Scott Wilhelm's page

Organized Play Member. 5,392 posts (5,396 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,392 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mallecks wrote:
The list of teamwork feats was just to show that if you all "yourself" to count as an ally for all teamwork feats, then there isn't a need to call many of them teamwork feats. They 100% work by themselves in every instance without an ally requirement, because you fulfill the ally requirement.

Okay, so you produced a list of Teamwork Feats that one might use alone invoking the you-count-as-your-own-ally rule. And invoking that rule on these Feats is so bad for the game, then it is obvious that you can't do it? That is my best guess at your thesis.

You and Wall of Flesh wrote:
Wall of Flesh wrote:
When adjacent to an ally with this feat, you’re considered one size category larger for determining CMD and the way combat maneuvers and abilities affect you.
You are your own ally and you are always adjacent to yourself.

The rules, iirc, do say that you are adjacent to the square you are in, and the rules say that you count as your own ally. I don't think you can be adjacent to yourself though. And I think that trying to argue that you can be would be a case of this being what the Paizo FAQ would call "make no sense." That being said, I hardly think this would be a game-breaker. It would mean a Size Small character can take a Feat and get a +1 virtual size bonus to his CMD. Whatever.

Mallecks wrote:
Allied Spellcaster wrote:
Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +2 competence bonus on level checks made to overcome spell resistance. If your ally has the same spell prepared (or known with a slot available if they are spontaneous spellcasters), this bonus increases to +4 and you receive a +1 bonus to the caster level for all level-dependent variables, such as duration, range, and effect.

This one is egregious, as you are not only ALWAYS getting the benefit of the teamwork feat, you are ALWAYS getting the improved part of it that has harsher requirements.

Because you are your own ally, you are always adjacent to yourself, and you are casting the same spell that you are casting.

Again, I think that the requirement that you be adjacent to yourself empowers the GM to impose the makes-no-sense rule.

Remember what the FAQ says: you count as your own ally, and "your ally" almost always means "you and your ally"

So, if [you and your] ally have the same spell prepared, this bonus increases to +4. That sounds like how a Teamwork Feat is supposed to work to me.

So, I'd say that the fact that you would have to be adjacent to yourself falls afoul of the make-no-sense rule, and the you-and-your-ally rule doesn't hurt anything. So if you were allowed to use this Feat alone, what would it give you? At the cost of 1 Feat, you get a +2 at overcoming Spell Resistance. Again, whatever. That's far from eggregious.


Cavall wrote:
Not attacking your person

Yes, you are!

You wrote:
players are using the system to play the game, and you're using the system to play the system.

That is an attack on my person. Keep your conjectures about my gaming style to yourself. I have told you what my motivations are. That should be good enough for you.

You wrote:
But you're so unwilling to be wrong you're missing the fact

This is not an argument about the rules. This nothing but a personal remark. Keep your personal remarks to yourself.

Cavall wrote:

"I can't be wrong even by the company who wrote the book because I'm misquoting the book in a way that I alone perceive as right by the company that wrote the book"

And lastly "Here is everything that contradicts me" becomes "nothing contradicts me."
It's like talking to Sheldon Cooper without the laugh track to tell us it's supposed to be funny.

There's no rules debate in anything you're saying here. You're just criticizing my style.

I showed you the designer's rules quote and the real rules quote side-by-side, and they didn't match. Your response to that is to insult me.

Cavall wrote:
(Scott thinks I in Team)... And the really sad thing is that of they were to come into this thread to confirm This, Scott would claim this as a victory because his way of thinking forced them to reevaluate the while thing to change the system. Klar armour spikes typo all over again where in his reality there's no chance he can be wrong.

Dude, this is nothing but personal attacks. Granted, the one where you predicted I will see any ruling that they make will be seen as my personal victory is true, and the Klar Armor Spikes thing is a good example of that, those are still personal attacks. I am not engaging in personal attacks. Not because I don't have things to say, but because I do!

I don't like your personal remarks, but really the person they are dimishing is yourself. You've been setting up your arguments, and I've been knocking them down. Now you are you're just flinging little barbs: you are telling us that you out of real arguments.

You are admitting defeat.


CricketK wrote:
I am taking a stab at being a Hunter.

How important is it that you be a Hunter? You want Dex. You want Flanking. You want Sneak Attack Damage and Disable Devices. Does it have to be a Hunter? Are there any classes that are off-limits to you?

I see Human. What about other Races? What Races are you willing/allowed to be?

CricketK wrote:
I don't know anything about multi classing, I read that it can really hurt your BAB to multi class.

I haven't found it hurts your Attack Bonus necessarily. It usually hurts your Caster Level. And if you like high-level Class Abilities, kiss them good-bye.

Multiclassing can be awesome if you are building a character upon the accumulation of bonuses and Feats rather than the attainment of high-level class abilities. I love multiclassing: a Feat here, a level 1 ability there, the ability to use some magic wand, and you just might have something awesome.

I have some ideas for characters that do lots of Sneak Attack Damage where you should be able to be good at roguish stuff.


Mallecks wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Mallecks wrote:
Scott, please provide the rule that says I don't start the game with a Ring of Three Wishes.

Really?

Starting Equipment wrote:
Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment. As a character adventures, he accumulates more wealth that can be spent on better gear and magic items. Table: Starting Character Wealth lists the starting gold piece values by class. In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less. For characters above 1st level, see Table: Character Wealth by Level.

How much each character gets to start with is on a table which doesn't cut and past properly, so follow the link.

Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers start out with the most, 175gp on average. A ring of 3 Wishes has a listed market price of 120,000gp.

Plus there are rules regarding availability of magic items based on community size. I'm not very familiar with those rules.

Mallecks, I was really hoping you had a real point to make. On you last post, you gave us a big list of Teamwork Feats. You seemed to be building to some kind of thesis. I was asking you for clarification.

And now you come up with this? Was there really no point to all those Feats you linked to? Do you really have no real arguments to make?

I'm disappointed.

Oh, it's a worhtless ring of three wishes that costs 0 GP but still have three wishes in it.

Mallecks, any rule you want to make up to play with in your own campaign, go to it, and God bless. It might be fun, and I hope you do have fun.

I'm using this thread to discuss what the published rules of this game say and what they mean to the Pathfinder game and the PFS community.

Honestly, that stuff you were on about Ambush Squad, Wall of Flesh, Stick Together: that seemed like good stuff. You gave me the feeling that you had something real to say. But I do want more clarification from you before I start analyzing each and every little one, because the argument lacks direction, and if I try to rebut what you are trying to say, without knowing what you are trying to say, my rebuttal will lack direction, too.

Would you please expand on what you were getting at when you mentioned all those Teamwork Feats?


Cavall wrote:
The real truth of it players are using the system to play the game, and you're using the system to play the system. Even to the point you're willing to say the system itself is wrong in order to be "right".

Cavall, my playing style is not the topic of this discussion. My person is not being offered as evidence. Attacking my person does nothing to diminish the truth I am reporting on.


Mallecks wrote:
Scott, please provide the rule that says I don't start the game with a Ring of Three Wishes.

Really?

Starting Equipment wrote:
Each character begins play with a number of gold pieces that he can spend on weapons, armor, and other equipment. As a character adventures, he accumulates more wealth that can be spent on better gear and magic items. Table: Starting Character Wealth lists the starting gold piece values by class. In addition, each character begins play with an outfit worth 10 gp or less. For characters above 1st level, see Table: Character Wealth by Level.

How much each character gets to start with is on a table which doesn't cut and past properly, so follow the link.

Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers start out with the most, 175gp on average. A ring of 3 Wishes has a listed market price of 120,000gp.

Plus there are rules regarding availability of magic items based on community size. I'm not very familiar with those rules.

Mallecks, I was really hoping you had a real point to make. On you last post, you gave us a big list of Teamwork Feats. You seemed to be building to some kind of thesis. I was asking you for clarification.

And now you come up with this? Was there really no point to all those Feats you linked to? Do you really have no real arguments to make?

I'm disappointed.


thaX wrote:

"The rules don't say that I can't..."

Never a way to read the rules.

Oh, I think I disagree with you philosophically, here. Pathfinder is a fantasy roleplaying game. It is a game with no object and no end: you are collaborating with other players and a referee to tell a cool story together. You precisely are suppose to be able to do whatever you want within the context of the game and the rules. If the rules don't say you can't, then you totally can!

Whether or not you should is a different matter. If, as I believe you are suggesting, that what the rules say is creating a situation where players are empowered to do things they shouldn't, then they should change the rules.


I'm not sure, but I think if you are wearing a Ring of Freedom of Movement, you cannot put the Grappled Condition upon yourself, not even by Grappling others. There are ways of Grappling others without putting the condition on yourself: Grab Ability, White Hair, Spells like Web, etc.


Cavall wrote:
Once again, it's not that it's an optional rulr.

Yes, it is. The rule system is optional. The understanding that the rules option is based on is also optional.

Cavall wrote:
potion glutton... the reason for the errata being... being the core rules were counter to it. That isn't the case here

Yes, it is. The Combat Trick for Broken Wing Gambit is counter to the core rules.

Cavall wrote:
Mark has stated teamwork feats DO require teammates.

Mark has not officially changed the Core Rules. Mark demonstrated his understanding of the rules is flawed.

Mark Seifter is a designer, so his opinion is better evidence than my opinion is. But my opinion is not being offered as evidence at all! My opinion is based on evidence. My opinion is based on what the rules really say. Mark's isn't.

Wonderstell wrote:
You... claim designers of the game don't know the rules they quote.

I'm making an extraordinary claim, but I have extraordinary evidence.

Mark Seifter quoting the rules wrote:
"...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat"
what Teamwork Feats really wrote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat

This is not a rule that says you need allies to take your Teamwork Feats for you to use them. Mark clearly thinks it is, but it isn't. He can change the rules to make it so, but he hasn't. He created on an optional set of rules based on his understanding, but there's nothing here to say that his understanding is any less optional than his optional rules.

Cavall wrote:
Scott is wrong. 100%. And on no point is he valid for this rule. His only defense is to bring up things that were already errata and say "remember this rule before errata?"

My defense is what the rules say. If you could demonstrate with the rules that I'm am wrong, I would publicly admit to it. I wouldn't go all CAPS LOCK and throw out personal remarks. In my opinion, that stuff amounts to a pretty graceless way of admitting your wrong.

So we have

1. The Broken Wing Gambit feat that says, "it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat."

2. And we have the Paizo FAQ that says, "You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible."

3. That calls for a test. Is it nonsensical or impossible in BWG? Let's look: "it provokes attacks of opportunity from [you and] your allies who have this feat." That's not nonsensical nor impossible.

4. We have people who say that the fact that BWG is a Teamwork Feat makes it nonsensical and impossible. But there is nothing found in the rules to justify that.

4a: There is a statement in the description of Teamwork Feats that says they mostly require allies to take your Teamwork Feat, too. But no rule that says you have to have with all Teamwork feats. There is no justification in either the description of Teamwork Feats nor in the description of Broken Wing Gambit that justifies ignoring the Paizo FAQ.

4b: There is a optional rule that you can play it that way.

So, it's clearly controversial. It's probably not what the PDT wanted, but someone that takes Broken Wing Gambit and claims his Attacks of Opportunity without allies is apparently technically correct to do so.

And technically correct is the best kind of correct!


I wrote:
Yes. You can have both the Snakebite Striker and Strangler Archetypes at the same time.

I might have been mistaken. Both Archetypes change your Class Skills. Somebody was saying that is a dealbreaker.


Cavall wrote:

Regardless of the stamina system being optional, the fact it changes a system already in place for broken wing gambit by allowing you to also be part of the AoO is proof the original feat does not and had not ever considered you to be part of the AoO is not optional.

It's like reading a feat that allowed standard action charge and saying that it's not proof you couldn't have done that anyways.

No, optional rule systems don't change the existing rules. Admittedly, these optional rules were written with an understanding of how the rules work that is different from how I'm saying they work. But I'm not making up what the rules say. I'm reporting on what the rules say.

I have a counter example for you. Do you remember the Potion Glutton Feat? It used to allow you to drink any potable as a Swift Action. And it had a Normal section, too. It said that normally, drinking a potion was a Move Action. Well, that actually was an official feat part of the official rules, and it has always been Pathfinder Society Legal. And nobody seriously considered that Normal section of the Feat description to represent an actual update to the rules. Nobody I know of, that is. Did you?

Declaring that Potion Glutton updated the rules by changing the normal act of drinking a potion from a Standard Action to a Move Action is more compelling than Combat Tricks changing Broken Wing Gambit. At least Potion Glutton was an official rule.


Mallecks wrote:

Hey, what about Ambush Squad? You are in your own square and you are your own ally, so you should get a move and a standard, right?

Same for any of the ones that grant bonuses for being adjacent. Why would they even be labelled teamwork feats? They will always work for one creature, no need to even label it a teamwork feat.

You're throwing a lot of stuff at me. And I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Wonderstell wrote:
There's no semblance of game balance in what you propose is true. At all.

Is this what you are trying to say? That I have discovered an oversight in the rules that throws off game balance?

If you are right, that what I'm saying throws off game balance, that doesn't make me wrong. That means I've discovered a problem with the rules, and I'm calling attention to it so that it can be fixed.

Wonderstell wrote:
There's no RAI to support your claim.

I don't think it is usually useful to speculate about what the designers intended, but I pretty much agree that it is probable that the PDT intended and believed that Teamwork Feats require allies with the Feat. But that requirement is just not in the description of Teamwork Feats in language anything like strong enough to be considered a rule.

The problem with this is that we are paying customers. We pay them. They work for us. If they want our money, then they owe us a reliable product. We are not responsible for what they meant to say. They are responsible for what they did say.

And boys and girls, try to remember that I didn't create any problems, here. Perhaps I found one.


Danzibe1989 wrote:

In the middle of typing everything up (again), I started to have a slight realization about something. Is it worth it to have the animal companion? Is it better to just wildshape? The more i read other posts in his, the more nobody mentioned the Animal Company being WITH me, always replaced. Is this because the druids with Animal Companions have to focus more on the Companion rather than themselves?

I can see the point of not having one: Less time taking up the turn, you don't have to worry about a 2nd character, you don't need 2x the gear and items to make it just as good as you if not better. If you shapeshift in to the same thing as it, why have it when you're better than it?

I don't do Animal Companions. To my experience, they are just something for the GM to kill when he doesn't want to kill you. Plus, when you multiclass like I do, levels in classes that don't have Animal Companions do not advance your AC, and your poor animal falls behind.


Kristal Moonhand wrote:
You don't count as your own ally for Teamwork Feats.
Kristal Moonhand wrote:
pointed out that Combat Trick] When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also.
Kristal Moonhand wrote:
Now why would that Combat Trick exist if you counted as your own ally for this feat?

Now, that is further evidence, but it is failing further evidence.

Kristal Moonhand wrote:
Combat Tricks are part of the Stamina rules.

Both Combat Tricks and the Stamina rules they are a part of are an alternative rule set. They are not part of the official rules. They are not allowed in Pathfinder Society. A GM might adopt these alternative rules just like he might adopt Armor as DR, 3rd party published materials, or any of a variety of other things.

It does imply an intent to the rules, and therefore a disconnect between the intent and the actual. That's why I re-opened this debate.


Wonderstell wrote:
Maybe that 'in most cases' doesn't refer to the 'ally who also possesses the feat' part of the sentence? Just maybe.... The point I'm trying to make is that the 'subject' of the sentence is clearly implicit, so the 'in most cases' argument is built on the basis that we disregard the intention of the authors.

The subject of the sentence is "These Feats."

Teamwork Feats wrote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield.

The verb is "require." The thing that requires is "feats." "feats" is the subject. "These" is an adjective modifying "feats."

"In most cases" is a prepositional phrase being used as an adverb to modify "require." It isn't an in-most-cases feat; it's in an in-most-cases requirement, or rather how do the feats require? They require in most cases.

"ally" is the direct object. What do these feats require? They require an ally.

What is "who also possesses the feat"? A subordinate clause. What does it modify? Well, ally. What kind of ally is it required? An ally who also possesses the feat, that's what kind. "to be positioned" is an infinitive phrase being used as an adjective to modify ally. What kind of ally? An ally to be positioned. "on the battlefield is a prepositional phrase being used as an adverb to modify "to be positioned."

Wonderstell, I disagree with you. Both "who also possesses the feat" and "to be positioned" independently modify "ally." "In most cases" is a prepositional phrase being used as an adverb to modify "requires," the verb of the sentence.

The entire object of the sentence, our ally, is only required in most cases. That means it is not a rule that makes it nonsensical nor impossible for "your ally" in Broken Wing Gambit to mean "you and your ally." Failing further evidence, I don't see how it doesn't.


LordKailas wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Then be a Snakebite Striker. I don't see the appeal of Strangler.

Both give sneak attack and when based around a grappling build that sneak attack damage will outstrip a normal rogue. What's more it allows you to grapple while still threatening the area around you which could be quite devastating with something like kraken style. Since you're always considered to be flanking anyone you grapple.

Besides at higher levels it gives you a save or die ability with a save based on str or dex, one of which should be your primary stat.

I'm not sure why it would be unappealing, unless you were taking it and for some reason NOT planning on grappling opponents.

I'll tell you why Strangler isn't for me.

Stranglers lose the Unarmed Strike Ability, which means that they don't get Improved Unarmed Strike, and you need that for Improved Grapple.

Stranglers get Sneak Attack, but only when prosecuting a Grapple. But neither the Grappled nor Pinned conditions award you Sneak Attack Damage normally. Can Stranglers even do Sneak Attack Damage just for that, and if they can, what if they also take levels in Ninja or Rogue? Do they get all their SAD or just their Strangler SAD?

Personally, Sneak Attack is far from my preferred way to prosecute a Grapple, and prosecuting a Grapple is my least favored way to lock in Sneak Attack Damage. Snakebite Strikers get that Snake Feint ability, which makes it easier to for them to get SAD by Feinting. Bounty Hunter Slayers get an ability like Quick Dirty Tricks, which you can use to Blind your opponents. Take 3 levels in Bard with the Flame Dance Archetype, carry an Eversmoking Bottle, and you make all your opponents Blind, but you and your Allies can see just fine. Ninja Vanishing Trick makes you Invisible. Take a level in Arcanist and you get a 10' Teleport, perfect for Flanking.

If I were making a character that inflicted Damage with Grappling, I would get Constrict or wear Armor Spikes. I'd get the Grab Ability, White Hair, or Hamatula Strike, things that give you free Grapple checks with every attack, then release every grapple as a Free Action after inflicting my damage.

If I were making a character that would prosecute a Grapple, my preferred method is to take 2 levels in Cavalier, Order of the Penitent and Tie Up opponents.


Then be a Snakebite Striker. I don't see the appeal of Strangler.


Wonderstell,

I'm not trying to snub you. I intend to give your arguments proper attention soon.


Kristal Moonhand wrote:
You don't count as your own ally for Teamwork Feats. The whole point is that you're teaming up with someone.

Nothing I am saying contradicts that.

I wrote:
Broken Wing Gambit does work much better when you have Teammates that have the Feat even conceding that it works when you are alone: in the case that it works when you are alone doesn't make it not a Teamwork Feat.
Kristal Moonhand wrote:
EDIT: Also, take a look at the Combat Trick for BWG:
Combat Trick wrote:
When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also.
Now why would that Combat Trick exist if you counted as your own ally for this feat?

The Combat Tricks section of Pathfinder Unchained is not PFS legal, and strict RAW interpretaion of the rule only is nececessary for PFS. In any other context, I'd just ask the GM and design my character accordingly.

Mark Seifter, the author of your evidence, wrote this with a flawed understanding of the rules.

Mark Seifter wrote:
"...these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat"

He leaves out a crucial piece of the evidence.

Teamwork Feats wrote:
In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat

(Look Wonder, no period!)

"In most cases" makes this sentence not a blanket rule that creates a demanding condition on Broken Wing Gambit. Mark was reading meaning into Teamwork Feats that was not actually in the source material based on an imperfect memory or imprecise analysis of what the rules actually say. This is probably one of the reasons why the Combat Trick rules are not PFS legal in the first place.

Cavall wrote:
I think that is pretty much conclusive evidence Scott is incorrect.

No, but it is evidence that that is they way the writers meant for Teamwork Feats to work, but they failed to word their intentions strongly enough to make their intentions actual rules. That is part of the reason why I am re-starting this debate. I am calling for a clarification or an erratum.

Kristal Moonhand wrote:
If you want to provoke yourself with BWG, you need to have Solo Tactics and Paired Opportunists.

I actually do have a character build that does that, but the reason I have him taking PO is to get Attacks of Opportunity off of Greater Bull Rush. Still, taking PO sooner than later is solid advice. It had previously been my intention to take Combat Reflexes simultaneously with BWG, but as Mallecks pointed out, that +2 only applies to 1 attack, and that means my character wouldn't benefit from CR at that stage anyway.

It certainly appears that what I'm saying is controversial. This is a problematic disconnect between what the rules actually say and the game designers meant to say. That is a recipe for bitter arguments at Pathfinder Society tables. Again, this is why I am re-starting this debate. I think there should be some sort of clarification or erratum.

Mark Seifter and all of you at the Pathfinder Design Team, I call upon you to acknowledge that the rules do indeed allow you to use Broken Wing Gambit without allies or officially change the rules so that we can't.

proposed erratum wrote:
In most cases, These feats require an ally who also possesses the feat


Danzibe1989 wrote:
As for multiclassing, I mean that I probably wouldn't go into another class other than Druid/Barb unless...ya know...Rage Prophet? But that seems not so helpful and more detrimental to the idea. EDIT: Scratch that, it requires Oracle. But would still be detrimental

Let's map something out a little.

You are a Half Orc Barbarian. You take the Toothy Racial Trait for your Bite. You take Lesser Beast Totem at level 2.

The you start taking levels in Warpriest. At level 3, you take Sympathetic Rage, gifting Rage you all your Allies. And now you can cast Cleric Spells, so you can cast some soothing healing spell on yourself to alleviate your Fatigue for when you come out of Rage. You worship that Evil Dragon God--Dahak, I think--so you also get the lesser Blessing of Destruction another global +1 Damage. His Favored Weapon is Bite, and you take Weapon Focus Claws. Half Orc Barbarian Warpriest of Destruction is a very coherent artistic composition: everyone at the gaming table will be picking up what you're putting down.

You need to take that Warpriest Archetype that has a Bonus Teamwork Feat and Tactician, Divine Commander, I think. Amplified Rage is a Teamwork Feat, so for this to work, you need Tactician or something.

In 2 more levels, your Sacred Weapon Damage is 1d8. I'd dip a level in White Haired Witch somewhere in there, and get another attack, but that's just me. If you are thinking of Goliath Druid, you are thinking Giant Humanoid, so why not then just dip into the Prestige Class Living Monolith and get Enlarge Person as a SLA?

Or just go Druid. In 4 levels on Druid, get your Wild Shape and Shaping Focus, and you are a Raging Dinosaur. It would take more levels to realize than Living Monolith, but the payback will be awesome.


Wonderstell wrote:
I did consider not posting. But it seems as if I'm a weaker person than I thought.

I kind of thought it was a shame that we weren't continuing our debate publicly, but in the thread we were debating in earlier, the OP really didn't want us there, anymore. I'm glad to continue our debate in an appropriate public forum.

Wonderstell wrote:
Ultimate Combat, Teamwork Feats wrote:
Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. Teamwork feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met.
Telephone calls wrote:
Telephone calls are a wondrous thing, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, a call requires a friend who also possesses a phone to be connected to a landline. Telephone calls are not possible if the listed conditions are not met.
Maybe that 'in most cases' doesn't refer to the 'ally who also possesses the feat' part of the sentence? Just maybe.

Also, you're the only one I know who is making a grammatical argument, making your argument something of a collector's item, and I do so want the whole set!

In the counter example you are making, "in most cases" really seems to me to refer to both posessing a phone and for that phone to be connected to a landline. At least, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't. In most cases, you have to possess the phone. If you are cooking, and your hands are full, and somebody else places the the receiver to your ear and says, "Say hi to my girlfriend!" and you say, "Hi Bob's girlfriend!" you are using a phone when you are not in possession of it, even though in most cases, you would be. There was a time when in most cases the phone would be a land line, which is no longer the case. But that isn't the point. My point is that "In most cases" can totally refer either to phone possession or line-landedness.

But remember that what any grammatical ambiguities here really means is that the description of Teamwork Feats in Ultimate Combat cannot be used as justification for dismissing the FAQ declaring that "your ally" means (almost always) "you and your ally." And BWG itself doesn't make it nonsensical nor impossible, either.


Mallecks wrote:

I think that you would actually need an ally to get the rest to work properly.

The opponent triggers AoO because he is focused on you and your teammates were prepared for it. It doesn't make sense to me that you would get the jump on him too.... he's focused on you.

Now you are raising a second issue, or maybe you are just making me think of one. Even if you did require an ally to use Broken Wing Gambit, "your allies" still might mean "you and your allies." meaning that if you were attacked, you and your allies that have this feat would get an attack of opportunity. For this, too, I don't see where the rules prevent this.

Set aside the big question. Let's say you and 4 allies have Broken Wing Gambit. You hit someone. You give the +2. They attack you. The Feat says "your allies" get an Attack of Opportunity. And the FAQ says you also count as your own ally. Why shouldn't you get an Attack of Opportunity, too? As far as I can tell, the rules say you should.

Mallecks wrote:
The "if the opponent attacks with that bonus" line is basically designating that it only works on the first attack against you, not every attack that round.

That is actually an issue I don't think has been brought up.

Broken Wing Gambit wrote:
grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first.

That does sound like a duration to me, too. That would mean that the victim only gets 1 Attack with a +2/ Team member that uses the Feat, and that each Team Member only gets 1 attack per use of the +2. It would be rather catastrophic if the poor fellow used Whirlwind Attack...


Cavall wrote:

That FAQ answer about being your ally makes sense... I mean to cast spells, bard songs, etc.

But teamwork is team work. And the FAQ is clear that in some cases it IS impossible to be your own ally. Teamwork being that case.

But as I demonstrated, Broken Wing Gambit does work much better when you have Teammates that have the Feat even conceding that it works when you are alone: in the case that it works when you are alone doesn't make it not a Teamwork Feat.

The FAQ doesn't say that it's just about spells and songs. Why do you say it? Where in the rules does it say that this FAQ only refer to spells and songs?

I don't see where in the rules it says that Teamwork Feats is one of those cases. I'm asking you to find it in the rules.


Cavall wrote:

Scott, if you always count as tour own ally for team work feats, then it wouldn't say "In most cases" it would say "In no case whatsoever"

Which is the only proof needed to show you're incorrect.

Uh, no.

Even in the case of Broken Wing Gambit, there is a tremendous benefit to having multiple allies with this Feat. If any team member with this feat is attacked, then every member gets an attack of opportunity.

Just because it works when you are alone doesn't make it not a Teamwork Feat.

But the fact that it says "in most cases" does mean that the description of Teamwork Feats does not seem to have any blanket requirement that you have allies with the Feat.

It's an interesting argument, though: analyze each Teamwork Feat on a case-by-case basis. If the majority fail to require allies with the Feat with Battlefield positioning, then _________?


I'm bothered that Druids can never grow more than 2 sizes bigger with Wild Shape. Paizo seems to really hate letting anyone grow more than 2 sizes in any way, but they don't even let Mythic Druids Wildshape into Gargantuan or Colossal creatures. I mean this is what EVERYBODY that ever played a Druid wants to be!

C'mon Paizo, give us your blessing. Let it happen!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And since we are already necroing, I might as well use this thread to continue another argument I was having with some other people. It's more appropriate here than it was there.

Claxon wrote:
two people need to pick it up

That's technically not true. I mean, yeah, it says

Broken Wing Gambit wrote:
it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

And it doesn't say "you and your allies."

But there is an FAQ about Allies.

FAQ wrote:
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."

Within the context of the description of Broken Wing Gambit, it isn't nonsensical nor impossible.

Broken Wing Gambit make-sense test wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from [YOU AND] your allies who have this feat.

There is nothing there that would make it so that you would have to be 2 people or have to be in 2 places at once or anything like that. You leave yourself open to attack, but it's a trap. It sure is a worse trap if you have allies that are in on it, too, but I don't see any actual rules that say it only works with allies.

There have been a lot of people that say that the simple fact that BWG is a Teamwork Feat means that counting as your own ally for Broken Wing Gambit must be nonsensical and impossible. But I haven't found anything in the rules that says you have to have allies with a Teamwork Feat in order to use it. The closest thing I found in the rules was this.

Ultimate Combat, Teamwork Feats wrote:
Teamwork feats grant large bonuses, but they only function under specific circumstances. In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat to be positioned carefully on the battlefield. Teamwork feats provide no bonus if the listed conditions are not met.

There's no rule there that says you need allies with your feat. All there is is a description of how most of these Feats go. There is nothing in this description of Teamwork Feats that justifies dismissing as nonsensical or impossible counting "your allies" as "you and your allies" in Broken Wing Gambit. And, as I have shown, there is nothing like that in the description of Broken Wing Gambit itself, either. So, where is it?

I think that most people are reading something into the rules regarding Teamwork Feats that just isn't there. In other words, the Emperor is naked.

Am I wrong? Is there some other rule somewhere else?

Of course, there is validity to the notion that you play a game a certain way, because that's the way the game is played. And any independent GM can make any ruling he wants. But Pathfinder Society Players are supposed to be able to play they way they want to as long as it is legal (and they aren't being jerks), and Pathfinder Society GMs are supposed to be bound by what the rules really say. If a GM is using non-rules to justify ruining a perfectly-legal character, then it is the GM who is being a jerk.

Also, it seems to me that maybe the situation is that almost everyone in PFS is interpreting the rules wrong, and if that is the case, maybe an erratum is needed.


Danzibe1989 wrote:
I've seen the Monktopus.... I do not wish to create that

I understand that, but it's still a special kind of awesome, though, isn't it?

Danzibe1989 wrote:
Though combining barb feats and druid feats will be tough.

Ah, I don't think it will be that much of a problem. Rage Powers should work just fine with Wild Shape. There are only a couple of essential Druid Feats: Shaping Focus and Natural Spell, and a couple of Barbarian Feats: Sympathetic Rage and Amplified Rage. They all enhance different things. You get Rage Powers at even levels and Feats at odd levels: it should be fine.

Danzibe1989 wrote:
I'd like to think of the barbarian rage as the fury of the animal you inhabit, nature's anger, etc etc.

Oh yeah! I am so there! I don't think that anything says Nature's Fury like a Huge, Raging Dinosaur with Claws Bite and Gore!

Danzibe1989 wrote:
I don't think Sacred Weapon will work how you want it to; You first need a god who's favored weapon is Natural Weapon

No, you also can activate the Sacred Weapon Ability with the Weapon Focus Feat. But the Green Initiates (I think that's the name.) have as as Favored Weapons any Natural Weapon a Druid might get with Wild Shape, Apsu and Dahak (Again, not 100% about the names, those Dragon gods.) have Bite as Favored Weapons.

Danzibe1989 wrote:
and then your size does not alter the Sacred Weapon damage dice

Sure it does.

Warpriest wrote:
The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–14; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests.

You could argue that Lead Blades wouldn't work: Lead Blade make your weapon inflict damage as if the weapon were 1 size bigger. But if YOU are bigger, you do inflict more damage. And with Wildshape, it is you who is getting bigger. Furthermore, Strong Jaw also works with Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage, under the influence of Strong Jaw, your Natural Attacks inflict damage as if you were 2 sizes bigger. So, Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage totally sizes up with the Warpriest.

Danzibe1989 wrote:
Personally I don't like to level into more than 1 other class unless its to prestige into something requiring, as i find spreading oneself too thin makes you....kinda useless, and i especially can't stand 1 level dips that have no meaning.

I am quite confident that this character would be devastating and the opposite of useless, but if you like lots of multiclassing, then my Druidzilla build is totally not for you.

Danzibe1989 wrote:
You've given me a few things to think on though for sure, and things to look at.

That's all I was hoping for.


The original Monktopus build put forth by Lord Markov combined levels in Barbarian, Monk, and Druid. Some of his ideas are no longer legal.

I've been thinking of ways of combining Druid and Barbarian. There are a lot of 'shapes a Druid can Polymorph into that give a lot of Natural Attacks, and the Barbarian Rage Power gives you a +4 Strength which grants a +2 Attack and Damage on all those Natural Attacks. Seems kind of awesome.

I've also been thinking that Druid/Warpriest would be a powerful combiniation. You apply your increasing Sacred Weapon Damage to your Natural Attacks, then Grow 2 Sizes bigger when you Wildshape, and maybe buff yourself with Strong Jaw giving yourself another 2 sizes bigger for Damage.

The Triceratops Gore Attack does a lot of damage even for its Size, but it doesn't get any other Attacks. But Barbarians can get Claws and a Bite as Rage Powers, so I'm thinking that if you took 4 levels in Barbarian, and took those Rage Powers, then took 4 levels in Druid and took Shaping Focus, you can Wildshape into a Triceratops that also gets Claws and a Bite in addition to the Gore. What's next? A level in White Haired Witch and also get a Hair Attack, of course! Then take levels in Warpriest.

It's cliché, but Half Orc Barbarian. Take Sympathetic Rage. When you take levels in Warpriest, take that Archetype that gives you Tactician and a free Teamwork Feat. Take Amplified Rage. With that, all your Allies get a +6 Strength. You get a +8 which you can apply to a Bite, Gore, Hair, and 2 Claws. When you get to level 5 Warpriest, your Natural Attacks will be doing 5d6 after you self-buff with Strong Jaw.


VoodistMonk wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
VoodistMonk wrote:
First, from my understanding Tengu cannot wield a bastard sword or katana or Estoc as a one handed weapon without EWP, they can simply use it as a 2H weapon as if they had martial weapon proficiency regardless of what their chosen class allows for weapon proficiency. Still need EWP to use the sword one handed.

Nah huhhhh!

Tengu wrote:
Tengus are trained from birth in swordplay, and as a result are automatically proficient with sword-like weapons (including bastard swords, daggers, elven curve blades, falchions, greatswords, kukris, longswords, punching daggers, rapiers, scimitars, short swords, and two-bladed swords).

Bastard Sword Proficiency means using it 1 handed. Just about anybody that might ever use a Bastard Sword can use one 2 handed without taking Bastard Sword Proficiency at all. Likewise, proficiency with a Katana means Exotic Weapon Proficiency Katana. I mean, wow, really?

Let's say I were a Human Wizard and you were a Tengu Wizard. We both wanted to use a Katana. I have to take a Feat to become proficient with that Katana, but you can use it as if you already had that Feat, can't you? You have the "special training" to use it, and that means using it 1 handed.

Right?

A Khopesh is a sword. Being a Tengu means you can use it as if you had Exotic Weapon, Khopesh, right? Why is that not the case for Bastard Sword: just because another interpretation is possible?

An Elven Curve Blade is a sword, right? A Tengu is proficient with it, right? Doesn't that mean that a Tengu can use an Elven Curve Blade as if it had EWP, Elven Curve Blade?

I really don't want to derail this ancient thread, but the swords in question state they can be used as martial 2H weapons if you don't have EWP. It would be like using the Elven Curveblade you brought up. But to get fancy with it and use a bastard sword or katana or Estoc as a one...

I think I see where you are going with this. It seems to me that if the Tengu Swordtrained ability lets you use a Falcata as if you had EWP Falcata, it should also let you use a Bastard Sword as if she had EWP Bastard Sword, and there should be no difference. And if I understand you correctly, it seems to you that the Racial Ability shouldn't do more than the minimum it says: you are proficient with Bastard Sword when used 2 handed as if it were a Martial Weapon, since EWPBS is not required just to use the weapon, only to use it 1 handed, Tengu don't automatically get it.

I'm willing to end this debate about Tengu and Bastard Sword at this point on this thread. My point in bringing up Tengu is that the Swordtrained Racial Trait gives them special options and special advantages vis a vis swords that can be used 1 handed, and you aren't disputing that, only some particulars within that. I think we might continue to debate this further on another thread; maybe we can compel a ruling from the PDT.


VoodistMonk wrote:
First, from my understanding Tengu cannot wield a bastard sword or katana or Estoc as a one handed weapon without EWP, they can simply use it as a 2H weapon as if they had martial weapon proficiency regardless of what their chosen class allows for weapon proficiency. Still need EWP to use the sword one handed.

Nah huhhhh!

Tengu wrote:
Tengus are trained from birth in swordplay, and as a result are automatically proficient with sword-like weapons (including bastard swords, daggers, elven curve blades, falchions, greatswords, kukris, longswords, punching daggers, rapiers, scimitars, short swords, and two-bladed swords).

Bastard Sword Proficiency means using it 1 handed. Just about anybody that might ever use a Bastard Sword can use one 2 handed without taking Bastard Sword Proficiency at all. Likewise, proficiency with a Katana means Exotic Weapon Proficiency Katana. I mean, wow, really?

Let's say I were a Human Wizard and you were a Tengu Wizard. We both wanted to use a Katana. I have to take a Feat to become proficient with that Katana, but you can use it as if you already had that Feat, can't you? You have the "special training" to use it, and that means using it 1 handed.

Right?

A Khopesh is a sword. Being a Tengu means you can use it as if you had Exotic Weapon, Khopesh, right? Why is that not the case for Bastard Sword: just because another interpretation is possible?

An Elven Curve Blade is a sword, right? A Tengu is proficient with it, right? Doesn't that mean that a Tengu can use an Elven Curve Blade as if it had EWP, Elven Curve Blade?


avr wrote:

You take a -2 to the dirty trick roll, and of course you remain grappled. It should work otherwise.

Grappled condition wrote:
A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple.

In most cases your Grappler has the Grappled Condition, too, and so has a -4 to his Dex, and therefore to his CMD. Your -2 to hit is usually a wash.


I recall there is a variety of Orc that has Scent. Maybe a combat unit full of them also has Blind Fighting. One of them has an Eversmoking Bottle.

The evil wizard casts Web on the Party. His Cohort is a Grappler...

You could have a spellcaster that has control over Swarms and soldiers in Swarmsuits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LordKailas wrote:
The gang of bakers who refer to themselves as the crumbles. They fight with rolling pins as clubs, bags of dough as tanglefoot bags, and baking peels as blunt polearms.

They bake an army of Gingerbread Men. As they swarm out of the ovens, they urge them on, "Run! Run! as fast as you can!

They bake bread golems that get sacrificed to religious groups every week. The Bread Golems have blood that is made from wine....


Zarius wrote:
You mean paper tags, ah lah Naruto paperbombs? No. Bolts can bear writing (via engraving, mostly, but it's still writing), so my GM has ruled that they are a valid direct target for Explosive (and, by extension, Incendiary) Runes. Breaking the item bearing a magical trap sets it off, so shooting the ground would break the bolts (I'm hitting my actual target, which results in 100% chance to break standard bolts), discharging the Runes.

That sounds more like Fire Trap or Glyph of Warding than Explosive Runes, but whatever: you GM has ruled!

The Crossbow Mastery Feat might help?

Endless Ammunition Spell?

Maybe there is something like Mirror Strike for Crossbows?

An Abundant Ammunition Dweomer that is put on the crossbow itself?


Perhaps a nearby duke is interested in having an armies of Blind Soldiers for tactical advantages and wants to levy some of the able-bodied amongst them. Perhaps that training is going on with or without some feudal burden, and there are plenty of Blind Soldiers with Greater Blindfighting, Tremorsense, and/or Scent working with Alchemists throwing Smokesticks and opening Eversmoking Bottles.


blahpers wrote:
As for why to use a mithral weapon at all: silver weapons inflict 1 less point of damage. It might not matter much, but it's something.

That's only a problem if it's a Piercing or Slashing Silver Weapon. Silver Bludgeoning Weapons don't have a -1.

blahpers wrote:
As for being "obsessive" about tracking encumbrance: Encumbrance is a core rule. It's intended to be tracked. Halving the weight of a heavy weapon can mean the difference between a 20 foot versus 30 foot move speed.

Well, maybe I'm not obsessive then!


Spermy The Cat wrote:
Scott, my character has only just last month reached level two, and have not taken him out since because the party composition in the later sessions would have suffered for it.

Okay, that's some good news. For as long as your character is level 1 in Pathfinder Society, you can make any changes you want: Feats, archetype, class, even race, and nobody cares. Since you have earned 0 experience points since levelling up, you can make changes.

Spermy The Cat wrote:
So taking up Snakebite would allow me to utilize Sap adept and the other stuff, huh?

Yes. You can have both the Snakebite Striker and Strangler Archetypes at the same time.

Spermy The Cat wrote:
At level one, he has IUS as his level one feat, and was using Martial Flexibility for Improved Grapple. Now that he's level two, his bonus feat is improved grapple.

Another option would be for level 2, take a level in Monk, getting Unarmed Strike Damage 1d6, Improved Unarmed Strike, and taking Improved Grapple for your Monk Bonus Feat. That would leave your level 1 Feat open for taking something else. Compared with taking a level in Brawler, you lose 1 hp and +1 BAB, but you will gain +1.5 Damage, +2 on all your Saves as opposed to +1Fort/+1Reflex for a Level 2 Brawler. There is another reason to take some levels in Monk. Since you sacrificed Brawler Unarmed Strike to be a Strangler, your character does not have any other way to increase his Base Unarmed Strike Damage. If you take 3 levels in Monk, you might take the Monastic Legacy Feat, which would allow half of your nonmonk levels count as Monk levels for the purposes of improving your Unarmed Strike Damage. How would you feel about losing the Strangler Archetype? It's the Strangler Archetype that is making you lose Brawler Unarmed Strike?

That should be enough for now. I have an idea about how to lock in Sneak Attack Damage for Sap feats and other means if you want to hear them. Also, what is your character's Race, and how would you feel about changing it?


Another Problem is that you can only use Sap Master against opponents that are Flat Footed. Pinned isn't Flatfooted. To make opponents Flatfooted, you have to take something like Shatter Defenses and Cornudgeon Smash. A problem with your character is that Stranglers don't get Unarmed Strike, so you need some other way of doing Bludgeoning Damage. I have some ideas, but answer me, Spermy, have you adventured with your character past level 2? Actually, the fact that you don't get Unarmed Strike is a heck of a thing: the fact that you don't get Unarmed Strike means you don't have the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat. And without the IUS Feat, you can't take Improved Grapple. But you get a special ability that depends upon Grappling and Pinning? Stranglers suck!

ShieldLawrence wrote:
you are not dealing bludgeoning, nonlethal damage.

He's doing Grappling Damage, isn't he? That's normally Bludgeoning, and it can be nonlethal. I think he's good there.

blahpers wrote:
Only if you gained the sneak attack class feature by taking a level of, e.g., rogue. A strangler doesn't have the sneak attack class feature, which is a prerequisite for sap adept. It would work after that, though.

That is a subtle point! Stranglers get +1d6 Sneak Attack Damage when they achieve a Pin, but that is not the same thing as the Sneak Attack Damage Class Feature.

Snakebite Striker Brawler has the Sneak Attack Class Feature, though. I was just looking at the 2 Archetypes. I'm pretty sure he can take both: be a Snakebite-Strangler. The OP is already level 2, but if he hasn't adventured yet as a level 2 PFS Character, he can just take the 2nd Archetype without retraining.

That being said, taking levels in Rogue or something is not bad advice.


ohako wrote:

One reason to get a mithral weapon is if you're obsessive about tracking your encumbrance limits. In that case it's really only worth it for a weapon that's pretty light to begin with, like a rapier or short sword.

Another reason is if you're a silver balladeer, which is a bard archetype that gets +1 to hit with a mithral weapon.

A barbarian you say? Ehh, are there likely to be a lot of werewolf horses? Zombies with DR/silver and slashing?

I am obsessive about tracking encumbrance in my characters, but might I recommend a Stretcher for 1gp that holds 500 pounds that you can Drag or a Handy Haversack for 2000gp that holds 120 pounds but weighs 5 pounds before trying to save 6 pounds on a mithral Horsechopper for 6000gp?! Perhaps a set of Muleback Cords?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
It reminds me of an adventure where one of the players had a Rod of Wonder. Aiming it at the bad guy an angry rhino appeared. The fight was literally in a china shop.

You know, bulls in china shops are actually quite graceful. But they didn't test rhinos in china shops, I suppose.


Pizza Lord wrote:
Java Man wrote:
My group just realized that it is only legal to summon aquatic creatures on the ocean floor/ riverbed etc...

Maybe this was a joke, but just in case, it's not quite true.

Conjuration (summoning) wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.

It doesn't say it has to be a solid surface. It has to be able to support the creature. You could summon a creature onto a spiderweb or onto a narrow beam, as long as it wasn't so heavy that it would break it or so narrow that it would immediately fall off. A creature that treated mist or cloud as solid could be summoned onto a cloud surface.

Water is considered a surface. If you summoned or created a ship or boat, you could have it appear on the surface since the water can support it. Most creatures also float or are supported by water. Possibly if your GM wishes to rule an iron golem or something differently (ie. water can't support it) then that's their call.

This is a bit different with flying creatures, however. Most creatures aren't supported by air (aside from the specific wording above that says they cannot appear floating in empty space). A bird will fall from the sky, a dragon will fall from the sky, etc. unless they take specific actions to fly, glide, or whatever.

Well, water has a surface. And if you are near the ocean floor, that's a surface. But what if you are in the Oceanic Zone: far from the surface, far from the floor? Do you rule that the summoned creature appears at the closer surface and then swims for you? Do you declare the Spell doesn't work? Or do you just declare Stoopud Rool?

Off topic, but a stupid rule I made up and kind of like is I might declare that somebody under the influence of True Seeing loses the ability to read or see images in mirrors. You see things as they really are: you don't see the meaning a symbol represents. Try to look at yourself in a mirror, and I'll say, "You see a mirror." Try to read a scroll, "You see stretched, dry rectangular piece of goatskin with stains on it in shapes like lines and curves."


Most of the weight of pole arm would be in the head. The rules are pretty explicit regardless. A mithral horschopper would cost 6000gp. You probably just shouldn't get a mithral weapon.

Maxibond wrote:
warhammer could be all mitrill

Why on Golorian would anyone want to buy mithral hammer? The advantage of Mithral Weapons is that they count as Silver for bypassing Damage Reduction. So, if you want a weapon that bypasses Silver DR, get Silver! A silver weapon only costs 180gp extra, and it works just as well.

Quote:
On a successful attack with a silvered slashing or piercing weapon, the wielder takes a –1 penalty on the damage roll

A Warhammer is neither slashing nor piercing. There is no disadvantage to an Alchemal Silver Warhammer.

Why does your Barbarian want a Mithral Horsechopper? Why not a nice Adamantine Horsechopper that costs only 3000gp? Why not a Cold Iron one that costs 20gp? Do you know that you are going to run into more lycanthropes and fewer fey or constructs?

If you want a weapon that bypasses silver DR, just get a Silver Blunt weapon. Your Barbarian said Horsechopper. Maybe he'd be happy with a silver Earthbreaker or silver Lucerne Hammer. Maybe he'd be happy with a adamantine Horsechopper.


Wonderstell wrote:
Circlet of Persuasion and the Mask of Stony Demeanor does both take up the 'Head' magic item slot, so without GM approval you would not be able to use both items. And they're both providing competence bonuses, which won't stack.

The rules do provide for creating magic items that combine enchantments such as a Circlet of Stony Persuasion. It is fair to say that when you enter customized magic item territory, you are in GM's approval territory. Of course, once you are in fighting Cthulu territory, you are already deep in GM's approval territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zarius wrote:
Whale hunting is a thing.

Killing your gods is a thing, too.


Wonderstell wrote:
Zarius wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
Zarius wrote:
Cthulhu is an elder god against which there is no defense. You go insane simply looking upon his visage. The ENTIRE point of the ENTIRE Lovecraft pantheon is that there IS no hope, no salvation, no victory. You're insane and, if you're lucky, dead shortly after. Live with it.
He lost a fight to a bunch of low-level shmucks with a boat.
Yeah, in a non-cannon story developed by a guy who had no understanding of Lovecraftian lore. Irrelevant due to the fact that the author was a gibbering idiot.

I feel the exact same way about Moby Dick. In no feasible way could a couple of low-lv NPCs ever defeat a Great White Whale (CR 14) without GM intervention.

Ugh, it's like Herman Melville has no understanding at all of how to properly set up an encounter.

The author was a gibbering idiot? He must have laid eyes on Cthulu!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I hate, hate, hate the size limits on Trip, Bull Rush, Reposition, and Overrun. Imposing a Size limit on who can do these things is a stupid rule for stupid stupidheads. It is redundant with the rules, and it goes against the whole idea of heroic fantasy roleplaying.
I allow it, but I apply a -4 penalty when trying those maneuvers on creatures larger than the size limit usually allows.

That's part of why I dislike the size limit. The rules already provide for penalties and bonuses due to size: imposing an absolute limit is redundant.

Also, if you have a a Halfling who thinks he is so awesome, he thinks he can Trip a rhinoceros, why not let him? Succeed or fail, the results will be awesome and hilarious!


Slim Jim wrote:

1. Have there been any updates to the wording of the DPR challenge since the OP?

2. What's the most DPR so far? (I haven't read all nine pages.)

The most ever that was technically PFS legal at the time was Infinity Damage, submitted by me.

But they have since made it illegal, probably because of me.


SorrySleeping wrote:
Scott, first Greater TWF requires 19 dex. 16 Dex won't even give you Improved TWF. This is a Dex focused build.... the build requires Improved Shield Bash.... I am talking about a TWF (two weapon fighting) build.

I did not get the impression that you were talking about Armor Spikes and Light vs. Medium Armor only within the context of your build. It seemed to me that you were talking about them in the context of all builds. Usually I would consider a 16 Dexterity to be a high for most Fighters that melee with weapon and shield.

SorrySleeping wrote:
You many want to take another look at Panther Style. It really isn't worth it to be constantly provoking attacks, since that just means more dice rolled at you, and more chance of it being a critical.

Oh, I think it is well-worthwhile, but it can be problematic to be drawing multiple attacks. You'd have to take Dodge and Mobility to offset that, and once you have gotten those, you might as well get Whirlwind Attack. It's a completely different direction you could take your character in that I very Feat intensive, but also very promising. Also, bear in mind that the bonus attacks from Panther Style Feats are not attacks of opportunity. If you also come up with a good Attack of Opportunity trigger, you get those, too.

SorrySleeping wrote:
Also most enemies don't have Combat Reflexes, so you generally get 1 attack from each opponent.

You always do. Even if your enemy does have Combat Reflexes, he is only ever entitled to 1 AoO against you for moving out of Threatened Squares.

SorrySleeping wrote:
Juluis, I'd push into Outflank (if your allies take it too), Critical Feats (Glaive is 18-20, or 15-20 if you make it Keen),

Oh, I'm sorry: I think you are mistaken. Glaive has a X3 Crit feature, not an 18-20. The Pole Arm with the 18-20 Threat Range is Fauchard, but it's an Exotic Weapon. I favor the Lucerne Hammer because it does more damage normally, and 2 kinds of damage instead of 1. You are recommending Glaive because only Glaive works with Bladed Brush.

I have a suggestion. If your character is a Human, you might take Martial Versatility and then apply it to Bladed Brush. Then you can use Bladed Brush on any pole Arm you want, including Fauchard or Lucerne Hammer.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:
You have your shield to threaten next to you, so you don't need them for that.
You do Threaten with your Shield, but you also lose your Shield Bonus to AC Bonus if you attack with your Shield unless you take the Improved Shield Bash Feat. Using Armor Spikes instead saves you the Feat.
You also loose the ability to use Shield Slam to push your opponent back, allowing you to continue your attack with your pike or putting your opponent in an undesirable position. Possibly even prone.

If you are planning on having a Shield Bash build anyway, then Improved Shield Bash is not a wasted Feat. My point here is that there are lots of reasons to use Armor Spikes, and it is not appropriate to dismiss them as cheesy just because they don't fit into your particular build.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Prove that it makes sense or is actually possible.
Grandlounge wrote:

What does teamwork mean?

Does being you own ally count as being two or more people?
Can you provide affirmative evidence that any one specific feat is an exception considering the rule you keep quoting indicates the default is requiring an ally and positioning.

Okay, this bit is interesting. If you can prove that invoking the Paizo FAQ upon Broken Wing Gambit would require you not only being your own ally, but also being 2 separate people, I would concede that that would also make it impossible, nonsensical, and illegal.

But I ask you again please start a new thread, and link to it here. I will look for it. We are hijacking Cavall's thread.

1 to 50 of 5,392 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>