My build can't possibly be legal... can it?

[Dirkfreemont]

I play society and am currently making a new first level PC. I have a couple characters getting into the higher tiers and have noticed that in season two the higher teir adventures really bring the heat, so I'm trying to make a character that can actually be effective later on, instead of making one that is built for getting his behind kicked. I only mention this because the purpose of this thread isn't to get threadjacked and have people start talking about the virtues of roleplaying vs. powergaming, I don't want your opinion on this matter, I'm the greatest roleplayer this side of the Mississippi river. =) (just kidding of course, but seriously don't threadjack me)

Anyways here goes:
Dirkfreemont's spiked armored killer of death:

Dwarf -Favored class: Ranger-
-Class - Feat/ class ability-

1. Barb1 (Brutal Pugalist/Drunken Brute-APG-) - 1st lev feat:Toughness
2. Fgtr1 (Two handed Fighter <as in one big weapon not one in each hand> -APG) - Fgtr feat: Power attack
3. Rngr1 (Guide- APG) - 3rd lev feat :Extra Rage (+6 rounds of rage) / Rangers focus (+2 attk & dmg till dead 1/day)
4. Rngr 2- Combat style feat : Two weapon fighting (using two hander and spiked armor)
5. Fgtr 2 - 5th lev feat: Raging Vitality /fgtr feat: Double strike (str to spiked armor instead of half)
6. Fgtr 3 - Overhand Chop (Double str on 1st attack before you decide to full attack or move)
7. Barb 2 - 7th lev feat: xtra rage power-Animal fury(bite attack) / Barb rage power: lesser Fiend totem(horns)
8. Rngr 3
9. Rngr 4 - (9th level feat) Improved Critical : Falchion / ranger spells. / Rangers focus (+2 till dead 2/ day)
10. Rngr 5 - Rangers focus ( +4 till dead 2/day)
11. Rngr 6 - 11th level feat : Two weapon rend / Ranger combat style : Improved Two weapon fighting
12. Rngr 7 - Rangers Focus (+4 till dead 3/day)

Traits are: the one that gives +3 rounds of rage (can't remember the name of it) and Indomidable faith (+1 will save)

str 17
dex 12
con 16
int 8
wis 14
cha 8
Additional points at levels 4, 8, 12 all go to strength.

Perks of the build : Double dmg on first hit with two hander. if using a reach weapon threatens 10' away and close range at the same time. 16 rounds of rage at level 3, 18 rounds at 7th level assuming I don't buy an item to increase Con. Loads of hp, even more while raging. two weapon fighting while using a two hander using spiked armor(this is legal right?). if i use a shield and one handed weapon i can still use two weapon fighting because of the spiked armor(also legal?). plus eventually a bite and horns attack. +2 to attack and dmg of all attacks on the boss of your choice, 2 bosses at 9th level. is all this legal? A big concern I have for this build is whether I can use my overhand chop to get double strength damage on the first swing (an attack action) and then choose to full attack with 1.5 strength on the following swings (.5 strength on the natural attacks of course and 1.0 strength on the spiked armor attacks). The core rulebook states the following: pg 187: "Deciding between an attack or full attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round." To help decide on this read up on action types on page 181 of core. My interpretation of the combat section says that you make an attack, then you can decide to make a full attack or move. The two handed fighter gets double strength on a "single attack (with the attack action or charge)" which to my knowledge would entail your first attack before deciding whether or not to use the full attack action. Thanks for taking the time to read all this guys, and thank you for your help in advance. Cheers!

[Dire Mongoose]

Dirkfreemont wrote:

5. Fgtr 2 - 5th lev feat: Raging Vitality /fgtr feat: Double strike (str to spiked armor instead of half)

I assume here you mean Double Slice?

It requires Dex 15 and the Two Weapon Fighting feat. I don't think you have either?

[tjlatta]

Overhand Chop only works if you make a single attack. If you make more than one (full attack after 5th level or 2-weapon fighting), this ability is useless.
"when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls."
I suppose a lenient GM could let you make your first attack with 2x bonus, assuming you're only going to strike once, then let you undo the extra damage if you decide to hit it again.

[ryan krueger 787]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Dirkfreemont wrote:

5. Fgtr 2 - 5th lev feat: Raging Vitality /fgtr feat: Double strike (str to spiked armor instead of half)

I assume here you mean Double Slice?

It requires Dex 15 and the Two Weapon Fighting feat. I don't think you have either?

Yep, double slice, sry about that. and i get two weapon fighting for free as a level 2 ranger. You are correct however in that while in the feat descriptions on page 116 (the place i looked, like a fool) it only requires two weapon fighting, in the actual feat description on page 122 it in fact says "prerequisite two weap. fighting, dex 15". Nice catch, now i have to rethink this whole thing, or at least a different 5th level feat. or i could really go for the min/max and drop cha to 7, giving me an extra point to spend on dex, and then drop con to 15 bumping my dex to 14 at level one, and then at level 4 i bump dex to 15, and level 8 str goes to 18, and at level 12 con goes to 16.

[StabbittyDoom]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Dirkfreemont wrote:

5. Fgtr 2 - 5th lev feat: Raging Vitality /fgtr feat: Double strike (str to spiked armor instead of half)

I assume here you mean Double Slice?

It requires Dex 15 and the Two Weapon Fighting feat. I don't think you have either?

They have the second one from their second Ranger level, but they don't have the dex so that's kind-of moot. If they somehow got a +4 dex belt by then they could take the feat (or a +2 and put a point there), but I doubt it.

EDIT: Ninja'd. I really need to start hitting preview on old tabs before posting.

[ryan krueger 787]

tjlatta wrote:

Overhand Chop only works if you make a single attack. If you make more than one (full attack after 5th level or 2-weapon fighting), this ability is useless.

"when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls."
I suppose a lenient GM could let you make your first attack with 2x bonus, assuming you're only going to strike once, then let you undo the extra damage if you decide to hit it again.

Read up on the attack action and then read up on full attack pg 181 and 187 of core rule book. The way it reads in the book you make an attack- a single attack- then you decide to make a full attack or move. I also included the text in my original post that may help clarify why I'm coming to this conclusion.

[Sigfried Trent]

Spiked armor is definitely some cheeze, not exactly unbalancing but it does a lot of things I don't think were ever intended for it such as the two handed + two weapon fighting combination. You might need to be concerned about some game masters not letting you do that even if the rules technically support it.

He has the TWF for double slice from ranger but doesn't have the dex so he can't take that. Also as noted the overhand chop won't work with your other tricks.

Over all it looks pretty solid.

[Sigfried Trent]

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

Read up on the attack action and then read up on full attack pg 181 and 187 of core rule book. The way it reads in the book you make an attack- a single attack- then you decide to make a full attack or move. I also included the text in my original post that may help clarify why I'm coming to this conclusion.

"First attack" and "Single attack" are not the same thing. If you make more than one attack you are not making a single attack. Once you use overhand chop you are really committing yourself to only one attack that round.

[Mojorat]

You cannot bit and gore someone at the same time.

[ryan krueger 787]

Sigfried Trent wrote:

Spiked armor is definitely some cheeze, not exactly unbalancing but it does a lot of things I don't think were ever intended for it such as the two handed + two weapon fighting combination. You might need to be concerned about some game masters not letting you do that even if the rules technically support it.

He has the TWF for double slice from ranger but doesn't have the dex so he can't take that. Also as noted the overhand chop won't work with your other tricks.

Over all it looks pretty solid.

I guess my response to this is that spiked armor was made to be used while grappling obviously, but it specifically says it can used as a light weapon. I would question why they made it a light weapon if you weren't supposed to twf with a two hander with it? The good people at paizo aren't dummies, they knew what they were doing when they put that in there. Also I'm not worried about GM's not letting me use it, because it's for pathfinder society, and all i need is a ruling and then bring in a copy of the ruling and they have to let me use it =)

[ryan krueger 787]

Mojorat wrote:

You cannot bit and gore someone at the same time.

Core rule book, pg 182 under the heading natural attacks "You do not recieve additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you recieve additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack."

[Midnightoker]

I cant tell by the original post but you cannot have two rangers focus at the same time, you just get it an additional time per day.

I am also trying to count your rage boosts.

I am getting 4 rounds shorter but maybe I missed something

2 levels Barb, +3 con +3 trait + 6 feat. 14 total rounds.

[ryan krueger 787]

Midnightoker wrote:

I cant tell by the original post but you cannot have two rangers focus at the same time, you just get it an additional time per day.

I am also trying to count your rage boosts.

I am getting 4 rounds shorter but maybe I missed something

2 levels Barb, +3 con +3 trait + 6 feat. 14 total rounds.

correct, i would be able to use ranger's focus against different opponents, not at the same time. awesome for killing the head badguy in a group. usually about 3-5 combats in a society session.

rage rounds are calculated this way: 4 rounds base + 3 rounds con + 3 trait + 6 rounds feat + 2 rounds when i get my second level of barb = 18.

[Mojorat]

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

Mojorat wrote:

You cannot bit and gore someone at the same time.

Core rule book, pg 182 under the heading natural attacks "You do not recieve additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you recieve additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack."

The section under making secondary attacks with natural weapons says you cannot make one if the limb has already been used for an attack

So you cannot hit some one with a two handed sword and claw with the hand used to wield the weapon. Nore can you gore someone and bite them.

I do not know the page number

[Alizor]

So this is just my thoughts from my initial look:

1) The spiked armor + two-handed weapon might not be allowed by individual DMs. It will probably be rare to not be allowed, but it'll be a major blow to your character in the event s/he doesn't let you use it.

2) You might want to consider the cost of the multiclassing. You lose 5 HP/Skill points, 1 ranger feat (high level variant), 1 use of Focus, +2 to attack/damage on focus, an upgraded animal companion (at the moment it's effectively useless), Ranger's Luck/Inspired Moment, and 3rd level ranger spells.

3) As a separate note, the multiclassing will make your will save REALLY LOW compared with not multiclassing. In fact, you don't gain a +1 base will save until 6th level when most single classed characters will be at +2, on the way to +3. In the end you're only 1 lower than not multiclassing (with other saves being higher), but the will save at lower levels will definitely hurt.

[ryan krueger 787]

Sigfried Trent wrote:

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

Read up on the attack action and then read up on full attack pg 181 and 187 of core rule book. The way it reads in the book you make an attack- a single attack- then you decide to make a full attack or move. I also included the text in my original post that may help clarify why I'm coming to this conclusion.

"First attack" and "Single attack" are not the same thing. If you make more than one attack you are not making a single attack. Once you use overhand chop you are really committing yourself to only one attack that round.

We need to define whether the attack action is part of a full attack. You make an attack using the attack action. Then once it is resolved you can decide to full attack or move. I'll repost whats on page 187: "Deciding between an attack or full attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round." Two handed fighter overhand chop says you make a "single attack (using the attack action or charge)". Attack action = single attack. Now i decide whether or not to full attack.

[ryan krueger 787]

Mojorat wrote:

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

Mojorat wrote:

You cannot bit and gore someone at the same time.

Core rule book, pg 182 under the heading natural attacks "You do not recieve additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you recieve additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack."

The section under making secondary attacks with natural weapons says you cannot make one if the limb has already been used for an attack

So you cannot hit some one with a two handed sword and claw with the hand used to wield the weapon. Nore can you gore someone and bite them.

I do not know the page number

Hmm, your logic seems to trump mine. A head is a limb. +1 mojorat.

[Howie23]

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

tjlatta wrote:

Overhand Chop only works if you make a single attack. If you make more than one (full attack after 5th level or 2-weapon fighting), this ability is useless.

"when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls."
I suppose a lenient GM could let you make your first attack with 2x bonus, assuming you're only going to strike once, then let you undo the extra damage if you decide to hit it again.

Read up on the attack action and then read up on full attack pg 181 and 187 of core rule book. The way it reads in the book you make an attack- a single attack- then you decide to make a full attack or move. I also included the text in my original post that may help clarify why I'm coming to this conclusion.

You can wait until after the results of a first attack prior to committing to a full attack. However, the modifiers you are using to your first attack may limit what you can do thereafter. For example, if you don't take the penalty for two weapon fighting on the first attack, you can't convert to a TWF sequence that includes extra attacks beyond what is due your BAB. Likewise, if you take your overhand chop damage bonus on the first attack, you are excluding the option of converting to full attack.

If OP sees this differently, so be it. Not everyone agrees on all rules. But, when playing in organized play, one should be aware of where there are matters with varied interpretations (table variance) and generally plan for multiple common interpretations. If the cost in build resources that are not always usable is too great, then avoid the build.

PFS currently has no defined list of what constitutes an authoritative source with respect to, "Also I'm not worried about GM's not letting me use it, because it's for pathfinder society, and all i need is a ruling and then bring in a copy of the ruling and they have to let me use it =)" This applies to both TWF/spikes and what will clearly be table variance if attempt to Overhand Chop and subsequently convert to full attack. The best you have going for you at this time is the Don't Be a Jerk guideline; when building a character with designed attack sequences that are certain to objected to at some tables, it begs the question of who is stepping outside of DBAJ. ;)

If you're going with this sort of build, you should expect a steady diet of pre-game conversations with GMs, "What is your ruling on TWF using 2HW and Spikes? What is your ruling on using an ability that requires a single attack and then subsequently converting to a full attack?" Based on those responses, select your actions accordingly.

[AvalonXQ]

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

We need to define whether the attack action is part of a full attack. You make an attack using the attack action. Then once it is resolved you can decide to full attack or move. I'll repost whats on page 187: "Deciding between an attack or full attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round." Two handed fighter overhand chop says you make a "single attack (using the attack action or charge)". Attack action = single attack. Now i decide whether or not to full attack.

You're not reading the rules correctly. The rules don't allow you to declare an attack action and then later change it to a full attack; they allow you to declare a full attack action and then replace your remaining attacks with a move action.

This particular "loophole" doesn't work the way you want it to -- although it does apparently allow an exploitation for the Magus using Spell Combat.

[Alizor]

Also from the standpoint of Overhand Chop it mentions that when you "make a single attack" so by using the bonus you are precluding yourself from using your remaining attacks. This would work the exact same as for a two-weapon fighter who needs to take a -2 penalty to the first attack to get the "option" of using his off-hand attacks if enemies are still in range after he finishes his regular main hand attacks.

[Drogon]

Hey, Ryan. I didn't know you enjoyed cheese this much! And this one's particularly heady, too. Heh.

As one of the GMs you'll be dealing with, I can tell you you'll have a problem getting, "I two-weapon fight with my spiked armor" by me. Dave, too, will give you the hairy eyebrow and say, "Nope."

Also, the bite/gore thing that someone noted above is absolutely correct: you cannot make a second attack with a different weapon with the same limb (your head, in this case). And if you try to argue rules with us, the default with ambiguous rules is almost always, "No."

And Alizor is 100% correct on the will save. Don't remember the other night very well, do you?

Just sayin'...

[ryan krueger 787]

Alizor wrote:

So this is just my thoughts from my initial look:

1) The spiked armor + two-handed weapon might not be allowed by individual DMs. It will probably be rare to not be allowed, but it'll be a major blow to your character in the event s/he doesn't let you use it.

2) You might want to consider the cost of the multiclassing. You lose 5 HP/Skill points, 1 ranger feat (high level variant), 1 use of Focus, +2 to attack/damage on focus, an upgraded animal companion (at the moment it's effectively useless), Ranger's Luck/Inspired Moment, and 3rd level ranger spells.

3) As a separate note, the multiclassing will make your will save REALLY LOW compared with not multiclassing. In fact, you don't gain a +1 base will save until 6th level when most single classed characters will be at +2, on the way to +3. In the end you're only 1 lower than not multiclassing (with other saves being higher), but the will save at lower levels will definitely hurt.

the guide ranger option which is where i get ranger's focus replaces animal companion. I dont see how one point of will save is a big difference. i have +3 will at first level, +5 while raging at first level, because i have a base of 14 wisdom and a +1 trait bonus. give me a resistance cape and i'm good to go. also since mojorat pointed out that i can't bite and gore at the same time, i might as well spend that feat on iron will.

[Dirkfreemont]

Howie23 wrote:

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

tjlatta wrote:

Overhand Chop only works if you make a single attack. If you make more than one (full attack after 5th level or 2-weapon fighting), this ability is useless.

"when a two-handed fighter makes a single attack (with the attack action or a charge) with a two-handed weapon, he adds double his Strength bonus on damage rolls."
I suppose a lenient GM could let you make your first attack with 2x bonus, assuming you're only going to strike once, then let you undo the extra damage if you decide to hit it again.

Read up on the attack action and then read up on full attack pg 181 and 187 of core rule book. The way it reads in the book you make an attack- a single attack- then you decide to make a full attack or move. I also included the text in my original post that may help clarify why I'm coming to this conclusion.

You can wait until after the results of a first attack prior to committing to a full attack. However, the modifiers you are using to your first attack may limit what you can do thereafter. For example, if you don't take the penalty for two weapon fighting on the first attack, you can't convert to a TWF sequence that includes extra attacks beyond what is due your BAB. Likewise, if you take your overhand chop damage bonus on the first attack, you are excluding the option of converting to full attack.

If OP sees this differently, so be it. Not everyone agrees on all rules. But, when playing in organized play, one should be aware of where there are matters with varied interpretations (table variance) and generally plan for multiple common interpretations. If the cost in build resources that are not always usable is too great, then avoid the build.

PFS currently has no defined list of what constitutes an authoritative source with respect to, "Also I'm not worried about GM's not letting me use it, because it's for pathfinder society, and all i need is a ruling and then bring in a copy of the ruling and they have to let me use it =)" This...

This is a very valid point, and I agree completely. The whole reason I play pathfinder is to have fun. I just find it fun to play with rules in my head in my freetime, and I don't have anything to do today. I'll certainly take this advice and probably end up with a witch or a full on barb for society. However, I'd still like to see this thread continued, just because optimization is kind of a hobby of mine. So I'll make some revision's to the original post and see where it goes. First thing will be the illegal bite/ gore, but if anyone has any ideas of how to make this idea work I'd like to hear them, and the point about overhand chop depending on the same rule that governs the -2 penalty on twf seems to break the whole thing and it makes sense to me. Too bad, this was a fun idea in my head, I'm sure glad i posted here before actually playing the character!

[Alizor]

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

the guide ranger option which is where i get ranger's focus replaces animal companion. I dont see how one point of will save is a big difference. i have +3 will at first level, +5 while raging at first level, because i have a base of 14 wisdom and a +1 trait bonus. give me a resistance cape and i'm good to go. also since mojorat pointed out that i can't bite and gore at the same time, i might as well spend that feat on iron will.

By Ranger's Focus you mean Terrain Bond. I missed that this replaced the Animal Companion - however the point still stands that it is a loss; a well built animal companion can be a major asset.

At level one your will save will be +3 (+5 while raging), at level 5 your will save will be +3 (+5 while raging). Note that the +5 portion does not stack with a large number of spells or abilities (Bardic Music, Bless, Heroism, etc.) so there is that to consider. Personally I think Iron Will is required in this build to make sure you aren't dominated / afraid at an inopportune moment.

[ryan krueger 787]

Drogon wrote:

Hey, Ryan. I didn't know you enjoyed cheese this much! And this one's particularly heady, too. Heh.

As one of the GMs you'll be dealing with, I can tell you you'll have a problem getting, "I two-weapon fight with my spiked armor" by me. Dave, too, will give you the hairy eyebrow and say, "Nope."

Also, the bite/gore thing that someone noted above is absolutely correct: you cannot make a second attack with a different weapon with the same limb (your head, in this case). And if you try to argue rules with us, the default with ambiguous rules is almost always, "No."

And Alizor is 100% correct on the will save. Don't remember the other night very well, do you?

Just sayin'...

oh believe me, i remember... "will save or die..." haha.

[Alizor]

Alizor wrote:

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

the guide ranger option which is where i get ranger's focus replaces animal companion. I dont see how one point of will save is a big difference. i have +3 will at first level, +5 while raging at first level, because i have a base of 14 wisdom and a +1 trait bonus. give me a resistance cape and i'm good to go. also since mojorat pointed out that i can't bite and gore at the same time, i might as well spend that feat on iron will.

By Ranger's Focus you mean Terrain Bond. I missed that this replaced the Animal Companion - however the point still stands that it is a loss; a well built animal companion can be a major asset.

At level one your will save will be +3 (+5 while raging), at level 5 your will save will be +3 (+5 while raging). Note that the +5 portion does not stack with a large number of spells or abilities (Bardic Music, Bless, Heroism, etc.) so there is that to consider. Personally I think Iron Will is required in this build to make sure you aren't dominated / afraid at an inopportune moment.

Actually, I forgot that you were playing as a dwarf, you have +2 vs. spells anyways. To be honest it would work fine between iron will and dwarf bonus... you'd just not have much of a progression of the save.

[ryan krueger 787]

Alizor wrote:

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

the guide ranger option which is where i get ranger's focus replaces animal companion. I dont see how one point of will save is a big difference. i have +3 will at first level, +5 while raging at first level, because i have a base of 14 wisdom and a +1 trait bonus. give me a resistance cape and i'm good to go. also since mojorat pointed out that i can't bite and gore at the same time, i might as well spend that feat on iron will.

By Ranger's Focus you mean Terrain Bond. I missed that this replaced the Animal Companion - however the point still stands that it is a loss; a well built animal companion can be a major asset.

At level one your will save will be +3 (+5 while raging), at level 5 your will save will be +3 (+5 while raging). Note that the +5 portion does not stack with a large number of spells or abilities (Bardic Music, Bless, Heroism, etc.) so there is that to consider. Personally I think Iron Will is required in this build to make sure you aren't dominated / afraid at an inopportune moment.

Its the guide option i was saying that has a replacement of animal companion in it, albeit via the terrain bond feature contained within the guide variant as you point out. i think you are right that the build needs iron will, that being said, i think all classes with weak will saves need iron will, theres not a big difference between this and a pure barb or fighter as far as will saves go.

[Drogon]

Regarding will saves: you can take the APG dwarven racial trait of "Stubborn" if all you're worried about is will saves. It replaces "Hardy." The second chance is pretty good. Also, there's a character trait out of Dwarves of Golarion that adds another +1 to all saves (making the "Hardy" racial trait +3, in essence).

[Zyren Zemerys]

Sounds like a Thibbledorf Pwent built :-)

[Otm-Shank]

If you are looking to boost saves, take the Steel Soul feat from the APG. Increases the bonus from hardy trait to +4.

[james maissen]

Drogon wrote:

As one of the GMs you'll be dealing with, I can tell you you'll have a problem getting, "I two-weapon fight with my spiked armor" by me. Dave, too, will give you the hairy eyebrow and say, "Nope."

Just sayin'...

I'm sorry, how is there variation here?

The rules on TWF haven't changed since 3.5 and they were expressly allowed there, so what do you believe has changed?

Or are you saying something along the lines of 'I don't like armor spikes and *I* won't allow them in *my* games?'.

There's nothing wrong with doing this, or with TWFing with an unarmed strike or boot blade as the offhand weapon as far as I know, perhaps you could enlighten me?

-James

[Alizor]

Otm-Shank wrote:

If you are looking to boost saves, take the Steel Soul feat from the APG. Increases the bonus from hardy trait to +4.

That's definitely a good idea in this case. Applies to all saves for all spell-like, spells, and poisons. Only negative is not working on supernatural abilities, but the tradeoff could work.

Also from the Overhand chop difference you can go give the fighter levels back to the ranger side and you'd end up with 10 ranger, 2 barbarian. You wouldn't need TWF anymore, but could change to the two-handed combat style. You'd get the upgraded Ranger's Focus and another use per day, more 2nd level spells (although not that many) and could still get 2 Barbarian levels for the rage and natural attack.

[Drogon]

james maisson wrote:

perhaps you could enlighten me?

No argument. If it's legal, it's legal. But if there's any ambiguity (and I haven't read all the relevant rules, so don't be thinking I'm saying it is or isn't), then the answer will be, "No, you can't do that." With 4-hour time slots in PFS, we don't have the time to debate RAW vs RAI. Nor do we have the time to research and debate whether it's even viable. If a PFS GM is presented with a situation that he needs to rule on, he gets final voice.

As an example (one which I know you're fond of, yourself): how does "Hide in Plain Sight" work for a Shadow Dancer? Can I HIPS because my fighter buddy is casting a shadow? Do I get then my sneak attack dice when I'm attacking from stealth?

How many pages did the last thread with those questions go?

We don't do that in PFS. We say, "Sure, you can do that," or, "Nope. Seems silly, to me," and move on. You can debate with me after the session.

People above were questioning the validity of the armor-spikes-as-off-hand-weapon idea. If that is a legitimately ambiguous thing in the book, then PFS GMs will apply table rulings to it. Ryan plays with me as a GM a lot, and I'm just letting him know where I would land in a debate.

[Cartigan]

Drogon wrote:

Hey, Ryan. I didn't know you enjoyed cheese this much! And this one's particularly heady, too. Heh.

As one of the GMs you'll be dealing with, I can tell you you'll have a problem getting, "I two-weapon fight with my spiked armor" by me. Dave, too, will give you the hairy eyebrow and say, "Nope."

Can monks not use unarmed strikes when wielding a quarterstaff when flurrying?

Quote:

How many pages did the last thread with those questions go?

Of course, how many of those pages were "I have darkvision!"

[Caineach]

I would go with the spell-less ranger varient in the APG. What use are a couple low level spells going to be to you? In exchange, you can get a whole bunch of neat swift action abilities.

[AvalonXQ]

Drogon wrote:

People above were questioning the validity of the armor-spikes-as-off-hand-weapon idea. If that is a legitimately ambiguous thing in the book, then PFS GMs will apply table rulings to it.

It's not legitimately ambiguous -- it's a very clear "YES that is allowed".

Quote:

Ryan plays with me as a GM a lot, and I'm just letting him know where I would land in a debate.

Houserules are fine, but you should know that this is something for which the official rules are crystal clear.

[Drogon]

Cartigan wrote:

Can monks not use unarmed strikes when wielding a quarterstaff when flurrying?

Of course he can! Sez so right in the book!

Now, you wanna debate power attack bonuses with temple swords and flurry of blows? That's an ambiguous rule debate I can get behind.

Cartigan also wrote:

Of course, how many of those pages were "I have darkvision!"

Touche, sir.

[Cartigan]

Drogon wrote:

Cartigan also wrote:

Of course, how many of those pages were "I have darkvision!"

Touche, sir.

You would think there would be more debates on the Ranger's hide in plain sight because most everyone has NORMAL sight and I mean, he's right there!

[Drogon]

AvalonXQ wrote:

this is something for which the official rules are crystal clear.

Sigh. I wasn't trying to start a debate about this rule. If it helps for me to say, "You're right," then I will. I probably picked the wrong thing to make fun of Ryan with, so here goes:

You're right. I'm wrong. Using armor spikes as a second weapon while wielding a great sword two-handed and using the two-weapon fighting feat to offset the penalties is a perfectly valid use of the rules. I apologize for calling that into question.

Now, can we honor his request and not continue the threadjack?

[AvalonXQ]

Drogon wrote:

AvalonXQ wrote:

this is something for which the official rules are crystal clear.

Sigh. I wasn't trying to start a debate about this rule.

Sure, no problem. I'm totally in agreement about not using questionable rulings for your builds, and I think a "NO" is a perfectly valid response for a questionable build -- I just wanted to point out that this particular rule is not one where the "NO" response is really appropriate.

Point made, threadjack over.

[Asgetrion]

Sigfried Trent wrote:

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

Read up on the attack action and then read up on full attack pg 181 and 187 of core rule book. The way it reads in the book you make an attack- a single attack- then you decide to make a full attack or move. I also included the text in my original post that may help clarify why I'm coming to this conclusion.

"First attack" and "Single attack" are not the same thing. If you make more than one attack you are not making a single attack. Once you use overhand chop you are really committing yourself to only one attack that round.

+1. You have to declare you're using Overhand Chop (a standard action) before any rolls.

[Cartigan]

I think it is sufficient to say that there are enough patent increctnesses in the build that you should just go back to the drawing board.

[Zurai]

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

Mojorat wrote:

ryan krueger 787 wrote:

Mojorat wrote:

You cannot bit and gore someone at the same time.

Core rule book, pg 182 under the heading natural attacks "You do not recieve additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you recieve additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack."

The section under making secondary attacks with natural weapons says you cannot make one if the limb has already been used for an attack

So you cannot hit some one with a two handed sword and claw with the hand used to wield the weapon. Nore can you gore someone and bite them.

I do not know the page number

Hmm, your logic seems to trump mine. A head is a limb. +1 mojorat.

Actually, no, it isn't for the purposes of natural attacks. Every creature in the Bestiary that has a bite and a gore attack is listed as being able to use both as part of a full attack sequence. See Gargoyles for one example.

[StabbittyDoom]

I believe that the gore+bite combo is an unlisted exception, probably because (unlike most other combinations) you can conceivably do it in one motion with an upward swing of the head and a chomp.

[Mojorat]

]

Actually, no, it isn't for the purposes of natural attacks. Every creature in the Bestiary that has a bite and a gore attack is listed as being able to use both as part of a full attack sequence. See Gargoyles for one example.

The gargoyle does not appear to be doing them as secondary attacks. Which appears to be where the rule I mentioned is concerned.

[Dirkfreemont]

Drogon wrote:

AvalonXQ wrote:

this is something for which the official rules are crystal clear.

Sigh. I wasn't trying to start a debate about this rule. If it helps for me to say, "You're right," then I will. I probably picked the wrong thing to make fun of Ryan with, so here goes:

You're right. I'm wrong. Using armor spikes as a second weapon while wielding a great sword two-handed and using the two-weapon fighting feat to offset the penalties is a perfectly valid use of the rules. I apologize for calling that into question.

Now, can we honor his request and not continue the threadjack?

Ok, I changed my mind, I like the debate. Threadjack away. Although I'd ask that you keep it to things directly related in this build. On a side note, I had considered giving up spells for the swift action goodness of spell- less ranger variant in the apg but decided against it for some reason. I'll get back to that along with a little different take on this build that I've been playing with when I get home tonight. Oh and thanks for all the great feedback so far guys!

[Dirkfreemont]

So I'm positive I'm seeing what I want to in this interpretation because it helps my cause, but on page 65 of core rules "The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites". This only applies to the feats he takes at 2nd, 6th...etc... level right? or since twf is my combat style couldn't i just take feats listed such as doubleslice as my 3rd level feat for instance, since "He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not meet the prerequisites"?

[Howie23]

Dirkfreemont wrote:

So I'm positive I'm seeing what I want to in this interpretation because it helps my cause, but on page 65 of core rules "The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites". This only applies to the feats he takes at 2nd, 6th...etc... level right? or since twf is my combat style couldn't i just take feats listed such as doubleslice as my 3rd level feat for instance, since "He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not meet the prerequisites"?

The bonus feats are the only ones to which waiving the prerequisites apply.

[Dirkfreemont]

Howie23 wrote:

Dirkfreemont wrote:

So I'm positive I'm seeing what I want to in this interpretation because it helps my cause, but on page 65 of core rules "The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites". This only applies to the feats he takes at 2nd, 6th...etc... level right? or since twf is my combat style couldn't i just take feats listed such as doubleslice as my 3rd level feat for instance, since "He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not meet the prerequisites"?

The bonus feats are the only ones to which waiving the prerequisites apply.

figured, thks howie. One more question, someone had mentioned earlier taking feats like twf after buying an item to up my dex. To my knowledge magic items that increase a stat don't aid in qualifying for feats. Please help clarify.

[StabbittyDoom]

Dirkfreemont wrote:

Howie23 wrote:

Dirkfreemont wrote:

So I'm positive I'm seeing what I want to in this interpretation because it helps my cause, but on page 65 of core rules "The ranger's expertise manifests in the form of bonus feats at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th level. He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites". This only applies to the feats he takes at 2nd, 6th...etc... level right? or since twf is my combat style couldn't i just take feats listed such as doubleslice as my 3rd level feat for instance, since "He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not meet the prerequisites"?

The bonus feats are the only ones to which waiving the prerequisites apply.

figured, thks howie. One more question, someone had mentioned earlier taking feats like twf after buying an item to up my dex. To my knowledge magic items that increase a stat don't aid in qualifying for feats. Please help clarify.

A belt or headband can help you qualify for feats because after 24 hours the bonus becomes permanent. Watch out, though! This means that you lose it much more easily as an opponent need only damage/disable the item to remove that capability from you.