Commonly Overlooked Tactics


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 402 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5

judas 147 wrote:
Fromper wrote:

Something I've wondered, but never actually done: Can cure potions be used as splash weapons against undead?

one GM let us play with CLW potions as a splash weapons.

"so, now we have a holy hand granade"
its a good splash weapon at any given level (the only damage which actualy splash was the caster level)

curelight wounds deals 1d8+1 positive energy damage (and for the adjacent enemies, the splash damage is +1)

CMW 2d8+3 (splash damage of 3) and so

YMMV - I asked much the same question on a thread some time back. The result was a resounding "No" - as it was pointed out that in order for the Potion to have an effect it has to be drunk. Then we got to asking about Oil of CLW... and it was stated that to apply it to someone else would be a full round action - But heck, if you judge says it works? Kind of expensive though, as Holy water costs half as much and does 2d4.

I think this is a holdover from 1st edition days, or even from before that. Potions in those days worked different and were not "spells in a bottle".

I'll see if I can find the old thread for this to link in here...

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
nosig wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:
That would be true if A and C were going at each other with ranged weapons, but as soon as one has a melee weapon you need precise shot or take -4. A doesn´t get soft cover versus D most probably though.

CRB - PG. 184, the sectoin on "Shooting or Throwing into a Melee." Paragraph 2 states:

"If your target (or the part of your target you're aiming at, if it's a big target) is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character, you can avoid the -4 penalty, even if the creature you're aiming at is engaged in melee with a friendly character."

SO...
A and C are in a Melee? Yes
D is shooting into the melee? Yes
the part of C that D is aiming at is at least 10 feet away from the nearest friendly character? Yes
Then D avoids the -4 penalty for firing into a melee, even if the C is engaged in melee with A.

many people have not read this rule, they just learned it from someone else, who learned it from someone who didn't read the second paragraph. And when some people do read it, they assume that what it says, can not be what it says, 'cause they know the rule and that's not the way they do it.

Please, read the rule, think about what it says. If you still think it does not apply "...as soon as one has a melee weapon..." I would be interested in listening to why you feel that way.

Keep in mind this rule no longer exists. SKR just changed it. Scroll down to post 66.

The Exchange 5/5

??? wow... this is a change to the CRB, a rule that has been in place sense 3.0 days. It's going to take some time to change... are they going to publish this as errata, or rely on people to catch it in the FAQ? Is it in the FAQ yet?

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

This is a better link

5/5 Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka Pirate Rob

"The text will be revised to say this" so it doesn't exist yet except as something SKR claims the rule in the future will be.

The Exchange 5/5

And this will mean that if you are shooting down a 5' wide hallway, at at the back corner of a troll in melee with a friend of yours, you will take -4 for shooting into melee, but are unable to see or effect your ally.

So under this rule change:

OTTOOO
OTTBOO
XOXXXX
XOXXXX
XAXXXX

O is an open hallway square
X is solid wall
T is troll
B is an ally
A is the shooter.

A can't see or effect B, but takes a -4 for shooting into melee (unless B is small, then he only takes a -2).

Do I have that correct?

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I don't see how adding a hallway changes things, so yes.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It just makes it a bit more funny.

The Exchange 5/5

When is the rules change expected to make it to an FAQ or the CRB Errata?

Shadow Lodge

I don't agree with the change either, but whatever. I can see why they would want to take out the idea of aiming at a particular part of a creature, if nothing else in the rules allows you to do so. But the whole thing could have been avoided by changing "at least" to "more than", or by ruling that you had to aim at the closest part of a creature (so no aiming at the back square from in front of the troll).

The Exchange 5/5

Mystic Lemur wrote:
I don't agree with the change either, but whatever. I can see why they would want to take out the idea of aiming at a particular part of a creature, if nothing else in the rules allows you to do so. But the whole thing could have been avoided by changing "at least" to "more than", or by ruling that you had to aim at the closest part of a creature (so no aiming at the back square from in front of the troll).

The cover rules for Big Creatures actually deal with individual squares. (CRB - PG 196, paragraph "Big Creatures and Cover") "...when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you."

So it appears, in melee, you pick the individual square to attack. Now with this rule change the shooting rules will do this differently from melee - you can not choose to attack any of it's squares, just at the entire creature.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

nosig wrote:
So it appears, in melee, you pick the individual square to attack. Now with this rule change the shooting rules will do this differently from melee - you can not choose to attack any of it's squares, just at the entire creature.

nosig, You are confusing on why the rule is being changed, it is not because he did not like you can pick what square, it was because it conflicted with the rule of firing into melee with a creature 2 or more sizes larger then you.

Cover and Firing into melee though they are combined a lot are not related rules, just because one is going to change will not mean the other will.

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

nosig, it´s much easier than that. Ten feet is two squares, you can attack someone with a reach weapon on that distance.
What´s more important though is that you can´t aim like you said. A character or monster is in the field, anywhere in that field. Pathfinder has no facing. So you can´t say you aim at the other end of the square in question. That´s what SKR points out in the linked post too.

But you have to differ between soft cover which provides +4 to AC and being in melee with someone, which let´s you take -4 on your attack roll.

The Exchange 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
nosig wrote:
So it appears, in melee, you pick the individual square to attack. Now with this rule change the shooting rules will do this differently from melee - you can not choose to attack any of it's squares, just at the entire creature.

nosig, You are confusing on why the rule is being changed, it is not because he did not like you can pick what square, it was because it conflicted with the rule of firing into melee with a creature 2 or more sizes larger then you.

Cover and Firing into melee though they are combined a lot are not related rules, just because one is going to change will not mean the other will.

sorry Dragnmoon, I do not understand your statement.

"...it is not because he did not like you can pick what square, it was because it conflicted with the rule of firing into melee with a creature 2 or more sizes larger then you."

I do not see how the two rules conflicted. If you shoot at a creature 2 sizes larger than your friends that are in melee with it (than your largest friend in melee I would guess) than the penalty is reduced to (-2). If you shoot at a square at least 10' from the closest friend, you do not suffer the penalty (or do not until this rule is changed). How do these rules conflict?

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

nosig wrote:
I do not see how the two rules conflicted. If you shoot at a creature 2 sizes larger than your friends that are in melee with it (than your largest friend in melee I would guess) than the penalty is reduced to (-2). If you shoot at a square at least 10' from the closest friend, you do not suffer the penalty (or do not until this rule is changed). How do these rules conflict?

This is How SKR is seeing the rules conflicting..

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

One square away is exactly 5 feet. Not "almost 5 feet" or "a little over 5 feet" depending on where you are in your square and they are in their square. For simplicity's sake, it's just measured in squares. Otherwise, if you have a dagger and you're in the square adjacent to me, I could say "you can't hit me because I'm in the farthest corner of my square, and there's no way you can reach all the way there from your square."

A Large creature is an entirely separate issue... and it turns out we're talking about a rule we inherited from 3.5. That rule basically means you almost never have to deal with the "firing into melee" penalty when shooting at a Large creature, so long as some part of that creature is at least 10 feet from the nearest ally.

So, in this example:

TT
TTV

M

V is Valeros
M is Merisiel
T is all four squares of a troll

The top left and bottom left squares of the troll are at least 10 feet away from Valeros, so Merisiel can shoot at them without the –4 penalty. Which is silly and means it's not any harder to shoot a Large creature in melee than it is to shoot a Medium creature. The only time the "firing into melee" rule applies to the troll is if Merisiel has an ally on the troll's left side.

So it looks like that (or the part of your target you're aiming at")" rule needs to go away. It and the "if the target is at least two sizes larger" rule are trying to do the same thing, but the former is mostly invalidating the "firing into melee" rule for Large or larger creatures.

The Exchange 5/5

Hayato Ken wrote:

nosig, it´s much easier than that. Ten feet is two squares, you can attack someone with a reach weapon on that distance.

What´s more important though is that you can´t aim like you said. A character or monster is in the field, anywhere in that field. Pathfinder has no facing. So you can´t say you aim at the other end of the square in question. That´s what SKR points out in the linked post too.

But you have to differ between soft cover which provides +4 to AC and being in melee with someone, which let´s you take -4 on your attack roll.

I can easily play it either way. Whatever the rules say.

But, if "A character or monster is in the field, anywhere in that field." for shooting, than it is anywhere in that field for melee right? so if

OOxx
OOxx
Axxx
Bxxx

B can attack the ogre in melee with a reach weapon and the ogre does not have cover from A - because he targets the square that is not covered by A. (That square is within 10' of B thou, so if he were shooting, B would suffer a -4 for shooting into a melee, Unless A were a halfling, then it would be -2 for shooting into the melee).

The Exchange 5/5

Dragnmoon, I guess you are referencing the line:
"It and the 'if the target is at least two sizes larger' rule are trying to do the same thing, but the former is mostly invalidating the 'firing into melee' rule for Large or larger creatures."

I actually think they represent different things. One is shooting the part of the creature that is more than 5' from your friends. The other represents shooting the part of the creature that is taller than your friends.
1) If the halfling is 3' tall and the Ogre is 9' - aim over the halflings head.
2) If you can't get a clear shot, run around the side to shot at the part of the monster not next to your friends.

the rule change will remove #2.

But this is not the right place to be discussing this anyway, and I'm judge a table judge. I'll inforce what the rules say. Sorry to derail this thread.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Stat block of halfling cavalier

Nice build! I can see where the combination of bard and cavalier mesh with the helpful trait.


Gwen Smith wrote:
Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
Stat block of halfling cavalier
Nice build! I can see where the combination of bard and cavalier mesh with the helpful trait.

I have a similar build, although I went pure bard because I wanted to max out inspire courage. Players under utilize aid another in combat.

My lvl 12 bard w/ Bodyguard + combat reflexes can add to allies AC as an AoO 3x/round:
Helpful trait +4
arcane strike w/ gloves of arcane striking +3
Benevolent armor +3
= +10 AC

That kind of AC skewing really throws off the hit mechanics of a CR equivalent encounter.
Just don't ask my Bard to do any kind of real damage himself, he's all about buffing the party.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cast status effects on enemies at a lower caster level (which only usually affects duration). Then when the status effects wear off you still have your buffs running.

For example cast Haste on round one at current caster level of 9 then cast create pit on round 2 at caster level 6, giving you 2 rounds of Haste after the pit ends.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Not sure when this would be helpful.

A tactic I came up with earlier this week: Fight defensively when delivering healing spells/buffs to your allies.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I think you can only fight defensively when taking an attack action.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Mahtobedis wrote:

Not sure when this would be helpful.

A tactic I came up with earlier this week: Fight defensively when delivering healing spells/buffs to your allies.

Hmmm.. not sure that works. You get a free touch attack as part of casting a spell, but the action you took that round is still cast a spell, not fight defensively.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Turning a healing focused cleric invisible is a pretty awesome tactic..

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Georgia—Atlanta aka Yiroep

Silh E. Flaxseed wrote:
Turning a healing focused cleric invisible is a pretty awesome tactic..

My oracle of life (who doesn't do anything but buff, heal, and summon) is pretty much invisible always now that he got his Ring of Invisibility. 20,000 gp, but still the best item he's ever bought for himself. He's only got 14 AC at level 13, but he can usually survive just fine with that because of the ring (hasn't died since he got it).

So yes, if you got a healy mchealster who doesn't like to do anything else, making them invisible is an excellent tactic.

Edit: By the way, if you're making a healy life oracle who wants to be invisible, give him the deaf curse. Then he'll be invisible AND have every spell be silent. No one will even know you're there...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have attacked the empty square to my left defensively before just so I can move and get the AC boost in the same turn. I could total defense, but then you can't take AOOs.

You never know, there MIGHT have been an invisible enemy in that square...

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

See, now I'm thinking about Yiroep's post, and CRobledo's post, together, and it's terribly awkward.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:

Not sure when this would be helpful.

A tactic I came up with earlier this week: Fight defensively when delivering healing spells/buffs to your allies.

Hmmm.. not sure that works. You get a free touch attack as part of casting a spell, but the action you took that round is still cast a spell, not fight defensively.

Well it would seem you are right. Fighting defensively is a standard action. Interestingly enough this also means you couldn't do it as part of a full attack.


Mahtobedis wrote:
Well it would seem you are right. Fighting defensively is a standard action. Interestingly enough this also means you couldn't do it as part of a full attack.

You can, its just hidden a few lines below:

PRD wrote:
Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full-attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for until the start your next turn.

Otherwise noone would take Crane style :P

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

Mahtobedis wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:

Not sure when this would be helpful.

A tactic I came up with earlier this week: Fight defensively when delivering healing spells/buffs to your allies.

Hmmm.. not sure that works. You get a free touch attack as part of casting a spell, but the action you took that round is still cast a spell, not fight defensively.
Well it would seem you are right. Fighting defensively is a standard action. Interestingly enough this also means you couldn't do it as part of a full attack.

I would not be inclined to let a player increase their AC when delivering a "friendly" touch spell. Were it to an opponent that required an attack roll, then sure, fight defensively.

Unless we want to start making divine casters roll every time to touch their allies, it would probably be wise not to allow defensive touch 'attacking' your friends.

Silver Crusade

Speaking of invisible healers, a group I was GMing for last weekend came up with a funny tactic on the fly.

It was a subtier 6-7, and someone was playing the pregen cleric, Kyra, who is great at channeling at that level, both for healing and to harm undead. Someone else was playing a wizard with clairvoyance. So before opening a door, they already knew that there was a nasty looking undead waiting in an alcove to ambush the first person who walked more than 5 feet into the long, narrow hallway beyond it.

So they buffed the heck out of the whole party, including casting invisibility and spider climb on Kyra. They open the door, she climbs the wall, then crawls on the ceiling past the undead invisibly. I made her roll stealth, which is only +20 when moving, because there was a chance the undead would detect her, but I flubbed its perception roll. The baddie didn't ambush anyone, because it was still waiting for someone to come in the door and try to walk past it.

So Kyra passes it along the ceiling by about 15 feet, then channels to harm the undead. I called that a surprise round, and she became visible afterward because it was an attack, but it was a great way to start a battle, turning the undead's planned ambush around on it.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

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

In a home game we play, our party's Mystic Theurge (witch/cleric) has an air elemental for a familiar with reach (Evolved Familiar feat). She uses the spell Status to monitor our positions, health, and conditions while standing in obscuring mist. Healing and other touch spells are delivered as needed by the air elemental with a flyby reach touch.


Fromper wrote:

Speaking of invisible healers, a group I was GMing for last weekend came up with a funny tactic on the fly.

It was a subtier 6-7, and someone was playing the pregen cleric, Kyra, who is great at channeling at that level, both for healing and to harm undead. Someone else was playing a wizard with clairvoyance. So before opening a door, they already knew that there was a nasty looking undead waiting in an alcove to ambush the first person who walked more than 5 feet into the long, narrow hallway beyond it.

Wait til later levels when a divination wizard can scout the entire dungeon. Between clairvoyance, arcane eye, and scrying the GM is left with very few secrets.

Silver Crusade

Lab_Rat wrote:
Fromper wrote:

Speaking of invisible healers, a group I was GMing for last weekend came up with a funny tactic on the fly.

It was a subtier 6-7, and someone was playing the pregen cleric, Kyra, who is great at channeling at that level, both for healing and to harm undead. Someone else was playing a wizard with clairvoyance. So before opening a door, they already knew that there was a nasty looking undead waiting in an alcove to ambush the first person who walked more than 5 feet into the long, narrow hallway beyond it.

Wait til later levels when a divination wizard can scout the entire dungeon. Between clairvoyance, arcane eye, and scrying the GM is left with very few secrets.

This one was actually pretty funny when it came to that. They had a door in front of them, so he used clairvoyance to see behind it. Unfortunately for him, all he saw was a 5 foot entryway, with another door beyond it. He had to use his arcane bond to recall the spell from his spellbook to cast it again to see what was beyond the second door.


That's why I like arcane eye better. I have gotten some GMs to agree that the cut under a door (gap between door and floor) was an inch and thus I could get past doors with the eye (YMMV).


Lab_Rat wrote:

That's why I like arcane eye better. I have gotten some GMs to agree that the cut under a door (gap between door and floor) was an inch and thus I could get past doors with the eye (YMMV).

An inch is a pretty gap under the door.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Furious Kender wrote:
An inch is a pretty gap under the door.

A centimeter, however, is quite ugly.

The Exchange 5/5

a hand drill with a 1" bit....

Orc1 "Wazz dat scraching?"
Orc2 "Sounds like ah rat at da door!"
Orc1 "Rat's is tasty!" pick up club - head for door...

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vanish - from a wand, cast on the meatshield right after he attacks.
Now he has total concealment - and you have an invisible shield. Then on his turn he gets to attack from Invisibility...

Repeat as often as you need. And if he has levels of Rogue he get's sneak dice...

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:

Vanish - from a wand, cast on the meatshield right after he attacks.

Now he has total concealment - and you have an invisible shield. Then on his turn he gets to attack from Invisibility...

Repeat as often as you need. And if he has levels of Rogue he get's sneak dice...

Now you've got me wondering if my rogue with a level of bard could do this to himself for sneak attacks, but I don't think it works. Defensively, it would help avoid attacks, but I'd become visible at the start of my next turn, before getting a chance to sneak attack.

It might still be worth considering for sneaks on an AoO, though. I could go invis, then move up next to a bad guy and wait for him to move.

The Exchange 5/5

Fromper wrote:
nosig wrote:

Vanish - from a wand, cast on the meatshield right after he attacks.

Now he has total concealment - and you have an invisible shield. Then on his turn he gets to attack from Invisibility...

Repeat as often as you need. And if he has levels of Rogue he get's sneak dice...

Now you've got me wondering if my rogue with a level of bard could do this to himself for sneak attacks, but I don't think it works. Defensively, it would help avoid attacks, but I'd become visible at the start of my next turn, before getting a chance to sneak attack.

It might still be worth considering for sneaks on an AoO, though. I could go invis, then move up next to a bad guy and wait for him to move.

wellll.... if you want a PC that can do that, try a Bard (or Sorcerer)/Rogue with a trait that allows 1 spell cast at +1 caster level (pick Vanish), then you:

Round 1 - Vanish, move up to monster.
Round 2 - Attack and become visible
(and then Round 3 - get "introduced" to the monsters great club ;)

What you want with this would be 2 PCs. One to use the wand of vanish (while invisible maybe) and the other to do the attacks.

Silver Crusade

My character is already level 4 - rogue 3, bard 1 (Dawnflower Dervish). I was already thinking of picking up scrolls of invisibility once in a while, but you got me thinking that the vanish wand would be much more economical. The single round duration kinda kills the idea for me, though.

Still, I'd consider picking up a vanish wand once I hit higher level and have cash to spare, just in case I'm ever in a party with someone who doesn't mind standing behind me hitting me with it over and over.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Fromper wrote:

My character is already level 4 - rogue 3, bard 1 (Dawnflower Dervish). I was already thinking of picking up scrolls of invisibility once in a while, but you got me thinking that the vanish wand would be much more economical. The single round duration kinda kills the idea for me, though.

Still, I'd consider picking up a vanish wand once I hit higher level and have cash to spare, just in case I'm ever in a party with someone who doesn't mind standing behind me hitting me with it over and over.

You can buy wands at a higher cl right? At most for Vanish is a CL 5. If you can, cost and fame are your only issues

5/5

Thomas Graham wrote:
Fromper wrote:

My character is already level 4 - rogue 3, bard 1 (Dawnflower Dervish). I was already thinking of picking up scrolls of invisibility once in a while, but you got me thinking that the vanish wand would be much more economical. The single round duration kinda kills the idea for me, though.

Still, I'd consider picking up a vanish wand once I hit higher level and have cash to spare, just in case I'm ever in a party with someone who doesn't mind standing behind me hitting me with it over and over.

You can buy wands at a higher cl right? At most for Vanish is a CL 5. If you can, cost and fame are your only issues

Only if it's on a chronicle sheet...otherwise, minimum CL only =/

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Thomas Graham wrote:
You can buy wands at a higher cl right?

Not unless it's on a chronicle sheet.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Sniggevert wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:
Fromper wrote:

My character is already level 4 - rogue 3, bard 1 (Dawnflower Dervish). I was already thinking of picking up scrolls of invisibility once in a while, but you got me thinking that the vanish wand would be much more economical. The single round duration kinda kills the idea for me, though.

Still, I'd consider picking up a vanish wand once I hit higher level and have cash to spare, just in case I'm ever in a party with someone who doesn't mind standing behind me hitting me with it over and over.

You can buy wands at a higher cl right? At most for Vanish is a CL 5. If you can, cost and fame are your only issues
Only if it's on a chronicle sheet...otherwise, minimum CL only =/

Hmmmm. I know vanish, as a spell tattoo with its 1 round saved my wizards life. Bugbear in the last quest for perfection scenario. One round was enough to avoid being charge and I RAN away!

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

Or pick up the rogue trick Ki Pool, followed by getting the rogue talent Ninja Trick to get Vanishing Trick. Then you can cast vanish as a swift action, once or more per day!

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I use it as a "Get out of melee" gimmick. Tap guy in melee (even myself), even if he's prone, and have him move away. Prone just means you use wand (action), stand up (move action), 5' step (softly - make a stelth roll?). No AOO for using wands.

Silver Crusade

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Or pick up the rogue trick Ki Pool, followed by getting the rogue talent Ninja Trick to get Vanishing Trick. Then you can cast vanish as a swift action, once or more per day!

Good thought, but doesn't work for my PC. I'm going Halfling Opportunist prestige class at levels 6-10, so I won't be getting many rogue tricks.

I always forget that wands don't provoke. That's worth remembering. Combine that with a wand in a spring loaded wrist sheath, to pull it out as a swift action.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Btw, if you get even one Rogue Talent, you qualify for the "Extra Rogue Talent" feat. Just FYI.

251 to 300 of 402 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Commonly Overlooked Tactics All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.