Lune's page

Accomplished Sneak Attacker can only be taken once. Doesn't help much.

It helps exactly 1d6. I never claimed more or less. That is basically 2 levels worth of Rogue. As mentioned Precise Strike makes up for another 1d6. But when it was for every one of your attacks and your Animal Companion's attacks that adds up fast.

If you go the Rogue/Hunter route, with TW feats shared between both AC and the PC, there is the TW feat Precise Strike so that both of you add +1d6 Precision damage when Flanking. It's not much, but it's there.

That is literally the build that I just mentioned 3 posts above yours. :) But I agree, it is a good build.

My son has a TWF Grippli Hunter/Rogue with a Chameleon Animal Companion that he uses to great effect. The Chameleon is spec'd for stealth, climb and grappling. They sneak along walls and ceilings, the Chameleon grapples them up with the tongue and the Grippli slices them to shreds with TWF sneak attacks. The character has a ton of skills, comes equipped with healing and very handy hunter spells and is fairly versatile and survivable.

Look, getting sneak attack on every attack is powerful. You are going to have to make sacrifices and investments somewhere to accomplish this. But when you get it this is a powerful mechanic. Diminishing a concept by saying it doesn't help much or isn't good both misses the point (the OP wants a build focused on sneak attacking on every attack) and is short sighted. Getting an extra 1d6 on every attack is powerful. Getting an extra 1d6 on every attack for both you and your Animal Companion is amazing. Especially when your Animal Companion has a lot of attacks and can pounce. Its even better when you are getting a +4 flanking bonus on every attack and likely getting bonus attacks (for both you and your Animal Companion) from AoOs thanks to Combat Reflexes, Paired Opportunist, large sized threatened area and Broken Wing Gambit. All of those attacks with +8 (+4 flanking +4 Paired Opportunist) sneak attacks.

Well between Precise Strike (both the Animal Companion and character get this on all attacks) and Accomplished Sneak Attacker you don't need a lot of levels in Rogue to keep up with your sneak attack damage. So you could easily do this kind of build with only 3 levels or Rogue. Every level after that only drops 1 level from your Animal Companion which isn't a huge loss for a couple of levels.

Also, Cavalier doesn't grant their teamwork feats to their Animal Companion. Well, outside of Tactician that is, which is a rounds per day 1/day ability. So for maybe one fight you could get permaflank/all sneak attacks off. That seems to be moving away from the OP's goal a bit. But I suppose if one values Animal Companion progression over permaflank/always sneak attacking then that is another option.

Step 1: Play any small race. Take Combat Expertise as your first level feat. If you don't want to sink a 13 into Int then take Dirty Fighting instead.

Step 2: Take 3 levels of Hunter. For your Precise Companion class feature choose Outflank. For your 3rd level feat take Pack Flanking. Hunter tactics shares your teamwork feats with your Animal Companion. So now both you and your mounted (always considered adjacent) Animal Companion are always flanking and always get +4 to hit (outside of things that can't be flanked liked Minotaurs and Barbarians, of course).

Step 3: Start taking your Rogue levels. Enjoy the sneak attacks every round. If you start adjacent to an enemy then you can full attack sneak attack.

Bonus steps!: Take a mount with pounce. It uses it's movement and gets a full flanking attack at +4 to hit. Don't forget the higher ground bonus for attacking targets smaller than your mount. Charging bonuses (and penalties) apply to both you and your mount. Netting a +7 to hit before BAB, Ability score bonuses, Enhancement, etc will be a nice way to ensure you hit (especially because you are mixing two 3/4 BAB classes).

The Teamwork feats really write themself on this build. Precise Strike to keep up with precision damage. Paired Opportunist and Broken Wing Gambit to generate extra attacks for you and your mount.

Boon Companion helps keep up your Animal Companion levels while you are sinking some levels in to Rogue. Accomplished Sneak Attacker helps keep up your sneak attack damage while taking levels in Hunter.

Intercept Blow allows your character to take a feat so your Animal Companion can defend you similarly to how your character can try to protect your mount with Mounted Combat. I recommend both. Flanking bonuses apply to Intercept Blow as it is an attack roll.

For the mount I would recommend Toughness, Power Attack and Combat Reflexes. Don't get armor proficiencies, it is a trap. Just get mithril chain shirt barding and eat the -0 ACP to attacks. Get it a magic saddle. There are several that give the rider a competence bonus on ride checks. That works good with your Mounted Combat feat. Ask your GM if you can have a masterwork military saddle that works like a masterwork artisan tool and grants a +2 to all ride checks rather than just to stay in the saddle. Your goal is to get to being able to consistently make DC20 ride checks to "Control mount in battle". With 3 ranks, +3 trained bonus, +2 Dex, +2 circumstance that gets you +10 by 3rd level. Talk with your GM about what your animal is likely to do if you do not directly control it in battle. Most GMs are fine with it doing what comes natural to a creature of it's kind which should work for you under most circumstances.

You get a +4 circumstance bonus for using Handle Animal on your Animal Companion. This is great for training purposes. Do not forget to invest in the Skirmisher Ranger tricks for your companion! These are great. Also, the Blackthorn Rancher trait gives your Animal Companion 3 extra HP.

Make sure you can take your mount everywhere and that it can move in any environment. Narrow Frame feat helps for the mount. But also grabbing scrolls or even a wand of Carry Companion could be a good idea. Spells that grant other forms of movement you can cast on your Animal Companion via share spells. Monkey Fish is a great early entry option, Touch of the Sea is situationally better. Air Step can help avoid some hazards. Fly is a class skill for Animal Companions. Invest in it and make sure it takes the Air Walk trick. ...also take the Air Walk spell.

Not really sure where to share this. Some of this is just sorta thinking out loud. No offense is intended and hopefully this isn't breaking any sort of rule, policy, etc. Its just questions of curiosity.

I was thinking about how PFS1 is declining. I know there are still a lot of people who want to play but I'm betting a lot of it has to do with limited replays. I get it, part of that is by design for Paizo trying to push people to get onboard with PFS2. And that is great for those who enjoy it. But for those who would still like to flesh out some builds for PFS1 and never got to their options for doing so are limited.

But what if they weren't? What if replays were less limited? I know that there is no way to change the rules for PFS1. But theoretically speaking is there anything stopping a community from building an alternative organized play environment for playing Pathfinder 1? The rules could be nearly identical to current PFS1 rules but with replays made more open (but not unlimited).

Would this be ... legal? Does it go against any policy or anything? If a community wanted to create a system and environment to carry out a plan like this is it possible without running afoul of Paizo? Are scenarios, chronicles, boons, etc. legally off limits for such a concept?

Is it blasphemy to bring this up? Perhaps some kinda taboo?

And before anyone brings it up, I personally lack the time, motivation, skill and ability to accomplish anything like this myself. Consider me more of an idea man on this. If such a project were possible, legal and didn't cause any other sort of problem I would support it though. I'm guessing I wouldn't be alone. Mostly this just stems from wanting to play more PFS1 but being limited by replays.

Not really sure where to share this. Some of this is just sorta thinking out loud. No offense is intended and hopefully this isn't breaking any sort of rule, policy, etc. Its just questions of curiosity.

I was thinking about how PFS1 is declining. I know there are still a lot of people who want to play but I'm betting a lot of it has to do with limited replays. I get it, part of that is by design for Paizo trying to push people to get onboard with PFS2. And that is great for those who enjoy it. But for those who would still like to flesh out some builds for PFS1 and never got to their options for doing so are limited.

But what if they weren't? What if replays were less limited? I know that there is no way to change the rules for PFS1. But theoretically speaking is there anything stopping a community from building an alternative organized play environment for playing Pathfinder 1? The rules could be nearly identical to current PFS1 rules but with replays made more open (but not unlimited).

Would this be ... legal? Does it go against any policy or anything? If a community wanted to create a system and environment to carry out a plan like this is it possible without running afoul of Paizo? Are scenarios, chronicles, boons, etc. legally off limits for such a concept?

Is it blasphemy to bring this up? Perhaps some kinda taboo?

And before anyone brings it up, I personally lack the time, motivation, skill and ability to accomplish anything like this myself. Consider me more of an idea man on this. If such a project were possible, legal and didn't cause any other sort of problem I would support it though. I'm guessing I wouldn't be alone. Mostly this just stems from wanting to play more PFS1 but being limited by replays.

Rope trick. Make sure you bring a bag full of your 7 best friend rats so no one else can get in. They can't get past the fat rat butts. But if just one rat leaves the Terrasque can lavish in all of the space freed up. Best. Spell. Evar.

I'm just happy that I bought the digital version only. That way after all of the changes and fixes are complete I will have it all available written in the form Paizo wants it to be.

Unfortunate for those who own a hard copy of the book. Their print doesn't change when errata complete.

@Lune: Would you mind posting some of these builds? I’d be very interested in seeing what you’ve come under with.

I gave most of one above. I'd prefer to not post it. I'm a bit paranoid at this point that I have a stalker on Paizo's staff who follows around my posts and nerfs my builds. ... what?

So... this issue had been buried when it was declared that Sylvan wasn't a valid choice to take with Eldritch Heritage. But now that it is again, could someone take Exotic Heritage, Eldritch Heritage (Sylvan) and Boon Companion to gain a full animal companion?

Slim Jim: You might think that. But then you'd be wrong.

Isn't Celestial Armor made of bright silver or gold?

Later Lau Bannenberg actually backed him up saying:

The CRB version is made of silver or gold. If you had silver or gold chainmail you could enchant it into CRB celestial armor. Note that you can't actually make armor out of silver normally, so you could only do this with gold armor.

The UE version doesn't list any special material so it would have to be made of steel. You could upgrade a steel chainmal into celestial armor.

So the relevant rules for this are in the PFS FAQ

I have a few questions.

1. Can one upgrade a +1 Flaming Longsword into a +1 Flaming Burst Longsword?

2. Can one upgrade a +1 Flame Burst Longsword into a Flame Tongue?

3. Can one upgrade Rhino Hide into Mammoth Hide?

4. Can one upgrade Chainmail (Mithral or otherwise) in to Celestial Armor?

5. Can one upgrade Eyes of the Eagle into Lens of Detection?

The crux of the matter:
A. How granular is it intended that "same material" be? Is it intended to be like "metal" or more specific like "steel"? Are we to be as general as "leather/hide" or as specific as "rhino hide" or "mammoth hide"? Is "crystal" the same as "prism" in the above example or is it intended that we have to be so pedantic as to look for a specific material word?

B. How general is "general shape"? Are most eye slot items going to be the same "general shape"? Are lenses, goggles and monocles all about the same? I'm assuming eye patches and blindfolds are too different? With weapons I would think that they have to be the same type of weapon but could see an argument for weapon groups I guess.

Lorewalker wrote:

James is arguing this:

Extracts aren't liquid, the feat doesn't work with free liquids, extracts are sometimes spells, the feat only works with drinks like beer, and if the liquid is magic at all and not a potion it doesn't work.

You are arguing this:
RAW might allow it but RAI doesn't. You should treat it as if RAW doesn't.

Your argument is valid. Though, not the only valid argument.

Actually I was interpreting that you could read RAW to allow it, but you have precedence from Glutton/Accelerated Drinker to suggest you not that. Instead you should interpret RAW to forbid extracts.

Plus you have a lot of murky things that we all take for granted that simply isn't directly spelled out in PDT books, but are spelled out in companion lines.

Actually, James, you argued that extracts are not liquids. That was your response in the second post in this thread.

Lorewalker was accurate with his statement.

lol, read the whole thread. Going to favorite this one so I can reference it as that time that James argued that extracts are not liquids even though you drink them. I've seen some doozies for reasoning on this board before but that one takes the trophy I think.

Anyway, am I missing something here? It is a Divine Fighting Technique. Don't you have to be a "cleric, inquisitor, or warpriest who worships a deity" in order to take it unless you meet the Optional Replacement clause? So aside from all of the other requirements that people are talking about to meet the Advanced Prerequisites you would also have to be a "A chaotic good fighter or swashbuckler of at least 10th level" that worships Cayden Cailean.

So we are talking about what here? Swashbuckler 10 with a splash of Alchemist so he can drink his extracts quickly while fighting? I mean, is there anyone who is honestly arguing a balance issue exists for this? Hell, even to get the Initial Benefits you would have to have at least one level in Cleric, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Swashbuckler or Fighter and worship Cayden. Thats pretty damned niche.

Also, comparing feats like Potion Glutton et al to this is a practice in futility. Paizo has a track record of nerfing Dex to Damage and has done so with the X Grace feats but hasn't touched Dervish Dance yet. This "issue" would fit that situation.

And outside of actual rules based disagreements we are left with "extracts aren't liquid even though you drink them"?

This is like... a whole big thing. From someone who has partook in several and started at least one long thread on the issue suffice it to say that the rules are not clear. If it is for PFS expect table variation. If it is for a home game clear it up with the GM first.

But most importantly ponder the fact that both options are good for your party. If you don't provoke an AoO from Stepping Up into their square then that is good for you. If you DO provoke an AoO then it is good for your party. Most Tiny creatures have pretty stellar ACs. And honestly, if they don't then they are doing it wrong. Wasting your enemy's AoOs on a target that they aren't going to hit is a good thing.

For my part I'll post a few concepts I have.

I would like to play a character who uses the Bladed Brush feat the way I feel it was intended. The feat is banned. The entire Path of the Righteous book is banned (save for a few choice options). Even if it weren't, unfortunately the feat leaves some ambiguities that I wouldn't want to deal with in organized play.

I feel that it is flavorful. In fact, I feel that everything in that book is so very flavorful to the campaign setting that I'm surprised it got banned. The options that it offers are options that bring life to the concepts of several archetypes that Paizo has created for Golarion.

I will be playing in a new home game soon and have been excitedly considering character concepts. This is one of the most entertaining things in my life, by the way. It may seem silly but designing characters at the start of a new game is something I cherish when it happens and always look forward to.

This time is a bit different, though, as it is the first home game I will be playing in after getting involved deeply into PFS. I am finding that most of the concepts that I am considering are ones that will not work in PFS. It isn't due to roleplaying issues or compatibility of the concepts with organized play. They are all mechanical reasons. Either feats or classes that are banned in PFS or they use rules that are ambiguous enough that I would have to deal with table variation to the point of making the concept unplayable.

I'm not here to complain about it though. My thought was that I'm likely not alone with this issue. If I werre a member of campaign leadership I would want to know what areas of organized play my player base (or prospective player base) thinks can be improved. As long as the ideas do not conflict with the setting, disrupt the balance of the organized play environment or are precluded by specific PFS rules they are likely worth at least considering.

This is all supposed to be constructive so lets keep this to a couple of guidelines:

1: Only post concepts that are blocked due to banned materials or ambiguous rules. Things that can be remedied by something being allowed or cleared up.

2: Post the source that the content you would like to work comes from.

3: Post why you want to play it and why it would be good in PFS (or at least not worse than in a home game).

With any luck leadership could use this thread as feedback on what their players would like to see and could use this as a guide to see which resources need attention for being permitted in PFS.

I don't believe that spells like Enlarge Person would work....since because Construct.

Yeah, there are some specials where you play pregens and party cohesion is not assumed and the ban on pvp is lifted. Motivations are even given to characters for the party to dysfunction. Sometimes you are even rewarded for killing a party member. And sometimes when these things are true it doesn't even have special rules for not having to assigning a dead chronicle to your character.

I can understand why, in these circumstances, it doesn't seem fair to have to apply your dead chronicle to your character. In many of these situations I can see one feeling forced into playing a character they didn't want to play, doing things they didn't want to do, having motivations they hadn't planned for and don't like playing and this all culminating in the death of a character that they DO like and have invested their own time and money into. Not just in game time and money but actual real world time and money.

HMM: Definitely truce.

Anyway, no hard feelings. I do think it is a bit ironic that my supposed "irony quotes" were meant as the exact opposite and to take your advice and use your words. That is what leaves me with this feeling of failing despite my best efforts to come across as positive.

I think it's a very cool feat, enabling a lovely fighting style. If it had become legal I'd have used it.

But it could only be deployed if:
- Arguments about Slashing Grace were decisively resolved (Clarification that actually explains the ruling could do it).
- Power/balance worries about Daring Champion put to rest somehow.

I agree with Ryan Freire's assessment regarding Spell Combat. This doesn't prevent a Magus from using Bladed Brush but even if it were allowed with Spell Combat using a Glaive seems subpar to begin with mostly due to it's threat range.

Regarding your first point, I disagree. Many things have made it into PFS while being unclear. Slashing Grace itself is a perfect example of this. If you mean "should" rather than "could" then I agree. But I could give several examples of things that made it into PFS on shaky ground.

I'm sure that people will find fault in what I am about to say but hey, that has never stopped me before:
Something having ambiguous rules text is not a reason to not allow it in PFS. It is a reason for it never have made it to print. I am not saying that mistakes don't happen. I'm saying that if they do then they should be corrected for everyone, not just PFS players. In the meantime, unless it violates other things that PFS specifically tries to keep out (item creation, leadership, etc.) then it should be just as much fair game for PFS as it is for non-PFS.

The same goes for game balance. Game balance is something that should be enjoyed by both PFS players and Pathfinder players in general. I find it very hard to believe that a martial option like this could be unbalanced when compared to the rest of the system. At the cost of perpetuating cliches shared on these boards, I agree with the often shared opinion of "martials can't have nice things" sentiment when I see judgement calls made on content like this. Not that I think that balance was the reason this has been disallowed (mostly due to the book being banned entirely outside of a few choice items).

Yep. Been watching this one for myself for years hoping for clarification.

Azothath: Your interpretation is great for home games. No so good for PFS where table variation is an issue.

BNW: In what way is it 3 feats in one? It does NOT give Dex to Damage. It attacks in melee sans penalty just as much as any other melee weapon. Not sure what that was a reference to? It doesn't allow you to treat your weapon as a light weapon. It allows you to treat it as a "one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon".

Are you reading the same feat that we are? It takes 3 feats to use it (Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse and Bladed Brush). Is that what you meant? Four Feats (the 3 aforementioned plus Slashing Grace), a magic item (Agile) or 3 levels in URogue if you want a Dex to Damage option.

Glaive also has a poor threat range so isn't an ideal weapon for a Swashbuckler or Magus. And if it becomes the only weapon that Maguses would use then I would submit that would be in large part due to Paizo removing most of their other Dex to Damage options after printing specifically to allow for Dex to Damage as an option for them.

edit: Ninja'd by Mekkis.

HMM: I get it. I am more abrasive than some people. It is just me. In person it doesn't come across as bad as it does in text because despite my bitterness I am still a generally happy person. I like you and can't think of a less abrasive way of putting this so I am just going to say it: By pointing out my abrasiveness did you think I would become less abrasive? I can tell you that in practice that rarely works. I will try to take your words positively, though I think your message may have been more appropriate in a private message rather than publicly pointing out a character flaw.

Ragoz: You have a good point here. I mean, paying for a whole book and being able to use almost none of it isn't a very good value. I think from now on I will have to wait to see what is allowed in PFS before deciding to purchase a book. If it goes the way this one did then I likely wont pick it up at all. I do kinda feel dooped. :(

No. Not just "certain specific abilities". It counts for "all feats and class abilities". You don't get to cherry pick things it does count as a one-handed peircing or slashing melee weapon for and other things that it does not. It counts for all.

Blake's Tiger: Technically it is reach OR close. It isn't both at the same time. It takes a move action to switch your grip.

Also, again, you are applying a Dex to damage argument to a feat that doesn't grant that. Slashing Grace (or Agile) does. I would say that if you have a problem with that then you should take it up with Slashing Grace. But I wish you wouldn't. Dex to Damage builds have already taken several heavy hits from the nerf bat. And it already wasn't a strong option, just a different one.

...its almost like they lined up the nerfing of Dex to Damage with the release of URogue, but I'm sure that is just WILD speculation. ;)

Ragoz: Heh. Thank you for that.

edit: Also, I do very much hope that Bladed Brush is at least one of the reserved options. I mean... I think it is already pretty reserved what with the feat taxes and deity requirement. But if it isn't then I would just like to ask for it to be allowed.

Oh... Slashing Grace isn't even compatible with Bladed Brush? Hm. I'm going to have to disagree with that. I mean with a pedantic reading I can see where someone could claim that because Slashing Grace specifically says "Choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon..." rather than "Choose one kind of weapon that can be wielded as a light or one-handed slashing weapon..." that it isn't usable. But if we want to fight pedantics with pedantics then a small sized Glaive is one handed to a Medium character and technically it would still give reach. Is it ridiculous? Yes. But no more ridiculous than that reading of Slashing Grace. Especially when Bladed Brush says, "When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike)."

As long as you have Bladed Brush before you take Slashing Grace I do not see the issue as it counts as a one handed slashing weapon for all feats. How is that unclear? It says "all". Not "all except Slashing Grace".

Hell. For that matter even Agile would work too.

While I agree that it is a powerful option when combined with other feats/abilities so too are many other feats and combinations (like finessing and power attacking with an elven curve blade) that are already allowed. I know I'm beating a dead horse with my viewpoint here but if it was too powerful then it shouldn't have made it to print at all. Allowing it to be printed and disallowing it from use (especially with the tasty art that you mentioned) is cruelly presenting a carot on a stick. Especially for something so thematic.

As far as power is concerned, I do not think it is overly powerful. It is funny how many people (even people in this very thread) have expressed that a Dex to damage based build is strong here, yet many of these same people would argue in other threads that Dex to damage builds are weak by comparison to Str focused builds.

And, as Claxon pointed out, the feat does not even give Dex to damage. It allows for you to take a Dex to damage feat. An opportunity that you only get after worshipping only a specific deity, spending the feat tax on Weapon Focus to take Bladed Brush in the first place, picking up Weapon Finesse (either as a class ability or the feat itself) and then, finally, taking Slashing Grace. So, the argument being made is that getting Dex to damage on a Glaive (not just any polearm, only the Glaive) is too powerful for the expenditure of 3 feats and the worship of only a single deity?

I deny this claim and I think if anyone actually thinks about it they would too. If it were such a problem then why isn't it an issue for the Elven Curve Blade? You can already do it with that weapon for only a 2 feat investment and it has the same damage as a Glaive (wider threat range, lower crit multiplier, so better). Spending another feat and requiring the worship of a specific deity seems like a fine balance to allow the same thing with a specific reach weapon. No one complains about this with the Elven Curve Blade. In fact, most people say that it is underpowered compared to Str based options.

In fact, to me this seems to all be part of a subplot to nerf Dex based martials. It happened with all (most) of the X Grace feats. Dex Magus got nerfed into oblivion. It makes me wonder why Paizo keeps printing Dex based options if they think it is too powerful. This is also confusing when contrasted with the advice board's collective majority opinion that Dex to Damage builds are weaker than their Str based counterparts. It is really bizarre to me. I would kind of like to lock some Paizo devs into a room with some of the optimizers from these boards so they can hash out what is "too powerful". No offense to either party intended.

I do agree with Sebastian on a couple of points though. It would be a fairly powerful option for the Magus. I mean, we can't let them have Dex to damage, right? (partial sarcasm) So fine. If this is something that had been planned to be included on chronicle sheets perhaps release it with a Magus caveat. But don't reduce the power attack ratio unless you do the same thing for the Elven Curve Blade. It would be an internally mechanically dishonest move.

Well, honestly, IMO if it is too powerful then it just shouldn't be printed at all. That doesn't make it a good reason to not make it into PFS. If it is a balance issue then something else should have been added to balance the feat. They could have added more skill or feat requirements or split it into two feats. But they stabbed themselves in the foot if it was a power issue during editing.

Kalindlara could be right about wanting to avoid Magus arguments. I could see that. But, outside of that I'm not sure why it was banned. As far as flavor goes, well... I don't know if a more flavorful feat exists for Shelynites.

Unfortunately for the players that means that regardless if it was banned for balance reasons or not that we get a carrot on a stick that we can never reach. That is why I'm trying to make our voice heard. Apparently I am either failing or alone in the wish to have this made PFS compatible though as I didn't get a single like.

By the way, the whining bit was a joke. Well, kinda. When people come to the boards and ask for things to be changed it is tantamount to whining. Calling it anything else is really just a euphemism. I'm not deluding myself. When I know I am basically just complaining about something I am as honest with myself as I am with my intended audience. Still, if you prefer "petitioning" I did mention that in my opening post.

Bladed Brush

I wonder why this was disallowed for PFS but allowed into the book. If it was a power issue then it seems like it should have just not made it to print. If it isn't then I'm not sure why it was ban hammered.

Regardless of the reason I would love the opportunity to use it. I have a very concept rich setting specific character I would love to play that would use it as I am sure others do. It hits right at the heart of Shelynites and seems like exactly the kind of thing you would want to have available to accomplish the types of followers Shelyn would have.

From a Designer standpoint I know some of the people who worked on the book that this is in: Paths of the Righteous. I'm sure they didn't intend to create options for them to not be usable. I see that there is a section in the Additional Resources stating, "Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets." Without giving spoilers if it is better to just tell me to shut up and wait to play some newer scenarios and I might get what I would like then I'm all ears.

Otherwise... can we please have this cookie? The underpowered martials want to have nice things. :)

I thought that is what I just did?

And honestly, it isn't that hard to just add a link on the page. I feel like saying there are a lot of moving parts seems like a way of making it sound more complicated than it is. You can take this all as negativity if you want... well, I mean, I am complaining here and acknowledge that. But the more constructive way to take it is constructively. Which is how it was meant.

Was playing a 3.x game in Worlds Largest Dungeon. I just statted up a new character to play with the group. He was a Frenzied Berzerker Barbarian wielding an oversized Warhammer with Monkey Grip going (of course) with the full Power Attack line. The 4th fight I ever had with the character and we go up against some kind of advanced Tendrilucos. First round I Rage, Frenzie, Power Attack and smack that sucker so hard I did like 3/4 of it's HP in one hit. Feeling pretty accomplished and ready to take on the rest of the combat with my party behind me it moves on to the baddies turn.

The Tendrilucos attacks me (the thing that just hurt it so badly) and easily hits. I was utterly unconcerned about the trivial damage it would deal. It's Grab ability goes off. No problem, I had a damned good opposed grapple check. ...I roll a 1. Ok. Thats not good, but it could be worse it could...

The Tendrilucos Swallows me whole. Pretty bad, but I could probably fight my way out.

The Tendrilucos' stomach acid/poison forces me to roll a save vs. parallelization. Pft. No problem, I got this. My Con is huge especially while raging and my Fort saves are crazy high. I couldn't fail this unless I... I roll another 1.

My character is stuck in the Tendrilucos' belly for an unknown number of rounds. Meanwhile my party tries to fight the rest of the bad guys on the outside and end up basically losing the fight. It seems grim but that I come out of parallelization with only a single round to spare. I do all of my attacks including a Frenzy attack and manage to cut my way out! I'm running, not on Con hitpoints. I'm WELL below that. I'm running on Deathless Frenzy alone. Desperate for a heal I stumble out of the still living gullet of the Tendrilucos reaching out to the Cleric for a heal but he is too far away, low on hit points and cannot reach me through the reach of the beast. The next round my character dies when his rage ends and the Tendrilucos eats him again and the party runs away.

RIP.

My son has a similar build for PFS. He uses Phalanx Soldier Fighter to be able to use a Bardiche one handed and still use a shield. With Two-Weapon Fighting he can use that shield to bash (and more importantly to threaten) adjacent foes. He also uses Order of the Dragon Cavalier with the Strategist and Honor Guard archetypes. His mount is a Bodyguard Animal Companion Archetype so knows the same tricks he does. The mount helps him place himself and the mount during the first rounds of combat. I would look into all of these options.

I would also suggest looking into the following items: Pliant Gloves, Long Arm Bracers, Boots of Striding and Springing, Drinking Horn of Bottomless Valor and the Fortuitous weapon enhancement. Fortuitous doesn't help when Bodyguard triggers but since you are likely going for reach you will have a lot of AoOs trigger near you.

I would also suggest looking into the Vanguard Style line of feats. They pair up nicely with Bodyguard and Combat Patrol.

edit: Also, I have this thread with both Mark Seifter (resident Paizo rules guy) and Jason Nelson (the designer behind Combat Patrol) posting in support of how they work together.

I dunno, BNW. Even among people who agree that there are people trying to justify exploiting a mechanical advantage can't agree on the way it does work. I'm not even certain what the popular opinion of how it works IS. Personally I am of two minds on the subject. RAW I think it can be thrown as an attack. But for balance reason it seems like you should get more of an advantage for your investment so I think it SHOULD be one extra attack per turn.

If it isn't too much to ask can the FAQ, blog, or whatever also include whether a Familiar plays by the same rules that Animal Companions do for item slots or not. The current FAQ wording leaves a lot to be desired for clarity on the topic.

Basically, if one wanted to have a Brownie as a familiar are they allowed to wear armor (is armor the same as barding here?), wield a weapon (they have a short sword in their stat block), a magic weapon... perhaps even a magic bow? For the record this would be for an Eldritch Guardian Fighter Archetype's Familiar.

Not trying to be overly pedantic but I can't wrap my head around calling what a Brownie would wear "barding". The Monkey See Monkey Do blog cleared up some things and the PFS FAQ states that Animal Companions are not allowed to use manufactured weapons but it says nothing about Familiars. It says Animal Companions can use "barding" and neck slot items but is silent about what Familiars can use other than Ioun Stones and Wands.

Does Armor of Bones turn off Monk abilities? If not then it isn't armor. I feel that this is important to the question.

KingOfAnything: Kinda funny that your post came just after mine by 4 seconds, so that timing considered I can say that I'm not sure if I can take a step back. Nefreet's issue has just as much to do with his baseless assertions about his fellow gamers as with what is actually legal or not. Coming from someone who is currently the target of his ire (as I now have a totally legal Cthulhu venerator) I think that part of the opinion worth consideration.

For the record I am just as opposed to PFS Clerics worshipping Cthulhu as I am Rovagug so I think we are in agreement there.

Hehe, yeah. That totally would work. I mean, I don't think I'm going to do it. But it could work.

Or, I might just dual shield to make James angry. Been saving up for that badwrongfunnery. ;P

Where you going? Get back in here and post your build so we can tell you how much it sucks and correct everything that is wrong with it!

Halflings also get the favored class bonus and IMO make great Paladins. Size bonus to AC, racial bonus to saves and size bonus to hit are all nice things.

The simple question is: do these feats work together?
Bodyguard

Combat Patrol

I have read several posts on this combination and have seen a lot of great feedback from Jason Nelson (the creator of Combat Patrol). I have a pretty strong feeling that the answer is "yes" due to the number of people who understand that it works this way, the feedback given by Jason and the fact that the Animal Companion Protector Archetype is given both feats as bonus feats. It seems to me like these are pretty clear indicators that they work with each other but despite all this and the fact that my son has been playing a character that uses this as his primary schtick for over a year with a multitude of GMs all who had a prior understanding of this combination from previous experiences we have ran into our first resistance to this recently.

A PFS GM at our FLGS has stated that they do not believe that they work together. Apparently they are so adamant about this that they are not willing to allow the combo despite other local GM rulings. In fact, unless I read the situation incorrectly it sounds as if they are completely unwilling to GM for the character. Despite this reaction I respect this GM very much and otherwise see very eye to eye with them and would rather avoid this as a topic of contention.

Unfortunately, I do not understand their perspective on this topic well enough to provide a counter point on this topic. As I know this GM frequents these boards hopefully they might drop by and explain their perspective. I am not trying to be dismissive of their perspective, I just don't understand it well enough to restate it in any way that would do it justice.

Lune wrote:

That being said, the purpose of this thread was not to complain. It was to look for other options now that it is gone.

Craft your own item with a Luck bonus.

DISCLAIMER: This thread is currently in the Advice forum, not a PFS-specific forum

And that is all well and nice except for games that do not allow custom item creation. That is an alternate rule and isn't allowed at all tables (or even most tables from my experience). I'm not just talking about PFS here, although that does represent a large player base. This might be hard to believe but there are a LOT of tables that follow the latest errata and do not use alternate rules.

That isn't really the point here, though. To me it sounds like Paizo is making a change that represents the thought that a Luck bonus to AC in general is worth more than just 2,500gp. The statement was made that it is too easy to get a bunch of cheap AC items and that it was throwing off the balance of the game. If that is true then that is an issue that runs to the core of the system. Also, if that is true then it is a problem that can be resolved by adjusting the pricing of a luck bonus to AC.

Removing the only item (that is available to everyone, not just casters) that provides a luck bonus to AC is not the way to resolve the stated issue. Changing the price is.

I am completely with the crowd who believes the real underlying problem is Fate's Favored. In fact, I would bet that a truthful answer from any Paizo Dev would be that they do NOT think that a +1 luck bonus to AC isn't worth 2,500. Mostly, I don't think they would want to say that as it would be akin to stating that it is a flaw that is at the core of the system and I don't think any of them believe that.

It is built into the basic system. If it is too easy to get then it has been too easy to get since 3.0. Take a look the table was the same back then and the luck bonus existed then as well. So if that is a problem then it is a problem that is inherent to the system. If that is the case then maybe repricing how much Luck bonuses cost would be a better solution. Removing them from existing in a form that a player can purchase is NOT a solution.

I have no problem with the item getting nerfed. I think that removing a luck bonus to AC is a bad move from both a mechanical and RP standpoint. The luck bonus matches both flavor and the mechanics of the game. I can understand removing the crit-be-gone part of it as that is difficult to price.

I think it is disingenuous to say that it was done because AC is too easy to get. The luck bonus to armor is something that has been codified in the system since previous iteration of the game and has never caused a problem in and of itself. Currently there is no item to take the place of obtaining the luck bonus. I didn't think that the Jingasa was a problem. It actually made you pay for a feature that you may not want (the crit-be-gone bit) in order to get something you did want (the luck bonus to AC).

If anything I think that the removal of the luck bonus hurts the power curve for the character types who would be most likely to buy it as there is nothing anyone can get that takes it's place currently.

No, I think a better option would have been to change it's price if the power it gave was out of line for it's price. Changing the item to something that doesn't resemble what it was meant for and doesn't give the mechanics that people are looking for is a mistake.

That being said, the purpose of this thread was not to complain. It was to look for other options now that it is gone.

Wonderstell: You are starting with the knowledge that the item price is 5,000gp. What I was asking is for you to NOT start with that assumption. Show the math behind how YOU would price it. Deflection bonus is codified, so is having multiple different abilities. The crit part of it is not. What gold peice value do you put on that ability?

Azten: One time EVER. Not once per day. Ever.

You would think with all the Mithral pricing that they would have found the time to tell us how much Mithral barding costs...

Yeah... I mostly think that the crit part of Jingasa should probably never have existed at all. I can understand why they wanted to errata it. But the rules change doesn't fit crunch or fluff. I mean, it was meant to be fortunate which translates to granting a Luck bonus. Deflection isn't "fortunate". Luck is.

As for pricing, per this table a luck bonus is Bonus squared x 2,500 gp. So, 5k. As far as that once ever ability... it isn't worth much. In the current incarnation they value it at 1,000gp which I feel is high. I would say it would be worth closer to 500gp. I personally value it at far less especially because you cannot upgrade a Jingasa to a +2 version like you can a Ring of Protection.

Thread 2: Electric Boogaloo
Who said anything about rapiers? I prefer bites and paws with my Mighty Fighting Fox! ;)