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

Mike Schneider's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,371 posts (3,455 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 6 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Most archetypes are "munchkin-traps".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the TV character (which is the one more people will be familiar with, because far more people see the show than have read the books).

2nd version (mutted to heck):

Starting 20pt stat array is 15,14,12,12,12,12

STR:14
DEX:12
CON+17
INT:12
WIS:12
CHA:14

Alternate racial trait: Heart of the Wilderness
Traits: Dominator, TRAIT

...Dominator's +2 (trait bonus) to Intimidate in combat is going to be sickeningly good in this build because we'll eventually be doing it nearly every round.

01: barb1 [Invulnerable Rager], Raging Vitality, Iron Will

...well, we are from the Iron Isles (and also intend more than a little multiclass shenanigans).

02: cava1 [Standard Bearer:Banner][Challenge][Teamwork:Pack Attack]
03: cava2 [Order of the Cockatrice:Dazzling Display], Weapon Focus:Greataxe

...imagine inspiring an entire ship crew via Banner while also granting a teamwork feat like Pack Attack via Cavalier's tactician. Jesus.... (We get a better standard-action version of Dazzling Display this route as well; could drop Weapon Focus as it's no longer a requirement for the Cockatrice version of Dazzling, but it'll help cover for the BAB:0 class we're about to take....)

04: rogu1 [Bandit]+[Rake:Bravado's Blade], SA+1d6, CON>18

The fine-print of the previously-chosen Pirate rogue archetype forfeited the rogu2 talent for the mainly worthless-in-PFS Sea Legs -- and we're not tolerating that, so went shopping for something better...and my eyeballs did the boingy-oingy when they saw what Bravado's Blade offers this build. Holy crap is it good in conjunction with Pack Attack (assuming you can that off).

05: barb2 [Reckless Abandon+1][DR1/-], Power Attack
06: rogu2 [Evasion][Combat Trick:Cornugon Smash]

...earliest level for Cornugon Smash (we are now routinely Intimidating as an immediate action).

07: barb3 [Extreme Endurance(fire)], Vital Strike
08: barb4 [Reckless Abandon+2][DR2/-][Intimidating Glare], STR>15

...snags a move-action Intimidate for some corner cases (we now have standard-action, move-action, immediate-action, and free-action Intimidate mechanisms). Upcoming annoyances are weak choices for barbarian rage powers that fit the character concept.

09: rogu3 SA+2d6, FEAT
10: rogu4 [Bandit:Ambush], TALENT
11: figh1 FEAT(g), FEAT(c) ...or barb5 or cava3
12: figh1 or figh2, Improved Vital Strike, STR>16

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Because a cavalier isn't a paladin.

A "paladin" with a starting CHA of (bleh) isn't much of one either.

Liberty's Edge

If trading away Divine Grace is an option that doesn't make you white in the face upon seeing your saves plunge six points apiece without it, it's probably because the build takes the bare minimum CHA to function.

...which begs the question: why not be a cavalier instead?

(Then you can dump CHA all you want while still enjoying something similar to Smite.)

Liberty's Edge

Bloodrager? OK...that gives up, like, everything great currently in the "Invulnerable Pirate" build above (do you know how awesome it is to introduce your character like that at the table?) in order to get a bloodline power and cast a couple spells a day.

Alternatively, at 7th, the build above either takes rogu3 or buys an INT bump for his headband -- and then dumps 7 skill points into UMD and simultaneously sinks a pile of cash into a haversack filled with two-dozen wands and reams of scrolls in it, because the money has been piling up ever since he decided not to spend a red cent on magic armor.

...not that he couldn't have been casting spells since 2nd level rogu1.

Liberty's Edge

Trait: Dangerously Curious is the only "dip" a paladin needs.

Liberty's Edge

If you are a "low experienced player", please do not make a summoning build. -- It's like trying to fly an airliner when you only know what five or six of the hundreds of shiny buttons in the cockpit do. Not gonna end pretty.

But, being a "reach cleric" (see guides), otoh, is a lot of fun (as is the Travel domain).

Liberty's Edge

He doesn't need Dangerously Curious due to rogue levels.

Liberty's Edge

Of course his STR was higher than 14; it's 18 when he's mad (and with Reckless Abandon, he hits like it's 22).

CHA should be up because he's built for Intimidation/Dazzling. (And he commands an entire fleet of pirates without Leadership.)

He's kicking everyone's ass because he's built to deal with tit-for-tat attrition. I.e., you-take-thirty/I-take-thirty. OK, we're still standing? Let's do it again. And again. Now who's still standing? Ohhh, not you....

Assuming CON belt, Euron has 38+5+40 = 83 raging HP at 5th, and you'd have to drop him to -28 to kill him.

Liberty's Edge

Traits: (Bloody-Minded or Dominator, pick one), Nonchalant Thuggery

Liberty's Edge

Goal: cast him as a PFS-legal character while keeping him as true to his "Stormborn" persona (season seven, episode two of “Game of Thrones”) as possible.

* Obviously a male human.
* Evil isn't permitted in PFS, so CN the only possible alignment choice.
* Takes several stabs wounds like it's nothing, and came back from drowning (last season).
* He's smart, not overly clumsy, and socially adept, ...so no dumped stats.
* Commanded the Iron Fleet across the 14 Seas.

Starting 20pt stat array is 15,14,12,12,12,12

STR:14
DEX:12
CON+17
INT:14 or 12
WIS:12
CHA:12 or 14

Alternate racial trait: Heart of the Wilderness
Traits:

01: barb1 [Invulnerable Rager], Raging Vitality, Weapon Focus:Greataxe
02: rogu1 [Pirate][Sea Legs], SA+1d6
03: barb2 [Reckless Abandon+1][DR1/-], Dazzling Display
04: barb3 [Extreme Endurance(fire)], CON>18
05: barb4 [Reckless Abandon+2][DR2/-][Intimidating Glare], Power Attack
06: rogu2 [Evasion][Swinging Reposition][Combat Trick:Cornugon Smash]
07: (etc) FEAT (Vital Strike is good here)

Liberty's Edge

DM. wrote:

I'm building a character for a first time player. She is a human and Her rolling stats (after the racial bonuses) are : str 14, dex 13, con 13, int 12, wis 11, cha 18.

Normally, I would put that 18 in str and the 14 in cha, but She want to focus on cha and the paladin magical abilities.

Try 15,14,14,14,12,07 as your starting 20pt array, which in a human resolves to:

STR:14
DEX:14
CON:14
INT:12
WIS:07 (Wisdom is a paladin's dump stat; sack it hard.)
CHA+17

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

102. The gate back doesn't go as planned, and instead dumps the PCs off right where they started, and everything seems strangely deja vu....

<from the bedroom, Sonny & Cher's "I Got You Babe" begins playing on the GM's alarm-clock-radio>

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

102.

Cleric: "I cast Daylight."

GM: "You could have sworn you completed the spell correctly, but you still don't see anything." <turns to the dwarf> "You are no longer blind, as the cleric's focus begins flickering like a dim torch. Barely. ... Roll for initiative."

Liberty's Edge

SheepishEidolon wrote:
Jynnjun wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Human rogues trying to do a halfling's job and failing miserably are an embarrassment to the profession.
Halflings? The poor dears don't even have low light vision, let alone darkvision. No, halflings aren't the best rogues despite Bilbo's history.
...halflings are quite focused on making up some of a rogue's weaknesses (AB, AC, saves) and improving some of their strengths (Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth)....<snip list of vision-granting items>

Not only that, but most halfling racial archetypes and racial traits and feats lend themselves very well to roguish careers. (They're also not saddled with a CHA penalty like those better-DEX'd goblins we can't play in PFS anyway outside of one-offs, so it's not as if we're missing out.)

Liberty's Edge

Human rogues trying to do a halfling's job and failing miserably are an embarrassment to the profession.

Liberty's Edge

As far as I am concerned, all paladin archetypes suck in multiple ways compared to the base class. (Special contempt reserved for those that forfeit Aura of Justice, which is the best party-wide buff in the game versus over half of all opponents and is a free-action to deploy.)

Liberty's Edge

1) Sohoi/EWM archer & temple sword flurrier with Gloves of Dueling. Zen archers cry seeing his numbers.

2) barbarian[urban](dip)/Fighter[Unarmed](dip)/Samurai[Order of the Warrior] ...min/maxed for DEX duel-wielding Agile wakizashis. (Holy Christ, could he dish it out vs. Challenge opponents. Insane numeric bonuses to damage, all doubled on frequent confirmed threats. Wore a cestus on one hand for a 1.5x damage Dragon Style IUS punch once/round. Could do no-penalties piercing, slashing, bludgeoning, and ranged full-attacks without needing move actions to change gear.) Access to multiple rerolls per day without equipment, and unhittable touch-AC.

Oh yeah, he had a dope mount, too. (Both of 'em.)

Liberty's Edge

You don't. You help your group by taking a better trait that has legs past 3rd. (Unless this is a game where your level is hard-fixed at googoogaga forever.)

Liberty's Edge

10C ...C is for the Couch of DOOM!

The Couch of Doom was the most feared terror awaiting players of lower-level Living Greyhawk PCs back-in-the-day. A seemingly comfortable davenport, it was actually an animated construct that dished out 1d12+2d6. At APL2!

With the passage of time, you forgot which mod it was in, but you *never* forgot *it*. And, once you knew of such of thing's existence, you warily eyed all lounge furniture in all mods with mortal dread until either that particular module was encountered, or your character was sufficiently high level that high rolls on those dice wouldn't kill you outright.

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

87. <ten minutes after PCs have passed through a shimmering portal>

GM: "As you begin to prepare for battle, you notice that that your extra-dimensional space items are inaccessible. Haversacks, gloves of storing, bags of holding, and magic quivers won't open for you."

Liberty's Edge

Out on the road today
I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac
A little voice inside my head said
"Don't look back, you can never look back"
(Don Henley, "The Boys of Summer")

-- Dammit; I'm lookin' back. Where's Jiggy? Is he gone for good?

Liberty's Edge

Welcome to the wonderful world of munchkin trap archetypes.

Liberty's Edge

Neo2151 wrote:
Monks do not gain the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

No kidding. So, not exactly the best idea to reference it in the class description, eh wot, matey?

Liberty's Edge

mplindustries wrote:
I'm sorry your group is dumb and can't read. :(
You mean like:
Paizo, to the Loyal Sisyphusian Game Master, wrote:
"Dear Mr. GM; we here at Paizo realize you've spent hundreds of your dollars on our products (Thank you!) which are full of English words utilizing fairly common contexts which immediately register to your consciousness when your eyeballs scan them upon the page, and that you and your players utilize said contextual commonality to forestall disagreements. Well, we just wanted to let you know that, due to our previous employment in Pakistani call-centers, our embracement of English is actually fairly haphazard and arbitrary; and, while we're constantly changing the combat rules (usually based upon whomever screams the loudest that their class is suboptimal) on a frequent basis, we're not changing the wording in the books you buy to reflect the revised rulings because it's easier for us if the entire English-speaking world re-defines the language it speaks rather than us having to recompose Two Weapon Fighting and monk class feature text...something that might take us all of fifteen minutes in page-layout. ...Soooo, you might as well throw your purchases in the dumpster and just run your games off a laptop linked to the latest FAQ rulings which are completely counter-intuitive if not diametrically opposed to the text in the latest printings of our books. We mean, why not? It'll save you a lot of time, money and aggravation. Yours, sincerely."

A wizard-level intellect is not required to realize that this is not a sound business model.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
Wow, you really can't just admit you were wrong, huh?

Wow, you just really can't admit you didn't read a single word of what I wrote across a half-dozen posts, huh?

Disclosure: I am not one of those "anti-monk" people; in fact I'm playing one right now (which is why this is an issue for me -- I don't dare try that 3x Ki/temple-sword business at 4th-level in my group because I know damned what will happen if I try it).

I want the @#*&$% ***TEXT*** in the ***BOOK*** to ***MATCH**** the @#@^#^ ***FAQ*** so there won't be any more ***ARGUMENTS*** -- get it? ...This BS has been going on for at least two printings, if not longer according to other people here in the thread.

Liberty's Edge

They should just rename TWF to "Extra Attack" (flavor text: "Hit 'em again, any way you know how!") -- if that's what they want it to mean.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
I think that Monks being able to flurry with a single weapon was totally settled by the FAQ.
Quote:
It amazes me that, even after developer feedback, people can still quote "as two-weapon fighting" as if it's holy law, while totally ignoring "in any combination" as if it's meaningless.

-- It amazes me that posters are totally ignoring the point: "Two Weapon Fighting" should be renamed and rewritten if the game designer's (apparently ever-evolving) intent is for it to mean more (let alone way more) than what "You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon" implies.

-- For starters, a monk taking multiple two-handed Flurry whacks with a temple sword is obviously NOT using two weapons. He's using ONE weapon.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
If no one ever had an inkling, it never would have been a frequently asked question.

It *wouldn't* be if the online text and the book actually said remotely the same thing. There is not a hint in the book that a 4th level monk can spend a point of Ki and make three two-hand power attacks with a sword via Flurry "as if" (!) he were Two Weapon Fighting.

That is the problem. One of them has to change.

-- This dumb Pandora's box was opened the first time a WotC person, ages ago, when "fished" for whether or not a flurrying monk or other TWF could make a two-hand attack and then another attack -- instead of the N+1 one-handed attacks clearly implied by the text of TWF -- went "Eh, why not?" even though nothing in the CRB's feat or class descriptions supported it. It's now snowballed completely out of control (into 2hPA sword monks who Flurry without any unarmed strikes at all) while the book text still hasn't changed; and players browsing on their tablets are arguing with their GMs who have their brand-new 6th-printing dead-tree manuals open right in front of them.

Liberty's Edge

mplindustries wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
Nobody with a good grasp of English is going to read the currently-worded CRB text of TWF and honestly claim he even had an inkling that it meant his low-level monk could 2hPA a temple sword twice a round.
Er, I have always assumed it worked that way from the very beginning without any errata....

<incredulous stare>

"Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)

You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon."

GM to a low-level monk: "'Two weapons' is in the title and in the description! What's wrong with you? Why are you arguing with me!? Your staff is a 'double' weapon; so you can bonk with one end and then the other end, because double weapons work with TWF! You can't two-hand it twice. Your temple sword is a one-handed monk weapon; with means you can Flurry it for one-hand damage and then follow with another unarmed strike or deploy another monk weapon! If you want to two-hand Power Attack twice, you wait 'til your character BAB is 6 like everybody else! And remember that an extra Ki attack is only while Flurrying, so you'd get *two* one-handed chops with your temple sword, not *three* 2hPAs at 4th level!"

Liberty's Edge

Bearded Ben wrote:
FAQ link

What's infuriating (for a monk player) is that this FAQ regarding Flurry (or TWF, for that matter) is not published anywhere despite the passage of half a year. It's not in the 6th-printing CRB or the 5/30/13 errata PDFs; and the FAQ rulings are totally counter-intuitive to the *concept* of "two-weapon fighting" as those three words hit a noob's eyeball and jack straight into his brain.

Nobody with a good grasp of English is going to read the currently-worded CRB text of TWF and honestly claim he even had an inkling that it meant his low-level monk could 2hPA a temple sword twice a round.

GM: "See, it's called 'Two Weapon Fighting'; and it talks about fighting with another weapon in your other hand, blah-blah. What's not to understand here? Why are you arguing with me?" (etc).

*sigh*

Onward, the 7th Printing! <whip-crack>

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:

Page 57—In the Flurry of Blows class feature, in the

first paragraph, replace the second sentence with the following:

When doing so, he may make one additional attack,
taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using
the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any
combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk
special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to
utilize this ability).

It remains maddeningly unclear as to whether or not a monk can make more than one attack with the SAME weapon while Flurrying (i.e. a single temple sword wielded in two hands).

I've seen this one ruled all over the map: some will say two 2H (monk weapon) attacks are kosher, others say one 2H and one natural are OK, others go no-2H-soup-for-you, some say you can't even jab-jab with your right fist twice.

Liberty's Edge

Gargs454 wrote:
I'm not sure (Marid) is as great as you make it out to be. It says "while using this style and Elemental Fist", so it seems to me as if you would only have reach when using Elemental Fist. And Elemental Fist is limited to one attack roll per round, so a flurry of cold reach attacks wouldn't exist, the way I'm reading this.

Even under a hardline interpretation, assume opponents 15 feet apart, you drop the "teetering" one first, then 5' and shoot an icicle through the other one's face for about 20pts of damage you'd otherwise not have the option of delivering. And then he rolls a fort-save or he's Entangled (meaning he doesn't go anywhere on his next turn, whereupon you 5' on your next turn and Flurry him into hamburger).

For a Monk of the Four Winds, Elemental Fist damage scales to 2d6 at 5th (and goes up another 1d6 every fifth level thereafter); at 5th level he can do 1d8+2d6+STR+WIS+(misc) on a single juiced punch, and has seven per day at his disposal (and if you can't do them more than once per round, then let's just say that "pacing yourself" is built-in). 2d6+WIS is probably around 2x to 2.5x normal damage at this point, averaging +10dmg for a WIS:16 monk, so it's like getting over half-a-dozen free crits a day.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
Marid Style: You gain one additional Elemental Fist attempt per day. While using this style and Elemental Fist to deal cold damage, you gain a bonus on cold damage rolls equal to your Wisdom modifier, and your reach with your unarmed strike increases by 5 feet.

You colored this orange (for worthless); I've bolded the part which explains why it should be dark blue -- this is a gimme for a flurry specialist, especially a high-WIS Monk of the Four Winds (who gets Elemental Fist at 1st level, and is pretty much going to pick one of the four elements to specialize in, as well as a Style chain to go with it).

-- This is flurrying with reach-weapons without any of the penalties of reach-weapons (i.e., your unarmed strikes can't be disarmed or sundered, foes can't "step inside your reach", etc). Never again will you be screwed out of a Flurry by monsters all standing 15' apart.

All of the elemental Style chains are at least "good" for high WIS MotFWs, as they grant the ability to dish out barbarian-level full-attack damage for three or four rounds a day by mid-level. (A well-built Marid monk will turn a roomful of people into Popsicles before they know what hit them; he's then able to deal with them one at a time as they break out of the ice.)

Liberty's Edge

I'm still not seeing anyone make a rational argument that Paizo intended to write:

Everybody can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.

...when they instead wrote: You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.

Grick wrote:

Look at the way they changed the language for publication.

Old Version: "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity."
New Version: "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
It was specifically changed to make it plural, instead of singular. Clearly, the intent is that more than one AoO can be made, which is only possible if the person being greater tripped provokes from everyone who threatens him, and not just the person who tripped him.

I'm looking at you write the words "specifically changed" and "Clearly, the intent" as if you were absolutely sure of developer aim upon the basis of that thread. Then I go to the thread and see that nothing is resolved whatsoever, with the very question being pointedly asked and discussed across several pages, with no definitive response from the developers.

But a few pages into the thread, someone made a very illuminating comparison with a similar BAB6-required "Greater" combat-maneuver feat:

Quote:

Greater Bull Rush (Combat)

Your bull rush attacks throw enemies off balance.

Prerequisites: Improved Bull Rush, Power Attack, base attack bonus +6, Str 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Bull Rush. Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).

Trip, Greater lacks any such text.

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:
But this thread is Mabven's 'have fun with an idea' thread rather than the rule's thread.

The "rules" were integral to the concept as it was presented in the exhaustive step-by-step.

Aside from stats and viability in PFS (a facet I dwelled upon), one literally cannot say anything substantive to the mechanics without addressing rules.

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
A character's dpr is basically going to be the same if you're going twf or 2h.

Agile changes that equation.

Liberty's Edge

Let's try this again:

What you are claiming is the following:

That:

You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.

...is logically equivalent to...

Everybody can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.

...and that the latter is what Paizo actually meant even though they wrote the former instead of the latter.

Liberty's Edge

(Repeat)

Mike Schneider wrote:
Grick wrote:

The actual rule says "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."

This is far more clear.

Q. What is an "opponent"?

A. It is a person, creature (etc) in a defined relationship vis-a-vis you.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Grick wrote:

The actual rule says "Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."

This is far more clear.

Q. What is an "opponent"?

A. It is a person, creature (etc) in a defined relationship vis-a-vis you.

Quote:
Your interpretation means the fluff is correct, but the rule is wrong. My interpretation means both are correct.

What you are claiming is the following:

That:

You can make free attacks on foes that you (trip).

...is logically equivalent to...

You can make free attacks on foes that anybody (trips).

...and that the latter is what Paizo actually meant even though they wrote the former instead of the latter.

Liberty's Edge

Jarl wrote:

Event 1: Successful trip maneuver attempt [attacker's attack roll beats defender's CMD] via Greater Trip

PRD wrote:
Determine Success: If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect.
Event 2: Defender falls prone [upon successful completion of the above attack roll] via Vicious Stomp

In-character, how do you know your trip attempt was successful?

The target fell over.

It's the same event.

Tels wrote:
First of all, in order to understand the Brothers Cut, everyone needs to read this thread. To break it down, the general consensus is that....
The only "general consensus" I see in that fustercluck is that 67 people jackhammered the FAQ button.
Quote:
because an Attack of Opportunity interrupts normal play, after you succeed on your trip, the character has not fallen prone because the AoOs interrupt the falling prone aspect of the trip. So, because the person has not fallen prone, he can exchange his AoO provided by Greater Trip, to make another trip generating another series of AoOs in which he can then, trip again.
No, no, no; wrongitty, wrong, wrong.. (That Rules thread has 66 fewer whaps on the FAQ button.)
Quote:

Second of all, if you wish to argue the mechanics of multiple trips from the Attacks of Opportunity, or something related to it, PLEASE visit the previously linked thread, this thread is about the Brothers Cut and shouldn’t become another thread that rehashes everything that has already been said in the previous thread.

I have little interest in plowing through a new ten-page power-gamer wet-dream thread in Rules when previously existing threads, such as the one I linked, saliently dealt with the issue a year ago.)
Quote:
”Mike Schneider” wrote:

But he is not eligible for an AoO at this point.

-- The target becoming susceptible (flat-footed to sneak-attacks) as a result of the partner's attack doesn't mean that he automatically grants one.

You also can't say it's a readied action because Tranche double-moved. Tandem Trip is also not applicable to the described situation (since it requires a maneuver action, and Tranche has neither attack-actions nor standard-actions remaining).

Actually, he is eligible fro an AoO, because whenever Tourne succeeds on a Trip attack, the victim provokes AoOs because of the Greater Trip feat.
Your GM will swat you down after simply showing you the text of the feat:
Your friendly neighborhood Core Rule Book wrote:

Greater Trip (Combat)

You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
OgeXam wrote:
Everybody that threatens the creature being greater tripped gets an AoO.
<<<Thread Necro-Ressurection in effect>>>
Your friendly neighborhood Core Rule Book wrote:

Greater Trip (Combat)

You can make free attacks on foes that you knock down.

Prerequisites: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13.

Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to trip a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Trip. Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity.

In this particular case, Paizo's famously nebulous grammar in the Benefit section is explicitly nailed down in the description section.

Only the person with the feat gets the freebie.

(The fact that the feat Vicious Stomp even exists is a further strong hint that assorted standers-by are not entitled to AoOs -- because otherwise they wouldn't need it.)

Liberty's Edge

*Jeez*

Watch the show, guys.

He rages.

Liberty's Edge

ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:
Problem is this, both players dont really 'create' characters, they min/max and level dip into a bunch of classes to make them in their own words 'self sufficient' that they dont need to rely on anyone for anything, since both players tend to play Chaotic Evil characters and feel they should be able to do as they please.

.

BOUNTY-HUNTERS SOLVE ALL GM PROBLEMS!

CE characters create enemies wherever they go. The more wreckage and mayhem they cause, the more various NPCs want revenge.

Bounty-hunter team:

* Dwarf ranger[Urban] built along the lines of the Pathfinder iconic. Distant Death in the Dark. Steel Soul feat. Neutral alignment.

* Half-orc barbarian/monk[martial-artist] with EWP:fauchard, Raging Vitality and Extra Rage. Accelerated Drinker trait. Neutral alignment.

* Gnome straight-class bard ("private investigator"). Neutral alignment.

* Elf paladin[Divine Hunter] of Abadar. Sword-n-board high-AC tank. Mithral breastplate and DEX 20. Warrior of Old + Eyes and Ears of the City traits. Lawful-Good alignment, and "captain" of the team.

Make 'em scary high level with crap-tons of equipment. All of them have tons of hitpoints or self-healing, and uber saving-throws. They are consummate professionals, and specialize in "Affairs of Honor" assignments from nobles and royalty.

Your next adventure: the CE characters have a price on their heads. Terms of the bounty...bring them in alive to face trial, or kill them if that proves impossible. Deaths earn half-bounty (so the team will make an effort to capture them alive).

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
I think you are making liberal use of rules based off of being upset about a group consensus about the interaction between Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp.

To re-iterate a point made in my long post at the tail-end of page 1, no single event can grant two AoOs to the same person in the same round.

Examples: You are Enlarged with a polearm and have Combat Reflexes and multiple AoOs, or you are receipient of Invisibility, Greater. Someone moves through several threatened squares. You are eligible for one AoO.

Similarly, Viscous Stomp and Trip, Greater would not give the same person two AoOs upon the same target for the same triggering event (them being tripped prone).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The nastiest TWF I've ever seen is a samurai with a splash of barbarian[urban] and fighter[unarmed]. All DEX, dumped STR.

Equipment around 10th: Agile/Furious Amulet of Mighty Fists, +1/Agile/Furious wakizashi, +1/Keen cestus, Celestial Armor, Belt of Incredible Dexterity.

Feats: Mounted Combat (1), Weapon Finesse (1), TWF (3), Dragon Style (fighter dip), Extra Rage (5), I-TWF (7), Improved Critical:wakizashi (Samurai6), Critical Focus(9).

Melee full-attack: several wakizashi strikes, while off-hand makes cestus punches (Dragon Style + Agile Amulet = 1.5x pain on the first).

At 11th & Greater TWF, you're ladling on +9hp damage to each hit from Challenge (or 63 damage alone from Challenge while Hasted if you connect every hit).

-- You're basically a BBEM destroyer; since your weapons are light, you can keep shredding in grapples or even when swallowed whole.

Liberty's Edge

Mabven the OP healer wrote:

Attack Sequence:

Combat Begins - Tranche double moves around far side of enemy to set up flank.

Tourne charges opponent and attempts a trip using his Seven Branched Sword.
Attack Roll: +24 (+6 BAB, +5 Str, +1 Enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Weapon Training,+2 Menacing, +2 Imp. Trip, +2 Greater Trip, +2 flank, +2 charge) If he rolls a 2 on the die, he has a roll of 26, pretty tough to avoid. Opponent is now flat-footed, and provokes attacks of opportunity.

A seven-branched sword does not have the Trip property, and hence its enhancement bonus is not added to maneuver checks.
Quote:
Tranche takes his first AOO....

But he is not eligible for an AoO at this point.

-- The target becoming susceptible (flat-footed to sneak-attacks) as a result of the partner's attack doesn't mean that he automatically grants one.

You also can't say it's a readied action because Tranche double-moved. Tandem Trip is also not applicable to the described situation (since it requires a maneuver action, and Tranche has neither attack-actions nor standard-actions remaining).

Quote:
Tourne takes his first AOO - Trip attempt using Seven Branched Sword...

*No.* The target is either already on the ground due to being tripped prone (triggering an AoO from either Trip, Greater or Vicious Stomp, but not both -- see below), or the successful trip was converted into victim-is-upright-but-flatfooted (from the special property of a seven-branched sword); if the latter case, then the target didn't actually fall down, and Tourne forfeits his Trip, Greater AoO (since, while the trip attempt was successful, the maneuver was hijacked by the weapon property, and the target didn't actually trip).

An argumentative GM might even maintain that you can't really "trip" at all with a seven-branched sword, only confer flat-footedness.

Quote:
....using Redirection ability.

A Flowing monk does not gain the ability to perform a Redirection maneuver as anything other than a standard action while performing the maneuver on HIS turn (i.e., not as the archetype-granted immediate-action when he is attacked in melee); to incorporate a Redirection maneuver into a charge attack, he'd need to be a Maneuver Master.

= = = =

And here we arrive at a major sticking points in the rules: In order to provoke an AoO (for, in this case, movement), a target must voluntarily undertake said movement himself. AoOs are not granted due to involuntary movement. I.e., the same Redirection schtick is easily done by a tank with Improved Bull Rush or a wizard with Grease on an inclined surface, or knocking a guy off his horse or other elevated platform (making him fall at least 5'). These forms of involuntary movement do not grant AoOs to nearby rogues unless they have feats with specifically permit them to (e.g., Vicious Stomp, etc).

Quote:
Tranche takes his second AOO...

Tranche is still ineligible for AoOs; see above.

<snip><snip><snip>

Quote:
Tranche takes his fifth AOO - Vicious Stomp
This, in fact, is the only AoO he has been eligible for during the whole sequence (assuming he had Vicious Stomp, which the build doesn't depict).
Quote:
Tourne, if he has had Cat's Grace cast on him, takes his fifth AOO - Vicious Stomp

Tourne is not able to claim two AoOs in the same round off the same situation (in this case, from an opponent going prone, because he has already claimed that from Trip, Greater). (Due to the same rule, if somebody else came along and picked up the victim, stood him on his feet, then knocked him over again, Tourne would still not be able to use Vicious Stomp more than once versus the same target in the same round.)

So..... what really happened is this (assuming Tranche had Vicious Stomp):

1) Tranche double-moves to set up a flank.
2) Tourne charges and trips target; target falls prone.
3) Tourne gets an AoO due to Trip, Greater or Vicious Stomp (pick one).
4) Tranche gets an AoO due to Vicious Stomp (if he has it).
5) Done.

If your GM let's you get away with more than that, he doesn't have a firm grasp on the rules.

Quote:
these are 7th level, PFS legal characters.

<attention perk-up>

PFS, eh? Me knows a thing or two about that. Let's assume both players manage to consistently make the same tables for their Ambiguously Gay tag-team duo action in PFS....

Quote:

Tourne Cut

Human Flowing Monk 2/Two-Handed Fighter 5

Str: 20 (13pts, +2 racial, +1 lvl4)
Dex: 18 (10pts, +2 belt)
Con: 8 (-2pts)

Con 8?

Assuming fighter at 1st, he has 9hp and a "sink" to -7 (-8 = dead). A measly 16hp of "life" in a melee. (And elf wizard with CON12 has 17hp worth of "life" at 1st without Toughness.)

Tourne probably croaks before 2nd level in PFS, and is toast from any axe or arrow crit or a single claw-claw-rend at Tier 3+. He picks up only 6hp per fighter level and 4hp from monk while advancing for a total of only 42hp at 7th as a melee in PFS. (In contrast, the average CON16 gnome sorcerer HP+1 leveling will be picking up 8hp per level, 9hp if he's a bard.)

AC problems: Fighter[Two-Handed] archetype trades off Armor Training, so no getting use of 18 DEX in mithral full-plate (+3 DEX bonus is highest you get without Armor Training). (He's also worn non-magical crap armor all the way until 6th or so because he won't have the Prestige Points necessary for eligibility to buy a 8000+gp total-cost item in PFS (ditto the +1/Menacing weapon). He doesn't use a shield and he charges, meaning he's AC-8ish relative to a typical 7th-level S&B fighter (so the tripped target laying on the ground has a better chance of hitting Tourne while he's prone than he normally would standing up versus a S&B fighter); translation: Tourne's going to get hit, and hit bad at Tier 6+.

Since Tourne only has two levels of monk, he doesn't achieve Ki Pool. Since he's wearing medium armor, his Evasion ability is forfeit, as is his Flurry and any monk-granted bonuses to AC.

Quote:

Tranche Cut

Human Knife Master(Rogue) 7

Str: 10 (0pts)
Dex: 22 (13pts, +2 racial, +1 4th, +2 belt)
Con: 16 (10 pts)
Int: 14 (5pts)
Wis: 7 (-4 pts)
Cha: 7 (-4 pts)

So the rogue with higher AC is over-emphasizing HP relative to the fighter/monk, picking up 12hp at 1st (with a "sink" to -15). Good; very durable.

Problem: will-saves and miserable skill bonuses. This guy will fail most of the time. Lousy CHA means he's unlikely to be pushing Use Magic Device (one of the best skills in the game in PFS), and have poor Diplomacy/Intimidate and mediocre Perception (the most necessary skills in PFS for completing faction missions, particularly factions catering to rogues, that being necessary to acquire "fame" and prestige points which permit you to buy expensive items and get a free Raise Dead or two). Tranche needs to buy a Circlet of Persuasion in order to get his social skills up to what a halfling or gnome rogue or bard would normally have.

The 14 INT is unnecessary given the lack of Combat Expertise. (Is an eleventh skill that important?)

Liberty's Edge

Bandavaar the Brave wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
The Showtime (Starz TV) Spartacus is a barbarian/fighter[Unarmed] with Raging Vitality, Deathless Initiate, Power Attack, Combat Expertise and Renewed Vigor.
Three levels Fighter, 17 Barb then?
I don't do level-20 builds. He has enough fighter levels for weapon-training in "monk" (such as cestus, which he uses frequently).
Quote:
The problem with Deathless Initiate is that you have to be an Orc or Half-Orc to use it.
In an earth setting, a non-roman "barbarian" race would quality.
STR Ranger wrote:
The other problem is you are below 0. Which in the show will kill you when rage ends.

Raging Vitality eliminates that problem.

Liberty's Edge

D30, I'm just "cutting to the chase", as it were.

It saves time.

Liberty's Edge

Barbarian/monk[martial artist] then. Gets pseudo TWF without insane DEX requirements (but DEX still higher than WIS; martial-artists don't get Ki, so not a priority stat). Still mostly barbarian (doesn't have I-TWF).

1 to 50 of 2,371 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.