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

Gauss's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 8,074 posts (8,082 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 8,074 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Komoda wrote:

Level 15 means the FOB attacks are based on a 15.

So the attacks are as follows:

First Main Hand Attack it is 15 (Base) - 2 (Flurry of Blows aka Two Weapon Fighting light off hand weapon penalty) = 13
First Off Hand Attack it is 15 (Base) - 2 (Flurry of Blows aka Two Weapon Fighting light off hand weapon penalty) = 13

Second Main Hand Attack it is 15 (Base) - 2 (Flurry of Blows aka Two Weapon Fighting light off hand weapon penalty) - 5 (Main Hand second iterative attack penalty) = 8
Second Off Hand Attack it is 15 (Base) - 2 (Flurry of Blows aka Two Weapon Fighting light off hand weapon penalty) - 5 (Off Hand second iterative attack penalty) = 8

Third Main Hand Attack it is 15 (Base) - 2 (Flurry of Blows aka Two Weapon Fighting light off hand weapon penalty) - 10 (Main Hand third iterative attack penalty) = 3
Third Off Hand Attack it is 15 (Base) - 2 (Flurry of Blows aka Two Weapon Fighting light off hand weapon penalty) - 10 (Off Hand third iterative attack penalty) = 3

Hopefully this helps.

Komoda is mostly correct but the terminology needs improving. I fixed it (bolded).

The simple way to think of this is:
If your Base Attack Bonus (BAB) is 15 then you have the following:
15/10/5 where 15 is your first iterative attack, 10 (BAB-5) is your second iterative attack, and 5 (BAB-10) is your third iterative attack.

Next, Two Weapon Fighting gives you an extra attack at your best BAB so now you have 15/15/10/5.
Second that Improved Two Weapon Fighting gives you an extra attack at your second iterative attack bonus (BAB-5) so now you have 15/15/10/10/5.
Third, Greater Two Weapon Fighting gives you an extra attack at your third iterative attack bonus (BAB-10) so that now you have 15/15/10/10/5/5.

But, we cannot forget about the penalties for using a off-hand weapon. Those penalties will be either -4 (1handed weapon) or -2 (light weapon). Unarmed Strikes count as a light weapon giving us a -2 penalty to all attacks.
That gives us our final result of 13/13/8/8/3/3.

Flurry of Blows just gives you a table that matches this calculation.


CRB p212 wrote:
You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

So, you start off with Reduce Person...then you cast Form of the Dragon. Reduce Person no longer has any effect on you. You do not get both effects.

If you start with Form of the Dragon and cast Reduce Person on you it has no effect. You do not get both effects.

If you start with Form of the Dragon and cast Alter Self on you you have the choice of keeping Form of the Dragon or losing it and going with Alter Self. You do not get both.


I am really not understanding your calculations.

Two-weapon fighting using light weapons assigns a -2 attack penalty to your attacks.

So if you have 15/10/5 and then you add in bonus attacks from TWF, Imp. TWF, Gr. TWF you have 15/15/10/10/5/5.
But you still have to factor in the -2 penalty. That drops it to 13/13/8/8/3/3.

I don't know why you are coming up with -2/-2/-3/-3/-8. It should be -2/-2/-7/-7/-12/-12


Letric wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Letric wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
They both provide an armor bonus so don't stack. You would have +6 AC or +4 against incorporeal.

The strongest takes place and the weakest ceases functioning.

If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.

Against incorporeal, the haramaki provides 0. The mage armor provides 4. Therefore, against incorporeal attacks (or brilliant energy, or other things that ignore physical armor but not force effects) the mage armor is the higher bonus.

Against most attacks, the haramaki is the higher bonus of 6, so it applies and the mage armor is ignored.

Your quote specifically is only relevant to bracers of armor, not all armor. The purpose of that is so that you can't have +1 bracers of fortified, other armor abilities, and still have the armor and enhancement bonus of a suit of armor.

I'm pretty sure there's not a consensus on that. I can agree on a RAI level but it's up to DM. There's no rule about how Armor and Mage Armor interact, the only reference is Bracers of Armor.
CRB p149 Armor wrote:
Armor/Shield Bonus: Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn’t stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn’t stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus.

Unless you have a rule that allows multiple armor bonuses to stack then you cannot stack armor.

Now, some people then try to state that the armor's enhancement bonus to AC is somehow separate from the AC bonus the armor provides and thus stacks with Mage Armor.

CRB p179 AC wrote:
Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides.

So an armor's enhancement bonus enhances the AC of the armor, not the wearer's AC. As a result, it is not separate from the AC of the armor.

Only the highest bonus applies unless the stacking rule states otherwise.

Summary:
Correct calculation:
1armor +5enhancement to armor bonus = 6armor bonus.
6armor bonus > 4armor bonus = 6armor bonus.

Incorrect calculation:
1armor bonus < 4armor bonus = 4armor bonus.
Then add +5enhancement to armor bonus = 9armor bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Just noticed that bracers also don't specify that they work against incorporeal. It's possible they are just different kinds of things.
CRB p179 Armor Class - Touch Attacks wrote:
Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.
CRB p504 Bracers of Armor wrote:
They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Oddman80 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Note that being unable to see where you are going counts as hampered movement and thus halves your speed and prevents running or taking a 5' step.

Given the Line of sight rule, this is irrelevant to the question at hand, however, Having one's sight be limited to 5' is not the same as being blind.

BLIND wrote:
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.

Being blind does not mean you HAVE to move at half speed - just that if you move faster than half speed, you must make a DC 10 Acrobatics check or fall prone. This is because you can not even see where you are stepping and you may step in a ditch or trip on something you cannot see. However, a medium creature, mounted on a large creature, can see pretty clearly within the 20'-0"(w) x 20'-0" (l) x 15'-0" (h) zone that surrounds them. So it would be rather extreme to apply a penalty greater than what actually being BLIND would require.

ALL THAT SAID, @Danzibe1989 - you should really try to go with the flow and not bust out into rules arguments at the table. It is one thing if you design your entire character around a part of the rules and then without warning your GM says that rule is going to change on you. It is different for you to spend game time arguing about who the world works. A large part of the game is playing the role - and while there is a lot of...

If the GM is changing rules on the fly without the player's knowledge or understanding then he is playing a different game than the player is.

This is not a case of the cavaliers having an ability the player didn't know about. This is a case of the GM not educating himself and then rejecting anyone telling him otherwise and screwing the player. It sounds like this is a consistent issue with this GM.

Either he needs to educate himself, accept that the players know better and be willing to adjust his tactics when they correct him, or play a different game or with different people who don't care what the rules are.

If the GM is going to make up/change the rules he better know the rules he is changing before he does so.


Nothing says that your turn ends when you grapple someone.

People are misapplying the rules if they believe that it does. They are applying something that happens on your next turn (maintain check) to the turn that initiates the grapple.

Heck, even when maintaining a grapple you can make a Full Attack IF you have a means to maintain the grapple with a bonus action (such as Hero Points).

Hero Point gain a Standard Action to maintain, then Full-Attack.


Everyone dies. :)


I am kinda curious why everyone is discussing full attacks. The OP didn't state this was a full-attack issue. I think the problem is more basic than that.

I believe that his "bro" is disputing that he has two attacks at all.

Mad_Fawks, not only can you have multiple natural attacks, it is possible at level 1 to have three natural attacks with an Eidolon that you can all use at once (with a full-attack action or a charge action if you have pounce).

A quadraped Eidolon has a Bite for free. Then you can buy claws for it's limbs (1pt) and Pounce (1pt) leaving 1 evolution point available for something else.

So at level 1 your Eidolon can have 3 attacks per round (bite/claw/claw) AND be able to move every round (via charge) and still get all of it's attacks every round.

OP? Absolutely! Welcome to Pathfinder.

P.S. Damage dice is not really a balancing factor for the most part. Damage dice quickly gets outstripped by bonuses.
+3/+3/+3attack for 1d6+2/1d4+2/1d4+2 is a lot better than +3attack for 1d6+3
And that is without factoring in Power Attack (-1attack, +2damage...PER ATTACK). While charging (+2attack) you really won't care about that attack penalty.


Samish Lakefinder wrote:

It appears you can cast flare into a square you can not see in a fog cloud. Flare is a burst effect which only requires LOE. It seems like Flare should either target a single creature or have a burst of one square. The way it is written now it seems like you could only effect yourself, as you are a creature, there is no facing in Pathfinder, and if you wanted to affect another creature the spell would burst in front of more than a single creature.

PRD wrote:

FLARE

School evocation [light]; Level bard 0, druid 0, sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect burst of light
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Fortitude negates; Spell Resistance yes
This cantrip creates a burst of light. If you cause the light to burst in front of a single creature, that creature is dazzled for 1 minute unless it makes a successful Fortitude save. Sightless creatures, as well as creatures already dazzled, are not affected by flare.
I think this spell should be a targeted spell, as it was made as a response to an old tactic of casting light in people's eyes. It was a valid target of the spell at the time with no defined rules, so many GMs made there own effects that went up to blindness.

Actually, it still requires either the ability to see the creature's location or at least be able to define where it is.

CRB p214 wrote:
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present. You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell’s range.

So while there is no target you still, more or less, have to see or know about the area it is in.

What that means in the case of a fog is that you could flare someone in a fog...ONLY if you could define the area (square) the creature is in (for example, someone told you).

It is worth noting that many of us made the assumption that there would be a target line in a spell that is clearly a targeting attack spell. But, at least the effect line has the same effect, more or less. Silly rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ckdragons wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
ckdragons wrote:

What is the target was in the middle of an fog cloud, and you were on the outside of it? Could you target a specific square that is concealed to you even though you have "line of effect?"

If you can't see it, you can't target it.

Could a spellcaster target a square/intersection within the fog cloud he can't see with an AOE spell (fireball)?

Yes

CRB p215 wrote:
Line of Effect: A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It’s like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it’s not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

The rule (below) that requires line of sight for targeted spells does not apply to area spells unless the area spell also has a target line.

CRB p213 wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravensgray wrote:

Hi all,

That's great thanks for your assistance.

I'm going to take it that I can cast it against the back of his head. If I wanted to cast it in front of his eyes then I'd need to move so I can see the front of his face. A simple 5 ft step may infact achieve this for me.

Thanks again for all your help. Appreciated.

Ravensgray,

You are misunderstanding things.

There is no facing.

Do you see the creature?
If yes: cast the spell on it.

The creature's facing has zero bearing. What direction he is looking has zero bearing.

Heck, there are not even rules regarding 'I put it in front of him' because such rules are not necessary.

The only rule relevant to your issue here is: can you see him, then you can target him.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
or a magic item (muleback cords) to increase your effective strength for carrying capacity.
It's not worth to dump Str to miss out on Cloak of Resistance.

Muleback Cords do not require you to miss out on a Cloak of Resistance.

Cloak of Resistance added to Muleback Cords raises the price of the Muleback Cords by 500gp (CRB p553 Adding New Abilities).
(Note: Not legal in PFS but the OP didn't say he was playing PFS.)
And before a GM says 'but I don't allow custom items' this isn't custom, it is combining items, which is something very different. After all, that is how they priced out a Belt of +2 Strength and +2 Constitution (4000gp +4000gp*1.5 = 10000gp).


First, nice necro.

Second, your flurry example has too many attacks.

Normal Monk attack sequence at level 15: +11/+6/+1
Then we change that to the BAB when flurrying: +15/+10/+5
Now we add the offhand attacks: +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5
And finally we factor in the -2 penalty for two-weapon fighting: +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3

Which is exactly what Table 3-10 shows for level 15.

It looks like you are adding attacks onto the flurry of blows sequence listed in Table 3-10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Core Rulebook is correct regarding ethereal creatures but incorrect in that it provides ghosts as an example of one.
Back in 3.5 incorporeal creatures (such as ghosts) were often ethereal but this is no longer the case. They decided to separate incorporeal from ethereal.

My guess is that that section of the CRB was written before they decided to change how incorporeal creatures were designed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here is your 'positive proof statement':

Pathfinder Conversion Guide p7 wrote:
Note that the rogue sneak attack ability now functions against most constructs, plants, and undead. It does not function against oozes, elementals, and incorporeal undead.
Pathfinder Conversion Guide p17 wrote:
Constructs, plants, and most undead are no longer immune to sneak attacks or critical hits. Elementals, incorporeal undead, and oozes are still immune to such attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

d20pfsrd is not an official source.

I think you are operating under a misconception. Oracle spells are generally not stated as such in the books. Even the book Oracles were introduced in, the APG, does not have oracles in the list of classes able to cast the spell unless it is an 'Oracle only' spell.

Any spell that states "Cleric" is able to be cast by an Oracle unless stated otherwise.

APG p42 wrote:
Spells: An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists (see pages 226–229 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook).

Here is an example of a "Cleric 7" spell that does not state "Oracle 7". In that spell is a reference to Oracles using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If they have the human subtype then the answer should be yes.


Where do you see these spells? Can you provide a link or provide examples?

Unless stated otherwise, all cleric spells are on the oracle's spell list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
That's highly subjective, Lady-J. Some groups use 10-point for a more challenging game, some use it to encourage SAD classes over MAD ones, some don't know that the game is mostly balanced around 15-points, and yes, some because the GM is being a jerk. But that's not the only reason.
people don't really need a reason to play a wizard or a cleric over a monk or paladin though low point buy is just there to punish classes that aren't as strong as the tier one sadest of sad casters altho if you want to go back to 3.5's party dynamic of 2 clerics and every one else is wizards you hardly need 10 point buy to do that just ban every other class but clerics and wizards

That is your opinion Lady-J. There are a number of reasons to run low point buy. You don't know the GM's reason in this case, you don't know what style of game they are playing nor what options and restrictions they are playing under.

Yes, if you try to do a 10point buy in a standard game there would be a number of issues, but we don't know that this is a standard game.


1) Wrong forum :)

2) What kind of character? People might be able to suggest a build.

Lady-J, there are other reasons beyond 'punish' for 10 point buy. Could be lack of understanding, could be a low-power game, could be any number of reasons.


Lady-J wrote:
isn't there a rule were specific trumps generic? thus the specific lance faq would beat the generic 2h weapon in one hand faq

The 'specific lance FAQ' is actually not specific to lances, it just used the lance as an example. Also, it does not deal with strength bonuses.

It contradicts the 'general' FAQ that was released at a later date.
However, since the earlier FAQ mentions the Lance as an example people like to use it as the 'specific trumps general' case in order to get extra Power Attack damage despite the, later, more common sense FAQ.

Frankly, Paizo should just rescind the earlier FAQ as abrogated by the newer FAQ. Even Paizo Devs have stated there is an apparent contradiction here.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is there a 3.5 ruling on it? That is my default when PF ones don't work out.
3.5 Rules Compendium p151 wrote:

Two-Handed

Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively. Apply 1-1/2 times the Strength bonus on damage rolls for melee attacks with such a weapon. If you’re allowed to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, such as when riding and using a lance, that weapon is considered one-handed for the purpose of the Strength bonus on damage rolls while you’re using it in one hand.

So, while 3.5 dealt with the strength issue to my knowledge it didn't deal with the Power Attack issue that these FAQs created.

Edit: I did some searching and found the 3.5 FAQ

3.5 Main FAQ p48 wrote:

You can get a host of benefits from wielding a two-handed weapon, such as 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage (and twice your damage bonus from the Power Attack feat) and a +4 bonus on your opposed attack roll if someone tries to disarm you. So when is a weapon “two-handed?” For example, a lance is a two-handed weapon, right? But you can wield it in one hand when you’re mounted. Since the weapons table shows that a lance is a two handed weapon, I get all the two-handed benefits no matter how I wield the lance, right?

Wrong. Table 7–5 in the PH lists weapons as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of convenience. These size categories are always relative to the wielder’s size, as explained in some detail in the section on weapon size on page 113 in the PH (also see next question).
When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons, they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a “two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see page 113 in the PH). Likewise, you always take a –4 penalty on your opposed roll when you’re wielding a light weapon in a disarm attempt (when someone tries to disarm you or you try to disarm someone) regardless of whether you wield it one- or two-handed.

So based on this back in 3.5 it was not the initial category of the weapon (Lance) in question but how it is used that mattered for ALL effects related to handedness, that would include power attack.

Ie: In 3.5 a Lance used 2handed was treated as 2handed for all purposes while a Lance used 1handed was treated as 1handed for all purposes.

Frankly, this seems to be what the more recent Paizo FAQ was trying to do. It was the older Paizo FAQ that would be contradicting this general principle.


Backpack wrote:
Otherwise, we must surmise that the faq is wrong and that they conflict.

Over the years a couple of Devs have agreed that there is an apparent conflict and that the two FAQs need to be revisited. Paizo has yet to do that.

Welcome to mounted combat in Pathfinder...where answers are slow to come, if ever. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I heard a good argument once that the mounts strength should be added to the lance damage.

Level 8 Order of the Sword does exactly that.


Backpack,

There is no rule that allows you to deal 1.5x Str damage with a lance while it is in one hand. The FAQ that allows you to deal 2handed damage with Power Attacks does not extend to Strength.


First, the "jousting" lance is just one form of lance and probably not the lance most commonly used in battle.

Here is an image of a lance being used two-handed
Wiki discussing lance use, including mentioning the Roman contus (kontos), a 3-4meter long thrusting spear (lance) that was used in two hands.

Second, according to this FAQ the lance gets +50% power attack damage while being used 1handed.

However, according to this FAQ when using a two-handed weapon in one hand you use one-handed strength and power attack modifiers.

While some Paizo staff have agreed that there is an apparent contradiction here they have yet to fix it.

So as currently written we have:
2handed lances = 1.5x STR and +50% Power Attack
AND
1handed lances = 1x STR and no bonus to Power Attack (If you believe the FAQs are in conflict and that the general FAQ should be applied as it makes more sense.)
OR
1handed lances = 1x STR and +50% Power Attack (If you believe that the Lance specific FAQ trumps more general 2handed in 1hand FAQ even though it creates a weird dichotomy of 1x STR and +50% Power Attack.)

Note: there is NO FAQ that allows you to get 1.5x STR while using a Lance in one hand.


It functions like any other spell, you get one save unless stated otherwise.
In the case of Shadow Conjuration you get a save to recognize it as an illusion.
Then, if the spell the Shadow Conjuration is mimicking has it's own save the enemy gets to roll that too. However, there is no save for an opponent vs Mage Armor so that part is not applicable.

Here are the rules on disbelief, they may help you.

CRB p211 wrote:

Saving Throws and Illusions (Disbelief ): Creatures encountering an illusion usually do not receive saving throws to recognize it as illusory until they study it carefully or interact with it in some fashion.

A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.
A failed saving throw indicates that a character fails to notice something is amiss. A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw. If any viewer successfully disbelieves an illusion and communicates this fact to others, each such viewer gains a saving throw with a +4 bonus.

Basically, it is real until you interact, and then you get a chance (save) to disbelieve. It doesn't state you get multiple chances (saves).


1) I said nothing of the sort. I said that if the opponent made the Will save then the effect (Mage Armor) only has a 20% chance to work.
All of the listed clauses were the results of a successful Will save.

2) Yes, you can voluntarily fail a save, except the rule states that there is no save if you have proof.

CRB p211 wrote:
A character faced with proof that an illusion isn’t real needs no saving throw.

Thus, there is no save to voluntarily fail, you automatically disbelieve.


1) No, instead it will be present 20% of the time.

Shadow Conjuration has several clauses (all of the following assumes that the creature made the will save):

Damaging attack: If it does damage it only does 20% of the damage.
Non-damaging attack: If it is non-damaging it only affects the creature 20% of the time.
Objects and Substances: 20% chance to work
Shadow Creature: damage is 20% normal, non-damaging special abilities have a 20% chance to work, AC bonuses are 20% normal.

Mage Armor would probably fall under objects and substances for lack of a better category, thus, a 20% chance to work.

2) As the caster of the spell you have proof that the spell is an illusion, thus you automatically know it is an illusion and it has reduced/no effect against you (note: this has been debated but I believe this is the general consensus).

Thus, a Greater Shadow Evocation version of Contingency, being cast upon yourself, would have no effect upon you since you automatically disbelieve it.

CRB p340 wrote:
Nondamaging effects have normal effects except against those who disbelieve them. Against disbelievers, they have no effect.

However, other people may see it differently.


Oddman80 wrote:
hmm.. .the OP asked the question 5 days ago and has not responded to any of the previous 84 comments... That makes me question the motives of the original post...

At least some of his posts and the responses to those posts were removed.

Additionally, awhile back he basically called the matter settled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oliver Veyrac wrote:
nah, this damage is just a basic amount of damage with no optimization what so ever. This is just basic stuff. Not even touching anything in the d20pfsrd. As far as high levels, martial characters are the best at higher levels. Especially ranged martial characters.

You do realize that this (bolded) statement is nonsensical right?

The CRB rules are in the d20pfsrd. Ergo, your statement is the same thing as saying: "Not even touching anything in the Core Rulebook." :)


If you have merciful (active) on a weapon any damage it does, even rider damage, is non-lethal. While there is no clear statement regarding this there is plenty of precedent that rider effects have the same damage type etc as the main effect unless specifically stated otherwise.

Example: Sneak Attack Damage through a piercing weapon is piercing damage.

So Flaming Merciful does non-lethal fire damage. After all, there are Merciful Fireballs so why shouldn't merciful apply to the fire from a Merciful Flaming Sword?

As for Conductive, I would lean towards Conductive being a rider effect, and thus merciful applies to that effect.


Ring of Foe Focus (10k) for an untyped +2 AC and untyped +2 Saves vs one enemy.

Pre-errata Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier (some people haven't accepted the errata) for a +1 Luck bonus to AC (post errata that is now a +1 deflection bonus so won't help if you are using the post-errata version).

If you want to save money drop the Amulet of Natural Armor and use Barkskin instead (I am guessing you are at or above level 12 with the equipment you have).


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Grumbaki wrote:


(3) Fight golems and other monsters you can't backstab (ie: use precise strike)
- Ruins a swashbuckler's day
Golems are not immune to sneak attack or precise strike ("backstab"). You are thinking of a previous version.
Oozes, elementals, proteans, and incorporeal creatures still are though, IIRC. So the point "deny Swashbucklers precision damage for an encounter by throwing something immune to it at the party" is valid.

I was making a specific comment regarding an invalid element of his point. I did not state that the entire point was invalid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grumbaki wrote:


(3) Fight golems and other monsters you can't backstab (ie: use precise strike)
- Ruins a swashbuckler's day

Golems are not immune to sneak attack or precise strike ("backstab"). You are thinking of a previous version.


Claxon wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Rapier: use dex to damage (Fencing Grace @level 3)

By level 12 a Swashbuckler can easily do 1d4+3enhancement +7 dex +12 precise +2 Weapon Spec +2 Gr. Weapon Spec. +2 Weapon Training +8 Power Attack = 1d4+36

A level 12 Fighter trying to do the same thing (poor choice?) would have:
1d4+3enhancement+7Dex+2WS +2Gr. WS + 4 Weapon Training +8 Power Attack = 1d4+26

By a similar token, if the fighter just uses a greatsword...

Lets go ahead and change the 7 dex mod to 7 strength mod and without doing anything else the fighter will do 1d10 + 3 enhancement + 10 strength + 4 ws/gws + 4 weapon training + 12 power attack = 1d10 + 33 damage. So damage is comparable.

The real problem I've ever had with Swashbucklers is Parry/Riposte, and some of the other deeds that subvert the normal way things work. LIke being immune to disarm and sunder takes Fighters till 20th level. Or how they can trip someone without going against CMD.

I don't like Swashbuckler's, but it's not their damage output that's the problem.

Yup! I was just trying to keep it to the same 'general style of build' in order to forestall 'but Str vs Dex isn't the same!' arguments. Not necessarily the most optimum damage build.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashton Blaze wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
So many questions, so few answers.

Well the general consensus was that there is no limit on how many sneak attack a rogue can make per round.

But that is so unbelievably broken I cannot believe that even the Unchained Rogue can do it. For example: A flanking level 10 rogue with Improved two weapon fighting: A possibility of 20d6 on top of the 4 attacks. That's as much as some spells from a level 20 caster on the sneak attack alone not counting talents for re-rolling and extra effects.
So yeah that's horribly broken, so I'm personally house ruling that you can only get one sneak attack per turn, on any successful hit so it can happen most turns, but only one. It seems much more balanced.

First, nice necro.

Second, it isn't broken.

Assume that a Level 10 Unchained Rogue has a Dex of 23 (15+2race+2lvl+4belt).
Also assume that the level 10 unchained rogue has two +2 light weapons and Weapon Focus, TWF, Imp.TWF, and Double Slice)
(Total price so far: 32,000gp out of 62,000gp leaving 30,000gp for armor, saves, and other equipment.)
attack = 16/16/11/11 (7BAB+6dex+1WF+2enh-2TWF+2flank)
damage = 1d6+8+5d6SA (1d6rapier+6dex+2enh+5d6sneak attack)
Average per hit: 11.5+17.5 per hit

Now lets look at a Fighter of the same level:
Assume a Level 10 fighter has a Str of 23 (15+2race+2lvl+4belt).
Also assume that the fighter has a +3 great sword, Power Attack (-3att/+9dam), Weapon Focus (1), Weapon Specialization (2), Weapon Training (2), Improved Critical.
attack = +19/14 (10+6str+1WF+2WT+3Enh-3PA)
damage = 2d6+25 (+9str+2WS+2WT+3Enh+9PA)
Average per hit: 32

Sure, the rogue is doing 116 per round vs the Fighter's 64 BUT, the rogue is not likely to hit.

Against the average CR10 AC of 24 the DPR is:
Rogue: (0.65*(11.5+17.5)+0.15*2*0.65*11.5)*2+ (0.40*(11.5+17.5)+0.15*2*0.40*11.5)*2 = 68.145damage per round
Fighter: (0.8*(32)+0.2*2*0.8*32)+(0.55*(32)+0.2*2*0.55*32) = 60.48damage per round

Summary: The rogue is barely out-damaging the Fighter and is spending a whole bunch of feats to do it, has to get into a flanking position, AND the monster has to hold still long enough to suffer a full-attack sequence.
If the AC of the monster increases (for example, a CR12 monster with an average AC of 27) the Rogue's damage drops even farther while the Fighter's damage drops just a bit.

BTW, this isn't even the best fighter build I could come up with. This was an off-the cuff build (for example, I could have given the Fighter mutagen and increased his attack bonus by +2 and damage by +3). Better yet, @level 10 my Halfling Cavalier averages over 80damage (110+ with a challenge) per round with a single almost never-miss hit!


Mulet wrote:
Gauss wrote:


Rapier: use dex to damage (Fencing Grace @level 3)

By level 12 a Swashbuckler can easily do 1d4+3enhancement +7 dex +12 precise +2 Weapon Spec +2 Gr. Weapon Spec. +2 Weapon Training +8 Power Attack = 1d4+36

A level 12 Fighter trying to do the same thing (poor choice?) would have:
1d4+3enhancement+7Dex+2WS +2Gr. WS + 4 Weapon Training +8 Power Attack = 1d4+26

Thank you for doing the math! Penash and hero points do add a bit more grunt. He also rests frequently.

The Swashbuckler's player is very competent, and spent hours reading online about his build before spending money on Hero Lab to efficiently build and run it. He sometimes turns up dressed as his character, and purchased a bottle of Rum last week, that has the same name as his character (Calico Jack). So he's the most passionate player at the table.

Trying to explain that he wrecks face because he puts in more work than anyone else, to the others is like patting a cat backwards with a wet hand. They don't like it.

This PC also thrives on adversity. I thought permanent blindness was too much last session (Nymph), but he told me not be chicken out. So I can mess with him as much as I like, and he'll thank me for it. As long as it's by the book, no fudging rolls.

If I cripple him for a while, it will give him a challenge. The other players can step up in battle. Then as a team they can restore his sword, now aware it's his Achilles heel.

This is all sounding super dramatic, the party cares far more about the pizza being late, or my NPC's accents drifting.

Anyway, the rules I can use are:

- Rusting monsters encounter (or rusting grasp)(Rust Girallon)
- Use charm person to request the sword.
- Steal + Improved Steal Combat Maneuvers (Advanced Player's Guide)
- Heat Metal, so he drops it.
-...

Spending money on Hero Lab is not necessary to have a decent build. Frankly I find that, for many people, it is a crutch for a lack of rules knowledge but that is another discussion.

He doesn't need to put in more work than anyone else to build a competent swashbuckler. The class results in competent builds right out of the gate.

Rust Monster: this won't work very well as there is an easy reflex save to do damage to the sword.

Charm Person: as previously discussed, Swashbucklers can have decent Will saves due to Charmed Life.
Stel+Improved Steal only work if the level is low enough. After a certain level they are immune to this.
Heat Metal: first, Will Save, second this does not cause people to drop it. It just does a minor amount of damage.
Polymorph any object: Fort Save so again, Charmed Life comes into play.

Honestly, the best way to show how ineffective he can be in combat is to remove his primary damage bonus (Precise Strike) and there are several ways to do that (elementals, incorporeal creatures, oozes, swarms, and darkness/blindness).

Other options are:
1) discuss with the rest of the group how to make more effective characters.
2) discuss with the player if he is willing to go to a less effective class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wrong forum, this is not a rule question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

I'll also toss in the question of HOW he's considered OP?

I'm enjoying my Swashbuckler... and admittedly have not played him very long, with more of a fun build than optimized build... but still??? I've found he's very competent in some situations... and utterly useless in others.

For example.. in the 2 nights I started playing him... We fought skeletal undead which he could do nothing against with his rapier. His strength absolutely sucked, so any ranged attacks had to be dealt with by others... His strength sucked badly, so when we came across shadow creatures at level 3 with just my rapier... I had to actively flee the battle. And he was nearly killed by something else... but that adventure was a bloodbath.... probably not related to the class ;)

Against corporeal enemies who could be stabbed, he did pretty well. He was operating at about +9 to hit and D4+7 damage with crit range18-20 so he was a lot of fun... but I certainly haven't seen anything that is truly abusable...

Skeletons are not immune to piercing damage, they just have DR5/Bludgeoning. So you should have been doing something to them.

They are not immune to critical hits either so your Precise Strike should have been hurting them.

Ranged attacks: use crossbow

Rapier: use dex to damage (Fencing Grace @level 3)

By level 12 a Swashbuckler can easily do 1d4+3enhancement +7 dex +12 precise +2 Weapon Spec +2 Gr. Weapon Spec. +2 Weapon Training +8 Power Attack = 1d4+36

A level 12 Fighter trying to do the same thing (poor choice?) would have:
1d4+3enhancement+7Dex+2WS +2Gr. WS + 4 Weapon Training +8 Power Attack = 1d4+26


Klorox wrote:
If he's strong in will saves, just see if a necromancer or poisoner can't neutralize him on Fort saves, which swashbucklers also have as bad saves.

Perhaps you don't quite understand the saving throws of a Swashbuckler. Because he can add charisma to his saves (once per round) they are all decent to good (once per round). Kinda like a Paladin except...you guessed it...once per round.

So even weak saves with weak stat can add up to strong bonuses.
Halflings for example. By level 12 it is reasonable to assume that they will have a +11 Will and +11 Fort saves (+2Con, +1Wis, +4Resistance, +1Will from trait, +1 from Halfling) that is bumped up to a +15 via Charmed Life.

The Will save is a couple points higher than most Wizard types and the Fort save is within a point or so of what most Fighter types have.


The spell Greater Detect Magic will detect the trace of magic for 1day/level and can be matched up with the caster, thus identifying the 'killer'.


Swashbucklers are generally moderate to strong in Will saves (or are if I build them).

They would have to be hit with two Will saves in a single round for them to have a weak Will save.


Once again, unrelated issue = Sneak Attack.
Once again, unrelated issue = AoO.
There are no general 'simultaneous attack' rules.

What we have here is that the rules state that for each attack roll you may hit a mirror image instead.

You are trying to conflate the Sneak Attack and AoO issues with this.

Let me put it another way, the Devs have repeatedly stated that FAQs have ZERO bearing on anything other than the question that the FAQ is specifically answering.

Based on that statement, you cannot use the Sneak Attack FAQ nor the AoO FAQ in this rules argument. They have no bearing on it.


Stephen Ede wrote:

Ok, I see. You are saying that Scorching Ray only causes a single AOO for making a ranged Attack because the attacks are simultaneous. The same reason that you only get Sneak Attack once.

By that logic you still can't get multiple images with hits (missing could still get multiple images). Because the rays all hit simultaneously the target you selected from the images you can see. Unlike getting attacked by someone with FlameBlade that has interative attacks and the attacks aren't simultaneous.

It then comes down to whether you apply
"Whenever you are attacked"
or
"or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll"

The rules repeatedly emphasise that spells that do simultaneous attacks are treated differently from spells that do multiple attacks that aren't simulteneous. So Scorching Ray cause one AOO for making a ranged attacked for any number of rays and can only get sneak attack once. Which would suggest that
""or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll" is the more appropriate part of the rule to use in this case.

Each one is an attack roll. Each attack has a chance to remove an image. Without rules to the contrary this is how it works.

They FAQd the AoO issue because there is a specific rule that states there is only one AoO for an event and thus there was debate on whether a single event with multiple attack rolls was a single event or multiple events.

This is still multiple attack rolls and thus still multiple chances to remove images.

CRB p314 wrote:
Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll, there is a possibility that the attack targets one of your images instead. If the attack is a hit, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. If it is a figment, the figment is destroyed. If the attack misses by 5 or less, one of your figments is destroyed by the near miss.

In short, you are trying to use a secondary issue (AoO rules) to determine how the attack system works here. This is not correct.

Multiple ranged attacks, one event subject to AoOs.

These are the rules, there are multiple attacks and thus multiple chances to remove Mirror Images.
Of course, you and/or your GM can feel free to houserule it.


Stephen Ede, multiple rays from Scorching Ray is not a single Ranged Touch Attack. You are misreading the FAQ.

It is saying that multiple rays is only one AoO rather than one for each ranged touch attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depending on level he may be immune to disarm/sunder/steal while wielding his weapon.

Swashbucklers are really not OP. A number of classes/builds can easily pump out the kind of damage Swashbucklers put out.

The problem is that many of those builds require intent to do so while Swashbucklers do it without trying.

Without taking away the sword there are ways to remove his main source of damage (Precise Strike) without nerfing the character entirely. Anything that negates precision damage negates precise strike.

Examples include creatures immune to critical hits and darkness/blindness.


The Rot Grub wrote:
First, his tremorsense ability can only extend 60'. I have overruled his interpretation that is like blindsense for anyone touching earth -- I refer to the text and require that something be moving so as to cause "vibrations" with the earth.

Your player is correct. Blindsense and Tremorsense are basically identical except for the requirement that Tremorsense only works on creatures in contact with the ground.

CRB p102 wrote:
Creatures with the tremorsense special quality have a +8 bonus on Perception checks against creatures touching the ground and automatically make any such checks within their range.
Bestiary p305 wrote:
Tremorsense (Ex) A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground. Aquatic creatures with tremorsense can also sense the location of creatures moving through water. The ability’s range is specified in the creature’s descriptive text.

This means that, within that 60' range, there is no hiding from a creature with tremorsense without a special ability that says otherwise. Additionally, creatures with tremorsense get a +8 perception bonus vs anything that is in contact with the ground. This is not limited by range.

-----

The Rot Grub wrote:
Second, what if he wants to peek into a room? I am requiring that he succeed at a stealth check. My understanding of the earth glide ability is that it is as if one where a "fish swimming in water", and it leaves no ripples or trace of its use. This implies that one is completely silent while doing so. However, for balance reasons, I want to require a Stealth vs. Perception check to make sure that the elemental isn't noticed. The text does not say that the movement is silent.

Not quite, the Perception DC is 25. The DC is not set by a stealth check.

CRB p102 wrote:
Sense a burrowing creature underneath you 25

However, after the Elemental surfaces (comes out of Earth Glide/burrowing) perception vs stealth would then come into play with bonuses based on how much of him is covered (Improved Cover = +10).

------

The Rot Grub wrote:
And on a related note, I am ruling that coming out of earth provokes an attack of opportunity as if one were stepping out of that square, but the elemental benefits from a +4 cover bonus to AC.

Also not correct, the Earth Elemental is coming out of cover. You do not provoke AoOs when you move out of cover.

CRB p195 wrote:
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As currently written, Tiger Pounce applies to all attacks using power attack. There are no rules stating otherwise.

RAI may or may not be that it is intended to work only with unarmed strikes. We simply do not have that information and anyone declaring that the RAI is that it only works with unarmed strikes is making an assumption unless there is a corresponding statement from the Devs.

Chess Pwn is correct here.

1 to 50 of 8,074 << 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.