I was just confused, its an interesting concept as I do know some transgender players and this would be an interesting tool for them IC to play out a similar story if they so chose. Also Alleran I never thought of that, could be useful in stories as well.
Sorry if I offended I didn't mean too.
It originally showed up in a post on the boards not long after Wrath of the Righteous started last year. There is a prominent NPC couple in the first Chapter for whom that item figures strongly, or rather for whom it would figure strongly, if it existed when that AP came out. Putting it in the ACG is likely more of a 'now we can put that argument to bed' kind of thing.
It's interesting - we just finished our run in the AP (truly awesome campaign incidentally once Mythic rules were thrown out) and this never once played a role in our game. Never even came up. Of course, we were more focused on the whole 'rid the world of the demonic scourge that threatened to destroy it' rather than exploring the social ramifications of an interracial lesbian couple that also apparently needed to be transgender, so now I'm wondering if we missed the point entirely...
I was talking with a friend about giving Wrather a try with just two players. We'd be able to meet more often and get through the AP a lot faster - but obviously the power level would be in question, especially with the curve ball of the new mythic rules. After talking to the person who would GM this campaign, we agreed that a pair of Gestalt characters would probably be the way to go.
What we're considering right now (in part after browsing some of these threads) is a couple of complimentary Paladin // Summoners... specifically a Oath of Vengeance Paladin / Synthesist and a Sacred Shield / Master Summoner. On the surface it looks like a good pairing and good combinations, but I'd be interested in the thoughts of those here.
The Synthesist will use a Greatsword and his evolutions will focus on defenses and enhanced combat abilities while the Master Summoner will specialize in summoning celestial creatures and beings.
EDIT: Sorry - didn't see Mercurial's earlier post. Consider this an update to that one.
We restarted Skull & Shackles and I am now a player.
A halfling gunslinger (buccaneer). Plugg goaded me into the arena, but it was obvious that Owlbear had taken some serious brain damage. So rather than attack him, I started talking to him like he was a big labrador.
"Who's a good boy? Stay! Staaaay!"
Refused to throw a single punch, when Plugg got frustrated and threw the club in I grabbed it and tossed it across the deck saying: "Fetch!"
When Owlbear returned the club I scratched him behind the ear and he fell over as I rubbed his belly. "Who's a good boy then?"
Owlbear likes me a lot more than Plugg now, but Plugg refused to pay up. Which is fine, I'll get my payment yet.
Shown her this topic and she likes the ideas of sorcerers and witches, so on Wednesday I'm going to properly talk her through each to help her decide. Really can't thank you all enough, you've really helped us.
@Hunphrey Boggard Level 3. Thanks a lot for the final witch suggestion, it really does seem awesome!
A Witch would actually be a great idea. Her Hexes would be a nice baseline, something she can get comfortable using while she learns the ins and outs of spell preparation (and I hate prepared casters).
Traditionally speaking, the purpose of marriage - particularly beneath divine or religious oversight - was for the purposes of procreation... so I would presume the Goddess of Marriage would be encouraging heterosexual marriage. For what it's worth, however, a person (or a deity) can run around encouraging heterosexuals to get married without automatically being a homophobe.
But the inclusion of LGBT characters in this AP in positive roles is completely and absolutely the point. I understand if that doesn't sit well with some folks, and in those cases they should absolutely change the characters to be more appropriate for their games. But I absolutely do not apologize for including these characters in the adventure path.
And the exclusion of them in villainous roles? Or are hetero's the only ones with the capacity for evil...?
We've had plenty of villainous ones already in previous APs, as early as Curse of the Crimson Throne, in fact.
The post was in jest - probably should have put a smiley face in there somewhere. Crimson Throne was, unfortunately, before my time.
But the inclusion of LGBT characters in this AP in positive roles is completely and absolutely the point. I understand if that doesn't sit well with some folks, and in those cases they should absolutely change the characters to be more appropriate for their games. But I absolutely do not apologize for including these characters in the adventure path.
And the exclusion of them in villainous roles? Or are hetero's the only ones with the capacity for evil...?
Perhaps have the barbarian be a zone controlling type as mentained in TarkTx's Passive-Agressive Tank topic. Keeping critters away from the witches will be vital, so a Polearm+Spiked gauntlet is a possible load-out.
I'd be running the Barb and I'm going with a Bardiche, Combat Reflexes and the ability to grow claws via Lesser Beast Totem. And yeah - protect them when they need protecting, kill when they don't. The characters already a hell of a tank sand with their debugging abilities there shouldn't be much I can't handle. One of the girls even has some Summoning ability to help out.
For most of my builds, a 25 point buy would basically mean a 14 con, 14 dex and slightly higher dump stat.
So +1 hp per level, +1 to ac, reflex saves, fort saves, range attacks and I'm less terrible at some stuff I don't do.
That's roughly worth 4-5 extra feats (toughness, dodge, a feat which gives you +1 to two saves, instead of +2 to one, the equivalent of weapon focus for ranged attacks, plus +1 to initiative, and +1 to dex-based skills such as stealth or acrobatics)
So yes, the difference between starting at 15 point buy, or starting at 25, is being given 4-5 extra feats
Here's the hysterical thing to me - in your example its equivalent to 4-5 feats. Think about it this way - it's also equivalent to a +1 long sword and a +2 belt of Constitution - what's that, maybe 6,000 gp? So with 6,000 gold I can buy the equivalent of 4-5 feats? All that does is prove my point that the game is grossly slanted towards what you can buy rather than what you can do.
People get up in arms over the point buy adjustment but don't seem to mind characters getting showered with magical gear. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.
My version of this is a Demonspawn Tiefling Oracle (Lore) 1 / Paladin (Oath of Vengeance) 11... I feel like the Tiefling race is a much better option, due in large part to its favored class ability for Paladins. That and the backstory of being descendant from a fiend and seeking redemption by driving them from this plane of existence.
Also consider the Tiefling trait Suicidal and the very fitting Legalistic curse for a Paladin who feels compelled to keep his word.
I've got the build if you're interested - planning on playing it through Wrath of the Righteous and really looking forward to it.
If you can post the build, I would be very grateful.
I will have to adapt it for an Aasimar character, mainly cos I prefer Flann's back story to be that of a good person with a bad past seeking redemption, over an that of a fiend-born seeking redemption.
Fiend-born can't be good people with a bad past? I would think that's almost the definition of a Tiefling PC...
The character is built around all of the benefits that the Tiefling race offers - if you're set on Aasimar Paladin (the child of an angel seeking a life of holiness doesn't exactly sound like the tortured soul concept you were working on), then its probably better to stick with what you have... but I will advise you that a single level of Oracle is probably all you need, and that you'll benefit more with more levels in Paladin.
My version of this is a Demonspawn Tiefling Oracle (Lore) 1 / Paladin (Oath of Vengeance) 11... I feel like the Tiefling race is a much better option, due in large part to its favored class ability for Paladins. That and the backstory of being descendant from a fiend and seeking redemption by driving them from this plane of existence.
Also consider the Tiefling trait Suicidal and the very fitting Legalistic curse for a Paladin who feels compelled to keep his word.
I've got the build if you're interested - planning on playing it through Wrath of the Righteous and really looking forward to it.
I definitely would like the updated build. lol As long as you don't mind me running with it. I've got a good bit of fluff rolling around in my head, so I can definitely see having fun with him. Especially with the group.
Here you go:
Human 2nd level Unbreakable Fighter / 18th level Invulnerable Rager & Urban Barbarian Heart of the Fields alternate racial trait, Human favored class option for Barbarians
Attributes: (20 point buy)
STR - 15 (+2 racial bonus, +1 at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 20th level)
DEX - 14
CON - 14
INT - 14
WIS - 12
CHA - 7
Traits:
Threatening Defender (reduce Combat Expertise penalties by 1)
Auspicious Tattoo (+1 Will saves)
Feats & Rage Powers by level:
1st - Combat Expertise
1st - Power Attack
2nd - Superstition
3rd - Combat Reflexes
4th - Lesser Beast Totem
5th - Stalwart
5th - Diehard
5th - Endurance
7th - Deadly Aim
7th - Reckless Abandon
9th - Extra RP: Extra DR
9th - Beast Totem
11th - Improved Stalwart
11th - Greater Beast Totem
13th - Dazing Assault
13th - Come and Get Me
15th - Extra RP: Extra DR
15th - Extra DR
17th - Extra RP: Flesh Wound
17th - Witch Hunter
19th - Extra RP: Eater of Magic
19th - Strength Surge
20th - Improved Initiative
;) Yeah, the building is the hard part for me. I know that he's strong, from having read it. At least I think this is it.
I definitely like how useful that he can be. I'm a little concerned about being TOO good across the board. I played a vivisectionist/internal alchemist the last time I played through S&S, and I stepped on some toes.
I definitely want to be a team player, enjoy myself, but not be so great at my job that nobody else gets a chance to shine.
Wow - haven't seen that in ages. Yeah, that's the original version though its been tweaked a bit here and there to streamline it some.
The way I see it, a tank is by definition a team player... though I've never had much patience for people who cry that someone else's character is 'too good' when everyone builds their own characters. Last time I played on a team, I wanted it to have a star player, even if I wasn't him. We tended to win more and I generally prefer the team winning to my looking good personally. besides, its only in pure combat games that that kind of thing tends to happen, and SnS isn't that kind of game. Your skill monkeys will get a chance to shine, your face-men will get a chance to shine and so will your hammers and your casters.
Our group featured a Human Sea Singer, a Human Rogue, a Human Barbarian and a Half-elven Master Summoner an no one at any time felt as if they didn't have enough to do.
At any rate, he's a solid character who fills all the roles your team is lacking. If you want the updated build, just let me know.
Ok. So I think it's come down to Sea Reaver or Invulnerable Rager/Drunken Brute.
Votes for each and why?
As I said, the Invulnerable Rager build we used is field-tested and proved incredibly effective, in this AP in particular though its strong across the board.
The character has excellent skills at 6 ranks/level plus a big boost to his Profession: Sailor, he's a credible ranged threat as well as a terror in melee combat, high hit points and tremendous DR (you have DR 14/- by 12th level) makes for a highly survivable character even in circumstances where armor isn't ideal. He also has obscenely high saving throws, particularly against spells.
He's a tank if you need him to be. He's a killer if you need him to be. He is versatile and useful outside of combat. What more could you want?
The trick is you have to know how to build him ;)
EDIT: He's Human though and that might be a problem for that menagerie you're going to be running with - a fire elemental with a love for the sea? I'd make him a half-dragon/half-drow for you if I could but the numbers just wouldn't work... its gotta be plain old, boring Human.
I'd reccomend a Human Invulnerable Rager & Urban Barbarian, specifically the high DR build I posted a while back... it was played in our SnS game to tremendous effect from start to finish and is one of the best melee characters I've ever seen.
I enjoy building characters, and I put together this Halfling Archeologist a while back. The one time I played him I got him to 12th level where he was just beginning to become effective in combat, but that was fine because he wasn't really designed as a combat character as much as he was that jack-of-all-trades with a knack for getting himself (and others) both into and out of trouble. He's a character intended for great RP and his build reflects that, but that doesn't mean I don't want him to be as effective as possible.
Below is his build - its not 100% set in stone but its pretty close to what I want to do... the question becomes 1) what Mythic powers/abilities/feats should I be looking at and 2) how should I modify his current build to accomodate those Mythic additions? Assume that the rest of the party has standard combat, healing, buff and spell-casting duties already covered. Anything that he adds that isn't skill-related or comic relief is just bonus.
For what its worth, the character will be played in a Wrath of the Righteous campaign. His concept is an explorer with a fetish for maps, history, ancient cultures and ancient relics - magical or otherwise - who just 'got caught up in this thing', though he has a heroic heart when put to the test.
Sigh, this seems to come up alot so here goes.this is important. Mythic feats do not stand on their own. Use the model provided by the original feat and then apply it to your mythic power attack. Then apply that same rule to all the other mythic feats and you are good.
So a two-handed weapon wielder who has Power Attack and Mythic Power Attack, at +8 BAB, would suffer a -3 attack bonus and recieve a damage bonus of +9 x 150% or +13.5 rounded down to 13?
Mythic Power Attack
Benefit: When you use Power Attack, you gain a +3 bonus on melee damage rolls instead of +2. When your base attack bonus reaches +4 and every 4 points thereafter, the amount of bonus damage increases by +3 instead of +2.
So no damage boost for those using Mythic Power Attack with a two-handed weapon?
Do away with the Rum Rations and the Bloody Hour. Feel free to allow the penalties for too much rum to affect the players should they over-indulge and feel free to have the PC's or NPC's whipped bloody when the situation warrants it, but make it more organic.
Do what you can to keep the players alive til the end of book 1, its very difficult to replace characters 'in-story' until then.
Avoid using the botfly swarms on the island unless your party is specifically equipped to deal with them - they can really take down a low level group with no defenses.
My two biggest pieces of advice for moving along the storyline:
1) Encourage a mutiny before the Man's Promise gets shipwrecked, and use Sandara's kidnapping as an excuse to get them to the island - if she's romantically involved with one of the PC's by then so much the better.
2) Have Aron Ivey alive and well and fending for his life in the stockade. His presence allows the PC's to get learn all of the backstory surrounding the Infernus which is great and he can become a valuable NPC from there onward. Much of fishguts advice actually came from Ivey in our campaign and he was a non-combatant ship's carpenter who aided and oversaw repairs and eventually became a shipwright (once he lost his leg) who supervised the construction of our flagship int he later books. Great resource there - in our campaign he told us about the wreck of the Infernus and that there was likely a store of water-breathing potions still aboard which eventually made our assault on the underwater caverns much more survivable.
This was the best campaign/AP we've ever played. If I can offer up any advice, don't hesitate to ask here or message me privately, though it was Story Archer who actually ran it as our GM and her insights might be better.
I'm working on a character based around teamwork feats. I see two different versions. This is for PFS.
The idea that first comes to mind is Cavalier(strategist+flag bearer)+Fighter(Tactician). Should give the best advancement for giving out teamwork feats and the most feats to work with.
However, I've come across something that may be better for giving out teamwork.
Paladin(Holy tactician) + Inquisitor. Battlefield presence will let me handout teamwork feats that last all day. Inquisitor will let me swap the teamwork feats around.
My favorite teamwork feat right now is Lastwall Phalanx.
What I don't know, is what else to do with the character. My bonus feats from the classes are tied up, but I've still got my main feats, and I'm not sure what type of fighting style to focus on.
We have a pair of Dervish of Dawn PC's (twins) just starting off Wrath of the Righteous. They took a 2 level MOMS dip and will invest heavily in teamwork feats over the course of the build. The results look to be pretty devastating.
They each have the full Crane Style feat tree by 4th level, then take Paired Opportunists and Broken Wing Gambit, eventually taking Seize the Momement after Improved Critical for their Scimiatrs. High saves, tons of attacks, almost unhittable, bard spells, bard skills and the ability to cast cure spells as move actions. Pretty darned tough to beat.
I would make the point to the GM that while the benefit might seem potentially OP'ed at lower levels, at higher levels its a much, much less potent option... its still great, mind you, but it does nothing to help you against spells and spell-like abilities, ranged attacks, assaults on your CMD, etc.
And, of course, it only negates one attack per round.
If I were to make a character who couldn't be hit except for a natural 20 by any being published by Paizo, how high would my AC need to be?
Or put in another way, which published Paizo being has the highest attack modifier and how high is it?
I have a character with 64 AC, and I want to know if I need to tone it down and reinvest some resources elsewhere, or if I need to make it higher.
I can't help you with the highest attack modifier trivia question, but you've made enough characters to know that, while getting the AC up there as an intellectual exercise is all well and good, characters will be much better served by having higher saves, CMD, etc. When a character is THAT much of a 1-trick pony, there are just too many ways to neutralize him or - worse yet - turn him and that high AC on his companions.
I'd say that if your average +4 CR foe needs a 19 or higher to hit you then your AC is more than high enough.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification - teamwork feats are still kind of new to me and how they interact potentially complex. Wording, as usual, is everything.
The other two members of the party will be a Tiefling Paladin (Oath of Vengeance, Oath Against Fiends) using a reach weapon and a Dwarven Theologian taking the Madness Domain with a dip into Wild Rager - both have truly excellent backstories. The group is gearing up for Wrath of the Righteous run.
Ferious Thune wrote:
Interesting build. I like that it's both a concept build and a mechanical build. Everything seems to make sense for the character backgrounds as well as for the crunch.
I'm with henwy, wouldn't you want Combat Reflexes before Paired Opportunist and Broken Wing Gambit? I'd go ahead and take it at 1st instead of dodge. That way you're getting multiple AoOs as soon as 3rd and definitely at 5th. Otherwise for two levels you won't be able to make optimal use of the teamwork feats.
Also, Lore Warden is a great dip for fighter, and it gives a lot of good things, but it's not as great for a Bard. You already have all of the knowledge skills as class skills, and most(all?) of the Int skills, so Lore Warden doesn't give you much in the way of class skills that another archetype wouldn't. The 4 skill points is also nice, but Bards have plenty of skill points to begin with. Combat Expertise is better than one tick of bravery, but really, how often does it get used? It's mostly taken as a prereq, and nothing you are taking needs it as a prereq.
I suggest you look at the unarmed fighter archetype. You could dip into it and get Crane Riposte as early as 5th level.
Unarmed Fighter wrote:
At 1st level, a unarmed fighter gains the Improved Unarmed Strike feat and any single style feat as a bonus feat. The unarmed fighter need not meet all the prerequisites of the style feat he chooses, but style feats that grant additional uses of the Elemental Fist feat cannot be taken until the unarmed fighter has that feat.
This ability replaces the bonus feat at 1st level.
Emphasis mine. So at 5th level you could realize your chain of AoOs instead of waiting until 11th. You may not even need a second level of fighter, unless you just want the extra bonus feat (Weapon Focus: Scimitar or Dodge based on your current build).
I think this is tremendous advice. I did some number crunching on the BAB (which is the tricky part, qualifying for the right feats at the right time) and while Dodge is nice, it was only taken for this build as a pre-requisite for Crane Riposte. Using your suggestions, this is the feat re-work I've come up with and I think its a significant improvement...
The MoMS levels are taken at 2nd and 3rd while the Unarmed Fighter levels are taken at 4th and 12th - the one at 12th taken specifically to get Seize the Moment a level earlier and for the bonus feat, which I'm still debating... the utility of Arcane Strike could be problematic - it interferes with Medatative Whirl and the ability to flash back and forth between Performances. Eventually the PC's will be able to make their attacks with their amped up Inspire Courage and then end the round with a swift action shift to doubled Inspire Heroics or doubled Inspire Greatness, only to swift action back at the beginning of their next turn.
To be honest, the biggest difficulty I forsee is facing creatures with reach which would put them out of range of the PC's AoO's... although, our GM has ruled (correctly in my opinion) that a creature with reach making a natural attack that provokes is considered within range of the AoO.
Thanks again for the advice - again, any additional comments are welcome.
Out of curiosity, what was the alchemist's Sleight of Hands roll when he was searched for weapons before being sent down into the bilges in the first place? Surely the potions would have drawn attention...
When a few of our guys went down there to deal with the dire rats, we searched the area and discovered some weapons - figuring that 1) we better not get caught with them and 2) they could end up being very useful, we carefully re-hid them. When our main Fighter (the one Plugg felt threatened by) was sent down there, he knew somethign was up, and had access to the weapon to defend himself.
Basic Rule: You only get one AoO per provocation.
Basic Rule: Feats that allow you to take AoOs in special situations don't allow for recursion.
Broken Wing Gambit: Free action, allows your teammate to take an AoO when you get attacked. "...If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat."
Paired Opportunist: "Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you..." Paired Opportunist doesn't provide the AoO, the enemy's action does. Crane Riposte: "Whenever you use Crane Wing to deflect an opponent's attack, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent after the attack is deflected..."
Seize the Moment: "When an ally who also has this feat confirms a critical hit against an opponent that you also threaten, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent."
You're going to have to forgive me, but I'm having a little bit of a difficult time following your verbage.
I think what you're saying is that Paired Opportunists doesn't grant AoO's as a result of Crane Riposte or Seize the Moment because the AoO's granted by those feats weren't provoked by the foe but rather the result of the PC's abilities... you don't get an AoO any time your teammate does, you just get one whenever your opponent provokes one from your teammate, right? Otherwise, theoretically, Paired Opportunists could trigger each other back and forth ad infinitum.
On the other hand, if a monster wanders through a square you both threaten, you both get your normal AoO and then Paired Opportunists gives you each another AoO as a result.
Is this the right interpretation?
You're spending 12 (6 per PC) feats to get 3-4 extra attacks a round between the two of you, that's a significant investment and probably balanced for the power you get. It's also a tactic that intelligent enemies can minimize through smart tactics: Attack someone other than the Broken Winging Dawnflower Dervish.
Agreed, but that's kind of tough to do when they're both 'Broken Winging Dawnflower Dervishes, eh?
The concept obivously are these twins who use this flowing, almost dancing style of combat that compliment one another perfectly... in my ultimate vision, they're angling to become scions of Sarenrae.
Presume two characters with identical builds at 12th level, facing a single Foe. Initiative is determined as PC #1, PC #2 and then their Foe.
PC#1 moves adjacent to the foe (move action) and attacks (standard action), hitting successfully and activating Broken Wing Gambit.
PC#2 moves adjacent to both of them (move action) and attacks (standard action), also hitting successfully and also activating Broken Wing Gambit. His hit is also a confirmed critical which triggers Seize the Moment, allowing PC#1 an AoO which in turn activates Paired Opportunists, granting PC#2 an AoO.
Foe attacks PC#1, triggering Broken Wing Gambit and granting PC#2 an AoO which activates Paired Opportunists and grants PC#1 an AoO. The attack would be successful, but PC#1 deflects it using Crane Wing and the makes an AoO with Crane Riposte. This activates Paired Opportunists once more which grants PC#2 an AoO which in turn grants PC#1 an AoO. The Foe then makes any additional attacks he has, assuming he survived the opening round.
And of course, all seven of those AoO's are made with a +4 attack bonus. Each additional successful critical during this exchange would create another AoO for each PC.
Aasimar 16th level Dervish of Dawn / 2nd level Master of Many Styles / 2nd level Lore Warden Azata-blooded, favored class bonus for Bards (Inspire Courage)
This looks like a ton of fun. If you don't mind I have some questions...
The dip into fighter....is it for the BAB for some of the necessary feats? If so, why make the dip at 11 and 12 instead of somewhat earlier? Also, is there any reason for Lore Warden in particular?
I would think that you would need Combat Reflexes much earlier seeing as that's critical to the build. If it's feat starved...maybe human is better even without the inspire courage boost from favored class?
The primary dip into Fighter is indeed for a very slight BAB bump that would allow me to take Crane Riposte two levels earlier. Lore Warden seemed like the ideal choice, both from a mechanical and flavor perspective. I have no need of heavier armor, the bonus skill points are welcome and appropriate and free Combat Expertise is better than a single tick of Bravery. The reason I didn't take it earlier is that 8 levels of Bard (achieved at 10th) is what I needed to qualify for the next iteration of acclerated doubled Inspire Courage (+6). I didn't have any need for the fighter levels before that.
For what its worth, the build has been tweaked slightly - feat selection now looks like this:
Keep in mind too, these aren't just straight combat characters - they will have a wealth of spells available to them, most of the usual Bardic abilities (Inspire Competence, Versatile Performance, Soothing Performance, etc.) and the wide array of skills common to Bard characters.
Very excited to see how these two perform. The rest of the party will be a Tiefling Paladin (who plans on having a relationship with the female twin much to the male twin's displeasure) and a Dwarven Cleric.
If two bards both have the discordant voice feat and are maintaining a performance, then yes, it should stack. But would the bards get an extra 1d6 or an extra 2d6 damage to their attacks? Are you your own ally?
Interesting question... if we were basing it off of real-life personal experience, my response would have to be usually not, no - but in game terms... I'm not sure.
In general, effects don't stack unless it specifically indicates they are unique. I don't see anything about Discordant Voice that would indicate it would break from the norm so I wouldn't allow it in my games.
Similar effects always stack if from unique sources. Evil Eye's from two different Witches stack. The firey auras from two monsters both deal damage if you're in range of both of them.
Perhaps different people have different ideas of what makes common sense?
Each attack is not simultaneous. The shields move to intercept attack 1. They move simultaneously and together. Thus, there is effectively only one shield. After attack 1 is resolved they move to intercept attack 2 with the same result.
In any case, this discussion is far off topic and into theoretical opinions of how a spell might be explained as not stacking. The ban on stacking typed bonuses makes perfect common sense to me.
- Gauss
Let's say you have a shield spell up and it moves to intercept an attack, but the attack hits anyway. Was the shield too slow, too busy blocking other attacks or not powerful enough to withstand the blow? It doesn't matter because in every one of those instances, a second shield would have improved your chance of not getting hit, either by doubling your coverage area or by doubling the force required to penetrate.
Honestly - you're telling me that if I put on a suit of plate armor and then put on an even bigger suit of plate armor over that, I'm not more protected that I would be with just the one suit? Of course the weight and armor penalties would be out of this world, but that's not germaine to the conversation - two layers of steel are stronger than just one.
And such is the case for all stacking bonuses. Having supernaturally tough skin and then putting on an amulet that makes your skin even more supernaturally tough doesn't provide any benefit? Of course it should... but mechanically, it doesn't.
Martial, Martial, Martial, I can explain why two Shield spells aren't better than one. They are both moving to intercept the attack. If you have two shields (one behind the other) is there any difference between that and one shield?
- Gauss
Actually they're moving to intercept the attacks, so presumably against multiple attacks, two shields have a better opportunity to intercept them all than one... and if a single attack is theoretically strong enough to blow past one, well there's the other one to absorb what remains.
The ban on stacking typed bonuses makes mechanical sense (I guess) but they never, ever make common sense.
The question is simple, being a normal medium sized PC can you still deflect attacks form a Large or bigger enemy?
I don't know why the idea of a Monk deflecting a hit from a Morningstar from a Cloud Giant, I just see it as something inconceivable
As I said in another thread, think of it more as a matador with his cape facing off against a Bull than of someone blocking an attack with his bare hands...
I don't understand why two Shield spells aren't better than one, but there it is.
By the way, this is the build for the two as it stands now; I've been working on it for quite a while. The two levels of MoMS come at 2nd and 3rd, the two levels of Lore Warden come at 11th and 12th.
.
.
.
Aasimar 16th level Dervish of Dawn / 2nd level Master of Many Styles / 2nd level Lore Warden Azata-blooded, favored class bonus for Bards (Inspire Courage)
Attributes: (20 point buy)
STR - 13
DEX - 16 (+2 racial bonus, +1 @ 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th & 20th)
CON - 12
INT - 12
WIS - 8
CHA - 14 (+2 racial bonus)
Diego and Claxon, thanks for your responses, I missed that and of course you are correct.
Lamontius wrote:
My only concern is that I thought you could only take one AoO on a Monster, in response to a given action that it takes
In your example, all the monster did was take one attack action
I am in your corner on this, because it sounds awesome, but I feel like something is being missed
I, like you, wonder if something is being missed, but I don't think that's it. Here's the relevant text from Crane Riposte:
Whenever you use Crane Wing to deflect an opponent’s attack, you can make an attack of opportunity against that opponent after the attack is deflected.
It seems to me as if the wording implies that your AoO is being provoked by your deflection of the attack, not the attack itself. If you didn't chose to deflect, there would be no AoO despite the monster's attack.
So PC #2 is making one AoO triggered by the Monster's attack due to BWG, and one AoO triggered by PC #1's use of Crane Riposte, no?
Can two instances of Discordant Voice be in effect at once if two Bardic Performances are ongoing and both PC's have the feat?
Discordant Voice Whenever you are using bardic performance to create a spell-like or supernatural effect, allies within 30 feet of you deal an extra 1d6 points of sonic damage with successful weapon attacks. This damage stacks with other energy damage a weapon might deal. Projectile weapons bestow this extra damage on their ammunition, but the extra damage is dealt only if the projectile hits a target within 30 feet of you.
As a follow up, could two Dervishes of Dawn theoretically take this feat and use it as a compliment to their Battle Dance, giving both they and their allies an additional 2d6 sonic damage on their atacks?
Relevant text from the Dervish of Dawn Battle Dance:
Battle dancing is treated as bardic performance for the purposes of feats, abilities, and effects that affect bardic performance, except that battle dancing does not benefit from the Lingering Performance feat or any other ability that allows a bardic performance to grant bonuses after it has ended.
Broken Wing Gambit: Whenever you make a melee attack and hit your opponent, you can use a free action to grant that opponent a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against you until the end of your next turn or until your opponent attacks you, whichever happens first. If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.
Paired Opportunists:Whenever you are adjacent to an ally who also has this feat, you receive a +4 circumstance bonus on attacks of opportunity against creatures that you both threaten. Enemies that provoke attacks of opportunity from your ally also provoke attacks of opportunity from you so long as you threaten them (even if the situation or an ability would normally deny you the attack of opportunity). This does not allow you to take more than one attack of opportunity against a creature for a given action.
Okay, so you have two melee types standing side-by-side facing a large monster. Both have the above feats. PC #1 Attacks and hits, using Broken Wing Gambit. The Monster attacks that PC in return, provoking an AoO from PC #2.
Question 1: Does that trigger Paired Opportunists, allowing PC #1 an AoO as well?
Question #2: Since activating Broken Wing Gambit is a free action, can PC #2 use it when making his AoO?
Now it gets good. Let's say that both PC's also have Crane Riposte (we have twin builds in our upcoming WotR game). When the monster attacks PC#1 in the above example, the PC uses Crane Wing to deflect that attack, provoking an AoO in response. So now PC #1 is making an AoO with Crane Riposte, provoking an AoO from PC #2, then, PC #2 is making an AoO due to the BWG, provoking an AoO from PC #1 - and then of course making his normal attack(s) on his turn.
Sound right?
PC #1 attacks and hits, activating Broken Wing Gambit.
Monster attacks PC #1 in response, but PC #1 uses Crane Wing to deflect the first attack.
PC #1 makes an AoO due to Crane Riposte.
PC #2 makes an AoO due to Paired Opportunists.
PC #2 makes another AoO due to Broken Wing Gambit and chooses to activate BWG himself.
PC #1 makes another AoO due to Paired Opportunists.
Monster makes the remainder of his attacks against PC #1 (as attacking PC #2 at this point would only confuse things further)
PC #2 makes his attacks as normal.
Broken Wing Gambit - with their high Dex and Crane Wing ability it poses no threat and offers additional AoO's.
Seize the Moment - another AoO opportunity based on the partner critting - considering the scimitar's high crit chance, could be a winner.
Paired Opportunists - due in large part to the feats listed above.
Other options though, like Pack Attack, Swap Places and even Stealth Synergy would seem like good possibilities... anyone out there have experience with teamwork feats? I don't, and I know sometimes things don't work in practice the way they seem they might in theory.
We're gearing up for a Wrath of the Righteous campaign (please don't move this, mods, because the post has nothing to do with the AP itself), and one of the characters that was made was an Aasimar Dervish of Dawn who takes a two level dip in MoMS for the Crane feats. It looked like a really, really fun character so another player suggested that they play the same build (almost) as male and female twins. There's some good role-play potential in there so everybody thought it was a good idea.
Now I'm looking at the original build and trying to figure out what teamwork feats we should be considering for the two. A handful of feat slots seem to be screaming for them, and the plan will be for the two of them to almost always be fighting in tandem... so looking at the options, what would you suggest?
The Monk levels are taken at 2nd and 3rd, and the bolded feats are the ones I see most likely to be replaced by potential teamwork feats.
Aasimar 18th level Dervish of Dawn / 2nd level Master of Many Styles Azata-blooded , Favored class option for Bards
Attributes: (20 point build)
STR - 13
DEX - 16 (+2 racial bonus, +1 @ 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th & 20th level)
CON - 12
INT - 12
WIS - 8
CHA - 14 (+2 racial bonus)
I just watched a monk get his first use of crane wing off in *six levels.* It's a feat that is entirely broken, but only in theorycrafted encounters where a single monster will be fighting a single mob and has only a single attack.
In the game-as-played, there will be three (or more) other player characters, no shortage of other attack options, and *the GM controls who the monsters attack.* Daniel-san, standing back there in crane stance, looking like he's failing a field sobriety test, or the fighter right up in your face hitting you with a sword, or the healer who is frustratingly undoing the damage that you just did to said fighter, or the wizard that just tried to blind you with glitterdust, which would have pretty much one-shotted you if you hadn't made your save. Hmmm. Who to attack? Oh yeah, one of the three that actually did something this round. Let the monk stand in crane stance. He'll probably cramp up after awhile, and his entire party will be dead and wondering if maybe it would have been better to bring an NPC adept, who could at least have used a wand of cure light wounds or something.
It's reactive, utterly dependent on the GM to make it useful, by having monsters run over and attack the monk who is fighting defensively, which, barring the occasional stupid monster, who might do that *once,* isn't going to happen much. Combat isn't won by defense. 'Turtling' isn't a viable tactic in D&D/PF.
If the GM continues to throw creatures with only a single attack at you, and continues to have them uselessly flail away at the monk and ignore everyone else in the party, then, yeah, *totally* OP.
We've got twin Aasimar Dervishes of Dawn who both dipped MoMS getting ready for Wrath of the Righteous, and I can assure you, they'll be doing a lot more than standing around. Keep in mind that you can full attack while fighting defensively, and not only do you get to negate one automatic hit, but your overall defense improves as well.
I don't think the feat is overpowered, but I can promise there will be some very frustrated critters when we are done with them.
I'm taking the first four levels of my favorite straight-up Fighter, one whom gains Whirlwind Attack in that time and then looking to begin pogression as a spellcaster... I'm just not sure what route to take. The character will already be MAD as hell, that's for certain, and I'm looking for advice.
My first thought was to go Charisma-based and eye some Eldritch Heritage feats, but that seems untenable given my Intelligence requirements, so Wizard seems the way to go. Shame a Magus can't be used with a two-handed weapon as this character will be using a pole-arm of some sort, likely a Bardiche...
At any rate, these are the base attributes - I've got a 20 point build to work with:
Attributes:
STR - 15 (+2 racial bonus, +1 at 4th)
DEX - 14
CON - 14
INT - 14
WIS - 10
CHA - 8
Feats:
1st - Dodge
1st - Power Attack
1st - Cleave
2nd - Mobility
3rd - Combat Expertise
4th - Spring Attack (swap Cleave for Whirlwind Attack)
I'm actually torn between going Weaponmaster for the Weapon Training bonus at 3rd (which opens the doors to Gloves of Dueling) or Lore Warden which will free up an extra feat and a few more skill points. After that, the plan is to go all spellcaster, probably Wizard... but which? Is this a case where Eldritch Knight should be considered?
I need to understand, a human take crane wing, and facing a Titan that hold a collossal hammer with str 50.
The Titan is taking vital strike, awesome blow , power att and all he has.
The upcoming damage is 500 or so.
Yet, the small human, monk, level 1 (!!!) is.... Deflecting the charge with no harm and no check....
Really ?!
Think of it less as 'deflection' and more like a matador with his cape against a raging bull...
Well, its not exactly a feat, its the product of four separate feats, requires you to have a hand free AND to be fighting defensively, reducing your offensive effectiveness.
I'm not saying that its not a great ability, but let's recognize it for what it is.
That said, I have an Aasimar Dervish of Dawn who has taken it and is really, really looking forward to the upcoming RoW campaign.
Okay, I our group has still never had a gunslinger. We are starting a new campaign soon (ROTRL: No spoilers please). I usually GM, but I am getting a chance to play for once. Both the new GM and I would really like to see how the Gunslinger works in actual play with our group.
Consequently, I agreed to play one. Now I am a little concerned that I'll be bored to tears.
Reason: From past experience I know I don't like playing archers, because you do the same thing every round: full attack with as many arrows as you can. This isn't a problem for full-casters, of course, and I don't have an issue with melee because being up close and threatened keeps things interest enough tactically.
So, people who have played Gunslingers, is it just like playing an archer or does the Grit and Deeds keep it interesting?
Also, I haven't made the character yet, so input on archetypes that might be more fun wouldn't be amiss.
Gunslingers are indeed fun. So are tank drivers, astronauts, robots and superheroes... unfortunately, none of them have in place in our games. I want to play a sci-fi game, I play one... I want to play a wild western game, I play one... I'm here for epic fantasy and anything that's not just takes away from the experience.
My player wants to run this adventure 5 paladin. (maybe 4 paladin and something other)
Should I permit this?
5 paladin will be good? or they destined doom?
at my first impression is holy XXXX!
they just want to be paladin for smite evil g@!@#*n demon!
for now, i'm worry about it will be really senario-breaking parth?
maybe they are literally eaten to monsters. of course, paladin will be very powerful to demons. but only paladin?
I want to listen your opinion...
Two Paladins who take Oath of Vengeance and Oath Against Fiends - they can be siblings who's families were slain by rampaging demonic hordes.
One Paladin who is a Divine Hunter.
One Paladin who is a Holy Tactician
And then I say pick a fifth character who is totally off-the-wall... like a little halfling rogue or something, to do all those things the other PC's can't.
We're going to do a Tiefling Paladin (Oath of Vengeance, Oath Against Fiends), two Aasimar Dervishes of Dawn (twins) and a Dwarven Theologian (Madness) for a similar effect.
.
Ironically, Tieflings make the best Paladins and this one has a killer backstory, Aasimar can accelerate their Battle Dances and cast Cure spells as a move action and the Cleric will be all about the buffs. We're a touch worried about range and trap-finding abilities, but the party just feels like the ideal type of group to send into the Worldwound.
Incidentally, the Paladin will be taking a 1 level dip in Oracle, the Aasimar a 2 level dip in MoMS and the Dwarf a 2 level dip in Wild Rager, just to round some things out.
I find religion abhorrent. I think it is a weakness of the imagination, and a shackle for the mind. Part of the reason for my take on religion is the intolerance and bigotry that seems to accompany it. The previous poster claimed that he has a gay mentor, who is precious to him, but that he cannot condone the man's sexuality? WTF? I will not post on this thread again. Just know that there are people out there who find your twisted Judeo-Christian take on human potential as perverse and twisted as you seem to hold gays to be. I have more gay friends than Christian friends. They are just far more pleasant to be around.
As opposed to the intolerance and bigotry that seem to accompany secular philosophy? Oh yes, that is so much better. You object to someone who cannot condone someone else's sexuality, but you seem to have worse issues condoning your "Christian" friends' faith. You should take a good long stare into the abyss because it most definitely has looked back into you and smirked a hello at its reflection.
Just because you should tolerate something does not mean you have to approve it, support it, or promote it. Nor is is necessary to tolerate everything and anything in a spirit of universal acceptance, particularly when you have no demonstrate such little toleration of religion and religious people when it comes time for you to be accepting.
HMMM I guess i am homophobic. Not a crime i guess. In todays enlightened society it seems hip to ridicule anyone with any kind of moral center or religious belief.
A very neat non-sequiter there.
If you are afraid of homosexuals then accept it. Do not try to blame it on moral or religious belief.
If instead you want to hold up your morals and religious beliefs as the source of an overt hatred of homosexuality, then do that. Do not try and hedge it.
As for judging people, you have used rather loaded language repeatedly. So again, either stand up and say you want to judge people or deal with being called on demanding people bow and scrape to your theocratically correct self.
If you are not sure what I meant about this whole thing is the fault of the Britons; well, they drew the maps dividing up the land of that whole region after WW2 and were good to their friends and allies and vindictive to thier enemies; the Palastinians, for example, supported the Nazis and in punishment, and therefore did not get a country while the Israelies, on the other hand, whom everyone felt the blow of the atrocities done to them, ended up with the best, most fertile land in the region.
Apparently you have never heard of Jordan. It is a Palestinian state formed from a majority of the original Palestine Mandate.
And apparently you have never heard of the Partition Of Palestine, from which a Palestinian state was created. The parts of that state that were not on the Israeli side of the armistice line were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, neither of which allowed an independent Palestinian state to be created.
And apparently you have never heard of (pre-Saudi) Arabia or Iraq, both of which were created by the British to reward allies. (Such as they were.)
You apparently have also never heard that most all of the Arabs of the Middle East supported the Nazis, not just the Mufti of Jerusalem.
And you apparently have never heard that most of the land Israel received in the Partition of Palestine was the wasteland of the Negev.
And you apparently are unaware that even after a White Paper advised admitting Jewish refugees to Palestine for humanitarian reasons, the British government refused to do so.
And apparently you are also unaware that the French were heavily involved in dividing up the Middle East after World War I. That is why Syria and Lebanon exist.
OK: my rather radical stance on the subject of Israel:
Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s!~*e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.
Can you name one war the US has sent troops to help Israel fight?
The answer is of course, "No."
The Us has never committed troops to any war that Israel has fought, or even any of the extended anti-terrorist sweeps Israel has engaged in.
Israel though has put itself on the line to support wars the US has fought, refraining from retaliating against Iraq during the first Gulf War.
So to begin with, the entire basis for this concept is invalid. Israel drags the US into nothing.
However, let us compare two related issues:
First, the US has sold arms to Israel, including during these wars and anti-terrorist sweeps. This is the justification used for hating the US to the point of carrying out terrorist attacks on the US.
The thing is, those nations using this justification have in either been at war with Israel, sold arms to nations or groups at war with Israel, and supported the terrorist groups attacking Israel. A reasonable equivalence justifies full Israeli, and Us for that matter, intervention against those countries.
Second, if we are to compare nations that drag other nations into their problems, then we should look first and foremost to Europe. Aside from the "easy" ones of the two world wars, let us not forget that the US got involved in Viet Nam to support the French.
So should the US be severing all ties with Europe?
Then let us consider that bastion of responsibility, the UN. To quote from a movie, "Does anyone remember a little thing a few years ago known as the Korean Conflict?" Then there was Lebanon, Somalia, and all the other regional gang conflicts the UN loves to draw people into.
Mind you, I think the US should indeed withdraw from both NATO and the UN, but of course we are supposed to be surrendering our national sovereignty to such international organizations, not that anyone else is rushing to do so.
