Chain Mauler

Aronbar's page

63 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Julien Dien wrote:

This question was also occurs in my group.

Firstly, Base speed is the speed after you do all the adds, before mutiply (heavy armor or load). Haste, Longstrider spell, Fast movement of Barbarian or Bloodrager could increase your base speed. CRB 170 shows the base speed from 5ft to 120ft and their reduced speed (by heavy armor or load). Obivious Base Speed is not the original race speed.
Sceondly, Base speed always indicates the land speed. I searching the whole CRB and see no exception.

And I met an issue about it as well. For some flying creature,such as Cassisian (Familiar), She has no land speed, only fly speed. What's her Base speed.
The Cassisian Familiar retrain her feat to Flickering Step, which granting her to teleport no more than twice of her Base Speed.. Finally, I viewed her fly speed as Base Speed this time.

Yea, I didn't mean that all intrinsic speeds are base speeds as a rule in the book, but as a work around for these sorts of issues.


Azothath wrote:
ErichAD wrote:

Here's the FAQ answer if you all are interested in that.

thanks ErichAD but it's not a FAQ per se. Hearing from the lead designer at the time does give us direction & insight for implementation of RAW.

A few comments down he agrees that the spell is poorly worded


Could "base speed" be any mode of movement speed that the creature has intrinsically or is that too vague? I.e. some creatures have more than one "base speed" like birds, snakes and monkeys?


DeathlessOne wrote:
Aronbar wrote:
That's okay. I've already conceded that it's a RAI vs. RAW issue. (But the Paizo developers do seem to agree with me and fixed the poor wording of the spell.)

There is no poor wording of the spell. This all boils down to you not accepting how the mechanics work.

Why do you have concealment? Because no one can see you.
What does glitterdust do? Makes it so that people can see you (also, save or blind).

If you want to be extremely concise on the how/why, it is because you are a) easily identified to be within a specific 5ft square and b) your outline is visible so that people know where to hit you in that 5ft square. At most, you could argue that it would be difficult for precision damage to function, but that would still be extremely flimsy as you could imagine anything from a light dusting of magical sparkles making you hardly visible, or a dense coating outlining every crevice of your body.

Ryze Kuja wrote:
Anywho, here's my point: we shouldn't be using PF2e mechanics for this. D&D 5e, 3.5e, and 3e glitterdust would all be more applicable to PF1e glitterdust, rather than PF2e glitterdust.
The derailment was inevitable the moment we took the bait of trying to point out that glitterdust is fairly consistent in other versions of the game. It just gives them more material to cherry pick through and reinforce their own interpretation.

It is poor in that other spells explicitly say what they do and don't do and this one is left to interpretation. A creature being completely invisible and then being coated in a glitter doesn't make THEM visible. Certainly they would still have some level of concealment (I'd say 20% miss chance) because their form is inconsistent and hollow appearing. Hence, why they changed it in the next iteration.


That's okay. I've already conceded that it's a RAI vs. RAW issue. (But the Paizo developers do seem to agree with me and fixed the poor wording of the spell.)


Ryze Kuja wrote:
Aronbar wrote:

That last description says otherwise. "If a creature has its invisibility negated by this spell, it is concealed instead of invisible." I said that the creature was visible but still benefits from concealment and that latest iteration agrees.

Granted I've yet to play PF2 so I have no idea what "concealed" means it game terms.

Concealed PF2e wrote:

Concealed

Source Core Rulebook pg. 618 4.0
While you are concealed from a creature, such as in a thick fog, you are difficult for that creature to see. You can still be observed, but you're tougher to target. A creature that you're concealed from must succeed at a DC 5 flat check when targeting you with an attack, spell, or other effect. Area effects aren't subject to this flat check. If the check fails, the attack, spell, or effect doesn't affect you.
You have to roll a d20, and if you get a 5 or less, your attack/spell misses. You can still see them though.

Right, I agree. You can see someone affected by Glitterdust, but they still benefit from concealment.


That last description says otherwise. "If a creature has its invisibility negated by this spell, it is concealed instead of invisible." I said that the creature was visible but still benefits from concealment and that latest iteration agrees.

Granted I've yet to play PF2 so I have no idea what "concealed" means it game terms.


I guess the short answer is RAI, the description is interpreted to negate the concealment. RAW, it doesn't.


Ryze Kuja wrote:
Quote:

Invisibility

The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can’t be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.

Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.

Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger’s favored enemy and from sneak attacks.

A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Perception check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack. It’s practically impossible (+20 DC) to pinpoint an invisible creature’s location with a Perception check. Even once a character has pinpointed the square that contains an invisible creature, the creature still benefits from total concealment (50% miss chance). There are a number of modifiers that can be applied to this DC if the invisible creature is moving or engaged in a noisy activity.

You are considered totally concealed while invisible. Glitterdust removes this.

This is my point. The creature is outlined, has a silhouette, so they can be pinpointed, but they still benefit from the 50% miss chance.

Also, I'm not sure where this RAI keeps coming from, the spell was created as a blinding spell. The sparkling outline is a secondary effect.


Well, "invisible" is a mechanic in the game which the spell grants. So it does say it via the rules.


I didn't say it doesn't make them visible. I asked if it negates the concealment. For instance, Displacement gives you total concealment, but you're perfectly visible and targetable.


I'll just throw the question out there. Does Glitterdust negate the concealment provided by the spell Invisibility?

Spells like Faerie Fire and Invisibility Purge specifically mention in their descriptions that they negate one or more conditions like concealment or invisibility, which are game mechanics. Glitterdust only says that invisible objects and creatures are "outlined", which isn't a game mechanic, but doesn't say anything about concealment. In my mind, this means that the creature can be pinpointed in a square but still benefits from concealment.

Thoughts?


I guess if 6480 is correct, then I might as well just make it 3/day rather than 3 mins a day as it doesn't seem to change the pricing.


I'm playing an arcane caster and would like to have a glove made that allows me to cast Spectral Hand for three minutes a day, usable in 1 min. increments. I believe the formula for such an item is Spell Level x Caster Level x 2,000gp. This, however, gives you a price of 12,000pg, which is way too high. So there's a rule that says if an item has less than 50 charges you divide 5 by the number of charges, 3 in this case, and then divide the price (12,000) by that number. So, 12,000 divided by 1.6 is 7,500. Again, this is way too high for such an item. There's an item called the Glove of Bony Power not dissimilar from the one I'm making, but it has an additional property and only costs 5,400gp. So, then I started to think, maybe what I think of as "a charge" isn't correct. If you think of a charge as a caster of a given level casting a spell one time, then that means I would divide 5 by 1 (instead of three) which gives me 5. So the formula would be 2 x 3 x 2,000 = 12,000pg/5 = 2,400gp. This seems much closer to the expected price.

My question is, would you guys have gotten to this point faster by using the rules given? That is to say, am I completely missing something in the RAW, or did this really require me re-imagining the friggn definition of a charge to get the correct pricing?


Looks dope, dude. I've gone to level 23 in one campaign and I thought I was a god lol.

I'm crying at your handwriting. You gotta work on that next!


Maybe I'm forgetting one, but I can't think of any ray that has a reflex save. I think that's the entire point. You either have to roll to hit, or the targets get to roll to mitigate/negate damage. Also, I believe in 3.5e they had metamagic feats that allowed players to change an AoE to a ray without a level increase. You're effectively creating another spell of equivalent power. I don't see a reason not to allow it. If my DM didn't, I'd just "research" my Fire Ray anyway.


I would add some down sides to teleportation.

First, I'd make it so that the trip through the Astral plane was disorienting. Maybe the characters are Dazed and Sickened upon arrival (Fort save negates or lessens the effect.)

Then, I'd make it so that using Scry to pinpoint the landing zone wasn't guaranteed.

Memory isn't concrete, especially when it comes to seeing something once. Unless teleported to within minutes, the image would be too fuzzy to use. This would make it so that they can't scry, regain spells and then teleport. I all has to be done within a few minutes. Say one minute per point of intelligence modifier.

If you're having issues with combat, bump the cast time to a full round action.


At 20th level? In my experience, things get even more rocket-taggy the higher level you reach, and even the most powerful enemies aren't going to last more than three rounds of full-attacking from martials or save-or-die spells from casters.

Obviously, if your party is less optimized fights can go at a slower pace, but I can't think of a single combat I've been in where spending the first two rounds doing nothing but moving and self-buffing would have been a good idea. That's why buffs with long durations or quick activation are so important: even if you do have a long combat, there's probably something much more meaningful you could have done in the first two rounds than boosting your own stats.

Well, considering this thread was created on the basis of this build, you're "critique" about how to do meaningful things in combat seems out of place.


avoron wrote:


Round 1: Cast Form of the Dragon III, quicken a shield, moving into position...
Round 2: Quicken another spell (Bull's strength), cast Transformation, moving into position...
Round 3: All enemies have been eliminated. Combat over. DPR = 0

Sounds like easy mode. In my gaming experience, combats last from 7-15 rounds. They can take an entire session.


Yeah, I love that spell. The bit about SLA and activation items is a bummer. Better make sure you're ready to smash stuff before you hit the big red button.

Also, I don't believe vital strike multiplies any bonuses, only the dice.


At 20th
Half-elf Arcanist (Brown-fur transmuter) 19/Sorcerer 1 (Orc)

Form of the Dragon III (FotD)

Str 44 18 +6 for spell, +6 bloodline, +2 level, +12 FotD
Dex 24 14 +10 FotD
Con 20 14 +6 transformation
Int 19 +3 for level
Wis 9
Cha 7

Bab: 20

hp= 210

Traits: Magical Knack, Lorekeeper

Feats: Mage's tattoo, Improved unarmed strike, Improved grapple, Improved natural attack (claws), Power attack, Furious focus

Exploits: Shift caster, Altered shifting, Bloodline development, Quick study, Potent magic, Familiar, more exploits...

SQ: pounce, rake, greater magic fang (permanency)

Gear: Amulet of mighty fists, protective stuff, robes of arcane heritage,

Combat:
Round 1: Cast Form of the Dragon III, quicken a shield, moving into position...
Round 2: Quicken another spell (Bull's strength), cast Transformation, moving into position...
Round 3: Charge! Str=44 [20 + 12(Form of the Dragon III) + 6(bull's strength) + 6(Bloodline)] bite +50 (2d8+40)
Round 4: full attack: bite +48 (2d8+40), 2 claws +43 (2d8+32), 2 wings +43 (2d8+32), tail +42 (2d8+32) DPR ~254

I'm not entirely sure about Quickened spell-like ability, but if it's legit:
full attack: bite +58 (2d8+50), 2 claws +53 (2d8+42), 2 wings +53 (2d8+42), tail +53 (2d8+42) DPR ~304


Swap the order of round 2 and it works.


The build relying on mythic levels is where I lose interest. That makes this build really dependent on a very specific kind of game.

If I built it without mythic, and I'd have to have my little heart REALLY set on being able to turn furry, this is what I'd do:

25 pt. build
Half-elf Arcanist (Brown-fur transmuter) 12/Sorcerer 1 (Level 13 because that's when it's a viable option)

Str 28 16 +2 for race, +6 for spell, +4 bloodline
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 19 +3 for level
Wis 9
Cha 7

Traits: Magical Knack, Reactionary

Feats: Mage's tattoo, Improved unarmed strike, Improved grapple, Improved natural attack (claws), Power attack, Furious focus,

Exploits: Shift caster, Altered shifting, Bloodline development, Quick study, Potent magic, Familiar

SQ: pounce, rake, greater magic fang (permanency)

Gear: Amulet of mighty fists, protective stuff, robes of arcane heritage,

Combat:
Round 1: Cast a quickened shield, then cast beast shape II (Dire tiger), moving into position...
Round 2: Cast Transformation. Quicken another spell (Bull's strength), moving into position...
Round 3: Pounce! Str=34 [18 + 6(beast shape II) + 6(bull's strength) + 4(Bloodline)] 2 claws +31 (2d6+28 plus grab), bite +31 (2d6+34 plus grab), Grapple=32 Bab +14, Str +12, Size +4, Imp. Grapple +2
Round 4: Rake! 2 claws (2d6+28)

I'm sure it can be optimized better, but this is a good baseline. Again, 13th level is a long build.


After looking over what's taking place here, I'm not sure I see the point in taking School Understanding. It doesn't really grant you much. I guess the 8th level ability is nifty, but the first level one is surpasses by a 2nd level spell (say, Bull's Strength or Bear's Endurance). I'd save the level and just go Arcanist/Sorcerer (Orc).


Tell me more about your build. I'm interested in an arcane polymorfer that doesn't bad.


Tanariel Lantherian wrote:
Does the rest of the group know what this player is planning? What are their thoughts on it?

We're all evil, greedy bastards, so needless to say we are all on board. Like I mentioned, it just seems like an abuse of a poorly written spell.


rando1000 wrote:
Aronbar wrote:


However, as mentioned in a reply before, using guile and deceit, it's entirely possible to manipulate a person's view of a situation so that it no longer appears as against their nature. Any evil enchanter worth his weight had a maxed bluff.

Perhaps, but it shouldn't be necessary often, because you've gone to the effort of magically controlling someone with a mid-level spell. If you could just convince the person to do something anyway, why even bother dominating them and then having to make a skill check as well? Leave the spell off your list and use your skills.

Because it clears up a lot of the work,"Get in the wagon, keep your head down and don't make noise."

"Okay."

There would be lot more to capturing an unwilling target who is acting of their own accord.


Claxon wrote:
Aronbar wrote:

So, I looked over the threads about Compulsion spells but was unsuccessful in finding the answer to the following: To what extent is the victim of a Compulsion spell, specifically the Dominate types, capable of intricate tasks such as crafting items mundane or even magical?

We have a player in the group who seems to think that they could use such a person to get cheap or free items via this method. We've suggested adding the experience cost from 3.5 back in, but this doesn't seem like it would solve the issue.

At the least, if your player insist upon this make them take as long as possible crafting. Since its an NPC you get to decide what level and what mechanics the NPC has. Don't give it any that reduce crafting time.

Once you see that an individual can only produce 1000gp worth progress per day things start to cost too much (in actual game time) to make this plan particularly worthwhile. 1 month later sure he has 30,000 gp worth of goods. But he could have made much more than that adventuring (probably).

Also combine it with a time limits that mean he can't just sit around and wait for crafting to happen.

Make threats ever present and bad things always just around the corner. If bad things are always on the horizon the party will want to stay on the move and the player wont really see much benefit as the game continues.

Lastly, it would definitely be against most peoples nature to give away items for free to a stranger. Or someone you barely know.

If he tries to get them for free I would say the person gets another save with a bonus. At best, the player might get a 10% discount without giving the dominated person a save.

I should say, I'm not the DM. Just a concerned, fellow player.

It would seem that you could just lie or manipulate them into creating the item. Tell them you'll give them x percentage now and the rest once it's completed, then go back on your word (bluff) once the items done.

More than this, I was wondering if there was some kind of official clarification/errata that I could point to to deter that sort of abuse. It's just a lot of power and leway given to only a 5th level spell.


rando1000 wrote:

If you take the "against their nature" line too far, it's not really DOMINATING them in any way. It's just suggesting things they might do anyway. For example:

Would you normally get up and walk across a room to open a door for someone who is standing right in front of the door? If not, it's "against your nature", and if the person dominating you tells you to get up and open the door for him, you get a new save.

That line of thinking pretty much kills the usefulness of the spell. I think you need to view it as "if they would do this under ANY circumstance, it's not against their nature". Such as "Would a person make a magic item for free FOR HIS 1st level NEPHEW to go adventuring with?" If the answer is still no, new save. But if the person could conceivably do the action in the best circumstance possible, no, no new save.

However, as mentioned in a reply before, using guile and deceit, it's entirely possible to manipulate a person's view of a situation so that it no longer appears as against their nature. Any evil enchanter worth his weight had a maxed bluff.


So far, everything I've read from you guys reinforces what the other player has stated. It sounds completely possible, per RAW, that they could have a personal item maker under their control.


Wonderstell wrote:

Sooo... are you or any player in your group evil?

Mind control is not any better than slavery, and forcing someone to create something for you for free is basically stealing.

To answer your first question, I believe the victim is capable of all its usual actions (using its own skill bonus and feats).

Dominate Person wrote:
If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities.

While it is more or less obvious that the victim is under the effect of Dominate Person (DC 15 Sense Motive), it's not like they lose their sense of self.

Oh yes! Very evil!


So, I looked over the threads about Compulsion spells but was unsuccessful in finding the answer to the following: To what extent is the victim of a Compulsion spell, specifically the Dominate types, capable of intricate tasks such as crafting items mundane or even magical?

We have a player in the group who seems to think that they could use such a person to get cheap or free items via this method. We've suggested adding the experience cost from 3.5 back in, but this doesn't seem like it would solve the issue.


You might even be better off going Crossblooded Sorcerer Arcane(Sage)/Orc. Use the Human favored class to add the lost spell from crossblooded back.Then your Missiles would max at 1d4+9 and add Dazing and you could still cast with Intelligence and have those tasty skill points. The Metamagic Adept would allow you to add Dazing Spell a few times a day without increasing the casting time. Othewise, use a Rod.


Most everyone on this board is going to tell you you're better off being "god" and that battlefield control is the only way to go. I disagree.

Since you've presented a build, we'll go with it:

1st. You're right about the Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration. As you approach 11th-12th level Spell Resistance will become more common and as you're depending on your spells "affecting" your targets, your effectiveness is tied to it more so than other caster types.

2nd. Adding something to your damage spells is great. Action economy is one of the hardest things to modify in pathfinder, especially for a blaster. Slowing your enemies advance is awesome. That being said, Dazing Spell requires your target to "take damage" from your spell in order to be affected. Your chosen spell has the number one resisted/nullified elements, fire and you'll be contending with the aforementioned SR.

3rd. The level increase on Dazing Spell is steep, +3. You could have Empowered and Intensified the same level spell with that. Then again, a creature losing all it's actions is pretty unbelievable.

I'd say dump the Spell Specialization and get the Spell Penetration chain, at least before 10th level. I'd also use a different spell with Dazing like Magic Missile. Split the four missiles among four different targets and nullify a group without risk of hitting teammates and the save becomes Will, the bane of Rogues and Fighter types.


Are you taking any Traits, or did I miss them in your introduction?

What school did you specialized in and what are your opposition schools?


Nohwear wrote:

My first thought is to pick up some wands. What spells do you know? Also, what race?

EDIT: Assuming that your GM will let you use it right away, you may want to wait for Ultimate Intrigue. Your character idea sounds like something this book was meant to support.

Lots of wands is a great idea. I'm human.

I've never heard of Ultimate Intrigue. Is that due out soon?


Uh... level 3 to start.


And to you're wanting to know what sort of environment we'll be in, I have no idea. We're starting in a town, but we have no idea where we'll end up through out the campaign.


No, you are correct. A shopping list is precisely what I'd like. Something I can work towards.

What sort of "specifics" are you wanting?


As the title suggests, I've made a sorcerer without combat as a focus. Although he will be able to contribute through limited control spells, he'll mainly shine outside of combat.

The campaign setting is Eberron and we're using the Automatic Progression rules so I'm going to have lots of slots to fill.

The build is Crossblooded Socerer (Rakshasa/Serpentine) with Eldritch Heritage and Improved Eldritch Heritage taken for Shadow (Umbral) Bloodline. The idea is to be a ghost. He'll acquire and trade secrets.

Any suggestions on items that will support this idea and build?


Secret Wizard wrote:
Pretty hilarious we are breaking even! I think mine grows better (mostly because it's closer to Greater Mutagen), but they seem very competitive.

Agreed. I'd hate to be the meat in that sandwich.


Oops, link was garbage. Also, the stats aren't based off his but whatever we used for the thread (which I know we're lower.)

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mhpi&page=last?The-DPR-Summer-Olympics-or- What-are-we


Secret Wizard wrote:

Well, here's the balanced build... it doesn't take all the damage option, but it has balanced defenses, utility and offense.

Race
Human

Archetype
Mutation Warrior

Attributes
S16+2 D18 C14 I14 W12 CH12

Traits
Defender of the Society, Indomitable Faith

Feats and Stuff

1. Two-Weapon Fighting, Cosmopolitan (two extra languages, Perception and Sense Motive as class skills), Weapon Focus (kukri)
2. Double Slice
3. Iron Will
4. Weapon Specialization, +1 STR
5. Weapon Training (light blades), Versatile Training (Bluff, Intimidate)
6. Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
7. Power Attack, Discovery: Wings
8. Greater Weapon Focus, +1 STR
9. Improved Critical, Advanced Weapon Training: Focused Weapon
10. Armed Bravery

Gear 2x +1 kukri, Belt of Physical Perfection +2, +2 Mithral Breastplate, +2 Cloak of Resistance, +1 Ring of Protection, Jingasa, Gloves of Dueling, Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Pale Green Prism Ioun Stone (cracked, attacks), 1k gold extra

STATS AT 10 (WITH MUTAGEN, FOR 100 MINUTES PER DAY)
S26 D20 C16 I12 W12 CH12

HP 10d10+30 (average 90)
Initiative +5
Fort +12, Ref +10, Will +10

AC 29 (10+8 armor+1 def+1 luck+1 trait+3 natural+5 dex)

Attacks
+21/+21/+16/+16, 15-20/2x critical rate
MH: 1d10+21
OH: 1d10+18

Average DPR vs. 24 AC (average for enemy this level): 107.41 (and doesn't require flanking or anything :P)

Skills
5 skill ranks per level + Bluff and Intimidate maxed (total 7 max ranks)

I love it. Looks like we had a lot of the same ideas. I don't know why people like to bash two-weapon fighters so much. I prefer them. Here's mine posted at the Pathfinder Olympics. Sorry about the formatting.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mhpi&page=8?The-DPR-Summer-Olympics-or-Wha t-are-we#359


Secret Wizard wrote:
Aronbar wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

This again?

Point buy, trait numbers, level for comparison, WBL?

Use the array provided by oddgoblin, level 10, WBL is fine.
Are we doing loldamage or should I get the staples (Iron Will, Versatile Training, etc.)?

I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the term "loldamage"


Secret Wizard wrote:

This again?

Point buy, trait numbers, level for comparison, WBL?

Use the array provided by oddgoblin, level 10, WBL is fine.


Also, oddgoblin specifically referenced Artemis Entreri. In the FRCS he's listed as a fighter/rogue. A terrible build but luckily PF fixed a few of those issues.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Aronbar wrote:


I've used this build, but mine was Mutagen Warrior variant. It will out DPR most any other fighter type and has skills to back it's purpose.
Except, you know, another Mutation Warrior Fighter that focuses on STR.

It's easy to say "yea, but". Let's see the numbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unchained Rogue 4/Fighter 8

Feats:
TWF chain
Piranha Strike
Improved Crit
Weapon Focus and Specialization

I've used this build, but mine was Mutagen Warrior variant. It will out DPR most any other fighter type and has skills to back it's purpose.


Not sure if anyone still posts here, but here's my attempt at a Two Weapon Ted

Unchained Rogue 4/Mutation Warrior (Fighter variant) 6

Abilites:
Str 10
Dex 22 (+2 race, +2 level, +2 belt)
Con 14 (+2 belt)
Int 14
Wis 10
Cha 10

HP 84
AC 27
Init 10

Fort 11
Ref 15 (17 /w Mutagen)
Will 6 (5 /w Mutagen)

Feats:
H Improved Initiative
1st Dodge
3rd Two-Weapon Fighting
5th Piranha Strike
Fighter 1st
Fighter 2nd Outflank
7th Toughness
Fighter 3rd Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
9th Improved Critical
Fighter 4th Weapon Specialization

Equipment:
+2 kukri x2
+2 mithral chainshirt
+3 Ring of Protection
Boots of Speed
+2 Belt of Physical Might: Dex and Con
+3 Cloak of Resistance
Advanced Weapon Training:
Fighter's Tactics
Focused Weapon

Rogue Talents:
Weapon Training
Bleeding Attack

+9(BAB) +8(Dex modified with mutagen) +2(Weapon Enhancement) +1(Weapon Training) +1(Weapon Focus) +1(Boots of Speed) +1(Ioun Stone) +4(Outflank) -2(Piranha Strike) =25 (27 when Sa)

1d8(Focused Weapon) +8(Dex) +2(Weapon Enhancement) +2(Weapon Specialization) +4(Piranha Strike) = ~20 (27 /w SA)

Main Hand (.95x20)x2+(.83x20)+15 = ~67 (~78 /w SA)

Off-Hand (.95x18)+(.83x18)+8 = ~40 (~55 /w SA)

DPR= ~107 (~133 /w SA)

10 +8(Dex /w Mutagen) +7(Armor) +2(Natural Armor) +1 (Dodge) +1(Boots of Speed)
AC 29

HP ~84
Init. 10


I also see here that Focused Weapon applies to any weapon that the fighter has Weapon Focus on. That's sick! A bow could be doing 2d8.

I think I'll try a Fighter archer build and see what it looks.