Renitent Rover's page

Artanthos wrote:

meatrace wrote:

It's called delay action. You don't have to go before the bad guy, just between the guy color spraying and the bad guy. You "don't buy" that a party of 4 casters can get a 1st level encounter in 4 color sprays? I can only imagine your DM throws hundreds of monsters at you each encounter, instead of 4 or 6 as per usual.

Sure, 4 casters can take a CR1 encounter out in 1 round with 4 color sprays.

And four barbarians can take that same encounter out in 1 round with greatswords. Unlike the wizards, they are do not need to expend resources and don't have to hope their opponents stood together in a cluster.

Actually, no.

I'm not saying 4 color sprays, I'm saying 1 MAYBE 2. The 4 was only in response to Lord Twig insisting that there's NO WAY an entire encounter worth of monsters would all fail their save. Because, like, CR 1 and lower creatures are notorious for their amazing Will saves.

At level 1, without cleave, no Barbarian is going to be taking out more than one creature a round with their action. Color spray, optimally, takes out 6. In all likelihood, unless the DM has them spread out like crazy, you're going to get 2-3.

The last time I saw color spray used liberally, was during Snow's of Summer, Reighn of Winter AP (for PFS) about 6 weeks ago. Our group of of 5 (4 martials (1x ranger, 1x barb, and 2x fighters) and one summoner). We made over 10+ saves against color sprays. I saw more color sprays in those 4 hours than in the past year of gaming.

No, the DC's weren't what a PC would have touted, but the improbably odds happened and the low will-save having martials made them all and minced the little flying guys.

Marthkus wrote:

The bag of flour wouldn't work. In pathfinder the flour would become invisible when it touched someone with invisibility on.

They leave footprints on the ground, or would move the flour dust in the air when they moved. I know neither is explicitly in the rules, but this is still a role playing game, I hope, and such things can be assumed. How well it works would be up to the evil GM and his arbitrary "fiat". Which we all know should be stomped out of the game as thoroughly as possible.

This is how I usually see it played. It, or a high perception can pinpoint the square. Seeking bows, Shadowstrike rogues, blind fight all help. The nix casters too unless you dispel it.

My personal favorite is to pinpoint the square, and then multiple grapple checks...usually you or a buddy make it pretty quick and then it's pretty much over.

I endeavor to make a character that needs as little outside help (for combat) as possible, and that comes from a combination of race, feats and items. If a caster is spending time buffing me so I'm effective, that's an action wasted that could have been spent debuffing the enemies, controlling the battlefield, casting a SOL on the opposition, etc.

It's hard, and you cant cover it all, but there are options; nimble moves, feather step slippers (cheap too), dragon style, seeking bows, potion of darkvision (or race)

I love rogues (thematically), but this is my main reason for not playing them. They almost always need (not just benefit, but actually need) support to be effective. The to hit is low, and SA needs flank, invis or something to get it consistently.

I still think it's a team game, and the team benefits from a multitude of types at the table, but I don't like to see builds that "need" help for every encounter. My PFS Bard doesn't have UMD just so I'm not the schmuck that gets asked to hold all the wands and spend two of my rounds buffing their characters (I'm looking at you monks...always wanting that enhancement bonus!...just play a damn Brawler 3/Monk x already and get Wpn training and Gloves of Dueling, that +3/+5 will solve a lot of your problems).

UMD and some wands, potions, or the right magic items (or alchemical gear) can go quite a ways for most encounters. And yes, there are plenty of instances when I haven't had what's needed, but I've seen plenty when the caster didn't have the right spell either.

I think alchemists are usually the best for jack of all trades versatility, for nothing else their extract list is robust, and they need so little time to prepare one. When playing those I leave slots open all the time just so I can whip up the water breathing extract or what have you. Plus skills...a high int class with base 4 skills. Will be effective in more situations than my martial, but I don't want to be the only melee guy at the table with just an alchemist.

My inquisitor rocks as a melee guy, but he takes rounds to buff. If I get a warning and time to prep, he's as good (not better, just as good) as a martial. If I don't, then I'm either using rounds to buff, or struggling.

I don't disagree with anyone's comments on casters' versatility...I just disagree with the whole idea of "caster = best = win".

Justin Rocket wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Justin Rocket wrote:

I've never understood this whole "flying trumps all" idea. How high are the roofs in your dungeons and caves?

Its not so much that flying trumps all, as it is that having it while fighting something doesn't can allow you to dominate. That said, not every game takes place in caves/hallways that are 10 feet high.

So, there's plenty of time when someone who can tank, but can't fly will be essential to the party.

Yeah, but if your tank is a ranger/fighter/barbarian its going to suck when they have to tank against something that can fly right over them and devour their squishies. Flight is one of those things the game sort of wants you to have but doesn't just give you.

But Mr.Sin?!?! You and others have told me repeatedly that your caster doesn't need me...so he shouldn't be a "squishy"...he should just take off his conical hat and tank better than a martial.

Edit: - alright, that was fairly snarky, but the point stands. Either you need the martial or you don't.

If you need the martial, then let him do the job that no one else does better. Druids, summons and eidelon can all hold the line...but not better than a martial can. And most of your favored options have some out of combat versatility that is hard to match with a martial, but a good player can build in same versatility to his martial as well.

And every caster I've played with has not sucked, or conversely, look at those playing materials in your games. Or look at your house rules and whether you play 'Mage friendly'.

Also, Casters are solid characters. I'm not arguing that they aren't. I'm arguing that martials hold their own, and if built & played well, can be the most important combat asset in the party.

Summons do have some versatility.

However:)
Just looking at summon V, I can't find a single creature that compares to the 10th level fighter in the wizards party. Best attack was +14 with average damage around d8+7. Fighter should be sporting something like +21(d(x)+25). Better AC etc.

It provides a good meat shield, but not a better one.

Summons also auto-attack nearest enemy, unless you can communicate with it. Many you can, but your not doing anything but that without other resources.

If I ever see a Mage start to cast, and he doesn't finish by the end of his turn.... He is enemy #1 until his next turn. You get a twofer, damage a foe and cause a spell loss. Any smart enemy should be doing the same.

Again, a good versatile spell, but it's not just "I build a summoner, I win".

Like i said, our opinions ( or assessments) are based on our experiences. Mine differs, and I disagree.

My most fundamental difference lies on two points:

1) spells in practice never go as well as theory says. SR/saves/ resistances/ immunities/ evasion; something often gets in the way of success.

2) schrodinger's caster- (i.e. - he could have handled this) too often the caster in practice doesn't have the right spell, or it's unwise to use it.

And that's where we quibble about the details:)

Everyone agrees to the need for a Melee build, we just disagree about how to fill it!

Part of it is just experience. I've seen all the theory crafting that says casters dominate, and I truly understand the theoretical underpinnings and the math. I've simply never seen it in practice at the table. I've seen plenty of examples where a caster completely owned a given encounter, but not consistently through multiple events.

Conversely, I have experienced in almost every game a martial, who consistently brought the pain to encounter after encounter. In my experience, a martial is flummoxed about as often as a caster truly dominates.

I also get that experiences differ, and that's the crux of this whole thread.

All real world metaphors break down under too much abstraction for the game. It's the basic principal that's sound.

Not really either. Basically, to allow a combination of forces to achieve what would not be possible for its constituent elements to do alone. Try combined arms warfare I'm a career soldier with 15+ years, so I probably (unfairly) assumed a base level of knowledge not resident to those outside my profession.

I'm positing that bringing in a new role of type X, to a group that only yet has type Y, adds more to the fight than just another type Y does.

If I have a battalion of tanks, I would rather get a platoon of infantry, or engineers than another company ( 3x platoons) of tanks. The synergy (and diversity of capabilities) of the combined elements is greater than the sum of its parts.

In DND speak...if I have a party of 3 mages, I get more (generally, in most cases) from bringing in another role (martial, cleric, or rogue) than I get from adding another caster. Conversely, if I have 3x martials, I get more from brining in a Mage/cleric/rogue than I do from bring in another martial.

Most everybody on these boards totally gets this concept intuitively, I just used unfamiliar terms. I think everyone in this thread would agree in principle, just quibble about the details.

BTW- the accepted main effort in military planning is the maneuver element (ground forces capable of maneuvering to, engaging, and defeating enemy elements). Maneuver in the US military means infantry and armor. Armor goes no where without infantry, as it is too vulnerable without them. Infantry can operate without armor. All other arms support that element. There are corner cases yes, but ultimately it requires a grunt on the ground. Also the "King of Battle" is artillery, not tanks.

In defense of ub3r_n3rd's observations in his OP:

I don't think ub3r_n3rd was calling anyone out and putting down a certain style of play, but I do believe that things have changed in the last 15 years of gaming. I don't believe it's a generational fault line that's been crossed or anything like that, but the meta-environment of the RPG industry and in some cases game mechanics.

1) AD&D/2ed: The system did not have 'builds' per se. You played X PC and had X abilities, with no choices and synergies to explore. Optimizing your character came from spell selection, or how a Thief allocated his points upon level up (2ed only, AD&D did that for you). Additionally, there was no WBL guidelines, CR system, or point buy, so no standard to measure your guy against. If you didn't have magic weapons, you didn't face wraiths. GMs picked encounters based upon what they knew your party could do.

2) 3.0 (+) had been a watershed in the tabletop d20 system in that you could build a character out with options from CL1; and had to in some extent to ensure low-level choices were not obviated by high level ones, or to ensure you could take X ability at level 9 you had to take Z ability at level 3. Building became a thing you did. With WBL, CR and point buy introduced, you now had reason to believe you needed a +1 sword by level 5.

3) At the same time, a crap-load of computer games came out with similiar mechanics (only in that building for end-game required certain choices at the beginning). This mindset permeated the gaming design industry for a very good reason...to allowed players to play what they wanted and select abilities they wanted. It's different, not better or worse, and the difference has second-order effects.

4) And then there's the internet, where you can discuss builds etc and take ideas from other gamers, so your choices become a lot more open. So if I show up to Saturday's game with Bob who spent 14 hours on-line, Bob likely has a more effective character and the table notices...the next time around we all go on-line prior to building our character and the GM notices and has to up the APL/CR (a 3.0 or later concept), just to keep things going. Balancing System Mastery of the players is now just as important as balancing encounters to PCs.

So, yes, I believe things have changed...but it's not those damn whippersnappers today, the industry has evolved.

Renitent Rover wrote:

IMO, spellcasters don't even start to come on line till level 5 or so, and even then they have a major contribution to only a couple of fights a day until they reach level 8 or so.

I've just rolled an Arcane (sage) sorcerer for Rise of Runelords, we'll start next month.

At level 1, I can cast 5 Sleep per day, taking down 4 goblins unless they save vs DC 18. I'd say that's a major contribution to every encounter since level 1.
EDIT: the DC could be 20 with Fey Bloodline instead of Arcane (sage), but I want to build a telepath-like character and high INT sounds more accurate than high CHA, and spells like "entangle" don't really fit with the concept

And I wish you the best of luck. I'm about halfway through the AP with my ranger/fighter with a reach weapon build (trip/combat reflexes/ and cleave) and I was killing 4-5 goblins a round during the initial chapter around Sandpoint. And I've played him at the same table with an alchemist and a wild-shaping druid w/ pounce and a pouncing AC. The both did quite well, but don't hit near as often as the 'pure' martial does...and hitting is important. When they need a 17+ to hit and I need a 11+ to hit, that adds up quick.

I've seen effective casters played, and played them myself. There are roles to fill, and the party does better when all roles are addressed (and addressed well). I've never seen one type of PC dominate a game except for martials at low level (1-4). Once casters get more spells a day and can start spamming spells, they contribute a lot more and don't have to hoard for that 'next encounter'. And after level 10 or so, casters can do all sorts of things that the physical types can't, but only if they have the spell available and the Caster check is made, SR overcome and/or saving throw failed.

The problem here Renitent Rover is that we can show there are a lot of casters like the Druid, Oracle, Inquisitor, Summoner, that while maybe not as effective at dealing damage the martial (unless your a 12th level Druid XD) are going to be doing just fine in combat AND they can do all those fun out of combat things. I've never understood the argument the "caster should buff the fighter!", since shouldn't I just find another caster like the Druid who can bring his own buffs AND get mine on top of that?

I've played the game before, so I have seen those builds. I do agree that many classes can make effective melee builds, but the fighter can still trump them...mostly from bonuses to hit. As a quick note, any 10th level fighter should be no less than +8 to hit higher than the builds you noted above (+3 from BAB, +2 from weapon training, +1 from Greater Wpn Focus, and +2 from the ubiquitous gloves of dueling). Now each of those (especially the inquisitor) can make up some to much of that gap, but he has to expend consumables to do so.

I also never posited that a "caster should buff the fighter", just that it makes for some very good tactical synergy for the party. The fighter often is the one class that doesn't need the buff as he can already hit, overcome DR and damage the opponent. He needs the support for saves mostly (and movement in the event he can't reach the bad guys, but that's what Wpn Training 2 with ranged weapons is for). Now he's got 5 extra feats on all those types and spending some for better saves is never a bad idea.

I don't fundamentally disagree with you, many other classes can make builds that hold their own in combat...and martials can also be built to be effective out of combat (yes, even the fighter).

My point is more about opportunity costs. For every class that builds up to hold the melee niche, you take away from what it could be doing instead. Let a martial do it, and let him figure out what to do out of combat. The combat roles are the ones that have to be gotten right to avoid death...the out of combat roles are much more forgiving.

I've also never understood the flak that 'martials' seem to recieve. I've been playing for 25+ years since the boxed set, and the nuance of balance has changed and shifted over time, but martials have always in my experience been very effective and very needed in every party.

IMO, spellcasters don't even start to come on line till level 5 or so, and even then they have a major contribution to only a couple of fights a day until they reach level 8 or so.

I also disagree with the idea that playing an effective martial is easy, and that playing a spellcaster is somehow more sophisticated. Making any character effective requires building synergy into what you can do, exploiting your strengths and shoring up weaknesses. This is something that's defintely new to 3.0 and newer editions. There was very little 'building' going on in earlier editions(excepting 2ed skills and powers).

To borrow a military term, it is most definitely a combined arms fight and the martials get better with buffs, and the casters do better when there's a martial there to protect them, exploit the gap they created, and take the buff they have to offer.

Fighters bring very little to the table outside of combat, unless specifically spec'd out to do so...but in combat they steamroll the opposition! No other class consistently ends encounters in the party's favor.

I've played in an all martial campaign, an all rogue campaign, and an all caster campaign. The all caster campaign was the only one that didn't work well and took some serious creative problem solving by the PCs. That made it fun in its own way, but required significant planning and resource management...along with PC replacement often due to getting mauled by the enemy martial when the spell failed.

Poundpuppy-

It's worth remembering that when the players move up on the enemy first, they usually only get a single, standard action attack. The monsters, meanwhile, get to respond with a full attack action. This doesn't come into play much at early levels, but at higher levels it makes the kind of tactics you're talking about risky.

This is muy importante, and often ignored. Once iteratives come into play, or an enemy who commonly has multiple attacks...delay or ready becomes a very viable option. Why would I run up to him, take a standard action and then let him take a full round. I'm already losing the action economy game.

Non-melee types it's completely different...they always want initiative. Big reason why everyone always says it's important. And @Gauss' point brings a related point...in real life, he who shoots first (and accurately) wins.

On anther note...don't forget "Uncanny Dodge". You cannot be caught flatfooted, ergo you can make AoOs at any time. Barbarian's and Rogues have a lot fewer reasons for taking CR (unless its a CAGM barbarian of course).

Usually martials aren't enlarged though. I remember in 3.5 I had a warmind with greater cleave. That was fun. Hard not to find someone with reach you could kill. I built him for making big attacks that the opponent wouldn't walk away from. Anytime there were minions bunched up any attack would set off a sweeping strike, and any deaths would proc a cleave. Not everyone can cast expansion to grow 2 sizes larger though... And my DM hated that character and won't let me play him again in his games.

I actually tell me party arcane to NOT enlarge me unless we're facing creatures with reach. My reach weapon gives me what I need. I also carry for potions of enlarge just in case.

A cleave build can be quite good. I'm playing a solid cleave build that utterly rocks in melee right now. At 9th level in my last game I got 13 attacks at full BAB in one round (17 if you count the animal companion).

While enlarged with a reach weapon, moved to a line of 4 ogres (2x normal and 2 with levels) and great cleaved to hit all four. Killed the 2 normal and with greater cleaving finish used both cleaving finishes on one of the leveled ogres(with one crit), killing him and used that cleaving finish on the other leveled ogre, and my Animal Companion uses it's 3x attacks on the same leveled ogre (7(mine)+3 (AC) attacks so far).

On their turn, the remaining leveled ogre strikes me...then I pull out my skirmisher archetype tricks and as an immediate action use vengeance strike (with a free action tripping strike thrown in for good measure) and hit him then greater trip him for an AoO). Those two attacks (and an animal companion AoO) leave him dead. (9(me)+4(AC) total)

Four more normal ogres move up to strike and with combat reflexes I still have three AoOs left. I let one close, then AoO the other three and use the cleaving finishes off of them to kill the one I let through. (that's 13 total for me and 4 for the AC).

@Xaratherus is accurate...a martial can do this every round. The previous round I was 25 feet away and facing two normal ogres and a leveled ogre, taking three with great cleave, and using two cleaving finishes on the leved guy for 5 attacks total. One of the strengths of this kind of build is I can still take a move and then my standard attack (which grows to multiple full BAB attacks).

Ranger 7/ Lore Warden 2 with Favored enemey giants.

Now that was ideal circumstances, but we set it up that way. From level 1 on, this build has been to maximize getting extra attacks at full BAB through reach and feats and I have regularly used a standard action (and AoOs) to get multiple attacks a round. Even at 9th level, getting 2-3 attacks at full BAB is way better than getting iteratives, which is the lowest I normally do. I have regularly pulled off 5+ full BAB strikes a round.

Now this requires multiple targets, and against singular targets I'm more limited, but that's where I use tripping strike and greater trip to take two damaging hits at full BAB, and use my iterative against his prone ass where he has a -4 to A.C.

It's all about action economy and getting more attacks (at full BAB if possible), and the combination of feats lets me do that in most combats. Not all, but more than enough to be well worth it.

Another piece of evidence I found (or remembered to be more precise) to support having bonuses to unarmed strike add to grapple maneuvers:

Improved Grapple is the only combat maneuver that has improved unarmed strike as a prerequisite.

You cannot improve you ability to grapple without first improving you ability to strike you opponent with your hands (and feet, elbows and knees).

Between this, and the grapple rules I cited above (not using both hands imposes a -4 on grapple checks), it seems fairly clear to me that RAI is for the hands to be the attack form used to conduct the grapple maneuver.

Again back to the core SRD:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

(emphasis mine).

SKR's blog was very helpful in clearing several things up, but it still was not definitive in that it said trip, sunder and disarm were "normally" the only maneuvers that used weapons and allowed for exceptions. I would again like SKR or another dev to take a look at this question again and clarify whether one of those exceptions was supposed to be unarmed strike with grapple.

Edit: rechecked feat and the first line says with a single swing. While that is the fluff description line, its a pretty clear intent that subsequent hits are from follow through on the same weapon blow.

Edit 2: erased my original thought. Crunch text does not mechanically disallow it, but see edit 1 above.

...Is the goal here to get something clarified, or to get something changed?

As I said above, I want it clarified, by dev staff preferably as they acknowledged the question needed to be considered.

If the board consensus proves correct and I'm wrong, the I would urgently request a consideration for rules change. My OP has my points on why I think my assessment is better for balancing the CMs power as the scale through the levels.

Several have noted that distinction as well; that they think my assessment of RAI is wrong, but they think the rules should work the way I assess they do.

You've pointed out that you thing I'm wrong against current RAI, but what is your (and other's) opinion on whether it should function like I posit?

And please hit FAQ if you think it should be the way it's run.

Renitent Rover wrote:

I would enjoy someone else's cited analysis of why I'm wrong

Weapon Focus wrote:

unarmed strike or grapple

Ah, gee thanks jiggy. Your locution sure keeps this a telic thread.

Seriously dude, did you miss where I discussed the issues with this in my OP? I know it's there, and it just causes me to ask more questions.

Blogs and FAQ's show the intent of the rules so until the rules change or a new FAQ or Blog comes out the previous ruling is in place. As of now only certain maneuvers are allowed to use weapons, and those have been named.

You are wrong because the devs have shown their intent. They have stated that when rules are clarified it is not just one person. They actually sit down and talk about it as a team, and that is how they want combat maneuvers to work.

Now if you want them to reconsider the previous idea that is another issue altogether.

I agree with you, except his blog said things that left it ambiguous. Each quote I have above for SKR's blog cites why I think it's still unclear. Please read them again, cause my logic is not horrible. I see how the current consensus is reached, but I don't think my conclusions are wild-ass non-sense either.

1. Weapon focus (any manufactured weapon) (WF(mw)), gives a +1 with ANY attack using that weapon.
2. Combat Maneuvers (CM) are attacks. (If this is not true, then using a CM does NOT break invisibility. )
3. If the CM uses a weapon, you get the WF bonus.

I am very comfortable and clear about what CMs use manufactured weapons and when. They have done a good job with that.

4. WF ( unarmed strike) gives a bonus to any attack using hands (or by extension, elbows, feet or knees).
5. Grapple CM uses hands.

This is the contested point. I assess it does as the grapple CM penalizes you for NOT using them.

6. Touch attacks use hands.
7. Ergo, both grapple CM and touch attacks should benefit from WF(unarmed strike).

It's not gamesmanship, or even unfair / OP. I think clarifying/ adjudicating it this way actually balances it with the other CMs as I argue in my first post.

...Is the goal here to get something clarified, or to get something changed?

Clarified ( preferably to my understanding). If you look through the references above, you can easily go either way on unarmed strike with grapple. In the blog link above is a post (with your involvement) where the same question was asked and no clarification given. There is a lot of 'consensus' among board posters that bonuses to unarmed strike to grapple should NOT apply. The wall of text above is my analysis of the same rules and my assessment that it should.

I would enjoy someone else's cited analysis of why I'm wrong, but it honestly seems to be more of an apacrophyl assumption at this point based upon one line of SKR's blog from two years ago (that still had lots of room for interpretation as noted above).

@ the OP: Your hands are not unarmed strikes so that would not work. They are just used to make unarmed strikes.

If you are the GM I would just houserule it. It does not break the game, so it should not be an issue.

Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

That seems very clear that bonuses to unarmed strike would help. That lines supports it , and I haven't found a line in RAW that contradicts that view.

SKR acknowledged the question as valid and refused to make a call then. I just want them to make a call now, so please FAQ it. My position is noted and I think I make a good case. I haven't seen a good analysis saying otherwise.

Agree, they are not the same. But if it was clearly one way or the other RAW, I wouldn't have to ask. The actual paragaph describing touch attack is very sparse on the attack side and mostly describes touch AC. Nor under touch spells in the magic section does it say.

Unarmed strike is hitting with a body part. Bonuses to it help you. Touch attack is hitting with the hand (Magus excepted of course). Ergo and all that. It's not a stretch. Any other bonuses you had from spells, bard performance etc would apply.

I also agree with @Blake on this one. You can use a weapon, and nothing requiring two hands. This is a good place for a monk to get an advantage as his whole flurry can come from the same fist and his attack routine is degraded less than a TWF or a 2HF. The grapple has some other current issues found in this thread.

Done.

Then how about this thread as you got good working knowledge of the grapple rules.

Somewhat related question, does having weapon focus ( unarmed strike) or other like bonuses help with a touch attack?

I've always said yes, but if it doesn't help with a grapple, then it might not help this either.

I agree, yes to all. As part of maintaining the grapple you can do the harm, pin, move etc. you just have to initiate the grapple with a standard, then you can use greater and rapid grappler with your move and swift. Your spot on.

I don't have any references for you. I've been poring through the grapple rules on here for a while too and official rulings on some questions seem sparse. I would like your input on this thread as you got good working knowledge of the grapple rules.

Thanks dude. Not just for monks, it just seems the right way to use the CMB mechanic and balance grapple et. al. with trip and the gang.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. So yes, please FAQ my post!

Appreciate the nod @claxon, but I'm not sold that RAW limits it to just those three. The SRD quote informs us that any applicable bonuses would apply. It just fails to fully define what is "applicable" and when. SKR's comments I cited also leave it open that in some cases other bonuses apply. Part of my point in the spoilered quote is that SKR acknowledged the direct question about unarmed strike bonuses OVER two years ago, and said he would clarify, but has yet to do so. That leads me to conclude that it's a still open question.

I posted this somewhat off topic in another thread. Tyring to get a discussion going apropos the right thread and not hijack someone elses.

SKR wrote a blog post in 2011 where he mentioned several rulings in an attempt to clarify CMB bonues acquired from weapons and other sources. The blog has four pages of posted messages with it that bring up several questions as well:

See this link for more information.

My main question is about when is it applicable to add the bonuses from unarmed strike (weapon focus (unarmed strike), AoMF, Brawling armor property etc) to some Combat Maneuvers (CMs)? Between the SRD on CMs, and the linked blog post above, I see a lot of wiggle room for multiple interpretations.

In the blog post like I pointed out above, the question about bonuses to grapple was asked in the posts following the Blog linked above. Some of the relevant dialogue is here:

in the spoilered quote, @jiggy's post and SKR said he would consult with JJ and get back to us. As it's been two years, I'm not holding my breath (and yes they're busy and have higher priorities, but I would love to see this readdressed...so hit FAQ! And in this case, I really think it needs it, and is NOT an overuse of the FAQ). The blog post isn't quite as good as an errata; the RAW often can't withstand a detailed parsing of their contents; and the blog didn't go through the devs review process the way an errata would, but it's what we have to work with.

I don't carry the rep on these boards that some of the common and well known posters do like @wraithstrike, @ravingdork, @cheapy or @jiggy do, but I do have a fair amount of system mastery...I just happen to be a professional lurker rather than an avid poster. So, I do want your opinions, but I think this issue has multiple references which I will try to cover here along with the link above.

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

(emphasis mine)

This seems clear to me, in that if you use something to affect the CM, you get to add any bonuses from that attack method to the CM.

A. The blog post muddied the waters IMO for unarmed strikes with grapple. The SRD quote above was what I always used to allow unarmed strike bonuses for grapple, as your clearly using your hands. Under the grapple rules, you take a -4 penalty for not using both hands to make the grapple. Once you have the grapple condition (attacker or defender) you can only use actions that require one hand, meaning your other hand is involved. So an attack to grapple is clearly using your hands by game mechanics.

Now to SKR's blog. He says

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

(emphasis on normally mine).

B. SKR references unarmed strikes (US) as weapons for the three CMs. This is important if you have neither the feat IUS (FIUS) or the Monk's IUS (MIUS). The MIUS is the only one that says your hands become weapons. So SKR's comment is important in that it allows both those with just FIUS and without the feat to count their hands as weapons for Trip, Disarm and Sunder. It's being permissive for USs and natural weapons against those three CMs. It is NOT being restrictive in saying the CANNOT apply to other CMs. Further more, the IUS feat says "You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.", which could be fairly inclusive for CMs.

C. SKR says normally only those three use weapons, allowing for exceptions. He cites a couple in 1) polearm master using a polearm to bull rush, 2) weapons with trip property for drag or reposition. There are clearly other exception as with shield slam feat and supporting feats (shield focus, shield specialization, weapon focus shield).

D.

For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver.

This is generally true, and I hate to infer what SKR was saying, but I assess in this context he was saying 'weapon' as in a manufactured weapon. The examples he uses are a longsword and a dagger, which aren't helpful in a grapple (unless you have Hamatula Strike and a piercing weapon). As I pointed out above, hands are used in a grapple and are certainly not just "incidental" to the grapple based upon the grapple rules and the penalties required for using hands. So I assess they are an exception.

E.

Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers

From my points above, I have always ruled that bonuses to unarmed strike support the grapple CM in all circumstances, and by extension, weapon finesse would allow you to sub Dex for Str as unarmed strike is a light weapon.

Grapple to me is the most clear cut case, the other CMs are more ambiguous to me.

1. Drag - in most circumstances would include you grabbing your opponent with your hands (or a weapon) and dragging them with you. So yes to unarmed strike. Besides that, I only know of weapons with the 'trip' property being able to transfer bonuses.

2. Reposition - less clear. If you are manhandling them into the new square, then yes unarmed strike would apply, but if you do it through constantly threatening their left side so the move right, then no. Leaves some room for interpretation. Besides that, I only know of weapons with the 'trip' property being able to transfer bonuses.

3. Bull rush - maybe if you did a sumo wrestling style push you could use unarmed strike bonuses, but probably not. Shields work awfully well with the right feats (and shield focus and weapon focus (shield) would help out). Without them, this one benefits from Agile Maneuvers and not much else (if you have a high DEX build obviously).

4. Over run - I would probably allow shields to help in some circumstances, but there's no RAW to support this. Agile Manuevers still helps here without shield builds (and the shields is just my (probably generous) interpretation.)

5. Steal - definitely use hands. Rules even allow the use of a whip. However it's an odd one and not an 'attack' per se like the others, so unarmed strike probably wouldn't help. But it is an attack cause it uses CMB. Hell, I don't know on this one. Never seen it in play.

6. Feint - NOT a CM and uses a different mechanic.

Noting how a bull rush build can easily be made using shields, and drag and reposition can use weapons with the 'trip' property, grapple, overrun and steal are getting left behind on CMB bonuses as you level up.

I believe this whole issue is important for a couple of game balance issues. If you don't allow something like unarmed strike to be used with a grapple, then by mid levels when compared to trip, disarm and sunder, grapple and the other CMs start to fall behind in their CMB check by 4-5 points as the others start to pile on bonuses from weapon enhancement, weapon focus, fighter weapon training etc, and it gets worse. This clearly makes some CMs superior to others on just what you can add to CMB, which doesn't support variety of play, nor do I think is good for the game. We all know that CMD climbs into the stratosphere in the late game, so the only way to have grapple, overrun, and steal to keep up with Trip, sunder, and disarm is to have some way to help add to them.

The other game balance issue is that allowing bonuses to unarmed strike to support the CMB for grapple, you help the monk with an AoMF just a little by keeping grapple a good option for them. Everyone know's they need it.

Last point. Weapon Focus (WF) lists grapple as a possible focus. While this is currently RAW, I think it causes more problems than helping. If I can take grapple, I can take trip. If I have a WF (flail) and WF (trip), they stack, causing further inflation of the three you can clearly use with weapons.

Not to mention that if I can take WF (grapple), which fighter weapon group does it fall into? Does it come under close or natural? Is there another one for just CMs?

SKR and the other devs still should provide an answer on the use of unarmed strike bonuses with grapple CMB, but I think my points above provide solid support that they should, both mechanically from how the rules are written, as well as from a game balance perspective.

No, Weapon Finesse doesn't apply to grapple checks (unless you have some kind of exception). Weapon Finesse only applies to maneuvers delivered via a weapon (and unarmed strikes count as "weapons" for this purpose), which is usually only disarm, sunder and trip.

See this link for more information.

@Jiggy - if I came across as a jerk for citing your earlier posts that might contradict your current position, I didn't mean to. I don't carry the rep on these boards that you or @wraithstrike, @ravingdork, or @cheapy do, but I do have a comparable system mastery...I just happen to be a professional lurker rather than an avid poster. So, I do want your opinion, but please you and others read through mine as well.

For the OP, IMO Weapon Finesse could be used for a grapple check, but only with unarmed strike, or Hamatula Strike and a piercing weapon. Now, how I get to this conclusion is important and relies on the SKR blog post that Jiggy cited, as well as the SRD for CMB.

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver.

(emphasis mine)

As I already pointed out above, the question about bonuses to grapple was asked in the posts following the Blog linked above in @jiggy's post and SKR said he would consult with JJ and get back to us. As it's been two years, I'm not holding my breath (and yes they're busy and have higher priorities, but I would love to see this readdressed...so hit FAQ! And in this case, I really think it needs it, and is NOT an overuse of the FAQ). The blog post isn't quite as good as an errata; the RAW often can't withstand a detailed parsing of their contents; and the blog didn't go through the devs review process the way an errata would, but it's what we have to work with.

A. The blog post muddied the waters IMO for unarmed strikes with grapple. The SRD quote above was what I always used to allow unarmed strike bonuses for grapple, as your clearly using your hands. And I mean clearly . Under the grapple rules, you take a -4 penalty for not using both hands to make the grapple. Once you have the grapple condition (attacker or defender) you can only use actions that require one hand, meaning your other hand is involved. So an attack to grapple is clearly using your hands by game mechanics.

Now to SKR's blog. He says

Disarm, sunder, and trip are normally the only kinds of combat maneuvers in which you’re actually using a weapon (natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose) to perform the maneuver, and therefore the weapon’s bonuses (enhancement bonuses, feats such as Weapon Focus, fighter weapon training, and so on) apply to the roll.

(emphasis on normally mine).

B. SKR references unarmed strikes (US) as weapons for the three CMs. This is important if you have neither the feat IUS (FIUS) or the Monk's IUS (MIUS). The MIUS is the only one that says your hands become weapons. So SKR's comment is important in that it allows both those with just FIUS and without the feat to count their hands as weapons for Trip, Disarm and Sunder. It's being permissive for USs and natural weapons against those three CMs. It is NOT being restrictive in saying the CANNOT apply to other CMs. Further more, the IUS feat says "You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.", which could be fairly inclusive for CMs.

C. SKR says normally only those three use weapons, allowing for exceptions. He cites a couple in 1) polearm master using a polearm to bull rush, 2) weapons with trip property for drag or reposition. There are clearly other exception as with shield slam feat and supporting feats (shield focus, shield specialization, weapon focus shield).

D.

For other maneuvers, either you’re not using a weapon at all, or the weapon is incidental to making the maneuver and its bonuses shouldn’t make you better at attempting the maneuver.

This is generally true, and I hate to infer what SKR was saying, but I assess in this context he was saying 'weapon' as in a manufactured weapon. The examples he uses are a longsword and a dagger, which aren't helpful in a grapple (unless you have Hamatula Strike and a piercing weapon). As I pointed out above, hands are used in a grapple and are certainly not just "incidental" to the grapple based upon the grapple rules and the penalties required for using hands. So they are an exception.

E.

Of course, the GM is free to rule that in certain circumstances, a creature can apply weapon bonuses for these maneuvers

From my points above, I have always ruled that bonuses to unarmed strike support the grapple CM, and by extension, weapon finesse would support this as unarmed strike is a light weapon.

Grapple to me is the most clear cut case, the other CMs are more ambiguous to me.
1. Drag - in most circumstances would include you grabbing your opponent with your hands (or a weapon) and dragging them with you. So yes to unarmed strike.
2. Reposition - less clear. If you are manhandling them into the new square, then yes unarmed strike would apply, but if you do it through constantly threatening their left side so the move right, then no. Leaves some room for interpretation.
3. Bull rush - maybe if you did a sumo wrestling style push, but probably not. Shields work awfully well with the right feats and shield focus and weapon focus (shield) would help out). Without them, this one benefits from Agile Maneuvers and not much else (if you have a high DEX build obviously).
4. Over run - I would probably allow shields to help, and any feats that increased their proficiency. Agile Manuevers still helps here without shield builds (and the shields is just my (probably generous) interpretation.
5. Steal - definitely use hands. Rules even allow the use of a whip. However it's an odd one and not an 'attack' per se like the others, so unarmed strike probably wouldn't help. But it is an attack cause it uses CMB. Hell, I don't know on this one. Never seen it in play.
6. Feint - NOT a CM and uses a different mechanic.

Noting how a bull rush build can easily be made using shields, and drag and reposition can use weapons with the 'trip' property, grapple, overrun and steal are getting left behind.

I believe this whole issue is important for a couple of game balance issues. If you don't allow something like unarmed strike to be used with a grapple, then by mid levels when compared to trip, disarm and sunder, grapple and the other CMs start to fall behind in their CMB check by 4-5 points, and it gets worse. This clearly makes some CMs superior to others on just what you can add to CMB, which doesn't support variety of play, nor do I think is good for the game. We all know that CMD climbs into the stratosphere in the late game, so the only way to have grapple, overrun, bullrush to keep up with Trip, sunder, and disarm is to have some way to help add to them.

The other game balance issue is that allowing bonuses to unarmed strike to support the CMB for grapple, you help the monk with an AoMF just a little by keeping grapple a good option for them. Everyone know's they need it.

Last point. Weapon Focus (WF) lists grapple as a possible focus. While this is currently RAW, I think it causes more problems than helping. If I can take grapple, I can take trip. If I have a WF (flail) and WF (trip), they stack, causing further inflation of the three you can clearly use with weapons.

SKR and the other devs still should provide an answer on the use of unarmed strike bonuses with grapple CMB, but I think my points above provide solid support that they should, both mechanically from how the rules are written, as well as from a game balance perspective.

How is "natural weapons and unarmed strikes are considered weapons for this purpose" ambiguous?

The linked blog says that you only get weapon-related bonuses if you use a weapon; then it says that only disarm, sunder and trip use weapons; then says that unarmed strikes are considered weapons. There is no ambiguity there.

Under the blog is four pages of posts with that very question asked a couple of times. SKR said he'd confab with JJ and get a reply. There's even a post from you asking him for an update on this, but it's almost two years old.

On the attached posts to the blog, I just quoted your and SKR's exchange asking for an update.

All that being said, it's still damn ambiguous as it says those three are normally the only ones that use weapons. Since ALL weapons can use all three, but other CMs only would get a bonus from IUS, that still qualifies as normally. The blog was NOT definitive and left wiggle room.

Jiggy wrote:

#1:

SKR wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Belafon wrote:

#2 So... My monk has Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and is wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists +1. Does this mean he gets to add those two bonuses to other Combat Maneuvers such as Grapple?

Still consulting on that one too, I presume.

Yes.

Can anyone tell me if there has been an answer posted for this yet?

Troubleshooter wrote:

Just take Weapon Finesse and perform combat maneuvers with a finessed unarmed strike. For some characters it's like Agile Maneuvers, but better!

Unarmed strike counts as a weapon and therefore is only used for weapon-based maneuvers: disarm, sunder and trip; the same ones you could use your sword for.

See the link near the beginning of the thread for more information.

The blog is being permissive, saying unarmed and natural bonuses add for those three. I did not read it as saying they were only good for those three. IUS ( and certainly the monk's version) describe the use of the body as a weapon. Since your using your hands in a grapple you should get any bonuses to your unarmed strike to your grapple CMB. The grapple maneuver even cites a penalty for not having both hands available.

I think a case could also be made to use bonuses to unarmed strike for the CMB for bullrush and overrun. Either could be a sumo style push with the hands instead of a football body check.

Right now the RAW is rather vague on when you can use bonuses for some CMBs, and leaves it to GM adjudication. I'm ok with that, but I also don't think a +1 CMB for grapple, bull rush, etc, is OP for weapon focus (IUS).

Raising a dead thread and all that... Im pretty sure the snswer is yes, but wanted to hear from some others with good system mastery.

So I read all the above and the blog. My lingering question is about CMs other than trip, disarm when using unarmed strike. Taking the monk's IUS (different than just the feat), a monk's whole body counts as a weapon. So if said monk had bonuses due to weapon focus IUS, AoMS, or body wraps, (or brawling armor if muti-class monk wearing light brawling armor), ...would he the be able to use those bonuses on a grapple, bull rush, over run etc?

EldonG wrote:

Who said that? Paladins follow their god's tenets...and unless that god is LN, those tenets ARE good. If he's not following those tenets, he's in trouble with his god...and the LN god's tenets are not as good, but incredibly legalistic.

What god has "kill unarmed prisoners" as a tenet? I can see Torag but I don't think any of the other's have.

Also, if the god's tenet is the only thing the paladin has to obey, why even write out "respects legitimate authority" in the CoC? Why not simply write "respects it's god"?

And what happens with paladins without gods? Because you know, paladins don't have to have gods. They may if they want to but it isn't a direct part of the class.

Our side of the argument was never just "kill unarmed prisoners", but more complex than that. It involved executing prisoners that had been judged by a legitimate authority as guilty in a capital punishment sort of way.

With those caveats, I believe the Paladin is still in the right.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

However, you are exaggerating the other side. I know it's hard to make Marthkus's position any more comical, but could you please try, for the sake of balance?

Actually, Marthkus didn't say proper duel, just "honorably", which apparently includes not aiming for the soft spots, not attacking unless the opponent has an option to escape and most everything else... So I exaggerated in words, but not in the actual result.

And isn't that the same case with the other interpretation? What's the point of the paladin rule of "must respect legitimate authority" when this is the attitude towards legitimate authority?

Kamelguru wrote:

Show me ONE example, just ONE, real or otherwise, legitimate authority that is more pure an true to the idea of justice than that of the paladin code.

Renitent Rover wrote:

But that's half the point, the Paladin is the legitimate authority figure, ordained by his god to make such judgments.

EldonG wrote:

A paladin is a legitimate authority figure...his authority comes from his god...that had better be legitimate.

If the paladin is the ultimate authority then most anything the paladin does will be acceptible. Torturing baby goblins is ahokay since the paladin can just sentence them to torturous death - and his authority comes from his god! Thus it's legitimate, and no reason for the paladin to fall!

OK, I can see some of that conclusion. My point was ultimate non-divine authority following an earlier post by I believe @EldonG where he pointed out that a Paladin who deviates from a right answer will know immediately cause his god will strip him of his powers. In an ethically grey area, if he made the wrong call, he'll find out soon enough and can adjust.

The Paladin is supposed to be doing everything for the greater good, not for a bribe or kickback. If he actually is, then our position stands. He'll be a more fair judge to the bandits than the town folk will as he'll truly try to provide a just and fair outcome, not just kill them out of spite.

Now his judgement will still seem quite harsh to many, as the "greater good" cares not about individual outcomes. When faced with the typical hostage situation of letting the BBEG free or save the innocent child (if those are the two only options), the I would argue a Paladin should let the child die to kill the BBEG. I would even go so far as to argue that if the scenario was worse and he had to kill the child to kill the BBEG (some sort of linked damage effect), he should still kill the BBEG for the greater good.

If you want pure good, look to NG. If you want good that cares about individual cases and such, go for CG. LG is the greater good Spock logic sort of good.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Keep in mind, Ilja, the reason people see killing the morlocks as okay is because morlocks are much worse than goblins. They're basically a step up from fiends. They aren't humanoids, they're creatures of the Darklands. In Golarion, they are born evil. Period.

So paladins can just stab baby creatures from evil races all day long and never worry about falling.

Not only would that be racist and evil, but it breaks his code. Fall

Again dude, read the rules. Clearly allowed in Faiths of Purity when discussing morale quandries and goblin babies.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Ilja, you're branding one side completely unfairly.

Marthkus has actually stated the "proper duel" thing, and more besides. Therefore, you're not exaggerating his side at all--you're portraying his side with utter seriousness. However, you are exaggerating the other side. I know it's hard to make Marthkus's position any more comical, but could you please try, for the sake of balance?

Never said "proper duel". You just have to act honorably. That includes not killing helpless creatures throwing themselves upon your mercy. There is a difference between what is honorable in a battle and what in honorable in a duel and what is honorable out-side of combat.

You are adding definitions to honorable above and beyond RAW. The Devs never made that distinction, nor beyond two or three things declared what was dishonorable.

Does a Paladin have to respect ladies and stand when they enter the room? What if the Paladin is female? What if the female is from a humanoid race not considered part of civilization?

Many European knights considered archery dishonorable, but it was ok of Samauri? What about Paladins?

You're making S**t up at this point that isn't in the rules. I've asked you several times to enumerate what you think this honor code allows and disallows and where you got it.

You havn't done so. It's not RAW as far as I know, unless you can prove otherwise.

Renitent Rover wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

He is above the law. He only has to abide legitimate authority. Again, not further defined. Clearly Evil based laws are out, as our demon princes (even though they are the ruler of their realms), but probably LN, N, NG and CG societies would be included as long as they did not conflict with his gods.

And again, how is he not? His god gave him the ability in order to have an impact, not to sit by and let some lazy, corrupt hillbilly court have the say.

A paladin cannot lead a rebellion or over-throw corrupt governments. He represents law and good. He cannot deny one to better serve the other.

He can try to reason with hillbilly court, but if their are no higher courts in the land that is all he can do.

He is requried in RAW to oppose corrupt laws and governments, with force if needed. It is not the Law that makes the Paladin, but Just Laws (why it's LG).

Are you trawling at this point, or is your understanding of the rules this muddled?

Paladin is not necessarily a legitimate authority. He must respect the laws of man along with those of his God. He cannot break the law, simply because he feels like it or views himself above the the law. At which point he breaks his code and falls.

He is above the law. He only has to abide legitimate authority. Again, not further defined. Clearly Evil based laws are out, as our demon princes (even though they are the ruler of their realms), but probably LN, N, NG and CG societies would be included as long as they did not conflict with his gods.

And again, how is he not? His god gave him the ability in order to have an impact, not to sit by and let some lazy, corrupt hillbilly court have the say.

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Scaevola77 wrote:

Also, I still want to know why Bill the Paladin/Inheritor's Crusader can lose all of his class abilities just because he used one of them on a guy guilty of serial murder.

If your interpretation of the rules ends up with a class losing all of its class abilities due to using one of its abilities in the intended way, you need to re-think your interpretation.

"punish those who harm or threaten innocents." Court mandated executions fall under the code. That is not the same as killing a defenseless prisoner where you are not the assigned executioner or Judge. A paladin cannot just take the law into his own hands.

Except it is not really a court mandated execution. It is a "we don't know if he is guilty or not. You there! Try to kill him using your god-granted powers that make you the perfect judge!"

He can only do that if a legitimate authority figure appoints him to do such.

But that's half the point, the Paladin is the legitimate authority figure, ordained by his god to make such judgments.

And you're still arguing that there is a difference between honorable action in combat vs a duel. By what honor code do you make this assertion?!? Show me the honor code in the rules that makes such a distinction. You're claiming it's dishonorable, by what standard? 16th century Italion dueling standards? 19th Century American dueling standards? Who picks the weapon, the challenger or the challenged? Who picks the location and time of the duel? Who decides how far to duel to satisfy honor (first touch, blood, or death)?

There's no blanket answer!

However there is for the law. The Paladin code says he must support it. If the law calls for execution, then the Paladin must support it.

Kamelguru wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Renitent Rover wrote:

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.

Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?

honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.

So...

- You cannot use ranged combat against someone who does not have a ranged weapon. Because that is an unfair advantage.

- You cannot use spells against a non-spellcaster, because that is unfair.

- You cannot use Lay on Hands when fighting an enemy without healing capability, because that is unfair.

- You cannot use a magical weapon against someone with a mundane weapon, because that is unfair.

- You cannot attack someone when you are buffed, or when they have been debuffed.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Fair is not the same as honorable. Please try again.

He doesn't really need to, he was using a bit of sarcasm to point out how your point wasn't supported by RAW. You are making an interpretation of honorable that is not supported by RAW. A Japanses samarai, a 17th Century British Naval officer, and a Teutonic knight would all have a very different understanding of what is honorable or not. The devs didn't define it, except for a couple of points, that leaves it up to this debate.

My point is that you should not be declaring your position is supported by RAW, as it's not. I think any GM should define such a codes for his Paladin in his home brew to some extent (or work with the player), but the rules don't give it.

My point about the prisoners stands. The RAW require the paladin to uphold the law and provide justice and combat evil. Executing a prisoner falls within the scope of this and ARE supported, if the means of adjudication were righteous (which a divinely provide class ability would be).

My point here takes some extrapolation or my part as well, but I believe my logic holds.

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Renitent Rover wrote:

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.

Wait . . . no sneak attack? All I see for examples of dishonor are lying, cheating and poison. Any rogues who have been successfully reformed and are now paladins must actively ignore all they know about anatomy so as not to be . . . cheating?

honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth). Lazy writing. But if you can argue that a sneak attack or a coup de grace a beaten opponent is honorable then go ahead.

Sure, two days ago, my Serenrae inquisitor is fighting an invisible cleric that keeps casting deathknell and making zombies. I can't find him, so I go after the unconscious before he puts more opponents in my way and using their deaths to make himself more powerful.

Renitent Rover wrote:

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Actually I'm just reading the rules. If poison and sneak attack are not allowed, then neither is a coup de grace or other attacks against a harmless creature.

If you're going to posit that your position is RAW, then you're missing a couple of points in your above statement.

1)Nowhere is sneak attack disallowed, or coup de grace, and an ambush is a perfectly acceptable combat tactic.
2) Poison is specifically mentioned (not sure why)
3) and your conclusion of "then..." is an extapolation of the rules, not "just reading the rules"

BIGGEST POINT- an execution is an act of justice, precipitated from the Paladin's position of authority to act as his diety's champion and arbiter within the scope of law. A properly executed execution is NOT an attack against a helpless opponent, but an extension of the law. It's not random or capricious, but done with forethought and after the Paladin renders judgement against them.

Also, to make more of a point, the code doesn't say he cannot attack helpless opponents (sleeping, stunned, held, ambushed, etc). It never makes any such claim. You are reading into what honorable means more than the rules.

It would be perfectly legitimate for the game to supply codes of conduct (like vows, orders etc) that spelled out more precisely what the behavior is...but you have no ground to claim you position comes from RAW. You are making an interpretation, predicated on a flawed understanding of what chivalric or clergy honor codes really demanded.

You can either base them on hisrtoric codes (in which case you're wrong), or you can base your Paladin code on a made up one. A perfectly legitimate way to proceed in your homebrew, but has no standing in RAW.

Renitent Rover wrote:

We've been over this whole stupid idea of "proper authorities" already.

a) No one is a better proper authority than a Paladin; especially in the absence of a respectable governing body.

Also, your other repeated argument keeps being that killing unarmed prisoners in evil. I ask again, how do LG societies execute people then???
b) That's an incredibly basic judicial action followed by societies througout history, some way to lawfully kill a criminal for the greater good.

Taking a) and b), killing prisoners is not only NOT dishonorable, it is often required by ANY PC trying to uphold law and justice, or work for the common good, but especially for a Paladin.

a) Is wrong.

b) I never said it was even, but it does break the paladin's code. Which is a step above most LG characters.

Killing prisoners is not the paladin's job.

A) is not wrong, another poster made a very good argument for why a Paladin would be the best judge. summary= if he's corrupt or makes the wrong desicion, he loses his powers, so after every adjudication, if he can still lay on hands, he made a good call.

His code requires him to uphold the law. You are making a declaration that killing prisoners is not honorable. That is flat wrong. Many honorable codes in history and literature allow (and even demand) the killing of prisoners. There is some form of Judgment that takes place (what we call a trial by jury in the USA today and due process), but that judgement can also be as simple as "detect evil".

The honor part of the code is very ambiguous, it only says the Paladin must act honorably at all times. You are the one that is declaring that it is not honorable to kill prisoners. The code never says that, and I completely disagree that it's dishonorable to kill prisoners. It can often be the right thing to do. It can also often be the wrong thing to do as well.

Our modern day convetion of treating prisoners of war with dignitiy and not harming them is relatively recent, and medieval chivalric orders and clergy certainly didn't have this requirement.

Again, you are taking a modern 21st century western ethics and imposing them on a game that is loosely drawn from medieval society.

Renitent Rover wrote:

Tippo Dakar wrote:

stuff...

We did argue the points, the three of us, in character. With the ninja and Balto pointing out that killing helpless individuals was the antithesis of 'good' and doing so without any due process or even evidence they'd committed 'evil' acts was the opposite of 'lawful'.

We did not prevail. The paladin reasoned that they (three morlocks and a drow) detected evil, they would perform evil acts if released, and it was therefore his duty to slay them (though he offered to do it in combat if we wanted to give them weapons; since it hardly could have been a fair fight, we didn't bite).

We backed down instead. I can't speak for the ninja, but Balto decided the consequences were on the head of the paladin and walked away.

In the end, the drow was spared because he bargained with the paladin - his life for information (so in fact, we, the party, finally have an inkling of what is going on in the module). The morlocks were killed out of hand without even being...

There was due process, the Paladin detected evil. That's enough. They are priests, or 5HD+. The got the evil aura from committing evil acts. His detection confirms it, and the law demands justice (execution). Now it didn't happen in a courtroom with a lawyer, but this isn't a CG society trying to live with each other.

The Paladin doesn't need some secular local beuracrat to empower him to enforce justice....his divine patron gives him that authority. He should work with them when they are available, and rendering justice as the Paly's god sees fit. But in their absence, or their malingering malfeasance, the Paly's god demands that his champion takes action.

IMO, most players tend to put modern day attitudes (and modern Western values of individual freedom) on their characters, which pushes most players' perception of morality closer to CG. We may live in modern rule-of-law societies, but they are societies that promote protection of individual freedoms like

...

I gotta continue to disagree. The game RAW declares that evil and good are definitive things. Morality is learned for most free thinking creatures, so evil learned to be evil, and good learned to be good. It takes actions (NOT thoughts) to become evil or good, therefore detecting as evil makes you already guilty.

IF, you disagree that morality is learned behavior, then redemption is not possible, and all evil should be killed outright as they can never become good.

Redemtion is a great idea, but even today hardly ever works. Almost 90% of our prison population is recidivists.

Paladins deliver justice for the greater good. Individual stories and fortunes take a back seat to the betterment, safety adn stability of the society as a whole.

Scaevola77 wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

Killing a helpless opponent is dishonorable. It doesn't matter what your deities tenets are.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features"

Your code supersedes commands from your deity. Even if you follow your deities commands, but break your code, you fall.

Should he have healed up the morlock, given it a weapon, and then slew it in combat? Why? The morlock likely has absolutely no chance winning, in which case you are setting up a farce combat in order to create a facade of honor. This almost seems evil to me, as you are deliberately setting up the morlock to suffer more.

He should take helpless creatures prisoner and turn them over to the proper authorities. Even if he give the morlock a sword. If the morlock does not try to fight the paladin, he can in no way honorably kill it.

We've been over this whole stupid idea of "proper authorities" already.

a) No one is a better proper authority than a Paladin; especially in the absence of a respectable governing body.

Also, your other repeated argument keeps being that killing unarmed prisoners in evil. I ask again, how do LG societies execute people then???
b) That's an incredibly basic judicial action followed by societies througout history, some way to lawfully kill a criminal for the greater good.

Taking a) and b), killing prisoners is not only NOT dishonorable, it is often required by ANY PC trying to uphold law and justice, or work for the common good, but especially for a Paladin.