Having never made a swashbucker, im very unfamiliar to how deeds work that seem to have some activated and some non-activated components.
Using a mouser's underfoot assault as an example, you may spend a panache point to do some fancy entering of an opponent's square.
The ability, however, doesn't stop there. The rest of paragraph one and all of paragraph two say nothing about being panache activated, but they are part of a deed, not a class feature.
Must you spend panache to get these other benefits? If so, do the benefits shut off the moment you and the target stop occupying the same square?
Thanks.
You spend pamach to enter the opponents space. While in the opponens's space you ger the benefits listed. You only spend panache when it fells you to. Interesting, if you somehow end up in the opponenst's space in another way, it looks like the benefits would still apply.
You spend pamach to enter the opponents space. While in the opponens's space you ger the benefits listed. You only spend panache when it fells you to. Interesting, if you somehow end up in the opponenst's space in another way, it looks like the benefits would still apply.
Potion of reduce person or some other way of being tiny is almost a must for a mouser.
Contributor
|
Expect some potential table variation on getting the benefits of underfoot assault from entering the square via other methods.
If this is for a home game, talk it out with your GM to be sure. If this is for PFS, I suggest discussing it at the start of the scenario to ensure the GM is on the same page. ^_^
Expect some potential table variation on getting the benefits of underfoot assault from entering the square via other methods.
If this is for a home game, talk it out with your GM to be sure. If this is for PFS, I suggest discussing it at the start of the scenario to ensure the GM is on the same page. ^_^
I don't see enough rationale for the variation to even bring it up.
I don't see enough rationale for the variation to even bring it up.That's why it appears in my post, and not yours. ^_^
As a DM looking into that issue with a 3 paragraph ability right before a game when I'm trying to finalize geek soduku and sneak in one more read of the scenario is grounds for requesting you cover my bar tab...
or to put it another way: between the complexity of the issue and the lack of merit for it not working I wouldn't feel bad about just doing it.
|
Contributor
|
As a DM looking into that issue with a 3 paragraph ability right before a game when I'm trying to finalize geek soduku and sneak in one more read of the scenario is grounds for requesting you cover my bar tab...
Fair enough. I'd rather tell a player "no" before the game, than in the middle of a combat. Each to their own. ^_^
Fair enough. I'd rather tell a player "no" before the game, than in the middle of a combat. Each to their own. ^_^
You need to run through about 10 dm's to get to one that's even heard of the issue and another 30 before you hit a no. That's a lot conversations to have for such a small chance.
It's not scroll in a spring loaded wrist sheath where it's something you find a lot of variation on and a known argument, only someone that lives on the forums is going to have heard of this one...
You need to run through about 10 dm's to get to one that's even heard of the issue and another 30 before you hit a no. That's a lot conversations to have for such a small chance.Interesting. It only took this thread four posts to find one. ^_^
How many DMs are here?
While the mouser is within her foe's space
Not while the mouser has gotten into the foe's space via underfoot assault: it's a completely separate paragraph.
Why on earth would it matter in round 3 if you got into the space on round 1 via underfoot assault or got in via another method?
You should not be varying the rules against the player like that. If you're going to shut down a players character you should have a better argument for it not working.
Because it's all part of the same ability.
So you're saying that if an ability does two things they HAVE to always be used in conjunction?
For dragonstyle you can only run while charging or withdrawing and being affected by a paralysis or stun effect?
Tribal scars only gives you six hit points when making acrobatics checks?
Wasp whisperer only lets you get a bonus on saves vs poison while wild empathying wasps?
The caves domain tunnel runner Only gives you darkvision while spiderclimbing?
Would you allow a character who traded out an ability via an archetype to use parts of the original ability, as long as they appeared in paragraphs after the first? Or would you consider them to be part of that ability?
That is not remotely the same thing. Trading out a power is a combo platter package deal. Using them is not.
That sort of accusation is uncalled-for and unnecessarily hostile.
You should have the preponderance of evidence before shutting a character down. I think it's very called for.
The 11th level mouser ability gives you a way to get into their square without swinging at you. It would be very odd if one of your archetype features stopped the other ones from working.
You spend pamach to enter the opponents space. While in the opponens's space you ger the benefits listed. You only spend panache when it fells you to. Interesting, if you somehow end up in the opponenst's space in another way, it looks like the benefits would still apply.Potion of reduce person or some other way of being tiny is almost a must for a mouser.
Character also has wild shape as an 8th lvl druid.
It makes it hard for me to offer my opinions because I've never played a swashbuckler, and the fact that im super invested in making a character that hangs on this one ability working.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The 11th level mouser ability gives you a way to get into their square without swinging at you. It would be very odd if one of your archetype features stopped the other ones from working.
+1
Also, I'm a 10th level Tiny Fox Mouser with 1 level in Swashbuckler and 30 games where about half of the GM said "How are you flanking again?" and I've always responded with "class ability". Only 3 or 4 times have the GM wanted to read the ability or know more and then all agreed with my interpretation.
So while Kalindlara is right, there may be table variance. I have not, as of yet, seen any.
|
The 11th level mouser ability gives you a way to get into their square without swinging at you. It would be very odd if one of your archetype features stopped the other ones from working.+1
Also, I'm a 10th level Tiny Fox Mouser with 1 level in Swashbuckler and 30 games where about half of the GM said "How are you flanking again?" and I've always responded with "class ability". Only 3 or 4 times have the GM wanted to read the ability or know more and then all agreed with my interpretation.
.
My mini for Grr is flat, so enemies and allies alike can step on him, because he's always in someone's space.
Somewhat related, though admittedly tangential, question.
I was thinking of meshing a Mouser Swashbuckler with a Vexing Dodger Un-Rogue.
Here's the question: When the Vexing Dodger is using her Limb Climber ability, is the Rogue occupying the target creature's space?
I would say you're in the square relative to the monster that you climbed on, so if you climbed on in their space you're in their space, if you climbed on next to them you're next to them.
Limb climber needs a few whacks with the clarification stick. Do you lose your dex bonus? Do you stay on the creature if it moves? (presumably yes, it's kinda the only other point of it)
Grr uses a similar build. It piles on some pretty sick penalties
-4 to hit friends from being in someone's square
-2 to hit grr from being climbed on
-4 to hit grr from the debilitating strike
-2 to hit others from the debilitating strike
Blinded from the free dirty trick on a sneak attack.
1. Do you need to make a climb check to stay on board every round? If so, does that count as a Move Action?
Probably not, as you don't usually need to make a climb check to hang onto a cliff.
2. What options does the target have for knocking the Dodger off?
Reposition would be the mechanic i'd pick.
I would think it would be reasonable to have to make another climb check if you get hit and take damage, just like a regular climb check, correct?
Probably, with their CMD filling in for the DC of the wall.
The final sentence says that you may move into and out of their square without provoking. BNW, do you think that is always on as well?
The final sentence says that you may move into and out of their square without provoking. BNW, do you think that is always on as well?
While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe. The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity, but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser. This deed replaces opportune parry and riposte.
You're going to have to point me to that final sentence.
They can move WITHIN or leave, that's not the same as moving into. So if you have a small mouse in a colosal dragons square they can walk from one part of the Dragon to another, say one bold D to the other
❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏
❏DDDDD❏❏
❏DDDDD❏❏
❏DDDDD❏❏
❏DDDDD❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏
The final sentence says that you may move into and out of their square without provoking. BNW, do you think that is always on as well?While the mouser is within her foe's space, the foe takes a –4 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks not made against the mouser, and all of the mouser's allies that are adjacent to both the foe and the mouser are considered to be flanking the foe. The mouser is considered to be flanking the foe whose space she is within if she is adjacent to an ally who is also adjacent to the foe. The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity, but if the foe attempts to move to a position where the mouser is no longer in its space, the movement provokes an attack of opportunity from the mouser. This deed replaces opportune parry and riposte.
You're going to have to point me to that final sentence.
They can move WITHIN or leave, that's not the same as moving into. So if you have a small mouse in a colosal dragons square they can walk from one part of the Dragon to another, say one bold D to the other
❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏
❏DDDDD❏❏
❏DDDDD❏❏
❏DDDDD❏❏
❏DDDDD❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏
❏❏❏❏❏❏❏❏
aaaahhh, I hadn't even considered being inside something larger than a 1x1 square.
The sentence I was referring to is "The mouser can move within her foe's space and leave the foe's space unhindered and without provoking attacks of opportunity"
I agree that that probably only means within in, not entering.
Just noticed that it's adjacent to, not threatening. My mouser owed a poor cleric some sneak attack dice.. oh well.
As a DM looking into that issue with a 3 paragraph ability right before a game when I'm trying to finalize geek soduku and sneak in one more read of the scenario is grounds for requesting you cover my bar tab...Fair enough. I'd rather tell a player "no" before the game, than in the middle of a combat. Each to their own. ^_^
This seems extremely adversarial, possibly to the point of the DM cheating by the way they read the rules. I would want to know how they understand the rules to work liek that before I sat at this table, even if it was not one of my chracters. Life is too short to spend 4 hours with a DM trying to make people not have fun.
Cheating is a VERY strong accusation to make.
Cheating is a VERY strong accusation to make.
And I fully understand that. But player variance would be fair to say so.
|
|
Given that the GM controls every aspect of 'reality' within the game world frame of reference I don't even understand what 'cheating' would mean. GM's can't 'cheat' because they literally make the rules.
Now GMing badly... that is definitely a thing.
As to the issue in question, I recall several previous debates about it (e.g.), so no it isn't some uniquely wild and unreasonable interpretation.
Given that the GM controls every aspect of 'reality' within the game world frame of reference I don't even understand what 'cheating' would mean. GM's can't 'cheat' because they literally make the rules.
Now GMing badly... that is definitely a thing.
As to the issue in question, I recall several previous debates about it (e.g.), so no it isn't some uniquely wild and unreasonable interpretation.
Changing the way you read rules based on your whim is arguably altering the rules. So is changing the rules cheating or playing fair? We are also talking PFS where GMs arte meant to run as written.
Given that the GM controls every aspect of 'reality' within the game world frame of reference I don't even understand what 'cheating' would mean. GM's can't 'cheat' because they literally make the rules.
Now GMing badly... that is definitely a thing.
As to the issue in question, I recall several previous debates about it (e.g.), so no it isn't some uniquely wild and unreasonable interpretation.
Most of the debate there was whether 5 foot stepping out of a mousers square got you a whack of opportunity or not. That had a divide. Kalindarla is the only one i see there arguing for the penache point or bust position of the other underfoot assault abilities, and it's very obscure rules argument.