Hello everyone! I'm new to this forum business so I hope I'm in the right area. Anyhoo, I've been searching for an answer this question everywhere and I haven't found anything yet- so hopefully people here can help!
I'm considering building a Kitsune Swashbuckler 1/Mesmerist X. My query is based around the Swashbuckler's Opportune Parry and Riposte and how it works when combined with a caster class- specifically when on the receiving end of an Attack of Opportunity due to having cast a spell in a threatened square (but not casting defensively).
Here's an example scenario below:
1: Turn begins. I use my Movement to enter a square adjacent to enemy A.
2: I use my Standard Action to cast a spell (let's say Murderous Command) on enemy B who is 20 feet away. I do this without casting defensively.
3: Enemy A gets an Attack of Opportunity against me.
4: I use Opportune Parry and Riposte to parry the attack. This expends a use of one of my own Attacks of Opportunity for the round.
5: I succeed on my Parry roll and the attack is nullified. The spell completes without interruption and enemy B is now enchanted.
6: I use Opportune Parry and Riposte to riposte against enemy A. This is an Immediate Action. I succeed on my roll and damage enemy A.
7: My turn ends.
So I'm here to ask if this scenario works within the rules?
-Can Opportune Parry and Riposte be used against an enemy's Attack of Opportunity? (The rules specify that enemy "melee attacks" can be parried. This doesn't appear to be limited to "Attack Actions", just melee attacks).
-Can I use Opportune Parry and Riposte in the same turn as casting a spell as a Standard Action?
Opportune Parry and Riposte uses up a use of Attack of Opportunity to parry and an Immediate Action to riposte (along with the necessary panache points). The spell is a Standard Action. As far as I can tell, rules as written, there is no conflict here. But I'm no expert on the matter so I hope people can help me out- I might be missing something.
My hope is to make a Kitsune Swashbuckler 1/Mesmerist X who wanders up to enemies, casts a spell in their face and then parries/ripostes any Attacks of Opportunity that come back at her.
Naturally I'll only be able to riposte once per round but the parries are only limited to my available panache/Attacks of Opportunity, as far as I can tell.
I hope I've been clear about things- if people want any more details I'm happy to provide them.
Thanks very much in advance!
Yes. A swashbuckler can use opportune parry on their turn. They can make an opportune parry whenever an opponent makes a melee attack against them (provided they have the panache, and an attack of opportunity to spend).
Yes. A swashbuckler can riposte on their turn, since an immediate action can be taken at any time (not just on a creature's turn). It costs 1 more point of panache and their swift action. (When you take an immediate action on your turn, it counts as your swift action for that turn).
Note that means that you can then take another immediate action after the end of your turn (though that counts as your swift action for the next turn).
Yes, it is an immediate action. As long as thats available they can do it. There's no concentration check for making your own attack during a spell
Thanks very much for the quick response!
Good to have those two issues confirmed.
So with this in mind, is there anything stopping me from enacting the above scenario? Is there any issue stopping me from casting a spell, parrying and riposting all in the same turn?
Thanks again!
Thanks BigNorseWolf! So there's nothing else stopping me from using up an AOO to parry an AOO provoked by casting a spell?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think the ordering there might be a bit off. IMO, the order would go:
1.) Move alongside foe A
2.) Begin casting
3.) Provoke
4.) Attempt to parry the foe's AoO
5.) Successfully parry
5.) Attempt to reposte & suceed (hopefully)
6.) Finish casting the spell
7.) Turn ends
Otherwise totally fine
You're quite right Ectar- thanks for the fix. A failed parry would certainly mean a failed spell, so the successful cast should come after the parry.
This leads me to wonder- would a failed riposte cause the spell to fail, seeing as the enemy attack has already been parried at that point?
Apologies- a failed parry would actually lead to a concentration check that could then cause the spell to fail.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
A failed parry would lead to the AoOer's attack of opportunity being resolved rather than parried. If he flat-out wiffs, then no concentration check is needed. If he connects, then depending on how much damage he did, the difficulty of the concentration check might change. (Injured while casting => 10 + damage dealt + spell level). Make the check and the spell goes off as normal, fail it and the spell is lost to no effect.
A failed riposte (that can happen only after a successful parry) does not affect the spell being cast at all.
So long as you have panache and AoOs to spend , you can keep parrying, but as you only get one immediate/swift action, you can only riposte once.
I can think of no reason that a failed reposte would cause a spell to fail.
Thanks SlimGauge, appreciate the clarification!
Awesome, I agree Ectar!
A friend has raised a concern that I am now trying to find more data on.
It's to do with the fact that, when you cast a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you (we're trying to find confirmation of this). In order to make an AOO you need to threaten the square you are hitting into.
He's concerned that, as parrying uses up an AOO (and is written as "makes an attack roll as if making an attack of opportunity"), parrying would be impossible because I'm not currently threatening if I'm casting a spell.
Can anyone confirm or refute this issue?
DarkNumbers wrote: A friend has raised a concern that I am now trying to find more data on.
It's to do with the fact that, when you cast a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you (we're trying to find confirmation of this). In order to make an AOO you need to threaten the square you are hitting into.
He's concerned that, as parrying uses up an AOO (and is written as "makes an attack roll as if making an attack of opportunity"), parrying would be impossible because I'm not currently threatening if I'm casting a spell.
Can anyone confirm or refute this issue?
Or rather, ask your friend what rule they are quoting? The only thing that could disprove that is the inablity to find the rule they are thinking of as if it doesnt exist there isnt going to be any wasted space in the book to clarify you can do a thing that it never tells you that you cant do... make sense?
Haha, indeed Torbyne :) We're both looking now. So far I can only find it on the D20srd under Casting a Spell (and that refers to D&D, not Pathfinder). I haven't yet found it on the PFSRD.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
DarkNumbers wrote: when you cast a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you This is true of a FULL-ROUND ACTION spell. In "Core Rulebook, Combat, Full-Round Actions, Cast a Spell" it says "You only provoke attacks of opportunity when you begin casting a spell, even though you might continue casting for at least 1 full round. While casting a spell, you don't threaten any squares around you.". However, compare this with "Core Rulebook, Combat, Standard Actions, Cast a Spell". You will not find that restriction there.
Ahhh excellent! :D Thanks for the investigation on that Slimgauge! You've helped enormously.
Thanks everyone for being so helpful.
One last concern: my friend has spotted this:
"An attack of opportunity “interrupts” the normal flow of actions in the round. If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn)."
And this:
"To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell." (The rules go on to list the various things that interrupt concentration and their DCs- making an AOO isn't one of them).
Do you think there is any connection between these two rules? Personally I believe the two uses of the word "interrupt" are being used for different purposes here- the former suggesting that AOOs break up the normal flow of a round and should be resolved immediately and the latter referring to a specific set of circumstances that interrupt casting. Do you think one could suggest that because "An attack of opportunity "interrupts" the normal flow of action in the round" it also interrupts a spell caster's concentration"?
Thanks again!
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
If it's not in the Concentration rules (on the Concentration DCs table) or otherwise mentioned (like the Distracting Weapon Special Ability or the spell Distracting Cacophony) in the rules, then you don't have to make a concentration check for it.
Fantastic! Thanks very much Slimgauge and everyone else! You've helped a great deal.
Going to push ahead with my Swashbuckler/Mesmerist build now. Hopefully I'll soon be stabbing people and Beguiling Gifting them something dreadful in the same turn! Or just ordering their friend to stab them in the back too ;)
Always keen to get input on build ideas- should I switch to a different thread for that?
Thanks again everyone, muchly appreciated!
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
DarkNumbers wrote: Always keen to get input on build ideas- should I switch to a different thread for that? Yes, that should go in the Advice forum. I'm not up on Mesmerists, so I won't be any help.
Given the rules state things like casting on a rocking boat or during bad weather require concentration checks, I don't think it's bad form to have a GM state stopping your spell to block an incoming attack then attacking back may require a check.
It's not quite fair to point at a chart and say it doesn't list an ability created half a decade later, nor use a full martial class not mentioning caster checks as concrete either.
I think a lot of solid points for doing what you want have been made, just looking at what else causes concentration checks to gauge.
Vigorous notion is a great example. It's 10+ spell level. Easy enough for most casters, as it's 50% success rate right from level one with no other factors.
Awesome, I shall do when I get my ideas together. Thanks very much everyone :)
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Cavall wrote: I don't think it's bad form to have a GM state stopping your spell to block an incoming attack then attacking back may require a check. Rule 0 certainly applies. However, you're not "stopping" your spell. Combat is not as linear as the rules resolution (necessarily) makes it seem. A lot of things are really near-simultaneous.
If the GM is going to do this, codify with him what the DC is going to be and what might potentially modify it. If he makes it too hard, you might be better off just casting defensively in the first place (and/or maybe being a magus with Flamboyant Arcana instead).
I like this concept. The kitsune appears to be scatter-brained or just tactically incompetent, then surprises any enemy who tries to take advantage of the apparent lapse in judgement. Fun.
Thanks Karlbob :) I was pretty excited when I came up with it but I wanted to check it through first. It just felt like an unusual way to play.
Thanks for your thoughts Cavall, I'll discuss it with the GM :) Naturally I'd rather think of it in terms of the Swashbuckler's P&R ability itself providing the requisite skill to pull it off whenever an "opportunity" arises (including when performing other actions in her turn) and it seems RAW supports this seeing as we're basically talking about adding in a previously non-existent concentration check parameter. But obviously I'm biased at this point ;)
Thanks Slim- I'm pretty set on a Psychic gish at this point and I like the unique interplay between the Mesmerist and Swashbuckler. But I'll take a look at Flamboyant Arcana :)
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex):
"she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack."
So, the parry costs 1 panache.
"Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach."
The riposte just requires that you have 1 panache left in your panache pool. It does not actually use that panache point [similar to the basic parts of Kip Up, Menacing Swordplay, or Precise Strike].
DarkNumbers wrote: Thanks Karlbob :) I was pretty excited when I came up with it but I wanted to check it through first. It just felt like an unusual way to play.
Thanks for your thoughts Cavall, I'll discuss it with the GM :) Naturally I'd rather think of it in terms of the Swashbuckler's P&R ability itself providing the requisite skill to pull it off whenever an "opportunity" arises (including when performing other actions in her turn) and it seems RAW supports this seeing as we're basically talking about adding in a previously non-existent concentration check parameter. But obviously I'm biased at this point ;)
Thanks Slim- I'm pretty set on a Psychic gish at this point and I like the unique interplay between the Mesmerist and Swashbuckler. But I'll take a look at Flamboyant Arcana :)
I don't disagree that, like I said, a lot of work went into doing the research. And yes it would be a new type of thing but a similar DC is set. As slimgauge stated setting a DC off the start is smart, and a trait would grab you +2 on those kinds of checks anyways, and if it was something like 10+ spell level, you could cast a level 1 spell at level 3 and give few damns except on the worst rolls
But yeah, it wouldn't be a huge deal to have a GM say to me that stopping the spell (which is what you're doing) to sword fight would be equivilants to casting from the back of a wagon.
Wanted to add the reason I feel it is stopping a spell is because it's provoking an AoO. Which only happens when an actions started. That's why damage disrupts It, or certain feats stop movement from continuing, etc. The opportunity exists for them to do something. Which creates the same for this character to do the same.
Which as you could see may need a small amount of effort to resume. Something covered under vigorous motion for DC.
Cool, I've put all of this and your points to my GM, Cavall, so he'll have a look at it and make a decision :)
So, for clarity for anyone else who may benefit from this thread: RAW it works without a concentration check but it's sufficiently close to the mark that a GM would be completely within their rights to consider adding one? Is that a fair summary?
Calling a parry-riposte vigorous movement is a reasonable GM ruling. It's an elegant solution, working within the system instead of making up a new rule. Which means it's even possible within PFS, if the GM feels like P&R-casting shouldn't come for free.
So if you're looking at a concentration check, your caster class becomes important.
- If you're NOT a psychic class, and your spell involves somatic components, you need a hand dedicated to that. Which can also conflict with use of Slashing/Fencing Grace.
- If you ARE a psychic caster, and you haven't spent a move action to "stabilize", the Concentration check will be at +10 DC.
You may get use out of the Uncanny Concentration feat.
Interesting, Ascalaphus. I'd forgotten that Psychics suffer a serious increase to concentration check DCs.
This effectively reduces the discussion to whether or not it's possible to do this at all- as adding the concentration check would make the method pretty much unworkable (base DC of 10 + spell level + 10 makes for a very difficult check indeed). Hmm. I've added this to my summary for my GM and I'll see what he comes up with.
Setting aside the fiddly details of whether a GM should add the concentration check for logic/consistency purposes, how do people feel about balance? Personally I feel the Swash/Mesmerist mix is already somewhat weakened through the multi-classing procedure and I'm not sure the ability to rush up to people, provoke, parry/riposte and cast is really that powerful given the risks. Not to mention the limits on how often it can be done (panache, AOOs) and the fact that only one riposte can be performed per round. What do people think? Would this be OP without the concentration check?
Despite this being a rather blatant attempt to abuse the Parry and Riposte ability, it will work - but you have to remember a few things:
Casting in combat specifically says that if something interrupts you then you must make a concentration check in order to continue the cast.
Attacks of Opportunity also very specifically say that they are an interrupt to whatever actions are happening.
Regardless of the outcome of the Attack of Opportunity, you will have to make a concentration check, with the DC decided by your GM.
The GM should be putting a fairly serious DC penalty on you, or denying this outright (as an ex-GM, this would be my decision), given that you are essentially dropping the spell casting in favour of doing physical damage, only to try and pick up the spell again straight after.
If I was still GMing you, I would only allow this if you were happy to be essentially burning up spells as a way to lure people in to attack you. You would lose the spell (save for very basic verbal ones), but you would gain an opening that you want.
Another thing to remember is that while Parry and Riposte is using up one of your own Attacks of Opportunity (and needs at least 2 panache points available - one to spend on Parry, one to keep in the bag for Riposte), the Riposte part is counted as an Immediate Action and therefore can only happen once per round - regardless of any Attacks of Opportunity stacking you may do. Parry as often as your panache points allow, but Riposte only the once.
One more thing, given that the roleplay element of the RPG seems to have been lost on you here - imagine you are actually in this fight for a moment. You are casting a spell and suddenly someone attacks you. Your spell has a somatic component - oh no, your new movement for parrying and riposte utterly destroys that spell process. Spell is now over and you have to start fresh.
Your spell has a material component - oh dear, that material that you already started using is now gone, or if it involved throwing things around you will have to pick it up again (unless you have more) to start the spell again.
Uh oh, there is a focus element to the spell. That specific prop that you need is suddenly in the wrong position from where you needed it in the spell casting - gotta start over fresh again.
The spell is all verbal?? Totally go for it! It's like shouting insults at someone in a fight, you're not going to stop just because someone swings at you. Unless you need to say something in some complex language that only you as some magic user know, and trying to do a different language in the middle of frantic combat may be somewhat taxing. Concentration check time!
DarkNumbers wrote: Interesting, Ascalaphus. I'd forgotten that Psychics suffer a serious increase to concentration check DCs.
This effectively reduces the discussion to whether or not it's possible to do this at all- as adding the concentration check would make the method pretty much unworkable (base DC of 10 + spell level + 10 makes for a very difficult check indeed). Hmm. I've added this to my summary for my GM and I'll see what he comes up with.
Just a few general options for a psychic caster who wants to avoid the extra +10 to Concentration Checks.
Avoid Thought (Verbal) Components
* Cast spells without Thought Components.
* Use the Intuitive Spell Metamagic Feat to remove the Thought Component from a spell.
Center Yourself
* Spend a Move Action to center yourself before casting a spell with a Thought Component (as mentioned earlier by Ascalaphus).
* Buy a Centering Jewel (Psychic Anthology) to reduce the centering time from a Move Action to a Swift Action. (Not PFS legal.)
Avoid provoking AoOs
* Cast from an unthreatened square.
* Use the Warding Weapon Spell. (Sadly not on the Mesmerist Spell List.)
Avoid other conditions that would require Concentration Checks
* The Uncanny Concentration Feat mentioned earlier by Ascalaphus.
Interesting perspective Max. I don't personally see anything abusive here- this is far from optimal after all. It's simply an unusual, and actually sometimes inefficient, means of fighting in a unique way (complete with very high risks). But, of course, I'm biased by my interest in the concept.
The issue of whether or not making (not being targeted by) an AOO interrupts concentration is the last potential hiccup being discussed here, as the Parry ability asks you to roll an attack as if making an AOO. "As written" the rules do not say that "making" an AOO interrupts concentration, only the usual flow of action in the turn (as quoted in an above post, in context)- to me this denotes that one should immediately stop normal turn activities and deal with the AOO before continuing and the rule has no obvious connection to casting. For clarity, even being on the receiving end of an AOO only interrupts if the attack actually hits and causes damage.
Spell casting can indeed be interrupted (as specified in an entirely separate rule quoted above), causing the need for a concentration check, but the causes of this are listed directly below that rule and they do not include making an AOO (only taking damage from one). Granted, one can and should use diligence to determine whether or not something counts as "interrupting" an action but what we have here is an ability that uses up an AOO and an Immediate Action- both are so brief that they can be used outside of a normal turn and there is no precedent for either interfering with other abilities during a turn.
My consideration of whether this could be interpreted differently is one of the reasons for further enquiry here :) I wonder if putting it to a formal FAQ would be necessary? I've seen that done on here for some questions. Nonetheless it is perfectly reasonable for a GM to decide to interpret it differently and add the concentration check anyway, as Cavall has suggested. However I believe that would be a house rule, looking at the RAW. Again, I'm no expert, but it appears from our discussions here that the RAW do not explicitly call for a concentration check. As for RAI I feel only the Devs can provide a concrete answer at this point, but I'm open to all opinions.
Absolutely clear on the limitations of Immediate Actions and the Riposte part of the ability (see earlier post). One riposte per round (and this will limit other options available to the Mesmerist as many of her abilities use Swift Actions).
On the contrary, this unusual and fun method of fighting grew entirely out of the desire to roleplay a character who only strikes physically when attacked and otherwise appears reasonably docile or even friendly (her casting is almost undetectable, as I note below). I am interested by the possibility of making a unique combatant who deflects and ripostes attempts to stop her psychic powers- to the outside observer she is only ever defending herself.
I agree with this last paragraph fully. You speak at length regarding somatic and material components being limiting factors and indeed they are. I agree that if they were involved it would make a lot of sense for them to be difficult to utilise alongside Parry and Riposte. I also agree that verbal components are much easier (assuming rare and cryptic languages are not involved) and could potentially be okay to use without a check.
The Mesmerist, however, uses none of the above in her casting. Like all psychic casters the Mesmerist casts only with her mind (thought and emotion components) and doesn't even need to speak unless giving instructions to a target. She simply wills her spells into being.
Thought and emotion components have their own drawbacks (most notably that fear can make it impossible to cast some spells), but what they do not require is any movement, words, hand gestures, voodoo dolls or dancing under the moon whatsoever: the caster simply wills it. The casting is therefore, physically, incredibly simple- the caster looks at you, you suddenly feel an uncontrollable urge to kill your comrades.
I see little thematic issue with a talented fighter simultaneously deflecting and returning a blow whilst simply "willing" something to happen. I don't think we have to look far in popular fiction to find such individuals who mix martial and "magical" skills in quick succession ;)
Thanks for your thoughts! :)
Thanks Gisher!
Some interesting possibilities there. The Uncanny Concentration feat could render the concentration check a non-issue for my Mesmerist (assuming it is one at all) if it were comparable to the Vigorous Motion check, as Cavall suggested.
It's whether this largely thematic ability warrants a feat (as one could simply cast a spell on your turn and wait for the enemy to attack on their own turn to achieve very similar results seeing as the riposte is a once per round ability anyway).
DarkNumbers wrote: Setting aside the fiddly details of whether a GM should add the concentration check for logic/consistency purposes, how do people feel about balance? Personally I feel the Swash/Mesmerist mix is already somewhat weakened through the multi-classing procedure and I'm not sure the ability to rush up to people, provoke, parry/riposte and cast is really that powerful given the risks. Not to mention the limits on how often it can be done (panache, AOOs) and the fact that only one riposte can be performed per round. What do people think? Would this be OP without the concentration check? I wouldn't hold off on making such a ruling just because you feel this one particular build is already weak; because then someone else can do the same trick with a different build that isn't weak (let's say, swash/magus) and you'd be in trouble.
Anyway, another option open to you is that when you're moving up to people, you move a little further to provoke an AoO for movement. You parry that one, and then cast your spell. Because the majority of people don't take Combat Reflexes. Then you don't need a concentration check at all.
You are a marvellous genius Ascalaphus and I can't believe this seemingly straight forward alternative didn't occur to me! Problem solved!
The funny thing about this whole "parry while casting" idea is that it actually seems quite impractical and foolish. (I still love the idea for its thematic value though). Here's why I think it's sub-optimal:
----
Scenario 1: No concentration check is deemed necessary by the GM and it works as we originally discussed.
1. I walk into a room with two enemies.
2. I walk into a square threatened by enemy A and cast Murderous Command on enemy B.
3. This provokes.
4. I parry the AOO and riposte (if I fail the parry roll I am potentially injured and I could lose the spell via a failed concentration check). Let's say I succeed on both the parry and riposte roll though- enemy A is injured from my riposte.
5. Spell completes and enemy B fails their Will save.
6. My turn ends.
7. Enemy A attacks me on their turn. I can no longer parry or riposte (my AOO and Swift Action are both gone (let's assume no combat reflexes for now). Let's say it hits me. I am injured.
8. Enemy B walks up to and attacks enemy A.
9. Round concludes.
Net result: I risked losing both my P&R usage and a spell by casting in a threatened square. This also meant that enemy A had two chances to injure me during the round, both during its AOO and its own turn. Best possible outcome for me is that enemy A is injured by myself and an attack by an enchanted enemy B. Worst possible outcome is that I'm hit when trying to parry and lose my whole turn (the spell fails and, obviously, no riposte is possible).
Scenario 2: GM determines that a concentration check is necessary for any use of this "parry while casting" method. DC 10 + spell level + 10 for being a psychic caster- quite a hard check. Naturally I now avoid using the method and fight in a more traditional (boring) way.
1. I walk into a room with two enemies.
2. I stay out of their melee range and cast Murderous Command at enemy B.
3. My turn ends.
4. Enemy A walks up to me and attacks.
5. I parry and riposte the attack successfully, enemy A is injured.
6. Enemy B walks up to and attacks enemy A.
7. Round concludes.
Net result: enemy A has taken damage from both me and enemy B. Enemy B spent its turn attacking its ally due to Murderous Command. I took no unnecessary risks and achieved optimal results. Best possible outcome is that enemy A is damaged by both myself and its ally (who spends the turn attacking a friend due to Murderous Command). Worst possible outcome is that I fail to parry enemy A's attack and take some damage whilst being unable to riposte. The spell, however, still completes.
Based on the above, the character's action economy is about equal in both scenarios. The risks, however, are far higher in scenario 1. Of course there are numerous ways this could play out differently but the risk to possible outcome balance remains largely the same.
----
Naturally the above is just a controlled scenario and I'm sure there would be situations where the method is optimal- but I can't think of many right now (open to suggestions!). It's really just for the fun of the concept- elegantly parrying attempts to interfere with casting.
In any case- the issue is largely rendered moot by your idea Ascalaphus, so thank you very much for your help!
You're welcome :)
Your first scenario has a small mistake in it; if you P&R during your own turn you expend that turn's swift action. But if you have to do it again out of turn, the immediate action consumes next turn's swift action. So the situation in scenario 1 isn't quite as dire.
However, there's another good reason for just not going up next to enemy A in the first turn: you want to save your swift action for activating your Gaze to make enemy B's saving throw harder. So it won't be available for P&R.
---
In general there are two main approaches I see used with P&R:
1) Assume your panache pool will replenish often. Provoke additional attacks and use the riposte to gain additional attacks. Make your blade Keen as soon as possible.
1a) Provoke attacks to "disarm" enemy AoOs so that you and the rest of your party can move/cast/maneuver with impunity. If you do this too often expect the GM to go looking for enemies with Combat Reflexes :P
2) Fear the worst. Assume your allies will constantly kill-steal your panache replenishment, and that everyone you first is immune to critical hits. Save your parries for saving your own life, don't provoke needless attacks.
Which approach is best will depend on who you fight, and how your party fits together. If your GM likes lots of minions and/or if there's not many striker PCs #1 works better. If you're going through lots of elementals with three barbarians at your side, look at #2.
(Yes, you can ask the other players not to steal your kills. But usually it's good tactics to quickly reduce the number of enemies by focus-firing.)
One issue you will find, is that your attack will not scale as quickly as the monsters, so you will find this tactic less-and-less useful ... additionally, you will find yourself adjacent to an enemy (full attack) when you complete casting.
Not sure if this is desirable.
Ah, thank you for the correction! I didn't realise that the Immediate Action uses next turn's Swift- as you say this is actually fantastic for combining with my gaze!
I had assumed I would have to choose between gazing or riposting for my first round of a fight- pleased to see that as long I don't go looking for a riposte on my turn I can still do both!
I certainly intend to get Keen asap! I'm torn between the Inspired Blade Archetype and a standard Swashbuckler at the moment. The former will yield 1 bonus panache from my INT (plus the Weapon Focus feat for rapiers) and the latter allows kills to replenish panache. Hmm.
I think I'll probably go with the following method:
- Enter combat (remain on the front lines where I look like a juicy target but stay out of AOO range)
- Gaze
- Cast
- End turn
- Hope an enemy decides to take a chunk out of me on their turn
- Parry and riposte
If the last two points don't happen then I have a Swift on my next turn to change gaze targets or to raise the dead (I'm planning on a Spirit Walker Mesmerist) :)
I can still deliberately provoke now and then when I'm feeling adventurous or the situation warrants it.
Regarding your "walk through threatened squares to provoke" method- would I be able to finish my movement and walk through to a non-threatened square afterwards, parrying and riposting along the way?
You may be right Meyer- the Swash is full BAB but the Mesmerist is 3/4 BAB.
I will gain +1 from the Inspired Blade's weapon focus (if I go IB) and have substantial gains from my DEX- so hopefully I can at least keep up.
You're right that leaving myself adjacent to an enemy is probably not wise- it was just part of a thematic plan :) But it's nice to know that with Ascalaphus' method it will work when I want to do it.
For the record my GM has given the original "parry while casting" plan the go ahead, with some minor caveats. However, having explored it fully in this thread, the "move to provoke" method is far superior anyway and neither is actually as efficient as waiting for an enemy to attack on their turn. Good to know the method works though- I think it's quite fun!
The best enchantment for your weapon will be "Answering", it makes your weapon count as +5 for purposes of the riposte/parry deed.
That's an awesome idea, thanks Meyer :)
I've started an advice thread for this build here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ufly?Ideas-for-a-Kitsune-Swashbuckler-1Mesmeri st-X#1
Thanks again for all of your help everyone!
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
