Nadlor's page

Well be default there aren't really penalties for having a non-lethal attack aside from certain enemies being immune to non-lethal damage. The penalty that you might be thinking of is -2 to attack rolls for trying to deal lethal damage with a non-lethal weapon.

But assuming you aren't fighting something that is immune to non-lethal then you don't need to worry about that either.

Yes, that was the penalty I wanted to avoid. But if it's barely going to come up (if at all), I'd rather assume that I'll be suboptimal in the rare fight against constructs than change my build around the need for a monk dedication feat!

Hi, all!

Many thanks for the answers. I'm trying to use the Sky and Heaven Stance from Jalmeri Heavenseeker Archetype, but I managed to get there without monk class/dedication. So I was not looking for other ways to get lethal unarmed attacks, but rather for a way to make unarmed non-lethal attacks lethal in a generic way (sorry for not specifying properly in my post).

But I learnt from Yurip that dealing non-lethal damage barely matters from a mechanic point of view (apart from niche situations like fighting constructs), so I guess I was overthinking this and my build should be perfectly viable dealing non-lethal damage as it is. I really thought being unable to deal lethal damage without penalties would have more of an impact, so this has been very useful!

Quick question: is there any way (other than being a monk or investing in a multiclass/archetype dedication feat like monk or martial artist) to be able to do lethal damage with non-lethal unarmed attacks without penalty?

Just wondering if there is a rune, or an ancestry feat, or an item... anything that could save me the feat investment.

Thanks in advance!

Hi, all.

So I've been checking monk stances, and invariably they all some have the same requirement: being unarmoured.

Fair enough, since they're MONK stances. But then I've seen that there some of them (like Gorilla Stance or Stumbling Stance), exceptionally, don't have this requirement.

Is this real life? Is this intended? Has it been marked for errata, or confirmed as an oversight, or something?

I would be surprised if this was intended, considering Paizo's tendency to disallow any kind of synergies involving unarmed attacks, so I though I'd double check just in case!

Thanks in advance for your help!

Thanks for the answers! My intention is to benefit from the intensify vulnerability bonus with unarmed attacks, so that should not affect implement's empowerment.

I agree RAI is unclear, but hopefully we'll have some clarification in the future.

Trying one last time, in case someone knows.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Thanks for the clear, useful answers!

Hi, all.

I've heard that during FotRP PCs have the option of getting trained in the Jalmeri Heavenseeker dedication by a champion of the Challenge of Sky and Heaven, bypassing the need for investing in the Student of Perfection dedication first (as seen in the JH dedication prerequisites).

Can anyone confirm if this is true? If so, at which level will this be possible? Anything I should know (trying to avoid spoilers) not to miss this chance during the adventure?

I'm planning my PC progression and this information would be extremely useful. Thanks in advance for your help!

Hi, all.

I've heard that during FotRP PCs have the option of getting trained in the Jalmeri Heavenseeker dedication by a champion of the Challenge of Sky and Heaven, bypassing the need for investing in the Student of Perfection dedication first (as seen in the JH dedication prerequisites).

Can anyone confirm if this is true? If so, at which level will this be possible? Anything I should know (trying to avoid spoilers) not to miss this chance during the adventure?

I'm planning my PC progression and this information would be extremely useful. Thanks in advance for your help!

I'm a bit confused regarding requirements to choose a different dedication feat after Student of Perfection and Jalmeri Heeavenseeker. JH says "You can select the dedication feat for the Jalmeri Heavenseeker archetype even if you haven't yet gained three feats from the Student or Perfection archetype". It also says "You can't select another dedication feat until you gain two other feats from the Jalmeri Heavenseeker or Student of Perfection archetypes", but Student of Perfection makes no mention of this.

Is "Student of Perfection Dedication - Jalmeri Heavenseeker Dedication - Heaven's Thunder - a different dedication feat" legal? It seems like the intent is to treat both archetypes as if they were the same (so this would be 3 feats allowing to select a different archetype dedication), but I'm not 100% sure.

In addition, JH prerequisites mentions "Student of Perfection Dedication, or you've trained with a champion of the Challenge of Sky and Heaven". Does that mean I could select this without a previous SoP dedication if I say my PC has been trained by a champion of the challenge of sky and heaven?

Thaumaturge's weapon implement intensify vulnerability effect, at level 9:
Your weapon is drawn to your enemy's vital spots, almost of its own accord. You gain a +2 status bonus to attack rolls against the target of your Exploit Vulnerability.

RAW, as long as I'm holding the weapon implement, I could benefit from the +2 status bonus to attack rolls when attacking with a different weapon/unarmed attacks, isn't that right? The weapon implement reaction description uses language that specifies you need to make the reaction attack with the weapon implement, but that's not the case here in the intensify vulnerability effect description.

Would this work RAW?

Would you say they are still viable if taken with druid multiclass feats (which means advancement is even slower than for rangers and you will never be able to get to specialized specs)?

no.

because the class B feats aren't in your feat list to begin with.

Getting an Archetype grants exactly what it says on the archetype feat, nothing more, nothing less.

what IS in your list is, as an example "Basic Trickery" that allows you to pick a level 1 or 2 rogue class feat. And Basic trickery is a level 4 class feat, so not applicable for Natural ambition.

Thanks!

If I'm class A but have selected a dedication feat to multiclass into class B, can I then use the Natural Ambition ancestry feat to get a 1st-level feat from class B?

PossibleCabbage wrote:

No, this is why it's a trigger not a requirement. In order to use the action to enter mountain stance you need to be standing on the ground, but if you jump, fall in the water, or whatever it doesn't turn off.

To be clear, this has been mentioned by people at Paizo as their intent, so it's not speculative.

I see! When I read the definition for "trigger" it only mentioned free actions and reactions. Coupled with the fact that every other stance has "prerequisites" defined, I assumed it was a mistake. Glad to see it wasn't and Mountain Stance is not that easy to lose.

Thank you very much!

Mountain Stance requirement (book actually says "trigger" instead of requirement, but I guess that's an errata) states "touching the ground". Stances are supposed to end when you no longer meet their requirements. If I jump while in Mountain Stance, does the stance end? What about running? Being shoved and thrown? Is a ladder "the ground"? What about a staircase, or a roof?

oconnor0 wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

Explorers armour can take runes but you count as unarmoured.

The table on pg 275 says that "No armor" gives no AC Bonus but no Dex Cap; however "Explorer's clothing" has a +5 Dex Cap.

But it lets you use your unarmored proficiency while also getting armor runes that boost your AC and saves.

I understand, but with a DEX bonus of +7 (DEX 24 at level 20 with an Apex item), I might not be interested in paying for an armor with a potency rune because that also means limiting my DEX modifier to +5. With a +2 potency rune, total AC bonus is +7 in both cases (I win nothing). A +3 potency rune gets me to +8 total AC bonus (1 more point than with no armor whatsoever), but that's a lot of investment for such a small gain in AC.

My problem is that I would definitely want the item bonuses to saving throws, but I see no way of getting those without an armor (or bracers of armor/mage armor, both of which also cap the DEX bonus to AC at +5).

If this is the case, I would be "forced" to use one of those items/spells and cap my DEX bonus to AC at +5. That means getting DEX higher than 20 is not that attractive, since it won't improve my AC.

I'm trying to build a monk. Normally at level 20 I would have 24 DEX (22 by starting at DEX18 and spending all possible ability boosts in DEX, +2 from anklets of alacrity). That's a +7 bonus to DEX, which limits the advantages of getting +3 bracers of armor/explorer's clothing (since both have a DEX cap of +5, they would only provide an effective bonus of +1 to AC, which might not be worth the cost).

So maybe I should use no armor items at all, but what about saving throws? I'm trying to see if I can get an item bonus to saving throws without using resilient runes/bracers of armor/mage armor (they all impose a DEX cap of +5), but can't seem to find a way. Am I missing something? Am I "forced" to get an armor item and accept the maximum DEX bonus to AC of +5? I feel this somehow limits the attractiveness of high DEX at higher levels, since improving it over 20 will do nothing for your AC.

In game terms, Bonus just means plusses.

Many teamwork feats provide benefits that are not related to numerical pluses at all. Your interpretation would make Solo Tactics worthless, and I don't think it's intended. You're right noticing that Solo Tactics says "bonuses" instead of "benefits", but I'm fairly sure "benefits" is what "bonuses" means in this context. I've never seen this interpreted differently!

Outflank Feat reads:

Whenever you and an ally who also has this feat are flanking the same creature, your flanking bonus on attack rolls increases to +4. In addition, whenever you score a critical hit against the flanked creature, it provokes an attack of opportunity from your ally.

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.

At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor’s allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats. Her allies do not receive any bonuses from these feats unless they actually possess the feats themselves. The allies’ positioning and actions must still meet the prerequisites listed in the teamwork feat for the inquisitor to receive the listed bonus.

I have an inquisitor with Solo Tactics, Outflank and Paired Opportunists. I also have two questions:

1 - With Paired Opportunists, I only get the +4 bonus to AoO if I’m adjacent to an ally (any ally, because of Solo Tactics). But if that ally scores a critical hit, I can have an AoO even if I’m not adjacent to him. Is that correct?

2 - If I’m flanking with an ally (who doesn’t have any teamwork feats) and I crit, Outflank says this provokes an attack of opportunity from my ally. With Solo Tactics, is it ok to consider that my critical hit does indeed provoke the attack of opportunity from my ally even if he doesn’t actually make that attack? Solo Tactics says that my allies don’t receive any bonuses from the teamwork feat, but I don’t know if provoking an attack of opportunity would be considered a bonus if no attack of opportunity is actually done. I’m asking because, according to the wording of Paired Opportunists, I only need an enemy to provoke an attack of opportunity from my ally (and not my ally actually making the attack) to make an AoO myself. Long story short: If I crit while I’m flanking with an ally, would I get to make an AoO (thanks to Paired Opportunists) because my ally provokes an AoO (because of Outflank) even if my ally doesn’t actually make the AoO (because of the wording in Solo Tactics)?

Nadlor wrote:

RafaelBraga wrote:

In combat, you optimum damage is flurry+ki blast.

You get 2 attacks, with agile, base 4d10 each if both hits plus ki blast for 12d4

4d10 each of the two unarmed strikes, for a total of 8d10 if both hit? How is this achieved?

No, he meant 4d10 after combining two 2d10 flurry attacks.

Still can't see it. Fierce Flurry changes the dice of Tiger Stance unarmed attacks from d8 to d10, but it's still only one dice, isn't it? What am I missing? Or is this assuming handwraps of mighty fists?

My monk AC

In combat, you optimum damage is flurry+ki blast.

You get 2 attacks, with agile, base 4d10 each if both hits plus ki blast for 12d4

4d10 each of the two unarmed strikes, for a total of 8d10 if both hit? How is this achieved?

Even if you are getting AoOs on your own turn, there are tactical advantages to threatening the whole round.

Yes, I think I'd rather threaten out of turn and lose 2 points of damage per attack than go for an actual two-handed weapon.

Neither Comfort, or the similar Restful, are rules legal to the OP. One is in the Society Field Guide and the other in the ACG.

Yes, and same with Bed of Iron. It's a shame, because those were all very simple, efficient solutions to the problem. I'm thinking that, if all sources were allowed, Hellknight Plate + Mithral + Restful + Armor Expert trait would even save me the Heavy Armor Proficiency feat. Ah, well! It is what it is.

Sure you will, at least you will with the attacks you are anticipating through Outflank and Paired Opportunist.

Well, I've thinking about the build for days and that didn't cross my mind no matter how many times I envisioned getting opportunity attacks through my own crits LOL.

I'm so used to assuming AoO are outside of my turn, so thanks a lot for that. Actually I'm much happier now about going the two-handed route instead of TWF. Besides the lack of feats, now that I'm fully aware that the extra two-handed damage from STR and PA will apply not only in my regular attacks but also in most of my AoO, I'm more convinced about the viability of the build damage-wise.

Now I have to think if 2 extra points of damage (elven curve blade vs scimitar) are worth not being able to do "regular" opportunity attacks outside of my turn (especially considering there's a ranger in my group who also has outflank). But these are just details. :)

This is a small thing compared to the rest of the build, but since youre playing a dwarf, you dont need mithral full plate.

Mithral is useful because I need light or medium armor for Stalwart (level 11 inquisitor trait), and because with 14 DEX and (hopefully) a +2 DEX ioun stone I can have a +3 DEX bonus to AC. 16 DEX is as far as I'll be able to go, so best to squeeze everything out of it.

Few things make my skin crawl more than that wicked gleam in the GM's eye when he asks, "Are you sleeping in your Armor?" If you sleep in Medium or Heavy Armor, you wake up Fatigued.

This is a drawback for sure. I'm thinking, as a possible alternative, going human for more STR (with less WIS), an extra feat (or two, since steel soul won't be an option), and the Hearth of the Fields trait, which replaces skilled and allows me to ignore an effect that would cause me to become fatigued once per day. The loss of +4 to all saves against spells surely hurts and has the potential to affect my tankiness, but it seems an interesting alternative nevertheless.

Travel domain (and exploration subdomain, which is what I used) is way better than protection. That move-action not-quite-dim-door is amazing for setting up flanking positions.

That seems to be the general consensum and I tend to agree, so Travel it is!

This gave me a lot of tips, many thanks to everyone for their contributions. Also, please feel free to discuss other options with less DM-dependent restrictions. It's always interesting to get ideas for future builds in other games :D

The difference between Scimitar and Falchion: Scimitar does 1d6, so 3.5hp on average, and a Falchion does 2d4, so 5. That is a difference of 1.5. The Elven Curved Blade gives you a clean +2 over a scimitar

Ah, I thought ECB was 1d8, my bad.

If I use a two-handed weapon I won't be able to use it to do Opportunity Attacks, though. With the Quickdraw feat, both to don and to put away the shield are free actions, so I can put the shield away just before attacking and don it when I'm finished attacking. That means for the rest of the round the shield is on, and therefore I can't wield a two-handed weapon (I could just carry it in one hand, but not use it to attack). This is why I want to use a one-handed weapon: I'll wield it two-handed in my regular attacks (in my turn) and I'll still be able to wield it one-handed the rest of the round (for opportunity attacks).

I lose some damage and gain substantial AC (with magic vestment + karma bead, having the shield up is an extra 5 to AC at level 12). It's up to debate if it's worth it or not, but if I want to tank I think it it's not a bad deal.

Of course, I agree slayer or ranger (or fighter, for that matter) would be the right classes to properly build a TWF S&B character. It's because I want to play a tanky inquisitor (the other two melee characters are more striker-like and not too tough) that I have to settle for this middle ground where I'm basically a two-handed build (which only needs power attack) but with a shield and a one-handed weapon.

weapon and shield is a poor path fomr a inquisitor.

it's a GREAT one for a slayer or ranger.

Inquisitor need 1 hand to cast spells, they lack bonus feats, they need STr and WIS so no room for TWF requirements.

they value 1, bigger the better weapon or 1 super Crit range weapon.

I tend to agree, but with quickdraw+quickdraw shield I can always wield a high crit range weapon two handed during my turns, so it's practically the same as a two-handed weapon build. The only difference between scimitar and, say, elven curve blade or falchion is around 1 point of base damage, which is negligible. Additionally, there's no problem with getting a free hand to cast spells.

I'll admit damage difference gets higher in opportunity attacks, since outside of my turn I will wield the weapon in only one hand because I will also don the shield (this is also why two-handed weapons are not compatible with this build). But in exchange I can have a much higher AC and therefore tank better. Seems a reasonable deal (not clearly better, but arguably not really worse either).

So I want a S&B build that functions practically like a two handed weapon build. I agree a TWF S&B build is not an easy option for an inquisitor, but that's not what I'm pursuing here.

Or am I missing something?

Broken wing gambit is great, but it's not in Core + APG. Outflank triggers on crit, and then my ally gets AoO, but then I also get AoO with paired opportunists. That's also quite good, but it's the reason why a high crit range is so important in this build, and why I'm having trouble deciding between falcata and scimitar (with improved critical, their crit range would be 17-20 or 15-20, respectively, but with Falcata criting x3). I can't use Dwarven War Axe one handed, but in any case the low crit range makes weapons dwarfs are proficient with less desirable than usual.

Shield slam with Greater Bull Rush and paired opportunists is a great combo I hadn't thought about! But these kinds of S&B TWF builds are way too feat intensive for an inquisitor without multiclassing (they can't even use a shield as a weapon since it's martial). I thought about Quickdraw feat with two handed attacks because it's equally tanky and still kind of competitive in damage, without needing so many resources (and keeps just one weapon candidate for bane).

Hello, everyone.

My old character has died and won't be resurrected, so I'm preparing a new one to start the campaign (CotCT) at level 6. Group needs a tank and could use some divine magic, so after giving it a lot of thought I think I'm going for a sword and board dwarf inquisitor. Before I post my planned build to gather your feedback and criticism, let me explain the character creation rules in place for our campaign:

- Only Core rulebook and APG are allowed. No exceptions.
- No multiclass allowed except to apply for a prestige class and then to follow it. No other exceptions.
- Racial favored class bonuses giving extra spells to spontaneous casters are forbidden. No exceptions.
- Some other minor restrictions, like some forbidden feats and combos, but I don't think any of those affect my build.

So I'm thinking on a dwarf inquisitor of Abadar. I know other gods (like Sarenrae) might be mechanically more optimized, but I'm set on Abadar for RP reasons. I also want to go S&B because I want to be very tanky, so that's also decided. From there on, optimization is the priority.

My current build involves using a quickdraw shield and the quickdraw feat to be able do two-handed attacks (for those sweet strength and power attack extra damage bonuses) in my turn, but still have a shield between turns (I checked and this particular combo is allowed). I'll wield a one-handed weapon, so that I can also do AoO between turns (in this case, wielding the weapon in one hand). I plan on having non-magic weapon, shield and mithral full plate. Rod of extend lesser + magic vestment x 2 (shield and armor) + magic weapon would give me the magic bonuses that I need for the whole day, every day. Bead of Karma (from string of prayer beads) can be added to further improve all these bonuses every morning when casting those spells for the day. With this + steel soul + stalward, I think the tank part is covered.

Starting attributes and progression (20 point buy): STR 16, CON 14 (12+2), DEX 14, INT 10, WIS 16 (14+2), CHA 6 (8-2). All increases into STR.

Expected feat progression is
1: Heavy armor proficiency. 3: Quickdraw. 5: Power Attack. 7: Exotic weapon proficiency (falcata) 9: Combat Reflexes. 11: Improved critical (falcata). 13: Steel Soul.

For Teamwork bonus feats I'm thinking
3: Precise Strike. 6: Outflank. 9: Lookout. 12: Paired Opportunists.

Potential domains: Protection and Travel.

Group includes a ranger who also has the outflank feat.

Any thoughts? I can't decide if I should go for Falcata or Scimitar proficiency. Also not sure if that's the beast order for feat progression. And I would like love to hear trait suggestions!

Thanks in advance for your help!

I thought pushing assault could be interesting to use when I decide to attack in my turn. With normal size, 5-feet step plus pushing assault can put adjacent enemies in a spot where they have to provoke AoO if they want to engage again. Same tactic can be applied when enlarged against big enemies with reach.

I'll admit a cleric of Iomedae with heroism & tactics seems a pretty good combination for the concept. I would lose enlarge person (again, the intention is to use it as a prebuff) and other revelations, but what heroism and tactics give me is very interesting as well. No tripping, but that's not a huge problem. And I can always use righteous might as an improved enlarge person from level 9. I would need STR, WIS, CON, DEX and also some CHA, so it might be even more MAD... And no heavy armor.

Mmh. I'm not sure what would work better.

The fact that enlarge person takes one round is not optimal, I know. I'll try to prebuff, and at level 10 I'll be able to use righteous might, which is even better and uses a standard action. And spiked gauntlet will be worn as a backup plan, for sure.

I'm not completely commited to oracle, but do you think cleric would work better? I would lose some useful spells and revelations that synergize well with the concept. What could I get in return besides a good Fort save?

Thanks for the suggestions! Oh, and I know multiclassing is usually a bad idea for an oracle, but just in case I should clarify that it will also be forbidden for this campaign.

Hi, everyone!

For our new campaign, our DM wants to simplify things and will allow only material from Core and APG, no exceptions allowed.

With this in mind, I was thinking about building a Reach Oracle with the Battle Mystery. I am familiar with the Reach Cleric Guide, but since only Core and APG are allowed, I think an Orcale doesn't lose much and gains many interesting things from the Battle Mystery (like Enlarge Person, Maneuver Mastery and Skill at Arms).

The idea for my character is to use his standard actions to cast spells (mostly buffs and some control tricks) and take advantage of a huge threatened area to make AoO outside of his turn. This would be accomplished with reach weapon (bardiche) + enlarge person + feat/mystery support. The build I'm currently working on is the following:

Human Oracle (Haunted Curse, Battle Mystery).
STR 17 (15+2 racial bonus), DEX 14, CON 14, INT 10, WIS 8, CHA 14 (20 point buy).
FEATS: 1 Toughness, 1 Combat Reflexes (extra human feat), 3 Power Attack, 5 Pushing Assault, 7 Furious Focus, 9 Extra Revelation-Warsight, 11 Extra Revelation-Battlefield Clarity, 13 Extra Revelation-Combat Healer, 15 Quicken Spell.
REVELATIONS: 1 Skill at Arms, 3 Weapon Mastery (Bardiche), 7 Maneuver Mastery, 11 Ironskin, 15 Surprising Charge

I want to use enlarge person + bardiche to threaten a big enough area. With Pushing Assault (and some tactic 5-foot steps) I can keep opponents where I want them (outside their melee range and inside my threatened area), and with Trip Maneuver Mastery I can control that zone even better. High DEX + Combat Reflexes are there for providing more AoO. I'm planning on WIS 8 INT 10 because I'd rather play absent-minded, irresponsible characters than stupid ones (plus skills!).

I have never played an oracle nor a reach melee character in Pathfinder before, so maybe someone with more experience can point out some traps I might be falling in or some possibilities I might have missed. I know Core + APG only reduces options a lot, but I still think this build might be both effective and fun!

Any comments? Thanks a lot in advance for taking the time to read this!

I have some doubts about how bane enchantment interacts with a magic bow.

- If I'm using +1 arrows with a +5 longbow, only the highest enhancement bonus applies, so my attack is done with a +5 (and not a +6) enhancement bonus.

- If I'm using +1 flaming arrows with a +5 longbow, the enhancement bonus from the arrows doesn't stack, but the flaming property is applied. My attack would be done with a +5 enhancement bonus and would have the flaming property.

- If I'm using a +5 undead bane bow against an undead target, the undead bane property applies, so my attack would be done with a +7 enhancement bonus and would cause and additional 2d6 damage against the undead target.

So far so good. But what happens if I'm using +1 undead bane arrows with a +5 bow against an undead target? I know the 2d6 extra damage would apply, but what about the other effect from the bane property (the +2 extra enhancement bonus)? Does the bane property from the arrows apply independently, and therefore the enhancement bonus for the attack would be +7, just as if I were using a +5 undead bane bow?

I hope I'm making myself clear. Thanks a lot in advance for your help!

In exchange for the usual disadvantages, one level in lore warden fighter can get you a feat while minimizing skill point loss. Two levels will get you combat expertise, and three levels will get you maneuver mastery. I'm personally not a fan of multiclassing, but all these things are very useful for this kind of build, in case you are ok with the consequences.

I'd recommend archaeologist bard. Achaeologist's luck compensates your lower BAB (even more so with fate's favored trait, which is a must) and is golden fluff-wise. You get whip proficiency, and several extra feats through rogue talents (you'll need them to use your whip in all the awesome ways).

Many skills and great knowledge bonuses. You also get better trapfinding than a rogue, which is a must (although it could be argued that Mr. Jones actually activates all traps he runs into and then just manages to survive them, but then again that's what trap sense -and archaeologist's luck- is for). High charisma, of course. If you chose your spells right, you can really be a great Indiana.

Combat maneuvers might not be optimal at high levels no matter what class you choose (especially in campaigns with more enemy monsters than enemy humanoids), but if that's the way you want to go archaeologist is a great choice. I mean, it's actually called archaeologist.

Crossbows can't get me STR bonus to damage, so I'd rather go with composite bows. 5' step is a reliable solution at low levels, where most enemies don't have reach.

Oh, well, I knew it was unlikely. I'd rather lose a full attack now and then than dip 3-4 levels of anything (eldritch knight is not bad, but I'd still lose other class features plus the two levels of spellcasting, which are really annoying on a 2/3 caster class). In those situations, I'll just have to withdraw with acrobatics (or cast defensively) and use my standard to cast some useful spell. Now that I think of it, that wouldn't be in any way less fun than yet another burst of arrows.

Thanks a lot everyone for your ideas!

Crossbows can't get me STR bonus to damage, so I'd rather go with composite bows. 5' step works at low levels, when most enemies don't have reach.

Oh, well, I knew it was unlikely. I'd rather lose a full attack now and then than dip 3-4 levels of anything (eldritch knight is not bad, but I'd still lose other class features plus the two levels of spellcasting, which are really annoying on a 2/3 caster class). In those situations, I'll just have to withdraw with acrobatics (or cast defensively) and use my standard to cast some useful spell. Now that I think of it, that wouldn't be in any way less fun than yet another burst of arrows.

Well, for my particular build I don't have any feats to spare on multiattack or two weapon fighting until level 11. At that point, considering the high attack bonus I'll get from Studied Combat, mutagen, equipment, and buffs, TWF is better than MA. Later on, and according to my calculations, ITWF will be better than TWF+MA, and GTWF will be similar to ITWF+MA.

By the time MA is a clear priority, the campaign might be over.

Mmh. In the brawler's flurry description, rules say "A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks."

Does that mean that brawler's flurry forbids making natural weapon attacks, even as secondary attacks with the -5 penalty? If this is the case, is there a difference if I use the normal TWF feat (instead of the blawler's flurry class feature)?

You only take the two weapon fighting penalties with the attacks that are being used with the two weapon fighting feat

Yes, that's what I thought. Every bit of help counts!

Also, you don't strictly qualify for multiattack feat, as it is a monster feat. Though your GM can certainly allow it.

About monster feats, rules say that "most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them"

If I comply with the prerequisites (in this case, having three or more natural attacks) I would assume the feat would be legal by RAW. It can also be granted to rangers as one of their bonus feats, which kind of supports this interpretation. I will definitely consult with my GM first, though.

But I need to rephrase what I said. What I meant is that you can't use your natural attacks as part of your full attack. For instance, you can't use a claw instead of an unarmed strike. You can absolutely still use them as secondary weapons, just with the additional penalties.

Oh, I see now. Thanks for the clarification.

One more question. I was under the impression that when combining natural attacks with manufactured/unarmed attacks, all natural attacks were considered secondary attacks at BAB -5. I thought that TWF didn't affect the attack bonus of the secundary natural attacks, and that they were still done at BAB-5 (instead of BAB-7 because of the extra -2 from TWF). Am I wrong?

It seems the fourth question is the one without consensum. Any official source I can check?

The part of the brawler class at level two doesn't restrict you from combining a full unarmed two weapon fighting attack with unarmed strike, it's just reminding you that you can't.

According to this interpretation, an unarmed half-orc with a bite attack can't bite if he uses his fists. Is that so? Or he can UNLESS he also applies TWF? Can I combine unarmed with natural attacks if i DON'T use TWF to get extra attacks?

You won't need Double Slice since, if you're using unarmed strike for your off-hand attacks, they get full Str anyway.

That's correct, thank you. I was thinking about getting full STR to the secondary natural attacks, but Double Slice can't get me that either, so I would only apply 1/2 STR to damage with all natural attacks (unless they are the only attacks I make, of course).

Hi, everyone.

Say I have a tiefling investigator with a 1 level dip in brawler which gets him Improved Unarmed Strike.

1. Can I take the feat two weapon fighting and use an extra attack with my unarmed strikes?

Brawler description specifies “A brawler may attack with fists, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a brawler may make unarmed strikes with her hands full. A brawler applies her full Strength modifier (not half) on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.” Considering this:

2. Can I use all TWF attacks without using my hands?
3. What’s the STR modifier that I should apply in the “off-hand” TWF attack?

The build already has three natural attacks (2 claws from Tiefling and one bite from ring of rat fangs). Brawler’s flurry, a brawler class feature gained at second level, states that “a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes (…). A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks”, but that’s a level 2 feature and I would be dipping only one level. That means I plan to use the bonus Improved Unarmed Strike obtained at level 1 plus a regular two weapon fighting feat. Considering this:

4. Can I combine TWF unarmed attacks with natural attacks? (I know that it implies that all natural attacks would be made as secondary attacks at BAB-5).

The idea is to combine the three natural attacks with unarmed iteratives PLUS the extra attacks obtained from TWF, ITWF and GTWF. At level 15, with a BAB of +11/+6/+1 (and with the multiattack feat), this character would get: right foot +9/left foot +9/right claw +9/left claw +9/bite +9/right foot +4/left foot +4/ right foot -1/left foot -1. Nine attacks, with an agile amulet of mighty fists (it’s a DEX-based build) applying to all of them, and with full DEX bonus to damage with all nine thanks to brawler and the double slice feat. I haven’t made any calculations yet, but considering the bonuses from mutagen, studied combat, buffs, etc., I think it would be able to obliterate almost anyone with a single full attack.

Too good to be true? Which are the things that I’m doing wrong?

Air blessing is the kind of obscure knowledge that I was looking for! Unfortunately, activating a blessing is a standard action, and that wouldn't be very useful. The idea is to be able to full attack when I'm in melee with an enemy whose reach negates the simple solution of a 5-foot step. Losing a standard is no real answer for that problem, which is relatively common at high levels (where most monsters have reach).

That came really close, though. Is there any way to use a blessing with a swift action? As an alternative, is there any way to gain bowstaff as a known spell? The spell's short duration makes a wand useless (I understand using a wand is always a standard action, even if the spell would normally have a casting time of a swift action), and I assume ring of magic knowledge won't work since bowstaff is always a divine spell.

Hi, everyone.

I'm working on an archery-focused archaeologist bard build. I'd really like to have a way to get point blank master in order to be able to shoot a bow while in melee, but one of its prerequisites is weapon specialization, which I can't get because I'll never have 4 fighter levels.

Is there ANY way I can pull this off without more than a ONE LEVEL dip in another class? Any feat that lets you ignore one prerequisite? Any magic item that counts as meeting one prerequisite or having one feat? Any class feature that allows me to emulate any of those feats at level one? Any spell? Any trait or alternate racial characteristic? Anything?

The ONLY thing I can think of is getting a Nimble Shot bow, but that's AWFULLY expensive and it would also prevent me from getting other nice things (like holy) in it.

Thanks in advance for your time!

Ok, seems clear enough. Thanks for your help!

Do you mean that if in the full attack I use other natural attacks (such as claws) instead of manufactured weapons there would be no penalty neither to STR nor to the attack bonus? A normal additional primary natural attack seems quite OP for a trait, doesn't it?

The tusked trait states "you receive a bite attack (1d4 damage for Medium characters). If used as part of a full attack action, the bite attack is made at your full base attack bonus –5." If I make a standard attack with the bite, I assume I add full STR modifier to damage as usual.

If I make a full attack, the fact that the bite attack is made at BAB-5 implies that it behaves as a secondary natural attack? It doesn't say so in the description, but what's the consensum? I'm asking because if that's the case, I could only add 1/2 STR bonus to the bite damage, and the damage bonus from Power Attack would also be halved, correct?

Thanks a lot in advance for your input!

Tusked trait with the claw option is what I'm thinking about indeed (since tengu is no good for my concept).

But that's for items activated by command words, right? I was thinking an amulet of mighty fists falls into the use-activated category (because it's something a character wears). Regarding use-activated items, the rules say "However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case."

Neither the description of the amulet of mighty fists nor the description of the merciful weapon ability state anything about needing a commando word. Is "mentally willing the activation" also supposed to be a standard action?

Thanks for the answers! The merciful AoMF suggestion gave me an idea to turn my build into a natural attack one with the Tusked trait, actually.