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

RumpinRufus's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,225 posts (1,320 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

It's misleading to say "you can do this on every player's turn" because if you did that, only one player (the one who went just before) could use an immediate action to charge.

Whether you have 2 members or 6 members in the party, each one only gets to charge twice per round.

Like I said previously, draw a point in the center of your square, and then draw a point in the center of the square you're charging to. Then connect the two dots, and you've found any legal charge lanes. If the charge line crosses an edge, you get to pick which side of the edge your path will cross.

I feel like you are still ignoring the "directly toward" language. You are correct that the last charge you drew isn't legal, because it doesn't fit the "closest space from which you can attack" rule. The second-to-last diagram you drew fits the "closest space from which you can attack" rule, but it does not fit the "directly toward the designated opponent" rule.

And your ending squares for M is also faulty, because Punishing Kick requires you to move the opponent directly away from yourself. So to redraw your diagrams:

|__|__|M |__|__|
|__|__|1_|__|__| Initial setup

|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 charges M

|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 pushes back M; Player 2 gets an Immediate Action

|__|__|__|__|__| Player 2 charges M

|__|__|__|__|__| Player 2 pushes back M; Player 3 gets an Immediate Action

|__|__|__|__|__| Player 3 charges M

|__|__|__|__|__| Player 3 pushes back M; Player 1 gets an Immediate Action

|__|__|__|__|__| Player 1 charges M


(Not that I'm saying such charges are legal, but if you were allowed to charge to those squares and then you used Punishing Kick then that is where the enemy would end up.)

chb, you have the same problem claude does. In your example, 2 is not charging directly towards M.

To have a legal charge, he has to move directly towards the enemy, which means he'd end up in the square between 1 and M. (If it helps, to determine "directly toward" you can draw a point in the center of the enemy's square and a point in the center of the charger's square, and then a line connecting those two center points.)

So 2 would need to end his charge between 1 and M, and therefore he would need Dragon Style or something similar.

(On a side note, just a reminder that in your scenario, 3 has already used his immediate action, so if 2 charges on his turn then 3 cannot use Coordinated Charge. Each character can only get one extra attack per round.)

By your movement, you would never even run into the target.

How can it be "directly toward" something if the line you make would never even touch them?

If you were playing catch with a friend, and he threw the ball 5 feet to your left, and then yelled "Why didn't you catch that, I threw it directly toward you!" wouldn't you think he was a little bit crazy?

You are ignoring the fact it says "directly toward the designated opponent". Square 2 is not directly toward the opponent. Thus, the only legal ending space is square 1.

I'm not saying the "ending space" is the space the opponent is in, I'm saying the "ending space" by RAW must be straight toward the opponent.

I don't think that geometry works by RAW. You have to charge directly at the opponent.

Charge wrote:

Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge.

Let me try to draw a map:

O - opponent
1, 2, 3, etc. - empty squares
A - character that charges first
B - character that charges second

So by your geometry, after A charges, the board would look like this:


Now, because you can only move directly toward your opponent, B can now only charge to square 1. However, he cannot legally charge to 1 (unless he has a special exception like Dragon Style) because there exists a line from B's square to 1 that passes through A.

You would need a REALLY generous DM to let you use Punishing Kick on a lance attack.

I don't know if this crosses IC/OOC bounds, but I would say you should make the player revise the spell instead of making recommendations to him.

Because, if he wants to be an Eldritch Researcher, shouldn't he have enough mastery of the magic system to design a balanced spell?

So I would just go back to him and say "it's too powerful, try again." Or even more specific criticism like "Maximize Spell would make it too strong." But don't make suggestions, let him revise it.

I mean, he's supposed to be the one that's the Eldritch Researcher.

I think it's too much damage for such a good effect. Also, what happens if you don't know which spells they have up?

I think it should make the dispel check in the normal way, and do less damage. Because right now mechanically, this is much better than Hellfire Ray, which is a higher level spell.

Ugh, reading this thread is frustrating.

Whether or not class skills are a class feature, the effect of the class is just to provide the class skill bonus. Even if class skills are a class feature, the Sage sorcerer still uses Cha for Cha-based skills, because the class feature only affects the class skill bonus, not which stat the skill is based on.

I feel like people are talking past each other. You can't take two archetypes that affect skills, but that does not mean that the skills themselves are a class feature that is affected by Sage bloodline. Only the fact of whether the skill is a class skill is a "class feature".

RAW, the riposte definitely doesn't count as an AoO. It's an attack roll made as an immediate action.

The parry can arguably count as an AoO, because you make the attack roll "as if [you] were making an attack of opportunity."

Like GralphidB said, you only have one immediate action per turn. So at best, each character can use Coordinated Charge once.

Also, I don't see how the geometry works. Player 1 charges, uses Punishing Kick, and pushes the enemy away. But now for Player 2, their charge line to the enemy's previous square is blocked by Player 1.

I feel like both characters need to be in Dragon style (which, btw, is another swift action) for this to be even possible.

I don't think it's broken or anything. It's way too much set-up for a questionable payoff.

Mechanically, I would go with +1 to confirm the critical.

Also, make sure you take a hard look at Irrepresible when you're choosing traits.

Well, if it said "sorcerer levels count as brawler levels for the purposes of uses per day" then I would say you can add up your sorcerer levels and brawler levels. But how it reads is, "using her sorcerer level as her brawler level for the purposes of uses per day." There isn't anything, RAW, that says they add.

A agree, it's probably an oversight. I'm just warning you that if you are playing PFS, some GMs may take this stricter interpretation.

It's a very cool idea - it makes sense and I'd allow it.

By RAW, though, creatures are not items, so technically it may not be legal.

Activating a scroll is not casting a spell. So no, Arcane Concordance would not affect scrolls.

I don't know if there is an official ruling, but I would tend to assume the least beneficial interpretation - if there is no text saying they stack, then they overlap.

That is, you get used of 3 + (1/2)x(scrapper levels or brawler levels, whichever is higher). The two pools don't add together.

Then, when you get the Scrapper 9 or Brawler 6, you can get two feats at once instead of one.

Again, I don't know what the official rule is, but you should be prepared for GMs to rule like this. Usually when class features stack (like Sneak Attack) it says so explicitly. Without that kind of text, or a clarification or errata, I would assume that they overlap.

The rules make it explicit that you can touch a friend without a check with a touch spell. However, there is NOT anything that says you can make ranged touch attacks without a check.

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

It makes no sense that you could hit a friend when you wouldn't be able to hit the square they're standing in. There's also no provision in the rules for voluntarily lowering your AC.

As a house rule, it's reasonable to say that you could do something like subtract (instead of add) your Dex and dodge bonuses from you touch AC, if you want to "dodge into the way". But that would be a house rule. By RAW, if you want to hit someone with ranged touch (including if you used Reach Spell on a healing spell) you have to roll vs their touch AC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So if an alchemist wants to throw a bomb 100 ft at a square, he has to make an attack roll at a -8 to hit that square.

But if an ally is standing in that square 100 ft away, the alchemist can automatically hit that square every time?

Does that make sense to you?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are people arguing that no roll is needed to hit someone with a healing bomb?

Because you need to make a roll to hit an empty square with a bomb. There's no way it's easier to hit an ally than to hit the square they're standing it.

To hit someone with a healing bomb, you clearly need to make an attack roll. And there is no mechanism by RAW to voluntarily lower your AC. Thus, by RAW you need to make a ranged touch attack vs the ally's touch AC.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, we're obviously in home-rule territory.

By RAW, if your friend wants to hit you with a ranged touch attack, they must hit your touch AC.

As for house-rules, it is reasonable that you could forgo your dex bonus voluntarily against a ranged attack. As another house rule, it would be reasonable that if you lowered your AC like this, your opponent could take advantage of it (as they would know where and when to strike.)

Yep, the prices are for a set of 50.

With a touch spell, the enemy doesn't know exactly how, when, and where your friend will touch you.

With a ranged touch, though, the enemy can see it coming and knows where you'll be, and when.

Your opponent knows exactly where you'll be if you are purposely getting hit by something.

Since the enemy knows where you are going to be, he should be allowed to attack vs your flat-footed AC.

Have you seen the Feral Hunter archetype?

Has anyone said Magus?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well the thread title was "Optimising Bloodrager Unarmed Fighter."

Excuse me for suggesting ways to make the character stronger.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How could we have overlooked Fast Getaway:

Fast Getaway wrote:
After successfully making a sneak attack or Sleight of Hand check, a rogue with this talent can spend a move action to take the withdraw action. She can move no more than her speed during this movement.

This way, you can sneak attack the enemy who your buddy is flanking... and then run away! And if you are Order of the Cockatrice then you have to demand at least a fair share of the loot.

Wait, so is Symbol of Revelation not a trap either?

blackbloodtroll wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
EpicFail wrote:
everything a Rogue can do other classes can do as well without having its mechanical problems.
This is wrong. What other class can use the Intimidate skill to impart the Frightened condition?
Anyone with the Disheartening Display feat.

By using two full-round actions, instead of a free action.

I'd say go Daring Champion of the Order of the Cockatrice up to 4, at least to get the deeds (either that, or actually take Swashbuckler levels.)

Dodging Panache is great for Sir Robin. Someone 5-foot steps up to full attack you? Step away! The lion pounces on you? Step away! And Opportune Parry and Riposte will also help you save your lily-livered hide.

unforgivn wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
EpicFail wrote:
everything a Rogue can do other classes can do as well without having its mechanical problems.
This is wrong. What other class can use the Intimidate skill to impart the Frightened condition?
Barbarian can panic opponents with Intimidate using Dazzling Display and Terrifying Howl.

Panic them unless they make a Will save. A Rogue can frighten with no save, just an Intimidate check. And anyone who's ever made an Intimidate build knows that Intimidate is one of the easiest skills to completely max out.

Add to that that the barbarian has to use a standard action (as opposed to the rogue's immediate action or free action from Cornugon Smash or Enforcer,) and that once the barbarian fails he can't try it again (whereas the rogue can do it multiple times by adding 5 to the DC.)

EpicFail wrote:
everything a Rogue can do other classes can do as well without having its mechanical problems.

This is wrong. What other class can use the Intimidate skill to impart the Frightened condition?

No, you have someone cast Reduce Person on you and then cast Permanency.

It's not an item, no slot. The only catch is that you really don't want it to get dispelled after you blew almost 3k on it. Hopefully you don't have that cruel of a GM...

You can be permanently reduced for about 2,500 gp.

I think Irrepresible is just about as good of a trait as there could possibly be for a Swashbuckler. No wisdom? No problem!

Why human? Go Half-Orc if you are using natural weapons, to get a bite as well.

I would be tempted to go Blaster Sorcerer. Use your tails for social stuffs, blast away in combat.

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't you need Throw Anything in there somewhere?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You HAVE to go into the Low Templar prestige class.

It gives you the ability to Withdraw as a move action ("He bravely turned his tail and fled,") as well as the ability to switch sides when it's convenient.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, you can eat your bard with no penalty to your Leadership score! And there was much rejoicing!

Thug is also a strong and extremely-dippable archetype.

The Frightened condition is very strong, and it's easy to achieve as a free or swift action while still doing damage (Enforcer, Cornugon Smash, Intimidating Glare, Menacing Strike.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues still have some of the coolest abilities, IMO. Like the one a Charlatan gets at level 3:

Rumormonger wrote:
A rogue with this talent can attempt to spread a rumor through a small town or larger settlement by making a Bluff check. She can do so a number of times per week equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0). The DC is based on the size of the settlement, and it takes a week for the rumor to propagate through the settlement. If the check succeeds, the rumor is practically accepted as fact within the community; succeeding by 5 or more over the DC decreases the time it takes the rumor to propagate by 1d4 days. A failed check means the rumor failed to gain traction, while failing by 5 or more causes the opposite of the rumor or some other competing theory involving the rumor’s subject to take hold.

That's just cool, you gotta admit. Let's see your ninja do THAT!

Maneuver Master monk can also use Flurry of Maneuvers while wearing armor.

You still lose the monk AC bonus, and you need to get the armor proficiency elsewhere, but MM 1/Fighter 1 can flurry in full plate.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You do need 27 Fame before you can buy a +1 Agile rapier. So that's a long chunk of time if you're relying on the agile property for your damage.

Also, I think you might be overestimating Mobility if you are used to using it with a ninja. A ninja needs Mobility to get into flank. A swashbuckler gets nothing special from being in flank, so Mobility really isn't that important. On top of that, you will have a good Acrobatics skill and can supplement that with Derring-Do, so hopefully you won't be provoking when you move anyway.

If you are talking about how precious feats are, I would ditch Dodge and Mobility. Good for a ninja =/= good for a swashbuckler.

Unfortunately Jaunt Boots do not work with Dodging Panache. Dodging Panache is explicitly not a 5-foot step, and the Jaunt Boots only work with a 5-foot step.

My swashbuckler has Perform (sing), and uses it regularly. You don't need to be a bard to sing. It's already a class skill even.

1) Common sense would indicate that no, you can't parry an incorporeal creature, but by RAW it seems like you can.

2) No, there is nothing in Opportune Parry and Riposte that indicates that you are making an AoO, only that you expend the use of one.

If you post question (1) by itself in a post below I will FAQ it, but I think question (2) is clear as written.

Even a nat 20 can be parried by a swashbuckler, if the swashbuckler rolls really well and has huge bonuses to hit. It's just unlikely that that would happen.

1 to 50 of 1,225 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.