Driver 325 yards's page

Once again, going back to the language in the awakened spell

You awaken a tree or animal to human-like sentience. To succeed, you must make a Will save (DC 10 + the animal's current HD, or the HD the tree will have once awakened). The awakened animal or tree is friendly toward you. You have no special empathy or connection with a creature you awaken, although it serves you in specific tasks or endeavors if you communicate your desires to it. If you cast awaken again, any previously awakened creatures remain friendly to you, but they no longer undertake tasks for you unless it is in their best interests.

So, until you awaken another creature, the awakened creature carries out you tasks. Its not just an NPC friend.

Yes, if you were a butt to your AC before it was awakened, all bets are off. But if you treated you AC good and you awaken it, the language of the Awakened Spell applies. It's not a Co-hort, its not a slave, but it will serve "you in specific tasks or endeavors if you communicate your desires to it."

Chess Pwn wrote:

awaken the dogs and have them take class levels.

This is known as the "Leadership feat".

You awaken a tree or animal to human-like sentience. To succeed, you must make a Will save (DC 10 + the animal's current HD, or the HD the tree will have once awakened). The awakened animal or tree is friendly toward you. You have no special empathy or connection with a creature you awaken, although it serves you in specific tasks or endeavors if you communicate your desires to it. If you cast awaken again, any previously awakened creatures remain friendly to you, but they no longer undertake tasks for you unless it is in their best interests.

So you don't even need the Leadership Feat. You do have to be able to cast awaken though, since the benefit seems to only go to the person who cast the spell. Use Magic Device + a scroll maybe?

Okay, I have become obsessed with making this build, but I am beginning to get frustrated with making it optimally.

Race: I guess any that give a bonus to Wisdom.

Traits: I figure you need Magical Knack and maybe Reactionary or Gifted Adept.

Levels: I am thinking 3 or 4 levels in Zen Archer and then sorcerer for 6 levels.

Prestige Classes: I guess Eldritch Knight as soon as possible. So this would be at 9th or 10th level depending on how many levels of Zen Archer you take.

-- Are there any good prestige classes that you can take as a sorcerer after 1 level in sorcerer (decent BAB, spell level progression, etc...)? Can't do dragon disciple because you have to be Draconic bloodline.

Spells: Sorcerer does have access to the good archery spells - gravity bow, arrow eruption, named bullet.

Skills: Will be lacking, but I am thinking Sense Motive to be used with Snake Style feat. Maybe Skill Focus (Sense Motive), and Alertness somewhere along the way.

Any thoughts?

Here is some advice on a Bard Archer God

What about Clustered Shots? If you shot 5 arrows into someones chest with Clustered shots you then add up all of the damage from the various arrows. Would you not add up all of the ability damage from the various arrows.

What about Pummeling Style? Is this not another example of ability bonuses stacking?

Heck, there are even times when the rules will say add twice your Cha or 1 and 1/2 times your Str. Is this not also the explicit stacking of ability bonuses.

Well let me leave with a comment that should go without moderation. Please please please stop with all of the complaining and belly aching about other people's characters. GMs learn to be better GMs. Player utilize the guides and builds that flood the internet to help you make the type of character you want to play.

If the how do I nerf this, eratta that, beat up on the powerfule character thread just go down by 1 per week as a result of my comments then I will consider my comments a job well done.

I hope the idea of self accountability and GM mastery become the main topics of this site and that the boo hoo threads diminish. Hey, a man can dream.

Driver 325 yards wrote:

1) High level guy has to go and save the town from a dragon. Fight ensues and it is a battle tooth and nail between the high level guy and the dragon. However, the fight itself has a lot of indirect consequences to the people in the town. Burning and collapsing building. It requires a lot of low level reflex saving throws for the low level people in the town to avoid the indirect damage.

2)Similar event, but only this time the high level guy is fighting an army trying to enter the city. He has to stay on guard or things can go wrong real quick. Meanwhile, there is an artifact scroll/weapon hidden in the city that need to be tracked down by lower level guys and brought to high level guy to end the battle once and for all. If high level guy does not do his job, the city crumbles before low level guys get the artifact. If low level guys don't do their job by time y, high level guy is overwhelmed.

3) High level guy and low level guy need to influence the king. The king is the race of the low level guy and so is his daughter. The king can be brought to the aid of the party by direct diplomacy or through the low level guy romancing/impressing the daughter. Both do their best over the upcoming days to get thier diplomacy on.

I could go on because this kind of topic (how to GM a diverse party) is far more interesting than the typical "how do you nerf the powerful guy" thread.

1. So basically the low level guys run away while the high level guy gets to fight? What if the low level guys want to fight. Remember characters don't know what levels are. This basically amounts to "players playing along", which I mentioned before.

2. Splitting the party which I also mentioned earlier, and if the army is made of low level people the high level guy still can stop them unless he is a caster since he has no abilities to take out all of them at once or track all of them. If there are 20(not really an army) or less the town guard can handle...

GM fiat is not making different challenges for different characters. That is good GMing. GM fiat is creating dumb stuff out of thin blue air. It is amazing to me that you guys can only envision a world where everybody is one par with one another. How unimaginative.

I am done talking to you guys. I once received good advice. Don't argue with a crazy person and don't argue with someone bent on holding on to false beliefs. After all, the two are one in the same.

If you want to believe that the only way to GM is to GM a party that is exactly the same power level from top to bottom (don't even know how you achieve that) then you go right ahead and believe that.

I am out.

Driver 325 yards wrote:

Fightful presence has a range

The right high level guy with city walls and the right spells and maybe the help of the town army can stop the army from going around him

Auto succeed not going to happen in the particular encounter. Oh yes, you are imagining a skill focused maxed skilled whatever else diplomacy guy. Lol

But I do see that you are unwilling to learn and only interested in making ridiculous comments.

Anything that would be collateral damage to the city has a shorter range than Frightful Presence does.

Now you are changing your example, adding in the town's army. How's he being overwhelmed if the low level characters fail, with an army at his back?

No, I'm imagining normal high level characters, hence the 'otherwise' qualifier.

I'm willing to learn, but you're not teaching me anything. Would you like to take this to its own thread and continue trying?

Of course I can't spell out everything. I leave something to the GM to figure out on his own. Hand holding you through every possibility and nuisance should be insulting to you. I don't need a new thread. Do you need a new thread?

As to Simon, the Diplomacy check against the daughter is not as hard as against the king. You don't have to contribute to killing the dragon to be excited by trying to survive the attack. You don't have to roll a whole army worth of attacks.

Wow. The lack of creativity is unbelievable. I see why every player being exactly the same power level is so needed in Pathfinder. It is not the players. Its the GMs

Fightful presence has a range

The right high level guy with city walls and the right spells and maybe the help of the town army can stop the army from going around him

Auto succeed not going to happen in the particular encounter. Oh yes, you are imagining a skill focused maxed skilled whatever else diplomacy guy. Lol

But I do see that you are unwilling to learn and only interested in making ridiculous comments.

1) High level guy has to go and save the town from a dragon. Fight ensues and it is a battle tooth and nail between the high level guy and the dragon. However, the fight itself has a lot of indirect consequences to the people in the town. Burning and collapsing building. It requires a lot of low level reflex saving throws for the low level people in the town to avoid the indirect damage.

2)Similar event, but only this time the high level guy is fighting an army trying to enter the city. He has to stay on guard or things can go wrong real quick. Meanwhile, there is an artifact scroll/weapon hidden in the city that need to be tracked down by lower level guys and brought to high level guy to end the battle once and for all. If high level guy does not do his job, the city crumbles before low level guys get the artifact. If low level guys don't do their job by time y, high level guy is overwhelmed.

3) High level guy and low level guy need to influence the king. The king is the race of the low level guy and so is his daughter. The king can be brought to the aid of the party by direct diplomacy or through the low level guy romancing/impressing the daughter. Both do their best over the upcoming days to get thier diplomacy on.

I could go on because this kind of topic (how to GM a diverse party) is far more interesting than the typical "how do you nerf the powerful guy" thread.

The best advice I can give any GM is to define winning creatively. Since you define what winning is, there is no such thing as a team that is too strong and you don't even need GM fiat to challenge your PCs.

I hate telling you this option because I love archers so much. That said, the weakness of all archers is one good sunder. It might be hard to break a sword, but a bow is child's play.

That said, this option is extreme. You have more than enough good options above.

One I do not see above at a quick glance is COUNT THE ARROWS. Until higher levels where durable arrows are an option, arrows do and should run out. Even if the store a ton of arrow in a bag of holding. After firing twenty from the quiver, it time to reload the quiver.

THAT'S ALL FOLKS

How do these IUS AC haters explain away Charlie the karate Chimp?

A combat trained tiger from level 2 to 6. 500 gold. Oh, and a saddle.

Wow, there were so many ways they could have nerfed Crane Wing and still kept it as a viable feat. Instead, it is nerfed to the point of irrelevence. They should have skipped making an errata and got rid of the chain altogether.

At the end of the day, there are so many Powerful builds out there. I can't for the life of me figure out why the Crane Style builds gets so much attention.

Well, I should say, got so much attention.

From this day forward I shall say, "Crane What?"

The OP must have been playing the Inquisitor at early levels where they suffer to be effective. As stated, from 5th level on, even the most inept can play them effectively as meleers or archers.

By the way, when I GM some battles last for far more than 5 rounds. Maybe that is the case in modules, but I tend to not use modules.

Boy, if everyone only experiences 3-5 round battles, you don't know the fun you are missing out on with epic battles.

The last battle I GM'd put the party against 100 zombies that came in waves against a town that was somewhat fortified.

Fighting, protecting the fences, getting the townfolks out of harms way, area spells, hand to hand, etc... over about 20 rounds. Plus, I made the characters make their decisions quickly (no long drawn out turns).

It was a fairly quick 20 rounds and was absolutely thrilling.

Your summoner would have had fun.

So I'm playing a level 8 conjuration specialist with augment summoning. Summons should be good, but they kinda suck.

No character is effective in all situations.

Most build characters that will shine in certain situations and not so much so in others. This makes sense when your GM varies his types of encounters. However, when you GM only has one strategy it makes sense to build a character that strives in that.

So your GM has surprise attacks that you can't anticipate, makes short lasting fights and takes away the feats that make you summon quicker. He hates rope trick. He has created an environment where summoners do not thrive.

Further, you have a group of melee attackers on your team that outshine summoned creatures all day everyday. So your group is not of a composition that requires a summoner. Further, they don't scout or have effective perception so they can't help you with your summoning.

Sounds like summoning does kinda suck for you not because summoning sucks but because the deck has been stacked against the summoner in your particular case.

Summoning will be relegated to a secondary spell for you. Get the utility out of it you can from the spells the summoned creatures can cast. Keep one big summon spell for that one time that you might need it. Otherwise focus on other spells.

I will say it again, focus on other spells. Don't fight an uphill battle against a GM. You will lose. The beauty of a wizard is that he can adapt to the GM through the spells he chooses to prepare.

Well well, who would have thought that they intended for an Eagle Shaman to be able to turn into a Huge Roc. Surprise, surprise

They may have rules that don't make sense, but this is not once of them. The rules actually make sense and are complete.

So I ask myself, "What kind of animals can a druid turn into?" I look at the description for druid and it says:

Her options for new forms include all creatures with the animal type.

I don't see any language limiting the creature to the creatures in the bestiary or limiting the creature to the type that the druid is familiar with (though the latter make sense from a common sense perspective). I would add that a druid should be able to imagine a large size wolf after seeing a medium one.

Next, I ask myself, "What size creature can I be?" I look at the description for druid wildshape and it says,

At 4th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any small or Medium animal and back again once per day... At 6th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a Large or Tiny animal or a Small elemental... At 8th level, a druid can use wild shape to change into a Huge or Diminutive animal, a Medium elemental, or a Small or Medium plant creature."

So, at least with the Roc example, if a Huge Roc exist (it does) and the druid is familiar with or can imagine a huge Roc (a small hurdle) and the druid is 8th level, then the druid can transform into a Huge Roc.

I agree that this has nothing to do with templates because Wildshape can function without the need for considering templates. You simply add the stat bonuses and abilities gained as outlined by Beast Shape.

I really don't see the problem.

In coming up with the Rule change, Sean said two things that I am all for.

1) The Design Team is concerned about making the game play as people who casually read the game rules would assume that the game plays. TWO THUMBS UP.

2) The Design Team will only change this "make the rules friendly" approach if the approach leads to broken consequences. THREE THUMBS UP.

These are two principles that I believe should be applied to the game as a whole with all rulings, erattas, FAQs.

Few Questions/Comments

1) Have you considered a ranged build that starts off with on level of fighter and eventually goes the improved snap shot route. Mix this with superstition, witch hunter, ghost rager, disruptive rage and you get a guy who can threaten/disrupt caster from range.

Archetypes: Urban Barbarian/Invulnerable Rager

F1)Pt Blk, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot
B3)Deadly Aim, Reckless Abandon (work great with deadly aim)
B5)Weapon Focus (LB Comp), Superstitious
B7)Snap Shot, Witch Hunter
B9)Improved Snap Shot, Disruptive
B11)Power Attack (why not be a switch hitter), Spell Sunder
B13) Ghost Rager, Extra Rage Power (Strength Surge)

Hey, you will be unique, able to shoot deadly aim arrows as accurately as regularly arrows, threaten/disrupt casters out to 15ft, be able to switch between raging strength and dexterity based on whether you using a bow or sword.

Just pointing out that you have the option to go ranged barbarian to accomplish the task.

As fo your build, unless you are going to become a Rage Prophet or are going to build a rage cycling barbarian, I don't get the dip into Oracle.

The problem is that you are all failing to note the ruling for snap shot. The question for snap shot was whether a person with combat reflexes could take multiple attacks of opportunity.

The answer was yes. So an archer with snap shot or reflexive shot can, as a free action not on thier turn, draw and notch an arrow.

That's RAW

Can Crane Wing be utilized to deflect a melee attack and then can the subsequent attack of opportunity granted by Crane Riposte be taken with a Longbow or other ranged weapons that require two hands to use if the character possesses the Snap Shot feat or the Reflexive Shot ability?

Arguments Against: Range Weapons that require two hands to use are two-handed weapons, even though they are not specifically designated as such on the weapons charts, because the description of such weapons say that they require two hands to use. Range weapons that require two hands to use are no different than two-handed melee weapons for the purpose of Crane Wing and Crane Riposte.

As a result, this question has already be asked and answered by the Design Team on 3/01/13:

Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?

Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands)…

So, to have a hand free when wielding a two-handed weapon, one must re-grip the weapon as a free action. If the person wanted to later have the weapon available for AoO, that person would have to spend another free action to re-grip.

This rules out using Crane Riposte with Snap Shot because the bow had to be re-gripped to allow a hand to be free (in accordance with Crane Wing) after your turn was over. Switching the grip back for an AoO through Crane Riposte after blocking with Crane Wing would require a free action. However, free action cannot be taken after your turn is up. So Crane Riposte and Snap Shot cannot work together.

Arguments For: Range weapons that require two hands to use are not two-handed weapons and are not designated as two-handed weapons in the weapons charts for a reason. Further, Two-Handed Weapon ruling quoted above should not apply to bows because the mechanics for bows and, let’s say a Greatsword, are entirely different. These differences are as follows:

First, a Greatsword has to be held at all times with two hands to attack with it. However, a bow is supported at all times with one hand and only needs a second hand at the moment the bow is being used to fire a weapon.

Second, to have a hand free with the Greatsword you have to re-grip the weapon from two-handed to one-handed. However, to have a hand free with a bow you simply need to stop firing. You never have to re-grip the bow just because the shooting hand is no longer engaged. When the shooting hand is not engaged, the shooting hand is free for the purposes of Crane Wing.

Third, while re-gripping two hands back onto a Greatsword takes a free action that cannot be performed on your turn, placing your shooting hand onto the bow is a non-action (a free action that can be performed anytime during the round).

PRD wrote:

Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

Ultimate Combat FAQ wrote:

Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?
Yes….

Accordingly, the archer does not have to re-grip at the end of a full attack to have a free hand available for Crane Wing. His hand is naturally free. Further, after blocking with Crane Wing, an archer does not have to worry about the “your turn only free action restriction” to re-engage his shooting hand for the Crane Riposte/Snap Shot attack of opportunity because an archer can re-engage his shooting arm as a non-action even if it is not his turn.

Policy Arguments: Those against the combo say that archers are too powerful and allowing this for archers will make them even more unbalanced. They also argue that allowing the combo allows archers to do with a two-handed weapon what a melee fighter cannot do with a two-handed weapon.

Those for the combo say that archers have to make an substantial feat investment to pull this combo off and have to wait several levels before being able to essentially gain one AoO in a round occasionally. Second, they argue that melee fighter can do the combo if they are wielding a one handed weapon. However, if a bow is considered to be a two-handed weapon in the same way that a Greatsword is considered to be a two-handed weapon (for the purposes of Crane Riposte) the archer will never be able to pull off the combo even with a substantial feat investment.

PLEASE FAQ THIS QUESTION SO WE CAN GET AN ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION HAPPENED HERE

David_Bross wrote:

Projectile Weapons: Blowguns, light crossbows, slings, heavy crossbows, shortbows, composite shortbows, longbows, composite longbows, halfling sling staves, hand crossbows, and repeating crossbows are projectile weapons. Most projectile weapons require two hands to use (see specific weapon descriptions).

Longbow: At almost 5 feet in height, a longbow is made up of one solid piece of carefully curved wood. You need two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size.

Driver325yards Reply: Noone is arguing that you don't need two hands to fire a Longbow. Did you even need to provide a quote for this? We know you need to hands to fire a Longbow. That is common sense. It is also common sense that after each time you fire the bow, your hand is free. You don't have to designated you hand as free. It is naturally free. Why in the world do you not see this. Have you every fired a bow. Even if you have not, what I am proposing is not hard to visulaize. Your hand is free.

I'll give you that the not an action versus free action is somewhat ambiguous, as the PRD contradicts itself

PRD wrote:

Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don't take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else, such as nocking an arrow as part of an attack with a bow.

PRD wrote:

Ammunition: Projectile weapons use ammunition: arrows (for bows), bolts (for crossbows), darts (for blowguns), or sling bullets (for slings and halfling sling staves). When using a bow, a character can draw ammunition as a free action;

Fortunately, they have a FAQ addressing this

Ultimate Combat FAQ wrote:

Snap Shot: Can a character with Snap Shot (page 119) and Combat Reflexes make multiple attacks of opportunity with a ranged weapon, assuming that loading the ranged weapon is a free action?
Yes. As long as

...

Driver325yards Reply:There was nothing contradictory. What FAQ told you is what should have been obvious. The non-action that it takes to fire a bow is unlike the typical free action because it is a free action you can take even when it is not your turn. This is different than the free action it takes to re-grip a greatsword because you could not do that unless it was your turn. Actually, thanks. You have made my point.

Driver 325 yards wrote:

That is correct. It requires two hands to use a bow. However, it is not a two-handed weapon and is not designated as such.

Accordingly, if one of your hands are bound, broken, etc... you can not use a Longbow. However, it is not a two-handed weapon like a greatsword is designated as, because you don't have to have two hands to hold it and don't have to have two hands on it at all times.

So, greatsword and longbow are not the same thing. By the way, even without the description that you have pointed out, noone would ever contend that you do not need two hands to fire a bow. The is not being debated.

Right here is where there is an impasse, and I doubt you'll get past it. In my mind It requires two hands so it follows the 2-handed rules for weapons. It doesn't specifically say it is a 2-handed weapon. So you either agree with me or you don't. No amount of arguing is really going to "prove" anything unless someone has something specific that isn't shown.

Personally I think you're grasping at staws to get the answer you want. "It requires two handes" seems pretty definitive to me.

I am not grasping at straws. I am pointing out an important distinction between two-handed melee weapons like Greatswords and range weapon that are not designated as two-handed weapons, but, nontheless, require two hands to fire.

Why do you think the writer's made a distinction between designated certain melee weapons as two-handed weapons and not doing so for range weapons like Longbows? Do you think it was a oversight or done for a significant reason. I think the latter and that is not grasping at straws, that is stating what is in plain sight.

Durinor wrote:

If this were true then an archer couldn't make attacks with a spiked gauntlet during his enemy's turn without declaring that he is no longer wielding his bow at the end of every turn - I don't think there is anything to say this is the case?

@Durinor; there is this FAQ.

Paizo FAQ wrote:

Armor Spikes: Can I use two-weapon fighting to make an "off-hand" attack with my armor spikes in the same round I use a two-handed weapon?

No.
Likewise, you couldn't use an armored gauntlet to do so, as you are using both of your hands to wield your two-handed weapon, therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks.

A bow is designated as a two handed weapon, so the above FAQ would apply. Now, if this were my game I'd allow it. Bt if I were building this character for PFS I would proceed cautiously and expect table variation.

It is entirely possible that I am missing something. However, range weapons (at least from what I have seen) are not designated as two-handed weapons. They are just designated as range weapons.

Accordingly, I am hoping that moving forward in this discussion everyone notes the following four points:

1) Range Weapons are not designated as two-handed weapons;

2) Bows do not require re-gripping;

3) Bows are weapons that are held in one hand and that only require two hands at the moment you fire; and

4) It does not take a free action to go from holding the bow with one hand to firing the bow with two hands - it's a non-action.

All of the above are the basic foundation to having a discussion about Crane Riposte and Reflexive Shot.

And I am sorry for the bolding, but I and others have stated these points already and yet people continue to make statements to support their arguments against using Crane Riposte and Reflexive Shot that are clearly the opposite of rule.

RAW you can’t use a bow with Crane Riposte because of the fact it is a two handed weapon. Although you can carry a bow in one hand it is not being wielded at that point. An attack of opportunity interrupts the normal combat long enough for you to make the attack, nowhere does it say you can take other actions including free actions. Drawing an arrow is a free action not an immediate action so can only be performed on your turn.

For that reason I would rule that in order to for a Zen Archer to use Reflex Shot they have to have an arrow already loaded in the bow. This would prevent the use of Crane Wing to deflect the blow, thereby making it impossible to use Crane Riposte.

See my post above. I looks like we posted simultaneously. I believe I addressed your concern. By the way, drawing an arrow is no action, not a free action.

Durinor, I agree

I think the problem is that everyone is comparing a bow to a two-handed weapon. However, that is a bad comparison for two important reasons.

Number 1: If a person were trying to use Crane Wing with a greatsword, the person would have to declare at the end of his attacks that he is regripping. This would be a free action. He would then have a hand free for Crane Wing.

However, with a bow, you do not have to re-grip anything. You are always holding the bow with just one hand. It is not a two-handed weapon like a greatsword. Its is a weapon that requires one hand to hold and two-hands to fire. Once you stop firing, your hand is free.

Number 2: The guy with the greatsword could not block with Crane Wing and then get an attack of opportunity with Crane Riposte because after he blocks with Crane Wing it would take a free action to re-grip and then take the attack of opportunity - and you can't take a free action when it is not your turn.

However, the guy with the bow who blocks with Crane Wing could then take an attack of opportunity (assuming he had Snap Shot or Reflexive Shot) because it does not take a free action to go from having a hand free with the bow to then go to firing the bow with two hands. Heck, it does not even take an immediate action. It instead takes no action at all.

So I already know that mechanically Crane Riposte works with a bow RAW. The reason why I posted the question was because I know that RAW sometimes gets overturned and I just assumed that this question had been asked and answered. However, I take it that is has not.

I also have no angle to understand the RAI because there is nothing out there that I know of that suggests that the writers are opposed to an archer using Crane Wing without having to give up his AoO for the next round.

Further, I didn't know if the writers felt the combo would be unbalanced (it does require 4 to 6 feats to occasionally get one attack of opportunity).

Finally, I wanted to put the final build on my website without there being a retroactive ruling to destroy the build.

So lets compare your build to a straight martial build built to do a similar strike and hide strategy.

Barbarian11/Fighter1

Str(20); Dex (14); Con(14); Int(10); Wis(10); Chr(15) by 12th level

1) Power Attack, Combat Reflexes
2) Reckless Abandon
3) Skill Focus (Stealth)
4) Raging Leaper
5) Eldritch Heritage (Shadow Bloodline: Shadowstrike)
6) Bestial Leaper
7) Vital Strike
8) Superstitious
9) Furious Finish
10)Witch Hunter
11)Eldritch Heritage (Shadow Bloodline: Shadow Well)
12)Improved Vital Strike

So, this guy can pop in and out of shadows without magical enhancements doing (6d6+22)= 43 average while attacking at a +19. This build could also max the damage to 58 with furious finish. When this build is enlarged (which should happen often one way or another at 12th level) the damage is (9d6+24)= 55.5 average and 78 maxed.

While you need to flank to get to a similar attack bonus, your damage seem to be reasonably close and your attack bonus on par near a straight martial build. So I would say it looks pretty good.

That said, I am not quite sure how you calculated you attack and damage. I will take your word for it.

the way I would price it...

multi use goes up quadratically. 2 per day is 4000 and 5 times per day is 25000.

continous is like a continous true strike item...it doesn't exisit you munchkin.

At first your response was very reasonable. I like the way you priced it. After all, that was my original question.

Then, of course, you had to finish your comment with an insult.

Why can't we keep the comments relevant to the question and resist the temptation to call people names.

It's so first grade

50,000 gold does not in anyway balance it out. It takes a 20th level fighter to be able to replicate this ability, or a 10th level barbarian with beast totem (and only then on a charge). 10 character levels is way more expensive than 50,000 gp.

I'm a big proponent of martial characters, I'm always first in line to the "Let's nerf casters"paloza, but this item would just be too unbalancing. It you wanted to allow such an item better to just tell everyone you can take a full attack as a standard action, the repurcussions will be the same.

Okay, let's breathe and look at things rationally. A chararacter's wealth does not surpass 50K until 10th level (right around the time that a barbarian gets pounce). Second, is a character going to walk around naked with just a quick runner's shirt on. I think not. So, the next question is when can a character really afford a 50K item. I would say somewhere around 13th or 14th level. However, there are so many other good 50K items that it would be far reaching to assume that everyone would have this item as soon as they could afford it. Many melee characters would, but that is who you would expect to purchase such an item. Archers would not purchase it as soon as possible. Mages would not. Barbarians with pounce may not.

Heck, give me the boots of teleportation over this item any day of the week. Nothing like the escapability it offers.

Would not a continuous quick runner shirt cost $50,000. Is not that enough money to justify the awesomeness of the shirt. I think so.

What else can you get for $50,000. Let's see,

+5 weapon
+10 shield or armor
+4 Belt of Physical Might with 10K left over
Boot of Teleportation with 1K left over
+5 Amulet of Natural Armor
+5 Ring of Protection
Ring of Invisibility, Boots of Speed, +4 belt of Strength
Cloak of Displacement, Major

I guess I still don't see it. yes, it is powerful to have a continuous runners shirt. Then again, most things or combination of things that runs 50K are pretty powerful.

I also cannot concede that if their were a continuous version everyone would buy it over all the other great options they could choose for 50K/

I actually think that the argument is stronger that there should not be a low cost version. The low cost version makes the pounce/spring attack/whatever utility available at an earlier level than otherwise would be allowed. For instance, what if there was a ring of invisibilty, lesser that allowed you to go invisible for 20 rounds per day at a cost of 2K. Now that would be far more sought after than a ring of invisibility.

Oh, I forgot to say, don't cheat yourself. I know that some have suggested that you cheat in return. However, cheating GMs lose all credibility. In fact, they foster their player into becoming cheaters.

Lead by example. I think someone above suggested that you roll out in the open and that you allow others to confirm your die. I agree. The roll behind the screen thing that many GMs do iritates players and makes them "believe" that GMs are cheating.

Just like you have considered cheating in response to a cheating PC. A PC that thinks you are cheating may respond in like kind.

Okay, first make sure that they are indeed cheating. I say this because a 20 sided die can give you very interesting results. You should know, die are not perfectly balanced and it is very possible to run across a die that rolls high numbers more often than it is supposed to. I swear, I know a guy that can roll a 20 with his die 1 out of 8 times. We tracked the performance of the die. Everyone watched the roll. Point is that sometimes it is the die.

Second, the solution is simple. Institute a rule where you roll the die for everyone at critical moments in the game. Also, there are sheats that can be passed around where every player list their primary stats. You pass this around at the beginning of the game so you know where everyone stands.

That said, I repeat again. Make sure that they are cheating before you accuse them. Die can yeild odd results, even when they are not wieghted.

Last, don't chastise the person cheating. Instead, praise the guy that does not cheat. Praise the guy that catches someone else making a mistake and/or cheating. You will be surprised how praise can change the culture of your table from a honesty and policing standpoint.

"Way to let John confirm your die roll Tom." "Jack, way to catch Peter over there. Keep an I on him for me."

You can even say these things jokingly. Don't make them turn you into a prick. Be subtle and psychological.

Looks like Paizo must be doing a good job since just about every class is loved and hated by somebody.

Or play a sound striker bard who also happens to be an archer. If the feats work with the words then great. If they don't then still great, just not as great.

Okay, I found the answer to this. As it turns out, this is really not a FAQ. A "miss" is defined in the rules.

Some have been saying that because a deflected attack in some cases mentions that damage is not done and does not expressly say that it is a miss, this must mean that it is a hit that does no damage. If you would, this would be a third category alongside hits and misses.

However, if you look in Ultimate Equipment under Arms and Armor in the Variant Rules section of all places, Paizo answered the question just in passing.

Paizo wrote:

The armor and Armor Class system is an abstraction where an attack roll that "misses" represents actual misses as well as attacks that fail to hit the target hard or accurately enough to cause harm. Some players and GMs may prefer a different system where a failed attack roll is an actual miss, and armor absorbs points of damage from successful attacks.

So it turns out the attacks that do no harm because the fail to hit the target accurately enough are also considered misses. Deflections from Crane Style and Deflect Arrow would fall into this category.

Further, Paizo states that "misses" used in Pathfinder are not "misses" in the most strict interpretation of the word miss.

Finally, Paizo states that a variant system has been developed for those who believe it more satisfying to have misses be actual misses.

Given the way the FAQ system seems to work, I think the following quote by Skylancer4 stands a better chance of being answered than the original, open-ended question (which the Rules Team might decide is too open-ended). So it might be worth FAQ'ing it, instead:

Skylancer4 wrote:

4/5 of those can be consolidated into "Does a deflected attack count as a 'miss' for abilities that rely on 'missed attacks'?"

I believe the question that needs to be answered is as follows:

Which of the following, if any, count as a miss for the purposes of abilities that rely on a miss:

a) failing to contact the object or person
b) failing to overcome the AC of the person
c) deflecting an attack the would otherwise overcome the AC of the target
d) avoiding an attack the would otherwise overcome the AC of the target through a miss chance due to (concealment, blindness, blink, or the like).

These were all of the example presented on the original post

I just posted the reply on the original thread where this question came up regarding Snake Fang and Crane Wing. There are places in the rules that clearly suggest that missing means more than just not rolling high enough to overcome someone's AC. Further, there are places that support the contention the deflecting an attack means causing an attack to miss.

FIRST EXAMPLE, when it comes to concealment, blur, blinks and other similar effects, Pathfinder refers to the chances to not hit the target as a "miss chance." This means that YOU ROLLED THE DIE AN OVERCOME THE AC, BUT THEN HAVE TO ROLL A 20 or 50% MISS chance. If you don't make the 20 or 50 percent roll in your favor then you MISS.

So, clearly missing is not only when you fail to reach the AC mark through roll of the die.

SECOND EXAMPLE, look at wind wall which states, in part, that "Arrows and bolts are deflected upward and miss, while any other normal ranged weapon passing through the wall has a 30% miss chance." This clearly seems to support the fact the deflecting something makes that something miss (even if you happened to roll the die high enough to otherwise hit the target)

THIRD EXAMPLE, I like Wind of Vengeance as a better example than Wind Wall because Wind of Vengeance surround you and is a personal spell. It too suggests that deflected attacks are missed attacks. The language for the spell is as follows:

You surround yourself with a buffeting shroud of supernatural, tornado-force winds. These winds grant you a fly speed of 60 feet with perfect maneuverability. Neither your armor nor your load affects this fly speed. The winds shield you from any other wind effects, and form a shell of breathable air around you, allowing you to fly and breathe underwater or in outer space.

Ranged weapons (including giant-thrown boulders, siege weapon projectiles, and other massive ranged weapons) passing through the winds are deflected by the winds and automatically miss you. Gases and most gaseous breath weapons cannot pass though the winds.

In addition, when a creature hits you with a melee attack, you can shape your winds so they lash out at that creature as an immediate action. The creature must make a Fortitude Saving Throw or take 5d8 points of bludgeoning damage and be knocked prone (if on the ground). On a failed save, Huge flying creatures are checked and Large-sized or smaller flying creatures are blown away instead of knocked prone.

On a successful save, the damage is halved and the creature is not knocked prone (or checked or blown away).

Further, I agree with Doomed Hero that Crane Wing and Snake Fang are clear on their face. The above examples just follow suit with Crane Wing in suggesting the deflected attacks are missed attacks

I am learning that there is an argument for everything on these forums. Normally, the arguments are not based in common sense, but in the desire to have a feat or ability nerfed. As a result, even the clearest of language is constantly being challenged through FAQ or forum arguments under the guise of "ambiguity"

This argument is no different to me. Your example with DR is a bad. DR is more akin to resistance. Of course, if you get hit by an attack dealing 5 points of damage and happen to have DR 5, you were hit but had the damage reduced to zero. The same would apply to fire resistance.

However, a deflected arrow is clearly an arrow that missed its target.

With that said, I would not doubt if the answer to the FAQ came back stating that Crane Wing and Snake Fang don't work together. It will be some very loose reasoning.

If we were being honest, the real question that is being asked and answered is "Paizo, will you continue to let players combine Crane WIng and Snake Fang or will you please nerf it for us."

kevin_video wrote:

@n00bxqb -- The question is, why would you take a common dog at druid 4 and not keep the wolf at druid 4?

The dog is better at level 4 ...

Dog Animal Companion
Effective Druid Level 4
N Medium Animal
Init +3; Senses low-light vision, scent
--------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------------
AC 17, touch 13, flat-footed 14 (+3 Dex, +4 natural)
hp 34 (4d8+16)
Fort +8, Ref +7, Will +2
--------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
--------------------------------------------------
Speed 40 ft
Melee bite +7 (1d6+6)
--------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------------------------------------
Str 18, Dex 16, Con 18, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +3; CMB +7; CMD 20 (24 vs. Trip)
Feats ???, ???, ???
Skills ???, ???, ???
SQ tricks (???, ???, ???)
4th-level ability score increase: CON

Wolf Animal Companion
Effective Druid Level 4
N Medium Animal
Init +3; Senses low-light vision, scent
--------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------------
AC 17, touch 13, flat-footed 14 (+3 Dex, +4 natural)
hp 30 (4d8+12)
Fort +7, Ref +7, Will +2
--------------------------------------------------
OFFENSE
--------------------------------------------------
Speed 50 ft
Melee bite +5 (1d6+3 plus trip)
--------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------------------------------------
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6
Base Atk +3; CMB +6; CMD 19 (23 vs. Trip)
Feats ???, ???, ???
Skills ???, ???, ???
SQ tricks (???, ???, ???)
4th level ability score increase: CON

Yes I agree. This is the long hand version of what I stated above.

Dog's Stats at 4th level are as follows:
Str(17) Dex (15) Con(17) Int(2) Cha(12) Wis(6), +2 NA, 40 speed

The wolf's stats are as follows at 4th level:
Str 13, Dex 15, Con 15, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 6, Wolf gets trip,50 speed

Both get low light, bite 1d6, scent

Of course this is before the druid companion add-ons, which would affect both equally.

In my opinion, the dog is the slightly better choice and accepted into more places amongst civilized company. You don't get trip, but you do more damage, hit more often and have greater hitpoints and saves from increased con and dex.

The reason we don't have rules like this hardcoded into the game is because the game's economy doesn't allow for it. Poison has a real GP value, and if you allow PCs to harvest poison, you technically need to adjust treasure values in the campaign to allow for this new source of income. And that can get weird when you have some monsters that have really expensive poison that already have or NEED a lot of treasure.

Wow, our group recently ran into the Harvesting issue. I just knew there had to be an answer in a book somewhere. To my discontent I come here and find out that the reason why there is no Harvesting rule is because it causes wealth issues. Really? Sounds like an oversight that no one is willing to fix to me.

Pickpocketing causes wealth issues. Steal causes wealth issues. Having a Cohort that can make everything for half price causes wealth issues.

To use the words of some in this post, pickpocketing and Steal gives you something for nothing.

This is a frustrating problem for me because my DM is reluntant to do anything that is not specifically spelled out in the rules. I just can't beleive that something so obvious and probably so frequently encountered by GMs is not covered in the books.