So in a group that I'm playing where the GM tends to rule RAW and RAI in favor of the player and lets his players let out their inner power gamer (we're all gestalt), I saw a player with an interesting build. I wanted to ask the community, specifically GMs, whether or not this is broken and/or bannable in a more traditional setting. It involves 3rd party material, so obviously is not an option in PFS.
So here's the main concept of the build. Catfolk ninja/slayer gestalt (but for our purposes we can ignore the slayer aspect, and, yes, I know you usually can't gestalt two rogue-based classes, but as I said, GM rules to player favor).
The key to this build is the catfolk ninja favored class benefit, which is 3rd party: Add a +1 bonus to attack rolls when attacking on or charging from higher ground.
So if you pick this every level, you've taken a 3/4 BAB character and effectively made them a 1 3/4 BAB as long as they attack from elevation. Plus, said lenient GM has ruled that, since wording doesn't specify melee attacks, it can be used when attacking from range. At level 7, our catfolk ninja/slayer, whose favorite tactic is to climb/levitate to a good shooting position, is shooting off 4-6 arrows a round with a +20 attack mod. Now our GM ups the difficulty accordingly and everyone else is just as cheesy so it works. But would any sane GM allow that 3rd party favored class benefit?
So my question comes in multiple levels:
1) would you ban it outright?
2) would you allow it if it applied only to melee combat?
3) how would you challenge a character with this in their build, other than always throwing them in a low-ceiling cavern all the time?
4) If GMs allow this, I'm curious if there are other repercussions or builds that may become interesting with this. For example, if melee only is stipulated, I'd be tempted to take a 1 level dip into samurai (keeping that nice eastern flavor). Mount elevation would make it much easier to get that bonus consistently.
|
Uh attacking from higher ground is a +1 bonus and thats pathfinder crb well for melee at least. I I do believe being mounted on a medium to large sized mounts counts for elevation but that could be back from 3.5
maybe im not understanding does he have a feat or a trait that gives him an additional +1?
Congrats, you've found the loophole to finally make that notoriously underpowered combat role viable!
But yes, this is obviously insanely broken and no sane GM would ever dream of allowing it. Are you committed to staying in this group? Because even if you convince him to ban this ridiculousity, it doesn't sound like you're ever going to have a reasonable game with this fellow running the show.
|
So my question comes in multiple levels:
1) would you ban it outright?
2) would you allow it if it applied only to melee combat?
3) how would you challenge a character with this in their build, other than always throwing them in a low-ceiling cavern all the time?
4) If GMs allow this, I'm curious if there are other repercussions or builds that may become interesting with this. For example, if melee only is stipulated, I'd be tempted to take a 1 level dip into samurai (keeping that nice eastern flavor). Mount elevation would make it much easier to get that bonus consistently.
1: No, i would modify it to be 1/3 of +1. Every 3 levels you get a +1.
2: I would allow either or, but you have to have the higher ground. Melee would be more fun as a player. Jumping off tree limbs, or scaling a wall and getting the "drop" on the enemy. Sneak attack for the win!
3: Hold person, or hold monster. Get to higher ground. There are never really trees in the city when you need them. You are scaling a building, someone opens their window and yells for the city guards. Bow and Arrow.
4: As a GM i would not say a Mount, is "higher" ground. I would argue that you are mounted, not at a higher elevation. I could be mounted on a dire wolf, I'm still not taller than a troll. This raises the argument that humans have higher "elevation" on halflings. Does your bonus apply then?
Can i ask the source of the favored class?
Are you committed to staying in this group? Because even if you convince him to ban this ridiculousity, it doesn't sound like you're ever going to have a reasonable game with this fellow running the show.
I didn't mean this to sound like I'm criticizing the GM, as this cheese benefits my own inner munchkin. After all, no other GM would let me build the chicken cursed warpriest I've been dreaming of. Yes, he allows crazy things, but he balances it *reasonably* well with things just as crazy and, above all, it ends up being highly entertaining. That being said, I do also enjoy more traditionally balanced games, and I was wondering if this would even be an option in one of those.
Can i ask the source of the favored class?
The player just found it on the pfsrd.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-catfolk/
I do believe being mounted on a medium to large sized mounts counts for elevation but that could be back from 3.5
As a GM i would not say a Mount, is "higher" ground. I would argue that you are mounted, not at a higher elevation. I could be mounted on a dire wolf, I'm still not taller than a troll. This raises the argument that humans have higher "elevation" on halflings. Does your bonus apply then?
Per the pfsrd: "When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground."
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat/#TOC-Mounted-Combat
Though your comment about humans getting elevation bonus on halflings does bring up an interesting point. I think the point here is the mount must a size category or more smaller than your mount, and you're sitting on top of *that* in order to get the bonus.
|
So you are just wondering if most GMs out there would accept it?
I guess that I'm on the camp, that I wouldn't. Countering archer is easy, you don't even need to make a special effort for it, there are spells that literally negate attacks with arrows. It is of course, considered a dick move when you do it as a GM most of the time.
Granted I don't mind people using 3pp products, but at look them on case by case basis.
As for gestalt...just something that you aren't going to convince me...I just was never ever a fan of gestalt...I never ran gestalt on my table. Played Gestalt twice in my life...and I didn't enjoy it at all.
I've had the opposite experience. Gestalt is wonderful and one of my groups we play with it regularly.
As for this FCB... Yeah, I'd move it to +1/3 instead of just +1.