upho's page

Eh, Fighters are okay. I do buff them to Int + 4 and give them good Will Saves in my home games but Advanced Armor and Weapon Training along with the Weapon/Armor Mastery feats gives them a niche.

This. From a strictly mechanical PoV, it appears to me that quite a lot of people miss that the fighter class as written (with access to all "non-alternative" 1PP options), did end up enabling highly varied and AFAIK the most capable actual *fighter* (= combatant with a pointy stick) high level PC builds in the game. With the exception of a few caster builds with certified BS options (such as Sacred Geometry, trompe l'oeil constructs or glimpse of the akashic) and/or those relying on options which are only truly powerful in games run by a (very) lenient GM (like gate for helpful unique creatures or wish), I'd even go as far as saying that no class can produce even remotely as powerful* high level PC combatants as the fighter can.

Additionally, options such as Versatile Training and those providing utility and combat boosts making more well-rounded stats feasible, (perhaps most notably Mutation Warrior and VMC barb for rage powers) means such a "combat monster fighter" can quite easily also become a very capable dungeon crawler, most likely able to very reliably scout, infiltrate and disarm even the most complex, well-protected and trap-ridden hell-holes ever published for the game.

That said, I think the fighter does have a few problems, and the one I find the far most annoying is that the class' strength is so highly dependent on the player's skills in/interest in/available time for char-op. I mean, IME it's not too difficult for a newer player to put together a fighter able to pull their weight in a typical Paizo AP during early levels, but it's damn near impossible for such a player to make a fighter who has the same relative usefulness in a more demanding game and/or during higher levels, and much less a fighter who is as useful, mechanically interesting and unique as the average full caster in the same party.

*"Powerful would in this context be defined as something along the lines of:
"The ability to, without outside support, reliably take multiple foes with highly varied abilities, of a CR equal to at least PC level +5, out of combat each round, in highly varied circumstances, while spending a minimum of limited party resources, and/or the ability to drastically increase the party's ability to do the same."

Online games have fighters / tanks able to cover DPS or tanking roles, depending on what gear they have equipped (two-handed weapon or dual weapons for DPS, shield and one-hand weapon for tanking), and it would be neat to see Fighters be able to handle multiple rolls as well.

Fighters can already do this, and do it very well. Again, I believe the problem (if any) is that the class provides very few clues as to how such a fighter is put together, and that many options which may appear related to and/or great for a certain combat role and style are actually weak or simply traps. In effect, a less experienced player might be capable of building a fighter capable of dealing decent amounts of hp damage with full attacks, but will find it vastly more difficult to build say a truly effective tank, melee controller or skirmisher.

As an example, the near game-breaking potential of the Dirty Trick Master feat isn't exactly obvious to someone who isn't very familiar with the related combat rules as well as a sufficient number of the mostly very specific supporting options which combine to make that feat such an incredible power-house (such as options for great reach, Kitsune Vengeance, Cloak and Dagger Subterfuge, Ascetic Style, Combat Style Master, Weapon Style Mastery, dueling (PSFG) weapon, monk versatile design weapon modification, Tempest Shield, Paired Opportunists, etc, etc). Which isn't strange, especially when considering that even well-known and otherwise at least decent class guides also fail to mention this.

The problem is that it gives ONE niche... when it needs like 3 or even 4.

What is that ONE niche, in your opinion?

I honestly don't think the fighter has one niche, but several. And it's perfectly possible to build a fighter capable of switching between different niches and/or fulfilling multiple niches simultaneously. And when it comes to combat niches more specifically, I don't think any other full bab class is able to do so as well as the fighter is, especially as most of the other classes are simply offering a few somewhat different ways to deal hp damage with a weapon.

Like I said, it feels like the Fighter is lacking a special reason to exist. An army commander? The Cavalier or even the Bard does a better job. A tribal leader? Barbarians, bloodragers, hunters and shifters can fit that role. An agile fighter? Rogues, monks, rangers and swashbucklers make better skirmishers. An unarmed fighter? Monks, brawlers and unarmed archetypes work better. An archer? Rangers and hunters, again, work better. Someone with a special power? Magi, occultists, warpriests and paladins work better.

Well, AFAIK the fighter at least has the potential to do one thing better than these classes, and that is to *fight*.

But yes, I agree the fighter as a class concept is poor, being too vague and generic while simultaneously being too combat focused.

Your best roles for Fighters are bodyguards, soldiers and gladiators, and I can go on and on about roles that other classes just do it better than the Fighter.

From a mechanical PoV, I believe you're wrong here. No other class provides as strong options for these roles as the fighter does.

Set wrote:

Perhaps even a 'Vancian Fighter' who could swap out their bonus Fighter feats every day, with 1 hour of training in the morning, so that one morning they are a trip specialist with a reach polearm, but if the adventure turns in a direction where a trip specialist is useless, they can spent an hour the next day 'preparing' new Fighter bonus feats to be a cleave machine or whatever.

We do have the Martial Master archetype, which gets the Brawler's Martial Flexibility.

Basically any fighter with Barroom Brawler, Abundant Tactics, Warrior Spirit and perhaps a Manual of War already has quite a bit of this type of feat versatility. But I certainly wouldn't mind it there was at least an archetype able to switch out multiple combat feat chains on a daily basis (basically resulting in a Vancian PoW initiator).

A: 100% offense, 100% defense (baseline)

B: 150% offense, 100% defense (uses offhand for more damage)
C: 100% offense, 150% defense (uses offhand for more defense)
D: ?? offense, ?? defense

Taken out of context like this, the comparison has zero bearing on Shield Master, or even on any of the feats related to the other "styles". It may however say at least something if these hypothetical "duelists" are supposed to have made an equally great investment into perfecting their respective styles (they have an equal amount of feats wealth invested in relevant magic items, similar combat ability scores etc). So I suggest you try to make that comparison instead.

And if you do, don't limit "offense" to on-paper DPR or "defense" to passive AC. There are plenty of other factors potentially affected by these styles which could be equally or more important.

Crit fishing is using an 18-20 weapon I assume.

Yes, combined with Improved Crit/keen weapon for 15-20, crit confirmation boosts, a boatload of attacks per round for reliability, and as great crit effects as possible. It typically has the highest on-paper average DPR, but its very high standard deviation and high ratio of wasted DPR/crit effects typically makes it quite a bit less powerful in practice, at least before high levels.

So stuff like Dazzling Display, you mean?

Yes, although that specific feat is at best a feat tax and at worst a horrible trap for less experienced players to spend their actions in a turn in a highly inefficient manner. Effective combat demoralization typically includes free Intimidate on hit (Cornugon Smash, Enforcer), boosted Intimidate (typically Intimidating Prowess) and rider effects (mentioned cruel weapon, Hurtful, Shatter Defenses etc). Or - for those who wanna be scarier than any monster and play in high power games - Soulless Gaze. (And if they're insane scare-fanatics who don't care about breaking the game, Soulless Gaze is combined with Hero's Display, Performing Combatant, Master Combat Performer and at least three reliable triggers for auto-succeed performance combat checks in the opening round of every combat.)

Combat maneuvers are a thing that reward some investment in intelligence but are often unreliable due to size or lack of weapon using enemies or what have you. But that's literally only like 3 feats and the "advantage" is only a +2 on the checks...but you get double the checks.

Eh...? Did you even check up the dirty trick stuff I mentioned in my previous post? It's a whole lot more than "like 3 feats" and their "advantage" is definitely not only +2 to CMB. Even just the "Greater" feats offer plenty more than that. FYI, a martial PC specializing in combat maneuvers can be made more powerful than any damage build can ever hope to be, especially during higher levels (due to the many feats, items and relatively high BAB required to make combat maneuvers truly sing).

Teamwork builds...what are good teamwork feats besides Outflank and Precise Strike? Also the shield basher can usually cherry pick the best ones.

For melee in general, the far most powerful teamwork feat is typically Paired Opportunists. But of course, like most other things, it requires quite a bit of investment in order to really pay off.

Not sure what style feats would be appropriate.

The mentioned tower shield one (Mobile Bulwark Style) is of course perfect for non-bashing shield builds, and there are plenty of powerful ones related to combat maneuvers and of course damage, albeit not specifically tied to shield use.

Not sure what shield and reach means. If you're referring to Shield Brace then at a minimum I'd use the PFS ruling of that the polearm is treated as a one-handed weapon at a minimum.

If you wanna equalize power potential with shield bashing, that seems to be a mistake. But regardless, the builds that get the most out of Shield Brace typically don't need to care about their damage output IME, and quite a few rightfully view even Power Attack as waste of a feat slot.

Dex to damage isn't allowed.

?

One free attack is like a 30%ish (for full attacks) to 100% (for standard attacks) damage increase per round. For one feat. That doesn't seem out of line to you?

Not at all. First, it's at best once per round. Second, it's most definitely NOT one extra attack for one feat, as it requires quite a bit of investment in other options (class/archetype levels, feats, skill ranks, items) in order to actually become reasonably reliable. Third, it's useless against quite a lot of enemies in most games, since immunity to fear or mind-affecting is a pretty common thing (especially for high CR monsters).

Two attacks at -2 are roughly as good as a single 2H attack. I don't see why the strength scores involved would be any different?

...
Even with doubled feats when I've made fighters I can't remotely get all the things I'd like. And that's with Weapon Specialization/Greater Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Specialization being given for free as well.
...
pure power increases for feats
...
Hurtful is a raw numbers feat. It helps you do more damage in basically all cases.

I recommend you actually read up on the options suggested to you and improve your system insight before you jump to conclusions. Because I'm unfortunately pretty certain that having people here explain everything in detail would require more time and effort than they can spare.

(FYI, your question about why Str matters is an example of you obviously not reading up on the options suggested. And perhaps especially you saying that Hurtful "is a numbers feat" because it "helps you do more damage in basically all cases", is a great example of you making claims without sufficient system knowledge.)

Regardless, if you allow most 1PP sources, I think you'll have far fewer problems with not having enough fighter feats, and you'll also enable far more differentiation between martial melee characters, even things like highly effective fighters and barbarians who don't even have to care about dealing damage"! Blasphemy, I know, but it sure makes the game more fun and interesting IMO. ;)

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Aren’t other characters investing in other feats to make their fighting styles better than their base too?

Such as? The default allowed content is CRB/APG/ACG, everything else per approval.

Several of the rage powers from APG can be made stronger, especially with a reach weapon (which a shield-basher fighter won't get nearly as much out of). Not to mention the ACG includes many of the strongest bloodrager options, which allow for several different types of significantly more powerful PCs than a damage focused shield-bashing straight Viking fighter.

And none of that is in turn anywhere close to what a sorcerer or wizard is capable of using only the options in the CRB...

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

The two weapon guy could be going into a hurtful, intimidation build for example.

Assuming you mean this Hurtful, then it seems that could apply just as well to other styles, not just 2H.

True, but since you do allow stuff from other sources on a case-by-case basis, you could help out the other guys by for example making Cornugon Smash and the cruel magic weapon ability limited to only attacks made with 1H non-shield melee (free Intimidate on every Power Attack hit and no-save sicken when hitting already shaken enemy is a pretty great little debuff combo). And that would also allow them to get tons more out of Hurtful than the Viking shield basher can.

And you could of course introduce more powerful stuff with the same limitations, such as say Shield Brace and tower shield stuff for carefree polearm wielding + shield carrying and maybe dirty trick options like Kitsune Vengeance, Cloak and Dagger Subterfuge, Savage Dirty Trick, dueling (PFSG) and leveraging weapon etc (though I suggest you keep clear of Dirty Trick Master as it most likely will turn out highly OP in your game).

at level 18+ he'd basically get a free attack each round due to free action intimidate.

That seems like a bad interaction for a feat from the Monster Codex.

Why does that interaction seem bad?

Not a sword and board character, a shield bashing character. Can very easily have sword and board that doesn't dual-wield (there's two other characters doing that in the party of six, for example).

With the options available per default in your game, carrying a light or heavy shield without using it for shield bashing unfortunately simply means not taking full advantage of the shield. It's the far weakest weapon style for a vast majority of PCs actually intending to primarily fight in melee, because it's actually not even half of the proper sword 'n' board style.

Note also that "passive" incomplete sword 'n' board being weak is far from anything new or weird, as it has been the case at least since the release of D&D 3.0, and if it matters, it's also matches pretty well with the sword 'n' board equivalent fighting styles in the history of our world as far as we can tell today. (At the very least shields carried with non-reach weapons are practically always actively wielded as weapons. And in the case of heavier shields also sometimes considered the primary weapon, or in more niche contexts often ending up as the only weapon and wielded 2-handed, and some exotic variants like the "Fu Tau Pah" even designed specifically to be wielded one in each hand).

And matching with numerous examples throughout a large majority of the known history since the earliest civilizations in our world, the one thing in the game above all others which can make a more purely defensive "passive" shield style viable for battlefield use is a pairing with a long polearm (via the above mentioned Shield Brace feat).

Speaking of options from other sources and TWF-ing with shields, I really think you should offer the Viking to get a pair of war-shields, as they're designed to make the most of his fighting style and would help the player to further differentiate him from the two more "passive" sword 'n' boarders in the party.

As as aside, I also house ruled literally double the fighter's feats -- so basically two per level. This was done to make it easier to get the "necessities" and then have room to pick up other stuff that gives more tactical options.

If I allow a bunch of new feats that are raw number increases (in effect), then that encourages fighters to delve even deeper into those and both A, gives a larger power increase than intended and B, prevents fighters from being able to branch out which was the whole goal.

I recommend you don't add more raw numbers boost feats. Not because they're necessarily more powerful (they rarely are), but because they're boring and won't help your three shield carrying PCs to meaningfully differentiate their fighting styles and combat functions.

Which is a "problem" of my own making, I'm aware.

Nah, I think there are very good reasons for doing something like that. And if anything, I think the "problem" this may have caused doesn't have much to do with raw numbers, but as mentioned mostly with the fact that it exacerbates any PC power imbalance issues caused by players having too different optimization focuses/skills/interests and PC power expectations, the PC imbalance growing exponentially with each extra PC option.

Philippe Lam wrote:

Shield Master is nowhere near as powerful as other options. It merely raises "budget".

It's more than just budget

Well, Shield Master actually is mostly "just" a budget TWF set-up, but I think calling it that fails to convey the fairly noticeable potential advantages such a budget TWF setup can provide in practice during many levels. That said, IME the feat's cost vs benefit ratio only stands out as particularly great for PCs highly specialized in making the most of the unique shield fighting qualities and related options (such as a "Captain Andoran" type of Shield Champion brawler based build for awesome action-efficient switch-hitting scaled up area control with Maelstrom and/or Tempest shields). And even in the case of such an extremely focused "Shield-Bashing Big Boss", I think Philippe Lam is still correct in saying that Shield Master isn't nearly as powerful as some of the other options that kind of build prioritizes even higher.

Most importantly, Shield Master only boosts numbers and doesn't enable any unique mechanics or combos. Even "Captain Andoran" can ignore it without risk of his combat effectiveness dropping below superhero grade.

It's only silly when it's flat out superior to fighting with a weapon plus shield from my perspective.

But it it's only superior to fighting with unsuitable weapons. I can imagine several shield-carrying builds significantly stronger than a dual-shield Viking fighter, none of them interested in Shield Master and likely never having a reason to use their heavy shields as a weapon.

And:

Because if that's what you're saying...of course one is better. One has more feats than the other. They both have the same equipment, but one utilizes it better. What's the other guy doing with all these resources? Probably something cool that the othere player can't do.

This.

My impression is that your problem isn't actually with the Shield Master benefits per se. Though if I've understood you correctly, I can also clearly see your reasons for viewing the feat as the culprit making sense from your perspective. (I'll dive into the details of that feat in my next post).

Instead, I'm suspecting the true issue here is a combination of the following:

If the above seems to fit reasonably well with reality and your own impressions, I believe it's highly likely that nerfing Shield Master won't solve the real problem, which will instead come up again and again in other build options the Viking player chooses. Because there are several potentially significantly more powerful options and combos available to that archetype to be found in the sources allowed per default in your game.

I therefore suggest you first try to better define the PC power levels you yourself actually prefer and expect at the relevant level ranges. And try do your best to question and adjust your preferences and expectations if it turns out they differ depending on which general kind of PC you're thinking of (such as main class, caster, martial or "gish" category, combat focus/role etc). Then talk to your players to reach a "gentlemen's agreement" as per point #4 in the spoiler above.

Hopefully, that will make the players actively try to balance their PCs' to your game, instead of the Viking player just looking for the most powerful options or the player of the weakest PC not paying enough attention to the mechanical viability of the options they chose. Once your players start to get the hang of whether an option or combo will fit with the agreed upon power level for your game, there's also little need for you to limit which PC options are allowed per default, which definitely increases the possible mechanical variety and balance of the PCs.

If you play in a setting with spellcaster guilds (such as Golarion), you might also be able to get the full casting progression (CL plus spells per day and spells known) of 3 additional sorcerer levels via Esoteric Training achieved at 35 Fame (see Inner Sea Magic). Which costs a tiny amount of gp and a bit of downtime investment, but is pretty easy to achieve in most Golarion guilds (and likely most games including those guilds).

Also, if you want to focus heavily on the melee side, I recommend you enter DD through bloodrager levels instead. This may grant you more gish-focused abilities and plenty of melee power.

Regarding the weapon vs natural attack question, the answer depends on the power level of your game and of course what you're trying to achieve. From a pure optimization perspective, if you're simply looking to maximize your DPR nothing beats a natural attack supercharger, but if you're looking to focus on control and party defense you'll want a reach weapon and likely invest in for example dirty trick combos.

Or, to put this all another way:

If we want to say Pathfinder goblins are iconic, yet to make them a playable core race we literally have to get rid of EVERYTHING that makes them iconic, then whats the point?

At this point you've got two separate races in everything but name. Either they are the goblins we have now, or they aren't. And if they aren't the iconic goblins we have now (who are intentionally made to be as unfit for PCs as humanly possible), why are we pretending they are?

Yep. Another aspect of the problem I mentioned earlier. The main things that make goblins popular as PCs is the same things that make them unsuitable as a core race.

And again, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the popularity of goblins falling if the race is described as not consisting of 99.999% crazy baby-eating homicidal pyromaniacs. I mean, if that stops being the case, I believe a lot of people who currently finds the goblin a really attractive option would simply lose interest. I mean, a big reason for playing a goblin is because of how extremely unlikely it is as an adventuring hero, and because of how many and radically different RP challenges a goblin PC presents because of the race's "default" behavior.

TWITCHY:

New things to taste

RONK:
We’ll lay them to waste

BOTH:
Just you and me!

...

...sniff...

*quickly turns away and stirs kettle frenetically*

*quietly dabbing eyes with a handkerchief*

Bigwort always cry this part. So beautiful.

Oh not again, Bigwort! Always the slobbering romantic.. You ever gonna fix those holes in that bucket o' yours?

*sobs*

Just... Just look what happens; the onions always turn out bad when you sing like that and Bigwort starts leaking! And... And the juice just always gets in my eyes!

*wipes eyes with shaking hands and loudly blows nose into kitchen apron*

And don't you dare complain 'bout your burned baby stew bein' too salty now!

....

On topic, I've never had any issues with goblin PCs, or with any of the far more exotic creatures rather frequently seen at my table. And I kinda like gobbos, as villains as well as unlikely PC heroes. So personally I certainly don't mind putting them in the CRB.

But I don't think it jams well with the Golarion setting as a whole, and even less with how goblins have been portrayed in Paizo APs (We Be Goblins included). Which unfortunately makes the decision to make them core seem hasty, short-sighted and ultimately also self-defeating to me.

IME, a major part of the reason why goblins in general and goblin PCs in particular are popular, is precisely because 99.999% of the ones PCs encounter or hear about in the setting are crazy little ugly baby-eating and trash-collecting homicidal pyromaniacs singing happy tunes about bloody murder in raspy smurf voices. Or in other words, they're popular precisely because they're practically never encountered or heard of as anything even remotely resembling heroes in the setting, and precisely because they're not primarily presented or supported as a PC race in player rules and setting material.

So the more recognized non-stereotypical goblins become in the setting, and the more support such goblins receive in player fluff material, the less unique and interesting goblins become as a PC race.

This wouldn't be an issue if goblins had as rich and diverse history and as many famous and varied heroes and villains as say elves in the setting (and in famous similar standard fantasy fiction). They could've been the eternal underdogs who constantly struggles against prejudice because of their small stature, funny "monster-cute" looks and odd quirks. But since such a background hasn't been properly established, while their villainous background certainly has, I suspect they'll quickly lose much of their attraction and soon fade into the background as just another drow. All while another similarly "edgy" and colorful monster race assumes the goblins' former role in the hearts and minds of players.

Let's hope I'm wrong, 'cause I wouldn't mind seeing gobbos grow beyond the stereotype while their attraction and popularity is kept intact.

Also keep in mind that one or two monsters will generally be much weaker than four or more monsters of equal total CR. Action economy is a huge thing, but typically doesn't improve that much over the first 10 levels or so. In short, I recommend you increase the number monsters before you increase the power of the monsters.

The only really noteworthy exceptions to this are IME highly optimized melee reach control builds specializing in free action combat maneuvers and AoOs. Such a build can actually match the action economy of maybe three or even four PCs, often by virtue of getting a lot of actions outside of its own turn. IME, these kinds of builds can combine exceptionally well with larger monsters (for reach and numbers), and can offer a different form of tactical challenge for your players without necessarily increasing the risks of unintended PC kills much, since damage is typically a low priority.

And of course, terrain features and traps can be great equalizers and make fights more interesting.

Crap, just noticed I somehow managed to get Julius' reach completely wrong; it should of course say 30', and he threatens a 35' radius.

Aberrant bloodline bloodragers make great reach weapon specialists.

These types of builds are popular becuase they need power attack, and combat reflexes.

Aberrant bloodragers can be great for reach. Which is why I decided to make the above example build outline. Which also happens to NOT use Power Attack! And it's still more effective than any damage dealing martial melee build I've ever seen in a very large majority of combat situations. Blasphemy, I know! ;P

Like most things, this build obviously still has limitations.

Yeah, nobody gets around that fact however you slice it! (Unless maybe if you're a wizard...)

But since I don't wanna be THAT guy who nitpicks other posters' builds without offering my own, here's an example of a human reach control/debuff build, focusing on dirty trick and demoralization with devastating efficiency.

@JuliusCromwell Hope this helps with some inspiration and ideas!

In short, Julius can truly dominate the battlefield, threatening a 25' radius and having the ability to make just about any enemy dazed and utterly useless for at least 2d4 rounds with just two melee attacks (replaced with dirty tricks), as well as panicked for several more rounds with one additional hit. A single AoO is usually enough to make an enemy completely unable to act, triggered also whenever an enemy attempts to attack Julius. Perfect for protecting Julius and his party, not to mention for the purpose of interrogating enemies after the fight instead of killing them during the fight. And Julius also happens to be pretty darn good at scaring them into telling the truth...

AFAIK, no damage focused martial melee build can match this combat efficiency, much less one using a reach weapon.

Shield Slam is basically the focus of the build I mentioned

Yeah, and that's unfortunately the main reason why it's quite weak in practice. Shield Slam is generally a trap, or a pretty useless feat tax on Shield Master. It will only rarely succeed against an actually challenging foe, as your total attack bonus cannot become even remotely as high as your bull rush CMB can, and the CMD of monsters is nearly always the second highest value found in their combat statistics. This difference is probably the main reason Paizo has released several options which can substantially boost CMB, but they apparently didn't see this when they wrote the CRB and Shield Slam.

TL/DR: Shield Slam is a very unreliable and poor tool for bull rush combos. Your build needs a Tempest Shield in order to do what you want it to do, and to make all the related investments worthwhile.

Being able to shield bash people away from you because shield slam makes every shield bash a bull rush. It pushes people back into reach range for your spear. If you have spiked armor and take spiked destroyer feat, you can get a free attack with your armor spikes every bull rush, so literally every time you hit someone with your shield you can swing with your armor spikes. If you have a polearm or spear with a high critical threat range, bashing finish at level 10 gives you a free shield bash on every critical confirmation, and thus free armor spikes...

And here's the second problem with this build IMO; most of its resources are spent on improving shield fighting with bull rushes, which you cannot do with a reach weapon. I think your build outline would be much better for a dual shield wielder than a reach build.

I want to create a cool Combatant who wields a pole-arm

I know the main use of a pole-arm is its Reach

Reach is often great, but it's not a combat role; it's a tool which can make you better at whatever your primary "fighting job" is. So I think you should first consider what you'd like to do in combat and what would best complement the other members of your party.

Reach is typically especially valuable if your primary combat role is control/debuff/party defense, and can also be great for increasing damage and personal durability. However, if your first priority is to maximize single-target melee damage output, a reach weapon build typically won't be the best.

As an example, an optimized reach build focusing on dirty trick and combat demoralization can reliably take more than one enemy per round out of the fight, while also severely decreasing the effectiveness and number of viable actions available to several additional enemies. This also happens to be one of the extremely few melee build types which can safely ignore investing into damage boosts (even staple melee options such as Power Attack might be unnecessary or even detrimental).

I Was thinking fighter maybe lore-warden but i am 100% set on that idea

At least a few levels of lore warden will probably be excellent. Other very good class levels for reach combat maneuver builds often include primalist bloodrager (especially aberrant bloodline, 4+ levels), barbarian (typically 6+ levels), master of many styles monk (1-2 levels), and tetori monk (with Ascetic Style, 8 levels).

I know i want power attack and lunge but not sure what else

As mentioned, depending on what you want to do, these aren't necessarily vital or even very useful. (Note also that Lunge only increases reach during your turn, not the area you threaten outside your turn, so it doesn't improve defender effectiveness much.)

If your game allows Dreamscarred Press material, like Path of War, you can make melee control builds which are a lot more tactically interesting, and which can be arguably at least as strong in combat as any BFC focused full casters even in higher levels.

Nice work! Makes me wanna bash myself for somehow consistently failing my Perception checks to notice this guide before now.

Although the fighter class rarely sees much use beyond the occasional 1-4 levels dip in my games, quite a lot of the higher rated stuff in your guide can also be of interest to other martials. (Which in my games primarily means Path of War initiators, and notably the Myrmidon fighter archetype which thankfully doesn't replace AWT or AAT.)

And because I'm a snarky nerdy nit-picky guy who cannot bear people being wrong on the internet, I'm really happy to finally have a place to which I can refer posters who still believe fighters are crap at fighting in comparison to other Paizo martials. Instead of having to post my own hopelessly inadequate descriptions of the fighter's many relatively recently published options and possibilities for the hundredth time... ;)

Judging from the ratings, I'm guessing this guide was primarily put together in order to help players make fighters able to, at the very least, carry their weight in typical lower op games (ie Paizo APs run as written), and to better keep up with the generally stronger Paizo martials (like the barb, bloodrager or pally). Meaning considerations mainly applicable to fighters in more demanding games are of less importance. Is this correct?

If it is, I think it still might be worth mentioning a few of the strongest and typically less obvious martial options and mechanical details mostly of interest to fighters in higher op games. Especially such options/details which fighters get at a discount and/or can get a lot of use out of, in comparison to most other martials.

Sorry for the wall of text. Hope you find something useful in there.

And keep up the good work!

Grapple is a standard action that cannot normally be used as part of an attack. But Grapple says this.

Quote:

Humanoid creatures without two free hands attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices).

So as a humanoid I am using my hands to grab.

First, how do you come to this conclusion? The grapple rules only say it's more difficult for a humanoid to grapple without two free hands. That doesn't mean a humanoid can only grapple with hands. And AFAIK, there are no rules in the CRB preventing a humanoid from attempting to grapple even with no free hands at all.

Second, neither is an UAS necessarily performed with your hands:

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon...

Third, the only thing making an UAS and a grapple check have in common is being types of melee attack rolls which don't rely on a manufactured or natural weapon. Full stop. You cannot even make a grapple check in place of an UAS (as in the case of replacing a regular melee attack with a trip, disarm or sunder). And as can be seen in the above quote from the general rules for UAS, an UAS is about "striking for damage", while a grapple check isn't.

TL/DR: since neither grappling or UAS necessarily involve hands and otherwise have very little in common, I see no reason why the mention of hands in the grapple rules would have you believe Weapon Focus (UAS) should apply to your grapple checks.

(As already mentioned in this thread, a creature can apply WF (UAS) to grapple checks only if its UAS' have the grab ability, and only to the free action grapple check granted by the grab ability to initiate a grapple (and maybe the subsequent checks to maintain that grapple?). So the only PCs able to apply WF (UAS) to grapple checks are those that have at least 8 levels in tetori monk.)

Shield Master doesn't make a +5 shield that's also been enhanced as a +1 Leveraging weapon into a +5 Leveraging weapon. Leveraging is still going to refer to the fact that its part of a +1 Leveraging weapon, regardless of whether you can add the shield's enhancement bonus to your attack rolls. But anyhow, numbers differences aren't really the issue.

First off, reading my previous reply to you on this, I'd like to apologize for the arrogant "can't believe you didn't know this"-tone. That was definitely not intended, and extra awkward in this case since I believe the reasons for my statement is far from immediately obvious.

And you're right the exact numbers aren't really the issue, but I feel like I at least owe you an explanation.

What's situational is using bull rush at all, particularly in the context of Shield Slam; there are many, many attacks where you're not going to want to - or even be able to - make use of it.

Well, aside from the fact Shield Slam doesn't allow you to choose NOT to BR strictly according to RAW, what you're saying here is actually a major part of the reason why I find the current Shield Slam mechanics problematic. PF needs more viable tactical tools for martial characters to focus on. BR can already be one such tool, but because of the Shield Slam RAW it's unfortunately restricted to pretty extreme higher level niche builds with access to very specific expensive items.

You're thinking about Shield Slam in terms of power-gaming abstracts, like how well it works on iterative attacks against a boss-monster at levels many campaigns don't even reach.

Based on what I've posted in this thread, I'd say this could definitely be possible. But I hope you realize that this is far from the only possibility, meaning it's ultimately mere conjecture.

And no, I don't generally expect or demand Shield Slam to work on iteratives vs BBEGs. (I guess I might in the case of a specific PC in a specific game though, but that would be a rare thing.) Note also that this is already possible via other Paizo options.

And I assume the "abstracts" means you basically think I'm basing my views on incorrect and/or incorrectly applied math. If so, what do you suggest would be a more accurate and less biased method than using the numbers I supplied to roughly estimate a "typical" Shield Slam's success chance at various levels? And what should we compare this chance to in order to give us a hint about whether it's too low, too high, or just about right? Or is there a much better method which doesn't involve numbers at all?

But on a practical level, characters aren't likely to use it on iterative attacks against boss-monsters, and I can guarantee that most characters who get some use out of it are completely uninterested in investing in bull rush as a specialized ability. Personally, even if I was creating a specialized Shield Slam build I'd probably still prefer it as it is.

From both a GM and a player perspective, I find that the most serious current issue with PF is the options for primarily martial PCs aren't allowing for enough player agency. Not surprisingly, this issue is most noticeable in the most mechanics-heavy part of the game which a vast majority of martial PC options affects; combat.

IOW, in every PF game I've played (with the one possible niche exception including 3PP material), with each level gained it has become increasingly obvious that the number of viable combat focuses/roles, the different combat styles within those focuses/roles, and the tactical options on a round-by-round basis, are all very limited for primarily martial PC's. Which in turn limits the mechanical variation between different martial PCs and ultimately player agency.

Increasing the various ways in which a PC can use combat maneuvers as a viable tool does a great deal in mitigating this issue.

upho wrote:

I think we should have a closer look at this to make sure our assumptions about this theoretical fighter are at least somewhat similar (please let me know if you think my numbers are off):

Kind of. Dueling and Skilled Maneuver are mutually exclusive.

Huh? No, but the Skilled Maneuver gauntlets should have their cost increase to 6k.

For the cost of a Leveraging enhancement on a +5 weapon, the Fighter in question could be using a Pale Green Ioun for a flat +1 attack instead of a specialized CMB stone.

Say what? Leveraging doesn't add a +1 cost to the +5 SHIELD enhancement bonus, but the effective bonus Leveraging adds is still dependent on that SHIELD enhancement bonus because of Shield Master.

I dunno if there are other resource issues like that, but it's not really the point; it seems like you're going from talking about diminishing returns on attack rolls to talking about instead piling resources into a combat maneuver that's really situational.

Sorry, but what do you mean? Is the Shield Slam BR happening or the BR bonuses I suggested "really situational"?

IME neither are in the case of a 20th level fighter focusing on BR and shield fighting. It was you who first brought up a high level fighter. I'm simply saying that if we're going to use that example, it should at least be a realistic representative of a fighter in a real game, played according to game guidelines (WBL etc).

On a practical level, just tack-on a +2 charge bonus and a +1 stone bonus, and the Fighter in question has a solid chance to score a Shield Slam in the situation it's most likely to be used against a big bad boss who can actually be affected by it - on a single attack, probably a charge. Against the mobs and minions, where he might actually want to use iterative slams, he's got a good shot at sending them flying. Against weaker targets, like back-rankers prime to be slammed into a wall or post, it's golden. I don't think abstracts about CR20's really represent things very well a lot of the time, especially with situational/tactical things like this.

To put things into perspective, this fighter would still have a far greater chance to succeed in these situations if he could make a normal BR check. It may cost him a few additional resources to improve that check, but at least he CAN improve it to the same kind of success chance as his attack roll has vs AC.

And perhaps more importantly, the current Shield Slam RAW means the only way to actually make other BR investments worthwhile is to get a Tempest Shield (a specific magic shield which actually grants a proper BR as a separate free action on a shield bash hit). I think martial classes/characters are already more than enough dependent on magic items, so also having entire feat chains being dependent on a highly specific magic item in higher levels seems like really poor game design.

I still think that it simply uses the number on the dice roll in place of the one you'd otherwise roll.

After all, if we're going to go with that it replaces the overall result, then that means you can't choose not to Bull Rush people, and everybody knows that's obviously not intended.

Why? Just because you cannot choose to not BR according to the Shield Slam RAW, it doesn't mean that if you could choose you'd have to make a separate BR check.

IOW, if we assume that you indeed can choose, that doesn't change the fact that RAW, when you do choose to BR you still use your attack roll in place of the normal combat maneuver check.

You have to wonder if it's better to have wrong numbers than to admit that good numbers are hard to come by.

A possible indication for NPC stats would be to take averages from the NPC and Villain codices.

Please go and calculate that average then. I can assure you that the average CMD will be significantly higher than the average AC, and that this average difference will increase with CR.

Apart from that, another good point was made: Shield Slam is one feat in a build otherwise not interested in bull rushing. It's a fairly opportunistic choice really.

And as I already said, that is all well and good.

What is NOT well and good is that there is no way to improve it for a build that actually is interested in bull rushing. Worse, the only currently available Paizo alternative to Shield Slam is a pretty expensive specific magic shield (Tempest Shield). Without such a shield, how do you suggest a build interested in BR actually makes investments into the maneuver worthwhile? Or do you think it's perfectly OK if such investments become trap options in mid/high levels?

I happen to play a Slayer with it, and Shield Mastery is by far the more important feat in the build. Whole adventures go by when it just isn't tactically useful to bull rush people.

Thank you for proving my point about Shield Slam currently being a Shield Mastery feat tax. (But remember there are quite a few options which could make the Shield Slam BR very tactically useful in every round.)

Overall, 'useful' is a question of A)how high a character drives weapon bonuses vs how high they drive bull rush CMB bonuses, and B)how much a character wants to invest in driving up bull rush CMB bonuses at the cost of other things.

Agreed. But the important point here is that boosting your attack bonus beyond a certain point typically involves making very substantial investments with rapidly diminishing returns. Meaning that in practice, it requires huge investments to maintain just an average Shield Slam BR success chance of 75% with your highest bab attack in higher levels, while the additional advantages those investments bring (mostly increased DPR per attack) tend to be small.

The first question depends a lot on class features. A weapon/shield Fighter focused on weapon feats and class features stacks up hefty weapon-specific bonuses; by level 20 they can have a +6 just from Weapon Training. Crucially, none of this is being invested specifically into CMB; they'd want it all anyhow, regardless of whether they had Shield Slam or not.

I think we should have a closer look at this to make sure our assumptions about this theoretical fighter are at least somewhat similar (please let me know if you think my numbers are off):

Which brings up the second question. Shield Slam is a single feat that has no prerequisites based on bull rush, and no practical considerations based on bull rush outside of ally AoO's. It's not a feat for a bull rush build, it's a feat to pick up an interesting trick on a shield bash build. Everything a character invests into improving their Shield Slam bull rush is something they're already investing into improving their combat abilities in general.

All would be well and good also in my book if what you're saying here actually was true. But I don't think it is.

More precisely, you typically have a rather modest average chance of successfully pulling off the "interesting trick" at the level when you qualify for the feat, which then quite rapidly deteriorates into a terrible average success chance. Even if you're a fighter and likely have an exceptionally high attack bonus.

Which brings us to the main reason why I think Shield Slam needs to be changed (and/or complemented with additional options): the deteriorating success chance would be perfectly fine, IF there also were reasonable options allowing you to at least counter that deterioration.

As is, Shield Slam is typically reduced to not much more than a Shield Master feat tax only five levels after it was gained IME. A feat most PCs will wish they could retrain.

Again, the problem isn't that Shield Slam is bound to fail during higher levels for many builds. The problem is that, as written, there are very few ways to even make it moderately useful, and it's flat out impossible to improve the average success chance to be on par with that which any other combat maneuver can have.

It says apply the weapon's enhancement bonus to those checks, but doesn't list a type of bonus that it is.

I could see it being either untyped or enhancement.

Yeah, as written it could be either. Probably intended to be enhancement bonuses though.

It doesn't make sense to look at the average CMD/AC for all monsters of a given CR;

I agree it doesn't make for a very accurate illustration of the numbers in a real game, but it's about as accurate as you can get without having to do a ridiculous amount of surveys and statistical analysis. And the general development of an increasing gap between AC and CMD is very much true, and can be seen also in PCs and NPCs, not to mention in the fact that there are a lot more options for substantial bonuses to CMB than to attack.

In addition, it's not quite as misleading as you make it out to be:

1) Big monsters may be too big for you to bull rush anyway, but they also have very high CMD compared to AC. These distort your figures.

Likely, the only monsters a bull rush focused PC won't be able to affect in higher levels are those of Colossal size, and those are pretty rare even at CR 20.

Equally important is the fact that the AC values I listed are the design targets ("average") according to the monster creation table, and these are followed relatively closely by published monsters regardless of sizes. In contrast, CMD unfortunately doesn't have such target values, which I believe is part of the reason why it tends to get so darn high. (This is something I believe the PDT has recognized and also started to address through additional options for increasing PC CMB values, especially of maneuvers which normally aren't performed with a weapon.)

(The balor is btw a good example of a CR 20 monster with values close to the targets (AC 36, Large size) and not surprisingly, it's CMD is 54, also very close to the actual average of published monsters.)

3) NPCs with class levels and using equipment are likely to have a very different AC/CMD ratio. Also because NPCs don't tend to grow to bigger sizes as CR goes up.

Well, extrapolating from the PC values I used in the original post you're responding to, that PC would likely end up having an AC below 45 and a CMD vs bull rush above 60. A difference of 17+ is usually more than enough to have your success chance go from "easy" to "near impossible".

And NPCs with significantly lower CMD values are typically casters, meaning they often have very effective tools other than AC and CMD for avoiding all forms of melee attacks.

It doesn't make sense to look at the average CMD/AC for all monsters of a given CR;

I agree it doesn't make for a very accurate illustration of the numbers in a real game, but it's about as accurate as you can get without having to do a ridiculous amount of surveys and statistical analysis. And the general development of an increasing gap between AC and CMD is very much true, and can be seen also in PCs and NPCs, not to mention in the fact that there are a lot more options for substantial bonuses to CMB than to attack.

In addition, it's not quite as misleading as you make it out to be:

1) Big monsters may be too big for you to bull rush anyway, but they also have very high CMD compared to AC. These distort your figures.

Likely, the only monsters a bull rush focused PC won't be able to affect in higher levels are those of Colossal size, and those are pretty rare even at CR 20.

Equally important is the fact that the AC values I listed are the design targets ("average") according to the monster creation table, and these are followed relatively closely by published monsters regardless of size. In contrast, CMD unfortunately doesn't have such target values, which I believe is part of the reason why it tends to get so darn high. (This is something I believe the PDT has recognized and also started to address through additional options for increasing PC CMB values, especially of maneuvers which normally aren't performed with a weapon.)

(The balor is btw a good example of a CR 20 monster with values close to the targets - Large size and AC 36 - and not surprisingly, it's CMD is 54, also very close to the actual average of published monsters.)

3) NPCs with class levels and using equipment are likely to have a very different AC/CMD ratio. Also because NPCs don't tend to grow to bigger sizes as CR goes up.

Well, using the same baseline numbers as I did in the post you're responding to, that PC would likely end up having an AC below 45 and a CMD vs bull rush above 60. That's quite a difference.

And NPCs with significantly lower CMD values are typically casters, meaning they often have very effective tools other than AC and CMD for avoiding all forms of melee attacks.

This is arguably quite useful in the long run, since it means you're getting weapon bonuses and you don't need to pick up the Bull Rush chain.

The problem with the Shield Slam RAW is precisely that CMB bonuses don't apply. Since your attack bonus cannot ever be boosted even remotely as high as your bull rush CMB can, in contrast to normal bull rushes, Shield Slam will rapidly start losing its usefulness in mid levels, and end up completely useless in higher levels in most games. In case anyone doubts this, here's the relevant average monster numbers for a few CR ratings:

CR 5 AC 18, CMD 22 (CMD is 22.3% higher than AC)
CR 10 AC 24, CMD 32 (CMD is 33.3% higher than AC)
CR 15 AC 30, CMD 44 (CMD is 46.7% higher than AC)
CR 20 AC 36, CMD 55 (CMD is 52.8% higher than AC)

By 20th level, it's easy for any full-bab class to have a bull rush CMB bonus above +50, netting an average success probability of at least 80% against an "average" CR 20 monster. By comparison, a Shield Slam performed according to the current RAW has approximately a 20% success chance. (These success chances assume 20 bab, Str 36, Large size and the minimum of items and feats a character focused on bull rushes and shield fighting could be expected to have at this level, and of course that the monster isn't too big to be affected.)

My point is that upon making a successful Shield Bash, by someone with the Shield Slam Feat, that Attack Roll then is checked against the opponent's CMD to see if there was also a successful Bull Rush. If "check" is not by itself a game term, then it is an English Language word, and by that definition, the successful Shield Bash executed by someone with Shield Slam also is a check to see if a Bull Rush is also successfully executed.

And here we go again!

Paraphrasing:
"1. I'm replacing my check with an attack roll.
2. I'm still making the check.
RESULT: I'm making an "attack roll-check"! Or something..."

If we assume Shield Slam was intended to be interpreted only through the English language rather than "PF language", then the word "check" in this context does not refer to the same thing as it does in the context of any other rules texts (such as the bull rush feats).

Please do! I don't like playing the devil's advocate, and I'd really appreciate being proven wrong about this.

upho, I think you may be reading too much into the difference between 'roll' and 'check'.

An attack roll is a d20+modifiers, a skill check is d20+modifiers - I'm pretty sure there is little need to draw a distinction.

How I wish this was true. Because if it was, everything applying to normal bull rushes would also apply to Shield Slam bull rushes, effectively resulting in there being no difference besides using one d20 roll for both attacks.

Sadly, I can only refer you back to what ChessPWN has already written in this thread.

Even without that -

combat manoeuvres wrote:

make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

A combat manoeuvre is an attack roll.

Which I've already said myself. So? Just because all combat maneuver checks are attack rolls, it doesn't mean that all attack rolls are checks. And regardless, in the case of Shield Slam, you're explicitly told to use your (shield bash) attack roll instead of your combat maneuver check. And a "shield bash attack roll" is definitely not the same thing as a "combat maneuver check".

Nowhere in either combat manoeuvres or the various 'improved X' manoeuvre feats is the term 'check' used.

The only place I can see 'check' used is in the shield slam feat, and seems to be synonymous with 'roll' in context - I suspect to avoid duplicating the word 'roll'.

Say what? You just quoted Improved Bull Rush yourself, the whole reason for this particular sub-discussion being that it does include the term. And FYI, every single "improved X" maneuver feat uses the term "check", as does for example the grapple rules and tons of other rules texts.

And equally important, AFAIK in all the thousands of pages of material published by Paizo, a normal attack roll (using d20 + attack bonus) is never called a check. But maybe I'm wrong. If you have examples of this, I would be grateful if you could quote them.

The rules aren't written in legalese, they change things to make them more fluid to read.

Looking at the many times when the exact wording of something has been confirmed as fully intentional, I think you could just as easily make a case for saying the exact wording is extremely important.

Besides, I assumed this was a discussion about RAW, which by definition leaves very little room for speculations about what the actual intent behind the wording was.

If I understand you right, your argumentation goes like that:

1.) Combat Maneuvers are always tied to Combat Maneuver Checks

No. I'm not saying combat maneuvers are always tied to combat maneuver checks. I'm saying the word "check" is always tied to a specific game term/mechanic (skill check, combat maneuver check, ability score check, caster level check, etc) and that an "attack roll" is not one of these.

Or in other words, you might've had a bit more of a case here if the game term/mechanic "attack roll" was instead called "attack check". And I would've totally agreed with you if the bull rush feats had used for example the word "roll" instead of "check".

So what I'm saying is:
1. An attack roll is what the game defines it as, and it is not the same thing as any of the terms/mechanics including the word "check". And again, note that there is no such thing as a "check", only different game terms/elements including the word "check".
2. Using brackets around the game terms/mechanics to make it more clear: Shield Slam replaces the bull rush [combat maneuver check] (d20 + CMB) with an [attack roll] (d20 + attack bonus), not with [other game term/mechanic including the word "check"] (d20 + something).

To highlight the issues with your argument, let's have a look your statement in your previous post (my emphasis):

...obviously this is a check to bullrush someone (using your attack roll instead of CMB does not exclude it from being a check).

First, what you're saying here is that Shield Slam tells you to replace your CMB (a static value and not a check) with your attack roll (a value including both your static attack bonus and a d20 roll). So in order to actually make this a "(combat maneuver) check" (a value including both a static value (normally CMB) and a d20 roll), do you roll a d20 again and add that to your shield bash attack roll instead of your CMB, or...? What, exactly?

If you actually stand by your statement exactly as written, please tell me how you came to that conclusion, what it actually means and how that makes any kind of sense (mechanically speaking).

Second, if we assume that you actually meant to say "using your attack roll instead of a CMB check" then that makes sense, but it also does exclude the attack roll from being a "check", because you just replaced the check with an attack roll, which, again, is not a check of any kind.

So which one is it, the first or the second?

Regarding RAI, I am not sure what to think of it myself. Using the exact roll result of your attack roll, but comparing it to CMD seems illogical and nerfs the feat in any cases (because if you applied Bullrush bonuses, you'd also apply attack roll bonuses such as weapon Focus or weapon enhancement, since you use your weapon for the bullrush just like with trip or disarm maneuvers).

On higher levels, shield slam then becomes pretty useless. But maybe they wanted the feat to be that weak, who knows? However it is really poorly worded and mixes two different rule systems that can't be combined. I'm bothered that there has not been any Errata so far.

My guess is: They intended "attack roll" to work like "the die-roll-result of your attack roll", apllying different bonuses since you also target different DCs (CMD vs. AC)

I agree. Although I suspect it may also be that it actually was intended to work as written, but that the writer didn't understand the CMB/CMD relationship is nowhere near comparable to the attack roll/AC relationship. The reason for this suspicion is that quite a few combat maneuvers would actually be useless in a game limiting PC options to the CRB, while several of the options which help remedy this issue were published relatively recently.

Following Chess Pwns Argumentation, dragonhunterq has a great point here. Of course you are making a check to bullrush, just no CMB Check. I was not aware of the wording on the Maneuver Feats, but obviously this is a check to bullrush someone (using your attack roll instead of CMB does not exclude it from being a check).

For this to be true, Shield Slam would have to say "treating your attack roll as a bull rush combat maneuver check" or similar. But as written, you're making an attack roll instead of a bull rush combat maneuver check.

Note also that "check" by itself is not game term. That is, you're never making only a "check", but always a "skill check", a "combat maneuver check", a "Strength check" etc. The mechanics for these vary, meaning there are no general rules specifically shared only by these game elements, despite all of them including the word "check". For example, a "combat maneuver check" is a specific type of attack roll, a "skill check" is not. And since the bull rush feats explicitly apply to bull rush combat maneuvers, the "checks" obviously refer to bull rush combat maneuver checks, not any other game term including the word "check".

On top of this, arguably the primary benefit of using your attack roll instead of a combat maneuver check (less complex and faster play) would be lost if certain bonuses to bull rush combat maneuver checks still would apply, while others would not.

Interesting to note that the various 'greater' and 'improved' feats never increase your CMB explicitly. Improved Bull Rush grants you +2 to checks to bull rush a foe.

It should apply even if you aren't using your CMB to make the bull rush.

Unfortunately not, since you're not making any checks whatsoever when using Shield Slam.

I've also been wrestling with this question recently, although more with the RAI than the RAW.

Pauldrons of the bull don't work since you're not making any check there's no check to attempt twice.

Yes it's a combat maneuver, but instead of the normal way to calculate your success of d20 + CMB + relevant attack bonuses, it's whatever your attack roll was. /snip/

The shield slam feat SPECIFICALLY says you don't make a CMB check. "substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check" How in the world do you read this and think, "you know what? Even though it's telling me to use my attack roll instead of making a combat maneuver check, I still need to make a combat maneuver check"?

RAW, this is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolutely correct.

So if you have fighter weapon training, and a +5 weapon, and weapon focus and greater focus those were all added to your attack roll, and that's the value you're using to see if you succeeded at your bull rush, and it doesn't care about any bonuses you do or don't have to your bull rush combat maneuver check. Thus it's potentially a lot better than your normal CMB check for bull rushes.

This is, however, very rarely the case IME. Instead, I'd say any fighter focusing on bull rush is of course going to have a magic weapon ability (such as Leveraging) or similar which makes weapon specific bonuses apply to bull rush checks.

The problem with the Shield Slam RAW is precisely that CMB bonuses don't apply. Since your attack bonus cannot ever be boosted even remotely as high as your bull rush CMB can, in contrast to normal bull rushes, Shield Slam will rapidly start losing its usefulness in mid levels, and end up completely useless in higher levels in most games. In case anyone doubts this, here's the relevant average monster numbers for a few CR ratings:

CR 5 AC 18, CMD 22 (CMD is 22.3% higher than AC)
CR 10 AC 24, CMD 32 (CMD is 33.3% higher than AC)
CR 15 AC 30, CMD 44 (CMD is 46.7% higher than AC)
CR 20 AC 36, CMD 55 (CMD is 52.8% higher than AC)

By 20th level, it's easy for any full-bab class to have a bull rush CMB bonus above +50, netting an average success probability of at least 80% against an "average" CR 20 monster. By comparison, a Shield Slam performed according to the current RAW has approximately a 20% success chance. (These success chances assume 20 bab, Str 36, Large size and the minimum of items and feats a character focused on bull rushes and shield fighting could be expected to have at this level, and of course that the monster isn't too big to be affected.)

Personally, I don't think this is anywhere near acceptable, which makes me question whether Shield Slam was intended to have the effects the current RAW have. And if it actually was intended, I really would like to know why.

(And yes, I've house ruled the Shield Slam bull rush to be treated as a CMB check, using only the d20 die roll of the shield bash attack it accompanies.)

First off, I'm not really sure the following build is what you're looking for here, but at least this thread seemed to make it worthwhile for me to turn an old idea into a proper build limited to Paizo stuff, and hopefully I can get some feedback while also helping out with the gathering of data for MageHunter.

The reason I'm doubting the suitability of the build - "Lil' Miss Piggy Murder Munchkin" - is because she's kinda silly IMO, sacrificing far more mobility, versatility and durability for overkill full attack DPR than I would deem practical and worthwhile in a real game. In other words, be warned: Ms Piggy is one damn ugly and stupid glass cannon, which I foresee quite a few people will think simply reeks of sweaty cheese "Hors d'âge". But AFAICT she definitely adheres to the RAW in relevant updated books and current FAQ items. (And speaking of, I urge anyone wondering about Ms Piggy's many claw attacks to look under the "OFFENSE" and "Attack Sources" headings in the build summary spoiler below).

Like most abyssal bloodragers, Ms Piggy is about as difficult to hit as your average barn, and she also lacks the ability to cast any defensive spells to compensate for her low AC due to her abyss-mal (pun intended) Cha and Int. OTOH, despite being borderline TO, her saves are actually rather good, mostly thanks to her decent Dex and Wis, multiclassing and superstition. Especially the relatively high Wis is primarily there in order to make her auto-succeed on any Will saves provoked by her rage mutagen (DC 15 (Su) ability) when taking damage, as I felt ignoring those saves, frequent in a real game, would put her squarely in the TO category.

Anyway, her actions and DPR during an opening round of combat should look something like the following if average CR 12 enemies are within her 10 feet reach (I'm using this compilation of average monster CMD, which should include close to all monsters published by Paizo so far):

364 TOTAL DPR / ≈0.44 ROUNDS TO KILL / ≈2.27 KILLS PER ROUND

This should probably be slightly lower, since the average monster CMD value isn't adjusted for the increased CMD vs trip quite a few CR 12 monsters have, and I'm way too lazy to research and include that value or the probability of facing a CR 12 monster flat out immune to trips. I guess 364 is decent "on paper DPR" for a build limited to Paizo options, and maybe even very high for such a build with also more than 80% of levels in martial classes (ie classes with less than 6/9 spell/power/extract progression)?

I don't think I've really looked around in the "DPR olympics" thread for years so I might be wrong here, but wasn't there a synth based build with similar DPR numbers already at 10th level?

Anyways, accuracy:

942/10 non-AoOs + .9(6/2 AoOs) = 96.9 AVERAGE ACCURACY

As can be seen in the calculation above, I reduced the +3 average accuracy gain from the two AoOs by 10%, since there's a 10% probability Ms Piggy's trip fails and these AoOs aren't triggered. (I've also reduced the -4 penalty to AC vs melee from being prone to -3.6 due to that same 10% trip failure probability, as can be seen in the DPR calculations.) And again, the above accuracy should probably be slightly lower, since only the average general CMD and not the unknown average CMD/immunity ratio vs trip of CR 12 monsters has been taken into account.

Ms Piggy can probably be greatly improved by someone more talented than myself, especially since I now realize I completely missed the 3 prep rounds and thought only 10 min/level buffs would be allowed. And Ms Piggy's opening round also has a swift action to spare for... *scratches head* Uh, for something, I guess...?

3 rounds to buff, at level 12?

This seems very excessive and likely takes the DPR numbers even further from the average of a real game. I recommend lowering this to 1 round at most, or perhaps to use the average DPR of "with 3 rounds of buff" and "with no rounds of buff".

Quote:

What is your opinion on whether it would be OP or not?

I think it'd actually be pretty bad. You're losing damage per hit over a composite bow and your first TWF feat is basically just crappier manyshot. Nevermind the huge goldsink of keeping two weapons up to date. Slightly better for guns since the accuracy penalty doesn't hurt as much but then you're dipping or taking EWP which sets you back even farther.

Yeah, I think you're pretty much spot-on here. It does get a lot better in high levels though, but the price you pay is huge.

Hand crossbows would limit you to two attacks, as you need a hand to reload 'core'. And that is assuming it was preloaded and in hand ready to shoot.

Thrown weapons limit you to how many you have (effectively needing multiple enchanted weapons to work effectively), again 'core'.

Both make horrible options as written in the core rules (if not impossible), for the ability. If you have two hand crossbows you end up unable to make 4 attacks (2+2) as you cannot reload. It effectively isn't an option.

I agree. If we assume the options found in "Player Companion: Heroes of the Streets" where designed with only the CRB and UM in mind, I think your reasoning makes perfect sense.

However, PC:HotS was published less than a year ago, and besides including several options which require books other than the CRB or UM, it's also primarily written for the Golarion setting which very much does include viable options to TWF with ranged weapons.

The only effective way to make work is firearms as they come with a capacity beyond 1 (which is why I put revolver), as a basic weapon.

I might've completely missed something, but at least if we're talking about a setting like Golarion which doesn't have advanced firearms, what you're saying here doesn't seem right.

First, early guns with a capacity beyond 2, (ie the pepperbox) still requires a free hand to turn the chamber. Second, by the time the concept becomes at least somewhat decent in comparison to using a bow, something like a pepperbox doesn't have the capacity to last through more than one or maybe two full attacks, so you'd still need to be able to reload as a free action. So you gain very little but have to deal with an increased risk of misfires in comparison to pistols.

IOW, the larger capacity of certain guns doesn't help and is certainly not "the only effective way to make work". Gun Twirling or a third limb able to hold items, Quick Draw, Rapid Reload and alchemical cartridges are very much required regardless of the type of early gun used, while hand crossbows or thrown weapons actually have less requirements. (None of my test builds would use anything but pistols and maybe one double-barreled pistol in high levels, but only because the seraphic pistol is one.)

The one thing that make guns preferable to hand crossbows and probably thrown weapons, and only in higher levels, is their accuracy (making it possible to stack TWF, Rapid Shot and RSC and still be able to hit reasonably well despite the massive -8 attack penalty).

Sure there are splat books that expand on options, but that doesn't mean the designer knew of them and took them into consideration when writing the archtype, and actually assuming the designer knew of everything is a really stupid thing to do.

Yes that would indeed be a really stupid thing to do. But would it be stupid to assume the designer knew about the ranged options in a setting when specifically writing a ranged archetype for the setting?

I don't know, but considering for example that the archetype actually could've been written years ago and just happened not to make it into a publication before -15 (and the editors where sloppy updating it), I think you do have a point here.

But that is more an issue of "power creep" and splats vs anything else.

Slightly OT, but are you actually saying a game allowing all PC options published by Paizo is generally less balanced than one limited to the CRB?

If so, I very much disagree. With a few noteworthy exceptions (like Sacred Geometry), I'd say none-CRB material generally helps not only vastly increase the number of viable character concepts possible, but also to significantly improve the frankly horrible balance established by the CRB. For example Unchained, the "Toolbox" Player Companion series, Weapon Master's Handbook and a large majority of the non-CRB classes make for a better, more fun game less prone to have serious balance issues IME.

As far as I've seen, the power creep caused by "splats" are mostly in areas where power creep is an improvement, not an issue. (In my own game, the very few things from Paizo I actually don't allow as written are almost exclusively found in the CRB.)

Which again reinforces the whole "if I need this thing from this book, and this thing from that book, and use this from this book, I can make this work because it is a grey area", aka twisting/stretching things beyond the expectations/assumptions they were written under.

While I don't see anything wrong per se with a PC having options from several different sources, I generally do agree about the larger risk of ending up with something clearly not intended, and especially about the "I can make this work because it is a grey area" part. (Which is largely why I started this thread in the first place.)

Ranged combat is generally not mixed with two weapon fighting, as evidenced by the whole Rapid shot, muli shot, etc feats. There is little to no reason to assume it would be a default option when designing something for ranged combat despite your objection or finding it odd. Which is just another of many 'red flags' about the concept.

I'm not saying I assume it would be a "default option", just "an option". But I think we can at the very least agree that making any assumptions about the designer's intentions are risky at best, and that those intentions might very well not take nearly as many options into account as I do.

However, despite this, the second weapon is more or less useless. A part of Spell Combat specifies:

Magus wrote:

As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).

This references using a particular weapon, and further complicated by a particular FAQ, which says, in part:

FAQ (Bold added) wrote:

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon.

So you have to pick one of your weapons to be "your ranged weapon", and you only get as many attacks as if you were full attacking with that weapon. You can use Rapid Shot to augment it, but not Two Weapon Fighting since that's using a different weapon than "that weapon".

As mentioned in the OP, I think at least the FAQ indeed makes for a potentially convincing argument against TWF.

But to continue playing the devil's advocate here, the arguments against this and the other more damning FAQ item applying to RSC are pretty convincing IMO (see OP).

In this case, I believe especially the fact your "spell-wielding" hand in all respects takes away your off-hand attack(s) when using regular SC makes the FAQ not applicable to RSC (which does NOT "function much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast").

Yes, you're wrong here. 'A' is singular, 'must' enforces that. Feel free to point out one of these rules items; I'd bet it wouldn't include the word 'must'.

While true, it also omits several other restrictive words.

If you are wielding two ranged weapons (whether they are guns or crossbows), then you are meeting the condition of "must have a ranged weapon". You have two, so you naturally already met the prerequisite of having one. It doesn't say "only", "precisely", "exactly", or any other word that would imply having two weapons doesn't count.

Or, in general, to make any sort of positive argument. So far you're relying on knocking down other arguments without providing anything supporting your own position.

I thought I did in the OP? And please note I would've taken the opposite position had most posters claimed "TWF with RSC is obviously allowed". This isn't in order to seek confrontation, it's in order to test which viewpoint is actually supported by the most convincing arguments.

Actually, I don't think it is OP. An eldritch archer magus isn't really set up to take advantage of multiple attacks with different weapons. If you start dipping trench fighter or something my opinion might change though.

I think I agree here, although after having made a few test builds, I very much doubt even a dip for Dex to damage makes it objectively "better" than straight EA magus with a bow. The concept needs simply so damn many feats and such damn expensive items to get going at all, and then it's still a very costly combat style to keep up and improve. AFAICT, with a trench fighter dip it does of course end up giving you more pure DPR in high levels, but the trade-offs in other areas are very significant.

But the concept still simply oozes "uniquely cool" in my humble opinion... :D

1) Eldritch Archer, ranged weapons typically require 2 hands to use thus all the hoop-la about stating you don't need a free hand when using your (singular) bonded weapon. Using a weapon that circumvents this (a revolver for example) doesn't follow the design assumptions. Guns are a part of the game, yes. The vast majority of material isn't actually written with them being assumed as implemented however. Things get hinky when you put them into the mix on a good day.

So don't throw guns into the mix. Use for example hand crossbows or one of the quite large number of one-handed thrown weapons to test your argument instead. Meaning I would've agreed with this reasoning if one-handed guns actually stood out as the only ranged weapons not requiring two hands. Hence I do find it a bit odd to assume a designer would write a strictly ranged version of Spell Combat as if the rules for fighting with two weapons and the many one-handed ranged weapons simply didn't exist, regardless of whether guns are "assumed as implemented" or not.

2) You are pushing into the grey area of intent as well. Magus are all about using that one weapon meshed with magical skill. Not a multiple weapon blur of destruction with magic. Do the rules outright say it? No. But absolutely everything thing published for them follows that design, what you are doing is basically looking for loop holes/justification for the idea because it doesn't explicitly say you cannot do it.

Well, if you are capable of wielding multiple weapons in multiple hands, the "multiple weapon blur of destruction" is fully possible and very much supported by the rules. But yes, I otherwise totally agree with the principle "just be because the rules doesn't say you cannot, doesn't mean that you can".

I am 100% certain the free hand requirement isn't being removed for you to have a free hand available to do whatever you want with it. It is there because the archetype would be unusable in the core rules for the intended weapons without it. You are effectively "stretching" the rules beyond the intent to get your desired effect. Context is an important part of the game, just like a conversation, take it out of it's context and things can be drastically different.

This is probably my main concern, and it's unfortunately one which seems to be difficult to resolve without knowing the designer's intent. Until I happened to re-read the FAQ on regular SC mentioned in the OP, I honestly fully believed the intent was for RSC to function with TWF. Balance-wise it also seems perfectly reasonable IMO, considering the large attack penalties and huge investments required. (Less so with guns specifically due to their inherent accuracy, but that's an issue with guns, not RSC.)

Spell Combat is still a full round action that isn't a full attack. So you can hold a gun in each hand and spell combat but you can't actually TWF because you're not actually full attacking.

No, you're not actually making a full attack, but nevertheless effects which apply to full attacks still apply to SC (and presumably RSC). Notably this includes effects which grant additional attacks during a full attack. Please see FAQ 2 and 3 in the spoiler in the OP.

Well, it's sorta both a rules question and a request for advice. But mostly a rules question.

Regarding your interpretation of the RSC RAW, I unfortunately find it very shaky, since a large number of rules items uses a similar "a [something]" wording with the meaning "at least one" or "one or more". Since English isn't my first language, I might be wrong here, but isn't that "at least one" also the meaning of such a wording in general (outside of PF)?

Actually, I don't think I can find a single instance of a similar wording in the rules which means "one single only" without explicitly saying so (unless perhaps if the context makes it obvious, as in the case of the regular SC RAW "wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand").

What is your opinion on whether it would be OP or not?

This is primarily a rules question, but I'm posting here since I feel it's way too corner-case for the rules forum and I'm mostly looking for potential additional info and related ideas anyway. (And since it's about an archetype from a Companion release it's also highly unlikely to ever get an official answer.)

Since Ranged Spell Combat doesn't require a free hand, I've been thinking about combining it with two guns. However, especially one FAQ on the standard SC has made doubt whether this is actually possible strictly according to RAW:

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

In the case of RSC, I guess "the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand" would be "the ranged weapon in your hands". Which prevents RSC with multiple guns due to the singular definitive "the ... weapon", even if my PC happened to have a million hands wielding a million guns and also be able to attack with all of them in a regular full attack.

But on the other hand (see what I did there?), I also believe it's perfectly reasonable to claim this FAQ entry isn't relevant in this case because:
1. The FAQ is about regular SC, not RSC (and the Paizo dev team have repeatedly stated FAQ entries are always specific).
2. The question being answered says "such as armor spikes and bites", which are not "weapons associated with a hand" and therefore not usable with SC anyway (see FAQ 1 in spoiler below).
3. The devs seem to assume a PC cannot ever attack with more than two "weapons associated with a hand" during one full attack, and regular SC does require two hands (of which only one may wield a weapon).

Regarding MWF, an eldritch archer may for example simply cast alter self and turn into a four-armed kashata (or they may be allowed to play one).

Can you use TWF/MWF with Ranged Spell Combat?

I would very much appreciate any input you may have to help me solve this conundrum!

For reference, here's the RSC RAW plus three additional FAQ entries concerning regular SC (which AFAICT are the only ones which may be relevant):

And for the record: no, I don't think it would be OP to allow TWF with RSC, since it requires such a stupidly gigantic investment in feats and items. Which means it cannot be done before high levels (probably 15+) and requires significant sacrifices are made in other areas, so it's most likely quite far from the most opted magus possible.

upho wrote:

thus being the only non-monstrous race by Paizo able to use its feet for additional natural attacks.

Do you possibly know of a citation that hooves replacing humanoid feet can be used that way (i.e., along with claws in a full attack)? For some reason, I thought it was stipulated somewhere that you couldn't put natural attacks on all four of a humanoid's limbs - basically, that they had to be left with feet to stand on. But it's entirely possible that's a fiction of my memory. (My husband's working on a ragebred barbarian for his next character, so the answer's possibly quite relevant for me personally.)

I think you may be confusing this with the (FAQ/blog?) clarification a couple of years back which said humanoid PCs cannot put claws on feet (unlike a biped eidolon), though talons would work if such an option existed.

The ragebred obviously walks on its hooves when using Shape Change, and since this is indeed a racial ability, not something any PC could get, I don't think you need to have any doubts about whether this was intended or whether it somehow breaks RAW.

An Amulet of the Blooded (Abyssal) gives a pair of claws, a Fleshwarped Scorpion's Tail gives a sting (with poison) once attached, and a Pelt of the Beast grants a bite plus an additional Bestial Feature from the related skinwalker variant's list if you're a skinwalker (can be claws, gore or hooves).

Both the abyssal and draconic bloodrager bloodlines grant (powerful) claws with scaling damage while raging at 1st level, and the alchemist Feral Mutagen discovery grants two 1d6 claws and an 1d8 bite while using mutagen (2nd level at the earliest).

The mentioned skinwalker, or more precisely the ragebred (wereboar-kin) variant, is really THE race for martial natural attack builds, since it may grant two hooves (unique for a PC race) from start, thus being the only non-monstrous race by Paizo able to use its feet for additional natural attacks. In addition, it has easy access to a somewhat rare gore, plus perfect stat bonuses for most full bab classes and especially for a barb, granting +2 to Str and Con, (-2 Cha).

In total, a ragebred bloodrager may start with 1 primary gore (race), 2 secondary hooves (Extra Feature racial feat), and 2 primary 1d6 claws (abyssal/draconic bloodline), resulting in full attacks with quite ridiculous damage output capacity. A barb with the Lesser Beast Totem would be similar, but would gain the claws at 2nd level. I wouldn't really recommend piling on every available attack this early though, since it's likely to result in a build which is very OP for most games, at least during the earlier levels.

And while it's easy to put together an extremely potent early level natural attack damage dealer, it's typically considerably more complicated to keep the same build competitive in higher levels, since it doesn't get any additional attacks from simply having a high bab. In addition, like TWF builds, natural attackers *really* suffer from not having pounce, since their individual attacks are typically pretty weak, and their lack of good reach options makes damage their only truly viable main combat focus.

So the challenge for a natural attack build is often to find additional attacks which don't use the same limbs as the attacks the build already has (for example, claws and slams are usually incompatible since both attack types use the hands/arms), and to find ways to make full attacks more often, most commonly via some sort of pounce. Items and rage powers can go a long way in order to gain more attacks, and pounce is most easily gained from Greater Beast Totem, which means the martial natural attackers that remain good/great also past level 10 are almost exclusively based on barbs or primalist bloodragers.

In addition, the damage of individual attacks can be seriously upgraded via Dragon Style, Dragon Ferocity and Feral Combat Training, granting the attacks at least a 1.5 Str bonus to damage and the "2-handed" Power Attack ratio of 3 times the attack penalty. To cut down on the feats and levels required for this, I really recommend dipping a level into Master of Many Styles Monk (unless perhaps the RAW incompatible barb/monk alignment restrictions are a problem in your game and you're not a bloodrager) and getting a cracked Opalescent White Pyramid and a Wayfinder. This nets you the Improved Unarmed Strike and Stunning Fist (needed for the Dragon Ferocity) plus Dragon Style as bonus feats, +2 to all saves, the nifty ability to use two style feat stances simultaneously, and Weapon Focus (chosen natural attack, usually claws) for a mere 2k. Well worth the gold and delayed level of barb/bloodrager.

To have additional natural attack types also benefit from Dragon Ferocity, this is of course feat intensive, but by dipping 2 levels of alchemist and getting the vestigial arm discovery twice (through the Extra Discovery feat) you can use a second pair of claws. You bypass the "doesn't grant extra attack" limitation of the vestigial arms since you actually have your monk unarmed strikes replaced (as these can be made with any part of the body, unlike regular unarmed strikes). You also get mutagen, providing an additional boost to your Str of up to +6 for 20 min. per 1 hour prep. Pretty great deal.

If you're REALLY up for it dips into alchemist gives you tentacles.

I wouldn't recommend this without the above mentioned monk unarmed strikes to "trade", since the tentacles cannot grant additional attacks. And then vestigial arms are often better, since they can allow for additional primary attacks of a type you already have.

Then there is a reason for taking Vicious Stomp, which will allow you to take a second AoO for every Trip.

Recently, I've been thinking that the Throwing Shield is an awesome Trip Weapon. You'd need to get a Blinkback Belt to really activate it.

It can actually be beyond awesome. I'm just gonna leave this here as an example of what I'm talking about.

But you'll have Range, which is even better than Reach, and you would be able to use Vicious Stomp at Range, too if you have Ascetic Style Feats.

Huh? Exactly what part of Ascetic Style allows you to alter the "falls prone adjacent"-trigger of Vicious Stomp?

For that, I believe you need Wolf Trip, just as you would when tripping with reach, for that matter. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing, since both Wolf Style and Wolf Trip can be excellent in the right combos (see for example link above).

Btw, I really recommend NOT to try ranged combat maneuvers without 7 levels of Shield Champion brawler (or similar), as it's too feat intensive and has ridiculously poor action economy otherwise.

• Dirty Trick is indeed more versatile, though - as it is with every combat maneuver - it can only be kept effective if you max out the bonus to the highest possible, resulting in a one trick pony as in my case. If i'd focus on DT now, it would make me weaker. It would make sense if I made a new character from scratch, but in this campaign I will stick to tripping.

You misunderstand. My recommendation is that you do *both* tripping *and* DT.

• Foes that fly or have no legs...yeah, tbh most of my foes so far were fighting on ground and trippable, so it worked out for me.

So far, yes. I'm afraid that won't last much longer in a typical game.

Well I might be uneffective in these cases, but dazing assault is what I planned to use on those. Besides, pin down works nicely too. And to be honest, a damage dealing Barbarian has no clue against flying creatures either.

Yes they do. Check out their rage powers. And Dazing Assault is nice vs smaller monsters of a CR lower than yours, but the DC tends to be very easily beaten by larger higher CR ones, ie the ones you typically cannot trip either.

I can't dominate every kind of monster :P

Sure you can! Though it does take a little bit more planning build-wise.

• to uphos Post about retraining: I'd rather not retrain lunge. It is my way to deal with superior reach monsters and goes well with whirlwind attacks and full...

Keep it if you have the slot for it. But especially if you retrain Whirlwind I'd reconsider retraining Lunge as well.

Correction on upho's post. Fury's Fall absolutely allows you to stack both dexterity and strength to your CMB.

You're absolutely right! My bad. I somehow confused this with Weapon Finess/Agile Maneuvers not stacking with Fury's Fall. Thanks!

The two feats are Gang Up and Press to the Wall. Effectively, you need to check with your GM if the ground is considered a solid object that takes up a square for the Press to the Wall feat. If it is, you now flank every single enemy you threaten that isn't threatened by an ally, provided they're on the ground of course.

It's a very shaky/odd reading, but it may work.

Ha ha! Despite most likely not being intended, I'd might actually allow this in my game, considering the rather hefty costs involved, not to mention the inventiveness of the player coming up with this combo. But regardless I love it, shaky reading or not!

Dirty Trick is indeed a nice de-buff, but really, isn't the entire point of a Fighter to deal as much damage as possible?

You mean more than it is the entire point of any other full bab classes by Paizo? Judging from the fighter class features, I'd say this is very much not the case. Rather, I think the entire point of the fighter is to be a martial class defined primarily by feats, intended to enable a very large number of different but effective "warrior" character concepts (but sadly often not really working as intended).

And I think DT can be a lot more than a "nice de-buff". In higher levels, a DT focused melee control build can rather reliably daze, pin and nauseate more than three opponents per round, taking them out of the fight for at least three rounds for all intents and purposes. That's some pretty darn serious debuffing IMO.

As a rule I find combat maneuvers to be underwhelming, especially at higher levels... might want to reconsider the whole thing.

I agree many combat maneuvers do risk becoming increasingly useless in higher levels, primarily due to size differences (unless being focused on in the extreme via class support like the tetori). But that doesn't mean all of them are useless, and especially not for all build types. For example, it's not difficult for a build based on a lore warden fighter to end up with a CMB for weapon-using maneuvers exceeding +66 (+70 for those supported by feats). Which also happens to be the CMD of the CR 25 tarrasque, which isn't immune to any of the conditions which can be imposed by dirty trick besides shaken/frightened, and is even 100% certain to end up flat on its back if said lore warden would attempt to trip it.

In this case, I really recommend you listen to:

I would think about what your character is going to do when it can't trip or is out-reached by the enemy and try to shore up that weakness.

This.

Thankfully, there are quite a few really good options for you to explore besides trip, at least if you're able to change/retrain a few earlier choices. Also keep in mind that great melee control builds are pretty complicated to build (but often easy to play), typically requiring levels in at the very least two classes. So the more competent you want your fighter to become, the more work you should be prepared to put in!

In short, I'd reconsider the following options:

Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack - I think the last Whirlwind part of this chain can be good on a reach build, but I don't think I've ever seen it being worth the feat slots eaten by the far less valuable options it requires (even if you want Combat Patrol). And think about it: how often do you have more enemies within your reach than you have reasonably accurate attacks in your full attack? (And remember this situation is likely to become increasingly less common the higher up the levels you go, as opponents tend to get larger.) If you think the answer is "very often", Whirlwind may just be worth it. If not, I think there are many other options far more deserving of your feat slots.

Fury's Fall - the Dex bonus unfortunately doesn't stack with the Str bonus you already add to CMB checks (weird, I know).

Lunge - though this can be nifty from time to time, keep in mind that it only increases the reach during your turn, not your threatened area for AoOs (which is the far more important factor for you). I'd trade this out in a second if the feat slot could be used to complete another control combo, but would otherwise probably let it be.

In place of these feats, I recommend investing into dirty trick, which has the great advantage of being useful against virtually every opponent, regardless of which level you have reached. In addition, dirty trick lends itself especially well for characters starting at a higher level, since it requires quite a few options before it really starts to shine. Besides the standard Improved and Greater feats, I think the following are of special interest:

Quick Dirty Trick if you're going to do dirty tricks, there's rarely a good reason for not to having this at your level.

Dirty Trick Master for vastly increased effects. Best combined with an option which allows you to make dirty tricks more than once per round and/or as AoOs.

Superior Dirty Trick I recommend dazzled/dazed if you have Dirty Trick Master and can reliably make two dirty tricks per round against a single opponent, otherwise entangled/pinned or sickened/nauseated

AFAIK, there are three ways to gain the ability to make dirty tricks as AoOs and/or more than once per full attack. The first is to take 6 levels of barbarian (or 8 levels of primalist bloodrager) and get the excellent rage power Savage Dirty Trick. This is probably of less interest to you, but worth mentioning nevertheless, since the barbarian and especially the bloodrager offer the arguably greatest melee control options in the game.

The second way is to grab Kitsune Vengeance, granting the ability to make DTs as AoOs an unlimited times per round. This has the distinct downside of requiring the two far less useful feats in the style feat chain, and perhaps more importantly also requiring you to use the Kitsune Style stance, thereby making it impossible for you to use another style feat stance (unless you dip a level or two into Master of Many Styles Monk, which may very well be a great idea regardless). On the other hand, this is absolutely hilarious when combined with Dirty Trick Master and the many AoOs trip may generate, giving you a very good reason to make this quote on repeat, and really mean it every time!

The third way consists of kindly asking your DM to allow you to take Seize the Opportunity (from Path of War: Expanded by Dreamscarred Press). If s/he's OK with it (which I think s/he really should be in this case), this is of course the best alternative by far.

Besides these dirty trick shenanigans, there a few other combos to consider (such as demoralization), and ways to further pimp you trip combos, but I'll get into those in a later post if you're interested.

And before I forget: make sure you get your hands on a dueling dragoncatch guisarme as soon as possible!

upho wrote:

Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

You may have.

If you do something, and a level in anything makes you say "for this calculation that level provides more than 1.0 on the calculation", then you need to ask your GM because that should only happen when explicitly written to be so (like oracle curses).

What you're saying here seems like a good rule of thumb. It's just too bad it's not found in the rules. And this is likely the conclusion someone who has at least a decent rules-fu and some solid play experience would arrive at. But for those who haven't, it's much harder to determine if or when the RAW creates suspicious results, especially in cases like this when the RAW is so explicit and the effects of adhering to the faulty RAW are far from being immediately obvious when playing.

Likewise, a less experienced DM is of course also less likely to suspect that something is off with the RAW, not to mention also less likely to make suitable house rule which solves the problem.

If the explicit bonus is big (say like more than 1.17 per level) then it's likely not healthy and will get changed (oracle curses changed from 1.5 to 1.167).

An oracle’s curse is based on her oracle level plus one for every two levels or Hit Dice other than oracle.

Please let me know what I've missed!

More importantly, what percentage of PF players do you think have the kind of knowledge required to arrive at the numbers you mention?

On a related note, one of the major reasons I started this thread is not because I believe the RAW to be murky or ambiguous, it's because I believe the RAW is crystal clear.

yes that's not what the RAW seems to say, hence why I told you that it's possibly one of the unwritten rules that we know is a rule because the Devs have told us they are rules.

I think it's pretty obvious this wasn't intended, and hopefully most DM's would recognize this and rule "Aligned Class levels" don't count as "classes other than monk levels" for the purpose of anything which already grants a better progression via Aligned Class (monk).

But the RAI isn't the purpose of this thread, only what the RAW actually says.

2) oracle curses.

Ah, yes of course! Completely forgot about them. Thanks!

(BTW, I think it's great that members of the PDT trying to help people with their rules quandaries in informal channels such as the "ask anything" threads. But it's not exactly easily accessible info and there are no guarantees the reply is actually the official viewpoint of the PDT, or that the reply is in any way universally applicable to seemingly related issues. Also, I find the replies to the more complex or RAW-murky issues often consist of the opinions of the replying dev and/or descriptions of how the dev would rule it at his/her table, rather than pointers to the relevant RAW/FAQ which solves the issue.)

You can't count a level twice for an ability. That is a rule, maybe unwritten, but it's been said by Mark.

As I've been trying to explain in the OP, that is not what the RAW seem to say. (Although AFAICT, the maximum wouldn't actually be to count a level twice, it would be to count a level 1 1/2 times.)

Nearly a 100% of this would be "ask you GM" as it requires your GM to define whether or not a level in evagaleist counts for a monk level due to Aligned Class.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why a level granting Aligned Class (monk) wouldn't count as a level of monk for the purposes of class features. That is indeed what the Aligned Class RAW explicitly says it does.

Or would you also say a level gained which grants Aligned Class (wizard) doesn't necessarily mean the wizard's spellcasting is progressed, but is clearly "ask you GM"?

Or that a level gained granting Aligned Class (fighter) doesn't necessarily mean the fighter's Weapon Training feature is progressed, but is also obviously "ask you GM"?

If so, I have to ask which rules you don't consider to be nearly 100% "ask you GM"?

Or did I misunderstand what you meant?

The Evangelist PrC's Aligned Class feature explicitly says you gain the class features of both the Evangelist and the Aligned Class.

At 2nd level, the evangelist must choose a class she belonged to before adding the prestige class to be her aligned class. She gains all the class features for this class, essentially adding every evangelist level beyond 1st to her aligned class to determine what class features she gains. She still retains the Hit Dice, base attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, and skill ranks of the prestige class, but gains all other class features of her aligned class as well as those of the evangelist prestige class.

RAW, AFAICT this means for example a Monk 5 / Evangelist 10 has 16 Stunning Fist attempts/day, since Stunning Fist says:

A monk may attempt a stunning attack a number of times per day equal to his monk level, plus one more time per day for every four levels he has in classes other than monk.

Likewise, if said monk has the Monastic Legacy feat, it appears his base unarmed strike damage would be equal to that of a 19th level monk (5 levels monk + 9 levels Aligned Class (monk) + [0.5 x 10 levels Evangelist]), since Monastic Legacy says:

Add half the levels you have in classes other than monk to your monk level to determine your effective monk level for your base unarmed strike damage.

I think it's pretty obvious this wasn't intended, and hopefully most DM's would recognize this and rule "Aligned Class levels" don't count as "classes other than monk levels" for the purpose of anything which already grants a better progression via Aligned Class (monk).

But the RAI isn't the purpose of this thread, only what the RAW actually says. So my questions are:

1. Does anyone know of anything RAW which clearly or potentially means my above conclusions are incorrect?

2. Does anyone know of any other class features which progress (or may progress) with both class levels and any levels in "classes other than [class name]" and would thus have the same problem when combined with the Evangelist?

I would be very grateful for any input. If you think my conclusions are wrong, please link to the rules item(s) and cite the relevant rules text(s) which support your view.