Roaming Shadow's page

257 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Since it calls out your BAB, I'd rule that it only counts your level based itterative attacks. I've had people try to get insanely powerful Deadshots by holding another firearm in their off hand and saying "Well, in a full attack I have all the potential shots from my off hand firearm, so that should be counted towards my Deadshot".

My rational is based largely off of this line:

"...but makes as many attack rolls as she can, based on her base attack bonus."

It's not "as many attacks as she could potentially make with a full attack", but as many attacks as her BAB would normally allow, not looking at potential modifications to the number of attacks. It's an ability meant to offset the fact that you can't normally make iterative attacks with firearms due to reload times (hence why you get it one level after you get your first iterative attack), though it's made obsolete by the fact that it's easy to reduce reloading firearms down to free actions, namely Rapid Reload + Alchemical Cartridges.

Lochmonster wrote:

What if the druid also had the Powerful Shape Feat?

Could they be a gargantuan tiger?

Powerful Shape doesn't actually increase size. The druid is treated as being one size larger for the purpose of CMB, CMD, and special attacks (not their base natural attacks however) that factor size. In Wild Shape the Druid can still only get to Huge without other magical assistance, but, for example, they would be treated as gargantuan for the purpose of Trample, even though their actual size is huge.

When making a ranged attack, you only need to select one corner to draw your lines from, to all four corners of your target. So if he's drawing lines from corner B, goblin 1 has soft cover becase the line of effect passes through another goblin's square. Now, if he were to draw his lines from the lower right corner instead, his lines would only touch goblin 3's corner, not pass through the square, and so there would be no cover at all. Lines can touch corners and run parralel of walls all they want, so long as they don't pass through a square containing such.

If there were a player in the doorway like you mention next, yes, all the enemies in the room have cover because you cannot draw a line to all four corners of any enemy space without passing through that of your ally. Goblin 4 you'd still have a clear shot at.

Frightful Gaze from the Advanced Race guide states that an opponent who fails a Will Save against the gaze wil "stand paralyzed in fear for 1 round". When you are paralyzed, you are helpless. If you are helpless, someone can perform a Coup de Grace against you. Does that mean that a creature that fails its Will Save against Frightful Gaze is susceptible to a Coup de Grace?

Even with the revolvers, you still needs a free hand to reload each one, even if you have Rapid Reload to make it a free action (and don't let the rules lawyer tell you otherwise). The question is, where are you putting one revolver while you're reloading the other? Unless, of course, you don't think you'll go through more than 16 shots in an encounters.

I'm sure you're GM wouldn't mind you changing the fluff, so long as it has no bearing on the mechanics. The wing types listed just make sense for the level of flying you're granted. Normally, insects with wings are able to hover and turn pretty sharply, which is more than what standard flight offers (as Hover is a seperate feat for creatures with flight, allowing them to stay in place in the air without needing to make a Fly check, not to mention the Wingover feat for sharp turns without a Fly check), so that's likely why they don't mention insect wings. Beyond insect wings, feathered and leathery are, for the most part, the only other types. However, in the end, the exact appearence of the wings is fluff, and it couldn't hurt to ask whoever is running the game if you can change purely the aesthetics of the magic item, as the looks shouldn't have any affect on mechanics.

The trick with MWF is that all four attacks are at your highest BAB, where as with TWF, only the first two are. That is actually quite a drastic increase in accuracy. A TWF may get more attacks in the end (up to 7 with all the feats and +16 BAB), but the iterative BAB means two of those attacks are at -5, two at -10, and one at -15 compared to highest BAB. That increase in the number of accurate attacks should be taken seriously, and is likely one of the reasons having multiple arms is on the expensive side.

However, the main hand, off hand penalties are the same as though you had the TWF feat, so you're still better off wielding light weapons in your three off hands to keep your accuracy up.

There is not Improved/Greatyer MWF. It seems Pathfinder purposefully did not bring that over from 3.5. That would make multiarmed characters extremely powerful. Can you imagine a monster with 6 arms, like the Marilith, getting itterative attacks with all it's off hands? Not a pretty sight for whoever's on the recieving end of that.

Having 3-4 arms also means you can, for example, wield a bow or crossbow in two hands, and a melee weapon in another, meaning you're always a threat no matter what range you're at and you always threate the spaces around you, without ever having to swap weapons.

Or, you can wield a reach weapon in two hands and a non-reach weapon in another, and a shield in the fourth. Now you threaten all the squares in a 10ft radius without the need for class features or feats with associated penalties and you have a shield to bump your AC to boot. And you never need to utilize MWF.

It also means that a wizard can carry a lot more and still be able to cast spells that require movement of the hands, and that might come in handy more often than you think.

So there are a number of options available to someone with multiple arms, both in combat and I'm sure out of combat. That increase in options in what you can do is why it costs the RP it does.

Another thing to note is that you won't likely be doing as much damage as a straight up gunslinger would. At 5th level, a gunslinger adds their Dex mod to all firearm damage rolls, which will outclass the fighter's Weapon Training bonuses. A fighter can't do that (and no, the Guided and Agile weapon properties are melee only).

Oh, and as a side note, don't go dual weapon fighter if you're going firearms. Despite all the pictures in UC depicting dual weilding pistols, it's mechanically impractical. After all, you need a freehand to reload, and it's a standard action to do so, for each barrel of the weapon. A double barrel pistol would allow you to get two shots off per pistol before reloading, but now you've got a pistol in your off hand and no free hand if you're dual wielding. As for the pepperbox, you still need a free hand to rotate the barrels between shots; it's not a revolver that rotates the cylinder for you.

Also, free hand fighter doesn't work well either; the Singleton ability that replaces Weapon Training 1 and 4 only works for melee weapons, so that class feature would be a dead feature if you single wielded a pistol. The other abilities would still function though.

No. If Spell Combat only says it "functions as" TWF, then it does not count as TWF for the purposes of prerequisites.

Actually, for determining cover to and from ranged attacks, you choose one corner of the origin square to all four corners or the target square (except for larger creatures). You only compare all of your corners when making a melee attack. One can shoot around a corner without incident while still having cover from an opponent, because if the line of effect starts on the corner of the cover, it's not passing through a barrier or square that provides cover; the line starts at, not passes through.

Honestly, shooting around a wall/tree/whatever is a tried and true tactic of ranged combat, and it's well within the rules.

Belle Mythix wrote:

1) Craft Alchemy is needed for some type of ammo.

2) Class Skills and Skill Points (Gunslinger is somewhere between Fighter and Ranger.).

Ah, right, thank you. Yes, one rank in Craft (Alchemy) is needed to make alchemical cartridges. Standard powder and rounds do not require the skill.

As for the second point, I'm not sure what you're correcting. What I said holds true.

First of all, all aspects of gun and ammo creation and maintainence is covered under the feat Gunsmithing. No skill point investment is required. With the feat, you can create mundane firearms and ammunition for a set price of gold and time (and materials, if your GM's a stickler).

But yes, the Gunslinger was originally an alternate fighter like the Ninja is an alternate rogue, but between playtest and print it became its own base class. You can make a firearm specialized fighter like you can make a bow or crossbow specialized one, you just don't have an archetype specializing in firearms, though I'm sure there's an archetype that can work well enough, or just go base fighter.

The stealth skill itself isn't the problem. It's using it in the midst of combat is very difficult without a fair degree of specialization or special class features. Someone just trying to get by with having a high stealth skill is going to have a very hard time using stealth as part of their combat tactics more often than not. Though ducking around a corner (or other good sized solid object), using steath, and then "sniping" from the cover of the corner is perhaps a usable tactic. If your stealth is good enough, that one shot will catch them off guard for sneak attack (if within proper range), though one might have trouble still with that -20 penalty to stealth, though there are ways to get it down to -10, and someone with really good stealth might be able to work with that.

And while some may say "of course he knows your behind that cover" and so not be surprised, if you think about how the rules abstract, the stealth roll means that sure, he saw you duck behind it, but then he lost track of you. He doesn't know if your're still there or if you kept going, and there's likley more pressing concerns for his attention (like the party fighter, for instance). He can't see you, doesn't notice when you poke your head around, and then THWACK, there's a bolt in his kidney. Whether or not he realizes precisely where that bolt came is where "snipe" comes into play.

Essemtially, with the current stealth rules, once the battle has been joined, stealth and combat don't really mix except for Invisibility effects and special circumstances. Mundane stealth is mostly an out of combat utility, good for all sorts of non-combat purposes and getting the jump on enemies to start combat. The playtest rules revision for stealth linked in an above post, however, go a long way towards making stealth a viable combat tactic.

Talonhawke wrote:

Gang Up: Does this feat (page 161) allow you to flank a foe with ranged weapons?

The Gang Up feat allows you to count as flanking so long as two of your allies are threatening your opponent. The feat makes no mention of ranged attacks being included, and since flanking specifically refers to melee attacks, ranged attacks do not benefit from this feat. (JMB, 8/13/10)

—Jason Bulmahn, 08/13/1

Also this from the ARG FAQ

I stand corrected then. Thank you for the FAQ link. With the wording of the feat, I thought one would count as flanking without actually flanking in the same manner that firearms can resolve against Touch AC without actually being touch attacks, or like how some rogue archetypes allow you to treat a foe as flat footed without them actually being flat footed.

In that case, being a ranged rogue really is just a pain in the rear without snipper goggles, and still a pain even then, just slightly less.

Specific overrides general, and the feat just says you are considered to be flanking, regardless of your own position (meaning you don't even need to be threatening), so long as there are two allies adjascent to the creature. While I believe that may not be RAI, that does seem to be what RAW says. Now, you don't get the +2 flanking bonus to attack because you're not making a melee attack, but by the wording of the feat, you are still considered to be flanking, regardless of your position, which is what you need for sneak attack.

Zomburs wrote:

" Or just skip the archetype and wait for/have a friend make Sniper Goggles for you. Then you don't even need to worry about stealth and can still Sneak Attack with reasonable consistancy."

How does sniper goggles avoid the need for stealth?

I was refering to having the goggles in addition to the feat I mentioned, not on their own. Guess I should have been more specific at the end there. The sniper archetype increases the range you can make sneak attacks, but snipper goggles remove the range restriction entirely, so they're perfect for ranged rogues unless there is just something you absolutely must have something else in the eye slot. With the feat and the goggles, you can sneak attack anything vulnerable to precision damage at any range provided there are two allies adjascent to it, which generally isn't too hard to make happen.

Without a lot of help from mechanics and a bit from the GM, it is virtually impossible to be a sniper rogue. First off, with the -20 modifier to stealth for "snipe" to remain hidden, you just aren't going to succeed from 30ft away without Greater Invisibility. If you want to be a sniper, you have to put almost everything into that tactic, from finding ways to reduce the penalty to stealth from snipe, increasing the range you can snipe, and finding effective ways to hide in order to catch foes off guard, which is difficult unless your GM actively sets things up to give you the opportunities.

Even with, say, Snipper Goggles (practically the only thing that can make an actual sniper viable), it's going to be rare for there to be encounters where you can even utilize that range (if you're far enough away, they simply aren't going to notive you, and that -1/10ft penalty to perception (if the GM remembers to factor that in, which most don't because they forget about it), making that -20 for snipe more managable). Honestly, it's not worth it unless the DM acknowldges your tactic and designs encounters to let your tactic shine now and then (as opposed to trying their hardest to negate your tactic entirely, which is more common. GMs, as a whole, seem to hate player tactics that allow them to attack from relative safety).

Otherwise, I'd make a character themed as a "cheap shot specialist", using the feat below:

Gang Up (Combat)

Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Benefit: You are considered to be flanking an opponent if at least two of your allies are threatening that opponent, regardless of your actual positioning.

Normal: You must be positioned opposite an ally to flank an opponent.

It's a ranged rogues best friend, and a whole lot simpler than trying to make a sniper any other way. The sniper archetype still supports this though, reducing range penalties and increasing sneak attack range. Or just skip the archetype and wait for/have a friend make Sniper Goggles for you. Then you don't even need to worry about stealth and can still Sneak Attack with reasonable consistancy.

Um...they do. From the core rulebook:

"The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target."

That means any time the rogue attacks (or, more specifically, makes an attack roll). That includes ranged attacks and I'm pretty sure any spell that includes an attack roll (rays, I believe). To continue:

"Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet"

What these mean is that any time a rogue makes an attack roll against a floot footed or Dex denied oppoenent, the rogue applies sneak attack damage, with the exception that, if it's ranged, it must be within 30ft ro apply.

Tim Melnick wrote:
guess i would have too look up the sniper subclass for rogues too see if there is something in there that bypasses that rule, or there would be no reason as a rogue you would ever take a ra weapon.

I can tell you now, the Sniper archetype doesn't bypass the maximum range of applying Sneak Attack, though it does increase the range.

There are always Sniper Goggles once you get enough gold. Those allow you to apply Sneak Attack at any range, provided you still meet the other requirments for Sneak Attack.

Malag wrote:

So would the Special note in MWF, which is Monster feat, apply to players? If it would, lot of discussion could be avoided about dual wielding them.

I'll await for more replies on this.

From the Bestiary 1:

"Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters,
although some player characters might qualify for them"

Technically, though the feats in the bestiary were designed with monsters and creatures in mind, all that's important is the prerequisites. The vast majority of base races don't meet any of the prerequisites, but that's not always the case. For example the prerequisites for Multiweapon Fighting are:

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

If you meet those prerequisites, you can take the feat. None of the feats require one to be a certain creature or monstrous.

Malag wrote:
...not primary hands and secondary hands.

There is no such thing as "primary hands". A creature only ever has one primary hand and the rest are offhand (except for the monk in which no attack is considered "off hand"). So I would read it that you have a two hander in your primary and a two hander in your secondary, and each weapon is also being held by a secondary in order to wield it.

Here's the issue I have with it though; it you're properly wielding a two handed weapon, you're using a right and left hand. Unless you only use horizontal slashes, the pair would get in the way of each other. As it is, it would make it a little difficult to keep the weapons in a proper ready position. And I don't think you can properly wield a weapon using two left or two right hands, as neither the arms nor shoulders are the correct configuration for wielding the weapon as designed.

Admittedly, the above paragraph may not be supported by RAW, But that's my views. RAW actually seems to mandate it be Multi-Weapon fighting:

Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting
feat for creatures with more than two arms.

It seems that, by RAW, if you use more than two arms when attacking with weapons, it defaults to MWF. That's the way I interpret the rules I'm reading. I have no idea what the penalties would be for multiple two handed weapons though, as I believe the designers assumed people would think dual wielding two handed weapons would be impossible and so did not explicitly state it.

Ssalarn wrote:
Was that directed at me?

No, I'm pretty sure that was directed at Grick, since was Grick who said:

Grick wrote:
I think you missed the point.

To which Maxximilius replied:

Maxximilius wrote:
I'm not the one missing the big point there.

artificer wrote:

The PSRD says about survival DC 15: Gain a +2 bonus on all Fortitude saves against severe weather while moving up to half your overland speed, or gain a +4 bonus if you remain stationary. You may grant the same bonus to one other character for every 1 point by which your Survival check result exceeds 15.

Does it means that I have to do 2 check? 1 to get the bonus and a second one to calculcalate the fortitute save?

The fortitude save for outdoor conditions are already set by the book for the most part throughout the environment chapter. You make one Survival roll to see if you get the bonus and how many people you can apply it to. Getting a 19 total roll allows you to grant the bonus to yourself and 4 other people. The survival roll is technically optional, and I believe you can Take 10 on it, so if your skill is high enough, you technically don't have to roll at all.

While traveling, you make fortitude saves as appropriate. In your average temperate forest under normal conditions, you don't need to make and fortitude rolls. When weather conditions are bad (extreme heat or cold for example), then you make Fortitude rolls at the appropriate intervals, getting a +2 bonus to the roll if your traveling, or a +4 bonus if you're stopped.

Gauss wrote:

Roaming Shadow, I agree with you about Prone Shooter. The reason I pointed it out was so that the OP understood (and can take that information back to his GM) that these mistakes occur.

- Gauss

Oh, I'm not against you bringing it up. It is a good example of editing gone wrong (good lord was UC seemingly riddled with it). It's just I've used it enough times as an example I was trying to avoid using it again. But it is a perfect comparrison; two things that "alter a core rule" that don't because the core rule doesn't function as the trait/feat imply.

First, I would take a look at page 424 of the core rulebook. It talks in detail about getting lost in the wilderness. If you need further clarification after that, ask here again and I'll be glad to help.

In general, a Knowledge (Geography) or Knowledge (Local) check to get an idea of what's where and what's the closest civilized location is probably a safe bet.

Grick, Rules as Written by technically, Rules as Intended, I highly doubt it. Paizo editing is notorious for oversights, and UC is absolutely riddled with them (I mean, did you read the feat Prone Shooter, or the non-existant Tetori monk granted feats (which was later changed in errata)?). Seeing as how the bow is the one exception to the applying strength to the weapon damage, I would bet money that an "except in the case of bows" exception was an oversight, and I would treat it the same way as how a Zen Archer applies damage.

Pretty much everything I've seen/read on the matter says that they are not considered unarmed strikes. Brass knuckles used to use the monks unarmed damage instead of the weapon dice, but that didn't take long to change in errata.

As far as I know, they are all considrered "manufacture weapons", and are listed under the appropriate weapon type: Simple Light Melee Weapon (except spiked gauntlets, which are an exception I believe like Jiggy said). So no, Brass Knuckles and Cestus do not count as unarmed attacks, even if you are delivering punches like you might for an unarmed strike. You are armed with the brass knuckles or the Cestus. If you want Weapon Focus, it's have to be, for example, Weapon Focus (Cestus).

Gauss wrote:
(Im looking at you Prone Shooter.)

I wasn't going to mention it, but I suppose that is the classic example. They really should errata that feat to what it was originally inteded to do; grant a bonus to ranged attacks if you start your turn prone (I believe that's what the designer said it was anyway, he said something to that regard when the issue was first brought up, saying it was changed in editing. Paizo really needs to get their editing team to actually communicate with the design team better).

Well, I'd say anything that is considered mindless can't be intimidated, though most of them likely already have the ummunity you mention. Beyond that, I think it's DM opinion as opposed to set rules. Run this character, and your question, by him to see what he feels can and can't, but as far as hard rules go, there isn't much I believe.

As for the Unnatural Aura trait, that's more likely than not an oversight by the editors. The Pathfinder books are littered with elements that were changed during editing, things that the editors thought they knew and didn't verify.

If it thinks, it can know fear and uncertainty (with some exceptions), which is close enough to "demoralize" to me. Against animals, you'd likely need to "speak their language", using growls, hisses, and body language as opposed to articulated threats. There's a reason Handle Animal is used for calming an animal (since people can't as easily convey diplomacy to them), but in the case of intimidate, fear is almost a universal language.

So long as the claw can function as a hand, it should count as a free hand, so long as it is not holding anything. So long as it's not holding anything, it's free to use as a hand; therefore, a free hand.

For Umbranus' arguement above, that'd be like saying you're not considered to be wielding a weapon in a hand if you use that weapon to attack during your turn, ergo cannot make AoO because you used it to attack, and don't even threaten the squares. That doesn't make any sense.

As for the two weapon release/regrip, I see no problem with it. Now, you can't make AoO with the two hander because you're holding it in one hand, and therefore not able to "wield" the weapon, and the "opportunity" has passed by the time you regrip it. As a houserule, I'd say you can regrip in response to the first "provoke", allowing you to AoO if he does another action that provokes (like, say, moving through another square with you now threaten because you are now wielding you 2 hander).

Ravennus wrote:

You are also now looking at a -8 to hit.... which a gunslinger or fighter can pull off, but a lower BaB Ninja/Rogue? Meh

Going against Touch AC (come on, you're going to be within 20ft of something to try pulling that stunt off) with them denied Dex (because you're an invisible ninja) means you're shooting at AC 10 or less the vast majority of the time, with a BAB of +8, not counting feat and enhancement buffs to attack. It shouldn't be too hard for most of those shots to find their target, even with the additional -2 from Rapid Shot. Eight of the attacks will have better than 50/50 to hit (after feats and enhancements), and the other eight you have at that level are bonus, but still likely at least 25% chance of hitting.

Still, that's mostly an exercise of seeing just how many shots/sneak attack I can get in a round. Sure, it's munchkin, and any good DM should say, "ah, no", but it's still fun to make such hypotheitcal builds sometimes, just to see what can be done within the rules.

Ravennus wrote:

As for dual wielding double barreled pistols... it's pretty tough, even with a gunslinger or fighter since you need a hand free to reload. There are ways to do it, as I'm sure you know, but they are clunky and inelegant, not to mention the whole combo being MASSIVELY feat intensive.

For a Rogue, I would honestly just go with a single double-barreled pistol.... but then grab the Sap Adept and Sap Master feats, along with enchanting the pistol with Merciful.
Congrats! You now have twice as many attacks in a turn that do non-lethal bludgeoning damage! Oh, and with Sap Adept you are getting +2 damage per die, and double the sneak attack dice from Sap Master.
Add Enforcer and eventually the Shatter Defenses combo, and you can get free intimidate checks and even count them as flat-footed at range.
Very fun! (not very sneaky though, lol)

Keep in mind, some people think that the dual damage type of firearms overrules the feats you're planning on using. I proposed that myself when UC came out, and most people shot down the idea. Besides, they still need to be denied thier Dex or flat-footed to be doing all that non-lethal damage.

As for dual wielding DBPs, it's not really that feat intensive. All it really requires are the TWF feats (and Rapid Shot of course). The hardest part is, like you said, the reload. For the most part it'd either require a custom race or 2 levels of alchemist, but a Ninja10/Alchemist (Vivisectionist for Sneak Attack retention)2 could pull it off pretty easily. Equip him with Snipper Goggles, a Speed weapon (or two, depending on GM), spend a Ki point for Greater Invisibility, fill the air with lead and see what's left standing.

For the Nimble Striker feat, it was the wording of "You do not take a –2 penalty to AC" that got me thinking. It isn't "reduce the penalty by 2", it's "you don't take the -2 penalty". That's why I didn't think it was cut and dry. Normally, charge is a static -2 penalty, so the feat "eliminates" the penalty altogether by essentially saying, "you don't take the penalty for these actions". That's what makes systems like this complicated at times once the number of permutations rise; how things are worded can lead to uncertainty because when they first wrote it, said permutation didn't exist.

The trick with such a build is that you'd want to use claw blades or you're still limited to only the two natural attacks per round. This negates some of the other class features, but the bonus to attack and number of attacks per turn might be an acceptable trade-off if you're willing to provoke AoOs every round to charge every round (or if your DM lets you use Acrobatics to avoid AoO, increasing the DC to allow for full speed, then perhaps not).

PS: When it comes to rogues, I'm still trying to figure out a good way to dual wield double barrel pistols on a full attack getting sneak attack. That's a lot of sneak attacks (as DBPs don't have the stipulation double crossbows or manyshot has on sneak attacks) Found a decent way of doing it if enemies don't have low light vision, but is likely obsolete by the time the pieces come together.

You want a good rogue? Try a species created with Frightful Gaze, then Coup de Grace it the following turn as it's standing "paralyzed with fear" with a scythe. Good luck making that fort save.

I'm pretty sure this was discussed at length shortly after Ultimate Combat came out, but I don't have the inclination to sift through all the threads and all the replys to figure out what the consensus was, and it doesn't seem to be in the product FAQ, so here goes.

The Cavalier archetype Beast Rider from Ultimate Combat allows a Cavalier to select as a mount any creature a Druid could select as an animal companion to be their mount, so long as the creature is capable of supporting them. At 4th level, the list of available mounts expands.

Here's the issue I see: the vast majority of animal companions available from levels 1-6 are size Medium or smaller, meaning they can't support a Medium sized Cavalier, which includes most/all the expanded selections at level 4; they don't reach Large size per companion rules until 7th level. Is this an oversight, or is the Beast Rider archetype essentially identical for Medium size Cavaliers without the archetype until 7th level+?

Also, for the 7th level ability that stats you can make any mount size large so long as it's natural size is large or huge, and it's selectable as an animal companion, isn't this ability superfluous? By the animal companion rules, any normally large, huge, or larger animal reaches large size at level 7 as far as I'm aware.

So is it just me, or could the entire archetype have been summed up rules wise by saying, "The Beast Rider may select any animal available as an animal companion as a mount", and then the arbitrary "wait until level 4" selections?

The Savage Warrior archetype for the Fighter from the Advanced Players Guide alters how a charge works, as stated below:

Savage Charge (Ex): At 9th level, when a savage warrior
attacks with a natural weapon at the end of a charge, he
gains a bonus on his natural weapon attack rolls equal to
half his fighter level, while suffering a penalty to his AC
equal to half his fighter level. These replace the normal
attack roll bonus and AC penalty for charging. This bonus
also applies to his CMB for a bull rush or overrun combat
maneuvers made when charging. This ability replaces
weapon training 2.


Greater Savage Charge (Ex): At 17th level, when using
savage charge, the AC penalty is reduced to 1/4 his fighter
level instead of 1/2 his fighter level. In addition, a savage
warrior can charge through friendly creatures and difficult
terrain. This ability replaces weapon training 4.


The first question comes with the interaction of the Claw Pounce feat from the Advanced Race Guide below:

Claw Pounce (Combat)
You can charge and make an attack with your paws.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Dex 15, Nimble Striker, base attack bonus +10, catfolk, cat’s claws racial trait or Aspect of the Beast (claws of the beast manifestation).
Benefit: When you make a charge, you can make a full attack with your claws.
Normal: Charging is a special full-round action that limits you to a single attack.


Does the charge bonus to attack (in the case of Savage Charge at the minimum level for Claw Pounce, +5) apply to all attacks on the Full Attack granted by Claw Pounce, or just the first? The feat supersedes the charge rule of “only one attack on a charge”, but isn’t clear on how the attack bonus would apply in such a permutation.

Next is the interaction of the charge abilities with the Nimble Striker feat below:

Nimble Striker (Combat)
You were born to charge your enemies and nobody does it better.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +1, catfolk, sprinter racial trait.
Benefit: You do not take a –2 penalty to AC when you use the Cleave feat, Lunge feat, or when you charge


The Savage Charge and Greater Savage Charge class features alter the penalty amount incurred during a charge, instead of it being a static -2 AC. Would the feat simply subtract two from the AC penalty, or is the feat intended to eliminate the penalties from charge, Lunge, and Cleave altogether?

Also, please don't comment on whether you think it's optimized or not. I'm not looking to make the most mathematically efficient character, I'm just wondering how the rules interact, because I like the aesthetics of a claw fighter. Besides, I think Pathfinder is more fun with interesting RP characters rather than the mathematically optimized ones.

Looking over the Advanced Race Guide, I found myself taking a hard look at the Frightful Gaze feature, and considering that if an opponent is "paralyzed in fear", then they're vulnerable to a coup de grace (being "paralyzed"). So I thought a useful tactic would be for the member of the race to regularly wear some sort of mask (or similar facial covering), get next to their intended victim, and remove the mask. Being a gaze, the opponent won't make a saving roll until the start of it's turn, but then it's potentially "paralyzed in fear" next to me, allowing a coup de grace as a full round action.

However, when I looked over the rules, I'm not sure what sort of action removing a mask would be. It's not really retrieving a stowed item (you're just removing it from your face, not taking it out of a sack/backpack), and you wouldn't likely be dropping it either (the act of removal is more than just releasing a grip). Even more confusing is if a visor is involved; it largely blocks the face until slid back, and doesn't even need to be fully "removed" from the head.

This might fall under houserule I suppose since it doesn't neatly fall into the rules, but I thought I'd ask here first. What sort of action would it be to remove a mask or move a visor?

I would be inclined to say no. This is because Theologian replaces the domain class feature while Merciful Healer changes it. If they both simply changed, I'd say they could stack because the changes don't interfer with each other. However, because of one being a replacement, the Thoelogian would overwrite the Merciful Healer, or the Merciful Healer would not be able to change the class feature because it is technically not there anymore. They do conflict at that point, meaning the archetypes can't stack.

Randy Lockard wrote:
You are better off anyways taking your FULL attacks and possibly critting on all of them. By 19th level a fighter should be able to crit on more than a natural 20 anyways (Keen, expanded crit, high crit weapons etc). I would personally prefer multiple chances, as Dev Strike only allows for one attack.

The problem with that is after the second attack, you're simply rolling for crits, and on that third or fourth iterative attack, it's still only a Nat 20 that auto hits; if you threaten on, say, an 18, roll 18, and fail to confirm (because your attack bonus is 10 lower cause it's your third attack), you sill missed. I'd rather move and crit somewhat reliably every turn (with the right crit mod weapon being as though you hit him 3 or 4 times).

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
I don't think you can't combine Vital Strike with it anyway. Each one is a specific type of standard action attack, meaning they can't be activated together. It is the same thing that hurts many interesting Vital Strike builds.

I do believe he is right, mostly because the wording of Vital Strike states "when you use the attack action" and not "when you make a single attack". The feat is calling out the Attack Standard Action, not simply the act of making an attack (otherwise you could use Vital Strike on AoOs, and that could be brutal). The Devastating Blow ability is it's own seperate action, and therefore you couldn't apply Vital Strike to it.

From page 136 of Ultimate Combat:

"Fire while Prone: Firearms, like crossbows, can be fired
while their wielders are prone."

It's just one more note among all the firearm rules, so it's easy to miss. But yes, you can fire a firearm while prone. Personally, I think there are many bow/crossbow related feats made before Ultimate Combat that could apply to firearms, but that's another discussion entirely.

And yes, Prone Shooter is the dumbest feat ever printed. Not only can you already fire a firearm while prone, and without penalty, there is no penalty in the first place for shooting any ranged weapon while prone; you either can, or you can't. U;timate Combat had several notable feat related gaffs, most of which I believe have been fixed. Prone Shooter hasn't been, but I think they expect everyone to just ignore it. From what I read in another similar topic, the original design of the feat was that it was supposed to apply a bonus of some sort to the attack if you began your turn prone, but was later changed in editing.

There's nothing special you need to consider about prone gunslingers that I can think of, it's not much different than a crossbow wielding rogue shooting from prone. However, a gunslinger using Snap Shot, to make an AoO while prone does make for an interesting looking scene.

Thanks for the input. For me, the biggest problem is mostly in getting that range; most DMs have their encounter setups on whatever will fit on a grid on the table, or will otherwise go out of their way to prevent such long distance tactics from even being feasible. They don't like the idea of people being able to shoot enemies from a safe distance, especially from a distance where the "snipe" application of the stealth skill would actually be possible (the -20 kinda needs that distance penalty to Perception, though there are ways now to reduce it to -10).

It does get kind of frustrating when the game offers so many ways to be an effective long range marksman or sniper and DMs will go out of their way to prevent such tactics. I can understand that I can't pull it off every encounter, but DMs often seem to prevent it ever being a possibility either by oversight (battles traditionally take place on a grid that can fit on the table), or intentionaly (not wanting players to be able to hurt/kill monsters without the monsters being able to hit them back).

Not entirely sure if this is precisely a rules question, but since it's a matter of magical item interaction, this seemed the most appropriate place to ask.

As the title implies, I'm wondering about the interaction between Sniper Goggles (Advanced Players Guide) and Far-Reaching Sight (Ultimate Combat). Sniper Goggles are equiped to the eye slot (logically), and the Sight is attached to a weapon, and therefore not an item slot on the body. Can the two therefore be used in conjunction with one another?

RAW seems to be yes as far as I've read, but I've also heard no because they both utilize the eye (looking through the lens and looking down the sight). While that makes sense for a scope, a sight I believe is a different matter. Neither even say they technically magnify vision, so it's not even that they're doing the same thing. So far I've only heard "real world logic" answers for why "no" that aren't very strong (someone with night vision goggles can aim down a sight as far as I know), and I was hoping the community might have a more definitive and convincing answer one way or the other.

Now, I know called shots are a varient rule, but it's one I like. However, I was wondering how firearms would be used with them. One of the stipulations of called shots is:

Touch Attacks: Touch attacks and ranged touch attacks made as called shots must target AC rather than touch AC. This represents the care it takes to target such strikes.

Now, firearms can be resolved against touch AC within the first range increment (or 5 for advanced firearms), or more with a Deed ability. The trick is, while the shots are resolved against Touch AC, they are not actualy touch attacks. That would mean to me that fireams, RAW, would resolve called shots against Touch AC within the appropriate range increment. Is that right?

Personally I would rule against that, seeing as how the touch attack stipulation is about precision rather than penetration, which is what firearm Touch AC goes off of, but I just want to know if that's what the RAW says.

When someone is flat footed, they loose their Dex bonus to AC. When you are able to deal sneak attack damage "as if flat footed", they are not actually flat footed, so they retain their Dex to AC, but you can still sneak attack them.

I would rule that any effect that any effect that can only be applied when the target is flat footed can be applied whenever you are able to treat them as flat footed. They aren't flat-footed, but they are considered flat-footed for conditions that require it. So, sap master requires the sneak attack to be against someone flat-footed, and scout's charge allows you to treat the opponent as flat-footed for the purposes of using sneak attack. Because you are treating him as flat-footed for the purposes of qualifying, I would rule that sap master would apply.

Beside, it makes sense and doesn't break the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
Remember he is gonna lose two round each time he tries to get loose thats gonna add up quick.

Not really. 10 rounds is a lot of time, longer than the average combat even lasts in my experience, and that's using an action every ronud in an attempt to escape. And remember, that's at a base 10 Constitution. At even 14, that's four additional rounds of concentrated resistance.

Even if you do have him in a chokehold as a monk, you'll kill him maintaining a grapple for damage (and still maintaining the chokehold at the same time) likley before it even needs to make Constitution checks, and that's if the rogue doesn't stab him to death first.

Thanks for the link. Yeah, I guess I'm venting just a little bit. It just seems strange to me why it crops up as a combat tactic when it's really more of a thematic "threat" that's virtually never going to happen. Strangulation is faster than suffocation, but there's no rules for that, at least not that I know of. If I run a game, I'll be inclined to reduce it to 1 round per point of Constitution, like I believe 3.5 had it, so that the threat of suffocation actually carries some weight without being a menacing danger.

StealthElite wrote:

How about adding this as homebrew feat

Improved Chokehold: When an opponent is pinned, and in the effects of a choke hold, the chokeholder rolls a CMB vs the enemies CMD if successful, the grappler rolls a d6 and subtracts the result from the total number of rounds the grapplee can hold thier breathe.

if you have Greater grapple the die used is upped to 1d8.

normal suffocation rules still apply.

Here is the regular choke hold feat
** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, that's the feat I was refering to. As is, it's not even usefull for a silent takedown, as you have to get a grapple before you can pin, meaning they have time to yell, unless you take another feat to keep them quiet on that initial "hit", if the feat I'm thinking of works that way.

Yeah, you're choking a spellcaster, now hold it for 2 minutes until he needs to make Constitution checks...right.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Taking actions decreases the number of rounds you can hold your breath.

A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.
If you have to take a standard or full-round action to get somewhere you can breathe, and keep failing the checks, that could get dangerous quick.

Could you point me to where it says that in the book, or where it's officially stated? I'm looking at the core rulebook, and unless they eratated it, that bolded portion is non-existant in the copy I have, though the rest is there as worded.

Even so, that's still 10 rounds, 13 inside the Taotieth. If the creature isn't dead in 13 rounds, there's something wrong with the party, or the DM's just being cruel. I remember when it used to be 1 round per point, with that reduction stipulation, which would be 10 rounds of simply holding breath and 5 rounds of struggling to break free. Dangerous, but not overpowered in my opinion. The 2 rounds per point just seems too much to me, as that meas the average person can hold their breath for 2 minutes, where in reality it's closer to 1.

1 to 50 of 257 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>