Now I'm relatively new to this forum, and from what i've gathered. there seems to be a number of different uses for the world.
the definitions i've seen.
Abusing the rules to create OP Characters.
Using the rules in ways, the developers didn't intend.
Cheesy character concepts eg. someone who uses a shield like captain america. (I'm guilty of this btw)
now putting aside the first definition which yeah, breaking the game is never fun. why does there seem to be so much hate for the later two?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because people often don't like some forms of rules abuse, so they use derogatory terms for them.
What they don't like and what threshold something has to pass to be describable as "abuse" will vary from person to person, but that's the gist of it.
I practically never see "Cheesy concept" as a context for the term "Cheese". Usually it basically means some combination of the following:
a)powerful
b)against the "intent" of the rules (read:"how they think the rules should be used")
c)Not very "realistic" or thematically appropriate for the context in which it is used
Naturally, what constitutes any of the above is subject to massive variance depending on who you ask.
I would personally stay the heck away from that term if I want to have a civilized discussion. Its similar to the term "Role Playing" in that a lot of people know exactly what it means and have strong opinions on why what other people think it means is wrong. If this thread picks up, expect it to consist largely of people bickering and arguing the exact nuances of the term as they see it.
Because people often don't like some forms of rules abuse, so they use derogatory terms for them.
What they don't like and what threshold something has to pass to be describable as "abuse" will vary from person to person, but that's the gist of it.
I practically never see "Cheesy concept" as a context for the term "Cheese". Usually it basically means some combination of the following:
a)powerful
b)against the "intent" of the rules (read:"how they think the rules should be used")
c)Not very "realistic" or thematically appropriate for the context in which it is used
Naturally, what constitutes any of the above is subject to massive variance depending on who you ask.I would personally stay the heck away from that term if I want to have a civilized discussion. Its similar to the term "Role Playing" in that a lot of people know exactly what it means and have strong opinions on why what other people think it means is wrong. If this thread picks up, expect it to consist largely of people bickering and arguing the exact nuances of the term as they see it.
thank you for your insight and yeah, I kind of agree. I think the term may be too subjective to carry any real weight. also, whats your opinion on the 'powerful' build. because the way I see it, as long as its not game breakingly powerful. and I mean I don't see an issue with it being powerful.
for example, my current character is the one I mentioned. the captain america styled one. can be pretty powerful. and by powerful, I mean good at what he does, which is really just attacks attacks that don't provoke and ranged certain combat manoeuvres that don't provoke. and though, if I wanted to, I could abuse one particular mechanic which would be game breaking. (infinite attack combo) I won't because at the end of a day, I just want to make a character with unusual style, that actually has utility.
The third one is generally a non-issue.
The second one is, nine times out of ten, used to loop back into the first. The other one time out of ten it's usually just funny, or the gain is minor enough that it's not a large difference.
The first is a problem unless your table is okay with it, but most tables don't tend to be so we get the stigma.
well how do you define OP, because I have no problem with people combining unusual abilities to create a character who is able to create an unusual but powerful combo, providing that the combo isn't game breaking.
Cheese almost always leads to table disruption. Therein lies the problem. Definition-wise, a cheesy character is different than rules cheese. Most people don't mind cheesy characters and, tbh, your Captain America reference has an actual Paizo archetype associated with it, which proves that it's something that a number of people have wanted to do.
The problem with rules cheese is that you depend on the player to hold back in order to prevent table disruption. There are PFS characters locally who can essentially solo entire scenarios, up to and including one-handed grappling Bulettes, pinning them, and tying them up in the same round. While characters like this are off being Superman, what are the rest of the players doing? What about the GM?
I have a build saved that I've decided not to play at the local store because it would be similarly disruptive due to having a minimum Diplomacy result of 32 and no cap on attitude improvements at level 1. While I'm talking my way out of every encounter, turning hostile enemies into friendly if anything happens to stop combat (the DC is 25+CHA mod for 1 step increase, additional step for each +5 over the DC, mind you), what do the other players do, especially those that have been built for combat? The answer is "probably not having much fun." That's the problem.
Cheese almost always leads to table disruption. Therein lies the problem. Definition-wise, a cheesy character is different than rules cheese. Most people don't mind cheesy characters and, tbh, your Captain America reference has an actual Paizo archetype associated with it, which proves that it's something that a number of people have wanted to do.
The problem with rules cheese is that you depend on the player to hold back in order to prevent table disruption. There are PFS characters locally who can essentially solo entire scenarios, up to and including one-handed grappling Bulettes, pinning them, and tying them up in the same round. While characters like this are off being Superman, what are the rest of the players doing? What about the GM?
I have a build saved that I've decided not to play at the local store because it would be similarly disruptive due to having a minimum Diplomacy result of 32 and no cap on attitude improvements at level 1. While I'm talking my way out of every encounter, turning hostile enemies into friendly if anything happens to stop combat (the DC is 25+CHA mod for 1 step increase, additional step for each +5 over the DC, mind you), what do the other players do, especially those that have been built for combat? The answer is "probably not having much fun." That's the problem.
my captain america build utilises that archetype. (shield champion brawler I assume you're talking about) but I've improved on it buy granting him a quickdraw throwing shield. this combo, if I wanted to could be game breaking (one-hundred quickdraw throwing shields = one hundred free attacks! per turn.) . but I refrain myself from doing that by limiting myself to one shield.
yeah, in that situation I agree with you. but I've seen situations in which a person come up with an interesting combo. I came up with one recently that utilises a wyrm break shield and self inflicted injury. its not game breaking and I haven't come up with a way to make it even effective yet, yet I've had people say that the idea reaks of cheese.
...
my captain america build utilises that archetype. (shield champion brawler I assume you're talking about) but I've improved on it buy granting him a quickdraw throwing shield. this combo, if I wanted to could be game breaking (one-hundred quickdraw throwing shields = one hundred free attacks! per turn.) . but I refrain myself from doing that by limiting myself to one shield...
LOL that is Big of you. Because the other thing would fly how many places? What ability of the shield champ is it that allow this?
And cheese is in the eye of the beholder, or pehaps the nose.
...
my captain america build utilises that archetype. (shield champion brawler I assume you're talking about) but I've improved on it buy granting him a quickdraw throwing shield. this combo, if I wanted to could be game breaking (one-hundred quickdraw throwing shields = one hundred free attacks! per turn.) . but I refrain myself from doing that by limiting myself to one shield...LOL that is Big of you. Because the other thing would fly how many places? What ability of the shield champ is it that allow this?
And cheese is in the eye of the beholder, or pehaps the nose.
the throwing shield can be thrown as a free action. the quickdraw shield, (providing you have the quickdraw feat) can be draw or put it away as a free action. so just by having a hundred of quickdraw throwing shields and the quickdraw feat. you get one hundred free attacks as a full round action.
at level 5, a shield champion gets the returning shield ability. so the shields return to you at the end of the turn. but yeah, I don't want to break the game so i'll just have the one.
|
the throwing shield can be thrown as a free action. the quickdraw shield, (providing you have the quickdraw feat) can be draw or put it away as a free action. so just by having a hundred of quickdraw throwing shields and the quickdraw feat. you get one hundred free attacks as a full round action.
Only in a RAW is Law world. But yes - you could - according to blindly following RAW - get infinite attacks with a single quickdraw shield & a blink-back belt. NO ONE would allow it though. It's a chestnut I occasionally pull out specifically to prove that following RAW blindly is stupid.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Following anything blindly is stupid: printed rules, your GM's rulings, your own intuition of what the developers surely must have meant when they wrote X, the way it's been since , sayings from Gygax, how your group has always played it, whatever.
And to bring this around back to the topic of the thread, following something blindly is usually the root of when person X cries "cheese" against person Y: sometimes on the part of person Y, and almost always on the part of person X.
the throwing shield can be thrown as a free action. the quickdraw shield, (providing you have the quickdraw feat) can be draw or put it away as a free action. so just by having a hundred of quickdraw throwing shields and the quickdraw feat. you get one hundred free attacks as a full round action.Only in a RAW is Law world. But yes - you could - according to blindly following RAW - get infinite attacks with a single quickdraw shield & a blink-back belt. NO ONE would allow it though. It's a chestnut I occasionally pull out specifically to prove that following RAW blindly is stupid.
to be fair, a blink belt is limited to 4 shields but yeah, I know your point.
The belt is limited to 4 at a time. Not 4 throws per round. (Would actually be an issue for a perfectly legal TWF thrower build - as once they grab Improved TWF they should be chucking out 5 attacks/round.)
to be fair, a blink belt is limited to 4 shields but yeah, I know your point.
yeah I know, but you'd throw a million on the first round and then every other round after you can only throw 4. so if you were relying on the belt to retrieve all of your thrown shields for you it can only get 4 back.
|
|
yeah I know, but you'd throw a million on the first round and then every other round after you can only throw 4. so if you were relying on the belt to retrieve all of your thrown shields for you it can only get 4 back.The belt is limited to 4 at a time. Not 4 throws per round. (Would actually be an issue for a perfectly legal TWF thrower build - as once they grab Improved TWF they should be chucking out 5 attacks/round.)
to be fair, a blink belt is limited to 4 shields but yeah, I know your point.
Except you wouldn't need a million. You'd only need one shield. The blinkback belt isn't limited to once/round like the Returning quality is - it can return an item multiple times in a single round.
That's why it's basically required for throwing builds. A TWF thrower build still only needs 2 weapons.
yeah I know, but you'd throw a million on the first round and then every other round after you can only throw 4. so if you were relying on the belt to retrieve all of your thrown shields for you it can only get 4 back.The belt is limited to 4 at a time. Not 4 throws per round. (Would actually be an issue for a perfectly legal TWF thrower build - as once they grab Improved TWF they should be chucking out 5 attacks/round.)
to be fair, a blink belt is limited to 4 shields but yeah, I know your point.Except you wouldn't need a million. You'd only need one shield. The blinkback belt isn't limited to once/round like the Returning quality is - it can return an item multiple times in a single round.
That's why it's basically required for throwing builds. A TWF thrower build still only needs 2 weapons.
your right, my bad. I forgot that the weapon returns after it makes contact and not at the end of the turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are only my own opinions, but the cheese that I find particularly disruptive is where a player uses a concept that upstages other characters. This may be perfectly legal by the rules but it isn't welcome at my gaming table.
Examples include building a character with a saves or AC substantially higher than the next best PCs, whereby monsters either have no chance of hitting the former or easily hit the latter. This isn't about power - these characters often can't do anything else, it's the effect it has on the rest of the party. As a DM who tries to be even handed in encounters it becomes very difficult.
The second area of frustration is when players use the great resource that is the OGC site to scour the hundreds of supplements, paths and hardback books to find perfect combinations of traits, feats, archetypes and equipment to make a concept that would get spammed through encounters, often with little or no drawback and often pulled from completely unrelated suplements. Lets be honest a quick draw, throwing shield with the blink belt, and shield brawler tripping a foe for free every round with no downside, is a fairly extraordinary confluence of factors and is going to get dull very fast for everyone else, particularly after 25+ rounds of combat in a standard game session. No fun for DM, no fun for other players.
I normally try to nip these things in the bud before the concept hits the table. The example of a player trying to inflicting flaming wounds upon himself to charge up a magic shield wouldn't even get chance to roll the dice. A player that tried that would be told "that's not how we behave at this table", not least because self-harming is in fairly bad taste outside the most extreme roleplaying scenarios.
Its the player and DM's responsibility to make rational decisions to resolve inconsistencies or aberrations in the rules in a practical way. To keep the game balanced. Is throwing unlimited shields reasonable? Obviously not. Is throwing a shield as a free attack reasonable? Not for me, but that is just a gut call on a ambiguous rule. My advice, particularly if a player is new to a group, is not to constantly try and push the boundaries in this way to find the next dirty combination, for all the reasons given above. It creates tension... rules tension not dramatic tension.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because people often don't like some forms of rules abuse, so they use derogatory terms for them.
What they don't like and what threshold something has to pass to be describable as "abuse" will vary from person to person, but that's the gist of it.
I practically never see "Cheesy concept" as a context for the term "Cheese". Usually it basically means some combination of the following:
a)powerful
b)against the "intent" of the rules (read:"how they think the rules should be used")
c)Not very "realistic" or thematically appropriate for the context in which it is used
Naturally, what constitutes any of the above is subject to massive variance depending on who you ask.I would personally stay the heck away from that term if I want to have a civilized discussion. Its similar to the term "Role Playing" in that a lot of people know exactly what it means and have strong opinions on why what other people think it means is wrong. If this thread picks up, expect it to consist largely of people bickering and arguing the exact nuances of the term as they see it.
thank you for your insight and yeah, I kind of agree. I think the term may be too subjective to carry any real weight. also, whats your opinion on the 'powerful' build. because the way I see it, as long as its not game breakingly powerful. and I mean I don't see an issue with it being powerful.
for example, my current character is the one I mentioned. the captain america styled one. can be pretty powerful. and by powerful, I mean good at what he does, which is really just attacks attacks that don't provoke and ranged certain combat manoeuvres that don't provoke. and though, if I wanted to, I could abuse one particular mechanic which would be game breaking. (infinite attack combo) I won't because at the end of a day, I just want to make a character with unusual style, that actually has utility.
Basically the way I look at it is this.
Does your character ruin the fun of the other players?
If it doesn't, then there is no problem, and nothing needs to be done. If it does, there is a problem and something needs to be done.
I want to note a couple of important things here though.
The problem isn't always the fault of the player with the better character. Someone with a decent system mastery could play a decently built T3 martial caster (e.g. inquisitor) who blows the inexperienced player with a terrible twf fighter out of the water while doing plenty of other things. The solution is to help the new player rebuild the twf fighter so that they aren't utterly inferior to a competent player with a decent class (probably by switching to slayer or ranger).
Powerful characters can be fine. Dominating characters can be fine. If the rest of the party is happy playing support casters, a pouncing synthesist summoner could very well be totally OK. The support PCs enable the synthesist and watch their buff vessel utterly destroy encounter after encounter, and otherwise provide general utility while not directly wrecking encounters. The other players might be totally OK with the fight being over by the time initiative gets to someone other than the diviner wizard, because they dropped an encounter ending piece of BFC and it is more resource efficient to let the rest of the party annihilate crippled enemies than just doing it themself(read: a party with the classic God Wizard).
Lastly, the fact is that the term "Cheese" usually just means "I don't like that for X reasons". Ultimately, issues like this can be handled in one of five ways:
a)Suck it up and deal with it
b)Leave the group
c)Force the other player to leave the group
d)Through whatever means force the other player to change what they are doing(e.g. as a GM making the player change what or how they are playing, or as a player being negative towards the other player until they stop what you don't like and describing what they are doing using terms like "cheese")
e)Talk about it like adults
Option a) usually only works when the problem is trivial. b) and c) are (I hope) last resorts when all other reasonable options are gone. d) is probably going to lead to bad times, broken friendships and is ultimately a detour to b) or c). d) is really the best option to try first.
Now, what this all has to do with "Cheese", the topic of this thread, is that "Cheese" doesn't really exist as an objective term. It just is a derogatory way of referring to part of a problem that dismisses the fact that you and someone else at the table have some clash of playstyle, and the important part of the solution to that issue has nothing to do the rules (although the rules might excasperbate things by being poorly designed and allowing some avoidable problems to crop up). The problem might be that the other player is a fun-ruining ***hole who gets a rise out of your unhappiness. The problem might be that you are a "badwrongfun" type who can't tolerate a difference in playstyle that otherwise has no negative impact on you. It could be that you and the other player came to the table looking for different games (which may or may not be reconcilable). Or it could just be that the other player is annoying you by doing something but they don't actually mind changing if you would just talk to them like a human being instead of dismissing what they are doing as "Cheese". The term "Cheese" is basically not conductive to actually solving anything or achieving anything or making anyone happy. It's one of those terms that shoots down any chance of a reasonable adult-like discourse whenever it gets thrown around.
That's my 2c.
The problem isn't always the fault of the player with the better character. Someone with a decent system mastery could play a decently built T3 martial caster (e.g. inquisitor) who blows the inexperienced player with a terrible twf fighter out of the water while doing plenty of other things. The solution is to help the new player rebuild the twf fighter so that they aren't utterly inferior to a competent player with a decent class (probably by switching to slayer or ranger).
Experience is a funny thing. I play with a highly experienced, long running group. They manage to keep things balanced for the most part. With the boards and the assistance of the OGC website and forums it is easy to optimise, in some respoects harder not too!
Know your players seems to be the key skill... what do they want and why are they making the choices. Another fella that DM's in my group is rumbling about restricting to Core-rulebook only. Its a reaction to the bloat of 1000's of feats, weapons, items etc. I'm not sure what I feel about it, but I understand the motivation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The throwing shield can be thrown as a free action. the quickdraw shield, (providing you have the quickdraw feat) can be draw or put it away as a free action. so just by having a hundred of quickdraw throwing shields and the quickdraw feat. you get one hundred free attacks as a full round action
The throwing shield can be unstrapped as a free action which is otherwise a move action and readied to throw.
Putting on or taking off armor is a sometimes complicated procedure. The time required to don armor depends on its type; see Table: Donning Armor.
Don: This column tells how long it takes a character to put the armor on. (One minute is 10 rounds.) Readying (strapping on) a shield is only a move action.
Remove: This column tells how long it takes to get the armor off. Removing a shield from the arm and dropping it is only a move action.
The idea of a 50gp weapon quality giving a person an extra attack at no cost in AOO as a free action is crazy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The word itself is problematic. In one sense it is a slur. Calling someone else's idea of a good time something derogatory can be very hurtful.
I think the definition Snowblind gave above is generally pretty accurate.
It is also tied up in another loaded word, broken.
The definition of broken is either
a) something that does not work, like the totem warrior archetype for barbarian.
b) something that someone feels is too powerful
Definition a) of broken isn't inflammatory generally, except by being conflated with definition b).
When one person calls another persons character broken here is often what happens:
The person calling the character broken feels invalidated. They see their investment of hours learning the game and building a character as for nothing if someone else is allowed to come in with something an order of magnitude more effective than what they built and force them into a supporting role they did not want, ask for, or envision.
The person who's character was called broken feels invalidated. They see their investment of hours learning the game and building a character as for nothing if someone else is allowed to come in with something an order of magnitude less effective than what they built and force them into a leading role they did not want, ask for, or envision.
Everyone else at the table starts questioning whether their characters are too weak or too strong and everyone enjoys the game less.
Synonyms for cheese include overpowered (OP), broken, and less polite versions.
Antonyms for cheese include underpowered (UP), useless, and less polite versions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, what this all has to do with "Cheese", the topic of this thread, is that "Cheese" doesn't really exist as an objective term. It just is a derogatory way of referring to part of a problem that dismisses the fact that you and someone else at the table have some clash of playstyle, and the important part of the solution to that issue has nothing to do the rules (although the rules might excasperbate things by being poorly designed and allowing some avoidable problems to crop up). The problem might be that the other player is a fun-ruining ***hole who gets a rise out of your unhappiness. The problem might be that you are a "badwrongfun" type who can't tolerate a difference in playstyle that otherwise has no negative impact on you. It could be that you and the other player came to the table looking for different games (which may or may not be reconcilable). Or it could just be that the other player is annoying you by doing something but they don't actually mind changing if you would just talk to them like a human being instead of dismissing what they are doing as "Cheese". The term "Cheese" is basically not conductive to actually solving anything or achieving anything or making anyone happy. It's one of those terms that shoots down any chance of a reasonable adult-like discourse whenever it gets thrown around.
Exactly this.
Labeling anything as cheese is ultimately going to kill any kind of civilized conversation over the matter. Ultimately, it has no meaning beyond "this is a thing I don't like," with a strong implication that anyone who uses thins you don't like is doing something wrong. I've seen the cheese label applied to everything from wizards using lots of complicated spells to a Barbarian swinging a greatsword with power attack.
Even if there are completely legitimate problems with the character in question, you can make your case a lot better if you don't toss out derogatory labels. Calling something cheese is just going to make everyone angry and start and start an argument.
Compare that to when I made a character who wound up being quite a bit stronger than the rest of the party, so after the game the GM pulled me aside and politely asked if I could tone things down a bit so I wouldn't overshadow everyone else. In that context, I had no problem doing exactly that. If instead he'd just labeled me as cheese, I probably would've either left the group or stuck with my current character out of sheer stubbornness.
|
First there's three different meanings people may mean when they say cheesy.
1 literally, it's covered in cheese. As in the dairy product.
2 the normal use: trying to hard, unsubtle, not authentic. It's a word to call out bad jokes, insult pop stars' lyrics and knock-off ideas (like calling your captain America character captain Absalom or the like)
3 the gamer use: this use is less defined, but generally means calling out an exploitation of the rules. Intentionally misinterpreting or breaking rules is not cheesy, that's cheating. Cheesy is finding some way that the developer's didn't think of which allows for much more power than intended.
Ex finding infinite combinations. Using a rule like auto failure on a 1 and find a way to force an overwhelming number of rolls to ensure everyone fails. Combining items and abilities from multiple sources that the developer's didn't consider working together (like one ability gives you immunity to desication damage, another turns all fire damage into desication to make you immune to fire).
The issue with gamer cheese:
To one type of gamer, finding and using exploits is fun. These players like pouring over all the rules and coming up with cool combinations. They see nothing wrong with it.
To another type of gamer, it is tantamount to cheating. At the very least they see it as unsportsmanlike. This type thinks any decent person clearly knows not to ruin the game with such antics.
These two groups often completely do not understand each other. The cheesers don't get why the cheeseless are getting so upset over a game. The cheeseless don't understand how the cheesers can be such bad sports.
"Cheese" seems to be one of those topics that creates a frenzy on this forum ala min-maxing, PF 2.0, and "sell me on" threads.
The throwing shield can be thrown as a free action. the quickdraw shield, (providing you have the quickdraw feat) can be draw or put it away as a free action. so just by having a hundred of quickdraw throwing shields and the quickdraw feat. you get one hundred free attacks as a full round actionThe throwing shield can be unstrapped as a free action which is otherwise a move action and readied to throw.
Putting on or taking off armor is a sometimes complicated procedure. The time required to don armor depends on its type; see Table: Donning Armor.
Don: This column tells how long it takes a character to put the armor on. (One minute is 10 rounds.) Readying (strapping on) a shield is only a move action.
Remove: This column tells how long it takes to get the armor off. Removing a shield from the arm and dropping it is only a move action.The idea of a 50gp weapon quality giving a person an extra attack at no cost in AOO as a free action is crazy.
Well, by RAW it is a free attack. it can be unclasped and thrown as a free action.
Throwing Shield
Benefit: This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps allowing you to unclasp and throw it as a free action. Tower shields cannot be throwing shields. Neither a shield’s enhancement bonus to AC nor its shield spikes apply on your attack or damage rolls.
and yeah, I get that RAW and RAI are different things. but my gm is cool with me having one free attack, bows get it with rapid shot so its hardly a big deal unless you intentionally abuse it with an infinite attack loop.
OK, I'm curious. How the heck can you get a +31 diplomacy at level 1?I have a build saved that I've decided not to play at the local store because it would be similarly disruptive due to having a minimum Diplomacy result of 32 and no cap on attitude improvements at level 1.
Diplomacy =
1 rank +
3 Class Skill +
2 Silver Tongue +
2 INT +
3 Skill Focus +
20 Focused Trance =
31
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...What is "focused trance"? Is that a spell? Revelation? Something else? I searched the phrase in the PRD and didn't come up with anything.
EDIT: Wait, found it. Something's funky in the search results, but I got there. So it's a thing where you have to meditate for 1d6 rounds, then when you come out of it you can immediately make an INT-based skill check with a +20 bonus.
Okay, so I see how you got the number. You've got some other complications to deal with, though:
First, there's the rule (from the Diplomacy skill description) that Diplomacy auto-fails against anyone who intends to do you harm. Do you have a special ability that overrides that rule?
Second, Focused Trance requires that you make the INT-based check immediately upon coming out of your 1d6-rounds-long trance. It takes 1+ rounds to use the "make a request" function of Diplomacy, it takes 1+ minutes for an attitude shift, and 1d4 hours to gather information. Do you have an ability that reduces one or more of these functions to something you could do in a single turn, or are you confident your GMs will agree that these spans of time can still count as happening when you come out of your trance as long as it's the first thing you do? Assuming an affirmative answer to that, you still have to initiate these actions as soon as your trance is done. That means you have to encounter somebody, decide Diplomacy would be useful, then say "Hang on a sec" and expect them to wait 1d6 rounds while you meditate before you start talking to them. That seems like an obstacle to your plans; do you have some way around that?
Your numbers may be legit, but I have doubts about your ability to use them in the manner you suggest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and yeah, I get that RAW and RAI are different things. but my gm is cool with me having one free attack, bows get it with rapid shot so its hardly a big deal unless you intentionally abuse it with an infinite attack loop.
Rapid shot is executed as part of a full round action and you suffer a -2 penalty to hit. Every other extra attack I can think of at the least is an attack of opportunity and usually part of a standard action or full attack. But you think you should be able to do it as a free action alongside a run? Does it provoke an attack as a ranged attack or is it free from that as well?
Ultimately the DM is the arbiter of balance so if he thinks its a good idea who am I to criticize. I think an attack a round as a free action is quite a big deal, I just hope the other players don't think its over the top. To me it strikes at the heart of what this thread is about - using whatever you can to get an advantage.
|
|
Your numbers may be legit, but I have doubts about your ability to use them in the manner you suggest.
Yeah - the closest thing I could see to make that possible is a character with very high initiative and Skill Unlock: Diplomacy with 10 ranks. Obviously not viable at level 1.
It does give you the chance to influence in a single round by taking a -10, and arguably if you do it before they act the Diplomacy check would apply if you catch them off guard.
(It wouldn't work if they were already your enemy - but if they were - for example - running a slave trade that you were trying to stop and didn't know yet that you were trying to stop them, you could jump out and surprise the guards who kill anyone in the area by yelling "You like me!" - as arguably they didn't intend you harm until their turn. And then - after they're not hostile - you can take the time to use diplomacy normally.)
But - none of that is possible at level 1 - and tricky to pull off at level 10. Frankly - if you build for it and pull it off - you deserve to skate past a fight or two. (Random - can you take the Skill Unlock feat in PFS, or is the only way to get the unlocks to be an unchained rogue?)
...What is "focused trance"? Is that a spell? Revelation? Something else? I searched the phrase in the PRD and didn't come up with anything.
EDIT: Wait, found it. Something's funky in the search results, but I got there. So it's a thing where you have to meditate for 1d6 rounds, then when you come out of it you can immediately make an INT-based skill check with a +20 bonus.
Okay, so I see how you got the number. You've got some other complications to deal with, though:
First, there's the rule (from the Diplomacy skill description) that Diplomacy auto-fails against anyone who intends to do you harm. Do you have a special ability that overrides that rule?
Generally ineffective =/= auto-fail, but point taken. More of a post-combat surrender issue than mid-combat stop, but auto-hostile encounters weren't supposed to be bypassed with this character.
Second, Focused Trance requires that you make the INT-based check immediately upon coming out of your 1d6-rounds-long trance. It takes 1+ rounds to use the "make a request" function of Diplomacy, it takes 1+ minutes for an attitude shift, and 1d4 hours to gather information. Do you have an ability that reduces one or more of these functions to something you could do in a single turn, or are you confident your GMs will agree that these spans of time can still count as happening when you come out of your trance as long as it's the first thing you do? Assuming an affirmative answer to that, you still have to initiate these actions as soon as your trance is done. That means you have to encounter somebody, decide Diplomacy would be useful, then say "Hang on a sec" and expect them to wait 1d6 rounds while you meditate before you start talking to them. That seems like an obstacle to your plans; do you have some way around that?
Your numbers may be legit, but I have doubts about your ability to use them in the manner you suggest.
The biggest obstacle is that you block out visual and auditory stimuli for the duration of the trance. That said, the intent with the build is to utilize the request action when you're reasonably sure that you're headed into a social interaction. If you can swing the attitude shift past the GM (likely because they agree that the 1 minute of interaction is with the party rather than just with you, or that they agree that neither the revelation nor Diplomacy specify exactly when the roll takes place), then you hit the sweet score of the build and can do all the ridiculous Diplomacy things you want.
Side note regarding the timing of the check: while attitude adjustments take a minute, there does not appear to be a reference to when within that minute the roll must be made. Most GMs seem to default to the end of the action period, but that's not intuitive once you consider the flow of the action. To borrow from another skill, you'd seem to make the Acrobatics check before you reach the edge of the pit, not when you land. Similarly, making the Diplomacy check at the beginning of the 1 minute interaction lets you see (assuming failure) that trainwreck coming out of character but being helpless to fix it in character. Basically, in either case, it's too late to put the brakes on once you roll.
If you prefer to use it with Bluff on the assumption that you must make the check in the round the trance finishes and the action must finish within that round, you can get there with just a trait instead of 2 feats and a specific deity. That said, I won't play it because of its potential for table disruption.
and yeah, I get that RAW and RAI are different things. but my gm is cool with me having one free attack, bows get it with rapid shot so its hardly a big deal unless you intentionally abuse it with an infinite attack loop.Rapid shot is executed as part of a full round action and you suffer a -2 penalty to hit. Every other extra attack I can think of at the least is an attack of opportunity and usually part of a standard action or full attack. But you think you should be able to do it as a free action alongside a run? Does it provoke an attack as a ranged attack or is it free from that as well?
Ultimately the DM is the arbiter of balance so if he thinks its a good idea who am I to criticize. I think an attack a round as a free action is quite a big deal, I just hope the other players don't think its over the top. To me it strikes at the heart of what this thread is about - using whatever you can to get an advantage.
I understand that RS needs to be part of a full round action. but I'm pretty sure the free attack doesn't provoke. lets say you have a BAB less than 6 so you only get one attack without RS. I thought that it meant the the regular attack does provoke but the free attack doesn't because free actions don't provoke at all.
so if you had one enemy 5 feet away, only one of the attacks would provoke an attack of opportunity from them instead of both.
damn, now i'm curious lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I refer to throwing the shield? Does it provoke an attack of opportunity.
This is the section on free actions from the PFSRD...
"Some combat options are free actions meant to be combined with an attack. Often, these are feats with specific limitations defined within the feat—for example, Cleaving Finish gives you an extra melee attack, but only after you make an attack that drops a foe."
I'm not sure where you get the idea that free actions don't provoke. are you sure its not just that non of the examples listed do?
All writing needs some interpretation and some people us RAW as an excuse to justify your interpretation. You have interpreted the phrase "unclasp and throw as a free action" to mean "unclasp and throw... at an opponent as a ranged attack that doesn't provoke and delivers the damage detailed in the profile of the weapon this quality is attached to. This can be combined with other actions including attacks." From 7 words you have interpreted much more. Yet you still claim to be following RAW, it seems like a lot of what you assume is not Written.
RAW will never be sufficient in a game as nuanced and detailed as this - we wouldn't want it to, otherwise we would all need law degrees and a trolley for our 1500 page rulebooks.