Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hand of the Inheritor

AerynTahlro's page

696 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 696 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

dragonhunterq wrote:
It is unrealistic to assume (and it is an assumption) that (Su) acts differently in this respect without something to specifically say it acts differently. The fact the (Su) doesn't say it overrules the ranged attacks rules is quite telling in itself.

I do not see why it is unrealistic to speculate that a ruling on one type of ability does apply to a different ability type. It is an assumption that Supernatural doesn't act differently.

That said, I have agreed with your stance at least twice in this thread as being the likely RAI. Unfortunately, my point still stands that it is a gray area. A FAQ on AoO's+Spells+Rays is a good jump point to base unlisted answers such as this one, but it is not final authority on it.

No matter how many times it is said that "ranged attacks provoke", that does not change the fact that specific rules can overrule the general rule, and the only specific rule regarding Supernatural abilities and AoO's indicates that there isn't an AoO. There is a direct conflict of specific vs general here, and typically when that occurs the specific overrules the general.

I understand that you are pushing your stance hard on this, and I appreciate that input because that is partly what I was looking for in this. But we're going in circles on what is clearly a gray area. The rules do not state anywhere in plain text that "ranged attacks granted by a Supernatural ability provoke an AoO". The abilities themselves do not indicate that it provokes at any point. We have a specific rule saying 'no' and a general rule stating 'yes'.

I'm not trying to exploit the rules, mess with a GM, or anything like that. I happened to find something in the rules that opens a gray area that for some reason has not been answered and I would like to know with certainty what that ruling is.

dragonhunterq wrote:
Spell like abilities also don't say that the ranged aspect provokes.

Correct. But Spell-like abilities are also listed in the previously referenced chart as provoking in the first place. The only clarification needed there was how many times it provoked. The difference here is that the Supernatural ability has a hard NO for AoO's, which can be open for interpretation.

If you can say "there is a rule that states that ranged attacks provoke" and I can counter that with "there is a specific rule on this ability type that shows that it doesn't provoke", then a clarification is needed. It bothers me that you can't concede that point.

dragonhunterq wrote:
The FAQ makes it perfectly clear that the ranged attack is separate from activating the ability.

The FAQ makes it clear that there are two points to provoke AoO's with a ranged spells.

As supernatural abilities are governed by different rules than spells, I don't see a FAQ on magic spells applying to supernatural abilities.

dragonhunterq wrote:

It really doesn't matter whether that ability is supernatural or spell like - the ranged attack is a separate and distinct part of the action that provokes in and of itself.

For supernatural effects to not provoke at all then the spell-like ability would have to only provoke once, the casting and the ranged attack would have to be considered one inclusive act.

That may be RAI, but it's not RAW. As I pointed out before, the chart does not state that the "no AoO" only applies for the activation of the ability.

dragonhunterq wrote:

So, as there is nothing in the rules for (Su) abilities that over-rides the rules for ranged attacks, the rules for ranged attacks applies.

Conversely, there's nothing that states that the rules for Supernatural abilities doesn't overrule the rule for ranged attacks.

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Archaeik wrote:
If the rules assume that all ranged attacks provoke AoOs by default in every case, I don't think there needs to be a precedent.

The rules have always been written with a general ruling that can be superseded by specific instances if spelled out as such. While you are correct that ranged attacks typically provoke, it is entirely probable that this could be one of those specific exceptions to that standard ruling. We have conflicting statements here:

"All ranged attacks provoke"
"Supernatural abilities do not provoke"

Needs clarification on precedence.

If the referenced chart had a legend that defined the AoO column as "Does activating this ability provoke an AoO", then I could see the ranged attack rule applying. However, the chart's legend has different wording:
"Does using the ability provoke attacks of opportunity the way that casting a spell does?"
Using an ability isn't just activating it, it's using it from start to finish. If the ranged touch attack is part of using it (which it is), then it shouldn't provoke by this verbiage.

dragonhunterq wrote:

Activating a ranged spell-like ability provokes 2 attacks of opportunity, one for the spell and one for the ranged attack. Activating a supernatural ability might not in itself provoke, but the ranged attack most certainly can provoke.


Once again... that FAQ spells out "casting a spell", not "activating a supernatural ability". It only references spells. The RAW posted above pretty clearly indicates that Supernatural abilities do not provoke. The FAQ needs an update.

Secret Wizard wrote:

TLDR: If you couldn't full attack with it, you can't use it for an attack of opportunity...

It is not an Attack of Opportunity. The feat name definitely causes confusion. Additionally, the feat isn't granting an "attack action". The feat grants an untyped "ranged attack", as noted.

Related note
I am searching for a ruling on whether Arcane Blast provokes.

Does the ranged touch attack portion of activating a supernatural ability such as Channel Ray or Arcane Blast provoke an attack of opportunity?

Archaeik wrote:
Okay, for some reason, I glossed over the crunch text in favor of the name.

You wouldn't be the first... I made that mistake at first glance, as did a GM/player that I know.

I wouldn't expect that "loaded" argument to fly for PFS, but I'd also expect a lot of variation across other tables.

While I'm not too familiar with how well that kind of an argument would work at a PFS table, the fact that is can be raised at all should indicate that it needs clarification.

Even in raising the original question, I'm fairly certain that the feat was designed with the intent of allowing a single basic attack as an immediate action. However, open for interpretation is open...

As to Vital Strike: this has be clarified to require "an attack action", not merely "an attack". I do not find the language used for Target of Opportunity to be ambiguous.

Touche, I didn't recall the text for vital strike spelling out the 'attack' action. You can disregard that musing.


I would concede, however, that the rules are a bit unclear in this area between spells getting a specific section and "ranged attack -- provokes:yes" being under the "standard action" section of the chart.

The primary issue I see with any argument negating AoOs on ranged (Su) is that it effectively does the same for ranged (Ex), of which...

The trouble here is that all of the FAQ's on ranged attacks, rays, and AoO's specifically call out Spells. There are no specific mentions (that I have found) of whether or not the AoO rules change when involving a Supernatural ability that makes a ranged touch attack. I agree with your assessment that it logically should provoke, but the text does not support that.

I just paged through almost every domain/bloodline to try to find a Supernatural ability that was based on a ranged touch to see if it contained "this ability provokes", but I couldn't find one for precedence.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Archaeik wrote:
The ray itself is ephemeral, existing only in the instant it is created and fired. As such, it is never ready and "in hand" when the AoO is triggered even if your holy symbol or focus is.

Technically true, from one standpoint. But just to play devil's advocate, the ray itself is simply the 'ammunition', the holy symbol and the caster could be considered the weapon... So the weapon would be "in hand" and "ready to be fired" by having the holy symbol present already.

Archaeik wrote:

Also, I see no way to reduce the activation time of channel (material weapons can make AoO's because the rules say they can). Even Quick Channel can't get around this restriction as it would still require an extra swift action in the moment you are taking the immediate for the AoO.

Those issues aside, I do agree that, in principle, rays would be eligible to make the AoO granted here.

However, I can potentially offer a "workaround", take a look at the Conductive property for ranged weapons. If you absolutely need to target touch AC, I can't help you though.

The conductive property would allow you to bypass the activation time of channeling, which sets precedence that the activation time is not set in stone. Also, keep in mind that the feat isn't actually granting an AoO--it's granting an untyped bonus ranged attack.


Edit: also keep in mind, assuming there are any GM's out there who would consider allowing this combination, while Channeling itself doesn't provoke, the ranged attack granted by Channel Ray still does.

Those GM's would be wrong per RAW... the feat does not change the ability from supernatural, and there is a handy chart indicating that Supernatural abilities never provoke.

As a side-note....
I do wonder what the restrictions are for the "single ranged attack". It does not spell it out as being an identified action type (such as "attack action", "standard attack", etc), so in general it can be read as "anything that counts as a ranged attack". That also opens the door for a Vital Strike with a ranged weapon, does it not?

Target of Opportunity Teamwork feat
Channel Ray feat

As per the FAQ, rays counts as weapons. Being that they are ranged, would they count as a ranged weapon?

Target of Opportunity wrote:
Your ranged weapon must be in hand, loaded, and ready to be fired or thrown for you to make the ranged attack.

If an ally with this feat hits a target within 30' of a Cleric who also has the teamwork feat and the Channel Ray feat and the Cleric already has their holy symbol ready, can the Cleric attack the original target with a channel ray?

Skreeeeeeeeee wrote:

It gets a little iffier than that.

The gloves allow you the Snatch Arrows feat twice per day, without the prerequisites. This means you do not need Deflect Arrows. However, Snatch Arrows only takes effect when using the Deflect Arrows feat, which the gloves do not grant you. RAW, this means the gloves are useless without Deflect Arrows, as you need to use Deflect Arrows for Snatch Arrows to even function. Without Deflect Arrows, Snatch Arrows is a useless feat.

Touche... I rescind my previous position. Looks like you're right, without the Deflect Arrows feat, you can't activate the gloves.

So one has to wonder...what prereq's are they trying to avoid? Is it the Dex15 of Snatch Arrows versus the Dex13 of Deflect Arrows? Maybe there's a class that gives Deflect Arrows while bypassing the other prereq's?

d20pfsrd wrote:
Once worn, these snug gloves seem to meld with the hands, becoming almost invisible to casual observation. Twice per day, the wearer can act as if he had the Snatch Arrows feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites for the feat. Both gloves must be worn for the magic to be effective, and at least one hand must be free to take advantage of the magic.


d20pfsrd wrote:
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Deflect Arrows, Improved Unarmed Strike.

Seems pretty clear to me... The gloves allow you to catch&keep or catch&throwback projectiles twice a day provided you have a free hand.

See Upgrading Magic Items section about upgrading, Magic Item Creation section about setting the DC.

Base Price of +3 Armor = 9000gp
Base Price of +2 Armor = 4000gp
Base Price difference = 5000gp

Time Required Crafting magic armor requires one day for each 1,000 gp value of the base price.

It will take you 5 days at 8 hours per day. If you can make the check with a +5 to the DC, you can half the amount of time needed (1000gp per 4 hours versus 1000gp per 8 hours).

Edit: Base DC of +3 armor is 14.

Buy Pearls of Power so you can recover some spells.

Cold Ice Strike is a fantastic level 6 spell. Swift action to wreck anything in a 30' line is always quite useful to my cleric.

Holy Word at level 7 can cause some serious havoc on minions, and possibly even the boss, depending on their level.

Waves of Ecstasy isn't a bad way to stagger a bunch of minions either.

I often have a Word of Recall prepared, just in case things go really poorly and we need to escape.

If you have time before the day of combat, maybe grab a Planar Ally to help?

Blade Barrier can be handy for locking minions away. If the terrain allows it, Wall of Stone can be used similarly, but without causing damage.

If you're the only spellcaster who will be casting beneficial spells, having a Spell Resistance prepared for use against a spellcaster boss can be a life saver.

I've gotten decent mileage out of Greater Command for locking down large groups of minions.

1) 4
2) 15000gp
3) DC14
4) 1 target. Wands do not use the crafter's or the user's stats.

The UMD check will trick the item into thinking that you qualify for its bonus as if you were a cavalier or a paladin, but you only receive said bonus when you actually use the Challenge or Smite ability. So even though the armor thinks you qualify, you will still never receive the bonus since you cannot activate the required class ability to gain said bonus.

I *believe* that Spell-like abilities and Supernatural abilities will still work, so Minor Spell Expertise and Major Spell Expertise could help.

The following is Feedback, NOT criticism

There is a surprising amount of history/fluff provided at the start, packing a compact history of the races into just a few pages. After that, the description of the race, including society and abilities are nicely detailed, even providing a bit of an explanation as to how an ahooling could be an alignment other than chaotic evil (and how other ahools/ahoolings may react to that).

Race Info
Racial stats look fine; without breaking out my Advanced Race Guide, I would guess that the race rings in around 14-15 points. One of the bits of information that was left out, though, is regarding the interactions between different moss cavern societies. Meaning, are they territorial? Do they constantly fight with neighbors and push to absorb more land (and start another round of 'survival of the fittest')? How does one society view ahoolings from another?

Racial Archetypes
The racial archetypes honestly confused me a bit until I realized that they weren't actually racial archetypes -- they are archetypes for the racial class, "Fledgling Ahool". This section should have its location adjusted.

Favored Class Options
These seem to work fine. I'm surprised that the Ranger's bonus options doesn't include the natural attacks available to the Ahool,

The new moss items are different (in a good way) and look like they will be fun to use. Pricing seems about where it needs to be.

Racial Feats
The racial feats were interesting and added some extra flavor. I didn't have time to fully review them, but I did find the special for Vicious Bite to be interesting. I like the idea that there is a specific flavor-backed result of a fumble, but it feels like the added math might be a bit of a headache for the player and GM.

Fledging Ahool Racial Class
The Fledgling Ahool racial class was an interesting touch. First time I've seen a 'racial class' before. I was a little surprised that Will was a good save over Fort, as the impression that I had on the race was that they were physically stronger as compared to mental strength. I also was a little confused by the Claws being a Secondary weapon, as Claws are typically a Primary. Lastly, the ability boosts and defenses come very quickly and are an intense jump in power by level 5. Gaining +2 to all physical stats, Blindsense, Sonic resist (although to be fair, Sonic doesn't show up often in most campaigns, I'm sure it shows up more in RotD though based on the Ahool's abilities), spell resistance, etc.
Bottom line, I have concerns at first glance of the overall power level (if you playtested this and found it performed equally to standard classes then ignore the concern) that lead me to wonder if this would be better suited as a PrC.

From a RAW/literal standpoint (I'm not trying to be obtuse), Ahool Apotheosis lists that "the PC gains", rather than "They gain". I make this point because as-written, some might argue that an NPC can't gain this ability.

Ironsinger PrC
The synergy between the Fledgling Ahool and the Ironsinger PrC was well done and makes it look to be both a fun and a unique play experience.

Very well written book. Provides just about all of the information needed to create an Ahool PC with an appropriate backstory.

I was able to successfully download mine using the link provided in my email.

Improved Critical would work just fine.

Agile wrote:

A wielder with the Weapon Finesse feat can choose to apply her Dexterity modifier to damage rolls with the weapon in place of her Strength modifier.
Guided wrote:

A character who attacks with a guided weapon modifies his attack rolls and weapon damage rolls with his Wisdom modifier, not his Strength modifier.

The Agile weapon gives the wielder the option to apply their Dex to Attack/Damage in place of Strength (specifically Strength) if they posses Weapon Finesse.

A Guided weapon forcefully modifies the wielder's Attack/Damage rolls to apply Wisdom in place of Strength. Using the Guided weapon with any other stat (Strength or Dex) will impart a -2 penalty, as it goes against the weapon's nature.

End result, the character can have both properties, but can only use one at a time. If they choose to use the Guided property, apply Wisdom to Attack/Damage. If they choose to use the Agile property then they can apply their Dex to Attack/Damage, but with a -2 penalty to attack.

Generally yes. However I can think of a specific example where one could come as a bonus feat with GM approval -- the original Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide.


The people of Varisia display a variety of innate skills and unique talents. Subject to your GM’s approval, you may choose any of the following feats as a bonus feat during character creation.

On a quick glance, I can't find this text in the Anniversary Edition Player's Guide, but I also can't find the feats in that version either...

KainPen wrote:

OK, I can tell that no matter how logical my counter argument, you are always going to feel that this is overpowered. You're arguing about damage output at a level of the game where wizards can reshape existence in 60 seconds or less. This ability combo doesn't make the sky fall, the wizard does.

The ability text is pretty clear.

d20pfsrd wrote:

Pounce (Ex)

When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can make a full attack (including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability).

On a pounce the lion gets 1 bite, 2 claws, and 2 extra claws from rake. If the bite succeeds in a grapple and it maintains the grapple on its next turn, it can Rake again.

The qualifying action text for Rake is the general rule that is being superseded in the situation of Pounce. You can have a creature that has Pounce and Rake without having an attack that adds Grab. Think about it this way... the lion charges at you, leaps into the air and pounces on you. Even if you're not knocked down it still is hitting you with all four of its legs/claws and able to bite you as it slides back down onto the ground.

Also of note... Eldritch Heritage counts as the character's level - 2 until level 17. So the +5 above is actually a +4.

KainPen wrote:

This little find just add to something that is already over powered and broken bloodline more so. +10 to hit and damage from touch of rage for 2 to 5 rounds. Add arcane strike with it and you just net +15 to hit and +21/+30 to damage depending on if weapon is two handed on every attack. Could you image a paladin with this bloodline and this trait or a two handed fighter.

You're most definitely dealing with a feat tax to make this work. Additionally, as I pointed out, by the time a martial character can really begin to see the "overpowered" benefits of the bloodline, the casters are already overpowering them. So what... at level 10 your fighter/barbarian/paladin has a +5 to attack and damage. You're burning a standard action to make this happen, running the risk of getting a bad roll on that d4 and only having it last for one round (provided you took the trait mentioned and minus any AoO's you get before your next turn) and still going to miss if your enemy has Displacement or Mirror Images.

+10 to hit? You would have to be a level 20 character to get that bonus from this bloodline, and if a +10 to hit is game breaking at level 20 then your world must be completely devoid of spellcasters. I'm also not sure where you're getting +30 to damage, unless you're adding up the bonus damage from iterative attacks. If that's the case...

A level 10 full bab character with haste would have 3 attacks. So from Touch of Rage that's at most +15 damage in one turn, assuming all attacks hit and the character can make a full attack. If you add Arcane Strike, that goes to +21 at most without outside intervention (i.e. Moment of Greatness). A dual-wielding character will see slightly more benefit from this, but will also be ridiculously feat starved (I imagine that only a fighter could pull that off). So assuming your 2-handed martial lands all 3 attacks, let's estimate total damage at around 102 to ONE target (average of 6d6 is 21, plus Power attack 27, plus average strength{6} 27, plus discussed abilities 21, plus +2 weapon).

The collective damage from a CL10 fireball if it hits multiple targets is higher. The damage from an Acidic Spray is higher. The battlefield control capability of a Dominated enemy plus said enemy's damage output is more dangerous.
How is this broken?

As a side-note, Arcane Strike adds to damage, not to hit, and you would have to either gain arcane spellcasting from another class or from another character trait in order for a Paladin to pick up the Arcane Strike feat.

KainPen wrote:
I stand corrected I thought it was SU not SP. It and power of Giants should be SU ability’s it make more sense. While the last power should be SP not SU, as it actual mimics transformation spell. Orc bloodline is totally broken. It is due for fix lol. I always thought SP had to mimic and existing spell, like copycat mimics mirror image. Touch of rage does not even come close to mimicking rage. The way it is you could also do quicken spell like ability on it 3 times a day.

The Touch of Rage ability has nothing to do with the spell "Rage" or a Barbarian's class ability, it just uses a similar word.

Spell-like abilities typically mimic spells, but they do not have to. Additionally, identifying, countering, interrupting, dispelling, etc of spell-like abilities is different from a Supernatural ability, so changing that type would change the power level.

And you cannot use Quicken Spell-Like Ability on Touch of Rage as it does not meet the qualifications for it:

Feat wrote:
The creature can only select a spell-like ability duplicating a spell with a level less than or equal to 1/2 its caster level (round down) – 4.

As Touch of Rage (as indicated) does not actually duplicate a spell, there is no spell level to apply here. In the case of determining effective spell level for spell-like abilities that do not copy a spell, the effective spell level is set to be the highest level of spells that that character can cast. A level 10 caster would treat this as a level 5 spell, which is still higher than {1/2 * 10 (caster level) - 4}

Even if you could use Quicken on Touch of Rage, it's hardly game breaking. You would have to have an effective CL of 10, and so the bump for ToR would be +5.
For a caster, +5 to attack/damage/will saves at level 10 would effectively raise their attack to that of a full-BAB character, but since it is just raising attack and not BAB they are not gaining an extra attack.
For a non-caster (s/a the barbarian question posed), +5 to attack/damage/will certainly does step up their martial capability, but at the same time you're also getting into the character levels where spell casters start to really outshine martial characters, so who cares about the bump.

KainPen wrote:
I would say heroic echo does not work, as touch of rage is not a spell or spell like ablility, or a magic item. But the others do seem to work, you just helped me with my net character as I never noticed that trait before.

Touch of Rage is a spell-like ability from the Orc bloodline.

1) Yes
2) The damage increase applies to physical weapons and rays. (see FAQ)
3) I'm fairly certain the answer is 'no', but right this moment I can't find anything beyond this non-official opinion to back that up
4) Yes, static numeric increases are multiplied on crits
5) Yes to Heroic Echo applying

kirowan wrote:
In the Core Rules, a normal unarmed strike deals nonlethal damage. What about if the opponent is within (metal) armor? Does the strike hit he head or the vitals? (and therefore it would be a Called Shot with its own modifiers) It's a mess. Any exit for this? Thanks!

Where it hits doesn't really matter under the standard rules. There are variant rules that use armor as damage reduction, and if you are a GM you can houserule it yourself, but otherwise doesn't matter.

That said, striking armor will cause a jolt and potentially impact against the body inside. Anyone who has been nailed in the helmet while sparring in martial arts, beaned in the helmet during baseball, or shot in their armor during paintball can tell you that it still hurts. (I know, not metal armor, but you get the gist I hope)

Stand Still wrote:
When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity.

If in a position where the large creature can take a 5' step (not difficult terrain, etc) and that is the only movement made, then going between image1 and image2 would not provoke.

However, if the large creature is not taking a 5' step, then it provokes as soon as it starts its movement. For the purposes of Stand Still, I believe that a successful check would keep the large creature in its original position from image1.

If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character's turn (or complete the current turn

P33J wrote:
PFS, which is essentially RAW, allows for 1st-3rd Level Paladins and Rangers to use wands and scrolls.

I take it back, 1 level dip works. Couldn't find the text to support that while multi-tasking before.


Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

It was Scrolls that they couldn't use.

-inaccurate text removed-

A fighter can put ranks into UMD... You don't need to be a spellcasting class to take the skill. In the end, they're better off with UMD if they're in a party that doesn't buff or heal them. Skill Focus {Use Magic Device} will help, and if the fighter just has horrible Charisma there are other feats that can be taken for more of a boost. Ranks in UMD will give the fighter the capability to use a Wand of Blur, Displacement, Fly, Invisibilty, CLW, etc, etc.

You're correct that there's no cost for the staff, but logically it shouldn't work. Unlike many other spells that require a focus, it is specifically called out in the description that the spell does use and transform the focus -- into the treant.

If you were to allow False Focus to replace the staff, the spell would likely have to transform the focus (holy symbol) into the treant--meaning that the player wouldn't be able to use their False Focus unless they had another holy symbol handy.

LazarX wrote:

You're not going to find such a text. But if you look at the process of recharging you'll see that there are TWO required steps to the process.

1. Attuning to the staff that you're going to charge.

2. Spending the spell/slot to do so.

SLAs by themselves can perform the second step, but not the first. They also won't qualify for the casting requirement if you don't have a spell list that includes both them and the spells on the staff.

I'm not seeing anything about 'attuning' to the staff. However, upon looking up the exact text for recharging staves (I guess I should have looked that up first), it does explicitly state "spell slot or prepared spell". So unless a spell-like ability's uses per day can be considered specific spell-like ability spell slots, I guess this wouldn't work.


Each morning, when a spellcaster prepares spells or regains spell slots, he can also imbue one staff with a portion of his power so long as one or more of the spells cast by the staff is on his spell list and he is capable of casting at least one of the spells. Imbuing a staff with this power restores one charge to the staff, but the caster must forgo one prepared spell or spell slot of a level equal to the highest-level spell cast by the staff.

Necro'ing this thread because I was about to ask the same question...

Can you recharge a staff with a SLA?

There is a FAQ to take into account that would lead me to believe that you could actually do this.

FAQ wrote:

Cleric domains, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, and certain other class features give spell-like abilities that aren't based on spells. What's the effective spell level for these abilities?
The effective spell level for these spell-like abilities is equal to the highest-level spell that a character of that class could normally cast at the level the ability is gained.

For example, a 1st-level elemental bloodline sorcerer has elemental ray as a spell-like ability. Because a sorcerer 1's highest-level spell available is 1st, that spell-like ability counts as a 1st-level spell. A 9th-level elemental bloodline sorcerer has elemental blast as a spell-like ability. Because a sorcerer 9's highest-level spell available is 4th, that spell-like ability counts as a 4th-level spell.

Kinda makes that 1st level domain/bloodline ability a little more useful (because let's face it, 1d6+{1 per 2 levels} doesn't go very far...).

Jiggy wrote:
...Do we actually know for sure that spell-like abilities that involve touch attacks automatically use the rules for touch spells, such as holding a charge?

I couldn't find anything one way or the other when looking this up, so that puts it into the gray area.

However, here is how I'd view it:
1. Spell-Like Abilities operate similarly to spells except where stated in the definition
2. The ability indicates a standard touch attack without additional qualifiers, so it goes to reason that standard touch attack rules apply

1. Using Laughing Touch is a Standard Action. If delivering the touch attack in the same round, you cannot use your natural attack.

2. If you use Laughing Touch and Hold the Charge, you can deliver it the next round using your natural attacks. The charge will be held until you score a successful hit with one of your attacks. Note that with a natural attack, the attack roll will be against regular AC, not touch AC.

Hold the Charge:

Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.

3. If you combine Sorcerous Strike with Feral Combat Training, you can deliver Laughing Touch 1/round on ANY of your successful natural attacks (using the designated attack with Feral Combat Training..."any" is stated in case you have multiple claws).

So technically speaking, if you hold the charge from the round before and combine that with that feat pair, you could in theory hit two opponents in your opening round with Laughing Touch.

I'm just going to leave this right here....

This FAQ says that you can politely inform your GM that their interpretation does not match the ruling of the devs. That gives you Furious Focus on the 50% damage increase.

I don't fully agree with your numbers, Tommy.

BAB 14
Charge +2 (+2 additional from Cavalier's Charge)
Order +4 Morale
Lance +3
Str 7
Higher Ground +1 (assuming the target is smaller than your mount)
TOTAL +33 to hit

You're not taking the Attack penalty thanks to Furious Focus (you're still attacking with a two-handed weapon, even if it's in one hand...the feat doesn't say that you have to be using both hands with the weapon, and the lance is still a 2h weapon in this case).

Challenge +42 (+14 base, 3x from Spirited Charge)
Order +21 (+7 mount's Strength from Mounted Mastery, 3x from Spirited Charge)
PA +36 (+12 base, 3x from Spirited Charge)
Lance 3d8+9 (damage tripled from being mounted and having Spirited Charge, assuming a medium character)
Str +21 (3x from there for Spirited Charge)

TOTAL = 3d8 + 129; Damage will range from 132 to 153, averaging 142.

On a crit the 3x Spirited Charge would go to a 5x, adding...
Challenge +28
Order +14
PA +24
Lance 2d8 + 6
Str +14
TOTAL = 5d8 + 215; Damage will range from 220 to 255, averaging 237.
(The total listed above factors in previous damage)

2-handing the lance while charging would only add 9 damage to a non-crit, and 15 damage to a crit.

shadowkras wrote:
Aid Another is clear, it works in melee combat only.

^ This ^

But if you have a lenient DM and you have the Snap Shot line of feats, I don't see why you couldn't house rule firing an arrow to interfere with the enemy's attack -- as long as it was in the range of your Snap Shot threatened area.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know there isn't a rule that spells out "you cannot have more than 1 familiar". However, you cannot gain the same ability from multiple sources. For example, the Arcane Bond gained by a Wizard or Sorc does not give you a new companion, it just stacks (as per the text of the ability). On the other hand, the Magus Arcana Familiar ability is named simply "Familiar", making it technically a different ability even though it grants a similar ability.

That said, there is a general rule that players shouldn't individually control too many units, or things start to get out of hand.

As a side note, anyone using Skill Focus + Eldritch Heritage can gain the Sorc's Arcane bloodline familiar. The NPC Adept also has a familiar called Summon Familiar, but it functions as the Wizard's Arcane Bond, so stacks with anything else that stacks with Arcane Bond.

Just looking for input on a ruling for a custom feat off of this.
If we follow the model set by Weapon Focus / Greater Weapon Focus, would a "Greater Poison Focus" feat that adds another +1 to DC's and requires Poison Focus and 8 ranks of Craft (Alchemy) seem fair? Or would it make more sense to base this off of the Spell Focus / Greater Spell Focus line and make the only requirement for Greater Poison Focus be Poison Focus?

Specifically states that it works only on paper, but is there a reason this wouldn't work on wood or stone? Could be fun to write things on a table, wall, floor, door, etc...


Page 5 - General Question 1
To craft an item while traveling that requires (for example Distillation), could you set up a portable alchemy lab in a cart/wagon? If yes, would that add to the DC?

Page 5 - General Question 2
When time is specified as "1 day", does that mean 8 hours or 24 hours? Does the character have to watch this process or can they do something else during that time (train, craft magic items, etc)?

The action/time required to remove the paint is not specified. 1 Full-round? 1 Move? Can it be removed by other means (s/a casting Conjure Water over the wearer's head)?

The number of charges/uses on this item is not listed.

Does 'at will' mean a non-action, Free Action, or Standard Action?

Is there a size limit on the object or can these be used to very easily repair ships, doors, wood walls/barricades, etc?

What happens if the surface it is placed on is less than 10' deep? Will the creeper eat through it, fall, and then continue eating into the floor?

Acid Breath: Is there a daily limitation or cooldown on this ability?
Spell-Like Ability: What is the caster level of this ability? (level 1? HD-based? minimum spell level of the originating potions? caster level of the potions?)

Can this item be attacked? If so, what is this object's HP/hardness?

When crafting this item normally using 'unspecified' reagents, do you still have to provide a flask of Holy Water (raising the minimum crafting cost to at least 25gp), or is that hand-waved even though the description indicates a Holy Water reservoir?

If the arrow is magically enchanted, do the enchants apply to the 1d3 adjacent piercing damage as well?


I would say that the Alchemist class feature and Master Alchemist feats would only apply when crafting alchemical items through standard means (not spontaneously), as the spontaneous rules count as a "specific override to the standard rules". (Also, the feats/class abilities have not been updated to reflect that they apply here.)


Spontaenous alchemy was introduced in the Alchemy Manual that was released for general access today, as were reagents.

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Aren't there some traits that give you a minor SLA?

Yes--that's what sparked my interest in this topic originally.

Magical Talent is one of them but Azten pointed out that Alluring is far better.

Jiggy wrote:
There's also a post made by the Pathfinder Design Team account explicitly stating that "ability to cast spells" does not mean "more than one spell".

Man... two RPG Superstars telling me I have bad information in the same post in the span of one hour... I'm going to go ahead and sit in the corner.

RainyDayNinja wrote:
If you dig up the original threads from when the FAQs were issued, the developers said that just one SLA counts as "able to cast spells." In fact, SKR even used the example of a rogue with the Minor Magic talent qualifying for Arcane Strike.

Thank you for saying that SKR is the one who posted it, and what it was about. You gave me what I needed to find that thread:

Original post

I am happy to be wrong, happier that there is a direct quote to prove that this works. I would be even happier if this information was put into the FAQ. Disregard my previous musings.

Azten wrote:

Spell-Like Abilities: How do I know whether a spell-like ability is arcane or divine?

Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?

I spotted those FAQ's as I waited for my post to update and decided to just delete the post while I read and re-read the FAQ's... guess I didn't delete fast enough. Believe me, I'm on the side of wanting this to work (tried to ask this myself before), but the wording of those FAQ's still makes me feel like this is a gray area in this instance. I'm not trying to be argumentative or obtuse here, just discussing this. Based on the number of threads on this exact topic, it blows me away that this still hasn't been spelled out in the FAQ.

The combination of the two FAQ's tells me two things...
1. You count as being able to cast {spellname} by having it as a spell-like ability
2. The "spell" being cast by the SLA counts as arcane or divine based on the criteria in the FAQ

I definitely see and understand the logic of "If I count as being able to cast {spellname} and {spellname} counts as Arcane, then logically speaking I can cast an arcane spell". (Of course, technically speaking, Arcane Strike requires the capability to cast Arcane spells--plural, but skipping that issue...) Also to note, the spell "counting as arcane" does not actually make it an arcane spell.

The reason why I'm pointing to a gray area is because the first FAQ ("Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites") points to the SLA counting on an individual level, not as counting as if you had Arcane/Divine spellcasting ability with only the capability to cast that one specific spell. A Sorc/Wiz has the ability to cast Arcane spells--even if that character only knew one spell, they still have the ability to cast spells. In the FAQ example, you count as being able to cast an Arcane Dimension Door, but it's not saying that you count as being able to cast Arcane spells in general.

If you scroll up one post in that FAQ list, you'll see that an SLA does not count as having the spell for the purpose of Spell-Completion items:

FAQ wrote:
A spell-like ability is not a spell, having a spell-like ability is not part of a class's spell list

And this is why this is confusing... An SLA counts as arcane or divine and counts as if you were able to cast the spell when it comes time to specific pre-requisites on feats and item crafting, but it does not count as you actually being capable of casting the spell when it comes time to spell completion/trigger items. Point is, it seems like you count as being able to cast the spell, but not actually count as having the ability to cast the spell.

Point is, does the specific inherently imply the general?

If yes, then technically speaking you would need at least 2 Arcane SLA's to qualify for the feat.

Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:
just a comment on armbuster, but aparently crossbows are under craft: weapons, this is according to the core rulebook page 93 table 4-4. maybe reword it as a bonus on craft weapon checks to make and repair both crossbows and crossbow bolts.

Well that's a rather embarrassing 'oops'... Thank you, I'll adjust it so that the bonus skill ranks in Craft Weapons only apply to crossbows.

Kazaan wrote:
Hmm... not quite what I expected. Still, not a bad concept. Maybe the ability to load gunpowder packs on the bolts that give them a bit of added distance and punch?

The archetype was written to present a 'gunslinger' in a campaign without gunpowder or firearms. While the crossbow in the video you linked certainly has that extra 'awesome-factor', re-tooling that particular weapon would take some work. It would also reduce the viability of the class if it was pigeon-holed into one specific weapon.

As far as adding distance/punch, it doesn't need it. A light crossbow has a range of 80' and a heavy crossbow has 120'. This is already 10' farther than the composite bows, and 20' farther than the non-composite bows. Damage is also already in line.

The major issue with crossbows in the d20 system stems from the feat investment in making reloads a free action and the lack of bonus damage (meaning the strength damage from a composite bow). The feat investment can be resolved through the class/archetype, as can the bonus damage. The bonus damage solution I took was to stay truer to the original Gunslinger--just add dex. I suppose you could remove the dex-to-damage part and add something else in to pack a harder punch, but keeping things simple was my goal.

Jamie Charlan wrote:

How does Dead Shot interact with Double Crossbows?

One problem I'm seeing is that you're in deep *** if waiting till fifth level to get Rapid Reload. For a crossbow user it's usually one of those "that was your human bonus feat" deals.

Crossbow archetypes interest me, as it literally takes class abilities to make up for their treatment by devs under the d20 systems [balance be damned, it's unrealistic to have quick loading in a world with giant robot spiders, but we shouldn't give crossbows their penetration and power because game balance?].

As far as Dead Shot and Double Crossbows... The original ability does not indicate that you cannot use it with a Double-Barrel Pistol/Musket, so I would say that double crossbows would work just fine. I did not consider double crossbows while making this, though, so that certainly begs the question of whether or not this working with double crossbows would leapfrog it over the fighter in power. More playtesting is clearly needed, thank you for bringing that up.

I suppose you could always take Rapid Reload at a lower level and then re-train it to something else using the Downtime System that Paizo created in Ultimate Campaign, but I don't see that as necessary. Reloading a Hand or Light Crossbow without Rapid Reload is a Move Action, and since you can pick up other important ranged feats before level 5, I don't see it as an issue. Using a standard action to fire and a move action to reload puts you a step behind bow-users (where they can fire and take a Move action), but isn't terrible.

So just did a few hours of playtesting and now have revision 1 of the archetype.

I have uploaded the new document to google drive here.

Any further reviews or thoughts are appreciated.

Round 1: Character sheets:

We found that the boltslinger was too feat-starved (due to needing crossbow feats). This was resolved by adding the following line to Arbalest Training, "She gains a bonus equal to her Dexterity modifier on damage rolls when firing that type of crossbow and is treated as having the Rapid Reload feat for that crossbow (this also qualifies the boltslinger for any feats or abilities requiring the Rapid Reload feat when applied to this crossbow type)."

We also noted that the Focused Bolt deed was a little lacking in how it was thought-out (honestly I tossed it together in about 15-20 minutes). Being that it costs a grit to activate and grit is limited, the deed was changed to this:
Focused Bolt (Ex): At 1st level, the boltslinger can expend one grit and a Swift action to focus on one target to either gain a bonus to attack equal to her Wisdom Modifier or a bonus to damage equal to her boltslinger level on her next attack.
Martial classes never really get to harness the Swift action in the action economy, and making this cost a grit does help to balance the boost and prevent overuse.

Round 2: Compare boltslinger to fighter:

This put us into the second round, where we compared the boltslinger's numeric stats to a ranged fighter using a composite longbow of the same level. The boltslinger ended up with a higher chance to hit and inflicted slightly more damage than the fighter. To resolve that, I removed the verbiage from Arbalest Training that allowed the boltslinger to get the fighter-only feats (Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Penetrating Shot, and Greater Penetrating Shot).

With the boltslinger now unable to get Weapon Specialization, the class could now not obtain Point-Blank Master (to prevent AoO's from firing) until the level 11 deed. To try to help the class out a bit (it is an archetype that is based entirely on ranged attacks...) I removed Crossbow Mastery from the level 7 deed and shifted Point-Blank Master to that deed. Now the boltslinger can obtain this feat's effect (if he has 1 grit remaining) a full 2 levels after the earliest point that a fighter can get it.

I also noticed that I failed to copy the Bleeding Wound deed into my document. That has now been added.

Round 3: Solo combat:

Round 3 was pitting a boltslinger against 3 scenarios as the only class. This test was followed by a fighter of the same level and approximate spec (ranged, but using a composite longbow) to see which one performed better. The hope was that the fighter would slightly out-perform the boltslinger.

Level 10 PC's, 25-pt buy with 62k in starting funds. Human. We min-maxed a bit on purpose to test the upper limit. Hit points were calculating using max for first level, then average for following levels.

  • Class versus 1x Frost Worm starting 100' away, Worm got a surprise round but Boltslinger had higher initiative after that. Setting was an open field
  • Class versus 4x Dire Apes starting 30' away, no surprise round, initiative put 2 apes before the Boltslinger. Setting was a temperate forest.
  • Class versus 3x Dire Bears 40' away, no surprise round, initiative put 1 bear before the Boltslinger. Setting was a dark cave.

The boltslinger killed the Worm in 3 rounds, successfully reflexing from the breath weapon and the explosion on death. Boltslinger survived, but barely. However, the fighter wasn't so lucky. The worm died in 2 rounds, but the fighter failed both reflex saves and died.

The 4 apes died without even scratching the boltslinger, but beat up the fighter a little.

The boltslinger just barely managed to kill the 3 bears without dieing. Some bad rolls on the claw attacks saved the slinger from being grappled. The fighter wasn't as lucky. His lower AC let him get hit more and even grappled. After killing 2 bears, the third bear managed to kill the fighter while it had exactly 1 hit point remaining.

Boltslinger stats:

Str 8, Dex 24, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 10
HP 79, AC 28, Flat 19, Touch 21
Fort 9, Ref 15, Will 8
Feats: Weapon Focus {Heavy Crossbow}, Deadly Aim, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Crossbow Mastery, Improved Critical
Gear: Belt of Physical Might +2 (Dex/Con), Handy Haversack, Ring of Protection +2, +3 Mithril Chain Shirt, Boots of Speed, +3 Heavy Crossbow, Cloak of Resistance +1, 2900gp

Fighter (Archer Archetype) stats:

Str 24, Dex 18, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8
HP 79, AC 22, Flat 18, Touch 15
Fort 9, Ref 9, Will 5
Feats: Weapon Focus {Longbow}, Deadly Aim, Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Many Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Specialization {Longbow}, Greater Weapon Focus {Longbow}, Clustered Shots, Improved Critical, Toughness
Gear: Belt of Physical Might +2 (Str/Dex), Ring of Protection +1, +3 Mithril Chain Shirt, Boots of Speed, +3 Composite Longbow Str 7, Cloak of Resistance +2, 5000gp

We did note that the fighter may have survived better if we spent 2k on an Amulet of Natural Armor +2 and swapped his Str/Dex scores (this would have dropped damage output slightly but increased chance to hit).

The Golux wrote:

Sorry, I didn't see that you linked the archetype. And it's not just the metal stocks, it's the metal arms, I think.

No worries, I just wanted to make sure I didn't fail in my search-fu. Had there been a different archetype I definitely would have taken a look. And I suppose metal arms would make a difference.

SeeleyOne wrote:
I think the damage went up two steps, as per a chart on page 145 in the Core book.

Got it. I didn't have a chance to look up the chart.

1 to 50 of 696 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.