Ximen Bao's page

Ximen Bao wrote:

I like the concept. I've been thinking about playing a PBP game since I can't devote a dedicated weekly time block to a game. I love politicky kingdom building games, and I'm with Phillip Gastone about always liking a good WAGHHH! So this checks a lot of boxes.

If you're serious enough to lay out some details and expectations, I'd be first in line for a spot.

Yes, I'm serious about this. I'm still trying to decide which system to use, though.

I'm hoping for PF2, I've been running for awhile, and it's kindled a wish to play with some of the toys the players have :)

And as important as the system, given that the question of 'how badly can we abuse our slaves' has already come up, you should probably determined how much grimdark edgelord you want in this.

I like the concept. I've been thinking about playing a PBP game since I can't devote a dedicated weekly time block to a game. I love politicky kingdom building games, and I'm with Phillip Gastone about always liking a good WAGHHH! So this checks a lot of boxes.

If you're serious enough to lay out some details and expectations, I'd be first in line for a spot.

Why? RAW says it works, and is nicely in agreement with RAI.

What more do you want? RAW it works and you understand that it's supposed to work. So why does it have to change? For the paranoid case that someone tries to argue really hard that an ability can't do what it clearly says that it can do?

RAW says it works only in the case of elixirs. Not potions, oils, or any other alchemical items. So I'd like it to say something like the text I wrote, that actually allows for the use of items other than elixirs.

General RAW says familiars cant use potions, elixirs, oils, etc.
(that's RAI too, btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2zhNnBhnB0)

The ability says that it can only administer an appropriate item. So until it specifies otherwise, that excludes elixirs, potions, oils, etc. Then it does specifically call out elixirs. It's made no general rule change about what's appropriate, and it's made no other specific exceptions.

The ability specifically says that the familiar can administer "appropriate" items. It doesn't say only elixirs, elixirs are just an example. The phrase "such as" means that it's not limited to only that example.

The rules say that the familiar can administer the item if it is of an appropriate type for administering. How can we know which items those are? Because those items would have rules for administering them to other people. For example:

GM Core p. 257, Oils wrote:

You can only apply an oil to an item or creature within your reach. Because the process is so thorough, it is usually impossible to apply an oil to an unwilling target or an item in the possession of an unwilling target unless

...

So yes, it's reasonable to go to the rest of the rules about what are appropriate items, and you'll find that very few are appropriate for familiars.

The parenthetical example is of an item that can be administered to other people. So those are typically potions, elixirs and so on. So the example makes total sense.

This is pretty normal PF2 writing. You have a general rule that you can't do X, and then a specific ability that says "this does X". That's normal and functional, because we have "specific overrides general" as one of the basic rules.

Interestingly, the item has to be administered to another creature at the end, so the familiar can't drink the elixir itself.

Yeah, clearly if I'm playing RAW then the ability works as specified and the familiar can administer an alchemical elixir because the ability says it can.

But what it really needs is language that says at minimum "It can instead administer the item to the creature if it can do so with 1 action and has an appropriate type including items that have activation requirements and don't have the companion trait"

Because while this has exempted alchemical elixirs, does it also exempt potions? RAW no, potions still require an activation which familiars can't do and there's no parenthetical example about potions. Same with oils, and virtually all other consumable magic items and alchemical tools. They all require activate actions forbidden to familiars.

It seems as written this only exempts elixirs by special mention because it doesn't remove the restriction.

Here in is this question being answered by a dev: Part 3 of this video

Yeah, that was the link in the OP where I said that it was definitively RAI because of that video, but he never cited any actual rules in the video because they apparently don't exist.

Yep, pretty clear case of an ability making an exception to the general rule.

It's not stealthily breaking a rule. It's wide open and clear making an exception to the rule.

I'd feel more comfortable about that if it wasn't just a parenthetical example.

It says it can use this ability if it has an item that meets the appropriate conditions and then gives a parenthetical example of an item that would not normally fit the appropriate conditions.

We have to extrapolate from that about whether their example is wrong, or if it implies that there's additional abilities granted not mentioned in the text.

I have a player I would expect to be happy if the less-than-fully-RAW-supported rulings in that video were proven to be no longer reliable, but we'll see how it goes :)

Ok, this is going to be my last familiar related post tonight.

But the Player Core 2 familiar ability "Item Delivery" seems broken:

Item Delivery: If your familiar is adjacent to you, you can Command it to deliver an item. Instead of its normal 2 actions, your familiar Interacts to take an item you’re holding of light Bulk or less, then takes one move action, then fnally Interacts to pass off the item to another willing creature. It can instead administer the item to the creature if it can do so with 1 action and has an appropriate type

of item (such as alchemical elixir). If your familiar doesn’t reach the target this turn, it holds the item until commanded otherwise. Your familiar must have the manual dexterity ability to select this.

Problem is, familiars shouldn't be able to administer alchemical elixirs. The companion items say that non-companion tagged items can't be used by familiars/companions etc. We have a RAI ruling that familiars can't administer potions, because of the activation requirements, and elixirs have the same activation requirements https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2zhNnBhnB0

The way this feat reads, it's intending to provide action compression for familiars assisting with items. However, if it actually works, what it does is stealthily break one of the biggest limits on familiar usage, and I feel like if that was intended it would have been spotlighted instead of having to go, "Hey, I wonder if this interacts with the rules that say you can't do that"

The Reload rules and Reload trait both use first person language. "Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon."

Other than that, I'm not seeing much either. I don't see anything about requiring that you are holding or wielding a weapon in order to reload it. Though I believe holding the weapon is RAI required.

However, I also don't see any RAW to indicate that it is not required to be holding the weapon in order to Reload it. The lack of rules requiring that is not RAW. It is missing that 'as written' part of that acronym.

Edit: And I think this has been an open question from the very beginning when people were wanting to use their familiar to reload a crossbow that they are using.

Thanks, I'll believe it's an old one. I'm just trying to sort out familiar issues in the remaster and was hoping maybe there was something I missed.

It's definitively RAI that you can only reload a weapon while holding it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2zhNnBhnB0

Is there any RAW support for this anywhere? I find nothing.

Anorak wrote:

Ashanderai wrote:

I'm leaning towards the "one" to die being Gozreh. With the Elemental Lords being around, Gozreh always felt more superfluous to me than the other gods. Now, after Rage of Elements and the return of more Elemental Lords, I feel that way even more strongly.

I like this. Removing Gozreh would make room for Arazni, who is a much more interesting god for players.

I think it will not be Gozreh because who would even want to kill them ?

I don't think Gozreh's going to bite the dust, but if I was going to write it, I'd have them get dragged into the Charon/Hanspur feud. Hanspur is on the ropes and flees to Gozreh as a last ditch attempt at safety with his putative creator, and now we've brought the Horsemen into play and maybe do something with the Oinodaemon/Bound Prince which plays back into undeveloped bits of the Windsong Testament.

I can't find anywhere where the rules officially define 'adjacent'. If you need rules support for that, if you read the reach rules together you can attack adjacent creatures included those on diagonals, so adjacent has to include diagonals.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=192
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=352

So the spikes should stick into the diagonals as well, and since they're not occupying those squares, you could put a berm within range of another berm's spikes.

I may be missing something regarding Change Shape.

Change shape automatically succeeds to appear as a member of the new ancestry or creature type.

It doesn't let the shapechange appear as a specific individual.

But it gives the shapechanger a +4 status bonus to deception to keep people from seeing through it's disguise.

As far as I can tell, the uses of this result in automatic success or failure. You can always appear as another ancestry or creature type. You can never disguise yourself as a specific individual.

What's the +4 for? Just the instances where it does let you appear as a specific individual?

Bonus question, the Vrykolakas Master (https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=843) get the Change Shape ability, but says it has the effects of an unlimited duration Humanoid Form. But Humanoid Form requires deception checks to pass as a member of the humanoid ancestry chosen. Which takes precedence: Change Shape's auto-success or Humanoid Form's not-auto-success?

Change Shape

https://2e.aonprd.com/MonsterAbilities.aspx?ID=8

(concentrate, [magical tradition], polymorph, transmutation) The monster changes its shape indefinitely. It can use this action again to return to its natural shape or adopt a new shape. Unless otherwise noted, a monster cannot use Change Shape to appear as a specific individual. Using Change Shape counts as creating a disguise for the Impersonate use of Deception. The monster's transformation automatically defeats Perception DCs to determine whether the creature is a member of the ancestry or creature type into which it transformed, and it gains a +4 status bonus to its Deception DC to prevent others from seeing through its disguise. Change Shape abilities specify what shapes the monster can adopt. The monster doesn't gain any special abilities of the new shape, only its physical form. For example, in each shape, it replaces its normal Speeds and Strikes, and might potentially change its senses or size. Any changes are listed in its stat block.

Windup Poppets would certainly hope so.

I don't think the rules actually specify. But PF2 is not a game to play with the GM trying to read loopholes into the rule wording to prevent players from doing things. The game uses the d20 to inject failures and setbacks into the story. The GM doesn't need to add more.

Fair enough. This was actually going to be in use by an NPC and I needed to know how tempting it would be to loot/trade for.

Primarily concerned with the clockwork bumblebees. They have a 10 minute wind up and a 10 minute operating time. It takes 1 pilot, 2 crew to fly, and can carry 1 passenger.

If you don't have to turn off a clockwork to wind it, the passenger could wind it in flight to keep it going.

Real world clocks don't have to be stopped to wind, but these aren't real-world clockworks.

I can't tell the design intent. RAW I think it works, especially if the bolded section holds that they're generally re-wound once they get half wound down.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=331

"Wind-Up: To remain operational, a clockwork vehicle or creature must be wound with a unique key by a creature. This takes an amount of time listed in the clockwork's wind-up entry, which also lists how long the clockwork remains operational once wound; after this duration, the clockwork becomes inactive and immobile until it's wound again. Some clockworks' abilities require them to spend some of their remaining operational time. They can't spend more than they have and shut down immediately once they have 0 time remaining. If it's unclear when a clockwork was last wound, most are re-wound approximately halfway through their operating time."

Greater Retrieval Prism let's you recall any object in your posession as a free action, but the normal Retrieval Prism doesn't have that restriction. You designate one object when you affix it to your armor and then can recall it as a free action, the only restrictions being the object is 1 bulk or less, you have a free hand, and the object is on the same plane.

I feel like the base Retrieval Prism was intended to have the 'in your possession' language, but I don't see anything in the errata about it.

Been a hot minute since I posted here, can't remember the board preference about new threads vs topical necromancy. So arise!

What about if we let tandem strike be ranged? Summoner still doesn't have great proficiencies, so it doesn't seem too broken. I have a summoner considering a gunslinger dedication, and allowing it to work with tandem strike doesn't scream broken to me.

If you keep reading to:

Complex Bomb wrote:

Each discovery modifies half the bomb's damage dice, rounding down. For example, a concussive/frost bomb from a 9th-level saboteur deals 2d4 points of sonic damage + 2d6 points of frost damage.

This is the only lines about the effect of Complex Bomb, it does not mention anything else but the damage dice. Nowehere does it mention that you applie the other effects, such as staggered or deafened from respective bomb.

I disagree. From both a RAW and RAI standpoint.

The discovery states that you can have a bomb modified by two discoveries at once. Those modification normally add special effects. So unless it says otherwise you should get the special effects. Changing the type of damage needs clarification, which is why that's the only topic that gets clarifying text. Adding multiple effects don't conflict and don't require addition text beyond the initial statement that you can combine the modifications that produce them.

From an RAI standpoint, it'd make the discovery a really poor pick. It's a rare occasion where you have multiple enemies of different vulnerabilities clustered together which is really the only situation the 'damage only' interpretation would be useful. And even in that situation I imagine most players would rather go for full damage to knock out the enemies with one of the vulnerabilities so they'd have less turns fighting back. Especially since the 'round down' rule on the halving means you're taking a penalty on your damage for half your levels. Having the combined specials gives a reason for the discovery to exist.

On the other hand, if you raise the goblin as an undead slave, or steal it's soul, or use it's blood in a ritual to gain arcane power...that is just evil.

Regardless of if you plan to use it for "good".

Example (Game of Thrones Spoiler)

Spoiler:

Using your enemy's body/blood/soul/etc... to gain personal power is evil.

But not his possessions. That's ok. You can loot the corpse, you just can't use the corpse itself.

The first is standard noble adventurer behavior, the second is inherently evil.

I still think it's funny that a full human with racial heritage can take elf goodies, but a half-elf isn't close enough to an elf to do so.

If I felt like doing the math, I'd figure what a 20' radius works out to as a sphere and use that in 5 foot increments. 20' tall at the center of the spell, tapering off towards the edges.

Or more likely I'd handwave it and say 10 feet, cause of Speaker's reason

Is there anything worthwhile taking from eldritch heritage for a caster bard? If so going human and taking Focused study may be good since you can pump perform comedy for versatile performance intimidate checks and qualify for Eldritch heritage and perhaps boost perception too.

Yes, but since you're feat-starved as a bard, there's usually a better (if blander) option.

Kazaan Elemental Fist requires a BAB of +8 and while the MoMS can select it as a bonus feat it does say that he must meet the requirements for it as shown here ctrl+f Master of Many Styles

It's a point of contention with quite a few heavily faq-flagged threads requesting an answer.

Many read it as not being able to take feats requiring elemental fist until you have elemental first, rather than not being able to take elemental fist without the requirements.

Unfortunately this is not a games that can be explained in short phrases.

It requires either sitting down with the book and learning it, or learning it by playing. Even the latter will require you to read at least a little to get the basic rules down.

Running the game requires more effort.

Do these arguments happen in non-D&D games? How often does a GM running Exalted run into a player wanting to introduce the lone member of a new caste? Or a vampire player wanting to make up their own clan?

I'm wondering if this is mostly just a D&D/PF thing.

It happens occasionally in my New World of Darkness games. I play with a group and GM for them on smaller secondary campaigns.

I've had my request to play as a ghost accommodated, and I've seen the request to play as a boxing were-kangaroo denied. When I started to run that system and I got asked about said were-kangaroo, the quote of the day from the other GM was "Hah! That's exactly the face I made when he asked me."

eta: That said, if someone asks for something that won't make a mockery of the theme, I'll do my best to make it work. One of the ways is relaxing restrictions on backup characters. Since they'll be joining over the course of the adventure anyway, there's less reason for them to come from a similar lets-all-work-together background and instead have a reason that comes from the campaign, where various weirdness may be found.

I kinda find this topic absurd as a Blackblade user, because how can you sunder something which can't be broken?

Because sundering is a combat maneuver while broken is a condition based on HP.

Does it suddenly shatter without showing some kind of weakness?

You could flavor it that way. Or you could flavor it that it shows signs of damage but the magic makes it retain its function regardless, unless it simply takes too much and gives way.

Isn't there a feat that lets you deal non-lethal sneak attack when using a lethal weapon to deal non-lethal damage?

That's his bludgeoner feat, but it only works with bludgeoning weapons.

He's trying to use a slashing weapon to deal bludgeoning damage with the pommel, so he can get the bonus damage for using a dagger-like-blade and the bonuses for using a nonlethal weapon. Which doesn't work.

What would help is the merciful enchantment, which gives +1d6 damage and converts all damage to non-lethal. It's like a rogue with sap master bribed a wizard to research a new enchantment.

1. I see nothing differentiating it from any other performance.

2. If it works like any other summons, they attack the nearest enemy to the best of their ability until you say otherwise. Which you can do with handle animal. If you've taken rats as one of your animal friend types, you will have +4 to those rolls and the ability to speak with them.

The Robin Hood example isn't a very good one because the wealthy did nothing to earn their money and the people were literally being taxed to death.

And yet, if the act of stealing is always wrong, regardless of motives or consequence and if the act of distributing stolen property is always wrong, regardless of motives or consequence, that doesn't matter.

mplindustries wrote:

No, dim light exists independent of witnesses.

"Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch."

Outside at night is dim light even in places utterly devoid of observers.

It's not dim light if I have a flashlight, or a torch, or <dare I say> if I have darkvision.

Yes it is. Darkvision lets you see in the dark. It doesn't make the dark into light.

never mind then, I thought dragon disciple was a means, not a goal. Alchemist isn't the best option to get there.

I believe you want an alchemist. Optionally beastform

Drink your mutagen! Take on the aspect of the werewolf [beastform only]! Howl as the feral mutagen discovery grows fangs and claws from your flesh! Rend the flesh of your enemies with strength bonuses and magic buffs!

Pretty sure facilitating the murder of minor criminals isn't that ridiculously non-evil an act.

The player didn't disagree with the GM's call, he just thought the GM would make a different one.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see the strength add on the Feral Mutagen:

Benefit: Whenever the alchemist imbibes a mutagen, he gains two claw attacks and a bite attack. These are primary attacks and are made using the alchemist’s full base attack bonus. The claw attacks deal 1d6 points of damage (1d4 if the alchemist is Small) and the bite attack deals 1d8 points of damage (1d6 if the alchemist is Small). While the mutagen is in effect, the alchemist gains a +2 competence bonus on Intimidate skill checks.

Strength is part of the normal mutagen ability itself. Feral Mutagen is a boost to the normal mutagen.

Although I'd call shenannigans on the homebrew elixier and brewing it ( from what actually does the alchemist produce these ? Does he have access to some sort of fire for brewing/distlling ?) , but that is your call as the GM.

The 'exlir' was apparently the mutagen, which if stripped of the mutagen itself and the alchemy equipment + hour needed to brew it, shouldn't have been available. If they 'just' took his weapon it would work.

But beyond that, feral mutagen is the core of the natural attacking alchemist. It's one of the most by-the-book, least cheesy aspects of building one.

If you strip the other PCs naked and leave the alchemist his stuff; sure he'll outshine them. But if they're all under normal assumptions, you shouldn't see an unusual disparity.

notabot wrote:

Out of curiosity how did you manage to lose your powers?

PC walked out for a smoke whilst the party coup de grac a bunch of petty drug dealers. My PC pretty much knew what they were going to do but I thought I could ignore PVP and moral responsibility by not participating or witnessing the act. The Gm disagreed and I don't really blame him.

This is why I think it's a good idea to tell players before they do something if it's going to be an alignment hit.

Even in cases where the player would be understanding of either decision, there's not sessions of no-fun and character reboots when they guess wrong.

Yeah, it's mostly limited to paladins, but there's also situations regarding intelligent items, NPCs with detect alignment spells, and things like that which can really mess up a character's progression.

Rynjin wrote:

I don't think I do. Dead is dead. Killing is killing.

Do you know who said, "Killing is killing, whether done for duty, profit or fun"?

Richard Ramirez. Real world serial killer and avowed satanist.

You know who else tried to denigrate arguments by pointing out that bad people said similar things?

Hitler!

Think of Synthesist as a body sack similar to that seen on Borat (the movie). While in Synthesist form, your arms and legs do not stick out.

Believe that was clarified to be a flavor option.

I know the faq says you can use your own natural attacks.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9obe

No.

Moving out of a threatened square provokes. Taking a 5' step out of a threatened square does not provoke.

Moving into an occupied square provokes. Taking a 5' step into an occupied square provokes.

That last bit seems to be in contention. Maybe taking a 5' step into an occupied square should not provoke. We have a very specific rule that says it always provokes and another very specific rule that says it doesn't provoke; they are directly in conflict with each other.

Here's how I resolve it. Create a stack of rules, starting with the most general rule, then add each relevant rule to the stack. Any time one rule directly conflicts with one other rule, those two rules cancel each other out and remove them, just the two conflicting rules, from the stack. Like this:

1. Leaving a threatened square provokes.
2. Entering an occupied square provokes.
3. Taking a 5' Step prevents you from provoking.

Now you have the stack. Find two rules in direct conflict and remove them. Rule 3 directly conflicts with both rule 1 and 2, but you only negate one pair of rules, so I negate the most common pair, rule 1 and rule 3 (that's how most people almost always use the 5' step rule, avoiding an AoO for leaving a threatened space). So remove those two rules and what you have left is:

2. Entering an occupied square provokes.

That's it, that's all you have left on the stack. Therefore, taking a 5' Step into an occupied square should still provoke.

That rule interpretation method seems arbitrary to the point of randomness.

By RAW entering an opponent's square is not the same as movement so you would provoke twice, once for leaving an opponent's threatened square and once for entering, a five foot step will prevent the former but not the latter.

"Taking this five foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity"

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_take-5-foot-step

"Never" seems pretty clear. Whether it's moving out of a threatened square or into another, a five foot step never provokes.

He's in disagreement with you. As are the rules, I believe. It's not written like the TWF feat chain.

ITWF and GTWF say that the specific singular attack takes the penalty.

The archetype ability says that combat maneuver checks, plural, take the penalty.

Could a Monk of the Empty Hand be capable of using guns as a Flurry weapon even if it had first take pre-reqs to use the gun, and use the gun as a club or light hammer?

The way the archetype is written, it could always use the gun as an improvised melee or thrown weapon, but never as a gun.

It says to treat all actual weapons as one of three melee weapons, so I think RAW they can't use any ranged weapons as ranged weapons.

Ximen Bao wrote:

IQuarent wrote:

chaoseffect wrote:

It's a standard action to throw a bomb or drink an extract. It may seem more complicated because of the flavor, but that's all it takes, no additional actions. Potions are the same for an Alchemist as anyone else; normally a move action to pull them out and a standard to drink. Prehensile Tail would let you pull out the potion as a swift iirc, but its still a standard to drink.

Trait: Accelerated Drinker

Trait is FAQed not to work on extracts.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9ncw

I thought he was referring to potions because he said 'potion'. I would assume that if he was referring to extracts he would have said 'extract'.

Initial quote referred to bombs, potions, and extracts.

Your statement did not specify its reference.

Mine clarified its application.

I have found that since synthesist's eidolons don't DO unconscious, it is a much stronger ability for them.

yes I was thinking ninja taking 4 levels of monk It was recommended to me

If you don't have an idea of what you'd get out of it, I recommend not doing it.

Quandary wrote:

the stirge ability seems to be an independent ability, not referencing the universal one.

some specific monster COULD reference the universal ability and specify any variations, but that isn't the case here.
there are other cases of monster abilities being identically named to univeral abilities, but working differently (see gibbering mouther/shoggoth vs. engulf).
not to mention class abilities with the same name but working differently (different sources of hide in plain sight).
so stirge attach doesn't have the 'the target is not [considered grappling]' clause,
and the default for if any sort of grapple is going on is for both creatures to gain the grappled condition, so that should be the case per RAW.

the universal ability itself is poorly worded (besides allowing the attacher to maintain without excluding pin/other options). by not explicitly referencing that the target does not gain the grappled CONDITION (it says they aren't considered grappling, a broader concept), that means that they can't reverse the grapple... and thus if they choose to use the 'can... grapple the [attach] creature as normal' option, that would seem to mean that two parallel grapple tracks are established since the first was never broken.

likewise the blood drain ability doesn't follow the universal format, in the special attack line it should read: blood drain (1 Constitution) but the parenthetical damage info is missing (it's mentioned in the write-up, but the offense section is straying from the format).

I'd love clarification on this as I use stirges all the time on my druid. We thought they counted as grappling thanks to the

Quote:

An attached stirge is effectively grappling its prey.

clause which seemed to over ride the general attach rules.

The stirge is grappling the target. It gains the grappled condition.

However, that doesn't mean the target is grappled. It does not gain the grappled condition.

Such is the nature of attach, and nothing here contradicts it.

If the text can simply be read as consistent with the general case, that's how it should be interpreted.

No, having a ki pool from monk levels does not in and of itself change any of your ninja abilities. You would have a WIS based ki pool from your monk levels, & a CHA based ki pool from your ninja levels, though.

No. Ki pool stacks special.

If I take 4 levels of monk and decide to use Wisdom as my main KI pool stat are all my ninja abilities now using 1/2 level +wisdom for things like assassinate, and ninja tricks and such?

No. Nice idea though.

Only things that says it lets you switch the modifier is ki pool.

Human Master of Many Styles (Archetype)/The Gunslinger

Monk 1. Dodge, Mobility, Panther Style
Monk 2. Panther Claw
Monk 3. Dragon Style
Monk3/Gunslinger2 5. Rapid Reload
Monk3/Gunslinger4 7. Vital Strike, Dragon Ferocity
Monk3/Gunslinger6 9. Point Blank Shot or Deadly Aim or Monastic Legacy

How's about something like this? I'm sure you can find something better but this is my idea; Have your character run through/past a small group of enemy to provoke AoO and use Panther Style to Vital Strike each of them (up to your wisdom modifier) with strong dragon force punches/kicks before making it to the other side of the group and firing a Deadly Vital Shot at one of the targets using touch AC or vice versa.

Vital Strike is a standard action. No AoOs.

Or you can be an evangelist cleric with a summoning focus. Summon lots of creatures and buff them. It may well trump master summoner.

Explain that one, if you would. I don't see it at all.