youpeople's page

As far as walking on the top of the wall (assuming it is 5ft wide) the enemy or player would have no way of knowing where wall ends, and thin air begins. Hence, it would be unlikely for anyone to remain on the wall for any length of time, even if you knew exactly how wide it was, you have no point of reference to judge width by.

Now, you could drape a rope, curtain, or something similar over the wall, but that negates it's inherent invisibility somewhat.

Monk of the empty hand,

Improvise weapon the bomb and spend a ki point to make it do unarmed damage?

Standard Action to make the bomb and throw it, so... maybe?

Rene Duquesnoy wrote:

If you multi-class a monk & an alchemist, can you punch someone with a bomb in your hand and take bomb & unarmed strike damage?

I can't think of anything that would really allow this. Either action would normally be a standard action in of itself...

With the 8th level Alchemist Discovery, you can get Fast Bombs, which grant additional bombs via BAB. I suppose if you fast bombed then punched, you could do it without targeting yourself.

youpeople wrote:

a full attack action... would grant you two armor attacks, at a +1/-4 (-5 for both assuming you do not have TWF) and a claw attack. Using both natural weapons would come at a +1 +1, -4 for an Armor Spike attack.

What do you mean, youpeople?

1. There are no TWF penalties. At all. He's not using TWF, it's irrelevant.
2. The armor spikes don't use an arm, so they don't prevent attacking with his second claw.

He would get armor spike at +6 (full-BAB normal attack, a second armor spike at +1 (second iterative attack at BAB-5), and two claws, both of which are at +1 (because they become secondary natural attacks, BAB-5 and half strength).

If, instead of armor spikes, he used a sword, he could get sword +6, sword +1, and one claw at +1 (& half str).

At no point does two-weapon fighting apply here.

You are correct, and I bow to your knowledge here.

youpeople wrote:

You're right, so a full attack action, (not counting weapons, which is something that should be figured out by your DM, as it is silly realistically, but *very* remotely possible mechanically) would grant you two armor attacks, at a +1/-4 (-5 for both assuming you do not have TWF) and a claw attack.

Forgive me, I'm late to the discussion, but where are you getting the -5? At first I assumed it had to do with adding the claw attack, but the "assuming you do not have TWF" bit (referring to the feat, or the mechanic?) made me unsure.

My apologies, I misread my TWF feat scores, it is not a -5. Should be a -4/-8 since Armor Spikes are considered light. Again, assuming he has not taken TWF.

youpeople wrote:

In a setting with Primitive Armor,

Wait, was that the setting? I thought it was just that character?

Quote:

I've always looked at it as such, if something you would write on your character sheet in an actual space (AC, Spells, etc...) and not in the notes, requires another player's interaction with your character, you are no longer self-sufficient and are classified as a companion to that character, and lose the PC stat bonuses no longer inherent to a companion.

How do you feel about the entire category of teamwork feats in the APG? Or for that matter, the fact that a rogue's sneak attack relies on another person 95% of the time?

I'm pretty comfortable with the Teamwork Feats in the APG. I've had bad experiences with Shield Wall specifically, our party had a powergamer who built his character around it, and refused to help out the party unless it could be done behind the wall during combat, and would otherwise take total defense. He eventually got his son to play, and built his entire character around shield wall, so he basically played to characters and it was no fun for anyone else.

In this case, if the druid is totally ok with taking up a 6th level slot for Ironwood, then more power to ya. I just don't usually allow metagame tactical planning in my games.

As far as a setting, unless you are building primitive armor, you're pretty unlikely to find some for sale at the local armor vendor. Why not just enchant splint armor to do what you want?

If you are going to quote my post, read all of it. The example had a +6 BAB, that's two attacks.

You're right, so a full attack action, (not counting weapons, which is something that should be figured out by your DM, as it is silly realistically, but *very* remotely possible mechanically) would grant you two armor attacks, at a +1/-4 (-5 for both assuming you do not have TWF) and a claw attack. Using both natural weapons would come at a +1 +1, -4 for an Armor Spike attack.

You can attack with armor spikes in same way as would with a dagger, as sole weapon, or a primary weapon. Off hand only comes into play with two-weapon fighting, which is not being discussed, or referenced here.

This is semantics, you're attempting to use the wording in the Bestiary entry to qualify that the 2 claws do not count as or suffer the penalty of TWF; so you can justify using 2 attacks with Armor Spikes, which would, by the way, take the TWF penalty, making the 2nd Armor Spike attack impossible. Beyond that, Armor Spikes are one weapon. So you cannot attack twice unless you have a +X/+X attack bonus. If you were to do that, every attack would suffer a -5, and your natural attacks would be considered secondary weapons, as you are now attacking with a manufactured weapon. You're running in circles.

In a setting with Primitive Armor, would Ironwood even be an available spell? I mean, I all for flavor, but building a class with AC based entirely around another character spending a 6th level spell slot on you is kind of... unwise, isn't it?
My DM, and myself as a DM would be pretty reticent to allow inter-player metagaming like that.

I've always looked at it as such, if something you would write on your character sheet in an actual space (AC, Spells, etc...) and not in the notes, requires another player's interaction with your character, you are no longer self-sufficient and are classified as a companion to that character, and lose the PC stat bonuses no longer inherent to a companion.

You may be able to take the Shield Wall feat, but if you have to plan the Shield wall with the party's paladin, you're running two characters as one. See what I mean?

Something you said a page or so back bothers me:

It really is not extra attacks. I will explain. I have BAB of +6, I am wearing armor spikes, I have two claws. Attack goes like this:

Armor spikes, armor spikes, claw, claw.
I can do this again next turn too.
Now, with let's say, longsword, and dagger:
Longsword, dagger, (drop both), claw, claw.
Same amount of attacks, but now I have to pick up two weapons to repeat.
Why would this be wrong?

Reading this as a DM, as if one of my players proposed it, I would feel like they're trying to pull the wool over my eyes. My interpretation would lead me to the conclusion that you don't plan on picking up the weapons post-first round; and would in fact be planning on doing AS, AS, Claw, Claw for the rest of the encounter.

You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.)

It would seem to me that you cannot use 2 armor spike attacks, as the first attack would be considered off hand if you used your claws at all, whether or not you used the claws first.

Armor spikes deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.

Second source seems to agree. So, this is not cheese, nor munchkin-ing. It is simply wrong, and impossible to accomplish what you say you want to do in the current mechanics. Again, as a DM, if one of my players proposed this, I would see through the thinly crafted veil of Role-playing, for the free extra attack optimization it really is, and show them gently that armor spikes don't work that way. Especially if one looks at how armor spikes are attached to armor.

If your PC isn't going to write the backstory/is a min-maxer, just let him poof in a pet. Fairly useless in combat, and unless he's super into it, not a great RP tool either.

I find that having self contained "bubble" adventures which all tie into the events of the "Big Lead" (the hook you gave your players when they started) tend to garner the most emotional response from players.

This ends up playing like mid-season episodes of Star Trek if done wrong, and if done right, feels like a Salvatore novel.

Just remember, there doesn't always need to be a boss per week, or an enemy of the day, the most dangerous enemy of your players is themselves. Give them a ship as a reward from the townspeople for saving the school for blind and deaf orphans, watch them run it into the rocks on an uncharted island, use that as this week's hook. Instant engagement.