Huan's page

Strangely, Pathfinder defines that it is entirely possible to cast spells when grappled (legal so long as one hand is free, DC 10+Opponents CMB+Spell Level concentration check) in lieu of "attempting to break or reverse the grapple" while it does not define how to cast as the grappler. So you could cast in the grapple if someone grapples you. Or you could initiate the grapple and cast on a subsequent round IF the grappled target chooses to become the grappler after succeeding on a grapple check on its turn. The DC would vary a great deal with an opponents CMB, making this either very effective or unlikely.

It would seem to be better to cast the touch spell on a previous round before initiating the grapple. Alternatively, one could houserule that grapplers could follow the same rules as those followed by those grappled.

Would this mean forgoing a grapple check and making the required caster level check with the above listed DC? Or would there have to be a grapple check involved (at the usual -4 for not having two free hands) before casting the spell? The former allows for the grappled to disrupt the casting by factoring their CMB, but i am not sure it explains why the grappled doesn't simply wiggle free. The latter would seem to exceed the action economy (grappling and casting are both standard actions in most cases).

i agree that contact from grappling would discharge the spell, based on the passage Gruuu found. i also agree that quickened, still spells would get around the problem.

In any case it seems that the rules give guidance without clear procedure so some house rules might be in order.

Edit: Greater Grapple allows one to maintain a grapple as a move action, opening up a standard action, as some have pointed out already. i would think that Greater Grapple therefore allows for the normal rules for casting in a grapple as one's standard action, following the move action of maintaining the grapple, as a house rule. The only downside is that even with Greater Grapple, initiating a grapple is a standard action, so casting would happen only on the second round. Does that make any sense?

It sounds like you made the right call, or at least a largely correct call. Protection from Evil should ward the oracle from the summoned bearded devil's natural attacks, provided the oracle overcomes its Spell Resistance (SR 16). But the spell would not prevent contact with any manufactured weapon wielded by the bearded devil (although the +2 deflection bonus to AC would still apply), and typically they have their nasty glaives.

The femdom thing goes back even further than FR. Gygax's early published AD&D modules (G1-G3 "Against the Giants" and D1-D3 "Decent to the Depths of the Earth") first featured female dominated drow noble houses and merchant clans, often allied with demons and daemons, battling for domination. Hence we have the now iconic Eclavdra: the original drow femme fatale. And it goes without saying that these adventures were definitely set in the World of Greyhawk.

Seems silly now but when i was a kid the idea of these vicious and scheming matriarchs made for great villains.

i see the point that chaotic evil tends toward the strong ruling the weak (while not so much for other chaotics), but i think that neutral evil might have little problem accepting that principle. i suppose i see chaotic alignments generally as rejecting universal moral principles first and foremost.

i'm still thinking the OP's PC is more neutral evil than anything else.

From my way of thinking, you're PC has more than a little evil going on. Mind you, not the "i want to enslave all sentient beings and eat them like popcorn" type of evil or even "hurting people is fun and should be done whenever possible" type or the "i'm bitter and will foil the plans of others just because i can" type. But somehow the level of intrinsic respect your PC displays to others is a little too mercenary and a little too cruel to be purely self-interested.

That said, i don't see lawful. Working to advance the position of one's house does not indicate any inherent respect for order. At the same time, i don't think worshiping a demon automatically qualifies one for being chaotic. If the demon is a useful ally to your house, so be it. i'm thinking neutral evil.

But the tone of the original post suggests, perhaps, that your PC does not realize that she is evil. Its not a question of fundamental morality for her, simply that the means that she choses are definitely less relevant than the ends to which she aspires. And people who get in the way or fail to "carry enough weight" are not worthy of preservation.

i agree that caster level checks, if not rules as written, work better than opposed charisma checks.

One of my most memorable 3.0 games from many years back involved my wizard counter-dominating the party's rogue who had already been dominated by an enemy wizard. Not having easy access to my 3.0 books today, i cannot check whether our DM was correct then in that system. All i can say now is that my DM used opposed caster level checks to resolve the question of whom the rogue obeyed each round. It was much more fun than opposed Charisma checks. Although i was playing a 12th level caster, the enemy wizard was a couple of levels higher and on average, i was going to lose the battle for control if it played out too much longer. The tug of war for the rogue finally ended when the enemy wizard did something that revealed his location (greater invisibility was in play)--close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades, or in this case Black Tentacles. Opposed charisma checks would have seemed cheap and certainly unfair to wizards who often have lower charisma scores while favoring bards and sorcerers.

Thanks! i clearly need to check the errata. That said, i can't see either combination being broken, given that they limit themselves to a single attack. Maybe my group will house rule this. Maybe not. As yet no one in our group has tried either the focused shot/vital strike combo...or the spring attack/vital strike combo.

-Huan

This is a long reply. You have been warned.... In short, i think we might be missing the point that the benefits provided by the feats in question are meant to augment more generic actions, such as attack actions and not create a host of discrete and equal but unmixable standard actions.

Are we tripping over the use of the phrase "standard action" in the Focused Shot feat? While i agree that the "benefit" section of the feat Focused Shot references itself as part of a standard action, i took that to mean that one could only gain the benefit as part of an attack action and not a full attack. It did not occur to me that Focused Shot was being defined as a standard action separate from other attack actions. Aren't most feats designed to add efficacy and flair to otherwise less effective unaugmented actions? The Core Rule Book (pages 182-184) presents attack actions as just that: whenever a player character makes a single attack, contrasted only with full attacks, defined as multiple attacks. The former is the first example detailed of the more general category "standard action"; the latter (Core 187)is the first example detailed of the more general category "full round action."

Put differently, "As a standard action, you may make an attack with a bow or crossbow and add your intelligence modifier on the damage roll. You must be..." (APL 160) describes a benefit that is tacked onto a normally available attack, which we already know is a standard action and more specifically an attack action. Perhaps it was unnecessary to include the introductory phrase "As a standard action,..." because the phrase tells us something that we already ought to know. The point is the benefit, unique to those who have taken the feat: adding you INT modifier to the damage roll.

Similarly, i am not convinced that Vital Strike and Spring Attack cannot be combined. Vital Strike (Core 136) as written has to be part of an attack action. Spring Attack (Core 134) is more tricky because it does not mention "standard action" or "attack action"--instead it mentions an attack taken during a single move. A single move is a move action, so the attack has to be an attack action (and not a full attack). The benefit from the feat is defined by when you get to perform the attack action (in this case during a move). It is still, presumably, an attack action ("Making an attack is an attack action", Core 182). Where does it say that Spring Attack and Vital Strike are discrete standard actions, separate even from more generic attack actions, that cannot be combined?

Having said all this, i wonder if i am missing something. Does any one know of any official clarifications on these feats?

-Huan

-Huan

i think the half-orc would have more love if orc ferocity was more appealing. Using it only once a day and then for only one round just seems weak. Their stat bonuses under the beta were quite attractive (Hello half-orc cleric, druid, monk, paladin, ranger...), but the floating +2 is even more attractive to some. If there is a problem with half-orc's stat bonus it may be that at least half of the stats don't seem very orky.

The Critic wrote:

what about an archery ranger using crossbows for background purposes? Just kinda wondering how Harsk lives up to the guide, and the feat picks would have to change due to adding reload time.. i do agree with most of these ratings though.. I would put Favored Terrain as strong if not stronger than favored enemy though - it's just more universally useful

Simply put, Harsk wouldn't BE an Archery Ranger. Crossbows can't be made composite, ergo it would be unwise to focus on crossbow combat as an archer.

With his dwarven con bonus though, Harsk is fairly well suited to being a switch hitter.

Does Paizo detail Harsk in any of its products? i'd be curious to see how they chose to build him. i'm fairly new to Paizo's adventure paths and such (just started collecting RotRL and have the Core Rules and Beastiary), so i probably missed a 3.5 version of him.

i think the boards ate my last three replys, so here i go again. Apologies if this is repetition...

Hydro, you caught me with my rule pants down when it comes to readied actions. The Iron Heroes approach makes me curious. i think that my group started to allow non-movement actions to be readied as the type of action they actually were, but we never discussed it as a group. It just started to happen and nobody protested.

The official rules are all the more reason for a monk to avoid using a reach weapon (two-handed) and Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. Come to think of it, most monks who chose to wield some kind of pole-arm would choose productive feats like Combat Reflexes instead.

i do understand what you are getting at. In general, monks have little reason to go around with their hands free if they can instead hold something useful and elbow/kick/knee their opponents with impunity. The reason i emphasized the Deflect Arrows feat and monks with two-handed reach weapons was (1) the monk with pole-arm seemed to be the most common example used in this thread, (2) Deflect Arrows is a bonus feat often chosen by monks, and (3) the text of the feat would seem to rule out monks using effectively any two-handed weapons of any kind. In other words, the wording of the feat forced a choice between two tasty flavors of monk: opportunity attacks with reach and blocking up to one missile each round. That said, the example is too narrow to address your more general point of monks never needing to keep their one or both hands free.

Why not give monks an incentive to have free hands? Here is a quick and dirty fix. Consider creating a new feat for any character with Improved Unarmed Strike (and possibly Stunning Fist as well). The new feat would find its way onto the list of monk's bonus feats in the Pathfinder RPG. The benefit could be +1 point of damage to every unarmed strike for each free hand (either +1 or +2). You could also consider increasing the DC of Stunning Fist by one point for each free hand, or, more conservatively, one point if both hands are free. You could go crazy and combine the damage bonus with the more limited increase to stunning fist. The point is the possibility of crafting an alternative for monks that makes keeping one's hands free a viable alternative to grabbing any old pole-arm or pointy stick.

One could look at giving monks with both hands free strength and a half damage bonus to unarmed attacks as an alternative, although that might be overpowered. The point is that a little feat or class alternative would go a long way in creating a viable alternative to the state as you see it now for monks. i tend to think that they already make sacrifices by picking up weapons, but there is no reason not to encourage monks to keep one or both hands free so long as it doesn't become the new "only option".

Lots of love for all that have been mentioned, but i have to say the 1st Edition Succubus. Comparatively weak as demons went, but then again she had a chance of summoning a type iv, a type vi, or a DEMONPRINCE once a day. Take that flimsy plot line!

This topic could be relevant to a game i'm in now, so i took a few minutes to think about it. Just some ideas...

In a 3.5 campaign i'm currently running one of the players has a goliath monk who switches between a Naganata and more typical unarmed strikes. Every so often i forget that he threatens to a distance of 10' and consequently one of the bad guys takes an unexpected AOO. In my experience it has not disrupted game play. As has been pointed out in this thread, the monk cannot flurry with a reach weapon. In the case of this monk, he used a feat to get the ability to proficiently wield a Naganata. Monks are not proficient in longspear or any other pole-arm in either 3.5 or Pathfinder, hence the need for a feat. Which is exactly why 3.X has feats, no? You get a limited number of them and some customization and non-standard abilities as a result.

The other path, taking a level of fighter (in 3.5 this would almost certainly have to be done at 1st level), has even more consequences than using a feat. Its not without other benefits, but it does slow one's monk progression.

Either way, feat or class level, i can imagine many players opting against a reach weapon for their monk because they had in mind a different use for their precious feats or were unwilling to slow their monk progression. If the choice came down to what weapon does a monk purchase and did not involve taking a feat or a level outside of the monk progression, i would agree that it was the best choice and that, perhaps, other roughly equal options should be added.

If anything, Deflect Arrows requires even more compromises. RAW (3.5 and Pathfinder) would not allow a monk or any other character with the Deflect Arrows feat to block an arrow while wielding a two handed weapon (which is to say reach weapons generally). Both rule sets explicitly define hands free as not holding anything, as written in the feat description. In a six second combat round, when a character is at the ready, thrusting, actually attacking, blocking and what have you, i can't imagine a monk or anyone else has much time to just casually grip their pole-arm with one hand for very long. And if they did so loosen their grip would it coincide with their enemy loosening an arrow?

i suppose one might be clever and end one's turn with a readied free action to let go with one hand if targeted by a missile weapon. But now, out of turn, that pole-arm no longer threatens, does it? At least not until the character's turn comes up again and the character can grip their weapon with two hands and attack. This tactic could work well many times, but at key moments might have consequences.

Consider the following: Monk player ends every turn with readied free action to loosen grip on two handed weapon if targeted by a missile weapon. Later in initiative, an orc takes aim and fires a crossbow. Monk deflects bolt. But then another orc, say a strong fighter type, rushes past the monk through a square or two, ten feet out such that the monk used to threaten but no longer threatens, closing with the party's arcane caster. Certainly changes the tempo of the battle, no? Furthermore, the monk has just changed her spot in the initiative track, which may also have consequences.

My point is that RAW would suggest there are many compromises that go with playing a monk with a reach weapon. i'm not sure it is as optimal as it might seem at first glance.

PS-i do see the point of the simulationist arguments. i went with a RAW-based argument to point out that the option has costs as well as benefits and may not need a house-rule.

When it comes to organized play, i agree with the others who have advised you to play it safe. Either have a back-up character or don't link your Paladin in any particular god but rather to principles "coincidentally" aligned with your god of choice.

That said, i'm torn on the issue of Paladins, the gods they serve, and alignment. My first character as a wonder-struck 7 year old in 1979 was a Paladin. "A Paladin in Hell" and the romantic ideal of a knight in shining armor standing for all that is right, never backing down, spoke to me then. i can't shake the notion that all Paladins and Lawful Good and with rare exception, serve Lawful Good gods.

At the same time, i have long wondered why only one alignment gets its holy roller. Sure, one could argue that any cleric can be played like a holy warrior but clerics are not Paladins. The flavor is different, largely thanks to their class abilities being different. i have no doubt that anyone could play a cleric like a paladin, but i would have a difficult time doing so. Would not each alignment have its own principled and empowered defenders? Would not any god seek out such devoted and unwavering mortal followers as Paladins? Did 4th Ed get this one right? Perhaps.

Two years back my group started "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft." An idea hit me: Half-Vampire Paladin (using the template from _Libris Mortis_). Of course his name would have to be Vlaad. His goddess? Ehlonna. A priest of a remote woodland chapel finds an infant on his front steps one morning. The kid was a little pale. The priest takes in the babe and does his best to raise it to love nature and all that is good under the sun. Confronted with the little sucker's (un)natural hunger, the priest diverts the young half-vamp away from blood drinking and toward the more mild template option of summoning wolves. To control the bloodlust, the young man is taught and adheres to strict discipline, to rules above and beyond what the typical follower of Ehlonna would follow. Vlaad does battle with his hunger. To make things interesting, i followed the rules of half-vamp bloodlust without deriving the benefit (as i said, i went with the wolf summoning varient), because it enhanced the flavor of my Paladin's battle for personal order. Overtly Vlaad fought the good fight for abstract good, but in practice had to be the embodiment of Lawful Good, or risk falling far from his ideals.

Vlaad is not all that different from the OP's character concept. Yes Ehlonna is Neutral Good, but i've never heard of anyone having a Paladin serving her. Vlaad's lawfulness is virtue born of the necessity to resist his inclination to kill and to feed upon those around him. His goodness would fail without his personal code, approved of by his goddess and her priests. Not your cookie-cutter version of Lawful Good or of a Paladin. Yet it worked. The game was not broken. Everyone had fun. And isn't that the point of our game?

The problem, it would seem, is that by necessity organized play tends toward a conservative reading of the rules of the game. Characters such as the OP's suddenly go from wicked-fun-had-by-all to illegal. i'm not sure i have a solution.