Strannik's page

The only time that Vital Strike might be worth it is if a Druid Wild Shapes into a huge creature w/ one big attack. And then only if you really like the idea of one big attack.

I'd rather change that druid into something w/ pounce myself and have those 4 feats for something more useful.

Taking Leadership to gain followers to run the temples could be a solution, but with Cha as generally a lower stat for monks and the fact the monk would wander around alot, it might make it difficult to get a very high Leadership score. Still, it might fit thematically. Although, he cohort could be a "partner" that handles the set up of the temples with the funds the monk earns adventuring.

That's true. I wouldn't think a very high level cohort would be needed to run such a place. So you should be fine w/ the low leadership score I think. If you had any additional followers they could even be sent out into the community to help those in need who can't travel. It would be a pretty good setup, I would think. It would make any VOP Monk proud! :)

Or you can just make a cool sounding chant and deem it as an Orc chant. If there isn't an official language then there's nothing stopping you from being creative. :)

I would allow it. In my mind it makes a lot of sense for a lawful character (like a monk) to want to make sure the money he donates is actually being used for what he wants it to be used for (helping the poor) instead of lining some bureaucrats pockets.

The only "abuse" I could imagine would be if the "manager" turns out to be a crook that tries to embezzle some money, but that's why monks have Sense Motive, right?

Let's say our Fighter picked his Fighter bonus, +1 CMD. Next level, he takes a level in Wizard, now Fighter 1/Wizard 1. He decides he wants to take +1 to his CMD again. If you answered he can't do that above, no worries, ignore the rest of this, it doesn't apply anymore. But if you answered, yes, that's perfectly okay, then we have our next question.

Question 2 : Do the two +1's make a +2, or do they count for two separate +1's, that do not stack? For the sake of the argument, and answering the OP's query, were I to allow this thing (that I've already said that I, specifically, wouldn't), then I would allow them to stack, on the basis of the bolded sentence. Unless otherwise noted, these benefits always stack with themselves. Does Half Elf call them out as not stacking? No? Then it is not otherwise noted, and they do stack.

Fair enough. I missed what you were trying to say before.

My question is this: Can I overlap favored class bonuses? For example, can I get a +8 to my CMD, or +8 effective caster level increase to enchantment spells?

Why or why not? Please explain your answer.

I see that the wording is left somewhat ambiguous in RAW. But, we must ask ourselves a question. Do we think a half-elf fighter can choose fighter and rogue as it's favorite classes, then never take a level of rogue but still choose the rogue favored class bonus when leveling up as a fighter? I would say no. That, in my mind, contradicts common sense. In my games I would rule that you must actually level up in a class in order to choose the alternate favorite class option on a level by level basis. I believe that is RAI, but experience has shown me that what I believe RAI to be is not always accurate.

Now, this is just my reading of it, but I can see it being read that as long as you have a class as one of your favoured classes, you can pick whichever favoured class bonus you like. In which case, I'd say they do stack, on the basis of the Racial Favored Classes entry in the Advanced Player's Guide, namely

Pathfinder PRD - Racial Flavored Classes wrote:

In most cases, these benefits are gained on a level-by-level basis—your character gains the specified incremental benefit each time she gains a level. Unless otherwise noted, these benefits always stack with themselves. For example, a human with paladin as a favored class may choose to gain 1 point of energy resistance each time she gains a level; choosing this benefit twice increases this resistance bonus to 2, 10 times raises it to 10, and so on.

All that means is that the bonuses stack. For example, a halfling rogue who picks the alternate bonus gets a +1/2 to confirm a crit, but only up to a +4. After +4 it stops stacking. That's what that quote is talking about. When it tells you the maximum is +4 then that is the "otherwise noted" part. It has nothing to do w/ the half-elf exception to favorite class, etc, which the OP is asking about.

@lemeres

All good points.

The more I think about this, the more I'm thinking that having an aura that's more powerful might be one of the side effects of being a native outsider. It would be the same for an Aasimar.

Yes, you get some resistances. Yes, you get a spell like ability. Yes, you get all kinds of nifty things just for being you. BUT! Now it's harder to hide. So if you're evil, the paladin can find you faster. If your good the anti-paladin can find you faster. Etc, etc.

Perhaps the weakness to detect spells and the like is meant to be a balancing factor for these powerful races?

We know how aligned creatures work (must be 5HD).

We know how aligned outsiders work (even less then 1HD is detected).

The question is how a native outsider is treated. By RAW it seems to indicate they are treated as an outsider (b/c I'm not seeing anything that says otherwise, please, point it out to me, I find this silly.) By common sense I find that hard to agree w/, but common sense does not always line up w/ RAW...

EDIT: Also, common sense is subjective at times...

Weapon size:

Every weapon has a size category. This designation indicates the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed.

A weapon's size category isn't the same as its size as an object. Instead, a weapon's size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder. In general, a light weapon is an object two size categories smaller than the wielder, a one-handed weapon is an object one size category smaller than the wielder, and a two-handed weapon is an object of the same size category as the wielder.

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

You bolded the wrong part. Read that sentence. It's the rule. What's the issue here?

Archeologist Bard is very tempting, and I love the Indiana Jones flavor to it. It seems a little damage-starved in the long run (vs. a rogue), but it's high on my list of alternates.

Losing out on the sneak attack is unfortunate, but the spell casting is a fair tradeoff, in my opinion. It really depends on play style though.

Tengu with elven curve blade. agile and 18-20/2 crit.

An elf or half elf (alternate racial trait) works too. Sneak attacking w/ an Elven Curve Blade is just awesome.

The Scout archetype for the Rogue where you can sneak attack on a charge is fun.

Also, maybe check out the Archeologist Bard archetype. Basically a rogue w/ spells.

Unless it specifically says it does bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, damage reduction does not apply against spells.

Good point about DR and spells. I didn't look up the spell and (falsely) assumed the OP mentioned DR for a valid reason. :/

It's even less circumstantially powerful than I thought at first glance...

Is there a question here? It's a good combo, but by the time you have 7th level spells most enemies either can fly or have DR. Circumstantially very powerful, but not overpowered at all at the level you get it.

Or am I missing something here?

The target first gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal. If that save fails, the phantasm touches the subject, and the subject must succeed on a Fortitude save or die from fear. Even if the Fortitude save is successful, the subject takes 3d6 points of damage.

If the will save is not failed then there is no fort save required and no consequences for the fort save (either saved or failed). I'm not really sure how anyone can read that sentence and argue otherwise.

As others have said, by RAW, no.

I have seen it house ruled in games that you can use acrobatics, as a move action, to stand up and avoid the AoO. From what I observed it made tripping characters w/ high acrobatics a lot less useful (as they would just jump up and get an attack anyway), so I might agree w/ DeathQuaker that making it a standard action may be more balanced (or at least not make trip focused characters feel like they wasted their feats). I'd have to play test it to be very confident either way though.

If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.

The rogue is following the rules.

To OP:

In my opinion this is no different than a Wizard going invisible and summoning monsters/buffing the party or a Fighter ramping up AC. I would allow him to have his fun, but eventually he'll run into something that can spot/smell/sense him despite his high stealth and he'll have to adapt to that situation, just like the Wizard who has to deal w/ enemies with See Invisible or the Fighter fighting a creature that targets his Touch AC or Will save.

Having enemies that challenge your party is not a punishment (as some seem to be saying) but neither is it right to have them only fight creatures that target their weakness (which you have not suggested, but some seem to say that too!).

The most important thing is that the game is meant to be fun. Talk to your players. If they are having fun, carry on. If you feel it's unbalancing, speak to the player and the group and see what they think. I'm of the opinion that the challenges at higher levels will negate a lot of his advantages in stealth, but my opinion doesn't really matter here, it's the opinion of you and your players. Do what works for your group and communication is key to discovering what will work.

Hope that is helpful.

I still feel bad about that. The adventurers came across a pair of comfortable looking leather pants in the kobold (and trap filled) dungeon, on a pole, with a sign crudely written reading 'Free Pants.' They assumed it was loot, one of them put it on and discovered they were lined with a caustic chemical. I thought its malice was obvious. :/

Never pick up a duck in a dungeon.

Or in this case, free pants.

Thanks, I'll take a look at that feat and see if anything fun comes to mind. :)

THere is a feat that let you use your natural attacks with FoB.

Really? What's it called? Always good to learn something new! :)

"full attack" is not the same as a "full attack action". So Pounce and Flurry of Blows do not work together.

Pounce: If have this ability (page 302), can I make iterative attacks with weapons as part of my full attack?

Any melee attack sequence you can perform as a full attack is allowed as part of the charge-pounce-full attack. For example, a barbarian with the greater beast totem rage power gains the pounce universal monster ability and could make iterative attacks with manufactured melee weapons as part of her charge-pounce-full attack.

—Sean K Reynolds, 02/21/12

A Flurry of blows is a melee attack sequence you can perform as a full attack. Therefore it is allowed to be used as part of a pounce attack.

From the section on Flurry of Blows: "A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks." It's the last sentence.

So you get no extra attacks w/ natural attacks while using flurry of blows.

Flurry works w/ pounce, so you will get the normal bonuses/negatives for charging and using flurry as you normally would and the same number of attacks w/ flurry as usual, plus you'll get the bonuses for being a lion (too lazy to look up the creature, if it's large you'd get a +2 to hit from the increased strength).

Can't give you numbers w/out knowing the build.

My biggest concern is one of time. The game assumes things fall quite quickly.

It may be possible to use a spell w/ a casting time of immediate, or perhaps a readied spell that is also quickened, but otherwise there may not be time to cast the spell before the object arrives at its final destination (rather a boulder hitting the ground or an arrow hitting you!).

EDIT: Basically, this part:

A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall. Casting a spell while falling requires a concentration check with a DC equal to 20 + the spell's level. Casting teleport or a similar spell while falling does not end your momentum, it just changes your location, meaning that you still take falling damage, even if you arrive atop a solid surface.

That leads me to believe casting a spell on something else that is falling would fall under the same rules.

Found a typo:

Probably meant to say "animates"?

Rogue Crawl (rogue talent) would allow you to 5ft step while crawling to avoid the AoO (I believe it would, right?) and then you could stand up (hopefully out of a threatened area) safely. You could even take Stand Up (another rogue talent) to stand up as a free action after crawling!

Totally worth two rogue talents to solve this situation! :P

Strannik wrote:

Reach weapons have a big advantage in terms of Attacks of Opportunity. Opponents are forced to 5ft step in or use acrobatics to avoid the AoO (and if they are wearing medium/heavy armor, acrobatics isn't an option). Considering characters w/ reach weapons are getting a free attack against many opponents during at least the first round of combat, I think the current situation is fine.

Of course, a -4 penalty to use an improvised weapon sounds fine to me, but in most cases the character can just 5ft step back and not take the penalty w/out using a feat to do it...

or they can just come in at the diagonal and avoid any attack from you. it not that big of an advantage via raw. it is only advantage is 3.5 exception is used.

That is true, but I've never played at a table that didn't use the 3.5 exception. That may just be my experience though, I have no idea what is more common in general.

Reach weapons have a big advantage in terms of Attacks of Opportunity. Opponents are forced to 5ft step in or use acrobatics to avoid the AoO (and if they are wearing medium/heavy armor, acrobatics isn't an option). Considering characters w/ reach weapons are getting a free attack against many opponents during at least the first round of combat, I think the current situation is fine.

Of course, a -4 penalty to use an improvised weapon sounds fine to me, but in most cases the character can just 5ft step back and not take the penalty w/out using a feat to do it...

Wow! Thanks for putting all this together!

Augment Summoning is an excellent feat. Any character that plans on summoning often should take it.

The best advice I can give you is to check out the Guide to Guides on this forum. Treantmonk's guide to wizards is quite useful, especially for a conjurer, and the others should help you out as well.

EDIT: fixed typos and spelling errors.

From your 4v4 section toward the beginning, "Thog, Sabine, Malak, Helga, and Drz’zt" You include 5 villains but later say there are only 4. Just wanted to point that out to avoid confusion for anyone. :)

Very nice. Dot.

If you were playing in a home game a lot of this would probably be house ruled to simplify it. For a PFS game you absolutely need to find out their rules b/c they are very rigid in their rulings.

EDIT: So I second checking the PFS rules board.

@Happler: I was unaware of that. Thanks. They should probably put that in a FAQ somewhere, b/c I would dare say most people don't check on 2 year old posts...

@IQuarent: So, looks like you may not need to worry about Catch-Off Guard depending on your GM...I'm still not sure how the weapon focus feats, etc, would work in this case, since you usually take that feat for one weapon (like greatsword or table leg?) not an entire weapon class (2-handed weapons or improvised weapons?)...so...maybe you'd have to take the feat for only one improvised weapon? Or all of them? Or none of them? I don't know. Have your GM read all this stuff and see what they say. :)

What ArmouredMonk13 said. You would at minimum take splash damage from using the alchemists fire like that, but I could see some GMs ruling you took it in total due to it being in your hand when it broke. Not sure what the "official" ruling would be though.

A friendly GM might house rule it for you (b/c monks are far from overpowered),allowing you to take those feats, but it doesn't look like this would fly in PFS. Not sure what kind of game you are in...

The Monk of Hitting You With A Table Leg? That reminds me of a superhero-campaign PC I once ran who had studied martial arts in the pool-halls of Great Britain at the feet of the great British sensei, "No-Nose 'Arry", and the Scottish sifu, "Glasgow Grin McHeath".

Every superhero campaign needs a PC like that. :)

No. Those feats require you to be proficient in the weapon you choose, and everyone is assumed to be nonproficient w/ improvised weapons. Even Catch Off Guard only removes the penalties, not grant proficiency.

I'm unaware of any way to gain such proficiency. Perhaps someone else is aware of such an option?

I've noticed this too. In my house game my player and I agreed he'd give up Perform as a class skill and get Disable Device instead. Probably not a huge deal, but that +3 can make a difference at low levels.

FAQ'ed.

a light weapon functions as a light hammer, a one-handed weapon functions as a club, and a Two-handed weapon functions as a quarterstaff.

You just look at the weapon the monk is using, ignore the stats for that weapon, and treat the damage/crit range, etc, as if it were the weapon substituted. So, if the monk picks up a Great Swore, he treats it as a quaterstaff for damage and crit range.

You still take the penalty for using a improvised weapon, as nothing in the archetype says you don't. I agree that's unfortunate, but it is called the Monk of the Empty Hand, not the Monk of hitting you w/ the table leg. :P

At 6th level you can take Improvised Weapon Mastery as a bonus feat, which will help a lot. Prior to that, just using bare fists is a better option.

Also, it talks about using real weapons as improvised while failing to mention how that monks abilities work with actual improvised weapons.

Real weapons are treated as improvised weapons. Improvised weapons are still treated as improvised weapons.

For example, how much damage would a broken bottle do and ho does it factor in with the monks abilities? Would it be piercing damage? Is there anywhere I can find rules about the damage/abilities of certain improvised weapons, such as a chair, a carpet, a book, etc.?

To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

So for your broken bottle I would say it does damage as a dagger w/ piercing damage. This could fluctuate from table to table, but most things you use will be the equivalent to daggers, clubs, and large clubs.

Hope that helps. :)

Part of it is dependent on what kind of game the GM is after (and that should be told to the players).

If I were GM (and this sounds like its fairly early in the adventure) I would have no problem popping an arrow in him and trying to throw a net over the druid and bear. All that is really needed is to put some fear in the player, so they are aware that their actions have consequences. If the bandits get him tied up, then the party can go save him. If he gets away, fine.

I see no reason to kill a PC right off the bat, especially at low levels and if it's a new player, but it would probably be a good idea to talk to your GM about it and, possibly, for the GM to talk to the other player about considering what they are doing.

Or buy a Amulet of Channeled Life if you don't want to use a feat.

You can take the feat Life-Dominant Soul. It will at least allow you to use Lay on Hands to heal as a swift action, even if it is just 1/2 the HP each time.

To OP: I tend to use traps dependent on the characters being played. If there is a rogue in the group or some other class that focuses on disarming (currently I have an Archeologist in my game) then I'll put quite a few in. It makes the investment in skill points more valuable and helps keep them an important part of the team.

In groups w/ no dedicated trap springer then I still put in traps, but not nearly as many. Just enough to convince the wizard to have a spell prepped or the ranger to put a point or two in Disable Device or something for the barbarian to disarm using his excessive HP. This keeps the threat of traps alive but doesn't punish the players for wanting to play something different.

I find that works well in my games.

I really enjoy people getting into their characters and your story is no exception. I'm honestly kind of surprised the people at your table (assuming they had played w/ you for 5 years?) rp'ed the scenario the way they did. One of the players in my group is way more interested in battles than RP opportunities, but even he would have said something along the lines of, "sorry your wolf died" and then probably zoned out until the next battle.

...considering how the party reacted, I think it would have been perfectly acceptable for your druid to leave the group when they reached a safe place again. Who wants to travel w/ a bunch of people who don't care about significant loses you have faced? I know I wouldn't, so why would my character?

Just my 2 cp.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not saying you as a player should be upset w/ them as players, but it would be reasonable to roll up a new character considering how little it seemed their characters cared about such a tragic event for your druid. I reread what I wrote and wanted to make sure it didn't sound too aggressive, it wasn't meant to be.

"Anything goes" in a home game? Why is that?

This is a useless character. Nobody wants that around.

Even worse, it is a SELFISH character, because it forces the other players to cover for him and the GM to pull his punches lest he die in the first session.

As well, the aforementioned "Why would a group of elite adventurers, out to save the town/city/nation/world bring this useless schmuck with them?" aspect DEFINITELY applies.

It's a bad idea. In game, out of game, crunch-wise, AND roleplay-wise.

Rincewind is a cool character. In a book that's only about him, where narrative causality makes him viable (quite explicitly, mind you), and a comedic setting makes him a possible protagonist choice to begin with.

I once played w/ a player who had a druid w/ stats 17, 17, 16, 15, 15, 12 (we rolled stats, we all agreed to it, let's not argue the merits of lack there of, it's irrelevant to the current discussion) who was completely useless due to the player choosing to do useless things. Meanwhile, I've played w/ people who played the equivalent to a commoner (but a different game system) who was invaluable due to clever actions and using his limited resources wisely.

I'm not saying this particular character will be great or even good, but wanting to play a particular character concept is not in and of itself selfish. I agree the player may die quite quickly, but in my opinion the GM should not be pulling punches to keep him alive, and not go out of his way to punish the player for an odd character concept. Allow the dice to roll, allow the character to die if it happens, and the player might learn why most people don't play such characters.

Or, the group could be surprised by how oddly useful the character ends up being.

Of course, that's in a home game where presumably the GM and group would be OK w/ the concept. My group would be fine w/ trying it out b/c we are willing to allow our fellow gamers some room to try ideas they find fun. We don't demand optimized builds each and every time.

Just my 2 CP, YMMV.

It sounds to me like you want to play Rincewind. But w/ a sword I guess.

I'd be fine w/ it in a home game, but I have to say, you need to make sure the other players are on board, or they will just leave you to die and hope you roll up a better character. Sadly, this is a possibility.

Oh yeah, says it right there. I don't really see the harm in allowing a character both a familiar and a bonded item myself (considering they had to take two feats to get there, Skill Focus and Eldritch Heritage), but maybe I'm over looking something unbalancing about it. <shrugs>

I'd have to consider two bonded objects. It sounds like a fun idea but I could see some GMs ruling you had to have both items to cast spells w/out a concentration check, which could be frustrating at times. It probably isn't allowed by the rules though, as it seems like the bonded item levels would stack as well...but I can't tell that it would do anything other than increase the cost of replacing it...

I have to agree, it doesn't look like they intended a wizard to use Eldritch Heritage to get access to the Arcane Bloodline.

But would feats that earn you Familiars be considered 'classes that are entitled to Familiars'?

In the case of a Wizard who took the Eldritch Heritage feat for the Arcane Bloodline, would his effective Sorcerer level (Character level -2) stack with his Wizard level, meaning would a 10th level Wizard have a Familiar with 18th level abilities? That doesn't sound right to me...

Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object.

Huh. By RAW it certainly seems like a 10th level Wizard would have a familiar w/ 18th level abilities in that scenario. I agree that doesn't sound right and would house rule that a wizard could not choose the familiar option if taking Eldritch Heritage w/ the Arcane Bloodline (assuming they chose the familiar as a wizard). I'm not sure what the PFS rules might state on this, as I don't play in those games. I would suggest you consult your GM to get an answer.

Wizard and diabolist. You get a familiar and an Imp companion

The Imp companion is treated as an animal companion, so yeah, that works. Good suggestion. W/ Improved Familiar you could have two Imps that way.

Levels of different classes that are entitled to familiars stack for the purpose of determining any familiar abilities that depend on the master's level.

Third paragraph. The levels stack, you don't get two familiars.

Wrath, thanks for the posts, wish you were sticking around to make more great posts like that. :)