DarkNumbers's page

Thanks for the thoughts everyone- I'll take a look at Guided Blade and the other archetypes :) Thanks for the correction JoeElf!

Kemuri I'll be using Muleback Cords to circumvent this issue- it'll be tricky for the first level but once I have them my problem should be solved. I agree that it's a pretty hefty stat dump but I've always been fond of extremes!

Avr we've made extensive use of tattoos to double up on item slots in the past- I'll likely just use a tattoo variant of cloak of resistance or switch to one of my favourite items: the Otherworldly Kimono :)

That's an awesome idea, thanks Meyer :)

I've started an advice thread for this build here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ufly?Ideas-for-a-Kitsune-Swashbuckler-1Mesmeri st-X#1

Thanks again for all of your help everyone!

Hey all!

I'm looking into building a Kitsune Mesmerist but I want a little more kick in it so I'm thinking of mixing in a level of Swashbuckler. I was hoping to get some advice on the build :)

The idea is to be an effective Mesmerist who can also also do something useful when the spells have run out (my opinion of the Mesmerist is that it looks great but I worry that it lacks the combat viability of the Bard to make up for the reduced, 6 level casting). My solution is to take a dip in a martial class.

Here's the current plan:

25 point buy.

Stats (after Kitsune adjustments (-2 STR, +2 DEX, +2 CHA):

STR: 5
DEX: 19
CON: 13
INT: 10
WIS: 7
CHA: 20

I know these stats take some big risks to get some high rewards but that's pretty much the direction I'm taking the character in- I want to rely on finesse, grace and charisma to evade death, rather than toughness or durability. If it goes pear-shaped and I die due to the sub-par CON then that's life ;)

I'll also need a set of Muleback Cords to carry my equipment.

Bonus ability points at 4 and 8 will go towards rounding off DEX and CON.

Level 1: Inspired Blade (Swashbuckler)
- Provides Weapon Winesse with a rapier
- Also provides Weapon Focus with rapiers
Feat: Slashing Grace

Level 2: Spirit Walker (Mesmerist)
- Spirit Walker loses some Mesmerist features to gain a neat ability to raise recently dead targets as temporary combatants
- Also gains the the ability to cast enchantments on undead (gets better as it levels)

Level 3: Spirit Walker (Mesmerist)
Feat: Realistic Likeness

Skills will be focused on providing party face capabilities and stealth

----

As an alternative to the above build I'd also be very interested if anyone has any ideas for a dip that would allow the Mesmerist to fight effectively using Fox Shape (using DEX to hit/damage) as that would be pure awesome. This would involve using the Superior Shapeshifter alternate racial trait from Blood of the Beast (drop Kitsune Magic for the ability to turn into a fox at level 1 (no time limit)- same as the Fox Shape feat.

You may be right Meyer- the Swash is full BAB but the Mesmerist is 3/4 BAB.

I will gain +1 from the Inspired Blade's weapon focus (if I go IB) and have substantial gains from my DEX- so hopefully I can at least keep up.

You're right that leaving myself adjacent to an enemy is probably not wise- it was just part of a thematic plan :) But it's nice to know that with Ascalaphus' method it will work when I want to do it.

For the record my GM has given the original "parry while casting" plan the go ahead, with some minor caveats. However, having explored it fully in this thread, the "move to provoke" method is far superior anyway and neither is actually as efficient as waiting for an enemy to attack on their turn. Good to know the method works though- I think it's quite fun!

Ah, thank you for the correction! I didn't realise that the Immediate Action uses next turn's Swift- as you say this is actually fantastic for combining with my gaze!

I had assumed I would have to choose between gazing or riposting for my first round of a fight- pleased to see that as long I don't go looking for a riposte on my turn I can still do both!

I certainly intend to get Keen asap! I'm torn between the Inspired Blade Archetype and a standard Swashbuckler at the moment. The former will yield 1 bonus panache from my INT (plus the Weapon Focus feat for rapiers) and the latter allows kills to replenish panache. Hmm.

I think I'll probably go with the following method:

- Enter combat (remain on the front lines where I look like a juicy target but stay out of AOO range)
- Gaze
- Cast
- End turn
- Hope an enemy decides to take a chunk out of me on their turn
- Parry and riposte

If the last two points don't happen then I have a Swift on my next turn to change gaze targets or to raise the dead (I'm planning on a Spirit Walker Mesmerist) :)

I can still deliberately provoke now and then when I'm feeling adventurous or the situation warrants it.

Regarding your "walk through threatened squares to provoke" method- would I be able to finish my movement and walk through to a non-threatened square afterwards, parrying and riposting along the way?

You are a marvellous genius Ascalaphus and I can't believe this seemingly straight forward alternative didn't occur to me! Problem solved!

The funny thing about this whole "parry while casting" idea is that it actually seems quite impractical and foolish. (I still love the idea for its thematic value though). Here's why I think it's sub-optimal:

----

Scenario 1: No concentration check is deemed necessary by the GM and it works as we originally discussed.

1. I walk into a room with two enemies.
2. I walk into a square threatened by enemy A and cast Murderous Command on enemy B.
3. This provokes.
4. I parry the AOO and riposte (if I fail the parry roll I am potentially injured and I could lose the spell via a failed concentration check). Let's say I succeed on both the parry and riposte roll though- enemy A is injured from my riposte.
5. Spell completes and enemy B fails their Will save.
6. My turn ends.
7. Enemy A attacks me on their turn. I can no longer parry or riposte (my AOO and Swift Action are both gone (let's assume no combat reflexes for now). Let's say it hits me. I am injured.
8. Enemy B walks up to and attacks enemy A.
9. Round concludes.

Net result: I risked losing both my P&R usage and a spell by casting in a threatened square. This also meant that enemy A had two chances to injure me during the round, both during its AOO and its own turn. Best possible outcome for me is that enemy A is injured by myself and an attack by an enchanted enemy B. Worst possible outcome is that I'm hit when trying to parry and lose my whole turn (the spell fails and, obviously, no riposte is possible).

Scenario 2: GM determines that a concentration check is necessary for any use of this "parry while casting" method. DC 10 + spell level + 10 for being a psychic caster- quite a hard check. Naturally I now avoid using the method and fight in a more traditional (boring) way.

1. I walk into a room with two enemies.
2. I stay out of their melee range and cast Murderous Command at enemy B.
3. My turn ends.
4. Enemy A walks up to me and attacks.
5. I parry and riposte the attack successfully, enemy A is injured.
6. Enemy B walks up to and attacks enemy A.
7. Round concludes.

Net result: enemy A has taken damage from both me and enemy B. Enemy B spent its turn attacking its ally due to Murderous Command. I took no unnecessary risks and achieved optimal results. Best possible outcome is that enemy A is damaged by both myself and its ally (who spends the turn attacking a friend due to Murderous Command). Worst possible outcome is that I fail to parry enemy A's attack and take some damage whilst being unable to riposte. The spell, however, still completes.

Based on the above, the character's action economy is about equal in both scenarios. The risks, however, are far higher in scenario 1. Of course there are numerous ways this could play out differently but the risk to possible outcome balance remains largely the same.

----

Naturally the above is just a controlled scenario and I'm sure there would be situations where the method is optimal- but I can't think of many right now (open to suggestions!). It's really just for the fun of the concept- elegantly parrying attempts to interfere with casting.

In any case- the issue is largely rendered moot by your idea Ascalaphus, so thank you very much for your help!

Thanks Gisher!

Some interesting possibilities there. The Uncanny Concentration feat could render the concentration check a non-issue for my Mesmerist (assuming it is one at all) if it were comparable to the Vigorous Motion check, as Cavall suggested.

It's whether this largely thematic ability warrants a feat (as one could simply cast a spell on your turn and wait for the enemy to attack on their own turn to achieve very similar results seeing as the riposte is a once per round ability anyway).

Interesting perspective Max. I don't personally see anything abusive here- this is far from optimal after all. It's simply an unusual, and actually sometimes inefficient, means of fighting in a unique way (complete with very high risks). But, of course, I'm biased by my interest in the concept.

The issue of whether or not making (not being targeted by) an AOO interrupts concentration is the last potential hiccup being discussed here, as the Parry ability asks you to roll an attack as if making an AOO. "As written" the rules do not say that "making" an AOO interrupts concentration, only the usual flow of action in the turn (as quoted in an above post, in context)- to me this denotes that one should immediately stop normal turn activities and deal with the AOO before continuing and the rule has no obvious connection to casting. For clarity, even being on the receiving end of an AOO only interrupts if the attack actually hits and causes damage.

Spell casting can indeed be interrupted (as specified in an entirely separate rule quoted above), causing the need for a concentration check, but the causes of this are listed directly below that rule and they do not include making an AOO (only taking damage from one). Granted, one can and should use diligence to determine whether or not something counts as "interrupting" an action but what we have here is an ability that uses up an AOO and an Immediate Action- both are so brief that they can be used outside of a normal turn and there is no precedent for either interfering with other abilities during a turn.

My consideration of whether this could be interpreted differently is one of the reasons for further enquiry here :) I wonder if putting it to a formal FAQ would be necessary? I've seen that done on here for some questions. Nonetheless it is perfectly reasonable for a GM to decide to interpret it differently and add the concentration check anyway, as Cavall has suggested. However I believe that would be a house rule, looking at the RAW. Again, I'm no expert, but it appears from our discussions here that the RAW do not explicitly call for a concentration check. As for RAI I feel only the Devs can provide a concrete answer at this point, but I'm open to all opinions.

Absolutely clear on the limitations of Immediate Actions and the Riposte part of the ability (see earlier post). One riposte per round (and this will limit other options available to the Mesmerist as many of her abilities use Swift Actions).

On the contrary, this unusual and fun method of fighting grew entirely out of the desire to roleplay a character who only strikes physically when attacked and otherwise appears reasonably docile or even friendly (her casting is almost undetectable, as I note below). I am interested by the possibility of making a unique combatant who deflects and ripostes attempts to stop her psychic powers- to the outside observer she is only ever defending herself.

I agree with this last paragraph fully. You speak at length regarding somatic and material components being limiting factors and indeed they are. I agree that if they were involved it would make a lot of sense for them to be difficult to utilise alongside Parry and Riposte. I also agree that verbal components are much easier (assuming rare and cryptic languages are not involved) and could potentially be okay to use without a check.

The Mesmerist, however, uses none of the above in her casting. Like all psychic casters the Mesmerist casts only with her mind (thought and emotion components) and doesn't even need to speak unless giving instructions to a target. She simply wills her spells into being.

Thought and emotion components have their own drawbacks (most notably that fear can make it impossible to cast some spells), but what they do not require is any movement, words, hand gestures, voodoo dolls or dancing under the moon whatsoever: the caster simply wills it. The casting is therefore, physically, incredibly simple- the caster looks at you, you suddenly feel an uncontrollable urge to kill your comrades.

I see little thematic issue with a talented fighter simultaneously deflecting and returning a blow whilst simply "willing" something to happen. I don't think we have to look far in popular fiction to find such individuals who mix martial and "magical" skills in quick succession ;)

Thanks for your thoughts! :)

Interesting, Ascalaphus. I'd forgotten that Psychics suffer a serious increase to concentration check DCs.

This effectively reduces the discussion to whether or not it's possible to do this at all- as adding the concentration check would make the method pretty much unworkable (base DC of 10 + spell level + 10 makes for a very difficult check indeed). Hmm. I've added this to my summary for my GM and I'll see what he comes up with.

Setting aside the fiddly details of whether a GM should add the concentration check for logic/consistency purposes, how do people feel about balance? Personally I feel the Swash/Mesmerist mix is already somewhat weakened through the multi-classing procedure and I'm not sure the ability to rush up to people, provoke, parry/riposte and cast is really that powerful given the risks. Not to mention the limits on how often it can be done (panache, AOOs) and the fact that only one riposte can be performed per round. What do people think? Would this be OP without the concentration check?

Cool, I've put all of this and your points to my GM, Cavall, so he'll have a look at it and make a decision :)

So, for clarity for anyone else who may benefit from this thread: RAW it works without a concentration check but it's sufficiently close to the mark that a GM would be completely within their rights to consider adding one? Is that a fair summary?

Thanks Karlbob :) I was pretty excited when I came up with it but I wanted to check it through first. It just felt like an unusual way to play.

Thanks for your thoughts Cavall, I'll discuss it with the GM :) Naturally I'd rather think of it in terms of the Swashbuckler's P&R ability itself providing the requisite skill to pull it off whenever an "opportunity" arises (including when performing other actions in her turn) and it seems RAW supports this seeing as we're basically talking about adding in a previously non-existent concentration check parameter. But obviously I'm biased at this point ;)

Thanks Slim- I'm pretty set on a Psychic gish at this point and I like the unique interplay between the Mesmerist and Swashbuckler. But I'll take a look at Flamboyant Arcana :)

Awesome, I shall do when I get my ideas together. Thanks very much everyone :)

Fantastic! Thanks very much Slimgauge and everyone else! You've helped a great deal.

Going to push ahead with my Swashbuckler/Mesmerist build now. Hopefully I'll soon be stabbing people and Beguiling Gifting them something dreadful in the same turn! Or just ordering their friend to stab them in the back too ;)

Always keen to get input on build ideas- should I switch to a different thread for that?

Thanks again everyone, muchly appreciated!

Thanks everyone for being so helpful.

One last concern: my friend has spotted this:

"An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn)."

And this:

"To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." (The rules go on to list the various things that interrupt concentration and their DCs- making an AOO isn't one of them).

Do you think there is any connection between these two rules? Personally I believe the two uses of the word "interrupt" are being used for different purposes here- the former suggesting that AOOs break up the normal flow of a round and should be resolved immediately and the latter referring to a specific set of circumstances that interrupt casting. Do you think one could suggest that because "An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of action in the round" it also interrupts a spell caster's concentration"?

Thanks again!

Ahhh excellent! :D Thanks for the investigation on that Slimgauge! You've helped enormously.

Haha, indeed Torbyne :) We're both looking now. So far I can only find it on the D20srd under Casting a Spell (and that refers to D&D, not Pathfinder). I haven't yet found it on the PFSRD.

A friend has raised a concern that I am now trying to find more data on.

It's to do with the fact that, when you cast a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you (we're trying to find confirmation of this). In order to make an AOO you need to threaten the square you are hitting into.

He's concerned that, as parrying uses up an AOO (and is written as "makes an attack roll as if making an attack of opportunity"), parrying would be impossible because I'm not currently threatening if I'm casting a spell.

Can anyone confirm or refute this issue?

Thanks SlimGauge, appreciate the clarification!

Awesome, I agree Ectar!

Apologies- a failed parry would actually lead to a concentration check that could then cause the spell to fail.

You're quite right Ectar- thanks for the fix. A failed parry would certainly mean a failed spell, so the successful cast should come after the parry.

This leads me to wonder- would a failed riposte cause the spell to fail, seeing as the enemy attack has already been parried at that point?

Thanks BigNorseWolf! So there's nothing else stopping me from using up an AOO to parry an AOO provoked by casting a spell?

Thanks very much for the quick response!

Good to have those two issues confirmed.

So with this in mind, is there anything stopping me from enacting the above scenario? Is there any issue stopping me from casting a spell, parrying and riposting all in the same turn?

Thanks again!

Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum business so I hope I'm in the right area. Anyhoo, I've been searching for an answer this question everywhere and I haven't found anything yet- so hopefully people here can help!

I'm considering building a Kitsune Swashbuckler 1/Mesmerist X. My query is based around the Swashbuckler's Opportune Parry and Riposte and how it works when combined with a caster class- specifically when on the receiving end of an Attack of Opportunity due to having cast a spell in a threatened square (but not casting defensively).

Here's an example scenario below:

1: Turn begins. I use my Movement to enter a square adjacent to enemy A.

2: I use my Standard Action to cast a spell (let's say Murderous Command) on enemy B who is 20 feet away. I do this without casting defensively.

3: Enemy A gets an Attack of Opportunity against me.

4: I use Opportune Parry and Riposte to parry the attack. This expends a use of one of my own Attacks of Opportunity for the round.

5: I succeed on my Parry roll and the attack is nullified. The spell completes without interruption and enemy B is now enchanted.

6: I use Opportune Parry and Riposte to riposte against enemy A. This is an Immediate Action. I succeed on my roll and damage enemy A.

7: My turn ends.

So I'm here to ask if this scenario works within the rules?

-Can Opportune Parry and Riposte be used against an enemy's Attack of Opportunity? (The rules specify that enemy "melee attacks" can be parried. This doesn't appear to be limited to "Attack Actions", just melee attacks).

-Can I use Opportune Parry and Riposte in the same turn as casting a spell as a Standard Action?

Opportune Parry and Riposte uses up a use of Attack of Opportunity to parry and an Immediate Action to riposte (along with the necessary panache points). The spell is a Standard Action. As far as I can tell, rules as written, there is no conflict here. But I'm no expert on the matter so I hope people can help me out- I might be missing something.

My hope is to make a Kitsune Swashbuckler 1/Mesmerist X who wanders up to enemies, casts a spell in their face and then parries/ripostes any Attacks of Opportunity that come back at her.

Naturally I'll only be able to riposte once per round but the parries are only limited to my available panache/Attacks of Opportunity, as far as I can tell.

I hope I've been clear about things- if people want any more details I'm happy to provide them.

Thanks very much in advance!