Rambear's page

You can't take jabbing master with Unarmed fighters bonus feat. Only the first feat in any style chain has the style tag and qualifies as a style feat. Jabbing master isn't a style feat. It's a combat feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite.

Guess we are looking at the tag (Combat, Style), instead of the table then :). Wondering how that works with MoMS, but this isn't the place for that discussion (which I assume has taken place before).

Do you have any suggestions how to make this work before level 11 (level 9 maybe, considering you need Monk 8th for Jabbing Master)?

Hello lads n ladies,

I have been toying with a build which combines Ascetic style with another Style, using Martial Focus and Weapon style Mastery from Weapon Masters handbook.

However, I keep running into the fact that the second style comes online a little late (even orse if you pick an exotic Non-monk weapon like the Katana or Urumi).

This is the best I have managed to conjure up. I'd really appreciate it if you could poke holes in it or tell me I am awesome.

Human Monk 18/Unarmed Fighter 2 (Unchained)

Str: 18 (+ per level from levels 8,12, 16 and 20)
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 15 (+1 at level 4)
Cha: 8

1 Monk Flurry of Blows, Improved Unarmed strike, Stunning Fist, Weapon Focus: Temple Sword, Jabbing Style, Dodge (Bonus Feat)
2 Monk Evasion, Combat Reflexes (Bonus Feat)
3 Monk Fast Movement, Ki Pool, Ki Strike (Magic), Escetic Style
4 Monk Still Mind, Ki Power (Barkskin)
5 Monk Purity of Body, Flying Kick, Escetic Form
6 Monk Ki Power, Mobility, Mobility
7 Unarmed Fighter Martial Focus: Monk Fighter Weapon Group, Jabbing Master (Bonus)
8 Unarmed Fighter Weapon Style Master
9 Monk (8) Ki Strike (Cold iron/Silver), Dimensional Agility
10 Monk (9) Abundant Step (Ki Power)
11 Monk (9) Improved Evasion, Elbow Smash, Dimensional Assault
12 Monk (10) Style strike (Lawful), Ki Leech (Ki Power), Medusa's Wrath(Bonus Feat)
13 Monk (11) Flurry of Blows (Bonus Attack), Dimensional Dervish
14 Monk (12) Diamond Soul (Ki Power),
15 Monk (13) Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Legsweep. Ascetic Strike
16 Monk (14) Blood Crow Strike, Improved Critical (Bonus)
17 Monk (15) Style Strike (2/round), Jabbing Dancer?
18 Monk (16) Ki Strike (Adamantite), Ki Volley
19 Monk (17) Timeless Body, Power attack?
20 Monk (18) Diamond Resilience

Considerations/questions:

1) Does taking Jabbing Master with the 1st level Bonus Feat for Unarmed Fighter Work? I seem to recall it works for Master of Many styles
2) Is there any other way to get Ascetic Style + Jabbing Master at around 8-9th level without a dip?
3) Is getting Jabbing Style/Master worth postponing Medusa's Wrath for?
4) Is Jabbing Dancer Still worth it with Dimensional Agility Feat line? 3A) Is the Dimensional Feat Line still worth it considering I can use flying kick and move around with Jabbing Dancer.
5) Would it be feasible to replace the Dimensional Feat line with something like Combat Style Master and switching to Crane or Snake style when outside of my turn?
6) Is it worth considering other weapons (Urumi, Katana, Sansetsukon)?

Thoughts?

I second asking for an inkling of their plans after each session.

Second, given that the encounters and settlements will have some relation, try to figure out how a decision/solution taken by the group on problem A will affect the other factions around. This will give a sense of immersion and make the group feel as if their actions meaningfully alter the world.

Third, try to work with 2-3 'main' plots which are all open to the group, so that they can choose but you can still somewhat predict what they will do.

Limit either A) their alignment or B) the ways in which gear and items get bought and sold. Otherwise you run the risk them murderhoboing your merchants for increased WBL.

Finally, prepare/steal a good random encounter generator, and have many generic NPCs (guards, bandits, aristocrats) prepared in case they want to get into it in a random town.

Give them more options, but guide them towards stuff you do have prepared, otherwise your campaign will spiral out of control!

At level 4 a dice roll gone wrong could kill a character still, so it depends what you want.

I personally think bosses should be hard, but beatable. Especially if campaign-wise they have to fight him.

I usually kill my PCs only when:

- They go in underprepared
- They pick a fight with something I have made clear is beyond them]
- They do something else monumentally stupid (not to be confused with heroic, charging abyssal sorcerer for a last ditch at a kill with his claws screams win)

That being said, PCs do die, but I will refrain from TPK with fudging dice and/or rule of cool. Ie, not attacking a downed character, foregoing power attack while attack something I perceive to have high AC, taking a defensive move etc. But sometimes a fireball or a Great-axe just take out a character, adventures also need to be dangerous.

That being said, I finished my last campaign with my group going after a CR 14 Cleric without resting. They believed they were on a clock, I was convinced they knew they could rest. To make matters worse, I put a Blade Barrier on top of a character who was unable to move (hold person or somesuch). Worst mistake I ever made, so guess you should take everything I say with a grain of salt :))

On the situation:

Turn of Power Attack, eat the readied attack and just knock'em out if you do win the fight. Naked on a life-boat or on an island with only a cache of rum (which is always gone) should allow you to proceed with your campaign.

You are obviously right. However, I did not care to figure out which to take at which level. Good catch though. Any advice (on what cantrips to take maybe?????)?

I love Dragons. I also love spell-casting. For RP reasons (jester) I have already decided on being a Copper Draconic Sorcerer. We have already played till level 3, so previous options are out.

I kinda want three plans:

1) Dominate stuff (Dragon!)
2) Throw Acid at people (Moar Dragon)
3) Polymorph and eat faces (Moarest Dragon)

This is my build, plus my porspective spells. Any advice would be appreciated! Feats, Potentially dipping Dragon Disciple for 4-8 levels, other spells, good items?

Str: 16 (+1 at 8) Dex: 12 Con: 12 Int: 10 Wis: Cha: 19 (+1 at 4th level, probably rest goes to strength?)

Sorcerer 20 (Copper Draconic Bloodline)

Feats:

1: Skill Focus: Knowledge (Arcana)
1: Eschew Materials
1: Spell Focus: Enchantment
3: Eldritch Heritage: Arcane (Bonded Item: Dragon Bone Amulet)
5: Persistent Spell
7: Improved Eldritch Heritage: Metamagic Adept
7 (B): Improved Initiative
9: Dazing Spell/Elemental/Extend/ Craft Rod
11: Spell Penetration
13:Greater Spell Penetration/ Craft Wonderous Items/Craft Staff
13 (B): Quicken Spell Metamagic
15: Spell Perfection: Dominate Person or w/e
17: Greater Eldritch Heritage (School Power: Enchantment)
19: Expand Arcana (level 9 spell)
19 (B): Power Attack

Spells:

0:

Acid Splash (1d3 + 2)
Daze (DC 15)
Detect Magic
Prestidigitation

1:

Color Spray (1st level, DC 15)
Vanish (1st level)
Mage Armour (3rd level Draconic Spell)
Corrosive Touch (3rd level)
Enlarge Person (4th level bonus)
Grease(5thth level bonus)
Charm Person (5th level)
Touch of Gracelessness (7th level)

2:

Levitate (4th level) (change to Hideous Laughter at 8th level)
Acid Arrow (5th level)
Resist Energy (5th level Draconic Spell)
Alter Self (6th level bonus)
Protection from Arrows (7th level bonus)
Mirror Image (7th level)
Eagle's Splendor (9th level)
Glitterdust(11th level)

3:

Paragon Surge (6th)
Suggestion (7th)
Fly (7th level Draconic)
Stinking Cloud (8th level bonus)
Dispel Magic (9th)
Haste (9th level bonus)
Slow (11th)
Magic Weapon, Greater (13th)

4: 8-9- 9 (draconic) – 10 (FC) 11 - 11 (FC)- 13

Black Tentacles (8th level)
Monstrous Physique II (9th level)
Fear (9th level Draconic)
Dimension Door (10th level Bonus)
Confusion (11th level)
Acid Pit (11th level Bonus)
Dimensional Anchor (13th level)

Terrible Remorse

5: 10 – 11 – 11 (Draconic) – 12 (FC) – 13 – 13 (FC) – 15

Dominate Person (10th level)
Spell Resistance (11th level Draconic)
Acid Spray (11th level)
Mind Fog (12th level bonus)
Baleful Polymorph (13th level)
Fickle Winds (13th bonus)
Icy Prison(15th level)

Wall of Stone,Teleport, Overland Flight

6: 12 – 13 – 13 (Draconic) – 14 (FC) – 15 – 15 (FC)

True Seeing (12th level)
Transformation (13th level)
Form of the Dragon I (13th level Draconic)
Dispel Magic, Greater (14th level bonus)
Disintegrate (15th level)
Legend Lore (15th level Bonus)
Mass Suggestion, Contingency

7: 14 – 15 – 15 (draconic) – 16 (FC) – 17 – 17 (FC)

Spell Turning (14th level)
Prismatic Spray (15th level)
Form of the Dragon II (15th level Draconic)
Plane Shift (17th level)
Reverse Gravity (17th level bonus)

8: 16 – 17 – 17 (Draconic) – 18 (FC) – 19 – 19 (FC) – 20 (FC)

Maze (16th level)
Prismatic Wall (17th level)
Form of the Dragon III (17th level Draconic)
Moment of Prescience (18th level Bonus)
Demand (19th level Bonus)
Protection from Spells (19th level)
Polymorph Any Object (20th level Bonus)

9: 18 – 19 – 19 (Draconic) – 19 (expand Arcana) - 20

Mage's Disjunction (18th level)
Wish (19th level Draconic)
Overwhelming Presence (19th level)
Time Stop (19th level Expanded Arcana)
Shapechange (20th level)

Rambear wrote:

Wait. So you can argue that in pathfinder creatures cannot provide cover for themselves because that is in the rules, but you should defo do damage per square on an explosion because it is more realistic?

No, I'm actually arguing the opposite. But then like so many posters on these forums, you can't be bothered to actually read and parse what is being said, you're just focused on trying to "win" an argument.

I am not trying to win anything. Stop trying to guess about my motivations and do not attack me based on these presumptions. That is a rubbish argument (Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well, look it up).

All I have been trying to do is:

A) Show that in the context with this game it is not feasible to apply damage per square. Which you have more or less agreed to.

B) Try to argue that there are a a variety of factors to take into account if we would look at damage/square. Several have been named:

1) How tough is a bigger creature?
2) What percentage of a being is being affected?
3) Does the fact that a creature is very big and "provides cover" for itself have any effect. Say my monster is 15x15x15 feet. Even if every square is in the blast radius, the one in the middle would be inside the creature. What about the ones at the back of the creature?
4) AoE effects have a point of origin. For explosions, does closer or farther away affect the damage you take?
5) Should the damage be lessened for smaller beings? Or should the damage for an explosion be a set amount of damage for the blast area, divided by the amount of squares?. Make fireball 2d6/level, but divide that damage per square?

I do not claim to be an expert on matters of physics, nor on balancing RPGS. Hell, I am hardly an expert on anything really. I just wonder how you would envision this and how

P.S. Stay away from feigning outrage because people react in a certain way. You have acted outraged yourself, in my opinion for no reason. We are all adults here, and I try to take what everybody says with a grain of salt. Moral high horses are scary, mostly on account of my vertigo :)

Rambear wrote:

I personally feel like going for the explanation that since Large creatures are bigger they have a smaller area of exposure relative to their total mass. Besides this, they are more hardy

Uh....no. Exposure relative to total mass is irrelevant. If we are talking about purely fire damage or acid damage or damage from a hail storm, then you take damage based purely on surface area. A larger creature has more skin on which the acid or hail or fire can react to.

Plus, you can't universally claim a larger creature has a different surface to mass ratio without actually showing some specific facts. Mass is a function of density per volume and given that there's absolutely no universal rule about creature density, you can't make definitive statements about them.

Quote:

Now you could argue that each Square would get covered, but a real explosion would only target part of the animal and the fire would have to move through the creature, but is stopped by it's body, essentially providing cover for itself.

Uh...no. In Pathfinder creatures don't provide any hard cover for each other so they don't provide it for themselves. If I'm standing right behind a T-rex, he doesn't shield me from a fireball. The rule is that everything in the blast radius takes damage.

Quote:

Whereas a human would be consumed and the blast would travel around/through a human, large/huge creatures would just absorb the blast and every part behind (or underneath if you blast from a flying vantage) would not be hit because it's body absorbs/stops part of the force and the fire.

A human is only experiencing damage from the fire that enters her square. The fire 2 squares away contributes nothing to the damage unless she also occupied those squares.

What you're inaccurately trying to argue is that the human would be exposed to damage from all sides and, let's say, a dinosaur would not. But the flaw in that rationale is that a human doesn't actually fill a 5x5 square. A dinosaur would....

Wait. So you can argue that in pathfinder creatures cannot provide cover for themselves because that is in the rules, but you should defo do damage per square on an explosion because it is more realistic?

Also, what I, and most everybody in this thread has been trying to do is point out the problems inherent in wanting to apply the principle of damage per square.

Now I haven't done any math, and that was never the point of my reply. But I think my point was quite clear, and you seemed to conveniently ignore that in your line-by-line analysis, which I don't think my reply even warranted. Especially my Dino-line, which I intended for a light and indeed silly tone to my reply :)

This is the rules forum. The rule has been clarified. Besides that, for purposes of balancing a game (however imperfect) this is a decent way to handle AoE damage. Either try to rationalise it away, accept the way the rules work or make a suggestion on how to implement this idea.

I personally think it is a "horrible f***ing idea." And while Pathos makes some decent suggestions about how to implement it, it would be a damn sight easier to keep the rules the way they are, because the game is indeed not setup for it.

Necromancy? Zombie/Skeletal Dragon?

Nobody is posting with outrage. Most people are just stating that it would cause all sorts of issues with balance.

I personally feel like going for the explanation that since Large creatures are bigger they have a smaller area of exposure relative to their total mass. Besides this, they are more hardy

Now you could argue that each Square would get covered, but a real explosion would only target part of the animal and the fire would have to move through the creature, but is stopped by it's body, essentially providing cover for itself. Whereas a human would be consumed and the blast would travel around/through a human, large/huge creatures would just absorb the blast and every part behind (or underneath if you blast from a flying vantage) would not be hit because it's body absorbs/stops part of the force and the fire.

Take as an example the fire blast against the awesome Indominusaurus in Jurassic World. Humans got consumed in flame, Dino only had half his body on fire. Should he then take double damage, or half damage?

That is besides the fact that larger creatures have thicker skin and should be able to shrug fire/acid/cold (and even force due to their higher mass) off much more easily.

Now in game this is ofcourse partly represented by SR, a high CON modifier on size increases etc. But by recalculating per square damage compared to relative part of creature affected you will needlessly complicate the game, while screwing with balance between AoE and single target effects.

AoE damage covers the surface of people. People are known to survive being caught in fire. A sword wound has a much higher chance to target vital organs, although that could also be survived.

A Game needs to be balanced. It could be said that AoE damage balances with weapons based on the fact that they do different types of damage. However, without critical strike tables (such as Rolemaster had) and simply working with HP totals you need to assume some commonality between damage types, despite the fact that they would work very differently when used in a Mythbuster scientific experiment.

So no, I don't think AoE should do more damage based on the amount of squares. If you want to rationalise this as bigger beasties being tougher and only having a smaller area exposed, or that AoE only does superficial damage, or whether you want to put it on the willing suspension of disbelief is completely up to any individual person. However, within the Pathfinder rules it is the only way to really deal with AoE damage. Feel free to make a suggestion in Homebrew about how you would balance it, and work it into your game in whatever way you want. The rules question though has been answered by referencing the appropriate rules.

Rambear wrote:

Vratix wrote:

Rambear wrote:

Scarred Witch Doctor keys of CON, making it pretty hardy as far as full casters go.

Not anymore it doesn't.

Well, that's a surprise. I must have missed the entire ARG errata. Still a decent archetype with a build in +2 INt, 21-22 Int at level one is sweet as a half-orc.

How are you getting 21-22 Int at level 1?

You take a starting int of 18. You take +2 floating stat boost from Half-Orc to Intelligence.

Then, Scarred Witch Doctor gets the following ability:

Fierce Intelligence

A scarred witch doctor treats her Intelligence score as 2 points higher when determining the highest level of spells she can cast, the number of spells she can cast per day, her spell save DCs, her number of spells known at 1st level, and any effects of her hexes determined by her Intelligence.

That is 22 Int for the purposes of spellcasting. The only thing you do not get is the skill point and the extra language upon character creation.

Rambear wrote:

Scarred Witch Doctor keys of CON, making it pretty hardy as far as full casters go.

Not anymore it doesn't.

Well, that's a surprise. I must have missed the entire ARG errata. Still a decent archetype with a build in +2 INt, 21-22 Int at level one is sweet as a half-orc.

You could play a Scarred Witch Doctor Witch and take Cook People as a Major Hex. Start with Cauldron and cook people to begin with, and gain mechanical benefit when you are higher level.

Scarred Witch Doctor keys of CON, making it pretty hardy as far as full casters go.

Order of the Beast Cavalier can turn his mount into Dragon at 15.

Otherwise I second the Familiar. Make Gnome/Halfling caster and you could do it at level 11 with Form of the Dragon I, because you could ride a medium mount.

I don't think Beast Shape lets you turn into a Dragon, as it isn;t an animal or a magical beast.

I am actually fan of the Fauchard (from Classic Horrors Revisited). 1d10 (18-20/x2) with Reach annd Trip is kinda nice.

Downside is that it is an exotic weapon. The crit range makes it worth it though.

I second the starting at level 1.

Without wanting to be harsh, even dragonhunterq made a mistake, in stating hitpoints need to be " 5d10+(5*con mod)." However, you take max HP on your first HD, meaning the correct value would be 10 + 4d10 + (5*Con Mod)+ any HP for Favoured class bonus.

This is not to b#+~% at Dragonhunterq, who I think would never make this mistake while building his own characters. It just shows that it is very easy to miss steps if you go straight to level 5 (or higher).

What I usually do is make a table of what a character gets at each level and work through it (especially with archetypes) leveling up if it starts at higher level.

Besides that, I second that Fighter is as easy a class to start with, especially coming in at higher level. Some more intricate classes have too many moving parts which you only get to know by playing with them one by one when they come online, which means you are bound to make mistakes/forget stuff when you start out.

As for a class, I would look at:

- Slayer/Ranger (without Pet) because it is full BAB but has some tricks and can contribute out of combat, without being too complicated.

- Barbarian/Bloodrager is also fairly easy to handle and have some nifty tricks

- I would stay away from full casters, but if your player leans that way try for a spontaneous caster, since dealing with 5 levels worth of spells known in one go is challenging enough as it is, without needing to know all of them.

In general, going for something with mostly combat, some skills seems a good place to start. We had a new player trying to deal with playing a high-ish level cleric and he got bogged down with options. In our new campaign he plays a monk and he is enjoying this way more.

Me on the other hand, I usually played beat-sticks but got bored with it and am now enjoying more freedom playing a caster, compliments of higher system-mastery. (Not to say you cannot enjoy a properly built melee as an experienced player!)

Cavalier and Druid both do come with their respective problems (Mount in dungeons, while druid needs to make some choices on what to focus on), but just take it step-by-step and it'll be fine!

The first line of the FAQ is

"The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it"

Doesn't really get much clearer than that.

The advantageous/disadvantageous wording applies to spell DCs, level dependant spell-effects.

The FAQ does not speak of Lineage/Spellhunter, so therefore the general rule relating to required spellslot makes the most sense.

The rules in the book say that a metamagic'ed spell is always treated as a lower-level spell, except in the case of what spell level you use to cast the meta-magic spell.

However, I'm pretty sure that there was a dev post or something that said that, despite what the rules say, casting a spell in a higher-level spell slot, regardless of whether it's due to metamagic or something else, interact with other rules, such as Spell Perfection, in whatever way is worse for the caster.

If I'm not wrong about the existance of that post/faq/whatever, an Empowered Fireball is level 5 for the purpose of meta-magic rods.

Likewise, a fireball maximised by a metamagic rod would be level 6 for the purpose of Spell Perfection.

I was wrong, (and going of the old Blockbuster guide), but this has been answered inthis FAQ

Basically, it literally states that your spell counts as a higher level when applying metamagic and indeed always functions so that it is always disadvantageous for the caster.

Ohhhhh well, learn something new everyday :).

Obviously, Spell Level increase are still decreased by Wayang Spellhunter/Magical Lineage. So an Empowered Fireball with these two feats still counts as a level 3 spell.

I doubt 85% of people say that the Bonus spells against your spells known. You provided the answer yourself:

"These spells are IN ADDITION TO the number of spells given on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known"

Caps for emphasis.

As for Firespells:

Level 1 has Burning Hands
Level 2 has Scorching Ray and Burning Arc
Level 3 has Fireball

Personally, if you want to blast firespells, a familiar is hardly required. Though still good :)

Huh, I was sure I read a Dev stating the opposite. Guess I was wrong, though I'll check it out.

Where is the admixture feat coming from? Pathfinder book or 3.5 book?

I'm thinking a metamagic rod you can deploy as soon as you make that knowledge check would be best.

Admixture is a class feature of an evocation admixture Wizard, called Versatile Evocation. The Feat is Elemental Spell Metamagic

Problem is that you would need three lesser rods of elemental metamagic, as each feat/rod is bound to one element. I'd get one for Acid and be done with it.

I agree with Darksol that Rods are great to add to add to the power and versatility of a blaster. Especially when focusing on Fireball, since (though cheesy), the type of Rod is based on the original pre-metamagic level. So a Quickened Empowered Maximized Fireball with a rod of Maximize (7th level slot, if both metamagic traits are applied, 3rd if you quicken it with Spell Perfection) could be maximized with a Lesser Rod of Maximize.

I'd always try to get a Rod of Maximize and Elemental, anything else is just gravy :)

Tattooed Sorcerer doesn't technically stack with Crossblooded.

Your GM may allow it anyway, though.

Also, Rambear, I thought it was faq'ed: An oracle can't gain sorcerer spells to cast with Eldritch Heritage. They become Spells Known, but since they are not on your Oracle list, you can't use Oracle spell slots to cast them.

It made me sad, but oh well.

I know Tattooed doesn;t technically stack. I was making two separate suggestions in ways in which the OP could get a familiar.

Elemental Tattooed Sorcerer or Elemental/Arcane Crossblooded Sorcerer.

As for the New Arcana, I realise the FAQ in question exists. Still, the Bonded Item/Familiar and the 3rd level power and the 15th level powers are still pretty decent for an oracle. Though the FAQ does make it less potent.

Same goes for the Shaman Lore Spirit which can be gained by an Oracle, but doesn;t work because of the same FAQ (and the fact that Oracles do not prepare spells) both of which I personally think SHOULD be allowed, but that is neither here nor there.

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, two or more style feats, base attack bonus +6 or monk level 5th.

Benefit: You can switch your style as a free action. At the start of combat, pick one of your styles. You start the combat in that style, even in the surprise round.

Normal: It takes a swift action to begin or switch your styles.

It states that you can swap styles as a free action.

My question relates to Panther Style and swapping styles mid-blow

Whenever you provoke a AoO you can make a retaliatory strike.

However, say I provoke, I am in Panther, I get the retaliatory strike. Could I use a free action to swap to Dragon Style just before making the retaliatory style, or do I need to stay in Panther Style till after the attack is resolved?

B

The Elemental Bloodline does not offer the option to get a Familiar in and of itself.

However, Familiar Folio allows you to trade in your level 1 power for a familiar. Just google Bloodline Familiar and you should find it.
Your familiar gets a power based on your bloodline.

Another option would be to use Eldritch Heritage (EH).

You first need to take Skill Focus feat associated with the bloodline for which you want EH.

The Arcane Sorcerer Bloodline has (Knowledge: Any) as associated skill.

The level 1 Arcane power is arcane Bond which could grant you a familiar.

So in order to get that you would take:

1- Skill Focus: Knowledge Arcana/Planes/Etc.
2- Then, provided you have 13 charisma and you are level 3 you can take the Eldritch Heritage Feat to gain 1st level Arcane Bloodline power.
3- You could then go on to take the level 3 and 9 powers with Improved Eldritch Heritage (at level 5 and 11 respectively, provided you have Cha 15)
4- Finally, you could take Greater Eldritch Heritage at level 17 to gain the level 15 power

The effects for 2 and 3 do work at your Class Level -2 as your CL.

It is an easy way for characters to gain bloodline powers from alternative sorcerer bloodlines. The feats do not give you access to the Arcana, bloodline feats etc. You just pick the powers you want. The Arcane Bloodline is actually pretty damn to get as a sorcerer (or any other caster, Oracle and such).

If you just want the familiar Familiar folio is your best bet, but since it isn't core, you might be better of with EH, depending on your GM.

There might be other bloodlines which grant a familiar. Another option is to take the Tattooed Sorcerer Archetype or to go Crossblooded Elemental/Arcane sorcerer.

It doesn't.

That is why the Heigghten spell metamagic feat exists.

Free advice for the day, round two.

Insulting one of the people giving you free, accurate, and helpful information will make you no friends and likely reduce the quantity and quality of help received in the future.

As the poster above noted the information you want is in the section on bonus feats for the arcane bloodline.

You're welcome.

Saying "actually, I just think you are wrong" is not an insult. It is somebody saying he thinks you made a mistake. Though perhaps the written word in not my native language made that sound more harsh than I meant it to be!

Actually, why you were writing your reply I was writing mine after reading Chess Pawn's clarification. I missed the word bonus feat and jumped to the conclusion that you meant for all feats in general.

Actually, I just think I was wrong :). My apologies for being somewhat hasty in my reply. No harm no foul right?!

Lince202 wrote:

i take combat reflex... only because the others bloodline's feats require to be a fighter (as disruptive or spellbreaker...)

Note that your bloodrager levels count as fighter levels for qualifying for your bonus feats.

I am an idiot and cannot read. I missed the word bonus, and reckoned he meant for all feats.

Mea Culpa, and thanks for clearing that up :)

Why would you want extra rage rounds? Recovered Rage or Extra rage only really comes up if you multi-class out of Barbarian/Bloodrager.

You get recovered Rage at level 9. At that point you have 23 rounds of rage, which should be enough to last 4-5 combats anyway.

I second getting Cornugon Smash and Hurtful, which is about equal in damage to Raging Brutality anyway, without costing you precious rage rounds.

I am not a huge fan of Widen, because.... Well, just throw two blasts :). Still, not a bad choice.

I personally think Acid would be good, but that is merely based on an old post (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nqnp?Most-common-energy-resistancesimmunities ) which states Acid is the least commonly resisted/immune element (except for sonic).

However, this advice depends on the type of campaign and the monsters associated with it. The best advice I can give you is to look at some of the enemies that you'd expect to encounter that have fire resistance and see what other kind of immunities/resistances they have.

Bestiary search ftw, but am lazy and I reckon you could do that yourself :)

@ Rambear: I can still choose the Human FCB as a Half-Orc. There is a FAQ that says I can.

Feats (* = Bonus Feat):
1. Spell Focus (Evocation), Spell Specialization (Burning Hands - Fireball)*
3. Varisian Tattoo
5. Spell Penetration
7. Empower Spell, Improved Initiative*
9. Intensify Spell
11. Spontaneous Metafocus (Fireball)
13. Quicken Spell*, Greater Spell Penetration
15. Spell Perfection (Fireball)
17. Maximize Spell
19. Toughess*, Dazing Spell

1st level - Burning Hands: 3D4+6; DC 17
4th level - Burning Arc: 7D6+14, Flaming Sphere: 3D6+6; DC 18
7th level - Empowered Fireball: 1.5(10D6+20), Lightning Bolt: 8D6+8; DC 19
10th level - Empowered Intensified Fireball: 1.5(13D6+26), Empowered Lightning Bolt: 1.5(10D6+10); DC ~21
13th level - Empowered Intensified Fireball: 1.5(15D6+30), Quickened Intensified Fireball: 15D6+30; DC ~22

The damage seems promising. Average rolls with these spells could 1-shot equivalent-CR enemies, assuming straight damage. (Which might not apply by 2nd level).

Some suggestions as to what spells I can select to help diversify my...

You are ofcourse right about the FCB. Can't believe I missed that, my own sorcerer is Half-Elf and uses the same ruling :)

As for the feats:

1. Spell Focus (Evocation), Spell Specialization (Burning Hands - Fireball)*
3. Intensify Spell
5. Varisian Tattoo
7. Empower Spell, Improved Initiative*
9. Spell Penetration

Why change the order you ask?

A) at level 3 you already can at 5d4 for Burning Hands, so Varisian Tattoo is basically a dead feat at this level. To be fair, this also applies to Intensify, but...

B) at level 4 you do not get Burning Arc (because of -1 spell known). At level 4 Intensified Burning Hands will get you 6d4 + 12, while with Varisian Tattoo you still cap at 5d4 + 10.

C) Varisian Tattoo will be important as soon as you get Burning Arc, which comes at level 5, whereas Spell Penetration works for SR, which is not really THAT relevant at level 5-8.

D) you need Empower at level 7, as that is when you get Fireball. So that can stay the same.

As for the damage, seems promising indeed.

I would however consider not taking Greater Spell Pen. At that level you already have +2 (Spell Pen) and +2 (Spell Focus and +1 (Varisian) to Cl, which apply to checks to bear SR. In fact, I reckon spell penetration is less of a problem than DCs

Instead you could either go for Elemental Spell (dropping the need for other blasts), take Dazing Spell earlier (Dazing is gold) or go for Greater Spell Focus.

As for Heighten, I'd skip it. Assuming a Belt of +4 and +3 (at level 12) from levels you will be casting at Int 27, that is +8.

Fireball DC would be 10 + 3 + 8 + 1 = DC 22. At the CR 12-15 range most creatures have +8-+11 on Reflex saves, so gives you better than even money to have them fail the save. Personally I'd feel comfortable with it, since Reflex is not the strong suit of many monsters. But Greater Spell Focus does have the additional benefit of doubling in value at level 15.

I am also not sure about Spontaneous Metafocus. Sure, having your move action available is nice, but unlike spells with casting time 1 round you can cast metamagic spells and they will go off in your turn. So all this feat gives you is a move action. Which is good. But, you could also just Kill stuff. Stuff which is Dazed will not kill you, meaning less incentive to move :)

As for spells:

Just make sure you have a reasonable alternative at most levels.

Take Acid Dart at level 2 maybe (though there are too many good defensive spells at level 2), Lightning Bolt at 3, Acid Spray/COne of Cold at 5th, Cold Ice strike at 6th. Take Sirocco for some control plus damage aswell. But I think Elemental Spell metamagic is still better.

1. Spell Focus (Evocation)
3. Spell Specialization (Burning hands, change to Burning Arc at level5 Then to Fireball at level 7)
5. Intensify Spell
7. Improved Initiative,* Empower Spell
9. Varisian Tattoo
11 Spontaneous Metafocus (Fireball)
13. Quicken Spell*, Dazing Spell
15. Spell Perfection (Fireball)
17. Spell Penetration
19. Toughness*, Greater Spell Penetration

I tried to combine some of the advice into a new build.

The remaining problem lies with the late access to Spell Penetration and no Greater Spell Focus.

I'd suggest picking up Lightning bolt, or perhaps Cone of Cold as alternatives. Sure, you'd lose +1 damage/die for a none fire spell, but it's that or use elemental spell. Personally I'd drop half-Orc and go Human for the extra feat (Elemental spell) and grab the FCB for moar spells when blasting is not the best option :)

Rambear, I don't see any reason to take Intensify Spell at 5th level when it won't be useful for the build's primary attack spell until 9th. With your Magical Lineage/Wayang Spellhunter combo, there are several metamagic feats that will be useful right off the bat.

The reason I took it at that level is because I see no other options really to take. I guess you take Empower, if you assume the -1 from Waying and Lineage stack on Empower (making it +0).

I took Intensify mostly for Burning Hands at that level, since you won't get Fireball till 6th anyway. I assumed 7d4 + 17 was plenty reason :).

I could see the argument to move Heighten to 5th and take preferred at 7, but preferred doesn't do much till you apply metamagic to Fireball.

So Empower would probably be your best bet, though I'd stick with Intensify for Burning Hands.

I personally reckon Admixture is NOT worth it.

- You gain flexibility through the school power
- You gain +1/2 Cl damage to any spell

But you lose 5 feats (4 if you choose a bonus feat at 15th level. This means you lose core elements of your blaster build.

Things I really miss in your build:

- Empower or Maximize
- Daze
- Preferred Spell (kinda nice for metamagic on your key blast, worth it despite the need for Heighten)
- Spell Penetration (and Greater), Greater Spell Focus

I would lose Selective and just tell your buddies to stock up on fire res or to get out of your way :). Not a big fan of Widen either, costs too much. Only time you'll ever use this is to clear mooks (bosses can get a small blast) and let's face it, for mook-duty you can just cast two (Quicken) and (Maximize/Empower) and clear them without any further metamagic anyway.

I personally would play either a Sorcerer 1/Admixture 19, or go straight Sorcerer and use your much needed feats for getting blasts. In case of Fire res, just make sure you have a different element blast lying around. Not ideal, but Versatile evocation also changes the descriptor, meaning you'll lose the Orc FC and Draconic damage anyway.

1. Spell Focus (Evocation)
3. Spell Specialization (Burning hands, change to fireball at 5)
5. Intensify Spell
7. Improved Initiative,* Heighten Spell
9. Preferred Spell (Fireball)
11 Empower/Maximize Spell
13. Quicken Spell*, Dazing Spell
15. Spell Perfection (Fireball)
17. Spell Penetration
19. Toughness*, Greater Spell Penetration

I'd think of something like this. Though, I'd maybe drop the preferred spell and Heighten to get Greater Spell focus: Evocation and move spell penetration forward.

I also owe you thanks Fruian.

I made the list in my first post for a full caster Draconic Sorcerer, and in planning my spells known I have focused a LOT on my own tricks, while I should have been on the look-out for things which can benefit my group.

Communal Stoneskin, Greater Magic Weapon and (Greater) Heroism should be on my list just to provide a load of utility beyond what I can contribute offensively.

Only level 2 as of yet, but having great fun casting Vanish on the oracle who can finish his summons without being interrupted.

I just love how versatile you can make a sorcerer, despite the obvious drawbacks compared to a Wizard, without being stuck with only one trick.

A sorcerer does make it really important to plan ahead for the diversity on your list, and take the choices of your party members into account. The Oracle and I are working on a decent division of labour, with me focusing on providing some blasts, some buffs and single target annoyance, and the Oracle being focused on buffs and battlefield control.

What do you reckon for my third level by the way? I have Vanish (defense), Color Spray (Boooooom), Acid Splash (damage) and Daze which I cast now. I will get Mage Armour, but am really wondering about my next spell. Grease is really good, Enlarge Person would benefit my monk, but Corrosive Touch (3d4 +3) is pretty fun in terms of doing more damage than 1d3 +1 :).

Any advice?

I agree with Fruian, if you aim for melee, take the hit on CL and go DD for 8 levels. Buckets of flavour and the higher HD and the +2 Con really help. Yes, you delay spells, but again, most spells you'll want are below level 6.

Downsides are:

- Only get FotD at 18 (instead of 17)
- Will only get 2 level 9 spells (1 known + Wish), since you won't get level 9 spells till level 20.
- CL -2. Take Magical Knack to circumvent. Consider taking the Additional Traits feat for Magical Knack and Wayang Spellhunter (-1 level on metamagic).

I think the trade-off is absolutely worth it, smacking stuff is fun!

Again, I mostly concur with Fruian, but I'd adjust a couple of spells. Do remember that FC bonus for sorcerer is really good, so I'd forgo +1 hp for HP and grab Toughness and possibly even invest in a belt of Strength AND Con. Additional spells gained from FC you could pick from my earlier list.

1: Mage Armor*, Magic Missile, Shield, Burning Hands, Vanish, Ray of Enfeeblement
2: Resist Energy*, Glitterdust, Alter Self (for Troglodyte form), Mirror Image, False Life, Protection from Arrows
3: Fly*, Fireball, Dispel Magic, Vampiric touch, Haste
4: Fear*, Enervation, Black Tentacles, Dimensional Anchor, Monstrous Physique II (GMW is actually level 3 and not worth it, if you attack mostly with Natural Attacks). Notable mention to Stoneskin.
5: Spell Resistance*, Wall of Stone/Force, Cloud Kill, Teleport, Stoneskin (communal), Monstrous Physique III
6: FotD I*, Greater Heroism, Sirocco (awesome spell), Transformation (Stacks with FotD, if Transformation is cast last)
7: Fotd II*, Limited Wish, Spell Turning, Reverse Gravity
8: FotD III*, Maze, Protection from Spells, Summon monster 8
9: Wish*, Time Stop, Mage's Disjunction, Shapechange

I am playing a (Copper) Draconic Sorcerer in a campaign made by a friend.

We used rolled stats and I got all 14s and one 17, so my Strength score is somewhat lacking, hence I will not be going the mad Strength route, focusing more on spells: I basically got three plans:

Plan A: Cast enchantment spells and be dragony

Plan B: Cast damaging acidic spells

Plan C: Polymorph and eat people

The list I have decided on looks something like this, but includes some flavour options. Most notably, it is lacking Imp. Invis (cheesy and lame), Fireball (Acid rules), all necromancy (yucky for a good Dragon, enervation is awesome though). Since I am playing a "Paragon of Multiple Heritages"(Elf, Human, Wizard and Dragon), I can nick most anything with Paragon Surge once a day, so that also influenced my choices.

In your case I'd swap in most Monstrous Physique spells, Bull's Strength and probably some more defensive spells (Displacement, but possibly also shield at low level, as Mage Armour does not come online till 3rd level). I am having massive fun running around with 12 AC at level 1-2 so far :)

1:

Color Spray (1st level, DC 15)
Vanish (1st level)
Mage Armour (3rd level Draconic Spell)
Grease (3rd level)
Enlarge Person (4th level bonus)
Charm Person (5thth level bonus)
Corrosive Touch (5th level)
Touch of Gracelessness (7th level)

2:

Levitate (4th level) (change to Hideous Laughter at 8th level)
Acid Arrow (5th level)
Resist Energy (5th level Draconic Spell)
Alter Self (6th level bonus)
Protection from Arrows (7th level bonus)
Mirror Image (7th level)
Eagle's Splendor (9th level)
Glitterdust(11th level)

3:

Paragon Surge (6th)
Suggestion (7th)
Fly (7th level Draconic)
Stinking Cloud (8th level bonus)
Dispel Magic (9th)
Haste (9th level bonus)
Slow (11th)
Magic Weapon, Greater (13th)

4: 8-9- 9 (draconic) – 10 (FC) 11 - 11 (FC)- 13

Black Tentacles (8th level)
Monstrous Physique II (9th level)
Fear (9th level Draconic)
Dimension Door (10th level Bonus)
Confusion (11th level)
Acid Pit (11th level Bonus)
Dimensional Anchor (13th level)

Terrible Remorse

5: 10 – 11 – 11 (Draconic) – 12 (FC) – 13 – 13 (FC) – 15

Dominate Person (10th level)
Spell Resistance (11th level Draconic)
Acid Spray (11th level)
Mind Fog (12th level bonus)
Baleful Polymorph (13th level)
Fickle Winds (13th bonus)
Icy Prison(15th level)

Wall of Stone,Teleport, Overland Flight

6: 12 – 13 – 13 (Draconic) – 14 (FC) – 15 – 15 (FC)

True Seeing (12th level)
Transformation (13th level)
Form of the Dragon I (13th level Draconic)
Dispel Magic, Greater (14th level bonus)
Disintegrate (15th level)
Legend Lore (15th level Bonus)

Mass Suggestion, Contingency as options

7: 14 – 15 – 15 (draconic) – 16 (FC) – 17 – 17 (FC)

Spell Turning (14th level)
Prismatic Spray (15th level)
Form of the Dragon II (15th level Draconic)
Plane Shift (17th level)
Reverse Gravity (17th level bonus)

8: 16 – 17 – 17 (Draconic) – 18 (FC) – 19 – 19 (FC) – 20 (FC)

Maze (16th level)
Prismatic Wall (17th level)
Form of the Dragon III (17th level Draconic)
Moment of Prescience (18th level Bonus)
Demand (19th level Bonus)
Protection from Spells (19th level)
Polymorph Any Object (20th level Bonus)

9: 18 – 19 – 19 (Draconic) – 19 (expand Arcana) - 20

Mage's Disjunction (18th level)
Wish (19th level Draconic)
Overwhelming Presence (19th level)
Time Stop (19th level Expanded Arcana)
Shapechange (20th level)

Right, so me and my useless liberal arts college degree are running into issues with understanding how natural attacks work with spell combat and spellstrike. No wonder finding a job is such a drag :))

So here is what I understand:

1) I can spellstrike (cast Frostbite) and use an attack to deliver the spell, doing normal damage. In the case of prehensile hair, I would make the attack at my Bab+ Int, doing 1d3 + (1.5*Int)+ 1d6 + Cl (nonlethal damage).

2) I could replace my attack with a Combat maneuver and still deal the touch attack.

Now this is just interacting with spellstrike. As for spell combat

3) The prehensile hair does not seem to interact well with spell combat. You'd take -2 and you could not use the "off-hand" for anything but casting the spell.

In the case of a Troglodyte alter self (with prehensile hair) this would mean:

I would have a claw, claw, bite and hair (secondary at -5). Using spell combat would net me -2 on all attacks. I would then use spellcombat, casting shocking grasp:

I would then get Claw/Bite/Hair (secondary), and a free attack with my 'main' claw as per spell combat to deliver the touch, albeit at -2/-2/-2/-7. The second claw I could not attack with because I would use it to cast the spell.

Effectively having four attacks, one buffed with spellcombat.

4) If I would bring in manufactured weapons I could do the same. So If I have a troglodyte form and a scimitar, I could use the itteratives, plus the hair and the bite (both at -5 as secondary attacks) at -2 for using spellcombat.

Ie, I would not be able to use any claws do to having a sword in my one hand (itteratives) and using the other one for casting the spell.

What I do not understand is the way in which the Hexcrafter guide seems to imply that you could use spellcombat together with the prehensile hair. Seems that you need a free hand and spellcombat implies a light weapon (as per the FAQ on the topic).

Anyway, massively confused, anybody have any idea how a general combat round might go attacking with hair/natural attacks. And how does this change if you go to a form with 4 claws?

Come and Get Me Barbarian is an option.

Hunter with trip, Wolf, Wounded Paw Gambit or w/e it is called. Basically drawing attacks which provoke , tripping enemies which provokes. I have no experience with reach Cleric though, sounds awesome.

How about we shift this problem?

You have written yourself into a corner. You have made a point of telling most people here that their advice is not helpful. You do not want to bend rules to change a problem YOU created with your railroad.

How about YOU fix it?

Do you not control your own writing? Have you shared any of this with your players? If not, change what you have written. Have them find a way into the next room longer before the actual break (loose stone or w/e), have the sneaky character escape first and get the book before your tense countdown clock begins.

I assume they will get a clue about the 4-6 minutes before you die scenario? Have that clue arrive right after 15 minutes of them accessing the book. In short, do not be a slave to your own writing, but adapt to achieve fun for your players.

Alternatively, let the wizard suck for a bit. No different than a sundered bow on an Archer..

I think we agree on Dragon Style/Ferocity.
To me, I'd let the first itterative benefit from x2 and the later ones from x1.5 strength. Roll damage as normal and add it all up before rolling crit and applying DR.

Horn I wonder about. I am unsure of how to interpret the RAGELANCEPOUNCE FAQ. You only apply the lance crit multiplier once. But not sure if that also applies to the +2 to hit. If the hit bonus of a charge works on all attacks in your pounce, the same could be said for Horn of the Crio.

I still maintain it's a normal full-attack /flurry, with a clustered shot (dr), crit and pounce component without additional 'first attack hence let's apply feats to all attacks' shennenigans.

Rageshaper is not bad tbh. One die size (which I take to mean 1d6 -> 1d8) is not great, but with enlarge person, or some of the beast shape/monstrous physique and later dragon form II it becomes decent.

And you could always depend on polymorph spells. Or grab Dragon Disciple for two levels for the bite (provided the bloodlines stack).

No, in fact that is Undone's position.

I personally think you just make a regular normal attack routine; applying dragon ferocity and Horn only to the damage which belongs to your first itterative.

Dragon Style (ie 1.5x Strength) would be added to the damage of subsequent attack rolls, as normal, the only difference being that you total the damage before you determine a crit and then applmy the damage to a monster (mimicking clustered shot).

Janni Style is difficult. You make an unarmed strike as part of your charge, implying a singular attack. The fact that it does not specify your first attack (though it is implied because a charge action normally means a single attack) you could argue that it gets applied to all attack rolls.

Main question is, provided you have pounce, Janni Rush, martial versatility and FCT, would Janni Rush affect all your attacks on a charge, or just one? I reckon just one, though am unsure. If you would apply to all in this scenario, you would do the same for Janni +pummeling combo, if not, I would stick with only multiplying damage dice once.

Basically, stick with normal rules for full-attack/flurry for pummeling style and normal rules for pounce for pummeling Charge, and add the pseudo Clustered Shot effect

Quote:

"While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks"

The only reference to damage rollS is done before referencing the first attack being 2x str.

I think this is far-fetched to say the least. The fact that there is a comma between two parts of a sentence do not mean that they are not related. The fact that it refers to damage Rolls in the first part and attacks in the second part is because NORMAL RULES (surprise, we are once again back to normal) suppose that your first damage roll is linked to your first attack, and subsequent damage rolls are related to subsequent attacks. The second part of your reference only refers to the relation between dragon ferocity and dragon style, and has no direct bearing on the pummeling style feat.

This is because the pummeling style feat specifies you using normal bonusses.

As for your remark about DR (and an errata that isn't out yet):

The feat specifies you making the attack rolls, then making damage rolls adding them to damage previously dealt. Then you'd make the conformation roll (if required).

In my opinion the normal order is:

attack roll - damage - crit confirmation and damage (if applicable) - apply damage to monster (deducting damage according to DR). Rinse and repeat for all the attacks yyou can make in a given round.

For pummeling style the order is as follows:

Make all attacks at normal bonus (for respective itteratives/flurry) - Roll normal damage for each hit, totalling them up - check for critical threat and confirm and increase damage (if applicable) - apply damage to monster (deducting damage according to DR)

Again, this is a normal way of resolving damage, except that the damage gets dealt after all results are totalled-up.

The damage is determined as a single attack for the purpose of DR and (until errata'ed) crit. However, the size of the damage is determined normally, and normal in any other part of the game means according to your standard, full or flurry of blows attack routine, whichever is applicable.

Rambear, Is it not normal to add the extra damage dragon style damage to your first attack? And so couldn't it be seen as "normal" to add the bonus damage to all the weapon damage rolls you do for your first attack? Not that I agree necessarily with this view, I feel it's not as clear as you're trying to make it seem.

Hence why I have argued there is ambiguity in the wording of the feat and it is in need of an errata.

I disagree with the way in which Undone argues that the feat works like a reversed Manyshot, while in my opinion it works like a melee clustered shot + a crit component, fluffed as one attack.

Ironically, to pummel, according to Collins dictionary is "to strike repeatedly with or as if with the fists". Pummeling in that case would fluff better with fast repeating blows to the same spot, also solving the whole argument whether you can apply bonusses to one/first attacks to all your attacks.

The one devastating blow aspect of the feat is what creates the disagreement between me and Undone. And while I agree to an extent that there can be debate on the wording of the feat, it is also not as clear as Undone makes it sound.

Which brings me to the main point:

I argue that normal means: Revert back to normal rules on handling an attack routine.

Undone ignores the wording of normal, or takes it to mean apply bonusses normal to first/one attack.

The difference, in my opinion, is that my interpretation makes the feat work very well, but means it does not have far reaching implications for several other feats. The interpretation Undone uses has more far reaching applications which makes some feats far more powerful.

And, again in my opinion, that means that my interpretation which refers back to a normal situation which is far more common (specific leading to general) and dampens the power of an already powerful feat is far better at passing the question: Is this explanation reasonable.

Regardless, I am willing to let this issue stand as something that should be clarified by a FAQ or errata. I do not think, however, that Undone's interpretation, which he makes out to be completely self-evident, should go unchallenged as the final word on this feat.

Undone, play the feat whichever way you like.

Feel free to ignore the fact that the feat specifies that each of your itteratives are handled as normal.

Yes, the general rule is that if you make one 'attack' this is also your first attack. However, specific rules trump general rules. And in this case the feat specifies that despite it being one attack the way this attack is resolved is by following your normal attack routine.

Now normal attack bonusses and normal damage to me says that you would add the bonusses you would apply to your attacks depending on their position in your attack order. Normally, Dragon/Janni applies to your first attack. Hence, on a pummeling attack they'd only apply to your first attack roll and damage roll.

In this case, an attack can be one attack (resolving the damage) and simultaneously be multiple attacks (mechanical determining the size of said damage).

I doubt you'll convince me, but I am willing to keep an open mind; How do you interpret the fact that the feat states you must apply normal attack bonusses and normal damage?

No. True Strike specifies your next single attack roll. Pummeling style has you make all rolls separately, more then one attack roll.

Furthermore, pummeling style is worked out as one blow, but the feat specifies that each attack and damage roll is made individually, and they are resolved at their normal bonusses. Thus, feats which only benefit the to-hit or damage of your first attack in a full-attack (or flurry) do not apply to all your other attacks.

Lo' and behold, the thread which just will not die! It's either got a great Raise Dead caster around, or a bloody skeleton template applied!

I'd go for Brawler, or possibly Tetori Monk.

Brawler fits, as Bane wasn't exactly the most graceful fighter. Feat-wise you would need to get at least some of the grapple feats of the Tetori monk, as Bane breaking Batman's back is just too awesome not to try and replicate. Martial Flexibility allows you to swap combat feats around meaning you can play-up his extreme brawn or make some other choices when you want.

I would possibly even consider Mutagenic Mauler archetype to highten the freak of nature which is Bane, though giving-up Martial Flexibility is not great. The Beastmorph ability does allow you to get darkvision and such at some point for the whole "born into darkness" theme, though maybe I'd go Brawler and just dip one level fighter for feat and Mutagen.

I'd actually advise against Barbarian, as Bane is rather calculated and I do not dig rage for Bane too much. Though Come and get me would be nifty on a Bane-type character, provoking enemies to hit him and then retaliating with brute force.

I am not denying that it gets resolved as a single attack. It does, hence the DR component to the feat.

The question is how the individual attack rolls, damage rolls and modifiers are resolved which determine the strength of that one attack. The way that this is done is to make attacks at your normal attack bonus applicable for any attack you could normally make as part of the full-atttack or flurry of blows. The key word here being normal, which is explicitely mentioned in the feat.

For each attack that is a hit you do two things: First, you calculate your normal damage per hit. Again, normal as if you were taking a normal full-round attack or making a flurry. The modifiers you use could be different depending on which attack roll it refers to: x2 STr on your first hit, 1x5 Str on subsequent attack rolls

You total that damage. Then you check if any attack roll threatens a critical. If so, try to confirm and multiply the damage as required. This damage you apply to the opponent in the form of a single punch, deducting DR at that point.

You are getting hung up on the fact that is a single attack, but you fail to address the fact that the way in which to determine the strength of that attack is by using the normal rules you'd follow on a regular full-attack or flurry.

Adding the benefits of Dragon Style, Ferocity, Janni Rush and Horn of the Criosphinx (on a level 8 MoMS) on each individual attack roll is not only completely ridiculous and beyond reasonable, it also completely ignores the feat text which tells you to handle handle individual attack rolls within the attack as normal attacks with normal damage, following all the normal rules.

The feats are still completely functional if read this way, providing higher crit chance, a way to handle DR and a way to pounce. Not at all bad for a two feats (three if you count IUS).

I have no doubt that it will be impossible to sway you, but unless an errata follows GMs will have to rule how Pummeling Style/Charge works and I would be highly surprised if many would judge the feats to work the way according to your reading.

@Undone

I think that most people actually do get how you think Pummeling Style and Pummeling Charge work. I even have to say that the analogy of the reversed manyshot is clever, really.

I also think that your interpretation is taking what the feats are intended to do far out of context and I think most GMs would argue that your interpretation far exeeds what is reasonable and fair for the feat to do (for all rules 'lawyers' out there reasonableness and fairness are actual legal terms in Dutch contract law, sometimes trumping the contract as written :D). This does not even take into account that the feat does not even do a very good job of providing ironclad written rules, leaving a lot of ambiguity in and of itself.

Your entire argument hinges on the fact that the text says you combine all your attacks in one punch which counts as one attack for the purposes of DR and other feats.

However, you conveniently forget to adress that according to the feat attacks are resolved:

"with the normal attack bonus for each attack" and for each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage."

Let's examine that shall we?

What is a normal attack bonus? Well, they are the attack bonusses that you apply to each of your attack, ie Bab/Bab -5/Bab -10. Correct, right? Your attacks are resolved as normal. Your first attack of your attack potential gets resolved as normal, your second as normal, your third as normal, natural attacks if applicable through Feral Combat training are also resolved as normal.

I would extend that conclusion to Pummeling Charge aswell. Your attacks get resolved as normal. If you charge you can normally make one attack at +2 to hit. However, due to pummeling charge you now make a full attack or a flurry.

Would, if all attacks be resolved separately on a pounce, the charge +2 bonus apply to each attack? I do not think we can answer that directly. The FAQ on lances seems to indicate you do not (since you lost forward momentum), also the text on charge states that you get +2 on THE attack roll (excluding imo AoOs and subsequent attacks that you can make as part of the pounce). If you can find a FAQ or thread to contradict me I'd be interested, I couldn;t find one.

Following your reading of the rules, all attacks should be reseolved as if they are the first attack. What does this entail: Furious Focus works on all attacks? Should secondary natural attacks be resolved as 'first attacks' ie get 1.5x strength and no -5 to hit?

Again, I do not think so. I think providing a charge and Furious Focus that you'd attack you'd attack at BAB +2 (charge)/ Bab -5/BAB -10. If power attacking at -2/+4, you'd attack BAB +2 (charge+Furious Focus)/Bab -7/Bab -12 etc. Just as you normally would.

The same, I would say, goes for calculating damage. You do this as normal. You resolve your damage as you would a normal hit. Ie, first attack benefits from Dagon Style, Dragon Ferocity/ Horn of the Criosphinx/ Janni Rush etc. The subsequent attacks are resolved as normal as well. Ie, as if they were part of a regular full-attack or flurry, the only difference being that you total the damage befpore applying it to a creature (and hence DR). The fact that you roll damage as normal is also why you can add the weapon damage multiple times, magical bonus multiple times etc.

Sneak attack would be a hole different problem, but here I would also go with the normal rules: multiple times if flanking or if the opponent remains flat-footed (greater invis), but only once if you pummeling style in the surprise round, in which case the opponent stops being flat-footed after the first attack as per the normal rules.

What then are the advantages of the feats?

Pummeling Style:

- a way to punch through DR (solving a major problem for unarmed builds)
- A Higher chance to crit, as one confirmed crit makes all attacks that hit into crits. (No, it does not turn any misses of your normal routine into hits and crits).

Pummeling Charge:

- You get mobility and solve another of the monks perceived flaws (no full-attacks when mobile)

Those are the advantages.Tthough it is problematic that the feat does not spell out the effect on DR like Clustered Shot does, so we could even argue that you do indeed handle damage 'normally' and that this implies it does not negate DR as the feat does not spell this out. Like I said, ambiguity. Normal damage means normal damage including DR and adding it to previous damage which has also already gone through DR, but I would find it reasonable to include the DR component, although the crit advantage alone makes this a good feat.

What the feat does not do? Anything else. It does not allow Furious Focus to apply to all attacks, nor does it let you treat your entire attack routine as a "first attack" for the purposes of Janni Style, Dragon Style or any other feat that applies to the first attack.

Not only does that reading ignore the mechanical explanation of the feat (normal attack bonuses and normal damage), it is also far from reasonable to assume the feats would do that, as that would impact on the value of so many other feats and it is hard to image such a power in one feat and hard to image the developers have intended the implications that this feat then also makes a number of other feats infinitely stronger.

The wording of the feat saying you make one devastating punch is nothing but flavour. One devastating punch is not a game term. Your understanding of the feat is that this piece of fluff-text has a host of implications. But in a 'permissive' rules system, like pathfinder is in my opinion, the feat should spell out those implications:

It could have read: For the purposes of this style treat this [Full-Attack or Flurry of Blows] as a single attack with regard to Damage Reduction/Other Feats/Feats which specify first attacks etc.

However, what it says is: Use normal attack bonus and normal damage, like you would any other time you make a full-attack or a flurry.

I actually wonder why people are so deadset on arguing that feats have such far reaching implications when they could just apply Occam's Razor and be done.

In this I am not referring solely to you Undone, as I actually think you usually (99% of the time :P) make very good and provocative points as to how the rules work or how you could interpret wording to allow for loopholes in those rules. I just see a tendency on the boards to go a) rather literal on rules without looking at context or b) very liberal with the rules to allow for the biggest power gain.

But I guess that is neither here nor there, I apologize for this rehash of a debate we will not get solved till there is a FAQ or an errata. Great guide, I will absolutely refer back to it when making a Warpriest to bug my players with in one of our next sessions :).