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

4,425 posts (4,429 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,425 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Chess Pwn wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Amrel wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

I'm not sure how the RAW should be read, but it does seem to make the item significantly better than it was intended to be.

I don't know if I agree, its true that AAT didn't exist when the item was created, so I guess by definition it makes it better than it was initially intended, but I don't see any AAT options that drastically change the players abilities if you got it earlier.

Weirdo wrote:


If a 7th level fighter with Armour Specialization wears a Sash of the War Champion, he gets +1 AC for treating his fighter level as 11.

If he also gets to pick a new AAT as an 11th level fighter would, he can also take Armoured Juggernaut and get 1-3 points of DR/- depending on type of armour worn.

Bravery also increases from +2 to +3, which could mean an extra +1 to all will saves if the character has AWT (armed bravery).

+1 AC, DR 3/- in full plate, and +1 will saves is a really good deal for 4k at level 7.

Its true that he can get those things, but you're blowing it out a little bit. If the answer to the above question is yes, then the player gets one extra thing. You're either getting +1 AC, OR DR 3/-, OR +1 to will saves as an extra AAT with the sash. You can have all three, but you don't get them from the sash
Even if it's "not OP" (which is debatable), I highly doubt it was intended to work that way. It's designed to improve what you already have, not what you currently possess.
So that means it doesn't give you full move speed in heavy armor right? Since that's not increasing what you already possess but not give you stuff you don't. Is this what you're saying?

Yeah, I noticed that I worded that incorrectly. I'm just lazy to change it. (Plus, I can't now.)

What I meant to say is that it makes your existing abilities better and doesn't give you any extra abilities; case in point, 7th level Inquisitor with a Bane Baldric doesn't get Greater Bane (even though they're basically the same damn thing, except one is just a slight improvement over the existing feature, and otherwise uses the same exact mechanics and restrictions).

Things like Arcane Heritage Robes do give you extra abilities because they specifically state that you get new abilities as if you were 4 levels higher (and your level is increased when determining the effects of your new and existing abilities).

By a strict RAW reading, the Sash actually doesn't do anything, because Armor Training is technically separated into different "tiers" (I, II, III, and IV), which would make them their own class feature in and of itself. That being said, I'd say it was intended for the Sash to let a 3rd level Vanilla Fighter get all of the standard benefits of Armor Training II, because that's how the item was intended to function according to its design.

Back then, there was no Advanced Armor Training, so there never was any of these "what-if" questions or consequences that came to light, because either A. Fighters were too horrible to play except for those low-power campaigns (and therefore the item was never found, crafted, or purchased), or B. Tables which involved a fighter knew all of the benefits and restrictions of the item in question, so a thread discussing its function was never needed.

I'd like to think both answers apply here.


master_marshmallow wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Amrel wrote:
But RAW encompasses all rules that currently exist and only considers chronological order when determining precedence.

We agree.

The thing is there is no RAW on this, you are making an interpretation what the rules mean to get your interpretation since there is no RAW.

RAW we have an example of another item which grants access to other class features earlier than expected.

It's function is identical to the Robes of Arcane Heritage because it has been clarified that Armor Training x, and Armor Training (x+1) are considered separate class features.

It improves the accessibility of a certain class feature, and that's because it specifically mentions that it improves accessibility.

The Sash makes no such clear distinction, and because the Sash was written well before Armor Training was introduced, it's safe to say that the Sash was never written with the assumption that it would let you choose an Advanced Armor Training option, so saying that the assumption is true because of splatbook content (which is equally as vague) is quite an absurd claim, even if it may very well be a possibility.


That's exactly the sort of cheese that Paragon Surge was used for, and look what happened to it; it was fixed to grant a specific set of benefits on the first time of casting it. Recasting or refreshing it doesn't let you change the benefits anymore, because it was never intended to give you a flexible feat to be used however you wanted.

There's table variation, no doubt about it, but I can assure you that when it gets brought to the devs, they're going to say it won't work, because the Sash was never intended to grant you an extra ability, only improve what abilities you currently possess, and there are several other items that have similar wording, Bane Baldric being the biggest culprit.


master_marshmallow wrote:
By this same logic, a sorcerer with the Robes cannot access the Bloodline Mutations that are accessible in place of certain bloodline powers yes?

The robes say:

Robe of Arcane Heritage wrote:
The wearer treats her sorcerer level as 4 higher than normal for the purpose of determining what bloodline powers she can use and their effects.

Bloodline Mutations aren't Bloodline Powers, and requires that you substitute the relevant bloodline power in order to take them, so yes, they can't. Just like how Advanced Armor Training isn't Armor Training, and requires that you substitute the relevant Armor Training bonus in order to take them.

You would gain the base benefit of the original feature, not any substitutions or additives of that feature unless it specifically says so, or you already have the effects of a given substitution or additive (i.e. archetype).


Amrel wrote:
Weirdo wrote:

I'm not sure how the RAW should be read, but it does seem to make the item significantly better than it was intended to be.

I don't know if I agree, its true that AAT didn't exist when the item was created, so I guess by definition it makes it better than it was initially intended, but I don't see any AAT options that drastically change the players abilities if you got it earlier.

Weirdo wrote:


If a 7th level fighter with Armour Specialization wears a Sash of the War Champion, he gets +1 AC for treating his fighter level as 11.

If he also gets to pick a new AAT as an 11th level fighter would, he can also take Armoured Juggernaut and get 1-3 points of DR/- depending on type of armour worn.

Bravery also increases from +2 to +3, which could mean an extra +1 to all will saves if the character has AWT (armed bravery).

+1 AC, DR 3/- in full plate, and +1 will saves is a really good deal for 4k at level 7.

Its true that he can get those things, but you're blowing it out a little bit. If the answer to the above question is yes, then the player gets one extra thing. You're either getting +1 AC, OR DR 3/-, OR +1 to will saves as an extra AAT with the sash. You can have all three, but you don't get them from the sash

Even if it's "not OP" (which is debatable), I highly doubt it was intended to work that way. It's designed to improve what you already have, not what you currently possess.

After all, I highly doubt a 7th level Inquisitor with a Bane Baldric:

Bane Baldric wrote:
If the wearer is an inquisitor, she is treated as five levels higher when using her bane and greater bane abilities.

Can, all of a sudden, gain the benefits of Greater Bane. He's counted as 5 levels higher when using those abilities, but at 7th level, he's not using Greater Bane, meaning his effective increase to 12th level doesn't automatically grant him Greater Bane.


Here's my third rough draft. Gonna ditch the Dual Talent benefit for the feat and skill point.

Level scheme is switched back to UCRogue 1 -> UCMonk 1 -> UCRogue 2 -> UCMonk 1 -> Alchemist 1 -> UCRogue 14. Archetypes will include Sanctified for the UCRogue, Mantis Master for the UCMonk, and Vivisectionist for the Alchemist.

Also, since I plan for this character to be used in a (coherent and tactically sound) party, it would make sense to rely on a flank buddy of some sort. Outflank becomes a valuable feat for party-members to take, because +4 to hit (and triggering AoOs for others on a critical) is pretty nice, no matter how you slice it. Otherwise, it looks like some mad Stealth is required to make use of good Sneak Attacks, because the odds of running into enemies that aren't immune to Fear (as demoralizing enemies is required in order to make them flat-footed) is pretty slim. In addition, I will not have the Charisma or the Strength to pull off Intimidate checks, even with ranks, so the odds of making that work is pretty slim.

Attributes

Strength 8 (Who needs carrying capacity? I don't.)
Dexterity 20 (18 + 2)
Constitution 12
Intelligence 12
Wisdom 14
Charisma 7

Traits

Reactionary
Indomitable Faith

Feats

1. Weapon Finesse, Two-Weapon Fighting, Sap Adept
2. Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows, Stunning Fist
3. Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Knockout Artist
5. Sap Master, Outflank
7. Improved Initiative
9. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
11. Piranha Strike
13-20. Any

Rogue Talents

1. Weapon Training
2. Combat Trick (Sap Master)
3. Bleeding Attack
4. Stand Up
5. Double Debilitation
6. Dispelling Attack
7. Improved Evasion
8. Feat?


Chess Pwn wrote:

dragon ferocity doesn't increase the dex to damage. FAQ

"However, any other effects that would increase the multiplier to your Strength bonus on damage rolls (such as the two-handed fighter archetype's overhand chop) do not affect your Dexterity bonus on damage rolls."

This includes Dragon style and ferocity.

Well, that's brutal.

But, there are some upsides to that. For starters, I don't need to have a high Strength for Power Attack (though this means I have to start my UCRogue level first). Second, it frees up feat slots that I can use for TWF or Shatter Defenses. To be honest, at best, I'd be looking at +4 damage per attack (which isn't bad, but not worth what I'd gain in exchange).

@ Everyone: I'm using UCMonk's Flurry of Blows, which just grants an extra attack when I'm using a Full Attack with Unarmed Strikes. There's none of this "Slow progression of TWF" stuff I have to worry about except for the TWF feat chain.


I was reviewing the class levels, and I realized the sole reason I took Snakebite Brawler would be for the same reasons that I would take, for example, Vivisectionist Alchemist (which would actually be mechanically better) or the Assassin prestige class; the extra Sneak Attack damage.

Although Vivisectionist doesn't give bonus BAB, having access to Mutagens is a big step-up in power, and quite frankly, I don't need the skill points or the slots, so it's acceptable to dump Intelligence. Plus, Assassins are more stupid anyway.

That being said, this 'dip' I wouldn't take right away, since the Mantis UCMonk would be good enough. Unfortunately, I'd need to adjust my leveling scheme, since I just realized the Finesse benefits will outweigh the necessity for unarmed strikes.

I'm probably just going to go with Human for the feat, if being feat starved is going to be a thing. I may take Swashbuckler, but we'll see how the feats stack up.

For attributes, I'm going Dual Talent Human; I'd like to keep the feat, but 15 Strength for requirements is steep for 1.5x Dexterity on all attacks, and is especially relevant for encounters where I can't use Sap feats. With 20 point buy, it'd be as follows:

Strength 15 (13 + 2)
Dexterity 20 (18 + 2)
Constitution 12
Intelligence 7
Wisdom 14
Charisma 7

Not great, but not bad. I hate not having as good Wisdom as I want, but that's the price you pay for a worthwhile offense.

I've decided to alter the leveling to Mantis UCMonk 1 -> UCRogue 3 -> Mantis UCMonk 1 -> Vivisectionist 1 -> UCRogue 14, since I'll have decent Strength for Dragon Style, which makes the lower levels not so unbearable. So far with feats, I'm looking at:

1. Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Power Attack
2. Weapon Finesse
3. Sap Adept, Dragon Style
5. Dragon Ferocity
7. Sap Master, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
9. Enforcer
11. Dazzling Display
13. Shatter Defenses

If I take the Human Bonus feat and the Swashbuckler (archetype, not class), I can make the build online as early as 9th level, otherwise that's 4 levels of requiring a flank buddy (which isn't horrible, but not great).

Is Shatter Defenses really the only way to reliably make an enemy Flat-Footed (or otherwise provide some sort of flanking)?


I disagree. It'd be more along the lines of improving the benefits of your existing Armor Training bonuses, not grant you new abilities a la Advanced Armor Training.

So you can't, for example, be a 3rd level Fighter, wear the Sash, and gain a new Advanced Armor Training benefit as if you were 7th level (though if you already had an Advanced Armor Training benefit that scales with your Fighter level, that would increase).

Most effects that grant you a level increase to a certain feature usually doesn't give you the extra options associated with said feature, only improving the options you already have, unless it says otherwise, as is the case with Dragon Disciple. This is common with Bloodline Powers, Oracle Revelations, and so on.


As the title says, I'm interested in building a Sap Master, but not quite in the manner that everyone is thinking; I have a basic idea as to how this would work, but I need some more information on specifics (if anyone has anything to add).

Anyway, this has been something I've observed in the several Sap Master threads that have come up, but only as of late did I realize a glaring (and potentially great) "loophole" that works to the benefit of being a "Sap Master".

The thing is, everyone sees the "Sap Adept/Master" feats and thinks "Oh, I have to use a Sap with it!" Well, according to the feats, they preface the requirement of the benefit with:

Sap Adept/Master wrote:
Whenever you use a bludgeoning weapon to deal nonlethal sneak attack damage...

Now, it is true that a Sap (as the feat name suggests) would fall under this benefit, but what if there are other weaponry that fits the bill? More specifically, an Unarmed Strike, and is an actual example given in the Sneak Attack entry for Rogues:

Sneak Attack wrote:
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage.

Normally, an Unarmed Strike hits for Bludgeoning damage, and is non-lethal (unless you're using a Gauntlet, which would probably disable this ability), so it is easily grounds for application with Sap Adept/Master. However, having Improved Unarmed Strike as a feat would let you effectively "activate" and "deactivate" this ability for relevant enemies (such as Undead, Constructs, and so on), meaning that you can very easily be relevant across combat with all kinds of encounters.

That part of the build is down and patted. What I need help with is the class levels and (probably) feat/talent selection (and maybe methods to apply my Sneak Attack besides flanking). I'm planning to be Dexterity-based, and probably picking up UCRogue for the Sneak Attack dice progression. I wanted to do Slayer, but their Sneak Attack progression is too slow to make this a real "Sap Master" sort of build. (I'd kill to have a full Sneak Attack progression Slayer archetype, but sad days.) I'm not sure of any good archetypes to take with a Rogue, so I'm open to most suggestions (though would prefer to not trade out Trapfinding or Sneak Attack damage if possible; all else can be fair game if it's worthwhile).

The next part boils down to my level dipping (because I plan to take a level dip, primarily for mechanical reasons). My initial plan is to take a level of Brawler (specifically, the Snakebite Striker archetype) after the first level of UCRogue to get a "greater" Sneak Attack progression, as well as get my Improved Unarmed Strike, Damage Dice increase, and the other goodies. However, I'm wondering if dipping 2 levels of Mantis Monk (Unchained Version) on top of that, for the same Sneak Attack progression scale as a Rogue, would be worth it as well. Getting Stunning Fist for free would be a real big help for the next plan, which is to pick up Dragon Ferocity, and get 1.5x Dexterity for all of my Unarmed Strikes (and still be able to get a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists). The Flurry of Blows is also very nice, especially if I can pick up UCMonk with that; an extra attack at full BAB (with Sneak Attack, hopefully!) would be a real killer benefit.

Race will probably be Human for the feat, flexible bonus attributes, and the skill point, unless something better is proposed. I am kind of open to other suggestions, but I will go ahead and tell you that a bonus to Dexterity is an absolute requirement.

So, here's the leveling plan:

UC Rogue (1 level) -> Snakebite Brawler (1 level) -> UCRogue (2 levels) -> Mantis Monk (2 levels) -> UCRogue (14 levels)

I'll effectively gain:

-"Superior" Sneak Attack progression and slightly higher early-level BAB (11D6 by maximum level, expanded progression starts as early as 2nd level)
-1.5x Dexterity on all Unarmed Strikes (can start as early as 5th level, though more realistically by 7th level)
-Double Sneak Attack Damage Dice (and a bonus on damage equal to those sneak attack dice) as Non-Lethal to relevant enemies (and still normal damage to those that aren't).
-EVASION!!
-UC FLURRY OF BLOWS!!
-Can eventually choose to ditch regular armor for Bracers of Armor if I have good Wisdom
-Full Debilitating Injury benefits (though at a reduced progression)
-More hit points

I'll lose out on:

-Advanced Rogue talents (some are good, but a lot of the Advanced and regular ones are meh anyway)
-Trap Sense bonuses (again, it's meh)
-Master Strike (an execute against everyone's best saves, scaling against an attribute that I will most likely end up dumping anyway)
-Skill Points (A shame, but considering what I gain, it's wholly worth it)
-Favored Class Bonus (same as above)
-Rogue's Edge (alternate rules that will probably never be used in any game, so not really a loss)
-A replacement for one of my two sources of Evasion (Smuggler is not worth it, and nothing I see as a Monk Archetype can replace its Evasion); if only it stacked into Improved Evasion, which would be awesome.
-A replacement for one of my two sources of the Unarmed Strike class feature (But at least the class levels would stack).
-Full BAB. I'd just love to have a strong class with good Sneak Attack dice and have a good BAB progression, but unfortunately you can't have everything (even though Full Spellcasters can).

Things I'm not (completely) sure on:

-Race. Human seems like the optimal choice, but maybe there are better races out there than Humans?

-Ranged Options. This is a big issue, because this build effectively requires me to be in their face, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but for those instances where melee isn't an option, something ranged would be appreciated. Non-lethal Bludgeoning preferred, but will take anything.

-Consistent Sneak Attacks. Outside of having a flank buddy, or getting lucky in the first round of combat, I'm not sure how I can manage getting the constant benefit of applying Sneak Attack benefits. Either feats, a class feature, something would be appreciated.

Anything that can help or improve the above would be appreciated!


Personally, I don't think FAQing it will provide the answer we're looking for.

Still, it does serve as a starting point for at least some sort of clarification.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Sorry, man, you're just inventing mechanics here. There is hardly anything to support boosting someone's save with a normal aid another action.

FTFY.


Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
Clarification from BNW: to use vanguard style or add to a saving throw do you need to be near the ally? How near?
Vanguard Style wrote:
While using this style, when an adjacent ally is required to make a Reflex saving throw, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s Reflex save. Your ally gains a +2 bonus to all Reflex saves while adjacent to you until the beginning of your next turn.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Darksol wrote:

And you still haven't answered my question: How do you Aid a Saving Throw? To be more clear about the answers I'm looking for, what's involved? Do I need to make a check? What do I use for bonuses, if anything? What conditions do I have to fulfill to perform it?

Until I get your stance on that question, all we're going to do is just use fancy words to insult each other until the mods come in and put us in time out, and quite frankly, I don't even know what your stance is anymore, because it's changed so much from what we've originally argued.

Just because you have questions, doesn't mean there aren't answers.

How I see it, and how I think BigNorseWolf would rule as well: You make the same kind of check, with whatever bonuses you normally apply, against a DC 10. You must be adjacent to an ally to aid them.

How and why would you rule at your table?

** spoiler omitted **

Which is all fine and dandy and sensible, and would probably be how our table would run it.

But my point has always been, that conclusion can't be feasibly reached by adhering to the rules text; it requires FIAT adjudication outside what the rules say, as it would, for example, with the Dead condition, Overrun rules, and so on. And not every table has the same (or similar) set of FIAT adjudication.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darsol the painbringer wrote:
]It's not the RAW because skill checks have their own exception, and their own section.

Which does NOT mention range. All it does is trade the attack roll into a skill check.

Quote:
so needing an irrelevant feat like Bodyguard for a relevant ability like Vanguard Style is absolutely ridiculous.

One is using an AOO to protect your allies from an incoming sword.

The other is using your AoO to protect your allies from the incoming fireball. You do not get better thematic or mechanical links than that.

Quote:
Throws is a normal ability, that anyone can do, all this feat does is work as a "Bodyguard" feat for Saving Throws, which not only diminishes its raw power and ability

balderdash.

Aiding another is a standard action

Aiding another is a standard action

Aiding another is a standard action

That is the second time you have "forgotten" that in an attempt to find a problem with how i'm reading the rules. Changing something from a standard action (your MOST valuable resource) to an aoo (something you can easily have 6 of) is an enormous advantage. Not only have you dropped the resource requirement, but you've made aiding against a reflex saving throw actually usable, because you don't usually have a standard action at the time when you're getting hit with the fireball.

Quote:
Not the point I was trying to make, but merely an interesting observation when taking your interpretation

It's not interesting. It's banal, contrived, factually incorrect and outright tiresome.

Quote:

At 2nd level, whenever an order of the dragon cavalier uses the aid another action to assist one of his allies, the ally receives a +3 bonus to his Armor Class, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. At 8th level, and every six levels thereafter, this bonus increases by an additional +1.

Quote:
Would be pointlessly redundant.If anything, all that text would have to say is this:
And that would run the risk...

You're right, it doesn't mention range. So then that means I can be half-way across Golarion and decide "Hey, this poor sap wants some help with a Diplomacy check to get a date with this random woman, I should totally help him out!" Because there's no range to aid another, just like how there is no range for Diplomacy itself.

You just admitted yourself that aiding for Saves and Skills versus AC and to-hit have completely different mechanics, even if they serve a similar purpose. There are hardly any more mechanical links between those two feats than there is Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, and last I checked, thematics (such as flavor text) are usually trumped by the mechanics themselves, with no indication of this being any different.

Repeating what I already know doesn't change the fact that its unique ability to aid something (that normally shouldn't be aided) is effectively reduced to Bodyguard level, instead of being able to grant what would be a more unique ability of aiding an attribute that normally cannot be aided. Does that make it bad? Not necessarily. But being able to aid an attribute that normally cannot be aided is, in and of itself, a unique ability; all the feat does then, is improve what someone can already do (according to your interpretation), which is Aid Saves in a manner that you normally can't do. The other interpretation does the same thing, except more, because it gives you a whole other option that normally isn't available to you, the ability to aid Reflex Saves.

And you still haven't answered my question: How do you Aid a Saving Throw? To be more clear about the answers I'm looking for, what's involved? Do I need to make a check? What do I use for bonuses, if anything? What conditions do I have to fulfill to perform it?

Until I get your stance on that question, all we're going to do is just use fancy words to insult each other until the mods come in and put us in time out, and quite frankly, I don't even know what your stance is anymore, because it's changed so much from what we've originally argued.

@ KingofAnything: I'm not trying to poke holes in anything. All I'm doing is saying that they're there. If they can't see it, then fine. But if you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who's remarked with questions about this subject in regards to how it operates, so clearly, this isn't something that is just "my issue".


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Anyone else notice that the OP, who didn't even mention DEX at all, is long gone?

We could make a separate thread for this, since he already got his answer.

But we're lazy. So...


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
it lets you use Aid Another to increase an Ally's Reflex Save. You have to be adjacent to your Ally and Threatening your Ally's Attacker.

There is NO rules support, at all, for this position. Your reflex save is neither AC nor to hit, which are the only aid another options that require that you threaten.

"Excuse me sir, why are you holding that dagger and advancing on the king?

"OH! I just need to aid my friends diplomacy check and i can't do that without threatening.

Its NOT the raw
It's not the rai
It's not balanced.

There's no reason to rule that way.

It's not the RAW because skill checks have their own exception, and their own section.

Saving Throws do not, nor can you assume that they have it, because it's not explicitly listed. But, I'll go ahead and play along with your interpretation, if only to point something very crucial out to your argument.

Originally, we were talking about Vanguard Style, which gives a special ability to aid a Reflex Saving throw for an ally, as an AoO, no less. Now, if we were going to argue that giving Saving Throws is a normal ability, that anyone can do, all this feat does is work as a "Bodyguard" feat for Saving Throws, which not only diminishes its raw power and ability, but also throws into question, "Why is Bodyguard a feat requirement?" Outside of flavor purposes, this is the same excuse as to why Combat Expertise is a feat requirement for most every single other "decent" combat feat in the game; flavor, and feat taxing, because as you've pointed out with your base rules, Bodyguard has zero impact on your ability to Aid Another with Saving Throws, so needing an irrelevant feat like Bodyguard for a relevant ability like Vanguard Style is absolutely ridiculous.

Not the point I was trying to make, but merely an interesting observation when taking your interpretation, in that Bodyguard has become the next Combat Expertise. Funny, isn't it?

Of course, this certainly isn't the only ability that works in the above fashion. There are other abilities that allow you to aid Saves, such as specific Cavalier Orders. More closely, the Order of the Dragon's Aid Allies ability.

Now, if you could aid Saving Throws normally, from the beginning, then abilities such as this one:

Aid Allies wrote:
At 2nd level, whenever an order of the dragon cavalier uses the aid another action to assist one of his allies, the ally receives a +3 bonus to his Armor Class, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. At 8th level, and every six levels thereafter, this bonus increases by an additional +1.

Would be pointlessly redundant. According to you, we already know that you can aid AC, to-hit, saves, or skill checks normally, so why point out that you're aiding what you can normally aid, when the base rules already say that very same thing?

If anything, all that text would have to say is this:

Aid Allies wrote:
At 2nd level, whenever an order of the dragon cavalier uses the aid another action to assist one of his allies, the ally receives an additional +1 to his aid another bonus. At 8th level, and every six levels thereafter, this additional bonus increases by +1.

And we would get the very same meaning, without having to point out what you can and can't aid another (because the base rules already cover it).

Except, you and I (hopefully) both know that's not what would happen, if we went with the second set of text.

What would happen, is you'd have players that don't know if they can aid Saving Throws or not. (At least, I know I would certainly pose that question.) So then we'd have to make a FAQ as to whether or not you can normally aid Saving Throws, which can result in answers like "Yes, you can, and this will be reflected in the next errata," or "Yes, you can, but only with this ability, and it is an exception to the general rule," (Which results in a "No, you normally can't"), or just flat out saying "No," which means the Cavalier ability only works with Attacks, AC, or Skill checks, something that may or may not be intended by the original designer of the Cavalier ability.

So I will ask you, why would we go through the trouble of citing what you can and can't aid with a special ability, if it does, in fact, change nothing as to how you do or do not aid, except in the manner of improving your aid another bonus?


_Ozy_ wrote:
I'm just saying that there are no rules mechanisms anywhere for boosting saving throws, outside the vanguard style.

This is what I have been saying from the start.

But people think that there really is, just based off of a tangential sentence that may or may not be relevant to their argument based off of specific circumstances, and apparently I'm the bad guy for disagreeing with their assessment, and explaining myself as to why I disagree.


Burnscar wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:

Right, but there are two separate abilities both named Flurry of Blows and only one of them references Two Weapon Fighting.

The question is, did they mean both Flurry of Blows or just the one that references and functions exactly like TWF?

Doesn't matter. The point is, it specifically references the Flurry of Blows class feature, the same way that Spell Combat specifically references the TWF action.

Both types of Monk are utilizing the Flurry of Blows class feature. Therefore, a Monk who is using Flurry of Blows, regardless of what version of the Monk you use, will not benefit from Slashing/Fencing Grace.

That's it. Period. End of discussion.

Why but it does matter.

Level means a bunch of different things, depending on context. To say that when something in the rules says 'level' with ambiguity, it must mean all applicable meanings of level, is obviously wrong.

I think that applies here too.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Yes, Level is a general term, but it is usually prefaced with things like "class" or "caster," to fit within a well-defined game term. Class Level means the level of a specific class, Caster Level refers to the level at which your spell is being cast, and duration, effects, and so on, are dependant upon it.

Flurry of Blows is a specific term, referring to a specific class feature of classes that possess them. There is no "UCMonk Flurry of Blows," there is no "Standard Monk Flurry of Blows," there is only one "Flurry of Blows" class feature, and whether it functions similar, or different, is irrelevant if we're talking about stuff that simply mentions the "Flurry of Blows" class feature.

If you're going to argue that a Flurry of Blows from a UCMonk is a completely separate feature from the Flurry of Blows from a standard Monk, then any effects which apply to them, beneficial or otherwise, won't apply.

So, if you're running a UCMonk with an archetype that replaces Flurry of Blows, as an example, then you can't do that. Why? Because the Flurry of Blows you possess as a UCMonk isn't the same as the one that you're otherwise replacing if you were a Standard Monk, and therefore isn't grounds for application.


ShroudedInLight wrote:

Right, but there are two separate abilities both named Flurry of Blows and only one of them references Two Weapon Fighting.

The question is, did they mean both Flurry of Blows or just the one that references and functions exactly like TWF?

Doesn't matter. The point is, it specifically references the Flurry of Blows class feature, the same way that Spell Combat specifically references the TWF action.

Both types of Monk are utilizing the Flurry of Blows class feature. Therefore, a Monk who is using Flurry of Blows, regardless of what version of the Monk you use, will not benefit from Slashing/Fencing Grace.

That's it. Period. End of discussion.


Cavall wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

With that said, your feats should be as follows if you do:

1. Power Attack, Cleave
3. Goblin Cleaver
5. Great Cleave
7. Orc Hewer
9. Vital Strike
11. Weapon Trick (Cleaving Smash)
13. Giant Killer
15. Improved Vital Strike
17. Devastating Strike
19. Improved Devastating Strike

that weapon trick requires Improved Vital Strike.
He's 0 for 2 now. Come on son! Click the links!

So I underestimated the feat pre-requisites. It happens. Not my fault they made the requirements so steep. Plus, this wasn't a thing until, like, just now. I'm not a part of this hipster mainstream stuff, so...

All this tells me is that 3/4 BAB classes will not work for his concept, because all of his feats require full BAB just to make it work, as well as bonus feats.

Which means the biggest source of maximizing damage dice, improving his size reliably, without taking in-combat time or resources to utilize, goes down the toilet, because his feat pre-requisites for BAB are too damn high.

I mean, I don't think he can have both the ridiculous damage dice attacks and the ability to utilize cleave in conjunction without sacrificing one or the other, much less the option to make his size comparable to enemies (so he can auto-cleave them).

If he absolutely wants to utilize Cleave with Greater Vital Strike, he'll only be able to do, at best, 9D8+Static Modifiers per target, and that's incurring some to-hit penalties and such for Large Bastard Sword. Which isn't too bad, especially if he can manage powerful static modifiers. But a truly dedicated full-attacker, using the same weapon and abilities, will easily out-damage him every round.


ShroudedInLight wrote:
Burnscar wrote:

Darksol has the right of it. It has nothing to do with hands of effort, it's 'functions as'.

Which is why flurry doesn't work either, despite the monk's ability to flurry with his unarmed strikes while his hands are otherwise occupied wielding things he can't flurry with. It references two-weapon fighting.

Now this is a very interesting point because, as I mentioned earlier in the topic, the Unchained Monk's flurry does not reference Two Weapon Fighting in any way shape or form.

Ergo, since the Magus is disallowed because Spell Combat functions as Two Weapon Fighting then the Unchained Monk should be allowed to use Slashing Grace since the UC Monk's Flurry is not Two Weapon Fighting, like Two Weapon Fighting, nor does it function as Two Weapon Fighting.

Strictly being a pedantic RAW lawyer.

UCMonk gets the short end of the stick. Behold!

Slashing Grace wrote:
You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


. I think you mean that I claim it's overpowered; it's not, especially when there are other, more powerful options and methods out there.

No, i mean broken as in non functional.

Vanguard style works just fine. you do not need to evade the rules or requirements of aiding another because the rules very much allow you to aid without threatening your opponent as long as you're not aiding for armor class or to hit.

Armor class and to hit have threaten requirements, other forms of aid do not. If you are aiding to give a save bonus you are clearly aiding a spell, not their armor class or to hit, so there is no threatening requirement.

You can try to make an argument that all of the requirements of aiding apply to all forms of aiding, or that aiding a saving throw isn't helping them when they're affected by a spell..but WHY on earth would you deliberately TRY to break it instead of just going with the obvious solution?

Quote:
What I said, is that your interpretation can't be logically reached without extorting something that's not actually there

You are accusing me of extorting the rules because i used a basic level of human reading comprehension to say that the vanguard style giving you a saving throw bonus is helping you with a spell, and helping you with a spell does not have the reach clause.

The insult, and it is an insult, is not based in reality. Your argument are so thin that banal insults to my person are the only thing holding them together. If you cannot make an argument for your position without people that disagree with you being defective, reconsider your position.

Quote:


in the rules text, something which PFS certainly doesn't have the power to do unless they have...

To call this horsefeathers would be an insult to any number of worthy hippogryphe mounts. You have vast misgivings about what PFS is and how it works.

PFS has DMs. Their job is to read the rules. The rules are written in more or less...

For starters, just the base Vanguard Style alone is pretty overpowered, when we go with what's written. Let's take our two PCs and compare them, shall we?

To begin, the Vanguard Style feat says:

Vanguard Style wrote:
Your ally gains a +2 bonus to all Reflex saves while adjacent to you until the beginning of your next turn.

So, this means that while the style is active, you're giving a +2 AC bonus to all allies adjacent to you. Pretty nice buff, eh? Next, we factor in your rule of Aid Another for Saves. That's another +2 on the next Reflex Save they make, providing a +4. There's also the matter of this text here:

Vanguard Style wrote:
While using this style, when an adjacent ally is required to make a Reflex saving throw, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s Reflex save.

This means that you can then spend an AoO and grant them yet another +2. That provides an extra +6 total at the end of it all, which is extremely powerful since it's only 3 feats.

Clearly, that's not how it works or adds up, and it's obvious hyperbole (though a plausible interpretation), but disregarding that, based on your rule, that can easily become a +4 bonus, which is still pretty damn impressive.

Next, you're assuming that aiding a save bonus is intended for a spell, and nothing else. It could be a Spell-Like Ability. It could be a Supernatural Ability. It could be an Extraordinary Ability. It could be a class feature. It could be from a trap. It could be some other environmental subject.

It doesn't matter what it is, the point is that you're using a convoluted book example (aiding an ally for a spell, which is quite open as to how you're aiding that ally against a given spell, such as by warning it's an illusion for an ally who failed the save) as proof for a blanket statement that you can use aid another for something that's not concretely stated, both as to whether you can aid it, but also, as Squiggit pointed out, as to how it is being aided, and that's relevant for right now, when it comes to Vanguard Style as it's written.

Expanding upon his point, sure, you can assume that if you are aiding, for example, a Reflex Save, that you make a check at DC 10 with your own Reflex Save, and that makes sense. But that doesn't make it the rules as they currently are, nor does it mean that's exactly what Paizo intended, if only because it makes sense and it's circular. They can just as easily rule that it's a flat Dexterity check with a DC 10, or they can just rule that it's a flat roll entirely, making it a 55/45 shot, no matter what. I don't know that, you don't know that, and making assumptions and assertions on the rules because it makes sense (to you, perhaps not to others), to provide an authentic rules answer for a board member, is misleading. (inb4 "Pot Meet Kettle" statements)

And quite frankly, that same line of thinking was given with Bodyguard. It makes sense to allow Bodyguard to work with any attack, as long as you were adjacent to your ally when the attack was made. But that doesn't mean Bodyguard works that way, nor should we have assumed for it to, because we have rules that stated otherwise.

Now, you say "But aiding in that manner requires threatening!" Fine, it does. That's why it doesn't work the way that makes sense; because there are rules that say it doesn't work the way that makes sense.

Yet, the inverse of that is likewise true: There aren't rules that say it does work that way, in regards to aiding another for saving throws. Therefore, it becomes a GM FIAT call, which is again, not much of an authentic rules answer, because the end result can vary wildly, from "Yes, it works, and it does X," to "No, nor does it do Y."

And because of this minor clause here:

Aid Another wrote:
The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

That's the book basically saying "Yeah, GM FIAT can certainly screw you over on stuff that may or may not be normally possible."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
TOZ wrote:
silverrey wrote:
TriOmegaZero said it a lot more cleanly.
It's a talent.
A rouge talent?

No, it's a bleu talent.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darksol the painbringer wrote:
It could be for a strength check to break free, like in the case of Web. It could be for an illusion spell, giving them a re-roll with a +4 bonus. Stringent examples, sure, but there are still several ways you can aid with an ally affected by a spell without it having to be a saving throw, and I'm positive that they expand well beyond the examples I've provided.

You don't have a good argument for vanguard style being broken, but you demand an absolute 100% pedantic proof argument that it works. Your interpretation being 100% correct even when proven otherwise but everyone eles interpretations requiring absolute proof is not a legitimate standard to have in a rules discussion. Vanguard style is clearly helping someone with a spell, so it doesn't have the AC or hit clause that's plaguing bodyguard.

Making problems with the rules that aren't there cheapens and drowns out your and the fandoms ability to point out problems that are there. Blaming PFS for that level of pedanticism when you don't play PFS to know how it actually works tars the organization with your own prejudices. Getting the occasional DM that works that way does NOT make it official policy of the organization.

Vanguard Style is "broken," in that it probably doesn't work the way it was intended, just like how Bodyguard currently is (that is, it doesn't work the way the original developer intended it to). I think you mean that I claim it's overpowered; it's not, especially when there are other, more powerful options and methods out there. If not, then I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

To be clear, I never even said my interpretation was correct. In fact, I even stated in one of my posts that I want you to be right.

What I said, is that your interpretation can't be logically reached without extorting something that's not actually there, in the rules text, something which PFS certainly doesn't have the power to do unless they have houserules or FAQs which let them; in this case, I highly doubt it, otherwise you would've mentioned it.

You're taking "Aid Another can be used to help a friend affected by a spell," which is what the rules actually say, to mean "Aid Another can be used to aid any saving throw an ally has to make," which is what you want the rules to say, in an attempt to keep them coherent, consistent, and understandable. Which is a good thing, something that I would normally approve of.

But it is also a consequence that requires a very specific set of circumstances to even conceive, and a lot of assumptions and assertions, not stated or clarified within the rules, FAQ or otherwise, to adjudicate, most of which Squiggit has already addressed.

You also misunderstand my claim that I'm blaming PFS for a certain ruling. I'm not. I'm using it as a medium to point out that sticking by what the rules say, the conclusion you're reaching is practically impossible.


Dwarf Druid is actually pretty good, and will get you access to the feats you need and the size monopolization you want, via Wild Shape. Certain archetypes will give you access to better, and more appropriate forms, such as the Goliath Druid (which is actually pretty good, since it gives you Enlarge Person starting out).

You'll also get access to a Domain (Destruction is really good, especially if you're using a Scythe, the 8th level ability to automatically confirm critical threats for yourself and your allies is huge), or a Dinosaur/Megafauna Animal Companion. Since you plan to be a Cleave fanatic, I suggest the Destruction Domain.

You don't get much in the way of proficiencies, but the Scythe is still their most impressive weapon, and certainly nothing to balk at.

You can do more damage with a focus on Natural Weapons, since spells like Strong Jaw will give you double the benefits of Lead Blades, but if you feel that Manufactured Weapons are what you have to use, then I can only suggest a Goliath Druid (which actually fits in well with a Dwarf's training against Giants, since they get more defensive benefits against Giants), since you can utilize Size and Wildshape without having to worry about what weapon you're using (since it would scale in size with you).

Attributes should be as follows:

Strength 17
Dexterity 13
Constitution 16 (14 + 2)
Intelligence 8
Wisdom 16 (14 + 2)
Charisma 5 (7 - 2)

I'd consider a level-dip in Fighter for the bonus feat(s), and for the initial BAB to fulfill necessary requirements, so you aren't delaying stuff way too much; it delays your Druid abilities, but you'll still be able to pull off all your cool stuff, just later than you normally can. You can also specialize in any Martial Weapon of your choice, such as a Nodachi, which has strong damage dice, and an 18-20/X2 modifier.

With that said, your feats should be as follows if you do:

1. Power Attack, Cleave
3. Goblin Cleaver
5. Great Cleave
7. Orc Hewer
9. Vital Strike
11. Weapon Trick (Cleaving Smash)
13. Giant Killer
15. Improved Vital Strike
17. Devastating Strike
19. Improved Devastating Strike


You can't Cleave and Vital Strike at the same time, for starters. I would be surprised if you come across something that lets you, and I would request its source, so that I could examine it for a possible character build. Otherwise, I'm calling shenanigans.

Warpriest damage dice scaling and effects like the Impact Property will not stack due to Impact's wording. You'd need Lead Blades specifically, because it affects the character's damage with any weapon they wield (and their total damage dice) whereas the Impact Property applies to the weapon itself, which is replaced via the Warpriest feature. Same applies for Advanced Weapon Training for Fighters.

Titan Mauler Barbarians suck and usually have massive to-hit penalties. Also, when you are bigger, your to-hit is reduced as well. This is why static bonuses are better, because you don't sacrifice your to-hit, and you're still dealing just as much damage (and it's easier to monopolize).

There's also the matter of forgoing your remaining attacks just for increased damage dice, whereas a full attack would not only have the same net result, but also the same multiple of static bonuses as well.

Lunge only increases reach, not damage dice. Helpful, but not relevant.

Lastly, I'm surprised you think Natural Weapons aren't Weapons, even though it's in the name.

In my opinion, Weables has it right. Druids are 3/4 BAB (so you aren't losing much in terms of iteratives), have 9 levels of spellcasting (crappy list, but full spellcasters are always the best), can be a fairly powerful offensive character with the proper attributes, and plus has the best tools to optimize what you're looking for (scaling base and virtual size abilities, powerful damage dice, and so on).


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


There is no paragraph for aiding saves, just as there's zero mention of being able to aid a saving throw,

This is not genuine.

This is not even an acceptable attempt at faking genuine.

You aid an ally when they're affected by spells. What on earth do you think that could POSSIBLY mean if not saves?

It means saves

You know it means saves.

Save the salt for the pretzels, it doesn't work with pedanticism

.

It could be for a strength check to break free, like in the case of Web. It could be for an illusion spell, giving them a re-roll with a +4 bonus. Stringent examples, sure, but there are still several ways you can aid with an ally affected by a spell without it having to be a saving throw, and I'm positive that they expand well beyond the examples I've provided.

Hence why I said it wouldn't automatically lead you to the conclusion that it applies to saving throws.

Plus, there are saving throws for things that aren't spells either, so treating an example statement as a blanket cure-all for something completely unrelated is quite a stretch to say the least.

@ Doomed Hero: That's already a listed requirement for Aid Another, no matter how you plan to do it. The problem isn't being adjacent to an ally, the problem is having to be adjacent to an enemy as well, which is, in my opinion, quite stupid, doubly so for improving an ally's AC.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not.

[citation needed]

Citation was given.
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.

Quote:
I already know that skill checks don't, and that's because they have their own paragraph

They share that paragraph with saves. The paragraph that has now been quoted twice. Any rationale for skills works for saves and vice versa.

You are actively trying to make it not work out of spite. I get that it sucks but casting asperions on people and trying to make it worse isn't going to help.

There is no paragraph for aiding saves, just as there's zero mention of being able to aid a saving throw, much less in the same paragraph that skill checks are (which is in the Skills section).

There are only two sections with Aid Another in the Core Rulebook. Let me cite their entries for you:

Aid Another (Combat) 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.

Do you see "Saving Throw" or "Saves" anywhere in that entry? No? The closest thing we have to this is to "help a friend in other ways," which provides only a couple of examples, none of which would automatically lead to the conclusion that you could, most certainly, perform an Aid Another check to improve a Saving Throw. So let's try Aid Another in the Skills section (, which is what you say Aid Another for Saving Throws functions as).

Aid Another (Skills) wrote:

You can help someone achieve success on a skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative effort. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you're helping gets a +2 bonus on his or her check. (You can't take 10 on a skill check to aid another.) In many cases, a character's help won't be beneficial, or only a limited number of characters can help at once.

In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can't aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn't achieve alone. The GM might impose further restrictions to aiding another on a case-by-case basis as well.

It's not there, either, is it? So really, all you're doing is extrapolating the concept of normally being able to Aid Another by an example of something else completely unrelated, either through Skills, or when being affected by a spell, even if it would make sense and be logical to treat it the same (which it would; remember that I'm not disputing that).

So no, I'm not "actively trying to make it not work out of spite," what I'm doing is saying that an assumption of what you want the rules to be, or what the rules should be, does not constitute as what the rules actually are, which are currently non-existent and entirely subject to GM FIAT.


MrCharisma wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If it were someone who was inexperienced with drawing the powers of arcane magic, sure, you may have a point.

But we're talking about a Magus; they're the pinnacle of gishing, the aspect of wielding both blade and spell simultaneously, and flawlessly. They have special training to accommodate what you would call "slightly distracting" raw elements, so suggesting that their spellcraft gets in the way of how they fight is absolutely ridiculous, and is grasping at straws.

You're right, a level 1 magus is "the pinnacle of gishing".

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If you didn't notice, I provided a purely mechanical standpoint, the flavor had nothing to do with it;

Thank you for providing the pinnacle of non-flavour-based standpoints.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat because it behaves like the TWF action (which Slashing Grace specifically disallows), not because there's a spell being held in your hand.

That's a good point actually, once the spell is held you can do what you like with it ... So really the only thing stopping you from using slashing/fencing grace is the act of casting a spell in the same round as using your weapon. That hardly seems distracting at all. You'd definitely be able to concentrate on using your special weapon technique for the round a lot more easily when casting a spell than you would when trying to hold something.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If the case is that a spell in your hand disallows Slashing Grace, then Spellstrike would likewise disallow Slashing Grace, because the spell would have to first be on your hand before you could channel it through your sword...
You got me there. Actually since both fencing and slashing grace both say they don't work "anytime another hand is otherwise occupied" it's possible that the strictest ruling would say that you can only spellstrike with fencing grace using spells that don't contain...

Mock my statement if you will, but tell me, what other level 1 classes can both effectively attack and cast spells in the same turn? Sure, there's always Swift Action spells, but those are quite limited in their uses and power, and Magi can do that with regular, Standard Action spells, whereas the other clowns can't.

And that gap only gets wider and more obtuse with levels, when Spellstrike and Quicken Spells (and even Spellstoring Weapons) come into play, not to mention metamagic reduction cheese. So yes, even at 1st level, I'd make the claim that Magi are the pinnacle of the gish playstyle.

The big thing stopping you from using Slashing/Fencing Grace is Spell Combat functioning as a TWF action, which Slashing/Fencing Grace specifically disallows. That's it.

Also note that those same restrictions don't apply to Dervish Dance, which the classic Dex-to-Damage Magus was originally built upon. In fact, Dervish Dance is actually better, since it's nowhere near as feat-intensive, which means you can start on it as early as 3rd level for any race, whereas the other wouldn't be usable until 5th level for certain race/class combos, and that's just stupid.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Body guard aids AC. AC requires threatening. Saves and skill throws do not.

[citation needed]

I already know that skill checks don't, and that's because they have their own paragraph, but you can usually only aid once period, or not even at all, circumstances (and GM) withstanding, but you can't assume that Saves follow that same rules and restrictions, even if it would make sense for them to do so. This is precisely how Bodyguard was originally ran, before the FAQ came in and basically said it was wrong.

As much as I would like for it to make sense, the point here is that the rules don't say what you want them to imply, and the butchering of Bodyguard is a prime example of what happens when the rules don't say what you want them to imply.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darsksol wrote:
There's zero text that supports it to be able to subvert the restrictions of the Aid Another action, so yes; you must threaten both the spellcaster and the ally in order to Aid Another them.
What restriction in aid another requires you to threaten to aid saving throws?

What makes the aid another option for saving throws different from any other sort of aid another in combat? Bodyguard has the same language as the ability in question that aids saving throws, and they said "No."

We can play 20 questions about this, but it won't solve anything, and the table variance will still certainly be there.

I know that at any PFS table, with this FAQ enforced, you would be required to threaten the target in order to aid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If it were someone who was inexperienced with drawing the powers of arcane magic, sure, you may have a point.

But we're talking about a Magus; they're the pinnacle of gishing, the aspect of wielding both blade and spell simultaneously, and flawlessly. They have special training to accommodate what you would call "slightly distracting" raw elements, so suggesting that their spellcraft gets in the way of how they fight is absolutely ridiculous, and is grasping at straws.

If you didn't notice, I provided a purely mechanical standpoint, the flavor had nothing to do with it; Slashing Grace doesn't work with Spell Combat because it behaves like the TWF action (which Slashing Grace specifically disallows), not because there's a spell being held in your hand.

If the case is that a spell in your hand disallows Slashing Grace, then Spellstrike would likewise disallow Slashing Grace, because the spell would have to first be on your hand before you could channel it through your sword...


KingOfAnything wrote:
Hubaris wrote:

How does this new nerfFAQ interact with Vanguard Style? Do I need to threaten the Wizard thats 400 feet away throwing the Fireball and still be next to my ally at the same time?

What about using the Order of the Dragon's Aid Allies to improve a Saving Throw against a Poison, Disease or a retry against a Compulsion? Do I need to threaten the enemy as well? Assuming we're in Combat?

The only Aid Another actions that require you to threaten the enemy are for attack and AC. There is no restriction on Aiding another for any other kind of check. "Expending a use of AoO" does not mean you actually make an attack, you are just spending a resource.

Bodyguard was worded in that same exact way, and the devs still said "No, you run it like any other Aid Another check."

There's zero text that supports it to be able to subvert the restrictions of the Aid Another action, so yes; you must threaten both the spellcaster and the ally in order to Aid Another them.

This wouldn't be the first time they've invalidated other feats/options with a certain ruling (without taking them into consideration), it probably won't be the last, and plus, it's from a splatbook, the likelihood of it being clarified to work/not work falls under the same likelihood that Fencing Grace or Dervish Dance will be fixed to function like the Slashing Grace feat.


Rysky wrote:

Paizo: we have FaQed and clarified Bodyguard!

Everyone else: you f!!+ed up a perfectly good feat chain is what you did. Look at it. It's got anxiety.

The conservative thing to do would be to nerf it into oblivion, because if there's anything I've learned, is that if it's not Core, then it doesn't need to stay within the game.

Granted, it was always sketchy, and the original designer wasn't 100% clear on how Aid Another mechanics worked (so I guess you could blame him for this issue)...

Still, you got it about right. This makes Aid Another characters useless (which is a shame).


MrCharisma wrote:
taks wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
Here's a thought. Rationalise why you think dex to damage SHOULD work with spell combat?
Because there's nothing in your hand?

Pretty sure there's a spell in your hand ...

At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast.

I don't see how having a spell in your hand constitutes denying dexterity to damage.

I'm sure Slashing Grace is shut down by effects like Spell Combat because it functions like TWF, an effect that Slashing Grace specifically disallows, not because the hand is holding the charge of a touch spell.

Spells don't make your hand un-free unless the spell is an object or similar subject being held in your hand (such as Produce Flame or Flame Blade).

This is what makes the Dervish Dance feats so great.


*casts Detect Magic*

...Yup, there's an Overwhelming Necromancy aura here.

As to the question, they would stack, numerically speaking, but I'm not sure if they would thematically. One uses your arm to stop the weapon, the other uses the shield.

Because there are two different methods to make the disarm maneuver, you would receive only a +4 to either manner of performing the disarm, and not the +8 that you would expect.

It is ultimately a GM call on that, though, so YMMV.


The RAW already allows you to do this.

The full text of Spellstrike, from the PRD:

Spellstrike wrote:

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell.

If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks.

This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

Emphasis (and separation) mine.

You have it right there; Spellstrike specifically has ramifications for if you decide to utilize Spell Combat along with Spellstrike, making it possible to do both at the same time.

Grick's Guide to Touch Spells also goes further in-depth to explain this, though to be honest, it's overkill, because all this tells me is that GMs don't read the fine print when it comes to the Magus class.

And that's not a good excuse.


This has already been done.

More specifically, you could acquire this ability as soon as 3rd level.


It solves some of the issues. But not all of them.

Most players are working towards +5 weapons ASAP (or if they need some weapon property specifically, like Keen), and that allows them a lot of to-hit/damage, and to bypass several parts of DR that aren't easy to bypass. Those weapons also aren't of a "disposable" mechanic, so they're around at all times.

If you're throwing, as I've said before, you have +1's at best, and once you throw them, they're gone unless you have specific magic items that require you to sacrifice Big 6 priorities (which the game assumes you have), and plus you're still MAD.


Melkiador wrote:

Bashing with a shield that has shield spikes is an attack made with the spikes, though. Just like if you stapled streamers to your shield, it would be an attack made with the streamers. "With" doesn't necessarily mean "using". "With" just means it's there too.

But more seriously, if two sources conflict, the newer source is considered superior. The newer source would be Ultimate Equipment.

It's an attack with a spiked shield, not an attack with the spikes themselves. You're trying to make the spikes into their own weapons, when they're not. They're not in the weapons table, and you certainly can't use them without incurring improvised penalties.

I cited two sources. It only conflicts with the second source, for whatever stupid reason. The first source is printed in UE (and in the Core), in that you can't craft a masterwork armor or shield to apply bonuses to attack rolls.


Melkiador wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
UE gives that text, but here's what the CRB text says, via the PRD:
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say? You quoted me, but it doesn't seem like you answered or even argued against what I wrote. We have text that masterwork shield spikes confer their masterwork enhancement bonus to attack rolls. But we don't actually have any other rules for masterwork shield spikes. Most importantly, how much do they cost?

My point was that we also have text, from multiple sources, that state masterwork armor or shields never provide a (enhancement) bonus on attack or damage rolls, even if they are used as weapons.

In short, this gives us an inconsistency within the rules.

Plus, you should review the remainder of the sentence you bolded:

UE text wrote:
...which do confer their enhancement bonus on attack rolls to attacks made with the spikes.

At no point can you attack with Shield Spikes by themselves as an actual weapon, so that sentence has zero application there. (Armor Spikes still certainly get that benefit, if only because their mechanics are different.)


Java Man wrote:
Ah, my mistake then, I don't have that book, but Nethys lists it as an armor quality, not shield. I don't know what, if anything, other than the text you quote, leads to that.

This is the property in question.


Yes. If it specifies an armor (and not something like "armor or shield), then it's assumed that it only applies to that type of item.

The description usually dictates what sort of item can have it, and can be as open as "Any armor or shield," or as restrictive as "Only light armor." (For the record, this FAQ regarding Mithril is relevant for determining what type of armor your Mithril armor item is for the purposes of what enhancements can be placed on it, so keep that in mind if you are wearing Mithril armor of some kind.)

As Java Man has stated, the tables regarding special abilities do specify what properties can be placed on weapons, armor, shields, ammunition, and so on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As the title.

I'm baffled by how niche throwing weapons are to build and what items you need to pick in order to make throwing weapons just a viable option, and even that's not acceptable, because past 6th level, they're crap. Let's take our items, for starters.

The Returning weapon property only allows you one attack, ever. The Called weapon property has a range limit, and requires a Swift Action in order to use. The Blinkback Belt, while it allows you your full limit of BAB options, requires you to forgo your attribute belts, which the game assumes that you will have at some point. This can be shored up by spells like Bear's Endurance and such, but having to spend resources for that in each combat is both impractical and also inoptimal.

Second, let's focus on our throwing mechanics; we already start off pretty MAD, because we need Dexterity for our to-hit, and we need Strength for our damage, and the means to make them SAD aren't cheap, and require further niche specialization (such as taking levels in Rogue, picking up feats, magic items, and so on). Next, we have even less range than if we were simply picking up a bow. Lastly, and this is perhaps the most crucial, you only get one attack.

Sure, this makes stuff like Vital Strike and Furious Focus seem like good options, but the other issue is that throwing weapons have crappy damage dice. At best, you're looking at a D8 damage dice, and because you're forced to be MAD, your static damage is mediocre at best.

Did I also mention making throwing weapons into dedicated usage of weapons is a mess? Because it is. You won't be able to afford proper throwing weapons having more than a +1, due to their disposable mechanics. Once you throw your weapon, you don't have it anymore, it's either stuck in a tree or inside the gut of a bad guy unless you get some magic items that fix that issue, and even then, it comes with its own sacrifices (no attribute belts being the biggest one).

Want to be some cool guy that wants to throw a bunch of daggers or spears at bad guys? Too bad. You're only getting two spears or daggers, if you're lucky, unless you have your magic items shore it up for you. This is because TWF mechanics require that you select two specific weapons to carry out your attacks, nor can you switch between weapons at any point during your TWF action. So, if you have 4 +1 daggers (that's some lategame stuff, by the way!), you can only ever use 2 of them, and if you throw them, you can't draw out your remaining 2, and throw them as well.

That's not even taking into consideration the issues you'll run into in regards to damage reduction. If they have any sort of damage reduction, such as Magic, Cold Iron, Adamantine, and so on, you won't bypass it unless you're some really rich guy who can run around with a bunch of +10 throwing weapons. You're also going to be doing less damage than any other martial party member because you're MAD and you don't have access to attribute-boosting belts to improve your to-hit/damage like they do, so any Damage Reduction you come across can very easily bury your ability to contribute in combat.

I know this comes off as some sort of angry rant, and to be honest, it kind of is; throwing builds have been something that I would be very interested in pulling off, because it's cool, unique, and something that not many people do, but because of the mechanics of the game, I can understand why that's the case, and it frustrates me that it is.


Melkiador wrote:
Quote:
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. However, you can create masterwork armor spikes and shield spikes, which do confer their enhancement bonus on attack rolls to attacks made with the spikes.
I think this is the source of the confusion. Which raises another question. How much does a masterwork shield spike cost? It's not an actual weapon or armor, so there is no formula for calculating its cost and the cost is never listed.

UE gives that text, but here's what the CRB text says, via the PRD:

Masterwork Weapons wrote:
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.
Masterwork Armor wrote:
The masterwork quality of a suit of armor or shield never provides a bonus on attack or damage rolls, even if the armor or shield is used as a weapon.


What I'm saying is that you can't add Adamantine Spikes, because by the rules, you can't make or find such a thing. Even if there was such a thing, the special material improves only the spikes, which aren't any of the prescribed item types that would receive the benefits it grants.

In other words, making a normal Adamantine Shield for 3,000 gold and then applying spikes to it is, in fact, the only way to get an Adamantine Spiked Shield.


You can't make Shield Spikes out of Adamantine, attach them to a shield, and then say it's an Adamantine Spiked Shield (even if it technically fits by literal definition).

The reason as to why that is, is because you cannot actually make Adamantine Shield Spikes. They aren't actual weapons, so you can't use them in the cost of weapons. You can't make them as Armor or Missile pieces either, because they cannot be used as projectiles, plus they aren't listed as being a Light, Medium, or Heavy armor; and you can't make them as a general item because the price for general items made out of Adamantine aren't listed.

So if you try to make any sort of Adamantine Shield Spikes at all, it becomes a houserule, because by the rules, Adamantine Shield Spikes are impossible to create. Saying a houserule is an acceptable rules answer is ridiculous and does nothing to help your case.

I mean, you can just simply make the Shield itself out of Adamantine for 3,000 gold, as well as Quickdraw or Throwing (at the time of creation), as well as attach shield spikes as normal. It still remains an Adamantine Spiked Shield. But making a normal shield, and then attaching an item that's impossible to make (outside of houseruling, which isn't an acceptable rules answer) to that shield, in an attempt to basically apply special material templates to your weaponry, doesn't work, nor is that the intended interpretation.

You could use any other material that can actually be made with other items, and it still wouldn't work that way. Why? Because the material is modifying the item being made, Shield Spikes. Shield Spikes are neither weapons, nor armor, nor ammunition, and you're trying to apply the benefits of weapons, armor, and ammunition being made out of those materials, to an item that's none of those things. Those benefits apply only to those types of items, which Shield Spikes are not.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All creatures are capable of unarmed strikes
Can you cite text on that?

Certainly.

Natural Attacks wrote:
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do.

The PRD disagrees with that text. Can you find clarification about that?

PRD wrote:
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands.

It appears they stealth-errata'd the text I showed, which means only the creature types listed can make unarmed strikes. Makes no sense in my opinion, since every creature should be able to make some sort of unarmed attack (which is what an unarmed strike represents), but them's the breaks.

Well, that puts a pretty big nail in the build's coffin, unless you want to try and get UCMonk's Flurry of Blows along with Feral Combat Training.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
All creatures are capable of unarmed strikes
Can you cite text on that?

Certainly.

Natural Attacks wrote:
Some creatures do not have natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes just like humans do.

Granted, most creatures aren't intelligent enough to utilize unarmed strikes, similar to the whole 'Grab->Constrict->Release->Repeat' shenanigans, and a lot of them don't (because making all Natural Attacks become Secondary really bites), but if we take, say, a Druid with a level dip in Monk, who wildshapes into a Dire Tiger, he can certainly use his Claws, Bite, and Rake, in addition to Unarmed Strikes.

There are other feasible examples, as BNW suggested, such as bodychecking, shoulder-bashing (more of a Slam, but Slams are open-ended in their execution...), and so on. Of course, if the above Druid was trying to execute Unarmed Strikes with one of his "hands" or "feet," he would have to forgo the relevant Natural Attack limb to do so, and as stated, said Druid would treat all of his Natural Attacks as Secondary Natural Weapons. That means -5 to-hit (or -2 with Multiattack), and only half modifier bonus for Strength and Power Attack, the biggest damage dealing sources.

Of course, if I picked up Dragon Ferocity, and some Feral Combat Training (Claw), it might be worth the trade-off.

1 to 50 of 4,425 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.