Barry Armstrong's page

Organized Play Member. 902 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, but why is this even a question? The RAW is clear. A Black Blade is immune to the broken condition with the retention of 1 Arcane Pool point via Unbreakable. It is not immune to being sundered or destroyed, because the ability does not state as such anywhere.

The first quote does NOT bypass any of the last three. Ever.

PRD, Blade Bound Magus, Black Blade Abilities, Unbreakable wrote:
As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is immune to the broken condition.
PRD, Additional Rules, Smashing an Object, Hit Points wrote:
When an object's hit points reach 0, it's ruined.
PRD, Additional Rules, Smashing an Object, Damaged Objects wrote:
…until the item's hit points are reduced to 0, at which point it is destroyed.
PRD, Combat, Combat Maneuvers, Sunder wrote:
If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

All of those quotes are direct RAW. No interpretation necessary. No FAQ necessary. No comparative examples or precedents necessary. In fact, the only inconsistency whatsoever is that the "Hit Points" paragraph should really use the word "destroyed" instead of "ruined" (which is not a game term like destroyed is). But that's pedantic.

If this ability said "As long as it has at least 1 point in its arcane pool, a black blade is never reduced to less than 1 hit point" then it would work as you all seem to want it to, and by effect become immune to being destroyed (but still not immune to being sundered down to that 1hp, even though it would retain it's full functionality).

But that's not what it says, so that's not how it works. If you want it to function to that respect, homebrew the wording that way, and it will. But RAW, it is immune to broken, but not sundered or destroyed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP, first, let me say I understand this is your first time behind the DM seat. Let's school you up on a few things you need to know:

This situation is not munchkin. It is optimization, it is powergaming, etc...the difference? Munchkins do it at others' expense. So far, you've included nothing about him impacting the fun of other players, only your own frustration in not wanting to alter the content to cater to him.

There is nothing "WIN" about Super Stealth. There's two pages of suggestions here as to how to combat his one-trick pony. I won't repeat their advice, but I will recommend that you heed it.

Secondly, I respect that you want to stick to the printed Adventure Path (in your case, Kingmaker). However, a good DM tweaks everything to his players. If he's using a strategy that makes it harder for the monsters, it's your job to increase the CR to compensate. Give the monsters more hp, let the "lieutenants and above" see invis, give them deeper darkvision, etc...

Don't just stick to the printed Adventure Path and complain about optimized players being too OP for it. Part of what you owe to your players is to make everything "risky". Otherwise it's just not fun. Even for Super Stealth Halfling Boy. If there's no risk of death, there's no satisfaction of winning a scenario.

I am glad you've discussed progression with him, and his designs to take Hellcat Stealth and other stealth-centric stuff. Make sure he knows your concerns and limitations, and don't worry about him being a rules-lawyer.

The easiest way to combat rules lawyer players is to remind them of Rule 0 and Rule 1. Rule 0 is that all rules are optional if you say so. Rule 1 is that you, and only you, are the final rulebook interpretation authority for your campaign.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Excellent question. I would say that's a situation that might not have been addressed in the whole retraining concept. I would say that the unwritten rule is that you have to maintain qualification for anything you retrain into/from, at the level you will have swapped it out for.

So, instead of Skill Focus, if he wanted to take Combat Reflexes and met the prerequisites at level 1, I would say ok. But, yeah, I would recommend Weapon Focus and Power Attack not be given to a level 3 in a 3/4 BAB class.

This allowance would, as you suggest, start breaking mechanical limitations originally imposed for a reason.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, there's a lot of misinformation here. Let me clarify a few things:

1. Improved Unarmed Strike does not give you the ability to kick. Anyone can kick or headbutt by using an Unarmed Strike, according to the Combat chapter of the CRB. The only thing Improved Unarmed Strike gives you is the negation of the Attack of Opportunity for striking unarmed. It basically makes you "armed" while unarmed, like a Monk.

2. Unarmed attacks are not always considered an iterative attack. To be clear, the term "iterative attack" is not anywhere in any Paizo rulebook. It's a fabricated game term. What you'd be looking for is either primary or off-hand, in the case of manufactured weapons and unarmed strikes, or primary or secondary, in the case of natural weapons.

At any rate, you can be a level 1 Tengu Monk and completely justified in doing a full-attack rotation of Claw/Claw/Beak/Kick/Kick, so long as each of those attacks come from a different limb (which they do) and you take the appropriate penalties for two-weapon fighting and the natural attacks becoming secondaries.

3. You can indeed mix unarmed strikes and natural weapons in exactly the way you describe. As long as you're using a different limb for each attack, it's perfectly feasible to do claw/claw/bite/kick. Or even claw/claw/bite/kick/kick, so long as you take the penalty for two-weapon fighting with that second kick. Noteworthy here is that a Monk has no offhand attacks when striking unarmed. So the kick (or both kicks) would be made at full BAB. It might be worth dipping into Monk for 2 levels for a build such as this, for both that reason, and the ability to get either Feral Combat Training or give up Flurry for Master of Many Styles (which adds to your natural/unarmed damage dice). Also noteworthy is that weaving natural weapons with manufactured or unarmed strikes makes ALL natural attacks secondary. So they happen at full BAB -5. This is completely RAW legal, but many consider will it against RAI, so check with your DM beforehand. To date, there is no Errata or FAQ saying you cannot do it.

4. There is also no official FAQ or Errata saying that claws cannot be put on feet. It was indeed answered in an unofficial thread named "Ask JJ" where he says claw attacks are for hands, talons are for feet. Again, let me be clear. This is his specific opinion on that specific ability. The RAW does not specify claws on hands only in any official Paizo product, FAQ, or Errata. It was not answered with the profile "Pathfinder Design Team", the profile they use now to designate an official rules change sanctioned by the "Big 3".

The reason behind their RAI of not having claws on feet is because it breaks the limitations of certain feats such as Feral Combat Training and Weapon Focus. You'd have 4 weapons they would apply to instead of the intended 2. So, most DM's will allow you to use the mechanic, but reclassify the "feet claws" as talons so you'll have to retake the appropriate feats and preserve the balance.

5. Be aware that you cannot normally gore and bite unless you have multiple heads. Natural attacks are limited to one per limb, per natural attack rules, and the gore attack comes from either tusks or horns, both of which manifest on the head. There are specific monster races that can do both, but I'm willing to bet your Barb/Druid is not a Gargoyle. However, being shapeshifted and then raging, which adds the gore attack afterwards, is a rather grey area that your DM will have to clarify. By RAW it both works and doesn't work. I can see the argument that the transformation and then the rage makes you into a temporary Dire version of whatever you're shapeshifted into, which, again, must get clarified by your specific DM.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I also find the complete denial of any confusion, or problems, to be a massive disservice to all Pathfinder players as a whole.

This is what gets me angry about this topic. The devs say "oh, well, when we wrote the book, we wrote it with the assumption that a player character has two hands and won't ever use more".

This, they add in, as an afterthought. In an FAQ. Meaning there was clarity necessary. If this was the intention, it should have been spelled out in a rule. As in, a definition of primary hand, off-hand, and the mechanics of a "hand" in general.

Then, they start putting out splatbooks. Books which have extra rules and options. Some of which clearly add extra hands. Literally and figuratively.

Yet, someone clever in editing and continuity says "you don't get extra attacks or actions, even though you have extra hands", because that would break the "you only ever get two" rule.


If they want PC's to only have two hands, and monsters can have more, then all they have to do is spell that out clearly and write it down. Stop with the ambiguity. Clear disservice to Pathfinder players indeed.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"An initiative check is a dexterity check". And I don't think anyone will argue that a dexterity check is an ability check.

A straight ability check is used when you don't have the overlying appropriate skill.

Using Devil's Advocate's example, if you wanted to Haggle prices, you certainly could use the Diplomacy skill, or a Bluff check, if you wanted to. That would be a skill check.

If you didn't, you use a straight Charisma roll. That would be an ability check.

However, EVERYONE has initiative (and attack). So they're kind of a hybrid, especially since each specifies which bonuses apply to it, above and beyond your base ability bonus.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's also pretty impractical now that the ruleset has expanded and there are multiple ways to get a third "hand", whether it be real or metaphorical.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmm, after some research in the actual, official FAQ's, I found it. It seems I stand corrected. Bite Flurry away.

My personal opinion is that this would be an awesome character. I just didn't think that was the way it read. But if it's been FAQ'd, then I stand down.

Sorry, but I hate people that just throw the PFSRD around as official source documents. It's not.

Cheapy wrote:
Isn't the ability to delete posts nice? :)

Indeed, for when I have to correct myself. Foot in mouth already achieved, no need for me to sink my other in quicksand. :D

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Never once did I say the "old school" is better. As a matter of fact, all I was doing was explaining why I blame MMO's for the modern attitude towards "WINNING" at tabletop games. Again, if you're offended, it might be because you're amongst that crowd and a bit too defensive.

And, yes, I know the Monty Haul methodology started with the very game I'm talking about. A dungeon crawl was just that. Kick open the door, kill the monsters, take the loot.

But it's different nowadays. Now, if you're not level-dipping, maximizing DPR, and using all of your action economy, "You Suck At This Game and L2P". You can't say that attitude doesn't exist. Just look around these boards for literally thousands of examples.

If we took the old-school attitude and combined it with the new-school options and freedoms, we'd have tabletop perfection. I've said that in every post, and given allowance to compromise.

But, no, people want to take my words out of context and focus only on what they want to try to troll me for. It's cool, I'll sleep tonight regardless. And still happily game tomorrow.

Here's a perfect example. I posted a build of a Catfolk Ninja/Assassin I wanted to create for a story arc. I was immediately assaulted NOT by people helping me maximize that concept, but by people naysaying the Assassin Prestige Class (which is admittedly sub-optimal, but I didn't care), telling me I should use 2-handed weapons (which have been popular lately because of the scaling damage) instead of my natural claw/claw/bite routine, and pretty much trying to reconceptualize my build into a "WIN" scenario.

To be fair, there were a few who non-judgmentally looked, questioned my feat choices, and offered suggestions, but the overwhelming majority was the paragraph above.

Why would YOU say that is, if not for the "new-gen" crowd trying to push the "WIN" button and facerolling their metaphorical keyboards?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:

Seriously, why does some "old school" gamer always have to stop in and tell us about why the new generation is awful? And why is it always video games (MMOs mostly) that make us all awful?

Every time I see a thread like this, it's about how the past was better, how new players can't roleplay (we can only ROLLPLAY!), and it's seriously annoying. It's like the game has somehow magically changed in the past 10-20-30 years!

New players are going to play the way that makes them happy, and that may not be to the archaic standards that the legendary roleplayers of old enjoy, but it's no one's job to keep those traditions alive but them.

I think for many of us "old school" crowd, creating your character, storyline, and background AFTER optimizing, powergaming, or munchkining your way into the "WIN" button is a prime example of roleplay vs. rollplay. We didn't have Wizards of the Coast trying to cater to a younger crowd and dumbing down our rules for modern 8-year olds. We actually taught our 8-year olds how to do math. Calculate THAC0. Add and subtract bonuses. I think many of us feel the modern methods are lazy, because "WE" had to put the effort in to get the effect out. Not so much these days. So, yes, gaming has radically changed over the past 30 years, and not all for the better.

We used to not get a choice for ability scores. There was no "point buy system". There wasn't even a "put your rolls into whatever score you wanted" option. There was "Roll 3d6. Record ability scores in order. See what race and class you qualified for." Yes, you had to qualify for race as well as class. If your scores were too high, you couldn't be a dwarf. And qualifying for Paladin? Good effing luck.

Now, were strict rules like this "BETTER"? No. But they certainly forced you to roleplay rather than rollplay. I'd honestly like to see a fusion of old and new. A compromise of the freeform, but with tighter focus on creation of a story rather than a monster crunching, faceroll wizard with the same build everyone else uses because it's "better", "more effective", or puts out more DPR with better action economy.

I'm of the mind that the ATTITUDE is more the problem than the playstyle. If I want to make a Grippli Barbarian, don't convince me to make a half-orc because the stats are better. That happens on this site a lot. And it's a result of the very thing I've been talking about.

We blame MMOs because MMOs require no roleplaying. No background. No immersion. Create character using generator, kill monsters, level up. Get the best gear. That HAS carried over onto the tabletop. Perfect example: D&D 4ed. That's an MMO on paper. It's why I don't play it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep. The Lone Wolf. He'll get you every time. He will sit back as you read the party hook, fold his arms, and become the spoiled, entitled one who demands that you and everyone else justify why HE should lower himself off of his lofty cloud and work as a team. He's the one who creates his character last, wants to know what everyone else is playing, and create something completely out of line with the party. Just because he thinks he can. And then justifies it by "roleplaying in character".

I love DMing for the Lone Wolf. I have a knack for creating story hooks that he can't refuse. After all, if he does, he'd have to admit that he's not playing in character.

But, I digress. Those are not "power-gamers" or "munchkins".

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I maintain that munchkins/optimizers/powergamers/min-maxxers (label them how you will, they're all really the same. Using broken or exploited loopholes and level-dipping combinations to "win") have always been around.

However, the combination of the "MMO Generation" and PFS gameplay (not knocking it, but it's a contributing factor) have evolved into a "If you aren't putting out <X> DPS with <X> action economy, you are shunned from the group". Which devolves into a "If you aren't <X> class with <X> abilities, you suck" mentality. Which further devolves into a "Why does <X> class or <X> role suck so bad?" The simple answer is, it doesn't.

PFS contributions to this are obvious. The nature of the limitations here demand you pull your weight at the table, in combat and in social scenarios. That naturally leads to competitive gameplay and forum debates.

Where the MMOOMFGBBQROFLCOPTER crowd comes in is the statisticians. The tank needs to generate <X> amount of threat or the party dies. The DPS needs to contribute <X> amount of damage or he isn't invited to the raid. The healer needs to pump out <X> amount of heals per second or the tank dies and you have TPK. There are even third-party apps to calculate it for you (Omen, Recount, etc...).

These gamers gravitated that mindset to the tabletop, combined it with the pre-existing condition known as munchkin, and it leads to the threads you see here.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the FAQ says is that you have to use a different limb for each attack when combining natural and unarmed strikes. What they don't want you to do is kick someone then try to claw or talon with your feet. That way it mimics the mechanics of natural and manufactured weapons.

I see nothing that legally prevents the attack sequence in the OP. In fact, I'll give him one better. Make that Fighter/Monk a Kobold and get the Tail Terror feat on top of all that.

Now he legally has a full attack sequence using different limbs for each one:

1. unarmed (left leg)
2. unarmed (right leg)
3. claw (left hand)
4. claw (right hand)
5. bite (head)
6. slap (tail)

Note that he cannot do this as a Flurry without Feral Combat Training, but by level 5 he could pick that up and use all 6 attacks in a Flurry, legally.

Note also that once weaved with unarmed strikes, all natural attacks are secondary and don't gain full STR bonus to damage.

Now, this is great at low levels, but is seriously outclassed by getting magical weapons, bonuses, and items. Not to mention monster progression. Such is the nature of natural attacks.

Using things like charge/pounce/rend mechanics, monk style feats for bleeds, power attack for extra damage, Agile AoMF, etc...he can stay on par with his bretheren, but the feat taxes and cost of the items to stay that way is pretty heavy. So it's fairly balanced, especially considering his monk path cuts down his BAB to 75%.

(Sorry for long-windedness, this is a concept I've built, tested, and perfected. It's dear to my heart. And RAW legal.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Umm, debate degenerated into real-world physics. Please explain to me the physics of Magic Missile.

It works if you're big enough, strong enough, and have enough limbs and martial training to support the swing. You forgot the physics of growing two extra arms. And, if you're taking this into real world physiology, the extra set of pecs and delts to support those arms. Think Goro from Mortal Kombat.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you grow an extra pair of arms, at my table, you're an exception to the rule. As such, I'd allow use of appropriate RAW abilities and feats such as Multiattack and/or Multiweapon Fighting, but not special abilities such as Multiweapon Mastery (Ex).

Relixander wrote:

Need a quote establishing the terms Primary Hand and Off Hand, actually reference types of attacks or hands/limbs/etc. It is crucial to the faq and arguments.

I don't believe the current rule set or faq actually clarifies the term.

ATTACKS are defined as attack, full attack, attack of opportunity. Note: The unofficial term "iterative" is used to define attacks per round beyond the first, gained by level, feat, or ability. That word doesn't actually appear in any Paizo product, IIRC.

NATURAL ATTACKS are defined as primary or secondary, depending on limb placement, frequency of use, and strength multiplier.

WEAPONS are classified as light, 1h, 2h, sub-classified into melee, ranged, martial, exotic, and are based on size of weapon vs. relative size of creature, how many hands are needed to wield it, and it's availability and nature of manufacture.

FEATS utilize primary and off-hand in their descriptions.

COMBAT RULES establish the terms primary and off-hand:

Two-Weapon Fighting

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.

Table: Two-weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

FAQ on the topic states you get to choose which hand is primary and which is secondary, and allows you to either alternate hands with iteratives, or use all primary then all secondary, your choice.

The only thing that isn't direct RAW is the FAQ (which is basically official gospel anyways).

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I think we can consider this official notification that some of us want more high level content! (if you didn't have any before.)

I know I'd definitely be interested in some stuff 16+. Those of us that theorycraft mid-level builds for fun would absolutely love to see content to playtest these wild characters out on.

Heck, I'd even be willing to contribute where I can. That would be my dream job to help impact a major undertaking like taking Pathfinder to level 30 (I was a huge fan of the D&D 30 level path and the AD&D epic level stuff).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If your DM doesn't use common sense, they need to give the position to someone else. That's what the DM is there for.

Are you really going to suggest that the OP is going to be able to sprout the third set of claws his post mentions on his elbows, and gain attacks that way?

Again, common sense MUST be factored in by the DM. Regardless of what is printed on the paper, the players are ALL subject to DM interpretation. The DM makes the yea or nay call.

If I have a gargoyle PC, I will let him gore and bite on the same limb, because his base race can do so. If I have a PC with the helm of the mammoth lords, I would let him gore and bite with an immediate -2 to attack, until I decided he got used to using both attacks.

We can play the "What's RAW matters, DM interpretation and common sense don't" all day long. Just remember, the DM can do it, too.

"Your helm of the mammoth lords gives you a gore attack, but nothing says you gained proficiency. Take a negative to your hit."

That being said, you're right in pointing out that the 1 limb per attack rule from the CRB specifies while weaving natural and manufactured weapons, not "JUST" natural weapons. I will try to find the UMR rules that specify.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are people saying "AoE is rendered useless" and "This/that doesn't work in mapless combat"? There is nothing in any combat section that says a battlemap must be used or <X> spell or <Y> ability is non-functional. You guys just aren't thinking outside the box.

Mapped combat is unnecessary if you're descriptive enough in your actions. I allow my players to use or not use a battle map, majority decision. Some people just really like it.

The DM is key to mapless combat. He has to be descriptive, and the players have to ask the right questions. For instance:

"Can I shoot him with my bow from behind this overturned carriage?"

"No, the corner of the apothecary building is in the way. If you can get to the fence I described earlier, you may have a better angle."

"Can I drop a fireball on his location?"

"Yes, and remember, you have the spellshaping feat, so if you want to, you can bend it around the corner in case he has buddies back there"

"Don't do that, the rogue was sneaking around the building to sap him!"

There's plenty of mechanics in that simple call and response. You just need to be able to project and have good imaginative spatial awareness.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

I'm sorry, you lost me at, "I don't want to adapt to my player's play styles."

As someone who thoroughly enjoys optimization and building interesting characters, you wouldn't have my respect if you flat-out told me that you were limiting my options because you didn't want to step up to the challenge of designing encounters around my character. Your job as the GM is to make sure your game is suitably difficult for your players, and as a GM myself I've always enjoyed players who optimize because it means I can throw harder challenges at them. And when they fail miserably, I can shrug my shoulders and say, "Well, I thought you were optimized!"

This. All day long. This is the meat and potatoes of the entire thread.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, you're making a LOT of assumptions. First and foremost is that a non-munchkin PC is a death magnet. It's not. I've survived plenty of deadly encounters with non-optimized characters. It's all about finding a solution to the problem at hand.

How did asking a player not to be a munchkin become a game limitation? If you're of the opinion that DPR and Action Economy are the end all, and that the game has a "win" and a "lose" scenario, then that would be all well and good.

But this game is not, let me repeat NOT designed around absolute optimization. The CR is designed around an averagely rolled Warrior, Mage, Thief, and Cleric concept, perhaps with 1 or 2 more added in. The adventure paths say how many characters of what level are intended.

The game is not designed around a level-dipping combat monkey who takes 2 levels of Ranger, 2 levels of Monk, 2 levels of Sorceror, and 10 levels of Dragon Disciple, has 7 natural/unarmed attacks per round plus quickened empowered spells to ensure that he is the Epitome of All Things. (And yes, this IS possible. This is what I believe the OP means when he defines munchkin or min/max.)

The DM's responsiblity is to adjust that experience up or down depending on the players and their relative strengths. He has many tools at his disposal, first and foremost of which is the evaluation of how play goes with this Uber Monk. Is it too easy? Give the monsters Giant, Advanced, or Undead templates. Raise the CR, HD, and DC of the monsters. Put 16 goblins in play instead of 10. Make it happen, make it challenging, make it fun. If you've killed a player, you made it too hard (assuming the PC didn't do something stupid or roll a 1 on his Acrobatics check to span a 1000 foot deep canyon...) But you're still in charge of making sure he doesn't go outside your agreed-upon definition of munchkin, as well as throttling back your death machine so your players still have fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes. There was another thread because the answer in the first thread didn't produce the desired result. I maintain that the OP is trying to skirt around the rules simply to get what he wants. He's even been presented with viable options to get it legally. But it appears he doesn't (or refuses to) understand.

No matter how many times you slice it, here is the RAW from PRD. The rule is listed in the Cleric section, under the flavor text, and in the mechanical game rules under ROLE:

PRD wrote:
As their powers are influenced by their faith, all clerics must focus their worship upon a divine source. While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)

The simple answer to the OP's thread (both threads) is still NO. Even if you try arguing that the text doesn't specifically say you cannot worship two gods, it does say that a cleric MUST worship a deity or a concept. Singular grammar is used, therefore it the deity or concept is singular in nature. There is no question, no leeway for interpretation a different way, etc..., there is only the RAW (which my personal opinion says that RAI also supports, considering the above posted paragraph on Ex-Clerics).

This has all been pointed out to him, he's been shown several direct RAW references for normal play AND PFS play that restrict him from worshiping multiple Gods, but he won't leave it alone.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Err, forgive my abrasiveness, but if you aren't doing character audits, and don't know exactly what he's using to get to 32AC at level 4, you aren't doing your job as DM.

"He swears it has something to do with buffs, fighting defensively, and some monk stuff."

Unacceptable. Your inaction in character build audits and inattentiveness to the ruleset have allowed him to accomplish the very thing you hate and define as munchkining.

To his credit, and as a career monk player, I can say that you can indeed build a monk to 32AC at level 4 legally, but your to-hit and damage suffer greatly.

"He does some elemental fist thing that adds damage to his strikes."

Again, this makes me question whether you have enough knowledge in the DM seat to know whether something is legal or min/maxed and munchkin.

That being said, and my personal opinion aside, if he is detracting from the fun of the other players, and making you work harder as a DM to overcome the "obstacle" of his character, then you tailor future encounters to bring the monk down to the level of the other players.

There are plenty of suggestions above to do this. My recommendation is having a monster with decent targeted DR and a wicked strength/CMB come up against this "Turtle Monk".

Is it punishing the monk? Hell no it isn't. It's giving a munchkin the lesson that every build has a weakness.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
Yes, a cleric has a single deity for the purposes of determining her domain powers. That is not my question, however.

Look, you're clearly trying to skirt rules here to qualify for a feat. Any DM worth their salt will see right through this. And then you keep asking us what rule prevents it? I've listed them for you. But you want to nit-pick and say those paragraphs only apply to domain powers. Sure, that's cool, if your DM lets you get away with it, fine. I wouldn't.

If you are a Cleric, and you worship a god to get Domain powers, you worship ONLY THAT GOD. (See my first post for RAW and RAI). Any other god you pay homage to is basically lip service. You can thank in prayer to Erastil for the rains and good harvest, even if you worship Sarenrae. But you do not worship that god. Worship indicates devotion and servitude.

If you state that you are going to worship another God (other than your domain choice) to qualify for a feat, only your DM can tell you if that violates your holy Code, in which case, you may or may not fall to EX-Cleric status.

You can try to argue the rules all day long, but I've shown you in the Cleric class text (and every other indication of it, including the entirety of Ultimate Magic) where it says singular god, per RAW and RAI. Anything else is up to your DM to decide.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
slade867 wrote:

What's with the sympathy for the devil in this thread? They blipped as evil. That removes any ambiguity. They were an evil race to boot.

If killing weaker than you enemies is dishonorable than are Paladins allowed to fight unarmed opponents? Should high level Paladins avoid low level monsters? Should this Paladin have nursed the Morlocks back to health before killing them?

I think the actual question in that case is that the prisoners were locked up and unable to defend themselves. Blipping as evil on a Paladin's radar may or may not be justification for instant judgement and execution, based on that Paladin's deity's tenets and beliefs.

In my opinion, too many Paladin players think that Detect Evil is the end-all justification to cleave now, ask questions of the corpse later. Most goodly gods will want the actions of that being weighed, rather than go off of the black-and-white, good-or-evil spell radar. In fact, many gods may consider that killing to be murderous and below a representative of his/her faith. (Note that Torag is definitely an exception in this case, as he shows zero mercy with zero exceptions.)

There's a huge difference between killing an unarmed/unarmored evil being plotting a theft behind a copse of trees, and slaughtering a helpless evil being who is bound and caged. Think of the romantic knights of old as your Paladins.

In standard cases, yes, they should release the morlock from the cage, feed it, allow it to rest (perhaps via a Sleep spell so there's no funny business), put a sword in it's hand, and then strike it down in as much "fair combat" as the Paladin can muster.

Now, in a dungeon, when you don't have time or the means to do such things, and each noise risks the death of you and your parties, then putting these prisoners out of everyone's misery may have been the right call.

Exceptions to every rule. Only the Paladin and the DM can determine what his actions mean in the scale of things.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lobolusk wrote:

I am real sick of people telling me I am "meta gaming" I am not at all I have explained my actions to the T all in game and with motives and evidence.

it is not reasonable for a CN character to disagree about something for selfish reasons? I was there first I opened the gates maybe I take umbrage with some guy telling me what to do? I am chaotic neutral I do what i want when I want I don't have to have a reason other than I feel like it. maybe I had a moment of pity for those prisoners because being locked up sucks and then to have this giant asshat for a paladin who is supposed to be a good guy just say there evil kill them bothers me a little?

maybe in the future you people could send me a script so I know how to act at all times I would not want to role play in correctly.

in fact in game I said to him I am going to write your superiors he looked me in the eyes and said "go a head they could use a good laugh" and gave me the temple and the head of his order. maybe has a cold blooded killer it offended me to watch beings be killed with out being able to fight back? and I saw my own actions reflected in others?

any way so far this thread has been less than helpful and I have decided to let it go and fate will grant me an opportunity to strike. so please stop posting I have changed my mind apparently it is okay for a paladin to kill starving prisoners but not okay for a CE ninja to be upset about it.

can you tell I am pissed off?

Look, dude, you opened this up to a forum asking for our opinions on the topic. Just because you disagree with our assessment doesn't mean that we are wrong. In my opinion, you're pissed off because you know we're correct, we're not buying into your BS justifications, and you're now reverting into a classic case of emotionally defensive maneuvers.

You're sick of us telling you that you're metagaming because you appear to have no idea what that term actually means. Your supposed motives and evidence, as referenced by your posts, are sketchy at best and a thin veil of cover up to those who've been playing the game for 25-30 years in and out of a DM's role. I've seen it a thousand times, you are nothing special, you only make number 1,001 of players who want to be the spotlight and focus, and no one else's gaming matters to them.

But, go ahead and keep trying to justify it and get angry, then take your ball and go home like the proverbial fat kid. That only proves my case beyond the shadow of a doubt.

In the end, you're going to do what you want and think what you want anyways. Perhaps our wisdom will sink in just a bit and tip you off that you can't do what you want and say what you want in a group scenario and get away with it, just because you thought you chose a class and alignment that justified your poor attitude. But I doubt it.

You never even answered my valid questions, of what alignment the paladin was and what authority you thought you had that he supposedly violated in-game.

Instead, you dug your own grave deeper and started acting and answering more and more childish when we didn't agree with you (Oh, sorry, I mean agree with your Ninja).

Stop hiding behind the words "in-game" and admit the real problem. Then you can yell at us when we call you out on the obvious flaw.

I would have loved to have been "actually helpful" but I have an educated guess and a sneaking suspicion that the only HELP you wanted was for us to agree with your assessment and tell you it was ok and the Paladin is wrong.

Instead, long experience with players of this kind, degrees in Psychology and Sociology, and an extreme lack of tolerance for b#*%$%$$ have led me to the belief that your actions were not ok, and that the Paladin was justified in most of what he did.

Take it or leave it. Next time, don't ask if you don't want the truth.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EldonG wrote:
Eh...I don't see it so much as meta-gaming...when your schtick is stealth...and you're a borderline criminal anyhow...I can see how that can be real irritating.
EldonG wrote:
How about 'All that damn noise could have gotten me killed!'. That's the part where I can see a real BIG issue. CNs can definitely hold a grudge. That's an alignment that screams it, to me.

Irritating, yes, but if he's willingly working with a Paladin, then he knowingly risks such "irritations" on a daily basis. Could it eventually come to lagerheads and result in a fight or drama like the OP is saying? Perhaps. But I see a Ninja as more disciplined than this (even a CN one) and I believe he would just find a way to do his thing DESPITE the Paladin. That would be the ultimate pie in the face for any CN Stealthy. To kill at will, using methods you chose, and have the Goody-Goody NOT wanting to put you in jail.

Honestly, CN screams to me "next time your noise gets me in a pickle, I'll simply slit your throat while you sleep instead" as a grudge/retribution. But I see your point there. Non-grudge redacted.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with literally everything "ub3r n3rd" said. You are metagaming and letting that affect your character's decisions.

A Chaotic Neutral Ninja (especially that class, dammit) is not really going to care that a Paladin killed a few prisoners that were clinging on to life anyways. Hell, that's more drama for you to avoid.

Your character being a former prisoner might have initial umbrage with the Paladin slaughtering the helpless, but that should really only have caused you to shrug and say "Paladins will be Paladins", shake his head, and internally laugh over the silliness and hypocrisy of the class in general (which is why YOU aren't a Paladin". Then the Ninja turns attention to the next task. He certainly wouldn't harbor a grudge.

Are you seeing the difference between the Paladin playing in character and you metagaming?

Because that's really the point of my argument, and if you don't (or won't) see it, then my words are lost and wasted.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
EldonG wrote:
All well and good, but if he's a Dwarf Stone Lord, that letter will probably get him a commendation.

Valid point. We didn't know he was a Stone Lord until later. The Original Post just said "Paladin". More often than not, that means no killing prisoners based solely off of race/detect evil results. His particular faith is much less picky.

Lobolusk wrote:
My character doesn't like the paladin plain and simple because of his actions in the past we have had to fight more bad guys than we needed instead of letting me run in there and kill sleeping guys.

If your Ninja doesn't know how a Paladin would react to your murdering sleeping people (were those people evil? Did they detect as evil? This Stone Lord that you frequently play with seems to use that as a judgement call. A fellow party member would know this. A Ninja, especially, would be intelligent enough to count on it and either alter tactics or simply do the deed and tell the Paladin later (or not at all, preferably).

Lobolusk wrote:
a Drow showed up and held a knife to his throat and tried to reason with him in undercommon. Because the paladin didn't speak the language and he said he can detect evil he decided to attack waking up the whole compound and forcing us to fight 30+ guys for no reason. putting me in danger because I was in a bunk full of sleeping bad guys.

To a Paladin, someone babbling in a foreign language and holding a knife to your throat isn't reasoning with him. It's threatening him. Which the Paladin, ESPECIALLY a Dwarven Stone Lord, rightly reacted with an attack. And Paladins don't attack quietly. That wasn't for no reason, that was a battle call to him. Especially if there was no one there to translate for the Pally.

Lobolusk wrote:
my character is a ninja but even he has rules and has been in jail has part of his back story. He is sympathetic to the criminal element if you will he was going to let these prisoners go because quite simply because he could. And then along comes a dwarf stone lord paladin who just passes judgment with out even asking questions. Yeah normally I would not care but you know what this guy pretends to be all holy but deep inside he is just like me a cold blooded killer. Proving to me there is no such thing as a good person deep inside we are all selfish killers. He challenged my authority plain and simple now I plan to get him kicked out of his paladin club not because I care that he killed a few guys but because I can. I don't follow a creed or rule I do not pretend to hide behind a code he does. That makes him a hypocrite and now I will destroy him because we don't need him in the party he does not bring any value except for condescension ( all how my character thinks)

And I would have believed this as your one valid point except for the "he challenged my authority plain and simple now I plan to get him kicked out of his paladin club not because I care that he killed a few guys but because I can".

That is not the thinking of a CN Ninja. That is the thinking of a player who is frustrated because the Paladin is "interfering" with his chosen play style.

What "authority" does your Ninja have in the party, exactly? What CN character develops long-term plans and then sticks to them instead of acting in the heat of the moment? I will admit that yours is a Ninja, and they are motivated and have a drive and focus to what they do, but what exactly is his attention span? How exactly do you play your definition of CN? Because it seems to vastly differ from mine.

You need to ask yourself how much your Ninja knows about Paladin orders, especially the specific one the Stone Lord belongs to, and the protocol for filing formal complaints. Does he even know if this is against the Dwarf's "code"?

It's still my belief that you're metagaming and the Paladin is in-character. In fact, I may favorite this thread just to show some of my new players the textbook definition of both and how to avoid these scenarios.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Also, what is everyone's preoccupation with, "Hey look, it's a Paladin. Wait...HE DID SOMETHING! LET'S MAKE HIM FALL!"

I think it stems from the old editions where Paladins got lots of nice bonuses for being so goody-good. So the "One strike and you're out" attitude carries over. But in Pathfinder, a Paladin's abilities are much more balanced against the other classes, rendering this thinking inert.

But, as everyone (including the OP) has said, this is not a Paladin Should Fall thread. This is a How Should My Ninja React thread.

And, I maintain that the Ninja's player is metagaming. I honestly don't think a CN Ninja is going to care about some prisoners' deaths other than a sarcastic ribbing or a mental note to not project as evil else risk Death By Paladin.

Unless the prisoners are related to him by blood, by race, or the Ninja suffered some kind of torture in captivity, triggering some kind of PTSD situation, I don't think the reaction is very "accurate".

4 people marked this as a favorite.

The prisoners are bound/helpless. The Paladin's Code likely prevents him from murdering them (which is what he'd be doing in this scenario). This would be specific to the Paladin's order, the actual makeup of the code, and the DM's ruling. In my game, as well, it would result in a Fallen Paladin. Or at least the threat thereof.

That being said, I have a major issue with your scenario: It seems like you're metagaming to me.

Your Ninja is CN. Why would he care enough to write a letter to the Paladin's superiors? Would he even know how, when, or where to accomplish this? Where exactly did he learn the protocol? Why would he even care enough to stop working with him? Does it affect your Ninja personally that the Paladin killed some random prisoners? Wouldn't the duality of a goody-two-shoes murdering someone in cold blood when the rage/desire struck APPEAL to your chaotic nature?

The real tell here is the statement "I have decided that my Ninja will not aid the Paladin..."

YOU decided this. Based on metagaming principles and a misapplication/misunderstanding of your own alignment.

NOT your Ninja. NOT his principles. NOT his experience. Yours.

Be careful treading this path. Although I'm glad you and the Paladin's player have no beef and have talked offline about the in-game drama. Good call on your part.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Slime wrote:
Czrenobog wrote:

I see a lot of people say Ninja > Rogue.

Sell me on it.

Explain why the Ninja is better. (...)

As mentionned, before not better just different.

You can also think of the Assamite theme with the "ninja" class.

This. Not better. Just different. Mechanically, they are virtually interchangable. Therefore the people on this forum whose sole existance revolves around maximizing DPR, action economy, etc...will tell you there is no point to having both classes.

But if you, well, I dunno, ROLE PLAY, their roles are entirely different. Their motivations are normally different. Their educations and backgrounds are different.

I find myself playing a rogue completely differently than when I play a ninja. My ninjas are all about stealth. Making the kill without being seen or detected. Having access to the invisibility and presdidigitation spells, but still using a physical disguise kit, accents, makeup, and facial ticks or limps as a part of the character. They follow a code of honor in combat. Perhaps not as goodly as the Samurai would, but they have their own code and stick to it.

My rogues are opportunists. Turn away and face the fighter, and I stab you in the kidneys. Party not paying attention? I palm a few gems from the chest before telling them how much I found. Sell out a hated party member to save my own skin? You better believe I will. But I'll have a backup plan so I can blame it on my captors if you save me.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaestroVolpe wrote:

After looking across the information for rogues and ninjas it appears to me almost as if rogues are obsolete. The vast majority of their abilities are identical and not only do ninjas have their own Tricks, they can instead take up a rogue Talent.

It seems like the ONLY thing a rogue has that a ninja can't is Trapfinding and the ability to disarm magical traps. Granted, this is an important skill, but it just seems a little slim in determining the difference between the two.

In the long run Ninja just reads like an over-powered archetype than an individual class.

Someone please come tell me that I'm wrong and that I'm an idiot.
And, y'know, tell me why so I can stop being an idiot.

Story, Flavor, and Traps. Not everything boils down the the efficiency of DPR, action economy, and attacks per round. And it shouldn't EVER boil down to that. But that's a discussion for a different day.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder is not an MMO. High damage output does not ensure the "mob" will "aggro" you. Damage has nothing to do with tanking.

But, if given only the definition you quoted, I'd go with either Staff Magus or Preacher Inquisitor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still confused. If a Witch takes several hours a day cackling his Fortune Hex to get an entire day of extra uses for his entire party, then he NEVER has a move action or never has a standard action if he double moves. This seems severely limiting enough by RAW to discourage the infinite loop. He either moves half speed during those 4 hours or takes twice as long to do everything or get anywhere.

- How does he eat?

- Put on Armor?

- Get out of bed, down stairs, travel from place to place? (the privvy or outhouse seems a great challenge while cackling.)

- Doesn't he lose his voice? (Yes, there are no RAW rules for this. But guess what? As the GM, he can make them up as he sees fit to avoid the exploitation of a rules loophole.)

Basically, when dealing with a problem player who is always trying to exploit the rules to their favor, you deal with the problem or deal with the player. Both of them may require you to be as big a dick as the player is.

I say play it round-by-round. Every in-game day. Especially since this player is specifically asking you to do things outside the ruleset (except for what "HE" wants to do) and then asking you to stick to the ruleset when it matters for "HIM" (except for what YOU want to do).

And, especially, if they're resting in a dungeon where random encounters are possible. Interrupt the Cackle at every possible opportunity with combat, monsters, or NPC's when the dice say so.

Not to mention, pay strict attention to where the other party members are. They will all need to crowd around his bed, his outhouse, ensure they *NEVER* go outside that 30 foot range while enacting this infinite loop.

My interpretation of the actual rules for the Hex is: The reason it says "once per round" is to account for the inherent extension offered by the level scaling of the Hex itself.

As far as the Cackle Hex interacting with it to infinitely extend those rounds, make sure you play the limitations of the rules just as much as he's trying to exploit the loophole.

I think the "once the creature benefits from the Hex, it cannot benefit again for 24 hours" thing is going to also limit the usage. For instance, that 24-hr timer is going to come at an inopportune time eventually, disallowing the four-hour Fortune/Cackle.

Let's say the characters wake up at 8am. The Witch spends 4 of it Fortune Cackling while all the other party members get ready, craft, eat, poop, don armor, etc... within a 30' radius. Now it's Noon, and the party has until 4pm to use Fortune. After 4pm, if the Witch does not re-extend the Cackle timers, each character cannot Fortune roll again until 4pm the next day.

Let's say the Witch extends the Fortune Cackle at 3pm for another 4 hours, ending at 7pm, and extending the Fortune until 11pm. Now it's time for the Witch to sleep. No Cackling. Now the party, if they "benefitted from Fortune", (meaning use at least 1 re-roll in that Fortune Cackle period) cannot use Fortune again until 11pm the next day.

Let's say that, over the course of that day, one character never uses his re-roll. He never "benefits from the Hex". This one lucky bastard (or unlucky, since he still had to feed, clothe, shower, and do most daily functions within 30' of this Witch as maintenance upkeep, not to mention extended watches because the Witch does not participate) would be the sole beneficiary of the Fortune Cackle the next day.

Am I missing something in my math or interpretation here?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

- Magically treated walls for the hull (one can argue that this is the players' "dungeon")

- Folding Boats for lifeboats (save space and dual purpose)

- Decanter of Endless Water and Campfire Bead (Make your own hot tub)

- Iron Bands of Binding/Permanent Forcecage/Lantern of Revealing (Brig)

- Necklaces of Adaptation with Endure Elements secondary (Crew members)

- Portable Holes (toilets)

- Wind Fans or Permanant Gust of Wind (sails)

- Rope Trick/Animate Rope (riggings)

- Glamer on the Hull (make it appear either awesome at sea or a wreck in port so no one wants to steal it)

- Sustaining spoons with Prestidigitation (Make the gruel look/taste great)

- Specially triggered/shaped Cone of Cold Trap in a room with Gentle Repose (walk-in freezer/icebox/meat locker)

- Vorpal butcher knives/meathooks with Restore Corpse (Chop easily, regenerate meat on bones)

- Grapeshot ballista, Heavy repeating ballista with Abundant Ammunition cast on the clips, fireball cannons with alchemist's fire, etc...

- Ring gates for the Captain/First Officer (get to the helm quickly)

I may have spent way too much time in the Spelljammer Universe outfitting my Squid Ship

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Anti magic blocks it? Then it is magic. Detect magic... why is this even a question again?

Because he's looking for RAI interpretations. There is no rule that says if Anti-Magic blocks it, then it MUST be magic. Some creatures have supernatural powers that are not magical.

For instance, a Wight has the ability to Create Spawn (Su).

Does the Wight radiate special magic because he has this ability? Does the spawn radiate magic because it was created with said ability?

It's a valid question because it lacks RAW references.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DJEternalDarkness wrote:
Vestrial, you're again pointing out the wrong thing. A 15th level Shadowdancer wouldn't be an appropriate challenge for a level 3 party. The shadow of the Shadowdancer is not an independent creature. It's part of the shadowdancer's class abilities. It's like dropping a familiar on a party, the familiar by itself doesn't have a CR as it's part of the wizard's class ability.


Jarred Henninger wrote:

why is a lvl 15 shadowdancer attacking a lvl 3 party?

It's not like shadowdancer enhanced shadows wander around looking for low lvl parties to kill.

And this.

I'm not the one ignoring actual rules. You're quoting rules for a regular Shadow, independent of the Shadowdancer's ability and trying to force those rules into applicability even though the Shadowdancer's ability SPECIFICALLY outlines its' abnormality.

I'm quoting the rules that apply to the original poster's question. No other rules matter, no matter how much you want to force them.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trinite wrote:
As for feats: instead of Sharp Claws I'd probably take Improved Initiative for more speed kills. Or maybe Fleet if you want even more charging range.

Thank you for clarifying flat-footed. So, indeed, the Scout's Charge Claw Pounce Rend attack would both qualify for Sneak Attack without Vanish. Groovy. I'd still want Vanish/Invis Blade for the other full-attack actions. Just don't have to include it in my initial Charge.

Improved Initiative might be good, but with an insanely high Dex build, I'd already be going faster than most characters. Instead of Fleet I would do Catfolk Exemplar (Superior Climber) to get +20ft on my Charge.

Won't need Eldritch Claws because any of these builds will rely on AoMF.

Redchigh wrote:

In the bestiary, it says all "bite" attacks follow the rules I mentioned.

Unfortunately, no devs have chimed in on the discussion, despite the fact that no one can figure out whats going on.

Keen scent could fit the animalistic flavor well. Be sure to keep a feat slot open for "Eldritch Claws"

Understood. The generic Bestiary rules, though, are trumped by the specific Orcs of Golarion trait wording. The trait itself that expressly states that, when used as part of a full-attack action, you use BAB - 5, which is the standard SECONDARY attack bonus. So, it's a primary attack that uses secondary rules.

The REAL monkeywrench in those works is Multiattack. RAW, Multiattack reduces the secondary attack penalties from -5 to -2. BUT The wording of Tusked does not take this into consideration.

So, In the case above where I get claw, claw, bite, tail, gore, hair, tentacle, tentacle (yes, that is ridiculous, but also AWESOME). By RAW, the BAB would be Claw, Claw, Gore at full BAB (Primaries); Tail, Hair, Tentacle, Tentacle at BAB-2 (Secondaries); Bite at BAB-5 (Secondary, no reduction with Multiattack).

That seems very, very wrong to me, but it's the RAW legal equivalent. Perhaps we should FAQ it.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
StreamOfTheSky wrote:
Spellcasters make the best scouts, bar none. Divinations for scouting, illusions for stealth, transmutations and teleportation for movement.

That's completely reliant upon magic, though. I'd rather go with a class that has a healthy fusion of magic and non-magic abilities. Otherwise, the "magical scout" has too many weaknesses. If I'm going to scout out the evil magician's tower, I'd assume he has some kind of magical protections up. If you walk through an antimagic field, you're screwed.

A Bard, Inquisitor, or Ranger isn't rendered entirely helpless here. I'd rather not have such a glaring "I lose" button.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We really need a background paper on these two characters to give you advice as to how to roleplay them.

Normally, creating a backstory will GENERATE the playstyle. People are well enough familiar with normal human psychology and sociology to understand trauma, jealousy, obsession, revenge, etc...and how they play into the idiosyncrasies of the character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Although, having these two like Jesse and James from Team Rocket is much more entertaining.

Only if they wear matching outfits and doing the "intro dance/speech" every time they play together.

Make it a manifestation of the Dazzling Display feat!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
There is definitely a need to define the differences between "scouting", "spying" and "divining." They don't actually all mean the same thing, in spite of a slew of comments that seem determined to conflate them.

Yeah, that's why I broke down my first post into the "wants" of any scout into more simple terms.

A scout ranges ahead, finds out what's coming, and either neutralizes the threat, disables the trap, or warns the party so they are never caught unawares.

So he wants:

- Utility (adapt to any situation/environment)
- Stealth (remain unseen to give allies the advantage)
- Mobility (used to range/close on party/enemies as needed)
- Perception (detecting the enemy's strength/number/capabilities)
- Information Gathering (identifying the threats)
- Information Transfer (warning your party for preparation)

Again, I name Bard and Inquisitor the ones who naturally come by these five traits, and Ranger is close behind, but needs a bit more work to get there.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok. So I actually have a word document now for this very reason because I see it multiple times a day here. Weapon Cords solve the problem. Below, I have listed why, with a link to another post that has direct quotes from both Sean K. Reynolds and Jason Buhlman.

If you choose to disagree with this as the DM, that's fine, but here's your daily proof that you can, indeed, dual wield pistols or crossbows effectively, and that the Lead Game Designers support it that way...

HERE is the link with the Dev quotes about resolving one hand's attacks highest to lowest, then the other hand's attacks, highest to lowest.

The only DM interpretation you would need is his personal limitation on free actions during a round.

Full Attack (PRD) wrote:
If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first.

Let’s assume Gunslinger, GTWF, Rapid Reload, Alchemical Cartridges, Endless Bandolier, Pistols with Weapon Cords, full-attack action.


1)Fire all shots with main hand pistol, reloading after each shot including the last (free actions, off hand is currently free).
2)Use free action to drop main hand pistol (it’s already loaded, and retained by weapon cord).
3)Use swift action to recover off hand pistol from weapon cord (pre-loaded from previous round).
4)Fire all shots with off hand pistol, reloading after each shot including the last (free actions, main hand is currently free).


1)Fire all shots with off hand pistol, reloading after each shot including the last (free actions, main hand is currently free).
2)Use free action to drop off hand pistol (it’s already loaded, and retained by weapon cord).
3)Use swift action to recover main hand pistol from weapon cord (pre-loaded from previous round).
4)Fire all shots with main hand pistol, reloading after each shot including the last (free actions, off hand is currently free).


1)Repeat round 1's actions


1)Repeat Round 2's actions

Rinse, repeat. This is all completely RAW legal, but needs a DM input on how many free actions he can take during one round. It also takes away the dual wielder’s swift actions for anything else during the combat.

As the DM, I would allow it, as above, with the feat tax of Quick Draw due the the high amount of free actions required.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jack Rift wrote:
Ooh, wizard! But goblins no like words?

There's nothing that says a Goblin Wizard's spell book has to be in those pesky "words". He could make a magical pop-up book with pictures and symbols as representations of his spells.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, what you're saying is, because people chose certain classes that limited their viability, you want to throw out the rules to compensate?

Because what I'm hearing is this:

Erich_Jager wrote:
My magic using players tend to go with Sorcerers instead of Wizards, that means a fixed set of spells.
Erich_Jager wrote:
the Elemental Sorcerer is getting hit pretty hard. The Elemental blood line kind of lends itself to evocation magic. And most (if not all) evocation magic can be resisted with SR, which also means that immunity stops them cold.

"tend to go with Sorcerers" and "kind of lends itself to Evocation", to me, translates into "The magic users want to have all the strengths of using sorcerers and none of the weaknesses. The rogue only took spells to help buff the party, but if she so chose to cast offensive magic, SR gets in the way. The elemental evoker is pissed because they are a one-trick pony that gets shut off with a perfectly normal game mechanic."

They can't have their cake and eat it, too. But here are a few recommendations if it's seriously impacting their fun level.


1) Give the Sorcerers free Spell Penetration Feats, but balance it by making all the fighters' weapons Adamantine to bypass DR.

2) Get rid of SR and spell immunity, but balance that by getting rid of DR and immunity to sneak attack/critical.

Without the balance, as above, you get this:

Roberta Yang wrote:
In this thread: the game is unfair to wizards and too easy for fighters.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vicon wrote:

Everyone out there -- does Cat's Eye Crown sound like a viable solution?

Even if seeing beyond 30' feet with my own eyes (darkvision improvement) wouldn't it potentially be viable to be able to see through other allies in the party and therefore see at normal range?

Combat is not as important to me, Though I'll be looking at all suggestions most carefully -- I am most concerned with being able to notice things at normal distances and interact with my environment at a more normal distance.

The Cat's eye crown sounds REALLY viable -- but I need other people to weigh in and make sure that's just not my wishful thinking.

I'd let you use the Cat's Eye Crown, too, yes. Since it's an item that basically possesses its' own eye, and you're just seeing through that eye. But I'd still limit you to the curse's vision range.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shar Tahl wrote:
submit2me wrote:
Combat Patrol says "increases your threatened area", which normally you would have none with a ranged weapon. The Snap Shot feat chain says "you threaten squares within 5 feet of you". The 5 feet is your threatened area, just as it would be with a melee weapon. How do these feats not work together? At 20th level, you could have a maximum threatened area of 35 feet. It's kind of ridiculous, but it's also RAW as far as I can see.

That is absolutely not RAW, with the exact quote you put even contradicting it. It says 5 feet, not "within reach"

The correct term you should use is RAI, be cause that is an interpretation using a guess of what the developers were thinking when they designed it

No, the correct term is indeed RAW. They work together, according to the exact wording of the text.

Snap Shot = While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you.

Combat Patrol = As a full-round action, you may set up a combat patrol, increasing your threatened area by 5 feet for every 5 points of your base attack bonus.

So, by the exact wording of the rulebooks, a level 20 Gunslinger with the Weapon Focus (Musket) feat, Snap Shot, and Combat Patrol would threaten 25 feet as long as he has a loaded musket in his hands. (5 feet for the Snap Shot and an additional 20 feet for the +20 BAB at level 20.)

That is not RAI that's exact RAW. And kind of ridiculous. I would think a Sniper (at least the Sniper Rogue Archetype) would have the ability to see far, wait for the opportunity, and then BOOM! Headshot!

That's kinda what a sniper is for.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
That Kobold Idea sounds fun...

Indeed. I think I'm fairly set on a Kobold Gunslinger 8/Ninja 12 with the Bushwhacker and Mysterious Stranger Archetypes.

Mechanic to be centered around sniping and the deeds Dead Shot, Shifty Shot, Focused Aim, and Sneak Attack (all of which stack) plus all the damage bonuses I can get from stuff like Deadly Aim. Add in the Assassinate Ninja Trick and you've got a good chunk of damage coming at you every other round in one deadly lump plus a Fort-Save-or-Die. As long as I throw some criticals and killing blows in there, the Grit should refresh.

So far my plans are:

- Sniper's Goggles to sneak attack at firearm's max range
- Snipe with no penalty (Kobold Feat and Stealthy Sniper talent)
- Remain Invisible even during the attack with Vanishing Trick/Invis Blade
- Every other bonus to Stealth I can afford
- Every bonus to Attack and Damage I can afford
- Every bonus to Ki Pool and Grit Pool I can afford

Am I forgetting anything important or missing something obvious?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, building a One-Shot, One-Kill sniper. TRULY a sniper. As in, you can't see me, but I can see you. From far away. And kill you in one shot because I'm rolling a 5-gallon bucket of damage dice. And even if you come after me, I'm going to know you're there and escape before you get me.

Please stick to Pathfinder rules as much as possible, as I may use this build for a PFS campaign.

I'm considering the following:

Halfling Ninja with some rogue talents (AFAIK, no archetypes)

Halfling Rogue with some ninja tricks and the Sniper Archetype

Drow Warrior with the Cavern Sniper Archetype and levels of either Ninja, Rogue, or Shadowdancer. (Focus on Drow Noble feats for utility)

Help me build the Ultimate Sniper. Must haves:

Mobility. Not the feat, just the ability to move faster and farther.(And while stealthed, if you please, with minimum penalties)

Stealth. Obvious for a sniper, but focus on more than just the skill. Finding or providing myself cover, hiding in plain sight, etc.

Power. One shot needs to be the death of my chosen opponent as often as possible. Forget bleed, stack on damage dice and damage bonuses.

Speed. I should be able to force my target to be denied their dex bonus as often as possible so I don't have to hold actions to wait for the "kill shot".

Utility. This will be the hard one. If forced into a situation where I am unable to snipe, I should be able to melee combat and/or crowd control.

Escape. I should be able to escape sight very quickly to reposition.

Anti-Countersnipe. If you find me the very least I should be able to see, hear, smell, or sense you or your attack coming and act.

Survive. Have things like HP, DR, SR, and as many different types of AC bonuses as possible to stay alive.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand the sarcasm and levity, but let's not forget this is a new player playing a class she doesn't completely understand. Posts not answering her questions aren't going to give her the assistance she seeks, and clever, snarky options such as "Fall on your sword" may serve to confuse and/or offend a new player.

1 to 50 of 61 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>