Dirty Tactics Toolbox, Thoughts?

[Molosse]

So it's out and it's not a bad book by any stretch of the imagination. Particular favourites include the "Dirty Fighting" feat which provides an independent bonus while also serving to single-handedly remove the VAST number of prerequisites for many of the maneuver feats.

Benefit: When you attempt a combat maneuver check
against a foe you are flanking, you can forgo the +2 bonus
on your attack roll for flanking to instead have the combat
maneuver not provoke an attack of opportunity. If you have
a feat or ability that allows you to attempt the combat
maneuver without provoking an attack of opportunity,
you can instead increase the bonus on your attack roll for
flanking to +4 for the combat maneuver check.

Special: This feat counts as having Dex 13, Int 13, Combat
Expertise, and Improved Unarmed Strike for the purposes
of meeting the prerequisites of the various improved
combat maneuver feats, as well as feats that require those
improved combat maneuver feats as prerequisites.
To clarify this specific feat:
I) Provides early access to near-all combat maneuver's
II) Provides early usability regarding near-all combat maneuver's
III) Provides an additional benefit when you invest into a specific maneuver path.
And IV) Stops you having to invest into certain attributes to meat feat paths.

[Psyren]

Yep, that's a great feat. It seems the bandaid they slipped into the Stamina system for the Combat Expertise problem was well-received.

I'd like for all these stealth fixes to just get bundled up and shoved into PF 2.0 though. The wording does what it's supposed to do, but it's really kludgy and it irks me.

[Molosse]

Yep, that's a great feat. It seems the bandaid they slipped into the Stamina system for the Combat Expertise problem was well-received.

I'd like for all these stealth fixes to just get bundled up and shoved into PF 2.0 though. The wording does what it's supposed to do, but it's really kludgy and it irks me.

It'd be nice to see, since both Combat Stamina and this new feat provide alternative routes, to see a buff to the function of Combat Expertise.

For example something similar to Power Attack's scaling, or granting a specific bonus when using a shield/empty hand, in any case it'd be nice to see buff to a feat which rarely saw use as more than a pre-req to begin with, what with those pre-req's being increasingly avoided.

Got to say I was damn disappointed to not see just a bit more of a push to turn Poisons into a combat option. For example something like the Arachnids Dagger, which allows you to store upto eight does of poison at a time and you decide when it's released, as a general +1 weapon enhancement.

[Socratov]

Yep, that's a great feat. It seems the bandaid they slipped into the Stamina system for the Combat Expertise problem was well-received.

I'd like for all these stealth fixes to just get bundled up and shoved into PF 2.0 though. The wording does what it's supposed to do, but it's really kludgy and it irks me.

I agree, it feels like a lawyer wrote with the express intent to cover all bases and holes with putty. I also think it's a bit too powerful in terms of qualifying for other combat manuever feats without any prerequisites, rendering them either useless or redundant. If they had kept the counts as [abilityscore] for purposes of qualifying for [combat feats] then imo it would have been better balanced since you now have a reason to get both this and combat expertise/etc. while actually helping you focus on only 2 ability scores. Another thing could be something akin to the Lost Tradition feat where your Str, Con or something else counts as [ability score] for [relevant combat feat].

But, to be fair, it is something nice for the mundanes, so they've got that going for them...

[stack]

Doesn't help prerequisuites if you want to bullrush without STR 13 though. Can't have everything.

[Psyren]

Doesn't help prerequisuites if you want to bullrush without STR 13 though. Can't have everything.

Why the heck would you be bullrushing without Strength?

[Molosse]

Doesn't help prerequisuites if you want to bullrush without STR 13 though. Can't have everything.

Power Attack>Combat Expertise is the thought process I believe.

[stack]

Why the heck would you be bullrushing without Strength?

On a dex build, I suppose. My specific interest is for air warrior archetype elementalists (Spheres of Power) which obviously is outside of Paizo' concern, but there could conceivably be a dex build of some kind that wants to bullrush without taking power attack, maybe trying to built Speedball or something.

[Psyren]

On a dex build, I suppose. My specific interest is for air warrior archetype elementalists (Spheres of Power) which obviously is outside of Paizo' concern, but there could conceivably be a dex build of some kind that wants to bullrush without taking power attack, maybe trying to built Speedball or something.

I'm fine with Bullrush still requiring some strength, even on a Dex build. Leverage and agility can only get you so far when you're trying to shove an elephant.

[T.G. Oskar]

Not with the intention of hijacking, but this is a very interesting question: because of the topic the Dirty Fighting feat deals with...would a Paladin qualify to take it without losing its other powers? As a caster-dabbling martial character, but still primarily a martial character, that would do wonders for a Trip-based Lockdown build, particularly if combining it with Stand Still via the Steady Engagement feat. Since it saves on at least one feat and the requisite ability scores, you could flex up Greater Trip and Stand Still to make a super-Lockdown build, particularly with Dragoncatcher to get flying opponents. This is normal with any martial character, but the benefit of LoH as swift (SE eats the swift/immediate action slot, but when you're already keeping the enemy within range with AoOs, you can ignore the benefit of the feat and switch to LoH for resilience) and the boost from spells gives Paladins an edge. Since their code forbids "cheating", and dirty fighting (the concept, not the feat) is considered a form of cheating...

Any other feats or weapon special qualities that are actually useful? Does the book contain a way to play a guileful Paladin a la 3.5's Complete Scoundrel?

[Psyren]

I don't have the book and the flavor text of the feat in question was omitted, but there may be a way to use it "honorably."

And if there isn't, your pally can always beat the prereqs via Combat Stamina instead, or failing that, learn to trip the old-fashioned way.

[Molosse]

Not with the intention of hijacking, but this is a very interesting question: because of the topic the Dirty Fighting feat deals with...would a Paladin qualify to take it without losing its other powers? As a caster-dabbling martial character, but still primarily a martial character, that would do wonders for a Trip-based Lockdown build, particularly if combining it with Stand Still via the Steady Engagement feat. Since it saves on at least one feat and the requisite ability scores, you could flex up Greater Trip and Stand Still to make a super-Lockdown build, particularly with Dragoncatcher to get flying opponents. This is normal with any martial character, but the benefit of LoH as swift (SE eats the swift/immediate action slot, but when you're already keeping the enemy within range with AoOs, you can ignore the benefit of the feat and switch to LoH for resilience) and the boost from spells gives Paladins an edge. Since their code forbids "cheating", and dirty fighting (the concept, not the feat) is considered a form of cheating...

Any other feats or weapon special qualities that are actually useful? Does the book contain a way to play a guileful Paladin a la 3.5's Complete Scoundrel?

The book gives a small dialogue on how Dirty Tricks can be used for beneficial means and don't necessarily indicate an evil or chaotic character, but that's as far as I can tell you.

[Da'Shain]

Is so-called "dirty fighting" (the general practice, not the feat or the CM) explicitly described as counting as cheating anywhere?

[Psyren]

The book gives a small dialogue on how Dirty Tricks can be used for beneficial means and don't necessarily indicate an evil or chaotic character, but that's as far as I can tell you.

Good enough for me, such a passage seems aimed at saying "Yes, Paladins can use this book."

[Roadie]

I also think it's a bit too powerful in terms of qualifying for other combat manuever feats without any prerequisites, rendering them either useless or redundant.
What's wrong about being better than something that was too weak in the first place?


Not with the intention of hijacking, but this is a very interesting question: because of the topic the Dirty Fighting feat deals with...would a Paladin qualify to take it without losing its other powers?
Ignore the feat's name. What does its main benefit actually require? Flanking somebody. Paladins don't fall by flanking enemies.

[T.G. Oskar]

Ignore the feat's name. What does its main benefit actually require? Flanking somebody. Paladins don't fall by flanking enemies.

True - flanking is a tactical move, not necessarily cheating (unless the intention was going on a duel, AND you break the rules by having someone count as flanking)...but if you've heard the horror stories about DMs wanting to make you fall, you better imagine that this'll serve as ammunition. Not like it'll help you if you don't take the feat, but a RAW way to justify taking a feat that further improves one of their combat styles is always good.

@Psyren: I know of Combat Stamina, but they're optional rules. You can't always rely on them being available, much like you can't rely on, say, Bloodlines or the Desert Half-Orc (i.e., 3.5's Unearthed Arcana rules) on every table. It also depends on how it's enabled; it only works if all martial characters get Combat Stamina, or else you need to spend one more feat on it, and you STILL have to take Combat Expertise so that's 4 feats to get Improved Trip, then 1 more feat for Steady Engagement. Dirty Fighting replaces only one feat and makes achieving those builds a bit more easy without having to rely on good rolls or healthy point-buy. Despite the larger amount of feats, Paladins are still feat-starved; every feat counts.

[Psyren]

@Psyren: I know of Combat Stamina, but they're optional rules. You can't always rely on them being available, much like you can't rely on, say, Bloodlines or the Desert Half-Orc (i.e., 3.5's Unearthed Arcana rules) on every table. It also depends on how it's enabled; it only works if all martial characters get Combat Stamina, or else you need to spend one more feat on it, and you STILL have to take Combat Expertise so that's 4 feats to get Improved Trip, then 1 more feat for Steady Engagement. Dirty Fighting replaces only one feat and makes achieving those builds a bit more easy without having to rely on good rolls or healthy point-buy. Despite the larger amount of feats, Paladins are still feat-starved; every feat counts.

I know and agree with all this - but it seems to me that a group that cares about martials having nice things will allow Combat Stamina. And if they don't, well, you're probably better off not building a tripper - or indeed, any other martial class - anyway.

What it comes down to is how much Improved Trip is worth to you. 13 Int isn't the end of the world even if that's the only way to get it.

[NightbringerGGZ]

The Poison options are a mixed bag. I like the Powerful Poisoning feat, which lets you sacrifice bonus damage from Power Attack for a +1 save DC on your poison per 4 BAB. I think the DC cap of 15 + 1/2 your character level isn't necessary, but it isn't too bad of a cap either. Deep Toxin being tied to Vital Strike makes it a feat that will see very little use as you need to be going for both a Poisoning build and a Vital Strike build. Treacherous Toxin is much better, letting you forgo sneak attack damage to boost the poison DC by 1 per sneak attack dice. Personally I was pretty happy with the Affliction system added in Unchained, which makes poisons much stronger as a starting point. Toxic Spell lets you apply a poison to your spell's effects for +1 spell level. I could see that being fun for GMs to use.

The Toxicant archetype for Alchemists is interesting. You give up the Mutagen ability for the ability to secrete a poison all day long. The poison deals Int Damage plus additional effects as you level up and can affect targets for an additional round per 4 levels starting at level 4. You can also use it on a weapon starting at level 3 as a swift action for your level + Int uses per day.

[Vhaidara]

I know and agree with all this - but it seems to me that a group that cares about martials having nice things will allow Combat Stamina. And if they don't, well, you're probably better off not building a tripper - or indeed, any other martial class - anyway.

Eh. As someone who fulfills the following
1. Loves mundanes
2. Hates vancian casting
3. Is stuck in PFS for most of my gaming (I GM for my group, but no one else is willing, and I do PbP, but the progression/attrition rates are AWFUL)

I really appreciate anything that makes builds more functional. Currently my mains are my Bloodrager (on lockdown because I missed part 2 of a 3 part scenario that lets you go mythic for part 3), my UnRogue (who's going to start dipping around after 4 or 5), and my Geokineticist (who's just amusing). Planning on adding a Spiritualist to the repertoire, and I might actually make a dirty trick Spiritualist, running a Hatred Phantom

[Kudaku]

The Toxicant archetype for Alchemists is interesting. You give up the Mutagen ability for the ability to secrete a poison all day long. The poison deals Int Damage plus additional effects as you level up and can affect targets for an additional round per 4 levels starting at level 4. You can also use it on a weapon starting at level 3 as a swift action for your level + Int uses per day.

If all it loses is the mutagen, this could combo very nicely with the Treacherous Toxin feat and the vivisectionist.

[Socratov]

What's wrong about being better than something that was too weak in the first place?

-snipperino, neighbourino-

Well, I wouldn't call it too weak, and as Psyren said, waiving hte ability requirements for other feats isn't as useful since for example bullrushing with less then 13 str is not what you'd call entirely useful. Yet, it still enables you to do so. To me it's too powerful in one regard (opening up ALL of the combat maneuver feats), and quite silly, slightly useless in another. If you instead remove the prereq. business as it is and make it a bit like the Lost Tradition feat in 3.5, but for combat focused classes, that it would make for a far more balanced feat, as well as attach some flavour to the feat and open up more opportunites, including avenues for the 'smart' fighter (subbing Int for CMB and prereqs.), the dashing fighter (cha), the observant fighter (wis), the agile fighter (dex) or whatever you want (sturdy for Con and brawny for Str?). Not only would it open up new possibilities to synchronise builds around other ability scores or to discover new synergies. To me this does not enrich play, but rather shortcut the mundanes. If that is their intention, they should have reworked the feats or outright replaced the feats instead of creating a new feat that rules them all (to find them and in darkness bind them - sorry, couldn't resist).

Don't get me worng, it's good that the mundanes have gotten a new toy, but to me it's neither well designed, nor does it enrich my experience as a player playing mundane classes.

[NightbringerGGZ]

If all it loses is the mutagen, this could combo very nicely with the Treacherous Toxin feat and the vivisectionist.

The archetype gives up Mutagen and Persistent Mutagen only, so yes it does stack with Vivisectionist. I'm going to have to play with this idea tonight some.

Another big boon is that there are feats to make Sniping more effective. Expert Sniper reduces the penalty to Stealth checks when sniping by 10. This would stack with other effects for an effective penalty of 0. The Master Sniper feat lets you use Rapid Shot when you snipe, so two ranged attacks at full BAB-2. Sneaking Critical lets you apply a number of extra sneak attack dice equal to your weapon's crit modifier to sneak attacks which crit.

[Psyren]

Eh. As someone who fulfills the following
1. Loves mundanes
2. Hates vancian casting
3. Is stuck in PFS for most of my gaming (I GM for my group, but no one else is willing, and I do PbP, but the progression/attrition rates are AWFUL)

I really appreciate anything that makes builds more functional. Currently my mains are my Bloodrager (on lockdown because I missed part 2 of a 3 part scenario that lets you go mythic for part 3), my UnRogue (who's going to start dipping around after 4 or 5), and my Geokineticist (who's just amusing). Planning on adding a Spiritualist to the repertoire, and I might actually make a dirty trick Spiritualist, running a Hatred Phantom

Right, I'm glad this feat exists for PFS players. But there are other options, and Paizo can't be blamed if non-PFS groups simply choose to ignore them, and then continue to whinge about martials not getting nice things.

[Vhaidara]

Well, they don't need Stamina. They have Dreamscarred Press :smalltongue: Hell, my own homebrew recently added a similar feat that combines and counts as Martial Power, Power Attack, and Combat Expertise (+ AC, damage, accuracy, or temp HP for -damage, accuracy, or AC).

In other news, I have made my Nagaji Fractured Mind Spiritualist. He and his Anger Phantom are going to be running as flank buddies with Dirty Fighting. Going to also run them as Teamwork buddies.

[T.G. Oskar]

I know and agree with all this - but it seems to me that a group that cares about martials having nice things will allow Combat Stamina. And if they don't, well, you're probably better off not building a tripper - or indeed, any other martial class - anyway.

Something about this statement rubs me the wrong way, for some reason. Maybe it's because of how it's structured: essentially it states that a table either will accept the rule, or might as well not play the character because it's against you. Maybe there's a middle point where the table accepts that the Fighter and martials need a boost, but don't allow free Combat Stamina unless you spend a feat or are a Fighter (one of the options to introduce it). Maybe the GM thinks only pure martial characters can have it, and thus denies it to Paladins, Rangers, Magi and Bloodragers while allowing it to Fighters, Barbarians, Cavaliers, Samurai, Gunslingers and Swashbucklers - still supporting martials, but not all martials. I think it's the absolute notion of "either they accept this or better not even attempt it", which clashes a bit with your ardent defense of the system (as in; it works fine). There's a spectrum of how a table considers martial characters worthwhile, after all.


What it comes down to is how much Improved Trip is worth to you. 13 Int isn't the end of the world even if that's the only way to get it.

As written in PF? Worthless - the whole idea is to get Greater Trip for the AoO rider attack in the first place. Int 13 can be hard, though, for a class that usually doesn't depend on that level of Intelligence - you either have to sacrifice some of the stats and start with a lesser modifier, or get a healthy amount of point-buy, or hope to get awesome rolls to meet it. You don't get much other than...one extra skill point per level and maybe a boost to Knowledge checks with that level of Intelligence, anyways - there's no synergy to exploit that can justify getting Int so high, when you could use the points to boost something else (maybe Dex, which nets you a boost on your AC, your initiative, your worst save and so forth).

[squiggit]

I like the feat.

Now I wish Paizo would give me some stuff in the other direction and give some feat, archetype or class support for martials who can actually utilize their mental stats in the first place. There's a few specific instances (things with pools want a mental stat to keep their pool up, a few archetypes have class features either directly or indirectly tied to a mental stat) but all of them are pretty limited in scope and I'd love to see it explored more.

[TheIronGolem]

I like this feat, and I don't.

I like it because it helps ease the burden of unnecessary feat taxes, and more importantly because it shows that Paizo has at last acknowledged the problem thereof (at least in regards to combat maneuvers).

I don't like it because it's kind of a half-measure; Paizo is essentially trying to feat their way out of a problem that they feat'ed their way into. The real fix would be to rework the combat maneuvers so that they don't need a big feat investment to work in the first place. I do understand that this would have problems of its own, but it still leaves us with a slightly cruftier game than we otherwise would have.

Still, should there be a "Pathfinder 2.0" at some point in the future, this gives me hope that they'll be saner about how maneuvers work from the start.

[Psyren]

Something about this statement rubs me the wrong way, for some reason. Maybe it's because of how it's structured: essentially it states that a table either will accept the rule, or might as well not play the character because it's against you. Maybe there's a middle point where the table accepts that the Fighter and martials need a boost, but don't allow free Combat Stamina unless you spend a feat or are a Fighter (one of the options to introduce it). Maybe the GM thinks only pure martial characters can have it, and thus denies it to Paladins, Rangers, Magi and Bloodragers while allowing it to Fighters, Barbarians, Cavaliers, Samurai, Gunslingers and Swashbucklers - still supporting martials, but not all martials. I think it's the absolute notion of "either they accept this or better not even attempt it", which clashes a bit with your ardent defense of the system (as in; it works fine). There's a spectrum of how a table considers martial characters worthwhile, after all.

I say it works fine because it does. But I am indeed capable of acknowledging the flaws in the system, including my very first post in this thread.

And you're right, Paladins can function fine without Stamina and thus they may not be granted CS for free. But I can take that a step further - they can function fine without tripping too. But even if your paladin absolutely, positively must be a tripper in order to function, 13 Int is not some insurmountable barrier. That's all I'm saying.

So if your GM denies Stamina because paladin, and denies Dirty Fighting because paladin, you suck it up and get 13 Int, or you choose not to be a tripper and kick ass anyway.


Now I wish Paizo would give me some stuff in the other direction and give some feat, archetype or class support for martials who can actually utilize their mental stats in the first place. There's a few specific instances (things with pools want a mental stat to keep their pool up, a few archetypes have class features either directly or indirectly tied to a mental stat) but all of them are pretty limited in scope and I'd love to see it explored more.

Int has plenty - Kirin Style, Studied Combatant, Canny Defense etc.

[Andreaz]

I like the feat.

Now I wish Paizo would give me some stuff in the other direction and give some feat, archetype or class support for martials who can actually utilize their mental stats in the first place.
Reminds me of 3.5's combat focus chain...and it's houseruled version that was composed of "powerful feats with some utility" instead of "meh feats with some utility"

[Castilonium]

School transmutation; Level alchemist 2, cleric 2, druid 2, shaman 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (an apple seed)
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw Fortitude negates (harmless); Spell Resistance
yes (harmless)
The body of the target creature gains a metabolic response that
allows it to benefit from normally deadly toxins. When a poison
would cause ability damage to the target creature, the target
instead gains a +4 alchemical bonus to that ability score. The
spell then immediately ends, but the bonus lasts for a number
of minutes equal to the amount of ability damage the poison
would have caused. If the poison would deal more than one
type of ability damage, each bonus has a separate duration.
If the poison has effects other than ability damage (such as
unconsciousness or ability drain), these effects apply normally.
This spell affects only a single poison; if multiple poisons affect
the target simultaneously, this spell prevents only ability
damage and grants the appropriate

This is a long duration pre-buff that gives you a +4 alchemical bonus to certain ability scores, which stacks with enhancement bonuses. Sometimes even more than one at once. Familiars and animal companions can inflict a poison on you to save you action economy. Cast this spell on your fighter, and when combat starts, have your compsagnathus familiar bite them to give them a +4 alchemical bonus to strength. Have a Pooka improved familiar? Have her sneeze on you to give you +4 to both wisdom and charisma.