Aspis Agent

MrCharisma's page

1,843 posts (1,844 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 1,843 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Sweet. That's what I thought, but I didn't want to be cheating (I'm the rules guy in my group, so of I bring in something new I like to know I'm doing it right).

Btw this makes Erastil a great choice for a melee Arsenal Chaplain - that backup ranged weapon just got real good with zero feat investment.

So I'm thinking of making a Warpriest of Pharasma who uses a Fauchard. Without taking the feat Weapon Focus: Dagger, would I get the Weapon Training with a dagger (Pharasma's favoured weapon) or not?

Here are the relevant texts:

Sacred Weapon (Su): At 1st level, weapons wielded by a warpriest are charged with the power of his faith. In addition to the favored weapon of his deity, the warpriest can designate a weapon as a sacred weapon by selecting that weapon with the Weapon Focus feat; if he has multiple Weapon Focus feats, this ability applies to all of them.
Weapon Training (Ex): At 5th level, a Molthuni arsenal chaplain gains weapon training as per the fighter class feature, but the benefits of this weapon training apply only to the his sacred weapons (weapons with which the warpriest has taken Weapon Focus). This ability replaces channel energy.

So normally a Warpriest gets their sacred weapon damage with their deity's favoured weapon as well as any weapon for which they take Weapon Focus.

Essentially I'm asking if the bolded sentence in the Arsenal Chaplain's Weapon Training (specifically the part in brackets) limits it to only weapons with which I've taken Weapon Focus? Or if I still get all the benefits for my deity's favoured weapon as well?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think we're getting a bit off topic here.

The decision whether to make AC something you have to "hit" or "beat" was a totally arbitrary one. There are countless arguments on either side, but Paizo (et al) decided that it was something you had to "hit". Changing it to something you have to "beat" isn't likely to break anything, it barely changes the game at all. As long as your group does it consistently it doesn't really matter.

The actual rule is that you have to "hit" their AC, not "beat" it (same with saves and skill DCs and everything else).

All good.
It's always good to engage in healthy discussion, we're all probably just a little paranoid about the unhealthy discussions =P

For the record, I agree with you completely that this is almost certainly how it was intended, but it's not how it ended up being written. In any game I run I would play it your way, and I would talk to my GM before bringing this to a game as a player.

Also it's good for you to learn that a mount absolutely DOES provoke its own AoOs for moving through threatened squares. Many players and GMs have a gentlemens' agreement about mounts, it goes something like this: If the mount is merely used for movement then it's (mostly) off limits as far as being murdered is concerned, but if the mount becomes a combatant (starts making attacks of its own) then it's fair game.

If you're playing a mounted character then remember that MOUNTED COMBAT is not just a prerequisite for other things.

In my game this would be followed by a swift and brutal (yet non-lethal) beating at the hands of several dozen Paladins.

If the players get away and/or you wish to use the "covert" method, i recommend this:

Iomedae makes her favor known by reshaping ordinary objects into sword-like shapes, the appearance of gold or white light around a person or object, or the magnet-like pull of a longsword or other long metal weapon in a particular direction. Her anger is displayed through flickering lights, the breaking of weapons against formerly yielding material, and the tarnishing and increased weight of gold or silver.

Have some flickering lights, increase everyone's carry load (I assume they're carrying gold/silver coins) and have weapons break on a critical miss AND on a critical hit.

IMPORTANT NOTE: It's imperative you let them know WHY this is happening. You don't have to come out and tell them, but giving a low DC religion check to understand (one that can be repeated) or having holy symbols show up or something is an important part of making this work.

An incorporeal creature moves silently and cannot be heard with Perception checks if it doesn’t wish to be. It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB. Nonvisual senses, such as blindsight and scent, are either ineffective or only partly effective with regard to incorporeal creatures. Incorporeal creatures have an innate sense of direction and can move at full speed even when they cannot see.

So it looks like scent doesn't work on incorporeal creatures, or if it does then it doesn't work as well (you can say it doesn't work through the wall).

You're unlikely to get an official response (unless there's already one out there that you and I just haven't seen), but I always liked the idea of rolling 3 and taking the middle roll - Good luck and bad luck cancel out to make you average at everything.

It's also worth noting that Slashing grace doesn't give you Dex to hit, it just goves you Dex to damage. They wrote this feat with Swashbucklers in mind, so taking a level in Swashbuckler or using an effortless lace (or using Bladed brush for a glaive) may be needed to make the weapon finessible.

If your chosen weapon is a light weapon the it's already finessible and you don't need to worry about this.

Why do you need to use a simple weapon? Warpriests get martial weapon proficiency.

Honestly as a 10th level fighter I assume your damage is fine. I'd say the best bet is Armed Bravery (from Advanced Weapon Training) which will be better than Iron Will 90% of the time.

If you haven't had problems with will saves then something like Hurtful will give you a bonus attack most rounds.

The Stone Monolith idea seems pretty thematic (and enlarge is great), but I'm totally unfamilar with the class so I can't really comment there.

McDaygo wrote:
Tie going to Offender. Every group I play with makes the offender have to overcome defense not meet it.

As in: I roll a 23 to hit vs your 23 AC? Yeah your groups do it wrong. Although as long as the rule is consistent it really just makes combat a little bit less deadly for everyone involved (which favours the PCs slightly).

(If you mean something else you might have to explain it.)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well first what do you want? Do you want more offense/more defense/something new?
For offense I'd say HURTFUL is pretty nice.
For defense I feel like Iron Will would be pretty nice (have you had any trouble with will saves?).
What do you need?

thorin001 wrote:
HalifaxDM wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
By RAW it works for a rider and mount, exactly as you appear to have encountered it.

I argue that it does not work with a rider/mount. When mounted a rider and its mount share a space. They do not each have their own space and therefore cannot move through their ally's space or through a space adjacent to their ally's space(i.e. mount) because they share a single space.

I am totally fine with it being used for something other than a withdraw action however.

The feat specifies within reach, not adjacent. Are you claiming that something in your square is not within your reach?

That wouod appear to be incorrect.

Source Ultimate Combat pg. 100

You have trained to watch your allies’ backs, covering them as they make tactical withdraws.

Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.

Has this changed? I thought the same as thorin001.

Re: HalifaxDM: Is there a reason we've re-opened this thread?
- It's almost 7 months since the last person posted.
- Everyone was in agreement.
- We had input from someone on Paizo's staff to corroborate what we thought.
That's as close to an FAQ as you're going to get, it seems weird to re-open a rules thread that's been answered so thoroughly.

If the text HAS changed then maybe we should start a new thread?

EDIT: It looks like it hasn't changed (at least not recently), a few people up-thread quoted the feat with the word "adjacent". I guess we just read the feat incorrectly.

The way it's worded it's only considered flat footed in regards to resolving your attacks.

They don't get their dex bonus to AC, you get sneak attack damage dice, all that good stuff.

But they can still make AoOs against you or anyone else around them (provided they could do that without you scaling them). They don't actually become flat footed, it just makes it easier for you to damage them.

The bolt would do the minimum damage for a sacred weapon.

So if you were a level 15 warpriest dealing 2d6+12 damage and your enemy passed their will save you would deal 14 damage (two 1s on your d6's plus 12 damage from your static bonuses).

Name Violation wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
Anyone good at the formula to figure out % chances to hit and actual dpr?

I can do it.

I need your:
- Bonus to hit
- Damage on a non-critical hit
- Critical threat range
- Damage on a critical hit
(- if you have more than 1 attack tell me how many and what penalties each takes, eg: Four attacks, Two at full BAB, One at -5 BAB and One at -10 BAB)

Attack: +18, 8d6+27 (average 55) crit 20x3

Vital strike: 16d6+27 (average 83)
Furious focus: 123 damage (max damage, fatigued)
Cyclops helm crit furious finish vital strike: 123+16d6+54. (Average 233)

Assume using cyclops helm to auto 20 the hit and furious finish to maximize vital strike

So with you +18to hit (vs AC24, hit on 6 or higher) and a Butcher's axe (crit on a 20) that looks like:

Chance to miss = 0.25
Chance to hit (no critical threat) = 0.7
Chance to get a critical threat = 0.05
(There's an extra steps but I'll try to post it later when I have a computer)

Non-critical damage = 16d6+27 (~83)
Critical damage = 32d6+81 (~191)
(Also I'm assuming Furious Finish doesn't maximize the critical hit damage, did I remember that right from up-thread?)

66.3 DPR (NO Cyplopse Helm, NO Furious Finish) (normal round)
96.375 DPR (NO Cyplopse Helm, YES Furious Finish) (rage cycling)
164 DPR (YES Cyplopse Helm, NO Furious Finish) (not sure why you'd do this)
205.5 DPR (YES Cyclopse Helm, YES Furious Finish) (1/day boss kill)

(I did all these based on attacking the OP'S 24AC enemy)

Name Violation wrote:
Anyone good at the formula to figure out % chances to hit and actual dpr?

I can do it.

I need your:
- Bonus to hit
- Damage on a non-critical hit
- Critical threat range
- Damage on a critical hit
(- if you have more than 1 attack tell me how many and what penalties each takes, eg: Four attacks, Two at full BAB, One at -5 BAB and One at -10 BAB)

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
(Also the rules for grappling in this game are dumb)
I am curious to know what your problems with the rules are.

The reason I don't like them is because they're not clear.

It doesn't matter who's right, you and I disagree on how they work. The grappling rules are much more involved than any other combat maneuver and to find the relevant rules we have to look in a few different places. When we get everything together there can STILL be a disagreement based on the wording.

I think if the majority (or at least a large minority) of the players can't work out a rule - or disagree on a rule - then it's a problem.

I'm curious how they handled grappling in Starfinder/PF2, but I agree that this is probably a topic for another thread.


Grapple Check = Attack (can be buffed etc).
Grapple Check =/= Grapple Attack.

There' nothing in tye rules that say exactly that, but ...

The spikes only let you deal "extra" damage, meaning you only get to use the spikes for damage if you're already dealing damage.

Good rule of thumb: If something looks like a loophole it's probably not how the game is meant to be played.

(Also the rules for grappling in this game are dumb)

John34404 wrote:
If I've read correctly if you use Pounce it fully stacks with a charge... Charge + Full attack action (vital strike, power attack, and Overhand Chop)?

Vital Strike can't be used on a charge or a full attack action, so unless you have a specific ability allowing it you couldn't include that.

Also looking at the text for OVERHAND CHOP you can only use it when making a single attack. So even though it's compatible with a charge, it's not compatible with Pounce.

Kimera757 wrote:
I found this one as well, which might work out better: LINK

Now in link form

Wonderstell wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
(Actually that did come to almost enough damage unless i messed up, maybe someone wants to add to this?)

Assuming a starting strength of 17-18, and a +2 belt, we're at a +8 Mod while raging.

The only hiccup is that we're assuming they're either asleep or alone (and not an elf), since Slumber can easily be interrupted if they got just one ally nearby.

Ok here's what I got.

The build (with links)

Classes: MAGUS 4 (HEXCRAFTER), OCCULTIST 1 (no archetype, TRANSMUTATION implement), BLOODRAGER 1 (ID RAGER, ANGER focus).

Race: Human/Half Elf/Half Orc (probably works for others), middle aged (-1 STR/DEX/CON, +1 INT/WIS/CHA). Floating +2 goes into INT, bonus at level 4 goes into INT.

Base: STR-15, DEX-11, CON-11, INT-18, WIS-8, CHA-7.
Final: STR-14, DEX-10, CON-10, INT-22, WIS-9, CHA-8.

Weapon: TETSUBO.

Traits: MAGICAL KNACK (Magus), WAYANG SPELLHUNTER (Shocking Grasp).

Feats: INTENSIFY SPELL, ABILITY FOCUS (or AMPLIFIED HEX if you can't take ability focus).


Hex: SLUMBER (you'll have to scroll down for that one).

The actions:

So you buff yourself with Bull's Strength (+4 STR), Enlarge Person (+2 STR, 2d8 base weapon damage) and Invisibility (all 6 minute duration thanks to Magical Knack) and get near your target.

Round 1: You spend a swift action enhancing your Tetsubo with your Arcane Pool (+1 weapon) and a standard action enhancing it with Legacy Weapon from your Occultist Transmutation Implement (Spell Storing weapon).

Round 2: You cast an Intensified Shocking Grasp (using a level 1 spell slot thanks to Wayang Spellhunter, 6d6 thanks to Magical Knack) into the +1 Spell Storing Tetsubo.

Round 3: You then cast (but don't deliver) another Intensified Shocking Grasp and hold the charge.

(You may now take up to 5 rounds moving to your target without losing anything)

Round 4 (Surprise round): You target your enemy with the Sleep hex, for a DC: 20 Will save - 10 +6(INT) +2(1/2 Hexcrafter level) +2(Ability Focus). This doesn't discharge your Shocking Grasp because it's a supernatural ability (I hope).

Round 5 (round 1 of combat): Free Action Rage (for +6 STR thanks to the Anger Focus), then Coup De Grace your sleeping enemy.

The Damage:

Damage sources:
+1 Spell-Storing Tetsubo: 2d8(Large) +1(enhancement)
Strength: +12 (14-base +4-enhancement +2-size, +6-morale = 26 = +8 bonus = +12 two-handed)
Power Attack: +6 (BAB +4, two-handed)
Spellstrike: 6d6 (Intensified Shocking Grasp)
Stored Spell: 6d6 (Intensified Shocking Grasp)
Coup De Grace makes all this a critical hit, which is ×4 for the Tetsubo/STR/Power Attack, ×2 for the Spellstrike, and (I'm assuming) ×1 for the Stored Spell.

= {[(Tetsubo) + (STR) + (Power Attack)] × 4} + [(Spellstrike) × 2] + (Stored Spell)

= {[(2d8+1) + (12) + (6)] × 4} + [(6d6) × 2] + (6d6)

(using averages from damage dice)

= {28 × 4} + [21 × 2] + (21)

= {112} + [42] + (21)

= 175 average damage.

This all hinges on the enemy failing their will save, so I pumped that as much as possible. The average CR6 enemy has a +5 - +9 on their saves, so has a 30% - 50% chance of passing their save. If there are any other ways to pump that DC I'm all ears (not used to playing full casters).

I've spend (almost) no money with this character, so there should be ~16000gp to play with (+2 INT headbad at least).

The Coup De Grace ignores AC, but obviously only works on things that sleep.

If there are more enemies around and you need to get in first, you can swap out Spell Storing for Bane (lose ~6 damage overall) and buy a Cyclopse Helm togive yourself a nat-20 on Initiative (immediate action would cancel the option of a swift action for spell-storing).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It doesn,'t quite fit the terms, but:
Hexcrafter Magus 5, Id-Rager (anger) Barbarian 1.
Slumber hex, Scythe, Enhance weapon (Arcane Pool), Shocking-Grasp, Rage, Coup-De-Grace.

It probably won't do 140 damage, but it ignores AC and forces a DC: ~130 Fort save vs death.

(Actually that did come to almost enough damage unless i messed up, maybe someone wants to add to this?)

Buy everyone a potion of heroism.

Actually the DIVINE FIGHTING TECHNIQUE for IOMEDAE gives a +2 sacred bonus to attack/skill/save rolls. If you can get to the advanced prerequisites you can use it as part of a charge and it lasts for 1 minute (read: lasts for the rest of the combat). There may be other deity options for DFT that buff your allies.

What kind of money do elves use?

Jingle Bills!

<Escapes up the chimney!>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

ABADAR, god of banks (Pathfinder core deity).

Derklord wrote:
Name Violation wrote:

Brawler’s Flurry (Ex)

Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action.
Its its own full round action.
Wrong. Full-attack action and full round action are not the same thing, not even close. Brawler's Flurry is not a distinct full round action, but rather a full-attack action (those can still be seperate, but interact with more). Whirlwind Dance checks for "number of attacks she’s entitled to with a full attack", which means any full-attack action works.

I agree with Derklord, but I will say there's a nicer way to say it. All you have to do is replace the word "Wrong" with the word "Actually".

@Name Violation, you even said in your post: "... a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action." (Called out as a full-attack action, not a full-round action)

Yes it counts all natural attacks (including bite).

That's why an AoMF costs more than a regular weapon - you can potentially enchant your bite/gore/claw/claw/talon/talon/wing/wing/tail attacks (did I miss any?) all with the one item.

blahpers wrote:
Schrödinger's Attack Action. The moment you are in a situation where you must be exclusively one or the other, you are.

Haha I like it. You could use this for archetypes too (Schrödinger's Archetype).

Andy Brown wrote:
I disagree, there's nothing in Shield of Swings that says it changes the general rule or that you can't move.

For me the thing that says it doesn't work is that Shield of Swings requires a full attack action. If you attack with SoS, then decide not to take your 2nd attack you've cancelled your full attack action and you'd lose your shield bonus.

Hmmm... the only FAQ about it I could find is this one:

No. Though the rules for "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack (Core Rulebook 187) give you the option to move after your first attack instead of making your remaining attacks, Manyshot locks you into using a full attack action as soon as you use it to shoot two arrows.

(I could have sworn there was somehting about a low level fighter using a full attack action while only making 1 attack)

While this isn't difinitive, the idea seems to me to be that once you've got a benefit from something that reauires a full attack action you're locked into the full attack action.

I can see the argument that this specifically talks about an action that gives you an extra attack (sort of), so it's more likely about stopping multi-attack plus move cheese.

There are other actions that would work in a similar manner (eg. Spell Combat), so I guess it's worth thinking about the broader implications.

What are people's thoughts?

There are exceptions to this.

If you have an ability that only triggers on a full-attack action and you use that ability then you can't take a move action (although you're not required to take your remaining attacks).

Eg. The SHIELD OF SWINGS gives you a defensive bonus while full-attacking, so once you've declared that you're using this feat you can't take a move action for the round.

But in general the others are correct.

Lelomenia wrote:
A third level dip gets you arcana, which could let you spell combat with wands (but not spellstrike?)

This has been debated a lot.

I think the place I settled on is that you could already spellstrike with wands (so they didn't need to include that clause), but it's been so long since I looked into it that I can't really remember what the consensus is, or how qnyone came to their conclusions.

Yeah broad study is really too high level to be worth it except in very specific circumstances ... or gestalt. It's amazing for gestalt.

Oh right, I didn't read the OP properly =P

Sorry Lanathar there's no loophole. Touch of fatigue will destroy an image and will be discharged if touches one (and must roll to see whether they hit an image).

I unfortunately saw my mistake 1 hour and 2 minutes after I posted it, so I can't take it back =P

That Crazy Alchemist wrote:
Mirror Image Snippet wrote:

...Whenever you are attacked or are the target of a spell that requires an attack roll...

A touch spell requires a melee touch attack roll.

Only when attacking someone who doesn't want to hit. You can cast Cure Light Wounds on someone without rolling to hit, unless they're undead.

This is a case where there could be a rule about "if X then you have to roll Y", bit it'd just make the game more complicated. More complicated is rarely good.

As far as the rules are concerned Volkard is right.
In a home game if the GM asks me to roll to hit a mirror I'd just go with it (seems to make sense).

I wouldn't ask this of my players unless I was messing with them.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:
baggageboy wrote:
I fully expect Magda Luckbender to be here in a few minutes to explain all of the reasons why this is advantagous.

She made it, albeit a little later than expected.


The thing about reach tactics is that you don't need to rush in. You can take your time and wait for everyone to come to you.

Dwarf (doesn't keep 30', but keeps "full speed").
Travel Domain.

What levels are you planning on playing with this character?

At level 15 an Evangelist Cleric gets access to 8th level spells, Inspire Heroics and swift action Bardic Performance, so if this is where you're finishing your character it's probably not the power-gaming option.

If you're playing to level 20 then you're not really losing much, just pushing things back a bit.

Also it depends on the boons a bit. Milani's 2nd boon is basically +1 to Inspire Courage for ine (long) combat per day. The 3rd boon will help in certain circumstances.

doc roc wrote:
First and foremost you are a 9th level caster..... combat cleric was always suboptimal IMO.

I don't strictly disagree that 9th level spells are your most powerful resource, I just don't think that oevel of optimization is necessary. A suboptimal tier 1 class is still a tier 1 class.

Neriathale wrote:
If you do go that route, have a look at the feat ‘Combat Advice’. Turn your move action into +2 on an ally’s next attack roll.

Oh nice feat. Just note that it's a competence bonus so it won't stack with Inspire Courage (for those Evangelicals out there).

If you wanted to go any other archetype though it's pretty great (I'm thinking about it for a Cavalier too).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think you use any of your movement when you are "shunted" to a different spot - you just assume they moved to the other spot instead.

Personally I'd let them share a square (which is not the rules) provided the invisible enemy succeeds at a stealth check (and maybe an acrobatics check or reflex save). If the invisible enemy wants to attack it gets more complicated, but there are rules for "squeezing".

Yeah I'm pretty much converted to the reach Cleric now (and reach weapons in general). I don't think I feel as strongly about it as some, but it's definitely effective.

I think it also depends a bit on what you want to do as a Cleric.

If you want to be a caster then you probably don't have the feats, stats or actions to spare on something like archery.

If you're only planning on having 16 WIS by level 10 then your best bet might be to cast a buff spell at the beginning of combat and rain down arrows on your foes (having spent the feats/etc on making that worth your while).

I tend to find Melee lands somewhere in the middle, with the Reach Cleric being the most efficient 90% of the time.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I generally go melee, but that's mostly because I prefer that. It does have the advantage that if you need to heal, buff or debuff you're in melee range (which is the range for a lot of spells). Also if you're using channel to heal at all you want to spread the damage out as much as possible, so taking a hit or 2 might kake the most of that.

Ranged has the advantage that you're less likely to down yourself - if you're buffing and you go down the buffs often go down with you.

Who's your patron deity?

You're basically in GM-fiat territory, so ask the GM.

If they do allow it you're probably looking at this part of the item creation territory:

If the item is one that occupies a specific place on a character’s body, the cost of adding any additional ability to that item increases by 50%. For example, if a character adds the power to confer invisibility to her ring of protection 2, the cost of adding this ability is the same as for creating a ring of invisibility multiplied by 1.5.

Going from a +1 weapon to a +2 weapon would normally cost 6000gp (8000gp for a +2 weapon minus 2000gp for the +1 weapon that you already have). If you craft it it'll cost half this amount.

If you're increasing those costs by 50% you'd pay 9000gp, or 4500gp to craft yourself to go from a +1 enhancement bonus to a +2.

Since Rods tend to be very specific and powerful magic items You'd definitely have to ask the GM though.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
applecat144 wrote:

Re-reading it, however, I have a doubt about the part that doesn't allow you to include extra attacks from rapid shot and haste.

"The gunslinger [...] pool all of her attack potential into a single, deadly shot".

This suggest that you can include extra attacks, since it specifies "all of her attack potential".

The part you quoted is the flavour text. The actual rules about how many attacks you make say this:

Dead Shot wrote:
When she does this, she shoots the firearm at a single target, but makes as many attack rolls as she can, based on her base attack bonus.

This text states that the attacks made are your iteratives due to a high BAB. I could see an argument for some things, but "Rapid Shot" is about making more attacks and thematically doesn't fit here at all.

applecat144 wrote:

Furthermore, later you can read the following :

"If one or more rolls are critical threats, she confirms the critical once using her highest base attack bonus –5. For each critical threat beyond the first, she reduces this penalty by 1 (to a maximum of 0)"

As far as I know, you can have 4 BBA at max at level 20, but it suggests that you can reduce the penalty to the crit confirm roll to 0, which automatically imply that you roll at least 5 dices. So despite the unclear phrasing, I'd be tempted to say that the person who wrote this had in mind that you would include extra attacks from other sources when using this deed. Especially since "based on your BBA" doesn't strictly exclude attacks awarded by other sources.

You're correct that you can't get to more than 4 attacks by level 20 due to BAB, but if people play above level 20 they may change that. Rules like this are also often written in a generic way in order to account for any changes that may be made to the game at a later date, so this text is likely just written as a catch-all in case something changed this to the point where the "penalty" ended up giving them an attack bonus.

applecat144 wrote:

That would also make the deed relevent and not highly situational, as MrCharisma described it.

Thing is, we're playing a game in which I'm not the GM, but I'm the "rule guy" and I'd like to have this sorted, if there's an errata it's great, otherwise I'll have to talk about it with the GM.

I think this is going to be a situational deed, but to counter the need to improve it I'd say that the Gunslinger is the last class that needs a boost to damage output. If you allow Rapid-Shot/Haste to add to this then a 7th level Gunslinger can potentially roll 4 attacks with this deed. If even 1 attack is a crit then there's a very high chance that you confirm and end up rolling something like 16d8+44 damage (~116 average damage). While the Gunslinger could use some help to be more relevant in some situations in the game, Damage output has never been their problem and probably shouldn't be buffed.

I would also ask: Are you the one playing the Gunslinger or are you searching for answers for another member of the group?

If you're playing the Gunslinger then you being the "rules guy" have a responsibility to make sure you present everything in a balanced way to the GM to avoid any kind of bias. I'm the rules guy in my group so I'm very careful to check before I take any feats/traits/spells/etc that might be considered unbalanced. I even check if it's just something I think the GM won't have seen.

applecat144 wrote:
... this deed doesn't take care of extra attacks coming from rapid shot, haste, or any other source.

I'll assume "take care of" means "allow you to include". If so then correct. At level 7 you make 2 attack rolls, when you reach +11BAB you make 3 attack rolls, and when you reach +16BAB you kake 4 attack rolls.

applecat144 wrote:
Second thing is that it's a full-round action, so it can't be combined with vital strike.


applecat144 wrote:
Considering this, I don't get the point of this deed. It's pretty much a vital strike that cost grit and doesn't allow you to move, or a full attack that doesn't allow you to take a 5-foot step and that deals less damages.

You can still make a 5 foot step when you take a full-round-action.

It usually deals damage as a Vital Strike (so your damage comparisons would be correct), but you don't need to spend any feats to use this.

applecat144 wrote:
All this to say that I can't find a good reason to use this deed. What about you ?

Yeah it's not amazing, it's more thematic than anything else. Imagine a duel where you're only allowed to shoot one bullet. Or if your ammo stores are somehow depleted. It does reduce the chance of a misfire significantly as well.

The only time I've seen it used was on co junction with the spell:"Named Bullet".

Shadehunter81 wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
Shadehunter81 wrote:
Very interesting input.....I'm considering removing vorpal or making it insane to get.

It's already insane to get. A +1 Vorpal weapon costs 72000gp ...

For the same price you could buy a +5 weapon with your favourite "+1 enchantment".
Interesting.....I was thinking of just a level 20 requirement for vorpal. Or maybe it's so rare that if they really want to....library intrigue of 20 or so dragon libraries

I honestly wouldn't worry. As I said, a Vorpal weapon is ~72300gp, and it only has an effect if you were already going to confirm a crit. Or you chould just buy a +1 SCYTHE for 2318gp (approx. 1/31 of the cost) and have the same effect.

Back to the idea of "Keen + Improved-Critical", what would it add to the game? I imagine every magus player loves the idea but otherwise you 're not doing much except encouraging everyone to take these options. If that's something you want to do then great, if not then don't do it.

Shadehunter81 wrote:
Very interesting input.....I'm considering removing vorpal or making it insane to get.

It's already insane to get. A +1 Vorpal weapon costs 72000gp, and you need a natural 20 to trigger it (plus a successful confirmation roll). By the time you get this there's a good chance you'll be 1-shotting a lot of enemies anyway, and if the occasional boss gets shut down early that can just be a cinematic moment for your fighter ("Snicker-Snack!").

For the same price you could buy a +5 weapon with your favourite "+1 enchantment". This will have a +4to hit vs the vorpal sword and deal more damage as well. If you're smart about your enchantment that can get even better (Furious?)

Name Violation wrote:
Bow has a 75% chance to miss (needs a 15 or better) while the touch attack has 5% failure (can only miss on a 1).

15 or higher is a 70% chance to miss (It doesn't change your point though, 5% miss chance is still way better than 70% miss chance).

1 to 50 of 1,843 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>