Inventor Build Help


Advice

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:

Follows the guidance laid out in the CRB around pre-buffing >> is accused of exploiting the system.

Ok Humble.

The crb already points out it gives a huge advantage ( which obviously results in lowering the encounter difficulty), and also puts a warning for players ending up looking for, or expecting, powercreep all the time ( which is what the whole discussion was about ).

The CRB also says: "If the players have the drop on their foes, you usually can let each character cast one spell or prepare in some similar way, then roll initiative."

It does NOT say lowering encounter difficulty is bad. Because it isn't. It also doesn't say to allow it every time, or to forbid it every time. But you're not exploiting the system by doing what the book says you should "usually" do.

TTRPGs are not video games. You're not supposed to create a cookie cutter experience with prescribed difficulty levels. Nor is the divide between exploration mode and encounter mode supposed to be going from a cut scene where you can't control your character to a boss fight where you can. You're supposed to treat it as one immersive experience, where what is happening in fiction determines what you can do.

Exploration mode is really just supposed to be a convenient time saver to stop people from rolling pointless perception checks on every five foot square of hallway, not a bagel preventing characters from doing things they can totally do in fiction.


Captain Morgan wrote:


It does NOT say lowering encounter difficulty is bad. Because it isn't. It also doesn't say to allow it every time, or to forbid it every time. But you're not exploiting the system by doing what the book says you should "usually" do.

It doesn't have to say it's bad or good, as it's just a fact.

Meaning that giving an extra round to players lowers the encounter difficulty, period.

What the players think about it in terms of degree ( it does impact a lot, it doesn't impact that much, it depends the party composition, it depends the situation, etc... ) is not relevant in the end, as it may vary for several reason from player to player.

The fact it doesn't say to allow it all the times or to forbid it all the time is the current discussion's topic I think.

My point is just that, regardless the outcome would be yes or no, the group would push towards that direction to get an advantage if they know there's a chance to get a concrete ( extra round / 1 precast per player) bonus.

Even allowing it 1 out of 10 times would influence the party decisions.

Ps: it doesn't say you should usually do, but "if the circumstances are..., you usually can let players... " Which is quite different.

Crb doesn't say you should do it, but that if there's a given situation you consider ok, you should give 1 precast ( aka don't let them cast 4 spells each).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


It does NOT say lowering encounter difficulty is bad. Because it isn't. It also doesn't say to allow it every time, or to forbid it every time. But you're not exploiting the system by doing what the book says you should "usually" do.

It doesn't have to say it's bad or good, as it's just a fact.

Meaning that giving an extra round to players lowers the encounter difficulty, period.

Obviously. But so what? What's the problem with lowering the difficulty? What's the problem with players trying to gain advantages as long it doesn't slow the game down? What's wrong with them trying to maximize their character's performance and safety?

PF2 is a hard game where you can't remove the chances of a bad roll making you fail and where charging into every fight without a plan or prep will lead to your character taking dirt naps. Why are you trying to make it harder?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Also, I find this idea that anything with an action icon being forbidden in exploration mode to be asinine. Do you forbid the use of Subtle Dampeners for Sneaking outside of combat? Would you not let the Inventor use Explosive Leap to reach a rooftop in Exploration mode? What about using Seating Restoration to patch people up between fights?


Captain Morgan wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


It does NOT say lowering encounter difficulty is bad. Because it isn't. It also doesn't say to allow it every time, or to forbid it every time. But you're not exploiting the system by doing what the book says you should "usually" do.

It doesn't have to say it's bad or good, as it's just a fact.

Meaning that giving an extra round to players lowers the encounter difficulty, period.

Obviously. But so what? What's the problem with lowering the difficulty? What's the problem with players trying to gain advantages as long it doesn't slow the game down? What's wrong with them trying to maximize their character's performance and safety?

An encounter is built keeping in mind a party size and level, talking about a random AP, and doesn't involve precast ( unless specifically pointed out).

A homebrew campaign can also keep into account the party composition, as well as getting data from the previous encounters.

Once the difficulty is given, if the players prefer a lower difficulty for encounters, then they may go for it ( or the DM could put less enemies or weakened versions of them).

Lowering the difficulty is not a problem if either players and DM are ok with that ( whatever the reason).

I prefer more challenge.

But this doesn't mean we don't send a scout ahead, move under the effects of invisibility or similar , as we like to know what's ahead, eventually trying to recognize the enemiesenemies, because there's "no reward". Some other times we recklessly storm in the new room, kicking down the door.

Ps: exploration activities meant to deal with environment, or hp recovery, are perfectly fine.

But I suppose you knew this wasn't an issue to begin with, as the discussion has always been about getting an unrequired advantage for the current fight.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


It does NOT say lowering encounter difficulty is bad. Because it isn't. It also doesn't say to allow it every time, or to forbid it every time. But you're not exploiting the system by doing what the book says you should "usually" do.

It doesn't have to say it's bad or good, as it's just a fact.

Meaning that giving an extra round to players lowers the encounter difficulty, period.

Obviously. But so what? What's the problem with lowering the difficulty? What's the problem with players trying to gain advantages as long it doesn't slow the game down? What's wrong with them trying to maximize their character's performance and safety?

An encounter is built keeping in mind a party size and level, talking about a random AP, and doesn't involve precast ( unless specifically pointed out).

No it doesn't. An encounter can't possibly be the same difficulty for every party in every situation. A ghost encounter is going to be significantly easier if the party has a spirit instinct barbarian isntead of a precision Ranger. A haunt becomes significantly more dangerous if no one in the party has religion or heal spells. There's also nothing saying you can't precast in APs, or shouldn't.

Nor is precasting comparable to reducing the number of enemies or applying the weak template. Precasting is rewarding intelligent play that flows naturally from the existing fiction, not altering the fiction to make things easier.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote:


Ps: exploration activities meant to deal with environment, or hp recovery, are perfectly fine.

But I suppose you knew this wasn't an issue to begin with, as the discussion has always been about getting an unrequired advantage for the current fight.

Who cares if it is required? How do you in-fiction explain why one action icon works and the other doesn't? It is arbitrary and it is meta gamey.


Captain Morgan wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


It does NOT say lowering encounter difficulty is bad. Because it isn't. It also doesn't say to allow it every time, or to forbid it every time. But you're not exploiting the system by doing what the book says you should "usually" do.

It doesn't have to say it's bad or good, as it's just a fact.

Meaning that giving an extra round to players lowers the encounter difficulty, period.

Obviously. But so what? What's the problem with lowering the difficulty? What's the problem with players trying to gain advantages as long it doesn't slow the game down? What's wrong with them trying to maximize their character's performance and safety?

An encounter is built keeping in mind a party size and level, talking about a random AP, and doesn't involve precast ( unless specifically pointed out).

No it doesn't. An encounter can't possibly be the same difficulty for every party in every situation. A ghost encounter is going to be significantly easier if the party has a spirit instinct barbarian isntead of a precision Ranger. A haunt becomes significantly more dangerous if no one in the party has religion or heal spells. There's also nothing saying you can't precast in APs, or shouldn't.

Nor is precasting comparable to reducing the number of enemies or applying the weak template. Precasting is rewarding intelligent play that flows naturally from the existing fiction, not altering the fiction to make things easier.

Any AP is made not with precast in mind, not knowing whether or not it would be usedused ( in what encounters the DM would allow it or not)

It's made for a party of 4, and encounters keep into account the party level.

I don't really get what you answered at all.


Captain Morgan wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:


Ps: exploration activities meant to deal with environment, or hp recovery, are perfectly fine.

But I suppose you knew this wasn't an issue to begin with, as the discussion has always been about getting an unrequired advantage for the current fight.

Who cares if it is required? How do you in-fiction explain why one action icon works and the other doesn't? It is arbitrary and it is meta gamey.

Hmm.

It was you the one making assumptions how I would have dealt with other situations not combat related.

I just said that ooc situations not meant to gain an in combat advantage in terms of extra combat rounds are ok with me


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm arguing that your stance against pre-buffing is arbitrary, unsupported by the rules, unfun, and anti-immersive. "Unnecessary" is an irrelevant word you keep throwing around. You can't know what is necessary in a game of chance. What if a PC gets killed that would have lived with a prebuff? What if the party TPKs? Was that action necessary? What if the party still wins but the fight was so grueling everyone gets demoralized and quit?

Disallowing pre-buffing is no different than disallowing ghost touch against incorporeal foes, or cold iron against demons. None of it is strictly required, but they are things characters can do in preparation to make things easier. By forbidding pre-buffing you're just punishing classes that can do it and making them worse than classes who abilities are always on. Congratulations on maintaining fighter supremacy I guess.

Some builds just perform better in certain situations, and a situation that allows pre-buffing is no different than a situation where you can target an enemy weakness in that regard. In this specific case, the Inventor trades having a chance of failure on their buff action (potentially wasting an action in combat) for occasionally being able to pre-use if (and therefore gain an action in combat.)


Captain Morgan wrote:
I'm arguing that your stance against pre-buffing is arbitrary, unsupported by the rules, unfun, and anti-immersive.

Unfun not at all, as we prefer a proper challenge.

Anti immersive is not a big issue ( but I can see some groups be like "why can't I cast before?" as anti immersive), mostly because with this 2e combat is imo the best part ( see the previous point).

Arbitrary and unsupported you can have a point, though I do expect the precast as an occasional approach the DM may give, depends the situation.

The game warns about using it all the time ( aka players pushing towards it or expecting it to be granted), but in the end is up to the table whether to allow it, how much, and when.


If you take a 16-Intelligence level 1 Inventor (I think it's quite classical), they have 10% to gain a +3 in damage through Overdrive, 50% chance to gain a +1 and 40% chance to fail (including 5% chance to take one point of damage). There's not even a point in using it as your first combat action considering how bad it is.

I'm with Captain, the low efficiency of Overdrive really pushes to use it outside combat. Once the combat is started, it's not that interesting, especially at low level.


I think that a one cost activity weights way less than a 2 cost ( whether it's a spell or not), for what concerns actions management.

Assuming 4 rounds of combat, I think it makes perfectly sense to overdrive ( + stride + strike) on turn 1, to benefit from extra damage during the combat.

But maybe it would end up just covering a normal strike by round 4.

Don't know. I think I'd probably activate it anyway for critical hits.

But I think we are moving more towards the FA dilemma ( by how much it increases the characters power)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

Ultimately, consult with your GM on whether or not as an Inventor there is an issue with you trying to regularly use Overdrive when you expect to enter combat. Otherwise expect that you will use it as your first action on your first turn (probably).

Curtailing that debate, does anyone have proposed builds to help me as a guide?

to try to get this back on track:

my own halfelf armor inventor (free archetype) looks like that:

level 1: tamper
level 2: searing resotration, bastion dedication
level 4: gadjet specialist, disarming block
level 6: megavolt, shielded stride
level 8: manifold modifications, reflexive shield
level 9: monk dedication
level 10: quick shield block, flurry
level 12: gigavolt, gorilla stance
level 14: unstable redundancies, whirling throw (<- just hit 14 actually, havent played out any session at that level yet)

for my armor innovations i've got:
metallic reactance, muscular exosceleton, heavy construction

usually i have prepared 2 blast boots gadget, 1 clockwork googles. Sometimes i prepare a camouflage suit to give to the party
I find that i have quite a flexible array of actions each round.

usually i use my reaction to activate reactive shield, and then my extra reaction to shield block. Unstable action is usually a Zap, although i have used searing in a pinch when we were getting smacked around some times. I dont usually hurry to go into stance, that's usually around round 2-3 depening on if i have to Zap on 2 or not.

defensive wise, having heavy armor+shield, plus resists on 3 elements (i do use a ring for my fire resistance), plus the piercing resistance from the armor, and the shield block, I feel quite sturdy.

mobility wise i do have 45 speed, i can stride 20 without provoking if needed, i can jump about 100-110 if needed. The times i din't get to my target in 1 action are measured in the fingers of one arm.

i usually open up with overdrive+stride+flurry, and then follow up with either stance+flurry+"3rd action" or flurry+zap. As far as zap goes, i've often been using the non-unstable version after a flurry if i can hit 2 targets with it as sort of a flurry+"pseudo electric arc" routine to bypass the MAP accumulation.

"3rd action":
having raise shield, tamper, whirling throw, and a pretty amazing athletics for maneuvers (courtesy of muscular exosceleton giving an extra +2) gives a plethora of 3rd actions. From ways to hinder foes, control the battlefield, debuff, protect myself.

And flurry with the static boost of overdrive plus the generic 2 attacks for 1 action has been more than enough offensive wise to actually feel that i am contributing pretty heavily damage wise for the party.

Having the unstable zap also feels like a great boon the way the party is playing, where we usually do make use of heavy AoE due to how the party is composed.

Overall, i feel very happy with how the character is performing.


Thanks.

It's interesting, I hadn't considered doing an unarmed strike build.

I'm curious why you went with bastion dedication, when the heavy construction innovation appears to supply you with what you need to wear and use your armor properly. I guess it was free and you look like you picked up a bunch of shield related feats.

What would you have done if you didn't get the free archtype?


Claxon wrote:

Thanks.

It's interesting, I hadn't considered doing an unarmed strike build.

I'm curious why you went with bastion dedication, when the heavy construction innovation appears to supply you with what you need to wear and use your armor properly. I guess it was free and you look like you picked up a bunch of shield related feats.

What would you have done if you didn't get the free archtype?

bastion is irrelevant to the armor.

(did you perhaps confused it with Sentinel?)

the one affects your shield, heavy construction affects your armor.

bastion allows me to use all 3 of my actions offensively if needed since i can rely on reactive shield to raise my shield, and it also grants me an extra reaction for shield block, plus all the other goodies like moving without provoking, getting even higher bonuses to reflex saves, and etc.

if i didnt have free archetype i would have probably went with something like:

tamper
bastion
searing
megavolt
shielded stride
monk
flurry
quick shield block
unstable

basically cut down on the fluff and extra actions, it would limit my extensive toolkit but leave most of my core stuff untouched.

the only one that i would deeply miss would be the gigavolt, but overall i feel like an extra reaction (with my gear that's basically 15hp/turn negated) is stronger.


HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
HumbleGamer wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:


It does NOT say lowering encounter difficulty is bad. Because it isn't. It also doesn't say to allow it every time, or to forbid it every time. But you're not exploiting the system by doing what the book says you should "usually" do.

It doesn't have to say it's bad or good, as it's just a fact.

Meaning that giving an extra round to players lowers the encounter difficulty, period.

Obviously. But so what? What's the problem with lowering the difficulty? What's the problem with players trying to gain advantages as long it doesn't slow the game down? What's wrong with them trying to maximize their character's performance and safety?

An encounter is built keeping in mind a party size and level, talking about a random AP, and doesn't involve precast ( unless specifically pointed out).

A homebrew campaign can also keep into account the party composition, as well as getting data from the previous encounters.

Once the difficulty is given, if the players prefer a lower difficulty for encounters, then they may go for it ( or the DM could put less enemies or weakened versions of them).

Lowering the difficulty is not a problem if either players and DM are ok with that ( whatever the reason).

I prefer more challenge.

But this doesn't mean we don't send a scout ahead, move under the effects of invisibility or similar , as we like to know what's ahead, eventually trying to recognize the enemiesenemies, because there's "no reward". Some other times we recklessly storm in the new room, kicking down the door.

Ps: exploration activities meant to deal with environment, or hp recovery, are perfectly fine.

But I suppose you knew this wasn't an issue to begin with, as the discussion has always been about getting an unrequired advantage for the current fight.

What are you talking about?

You're claiming Paizo doesn't know players use scouting and build for stealth allowing them to cast buffs prior to engagement?

I know how I handle this. I have them roll initiative when they start casting. But due to where the players are, the enemy can't really do anything and may not know they are there. I track rounds, initiative, and movement as the party goes.

I cannot imagine at all that PF2 designers ever intended to make scouting useless and create a situation where the players could not scout, learn what is at an encounter, and cast in preparation.

I don't think encounter challenge ratings are designed with any of that in mind. Same as if the enemies conduct an ambush and prepare in advance as well.

I'm really not sure where you're getting this idea from. It's like you think due to game design players suddenly can't do something that some groups have been doing for years and continue to do.


I am poiting out that because it's something which is not always given ( whether because the situation or the DM), meaning there's no way for those who build APs to know whether it would be used or not in every single encounter.

In addition to this, the rules mentioning "if you go this, you arc going to give the players a big advantage" enforces it being an extra thing, as it indirectly affects the difficulty.

Finally, you can check every encounter in any AP, split them into numbers, and replicate it with the given rules ( meaning you can create the same encounter, with the same given difficulty, following the rules for the creation of an encounter)

So, to make a long story short, leaving apart for a moment whether a group use precast a lot, a little or not at all, it's clear ( aka there are facts that supports it) that every encounter is created without having precast in mind ( no way to establish whether it would be used or not in that specific encounter, addressed as a big advantage if conceded, every AP encounter can be split down and recreated by just following the encounter creation rules, which don't consider precast in their calculations ).

And again, the fact AP encounters are made in a specific way has nothing do to with to what degree a group uses precast.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That is still an irrelevant point, though. Not allowing people to use particular strategies because it makes things easier just being... Anti strategy really.


Captain Morgan wrote:
That is still an irrelevant point, though. Not allowing people to use particular strategies because it makes things easier just being... Anti strategy really.

Well, Irrelevant is subjective, as it's just information about how some concepts are conceived.

As for forbidding it, you got me wrong.

Our group is fine with using combat stuff during the encounters ( for what it matters, using stoneskin during exploration is something we sometimes use, since it lasts 20 min and trades off parts of its efficiency ), so there's no imposition but just a choice mostly concerning balance, giving up flavor for it ( in terms of "even though it would be normal to prepare themselves before the fight, we roll for initiative and then everybody uses their actions" ).

But still we make use of exploration and stealthy approaches ( gather information, sending a scout, scrying, etc... ) when we want too ( our mileage may vary from day to day ).

And I know this somehow all shifted to a balance perspective since the start, but in the beginning my concerns were about planning the character action management as it was an always granted possibility ( meaning something like "when you play an inventor/spellcaster, just cast overdrive/randomspell before the combat starts as it lasts 1 min" ).


Team, could we please stay on topic in this thread.

If you want to debate the validity of pre-buffing can you take it over to the rules forum?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My bad Claxon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, sorry about it.


Thanks guys!

What about skills for Inventor?

Obviously Inventor gets legendary crafting for no cost.

What other skills pair well? I've been looking at athletics (with assurance) as a possible no MAP 3rd action to trip or grapple.

I'm currently planning on being a strength based armor inventor who will pick up the heavy construction innovation so dex will stay at 12. I intend to invest in str, con, int, and wis (after getting 12 dex).

Currently looking at Automaton because I can grab flight for an ancestry feat, as well as integrate my weapon into the body of my character (at this time I'm planning for bastard sword as a 1 handed weapon I can two hand for d12 damage). The gnome hook hammer could be good if I do end up focusing on athletics. However, I am open to other options.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Athletics work, sure. However, this is somewhat hard to answer in a vacuum because it depends on what niche needs filling in your party and campaign. In general, if you've got the highest intelligence you should probably focus on intelligence based skills. Arcana is the best pairing for magical science, and Occultism is nice if you want to really emphasize the weird part of mad science. Society can also be super important in some games.

Consider a background lore beyond the obvious, because engineering lore has too much overlap with Crafting. And don't sleep on Additional Lore. If you can figure out what your biggest opposition will be, taking Lore (main monster type) or Lore (evil organization) is brilliant. It works even better when you're able to substitute it on a knowledge skill you'd otherwise need wisdom for, like demon lore or undead lore.


Claxon wrote:

Thanks guys!

What about skills for Inventor?

Obviously Inventor gets legendary crafting for no cost.

What other skills pair well? I've been looking at athletics (with assurance) as a possible no MAP 3rd action to trip or grapple.

I'm currently planning on being a strength based armor inventor who will pick up the heavy construction innovation so dex will stay at 12. I intend to invest in str, con, int, and wis (after getting 12 dex).

Currently looking at Automaton because I can grab flight for an ancestry feat, as well as integrate my weapon into the body of my character (at this time I'm planning for bastard sword as a 1 handed weapon I can two hand for d12 damage). The gnome hook hammer could be good if I do end up focusing on athletics. However, I am open to other options.

I don't find the Inventor lacking 3rd actions as described above, so I don't feel assurance is that needed as much as other martials needed.

For my own I've gone heavy on Acrobatics as well for the excellent skill feats, athletics cause str based melee, as well as Arcana because of a more "magetech" approach RP wise.


I don't find an obvious answer to your question, Claxon. Athletics gives you more third actions but as Shoudb said the Inventor is quite heavy on action economy so it's not really required.
If your party is low on Intelligence (which is quite common), I'd certainly take all of the Intelligence-based skills to cover that area with massive bonuses. Society is rarely decisive but very often rolled so it's nice to be good at it. Arcana and Occultism are rare (besides Occult and Arcane casters, nearly no one raises them) but they tend to overlap, so I'd start with one and only take the second one later.
Otherwise, just take what you like.


I do see the point on athletics. Especially if I do pick up tamper. It might be worth getting to trained in athletics (because I'll have a lot of skills that can be trained).

I had planned to take all the int based knowledge skills to trained, but wasn't sure which sure which to advance to legendary.

It sounds like maybe I'd need to meet with the group (which doesn't exist yet as this is purely hypothetical) to decide which skills could really use my focus.

But yeah, thinking about Inventor action economy there are plenty of things to do that I don't need to use athletics as a filler.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Athletics should definitely be trained, yeah. Honestly I recommend training in athletics for most characters because even climbing a ladder in combat is a DC 10 check. I'm a big fan of Assurance Athletics even if you don't use it for maneuvers, because exploration checks to climb and swim often use fixed DCs. If you can hit the DC to climb a surface with Assurance you can scale it as high as you want with zero risk.

I also agree with Bidi that you should take Arcana or Occultism to Legendary but probably not both.


Claxon wrote:

Team, could we please stay on topic in this thread.

If you want to debate the validity of pre-buffing can you take it over to the rules forum?

Yay, sorry I got carried by the discussion.

Claxon wrote:

Thanks guys!

What about skills for Inventor?

Obviously Inventor gets legendary crafting for no cost.

What other skills pair well? I've been looking at athletics (with assurance) as a possible no MAP 3rd action to trip or grapple.

I'm currently planning on being a strength based armor inventor who will pick up the heavy construction innovation so dex will stay at 12. I intend to invest in str, con, int, and wis (after getting 12 dex).

Currently looking at Automaton because I can grab flight for an ancestry feat, as well as integrate my weapon into the body of my character (at this time I'm planning for bastard sword as a 1 handed weapon I can two hand for d12 damage). The gnome hook hammer could be good if I do end up focusing on athletics. However, I am open to other options.

Since you are planning to use a bastard sword for the Two-Handed trait purpose, have you considered raising dex to 14 in order to get the fighter dedication for either Dueling Parry and Two Handed assault?

The former would give you a +2 AC as if you were wielding a shield, if needed ( since you were wondering about your third action too ), while the second would deal a big hit with one action ( without having to worry about shifting your grip ).

As for skills, I admit I am not a big fan of Assurance Athletics.
I'd definitely go with Acrobatics ( tumble through, kip up, nimble crawl, cat fall ) and Arcana ( how is treated Unified theory at your table? ).

If you can go with godless healing, also assuming you are without a offhand, I'd definitely consider medicine too ( there's no rule for medicine on automatons, isn't there? ).


Dual-handed assault could be very useful.

As far as I can see, medicine works normally on automatons.


I find master in acrobatics to be nice to have for all melee characters. There seem to be a lot of monsters that auto trip you, so kip up is very nice. Kip up also saves an action when you are dropped to zero hit points. I think it's one of the best skill feats to have.

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Advice / Inventor Build Help All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.