Claxon, using the wise words Syndrome, from The Incredibles:
Syndrome wrote:
*Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super...
[laughs maniacally]
Syndrome: ...*no one* will be.
Under a lot of conditions the "point arrays" may be as overwhelming (or underwhelming) optimized as, let say, an Aasimar with +4 in STR and +2 in CHA. A lot depend on the DM, the campaign and the personal preference of the players.
Those are some good ideas, but what I really wanted was some kind of fluff that make the build I had less monotonous (thus the burst damage, not necessarily good damage but not monotonous passive-flat damage like with the fighter). Nevertheless, you gave me a wonderful idea with the sneak damage: Slayer and Feinting Flurry. For that I think I have change a bit the build but 6 levels of slayers would net me 2d6 sneak attack and the study target at 12 to break the monotony.
Firebug
Do you mind to expand a bit more? Are you saying going 6 levels of Swashbuckler or the full build being Swashbuckler?
I do agree, but not on every case. When I design a world I use a recipe for a list of creatures that you don't need to make a check:
1. Make a top 10-20 list of the most dangerous* monsters** in the "world"
2. Take out the extra-planar ones, or those that are so uncommon that you will need to make 10 rolls to even believe that you are seeing one (e,g, a vampire-cyborg Tarrasque).
3. Fill the blanks with new monster
4. Repeat 1 to 3 until you are satisfied, bored or you have filled the top 10-20.
* Dangerous does not necessarily mean powerful: Trolls might not be as powerful as dragons but they may be more dangerous because they attack towns much more frequently. Much like falling from bed and white sharks - white sharks may eat you, but falling from bed is more likely to kill you (statistically speaking)
** Or group of monster when the group is quite wide, like Dragons.
A friend of mine fell in love with Glass (from the hero of the shield manga/light novel) and proposed to me a challenge: to make a (human looking) fighting fan warrior that use no armor, no magic/caster (unless it is to enhance the weapon, kind like the blackblade of the magus and magus in general), and that is kind of a powerhouse.
My idea is to use a dip on unchained monk (proficiency, WIS to AC and dodge), dex and Crane style for the defensive part and focused weapon (fan) as a way to compensate for the poor fan's damage (it makes the fan do 1d8 at fighter level 5). Until that point it seems solid enough, but I'm lost on the last 6 levels.
The build looks like
build:
Human
STR 9
DEX 18 (16+2)
CON 13
INT 12
WIS 16
CHA 7
What I feel it lacks is a punch, like a small dose of burst damage. I thought urban barbarian but the alignment change feels weird in this case. And continuing with fighter, well, it feels kind of bland.
And yet, 'decoys' can't possibly ever be a good idea?
OMG, no!!! Decoys are wonderful as tactics that require to defend a target, particularly if that target is not presented in the battlefield (the classic trope of "the princess is in another castle" kind of thing).
Decoys as part of an aggressive combat strategy are not good. The thing is that the player have to win (unless scripted) and that led to use decoys in an aggressive strategy as a defensive option (do you see the problem here?). And when you put CR into play, that 1/x decoy may be the difference between a good fight and a "uh? the caster died in a single hit" kind of moment.
Nevertheless, decoys are to alpha strikes, what fake "evil" enemies are to paladins. It may trick them once in a while, but they are not going to stop trying. They just have to know when and to whom "alpha strike".
For me, it would be better just to use different strategies that put theirs in a bad position: Spear attacks, alpha strikes (first to hit win), pincers, swarms, ball of death (synergy teams), and back-doors... almost any strategy that put them in a defensive position.
Also good ones are feints attacks (similar to decoys, but not quite), skirmished by weak enemies (preferable replaceable ones), battle of attrition if the alpha strikes are dependable on (big) resources, and almost every strategy that make the alpha strike moot because there is no target to alpha strike.
The decoy suggestion was based off parties who make it a habit to always alpha strike the bard/spellcater.
:facepalm: What kind of formation the team with the spellcaster and bards had to allow an alpha strike on them? I mean, outside of a surprise attack where the team is already at disadvantage.
Everything that I said still applies. If the players know that they have to rush to kill the wizard, the enemy knows that too (and that is not metagaming, much less a genius NPC, just simple, thinking NPCs). If the players knows that they have to protect the wizards/bards, the enemy does too. And if the players knows when they are screwed and when they need to flee or die (or even when to initiate combat)... the enemy also knows that.
The decoys are quite useless in those situations. If a solid formation and usage of the environment can't avoid an alpha strike, the decoy would not. I mean, that is if you REALLY want to win. If you just want the decoy to slow down and make more challenging the encounter, well... it may be a good solution in one or two fights tops.
1) Because the players are 'tricked' into thinking it is a threat. If they aren't tricked, the ploy fails.
2) What, you think you have a summoner hiding in an alcove you just leave him be? Or a buffing bard? The whole point is to make it difficult, but possible, so that the players waste their actions.
If you are insisting this is an impossible scenario, I'm not sure how to convince you.
About 2). Is not if they are tricked, is how they are tricked and what value do the target has over the guys in front of them.
If the buffing bard is making everyone a threat, I would not bother with the bard if I don't have the means to deal with it in a swift poof. I would just adjust my team to deal with the bigger, buffed, threats. From there is quite simple if you ask me. Did I start the battle? If I started the battle I just retreat; it is my field, I have the home advantage and plans B to D. If I didn't start the battle (or is not my field), I would pray for the best and that my guns are bigger than yours.
If the group encoumters a Troll for the very first time should they all know thry have a weakness to fire. No they should not imo.
I guess if everyone in that group trained inside a cave with no world interaction, I would agree that they should not know.
Have I fought a lion before? No. Do I know that my super kicks and amazing punches would do nothing against it? Probably; I may be a bit crazy, though.
When you are being trained to be a fighter, a wizard, a monk, or a normal living being in a world where dragons, trolls and so on exist, I bet that they would know that information 95% of the time. That is the kind of information that save lives and towns. Well, that is if you think that the world in which your character lives is a realistic one.
Here is a basic problem with decoys tactics. One, the enemy has to know why the decoys present a threat, and two, they have to be tempting enough to worth the risk.
_Ozy_ wrote:
How does it make the battle easier if a non-threat that is difficult to engage attracts the players attention and actions until it is dealt with? I don't understand the logic here.
Why? Because:
1. If is a non-threat, how would it attract attention?
2. If is difficult to engage, why bother?
Thus, it stop being a good decoy and only a target for later.
Decoys, metagaming (on classes and monsters) and DMs always trying to fool the party are all valid tactics. None of those are going to work all the time; they all have the same problem. When you realise that what you know is not reliable any longer, you would change your tactics.
And for the OP, there are hundreds of ways to start a fight that would solve your problem without relaying in "silence". A wolf, with an int of 2, may never (if it can avoid it) attack a bear... 5 wolves, might... and 10 positively. Now, what do you think a party of creatures with an int higher than 6 might do? What actions might they take when they realise that they are being butchered?
There is a fine line between metagaming and competence. They may not be the brightest enemies out there, but at certain point enemies are not longer a bunch of airheads and become seasoned veterans. In a world where Dragons exist, blood and fire make "people" to adapt quickly.
Two questions... According to the rules, monks unarmed strikes are natural weapons for things that enhance or improve them, right? So...
1. Does power attack fall in the category of "enhancing or improving" natural weapons? If not, why?
2. Since unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons, are they primary or secondary if an effect calls for one of them? (according to the rules, regardless of the type, if they only have one type of natural attack, it is considered primary)
In that regard I would prefer that the gauntlet became a weapon per-se, like how Steel Headbutt makes the helmet a weapon and not the convoluted mess of unarmed attack.
By the RAW at this point you get it only, and only, when you are in the stance. Also, as the wording says "you gain one extra per day" and not "per entering the stance", you only get one per day and not per entering the stance. Obviously it does not make sense, but RAW is RAW. If we went by RAI, it is fairly obvious that you gain an extra use per day without the need of entering the stance.
You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style
Given that "as a prerequisite" do not include the first style feat (it cannot be its own prerequisite), that line only references the associated styles [second and third feat, in most cases]. Now, in conjunction with the whole [style] text and the lack of mentioning of the "style" feat, it can only mean that this "style" feat do not require to enter the stance to acquire any bonuses that are not specified as "While using this style".
Style text:
For centuries, great warriors have looked to nature and the multiverse to find inspiration in battle. Countless monastic and contemplative orders have crafted intricate unarmed fighting styles based on the deadliness and grace of natural and supernatural creatures. Although many such fighting techniques were created by secretive orders, they have since spread to practitioners the world over.
As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies. Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style. You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style. For example, if you have feats associated with Mantis Style and Tiger Style, you can use a swift action to adopt Tiger Style at the start of one turn, and then can use other feats that have Tiger Style as a prerequisite. By using another swift action at the start of your next turn, you could adopt Mantis Style and use other feats that have Mantis Style as a prerequisite.
Yeah, I was trying to be funny with the silliness of all bonuses and, well, the stances in general (you need to be in a fight to be able to use a stance for example). I guess I rolled a 1 and my charisma was too low. :'(
Some of them make sense to "break the rule", others not so much. I would totally understand that "physical" properties cannot be used outside the stance, but mental?
Willy- Hey, Bob? That monster that is coming close, what it is? Do we have to be ready to kill it?
Bob- Mmm, don't know. Ok, Fight me!!!
Willy- What?
Bob-Just do it, so I can "concentrate" easily. Hurry, we may not have time!!!
Willy- If you insist
(roll initiative, Bob turn, first turn with his swift action enters Kirin style, got the bonuses, use the action to study the monster, got the take 10).
Bob- It is... a Winter wolf. Weird, is not native of this side.
Are you saying that the following bold part is not a passive bonus?
Kirin Path wrote:
Benefit: Whenever you make a Knowledge check to identify a creature, even when using Kirin Style, you can take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent you from doing so. While using Kirin Style against a creature you have identified using that feat...
Because "even when using Kirin Style" strongly implies that it is a passive (always available) bonus. The text in the feat did not say that this it was a particular case or an exception to the rule. Furthermore, it treat it as if it were common sense to assume that is active outside the style.
I think what our OP is trying to sort out, is not if you can GET both feats
Yes, this is what I want, I want to get a response or something close to it. Most of the "no you can't" answers in this post seems to be fixated in the whole feat chain but not about the "passive" or "always available" part.
I know about MoM and other feats to get around this one way or another.
I do understand that for the feat chain you need to have the style active. But I'm not talking about the full chain, only about the first feat. Why I am so confused? Because as far as my search went some people say yes, other people say no. I have not found nor in the FAQ or in the forums a concrete solution.
Another example of a positive reaction was this one
But these one ended with a different statement than with the last two.
And this one mentioned the issue but was not the focus so it did not get resolved.
The main issue is that some style feats have the While using this style.
For example: the first feat of the boar style says:
Benefit: You can deal bludgeoning damage or slashing damage with your unarmed strikes—changing damage type is a free action. While using this style, once per round[...]
And the first feat for the tiger style says:
While using this style, you gain a +2 bonus to your CMD against bull rush, overrun, and trip maneuvers. You can also deal slashing damage with your unarmed strikes.
In the case of the boar style it seems that you can change your type of damage to slashing if you wish even when you are not using the style. The reason? Because it is before the "while using this style".
On the other hand, tiger style have the "While using this style" and the word "also" after the full stop. Meaning that without the stance you cannot deal slashing damage.
Yes I understand that part and I'm glad to have a response, but two things: 1. I was speaking solely from the first feat, not the subsequent feat from the chain, thus the bold part is irrelevant ("You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite"). 2. Styles like pummeling strike and jabbing style do not have the classic "While using this style" line as other style feats. That would mean that the benefit is passive, right?
For example: scorpion style -> gorgon's fist-> medusa's wrath. You can use medusa's wrath without having scorpion style nor being in scorpion style (but that may be that these are not "real" styles, I guess)
Another example would be boar style: "Benefit: You can deal bludgeoning damage or slashing damage with your unarmed strikes—changing damage type is a free action. While using this style...". Which implies that the benefit before the "While using this style" is passive.
So, the debate was that jabbing style (the first feat, not the whole chain) behave similar to scorpion style and pummeling style???
A friend of mine and I had a debate about jabbing style; doesn't jabbing style require to be in the stance to gain the benefits of the style? I'm referring to the 1d6 from the base style. If you don't need to be in the stance that would mean that you can combine jabbing style (passive 1d6) and Boar style ("active" 1 per round 2d6) to create a poor man version of the jabbing master, right?
A 3d6 on the second round and 1d6 on the subsequent rounds does not sound to bad for just two feats (plus slashing damage). So? What is the ruling in this case?
As a plus question, would this also be combined with pummeling strike as a kind of cool fluffy barrage of attacks?
The reason my friend wanted the feat was for the part that makes magical all weapons,for the reductions. The option was that, getting INT and CHA to 13 for the evolution feat or growing natural attack to get the feats that make natural attacks magical and silver. We could not figure out the last one so we opted for what seems the less wasteful.
That solves perfectly the magus and co. cases. What we argued before was that the familiar, because it is kinda magicalish in nature, can "reasonably" gather a bit of magic and be able to use the feat at its lowest. Reasonably in the same regards as a monkey familiar can use weapons because of its opposable thumbs, but not a fox familiar.
Would that hold any candle in PFS game, or there is a thread, faq or rule that proof or negate the idea?
A friend of mine asked me a question about a build that he wanted to make (to play with me, how nice, I got one more), something close to beast tamer master but with a familiar and a animal companion. His idea for a 12 level build was 8 eldritch guardian and 3 level hunter and a level of Wizard between them.
The debate was: Can the familiar (Mauler) use Arcane strike? The rules from EG says that the familiar get any combat feat that the EG has... ignoring the prerequisites. Arcane Strike is a combat feat, thus the familiar can have it but, can the familiar use it since technically the familiar does not have a caster level?
I know that, at best, it can only be used to do 1 point of magical damage with the build. What would happen with a Fighter 4, Magus 5, Hunter 3? Will it have a +2 because of the magus or +1?
I searched in the forums but nothing says about that interaction.
Anyway I found a better solution for that that netted me a plus 2. The thing is I'm pretty new to PF so I don't know how often Paizo use a bit of artistic license in their texts. I mean, from my newbie perspective it seems that this can be the case of artistic license; if we consider these three options:
1. you gain a +4 bonus on such Bluff checks.
2. you gain a +4 bonus on such Bluff checks when adding your Charisma modifier.
3. you gain a +4 bonus on such Bluff checks only when adding your Charisma modifier.
This is, (1) is pretty straightforward, the full stop make it clear. (2) can be read or understood as: when adding your Charisma modifier -as you usually do in bluff checks- implying with a bit of artistic license (1) or it can also be interpreted as (3).
I could not find an answer for this in the forums or the FAQ. I'm planning a build for PFS that will use Fox style, but I want to know if the bonus to Bluff only applies when, and only when, the CHA modifier is added. If I change the bluff modifier to INT by using " clever wordplay -bluff-", do I still get the bonus?
Fox style wrote:
you gain a +4 bonus on such Bluff checks when adding your Charisma modifier.
As far as a crude RAW the answer would be no, but pathfinder is a game where attributes, modifiers and the like changes frequently, so frequently that it might be just an oversight over a minor thing. I mean, Bluff is usually used with CHA in most situations, it would make sense not to worry about wording it. So, what is it?
Kind regards,
PS: It is for PFS so any experience with this will be appreciated.
I'm pretty new to PF. If I undersood what typed is, it would be something like enhancement or luck, right?
So, Kitsune's guile type would be an un-typed type that comes from INT, therefore it wouldn't stack with any bonus that comes from INT, right?
But here is why I asked the question; I thought that the value for the skills directly obtained from the abilities are not bonuses. Did I miss something or did I misinterpreted what a bonus is? And if it is a bonus, what would not be consider a bonus? (For example, the skill's ranks bought by leveling up are they also bonuses or not?)
PS: I'm not asking to abuse the "loophole", I just want to know so it makes more sense.
According to the FAQ two ability bonuses on a particular skill/etc don't stack but, is it considered when a feat/trait/etc change the type of attribute for a particular skill a bonus and, therefore, it does not stack? For example:
Kitsune's guile (rogue archetype) let you add your int to Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, and Sense Motive checks (that is, a bonus). And the trait "student of philosophy" and "clever wordplay" let you use your INT instead of your CHA for some social interactions. Is that a bonus too or they stack? (I swear, I could not find if that change of attributes is considered a bonus).
