1) I personally prefer MapTool over Roll20 and any paid service. I found the interface more initiative, and the program measures your token movement distance as you're moving it. I also find it easier to prepare by laying down hidden tokens that relay information to me and I can put monster stat blocks directly into tokens. My group found it easier to learn how to use, and we frequently have problems where players lose their permissions to use their tokens. You can also easily add material from your local machine without having to worry about DMCA. You can also run maptool on anything that supports java whereas roll20 doesn't work for mobile devices unless you pay a subscription.
2) Skype is sufficient. Combat Manager is an amazing resource. You will also want a way to store character sheets so they're available to everyone in the group. Google Docs and Mythweavers are good ones.
3) A big difference is that you can easily hide information from other players. For example, if a player rolls a successful knowledge check, the GM can tell the player the resulting information in a private message. Online play is also easier to look up information. There's many extra ways you can enhance the game, like using a voice morpher or streaming music.
I exclusively play online. I use MapTool and Skype. For character sheets, I make it mandatory that all players store their character sheet in google docs where I can easily access it. Google docs also lets me make a folder and store links to each sheet so that they're easily available to me and the rest of the players. I prepare for a session by getting maps off of the Internet or a PDF module (via print screen) and import them into MapTool. There, I create the monster tokens in places where they exist, copy/pasting their stat blocks into a text block in the tokens that only the GM can see. Then, I use the fog of war feature so that players can only see areas I reveal.
Each player character gets a token. My players don't have to translate their entire character sheet into it, but are encouraged to store their hitpoints, AC, and any class resources like ki points and arcane pool points. For fun, I extracted the sprites from the Ultima-styled MMORPG Tibia and use them for tokens and environment items in the game. I also created little sprites for each player character.
The problem I had with adventure paths is that I had trouble turning them into the players' story. If the PC's interests do not lie within the adventure, then they're basically getting railroaded into it. A player pretty much has to design their character specifically for the adventure path, which I suppose is what separates an AP from a really long module.
Sadly DMCA is such an iron fist that fair use is difficult to apply. It's pretty obvious that using images in a non-profit, unpublished game guide is fair use.
If your're gonna use copyrighted images, it's probably best to stick to ones Paizo owns. They're not going to sic their lawyer ninjas for putting images of their game in a guide for their own game.
The second paragraph of magic jar answers all of your questions.
magic jar spell wrote:
In a group of life forces, you ... can determine whether a life force is powered by positive or negative energy. (Undead creatures are powered by negative energy. Only sentient undead creatures have, or are, souls.)
What makes this awkward is that life force and soul are different things. You're not only transferring your soul, but also the force that sustains your life. This is supported by the fact that your body turns into a corpse when your soul and life force go into the magic jar. Unintelligent undead are creatures with a life force, but no soul.
I assume that magic jar enables a positive energy life force to sustain a non-functional body as normally only negative energy can sustain a corpse unable to support life.
Off hand weapons grant you extra attacks. When you use armor spikes, you're basically designating that as your off hand weapon. Hence, you don't get an armor spike attack when you wield a two-handed weapon because you spent your off hand on the two-handed weapon.
I never liked armor spikes. It doesn't seem like a wise idea to slam your body against an armed foe where they can easily reach a vulnerable spot in your armor. It creates so many headaches over attack economy.
Wait, I thought that two doesn't stack with fob, so why would multi armed fighting?
The two weapon fighting feat doesn't stack with flurry of blows because the monk already benefits from the penalty reduction. Two-weapon fighting (mechanic) is not an action -- it's a modification of the full attack action. Honestly, I think most of the conflicting interpretations on this thread are valid. The rules for extra off hand attacks are not always clear and flurry of blows is awkwardly worded. It's made worse by the confusion between TWF feat and the TWF mechanic. I've seen at least five threads asking about multiweapon fighting in the past week. I think this is a FAQ worthy of consideration.
Can a multi-armed character, such as a Kasatha, use multiweapon fighting for abilities such as flurry of blows and spell combat?
How does the Multiweapon Fighting feat interact with abilities that reference two-weapon fighting and the Two-Weapon Fighting feat?
No, you're missing my point here. My point is that no matter how you interpret how the MWF feat interacts with flurry of blows, a kasatha should still get extra attacks for his extra arms.
If the MWF feat replaces TWF for flurry of blows, then flurry of blows works like multiweapon fighting.
If the MWF feat does NOT replace TWF for flurry of blows, a kasatha still gets extra attacks from his extra off hands because flurry is a full attack action and the rules state that off hand weapons grant extra attacks on a full attack action. If this were not true, then a monk would not get extra attacks from sources such as the haste spell.
Unless you can prove in the rules where I'm wrong in both cases, a kasatha gets extra attacks on a flurry of blows.
The rules explicitly state that off hand weapons grant extra attacks on a full attack action. Flurry of blows is a full attack action. So even with your interpretation, a Kasatha would still get extra attacks with his extra arms during flurry of blows for the same reason a monk benefits from the haste spell while flurrying. Nothing about flurry of blows indicates a kasatha wouldn't get extra attacks from his extra off hands. If anything, only the extra attack from his first off hand wouldn't stack with TWF.
As for Improved and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting references, flurry of blows says he simply gets extra attacks regardless of prerequisites. So, a kasatha simply gets an extra attack at 8th and 15th level.
The main sticking point against your interpretation is that flurry isn't TWF, it refers to it for some of its mechanics. Flurry is not the same as TWF, they are not interchangeble. Just because of the reference doesn't mean you get to put TWF in its place whenever you like, as you are doing here. In a home game, if your GM let's it fly cool. But I'm sure it would never make it in organized play.
Multiweapon Fighting says "This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." -- full stop. For a Kasatha, the TWF feat does not exist, only MWF does. Special feat benefits tend to be meta like this. Also, flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting. If it were otherwise, one could stack flurry of blows with two-weapon fighting.
Kasatha will never make it to organized play, anyway. It's a 20 RP monstrous race. Having four arms is a massive boon, so one should not be surprised to see it enabling some very powerful combinations.
Multiweapon Fighting (Combat) feat wrote:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
Two-Weapon Fighting (with Two-Weapon Fighting feat) allows you to make an extra attack using your off hand with a -2 attack penalty during a full attack.
Flurry of blows is a full attack that grants an extra attack as Two-Weapon Fighting.
Multiweapon Fighting replaces Two-Weapon Fighting (in a meta way) for Kasatha because they have three off hands, as the Multiweapon Fighting feat says so.
Therefore, flurry of blows is a full attack that grants extra attacks as multiweapon fighting.
H. By the special line MWF replaces TWF, but it doesn't specify it qualifies as TWF for the purposes of prerequisites so you wouldn't qualify for improved or greater TWF. The purpose of the by-line is to clarify you can't take TWF. Shouldn't be a problem since having MWF gives you the equivalent of improved and greater TWF, granted at a bigger penalty but also at a much lower level.
The "special" line indicates that MWF replaces TWF for multiple-armed characters. For a Kasatha, the TWF feat does not exist -- there is only MWF. Anytime a rule references the TWF feat, the MWF feat applies instead. This also means abilities like flurry of blows work like MWF for Kasatha, which is why the monk class was very popular for the Thri-Kreen race in 3.5e.
The "special" line in feats tend to be very meta like this. The entire point of the Multiweapon Fighting feat (and its special effect) is to patch the rules for multiple-armed creatures since rules as written assume the character has only two hands.
Like Archaeik says, the text that says "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk" is a figurative way of saying that rules do not treat monk off-hand unarmed strikes as off-hand attacks. This was intended for things like Power Attack and determining the Strength bonus for damage. As a result, a 1st level Kasatha can apply his full Strength bonus to all four of his unarmed strikes and any attack made during flurry of blows.
A monk can choose to use two-weapon fighting instead of flurry of blows. However, he takes penalties as if he does not have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. The same goes for Multiweapon Fighting.
Flurry of blows is basically two-weapon fighting with additional bonuses and restrictions. With a Kasatha, it is like multiweapon fighting instead of two-weapon fighting.
I've been playing a four-armed anthropomorphic cerberus magus for several months, so let's see what I can help you with.
The big thing to remember is this line from Multi-Weapon Fighting: "Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms." In the realm of your character, Two-Weapon Fighting no longer exists. Only Multi-Weapon Fighting exists. This means that this feat applies to anything that references Two-Weapon Fighting. For example, this makes Flurry of Blows work like Multi-Weapon Fighting. This interpretation is supported by the fact that many "special" feat benefits tend to be meta.
1) The character has multi-weapon fighting and wants to draw 4 weapons or weapon-like objects as one move action. The rules only allow drawing two when you have two-weapon fighting.
Strictly RAW, you can draw two weapons, but no more than that. However, it's reasonable to houserule that you can draw as many weapons as you can hold. Even so, Quick Draw is still amazing to have for a multi-armed character. It's especially amazing for my magus as I can use a free action to draw a metamagic rod and spell combat in the same turn.
2) Wielding a weapon to make AoOs, a shield, a metamagic rod and casting a modified spell with somatic components at the same time.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. What are you doing specifically? You can do all of that as long as you're not violating the action economy -- for example, you can't cast a spell as an attack of opportunity. You can't attack and cast a spell in the same turn unless you using Quicken Spell or spell combat or something.
3) In a grapple, characters can only do things that require one haand, probably because the other has to hold the enemy. As this character has more hands, would you allow actions that require more hands, e.g. spellcasting with a metamagic rod? Attacks using multiweapon fighting with three hands? Wielding a greatsword?
Grapple rules limit your actions down to a very specific list, so having more arms would not give you more options. However, it might be a reasonable houserule that you can use a two-handed weapon to attack with, but spellcasting is completely out of the question.
4) If I have a Kasatha Magus, would you give spell combat more attacks? Spell Combat is like Two-weapon fighting, but a Kasatha uses multiweapon fighting in place of two-weapon fighting.
This one's not as clear cut, but I'd say you could get your extra attacks. Spell combat explains that you are basically multi-weapon fighting with one off-hand casting a spell. The text also indicates you can make all available attacks during spell combat. FAQs say spell combat benefits from any effects that increase the number of attacks when you full attack. Thus, if you're wielding three weapons and have one hand free, you can make three attacks and cast a spell.
There's some restrictions here. The text specifically says you need a free hand and a light or one-handed weapon to use the ability.
It's unreasonable to have that interpretation because the feat's context lies with fighting with two weapons. Hence "two-weapon fighting."
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
That sounds about right. You can usually complete about four CR = APL encounters in a 4-6 hour session. That means you'll level up in about five sessions. However, it should be less than that if the GM properly awards XP for roleplaying and non-combat encounters. Encounters below APL also take considerably less time, and above APL naturally award more XP.
In my campaign, I set it up so that there's no single mart but rather a large scattered marketplace. Often magical items are mixed with fake or cursed ones. The most reliable way to get a specific item is to hire a broker specialized in searching marketplaces, identifying magic items, and bargaining with merchants. Magic shops do exist, but only for commonly found consumables, like potions and wands.
Assuming an optimized party with optimal conditions is a fallacy because the power of any monster heavily depends on the circumstances of the encounter. A gelatinous cube is easy pickings in an open field, but a tight, dark corridor where a party member likely already bumped into it is a deadly encounter. What can be assumed is that an author would put a monster in a scenario where the monster would feel confident in fighting.
Let's assume that a 1st level character has a +5 Knowledge (religion) -- fair assumption considering most divine classes tend to not have a high Intelligence. The DC to know a wight has a fatal energy attack is at least 13. A character needs to roll 8 or higher. That means there's still a 35% chance the party will not know information absolutely vital to their survival.
I always keep the party at the same level. It's impossible for a PC to catch up in XP unless the GM gives them special treatment. Unlike levels, a wealth deficit can easily be solved in-character ("With the death of our comrade, let's take a break from our noble quest and do some mercenary work to gear up the newest member to our team!").
As for consequences of death, I have the following reasoning:
2) If the player did not care about their character, there's no reason to punish them for the death of a character they did not enjoy playing.
3) If the player is gaming your death rules, then question whether or not they belong at your table.
Yep, that's part of why in 3.0/3.5 D&D and even some Pathfinder GMs don't allow Teiflings/Aasiamars and other "planetouched" as a base race (requires a +1) because being immune to a whole slew of spells that only affect humanoids can be considered rather powerful.
It's really a double-edged sword. Enlarge and reduce person are among the best 1st level spell buffs and remain useful even at high levels. The frequency of charm person being used on you depends heavily on the GM and rarely ever comes up. Even so, many monsters capable of charming use charm monster instead. Finally, outsiders are still vulnerable to suggestion and other compulsion abilities. So being immune to charm person is a very minor benefit whereas being immune to enlarge/reduce is a hefty loss.
I still don't see how it is unfair to have a fumble effect.
It's unfair because attacking multiple times is how martial classes get stronger. Also, martial classes are already considered inferior to spellcasting classes at later levels. Plus, spellcasters have much more options to deal with combat problems. For example, a spellcaster can use a spell that requires no attack roll or use a buffing spell if they don't want to risk a fumble. A martial class's options are usually limited to stabbing things, shooting things, or switch weapons. It's not fair because it's punishing already inferior classes for doing what their class is supposed to do.
It's something the GM should ask his group about. My friends run fumble rules, but I don't because my group already has a hard time with bad rolls. It's so bad that they swear my GM shield is cursed and even offered to buy me a new one if I upload a Youtube video of me burning it.
Arcane Duelist switch-hitter bard that gets Deadly Dealer at 5th level to throw magically enchanted cards?
A ray sorcerer?
A blockbuster wizard?
A spellslinger wizard or 1 gunslinger / 2 wizard?
A witch? Actually a witch would work great, even a vanilla one.
I agree that this stat spread would make for a good ranged gish build.
You only get feats every odd level. You want your 3rd level feat to be Power Attack and your 5th level feat be Intensified Spell. I suppose another alternative is taking Spell Focus (evocation) at first level and take Spell Specialization as your 5th level magus bonus feat. Though, Spell Focus by itself won't be very useful unless you use many spells like burning hands. The entire point of suggesting Spell Focus + Spell Specialization is to give you a very significant early game boost. And by the time you get to level 7 and beyond, you will have many more interesting feat options.
Whatever you choose for it, you should be fine. It might all depend on how you want to play your character. Even the spell/sword gameplay has many variations. In fact, I rarely use shocking grasp with my two magi. I played one magus that used vanish to sneak up to people and then cleave them in two with a big flippin' sword. The other magus uses crowd control spells and defensive arcana to turn herself into sort of a mage tank. This is just how those two characters fight.
Improved Initiative is generally good for magi because you can either spend your first turn buffing yourself, laying down battlefield control spells (like grease, web, black tentacles), running up to get the first strike on a flat-footed foe, or cast vanish on yourself and get into a better position. Initiative often determines how well a battle will go. It can be the difference between an easy and difficult fight, a cheap and costly battle or a difficult and fatal fight.
Another reason is that you cannot get most good combat feats (like Power Attack and Weapon Focus) until you have a +1 BAB, so your first level selection is limited.
Again, if you decide to become a human, I recommend Spell Focus and Spell Specialization instead. This would allow your 1st level character to do a whooping 3d6 with shocking grasp or 3d4 with burning hands.
Alter Self is a polymorph spell, so it actually does change you into a woman. Further detail into the consequences of feminine biology is deliberately left up to the GM -- this isn't FATAL after all.
I'd personally allow for whatever since the druid is basically a master of nature now. Heck, I personally ruled that a spell like Bestow Curse could do minor polymorph effects that befit the mechanics of the curse. For example, someone could use Bestow Curse to turn an obnoxious guy into an attractive woman with uncomfortably large endowments that bestow a -6 DEX penalty.
Walter's Guide to the Magus can help you with that. With awesome rolls like that, I'd totally avoid the Dervish Dance build.
Magi are dependent on many stats, so your rolls are a major boon. Make sure to always two-hand your weapon to add 50% Strength modifier to your damage rolls. You can't do this during spell combat, but you can when spellstriking.
I know many people recommend them, but I'd personally avoid Arcane Strike and Combat Casting -- both of them will lose their luster at later levels. You're better at concentration, do more damage, and have more things to do with your swift action than most magi. So neither of these options are necessary.
Overall, your magus will be very strong and will be a competent frontline fighter. Have fun!
The concept is not something directly supported as Golerion (Pathfinder's setting) tends to be more European medieval fantasy with a bit of colonial sprinkled on whereas Eberron is more of a magic-steampunk setting. However, there's several ways to make the concept work:
Forgemaster would probably do fine.
He could be a summoner and reflavor the summons and his eidolon to be clockwork creations.
You could let him take item creation feats as an alchemist. Honestly, he could be any spellcaster with item creation feats to make this work. Unlike 4e, Pathfinder's magic item system is rather flexible if the PC has the money for it. He could take Craft Wondrous Item, create a wondrous item that does burning hands X times per day, and BAM! He's got a flamethrower.
I started playing tabletop RPGs a year ago and had the same confusion as you.
The beginner box is like a tutorial that includes all the tools you need to get started, including dice, miniatures, and a scenario. The Core Rulebook has all of the game's core rules, including ones for GMing.
If you have no exposure to tabletop RPGs, I highly recommend the beginner box. If you don't mind getting your hands dirty and want to dive directly into the game, pick up a core rulebook. You don't need to buy anything at all (unless you're in PFS) as the game rules are available at http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ and D20PFSRD.com -- This is very handy for finding friends to play!
I started playing by gaming online. Using Skype and a program/service like MapTool or Roll20, you can play Pathfinder over the Internet. Try asking your online friends or see if you can find a group at an online community to play. When you join a group, the game master should tell you the character creation guidelines. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Most GMs and veteran players love teaching new players because it makes them feel like wise sages.
Another way you can learn is look up recorded games on youtube and Twitch.TV and watch how a game is run.
Magi can wield two-handed weapons alright. Though you can't spell combat with them, you can still spellstrike. It's not ideal, but you can do it. Honestly, that's probably how you want to play a kensai, anyway. You're too fragile to stick around long enough to full attack anyway -- run up to burst someone down and then retreat.
I think there's also a 3rd-party arcana that lets you use two-handed weapons with spell combat.
1) You can't take Extra Hex until you get your first hex. According to an FAQ, you technically don't have the hex class feature until you get your first hex. The same goes for magus arcana, etc.
2) The archetype does not say it's an arcane bond. It only says that the witch treats it as a witch familiar for the purpose of preparing and gaining spells. So you don't need to wear it to cast spells and such. It's basically an expensive spellbook you wear on your face and can enchant as a magic item.
It actually makes me wish a wizard could use their spellbook as an arcane bond.
I always wanted to make an arcane brawler kind of character.
But yeah, I hate it when they make archetypes and don't specify these things. It still annoys the heck out of me that Monk of Empty Hands doesn't explicitly say the monk doesn't take improvised weapon penalties despite the designers intending that. There's some abilities where they rule that the flavor text doesn't apply to the mechanics and then they wonder why there's dispute when they use the flavor text to tell a "common sense" rule but don't actually explicitly say it in the rule text.
This kind of thing annoys me. Phantom Touch has a similar problem.
Phantom Touch (Su): As a standard action, you can perform a melee touch attack that causes a living creature to become shaken. This ability lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your oracle level (minimum 1 round). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier.
Phantom Touch (Su): As a standard action, you can perform a melee touch attack that causes a living creature to become shaken. This ability lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your oracle level (minimum 1 round). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier. At 5th level, the target instead becomes frightened, and at 7th level the target becomes panicked.
It's just...why? Why do this? If they're going to basically copy/paste the same ability to different mysteries, why can't they at least keep them consistent?
UnitedWeStand, spell combat explicitly does not work with ranged weapons. The text says you must use a light or one-headed melee weapon. Two-weapon fighting has nothing to do with it. While thrown weapon rules are a little fuzzy, I don't think you can spell combat with thrown weapons because you're not using it as a melee weapon. Even so, I'm certain ranged spell combat was not intended for thrown weapons because the flavor text mentions using a bow.
Exactly. The ability is unusable as written. It needs to be fixed as ranged spellstrike is pretty much the only reason anyone would even consider this archetype.
I do think the intention was that ranged spellstrike allows you to full-attack as part of casting a line or ranged touch attack spell to deliver the spell attacks. In this way, it makes ranged spellstrike like spell combat except your spell must be a line effect or ranged touch attack.
At 4th level, a myrmidarch can use spellstrike to cast a single-target touch attack ranged spell and deliver it through a ranged weapon attack. Even if the spell can normally affect multiple targets, only a single missile, ray, or effect accompanies the attack. At 11th level, a myrmidarch using a multiple-target spell with this ability may deliver one ray or line of effect with each attack when using a full-attack action, up to the maximum allowed by the spell (in the case of ray effects). Any effects not used in the round the spell is cast are lost.
How can I full attack the rays/line effects in the same round as the spellcasting when:
1) I already used my standard action to cast.
Oh, yeah, that's quite right! I think the intent was that ranged spellstrike allowed you to full attack as part of the spellcasting action. I think this deserves its own thread to FAQ it.
It's not even that. Traits are not supposed to be very powerful, and yet this has the ability to redirect and potentially negate a magic spell. That's considerably more powerful than a feat. Traits are supposed to have half the power of a feat. Thus, I argue for the interpretation that makes a trait not as powerful as a feat. Therefore, magic missile should have precedence.
There are problems with the myrmidarch, namely that you cant spell combat with a ranged weapon, so no casting then full attack. It's an issue that's bugged me and makes me think there is a need for an errata.
There's nothing wrong with ranged spellstriking as you're still getting an action economy benefit (spell + ranged attack).
The myrmidarch was not meant to make the magus a ranged specialist. It's supposed to make him a master-of-arms-and-armor kind of guy. We need a true ranged archetype from Paizo, but I understand why they're hesitant on having a ranged spell combat. Full-attacking is easy as a ranged combatant. The entire point of spell combat is to grant a massive action economy benefit that only applies when in a risky melee engagement. A ranged spell combat would take away the only limitation to the ability.
Since they're both in conflict, I would say the spell takes precedence because it should be the more powerful effect. It's a spell specifically designed to always hit its intended target. A trait is just a mundane ability -- not even an extraordinary ability. Typically when it's magic versus mundane, magic wins.
You can cast a spell and then use a two-handed weapon just as a wizard can let go of his quarterstaff, cast a spell, and then grip the weapon again.
You can't do that with spell combat because the text specifically says your weapon must be a light or one-handed weapon and your off-hand must be free. Spellstrike, however, has no such rule.
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks for sharing that with us!
Honestly, I'd like to see more interesting weapons like the starknife. Your character's favorite weapon plays a large role in defining their flavor. It's part of why I like the magus class, whose mechanics rely on what kind of weapon they wield.