your frost bomb comparison.

1. the description only appears to state what it changes. Which is damage type. the alchemist can choose to have it inflict cold damage. Look to concussive bomb for the precedent for this.

So there could have been an oversight on the stink and smoke bombs but I would hardly say that it is clear that they are not supposed to do damage. As for now, it is relatively clear that they should do damage and anybody who is unsure should rightfully press the faq button.

So looking at the monk ability slow time, It states that as a swift action you can gain three standard actions in a turn instead of just 1. He can use these actions to take a melee attack action, use a skill, use an extraordinary ability, or take a move action. He cannot combine them to use a spell like ability or take a full-attack action.

So what if before activating slow time you
a) take a full attack action.
b) use a standard action to activate a spell like ability.

and then use a swift action to activate slow time. What happens then? Do you get 3 standard actions? Do you get 2 standard actions? Or is using slow time not an option because you have used your actions in a way that the ability does not allow? The ability seems to need a line of text clarifying its use. IE, slow time must be used before you take other actions in a round. That sort of thing.

Because I could see a monk in melee range, use flurry and then pump slow time and do 2 standard action combat maneuvers or some vital strikes.

A while back in 3.0, I was a huge fan of chainmail bikini's, "Beyond monks- The Art of the Fight". I think it is Open content but I am unsure as the company is no longer around and further information was hard to find. They had quite a few interesting takes on the monk in that book and many of them could be polished up to fit into pathfinder.

thepuregamer wrote:

There is no ethical component to this discussion.

First off, there is no "One True RAW" for anything in debate. There is a One True RAW for Medium Longsword damage is 1d8, but for things like this using many rules and intersecting between these rules you end up with a variety of RAW interpretations. Your GM picks the RAW he wishes and he may sprinkle in a little RAI if none of the RAW are to his liking (resulting in house rule.) I don't care about RAI/House Rules etc, have fun. But when talking about RAW, and when multiple RAW interpretations are valid no one gets the right to say the other RAW interpretation is wrong. Well no one except Paizo.

Stynkk wrote:

Brass Knuckles: These close combat weapons

When using a BK, you are using a weapon. You are not using the Unarmed Strike weapon for starters.

Look, I am not disagreeing that there are points when RAW is unclear. IE, in dnd 3.5 there was a long while when people argued over whether monk unarmed strike passage saying their unarmed strikes could benefit from spells and effects that natural attacks allowed them to gain access to improved natural Attack because there was no direct passage that defined feats as a effects. Thus some people believed that it worked and some didn't.

This is not like that case. We have directly defined terms and groups in this discussion. The fact that a brass knuckle is a weapon does not change anything. Consider that the unarmed strike is a weapon. It is on a weapon table, it is said to be considered a light weapon. I agree that using a BK is not the same as using an unarmed strike. A BK does not need to be an unarmed strike to utilize stunning fist and other abilities that clearly state they work with unarmed attacks.

The second part gives us some how to use information but not all of it. The weapons table tells us the type of damage the weapon deals, that the bk is a monk weapon, and that it is in the unarmed attack category. These three things are only found in the table. The weapon table is one of the sources we use to obtain information about weapons. The other weapon categories also are important to how weapons are used(IE, how much strength mod to add on damage, how they work with twf, weapon finesse, etc). Weapon categories are relevant.

So to sum it up, I would say that there is no such thing as multiple RAW accounts of how things work. RAW is either clearly spelled out or it is not(like my above example where it came down to interpretations of english word meanings because in game terminology was not robust enough). The BK does not suffer from this issue. Unarmed strikes and Unarmed Attacks are well defined as separate entities. I would say that you are just unwilling to separate them personally. That is all.

StabbittyDoom wrote:

you have no stated any supporting arguments for your opinion other than a provably false one.

Ether_Drake sums it all up pretty nicely.

According to you it is prove-ably false, I don't agree your evidence proves your point. Continuing to state it does doesn't help you prove it does.

Ether_Drake and I have hashed it out in previous posts in this thread. Not only do I think he doesn't sum it up nicely, I think he is wrong on several points.

It all comes down to neither side can ethically claim they have proved their side until Paizo comes out with a clarification.

Ethically? I am confused. There is no ethical component to this discussion. But forget that as it is not worth focusing on.

James, if this is a discussion or a debate, then you need to interact with the counter argument. Your short I disagree posts that have no argument other than the other kind of argument need to be expanded. Ether_Drake and others have step by step built the supposed bridge across the chasm. If a step is incorrect you need to show it. Obtain the evidence you need from the PRD or other pathfinder source material. Contrary to popular opinion we do not represent a heinous rules lawyering power gaming cabal. I have nothing to gain from stunning fist being more inclusive than you think. I am playing a Cavalier in game right now.

So my quick question is, Does fast healer work with fast healing?
fast healer states, "When you regain hit points by resting or through magical healing, you recover additional hit points equal to half your Constitution modifier (minimum +1)."
and fast healing states, "Except where noted here, fast healing is just like natural healing. Fast healing does not restore hit points lost from starvation, thirst, or suffocation, nor does it allow a creature to regrow lost body parts."

The way I look at it, it says fast healing works just like natural healing and thus it makes me think that fast healer would basically increase your fast healing per round by your con mod/2. Also if the fast healing is from a magical source it should also work with the feat. Does this sound right to you?