KainPen's page

One thing should definitely be clarified.

Errata wrote:

Page 151: The Knockdown feat's wording made it ambiguous whether you were actually Tripping, which left it uncertain whether you apply any special effects and requirements related to the Trip action. To make it clear, change it to say "If you do and your Strike hits, instead of rolling a check for your Trip attempt, you automatically apply the critical success effect of a Trip."

Improved Knockdown is on page 151, but Knockdown is the feat that's listed as being changed. This would be a serious upgrade to Knockdown if that's the feat that should indeed be changed, and make Improved Knockdown pretty obsolete.

That a typo in the FAQ that change is for improved knockdown in the actual printing. I just downloaded and checked it.

I could not find anything, but is it intended or maybe forgotten about that the new alchemy items get added to list of options Perpetual Infusions based on research field. Like the new Alchemical Bombs for Bomber or Any of the new Mutagen for the Mutagenist. Looking at the new Toxicologist research field it notes common trait items for it's options. Should this apply to the other research fields also. It would prevent need for errata later other book beside these 2 and future proof this ability.

This seems like not a bad place to mention that it'd really be nice to have maps that work with a VTT without a lot of fussiness getting the map grid and the VTT grid to line up right. I.e. it'd be really nice to have non-gridded versions of the maps, too.

you can turn off the grid on the digital maps. There is a toggle in the pdf along with another toggle to turn off map markers. It works provided all map markers are actually setup as markers. There a lot of time secret doors get left on map. When it is removed, the door is blatantly obvious there is secret door there. I find my self having to go in to photo shop and copy floor tiles or wall tile to hide those rooms. unless you are good. It still obvious pixel are off on large 43 inch screen. My players pick up on it all the time. unless I mess up the pixels every where. Then they start seeing secret doors every where lol

What they need it a button that will allow us to export the maps out of the PDF cleanly. I get why they are the way they are in the pdf, for copy right protection. As it stands now the only way to do it is to use Snap shot tool in adobe or windows screen shot program. Which it size and resolution seems to based on how big the window you have open is. Sometimes I think it distorted the pixels. I had random section of the pdf on the one mention above copy at 75x75 and another at 50x50 and it was the just a different map on the same PDF page. This is more then likely another form of copy write protection thing or adobe just sucking.

I think the best solution Paizo could come up with a partnership model with all the VTT companies.That would allow Paizo to offer us option to download maps already in our chosen VTT formats with our digital copies. Or away to tie our VVT accounts to our Paizo account so we can download the VTT version of the map from The VTT stores. That way it shows we actual own the content.

Most of the VTT's offer the content preloaded, creatures and all, but it is basically at the same price or more of the current adventures. So we end up having to buy it twice if we want a clean map. Once from Paizo for the PDF so you can actually read it and run the game, and again from VTT for instant creature placement for the encounters and maybe fog of war, on the maps. That make sense it pay extra for all the extra that the VTT company do. It take a lot of time to build all the creatures and input them in VTT, set up fog of war, and maybe attack scripts. I know, because I am programming all that stuff into D20pro currently for my group. It is hours of work. So it is worth paying for it a 2nd time, but not everyone can afford that. Other GM may want to completely rebuild the encounters in the adventure anyway, So that is a waste of money for them. Provided if it is even available on a VVT market place.

Most of the VTT companies are small. They don't have development force that a video game company has to put this stuff out on market place at the same time it comes out from Paizo or as it is needed. These market place VVT content is often several months or more behind. We as GM's end up having to export the maps and build everything from scratch anyway. We end up with these distorted maps =( or spending hours if Photoshop or some other kind of photo editing software trying to fix them. It would be really nice to have a solution for this.

I was wondering, I knew it was supposed to be free form, but I thought it would be bit more less wobbly, then what it is in this AP. I think as you pointed it was written at the same time the monster creation rules where being developed. This is more then likely why the are like this. I would have not noticed if I had not been programming this stuff, in a computer. Made me question balance of monsters a bit and if it was a mistake. I bet it as Exocist said of the creature was designed to be higher level then it is listed as and changed. Thus it has extra damage and higher bonus to hit was not adjusted. I will make my own adjustments. I think even thou they are not built the same. I think certain pieces should still function the same such as weapons. Especial if there is not a listed reason as to why. Alchemist creature mention above has ability stating that it can use magic staffs, could not the same been done for using, cross bow and doing extra damage. After programming the Alchemist further the extra damage was not included on staff attack that is on all it's other weapons. If extra damage is going to be added to things and not giving a reason, I think it should be a bit more consistence and be added to all the weapons. Hopeful there will be less wobbly stat-blocks in future release now that they have a standard method of creature creation now. Thanks for all the info

Are a lot of these Stat Blocks incorrect for creatures? I am trying to program Chapter 2 in to a virtual table top and I am coding it in. I notice some creatures are getting extra damage from no where. Like a Charau-ka butcher in a sense has striking rune for debris throwing ability. But it is not mention any where, or why it does more the base Charau-ka with the same ability. There is also just random +3 damage past str mod score on all damage of that creature. I know, it supposed to be little more free form with monster creation with pathfinder 2nd edition. It make sense with natural attacks for creature, but when they are using the same equipment as PC, that equipment should function the same. There is also and Alchemist built like a pc stat block that is getting bonus damage +3 on all it's weapons, even Crossbow that not supposed to get that kind of bonus damage. It make me wonder if it is a mistake. The consistence of the +3 extra damage on creatures status block in the chapter, make me think it someone accidentally had their calculator add 3 to the stat blocks.

yeah It is home-brew, I put the wrong board. I flagged it already to have it moved.

Hey everyone, I am working on re-building my own races, That I building using race builders guide book from 1st edition. I am wondering how to balance them out and re-building them. I have not been playing 2ed long, my group still on ashes chapter 1 and just hit level 4. Just from what I have seen so far, these things are not nearly as powerful as they used to be. What do you think fair trade off
for the following would be.

Reach with out everyone getting AoO's does not seem to be as big as advantage anymore. I mean it still an advantage but with out AoO and Combat reflexes. Ether from size or natural attack that has reach trait like and ooze pseudopod. is it a Big bonus what should the trade off be?

Size biggest thing I see you get out of being large is reach and the ability to carry more bulk. But Large equipment does cost more stuff and eat more bulk. Weapon damage seem to be limited to 1d12 being the max, so no more double the dice. So for Large Greatsword you would get no bonus, It is already maxed out. but large great club would be increased to 1d12. So I am not seeing huge advantage here either? what would be good trade off?

Elemental Trait - Since elemental, native outside is no longer sub type making you immune to spells. I am not seeing huge advantage by having this trait anymore if anything it may make you more vulnerable in theory as things that effect that trait now effect you? I have not looked at all the spell and stuff to see how big of an impact.

My Original races was Large alligator men that had ties to elemental plane of fire. they were 12RP. So they had vulnerability to cold, resistance to fire 5 before. with a swim speed. +4 to Str -4 Dex and int, +2 Wis. they had Weapon Familiarity and weapon Deficiency -1 to attack with cretin weapons and 1d8 natural bite attack due to size.

The other was Alien looking humanoid with elongated claws (they had reach with only these) that had ties to elemental plane of air. It was 12RP points, Also but was they had lot of buff and bonus to Electricity based stuff. But have vulnerability to Acid and cold. +2 to dex and Cha

A lot of these races stuff can be placed in to race feats, now with 2ed edition. Allows me to balance more stuff out over time.

But really unsure of what to do with Size, Reach and elemental resistances and vulnerabilities There are example of some of the stuff already existing so I know I can balance on those things.

Thanks for the suggestion Zapp, your stuff really looks good, but I want to remove them entirely. I really don't like the idea of spend a point system to get extra roll or do something amazing. One of the reasons I didn't like Swashbuckler in 1st edition. I am looking for a static/Passive thing that will not throw the system out of wack. But looks like death/Dying and hp rules in 2nd edition are very dependent on hero points. Saving you from such. It may not be possible to take that out of the system. It could also be maybe the AP is not as balance as I though it would be. I am not sure. I did not get play test because I was not GMing when it came around. So we are only playing with it now. It seems like 1st edition with unchained action economy may have been bit more balanced in this aspect of not needing hero points. I do know if, I had not double the players race based hp, the party would have TPK and we would have had death sooner.

I would like to come up with something that could give bit more flavor to the characters and be unique to them. Before I figured free ability boost would be good enough. But it is obviously not.

I was thinking of maybe a 2nd background, but call it Childhood. Player maybe pick something, that happen to their characters in their child hood that maybe gets them expert in a skill sooner or a free skill feat, ability boost or honestly maybe a small reaction ability or 1 act that ability unique to them. Could give them a bit of narrative power.

Well I gave this shot and looks like it is having a bigger impact then. I though especial at low level. My group is only level 3, I had a few nights of few good roll with Critical and Almost TPK the party several times. They were also not rolling all that well, which caused their good tactics basically be in effective. I had to intentionally waste action on dumb things for creature that had decent int. My players walk away from the game saying, dam we should have died DM was taking it easy on them. I did not like that. It swung so hard in that direction that it was obvious. I took it easy on them. So looks like hero points are very integral to the system and to be handed out pretty often, but then that rubs me the wrong way also. I did start my players with double race hp, and a extra Free boot stat at Class classes selection. This still happen. I was using Ash AP chapter 1 to so it should have been well balanced for system we had 1 extra player. I was not running exp, and just leveling everyone at point in the adventure it say the should be. So 5th person was not effecting the parts exp draw. If anything it should have made things easier. Any other suggestion maybe I can try out. We are running the AP to get better feel of system, the players like it and what my to write homebew game, but I want to iron out rules and house rules before investing time it writing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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