Here are my thoughts on the Slayer after playing one at 7th and 15th;
While this class seems pretty good there are some tweaks that would make it as good as a base class;
Playtest Part2: Tomb of the Iron Medusa
So for this part we were level 15 and playing though this event.
I was still trying to keep the character more or less balanced between melee and ranged attacks so that he could cover most situations that came up and I am really happy that I had a ranged weapon for this module (but I'll get to that latter).
One of the first major fights in this module was against 3 huge Fire Elementals and an Effreet. The fire elements were tough because they were immune to ctits, sneak attacks, and other precision based damage and have DR so my Slayer was denied 5d6 points of damage per swing. Thankfully I still had Power Attack to fall back on and I had picked up a few of the Vital Strike Feats so that I could bypass the DR and still do damage.
Later in the dungeon we encountered creatures that blinded 3 of the 5 of our party. My Slayer wasn't blinded and used a Ring of Invisibility to start targeting the creatures with Favored Target and one with a Quarry while putting the sword away and pulling out a bow (these things were flying and out of everyone's melee reach). While I didn't have all the archery feats I did have Deadly Aim and was able to put it to good use in this fight and being able to get even the first shot off with Sneak Attack helped a lot. Compared to the elemental fight it felt like I was doing more damage with a bow even though I was slightly better with a sword.
Finally, one of the last fights we played through was a fight with flying/invisible creatures that stayed out of melee reach. It this fight, it took me 3 or 4 rounds to not only recover from the initial attack and get out of the way of some big ally spells but also to set up the Favored Targets and Quarry before running back in (though a Blade Barrier) and getting a lucky crit at just the right time (with a bow) to drop the BBEG.
Final thoughts on the Slayer class:
Playtest Part 1: Sanctum of a Lost Age
This was a fun dungeon crawl and played the Slayer for this playtest.
Golo, did a good job of explaining the classes in general so I'm going to focus more on the Slayer and how he compared to the others (specifically the Swashbuckler).
First, while the list of skills is actually pretty well rounded the lack of skill points makes it hard to do too much with them. At 7th level I only had a three skills maxed out and that's with a 12 Int (which took ability points away from other things). If the skill points/level were 6/level instead of 4/level that would have helped other things.
I also noticed that this class seems to lend itself heavily toward ranged combat (especially looking at the talents that can be chosen). I had made the character with a 16 STR and 15 DEX though to try out the melee side of things, but to also be able to pull out a bow and be effective with that as well. When I was able to get in sneak attacks I was easily on par with the Swashbuckler for damage. But it should be noted that even at this level the Swashbuckler had 2 or 3 points more AC than I did and an attack bonus that was 3 or 4 points higher because he could focus all of his abilities points on a single ability while mine were spread out a little.
But even so, the Slayer managed to hold it's own. Being able to designate a "Favored Target" as a move action helped keep the damage up, but I think there should be a way (through talents maybe) of increasing the bonus that "Favorite Target" grants.
Overall, compared to the two Shamans, and Investigator and even the Swashbuckler, at this level the Slayer can really hold it's own and be an effective member of a party.
Exactly, enough people badgered the developers about this that the developers folded and made something up that goes against the RAW just so they wouldn't be bothered any more. It's not that it's unclear, it's that these people didn't like having to take two feats to do what they wanted to do. So badger badger badger, ask the question this way and that way, twist the logic, use fallacious arguments and catch a developer who's not looking close enough and you get any rule you want turned into an FAQ.
I saw it happen with 3.0, I saw it happen with 3.5 and I'm seeing it happen with Pathfinder.
So then Weapon Finesse is a bonus to your attack roll like Weapon Focus and Bless and Haste are bonuses to your attack roll and your CMB should be calculated as BAB + STR + DEX + Size Modifier? The RAW say that your CMB is = to BAB + STR + Size Modifier. It doesn't make any mention of letting your DEX be used in place of your STR for any reason. Weapon Finesse doesn't say that you can use your DEX in place of STR for your CMB. The ONLY feat/rule in the game that says you CAN substitute your DEX for your STR when calculating your CMB is Agile Maneuvers.
No, I didn't. This is one of the reason's why I dislike FAQ's. If people badger the right people enough or ask their question in just the right way to the right person they can have the rules bent anyway they want. As quoted above the entry for CMB, it clearly says that:
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.
So you roll your CMB in place of your normal attack role when performing a combat maneuver. Your CMB is = to your BAB + STR + Size Modifier. You then add any BONUSES you are getting on attack rolls from spells, feats, etc. I don't believe that Weapon Finesse is a BONUS to your attack roll. If it is then you should be adding your BAB + STR + DEX to get your CMB when using Weapon Finesse, which is obviously NOT the intent.
Now if the intent was that Weapon Finesse not only allows you to use your DEX in place of your STR for normal attack rolls but also allows it on CMB rolls then it should have said that and then there would be no need for the Agile Maneuver feat.
But Weapon Finesse doesn't say that and there is a feat called Agile Maneuvers that specifically says you add your DEX to CMB in place of your STR.
The rules are clear enough as written and if they wanted to remove Agile Maneuvers from the Core Book and combine it with Weapon Finesse then they should have done that instead of trying to make Agile Maneuvers useless because of a poor FAQ ruling.
So does anyone want to actually answer the question?
If you don't know, like Morgan and jahvul, then please don't answer.
For instance I know from running one of the other adventure paths that there are at least two books in that series that don't allow for any time to do item creation.
So let's try this again. If there is someone out there who's actually RUN Carrion Crown. Is there time built into the adventure path that allows for things like item creation?
Again, if you haven't run Carrion Crown, don't know of don't remember then don't answer.
You cannot use Weapon Finesse for Combat Maneuvers. There is a Feat in the Core Book called Agile Maneuvers that allows you to use your DEX in place of your STR when rolling to preform Combat Maneuvers.
Weapon Finesse only allows you to use your DEX in place of your STR when making Weapon Attack rolls.
So I'm guessing by Morgan's response that he doesn't know or doesn't want to answer for some reason.
It's not like I'm asking for what the story is or secrets to the end of the series. I'm just asking if there is built in time in Carrion Crown for item crafting and such. Or does the entire adventure path take place in a week or two where there's no time for rest let alone item creation. It's not that hard of a question to answer.
Thanks to anyone with an answer.
If the character is NOT a divine caster then you just stop worshiping whatever god you currently are and start worshiping the new god.
If your character is a divine caster of some type then you need to get an Atonement cast on your character from a cleric (or some divine caster able to cast Atonement) on the NEW god your looking to worship.
As for the trait, it is what it is. If it gives you a bonus for worshiping Asmodeus because of the trait, if you stop worshiping Asmodeus you loose the benefit of the trait.
With the new retraining rules that have been allowed from Ultimate Campaign you *may* be able to change the trait but I don't know those rules so I'm not sure.
Hope this helps!
That's why I'm wondering if the person would still die. I always thought that the death was caused by the fact that target was being brought back as another shadow. So since a Shadow Dancer's Shadow cannot create spawn does the Shadow's STR damage still kill the target?
A shadow has an INT of 6 - but bonded animal companions can have that INT and still not be able to speak. Since the power says only that it can speak with the dancer I think most GMs would assume you can talk to it, but it doesn't necessarily have a language.
But actual PC's can can have an INT score of 6 and still speak at least one language. The Shadow didn't necessarily start as an animal like Animal Companions or Familiars do. It's "vaguely humanoid" in shape which would imply that it came from a humanoid (possibly even a PC race). So while it's not important for the Shadow out of the bestiary to have a language listed it does become more of a concern when it comes to a class like the Shadow Dancer who may want to use the Shadow for recon and spying.
So I have a few questions about the Shadow that the Shadow Dancer get's to summon and how it works in PFS.
1) Even though the Shadow can't create spawn if it drains all the strength from a target does the target still die? Or does it go unconscious?
2) What languages does the Shadow know/understand? It says that the Shadow Dancer can communicate intelligently with the Shadow but can the Shadow eavesdrop on people and report back to the Shadow Dancer? Does the Shadow at least understand all the languages that the Shadow Dancer knows even if it can't actually speak them? Or is it basically a deaf mute when it comes to the "outside world" so "intelligent" communication is limited to "Go hear and hit that."?
Thanks for the input!
Having access to the Internet should not be assumed, while my phone can technically do it I wouldn't want to stake a life on it's ability to do it. There are a lot of people who do have some way to get online but phones are not the most reliable or fastest way to do it. Then there's the time it takes to search through the forums to find something. A FAQ document that is both online and downloadable would be a preferred option.
It's also the way that this is worded that kind of irks me. A GM just has to be "aware" of the rule. They don't need to be able to show a player the ruling, the GM just needs to say "I read it on the boards so it's true, who cares if it contradicts the RAW". Players could do this as well, "I read this or that ruling on the boards so this is how I'm going to play my character".
These are extreme situations but possible. It's also possible for a GM who feels that characters aren't being challenged enough to use this as a way to make things harder for them by changing how class abilities or such work, or players who try to bend the rules to better suite their wants.
Like the title says, how can this be realistic? I can see this leading to more than a few problems at a table between GM's and Players. What happens if a player is aware of a ruling that changes something that their character does but the GM isn't? What happens if the GM is aware of something that NONE of the players are aware of?
This is one of the WORST things that I've ever come across in a organized play campaign.
If there's a rule that the campaign staff feels needs to be changed or clarified in any way it should be in the FAQ.
There's also the situation of less than honest players that become "aware" of messageboard rulings from campaign leadership that give them an unfair advantage. What happens then?
Bottom line, if we're all supposed to be playing by the same rules in PFS there needs to be one document that both players and GM's can print out and take with them (or at least bring an e-version along) to use as rules clarifications. If not a official FAQ, then something along those lines.
Yes it's common sense, but it's also implied in the rules.
Answer this simple question questions:
If you do NOT threaten an area, can you take an AoO?
From everything I've read in the rules the answer I come up with is "no". So if you can't make an AoO if you do not threaten an area, then you cannot take an AoO with a weapon you do not threaten with. It's using "common sense" to take the RAW to a logical conclusion.
Here's another situation: Say a monster has a natural bite attack and is wielding a reach weapon. You provoke an AoO from the reach weapon as you move through its threatened area. The monster cannot take the AoO with it's bite attack because at the time you provoked the AoO the bite isn't what was threatening you, it was the reach weapon so that's what the monster has to take the attack with.
It's the same thing if you have two weapons of equal reach but only one of them threatens an area. You take the AoO with the weapon that caused the area to be threatened.
As you know if you've played this game for any amount of time. The RAW don't cover everything that comes up in the game so it requires more than a little common sense and logic to read the rules and come up with the answers for the rules that aren't explicitly covered in the RAW.
If there's some part of the RAW that say that you can make an AoO if you don't threaten an area then that opens up a whole new line of thought that would definitely support your point of view but I'd need you to point out where it says that. Of if you could just point out the specific rule that you're reading that makes you think that you CAN take an AoO with a weapon or UAS that doesn't threaten an area I'd appreciate that too.
Ok, so say that you have a whip (without the Improved Whip feat) and a dagger. You only threaten the 8 squares around you since you don't threaten with the whip. If someone provokes an AoO from you they are provoking from your dagger not your whip so you can't take the AoO with your whip.
It's the same if you have a sword in one hand and your other hand is empty. If you don't have Improved Unarmed Strike you don't threaten with your empty hand so you could only take an AoO with your sword.
That's just how it is. If you want to run it differently in a home game that's within your right but that's not what the rules intend.
Misunderstood Monk wrote:
An AoO is provoked if you do something in another character's threatened area. If you do not threaten any areas around you then you cannot take AoO. So if you're not wielding a weapon (usually a melee weapon) you cannot take AoO unless you threaten with your "unarmed" attacks. This would not change if you have the Quick Draw feat either because Quick Draw just changes the action to a Free Action (even these can only be taken on YOUR turn not during someone else's, with the exception of speech). The only type of action that can be taken on another characters turn is an Immediate Action as they can "interrupt" another character's actions.
I don't think it's explicitly stated in the rules but it is there in the logic of the rules. In order to make and Attack of Opportunity on a target you must threaten the target, so if you don't threaten the target you can't make an AoO. If you threaten a target with more than one weapon you can choose which one you make the AoO with but as stated, just because you threaten a target with a reach weapon doesn't mean that you can kick it from 10 feet away unless you have reach with your kick as well and your kicks threaten the target.
As for unarmed strikes, unless you have Improved Unarmed Strike (or some other ability that lets your unarmed attacks threaten) not only does your unarmed strike not threaten the target but you provoke an AoO from the target you're attacking.
A slight correction they would all inflict the bleed but would over wright one another. So the best of the 3 bleed dice would be the one that sticks.
That's what I thought but then I started over thinking a little bit and thought that it might mean that while each hit does an extra 1d4 points of bleed damage the opponent only takes an extra 1d4 points of damage on their turn not 3d4 points of damage on their turn (that's what I thought it meant by stacking).
As it is this feat is almost useless since you take a -5 to all of your attacks (not just the one that does bleed damage) and the most you can hope for is an extra 4 points of damage.
Here's the text:
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to inflict 1d4 points of bleed damage with your weapon melee attacks, in addition to the normal damage dealt by the weapon. A creature continues to take bleed damage every round at the start of its turn. Bleed damage can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through any magical healing. Bleed damage from this feat does not stack with itself. You must choose to use this feat before making the attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn (although the bleeding lasts until healed, as normal).
So my question is this; If your character has three attacks in a round and you target all three on a single opponent and then manage to hit with all three attacks while using this feat do you do an extra 1d4 points of bleed damage with each hit and then the opponent takes 1d4 points of bleed damage on the beginning of his turn, or is it only one attack that get's the extra 1d4 points of bleed damage (no matter how many actually hit) and then the opponent takes an extra 1d4 points on his turn?
Golems are a specific class of construct. As the OP stated they're infused with the an elemental. Think of it as a Golem being a subclass of constructs.
Branding Opportunity wrote:
Yeah, and then James Jacobs went on to say he may have ruled it wrong like 25 or 30 posts later in the same thread. This should be FAQ'ed.
Actually the diagram on page 308 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide shows the diagram for a Large (10x10x10 reach) creature to go by the BOTTOM diagram. And then if the Large creature is using a weapon it goes out from there but at weird angles.
I know that, while Pathfinder is based on 3.5, it has changed more than a few rules and how things work. That's why I'm wondering if they're are some diagrams somewhere that I missed or something written out that I over looked. Otherwise I'll keep going by the diagrams in the 3.5 book to stay consistent.
So I was reading over the Protection from *Alignment* spells and discovered something that's a little weird. The "Second" part of the spell that covers mental control and influence has a sentence at the very end that reads:
This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.
Now this was from the "Protection from Evil" spell description but all of those spells refer back to this one.
So my question is this, say that a character has "Protection from Evil" cast upon them and then an evil vampire tries to dominate them, it's pretty cut and dry, the character is immune to the effects. But what if that same character went up against a good aligned caster for some reason or a true neutral caster? Is the character still at least immune to mental domination and influence or not?
Here's the whole text of the spell:
Ok, so this came up the other day while we were playing. We were being attacked by a monster that was 10x10 and had 10' reach. One of the players had said that the monster couldn't hit (didn't threaten) the second diagonal square because it was 15' away but I've always been under the impression (at least since 3.5) that reaching into the square was enough.
So to better (I hope) illustrate what I'm asking; the diagram on the top shows that the bad guy can't reach or threaten the outer most 4 squared because they're 15' away vs. the diagram on the bottom that shows it can get all of those squares.
Now in the 3.5 DMG there was a really nice set of diagrams in the back of the book that illustrated how reach works and what squares were within the creatures reach. I still use those since Pathfinder is based on 3.5, but does Pathfinder have it's own set of diagrams or even just something written out that changes how reach for larger and larger creatures work?
Mike Mistele wrote:
I did see your list (after I made my post, oops). I knew there were more but having not really been to a big gaming Con in almost 5 years and not having a ton of time to even spend at my local gaming stores makes it difficult stay up on what's out there.
Andrew Christian wrote:
And I would guarantee you that if you were to sit down with one of my characters that changed a trait or a feat, you'd never be able to tell. Also, while this is a Roleplaying Game it is also a GAME. It has rules to follow when building your character but the rules don't define the character of your character they define what he can or can't do. It's up to you to create the character's personality and make his "in game" decisions. No Racial Trait, or feat can do that for you.
As for the whole consequences of choices, are you talking "in game" choices or "character creation" choices. Becuase if I don't have a choice then there can't be any consequence from it. If I have a character that was created in Year 1 before APG, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic and ARG came out I was never given the choice of the content in those books. Should I have waited to create and play that character? If so, how long do I wait? A year? Two? Maybe I just never play hoping that the option I want eventually comes out in a book before the campaign ends?
All that I'm asking is to be giving a chance to explore some of these new choices that have been giving to me with characters I've been playing for a while and have an investment in. I don't want to have character clones because that one rules option that didn't exist when I created my character and would fit him PERFECTLY wasn't around when I made him. Where's the roleplaying in that?
Seth Gipson wrote:
I'll give you the Year of the Shadow story line, though I think calling it "muddier" is a little of an understatement.
Seth Gipson wrote:
That's the conclusion you let me too with your post as a whole, I didn't realize I should read them as two separate posts on two separate topics.
As for what 4e does or doesn't do I couldn't tell you. I played 4e when it first came out. I ran through the first mod "Keep of the Shadowfell" or whatever it was called and the me and the group I played it with didn't really care for it so we switched to Pathfinder. As to why Living Greyhawk gets brought up a lot, it was one of the MOST successful "Living" style campaigns ever done. It lasted the entirety of the 3E and 3.5 and had a ton of players across the world. As for ones that are still around, like I mentioned before, Living Arcanis is still around, as is the 4e LFR (but I don't play LFR). Most of the rest either didn't have enough of a player base to keep it going or the companies behind them pulled support and shut them down.
Seth Gipson wrote:
It would be necessary to help those people who had a specific character in mind when they sat down to create them but didn't have the rules that allowed them to create what they had in mind (see my example I gave in my reply to Andrew). And yes, the campaign runs fine now but why summarily dismiss a change that more than a few people want "because this is how we've done it so far so why change it". The type of changes I'm asking for are minor, Racial Traits, Feats, and Archetypes (this is probably the most complicated) but none of these changes would be game breaking, in my opinion.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Again, let me state, I'm not asking for a TOTAL REBUILD OF THE CHARACTER. Here let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say that I have a Half-Orc *Insert Class Here* with all the standard Racial Traits out of the core book. What is so complicated about switching out his Intimidating racial trait for Rock Climber? You loose a +2 to Intimidation and get a +1 to Acrobatics and Climb? Or maybe I picked up the Improved Sunder feat and but then rarely ever used it and would instead like to swap it out for the new Surprise Follow-Though feat out of the ARG. I start taking AOO's when/if I ever attempt to sunder things but when I use Cleave or Great Cleave now the second target is denied his Dex to AC. Where's the complication?
Things like I stated above don't even "change the character" or how it would be played. It would be changes that make the character more like I pictured it in my head kind of thing.
Mike Lindner wrote:
Please read my original post. I even said I'm NOT asking for a total rebuild. Just something where we can swap out traits, feats, or archetypes. Make us have to keep our race, class, and ability scores. The campaign staff could put together a Chronicle sheet to do the tracking on that the player prints out, brings to his next event and whatever GM is running the table signs off on it. They already put out those silly little Chronicles for the various Holidays/Celebrations.
Some people have said that it would make certain builds that are "unappealing" at lower levels something people just "make" at a higher level. To them again I say, I'm NOT asking for a total rebuild and I'm NOT asking to have anything "retconned". But there are new options that come out in EVERY book that Paizo puts out and there are some options that would really fit some of my characters. But because I've already played them I can't use those options unless I create another character that's exactly like the one I'm already playing with a different trait or feat or archetype. That just doesn't sound fun to me.
To those people who say, "Oh just make a another character". Let me tell you something. I played Living Greyhawk, I had three characters I played throughout the entirety of the campaign and I played Living City, I had three characters I played during the time I invested in that campaign. I remember those characters vividly, they had personalities, they had flavor and they ALL had stories they could tell. I already have five PFS characters and there is a increasing likelihood that I will have to make more before the end of the campaign. I try my hardest to put personalities to all five of my characters and make them memorable and unique, but I honestly don't remember who they are sometimes. I'll look at the character sheet and I won't remember what adventures that character had or what personality they had. I think that some players, like me, are starting to get bogged down by the number of characters they have, but that is a topic for another thread.
To get back to my original topic though. I don't see what I'm asking for as a huge game breaking thing, or even a huge strain on the campaign staff since this could be taken care of at a table with a GM. If it is though, I'd appreciate being told why. I'm only looking to use rules that are already approved but weren't available to me when I originally made and played my characters. And like I said, it's not appealing to me to remake my character start over from level 1 all because I wanted to use a different rules option that would have been perfect for him.
Seth Gipson wrote:
You're right, in some ways it's better in other ways it's quite inferior. My biggest complaint has been, and probably always will be, the lack of a central story. Year 3 has been much better in that department but it's stall lacking compared to others that have come before.
Seth Gipson wrote:
So you're implying that by letting players have an occasional character rebuild that's what made the other "Living" campaigns go away? Could you be any more fallacious in your implications? There's enough room there to drive a Tarrasque through. For starters, Living Arcanis is still on going and, if I recall correctly, allowed their players a character rebuild once a year so they could uses the newest rules from the newest books. It was also one of the MOST story driven "Living" style campaigns I've ever played in.
Seth Gipson wrote:
Why is allowing a person to rebuild their characters using new and approved rules that came out after they started playing their characters such a bad thing? What would be so wrong with The Powers That Be allowing a character rebuild every new PFS year so that players can incorporate the new rules into the characters that they've already invested time into? Why is this something the the "Campaign does not need"?
Seth Gipson wrote:
Unless you have been exclusively been running/playing low level scenarios and dont get to play that often, I dont see how it would take years to get a character past level 4.
As a matter of fact, up until recently, I haven't had the opportunity to play very frequently. And since I have more than one character most of the scenarios I've been playing have been in the lower tier (though I finally have one character that's made it to the high tiers).
So, yes, it very well could take me years to use some of the new options to get characters out of the first couple of levels. I'm sure I'm not the only one either.
Not to mention that almost every other "Living" style campaign like PFS has given their players options for rebuilds as the years have gone by so that long time players can utilize the newest rules for their mid and high level characters without having to start over from first level yet again.
The problem is that I already have 5 characters that I've created over the years, all are above 1st level. I've played MANY of the PFS Senarios and run almost all of the ones I've played at least once. So saying that you can just create a new character and play more isn't really a great option for people like me since it would take years of playing to get the characters past level 4 or 5.
So there have been a lot of new books that have come out since the beginning of Pathfinder Society. The newest of these is the Advanced Race Guide that's just come out today. With all of these new books and new rules and options will The Powers That Be consider allowing us players to have a one time rebuild of our characters to make use of some of these new rules options (such as traits, archetypes, feats, ect).
I'm not asking for a total rebuild, maybe something like you have to keep your race and/or class but you can change other things out. Then you'd take your old character sheet and the new one and have your next GM sign off on the rebuild.
Just a thought.
One thing you have to keep in mind is the weight limit for flying creatures. I believe that they have to stay within their "Light Load" in order to fly.
If you're going for a thematic thing, then as a GM, you can certainly say that a creature with Flyby Attack, and Snatch could swoop in, grab a character and start to fly away with him.
Or if you're playing strictly by the rules then the creature would have to swoop in and make the attack (and grapple), and then next round try to fly away with the character.
Ok here is the curve, do you suffer the shooting into melee penalty if you're the one in melee with the target?
I believe the answer is "Yes you still take the -4". The main reason is simplicity. The combat system that Pathfinder uses is incredibly abstract. If you use a battlemap and you view combat as one guy standing next to the other guy swinging swords at each other your missing the point. The combat system, hit points, and the like are all used to take combat like you see in the movies (Gladiator, Game of Thrones, LotR, Zorro, etc) and make it work with in the game rules.
The combatants, while standing still (for the most part) on the battlemap, are representing swings, misses, dives to the side, circling each other, and the like. But to keep things simple the system uses a turn based combat system where people are "standing still" and only swing there swords or shoot their bows on their turn. There have been other game systems that handled combat better IMO, but they were a lot more complex too.
So while you may be the character in "melee" with the baddy, he's still considered to be in melee because he threatens you so you take the penalty (and AoO for that matter) if you shoot him from that position.
The one way to get around needing 8 hours of sleep/rest is a Ring of Sustenance.
Ring of Sustenance
Slot ring; Price 2,500 gp; Weight —
You are still limited by the fact that you can't get spells back that have been cast within the last 8 hours (since you're only actually sleeping/resting 2 hours) this can make for some problems.
Yeah, charm person is all but useless in combat, unless you have a very well-coordinated team and have pre-planned tactics for making it work.
Actually it's not;
This charm makes a humanoid creature regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target's attitude as friendly). If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked by you or your allies, however, it receives a +5 bonus on its saving throw.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing. Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell. You must speak the person's language to communicate your commands, or else be good at pantomiming.
If you can manage to get the humanoid you're trying to charm to fail his save then you can attempt an opposed Charisma check to give them an order. I've used this spell very successfully in combat (if they fail their save). It just takes a little imagination.
Thanks! I knew there was something somewhere about it but I couldn't remember where I read it.