Pathfinder Player Companion: Heroes of the Streets (PFRPG)

5.00/5 (based on 1 rating)
Pathfinder Player Companion: Heroes of the Streets (PFRPG)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Print Edition $14.99 $7.49

Add PDF $10.49

Add Non-Mint $14.99 $11.24

Facebook Twitter Email

Not every adventure awaits within a sealed tomb or mad wizard's tower. In seemingly civilized cities, dangers lurk down every twisting alley, and backroom deals might spell the end for nosy investigators. Pathfinder Player Companion: Heroes of the Streets provides the resources to take your Pathfinder RPG character from a dungeon-delver to a witty and backstabbing urbanite.

Heroes of the Streets is a player-focused supplement that provides inspiration and rules for city-focused characters and campaigns, allowing you to make the most of an urban adventure. Each Pathfinder Player Companion includes new options and tools for every Pathfinder RPG player. Inside this book, you'll find:

  • Background suggestions and traits for heroes of every race who hail from Golarion's biggest and oldest cities.
  • New archetypes that bring bloodragers, hunters, skalds, and witches out of the wilderness and into the city.
  • Exceptional gear and magic items especially suited for urban intrigue, underhanded espionage, and despicable crimes.
  • Optional subdomains focused on city life and urban challenges, opening up unique powers and expertises to clerics and inquisitors.
  • New spells especially suited to getting by in the bustling streets and back alleys of your favorite metropolis.

This Pathfinder Player Companion is intended for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and the Pathfinder campaign setting, but can easily be incorporated into any fantasy world.

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-769-7

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Player Companion Subscription.

Product Availability

Print Edition:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Non-Mint:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO9460


See Also:

Average product rating:

5.00/5 (based on 1 rating)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Best Player Companion

5/5

So far this is my favorite entry in the entire Player Companion line. I'm running Hell's Rebels right now, so I got this for my players. I immediately fell in love with the book. The flavor is exactly the right tone, pace, and level of detail for my players. Every single piece of crunch is something which is just powerful enough that people want to use it, without any one item seeming OP (at least as far as I can tell). But most importantly, all of the crunch feels very flavorful. If you are in a campaign which involves any amount of urban adventuring, this is a must have. If your campaign has no urban campaigning, this book will make you want to book it for the nearest city.


201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

The picture on page 9, of the Osirioni halfling Fighter type in Osirioni style armor is just amazing. Pretty much since the beginning of the game, I've wanted to see some good artwork of Osirioni armor, and to add it to a picture of an 'ethnic' member of one of the other Core races? Awesome.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Thaliak wrote:
Lanitril wrote:
Nice! Just what I was hoping for. A way to convince casters to take the rage bonus.
I hate to say this, but if you have a strict GM, even the Urban Skald's raging song might prevent spellcasting. Like the Urban Barbarian's version of rage, it "does not prevent affected allies from using Intelligence-, Dexterity-, or Charisma-based skills," However, the raging song might inherit the part of that sentence prohibiting "any ability that requires patience or concentration," including spellcasting.

Yeah, I think RAW (and probably RAI) 'Controlled Bloodrage' and 'Controlled Inspire Rage' don't allow spellcasting (beyond Bloodrager ability to cast spells on their class list) any more than the old Urban Barbarian 'Controlled Rage' did. They all say you can now use the formerly blocked skills, but don't say that you can use spells/things requiring concentration.

Of course, if you can take UnBarbarian rage powers then 'Calm Stance' covers this just fine. Otherwise, 'Moment of Clarity' allows it once per rage or the 'Furious Spell' feat can be used to do it with metamagic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As some of the authors seem to be hopping around this might be a better place to ask than the rules questions. What is the intent behind the the constable archetypes squad commander ability?

Squad commander:

Squad Commander (Ex): At 3rd level, a constable can
spend 1 minute laying out a plan to activate the tactician
ability without having it count against his number of
uses per day. The ability must be triggered within 1 hour
of the plan being made, and the benefits last for 1 minute
per cavalier level he has. The constable can have only one
plan at a time, and if a new plan is made, any old plan is
lost.

My reading is the following: you activate the ability and define a plan.("Alright once we raid the warehouse we are likely to meet opposition. To minimize our losses we take em down one at a time and flank em.")The plan triggers (one a initiative roll?) and so no action is required to grant allies the benefit of the teamwork feat.

My confusion comes from the word "triggers" as to me it applies that it's not an action to activate but that just might be me applying MtG rules to pathfinder where they are not applicable.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Is there any downsides to the Eldritch Archer? Because if they just straight up get a ranged version of spell combat and spellstrike, that sounds rather broken. Spell combat's melee limitation is what balanced the ability. And archery is one of the most powerful builds in the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Eldritch Archer has at least five minor downsides. He:
1. Has to have his weapon to cast spells without making concentration checks;
2. Can't use Spell Combat or Spell Strike with melee weapons;
3. Can't take a penalty while using Spell Combat to gain a bonus to concentration checks to cast defensively;
4. Loses access to archetypes that modify Spell Combat or Spell Strike; and
5. Loses Use Magic Device as a class skill.

Remember, without an Arcana that is only available at level 12, Ranged Spellstrike's range is capped to the range of the spell. That might force the Eldritch Archer closer to the front lines than most archers would prefer to be.

Alternately, it could encourage Eldritch Archers to focus on battlefield control spells rather than burst damage. If so, the Eldritch Archer might be comparable to a bard, which can contribute damage through move action performances on the same round it casts spells.


Cyrad wrote:
Is there any downsides to the Eldritch Archer? Because if they just straight up get a ranged version of spell combat and spellstrike, that sounds rather broken. Spell combat's melee limitation is what balanced the ability. And archery is one of the most powerful builds in the game.

You could say the downside is losing the ability to use melee touch spells via weapons without first taking the arcana.

EDIT: ninja'd


Thaliak wrote:
Alternately, it could encourage Eldritch Archers to focus on battlefield control spells rather than burst damage. If so, the Eldritch Archer might be comparable to a bard, which can contribute damage through move action performances on the same round it casts spells.

Actually, this is not as applicable as you would think, you can only do single target spells or spells with multiple missiles or rays. Which doesn't include most "crowd control" spells. Now taking this archetype fully sets you up for the Arcane Archer prestige class, which (at the cost of losing 1 class level's worth of spells per day) can provide the Imbue Arrow feature with only a 2-level dip. Allowing you to put area spells on your arrows

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

But wouldn't you be able to use spell combat to lay down crowd control effects and full-round attack with a bow? That still seems...


Eldritch Archer loses UMD? What?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

"an Arcana" grates on my ear. Sorry, but it does. "Arcana" is a plural noun. The singular is "arcanum". So "an arcanum". Feel free to ignore this if you wish.


BigP4nda wrote:
Thaliak wrote:
Alternately, it could encourage Eldritch Archers to focus on battlefield control spells rather than burst damage. If so, the Eldritch Archer might be comparable to a bard, which can contribute damage through move action performances on the same round it casts spells.
Actually, this is not as applicable as you would think, you can only do single target spells or spells with multiple missiles or rays. Which doesn't include most "crowd control" spells.

As Cyrad points out, you can use Spell Combat without using Spell Strike to cast a crowd control spell while shooting. If you find the feats for Arcane Strike and Riving Strike, you can even hit enemies with a -2 penalty to saves against the spell you cast.

Cyrad, I'll admit it's a strong ability. However, as I tried to say in my original post, I don't know how much stronger it is than a Bard with a high enough Inspire Courage bonus to turn two or three hits into misses while casting spells. In combat, the Bard may be even stronger, as those hits will come from martials who have damage-boosting class features and can invest more in strength than a Magus who needs strength, dexterity, and intelligence. Out of combat, a Bard should definitely outdo a Magus.

I could be off base. I'm not the most experienced player, and the game where I'm playing an Eldritch Archer is already ridiculously overpowered. But I'm looking forward to seeing what the archetype can do.

Ashram wrote:

Eldritch Archer loses UMD? What?

In fairness, it gets Perception in return. That's normally a great trade, but it can be frustrating if you have a character concept that requires too many out-of-archetype class skills to regain UMD through traits (such as a bodyguard who needs Sense Motive and Knowledge (local) to protect his ward).

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I appreciate your honesty, Thaliak. Though, damage isn't just my concern. Archery and crowd control spells are some of the strongest combat contributions in the game. Giving the action economy to do both at the same time without putting much risk is insanely powerful.

Though, is ranged spell combat compatible with Rapid Shot? I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if you could only get one shot unless you use a spell.


For what it's worth, there already are several ways to combine movement-agnostic damage, the primary benefit of archery, and crowd control. Any caster can do it with Dazing Spell, summoning or combo spells such as Snowball and Blistering Invective. Summoners, Sylvan bloodline Sorcerers, Druids, Hunters, Sacred Huntmaster Inquisitors, Spiritualists, and any caster who is willing to invest feats in Nature Soul, Animal Ally and Boon Companion can come close through their companions.

Ranged Spell Combat doesn't work with Rapid Shot because Rapid Shot requires a full attack action. Although Spell Combat allows the character to make iterative attacks, it isn't a full attack action.

Having said that, I agree that Ranged Spell Combat will be powerful. I just don't think it's strong enough to warrant too much concern unless the Magus knows what he's doing in a party with an otherwise low optimization ceiling. That will be a problem with almost any class, including the base Magus.


For those interested in PFS, this book just got added to the Additional Resources page. I notice that Eldritch Archers and Constables are banned.


Gisher wrote:
For those interested in PFS, this book just got added to the Additional Resources page. I notice that Eldritch Archers and Constables are banned.

Why the hell would one bann the constable?


*headscratch on the constable being banned*

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Maybe they thought Badge was too powerful, or maybe it's the vague language of Squad Commander.


Sure badge is more powerful than Banner but the other trades: Mount for IUS and a few minor bonuses easily balance that out.

It's prolly the wonkiness of squad commander. Or the fact that anything nice printed for Cavaliers needs to get the bann hammer cause you know Cavaliers are broken...

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Pity; I was hoping to make such as a backup PFS character. :c

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Aw, we finally get a ranged magus and it's brokenly OP enough to get banned from PFS. All because they took all the obvious design choices without realizing the ramifications.


Pretty sure the problem with constable is that you get to do something interesting on a charge. PFS does seem to be allergic to that.

But lessee, no constable, coin shot, or throat slicer. That was the stuff I was really excited about, so... I wasted my money on this book.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex Mack wrote:
Gisher wrote:
For those interested in PFS, this book just got added to the Additional Resources page. I notice that Eldritch Archers and Constables are banned.
Why the hell would one ban the constable?

I would assume for flavor reasons of having law enforcement officers wandering outside their jurisdiction. Then again, Shieldmarshals are legal, so who knows?

Another possibility is that they're holding it back for chronicle access (e.g. "The town is grateful for your assistance, and makes you an honorary town guard. If you're a cavalier, you can retrain into the Constable archetype for free.")


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

"Rogue Talents: Eerie Disappearance is not legal for play"

Shame, but it would make the Intimidate build Stalker Vigilante even more powerful so I understand

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
djones wrote:

"Rogue Talents: Eerie Disappearance is not legal for play"

Shame, but it would make the Intimidate build Stalker Vigilante even more powerful so I understand

Yeah, that talent seemed kinda over-powered. It's basically 'Hide in Plain Sight plus mass intimidate'.


Another thing on the Eldritch Archer (Sort of a running theme for me), so if the author of this archetype is around, a reply would be much appreciated:

If the EA doesn't gain the ability to take an attack penalty to gain a bonus to concentration checks, doesn't that technically mean that Greater Spell Combat is a dead class feature? Improved Spell Combat still works since it just gives that flat bonus, but GSC is just kinda... There.

I'm also surprised that like a fair amount of archer archetypes, this one doesn't forsake medium and heavy armor.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ashram wrote:

Another thing on the Eldritch Archer (Sort of a running theme for me), so if the author of this archetype is around, a reply would be much appreciated:

If the EA doesn't gain the ability to take an attack penalty to gain a bonus to concentration checks, doesn't that technically mean that Greater Spell Combat is a dead class feature? Improved Spell Combat still works since it just gives that flat bonus, but GSC is just kinda... There.

I'm also surprised that like a fair amount of archer archetypes, this one doesn't forsake medium and heavy armor.

The EA's fluff implies they're intended as tower guards or city protectors. I think keeping armor proficiency is fitting for that sort of character. Plus it allows you to pick up archetypes that modify weapon and armor proficiencies.

Grand Lodge

The peace bond spell is likely going to be confusing. Even experienced players might not get it on the first read. The easiest way to understand how this interacts with spells is to look at their entries. Spells like fireball can be used with peace bond because they have an Area rather than an Effect.

Here are some more examples from that work with the peace bond spell:
Burning hands, color spray, crushing despair (bard), entangle, fear (bard), fireball, glitterdust, lightning bolt, silence, sleep, sleet storm, sound burst, and zone of truth.

Honestly, I think that this is an incredible tool for a GM and for future Paizo adventures. The ability to setup safe squares for the BBEG's minions to stand as the party is bombarded with area spells is terrifying. It could also make for an interesting puzzle or trap. Call it a permanent effect and set off fireballs in a room as the PCs attempt to navigate difficult terrain and other obstacles to get from one point to another. It could also force flying PCs to the ground in order to take advantage of the protection instead of hanging out at the ceiling where they normally would be safe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was excited for the Lamplighter Investigator archetype and I was not disappointed! For the first time, I want to create and play an Investigator (level 8 & 11 where they can have searing light and judgement light emanate from their lanterns!? Alchemical Illumination is Awa-some!).
Coin Shot?! Fantastic. Peace Bond is extremely useful.
Great work, developers/designers of this one!


That 'Lamplighter' archetype sounds like something from a Golden Age superhero comic. I mean that in a good way!


Harmless Form seems like it was designed for smugglers (load guy with all your illegal stuff, have his gear meld with him) instead of allowing you to walk around cities with your tiger


Looks like they reconsidered and made the Constable PFS legal.

Additional Resources wrote:
Archetypes: The constable and eldritch archer archetypes are not legal for play; the Alley Witch archetype's crowd patron grants ventriloquism instead of ears of the city; ignore the second paragraph in the Urban Hunter's altered animal companion class ability. The constable archetype is now legal for play.

They should probably strike-through part of the earlier sentence that states it is not legal.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

deuxhero wrote:
Harmless Form seems like it was designed for smugglers (load guy with all your illegal stuff, have his gear meld with him) instead of allowing you to walk around cities with your tiger

Funny PFS story!

Spoiler:
I was running <redacted> and one of the local players was playing his Sczarni summoner. He explains to the traders he's camping with how he smuggles stuff. He gives it to his clingy girlfriend (the eidilon) and dismisses her. Then when he gets to his destination he summons her and the contraband back.

The merchant nods and says, "Tell me more about this trick you use."

Player looks at me and says, "He's a cop isn't he?"

Yes, he was a cop. :-)


Gisher wrote:

Looks like they reconsidered and made the Constable PFS legal.

Additional Resources wrote:
Archetypes: The constable and eldritch archer archetypes are not legal for play; the Alley Witch archetype's crowd patron grants ventriloquism instead of ears of the city; ignore the second paragraph in the Urban Hunter's altered animal companion class ability. The constable archetype is now legal for play.
They should probably strike-through part of the earlier sentence that states it is not legal.

And now the Constable is apparently not legal again? Weird.

Paizo Employee Developer

Gisher wrote:
Gisher wrote:

Looks like they reconsidered and made the Constable PFS legal.

Additional Resources wrote:
Archetypes: The constable and eldritch archer archetypes are not legal for play; the Alley Witch archetype's crowd patron grants ventriloquism instead of ears of the city; ignore the second paragraph in the Urban Hunter's altered animal companion class ability. The constable archetype is now legal for play.
They should probably strike-through part of the earlier sentence that states it is not legal.
And now the Constable is apparently not legal again? Weird.

Not to worry--it is still legal. It just happens to be that this entry keeps vacillating for some reason (might be something that I inadvertently nudged in the last update, or it might be a tech issue).


Thanks for the quick feedback. :)


Question about the Plague domain since I really like the idea.

"Replacement Power: The following granted power
replaces the death’s embrace power of the Death domain
or the touch of evil power of the Evil domain."

One of those (touch of evil) is a lvl 1 domain power, while the other (death's embrace) is a lvl 8 domain power.

"Touch of Virulence (Su): As a standard action, you can
touch a diseased creature and exacerbate its condition.
If it fails a Fortitude save (DC = 10 + 1/2 your cleric level
+ your Wisdom modifier), the creature takes damage
as though it had failed its Fortitude save against
the disease and any remaining onset time for the
disease ends. You can use this ability once per day
at 8th level, plus one additional time per day at 14th
level and 20th level."

Does that mean that when I'm playing someone with the Plague(evil) domain, I dont have a domain power until lvl 8?


Was "Inspire Imitation" ever worked out? It replaces a racial trait that Half-elves just don't get, so they can't ever take this.


I need a hero in the streets, but a villain underneath the sheets.


Slithery D wrote:
I need a hero in the streets, but a villain underneath the sheets.

You are just over a year late to that joke, I'm afraid.


I figured it was risk, but I wasn't going to to search for it.


Okay, is nobody else bothered by the Dark Lurker Rogue Archetype's first ability? It states that the Rogue gains the Shadow Strike rogue talent, but there's no such thing. Furthermore, it goes on to say that the unchained rogue gets to make AoO against enemies with cover instead. As if the Unchained Rogue for some reason has less need for shadow strike, or already gets it...
I assume they meant to put "bonus feat" in place of "rogue talent" but what's with the exception presented here? It's not even a fair trade, dealing sneak attack while in darkness is so much better then a covered foe provoking AoOs.

I could use either some clarification or some second opinions on this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Unchained Rogue actually has the Shadow Strike ability to SA enemies in concealment built in. Check the Sneak Attack entry in Unchained Rogue. Therefore, Shadow Strike is redundant for uRogue.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigP4nda wrote:

Okay, is nobody else bothered by the Dark Lurker Rogue Archetype's first ability? It states that the Rogue gains the Shadow Strike rogue talent, but there's no such thing. Furthermore, it goes on to say that the unchained rogue gets to make AoO against enemies with cover instead. As if the Unchained Rogue for some reason has less need for shadow strike, or already gets it...

I assume they meant to put "bonus feat" in place of "rogue talent" but what's with the exception presented here? It's not even a fair trade, dealing sneak attack while in darkness is so much better then a covered foe provoking AoOs.

I could use either some clarification or some second opinions on this.

Shadow Strike: "You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment)."

Rogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment."
UnRogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment."

So yes, all UnRogues effectively get Shadow Strike for free and thus receive a different benefit from this archetype.

As for feat vs talent... they are clearly referring to the Shadow Strike feat (it is labelled APG), but possibly saying it is gained as a bonus talent rather than a bonus feat? Or it's an error and SHOULD be 'bonus feat'. Either way, end result is essentially the same.


CBDunkerson wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:

Okay, is nobody else bothered by the Dark Lurker Rogue Archetype's first ability? It states that the Rogue gains the Shadow Strike rogue talent, but there's no such thing. Furthermore, it goes on to say that the unchained rogue gets to make AoO against enemies with cover instead. As if the Unchained Rogue for some reason has less need for shadow strike, or already gets it...

I assume they meant to put "bonus feat" in place of "rogue talent" but what's with the exception presented here? It's not even a fair trade, dealing sneak attack while in darkness is so much better then a covered foe provoking AoOs.

I could use either some clarification or some second opinions on this.

Shadow Strike: "You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment)."

Rogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment."
UnRogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment."

So yes, all UnRogues effectively get Shadow Strike for free and thus receive a different benefit from this archetype.

As for feat vs talent... they are clearly referring to the Shadow Strike feat (it is labelled APG), but possibly saying it is gained as a bonus talent rather than a bonus feat? Or it's an error and SHOULD be 'bonus feat'. Either way, end result is essentially the same.

Ah. I didn't know that, I assumed since "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." was the same for both, so was the following sentence, didn't realize they altered one word.

So then I guess the next question would be in what scenarios do you actually need to make AoO against an enemy with cover?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigP4nda wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:

Okay, is nobody else bothered by the Dark Lurker Rogue Archetype's first ability? It states that the Rogue gains the Shadow Strike rogue talent, but there's no such thing. Furthermore, it goes on to say that the unchained rogue gets to make AoO against enemies with cover instead. As if the Unchained Rogue for some reason has less need for shadow strike, or already gets it...

I assume they meant to put "bonus feat" in place of "rogue talent" but what's with the exception presented here? It's not even a fair trade, dealing sneak attack while in darkness is so much better then a covered foe provoking AoOs.

I could use either some clarification or some second opinions on this.

Shadow Strike: "You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment)."

Rogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment."
UnRogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment."

So yes, all UnRogues effectively get Shadow Strike for free and thus receive a different benefit from this archetype.

As for feat vs talent... they are clearly referring to the Shadow Strike feat (it is labelled APG), but possibly saying it is gained as a bonus talent rather than a bonus feat? Or it's an error and SHOULD be 'bonus feat'. Either way, end result is essentially the same.

Ah. I didn't know that, I assumed since "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." was the same for both, so was the following sentence, didn't realize they altered one word.

So then I guess the next question would be in what scenarios do you actually need to make AoO against an enemy with cover?

Every time you're attacking diagonally with a wall corner next to you and the enemy as well as every time there's some low obstacle (say, a hedge or a crate you were just hiding behind) between you and the target.


Gorbacz wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:

Okay, is nobody else bothered by the Dark Lurker Rogue Archetype's first ability? It states that the Rogue gains the Shadow Strike rogue talent, but there's no such thing. Furthermore, it goes on to say that the unchained rogue gets to make AoO against enemies with cover instead. As if the Unchained Rogue for some reason has less need for shadow strike, or already gets it...

I assume they meant to put "bonus feat" in place of "rogue talent" but what's with the exception presented here? It's not even a fair trade, dealing sneak attack while in darkness is so much better then a covered foe provoking AoOs.

I could use either some clarification or some second opinions on this.

Shadow Strike: "You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment)."

Rogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment."
UnRogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment."

So yes, all UnRogues effectively get Shadow Strike for free and thus receive a different benefit from this archetype.

As for feat vs talent... they are clearly referring to the Shadow Strike feat (it is labelled APG), but possibly saying it is gained as a bonus talent rather than a bonus feat? Or it's an error and SHOULD be 'bonus feat'. Either way, end result is essentially the same.

Ah. I didn't know that, I assumed since "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." was the same for both, so was the following sentence, didn't realize they altered one word.

So then I guess the next question would be in what scenarios do you actually need to make AoO against an enemy with cover?

Every time you're attacking diagonally with a wall corner next to you and the enemy as well as every time there's some low obstacle (say, a hedge or a crate you...

I have never been in either of those situations...at least not to the point where I couldn't just go around it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

A reach or ranged attacker with allies between them and a target would not normally be able to make AoO on the target because their allies are inadvertently providing cover. This ability would offset that and allow the AoOs.

That's likely the most common way the UnRogue benefit from Dark Lurker would be useful.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigP4nda wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
BigP4nda wrote:

Okay, is nobody else bothered by the Dark Lurker Rogue Archetype's first ability? It states that the Rogue gains the Shadow Strike rogue talent, but there's no such thing. Furthermore, it goes on to say that the unchained rogue gets to make AoO against enemies with cover instead. As if the Unchained Rogue for some reason has less need for shadow strike, or already gets it...

I assume they meant to put "bonus feat" in place of "rogue talent" but what's with the exception presented here? It's not even a fair trade, dealing sneak attack while in darkness is so much better then a covered foe provoking AoOs.

I could use either some clarification or some second opinions on this.

Shadow Strike: "You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment)."

Rogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment."
UnRogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment."

So yes, all UnRogues effectively get Shadow Strike for free and thus receive a different benefit from this archetype.

As for feat vs talent... they are clearly referring to the Shadow Strike feat (it is labelled APG), but possibly saying it is gained as a bonus talent rather than a bonus feat? Or it's an error and SHOULD be 'bonus feat'. Either way, end result is essentially the same.

Ah. I didn't know that, I assumed since "The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot." was the same for both, so was the following sentence, didn't realize they altered one word.

So then I guess the next question would be in what scenarios do you actually need to make AoO against an enemy with cover?

Every time you're attacking diagonally with a wall corner next to you and the enemy as well as every time there's some low obstacle
...

Any time Blur is cast.


CBDunkerson wrote:

A reach or ranged attacker with allies between them and a target would not normally be able to make AoO on the target because their allies are inadvertently providing cover. This ability would offset that and allow the AoOs.

That's likely the most common way the UnRogue benefit from Dark Lurker would be useful.

Ranged attackers typically can't make AoO's anyways, so that point is moot.

djones wrote:
Any time Blur is cast.

Blur is concealment, not cover.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
BigP4nda wrote:

djones wrote:
Any time Blur is cast.
Blur is concealment, not cover.

Yes, exactly.

Rogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment."
UnRogue: "A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment."

Blur protects against sneak attacks, unless it's from the Unchained Rogue.

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Player Companion: Heroes of the Streets (PFRPG) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.