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. 2,697 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,697 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Ah, I have been away from the boards for a while. Jason, thank you for posting. :) That is about how I had it figured. I honestly never really understood why two feats that are purposefully placed together on an archetype would be made to not work together.

Purple Dragon Knight: Ok. Seems as though we are on the same page here. FYI - in my son's character's situation he will be using a bardiche one handed via Phalanx Soldier and will have a shield in his other hand along with Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash. So he will be good with covering his adjacent squares and threatening throughout his reach. Its a very Spartan build.

Also with the advice from this thread he will also be going for the Vanguard Style line of feats. Saving Shield was already part of his build so it is only natural and fits very nicely. ...it will require the buying of another book though.

So, with Jason's post are we all on the same page now?


Wait... what? Why are you saying that you can only "move to a space where you have enough reach to attack the enemy *in the square that right next to the one that triggered the AoO*."? That is not in any of the feats being discussed?

Hang on... is this with you assuming that the character possessing these feats does not have reach? He is using a polearm.

1. I agree that you only get to make one attack on the opponent before they reach your ally for them passing through your threatened square. (That may be beyond your reach but withing your threatened area, but being that you can move "as part of" your attack this is largely moot.)

2. I understand that this has to be within reach. (Obviously if you want to make an AoO that is an attack you have to be able to actually attack them.)

3. I also understand that you need to land adjacent to your ally to be able to use Bodyguard when they get there and then try to attack your opponent.

Provided all of these happen then you get to make one attack on the enemy for passing through your threatened square and then you get to use another AoO to buff your ally's AC. Correct?

I understand that you may not be able to always do all of these. Your feat could be glued to the floor preventing movement not allowing you to get to a position to make an attack on the approaching enemy from. Adjacent squares within your movement zone could be occupied preventing you from becoming adjacent to your ally. But, if all 3 things are true then what I say is true as well, right?: 1 attack on the enemy for movement, one AoO to buff your ally's AC via Bodyguard.


So you are on the side of them working together now then with the caveat that there has to be something other than the attack itself provoking? I'm fine with that interpretation because that accomplishes what the character needs to have happen. I do, however, wonder why you limit it to that.

The feat says:

Quote:
Until the beginning of your next turn, you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity.

It doesn't say that they have to take the attack of opportunity. It just says they have to provoke.

I can understand why that would rub someone the wrong way but remember that you are increasing your threatened area, not your reach. If they do something in your threatened area (that is increased by Combat Patrol) that provokes then you get to make an AoO against them. Ah, but what if they are within your threatened area but not within your reach? Thats ok too because the feat says:

Quote:
You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed.

It doesn't say that you have to move before making these attacks. It doesn't say that you have to move after making these attacks. It says, "You may move as part of these attacks...". That is important wording. It means that you can move to a place where you are both adjacent to your ally, within reach of your enemy and make your attack.

It also is important that it states "attacks" with an "s". So, plural. Meaning you can make more than one. Whether it be via multiple provoking actions (like say from both their movement and attacking your ally due to Bodyguard) or via a Fortuitous weapon, etc. This is important as a character like this who is fighting with a polearm, enlarged and under the effects of Long Arm is going to have a reach with a diameter of 60' (Large size has natural reach of 10', reach extends that to 20', Long Arm increases that by 5'. 25' reach x2 plus the 10' the character takes up=60') and if they have BAB 10 their threatened area is going to extend 10' beyond that. It is not just possible, but likely that when an opponent approaches your ally that they are going to pass through your threatened area (movement provoking an AoO) thus causing you to move to an area where they will have to move through your threatened zone AND your reach thus provoking an AoO from movement. Then when they finally make it to attacking your ally like they wanted to you will get another AoO via Bodyguard.


Jayder22 wrote:

Lune, It looks like you and I are in agreement as well. I think some of the confusion is stemming from your opening question which doesn't state anything about the opponent provoking from moving, just attacking your ally.

You might be correct about my wording. I guess I just thought it was obvious from the wording in Combat Patrol. To be fair I have tried to clarify several times.


Purple Dragon Knight: So if an opponents movement provokes in your Combat Patrol you are able to move adjacent and use Bodyguard when your ally is attacked. Right?


I am not discussing the Vanguard line of feats here. I also believe he was using that yerm both specifically for those feats and as a general dictionary definition word.

Nonetheless, I believe we are in agreement on your first paragraph when you stated that you can move when the enemy provokes from movement to arrive adjacent to your ally and use Bodyguard when they get attacked. I never suggested anything else.

With that in mind I'm not sure of how you reached the conclusion you did in your second paragraph.


Purple Dragon Knight: "ward" is not in the rules text being discussed here. But if I take your meaning correctly you are assuming that the character being discussed here is intending on only Bodyguarding one character within his Combat Patrol. I assure you that this is not the case. He does this for all characters within his Combat Patrol to the limit of his movement, reach and number of AoOs.


KingOfAnything wrote:
I'm not convinced that 1. The Aid Another action is considered a melee attack, and 2. The enemy "provokes" when they attack your ally.

1. It isn't. Normally. Read the "normal" section of Bodyguard. It says "Normal: Aid another is a standard action." Nothing requires it to be a melee attack. I'm not sure where you are getting that from.

2. Yep. He also provokes from movement for moving through your threatened area. So where is the issue here?

Also could you respond to my numbered post above as that spells out my understanding of the events and mechanics.


Heh, ninja'd by Scott. It is odd that Mark, Scott AND I are all of the same mind on this.


Hm... Mark's opinion seems to echo mine on the topic almost completely. The only place I think we differ is he seems to believe that Combat Patrol doesn't increase the area in which you threaten AoOs. I believe that it does due to Jason's post here which outright states that it does. Note that it doesn't actually increase your reach, just your threatened area which still requires you to move to be within reach. Vanguard Hussle doesn't require this movement.

Basically: reach is not completely synonymous with threatened area though there is often a lot of overlap.


Also, thank you Kalindlara for stopping by and clearing up ambiguity in how you believe this works and otherwise.


Hmmm, perhaps it would help if I explained my understanding of how this works.
1. Attacks of Opportunity happen before the provking action. I would assume that Combat Patrol works no differently here except for the fact that it allows you to move out of turn in the way that it states. So, after setting up a Combat Patrol I think everyone agrees that if an enemy moves within your Combat Patrol zone that this movement provokes an AoO thus allowing you to move to a point adjacent to your ally and within reach of your enemy. Right?
2. Now that you are adjacent to your team mate and have arrived prior to the enemy completing their action you "may" to make an attack of opportunity.
3. Now that you are adjacent to your team mate if your enemy chooses to complete his action by attacking your team mate this should also provoke a separate AoO per Bodyguard as it is a separate provoking action.

Am I missing something that makes this not work? At which step are you suggesting it falls apart?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

Spoiler:
Your swift strikes ward off enemies attacking nearby allies.

Prerequisite: Combat reflexes.

Benefit: When an adjacent ally is attacked, you may use an attack of opportunity to attempt the aid another action to improve your ally’s AC. You may not use the aid another action to improve your ally’s attack roll with this attack.

Normal: Aid another is a standard action.

Combat Patrol

Spoiler:

You range across the battlefield, dealing with threats wherever they arise.

Prerequisites: Combat reflexes, Mobility, base attack bonus +5.

Benefit: As a full-round action, you may set up a combat patrol, increasing your threatened area by 5 feet for every 5 points of your base attack bonus. Until the beginning of your next turn, you may make attacks of opportunity against any opponent in this threatened area that provokes attacks of opportunity. You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed. Any movement you make provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.


So, can a character who has both feats set up a Combat Patrol and if another character who is within that Combat Patrol gets attacked move to a point adjacent to that character and use an AoO to use Bodyguard to increase their AC?

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.


So are you saying that in a home game if I was playing a character in a game you ran and I wanted to sell a bead from a Strand of Prayer Beads that you would make it so that there are no NPCs in your world who would desire to buy such a thing?

And if they were going to buy it how would you determine the price of it?

I'm not talking about house rules here. I'm just talking about using the rules that are part of the core book.

Now, I understand this isn't what PFS is about. But that is why I am asking here.


I'm not sure what you mean about being "standard" part of PF rules. Logically I don't see anything stopping a character from buying a Strand of Prayer Beads, removing a bead and selling it for it's worth. In fact, I think the only thing stopping it is a house rule preventing an NPC from purchasing.

I know PFS has all kinds of house rules so that is what I was asking about. It appears this is one of them.


BNW: Ah. Was it a single bead? Or a strand with reduced/added beads? I don't need to know the scenario, just curious how it was done.


Hm... a thought just occurred to me. If I cannot purchase the item with one of the pieces removed could I sell one of them?

As an example could I sell the Bead of Smiting for 8,400gp immediately upon purchasing the Strand of Prayer Beads? Or could I sell the Black Pearl for 850gp when buying the pillbox?


The basic questions is whether or not I can purchase items that come in separate pieces piecemeal or not in Pathfinder Society.

Examples include things like the Strand of Prayer Beads. If I have a character that just wants to get the Bead of Karma and doesn't want the Bead of Smiting could he purchase a Strand of Prayer Beads with the Bead of Smiting removed at a price discounted by the value of the Bead of Smiting (16,800gp) for a total of 29,000gp?

Or what if I were to purchase a Noble's Vigilant Pillbox and then then swallow one of the pearls? Could I then replace one of the pearls at the cost of the pearl itself? If not but I wanted to replace the pearl would I have to sell the entire pillbox back at half price (reduced by the cost of the swallowed pearl) and then buy a new one at full price?

I am sure there are other items that are much akin to this situation but these are the two that I am most interested in.


Ok, well I sent my email on this back on 5/21. My email address will be changing soon. PM me if you get an undeliverable bounceback.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Will.Spencer wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Jared: Why would you do that? The Jingasa cannot be upgraded. The ring can. Mechanically speaking there is no reason for it. Also, for RP value your character can still wear a Jingasa whether it is magical or not so I am fairly confused...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

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


Hmm: Actually, what I am most looking for is an item that gives a Luck bonus to AC.


Lyric the Singing Paladin: Nah, I saw it. I liked it. Very creative and says what a lot of us are thinking. Also, I just put together that you are Hmm. :)

Olaf the Holy: That is not accurate. See the link above.

Wonderstell: I already shared the same link above, as stated. If the base value for the +1 Deflection is 2,000gp (Bonus squared x 2,000 gp) and it has multiple different abilities (Multiply lower item cost by 1.5) then you have to decide what the "lower item cost" is. Which one are you suggesting is the "lower item cost"? The Deflection bonus or the one time ability?

We know what the Dev's think because they priced the item at 5,000gp. But what do YOU think?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


You know I read over that line like 3 times and missed "weapon" each time?... Wow.


Can one have a weapon made out of two special materials? As an example:
Can I have a Cold Iron and Wyroot Longspear with the spear head being made out of Cold Iron and the haft being made out of Wyroot?

What about a Mithrial bladed Bardiche with a Darkwood haft?

Living Steel and Whipwood Ranseur?

Darkwood and Cold Iron Tetsubo?

If this is allowed then do you pay the full price for both materials?


Yeah, I am coming up short too. Its too bad. I feel like changing the price and limiting the crit ability would have been a fine way to nerf it. However, removing a player's ability to obtain a luck bonus to AC at all... that is the most extreme change in my mind.


So... now that Jingasa is gone... *sigh*

To be fair it likely was too cheap. But it is a completely different item now. I don't want to spend a bunch of time complaining about the change as it will do no good. In an effort to look forward constructively my most current concern is where to get a luck bonus to AC from now?


I have a $10 gift card that I am unable to redeem that I won at a recent convention. Worse yet, the phone number that is listed on the gift certificate is not a valid phone number. The phone number is 1 425 250 0080.

Please contact me via messaging and I can give the gift card claim code.


You may want to check the errata on MoMS Monk by the way. It actually helps you with to hit bonuses. It is a fair amount different than it's original incarnation. Also, only the first Style feat in the chain are now considered "Style" feats. The rest are Combat feats.
Those changes outright ruined one of my builds and seriously nerfed 2 more.


Scott, you know you are responding to things people said over 2 years ago, right?


If you take 5 levels of Unarmed Fighter you get:
Improved Unarmed Strike for free as a bonus feat
A bonus Style feat
3 bonus Combat feats
Harsh Training (meh)
Tough Guy (also meh)
Weapon Training in both Monk and Unarmed Weapon groups (Unarmed contains Natural Attacks)
If you take another level that will give you another bonus Combat feat.

The only things you will lose out on are Bravery and Armor Training. The fact that you have Weapon Training will allow you to get Gloves of Dueling which will increase your hit and damage with all Unarmed and Natural attacks by +3/+3. If you also get Light Armor and get the Brawling enchantment that will bring that up to a total of +5/+5.

Since you are already going to forgo Flurry of Blows as you are taking Master of Many Styles might I also recommend that you take Kata Master archetype as it stacks. I recommend it mostly because that class' Penache ability has the following line:

Quote:
A kata master can use an unarmed strike or monk special weapon in place of a light or one-handed piercing melee weapon for granted swashbuckler class features and deeds.

That would allow you to take a level of Swashbuckler and pick up Swashbuckler Finesse. Since your bite is already piercing (and slashing and bludgeoning for that matter) that also counts for Swashbuckler's Finesse. Your claws don't but that is a minor loss. Either way this makes it a much better option than having to depend on sinking a feat into Feral Combat Training and going with the uRogue's Finesse. Grab a +0 Agile Amulet of Mighty Fists as soon as possible. Still take Two-Weapon Fighting as your iterative, off-hand and natural attacks are all now much more likely to hit and will land for significant damage.

Your build is lacking in some things that is pretty important for a build that depends on hitting opponents often in melee:
1. To hit bonuses. Look at your bonuses to hit. Your BAB alone is atrocious. If you go with a build like mine it will up your to hit by HUGE amounts. Getting Finesse and Dex to damage with most of your weapons (everything except claws), Brawling and Gloves of Dueling is going to likely up your to hit and damage bonus by something like +10/+10. Sure you lose out on sneak attack but if you can't hit the broad side of a barn in the first place does it really matter how much additional damage each sneak attack dice does? Also, is your sneak attack going to be doing more than +10 damage on average?
2. Hit Points. You got all squishy and semi-squishy levels. I doubt you were budgeting much for having a high Con score and you are too feat tight to pick up Toughness. Low Con plus squishy Hit Dice is a recipe for a dead front liner.

If you want to put some Rogue levels later just to pickup some sneak attack then it won't hurt by the time you have taken my suggestions above. Sneak attack damage is all situational at best and at worst... well, aside from immunities and the fact that you are likely only landing a single sneak attack per turn with the rest being normal attacks it doesn't look very promising. Sure it adds to every attack but so too does Gloves of Dueling, Agile and Brawling (for most things).

The only thing this build is lacking that yours has is skill points. But I feel with the changes I suggested you could easily up your Int a bit and afford some skill boosting items. You can still pick up the Styles that you wanted and can probably make better use of them. With the extra feats you will be gaining and saving not having to take (like Feral Combat Training) I might recommend some of the following:
Piranha Strike
Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack and Circling Mongoose
Combat Reflexes, Snake Style, Snake Sidewind and Snake Fang (look at how Snake Fang works in conjunction with Circling Mongoose, I might recommend it over Pummeling Style as it no longer works with your Natural attacks)
If you would prefer you could go with Panther Style over Snake Style but Snake seems to fit your theme more. If going Panther Style you will need a higher Wis which I wouldn't recommend for the build as you will likely be wearing armor and not benefiting from Wis to AC.


Effortless Lace is not allowed in Society play. IMO for good reason.

My opinion is that the best lead in to a Duelist is Swashbuckler. If you want to dip a bit for arcane Kensai Magus is pretty good too. I am currently playing a Swashigator (Investibuckler?) and that is actually very strong as well.


Tiny Mousers are better, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


Suthainn: You could always get Impervious enchantment on the weapon. It is about the same as Adamantine. I will be going for Adamantine. Thank you for the first hand experiences of a martial only Living Monolith! It is very helpful.

Emmit Svenson: Hey, not a bad suggestion. I think I have my build down now but I am going to look into that as an alternate.


Alright, so had some friends over for a game and had one take a look at the build with me. With his skillful advice we decided it would be best to just forgo Power Attack entirely. I can't stand getting the negatives of both Power Attack and fighting defensively. Honestly, it isn't so big of a loss. I can grab Weapon Focus earlier and fit in Weapon Specialization where I can. Also without taking those negatives it makes Impact a desirable enchantment again and allows me to move Vital Strike back up in the build.

I rebuilt a bit and this is what I came up with:

Spoiler:

1st
Fighter 1
Weapon Focus (Fighter 1), Endurance (1st)
2nd
Monk 1
Flurry of Blows, Devoted Guardian, Improved Unarmed Strike (bonus), Dodge (bonus)
3rd
Monk 2
Evasion, Combat Reflexes (bonus), Diehard (3rd)
4th
Fighter 2
Stand Firm, Crane Style (Fighter 2)
5th
Fighter 3
Phalanx Fighting, Iron Will (5th)
6th
Fighter 4
Stalwart (Fighter 4)
7th
Living Monolith 1
Soul Stone, Ka Stone, Toughness (bonus), Weapon Specialization (7th)
8th
Living Monolith 2
Stone Blood
9th
Living Monolith 3
Fortified Flesh (DR 1/-, 10% Fortification), Steel Soul (9th)
10th
Living Monolith 4
Stability, Tombsight
11th
Living Monolith 5
Fortified Flesh (DR 2/-, 20% Fortification, Immune to Disease), Greater Ka Stone, Vital Strike (11th)
12th
Living Monolith 6
Attunement to Stone
13th
Living Monolith 7
Summon Sphinx, Improved Stalwart (13th)

These changes should bring the attack role up to around +16 or so by level 9 and it will raise to around +19-20 by level 11. The level 7, 9 and 11 feats I can really switch around to any order. Vital Strike provides more damage on a single attack (by average of 3.5 damage vs. 2 from Weapon Specialization) but doesn't help with AoOs of which the character should be getting many. Steel Soul is always good but I think I will have to judge it based on how often I am failing saves which I can't imagine will be very often.


Suthain: What do you think about going with a reach weapon? Do you use Power Attack with your build and if so do you think it is worth it over Weapon Specialization (I understand you can't get it on your barb, but if you could)?


Wait... can I actually get a mini fridge?


Hm... Madu is definitely mechanically the better choice. I'm not sure if I could bring myself to using such an ugly thing, though. Looking through some pictures I'm not seeing a very large variety of Madu either. If I could even make it look more like a spiked shield than that snaggly thing then I would go for it.

I will think on this.

edit: Anyway, it wouldn't be in favor of Crane Style. Crane Style allows me to get an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC which converts to another point of DR with Stalwart. That coupled with Acrobatics makes it a total of +4.

Yeah... I don't think it is worth a feat. Still a good catch.


You know, another issue that I'm noticing just now (not sure how I missed it) is that 14 Dex is nice for Combat Reflexes but when enlarged it goes down to 12. ...which is too low. I guess I could switch to a Str/Dex belt. Con is more desirable but Dex will give me more AoOs which is better for defense and a higher Ref save.


As far as defenses go at that level I think I should be well above average. When fighting defensively I would have the following:
DR 6/-
HP: 102

Spoiler:

18 Con 4*9=36
4 favored class
10 first level
6*3=18 Fighter levels
5*2=10 Monk Levels
5*3=15 Living Monolith Levels
9 Toughness

20% Fortification
Diehard for another 18 fake HP.
AC: 27 (28 if I go with Monk of the Iron Mountain instead of Sohei), 1 less while enlarged, 1 more during Righteous Might 2 levels later
Spoiler:

10
+10 Armor (+1 Stoneplate)
+3 Shield (+1 Heavy Steel Shield)
+1 Dodge
+1 Defender of the Society
+2 Dex

Saves: (Note the lack of a Resistance bonus due to not yet having a Cloak of Resistance. He could easily pick up at least a +1 or gain a resistance bonus from a variety of party buffs.)
Fort: 18
Ref: 12
Will: 13
Spoiler:

Fort: 18 = 9 Base, +4 Con, +2 Hardy, +2 Steel Soul, +1 Glory of Old
Ref: 12 = 5 Base, +2 Dex, +2 Hardy, +2 Steel Soul, +1 Glory of Old
Will: 13 = 5 Base, +1 Wis, +2 Hardy, +2 Steel Soul, +1 Glory of Old, +2 Iron Will

He also has a variety of other defensive qualities like:
Stand Firm coupled with Stability making him an immovable object.
Defensive Training (+4 AC vs Giants)
Stone Blood (immune to bleed and blood drain)
A 20' reach while enlarged and the ability to attack and threaten adjacent creatures due to the Boulder Helmet. Combat Reflexes helps here.
With gear weighing over 300lbs - I count this one as an advantage due to Slow and Steady. ;)

Bear in mind that this is all with throwing only minimal investments into defenses. It is only considering a +1 armor and shield and a +2 Str/Con belt and no Cloak of Resistance, Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, etc. He should have better gear than this by now but this is with considering he is going to be throwing most of his wealth at offense to shore up his low to-hit bonus. That being said, it looks pretty decent to me!


Alright, so lets see what I would have for a to hit bonus at level 9 with some reasonable gear. This will be considering my build with the following gear: +3 Lucerne Hammer (18k), +2 Str/Con Belt (10k), Opalescent White Pyramid Ioun Stone socketed into a Wayfinder (10k), Cracked Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone (4k). That would leave me with about 4k left over from standard wealth by level and spending most of my budget on offense.

This is also considering the following abilities:

Spoiler:

Str 16
Dex 14
Con 14+2
Int 10
Wis 10+2
Cha 10-2

So with that it would bring my attack bonus to: 8 BAB(Fighter 4, Monk 1, Living Monolith 3 with Ka active), +6 Str (16 base +2 level ups, +2 enhancement, +2 size), +3 Weapon, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Competence, -1 size, -2 Power Attack, -2 Fighting Defensively = +14. So against AC 23 I will be hitting more than half the time, but not by much. It isn't as bad as I had thought but still isn't good.

At this point he is only 2 levels away from getting Greater Ka Stone which will up his Str by another +2, Con by +4, Natural Armor by +2 and give some non-stacking DR (in case I want to forgo Fighting Defensively).

There isn't much more I can think of to fix it with my build. If I drop Vital Strike in Favor of Weapon Focus that frees up 10k gold that I could put towards Boots of Speed giving me another +1 bonus. I could swap out the +2 Str/Con belt for a +4 Str belt giving me another +1. I suppose I could switch my Str and Con in my abilities which would up me by another +1. That would put me up to +17.

If I took Furious Focus instead of Vital Strike (I don't really like this idea) it would give me a +19 on my first hit but would lower my average damage per hit by a fair margin. I would have loved to fit in Impact on the weapon but I don't think I have the luxury of forgoing more straight to hit bonus. I guess without Impact it makes Vital Strike less appealing. Maybe I should get it though because by that level someone in the party would probably be able to afford to give me a Greater Magic Weapon most of the time.


Gulthor: Thank you for understanding. For the record his attack bonus is too low and I recognize that.

Suthainn: Ah, thank you for the correction. That does give me more information to work with for a short, concise backstory. :) Much appreciated!

Alex Mack: I agree that precasting Bloodrager I wouldn't consider as a caster. And your build works fairly well. I think I may have glossed over the Bloody Knuckled Rowdy. I would likely be using a Lucerne Hammer though as I want to stay bludgeoning.

That build is basically a single feat behind so I could end up getting Steel Soul at level 9 instead and push back Vital Strike to 11th. The only bonus that your build has over mine is Bloodrage. That is helpful for about 10 rounds/day and will add +2 to my attack role. In my build I could afford to pick up Weapon Focus somewhere around 7th or 9th depending on if I want to push back Steel Soul or not. So really it is only a swing of +1 to hit after that but it does give bonus damage as well.

BadBird: If I did go Warpriest I don't think I would have a big action economy issue. I would just prioritize Enlarge Person over Divine Favor. As I get to act in the surprise round that likely means I could swift action enlarge and 5' step then next round on actual initiative if I have a decent roll I could 5' and Divine Favor and if not just engage in melee.


Yeah... crap. Longhammers are hammers, not polearms. :(

Another reason to not use Warpriest is that I will definitely be worshiping Torag. I'm going earthy here, remember?

But to be honest that build doesn't look too shabby. I guess one downfall is no Stalwart at 6 which is the earliest I could get it sans full BAB. I guess 7 isn't too far off but it seems too late for a primary schtick feat. You missed that in your first list by the way. Stalwart and Improved Stalwart are very important to me in the build.

I know I'm stuborn and bullheaded and probably people are going to be upset that I'm not taking advice from them but I really just do dislike Warpriest. I'm not married to my build but it does give me everything I want but with low to hit bonus. If I can find some way to up that within the confines of what I want to get out of my build then I think I'm golden.

edit: I think a lot of the suggestions for caster builds (Warpriest and Bloodrager) are my fault. I should have said in my opening post that I want to go martial only for this build. Now I kinda just look like an ass who is dismissing good advice for petty reasons.


avr: It would make for a good build. I have another build using Living Monolith that uses Barbarian. Bloodrager is different flavor. I do like the way you are getting reach with Aberrant rather than from the weapon but it is still only during Bloodrage. I just wanted to go casterless for the build and didn't really want to go with a raging build either. Probably would make for a more effective build but just not what I am looking for. Also I did want to go with a bludgeoning reach weapon which there are few of. Thanx for the ideas though. :)

1 to 50 of 2,697 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.