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

Ezekiel W's page

76 posts. Alias of Ezekiel_W.


1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Dylos wrote:
Nunspa wrote:

Umm everyone does realise you can buy a novel and get a boon right?

Cat has been out of the bag for some time

They even cost more then $5 typically.

And how many of the Pathfinder Tales chronicle sheets grant boons equal or superior to the advanced template of the PFO boon?

Since this breaks precedent and represents Paizo directly selling a PFS boon, I guess it would be okay to break precedent and sell the received boon on Ebay.

The former statement was intended in jest. Unfortunately, purchasing one-time boons for later re-sale represents a better business model than I've seen for this MMO.

If sound funding for a technical staff of nine has truly been obtained to fund the project for several years development time before release, then a loan for $1 million would very likely be easily approved and the need for this second Kickstarter seems dubious. I can't imagine a good reason for this unless the funding isn't secure, is delayed in time, or if investor(s) have mandated squeezing the fan base for more cash.

If the founders and investors really wanted to proceed with a second Kickstarter to help financially, I think it would have looked more persuasive to spend many more months in development and produce a glimpse of an early pre-alpha product rather than re-packaging their tech demo for public consumption.

I hope those who are looking forward to PFO are pleased with the results when it is released and Paizo's reputation remains intact.

I tried to stress that the decision to allow a MW Tool for UMD would depend the GM. To the best of my knowledge, PFS currently allows use of MW tools for all skills (see here for a thread discussing it and urging moderation in using them for the player base). At a minimum, I don't think a generic MW tool (skill) should supplant those skills for which specific MW kits/tools already exist (e.g. Healer's Kit, Disguise Kit, MW Thieves' Tools).

Outside of PFS, whether to allow a MW tool for UMD and the limits of its use (item type(s) affected, time needed to activate bonus, equipment slot or free hand use) is certainly up to the GM. You can flavor it or limit its use, but I'm satisfied calling it a MW tool (UMD) for mechanical purposes (giving a +2 circumstance bonus). Use items like "99 Most Common Wand Activation Phrases" or "Activating Divine Wands Like a True Believer" as needed.

If they can work a trait (magic) into their build, Dangerously Curious gets them UMD as a class skill with a +1 trait bonus. A MW tool (50gp) can get them an additional +2 circumstance bonus, if the GM is okay with using one for UMD.

Regarding ranged attacks into a grapple in 3.5 vs PF, compare table 8-6 in the Combat Modifiers section of the 3.5 PHB (p 151) to PF's CRB (p 195): Footnote 3 (which described the random roll for ranged attacks in a grapple) has been removed in the CRB.

Grapplers in PF are moved adjacent; they do not occupy the same square and ranged attacks into a PF grapple do not have a random chance of striking either grappler.

If your group is having trouble remembering PF's grapple rules, there are a couple of user-generated flow charts over on d20PFSRD's grapple page that might help.

MacGurcules is correct regarding attacking a grappler: attack normally. The grappled condition decreases the subject's AC by 2 (from -4 Dex). (Only very rarely can a creature grapple without taking the penalties of the grappled condition). It also forbids AoO's, so party members can move around the grappler as they see fit or attempt combat maneuvers versus the grappler (who has a -2 on their CMD for their -4 Dex) without triggering an AoO.

One other difference from 3.5 is that ranged attacks by other party members into a grapple no longer have a random chance of hitting either target involved in the grapple. They just take the normal penalty for firing into melee, if applicable.

Considering the difficulty of making concentration checks to cast spells while grappled, I almost wish the attempts weren't allowed at all or a very significant bonus applied to verbal-only spells.

Regarding PF rules, I continue to be humbled by how often I find that I've misinterpreted or misremembered some part of the CRB alone despite the many hours spent playing and reading since its release.

Back to the original poster's questions, I do think it's worth remembering that for some opponents, a grapple is not their most damaging attack. There is value to the party to an opponent using up a standard action every round to maintain a grapple/pin rather than full-attacking or using spells/SLA's.

For creatures with Grab, Constrict, multiple Rake attacks (for example, the Behir) and/or a very damaging special attack, you probably want to make sure you have alchemical grease and a grease spell active on yourself before engaging in melee rather than trying to respond once grappled.

Finlanderboy wrote:
I like my wand of vanish.

Useful as long as you're okay with vanish lasting only one round from a 1st level wand.

It seems reasonable to identy a susceptible spell to justify using a character power that grants a new saving throw. Or try blindly if you're willing to potentially waste an action.

Since speech is an action that may be taken by any character out of their turn, a spell could be identified by anyone in the party and the information shared.

Spellcraft is used to identify a spell being cast, Knowledge (Arcana) to identify an ongoing spell effect.

I want to commend Grick on writing another set of accurate, detailed, and polite responses to a Rules forum question.

In the vast majority of situations, maintaining a grapple in PFSRD is a standard action. Unless the rules text very clearly stated otherwise, I would be leery of treating the maintaining of a grapple as another action type or an automatic success.

I agree with Grick's interpretation that taking a -20 to one's CMB as part of a Grab 'to hold' only removes the Grappled condition (and its modifiers) from the grappler but does not grant free maintenance of a grapple in subsequent rounds.

In terms of what the intent of the Grab and hold ability is, I would refer you to excerpts of text of 3.5's Improved Grab ability, which is very similar to PF's Grab text (although the grappling rules have changed significantly):

PFSRD Grab ability:
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply to use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself.

A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).

3.5 Improved Grab ability:
The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the improved grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a -20 penalty on grapple checks, but is not considered grappled itself; the creature does not lose its Dexterity bonus to AC, still threatens an area, and can use its remaining attacks against other opponents.

A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).

Note any similarities in language?

In 3.5, the grappled condition was much more severe than in PF: being 'grappled' would deny a grappler the ability to threaten an area and attack other opponents than the one being grappled as well as removing its Dex bonus to AC and opening itself up to sneak attacks. Taking a -20 to 'hold' as part of Improved Grab in 3.5 was a reasonable tactic for creatures with strong Grapple scores who faced multiple opponents.

In PFSRD, the grappled condition is much less debilitating (-4 to Dex, -2 to attack and non-grapple CMB's, no AoO's). Tactically, it is unlikely that most creature with Grab would benefit (although very large creatures who want to provoke AoO's might benefit) much from avoiding these modifiers versus taking a -20 on their grapple checks. However, the option is still there, mostly as legacy language inherited from 3.5.

[edited: added 'no AoO's' to PFSRD grappled condition description]

DrDeth wrote:

Sean K Reynolds Designer

Oct 15, 2012, 01:22 PM | Flag |
Post #33 in "Dimension Door Question"
"The above is a legacy of the 3E grapple rules. With PFRPG redefining grapple as "I have your arm, not your whole body," the above doesn't make sense, and it was only present in one part of the Core Rulebook (in the Concentration section, I think). So it's being removed in errata: the "no somatic components while you're grappled" rule shouldn't be in the book."


The more I've read of this thread, the more I have the impression that your party has WBL difficulties rather than isolated grappling difficulties.

AP's are scaled for a party of 4 PC's built with 15-point buy with average WBL gear.

Difficulty will increase or decrease when straying away from those assumptions unless rescaled by the GM. If you have four 15-pt buy PC's at 1/4 WBL and AP encounters are being played as written, you're definitely playing hard mode. If your group is enjoying the challenge, nothing needs to be changed. Conversely, if you have more than 4 PC's, encounters and treasure will both need to be supplemented to keep challenge and party wealth at level.

While the AP intention is that found/rewarded treasure will keep a party of 4 at average WBL, if your party misses a lot of hidden loot or achieves a diplomatic or creative solution to what was intended as a combat encounter, they can start falling behind. Paying to raise or restore multiple party members can exacerbate this.

If your GM does not want to alter the AP encounters or treasure, would he/she be open to side quests to help supplement your wealth?

Paizo also has active subforums for each of the AP's. I would suggest that you ask your GM to post the particulars of your party (numbers, levels), stage of the AP, and their low WBL, and ask if this is typical for that section of the AP. If other groups had encountered similar wealth problems while running the AP as written, they may have suggestions for making changes.

Clarification: You can attempt to cast a spell with somatic components if grappled (but not pinned), although the concentration check can be very difficult. In PF, even a spell without somatic components (like dimension door) requires a concentration check to cast in a grapple.

A lower level option: Potion of gaseous form, 750g, although it takes a standard action to dismiss the effect if you don't want to wait for it to expire. Also available on the magus spell list (3rd), if you aren't pinned and think you can make the concentration check to cast in a grapple.

Could you coordinate with other party members to assist you with a grease or liberating command if you're grappled?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For some players, selecting each and every piece of equipment is as important a part of customizing their characters as selecting feats and spells. While most GM's will allow players to choose their own feats, a significant fraction will limit players' equipment to what is scavenged and not add the ability to buy/sell/trade items beyond what is written into a published module.

As long as the expectations of the GM and players are in agreement regarding the ease of customizing their gear versus making creative use of what they've found, no style of play is wrong.

For better or worse, equipment is a big source of character power in PF/3.5. My personal opinion is that players should be able to fully customize their gear up WBL no less frequently than every 2-3 levels of xp gained. As written, not every AP will allow that. LoF may be the most egregious, where a party could gain 6-7 levels of xp without having access to a single merchant during that time. When GM'ing that, that was longer than I felt appropriate (considering the challenges that I knew lay ahead), and I altered it.

Regarding parties falling behind the WBL curve in some AP's, that seems bound to happen, particularly if groups prefer creative or diplomatic solutions to playing murder hoboes. Add side treks, increase rewards if needed, or let your players carry on regardless if you think they have a decen chance not to be slaughtered.

TLDR: whatever works for your group; in an AP, add or remove access to customizing gear as needed. Clarify the general ease of accessing custom gear before starting a campaign.

I use the 3.5 exception.

I think simple and easily recalled abstractions have a place in what is not generally regarded as a rules-light RPG.

I can't imagine that 5+ years ago this rules change could have helped promote the release of PFRPG: "It's like 3.5, but with phantom squares!"

I'd go for metamagic rod(s) of Reach. An 11k rod lets you cast heal or breath of life as ranged touch spells without needing a higher level spell slot. The lesser version of the Reach rod is very inexpensive (3k) and gets you CLW/CMW/CSW as well as lots of buffs/debuffs at range.

One other thing to note regarding channelling is that the number of cleric channels available per day does not scale with level, unlike other limited character resources like bardic performance, barbarian rage, and paladin lay on hands. The number of channels available is tied to a secondary stat and can be increased by a trait and a feat (Extra Channel) that can only be taken once.

Feats like Quick Channel, which makes channelling a move action at double cost, can increase the utility of in combat channelling, and some players value it highly. However, this starts to represent a very heavy investment of player resources (Charisma ability score, feats, possibly equipment and traits) for an ability that can only be used a very limited number of times per day.

Another shield-bearing option would be ranger with the weapon and shield fighting style from the APG.

This can net you Shield Slam as a bonus feat at 2nd and Shield Mastery at 6th level without requiring prerequisites. Ranger would get you skill points, favored enemy bonuses, some useful spells, and an animal companion. As a negative, you would be relatively feat-starved at the beginning.

Without access the Boon Companion feat (Seeker of Secrets), the ranger animal companion would be very weak. Some archetypes lose the animal companion. Alternatively, you could grab fighter levels for feats, heavy armor proficiency, and armor/weapon mastery.

Lab_Rat wrote:
This was my understanding too of the FAQ. It only says you get the discount when upgrading a mundane item to a magical one.

Would it be allowable for a player to deliberately destroy/lose a low cost magical arcane bond (since the original item was provided free, it can't be sold), pay the 200g/level + mw cost for replacing their arcane bond, and then pay the discounted craft price for converting their mundane item to a highly enchanted arcane bond? This could be cost effective depending upon the particulars of the improved item being sought, eg a +1 to a +3 equivalent item.

A few ideas:

1) If you have any interest in picking up Spell Perfection at 15th level, make sure you have 3 metamagic feats before then.

2) I'm assuming your references to Spell Focus: Fireball and Greater Spell Focus: Fireball were meant to be Spell Specialization and Greater Spell Specialization: Fireball. Note that adding metamagic to a spontaneously converted spell from Greater Spell Specialization increases casting time. Since you know what spell you want to focus on, consider grabbing Preferred Spell (Fireball) to keep the casting time down to one standard action when spontaneously converting and adding metamagic. Requires Heighten Spell as prerequisite.

3) If traits are allowed, consider Magical Lineage (Fireball).

4) You're investing a lot of crafting feats into crafting golems. I guess that keeping Craft Wondrous Item, adding Craft Rod, adding Leadership, and naming your cohort and followers Golem isn't an option you want to consider?

5) If you haven't taken a look at it, Professor Q also has a good wizard guide, linked in the Guide to the Class Guides sticky.

Just a minor suggestion: consider staying in the Magaambyan Arcanist prestige class for one more level for the constant protection from evil effect. Assuming you're only playing to 12th level, you'd be giving up the dimensional steps SLA from 8th level conjurer, but would retain the Su shift ability from the teleportation subschool.

Epimetheus wrote:
I could be wrong but Acadamae Graduate seems to be a feat not a trait.

Epimetheus is correct. It's on the list of Additional Resources, so it's PFS-legal, but it's a feat.

Jiggy wrote:
So it looks like if a 3/4 BAB PC with no extra damage bonuses needs a natural roll of ~15+ to hit, it might be worth aiding instead of attacking. Does that sound about right?


Using the specifics you provided for Mr. Greatsword and Bob/Thomas, I ran some dpr numbers looking for the break even point for the +2 Aid Another action versus normal attack. From levels 5-11, Aid Another was the superior choice if Bob/Thomas needed an attack roll of 16+ to hit on his initial attack. This represented an opponent AC of approximately CR+4.

Using the same specifics, I looked for the break even point if Bob/Thomas had the helpful trait which grants a +4 on Aid Another actions. Between levels 5-11, Aid Another was the superior choice when Bob/Thomas needed an attack roll of 12-13+ to hit on his initial iterative attack. This represents an opponent AC of about CR+0 to +1.

(The break even point was +1 higher at 3rd lvl for both the +2 and +4 Aid Another specs as the success chance of Aid Another is lower and the difference in combat output between Mr Greatsword and Bob was less.)

TLDR: For some support characters, using the Aid Another action in combat can be a superior choice over using their normal attack sequence versus high AC opponents.

Damned ninjas jumped on this one ;)

Jiggy, this is an interesting question, but I think more information is needed before a numerical value for the DPR contribution of an Aid Another action can be calculated.

To rephrase the question from your opening post: What is the DPR increase provided by giving your full BAB ally an untyped +2 bonus on their next attack roll? In addition to equipment and ability scores, I think you need to make some assumptions regarding the build of the front line ally: fighter with feat and weapon training progression (with Gloves of Dueling purchased when appropriate), ranger +/- favored enemy +/ flanking from animal companion, barbarian with feat progression and raging. A vanilla fighter with standard weapon feats might give you a good baseline.

Target AC is also needed. My gut feeling is that the DPR value of Aid Another increases when facing above CR opponent armor classes. Calculating DPR change when facing a CR+2 or +3 versus CR or CR -2 average armor class would be useful.

Aid another is also not an automatic success, but requires hitting AC 10 (with a possible -4 for cover if standing behind the fighter with a reach weapon). While this might be achievable on any roll higher than a natural 1 at high levels, at starting levels it's more difficult. Some build info on the assisting class is needed (3/4 BAB, 14 Str, no weapon feats?)

While the standard Aid Another action nets your ally a +2 to hit, many humanoids seem to be adopted by halflings and raised to be helpful. What the halflings get from this is unclear, but the +4 Aid Another from the 'helpful' trait is certainly a boon.

Anyway, I'll try and crunch some numbers in a spreadsheet late today if you haven't received some answers in the interim.

Thank you all! The overlapping messageboard text issue plaguing this phone (iPhone 4, iOS 5.1, Safari) appears resolved.

Benrislove said wrote:
TL;DR - Fireball or burning arc for magical lineage? What spell for my lone level 1 sorc spell?

As Odea points out, you can legally grab one via magical lineage and the other via Wayang Spellhunter.

I like Rime spell as your 5th level wizard bonus metamagic feat. You could add it to all your fireball and burning arc memorizations (assuming magical lineage/wayang spellhunter effect) before you're high enough level to memorize dazing variants.

I also prefer magic missile over burning hands as your single 1st lvl sorcerer spell, but that's a playstyle thing. As a wizard, I don't like to be within 15' of an enemy without an ally standing in front of me. When you shift spell specialization away from this spell, it's hard to keep the slot relevant.

With Divination as one of your opposed schools, I'd make sure to grab detect magic and read magic as 0-lvl sorcerer spells so you don't have to pay the double slot memorization tax as a wizard.

I don't see any feats listed at 3rd & 5th lvl. I prefer Preferred Spell (and it's Heighten Spell prerequisite) over Greater Spell Specialization because it's available much sooner (5th vs 9th lvl) and doesn't increase the casting time of metamagic'ed spontaneous spells.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cooperative storytelling at its best:

Player 1: What does your compsognathus thing look like?

Player 2: It looks like a +4 next to my initiative modifier.

FAQ'ing, accepting table variation, and waiting for this thread to die.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With so much melee in your party and no one playing a bard, I'd also consider the evangelist archetype for its Inspire Courage ability. You lose a domain and it gimps your channel progression, but might be worth it if you value that buff. This would stack with the the 8th lvl Heroism aura from the Heroism subdomain if you went in that direction

Perhaps the future will bring a release of "The Ultimate Book of Errata'd Roleplay."

By RAW, two things came to mind:

1) The feat Shield Slam from the APG gives you a free bull rush maneuver with every successful shield bash attack. Opponents who cannot be moved back because of a wall or other surface are knocked prone. This feat can be obtained at 6th level by a full BAB class or as a 2nd level bonus feat by a ranger with the shield and weapon combat style (also APG).

2) The Bestiary feat Awesome Blow would work, but requires Str 25 and large size among its prerequisites.

Houseruling, your group is always welcome to do what you want. In my opinion, allowing any successful bull rush to knock an opponent prone if they cannot be moved back because of a wall seems reasonable. I'd be reluctant to add any additional damage to such a condition, since that might make bull rush maneuvers unbalanced compared to trip maneuvers and the Awesome Blow feat.

I also think the -20 to hold as part of the Grab rules is a holdover from 3.5 and made more sense in the context of that ruleset. In 3.5, taking that -20 to hold enabled a creature to continue to threaten an area and use its remaining attacks against other opponents. In subsequent rounds, it could hold the same opponent in a grapple, add more if it had more attacks with +Grab, and use its remaining attacks.

The intended use of the -20 option on a Grab in PF is unclear to me. The grappled condition is much less severe than 3.5 (ie does not equal instant sneak attackable) and maintaining a grapple is now a standard action.

Take for example the Kraken in PF's Bestiary. It has an Ex ability to make grapples without gaining the grappled condition without needing to take a -20 penalty, but doesn't get much benefit from it. It could Grab and grapple a total of 10 opponents in one round. In the next round, if it wanted to maintain a grapple against one(=standard action), it would have to release nine opponents as a free action and wouldn't get attacks against additional opponents. Optionally, it could release all 10 as a free action and get its full attack sequence back. This doesn't seem intended, but looks like current RAW.

Regarding how anyone kept grappling rules straight in 3.5, my group relied heavily on Skip Williams four part 'All About Grappling' series written as part of his Rules of the Game column. Rather than just an FAQ, I think grappling/grab rules could benefit from a detailed Blog post(s). I know the design team is usually getting hammered with work that needs to get done to pay the bills. I wish there were a method to compensate them for the time they put towards rules FAQs and Blogs.

My take

lowew wrote:

Round 1
Snake bites, gets to start a grapple as a free action (+4 bonus due to GRAB), no AoO, the Pc takes Bite damage, and constrict damage (he does NOT take the free damage from grab, nor can the snake choose the "damage" grapple action). Assume PC fails his escape attempt this round.

Looks fine. Just want to note two things:

  • The +4 bonus to grapple CMB from Grab is usually included in the stat block (eg "CMB +5 (+9 grapple)" for the constrictor snake in the Bestiary.)
  • The grappled condition applies to both the snake and the PC, giving them each a -4 penalty to Dex. This gives the snake a -2 penalty to its CMD, giving the PC a slightly higher chance of escaping on the PC's turn.

Grappled Condition:
A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

lowew wrote:

Round 2

Snake succesfully maintains the grapple as a STANDARD action, not free anymore (he gets a +9 on the roll to do this btw +5 from page 200 crb, and an additional +4 from GRAB ability bestiary 1 301). Therefore the PC takes: 1. Damage as a grapple action (bite natural attack, page 200 CRB), 2. Bite damage again (not from the bite per se, but from the Grab EX ability, page 301, Best 1), and 3. Constrict damage again since the snake made a successful grapple check (Best 1, 301). as a MOVE action the snake takes the PC under water and so the PC is subject to drowning rules (which I will not go into here).

The bolded part in the quote block is incorrect. The grappled condition applies to both the snake and the PC: "Grappled creatures cannot move." If you want to move while performing a grapple, you have to do so as part of the standard action spent to maintain a grapple.

Assume for the sake of example that the snake chooses to move the PC underwater and succeeds on its grapple check (CMB +4 as described in stat block, +5 for maintaining a grapple), doing 1x bite/grab damage, 1x constrict damage in the process. As this is a hazardous location, the PC gets a free attempt to break the grapple, with a +4 bonus (against the snake's CMD with its penalty of -2 for the grappled condition's -4 to Dex)

moving a grapple:
You can move both yourself and your target up to half your speed. At the end of your movement, you can place your target in any square adjacent to you. If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.

If the snake was choosing not to move, pin or tie up, but to do damage as part of its grapple, I agree it would do 2x bite/grab damage (it only has one type of natural attack) and 1x constrict damage.

The snake will have an unused move action which cannot be used to move while maintaining the grappled condition. This will likely come in to play only if the snake releases its grapple as a free action and chooses to move away at normal speed.

In response to a comment from two days ago:

Ssalarn wrote:
You cannot "drop as a free action" Light and Heavy Shields. They're strapped on. It is a move action to remove them.

Ssalarn is correct. I looked around and may have found a way to improve that. For 50g extra, a shield can be a Throwing Shield, enabling the shield to be thrown and by extension, dropped, as a free action.

Throwing Shield:
Benefit: This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps allowing you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls.

Abyssian wrote:

Rangers with the Weapon and Shield combat style can also get Shield Master as a bonus feat at level 6 instead of having to wait for +11 BAB.

PRD wrote:
Weapon and Shield: If the ranger selects weapon and shield style, he can choose from the following list whenever he gains a combat style feat: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Shield Slam, and Two-Weapon Fighting. At 6th level, he adds Saving Shield* and Shield Master to the list. At 10th level, he adds Bashing Finish* and Greater Shield Focus to the list.
You only get TWF, not ITWF or GTWF, but you get Shield Master at sixth level!

If taking Shield Master at 6th via the ranger weapon and shield style, you'd probably want to plan on picking up TWF feats at least through ITWF and possibly Two-Weapon Rend in the future if two-shield fighting.

Otherwise, just focusing strength and two-hand power attacking with a single well-enchanted shield with Shield Master perks to attack and AC will likely produce superior damage to adding a single off hand shield attack.

dirk wrote:
Which book is agile amulet of mighty fist at or agil enchantment??

Agile weapon enchantment is from Pathfinder Society Field Guide.

Guided is from one of the CoCT AP books (since this was a 3.5 AP, Guided weapon property may not be accepted by all GMs)

Valiant, just a couple quick notes on your build: Power Attack and Weapon Focus can't be taken at first level by a 3/4 BAB class. I think you're a few thousand gold over expected WBL for an 8th lvl character (33k), although not over WBL for 9th. A lot of buffs factored in there...

Tashen wrote:

I am using Hero Labs and I have just about everything for it, but I don't see Loremaster under the Fighter Archtypes. Where do you find that at?

Also, I could not find agile whip. I did find agile maneuvers which looked interesting, but not agile whip. Where can I find that also?

Not Loremaster, but Lorewarden. Both that archetype and the Agile weapon quality are from the Pathfinder Society Field Guide.

But why shouldn't Rahadoumi monks be the best at godless unarmed combat?

Dabbler said wrote:
It's one thing when every fighting class needs align weapon cast on them, another when only one does.

Just a minor note for Dabbler and Lord Pendragon: align weapon does not work for unarmed strikes.

align weapon:
Align weapon makes a weapon chaotic, evil, good, or lawful, as you choose. A weapon that is aligned can bypass the damage reduction of certain creatures. This spell has no effect on a weapon that already has an alignment.

You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike. When you make a weapon chaotic, evil, good, or lawful, align weapon is a chaotic, evil, good, or lawful spell, respectively.

In the interest of freeing up word count, the monk's signature full attack could be renamed. By deleting 'flurry of' from 'monk flurry of blows' you'd free up space in all the rule books, but might inadvertently perpetuate some negative impressions.

Artanthos wrote:
Ezekiel W wrote:
As 'Grapple' is not a standard animal trick, I think by RAW you'd have to push an animal to do this,

That is an interesting ruling. Would you also apply it to an animal with a natural grapple attack?

Nope, the companions with natural combat maneuver attacks have a grab attack for an automatic grapple check or an automatic trip check delineated as part of their attack sequence.

I think if you wanted to have an animal companion perform a dirty trick, sunder, or any combat maneuver that was not part of their regular attack sequence, it would require a Push attempt or being trained as a custom trick (if allowed). Animal tricks are listed for such very basic commands as 'Stay' and 'Down' so it seems unusual that you could have an animal companion execute a wide range of combat maneuvers without having it trained as a trick or making a push attempt.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thod wrote:
This happened lately in a game on tier 5-9.

Was this player playing down a tier? This feat chain can not be completed on an animal companion before level 10. Greater Grapple requires a BAB of 6; animal companions get BAB of 6 at 9th level and obtain their next feat at 10th level.

As 'Grapple' is not a standard animal trick, I think by RAW you'd have to push an animal to do this, even if the animal companion can understand a language from the anthropomorphic animal spell.

There are multiple animal companions with higher strength that seem to be more suited to grappling builds, eg big cats and constrictor snakes from the basic list. Since the starting feat in the chain, Improved Unarmed Strike does not have any prereqs, I don't think a player would even need to cast anthropomorphic animal once they had increased the companion's int to 3 to open up the feat list.

I am more concerned with the numbers and would suggest double checking the large camel companion's grapple CMB. Unless significantly buffed, I'm not seeing it overcoming a CMD of 41 unless it's rolling close to a 20: BAB 6, +7 for Str 24, +2 Improved Grapple, +2 Greater Grapple, +1 for large size gives CMB 18 for grapple. An AoMF for the animal companion or greater magic fang could grant a few points of enhancement bonus. Were there a lot of other buffs in play? Let me know how the math for this worked.

Kudos to the player for a hilarious image regardless.

Thanks for the pricing explanation.

Dennis may be indicating that the listed price (2250g) does not equal 2x the listed cost (1250g), which does appear to be an error.

I cannot help Nosig with his original question (seen in PFS?) so will now bow out from this thread.

Jiggy wrote:
Thanks for the lookup, Ezekiel! What chapter is that in? Combat?

Yep, Combat: Combat Modifiers, p.196 CRB 1st ed.

Todd Morgan wrote:
I don't see the benefit of purposefully blinding yourself in combat. True you have concealment from sneak attacks and can't be targeted by ranged attacks, but unless you have a way to see through the mist, you are hampering yourself as well.

Mistmail effect only fills the user's space and moves with the character. By the concealment rules, the user would not be hampered by this effect:

"To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target's square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment.

When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has concealment if his space is entirely within an effect that grants concealment. When making a melee attack against a target that isn't adjacent to you, use the rules for determining concealment from ranged attacks."

Jiggy wrote:
Ezekiel W wrote:
kinevon wrote:

For your #1 objection, there are plenty of ways to do the same thing without spending 2250 gp. I believe there is even a first level spell that can do that, Entropic Shield.

Not worth much concern, IMO.

I respectfully must disagree. Entropic Shield lasts for 1 min/level and only protects against ranged attacks.

Mistmail's effect could last indefinitely unless subjected to wind effects, dispelled, or deactivated. For a user who could obtain and be satisfied with a stacking mage armor effect, this provides a benefit akin to a minor cloak of displacement (24k gp) for less than 1/10 the cost.
Except that the cloak could be worn by someone with three times the armor bonus that Mr. Mage-Mist combo gets. There will be a huge difference in the number of successful attacks between the two. Your comparison is invalid unless you're assuming that the cloak is typically worn in conjunction with no more than a mundane chain shirt.

You're quite right. The classes that could benefit would be very limited, which I why I specified those users who would be satisfied with a mage armor effect. If all aspects of armor (like ACP and ASF, which seems unclear to me from the description) are negated while wearing Mistmail in fog form, it seems like it would benefit wizards/sorcerers, monks, and otherwise unarmored monstrous villains in addition to the low level rogues who were likely its intended buyers.

For those individuals, as a defensive item, with considerable limitations, it seems valuable. The worth of an item versus its cost is pretty subjective. I am more interested in deciding whether ACP and ASF are negated in this item's mist form.

kinevon wrote:

For your #1 objection, there are plenty of ways to do the same thing without spending 2250 gp. I believe there is even a first level spell that can do that, Entropic Shield.

Not worth much concern, IMO.

I respectfully must disagree. Entropic Shield lasts for 1 min/level and only protects against ranged attacks.

Mistmail's effect could last indefinitely unless subjected to wind effects, dispelled, or deactivated. For a user who could obtain and be satisfied with a stacking mage armor effect, this provides a benefit akin to a minor cloak of displacement (24k gp) for less than 1/10 the cost.

1 to 50 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.