Gorgol's page

Just to correct a few points made by Sir Vague:

Claws are natural weapons, and unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons. Feral combat training lets you use claws in a flurry of blows, and apply monk feats to them, but it does not suddenly give you six full STR iteratives at level 9.

Monk Unarmed strikes are considered BOTH natural and manufactured weapons. Since you would be using Unarmed as your Primary strikes, the natural weapon attacks are secondary giving them half strength. As such...

You also can't actually take Multi-Attack without having three natural weapons to begin with (which a human, even with Catfolk Exemplar, does not, she only has the two claws, you'd need another source for the third).

You do in fact have three natural weapons so you DO qualify for the Multi Attack Feat.

Additionally, he somewhat misleadingly writes the Rake attacks out in the block with the iteratives. Dire Tigers only get the 3rd and 4th claw attacks as part of a Rake, which can only be done on a target they began the round grappling, and cannot be done in the same round the target is grappled.

The guide assumes you are pouncing as part of this attack. Rakes can be executed as part of a pounce without the grappling requirement

(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rule s/#Pounce_Ex)

That is true but then, as I said, the BBEG's surprise round is the readied action. Everything that transpires for the next 15 rounds is just filler as he is using a free action to talk and then re-readying his action.

The PC's do not need to be aware of Initiative at this point (as it will only affect their action and nothing overtly hostile has happened to clue them into the situation), because regardless of what happens, he isn't acting until the player starts casting. At that point the readied action takes precedence (since it was readied before the player's turn).

The readying of the action to counter Player 1 happened (if measured in rounds, do to the over a minute of discussions that happened after the BBEG became suspicious) 15 rounds before the player acted aggressively. Saying that the player gets a chance for priority in that situation literally makes no sense.

Saying that readying an action that displays no intent, combined with the fact that no sense motive checks were made to even gleam that the BBEG might be preparing something, is an aggressive action that would start combat also doesn't make sense.

Treating the readied action as a silent surprise round and the aggressive action of the player as the first consequential action in initiative is the only thing that does make sense.

You seem to get caught up on the "everyone is aware" portion of the surprise round description while completely ignoring the "opponent" portion of the description.

No one was treating this BBEG as an opponent. They are not even aware that this was an opponent as characters, because they were meta-gaming the hell out of this. The only player that could act aggressively (due to the fact that the others were under the effects of calm person) is this particular player. Due to the overall tone though he was not.

However his actions and demeanor suggested that he was going to do something. There is no way to handle that without introducing the meta of "You are now in initiative" which breaks the entire situation into a mad rush that DM_Blake has described with his peasant girl example.

Telling my players Initiative has started without any aggressive action taking place, would mean they would attack.

They do both know they are there, but neither is exhibiting aggression. Even the readied action is not aggressive until it is perceived, which it wasn't. This was an open non-aggressive discussion. No one perceived the BBEG as a threat and the BBEG until the sense motive check was not even concerned about the PC behavior.

This is essentially Han (BBEG) shooting Greedo (PC).

No, it doesn't play out differently.

First, telling a player to roll initiative, basically removes any semblance of a reasonable resolution to a situation. Forcing that initiative roll would have caused combat to happen sooner, and possibly unnecessarily.

Next, since the action that would have started combat would be the readied action as a standard, the entire action could would have been part of the surprise round. The player at that point had not actually done anything to initiate combat, but his actions were causing the NPC to be cautious. He, the player, for all intents and purposes would have been flatfooted and unable to act in the surprise round. Especially since readying an action doesn't in any telegraph intent, and the PC's Sense Motive rolls were abysmal.

So with the action readied the player then in the first round, assuming he wins initiative, casts and the readied action still occurs.

To respond, the NPC would have started initiative with the readied action in the example where initiative is considered.

The entire thing was abbreviated to keep things moving along, as DM_Blake showed, since only the player and the BBEG were able to act at this point.

Since the Hold Person would then have priority due to the readied action and the mage casting create pit has already committed to that action. Would they have the option to stop that action in order to cast the sphere though?

This is an odd scenario that popped up yesterday.

Calm talks with the BBEG are going on and Player 1 fails a bluff check creating suspicion. BBEG readies action to cast hold person if Player 1 does anything provocative (still out of combat).

Player 1 begins casting (spell is irrelevant at this point but it was create pit). BBEG casts Hold Person as a counter. Player fails will save and uses immediate action to cast Emergency Force Sphere.

My questions about this are:
1. Since he failed the will wouldn't that have prevented his ability to do the Immediate Action?

2. Can you use an immediate action in this way since he was already focused on casting a different spell?

3. What exactly should/would have transpired in this situation?

Mounted Skirmisher seems like a wasted feat.

For a DC 5 ride check (With no action) you can guide your mount's movement with your knees:
Ride Skill

If you have a mount chances are Ride is a class skill so this becomes trivial.

Why does this feat even exist? If it was worded more like Pounce but for the mount it would be worthwhile. Otherwise I can basically sit on top of a mount, move the mount's speed every turn, and full attack with no need for this feat.

I have been looking around just to make sure that this is the case but....

If I take the Aasimar Oracle favored class bonus that gives me +1/2 to the class level for a specific revelation and apply that to the Lunar Oracle's Primal Companion. Does anything in the rules prevent that companion from being considered above my level?

In this case if I take the favored class bonus for level 1 and 2 then my primal companion "should" be considered level 3 as per the animal companion chart. At level 4 it would be 6, at 6 it would be 9 and so on.

What about true seeing and Shadow Blend(ing)?

@BigNorseWolf: Where can I find the RAI on that?

@Todd Morgan: I was actually considering dropping Barbarian altogether as having the bonus feats from fighter would allow me to have THF and TWF feats galore to take advantage of both of them.

I have been searching around for an answer to questions on a build

I am working on a build for a character that uses:

7 Two-Handed Fighter
2 Urban Barbarian
4 Internal Alchemist, Vivisectionist

First off is this build PFS Legal. My only real concern is that the two Alchemist Archetypes may not be usable together.

Second as I will eventually have 4 arms... Would I be able to dual wield Great Swords using Two-Weapon Fighting Feats?

Lastly would these feats work with the Two-Handed Fighter abilities like Back Swing?

Your false positive idea is an intresting one. Putting that aside,

NPC: These are not the droids you are looking for.

'If the DC is missed by only a couple... "You believe what he is saying is true but he seems to be holding something back"'
PC: These are absolutely the droids I am looking for.

'If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"'
PC: These are absolutely the droids I am looking for.

In both instances, especially, the second one, that reaction doesn't quite fit. If the player believes these are the droids and refuses to play it any other way, dice be damned, that's metagaming. On the other hand should I,

GM: No, you don't sense any deception. Act like it.

You forget, my stance is based off you rolling the check for your PCs. This is how the conversation really goes

NPC: These are not the droids you are looking for.

PC: I don't believe him...

GM: What is your bonus to Sense Motive? *Roll checks behind the screen*

[I always roll two dice even if the NPC isn't bluffing, that way the PC has no idea what is going on and can't meta game.... in fact sometimes I just randomly roll dice when my PCs make decisions because it keeps them aware]

'If the DC is missed by only a couple... "You believe what he is saying is true but he seems to be holding something back"'
PC: I have no clue what I actually rolled so I might as well listen to the GM, or I can be a complete tool and keep being contrary.

'If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"'
PC: I have no clue what I actually rolled so I might as well listen to the GM, or I can be a complete tool and keep being contrary.

The real power of the Magus is when you start using Spellstrike with a weapon with a huge crit range. Keened Katana is my favorite. Then your spell crit with your weapon. d6x2 + 5d6x2 off a single swing using only a level 1 spell... oh and then you have a second hit after that.

A PC makes a Sense Motive check vs an NPC and fails it, now what?

In the past I've required that the character behave as if he believed that NPC, but lately I'm wondering if that's too heavy-handed. I'm thinking of dropping that down to simply sensing no deception.

My problem is that I feel like this leads to metagaming. If you sense no deception from someone, why wouldn't you believe them? How do you fine GMs handle this situation?

Depends on the situation and how much he failed it by. This is why I typically suggest the DM rolling the Sense Motive for the PC so he doesn't have an idea what he rolled.

If the DC is missed by only a couple... "You believe what he is saying is true but he seems to be holding something back"

If the DC is missed by 5+... "You do not sense any deception"

If there isn't anything to hide and roll is success (why wouldn't it be)... "You do not sense any deception"

If roll is super high yet there is nothing to hide... "You believe he is lying to you" because at that point if the PC is so suspicious that he is questioning everything the NPC says he is going to find something to create doubt in his own mind.

Hiding the outcome of the rolls deters meta-gaming. Having generalized responses that overlap prevent meta-gaming even more. I have PCs that sense motive for no reason other than the fact that they refuse to trust anyone. It is always interesting when they roll their (typically very high) sense motive and get a response that completely derails the planned content.

Personally, I hate, loath and despise them all (Don't mod me bro, it's just my opinion).

The APG classes weren't so much power creep as they were a power leap imo. Not only that, but they are completely gratuitous. We really didn't need a summoner when there are already conjurers and sorcerers. They are all like that too. The witch is the worst offender here. Whenever I hear about parties of magi, summoners and alchemists I get a little more bitter.

To me, those classes just seem like a cynical ploy, like pay to win in F2P MMOs. Buy our book! Drive your party's Monk to drink and despair!

I hate modern game design in general.

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

I don't understand how you can justify calling them a Power Leap. If anything the Archetypes are the biggest offender in the APG. Zen Archer and Urban Barbarian are ones that easily outclass everything that any of the new base classes can do.

Every class in the game got a boost from APG just like every class in the game gets a boost when other books release. After the fiasco that was 3.5 (even without splat books) Pathfinder is beyond balanced.

If anything the APG added balance to the game by adjusting the tiers closer together. The base classes filled some holes left in the balance of smaller parties.

Honestly your post seems more like whining that your once supremely powerful class is now on par with the rest of the party.