Vratix's page

My Self wrote:

Quintain wrote:

Vidmaster7 wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

I think I could defeat a rogue with a wizard if he got to pick where to fight. Just getting past limited wish -> geas is pretty hard.

negative energy plan hes gonna be a little late but just go on in he will be right there to fight you.

Subverting geas (or even a limited wish -> geas) is easy. Make yourself deaf. Understanding his communication is a requirement for geas to work.

And make sure you are not familiar with any sort of lipreading, sign language, or even crude gestures from the Wizard? If the Wizard tells the Rogue to go to sleep, or gestures for the Rogue to, that could be interpreted as a clear command.

If it has to be interpreted it's not a clear command.

You have to interpret speech by listening and processing what was said, even a simple imperative like "go to sleep" in your native tongue.

All clear commands require interpretation. Gestures would absolutely work. You don't get to sidestep a geas by sticking your fingers in your ears.

In the Final Embrace feat, in the Prerequisites entry, after “special attack” add “as a racial ability”.

I did say it was changed. Did you think I was making that up? What you're suggesting used to be possible. It no longer works.

Anacondas Coils belt gives you Constrict, and lets you take the Final Embrace feat line.

This is no longer true. The prerequisites for Final Embrace were changed some time ago.

Bear in mind that one you get to a certain point, increase your bonus to grapple becomes an exercise in pointlessness. Even CR20s usually only have a CMD score in the low-mid 40s and it isn't terribly difficult to get a +30 by level 10 or thereabouts.

That being said, neither the uncharted monk nor the brawler(fighter) is a great choice for grapple characters. The kings of grapple in pathfinder are the Tetori archetype of the chained monk and the Brawler (the class rather than the fighter archetype).

Don't forget the trait: Bred for War and the feat: celestial obedience (Falayna) for a couple easy bonuses to CMB and grapple respectively.

Vratix wrote:

It's also pretty clear that it would use the performances associated with its parent class's, the bard's, versatile performance.

Not really. The ability never says something along the lines of "this works like the bard ability of the same name". It's a similar ability with a same name, but it's not exactly the same and so you can't use an unreferenced source to try to extrapolate what this ability can do.

You're right, it doesn't have that explicit wording even though bards are mentioned almost a dozen times on the skald page and the abilities are identical in all ways but breadth of choice.

I'll just have to file this idea away into the "completely reasonable, but not allowed" category. I do hate when splitting hairs ruins ideas, especially ones that won't impact balance in the slightest.

Versatile does not call out the skald class skill list, it just so happens that the choices for versatile performance match the skill list. Changing one should not affect the other.

You're probably right, but it's hardly a coincidence the class skill performances "just so happen" to match up.

I feel confident that it goes against intent and pretty sure that it goes against the text. The trait just makes those skills count as class skills. There aren't even any rules for what bonuses you'd get from skills outside of what's listed in the skald ability.

Intent of the class or the trait? Regardless, I wasn't asking for intent. It's also pretty clear that it would use the performances associated with its parent class's, the bard's, versatile performance.

It's more a question of: are skills associated with a class the same thing as class skills. Java Man's statement about missing the actual phrase "class skill" seems reasonable but if that were the case why wouldn't they just have saved space and eliminated any ambiguity by phrasing it more succinctly?

The skald's versatile performance feature is limited to performance skills "associated with the class." These are the same, limited, performance skills that the Skald has on her class skill list. I.e. an associated skill is one on the class skill list.

The Talented trait, explicitly adds all performance skills to your class skill list.

Is there any reason why a skald with the trait: Talented could not take any of the previously missing performances, such as dance or comedy, for her versatile performance choice?

Bruno like to add if he using Anaconda's Coils Belt to qualify for Final Embrace feat, the feat was errata'd to require racial constrict and the belt no longer allows you to qualify for the feat.

Yeah... that really hurt my Brawler (Strangler).

As to OP, throw some proteans at them. They aren't that tough, but they have constant FoM and a bunch of natural attacks. So, while he'll still be able to grapple them (by burning ki) they'll dissuade him from hanging onto them for too long.

The "compassionate antipaladin" looks like just another well-intentioned extremist. The well-intentioned extremist is far from a new trope. It also doesn't really work for the antipaladin.

An antipaladin must be of chaotic evil alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if he willingly and altruistically commits good acts. This does not mean that an antipaladin cannot take actions someone else might qualify as good, only that such actions must always be in service of his own dark ends. An antipaladin’s code requires that he place his own interests and desires above all else, as well as impose tyranny, take advantage whenever possible, and punish the good and just, provided such actions don’t interfere with his goals.

emphasis mine

A well-intentioned extremist by his very nature has... good intentions. The "compassionate antipaladin" seems to think that he's genuinely doing what's best for these people and their souls. An Antipaladin simply can't act with such good intentions, no matter how deplorable his individual actions might be, if he believes it's for the best for these other souls.

This doesn't mean that the antipaladin can't have more depth than a cut and dry murder-hobo, but he also can't be motivated by doing what's best for others and still be an antipaladin.

Here is the old 3.5 template for the Sangrolu aka the blood lich. Bear in mind, that this was supposed to be applied to things that were already CR20 but probably not enough of a threat for the players without getting beefed up.

The long and short of it, the others are right. This is not something you want the player to be in your game. If you want to use it as an end-goal (and when he achieves it, that character retires to offscreen villainy), I guess that could work. But, this template would absolutely invalidate any other player and would likely lose its appeal to the player who gets it pretty quickly too.

Probably still won't be OP. In fact, without those choices, he would be pretty gimped.

Let it be.

Kurald Galain wrote:

{. . .}

Strangler: pow +1, vrs -1 - gives some decent bonuses for niche grappler builds, and is not much use for anything else. Becoming a good grappler will require more than just taking this archetype, though.
{. . .}

Right now, this archetype is bugged to be nearly unusable, because to use it you need to grapple, but it doesn't give you Improved Grapple, and not only that, it takes away Unarmed Strike which is a prerequisite for Improved Grapple. Right now, it is basically only usable if you consume both feats that a Human gets at 1st level on Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple, or if you dip in something else that gives you Improved Grapple or an equivalent ability (such as Tetori Monk or White-Haired Witch). Until (if?) This gets Errata'd, I would rate this as Dip power -2, versatility -2; Full power -1, versatility -1, with the power ratings getting upgraded to somewhere in the range -1 to +1 for extremely specific builds that are crafted to work around the above-mentioned bugs in this archetype).

I absolutely disagree with most of this. I'm running a Strangler right now and (Full progression) +1/-1 actually sounds fair (might be selling it a bit short). While it does push you towards grapple focused builds (which is hardly a problem, grapple is solid) it doesn't trade away Martial Flexibility, and I have trouble saying any martial with full progression MF is losing out too much on versatility.

And, actually for non-brawler grapple based characters, this still works as a solid dip because you pick up sneak dice on your grapple and (as I mentioned earlier) you still get MF.

All in all, +1/-1 sounds perfectly fair.

I would definitely pass on the tail feats. While they're neat, they're all pretty redundant with the mesmerist. I would consider the feat more valuable than the daily spell use and grabbing Spell Focus (Enchantment) or one of the Stare Feats or QuidEst's very fun suggestion of Cunning Caster; this is one of the few character concepts which this feat would work well.

Otherwise, I would try to pick up some Metamagic Rods (persistent, extend) and a Mask of the Mesmerist.

Knowledge (Engineering) for the design and Craft (Stonemasonry) or (Carpentry) for the actual building, depending on whether you want a stone or wood building.

Specifically, I'm looking at the Veneficus and the Scarred Witch Doctor.

The Veneficus replaces the 2nd and 10th level Hexes while the SWD replaces the 1st level Hex. Do both of these count as altering the "Hex Class Feature" or is there no conflict because it specifically calls out which Hexes it replaces?

As a note: this is just for intellectual curiosity. SWD isn't PFS legal and most GMs would let it fly regardless because giving up your first two Hexes is pretty detrimental.

Having been in two person campaigns before, on both sides of the screen, I want to jump in with the suggestions for a Animal Companion based class (especially, druid/hunter but that's just because I'm less familiar with warpriests). Having a third body in the mix makes a HUGE difference in most encounters. A full progression animal companion will be a huge boon.

The problem I have with this concept is that, at level 1, you aren't supposed to be a badass (yet).

That in no way means you should always start as a blank slate; I actually liked your article and some of those backstories (cheesy though they might have been) lead to a lot of potential in terms of role-play. But those aren't level 1 character concepts nor should they be. The one that really jumped out at me is your example of the person "not willing to give it their all" as a way of rping the levels they don't have yet, and it really got to me. This is a life or death thing (for my character), why on earth should I let some guy who explicitly isn't trying very hard in my adventuring party? What if the unthinkable (aka very likely scenario) happens and this half-asser gets killed or is unable to save someone else? You know, something he should have been able to easily prevent given his supposed power. Was he too lazy to save his own life? Or, say I was the general of an army. Nobody's letting the level 1 Ranger with no ranks in Profession Soldier boss around a regiment let alone an army, so my character damn well better have something to back that up mechanically. Rich backstories are wonderful and players should always come up with something for this person they are inhabiting. But you also need to be able to back up that story to some degree.

I'm just saying, if I ran away from some sort of duty (or abuse) and joined the circus where I befriended an animal who became exceptionally loyal to me, that sounds pretty easy to accept. But it's a lot harder to accept that a once world renowned duelist has had so much off time that a feral child who can barely speak has an even chance of taking him out in a fair fight.

Tl:dr. If you want to avoid being the level 1 weakling, don't start at level 1.

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

Not anymore it doesn't.

It seems likely the grappler would either willing be moved with them, or be forcibly moved while hanging on.

Tug-o-war using a person as the rope is a pretty inefficient way to move someone. Especially because

A creature with this ability can choose to make a free combat maneuver check with a successful attack. If successful, this check pulls a creature closer. The distance pulled is set by this ability. The type of attack that causes the pull and the distance pulled are included in the creature’s description. This ability only works on creatures of a size equal to or smaller than the pulling creature. Creatures pulled in this way do not provoke attacks of opportunity and stop if the pull would move them into a solid object or creature.

emphasis mine

Since we agreed that Merlin can't be Pulled out of grapple the pull would have to be against Conan (via Merlin). Based on the text of pull: you can't pull Conan in the direction of Merlin at all. This is all just a misguided attempt to help Merlin get taller.

The rules don't cover any impact on Conan, so there is no impact unless the GM house-rules one; it doesn't make much sense

Nail on the head. Groot cannot pull Merlin out of Conan's grasp as long as Conan still control's the grapple. If Groot wants to help Merlin escape he can Aid Merlin's grapple to help him break free but afaik that's about it. Attacking the grappler is usually the best way to help the grappled anyway.

Pulling someone who is in a grapple reminds me of the process used for quartering (especially once you consider the Strength scores that Conan and Groot would have to have), so I would caution my own players against the small squishy guy being pulled in opposing direction by impossibly strong monsters and/or men.

This is a revisit of the "can you sneak attack with an attack which doesn't have an attack roll, such as a spell?" question... which never received an official answer.

Thus, while the rules not clear at all, you'll probably find that most GMs will require an attack roll for sneak attack, smite evil, etc, to function.

It sort of is, except that a grapple check is definitely an attack and constrict is inherently tied to that attack roll. As has been noted, functionally, constrict simply adds a damage roll to the grapple check. However, Constrict is specifically called out as an attack in its description and (though the roll is technically for the grapple attack) it does require you to pass an attack roll to get the damage, differentiating it from the other argument. Aside note: in my games I would certainly rule against it being an attack in and of itself (but I've never felt particularly beholden to rules that make no sense, I'm just trying to figure out the actual rule behind it right now).

I'm not sure this is correct. It's can't move, but magical flight is a purely mental action. It would need to have enough carry capacity to hold both of you aloft, and would need to make a fly check to hover. But it wouldn't automatically fall.

This is right. I was thinking only of natural means of flight when I made that post. (Although, it does seem unlikely that most things that fly via magic will be unlikely to have the carrying capacity to keep up a second person)

What if you don't have a fly speed?

To be more accurate: What I have in my mind is: Is it possible for a monk to grapple a flying opponent if he could successfully reach her using Cloud Step?
If yes, what will happen at the end of that particular turn? Both started to fall? Only monk started to fall even after a successfull grapple check? Because, Cloud Step says you need to end your turn on a solid ground otherwise start to fall.

You would both fall.

Look at the grappled condition.

A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity.

emphasis mine.

You aren't on flat ground: you fall. It can't move: it falls.

Minor nitpick: Falayna is an empyreal lord, not a god. So you want Celestial Obedience and not Deific Obedience.

If your going to focus on unarmed attacks (and you're a brawler, so it's a good idea) there's a trait in the Dragon Empires Primer called the something asian sounding Rebel that gives a straight +1 to unarmed damage.

As Paulicus and Visitor have stated, Martial Flexibility is amazing. Power Attack and Combat Expertise are a must for every brawler. The other feats Paulicus mentioned are also good choices but grappling is actually pretty darn useful so investing in it as your go-to option is not a bad plan either. Keep in mind that you don't have to actually take the style/grappling feats, you can Flex into them (but I would take at least through greater grapple).

Snapping Turtle works just fine (I have it on my brawler) and losing the shield bonus when you're already grappling has literally never been a problem. Grabbing Style is still worth considering because (as Gwen pointed out) you don't lose your dex when pinning and that is super useful; and Pummeling Style should also be considered because, even nerfed, it's still pretty solid but if you want to focus on grappling don't worry about it.

I don't recommend Crane Style for brawlers. IMO it's better to use turtle clutch on their turn, then on your turn pin, tie-up, and move on. To do this with Crane Wing you need Riposte in addition to getting the Grab ability so you can start a grapple on their turn to get the same action economy.

-edit-

Found the trait.

Thanks for the input. This is all pretty much how I expected it to be interpreted, except this:

For instance, with the action that Initiates the Grapple, normally you would do no damage, so you would normally do no Sneak Attack either. But with Constrict, you do inflict damage along with the the Initiate Grapple Action, so you would also inflict Sneak Attack damage.

...
I'm not 100% certain that Grapple attacks that do no damage do not activate Sneak Attack, but I am sure that if you have Constrict, all successful Grapple attacks do damage and surely can activate Sneak Attack.

This might be true for a Strangler(brawler), but probably not for any other class with sneak attack. Being grappled doesn't automatically grant sneak attack iirc.

Now, 9 times in 10, I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other. But, say you're a grappling rogue with constrict and a pinned opponent: do you get to apply your Sneak Attack twice (once from the maintain for damage and then additionally for the constrict attack)? Or is it just once from the maintain for damage and then the constrict damage is added on to the total.

*A creature with this special attack can crush an opponent, dealing bludgeoning damage, when it makes a successful grapple check (in addition to any other effects caused by a successful check, including additional damage). The amount of damage is given in the creature's entry and is typically equal to the amount of damage caused by the creature's melee attack.

I had always assumed that constrict was merely extra damage that is applied whilst grappling thanks to the "extraordinary ability" to squeeze something really hard. However, an argument could be made that since it says it's a "special attack" it isn't merely extra damage, it's a free attack.

What do you think?

I believe that vivisectionist stacks with Prestige Classes that grant Sneak attack because the wording of PrCs specifically say it stacks with other sources (which allows for a great deal of nonsense, probably best to avoid it unless your GM knows about it ahead of time).

It doesn't stack with any base classes though.

You seem to be under the impression the the rules are obligated to work. I'm sorry to say that just isn't true. You can't overrun at the end of a charge, even though overrun says you can, because overrun also says it's a standard action to attempt. To use your own words, "That's it. That's the rule." This is not a case of specific trumping general, because the SAME SENTENCE dictates the action economy. It's an improperly worded rule that breaks itself. It happens.

There are plenty of rules in this game that don't work. This isn't one of them.

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.

Whereas,

When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.

...
Combat maneuvers are attack rolls.

And Finally, Overrun

As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.

Combat Maneuvers are attacks. Charge is a full round action that allows for an attack. Overrun is a combat maneuver (and therefore an attack). Overrun can be used as a standard action during your move OR it can be used as part of a charge action.

There's a reason that in the dozens of threads about this article any official response is "Answered in FAQ," "No Reply Required," or just outright ignored.

So then I should be able to perform a Grapple when I charge, according to what you say. Except you would say it's not. Why? Because that's a Standard Action to perform.

The only wording that Overrun states that would make it any different from Grapple is that it specifically cites Charge. That's it. There is otherwise zero difference between the two.

Now, Bull Rush actually gives explicit language in comparison to Overrun. Let's compare, shall we?

Bull Rush wrote:
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.

Overrun wrote:
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge, you can attempt to overrun your target, moving through its square.

I see the bolded part in Bull Rush specifically states you exchange the attack you make during a Charge for the combat maneuver. I don't see any such language in the Overrun section. So, I don't know where you're coming up with this "replaces the attack" argument, because RAW doesn't support that, whatsoever.

You're being excessively nitpicky and creating a problem where there isn't one. The text of overrun specifically states that it can be used as part of a charge.

That's it. That's the rule. Specific trumps general. Charge is generally a Full Round Action but in the specific case of using overrun you can use it during a charge.

If you really want to argue that it isn't used in place of an attack then it becomes a free action and you still get an attack at the end. This is, of course, nonsense because why would the charge through feat exist if you could just do that anyway?

666bender wrote:

?

overun IS MADE as part of a charge
"
As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge,
"

And? You spend a Full-Round Action to Charge. You must still spend a Standard Action to perform the Overrun as part of a Charge. Let's take out the "during your move or" part, as that's irrelevant to the argument:

Overrun wrote:

As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge,

As you can see here, the rules clearly show you must take the Standard Action as part of the Full-Round Action you spend Charging; which is normally physically impossible, which means the rules implode upon themselves.

The Charge Through feat allows you to Overrun as a Free Action when you Charge, but it only goes for 1 creature.

Now do you see why the Overrun rules are shot? It is because of this that GMs must use RAI to actually make it work, and their RAI on the matter isn't exactly consistent with themselves, so...

Overrun works fine as part of a charge. A Combat Maneuver roll is, explicitly, a type of attack roll. A charge is a full round action that allows for an attack at the end (note that an attack is also a standard action). To overrun during a charge, you simply replace the attack you would normally take at the end of your charge with an overrun combat maneuver. This is both RAW and RAI.

I'm also getting ready to argue my case with the paladin.

"See if I don't trap their souls they are going to hell where they will be tortured forever. I'm doing them a favor really." I might be helped by the fact that all the stuff I am going to make from them are most useful for a paladin.

Any paladin who falls for this line out to have all mental scores of 6 or lower, caveat: unless the Paladin has taken Oath against Fiends and is personally waging a war against all fiends (or part of a bigger war effort).

This is going to take some serious in and out of character justification to run in a party with a paladin.

I allow torture as a neutral act in my games.

Any character may attempt to torture a living target with physical and mental anguish; the results of such torture can be determined with a Heal check. Note that torture is an evil act, and as such may have repercussions on good characters

You are wrong.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Your opinion is that war makes atrocities that would normally be unacceptable into acceptable act?

This literally happens all the time in war. Killing people is normally detestable, but during war time is often celebrated.

Sure. Totally. That's why it's called the Battle of Nanking and was a glorious victory... Oh, wait. It's called the Rape of Nanking and it is remembered as the awful massacre it was.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Shadowlord wrote:

I see the opinions about killing someone in their sleep being Evil. But I see no rules that actually back it up. None.

That would be due to RD playing 5E and wanting to get more general opinions other than 'this rule says so'.

Right, well I don't have any 5E books. But, surely the 5E books have sections that describe Alignment, and CDGs, and the Helpless condition.

I know this is the Advice section, but opinions are near useless without some basis in the rules of the game.

The Lawful Evil section of alignment (in PF) states that some characters of that alignment shy away from killing people in cold blood (though they will look the other way if it benefits them).

When the rules say that a bona-fide Evil character isn't willing to do something (because they know it's unethical), I think it's safe to say that it qualifies as an Evil act.

I don't think the rules needed to include a sentence about killing people in their sleep is Evil because they didn't feel the need to specify that killing someone in their sleep is killing them in cold blood.

TOZ wrote:

Toblakai wrote:

What if sleeping ogres (as well as ones that are awake) were killed by a fireball in a surprise round? Is that evil too?

Generally speaking, yes.

So - why isn't the Sleep spell evil? Virtually the only way I've seen it used is to set up coup de graces.

Just because the people you play with are unimaginative murder-hobos doesn't make Sleep an evil spell. Their are plenty of uses for Sleep other than using it to slaughter helpless opponents.

-ninjad-

Vratix wrote:

Grumthar wrote:

It is not necessarily evil; it just depends on the circumstances. It is definitely not chivalrous.

I don't think there are any circumstances where murdering someone in their sleep isn't evil.

War

You're confusing not evil and understandable. Just because someone has a reason for doing something doesn't stop it from being evil.

It is not necessarily evil; it just depends on the circumstances. It is definitely not chivalrous.

I don't think there are any circumstances where murdering someone in their sleep isn't evil.

Going against the grain here, definitely evil.

You know the saying two wrongs don't make a right? That's what this seems like to me. Were the people you killed evil? Sure, magic said they were evil. Is the "world" better off without them? Maybe, after all they are evil. Is murdering someone in their sleep wrong? Unquestionably.

Just remember: "For the greater good," is the rallying cry of evil people trying to justify their actions. What you did sounds exactly like the kind of thing the Operative from Serenity would do, and he's basically the paragon of Lawful Evil (he even makes a statement to that effect).

People here keep seemingly comparing acceptability to good. Would I have done things differently with any of my good characters? No, probably not (unless it was a Paladin), but that doesn't stop this from being an evil act.

Was this necessary? Maybe. Was this acceptable? If it was necessary then, yes it was acceptable. Was it "capital G" Good? Nope, not even at all.

I'm trying to find a build a guy did based on grappling and construction attacks on these forums.... But he had at level 8 a lore warden who had a +28 to grapple attempts on a strength 18 character. If you can beat the +28 at that level then I withdraw my statement. Please note that was without spells, it was a permanent bonus. In the same thread he put up a monk with a +20 to grapple but had other advantages.

This Build by Bruno Breakbone seems to hit around those same numbers. If you use a Dan Bong, that's an additional +2 to grapple (and once you hit level 5 it counts as a level 1 brawlers UAS damage, so that's neat). And if you really wanted to you could take Celestial Obedience (Falayna) for an additional +4. Both things not in his initial build.

Now, those are pretty much all things the Lore Warden can do too... but the Lore Warden doesn't get all the fun Strangler abilities Like not taking a DEX or AC penalty while grappled or the Sneak Attack dice to damage, or the Sleeper Hold ability. That's not even counting how insanely useful martial flexibility is and how it keeps grapple build relevant in non-grappling scenarios.

On the other hand, it sounds like they'd be mutually exclusive effects, seeing as you can Stare at only one person at a time. Then, it'd be a choice of, "Do I put my Boldness against that guy to slow him down, or inspire my friend to hit him harder?"

Yeah, it's pretty explicit that Stare is a one-at-a-time thing requiring your (near) full attention. I would bolster my friends most of the time but every once in a while it would be good to put the fear of god into some lowlife to get him back on the straight and narrow.

*tugs suspenders* "Now, I'm no big-city enchanter with a fancy spellbook or a fairy dragon, but I've learned that positive encouragement can do more for one's sanity than a whole cellar full of potions and scrolls."

Read in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn

I used to re-enact Civil War and Revolutionary War, so I have loaded and fired original and recreation flintlock, percussion cap, and breech-loading firearms. I have also witnessed and assisted in the loading of smoothbore and rifled cannon.

All of the literature I can find on top of my own experience states that a good soldier should be able to fire 3 aimed shots per minute. Four shots would be incredible. There are simply too many steps to shorten this process.

These are not at all useful things to compare to gameplay, not just in pathfinder but in general. Playing a fantasy rolepaying game will almost never reflect accurate or realistic portrayals of combat.

Keep in mind, that just because something in Pathfinder is called a musket and uses black powder to fire ammunition, does not mean that it is at all the same thing as our modern muskets. Just like a lot other small things people can point out (just look at all the conversations about long sword-->arming sword).

Long story short. Don't do any of this. The gunslinger is not a gamebreaking class and his ability to reload more quickly than a 19th century soldier should not affect what he can do at your table. If you really hate the flavor of the class, you can ban it; lots of people do. But don't let him play a class and then gimp it to the point of uselessness because you want more "realism" in a game where people can spit acid out of their mouths or point fireballs into existence.

That's certainly how I would rule it, glad to have an assenting voice.

bump for input, please

I wouldn't penalize this combo too much. For one, he has to start the grapple with the scythe in his hand (that's a -4 to start, not to mention the extra 18,000 he needs to spend on the scythe) for hamatula strike.

Now, assuming the grapple succeeds and he anchors his opponent, he can't actually use the scythe to trip because of the Anchoring quality. So it's one or the other.

Keep in mind that the character being grappled can still make attacks (without two hands), cast spells (with a concentration check), etc. Once he releases the grapple they are even less restricted. They are hardly helpless.

Additionally, what if this guy has lots of allies? What if he's a capable grappler himself? What if he's really good at sundering weapons?

So, best case scenario, he just has a stuck, angry opponent in front of him and he disarmed himself.

-edit-
Imbicatus hit the highlights while I was typing.

There's nothing about telekinesis or mage hand that says you couldn't push an object towards the ground. However, you wouldn't be getting any benefit for pushing in the same direction of gravity. The spells both have a listed force (5 lbs for mage hand, 25/level for telekinesis, 100/level for t.haul) so that's the magnitude of force where those things would cap. Also, it's magic, the weight of your item is not part of the equation.

As far as pinning people beneath rubble, none of these would be particularly effective:

Mage Hand a) isn't strong enough to do much, and b) can only move "unattended" objects, so if someone is actively trying to shift rubble you can't even target that piece.
As for telekinesis, look at the three ways it can be used:
-a gentle, sustained force
-a variety of combat maneuvers
-or exert a single short, violent thrust
I guess if your GM was reaaallllyyy flexible you could try to do an overrun combat maneuver with someone stuck under rubble but I can't imagine too many people would let that fly.

If you really want to be that cruel to someone who's buried alive you could just pile more stuff on the rubble heap.

So, it's nice and explicit that Monk's Robe interacts with Brawlers but for the Strangler Archetype you give up class features that are affected by the robe. However, the way it looks by reading makes it seem like the Monk's Robe could actually sidestep some of the class features you give up just by wearing the robe.

So, for the Brawler (Strangler) which gives up the AC bonus class feature, how does the AC bonus of the robe interact? Do you:
-still get the bonus from a monk of your level plus 5
-get the bonus of a 5th level monk
-get no bonus because you gave that up but are still counted as a monk as far as the robe is concerned?

Additionally, the Stranglers get unarmed strike damage equal to a base-Brawler of its level minus 4 (because it gives up the Unarmed Strike class feature but it keeps Close Weapon Mastery). With that in mind, how does Monk's Robe affect the unarmed strike damage of a Strangler? Do you:
-still get the US damage from a monk of your level plus 5
-get the US damage from a monk of your level plus 1 (-4+5)?

Now, I know which way I would rule them at my table but I'm curious what the correct reading is for this combination.

The guide in this thread from N. Jolly is about the gunslinger class as a whole but it extols the virtues of the Bolt Ace at some length and gives a good deal of helpful advice.

Since the Strangler loses the class ability Unarmed Strike, even picking up the IUS feat doesn't fix the damage dice... Until level 5 because Stranglers still get Close Weapon Mastery (which does include unarmed strike) which gives them damage of a level 1 brawler (and that can be fixed with a simple monk's robe).

All in all, I don't think the Strangler is a very good 1 level dip unless you really want to be able to apply sneak damage while grappling.

I think I'd do reflex not acro as the check for the goblin in question.

Being thrown means you have little to no control over how he flies or falls. So reflex is the usual roll for that, more so when it is his reflexes for how he impacts the ground. In a roll displacing the energy and rolling to his feet. or face planting prone

Gymnasts, divers, circus performers and other acrobatic performers exhibit a great deal of control over their bodies in midair. You can argue that they start their movements when they leave whatever surface they launch from but there's no reason the goblin couldn't do the same from the brawlers hands. I would absolutely allow a Acrobatics check for the goblin to land on their feet.

Strangler and Beast Wrestler both replace AC bonus, so they aren't compatible.

Also, as much as the flavor of Beast Wrestler goes with this idea, I'm not sold on the class itself. If this is an NPC and the only thing it ever does is try to push around that bear, yeah, it's a good choice. If you ever want to do anything else, I think you're better off avoiding the archetype.

Like My Self alluded to, using and abusing death (or undeath) as tools is seen as evil within the game.

Just look at your class:

Each gravewalker carries around a gristly, inanimate poppet stitched from human skin and stuffed with shards of bone, fingernails, and grave dirt. A gravewalker’s spells come from the will of evil spirits residing in the poppet...

Aura of Desecration (Su)

At first level, a gravewalker can create a 20-foot-radius aura of evil power

Whatever your primary motivations might be, you aren't "Good." It might be really fun to role-play that you think you're the good guy and when a group of heroes show up to stop you you can show them all the good things you do to try and send them on their way peaceably. But make no mistake, Gravewalkers don't (and shouldn't) ever have a "Good" alignment.