I like lingering performance earlier on personally -- having that luck bonus last is worth it to me. It helps with all combat forms and with saves and what have you too. Arcane strike is a bit the same to me as well.
I would consider a 2 level dip into ninja if it's allowed. Doing so would allow you to spend a swift action to get an extra attack on full attacks and open up the ninja trick that allows you to do strength of dex damage with a sneak attack (making you more than just a damage dealer). Also you can get the vanish trick for all sorts of options.
When I played an archeologist catfolk I focused on being a wild card, I knew I couldn't do the damage that the fighters could so I focused on doing almost everything else.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I disagree. Kobolds may be one of the most challenging due to the fact that they are arguably the best at pretending to be reformed. They may play nice, but they'll harbor resentment that will eventually make itself apparent at the worst possible time. Unlike bugbears, goblins and orcs, kobolds are subtle (read: cowardly) and patient.
This, getting a kobold to *comply* is fairly easy, convincing him to actually change and trust is much more difficult.
Yup, sounds like the need to prepare better next time.
Meh that hurts a bit more... scorching ray however doesn't break sixty feet until caster level 14+ though. That does put them outside of channeling though. I take it getting into a building wasn't an option?
Greater invisibility, and none of them had means to spot them or dispel it.
Detect evil much? One detects to get the general area announces the ping then the other channels for damage in the cone. If the vamps are actually meleeing you simply channel.
And that's base level paladin 101. Not even "use you spells or paladin awesomeness."
The item is within the limits of what the spell handles. The spell never states that the item has to be in a specific form only that the item has cubic measurements with the spell's tolerances. The item is a little over 2 cubic feet in this case, which means it fits.
New example. You have a barrel with water in it. You want to shrink it. You have two choices, shrink just the barrel (meaning all the water will pour out as it shrinks) or shrink the barrel with the water in it. Which you do is going to have an effect on how much material you need to cover.
It takes an equally special person to assume cubic volume of an object icludes things that aren't a part of an object.
I disagree with the way you would rule it at your table, but I am not saying anything about your character because of it. I'm of the opinion that it's literally the object itself the spell affects which while you disagree with it is a valid interpretation as well.
You can stop being a priss about our difference Ciretose. I get it -- you don't like it, but you don't actual have anything that can prove my position is invalid, so cut the holier than though B.S.
@ ciretose: Prestidigitation performs simple tricks, keeping a hat in place on your head is a pretty minor trick, more so than changing its color or changing flavor, polishing something up,etc. Now does it explicitly say it can keep a hat on your head? No and I wouldn't expect this spell to hold up to a combat manuever or even a rather windy day. But in gneral it does seem like a huge stretch to me.
As to it not crushing you when it expands? It's hollow and all of about 2 and some cubic feet of material.
Personally we've always caculated out the material the spell was affecting. After all that is what the spell states it affects. Because of this common shrunk items have been bath tubs (empty), mithral summoning circles, tents and the like. This thread is the first time I have everheard of a table that didn't do it that way.
The arguement isn't of volume but of material, we need the cubic material, not the amount that material holds.
Which means we need the surface area of the material times its thickness.
As to the air displacment stuff... really? That's where you want to go with this? Just shrinking the item is going to cause vacuum issues already then you do realise that right? But we are really going to go all physics on this MAGIC SPELL? Can we hit form of the dragon 3 medium size starting? Cause this will be quite the funny rabbit whole.
At the end of the day it is rediculous to me to say you can shrink a material in one case but not the exact same material in another case simply cause you don't like the shape.
Ciretose's point about keeping the hat on is a better one in my opinion. However I would just go with prestidigitation as my means of keeping it on.
For the record I DO NOT think wizards are super powerful or all powerful or anything of the sorts. I think they are good, and in the hands of someone who plays wizards well are very strong, but that's true of most classes.
There's only a "volume issue" because people are trying to claim empty space is part of a material.
And again it's not clothe and even if it is so what? Glass stops line of effect. Curtains (if thick enough) will stop line of effect.
This is strictly "I don't like it so no." Territory, we have the rules plain as day saying what blocks line of effect. A teepee would stop a charm person spell just as well. If the teepee had enough hp it would even block a fireball. Your just pssy cause it messes with ONE SPELL and that bugs you.
All this "little holes in it" crap is just that. IF it was woven by someone incompotent enough to leave enough full on holes to meet the line of effect requirements it would be useless as a teepee and no one would use it.
And again it could just as easily be a metal (or other material) cone.
Aelryinth you realize you are arguing total volume, then reduce that to 1/16th which reduces the total volume to 1/4000?
You are hitting the rules equivelent of double jeparody.
Also the air around the object is no more a part of the object than the air around you is part of you when you cup your hands.
Had a GM once give a colossal giant an adamantine sword. We killed the giant GM said the sword was worth about the same as a medium adamantine sword since the price of special materials didn't increase with the size increase. I figured out how many cubic feet of adamantine I had and the proceeded to melt it down and used it to make a metal teepee like what is dicussed here. Since shrink item handles turning it clothe-like for me it was even fairly floppy when shrunk. IIRC the hat was rediculously small for my character due to just how small shrink item made it.
To be clear Aelryinth you are not counting all the empty space inside the cone right? Cause I'm not seeing a teepee with 3 foot thick walls.
If we assume a 6 foot tall cone with a diameter of 5 feet with walls a generous half inch thick should eat up about 2.126 cubic feet. All the spell cares about is how much actual material is there, not how much area it covers.
Peter Stewart wrote:
That sounds closer... I did my own run up around here at some point right after beta iirc.
Lantern archons have ex rays and flight with some decent DR. They are also a third level summons. Combined with any number of AMF proof barriers and the fighter has his own issues.
Peter Stewart wrote:
Citation on that amount cause it's crap.
That would require 115 spells with 1k in expensive components, or 11 spells with 10k in expensive components.
Since there aren't that many (there are less than 100) wizard spells with expensive components in core and the vast majority are close or under about 250gp per casting, I'm calling shinanigans on you.
It's the supposed invincible build that can always win. I.E. the non-existent build that can't happen. You'll notice that I'll post things liken "when I played something like a schroedinger's wizard..." instead of the actual thing. It's a bit like lightspeed the closer you get the further you are from actual attainment.
@ AVH that's cause no one has said outside of tongue in cheek that it's possible. We've noted that a wizard can get close but we've also acknowledged we can't completely get there.
You are suggesting said build has no flaws and can take anything thrown at it at any point? Because if so I'll give it a full on once over... but I'm willing to bet it'll fall on it's face just like every other such build for every other such class does.
Because just like every time these sorts of threads come up I'm firmly on the side of no class is ever actually full on invincible.
Considering those both state they are incomplete and works in progress? Only as much as schroedinger's wizard does since it is purpetually in the same status.
And when you run out of hp you die. Of course given the infinite resources of the gm eventually the wizard runs out of tricks. That is when you retreat with the teleport or dimensional space or some such.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Citation on said threads, because all the ones I've been have always said, "Healing in combat is often less effective than other choices but sometimes it needs to happen."
Followed by people saying that we are saying you should never use combat healing, which we then explain AGAIN isn't what we said.
False dilemma: Having the option is good. Channeling to heal is generally one of the better ways to in combat heal since it is defused and harder to overcome. However there are generally better choices than healing during combat. Admitting such doesn't mean saying healing is a waste of resources (though it might not be the *optimal* use of resources) just that there often are better choices at hand.
AM BARBARIAN keeps Schroedinger's Wizard in a box. A very small box. It's so small he had to remove the limbs and rearrange things in order to make the wizard fit so he could get the lid closed.
AM BARBARIAN is schroedinger's barbarian, no one has actually posted a full build.
Well the one time I did a full on "paranoid wizard" I did take eschew material, still and silent spell, as several spell masteries. While out of combat I usually had a solution it did require time.
Personally I stayed away from the rods as those could be taken away. My main thought was if everything taken from me and I was cuffed and gagged could I still kick butt?
Yeah, sorry needed sleep.
I think you're going to hurt a lot. Bouncing back and forth between the base classes isn't going to get you much of anything as your caster level hurts and your lack of sneak attack hurts.
I personally think you could cut out the level 9~10 sorcerer and get at there.
Look at it this way: You want those sorcerer levels for an extra +1 damage.
If you instead took the AT levels you would get +1d6 from sneak attack plus the same caster levels but you would also get +1 from your bloodline abilities. Basically every sneak attack die you pick up makes up for the lack of favored class bonus since that sneak attack die gives you another die to get your bonus damage on. Getting those AT levels also means you're getting more good stuff from your prestige class.
On taking 4 ninja levels I'm 'meh' -- on the one side an extra ninja trick (plus ki point) on the other side it hurts your saves delays your spell casting more. Yes you do get an extra point of BAB but that's not as huge as it could be -- one you're already getting past +6 so you'll get an extra swing if needed (hopefully it never is) and the simple +1 isn't a huge deal when you'll be dealing with no dex touch attacks so often, and going with 5 levels in AT means another sneak attack die (which means 3 compared to 2) which means another point of bonus damage.
Personally I wouldn't go elemental on the bloodline -- I would go dragon. Doing so means an extra +1 damage per die meaning adding sneak attack to the means +3d6+6 damage instead of just +3d6+3 damage. There are plenty of spells available at all levels that you shouldn't have to use your bloodline to turn other spells into fire spells.
Finally I would personally consider not going crossblooded very carefully. Crossblooding means you won't have a spell of your highest spell level when you first gain that spell level and that can be very frustrating. Also the bonus damage isn't quite enough to me to justify not getting 5 spells known.
A bard can do those things and still fight -- even with an instrument -- again he can still cast spells, and if he chooses a one handed instrument he could even engage in melee (or with some throwing weapons ranged combat). OR he could stick to acting, dancing, singing, oratory, buffoonry or some other such perform skill and still do the above.
Now does that mean it's not 'optimal' to use an instrument? Yeah, but it's hardly gamebreakingly gimp either, and depends entirely on the instrument in use.
Oh yeah I love bards.
I disagree that a bard that is a musician (I'm taking you to mean someone that plays an instrument instead of singing) can't contribute -- they obviously can with spells or a one handed weapon and careful selection of instrument, but again I think there are plenty of ways to play a bard, all of which are viable even if they all can't be seen in a single bard.
Also again there are plenty of available performances for use in combat -- they just aren't the types you want to use or the ways you want to use them.
Also agreed to what kudaku said.
A bard that drops good hope, haste, and inspire courage on his party at the same time (or just good hope and inspire courage) has vastly contributed already: A +5 to hit +4 to damage +2 on saves +1 on AC +30(ish) feet of movement and an extra attack on a full attack for the entire party is going to account for more hits, more damaging hits and more flat out awesome than most people realize.
I mean that amount of passive contribution is enough to change an encounter and turn even a wizard into a death dealing melee machine (well, at least as good as the monk or rogue... I kid!).
Most casters just wish they could regularly contribute that much to a combat situation. The fact that the bard is then free to continue how he wishes is just icing on the cake.
Moving the goal posts isn't a very endearing trait.
It's seems to me your compliant is, "I can't have everything at once" at this point.
You were asking for a 'lead from the front type' and we pointed out how you could have that. Now you are complaining that your lead from the front type isn't a musician.
It's not that I don't like musical bards -- it just seems to me you are asking for all bards to be filling the same thing at one time.
You want a stand up lead from the front sword and shield bard -- that's also playing a flute at the same time to inspire his allies.
Which alright that's flat silly I agree. However he doesn't need to play his flute at all to inspire his allies. How does that work? Magic. Perhaps it's "music from his soul" that the other characters hear and that inspires them. Maybe the supernatural effect extends to the point of making the instrument play without him having it in the normal position.
Maybe it's none of the above and he is inspiring with speak and acting even without ranks in those particular skills.
But alright lets say he's also a musician -- it's not like the bard doesn't have good reason to invest in multiple perform skills already (what with his ability to use them as other skills). Perhaps he has some weird contraption like those one man band things to play the instrument -- maybe he has a tribal spear (iirc) that is a weapon and an instrument. Heck maybe he's a drummer with a special drum that can stand up to sword blows.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter how you fluff it as long as you meet the mechanical aspects -- which is an action type (dependent on level) have rounds left to use and provide either an auditory or visual component.
Please note that a musician bard with his hands on an instrument can still contribute: Bardic performance doesn't hinder you in anyway, so you could be casting a spell at the same time as you are performing (trumpets only "need" one hand for example) -- drum while you cast, whatever most instruments can be handled for a few seconds while you do something else and continue playing. Heck the instrument itself might cover the somatic components (horn waving and pops like marching bands do).
A sound striker bard (to point out an archetype) could conceivably deliver damage while still playing too.
Alright so what happens when the bard has no ranks in the perform skill whatsoever?
That's right, absolutely nothing.
The only bardic performances that care at all about the bard's perform skill is distraction and countersong.
Now they had (back in beta) left the skill tie in that had been part of 3.5 in... but deliberately took it out in the final rules.
It might be a good idea to go to the archived beta threads and read up on where the bard came from, those conversations we had back then can be very enlightening today.
With that said You are hitting one sentence that states one specific thing that has no mechanical influence on the ability whatsoever. I mean I could see your point of view if there was something there that stated that it relied on a specific subset of the perform skill, or if some ranks were required but as it stands a bard's basic knowledge of the perform skill is all that's referenced.
A bard is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects on those around him, including himself if desired.
You are in effect telling me that one sentence is more important than all of the following:
Which are the parts that actually tell us how bardic performance works.
Nothing in that even implies that music has anything to do with bardic performace at all, in fact the only thing we know mechanically speaking is that a bardic performance has an action cost, a number of rounds per day (based on level and charisma) and requires a visual or auditory component (possibly both) despite generally being supernatural in type (which normally requires neither).
Yes the bard uses the perform skill in some fashion to do this, but again -- how isn't described and what's more we know the bard uses skills in ways other people simply cannot do.
Like I said we don't even know what sort of perform skill is required and we know that ranks in perform are not required.
Heck lets look at the actual perform skill too:
So we know there are nine categories, but we we also know that each category employs a large variety of methods, instruments or techniques of which only a small sample of actually provided.
So my question then becomes what is the full list of methods, instruments, and techniques used in each of the nine categories of perform and are you certain that a supernatural use of those techniques by a bard that already uses these skills in ways no one else can wouldn't look, sound and be like what has be describe in the ways we are describing them?
Because I'm positive you can act heroically and inspire people by leading from the front, just as I'm certain you can pivot, dodge and strike in a flowing, graceful manner that reminds one of dancing and can inspire people to do likewise. I'm also positive that you can block and insult your opponents in such a way as to make others think they can easily do so too and inspire them to do such.
All because of your skill at performing. Besides what is a performance other than an attempt to elicit the response you want from your audience?
That's because you can't see the forest for the trees. You are too huge up on what you think you've read and what you think those words mean.
Think about it, if simply 'fighting from the front' was inspiring then the fighter should probably have the same ability right? Maybe the barbarian as well.
Fighting from the front can help someone be inspiring but in and of itself isn't going to do it.
It's that extra something that you do or say (visual or auditory components!) that inspires people. Also just because you are trained to use your skill in performance to inspire doesn't mean you are using that precise skill in the same way you would normally use it when not inspiring people. Indeed when you consider the fact that a bard can use a perform check in place of other skill checks (like using oratory for diplomacy and sense motive) it becomes obvious that while the bard is definitely drawing on an experience with perform skills he is not using it in the same way someone else (without his training) is using it.
In fact it doesn't even make sense to suggest that the pathfinder bard uses any instruments when using bardic performance. Notice that a bardic performance that has an auditory component is language dependent -- which wouldn't make sense if you were using an instrument to inspire people. A visual performance requires being seen, but that doesn't mean you are literally performing prat falls with perform(comedy) in the middle of combat, nor are you likely actually dancing or juggling anything.
You are using your knowledge of how people react to presence and you're knowledge of timing and delivery to inspire people as well as some of the actual skills as other people know it. Perhaps in this round of combat you wait until just the right moment to strike and that inspires your allies, and maybe next round you are so deft at not being hit that it continues to inspire them... maybe you took the hit well and the fact you are bleeding enrages your allies.
In the end it's all just fluff -- the only mechanical part to this is that you are spending rounds of bardic performance to provide a bonus to your allies (or penalty to your enemies) using either auditory or visual components that are generally not tied to your performance skills in any direct way.
So just what is causing the inspiration? Quite frankly magic. Most performances are supernatural abilities, which means that they won't function in an antimagic aura so at the end of the day it's magic and provided you have the mechanical parts covered exactly how you pull it off is fluff and doesn't matter -- if it's with a song, a shout, a dance like dodge, making your enemy look like a buffoon, or simply being heroic in front of your allies it's all acceptable and correct interpretations of the ability.
At the end of the day it is strictly a perception problem on what you see when you read the words not a mechanical flaw with the system.