BanHammer Request on Cape of feinting


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

This item is going to be problematic. Its basically an all day, no save daze attainable at mid level PFS. As daze doesn't come with any actual descriptors, I don't even know if anything would be immune to it.

CAPE OF FEINTING:
Three times
per day, the wearer can spend a
standard action to purposely miss an
opponent, performing a dramatic feint
that causes that opponent to lose its Dexterity bonus to AC
until the wearer’s next turn. If a swashbuckler wearing the
cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed or uses
this cape’s ability, the opponent is also dazed until the start
of the swashbuckler’s next turn.

Superior Feint (Ex): At 7th level, a swashbuckler with
at least 1 panache point can, as a standard action,
purposefully miss a creature she could make a melee
attack against with a wielded light or one-handed
piercing weapon. When she does, the creature is
denied its Dexterity bonus to AC until the start of the
swashbuckler’s next turn

Superior feint doesn't even use up a penache point. All you have to do is keep one in your pool (which is SOP anyway)> so swashbuckler moves up, declares a miss, and the big bad is auto dazed for the party to wale on. Every single time, no roll, no save.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

I could see "no roll, no save" on a condition that most critters aren't immune to bein pretty awful.

3/day limit probably isn't balancing enough.

Silver Crusade 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Agreed, this should probably not be available for PFS players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jayson MF Kip wrote:
3/day limit probably isn't balancing enough.

Ah, but there is no 3/day limit.

Spoiler:
Quote:
If a swashbuckler wearing the cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed or uses this cape’s ability, the opponent is also dazed until the start of the swashbuckler’s next turn.

Or uses the cape's ability. As opposed to, and uses the cape's ability.

Now, let's see how long it takes for someone to pipe up 'No Problem. Wizards still are better at killing things, so there's no change required'...

5/5 *

Hmmm, it does take the shoulder slot I presume?

Whats the cost of the cape? (no ACG handy)

5/5 5/55/55/5

14k, and yes shoulders.

1/5

What's the price on this capse?
It just needs a little errata to be "and" instead of "or"

Ninja'd
And ninjanswered!

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Treefolk wrote:

What's the price on this capse?

It just needs a little errata to be "and" instead of "or"

I'd be a little leery of it even then. You wear your cloak of resistance till you near the boss fight, switch it out, walk up and no save daze the big bad at the end of the dungeon for three rounds. Thats longer than most of them will last with no actions.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

Midnight_Angel wrote:

Ah, but there is no 3/day limit.

** spoiler omitted **

Oh wow. So placing a level 7 Swashbuckler near a thing is enough to deny it actions forever.

I suppose that's too good.

It'd be a pretty damn boring thing to play though. "I miss the guy inteentionally, pass." /aside

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Yeah, entirely broken in the hands of a swashbuckler. If the Swashbuckler version read "If a swashbuckler wearing the cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed and uses one of this cape's charges..." instead, it'd be amazing but not banhammer land.

Sigh.

3/5

yes I agree. This is the first thing I noticed was broken in the book.

I even remarked in another thread of great items.

This should be banned. Please remvoe it before many people are effected.

5/5 *

I'd personally would like it errata'd to "and" instead but that's a discussion for another thread as that falls outside PFS land.

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Treefolk wrote:

What's the price on this capse?

It just needs a little errata to be "and" instead of "or"
I'd be a little leery of it even then. You wear your cloak of resistance till you near the boss fight, switch it out, walk up and no save daze the big bad at the end of the dungeon for three rounds. Thats longer than most of them will last with no actions.

But at that point it'd join a number of other things of equavliant power (of brokenness). This item just has the issue of no save, even of you made it a consumable (3/lifetime) it'd still show up. However this cape doesn't has nearly as much effect on a boss that isnt all by its lonesome or is within a standard move. I honestly having seen a feint build in ages so this might be a not so subtle bump to encourage players to build feinters.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Finlanderboy wrote:

yes I agree. This is the first thing I noticed was broken in the book.

I even remarked in another thread of great items.

This should be banned. Please remvoe it before many people are effected.

Fortunately there are not a lot of 7th level Swashbucklers out their yet.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What else can do a no save shutdown of the boss? I know some PCS have saves jacked so high that they may as well be no save, but theres still the dice gods to pray to in that case...

3/5

trollbill wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

yes I agree. This is the first thing I noticed was broken in the book.

I even remarked in another thread of great items.

This should be banned. Please remvoe it before many people are effected.

Fortunately there are not a lot of 7th level Swashbucklers out their yet.

exactly why they should ban it now.

If I built a level 7 swash I would take that skill in a heartbeat for that item. if they removed the item I would feel cheated I know have a deed I would never have taken had this item been banned all along.

Sovereign Court 5/5 5/55/55/5

trollbill wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

yes I agree. This is the first thing I noticed was broken in the book.

I even remarked in another thread of great items.

This should be banned. Please remvoe it before many people are effected.

Fortunately there are not a lot of 7th level Swashbucklers out their yet.

Some of us started in the playtest...

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What else can do a no save shutdown of the boss? I know some PCS have saves jacked so high that they may as well be no save, but theres still the dice gods to pray to in that case...

Also you have to spend a great deal of resources to do that. Plus I have no found a shutdown effect that someone is not immune to in someway.

The cape daze lock is a deed, 14k and your should slot.

3/5

Okay... I have a swashbuckler, AND I hate banning things. Still, even I (if forced to be completely fair) have to admit that this should almost certainly be banned (or errata'd by Paizo proper).

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Reynard de' Bonaire wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:

yes I agree. This is the first thing I noticed was broken in the book.

I even remarked in another thread of great items.

This should be banned. Please remvoe it before many people are effected.

Fortunately there are not a lot of 7th level Swashbucklers out their yet.
Some of us started in the playtest...

That's why I said "not a lot" rather than "not any." Though I suppose you could have one otherwise if you were very dedicated and had been playing PFS continuously since GenCon started or had a 7th level amorphous GM credit baby.

1/5

Yeah...this Cape is most definitely trouble

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes it needs to get banned. I noticed this and decided not to make a post about it based on my experience with pageant of the peacock from earlier this year.

I have a feeling much of the ACG rulings were put out initially with the idea that they needed to have it there for gencon. I think partial rebuilds for warpriests, and banning of certain things that need to be banned will be coming down the pipeline, or at least I hope they are.

2/5

This would be strong (and potentially troublesome) with the 3/day limit. As is... yeah. Ban, please.

5/5 *

You know, thinking about this more, I think what was missed by editing in the ACG was not the "or"/"and" thing, but I bet you they missed a fort save. I bet it should have said:

"If a swashbuckler wearing the cloak of feinting performs the superior feint deed or uses this cape’s ability, the opponent is also dazed (Fort save DC 15 negates) until the start of the swashbuckler’s next turn."

Magic item save DCs are, more often than not, terrible.

3/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never seen this much agreement on banning something.

And wait what else is missing? No moderater has deleted someone's offensive posts?

Is this item bringing us together?

Grand Lodge 4/5

So that makes, what, one Swashbuckler item that's overpowered and another that's completely useless?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
So that makes, what, one Swashbuckler item that's overpowered and another that's completely useless?

Which ones useless? The ambiguously written plume?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. Just wow.

Best anti-BBEG item I've ever seen, the swashbuckler just needs to stand next to someone and they're done. Crazy powerful in organized play.

Agreed that this item probably shouldn't be available.

Silver Crusade 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Let's all hold hands and sing. *Ban, ban, ban the cape! Ban it all day long!"

Grand Lodge 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
So that makes, what, one Swashbuckler item that's overpowered and another that's completely useless?
Which ones useless? The ambiguously written plume?

Yeah, the plume that, as written, requires you to spend a standard action to activate it while you're using a deed.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

*joins hands and sings*

Also - you only need a one level dip of swashbuckler at the moment to be able to get the Daze effect (3/day). "And" would make it only Swashbucklers with Superior Feint.

No Bluff skill required funny enough.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Yeah, the plume that, as written, requires you to spend a standard action to activate it while you're using a deed.

Well, I suppose as written you could activate the plume for say, opportune parry and riposte at 8 am, and then keep the panache in your pool until you wanted to use it.

Shadow Lodge

Let's keep in mind the fact that, in order to do this all day, you have to use Superior Feint, which means you have to do no damage (and no other attacks that turn, since it's a standard action).

Basically, in order to "stun lock" a single enemy, the swashbuckler has to stand there doing pretty much nothing else for the duration.

Yeah, it's definitely on the powerful side, but I don't see this as game-breakingly powerful, nor something I'd want to do that often on my own swashbuckler, as I don't particularly think standing there keeping an enemy occupied is the best use of my actions.

EDIT: Removed the bit about needing to hit them, as it seems the wording changed from the final playtest just enough to remove that requirement, without it being so obvious on a casual skimming for changes.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

PLEASE don't ban this my 7th lvl Swashbuckler just bought TWO of these for multiple occaisons!

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:
Let's keep in mind the fact that, in order to do this all day, you have to use Superior Feint, which means you have to hit them, and you have to do no damage (and no other attacks that turn, since it's a standard action).

You don't need to hit for superior fient. You just have to have an opponent you COULD hit. A ghost would be immune if you didn't have a magic weapon, but other than that there's no defense. It says a creature you COULD hit. Not a creature you HAVE hit, and not a creature you could have hit but didn't with your last attack. The swashy moves up, standard action to flyn with his opponent and bam, dazed.

3/5

James Wygle wrote:

Let's keep in mind the fact that, in order to do this all day, you have to use Superior Feint, which means you have to hit them, and you have to do no damage (and no other attacks that turn, since it's a standard action).

Basically, in order to "stun lock" a single enemy, the swashbuckler has to stand there doing pretty much nothing else for the duration, and eventually it will fail (as a natural 1 is inevitable).

Yeah, it's definitely on the powerful side, but I don't see this as game-breakingly powerful, nor something I'd want to do that often on my own swashbuckler, as I don't particularly think standing there keeping an enemy occupied is the best use of my actions.

Against multiple bad guys, sacrificing your turn can be trouble, but if the fight is against a single baddy, then no matter how insanely powerful it may be, you can daze lock it while your allies pick it off (as long as you can get into melee range with it).

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Wygle wrote:
Let's keep in mind the fact that, in order to do this all day, you have to use Superior Feint, which means you have to hit them, and you have to do no damage (and no other attacks that turn, since it's a standard action).

You don't need to hit for superior fient. You just have to have an opponent you COULD hit. A ghost would be immune if you didn't have a magic weapon, but other than that there's no defense. It says a creature you COULD hit. Not a creature you HAVE hit, and not a creature you could have hit but didn't with your last attack. The swashy moves up, standard action to flyn with his opponent and bam, stunned.

Yeah, I noticed that after I posted; the final playtest version said "purposely miss a creature that she could normally hit", which would indicate you needed to roll, but the wording changed just enough on the release version to remove that requirement.

Still, requiring the swashbuckler to stand there and do nothing else doesn't seem so horrifically game-breaking as to require an immediate ban-hammer, rather than waiting to see if this becomes an actual problem.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, we're calling for a ban on something that's only "broken" when used in single-enemy combats? I thought we all knew better than to think that the ability to wreck a single-enemy combat was a red flag.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Wygle wrote:


Still, requiring the swashbuckler to stand there and do nothing else doesn't seem so horrifically game-breaking as to require an immediate ban-hammer, rather than waiting to see if this becomes an actual problem.

Its devastating for any fight where there are more PCS than bad guys, which is just about all of the hard ones and all of the supposed to be climactic fights.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

It's pretty broken in multiple-enemy combats, too. Obviously it becomes less of an issue the more enemies one encounters, but in the typical 2- or 3-enemy encounter, daze-locking the "boss" is still probably the best use of your actions in a 5+ person party.

Add me to the "Ban plz" list.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
So, we're calling for a ban on something that's only "broken" when used in single-enemy combats? I thought we all knew better than to think that the ability to wreck a single-enemy combat was a red flag.

Just you wait, Krune! As soon as my Swashbuckler hits 7th, it's revenge time! You can buff yourself for another 10,000 years and it still won't do you any good.

Sovereign Court

Jiggy wrote:
So, we're calling for a ban on something that's only "broken" when used in single-enemy combats? I thought we all knew better than to think that the ability to wreck a single-enemy combat was a red flag.

Wasn't this the main reason that Crane Wing got nerfed in the first place?

Dark Archive

most interesting. I agree with the request to ban this cape, and I am a pretty average ok player :)

Silver Crusade 2/5

I don't like to have anything banned if it can be helped. Perhaps an errata would serve better.

4/5

Except PFS leadership can't errata stuff. They can only ban materials until they are issued an errata.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

David Bowles wrote:
I don't like to have anything banned if it can be helped. Perhaps an errata would serve better.

We are still waiting for them to errata Bracers of Falcon's Aim. Best to ban it until it gets fixed.

3/5

/lights torch
/readies pitchfork

Aye! At 'em!

-TimD

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If BNW says it should be ban hammered, I believe him!

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:
I don't like to have anything banned if it can be helped. Perhaps an errata would serve better.

This is extremely powerful thou. I normally do not like banning things as well either but like divine protection this needs to go.

4/5

Yeah, gotta hop on the ban-wagon here.

Best option: total ban.
Second best: add 'and' as errata.

I never want to see this at a table I'm running.
Cool for a non-pfs game, tho. really flavorful.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / BanHammer Request on Cape of feinting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.