| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Little absurd cool combo I just discovered:
Works best with TWO monks with the same three feats for double no MAP extra attacks.
Enjoy~
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I wouldn't let this work, and I would force the Return Fire attack to be directed at the creature who fired it.
It's obviously not intended to function the way you've outlined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd allow it if it means your going to eat damage on a critical mwahaha
This is also effective against bow enemies, which is probably the intended usage of the feat.
This works per RAW, but a feat called Return Fire implies you're firing right back at an enemy, so I would imagine there might come errata to remedy these shenanigans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems perfectly balanced to me.
There are plenty of options to turn you a reaction into an attack. Some of them are going to trigger very often - like Marshals Attack of Opportunity which only needs an allies ranged strike to trigger. This combo is pretty reliable, costs an action from an ally, and has a potential side effect when your ally rolls really well - you could miss. I suppose you could work hard on making that ranged attack really bad, to make it safe.
That's kinda fun :). I don't think it's earth shattering because, as someone pointed out, it's pretty easy to get a free attack from a reaction with Marshal, and that's probably the better route to go anyways. Sure, that one's at a net -2, but doesn't force your ally to waste their last action firing at you... and doesn't run the risk of a Nat 20 (or a 19 for that matter...).
I really need to look into Marshal more.
This is also effective against bow enemies, which is probably the intended usage of the feat.
This works per RAW, but a feat called Return Fire implies you're firing right back at an enemy, so I would imagine there might come errata to remedy these shenanigans.
Jedi are able to redirect blaster shots fired at them to other targets. Watch Attack of the Clones again.
But isn't there some rule against PVP in Pathfinder? In that case it wouldn't work because firing an arrow at a friendly would be a no-no, even if the intent is to miss.
I don't watch Star Wars. Never did. Never will. The fanbase ruins it. Back on topic...
If the feat was named "Redirect Fire," I wouldn't see a problem with it. Return, however, has specific implications within its definition, which is to bring something back to where it came from, or was found.
For sure I allow this. I can't wait for the natural 20!
Hahahahahahahaha. This is hilarious.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing about Return Fire that implies you are returning fire to the source is the name. If it had been intended to limit you to firing back at only the person who attacked you, it would be written like Impossible Parry, which is from the same book so it's not like they were unaware of the idea. Or like Reflect Spell, for that matter.
This combo definitely works.
And you are giving up the opportunity to protect yourself from an enemy ranged attack in order to use it, plus it costs an action from an ally who has to be ready with a ranged attack AND not so good with that ranged attack that they are likely to hit you (don't ask a fighter or ranger to do this).
It's not a broken combo by any means.
Plus, it's cool.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For sure I allow this. I can't wait for the natural 20!
I can't wait for when the wounded Monk player begs the other to burn a hero point and reroll the 20!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad most of you found it funny/cool. Great thing about this is that is always dangerous for the characters trying it and it can't really be optimized to always make the attack miss against the Monk.
How would you improve this? I'm was thinking in Bracers of Missile Deflection but they give circumstance bonus as Deflect Arrows does.
[...] AND not so good with that ranged attack that they are likely to hit you (don't ask a fighter or ranger to do this).
Plus, it's cool.
I understand Fighter on this example, they're always more precise but, what does Ranger have to do with this? If you're thinking Flurry, that only works against your Hunted Prey.
As a GM I wouldn't let this work [...]
That's a table I wouldn't play at. Shutting down player creativity that doesn't break the game and it's fun (and dangerous for the players doing the combo in this case) it's not my cup of tea, but yeah, I also understand "your table, your rules".
This is also effective against bow enemies, which is probably the intended usage of the feat.
This works per RAW, but a feat called Return Fire implies you're firing right back at an enemy, so I would imagine there might come errata to remedy these shenanigans.
I don't think Paizo will "fix" this incredibly niche and not broken combo. I can even imagine Paizo people laughing at this.
On the other hand, if we would always assume mechanic effects and intended usage of feats/abilities/etc. based on their names, we would be playing a really close-minded game IMO.
If the feat was named "Redirect Fire," I wouldn't see a problem with it. Return, however, has specific implications within its definition, which is to bring something back to where it came from, or was found.
Flying Kick doesn't require a kick... It'd suck if you couldn't use your stance specific attacks with it because a pedantic DM insisted on a kick do to it's name IMO.
Oh, that's my brain not firing; I forgot that Rangers only get their stupid good multiattack bonus against their prey.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the feat was named "Redirect Fire," I wouldn't see a problem with it. Return, however, has specific implications within its definition, which is to bring something back to where it came from, or was found.Flying Kick doesn't require a kick... It'd suck if you couldn't use your stance specific attacks with it because a pedantic DM insisted on a kick do to it's name IMO.
Adding to this, one of the feats of the combo is called Deflect Arrows. OK, the trigger specifies "You are the target of a physical ranged attack." but the name is still Deflect Arrows. If we would blindly follow the name, you couldn't deflect bolts or small stones from slings. The feat also supports the notion that names are just names, they don't carry intention.
Adding to this, one of the feats of the combo is called Deflect Arrows. OK, the trigger specifies "You are the target of a physical ranged attack." but the name is still Deflect Arrows. If we would blindly follow the name, you couldn't deflect bolts or small stones from slings. The feat also supports the notion that names are just names, they don't carry intention.If the feat was named "Redirect Fire," I wouldn't see a problem with it. Return, however, has specific implications within its definition, which is to bring something back to where it came from, or was found.Flying Kick doesn't require a kick... It'd suck if you couldn't use your stance specific attacks with it because a pedantic DM insisted on a kick do to it's name IMO.
I suppose that's fair. The names should be more aptly given for them to fulfill their intent, though. Sometimes Legacy things need to die.
I suppose that's fair. The names should be more aptly given for them to fulfill their intent, though. Sometimes Legacy things need to die.
Totally agree with you there, some things are named with the same old names from DnD and PF 1E just to stay "classic" and/or "on brand" but not all of them connect to the updated mechanics.
As a GM I wouldn't let this work [...]That's a table I wouldn't play at. Shutting down player creativity that doesn't break the game and it's fun (and dangerous for the players doing the combo in this case) it's not my cup of tea, but yeah, I also understand "your table, your rules".
You and I have different opinions of breaking the game then. I think an extra attack that doesn't suffer from MAP, even if your friend had to waste an action to do it, is breaking the game paradigms of PF2.
But different strokes for different folks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You and I have different opinions of breaking the game then. I think an extra attack that doesn't suffer from MAP, even if your friend had to waste an action to do it, is breaking the game paradigms of PF2.But different strokes for different folks.
There are a lot of these - a feat turning a reaction into an attack with no MAP.
Starting with Attack of Opportunity. Though that is partially under the control of your enemy. But there are others. Some will trigger only occasionally, some will be quite regular. Have a good read through the APG. There are even spellcasting options like Blood Vendetta. Particularily from mid level.
To be mechanically efficient you need to have an option in this space.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember them referring to things like that as deflecting missiles. in a 1st edition D&D game. we had a game were we had actual missiles shot at us and My DM wouldn't let me deflect them. This upset me. It's in the name of the ability!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You and I have different opinions of breaking the game then. I think an extra attack that doesn't suffer from MAP, even if your friend had to waste an action to do it, is breaking the game paradigms of PF2.But different strokes for different folks.
There are a lot of these - a feat turning a reaction into an attack with no MAP.
Starting with Attack of Opportunity. Though that is partially under the control of your enemy. But there are others. Some will trigger only occasionally, some will be quite regular. Have a good read through the APG. There are even spellcasting options like Blood Vendetta. Particularily from mid level.
To be mechanically efficient you need to have an option in this space.
The big difference, as you observe, is the enemies ability to control the action happening. Attack of opportunity wont happen if they don't move or perform other actions that provoke. That might not seem like much, but is huge in my opinion. The enemy has no capability to act in a way that would deny the above combo and essentially turns a 3rd attack action that should have big MAP penalty into an attack with no MAP penalty and the enemy can do nothing about it.
If the ability were limited to enemy attacks it would be fine, because enemies also tend to have higher attack bonuses making this trick harder to pull off. And once you done it once successfully the enemy can try to change their tactics.
But if you let an ally's 3rd attack with high MAP work you're turning something with very little value into something with high value.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big difference, as you observe, is the enemies ability to control the action happening. Attack of opportunity wont happen if they don't move or perform other actions that provoke. That might not seem like much, but is huge in my opinion. The enemy has no capability to act in a way that would deny the above combo and essentially turns a 3rd attack action that should have big MAP penalty into an attack with no MAP penalty and the enemy can do nothing about it.If the ability were limited to enemy attacks it would be fine, because enemies also tend to have higher attack bonuses making this trick harder to pull off. And once you done it once successfully the enemy can try to change their tactics.
But if you let an ally's 3rd attack with high MAP work you're turning something with very little value into something with high value.
Attack of Opportunity is just were it starts
How about the Rogue's Opportune Backstab - that triggers when an ally hits within reach, thats going to be common.
Or the Marshal's Target of Opportunity activates on an allies successful ranged strike. OK that has a -2 on it. but you can even trigger each other inside the same turn with no MAP.
Or Blood Vendetta just requires you to be hit with slashing or piercing damage - they choose not to attack you - cool you win, many monsters don't have other tactics.
Are these perfect or 100%. No but they can be pretty close with some thought. But there are more options as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[...]
But if you let an ally's 3rd attack with high MAP work you're turning something with very little value into something with high value.Attack of Opportunity is just were it starts
How about the Rogue's Opportune Backstab - that triggers when an ally hits within reach, thats going to be common.
Or the Marshal's Target of Opportunity activates on an allies successful ranged strike. OK that has a -2 on it. but you can even trigger each other inside the same turn with no MAP.
Or Blood Vendetta just requires you to be hit with slashing or piercing damage - they choose not to attack you - cool you win, many monsters don't have other tactics.
Yeah, he probably has those feats banned on his games. If he considers getting to use your reaction consistently with creativity, party planning, 3 feats (two of which are extremely situational, let's face it, how many bow/sling/crossbow enemies that specifically attack you have you faced?) and 1 action from a friend, imagine doing that with just 1 reaction!
It's like Reticent and Mrspaghetti said, this is viable, cool, decent but it needs a lot of resources and you're not gonna be making extra attacks 24/7.
To add on to this, not a whole lot of enemies will be using ranged attacks, meaning that this isn't going to see a whole lot of action to begin with.
But, I will find it hilarious when someone uses a specialty arrow on you, just to snatch it up and send it right back at them. Explosive ammunition, or even one infused with a spell like from Eldritch Archer? Look out, friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does it work by RAW? Sure.
Would I allow it? No.
I would also have a sit down with the player who brought this to my table about the shared narrative we are trying to create and how this sort of thing can hinder that.
This is one of the major negatives of games that allow high degrees of customization. Some players get so lost in the chargen minigame that they forget about everything else.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would also have a sit down with the player who brought this to my table about the shared narrative we are trying to create and how this sort of thing can hinder that.
This is one of the major negatives of games that allow high degrees of customization. Some players get so lost in the chargen minigame that they forget about everything else.
I don't think this necessarily follows. Having a friend shoot a spare arrow into your hand so you can shoot it at the enemy is narratively solid for many kinds of narrative.
Certainly it makes sense if you're the kind of person who catches arrows out of the air and fires them at people anyway, and the Feat makes you exactly that. It doesn't match lower powered narratives, but then the Feat itself doesn't match those, either.
I'm not sure if I'd allow this, but that's a mechanical balance concern. Story-wise? I'm really unclear why it would be a problem.
As a once in a while burn a hero point kinda way, sure
As a round after round exploit, this is munchkin to the extreme.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a once in a while burn a hero point kinda way, sure
As a round after round exploit, this is munchkin to the extreme.
That's a mechanical argument, not a narrative one. I don't object to saying 'This is mechanically broken, don't do it.'
I object to you saying that it inherently ignores the narrative. It doesn't.
That's kinda fun :). I don't think it's earth shattering because, as someone pointed out, it's pretty easy to get a free attack from a reaction with Marshal, and that's probably the better route to go anyways. Sure, that one's at a net -2, but doesn't force your ally to waste their last action firing at you... and doesn't run the risk of a Nat 20 (or a 19 for that matter...).I really need to look into Marshal more.
Then you could make Marshalmasters an alias. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have to agree to disagree on this one. This sort of thing brings back my worst memories of 3.x games. With players cobbling together options that make little narrative sense together and seeking mechanical advantage by doing ridiculous things like carrying around bags of rats and attacking teammates.
If that works for your table, fine. But players that seek mechanical advantage at all cost even when breaking the narrative for others just have no place in games I run.
The big difference, as you observe, is the enemies ability to control the action happening. Attack of opportunity wont happen if they don't move or perform other actions that provoke. That might not seem like much, but is huge in my opinion.
Don't forget! All it takes is being knocked prone to make facing down Attack of Opportunity a sadistic choice. And, really, Stand Still (from the same class as Return Fire) would generally do just as well, with potential to do better.
Now, I recognize that tripping isn't reliable, and I think I understand the mechanical concerns, but. This little combo isn't quite reliable either, and costs an ally's action. Although reactions aren't as frequently usable or commonly available as normal actions, they're still valid parts of the action economy, and in my admittedly limited experience, people frequently don't have the luxury of milling around with a free 3rd action. Enabling a Monk friend's Return Fire is a choice that's frequently hard to justify making.
Furthermore, despite Deflect Arrows working with any reasonably-sized projectiles, lots of things about Return Fire (Monastic Archer Stance requirement, explicitly using an arrow, and explicitly firing from a bow) suggest the projectile needs to be an arrow to work with the feat. If so, the theoretical ally is either a dedicated ranged attacker of their own who sends inaccurate arrows your way to cool down between shots, or a non-martial who gives up holding anything else in their hands just to support you when they can, and at that point it's just a cute teamwork feat (that occasionally results in you getting nailed with a 20 if they're good enough with the bow). ~w~
Although reactions aren't as frequently usable or commonly available as normal actions, they're still valid parts of the action economy, and in my admittedly limited experience, people frequently don't have the luxury of milling around with a free 3rd action. Enabling a Monk friend's Return Fire is a choice that's frequently hard to justify making.
My experience had been the opposite, people were often struggling to find what felt like meaningful 3rd actions to complete their round. Making an attack at -10 MAP or moving around on the battlefield often don't feel meaningful. Much of the time the enemy and the PC would stand in place and trade blows. Although typical the initial set up involved getting 2 people to attack one enemy and doing so from flanking when possible, but outside of that combat was really static.
This will also heavily depend on your GM and how much they attempt to out strategize the players.
Do the enemies try to move out of position when flanked? Do they use hit and run tactics? Do they just stand and fight like an unmoving wall? Do the PCs have action economy that is useful? Most PC abilities seem to be a 2 action ability that does what would do two 1 action items but with some sort of bonus. Which tends to leave a single action left....and not much to do with it (in my experience).
I would also have a sit down with the player who brought this to my table about the shared narrative we are trying to create and how this sort of thing can hinder that.
This is one of the major negatives of games that allow high degrees of customization. Some players get so lost in the chargen minigame that they forget about everything else.
That a pretty severe step from 'not allowing a ruling/option' to 'punitive actions for what the player finds exciting/fun'.
The note about 'having a sit down about shared narrative' sounds rather demeaning as well. Just off the top of my head, having a player using Penetrating Ammunition with a Monk behind the enemy being shot at will produce the exact same results with huge narrative and team building impact. Especially if others at the table are not being pressed into the tactic then there's very little to oppose about the idea aside from personal taste; and in that regard to each their own.
From a Narrative sense, there are plenty of examples of shooting past the enemy as an intended result.
Example:
1) Player shoots normal arrow at their Monk ally that is hidden from the enemy.
2) Enemy scoffs at player's poor aim.
3) Too late realizes it was a setup for their blind spot.
That a pretty severe step from 'not allowing a ruling/option' to 'punitive actions for what the player finds exciting/fun'.
I am all about fun and am very open to bending rules and straight up homebrewing to help a player realize reasonable PC concepts and have a good time at the table. However, when a player's fun is wholly rooted in power gaming to the nth degree, then I will absolutely have a sit down with that player.
If they don't like it, they can walk away and that may best best for all parties. Ideally though, they see that making munchkin PCs that exploit game mechanics is not all there is to this game and that that sort of selfish play hurts the narrative and the experience when taken to irrational extremes.
That a pretty severe step from 'not allowing a ruling/option' to 'punitive actions for what the player finds exciting/fun'.
I am all about fun and am very open to bending rules and straight up homebrewing to help a player realize reasonable PC concepts and have a good time at the table. However, when a player's fun is wholly rooted in power gaming to the nth degree, then I will absolutely have a sit down with that player.
If they don't like it, they can walk away and that may best best for all parties. Ideally though, they see that making munchkin PCs that exploit game mechanics is not all there is to this game and that that sort of selfish play hurts the narrative and the experience when taken to irrational extremes.
I think anyone would share that same view. Which is why such a reaction to a straight forward build as this one seems rather harsh; especially if more than just the one player is looking forward to the implementation of the idea. I have had players build combo concepts that heavily lean on mechanics as just inspirations for fleshing out their characters.
I also happen to be a player that finds the mechanics as the most fun part about the game. Basic levels of creativity such as this one are ways of making an investment into narrative settings where it may be difficult to find an initial buy-in.
It also helps to be able to know the difference between Munchkin concepts and Niche concepts. This one, and the one someone suggested about a Marshal using an Arboreal Sapling to trigger Target of Opportunity are more along the lines of just Niche concepts.
Folks can judge this stuff however they like. I look at this and see a munchkin build.
Listen, going with stuff like this devolves the game into an adversarial experience where the PCs and GM try to a-ha and get over on each other in a series one-upmanship sessions. A chess match where you dig through rules and defend this build or how that ability could really do x or y.
Some people like this. I personally do not find that kind of play compelling (especially when it goes extreme and reaches into exploits like this). I got over that after my brief dance with 3.x. Basically, I am too old and have too little free time to waste on tables that play that way.
If you disagree, that's fine. It takes all kinds. I'm just sharing my perspective as a GM.
Folks can judge this stuff however they like. I look at this and see a munchkin build.
Listen, going with stuff like this devolves the game into an adversarial experience where the PCs and GM try to a-ha and get over on each other in a series one-upmanship sessions. A chess match where you dig through rules and defend this build or how that ability could really do x or y.
Some people like this. I personally do not find that kind of play compelling (especially when it goes extreme and reaches into exploits like this). I got over that after my brief dance with 3.x. Basically, I am too old and have too little free time to waste on tables that play that way.
If you disagree, that's fine. It takes all kinds. I'm just sharing my perspective as a GM.
I don't really see how it's an exploit, though. It's not any more of an exploit than if an ally is confused or dominated, for example, and fired at an "ally", who used the reaction to attack the one who confused or dominated them.
It's also not a case of munchkinism or one-upmanship because this would have to be done in a way that the RAW permits and obviously wasn't meant to in an attempt to screw others or the GM over. Other than the ability name (Return Fire), I don't see how the ability isn't intended to work that way, nor is being used in a manner to cheat the action economy, especially any worse than abilities like Quickened or Combat Reflexes does, when the entire point of the feat is to be able to further react against a projectile aimed at you.
I would also have a sit down with the player who brought this to my table about the shared narrative we are trying to create and how this sort of thing can hinder that.
This sort of thing brings back my worst memories of 3.x games. With players cobbling together options that make little narrative sense together and seeking mechanical advantage by doing ridiculous things like carrying around bags of rats and attacking teammates.
I am all about fun and am very open to bending rules and straight up homebrewing to help a player realize reasonable PC concepts and have a good time at the table. However, when a player's fun is wholly rooted in power gaming to the nth degree, then I will absolutely have a sit down with that player.
This sort of thing brings back my worst memories of 3.x games. With players cobbling together options that make little narrative sense together and seeking mechanical advantage by doing ridiculous things like carrying around bags of rats and attacking teammates.
I really don't get you, Data Lore. You had a "brief dance" with 3.5, which was enough to left you with traumatic memories. You immediately thought this was ultra munchkin but you're open to have fun and allow homebrewing (which I really think is one of the most used tools by clever munchkins, min-maxers and power-gamers alike, besides being dangerous territory for unbalanced results).
As Deadmanwalkingm, Darksol and Pumpkinhead11 have said, this kind of "combo" is not really aimed to "win" the game, hinder your narrative vision, do really broken 3.5 stuff like Pun-Pun or dropping animals and killing them for movement/attack shenanigans. It's a long road, you gotta burn 3 feats (two of which are mostly useless) and collaborate as a team, which could help players to brainstorm great ideas, create character concepts or just enjoy the game in a way that's not gonna make your life harder as a GM.
I also think you're using the word "munchkin" too broadly, I don't it means what you think it means.
I don't think there is an exact definition. The general idea is that it's someone who tries to exploit loopholes and otherwise bend or break the rules of a game to their own benefit, and with little or no regard for any other players. Basically, someone who thinks he can win the game, and will attempt to do so at any cost.
I totally agree that we could disagree, that's your view as a GM, but still, I think is a little sad you're shooting down player creativity like that. But yeah, you can house-rule (as these options are totally valid) and ban this from your table.
I house rule plenty and have exactly zero problems shooting down this kind of creativity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely see this as an exploit to try and game the MAP. It has one PC intentionally setup one of their low-chance attacks which is supposed to be at a significant penalty and effectively transferring it to another PC who then "recycles" that same Action into an Attack with no MAP.
I think Datalore is spot on calling it munchkin nonsense, especially if someone tries to justify building their entire character around the concept of eliminating the MAP for a given attack whenever possible via vague wording that ignores the flavor of the very feat that enables this.