Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Undead

Charender's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,049 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,049 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Weirdo wrote:

I'd agree that this would work better as a one-time thing than a regular campaign feature. It's a neat idea, but you don't want the party constantly finding loot they can't use, whether that's because out of alignment/race/class restrictions or just because no one in the party wears heavy armour and all the BBEG have full plate.

Charender wrote:
One problem with this is that UMD specifically allows you to mimic any race when activating items. So even if you made the activation something that only X race can do, UMD still allows a human to emulate it close enough to activate the item.

The race restriction on items is more like a magic DNA test: an orc (or half-orc, or human with Racial Heritage Orc) who is raised among humans can activate an orcs-only magic item.

In the case of a Shibboleth command item, the biological identity of the user is not as important as the cultural identity - a human raised by orcs, without a drop of orcish blood, would be able to activate the item, but a full-blood orc adopted by humans would not have the correct accent.

A UMD may indeed still be useful in activating the item, but in terms of flavour it would be more like a "blind activation" task because the command word is, while not quite unknown, alien enough that you have to guess around a bit with the pronunciation (assuming you can physically produce the sound; if not you need to get creative).

My point was that if you can bypass magical restrictions on your actual race, then getting around hard to pronounce words should be easier.


Trogdar wrote:
So all the dex fighter needs is the twf feat tree, three feats for dex to damage, and three ranged feats... This doesn't seem like a lot of feats to anyone else? I mean, this is completely nonviable on anything other than a fighter unless you want to have it play out at super high level when, incidentally, the martial classes become more and more marginalized by the games changing nature.

TWF only requires 2 feats: TWF, and Improved TWF(at level 6). Greater TWF is optional as it is a minor increase in DPR.

Dex to damage only requires 1 feat: Weapon finesse. The other feats are just ways to allow you to use weapon finesse with other weapons.

You can make a dex based TWF paladin work just fine with just these 3 feats and agile weapons. Having a dex to damage feat just eliminates the need for agile weapons, and thus lets me start closing the damage gap with a str character sooner.

Pick up Piranha strike, and I am solid in melee, and now I have to option to either...

Pick up more feats to becomes better at melee(IE weapon focus, two weapon defense, etc.)

OR

Pick up a few archer feats to become a better rounded character(point blank shot, rapid shot, deadly aim)

If I go the second route, I will be a better archer than any str character could ever hope to be.


Aelryinth wrote:

A TWF Dex fighter is the best comparison vs a TWF Str fighter. And since he has a higher AC, he doesn't suffer the poor AC that's the lot of the 2h and TWF styles.

A comparable is the Sword and Board builds, but the AC and saves of the Dex fighter will have the edge, in the end.

A 2h Dex fighter can do well, but will lag in damage even if he has better defenses.

So that's why you see the TWF Dex builds...it looks the best vs Str.
---
And WEapon focus is a feat tax...as people have said, there's better ways to get a +1 to hit, except you need this for (dum dum dum) other feats, esp the weapon spec tree.

==Aelryinth

The problem with this is the dex requirements on TWF feats. A Str based TWF will eventually need a 19 dexterity if they want to get all of the TWF feats. A Dex based TWF will already have a 19 dex and then some. This is why I like to compare the Dex TWF to a Str Two-hander.


One problem with this is that UMD specifically allows you to mimic any race when activating items. So even if you made the activation something that only X race can do, UMD still allows a human to emulate it close enough to activate the item.


Chengar Qordath wrote:

Can we pick a position and stick with it? It's rather hard to make a counterpoint when there's a completely different argument every time I post. Are dex builds:

1) Superior at low levels, but strength catches up later.

2) Slow to start, but then catch up once agile weapons are available.

3) Equal and low levels, and superior later.

How about

4) More complicated than all of that. I have mostly been pointing out the advantages of dex builds, since the str advantages have been pretty well covered.

With the current RAW
At low levels, Dex builds will have a significant defensive advantage over STR builds, while STR builds will have a significant damage advantage. At level 1, I can hit 18-20 AC with a dex build while doing 2 attacks at 1d6 damage with a +3 to hit. With a strength build, I can get 2d6 + 12 with a +7 to hit, but end up with an AC of 14(yay, barbarian rage).

By the time the dex builds start to catch up to the str builds in damage, the str builds have the opportunity to catch up in AC, init, and reflex saves via feats and equipment. This happens around level 6-8.

At level 10, things are pretty balanced, but dex builds have a clear advantage in init and reflex, and there are no feats left for the str build to take to close the gap. The str build maintains a damage advantage, but only in the absence of party buffs. From this point on, the dex build stays on par in damage(especially in a group setting), and gets increasingly better init and reflex.

By level 15, the dex build is usually on top, but most campaigns are over or winding down at this point, and the advantage isn't huge. Also, this is comparing highly optimized built from scratch builds, which is not how campaigns generally play out.

TLDR: Dex builds are currently 2-5 levels of suck damage with high defense to be all around stronger at higher levels.


Chengar Qordath wrote:

If you want to talk about levels 1-3, then at low levels the feat expenditure for being a dex character is downright punitive, and the magic item route is (obviously) not available. If you want to two weapon fight with dex-to-damage just using feats, you'd have to have:

Weapon Finesse
Weapon Focus
Slashing Grace
Two-Weapon Fighting
Exotic Weapon Prof (Aldori Dueling Sword or Sawtooth Sabre)
Piranha Strike

Even if you're running a human fighter, it'll take a while to get all of those. Plus further the rest of the TWF feats down the line. One of the big advantages of swinging a two-handed weapon has always been the comparative lack of feat taxes. Power Attack is pretty much it. I can think of plenty of used I could find for those five extra feats.

Not to mention that Greater Magic Weapon doesn't grant the DR penetration of a proper enhancement bonus. And DR already hurts TWF-ers more than it hurts a character with fewer, harder hits.

FYI, Weapon Focus and Pirahna Strike are a wash since a two-hander will be getting weapon focus and power attack as well. Exotic Weapon Prof. and slashing grace are not a requirement for TWF, because Kukri's get the job done just fine. The only feat tax on TWFing is TWF, Imp TWF, Greater IWF. Also, note that Greater TWF is considered optional because it is a minimal DPS gain. The only feat tax on dex to damage is currently weapon finesse. That is only 3 feats, 4 if you created a general dex to damage feat. The real hit to the dex TWFer right now is having to enchant 2 agile weapons. -1 to hit and damage on both weapons hurts quite a bit, and you don't get those weapons until around level 6-8, which oddly enough is about the time when strength fighters are getting access to all that nifty armor that helps them make up for the difference in AC.

There are plenty of other ways to get around DR in a group setting: Golf bag approach, Penetrating strike, Weapon Blanches, and spells like align weapon. If DR is slowing you down significantly, you are probably doing it wrong.


Nicos wrote:
Charender wrote:
Dual wielding light weapons is one of the best dex based options
Enchanting the two weaposn is also more expensive than the diference beteween heavy armor and light armor.

And what about at level 1-3 when no one has magic weapons or armor?

At level 1, you have 100-200 gold.
Strength character has 13-14 dex with an 18 strength. 100 gold gets you a chain shirt. for a 15-16 AC.
Dexterity characters have a 18 dex. Of have for the same 100 gold I get a chain shirt too and have an 18 AC or they can spend 10 gold on leather and have a 16 AC.

Once you hit level 5 or so, you have enough WBL to start getting the exact equipment you want, but starting out, Dex characters have a significant wealth advantage. This is another places where YMMV. Level 1 is the only time you have complete control over your character's gear. Once the game starts, the campaign and pacing may dictate what gear is available to you.

Having to enchant a second weapon is one of the few reasons why TWF damage lags behind a two-hander, but depending on party composition, you may not need to enchant a second weapon(Greater Magic Weapon).


Secret Wizard wrote:

Charender, the best STR-based characters have methods to move at full speed with heavy armor. Dwarfs, dwarf-heritage, Fighter levels, or spells that allow it (like the Rangers').

Also, Piranha Strike is only good if you dual-wield light weapons or only use one. It is useless if you use Spiked Chain, Elven Curved Sword, Scimitar, Rapier, Dueling Sword, etc.

The STR fighter will deal incredibly more powerful crits thanks to Power Attack scaling, but the bard thing is true.

So basically, you have to be a level 7 fighter who doesn't swap out armor training, a dwarf(with an inherent 20 foot move), burn a feat, or burn resources. Heavy armor is still more expensive. I would say that dex characters still have a massive advantage here.

Dual wielding light weapons is one of the best dex based options, but if you absolutely need power attack, a 2 level dip in ranger gets you power attack without needing to have a 13 strength. Otherwise, piranha strike will get the job done.

STR fighter may get bigger crits, but the TWF will give you more frequent smaller crits. Big crits also give you more overkill, which is a loss in damage dealt. I am more than willing to call it a wash.

Also, in addition to bards, look at a TWF paladin or a normal TWF fighter's damage when a paladin uses their group smite.


Kazumetsa_Raijin wrote:
Charender wrote:
Right now, I feel that the balance is in a good place, dex characters have better defenses, but they do slightly less damage.

Honestly, I agree. For only 4 more points of AC/Reflex/Init, we miss out on some stupendous Str damage multipliers and Feats/Feat requirements. I'm sure there are a plethora of other trade-offs too(like MAD characters, it helps a lot). I feel it's a fair or decent trade at the least.

I really just wish Weapon Finesse gave us both the ability to use Dex Mod with Attacks on One-Handed/Light Weapons, and/or Dex-to-Damage with those weapons. It'd be nice if it was just knocked down to One feat cost, instead of having to do these silly multiclasses/feat-taxes to go with the norm.

Actually, I think that the balance is in a good place with the current RAW(IE no general dex to damage feat). I can use agile weapons, feats like dervish dance, or certain class abilities to gain dex to damage, but I generally take a hit to my damage output in doing so that balances out my character not needing strength.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some things that seem to have been overlooked thus far
1. For a strength character to match a dex character in AC they will have to use heavier armor. A character with a 14 dex or less will be looking at heavy armor which will give you a movement penalty even if you make it mithril. Not being able to make attack due to movement restrictions is a huge DPS loss. Also, heavy armor is generally more expensive than light armor, when means the strength fighter has less WBL for other things. The movement penalty and initial cost of armor are both major reasons for me favoring dex character over strength ones.
2. Saying that a strength character can take a cloak of resist to shore up their low reflex saves is irrelevant. Almost every character is going to take a cloak of resist.
3. A dex character can get away with a 10 strength(thank you piranha strike), a strength character generally needs a 13+ for their dex because they still need it for AC and access for feats like dodge.
4. Scaling. At level 10, with a standard build and belt of std/dex +4, you should have a 24 to your dex or str. The strength character will have maybe a 14 for their dex. That means the dex character has a +5 init, +5 reflex save, +5 AC. The best the strength fighter can do without losing movement is mithril breast plate(4350gp, +6AC) for a total of +8 AC. Meanwhile, the dex character grabs darkleaf studded leather(925 gp, +2 AC) for a total of +9 AC. If the strength character grabs improved initiative and lightning reflexes to mirror weapon finesse and the dex to damage feat, they are still -3325 gold, -1 initiative, -3 reflex, and -1 AC compared to the dexterity character. More importantly, the gap will only grow as the character go up in level, because the strength character will focus on gaining strength, and the dex character will focus on dex.
5. Games are not played in a vacuum. TWF characters are generally 10% behind strength character in damage on their own, but a TWF or feral fighter(IE lots of low damage attacks) gains a lot more damage from a bardic performance than a two-hander. A lot of two-hand builds are already hitting on a 2+ with their opening attack with power attack, so they don't benefit as much from raw pluses to hit like bless and good hope or being turned invisible via improved visibility. Meanwhile, a lot of defensive buffing spells overlap with bonuses from equipment(ring of protecting overlaps with shield of faith for example). On a well rounded character, it is usually easier to gain offense that it is to gain defense.

Right now, I feel that the balance is in a good place, dex characters have better defenses, but they do slightly less damage.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:

I think there are a few different ways a person could be neutral. But I also think that by far the most common is people who believe that they're good, and think of themselves as good, and even try and do good things fairly often...

...just not quite often enough. People are really good at being selfish. And really good at lying to themselves. And really good at persuading themselves that this selfish thing they're doing is totally not selfish and totally something they're doing for the sake of someone else.

Of course, they're not thieves... but they will help themselves to a bottle of booze that's sat around unattended. After all, someone's lost it. Or they wouldn't steal from anyone who couldn't afford it... but this time? This one time? This specific person clearly can afford it, so it's okay! And never mind that that happens every fortnight. And they'd never f$$* up a friends relationship! But it was obvious that that last partner was a bad idea, so they were just helping the friend see it. Or they're not corrupt, but everyone knows that some free drinks now and again is just a perk of the job. Or they're not cruel, not sadistic! But sometimes they're in a bad mood, and they lash out, and it's not their fault because they'd had a few drinks and everyone knows what they're like after a few drinks.

So I think for most people the path of neutrality is the path of making excuses for your own petty selfishness, but keeping your selfishness petty enough that you can still excuse it.

I would add that one of their justifications for being selfish or petty is, "I am been a good boy lately, I can't be nice all the time." They do good, but like the bad things it is a lot of little things that don't really add up to much.


One thing that I did not see specifically mentioned would be what I have seen referred to as the innocent alignment. That are similar to animals in they do not have the capacity to understand moral choices. Unlike animals, they simply have not developed the capacity yet.

They may a concept of right and wrong in that they can register that you did something wrong to me, but they are not yet capable of understanding altruism or malice because they haven't internalized the concept of others having thoughts and feelings like themselves. Basically children, a man raised by wild animals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was DMing a campaign, and we had a sequence where the party was trying to save a group of clerics from a pair of assassins. The assassins had infiltrated the clerics and were taking them out, and the party was getting frustrated. It was a tense cat and mouse game that evenutually blew up into an all out battle. The results of the battle were a draw. 2 clerics and the party druid dead in exchange for one of the assassins. The other twist, the assassins used a potion that caused people killed while under its influence to have spell resistance against resurrections, so the party druid was looking to be dead for good. We were about level 14, and the druid was an integral member of the party, so his loss would be keenly felt.

The assassins were paid lawful evil mercenaries, but they were not going to keep the contract to the death. They were also twin sisters. So, the living assassin really wanted her sister back, so she met the party and offered a trade, her sister's body intact for the antidote to the anti-ress poison. I take the body, and you never see me again. Mind you, the assassins had racked up a pretty impressive body count of clerics at this point, so the thought of just letting them walk was a hard thing to stomach.

So basically, save your friend to let a cold blooded killer live again.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Could you elaborate on "physical representations"?

Sure.

Extracts
The alchemist uses prepared casting mechanics for their extracts. But since the extracts are physical objects in the fiction, it doesn't seem weird that you'd have to decide how many of each you make in advance.

If I make two loafs of bread, it isn't weird that I can make them both the same kind or each a different kind. Nor is it strange that I have to decide in advance what kind of bread I'll want.

And it's intuitively obvious that, if I made a variety, I can eat all the sandwich bread and still have french bread for dinner. That's just how objects work.

Extracts feel the same way. "The red ones are healing, the clear one is true strike. I can use all my healing without touching true strike. And if I don't use true strike at all, it'll just go bad."

Clerics
Looking at the average cleric: they pray in the morning, selecting an array of spells, and later in the day can call on those exact spells (or spontaneous healing).

So you can cure three curses, diseases, or cases of blindness/deafness. But you have to choose exactly which in the morning and how many of each.

That seems pretty strange as the default flavor for miracle workers. Running out of juice is understandable, but making tactical decisions about the miracles you need for the day feels really weird.

Now, some real world faiths prepare charms, incense, prayer scrolls, or other single-use items. It'd feel pretty natural in those cases, hence what I was saying about physical representations.

Cheers!
Landon

I would go a step further. The fact that clerics "Cast" spells at all really kills it for me. Gods are powerful beings with goals, and the divine magic system takes the power away from the god and basically makes them into the clerics little magic genie. To make matter worse, you have Wands of Cure light wounds. "Yeah, I just stored my god's divine power right here in this wand for anyone to use...."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Haladir's method is how I handle it as well. CHA score has absolutely zilch to do with physical appearance.

Same here.

I've even considered divorcing the social skills from Charisma and making it a 'Power' stat used for all spells and spell-like abilities and such, so it's purely an internal power measurement rather than the odd amalgam of things it is now.

This especially make sense when you look at all the stats and realize that the physical and mental stats mirror each other.

Wisdom = Mental Constitution
Intelligence = Mental Dexterity
Charisma = Mental Strength

Strength is about getting the physical world to do your bidding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I give the bonus of Combat Expertise for free, then I modified the combat Expertise feat to something different.

Combat Expertise - Req. Int 13, Add half of you intelligence bonus to you CMB/CMD, minimum of 1.


Something else is item commissioning. People are used to I going to Wal-mart, and if they don't have it, they don't have it.

Even today, a lot of special or rare items are comissioned. IE, I find a craftsman, I pay him 20-30% upfront, then I come back a month later, pay him the balance, and collect the item.

Once you get past the basics, a lot of shops simply cannot afford to keep rare goods in stock. A holy avenger +5 is worth more than most medium sized towns, no shop is going to keep that in stock just incase a wealthy paladin wanders by.


As a general rule, you can only gain a bonus from a particular stat once no matter how they are typed.

Gaining wis and dex to damage, yes.
Gaining dex to damage twice, no.


Cuttler wrote:

Looking at the thread I wondered if the actual conditions was not overlooked.

People argued about whether a natural 20 always succeed. I believe that the conclusion that a natural 20 is critical success is sound and right.

However, have we really looked at the right condition for success?

Let's look again at the definition of parry as submitted by the OP:

Parry:
Parry (Ex): At 2nd level, a duelist learns to parry the attacks of other creatures, causing them to miss. Whenever the duelist takes a full attack action with a light or one-handed piercing weapon, she can elect not to take one of her attacks. At any time before her next turn, she can attempt to parry an attack against her or an adjacent ally as an immediate action. To parry the attack, the duelist makes an attack roll, using the same bonuses as the attack she chose to forego during her previous action. If her attack roll is greater than the roll of the attacking creature, the attack automatically misses. For each size category that the attacking creature

(emphasis mine)

Parry is not rolling an attack against an ac, it's rolling against another attack roll. Parry seems to work if the defender's roll is higher than the attacker's roll. It doesn't require to succeed to hit against something.

so does it really matter if it's a natural 20 or not? In the end, by RAW, it requires to be higher than the other one's attack roll.

So, following this reasoning, if both have a natural 20, it doesn't matter, the one with the highest bonus total attack roll) wins....

Or another example: if attacker rolls a nat 20 (an automatic hit)with a +2 bonus to attack roll (total 22) and the defender has rolled 18 with a +5 bonus to attack roll (total 23), then the parry (23) should beat the attack roll(22. Yes the attack roll succeeded, but the parry worked also since it only required to have a higher attack roll than the attacker.

In the end, does it matter if the attacker succeed at hitting with or without a natural 20. In...

Spoiler:

Attack Roll

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.

Automatic Misses and Hits

A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).

The parry is clearly listed as being an attack roll. Attack rolls are subject to the rule of 20 which mean that a 20 is an automatic hit. In this case a hit would be interpreted as a successful parry. The rules would be bloated if they listed every place the rule of 20 comes into play, and how it works in that particular instance. Hence why we have a general for the rule of 20.

The problem is that there are 2 interpretations of what a 20 means on the attack roll
1. The attack is a hit no matter what
2. The attack is a hit no matter what the target to hit number is.

The problem with interpretation 1 is that it is already well established that a 20 on a hit roll can be negated by concealment. How is a successful parry roll negating a 20 to hit any different than concealment negating a 20 to hit?


DPS, Ranger/Alchemist by Charender — DPR — Haste = DPR, +1 Attack =, +1 hit = DPR, +1 dmg = . DPR — Errors: Ignored = 715 gp over; Brew Potion/Craft Magic Arms & Armor useless feats; Need attack break out since Dervish Dance only helps the Scimitar attacks so -1 STR mode for all natural attacks has strange interaction with Power Attack

The wealth by level can be fixed by going to +3 Mithril Breastplate.
The -1 damage from strength can be fixed by swapping Charisma and Strength.

Not going to repost for multiple reasons
1. It uses self cast Heroism
2. There is some controversy on exactly how many attacks an Alchmist can get, this build uses the most liberal interpretation.
3. I can get more DPR using dual wielded agile weapons instead of dervish dance, making this build somewhat obsolete.
4. Vivisectionist is now banned in PFS. When I originally made this build, it wasn't.

That said, it is a nifty trick to use 2 levels of ranger to get power attack and full martial weapon profiency in a pure dex build.


Marty the Master Summoner

Spoiler:

Master Summoner
Male True Neutral Human
Summoner (Master Summoner) 10
Strength: 8
Dexterity: 18 = 14(base) + 4 enhancement
Constitution: 12
Intelligence: 14 = 13(base) +1 from level
Wisdom: 10
Charisma: 22 = 15 base +1 from level + 4 enhancement + 2 racial

Hit Points: 73 HP
Initiative: +6
Attack Bonus: +7/+2 (melee: +4/-1) (ranged: +11/+6)
Fortitude Save: +9 Reflex Save: +10 Will Save: +10
Armor Class(with barkskin and combat expertise): 28 (touch: 20) (flat-footed: 21) CMB: +6 CMD: 26

Feats & Traits: Arcane Strike, Armor Proficiency (Light), Augment Summoning, Combat Expertise +/-2, Dodge, Extend Spell, Great Fortitude, Simple Weapon Proficiency - All, Superior Summoning, Focused Mind, Reactionary

Special Abilities: Summoning Mastery V (11/day) (Sp), Aspect (Su), Eidolon Link (Ex), Hero Points (1), Lesser Eidolon, Life Link (Su), Maker's Call/Transposition (2/day) (Su), Share Spells with Eidolon (Ex)

+1 Longspear (+5/+0, 1d8 damage, crit 20/x3)
Magic Items: MW Longspear(305 gp), Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4(16000 gp), Cloak of Resistance +3(9000 gp), Headband of Alluring Charisma +4[16000 gp), Ring of Protection +3(18000 gp) = 59305 gp

Spells: Barkskin (2), Bull's Strength, Mass (4), Detect Magic (0), Dimension Door (3), Enlarge Person (1), Glitterdust (2), Guidance (0), Haste (2), Heroism (3), Invisibility (2), Light (0), Mage Armor (1), Mage Hand (0), Magic Fang, Greater (3), Message (0), Overland Flight (4), Read Magic (0), Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser (1), See Invisibility (2), Shield (1), Unfetter (1), Wall of Ice (3)

Eidolon

Spoiler:

Male True Neutral Serpentine
Strength: 10 (0)
Dexterity: 22 (+6)
Constitution: 12 (+1)
Intelligence: 7 (-2)
Wisdom: 10 (0)
Charisma: 11 (0)
Acrobatics: +10
Escape Artist: +10
Fly: +12
Perception: +15
Stealth: +25

Hit Points: 28 HP
Initiative: +6
Attack Bonus: +5 (melee: +5) (ranged: +11)
Fortitude Save: +2 Reflex Save: +10 Will Save: +4
Armor Class: 23 (touch: 17) (flat-footed: 17) CMB: +9 CMD: 19 (flat-footed: 13)

Feats & Traits: Weapon Finesse

Special Abilities: Darkvision (60 feet), Scent (Ex), Damage Resistance, Fire (10), Climbing (20 feet), Flight (20 feet, Good), Tail (Ex), Evasion (Ex)

•Bite (Bite) (+13, 1d4+2 damage, crit 20/x2)
•Tail Slap (Tail Slap) (+6, 1d4 damage, crit 20/x2)


Augmented Summoned Lion
Spoiler:

Male True Neutral Lion
Strength: 25 (+7)
Dexterity: 17 (+3)
Constitution: 19 (+4)
Intelligence: 2 (-4)
Wisdom: 12 (+1)
Charisma: 6 (-2)

Hit Points: 42 HP
Initiative: +7
Attack Bonus: +2 (melee: +9) (ranged: +5)
Fortitude Save: +8 Reflex Save: +7 Will Save: +2
Armor Class: 15 (touch: 12) (flat-footed: 12) CMB: +11 CMD: 24 (flat-footed: 21)

Feats & Traits: Improved Initiative, Run, Skill Focus: Perception

Special Abilities: Low-Light Vision, Scent (Ex), +4 Stealth in undergrowth (Ex), Grab (Medium) (Ex), Pounce (Ex)

•Bite (Lion) (+9, 1d8+7 damage, crit 20/x2)
•Claw x2 (Lion) (+9 x2, 1d4+7 damage, crit 20/x2)
•Rake x2 (Lion) (+9 x2, 1d4+7 damage, crit 20/x2)


Note, I am hedging the rules here. 11 summons per day at 10 minutes per summoning means that the summoner can have 1d3+1 lions following them around for 110 minutes per day which is longer than the duration of a 10 min/level spell, so I am working on the assumption for this scenario that the summoner has 3 lions following them when the fight starts.

Round 1: cast mass's bull's strength, all the lions pounce
With Bull's Strength each lion does 20.8 DPR, a +1 to hit is 5.3 DPR, +1 to damage is 1.75, extra attack is 4.7.
The summoner gets 1d3+1 lions, so with an average of 3 lions, the summoner does 62.5 DPR, +1 to hit is 15.8 DPR, +1 dam is 5.3.
Round 2: Cast haste.
If the lion's can pounce again, they will do 29.2 damage each, +hit gives 6.0 more damage, +damage gives 2 DPR.
If the lion cannot pounce, the will do 10.0 DPR, +hit gives 3.7, +dam gives 1.2
Multiple by 3 for total damage.

Observations

Spoiler:

The character is primarily a group support character who can dish out some decent damage. The damage is pretty good, but if you look at the spell list, this character is also a huge asset to the other party members. With 28 AC, and 73 hp, a summoner isn't exactly squishy either, they can hang out near the melee, and give flanking bonuses.
The Eidolon is not a combat creature, but rather is designed to be a group scout with +25 stealth, +15 perception, and the summmoner can make it invisible/unfettered. As such, I have left the pet's damage out of the equation.

Given a round or 2, the summoner can easily summon more lions and their damage multiplies accordingly. This build multiplies it's damage for every round you have to prepare. If given unlimited rounds to prepare, the damage caps out at around 577.4 DPR(11 summons of 3 creatures each with 2 castings of mass bull's strength to buff 20 of them).

Since the damage is based on multiple creatures with lots of attacks, inspire courage really boosts the damage. With a level 10 bard in the picture, the DPR goes up to 93.8 per 3 lions.

Great action economy. Since all of the damage comes from summoned creatures, there is no opportunity cost if the summoner want to UMD a cure critical from a wand on the fighter in round 3. After buffing the summons, the summoner is free to sit back and do whatever the group needs them to.

In a party situation, it would probably be better to cast haste over mass bull's strength on round 1, but that is a loss in the summoner's DPR.

The summoner never attacks enemies directly, so you can do everything in combat with normal invisibility up.


Addendum: All lions have the potential to be celestial, so they could possibly Smite Evil on round 1 for an extra +5 damage on their first attack, and the numbers do not account for the 5% crit chance the lions have.
Edit note: reposting with the magic weapon dropped as the +1 spear is not part of the DPR calculations. Broke out the details of stat allocation.


Of course, sometimes there is the opposite. I was running a fearless barbarians type character with a newish DM. The campaign was set against the backdrop of a large war. We were low level, and 3 or 4 times in a row, we were force to retreat against the massive army of evil. It all felt very railroady. After we had put of a few levels, I just finally hit a point of eff it. I knew the DM wanted to and expected me to retreat, but my character was a warrior, and I was sick of running away. The DM was not good at winging it, and mass chaos ensued.

Another thing to remember, is that sometimes these people are playing their characters well, and their character will not back down even when you clearly communicate to the player that they should.


I go with a combination of
1. Warn the players at the beginning of the campaign that I use random encounters as well as pre-defined area encounters. This means that there is nothing that says that everything you encounter will within X levels of your party's CR. If you die trying to fight something that is way stronger than you, you will not be mourned.

2. Encourage knowledge checks, and use foreshadowing. Give the players tools to know when they are facing a really tough foe.

Between those 2 things, I have never had problems when players die due to hard fights, and the times they have survived have become the stuff of legends.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gingerbreadman wrote:
Charender wrote:

Another thing that kills the druid thing(aside from the Beast Shap limits)

SRD wrote:


At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

Any stickler DM won't just let you polymorph into just any animal, it has to be something you have some familiarity with(as decided by the DM). Just because you have read about it in a rulebook doesn't mean that you character has any clue what it is. I would never let a player whose character has no knowledge of sea creatures polymorph into a dire shark.

This effectively limits your polymorph options based on your Knowledge(Nature) skill. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't make the knowledge check to identify it and you have never seen it in person, you can't polymorph into one.

That depends on how to define familiar. Could a devout follower of the old one in question be considered familiar with his god?

Someone that familiar would likely have ranks in the appropiate knowledge skill right? If they have enough ranks to make the check, then they have the knowledge. That is how knowledge skills work. If they haven't invested any ranks in knowledge skills, then I feel that, as a DM, I have plenty of ground to question their devoutness.

Player - I am a super devout follower of X.
GM - By devout, you mean you would give anything or do anything for them?
Player - Absolutely
GM - And By anything, that does include investing a few skills point to actually know a little bit about them, right?
Player - Uh...

To look at is another way...
Imagine you have a friend who claims to be a "huge fan" of baseball, but when you ask them questions about baseball they can't answer any questions that go beyond the basics(3 strikes, 9 innings, name of the nearest pro team, etc). Would you consider them to actually be a big fan of baseball or a poser?


LazarX wrote:
Charender wrote:

Another thing that kills the druid thing(aside from the Beast Shap limits)

SRD wrote:


At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

Any stickler DM won't just let you polymorph into just any animal, it has to be something you have some familiarity with(as decided by the DM). Just because you have read about it in a rulebook doesn't mean that you character has any clue what it is. I would never let a player whose character has no knowledge of sea creatures polymorph into a dire shark.

This effectively limits your polymorph options based on your Knowledge(Nature) skill. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't make the knowledge check to identify it and you have never seen it in person, you can't polymorph into one.

What I'm thinking of as a general rule is that you need to make a Knowledge Nature roll that's good enough to ask at least 3 questions for the beast whose shape you need to emulate. Appropriate DC modifiers to be added to creatures of environments you're not native to.

Either way, my point is that just because it is in a Bestiary somewhere does not mean the PC automatically knows about it. Even if there are bits of Bokrug in every spelcasting materials shop in Golaron does not mean that a player's character has any idea what that is or why it is useful.


Another thing that kills the druid thing(aside from the Beast Shap limits)

SRD wrote:


At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day. Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type. This ability functions like the beast shape I spell, except as noted here. The effect lasts for 1 hour per druid level, or until she changes back. Changing form (to animal or back) is a standard action and doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity. The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with.

Any stickler DM won't just let you polymorph into just any animal, it has to be something you have some familiarity with(as decided by the DM). Just because you have read about it in a rulebook doesn't mean that you character has any clue what it is. I would never let a player whose character has no knowledge of sea creatures polymorph into a dire shark.

This effectively limits your polymorph options based on your Knowledge(Nature) skill. As a general rule of thumb, if you can't make the knowledge check to identify it and you have never seen it in person, you can't polymorph into one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

We use a house rule that allows for varying degrees of focus.

Take 10: no real stress as noted above. Take 5: like taking 10 with -5 penalty for hurrying because you don't care. Take 2: like taking 5 only you're doing it really quickly. We ad hoc how fast is fast based on the skills themselves, and there are often other penalties for hurrying that stack with taking a lower dice roll besides. It moves things along fairly quickly, and establishes what we want to do and presume we can accomplish - it's only when something says, "no, that doesn't work" that we actually bother to roll for it. This is not entirely true - knowledge checks don't work that way (you either know it or you don't, outside of potentially-arduous research), though this often helps move things along quickly. But yeah, that's house rules.

On a similar note, I have a house rule for taking 15. It has the same requirements as taking 20(you will be considered to roll a 1 first, then roll a 15), but only take 3 times longer than normal instead of 20. It comes from the fact that if you roll a d20 3 times and take the highest, the average result is a 15. It gives players a middle ground between taking 10 and taking 20.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yeti1069 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Charender wrote:

The other thing that gets lost in any discussion about taking a 10 on a stealth(and similar checks) check.... What about the rest of the party?

Taking a 10 is probably good enough for the party rogue to sneak past a dragon, but it will not cut it for the paladin in full plate. In some cases, a skill check is only needed by a single member. If anyone passes a perception check, they can communicate with the rest of the party, but with stealth, bluff and similar skills, you can bring the whole party in play.

If the whole party can't make it with Take 10, then they can't make it at all. Even if they could make it with Take 10, but weren't allowed to for some reason, then they can't make it. Someone will roll low.

Even if it's a party of 4 rogues and they all need to roll 6+. No problem with Take 10. 75% chance for each of them to sneak by. Less than a 1% chance they'll all make it.
This isn't true. If you have 4 people sneaking, and one fails their stealth check, they don't all fail. Now, sure, the result may be the same as all of them failing, but it could also result in one or more people being noticed while the rest remain hidden.

Generally speaking, in the situations we are talking about, one member of the party failing is functionally equivalent to the entire party failing.

That the dragon example, while the dragon is asleep, the dragon takes a +10 to the DC of ALL perception checks. One person wakes up the dragon. Now, the dragon was asleep and taking 10 + perception with a +10 +distance/10 to all perception DCs, but now that they are awake, the dragon is taking 1 move to look for the rest of the party at d20 + perception + disance/10, the other move action is used to close in on the party's location at 30-60 feet per round. It is only a matter of time before the PCs break stealth and start running, start a fight, or the dragon finds them. Worse, a smart dragon will pretend to not see the PCs until they are close enough to pounce.

In the bluff example, questioning another party member and having them fail their bluff check could be enough to make the questioner suspicious enough that they hold the PCs to see if the story checks out(and it won't) instead of just letting them walk away.


Komoda wrote:

I agree it should work.

As to ties, it should follow the normal rule for all ties: that the highest bonus wins. If that is a tie, a re-roll is in order.

Actually, if you go by strict RAW. A natural 20 makes the attack a hit irregardless of the actual number needed to hit. It does not means the attack will succeed no matter what(see concealment, mirror images, ethereal, etc). Another example would be that rolling a 20 on a trip attempt still will not let me trip a flying creature(immune to trip).

Person A attacks with a +100 to hit, they roll a 10, and it is a hit. Person B parrying with a +0 to hit rolls a 20, the parry is an attack roll, thus the parry automatically succeeds even though it does not beat the attackers roll. The results of a successful parry is that the hit is changed into a miss.

If you change person A's attack roll to a 20, it does not change anything, they still scored a hit. Parry negates a hit if it succeeds, and a natural 20 causes the parry roll to succeed irregardless of the actual target number they need to beat.


Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I did bring it up and even broke down the numbers.

Apologies, that what I get for trying to skim the 100+ posts that happened since yesterday.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Temporary in the druids case being only 36 hours a day.

Yeah, a druid can easily get to the point where they can spend all day every day in animal form, but their animal form is still classified as a temporary polymorph effect.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Charender wrote:


It has been a while, but I remember seeing a FAQ about this a long time ago (maybe back to 3.5 days) that talked about how losing the bonus somehow(dispel magic, antimagic field, etc) would cause you to temporarily lose access to the feat.

Example, if I have a 12 strength with a belt of strength +2 I can take power attack, but if I walk into an antimagic field, I will not be able to use power attack.

Edit: Found a link to a 3.5 question on this issues that includes a reference and link to the official 3.5 FAQ here

Yes but what is to keep another player from borrowing the belt for 24hrs so he too can qualify for Power Attack and then just carrying a bunch of potions of bulls strength to chug each time he needs to actually use it. Not to mention that according to the new FAQ you can actually qualify without the belt. Any temp bonus will do.

That is actually the way I have always played it. If you can get the bonus temporarily you can take a feat, but you can't use it unless you are currently qualifying. Also, you cannot make use of any feats that rely on that feat, so no power attack, and also not improved bull rush or greater bull rush. If you are relying on temp bonuses to qualify for a key feat, then you are only 1 dispel magic away from losing it.

A similar example would be druid's and multiattack. A druid doesn't not qualify for multiattack unless they are wildshaped, which is a temporary ability.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Mathius wrote:
If it does not let you qualify for feats then how is it different then a temp bonus?
Per the FAQ quoted previously there is no difference between a temp bonus or permanent bonus. Per the text in the CRB the permanent bonus changes skill and stats and feats and prestige classes are neither. Nothing I read in the FAQ suggests, at least to me, that that has changed. There was a quote by SKR in message board commentary from a couple of years ago that magic items do count for qualification but no official word. So my interpretation of the RAW is that magically boosted stats do not count toward qualification for feats or prestige classes. I seem to be in the minority on that interpretation though so I could be wrong but will play it that way until there is official word otherwise.

It has been a while, but I remember seeing a FAQ about this a long time ago (maybe back to 3.5 days) that talked about how losing the bonus somehow(dispel magic, antimagic field, etc) would cause you to temporarily lose access to the feat.

Example, if I have a 12 strength with a belt of strength +2 I can take power attack, but if I walk into an antimagic field, I will not be able to use power attack.

Edit: Found a link to a 3.5 question on this issues that includes a reference and link to the official 3.5 FAQ here


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Charender wrote:


Quote:


If so do I add dex to my unarmed strike?

Debatable, but probably no.

"When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls."
While it doesn't specifically say "on melee attack and damage rolls with a scimitar", the "When wielding a scimitar with one hand" strongly implies that the bonuses are only for the scimitar.

I disagree. The fact that it goes from specifying wielding a scimitar with one hand but then just says the damage applies to "melee attacks" instead of saying the dex damage applies to attacks with the scimitar to me implies exactly the opposite. I think that as long as you are wielding the scimitar with one hand and have nothing in your off hand(s)then you can add your dex to all melee damage.

That is why I said it is debatable. You can read it your way, but I do not think that is the correct way to interpret it for the reason I already mentioned. At that point we are in a RAI debate that neither of us is qualified to say for certain.


Ravingdork wrote:


Charender wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


Quote:

Not in danger: stealthing into the bandit camp.

In danger: stealthing out of the bandit camp after they've noticed the theft and the alarms are blaring and guards are scrambling.

Whats the difference? You're stealthed so you're not in danger right?

In the second case, it is very likely that the guards are taking 20 to find you, so taking 10 will probably not work and there is a time limit to getting out of the area in which case you can be considered to be rushed.

Also, those sirens and the fact that there is a large, organized hostile force running everywhere is likely pretty distracting. (Though I would also grant the player a circumstance bonus to move silently due to those same sirens.)

The other thing that gets lost in any discussion about taking a 10 on a stealth(and similar checks) check.... What about the rest of the party?

Taking a 10 is probably good enough for the party rogue to sneak past a dragon, but it will not cut it for the paladin in full plate. In some cases, a skill check is only needed by a single member. If anyone passes a perception check, they can communicate with the rest of the party, but with stealth, bluff and similar skills, you can bring the whole party in play.

An example of defeating taking a 10 on bluffing. Party bard is busy bluffing the captain of the guard with spells up, and a +insane amount to bluff. The NPC being a wise person who is experienced in law enforcement, asks another party member for their input, and thus forces them to also make a bluff check at a much lower skill rating. Side note: This is why the police take suspects, and question them separately. Suddenly, the bard just taking 10 won't cut it, and the party's ability to bluff their way out of a situation now relies on Dan the Dolt making a bluff check, not Benny the silver tongued Bard.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


Quote:

Not in danger: stealthing into the bandit camp.

In danger: stealthing out of the bandit camp after they've noticed the theft and the alarms are blaring and guards are scrambling.

Whats the difference? You're stealthed so you're not in danger right?

In the second case, it is very likely that the guards are taking 20 to find you, so taking 10 will probably not work and there is a time limit to getting out of the area in which case you can be considered to be rushed.


Oh, and to add to the teleport trap angle.

Teleport trap shunts them into a solid stone room with a single iron door. Inside this room is a trap that is triggered by a detect magic spell. The trap results in an antimagic field going off that covers the whole room. After peaking into the room, you have the option of filling it with burning oil or some other unpleasantness.


Bill Dunn wrote:
CrazyGnomes wrote:


And no, I don't see any reason to limit the disguise to 20+perception of yourself or an ally. Has the Disguise skill every really broken someone's game so badly that it needs to be restricted this harshly?
Not being able to take 20 on a disguise check is a harsh restriction?

The whole point of take 20 is to allow you as the DM to quickly handwave someone putting 20 times the normal effort into something.

So you could force your players to..
Player 1: I make a disguise check *Rolls*.
Player 2(or Player 1 with a mirror): I check the disguise taking a 20.
Repeat until the disguise is as good as possible.

OR

Player 1: I take a 20 on my disguise check.

In most cases, best perception skill in group >= best disguise skill in group so why waste time?


Mathius wrote:

If I have 3+ arms can I two weapon fight and use dex to damage?

Do I add dex to damage if my other weapon is a dagger?

By strict RAW, the answer to both is no.

"You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand."

If you have multiple off hands, then you cannot have a weapon or shield in any of them.

Quote:


Can I TWF using unarmed strikes?

Yes

Quote:


If so do I add dex to my unarmed strike?

Debatable, but probably no.

"When wielding a scimitar with one hand, you can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on melee attack and damage rolls."
While it doesn't specifically say "on melee attack and damage rolls with a scimitar", the "When wielding a scimitar with one hand" strongly implies that the bonuses are only for the scimitar.
Quote:


If I have claw attack from my offhand may I make it?

Yes, but it is a natural attack(see monster rules for natural weapons) not an offhand attack.

Quote:


Does it add dex?

Again, probably not.

Quote:


-----------------------------------------------------------------
If they answer is no to any of the above would house ruling it to yes lead to abuse? I know that it could allow many attacks a round with dex to damage but the all require more effort then simply two weapon fighting. That extra cost might justify it.

If it applies to unarmed strike then a monk could wield a scimitar and flurry as long as they did not use the scimitar. That might be bad.

Would opening up this feat to all finessable weapons be easily abused? What about limiting it to slashing finessable weapons? That way a monk would have to either use a monk weapon or find a way to do slashing damage with unarmed strikes? What about piercing weapons?

I would be inclined to not allow it because if you really want dex to damage, you can get it via the agile weapon enhancement.

An Agile Amulet of mighty fists would give a you +dex to damage for all unarmed and natural strikes, but it comes at a cost I consider to be fair.


CrazyGnomes wrote:

If someone spends 1d3x10x20 minutes, between 3 hours, 20 minutes and 10 hours, perfecting their disguise...yeah, I'm willing to let them take a 20.

If the target they're trying to fool watches them while doing it, they'd absolutely get to see through when the disguiser "rolls a 1" but at that point, if you can't figure out that the person putting on a disguise for 10 hours isn't who he appears to be...you've got other problems.

In-game, you're not trying to "reach a target" when you take 20, you're making sure that you take enough time to do the job to the best of your ability. There is no penalty for failing a disguise check, so you can take your time adjusting your disguise until it's just right. If you roll a 1 on your disguise check, the makeup doesn't melt off of your face, your wig doesn't fall apart, and your imitation clothes don't suddenly tear at the seams.

Also, you would spend 100 gold as you would have to burn 2 full disguise kits.


Claxon wrote:

Yeah, I definitely wouldn't allow you to take 20 on a disguise check.

Think of it this way, the character doesn't know what he rolls when he performs an action. So, let's pretend the GM rolls for you behind a screen and you don't get to know the result.

How do you determine if your disguise is adequate? The best you could do is have a friend look at you and see if their perception roll beats your disguise check. They could take 10 with perception (just as you could've with disguise) or you could roll. Based on whether or not your friend percieves you, you could be satisified with your disguise.

But! There is a lot of uncertainity here. If your friend roll perception they could roll incredibly poorly, after you roll poorly for your disguise, and then think it's adequate. Or you both could roll well, and think that your disguise is no good despite having rolled an 18 (too bad your friend's perception was just 1 higher).

Point is that you have no way of knowing when you've reached your target.

There is no reason the friend couldn't take a 20 on the perception check. If you have a mirror, then you could also take a 20. At the very least you could be sure that your disguise was better than 20+your perception. If you wanted to be gamist, you could limit them to 20 + perception, but at that point, there really isn't a good reason to not just let them take 20 on the disguise check.


LazarX wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Ban the offending spells. Eliminate the disease, not the symptoms.

The spells are not the problem its the GM adjudication of them. Scrying a creature is of absolutely no help you don't get clues to the location, and there are a lot of mundane methods of denying that information. If you don't have a good idea of who you're scrying.... i.e. your only knowledge of him is his disguised self, then you can't even get a lockon for scry.

GMs need to keep in mind that in a world with an established magical tradition, all the would be overlords that would have fallen to cheap tricks are dead already, and those who came after them have learned from their mistakes.

I was going to add that being secretive would also be a good defense. If no one knows who you really are, Scry won't work at all. If all you have is a name, that isn't the person's real name, you can't scry them either. This might get back into the idea that true names matter.


CWheezy wrote:

A houserule that makes the world of golarion actually sense is "Teleportation is blocked by 5 feet of earth, 3 of wood, 1 of stone, or 1 inch of steel"

Or whatever kirth said. Castles are actually more meaningful now! sorta

5 feet of earth also make a lot of caves and lairs useful as well.

I am also not sure that it is a house rule. The 3 feet of stone, an inch of metal or a thin sheet of lead was a hard rule in 2nd ed. It got dropped in 3.0 by accident, then added back in 3.5 as just a sheet of lead, but you could easily claim that stone, metal, and lead is the actual RAI, but the developer didn't want to add in ALL of the limitations.


Bill Dunn wrote:
But how do you really determine if you messed up your disguise? By someone penetrating it with their perception check.

Or to come at it from a different perspective...

You are sitting in front of a mirror with a huge makeup kit(20 charges of a normal kit).
You have a picture of the guy you are trying to look like.
You have several hours to work on the disguise.
You are making multiple attempts to disguise yourself.
After each attempt, you take a 20 on a perception check to double check your work.
After each failed attempt, you would get a little better at disguising yourself as that specific person(hmm, the chin is a little off, the ears are just not right, that hair color is off, etc.)

In that specific situation, why wouldn't you be able to take a 20 on disguise?


HangarFlying wrote:
What if both the attacker and parryer both roll a natural 20? Does the world explode?

Attacker rolls 20 -> auto hit, resolve attack normally.

Defender rolls parry as part of the normal attack resolution, they roll a 20, this changes the hit to a miss.

There are tons of things in the rules that can make a natural 20 miss(displacement, mirror images, etc). Parry is just another one of those things.


Indus wrote:

So Parry is considered a combat maneuver then? I couldn't find a definitive answer on that.

By the way, if you're saying Parry is a combat maneuver, then you're saying "Yes", a 20 does auto-parry every attack, since with combat maneuvers a 20 always succeeds.

** spoiler omitted **

"To parry the attack, the duelist makes an attack roll, using the same bonuses as the attack she chose to forego during her previous action."

Nowhere in the language does is say that parry is a combat maneuver, but it is an attack roll. Since it is an attack roll, it does fall under the rule of 1 and 20.

The reason it is not a combat maneuver is that it works against the attacker's attack roll, not the CMD, and it uses the attackers attack roll, not their CMB. Parry is more of an holdover from D&D 3.5. It might make more sense for parry to be converted into a combat maneuver, but by RAW it is not written that way.

So yes, a 20 will auto succeed, but you will not get any bonuses that are applied only to combat maneuvers(like agile maneuvers).


Marthkus wrote:
Claxon wrote:
The other interpretations would essentially be hourse rules as a correct understanding of the rules does not allow it to function.

Not exactly.

Take druid's vestment. It gives you an additional use of wildshape. Well that additional use would be a use of whatever wildshape class feature you are emulating. You have 0 uses of wildshape. An additional use would give you 1, and that use would be of the class feature you emulated, since the item would be treating you as having that class feature.

Sash of the War Champion works differently. You have to emulate both bravery and armor training separately. The item then gives you benefit of those features as if you were 4 levels higher, which would give you the total bonus.

The druid one is a stretch, but acceptable if we are pusshing the limits of the rules. The Sash isn't. When you emulate the fighter, you don't have a fighter level. You are adding 4 to 0, so at best you would get the abilities of a level 4 fighter IMO.


There are also specific scenarios where the light weapon is an advantage. For example using a non-light in a tight corridor may impose a circumstance penalty to hit. I have seen more than a few situations like this pop up in various modules.


chaoseffect wrote:
Charender wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Why not bard? Archeologist with the trait to increase luck bonuses. And out of combat you have all those nice bard things like skills and spells
MAD issues. Zen Archer is already needing wisdom and dexterity with strength and constitution as a can't dump stats. Bard adds charisma to the mix.

I disagree with you here. As a dedicated archer you don't really need a lot of Constitution, and since you get to use Wisdom for attack rolls, Dex only really matters for AC and init, but hey most likely aren't going to be toe to toe with enemies.

Bard doesn't require a lot of Cha, just enough to be able to cast the spells. Lingering Performance + Extra Performance (eventually) gives you more rounds of Archaeologist Luck than you'll ever need.

Anyway, I see a lot of advice for going full caster, but that's something I'm ambivalent about. If you go that route you can either be an archer OR a mage in any given round, which is nice versatility, but lacks real synergy as you can't combine both features simultaneously to perform better than any non-gestalt ever could. With that in mind I'd second Inquisitor or Bard as their abilities mesh really well with what you're going to be doing.

Note I said that strength and constitution are "can't dump" stats. It isn't that you need a lot of them, but you can't afford to dump them down to a 7 either. They need to be in the solid 10-14 range. I would also say that you probably don't want to dump intelligence either. Dex needs to be a solid 14+ and wisdom needs to be as high as you can get it. That leaves Charisma as you only dump stat. If you take bard, then you will need to be a 16+ Charisma at some point, and you are going to want to use your headband on boosting wisdom first.

Since you can get all of your bardic performances that matter with full level 9 clerical casting on a wisdom based caster via the evangilist cleric, the bard is really a non-option.


Chris Kenney wrote:
CKorfmann wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
CKorfmann wrote:
I've never seen anything to suggest that. ***
There's actually a FAQ specifically saying they're not compatible archetypes, though it does recommend what you should do if you choose to houserule it
Interesting. I'd never even heard of there being a controversy about it prior to today. I don't see an issue with it. The recommended house rules are sort of obvious and make sense.

Basically, it's down to Wildblooded not functioning the way it really feels like it ought to. It's not a "separate" bloodline that's very similar to an existing one, it's actually the same as the base bloodline abilities with an archetype applied.

Once you understand that, all the logic falls into place really. Since it's an archetype, and functions as such, the abilities replaced are archetype abilities. Crossblooded replaces all bloodline-related abilities, including Arcana, while any Wildblooded selection will inevitably replace at least one of them. Hence, by RAW, they conflict.

It's just kind of silly and awkward.

Which is why a lot of people houserule around it....

1 to 50 of 3,049 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.