addy grete 24's page

You can not disarm a shield. Pathfinder only allows you to disarm items that are wielded or carried and a shield is neither wielded nor carried it is worn. In 3.5 you could use disarm to remove worn items so long as they were loosely secured but I am not sure that a shield would be thought of as loosely secured even if Pathfinder had retained that interpretation of disarm.

If you want to remove an opponent’s shield you need to sunder it. Recall that sunder does not have to destroy an item but can simply disable it so that it is unusable until repaired. In this case your sunder would break the straps that hold the shield in place without otherwise ruining the shield. If you repair those straps that shield is usable again.

So I could theoretically make a character invulnerable to disarm CMs by using armor spikes and a shield? I could even go TWF with that?

Per RAW, can you disarm a shield? If you succeed by 10 or more, can you disarm both the main weapon and a shield? I don't see why not but I was told that I couldn't do it "just like that" (with a disarm CM succeeding by 10 or more over the CMD). Sounds weird to me. This isn't about going over a GM's ruling in his campaign (which it isn't anyway), this is about finding out what the RAW say.

Is there anything preventing the use of both on a single attack?

Heh, monk in my group is going to love this as his CMB is going to become much better :)

So this would mean that Weapon Focus (unarmed) gives a +1 bonus to CMB if he is tripping using his unarmed attack.

In addition, if he's wearing an amulet of mighty fists, the +x should stack too IMO but I found a GM who disagrees. He reads that bolded line as applying only to CM feats, not feats like weapon focus. It boggles my mind.

...
By RAW it does not look like it.
...

By RAW you get the penalties to CMs that you get to attacks, so your CMs are at -5, -10 etc for second and third attacks. If using TWF or flurry there's an additional -2. Same answer you got in the other thread ;)

Can I make an attack as a standard action with a shield bash and Shield Slam, thereby getting a free bull rush to move the foe adjacent to another foe, and then Great Cleave into that foe, triggering another free bull rush to push that foe adjacent to a new foe, over and over until I run out of movement?

I'd say yes as a house rule because I see the bull rush as part of the shield slam, even if technically they sound like two separate things. It would have to be setup just right. Imagine a line of enemy combatants. You start at one end, on a diagonal from the line. You shield slam A and bull rush A out of the line until you're in a diagonal with B, but A is still adjacent to B. Great cleave into B with a shield slam until you're in a diagonal with C, and so on. You only attack each opponent "once".

The question from the definition of Great cleave is, does the target need to be adjacent at the beginning or at the end of the first attack? It has to be at the end, because if it was at the start and after the first attack you're 15 feet away it makes no sense that you could attack an opponent that was adjacent at the beginning. Brilliant, as long as you can bull rush an opponent next to another (it doesn't have to be a line obviously). A little like billiards...

Can we please get an official answer as to whether monks can take the Greater <combat maneuver name> feats just like Sajan (as a level 7 character feat?), or if this was a mistake? It's more than a typo because the feat is discussed in the text and the added bonus to disarm calculated in the CMB as well.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Same thing that happens if your opponent gains a condition that lets you sneak attack in the middle of your full attack (for example one of your hits stuns him) you get the extra attacks (damage).

i agree. the medusas wrath goes off as soon as the opponent is disadvantaged.

so how about if you greater feint the baddie??

i know it doesnt mention "lose dex bonus" but is that considered the same as "flat footed" so medusas wrath would go off??

Feinting is a standard action (or a move action with improved feint) and applies to one attack that must be made on or before your next turn. Greater Feint: "Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn". Medusa's requires a full attack action so they can't both happen on your turn, or in the following turn since feint goes away at the beginning of your next turn.

I'm pretty sure it's just a typo, unfortunately.

This makes no sense, it's like not having greater TWF in the list of ranger feats. Monks should have Greater ... in the list starting at 10th level.

This is most definitely a typo, considering that many animals already in the game can take weapon finesse / come with weapon finesse. I believe this has already been brought to the attention of Paizo though, and simply writing a post about the issue would bring it to light to Jason etc.

Thank you!

The printed copy of Pathfinder core rule book differs from the PDF. In Chapter 3, page 53, "Animal Feats", the printed copy contains "Weapon Finesse" but the PDF contains an empty space between commas: "Toughness, , and Weapon Focus" where "Weapon Finesse" should be. There's nothing about it in the errata, and supposedly the PDF is more up-to-date than the printed copy.

It looks like a typo, but is "Weapon Finesse" an available feat or not? I emailed customer.service@paizo.com but I'm not sure that's the right place where to ask about typos or for reporting them.

...

Well, I won't try and answer the 2nd part, seeing as it's been ground into the dirt and back in another thread,...

I found the thread, thanks!

The whip also doesn't threaten, which would prevent you from taking Attacks of Opportunity.

Unless I have another weapon in another hand, or I'm a monk?

It's a bit of a moot point though, since you can do the same trick with a normal reach weapon and enlarge person (you actually end up with a 25 ft. reach between weapon reach, enlarge, and lunge, plus as a large creature you occupy a 10' by 10' area, making your total covered area 60 feet wide.) (And I have to give credit to Thrikreed for forcing me to double check all this and see that yes, enlarge person really does work that way, it's crazy, but legal according to RAW.)

So with those reservations out of the way, I can't see any reason, from a rules as written standpoint, that a Whirlwind of trips wouldn't be legal. Unbelievably cheezy, but legal.

The reach weapon wouldn't allow you to trip opponents close to you so 30' of that 60' would be unaffected. The whip would cover everything (and provoke from people adjacent to you).

1. Would that combo really allow me to make trip CMs against everyone within 20' (45' diameter circle), and apply Greater trip as well (all the tripped opponents provoke AoOs from anyone threatening them)?

2. Does this description apply to all my AoOs, only my AoOs granted by combat reflexes, or doesn't apply (e.g., using an off-hand weapon to make the AoOs)?
"When you use the Whirlwind Attack feat, you also forfeit
any bonus or extra attacks granted by other feats, spells,
or abilities."