Does party movement granted by the Air Kin impulse Four Winds trigger reactive strikes? Is that a Stride? Or is it more like forced movement which ordinarily doesn’t provoke?
Thanks!
Search Posts
I would love for someone to post a good living hair melee/maneuver build. I’ve tried and failed a few times on paper. I love the idea of a monk/witch that strikes and trips with her hair!
Good idea. Giving it “free” cover makes sense but seemed too powerful. At least your Take Cover idea imposes an action cost. Is there a rule I missed about cover and large/huge creatures? I think you get cover if more than half the creature is hidden, but for a huge creature that is still a lot of exposed surface area. I would think it’s pretty easy to hit even a quarter of an exposed giant!
I’m toying with a Summoner build. If a large or huge eidolon has burrowing… 1) Can it stay mostly burrowed and only partially emerge? 1a). If so, does it have cover? 1b) And would it still have reach? 2) Could it use this trick to fit in places where large/huge creature ordinarily could not fit? Seems like it could be a great way to have a huge pet and avoid some of the drawbacks.
Thank you all for the good suggestions. Point taken regarding Expert Backstabber. That lets me move up Wholeness of Body, which I agree is a better feat. I think I want to start with Monk and then move to Assassin. That lets me fulfill my character concept the earliest. That gives me this progression: 1. Stumbling Stance, Ki Strike (from Natural Ambition)
But this leads me to question whether the Assassin Dedication is even worth it? I'm trying to maximize the benefit of feint and the flat-footed condition. Marked for Death makes me slightly better at feinting (at the cost of three actions; and it's only an extra +1 to feint, not +2 like I earlier thought because they don't stack), and it gives me access to Sneak Attacker and Expert Backstabber (which most seem to agree is not worth the feat). So would it be better to just stay straight Monk, or to take the Rogue Dedication instead? Rogue Dedication gives me access to Sneak Attacker like Assassin does, plus it gives me two skills, a skill feat, and Surprise Attack. That seems better to me than Marked for Death--if we continue to assume that Expert Backstabber isn't worth it, then that's all that Assassin gives you that Rogue doesn't. I wasn't going to take the Assassinate feat at 12 because that didn't really fit my character concept anyway. So it looks to me that Monk/Rogue would be better. Right? Any other ways you can recommend to make the best use of feint/flat-footed? Thanks everyone!
If I remember rightly from poking around, rogue with either the Martial Artist archetype or multiclassing into monk can pull this off pretty wel too. Yes, I considered this too. I think that Monk/Assassin is more combat-capable than Rogue/Monk or Rogue/Martial Artist though. Starting with Rogue gets you more skills and better sneak attack, but less AC due to the loss of unarmored expertise. You also don't get flurry of blows until lvl 10 at the earliest. I suppose if the group needed the skills then it would be better to start with Rogue. Plus, my concept is the "drunken master." If I start in Monk, I get to start with that concept at lvl 1. If I start with Rogue, I don't get stumbling stance until lvl 4. It delays the concept.
a small nitpick is that you own't be +3 vs marked tarets but +2, both Stumbling stance and the Assasin offer circumstance bonuses so they wouldn't stack. Thanks for that catch. That's a downer though. I particularly don't like "expert backstabber" paying a whole feat for essentially +1 to damage. Understood, but isn't a consistent +1 to damage a lot in this game? In a world where the best you'll get from a magic item is +3, isn't +1 pretty good (especially when it increases to +2 more when your handwraps become +3)? But I understand that there is an opportunity cost and that the monk has a lot of other flavorful feats out there. Thanks for the feedback.
We are about to finish up our 1e Rise of the Runelords campaign, and after that we're going to launch our first 2e campaign. I'm doing a little theorycrafting with a new character, but since I'm not yet experienced with 2e I don't know how good this build might be. I saw a couple posts about using the monk base and stumbling stance, coupled with the assassin archetype, to make a pretty good "drunken master" build. It sounded fun, so I've been tinkering. I'm starting with a versatile human and Dex 18, Str 14, and Cha 14. Starting feats are stumbling stance, ki strike (from Natural Ambition), and Toughness. At level 2 I can take the assassin dedication for the additional feinting bonuses and to better benefit from imposing the flat-footed condition. Then as follows: 4. Expert backstabber
This seems fairly strong to me, but admittedly I don't have a feel for the number ranges. I understand that getting +1 is a bigger deal in 2e. With this combo, I get bonuses to feinting, free attempts to feint, and extra benefits from catching an opponent flat-footed. At level 8 (without equipment), he'd be +1 to feint base and +3 to feint vs. an opponent who is marked for death. And if flat-footed, he'd be getting +2 flat damage and +1d6 from sneak attack. It appears that he'd have a lot of opportunities to feint (including for free with stumbling feint) and plenty of bonuses for doing so. I'd appreciate feedback from those of you who are more familiar with the system (most of you), especially if you've played a monk. Am I on the right track? Thanks!
You can however retrain your level 1 for another level 1, and your level 6 with another level 6.I may retrain at level 8 and take Gang Up, which seems to be the easiest of them all. Yes, that's what I meant--when I get Gang Up, I'll likely retrain out of Twin Feint or Tumble Behind and take something like Trap Finder or You're Next. While usable under different circumstances, I feel like Gang Up would become my go-to for making a foe flat-footed, so I likely won't use Tumble Behind or Twin Feint much after that.
OK, so y'all have convinced me to try a human Eldritch Trickster with the Sorcerer dedication. I get an extra class feat because I chose versatile human. I'm definitely taking Nimble Dodge so that I can have a useful reaction. I think I'm down to my last decision: should I take Tumble Behind or Twin Feint? I'm leaning toward Tumble Behind, but I'm open to more suggestions. I may retrain at level 8 and take Gang Up, which seems to be the easiest of them all. If it helps, my stats are: STR 14, DEX 18, CON 12, INT 10, WIS 10, CHA 14 Thanks again for the great suggestions!
These are all good points. Thank you for the input. Perhaps I'm over-valuing Dex-to-damage. I'll give that some thought. Upon first reading, Eldritch Trickster failed to impress. The free (and early) Wiz/Sor dedication feat is nice, but getting the Magical Trickster feat early (but not free) did not seem very important (and even less so for me since I don't plan to use magic offensively). And I think that every rogue probably should use Dex as the key ability score because so many important abilities use that stat, so getting to pick Int or Cha as a key ability doesn't seem helpful. But I suppose the free feat may be better than Dex-to-damage in the long run. My other build consideration is maximizing my options for taking advantage of a flat-footed foe. What are the best ways to get someone flat-footed ("best"=most likely to succeed in the most situations)? Twin Feint always works if you have 2 available actions. The target is flat-footed to the second attack (even if you miss the first hit, right?), but that second attack receives the MAP. Tumble Behind would seem to work frequently. You need to make a successful acrobatics check against target's Reflex DC to make them flat-footed. Probably pretty reliable, but it takes up movement. Feint also seems reliable if you invest in CHA (hence the idea that Sorcerer might be better than Wizard). It takes an action to make a successful Deception check vs. target's Perception DC. And if you're a Scoundrel, this only gets better. Of those, I suspect that Tumble Behind would be the most consistently reliable; but I could be mistaken because I haven't played 2e yet. Tumble Behind uses your best stat and a trained skill against an often-weak saving throw. The MAP hurts Twin Feint, and Feint uses a typically weaker stat against Perception DC (which I would guess is typically higher than one's Reflex DC). Am I reading this correctly? What are your thoughts about what is more reliable?
Thank you for the suggestions. I like the Thief racket because it permits dex-to-damage. The other big benefit to Eldritch Trickster racket is the Magical Trickster feat, but I don't plan on sneak attacking with damaging spells, so that won't do much for me. I hadn't considered the silent spell feat, so perhaps that's a reason to go Wizard over Sorcerer. Narxiso, are you saying that neither Tumble Behind nor Twin Feint are very helpful? I guess I'm still used to 1e where catching someone flat-footed is somewhat difficult.
I'm making my first 2e character: a magic-using thief. I don't plan on using magic very offensively--the idea is that he'd use magic to supplement his thievery and backstabbing (e.g., ghost sound, mage hand, invisibility, illusory object, etc.). I would want to sneak attack to inflict damage. The new Eldritch Trickster doesn't impress me very much, but perhaps I'm missing something. I feel like I'd get more mileage out of using the Thief racket and using either the Wizard or Sorcerer dedication, but I am open to being persuaded. Some questions: First, am I on the right path with rackets? Second, is there a compelling reason to chose Wizard over Sorcerer dedication? I was leaning toward Sorcerer because I'd rather have a higher CHA than INT so that I can use diplomacy and deception more. Third, which is better for setting up a sneak attack: Tumble Behind or Twin Feint? I'm leaning toward Tumble Behind because I think it'll be easier to land in most instances. There is no MAP for Tumble Behind, and now that attacks of opportunity are more rare I'm less worried about a failed acrobatics check than in 1e. My bonus to hit will be about the same as my tumble check (I think) since they both use the same stat and proficiency bonus, but the tumble check doesn't have MAP. Any other advice for a magic-supplementing thief would be appreciated.
I also had a question about the level 14 power, "Mixologist Master." It reads, "At 14th level, a mixologist can have up to two alcoholic extracts for each level of extracts he can prepare as long as he can prepare at least two extracts of that level." Oh, ok, thanks! I totally read that wrong! Makes sense now. Although I wish it was the other way I read it...it’s not very strong as is. Anyone have any other advice for a beer brewing and guzzling dwarf? I still like the concept.
I had an idea to create a dwarf brewer/professional drinker and discovered the alchemist mixologist archetype. It doesn't seem very potent (pardon the pun), but it looks fun and fits the theme I had in mind. It references rules about intoxication I cannot find. Are the rules in the SRD? If not, where are they? I also had a question about the level 14 power, "Mixologist Master." It reads, "At 14th level, a mixologist can have up to two alcoholic extracts for each level of extracts he can prepare as long as he can prepare at least two extracts of that level." Perhaps I'm not thinking clearly (again with the puns), but I read that two ways. It could mean that you get double the extracts . . . So, for example, at level 14 you can prepare and cast/consume 5 level 1 extracts per day, but with this power you could do 10 per day? That seems rather potent. Or it could mean that you can combine two extracts into one as an action economy enhancer. For example, you could prepare a single extract that gives the effect of both Barkskin and Bear's Endurance in a single gulp. If that's the case, does it use 1 or 2 of your extracts per day? This language is confusing to me. If anyone has played this archetype (or something similar), I'd be grateful for any other advice on how to make a fun alcoholic dwarf brewmaster.
Thanks to you both for the advice. I guess I have a hard time conceptually with the fight being unaffected when one combatant is firmly holding a weapon that is attached to the other combatant. But I agree with you both that the easiest way to deal with that is to ignore it. Now, I agree that their is a problem if the cat were to move away from the troll. The spell should probably cover what happens in this case. I would rule that the cat can move away at will, but the stuck weapon is automatically freed if the cat leaves the creature reach. I agree. That's the only way to make it work without affecting the spell by either making it more advantageous by giving the recipient a free disarm maneuver, or more disadvantageous by restricting the recipient's movement. Thanks again.
We had an issue arise last night with the Druid spell "Resinous Skin," which reads as follows: "You coat your body with a resinous substance, protecting you from attacks and binding weapons that strike you. You gain DR 5/piercing, as well as a +4 circumstance bonus to your CMD against disarm attempts and on saving throws against effects that cause you to drop something you are holding. Additionally, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on combat maneuver checks to initiate a grapple, maintain a grapple, and pin a foe. Any enemy you grapple takes a –2 penalty on attempts to break the grapple and to escape the grapple using Escape Artist. Any weapon, that strikes you becomes stuck unless its wielder succeeds at a Reflex saving throw. Such a weapon can be pulled free of you only with a successful Strength check (DC = your saving throw DC for this spell). This spell has no effect on unarmed strikes or natural weapons." Our Hunter cast it on his big cat Animal Companion, who then went into battle with a troll wielding a trident. Troll hit the cat, failed his Ref save, so the weapon was stuck. OK, all good so far. So then it's the cat's turn. However, it's stuck 10' away from the troll with a reach weapon stuck to it that the troll is still firmly holding. So what now? Can the cat take a 5' step toward the troll? Can it retreat? Seems to me that the troll is now holding the cat at bay with the trident at 10' unless the cat can either disarm the troll or succeed in an opposed STR check. Nothing in the spell description says anything about a free disarm maneuver. Even if there was a free disarm check, does the troll then get an AoO on the cat because it doesn't have Improved Disarm? And is the Strength check to tear it free a free action or a standard action? Ordinarily I would think it would be a standard action, but this was a weird situation. It seems to me that adding a free disarm check to the spell makes it too powerful for a low-level spell. On the other hand, if the troll gets to simply hold onto the weapon and keep the cat at bay until it's turn to tear it free, the spell actually would be disadvantageous to the recipient (the cat). I didn't give the cat a free disarm check, but I did give it a free action to attempt a STR check to separate from the trident (which it did). That seemed unsatisfying though. The weapon got stuck as intended, but the supposed beneficiary of the spell had to basically end the effect prematurely so that it wasn't severely disadvantaged. How would you handle this? Is there a rule I'm missing?
Thanks for the replies. I hadn’t read the putrefactor before. Very cool witch theme, but it’s a bit too much for a PC to me (at least in a good aligned campaign). The pestilence bloodline provides some of the tools, but I wasn’t really going for disease as a theme. I had more in mind the seer who summons a murder of crows rather than a disease-ridden hag who is infested with rot and centipedes. I guess I can just do the conjuration specialist who focuses on swarms. I love the feature of the swarm monger that allows the familiar to turn into a rat swarm. I wish there was an arcane caster analog.
Lately I've been intrigued by the Druid archetype Swarm Monger. I was wondering if there is a thematically similar archetype for an arcane caster? I'm more interested in the theme than a direct match in mechanics. Any wizards/sorcerers/others out there that focus on summoning (or becoming) swarms? Thanks!
I am the GM, and I have questions about how illusions can be used to conceal spellcasting. If a wizard, say, casts major image to create a fake wall to hide behind, can the wizard see through it (because the caster does not believe it)? If so, can the hiding wizard cast a spell from behind it and not be seen (thereby masking any somatic components)? Could this be used to avoid any attacks of opportunity (because the targets do not see the casting)? I would think it would work for spells with only somatic components, or for spell-like abilities (which have no verbal or somatic components). More specifically, if a creature with the SLA to cast charm monster hid behind an illusory wall, could the creature cast this spell against the PCs without being detected? I understand that if it did so in plain sight that the PCs would be able to detect it, despite the lack of V or S components, right? I want to make a fight with a lamia matriarch interesting. If prepared, she could hide behind her illusion and try to get off some charm monster spells before initiating melee combat. Thanks!
I really love the flavor of the Gun Chemist Alchemist archetype, but I'm not sure how viable it is (or at least how it compares to the Grenadier). I like the idea of using a gun to deliver bombs, and I also like the possibility of making a gun viable as a back-up weapon when I'm out of (or saving) bombs. But I have questions about how it works. First of all, for what ammunition types does Cartridge Savant work? It reads, in part: "When a gun chemist fires an alchemical cartridge that deals a type of damage in place of a firearm’s normal damage (such as a dragon’s breath cartridge), he can increase the damage dealt by an amount equal to his Intelligence modifier." For what other types of cartridges does Int get added to damage? If I'm reading it correctly, it pretty much only works on dragon's breath and on the different types of mage shot. Am I reading that incorrectly? What else could I shoot and add Int to damage? I didn't really want to use a spread gun, so dragon's breath doesn't excite me. Secondly, if I have to use Mage Shot, can I craft that with Gunsmith, or do I have to have Craft Magic Arms and Armor? And whatever I use, how much does it cost to make? Mage Shot (Fire), for example, says it costs 98 gp to craft. Is that for a single shot, or for multiple pieces of ammo? If the latter, how many get crafted for that cost? And is there a further discount for having Gunsmithing feat? It seems odd to me that the retail cost of Mage Shot (Fire) is 178, but the craft cost is 98 (which is more than half). Third, is Gun Chemist even worthwhile as compared to Grenadier? It seems to me that the fault with guns is that you basically are firing a bag of money at enemies. I guess Paizo wanted to balance guns with cost, but that seems like a poor way to accomplish balancing. I may just take Grenadier and use a long bow, but re-skin it to be a gun using the bow's stats. I like the concept of a gnome alchemist using a homemade gun, but it's hard to justify unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly. Thanks!
I'm about to run the Ripnugget/Stickfoot fight in RotR, and I'm scratching my head about how to handle the mounted combat with the giant gecko. My questions: What's the DC of the Ride check for a rider to take his mount onto the walls or ceiling? Is there a chance he'd fall off? Is there an attack penalty to the rider for attacking while his mount is on the wall or ceiling? Can a rider use the Ride-by Attack feat to charge, attack, and then run up the wall onto the ceiling? Or use the wall during part of the charge to go around people? I think this fight could be really fun if Ripnugget is running all over the walls, but I don't know how to run it. Thanks!!
I considered leshykineticist, but the wood powers are just so bad that I didn't think the benefits outweighed the cost of only using the wood element. I'm thinking start with earth, then at 7 do wood for flavor reasons (get woodland stride, etc), and then maybe water after that. Would I be gimping myself? I've never made a kineticist before, and the learning curve is steep. Thanks for the advice!
I want to create a plant-based kineticist, but I'm having a difficult time with it. My concept is something akin to Groot, but it doesn't have to be completely true to that character. I'm considering either a ghoran or a leshy, using the wood element. However, wood is just so bad that I can't create a viable build. I also considered doing earth and re-skinning some of the abilities (tough bark rather than flesh of stone; vine-based entangle rather than rocky, etc). Has anyone had any success with a phytokin kin build? Are there 3PP fixes/improvements to wood out there? Should I try a totally different path to this concept? Thanks!
I think for me, the White-Haired Witch is one such archetype. My very first time looking through the witch's hexes, I saw Prehensile Hair and thought, "I'd love to have this be permanent..." And lo, from on high came the White-Haired Witch... except it has a number of problems that make it a lackluster archetype. Since their attacks still rely on Strength/Dexterity and their 1/2 BAB progression to hit, but require Intellect to deal damage and make successful grapples, it makes them somewhat MAD, and they completely lose out on hexes, many of which would prove useful to allow them to hit more competently. I'm with you 100% on the White-Haired Witch. I want it to work so badly! I spent a couple hours once trying to come up with a build that made sense, but I couldn't make it work. Too bad . . . so flavorful!
Thanks for the responses. You've given me a lot to consider. So what I'm hearing is that losing the familiar itself is a benefit that I may not be valuing enough because familiars are fragile, and they are your spellbook. It's funny, but this is so different from what I'm usually reading on these boards. Most say that familiars are awesome. Interesting that the decision to make the witch's familiar into it's spellbook turns that all on its head. Normally I would think that any DM who would destroy a wizard's spellbook is being a bit of a jerk. However, I guess that if the familiar is delivering touch spells then killing it is fair game. Maybe the rule that merits review is the one that says that killing a witch's familiar also means the destruction of her spellbook. A wizard doesn't lose much to get a replacement familiar; for a witch it's catastrophic. Strange that the witch's familiar is supposed to be a central part of the character, yet that fact also renders is less useful because the witch cannot afford to lose it. It doesn't have to be that way. A witch really gets her spells from the patron, not the familiar--it's just a conduit. No reason why the replacement familiar couldn't come with all the old spells. And it's not like the witch is more powerful than the wizard such that it needs such a significant disadvantage.
I'm making a 1st-level witch, and I've chosen the Cartomancer archetype primarily for flavor reasons. However, the Cartomancer seems like a bad deal to me. You trade an animal familiar for a harrow deck. By third level you get to deliver touch spells as a ranged touch attack (nice), or you can throw cards as a very weak (but flavorful) damaging attack. But you lose everything that a familiar would provide: a skill bonus, the alertness feat, scouting capabilities, a wand wielder, etc. Getting a ranged touch attack is nice, but a familiar can deliver a touch attack anyway (albeit at a risk of damage to it). I guess the harrow deck is less likely to "die," so that's a good thing. It seems to be a bad trade . . . PLUS you lose a hex to get the feats for the weak attack. Am I missing something? I'm considering a house rule that lets the Cartomancer have the Alertness feat and a +3 to sleight of hand to balance it out a bit. Thoughts?
Thanks for the input. It's given me a lot of ideas to work with. I liked the idea of a one-level dip into Gunslinger, but the more I read about the firearms system the less I like it. It seems not that much better than a crossbow, but far more expensive (over 10 gold per shot?). I guess my struggle is that while I don't like the use of mutagen for this particular character, it is such a strong, class-defining ability that I feel like if I'm going to sacrifice it I should get something really good in return. I like the toxicant archetype. Has anyone played one, and is it considered to be balanced? I think it might be cool to use a crossbow and poison the bolts (by spitting on them) as a back-up weapon. I haven't ever played an alchemist, but my feeling is that bombs can only go so far since they are likely to run out. I guess I could use UMD and use wands as a back-up. Any other ideas?
I'm struggling with a build for an alchemist character concept. I want to create a gnome alchemist who is primarily a bomber/buffer/controller. However, the use of mutagen doesn't work with the concept--I like the mutagen feature for other builds/concepts, but not this one. So I'm looking for an archetype that changes or alters mutagen. Using cognatogen is the obvious choice, but I don't really like that concept either (I can only be smarter if I'm weaker?). Yes, I know I'm being picky. I was looking at the engineer or the toxicant, but would like some other ideas. I also thought it would be interesting to have a mutagen that did something different than alter stats . . . like add movement speed and/or a dodge effect. I'm also looking for a back-up weapon when I'm low on bombs or when they're not practical. As a low-strength (STR 7 or 8) small creature, a bow doesn't make sense. I like the idea of using a crossbow or a firearm, but it's so difficult to make them good in an alchemist build. Thoughts? Thanks. |