| 11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
The Final Embrace Horror and Final Embrace Master feats from Ultimate Combat both require the Ability Focus (Constrict) feat. Now, I read the ability focus feat description and it said it only affects saving throw DCs. I also read the Constrict ability description, and it says it inflicts damage on a successful grapple check, not a failed saving throw.
Am I right to assume ability focus cannot be applied to constrict? In which case the two feats are unattainable? Or is this a design oversight?
Please Help.
You can take Ability Focus (Constrict), since Constrict is a special attack, but the feat has no function other than being a tax.
Well I think that is just silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Too bad the silliness in the "Ultimate" books isn't limited to that example.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
I'd just ignore it.
A feat tax is one thing, but a feat tax that does nothing is just rediculous.
It's like making a feat that allows you to apply your Dexterity bonus to damage on crossbows, but requires you to take Prone Shooter to qualify for it.
I'd just ignore it.
A feat tax is one thing, but a feat tax that does nothing is just rediculous.
It's like making a feat that allows you to apply your Dexterity bonus to damage on crossbows, but requires you to take Prone Shooter to qualify for it.
Not even, you at least gain some benefit from Prone Shooter, even if you might not ever use it. Ability Focus (Constrict) literally gives you no benefit.
Doesn't Prone Shooter literally give you no benefit either? There is no attack roll penalty for using a ranged weapon while prone. You either can or you can't depending on the weapon that you are using.
Not even, you at least gain some benefit from Prone Shooter, even if you might not ever use it. Ability Focus (Constrict) literally gives you no benefit.I'd just ignore it.
A feat tax is one thing, but a feat tax that does nothing is just rediculous.
It's like making a feat that allows you to apply your Dexterity bonus to damage on crossbows, but requires you to take Prone Shooter to qualify for it.
Nah. Prone Shooter gives you no benefit at all since there are no penalties imposed on ranged attack rolls you make with a crossbow or firearm. Just like Ability Focus (constrict).
Doesn't do anything.
Now, if Prone Shooter worked with longbows... that'd be another story.
Ability Focus (Constrict) is useless, and so is Prone Shooter.
It's probably because of Paizo's heavy work load. UC had multiple contributors. It's obvious that a few of those contributors misunderstood or misinterpreted the rules (an easy thing to do for any of us).
If we hit the FAQ button for both the OP and ThatEvilGuy's first post, the good folks at Paizo may get around to fixing them.
Ability Focus (Constrict) is useless, and so is Prone Shooter.
It's probably because of Paizo's heavy work load. UC had multiple contributors. It's obvious that a few of those contributors misunderstood or misinterpreted the rules (an easy thing to do for any of us).
If we hit the FAQ button for both the OP and ThatEvilGuy's first post, the good folks at Paizo may get around to fixing them.
Doubtful; the PF books were lacking in quality control in the first place, the binding on my 1st printing CRB is a testament to that, and they don't look to be in any hurry to fix things. It should be noted that the Prone Shooter feat has been brought up numerous times and pretty much ignored.
Doubtful; the PF books were lacking in quality control in the first place, the binding on my 1st printing CRB is a testament to that, and they don't look to be in any hurry to fix things. It should be noted that the Prone Shooter feat has been brought up numerous times and pretty much ignored.
Ah, well, you're probably right. We still enjoy playing the game, "warts" and all. :P
@ Kazarath - I'd suggest asking your GM to eliminate the Ability Focus prereq.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just a bit cynical, is all. If the Paizo crew slowed their pace and focused on debugging their game before pumping out new hardcovers left and right it could really be something, but copying and pasting 90% of the rules from D&D v.3.5 while writing a handful of new material and hoping it meshes together has caused some problems that appearently no one cares to fix. The rediculously long errata for the 1st printing of the Bestiary makes my copy nearly worthless as far as being usable along with the NPC gallery in the GMG and the pile of useless junk in the Ultimate books shows that they have no proof-reading step before going to print.
But I like to to have a few drinks and game with my friends, and PF is currently their drug of choice. Me, I just like them PF Tales.
But yeah, I agree with ThatEvilGuy and Weren Wu Jen, I'd check with your GM to see if (s)he would be cool with ignoring the worthless prerequisite feat.
I would bump this again tomorrow afternoon when more people are online. That feat prereq does not even make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It makes sense because it is a strong feat. It is an ingenious way to discourage players from taking feats made with monsters in mind TBH. Big grabby critters often have feats to burn, so charging double for a feat is no big loss for the critter. But a player trying to take it has to suck up going for 3 levels with a literally dead feat slot. :)
Still it would be nice to read what the paizo devs have to say on the subject, so I'll hit the FAQing button.
No feat should be completely useless. I think it is just bad editing again, and this feat is not really all that good.
PS:It seems it was made for the Tetori, but constricting will still do less damage than a full round attack, and if it is a high level caster you are trying to keep pinned the chokehold feat can damage him and made him go unconscious. Of course once you get to a low BAB caster he is pretty much dead anyway so it is not like feat adds much if that was the reason why.
I've brought this up before. Personally, I see it as a design oversight and ignore that particular prerequisite.
I also like to assume Prone Shooter works on all ranged weapons.
For those players whose GMs holds JJ's words as having more weight than the average poster.
Yerwelcome.
@Ravingdork: If anyone in my game wants to take the feat, that's what it works for. So that it, you know, ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING!
For those players whose GMs holds JJ's words as having more weight than the average poster.
Yerwelcome.
I think it is worth noting he only suggests a replacement, rather than stating those are replacements. And more notworthy is the only suggestion for replacement feat that actually exists, Improved natural Attack, IIRC is one monks can't take. Improved Grab does not exist as a feat, with the Special Attack being named Grab in pathfinder.
Poor design is going on, alas. :(
I would suggest changing Ability Focus (constrict) in that case to something else like Improved Natrual Attack or Improved Grab or something... and also would note the strangeness in that book's errata thread.
Pretty cool to see the Design Team posting about FAQ updates in the relevant threads. Great change!