Favorite Rules Exploits and Dubiously Legal Shenanigans

[Theaitetos]

VoodistMonk wrote:

You continue in Bard, stacking Flame Dancer and Flamesinger, and grab Extra Performance or Weapon Focus or Improved Initiative at 3... Additional Traits... definitely not anything that subtracts from your accuracy.

There's a guide about that build: The Fog Chanter.

[VoodistMonk]

I did make my Flame Dancer-Flamesinger Fire Faerie a Fey Resilient-Tree Born Gathlain, too. How fun. She is VMC Sorcerer for the Verdant/Groveborn Bloodline Powers... I like the idea of this smoldering faerie. She is super emo...

The whole world is burning. Life is Hell. The future is just fuel for the ashes of the past...

[Wonderstell]

I'm not a fan of exploits when they require you to deliberately misinterpret the rules, as those tend to get parroted over and over until the original meaning is lost. The "you are your own ally" FAQ is probably the worst offender of them all concerning this issue because it spreads like a wildfire.

But I do like shenanigans. Like using Weapon Versatility with a Flame Blade to deal physical damage with your beam of fire. Or Weapon Shift with a Battle Poi to deal fire damage with your natural attacks.

[VoodistMonk]

Helpful Halfling Inspired/Internal Alchemist, Effortless Aid Investigator Talent, Spell Knowledge Discovery, Arcane Strike, Gloves of Arcane Striking... +9 Aid Another as a swift action.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Wonderstell wrote:

I'm not a fan of exploits when they require you to deliberately misinterpret the rules, as those tend to get parroted over and over until the original meaning is lost. The "you are your own ally" FAQ is probably the worst offender of them all

Ah yes, a personal favorite of mine. Broken Wing Gambit says that when you use it, if your target attacks you, then all your allies that have this Feat provokes Attacks of Opportunity, and since you count as your own ally, you get an Attack of Opportunity. Some people think that interpreting BWG that way would "make no sense or be impossible" because Broken Wing Gambit is a Teamwork Feat, and you can't use Teamwork Feats unless you have allies that have that Feat. But I have observed in the past that the description of Teamwork Feats don't actually say that. It says "in most cases," you need to have allies that have the Feat in order to use them. And that means that the simple fact that BWG is a Teamwork Feat cannot be used as justification to invoke the "make no sense or be impossible" clause.

I wasn't going to bother bringing it up since there's nothing dubious about it. There is no deliberate misinterpretation of the rules. It only requires going with what the rules say, and it is my opinion that we paying customers are not responsible for what Paizo MEANT to say: they are responsible for what they DID say. And interpreting BWG does not make it not a Teamwork Feat anymore: if the whole party goes in on BWG, then what happens is that if any of you are attacked, ALL of you get Attacks of Opportunity. Now that's a Teamwork Feat! It's a small matter anyway, since it's such a good idea that even if a GM does rule against it, it would totally be no problem to dip 3 levels in Inquisitor, 1 level in Cavalier, and/or just take the Fighter's Tactics Advance Weapon Training and get the ability to make an Attack of Opportunity whenever you are attacked as if you and all your Allies had Broken Wing Gambit and Paired Opportunist.

But if you do think this is a terrible rules exploit that requires deliberate misinterpretation of the rules, then it totally belongs on a thread called "Rules Exploits and Dubiously Legal Shenanigans."

[VoodistMonk]

As a GM, I am so freaking glad I don't have anyone at my table with stupid $#!+ like Broken Wing Gambit...

How long do turns take at tables with that BS running?

And, just as AoO are not required, what if the enemy doesn't care about your broken wing? What if they just go clobber your friend, thinking you are gimped out of the fight?

[Scott Wilhelm]

VoodistMonk wrote:

As a GM, I am so freaking glad I don't have anyone at my table with stupid $#!+ like Broken Wing Gambit...

How long do turns take at tables with that BS running?

And, just as AoO are not required, what if the enemy doesn't care about your broken wing? What if they just go clobber your friend, thinking you are gimped out of the fight?

So, in a situation with like a Cavalier or Holy Tactician Paladin gifting Broken Wing Gambit to the party so everybody is getting Attacks of Opportunity every, I don't think adding extra time to turns in this case particularly negatively affects gameplay because they are not turns spent with everyone waiting around while 1 player monopolizes the action. Rather, it longer turns where lots of people get to participate, and lots of people get bonus attacks.

When you use Broken Wing Gambit, you don't appear gimped out of the fight. You appear to have let your guard down to such an extent that your opponent gets a +2 Attack and Damage. Those bonuses are real. If a GM just sort of decides that every monster and villain in his universe now knows you have BWG and just decides not to attack you, well, then that's a GM who's cheating. GMs do that, sometimes. It would be a bit house-ruly, but it does seem reasonable to force a contested Bluff vs. Sense Motive Check every time you use BWG, but that really would slow the combat down, and that seems to be your biggest problem with it.

If a character contrives to use BWG alone the way I was suggesting, then the description of the feat itself only allows it to work against a maximum of once/opponent/turn. So, unless the character does something like combine Great Cleave with Broken Wing Gambit, we are probably only talking about 1 AoO/round.

[ErichAD]

That seems pretty entertaining. Out of curiosity, when exactly does the Holy Tactician's Battle Field Presence expire? Just reading the ability it sounds like it only ends when they can't see you, and spending the standard action to grant a teamwork feat doesn't appear to automatically replace it like the swift action does.

I guess my rules dubious submission is taking levels in holy tactician and hunter or inquisitor and using the team work bonus feat swap ability from hunter/inquisitor to cycle through bonus feats granting all of them to your team mates.

[VoodistMonk]

I have heard about GM's shutting down Panther Parry, because hey AoO aren't required...

When I was running Variel as an GMPC, I weighed the NPC Intelligence or Wisdom against Variel's Wisdom... whichever worked better in the NPC's favor. Are they smart enough not to get punched in the throat? Are they wise enough? Variel was an Elf, and a Magus (mostly), so Wisdom wasn't exactly his "thing"... it gave the NPC's a fighting chance against Variel's mix of Panther Parry, Crane Riposte, and Opportune Parry & Riposte.

Variel didn't slow down the game, though... I would preroll as many attacks as my Wisdom modifier before I started having Variel waltz around the battlefield. If I drew an AoO from movement, just take that attack/damage in order off the list. Easy-peasy....

With a whole party playing with Broken Wings, what if multiple people hit the same dude? Okay, he has a bonus on this one and this one, but I originally wanted him to attack that one... it adds more BS to track, from multiple angles. It's a nightmare.

[Wonderstell]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Ah yes, a personal favorite of mine. Broken Wing Gambit

I was referring to the Intrepid Rescuer exploit brought up earlier in this thread. Thank you for proving my point, though. Exploits are fun to come up with but they invariably end up being spread by people who have a second hand understanding of the rule contentions. It requires just one person to adamantly believe their exploit works to set of an avalanche of poorly informed players who repeat their arguments.

Another example would be the Army Across Time spell which people use for "infinite CL". 'Statistics' normally includes feats and other abilities, but in the context of the spell it doesn't because the description makes a clear distinction between statistics and teamwork feats. Explaining context and nuance whenever this gets brought up in DPR threads is just exhausting.

[Valandil Ancalime]

If you are your own ally and get an AOO for using BWG, why did Paizo print this combat trick to allow you to do just that?

Pathfinder Unchained wrote:

Combat Trick (from the Combat Stamina feat)
When an opponent with the +2 bonus on attack rolls granted by this feat attacks you, you can spend 5 stamina points to have that attack provoke an attack of opportunity from you also.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

If a GM just sort of decides that every monster and villain in his universe now knows you have BWG and just decides not to attack you, well, then that's a GM who's cheating. GMs do that, sometimes.

I completely agree with this. I had a character take the "Step Up and Strike" feats and almost all monster immediately stopped taking 5' steps. The number of times I was allowed to use it were few and far between. It was very frustrating.

[Oli Ironbar]

Did we get Holy Tactician combined with Harrying Partner and a +9 swift action aid another? That’s +9 to atk and AC for a full round, or +18 to one, if aid another from the same source stacks.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Wonderstell wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Ah yes, a personal favorite of mine. Broken Wing Gambit

I was referring to the Intrepid Rescuer exploit brought up earlier in this thread. Thank you for proving my point, though. Exploits are fun to come up with but they invariably end up being spread by people who have a second hand understanding of the rule contentions. It requires just one person to adamantly believe their exploit works to set of an avalanche of poorly informed players who repeat their arguments.

Well, I am fastidious and forthright in doing my part in informing people correctly about what the rules really say. Players must bear the main responsibility in understanding how to apply the rules when building their own characters.

[Scott Wilhelm]

VoodistMonk wrote:

I have heard about GM's shutting down Panther Parry, because hey AoO aren't required...

The last player I saw using Panther Style in PFS actually didn't do so well. He was a Monk, and those Attacks of Opportunity he was drawing were hitting, and Monks don't have a lot of hit points.

To make an effective character that does this actually takes some doing.

It's funny you should mention Panther Parry of all the Feats on that Style Tree. Panther Parry specifies that the character's attack comes before the Attack of Opportunity. The character does not have to actually wait for that AoO that was never coming anyway.

But again, if every one of the GM's monsters takes every Attack of Opportunity they can get except for the ones provoked by the 1 character in the universe that took Panther Style Feats, the problem is not the player, the build, or the Feat, but the metagaming GM.

I guess Rule 0 is your favorite rules exploit, then?

[Wonderstell]

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

If you are your own ally and get an AOO for using BWG, why did Paizo print this combat trick to allow you to do just that?

This isn't his first rodeo. Scott's stance has consistently been that using BWG by yourself is perfectly legal, and that all the overwhelming proof of the opposite simply means that Paizo made a mistake that he's willing to exploit.

Scott gladly repeats that he's "simply following what the rules say" (unlike the rest of us), but his whole argument is based on an interpretation of the rules that nobody else agrees with. He claims that the 'Own Ally' rule would apply because according to himself it makes sense that it would. It's impossible to convince him otherwise because Scott never acknowledges that his opinion isn't inherently more valuable than everyone else's opinion. Like Mark Seifter's.

We're stuck in an endless loop of Scott saying "nuh-uh" without having proved anything, because his only "proof" is his opinion which he won't change. I recommend that you simply quote the Combat Stamina rule or Mark Seifter whenever this issue comes up, so that everyone else can see absolute proof and come to the right conclusion. Do not engage in discussion because it won't lead anywhere.

====

Oli Ironbar wrote:

Did we get Holy Tactician combined with Harrying Partner and a +9 swift action aid another? That’s +9 to atk and AC for a full round, or +18 to one, if aid another from the same source stacks.

It's probably a better idea to use the Shared Training spell if available, and Covering Fire/Harrying Partners to grant the AC bonus to your whole party.

[Cavall]

I only came into this conversation to see how long it would take for Scott to say teamwork feats dont require a team and use broken wing as an example.

I was not disappointed.

I dont really have many exploits or shenanigans. I do like that a summoners pet with fast healing and sacrifice hp is basically an unending healing font out of combat. Is it an exploit? I dont know. Just seems a fun idea.

[Quixote]

At risk of derailing the threat further, I'd say that any intelligent opponent that's seen you fight before (including the previous 1-2 rounds of the combat you're currently in) is more than capable of seeing that making an AoO against the kung-fu master may not be a good idea. If four of your friends went to get the guy and now they're all suffering from an acute case of collapsed larynx, maybe...don't do that? Same with the pole axe guy with Combat Reflexes or Great Cleave, or the illusionist with mirror image--if you've been in a couple fight-to-the-death situations before, you've got enough experience to know that some situations are losing ones. Use a different approach. If you don't have one, run or surrender or die a glorious death.

It's hardly worth mentioning, but there's always the Leadership loop. I had all the numbers worked out at one point: a high-level cleric/wizard/mystic theurge who animates dead and has Leadership...with intelligent undead and cohorts who all animate dead and have Leadership...with intelligent undead and cohorts who all animate dead and have Leadership...
One of the best numerical results at the time was just to have a ton of hill giant skeletons that throw a mountain's worth of boulders at people you don't like.

The dumbest, most broken, unfun monster of a character I ever ran (for one session) was nothing more than a gnome sorcerer with the rules from 3.5's "Book of Exalted Deeds". Sacred Vow + Vow of Poverty + Vow of Non-Violence + Vow of Peace = a lvl7 full caster with AC27, a constant aura of calm emotions (DC23), weapons that are destroyed when they hit you (DC23) and things like a DC22 Color Spray or DC23 Web. And something like a +30 to Diplomacy. One of the other players said "dude, no offense...but I hate your character," to which I replied "Not unless you roll 18+ on that Will save, you don't."

[Scott Wilhelm]

Wonderstell wrote:

This isn't his first rodeo. Scott's stance has consistently been that using BWG by yourself is perfectly legal, and that all the overwhelming proof of the opposite simply means that Paizo made a mistake that he's willing to exploit.... Scott never acknowledges that his opinion isn't inherently more valuable than everyone else's opinion.

It is fair to say that I wouldn't care if it were the case that Paizo didn't intend for you to count as your own ally for Broken Wing Gambit. I have often held to the opinion that we are the customers, and they are the business who wants to have faith in their product. We paying customers are not responsible for what they meant to say. They are responsible for what they did say.

I'm the one with overwhelming evidence. I am simply reporting on what the rules say. My opinion is based on fact. I am only as stubborn as my facts.

The rules say:

Broken Wing Gambit wrote:

If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from your allies who have this feat.

It's right here.

The rules say you count as your own ally:

FAQ, Core Rulebook, GM Rules wrote:

You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."

It's right here.

Does it actually "make no sense" or is it "impossible" for you to count as your own ally? Let's look:

Broken Wing sense-test wrote:

If that opponent attacks you with this bonus, it provokes attacks of opportunity from you and your allies who have this feat.

It takes a willfully obtuse GM to say this makes no sense or be impossible based on the wording of this Feat. That is a sentence that makes sense. There is no reason why a Feat that offers your opponent a bonus to attack and damage in exchange for you getting a bonus attack should be impossible. That's exactly the kind of thing Feats are for.

Feats wrote:

feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's race and class.

It says so right here.

Wonderstell wrote:

Scott gladly repeats that he's "simply following what the rules say" (unlike the rest of us), but his whole argument is based on an interpretation of the rules that nobody else agrees with.

That is absoulte rubbish. I do not pretend to speak for all other players: that is what you are doing, and you have demonstrated no standing to speak for everyone. And what you are saying here contradicts what you saying earlier.

You wrote:

rules, as those tend to get parroted over and over until the original meaning is lost. The "you are your own ally" FAQ is probably the worst offender of them all concerning this issue because it spreads like a wildfire.

So, here you are saying that no one else interprets the rules the way I do in the very same thread as you say that my interpretation of the the you-count-as-your-own-ally rule is spreading like wildfire. You are making a bad-faith argument.

Wonderstell wrote:

Mark Seifter's.

Mark Seifter is a Paizo game designer, and he can make changes to the rules by making official rules posts. Wonderstell's quote is not an official rules post. It is not an FAQ. It is not an erratum. Wonderstell is offering Mark Seifter's opinion as evidence. Mark Seifter's opinion is better evidence than my opinion, but opinion is bad evidence. I am not offering opinion as evidence. I am showing you what the rules say. Rules beat opinions.

So Mark and Wonderstell are saying is that the fact that Broken Wing Gambit is a Teamwork Feat, that means it "makes no sense [and is] impossible" for you to count as your own ally with respect to this Feat. The evidence Mark offers is

Mark quoting Teamwork Feats wrote:

these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat

Mark is misquoting the rules, here. He wrongly omitted something that falsely changed the meaning of the rules. I know it is an extraordinary claim for me to make: a game designer misquoting the rules of his own game, so now I must show you extraordinary evidence. Here you go.

Broken Wing Gambit wrote:

In most cases, these feats require an ally who also possesses the feat

"In most cases" makes the rest of this something that can't be used to demonstrate that it would make no sense or be impossible for you to count as your own ally in this case of Broken Wing Gambit. "In most cases" is inadequate justification to ignore the FAQ. You need some other official rule: post, erratum, or FAQ. To my knowledge, there has never been shown another official rules source that officially says more on this subject.

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

If you are your own ally and get an AOO for using BWG, why did Paizo print this combat trick to allow you to do just that?

That is a good question, but you should know that is a question I have answered before. Combat Tricks are Combat Stamina rules, and both Combat Tricks and Combat Stamina rules are optional rules. See for yourself. Combat Stamina and Combat Tricks are in Pathfinder Unchained. And Pathfinder unchained is listed as an optional rule system.

What I am reporting on are the official rules.

I have asserted that when you take and use Broken Wing Gambit, you get to make an Attack of Opportunity triggered by someone attacking you, even though it says "all your allies." I have proven this by showing you the FAQ that says you count as your own ally. I have quoted the rules chapter-and-verse.

Wonderstell and others have tried to say that "it makes no sense [and is] impossible" to use Broken Wing Gambit that way because it is a Teamwork Feat, but they have all completely failed to back their arguments with good evidence. The description of Teamwork Feats does not say you need allies who have this Feat: they only say you need that "in most cases." The Combat Stamina rules say that, but Combat Stamina Rules are Optional Rules.

So, this is a dance people have with me where I report on what the rules say, and they go "nuh-uh," ignore what the rules really say, offer opinion as evidence, try to declare that I am the only one who holds my opinions that also spread like wildfire, try to say that Optional Rules trump Official Rules, and generally make one bad-faith argument after another.

Wonderstell wrote:

Do not engage in discussion because it won't lead anywhere.

And yet you keep doing it!

[Scott Wilhelm]

Quixote wrote:

At risk of derailing the threat further, I'd say that any intelligent opponent that's seen you fight before (including the previous 1-2 rounds of the combat you're currently in) is more than capable of seeing that making an AoO against the kung-fu master may not be a good idea.

That sounds reasonable. It seems to me what Sense Motive checks are for.

Quixote wrote:

If four of your friends went to get the guy and now they're all suffering from an acute case of collapsed larynx, maybe...don't do that?

Like Like this? That boy will grow up to be an engineer or something. He is the smartest one there!

Quixote wrote:

Same with the pole axe guy with Combat Reflexes

Yeah. Charging into pike hedges is one of those things you don't do.

Quixote wrote:

if you've been in a couple fight-to-the-death situations before, you've got enough experience to know that some situations are losing ones. Use a different approach. If you don't have one, run or surrender or die a glorious death.

It would also make sense to allow a Skill Check each round they see what's happening with a Circumstance Bonus that increases each round.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Wonderstell wrote:

It's probably a better idea to use the Shared Training spell if available

Okay, the Shared Training Spell is pretty awesome. That makes me sure like Magi more. I need to try to make a character that does this.

[Quixote]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

That sounds reasonable. It seems to me what Sense Motive checks are for...Yeah. Charging into pike hedges is one of those things you don't do.

If you're going to ask that your opponent roll Sense Motive, then you'd better offer to roll a Bluff. With a -10 for "sure, your friends all tried that trick a moment ago and they're all dead now, but hey! I'm totes defenseless this time. Go for it" being a "far-fetched" lie, at best. I mean, "attacking me while I seem to have let my defenses down is a good idea even though it was a terrible idea several times before" could easily be considered "impossible", as they have pretty obvious, hard proof as to the opposite of your claim. So -20, then.

But more than that, I *don't* think that's what Sense Motive is for. Combat has enough rolls without adding more, and opposed rolls to boot.
Obvious situations are obvious and don't need rolls.

[VoodistMonk]

Scott, I'm guessing the last character you seen using Panther Parry didn't have Crane Riposte to, well, parry and riposte those AoO's drawn by Panther Parry. Variel also had the actual Opportune Parry & Riposte Swashbuckler Deed, just in case Crane Riposte wasn't enough.

[Derklord]

Quixote wrote:

Obvious situations are obvious and don't need rolls.

Well, I'd say "if your friends get hurt when they hit X, you shouldn't hit X" is about as obvious as "if an optional system allows Y, it's not allowed without the optional system".

[Quixote]

Derklord wrote:

"if your friends get hurt when they hit X, you shouldn't hit X" is about as obvious as "if an optional system allows Y, it's not allowed without the optional system".

Sorry, not sure if I follow. I mean, the basis of the argument is obviously sound. To the point that it's not really an argument. Closer to an X=X situation. What are you referring to, specifically?

[haremlord]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I always thought this would be cool, especially for PFS where the GM couldn't just change encounters to adapt.

Level 1, Fighter1: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
2F1Bard1: Flame Dancer
3F1B2: Feat
4F1B3: Ability +1, Song of Fiery Gaze

Song of Fiery Gaze gives you and all your allies the ability to see through Fire and Smoke, so this character saves up and buys an Eversmoking Bottle, which makes a huge amount of Smoke to Blind the whole Battlefield, except of course, the Bard and their allies. In the following levels, the Bard takes levels in Snakebite Striker Brawler and Unchained Rogue and starts doing Sneak Attack Damage vs. Blinded opponents.

What else for this character? A half Elf or Half Orc with an Orc Hornbow, Maybe Arcane Training in Arcanist? Rapid Shot at level 3?

But at level 4, this character inflicts the Blinded Condition on everyone and makes his party immune: no Dex to AC, all terrain becomes difficult terrain, and all party members enjoy a 50% Miss Chance.

That reminded me of a plan I had once, but never got a chance to execute.

Human illusionist with racial heritage: gnome, effortless trickery, and a school familiar.

Cast audiovisual hallucination on yourself and allies, and have your familiar maintain it. Update the hallucination to create a battle map with enemies and allies highlighted, as well as illusions and traps marked, so everyone has a tactical readout. You have see invisibility? Mark that invisible opponent. You identify special targets or weaknesses? Mark them!

I never tested it in battle, tho...

[Scott Wilhelm]

Quixote wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

That sounds reasonable. It seems to me what Sense Motive checks are for...Yeah. Charging into pike hedges is one of those things you don't do.

If you're going to ask that your opponent roll Sense Motive, then you'd better offer to roll a Bluff. With a -10 for "sure, your friends all tried that trick a moment ago and they're all dead now, but hey! I'm totes defenseless this time. Go for it" being a "far-fetched" lie, at best. I mean, "attacking me while I seem to have let my defenses down is a good idea even though it was a terrible idea several times before" could easily be considered "impossible", as they have pretty obvious, hard proof as to the opposite of your claim. So -20, then.

But more than that, I *don't* think that's what Sense Motive is for. Combat has enough rolls without adding more, and opposed rolls to boot.
Obvious situations are obvious and don't need rolls.

I don't think the situation is necessarily obvious at all. Combat is confusing and things happen too fast for most people to think clearly and make considered decisions, especially melee combat. You see a guy running around getting attacked a lot and getting lots of attacks, you don't necessarily know that the attacks themselves are what is enabling him to make so many attacks in turn. But it is reasonable to give the opponents a chance to figure out what the character is up to.

Quixote wrote:

I *don't* think that's what Sense Motive is for.

Bluff vs. Sense Motive checks have a specified role in combat. And Sense Motive is a Skill that is used to tell when an unspecified something is up.

Sense Motive wrote:

You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on)

I think being up against an opponent using Panther Style Feats qualifies as "something odd going on" vis a vis Sense Motive.

Anyway, I am not positively pushing the use for any particular game mechanic for this situation. I'm only asserting that a GM using referee knowledge instead of monster/NPC knowledge to squelch a character build is at least as bad form as a player-knowledge metagaming, but it is fair to allow for the possibility for the NPCs/Monsters to correctly guess at the PC's tactics, and there are existing mechanisms in place that can facilitate this. Sense Motive is only 1 example.

[Scott Wilhelm]

VoodistMonk wrote:

Scott, I'm guessing the last character you seen using Panther Parry didn't have Crane Riposte to, well, parry and riposte those AoO's drawn by Panther Parry. Variel also had the actual Opportune Parry & Riposte Swashbuckler Deed, just in case Crane Riposte wasn't enough.

I think you are correct. IIRC, it was a Level 1 MOMS Monk with Panther Style, and he was getting his ass beat a lot.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Derklord wrote:

"if an optional system allows Y, it's not allowed without the optional system".

This statement does not stand to logical rigor. You only follow optional rules when you opt to. When you are not using the Optional Rules System, you use the official rules.

I have shown what the official rules say. You can't use an Optional Rules System to discredit the official rules. That's ridiculous.

[Scott Wilhelm]

haremlord wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I always thought this would be cool, especially for PFS where the GM couldn't just change encounters to adapt.

Level 1, Fighter1: Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot
2F1Bard1: Flame Dancer
3F1B2: Feat
4F1B3: Ability +1, Song of Fiery Gaze

Song of Fiery Gaze gives you and all your allies the ability to see through Fire and Smoke, so this character saves up and buys an Eversmoking Bottle, which makes a huge amount of Smoke to Blind the whole Battlefield, except of course, the Bard and their allies. In the following levels, the Bard takes levels in Snakebite Striker Brawler and Unchained Rogue and starts doing Sneak Attack Damage vs. Blinded opponents.

What else for this character? A half Elf or Half Orc with an Orc Hornbow, Maybe Arcane Training in Arcanist? Rapid Shot at level 3?

But at level 4, this character inflicts the Blinded Condition on everyone and makes his party immune: no Dex to AC, all terrain becomes difficult terrain, and all party members enjoy a 50% Miss Chance.

That reminded me of a plan I had once, but never got a chance to execute.

Human illusionist with racial heritage: gnome, effortless trickery, and a school familiar.

Cast audiovisual hallucination on yourself and allies, and have your familiar maintain it. Update the hallucination to create a battle map with enemies and allies highlighted, as well as illusions and traps marked, so everyone has a tactical readout. You have see invisibility? Mark that invisible opponent. You identify special targets or weaknesses? Mark them!

I never tested it in battle, tho...

That sounds diabolical.

[zza ni]

about being your own ally and teamwork feats,for what it's worth, i think some teamwork feats are meant to work for the player alongside his allies even without saying so specifically.

take a look at coordinated blast for example. it make no sense if the one using the feat is NOT counted along the allies who can use it ('oh i can nuke all over the place without hitting my friends -no matter where they stand, but i can't exempt myself since ..i guess i hate me?')

[Meirril]

Valandil Ancalime wrote:

I completely agree with this. I had a character take the "Step Up and Strike" feats and almost all monster immediately stopped taking 5' steps. The number of times I was allowed to use it were few and far between. It was very frustrating.

As a GM I think you need to create the situation where the player gets to use feats like this. After all, they took the feat. Giving the players a chance to use their abilities is a good idea.

But that doesn't mean you let the feat take control of all combat. Bad guys fall for it a few times, realize what is going on and depending on how smart the BG is they either stop or they weigh the risks vs reward.

Even if they know some enemies won't care. Wild Boars can see you have a spear with reach, they still charge and give AoO because that is what they do. A whole pack of goblins might timidly walk up to the edge of your threat range because they think the spear might kill them. Trolls are smart enough to know the threat is there, and dumb enough to arrogantly depend on their regeneration plus tough hide to ignore you're attack and charge anyways. Who the enemy is should be as important as what the threat is the PCs present.

It also depends on how much information the BG has about the party. If the party is exploring the lair of a lich that uses scrying magic to check up on his minions (or some minions escape an earlier fight and inform the boss) the BBG is going to know the tactics the PCs used in the dungeon. The BBG won't just give you an easy time like the previous encounters did, because he watched them and learned from their mistakes. That is if the BBG is cunning. If the BBG is a brute, play him as a brute. BBGs need to have a personality and make sure it comes through during the brief encounter the players have with it.

[ShroudedInLight]

Hey, don't knock the Intrepid Rescuer shenanigans. Its one of the few ways to make an entertainingly "drunken master" monk and at the very least requires additional feat investment to get going. By the time this turns on the party Wizard can start throwing around Fireballs or Stinking Clouds.

[VoodistMonk]

Aid Another.

Best shenanigans ever.

Just spread these throughout the party...
Aid Allies ability (Order of the Dragon)
Effortless Aid Investigator Talent
Gloves of Arcane Striking
Helpful (Halfling) race trait
Perfect Aid Revelation (Succor Mystery)
Rings of Tactical Precision for everyone!
Variant Channeling (Strategy)

[Wonderstell]

ShroudedInLight wrote:

Hey, don't knock the Intrepid Rescuer shenanigans. Its one of the few ways to make an entertainingly "drunken master" monk and at the very least requires additional feat investment to get going. By the time this turns on the party Wizard can start throwing around Fireballs or Stinking Clouds.

That's a weak justification. If we compare it to something similar it's like getting the full Opportune Parry and Riposte swashbuckler class feature on every single attack without any Panache Cost or Immediate Action expenditure. We both know the benefit is way stronger than what you try to downplay it as.

I call it an exploit because that's what it is. The FAQ asked you to use common sense and you're deliberately misunderstanding something to gain an advantage.

====

The Binding Ties ability of the Family Subdomain allows you to transfer any condition affecting an ally to yourself, making them immune to the condition for the duration you suffer it. If the condition is cured before the effect ends it doesn't revert back to the original ally. So if you have two Clerics they can cure any condition by granting immunity to themselves and an ally, removing the condition because everyone is immune to it.

[DRD1812]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Song of Fiery Gaze gives you and all your allies the ability to see through Fire and Smoke

And here I was wasting all my gp on goz masks. Nice!

[ShroudedInLight]

Wonderstell wrote:

it's like getting the full Opportune Parry and Riposte swashbuckler class feature on every single attack without any Panache Cost or Immediate Action expenditure.

Its better than one deed off one of the worst classes in the game so its waaaay stronger than my example of...Come and Get Me, one of the cornerstones of high level barbarian shenanigans (the best martial class)?

I'm sorry that very specifically Monkey Style Monks got a nice thing and you're grumpy about it?

[Cavall]

zza ni wrote:

about being your own ally and teamwork feats,for what it's worth, i think some teamwork feats are meant to work for the player alongside his allies even without saying so specifically.

take a look at coordinated blast for example. it make no sense if the one using the feat is NOT counted along the allies who can use it ('oh i can nuke all over the place without hitting my friends -no matter where they stand, but i can't exempt myself since ..i guess i hate me?')

Ok sure. Let's take a look at your example. Well first off yeah it's a teamwork feat, and no where does it say you dont need an ally to work. Strike one.

Second it's literally called coordinated blast. Strike two.

Third it says only allies who ALSO have the feat are exempt. Strike three.

If only there was a way to do what you want too. Oh wait. Centered spell.

So what you're saying is a teamwork feat does metamagic feat only without extra time or prep and covers allies too? For the same cost? Are you allowed four strikes? Ok strike 4.

[Scott Wilhelm]

ShroudedInLight wrote:

Intrepid Rescue Shenanigans

So, you play as a Monk who worships Kurgress and grab Combat Reflexes, Intrepid Rescue and Monkey Style by level 5.

Intrepid Rescuer allows you to make Attacks of Opportunity whenever an opponent within reach makes a melee attack against a prone ally. If you hit, they take a -4 penalty to their attack roll.

With Monkey Style, you are your own prone ally and perfectly able to defend yourself despite being prone. You basically get to attempt a Parry on every melee hit against you while prone, with a free riposte. Additionally, you get a Style Strike at 5th level and there are no rules preventing you from using flying kick while prone. This lets you move 10ft while prone and make a full attack. You're a very slow CaGM Barbarian but you get faster as you level up.

Wow, yeah. That's awesome. Dip a level in MOMS Monk. take Intrepid Rescue, and you get an Attack of Opportunity whenever anyone Attacks you.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Cavall wrote:

zza ni wrote:

about being your own ally and teamwork feats,for what it's worth, i think some teamwork feats are meant to work for the player alongside his allies even without saying so specifically.

take a look at coordinated blast for example. it make no sense if the one using the feat is NOT counted along the allies who can use it ('oh i can nuke all over the place without hitting my friends -no matter where they stand, but i can't exempt myself since ..i guess i hate me?')

Ok sure. Let's take a look at your example. Well first off yeah it's a teamwork feat, and no where does it say you dont need an ally to work. Strike one.

Second it's literally called coordinated blast. Strike two.

Third it says only allies who ALSO have the feat are exempt. Strike three.

If only there was a way to do what you want too. Oh wait. Centered spell.

So what you're saying is a teamwork feat does metamagic feat only without extra time or prep and covers allies too? For the same cost? Are you allowed four strikes? Ok strike 4.

He's not talking about not needing allies. He's talking about being your own ally. He's saying that if the caster who is in his in his own AoE can use Coordinated Blast to spare himself the AoE, too.

Your response seems completely oblique to his post.

[zza ni]

Cavall wrote:

zza ni wrote:

about being your own ally and teamwork feats,for what it's worth, i think some teamwork feats are meant to work for the player alongside his allies even without saying so specifically.

take a look at coordinated blast for example. it make no sense if the one using the feat is NOT counted along the allies who can use it ('oh i can nuke all over the place without hitting my friends -no matter where they stand, but i can't exempt myself since ..i guess i hate me?')

Ok sure. Let's take a look at your example. Well first off yeah it's a teamwork feat, and no where does it say you dont need an ally to work. Strike one.

Second it's literally called coordinated blast. Strike two.

Third it says only allies who ALSO have the feat are exempt. Strike three.

If only there was a way to do what you want too. Oh wait. Centered spell.

So what you're saying is a teamwork feat does metamagic feat only without extra time or prep and covers allies too? For the same cost? Are you allowed four strikes? Ok strike 4.

1i'm pretty sure i said alongside not alone, but that aside since this works only on allies in the aoe it'll change depend on where it hits and who. my point was the caster should also be part of the team who is not effected. if he is not his own ally then he nukes himself while being able to not nuke his allies. which make no sense since-

-2 it is named "coordinated blast" and i believe a part of being coordinated with others is making sure you yourself is in sync with what ever is going to happen. being the only-one out of sync is kinda counter-productive to the whole coordination don't you agree? i mean what do the others do to coordinate beside taking the feat and being in the aoe? it's not like the more common teamwork feats where they need to flank or threat or heaven forbid take an action. they can be 30 feet away from any enemy sunbathing and still be a part of this "coordination" if the aow is large enough.
(and don't get me started on the fact names mean zero in the rule section)

3 really now? do i need to point out that the caster is not only an ally but also have the feat? why should the caster not be a part of this effect?

4 as for the metamagic feat. it's not like paizo never made feats that can give effects that can be achieved differently but with different costs. hack there was even this prone shooter feat that gave something that was normal (no attack penalty for shooting crossbow prone, although i think they fixed it since). there are at least 3 ways an half orc can get bite attack (feat,trait and alt race ability) having different ways to achieve the same thing is COMMON!
the fact that there is a metamagic feat that allow you to do the same as this feat but replace the COST of every1 who you want to except taking a feat with making the spell a higher level slot is normal. it simply let you decide how to pay for the effect of not nuking the party. ether every1 who doesn't want to burn to death waste a feat, or the pyromaniac caster need to take a feat and use higher level spell slots. ignoring the fact that taking the teamwork feat by the entire party is the cost is not an argument.

so i guess no strikes?
but really lets take down the torches before this nice thread turn into a flaming field, all i did was side with an opinion you disagree with. how about we have a nice rational discussion using facts and logic instead of this unneeded heated argument. you seem to over-ride your logic with your anger and it takes a toll on your arguments.

[Wonderstell]

ShroudedInLight wrote:

Its better than one deed off one of the worst classes in the game so its waaaay stronger than my example of...Come and Get Me, one of the cornerstones of high level barbarian shenanigans (the best martial class)?

You forget that you were the one who compared it to Parry n Riposte first.

ShroudedInLight wrote:

You basically get to attempt a Parry on every melee hit against you while prone, with a free riposte.

And it is "waaaay stronger" than your example of Come and Get Me. I really don't understand where you were going with this. Yeah, this combo that you can get as early as level 1 is just like CaGM, except it's not a 12th level class feature that inflicts a huge attack/damage bonus to enemy attacks. You're effectively +8 AC above the Barb and there's no downside because you can just jump up as a swift action when you need to move.

ShroudedInLight wrote:

I'm sorry that very specifically Monkey Style Monks got a nice thing and you're grumpy about it?

I'm sorry that you're trying to ridicule me instead providing an argument for why it would work. Your previous two posts have just been whataboutism and now insults.

[Wonderstell]

To clarify: I'm aware that this is a thread for rules exploits (and shenanigans), which makes it the right place to share them. But when you omit the most important rule interaction to give an impression that your exploit isn't actually an exploit then you're being dishonest.

[Set]

DRD1812 wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Song of Fiery Gaze gives you and all your allies the ability to see through Fire and Smoke

And here I was wasting all my gp on goz masks. Nice!

There's a Smoke School wizard variant in, IIRC, the Element Master's Handbook, that also grants immunity to smoke or fog, and, with a touch and a standard action, the ability to grant it to another for 1 hour 3+Int mod times / day. It's not remotely as awesome as being able to affect the whole group with bard song, but if you really want to be a wizard...

[Sortis22]

Dubious

Rods wrote:

Rods are scepter-like devices that have unique magical powers and do not usually have charges. Anyone can use a rod.

Rod of Wonder wrote:

Activating the rod is a standard action...

88–90 10–40 gems, value 1 gp each, shoot forth in a 30-foot-long stream. Each gem deals 1 point of damage to any creature in its path: roll 5d4 for the number of hits and divide them among the available targets.

So it takes 6 seconds to have a 3% chance of getting 10 to 40 gp of gems. That means if you somehow activate the rod every round for 100 rounds, you on average should have 3 results giving you on average 25 gp of gems each. 100 rounds=600 seconds=10 minutes. So 10 minutes averages 75 gp. A day is 1,440 minutes long. Nonstop use over the course of a day yields average 10,800 gp in gems.

The Rod of Wonder costs 12,000 gp. Permanency on an animated object costs 15,000 gp.

If you buy a rod of wonder and just have an animated object activate it continuously in a safe area, you should be able to collect back your investment in just a few days.

This assumes you aren't presented with target issues, and the GM sticks with the "typical powers" of the rod.

[Artofregicide]

For myself, I'm a Lich of simple, classic tastes. I prefer the gamebreaking, conceptual shenanigans that fall strongly on the side of ridiculous. They're also the kind of thing that no sane player would bring to the table. I'm thinking of the awakened hummingbird deathstar currently.

Oh, and ridiculous template stacking or weird interactions between corner case monsters and templates or class abilities.

Did you know plants can be vampires? Neither did my players... until it was too late.