grasshopper_ea's page

Constrict as a general rule uses your primary natural attack for damage. Could you thus apply vital strike modify constrict damage ?

Vital strike is a standard action, grapple is a standard action, they cannot be combined. If grapple was an attack action you could combine it with vital strike.

I just want to make sure I understood this correctly.

round 1 - grapple the opponent
rnd 2 - -5 to my grapple (CMB) to apply the choke
rnd 3 - ... opponent has 1/2 their Constitution to use their CMB to beat my CMD.

so a mage with a CON of 10 has 5 rounds, and the fighter with 18 has 9 rounds.
to a mage, they are pretty well useless as they cannot use their arms (grapple) or speak (choke). But 5 rounds is still a long time.

To me, this feat seems pointless. Please explain to me why this feat is worth taking?

Also if 1 round is 10 seconds, then a choke taking 5 rounds is pretty silly. As a fan of UFC, a choke can knock someone out in 20 seconds or less.

Yes the strangle rules as written are useless in most combat situations. In the time that you can choke out a kobold you can kill 8 of them with a sword. Now in a roleplay 1-2 player game this could be more useful or against one enemy, but usually you're wasting your time.

Friends and I are gonna try pathfinder after an unsuccessful venture with 4e. Played 3e for almost 11 years in one campaign.

Now the question: Could a paladin take the place of a fighter in a party consisting of

Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Also, does the Paladin really need to be LG? How does a neutral deity end up having an LG follower? I could see LN...

Thanks for the insight...
-Gimril

Paladins get swift action heal self, lesser restoration, greater magic weapon, smite evil, yes they can take the place of a fighter in combat. In legacy of fire my pally often did over 100 damage on a smite/charge towards the end of the game only being able to miss most enemies on a 2.

Actually, I've been the only one quoting the rules.

You yourself are quoting the rule on avoiding attacks of opportunity (which I've quoted several times), NOT a rule on moving though blocked squares - the DC is increased by 5 to avoid an AoO for moving into an enemy's space, not to let you do it if you can't. You don't even realise that nothing in that link or quote makes any reference to blocking, nor says anything like that acrobatics lets you move through blocked spaces, and also obviously haven't read acrobatics in core, which explicitly says "This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement."

Eveyone else has only been re-iterating how they normally play and how others play.

It's like in Monopoly putting taxes and fines in Free Parking - so many people are used to playing a given way people don't realise it's actually not in the rules, it's just a common house rule.

I'm pretty sure there's only one person who thinks you are right.. I vote for acrobatics +5 DC for moving through an enemy square.

I am currently running a game and one of the members is playing a Gunslinger 1/Rogue X (in this case 2

rogue levels). A problem came up today when I told him that he would be taking an additional penalty to his stealth from the gun making a loud noise and a puff of smoke popping out (in addition to the regular -20 from sniping). He pointed out that there is nothing in the RAW to support this and after looking I found nothing.

My questions are this: Is there any penalty for sniping while using a firearm in the RAW? If not what would be a fair penalty? Would this be worthy of a FAQ?

If you wouldn't mind critiquing my calculations that would be great too.
Scenario is that the sniper is 40 feet away at level 3 shooting a musket at a target who is engaged in melee. The sniper hits and proceeds to make his stealth check.

Stealth Check: 15 (roll) + 5 (Dex) + 3 (Ranks) + 3 (Misc mod)
- 20 (sniping) = 6

The enemy (in this case a bugbear cleric) tries to notice him and so the DC is 6(total of the stealth check) + 4(+1 for every 10 feet) + 5(distracted due to fighting in melee) = 15

As gm circumstance bonuses are your friend. You are firing a loud firearm, the enemy has a +5 circumstance bonus to hear you. also he can't sneak attack from outside 30 feet typically.

I am looking for help with an arcane caster build. Below is some of the info others have asked for on my prior post.

magical knack trait

13 dex + full plate + tower shield is your survivability, full caster lvl, at low levels take feather fall/true strike as your spells for no arcane spell failure chance til you can use still spell on your lvl 1 spells you want to cast.

Blah blah blah, you should pick what best fits your character concept, blah.

I get it, but I want to talk about the rules and mechanics here because I find it fun to muse about.

I'm staring at the Gnome and wondering what class build would he excel in that no other race could excel in.

Wizard isn't an optimal choice for the Gnome, because he doesn't get a bonus to INT and the Elf just rocks every other race in almost every case.

Sorcerer seemed like a good choice, until they gave Humans 20 more spells known with their Favored Class bonus. (Now I don't see any reason not to play Human for sorcerer from a mechanics standpoint.)

Bard would be good, if you're just going to cast. What are you going to do when you're not casting though? The three archetypes that Treantmonk suggests are all better optimized with some other race. And in most cases, a Bard can't just cast all the time without having some serious spells-per-day starvation.
Plus if you're going to just cast as a bard, the Human gets 20 more spells known with their favored class bonus....

Summoner looked like an optimal choice - but the Half-Elf gets 5 more evolution points by level 20.

I thought about maybe a dervish dancing Magus would be good, but the Halfling would be a better small race choice for that since they actually get a bonus to Dex.

Any of the martial classes are going to be pained by having a penalty to strength. Alchemists are INT based...

I'm thinking the Oracle is a good possibility - the Humans still have the advantage of more spells known, but that doesn't seem as important to me when it comes to Divine Magic. Now this could just be my limited experience with divine magic, so I wonder what you think about this...

Are there any builds for specific classes that would be best with the gnome?

And by that I mean actually mechanically effective? I know that you could make a fire bard by using the pyromaniac alternate race feature and the Fire music feat, but that's not exactly an optimal...

Gnome Oracle of Lore: sidestep secret: 7 dex 20 cha lvl 1 20+ AC minimum DC 15 on any spell

UC wrote:

Deadly Finish (Combat)
Your attacks don’t just fell your opponents they kill them outright.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: When you hit with a melee attack and reduce your opponent to –1 or fewer hit points, you can force that opponent to succeed at a fortitude save (DC 15 + the damage your attack dealt) or die.

The only oponents that would be really useful on is if they have some ferocity or regeneration or a cleric type to heal them. at -1 they are already no threat. wasted feat in my book, nothing compared to dazing assault

Hey gang!

In September, we are starting the Council of Thieves AP!

My buddy who is running it (thanks DG!) is letting us run with 25 pt buy, and we will have 5, maybe 6, players. So we will have a real good edge on the baddies.

The interesting part is that with 5-6 players, we will take a hit (33%)each on XP cause we are dividing it up 6 ways instead of 4.

So, my questions are (no spoilers please):

1. Should he run the AP as is?
Less XP but a party of 6 3rd level characters is more powerful than a party of 4 4th level characters.

2. Should he increase #'s of mooks to increase the challenge to keep us on par with the level of the AP?
This increases the XP, thus making a party of 6 more powerful.

3. Other suggestions?

I have run this campaign with 7 players. He will definately want to tailer the campaign to the group. A group with many players needs to help the GM also to make the game fun. I had players run mook/mindless enemies and keep track of initiative, etc. There is a fine line with buffing these encounters and tpk. He will want to often add more monsters, but also just reading about the monsters may add to their deadliness as several have abilities that will be missed if they are just full attack machines. Adding the advanced template works sometimes. Some enemies in this campaign are so weak as to be laughable, adding a stronger enemy in with them is a nice route. Wealth in the campaign is outrageous, he should reconsider the 25 point buy, I did 20 and had PC's that were super powerful.

UC page 144 wrote:

Flying Blade: A flying blade is a large, crescent-shaped blade anchored to a 10-foot chain. You fight with a flying

blade by spinning it about your head or by snapping it toward an opponent. The flying blade is a clumsy weapon and receives a –2 penalty on attack rolls, but when you make attacks of opportunity provoked by movement, you receive a +2 bonus on attack rolls instead of the penalty.

I am wondering what the reach of this weapon actually is. The chain is 10 feet long but it also says the blade is large as well so I am wondering it the reach is 10 feet or 15 feet.

Also I am wondering what stops a character from shortening the chain length for closer attacks.

reach is a weapon property that doubles your reach, so if you have a 5 foot reach you have a 10 foot reach with a reach weapon... if you have a 10 foot reach you have a 20 foot reach with a reach weapon. Unless your character has an ability to let them use reach weapons up close it cannot be done by raw. if you take catch off guard your dm will probably let you use the part of the chain you are holding up close and the blade out further.

You might look at some of the new weapons in ultimate combat. I believe some give you a chance to feint in place of your first attack. As a two weapon fighter you could feint then attack when not flanking or just double attack if you can set up flank and miss the feat tax on expertise.

And I don't have to sunder your +4 bow. I have to sunder your +0 bowstring.

===Aelryinth

Now that you mention it. There is no rule that says I need a bowstring at all to shoot my bow. Sunder away.

Weakening Breath (Su) Instead of a cone of fire, a gold dragon

can breathe a cone of weakening gas. Creatures within the
cone must succeed on a Fortitude save or take 1 point of
Strength damage per age category (Will save half ).

What does that mean
fort save to ignore breath all together, and then if you fail a will for half the strength damage? I've never seen an ability that called for two saves, but I can't find errata on it. Is that what that means?

certain powerful abilities like this call for two saves. phantasmal killer comes to mind. I think you have it right.

Swapping in a new character at level 7, and the player wants to try a sorceror 5 / Dragon disciple 2.

We've rolled and arranged stats, and he has a 12 Str (will go up to 14 with the DD Str boost), 14 Dex, and 18 Cha.

Reading over the dragon disciple, at this level it looks like you're swapping one level of spellcasting ability for being a backup melee fighter. Unbuffed, this PC would get claw/claw/bite at +5 for d4+2/d4+2/ d6+3. That's not horrible, but against CR 7+ opponents it's not usually going to do much.

I'm a little worried that the player will be disappointed, so I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions on the build. I can see two routes here: go as a straight spellcaster who very occasionally jumps into melee when the stars are just right (i.e., fighting a bunch of goblins or something), or take a lot of buff spells and use them to make the character plausible in melee.

Thoughts?

Doug M.

Good dragon disciple builds for melee are not going to be straight sorcerer and they don't have 14 str. If the player wants to melee he needs to have a high starting str, 16 minimum. 5 bard/10 dragon disciple is a nice option. vanilla bard or arcane duelist come to mind. then he can at least wear armor and probably buff the group quite well.

4 paladin/1 sorc/10 dragon disciple can be fun for a metallic dragon disciple. Barbarian/fighter is another nice entry. 14 str no armor does not belong in melee on purpose.

Bringing this back up again because I have a player whose interested in main-handing a shield, off-handing a short sword.

If you took the TWF line, could you use Shield Fighter to switch all your off hand attacks to the shield? So 4 shield bashes at level 6 instead of 2 bashes and 2 stabs?

This is correct. The shielded fighter really lends itself to using a net or whip to trip/disarm/entangle people then smashing them to bits with your shield. Also a heavy spiked shield with the bashing enhancement has a very nice base damage even if it does have a terrible crit range. 4 attacks for 2d6 damage at lvl 6 is not shabby.

Hi everyone. I asked for some help recently on other post and got some great advice in making a barbarian.

Now I face another problem:

Default Barbarian vs Invincible Rager Barbarian

My DM gave me a look when I told him I am playing a Invincible Rager Barbarian.
Since it is the first game, our character are not "set in stone" yet and we could change them.

Some of my fellow players seems to be unsure if my choice of Invincible Rager Barbarian is a good ideal...

So I ask YOU ALL, what do you think? Is the Invincible Rager Barbarian a bad ideal? (At least when compared to the Default Barbarian.

If you want to have your cake and eat it too do invulnerable route with 4 levels of vanilla rogue, you can take fast stealth(or trap spotter is nice) and weapon focus as rogue talents, get uncanny dodge and evasion, 2d6 sneak attack, all for the cost of 1 bab. could be really fun with an orc double axe half orc barb/rogue

Shield Spec in 3.5 grants +1 to Shield AC.

I believe that he meant Shield Focus, which does the same thing in Pathfinder. Shield spec is the 'next step' in PF...and since you need SHield Focus to get it, he was technically correct!

===Aelryinth

When did having a statement that is incorrect, but is somewhere close to the markbecome technically correct. Varisians...

grasshopper_ea wrote:

Chillax, dude. I think he means as a starting character using the normal starting gold amounts you wouldn't be able to afford it.

Crickets--funny.

Owl, bullfrog--not so much.

YELLING and extra !!!, just annoying.

*Your mileage may vary.

NO YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY!!!

Chillax, dude. I think he means as a starting character using the normal starting gold amounts you wouldn't be able to afford it.

But my way IS funnier.. at least to me..

grasshopper_ea wrote:

You may not purchase full plate at level 1.

And why is that, exactly?

*crickets chirping*

*owl hoots*

*bullfrog croaks*

OH MY GOSH!!!

Poit wrote:

While 2-handing a shield was certainly possible in 3.5, it's unfortunately not possible in Pathfinder.

"You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon."

James Jacobs has addressed that this is not true. Check for a thread on handedness. I don't know how to post links - or really care enough to learn - so if you want it, you'll have to look for it.

My Core Rulebook says I can use a one handed weapon two handed.

I was attempting to make a character that had a good balance of both offense and defense and I saw that heavy shields are one-handed weapons. I'm assuming that you can then wield it in 2 hands to gain the additional damage and with improved shield bash you can maintain the ac bonus.

Odd mental picture but this could be a really good option. A balance of both offense and defense.

So does this work? and also would it work with shield of swings?

if so, full plate+heavy shield+shield of swings+shield spec+fighting defensively would be a nice 29 ac at lvl 1 :)

You can by the rules use your shield two handed for extra damage. You may not purchase full plate at level 1. you do not qualify for shield spec at level one nor does shield spec add to your AC, just AC vs criticals. Shield of Swings is a shield bonus so it does not stack with your shield bonus from your shield. Otherwise you are good.

Talonhawke wrote:

Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as

tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated
shield bonus to your AC. As a standard action, however,
you can use a tower shield to grant you total cover until the
beginning of your next turn. When using a tower shield
in this way, you must choose one edge of your space. That
edge is treated as a solid wall for attacks targeting you
only. You gain total cover for attacks that pass through this
edge and no cover for attacks that do not pass through this
edge (see Chapter 8). The shield does not, however, provide
cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell
on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot
bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand
for anything else.

This is the only instance i know of.

Thanks. I've been working on firearms rules. A lot of what I wrote adds bonuses not only to guns, but arrows as well. Right now I'm just looking for counter bonuses I can add into the game so that there are ways of defending yourself. Allowing more kinds of shields to provide cover more often, with less hassle, seems like a good way of doing it.

The shielded or phalanx fighter gets some options to provide cover to alies with their shield, etc. might look into archtypes in the apg

I'm still looking for the rules but I'm not having any luck.

Under what conditions to shields provide cover against a range attack? Is it only certain kinds of shields or only for full defense?

The only shield that can give cover unless you have a class ability that says otherwise is a tower shield can be used to grant cover fron one direction. Usually they just provide you an AC bonus.

this thread is for all things monk from the sweet sound of nun chucks hitting goblin skull to not having to wear armor and being able to punch red dragons in the eyes. drop a line and say why you think the monk is sweet

Because a level 20 monk can do 2d10 damage with any part of his body.

mdt wrote:

Because the trait does not give you a Magic Weapon, it gives you a Masterwork Weapon. A magic weapon is a maswterwork weapon, but the same is not true in reverse.

Your logic is like this : I can get an animal companion who is a dolphin. A dolphin is a whale, so therefore I can also have an orca.

The trait gives you a MW weapon (not a magic weapon).

Actually, my logic is just the reverse. I can get an animal companion that is a whale. A dolphin is a whale, therefore I can also have a dolphin.

The trait gives a MW weapon. Magic Weapons are MW. Therefore I can take a magic weapon.

If your level 1 character can afford the +5 Vorpal sword and the feat pays 300 gold for the masterwork component you are correct, because the feat pays for the masterwork component. I haven't played in a game where I had starting gold over 1000 gold though.

Okay,so I would like to have a backup char for PFS in case my current one kicks the bucket.

Right now,the main problem I'm dealing with is choosing a class;I know the Fighter,Barbarian,Paladin,and Magus are all viable options.What are the pros/cons of each class?

I want my tank to be both tough(lots of hit points) and sticky(attract the enemy's attention,and keep it).

The first one should be pretty easy:A high con and toughness will do the trick.

The second one will NOT be so easy:I'm thinking combat reflexes combined with a decent damage output.

Well for High Con char a plain old dwarven fighter/barbarian will probably fit the bill. If you go dwarrven barb lookup the feat in the APG that lets you gain extra CON while raging.

For the second I recommend a fighter with a reach weapon, combat reflexes, perhaps a couple combat manuevers(trip, disarm come to mind), and combat patrol. You dont need to specialize much with weapon training and power attack you will do plenty damage. Shield of swings can help your ac when performing combat manuevers. A fighter can actually get whirlwind at level 4 so you can have a lot of fun with a reach weapon very early in the game. Take a combat bonus feat you plan to drop at four and use take spring attack for your lvl 4 feet and whirlwind for your replacement fighter feat from 1 or 2.

Needs more zombies.

needs more animated cowbell zombies

VS would not work with the con damage of the Rapier.

Vital Strike wrote:

When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.

Firstly, you're making a touch attack, so you are not using the weapon's damage to calculate the damage at all, it's a special ability of the weapon. VS only works when damage is dealt by the weapon using a normal attack. In this case, doubling the damage die of the weapon does nothing as it is not involved in dealing the damage.

As for sneak attacking, it should work fine when using the special ability, but I do not think that it would apply more con damage, something seems off to me and I don't think that's what was intended.

If you sneak attack with Chill touch, does that do 1d6 extra of strength damage? I don't know, but my gut says it would not.

chill touch would deal extra negative energy damage since it deals neg energy damage, sneak attack acid arrow deals extra acid damage, etc.

Three times per day, this +2 wounding rapier allows the wielder to make a touch attack with the weapon that deals 1d6 points of Constitution damage by draining blood. Creatures immune to critical hits are immune to the Constitution damage dealt by this weapon.

That says nothing about using it in place of the normal damage. You get a touch attack as a standard action to damage their constitution.

VS does not work with that.

Nowhere does it say it's a standard action, but I'm tempted to default to that.

Also nowhere does it say in sneak attack that it has to deal hit point damage. Sneak attack does extra damage of the same type though that seems a bit sick if you look at doing 1d6 con +5d6 con from a level 10 rogue. I'm tempted to go with some 3.5 errata and have the additional damage be negative energy instead of con damage

Vital Strike does not function when using the rapier's special Con drain ability - the attack deals Con drain, not damage. Also, Vital Strike multiplies the number of 'weapon damage dice' you roll, and the number of 'weapon damage dice' you roll with the Con drain ability is 0.

As for critical hits, under 'spells and critical hits' the rules say that if a spell that deals ability damage or drain crits, it deals double the listed damage or drain. It seems logical to apply this rule to the rapier of puncturing's ability, even though it's not strictly speaking a spell.

Finally, sneak attack would not work when you use the rapier's special ability - you have to deal hit point damage to sneak attack, and this attack deals ability drain, but no damage.

The weapon does con damage in place of it's normal damage this is what leads me to believe it works with VS, if it is a standard it does not though, it's not spelled out in the item it just says in place of it's normal damage.

Would vital strike deal 2d6 con damage on rapier of puncturing, on a critical would it become 3d6 drain.

would sneak attack work with this weapon when using this ability?

Explain how you are going to get your +6/+1 iterative attacks AND then get claw/claw/bite.

Also a few numbers...

Assume an 18 str for a +4 bonus and power attack.

Greatsword - 2d6 + 6 + 6 = ave of 19 damage, 38 pts if both hit.
Natural - 1d4 + 4 + 4 = 11 damage, 22 damage for 2, and 33 for 3 hits. 36 if all 3 hit max damage.

It would take 2 of your natural weapons to land just to compete with the 2handers 1st attack. If the 2hander lands his second attack as well your 3 naturals can not equal his average damage even if you rolled max.

Keep in mind in that example I didnt use variables such as magic weapons or weapon focus b/c both examples could attain the same variables.

now what if your two handed fighter misses his iterative, (highly likely on difficult enemies), and the natural weapons hit 3 times, also highly likely as they're all at the highest BAB. Noone is saying the two handed fighter is bad, they're saying that natural weapons is a nice Viable option, keyword option. Note that you can use a manufactured weapon and get your natural weapons also something along the lines of longsword +10/+5, claw +8, bite +8

I get your point, guys, but the OP was specifically talking about a ranger build, with an effective claw/claw/bite routine, which is not achievable with the standard races. I'm sure there are any number of other edge cases folks can throw up, but they are just that, edge cases.

actually the natural weapons ranger variant from the APG can get natural weapons with his first bonus feat at level 2, if he's half orc he can be claw claw bite all at level 2 not too shabby

From PFSRD -

MAGICAL LINEAGE(trait)

Benefit: Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell’s final adjusted level.

TOPPLING SPELL

Benefit: The impact of your force spell is strong enough to knock the target prone. If the target takes damage, fails its saving throw, or is moved by your force spell, make a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Wisdom for clerics, Intelligence for wizards, and so on). This does not provoke an attack of opportunity. If the check fails, the target cannot attempt to trip you or the force effect in response.

A toppling spell only affects spells with the force descriptor. A toppling spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

MAGIC MISSILE

I think this would be fun for a cleric/oracle specializing in sanctuary and spiritual weapons as well. Fun idea for sure. As to other things MM can be good for, energy substitution for vulns, quicken, empower at lvl 3/4 wiz/sor, actually has a lot of viability from this build, maybe not elite but i think it could keep up and would be fun to play.

A missile of magical energy darts forth from your fingertip and strikes its target, dealing 1d4+1 points of force damage.

The missile strikes unerringly, even if the target is in melee combat, so long as it has less than total cover or total concealment. Specific parts of a creature can't be singled out. Objects are not damaged by the spell.

For every two caster levels beyond 1st, you gain an additional missile - two at 3rd level, three at 5th, four at 7th, and the maximum of five missiles at 9th level or higher. If you shoot multiple missiles, you can have them strike a single creature or several creatures (Targets up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart). A single missile can strike only one creature. You must designate targets before you check for spell resistance or roll damage.

OK... So you are a Sorc. with a ton of 1st level Magic Missiles that you can altered by this meta feat... sounds like great fun for hitting smaller minions and maybe even mid size bosses.

A question... If several missile hit one creature do you get to make separate trip attempts for...

We've seen the threads. The general consensus would be that it is an "unusable" feat.

So what. It is what it is, and without errata, it will remain as it is. Therefore, I challenge you to find a build that would allow it to work despite it's current state.

My best idea so far is a monk/fighter with improved critical(unarmed) and everything possible to increase that threat range further. Keen for bludgeoning?

It would be a multi-round attempt (try to flat-foot? touch ac?)

Not a guaranteed shot by any means, but still better than base. Any other ideas?

I would sooner base a character around skill focus(profession:cook) because that is more useful in combat.

I was discussing an up-coming campaign with my GM last night, as we began talking about party roles.

(It will be our first full Pathfinder game.)
He implied a wizard would be a bad idea for campaign reasons (lost world adventure, little access to other wizards and few items available).
He then went on to suggest that the arcane bond was horrible as the item could be broken or taken, costing too much to replace (lost world means little access to casting goods we don't make ourselves, let alone straight cash) and making it impossible to cast without heinous concentration checks.
I like the bonded item, but wasn't able to come up with an argument to answer him.
What do ya'll think?

You don't need an arcane bond to be a great level 1 wizard! You need scribe scroll! And you get it for free. Scribe everything especially no save/limited caster level benefit spells. You can always be prepared. Or be a verdent sorcerer and pretend you're a druid.

I wouldn’t call it too mean… Have the players complained about their stuff being stolen too much or by fiat?

If so, I’d say to remember lots of actions are realistic. From what you’ve said it sounds like in both situations there are other realistic NPC actions that didn’t involve theft and flight.

If not, I wouldn’t worry about it. I sounds like you are playing fair, not just steamrolling them to take their goodies because you can {mwahaha}, or as a ‘hey guys it’s DRAMA’ cheap trick.

Game on :)

heh noone's allowed to complain now since they just found about 225k in loot, that should be enough to cover the three reincarnates and removing the 9 negative levels.

Warning. Long and extreme violence.

Hi, and thanks for your reply. Here's my issue:

1. Why would I (or you, or anyone) want to burn 2 feats to get a worse attack than one already granted by an innate ability? For that matter, how does Rapid/Many beats Flurry? Example:

At 6th level, if I took Manyshot as my bonus feat (after taking Rapid at 2nd), I would get a double attack at one target (manyshot), plus another attack (rapid shot) at a chosen target. Both rolls are at +2 (+4 BAB, -2 penalty per Rapid Shot). Sure one attack is double damage if it hits, but my chance to hit is decreased by 10%.

If instead I use Flurry, I get 3 attacks at target(s) of my choice, at +4, +4, +1. As I see it, compared to the archery feats, that's two attacks with standard chance of success, plus another attack with -15% chance to hit. As I progress in level, this difference is even greater, where Flurry gives me more attacks at a better bonus. How/when/where is Rapid/Many better than Flurry?

2. In terms of flavor, it's lame to nerf archery-based feats in an archery-based class? (I get it mechanically (e.g. overpowering), but not flavor-wise.

3. With these above two points in mind, the Zen Archer class could be improved by either a) offering a more usable selection of bonus feats, b) replacing Rapid/Many with special Zen Archer feats, or c) allowing Rapid Shot and Manyshot in a Flurry of Blows, but requiring higher prerequisites to use them.

My question remains: [i]Why would anyone choose these?[/] If my understanding of the rules is wrong here, please correct me with specific examples. The way I see it, Rapid/Many is not even in the same league as a bow Flurry. As it stands, I will definitely take other bonus feats.

If you are playing a straight monk you should skip rapid/manyshot, if you want to qualify for rapid shot and many shot with 13 dex wearing full plate as a fighter/monk they become great bonus feats

Bobson wrote:

...Brass knuckles are not an unarmed attack...

That is incorrect, Brass knuckles are listed as an unarmed attack.

Look at "Table: Weapons" in the APG or the PRD and look at the categories of types of simple weapons listed are:
Unarmed Attacks
Light Melee Weapons
Two-Handed Melee Weapons

Brass Knuckles are listed under <b>Unarmed Attacks</b>.

Therefore brass knuckles are unarmed attacks when applied to AoMF since AoMF states it modifies unarmed attacks.

Any GM that's dumb enough to let you play it that way deserves what he gets. Brass knuckles are not unarmed attacks they are armed attacks that happen to do more damage if a monk puts them on. They don't suddenly become a natural weapon. As such they qualify as a weapon for enchantment, sundering being targeted by spells that target weapons, etc. and someone not trained in unarmed combat can use them without taking AoO's.

Bobson wrote:

Quote:

While I agree that I wouldn't allow AoMF and Brass Knuckles to stack (of course I hate Brass Knuckles for monks) I only brought that up for a RAW interpretation. I think it's a bit too cheesy.

Nothing I know of prevents the weapon abilities from stacking.

Nothing I know of allows them to stack. Where does that leave us?

I think the easiest way to see how they 'would' stack is looking at a precedent set by 3.5 weapon crystals. While equipped into magic weapons they were in fact a separate item but still provided bonuses to attack. All the amulet is in a sense is a weapon crystal around your neck.

Also as far as I know weapon abilities are not a typed bonus and so stack by rules.

I don't like it personally, which is why I think most GMs will make their own decision there.

grasshopper_ea wrote:

If you take brass knuckles out of the equation this works. If you hit with brass knuckles you are no longer hitting with a natural weapon, but a manufactured weapon. You gotta choose one way or the other.

While I want to agree I have to disagree. The spell does in fact only modify your normal natural attacks; however Brass Knuckles specifically use your unarmed damage to determine their damage. There is no stipulation saying that the unarmed damage can't have been modified by something.

The brass knuckles are not a natural attack therefore cannot benefit from anything that augments only natural attacks.

Brass knuckles lets the monk use his unarmed strike damge for his brass knuckles damage dice.

11th level monk = 1d10
Monks Robes ~ 16th level monk = 2d8
Enlarge: 2d8 => 3d8
Strong Jaw: 3d8 => 4d8 => 6d8

Monk's attack with BKs is base 6d8 damage, right?

How about a 15th level monk = 2d6
Monks Robes ~ 20th level = 2d10
Enlarge: 2d10 => 4d8
Strong Jaw: 4d8 => 6d8 => 8d8

Not too shabby right? Is it over powered? The monk needs two spells and a magic item to pull this off.

If you take brass knuckles out of the equation this works. If you hit with brass knuckles you are no longer hitting with a natural weapon, but a manufactured weapon. You gotta choose one way or the other.

While reading through the rules I stumbled upon a pretty funny loophole.

"An arrow used as a melee weapon is treated as a light improvised weapon (-4 penalty on attack rolls) and deals damage as a dagger of its size (critical multiplier x2)."

Now, if you combine that with:

"Catch Off-Guard (Combat)"

** spoiler omitted **

you can use arrows as melee weapons without penalty. And the great thing about arrows is that enchanted arrows are a lot cheaper than regular weapons! A single magical arrow is 50 times cheaper than a melee weapon counterpart. This means you can get your +10 melee weapon as soon as level 3 or 4 (assuming standard wealth and access to a magic item mart) and you're good to go!

Have fun slaying evil wearing a full-plate, tower shield and wielding your deadly arrow. Stabby stabby!

I would let you use the arrow for about 3 fights then disarm it and shoot you with it destroying the arrow

Ævux wrote:

Actually there is already a cha based infiltrator. Its called a bard.

How does that Order of the Stick comic go again?

Elan: "MAKE MAKE MAKE (sings w/ banjo) .. MAKE THAT SNEAK ROLL!"

Someone's got to have a link to that comic.

I believe you're thinking of, "HEY GUYS, I GOT A 4 ON MY STEALTH CHECK! GUYS! I GOT A 4!"

and bluff bluff bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre

(Ok i could accept playing it as an halfling instead. But i think an gnome would be more optimal then the halfling. +2 CON beats +2 DEX if you ask me. Also the gnomish race is cooler then the halfling dito.)

I have my concept. What i would help with is comments from others if there is something iv forgotten in my build or some ideas on how to make the build better. Im not looking for the best healing cleric ever, i just want your help to improve my idea of an gnome cleric. I want him to be a good party supporter and healer. Better movement than 20 feet / round and a fairly high AC.

Im pretty damn sure i want him to use a shield.

Its a 25 point buy and i will start playing him from level 3

Ability score:
STR 10
DEX 13
CON 18
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 12

Notes: Gnome have an penalty to STR so taking a high STR would be very expensive. Dex 13 so i can pick the feat dodge and gain +1 AC. CON 18 for the HP. INT is dump but i dont want to loose the skill point. Know. rel, heal and spellcraft feels necessary to have. Wis for obvious reasons. CHA for the extra channel.

Favored class Cleric, +1 skill point. I will put my 3 skill points each level in knowledge religion, spellcraft and heal.

Feats:
level 1: Selective channel, level 3: combat casting, level 5: tower shield prof, level 7: heavy armor pof. Level 9: dodge. Level 11: Extra channeling. Level 13: Extend spell level 15: Toughness. Level 17: some cool feat level 19: some other cool feat.

Domains: I really want travel domain, mainly cause it will give me +10 movement and that would compensate alot as i play gnome with heavy armor. Also the spell longstrider. Nice gods like Cayden, Desna and Abadar holds it. Dont know what other domain to combine it with. Perhaps good? protection? Luck?

Traits: No clue.

Gear: What to start with is not my strong side.

Dont know. Is there any information you need that i havent told?

It may not fit your concept, but oracle of lore witha gnome is incredible, use your cha for your ac and reflex saves instead of dex and you can heal well and have skillpoints as an oracle.. either that or dip it for a level then go into cleric :)

I don't know how 'realistic' that is, the PC dropped the weapon, he didnt toss it over in the corner. I dunno if I would run over under someones feet to grab an item they are standing over just because they can't see. seems a bit risky. especially when you are over powered.

Think about it this way, bad guys with AK 47s cant see, but youve got night vision goggles, are you gonna grab the guys wallet he dropped by his feet (needing to move up to get it and grab it and then move away) or just plain run?

The dark stalkers in question have 4 levels in rogue, fast stealth, and in deeper darkness a +64(+24 normal +40 from invisibility) stealth check, so he could really dance around in circles if he felt like it as long as the magus forgets he has daylight prepared, so going and getting the weapon was a very safe move, much safer than staying with the seeking shotgun gnome vital striking him with exploding dice

So I'm trying to create an organic feel for the game where the players have freedom to do things, and they have consequenses. One of the players rightfully should have died but we had a split encounter and he wasnt there the next session, but he was a sorcerer in melee with a bone devil with 7 hps. He wanted to playtest the Magus class, so I decided instead of killing him I would turn him into a vampire since the group realy hated the sorcerer for sunbursting them with the morrowfall. He is a diabloist and went to their ship, they have a boat they stay on and dominated the rogue and got the morrowfall with one of his imps and stole it. This was about a month ago. Last night in Walcourt the rogue dropped his +1 defending mithril rapier to use his bow in a deeper darkness spell. The enemies can't hit except on a 20 on anyone in the group so the dark stalker grabbed his rapier and ran. Is this too cruel? Should I replace the items with others? I have a plan for them to get the morrowfall back before they face Ilnerik, but I felt that is exactly what the enemies would do in that situation. Any thoughts?

Abraham, I tend to have larger parties than four (generally six) and have found the Paizo's solo BBEG's to be a problem. It is hard to find a single monster that is tough enough to withstand more than a round or two of optimized attack that WON'T kill the party outright. I have to retool to add minions so there is some feeling of peril/challenge for the group. I also regularly redo stats to full HP and to de-nerf some of the nerfed guys.

If you're a player, you probably haven't read the GM threads, but I made a big post for design issues with this particular adventure -- and we haven't even reached Liebdaga yet! So don't feel alone. Granted, GM's need to tweak adventures, but it can be hard to do a good job since we're not pros. But at least Paizo gives us plenty of practice. I'm getting used to it.

Tweak = adding advanced template to monsters to add challenge for high power parties.

Overhaul = redoing entire encounters because they simply do not work.

tweak (darn.. there's no not equal sign) not equal overhaul

Just for the record, looking at Liebdaga's hitroll, he doesn't have -5 levels, he has more like -17 levels. Just saying.

Our party is not particulary optimized and we used the medium point build. They do have a lot of wealth. I did not want to change this encounter, I was really hoping that the fight with the pit fiend would be epic and memorable. It was, just more in the way the lemure cage fight went to the fighter solo without a scratch. Don't worry though, Abe, I won't be making the mistake of running the adventure how it's written anymore. At least I almost got to kill the gnome with madjaw!

Hehehe you think this is bad on the monk. Try it on the phalanx fighter with a spiked heavy shield of bashing or a shielded fighter with a scorpion whip!