Brain_in_a_Jar's page

1: 4d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 6, 1) = 17 = 16*
2: 4d6 ⇒ (5, 1, 5, 4) = 15 = 14*
3: 4d6 ⇒ (6, 2, 4, 6) = 18 = 16*
4: 4d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 5, 1) = 12 = 11*
5: 4d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 4, 2) = 15 = 13*
6: 4d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 3, 1) = 12 = 11
7: 4d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 2, 6) = 16 = 14*
8: 4d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 2, 3) = 12 = 10

I've placed a * next to the stats I'll keep.

This sounds wonderful. I love Myth Drannor lore!

I'll just be using the 25 Points. I hate rolling for stats. :)

So I have one more question.

With the Feat Tax system. Could I still take Point Blank Shot if I wanted it? It's quite a useful feat for certain builds and not really a "tax" in my mind.

"Skill Checks: Even if your skill check is high enough to pass the DC of the required check without a roll, you must roll regardless. Even with your high skill in that check, you still have a chance of critically failing, but also having a critical success which will grant additional boons. "

Questions.

1: I assume this means no one can Take 10 or Take 20 on a check. Mainly just wanted to know, since if that's the case I'd avoid any abilities that modify those.

2: Also what about Deities?

I'll be using Set Eight.

Pretty awesome! But what would your stat spead look like?

Also while the build can make a lot of scythe attacks single hits aren't as big and thus gain less life.

Also ascetic style and Ki-Attack are really putting a tax on your swift actions.

Stats spread would depend on the game, based on Point Buy or rolling. But mainly I'd go STR, WIS, DEX as main.

Ascetic Style only needs a Swift in the start of combat so it's not that bad.

Plus Ki gives you something to do with that Swift on rounds you don't use Hunger.

Sure, there are plenty of effects that are tied to mechanics.

But while individual effects may reward one alignment over another, overall there isn't really a "most rewarded" alignment.

I never said one was more rewarded or not. So I don't really know what your arguing about.

What I said was in response to this:

"You miss my point. There is no mechanic that rewards/punishes characters other than having the alignment restriction itself."

Which was not true since there is in fact many rules in the game that reward or punish a character based on alignment. Since Alignment is a mechanical aspect of the game...just as much as it is a role-playing aspect.

"The Glutton for Punishment (Tank)"

Class(s): Shaman/Unchained Monk

Race: Human

Traits: Heirloom Weapon (Scythe), Quain Martial Artist

Progression
1st- Monk (1st)
Feats: Urgathoa's Hunger (Divine Fighting Technique), Weapon Focus (Scythe), Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Dodge

2nd- Shaman (1st)
Spirit: Life

3rd- Shaman (2nd)
Feats: Crusader's Flurry
Hex: Life Link

4th- Monk (2nd)
Feat: Combat Reflexes

5th- Monk (3rd)
Feat: Ascetic Style

6th- Monk (4th)
Ki Power: Qinggong Power (Barkskin)

7th- Monk (5th)
Feat: Ascetic Form
Style Strike: Flying Kick

8th- Monk (6th)
Feat: Improved Trip
Ki Power: Qinggong Power (Power Attack)

9th- Monk (7th)
Feat: Vicious Stomp

10th- Monk (8th)
Ki Power: Qinggong Power (Restoration)

How's that look?

the problem is that the mechanics affect the label, they don't reward or punish for playing the label properly or not.

Yes. But if you don't play the alignment properly you will eventually stop being that alignment.

You miss my point. There is no mechanic that rewards/punishes characters other than having the alignment restriction itself. Alignment isn't tied to a d20 roll as Karma/drama dice are to the basic mechanics of the game. Alignment is pretty self-contained, comparing.

There are plenty of mechanics that affect (rewards/punishes) characters of certain alignments. Holy Word, Forbiddance, Chaos Hammer, Smite Evil, etc.

A character who maintains a Neutral alignment on an is rewarded when they take less effect from certain types of spells/abilities.

For example a group is entering an evil temple warded by a Forbiddance keyed to being Chaotic Evil. The Lawful Good character is taking 12d6 damage while the Chaotic Neutral character is taking 6d6 from the spell.

Or Spells such as Hallow/Unhallow that can be used to reward or punish characters of certain alignments, or Glyphs of Warding.

Then you have spells that actually get better if you match the Alignment like Righteous Blood.

Alignment is definitely more than just a scribble on your sheet. It also dictates mechanics.

Restrictions aren't the issue, it's that characterisation is the thing being restricted, not mechanics.

Well since Alignment is a mechanical aspect of Pathfinder I'd disagree.

Alignment is the same mechanically as Base Attack Bonus. It's a part of the games ruleset, so for me it is the same as asking to remove any other restriction within the ruleset.

If people really don't like Alignment they should just use house rules or maybe just realize another rpg might serve thier purposes better. Like 5e, Fate, or other games that don't use alignment.

Arguing to remove alignment rules from Pathfinder makes about as much sense to me as arguing to add alignment rules to a game without them.

Some people enjoy Alignment and the restrictions on classes or prestige classes. It's why they use Pathfinder.

Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

"to bad, outdated, and arbitrary ideas"

Seriously...you don't have to enjoy the core game. But that doesn't make them bad, outdated, or arbitrary.

Whether they're bad or not is subjective but I think the fact that its generally accepted most well fleshed out characters can be argued for many alignments(see batman). Alongside the fact that many in this thread have shown perfectly reasonable rational for lawful barbs and chaotic monks does show it is arbitrary.

Outdated is a bit harder to quantify, there are people hanging around from the very earliest days of DnD who did and always have objected to alignment and new folks who like it. So I think its hard to say. I would argue its quite an old fashioned idea to lock certain classes behind roleplay walls. Like bards having in the passed had alignment restrictions and Paladins of the past being restricted to certain races. One which I believe the newer editions (5e) have mostly abandoned? Can't say for certain on that, my 5e knowledge is limited.

Yeah I play both Pathfinder and 5e.

Alignment is a matter of personal preference. I enjoy Alignment and having restrictions; it's why I like Pathfinder. I've had to make hard choices when making characters and I personally don't mind that. For example when I'm feeling a Divine Champion I tend to go towards Paladin, unless I want a champion of Desna then I end up using Warpriest.

Some people don't like that and that's cool. I'm just comfortable working with certain boundaries.

5e still has restrictions, but they are much more lax. Paladin in 5e isn't restricted untill you take an oath, which don't flat out say LG or CG bit the oaths code dictates my alignment basically.

Or in 5e if I want an battlemage I use Wizard + multiclassing into a class that gives heavy armor.

But they are like apples and oranges (Pathfinder versus 5e) both have merits but it mainly comes down to what I want personally at the time.

"to bad, outdated, and arbitrary ideas"

Seriously...you don't have to enjoy the core game. But that doesn't make them bad, outdated, or arbitrary.

Or make anyone who likes how the current game is "selfish", "non inclusive", "naive"...etc.

I think we get you don't like it. But your opinion of how the game should be changed doesn't excuse poor behavior.

So how about cut the insulting language and condescending attiude some of you have.

Thanks.

dysartes wrote:

Tectorman wrote:

And I believe I should be able to walk up to any random Pathfinder table, introduce such a not-lawful Monk character, and similarly reasonably expect no drama to come of it. That that respect is so vehemently and consistently refused? Mind-boggling. That this sort of selfishness is encouraged and rewarded, especially by those who then turn around and hold such classes as the Paladin to righteous standards of behavior, the polar opposite of what is being demonstrated at the table? That will never be okay with me.

Random tables playing RAW is hardly them showing you selfishness - it is maintaining a consistent baseline to the game. The hypothetical player with the Lawful Monk is in line with RAW, so of course they aren't going to have problems.

Sheesh, some people...

No, that's not the selfishness. The selfishness is this:

"Hey, I want to play my lawful Monk character. If the Monk were 'Alignment: Any', then I would still be able to play my lawful Monk character, BUT other players that want to play their not-lawful Monks would be able to do so just as well with having to fight an uphill battle that they shouldn't have to be fighting just for a freaking game.

"Meh. Screw 'em. It's no skin off my teeth. What exists as is works for me, and even though it could easily be improved to work for me AND for others, instead I'm going to dig my heels in and decide that my enjoyment can only come at the expense of others."

I mean, what in God's name would you call that, other than selfish?

"Sheesh, some people...", indeed.

That's not selfish. That's just how the game is setup and I doubt many people want Alignment restrictions on class just to snub or take away enjoyment from others. Maybe just maybe they actually like the restrictions.

Options exist for a non-lawful "Monk". You have Martial Artist, Brawler, or a Unarmed Fighter.

So some people think "Splash Weapons" don't work on Fine/Diminutive Swarms.

So I guess following that logic the Alchemist's Bombs ability doesn't work on Fine/Diminutive Swarms either?

So, it has the hardness and hit points of a shield?

Why does it's hardness or hit points matter? That doesn't change anything. It still "can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield".

The only part that matters to a Monk or similar abilities like it is that the shield the ring creates is "wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield". You literally wield it as a heavy shield to use it.

But as a side note it won't have the hardness and hit points of a shield from the "Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points" since it's not made of wood or steel.

The Ring of Force Shield generates a shield sized/shaped wall of force. Which can be wielded as if it were a heavy shield.

So it's hardness and hit points would be determined via the spell wall of force.

So based on how a wall of force works. The shield would have Hardness 30 and 180 hit points, since the ring is caster level 9th.

Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Komoda wrote:

Quantum Steve wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Quantum Steve wrote:

There are many things in PF that are "used as" or "treated as" or "wielded as" a different thing. In general, these phrases mean that the thing in question uses all the rules of the thing it's treated as.

Not true.

At any time the "treated as" statement works to the character's advantage, the arguments stating that "treated as" =/= "is" result in threads far longer than this one.

Sometimes, yes, but I often see players who want to use "treated as" for purposes other than intended.

For example, a ring of Force Shield is only wielded as a heavy shield when it's actually being used. The rest of the time it's not a heavy shield, so it can't be enchanted as a shield, for instance.

And it is also only treated as a heavy shield for monks. Everything else that makes it a heavy shield is not a heavy shield. It has no weight. No ACP. Does not require proficiency. Yet somehow, it screws up a Monk's AC bonus.

Of course it would affect the Monk. Why wouldn't it?

Ring of Force Shield wrote:

This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.

Monk wrote:

When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.

It's the same way for a Ecclesitheurge Cleric.

Ecclesitheurge’s Vow wrote:

At 1st level, an ecclesitheurge makes a vow to his deity to be protected solely by his faith, not by armor or shields. An ecclesitheurge who wears armor or uses a shield is unable to use his blessing of the

...

"wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield" is all that matters.

It could go on to saw the shield has no acp, doesn't require proficiency, is made of cheese, doesn't like being in the dark, and is afraid of bears.

Nothing after the wielded part even matters to the Monk or abilities like it.

If you use a shield you don't get the Monk stuff. The Ring says you can wield it as a heavy shield. End of discussion.

Our table has an inelegant but simple system.

On a Nat 1, you roll a d4. 1 is a miss, 2 you drop your weapon, 3 hits an ally, 4 hits yourself. The friendly fire is always minimum damage and contextual. Spells or unarmed or natural attacks "dropping" mean that next turn you need your spend your move "reorienting" yourself, which provokes an aoo just like picking up a dropped weapon.
This system applies to any regretted attack, spell or otherwise.

Our table has stated that we all enjoy this system. The battlefield is chaotic and fluid and there should exist the same possibility for bane as boon.

So basically it just heavily favors casters who use spells that don't require a D20 to use. (Fireball, Slow, Fog Cloud, etc)

Quantum Steve wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

Quantum Steve wrote:

There are many things in PF that are "used as" or "treated as" or "wielded as" a different thing. In general, these phrases mean that the thing in question uses all the rules of the thing it's treated as.

Not true.

At any time the "treated as" statement works to the character's advantage, the arguments stating that "treated as" =/= "is" result in threads far longer than this one.

Sometimes, yes, but I often see players who want to use "treated as" for purposes other than intended.

For example, a ring of Force Shield is only wielded as a heavy shield when it's actually being used. The rest of the time it's not a heavy shield, so it can't be enchanted as a shield, for instance.

And it is also only treated as a heavy shield for monks. Everything else that makes it a heavy shield is not a heavy shield. It has no weight. No ACP. Does not require proficiency. Yet somehow, it screws up a Monk's AC bonus.

Of course it would affect the Monk. Why wouldn't it?

This ring generates a shield-sized (and shield-shaped) wall of force that stays with the ring and can be wielded by the wearer as if it were a heavy shield (+2 AC). This special creation has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance since it is weightless and encumbrance-free. It can be activated and deactivated at will as a free action.

When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses his AC bonus, as well as his fast movement and flurry of blows abilities.

It's the same way for a Ecclesitheurge Cleric.

At 1st level, an ecclesitheurge makes a vow to his deity to be protected solely by his faith, not by armor or shields. An ecclesitheurge who wears armor or uses a shield is unable to use his blessing of the faithful ability, use cleric domain powers, or cast cleric spells.

It's wielded as a Heavy Sheild. It's plainly telling you that to get the Sheild bonus you have to use it as a Shield.

Flagging and moving on.

Hopefully we all get what we want eventually. CG Paladins, a Rogue-type with 9/9 divine, or whatever else.

Otherwise I'm done with this toxic thread.

Peace.

FormerFiend wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer as to why, if its really really about roleplay, and not mechanical advantage warpriest doesn't work for non LG holy warriors.

It does work. It just also casts CG as being inadequate and impotent compared to LG as LG gets warpriests and paladins.

I can have a full party that consists of a cleric, inquisitor, paladin, and warpriest of Iomedae. I cannot do the same thing for Cayden Cailean.

The options are, as I've laid them out; that either Cayden Cailean is incapable of empowering holy warriors to be paladins in the way that Iomedae is, in which case Iomedae is apparently superior to him in some intangible way, or he simply doesn't see the value in doing so, in which case, he's an idiot.

If there is a third option, I am quite curious as to what it is. If there is a legitimate justification as to why LG gods deserve to have another toy to play with that CG gods don't, I'm quite curious as to what that is.

Or option three - he empowers his champions in DIFFERENT ways.

Brewkeeper

Yep can confirm. They do in fact get empowered in different ways.

I guess LG is now incompetent or stupid since they don't have Brewkeepers.

My wanting "a class with 3/4 Bab, armor/weapons, sneak attack, 4+skills, and 9/9 casting" isn't ridiculous.

It's basically a Cleric without the Domain or Channel and adding in better skills and some kind of Sneak Attack.

You could have a rogue chassis with 9th level divine casting. Just design it, clear it with your GM/players and bingo bango, there you go.

Again, it'd be nice if Paizo gave everyone what they wanted .. but in a way they did. They gave you the game system and the ability to do what you want with it. Go for it and have fun.

The same thing could be said for CG Paladins.

I'm legitimately curious as to whether or not you understand the concept of false equivalency.

So your allowed to want "a CG class with full BAB, heavy armor/martial weapon proficiency, buffing aura, a touch ability, and 4/9 casting. "

but I'm not allowed to want "a class with 3/4 Bab, armor/weapons, sneak attack, 4+skills, and 9/9 casting"?

Why is your want serious and needed and mine seen as a joke or a false equivalent.

We both want something that doesn't exist in the game because of restrictions in the rules.

Desna's Shooting Star is an excuse available only in retrospect, and while it is a powerful feat, it's a bit overrated since you still need Dex to qualify for the feats that would make it really strong.

Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.

Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?

Lets just remove all the restrictions!

Is that your argument, that the alignment restriction on the Paladin is a balancing factor? Because that's already been addressed in this thread. Or are you just getting snide under pressure?

Under pressure of what?

I'm simply stating that once alignment restrictions are removed, what will be next on the chopping block?

Why not continue removing restrictions?

I want to have a Rogue chassis with 9th divine casting. Why can't that happen?

The fact that antipaladins are required to be CE and also have strict codes of conduct that they have to follow supports the idea. Especially when those codes of conduct are ones imposed by deities they worship.

The Anti-paladin's code is strict? That's laughable.

The only thing strict in it is to be CE and don't be altruistically good.

Otherwise do whatever you want whenever you want as long as it furthers your own goals.

So strict.

It's about as strict as I would expect from a Chaotic character.

I've never known a GM petty enough to actually try and target a caster's spellbook nor a group that would tolerate such a move.

Is it also "petty" to target Fighter's with a Will save? or the Rogue with a Fortitude save?

I don't see how it's petty to attempt to disable the god wizard's only weakness.

None of which is remotely comparable to paladins being lawful good only as all of that is mechanical while the paladin restriction is a roleplaying one that is subject to huge variation between deity codes and a player's roleplaying ability.

The Paladin's restriction is also mechanical. You literally lose power if you break it. It's not simply a role playing thing.

FormerFiend wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Ryan Freire wrote:

Because game systems require checks on power level or you end up with rifts

You say that, and yet the wizard continues to exist.

Yeah, and you don't see me advocating for loosening restrictions on it, whereas this is an entire thread on loosening restrictions on what is probably the most mechanically strong martial class in the game.

What are these restrictions on the wizard class that I'm unaware of?

A primary stat that has little to no combat relevancy outside of their spellcasting, reliance on spellbooks which can be stolen/destroyed, significant GM control over which spells can be learned or are even available. Low HD. Fewer base class abilities than non 9 level casters, a fairly limited skill list, armor restrictions, weapon restrictions, even then its not enough to overcome unrestricted access to their spell list.

Wow. You know what once we abolish alignment from Pathfinder and remove all alignment restrictions from classes, i feel the next step is all those pesky restrictions that will be left.

Why my Rogue can't have 9th divine casting is absurd, or why can't my Wizard use full plate and cast magic, why can't my CG Cleric worship a LE deity, and why can't my Monk use guns?

Lets just remove all the restrictions!

Ryan Freire wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

i want a paladin for every alignment CG included but i don't give a rats patuty about desnas starknife fighting why would i want to use cha as my main to hit and...

Because point buy exists.

point buy is also terribly designed

Maybe in your opinion.

Point Buy is well balanced and makes sure all the players are on the same playing field.

Leaning towards getting Corso and Cuan to join in as the bard and shaman.

Brain in a jar I do have another game that could use a player that your character would fit right in. They are about to enter a dungeon that is operated by clockwork machinery were the floors rotate and change and the guards are clockwork golems it is also level 10 so you could uses that guy as he is.

Okay. I'm be done for that.

What's the game?

A glaive doesn't qualify for Black Black, even with Bladed Brush.

Black Blade is asking for a certain type of physical item.

I'm not even sure why you would want to use a glaive as a Magus you can't Spell Combat with it anyway. You don't have the required free hand.

Actually, a cleric doesn't get access to new spells when they level a PrC.

Prestige Classes that advance spell casting all state "He does not, however, gain other benefits a character of that class would have gained, except for additional spells per day, spells known (if he is a spontaneous spellcaster), and an increased effective level of spellcasting."

Since a cleric is not a spontaneous spellcaster, they do not get spells known.

--------

The fee to copy a spell is also a consumable, which also fits the position of temporary gold sink.

"A cleric may prepare and cast any spell on the cleric spell list, provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation."

Clerics know all spells on the cleric list no matter what.

I'm not talking about two base classes, I'm talking about PrC's that force a wizard to buy scrolls to expand spells known, but doesn't require the sorcerer to do this.

The cleric must also buy scrolls while the oracle doesn't with PrC's that advance spell casting.

You don't have to buy scrolls to learn new spells.

You also have the option of copying from another spellbook.

"In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more."

Which is a much cheaper option.

Dev posts are not rules. The CRB says "a cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s" a similar statement about Inquisitors appears in the APG, a similar statement about the Warpriest appears in the ACG, in no rulebook does it say anything about a Paladin's alignment being in agreement with their deity's. They're reprinted the CRB like 8 times so if they felt like changing the printed rule they could have, easily.

You can play with James Jacobs' house rules in that post, but I don't, and I would suggest that the only thing keeping you from playing all your revolutionary, gadabout, freedom fighter Paladins is clinging to that house rule.

It's not a house rule. JJ was talking about Golarion lore.

If your playing Pathfinder ruleset it doesn't assume your playing Golarion. But once the topic is about Desna, Milani, etc it's fair to assume it's about Golarion.

And in Golarion a LG Paladin of a CG deity doesn't make sense.

Here is my submission. I just need to finish skills, my name, and background. But this is the gist of it.

Gnome Sorcerer

Okay, this is Gaurwaith's submission. I'd definitely appreciate any feedback, I'm sure that my backstory could use lots of improvement and I've still got a lot of money to spend on things like iron spikes and different colors of chalk.

As is usual for me, I'm interested in any feedback other potential players will give me, and will offer my own in return.

You can't have two animal companions. The levels stack to determine the animal companions level. You need a special ability to split it to get more.

Berserker of the Society can't be taken by a Bloodrager. The preq is Barbarian.

Are you at all familiar with the crimson throne adventure? Or about Varisia and the local culture.

Yes. I read the Player's Guide and I'm familiar with Varisia and the lore.

I'd like to propose a Gnome Sorcerer with the Impossible Bloodline. Who is quite the engineer and attends the local Theumanexus College.

Quite capable of slinging magic and tinkering with objects (including traps!).

I'd be interested.

Is there any other details I should know?

The thing is, LG can also play rogues, bards, and alchemists.

Those are not the same thing as what I mentioned.

Those were all special stuff that Chaotic Good gets that Lawful Good doesn't get.

CG can't play Paladins.

CG also can't play Anti-Paladins, or Tyrants, or Druids.

LG can't play those either. It also can't use those special prestige classes.

They get different things.

CG will most likely never have a "Paladin" they will perhaps get something "Paladin-like" or have their own options that are limited to just CG.

Hell chances are if/when Pathfinder comes out with a CG "Paladin-like" class people still won't be happy since it won't be a carbon-copy of the Paladin.

But that doesn't address the setting issue, which is that the official published setting, the forces of chaotic good are either stupid or impotent. And that irks me.

Okay. Maybe you should pay more attention then. Since Chaotic Good gods do get some special treatment in the setting. Perhaps not in the way you personally want but they still get it.

Stargazer, Ashavic Dancer, Brewkeeper, Rose Warden, and Sphere Singer to name a few.

Not to mention the plethora of stuff Desna gets that's special.

Warpriest (Champion of the Faith) of Desna. You can do some awesome stuff with that since it combines well with Desna's Shooting Star.

So Chaotic Good doesn't have a lack of options. You just don't like the options.

1: 4d6 ⇒ (5, 2, 5, 4) = 16 = 14
2: 4d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 5, 4) = 20 = 16
3: 4d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 6, 4) = 15 = 14
4: 4d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 4, 2) = 11 = 10

I'll stick with that. :)

Question about the Traits.

Did you mean a final total of 2 Traits and 1 Drawback?

Just wanted to clarify since taking a Drawback gives an additional Trait.

Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Mellok your rewrite for Master Craftsman wouldn't allow anyone to craft any magic item.

"Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites."

You'd need to add in something about ignoring that or counting as the required item feat.

I think I'm being trolled but suffice it to say that my intent was to say the updated master craftsman feat would count as having the appropriate magic item creation feat when creating items allowed by the feat.

Yup. I trolled you so goodz...

Or maybe I was just trying to be helpful. :P

Mellok your rewrite for Master Craftsman wouldn't allow anyone to craft any magic item.

"Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites."

You'd need to add in something about ignoring that or counting as the required item feat.

Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Weables wrote:

I don't think so. 'This Ability', Which is Mantle of Moonlight, can do two separate things. Even then, you can still only use it once per day.

This ability would refer probably to the entire Mantle of Moonlight ability, in my opinion.

"You can use this ability once per day at 5th level plus one additional time per day for every 5 levels above 5th. "

So what you can't use it at all then before 5th level?

At 1st level, you have the immunity to lynocraphy

At 1st Level you have that and...

"Additionally, you may disrupt a lycanthrope’s connection to the moon with a successful touch attack. This action automatically forces the lycanthrope into its humanoid form, which it must remain in for a number of rounds equal to your oracle level."

Those are both available from the start.

The only thing that is altered at 5th level is the following.

"Upon reaching 5th level, you can use this ability to force others into a rage, as per the spell. Using this ability is a melee touch attack. You can use this ability once per day at 5th level plus one additional time per day for every 5 levels above 5th."

It's not useless as it can bridge some feats. For instance, alchemy would do potions and wondourous item oils and perfumes.

Leathers would do belts and leather armour...

It's all relative.

You can't make Potions. Master Craftsman doesn't let you take Brew Potion. :(

The best use of it I've seen is Craft (Clothing) and use it with Craft Wondrous Items. Since it includes so many of the useful items in that category.

I don't think so. 'This Ability', Which is Mantle of Moonlight, can do two separate things. Even then, you can still only use it once per day.

This ability would refer probably to the entire Mantle of Moonlight ability, in my opinion.

"You can use this ability once per day at 5th level plus one additional time per day for every 5 levels above 5th. "

So what you can't use it at all then before 5th level?

Brain in a jar, the feat is clearly made to be an exception to the core books rules as ALL feats are.

It only makes the exceptions it says it does. Nothing more.

"Ranks in your chosen skill count as your caster level for the purposes of qualifying for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats."

So Master Craftsman lets you take either of those feats.

"You can create magic items using these feats, substituting your ranks in the chosen skill for your total caster level."

It lets you have a "caster level" for creating magic items.

"You must use the chosen skill for the check to create the item."

It requires you to use the chosen skill to make said magic items.

"The DC to create the item still increases for any necessary spell requirements (see the magic item creation rules in Magic Items). You cannot use this feat to create any spell-trigger or spell-activation item."

Otherwise it still follows the rules for Magic Item Creation.

What you're saying is wizards can't swing longswords with martial weapon proficiency long swords because wizards don't get that.

?

Put me in the "Choose a skill, use that skill" camp - because that is what the feat explicitly states. Nowhere in the feat does it limit you to a skill appropriate to the item. You use yhe chosen skill instead of any other skill check.

No the feat doesn't limit it. The Magic Item Creation rules limit it.

The feat does not remove the restrictions found in the Magic Item Creation rules.

A Wizard with Craft Magic Arms and Armor who wants to make +1 Chain-shirt must make a skill check. Either Spellcraft or Craft (Armor).

A Master Craftsman with Craft Magic Arms and Armor who wants to make a +1 Chain-shirt must make a skill check as well. Craft (Armor).

So if the Master Craftsman wants to make magic armor they have to spend two feats (Master Craftsman and Craft Magic Arms and Armor) and are stuck using Craft (Armor) to make magic items since they can't use Spellcraft.

That is how the rules work.

John Murdock wrote:

you can't use profession for armour or weapon since the magical craft of those precise that you need craft armour for magic armour, craft bow for bow and arrow or weapon for any other weapon, with wondrous item it can be ok for some since it need to be an applicable craft or profession

Thankfully your opinion that Profession is not capable of crafting magic items, despite being an option of the feat, doesn't really mater for the OP or myself.

It's not an opinion. Profession can't make Magic Weapons or Armor.

You have to check the Magic Item Creation rules.
Link

"At the end of this process, the spellcaster must make a single skill check (usually Spellcraft, but sometimes another skill) to finish the item. If an item type has multiple possible skills, you choose which skill to make the check with."

Creating Magic Armor
"Skill Used in Creation: Spellcraft or Craft (armor)."

Creating Magic Weapons
"Skill Used in Creation: Spellcraft, Craft (bows) (for magic bows and arrows), or Craft (weapons) (for all other weapons)."

So Profession (Blacksmith) can't be used on those.

Creating Wondrous Items
"Skill Used In Creation: Spellcraft or an applicable Craft or Profession skill check."

Profession (Blacksmith) could be used to make certain Wondrous Items. Like Helms, Gauntlets, etc that a Blacksmith could use. But you can't use Profession (Blacksmith) to make a Robe.

Brain_in_a_Jar wrote:

Snowlilly wrote:

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon.

SKR wrote:

Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.

1. Trample specifically calls out to use slam damage.

2. Slam is a natural weapon.
3. Similar abilities, also named Trample and derived from the same combat maneuver, specify the damage dealt comes directly from a natural weapon.

Common sense: A natural weapon is named in the ability. Similar abilities specify the damage is dealt directly by the natural weapon. Lacking a statement specifying otherwise, we infer that the natural weapon named as the source of damage is being used to inflict the damage.

I guess the same holds true for Dragon Roar and Whirlwind then as well?

whirlwind specifically say you make an attack roll so you make a weapon damage, and the roar use the same language as the trample so its not a weapon damage, especially since you roar to make a cone attack (15foot) which by logic is impossible to do with a weapon

Whirlwind doesn't make an attack roll. (I was talking about the Whirlwind ability from Universal Monster Rules.)

Mainly I was using Whirlwind and Dragon Roar as examples of why the logic used was faulty.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Common sense would seem to dictate that an extraordinary ability that doesn't say it is a weapon, or that it is using a weapon, is not a weapon.

SKR wrote:

Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.

1. Trample specifically calls out to use slam damage.

2. Slam is a natural weapon.
3. Similar abilities, also named Trample and derived from the same combat maneuver, specify the damage dealt comes directly from a natural weapon.

Common sense: A natural weapon is named in the ability. Similar abilities specify the damage is dealt directly by the natural weapon. Lacking a statement specifying otherwise, we infer that the natural weapon named as the source of damage is being used to inflict the damage.

I guess the same holds true for Dragon Roar and Whirlwind then as well?