glyph87's page

So I came across a topic about how the game doesn't support blood chokes, long story short I came up with this feat; what do you guys think? Does it seem balanced against the capabilities of other classes with it's level? Or is it a little overpowered? I really like the idea of a Rogue taking someone out quick and quiet, but suffocation via garrote is quite slow and really not a practical option. Also, a MMA style monk would be possible with this feat if that's your thing.

Blood Choke (Combat)

You have received specialized training to cut the blood flow off to your opponent's brain during a grapple, quickly rendering him unconscious (or worse).

Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +10, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Choke option while grappling.

Benefit: If you exceed the target's CMD by 5 or more during your grapple check, you may attempt a Blood Choke in place of a standard Choke option. This functions as Suffocation, except the target treats his Constitution as 2 when determining the amount of rounds until he has to begin making Constitution checks. After 1 round of any round you do not maintain the Blood Choke, your opponent's blood flow will resume and restart when he has to begin making Constitution checks.

Normal: You cut off your target’s air supply so he has to hold his breath.

Many of us are familiar with those famous Internet discussions claiming that Batman has every D&D alignment. He is Lawful because he opposes criminals on the side of law and is an ally of the police. He is Chaotic as a vigilante. He is Good because he fights evil people. He is Evil because he has many selfish motives and does not seem to notice when his battles cause property damage or other indirect harm to innocents. Etc.

I completely disagree, he's a prime example of Chaotic Good.

1: He doesn't take pleasure in the misfortune of others, and malice is not his goal, so he cannot be Evil.
2: His ultimate goal is to destroy Evil rather than further himself or just mind his own business, therefore he is Good rather than Neutral.
3: He doesn't follow societies laws, therefore he is not Lawful.
4: He will wantonly destroy property and inconvenience others to achieve his goals and the ends justify the means, therefore he is Chaotic.

According the the 4 above observations of his personality traits, it's pretty clear that he is Chaotic Good:

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

On Good vs. Evil vs. Neutral:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

...
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others

On Lawful vs. Chaos vs. Neutral:

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability.

...
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
...
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

It is impossible for any character to be every alignment, as that is what True Neutral accomplishes by it's definition. Chaotic when it suits him, Lawful when it suits him; Good when it suits him, and (you guessed it), Evil when it suits him. A True Neutral character has neither a problem with authority nor any qualms about breaking the law, and he doesn't have a problem with throwing someone under the bus or with saving the orphans from the burning building at great risk to his own.

True Neutral, by definition:

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Also, as far as blood chokes go in the game, there are no rules in the system to handle them.

Personally, to support blood-chokes I would make a feat to take care of it, something like this:

Blood Choke (Combat)

You have received specialized training to cut the blood flow off to your opponent's brain during a grapple, quickly rendering him unconscious (or worse).

Prerequisites: Base Attack Bonus +10, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Choke option while grappling

Benefit: If you exceed the target's CMD by 5 or more during your grapple check, you may attempt a Blood Choke in place of a standard Choke option. This functions as Suffocation, except the target treats his Constitution as 2 when determining the amount of rounds until he has to begin making Constitution checks. After 1 round of any round you do not maintain the Blood Choke, your opponent's blood flow will resume and restart when he has to begin making Constitution checks

Normal: You cut off your target’s air supply so he has to hold his breath.

I set the BAB requirement at +10 because it is a HUGELY powerful ability to get a Save-Or-Die during a grapple; I would have made it +14, but then a Rogue wouldn't be able to take it until level 19 and I feel like the class deserves this. To offset this, I set the Con to 2 instead of 1, even though I feel 1 is more realistic (12 seconds is more accurate than 24).

Having it at 2 gives them 4 rounds to break free; any less would just be unfair, as it's basically a make-a-grapple, kill-the-target.

I also would consider raising the threshold (+5) higher if you implement this, as I made that a rough guess and might still make it too easy to Save-Or-Die someone at level 10. It's why they do playtesting (game balance).

I feel that a few key points need to be addressed here, especially considering the suffocation rules.

Step 1. Obtain the grapple. Target cannot speak, but can make any other noise (i.e. clapping, aforementioned shield-knocking, etc) if the DM feels he's intelligent/wise enough to think to do so.

Step 2. Maintain the grapple. In order to proceed to Step 3, you MUST choose the Choke option. If you fail to maintain the grapple, the target escapes, or choose an option other than Choke, the timer in Step 3 resets.

Step 3. Wait. Actual rules for time to suffocate: 2 x Con SCORE. A Lvl 1 Dwarven Fighter can have as high as a 20 con, giving him 40 rounds (4 minutes) until Step 4. NOTE, and this is big: All Standard and Full Round Actions reduce the remaining time by 1. If the target attempts to struggle (win the grapple for instance), halve the waiting time. The average person (10 Con) would take about 60 seconds to even start to suffocate if he struggled until he passed out.

Step 4. Target attempts Con saves. DC 10 + 1 per previous failed save. With the aforementioned Dwarven Fighter, it will take two rounds to reach a 55.5% chance of proceeding to suffocate. An average person would be at 55% chance on the first save. We will consider 55% sufficient to be a reliable baseline. Upon failure, the target immediately becomes unconscious.

Step 5. Continuing to choke. Should you continue to choke the next round, the target is reduced to -1 HP regardless of current HP, and is considered dying. Should you maintain the choke again, the target dies, with no save. These are important because if you attempt to Coup de Grâce someone with full HP, one: they may survive the raw damage and/or save, and two: it may be a creature that requires air to live, but is immune to critical hits.

So let's review:

Average person becomes unconscious in 10 rounds (~1 minute)

Tougher targets can easily take 21-33 rounds (~2-3.5 minutes)

You have to maintain the Choke the whole time, which can be difficult against a high BAB tier target.

Save-Or-Die works on creatures who breath but are immune to critical hits

This is completely negates all of their HP, so something with a lot of big hit-dice but low Con, such as a Pale Stranger (15d8+60, Con 10) may be brought down much faster than through your damage alone.

Only your actions are wasted against the target; assuming you can maintain the grapple in the first place, your party is free to attack it while you choke.

The target is likely to spend most of it's actions attempting to win or escape the grapple, as choking tends to cause a panicked response; your party will take less damage from combat.

I would say that with a fair GM, using the Garrote is a great way to take someone down as quietly as possible. You merely need to make two Stealth checks against a walking target (one to hide, one to approach), ready an action to garrote, and he's yours (Struggling for air causes a panic, where the presence of mind to bang for help might not be there; higher will/int = more likely to think to bang). It's also a good way to cripple an encounter with very few enemies, although any grapple would be.

Is it realistic? Heck no, and definitely not against high con targets; I've never seen a UFC fighter go for 2 minutes against an effective choke. On the other hand, it also ignores any armor that might be involved: a good set of plate, including a full-face helm and a gorget would make choking impossible.

As a rogue-type, I'd take Agile Maneuvers to break through. As a high-strength type, unless my Stealth was high I wouldn't bother with it; I could do more with an axe, and it's not going to keep us unnoticed when I fail my stealth.

I would like to see it's effectiveness increased, but as it stands it's a decent item to use in a pinch. It definitely won't replace your sword, but it keeps you from being a one-trick pony and gives you some good options.

Edit: As a GM, I would treat the target as "unaware" if you were to turn invisible, as per the original WotC statement regarding sneak attacks from unseen opponents, "To properly defend itself in combat, a creature must be able to see its foe, or use some ability acute enough to substitute for sight..." As the target cannot properly defend itself and is denied it's Dex bonus to AC, I would let it slide as RAI. I definitely wouldn't allow it during flanking, though; your opponent is aware of your actions. The +2 represents the difficulty of keeping track of both people, not complete unawareness of your actions; otherwise all flanking attacks would count as flat-footed.

I also would house-rule that the Choke option causes weapon damage as well, but not sneak attack damage; the weapon's hazardous effect is represented by it's damage, you wouldn't be any more or less precise with it as you're already targeting a vulnerable area, i.e. neck, that is implied with sneak attacks. It's very silly that it's an either/or for the damage and choke. I'm fairly certain that if I were squeezing your throat with something hard enough to keep you from breathing, it would damage your throat to some degree (see: any CSI show autopsy that involves strangulation).

Under Creating Magic Items: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/magicItemCreation.htmlCreatin g Potions

[...]

The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

[...]

I feel it's also necessary to include the following NON-BETA version of the Alchemist version of the Brew Potion feat:

Brew Potion (Ex): At 1st level, alchemists receive Brew
Potion as a bonus feat. An alchemist can brew potions of
any formulae he knows (up to 3rd level), using his alchemist
level as his caster level. The spell must be one that can be
made into a potion. The alchemist does not need to meet
the prerequisites for this feat.

Therefore, Shield (and all other personal spells) cannot be made into a potion, regardless of class. They can however be made into an Infused Extract, but this counts against the Alchemist's extract uses per day, which for a large party can be a hefty investment.

Contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be using a melee weapon for your attacks to be considered "Flanking", although you do not get a +2 bonus to those attacks. I shall break down the rules to quell the uproar that is about to occur.

First, lets examine the RP of Flanking:

A man is fighting two opponents. One moves behind him, and now he must divide his attention between the two directions. This lack of focus makes it harder for him to avoid incoming attacks.

A man is fighting two opponents, one of which is 30 feet behind him, shooting arrows at him. He must still divide his attention between the two directions to dodge incoming attacks, but is more actively involved ducking, weaving, and blocking a mace than waiting to dodge the arrows.

Now, let's look at the rules. I feel to press my point it is necessary to break it into two, equally important points:

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.

Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Exception: If a flanker takes up more than 1 square, it gets the flanking bonus if any square it occupies counts for flanking.

When in doubt about whether two characters flank an opponent in the middle, trace an imaginary line between the two attackers’ centers. If the line passes through opposite borders of the opponent’s space (including corners of those borders), then the opponent is flanked.

I'll be the first to admit the rules aren't very clear, but here's how it works: You have to be using a melee weapon to get a +2 Flanking Bonus, but not to be considered "Flanking".

To be considered "Flanking", the rules plainly say that you have to "draw a line through the enemy from your center to the center of an ally." It then continues to state that you must have an ally who is "threatening" the enemy to get a flanking bonus.

Since you can draw a line between your two respective centers through any part of the enemy's square you are considered "Flanking". You are not making a melee attack, so you don't gain a +2 bonus.

However, for your ally, you are not threatening the enemy since ranged weapons do not threaten, so your ally does not receive the Flanking Bonus for making a melee attack, although he is in fact considered "Flanking".

At NO point do the rules state that you have to be making a melee attack to be considered "Flanking". "Flanking" is merely a term to describe positioned on opposite sides of an enemy, which is useless except for determining the use of abilities that "require flanking". As the Sneak Attack's requires that "the rogue flanks her target", and not that you have a "+2 Flanking Bonus", you may use your Sneak Attack for all of your attacks providing that you are still able to draw a line through the enemy to an ally.

Just because you aren't actively occupying the enemy's attention through a constant battery of melee attacks doesn't mean that your ally is not. The enemy has its full attention on your ally, giving you the time to aim for the sweet spots.