Pelastour

Demosthenes's page

66 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Lyingbastard wrote:

Heck, you yourself say that your ShoDan partner uses them AS BLUDGEONING WEAPONS.

I thought the same thing. Look at names not avatars. The partner thing wasn't the OP's post.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Thanatos95 wrote:
Personaly, i like the idea of the negative energy plane. The place heals undead, so it makes a great place to have a hideout.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the positive and negutive plains have the potential to blow up their respective healed targets?

Too much energy constantly flowing in or some such.

Reading over the 3.5 Manual of the Planes information on this the negative energy plane doesn't actually heal or bolster undead. It does however seriously hurt living creatures. Most of the plane is composed of major pockets of negative energy that drain one level per round on a failed fort save (DC: 25). The minor pockets deal 1d6 damage per round and are far less common.

Either one of these however can be avoided with a negative energy protection (guessing Death Ward in 3.p).

But most of the plane has no or little air, gravity, or light. A high level group of characters could still pull it off but it wouldn't be a fun place to visit.

To top it all off spells and spell like abilities that use negative energy are automatically maximized and all positive energy spells require a spellcraft roll to pull off.

But this is all 3.5 stuff so a DM may or may not agree with all of that.

Also I think Refuge would work to let your simulacrums pull you into the fight. Looking at both Teleport and Teleport, Greater they specifically say that interplanar travel is not possible. Refuge does not say this.


Also simulacrums and Refuge can be a good way to get yourself to your phylactery if it's in trouble. Though I don't think it would work with the Negative Energy plane stuff above (it's conjuration/teleportation so no extraplanar movement right?) and I'm to lazy to double check.


Everyone keeps bringing up harsh environments like the moon or lava but I don't believe this has been mentioned yet.

Build yourself a castle, tomb, tower, or what have you on the Negative Energy Plane. Create several simulacrums of yourself to guard your phylactery. Order simulacrums to hold actions appropriate to their level (if you're an 18th-20th level caster they can hold fifth level spells).

If you can get away with 5th level spells on your simulacrums keep the phylactery in a 'Secret Chest' and order one of the simulacrums to cast Secret Chest on the box at the first sign of trouble. Have another simulacrum ready with a Sending spell.

Have each simulacrum bust out quickened Mirror Images. By the time the lich arrives the room should be full of simulacrums and images that look just like him (assuming he's able to show up of course). If the lich can't make it at least the phylactery has been moved to the Ethereal Plane (the simulacrum with the secret chest should destroy the replica on his second action).

The room should be heavily trapped of course, Lightning and Cold spells work good since your simulacrums should be immune to them. Some means of dispelling or countering whatever planar protection the trespassers are using would be good too, either through the simulacrums, traps, or as the lich's personal actions once he arrives.

Granted the above means your phylactery will be 'lost' on the Ethereal Plane but you'll still reform in your Secret Chest when you die, allowing you to recover the phylactery then.


Scipion del Ferro wrote:

A command word item that gives you 8 hours of the alarm spell would cost 7.800gp.

More like 1,400 unless you planned to need more then one alarm spell per day.


KnightErrantJR wrote:

If you are just looking for making an elf fighter/mage class, I can agree. But if we are actually talking about making the Bladesinger match up with the lore behind it, then Bladesingers didn't really go into the Underdark to fight drow, they wandered the land to prove how awesome elven swordsmen were.

Really?

Quote:
Role: While some characters may stay at home and defend the elven way, Bladesingers go out and actively promote it. They do this by seeking out their races foes and eliminating them, either through words or actions. Acting as both diplomats and one-elf armies, they insure the safety of the elven race.

That's from the 2nd edition kit description (emphasis mine).

Maybe I was mistaken about their place in the FR specifically. I realize a lot of this thread may be pulling from FR source material but as originally intended in the complete book of elves Bladesingers where the go out and kick drow butt kit.

Edit: And what you said earlier KE about paladin is somewhat right. Though I'd use the word inquisitor instead. They went out and kicked the hell out of anything that threatened the elven way of life. In most campaign settings drow rank high up on that list (though sadly the drow don't do jack in the FR).


Darkvision should be on their spell list, unless they intend to get raped by the first drow they come across.

The same probably should go for Dispel Magic. Honestly I can't say I'm a big fan of the limited spell list for a Bladesinger. The idea was conceived during second edition when multi-classing only put you a level or two behind the rest of the party and gave you nearly full access to both classes.

If you really really want to go with a limited spell list look first and foremost at elven racial enemies for the campaign. For FR that was Drow. The spell list shouldn't be aimed at making them better fighters but rather aimed at better fighting those they train to fight against (if that makes any sense).


dulsin wrote:

There is a definite disadvantage between small and large but you are ignoring all the best parts of being small and all the worst parts of being large or huge.

But now you're ignoring some of the best features of being large like reach, combat maneuver advantages (like bullrushing as a large creature), and opening up a whole slew of combat feats that aren't available otherwise.

Which is probably why...

Maeloke wrote:


I disregard the straight size bonuses because they're somewhat balanced


There's a few distinctions between natural attacks and improved unarmed strike. Honestly I'm to lazy to point all of these out but if you dig around you'll see what I mean.

I will give you one example though to make my case.

Improved Unarmed Strike is the start of a feat chain. Some of the feats in this chain include Deflect Arrows and Improved Grapple. Having claws should not predisposition you to learning either of these techniques. Inversely there's some feats and abilities that only apply to natural attacks such as Improved Natural Attack out of the Bestiary.

I would simply give them natural weapons. There's plenty of races in the Bestiary that have them and there's ample rules for this.


It's not the CR that's the issue, the GM can always adjust fights to keep players effective.

However...

Treantmonk wrote:

I retired the character and made a Wizard.

This is really what removing magic items boils down to. You end up with two distinct classes of characters at the table, those with magic and those without. Those without will be out shined again and again by those that have it and eventually those players that care even a little bit about being effective in combat will either reroll or quit showing up.

To the OP the answer to your question is 'it really depends on the GM, the class composition, and the number of players at the table'. But the GM can only keep things in check for so long without intentionally nerfing casters or removing them from the game. When a full caster's power starts to really ramp up your non-casters are going to feel like second class citizens. They do anyhow with magic items but magic items help to keep things balanced for longer.

In the end removing magic items will have serious repercussions and your party will be better off all rolling casters and taking non-caster followers... because otherwise you'll have other PCs that feel like followers around level 5 or 7.


TDLofCC wrote:


But he/she has to get to level 20 first ;)

-TDL

True..... but the OP said best class in the end. By that I'm guessing he's referring to level 20 ;)

As far as a build you actually have to get to 20 yourself I'd go with a Druid, Ranger, or a Rogue/Bard with dip into Shadowdancer for HiPs.


At level 20 probably a Diviner Specialist Wizard. The ability to always go first is pretty huge and if you don't feel like you can handle a given situation you can teleport away and no one can stop you.


Half Elf

Rogue/Bard/Shadowdancer

Dex 16
Con 12
Int 14

Maxed Escape Artist, Perception, Stealth, Disable Device, UMD.

Skill Focus (Stealth)
Fast Stealth (Rogue Ability)

Items
2 scrolls of Knock
Cloak of Elvenkind 2,500
Shortbow
MW Tools

Spells
Dancing Lights
Light
Expeditious Retreat

Everything else is irrelevant. Either sneak past the cloaker or play HiPS tag with it using the bow until it's dead. Either spot and disarm the trap or soak it using your 39 hit points. Either open the chest using a lockpick or if that fails bust out the knock scrolls.

Alternativly if PrC don't count for this just take a level of Ranger instead. Expeditious Retreat really makes hiding irrelevant. You can kite the Cloaker either way.


This doesn't really fit my idea of what a sage is which really just goes to show that before you post the meat you should probably post the fluff.

What's this class really supposed to do? What role does this character fit that other classes don't?

It seems like this class lacks focus. On one hand it feels like a fighter type, it gets a bunch of bonuses to combat after all. Combat Insight, Attuned Weapons, Defense Insight, Flanking Insight. But... it gets a moderate BAB?

Aside from that 10 skill points a level is a lot!! On top of that the class features let you dump cha and wis!! So we're looking at a skill monkey with an Int of 16+ probably and who can work every wis and cha based skill off that number?

As a DM I would never allow anything remotely like this into my game. What you're doing with skills is stepping on every other classes toes. I think the only useful skill you skipped on that skill list was survival. As a player in a game that this class was allowed I'd be crazy not to pick up leadership and have my cohort be this guy. He'd probably be a better face then the bard, know more about magic then the wizard, and have skill points left over for knowledge skills as well as some craft skills to help 'fund the cause' (read: make the pcs money).

Not trying to bash you for trying though. If you really want to flesh this idea out start with focusing on what it can do that other classes can't and go from there. Also look at the other classes and ask yourself what niches do these guys have that I don't want this new class stepping on? It's very tempting to create a swiss-army-knife class when you're designing stuff and I believe you fell into that trap with your skill list (and related skill based abilities).

Correct me if I'm wrong but you're after some sort of sword sage and not the typical fantasy sage right? Maybe take some inspiration from the bards bardic knowledge ability (or whatever it's called these days) and add a bit of Monk into the mix. Then top it off by giving it combat bonuses based on knowledge checks against the creatures you're fighting (there's a feat called Knowledge Devotion that did this in one of the 3.5 wotc splat books, I think it was defenders of the faith).

Really though... avoid the uber skills troupe. That's already one of the classes schticks and if you go trouncing on that you're going to end up stepping on a lot more toes then just the rogues.


Tzace wrote:

There's been a lot of discussion about damage math here, but I agree with some earlier comments that playing a rogue is not about raw DPS. The rogue is present as the lateral thinker, someone who changes the rules of engagement.

In combat, use your mobility to stay out of sight-lines and manipulate the battlefield. Things like rope, oil, fire, caltrops, flour sacks, blankets, and dung can put enemies at a disadvantage if used creatively and be a much greater boon to the party than poking some holes in the bad guy's backside.

And when you DO have the opportunity, steal the kill. It's your right as a rogue.

Yeah, this thread has got me thinking about spring attack builds coupled with a falchion (half-orc) and a dip into shadowdancer for HiPS. It wouldn't be an optimal build for damage but it would be able to skip Weapon Finesse and the TWF chains. It would also be able to get away with a lower dex (13 instead of 15) and make use of Power Attack.

On the other hand a half-elf could multi-class a fighter and a rogue, dip a level or two of shadowdancer, and probably be better off on both damage and to hit then the pure rogue build.


My very first impression of this class was meh. The extracts borrow to much from the spell systems we already have, the mutagen effect is just a barbarian rage that won't stack with gear, and the bombs while new seem kinda weak.

My second impression, getting to play Mr. Hyde might be fun, especially if he's dual-wielding poisoned weapons and under the permanent effects of an enlarge or haste potion.

My third impression... one discovery every four levels?!? WTF?!? So much for Mr. Hyde. Blah.


Shadowlord wrote:


The difference between 9/9 and 11/11 is 19% lower hit rate but you gain a 50% increase to potential damage with one additional attack at +8.

The difference between using TWF 8/7 and BoS 11/11 is 28%/37% lower hit rate with no increase in potential damage.

I see numbers like this come up a lot when people are arguing for hit over attacks, damage, or whatever and they're extremely biased and really don't have much to do with the how the system actually works.

The difference between a +9 and a +11 is about 10% hit rate, meaning that when you gain +2 more hit you will hit on average 10% more. Sure the plus is 19% higher but that doesn't mean anything because your chance to hit is measured on a 20 sided die in increments of 5%. Saying the difference between +8 and +11 is that you'll hit 28% more often is like saying someone with a hit of +3 will hit 300% more often then someone with a hit of +1. It's not the case and is a poor basis for argument.

Now if you meant that it's 19% more +hit and 28% more +hit then spell that out please. Because it is not that big of an increase in how often you will actually hit and proposing otherwise is misleading.


What if monks could spend some ki on taking an extra move action? Like a belt of battle or third edition haste (but move actions only, no extra standard actions).

This would solve a lot of the monks problems in my mind. If they can get in and out of melee range while still being effective they don't need a killer AC. It would also give them their own niche role of being a master skirmisher.

As to being a fifth wheel... I don't see a monk ever replacing a rogue. The rogue class just allows for to much customization and disarming is just to iconic to ever see it changed or given to another class. If you want to play a monk that can do what a rogue does, multi-class.


Now that I've looked over the guide a bit more (instead of just glancing at the builds) I have to agree with MiB.

This guide feels very incomplete. I liked the mentioning of using mounts with small characters, I think a lot of us probably focus on the new shinnies and forget how good some of the old things can be. That said, you make no mention of what mounts might be best for each build.

Your spell selection doesn't really impress me. Death Ward is highly situational and your description of it really doesn't tell me squat. By the time most paladins will be able to cast this spell they'll know a cleric how can cure permanent level drain. The morale bonus can be nice but... meh... it's one classification of spells and unless you plan to cast this spell on someone with much worse saves then you it's probably not worth memorizing. If you are planning on doing that well, you probably don't have a cleric in your party (and if you do he's the one that should do this not you).

So yeah... the guide needs work, a lot of it. My suggestion if you really want to keep at this is to sit down with whichever build you like the most and do an in-depth guide, just for that build. Then move on to the next build if you still feel up to it.

*edit* Also... regular Restoration will restore permanent negative levels. So you don't even need to know a cleric to do this yourself. It also does a slew of other stuff. Dispel Evil by the way auto-dispels evil spells and enchantments cast by evil creatures, that's something that smite can't do.


I can tell you that the answer to number 4 is probably no unless there's text someplace specifically stating otherwise.

While mithral may change the weight class of armor it does not change the size class of a weapon. A human sized great sword can not be wielded by a halfling if it's made out of lighter material. The same goes for a shield. If it's a light weapon it's going to be a light weapon, regardless of it's actual weight. Same for a heavy weapon.

Think of it like this, ever carry a really big empty box someplace? Even though that box is empty it can still be hard to manage simply because of its size. Weapon size categories are put together this way. Armor size categories are put together more based on sheer weight because they're distributed over your body as evenly as possible. When using a shield to bash it's treated like a weapon, its weight plays little into the equation.


It was answered in the 3.5 faq and that bit of text is a hold over from 3.5. Rather or not Paizo will stand behind WotC answer to that question remains to be seen so... ask your DM is probably the only correct answer right now.

Here's the 3.5 faq quote.

Quote:

Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand weapon?

While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course, that means that any attack you make with your other hand becomes a secondary weapon.

I don't have a link though, I jacked this from another thread.


John Spalding wrote:

It is definitely the case that crit weapons are better than higher die weapons.

If I was to go weapon in both hand I would do Kukri/Kukri.

That said, I prefer the shield. You lose out on damage but get AC and (essentially) another item slot because you can equip the shield as both a weapon and as a shield. TWF equals standing next to bad guys trading full attacks. If I am playing that game, I want a respectable AC.

I prefer a shield as well simply because the double kukri build smells of so much cheese I'd feel dirty using it. That said I think it's probably worth mentioning in the guide the effect crit range and crit multiplier can have on smite. You and me may not like the build but it still offers superior damage out put for anyone looking at optimization.

If nothing else it's probably worth mentioning the value a 18-20 threat range weapon has while smiting. Even with a sword and board build a kukri can make a nice off-hand (assuming you're main handing the shield).

Again I personally hate the idea of a paladin using a Kukri. The only classes I can really see using this weapon from a flavor perspective are Barbarians and Rangers. But numbers wise it makes since with smite.


I know it's cheesy but a twf build using two 18-20/x2 weapons seems like a pretty natural fit for a smiter.


Honestly I found it quoted in another thread and I don't have a link directly to the faq.

Quote:

D&D 3.5 FAQ wrote:

Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand weapon?
While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course, that means that any attack you make with your other hand becomes a secondary weapon.

I realize this isn't 3.5 but some of the text is still a hold over from the previous system.

The thread I pulled it from is archived but if you run a search on shield bashing it's the thread called shield bashing and imp. two weapon fighting. Here's the link though I'm not sure it will work.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/shieldBashingAndImpTwoWeaponFighting


I don't know about everything else but the question about main-handing a shield was answered in the FAQ and the answer is yes that is a viable strategy.

Also to note is Shield Mastery will make a Heavy Shield effectively a +2 weapon so I wouldn't worry about pumping that up from +1 to +2 (though you'll need to get it to +1 to add Bashing).


Mynameisjake wrote:
Does the "Damage" option for the grappler allow him/her to make an attack? Or does it allow him/her to automatically damage the grapplee without making an attack roll?

It's automatic. The grapple check takes the place of the attack roll.


tejón wrote:


Perhaps also give them Vital Strike for free, or make it a choice between that and flurry. That's their biggest thematic flaw: they've got all this mobility, but hit like a gnat unless they just stand still.

I can see the Vital Strike for free thing and even full BAB (they get it anyway when using flurry).


Hsuperman wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Gray and Death Slaads do but they didn't make it into the Bestiary for whatever reason.

Yah, good point. But I'm looking strictly at PRPG Beastiary. This essentially means the monk's ability to overcome lawful DR is next to useless.

Also, I believe the Slaads did not make the Beastiary because they (as well as other classics like beholders and others) are considered "Product Identity" by Wizard of the Coast, so are not part of the 3.5 SRD, thus not part of Pathfinder.

Yeah, I figured that was the case but maybe they just didn't make the cut.

*shrugs*


Name Pending

You are so skilled at maintaining a grapple you can do so with far less effort then usual.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit: You can maintain a grapple as a swift action rather then a standard action. While maintaining a grapple in this way you do not get a +5 grapple bonus to subsequent grapple checks nor do you get to move, damage, pin, or tie up your opponent as you usually would.

Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action.

*Edit* Bamf!! Full attack actions while maintaining a grapple!!


Hsuperman wrote:
One thing I'd like to see is fixing their ki strike that treats their unarmed strikes as lawful for overcoming DR. Because, honestly, what monsters has DR X/lawful?? I just did a search in the PRPG Beastiary, and not a single creature has DR X/lawful. So, why give the monk lawful unarmed strike? Or am I just being naive?

Gray and Death Slaads do but they didn't make it into the Bestiary for whatever reason.

I like the idea someone had for different fighting schools. There may even be monks who are chaotic for example that focus on reckless, undisciplined fighting and strike as chaotic weapons instead of lawful.

Overall though my personal opinion is that monks are not underpowered. They serve a purpose and I imagine most casters who end up with a monk in their face would start screaming OP if this was an mmo.


Xum wrote:

On another note, if u move your oponent can he still make a full attack?

I would say yes though I can see why some people would disagree.

My reasoning is that a bull-rush or other form of forced movement does not cost the victim any actions or move and therefore neither should this sort of forced movement.


Quijenoth wrote:


Given the flavor of a Monk to benefit mostly from Combat Maneuvers it seems rather odd. I could see plenty of scenarios where a monk would lock up an opponent with his arm and unleash a flurry of kicks.

I could see this too actually but I can't see most people being able to do this.

A custom feat that let you make extra grapple checks solely for the purpose of inflicting extra damage might work. Or a feat that let you maintain a grapple as a swift action (but only maintain) would also work.


I have some other ideas for spells that fit this theme too. Obviously the spell list is only so big though but if you are open to new ideas consider Augury (I know you have contact other plane but Augury is another option) and Planar Ally (any strength of this could work for calling back your ancestors).


Make a half-elf Barbarian/Sorcerer. Why make a choice when you can have both?

Seriously though. What appeals to you about each of the two options? What did you play most recently? What sort of Sorcerer are you wanting to flesh out? What sort of Barbarian?

Characters are more then just a class. There's probably over a hundred different ways to build each class at level 1.

Or here's a thought.

Build both characters. Flesh them out completely and stat them out and then decide which of the two sounds like the most fun.


7_6 looks good so far on Excel 2002.

Thanks for all your hard work :)


I really like this bloodline aside from some minor tweaks I'd make to the feats (as outlined by Kirth above) and bonus spells. The meat of it looks really good though.

As to my bonus spells comment I don't see how Crushing Despair, Protection from Spells, or Astral Projection really fit (well maybe Astral Projection but it feels like a stretch). Also keep in mind that you can pull from other classes spell lists for those bonus spells, the celestial bloodline set that precedent, and some of the bonus spells can be late or early entry as well.

As to some alternative spell ideas for this concept.

Speak with Dead instead of Crushing Despair.

Gate instead of Astral Projection (but only to the plane on which your ancestors spirit resides, if used as a calling effect can only be used to call your ancestors). I think you wanted a spirit world thing with Astral Projection but this isn't how D and D cosmology works. Gate is how you go visit the dead.

Protection from Spells could be replaced with Moment of Prescience which has precedent in the Bloodline Powers anyhow.


Fergie wrote:
Demosthenes - If you make that a Barbarian/Wizard, your familiar can also do the rage/transformation thing, and you can be twice as sub-optimal!

I could switch up my bloodline for arcane and get the same effect :)

Do any of the familiars have rage?

Really though I wouldn't want to give up the claws. It was the initial idea for the whole build and even though I've always wanted to use transformation somehow it was an afterthought.

A free bonus attack, 1d6 base damage + 1d6 elemental damage for a whopping 3 + Cha rounds a day!! This ability alone is worth making a sub-optimal build around, transformation and rage are just gravy.


AdAstraGames wrote:

That's more like it.

Can we get anything other than gnomes? :)

Lets change Tindel to a half-elf then.

New stats

Str 14
Dex 8
Con 16
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 20

Add Skill Focus (Intimidate)

That leaves Tindel looking pretty good on those Intimidate checks (+36 and +40 while raging with transformation going).


While I understand where the points above are coming from I don't concede to any of them and yes I know that any BBEG should have options for dealing with being pinned. My point stands though that being able to pin someone in a single round is a powerful ability.

If a full attack action can not be performed while in the grappled condition it opens up a whole bunch of other questions that are not covered in the rules relating to what exactly you can do while grappled.

For instance can you still take a move action and a standard action such as drawing a dagger and stabbing with it? If you can then why can't you instead do a full attack?

What spells exactly can you cast while grappled? Swift and Standard only?

Can two move actions be performed while being grappled? Note that the grappled condition only says you can not move, it does not say you can not perform move actions (many of which do not require movement).

Why aren't these questions answered when adding 'you can only perform a move or a standard action while grappled' to the grappled condition description would have easily cleared all of this up?


Loopy wrote:


Actually, now that I think on it, the defender is just 1 round from being pinned and possibly murdered by the attacker's friends. I actually am starting to think this ain't such a bad thing and should re-think my ruling on the subject.

This is pretty much my stance on it. Pin is game over. If you've ever DMd for a character that min/maxed grapple and watched your BBEG get destroyed in two rounds because of being grappled then pinned you know what I'm talking about.

The fact that anyone can do this in one round with the feat (at a BAB of only +6!!!!) I don't quite understand.

Picture this.

Round 1
Monk Delays
Wizard Teleports Monk next to the BBEG
Monk Grapples, Monk Pins

Anyway people are free to read it how they want.


Actually I'm going to do better then that. Before it says what you emphasized it says this...

Quote:
You can take ANY action that requires only one had to perform

So... the question is what actions can you take while grappled that require one hand?

The answer... ANY

So lets look at the available actions.

Action types.

Standard Action

Move Action

Full Round Action

All of these are types of actions. Which of these can we perform? We can't perform a move action because it specifically says elsewhere that's out of the question. How about a Standard Action? Yes, we can perform ANY standard action as long as it requires one hand to perform. How about a Full Round Action? Yes, we can perform ANY Full Round Action as long as it requires one hand to perform.

The fact that maintaining or breaking a grapple is a standard action is irrelevant to this debate.

*edit* And actually you can perform move actions, such as drawing a weapon. You simply aren't allowed to leave your square. If it takes one hand you can do it. That's all I get from the text.


KnightFever wrote:
PRD (Combat chapter) wrote:


Attack

Making an attack is a standard action.

PRD (Combat chapter) wrote:


you can take any action that requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.

This has been quoted to death and again I'm going to point out that 'cast a spell or make an attack' is proceeded by such as. These are examples of things you can do and by no means an exhaustive list.


I don't see how the text says being grappled restricts you to a standard action though I do see how other people are seeing that the text implies that that's the case.

That said implied mechanics don't hold up in a rules debate and the text never restricts anyone in a grapple to a standard action in either the If you are grappled text or in the grappled condition text.

If the intent was for either party to be restricted to a standard action it should specifically say so in one of these two places as it does under staggered. The fact that it doesn't means one of two things; this was either a gross oversight on Paizo's part (and I do mean gross because it wasn't missed in one place but in multiple places) or the intent isn't for anyone being grappled to be restricted to a standard action.


Alright, round 2 I suppose. I hope I didn't swing to far the other way with this.

The build is a gnome barbarian/sorc that focuses on unarmed attacks (or claw attacks). Basic strategy would be to cast haste and a quickened spell on the first round followed by a quickened spell and then tenser's transformation the second round.

This is an optimized build using what I consider a sub-optimal set up from the get go; a caster who fights while enraged and is built around tense... *clears throat* transformation.

Tindel the Feral (a.k.a. The Tasmanian Devil Build)

Barbarian 8/Sorcerer 12 (Gnome/Draconic Bloodline)

Spoiler:

Stats (At level 20, all bonuses and adjustments worked in)

Str 14
Dex 10
Con 16
Int 7
Wis 12
Cha 20

Barbarian rage powers
- Animal Fury
- Intimidating Glare
- Moment of Clarity
- Scent

Feats
Brew Potion
Dazzling Display
Gorgon's Fist
Improved Unarmed Strike
Intimidating Prowess
Medusa's Wrath
Power Attack
Quicken Spell (Bonus Sorc Feat)
Scorpion Style
Shatter Defenses
Weapon Focus (Unarmed)


Maybe I'm just not seeing it but it appears that the Medusa's Wrath feat is missing from the feat selection table.


Thanks for that interpretation. Looking over several abilities in the Bestiary I'm inclined to agree that the rules are written using that assumption.


That did fix the older excel cell formatting issue.

But yeah, the skill table is broken.


Hmm... I read abjuration twice and don't know how I missed it both times.

Where's the magical abilities from the same source never stack rule? I see bonuses of the same type don't stack and spells don't stack with themselves but that's spells and bonuses, not supernatural abilities.

Everything else was opinion after all so fair enough :)

I do really like the design overall and that's coming from someone who's very skeptical about gishes. If I get the chance to I'll playtest it and give you some feedback.


Thalin wrote:

Human Monk 1 / Cleric 3 / Bard 1 / Sorceror 3 / Wizard 3 / Oracle 1 / Witch 2 / Druid 1 / Rogue 1 / Pathfinder Chronicler 1
/ ShadowDancer 1 / Dragon Disciple 1 / Mystic Theurge 1 / Peasent 1

Pure awesome!!!


Yeah, I really don't think I can add anything else either to this conversation. I guess the rules are open to interpretation if others are reading it differently then I am.

However Wrathstrike brought something up I'm curious about now. How exactly does rake work? Do the extra attacks get tacked on to the do damage option under grappling? Obviously you can't maintain a grapple and make a full attack (or even a single attack) so I can't really see any other way for this to work unless you choose not to maintain your grapple and full attack which is a whole other can of worms because it brings up resolution order and rather or not the target is technically still grappled.

Honestly I think the rake rules are unclear. Constrict on the other hand is very precise and I think I'll probably just run rake like that unless someone can clear things up for me.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>