So I've got a orc barbarian animal instinct Deer. Would I be able to grab Iron Fists or Tusks and apply it to my Antlers? I mean are these literal antlers sticking out of my head or is this flavor?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, specific Unarmed Attacks are the specific attacks provided and cannot be substituted for others that you possess.
In terms of "are these literal antlers" the answer is yes, you can flavor it however you like so they look how you want but they're certainly not in any way, shape, or form compatible with Tusks or Iron Fists.
could I slap some Hand wraps of Mighty Blows on my Antlers? Or affix a talisman to my Antlers like a potency crystal?
An unarmed attack is sort of like a weapon. Just because you have two of them doesn't mean that they combine together somehow.
The Handwraps effect does get applied to all of them though - which is different than if you put a rune on a weapon.
|
could I slap some Hand wraps of Mighty Blows on my Antlers? Or affix a talisman to my Antlers like a potency crystal?
As noted by other posters, the Handwraps worn on your hands enhance ALL the unarmed attacks you happen to have (tusks, bites, antlers, tail slaps, etc.), not just fists/claws.
Talismans are added to the handwraps rather than your actual unarmed attack(s), but they otherwise work normally.
Usage worn gloves
As you invest these embroidered strips of cloth, you must meditate and slowly wrap them around your hands. These handwraps have weapon runes etched into them to give your unarmed attacks the benefits of those runes, making your unarmed attacks work like magic weapons. For example, +1 striking handwraps of mighty blows would give you a +1 item bonus to attack rolls with your unarmed attacks and increase the damage of your unarmed attacks from one weapon die to two (normally 2d4 instead of 1d4, but if your fists have a different weapon damage die or you have other unarmed attacks, use two of that die size instead).
You can upgrade, add, and transfer runes to and from the handwraps just as you would for a weapon, and you can attach talismans to the handwraps. Treat the handwraps as melee weapons of the brawling group with light Bulk for these purposes. Property runes apply only when they would be applicable to the unarmed attack you’re using. For example, a property that must be applied to a slashing weapon wouldn’t function when you attacked with a fist, but you would gain its benefits if you attacked with a claw or some other slashing unarmed attack.
The minor downside is that the handwraps count against your Invested item cap while normal magical weapons do not.
Thanks, can anyone provide me some advice for utilizing my free hands if I can just grapple with my Antlers. I will definitely use one of my hands for a wooden shield. Keep the other one empty to grab a potion if needed?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trip.
Grapple a second enemy.
Interact to open/close doors or pull levers.
A staff. Obviously, you wouldn’t be able to cast spells from it, but you could cause the enemy some level of confusion for a round or two thinking you may be a caster. This is why one of my favorite battle cries is “I surrender!”. I don’t actually surrender, I just give enemies a pause.
Could I use a wand of Enlarge with trick magic item? Or a scroll of enlarge for example? I'm not too familiar with potions can you buy a potion of enlarge?
Or could I just get Arcana as a skill and use Identify Magic to know what the scroll is and just use it just before battle to prebuff?
Could I use a wand of Enlarge with trick magic item? Or a scroll of enlarge for example?
Trick Magic Item would let you use Enlarge from either scrolls or wands - as long as you succeed at the skill check, of course.
Do remember that wands in this edition are 1/day items, not charged items.
I'm not too familiar with potions can you buy a potion of enlarge?
As far as I can tell, potions are no longer created directly from spell descriptions. They aren't a spell-in-a-bottle, but are instead individually designed items. Many of them have effects that are similar to spells, but few, if any, actually reference a spell by name.
Healing Potion is quite similar to the Heal spell.
Potion of Disguise sort-of behaves like Disguise Self, but not exactly.
Potion of Retaliation ... I'm drawing a blank on this one. There is probably one that matches fairly closely, but I can't think of what it is.
If there is a consumable that duplicates Enlarge, I would actually expect it to be an Alchemical Mutagen.
Or could I just get Arcana as a skill and use Identify Magic to know what the scroll is and just use it just before battle to prebuff?
Arcana would indeed identify a scroll of Enlarge, but it wouldn't let you cast it. To cast it as a Barbarian use Trick Magic Item.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just remember that using Trick Magic Item is a single action in addition to the actions required to normally use the scroll/wand, so you are limited to 1 and 2 action spells (which is most of them, but it does leave you unable to 'cast' some spells this way).
This also means you typically need to start the round with the scroll/wand already in hand (one action to trick, then two actions to use the item).
Finally, you do have to actually succeed at the appropriate skill check as well, which might not be easy for a Barbarian (your mileage may vary, of course): Enlarge will probably require a DC 18 or 20 Arcana(Int) or Nature(Wis) check.
Good to know thanks guys, yes the plan was to use something like Enlarge and Heroism prebattle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why one of my favorite battle cries is “I surrender!”. I don’t actually surrender, I just give enemies a pause.War Crime.
The band of orcs we slayed can file a grievance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know thanks guys, yes the plan was to use something like Enlarge and Heroism prebattle.
Note that the efficient way of doing this is giving the scroll to a caster PC who will cast it on your Barbarian so that your PC spends all their actions on killing the enemies.
Best way to let your barbarian use scrolls and wands is not using TMI, it's spending a class feat on an MC spellcaster archetype (assuming you have a 14 INT, CHA or WIS).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
spending a class feat
... or two.
Depending on which instance of the Multiclass Spellcasting Archetype rules you are going with.
The CRB says that you also need Basic Spellcasting as well in order to get the spellcasting class feature.
The APG doesn't.
Best way to let your barbarian use scrolls and wands is not using TMI, it's spending a class feat on an MC spellcaster archetype (assuming you have a 14 INT, CHA or WIS).
Don't have the spare feats, grappler build. With no spellcasters I just plan to prebuff before entering battles never during combat.
spending a class feat... or two.
Depending on which instance of the Multiclass Spellcasting Archetype rules you are going with.
The CRB says that you also need Basic Spellcasting as well in order to get the spellcasting class feature.
The APG doesn't.
This tired argument was put to rest some time ago by dev comment from Logan. Despite apparent contradiction that some folks managed to worm out of the rules on spellcasting dedications, the dedication along is enough to use scrolls and wands.
Indeed, Logan says "spells and wands and staves".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if Logan wants to put that on the official FAQ page (where it would be first reviewed by the rest of the game rules development team before being published) he can certainly do so.
But while that ruling is just his own thoughts stated on a fan's YouTube video, it isn't any more official of a clarification than anything I personally say on this forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But while that ruling is just his own thoughts stated on a fan's YouTube video, it isn't any more official of a clarification than anything I personally say on this forum.
It's wild to me that people can get so wrapped up in RAW debates that even when we hear explicitly from the people who make the game how something works they'll still insist it doesn't count rather than take the obvious L.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's wild to me that people can get so wrapped up in RAW debates that even when we hear explicitly from the people who make the game how something works they'll still insist it doesn't count rather than take the obvious L.
But while that ruling is just his own thoughts stated on a fan's YouTube video, it isn't any more official of a clarification than anything I personally say on this forum.
The thing is, we've had instances where dev's have given their opinion but the FAQ/errata that was posted ended up different. As such, I don't see the issue with saying it's not official. This is doubly true if it's said in some random place instead of the actual web site for the game: one of the reason they stopped forum posts from being official is that people didn't want to have to keep a list of post links to whatever comment backed their position. Now we're expected to keep a list of random web/video/[v]blog sites with the addition of noting the time of the comment in the video? Myself, I'm not doing that so for me it's tossed into the circular file cabinet until/unless it sees it's way to the errata page.
Now if it's a situation where the wording is vague and can be read different ways, I'm willing to take such things into account when figuring out intent but that assumes I even know of the mention and could find it again as I'm NOT keeping that list of random sites with unofficial video rules comments and I'm NOT watching through a 2 hour video to find the 10 second comment tat's relevant.
It's wild to me that people can get so wrapped up in RAW debates that even when we hear explicitly from the people who make the game how something works they'll still insist it doesn't count rather than take the obvious L.
The problem is when we only hear from one of those people who make the game.
It is pretty obvious that there is a division among the game rules developers on this particular point because the rules text for the CRB and the APG are mechanically different.
But since we have only heard publicly from one of those factions, I don't see why we should think that the one lone developer should be the final authority and speak for the entire group.
It really has nothing to do with me disagreeing with the game devs - I houserule several things in the game already. And it has nothing to do with hubris and wanting to always be right - I get proven wrong on these forums often enough already.
Is there any way to change the damage type or give me a way to switch damage types on my Antlers to say B occasionally when needed? Some sort of item or magic that does that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there any way to change the damage type or give me a way to switch damage types on my Antlers to say B occasionally when needed? Some sort of item or magic that does that?
There are ways to get another natural attack like a tiefling taking Form of the Fiend, a lizardfolk with Tail Whip or a Tailed Goblin with Hard Tail.
As for a damage type swap... not that comes to mind.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's wild to me that people can get so wrapped up in RAW debates that even when we hear explicitly from the people who make the game how something works they'll still insist it doesn't count rather than take the obvious L.The problem is when we only hear from one of those people who make the game.
It is pretty obvious that there is a division among the game rules developers on this particular point because the rules text for the CRB and the APG are mechanically different.
But since we have only heard publicly from one of those factions, I don't see why we should think that the one lone developer should be the final authority and speak for the entire group.
It really has nothing to do with me disagreeing with the game devs - I houserule several things in the game already. And it has nothing to do with hubris and wanting to always be right - I get proven wrong on these forums often enough already.
We have already had significant changes in the dev team. Plus some to the rules are just not clear and even some of the devs will do it differently. Even so if there is a conflicted rule and a dev has a public position it is done this way, then I will go with that. Where it gets annoying is where the rules are clear like say flanking and the devs go and change it.
It's wild to me that people can get so wrapped up in RAW debates that even when we hear explicitly from the people who make the game how something works they'll still insist it doesn't count rather than take the obvious L.The problem is when we only hear from one of those people who make the game.
It is pretty obvious that there is a division among the game rules developers on this particular point because the rules text for the CRB and the APG are mechanically different.
But since we have only heard publicly from one of those factions, I don't see why we should think that the one lone developer should be the final authority and speak for the entire group.
It really has nothing to do with me disagreeing with the game devs - I houserule several things in the game already. And it has nothing to do with hubris and wanting to always be right - I get proven wrong on these forums often enough already.
For what it is worth, the two How It's Played series with Paizo designers have both been clear in stating that they confirmed rulings with the design team ahead of the videos.
Now, I won't argue on the efficiency or efficacy of making rulings on a non-official video series. But at the very least we shouldn't pretend like the answers given are lone designer calls.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it is worth, the two How It's Played series with Paizo designers have both been clear in stating that they confirmed rulings with the design team ahead of the videos.
Now, I won't argue on the efficiency or efficacy of making rulings on a non-official video series. But at the very least we shouldn't pretend like the answers given are lone designer calls.
Mostly that is Ok. When you are talking about rules questions though the details matter. I've seen some cases where it was questionable what specific question asked. or the How It's Played didn't really address the main points. Paizo devs have a habit of answering the soft question, and avoiding the diffcult problem.
Or the really bad one where the main question was about how many abilities a Witch Archetype familiar has. Then as an afterthought there was an on-the-spot question about whether the Archetype familiar revives the following day if killed.
I find it hard to believe that the answer was vetted with the entire development team in that case.
Or the really bad one where the main question was about how many abilities a Witch Archetype familiar has. Then as an afterthought there was an on-the-spot question about whether the Archetype familiar revives the following day if killed.
I find it hard to believe that the answer was vetted with the entire development team in that case.
That's fair, it's not an entirely scripted exchange. It's totally possible that was an pff-guard answer.
You also have the answer like when Mark was responding to Wild Shape's status bonus to attack rolls in the case where your base bonus is one lower or equal. It was clear what the rules said wasn't what was totally intended, but he gave the completely RAW answer because the rules team didn't want to contradict the written rule. I'm sad that didn't see an errata this time around.We are getting a bit off-topic on antler barbarians here; it might be worth spinning off a new thread on this if people wish to continue the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We already have at least one.