Sorry for the delayed response, work and sleep prevented me from checking this until now.
I've read though all the responses here and I thank you all for your help and advice. I think I have decided to remove him from the game. More so than the stats and his character I think the simple fact that he causing a disturbance at the table and is ruining the fun for myself and other players is the deciding factor.
Responses:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A 27 point buy is way too much:
I know this and I agree. One of the other, more experienced GM's in the group did this once for a game he was running and it allowed us to have powerful characters while still allowing us the resources to "waste" on simple RP and character fluff that added no mechanical advantage. I know this isn't a solution or recommended in a game but it is something that I really enjoyed in his game and wanted to do in mine. It is fine as long as there is an understanding that it should not be abused. Everyone else in the party has chosen to not abuse it.
Don't kill the character:
Once again, I agree. I didn't want it to come to that and I try very hard not to target or intentionally kill a player in my game, just grasping at solutions that don't involve loosing the friend that would leave with the problem player.
Core classes can be abused more that Hybrid:
We have discussed this as a group that we just do not care for some of the abilities and options that these classes allow. Maybe you're right and they are not as potentially broken as core, they are just not for us.
Beyond Morality:
This is not something I am comfortable allowing in an adventure THIS focused on Good vs. Evil and on concepts of atonement and redemption. Furthermore, they way the player brought this up bugged me. He kept mentioning that "you could even play a Paladin/Assassin!". This bothered me when he said it but bothered me even more when, on a suspicious hunch, I looked up mythic guides for power gaming and found a post on GiantInThePlayground that mentioned that Beyond Morality was awesome because "...you could even play a Paladin/Assassin....". This ability may be more appropriate and acceptable in some games but not, in my opinion, for my game or this adventure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried not to be a jerk in return to this player but, I am out of options. The meta-game cheating, the power gaming, and the (I didn't mention this part before) bullying of other players into RP'ing the way he wants and controlling the distribution of party loot in his favor, have all gone too far. He is ruining the game for all of us and he will be removed from the game. I mostly came to that decision before posting this thread but wanted to get the opinions of more experienced GM's to see if there was a better way.
Do not try to kill his character or otherwise solve things in-game - that will only cause bad blood, and his next character will be even worse. He's making trouble, arguing with you, and blatantly meta-gaming. This is offense after offense, and it sounds like you've repeatedly spoken with him about it to no avail.
There's only one answer. I'm sorry, but it's true. He has to go.
Not the solution I wanted, but I reluctantly agree.
I am a newer GM running Wrath of the Righteous with our group and I have encountered a bit of a situation with one of my players.
------------------------------------------
About our group/game:
------------------------------------------
We have a larger game, 6-7 players depending on who can show up that week. We play a pretty casual game without 3rd party content but with a few home-brew rules that we have made to fit our group, nothing huge just minor tweaks. The group I am playing with is mostly just close friends with one exception, he is a guy that we just play D&D with but isn't really a member of the group of friends.
We decided at the start of the game that, being a mythic campaign, it was going to be a high powered adventure, so we would have a little fun with it. I let the players have a really high point buy with stats (27 points) and ruled that all of pathfinder, aside from the hybrid and occult classes, was open to them. Our group has agreed that the potential for abuse with the hybrid classes is too much and that occult just doesn't work well with the campaign. I have, with the help of a buddy who is a much more experienced GM, been able to balance the challenges of the fights to match the huge numbers and wide spread abilities of the group and to continue to challenge them while allowing the game to be fun and enjoyable for all.
The party is level 7, almost 8, and has 2 sorcerers, an inquisitor, a barbarian, a paladin, a ranger, and a spell slinger wizard/cleric/mystic thurge. For the sake of allowing my players to enjoy their characters and have fun with the mythic system and the story, I have allowed my players to pretty much do anything they want to do within the pathfinder system. I haven't been closely monitoring or managing their characters. The mythic system, along with the high point buy, has made all the characters power houses that are equipped for just about anything I throw at them, I have been raising the CR or changing the circumstances of the fights to allow for them to still be challenged, and we have been trying to lean hard on the RP of the game. As this is a group of friends this has worked fine as the group has been just trying to see through their character concepts and not trying to abuse the system, with one exception...
------------------------------------------
The Problem Child:
------------------------------------------
The player that is playing the Paladin is an experienced and notorious power gamer. He is in the group as more of a friend of a friend, but unfortunately we are in a situation that if we cut him from the group we will also lose one of the sorcerers, someone who we have all agreed we would like to keep. For this reason removing him from the game is a very last resort. This player has gone out of his way to take advantage of my leaniant GM'ing style and has created a monster character among monster characters.
I have spoken with him about this and he challenges me on every ruling I have made and accuses me of trying to target him. I have explained my reasoning, and he argues with almost every point and brings up examples of what I have allowed of the other players (which they have NOT attempted to abuse as he has) and then acts sarcastic during the game.
The player has also read through the adventure path books and uses that knowledge to meta-game at critical points that are supposed to challenge the group, but otherwise largely stays out of the RP. He has made some VERY questionable actions in game when he has RPed that conflict with the paladin code and being lawful good. For example, there was the time that he allowed a helpless prisoner to be executed without a trial and without a real chance to defend herself or her actions, with only circumstantial evidence (and heaps of meta-game knowledge) that she was in fact the culprit that they were looking for. I have began imposing penalties on him for this behavior and have been met met huge resistance.
The player also insists that he did not try to break his character, and when I try to argue otherwise he threatens "I can show you min-maxing, this isn't it".
------------------------------------------
The Monster Among Monsters:
------------------------------------------
The rest of the party has a total stat modifier of 11 or 12, aside from one player who currently has a stat boosting item giving him a 13. The paladin has a total modifier of 17 without any stat boosting items! I know that 11-12 at level 7 with no stat boosting items is stupid high, but with the entire party being at the same level, I can compensate, one player being so far ahead complicates this though. He used advanced age categories to boost his mental stats with a penalty to his physical stats then as soon as he got his first mythic tier he used the universal ability Longevity to eliminate the physical penalties while keeping the boosted mental stats. He played an Aasimar, a 15 RP race with no stat penalty.
He attempted to use Beyond Morality to completely negate his need to RP or fulfill his obligation to be Lawful Good but I refused to allow him to take this ability as I am trying to encourage him to actually role play and with the story being so focused on good and evil I felt it was not appropriate here. This, once again, was met with complaints.
He is wearing magical full plate and a magical heavy steel shield. He has mythic shield focus that allows him to add his shield bonus to his touch AC. He has a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor. This results in him having an AC in the low 30's and having a touch AC in the mid twenties. He has an 18 charisma and a cloak of resistance +2, this with being a paladin means that all of his saves are through the roof. These defenses pretty much dwarf the rest of the entire party.
In addition to having his defenses boosted through the roof he is also an experienced player and uses out of character knowledge to bypass or defend against anything I throw at him.
------------------------------------------
In Summary....
------------------------------------------
I have been building the encounters to match the party and they have been able to topple much larger threats than any party of their level should have. This is fine as we anticipated this and the party enjoys it, it also allows me to explore the bestiaries and design fun and challenging encounters that would have no place in standard games. The challenge is that if I build an encounter that could conceivably penetrate the paladin's defenses, therefore challenging him as well, then I have built an encounter that has no chance of missing the rest of the party and with saves that they cannot overcome without constantly surging. This has started causing a serious issue and is affecting the ability of my players to have fun or myself to have fun with running the game.
I have spoken to him time and time again and haven't gotten far. We don't really want to remove him from the game as this will come at the expense of losing a player that we want to keep. As the party gains further in levels and wealth this problem is going to continue to be exacerbated as I have heard plans from the rest of the party to make very rich RP based decisions for their characters, while the paladin is planning on further shoring up his defenses and finding a way to add a devastating offense to his repertoire.
I have grudgingly come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with the situation is to kill off his paladin and be more proactive in preventing his next character from being out of control. I hate this solution as I always try to be impartial when it comes to the game and to just allow things to happen naturally. However I am out of alternatives. I am open to suggestions of alternatives but baring that....
How do I kill an overpowered paladin, make it seem organic and part of the story, and not throw something at the party that is going to cause a party wipe?
Because they are too far away. Your first diagonal counts as 5ft of movement, your second is 10ft of movment, aka 2 squares.
So blue and orange are both 20ft away, but the lower square is only 15ft away.
That makes it the closest square and the one you'd need to go to to be able to charge.
I see, as you can see here I was (until just now) unaware of the rule of diagonal distance but, as we have also just discussed, the distance thing doesn't seem to be the major issue as long as the path either "at" or "past" a target is a "straight" line. I know that this isn't an official ruling but as Sean is a Paizo contributor and has (at least in my mind) a strong argument for that ruling I think this is what I am going to go with unless I am otherwise convinced.
Thank you very much, I (and apparently my entire group) was unaware of this rule entirely. We may end up, as a house rule, ignoring this as we have never done it in the past but it is good to know that this rule exists.
Actually, in that post, the part he is saying is stupid is not the "straight", but the "at". He is saying you should be able to charge straight "next" to your target. That is pretty-much what the examples are showing anyway.
Yeah, I am understanding this, I guess I just worded it differently than what I was thinking. In his example he is showing that a "straight" line doesn't always look straight on a grid map and is specifying that charging "at" or "past" a target should both be valid and legal as long as the path to get to your destination is "straight".
3 diagonal squares is 4-squares distance. But that 4-squares is the shortest distance in that path.
I am not saying your wrong, in fact you may very well be right and I could be very wrong, but where is it stated that 3 diagonal squares is 4 squares? I do not know this rule.
Chess Pwn wrote:
here Is Sean saying that the rule to charge straight at them is stupid and he wants to change it. That means the rule is you charge at them to the closest square to you.
your first picture expect variation. Some will be okay, other will say that it doesn't work. I don't think we have official rule. Though I think it's okay.
Your second picture The only legal spot to charge for you is the one below the PC, fortunately for you it's open. But if the friendly PC was one square lower you couldn't charge.
Thank you for the link, I agree with him that that ruling would certainly complicate RBA.
The last part though has me confused, however. How do you determin that the square below the ally PC is the ONLY valid target for a charge? Why would the orange and blue (assuming the ally PC wasnt in the way) paths not also be valid?
It boils down to ignore the grid when determining straight lines, count squares afterwards and 'directly towards' does not mean 'directly at'.
Gauss wrote:
Brf, as stated, the Devs have already stated which is the correct interpretation. It is closest space on the line you select...not 'most direct line'.
The 'most direct line' interpretation is leads to broken rules.
DeadJesterKelsier, dragonhunterq posted the relevant link. At the time of posting Sean K Reynolds was a rules Dev.
Ok, so the problem I was having is going too much by the movement required to get there and not focusing on the straight line part of it.
So I am understanding from this then that as long as the PC chooses a valid square to attack from and then charges in a "straight" line toward that square then it is a valid charge.
Thank you guys for your help.
Brf wrote:
No. You need to go to the closest square you can attack from.
In your second example, the orange line is going 4-squares, while the square below the other PC is only 3 squares away.
All 3 paths would take you only 3 squares but as above, this doesnt seem to be the issue.
First interpretation: Draw a line from the center of your square to the center of the target...move along that line. (This is your blue lines.)
Second interpretation: Draw a straight line in any direction that ends in a square where you can attack the target but does not move through a square that you can attack the target. (This is your both your blue and orange lines.)
The Devs have previously stated that the second interpretation is the correct one because the first interpretation leads to rules inconsistencies such as Ride-by attack not working.
Thank you for your help. I was leaning toward the conclusion that as long as the alternative routes lead in a direct route to a valid spot to attack the enemy and does not take more movement then they would also be valid but I wasn't 100% sure.
Gauss wrote:
The Devs have previously stated that the second interpretation is the correct one because the first interpretation leads to rules inconsistencies such as Ride-by attack not working.
Can you (or anyone else) give me a link to where this was discussed? It would go a long way to resolve the argument within our group. Thanks again.
Well, in your second example, the orange line does not go to the closest spot you can attack the enemy. The closest is the one "below" the other PC. You first example looks fine.
This is exactly the point of the clarification. Depending on how you look at it the orange path, blue path, or a path that leads to the square "below" the ally PC could each be considered the "closest" or the most "direct" route and all 3 options require the same movement of 3 squares to reach. Does this mean that the purple PC could choose any of these 3 routes to charge the enemy?
My question involves charging movement and what is acceptable or unacceptable.
The Core Rulebook (D20pfsrd) says:
Charge:
Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.
-------------------------------------------------
Movement During a Charge:
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. If you move a distance equal to your speed or less, you can also draw a weapon during a charge attack if your base attack bonus is at least +1.
You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge. Helpless creatures don't stop a charge.
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
You can't take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.
-------------------------------------------------
*Emphasis mine
Specifically I am referring to the parts that specify that you have to move directly toward the target and that you must end in the closest square from which you can attack the target.
If the PC is charging a target and the square directly toward the target that the PC could attack from is occupied (and by the rules not valid for a charge) could the PC choose to charge into an adjacent square that would require the same amount of movement and attack from there?
See Example: Image
In the above example, if the green PC were to charge the enemy the most direct path (blue line) would lead to a square occupied by an ally and so would be invalid. Could the PC choose to instead charge along the orange line, using the same amount of movement, to attack the enemy?
Similarly, if the purple PC were to try to charge their enemy and there is a more ambiguous "direct" path to the target, would the PC be able to charge along the orange path to attack the target? If the orange path was blocked and the blue was open could they choose that instead?
We are working on a Dragonlance campaign converted for pathfinder. We are to the point of the story where we have obtained the disks and brought the gods back thus opening up divine magic. I have been playing a sylvanesti elf wizard up to this point but based on my characters personality I would like to add divine to his repitoire.
Our GM is allowing 3.5 content so I am looking at a Wizard/Archivist/Mystic Theurge which I love because it is mostly SAD.
I am currently level 5 wizard, I can retrain class levels (and would like to) to get into MT ASAP.
Can anyone offer advise on how I can make this work at the earliest level and keep my spell levels and caster levels as high as I can?
I have a draft of a grappling FAQ blog out there to clear up everything that I found surprising (plus explain the parts that the expert players and GMs already know but are confusing to others)
I feel that at that point if a char A, Pins char B, char B would be helpless till char be breaks pin,
I base this off of the many forms of Martial arts and wrestling ( real wrestling not wwe ) Pin is where you have placed your opponent in a hold that they can no longer defend ones self,
Ok, if we apply real world logic and mechanics into this then the whole system is broken. Lets say a fighter in the UFC moves in for a grapple/pin and the opponent pulls out a dagger and stabs him, he isn't grappling anyone and is probably on his way to the hospital. Does this then mean that in Pathfinder if someone is stabbed they cant grapple? Do they even take penalties? No and No. This is a fantasy game and, much like with movies, requires a certain suspension of disbelief and remembering that it is NOT REAL. Similarly, in the real world if you fall 30 ft. with 100lbs of equipment on your back you will break (probably several) bones and be SEVERELY limited on how well you could fight or defend yourself. In pathfinder a fall of 30ft would result in 3d6 damage and (and assuming this does not kill you) still be fully capable of getting up and defending yourself or beating the crap out of the guy that pushed you in that hole. Please remember that this IS A GAME!
I think should be looked at from a balancing viewpoint. The Coup de Gras is an extremely powerful mechanic that can very quickly kill a creature with little to no chance of the victim resisting it, for this reason it is intentionally (and should be) very difficult to pull off in normal combat. If a party could work together (with very little effort to maximize) to grapple/pin/Coup de Gras and kill most enemies within 2 rounds. In a 4 man party have 3 people aid the first in grappling the guy. If he attacks in the grapple move to pin on the next round. If he escapes, grapple him again on the next round. Once he is pinned have 2 of the 3 extra characters aid with CMD so he cant escape while the 3rd (probably the rogue) lay down a Coup de Gras leading to a potentially impossible FORT save to not die regardless of remaining health. By this logic the opponent has very few options and nearly no chance of escape unless he is much larger or MUCH more powerful that the group. As mentioned before, this could even be done by one character with multiple comanions/cohorts. This can quickly become game breaking and HUGELY unbalanced, so therefore doesn't make much sense.
In the situation of being tied up, I would agree with:
jcmarino wrote:
trying to define bound as a condition is almost impossible, and that is why you need and experienced DM to make the call on it. I for one don't consider a person who is in shackles helpless, but a person who is hog tied, i would, even if they can wiggle they cant defend them self's,
(who clearly fumbled his linguistics roll.)
If a party makes the appropriate effort to tie up and secure an opponent in such a way that he is rendered entirely unable to defend himself then they would be helpless and eligible for a Coup de Gras (though this might bring up questions of morality in the group as they are killing a bound helpless prisoner). But this would likely occur outside of combat after the fighting has subsided.
By the rules "tied up" is a more severe form of "pinned" but this relationship is one way. If your "tied up" then you are also "pinned" but being "pinned" does not necessarily mean that your "tied up". "Pinned" does not make you helpless, but "tied up" could in some cases make you helpless.
This is going to be a never-ending debate I fear and so I once again request (and even beg for) an official ruling.
This very question just got debated here; http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2samx?Coup-De-Grace
Thank you, I have read similar threads but somehow had not found this one. However, we have been debating this ourselves and clearly others have been doing the same, that was not the intention of this post.
The intention of this post was to request an official ruling so that we can put an end to the debates and settle this issue for good.
Clearly, based on the number of responses to the thread linked, I am not the only one who would like this decided.
I think what it comes down to is the fact the being "bound" can have massively varying degrees of meaning. You can be "bound" by someone placing you in a bear hug (grappled) or be "bound" by having your wrists tied together (tied up) or you can be "bound" by being buried to your neck in cement (tied up? paralyzed? helpless?). Some of these degrees of being "bound" would logically leave you "helpless" others would not at all leave you "helpless". For this reason I do not like the idea of deciding this situation based on such an ambiguous term that is not defined in the context of the game rules.
With spells there is a ruling or rule (cant remember which or from where) that says that if a spell does not specifically state that it does something, it doesn't. This was (presumably) to fix a lot of the loopholes found in rules in the 3.5 variant. I am inclined to carry over that same logic to this and similar situations with non-spell actions, if it is explicitly stated, it isn't. Pinned does not say helpless, therefore...it isn't.
These are my personal feelings on the matter, but I am by no means an expert and do not know every rule from every book or every FAQ and ruling that has ever been officially made. I do know, however, that this is an ongoing (and very heated) debate in my group and I am sure others have encountered this dilemma.
For these reasons I would love to have an official ruling on this matter as this pin/Coup de Grace combo has been exploited a few times in our game. The most notable example allowed a 4th level Hunter PC to defeat 2 back to back CL5 encounters single handily (the second encounter literately started the round after the first was defeated).
12 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
This came up in a recent game:
Character A had Character B pinned with the aid of his multiple animal companions each offering +4 aid bonus to his CMD (to a total of something like DC 12 million to escape). Character A then used his animal companions to "Coup de Grace" Character B arguing that while pinned Character B was helpless.
The pinned condition does not state that a character is helpless but does state that the pinned character is "tightly bound" and the helpless condition says "A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy." In this case, does this make a pinned character helpless and thus eligible for a Coup de Grace, or should we assume that since the pinned condition does not explicitly state that the character is "helpless" that they are not eligible for a Coup de Grace?
The conditions both list similar (but differently worded) penalties for the condition. Helpless states that "A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target)." and pinned states "A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class." The similar penalties seems to imply that they are much the same but the lack of an explicit statement of helplessness in the pinned condition and the different wording seems to imply that they should be different.
I am on the fence about the issue myself and I have seen very convincing arguments in posts from others that favor both sides of the debate. We made an on the fly ruling at the time of the session and have no intention of going back but I think this is something that is ambiguously worded and would like an official ruling or statement of how the rules were intended.
Pinned:
A pinned creature is tightly bound and can take few actions. A pinned creature cannot move and is denied its Dexterity bonus. A pinned character also takes an additional –4 penalty to his Armor Class. A pinned creature is limited in the actions that it can take. A pinned creature can always attempt to free itself, usually through a combat maneuver check or Escape Artist check. A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions, but cannot cast any spells that require a somatic or material component. A pinned character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level) or lose the spell. Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack.
Casting Spells while Pinned: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell.
Helpless:
A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks get no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets.
As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets his sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity.
Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace.
Coup de Grace:
As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.
Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.
You can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you've determined what square it's in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).
Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar that has received this benefit, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.
It's calculated as though the class where 4 levels higher up to your character level. Without multiclassing this feat has no effect at all because it can't raise the class level at all.
The class level is raised then split between companions.
See, this is the way I originally was thinking that this should work, but is so ambiguously worded that it could mean this or it could mean that each of them are to a maximum of your character level.
This is why my original post asked for an official ruling.
Ok, so it seems that the consensus is that it is legal. Fair enough.
I know at this point his companions have been powerful as hell and because of his turtle tanking for the party they have been steamrolling everything. It isn't that I want my party to die, just want to challenge them. (The pistolero gunslinger doesn't help either). As I am a new GM I have mostly been using the standard encounters in the AP (Jade Regent), I guess I am going to have to do some adjustments to challenge them. It is reassuring though that his over-powered character isn't going to last long enough to break the game.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
3. Intended by who? Intended how? If you mean that animal companions are great at lower levels and gradually lose power as the world gets a lot more magical around them, yes, it appears to be intentional.
I meant, was boon companion intended to be allowed to be used on multiple companions like this to get many more companion levels then your character level?
well i don't think he can take boon companion 2 times at level 2
he wouldn't be ale to take boon companion a second time at level one , cause he can only have 1 companion, and he doesn't get an other feat until level 3 .
I mentioned that as well. The player in question is our typical GM though and I am the GM of this game, I am much newer to the game than he is and he insisted that you can take the feat before you get your second animal companion and then apply it when you get your second one.
Kefler wrote:
it would be pretty powerful until lv 5 then get worse and worse, one solo companion drops off in effectiveness at level 10 so multiple lower level ones would be even worse .
i would be more concerned with how much time each of his rounds would take.
The turn length was a concern as well. I am not so sure the effectiveness would drop off as sharply as that. When you stack teamwork feats and aid bonuses, I think things can change quickly.
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
In our game we have a player who has a hunter with the packmaster Archetype and is planning on taking about 5 animal companions and then take Boon companion for each of them.
Currently we are at 2nd level and he has a turtle and a falcon both of which he has taken boon companion for. So he has 2, 2nd level companions. At this level it isn't that big of a deal but I see problems arising in the future...
He has stated that he plans of taking a new companion each level up to 5th level. Being a human he will have 4 feats, all of which he is planning on taking Boon Companion for. This will give him 4, 5th level companions and a 1st level companion. That's 21 levels of animal companions at level 5!
If we look forward to 20th level, assuming he is going to split levels equally for each of the 5 companions, that makes 5, 8th level companions. Sure, 8th level companions at 20th level are giong to be under powered individually, but when stacking aid bonuses and teamwork feats this could potentially get ridiculous fast. He would effectively have the animal companion level of a 40th level druid. (5 companions * 8 levels each = 40 levels)
When asked he has stated that by higher levels this will loose effectiveness as they wont keep up with attack bonus and damage bonus of higher level characters so it is not broken and clearly as the rules were intended...
Packmaster Archetype:
Pack Bond (Ex)
A packmaster can have more than one animal companion, but she must divide her effective druid level between her companions to determine the abilities of each one. For example, a 4th-level packmaster can have one 4th-level animal companion, two 2nd-level companions, one 3rd-level companion and one 1st-level companion, or four 1st-level companions.
When a packmaster gains a level, she must decide how to allocate the increase among her animal companions, including whether or not to add a new 1st-level companion. Once a hunter level is allocated to a particular companion, it cannot be redistributed while that companion is in the packmaster's service. She must release the companion or wait until the companion dies to allocate its levels to another companion, which she can then do the next time she refreshes her spell slots for the day. The share spells animal companion ability applies to only one animal companion at a time—the packmaster cannot use it to cast a spell that affects only a single target and have the spell affect all of her animal companions.
A packmaster's precise companion, woodland stride, and teamwork feats apply to only one of her animal companions at a time. (For example, a packmaster can apply precise companion to one companion, woodland stride to another, and a given teamwork feat to a third, but cannot apply any of those to two animal companions at once.) As a swift action, she can change which companion gains any or all of these benefits.
This ability replaces animal companion.
Boon Companion:
Your bond with your animal companion or familiar is unusually close.
Prerequisites: Animal companion or familiar class feature.
Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were 4 levels higher, to a maximum effective druid level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar that has received this benefit, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.
Special: You may select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.
The feat seems to state that each animal companion can be boosted up to the players effective druid level and that you can take this feat for each companion. By RAW this seems to be completely legal and stack with the archetype...right?
My questions are:
Is this legal?
Is this broken?
Is this as intended?
I would greatly appreciate an official ruling or maybe an errata or FAQ. Thank you,
I need someone to help clarify the rules and explain how these abilities/feats go together.
We are looking at:
Gunslinger (pistolero) 5, Human
BAB: 5 DEX: +3
Feat: Deadly Aim
Feat: Rapid Shot
Feat: Two Weapon Fighting
Weapons: MWK Pepperbox & Double Barrel Pistol
So for attack modifiers we have:
+5 BAB
+3 DEX
-2 Deadly Aim
-2 Rapid Shot
-4 TWF
+1 MWK Mainhand
+1 (+0 offhand) Total
A gunslinger gets one attack at 5th level, then an extra attack from rapid shot, an extra attack from haste and an extra attack from TWF, for a total of 4 attacks: +1/+1/+1 +0.
Damage is more straightforward
1d8 Both guns
+3 From Gun Training
+4 From Deadly Aim
TOTAL 1d8+7
4 attacks for a potential total of 4d8+28 at a x4 crit at 5th level?!
Granted doing this kills your attack, but I'll be shooting touch AC to help compensate.
Up Close and Deadly:
At 1st level, when the pistolero hits a target with a one-handed firearm that is not making a scatter shot, she can spend 1 grit point to deal 1d6 points of extra damage on a hit. If she misses with the attack, she grazes the target, dealing half the extra damage anyway. This is precision damage and is not multiplied if the attack is a critical hit. This precision damage increases to 2d6 at 5th level, to 3d6 at 10th level, to 4d6 at 15th level, and to 5d6 at 20th level. This precision damage stacks with sneak attack and other forms of precision damage.
It is worse if I burn my 4 grit Up Close and Deadly, it becomes 4d8+8d6+28 dmg at 5th level....
Now this gets real confusing when you consider this same situation in 2 levels...
BAB goes to +7/+2 and you gain Dead Shot.
Attacks +3/+3/+3/-2 +2
Dead Shot:
At 7th level, as a full-round action, the gunslinger can take careful aim and pool all of her attack potential into a single, deadly shot. When she does this, she shoots the firearm at a single target, but makes as many attack rolls as she can, based on her base attack bonus. She makes the attack rolls in order from highest bonus to lowest, as if she were making a full attack. If any of the attack rolls hit the target, the gunslinger’s single attack is considered to have hit. For each additional successful attack roll beyond the first, the gunslinger increases the damage of the shot by the base damage dice of the firearm. For instance, if a 7th-level gunslinger firing a musket hits with both attacks, she does 2d12 points of damage with the shot, instead of 1d12 points of damage, before adding any damage modifiers. Precision damage and extra damage from weapon special abilities (such as flaming) are added with damage modifiers and are not increased by this deed. If one or more rolls are critical threats, she confirms the critical once using her highest base attack bonus –5. For each critical threat beyond the first, she reduces this penalty by 1 (to a maximum of 0). The gunslinger only misfires on a dead shot if all the attack rolls are misfires. She cannot perform this deed with a blunderbuss or other scatter weapon when attacking creatures in a cone. The gunslinger must spend 1 grit point to perform this deed.
Can I pool all of these attacks (including the offhand one) into one super shot with the Dead Shot deed and do 5d8+7 damage in a single shot?
Can I then use Up Close and Deadly on the dead shot? Can I only use it only once or on each of the attacks that went into it?
Am I doing the math right?
Do all of these abilities and feats stack?
This is very confusing to me and I would like someone to make more sense of these rules together. Maybe an official ruling?
I have a group of 4 (including me) players that play frequently. We are all in our late 20's to mid 30's and enjoy a good roleplaying experience with solid action. The other guys have been playing D&D for years and have experience as far back as 2nd edition. I started about 2 years ago and only have experience with pathfinder.
We have a casual game style. We mostly stick to the books but will ocasionally make little exceptions if: you can roleplay it in, it makes since for your character, and it doesn't break the game. The other players have kind of been throwing new games at us and GMing them as we finish one and they have one prepared. We do mostly premade stuff with with the occasional "spice" thrown in, while one of our players has a knack for some great homebrew games.
Being the only one of the 4 to not GM for us up to this point I would like to give it a try.
I want something to get my feet wet as a GM while still being fun and engaging for the mature, veteran players I will be playing with. I would like something fairly straightforward but would allow me room to "flex my creative muscles" a little.
I think a game that has multiple steps or segments would be ideal. That way if it works we can continue while if it fails we can relatively painlessly quit at a break in the story.
This is a long winded description of a simple question, I know, I just didnt want suggestions of stuff like "crypt of the everflame!". While stuff like that is great for new GM with new\young players, its not for me I think.
I see this far too often on Paizo threads, a guy asks a question, this question at some point involves controversial rules, the entire thread becomes a pissing match from king of the nerds.
Thanks guys but as I said, GM said no. Your GM may say yes. End of the argument right there.
I am going to quicken truestrike, I thought about taking the feat for it but I think since it is only a level 2 spell I might just buy a lesser rod of quickening. Using the dimensional tree I think that my swift action for the turn will be used by that much more often than a quickened truestrike. Also going 3 feats deep into metamagic for a free quickening is not efficient in my eyes.
Anyone have any good feat ideas for this build? Currently as I have said I am going the full Dimensional tree (4 feats).
An idea I had that is UBER expensive is taking Endurance, die hard, and fast healer combined with a ring of regeneration and my characters stats will give me a permanent Regeneration 5.(3 feats and 90k gold though, ouch!) Anyone know a way to make this cheaper?
I like the Magical Knack Trait, I was looking for something like that.
Alas, the GM ruled that a spell-like ability does not meet the prerequisite for a prestige class.
Nonetheless a wiz 5, ftr 1, ek 4, hk 10, with the Magical Knack trait gets me more in the direction that I wanted to go. BAB 14 with a CL 20. Not too bad, and because ek counts as fighter levels I can take weapon specialization. Also the 4 levels of d10 hit die instead of d6 certainly doesn't hurt. I trade the bonus wizard feat for a bonus fighter feat.
I am thinking a Greatsword build with a spell-storing greatsword. Use Dimensional Savant to teleport in, whack them 3 times (flanking with myself for +2 atk to help with lack of BaB), release my spell, and teleport out. That's a good 1 round attack but not sustainable. I think I may then zip out and summon something or throw spells at the enemy.
I am liking where this is going, not much consistency but a lot of options. Hehe, I am a tiefling fighting my chaotic/demonic heritage by joining the ultimate force of order, the Hellknights but in combat my chaotic nature emerges.
Even if my GM were to allow this, it is integral to the character I have in mind to be a tiefling. A tiefling has a spell-like ability of Darkness, a second level spell. Does not meet prerequisites.
I like that idea and it sounds great until you consider that it requires wizard 5 to get to either Eldritch Knight or Hellknight. So the best I could hope for with that mindset is Wiz 5, Ftr 1, EK 4, Signifier 10.
This would help somewhat over what I was initially going for though, thank you.
We are starting an epic level campaign and will be starting at level 20.
I have been just browsing different options and found the Hellknight Signifier. I love the idea of a Hellknight and their order, and mixing the spell-casting with heavy armor seems cool.
So, I decided I am going to go a Tiefling Wizard 9, Fighter 1, Hellknight Signifier 10 and it sounded like a good concept at first but now I am hitting a wall. The level of fighter is to lighten the entry fee into hellknight.
I am looking at possible combat strategies and spell/ability combinations but nothing really pops. I like the idea of the Deminsional Dervish tree and I have the spells to make it work but this character is going to be very sub-par in melee. The BaB of this character is going to be 12.
So am I simply looking at a wizard in heavy armor with diminished spellcasting and some fluff abilities? Is there any way I can make this character have any worth-while contribution to combat standing beside a level 20 fighter and a level 20 magus?
I have already committed to this build in our GM's eyes so if you guys can offer any suggestions on spells/feats/gear/strategies to make this an effective (or at least not worthless) build that would be great. I love the RP and fluff but that's all I got at this point...
By RAW, the closest you could do would be to use Wish to emulate the permanency spell to allow permanent enlarge person (if you did this, I think it'd be fine to throw in the casting of the level 1 enlarge person spell for free). Note that this is not an efficient way to do it, because you'd be spending more on the materials for Wish than for Permanency. It doesn't get you to huge, because enlarge person isn't going to stack with itself. And it can still be dispelled, though slightly harder to dispel than normal since it's a 9th level spell now. So that option kind of sucks, unless maybe you have an NPC granting you a wish for some reason.
I have considered the permanency route but that is kind of a "temporary" thing considering that we are all epic level (20+) and have easy access to spells like dispel, greater dispel, and the ever feared mage's disjunction. That's why I was looking at a REAL permanency bu way of the wish spell.
---------------------------
David knott 242 wrote:
Also, being permanently Large or Huge has its own problems. I am thinking of having my Summoner take the Large evolution when he reaches 18th level, but I am going to make sure that he has learned the Transmogrify spell by then just in cast he needs to be smaller for a significant period of time.
The character in question is a Sorcerer/Hellknight Signifier and has access to spells like Reduce Person and Monsterous Physique to get past these kind of limitations temporarily.
---------------------------
Anachrony wrote:
If you want to actually get to huge, a way to go about it might be to try to permanency a spell like giant form. That's definitely within the realm of GM discretion, since permanency doesn't allow for that. But it would have to be a lot of money to permanency, since it's such a high level spell. And that's a lot of money to go down the drain when you get dispelled.
The best option might be to create a custom magic item that grants a permanent effect. It would have to be extremely expensive, but at least it won't be dispelled. And if you ever found being huge to be too much of an obstacle you could always remove it.
Once again, these are the kind of "temporary" situations I hope to avoid. I actually want to make my character "naturally" large or huge sized.
---------------------------
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Wish wrote:
You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM's discretion.)
So you could end up being turned into something undesirable of the appropriate size.
Mojorat wrote:
Basically, you make a wish and it checks if your wish can be fulfilled by a pre-existing spell or one of the conditions listed under wish. If The wish does not fall under the above then it falls into the "the wish can be granted, but the Dm can destroy your life" section of the wish description.
That's kind of what I feared.
---------------------------
I was hoping for a clear-cut answer by the rules but I guess I am going to have to do the whole
Me wrote:
"Hey GM, I bought you a six pack of beer!....By the way, I want to wish my character large sized..."
He brought it on himself. We are good in RL but in the game his character is a dick! We arnt ganging up on him at all, in fact the GM has tried to convince me not to do this. He is just a very generous GM.
Our characters haven't gotten along great since the beginning because we have a vastly different way of looking at things. I sneak around a lot and would rather stab someone then diplomicise with them and he is the opposite. It came to a head when I went on a scouting mission and during the infiltration fumbled a roll and got caught. He said I "blew his plans".
Anyway, after we attacked the place I was unconscious (damn castle construct thing hits too hard) and he picked me up and carried me out of there and back to base. He then tied me up and took all my gear and put a force cage around us. He then proceeded to heal me to awareness then beat me unconscious over and over insisting that I needed to " be less scetchy" and basically take orders from him from now on. My character would sooner die. He eventually got the picture that this was going nowhere and decided to plane shift me to a random plane to get rid of me (big mistake, should have killed me).
My cohort picked me up and took me to my assassins guild to re-up and prepare and now I am back to settle the score. I am not nearly as merciful...
(BTW, I am Lawful Evil, he is neutral evil, go figure)
Oh yeah, the ninja is the one on the hunt. The magus kinda knows that it is coming but doesn't know when. At the time I plan on executing the attack the magus will believe I will be on another plain though. His biggest attack (and one that he has threatened me with multiple times) is disintegrate. The GM let me grab a potion of Ray Deflection though and a friend will hit me with a magic aura, so he will likely waste the first of any attacks he may actually get by trying to one shot me (cocky arrogance FTL). My cohort is going to initiate the attack with a Wall of supression after I use hidden master before combat. When his "Spidey senses" tingle he will likely buff up but he is an arogant SOB though so he will likely stand there. Boom! All his magic gone. Then I use my mythic power of fleet charge (60ft move buffed) and hit with an attack as a free action (GM decision, I know the rules say swift. He randomly chose our mythic powers and is kind of experimenting I think). Then I unload with 5 more attacks as a full round attack and add one more by blowing a ki point for a total of 7 attacks at 12d6 + 10 bleed DMG on a single attack. IF he survives the first round I will kill him the next. If he tries to run my cohort will be waiting with a caging bomb admixture bomb, holding her attack in case he pusses out to stop him in his tracks. His only hope as I see it will be to plane shift after the first round (if he survives it).
(You guys get bonus points if you have figured out I am fighting a PC, lol)
In a game we are currently playing the PC's are 20th level. One player has a Kensai/Bladebound Magus. This has caused a heated debate about sneak attacks.
The Kensai Archetype has a 19th level ability that is:
At 19th level, a kensai’s initiative roll is automatically a natural 20 and he is never surprised.
This ability replaces greater spell access.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The situation is that a 20th level ninja using the ninja capstone
At 20th level, a ninja becomes a true master of her art. She can, as a standard action, cast greater invisibility on herself. While invisible in this way, she cannot be detected by any means, and not even invisibility purge, see invisibility, and true seeing can reveal her. She uses her ninja level as her caster level for this ability. Using this ability consumes 3 ki points from her ki pool. In addition, whenever the ninja deals sneak attack damage, she can sacrifice additional damage dice to apply a penalty to one ability score of the target equal to the number of dice sacrificed for 1 minute. This penalty does not stack with itself and cannot reduce an ability score below 1.
----------------------------------------------------------------
...is attacking the Kensai.
-- Does the Kensai negate the sneak attack because he cant be "surprised"?
-- ...or does the ninja get a sneak attack because he is undetectable?
-- The ninja can make a total of 6 attacks in a full round attack, do they all qualify as sneak attacks?
-- The Magis has Arcane Sight
Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 min./level (D)
This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.
You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight. An aura's power depends on a spell's functioning level or an item's caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell (see tables above.) If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Spellcraft skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura; DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + half caster level for a nonspell effect.)
If you concentrate on a specific creature within 120 feet of you as a standard action, you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities, whether these are arcane or divine (spell-like abilities register as arcane), and the strength of the most powerful spell or spell-like ability the creature currently has available for use.
As with detect magic, you can use this spell to identify the properties of magic items, but not artifacts.
Arcane sight can be made permanent with a permanency spell.
----------------------------------------------------------------
...as a constant effect (permanency), can he see the ninja's powerful magic item auras?
I am actually a 7th level Wizard with a cohort Artificer(3.5 Eberron) that can craft at a CL 7.
The create demiplane idea is nice but it brings into question the matter of how I will get there and back? I could create a pair of boots of planeshift but I lack the CL and spells to make them so I would have to hire a 9th level cleric to help me craft them and would have to pay him for every day of the crafting. I would also have to pay a 13th level wizard for a casting of it then pay 500 for the material cost for it.
45,000 for boots of plane shift
20,250 for 9th level cleric for 45 days
910 for 13th level wizard for a day
500 for material component of create demiplane
17,500 for permanency
-------
84,160g for Extraplaner workshop
Looking at this though I noticed one other possibility: If I had a 17th level wizard cast Create Demiplane, Greater it could potentially be cheaper. I could have him stay for 2 days and cast the spell twice(6hr casting time). I would only have to pay the material cost once because it is reusable. The second casting of the spell would double the size, making it a total of 680 10 ft cubes (more than enough space I think). The second casting would allow me to affix a portal that would allow permanent back and forth travel.
3060 for 17th level wizard for 2 days
500 for the material cost
45,000 for permanency (22,500 each)
-------
48,560 for a huge Extraplaner workshop
This raises a few more questions: Can I attach this portal to something mobile such as a wagon or carrige? Can I put it on something that will then be placed into extradimensional space? How can I protect the wagon or carriage when I am not near it?
I like the vehicle idea but I want to be absolutely sure it will be secure from badies because I will have a large amount of wealth and resources inside that portal that I would not want falling into enemy hands.
I find myself in need of a mobile crafting workshop that I can count on to be secure. I have a homunculus that aids in crafting by spending the time crafting while I check in an hour a day to make skill checks. So I need to have a workshop that is survivable while being mobile or mobily accessed, secure from teft/loss/destruction, relatively large for storage or bigger projects, and I need to be able to affor and/or craft it.
Currently level 7 with craft wonderous, scribe scroll, brew potion, craft construct, and craft homunculus.
My DM allows pathfinder and 3.5 but no homebrew or 3rd party.
I have played with several ideas and can't find anything that quite fits all my needs:
Mobily Accessed: I have a large property that is secure and I could build an elaborate workshop on but I need to be able to get there and back to where we are adventuring daily. Teleporting lets me do that but I won't be familiar with a random camping spot we settle in for the night so the failure chance becomes an issue. Also I do not have the CL to craft an item or cast the spell teleportation so it would get very expensive.
Mobile workshop: I will need a very large workspace because I will be focusing on constructs and will need to store the ones that are not currently in use and space to craft more. as well as having a forge and space enough to craft. So a large vehicle workspace is impractical.
Extradimensional Workspace: I would need to anchor it to a vehicle or item that would allow not only personal travel back and forth but also allow me to bring constructs (possibly up to colossal size but frequently large size and exceedingly heavy). If anchored to a vehicle how do I ensure it is safe and secure when I can't be with it (in a dungeon, etc.) If in an item how do I get my constructs in/out? In both cases I need it to be survivable when I am not there and/or traveling, so that my homunculus can keep working and my forge fire stays burning.
Extraplaner: EXPENSIVE and also will require a much higjer CL. this is the best option I have found but to make it practical in my campaign I need to make it work for 50k or less. On that note I like genesis from 3.5 cause I can change timeflow so that i can craft long crafting time items with only seconds passing on the material plane but I need to figure out how to bypass the whole aging thing, because i don't want my character to die at age 30 cause he is physically 150.
These are my thoughts so far. Any insight/advise/guidance/thoughts on the matter?
Eldritch Smith trait 5%
Hedge Magician trait 5%
Extraordinary Artisan (Eberron) 25%
------------------------------------
35% discount on magic creations made of metal or stone
then with gear I restrict it to the class:
class restriction 30%
------------------------------------
65% discount on magic gear made of metal or stone
Since this discount applied to the base price in addition to the 50% discount from crafting would be negative, our GM judged that the additional discounts would apply to the crafting cost (50% of base cost).
So in the end I pay 17.5% of the base cost on magic gear made of metal or stone and 32.5% of the base cost on constructs made of metal or stone.
Once again, pathfinder or 3.5 content, no homebrew or 3rd party.
We are playing the kingmaker campaign. I had a ninja/assassin that I was playing but I got him killed, so now I am playing an dwarf Artificer converted over from Eberron in 3.5.
The basic persona I am shooting for with my artificer is kind of a "steampunk mad scientist". It is working amazingly in this campaign as it is very high-wealth and has a good bit of downtime to use for crafting.
I want to make lots of constructs and use them as both RP fluff and practical offense/defense but with the feel of the character I don't want to make just general constructs, I want them to primarily be clockwork. So far the only clockwork constructs I have found are the steed, leviathan, goliath, spy, soldier, and mender.
Now for my question:
Where can I find more clockwork constructs or machines? I want things like clockwork vehicles, gear, machines, and constructs, basically if it has gears and whirly-magigs I want it.
Our GM is allowing Pathfinder and 3.5 content, no homebrew or 3rd party.
