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

Darksol the Painbringer's page

3,099 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 3,099 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You do realize, that even in PFS, you can reflavor traits.

It's not overpowered, and I feel you are seriously blowing it out of proportion.

That's my feelings on it anyway.

Also, if you must drop other editions, and gloat how good they are, then my only response can be, go play it instead.

As an option to take? It's not overpowered. It's no more overpowered than using a +2 sword over a +1 sword. I don't think the problem is that the option, in itself, is overpowered.

It's the relative power level in comparison to the other options available. Instead of taking a +1 to all Will Saves, or a +2 to Saves V.S. Mind-Affecting Effects, which are the other most common trait selections, you can instead take a (potential) +1 to Attack, Damage, Skills, Ability Checks, and of course, all saves (not just Will Saves).

Any braindead person who knows how to math will tell you that the +1 to (effectively) everything will be better than the +1 to just one sub-thing of a thing. There's been marketing schemes that examplify just that.

Kyaaadaa wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
I don't know, are combat maneuvers weapon attacks? They certainly aren't listed under the "attacks" heading, and are called out as a potential replacement for an attack, but literally they are attacks.

No, and this was what eventually pounded my MoMS monk. My GM essentially went "AHA! They errata'd Crane Wing!" and told me the rules, but it really didn't matter since my AC was high enough anyway. So instead he browbeat me with a rather ingenious (and much argued) ruling:

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons... Thus the opposite should be true, and Sunder means I break your arms or legs or head...

He then proceeded to CMB me and deal full weapon damage + Strength to individual limbs i.e. my HP total for every encounter. Also, since it is a dodge bonus, if it becomes too much; DM's can simply flat-foot your CW user with whatever viable option necessary every round to remove the poor fool.

While I understand the thinking behind it, unfortunately Unarmed Strikes or creature limbs are not valid candidates.

Sunder wrote:

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

Looks like your GM is scraping the threads of fate to try and bring a stop to a character that extremely frustrates him. Unarmed Strikes aren't items, nor can they really receive the Broken condition. Even if they feasibly could, they don't qualify as an item set by the Broken condition, so it does nothing.

He could try to extrapolate the rules regarding severing Hydra heads, but those are specific rules made for that creature, and that creature only. To suggest otherwise is houseruling, and therefore not really a valid argument.

Quite frankly, he'd have a better argument by saying "Rocks Fall, All Monks Die, and anyone who takes the Crane Style Feat Chain will have their soul condemned to Asmodeus' Private Chambers."

Devilkiller wrote:

I think that examining the scope of Crane Wing by putting T-Rex in a comedic "strawman" outfit and pitting him against the theoretical 5th level Monk or 2nd level pre-errata Master of Many Styles misses the point or possibly even several points. If you're only expecting to be hit infrequently then being able to auto-deflect while keeping your full attack is very good. Nat 20 negation is also the sort of thing which drives many DMs absolutely bonkers.

I don't think that fighting the errata war of 2 years ago over and over forever really helps anybody though. If we concentrate on the actual Crane Wing we have right now or at least the general power level it fits into maybe we can better make suggestions for Paizo to consider if they make any future adjustments to the Crane feats or the combat tricks for them.

People can't agree about whether CWv1 fit under the acceptable power ceiling (Paizo says no), but I wonder if they feel CWv4 is above the power floor for being a desirable feat at least in some builds (barring "just being silly" and "my build is that my PC is a total loser"). I used v2 for a while and found the guessing kind of irritating. I liked v3, found it effective, and enjoyed the AoOs. I don't have enough experience with v4 yet to say much though in theory it looks OK.

There are other creatures that had similar mechanics to the T-Rex; one attack, lots of damage. Vital Strike, level 1-5 non-TWF martials, no Haste, etc. T-Rex became the flux of the argument because people thought it was silly that a Monk could indefinitely put a stop to a creature as huge and as powerful as a T-Rex. But again, that was worst case for the GM. An average case scenario, it didn't automatically put a stop to all the attacks put against said Monk; it helped, but it wasn't gamebreaking. And a best case scenario made it 100% useless. That's actually a pretty balanced option when you look at it; there should be times where an option is powerful, times when it's not that powerful, and times when it's just simply a liability.

Optimizers learn to always either have all the options that are powerful all the time, or have every option available that is powerful for every certain scenario. Crane Wing's problem was the ability to use it before it was normally supposed to be used; that was always the problem, because without people dipping 2 levels in MoMS to pick up the feat by ignoring the pre-requisites, you would never be seeing it except in the levels where it should be seen anyway.

The mechanical fix needed was extremely simple to implement; remove the early access. MoMS could still keep their ability to acquire Style feats, but they wouldn't be able to ignore pre-requisites anymore (or to be more accurate, their pre-requisition ignorance could apply only to Feats with the Style type; 2nd and 3rd chain Style feats did not have the Style type).

So why didn't they just do that? Because PFS GMs were raging and threatening to mutiny until Paizo nerfed Crane Wing into oblivion (which in turn actually nullified Crane Riposte). Another, much easier option, would be to simply ban the Crane Style feat chain from PFS, but I guess apparently it's not up to the PFS Directors and such to ban these options which are apparently ruining PFS gameplay. (Divine Protection, anyone?)

But of course, that is spilled milk we're talking about. If we really must direct our attention to the present, then you should at least understand that the current Crane Wing that is being discussed now, is a result of "Fighting the Errata War of 2 years ago," and knowing how and why it got to where it is now is just as important as to what it does now; and in my opinion, it's still not worth its salt.

If anything, it's even worse because you're essentially dealing with the same guessing games that its initial errata forced players to deal with, except instead of it being a proactive annoyance, it's a reactive annoyance.

I can guarantee you that both the GMS and Players will hate the extra bookkeeping and modifier tracking when creatures make attacks on Players who possess this feat, as well as determining the consequences of rolls. It'll slow down gameplay because players and GMs have to re-evaluate the feat, as well as the dice rolls because the initial rolls may affect the subsequent rolls results, and it's just a nuisance.

The predecessor was a little easier to play with, because for starters, it provided a static modifier against a single target's attacks, it only affected one entire set of dice rolls for one target. But it still defeats the entire purpose of the feat. Although this new adjustment does capture some of the original (being able to deflect attacks in Full Defense), it still carries a lot of the issues from the initial errata with it (AKA the guessing).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Easily described. You sidestepped just enough to fit within the grooves of the creature's massive teeth. Then, as the terrible monster pulls its maw away, you simply step back into your original position. :P

While I agree that's how I'd fluff it, that really isn't the point. A dragon has a boat load of attacks, so it doesn't matter if CW negates one attack. We're trying to mitigate the T-Rex vs CW scenario.

It stems from the way natural attacks work. From a mechanics scenario, big monsters get correspondingly big strength. They are more likely to hit and do more damage. Giving them more attacks increases the chances of them hitting and subsequently the damage they would do. Thus to make sure they don't abuse that STR by having multiple attacks, they often only get one(like the T-Rex).

So if we're worried about single attacks from big creatures(since again they won't have this feat before 5th level where everyone usually only has 1 attack), the size restriction is probably the easiest way to make those kind of encounters work.

Dragons have a boatload of attacks, yes. But they don't use them half the time, they're too busy using other, more valuable tactics. They're also geniuses, so they're smarter about utilizing their attacks, as well as being able to finagle their way of affecting the character without having to deal with Crane Wing.

T-Rexs are animals. They have 2 Intelligence. They can spend a feat to gain 2 Bite Attacks, and quite frankly, the T-Rex has several other, meaningful options it can use, but because it has 2 Intelligence, it doesn't. Blaming Crane Wing for completely negating a creature, when Crane Wing doesn't completely negate a whole lot of creatures to begin with, has nothing to do with Crane Wing being overpowered. It deals with horrible encounter design.

Additionally, as I've said before, the whole "T-Rex V.S. Crane Wing" match is a worst-case scenario regarding Crane Wing for GMs, and if you're running into that many worst-case scenarios, the problem certainly isn't with the feat, it's with the factor that the GM is constantly using these scenarios, especially when it's true that in other scenarios, Crane Wing isn't nearly as powerful (or in fact, useless). If you're running into that many worst case scenarios with the other, varied encounters you're running, then you examine what's causing the problem, and solve it.

For example, a lot of the PFS GMs complained about how players were getting Crane Wing by level 2 (or 1), and nullifying encounters because of it. Further examination told us that the encounters for the lower levels usually involve the following things:

-Single Attack Enemies
-Enemies engaging in one-on-one combat
-Characters having to dip a certain Monk archetype to accomplish this combination, when normal acquisition requires a higher level, where enemies are prone to possessing more than 1 attack.

So let's see, what could we do to solve these issues?

1. Throw more enemies with multiple Natural Attacks at characters, such as Bite + 2 Claws, or TWF.
2. Throw more enemies that are actually smart enough to gang up on a character.
3. Simply ignore the character and go after someone who isn't so durable.
4. Alter the dynamics of the Monk archetype which enabled this nonsense to not enable this nonsense, as well as other silly nonsense like the Snake Fang.

In the case of PFS, option 1 goes straight out the window, because altering the design encounters is against the rules (unfortunately). Options 2 and 3 might be viable for PFS, but a lot of characters who do so would take offense to being ganged up on all the time. Similarly, not all enemies are actually capable of using their brains to focus-fire characters. Option 4 was certainly viable, but wasn't implemented because [reasons].

So, Paizo decided that none of these options were fitting solutions (at first), and instead gave it a major nerfbat to the head. Crane Wing got a serious concussion from that: It no longer functions nearly the same as it did, and they did it because it was getting too much bad attention in PFS. They had to act, otherwise one of their big money makers would go under, and so they threw a quick 'hotfix.'

Now that is settled down, they tried to fix it up a little more, and decided that in addition to the nerfbat to the skull (that they didn't really adjust), they should also add Option 4, just to make sure it never becomes a problem in PFS again. I'd rather have preferred they implemented option 4 from the get-go and left everything else as it is, and would've killed two birds with one stone. Crane Wing had a niche, and it was a really needed niche for Martials.

Being able to negate a single melee attack was a welcome onset, but it was only too powerful in a few specific scenarios. T-Rex is one of them. 1st level Two-Handed Martials is another (and far more commonplace). There are maybe a couple more, but these were the biggest gripes.

You can't fix the first one without completely acquitting the encounter and/or implementing something else, but how often do players fight T-Rexs? Very rarely. How often do T-Rexs face Monks who actually take the Crane Wing feat? Barely any at all. I mean, you might as well have some Anti-Dinosaur Monk Sect or something, if apparently Crane Wing Monks V.S. T-Rexs (or similar creature design structuring) is an everyday thing. It's not, it shouldn't be, and quite frankly if it is, you need to have a sitdown with yourself, and question whether you enjoy playing a game of Insanity or not (in other words, doing the same thing over and over again with a fixed outcome, and actually expecting different results).

Two-Handed Martials are something that occurs from multiple classes; Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers (maybe), the list goes on. But Two-Handed Martials stem from Iteratives. Iteratives allow for more than one attack. Iterative Attacks begin at 6th level. These problems occur from levels 1-5. The original Crane Wing feat is designed for Monks of 5th level or higher (or characters with 5 BAB). If characters are getting it at 2nd level, then the problem isn't that Crane Wing is broken, it's that it's being used in a case that it otherwise wasn't originally designed to be used in.

Vital Strike is perhaps the only one that Crane Wing can't ever be fixed, but for starters, that's one of the problems with the T-Rex encounter. Vital Strike in itself is 100% countered by Crane Wing, and to be honest, I think it's fair for that to happen. There are things that should have direct counters to it, and for Vital Strike, Crane Wing is its mortal enemy. It's okay for certain things to not be effective against certain things, that's the point of having varied options, and is the essence of balance.


Gilarius wrote:
I'd have the dragon using its breath weapon on the warpriest. ..There is an argument that he can't use reflex saves and still maintain the pin...

Too bad that argument makes no sense. Even Paralyzed creatures are allowed a Saving Throw.

However, since the Warpriest is in a Grapple, he still receives the Grappled condition. He suffers a -4 penalty to Dexterity for being Grappled, so he does get a penalty to the Saving Throw. But that doesn't mean he can't make a Saving Throw.

Adding on to the Paralyzed subject, Paralyzed Creatures are treated as having a Dexterity of 0, meaning they lose any Dexterity Bonuses they possess, and suffer a -5 Penalty to their Dexterity modifier. That's a huge disadvantage, one that will likely result in failure. But that doesn't mean he can't make a Saving Throw.

Rylar wrote:

Your concept of backstory works for a follower of Sarenrae.

If you are playing the premade adventure as written, I wouldn't worry too much about optimization. I've always wanted to try a 2 weapon fighting paladin and this is probably the best opportunity to do so.

Smite more than makes up for the negatives of 2wf and adding level damage to each weapon would be pretty cool.

2 Handed weapon is a better option though. I'd have to look up using oversized weapons, but it could work as a way to adapt his goddess's weapon to his own style.

Using a weapon not appropriately sized for you incurs a -2 penalty to hit for each size difference. Large Scimitar would only apply one -2 penalty. Though, if you try to TWF with standard Scimitars without some special ability, that becomes a -4, meaning a Two-Handed Scimitar would still win out as far as reducing penalties. Those penalties can also be negated by being a specific sort of Tiefling (great Sarenrae flavor can be done here), or by applying an Effortless Lace to the weapon.

Since he is a Paladin, going TWF never works out unless you sacrifice your Lay on Hands ability. As far as I know, there aren't any archetypes that do such a thing, so if planned on going TWF, you would have to find a way to unequip and re-equip your weapons as Free Actions without having to hold space. The only way I know of to do this is through Gloves of Storing (or similar items), or through using Quick Draw shields using the Quick Draw feat (since Light Shields allow you to hold an item, and a Shield is an item).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yar har ho!

Yo ho har!

Scallywags of the Sea, are we!

We fight like beasts, an' men do flee!

@ Crimeo: Okay, thank you for the clarification. I think I have an idea of what you're trying to get answered. So, let's start with the Disruptive Metamagic.

Here's the full text:

Disruptive Spell wrote:
Targets affected by a disruptive spell must make concentration checks when using spells or spell-like abilities (DC equals the save DC of the disruptive spell plus the level of the spell being cast) for 1 round. Targets that avoid the spell’s effects avoid this feat’s effect as well.

So, the Metamagic states that all targets affected by the spell are required to make concentration checks (similar to being affected by a non-damaging spell while casting) for an entire round (instead of just the spell). This is great if you know you're fighting several Quickened Spellcasters, but this would be more of a minor Anti-Magic tool for a Spellcasting BBEG, since most enemy casters will be higher level than the party PCs. But that's tangential to the point.

Now, one of the things that we can look to as to a help of defining whether something is affected or not, we take a peek at Spell Resistance. Here's what it says:

Spell Resistance wrote:

Spell resistance is a special defensive ability. If your spell is being resisted by a creature with spell resistance, you must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance for the spell to affect that creature. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. Include any adjustments to your caster level to this caster level check.

The Spell Resistance entry and the descriptive text of a spell description tell you whether spell resistance protects creatures from the spell. In many cases, spell resistance applies only when a resistant creature is targeted by the spell, not when a resistant creature encounters a spell that is already in place.

So, let's assume we're casting a Quickened Disruptive Silence and an Intensified Empowered Maximized Disruptive Magic Missiles. (Don't ask, it's just an example.) The enemy in question has Spell Resistance. Now, for simplicity's sake, let's start with the Magic Missiles first. These target one enemy within range (assuming no total cover), and deal their damage. Because the enemy has Spell Resistance, and is being targeted by Magic Missiles, the spellcaster has to make a caster level check to affect the enemy with the Magic Missiles. If he succeeds, the spell properly affects the enemy as normal. If he fails, the spell doesn't affect the enemy, meaning no Disruptive applies.

Now, spells like Silence are where it becomes difficult; remember the whole "mileage may vary" statements? Here's where they come in. Let's first reference the entire Silence description.

Silence wrote:
Upon the casting of this spell, complete silence prevails in the affected area. All sound is stopped: Conversation is impossible, spells with verbal components cannot be cast, and no noise whatsoever issues from, enters, or passes through the area. The spell can be cast on a point in space, but the effect is stationary unless cast on a mobile object. The spell can be centered on a creature, and the effect then radiates from the creature and moves as it moves. An unwilling creature can attempt a Will save to negate the spell and can use spell resistance, if any. Items in a creature's possession or magic items that emit sound receive the benefits of saves and spell resistance, but unattended objects and points in space do not. Creatures in an area of a silence spell are immune to sonic or language-based attacks, spells, and effects.

Reviewing all that we've gone over so far, Spell Resistance, if applicable, makes the target unaffected by the spell, assuming they were the target of the spell to begin with. Unless they are specifically targeted by a spell, Spell Resistance would not apply, especially if cast on a center or some other object (my favorite is using a platinum coin as silencing bait, then following up with a Darkness spell).

Now, Silence, as I've bolded above, has 3 possible targets, which must be chosen at the time of casting. It has A. a point in space, such as a grid intersection, similar to that of Fireball, B. an object within range, mobile or stationary, or C. a creature. If the target can move, the effect moves with them. If the creature with Spell Resistance is in the area (or close enough to another object or creature) that the Silence is cast upon, he would not get a Spell Resistance check, nor would be considered "affected" by the Silence spell, since the spell is specifically affecting a point in space or a mobile object/other creature. However, if the creature with Spell Resistance was targeted specifically by the caster, he would get a Spell Resistance check, and if the caster level check succeeds, then the caster would be forced to make a concentration check if he wants to cast a spell (assuming they are casting Silent Metamagic spells) for the entire round.

I hope this answers your question. Of course, YMMV.

Crankbait wrote:

I was looking at Monk of the Empty Hand from APG, and I have a couple of questions:

Does Weapon Finesse work with improvised weapons?

Does Weapon Finesse work for unarmed strikes?

I suggest this gets moved, as this is in the wrong thread category.

To your questions:

Weapon Finnesse works with weapons that specifically say they can be finnessed (Rapier, Elven Curved Blade), or Light Weapons.

Unarmed Strikes are always considered Light Weapons, so yes, you can use Weapon Finnesse with them.

Improvised Weapons must be considered a Light Weapon for you to Weapon Finnesse with them. And no, I'm sure you cannot purposefully improvise weapons such as the Rapier or Elven Curved Blade and be able to Finnesse with them.

Crimeo wrote:
It's really not. Various abilities and feats and things say "If a creature is affected by a spell, then _____"

Yeah, I suggest you re-read all of the feat texts regarding Metamagics here. All of them, such as Rime Spell, Dazing Spell, Toppling Spell, et. al., give specific conditions as to what triggers them; if they take damage against a certain spell type, fail a saving throw, etc. Each one of them has such verbiage.

None of this "If a creature is affected by a(n) X spell, then Y" is present in these feats, and this is probably the most common area where I'd expect the "affected" phrasing to apply.

But it doesn't.

If you could provide other examples as to what you're trying to ascertain, then we can give you a better answer in regards to the example; obviously, mileage will vary from ability to ability.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
9mm wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

The autodeflect for melee was kinda broken. It let a level 2 monk stymie a T-Rex, or just about any monster with only one natural attack, no matter how good the monster's to-hit.

Martials should have nice things, but this was way beyond.

meanwhile the level 1 monk with deflect arrows stymies a crossbowman, whats your point.

If a dm is dumb enough to throw a singleton monster with exactly one attack at an original crane wing user, they deserve to have their encounter cakewalked.

If the GM is runnning a PFS scenario, he can't just switch out a monster.

Most things that have ranged attacks also have some other thing they can do, but the same doesn't go for (dumb) melee monsters. And most ranged things eventually develop iteratives, but that doesn't work for single-natural-attack monsters.

If the GM has to throw out 20% of the Bestiary because of one feat, that feat is probably not well-balanced.

The issue isn't so symmetrical as you're making it look.


Re: other things (slumber hex) are just as problematic: sure. I don't like how that thing can wreck scenarios either.

But just because I'm not solving problem B for some reason, doesn't mean I shouldn't solve A.

The whole "Stop a T-Rex indefinitely" issue that supposedly arised from Crane Wing was a worst-case scenario for the GM, and that happens when he tries to design a Single "BBEG" encounter. (Oh boy, if a T-Rex was an actual BBEG of a campaign...) If a creature, such as a Tiger or similar, had their Natural Attacks going (Bite Claw Claw Rake Rake), the Crane Style would certainly help them mitigate these attacks, but it wouldn't nullify them entirely like they would in the T-Rex scenario, and that's worst case.

And those worst cases fall flat upon their faces way before the Crane Wing actually gets used. Slumber can invalidate that encounter. Hold Monster can invalidate that encounter. Charm Monster/Animal can invalidate that encounter (FREE T-REX RIDES!). Hell, even a Full Attack from an optimized Martial invalidates that encounter, if we're assuming it's a CR-appropriate foe. When Action Economy and an extreme variety of abilities due to multiple characters overwhelms a single creature, the problem doesn't simply become "CRANE WING TOO OP, NERF PLIS PAIZO," the problem is poorly thought-out encounter design.

I mean come on, there is a feat the T-Rex can take that allows him to make two Bite Attacks, both at highest BAB, and that allows him to still be able to make attacks against the Monk that aren't deflected. The factor that the stupid 2 Intelligence T-Rex specialized in the Vital Strike feat chain is also bad design (as well as simply a bad monster choice), because unless you're running Mythic Rules, Vital Strike is crap in the later levels.

And that's assuming we're facing creatures whose Intelligence doesn't constitute them having smarter tactics (which is the case for the T-Rex). Any braindead Martial would know after a couple rounds that attacking the guy who invalidates all of your attacks is a fruitless effort, and therefore should switch to a more effective target (like the Wizard lobbing spells at you).

My homebrew campaigns that I've been in have fought single BBEGs before (an Undead T-Rex was one of them, infact), and even duo BBEGs, and quite frankly, they were cakewalks. During the T-Rex fight, because it moved slow, all we had to do was move and shoot ranged weapons at it. It was a complete joke, because by the time it actually caught up to us, all it would take was a single hit and it was dead; nobody got hurt, and no major resources were expended. It might as well should've just been a bunch of CR 1/4 Kobold mooks; it would've been more fun, and might have actually killed us.

When we fought BBEGs with multiple, varied minions, that's when encounters get difficult, and that's a lot more challenging (and therefore more fun to overcome). Our final boss was a Storm Giant whose domain had an extremely fast and powerful whirling Lightning Tornado surrounding a platform (falling into it, which he did occassionally knock us into, dealt 20D6 Lightning Damage and threw us back out on a random spot in the platform), had two adjacent, smaller platforms that we had to escape to, due to his expanding Thunderous Aura, and deal with somewhat strong monsters there too. There was also a fight in a previous campaign where we had to fight a shadowy bizarro mirror version of our own party, and that was one of the best encounters to-date, especially considering where the idea came from.

I mean, even Tucker's Kobolds is a prime example of taking "not-so-strong" monsters, and using the environment and other "obscure" mechanics to their advantage and making them a truly terrifying (and memorable) encounter. That is good encounter design, one that every GM preparing an encounter should take notes on, especially if they want to properly challenge their PCs.

A lot of the fuss that came from Crane Wing (especially in PFS) was because it was used well before it was designed to be used (~level 5 or 6). Getting it at level 1 (or 2) made it an extremely powerful feat since you could get much more use out of it, and there are much more single-attack enemies in the lower levels than in the higher levels of play. Removing the ability to choose anything but Style feats (which they did in this errata), or only allow the feats to circumvent the requirements for Style feats (i.e. Feats that have the Style sub-type) would have fixed this obviously glaring issue, especially in regards to the MoMS dips that everyone would do just to get this feat chain easy peasy; the feat nerf was basically overreacting to a problem, and then, since they already nerfed the actual feat, they overkilled it with what the original solution to the Crane Style feat chains should've been. It's not much different than shooting a person in both the heart and the brain just to ensure they're dead. (Figuratively speaking, of course, not a literal, real-life suggestion.)

And yet at this point, I realize it is merely crying over spilled milk. The feat is nerfed, the archetype is nerfed, and stating all of this isn't going to change that. The only thing that needs to be understood is that Paizo has their own design values (and so does PFS it seems, since they ban certain Paizo content); the current Crane Style feat chain did not fit their design values, and neither did the Monk archetype, so they fixed it to a method that does fit their design values.

I wouldn't look to Paizo for a guidance on balance, especially when they are silent on a lot of glaring issues that have been addressed on these boards (and several of them have been going for years, I might add), which suggests that they aren't particularly adept at balancing. And it's much easier to assume that, at least for those old-age issues addressed, they'd rather leave it to the public to determine how those things work for their own game.

(It at least seems more preferable to assume that, since a lot of the balancing that they do accomplish, is usually met with a lot of negative feedback, and they do get a bad rep regarding FAQ/Errata as it is. Then again, you can't please everybody...)


nosig wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
nosig wrote:

but he would have to spend an action to re-start a performance? sounds right to's what I figured

and now for the Delay timing... I think it is going to be the same thing. But it sort of bugs me... means a Barbarian can rage (and delay) but a Bard can't perform (and delay)...

Yes, after he is no longer Dazed. Lingering Performance would still be going, so he wouldn't have to until the Lingering Performance goes (since the original is still technically active); you couldn't recontinue the Lingering Performance, though.

I disagree. Once a Barbarian initiates a Rage, he's spent a Free Action to Rage, and that means he must continue the rest of his actions there. They also don't spend a Free Action each round to maintain it, which is one of the benefits of Rage, though if they are Dazed, they could not end (or start) their Rage, as they cannot spend the Free Action to do so. (So if they were trying to conserve rounds in the early game...)

But, if the barbarian rages at the start of round 1, say on Init 20, then on round 2, Init 20 he delays until everyone else goes, he still gets the benefits (+2 will save) thru round 2,even if he ends his rage on his turn. One round used, two rounds benefits. Not a major issue... Just bugs me. ;)

As Numarak says, the Barbarian would still fall under the same pretenses. Once it gets to the Barbarian's turn on his Initiative, if he delays, he still expends the round of Rage, because when he originally initiated the Rage, 1 entire round would have passed, and if he chooses to Delay his initiative actions, he would still have Rage active, meaning that's another round he spends Raging.

Another thing is that the Barbarian would have to declare whether he is continuing his Rage or not at the start of his turn; a lot of GMs would probably not accept a Barbarian at the start of his turn, raging, do his entire round's worth of actions, and then end his rage (and therefore save a round while getting the round's worth of actions accomplished with the benefits of rage).

To me, that is the cheesing that you think bugs you, and for that I agree and sympathize. However, any sane GM would put a stop to those shenanigans ASAP; if they don't do otherwise, I would suggest you get that GM checked over.

nosig wrote:

but he would have to spend an action to re-start a performance? sounds right to's what I figured

and now for the Delay timing... I think it is going to be the same thing. But it sort of bugs me... means a Barbarian can rage (and delay) but a Bard can't perform (and delay)...

Yes, after he is no longer Dazed. Lingering Performance would still be going, so he wouldn't have to until the Lingering Performance goes (since the original is still technically active); you couldn't recontinue the Lingering Performance, though.

I disagree. Once a Barbarian initiates a Rage, he's spent a Free Action to Rage, and that means he must continue the rest of his actions there. They also don't spend a Free Action each round to maintain it, which is one of the benefits of Rage, though if they are Dazed, they could not end (or start) their Rage, as they cannot spend the Free Action to do so. (So if they were trying to conserve rounds in the early game...)

nosig wrote:

perhaps my search fu has failed me, and this has been answered else where, but...

Would the spell Daze cast on the Bard stop his Bardic Performance?

as a side question...

Can a Bard delay if he has a Performance going, and have it's effects continue... or do the effects end when the Initiative get's back to him and he starts to delay?

Yes, it would, as he could not use the Free Actions to maintain his Bardic Performance. It even specifically says so in the Bardic Performance section:

Bardic Performance wrote:
A bardic performance cannot be disrupted, but it ends immediately if the bard is killed, paralyzed, stunned, knocked unconscious, or otherwise prevented from taking a free action to maintain it each round.

By RAW, as soon as the Bard is hit with a Daze spell, the Bardic Performance ends, full stop, and Lingering Performance kicks in if the Bard has the feat. It makes sense, since a Bardic Performance, regardless of its means of performing, requires a constant and smooth execution. I'm not suggesting that there can't be any slight delays through avoiding or making attacks, but the Daze spell would make the Bard lose track of where he was in his performance, and he wouldn't know where to start, and by the time he figures it out (AKA, when the Daze effect comes off), the performance would by rights be over, and he would need to start anew.

The Bard cannot take any sort of actions if he is Dazed; this includes the option to Delay his initiative in hopes of getting the condition removed to continue the performance. Even if he could, by RAW the performance is already over, and he would have to spend a Standard Action (or whatever action he is able to use) to restart another performance.

Disregarding the Daze spell, many GMs would rule that once it gets to the Bard's Initiative counter, he must spend the action to maintain it, otherwise it ends at the Initiative counter he started it on.

Kazumetsa Raijin wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Basically, here's how it's supposed to work.

Crane Style:

When you Fight Defensively or use Total Defense, you gain an extra +1 to AC, and suffer only a -2 to your Attack Rolls.

Crane Wing:

While you have one hand free, you get an additional +4 Dodge Bonus to AC. When a melee attack misses you by this +4 Dodge Bonus (or less), this temporary bonus goes away.

Crane Riposte:

When the +4 Dodge Bonus to AC from Crane Wing disappears, you may make an Attack of Opportunity against the enemy whose attack removed the bonus. This Attack of Opportunity can be taken even while performing the Total Defense option.

So yes, Crane Style chain doesn't automatically deflect one attack anymore. Your AC is practically doubled in comparison (~+8 is ridiculous), and even if you are magically hit by some freak roll (Nat 20), you don't lose the temporary +4 (by RAW, it only goes away on a miss). Even if they remove the temporary +4, you do get a free attack on them, essentially.

That being said, I still preferred the original Crane Style; deflecting attacks was really nice and unique.

But then why would the update in Crane Riposte state "Page 93—In the Crane Riposte feat, in the Benefit, change the second sentence to the following: Whenever you def lect an opponent’s attack using Crane Wing"?

I really feel like there is a missing piece or something...

I re-reviewed the text, and forgot this portion:

Crane Wing wrote:
If you are using the total defense action instead, you can deflect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.

So, it appears there is more merit to using the Total Defense option, since it actually grants the original Crane Wing benefit. I suppose if a nerf was going to go to this feat, that would be the way to do it. Still a little disappointed with it though.

At least the Crane Riposte option still works, regardless of if you use Fighting Defensively or Total Defense.

Kazaan wrote:
The way I see it, it doesn't specify that it is a light weapon, therefore it is not a light weapon. You can still TWF with them, but you take the non-light off-hand penalties.

You don't need it to specify. The factor that it's tiny-sized would provide a -4 penalty (because the rock is sized for a Tiny creature, not a Medium creature). Even with it being a Light weapon, it's sitting at a -6 penalty to throw the rock.

The rock couldn't even be Medium-sized, since then it would require two hands, it would get 1.5x Strength to damage (potentially), and not be applicable to TWF with, according to the Greatsword + Armor Spikes FAQ.

Basically, here's how it's supposed to work.

Crane Style:

When you Fight Defensively or use Total Defense, you gain an extra +1 to AC, and suffer only a -2 to your Attack Rolls.

Crane Wing:

While you have one hand free, you get an additional +4 Dodge Bonus to AC. When a melee attack misses you by this +4 Dodge Bonus (or less), this temporary bonus goes away.

Crane Riposte:

When the +4 Dodge Bonus to AC from Crane Wing disappears, you may make an Attack of Opportunity against the enemy whose attack removed the bonus. This Attack of Opportunity can be taken even while performing the Total Defense option.

So yes, Crane Style chain doesn't automatically deflect one attack anymore. Your AC is practically doubled in comparison (~+8 is ridiculous), and even if you are magically hit by some freak roll (Nat 20), you don't lose the temporary +4 (by RAW, it only goes away on a miss). Even if they remove the temporary +4, you do get a free attack on them, essentially.

That being said, I still preferred the original Crane Style; deflecting attacks was really nice and unique.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Thanks for the info on the shield spikes, should've found that on my own.

I never thought the Bashing property would increase my shield spikes even more, as the Bashing itself clearly states what the damage dice are: a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage.
I'd always presumed my max dice were 1d8, but thanks for the clarification.

Yes, it states what the damage dice become, assuming Medium-sized Shields. That doesn't make them a fixed dice.

Small-sized Shields affected would make them 1D4 and 1D6, respectively. Ironically enough, without the Bashing property, they would be 1D2 and 1D3 damage, respectively.

However, a lot of people were stacking the Shield Spikes and Bashing property together to get 1D8 and 2D6 damage dice, because they assumed that the Shield Spikes benefit was a more 'inherent' benefit (since it was increased through mundane means, and not magical), and therefore should be grounds for stacking.

The FAQ cares not where the bonus comes from, or its source. An Effective Size Bonus is an Effective Size Bonus is an Effective Size Bonus; they don't stack together, end of story. Only one Effective Size Bonus and one Active Size Bonus can be applicable to a character at any given time (so yes, you can stack Enlarge Person and Bashing together for 2D6 damage dice).

Quentin Coldwater wrote:

Not necessarily if it stacks, but if the magical property of the shield transfers to the nonmagical spikes. I'd guess not.

Also, it's for PFS, so I need a definite yes or no for this. It's already a +1 shield, so replacing it isn't the end of the world, but still nice if I could keep the money.

Shield Spikes are not separate entities from the Shield they are attached.

From the PRD:

Shield Spikes wrote:

These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

The bolded part says a Spiked Shield. Yes, your enhancements also apply to your spikes, but once you attach Spikes to a Shield, they become one item, and not separate entities. Also consider that many shields are metal or wooden, and are commonly hafted or forged together. It is because of this that many will tell you that you cannot just "take them off." I would say that you can pay half the price of applying the Shield Spikes to remove them, but that delves into RAI territory; RAW, if you apply Shield Spikes to a Shield, you cannot ever take them off, so be aware of this if you plan to make your crafted Shield your #1 priority.

Also, if you tried to stack Shield Spikes with a Bashing Shield, they will not stack. Both benefits are Effective Size bonuses, and Effective Size bonuses will not stack with themselves, the same that Actual Size bonuses won't stack with themselves. You can, however, have one Effective Size bonus, and one Actual Size bonus.

Here's the relevant FAQ for more information.

To the first question, here's the relevant RAW:

Animate Weapon wrote:
The magus can expend 1 point from her arcane pool as a swift action to imbue a single weapon she touches with the ability to fight on its own for a number of rounds equal to her magus class level.

Bolded part says it's a weapon you touch, and says nothing about it having to be wielded; so if you can touch a Colossal sized Greatsword, you can use this ability with it.

It also further explains that this ability can be used on weapons attended by other creatures, so long as you succeed at a Disarm maneuver, further suggesting you need not be able to actually use the weapon to use this arcana on it.

That being said, this arcana is overpowered as hell for what you spend for it; such is the case with 3PP.

Imbicatus wrote:
The ability to gain evasion lends itself to having a good dex, making finesse builds attractive. An elven branch spear or curve blade build could be effective, especially with an unchained rogue dip.

The problem with dipping here is that he is delaying the Evasion to ~15, and PFS is over when the PC hits (or goes past) 12th level.

Additionally, since Evasion is such a late class feature for this archetype, I wouldn't be too focused on it. I mean, it's nice, but it's not an extremely powerful ability.

That being said, I would still agree with the player going Dexterity-based, primarily because he will not have proficiency in heavier armor, so he will need to shore up that loss in AC (and he doesn't get those benefits from his class features). Plus, having extra Reflex Saves and such is nice enough to warrant it.

However, from there, it depends on what you want your character to be able to accomplish. If you aren't sure as to what he should or shouldn't be doing, that's something you would need to console yourself for, before asking others to chime in, since we might have a completely different idea for what you should be doing in comparison to what you, the player, want your character to do. Are you a sword-and-board? Two-Handed? Two-Weapon? Combat Maneuver Specialist? Are you willing to dip for certain features, or combine archetypes? Are you wanting to focus on dealing damage, being a party face, being a support-type character, or a tank who just takes a lot of hits?

Configure what role you want your character to play, and what other guidelines you want us to follow (such as if you want to go strictly Sensate archetype Fighter, or if you want to dip Rogue for Finnesse Training, etc.), and we'll get to work on making it happen.

DonKalleOne wrote:

Im a Sorcerer with 18 Charisma so I gain Bonus spells per day for 2nd and 3rd LvL Spell.

If I up a Spell LvL1 with a Metamagic of +1 can I cast the Spell with extra gained "Slot" for 2nd LvL SPells per Day or do I have to wait till Lvl 4 where I first learn the "real" LvL 2 Spell?

Relevant FAQ.

The FAQ would apply to all kinds of spellcasters, so...

I will point out that if you have a spell level entry of "0", this means you can still cast spells of that level normally, but you don't have any normal spell slots per day usable to do so.

Here's a relevant rules portion for Paladins, who have spell level entries listed as "0":

Spells (Paladin) wrote:
When Table: Paladin indicates that the paladin gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level, she gains only the bonus spells she would be entitled to based on her Charisma score for that spell level.

Weables wrote:
I'd prefer single enemy, slap as many debuffs quickly on one enemy as I can, sort of thing. I hope that helps, and thanks for the basic rundown there

Slapping on debuffs, although nice, isn't a big deal unless you have mechanics to come with that make them a big deal, and they gotta be able to stick effectively.

I would personally recommend the Dirty Trick maneuver chain; the first debuff can be extremely debilitating, almost keep enemies out of combat unless they waste actions to break free. It also affects enemies of all sizes, shapes, etc. As long as you're creative about it, and can be somewhat online by 5th level with the proper Archetypes.

A Human Lore Warden Fighter would have access to most of the Dirty Trick feats by 3rd level, and the key Dirty Trick feats would come at 6th and 7th level (but is more than servicable at 5th).

Stats, 20 Point Buy:

Strength - 13 (5)
Dexterity - 16 + 2 = 18 (10)
Constitution - 10 (0)
Wisdom - 12 (2)
Intelligence - 13 (3)
Charisma - 10 (0)

Basic Feat breakdown, * = Bonus Feat:

1. Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Aldori Dueling Sword)*, Weapon Focus (Aldori Dueling Sword)*, Weapon Finnesse
2. Combat Expertise*, Slashing Grace*
3. Improved Dirty Tricks
4. Weapon Specialization (Aldori Dueling Sword)*
5. Power Attack
6. Greater Dirty Tricks*
7. Quick Dirty Tricks
8-20. ???

You can also deal some decent damage with that build if you have an enemy debilitated to the point to where it will take him several rounds to remove conditions (Move Actions to remove at 5th level, Standard Actions to remove at 6th level).

If you're more of a spellcaster player, I'd fully recommend the Witch. Evil Eye, Slumber, and Misfortune are the 3 most powerful debuffs a Witch can do, and they can all come online by 5th level if you're spending feats for Extra Hexes.

Snowblind wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Mrakvampire wrote:

Hello All,

One of PCs in my group is fighter (TH archetype).
With Power Attack, Furious Focus, and all other bonuses he basically has following stats on his first sunder attempt in round:

CMB: +12(base)+6(str)+1(weapon)+1(focus)+2(training)+3(shattering)+4(gr.sunder) = +29
Dmg: 2d4(falchion)+9(str)+1(enchant)+2(specializ)+2(training)+12(power)+3(shatte ring) = 2d4+29

So, basically he always hits (85-90%) any level-appropriate enemy with sunder attempt and with his adamantine falchion destroys any weapon that doesn't have +3 enchantment with 1 hit. There is no issue in repairing weapons after combat with Make Whole, as party caster has 12 CL and it's enough to fix +1 and +2 weapons.

I don't know what to do actually. Math looks completely broken for my taste. Even in 3.5 (that was clearly more unbalanced) I don't remember such ridiculous situations.
Furious Focus just needs to be nerfed (+12 dmg on sunder without any tradeoff is HUGE)

Let him sunder. He is destroying his own loot.
He mentioned the casters are fixing the loot afterwards. The fighter is totally OK with breaking stuff, because there aren't any long term consequences.

Well, it's about time there should be. It's no offense to the Fighter, he isn't happy unless he breaks stuff; but he shouldn't have to use Sunder for every situation, and quite frankly, there should be situations where Sunder is a really bad thing to do. Case in point, using Sunder on an Artifact would probably cause great issue with his tactics, as such Artifacts may actually explode for a lot of damage, and end up killing party members. (Let's see them use Make Whole on that!)

Another example is key items that cannot be fixed; if an enemy is making use of it, and the Fighter sunders it, looks like the Fighter ended up screwing the party over with his overused tactics.

Or when the Big Bad's loot is extremely powerful, useful, and valuable, so much that the PCs can't afford to use Make Whole to fix it.

Cutting out the fail safe (which is Make Whole) will make the Fighter more conscious of his actions, as I think this could probably be the biggest fix to killing two birds with one stone (Fighter stops being a one-trick pony, and doesn't end up causing some major harm to the party).

James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

1. don't see why you can't be forced to make an Attack Roll to see if you actually hit the proper square-corner

2. See #1.

3. That shouldn't really matter.

4. The saving grace with Hammer the Gap is that it specifically calls out a Full Attack Action.

5. why shouldn't I be able to make AoOs with them either?

You have illustrated why we have a wide divide. Neither of us can comprehend why the other things such strange thoughts.

1) There is no rule for that, but there is a rule for my side.

2) See #1.

3) It matters because specific trumps general. The Specifics of Deadly Aim forbid this.

4) Any similar wording would block it.

5) Attack of Opportunities have to use weapons. Weapons are things you can use with the Attack action and the full attack action. You can't use spells because there is no rule.

There are rules for applying things related to weapon like spells. Weapon like is has an attack roll and deals hit point damage

Magic - Area wrote:

Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack. The only difference is that instead of counting from the center of one square to the center of the next, you count from intersection to intersection.

You can count diagonally across a square, but remember that every second diagonal counts as 2 squares of distance. If the far edge of a square is within the spell's area, anything within that square is within the spell's area. If the spell's area only touches the near edge of a square, however, anything within that square is unaffected by the spell.

So, by the rules, you only select the point where the spell originates. By RAW, it doesn't say you don't make an attack roll for it. Although it's not spelled out in that an attack roll is required, it's also not too much of a stretch to say that it's not much different than using a Splash weapon to target a square (and only the square) whose AC is 5.

3. And yet the specifics of Power Attack, per RAW, would allow me to apply them to Melee Touch spells. Quite frankly, it seems stupid how the Melee form would by RAW be applicable, but the Ranged form by RAW would not. It's a contradicting principle in my opinion, if this rule were to be enforced.

4. Never stipulated that. All I said was, if such wording did not exist, I could theoretically use it for anything that made more than one attack, such as Scorching Ray.

5. No they don't. If I have a Shocking Grasp active from a missed touch, and an enemy attempts to Grapple me without the feat, you're telling me that I can't use the Shocking Grasp to make the Attack of Opportunity because it's not a weapon? Even though for those purposes, it counts as a valid use of taking the Attack of Opportunity, as defined in the rules? You kind of ruined your argument here with that, especially if the argument is that All Spells function as Weapons.

Also, if they were to function like Ranged Weapons, you think the range increment of spells like Magic Missile and Fireball were ridiculous, well...~2,000 feet away, at first level, you're randomly Magic Missiled by a Wizard who used Scry (or something similar to determine your location for 100% precision), and boom; 1st level Rocket Tag begins.

James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


1) Weapon Specialization (Fireball)
2) Improved Critical (Ice Storm)
3) Deadly Aim
4) Hammer the Gap
5) spells provoke two attacks of opportunity
6) Snap Shot, you can use these spells to perform Attacks of Opportunity

1) No, because no Attack Roll is used. Weapon Specialization (Scorching Ray) should be fine.

2) No, but Improved Critical (Scorching Ray) should be fine.

3) Deadly Aim works so long as the spell is an attack roll that deals damage and not a touch attack. I can't think of a spell that qualifies, but there might be some.

4) Hammer the Gap is only relevant when doing a Full Attack action. You may (subject to table variance) be able to do so with Spell Combat and cast Scorching Ray first. Then Hammer the Gap will kick in with the attack rolls and hits you make on the Scorching Ray to deal more damage on the weapons. Actually it works either way (weapon first then hammer the scorching or scorching first then hammer the weapons.)

5) You can't take an AoO with a spell. Mostly because you can't do a spell on an iterative attack. If you had a spell like that you could take on an iterative attack, you should be able to use that. Alchemists might qualify with the right setup. But a 1st level Wizard with Magic Missile could not AoO.

6) See #5

1. Never stipulated that sort of thing. Rays are weapon-like enough to constitute being affected by Weapon Focus/Specialization (Ray). That being said, if it's a Ranged Weapon, I don't see why you can't be forced to make an Attack Roll to see if you actually hit the proper square-corner (and therefore the entire Fireball effect is a critical hit).

2. See #1.

3. That shouldn't really matter. It makes no sense if, for example with Power Attack, I make a Touch Attack to not receive the Power Attack benefits, but if I make a Regular attack and discharge the spell that way, I receive the Power Attack benefits? That seems stupid per RAW, if RAI is that it applies regardless.

4. The saving grace with Hammer the Gap is that it specifically calls out a Full Attack Action. If that clause wasn't in there, I could certainly apply its effects to Scorching Ray.

5. Except we're calling it out as a Ranged Weapon because it can do XYZ. If I have Snap Shot, I threaten 5 feet with Ranged Weapons. Improved/Greater Snap Shot makes that 15 feet. If Spells are to function like Ranged Weapons, then why shouldn't I be able to make AoOs with them either?

You can't sit there and say it is and is not a Ranged Weapon. You can say that it has elements of Ranged Weapons, which is what the FAQ regarding Rays and Weapon-Like Spells already encompasses, but this FAQ is asking if the effects of Ranged Weapons applies to all spells. Summoners would have a hay-day with that, being able to summon creatures whenever an enemy provokes an AoO.

Now you see the point I'm making. A lot of the rules regarding Ranged Weapons would not properly apply to the spells that people want to have adjusted, and that's because the mechanics behind those spells don't properly apply.

HappDude69 wrote:

Hey gang, so it's been a LONG time time since I've played the ol' pathfinder. But I'm starting it again and I've decided I want to play a critical hit fighter (very original I'm sure) I want her to use the scythe to really hit hard with the crits, but I also need to know how big I can make the threat range.

How would you guys build her? What feats would you take?

Scythes are decent damage dice, have the option to specialize in Trip, and deal X4 damage on a critical. While I understand that Scythes are a powerful weapon when they critical, if you want to specialize in Critical Hits, you need a weapon that can critical more often, as most things are running around with average HP, and an optimized damage dealer can one-round difficult enemies. I personally wouldn't recommend the Scythe for crit-fishing unless you are a Melee-Oriented Druid, or you're wanting to specialize in Trip, or use it for flavor.

As others have suggested, the Falcata has the best overall critical multiplier, since it's a 19-20/X3, doubling up to a 17-20/X4 by the endgame. You could spend a proficiency feat for it (or become a race who gets proficiency with it), get it Large-sized, and apply an Effortless Lace to it to not suffer inappropriate size penalties.

Although it's an extremely powerful multiplier, you will have to spend feats and gold to even use it properly, and if you don't want to do that, I'd suggest something lesser. As for me, I generally prefer the 18-20/X2 weapons, primarily because they are the most likely to critical (and if you're going for a Critical Hit build, getting the most possible criticals will be your best bet).

So, there are two weapons that fit that bill currently (3, technically): The Falchion, and the Nodachi. (There's also the Katana, but you run into the same problems as you would with the Falcata, and plus the Nodachi is essentially the same thing, except two-handed only). Although the Nodachi is an Eastern Weapon, it's the best you can get, as it counts as two damage types, has the Brace property, and has an overall better scaling damage dice (1D10 > 2D4).

As others suggested, Human is a great choice, and is doubly helpful if you decide to use a weapon that needs a proficiency feat. Half-Elf is also just as applicable, but you will be losing out on a much more powerful racial trait if you use it for the proficiency feat. Critical Versatility will also be extremely powerful for you, since it allows you to interchange critical feats if you can anticipate what you will be fighting. (Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, and Scion of Humanity-Aasimars do qualify for this feat, so don't be afraid to deviate from the Human race if you want it.)

So, here's a basic feat breakdown I recommend, assuming you take Human.

* = Bonus Feat:

1. Power Attack*, Weapon Focus [Weapon of Choice]*, Iron Will
2. Cleave* (Retrained to Weapon Specialization at 4th via class feature)
3. Improved Iron Will
4. [Retrained Cleave], Combat Reflexes
5. Strong Comeback
6. Improved Initiative*
7. Toughness
8. Improved Critical [Weapon of Choice]*
9. Critical Focus
10. Greater Weapon Focus [Weapon of Choice]*
11. Critical Versatility
12. Sickening Critical*
13. Staggering Critical
14. Critical Mastery*
15. Tiring Critical
16-20. Any

Since you don't really need that many certain feats, you can definitely substitute some of the more useless ones (Strong Comeback, Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes, or similar) for a Weapon Proficiency feat if you want to go down that path, nor is it 100% required to go Human.

If you have any further questions, feel free to send me a PM here on the forums, or consult this Two-Handed Fighter guide I've made.

I've also made a 100% Endgame Two-Handed Crit-Fisher, if you would like to compare what he took in comparison to yours, as well as what you can expect when you reach the peak of your power. It is 100% by-the-book legal (though looking back, I need to substitute a few things since errata made certain options useless).

James Risner wrote:
The annoying thing about this FAQ is that most people on both sides are entirely unwilling to accept the other side has a point. So we end up with a chasms between the two sides.

Because both sides believe that the other side(s) haven't actually conveyed an accurate point. And quite frankly, that won't ever change until the FAQ is released.

If we're going to assume that ALL SPELLS behave similar to Ranged Weapons, then you apply ALL the benefits and drawbacks of Ranged Weapons (or what is commonly applied from the other examples) to every single spell in the game, as that's what is being asked here.

This means that you can take feats like Weapon Specialization (Fireball), Improved Critical (Ice Storm), Deadly Aim, Hammer the Gap, etc., and apply their benefits to This also means that casting these spells provoke two attacks of opportunity, and that with feats like Snap Shot, you can use these spells to perform Attacks of Opportunity, since they are weapons you can "make attacks" with.

Quite frankly, if you want that sort of thing to occur, I heard of this pretty interesting prestige class that's not totally useless if you want to accomplish that concept.

And if you want to be selective about it, there aren't really any definitive grounds for what constitutes whether a spell does or does not behave like a ranged weapon outside of what's already defined ( such as if it's a ray, or weapon-like spell), and you would need the FAQ to do that; the point you're arguing is the point that you need the Devs to clarify, and until they do, the argument doesn't exactly hold water.

The point here is that you change a lot of the dynamics of spells that otherwise most likely shouldn't function that way, and mostly for the worse. While I agree casters should get nerfed, I don't think this is the right way to do it, especially when this actually enables even more shenanigans, most commonly with blasters or save/suck specialists.

Mrakvampire wrote:
A little adjustment to your math here: Shattering only applies to CMB (and CMD), not damage rolls, so it would only be +26

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

At 2nd level, a two-handed fighter gains a +1 bonus to CMB and CMD on sunder attempts and on damage rolls made against objects. These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond 2nd.
Additionally, Furious Focus only applies to the first attack in a round, and only for a Two-Handed Weapon (or a One-Handed Weapon held in two hands). That means his highest (+29) alters the iterative gap significantly, making his next 2 attacks function as +20/+15. Throwing typical 35+ Large-sized CMD monsters means he has to roll a 15/20, respectively, to Sunder; in most cases, it'd be easier to just deal damage.

You are correct, but sunder goes as first attack.

And to summarize:
Guys, I totally understand your points. I've learned a lesson by participating in this thread. Thank you.

I thought it was the weapon property you were talking about. Shattering, the Weapon Property, and Shattering Strike, the Class Feature, are separate things, and is a little important to disclose that so as to not create further confusion.

Sunder doesn't have to go as a first attack. By RAW, it only allowed you to do so as a Standard Action (the Attack Action), so it synced quite well with the Vital Strike chain, but this FAQ here clarifies that Sunder can be replaced with any attack you make.

And re-evaluating, it would still be better for him to Sunder, since he gets more bonuses for Sundering than standard Attacking, but a creature's AC is generaly lower than its CMD, and is doubly true/effective for larger-sized creatures.

Mrakvampire wrote:

Hello All,

One of PCs in my group is fighter (TH archetype).
With Power Attack, Furious Focus, and all other bonuses he basically has following stats on his first sunder attempt in round:

CMB: +12(base)+6(str)+1(weapon)+1(focus)+2(training)+3(shattering)+4(gr.sunder) = +29
Dmg: 2d4(falchion)+9(str)+1(enchant)+2(specializ)+2(training)+12(power)+3(shatte ring) = 2d4+29

So, basically he always hits (85-90%) any level-appropriate enemy with sunder attempt and with his adamantine falchion destroys any weapon that doesn't have +3 enchantment with 1 hit. There is no issue in repairing weapons after combat with Make Whole, as party caster has 12 CL and it's enough to fix +1 and +2 weapons.

I don't know what to do actually. Math looks completely broken for my taste. Even in 3.5 (that was clearly more unbalanced) I don't remember such ridiculous situations.
Furious Focus just needs to be nerfed (+12 dmg on sunder without any tradeoff is HUGE)

A little adjustment to your math here: Shattering only applies to CMB (and CMD), not damage rolls, so it would only be +26.

Make Whole will only work on items half the caster's Caster Level. If you're giving them magic items whose CL is 7 or higher, the Spellcaster cannot repair them, full stop. So, if your enemies are running around with some more powerful stuff (i.e. the Big Bad), your Fighter will be foolish to destroy them, as the only way to repair them would be to spend gold to do so, and I'm sure the fellow PCs wouldn't appreciate that.

On that same note of powerful Magic Items, such as Artifacts, or even Cursed Items (that some enemies might possess), if he attempts to destroy them, and is somehow successful, most Artifacts usually emit a destructive explosion, and they're no joke.

Additionally, Furious Focus only applies to the first attack in a round, and only for a Two-Handed Weapon (or a One-Handed Weapon held in two hands). That means his highest (+29) alters the iterative gap significantly, making his next 2 attacks function as +20/+15. Throwing typical 35+ Large-sized CMD monsters means he has to roll a 15/20, respectively, to Sunder; in most cases, it'd be easier to just deal damage. Even with Haste, he still has to roll approximately average to actually hit them, and quite frankly, most people don't bother spending feats to do this. The factor that he's spending feats to do this shouldn't really be a cause for concern, especially when he could be more terrifying in other areas (damage-dealing, primarily).

He's not optimized in the least; most two-handed 12th level PCs will have stronger enhancements on their weapons, he could be pumping out much more damage with feats like Hammer the Gap (which can be delayed further), Greater Weapon Focus/Specialization, etc. There's also the lack of Gloves of Dueling, which would provide an extra +2 to hit and damage. This is actually a standard grunt as far as optimization is concerned.

If you want broken, try a Fighter who, for 5/day can make all of their attacks target Touch AC for 1 round, whose Power Attack was actually 1 step higher than normal, and was able to buff themselves with spells like Divine Favor and Haste via Magic Items; and Fight Defensively for Damage Reduction, and still be the same level.

I have to say, dealing 90+ damage on a boss who took only half damage from my attacks felt pretty damn good, and is especially true when basically every iterative attack I rolled there was a 2.

Also note that Larger creatures will have more durable weapons, and a significantly higher CMD/CMB; it will require more hit points to damage/break them (and they might typically have more hardness). Magical Items also have increased Hardness based on their Enhancement Bonuses.

James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

bonus to attack and damage rolls

"1" in a damage dice entry simplified

Whether or not anything is actually rolled, it is a damage roll.

So I'd add anything that adds to damage rolls whether or not the 1 is processed as static "1" or "1d1".

That's the point of a Damage Roll, is to roll dice. Otherwise we should just call it Damage. A Damage Roll involves Damage Dice. A "1" in the entry does not denote the Damage Dice involved, so suggesting it to be a Damage Roll is stretching the RAW beyond what it's written to apply.

Corlindale wrote:

I've never seen damage listed as a flat number. Where did you come across it?

Take a look at the raven. Yes, it will always deal 1 damage, but its damage is still listed as 1d3-4, and is therefore still a roll and benefits from bonuses to rolls.

The same should apply to your example character, I think.

Outside Jeraa's statement, there is also this FAQ, which shows a simple "1" on the damage progression chart. The problem here is that RAW, it's not a damage dice listing, and ergo doesn't constitute damage bonuses being applicable.

@ Casual Viking: Do you have a page number for that?

So, here's a little "obscure" rules issue I managed to come across.

Let's assume a Tiny( or similar)-sized creature who receives benefits to damage dice rolls, such as Enhancement Bonuses, Weapon Specialization, Inspire Courage, etc. Even Strength, Dexterity, or any attribute modifier to damage would apply here. All of these effects provide a bonus to attack and damage rolls.

Now, our Tiny-sized martial creature (let's presume it's the Songbird of Doom, as that's probably the most likely case here) uses a Natural Weapon to attack (as they generally have lower damage dice; Unarmed Strike is also appropriate here). However, because of its size, it can only ever do 1 damage (because that's what the effective size damage becomes, and is what would be listed in the damage entry).

So, if our Tiny-sized martial doesn't roll for damage (he just automatically deals 1), does that mean he's not doing a damage roll, and therefore doesn't receive benefits such as Weapon Specialization, Enhancement Bonuses, or Inspire Courage to his damage?

Essentially, is a "1" in a damage dice entry simplified, and is shorthand for "1D1" (because it's repetitive and somewhat pointless to say it as such), or are those who are Tiny or smaller never able to do more than 1 damage and be the most pathetic things to fight ever?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
graystone wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
LazarX wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Shield is in all ways, a weapon.

A mindblade however, is ONLY a weapon. no matter what form you want to make it, you can only get what the power mechanics say you can get.

A Meteor Hammer is only a weapon. Yet a Meteor Hammer gives a +1 Shield bonus to AC when wielded in Fortress Mode.

Why wouldn't a shield likewise give a shield bonus to AC when it is wielded as a weapon, assuming you have the feat that allows you to do so?

Or a Scizore. You just put it on and you've got a +1 shield bonus to AC.
Because again, you have supplementary mechanics giving you more than what the base mechanics does. Show me the same supplementary mechanics for mindblade and you're solid.

Why? There's nothing in the Mindblade section that says you use only a weapon's basic functions, such as damage type, weight, critical multiplier, damage dice, etc., or that shields (and similar weaponry) are not applicable choices for the Mindblade ability. So why should we treat it any different from any other weapon? Because it comes from an ability? That's not a legitimate rules reason to dismiss the effects of an ability, nor is it a sense of RAI.

Shadow Weapons must not be able to produce shields either, or Instant Weapon.

Even so, it's a +1 (or +2) Shield AC weapon that deals fairly weak damage dice, has a garbage critical multiplier, and it's not getting much higher/better than that. It's not like they can conjure up a Tower Shield with this; it's not defined in the Weapons table, or in the Fighter Weapon's Group, so it's not an applicable per RAW.

If you want to have a more dubious discussion, I'd rather propose if Mindblades can create Natural Weapons out of Psychic Energy, such as Horns for a Gore Attack, or Teeth for a Bite Attack (since all Natural Weapons are Light Weapons, they too would technically be applicable).

Bloodrealm wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

Eh, crit range is over-rated in most situations. Yes, you do more DPR with better crits, but feats and traits can make up the difference.

If you were to take a shield, You would likely take the shield bearer trait for +1 damage, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Slam, and would two-hand the shield for 1.5 STR and 1:3 power attack.

You wouldn't really benefit from Shield Master with this, as your built in pool bonus is better than the shield bonus from a heavy shield. Still, it gives you more AC than normal for a Magus, and some great control options with an Enforcer Shield Slam Rimed Frostbite.

Alternatively, you could TWF with two light shields, get Improved Critical for them and get Bashing Finish and laugh at the sheer number of attacks. Hammer the Gap would not be out of place there, either. Also, while not statistically plausible, I believe it might be technically possible to have infinite attacks using Bashing Finish.

Infinite? No. Unless you're using cheating dice, or the GM isn't a sane person, you're not getting more than twice your standard allotment of attacks, tops.

But more than usual? Certainly.

DonKalleOne wrote:


I want to enchance my Fullplate +1 with the Champoin Enchancment.
Does it cost 1000g extra since it states +1?

As CampinCarl9127 says, if an armor already is a +1, adding a +1 property does not mean you pay the cost of a +1 armor. What you do, is you add the numerical enhancement bonus of the armor (+1) with the special ability enhancement bonus you want to apply (+1), and it becomes an armor with that high of an effective bonus.

The armor table here will tell you the price of the respective enhancement modified bonus your armor becomes. Since Champion is a +1 property, and you already have a +1 bonus, it becomes an effective +2 armor.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to spend 4,000 gold to make it an effective +2, that's not what I'm saying. Here's an in-book example involving weapons (which function much the same as armor, but cost twice as much to enhance):

Adding New Abilities wrote:
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.

So, let's take that bolded part and extrapolate it with your armor.

Adding New Abilities wrote:
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 full plate can be made into a +1 champion full plate, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +1 champion full plate minus the cost of a +1 full plate.

This tells us that for you to transform your +1 Full Plate into a +1 Champion Full Plate, you take the price of a +1 Champion Full Plate (5,650) minus [-] the price of a +1 Full Plate (2,650). Simple math says 5,650 - 2,650 = 3,000 gold for you to make this adjustment.

**EDIT** Miscalculated Masterwork costs. Fixed that.

BjørnEarakson wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Depending upon your group/GM - you might be able to get a +5 inherent at 11-12 pretty soon (starting at 11 as it's a level 6 spell) if you have a caster in your group who's willing to pull the Efreeti wish trick.
What is the Efreeti which trick?

If you tried to pull off the Efreeti trick, the GM will throw a bunch of extremely difficult stuff to kill you, or just say "Okay, Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies, Efreetis are banned from my table, now let's start again."

That is, if he is a sane GM, he would do that. If not, then you could try it and see what happens.

One thing you might try to do (and this is a big gamble), is to play around with the factor of dying and coming back to life. This is primarily revolved around the Reincarnate spell, which can potentially boost your physical stats a large amount. Primarily, the Bugbear will be your best bet, since it gives you a +4 to Strength, and a +2 to the other 2 physical stats (though you will forgo any physical racial bonuses you would otherwise have).

So wait, you read what was posted here, and the relevant feat description, which I cited to you again, was posted here before I reiterated it...that's confusing and contradicting, but that's beside the point:

You can disagree with it because you don't like it, and that's fine. In fact, I never cared if anyone liked it or not, because people can have their opinions about certain things, and I agreed with several of those opinions.

But it's not acceptable to deem what you don't like as not an official rule; it might fly in a home game, where you can houserule things, but when you're giving actual answers to how a rule is supposed to work, as designed/intended by the developers, you use the official rule, and is doubly true for when players ask for advice in PFS, end of story. Opinions aren't as respected in Rules As Worded, especially when it's quite clear, both RAW and RAI, that, for example, the floor of a box (which is essentially "the room") contains a product (creatures, environmental factors, etc.) just as much as the side (wall) of the box.

@ Melkiador: "Move Back" isn't explicitly defined in the rules regarding movement via Bull Rush or similar abilities; it's actually not stated to be a direct move-back, yet every single GM that I know that runs it plays it as such. (It was actually played that way in a couple PFS Scenarios that I saw during Gencon, so it's quite clear that's the RAI of it, at least in PFS, which adheres to the RAW quite literally.) But given how it works on a flat surface (that is, characters on equal ground), it's unreasonable to determine that it can't work the same way just because we add the third dimension, and the angles of which we attack.

alexd1976 wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Anvil Mithrashield wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

If the rules don't say he goes prone, why would he?

Logic has no place in a game like this :P

Alexd1976, if a character bull rushes a monster into a wall, isn't the monster knocked prone?

specifically, take: dwarf bull rushes goblin into wall is goblin knocked prone?

If a dragon disciple bull rushes while flying straight down on your head, doesn't the ground act like a wall, and therefore, aren't you knocked prone?

Actually no. Bullrush does not cause people to go prone. Only shield slam actually causes people to go prone, because the feat specifically says it does.

Do not apply real life events to the game, it doesn't work. By the game rules, falling objects do not cause creatures to fall prone regardless of whether or not they are pianos or dragons. If you want to apply real life, dragons don't exist and neither do magically flying humans. You can't pick and choose when to apply the real life metric to the game because it's convenient to you. Simply follow the rules.


If your GM wants to account for flight, and treat the ground as a wall, he can do that.

A wall isn't the floor, and the floor isn't a wall. So RAW, no going prone.

Would I rule this way? Probably.

They shouldn't go prone because normally you are knocking them off balance from the side, whereas coming down on them, it's just applying force directly onto their head... so it's easier to stay up.

Shield Slam wrote:
Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance.

I like purposefully ignoring the feat's wording when it's convenient for making my point. It makes my argument seem infallible and completely arbitrary.


Walls and Floors don't have to be equal except for it being a surface. A surface is a surface is a surface; although this does involve table variation, if a table varies on whether floors and walls are similar sorts of surfaces, well...if you're going to argue that the floor isn't a surface, then quite frankly every PC would be falling or flying, and therefore whenever a PC moves at all, they must use Flying rules.

Except they don't. It also makes a lot of the combat section regarding movement irrelevant so if you think scrapping a fair amount of the book just to deny a player his feat's ability, the way that feat is supposed to work, then I really wonder what kind of game you're playing (Munchkin works that way. Pathfinder, not so much).

Stating the use of Aid Another as a Skill doesn't change how it operates in the Combat Section; if you were to use it to improve a Skill Check (i.e. Knowledges, Survival/Heal, etc.), you'd have to target an enemy (allies aren't eligible targets), be able to make an attack on said enemy, and that enemy must be in melee combat with a friend.

This makes using Aid Another outside of Combat impossible, because there are no (feasible) enemies. I mean, you could play the "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball" route, but that can't apply to every single situation. Plus, a lot of GMs would rule that you attacked a PC in order to Aid Another, it starts uncalled-for inter-party fights, and quite frankly it just collapses on itself. By that point, GM says "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies, and Aid Another is a stupid, nonsensible rule, so I'm disallowing it." I also can't even imagine how many PFS GMs are running the rules incorrectly: Better bring it to the PFS Coordinator's attention so that he can tell all the GMs they've been doing it wrong. /sarcasm

If I can't critically hit Special Attacks, then I can't Critically Hit on Charges, Combat Maneuvers that deal damage (such as Sunder), or Two-Weapon Fighting. I imagine there is more, such as attacks that are granted via abilities, spells, etc., but you get the point here.

I didn't realize a Bull Rush effect, which specifically mentions creatures are prone if they are effectively moved past an immovable surface, and a falling object, are the same thing.

So, Pot, meet Kettle. Falling Objects don't perform a Bull Rush, and that is the mechanical reason why they don't. Even if they did, they wouldn't actually deal any damage as per the Bull Rush rules. Realistically speaking, it makes no sense, but them's the breaks.

And honestly, it's not that strong at all to allow somebody to be able to knock an enemy Prone from an airborne attack. Nobody that I've seen, both in-game, and on the forums, has created a Bull Rush build that is actually effective across levels of play. It's a low-level drastic measure tactic, tops if used standardly. Used this way, it's actually nice to have.

You could accomplish this all the same with a Flying Trip build, but a lot of creatures are immune to that (and of course, the same goes for Bull Rush). Even if you did try it, then you aren't dealing damage on top of it unlike this build.

Claxon wrote:

System doesn't have this level of resolution, it's left up to the GM.

My answer would be no. There are no angles of attack or anything like that in the game. You are simply in a square, and the creature moves the opposite direction away from you if there is available space to be moved. Shield Slam specifically stipulates that if he hits an object that he falls prone. However, the game was not designed with flying creature in mind to fly above and try to Shield Slam their opponents from above (which is basically what you're doing). It would be unwise to rule that this just automatically results in the character being made prone, and I can see it being rife for abuse.

Instead, I would simply rule that the character was forced along the ground away from you. If you were directly above he would move in a random direction.

The argument here would be that it is the opposite direction in relation to the character performing the maneuver; if the PC was 45 degrees from the enemy (AKA, adjacent while 5 feet in the air), the opposite direction of going airborne would be to be 5 feet in the ground. It makes no sense to apply it to one set of rules and not the other, especially when it's quite obvious what the intent is supposed to be.

Shield Slam wrote:
Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance. You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn.

That being said, pushing at 45 degree angles will result in awkward movement. If a creature is flying 5 feet high and otherwise adjacent to a medium-sized ground enemy, the creature will have to succeed by an additional 10 to actually push the creature back two squares.

Even so, I think it's good for Bull Rush to get used in this manner, as it gives a nice Martial option.

I wouldn't say that it's "explicitly called an attack." It involves an attack roll, sure, but attack rolls don't always equate to being attacks. After all, there is a reason why Enhancement Bonuses are applied to Attack Rolls, and not just Attacks. If the terms were to be synonymous in terms of intent, application, and justification for other effects, abilities, etc. why use different wording from that is otherwise the same game term?

I did pose some conditions that would make me unequivocally concede my point. IF, Aid Another breaks Invisibility because the bearer is considered attacking when increasing AC, a Skill Check, etc., then Aid Another, no matter how you manage it, is an attack, and I'll concede it.

My argument for chase scenarios and Aiding Skills during Combat still stand, since that too covers what you would do in regards to Skill Checks, and in fact, is doubly restricted at the most, since you still have to follow the Combat rules regarding Aid Another (which is to make attacks on an enemy who is in Melee Combat with an ally).

I'm sorry that I didn't make this part clear, but when I said "the developer of the Bodyguard feat himself, says all of this," I was including his "RAW, Bodyguard still follows standard Aid Another procedures" statements.

Intent is very much relevant to determining the rules, especially when it comes to a Dev explaining what the feat is designed to do when it's unclear as to whether it is (or is not) supposed to work that way. Although I understand that it's black-and-white in this case, not every feat or rules section is as laid out as Bodyguard, and having intent (which FAQs help explain) is very damn important.

And with that being said, I've seen intents of Devs regarding feats become overruled by Buhlman's FAQ/Erratas, and I know the track record of Martial options going more downhill than a 90 degree angle, so I would not be surprised that if a Bodyguard FAQ/Errata were to be released, it would once again shaft Martials and their available options.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nardoz Zardoz wrote:

It is easier to boost a constitution score than to boost an intelligence score. Lots of spells boost con: Elemental Body IV (Water Elemental +8 size con), Heart of the Mammoth (+8 enh to con), Vengeful Outrage (+6 morale).

Not all of these were on the witch spell list of course.

Even with this potential con boosting scheme, many of these are short duration spells and very high level.

Still, the new class SWD is more powerful. Shame they changed the class.

Boosting Con might have made them more durable, and their spells/hexes more powerful, but that's all it did.

This is no different than Barbarians making use of the Courageous property when they were Raging in combat; it was a fairly nice, unique boost that helped. Now it and the SWD stinks more than moldy rotten eggs covered in diseased chicken and beef.

Adaff wrote:

I have a fellow gamer who feels that there is no reason for him to require 8 hours of sleep to re-prepare his spells. He feels that only the hour of prepping is required.

I am 100% certain not sleeping does not allow you to break this magus rule, but I can't find a particular ruling. Is there some erata that makes this clear?

Remember that rest and sleep aren't the same thing. By that logic, laying down, sitting, kneeling, etc. is sleeping, and that's obviously not the case.

One could easily flavor the Android's casting ability as drawing from his battery supply/internal reservoir, and that he would need to recharge himself (AKA power down for his internal alternators/generators to resupply his energy storage systems) in order to recast his spells.

Dallium wrote:

Aid Another IRT skills is not the same ability as the (Special) Attack Aid Another. They are different concepts that have the same name. You can tell, because they don't use the same language, or function the same way, or have the same action economy, and they're in totally different parts of the book. They don't reference each other. They are unrelated.

You (and you aren't the only one) also seems confused about how Bodyguard works in isolation. So Bodyguard lets you use Aid Another off turn when specific conditions are met. Nowhere does Bodyguard contain language that abrogates the conditions required by Aid Another. You still have to obey all rules of Aid Another. You still must threaten the enemy who triggers the feat, because the rules of the attack say you have to. If Bodyguard triggers, and the Bodyguard doesn't threaten the triggering enemy, nothing happens. No AoO is expended, because the Bodyguard doesn't threaten, and so can't attack, and so can't use Aid Another.

Funny you say that, since Aid Another in the Combat section does mention aiding skill checks and spells in the same section that involves AC and to-hit. I actually directly linked that from the PRD up the page, so saying they are unrelated is a minor stretch, and one would argue that in combat situations (chase scenarios, anyone?), you have to be able to hit an enemy in order to use Aid Another at all.

I already know how Bodyguard works in isolation. I already know that RAW, Bodyguard doesn't actually circumvent the standard rules set for Aid Another. I already know that RAW, the conditions are that you are in a position to make an attack on an enemy who is in melee combat with an ally (i.e. you don't actually have to be adjacent to your ally to Aid Another normally). I already know that Bodyguard requires you to be adjacent to utilize the feat. I already know that if the conditions aren't met, then Aid Another (and therefore the feat) can't be used. I already know all of this.

What you don't know, is the RAI regarding the feat. Bodyguard is supposed to circumvent these restrictions, and unfortunately, doesn't actually say that. The developer of the Bodyguard feat himself, says all of this. It's also been FAQ'd to hell, given how many posts and threads have been made to provide an answer, and there still isn't a FAQ for it.

Quite frankly, if it was FAQ'd, I can guarantee you that Bodyguard will be nerfed to uselessness just like every other Martial option in Pathfinder, and its relevant feats (In Harm's Way, Combat Reflexes, etc.) will indirectly follow suit.

Except that is the contention as to why we're disagreeing; we don't agree upon what constitutes whether something is an attack or not, and the book doesn't explicitly define what an attack actually is.

Though I just came up with something to test that: Invisibility.

Invisibility wrote:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

If Aid Another breaks Invisibility, then it's an attack. If not, then it's not really an attack. If you can prove to me that Aid Another breaks Invisibility, then I won't question or argue this point any further.

Adding on to the other points though, if the conception that using Aid Another to distract/interfere with opponents is what constitutes Aid Another being an attack, then you would have to concede that Aid Another can or cannot be an attack, depending on how it's used. You even said it yourself that taking an action to help defend against an attack isn't (always) an attack, and that's precisely what Bodyguard is used for, and is especially true, when Bodyguard does not require you being able to attack the enemy who attacked your adjacent ally, whereas standard Aid Another procedures do.

That being said, I don't think you could argue against yourself, stating that Aid Another, in certain instances, is an attack. By your silly RAW argument, I'm attacking my allies when I'm using Aid Another to aid for Skill Checks or Saving Throws, for example, and that's because Aid Another, no matter how you use it, falls under being an attack; hell, by extremely strict RAW, I couldn't aid Skill Checks or Saving Throws on Spells unless I'm able to make an attack against an enemy who's able to attack my friend. The same applies for Bodyguard. And all of that's obviously not intended.

I could picture those scenario right now:

"Hey, why the hell are you swinging my sword at me?"

"I'm trying to make you better at avoiding attacks when you're moving by actually attacking you, duh!"

I suppose all Aid Anothers fall under the premise of "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball"?

So, following the RAW to the T, Bodyguard falls upon itself and can't get up to work ever, and Aid Another is about as clunky as a rusted robot trying to be a knight. Thank the gods we have RAI, otherwise this game could never function correctly unless it was written by some crazy lawyer gamer.

And yet Aid Another behaves nothing like any other attack listed in the book. Even if that's what makes it special, it extremely lacks in the qualities needed to fulfill the textbook definition of an attack; it might as well be its own little section.

That's what we're contending here: What features should a subject emulate for it to be considered an attack (and therefore valid to use as exchange for an Attack of Opportunity)? We can sit here and say "It's Toe-May-Toe," "No, it's Toe-Mah-Toe" until we're blue in the face, but it won't accomplish anything unless we refer to the actual descriptions of the subjects in question.

So let's review them, shall we?

Aid Another:

Aid Another wrote:

In melee combat, you can help a friend attack or defend by distracting or interfering with an opponent. If you're in position to make a melee attack on an opponent that is engaging a friend in melee combat, you can attempt to aid your friend as a standard action. You make an attack roll against AC 10. If you succeed, your friend gains either a +2 bonus on his next attack roll against that opponent or a +2 bonus to AC against that opponent's next attack (your choice), as long as that attack comes before the beginning of your next turn. Multiple characters can aid the same friend, and similar bonuses stack.

You can also use this standard action to help a friend in other ways, such as when he is affected by a spell, or to assist another character's skill check.

I don't think an action that helps an ally make an attack (or defend against one) constitutes as actually being an attack. Considering this is also used for skill checks, saving throws, etc. This affects too many different things for this to be an attack.

I also don't see any specific text in this description that calls this out as being an attack. So unless we're just using the "Headers make the decisions for us" argument, there's nothing here that a Society GM would tell you is applicable for an Attack of Opportunity. And even the above argument wouldn't hold water for said Society GM.


Charge wrote:

Charging is a special full-round action that [/b]allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.[/b]

Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.

If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.

You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.

Attacking on a Charge: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

A charging character gets a +2 bonus on combat maneuver attack rolls made to bull rush an opponent.

Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.

Weapons Readied against a Charge: Spears, tridents, and other weapons with the brace feature deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character.

That's a lot of added rules and restrictions for something that's apparently just an attack. It's also movement (albeit restricted), applies circumstantial modifiers, and other things that attacks otherwise aren't supposed to have or deal with.

I also highly doubt it's safe to assume that just because it contains an attack, or even elements of an attack, that it's an attack. There have been many cases where these assumptions were made, and these were, in fact, wrong. This case isn't any different.

You have a lot of stuff wrong with the Maneuvers as well. Firstly, regarding Bull Rush, Attack Action is a Standard Action. So a feat that's supposed to reduce the action required, without actually reducing the action required makes no sense, and wastes text.

Here's what the text actually says:

Quick Bull Rush wrote:
On your turn, you can perform a single bull rush combat maneuver in place of one of your melee attacks. You must choose the melee attack with the highest base attack bonus to make the bull rush.

So, instead of my highest BAB attack, I make the Bull Rush at my highest BAB, and then follow the rest of my Iteratives as if they were normal attacks. Makes much more sense. Additionally, since it must be on my turn, I couldn't possibly Bull Rush outside my turn, unless I'm cheating.

Here's the Shield Slam text:

Shield Slam wrote:
Any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

So, instead of making a separate roll to confirm the Bull Rush, the Attack Roll applies to both the AC and CMD of the creature, for the Attack and Bull Rush, respectively. There is no Free Actions to take here. Not even Bull Rush Strike has those rules.

Grappling is also incorrect. Here's the Greater Grapple text:

Greater Grapple wrote:

You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to grapple a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Grapple. Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.

Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action.

This feat proves that initiating and maintaining a Grapple are two separate things, and that you cannot take the Move Action option until the creature in question is actually Grappled. So, this means you must spend a Standard Action to initiate the Grapple first, though if you do succeed, you can Maintain the Grapple as a Move Action in the same round (meaning you could Pin someone within a single round). But you can't spend Move Actions to Initiate the Grapple if, for example, you're Nauseated, or under similar restrictions.

Rapid Grappler wrote:
Whenever you use Greater Grapple to successfully maintain a grapple as a move action, you can then spend a swift action to make a grapple combat maneuver check.

In order to use this, you must succeed as maintaining a Grapple as a Move Action. Doing so as a Standard Action would not constitute this, but yes, you could technically tie someone up in the same round if you had this feat chain.

Hamatula Strike gets the green card, since it functions effectively no different from the Grab monster ability, but it only triggers on a successful hit; in other words, only as part of an attack. The grapple itself cannot be done as its own separate activity.

moafnsteel wrote:
Okay so I have a gestalt character that I am working on and in his backstory he stole a magical weapon from the academy before he went AWOL. He is an Unchained Rogue/Fighter build who is going TWF and DEX based. The premise that I am building off of is that the magical/artifact weapon is strong against magic users. In the story that I originally wrote that character in the dagger would disenchant/disable magical wards and protective spells (they worked differently in my world). This weapon is meant to be powerful so level that a character would get this does not matter. Also assume the GM says yes to anything, except that it cannot be third party. I am still not sure what weapon I am going to use, I just want it to be finessable.

Deciding what weapon of choice you're after is a whole separate issue apart from what the Artifact should be able to do as far as abilities are concerned.

That being said, starting with the weapon of choice, if you decide it should be a two-handed weapon, your choices are Spiked Chain or Elven Curved Blade. Both are finnessable two-handed weapons. However, both are Exotic, and the Elven Curved Blade can be treated Martial with a pure Elf race. So your options are to either spend a feat, or pick a race/class combination that allows you to essentially wield it for free. Getting 1.5x Dexterity modifier to damage rolls is something that's really nice for damage, and almost impossible to emulate in any other way.

If you're really fixated on it being a one-handed/light weapon, you could choose a Rapier, an Aldori Dueling Sword (Exotic), Shortsword, Wakizashi (Exotic), Gladius, or Kukri. These all have their benefits, and compared to each other, have their drawbacks as well. If you're going for the strongest, the Rapier is overall the best, as far as base stats are concerned, and that's because an 18-20 multiplier is easily one of the best there is for a Rogue. If you have access to an Effortless Lace, your weapon options magnify many times over, and functions with Slashing Grace (which did get errata'd to oblivion recently).

So, for optimization's sake, let's assume it's a Rapier. Here's an idea of what I had in mind for such an Artifact:


Nihil, Foil of Disjunction

This thin sabre seems plain as any other, but in the presence of bright or stronger sources of light, sheens a pure white. It is also unusually stable for its craft, and has an apparent aura of nothingness.

Nihil [pronounced Nih-hill], the Foil of Disjunction, is a +5 Mithril Impervious Called Dueling Ghost Touch Limning Fortuitous Distracting Rapier, and was forged by the Duergar in the darkest obscure cavern for their hatred of the Drow and their magic, instilling some of their very resistant essence into the blade. Although commissioned by a land-dwelling King, whose land was overthrown by Drow, there is no doubt of it being an absolute Dwarven-forged masterpiece, given to this very King as a blessing for his quest to overthrow the Drow.

Nihil was designed to combat the Drow and their powerful masteries of the Divine and the Arcane, and as such, attempts its best to negate all forms of magic and magic-like effects thrown at the wielder (though the Wielder may still apply magical effects to himself). This provides the wielder with Spell Resistance equal to 12 + the wielder's hit dice.

Additionally, when Nihil strikes an enemy who possesses Spells or Spell-Like Abilities, he may remove a random Spell Slot, or daily usage of a level of Spells per Day, or Spell-Like Abilities that the enemy currently possesses (wielder's choice). To determine the level of Spell Slot and Spell per Day that is affected, roll 1D10-1. (An effective roll of 0 removes one Cantrip from the bearer's spells known). If the result is higher level than what the enemy currently possesses, he loses a Spell Slot or Spell per Day equal to their highest they could currently cast. If there are no current spell slots/spells per day left on the spell level rolled, they affect the next lowest spells they could cast.

Furthermore, the wielder may infuse Nihil with the ability to negate phenomenon upon striking a foe. Once per day, upon successfully hitting a foe who possesses Spells or Spell-Like Abilities, the creature is treated as if under the effects of an Anti-Magic Field (though effects from outside sources function and affect the enemy normally). Creatures receive a Fortitude Saving Throw whose DC is equal to 10 + the wielder's Base Attack Bonus + half the wielder's character level. A successful save negates this effect.

Lastly, Once per week, while pursuing its dedicated purpose, the wielder may throw Nihil with the unerring accuracy and range of a Magic Missile at any creature that qualifies for its dedicated purpose (as well as any object which such a creature currently possesses) as a Standard Action, piercing through the intended target. This creates a phantasmal rupture, the foil turning a very dark red, emulating the blood of the Duergar, causing a Mage's Disjunction, whose effects are determined by the wielder at the time of throwing the weapon. Creatures and items affected (except Nihil and its previous wielder) receive a Fortitude Saving Throw whose DC is equal to 10 + the wielder's Base Attack Bonus + half the wielder's character level. A creature who fails this saving throw suffers the effects of the Mage's Disjunction spell. A successful saving throw negates the effects of the Mage's Disjunction.


Alignment Chaotic Neutral; Ego 39
Senses Empathy, Speech, Telepathy, Senses (120 ft.), Detect Special Purpose Foes (60 ft.), Darkvision, Blindsense, Read Languages, Read Magic
Special Purpose Defeat/Slay Arcane and Divine Spellcasters
Int 20, Wis 20, Cha 20
Languages Common, +5 Additional


Lesser Powers
Dispel Magic - 3/day, Magic Aura - at will

Dedicated Powers
Detect Special Purpose Foes (60 ft.), +2 Insight Bonus on Attack Rolls and Saving Throws versus Special Purpose Foes, and on Skill Checks involving Special Purpose Foes.


This blade was forged with the boiling hatred for Drow and their magic, and the same burning flame that harbored its thirst is the very same one that will quench it. If thrown into a very large pool of Noble Drow blood (20'x20'x20' minimum) with an Anti-Magic Field surrounding it, the Duergar essence within the foil boils from the sabre, and instead of being destroyed, becomes a non-magical Mithril Rapier.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Yes, Tripping is an attack. Aid Another is an attack, both are listed under the rules as attacks

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You can make a Trip maneuver in exchange of one of your attacks, but that does not in itself make Trip an attack

Maybe not, but what does make it an attack is that the Core Rulebook says it's an attack.

What makes Aid Another an Attack is that the Core Rulebook says it's an attack.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
By that logic,

It's not logic. It's the rules.

I guess you could call it logic. The logic goes something like this:

Is Aid Another an Attack?

The rules say it's an attack.

Therefore, Aid Another is an Attack.

That hardly rates as logic, though.

Core Rulebook, Combat section wrote:

Special Attacks...

Aid Another...
Combat Maneuvers...

I have evidence, and you don't.

What you need to do is

1. outweigh my evidence with evidence with your own, perhaps also demonstrate that my evidence somehow fails to make my point, in this case that Aid Another is an Attack.

2. Concede this point and move on to things you seem to want to debate more, such as the consequences for the game of interpreting Bodyguard one way or another.

3. Move on to such topics without conceding those points.

4. Or of course, hold your peace altogether.

Honestly, I think you were making some interesting points about gaming consequences, and I would like to get to those.

Right now, you are saying a bunch of insightful stuff that while is not false, is not to the point of whether Aid Another is an Attack in the face of the fact that the rules just say so.

They're listed under the rules as Special Attacks. Special Attacks and Attacks are not the same thing, and here you are, characterizing them as if they were. Not the rules, you are. The rules don't characterize them as being the same thing, because if they were, they would be under the same subsection. They're not. So how are you getting that they're attacks, when A. they don't specifically say that they are attacks (Death Effects, anyone?), and B. they're not listed as, or fall under being the same thing as attacks?

The rules sure as hell won't allow me to Charge on an Attack of Opportunity, yet according to you, I can take an option that is normally a Full-Round Action, for free, if an enemy provokes. No sane GM, both homebrew and PFS, would allow that, but according to you, I can do that.

1 to 50 of 3,099 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.