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

Gwen Smith's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle. 1,815 posts (2,218 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,815 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

I'd go for scrolls of utility spells like mage armor instead of offensive spells. Since the scrolls will be at minimum caster level and minimum casting stat, you will get none of your bonuses to the DC.

I also agree with the wand of grease and/or mage armor. One of the best uses of grease is escaping a grapple: you can cast it on yourself or on a teammate.

A lot of times, you can get an offensive school/domain power like hand of the apprentice or force missile which will more than make up for your two spell slots.


Any medium armor is going to reduce your speed by 10', so just keep that in mind. My half-orc bloodrager uses a breastplate (+6) and just deals with the 30' speed, but at starting gold, your best bet is four mirror or kikko, like Chess Pwn suggested.

Hide armor is no better than your chain shirt (they're both +4), so it reduces your speed for no benefit. (I really don't know why that armor exists other than flavor or maybe for druids, but it's really terrible.)

Pendergast's suggestion of the heavy shield (any material) is probably your best AC option, and you can just pick up the shield now without changing your chain shirt.

You can also fight defensively, if you get into real trouble: reduce your to-hit by 4 to get +2 AC.


Whatever build you go with, consider a worshiper of Irori. The Deific Obedience boon for Irori is +4 on all Knowledge Checks.

And the Breadth of Experience feat (for gnomes, elves, and dwarves over 100 years old) gives you +2 on all Knowledge, Craft, and Profession checks, and it lets you make them untrained.

By third level you could be adding +6 to whatever else your build gives you.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

bdk86 wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Tarma wrote:

Something that gets over looked is that the Shadow Lodge was incredibly difficult to explain to new players.

New Player "So the shadow lodge is looking out for the members of the lodge and fellow Pathfinders? Awesome! I'm in"

GM: So you're adventuring and you get attacked by bandits wearing shadow lodge emblems!

New Player" But they're my faction! I can't attack my fellow faction members!"

GM: "Well, they're a uhhh, different group of the faction! See, this shadow lodge wants to attack the Grand Lodge and destroy it!"

New Player" So, they want to attack the Grand Lodge, but they're also a part of it????" *Confused look on face* "I'm just going to go with the grand lodge"

i always described the lodge as a 'pathfinder's union'. My shadow Lodge PCs saw the job of the Lodge as protecting the interests of the rank and file when the Decembervate put their needs as secondary. After playing Eot10 and Destiny of the Sands, I'm firmly in the camp of 'Torch was right.'
Definitely. EotT pretty firmly left me pro-Torch. Most of Season 2 makes a lot more sense having played it.

Fascinating. I had the exact opposite response. Whether or not Torch was "right" didn't make him "in the right": just because he makes a true statement doesn't make him actually trustworthy or "on your side" or anything.

In our area, several people played Shadow Lodge for the same reason they played Cheliax: it was as close to allowed pvp/evil alignment as they could get in PFS. (The players I'm thinking of explicitly said so: I'm not interpreting or projecting.)

Honestly, I'd like to see the "Looking out for your fellow Pathfinders" aspect of the Shadow Lodge adopted by the Grand Lodge. I think that's really where it makes the most sense, especially since it's the "default" faction that all the pregens automatically belong to. If we're going to emphasize that the main principles of the Society are "Explore, Report, Cooperate", then the Grand Lodge should really push the last of those three: not everyone is great at exploring, some people might not be good at reporting, but everyone, at a minimum, can cooperate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
dumptruckman wrote:

This seems to be a point of contention for a lot of people. Flat-footed condition states you are "unable to react normally to the situation." Some people argue that since you cannot take immediate actions while flat-footed, you also cannot speak. I argue that since speaking doesn't say you can't do it while flat-footed AND that since it is POSSIBLE to ATTACK while flat-footed through use of Combat Reflexes, it is POSSIBLE to SPEAK while flat-footed.

I'd love to see this FAQ'd so I can stop dealing with it all the time. D:

And like many people who handle rules text wrong, you are arguing backwards. And you're committing the additional sin of false equivalency. Pathfinder isn't a game where it lists what you can't do. It's what you can do, and it's up to you to find a passage which enables you to hold conversations while you're flatfootd.

This is a philosophical approach to the rules, not a rule in itself.

There are two basic "takes" on rulesets in general: 1) Everything is allowed except those things that are expressly forbidden, and 2) Everything is forbidden except those things that are expressly allowed. Since the rules themselves don't specify which approach you should use, both approaches to the rules are equally valid.

In either case, though, when the rule don't cover a specific instance, you have to use analogies, implications, and interpretations. I always try find a situation that is most like the specific instance, then consider the consequences of applying that rule to the instance in question. If the results seem reasonable, then I'll go with it. If the results seem excessively complicated or silly, I'll go back to the rules, find another similar situation, and see what happens if I apply that rule, and so on.

Quote:
Combat reflexes only applies to attack mechanics, not speech.

But since there's no rule about speech, we need to find a similar situation and see if it makes sense to apply the rule to this situation, too. To me, it seems logical that if characters can attack, they should also be able to speak. I can't come up with any complicated or ridiculous side effects of applying the combat reflexes/uncanny dodge rules to speech, so I'll probably run with that.


I don't have much experience with custom classes, but I can suggest a couple of options that might make easier starting points:

Have you looked at the Bloodrager class? It's a hybrid of barbarian and sorcerer: full bab, d10 hit die, martial weapon proficiency, and light/medium armor proficiency with no arcane spell failure chance.

For channeling spells through your sword, your best bet is the Magus class: as a magus, you can cast and attack in the same round and use your sword to deliver your spells.

There is also an archetype of magus that uses charisma to cast and gains a bloodline: Eldritch Scion.


Calm Emotions and Unbreakable Heart are my go-to anti-fear spells.


Vinous wrote:
When applying blanches or balms they can treat up to 10 pieces of ammo (Normally) Can I get a ruling on weather each dose can be sectioned up into uses per piece of ammo, or if all affected ammo must be treated at the same time thus consuming the item?

Even if you coat all of the ammunition at the same time, the blanch still lasts until you fire it. Just track the blanched pieces of ammunition on a separate line.


I've got two different melee frontliners with a 12 con. I just retired my rogue/barbarian/figher two-weapon fighter at 12th level, without a single death--meanwhile, another melee fighter who chided me for having a low Con had died three times.

My other one is a tetori monk, who just pumps her AC into the high 30s while pinning opponents.

It's all about the stratgy, I guess. See how hard the other guy hits, estimate how many times you can take a similar hit before you go down, and make sure the other guy goes down before you do. If you can't take two more hits, back off and down a potion.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

FWIW, I can't actually think of a scenario where any NPC wields a chakrum. Usually, I'm the only person at the table who has one or has even heard of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

you know what? I kind of like the way this tread has gone.

Someone comes to the board and asks a question, something he wants to do but doesn't know if the rules will allow it.

and get's told "You can't do that!"

...but then other posters come on to say "but let's see if we can come up with some way in the rules to let you do something like it... see how close we can get you to what you want to do."

Thanks... this made me feel better about PFS.

This is how most of these conversations go in PFS, in my experience.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

There are several traits that let you use improvised weapons at reduced or no penalty: the Rough and Ready trait specifically calls out shovels, too.

The normal shovel from Ultimate Equipment weighs 8 pounds: I think that's much closer to the full-sized shovel your wife has in mind than a small camp shovel. Besides, the exact size and shape of the shovel is fluff, so she shouldn't have any issues with it unless she tries to change how it operates mechanically (e.g., get reach or something). And as a one-handed weapon, she does have the option of throwing it.

I can't see any GMs in our area giving her any trouble with it, honestly.


You can try the holy tactician paladin archetype: You get the tactician ability at third level, full bab, access to a spell list, and good saves.

The brawler exemplar archetype is another possibility.

But my favorite smart fighter archetype is the Lore warden.


One nice thing about the Toothy trait is that you can wield a ready weapon and still threaten adjacent squares.

You can also check out the Aegis of Recovery to avoid dying when you go unconscious. (I don't remember which book it's in, sorry. I'm on my phone and can't look it up easily.)


Varisien pilgrim is a great archetype for this: You can give out your domain powers.

Swift Aid and Order of the Dragon don't stack with helpful because they both set a number(eg, you get +3),instead of a blanket "increase".

Bodyguard just expends an AoO; it doesn't say anything about "provoking", so you should be OK if a GM rules that attacking does not provoke. (long, contentious argument on this in the forums, but so far inPFS, you're ok as long as you are adjacent and have an AoO available.)

Cautious fighter and blundering defense work well with Crane Style a d Three ranks inAcrobatics.

Combine aid another with benevolent armor for extra.aid to AC.

(sorry for typos. On my phone.)


The Fox wrote:
I think she meant "two one-handed weapons."

You are correct; thank you for catching that. (I should stop trying to post from my phone.)


Jessex wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:

Mechanically, you can do it. It is not a skill, and I don't see anything that says doing nonlethal damage takes concentration.

If you think doing nonlethal damage requires concentration, then what about an improvised weapon doing lethal damage? Does that require concentration, also?

Improvised weapons always deal lethal damage. Characters are just treated as being non proficient with them without the correct feats.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking about improvised weapons for the people who said doing nonlethal damage required concentration because you're not using the weapon as it was designed. If that's true, then using improvised weapons should also require concentration, since that's not how they were designed to be used.

Fun fact: While looking this up, I just noticed that you can also do lethal damage with a nonlethal weapon at the same -4 penalty. I did not know that.


People are going to keep repeating "that's the rule even if it doesn't make sense" because this is the rules forum. On this forum, all that matters is the text of the rule and whether it's clear.

If you want to discuss why it doesn't make sense or how you can adjust the rule to make sense, you'll have much better luck on the Advice forum or the Homebrew forum. You might even get some from the same posters over there.

Over here, though, you'll get a repetition of the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:

Surely, though, once something attacks you in the surprise round, you are now aware of it. Can you cry out in pain or do you have to wait for your turn in the first round?

And could you say, "ow, I was hit by a ghoul!" Instead of just "ow, I was hit!" ?

Yes, you can cry in pain, no you can't identify what has hit you. You are seeing stars and clutching you head/hand/whatever in pain.

All of that is fluff, and your interpretation of fluff. Where is any of that in the rules?

Once I've been attacked, I'm aware of my opponent, even if the attacked missed. If my opponent was in stealth or invisible, he's not anymore (normally). So what prevents me from making a knowledge check? It is not an action.
Speaking is a free action that I can do when it's not my turn. So what prevents me, after I've been attacked, from saying something?

Part of my issue is that "flat footed" is a relational condition. I can be flat footed to one creature (say, because of invisibilty) but not flat footed to another feature at the same time. So can I speak?

Quote:

Why you guys try to metagame this way?

Because that's what the rules forum us for?

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

Kevin Willis wrote:

I'll go ahead and say it; I don't particularly care to see a debuffer at my table.

It's not especially because of the debuffing. It's the way the players handle their characters. Most debuffers fall into one of two categories:

1. The caster who has tons of options. So they are always hemming and hawing trying to decide on the best ones. These players slow the whole game down. As a GM I start clocking them but as a player I can't do anything but say "come on!" if the GM isn't pushing them.

2. The maneuver specialist who takes an enemy pretty well out of the combat. So there's nothing for the others to do. While I don't mind seeing this once it gets boring both as a player and a GM when every encounter is ended with a grapple.

I'm not saying all debuffers are like this. I played a couple of games with one guy who had an absolutely hilarious sorcerer. Kept on imposing all kinds of condition effects on the enemies but did it quickly and in well-narrated fashion. It's just that he's an exception among all the debuffers I have seen.

Those problems are not unique to debuffers, though. I see a lot of blaster casters hem and haw, and it's just as boring to see every encounter go down to the pouncing eidelon or dual-wielding gunslinger.


You do know that you will taking heavy penalties for dual wielding two handed weapons, right? With a 3/4 BAB and no bonus feats, you'll have a hard time hitting anything.

Crusaders' flurry can help with that, but it would take a monk dip.


UMD is great for any character, especially one that doesn't have a spell list.

At one convention, a character died, and the fighter pulled out a scroll of Breath of Life and saved him with UMD. It was epic.


Surely, though, once something attacks you in the surprise round, you are now aware of it. Can you cry out in pain or do you have to wait for your turn in the first round?

And could you say, "ow, I was hit by a ghoul!" Instead of just "ow, I was hit!" ?


Mechanically, you can do it. It is not a skill, and I don't see anything that says doing nonlethal damage takes concentration.

If you think doing nonlethal damage requires concentration, then what about an improvised weapon doing lethal damage? Does that require concentration, also?

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

jtaylor73003 wrote:
Why is everyone assuming that the players are just being disruptive? I don't think everyone is being fair to these player when they aren't here to tell their side of the story. OP mention that one player constantly to throw a fireball in a room with a NPC being held prisoner. Let look at this from a possible player perspective. The GM describes the scene says there is enemies in the room, and ask what the party is doing. Player decides to launch a fireball. GM calls for many checks to see that some of the enemies are prisoners not combatants.(At this point those checks could been called for before the GM ask what the party actions where.) Player fails a few checks till they finally make one. At this point the player feels it would be meta-gaming to chose another action then what was his first impulse, so he stubbornly stays the course. The player knows they will suffer inconquences for their actions and accepts that.

The GM was clearly giving the player an opportunity to change his action. If the player felt that this was metagaming or otherwise unfair, then I'd hope the player would have actually said that, so the response would have been more like "Well, I already said I throw a fireball, so we're stuck with it" than "I waste him with my crossbow!"

As far as the multiattacking bloodrager, I usually suggest that players with multiple attacks roll damage for each attack as it hits rather than roll all the attacks at once. While rolling all the attacks first and then rolling the damage is often suggested as a way of speeding up combat, it locks the player into attacking the same target even if the target drops. First, it encourages the murderhobo attitude, but it also forces players to waste attacks on a downed creature, which is bad strategy--so it's really a lose-lose.

And for what it's worth, I didn't get the impression that the OP felt the players were being disruptive, just that their characters were being needlessly violent and recklessly destructive.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

The minimum quantity for special materials ammunition is "the same quantity you normally buy that ammunition in". In this case, durable arrows are sold in lots of 1, so you can buy special material durable arrows one at a time.

The minimum quantity for magical ammunition is 50 (assuming they didn't change this in the new Guide to Organized Play), since that's the amount that the pricing is based on.

Some people (myself included), have accidentally misapplied the "50-count minimum" to special materials ammunition instead of just magical ammunition. (If I've told you that in the past, I apologize: I only recently discovered I was mistaken.)

A completely separate "issue":
Because Hero Lab uses the same user interface (the "custom weapon" dialog) for both special materials and magical ammunition, it defaults to minimum 50 on any custom ammunition. You just create the ammunition in a batch of 50, then sell back as many as you don't want at full price. (It's the same trick you use when you buy 3 seeking arrows off of a chronicle sheet.)


Galnörag wrote:
I'm in the camp your AC won't flank unless you teach it flank, nor will it track if you don't teach it track. Your AC isn't like a robot who does what you want as if it can read your mind, it is an animal, of animal intelligence. You can train instincts, but you can't make narrowly trace the perfect AoO free path between foes to get you flank, at least not and maintain verisimilitude.

Actually, until the "flank" trick was introduced, the assumption was that you could just tell your animal companion to flank. For years, animal companions could flank, and then suddenly they couldn't.

It was especially annoying with animals that naturally flank in the wild, like wolves, raptor dinosaurs, etc.


Serisan wrote:
I would say that you can't take 10 unless you're at least 2 squares back, but that's just me hating chase scenes. The only chase scene I've enjoyed is a modified version is a particular season 6 scenario that involves teamwork rather than individual success.

Actually, one of the reasons I was considering the option of taking 10 was to make the chase scene less terrible. A large part of the reason players seem to hate them is that 2-3 bad rolls makes the whole thing drag into a miserable experience--especially if the character could make the skill check on a 6 or 7 but just can't roll above a 5 tonight.

As far as being distracted by the act of chasing, chase scenes remind me more of obstacles courses than combat, and it seems to me that an obstacle is the kind of place where you would always take 10: the whole idea is to train yourself to the point where you can get through the course by taking 10.

The 2 squares back idea is interesting. As a comparison, if your buddies are in combat 60 feet down the hall (and you are not engaged), can you take 10 on Disable Device to get a door open? Or on Perception to see if anyone else is coming?


I have to run a PFS scenario with a chase scene soon, and this question came up:
While you're in a chase scene, can you take 10 on your skill checks?

You're technically not in combat, because chases are a different mechanic from the combat rules.

It seems like it might fall under the "increase drama" rules, but those are tricky in PFS. Also, since a lot of players hate chase scenes, I think anything that makes them less onerous to the players would be an improvement.

Any thoughts? I'm not finding anything in the rules that even hints on this.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh. I'm kind of surprised that the "what can a mount do" portion of the thread passed 50 comments and no one mentioned the Wartrain Mount spell. :-)

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
I actually like the perma-Smoked Goggles idea. It would be the equivalent of having really bad cataracts, which qualifies as legally blind, but you'd still be able to generally get around.

But that's not a real handicap. That's a self-inflicted fetish, which can easily be removed by taking off the goggles. Having spent years reading for a blind friend, it irks me somewhat to hear someone suggest trivializing the handicap this way.

And quite frankly if we were going to explore a dungeon, your character would have to give mine a real good reason as to why you'd insist on wearing your fetish goggles.

Because I was once petrified by a basilisk and am now paranoid about gaze attacks? Although my character doesn't owe your character any explanations about my gear.

And no one was saying "a person wearing smoked goggles is exactly in the same as a person who is actually blind". The point was that smoked goggles are a legal option in PFS to achieve the same mechanical effects as a character with impaired vision.

(FWIW, my brother was blind, and it never occurred to me to be bothered by this.)


Ronnie K wrote:
Soul Thief wrote:

I have a pair of swashbuckler builds in mind, the details aren't too important to the main dilemma: one wields a falcata and one wields a rapier.

at level five the Falcata build will look like this
Falcata +14 (1d8 +13/17-20/x3)

and at the same level the Rapier build will look like this
Rapier +12 (1d6 +18/15-20/x2)

The Falcata will hit harder when it crits but the rapier will crit more often. I don't know which will net more damage.

Thanks Bunches

I just posted a calculator that can compare your examples side by side over the full range of defender's AC.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sq2d?Another-DPA-calculator

I have one, too, but you bring up the critical question:

What is the to hit on each weapon?
What is the average AC of the target?

Mine will pull average AC from the monster tables based on your character level or BAB, but without at least a BAB, you can't answer the question.

Then you get into the issue of "how much of the damage is actually useful?" I see builds touting 100+ points of damage at level 7, but if the average hit points of the target at that level is less than 80, you're "wasting" 20 points of damage on every hit. A more efficient build would be one that does just slightly more damage than it takes to drop the foe or allows you spread the damage around to multiple foes if you drop the first one. (Can you tell I've working in manufacturing companies that use "just enough" inventory techniques?) :-)


A couple of comments on the builds:

Close Quarters Thrower requires both Dodge and Weapon Focus.

If you try to use a chakram in melee, you take a -1 penalty on attacks and have a chance of cutting your hand (DC 15 Reflex save to avoid); it's also a one-handed weapon, so you can't use it with normal Weapon Finesse. Go for a dagger, club, hunga munga, spear, etc. for a melee+thrown option.

Far Strike Monk gets flurry of blows, so (as someone already pointed out), they don't need/can't use rapid shot.

Without Far Strike Monk, you can use Two Weapon Fighting for thrown weapons instead of Rapid Shot. That gives you a bit more flexibility. (Throw a weapon, then five foot up and hit in melee, for example: this works well with Opening Volley, too.)

I'm currently running a Far Strike Monk/Juggler Bard combination: I've only played it once, so I haven't decided how well it works yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

What i'm not getting is, how is the effect of ASM not an effect dependent on spell level? Isn't that exactly what it is? It creates an effect.... which is dependent on the spell level.

I mean, I appreciate reading rules so that they don't result in ridiculous exploits.... but that's some serious selective reading.

You appreciate reading rules, but you're not reading posts.

Nobody is saying that ASM is not based on spell level. Obviously that's based on spell level. It says so in the spell.

But the Heighten Spell feat doesn't really raise the spell level. It raises the "effective spell level" for level-related stuff.

Sure, maybe that literally means "raises the spell level" or maybe that literally means "raises the effective spell level". Oh, wait, I almost forgot what "literally" means: "literally" literally means "exactly". So, I guess the feat literally means "raises the effective spell level".

Why did they write it that way? If they wanted it to "raise the spell level" they could have left the word "effective" out entirely. If hey had done so, then there would be LESS AMBIGUITY. I'm 100% certain the devs wanted less ambiguity and also 100% certain they wanted to keep word count as low as possible, but putting "effective" into that sentence defeats BOTH of these goals.

So, really, why did they write it that way?

There can be only one reason: As far as the devs are concerned, there MUST be a difference between "spell level" and "effective spell level".

ASM is based on "spell level" and Heighten Spell increases "effective spell level".

Not the same thing.

There could be another reason they wrote it that way:

FAQ wrote:

"Heighten Spell is worded poorly and can be confusing. It lets you use a higher-level spell slot for a spell, treating the spell as if it were naturally a higher level spell than the standard version. Unlike Still Spell, which always adds +1 to the level of the spell slot used for a spell,Heighten Spell lets you decide increase a spell's level anywhere from +1 to +9, using a spell slot that is that many spell levels higher than the normal spell."

[...]
"the rules text was inherited from 3.5"
[...]
"If you are a spontaneous caster, heightening a spell when using a higher-level spell slot still increases the casting time, just like any other use of metamagic, so you have to weigh the benefits of either
• casting it normally using the higher-level slot
vs.
• increasing the casting time to cast it as a heightened spell and treat the spell as the level of the spell slot you're using."

(Emphasis mine).

There a lot more at the FAQ link, but your argument that the devs deliberately chose the word "effective" to distinguish from "actual" does not hold up: they said it was poorly worded when they inherited it.

More importantly, consider what the effect of your argument has on generally accepted uses of the Heighten feat:

The most common use of Heighten that I see is to cast Light or Continual Flame at a level higher than 3rd to counter Deeper Darkness. With your argument that Heighten does not "actually" increase the spell level (just the "effective" spell level), this use does not work, because a heightened light spell is not actually a higher level spell.

I think you'll get a lot of pushback on that ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

WANT!

Hmmm....what if we take that design and add a strong/bright LED pointed to the outside so you can use it as a flashlight?

Then, add a weaker/dimmer LED on the inside of the top lid, connect both LEDs to the same switch, and embed a button on the inside of the lid, right next to the inside LED. When you press the button, it switches off the outside LED and turns on the inside LED.

Finally, put some kind of securing band (elastic, maybe) over the inside LED and button so that if you insert a small object (say, a piece of colored glass or something) in the band, it will both press the inside button and cover the inside LED.

At the very least, it will remind players that when they have an ioun stone slotted, they can't use their wayfinder to cast light. :-)


Dirty Trick works well as long as your GM supports it: since all the arbitration of Dirty Trick is based on GM's discretion.

Outside of that, I'd go with Grapple. It's one of the few maneuvers that is not restricted by size difference, and very few things are immune to it. Grappling is a nice "game over" for most spell casters or SLA uses, and if you go with a Tetori Monk archetype, you'll even be able to shut down Freedom of Movement at level 9.

I have a trip, overrun, and grapple build currently. The grapple build is the most useful of the three.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

Check the Additional Resources page for the definitive list of what is and isn't legal.

There might not be an explanation of why the item was disallowed.

As an alternate, though, Quick Draw should give you all the flexibility this dagger would.

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

Komana Higgenstrom wrote:
Hitokiriweasel wrote:


1) Make sure you can still do damage. Trying to trip the colossal centipede is probably a terrible idea. Or trying to use most combat maneuvers.

Hey! I've grappled one!

It's a lot easier to decide to do it when you use your foresight school ability and you see a natural 20 on the die.

Yeah, grappling is much easier than tripping: there's no size limitation or bonus for extra limbs. (My halfling tetori has a "grappled a gargantuan ooze" on her resume...)

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

Jessex wrote:

I've seen debuffers that were great and were a real boon to have at the table and I've seen the ones that were one trick pony's that when their trick failed or they couldn't use it stood around doing nothing in combat.

This is more true for non magic debuffs. What does a tripper do when the target can fly or is otherwise immune to trip? What does the grappler do against another grappler or something with a high escape artist? The disarmer when fighting monsters with purely natural weapons?

Likewise, I've seen melee-focused builds just stand there and yell at the flying bad guy to come and get them, and a fire wizard sit out the whole combat against a monster that's immune to their only trick. One trick ponies of any kind are a bad idea.

(Grappler vs. grappler is easy: whoever gets control wins. And any grappler worth his salt is unconcerned about Escape Artist: natural 20s don't auto-succeed on skill checks, and very few characters run around with +20 in Escape Artist to beat a 40 CMD. Now, wands of Grease are your friend in these cases...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Because Jason Bulmahn.

Essentially, when you're in a Grapple, one "hand" isn't available.

That means it's "occupied" as far as Slashing Grace is concerned.

I don't think that link implies that at all: "typically" doesn't mean "always", and he's talking about fluff not mechanics anyway.

If we're going to make a rule off of that, don't we have to get the GM or player to describe exactly how they are grappling the target? If they are using a head lock, the target can use slashing grace, but if they twisting his arm behind his back, he can't?

Then there's other issue of if someone else has a hold of your arm, does that mean it's "occupied"? If I'm grappled by the arm but I have a wand in that hand, can I still use the wand? There's nothing in the rules to prevent me, but if my hand is "occupied" by being grappled, now I can't use the wand.

Edited to add: I definitely agree that the wording is confusing and needs to be edited, but I don't agree that it implies this result. I also think that hyperbole isn't helpful in these conversations: it just obfuscates the real issue and makes it seem like less of a problem (e.g., "It's not really a problem: people are just overreacting.").


Usually, you're only flat-footed to the person who feints you. However, there are some teamwork feats (Feint Partner, Improved Feint Partner) that will let other people benefit from Feint. You're usually only flat-footed to the next single attack, unless the person feinting has a feat tree like Greater Feint, Improved Two-weapon Feint, or Improved Feinting Flurry.

There is the Shrewd Tactician feat, which gives an typed bonus to resist Feint. Other than that, Casual Viking's suggestion on boosting your sense motive is good. Things like Parry, Crane Wing, Snake Style, etc., are also good options to avoid being attacked.

Feint tactics are not all that common, unless your GM happens to like them. Feint is a standard action or a move action with Improved Feint, which sacrifices your full-round attack. Even with Two Weapon Feint or Feinting Flurry, the attacker is giving up an attack to feint, and there's a string of feat investments to make it work, and if you run into a feinter, just back off and attack them at range.

In your position, I'd probably focus on other ways to increase my flat-footed AC (Barkskin, Shield, monk dip, etc.), or work on ways to get miss chances (Blur, Displacement, etc.).


Melkiador wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Now slashing grace don't work if you get grappled.
I'm apparently missing something here: can you explain why you think this?
Quote:
rappled: 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.

Right...but Slashing Grace explicitly says "When wielding your

chosen weapon one-handed" Even with the errata adding the restriction of not having your other hand occupied, how do you interpret that to make Slashing Grace "an action that requires two hands"?

*** RPG Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

Orfamay is right. I play my Tetori monk as a debuffer: she will never take anyone out on her own, but being grappled is a combat-ending debuff for most bad guys. (She also has the Enforcer feat to make them Shaken, just in case they somehow escape.)

My husband's Mouser Swashbucker works as a debuffer: once he's in your square, he's giving flanking to everyone AND gives you penalties at the same time.

We have a Diviner wizard in our area whose opening move is Slow with Tanglefoot Bags as a power component: entangled and limited to one action a turn is a bad way to start a combat.

We also have a Wrecker oracle who tears up people's armor and ages them into penalties.

My Zen Archer uses a Distracting bow with Tangleshot arrows to debuff spellcasters: make a concentration check at +5 to the DC, please!

And the Unchained Rogue having the "no AoOs for you" debuff saved our party during the demo game.

So, yeah, a lot of us enjoy debuffers as players, and a lot of us hate them as GMs. Just have something else you can do for when your preferred debuff doesn't work on a particular bad guy.


Nicos wrote:
Now slashing grace don't work if you get grappled.

I'm apparently missing something here: can you explain why you think this?


DM Livgin wrote:
Grey_Mage wrote:

Agreed, or play up the bring me your sick and lame angle.

There should be office hours when the clergy tends to the sick. The pcs should be in line with the commoners to give the impression that the full complement of the clergy magic must be spread out amongst the faithful rather than waiting for an adventurer to come along.

Donations are required, and it will be more if they aren't active parishoners of that faith in that town.

Since churches are the emergency room my vote means:

Triage diseases using heal skills in the morning. Admission for long term care during the day. Casting magic (non-emergent) only happens at night before rest.

The clergy needs to retain spell slots to spontaneously heal for those emergent cases, otherwise there will be riots when the clergy can't heal little Susie who fell down a well because they burned their divine magic healing a bunch of out of towners for a few gold.

That is super well thought out. I'm going to be incorporating this into my worlds.

Agreed. I can also see the clerics leaving several of their spell slots open during the day so they can adjust to what they need that day. Sure, they can convert Remove Sickness into a cure light wounds spell, but they can't convert it into Remove Poison.


If your GM is OK with you guys reading background material (or if he wants to read some himself), check out the Pathfinder Wiki.

For a good "inside scoop" on Andoran's anti-slavery activities around Golarion, I recommend Pirate's Promise (it's also just a good book overall).


In Golarion lore, slavery is outlawed in Andoran: you can hire servants, but you can't absolutely can't buy slaves there. If you bring slaves in from another country, they would normally be considered freed the second you cross the Andoran border, but your GM might let you fudge that (for example, if you have some kind of "official foreign emissary" title or "diplomatic immunity" or something).

Also, there are multiple branches of the Andoran military (some well-known, some covert) entrusted with the mission of hunting down slavers and bringing all the slaves back to Almas, where they are granted full citizenship (if they want it) and a kind of refugee status. There is also an "underground railroad" type network based out of Andoran that smuggles slaves out of other countries.

If you want your character to have slaves walking around Andoran, expect it to be a major issue everywhere you go. You might get away with calling them "bonded servants" or some such if their servitude is only temporary (Ulfen tribes do temporary "slavery" to repay a dept or as a recompense for a crime, for example).

But if a Halfling gives your slave a pretty bell-shaped flower, better sleep with your eyes open. :-)


Self-buffing maguses are pretty effective: you can get your buffs up without losing a round of attacks, and single-round buffs like True Strike and Vanish work really well with Spell Combat.

I also like the Wandwielder arcana: since using wands doesn't provoke, you don't have to worry about casting defensively.


Ah, I see.

Well, I would just ask the GM before each game how they want to rule it, and potentially show them the Ranged Disarm and Ranged Trip text as an example/comparison.


My recommendation is to just skip the Archer archetype and go with the Ranged Disarm and Range Trip feats from Ranged Tactics Toolbox. Or just use the text from those feats to clarify the vague areas of the Trick Shots feature.

But you're correct about combat maneuvers only provoking from the target of the maneuver.

1 to 50 of 1,815 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.