Pathfinder Player Companion: Armor Master's Handbook (PFRPG)

Speaking of Combat Tricks, any stand out additions?

Imbicatus wrote:

BardWannabe wrote:

Are there any new alternatives to Shield Slam for making shield bashing more desirable (especially for those whose GMs rule that the bull rush is not optional in Shield Slam)?

Yes. There are options for a free trip at -5 or inflicting a -2 to AC on a successful bash.

I finally got my PDF tonight and I see that the feats you were referring to where Stumbling Bash and Toppling Bash. They are the type of thing I was hoping to see. Unfortunately they require Shield Focus, making them more expensive to get to than Shield Slam for someone trying to make a Two Weapon Fighter. Alas, I think the cost will be too high for my Cavalier. :(

They require shield focus or armor training. That doesn't help a cavalier, but you could retrain into the Knight of Arnisant archetype that gains Shield Focus as a bonus feat.

Speaking of Combat Tricks, any stand out additions?

Not that I noticed. Lots of things wanting you to pay 5 stamina to negate a (generally small) penalty or get a (generally small) bonus, use a feat in a slightly different situation or an extra time, that sort of thing.

You can redirect a ray attack aimed at you, which is pretty sweet... except it requires Greater Ray Shield and 10 stamina. Could be useful if you use Martial Flexibility to the feats before a fight with an IP-infringing floating blob monster with a bunch of eye-laser stalks.

Also, one of those "small penalties" or "slightly different situations" might actually be amazing (generally or for a specific build), it is just none of them stuck out at me.

...They require shield focus or armor training. That doesn't help a cavalier, but you could retrain into the Knight of Arnisant archetype that gains Shield Focus as a bonus feat.

I could, but that would meaning giving up the Constable's near-constant access to Precise Strike, and having to take back the darn horse I was so happy to get rid of.

Was it really necessary to add another prerequisite just to provide an alternative to Shield Slam? It's not like sword-and-board doesn't already have its share of prerequisites, to only yield a mediocre result.

Do the new combat feats have combat tricks already ?

Does the feat Ironclad Reactions negate the attack that struck you or no? It doesn't seem clear. The description states:

You are able to quickly react to attacks.

but then it goes on to say:

when a foe successfully hits you with an attack of opportunity, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to take a 5-foot step.

I assume you have to be hit first, then you can make the 5-foot step. But I also feel the intent was to get the 5-foot step to AVOID the attack that was successful, since the description of the feat states so?

It was never the intent that Ironclad Reactions would negate an attack. It's a reaction, and a reaction to an event (however fast) occurs after the event.
It's a great way to boost mobility, and it can save you from a lot of anguish if a foe or group of foes have you in a bad spot, but it doesn't negate the attack, which we note must be successful for you to use the ability.

Does the feat Ironclad Reactions negate the attack that struck you or no? It doesn't seem clear. The description states:

You are able to quickly react to attacks.

but then it goes on to say:

when a foe successfully hits you with an attack of opportunity, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to take a 5-foot step.

I assume you have to be hit first, then you can make the 5-foot step. But I also feel the intent was to get the 5-foot step to AVOID the attack that was successful, since the description of the feat states so?

When the dragon winds up for a full-attack you were foolish enough to be in range of, it's really nice to be able edge out of those last few attacks. It also seems like a handy way to get out of the threat range of something that has reach without provoking.

The Balanced medium armor special property is different, but shares the same name, as the Balanced property from Ultimate Equipment.

Guys gotta be careful about those duplicate names, seeing it a bit more often than I would personally like.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Does the feat Ironclad Reactions negate the attack that struck you or no? It doesn't seem clear. The description states:

You are able to quickly react to attacks.

but then it goes on to say:

when a foe successfully hits you with an attack of opportunity, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to take a 5-foot step.

I assume you have to be hit first, then you can make the 5-foot step. But I also feel the intent was to get the 5-foot step to AVOID the attack that was successful, since the description of the feat states so?

When the dragon winds up for a full-attack you were foolish enough to be in range of, it's really nice to be able edge out of those last few attacks. It also seems like a handy way to get out of the threat range of something that has reach without provoking.

Ah I didn't think about the multiple attack thing, makes sense.

It was never the intent that Ironclad Reactions would negate an attack. It's a reaction, and a reaction to an event (however fast) occurs after the event.

While I agree with the sentiment, it's not really shared by the rules in a lot of situations.

Actions that provoke attacks of opportunity are made before the resolution of that act, despite that act provoking the reaction.

Held attacks and bracing activate before the attack that provoked them, despite also being a reaction to said action.

It's because of this that I appreciate you clarifying the feat's resolution, since for most of the game, reactions resolve before the action causing the reaction. I myself think the wording of 'successfully' hit does clarify the order of resolution here quite clearly, but clarification on intent is always welcomed.

Does the feat Ironclad Reactions negate the attack that struck you or no? It doesn't seem clear. The description states:

You are able to quickly react to attacks.

but then it goes on to say:

when a foe successfully hits you with an attack of opportunity, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to take a 5-foot step.

I assume you have to be hit first, then you can make the 5-foot step. But I also feel the intent was to get the 5-foot step to AVOID the attack that was successful, since the description of the feat states so?

Wait...this is a 5ft step?

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Does the feat Ironclad Reactions negate the attack that struck you or no? It doesn't seem clear. The description states:

You are able to quickly react to attacks.

but then it goes on to say:

when a foe successfully hits you with an attack of opportunity, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to take a 5-foot step.

I assume you have to be hit first, then you can make the 5-foot step. But I also feel the intent was to get the 5-foot step to AVOID the attack that was successful, since the description of the feat states so?

When the dragon winds up for a full-attack you were foolish enough to be in range of, it's really nice to be able edge out of those last few attacks. It also seems like a handy way to get out of the threat range of something that has reach without provoking.

I don't think you can use full attack with attack of opportunity...

QuidEst wrote:

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Does the feat Ironclad Reactions negate the attack that struck you or no? It doesn't seem clear. The description states:

You are able to quickly react to attacks.

but then it goes on to say:

when a foe successfully hits you with an attack of opportunity, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to take a 5-foot step.

I assume you have to be hit first, then you can make the 5-foot step. But I also feel the intent was to get the 5-foot step to AVOID the attack that was successful, since the description of the feat states so?

When the dragon winds up for a full-attack you were foolish enough to be in range of, it's really nice to be able edge out of those last few attacks. It also seems like a handy way to get out of the threat range of something that has reach without provoking.

I don't think you can use full attack with attack of opportunity...

Sometimes I actually read things. Just missed that rather key AoO bit.

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Does the feat Ironclad Reactions negate the attack that struck you or no? It doesn't seem clear. The description states:

You are able to quickly react to attacks.

but then it goes on to say:

when a foe successfully hits you with an attack of opportunity, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to take a 5-foot step.

I assume you have to be hit first, then you can make the 5-foot step. But I also feel the intent was to get the 5-foot step to AVOID the attack that was successful, since the description of the feat states so?

Wait...this is a 5ft step?

What are the prerequisites to this feat cause Outslug style from WMH just got a new friend!

Its actually incredibly bad. As others have stated, the feat lets you spend an AoO to take a 5 ft step (which doesn't count as your 5 ft step for a round) after you have been hit by an AoO. The prereqs are very easy beyond armor training (basic proficiency and level requirement), but the feat is so niche that's its practically worthless.

This is a book with both Cushioning Armor and Cushioning Shield, as well as Combat Tricks for them.

If the intention wasn't to create piles of feats for Brawler players with eidetic memories, I don't know what it is.

If the intention wasn't to create piles of feats for Brawler players with eidetic memories, I don't know what it is.

Hey, that's half the fun of playing a brawler. (I'm not actually joking, but I admit that I'm an edge case)

Is anyone else amused that you don't actually need to be wearing the appropriate armor to use the armor styles?

Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:

If the intention wasn't to create piles of feats for Brawler players with eidetic memories, I don't know what it is.

Hey, that's half the fun of playing a brawler. (I'm not actually joking, but I admit that I'm an edge case)

Is anyone else amused that you don't actually need to be wearing the appropriate armor to use the armor styles?
** spoiler omitted **

Missed the bit just above...

Missed the bit just above...

Aha, skimmed over it thinking it was fluff. I stand corrected, thanks!

This book is amazing! In every way the Weapon Master's Handbook's equal!

It opens up SO many new options! Fight with a polearm and a shield, protect your allies with a tower shield without taking penalties to your attack rolls, treat a buckler as a standard shield without it costing you the hand, make a monk that can use shields without it interfering with monk class abilities, get multiple attacks with Spring Attack, overcome the size limitations of many combat maneuvers, make a fighter with gobs and gobs of skills, and much, much more!

Unfortunately, I have no idea how the heck several of those are supposed to work, often because of the supposedly canon theory of "hands of effort," but also other areas of the rules.

If I use Shield Brace, do I still get the bonus from the shield? Is the weapon one or two handed? Can I still bash with the shield?

If I take the appropriate feat could I use Unhindering Shield to shield bash and use a greatsword? It declares it is "wielded," so could I just use a weapon normally and not bash with it but stack it with "when wielded" enchantments? Does that not conflict with how people interpret those on, say, boot blades or gauntlets?

Spring-Heel Jack Style requires a "move action," and therefore does not work with its prerequisites or later style feats. Oversight?

Not an oversight, but stuff like Adaptable Training is just stupid. It is literally the first "advanced armor training" and has nothing to do with armor, because it is actually a secret attempt at fixing the Fighter hidden in an unrelated section. Much like VMC Bards can redistribute skill points, or Stamina has a bunch of straight buffs unrelated to the system. I'm not opposed to these sorts of things, but hiding them in obscure subsystems like this is ridiculous.

This book is amazing! In every way the Weapon Master's Handbook's equal!

Yep, that was my initial impression as well.

I've been going through it in more detail looking for any real errors or significant flaws, but so far all I've come up with is that the 'Armor Trick' feat lists 'shields' as one of the categories for which the feat can be taken, but no shield tricks are then listed. Presumably, this gives access to the same shield tricks that were in Adventurer's Armory with the 'Equipment Trick' feat. Just should have been a note to that effect somewhere.

For Upsetting Strike (which is the second feat in the style) the Dex prerequisite becomes Dex 15, but for Upsetting Vengeance (the third feat) the prerequisite goes back down to Dex 13.

Which is the typo? Was Upsetting Strike supposed to go up to Dex 15 and Upsetting Vengeance is wrong to just have Dex 13, or was the whole tree supposed to be Dex 13?

Deadkitten wrote:

Barachiel Shina wrote:

Does the feat Ironclad Reactions negate the attack that struck you or no? It doesn't seem clear. The description states:

You are able to quickly react to attacks.

but then it goes on to say:

when a foe successfully hits you with an attack of opportunity, you can expend a use of an attack of opportunity to take a 5-foot step.

I assume you have to be hit first, then you can make the 5-foot step. But I also feel the intent was to get the 5-foot step to AVOID the attack that was successful, since the description of the feat states so?

Wait...this is a 5ft step?

What are the prerequisites to this feat cause Outslug style from WMH just got a new friend!

Its actually incredibly bad. As others have stated, the feat lets you spend an AoO to take a 5 ft step (which doesn't count as your 5 ft step for a round) after you have been hit by an AoO. The prereqs are very easy beyond armor training (basic proficiency and level requirement), but the feat is so niche that's its practically worthless.

Wow, I missed the AoO bit also. Here I was thinking it would be a sweet method of getting out of a full attack (although, an enemy is allowed to 5-foot step between attacks on a full attack) but, yeah, totally went right back down to...almost utterly useless? I feel as if some of the feats in the Companion line lately are getting wayyy too circumstantial to even warrant the worth of a feat slot.

It was never the intent that Ironclad Reactions would negate an attack. It's a reaction, and a reaction to an event (however fast) occurs after the event.

It's a great way to boost mobility, and it can save you from a lot of anguish if a foe or group of foes have you in a bad spot, but it doesn't negate the attack, which we note must be successful for you to use the ability.

Sorry to ask Mr.Stephens but can you clarify the Spring-Heel Style interactions between requiring a Move action and Spring Attack/Shot On The Run. Is it an oversight or is it a way to allow users of the Style to gain benefits when not utilizing Spring Attack/Shot on the Run

I've looked at Spring heeled style again and I think the wording is very intentional. The base feat gives your other movement options. You can move and gain a +2 bonus to attack (equivalent I suppose to the charge bonus) as well as the capacity to add 4 to your AC when shooting or reloading in a threatened area. The two later feats do not preclude the use of the prerequisite feats, they provide bonuses if using the style, which you can do at the same time as the prerequisites.

Just a few more days. I'm looking forward to reading this book.

If one is going to use Spring Attack anyway, why not make it better with Spring-heeled style? The fact that it is named for a murderously cool evil fey is just gravy!

Folks, please post rules questions in the appropriate forum.

Folks, please post rules questions in the appropriate forum.

Unfortunately, we have found that they have a much greater chance of being answered by the author/editor if they are posted here.

In addition, these threads tend to be far less hostile and more helpful than those in the Rules Questions forum. :(

In addition, these threads tend to be far less hostile and more helpful than those in the Rules Questions forum. :(

NO THEY AREN'T!!!!

Just kidding, Kalindlara. ;)

Yeah, it's a bit of a pickle. I can see where Paizo might want to keep things in the Rules forum where they might be FAQ'd and get an official response... but in practice most rules forum discussions are different gamers giving their opinions/preferences to varying degrees of hostility with no resolution in sight.

On the other hand, the product discussions are often watched by people involved with the development... especially right before and after the product comes out. That gives the possibility of learning things about intent while it is all still fresh in people's minds.

And we're still not on topic...

As usual, the problem with finding new wonderful feats is attempting to fit them into a current build. Spring attack is a Fey Bloodline Bloodrager feat that is, in my opinion, okay to pretty good. Spring-heeled Style really makes it better, as far as I can see. It's my favorite part of a rather good and under-appreciated product. The shield feats are really good as well.

The shield feats are really good as well.

Yeah, eventually people are going to start combining the various shield options in this book with monks, two-handed weapons, slashing/fencing grace, and various other builds which previously couldn't have shields. That's a ton of new character designs.

Fourshadow wrote:

The shield feats are really good as well.

Yeah, eventually people are going to start combining the various shield options in this book with monks, two-handed weapons, slashing/fencing grace, and various other builds which previously couldn't have shields. That's a ton of new character designs.

Glad to hear that you like them!

Yeah, it's a bit of a pickle. I can see where Paizo might want to keep things in the Rules forum where they might be FAQ'd and get an official response... but in practice most rules forum discussions are different gamers giving their opinions/preferences to varying degrees of hostility with no resolution in sight.

On the other hand, the product discussions are often watched by people involved with the development... especially right before and after the product comes out. That gives the possibility of learning things about intent while it is all still fresh in people's minds.

Also, Player Companions don't get their answers up in the official FAQ either, so it's nice to have them answered by the authors here on the product thread.

Look, folks, it's not the right place. If it were, the Core Rulebook thread would be 10,000 pages long and nobody would be able to find anything. The authors are trying to be nice by answering the occasional question wherever it's asked, but if that encourages everyone to pile on, and we end up sliding down the slippery slope, then the authors will have to stop doing that. Please: don't make us make not answering a formal policy.

Personally I'm not sure where these "rules questions" are. Most of the questions aren't asking how the things are working. More like asking, "are these supposed to work this way?"

and it's chatter about the new book that hasn't been released yet. Most likely it'll be like every other one where no one posts after 2 weeks of release. Like, what are they supposed to be talking about other than the interesting or confusing parts of the book?

The "Golarion" section of the FAQ occasionally gets answers to questions about Player Companions. Such answers are rare, but they do occasionally happen.

So Unhindering Shield seems odd as the special monk aspect only occurs for multiclassed monks as by themselves they don't have proficiency with the buckler.

Does anybody know usually how much time it takes for companions to get implemented into PFS?

So Unhindering Shield seems odd as the special monk aspect only occurs for multiclassed monks as by themselves they don't have proficiency with the buckler.

Single classed monks can gain proficiency with bucklers by taking the Shield Proficiency feat. Of course, that entire feat chain uses up a LOT of the monk's feats.

Look, folks, it's not the right place. If it were, the Core Rulebook thread would be 10,000 pages long and nobody would be able to find anything. The authors are trying to be nice by answering the occasional question wherever it's asked, but if that encourages everyone to pile on, and we end up sliding down the slippery slope, then the authors will have to stop doing that. Please: don't make us make not answering a formal policy.

A pragmatic solution to the issue would be to open a rules questions thread for a question and advertise it in a product thread with a link...

Does anybody know usually how much time it takes for companions to get implemented into PFS?

Anywhere from a within a day to 2 weeks? Dependent on how busy they are with other things.

I don't mean to come off as snarky. We are truly, truly appreciative of the answers we do receive, and the authors/developers that take the time to provide them. We just wish the question forums felt as focused and responsive as these threads have been. For several months now, these threads have been the best reading on the whole website. But I understand the "slippery-slope" concern and will try to ask questions in the suggested forum, and will hope it proves let futile going forward than past experience would suggest.

I think once the book comes out, rules questions are expected to go to the Rules forum.
Before the release date though with only subscribers getting the book pdf early, such questions in the Rules forum is kinda annoying/iffy. The majority of folks have no context to the rules for the question and it seems sorta faux pas to be copying and pasting rules text in the Rules forum before the release date when it's already frown upon in the product page discussion thread.

On other topic, finally got the PDF. I love the Mercenary League "Jacket Training" trait to treat armor coats as light armor! ALWAYS wanted to wear armor coat for more characters. Too bad it's still actually medium armor and I can't put Brawling on it.

Removed a baiting post.

Hey folks, there's some decent points brought up here, but I think a more detailed discussion about our FAQ system and where posts *should* go (and what you'd prefer to see) really ought to move to a subforum like Website Feedback. Thanks!

I love the Mercenary League "Jacket Training" trait to treat armor coats as light armor! ALWAYS wanted to wear armor coat for more characters. Too bad it's still actually medium armor and I can't put Brawling on it.

Other than a Bard, Magus, or Summoner being able to cast spells while wearing this armor without risking arcane spell failure, what advantage does this trait actually grant?