I don't think the Bodyguard + Paired Opportunist combo "should" work, but it seems like the sort of thing where developer input might be helpful especially since there's a lot of confusion and disagreement around the Bodyguard feat itself (adjacency, threatened areas, etc)
For the necromancer, I guess that a single classed WHW might get some mileage out of a Valet familiar with Paired Opportunist to get +4 on AoOs with the hair. That might help cover some of the BAB gap. I guess my strategy would be to stand back and cast spells on my turn but use the reach of the hair to make AoOs (Combat Reflexes might help)
Pulling enemies up next to you when you're a Witch might not always be a great idea, so exploring the Trip ability might make sense too. If only the WHW had better BAB there could be a lot of interesting options here.
Devilkiller wrote: Pulling enemies up next to you when you're a Witch might not always be a great idea Good point. My wrestling witch character only has 1 level in Witch and is mostly a Grappler who uses White Hair.
I was thinking that after achieving a Grapple and pulling your opponents adjacent to the Witch, she could just step back 5'. Then if her victims do make successful Grapple Checks, Grappling her back would not be an option.
Devilkiller wrote: I don't think the Bodyguard + Paired Opportunist combo "should" work, Well, what do you mean by "should" work? You know I took the trouble on the 2nd to last post on the previous page to explain why the Bodyguard + Paired Opportunist is square with the RAW. If you are not making a RAW counter argument, what are you getting at?
Devilkiller wrote: but it seems like the sort of thing where developer input might be helpful I have heard it argued convincingly that it was not the intent of the writer of the Bodyguard Feat that that Aid Another should be a real attack of opportunity but rather something else which he failed to define.
But mostly, I don't care what the designers meant to write. I care what they did write. A PFS Player is a paying customer. And a paying customer who is obeying the rules should be allowed to play the game the way he wants. It's not our fault if the game designers didn't know what they were doing.
Devilkiller wrote: there's a lot of confusion and disagreement around the Bodyguard feat itself (adjacency, threatened areas, etc) Honestly, I just don't think there is much. The RAW here really only says 1 thing, and people can always invent reasons why things won't work. That's true in all of life, not just Pathfinder.
I was responding to Casual Viking's complaint. Obviously we disagree about how Paired Opportunist should interact with Bodyguard if at all. Just as obviously nothing short of an official ruling from Paizo is likely to sway your stance, so I'd rather not argue about it at length much beyond, "Maybe there will be a FAQ or errata one day (or maybe not)"
Regarding Bodyguard in general, I think that we can probably agree about some of the basics:
- you can use it to improve the AC of an ally you're adjacent to (regardless of where the enemy is)
- it costs you an AoO to use it
If perchance we disagree about those points I'd once again expect that only Jason Bulmahn descending from the heavens with the official rules inscribed on a starstone (or maybe an errata post by the dev team) would satisfy our desire for "proof" of who was right.
Devilkiller wrote: Obviously we disagree about how Paired Opportunist should interact with Bodyguard if at all. That was not obvious to me at all.
You wrote: I'm not sure if the AoO for Bodyguard should really trigger Paired Oppurtunists. "I'm not sure" are the words of a man who is trying to form an opinion, not those of a man trying to justify one. For my part, "I'm quite confident" does not suggest the open-mindedness that you did. Indeed, as has been mentioned, my position is the result of careful research and careful thought refined in the crucible of lengthy debate. But that doesn't mean I won't hear out your position. I heard you out on the previous page, I even offered reasons in support of your concern about PO and B that you didn't even think were concerns.
You wrote: Sure, it is an AoO I wrote: ...a lot of people don't think it is, and I'm pretty sure that the creator of the Bodyguard Feat intended for it not to be... Then I proceeded to comprehensively explain how the rules show that the AoO really does target the attacker. Answering your concern with a refined explanation backed by wealth of evidence does not mean I did not listen to your concern.
I am as stubborn as my facts, Devilkiller. I like evidence. If you think you have evidence that outweighs mine, I want to hear it.
Devilkiller wrote: "Maybe there will be a FAQ or errata one day (or maybe not)" I agree with you here. I think there is sufficient reason to believe there is a significant disconnect between RAW and RAI, here, and if Paizo wants their intent to be realized, they owe it to us to fix their mistake officially.
Do you see what I did there? I'm agreeing with some of what you said, but not all of it. How could I do that if I weren't listening? I assure you: back up your disagreement with me with evidence, especially with rules as written, and I will hear it, critique it, outweigh it with more evidence of my own, and/or tell you that you have changed my mind.
Devilkiller wrote: only Jason Bulmahn descending from the heavens with the official rules inscribed on a starstone (or maybe an errata post by the dev team) would satisfy our desire for "proof" of who was right. *awkwardly tugging at my collar* Well, not exactly. The rules are what they are. The rules will be whatever the developers change them to. If the developers change the rules so that my position is no longer true, I will acknowledge the rules change and abide by it happily. But that is not the same thing as my "having been wrong." The rules were what they were, too.
Devilkiller wrote: Regarding Bodyguard in general, I think that we can probably agree about some of the basics:
- you can use it to improve the AC of an ally you're adjacent to (regardless of where the enemy is)
We probably do not agree at all that it is basically true that you can use Bodyguard regardless of where the enemy is. I can't think of anything about my extensive explanation on the previous page that would give you that interpretation. As far as I know, and as far as has been discussed, that's only true of the Protector Familiar, who has a special ability.
Protector Familiar wrote: If the familiar is occupying its master’s square, it can use Bodyguard to aid another to improve its master’s AC even if it doesn’t threaten the attacking foe. Actually, this is further evidence that use of the Bodyguard Feat is an Attack that requires a target and normally requires you be able to reach that target. And what's more, it is further evidence that the intent of the Bodyguard Feat is that you must be able to reach your ally's attacker in order to make your "swift strikes" to "interfere with" your opponent.
Assuming you weren't just refusing to listen to a single argument, and nothing short of an official post from on high would convince you that I was right, perhaps it was the Protector Familiar you were referring to when you said we probably agree that it doesn't matter where the attacking opponent is when using Bodyguard.
So if is to be the Witch and not the Familiar who has the Bodyguard Feat, it would behoove her to have some Reach. More levels in WHW will grant more reach, and there are Feats to take that grant more reach, like Combat Patrol and Lunge. Of course, Reach is nice to have, anyway.
I think you care more about what the RAW "is" while I care more about what the RAI "should be". That said, you might be right about the RAW for Bodyguard, but I think there are still several other threads where not everybody can agree on how it is supposed to work.
Devilkiller wrote: I think you care more about what the RAW "is" while I care more about what the RAI "should be". That said, you might be right about the RAW for Bodyguard, but I think there are still several other threads where not everybody can agree on how it is supposed to work. I think we are near an agreement. I would accept that RAW describes what the rules are, and RAI describes how the rules are supposed to work.
We might differ here: I maintain that a PFS Player should only be bound by RAW, not RAI. I see this as a customer service issue, a product quality control issue, and sort of a civil rights issue.
I recognize Pathfinder Society as the sole marketing platform for the Pathfinder Books. If you want to play Pathfinder, you don't have to buy a thing: everything is available online for free. The only thing you need to buy a book for is to play PFS. Can you think of another reason you need to buy a PFS book for? That makes PFS GMs (unpaid!) customer service representatives of Paizo Publishing, and that makes PFS Players paying customers.
Paying customers who are obeying the rules have the right to play the game their own way. It is the job of PFS GMs to uphold that right to encourage as many players as possible to continue playing and continue paying.
Paying customers have a right to demand that the product works the way it says it does. It is the job of the PFS GMs to make sure that once the players can demonstrate that what they are doing is legal, they must uphold the reliability of the Pathfinder Product by making sure that the players get the cool stuff described in the cool books. Otherwise, nobody should buy Pathfinder books.
If a player is using the rules in a way that is unusual or unpopular, that doesn't make it illegal, and if it isn't illegal, the PFS Player is a Paying Customer who is obeying the rules, and has every right to play the game his or her own way. It is inappropriate to oppress minorities, even if my Drow has black skin. I refer to this principle as equal protection under the Law. Everyone is supposed to enjoy the benefits of the Rules As Written, even creative people.
Here we agree. If there is a disconnect between what the rules say, and what the rules were supposed to say, then Paizo should fix it.
Here we might agree. If Pathfinder Society gaming tables have anything like the culture of bullying and oppression-by-imagined-majority like what I have encountered on these forums, then they have a serious customer service problem, and they really need to get their GMs to rein in this problem. Prompt and clear resolution of contentious issues through FAQs, errata, and official rules posts would be a good way to do that. Also, the FAQ section of this website doesn't have a search engine dedicated to it. There's no way to "Search FAQ," is there?
I think that viewing the rules for PFS as a civil rights issue is probably taking things way too far. I'll agree that if RAW and RAI don't match Paizo should fix it though. I tend to believe that they're making a good faith effort to do so but might be trying to address a lot of squeaky DM and player wheels with a limited amount of developer oil.
Often the FAQ or errata I'm looking for takes much longer to come out than I would have hoped, but usually when it comes out I'm fairly contented with it (Confusion Bombs offer a saving throw, double barreled firearms can only fire a double shot as a standard action, etc). Once in a while I think a FAQ or errata sucks, but even then I'm generally happier to have an answer than go on playing in doubt about whether the way my PC or monster works is suddenly going to change one day.
If I played more PFS I maybe I'd be more worked up about ensuring consistency in PFS rulings. My focus would probably be on consistency from table to table. I'm guessing that they have some folks who work on that and you can probably feed comments or complaints up through your Venture Captain or somebody if there's an issue.
Devilkiller wrote: I think that viewing the rules for PFS as a civil rights issue is probably taking things way too far. It's not a civil rights issue in that we aren't talking about life, health, property, and the Law. It is just a game. The parellel I am drawing here is a logical one. Just as there should be equal protection under the law, everyone should be allowed to play the game their own way according to the rules.
Onyx Tanuki wrote: we should be allowed one on the same turn so long as it's used to move, damage, or pin our target…. Well, unfortunately, it seems like that may keep us from tying a foe up unless the part stating damage/move/pin is just giving examples. Ah, but Greater Grapple doesn't say “move, damage, or pin” your opponent: it says “move, harm, or pin” your opponent. “Harm” is an English language word, not a game term, and so means any of a lot of things other than inflict points of damage. Tying someone up is harming someone.
Devilkiller wrote: If I played more PFS I maybe I'd be more worked up about ensuring consistency in PFS rulings. Well, if your not playing PFS, then why even care about the official rulings at all? When you aren't playing PFS, the only rulings that matter are the GMs'.
Show your GM the character you want to grow before you start playing. Walk him through the ins and outs. If he vetoes some of it, change it, and vet it with him again and again until you have a character build you like and he approves of. The start playing. As long as you can expect him to be true to his own rules, you're golden.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
If you want to go crazy with it, multiclass with a hexcrafter magus; Now you have; White Hair, Prehensile Hair Hex and the Entangling Hair spell. All of these features enhance "your hair" or "the witch's hair" or "the caster's hair". Depending on your GM, that could mean that you have multi-attack capabilities or you might be able to stack all abilities into one.
Devilkiller wrote: I guess that a single classed WHW might get some mileage out of a Valet familiar with Paired Opportunist to get +4 on AoOs with the hair. That might help cover some of the BAB gap. I see a lot to like in the Valet Familiar.
Archives of Nethys, Valet Familiar wrote: Teammate (Ex): A valet is considered to have all the teamwork feats its master has. Plus, the constant Prestidigitation is also useful.
Devilkiller wrote: I can respect not wanting a big Mauler for RP reasons though I still can't help thinking it might be a grappler's best friend. I'm not so sure that a Mauler would be the thing for the Grappler I proposed. Mauler Familiars gain bonuses for every time its host reduces an opponent to 0 hit points, and my Wrestling Witch won't ever be doing that. She will be Tying Up opponents, imposing the Helpless condition on them. But still, just having a Familiar that is effective in Combat can be a huge help for a Grappler, since Grappling multiple opponents is problematic.
I am cooking a different build for which Mauler seems like a very good choice. She will use Natural Attacks, Ninja Vanishing Trick, Arcanist Dimensional Hop, and the Rogue Talent Distracting Attack to lock in Sneak Attack Damage augmented by Sap Adept, Sap Master, and Knockout Artist. All that SAD would be multiplied by all the Natural Attacks she can get. She would be a Tengu with Claws and a Bite. She would take a level or 2 in Brawler to add Unarmed Strikes to the Full Attack without imposing penalties. She would acquire a Helm of the Mammoth Lord and also gain a Gore Attack, and--why not--take a level in White Haired Witch and get a Hair Attack. Almost all that Damage will be Nonlethal, but that should still count for reducing opponents to 0 hit points to pump up my little Mauler's Strength. And the Mauler would be my Flanking buddy. To make it work with Flanking, I could take Hamatula Strike and convert all those Piercing NA into Grapples, wearing Armor Spikes to add on more damage. Since the Armor Spike Damage comes with the Grapple, it is a separate Attack from the original Natural Attack, so it also gains the benefit from Sneak Attack and ST mods. It wouldn't stack with the Sap Adept feats, though.
Vis a vis this thread, what's problematic about that build is that it's not a White Haired Witch build, but rather a build that draws a small benefit from a level in White Haired Witch.
Even outside of PFS the official rules can establish a baseline which groups can choose to stick to or deviate from. Many DMs like to stick with what's official, and it can help the whole group agree what's fair. I don't generally like asking a DM for any special exceptions other than maybe some "re-skinning". For instance, we call one lady's flying squirrel familiar a "sugar glider" since she likes sugar gliders.
Regarding Maulers and grappling, if you pick up the Mauler via Eldritch Guardian it gets your Combat feats. That could potentially give you a Medium crab with Grab which can grapple 2-3 times per round. Since Paired Opportunists is a Combat feat the familiar would get that too, providing a nice boost to your AoOs.
Devilkiller wrote: I don't generally like asking a DM for any special exceptions other than maybe some "re-skinning". For instance, we call one lady's flying squirrel familiar a "sugar glider" since she likes sugar gliders. Or asking if my Dwarf's Darven War Axe could actually be a hammer with all the same stats, so he can use a Sickle in his off hand and be the Soviet Union.
Vetting my character builds with my GM is essential before I can begin play even if I have no intention of deviating from RAW. You never know if the GM will allow or disallow certain rulebooks until you ask. And somethings almost always have a certain personal touch: any GM might have his own pantheon of deities, for instance. And what does it mean if you want to take the Potion Glutton Feat and Uragothoa is not in his campaign: does that remove the restriction, or does that remove the Feat, or does he modify the Prerequisite to fit his campaign. In my campaign, to take the Potion Glutton Feat, you must worship Caffeina, the goddess of Overworking and Poor Time Management.
Besides, nobody wants to have their game broken because of rules loopholes that they didn't consider, and nobody wants to have their character ruled out of existence. Either way, that totally sucks. You never want surprises about how the rules work, and I always want disputes like that to be handled before I take that level, feat, or magic item.
|
