Gherrick's page

Suggestion on weapon usage: I would REALLY want to see a total revamp on this. Something like a custom dialog that only enables the valid options. In the dialog, you would see all the different options, much like the "Buffs" tab, just a lot smaller.

The main reason is to allow adding some restrictions on options such as class, level, feats, etc, and to support more than two "uses". "Handedness" would be one separate option (dropdown or radio group), if the weapon supports multiple handedness (I think light weapons do not). Then a section for special attacks (FoB, PBS, et al), when you meet the prereqs.

Also, if you are feeling especially ambitious, improving the interface for general equipment such that you don't have to edit your inventory right on the character sheet, but inside some other tab. This might allow an easier time with containers, since the user won't need to worry about shifting lines down to add more room (or similar sheet logistical acrobatics).

Dex Kensai Magi can get some insane defenses, making them viable front-liners. My group has two front-liners, with the other being a full plate fighter wielding a two-handed dorn derger. Makes for a good balance, with one having a great touch AC, and the other having a solid flat-footed AC.

I'm curious to see the breakdown of the numbers on that zen archer. What is the bonus damage per shot, and from what sources?

As to ways to "fix" archery, limit their targeting options would go a long way. Perhaps add a cost to switching targets (attack penalty, skip an iterative, etc), and/or only allow targets within a 60-90 degree arc of the initial target.

Well, the book's been shipped, so this is a bit late to suggest: one idea I had to help the martial classes would be to graduate the loss of iterative attacks based on movement, rather than all-or-nothing. Something like: moving between 10' and half your movement loses your lowest iterative, while moving over half is treated as normal (single attack only). Monks could still flurry, losing only one attack in the process when moving. With their enhanced movement, even half movement would be very beneficial.

I have a level 8 fighter (no archetypes) that uses an adamantine dwarven dorn-derger +1 to very good effect. He does d10+20, which is more than enough per swing to make the enemy properly cringe. The only other person in the party that can even come close is the ranger, and even then he has to hit multiple times to match a single hit of mine. His AC is higher than all but the Kensai Magus, who has his AC beat by 4-8 points, depending on buffs (both a 'role'd as defenders, one with awesome touch AC, the other with awesome flat-footed AC, which is a good balance). Last fight, we were able to kill a behir in 1.5 rounds, right before it was able to swallow whole our halfling summoner (Cleric => Burning Disarm on the summoner's chain shirt was INSPIRED! First kill shot for the cleric the entire campaign).

To address the OP directly, my own experience is that fights end MUCH quicker when you focus on offense, as long as you don't let your saves and CMD suffer too much (CMD > AC, IMO). My fighter took the CMD bonus option vs grapple and trip, making it so the behir looked elsewhere for easier prey.

Swim speed is akin to Flight speed. Both make the applicable environment "native". Thus, unless the terrain is marked as difficult (both air and water could have difficult terrain), then you shouldn't need Freedom of Movement to charge. Yes, if you wanted to charge along the sea floor, then I would consider the water as difficult terrain (much worse, really) unless you had something like Freedom of Movement.

I'm not sure where the confusion is. Overrun requires you to enter the square of the target, while charge requires you you stop before their square. Since the combination is allowed via RAW (see overrun rules), only interpretations that validate the requirements of both actions should be considered. Resolve the charge first, then continue with the overrun.

I think super dungeons are the one place that can favor martial classes over the magical ones, simply because of resource management. This is especially true for lower point-buys, IMO. If the super dungeon is more like a chain of 5MWD's, then this does not apply.

Tis sad that the Beast Rider archetype Cavalier can't qualify for Horse Master (no expert trainer feature). I *really* wish there was the archetype was reworked such that more mount types were possible. Even if the "griffon rider" et al didn't gain mounted flight until later levels (for balance). Why even limit the list, or at least go through all current bestiaries and update the lists accordingly.

My main issue is that I want to build a non-horse medium-sized mounted combat character than can keep the same mount from levels 1 - 20 without needing to swap just for the sake of balance.

It is a most evil thing to do, however:

Feeblemind to begin the training, then Heal to restore their mind. Assuming you can cast the Feeblemind without the target knowing it was you, you could be the hero to them by being the one recognized as restoring them to normal. That won't change their basic nature, so unless the magical beast is lawful, it still might kill everyone nearby (including you).

I've never been fond of inconsistent verbiage in rules. I think Paizo would have had much less need for FAQs had they used more keywords consistently, and clearly indicated (via different styles) rules text and flavor text.

I remember someone at Paizo explaining that they chose a more loose writing style to help keep the books from being too dry (or possibly less "gamey", I can't recall precisely). IMO, I want my rules to be very dry and precise, but surrounded by flavor text that bridges the gap between the rules and the "real (game) world".

I think the Beast Rider archetype is overall pretty bad. Mostly because of the over-restrictive list of allowed mounts, and leaving little room for any concept that includes riding the same mount through all levels (unless you are small).

I would have preferred something like the following: pick an animal type: canine, feline, ursine, equine, raptor, et al. This way you could have each type gain different features as they level, to better keep in balance. It also allows the player more "fluff" on exactly what kind of creature they are riding.

Alternately, use rules similar to eidolons to "build a mount" that match the concept. Maybe you want to be a mammoth rider someday, but for now, your baby elephant will just be able to carry you initially, and later on gain the ability to overrun/trample/gore/et al.

Glitterdust and Faerie Fire should be errata'd to explicitly state that they negate invisibility.

Interesting perspective. By RAW, the invisibility is not negated. The bonus to stealth normally gained by invisibility is countered by a penalty.

At a functional level, that means the target should still receive the other benefits of total concealment: a 50% miss chance, be immune to sneak attacks, et al.

I could also see a house-rule to downgrade concealment with those effects (or similar, like the classic bag of flour). Total concealment becomes partial concealment, and partial concealment is officially negated.

Sure you can.

Edit: Aziraya Zhwan beat me to it.

Requiring constant statements of "I move 5' and check for traps" seems more than ridiculous. I can see having the party move slower by being in "cautious mode", but the waste of repetitious and distracting monologue is a poor solution.

The best solution I've seen to date is to have the GM request a series of pre-rolled d20s from each player, and then a list of skill mods for the most common mods (perception and initiative being the most common). The DM can quickly determine the final skill check/initiative without tipping off the players as to their actual die roll.

Whirlwind Attack (Combat)

You can strike out at every foe within reach.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

Question: Can you use a reach weapon and non-reach weapon together (alternating between as desired) to attack everyone adjacent and within reach, or are you restricted to using only a single weapon? It is my understanding you can alternate weapons normally for iterative attacks, which may or not apply in this case. Please provide links to applicable rules in your response.

While Magic Vestment does say "You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus ...", I don't see anything too crazy or overpowered to allow it. MV is a 3rd level spell, and if you really want to use it on Mage Armor, I just don't see the harm.

If you are trying to keep the name similar to the original, Fiendsmasher works. I think they're both a little uninspiring, however.

Yeah, I have to agree the rest of the party cannot be optimized at all and the monk optimized to the hilt in order to get such a discrepancy.

Charge and Overrun stack, since the wording is "as part of a charge", not "instead of a charge attack" or similar. Therefore, you resolve the combined actions as it would make sense: first resolve the charge attack in an adjacent square, then resolve the overrun maneuver when entering the target's square.

Charge Through only comes into play IF there is a creature between you and your charge target. Having Greater Overrun also nets you a free attack on that interposing creature before continuing on to the charge target.

Yeah, a REAL effective answer for the kensai is to center a glitterdust on themselves the moment his "bump of trouble" goes off. I'm fairly sure glitterdust effectively counters any form of invisibility, as should the ever-classic bag of flour.

This entire topic is also a good reason I don't play evil campaigns...

That's the situation with my current gaming group. We solved it by having each player run two characters. While that almost inverts the issues (since you'll have 6 characters instead of 3), it does allow for more flexibility. The power loss with only 3 characters instead of 4 is MUCH worse than from 5 down to 4. Many encounters just can't be rebalanced effectively for only 3 characters.

This can get doubly fun with a Dorn Derger + Darting Viper feat so you can basically spiral in or out and hit practically everyone within your reach. While feat intensive, I could see a dwarven fighter with all the goblin/orc/giant cleave feats and CF/ICF + Enlarged just wading into a huge army of bad guys with quite sickening effect.

Would be a fairly nice custom item, and certainly fairly comparable cost-wise. I don't see anything game-breaking (any more than normal ROW for wizards, at least).

Official response on medium Beast Rider Cavaliers: the mounts listed are options you get at level 4 but can't select until level 7.

Sigh. I REALLY like the beast rider concept, but this issue drives me nuts every time it comes up. Why not just have the mount use the medium stats until 7, which it then gets the large stats. RAW, I simply CANNOT play a concept that has the same mount from 1 to 20, unless I choose a small character. Who ever could think this was a good idea!?

I have a character that I built back in the 2e days (Warrior/Beast Rider kit), and was able to finally rebuild him in 3.5 once the Animal Lord PrC came out, but this archtype IMO is a pale shadow of what it could be.

IMO, Paizo would be better served by making the mounted charge it's own action, rather than trying to blend it with the standard charge rules. Have it so to charge while mounted (et al), you merge actions of the rider and mount (so it isn't two actions but only 1). I believe this is intent of the "act in unison" part of the FAQ clarification. The next step is to clarify which traits/feats/class features that affect mounted charges and how. For example, which feats work and don't work unless the rider or mount has them, etc.

Tom Knauss wrote:

Chuck Wright wrote:

Tom did a real bang-up job on this book, by the way. I remember while laying it out that the thought "Damn, Tom did his research!" crossed my mind many, many times.

An acquaintance made the mistake of trying to "school" me on the fact that 100 degree temperature in Vegas and 100 temperature in Florida felt the same. Yes, they're both hot, but there is a big difference in how they feel and why.

100% accurate and almost impossible to convince a lot of people who've never been it.

I visited Fresno once, and I was amazed that 100+ degree weather with about 3% humidity felt awesome! I live in Michigan, and the humidity is usually a LOT higher, so a 80+ degree day with 60%+ humidity is pretty miserable (but much preferred over our winters...). I would expect Florida to have it even worse as for temperature and humidity.

The book title makes me reminisce about the desert of desolation adventure series. I would buy an adventure path conversion of that in a heartbeat.

IMHO this is all because PF changed how incorporeal worked. In 3.5 it was a 50/50 miss chance instead of half damage.

And it was a good change. I hated that miss chance; little is as depressing as using your best spell and have it be 100% ineffective because of a bad roll.

Random non-sequitur: I think a "Shadowrun: Dark Ages" product would be awesome :)

"Draw a line that goes by the target, not through him", this is the ruling I will be using in my game, it works, it's not game-breaking (at least, not yet) and it's easy to explain.

And that verbiage should probably exist in RBA as the rule-change to clear up any doubt.

Perhaps just tweak the ratio of Int bonus to skill points. Try using a 2:1 ratio of Int bonus.

I wonder how much additional work it would be to allow for a HD-pdf download option and bump up the dpi to 300 or even 600 dpi? The file size would be substantially larger, but it seems like the pdfs are rendered on demand in any case to stamp the user's identity onto the pdf.

Kensai magus:

Fighter Training (Ex)

Starting at 7th level, a kensai counts his magus level –3 as his fighter level for the purpose of qualifying for feats (if he has levels in fighter, these levels stack), but forfeits the benefit of such feats with weapons other than his favored weapon.

Steel Soul is a definite high-priority pick. Combat Reflexes when you have a 14 Dex is not terribly useful. IMO, Opportunity Attacks are very rare in the best of circumstances.

Also, I second the Dwarven Dorn Derger as a very flavorful and effective weapon. With Darting Viper, you can switch between reach and non-reach as a swift action. Weapon Focus/Weapon Training(flails) should give you some awesome accuracy.

More Feats to consider are Cleave and Cleaving Finish. The latter gives a free attack to a creature in reach if you land the killing/KO blow on a foe. With the DDD and Darting Viper, you could change between reach/non-reach before resolving CF.

I think it would be a good idea to use the knowledge skills in place of "passive" perception, and reserve the actual perception skill to be more like Search. As some have suggested, use Dungeoneering to detect traps underground, Nature to detect an ambush outside, Local to spot trouble looming in a nearby alley, etc. It would increase the desire to spread the skill points around more, as well as the use/value of knowledge skills, which IMO have often been underappreciated.

For Intuitive combat, consider this:

Intuitive combat(Ex): The monk gains a dodge bonus to AC equal to their Wisdom bonus. This bonus increases by 1 at 3rd level, and every three levels thereafter, up to a maximum increase of +6 at 18th level.

The monk may use Wisdom in place of Strength or Dexterity on attack rolls made with unarmed strikes and/or monk weapons. A monk may add his level-based AC Bonus to repel rolls (rules here, don't like it? don't use it).

The monk cannot use this feature while wearing armor, carrying a shield, or being more than lightly encumbered.

Note: dodge bonuses inherently stack with other dodge bonuses, and are also lost when flat-footed or helpless. Alternately, I'd consider making the bonus an armor bonus (so it won't stack with Mage Armor/bracers), but have it also apply to touch AC.

So, I was looking for a race that had Str/Int to build a Str-based magus, but I was shocked to not find a single race that has that. Lots of Dex/Int races, but not a single Str/Int??

Helpful (Halfling)
Benefit: Whenever you successfully perform an aid another action, you grant your ally a +4 bonus instead of the normal +2.

Aid Allies (Ex)
At 2nd level, whenever an order of the dragon cavalier uses the aid another action to assist one of his allies, the ally receives a +3 bonus to his armor class, attack roll, saving throw, or skill check. At 8th level, and every six levels thereafter, this bonus increases by an additional +1.

Is there a way to get these to stack legitimately? I'm guessing not, but perhaps I'm missing something.

I agree that charge through + elephant stomp essentially forces you to abandon the original charge + overrun (if you stomp the mook), but that is precisely because of the wording of elephant stomp. You could wait and stomp the charge target if the overrun check meets the requirements. This works because ES replaces the normal overrun results.

As for the charge+overrun combo being a "super move", as you mention the requirements are fairly steep, combining quite a few feats to be able to pull off consistently.

Core feats:
Power Attack (Str 13) / Improved/Greater Overrun

Ignore difficult terrain:
Nimble Moves (Dex 13) / Acrobatic Steps (Dex 15)

Ignore mook:
Charge Through

Important but not critical:
Combat Reflexes (Dex 14+ to be useful)
Elephant Stomp

It is quite simple: You can only move twice your base speed as a full round action (unless you run). Charge sets the limit to twice your base movement, and overrun is silent, therefore defers to the base rule. A base speed of 30' means you can move at most 60' total.

After you resolve the charge, the only movement restriction of overrun (RAW) is that you must pass through the target. So, you need at least a 10' distance to charge, plus another 5'+ to move through the creature (depending on size), and you can move in any direction after you enter the creature's space, up to twice your base speed (counting the movement used in the charge).

Keep in mind, Charge+Overrun is a hybrid action, but one explicitly allowed by the rules.

I'd restrict the alternate attack progression calculation to BAB + weapon enhancement bonus + (greater) weapon focus (and possibly weapon training), and not cap number of attacks.

So, a level 20 fighter with weapon training 5, greater weapon focus, and a +5 weapon would have an effective BAB of 32, giving a base attack progression of +32/+27/+22/+17/+12/+7/+2 = 7 attacks. How is this any more potent or time consuming than a caster that uses an AOE spell than affect 7+ targets?

Personally, I would only apply this rule for *melee* attacks. Ranged combat has enough advantages that this boost isn't necessary.

The thing is, I'm playing PFS, so I can't talk in advance to the GM to see if he would accept such a thing...

I fail to see how the GM could deny it legitimately, since it does not violate any official rules. If they try, elevate it to the event coordinator, and point out that you are not violating any rules (you aren't even bending any rules, you just super-specialized the build resources of your companion). It is my understanding that a PFS GM can only arbitrate grey areas in the rules, which is not the case here.

This seems so obvious, I have no idea why it never occurred to me before, and I don't recall this solution ever being proposed before.

Cap effective caster level by spell level.

Spell levels 1-2 are capped at 5
Spell levels 3-4 are capped at 10
Spell levels 5-6 are capped at 15
Spell levels 7-8 are capped at 20
Spell level 9 is uncapped

The primary purpose of this house rule would be to soften the quadratic nature of a caster's power curve. This means spells like mage armor (spell level 1) will never last more than 5 hours without adding metamagic to extend, etc.

An alternate use of the Heighten Spell metamagic would allow you to raise the effective cap. Intensify Spell would have a similar effect (but specific to the damage, not other aspects).

Well, I really want to believe your interpretation is right, since my eidolon has taken all the Overrunning feats, which would mean she could charge pounce overrun and if successful then i would get an Aoo from my foe when he's knocked prone.

Nevertheless, I think most Gms won't let that fly sadly...

Which is absurd, for three reasons:

The only problem I see with your interpretation is the following : if your charge finishes before the overrunning attempt, then you wouldn't get the +2 to overrun, which seems a bit strange since you would be able to use the momentum you gathered while charging to use the overrun.

The charge attack itself absorbs the bonus momentum gained by charging, leaving nothing extra for the overrun. Since the section on overrun does not explicitly grant the charge bonus, this is the only interpretation that makes sense (to me).

We have all failed to see the obvious, and I finally realized the correct interpretation of resolving Charge+Overrun:

Resolve the charge first, THEN the overrun. Here is why:

* The target of charge is a creature
* The target of overrun is a space somewhere past a creature, not the creature itself (the overrun check is to complete the "pre-goal" of getting passed the creature, much like an acrobatics check for preventing AoOs during movement)
* Charge+Overrun is simply combining both goals into a single action (the overrun effectively becomes a free action).

P . . T . . O

If P wants to Charge+Overrun T to get to square O, the charge restrictions only apply to the line between P and T. Once you arrive at T, you finish the charge maneuver and proceed with the overrun maneuver (which means moving through T's space if successful).

IF there is a creature between P and T, you can still charge+overrun T IF you have Charge Through, because that feat gives you the exception needed for charge to bypass the restriction of having a clear path.

please look at the thread jason risner linked earlier i explained how charge works with over run and why you cannot charge over run and attack someone.

the short answer is charge has reztrictions on what is a viable target you cannot charge with obstackesin the way unless exceptions Re made.

for the more comrehensive snswer read the thread he linked.

I have looked at the thread, and I fail to see how you draw your conclusion. The Charge Through feat provides the exception needed to bypass the restriction of the charge action for having a clear path.

But that isn't the specific aspect of this discussion that I was focused on. Even without Charge Through, you can combine Charge + Overrun because the rules say you can. So, if there are multiple interpretations of the rules, and one interpretation leads to one or more contradictions, then that interpretation is most likely invalid. My interpretation does not invalidate any rules (feel free to point out any I am missing, because I already addressed the one you mentioned above).

P . . T . . O

If P wants to Charge+Overrun T to get to square O, the charge restrictions only apply to the line between P and T. Once you arrive at T, you finish the charge maneuver and proceed with the overrun maneuver (which means moving through T's space if successful).

Gherrick wrote:

I have a level 7 elven kensai magus (classic scimitar build) and I have the best AC in the group (by a good margin with prep: shield is crazy good). While he's a bit squishier than the human fighter, Toughness makes up for the elven Con penalty. His biggest weakness is getting surprised (which will rarely happen after next level). His touch AC is the same as his regular AC, but ugh, flatfooted AC is BAD. Fortunately, the fighter has the opposite problem, which is why we have two kinds of frontliners in the group :)

Are you a dex or str build? Sorry I'm not aware of what the traditional build is.

Elves are traditionally dex-based (implying Weapon Finesse/Dervish Dance), since that is where their racial ability bonuses line up strongest. It is unfortunate that there are no +Str/+Int races at all.