KainPen's page

1,237 posts. Alias of Joshua Matherne.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I was looking through the conversation guide yesterday and I noticed they recommend an archetype or two from play test documents to be used in place of classes or missing archetype from 1st edition. I did not get to play the play test when it was active. But it made me wonder, if there is any more content from it beside the mention archetype, that would be valid for use the official release. Would any of it be game breaking with the way the system is setup now.


This is interesting, I did not realize it. But makes sense it you could use it as math justified plot armor. Example the cut scene in most JRPG games. Where the hero have their 1st run in with the big bad. They are supposed to lose. Every now and again if you set up a scene like that players will attack and hit with a 20 then roll a confirmed critical hit. In do massive damage to your big bad. Then you have to fudge they big bad hp if it was a wizard with low hp for plot sake. Your players end up feeling cheated, because they earned that hit. This way even on natural 20 they will not even hit. they just won't critically fail. Player will then know for sure they they are way out classed and should run. It also justify why the big bad does not see them as a threat when he take one or two of them out and just walks away.


It does no exist, everyone is proficient in shields. shield work by spending action to raise them and grant you a bonus to AC. That is it unless you have shield based reactions feats. which can be used to absorb blows. You can spend action to take cover behind tower shield. I am not sure if that requires a feat or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never liked the idea of them personally in 1st or in the play test. I am not sure, if the meta game aspect or, if is just something I don't feel like keeping track of as GM. I do like the Idea of grittier game. I am coming background from 2nd ed. AD&D. Losing actual levels when you die was a thing. So harshness was pretty common. Do you guys think, a free ability boost\Feat\ or 10 extra hp. Be a good trade off for them. Still gritty but as gritty at low level?


Does anyone think it would have any major effect if these were removed? If removed should they be replaced with something else?


ok thanks, all I will pick up a copy.


Does this have Player and DM copy of the maps digitally if I buy the PDF version? Looking to run a tested adventure with my group to see if we like 2nd edition. I uses a Virtual Table Top for My games so it would be nice if maps were included.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

Good job all. Not sure which version I am checking right now alas.

I would replace all TEML with a simple case to fill with the letter.

Values could be "lvl+" mod.

Abilities could be in two columns : physical on the left and mental on the right.

This would help add a few more lines for Strikes.

Spell sheet should have Cantrips, focus spells and spells share the same list with an additional field indicating the type. Innate spells would be separated and focus points too.

I do not know how to do all this regrettably.

I feel you about the TEML, It is do able on a sheet that does not auto calculate. There is no Armor spot on the sheet like there was in 1ed. So keeping tack of your characters Proficiency with Armor types got crammed were ac is located. Unlike the weapon spot that got it's own location. It made me really confused, why there was another TEML with nothing associated to it at 1st. Then I realized the the spot was for what was actually equipped and doing calculation.

As for doing that on sheet that auto calculated most everything. I am sure it is doable. I am, a bit novice at best. I am trying to teach my self the adobe java scripting that takes place in pdfs. I am not sure, how I would make a typed letter = a number value with out making and 2nd invisible box for each time I want to do that. I tried something similar before with 1st edition sheets. They got really buggy, if I had to many invisible boxed or tried multi coding in a single box. If I could get that stable, I would still have to go in and edit the sheet txt and layout also. It is way more work then it is worth. I just left the boxes there as check boxed.

Unlike undead dm version of the sheet. Since I am using them do math, I had to learn how to join the check boxed to a group and assign value to them. So only one can be active at time for them to have value. Other wise I would have to code a ton of exceptions, which leads to more bugs. So figure that would be easier. I was going to use radio buttons instead, Since they auto group and have different values. But found out you can't unchecked them, once they are checked. So went the route I did.

Prof Score on the sheets does = level + Prof mod, on my calculation sheet. All you have to do is fill in your level and every where you level is supposed to go it added it. then you check the TEML and then it add the value for that also.

Once there is a cleaner layout, Like undead dm and data lore are working on. I should be able to copy most of my calculation stuff over to their sheet now that base work of coding is done. They are welcome to steal them off my modded of their sheets. I kind of just wanted to get something out quick so character creation is quicker for my group and figured I share it and thank those guys for doing some layout work and box creation.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Data Lore and Undead DM, Color version fillable. I have taken your sheet Color version fallible no brown box sheet. I made it auto calculation version of it. This is version 1.0, I still need to add extra lines and boxes to auto calculate bulk and encumbrance and spells per day. So I need read those chapters more heavily before making those changes. Go to Sheet .

So Far it

calculation ability score mod based on score. and will auto populate it on the sheet were needed

it will add level and the appropriated checked box in each area and determine your proficient

total out attack bonus

total out All skill.

It also uses auto figure AC based on Max dex or dex mod what ever is lower.

It allows you to select Class Key score and it will pull the mod and auto add it into calculation.

If you can't access link let me know this is my 1st time trying to link google drive share.


Move this if I some how put it in the wrong Thread.

Does anyone know when the expected final release of the 2ed edition is supposed to happen? I know the play test is coming to a close soon. I have not gotten to test anything. Due to not being GM of our group at this point in time. But It is getting close to the time for me to start setting up my next campaign. I use a Virtual Table Top for my games. So it is a lot of work, to program all the encounters creatures ect. I heard about 2nd edition play test as I was starting this process. I decided to hold off to see how the play test is going and get any idea of what 2nd edition would look like. Then decided to write the game with the with either 1st with Unchained rule setting or 2nd edition would be, I did not want to have to program all the rules, monsters and encounters, for one system, then have to re-do them in another. Especially if the VTT has pre-configured monster pack I can buy. The game we are playing is moving a lot faster then I expected, even with us taking month break of not playing sometimes. I don't want to do double the work. The game is going to be designed to take few years to finish the campaign at the rate we play.

So my questions are for suggestion on what to do or other ideas. This is not direct at Dev team, but if they have any idea suggestions or answer are welcome.

When is 2nd edition estimated release?

Should I just base it around final draft of Play test then adjust to full 2nd edition when it comes out or should I use a different draft?

Do you think removing hero points and resonance point from the new resonance test be detrimental unbalancing to any draft version. They feel like extra book keeping from my current reading of the play test. I hate the idea of having to track something else.

Should I design my game around 1st ed. unchained action economy, consolidated skill and automatic bonus progression? which is my original plan. before hearing about 2nd ed?

If so, Since not all 1st edition feats, working with unchained cleanly. Do you all think it would be a good idea to use Play test versions of those feats to fit the unchained action economy since designed around similar action economy?

I really like the idea of using playtest character creation of ability boost based on background to generate ability scores. Do you think this would be a problem with my 1st edition setup?

Any other suggestion of house rules or maybe conversions for either idea you think would be helpful between any version.


Anyone know if the play test will have suggestions for converting current running games\monsters\PC class and archetype? The recent blog post mentioned testing custom games. This test comes at a bad time for my group. As we are middle of custom game. More then likely won't finish it for almost another year. I am not the GM currently so, I can't just say game stop or pause. We are going to test this out system and another adventure. The current GM may be willing to mod his game out if he has away of converting everything he has already written.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

to OP 1st post, I have not read anything beyond that post so far. Changes are to final system, will be done, it really depends on your arguments. I took part in the advanced players guide test. I can tell you the hunter class spell system was completely revamped from that play test to final version. Based on our augments as whole, we really had to fight and justify it. With examples of actually play and how it would be better or worse. they also made changed to brawler and slayer. Based on arguments in those threads. I really only participated in those threads and the warpriest thread. While their where a lot of people like my self that felt the warpriest was waste of time and space and should have been not even be printed in the book. Our arguments against the class were not very constructive, so still came to be.

Based on that experience If you want to get something tossed out a lot, I mean a lot of people are going to have to be against it and have really good and constructive arguments against it. Mechanical changes will be much easier and popularity will not matter, you just need a good argument to get that change through. Example with hunter changing the spell system and list was not very popular, but a few of us manged to get it changed. while very popular wish of a change was for aspect of animal to not be enhancement bonus. They would not budge and change that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

they pretty much already stated, it is slightly modify version of the unchained action economy. So iterative are gone. They do not exist, you get 3 act in around. you can choose attack up to 3 times in around with these 3 acts, but after every attack you get a -5 to the attack roll. I use this unchained action economy in my games, and it makes for more mobile combat and more dynamic also. Most player don't use the 3rd act to attack and are more likely to use it to intimidate, aid ally, one of my players had this ability called shield ally from his archetype he would often do that. two weapon fighting works as you where able to make and additional attack with your off hand on your 1st act of attacking, if you had improved two weapon, on the 2nd act of attack you could make another attack with your off hand.


why do people say facing is complex and hard? it is really simple to use. you are facing in x direction, so in direction y you don't get shield bonus to ac, and you are considered flank by any attack coming from direction y. is that really that hard? There also no need for 3.5 reach weapon exception, if facing is used because the map grid rotates with the way you are facing. But considering what they are doing with shields now, There seems to be no need for facing. I say make it optional rule for those that want it. But don't make it mandatory. I think after we see new action ec and the way things work, half of people complaints are wish will all be un-justified. Everyone needs to clam down, stop speculating, wait until the play test are actually release. Then test and criticize so that the dev team can make changes or adjustments. Everyone is basing everything on 1st edition pathfinder which is based on a severely broken 3.5 system. I mean look at the mounted combat and charging rules. half the feats tied to those combat options don't work as written and require GM rule every game to determine how they work, or seek a newly written feat from splat book x, or GM has to switch to unchained action economy because charge works differently there. an exception need to be written in a FAQ so we can attack angled hallway with reach weapons. We have no clue what is actually in store for the new edition. The way systems, classes and abilities, feats are going to be implemented may be completely different from current system. Stuff may sound bad, or seem like it just won't work, because everyone is basing it off of 1st ed. who know maybe facing will be in 2nd edition and it will works super smoothly and be fun.


Orthos wrote:

Admittedly for me Warpriest has always been a class that felt like it didn't need to exist.

It wasn't as good a melee holy warrior type as Paladin and wasn't as good a caster or melee type as Cleric.

Maybe if Cleric was more a magely caster like wizard or sorc, Warpriest would have had a niche to fill like Magus did. But since you can already be a very effective melee warrior type with Cleric or Oracle, Warpriest feels superfluous.

I second this and said so during the play test for the war priest. There was no need for it as a hybrid class, as the paladin from tradition already was the cleric/fighter hybrid. And the it would have been easier to open up the Paladin to archetype that allowed different aliments and codes, or just make it an archetype to cleric. The cleric is already better at being war priest then the war priest class. Same/bab/armor more healing and spells. The reason why the paladin was 3-4 level casting and not 6 level, is because the Cleric was originally 6-7 level caster. So cut that in half and you have 3-4 level caster. Move to 3rd edition happen the paladin stayed the same for the most part. And cleric became broken. They decided to keep 3/4 bab, 8 side dice and armored, but make a full caster with spontaneous healing. OG D&D cleric where more balanced because healing was rare or could be easily lost. So they need armor, good attacks, along with there spells to keep the party and themselves alive. There was no spontaneous healing, also there was no concentration checks. If you got hit while casting a spell you lost the spell. So for healing to be viable Cleric need to have decent armor to avoid being hit. All cleric need for an update to 3rd edition and not be broken was invention concentration check and spontaneous healing spells to give the class more flexibility. This would have left option open to a priest/white mage/more historical oracle type class. That is similar to wizard but with massive number divine spells. This did not happen and The cleric and the paladin as they are limits what you can do with other divine classes. This is why every divine class in pathfinder current has 3/4 attack bonus and at least medium armor and at least d8 hp. There are no divide caster with less then that. There no reason to play a full caster that has less armor, BAB or d6 hp, because the cleric already has full casting with better options. This is something else I hope to see fix. Bring the cleric casting level back down or remove the armor, attack bonus and hit dice to be on par with wizard for full casting. This could then actually give a place for war priest class as the in-between Paladin and Cleric.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

chaotic monks work also. Who is the Master? and great example of a chaotic evil Monk. SHO'NUff
https://technicolored.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/sho_nuff.jpg


Scintillae wrote:
Merging Paladin and Cav could be interesting...

And very traditional. there was some tie between Caviler and Paladin in 1st edition. I don't remember what it was, but it was mention in the original unearth arcane. but I believe they changed the Paladin from sub class of fighter to Subclass of Caviler. I can't remember if Anti Paladin was created at that point but I believe it was. My memory little fuzzy on 1st edition D&D stuff. But I do know 2nd edition. Anti-Paladin existed then, as well as paladins Demi human Paladins. There was also Kits which where basically archetype. That you added to your class that swapped features for other features. The Caviler was a kit to Paladin. So these are not new Ideas. This why I question the creation of Caviler and War Priest, as full classes instead of just making them Paladin Archtypes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I honestly hope they ditch Alignment system all together and their fore not tie paladins to it. I hope paladin are just knights that follow their deity tents to extreme measures. They can still have a code of conduct, but it is specific to the deity they worship.I also hope Anti-Paladin, Hell Knights, Cavaliers are just archetypes of the Paladin.


Looking forward to this change with ability centered around, this system. I already run this system in my game and I love it, but because it was not fully defined, as GM I find my self having to define the way some of the old system converts. Such as Vital strike, Cleave, ect. I was asking for unchained 2 for some time, to flesh this out more. When unchained came out, the people wondering about 2nd edition form blew up. where suggesting that this system be used if 2nd edition ever came out. Looks like it is going to happen. This system also fixed a lot of problem with mounted combat and charging and combat maneuvers. As those system in 1 edition where rough often contradicting and just did not work as RAW.


why would Arcane Training trait be useless for bards? Bard are Arcane casting class. It come is useful for wands of cure light wounds, since that spell is on it's arcane casting spell list. Also Songhealer is a good archetype to match with that as you can increase wand healing even further, by using full caster level few times per day. Also Magician archetype add more arcane spells to the spell list. Thus making wand selection even wider, then normal bard.

For normal bard this could effect duration of spells from wands or scrolls by 1 level worth, this could be 1 round extra of haste from a wand of scroll, instead of the standard 5rd from those objects. extra round from summon monster wand, can be a big thing.


Java Man wrote:

Do you have a citation for the same action not being eligible to trigger a ready action and AoO? I have never heard this.

And that is not the proposed tactic. What we have here is: ready to spit at first target in range (15'), and then the potential to use 10' reach to bite for an AoO. The double bite is mentioned in follow up.

Hey maybe thinking of unchained action economy. In the unchained action economy, you are giving 1 reaction action a round, and it can be used for Aoo, ready attack or anything that would be classified as immediate action. there is exception to this is if you take combat reflex if gives you extra reaction actions a round that must be used for Aoo.

But in Core rules you most certainly preform and aoo and ready action. they are separate devices and separate functions, that have separate causes and effects.


I would say cost is not a valid argument, for against, because a +10/+10 shield is very costly little over 50% of level 19 character WBL for a 1 item. The problem cost is due to a shield master feat. It reduced the cost of a +10/+10 shield by 128K. Which is way over powered for a single feat.

Thankful has been FAQ and weakened a little bit, by saying it only remove penalty for the shield while two weapon fighting. while before some where arguing it removed all penalties on shield attacks. If shield master was broken into two feats it would be a lot more balanced. One dealing with the two weapon fighting penalties and another to deal with the Enhancement bonus.


Gallant Armor wrote:

Try a large sized, spiked, bashing shield with effortless lace while under the effect of an enlarged person spell.

This would be a +4 (4d6 damage) to +5 (6d6 damage) size categories depending on if shield spikes stack (you need them for effortless lace regardless).

If you play a Shield Champion Brawler you get some nice shield abilities as well as close weapon mastery which lets you swap out the "base damage" of a weapon with brawler level-4 unarmed damage. Depending on interpretation on if size increases would increase "base damage" this could bump your damage up to 16d8 at level 16 if you take the half-orc's FCB and get Monk's robes.

Add in Greater Vital Strike and you have 64d8 damage on a single attack.

I highly doubt my interpretations would be accepted by a sane GM, but it is always fun to see what you can get away with.

as stated above bashing does not stack with spikes any longer.

the most I think you can get this method is either 8d8 or if enlarged 12d8 as base with all the vital strike if all condition are right 36d8. That is if Bashing still works close weapon mastery.

There is debate that close weapon mastery over rides bashing and virtual size increases of the weapon. Because larger shield and bashing changes the base damage of the actual shield, but not the unarmed strike. you have to use things that increase the unarmed strike damage. which is why monks robe would work on it and favored class bonus of half orc would work.

So if you had enlarged bashing shield you would have the option of choosing 2d6 damage as base 3d6 if you are enlarged; or using close weapon mastery and doing 2d8 as base and 4d8 if you are enlarged. I don't remember if there is any spell that increase the virtual size of unarmed strike but if there is 6d8 is the highest you can go according to that argument.


Tomos wrote:
KainPen wrote:


how does bashing cap you at a +1 bonus?

Bashing is a defensive enchantment for a shield. It says "This shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash."

Bashing takes the place of a normal defensive enchantment that would otherwise add to AC. You can't make it any higher than a +1 weapon enchantment this way.

In order to boost your attack roll with a shield via standard magical enchantment, the shield needs to be enchanted as a weapon, requiring a 300gp initial investment for a masterwork shield-as-weapon and the use of the magical weapon enchantment prices (2k, 8k, 18k, etc.)

If you're going to be a shield slammer, 'double enchanting' your primary shield is smart. It can get very expensive though.
For instance, a heavy steel shield that has a +2 AC enchantment as well as a +2 weapon enchantment would cost 12,470gp

It's a good idea to make it adamantine too (+3000gp).

wow where are you getting this stuff from? no where in bashing does it say the +1 to from bashing takes away from the + bonus to enchantment.

Bashing does not cap you in any way shape or form. Maybe you did not mean to use the word Cap. because to cap means something; that is the top the pinnacle, it can not be surpassed or gotten around it is the limit. Your own explanation here which is why I asked, proves that it is not a cap. Because as you stated it can be enchanted as a weapon or you can have shield master feat that allows you to count defensive enhancement as weapon enhancement also as a much cheaper option. Making the cap i think +9 as weapons and +7 for defensive with abilities like bane, furious or I think defiant(armor not weapon) but this is only against certain creatures or conditions. there may be more that I am not aware of. The Cap is +5 under normal conditions, but a raging barbarian with a Furious dragon bane +5 shield fighting a dragon can get +9. any one with shield master feat and fighting a dragon with a +5 Dragon Defiant shield, will have +7 weapon.

The shield is the cheapest weapon outside of pfs to increase in power which is why people shun on the idea of two shield fighting. because with Shield master feat, you end up with a +5 weapon at half price that also added to ac. So for the price of 1 +5 weapon you can have two and +5 to ac, that you take no two weapon fighting penalties on. So it gets called cheese and ridiculous. you don't even need it to be adamantine. That is a waste of money since that 3 grand would be better spend increasing your defensive bonus. which will turn into a weapon bonus that will let your go thru just about all dr. At least thanks to the new FAQ, Shield master has been updated negate to only the two weapon fighting penalties. Instead of all penalties as it is written.

Bashing is very good enhancement to take, increase damage by 2 size categories, and giving you the ability to treat it as +1 weapon when bashing, early on this can be very useful being a defensive ability allowing a object normally use for defense to be and effective weapon and strike thru dr magic, and incorporeal creatures with out actual having to enchant it as a weapon. that is great. this is also a enhancement that is half the cost of a weapon 1. it holds it self over very well until you get shield master feat at level 11, or level 6 ranger/slayer.

As for the op original statement about shield slam, I don't think a lot of people think it is super great, It is a feat tax to a super great feat shield master, but it is still a good feat, since it is a free option to something they where going to do any way. It is one of the strongest feat taxes, because it's ability is still worth a feat. I don't think there are any other options currently that can allow you to bullrush more then 2 creatures in a rd or even on AOO. with haste and full attack action you can bull rush. The flaw in the abilities is the based in combat maneuver it self not shield slam. The size restrictions thus limits it usefulness, based on campaign or AP. Those with lots of medium to large creatures but not any bigger will get a lot of use out of it. if the game as lots of huge and bigger creatures it will rarely get used.


He needs to define motion. since this in unchained monk flurry is different

"Flurry of Blows

At 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When making a flurry of blows, the monk can make one additional attack at his highest base attack bonus. This additional attack stacks with the bonus attacks from haste and other similar effects. When using this ability, the monk can make these attacks with any combination of his unarmed strikes and weapons that have the monk special weapon quality. He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so. (He can still gain additional attacks from a high base attack bonus, from this ability, and from haste and similar effects).

At 11th level, a monk can make an additional attack at his highest base attack bonus whenever he makes a flurry of blows. This stacks with the first attack from this ability and additional attacks from haste and similar effects."

I don't think it should be able to be combined with two weapon fighting but looks like it maybe can be combined with two weapon fighting, unlike normal monk. "He takes no penalty for using multiple weapons when making a flurry of blows, but he does not gain any additional attacks beyond what's already granted by the flurry for doing so." is the reason I say no but it could be debated he not using multiple types of weapons. he and GM maybe thinking they do work together which would explain the motion he is talking about.

so on his 1st flurry two weapon fighting attack
he can get two strikes, then get gets extra free attack, can ki spend a point and get another. so we are at 3 attacks at max bonus, then if he have improved two weapon fighting he can make 2 more attacks. so we are at 5 attacks, before even spending mythic points or using mythic abilities.

there are several mythic abilities that grant you extra attack that ignore dr or, some even grant movement and attack.

Also if you add unchained action economy it could be even more complicated. as you can flurry each act since it is not limited to full rd action any more. This also explain the motion thing he is talking about he thinking of each act as motion. I use this unchained rule in my game. I have two level 11 brawlers in my game who regularly are getting 4-6 attacks around at 2d8, depending on haste or if they want to move. this is before AOO also, which the whole group is centered around teaming up and causing AOO for each other. They all have combat reflexes and dex mods of 3 or more. so the brawlers often end up with 6 to 8 attacks in the round.

as Mysterious Stranger pointed out 2d8 can be done at that level with with being medium So it could be possible. he could do this much and more damage in a round. Also if the GM is like me and allows improved natural attack to work with unarmed strike, like i do this also explains the damage. you really need to know all the house rules and GM calls, gear, ect. the player just did not give you enough information, ect. to make sure he what he is doing is wrong and not by rules. because even with in the rules of mythic and unchained combined it is possible, to do that kind of damage.


yes the below txt. any penalties that apply to ac also applies to CMD long with anything that will remove those list of bonus.

"Miscellaneous Modifiers

A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD."


Jader7777 wrote:
If you're riding the mount and you have the feat as the rider then your mount inherits the feat for the purposes of using the maneuver. This is the same for other mounted feats such as "Ride by attack" and "Spirited Charge". Only the rider needs the feat to make use of it.

this is not true, your mount does not inherits the riders feat. a mount does not get to preform ride by attack, just because you have it, or spirited charge. only you can preform those feats, both of them require you to direct amount to preform a specific kind of action. For spirited charge, you must direct the mount to charge, per the FAQ this mean both use and the mount are considers charging. thus you get increased damage on your attack, the mount does not get increased damage on their attacks.

For ride by attack you must direct the mount to charge, and what this allows you to do is attack in the middle of the charge, instead of at the end of the charge. It also allows you to attack someone other then the target of charge and actual charge mounted with a reach weapon The mount how ever is now allowed to finish it's charge and attack the target original target of the charge. By raw this is messy and not possible unless mount as = reach as rider. There is a paradox written into the charge rules that the devs are aware of and just never fixed yet in core rules. This same paradox also effects over-run combat maneuver. It is fixed in unchained action economy thou. Because charge in those rules is not an type of attack nor does it require you to attack. It is a type of movement. This is why most people on these boards say ask you GM or say don't even bother with these options come up.

You maybe you are thinking of the Hunter or Cavalier', their sharing team work feats.

Hunter "At 3rd level, the hunter automatically grants her teamwork feats to her animal companion. The companion doesn't need to meet the prerequisites of these teamwork feats."

Cavalier "At 1st level, a cavalier receives a teamwork feat as a bonus feat. He must meet the prerequisites for this feat. As a standard action, the cavalier can grant this feat to all allies within 30 feet who can see and hear him. Allies retain the use of this bonus feat for 3 rounds plus 1 round for every two levels the cavalier possesses. Allies do not need to meet the prerequisites of these bonus feats. The cavalier can use this ability once per day at 1st level, plus one additional time per day at 5th level and for every 5 levels thereafter. " in this case the mount is an Ally of the Cavalier thus gain the benefit of his team work feats. but it is
not automatic like the hunter.

for the OP case, if you raise the int of mount to 3 or more then yes it can take the greater bull rush. I believe that is the only way unless there is archetype as bishop083 said that grants it on the list of options.


Tomos wrote:
M1k31 wrote:
Lemartes wrote:
Farrukh Al-Khatel wrote:

Actual quote from a satisfied customer:

"'Farrukh is brutal fighter, mercenary. If scenario hits red levels, may be possible to turn him against own side. Simple form, but complicated fighting style makes impractical for switchup.' A newer note here reads, 'Do not get between Al'Khatel and wall.'"

Unfortunately, he didn't follow his own advice.

The free trip part is the better part of Shield Slam.

That's what I mentioned above. I agree the trip against the wall is the best part. Trip them against a wall on your first attack then demo them with the rest of your attacks while their AC is lowered. If other party members are close you lowered the target's AC for all of their attacks as well. If you can 5 foot step do so and avoid the return full attack. Barring reach, monkey style etc. etc. as I mentioned above.
I do wonder how a pair of shield slammers with combat reflexes could use this though.... could they actually juggle a foe indefinitely?

The best best part is that it's not a free Trip. It's an automatic prone result if they hit an obstacle. There's no roll.

Also, until you can qualify for the Shield Master feat (11th level), your shield needs to be double-enchanted as armor and a weapon. The Bashing property seems like a good deal at first, but you're capped at a +1 bonus. Paying the +450 to create a masterwork weapon/armor shield and enchanting both aspects lets you keep building the attack bonus up as you gain the resources to do so. You can free up a feat this way too.

how does bashing cap you at a +1 bonus?


I am running the same game, using same rules, if you think the vampire is bad, you should see the Anti-paladin Grave knight in mine. 1st thing you need to note about this 3rd party AP, it was made for the PC to be over powered, They are literary meant to crush and entire nation and take it over. By the rules of they are given extra skill points over the normal, 3 total traits. Oh yeah not to mention the half-fiend medusa cohort (that trivialize every encounter by turning everything that looks at her to stone.) or the half fiend ogre one. who stats are better then the pcs. The Vampire rules via feats is fairly balanced if you are trying to balance it vs other players in this game. (i went a simpler route then the feat break down. I let my player gain monster templates at cost of +cr=level) This AP is not meant to be balanced PC vs DM. The PC often also get to choose when they attack, how they attack ect.(normally DM fuction) The PC have a lot more narrative power in this AP, unlike others.(with often the option to take days or even weeks between encounters, with maybe only 1 encounter a day.) The only good AP i can think of like this is king maker. It is designed to make sure the PC's win and do so in Glorious epic fashion.

I would not worry about it, to much if all the PC have high stats, and are breezing through it. They are meant too. Few other things to note about the AP, and reason for the high pc stats and big boost to pc, is the game is made to function with a split party and still be survivable. (This happened a lot in book 2 for me, while pc's where defending their dungeon). So unless your players are having issues with each other and their character being like this; I would not try to adjust the game. Run it as it and as it is meant to be, with the Player trampling over the DM. Because in this AP the game is a role reversal, the DM sends small bands heroes to attack the BIGBAD evil guy. The problem is there are 4 or more Big bad evil guys + mooks working actually working together. It is not 1 big bad evil guy + mooks, which is normal game.

The creation system if you don't use the roll system for character creation the AP calls you to use 25 point buy system not the the 20 or 15 ones that other APs call for. So high stats are again called for. I do want to note that there is a huge flaw with the roll system, yes you get to pick the 18 and the 8. but the d10+7 roll, are set down the line, they do not get to pick where they go. So unless they roll really well for every score. Which looks like yours did. There is a chance they may not be good for the character they wanted to play. I had 2 players do this, one wanted to play brawler and end up very high int and wisdom, but lower dex and con. The other was sorcerer who end up with 18 str and super low wisdom of 8. He was already taking a hit on will saves from archetype he choose. I did have 1 of my 6 players roll high like yours did. My other players went with point buy option, I let the player pick what method they wanted to use.

edit: there are some points in this game where your this invincible pc is not so invincible, Combat on one of the bridges (there are like 6 cleric on the bridge that are level 8, even though he will make his saves their is enough channeling of positive energy to mess him up.) Also the phoenix encounter, is another. Also don't forget to use mooks to aid other(this stacks with it self) to attack so paladin's can smite, or in case of encounter on the bridge, charging smite. I dam near took down my grave knight anti paladin with this, because it was a critical hit.

edit 2: here another suggestion remove all magic items and use unchained ABP. This is a lot more balanced and will drop some of his stats a little bit based on his current level, but boost other things. I find my players enjoy this more then buying +x weapons armor ect all the time.


greater two weapon fighting - it a trap. So skip this and you don't have to worry about armor problem.


when you rotated the grid, you failed to move #2-5 to a valid squares, most of them are sitting on center between two squares. with the rotated grid 2 and 5 and no longer even attack the bear they are out of reach, as they need to be shifted up and down. Only 4 would still have flank. as it is a valid square. now since you have to shift 2-5 in to valid squares. you could shift 5 over to the left same for 2 and 5 and 4 would have flank.

this is part of the same issue reach weapons with small and medium creatures had with attacking down a diagonal hallway. pathfinder final re-instated the 3.5 exception. That you can threaten and attack the 2nd diagonal square. Only way to fix this is use hex gid maps, this is why most other RPG use them, you get clearer example of actual distance and what is flanking position, even more so with facing.

Facing which was removed from the transition of from 3.0 to 3.5 and stayed removed from pathfinder. will also fix your problem with flanking. You can always reapply the 3.0 facing rules and flanking become very obvious anything behind you or the squares on the side of you can and is flanking you. Anything in the front of you never gets that bonus. It was removed because it had something to causing a problem with spell casting. which I never experienced or even noticed.


1) yes

2) I think so, but the threat range would be 19-20, the txt say it wielded as a scimitar, (thus subject to proficiency rules. weapon focus ext and even improved critical scimitar) but is not a scimitar. it's damage is special and is 1d8+x(fire), it does not even do Slashing or str damage. It is not like spiritual weapon which has txt that reads "and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form." thus flame blade users standard critical range of all other magical based touch attacks which is 20. evidence to support this also is found in txt of mythic version of the spell which actual give it the range of a actual scimitar 18-20. meaning 15-20 with improved critical and mythic version of spell.

3) Mythic games = rocket tag. It been a while since I looked at mythic rules, but yes you could benefit. Feel free to correct me on this any one. because my recollection of mythic rules are rusty. I think 2-3 mythic points total to even cast the spell. which is a lot to buff flame blade. (this is where I could be wrong) 1 mythic point is automatic just to cast a mythic spell (also cost you your swift action I think). Then to spend further points to spend additional mythic points which is 2 for spell to get natural threat range of 15-20 before feats, (if I am wrong it flat 2 points) which is still fair amount to get 10-20 critical range with 2d6+X fire weapon. most possible damage is 4d6+40, which is small at level 20 mythic tier X. I also think you have to burn mythic feat to get the spell at tier 1, or archetype ability (maybe that was from play test) and another normal feat. Either way it is tiny compared to mythic vital strike as feat. which does not cost use of action or any mythic points.

4)I don't think so because it is not a set numerical bonus feat. it varies based on weapon type and critical range. the feats given in examples actual have a set number like +1 to X or +2 to X.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I enjoy it also, completely revamped my games entirely around it.
list favorite order

1. new action economy, Battle has become very different more free flowing among all classes. It seems to balance a few of them out. (It does need a lot of tweaking on DM part for feats some magic items. you can just kill them off or adjust them to how you want them to work.)

2. ABP - made magic items little more interesting again. because you don't need the big 6 any more. Also make DR more relevant in monsters. As it takes longer to get an item that just goes thru all DR.

3. I uses consolidated skill, which also cause you to use background skills system. I just like having to deal with a lot less skills. My players like the background skill because they don't have to waste important skill points on Profession and crafting skill. They automatic get these ranks. It fits the characters background stories ect. Allows then to add fluff to the Characters with out sacrificing ranks on the adventuring skills that get uses a lot more often, like perception, athletics, spell craft, and diplomacy. Many of my games I would have characters with out this fluff, because players would worry about the other skills more.

4. Variant multi-classing. I would prefer to use this instead of normal multi-classing, But I have not completely convert over to this. because so much is missing, from it. Like if you remove normal multi-classes how do you get into a prestige class or getting spell casting? I know there is a 3rd party book that covers this but it is full of error and a lot of cuts and pasting. right now I am testing it on NPC/cohorts. I will cut over to it and use the 3rd party book, but will have to fix the errors in that.

I would like Paizo to make another unchained book, go into more detail on the action economy and and VMC and and flesh it out more. Maybe unchain a few more classes also.


Human Wooden Oracle is a lot better choice for combat, of a 1st play thru.

human favored class bonus give you insane number of spells known, so you really don't have to worry about missing out on a spell. like other oracles. This puts you on almost on par with the spell based cleric flexibly of spells. You can then spam those spells when needed more then once. This goes over a lot better running a combat cleric who has to waste a the few prepared slots and rounds buffing him self.

Wooden mystery

Wood Armor - who needs really armor with this. Big AC boost and last long time and levels up with you. Saves you gold also
grants some DR, no check penalty, movement reduction.

Wood Bond - nice bonus to hit with ranged and melee weapons, reach and non reach. makes up for being 3/4 bab class in combat.

none of the revelations in this mystery are bad and all can lend them selves to combat.

your group needs a face for all the diplomacy checks, guess what this is a CHA base class caster. So you can get that covered.

really only self buffing combat spell you need is divine favor, and it is 1st level, So you are not wasting higher level spell on buffing your self. combine with background trait fate favored, nice big +4 to hit and damage eventually. To your self for 1 combat, all the other higher level spells give about the same thing with duration being about the same. This leaves higher levels spell open to group buffing, healing (status effect removal), and controlling spells.

oh yeah since you are CHA based and if you in the mood for giving up 3 or 4 your feats, Eldritch heritage ORC blood line. feats, give you some more awesome stuff, natural armor, immunity to fear, STR bonus, ect ect.

being human also you can take Focused Study as replacement to bonus feat, and get skill focus as a bonus feat 3 times. one of which can be be used for prerequisite of the orc blood line.


Yes this feat works with bow. Strike is no way misleading. No where is strike defined as melee attack. here are both definition of the word strike, as a verb

1.
hit forcibly and deliberately with one's hand or a weapon or other implement.
"he raised his hand, as if to strike me"
synonyms: bang, beat, hit; More
2.
(of a disaster, disease, or other unwelcome phenomenon) occur suddenly and have harmful or damaging effects on.
"an earthquake struck the island"
synonyms: affect, afflict, attack, hit
"the disease is striking 3,000 people a year"

does this meet definition 1 yes it does the bow is firing an arrow to strike the person. Because Arrow is most certainly an other implement

does it meet the 2nd definition, yes it does, A arrow to the chest is most certainly and unwelcome phenomenon, that occurs suddenly and has a harmful or damaging effect.


Daedalus the Dungeon Builder wrote:

The name says it all. I was inspired by this thread, along with some thoughts that I've been having for some time. Anyway, as this is a bit of a superhero build, this can go all the way to the top (level 20/MR 10), but doesn't have to.

So, this is a challenge. The goal is the highest possible base speed (and/or fly speed, climb speed, swim speed, etc.), perfectly crafted so this guy is insanely good at running.

I'll start it off with a simple build. 11 levels, 1 mythic rank.
Elven Monk 10/ Cleric of Abadar 1; Champion 1
30 base speed + 30 fast movement + 10 traveling domain + 30 impossible speed +10 FCB for a grand total of 110 base speed at level 11/ MR 1.
And that's before being able to take fleet up to 5 times (+25 base speed), mythic fleet once (+5 feet), using mythic power to increase impossible speed (+10) and any enhancement bonuses from haste (+30 feet), giving a grand total of 180 feet.

I'm pretty sure he can go faster. What's every possible stacking bonus for base speed? And, while we're at it, can we bump up base swim, climb, fly, and burrow speeds?

Check all your speed sources. A lot of of movement bonus are enhancement bonus. I know for sure Haste does not stack with fast movement from monk,or boot of striding and springing. they are all enhancement bonus, thus they don't stack.


yes but grappled condition does not deny you dex to ac period. it give you a dex penalty, but does not remove your dex. It never did. If you look at the strangler ability it suggest that you are supposed to be denied, your dex with grappled condition. Because the benefit of the ability is that it removes this effect. This tell me the writer did not know or under stand the grapple rules. This is very similar to the whole prone shooter problem before errata.

without unarmed strike ability, you can't get the increased damage dice. "At 5th level, a brawler's damage with close weapons increases. When wielding a close weapon, she uses the unarmed strike damage of a brawler 4 levels lower" Because you don't have unarmed strike ability which increase the damage dice. you can't get the damage of -4 level. Because you don't have that ability to give the comparative number to.

you also still get brawler strike which also is dependent on unarmed strike. So with this archetype you get 1 non function ability and 1 limited disadvantageous functioning ability.

It was also suggested in other threads about archetype that unarmed strike was not supposed to be the removed ability, but Brawler's Strike was supposed to be removed ability. which makes more sense and allows Close weapon mastery to work properly. This is why i say i would not touch this archetype until it is earrated. because it is utter mess.


I would completely stay away from the Strangler archetype. it seems the writer did not know the rules, and the wording is very clunky. One of my players was looking at this archetype, then we realized it was all broken messed up and really did not work. one of the ability mentions about grappling causing you to lose your dex bonus to AC, when grappling does no such thing. you also lose unarmed strike feature, but keep close combat mastery which is dependent on unarmed strike feature. I would not play this until it gets errated.


I would say no, but if your gm is letting you do, it. even at level 20 you only make 40 gallons of water which is a lot to drink, but not enough to swim. to give you estimate of the volume of that. a 40 gallon water heaters are most often 5ft tall by 20 inches wide. So game wise this is being generous it would fill one square on a map with 20 inches of water. realistically it would take 4 casting to fill fill one square with 20 inches of water.

So at level 20 you can make enough water to maybe cover your body and that is it. now you could spend a crap load of rounds filling a room like that putting out 40 gallons every 6 seconds.


it can do 1.5 damage on bite if it is the only natural attack the creature has. Like T-rex, but it because of the natural attack rules not because it is a dragon.


Phntm888 there is a FAQ but it states exactly what you said 2-handed finesse able weapons get 1.5x dex damage with unchained rogues Finesse Training. they are few and far between 3 in total, the two you mention and the elven branch spear.

edit: Ninja by Lady-J


what Tarik said, what Dragons the universal monster rule is referring to are True Dragons. Basically the ones labeled: Dragon, Red or Dragon, Imperial. Half-dragons, Drakes ect. do not gain that advantage.


Voadkha wrote:
mdt wrote:
Thanks, but the Devs errata/FAQ'd the ability to be as I was arguing against. Basically, they've decided the Dhampir is Undead for targeting as well.

Sorry for the thread necro but I recently got a dhamphir boon.

The FAQ doesn't seem to change the RAW from what it was originally, but merely make it more obviously:

Nothing happens if the target is undead.
The opposite from the 'expected' (negative good/positive bad) happens if the target is living.

The FAQ doesn't mention targeting and thus it seems like mdt and Kitsune Knight had it right originally.

What am I missing?

The way I see it:

Case one: Dhamphir walks around and looks human. He's only affected when he's targeted as human (and receives the opposite effect).

1a) Evil cleric sees a party of Pathfinders and tries to hurt them channeling negative energy to harm living. All but Dhamphir are hurt, Dhamphir is healed. Evil cleric: Hmmm, that Pathfinder has NEA.

1b) Evil cleric sends in his pack of ghouls to deal with the party of Pathfinders. The ghouls start to get hurt. Pathfinder cleric channels positive energy to harm the ghouls. Dhamphir is unaffected as are all the other Pathfinders. A couple of the ghouls are almost destroyed. Evil cleric channels negative energy to heal up his ghouls. Dhamphir is unaffected as are all the other Pathfinders.

Case two: Dhamphir walks around and 'pretends' to be a vampire. He's completely unaffected if someone tries to target him with channeled energy as an undead.

2a) Evil cleric sees a party of Pathfinders and thinks they have an allied vampire (maybe the Pathfinder's have a necromancer with them?). Tries to hurt them with a channel negative energy, he expects the "vampire" to be unaffected. All but Dhamphir are hurt, Dhamphir is healed. Evil cleric now realizes the Dhamphir is not actually a vampire.

2b) Evil cleric sends in his pack of ghouls to deal with the party of Pathfinders. The ghouls start to get hurt. Pathfinder cleric channels...

In Case one you are missing the way channel functions, Channel feature positive or negative, you have to choose to do damage or heal. it can't do both at the same time.

1a) nothing happens to the Dhamphir, because he does not count as living vs negative energy. Thus he can't be harmed

1b)if the dhamphir is in the area of the channel of the cleric channeling positive energy to harm undead. He is treated as undead and take damage. then if the Dhamphir is in the range of the other cleric channeling negative engery to heal undead. Then he gets healed.

in case 2

2a, again the Dhampier does not get healed because channel was intended to do harm.

2b)this one was the closest to accurate, if the cleric actual had selective channel. if he does not, he will be hurt by the positive energy, since it was used to harm. then healed if negative if it was used to heal.

Now it can get more confusing it the Dhampier has that feats that allows them to be healed by both types of energy.

channel rules have their own specific function different from other sources of positive or negative energy. such as cure and cause wounds spells. Those spell when used against a dhampier will function as the as per negative energy affinity normal functions.


I woulds say it is only on the round the attack roll is made. So you the 1-15 points would be doubled depending on your level.


the quick runner shirts does not work any more since they nerfed them in errata for the 2nd printing of ultimate eq. It would have worked before 1st printing of ultimate eq. the Quick runner shirt was swift action move up to your movement once per day. they nerfed bat the crap out of it because they where so cheap people where buying 4 or 5 of them. and changing them out after use. So they added the have to wear it for 24 hr bit to it also to make sure it was virtual unusable expect for running away in combat 1 time per day.

Shatter defenses is kind of a hard thing to pull off also, 1st you have to intimidate, then hit again, then they are flat footed for your last attacks and Aoo's after the fact. easiest thing to do is just get wand of improved invisibility. This is why people tend not to like rogues and say they suck, because getting sneak attack on all attacks is a pain in the butt.

I actual don't like the scout archtype i think it a trap archtype, for melee build. Even more so now that it only works on the 1st attack from the 8th level ability.

Mounted was decent easy fix I had not though about, with a bow. Bow still probably is the best option for this archtype, if you get magic item sniper goggles with it you can keep out combat get full attack and get sneak attack on the 1st shot after 8th level.

We had a guy that was doing two weapon fighting rouge and was this archtype, he was getting killed left and right, because of this archtype. because rouges already have a bad ac due to limited armor selection. Then when you add in charging to get sneak attack damage it's now even lower. eventual more creatures you fight are going to have reach, so you are going to get pounded by Aoo's also. Rogue don't get a lot of hp. So you are constantly putting your self in harms way, to try and get sneak attack damage. Also the creature you are fighting is not actually flatfooted so they still get their dex to ac. when you attack them you just get to treat as if they where for damage.

Flanking with someone else and improved invisibility are the only reliable ways of getting sneak attack damage, and a full attack.

if you can't tell Paizo does not want you getting full attacks sneak attacks with out heavy feats or dangerous abilities or expensive investments. I wish ya luck.


yep it is silent on levels and the gm has to fill in that silence. The Devs have stated time and time again that, unchained is optional house rules left to Gm interpenetration, They did not have enough space to write everything or cover every little detail. They were surprised to get as much in there as they did. So it is left open intentionally for a Gm to make the call. If they were to cover every little detail, you would literally have a whole new edition of the game.

In cases for unchained stuff in PFS, the PFS community is the GM and making the calls on how it works. Every where else it the home brew GM rules. See your GM is the only valid rule answer for anything unchained related.

if your GM is doing like i am doing and using it as replacement for the entire multi-class system, it is a fair assessment to count the levels. you do give up a lot for it compared to the other system, you lose half your feats, Class skills, potential skill points, save adjustments and maybe potential hp. what you gain is a few powers and the ability to still get your capstone, which most games do go that far anyway.

like i said if your gm is treating as feat replacement option and keeping the old system then no I would say you do not get the level count. you are effective Rouge x /fighter 0

I think unchained is one of the best things to happen to pathfinder. It puts a lot of control back in the hands of GM, by leaving all these silence portions of the rule set for a gm to fill in. we don't need actual written rules for every little thing, unless we are playing PFS.


I think it depends unchained rules are optional GM rules. The book says while it does work with normal multi classing, it not recommend to do so, it was meant as replacement. So if your GM runs it as a replacement and does not use normal multi classing, I would say yes you do count as both class at your level. If it is just being used new feat option system. like most GM treat it as. Then no you don't. anything that comes out of unchained you need to ask your GM for how they are going to run it, as the entire book is optional system house rules. I run it as a complete replacement, So for my you do count as your full level.


I say it works, It works for Dhampirs, and I think there is a feat that lets you heal from negative energy, in one of the evil books, I remember one of my players found it, and all my players wanted to take it before starting Way of the wicked AP, because we had a Dhampir anti paladin in the group, but it was not in one of my allowed books. I remember one of the requirements being high con.

Properties still cause effects.


I just saw this because I though the idea of mounted scout sound cool.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue -archetypes/scout

according to this the 8th level ability never works with fully attack. Well only the 1st attack will get sneak attack. I remember it used to work. Because I had a guy that did mobile fighter/rouge multi class to get it off at very high level. Anyone know when this was FAQ to a change or errated out?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dietrich von Sachsen wrote:
KainPen wrote:
they recently fixed the eastern armor, in a Errata of the ultimate equipment book I think, or maybe it was a FAQ. they are now priced better for what they do.
Can you provide a link?

it is on the product page of ultimate equipment you have to downloadErrata or get a copy of the 2nd printing of the book. I don't think they updated the SRD yet with the changes.

1 to 50 of 1,237 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>