Goblin Squad Member. Organized Play Member. 8,495 posts (8,503 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 1 alias.
Regarding Grapple, Nets, or anything else where escape artist can get you out of it, I prefer the level 1 spell Liberating Command. :)
Buddy casts this on you (immediate action) and you have a significant bonus (+20 at level 10) to your escape artist check to escape (also as an immediate action).
Not the automatic negation that FoM is, but almost every spellcaster in my group carries this by the levels where grapple becomes an issue.
As for FoM being OP..I would actually say that many of the attack forms this protects you against are OP. This is an anti-OP spell.
Along this line, you could always go with the beastkin berserker barbarian archetype. All the standard barbarian perks, including full BAB, d12 hit dice, and your favorite rage powers - but you also get to turn into a warcat whenever you rage. Not only that, you can take lesser fiend totem and lesser abyssal blood to grow horns on the cat's head and extra claws on your hind legs, letting you pounce with six primary natural weapons. You even get to pick a few more of your favorite forms to keep on hand for fighting in unusual environments - in the air, in the water, or in tight quarters - switching between them much more easily than with wild shape.
There is a flaw in the Beastkin Berserker, the lack of armor.
Wild Armor won't work with it (not without a house rule that is) since it is not Wildshape. Additionally, you don't have time to put on armor made for your beast shape form (such as armor made for a tiger). Not even Bracers of Armor work (they are shut down while polymorphed as per the rules).
So, you will have to use Mage Armor, if you have someone to cast it on you. That will cap you at +4 Armor bonus instead of the +11 armor bonus or so you should have by level 14 with +2 Wild Stoneplate.
Regarding Animal Companions, at level 14 I wouldn't bother. It is a 12 HD, +9 BAB sidekick at that point (assuming full progression). Not a really strong option unless you sink a lot of gold into buffing it up, which then sinks your own stats.
If you are going for a melee build I would suggest a level 4 (or 6 if you have delayed wild shape) Druid and then the rest a melee class such as a fighter. This allows you to have wild shape's full beast shape progression and gain the benefits of being a fighter.
Here is an example progression for a level 14 build:
Human
20 point buy: 26str (+2race, +2lvl +6enh), 14dex, 16con (15+1lvl), 10int, 12wis, 7cha
Druid 4 (Mooncaller and Cave Domain for vision benefits)
Fighter 8 (Savage Warrior)
Level progression: Fighter 1, Druid 2-5, Fighter 6+
Feats:
@1 Power Attack, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple
@3 Dragon Style (lets you charge through allies and ignore difficult terrain)
@5 Shaping Focus (eventually allows level 8 wild shape)
@6(2F) Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike
@7 Greater Grapple
@8(4F) Weapon Specialization Unarmed Strike
@9 Martial Versatility Weapon Focus (gives WF to natural attacks)
@10(6F) Martial Versatility Weapon Specialization (gives WS to natural attacks)
@11 Narrow Frame (optional and check with GM if he will allow it)
@12(8F) Lunge
@13 ??
@14 (10F) ??
This feat list allows you to gain Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization on all natural attacks for the price of 4 feats (5 if you count IUS but I like IUS for the Dragon Style and Imp Grapple bonuses).
For level 13 and 14 feats you could go further into grapple feats or Gr. weapon focus/Martial Versatility Gr. Weapon Focus, or get blindfighting to replace heartseeker (see below).
With Improved Grapple and Weapon Training applying to your grappling CMB/CMD your grab attacks are very effective (up to your size, either large or huge of course).
For equipment, the basics: +6 Belt of Strength (36k), +2 Wild Shaping Stoneplate (no speed reduction thanks to fighter levels; 26.95k), +4 Amulet of Mighty Fists (64k), +5 Cloak of Resistance (25k), Ring of Eloquence (3.5k), Eyes of the Eagle (2.5k), Gauntlets of the Skilled Maneuver (4k, +2 grapple), +2 Ring of Protection (8k), Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone (5k). 10k remaining to spend on whatever.
I wouldn't bother with Ghost Touch or Heartseeking, they are too situational, you need attack/damage bonuses.
Overall you have nearly full BAB, a lot of grappling ability, the ability to charge across difficult terrain and through allies, good damage ability, and a solid AC.
There are a lot of other directions you can build a melee wildshaper, but I personally toss out the spells (stop at level 4 druid) if I am going melee. It isn't worth keeping them imo.
Note that the powers of a lich have a wide range (CL 11-CL20 M10+racial HD) but those of a demilich do not. It's possible, though not particularly likely, to have a lich with twice as much power as a demilich.
Unless it is a demilich that has woken up. Then you have all the lich + all the demilich. :D
Like in Star Trek, there are no toilets in Pathfinder.
Well... There was this mimic once that looked like one. Naturally we had a plumber IRL in the party, so he had to go and use it. His character wears a prosthetic to fill out his posterior these days.
Yup, no toilets in Pathfinder, they are mimics. :)
If I understood Gauss correctly with his point 4), you can turn as much as you like at the beginning of your turn before you move out of your first square. Also, at the end of your charge, you can tuen 180 degrees, so as to be facing the direction of your likely next turn's charge.
Is that correct? No facing meanings you start moving in any direction you choose.
Sort of correct.
You are not turning at the beginning of your turn, there are no facings. You are facing any direction and no direction thus there is no 'turn to face a direction'.
You have to divorce yourself from the idea that people are facing a specific direction. Each turn (6 seconds) they are facing all directions because combat is an abstract system.
When Wheeling Charge references turning, it is not talking about the facing of the character (since facing does not exist) but a turn in the direction of movement.
So yes, you can move any direction you choose.
Then, when charging and after moving 10', you can make a 90 degree turn in the direction of travel.
At the end of all this, again, you have no facing so there is no 'turning 180degrees to face in a likely direction for next turn'.
Summoned Monsters can do damage, without knowing what he is summoning and what feats he has to back them I cannot comment further. But my battlefield control wizard can also deal significant damage with summons as necessary.
Personally, I prefer more 'negate the enemy' methods of battlefield control since that requires fewer resources.
It sounds like he may be using up significant resources on individual combats. That can be worked against him.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/steadfast-personality/
At first glance seems kind of limited, then i had to ask how many will saves WOULDN'T be mentally inclined?
Honestly seems like a flat boon for any charisma based person with the exception of paladin.
Mind affecting doesn't mean 'anything which might be mentally inclined'. It is a specific tag that is added to spells and certain other effects.
For example, Hold Person says:
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]
Close eyes to attack against mirror images. It is not illegal by RAW or RAI, but can really spoil the fun for players relying on mirror images. As the saying goes, what a player can do, the GM can do too.
In any case, close yes, aka by RAW, Wearing a Blindfold: The foe cannot see the creature at all (also possible to achieve by turning one’s back on the creature or shutting one’s eyes). The creature with the gaze attack gains total concealment against the opponent. You still need to make a 50% miss chance
Other than that, GM might declare you must do so at the start of the round, so you need acrobatics to walk normally, and is flat-footed for the rest of the round. I have such GMs before.
Closing your eyes has been a known solution to Mirror Image for a long time now.
And btw, you are not flat-footed if you are blind, you lose your dexterity bonus, but that does not make you flat-footed (CRB p565). People often conflate the two.
Finally, as indicated in the rules for invisibility, if you are grappling a target you cannot see they do not benefit from concealment.
There is no requirement that you have a free hand to take cover using Ride.
As for making sense, Pathfinder rules do not need to make sense. There are many instances where they make no 'real world' sense whatsoever.
Example: a 200lb level 1 character can have 300lbs of dead-weight (no buoyancy) on his person and still easily swim in calm water and easily tread water in rough water for 2 hours or more!
Swim skill = 1rank, +3class skill, +4strength, -6 ACP = +2
Calm Water DC: 10 (take 10)
Rough Water DC: 15 (take 10; treading water only requires a 10)
The first fatigue check is after 1 hour, even if you fail it is only 1d6 nonlethal. It will take 2 hours minimum and an average of 3 hours for you to suffer enough nonlethal damage to knock a first level martial character with 10hp unconscious.
Funny bit, this would've been impossible in 3.0 (-1 ACP per 5lbs) and in 3.5 it would've been extremely difficult to do this in rough water (double ACP penalty to swim).
Clearly a trend of simplifying rules at the cost 'realism'.
Am I just making this up or what? I seem to recall a rule that magic weapons of a certain bonus to hit can act as a special weapon vs creatures that have DR against everything except a certain weapon enhancement. For example, I *think* I recall seeing that a +2 weapon is the equivalent of a silver weapon for overcoming a werewolf's DR. Help me, Paizonians! You're my only hope!
I believe it is in the back of the core rulebook. That is where it appears in the PRD.
The FAQ was addressing whether Shield Master allowed you to bypass any attack penalty, or just the ones associated with TWF.
How is that relevant to whether or not two shields is allowed (probably not the intent, I concede that)?
Or that it takes more than 1 hand to put on a shield (I don't concede that in the slightest)?
I can easily see a GM houseruling that it is not allowed, and for good reason, I even called it cheesy in my first post, but that doesn't mean it isn't allowed by the rules.
I mentioned that not BadBird, and I just did so because some people have in the past used Shield Master for more than the TWF penalties. In case you were thinking of that I was pointing it out.
There's no relevance to the argument about the practical details of putting on two heavy shields at once, no.
I guess we're talking about a community that required an FAQ to tell them that they didn't mean for shield master to remove *all* possible attack penalties, so never mind.
To be serious, I partly (mostly?) concede your point; you can read strict RAW to say that wielding two shields is by far and away the most accurate type of TWF if you have Shield Master. The idea that Shield Master was created for any purpose other than to make offhanding a shield while wielding a proper weapon a more attractive combo is ludicrous, but I know a whole lot of people couldn't care less. Personally I'm used to seeing 'another weapon' ruled as 'not another shield, you atrocious tool', but I know others aren't so lucky, and I can only hope the best for their tainted souls.
How do you "strap on" a heavy shield using nothing but the hand/limb you're strapping it to, especially when it occupies the hand? Aggressive wiggling? I mean, a light shield at least leaves the hand free, so it makes a little more sense to say you can strap it on with it's own limb. But a heavy shield is a big, heavy thing that you have to both hold on to and strap on. This rarely comes up because it's so extremely rare and so eminently hand-waivable; and that's just fine. But if someone wants to run around fighting with two heavy shields strapped on... how exactly did they get there? Again, I know that there's no hard rule telling people this. Then again, there's no rule that says you need a hand free to don armor; shall we say that pulling an armored coat on doesn't need any hands?
So you are saying I cannot put my arm through one strap (loop) and grab a second strap (handhold) without having a free hand? LOL :)
And before you say, but you have to tighten the straps! Not all shields had straps that tightened. Not even big ones.
Heck, some large shields didn't even have two loops, just one central handhold (although that is not part of the Pathfinder version of the heavy shield).
So, whether you are using real world logic or game logic, there is nothing to say that you cannot use a single move action with only one arm available and no help to put on or take off your heavy shield.
The FAQ was addressing whether Shield Master allowed you to bypass any attack penalty, or just the ones associated with TWF.
How is that relevant to whether or not two shields is allowed (probably not the intent, I concede that)?
Or that it takes more than 1 hand to put on a shield (I don't concede that in the slightest)?
I can easily see a GM houseruling that it is not allowed, and for good reason, I even called it cheesy in my first post, but that doesn't mean it isn't allowed by the rules.
The damage is d8 (d6 initially), not d4. Though I agree that this is poor for damage, but his stated design goal is not damage, but tanking.
So... are we talking about asking/harassing the GM to read Shield Master as letting you TWF two heavy shields without any penalty, then having to have an ally strap your second heavy shield on for you - but only after you activate Lead Blades, and then running around with both your hands locked behind shields that you can't remove without help?
I said nothing about asking to allow TWF with two heavy shields with or without penalty but if we were to have that discussion, the GM would have to houserule against it since at the moment the rules seem to allow it.
Do you have documentation that shows it is against the rules or the author's intent?
Could you provide a rule that states putting on or removing a heavy shield takes more than 1 hand?
Does your group require you to have your weapon hand free to take off or put on a heavy shield?
No group I have ever played with has.
Finally, I said nothing about Lead Blades (which he wouldn't have anyway if he is a Skirmisher).
Heavy Shield is 1d4.
Heavy Shield with spikes is 1d6.
Heavy Shield with Bashing is 1d8.
For that matter, if he were using a Clawhand Shield he could still cast spells, even with both hands occupied.
Dual Shields do have issues beyond being (arguably) a rather lame flavor, and requiring a GM to tolerate lawyering cheese about what Shield Master is supposed to do.
While people like to say that weapon stats don't matter, crappy weapon stats matter. Two-Weapon Fighting tends to suffer from low damage issues, so wielding two d4 weapons with garbage crits isn't exactly ideal.
If you use the Weapon and Shield style to get Shield Master early, you are denied access to anything two-weapon related from your Ranger Style beyond the first Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Which means no free Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and no free Two-Weapon Rend. Which means you'll need to reach 17 DEX if you want to actually put TWF to good use. Which kind of wrecks the point of going TWF Ranger to begin with. If going Two-Weapon Style, there's really not much incentive to not use a decent mainhand weapon and a weaker shield (Improved Critical and Weapon Focus don't do all that much for a shield offhand anyhow); you typically make far more attacks with your mainhand than your offhand even if using TWF.
The damage is d8 (d6 initially), not d4. Though I agree that this is poor for damage, but his stated design goal is not damage, but tanking.
As for other feats, like TWR, 17dex is doable with a +4 belt which he will need eventually anyhow due to being limited to medium armor.
@thelivingmonkey, if your goal really is tanking there are much better builds to accomplish this. Ones that also have an easier time doing damage.
I really love horizon walker (probably my favorite prc) but was unsure as to if it would be appropriate in such a mix (you seem to think not... I'm inclined to agree). The reason I want to use weapon and shield is primarily so I can be tanky (which you guessed) and the thought had occurred to use two shields. I don't think I want to do that, however, so I can focus on different types of damage to bypass DR at low levels (probably a dagger) and because it will be expensive to invest in two shields at higher level (thinking of using a heavy shield as my primary "weapon" so most of my money goes there, TWF with dagger/whatever I have at higher levels for extra attacks).
The group I'm playing with are all new, and I'm likely going to be making them characters too, and I have a feeling none of them will be keen on the idea of choosing to take hits, hence the tank falls on me. I, however, love the Ranger too much to play something like a barbarian, if I'm going to play a martial, It'll be a ranger. I was thinking of generating 6 characters and letting them choose, with me picking a character based on their choices. This was just another idea of another character I might play.
Sorry for the tangent, back to the main idea.
I wanted horizon walker due to it being my favorite prc and it fits thematically with my very rough idea of the character (a wanderer familiar with many places) but that can easily be changed. The campaign will probably end before level ten, all the other kids I'm playing with are going off to college next year (I'm not... whoops kinda gave up my age a bit, haha) and I doubt it will somehow continue after that.
Perhaps using TWC would be worth it, your suggested feat progression makes sense to me, however I would not be able to get shield master or greater shield focus as combat style feats, and wouldn't it make sense to get double slice there as to avoid the required dex altogether?
If I do this, I'll probably go human for the extra feat. This opens up level two to get double slice...
Two shields are cheaper than weapon and shield because you do not have to pay for weapon enhancements (Shield Master). Pay for Armor enhancements which are half the price. Same cost as enhancing one weapon.
As for DR, at a certain point that becomes less important especially if your role is to tank and others are doing the damage.
At low level you can aid another even if you cannot do damage. Alternately, you can trip, especially if your AC is high enough not to get hit on an AoO.
Early levels: have one spiked shield and one non-spiked shield. This will do 1d4 blunt or 1d6 piercing damage depending on the shield you use. DR/slashing would be your only issue.
Later levels: have regular shields with Bashing to do 1d8+strength damage and count on just doing enough damage to bypass the DR.
Regarding silver, cold iron, etc...that is what enhancement bonuses are for which thanks to Shield Master, cost you half the price (per shield).
Double Slice: Weapon and Shield does not have double slice, you cannot take it at level 2. You will need to wait until you get a belt of incredible dexterity to qualify for it which is why I suggested level 7.
Races:
Oread is a decent choice, go for the +1 Natural Armor bonus
Wereboar-Kin are also a good choice.
Oni-Spawn are a decent choice.
Of course, human isn't bad and Half-Orc is decent.
Personally, I would opt for Oread with Granite Skin if the goal is to tank although your speed would be problematic, esp without Longstrider to balance it out.
BTW, regarding Skirmisher, did you have specific tricks you wanted? Most of them do not seem that good and you are sacrificing some very good spells (such as Longstrider and Barkskin).
Class:
I wouldn't bother with Horizon Walker. For a relatively small amount of money you can get any terrain you want (Boots of Friendly Terrain) and Guide already gives your allies bonuses due to terrain with no action economy issue.
Next, as soon as you multiclass your Ranger's Focus stops progressing.
While yes, you are going to get some ability to do favored enemy via Terrain Dominance I find Guide to be a better deal for the times you really need it (BBEGs etc).
So basically, do you want up to 3 Favored Enemies via Terrain Dominance or do you want up to 7/day (depending on level) of "favored enemy" vs whatever enemy you are facing?
(Personal bias alert: I am not a fan of favored enemy because if you selected the wrong favored enemy, or terrain in this case, you lose out on a major source of accuracy/damage vs things like BBEGs.)
Caveat: If you are in a campaign where enemies come primarily from one type of terrain then Terrain Dominance shifts from 'might benefit' to 'woohoo!!'.
Level: What is your expected final level?
Weapon and Shield: Not a bad style, but not the 'best' one either. Primarily for tanking rather than doing damage. IMO, other classes do tanking better while still doing damage than this style.
The 'shield and shield' method mentioned by Halek above is intended to let you benefit from Weapon Focus and Shield Master on both weapons. However, some people find this cheesy.
Race: any race that adds +2 to strength and does not penalize Dex, Con, or Wis.
Ability Scores:
15pt buy: Str 14+2race, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
20pt buy: Str 16+2race, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
Feats:
1) TWF
2) Imp. Shield Bash
3) Shield Focus, Endurance
5) Power Attack
6) Shield Master
7) Double Slice (requires +2 belt of incredible dexterity)
9) Weapon Focus <Shield>
10) Gr. Shield Focus
11) available (Shield Slam, Saving Shield or Weapon Focus?)
Extending the progression yields 16d6, up from 12d6.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the fact that Colossal is the largest size around means that a weapon cannot be bigger than colossal for the purpose of dealing damage. This is my main problem.
Perhaps we are reading it differently. I see it as a pair of questions, not statements.
Question 1: Is 16d6 the correct extension of 12d6 going up 1 size?
Question 2: Can sizes even go above Colossal? (The weapon's size starts at colossal.)
I answered question 1.
I made no statement regarding question 2 though size increases without names should be feasible.
1. yes and 2 it should still be able to there are some creatures who if made into pathfinder would be well beyond colossal size so it would make sense to keep going, if you made a warmachine Ifestus they would wield a weapon 2 size categories larger than colossal, if you make that weapon also have impact it deals damage one size category more than that, add in a few levels in abyssal bloodline bloodrager and you get another size category and a few levels of titan fighter will net another size category boost thus making a creature who is one size category larger then colossal that is wielding a weapon 4 size categories larger then colossal and deals damage as if it were 5 size categories larger then colossal for about 64d6 damage die
I think you misread my post, I was not asking any questions.
Extending the progression yields 16d6, up from 12d6.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the fact that Colossal is the largest size around means that a weapon cannot be bigger than colossal for the purpose of dealing damage. This is my main problem.
Perhaps we are reading it differently. I see it as a pair of questions, not statements.
Question 1: Is 16d6 the correct extension of 12d6 going up 1 size?
Question 2: Can sizes even go above Colossal? (The weapon's size starts at colossal.)
I answered question 1.
I made no statement regarding question 2 though size increases without names should be feasible.
The question is whether there can be something "greater than Colossal".
I think the answer is "yes". It's just number crunching. Although you can't create a weapon physically larger than Colossal, you can crunch the numbers to figure out its damage.
Hmmm, what I see is he is asking what a 12d6 weapon would be if it were 1 size larger (via impact). He is making a supposition of 16d6 and I showed him that it is in fact 16d6 via the FAQ.
Perhaps I missed the part where it is more than 1 size increase?
If they aren't supposed to be for ranged combat like bows are, then what are they there for? To provide some trap options to fulfill some arbitrary "trap option quota" that the PDT feels has to be there to challenge the optimizers that play the game? Because that's really what you've demonstrated to me thus far, and if that's the case, then there never really could have been such a thing as "ranged combat" to begin with because it was never a niche that was created except in our own (or rather, my own) preconceived notion(s). Archery was created as a niche, not ranged combat.
So, I will now mandate all mentions of "Ranged Combat" to be changed to "Archery," otherwise I will refer to such people as heretics having badwrongfun and creating rules that were clearly not meant to exist.
As for melee, as you've stated prior, there is a lot more agnosticism to their design. You don't have to use a specific weapon or select a specific set of feats to make them work, and even if you do, there are a lot of different weapons that can cover the options you're looking for, instead of being restricted to a single weapon. Seriously, when Ranged Com-I mean, Archery, has only one good option, and the rest being absolute crap, whereas melee has numerous good options that fill multiple niches of multiple build choices, this just tells me that weapons used at a range are designed poorly, whereas melee weapons have much better design and thought put into their creation.
For Unarmed/Armed, there are numerous classes with archetypes that can make it work; Enlightened Paladins, Brawlers, Monks, Warpriests, even Ninjas can make it viable...And plenty of other classes and archetypes that I can't think of off the top of my head. While a disparity does exist in this case due to simple outscaling, the gap between this and weapons usable at a range is significantly less, and doesn't make the Unarmed options not viable.
For Simple/Martial, there are comparable options between them. Longspear is by and large one of the most popular and mainstream reach weapons in the game, beating out typical Martial reach weapons for its palatable application, and Exotic reach weapons are usually gated by a feat that many would find undeserving of expenditure. Either way, a choice between a Simple/Martial weapon won't make a big difference 90% of the time, which is about the difference between Martial/Exotic weaponry, and in that case the power gap is at an appropriate level.
Size doesn't really matter except in the case of acquiring loot that you can't technically wear by default (Small equipment for Medium characters, and vice-versa), as there have been numerous builds that demonstrated appropriately-sized weaponry making little to no difference except in the most extreme of circumstances (such as Size-abusing Vital Strike builds compared to Tiny-sized static bonus-abusing builds), and even then it's been proven that full attacks (even with Tiny size static bonus cheesing), in a general sense, are still superior, making size of little to no consequence in the grand scheme of killing things.
Compare that to every single Archery option in existence, and it's more akin to the Caster/Martial Disparity than any other weapon or combat style that ever existed in the game.
I think you are missing the point.
Not all weapons are created equal.
Crossbows are simple weapons, they are there to give people who have low strength or no martial proficiency an ranged attack option where melee is not an option.
Thus, we get the following:
If you only have simple weapon proficiency and good strength (+2 and greater), you generally use a sling.
If you only have simple weapon proficiency and poor strength (+1 or less), you generally use a crossbow.
If you have martial weapon proficiency and poor strength (less than +0), you use a crossbow.
If you have martial weapon proficiency and good strength (+0 or greater), you use a bow.
(The above assumes you can afford a bow or crossbow, I usually start with a sling at first level with my martial builds.)
So, now we have weapons which are generally bad weapons to use, but are options for people who are unable to use the better weapon, a bow.
Then, Paizo makes archetypes that are built around a 'bad option'. Bolt Ace is one such example. It is built around crossbows which are generally a bad idea.
Bolt Ace turns crossbow use from a bad idea to a passable idea but only because of the dex to damage feature.
But, now you have ran into it's major drawback, it's inability to gain Manyshot and either Point Blank Master or Improved Precise Shot (before level 11). As a result it suffers for a long time.
Multiclassing doesn't generally help as that still delays your entry into either PBM (to level 9) or IPS (to level 11).
Just because archetypes are built around a weapon or other game feature does not make that archetype a good one.
In fact, I would say that about half of all the archetypes in the game are rarely used, if ever, because they are simply bad options.
In short, Crossbows and Slings are usually only an option until someone gets something better, or if they are limited in their weapon choices.
The Veering enhancement only reduces cover by 2, considering you are spending +1attack/damage (+1 enhancement) to buy it you are still losing an effective 3 to attack (-1attack, +2cover) and also losing +1damage.
I would go Inquisitor 3/Bolt Ace 5/Slayer 1 would give him solo tactics and the ability to shoot through allies without soft cover applying. At level 11 he can retrain the Inquisitor 3 to Slayer and go with Improved Precise Shot.
One of Darksol's chief complaints that came up throughout this thread was that improved precise shot took too long to get outside of playing something like a ranger that has early access to that. Considering that the build was only supposed to go to level 8 and not 11, veering and seeking make perfect sense and are honestly a valid choice regardless.
Additionally, with even slightly smart positioning you'll only be dealing with partial cover the majority of the time. Meaning that you completely negate it most of the time, and reduce it those few times you don't.
I have not seen partial cover happen that often with medium creatures, the angles required are not common.
And with smart positioning and good teamwork this entire conversation is moot as there would be no cover issues at all. But it seems he is not getting that with his group.
As for level 8 vs 11, from what I understand the build is not being capped at 8, he has already pointed out what he is doing in future levels. It is just that he is currently at 8 and waiting until 11 to avoid AoOs or negate cover is too long a wait. Thus, my solution does work if retraining is an option.
The Veering enhancement only reduces soft cover/cover by 2. Considering you are spending +1attack/damage (+1 enhancement) to buy it you are still losing an effective 3 to attack (-1attack, +2cover) and also losing +1damage.
If he went Inquisitor 3/Bolt Ace 5/Slayer 1 it would give him solo tactics and Friendly Fire Maneuvers to shoot through allies without soft cover applying. At level 11 he can retrain the Inquisitor 3 to Slayer and go with Improved Precise Shot.
It comes with a -1 penalty to BAB for 3 levels, then retraining will negate that.
It is ugly, but it seems the simplest way to get the ability to ignore soft cover without waiting until Bolt Ace 5/Slayer 6 (or Bolt Ace 5/Fighter4).
Lets identify the problem: You are either shooting through cover OR you are taking an AoO when shooting.
Isn't the answer to the first one a class feature - Shooter's Resolve? I appreciate it is a Deed, and therefore Grit management is an issue, but ignoring cover and concealment (unless the total version of either) when you need to for 1 Grit seems handy.
As an aside, I see a lot of people saying to drop Gunslinger/Bolt Ace at level 5 - are the level 7 deeds for either not as good as they appear? Targeting alone seems to make it worthwhile.
No, Shooter's Resolve is not the answer, it is in fact almost completely useless.
Almost every ranged combat build requires full attacks for its DPR.
Shooter's Resolve negates that by requiring a standard action.
Switch hitting means you are spending money on a melee weapon (a waste of resources), spending feats on melee options (a waste of feats or in your GM's houseruled system, a waste of race points), and a loss of your bonus attack, a loss of dex to damage, so your sneak attack damage is effectively just offsetting the lost attacks and bonus damage you would be getting anyhow.
Rangers and Slayers also qualify for Point Blank Master if using bows.
You said you might be grappled. That is just poor group design.
Grapple is the easiest thing to deal with.
1) Full ranks in escape artist.
2) Spellcaster with Liberating Command. Immediate action to cast, grants immediate action attempt to escape artist out of the grapple with a bonus of double caster level (+16 at your level).
Disarm is easy to deal with, lock the weapon (Locking Gauntlet). Again, no need for switch hitting.
A 5' step will put you behind your ally thus granting you cover. Proper battlefield positioning and delayed actions should make it so you never have to take an AoO for shooting while in melee.
Again, the point to all this is that your assertion that ranged combat is not feasible is just flat out wrong. Your particular build and situation is at fault, not ranged combat.
P.S. Since your GM seems so fond of houseruling, you might want to ask him to houserule Snap Shot so you can benefit from flanking with a ranged weapon.
Additionally, you may want to talk to some of your teammates about getting teamwork feats with you.
Both sets of feats are better options than switch hitting.
As Jurassic Pratt says, when your melee weapon and your ranged weapon are the same weapon, the gold cost subject is largely irrelevant. As for feats, I'm not saying that I won't take PBM or Improved Precise Shot, merely that they aren't available to me at this time, so there's no point in me pining for something that I can't reach for yet; I'll get them when I get them (at this rate, 11th level).
As for spending feats, I'd...
Lets identify the problem: You are either shooting through cover OR you are taking an AoO when shooting.
To deal with this you have come up with the 'switch hitter' as a "solution".
Instead, you should be seeking ways to fix one of those two problems.
Methods:
Point Blank Master: Avoids AoO, but limited to level 6 for classes that use bows (for rangers/slayers) or level 4+ for weapon specialization (fighters).
Improved Precise Shot: level 6 entry for ranger/slayer/zen archers or late entry at +11bab.
Teamwork feat Friendly Fire Maneuvers: pretty much limited to builds with solo tactics (such as 3 levels of Inquisitor) or classes that can give teamwork feats to others (preferably unlimited use such as Paladin-Holy Tactician).
High AC: Have a ridiculous AC so that you do not care about AoOs. Dodge, Shield Focus (since your GM has houseruled it), and heavier armor (Mithral Breastplate will give you a +1 bonus over your current setup while still counting as light for your abilities) will help.
Proper tactics: Work with your team to provide you clean shots while still getting cover.
In this example the crossbowman has (soft) cover from the person with the reach weapon. However, the person with the reach weapon does not have cover from the crossbowman.
As a result, there is no cover bonus to the target's AC while at the same time there is no AoO.
Assume for a moment that your buddy was not in proper position, delay your turn until he is. Shout "cover!" so he knows to get in the correct position, you delay until he is.
Regarding your challenge, race and feats is not the problem, it is trying to get either Point Blank Master or how to avoid the cover penalty that is the problem (IPS or FFM). Melee is not a solution to that, it is a divergence.
I will look to see if I can find an option to get you one of those earlier than level 9 (Fighter4) or level 11 (Ranger6/Slayer6/+11bab).
Currently the only one I can see is Inquisitor3 but that penalizes your BAB by 1.
You really should discuss with your GM that he has added +1 to the AC above what he thinks he has because he removed Weapon Focus. It is a core expectation of the game, almost as much as full-BAB.
There is some that think that dex to damage with crossbows trump a longbow with strength to damage that has manyshot.
Here are some numbers:
Assumptions:
Str: 14, Dex 22 (16+2race+2lvl+2enh), Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
vs
Str: 12, Dex 22 (16+2race+2lvl+2enh), Con 14, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 7
The crossbowman swaps strength for wis in order to gain more grit. Dumping the Strength into Dexterity will not produce a higher Dexterity value at level 8 unless it is dropped to 8 (at which point carrying capacity becomes an issue).
Archer, even with the Bolt Ace's dex to damage, does more damage than a Bolt Ace using a heavy crossbow except for Rapid Shot w/o Deadly Aim.
PBS was not factored in, but due to manyshot PBS favors the archer.
Also, special abilities such as Sneak Attack, Weapon Training, Studied Target, etc were not factored in. As with PBS, they mostly favor the archer with his greater number of arrows (except for Sneak Attack which is a wash).
Haste was also not factored in, that should favor the Crossbowman and balance out the numbers or give a slight advantage to the Crossbowman.
By level 8 the Bolt Ace Crossbowman does not have Point Blank Master or Improved Precise Shot (even with 3 levels in another class), the Archer can do one of those depending on the class. (Ranger, Slayer, Zen Archer Monk, Fighter, and Warpriest are just a shortlist that can select one of those two feats, there are probably more ways to get one of them.)
Because of this there is a good chance the Crossbowman's targets will be gaining a +4 cover bonus to AC thus reducing his damage even further.
Of course, that can be mitigated by a higher AC and not caring if you take AoOs.
If you go with a switch hitter version you lose a significant amount of damage.
In short, Bolt Ace CAN work, but you have to work hard to position yourself correctly and have a lot of teamwork. The lack of Point Blank Shot or Improved Precise Shot until significantly later in life (level 11 for Bolt Ace 5/ SlayerX) will cause a lot of problems.
Switch hitting means you are spending money on a melee weapon (a waste of resources), spending feats on melee options (a waste of feats or in your GM's houseruled system, a waste of race points), and a loss of your bonus attack, a loss of dex to damage, so your sneak attack damage is effectively just offsetting the lost attacks and bonus damage you would be getting anyhow.
Agree that switch hitting is bad, but your reasons are mostly wrong as he's using empty quiver style.
Good point, that only deals with the cost element. The other points remain.
1) You do not need melee to shoot while threatened. You need Point Blank Master, an easy feat to acquire if you had if you had gone for a Bow vs a Crossbow.
Even without PBM, it is easy to avoid those AoOs. Have cover behind an ally, no AoO. Take a 5' step.
2) As for feats, you are wasting several feats to build yourself into a switch hitter. Use them to buff your AC to the point where you don't care about AoOs.
Summary: You are choosing an option that is much more difficult to get to work (crossbows), wasting feats on a useless option (switch hitter), multiclassing when you shouldn't and your GM is screwing you by removing Weapon Focus while at the same time as raising their AC beyond the norm.
This is not a problem with ranged combat, it is a problem with your and your GM's choices.
P.S. We are not telling you crossbows are bad-wrong-fun. We are telling you there is not a problem with ranged combat, which is your assertion. If you had said 'why is crossbow ranged combat bad' we would be having a different discussion. Your set up the Crossbow vs Bow discussion with your title and build choices.
I disagree. For my particular build, switch-hitting means the difference between flanking bonuses and sneak attack in the event I'm forced into melee, both of which are valuable DPR boosters to get me back into ranged combat faster. And it has happened numerous times in this campaign; this isn't just a one time instance for me to consider these feats (though this recent battle was basically the straw that broke the camel's back in reaffirming my choices).
Point Blank Master is blocked by Weapon Specialization, which is only available to 4th level Fighters (and classes that count as having Fighter levels or other shenanigans), which means it's not as widespread as you claim. Bolt Aces have neither of these subjects, and when I asked for advice prior to building this character, I was told that PBM before the mid levels isn't a major...
Switch hitting means you are spending money on a melee weapon (a waste of resources), spending feats on melee options (a waste of feats or in your GM's houseruled system, a waste of race points), and a loss of your bonus attack, a loss of dex to damage, so your sneak attack damage is effectively just offsetting the lost attacks and bonus damage you would be getting anyhow.
Rangers and Slayers also qualify for Point Blank Master if using bows.
You said you might be grappled. That is just poor group design.
Grapple is the easiest thing to deal with.
1) Full ranks in escape artist.
2) Spellcaster with Liberating Command. Immediate action to cast, grants immediate action attempt to escape artist out of the grapple with a bonus of double caster level (+16 at your level).
Disarm is easy to deal with, lock the weapon (Locking Gauntlet). Again, no need for switch hitting.
A 5' step will put you behind your ally thus granting you cover. Proper battlefield positioning and delayed actions should make it so you never have to take an AoO for shooting while in melee.
Again, the point to all this is that your assertion that ranged combat is not feasible is just flat out wrong. Your particular build and situation is at fault, not ranged combat.
P.S. Since your GM seems so fond of houseruling, you might want to ask him to houserule Snap Shot so you can benefit from flanking with a ranged weapon.
Additionally, you may want to talk to some of your teammates about getting teamwork feats with you.
Both sets of feats are better options than switch hitting.
In the theoretical golf course battlefield that every ranged character participates in, yes, several feats are wasted, because I'd have no reason to utilize those feats.
In tight quarters where stuff has increased areas of threat and you're not permitted to make attacks, something that has become quite common in the AP I've played, I don't get the opportunity to use my crossbow because of Attacks of Opportunity or Grappling, and I have zero melee options at my disposal (they lost effectiveness by 5th level) to properly contribute to combat when those situations arise.
As for the damage portion, the biggest reason why an Archer would outpace the typical Bolt Ace user is because of Manyshot and other bow-only compatible options that Crossbows cannot access because [reasons], otherwise I'm more SAD than an Archer is, and by mathematical relation should have better ability modifiers to my attacks (and damage).
Seriously, I can't have special ammunition, such as Trip Arrows, Blunt Arrows, etc. because crossbows are overshadowed due to Lord of the Rings. If Crossbows were even given the opportunity to have the same options and abilities as Archers, ammunition or otherwise, they'd find their equal soon enough.
In this case, it can be due to how I'm going about it (which I have to, since crossing my t's and dotting my i's is important, since building it typically wouldn't work). Otherwise, typical switch-hitters only need Power Attack, and maybe Weapon Finesse, and boom, they have melee relevance too. If they can spare 7+ feats for their ranged combat, they can spare one or two more for melee capabilities too, which most ranged characters have bonus feats to help with.
I didn't lose out on feats by multiclassing to a class that gets more bonus feats than the Bolt Ace ever does, that's silly.
Switch hitters never have relevance.
1) You do not need to switch hit when threatened. You need Point Blank Master, an easy feat to acquire if you had if you had gone for a Bow vs a Crossbow.
Even without PBM, it is easy to avoid those AoOs. Have cover behind an ally, no AoO. Take a 5' step.
2) As for feats, you are wasting several feats to build yourself into a switch hitter. Use them to buff your AC to the point where you don't care about AoOs.
Summary: You are choosing an option that is much more difficult to get to work (crossbows), wasting feats on a useless option (switch hitter), multiclassing when you shouldn't and your GM is screwing you by removing Weapon Focus while at the same time as raising their AC beyond the norm.
This is not a problem with ranged combat, it is a problem with your and your GM's choices.
P.S. We are not telling you crossbows are bad-wrong-fun. We are telling you there is not a problem with ranged combat, which is your assertion. If you had said 'why is crossbow ranged combat bad' we would be having a different discussion. Your set up the Crossbow vs Bow discussion with your title and build choices.
1. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload
3. Crossbow Mastery
4. Extra Grit
5. Deadly Aim
7. Weapon Finesse (Dex to Attack in melee, which isn't granted from EQF), Empty Quiver Style
---
9. Stabbing Shot (acquired via Ranger Combat Style for retraining Precise Shot, GM approved), Empty Quiver Flexibility (full switch-hitting compatibility, increased sneak attack application and providing flanking/threatening bonuses)
11. Improved Precise Shot, Point Blank Master (sometimes even
13. Improved Critical (17-20/X3 multiplier), Accomplished Sneak Attacker?
Summary: you built a bad build and you blame ranged combat? Interesting logic.
You have a lot of wasted feats. Starting with going Crossbow to begin with.
It requires extra feats to be useful and does less damage than bows (bow users benefit from strength).
Never build to be a switch hitter, it is one of the worst things you can do in Pathfinder. That is a lot of wasted feats that could be spent on increasing your actual combat effectiveness.
What class, archetype, race, etc have you selected?
What were your starting ability scores?
Where did you put your level points?
Where have you put your favored class bonus?
What equipment do you have?
All of those factor into your problem.
Summary: don't say ranged combat is bad if the problem is your build.
Except for ability scores, I'm pretty sure the rest of that information was in the post you quoted, dude, just a couple of paragraphs up.
He had a wall of text, I missed it.
Rereading it, I would not have multiclassed, he loses progression on his feats.
As for the loss of weapon focus, that actually hurts a number of builds that use it to offset things.
It becomes clear why he has problems, GM house rules, a build with a less than clear focus, and lack of wealth.
Generally, crossbows should be avoided. They do less damage than bows (no strength bonus), lose manyshot, and take more feats. There is almost nothing to redeem them.
Favored Class bonus: HP
Ranger's Focus 3/day, +4attack/damage
Equipment: +1 Mithril Breastplate (5.35k), +2 Comp. (+2str) Bow (8.6k), Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2 (4k), +2 Cloak of Resistance (4k), Efficient Quiver (1.8k), 1k in misc arrows = 24.75k
Attack bonus: 8bab, +6dex, +1wf, +2enh, +1pbs^, -2rs^, +4rf^
Damage: +2str, +2enh, +1pbs^, +4rf^
(optional damage is marked with ^)
Single Attack: +17 (+1pbs, +4rf) for 1d8+4 (+1pbs, +4rf)
Full Attack: +17*2/+12 (+1pbs, +4rf) for 1d8+4 (+1pbs, +4rf)
Rapid Shot: +15*2/+15/+10 (+1pbs, +4rf) for 1d8+4 (+1pbs, +4rf)
The Ranger version sacrifices the ability to tank (due to less AC) and some attack/damage bonuses for skills, spells, etc but in a pinch it makes up for that with Ranger's Focus and can be in the back since he ignores Cover/Concealment.
Similar builds can be made with an Inquisitor, Paladin or any number of other classes.
P.S. This isn't theorycrafting, this is basically a tweak of an existing build that I have played up through level 12.
1. Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload
3. Crossbow Mastery
4. Extra Grit
5. Deadly Aim
7. Weapon Finesse (Dex to Attack in melee, which isn't granted from EQF), Empty Quiver Style
---
9. Stabbing Shot (acquired via Ranger Combat Style for retraining Precise Shot, GM approved), Empty Quiver Flexibility (full switch-hitting compatibility, increased sneak attack application and providing flanking/threatening bonuses)
11. Improved Precise Shot, Point Blank Master (sometimes even
13. Improved Critical (17-20/X3 multiplier), Accomplished Sneak Attacker?
Summary: you built a bad build and you blame ranged combat? Interesting logic.
You have a lot of wasted feats. Starting with going Crossbow to begin with.
It requires extra feats to be useful and does less damage than bows (bow users benefit from strength).
Never build to be a switch hitter, it is one of the worst things you can do in Pathfinder. That is a lot of wasted feats that could be spent on increasing your actual combat effectiveness.
What class, archetype, race, etc have you selected?
What were your starting ability scores?
Where did you put your level points?
Where have you put your favored class bonus?
What equipment do you have?
All of those factor into your problem.
Summary: don't say ranged combat is bad if the problem is your build.
Go Alchemist or an archetype that gets Mutagens as a class feature. Make the Mutagen a Dex-based mutagen. you do take a will penalty doing so, but it's a +4 Dex bonus and +2 Natural Armor bonus.
Granted, it is a "temporary" boost, but it's 10 mins per level- so it can last for a while, versus the duration of a potion.
A word about Snakeskin Tunic- it does grant a +1 AC bonus, so if you are already wearing armor, you're paying 8000g for a body slot Belt of Dex and some poison resistance.
Mutagen is a different dexterity bonus. It is not an enhancement bonus. He is looking for an Enhancement bonus.
Just like the subject line, are there ways to give me a +2 or more to Dex without a belt? A method without temporary spells like cats grace. My belt slot will be occupied with a belt of Giant Strength. Thanks all.
Just get it upgraded to a Belt of Physical Might.
How much would that cost?
+2 Belt of Giant Strength has a price of 4,000gp.
+2 Belt of Physical Might has a price of 10,000gp.
Pay the difference when they are upgraded. 10,000-4,000 = 6,000gp.
Note: Lady-J's statement of 3,000gp is referencing the cost if you upgrade it yourself with Craft Wondrous Item (1/2 the price).
If you buy a new one (10,000gp) and sell your old one (4,000gp/2 = 2,000gp) then the price difference is 8,000gp.
Just like the subject line, are there ways to give me a +2 or more to Dex without a belt? A method without temporary spells like cats grace. My belt slot will be occupied with a belt of Giant Strength. Thanks all.
Is legal move, free the grab, and continue moving?
If you do that, are you not provoque aoo?
Mmm
To move someone using grapple you have to make a grapple check, but you since you moved, you won't be able to move again.
Does the Move Grapple effect count as Moving as in the Move Action called Move?
You normally can't Move after Attacking. Maybe if you have Spring Attack?
Maybe you can 5' Step away from the edge of the Pit back from the edge of the Pit?
I've never thought of this scenario before.
No, the "Move Grapple effect" does not count as a move action though it is moving.
You can absolutely move after attacking. Spring Attack allows you to attack DURING the move.
Here is an example of what you can do:
Attack, Move
Move, Attack
Move, Attack, Swift action to activate Quick Runner's Shirt, Move.
Spring Attack = full round action that gives you a movement of minimum 10' but less than total move speed followed by an Attack followed by the remainder of your move speed.
And...while grappling...Standard action to maintain and move 1/2 your speed (this does not take a move action, it is part of the standard action to maintain), free action to release, and then move.
No, you cannot 5' step away from the pit because you moved during your standard action (the maintain grapple check with the move option selected). You have to spend a move action to move away from the pit.
