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. 5,841 posts (5,849 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 5,841 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Great Cleave wrote:
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.

So first, it does not state from your previous attack. It states from the previous foe.

Second, while you may be making an extra attack against another target via Cleaving Finish that does not change who the "previous foe" was when it comes to Great Cleave. The "previous foe" is "the previous foe you attacked using Great Cleave".

In short, you must still attack a target that is adjacent to the previous attack using Great Cleave, not an attack using Cleaving Finish.

Gherrick, you cannot start the cleave, change your reach, and then redetermine your available targets. The Dorn Dergar+Darting Viper tactic you stated will not work to 'spiral in or out'.

FAQ wrote:

Cleave: Can I take a 5-foot step in the middle of my attempt to use the Cleave feat, to bring another foe within reach?

No. Cleave is a special action and the conditions for that action are checked at the moment you begin your action. At that moment, all of the available targets are checked to make sure they adjacent to each other and within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step in the middle of the action and check conditions again. If you do not have two targets within reach, adjacent to each other at the start of the attack, you could not even attempt to make an attack using Cleave.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/25/12 Paizo blog.[/b]


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note: Rope Trick is no longer the safe haven it used to be (you cannot pull the rope up anymore or conceal it via magic). Better find a safe spot to cast Rope Trick in. :)

Regarding verisimilitude, any time you come to the rules forum expect answers that are rules based (RAW or at least RAI). Verisimilitude doesn't really have a place in the RAW/RAI discussion in the Rules forum.

For discussions regarding verisimilitude vs RAW I suggest a different forum (such as the Advice, Pathfinder RPG General Discussion, or the House Rules forums).

The rationale behind my suggestion is that if you know the rule and want to discuss the verisimilitude regarding that rule this is not the forum for that. It seems that after your first post you got your answer and then you chose to continue to debate how the rule *should* work rather than how it actually works.

Of course, some of us entertained that discussion but it may explain why others had a less than positive response. :)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets be polite about it Heliodorus04.

I had the same problem as Krinn when I migrated from 3.X to Pathfinder. It took me awhile to learn it was simply easier to handwave an element which most people did not enjoy and that was really geared towards making one ability from one class feel useful. It just wasn't worth it.

If I had a group that wanted to play old style traps I would adjust my style to that one and kill them repeatedly with traps until they remembered why nobody runs old style trap dungeons anymore. (I jest, mostly.)

Quintain, you stated they must be adjacent to you (the attacker). That is not the same as "within reach". Adjacent does not equal "within reach".

Example: I have a Longspear, my reach is 10'. Adjacent is 5'. I can use Cleave/Great Cleave against foes 10' away but not 5' away because Cleave/Great Cleave specifies "within reach" not "adjacent to me"

My point was that you do not need to be adjacent to the target.

Regarding Plate Mail swimming, there has been a migration away from penalizing it in even 3.X. Back in 3.0 you were penalized for every 5lbs of weight. Then in 3.5 they reduced that to double ACP. Finally in Pathfinder they just said to heck with it and made it straight ACP. It is clearly a case of simplicity over verisimilitude.

Regarding costing minutes/hours, IC times do change OOC times. If you are burning extra resources (spell durations) because of trapfinding then you wind up resting more often to regain those resources. That takes OOC time, often considerable time as people debate how to set up camp.

You say "yay rogues are useful again!" while everyone else says "ugh, who is going to be forced to be a Rogue again?"

Yes, it detracts from Rogues but that is a flaw in Pathfinder's design of Rogues not catching up to the philosophy that no man (class) should be irreplaceable. Rogues should not need traps to become useful.

If traps are just to make Rogues useful then what if there is not a Rogue? Oh, no Rogue? I'm sorry, you can kiss any of your buffs goodbye as you crawl around looking for traps.

Seriously, for a long time the game has been progressing away from the idea that you *must* have a Rogue and that Rogue *must* be able to deal with traps. It is an outdated concept that forces people into a role and that is not really good roleplaying is it? :)

Reminds me of the "you didn't roll high enough strength so you cannot be a fighter" days.

You can always house-rule it the way you want but you asked in the rules forum and these are the rules.

As for why the Devs decided to make traps a weak element of the game? I can only make guesses but that has been the progression for several editions of D&D. Each succeeding generation of game weakened traps until traps are nothing more than a "oh, a trap" moment. Now most traps are more flavor than encounter.

Think of it this way, in previous editions if you did not have a rogue you were basically screwed against a trap. The game was forcing someone to play a Rogue as much as "who is going to be stuck with the Cleric". Now, traps are *usually* a speedbump. It wouldn't make sense to make them a speedbump and then cost everyone minutes/hours to search for them.

As for verisimilitude, really? This game breaks it ten ways from sunday. How about guys in Plate Mail swimming? How about muzzleloaders firing multiple shots per round without magical aid? The list goes on. What is one more break? In any case, as I said earlier, if you don't like it house rule it but make sure your players are ok with that.

thejeff, I probably wouldn't be that harsh either but this is the Rules forum.

By RAW, the way actions work is that you take one action after another. Move action to use Perception followed by a move action to move X distance.

The key here is when does a bonus get rounded? The answer? When it becomes a bonus.

Take Strength for example. You calculate the Strength bonus to damage by multiplying the strength modifier by a multiplier and then rounding down. That is your Strength bonus to damage.

Favored Class bonuses that are fractional are added up and then become the bonus. For example, if you have taken the Half-Orc Alchemist favored class bonus three times you have 3*0.5 = 1.5. The Favored Class bonus is +1.5 damage to bomb which, when rounded down, is +1 damage to bombs.

The point is that the rounding is occurring at each kind of bonus. Calculate the bonus, round down. Do not calculate the sum of all different types of bonuses and then round down.

Krinn, I addressed your Trap Spotter talent issue in my original post.

Scenario 1:
Player makes a perception check with a trap 30feet away. He fails to detect the trap due to distance penalty. He then moves 30feet and triggers the trap.

Player with Trap Spotter moves 30 feet at which point the GM rolls his perception check with no distance penalty. He notices the trap.

Scenario 2:
Player is in combat when he trips a trap. He was not looking for them.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trap Spotter, also in combat, detected the trap and avoided it.

Regarding your 'size of room' question: yes, they take the same time (one action). However, you are only checking what you can see and there are still the distance penalties.

Regarding the sift cantrip, you can detect things you cannot see that are in that 10' cube. Perhaps the trap is underneath a rug.

The key here is that while you can use sight to detect traps from a distance sight has limitations. Not all traps are visible.

Your player is correct, he makes one check and the entire corridor is searched with the penalty for distance taken into account. As a player I would still search every 20-30 feet or so to avoid the problem of failing due to distance.

What Trap Spotter does is remove the action to search unless you want to search farther than 10'. It also effectively removes the distance penalty unless you want to search farther than 10'.

Pathfinder has made traps a very easy element of the game. You no longer need a person with Trapfinding to find difficult or even (most) magical traps although you still need Trapfinding to disarm magical traps.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Declare Great Cleave (a standard action).
2) Targets must be within reach (not necessarily adjacent) and adjacent to the previous target.
3) Make an attack against each target until you miss (end of attacks) or drop a target (see step 4).
4) If you drop a target you can make an extra attack against any opponent within reach. Make this attack and then resume your Great Cleave sequence (return to step 3). Note: if you have Improved Cleaving Finish and drop another target with this bonus attack repeat step 4.

Quintain, Targets are not required to be adjacent to you to use Cleave/Great Cleave. Cleaving Finish does not allow you to transfer the cleave to a creature that is not adjacent to the previous target. What it does is grants you an extra attack against any creature you can attack.

So that people do not need to look up the feats here they are:

CRB p124 Great Cleave wrote:
Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.
UCombat p92 Cleaving Finish wrote:
Benefit: If you make a melee attack, and your target drops to 0 or fewer hit points as a result of your attack, you can make another melee attack using your highest base attack bonus against another opponent within reach. You can make only one extra attack per round with this feat.
UCombat p105 Improved Cleaving Finish wrote:
Benefit: You can use Cleaving Finish any number of times per round.

Alternately, I think if you own the PDFs and bring copies of the relevant pages it is proof of ownership and of the rules involved (your name/email address is printed at the top/bottom). However, I am a bit rusty on my PFS rules so don't quote me on that.

Heliodorus04, I think the reason you are getting both types of responses is because it depends on what you want. Different people have different priorities.

Here is a list of priorities and whether you should multiclass based on that priority.

Druid spells: do not multiclass or multiclass 1 level only (1 level is usually considered a tolerable delay).

Ranger spells: do not multiclass, rangers have a slow enough progression as is.

Animal Companion: multiclass with a class that also has an animal companion or multiclass a limited amount (no more than 1 level if Ranger or 4 levels if druid) and take Boon Companion.

Favored Enemy: Multiclass only with classes that add to this or with a Druid and take Shapeshifting Hunter.

Wild Shape: Go for Druid 4, 6, or 8 (depending on what level of Wild Shape is your goal (8, 10, or 12) and then multiclass into some other class. Take Shaping Focus to add up to 4 levels from the other class to your Wild Shape progression.

So, you have to decide your priority. If your priority is Druid spells then do not multiclass but if your priority is Wild Shape and you do not care about spells then multiclass all you want after you get Wild Shape to where you want it.

As an example: The Druid4/FighterX concept doesn't care about spells at all. The sole reason for Druid is to acquire Wild Shape.

Interesting, one of my players is building a Druid-4/Fighter(Savage Warrior)-X focusing on wild shape.

I think Druid-4/Ranger-X would also work quite well so long as you do not care about spells.

Taenia, thank you, if you have any suggested improvements please let me know.

Humans are special because we resemble bears. Wolves avoid bears (see wiki link below regarding wolf attacks). We are not down on all fours like prey.

Also found in the wiki are indications that non-rabid attacks ARE singling out lone prey (ie: not an adventuring party). In descriptions of the modern attacks they attacked children or lone people. In descriptions of the type of attacks it also provides examples of the variety of targets. All of them are either loner type targets or children. In fact, 90% of the targets were children.

Finally, one other note on "hunting the weak". Do you know what makes them hunted? They cannot keep up with the group, thus becoming lone targets.

In herd behavior when threatened by a predator the hear will try to escape. A weak herd member will be unable to keep up thus becoming the target.

That is not a situation which will typically happen to armed humans, you know, because we have intelligence and all. :)

Note: none of the above applies in the case of a rabid animal. In that case all behavioral norms are out the window.


Yes, wolves are looking for a weak link, but that does not mean they are going to attack a party of humans. Will they attack loners? Yes, but wizards are not typically alone in the wild.

Kobold Cleaver, how many of those were people alone or young? Probably the majority. That is different from an adventuring party.

Note: A Wizard or Rogue are not usually "weak" by average human standards. Rogues typically have at least a 10 which is average while a Wizard usually has an 8 or so. However, if we consider weak to be sickly, young, old, etc then an 8 is not that bad.

In any case, I doubt that any natural (non-game) wolf or pack of wolves is going to approach a group of humans making a lot of noise. As I mentioned earlier, it was probably picking off a single people, children, etc. Ie: easy targets.

BTW, what is the link to the wiki? Wiki is not a reputable citation and I am curious what the citation behind that data is.

It depends on the terrain. If you adventure outdoors the distances can exceed even magic missile's range.

Of course, indoors I would much rather have a fighter type between me and the bad guys rather than me up front using burning hands.

TBH, it is burning hands I find to be the spell that is even more situational (and less useful) than MM. As Ashiel said, you would need to push the damage up in very big ways for it to be worth the risk.

Alternately, I could see a Teleportation (subschool) specialist making use of it. Walk up, cast Burning Hands, Shift to get back behind the fighter.

Edit: Really? Interesting, I can think of at least 4 situations in the last year where the judicious use of Magic Missile stopped an enemy spellcaster from royally screwing the party or escaping.

After a wizard has altered the battle (first and maybe second spell) there is really no need for him to waste his good spells. That is when he readies an action to stop the enemy spell caster from...whatever. It has really saved us a time or two.

Simple, burning hands requires that you be within 15' of the target (if not closer). That is a very unpleasant place to be if you are a squishy wizard/sorcerer.

So, you can either do 5d4 (average 12.5 save for half is 6) to those three enemies and risk getting killed or you can do 10.5 to one of them and be safe.

Typically, I opt for the safe route unless I have specifically built my wizard/sorcerer to be "up front".

Then again, typically I would save a MM for something more important, like an enemy spellcaster.

Ray of Frost does 1d3+1 damage where, at 9th level, magic missile does 5d4+5. Significant difference when you are trying to force a concentration check.

Kurt, that is odd, which version of Excel were you opening it with?

I prefer wizards because:
The primary casting stat (intelligence) is also what determines the number of bonus ranks. Wizards are knowledge monkeys compared to Sorcerers and knowledge is power.

I can memorize a variety of spells.

With specialization I am only one spell slot per spell level down compared to a sorcerer. That can be made up for via a Pearl of Power (the sorcerer equivalent is double the price so I can get ahead of the sorcerer if desired).

After level 5, I can memorize any spell in my spellbook with a minute of concentration via the Arcane Discovery: Fast Study. I typically keep one slot open of each level except the highest level. I use this slot for toolbox spells or spell replacements.
With proper (read: varied) memorization and the open slot I am typically prepared for all challenges. Example: I will memorize Fort, Reflex, and Will spells to cover my bases.

With a Bonded Object I also have one casting of any spell in my book.

Can a sorcerer mimic much of this?
Yes, with Pages of Spell Knowledge a Sorcerer could have as many spells known as a Wizard. However, the cost is prohibitive.

Yes, the Sorcerer wouldn't need to sit down for 15minutes (or 1 minute after level 5) to memorize in an open slot.

Yes, with Mnemonic Vestment they can mimic the Bonded Object effect but the price tag is much higher (5k for the Mnemonic Vestments plus scroll cost of SL*CL*25 vs learning and writing a spell into spellbook cost of SL*SL*15).

Breakdown of what happens with Greater Grapple:

1) Make a grapple check to maintain the grapple (move action).
If successful apply one of the maintain options (such as damage) and go to "2a"
If failure go to "2b".

2a) You now have a standard action available. You can use it to perform another grapple check to perform one of the maintain options or you can use it to do something else entirely (such as an attack, cast a spell, etc).

2b) Make a grapple check to maintain the grapple (using your standard action as a move action).
If successful apply one of the maintain options (such as damage). Your major actions (standard + move action) are now completed.
If failure then you failed to maintain the grapple this round.

Edit: Bah, I just noticed this was a necro thread. :)

Wow, I missed the wolves special ability to detect class. Is it an extraordinary or supernatural ability? /humor
(Seriously, I am joking, I couldn't pass that one up.)

While yes a wolf may recognize 'shiny armor' as 'not good to eat' that would only be learned through some level of experience. That means, at some point in the wolf's life it must have been taught (probably via an encounter with a "shiny human") to avoid that. But, it is a more likely lesson that it will avoid humans altogether.

Of course, that is basing D&D/PF wolves on real world wolves. Real wolves really don't attack humans unless pushed to do so (usually by the same humans). D&D/PF wolves will attack based on the writers/GMs whim.

Tesoe, there is a difference between specifically addressing and (specifically) applying to.

In the first case it is the subject, in the other it is a consequence.

fretgod99, thank you. :)

Good point Taenia, but PFS has its own strange restrictions. :)

Regarding my excel sheet, Ive gotten some questions regarding my excel sheet comment earlier so I figured I should post the link.

Tesoe, the first FAQ is not specifically addressing a lance. It states "such as a Lance" which is an example rather than specifically addressing it.

Anyone that qualifies can learn and use the "monster feats" although many GMs think it is limited to NPCs only (a holdover from previous edition thinking). The Bestiary states that PCs may qualify for them.

Bestiary p314 wrote:
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).

The funny part is that everyone seems to gloss over the fact that a Dev (now former Dev but not former at the time) stated this was a language problem and needed to be looked at. I have yet to see anyone from the "they are not contradictory" side of things acknowledge this.

I am curious, did anyone read his post?

While I agree it is a complicated game SKR stated the language is an artifact of multiple editions and needed cleaning up. While he may no longer be at Paizo I hope that other Devs also feel that way and will move towards simpler language that does not require so much parsing.

Kazaan, that is what people have stated ever since the 2nd FAQ came out and I agree that it could be interpreted that way.

The problem is, and what I stated in the thread I referenced above, is that your average non-legalese reader will not see that difference and even if you are capable of parsing it it is still splitting legalese hairs.

Even SKR commented that this was a language problem that he needs to bring to the other Devs (link also above). This is not a clear issue if it takes legalese to parse it and it really should be addressed by the Devs.

Splendor, I agree with your statement that #1 could be read as referencing situations where you are using a feat or special ability.

However, I disagree with your #2 statement because the 2nd FAQ (as presented in your order) does not state that it does not apply if you are using a specific feat or special ability.

If there is not some other wording that indicates otherwise (such as the using vs wielded debate) then the Power Attack situations #1 covers are a subset of the Power Attack situations that #2 covers and therefore there is a conflict.

I concur with blahpers. You can perform just about any Combat Maneuver regardless of form (incorporeal creatures are the major exception but that is not applicable to Wild Shape).

As a note, you could go Druid4 and then take Shaping Focus to get your large animals.

Also, if you need a way to quickly level your wild shape forms I recently built an excel file for that purpose.

SlimGauge, I posted a link to a statement by SKR where he said the language needed to be looked at so clearly I am not the only one seeing a problem with the language.

While I *can* parse the language just as well as you and see a difference you should not have to use legalese to figure out the difference. Anyone who is not using rules legalese will find the two FAQs incompatible without an in-depth analysis of the linguistic differences.

Thus, there is an *apparent* contradiction.

Tesoe, this has all been hashed out before. I suggest reading up on the subject and making a determination for your own table. If playing PFS ask your GM which interpretation of the FAQs they subscribe to.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

SlimGauge, the lance is just an example in the first FAQ ("such as"). The first FAQ also applies to any other two-handed weapon being used in one hand.

I pointed out the apparent contradiction when the second FAQ came out and was told by a number of posters that the difference is "using" vs "treated as" or vs "wielding".

I still don't really see a need to split hairs in the language to that extent. Either your weapon is or is not in one hand and based on that there is an apparent contradiction here.

SKR had even stated that it would need to be examined but there was no (posted) followup to that. SKR's post

For reading here is the discussion regarding the contradiction.

I was not making an insult, asking a rhetorical question is not an insult. It is a way of demonstrating a point.

I was going to write up more but this is really going nowhere. There are always alternatives even if you choose to ignore them. :)

Tels, so I guess the dead get to act in your games too? It does not state that they do not. Perhaps you can explain how you are aware that on the other side of the planet someone shot a bow and thus your readied action goes off?

Being aware of an action is a basic concept here. If you are not aware then you cannot use your readied action.

As for anime, how about we keep the conversation confined to Pathfinder since this is not "Anime, the RPG"? As I stated, this is still firmly in GM fiat territory and you have not shown anything to dispute that.

Personally, I think you are using a lot of metagaming type logic to prove your point but, whatever. This discussion is rather pointless anyhow as it is not really about the rules anymore and is still "Is not! Is too!"

I think I shall go do something more constructive such as consider improvements to my Wild Shape autocalculation excel file. :)

LoneKnave, apparently you didn't read the readied action to attack. No, you cannot ready fighting defensively. Yes, you can ready an action to attack and use Fighting Defensively when you attack.

Tels, what specifically is the "T-Rex" (or other creature) using as a readied action? Is it "any action"? That is the premise I was responding to. If it is "Any Action" what about actions with no visible behavior? What about non-actions (such as 5' step)?

My point is that the creature performing the readied action cannot make it that broad. Any player doing so would be told no by the GM so why would the GM be able to say an NPC is doing the same? In the specific case of the T-Rex it is too stupid to do such a broad readied action to begin with and that is assuming it is has the intelligence to perform readied actions at all (something in serious doubt).

So lets just assume for a moment that this is an awakened T-Rex so we can eliminate the intelligence question. That still leaves the broad nature of the readied action, something which is firmly in GM Fiat territory.

Since such broad readied actions are typically rejected by GMs what is the specific readied action that would universally screw the monk?

Can the creature see that the monk has readied an action to attack? Can the creature see that the monk is or is not fighting defensively? With no obvious indication in the rules that you can see either then it is GM fiat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The obvious answer to that tactic is that if the (single) opponent has not attacked the monk then the monk also readies an action to attack when attacked.

It becomes a standoff of "you first".

Also, your "take any action" is a bit broad. Are we talking "if the monk attacks" or are we stating any action from the CRB? As a GM would you allow a player to state such a broad readied action? How does the NPC/PC *know* it is an action? Are you counting a 5' step as an action? (It is listed as a non-action.)

While your readied action solution is a good one it brings up a number of questions and there is a counter (to ready an action).

Edit: Dang it, I gotta stop posting in this thread. I said I would stop and yet I keep getting drawn back into it. Don't you hate it when that happens? :)

The combats I run usually last a minimum of 5+ rounds but I also try to play intelligent creatures...intelligently. Soften up the PCs first before getting into it with them. Once the PCs actually start to land a few blows it is often over from that point in a couple rounds.

So far, I've gotten a couple dozen downloads. Thank you for trying it out.

I could use more feedback from folks. Even if that feedback is that you like it and what elements you like. :)

Single NPC Caster is going to blow his wad (cast most powerful spells) level the PCs ASAP.

Personally, as a GM, there is a dark little part of me that laughs at players when they blow all of their most powerful spells on a mook. Instead, they should be using weak, but effective, spells like MM to support the fighters.

As for the whole "spellcasters have shield" argument. Not all of them do. In fact, it is a very effective way for the wizard to stop the NPC cleric from healing his buddy with that Heal spell (if not something worse).

Should you memorize multiples? By mid-high levels I would suggest not memorizing more than 2. But, should you have at least one on hand? Absolutely.

Typically my level 8 wizard memorizes (1st level slots): Grease, Liberating Command (if the cleric doesn't), Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Ray of Enfeeblement (great spell), and one open slot.

That is in addition to a number of scrolls I carry (such as Shield).

Scavion, I did not say high ACs are the only means to break the game. Lemmy's premise is that high ACs do not break the game and so I addressed that premise. Lets not play "move the goalposts". :)

We are talking about High ACs in general, not a single character with high ACs. Your premise was that "AC never breaks any game past level 3, unless the GM is really, really bad at designing encounters." Nothing in that premise regarding a single character.

So again I ask: Do all of the APs have badly designed encounters and if a GM doesnt revamp the AP he must be a bad GM?

If AC never breaks the game (your premise) then you should be able to max out all of a party's AC (we can use WBL as a baseline for this) and toss them into an AP without modifying the AP right?

Ill answer it for you, no, you would be required to modify the AP. Thus, there is clearly a disconnect between your statement and the expected values a party should have. Ergo: yes, high ACs can break the game unless the GM modifies it to suit.

Now, since we have established that a GM has to modify the game to suit the ACs why not just modify the ACs by limiting them to something reasonable instead? Why make the GM do all of that extra work? Then it follows further that even for one attack per round having an unbeatable AC should also be limited.

Clearly, you can handle anything your players should decide to put together and that is fine for you. Heck, I have OP groups more often than not and have to ramp up my encounters by 1 or 2 CR. But, it is not always easy to rebuild creatures without handing out extra treasure. So instead of playing an unlimited arms race with my players I place limits on how far I am willing to go. This is one such limit.

Paizo should not expect every GM to have to modify the published APs just to deal with one element of the game that will break the unmodified APs. It should instead fix the broken element.

High ACs do not break the game past level 3? Interesting point of view. Guess all of the APs have badly designed encounters and any GM which doesn't revamp the AP must be a bad GM?

Lemmy, please try to understand the point here is the exchange. -1 attack for +1 AC (increased every 4 levels) is a poor exchange.

However a -1attack for +4AC is a much better exchange rate.

Most people would not use the -1:+1 exchange rate. Most people would use the -1:+4 exchange rate. Next, add on that if you do manage to hit the guy then he will negate that hit.

That is what makes the entire package flawed. It is not any single element that is flawed, it is the entire thing combined.

Oh, and remember that many monks have barkskin too. At a higher caster level than the Ranger.

Anyhow, you guys have your beliefs and I have mine. Debating this further is pointless. :)

Lemmy, perhaps you should re-read the old version of the feat tree. It does in fact raise the bonus you gain from Fighting Defensively by +1 in addition to reducing the attack penalty. Thus, you go from almost never using Fighting Defensively to almost always using it.

The reason you do not see anyone claiming Combat Expertise is OP is because it is a -1:+1 exchange. Fighting Defensively becomes a -1:+4 exchange due to the Crane style tree.

Scavion, there is no mechanic for knowing that a creature is or is not fighting defensively so we are firmly in GM fiat territory at that point.

1 to 50 of 5,841 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.