TiaxTheMighty's page

I haven't read the whole thread, but to my way of thinking there's one big thing that the fighter needs to be "unchained" from that's more important than anything else:

Realism.

"You can't shoot a bow that many times in 6 seconds!"
"You can't jump that far!"
"You can't just cut through a door like it's butter!"
"You can't wrestle something that big!"
"You can't cut something incorporeal without magic!"
"You can't break that world record!"

You can't, you can't, you can't, you can't, you can't... No, you can't. That's why I'm playing a fantasy game starring someone who isn't YOU.

Currently, the name of the game is "if real people can't do it, then fantasy people can't* do it either".

I want my fighter to stop the dragon's bite by grabbing him by the teeth. And then body slam him.

I want my fighter to swing his sword and bat your enervation right back at you.

I want my fighter to get save-or-die effects at the same level your wizard does. Maybe even earlier, since I'm supposed to be good at killing things.

I want my fighter to have things he can do that no magic spell can duplicate.

Unchain the fighter from "realism". Everything else will follow.

** spoiler omitted **

I wanna disagree - especially the part about grabbing the dragon by the teeth and body slamming him. I don't want that level of anime-ish power in my D&D. I wanna disagree... but I can't because you're 100% right. Leave realism for the NPC Warrior class.

I would like to see the new fighter be a commander instead of just a guy who follows around to be a bag of HP who deals damage (Harsh & exaggerated maybe but still). Most people think of the party "face" and think of a charisma based class. Why not give the fighter options to inspire his comrades?

I want to see fighters using more maneuvers and more often.
Give them the option to use any maneuver as if they had the greater X maneuver feat. Let them do any maneuver in place of an attack or even in addition to doing damage. If they could do damage on top of maneuvers, they would have something special over the other martial classes. Allow their "weapon bonuses" to apply to said maneuvers as well. I don't see my fighters as people who just power attack 2 handed all the time. I see them as people who will shove a troll into the campfire, overrun a goblin on his way to attack the hobgoblin, who he disarms.

A few people above mentioned moving+full attacking. I will as well even though it's not a fighter centric issue.
Please, please, please, for the love of God let iterative attacks DIE a quick and painful death.

Strong Fort & Will save. Unlike the barbarian, the fighter got to where he is in life by having the discipline to practice his craft everyday. Such resolve and mental fortitude should be conveyed through class features. Fighters have witnessed, and pushed through the horror and brutality that comes with being on the front lines.

Fighters should be less affected by things that mess with your state of mind. Get rid of bravery and give them something else.
Call it Composure or something and allow it to apply to things outside combat to things like being harder to intimidate, being harder to read with sense motive etc...

Eh, I think total defense would be pretty obvious in a crowd. The guy has to be constantly turning, watching his back and readying to block anybody coming near.

You're assumed to be doing that anyway though - as in getting your dex bonus to ac/the lack of facing rules.

I think people also forget that you aren't just swinging your sword at the enemy whenever you make an attack roll. You are engaging them and the attack roll only represents a significant exchange.

Gingerbreadman wrote:

...

On ignoring someone who's in full defence: Depends on the situation. There is a big difference between assuming that he's no threat and deciding that he's probably less of a threat than the guy wearing the dress and making strange gestures.

Agreed, I often decide to absorb the AoO damage to get past/around the front line to stop the caster or archers in back. That is good tactics.

But most of these people are not really talking about that. It is the GM or players deciding "Oh, you're on total defense, so no longer a threat, and can't make AoO. So I will just walk by and kill the others." So it only became the tactics once they realized the character was on total defense.

Exactly

Total Defense is an option that you can take without needing to make any character build investment. Free options are never useless. Situational, sure, but useless? Never.

Just wanted to clarify that I do not think Total Defense is useless. I have used it to great effect before. I was merely stating various opinions I have seen on these boards in relation to full defense.

Here is why I don't like total defense, at least not beyond level 6 (as a PC of otherwise). Even if the opponent doesn't believe that I am unable to attack him, most enemies could still be going through this acceptable line of reasoning*

- He didn't attack me? Is he in total defense or just waiting for something?
- If he's in total defense, he can't attack me. If he isn't be can probably only take one AOO
- 1 attack < 2 attacks. I'll ignore him now and focus on the less armored thing shooting fireballs.
- If I attack them, he'll have to respond, so the people behind me are still safe.
*assumes intelligent enemy. Dumb animals don't attack the strong guy in armor

These, for the most part, seem like something that would be going through the player's head rather than the character.

I will make an observation, based on my real life experience for whatever that is worth.

While not a master by any means, I have had some martial arts training. I would say above level 1 monk rough equivalent (maybe even above level 2 depending upon how you judge such things). I have been in a few non-dojo fights (but not all that many).

I can not usually tell just by initial glance at someone if they are looking to knock me out as soon as they get a chance (standard type actions), mostly just blocking while looking for a good opening (fighting defensively), or just trying to keep me from hurting them (total defense). After a few seconds yes, then I can tell. But not immediately.
Total defense is not cowering in the corner behind a shield. That would actually make you very easy to hurt. Defense means concentrating on blocking attacks, dodging attacks, etc... Part of that is making feints back at the other person, changing your stance to look like you are getting ready to throw a powerful hook, pulling up like you are going to launch a kick, etc... If you don't keep the other person on their defensive toes, your defense doesn't work very well. If they would know they don't have to guard against counter blows at all and can concentrate exclusively on offense, it becomes easier to hit you. So a good 'total defense' will not immediately look significantly different from fighting while trying not to get hit.

Even then, when I have decided that someone is not seriously trying to hit me. There is no way they are so oblivious that I could just ignore them and walk past without them being able to change their mind and me getting walloped when I try it.

This is only possible due to the turn based approximation of this combat simulation's rules. Anyone taking advantage of an opponent's total defense to know they can waltz by someone without risk, is definitely metagaming.

Agreed - I have experience in Hapkido and I sparred for years and have been in a few fights. It's not completely obvious why the other person is not attacking. People who aren't experienced fighters tend to go to one extreme or the other. They either attack OR defend - they don't do both and it is usually their downfall. You are right - defense is about feinting and instilling in the other person the fear that you are going to attack.

I also agree that you could not just walk past and ignore somebody but I think the mechanic to blame isn't turn based combat in general but that full defense does not let you take AoOs.

Haha yea that is silly as Shaken is a fear effect. That's why I was surprised it was on the list.

Anyone else?

If you have no ideas for shaken, please feel free to post about your experiences with dirty trick and the kind of tricks you tried to pull off and the kind of condition the GM assigned that enemy.

I don't think for one moment that mundane tasks such as you describe are all automatically DC 10.

I think that this is a totally arbitrary DC, chosen specifically so that those with a stat of 9 or less cannot 'take 10' to pass it; essentially an arbitrary punishment for having a low stat, beyond those mandated in the game itself.

Not every sticky door is DC 10. Not every crowd requires DC 10 to navigate. Thinking about flanking isn't DC 10. Some of these things should have variable DCs (some DC 5, some DC 15, for example) and some should not require a check at all (like a fighter thinking about flanking).

I forget where I saw it, but there was a list of what the Difficulty Checks represent. 5 is super easy, 10 is average, 15 is difficult, 20 is challenging etc... (5 super easy - What I'd attribute to a regular door, thus my reasoning for a DC10 for a stuck door). Of course not all croweded bars will be DC10 but some of them might if it's crowded enough. Those were examples. Not everything is standardized and requires a GM to make decisions and yes a lot of the time those decisions are arbitrary. Man does anybody remembering GMing BEFORE 3rd edition? 3e has created a LOT of players who become... outraged because a GM uses shock gasp discretion.

Either way there are a lot of checks that *could* be called but are hand waved because it would bog down gameplay.

Thinking about flanking isn't DC10 but doing something and instructing others to do such is different. I would *never* tell the fighter he can't flank unless he makes some sort of check that's absurd. He's a fighter it's pretty much instinct to flank. When he wants to start discussing tactical advice with npcs though... that's a little different. He need make a DC10 profession soldier check perhaps. Something anyone even with no ranks could do as long as they aren't too dull

So, how many of you have used dirty trick? I was looking into it because of the unarmed fighter archetype. He seems to gain a dirty trick as a bonus when performing other certain maneuvers. My problem is I'm running into creative barriers when it comes to some of the conditions.

Obvious examples
Sand in eyes - Blind
Knee to the junk - Sickened
Entangled = Removing someone's belt, pulling their pants down, or their shirt over their head
Clapping both ears (deafness)
Headbutt to the nose (blind - due to eyes watering)
Wrapping a cloak over someone's face (blind)

Where I'm having trouble is finding something would make somebody shaken.

I normally don't consider myself very creative so help me out here.

Have you used dirty trick before? What are some of the things you've done? If you haven't used it, what are some of the ideas off the top of your head?

Has anyone else realized how many of these proudest moments involve a crit of some sort? Maybe Keen and Improved Critical SHOULD stack...

Alright I have one. It's been about 10 years and no moment has ever lived up to this one. It's nothing heroic and probably more of a "You had to be there moment" but I will share nonetheless.

We were playing fantasy D&D in the Hero System. It was fantasy like most other campaigns but with a few changes. Namely, in this GM's world elves elves were about 2-4 feet tall. Anyway I made a 3 ft tall elven sorcerer named Tiax The Mighty (Kudos if you know where my inspiration came from)

He always talked in the third person, and thought he could do anything he wanted. He was delusional and believed that he was all powerful and that everything belonged to him. He had a pony named Tiax II. That pony died and the next one he named Tiax 2 the II etc...

He claimed to be all powerful but among the first things he did when a fight broke out was go invisible and and fly to a safe distance. After that he would throw fire etc... but safety first lol.

If he failed at anything, he claimed that if he *really* wanted to, he could deal with it with a snap of his finger but chose not to because "This amuses Tiax". The system didn't have alignments but I'd cement him at a comfortable Chaotic Neutral. His personality was easy for me. What would happen if someone with the mentality of a 3 or 4 year old had insanely powerful magic at his fingertips? He was never disciplined and learned to (almost always) get his way.

Whenever he entered a town, he would telekinetically roll out a red carpet, magically enhance his voice, and bellow "ALLLL HAILLLL TIAX!" He would use TK to make one person bow and others would bow because that's how people work lol. (In This system powers cost endurance which recovered over time. I didn't have to worry about "blowing" my powers for the day) He wasn't "violent" per se but he would use Telekinesis to make people bow to him, charm people, threaten, posture etc... but was mostly harmless unless his life was threatened. Haha I don't know how many times I introduced myself and then the group offhandedly as my escort, bodyguards, or servants. After a while, they quit objecting lol.

Now that there's some context, the actual story.......

Well one day we were traveling to another town (After being exiled from the town we just left). We actually had a map with marks on all of the places we weren't allowed back to lol (mostly because of Tiax's antics).

The group was traveling on horseback and we were pulling our cart full of treasure. I think there was a new party member because a character had recently died. Tiax was educating this person on the party dynamics AKA everyone there were servants of Tiax. This new party member had the ability to detect magic and that was when everyone realized Tiax had cast his own version of Arcane mark on their foreheads (Something I had told the DM about in secret when he first met them haha) His mark? TM :)

One of the players sarcastically asked Tiax if there was anything that *didn't* belong to Tiax. Somebody then noticed that Tiax the Mighty had plastered TM all over the cart. The party member that actually paid for the cart said

"No, I bought this cart and it is the group's cart."
"No, Tiax's cart"
"Group's cart"
"Tiax's cart"
Everyone in Unison: "GROUP'S CART!"
Everyone thought they finally won an argument with Tiax when I passed a note to the GM
Silence...
BOOM!
The cart explodes in fire as Tiax calmly says "No one's cart"

We had to take a break for about 15 minutes because we were laughing too hard.

Story #2

Same character - different reincarnation. I used to like playing Tiax for a new group to evaluate their level of RP and their comfort level in regard to characters with extreme personalities.

I believe Anzyr was actually the GM for this one. It was 3.5 I believe I was a Sorcerer/Incantrix.

We were attempting to infiltrate a party of some sort. One player turned to me and said (out of character) "Oh god... how are you going to have Tiax blend in/not blow our cover?" I said easy. I'm gonna to Rick James this shit. lol I still don't know if people just thought I was a bard telling tales of some badass named Tiax (because I referred to myself in the 3rd person) or if they were just picking up what I was puttin down.
Either way it would have worked out but our hot-headed monk got drawn into a fight lol.

Jiggy wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

Good people need not make hard choices or necessary sacrifices.

The actual alignment rules wrote:

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

But they won't make the necessary ones. When the only way forward requires the sacrifice of innocent lives, they'll falter, while the Evil will move forward. They are unwilling to do the necessary things, because to do them is not Good. A truly Good person would sacrifice their alignment, but they will not.

I disagree with you a bit here.

Hi everyone.
Meet Johnny Bravo
Ladies man extraordinaire. In all likelihood, also a 7 Charisma.

Meet Hercule

He believes he is the strongest man in the world. He often fails to back this statement up.

We all know people who claim to be smarter, better looking, etc then they really are.

The problem is that not everything in d&d is reduced to a skill roll. Some groups assume certain things can be done by normal people. We will call these DC 10 ability checks and assume that everyone "takes 10". Maybe the door to the inn was built poorly and sticks a little bit. Maybe your Strength 6 wizard has trouble opening the door and is laughed at by any witnesses/potential romantic interests. (Open/Close is your friend). I think any time a character plays a stat below 10, they are going to notice some mundane things in normal life that most people don't have trouble with. Maybe maneuvering through a crowded bar is a DC 10 dexterity check. Nobody really has trouble because nobody needs roll as taking 10 is just what is natural. Not so when someone has, say, an 8 dexterity. Maybe he stumbles and bumps into a drunk and when he tries to make a diplomacy check with his 6 cha, he fails and starts a bar fight.

If you were playing such a character would you really be annoyed at the GM when he incorporated such things?

If you are going to play a character with a low stat, expect the GM to start being strict on what he enforces via ability and skill checks more often. Maybe telling a group of NPCs to "go here and flank here" etc... is no longer something you just "do" but instead a profession soldier check of DC10. Something nobody had a problem with in a normal game where everyone had an int of 10 or higher. In comes a 6 int fighter who wants to give tactics advice to NPCs, the GM calls for a roll, and is told that he is double punishing the 6 int character. Not so.

Power Word Unzip wrote:

Because an optimized monk build using this feat chain is a headache for a GM. I speak from experience here. I have one in my game right now.

I now have to generate encounters with creatures that have insanely high attack bonuses and multiple attacks per round just to challenge the monk in the group, at the expense of everyone else playing who can't--like in last night's session--deflect a 4d8+22 damage bite attack from a Gargantuan creature (and thus the subsequent grab/swallow checks).

I have to routinely break the thematic content of the campaign I am running to incorporate monsters that don't fit in just to give the monk a taste of fear for his life.

That's not fun. That's facerolling. It's playing on Easy mode. When there is no challenge, there is no reason to play.

I disagree vehemently.

I recall there being an old DMing axiom: "Don't punish your players for what their good at." Just because a party has terribly low Touch AC but really high AC, doesn't mean every NPC now has Advanced Firearms. Just cause on character has great Will saves doesn't mean you just throw Reflexes at them. And just because there's a paladin in the party, doesn't mean you stop throwing evil creatures at the party to deny him his bonus to hit.

People build their PCs to be good at something, invalidating it is not the right thing to do. If said monk was so durable, let him be durable. Those few moments he has to sweat will be all the more memorable, when he comes up against a well equipped Archer, or interesting monster. That monk's taken penalties to get there, including sacrificing AB and paid several feats Taxes to qualify.

Plus, all you have to do is ignore him for his choice of feats to become useless, you need not throw monstrosities just to counter a single monk. That's just excessive.

This. SO HARD.

So I understand a lot of people think Total Defense is not a viable option. A lot of people are under the impression that it is "selfish" and useless because they believe the user will just be ignored. If I tell you someone takes a defensive stance, you are really going to tell me your character blows past them to attack someone else? I think a lot of people are going against the spirit of the game when they do things like this. I don't consider myself strict or rigid but sometimes you can't look at things from a mechanics perspective. I've seen DMs that do this as well as players.

Now if you're in an encounter and an enemy is described as going total defense (in whatever way the dm chooses) and you attack him and your attacks get hopelessly deflected... you might hesitate after a round or two of doing this when there are other dangers. However, to automatically assume/know that when the gm describes a character being defensive that he can be ignored is, in my opinion, metagaming.

Thoughts?

I think the major issues with the feat were in regard to gaining access to the feat sans prerequisites ala Master of Many Styles and Unarmed fighter. You could technically get this feat before your enemies possessed iterative attacks. Yes combined with Spring Attack, you can lay a good old fashioned nickel and diming on someone and have a great defense. The problem is you are taking

Dodge
Mobility
Spring Attack
Crane Style
Crane Wing
Loss of Shield bonus
Loss of 1/2 str damage/power attack
Loss of TWF extra attacks
and this is all to negate one attack....

This feat is awesome before level 5 and pretty good after levels 6-8....
*Unless* the enemy took Expertise and Improved Feint. or a myriad of other feats that have a way of getting around this defense. You know what other feat is amazing before level 6? Furious Focus.

It's very disconcerting that an option like this, heavily restricted as it is, was deemed to be too powerful.

No offense to anyone...I mean this in the sincerest way possible...
but if you were having trouble with this feat as a GM it just might be time to hang up your hat. If it's too much of a stretch/pain to use Grappling, invisibility, concealment, darkness, multiple enemies, feinting, Spells with saves, etc(the list is actually fairly extensive)... then I don't think your players will continue to enjoy your combats to begin with. I've seen a lot of people say "Well this is ridiculous that you can deflect a colossal red dragon's tail attack" etc... You know what else is absurd? Being hit by a colossal red dragon's tail attack and not being turned into PASTE and yet that is more believable than an option to avoid said attack with the narrative of dodging the tail rather than necessitating the crane wing user physically deflect the tail. To me that is ludicrous.

A chain of feats with heavy restrictions that can be bypassed by numerous tactical options even below level 5 had no business being nerfed. Yes there are situations where the feat is strong. That's a good thing. That's like saying Favored enemy is too powerful because your GM throws a favored enemy in Every. Single. Fight. It's a GMs job to manipulate the situation their players are in. I think a lot of people who have this problem are GMs who are locked into a module. Of course they are going to have an issue with it! Who wouldn't? They can't adjust accordingly.

tl;dr - The real problem lies with obtaining the feat sans prereqs in games with GMs who are running a module and lack the ability to properly adapt.

Stockvillain wrote:

"one melee weapon attack"

Tail slap = natural attack, not melee weapon

Harm touch attack = touch attack, not melee weapon

Nat. 20 Vorpal = well, ya got me there

If someone has a natural attack, they are considered armed, as such, it is a weapon.

Any spell that makes a melee attack are weapons, touch attacks and rays, for instance, benefit from Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus and rays benefit from Improved Critical (ray).

Also, the point with the colossal dragon is the absurdity of the attack. A creature that is so large, that it drops turds larger than you, smacks you with a weapon, and you simply auto-deflect it? Doesn't really make sense. Picture a Rune Giant, a Gargantuan creature. Now picture it wielding a Warhammer. The Warhammer is also going to be Gargantuan. The head of the Warhammer is going to be larger than your body. But you deflected it.

[Edit] Totally got ninja'd.

You know what else is absurd? Getting hit by a colossal dragon and not being turned into paste. Such is the price of playing an imaginary fantasy game. Sometimes, it takes some creative narrating to describe a mechanical benefit.

I don't think this feat is overpowered in the least. There are an absurd amount of offensive options in this game. The feat investment is speaking volumes about what the character wishes to accomplish with their character. Let them have their fun. I'm too tired to quote but someone above mentioned that players tend to plan based on what their dm throws at them. Encounter versatility is key. If the character with Crane Wing is dominating ask yourself how many of the following you have included in your encounters lately

Ambushes
Ranged Weapon users - Wat?! Were dey at in bestary? (Commonly avoided by DMs who don't prepare encounters but rather randomly flip open the book. If planning isn't your thing then say hello to the NPC Codex)
Magic Users
Multiple Opponents
Invisible characters
Feinting
Grappling
Tripping (Make them choose between getting up and fighting defensively)

As others have stated, sometimes fighting defensively isn't an option.

It's odd how an armor can have less armor check penalty than full plate and yet still less maximum dex. Usually it's the other way around. You'd think it would at least be 7 armor, +2 Max dex. I'd like to say I'd use it but even then when you have heavy armor proficiency any argument to not take full plate is a hard one to make.

Grapple will always be a poor choice for the monster if it's outnumbered.

Ganryu wrote:

So I'm playing a level 8 conjuration specialist with augment summoning. Summons should be good, but they kinda suck.

No character is effective in all situations.

Most build characters that will shine in certain situations and not so much so in others. This makes sense when your GM varies his types of encounters. However, when you GM only has one strategy it makes sense to build a character that strives in that.

So your GM has surprise attacks that you can't anticipate, makes short lasting fights and takes away the feats that make you summon quicker. He hates rope trick. He has created an environment where summoners do not thrive.

Further, you have a group of melee attackers on your team that outshine summoned creatures all day everyday. So your group is not of a composition that requires a summoner. Further, they don't scout or have effective perception so they can't help you with your summoning.

Sounds like summoning does kinda suck for you not because summoning sucks but because the deck has been stacked against the summoner in your particular case.

Summoning will be relegated to a secondary spell for you. Get the utility out of it you can from the spells the summoned creatures can cast. Keep one big summon spell for that one time that you might need it. Otherwise focus on other spells.

I will say it again, focus on other spells. Don't fight an uphill battle against a GM. You will lose. The beauty of a wizard is that he can adapt to the GM through the spells he chooses to prepare.

This

Every GM is different. Find out what his style and try to make characters that thrive in that style. Although on a personal note I do feel bad for everyone here who's experience is that most combats last less than 5 rounds. That makes me very sad.

I've had many different GMs. Some GMs, there's no reason to ever play a rogue. Some GMs LOVE one particular race. Ranger = profit. For some GMs, Knowledge skills are useless because they don't know what's in the world beyond the pc's line of sight. As a GM, I pride myself on incorporating a vast array of skill sets and memorable and challenging encounters. Who knew 4 level 3 halfling snipers could cause so much havoc to an 8th level party?. However, I'm not the best when it comes to descriptions. I'd be more likely to tell you the dimensions of a room rather than what the room is made out of, what you smell, etc... In our sessions, the most used skill is probably perception (Which I attribute to my poor descriptions really).

Point is, play to your gm's style and you will have a blast.

I'm considering making a long spear weilding rogue for our upcoming Kingmaker campaign. (We're nearing the end of Mother of Flies in CoT.) The rest of the party currently looks like a fighter, sorcerer, and druid.

I'd like to be a combination of melee support for the fighter, and face for the party.

We're currently slated for 20 point buy. Just Pathfinder books. I'm going human since they are plentiful, and get the extra skill point and bonus feat.

I've never used a reach weapon melee combatant before, so the long spear isn't negotiable ;)

I'm not interested in multi-classing either. I'd like to show that a pure rogue is a viable choice. No one in our group has ever done one.

Str 14 (5 pts) + 2 Human stat bonus = 16
Dex 14 (5 pts)
Con 14 (5 pts)
Int 10 (0 pts)
Wis 12 (2 pts)
Cha 13 (3 pts)

At level 4, up charisma. All further stat bonuses to strength. All favoured class bonuses as hit points.

Human bonus feat: Improved Initiative
1: Combat Reflexes
2 (talent): Weapon Training (Long Spear)
3: Power Attack
4 (talent): Combat Trick (Cleave)
5: Skill Focus Acrobatics
6 (talent): Resiliency
7: Dodge
8 (talent): ?
9: Mobility
10 (advanced talent): Opportunist
11: Acrobatic
12: (advanced talent): Crippling Strike

No clue past level 12.

Starting Skills:
Acrobatics
Perception
Stealth
Diplomacy
Bluff
Intimidate
Knowledge Local
Disable Device
Sense Motive

I'm going to need acrobatics to deal with people inside my threat range, so I'm not sure if I should try to get skill focus earlier. However that means shifting something else to later...

We are using traits:
Armour Expert (with the 1 point reduction of armour check penalty, I can wear a mithral breastplate without needing armour proficiency medium)

Noble Born - House Medvyed (+2 diplomacy with fey, and +1 will vs fey spells and super natural abilities)

Concept:
This guy had a mixed bag of education growing up. He was in the military, but his family couldn't afford an officer's commission, so...

If you really want to prove the rogue as a viable choice then my reccommendation would be to avoid trying to build him like a fighter. Being limited to light armor means that focusing on strength instead of dex will limit your survivability. While power attack is a good source for damage, the thing you lack most compared to the other martial classes is accuracy. Missing a hit due to power attack costs sneak attack damage. If you are set on taking power attack I reccommend you also take Furious Focus and then look into branching off into spring attack. With Spring Attack you can move to flank whereever needed and land a sneak attack. With the scout archetype you can position and strike without relying on flanking for the sneak attack.

Well I thought that you couldn't learn Combat Trick more than once anyway - thereby nullifying that sort of rapid feat chain achievement in the first place. I agree though.

Ok that makes sense. Thanks

bump

"Forgotten Trick (Ex): A ninja with this ability can recall one trick taught to her by her ancient masters. When she uses this ability, she selects one ninja trick (not a master trick or rogue talent) that she does not know and can use that ninja trick for a number of rounds equal to her level. She must pay any ki costs associated with the trick as normal. Using this ability expends 2 ki point from her ki pool, plus the ki cost of the trick she chooses."

I read this as you spend 2 ki points + any ki points associated with the power and you have that trick available to you for level/rounds.

Say a level 10 Ninja used forgotten trick to vanish. 2 rounds later the ninja can still be invisible and also use forgotten trick to use ventriloquism. The forgotten trick isn't some slot to be used up.

A friend of mine seems to infer (from where i have absolutely no idea) that Forgotten Trick *becomes* that trick and you can't change it or use any other trick via Forgotten Trick unless you empty the "slot" or something.

What do you all think?

I did note that and I do see your point. However that Appendix extry also does not specify that you have to pin the creature to use Blood Drain. The vampire entry says you have to pin. The vampire's blood drain also does not specify that it happens at the end of the round. The only thing that's mentioned as happening once a round is the temp hp gain.

I will also point out that the Blood Drain of the Vampire is SU while the appendix entry is EX. Antimagic Field - the new Vampire Repellant.

I'm probably a little late on this one but I'd like to pitch in my 2 cents.

First off - Knife Master Rogue archetype in Ultimate Combat. You could always look into Crane Style chain in Ultimate Combat - That lets you fight defensively for a miniscule accuracy penalty and allows you to auto-deflect once/round as long as you don't fight with two weapons or wield a shield (Making Duelist an attractive Prestiege class). The end of the chain even lets you attack them back after parrying. You could always take Assassinate Master Ninja trick as well to be able to force a save or die in the surprise round. Couple that with the rogue talent Underhanded (max Sneak attack damage) and even if they save they're hurting. You'll want to look into a Wrist Sheath for equipment and/or Quickdraw, or Possibly Hidden Blade Ninja Trick to utilize Underhanded effectively. Although in my experience Underhanded gets a lot more use from Rogues with good Bluff/Diplomacy who can deceive the enemy into thinking they are an ally rather than just striking from the shadows. I took Sudden Disguise and Master Disguise and used both Underhanded and Assassinate to *Great* effect.

That's not quite how I read it. It seems to me that maintaining a grapple (standard action) allows you to harm, pin, move etc... Greater Grapple makes this a move action thus allowing for more grapple checks. All of those actions are under the "maintain grapple" section right? Normally, I'd expect the Blood Drain ability to specify "once a round" but it doesn't.

So Blood drain states that "...if the vampire establishes or maintains a pin, it drains blood, dealing 1d4 points of Constitution damage."

With Rapid Grappler, I believe you can get up to 3 grapple checks per round. Does this mean that a vampire with said feat could drain blood 3 times a round?
Mechanically it seems right
However, my Cheese meter is off the charts on this one.

What do you all think, raw, and interpretation wise?

So I am currently in an epic level campaign. I will give more background if needed but here is my dilemma...

My current DM is telling me that if I want to use Robilar's Gambit it has to be the stance that I am in. Meaning that I cannot have any other Tome of Battle stances on at the same time.

Does this seem fair? I mean I know the feat technically says that it's a stance, but to me it just seems to be attacking the semantics. To me this just feels wrong and I wanted to get other opinions/possible angles/viewpoints to argue this from.