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. 1,780 posts (2,152 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 16 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,780 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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?
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.

DM_Blake wrote:

According to the Item Hardness and HP rules, cloth has 0 hardness and 2 HP per inch thickness, so a headband would have 2 HP (which seems generous, but that is the rule). Then, magical armor and weapons gain Hardness and HP for each +1 enhancement, but this is not armor or a weapon, so no bonus.

End result, Hardness 0, HP 2.

Do we know that headbands are cloth? I've always assumed metal unless the description specifically said something else.

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

LoboStele wrote:

I feel like a lot of the issues you guys are raising can be handled with some creative story telling. Part of being a PFS GM is taking the framework of the story you're given, and then figuring out how to work around it and guide the PCs through it. Can't just read it word-for-word without adding anything extra and expect it to go flawlessly. We've all played with too many PCs to expect them to do what we expect them to do. Right? ;)

As for the pacing/railroading of the scenario...if you want the players to find the Swampers, then consistently point them in that direction. As far as the locals in town know (with the exception of the cult leader), the Swampers are responsible for all sorts of trouble around town. Nobody seems to trust them (not that the people in the town seem to trust much of anybody, but that's besides the point, LOL). In the case of the group above that killed the Ghost, there's plenty of other ways in the theater to direct people toward the sewers. Basia or other townsfolk could tell the PCs that searching the sewers directly would take a crazy amount of time, but could drop a hint about the Swampers.

I think this module sort of depends a bit on at least one PC having a decent Sense Motive skill, but I've yet to see anything in it that you couldn't work through. Maybe it's not as great of a scenario as some others, but it doesn't seem as awful as some of you are making it out to be.

Part of this discussion is pointing out issues that do need to worked through.

For our run, it was the first time the GM ran this scenario, and there wasn't much information on what to do you if the players go off the rails. There was a lot of detailed information about the three encounters, but nothing about how those encounters relate to the plot at hand.

For the Swampers, the GM did exactly what you suggested: he had multiple characters point us to the Swampers. He made it very clear that searching the sewers would be pointless. He explained that all our other investigations were fruitless and the Swampers was the only lead we had*, even though the only reason anyone gave for pointing us to the Swampers was just pure racism: no had seen the Swampers near any of the kidnappings, no one had found any evidence that the Swampers had been involved. (And honestly, if everyone was so convinced that it was the Swampers, why didn't the guard just go out and roust them? Why are we involved at all?)

So we gave up and went to the Swampers, traveling hours outside of town, waiting around more than an hour for them to show up, and paying out a large chunk of our gold to buy their information. (We tried to bargain for services, but our GM told us the scenario did not allow that.)

And we find out that the Swampers had nothing to do with the plot at all, and they had somehow, just coincidently "happened to see" things back in town, in the sewers--the same sewers we had been searching, in the same town where we had spent the whole day looking for witnesses and quizzing the guards who had been investigating all the previous kidnappings for days.

But somehow, these people who live hours away from the scenes of the crime shad witnessed more than one of them, but nobody in town had seen anything? Seriously? (And if they were in the sewers enough to see the crimes, how come we didn't run into any of them when we were investigating?)

Please note that I'm not saying anything about whether the scenario was fair or stacked against the PCs or anything like that: I'm only talking about the fact that the plot/story doesn't make any sense.

There is no reason for the Swampers to be in this story at all. All they do is point us right back to the same place we were already searching and was told was completely fruitless, which was even more frustrating.

Honestly, it felt like the writer took three short stories that had nothing in common but the setting, slapped chapter titles on them, and called it a novel. It was completely incoherent.

*Then there is the glaring problem that if the whole point of the BBEG is to frame the Pathfinder Society, why are we not finding any evidence pointing to the Pathfinder Society? The only piece of evidence was in the bag that the evil cultist was sitting on (another issue), so how exactly was that frame up going to work, again?

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

DrParty06 wrote:
Dorothy Lindman wrote:

When we finally get back to the manor and clue in to the face that this is the lodge, the whole thing just broke down, because we had already spent the night at the damn lodge, and had only been gone a few hours since then!

And we had three characters with scent, one of which had an unbuffed, take-10 perception of 33. But somehow, we never noticed any of the s#@~ going on.
It's not actually called out in the scenario that you spend any time in the Lodge until you go there at the end. When I ran it, I instructed the players that they were given a date and time they were to meet Basia at the Theater, and that the Pathfinders were still having issues maintaining an actual lodge due to prior events (those from The Darkest Vengeance). It's much less of a leap to assume that the local populace would still associate the former lodge with the Pathfinders than the Dark Folk having been there all along waiting. It's also entirely possible that the scenario is a case of misdirection, i.e. you start at the lodge but hear you need to go to the theater to look for the person missing from there, where you get a false trail so that the person you were looking for can go where you are now not, but making it look like you might have been the one that took them there.

We started at the theater, but we spent the whole rest of the day trying to investigate the kidnapping (I know, what were we thinking?) that we waited until the following morning to go to swamps. So where the heck else would we spend the night?

lemeres wrote:
My Self wrote:
Original Monk or Unchained?

Both, I do believe.

Brawler does specifically give you TWF feats though, and you can take later feats normally to advance your flurry. So brawler is fairly dip friendly, easily flowing into ranger or slayer.

Unchained Monk has full BAB, flurrying or not. (But yes, Brawler is an excellent dip, no matter what.)

Baumfluch wrote:

Hi together,

i´ve got a question about calculating the correct BAB and attack ammount for multiclass Monks.

Example Charakter to clarify: fighter 19, Monk 1.

1. Due to FAQ the total BAB in flurry of blows would be +18 (19 by fighter, 1 by Monk, -2 because using FoB).

so my usual attacks are: +18/+13/+8/+3
also i get 1 additional attack from FoB, because im a Monk1 (at 8th i´d get a 2nd and ath 15 i´d get the 3rd).
so my total attacks in FoB is +18/+18/+13/+8/+3, is that correct?

It's not completely correct. You only use your monk level in place of your BAB when you are flurrying; otherwise, you use your actual BAB from your monk levels--in this case, 0.

Pink Dragon has the correct numbers for your non-flurry attacks: +19/+14/+9/+4
(counting your Fighter BAB only, no -2 for flurry)

Your flurry attack numbers are correct: +18/+18/+13/+8/+3.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We just played this last night, and I felt really sorry for our GM. He had a table full of players (and characters) who like to be in control of our actions and will come up with idea after idea after idea. The problem wasn't so much that this scenario was a railroad, but that the tracks were so disjointed and broken that the GM finally just had to point them out to us and say, "You need to go over there."

First, none of us were going to follow the advice of the ghost of a racist serial killer who had already attacked us (and then we're supposed to listen to her when she comes back instead of run away or attack her? what?), so we wasted half the night trying to come up with some other lead.
-- We had three characters with scent and tried to track the kidnappers--no luck.
-- We tried to figure out any connections between the victims or patterns to the kidnappings--nope.
-- We canvassed the area looking for witnesses to the kidnapping, to anyone casing the theater, etc.--nothing.
-- We tried to go to the city guard to find out what their "investigations" of the other kidnappings had turned up--can't do that, no.

Second, since the lead was so tenuous, when we got to the swampers, none of us were inclined to wait as long as the scenario writer expected us to. (Here, again, our scent-having, high-Perception/Survival characters were frustrated that we couldn't track them anywhere.) As far as we could tell, the only reason for us to wait over an hour for them to come back was to make sure most of our buffs wore off. When they finally show up, the only thing we can tell them is "Well, a racist serial killer ghost told us you were involved, so we're here to accuse you...?" And then they told us to go back to the sewers, where we started...and charged us for that information than Grandmaster Torch would have? Seriously?

Third, our good characters spent more time trying to figure out how to take down the evil human-sacrificing cult than worrying about the clue he had for us. ("Dude, there's an entrance to the sewers right here: there are alligators in the sewers, and we have druid that has not yet wild-shaped this entire adventure...this could work!") And we're supposed to take his clue at face value (because demon cultists are so trustworthy), and not question how come he didn't turn it over to the authorities in the first place (wasn't the victim supposed to be a beloved diva?), or question how he knew we were Pathfinders and knew we were investigating the kidnapping (and wait, why the hell were we investigating the kidnapping in the first place?)....

When we finally get back to the manor and clue in to the face that this is the lodge, the whole thing just broke down, because we had already spent the night at the damn lodge, and had only been gone a few hours since then!
And we had three characters with scent, one of which had an unbuffed, take-10 perception of 33. But somehow, we never noticed any of the s$#+ going on.

What's worse is that the entire ending encounter assumes you've never been there and have to search the place, but weren't we already here? but...but... head. desk.

So I'm publicly apologizing for giving our GM such a hard time. I have a nasty habit of expecting things to make a minimum amount of sense, and none of the issues I had with the scenario were his fault. (He's an awesome GM, and his character portrayals were the only thing I enjoyed about the evening.)

Wild shape into an elemental (10th level druid)?

Elemental body 3 (6th level wizard spell)?

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There is. An archer spending the same number of feats will not get the rapid scaling plus to hit that the ginslinger does with touch ac
If he is slinging gin I would dare say the more he slings the less accurate he will get.
You should see uncle jesee as an alchemist...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

We've always played that the same effect from multiple creatures don't stack, but you have to save against each one separately.

Since monsters are usually the ones that have this ability, I'm going to pray that they don't stack.

Once you have enough money, you can put a +1 enhancement on it. Shield Focus will also increase your AC from any shield, but that's a feat.

Most people just walk around with their shields already equipped and then draw their weapon on round 1. Is there a reason you can't do that?

Secret Wizard wrote:
Any ideas on how to get my shield back if I throw my light quickdraw throwing shield?
Run up to where your shield is, quick draw.

I don't think quickdraw lets you pick up an item as a free action.

Some possibilities:
Easiest and cheapest is to carry multiple shields. That way you can also have different materials to get through DR, if you want.

You might actually want Called instead of Returning. Returning comes back at the beginning of your next turn, so you won't have it for AoOs. Called lets you get it back as a swift action any time want it.

The Blinkback belt should work, too, if you have a light shield.

If it's a home game, see if your GM will let you use a variant of the Bounding Hammer feat (same feat but with shield instead of hammer).

In general:
You'll want to get Precise Shot as soon as possible. If you have the option to drop Weapon Focus for another feat, swap it out for Precise Shot. (You'll want Improved Precise Shot as soon as possible, too, but that won't be 'til higher levels.)

My husband has a halfling mouser with a 2-level brawler dip. He buys Reduce Person potions by the sixpack and uses the Plume of Panache to give him reach while he's tiny (since he doesn't normally threaten when he's tiny). It's a really fun build.

The character I play as his partner is a Holy Tactician paladin with a cavalier dip and a brawler dip to get teamwork feats on the fly and pass out two of them at once. The Mouser ability has the unique property of letting you be both adjacent to an ally and flanking with them at the same time, so if a bad guy actually lasts 2-3 rounds, my Paladin can pass out Outflank and Paired Opportunists to everyone, and his Mouser can trigger both conditions at once.

The original point of the build was for the Mouser to debuff the bad guy while everyone else takes him out. But one issue we have run into is that foes will often just concentrate on taking out the Mouser if other party members haven't gotten into position or use reach weapons or have trouble hitting. So if your Mouser happens to be the only one who can hit the bad guy or the only person in reach, expect to take a bunch of full attacks every round. (We're mitigating this by having my paladin pick up Antagonize to force foes to attack her instead--we'll see how it goes.)

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

LazarX wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I would be opposed to any suggestion that gunslingers are arbitrarily limited in the number of times they can shoot, if archers are not.

You're insisting that the game treat flintlocks the same way as bows? Have you ever seen one loaded?

I think the keyword there was "arbitrarily".

Gunslingers are already limited by the reload time. They have to spend additional feats an resources to overcome that limitation.

Once they do make that investment and achieve the same "can fire at the full rate of attacks, just like a bow" status (similar to Quick Draw and Rapid Shot/TWF), there's no reason to punish them further, just because.

Dallium wrote:

I could have sworn I read somewhere either on this forum, or possibly a different PF forum that Immunity to conditions that stack into worse conditions, the way fatigue stacks into exhausted, for example, merely render you immune to the EFFECTS of the condition, not the actual condition. So you could hustle and be immune to the effects of Fatigued, but if you then didn't sleep for one night, you are now Exhausted. Resting sufficiently would reduce the Exhausted to Fatigued and you no longer suffer any penalties. Is this notion supported by RAW or Dev errata anywhere, or was it an asspull to keep rage cycling from getting too out of hand?

TL;DR: Does immunity mean you can't be fatigued, or you don't take a penalty for being fatigued?

It depends on the wording of the ability/spell/etc. Some examples:

"suffer no penalties for being fatigued" = you are fatigued, but you don't take the penalties, so your push into exhaustion idea might work.

"immune to the fatigued condition/cannot be fatigued"= you are never going to be fatigued again, so more fatigue can't make you exhausted (things that make you go straight to exhausted, however, probably will still work).

"removes the fatigued condition" = you are no longer fatigued. Another round of fatigue will make you fatigued again, but you won't become exhausted.

"suspends the fatigued condition" = you are not considered fatigued currently, so another round of fatigue won't push you into exhausted. Whether a second dose of fatigued would make you fatigued depends on whether the ability/spell says "suspends conditions the target is suffering when it's activated" or says "any condition during the duration" or some such.

What bonus are you looking for out of the bloodrager dip? I think if you're concerned about your AC, skipping rage would be the best option. You also might want to check with your GM about whether using ki powers counts as "requiring concentration".

If you want to flurry with a reach weapon and can't find a monk weapon to accommodate you, you can take a cleric dip (Crusader archetype), and pick up Weapon Focus and Crusader's Flurry: flurry with your deity's favored weapon. (Warpriest would also qualify, but you'd need enough levels to get channel.) Weapon Focus would help make up for the -1 BAB, your spells would be Wisdom based, and you'd be able to cast from scrolls from first level.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
First, you're arguing from an invalid premise. "If the enemy provokes, then you may take an AoO" is not the same statement as "You may take an AoO only when the enemy provokes and under no other circumstances" (either in grammar or in symbolic logic--take your pick).

Those are 2 different statements. I'm not sure which statement you think I adopted as my premise and which you think is false. Neither is, in fact, my premise.

I was saying more the latter minus the “no other circumstances.” I'm not saying that no Feat could possibly allow Attacks of Opportunity to happen with one being “provoked,” but I am saying that the Bodyguard Feat does not represent such an exception beyond being just another Attack of Opportunity trigger. Without compelling evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that all the rules are in play and are not meant to blow holes open in each other.


So you admit that there are feats that will let you make an attack of opportunity without the target "provoking" one?

If you accept that statement, how is it that you still believe that Bodyguard is not one of these feats?

There is no text in the Bodyguard feat to even hint that it changes the rules on what provokes an AoO, or "adds another trigger" or anything like that. Nothing.
Making a melee attack does not provoke an AoO.
Therefore, Bodyguard is one of those feats that lets you make an Attack of Opportunity without the target provoking one.

I am not arguing from a false premise. I have comprehensively demonstrated my premise to be true.

No, you have not. You have simply repeated your claim without offering any further explanation or evidence. And you have not offered any substantive rebuttal to the significant evidence brought against your claim.

Are you just trolling at this point?

Because I promise you that 90% of PFS GMs will laugh you off the table if you tried this.

Another 8% will probably say, "OK, but that means that all of the negative implications of this premise apply (see my post for the list)."

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Gwen Smith wrote:
When in doubt, a flock (herd? murder?) of erinyes devils is usually quite effective, especially at night and in the open. Even if they have effective ranged weapons (most parties don't), they need a way to see past 60 feet in the dark as well as overcome DR, energy resistance, and SR. (If you're really in a bad mood, give them Haste.)

Especially since an Erinyes is CR 8 & his party is level 3. A flock of them would definitely be deadly. :P

I'd be impressed if they could deal with one.

He did say he wanted to kill them. :-)

A single one destroyed on our level 5 party a while back. (Fun fact: Unholy Blight is a spread, not a burst, so you can't even hide around a corner from it!) It wasn't a "tough" encounter: it was demoralizing. To me, it was a great lesson in the difference between "challenging" the party and just "killing" them.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

TL:DR: By demanding a strict, "originalist" application of the AoO rules just so that you can take advantage of a rare combination, you're going to end up crippling the Bodyguard feat. House rule it however you want, but please don't ruin it for the rest of us.


First, you're arguing from an invalid premise. "If the enemy provokes, then you may take an AoO" is not the same statement as "You may take an AoO only when the enemy provokes and under no other circumstances" (either in grammar or in symbolic logic--take your pick).

Second, even assuming that your premise is valid, I think you'll quickly find more disadvantages than benefits by taking the stance that "Bodyguard is an actual AoO and follows all the AoO rules in the Core Rulebook:

1) There are a specific list of actions in the Core Rulebook that provoke an AoO. Bodyguard does not contain any text that alters that list (e.g., "attacking your ally provokes an attack of opportunity"), so you can only use Bodyguard if the enemy somehow also provokes an AoO at the same time that enemy attacks your ally. (Good luck with that.)

2) As defined in the Core Rulebook, AoOs can only be taken when you threaten the enemy in melee. Therefore, you can only use Bodyguard when you are both threatening the enemy and adjacent to your ally. This means you can never use Bodyguard against an enemy with reach or against a ranged attack. (This, by the way, was how it was interpreted for a while, and Bodyguard was virtually useless.)

3) As defined in the Core Rulebook, an AoO must attack the enemy. The Aid Another action usually only requires a DC 10. If Bodyguard follows the AoO rules from the Core Rulebook, you must attack the enemy's AC; if you miss, your ally doesn't get the boost to AC. (This means that Bodyguard becomes less useful against tougher enemies, which is when you need it most.)

4) As defined in the Core Rulebook, an AoO is not a standard action. Aid Another is a standard action. If Bodyguard is an AoO and follows all of the AoO rules in the Core Rulebook, you can't actually use it at all.

Third, as new rules come out, they can alter, expand, and even invalidate old rules without explicitly referencing the original rules. So if you really believe that any given rule can't function unless it explicitly reference all previous rules that it alters, then you need to just stick with the Core Rulebook. Seriously: you'll save yourself a lot of grief in the long run.

Fourth, I suggest that Bodyguard is a much better feat if you read it as a extension of the Aid Another rules and ignore the AoO rules outside of "how to count your AoOs per round). As a variant of the Aid Another rules, Bodyguard specifically lets you use Aid Another multiple times per round by expending an AoO (without actually taking an attack). With the current interpretation of Bodyguard (as referenced by developers on the forums), you can use Bodyguard against ranged attacks and against opponents with reach.

Sure, with the Aid Another interpretation, you can't use it with Paired Opportunists, but that's OK. You don't need the +4 on the Bodyguard AoO, because you only have to hit an AC of 10, and your partner won't always be able to take an AoO anyway (reach, ranged attacks, positioning, etc.).

It's a much more useful feat overall--and I say this as someone who has two different Bodyguard characters (three, if you count my cavalier's mount) with the Tactician ability. My Holy Tactician Paladin can pass out three teamwork feats simultaneously and learn new teamwork feats as a move action, so I'm very invested in making the most out of teamwork feats.

My advice: skip Paired Opportunists and go with Harrying Partners so that your Aid Another bonus from Bodyguard lasts the whole round. That way, you can use Bodyguard an any ally who gets attacked instead of wasting all 3 of your AoOs guarding one ally against a single enemy's full attack. It's a much more powerful combination, trust me.

And please, please don't bully the developers or other people on the forums into agreeing with you. That rarely ends well.

Think about the creatures that you had a hard time against as a player. Use those.

Look at the composition of the party: where are their weaknesses? Exploit those.

When in doubt, a flock (herd? murder?) of erinyes devils is usually quite effective, especially at night and in the open. Even if they have effective ranged weapons (most parties don't), they need a way to see past 60 feet in the dark as well as overcome DR, energy resistance, and SR. (If you're really in a bad mood, give them Haste.)

The Morphling wrote:
Anyway, I also agree that it's evil foes only, but I've repeatedly had players insist the exact opposite so I figured it was worth a thread.

The "regardless of target" text takes it back to "all evil foes", otherwise the "ignore DR" text would only apply to evil outsiders. So the progression is

Target = evil, {get smite bonus}
Target = evil outsider, add double damage
Target = evil (outsider or otherwise), ignore DR

Target = not evil, no effect

It might help if you reference the books you're talking about. I've not actually heard of these before.

You could also look at Feint Partner: it does exactly what you want, but it's a teamwork feat. A class that passes out teamwork feats (Cavalier, etc.) can do pretty well with Feint Partner.

There's also Two-Weapon Feint, if you're a two-weapon fighter.

claudekennilol wrote:
xeradiant wrote:
I wouldn't allow you to use Escape Route in that way. You are not moving through your allies space nor are you adjacent. Other than that, it seems like your BAB might be taking a serious hit, but I didn't really do the math, so maybe I'm wrong.
I never thought of it that way and I guess it could be interpreted that way. I've gotten this guy to level 6 and this is the first time anyone has said it might not work that way. As for the BAB, I actually don't have any less BAB than if I were a full 3/4 BAB class, so the only thing multiclassing is hurting is class ability progression--which imo all of the feats and saves make up for.

You will probably have table variation, but this has been discussed at length on the boards.

Whether or not you are considered "adjacent" to your mount is tricky because since you and your mount are occupy the same square. (BTW, if a GM does rule that you're not adjacent, that means bad guys can't target you and your mount with things like the Cleave tree.)

Now, because you and your mount occupy the same square, you are certainly in your ally's square. So the only issue becomes whether or not you and you ally can be moving through the square at the same time. In our area, most GMs will allow it. It's only situationally useful, after all, because mounts usually have enough movement to avoid AoOs anyway.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've come up with another approach for this: estimate the number of rounds/hits you could take assuming the same average damage. So you can clue your friends in to how hurt you are with statements like, "Another hit like that, and I'll be done" (rather than "that was half my hitpoints").

For any ranged build, get Precise Shot as soon as you can (that will be 3rd level). The Air Blessing (that lets you use a ranged weapon in melee without provoking) is pretty nice, but I'm not sure if that fits your deity or not.

For the teamwork feats, it really depends on the rest of your party. The useful combat teamwork feats (Outflank, Precise Strike) require you to be flanking or adjacent (Paired Opportunists, Shake It Off, etc.). If no one else is planning to be in melee, your animal companion won't get any benefit from them.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
The title of this thread is driving me crazy. Please to fix, web team?
Suffer stuffy gramarian suffer!

You missed the punctuation error:

"Suffer, stuffy grammarian! Suffer!"

(And now I want to go to Build-a-Bear and make a "suffering grammarian"

clff rice wrote:
Can you use the spell storing armor ability to place a beneficial touch spell and than at some point touch yourself giving yourself the benefits of that spell?

Just have you and your buddy both get spell storing armor, then slap each other when you need the buff spell:

Spell storing armor wrote:
Anytime a creature hits the wearer with a melee attack or melee touch attack, the armor can cast the spell on that creature as a swift action if the wearer desires.

If you tank your Charisma, I would actually take an archetype that trades out channel (or take negative channeling and Channel Smite).

Selective Channel selects out targets equal to your Charisma modifier. If you're only selecting out 1 target, you don't want to channel in combat.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:

Detailed discussion of in-character analogies will not help solve an out-of-character issue.

We don't know how the agreement to steer clear of "raise dead" was handled.

We don't know the tenor of the interaction when the necromancer raised the dead guy. We don't know if it was the rogue. Did the necromancer's player talk to the inquisitor's player out-of-character and seek compromise?

So, let me turn this around and ask: if you were playing the inquisitor, how could you have chosen to defuse the situation?

If you were playing the necromancer, how would you have defused the situation?

If you were the GM, or another player at the table (the dwarf, maybe) what could you have done, to help get everybody a Chronicle and get them to leave the table as friends?

I started a list here. Please add your own suggestions.

A contrary opinion:

My tetori monk was recently thwarted by an minion using In Harm's Way to take the grapple in place of his master:
"While using the aid another action to improve an adjacent ally's AC, you can intercept a successful attack against that ally as an immediate action, taking full damage from that attack and any associated effects (bleed, poison, etc.)."

I didn't think it should work (especially as it was a "maintain the grapple" check on an already grappled creature). But two five-star GMs at the table agreed that a grapple check was an "attack" for the purposes of applying this feat in this circumstance. (One of those GMs also happens to be a grapple guru, so...)

Using the "If it burns you, it warms you" principle*, if a grapple check counts as an attack in this case, then counts as an attack for all other feats that respond to or alter an attack roll.

So a swashbuckler would absolutely be able to use Dodging Panache and Parry/Riposte against a grapple check, and by extension, any combat maneuver.

*Rules must be applied consistently: if a grapple check counts as a melee attack when it harms the player, then a grapple check must count as a melee attack when it helps the player.

50) Leave them alone and let them kill themselves?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since Silence is an area effect, it should work to keep the whip crack silent. I don't think that Oil of Silence on the whip itself will work (assuming your GM allows you use it on a non-gun), since it's actually a small sonic boom that makes the noise.

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

chad hale 637 wrote:
I have lots of ideas all the time, but as far as PFS is concerned Self publishing does not contribute to the game.

It's not that "self-publishing does not contribute to the game", it's that "thousands of players all over the world have to be playing by the same set of house rules." It's exactly the same as any regular GM deciding what is and is not allowed at his table/in his game. The only difference is scale.

PFS is not making any judgement about the quality of your ideas or of any third-party items. It's just deciding what does and does not fit into the campaign.

chad hale 637 wrote:
I would really love to play a psychic warrior, traceur archetype, with the dervish and ascetic paths (*I could just imagine a varisian woman dressed like a belly-dancer whirling away with two star-knives); just that PFS won't allow it.

Why don't you try posting your general character concept on the Advice board and ask for ideas of making it in a PFS legal way? Your initial idea might not be legal, but a lot of people on these boards are quite excellent at getting players very, very close to what they want.

Just make sure to highlight the pieces of the build that matter the most to you. If it's all about the dancing, there are multiple "dancer" archetypes that might fit (e.g., Kapenia Dancer is basically a belly dancing magus, but it uses a bladed scarf), or if you want to focus on the starknife, there are lots of nifty knife builds out there (Knife Master rogue is a favorite, and you could use dancing as your bluff check to Feint and catch people flat footed).

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

12 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a tangled situation with lots of details we don't know, so I'm going to make some general suggestions to avoid this kind of issue in the future:

1) Tell the other players your character is angry with their characters before you take any actions.
If your character objects to another character's actions to the point where it will affect your play, you should let the other player know what's coming in advance. For example, if the inquisitor told the necromancer in advance, "If you do that again, I won't heal you", the necromancer might have run his character differently in the final combat, and he might not have died. (This is based on my teaching philosophy of "never let a student be surprised by failing grade": let them know when they are screwing up so they have a chance to fix it.)

2) Make your character's motivations/expectations/limitations clear in the beginning.
If you expect/demand the divine caster to heal you no matter what, you should probably discuss that long before you're in combat. If your class can cast cure spells but your character has an aversion to/inability to cast them, make sure you let the other characters know so they have the chance to stock up on potions. (This is not just about healing, of course. If other players try to put your character into a role your character can't/won't fill, say so before the party needs that role. For example, if you have one the bard archetypes that trade out bardic knowledge, tell the party, "Don't look to me for answers--I slept through that class." Give the party a chance to come up with contingency plans for missing roles.)

3) If you accept another player's resources, you should use them as agreed.
In this case, if the necromancer handed the inquisitor his wand of cure light wounds, the inquisitor should have used that wand on him or given it back as soon as he decided he would heal him. If a player says, "Hey, I have this wand/scroll--can you cast it on me when combat starts?" and you take that wand, you really need to cast that spell when combat starts. If you decide that your actions will be better spent doing something else, don't take the wand/scroll. Telling the player up front "No--I'll be too busy to cast that on you" is a lot better than getting into combat and saying "I got busy" or "I forgot". Maybe someone else could have used the resource, or maybe the other player could grab a potion or some other kind of back up. If you agree to do something but later change your mind, tell the party as soon as that happens.

4) As a GM, try to negotiate/mediate disputes between players.
You're a judge, not just a narrator. You can't force the inquisitor to heal the necromancer, sure, but you can certainly try to convince him or at least get him to explain why he won't in a way the other player can accept. If there's a question of violating the inquisitor's oath to Pharasma, suggest a solution that won't violate the oath (e.g., "I won't ding your alignment if you X instead of Y"). In this particular case, I might have tried something like, "If you stabilize him, you'll have the opportunity to convince him to change his ways, which would be a bigger win for Pharasma than just letting him die."

Archaeik wrote:

Cut Your Losses

Live to Fight Another Day (Ex): At 6th level, a low templar can use the withdraw action as a standard action, although if he does so, he can only move at his speed (not double his speed).

Parting Shot (Ex): At 9th level, a low templar can use the withdraw action as a move action, although if he does so, he can only move at his speed (not double his speed).

Rogue Talents wrote:
Fast Getaway (Ex): After successfully making a sneak attack or Sleight of Hand check, a rogue with this talent can spend a move action to take the withdraw action. She can move no more than her speed during this movement.

I remember something about an ability that does the extra protected square during withdraw, but I'm not finding it right now.

Edit: I'm dumb, you mentioned Careful Combatant, that's how to get 10 ft of protected withdraw.

However, your combo does not work the way you want it to, as Cut Your Losses specifies as a full-round action, so even if you have the option to withdraw as another type of action, it can't be combined RAW.

It should combine fine. Cut Your Losses says "Whenever you withdraw as a full round action" and Careful Combatant say "winghen use the withdraw action".

There are two options for withdraw: "Normal" (a full round action) and "Restricted" (a standard action). You can't use the Cut Your Losses with the restricted option, but you are still taking a withdraw action, so anything else that you can use with a withdraw action that does not take its own action is fine.

For Cut Your Losses, you take a withdraw action as a full-round action.
For Careful Combatant, you ask, "Are you taking a withdraw action?" Yes. There are no other conditions or actions you have to meet to use Careful Combatant.

1 to 50 of 1,780 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.