Jhofre Vascari

Ziegander's page

Organized Play Member. 84 posts (203 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Robert A Matthews wrote:
If you have racial spell-like abilities your caster level for those is equal to your character level. IIRC there was a developer post that stated you can use racial SLAs to take arcane strike with gnome rogues and benefit fully from the caster levels their SLAs give.

I somehow forgot about Arcane Strike. Love that feat. Always magical weapons with a trait and a feat. Not bad. Anyone got anything else?


HectorVivis wrote:

The easier way is this trait from from Ultimate Campaign:

Quote:
Magical Talent: Either from inborn talent, the whimsy of the gods, or obsessive study of strange tomes, you have mastered the use of a cantrip. Choose a 0-level spell. You may cast that spell once per day as a spell-like ability. This spell-like ability is cast at your highest caster level gained; if you have no caster level, it functions at CL 1st. The spell-like ability's save DC is Charisma-based.

Okay, interesting. Is there any way to build on this without taking class levels?


Alright, thanks guys.


Is there any way in pathfinder, other than custom crafting a magic item for it, to gain a spell as a spell-like ability? Either through feats or maybe even Prestige Class levels? Specifically, the spell Blistering Invective calls to me. I'm wondering if there's any good way to gain a spell like that as a spell-like ability as a member of a non-caster class.


Shimesen wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:


IF THE RIDER DECLARES THAT HE IS THE ONE MAKING THE CHARGE. If you declare that you are going to charge that goblin over there, the horse you are riding charges with you because the horse is your method of conveyance. If said goblin has a spear readied against your charge, it can attack either you or your horse, and both have a -2 to AC. This is why both you and your mount are considered charging when you declare that you, the rider, are making a charge.

no one is arguing the "why" of the FAQ. you are entirely correct in that statement. but this doesn't change the fact that the FAQ now requires the mount to make an attack, a Charge, if you - the rider - want to make a charge. because this is now a MUST, it forces the rider to make a handle animal check to command the horse to do so. before the FAQ, it was perfectly withing the rules to say "i, the rider, am making a charge using my mounts movement speed, but the mount is not." you can no longer do this. weather you WANT your mount to attack the opponent or not is entirely irrelevant. it now has no choice in the matter. it MUST make an attack.

Yes. Exactly. Calm down, HF. If the rider wants to charge, then so MUST the mount. That's correct. And that's why you must use handle animal to command your mount to make an attack. And this is precisely why everything is such a clusterf~&&.

Using Handle Animal to do so when you wanted to charge before the FAQ was never an issue. You just didn't have to if you didn't want to, just as Shimesen said. But now you have to, because if you want to charge, then your mount also has to charge. THAT'S why this is being brought up now and it has never been brought up before (or at least was only rarely ever brought up before). It wasn't a big deal before. Now it breaks mounted combat entirely for many characters.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Requiring Handle Animal to charge is a new concept that was dredged up by people who didn't like the FAQs mounted combat. I have never been at a table where people used handle animal for mounted combat and even ssalarn used ride for charging before the FAQ came out for ragelancepounce.

The reason it's suddenly important now is because the new FAQ clearly states that both the mount and the rider are charging simultaneously. That means you have to command the mount to attack, because it can't charge if you don't. Charge is an attack.

You didn't have to do that before. Or at least, it wasn't explicit that you did. But now you absolutely do.

The argument can be made that the mount doesn't have to attack at the end of its charge, but that only possibly waives the move action required to command it to attack. Charge is listed as an attack, and it might be considered one even if you choose not to attack at the end of it. We can't know for sure until the Pathfinder designers weigh in on this.

Likewise, the argument can be made that, possibly, the Ride skill supersedes the Handle Animal skill in that, once you're riding the animal you don't have to make Handle Animal checks to direct it to attack, but there is no printed evidence to support this. Maybe this is the way the designers intended for the skills to work, but we can't know for sure until the Pathfinder designers weigh in on the subject.


Robert A Matthews wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:


Ok which use of the ride skill are you using. What is the DC to make your mount move 20 feet in a specific direction?
It's actually not even a Ride check, it's a general disclaimer under the mounted combat section of the CRB. Directing your mount to move, just normal movement, is not any kind of check at all.
Oh? Could you quote the relevant text that says that?

Yep. "You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move." You get to dictate the movement, but the mount uses its action.

"Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move."

It acts as you direct it. If having your mount attack requires a handle animal check then why no handle animal check for movement?

You keep passive aggressively trying to get us to arrive at the answer you want, but it's not working. No handle animal check is required for movement, because the rules don't require a handle animal check for movement, and they definitely, specifically do for making your animal attack. You're not going to get, "because ride supercedes handle animal," because the rules don't say that.

@Thymus Vulgaris: I'm sorry I was so snippy and rude earlier. Like I told Ssalarn, no sleep. Plus I thought you were just trolling, I didn't realize you were trying to find a way to make mounted combat work and thought instead you were just trying to pass off your suggestions as how it does work.


DrDeth wrote:
Ziegander wrote:
Robert A Matthews wrote:

Guess this NPC can't do what its statblock says it does during combat

Griffon Rider

Yes. That's the whole point of discussion here, that such a character now can't do the things they are supposed to be able to do. It's why this is such a heated discussion, because it makes tons of existing rules and material unworkable.

Quote:
Or maybe the ride skill does the same thing it has always done.

Which is what exactly? What is it you think the ride skill has always done?

Ssalarn wrote:
**small edits to above quote to keep it friendly up in hurr**
Sorry, I haven't gotten any sleep in over 24 hours and am dealing with people who seem determined to ignore the rules as they please while simultaneously telling me how the rules work.

Tons? You gots one, maybe. The griffin rider sez "The fighter flies above the battlefield taking passes with her lance, never flying lower than 10 feet above the ground." where does it say they charge? Even so the FAQ doesnt say they can't charge. Not even close.

Unless you're pinning your whole idea on Handle Animal? Don't need it with the Figurine "The creature obeys and serves its owner. Unless stated otherwise, the creature understands Common but does not speak."

Thanks, Dr Deth.


Ruggs wrote:

With the new FAQ, is there any word on who needs the feats now, the mount or the rider? Or both?

This has come up in some of my games and I would appreciate an answer as I'd like to be fair.

Well, it seems Stephen has retreated from the topic entirely. He hasn't addressed any of the accusations that the new FAQ has broken many other things at all, nor has any mention been made, from him or otherwise, that it's even something that's being looked into.

:-/


Robert A Matthews wrote:

Guess this NPC can't do what its statblock says it does during combat

Griffon Rider

Yes. That's the whole point of discussion here, that such a character now can't do the things they are supposed to be able to do. It's why this is such a heated discussion, because it makes tons of existing rules and material unworkable.

Quote:
Or maybe the ride skill does the same thing it has always done.

Which is what exactly? What is it you think the ride skill has always done?

Ssalarn wrote:
**small edits to above quote to keep it friendly up in hurr**

Sorry, I haven't gotten any sleep in over 24 hours and am dealing with people who seem determined to ignore the rules as they please while simultaneously telling me how the rules work.


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Ziegander wrote:

Ah, I see. Well, in that case it still doesn't work. You don't get to charge in a round that you spent your move action. You could still make a standard action attack, normally, which is why the rule entry specifies making either an attack or attacks plural. If you can't handle an animal as a free action, then you only get one attack if you have directed your mount to attack.

So, now you're twisting the rules to say what you want them to mean instead of ignoring them. Not any better, I'm afraid.

You know, I haven't found anywhere that says that you can't take a standard action to attack after directing your animal companion as a move action unless you make the fight with a combat-trained mount check. I saw a dispute in here, looked at the rule that said that you can "make your attack or attacks as normally"... as opposed to what? And then I applied it here.

I shall now head off to my audition for Avatar: The Last Rulebender.

What are you babbling on about? Directing your mount to attack is a move action. Once you have used your move action, you have a standard action left as part of your turn. So, as normal, you may use that standard action to attack. OR, if you can handle your mount as a free action, you could make multiple attacks, plural, because you still have your full round of actions to take and can use the full attack action, a special sort of full-round action.

Are you seriously suggesting that because it says, "normally," that it must be normally as opposed to... something nebulous ... profit? Is that your whole argument? That you can already make a single attack normally, so that the Ride skill must be talking about something different, even though it doesn't say it is, and also that that something that's different clearly means that you gain your full round of actions back enabling you to charge? Really? Did it never occur to you that "normally" could simply mean as opposed to being mounted? Normally when a character makes an attack (or attacks) they aren't mounted, but after you direct your animal to attack, if you succeed on the Ride check, you can make your attack or attacks normally, or, rather just like you could if you were not mounted. NOTE: Before you go warping my words, when you aren't mounted you don't get to charge in a round in which you had a move action and spent it, so, no, being able to make your attack or attacks just like you could if weren't mounted still doesn't allow you to charge.


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Ziegander wrote:
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:


Ride wrote:
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
That action, right there, lets you attack as if you hadn't just spent your move action to direct your mount to attack. You may now charge.

Except, no, that's not at all what it says, you are deliberately reading into it what you want. For it to do what you think it should it would need to say something more like,

Ride should have wrote:


You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle. You may still make your own attack or attacks as normal. This usage is a free action.
But unfortunately it doesn't read that way. Stop ignoring one, in this case extremely important word.
I am not ignoring the if. I refer you to Ssalarn's post for a breakdown of my proposed reading, as he grasped it nicely.

Ah, I see. Well, in that case it still doesn't work. You don't get to charge in a round that you spent your move action. You could still make a standard action attack, normally, which is why the rule entry specifies making either an attack or attacks plural. If you can't handle an animal as a free action, then you only get one attack if you have directed your mount to attack.

So, now you're twisting the rules to say what you want them to mean instead of ignoring them. Not any better, I'm afraid.


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:


Ride wrote:
Fight with a Combat-Trained Mount: If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action.
That action, right there, lets you attack as if you hadn't just spent your move action to direct your mount to attack. You may now charge.

Except, no, that's not at all what it says, you are deliberately reading into it what you want. For it to do what you think it should it would need to say something more like,

Ride should have wrote:


You direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle. You may still make your own attack or attacks as normal. This usage is a free action.

But unfortunately it doesn't read that way. Can everybody stop ignoring the one, in this case extremely important, word that completely invalidates the direct your mount as a free-action argument? Please?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ziegander wrote:

I don't think anyone understands what you mean when you keep talking about "the real problem."

Is "the real problem" that MAD and SAD classes exist?

Is "the real problem" that even should a Wizard be as MAD as a Monk it would still be orders of magnitude more powerful?

Is "the real problem" a combination of the above two?

Because that problem will persist whether or not you're rolling for stats, using point buy, or using class-based arrays.

Furthermore, you undermine your own point when you say that point buy is a serious problem, going on to state that one cannot simply give each class its own different point buy, because in the very next paragraph you suggest not only using point buy, but giving each class its own different point buy...

Yes. We get it. Class imbalance exists. That's not the point buy system's fault. Don't go dumping all of Pathfinder's and D&D's problems into point buy's lap. Point buy doesn't create any fresh imbalances by itself, rather they are baked into the class design and game design as a whole (yes, even Synthesist Summoner). Say it with me, "it's not point buy's fault." There.

Now, your suggestion on the other hand does create plenty of opportunity to dip classes just because they get way better stat adjustments. Why wouldn't a Wizard dip one level of Monk when they can get their 18 Intelligence and a host of other good scores as well as a slight AC and HP boost? Clerics and Druids have been occasionally dipping Monk for years for that crucial Wisdom to AC that everyone wants. Now they'll do it much more often, because they also get much stronger ability scores that way. If you're looking to curb system abuse and make the classes overall more balanced against each other, then point buy is superior to your suggestion and rolling stats doesn't help one way or the other.

The "real problem" is that those problems exist in the game and we (subjective term) are trying to fix it with something like point buy.

No one is saying that point buy fixes those problems! No one is trying to use point buy to fix those problems!

Quote:
And don't go criticizing my hypothetical solution, I came up with it in 5 minutes as an example of how a baseline could be made if we hold ourselves to the caveat of 'balance at all costs.'

No one is arguing that Pathfinder must be balanced at all costs!

Quote:
The "real problem" is that we want to play Pathfinder with the classes that exist, and still want to preach 'balance at all costs' as if it was an achievable goal.

Ah. Well, if that's your real problem, then you have nothing to worry about. Because, wait for it, no one is preaching balance at all costs and very few people want to play Pathfinder with the classes that exist as written. Or have you not noticed the dozens, if not hundreds, of threads about fixing Fighters and Rogues and talking about how Wizards are overpowered?

Quote:
Power gamers will never accept anything other than a very strict point buy system, and they will tell themselves and the internet anything to justify it, that doesn't mean it's not the source of almost all problems with class imbalance.

Okay, buddy. Keep telling yourself that.


I don't think anyone understands what you mean when you keep talking about "the real problem."

Is "the real problem" that MAD and SAD classes exist?

Is "the real problem" that even should a Wizard be as MAD as a Monk it would still be orders of magnitude more powerful?

Is "the real problem" a combination of the above two?

Because that problem will persist whether or not you're rolling for stats, using point buy, or using class-based arrays.

Furthermore, you undermine your own point when you say that point buy is a serious problem, going on to state that one cannot simply give each class its own different point buy, because in the very next paragraph you suggest not only using point buy, but giving each class its own different point buy...

Yes. We get it. Class imbalance exists. That's not the point buy system's fault. Don't go dumping all of Pathfinder's and D&D's problems into point buy's lap. Point buy doesn't create any fresh imbalances by itself, rather they are baked into the class design and game design as a whole (yes, even Synthesist Summoner). Say it with me, "it's not point buy's fault." There.

Now, your suggestion on the other hand does create plenty of opportunity to dip classes just because they get way better stat adjustments. Why wouldn't a Wizard dip one level of Monk when they can get their 18 Intelligence and a host of other good scores as well as a slight AC and HP boost? Clerics and Druids have been occasionally dipping Monk for years for that crucial Wisdom to AC that everyone wants. Now they'll do it much more often, because they also get much stronger ability scores that way. If you're looking to curb system abuse and make the classes overall more balanced against each other, then point buy is superior to your suggestion and rolling stats doesn't help one way or the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Ziegander wrote:

Point buy is evil, guys, plain and simple. We need to have everyone roll 3d6 six times in a row, assigning each result as determined in the following order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Then, instead of the players getting to choose what they play as, there should be a table that is consulted that tells you what class you will be playing based on the scores you rolled.

THAT is the only way to avoid min-maxing, the evils of optimization, and finally usher in a glorious rebirth of roleplaying in our favorite table-top miniatures wargame RPG. Nobody wants to play at a table with Simon Belmont, Link, Merlin, and Ryu Hayabusa. That's stupid! What we're looking for is that perfect Lord of the Rings balance of Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. If everyone's got the same level of power, that's just not possible!

Troll post is trolling.

What's ironic is that you are suggesting that point buy actually grants players the same level of power.

Okay, so I'll try being more agreeable and see where that gets me, because I'm not sure you're not just trolling in a less spectacular fashion.

I get your argument that point buy is a large part of what makes the Synthesist unbalanced compared to other characters. You have sound mathematical evidence to back up the argument and it pretty much pans out.

But you seem to have a deep-seated, eternal grudge against point buy in general for reasons that appear to be based in a "optimization is wrongbad," and "I roleplay my characters, so I'm better than you min/maxers" kind of way. If that's not your intention, explain yourself. What is your problem with point buy aside that it attempts to make building characters more fair for everyone at the table? Do you have any other reasons to dislike the system than your ill-conceived and logically-indefensible notion that it has ushered in an era that makes optimization matter more than roleplaying?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Point buy is evil, guys, plain and simple. We need to have everyone roll 3d6 six times in a row, assigning each result as determined in the following order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Then, instead of the players getting to choose what they play as, there should be a table that is consulted that tells you what class you will be playing based on the scores you rolled.

THAT is the only way to avoid min-maxing, the evils of optimization, and finally usher in a glorious rebirth of roleplaying in our favorite table-top miniatures wargame RPG. Nobody wants to play at a table with Simon Belmont, Link, Merlin, and Ryu Hayabusa. That's stupid! What we're looking for is that perfect Lord of the Rings balance of Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. If everyone's got the same level of power, that's just not possible!


Calnus got into another game, so he'll bow out as an alternate.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Kazaan wrote:

Non-issue.

PRD wrote:

Benefit: When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.
You don't get your extra attack from Haste when using Whirlwind Attack.

That's... not what I was talking about at all. I was talking about the interaction between Haste and Rapid Attack...

Quote:
And you completely missed the point of Dead Shot. The point I made was that it's a single attack and each attack roll was still part of that single attack against a single target. The only difference is that, with Whirlwind Attack, you're making a single attack that's "smeared" across several targets. Each target gets their own attack roll, but it's still considered one singular attack just as the multiple rolls for Dead Shot add up to one singular attack.

No, I didn't miss your point. You are missing the fact that the rules don't agree with you that Whirlwind Attack is a single attack. In fact the rules spell out quite clearly that it is multiple attacks and not just multiple attack rolls.

Go read Dead Shot's description and Whirlwind Attack's description one more time and tell me they're remotely similar in execution.

Back to the Haste point: How does Rapid Attack + Haste work? Do you lose one or both of your attacks at your highest attack bonus? If it's both, then Rapid Attack doesn't work with Whirlwind Attack. If it's just one, the Rapid Attack works with Whirlwind Attack just like StreamOfTheSky said.


Is the Thug archetype the only way to get this done? I hope you'll all forgive me for assuredly rehashing arguments and discussions that have been done to death by now, but I'm just getting started with Pathfinder and I have a lot to learn. I have been using google and the PRD and the search functions as much as possible, but those can only get me so far.

I know you can't escalate the Fear condition with the Intimidate skill, at least not normally. What I'm asking is if there are any options to do so other than the Thus Rogue? Magic items? Feats? Traits?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Kazaan wrote:
This is one of many reasons I've said that Whirlwind Attack should be parsed to be considered a single "swing" that hits everyone around you rather than a series of individual attacks. Sure, you get multiple attack rolls, one against each target, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't considered a single attack any less than Piercing Shot or Deadshot/Deadly Shuriken. So, since it is your attack at highest BAB, it would "technically" be allowed, but the net result makes it de facto not a valid combination because you'd be giving up your whole whirlwind "attack".

I'm not sure what Piercing Shot is, but Dead Shot, if you're talking about the Gunslinger deed, is absolutely completely different from Whirlwind Attack. You definitely aren't making a single attack as a full-round action. You are clearly making multiple attacks as a full-attack action. Dead Shot specifically calls out that you are making a single attack as a full-round action, but making multiple attack rolls to see if that single attack lands. Whirlwind Attack specifically calls out that you are using the full-attack action to make one melee attack against each opponent you threaten, so if you threaten three opponents, that's three attacks you're making (not just three attack roll, but three individual attacks), not one.

But still, I can understand the ruling, even if I'm not sure the rules agree with you. I don't know that the rules know what to do in this situation...

EDIT: Let's look at this another way. The only real hitch here is the text, "He must forgo the attack at his highest bonus," so how does Rapid Attack combine with, say, Haste or a similar effect? If the Fighter has two attacks at his highest attack bonus, should he only give up one or both of them? Because if he only has to give up one, then Rapid Attack and Whirlwind Attack should work together almost perfectly.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can the two be combined? I'm not seeing why they couldn't be, but if they can, I'm not 100% sure how it's supposed to work.

Here's the relevant text:

Rapid Attack (Ex): At 11th level, a mobile fighter can combine a full-attack action with a single move. He must forgo the attack at his highest bonus but may take the remaining attacks at any point during his movement. This movement provokes attacks of opportunity as normal.

This ability replaces armor training 3.

Whirlwind Attack
When you use the full-attack action, you can give up your regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach. You must make a separate attack roll against each opponent.

When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells, or abilities.

So, by my reading, I can use the Whirlwind Attack feat, which is a full-attack action, as written, and combine that with a single move taking my remaining attacks at any point during my movement (!). The only issue with this is Rapid Attack normally must forgo the attack at my highest bonus, but with Whirlwind Attack all of the attacks are at my highest bonus.

I suppose with a very strict ruling you could say that since all of them are at my highest attack bonus, that I must forgo all of the attacks granted by Whirlwind Attack, thus the two abilities do not mix at all. On the other hand, being wildly liberal, one might rule that I merely give up one potential attack against an adjacent enemy and I then can attack all other opponents adjacent to me at every point of my move (since I can take my remaining attacks at any point during my movement).

How would you rule this to work, if at all?


Is there still a slot open for table #2?


I've never played a PFS game, so I'd be very interested in this! Even if it just as an alternate. I just applied to another game with a new character, so I'll try to whip up another one quickly.


thebigragu wrote:
The rider does not need to be considered charging in order to gain the double damage benefit of the lance, nor does he need to be charging to gain triple from Spirited Charge. Only the mount does, unless the lance wording has been FAQed to reflect something else. I don't think so though. Only the mount needs to be charging. If I'm wielding a lance on a charging mount, I assume I also get this bonus on an AoO I perform during this charge. I also assume I can combine with Vital Strike, if blapher's reading is in fact correct. All the rider loses from my previous reading of mounted charge is +2/-2 associated with the charge. If the rider essentially gets to choose whether he's also charging when the mount charges, things get more interesting/complicated.

I find this both hilarious and in need of further FAQ clarification. Because when I asked Stephen whether or not I could command the mount itself to charge while I sat on it and cast a spell (or performed some other standard action), he told me, of course you can do that.

So, if that's the case, then we're right back to letting Vital Strike work from the back of a charging mount. No, it won't be a mounted charge, so it won't mix with a lot of other abilities, but, still, the basic, my mount charges, at the end of that charge I perform an attack action (without a +2 bonus to hit) to activate Vital Strike with my lance, and I deal a pile of damage (triple weapon dice damage + double all other damage modifiers? not sure how the multiplication rule interacts here).


Gurby wrote:

He's a Liar and a Cheat in my opinion.

so a Katana is legal. at the time of the game he showed something that I can't find now, that said it wasn't due to not being 1 handed weapon and something else about length.

That's stupid (the rules lawyer, not you). Nothing about sneak attack has anything whatsoever to do with how many hands you hold a weapon with or length (what is he even smoking?) at all.

Read the description of the ability for yourself.


Archaeik wrote:
No, because if you are charging, the description of Pounce delimits the number of attacks possible.

Hrmmm... my head officially hurts again. *grumbles*


Gauss wrote:

Ziegander, the "old interpretation" was NOT part of the FAQ. Nowhere in the old RageLancePounce FAQ did you find the statement that the rider is not charging. What it DID state was that you do not get lance damage if you charge, only if the mount you are riding charges. That does not mean you are not charging.

Yes, it was confusing and created problems but it did not clearly state the rider was not charging. People were using SKR's non-FAQ comments to support the assertion that the FAQ was stating the Rider was not charging.

Ah, good point. Yes, even the FAQ goes on to mention pounce was not accounted for when the CRB was released, and even should you be able to pounce if you were charging that it didn't make sense thematically.

Also, something I was wondering about earlier today: Doesn't the "if your mount travels more than 5ft" language prevent mounted pouncing anyway? At least before 14th level (ouch, by the way) when you can take the Mounted Skirmisher feat?


James Risner wrote:
Ziegander wrote:
You do realize that doesn't actually matter, right?

Au contraire, but it does matter.

If it is debated, asking for a rebuild shouldn't be granted. The thing is when things are debated, one should make a build unless they are willing to take the change when/if it happens.

Whether the old interpretation of the rules was debated or not shouldn't matter. The old interpretation was part of an official FAQ ruling and thus the official way the rules worked.

I would tend to agree with you were the old interpretation just some random guy on the internet spouting off about the issue, but that was not the case as I understand it.


James Risner wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
This ruling creates new rules text and conditions that did not exist previously, and contradicts some that did.

To confirm.

You are saying that no one disagreed with the old position? No one?

You do realize that doesn't actually matter, right?


One thing I do like about, both the core PF Fighter, and my own revision, is that a) the class features (of both) accommodate fighters of all fighting styles, and b) the class features allow a fighter to branch out with ability scores and actually emphasize bonuses in areas other than fighting. This is because his class features handle the raw bonuses needed to hit and damage creatures (my suggestions even moreso than the core PF Fighter), so that, if the Fighter wants to, he can have a solid Int, Wis, or Cha score, better normally than a Barbarian or Ranger or even Paladin, because his to-hit and damage can both keep up, and now with my suggestions, he gains new in-combat viability that he didn't have before making him more comparable to those classes than ever. Now, upon hitting 20 in one or both scores, he can neglect Str and/or Dex to shore up other ability scores and has class skills to look at as other areas of interest. That freedom is very helpful for character building.

EDIT: I can't edit my previous post, it's too old, but add Diplomacy to the list of that fighter's class skills.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Ziegander wrote:


So to clarify further: If you want to charge while you are mounted both you and your mount must spend your full-round actions to do so?
Correct.

Okay, thanks.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Ziegander wrote:


Can you charge as a standard action while mounted? If yes, then do both of you have to be denied the ability to take a move action or can you do it if just your mount is unable to take a move action? If you can standard-action charge while only your mount is unable to take a move action, could you still take a move action, such as dismounting at the end of the charge?
Only if both you and your mount can only take standard actions (since you are both are charging and must conform to the charge rules when you make a mounted charge).

Okay, so basically only if you are both able to act in the surprise round. That's rough, but seems fair, I guess. Often a rider will detect an ambush that his mount does not. He could fire off a ranged attack or perform some other standard action, but he could not charge, which is limiting to some builds, but I suppose it does not come up in play so often as to be crippling.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Ziegander wrote:


When riding a mount, can you command the mount to charge while you yourself do not charge? If not, well, why not? If yes, do you lose your actions anyway, or can you spend them on doing something else? For example, if I'm riding a war-trained mount, can I not cast a spell on my mount (standard action) and then command the mount to charge after being buffed (or simultaneously while I buff it as the case of turn order may be)?
Of course. The mount is charging, but it is not a mounted charge. In order for you to make a mounted charge (and get things like the bonus for using a lance or the effects of Spirited charge, you must make a mounted charge). The clarification will deal for what is a mounted charge and the effects are.

Phew. That's good. Thanks, Stephen!


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Not getting anything to help endure will saves before 9th level (by outright rejecting them with SR, which in my personal experience tends to be more of a curse than a blessing to PC's...) is kind of a sticking point, but the improved combat options are shiny.

Yes, I decided to leave off the good Will save, but feel free to nix the bonus vs Fear effects and grant them a good base Will bonus.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
That, of course, brings us to the question of whether or not you are considered charging when making a mounted charge. After much discussion, some gnashing of teeth, and combing through the various rules bits involving mounted combat, we have decided to clarify that section of the Core Rulebook to state that when you charge on horseback you do so as a full-round action, and both you and your mount are considered charging.

So to clarify further: If you want to charge while you are mounted both you and your mount must spend your full-round actions to do so?

Can you charge as a standard action while mounted? If yes, then do both of you have to be denied the ability to take a move action or can you do it if just your mount is unable to take a move action? If you can standard-action charge while only your mount is unable to take a move action, could you still take a move action, such as dismounting at the end of the charge?

When riding a mount, can you command the mount to charge while you yourself do not charge? If not, well, why not? If yes, do you lose your actions anyway, or can you spend them on doing something else? For example, if I'm riding a war-trained mount, can I not cast a spell on my mount (standard action) and then command the mount to charge after being buffed (or simultaneously while I buff it as the case of turn order may be)?


Shiny class table

Alignment: Any.
HD: 1d10.

Class Skills
The fighter's class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Knowledge (history) (Int), Knowledge (local) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Sense Motive (Wis), and Swim (Str).

Skill Ranks Per Level: 4 + Int modifier.

Bonus Feats
At 1st level, and at every even level thereafter, a fighter gains a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement (meaning that the fighter gains a feat at every level). These bonus feats must be selected from those listed as Combat Feats, sometimes also called “fighter bonus feats.”

Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. He may do this once per day after an hour of practice. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level.

Weapon Training (Ex): At 1st level, a fighter selects one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.

Every four levels thereafter (5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th), a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons. He gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, the bonuses granted by previous weapon groups increase by +1 each. For example, when a fighter reaches 9th level, he receives a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with one weapon group and a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with the weapon group selected at 5th level. Bonuses granted from overlapping groups do not stack. Take the highest bonus granted for a weapon if it resides in two or more groups.

A fighter also adds this bonus to any combat maneuver checks made with weapons from this group. This bonus also applies to the fighter's Combat Maneuver Defense when defending against disarm and sunder attempts made against weapons from this group. If he has any weapon-specific abilities or feats that apply to a weapon from a group the fighter has chosen, those abilities or feats apply to all weapons from the chosen weapon group (or groups).

Canny Blow (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, whenever a fighter hits an opponent with an attack of opportunity, his attack deals extra damage. This extra damage is 1d6 at 2nd level and increases by 1d6 every two fighter levels thereafter. Should the fighter score a critical hit with an attack of opportunity, this extra damage is not multiplied. This extra damage cannot apply to creatures with concealment against the fighter.

Tactical Awareness (Ex): At 2nd level the Fighter gains a +1 morale bonus to all combat maneuver checks and to his combat maneuver defense, to all Initiative checks, all Perception checks, and to Will saving throws against fear. These bonuses increase by +1 at 6th level and every four levels thereafter.

Armor Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter learns to wear his armor better than most. Whenever he is wearing armor, he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0) and increases both the armor bonus given by his armor and the maximum Dexterity bonus allowed by his armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter (7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th), these bonuses increase by +1 each time, to a maximum –5 reduction of the armor check penalty and a +5 increase of the armor bonus and maximum Dexterity bonus allowed.

In addition, a fighter can also move at his normal speed while wearing medium armor. At 7th level, a fighter can move at his normal speed while wearing heavy armor.

Steely Step (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a Fighter may use an attack roll to avoid attacks of opportunity for moving through threatened areas in the same way that other characters might use the Acrobatics skill.

Combat Superiority (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a Fighter's skill is sufficient to allow him to ignore all ability score requirements of combat feats he takes. Furthermore, for the purpose of qualifying for combat feats, his base attack bonus is treated as being +1 higher than it is at 4th level, +2 higher at 8th level, +3 higher at 12th level, and so on.

Wall of Blades (Ex): At 5th level, a fighter may deflect a single melee or ranged attack that targets him or another creature within his reach as an immediate action. To do so he makes an attack roll opposed by the attack roll of the attacker. If the fighter's attack roll is higher, the incoming attack misses. If the fighter's attack roll is lower, then the incoming attack gains a +2 bonus to its attack roll.

The fighter cannot use this ability if he is flat-footed.

Penetrating Strike (Ex): At 7th level, a fighter may make a combat maneuver check as a move action. If his check succeeds, then he overcomes 5 points of his opponent's DR until the end of his next turn. For every 5 points by which he beats his opponent's CMD, he overcomes 5 additional points of his opponent's DR. If the fighter has any bonuses to other, specific combat maneuver checks, such as to Bull Rush or Disarm, then he adds the highest among those bonuses to his combat maneuver checks to make a penetrating strike.

Resistance Training (Ex): Starting at 9th level, a fighter gains Spell Resistance equal to his CMD which applies only while he is conscious and only to spells and spell-like abilities the fighter chooses.

Flashing Steel (Ex): Starting at 11th level, when a fighter uses his Steely Step class feature to successfully move through a threatened area he may spend a swift action and treat his attack roll as an actual attack against every creature whose threatened areas he moved through during his move. Any creature whose AC that attack roll would hit is dealt damage as if the fighter had hit them with a melee attack.

Spell Parry (Ex): At 13th level, a fighter may attempt to diffuse the energies of a single magical effect with well-honed martial skill as an immediate action. When he or a creature within his reach would make a saving throw against a spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural effect the fighter may make an attack roll in place of that creature's saving throw. If the fighter's attack roll meets or exceeds the effect's DC, then he, or the creature he is protecting, is treated as though he made his save against the effect. If the fighter's attack roll does not meet the effect's DC, then the effect's DC increases by 2 for this particular use.

The fighter cannot use this ability if he is flat-footed.

Greater Penetrating Strike (Ex): At 15th level, whenever the fighter uses his Penetrating Strike ability, he spends only a swift action rather than a move action, and if he beats his opponents CMD, then he overcomes all of that opponent's DR. For every 5 points by which he beats his opponent's CMD he deals 1d6 additional damage with his attacks until the end of his next turn.

Ruinous Blow (Ex): Starting at 17th level, whenever the fighter confirms a critical hit with an attack of opportunity the struck foe must succeed at a Reflex save (DC 10 + his base attack bonus) or suffer double damage from the fighter's canny blow ability (16d6 rather than 8d6, for example).

Greater Resistance Training (Ex): At 19th level, if a spell or effect would fail to overcome the fighter's spell resistance he becomes immune to that effect for 24 hours. He may apply his spell resistance against supernatural effects if he chooses.

Master at Arms (Ex): At 20th level, a fighter gains DR 5/-- whenever he wears armor and automatically confirms critical hits when attacking with weapons from his chosen weapon groups. He cannot be disarmed and he no longer applies the weight of his armor to his encumbrance.


Exorcism of Steel (Ex): Starting at 11th level, when a fighter uses his Skilled Maneuverability class feature to successfully move through a threatened area he may spend a swift action and treat his attack roll as an actual attack against every creature whose threatened areas he moved through during his move. Any creature whose AC that attack roll would hit is dealt damage as if the fighter had hit them with a melee attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OmNomNid wrote:
Every five second they are not involved with combat he tells me he is going to start making vials of cure light, and I then respond in a cave they have neither the equipment (he wasn't gotten a portable lab even though I have recommended it about five times) nor the time unless the party wants to wait hours for him to maybe make one (they don't). He says okay and then asks to do it again shortly after that.

He sounds like the most annoying little git... I don't know that I could stop myself from just kicking him out of the game. Okay, actually it would be a conversation off to the side after the session was over where I said something like, "next week either show up with the knowledge of crafting, or show up with a new character." Sheesh!


I am in full agreement.


Even if you were trying to replicate Lenneth Valkyrie from the Valkyrie Profile series, Eldritch Knight is a poor fit. Lenneth could only cast arcane spells in VP because of how the system worked. In VP2 she cast what could be entirely described as divine spells (Guard Reinforce, Heal, Invoke Feather, Might Reinforce, Normalize, Sap Power, Spell Reinforce, Dampen Magic, Sap Guard, Reflect Sorcery).

Though I will agree that she is some kind of divine gish with probably only 6th or 7th level spells. She was not a Mage after all and never had the casting power of one. Going Oracle seems more thematically correct than Cleric, though she does wear heavy armor typically, Oracles are still proficient with medium, and if you're gishing you can pick up the heavy in any number of ways.


By skill I meant fighting skill, not skill ranks skill. Skill ranks skill is *supposed* to be the Rogue's job, or so anyone would have thought, but your idea would definitely be a good one if you decided to go to route of simply merging both the Fighter and Rogue into a single class (not a bad idea at all).

What would we even call such a class? The Knave seems thematically off, the Expert sounds really lame... The Professional... just as bad.


The rules seem clear on the matter of charging to me. From the pfSRD, "If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge."

Your mount charges. You don't even have to make an attack at the end of that charge, you could cast a spell or something if you wanted. You get the bonus to your attack roll (should you take it), and suffer the AC penalty, but your mount charges.

Now, what's slightly less clear is whether or not your attack is considered an "attack action." The default ruling would be since you are spending your standard action to make the attack, then you must be using the "attack action," but it wouldn't fly in the face of the rest of the rules if Jason decided to say something to the effect of, "if you choose to attack at the end of your mount's charge, you use the charge action as well."

Now, as you said, this opens the door for pouncing on top of your mount, which seems thematically off and rewarding to, perhaps, the wrong class, but as a ruling in a vacuum it is not a bad rule. Personally, I think it should remain an attack action and allow Vital Strike, but I am no lead designer or developer.


Well, I want the fighter's abilities to be based on skill, so using a combat maneuver just seemed to fit mechanically. Though I realize he has only a minor bonus to CMB (that is if you're going with my suggested Tactical Awareness ability at 2nd level) to this and no other way to boost it the way that a fighter could ordinarily boost Bull Rush or Trip. Hmm...


Penetrating Strike (Ex): At 7th level, a fighter may make a combat maneuver check as a move action. If his check succeeds, then he overcomes 5 points of his opponent's DR until the end of his next turn. For every 5 points by which he beats his opponent's CMD, he overcomes 5 additional points of his opponent's DR.

Greater Penetrating Strike (Ex): At 15th level, whenever the fighter uses his Penetrating Strike ability, he spends only a swift action rather than a move action, and if he beats his opponents CMD, then he overcomes all of that opponent's DR. For every 5 points by which he beats his opponent's CMD he deals 1d6 additional damage with his attacks until the end of his next turn.


I just keep trying to come up skill-based mechanics that revolve around combat to help give the Fighter new and improved abilities, and I will continue to do so.

Wall of Blades (Ex): At 5th level, a fighter may deflect a single melee or ranged attack that targets him or another creature within his reach as an immediate action. To do so he makes an attack roll opposed by the attack roll of the attacker. If the fighter's attack roll is higher, the incoming attack misses. If the fighter's attack roll is lower, then the incoming attack gains a +2 bonus to its attack roll.

The fighter cannot use this ability if he is flat-footed.

Spell Parry (Ex): At 13th level, a fighter may attempt to diffuse the energies of a single magical effect with well-honed martial skill as an immediate action. When he or a creature within his reach would make a saving throw against a spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural effect the fighter may make an attack roll in place of that creature's saving throw. If the fighter's attack roll meets or exceeds the effect's DC, then he, or the creature he is protecting, is treated as though he made his save against the effect. If the fighter's attack roll does not meet the effect's DC, then the effect's DC increases by 2 for this particular use.

The fighter cannot use this ability if he is flat-footed.


How about this one?

Resistance Training (Ex): Starting at 9th level, a fighter gains Spell Resistance equal to his CMD.


The dreaded feat tax rears its ugly head.


LoneKnave wrote:

Just realized: reposition is a standard action. That kinda cuts down your options, as you can only reposition once/turn, and need quickened reposition to do it instead of an attack.

Bleh.

Still, you can have repositioning strike help out a bit.

Yeah. PF really cut out a lot of fun possibilities with combat maneuvers by forcing most of them to be standard action. The Quick maneuver feats are not great substitutes.

But, yeah, that's why I was saying you basically have to be a Fighter to do something like this. As a Human Fighter/Monk, by 6th level I can have Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Reposition, Greater Reposition, Quick Reposition, and Tactical Reposition and four more feats besides (Agile Maneuvers, Dervish Dance, and what else I don't know). From there I can start crit-fishing and picking up critical feats to add conditions to my repositioning crits (that also sicken on a successful reposition). The only issue with the build is lack of inherent reach, so I'll need to solve that with magic, but otherwise it seems like a lot of fun.

EDIT: Agh! Nope, I forgot about the 1 point of base attack bonus I lose from Flowing Monk levels. Drat! I would have to wait until 9th level to have both Greater and Quick Reposition. Rough.


LoneKnave wrote:
Scimitar doesn't need weapon finesse, if you take the dervish dancer feat you automatically get DEX to-hit and damage.

Oh, duh.

Quote:
Don't think you could make it into a trip weapon, but I also don't think you should bother. Since it has the same reach as your unarmed strike you can just use that.

Well, I was trying to think of ways to incorporate your air combo idea into a dervish dance build.

Quote:

Okay, alternative build idea:

Brawler fighter with Maneuver master dip, Vicious stomp, and possibly wolf style.

They fall prone next to you, and you can keep getting AoOs and punching them back up into the sky.

lol, another good, funny one.


I'm interested to see what the Swordmaster is able to get up to at higher levels.


LoneKnave wrote:

I was thinking whip, because my first though it always whip when it comes to repositioning.

You can use any weapon with the Trip property for repositioning (whips!)

Huh. Really? That makes things much easier (although I had my heart set on a Dervish Dancer).

Quote:
Building a fighter for this would be hard because you need really high CMB for it to work well.

Well, between Weapon Training (+4) and Lore Warden (+8), and Agile Maneuvers w/tons of Dex I imagine the character's CMB would reliably be pretty damn high (if we're using a tripping weapon anyway). And since Reposition requires so many feats to work right, I don't know that a Magus would really be that great at it until very high character level.

LoneKnave wrote:
Kensai Magus, Truestrike wand in one hand, Whip in the other, and then keep bouncing some poor guy up and down.

That is hilarious though. Combine with Lunge (or some other way to increase reach---I'm sure Magus has a spell for that) for 2d6 damage per 5 you beat their CMD. Okay definitely not optimal, but still hilarious.

Is there any way to make the scimitar a light weapon or otherwise usable for weapon finesse? What about making a weapon into a trip weapon?

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>