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

Lune's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,564 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 1,564 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Imbicatus: So I am assuming that in image one that you are using a reach weapon? I'm guessing it is not a whip (like what is being discussed here) because you aren't attacking at maximum reach there.

So that would make diagram 2 incorrect as well if you are using a whip. So I'm guessing still a polearm then? You are correct in both if you are using a polearm. However, a simple 5' step away from the enemy after making a full attack would accomplish the same task in each scenario and doesn't require spending a feat. I suppose the only exception is the situations where you are unable to take a 5' step.

I think that basically my point is that you shouldn't take Lunge if your intention is to be able to more effectively make AoOs at a greater range as it does not accomplish that.

LessPopMoreFizz: Mythic Lunge is worded differently and does not use the "during your turn" clause. This is likely because Mythic Feats are intentionally more powerful than non-Mythic Feats. But again, RAW, Lunge does not increase your AoO range.

I'm sure you are right, Imbicatus, but I must just not be following your logic.

AoOs are provoked by moving THROUGH a threatened square, not INTO one. If you are attacking someone with a melee weapon (like normal melee, not a whip... and considering medium sized characters) and you use the lunge feat then they would be 10' away from you. If they then 5' step in, they do not provoke an AoO for 2 reasons: 1. They used a 5' step. 2. They didn't move THROUGH a threatened square.

Now, if you add in reach to the equation it doesn't really help. Consider just a medium sized character with Lunge and a Whip. If he attacks someone using lunge they would be 20' away. They can't 5' step in to get to you as that wouldn't put them adjacent to you. They have to move THROUGH a threatened square to get to you thus provoking an AoO. However, they don't provoke for the first 5' of movement as you no longer threatened there when it isn't your turn. Lunge only gives you additional reach during YOUR turn, not your opponents. You threaten to 15' when it isn't your turn.

How does this differ from not using Lunge? It doesn't. Except where the first attack comes from. You still only threaten to your normal reach, not your Lunge reach.

Something I feel I have to bring up frequently as it was mentioned above: Lunge does not affect Attacks of Opportunity.

RAW, it doesn't anyway. I still am not sure if this was intentional. In the games I play in and run we house rule it to work as a stance like Power Attack and Combat Expertise do. This is, however, a house rule. I would not expect this at unfamiliar tables.

edit: Also, I saw Devo live in concert at Lolapalooza 97. It was... interesting.

I sometimes read about Indian mythology and wonder if people who wrote about it played some kind of ancient roleplaying game like Pathfinder to make up characters based on these deities. Much of the literature seems to try to codify the power levels of what they and their weaponry could do.

Scott Wilhelm: I think that last post was the most constructive (and constrictive ... see what I did there?) post that I have seen from you in this thread. I mean it. Good info there.

I would also point out the value of Grabbing Style for Monk. However, it has a deep caveat. First, unlike most other Style Feats, Grabbing Style requires that you have Flurry of Blows if you are getting it via your Monkness. By RAW you could still get it as a bonus feat from Master of Many Styles though I wonder if the designers had it in mind to specifically not allow Monks who forgo the Flurry of Blows ability in favor of another archetype ability to get this feat. My personal opinion is that this IS what was intended, but again... nothing by RAW disallows this. Some DMs may rule otherwise. YMMV

Secondly, if the DM does rule against this you could still get the later feats in the chain through MoMS but it wont matter until you meet the prerequisites for the first feat in the chain and get it as all of the later feats say, "When using Grabbing Style...".

Anyway, these feats aren't strictly required to have an effective grappling build but they do give some interesting options. It is too bad that Body Bludgeon is a Rage Power rather than a feat... Improved Ki Throw is similar but you just don't get the same distance. It also has some odd requirements.

I feel like I was tricked to coming into this thread by thinking that the bold text in the subject meant that it was important. I feel especially dooped due to the links still not working for me. I'll have to try it at home though, it might be the websense filter at work blocking them.

I am pretty surprised that this thread has went so long without anyone mentioning that profession skills are important in Pathfinder Society play. I don't even play in PFS (yet) but they have an entire system for "day job" stuff based on the profession rules. Outside of this, Profession: Sailor and Profession: Soldier I am not aware of any other mechanical benefits that having profession skills even gives.

You aren't alone, RD. Not sure how I missed this. Actually, it was just brought up by Imbicatus in another thread and I had to look into it immediately.

I understand that PFS people were allowed a respec. I'm not sure how that all shakes out for them. I mean, for a character designed to use that kind of feat it could totally wreck a build.

Not sure how my group will fall on the decision. We will probably leave it as it is written in the books until we discuss it a bit. I can't say I'm happy about the changes going back to 3.x dodge. I did feel it was a bit too powerful early but this seems like an over-nerfing. I think I would have changed the order of the Crane feats and made Wing come last. It seems like a pretty deep feat tax to allow a nice thing for martials to have.

Personally, I counted it as something that didn't need fixing. Single weapon on handed fighting martials are the LAST thing that needs nerfing in Pathfinder IMO.

Greater Status.

You could go for a 3 level dip into Monk of the Empty Hand to make improvised weapons count as piercing. *shrug*

Imbicatus: Did I miss a Crane Wing nerf? Dangit! Show me please, I want to know what I'm angry about.

Check out the Deathleech template.

Also... Hi, Deathy! :)

FYI - Lunge does not extend your reach for AoOs. It is important to note the wording.

Thats RAW. Personally, at the tables we play at we always house rule that. I'm not certain whether that was an intended flaw or intentional.

Bashade - That is strong, indeed. Perhaps if there were a way to work in Snake Style? Perhaps with a spiked gauntlet?

You know, that is true. It kind of makes you wonder why they didn't just make it a full archetype rather than a PrC that you need to have one specific archetype for.

While it may not be build specific advice I highly recommend the Drinking Horn of Bottomless Valor.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
We are in disagreement on this topic, but that is no reason to call me names.

Did you even read my last post? The one where I specifically pointed out that we do NOT disagree on this topic? Stop arguing with people who agree with you! Dang... I didn't call you a name. I was referring to the people on the other side of this topic who are not supporting their opinions with RAW.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I complied with requests from sundry people--never the OP--as soon as the venue for that debate topic reopened. Like you (evidently), Lune, I disagree strongly with people's bellicose remarks that this debate topic derailed the thread...

Once again, you are misrepresenting my opinion. While I agree that because prototype00's guide hinges so heavily upon this ruling that we truly do need to get a ruling on it, I have repeatedly pointed out the following:

Me, earlier... wrote:
Well, I FAQ'd it but it would be better if there was a thread dedicated to it in the rules forum.

You have repeatedly misrepresented my opinion, Scott. I am kindly asking you to stop. I have repeatedly stated that I agree with prototype00's original interpretation of how INA and FCT should stack by RAW and I also believe that while this is a topic important to this guide that it would be most valuable as a post in the rules thread where FAQing a post tends to get more attention from Devs.

Magda Luckbender: Interesting build! I like it. :)

Winter Witch (the PrC, not the Archetype) could offer some good abilities to the build. Its too bad that some of the better abilities don't come online until midway into the PrC but they are both thematic and help add to the schtick of the mechanics. Actually, the Archetype could be helpful as well with limited levels. Normally I wouldn't suggest putting too many levels into something other than Mystic Theurge once you qualify for it but this might be the exception that really makes me interested in it.

Sorry for the late response, I got busy and must have missed checking back up on the thread.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Excuse me, Lune, but did you just call me a troll?

I guess I inadvertently did. I had thought you were on the other side of this debate? Er... the side saying that they stack. Was I wrong?

You said...

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Say in case of a half-orc with a bite attack that does 1d4, but with Feral Combat Training does 1d6, when she has Enlarge Person cast upon her, I say the damage goes up from 1d6 to 1d8.

I agree with that. Always have. I disagree with Kastar and I believe he is in the severe minority (hence the bit about catering to a small minority who disagree). Of course, he is allowed to have his opinion but claiming his opinion is what the RAW says, that is a leap that I disagree with.

I can not view the sheet from where I am at so I do not know if it is included in your build or not. Have you looked at Cartomancer (a witch archetype) and Harrower (a Prestige Class)?

Actually... I don't understand the question.
When you say, "Would you allow it?" what do you mean? How would you propose stopping it? Would you actually step in and say, "No, your character doesn't do/say that." Are you proposing to impose yourself on player's character's actions in that way?

LazarX wrote:
No... the transformation is strictly one-way. And incredibly rare. There are plenty of evil elves that don't transform.

You know... except for the ones who had Ancestral Regression cast on them. ;)

Absolutely not what? Did I not just say that I would expect any GM to follow RAW unless they make a house rule? Of course GMs can make house rules. Players agree to play by these house rules when they play in a game. It is a game of mutual understanding, after all. That does not change it from being a house rule and not RAW.

I don't think we (or prototype00 in his guide, for that matter) needs to reiterate that house rules can be made. Whether in general or for this topic specifically. Should he do that for every suggestion in his guide? That seems exhaustive.

Honestly, I do not see many people here disagreeing with his interpretation of the rules. What do we have?... two that disagree? And that constitutes enough people to you for him to put a note in his guide? IMO, get over it. Who cares what they think anyway? It is pretty obvious that they are in the severe minority of opinions. Why cater to them? If they want to house rule something for their game, let them. They are allowed. And no amount of their disagreement will change what is written in the rules.

As far as the number of threads in the rules forum on this topic I do not believe that there are many. If there is one where this kind of thing has been discussed then I would think it would be more appropriately discussed there, thread necro or not. It would probably receive more attention for a FAQ as well if that is your (or anyone's) goal. And if it is for prototype00 to say, as you said, then he has already requested the same thing.

Basically, I think this boils down to: don't feed the trolls.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
My review comment on your guide is that you should say that INA and FCT are a powerful combination, but that it is a controversial one that might get outlawed at some tables.

Mmm... I do not think that it is fair for you to say that when you yourself just finished saying:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

But it is an alternate version of the rules that the damage increases from INA and FCT do not stack. It is just not right with the RAW.

That is what the rules say.

The only controversy is that conjured by posters on this board. PFS judges I would expect to follow RAW. I would expect the same from any GM barring a house rule.

I would agree that it is still a Frequently Asked Question and it would be nice for some clarity to be given. I'm fairly certain that is prototype00's perspective as well. But a FAQ is just meant to provide clarity, not change rules. That is the realm of errata.

I would think that this kind of discussion belongs in a rules forum somewhere. I don't think that it is too much to ask that if someone has a strong belief that the RAW needs to be given some clarity that a thread be created for that rather than clutter a guide thread.

Well, I FAQ'd it but it would be better if there was a thread dedicated to it in the rules forum.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

prototype00: I agree with your interpretation of how Improved Natural Attack stacks with Unarmed Strike when you have Feral Combat Training. However, being that your entire guide seems to hinge on this it would definitely be nice to have a ruling. Well, actually, with or without your guide I think it is a basic rule that needs a ruling. Do we have a post we can FAQ on this that exists currently?

Hmm... what about mixing it with Alchemist?

There are also effects that depend on whether you successfully demoralize rather than if your target is shaken or not. It matters for some things because like BBT said, there are ways to apply other conditions when you demoralize rather than just shaken.

Ah, yep. That does it. Man, that does work well. I like it. Do you have a build?

BBT: I do not think they are paying attention to you even though you are 100% correct.

boring7: Yeah, for dealing more damage to traps and Sundering in general. Also for when you can only single attack and/or charge. Greatsword scales well on Vital Strike as well.

BBT: Wrecker Oracle? *goes and looks it up* Yeah, normally bad but in this circumstance really good. I would be interested in seeing that. The only issue is gaining the ability to disarm magical traps. I know there is the Trap Wrecker feat but that isn't disarming. It is beneficial to have both. Would you take the Trap Finder trait?

Yeah, I guess I missed Trap Wrecker. I guess I would put that in at level 3 and push Smasher and everything else back a bit. did I miss that feat?

Anyway, what do you think?

Alright, so here is what I have come up with:

Half-Orc taking the following alternate racial traits:
City Raised: - weapon familiarity, +proficiency in whip and longsword, +2 to knowledge (local)
Gatecrasher: - ferocity, +2 to Str checks to break objects and to Sunder
Scavenger: - intimidating, +2 to appraise and perception checks to find hidden objects, determine whether food is spoiled, or identify a potion by taste.
Skilled: - darkvision, +1 skill rank / level

Dangerous Curious: +1 UMD and it is a class skill
Trap Finder: +1 trait bonus on Disable Device, it is always a class skill, can use it to disarm magical traps

Barbarian levels are all Breaker and Liberator
Fighter levels are all Lore Warden

Str: 14
Dex: 12
Con: 13
Int: 18
Wis: 10
Cha: 10

1 rank in each of 10 knowledge skills 2 on each of the fighter levels in order: arcana, local, nature, religion, planes, dungeoneering, engineering, geography, history, nobility
-20 for knowledges and single rank skills

@ 11th level: 99
Acrobatics: 15 =11 Ranks +3 Class +1 Dex
Climb: 7 = 1 Rank +3 Class +2 Str
Craft (Alchemy): 18 = 11 Ranks +3 Class +4 Int
Disable Device: 16 = 11 Ranks +3 Class +1 Dex +1 Trait
Handle Animal: 4 = 1 Rank +3 Class
Intimidate: 4 = 1 Rank +3 Class
Linguistics: 18 = 11 Ranks +3 Class +4 Int
Perception: 14 = 11 +3 Class
Ride: 6 = 1 Rank +3 Class +2 Str
Stealth: 15 = 11 Ranks +3 Class +1 Dex
Survival: 4 = 1 Rank +3 Class
Swim: 6 1 Rank +3 Class +2 Str
Use Magic Device: 15 = 11 +3 Class +1 Trait
Slight of Hand: 12 = 11 Rank +1 Dex
Spellcraft: 10 = 6 Ranks +4 Int

Sunder: +26 = 11 BAB +4 Str +5 Destructive +4 Greater Sunder +2 Gatecrasher +2 Lore Warden
Smasher 1/rage ignore all hardness, Hard Hitter: Ignores 5 hardness
Heal 1 point if object is “broken”
Spell Sunder: suppressed if successful, 2 rounds if exceeded by 5, dispelled if exceeded by 10

Barbarian 1
Destructive, Rage, Power Attack (1st)
Figher 1
Improved Sunder (bonus)
Barbarian 2
Hard Hitter, Rage Power: Superstition, Extra Rage Power: Smasher (3rd)
Barbarian 3
Battle Scavenger
Barbarian 4
Rage Power: Witch Hunter, Extra Rage Power: Gearbreaker (5th)
Barbarian 5
Barbarian 6
Rage Power: Spell Sunder, Greater Sunder (7th)
Barbarian 7
Damage Reduction 1/-
Barbarian 8
Rage Power: Sunder Enchantment, Extra Rage Power: Disruptive (9th)
Fighter 2
Destroyer's Blessing (bonus)
Fighter 3
Combat Expertise (bonus), Extra Rage Power: Stunning Irruption (11th)
Fighter 4
Vital Strike (bonus)
Barbarian 9
Extra Rage Power: Shrapnel Strike (13th)
Barbarian 10
Damage Reduction 2/-, Rage Power: Eater of Magic
Barbarian 11
Greater Rage, Oath of the Unbound (15th)
Barbarian 12
Rage Power: Strength Surge
Barbarian 13
Damage Reduction 3/-, Improved Vital Strike (17th)
Barbarian 14
Hide from Constructs, Rage Power: Powerful Blow
Barbarian 15
Furious Finish (19th)
Barbarian 16
Damage Reduction 4/-, Rage Power: Spellbreaker

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pictured here!
Explanation of what is in that picture:
Death Star pillow that my mom crocheted for me.
Pathfinder Pawns Bestiary
Talisman the board game
Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide
Steel Dice (Pro caltrops, those suckers are SHARP!)
A M:TG play mat limited production (out of production) art by Ed Beard. It is signed by him. He is one of my favorite artist.

Honestly, one of my favorite gifts though was from my mom. She got me a Scottish claymore letter opener. That actually was a teaser for my actual gift. I have a crappy letter opener made of pewter that doesn't serve for a very good letter opener as pewter sorta bends under pressure. I also have an actual Scottish Claymore that is pretty awesome but I am fairly embarrassed about how poorly I have taken care of it. Her actual gift was was to meet this guy, to whom we are actually related and I have never met. He is going to fix my sword for me. ...and I also get to take a walk around his smithy. How. F&@&ing. Cool. Is. THAT?! I am seriously very excited about this!

Hmm, that was Kryzbyn. We both been around the boards a long time and happen to use the same picture. ;) It did sound nice though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ever look at the voice acting from Gargoyles? It has like the entire cast of Star Trek: TNG in it.

No wai! My family celebrates both too. Well, heavier on the xmas side.

Who now? Pictures or it didn't happen!

Also, love the name. I am a fan of American Gods.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, well it had to be done by someone. There are so many great products out there whether they are Paizo products or not. Lets at least keep it to things that are applicable to playing Pathfinder, though.

I thought I would open the thread now because I am sure that some people have bought themselves gifts and are eager to share. I myself suspect that I have got some Pathfinder related gifts but do not know yet what it could be. I have a 12yr old son who is an avid gamer himself and would likely enjoy seeing me have something that would further those same endeavors. My wife is a strong supporter of our gaming as well so I'm certain that I will have something to show when the time comes.

So, without further ado... what did you get?! If you can show us a picture or link us something from the website it was purchased from (or one that has the product on it). Tell us what you think of it in case we are thinking of getting it for ourselves. Xmas isn't just a great time for gift giving but a time for playing with our new toys! :) It is also a great time for some excellent first hand experience customer reviews.

Heck, for that matter I know for fact that these boards are frequented by several non-Paizo (and Paizo for that matter) developers. I probably should have started this thread even sooner. I know it is typically bad form to push a product when it isn't asked for, so I am specifically asking for it now. Whatcha got in the line of "great Christmas present" category?

Hm. I have been thinking about this more. Prolly going to try for a build during my break actually as it has my interest.

I am thinking a Half-Orc with City-Raised, Gatecrasher, Scavenger and Skilled Alternate Racial Traits. Probably 2 levels of Rogue for Trapfinding and the Trapspotter Rogue Talent, and most of the rest of the levels in Barbarian with the following Rage Powers:

Gear Breaker
Hard Hitter
Witch Hunter
Spell Sunder
Sunder Enchantment

The following feats:
Power Attack
Improved Sunder
Greater Sunder
Sundering Strike
Destroyer's Blessing

No particular order to that. However, I am thinking of working in Lore Warden for the extra feats, Knowledge skills as class skills, and CMB for the Sundering.

The Breaker archetype looks good but it loses Trap Sense. I suppose that isn't huge as the goal of the build is to break the traps if they can't disarm them but preferably spot them first either way. So, yeah...going Breaker.

This build is going to be very feat starved. Anyone have any ideas on ways to accumulate feats any faster? 4 levels of Lore Warden gets 3 bonus feats plus Combat Expertise. Thats about all I got.

Well, the book says that once an animal companion has an Int of 3 it can learn any feat. I guess your GM has a house rule that is specifically against what the rules state. Thats cool, but probably not standard for other groups like the one the OP is in.

Also Ancestral Weapon replaces Adaptability (Skill Focus). Half Elves do not get both.

prototype00 wrote: you can effectively fight other opponents around you while grappling anyway.

Is that actually true? I have to admit that despite the simplification Pathfinder brought to the grappling rules that it still remains one of the most complicated sections of the rules. I could have totally mistaken the grappling rules. How is this accomplished?

How about a few levels of Lore Warden and going into the Kirin style of feats?

It is the word "am" but spoken loudly in the third person omniscient.

I do not really like the Bloodrager but it seems to fit your concept for the character. Have you taken a look at that class?

As previously stated (in this thread and a number of others) there is nothing official on Eldritch Heritage to get Sylvan Bloodline. There has been no errata on it. It appearing in a FAQ is the next best thing but we do not have that. Even a rules guy (like Sean K. Reynolds, but not someone like James Jacobs) would be something. Unfortunately, we have none of that.

It is all just interpretation of the rules.

zza ni: Did you know that Sorcerers can gain animal companions?

Rerednaw: That link is not asking about Share Spells. I believe that FAQ is establishing that for effects that depend on where the source of the spell came from that they have to be cast by the individual not from an item. Like Augment Summoning can only augment a spell coming from the caster as it is his ability that allows him to augment it. Share Spells is an ability of the Animal Companion, not the caster. IMO it doesn't matter if the spell comes from an item, the companion can accept the spell whether it has a target of "you" or not. I guess YMMV but I honestly haven't seen it argued for the other side.

FYI - As was pointed out previously if you are able to cast Enlarge Person (even via a wand with Use Magic Device) you can cast it on your animal companion with Share Spells. If your goal is to have your animal companion enlarged frequently and you do not have enough Animal Growth spells to go around they would be a good temporary substitute. At 10 rounds it will last for most single encounters. Animal Growth, of course, is the superior spell as it offers much more, but at least you get the size increase and a Str bump with Enlarge Person.

I, for one, completely agree with Aelryinth. He is correct that the argument has existed for over 15 years. This is not the first place it has been discussed. I have never seen an official ruling for Pathfinder, or 3.x.

To be perfectly clear this is clearly the grounds of DM interpretation. Either way you rule would be considered a "house rule" unless it is one of the example spells in the spell description. Declaring one's opinion correct and that another's opinion is a house rule is just silly because there is no official ruling on either side. It is all just opinion. All of it.

Beyond that if you want an official ruling on it, make a new thread, hit FAQ and move on. This seems like a small part of the original question, though.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

As a DM I think it is a poor idea to fix character build issues by throwing extra gear at them. I do not reward failure. I certainly do not reward failure more than success.

"Let him learn his lesson on his own" comes across as harsh but it is close to the concept I go with. I would not drop extra loot only one character could use in excess of what other characters have. This breeds jealousy among players. It is likely they would be concerned why one player is getting more loot than another and plead favoritism.

I would rather the game unfold naturally and if he discovers that his build has left him wanting to offer to help him. Perhaps along the way you could point out where some of his weak spots are if he has them and offer advice.

In the end, it really is the player's choice how they build their character. Right? I mean, it isn't like you are going to tell him he isn't allowed to build his character any certain way, are you? So what is the real question here, anyway?

Take a look at this thread for some inspiration.

1 to 50 of 1,564 << 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.