Hi, just wondering about this combat feat:
Axe to Grind: There is a fire in your heart that can't be quenched. You gain a +1 trait bonus on damage against foes who are threatened by only you.
When saying threatened only by you. Does this mean out of range by any other character?
This seems useful for rangers, no?
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
If no other creature could make a melee attack on the creature you are attacking, you get a +1 trait bonus on damage. Useful for anyone whose party is mostly non-melee characters.
Threatened, as in they provoke attacks of opportunities only from you. If anybody else would get an attack of opportunity when the opponent moves or any other action that triggers an AoO, then Axe to Grind doesn't apply.
That's super cool. I'll suggest it to our barbarian.
it means if you have any other frontliners in the party its a useless trait
Maybe... if your only fights take place in 10-foot corridors.
Managing your position to take tactical advantage of local terrain is half the fun of using miniatures.
And not all your fights see several PCs ganging up on a solo critter, either.
Sure, it isn't a huge bonus, and it's slightly situational. But hey, it's only a trait for cryin' out loud.
usually every fight we try and get into flanking positions as often as possible flanking > +1 damage by yourself plus there's a lot more useful traits out there for combat defender of society, reactionary, armour expert, berserker of society, deft dodger just to name a few.it means if you have any other frontliners in the party its a useless traitMaybe... if your only fights take place in 10-foot corridors.
Managing your position to take tactical advantage of local terrain is half the fun of using miniatures.
And not all your fights see several PCs ganging up on a solo critter, either.
Sure, it isn't a huge bonus, and it's slightly situational. But hey, it's only a trait for cryin' out loud.
I'll look into these. First time playing with traits.
Any you'd suggest for a Half-Elf Rogue/Slayer (not sure which one yet)
|
Dirty Fighter would be better for you than Axe to Grind...it's a +1 damage bonus when you're flanking. Indomitable Faith is popular for shoring up Will saves. As a half elf you can also take Elven Reflexes, which is the same as Reactionary, but its a race trait instead of a combat trait. You can't take multiple traits in the same category and there's a lot of useful combat traits.
Sure, it isn't a huge bonus, and it's slightly situational. But hey, it's only a trait for cryin' out loud.
Don't knock traits, many have powerful effects that Feats cannot replicate, and Lady-J pointed out some of the many traits that are better for a Barbarian than a situational +1 damage.
This trait would be good for a reach fighter, as they threaten more squares. The greater the reach, the more threatened areas. While some are also threatened by allies, not all are.
Press to the Wall is a good feat to have.
Will this work with a flyer and the floor? :-)
/cevah
|
This trait would be good for a reach fighter, as they threaten more squares. The greater the reach, the more threatened areas. While some are also threatened by allies, not all are.
Press to the Wall is a good feat to have.Will this work with a flyer and the floor? :-)
/cevah
Hmm, I'm going to say no. Attacking someone directly below you would be rather awkward, and the floor being beneath them doesn't really hamper their movement or options, whereas walls and obstacles would.
Sure, it isn't a huge bonus, and it's slightly situational. But hey, it's only a trait for cryin' out loud.
Well, we do have a trait that provides a permanent +1 to all attack and damage rolls. Cheesy, requires a really weird religion, and as a faith trait blocks Fate's Favored, but still.
|
Any you'd suggest for a Half-Elf Rogue/Slayer (not sure which one yet)
Elven Initiative or Reactionary for +2 initiative. Getting your foes to be flat-footed the first round is pretty huge.
If you go the Slayer route I'd also suggest the Accomplished Sneak Attacker at level 3 (especially if you're going TWF).
Hmm, I'm going to say no. Attacking someone directly below you would be rather awkward, and the floor being beneath them doesn't really hamper their movement or options, whereas walls and obstacles would.This trait would be good for a reach fighter, as they threaten more squares. The greater the reach, the more threatened areas. While some are also threatened by allies, not all are.
Press to the Wall is a good feat to have.Will this work with a flyer and the floor? :-)
/cevah
The ground doesn't occupy a square, it IS the square, so no.
How about a boulder your foe is standing on top of? It's not the square.
Hmm, I'm going to say no. Attacking someone directly below you would be rather awkward, and the floor being beneath them doesn't really hamper their movement or options, whereas walls and obstacles would.This trait would be good for a reach fighter, as they threaten more squares. The greater the reach, the more threatened areas. While some are also threatened by allies, not all are.
Press to the Wall is a good feat to have.Will this work with a flyer and the floor? :-)
/cevah
Yep. So awkward that you get a +1 on the attack. See On higher ground.
As to occupying a space, why is the floor any different than a wall when using 3D? Remember, flying is 3D so it makes others rules act funny on occasion. You have defined squares UP so why not DOWN? Especially since there are burrowing and earth gliding creatures that can attack from below.
Tree trunks and columns are less restricting to movement than walls yet they work fine.
/cevah
|
|
Hmm, I'm going to say no. Attacking someone directly below you would be rather awkward, and the floor being beneath them doesn't really hamper their movement or options, whereas walls and obstacles would.This trait would be good for a reach fighter, as they threaten more squares. The greater the reach, the more threatened areas. While some are also threatened by allies, not all are.
Press to the Wall is a good feat to have.Will this work with a flyer and the floor? :-)
/cevah
Yep. So awkward that you get a +1 on the attack. See On higher ground.
As to occupying a space, why is the floor any different than a wall when using 3D? Remember, flying is 3D so it makes others rules act funny on occasion. You have defined squares UP so why not DOWN? Especially since there are burrowing and earth gliding creatures that can attack from below.
Tree trunks and columns are less restricting to movement than walls yet they work fine.
/cevah
I would say you'd have to actually be on something, whether the ground or mounted (as called out) in order to get the higher ground bonus, otherwise larger creatures would get it for just being large.
How about a boulder your foe is standing on top of? It's not the square.
"You gain an advantage when your opponent can’t easily retreat."
Can they easily retreat from the boulder? I think that is why vertical doesn't restrict on this feat. Most creatures can't use that as a retreat path anyway, so it isn't really restricting them.
I would say you'd have to actually be on something, whether the ground or mounted (as called out) in order to get the higher ground bonus, otherwise larger creatures would get it for just being large.Hmm, I'm going to say no. Attacking someone directly below you would be rather awkward, and the floor being beneath them doesn't really hamper their movement or options, whereas walls and obstacles would.Yep. So awkward that you get a +1 on the attack. See On higher ground.
As to occupying a space, why is the floor any different than a wall when using 3D? Remember, flying is 3D so it makes others rules act funny on occasion. You have defined squares UP so why not DOWN? Especially since there are burrowing and earth gliding creatures that can attack from below.
Tree trunks and columns are less restricting to movement than walls yet they work fine.
/cevah
The feat Death From Above implies that flyers get the higher ground bonus.
You allow gravity to add extra force to your charges.
Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground.
As to being large, no, since they are standing on the same level as you. A flyer may be higher than you at their base.
/cevah
|
|
I would say you'd have to actually be on something, whether the ground or mounted (as called out) in order to get the higher ground bonus, otherwise larger creatures would get it for just being large.Hmm, I'm going to say no. Attacking someone directly below you would be rather awkward, and the floor being beneath them doesn't really hamper their movement or options, whereas walls and obstacles would.Yep. So awkward that you get a +1 on the attack. See On higher ground.
As to occupying a space, why is the floor any different than a wall when using 3D? Remember, flying is 3D so it makes others rules act funny on occasion. You have defined squares UP so why not DOWN? Especially since there are burrowing and earth gliding creatures that can attack from below.
Tree trunks and columns are less restricting to movement than walls yet they work fine.
/cevah
The feat Death From Above implies that flyers get the higher ground bonus.
You allow gravity to add extra force to your charges.
Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground.As to being large, no, since they are standing on the same level as you. A flyer may be higher than you at their base.
/cevah
Note that feat specifies the difference between "higher ground" and just being above them while flying.
And that second statement doesn't make any sense. They're still attacking from higher.
The feat Death From Above implies that flyers get the higher ground bonus.
You allow gravity to add extra force to your charges.
Benefit: Whenever you charge an opponent from higher ground, or from above while flying, you gain a +5 bonus on attack rolls in place of the bonuses from charging and being on higher ground.As to being large, no, since they are standing on the same level as you. A flyer may be higher than you at their base.
/cevah
Note that feat specifies the difference between "higher ground" and just being above them while flying.
And that second statement doesn't make any sense. They're still attacking from higher.
You can charge while flying. The feat implies that without the feat that a flying charge gets charge bonus (+2) and higher ground bonus (+1) only (total +3). That with feat it becomes +5.
When on level ground, you fight a creature of a different size. No one has a bonus for higher ground. Size does not affect this. Rather Size gives a strength bonus, and other things, all the time. The attack of a larger creature already counts any benefit from its size. On non-level ground, you can get a conditional bonus. No matter your size.
/cevah
I agree that flying does not equate to higher ground.
Death from above gives someone on higher ground charging +5 instead of +3 (2 charging 1 higher). It gives someone flying who charges +5 instead of +2 (charging only).
Mounted combat specifically grants you +1 higher ground against targets on foot smaller than your mount. Being large doesn't say this, so you don't automatically get it.
Whenever you charge an opponent ... from above while flying
Flying alone is not higher ground. Flying above, however is.
/cevah
If flying counted as "higher ground" then death from above wouldn't have to specify "charge from higher ground or above while flying" it could just say "charge from higher ground."
It implies that flying is not higher ground on its own.
That is what I just said. Flying above is flying at a higher level, not the same level. Therefore it is higher ground as implied by the feat.
/cevah
Then why does the feat spell out "charging from higher ground OR above while flying"? The Or is redundant if above while flying is already higher ground.
Do not parse it as
[charge an opponent from higher ground]
, OR
[from above while flying]
Rather, parse it
charging an opponent
([from higher ground]
, OR
[from above while flying])
Because
"charging an opponent" maps to "the bonuses from charging"and
"[from higher ground] OR [from above while flying]" maps to "being on higher ground"
/cevah
If "above while flying" was "higher ground" than you wouldn't need to specify it.
You could just say, "charge an opponent from higher ground" and that would include above while flying. They specifically wanted "above while flying" to get the benefit of the feat, which isn't covered by "higher ground" because flying doesn't give you the higher ground benefit.
Then why does the feat spell out "charging from higher ground OR above while flying"? The Or is redundant if above while flying is already higher ground.
Because Paizo writers absolutely love putting redundant text into spells/feats/etc? Almost every occurance of natural attacks has unnecessary text (all that primary, secondary, -5BAB in full attack and so on stuff is already covered in the natural attack rules). Bonus feats often state that you get them in addition to your normal feat, which is kinda already said with the word "bonus". Magic Weapon (the spell) says "An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon's +1 bonus on attack rolls.", which comes from the basic stacking rules. The Precice Strike feat says "This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.", which is already spelled out in the critical hit rules.
I'm pretty sure I could list dozens, maybe hundreds of occurances of Paizo including redundant stuff in rule text.
Welp, this got way passed the initial focus of my question and waaaay above my level of knowledge :P
Welp, this got way passed the initial focus of my question and waaaay above my level of knowledge :Pstill i highly recommend reactionary and carefully hidden for your character if your still planning a slayer or rogue.
Yeah, I'm now wondering about the Slayer. He lacks many of the social skills I really want to play around with. I'd go Unchained Rogue if the character sheet I sued had it already set in there.
Now I also looked at the Swashbuckler and the Bard and I'm super confused on what to play.
1.- Unchained Rogue:
+ The way I want to play my character
+ Has all the class skills I want
- Not in the character sheet my group is using
- Not as good in combat as the Slayer
2.- Slayer
+ Stronger than the Rogue
- Doesn't have all the class skills I want
- Not sure I want to play 100% ranged
3.- Bard
+ Makes so much sense with my character's backstory
+ Has most of the class skills I want
- I'm a noob and not sure I'd know how to play it properly
4.- Swashbuckler
+ Seems fun to play
- Completely different to what I had in mind
- Doesn't get many skill points
I'm stressed :(
There are a few feats, traits, and other abilities that permit you not to count certain allies as threatening foes that you threaten for abilities like the Axe to Grind trait. Such abilities would make this trait far more useful.
There are a few feats, traits, and other abilities that permit you not to count certain allies as threatening foes that you threaten for abilities like the Axe to Grind trait. Such abilities would make this trait far more useful.
Because using a feats to make a mediocre trait slightly better would be a good idea?
@Unikatze: To be honest, I'd advise against rogue for newbies. What is the way you want to play your character? Because rogue is basically the opposite of what it advertises. Rogue is not a good class to play a rogue, a Rogue is not a good skillmonkey, a Rogue is not that good a trap spotter/handler, a Rogue is not a good sneaker. Incidentially, Bard is better at basically all those things.
There are a few feats, traits, and other abilities that permit you not to count certain allies as threatening foes that you threaten for abilities like the Axe to Grind trait. Such abilities would make this trait far more useful.
Because using a feats to make a mediocre trait slightly better would be a good idea?
@Unikatze: To be honest, I'd advise against rogue for newbies. What is the way you want to play your character? Because rogue is basically the opposite of what it advertises. Rogue is not a good class to play a rogue, a Rogue is not a good skillmonkey, a Rogue is not that good a trap spotter/handler, a Rogue is not a good sneaker. Incidentially, Bard is better at basically all those things.
:O
really?Well, I do want to be a skillmonkey and sort of charminf. But combat wise I'd like to either fight with a Rapier or Archery. I could make both work.
I'm not so sure about using musical instruments for battle, I looked into the Bards spells and it was a bit overwhelming. But that considered, I may have a look into it.
Well, I do want to be a skillmonkey and sort of charming. But combat wise I'd like to either fight with a Rapier or Archery. I could make both work.
Rogue does get a lot of skill ranks and class skills, but nothing to improve skills (the skill unlocks rarely help), and he needs to have high dex and con and good wisdom, so he can't push charisma too high. Bards get bonuses to knowledge skills, more effective skill ranks with versatile performance, hit bonus so you don't need a high attack stat as desperately, and a good reason to pump charisma.
Also, archery and sneak attack don't mix too well. It should also be noted that most Rogues heavily rely on teamwork, especially flanking. The rogue (as in non-game character type) is normaly a loner, something that doesn't work too well on a Pathfinder Rogue.
I'm not so sure about using musical instruments for battle, I looked into the Bards spells and it was a bit overwhelming. But that considered, I may have a look into it.
A Bard doesn't normally use musical instruments. The Bardic Performance can be just about anything (like a rousing speech or motivating gestures) - it doesn't actually have to be music.
Bards have a lot of enchantment spells on their spell list, i.e. spells that affect the target's mind (from make him your friend, over making him unable to act, up to controlling him). If that's your thing (and you still want to fight), you might consider a high charisma Bard. bards also have lots of illusions (which do require a certain creativity on the player's part) and buffs.If you want an more accessible version of spells ("spells light" if you will), I too recommend the Investigator. That class is probably the best skillmonkey in the game and alchemy is a limited form of spells. The class is intelligence based and not charisma based, though - you can easily be a good "party face", but the Investigator goes in the 'keen mind' direction, where Bard is more of a people person.
If you don't want to mess with magic and you very much want to outright kill people, straight slayer's probably fine. (Also, slayers get every face skill but diplomacy, and you can pick up diplomacy through a trait like World Traveler.)
Ranger (urban archetype or otherwise) could also work if you want to dip your toes in the magic system.
I like rogue, but it's not a beginner's class, and relies a lot on teamwork. (And yeah, the Axe to Grind trait represents the exact opposite of what you want to be doing in combat as a rogue. Rogues are not duelists.)
I vote bard, archaeologist bard, or investigator.
All three make great skillmonkey's that can fight really well with a rapier or archery.
For the both, since you only know a few spells it makes it easier. You pick 2 spells or get help with them and then your list is now just those 2 spells. Plus your lv2+ spells can be filled with buffs. Heroism is a great buff for a combatant and investigators get barkskin.
for rapier bard I'd go something like
14+2/14/14/10/10/14
for rapier investigator
14+2/14/14/14/10/10
Reason for this is you want to do the skills well so dumping things doesn't sound what you want, and since you're one handing a weapon it's not as important having the starting 18 str. Archers put the +2 into dex.
I vote bard, archaeologist bard, or investigator.
All three make great skillmonkey's that can fight really well with a rapier or archery.
For the both, since you only know a few spells it makes it easier. You pick 2 spells or get help with them and then your list is now just those 2 spells. Plus your lv2+ spells can be filled with buffs. Heroism is a great buff for a combatant and investigators get barkskin.for rapier bard I'd go something like
14+2/14/14/10/10/14
for rapier investigator
14+2/14/14/14/10/10Reason for this is you want to do the skills well so dumping things doesn't sound what you want, and since you're one handing a weapon it's not as important having the starting 18 str. Archers put the +2 into dex.
Would +DEX with Weapon Finesse work if I wanted to have the flexibility of a rapier or a Bow? (Although not really necessary).
Our point buy in is 15 :(