|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Most creatures who are grappling/grappled can't make AoOs, which usually means they don't count as "threatening" for purposes of flanking. (There's table variation here, but most PFS GMs I know run this way.) Starting at 4th level, the Tetori monk can make AoOs while grappling/grappled, so the monk counts as threatening and can flank.
My favorite use of grapple is to shut down spell casters.
3) Grapple attempts gain bonuses that apply to attack rolls; does this have to be generic attack bonuses, or can it also be attack bonuses applied to Unarmed Strike attacks? For example, would Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) also give a +1 to Grapple attempts, in addition to +1 to attack rolls with Unarmed Strike? What about an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1-5? Would that give a corresponding bonus to Grapple attempts, or only to attack/damage rolls for Unarmed Strike attacks?
Since you can actually take "Weapon Focus: Grapple", I would say that "Weapon Focus: Unarmed strike" would not apply, even if you are using an unarmed strike. If you are using some other weapon that you can grapple with (say, a whip or spiked chain), then weapon focus with that weapon would apply when you use it to initiate a grapple.
If you go with Cleric, the Varisien Pilgrim archetype has some interesting options: you can give allies your domain abilities.
Cavalier is a good martial support character, especially with the Order of the Dragon. (I have a Halfling Honor Guard cavalier with Blundering Defense and Bodyguard. She's an AC buffer who can increase an ally's AC up to 11 points against a single attack.)
Bards of course are the original support build, and probably still the best overall. Bard/Cavalier is a nice combo, and it's a good lead-in to Battle Herald if you want to go that router.
The Monk Sensei archetype is nice, also, but it doesn't get really cool until 6th level when you can start loaning out your ki powers.
I agree with this as far as it goes, but I don't this is an exact analogy. In this example the bonus is to "any dex check", not "to Acrobatics. Double Slice only affects your strength damage on your off-hand weapon, and Agile only replaces str on weapon damage.
This situation is more like an ability that says "when you make an Acrobatics roll, treat your Dex modifier as 4 higher." Now, if you replace Dex with Int, do you still get the bonus? Does "your Dex modifier" mean "your Dex modifier (or whatever other stat you happen to be using for Acrobatics rolls)" or "your Dex modifier (and only your Dex modifier, and if you use another stat for Acrobatics, then it sucks to be you)"?
It's a similar situation, I think, to spells that say "use your Wisdom to attack" or "add your Wisdom modifier to damage" because it was originally designed for clerics. If another class with a different spell casting stat gets access to that ability, does the other class use their primary spell casting stat or are they just stuck with Wisdom? Based on this FAQ, they are just stuck with Wisdom, but it also says "it's a perfectly reasonable house rule" to use the primary casting stat. It just seems like a very thin line between "perfectly reasonable house rule" and "table variation."
I suspect this issue probable falls on that same line.
Well, it doesn't specifically say "use half damage on off hand weapons". It just says "reduced for off hand weapons". Because of that, I would say that they mean "apply the normal reduction for off hand weapons here." Otherwise, by RAW, we don't know how much to reduce the damage by, which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Because of that, I would argue that Double Slice removes/changes the normal reduction for off-hand weapons, and therefore would apply to Agile weapons and the Dex bonus. Otherwise, you end up with convoluted issues of "Do I add Str and Dex?" and such, usually, the rules aren't intended to that bizarre. I would allow it, and I could probably convince most GMs I know to do so, also.
Now, Power Attack's damage is always halved on off-hand weapons, even if you have Double Slice. So is Piranha Strike. Most of the time, a TWF is just better off without these two feats because of that.
Oletko loukkaantunut, "serkku"?
Badly accented Hallit:
Are you hurt, "cousin"?
As a standard action, Dejik forms a Life Link with Sarkast.
If you feel that strongly about Improved Precise Shot, then I can see your argument. I've never found that feat needed myself as long as your party members aren't stupid.
It also lets you ignore concealment. No miss chance is a huge boost to overall damage.
And there are a lot of sources of cover besides your party members, like other bad guys, standing behind something, being partially immersed in water, etc.
Under strict cover rules, ranged attackers end up dealing with soft cover (-4) most of the time. Less strict GMs might take that down to partial cover (-2), but perfectly clear shots are rare.
1) 2 less on attack rolls, one from lower BAB, one from lack of weapon training
When flurrying, you don't have a lower BAB. Your monk levels count as your BAB on a flurry. And until you actually have Manyshot, you're better off flurrying.
3) Can't qualify for Manyshot, Snap Shot OR Clustered Shots until level 8, and so won't get them until level 9. At that point, has to choose between them.
Why not take one as your level 2 fighter bonus feat?
Adaptive is a must-have for any archer.
Personally, I like Designating: each time you hit, your allies get +2 attack and damage (morale) for 1 round. A Zen Archer can usually hit once a round, so this becomes a really nice party buff. Greater Designating increases this bonus to +4.
I agree that Seeking is overrated: once you have Improved Precise Shot, you really only have to worry about invisible opponents, and there are better ways around that.
Planar is nice: it only reduces DR by 5, but it works on any outsider. Combine that with Clustered Shots, and you should be holding up nicely against any elemental, demon, devil, angel, or whatever.
Hello, this is Sarkast's wife.
I've been fighting fires at work this week, so I'm finally getting a chance to introduce myself!
I have a couple of different characters I've been playing with, and I'd love to hear people's thoughts on them.
1) A local Mendevian crusader/archer (paladin, Divine Hunter archetype) who was severely injured and blinded in the initial attack. She's been using her lay on hands to help other survivors but feels completely useless otherwise. After a day or so, she started to have an innate sense of her surroundings, and her healing abilities were amplified (Clouded vision Oracle, Life mystery). Her primary tactic right now is to use Life Link to absorb damage from her allies, then Lay on Hands to heal herself as a swift action. As her Oracle levels increase, she'll pick up Selective Channeling. Concept-wise, this is the most interesting, but multiclassing with the Oracle's curse and slow spell progression means she won't be as useful to the party overall. (I could do this same concept as a warpriest instead of a paladin, but I need to see if the Advanced Class Guide is OK.)
2) A wandering cleric of Gozreh who was given a dream about the attack and instructed to go join the fight: The demons present such a great threat to the balance of nature that even the true neutral deities feel compelled to interfere. She would primarily a buff and survival cleric: she has the Growth and Seasons domains with the Varisien Pilgrim archetype, which lets her give her domain powers to her allies, the main one being "Enlarge yourself as a swift action." I'm also toying with more "normal" Varisien pilgrim clerics (Travel, Luck, or Liberation domains), if something like that would be more useful.
3) A local cleric who usually tends to the needs of the crusaders near the front line, and came to Kenabres to help after the attack. She would have more direct support domains like Heroism, Defense, Good, or Restoration. She would buff the party members, align weapons, etc. (I'd like her to get the Bless Equipment feat at 5th level, if Inner Sea Gods is OK.)
All of these would go the Hierophant mythic path, and they'd have very few skills. They'd be mostly combat support and in-combat healing, but they'd also have some social skills and could provide long-term care.
What do you think?
I think they just didn't notice the misplaced modifier. That's a very common writing error, right up there with dangling modifiers. ("As a registered nurse, your editorial was offensive." The editorial is a registered nurse? Really?)
Also, this shield was designed for Performance combat, which has a different set of rules than normal combat. I suppose a GM could just rule that if you're not using Performance combat rules, this item doesn't work at all.
How about this:
"Throw" is not an attack, so you can throw the shield to the ground or throw it to a friend or just throw it around the battlefield, but you can't throw it at someone and make an attack roll against them.
When reading the (yes, poorly written) text, you have three choices:
2) If the phrase modifies "unclasp", then "throw" is a standard action, as already defined under the thrown weapons rules. ("Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action.")
3) If the phrase modifies both verbs, then you have to treat "unclasp and throw" as a combined action that can never be separated. So you could never throw the shield unless you started with it clasped--if you pick it up from the ground, you have to put it back on before you can unclasp and throw it. Also, for the first time I've ever seen, we now have two actions combined into a single free action.
Of these three options, number 2 makes the most sense.
However, if you are going to go with number 3 and read it at "throw the shield as an attack as a free action", then don't forget that this shield is an exotic weapon--you need a feat to use it. Also, you still take the penalties for taking an extra attack with a second weapon, and you can't use a two-handed weapon for your other attack (per the armor spikes ruling).
Sammy T wrote:
D'oh! That's what I get for answering message boards at work.
Omar should be Otto--that's intended to tie the original Pathfinder team to Otto's farm, the scene of the first murder.
We run PFS games all weekend at NorWesCon. This past year we were upstairs in the bar, running morning, afternoon, and evening slots.
We also run PFS scenarios at DragonFlight, and we do demos at EmeraldCity ComicCon, PAX, and GeekGirlCon.
Check out NWPFS.org for all of the goings-on in the Puget Sound and surrounding areas.
I did vanilla fighter with 1 level of barbarian. With furious wakazashis, Improved Critical, and Outflank (teamwork feat), she did 4 attacks a round at 15-20 crit threat, and every time she scored a critical hit, her partner (rogue based) took an AoO on the target.
For extra fun, she and her partner used a wand or oil of Bless Weapon: you auto-confirm critical threats against evil foes.
Doug Miles wrote:
In the second note, I wanted to include the idea that the writer believed they were innocent, both to encourage Jorsal to send the team and to make the handwriting comparison more compelling evidence for the defense.
What do you think?
I did a several hours of prep work and notes, and I was still tripped by several details running this.
1) The Pathfinders are accused of two murders; both my husband and I missed that when we prepped the scenario.
2) There is no information on the victims, and that's a piece that players are going to try to investigate.
3) What's the name of the third Pathfinder? Corwin Burke (race=?), Dakota Spire (race=dwarf), and ??
4) It's not clear whether the evidence for the prosecution is actually correct. For example, the prosecution says the Pathfinders were seen at the farm several hours before the murders, but there's no indication why they there or who saw them, and the Pathfinders don't provide any more information in the interview. Also, it's not clear whether the dagger at the second murder actually belonged to Dakota Spire ("it fits in the sheath"), and the interview doesn't say whether Dakota Spire admitted owning it, noticed it was missing, etc. I went with "Yes, it was mine" and "I didn't notice it was gone until they arrested us."
5) The timeline for the fall of the Kenabres is confused. That was during the Third Crusade, but Ekira was around for it. Later, it says Tobias fought in the Fourth Crusade 15 years ago, which would make the Third Crusade more than 15 years old. I'll go through the Inner Sea Guide and see if I can get a firmer handle on this.
6) The letters to VC Jorsal get confused. In the briefing, he hands the PCs a letter saying there is a ruin to investigate. Later, the scenario refers to the letter informing Jorsal that the Pathfinders would be executed. I went with the briefing version and assumed Tobias informed Jorsal of the impending execution. (Neither of these letters is provided as a handout, nor is the anonymous letter accusing the Pathfinders. I'll try to mock up handouts for these this week.)
7) Jorsal provides the PCs with mounts, but there's no livery stable in town. I added one next to the inn.
8) We are told that Ekira has strayed from the teachings of Iomedae, but we don't have specifics on what she is doing wrong or what the correct version of those teachings is.
9) The text says that Tobias is "soft" and implies that he doesn't want to execute the Pathfinders, but one of the true rumors says he wants to see them hang. I made that rumor about Ekira instead of Tobias.
10) I wasn't sure whether the town size spending limit should be based on the Dawnton's normal size or its current size.
Overall though, it was a lot of fun, and I had a really good group when I ran it.
My group's tactics:
My group threw scenario completely off the rails. One PC was an inquisitor of Damirak, Empyreal Lord of lawful executions, and actually had "Profession (Executioner)." He offered his services to the mayor to perform the execution, then couched any investigation as "I just have to double check, because my god demands that I verify everything is in order before I kill them." He told Ekira that he was really happy to see her involved in the case, because her training gave him a lot of confidence that the case was handled correctly.
The rest of the PCs, meanwhile, took the tactic of "We were in the area and heard you were going to have an execution. We love a good execution!" Since there were already a bunch of "execution tourists" in town, the PCs didn't stand out much. Any time they talked to someone about the execution, they were downright eager ("We want to make sure we get good seats!" and "If they behead them, we'll need to get tarps for the splash zone."). Questions about the Pathfinders guilt were couched as concern that the execution might not take place. One of the PCs was a tiefling with a hat of disguise, and he (quite coincidently) felt like changing his appearance at each location.
They actually got a lot of the evidence before they hit 5 on the opposition track, and they went looking for Dalton before he started asking around about them.
Like I said, completely off the rails.
If you do decide to go for the Barbarian, check out the Sea Reaver archetype. Being able to ignore cover penalties for creates in the water is very, very helpful.
The Freebooter Ranger archetype is one of my favorites. Ranger might be a good "jack of all trades" to bring in some martial capabilities but not be just a fighter.
Also, pick up Profession (Sailor) and Knowledge (Geography). There is also a lot of useful "ship's gear" in the Pirate of the Inner Sea book.
Now, I find it reasonably clear that it doesn't include TWF or Rapid Shot, but FoB can be made using a single weapon, which muddies the "as if a full attack" for me, as anyone who could flurry with the gun probably would.
How do you propose to flurry with a gun? It's not a monk weapon, and I'm not aware of any deity with "gun" as a favored weapon...
If you're thinking Sohei archetype, you'll have to get 6 levels in Monk and then 7 in Gunslinger...
Unless I'm reading the deed wrong, Clustered Shots gets you the same basic effect, doesn't it?
James Risner wrote:
Technically, Janni Rush doesn't say you can do that. Janni Rush lets you do extra damage when you do that.
Further, if you jump as part of a charge and make an unarmed strike against the designated opponent, a hit allows you to roll the unarmed strike’s damage dice twice and add the results together before adding modifiers (such as from Strength) or extra dice (such as precision-based damage or dice from weapon abilities). The extra damage dice are not multiplied on a successful critical hit.
Notice that it does not say "You can jump as part of a charge" or have the note "Normal: you cannot jump as part of a charge." This implies that you can jump as part of a charge, or else this feat is not very useful.
A velociraptor can jump while charging, allowing it to ignore difficult terrain when it charges. When a velociraptor makes a charge in this way, it deals double damage with its talons.
This clearly implies that other creatures cannot jump while charging.
It will all come down to whether your GM puts more faith in Bestiary 4 or Ultimate Combat, so expect table variation.
I think more GMs will rule that you cannot jump as part of a charge. Some GMs might rule that Janni Rush still does not let you do it.
One of the GMs in our area came up with a compromise position: if you cannot fail the Acrobatics check (even if you roll a 1), then you can jump on the charge. The reasoning is that since you can't possibly fail the check to jump over the object, it doesn't really present any "obstacle" to you.
Mike Shel wrote:
Ah, ok. That makes more sense. The description mentioned "step pyramid", and my brain went straight to "Chichen Itza."
On the throneroom map, what's the rise between each "step"?
There are stairs to each layer, so I'm guessing it's probably 10 feet, but it could easily be higher. (The side view doesn't have any scale on it, and it's not the same size as the top view so...not assuming anything.)
I'd like to get it clarified because we have several leaping characters in our area (blame Tony for that one)...
I always loved the ones where the faction leaders seemed to know that the investigation would eventually lead to the library, and oh, while you're there...
I've had players stop me halfway through a scenario and ask, "Wait, aren't we supposed to go to some Wizard's Academy or something?" or (less spoilerish) "Did you give me the right faction mission?"
I got to the point where I held back some faction missions because they were too spoilerish. At the beginning of the scenario. I just told the players they would be getting faction missions later on. Then, after the scenario naturally got to the point where the faction mission made sense, a messenger came up to the character and slipped them a note.
Aid another is most useful for skill checks, true, but anytime you don't have the correct answer to overcome a creature's DR, you're probably better off aiding the guy who does. For example, a rogue against something immune to precision damage could contribute more DPR to the party by increasing the fighter's chance to hit or preventing the barbarian from getting hit.
Unarmed strike-based characters against anything that causes damage when you touch it or ranged characters against someone with protection from arrows, missile deflection, et al: pick up your backup melee weapon and help. I know you're not optimized to use a club or a quarterstaff, but you only have to hit AC 10.
Of course, there are also traits that increase your aid bonus to 3 or 4 (for halflings).
I have faced this exact situation.
I was GMing a game in another city. One of the players had a reputation of causing trouble for the party, e.g., going off by himself and getting caught by the bad guys or the local authorities, playing with unknown magic items and blowing up the party, trying to pick fights with venture captains/faction leaders, trying to kill an NPC the party was supposed to protect, etc. He was apparently responsible for several character deaths and caused the party to fail the mission on multiple occasions.
Yes, the kid was a very difficult player and needed a lot of GM attention/intervention, but as an out of towner, I hadn't seen any of the previous problems. All I saw was everyone else at the table watching this kid like jailers, "vetoing" everything he wanted to do or saying, "You will NOT do that--I won't let you." The other players were actually threatening PVP based on previous experience ("Oh, crap, he's leaving the party--he's going to get us killed again!"), but to me, all he was doing was going off by himself.
I hadn't seen any behavior from the kid that warranted this kind of response, and I was on the verge of having to punish the other players based on what I saw at the table. Fortunately, we managed to get things under control and finish the game, but it was an eye-opening experience.
Readied actions don't follow the same rules as AoOs, really. They are similar, but not identical.
AoOs are provoked by a specific set of actions. These actions always provoke (barring special abilities), and the game rules say these actions are resolved before the action that triggers. And AoOs are "free" attacks. So the sequence is:
Readied actions are specific, standard actions that you "hold in reserve" for a specific trigger. Basically, you sacrifice your regular turn for the advantage of being able to interrupt someone else's action.
It doesn't matter how many feet of movement the orc took to get into the room: the instant the orc is actually in the room, your readied action goes off.
One reason it feels like you're going before the orc is that you move your place in the initiative order to right before him (because there is no way to be "in the middle of his turn" in initiative order). But your action actually interrupts his turn.
So if you really want to "trip lock" someone, you can ready an action to trip someone "as soon as they finish standing up":
Note that in order to do this, you are not taking any actions on your turn: you just stand there and wait for the guy to stand up. If the guy doesn't actually stand up, your readied action is wasted, and you go back into your original initiative order.
But it all depends on how you word your trigger. So, for instance, a smart player will say "I ready an action to hit him as soon as he starts to cast a spell" rather than "I ready to hit him if he casts a spell": in the second instance, a mean GM could easily interpret your trigger to be "as soon as he has finished casting his spell", which is kind of pointless.
Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how are you using the Knight's Pennon with a longbow?
This narrow cloth flag is made to attach to the end a knight's lance, though it can be flown from a spear, polearm, or even a staff. It has no effect if not mounted appropriately.
As a GM (and an ex-SCA archer), I wouldn't let you attach that to a bow--it would seriously get in your way. Most GMs I've had would at the very least give you a partial cover or soft cover penalty.
Is there some way you can wield a pennon when your hands are otherwise occupied?
It is different. During the playtest, we usually read that as "a light weapon or a one-handed piercing weapon" (which matches the Duelist weapon restrictions).
The revised guide should be out after GenCon, though, so it might be completely different at the end of the summer.
Don't forget that you can't sneak attack if the target has concealment.
At low levels, this is usually dim light*, fog, rain, or spells like Obscuring Mist. At higher levels, this includes Blur, Displacement, etc.
Also, precision damage (like sneak attack) is not multiplied on a critical hit. That makes a huge difference.
*If your Rogue has darkvision, dim light doesn't apply.
Sucks about the Zen Archer. I'd go Ranger-Guide 2/Slayer 3/Fighter-Archer 5 then. As a Swift & Move action when you come upon an enemy you'd be able to do +3 hit/damage against it. Get some Gloves of Dueling and be at another +3 hit/damage w/bows.
I tend to shy away from the Archer archetype. By the time you get trick shots, CMDs are so high that they are almost pointless. More importantly, you trade out Weapon Training, and it's really up to your GM whether to allow Gloves of Dueling to work with Expert Archer.
The Weapon Master archetype is pretty nice for a specialist, and you get Weapon Training at 3rd level.
I second the half-orc, though. There's also a half orc alternate racial trait that gives you 90 ft of darkvision, which is really nice when you have 110 ft range increment.
Maybe a wizard, sorcerer, or magus dip to qualify for arcane archer. Without that, archers kind of hit a damage cap around 7th or 8th level.
I wasn't that impressed with Arcane Archer when I first looked at it; I might have to give it another check.
The expanded archery feats and magic items do a lot to overcome the old damage caps, though. Deadly Aim scales up by level at the same rate as Power Attack, and Clustered Shots lets you total all your hits from the round before adding DR. Adaptive lets you use Bull's Strength as a buff (or rage, if you want to take a barbarian levels) without switching weapons. (I have an archer with a barbarian dip who took Scent as a rage power. If she hits with a Pheromone Arrow first, then when she rages, all of her attacks get a total of +2 attack/+4 damage.)
A straight fighter archer can use Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Specialization and Weapon Training with Gloves of Dueling. At 12th level, assuming 18 Dex, 16 Str, a +1 bow, and no other buffs, that works out to about:
+17(x2 for Manyshot)/+17/+12/+7 for 1d8+20, crits on a 20 for x3
That stacks up pretty well against an unbuffed, 20-Str Earth breaker wielder with the same basic feat set (swap Improved Crit for Manyshot). The two-hander does about
The archer's extra 2 attacks a round make up for the lower damage per hit. Considering that Clustered Shots lets you total the damage up before applying DR, your archer should be pretty darn effective, overall. Also, since you have the advantage of range, you're likely to get full attacks more often than a melee fighter. (Just make sure to pick up Improved Precise Shot as soon as possible to counteract cover and concealment.)
Here's the breakout, if anyone cares:
(Bracers of Falcon's Aim make the crit threat 19-20)
(Note: 21 AC was what was in my Damage Calculator already--no particular reason for choosing that other than laziness.)
These are my standard recommendations (in order):
2) If you're allowed to use the alchemical arrows from the Elves of Golarion book, I highly recommend them. My archers stock up on Durable Arrows with cold iron tips. If anyone if the party has an animal companion with Scent, pick up some Pheromone Arrows for +2 attack and damage.
3) Get weapon blanches: you can get cold iron, silver, adamantine, and ghost salt. These are especially necessary if you can't use durable arrows to get special materials on the tips.
4) If you have Use Magic Device, a wand of Gravity Bow might be worth it.
They did include some leeway to make specific adjustments in the Guide to Organized Play, version 5.0 (page 32):
This came up in another discussion, and almost half of the GMs present didn't realize this text was in the Guide.
Actually, not all maneuvers are the same. Some maneuvers have size limitations, so you can't trip someone two sizes larger than you, regardless of your CMB.
Also, there are feats for different maneuevers. For example, there's a Celestial Obedience feat for Felayna (Empyreal Lord from Chronicles of the Righteous) that gives you +4 sacred bonus to CMB for grappling and to CMD overall. It doesn't apply to any other maneuver.
You can take Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus for Grapple, also, which is +1 per feat. You can't take these feats for other maneuvers.
As far as what will be enough, that really depends on your target. Size penalties and bonuses are exponential, so grappling Tiny or smaller creatures is really easy. Gargantuan or Colossal creatures, not so much. At 3rd level, my Halfling tetori monk has a +12 CMB to grapple, and she seems to do OK.
Also, note that Grab usually has a size limitation on it, while Grapple does not. So a Small creature can theoretically Grapple a Huge creature, but it can't Grab the same creature. As a GM, I would say that if you can't Grab the creature because of size limitations, you lose the +4 bonus from having Grab. (Although Grab might have different wording depending on the source, so it could matter where you're getting your Grab from.)
Some people mentioned that 7-player tables are a aberration and shouldn't be considered. That is region dependent. One of our stores recently reduced the number of tables they could give us from 4 and occasionally 5 down to 3. Even when we're lucky enough to find an off-site option for a 4th table, we have 1-2 tables with 7 players every week. I imagine we're not the only region with this kind of problem.
So while I agree that 7-player tables shouldn't be a major factor in designing a new system, I want to point out that we can't just ignore them.
I tend to do TWF with the same weapon in each hand, because then your weapon training, weapon focus, and weapon specialization apply to all your attacks, along with any improved critical based feats.
If you're going to do any Enlarge Person or Lead Blades-type buffs, your best bet is Sawtooth Sabre: it functions as a long sword in all respects, but it can be used in an off hand without penalty. It takes an EWP feat, but you can swing 1d8 in each hand, and then enlarge person or use lead blades to kick it up to 2d6.
I have a two-weapon fighter who uses dual wakizashis, with improved critical, weapon focus/specialization, and weapon training with gloves of dueling. At 10th level, she threw out 4 attacks a round at +20/+20/+15/+15, for 1d6+10 each, critting on a 15 or better, without any temporary buffs up. I went for the wakizashis because they were the highest damage light weapon that did both piercing and slashing with an 18-20 crit threat.
My husband and I picked up the teamwork feat Outflank, so every time my fighter scored a critical hit, his barbarian got a free AoO against the target. It was really, really brutal. If you don't have a regular melee partner, you can accomplish the same effect with a Ring of Tactical Precision.
Dawnflower Dervish archetype is the way to do this, but it does change your Inspire Courage to self-only, so you'd be less of a general buffer for the team.
I would check with your GM. The Dawnflower Dervish wording is very ambiguous, and it's not clear whether Battle Dance completely replaces Inspire Courage. Battle Dance (+2 attack/damage) is clearly self-only, but the text is not clear whether you can still use regular Inspire Courage for +1 attack/damage. I've seen people say that RAI, Battle Dance replaces Inspire Courage, but RAW, it is far from clear.
Or, if you're asking the GM to modify the ability anyway, you could just ask the GM to remove Battle Dance completely and leave Inspire Courage unaltered for the archetype. That would be a pretty minor change.
(The Dawnflower Dervish archetype gets scimitar proficiency for free and skips the Weapon Finesse pre-requisite, so you can use a scimitar with Dervish Dance at first level.)
James Risner wrote:
The Ki attack is specifically an extra attack at your highest bonus. Nothing specifies when you have to take it, and you can spend a ki point at any time during your turn. Most monks I see wait until the end of the sequence to see if the bad guy drops first, and I have never seen a PFS GM in our area have a problem with it.
The "BAB order" refers only to your regular attacks. Extra attacks from ki pool or Haste don't say anything about needing to be in a specific order, and both abilities specify that the attack is taken at your highest bonus.
If you see it a lot in PFS, you might want to submit an FAQ or at least ask your venture officers for a clarification.
Side note: Trample (as a mounted combat feat) doesn't require a charge, just an overrun. (An overrun can be part of a charge but it doesn't have to be).
Trample (as a monster ability) is just a full round action.
My husband and I have a few Halfling cavaliers riding around on wolves and dogs--we love 'em!
Well PFS works like this but I assume you are talking about a home game and not organized play. We have dabbled in this from time to time usually in other rules lite systems. Mostly this is due to the fact our games tend to lean on the lethal side and we need replacements on occasion. I dont prefer it in D&D/PF since making up characters is kind of a chore for me.
PFS = Pathfinder Society, the organized play group. I think they also appear in the faction guide, so you could get some idea of how to use the in-game Society outside of organized play or just as a pattern.
Michael Brock wrote:
I don't know about the rest of these folks, but I have both the home and away jerseys. Even though the away is ugly as hell and looks like an astro pop that you buy from the ice cream truck. I'm expecting us to go undefeated in the first round, with a possible tie, but likely three wins.
Yeah, what is up with this year's kit?
Did you trip him with your weapon? If so, he wouldn't be able reach you for the AoO, unless he had a reach weapon, too. It you aren't in a threatened square when you take the action, there's no AoO.
To the original point, I agree with the other posters: charge bonuses only apply against the target, and the ac penalty applies against everyone.