| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My DM is being super lame (as usual) and has disallowed a really cool build I had for my cohort.
They were going to be a Scout (but the 3.5 Scout not the lame one from PF that is really just a kind of rogue, the weakest class in the game).
They were going to be a goblin who rode around on a medium mount (goblin dog or maybe a wolf).
Here's the thing, I got this super cool trick I thought of all by myself that was going to help me kick my damage into the stratosphere. Get this because it is awesome and it's too bad my DM is such a lamer who said it would apparently break his campaign.
I pumped the Ride skill through the roof. Now I start the combat by riding my mount up to the enemy and stabbing them with my short sword. Kind of meh but I get my sneak attack damage in because I moved.
Next round is when the magic happens. I dismount as a free action, entering a square in front of the mount. Then I remount as a free action (remember I pumped Ride) and then dismount again as another free action but on the OTHER SIDE of the mount, and right next to the enemy! I have now moved more than ten feet but still get ALL iteratives with TWF and ALL of those attacks get the scout sneak attack damage!
I know -- super cool, right? But of course my lame lame DM said it was "overpowered" and isn't going to allow it. Blah blah blah, whatever. I thought the DM was never supposed to say no, they were supposed to determine difficulty.
Well I just thought I would post my cool build here just in case any of you do not have super lame DMs. Get them to agree to the 3.5 Scout and you are *IN*!!!
Wait, so. You want to be able to do three free actions to somersault over your enemy? If I were your DM, I would probably only allow one of those free actions, and stare at you dumbfounded as you tried to explain the gymnastics of the latter two. Is this a joke?
GM is lame? Seriously you need to find a new game. Players don't create cohorts, so you are off base for saying the GM should allow you to not only make your own, but use a class that isn't even in the game. Top it off with a concept that doesn't work, precision damage, with moving and full round attacks? Not how that works anyway. So either you are just Trolling or you shouldn't be in the game you are in, saying GM is "super lame- as usual" would grant you the boot in most games. Good luck.
[...]3.5 Scout[...]
The DM is free to set whatever restrictions he wants on his campaign, including banning certain classes or builds (Player-empowerment is one thing, but the DM is still the runner of the game), but even beyond that, I don't see the problem of the DM disallowing it, as it uses content that's not even pathfinder.
Maybe it's just me, but I feel anything not published by Paizo is a "DM is free to say no, with no obligation to provide a reason." The DM is not "super lame" for trying to protect his game from munchkinism and min-maxing, if that's not what he and the other players want out of the game. Good theory-craft rarely makes for good in-game characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the DM was never supposed to say no,
Where in the world did you read this dumb thing?
Well I just thought I would post my cool build here just in case any of you do not have super lame DMs. Get them to agree to the 3.5 Scout and you are *IN*!!!
I'd never play anything so lame, specially if that come from a munchkin like you.
Nice trick. But don't be a 12-year-old about it.
The 3.5 scout had to move under his own power to get the bonus damage from skirmish(similar to sneak attack). That is an OFFICIAL 3.5 rule.
Your GM was following the rules, and you were trying to break them, have a really high ride check does not make you get unlimited free actions, and not all free actions are equal.
Yikes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm feeling very grateful for my gaming group right now :D
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obvious troll is obvious.
Is this another of those trends where you turn up to be the GM. And you are just fooling around? Making fun of the guys ansewering your tread?
Are trying to play Pathfinder, the way a 12 year old plays Halo?
Are you 12?
I was going to guess a younger age than that...the 12-year-olds I know wouldn't have this tone.
I was thinking, maybe, 7 or 8.
Or a troll.
Where is the "sneak attack because you moved" rule?
In any event, I'd certainly not allow that. The mount/dismount thing is either going to provoke AoO or not count as movement, I'm not gonna let you bypass the intent of the movement rules by using non-move actions to move.
He is calling it sneak attack, but it is really called skirmish. It is an ability from the 3.5 scout class. If you moved 10 feet and attacked you got Xd6 extra dice similar to sneak attack, but the 3.5 errata said you had to move under your own power and said mounts did not count.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too many people keep forgetting that Pathfinder is meant to be backwards compatible with 3.5. If not for that fact, many people would.not.have even given Pathfinder a chance and.I seriously question the success Pathfinder would.have had. This comes from someone who bought all six installments of.the Rise of.the runelords AP and.many other 3.5 edition Pathfinder material.
Convertions are not always perfect, nor easy, but many 3.5 products are worth that attempt and.effort for.the fun they bring to the game.
That.being said, I am rather proud of your DM telling you no. I seriously question your ability to subjectively look at the skirmish ability of the 3.5 scout and think this combo of yours should be.allowed.
I sometimes D/GM games also. I am not 100% perfect with the rules but know.them better than most people I play with. I know what it is like.to.argue with a gm where the player is right and the gm is wrong. If you keep calling the gm lame, you will soon find yourself unwelcome at games. Maybe then you can learn the hard way how valuable someone willing to.take the effort to run a game for.you is. I make sure to thank every GM I play under every time they run a game for me. Even when we disagree several times on the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too many people keep forgetting that Pathfinder is meant to be backwards compatible with 3.5. If not for that fact, many people would.not.have even given Pathfinder a chance.
That doesn't matter. Dm are still allowed to deny access to some books. That's a DM right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He didn't disallow a cool build, or even a cool cohort.
He said no to an obvious rules violation.
If that makes him lame, I guess I am too.
Free Action
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
Emphasis mine.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obvious troll is obvious.
You Rang
I'm not familiar with the 3.5 class he used, but this is the PF version.Skirmisher (Ex): At 8th level, whenever a scout moves more than 10 feet in a round and makes an attack action, the attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was flat-footed. If the scout makes more than one attack this turn, this ability only applies to the first attack. Foes with uncanny dodge are immune to this ability. This ability replaces improved uncanny dodge.
Right, but like I said I'm talking about the original REAL version from 3.5, not the lame nerfed PF version.
He is calling it sneak attack, but it is really called skirmish. It is an ability from the 3.5 scout class. If you moved 10 feet and attacked you got Xd6 extra dice similar to sneak attack, but the 3.5 errata said you had to move under your own power and said mounts did not count.Where is the "sneak attack because you moved" rule?
In any event, I'd certainly not allow that. The mount/dismount thing is either going to provoke AoO or not count as movement, I'm not gonna let you bypass the intent of the movement rules by using non-move actions to move.
Exactly true, except that the errata specifically dealt with MOUNT MOVEMENT. The genius of what I am describing (and my DM is not skilled enough to adapt to, apparently) is that it doesn't involve mount movement at all.
I was smart enough to find a way to move ten feet without using a move action. I did it by the rules. Any DM who prevents me from using two free actions a round is also forced to prevent archers from drawing two arrows per round -- do you really think that is reasonable? I don't, and neither does anyone else.
He is calling it sneak attack, but it is really called skirmish. It is an ability from the 3.5 scout class. If you moved 10 feet and attacked you got Xd6 extra dice similar to sneak attack, but the 3.5 errata said you had to move under your own power and said mounts did not count.Where is the "sneak attack because you moved" rule?
In any event, I'd certainly not allow that. The mount/dismount thing is either going to provoke AoO or not count as movement, I'm not gonna let you bypass the intent of the movement rules by using non-move actions to move.
Exactly true, except that the errata specifically dealt with MOUNT MOVEMENT. The genius of what I am describing (and my DM is not skilled enough to adapt to, apparently) is that it doesn't involve mount movement at all.
I was smart enough to find a way to move ten feet without using a move action. I did it by the rules. Any DM who prevents me from using two free actions a round is also forced to prevent archers from drawing two arrows per round -- do you really think that is reasonable? I don't, and neither does anyone else.
Is this the cohort of your Gunslinger? The one with the TWF issue?
Wait you were serious? I could have sworn that OP was a joke...
You actually are upset that the dm didnt allow that? I dont know of ANY gm that would allow that. Every gm in my group (there are several) disallowed the whole skirmish dance (moving back and forth to get skirmish) business in 3.5, this is actually a little worse. The point of the scout is you have to move, and you get one attack with extra dice on it. IN pathfinder with the change to many shot, the scout inst particularly good. Its ok if you want to be mobile, the extra dice are better then nothing, but its not a heavy damage dealer.
And if you arent using the pathfinder version, why did you quote the pathfinder rules? The 3.5 scout has its own rules that are different from the pathfinder scout.
The 3.5 scout had to move under his own power to get the bonus damage from skirmish(similar to sneak attack). That is an OFFICIAL 3.5 rule.
Right right, "moving under my own power" -- the mount doesn't have to move at all, all of the motion comes from my own actions. Thanks for proving me right.
My Dwarven fighter would have stopped him in his tracks before he got a single attack.
and I made him completely pathfinder and by the rules.
Do people start threads like this just to get a rise out of people and see how many replies it gets?
Is this guys sitting back laughing at everyone who writes a serious reply, or does he actually believe what he's saying?
Next round is when the magic happens. I dismount as a free action, entering a square in front of the mount. Then I remount as a free action (remember I pumped Ride) and then dismount again as another free action but on the OTHER SIDE of the mount, and right next to the enemy! I have now moved more than ten feet but still get ALL iteratives with TWF and ALL of those attacks get the scout sneak attack damage!I know -- super cool, right? But of course my lame lame DM said it was "overpowered" and isn't going to allow it. Blah blah blah, whatever. I thought the DM was never supposed to say no, they were supposed to determine difficulty.
Wouldn't fly at my table either. If you're moving more than 5 feet, I'm charging you a move action for it.
And yes, DM's are supposed to say no when saying no is appropriate for the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait you were serious? I could have sworn that OP was a joke..It is a joke. The hints are "3.5 version", "cool build", and "genius".
It's not a particularly good troll, but it seems to be working anyway. You'll notice he dropped bait regarding all free actions being equal, with a false choice thrown in about what the GM is and isn't allowed to do.
Ok yeah when you put it like that it's obviously a joke thread, but I don't feel bad for falling for it because I have seen posts that miss the spirit of the game almost as completely as this and they were completely serious.
Do people start threads like this just to get a rise out of people and see how many replies it gets?
Is this guys sitting back laughing at everyone who writes a serious reply, or does he actually believe what he's saying?
The first i think. Look up his my GM is a winer( or however it is spelled) and him later claiming to fooling around there when he later says he is the GM and not the player in the TWF gunslinger tread he also made.
|
Do people start threads like this just to get a rise out of people and see how many replies it gets?
Is this guys sitting back laughing at everyone who writes a serious reply, or does he actually believe what he's saying?
Good question. I'd guess...unless he is under 12, he spends a lot of time under a bridge. He sure regenerates well.
Do people start threads like this just to get a rise out of people and see how many replies it gets?
Is this guys sitting back laughing at everyone who writes a serious reply, or does he actually believe what he's saying?
I don't know... but the moderators here are funny folk.
They inappropriately delete innocuous stuff all the time, but then leave posts/threads like this. Wacky.
I'm pretty sure the 3.5 scout had to move at least 10 feet in order to get Skirmish anyway, didn't it?
Yeah, they did.
There is no rules question in the OP's post, just a rambling complaint.
Please lock and delete this thread.
As this is a troll thread by a 12 year old kid who is thinking is incapable of thinking of his concept in any way other than "cool" rather than accepting the possibility that his thinking may be flawed, I make a motion that we end this thread completely
Marked as wrong forum. This is no place to discuss what would happen if Zelda were really a girl.