- half-orc for whip proficiency (city-raised)
- rogue (thug) 3
- enforcer, weapon focus (whip), whip mastery
=> you can deal lethal or nonlethal damages, trip, disarm, give the shaken/frightened/sickened conditions within 15ft (20ft if you consider 5-ft step).
=> you can go thug + scout for sneak attack on a charge at lvl.4 and add Befuddling Strike to your list of debuff.
You may prefer a stronger martial class
- fighter (mutation warrior) for the extra feats
- barbarian or bloodrager for rage
- use the rogue (thug) as a 1-lvl. dip for the [enforcer + frightening] combo
- ignore this combo and dip into cleric for the growth subdomain: swift enlarge person will grant you a reach of 30ft (+5-ft step +5ft occupied space = you can hit a target at 40ft from your original position)... or go abyssal bloodrager 4.
Other feats to consider: Improved Whip Mastery, Combat Reflexes,
Power Attack
@ the OP: Just a few remarks, please do not take offense.
Firstly, regarding the form:
I am willing to help you here, but the "quote-war" posting style is a real mood killer. Could you please write your posts in a more synthetic manner?
Secondly, regarding those comments:
Balkoth wrote:
I'll just adjust monster stats/tactics/numbers for enemies to remain a challenge as needed.
[...]
I'll hammer down individual spells if needed
[...]
Then I'll adjust the amount of enemies, their saves, their other defenses, or whatever until that isn't the case.
Not each encounter is supposed to be challenging. Some of them are supposed to be easily overcome by the PCs, to grant the players the feeling that their characters have gained power.
If the fighter gains +X to HIT and +Y to DMG from a level-up, then granting the opposition +X to AC and +3Y to HP negates the effect of leveling. Same remark for the caster who get better spells and bonus to DC... If you symmetrically boost the defenses of the opposition, it becomes pointless to level-up.
As a DM, you can/shall offer some "cheap" encounters, so everybody can have his money time...
ill state the same thing i was told when i last quoted JJ he is not a rules guy and those are just his homebrewed stuff in his own home game the official rules are npcs get npc wealth and pcs get pc wealth
NPC Gear Adjustments: You can significantly increase or decrease the power level of an NPC with class levels by adjusting the NPC's gear. The combined value of an NPC's gear is given in Creating NPCs on Table: NPC Gear. A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR.
Does it mean that having total concealment from your target lets you deny his Dex to AC?
(I do not own a copy of the Ultimate Intrigue, so I have no access to the Perception/Stealth clarification)
Spoiler:
I suppose so, because to be observing, you need a line of sight to the subject you want to observe and the very definition of total concealment is "if you have line of effect to a target but not line of sight, he is considered to have total concealment from you".
So, we could say: A creature with blindsense is still denied its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class against attacks from creatures with total concealment
Please read the thread, what you mention has already been treated. Specific rules are only specific rules, not general rules. You can not add extra conditions to concealment just because it seems to "make sense" to you. Total concealment does not deny DEX to AC (take a look at numerous other threads where this is stated). Having blindsense does not change this.
I am not trying to convince you.
I am merely pointing out a rule in the CRB where it is stated that a creature is denied its dex bonus to AC against attacks from creatures it cannot see, without involving invisibility.
What conclusion(s) you draw (or not) from it is none of my business.
I have been trying to figure out the most fastest and smartest way to getting Dimensional Dervish. I still would like to be a Monk if I can to deal that extra damage, though I'd also like to see stronger opinions if you have them? :)
A dip of 3 levels in the Horizon Walker PrC lets you cast Dim. Door as a SLA by lv.9. So you can get Dim. Dervish at lv.13, or before with the retraining rules.
From my understanding, the key for rogues in combat is flanking.
It is the easiest, most reliable way to get sneak attack. It also provides a +2 to hit, which should not ignored.
The rogue is not a solo combatant and needs a flanking buddy.
How to flank efficiently? REACH.
It is much easier to get a flanking position if you have a reach weapon.
It also reduces the chances of being hit.
For a single-class rogue, the longspear and the whip (half-orc, city-raised) come to my mind. I like the flavor of the whip style, though I should admit it's a feat-heavy way, especially if you plan to dump STR for DEX and Weapon Finesse.
Otherwise, you probably have to dip in a martial class for a better weapon selection. In this case, Barbarian is a solid choice => high Fort save and Rage, which boosts both your offense (+2 atk/dmg from STR) and defense (bonus to Fort, Will and HP). The AC penalty does not hurt so much, thanks to the reach weapon.
A second level of Barbarian gives you an early-entry for Uncanny dodge and a rage power. Not a bad trade IMHO.
You probably have to plan one or two "Extra Rage" feat, to ensure sufficient rage points.
With a reach weapon, you get AoO more frequently and your regular AoO will eventually be used for the Opportunist rogue talent. So get Combat Reflexes (or the Quick Reflexes rage power).
Power Attack is a basic way to increase your damages.
Thanks to the ruling about SLA, Arcane Strike is a viable option too (minor magic rogue talent or some specific racial SLA, such as Drow Magic for the half-elf).
I would stay away from the 2WF: too close from your opponent, less flanking positions, useless if you have to move more than 5ft.
The biggest mistake in your argument is the assumption that Vital Strike is somehow meant to replace a full attack. It's not. Vital Strike is best used as a "consolation prize" attack when you have to move.
This.
And the other conditions denying full-attacks: the suprise round and the staggered condition come to my mind.
You also should consider the sourcebook: Vital Strike is a core option. Other alternative options to full-attack in core are pretty limited for meleers:
- charge: you need a clear path to your target
- cleave: you need to target 2 different adjacent opponents
- spring attack: you must move before and after your attack. It can't be used against adjacent opponents
- Dim.Door "taxi service": you need to be baby-sitted by a caster.
Vital Strike, on the other hand, has no specific condition: it isn't a powerful option but it's a reliable one when you can't full-attack.
Now, with the additional sourcebooks, your character gets more options to [move + full attack] so Vital Strike becomes less relevant.
Spoiler:
Greater Beast Totem (Pounce), Quick-runner shirt (extra move), Mounted Skirkmisher (full-attack even if your mount moves more than 5ft), Dimensional Dervish (D.Door + full-attack), Magus's spell combat (Force hook charge), and so on...
The mount spell belongs to the Conjuration [summoning] school, which means:
=> the horse is not a "real" horse. It's a manifestation of a horse, which is not "really dead" if it dies (the manifestation just vanishes)
=> creatures you summon usually -but not always- obey your commands.
As I read it, we are in the "specific trumps general" territory:
=> general: you have to control your mount in battle (move action, DC 20 ride check) unless it's war-trained
=> specific: your mount is a manifestation brought by a summoning spell and thus, obeys your commands (i.e. you don't need any check to control it).
The "usually but not always" entry is unclear enough for a GM'call (or FAQ). I have this interpretation:
=> some spells don't automatically let you control the creature (such as Summon Swarm and most of the [calling] spells, such as Planar Binding)
=> you control the creature (i.e. don't need any action or check) as long as your commands are in the scope of the spell (using the Mount spell to ride your mount is in the scope, but making the horse running around to trigger traps or stand still in the middle of the battlefield to provide cover are not).
The Pathfinder RPG uses a number of terms, abbreviations, and definitions in presenting the rules of the game. The following are among the most common.
[...]
Initiative: Whenever combat begins, all creatures involved in the battle must make an initiative check to determine the order in which creatures act during combat.
Initiative is part of the combat mechanics.
No social encounter / roleplay / metamgame / whatever. Just the definition, plain and simple.
I understand why the OP thought a battle has started...
Yes, it says "when combat begins, all combatants roll initiative."
Not "when you roll initiative, everybody around suddenly becomes a combatant."
in logics: it's => and not <=>
;)
I disagree, unless you can point a rule in the core rulebook about calling for initiative which is NOT combat-related.
A DM who asked for initiative and then claims no combat was engaged is just tricking the players. Everything in the rules lets you assume the following:
[INITIATIVE <=> COMBAT]
It is a shame because the game was much better when it was new.
Totally agree with that. I was happy with the Core Rulebook, but I really dislike the direction taken by PRPG in the "Advanced" and "Ultimate" books.
Spoiler:
I mostly dislike the way that generic concepts have been turn into specific features. Just as an example:
- I wanna play bomberman!
- OK, so you have to play an alchemist, because the devs decided that alchemical weapons can't be quick-drawn, unless you're an alchemist.
- Wait, I can't play bomberman in Core?!
Same for archetypes (which can be combined together for more complexity), additional rules which don't mesh well with the existing ruleset, untested/trap options (30 dice rolls for Weird Words?! Powerful Sneak making you weaker?! Prone shooter doing nothing ?!... WTF?!) and so on.
I will give you the advice I gave my DM. Ignore the FAQ. There's no reason to give it much though if Paizo can't be bothered to make rule changes into an easily digestible errata.
I feel that those who saw RAW different are being dismissed and mocked.
I feel the same way.
However, just as the "monks must use different weapons during flurry" ruling a couple of years ago (justified at that time by the same secret-un-written-rule" argument), I expect another erratum in a few months.
Yes, and if you used invisibility to sneak up on your opponent to catch him flatfooted, say, on a featureless plain, you'd get the benefit of a full-round-sneak-attack. I don't see how this is against the RAW.
In this case, your opponent is surprised. You can't full-attack during the surprise round.
