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

Darksol the Painbringer's page

4,594 posts (4,598 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 4,594 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Byakko wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Byakko wrote:

Paladin of Irori adds Charisma to Dexterity to AC.

Sacred Fist adds Wisdom to AC.
Scaled Fist adds Charisma to AC.

All of these are untyped bonuses that apply to separate abilities

Thus the two Charisma bonus based ones would stack with each other.

Don't get hung up on the author's somewhat sloppy wording. You can't wind up with an untyped bonus from an ability score applied to the same thing twice, unless it specifically calls itself out as an exception.


Before you ask what the difference is, I'll point it out for you. The Enlightened Paladin AC bonus would be restricted by Maximum Dexterity Bonus options, because it increases the PC's Dexterity bonus to AC (which is restricted by Maximum Dexterity Bonus).

This means that if I were a level 4 Enlightened Paladin, and I were to have an 18 Dexterity and an 18 Charisma, I would count as having 8 Dexterity for the purposes of applying my Dexterity Bonus to AC (and for the purposes of how restricted that bonus is for wearing armor that has a Maximum Dexterity Bonus).

Like I said, I feel this is just an artifact of sloppy writing. It should just be interpreted as adding your charisma bonus (in addition) to your dexterity bonus to your AC. Thus, it also wouldn't be considered in the max dex bonus cap from armor (that cap only applies to dex bonuses to AC).

If it was, it'd simply be a Charisma Bonus to your AC, and it wouldn't interact with a Maximum Dexterity Bonus at all.

But it isn't, and it otherwise does.

We can say it's horribly written all we want, but it is what it is. Saying it's something else because it's "better writing" (even though Paizo clearly defined stuff such as Divine Grace as simply being a Charisma Bonus to Saves, and this is merely an archetype of that same class), or because "balance" (many would argue that the Enlightened Paladin AC bonus is worse than other AC bonuses, such as certain Oracles with special revelations, so the claim that it's overpowered is hardly the reason why), doesn't really detract anything from what it actually is.

If you're not saying a Swift Action takes similar time to a Move Action, then you can't do a Move Action as a Swift Action, because a Move Action can, per the wording, only be used to "move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time." That's it, full stop.

A Swift Action is neither of those things. Therefore, you can't use a Move Action to perform a Swift Action.

Then, because it's not quantified, you can't explicitly assume that X > Y, or that Y > X. All you can say for sure is that X = X, and Y = Y, which does nothing to solve the ideal that a Swift Action takes more (or less) time than a Move Action to perform. You have to prove that a Swift/Immediate Action takes less time than a Move Action to support the claim you're making, and you haven't even done that yet. Slow your roll, cowboy.

Speaking of reading for comprehension, there's no line to quote; that's simply the intent of the listed exceptions. That's what makes an exclusive precedent.

When there are specific exceptions listed, it is only those exceptions that are allowed in a general case as we are discussing currently (substituting actions). The exceptions are exclusive to the otherwise obvious polar opposite conclusion we'd normally draw, which is the precedent set by the exceptions listed. Hence, exclusive precedent.

It doesn't even have wording like "and so on," or "etc." to allow for other possible subject matter (which would then transform it into an inclusive precedent, where something that is identical to the listed exceptions also becomes part of the exceptions of that precedent).

I'm not grasping at anything. I'm simply taking your logic of applying realism to the obviously abstract and not realistic-at-all rules and extorting it to the levels of Reducto Ad Absurdum, even if only to prove a point. I mean, if we're going to say that the actions for time are a linear thing (which they aren't, especially in real life), then why can't we apply any other realism aspects to the rules as well, just as you're doing right now? After all, you already proved my point yourself with the Shocking Grasp example that you refuted.

For starters, let's take standard creatures you fight. You use Dazzling Display on Round 1. They become Shaken for 1 round + 1 round per 5 you beat their DC. This could be only 1 round. This could be 2 rounds. This could be 5+ rounds; it depends on how well your Intimidate is optimized in relation to the creatures you fight.

If you follow up with another (successful) Dazzling Display next round, you would apply Disheartening Display. If they are Shaken (via your Dazzling Display), they become Frightened, and this is for a number of rounds equal to the Dazzling Display results from both your previous round, and this round - 1 (because 1 round has to elapse before Disheartening Display takes effect). And as mentioned, if used on a Panicked creature, they can do nothing but cower in pure fear (i.e. they take no action; frozen by fear, I suppose).

Of course, if they are already inflicted with a Fear condition, your Disheartening Display would apply to the effects of that condition and their duration; Dazzling Display functions independant of the other Fear conditions, and doesn't say that its duration or effects stack with other Fear effects.

Remember that using Intimidate to demoralize foes is considered both a Fear and a Mind-Affecting Effect, which certain creatures are immune to (there are a lot of them, actually), so I would suggest making this sort of an "optional" thing to do against relevant enemies...

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

I will address this:

Darksol wrote:
Also consider the definition of "similar," which is "almost the same of something else." You're trying to argue that Swift/Immediate Actions are "almost the same" as Move Actions. They're not.'re not reading the rule. Let me quote it again:

PRD wrote:
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time.

Emphasis mine. It's not a similar "action" it's a similar "amount of time." I can perform actions that take a similar amount of time and by definition of how time works, I can perform actions that take less time. Your response is inapplicable as it focuses on arguing that the actions are not similar in type and ignores the fact that the rule is only providing a time criteria. How much time does a Swift action consume?

PRD wrote:
Swift Action: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time...
Now, if the Move action said "similar time and effort." You could try to argue that a Swift action takes more effort than a Move action. But the rule doesn't say that, does it?

Yes, I am, and yes I have read the rule. You're trying to say that Move Actions are similar to Swift/Immediate Actions (most specifically, in relation to the amount of time they take). They are not similar by any means. They're defined as separate entities, with nothing in common with the Move Action entry besides being an Action itself; even the flavor text, in terms of defining how long each action takes, is separate from each other.

You're also assuming that the time for each action is pre-defined into being X or Y in the 6 second parameter, when it's not. A Swift Action could be 0.5 seconds, or it could be 2 seconds. It could be faster than a Move Action. It could be slower than it, too. The point is, the rules have no adjudication for this sort of thing, so positing that you can substitute actions when we already have an exclusive precedent in place means you're not correct unless you have hard evidence to prove your case.

And no, the "definition of how time works" isn't applicable evidence here, for the same reasons why using Shocking Grasp underwater doesn't automatically deal electricity damage to everything in it, why you can't move as part of drinking a potion, and so on; because the rules are abstract of real-life things, such as time being a linear thing (that is, if X > Y, then I can do Y in X time).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Byakko wrote:

Paladin of Irori adds Charisma to Dexterity to AC.

Sacred Fist adds Wisdom to AC.
Scaled Fist adds Charisma to AC.

All of these are untyped bonuses that apply to separate abilities

Thus the two Charisma bonus based ones would stack with each other.

Don't get hung up on the author's somewhat sloppy wording. You can't wind up with an untyped bonus from an ability score applied to the same thing twice, unless it specifically calls itself out as an exception.


Before you ask what the difference is, I'll point it out for you. The Enlightened Paladin AC bonus would be restricted by Maximum Dexterity Bonus options, because it increases the PC's Dexterity bonus to AC (which is restricted by Maximum Dexterity Bonus).

This means that if I were a level 4 Enlightened Paladin, and I were to have an 18 Dexterity and an 18 Charisma, I would count as having 8 Dexterity for the purposes of applying my Dexterity Bonus to AC (and for the purposes of how restricted that bonus is for wearing armor that has a Maximum Dexterity Bonus).

N N 959 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The PDT already resolved it, and it's clear as day as to how it is;

At worst, this is a flat out lie. At best, you're talking about B while the rest of us are talking about A.

The question I'm addressing is essentially whether one can use a move action to performa a free or swift action. Let's look at the actual FAQ you're trying to co-opt:

FAQ on Nauseated wrote:
The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.”

There's nothing in the FAQ that addresses this:

PRD wrote:
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time.


The FAQ says you can only take a move action. It does not say or even suggest that you cannot use a move action to perform an action that takes less time. The FAQ tells us that we don't get the normal allotment of free/swift actions in conjunction with our single move action. Attributing anything else to this FAQ is wishful thinking at best.

Darksol wrote:
that you cannot substitute actions unless an ability or rule says that you can.

And that's exactly what the Move action states: I can perform actions that takes a similar amount of time. By basic law of existence, you can also perform actions that take less time. Asserting otherwise is tantamount to people claiming you have to jump the number you rolled on your acrobatics roll and cannot jump less...and there were a number of people who insisted this was true. Why? Because then, just as now, people are focused on blind formalism when interpreting the rules.

If the PDT intends that I cannot use a Move action to perform any action,...

I'm not talking about B, I'm talking about A like the rest of you. And no, you can't substitute swift actions for move actions. You can substitute Standard Actions for Move Actions, and Standard+Move Actions for Full Round Actions, but that's because the rules already specifically say you can. This creates an exclusive precedent, which means in this case, you can't, unless something else specifically says otherwise. And guess what? You're lacking those very same specifics when it comes to Move->Swift/Immediate.

Your PRD quote is a giant misnomer; it only refers to other Move-equivalent actions, such as opening doors, drawing/sheathing weapons, and so on, because those, likewise, take "a similar amount of time" (which is a Move Action). If effects like Quickened Spells, Judgements, and so on, were to take "a similar amount of time," then quite frankly, why aren't they Move Actions too?

Also consider the definition of "similar," which is "almost the same of something else." You're trying to argue that Swift/Immediate Actions are "almost the same" as Move Actions. They're not. Swift/Immediates can only be done 1/round, are considered short-timed (akin to Free Actions in their description, which are nigh-limitless, unlike Move Actions, which can be done once, twice, or thrice at most,) and in the case of Immediate Actions (and certain Free Actions), can be taken outside your turn. How is that at all similar to a Move Action? It's not. Which means the ideal that you can use a Swift/Immediate Action in place of a Move Action because it's "a similar amount of time," is blatantly false, and therefore not allowable by the rules.

Lastly, the "law of existence" is a silly strawman that goes under the basic assumption that the rules are written to absolutely follow the real world to the letter. They're not. It's been said millions of times that the rules are abstract of real-world physics and ideals. Applying real-world physics to a game that has magic, and other rules that otherwise contradict the physics of the real world, make no sense. For example, drinking and moving at the same time is easy, and shouldn't require me to spend separate actions for them. Why can't I move as part of drinking a potion, when moving and drinking a potion takes just as much time as simply drinking a potion? And why can't I use Shocking Grasp to deal electricity damage to every creature in a body of water, because water conducts electricity? When we apply real-world ideals to the rules, the game falls apart and unwinds behind the madness that ensues. It's like summoning Cthulhu; you really don't want to do it, or you'll go insane.

N N 959 wrote:
Cainus wrote:

Can you essentially slow an action down? If something is a swift action, can you use a move action to do it instead?

For example, if you have two swift actions you want to perform, can you do one as a move action?

As you can see by the discussion in the thread, this is something that the PDT needs to resolve. On one hand, it's clear that preventing substitution would create design space, failing to allow it creates a sea of idiocy or rather idiotic outcomes, within the game world.

To complicate this matter, one of the lead designers stated that the game must be GM'd with common sense. Dead characters can't take actions and humans don't walk around on their hands. But the nature of the rules has created a cult whose belief is that the rules are strictly Permissive, so if it doesn't say it, you can't do it. The PDT has shown a penchant for ignoring or invoking reality whenever it suits them, so common sense frequently gets hit with 12d6 sneak attack by the PDT because this is art, not science.

Let's look at what the rules say about actions:

PRD wrote:
An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, swift actions, immediate actions, and free actions.

Emphasis mine. If we use that framework for adjudicating, then yes, in general any action that takes less time can be performed by consuming an action that takes more time. Why? Because we are operating under the paradigm of needing time to complete actions. Barring a rule preventing a specific substitution, the game has established actions as a function of time expenditure. That point is driven home here:

PRD wrote:
Move Action: A move action allows you to move up to your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat for other move

The PDT already resolved it, and it's clear as day as to how it is; Nauseated removes any ability to perform activities like Swift/Immediate Actions, Free Actions, Full-Round Actions, etc. And there are several (not one or two) listed exceptions as to what can and cannot be substituted in terms of actions, which gives us an exclusive precedent; that you cannot substitute actions unless an ability or rule says that you can. Therefore, this whole "Paladin can use Lay On Hands as a Move Action" is houseruling, because there is ZERO rules, FAQ or otherwise, that say you can do anything like that, and it's probably done because people think the Nauseated condition is too overpowered. It's just like people saying Dexterity-based characters are overpowered, and they're not.

You want overpowered conditions? Try being Paralyzed, Petrified, Stunned, Dazed, Unconscious, etc. Where you can't do anything at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Morphling wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
<post too long to be quoted entirely>

While you are absolutely right that unless you are wearing a corset of delicate moves you cannot substitute a move action for a swift action, you definitely can use the corset while nauseated. "As a move action" means the action in question consumes your move action for the round, so your action which normally requires a swift action is not using a swift action, it is using a move action. This works just fine with nausea.

An example wording that would preclude use during nausea could be "as a move action, you gain the ability to take a second swift action this round." Instead, it says "as a move action, you can take a swift action."

And that's precisely what it says. It says that "as a Move Action, the wearer can take an additional Swift Action." You're still taking a Swift Action, because it then further refers to the additional swift action as being a Swift Action. It's just you can take more than one because you spent a Move Action to do so, whereas before, the rules state you are only permitted one Swift (or Immediate) Action per round.

So no, Corset of Delicate Moves does not circumvent the ability to use a Swift Action while Nauseated. It just lets you spend a Move Action to expand the 1 Swift/Immediate Action per round rule to 2 Swift/Immediate Actions per round.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Which is directly against the FAQ ruling on nauseated.

The nauseated FAQ says that you only get one move action... the normal rule that free and swift actions are retained does not apply;

"Restricted Activity: In some situations, you may be unable to take a full round's worth of actions. In such cases, you are restricted to taking only a single standard action or a single move action (plus free and swift actions as normal)."

However, that does NOT say that you can't switch actions. You get only a Move rather than a Move, Swift, and Free actions as the rules stated prior to the FAQ... but you COULD still swap that Move action for some other kind.

A paladin can use mercy to cure the nauseated condition on themselves with a swift action... ergo, they are somehow able to take a swift action while nauseated. Presumably, they do so by swapping out their move action.

No, they can't. Read that FAQ again:

FAQ wrote:
The nauseated condition really means what it says. You are limited to one move action per round, and not any other actions. Compare to the staggered condition, which says “A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift, and immediate actions.”

You can't use a Swift Action to use Lay On Hands on yourself and remove the Nauseated condition via Mercies, and you certainly can't spend a Move Action to do a Swift Action, otherwise items like Corset of Delicate Moves or Quick Runner's Shirt would be useless and do nothing more than what you can already do. This makes the intent quite clear; you can't substitute actions unless the rules say you can (in the case of using a Standard Action to perform a Move Action).

And plus, there are technically no items that let you take a Swift Action as a Move Action. The Corset of Delicate Moves lets you spend a Move Action to be able to perform a second Swift Action, as evidenced by the wording here:

Corset of Delicate Moves wrote:
Once per day as a move action, the wearer can take an additional swift action. This swift action can’t be used to cast a spell or spell-like ability.

First, it says the Move Action lets you perform an additional Swift Action (and doesn't say you perform a Swift Action as a Move Action as everyone assumes it does), which you are precluded from using via the Nauseated condition. Second, it then proceeds to call that excess activity as a Swift Action, which means you would still have to spend a Swift Action to perform the activity in question, which you are again, still precluded from using via the Nauseated condition.

I am very interested in the Trapsmith stuff, since it beats the alternative (Trapper Ranger), though since it scales off of Rogue level, it may very well end up being bad, especially since CR 10 Traps are about as good as it gets (which can be fairly crappy by the time I get access to them, and it can be very easily-ruled that it would take forever to make them work, making them not such a great combat option). I could always pick up a Familiar or something, and just treat it as if it were a "Jack-in-the-Box," via Eldritch Heritage (Arcane), but I wouldn't know what to do to make it decent offensive-wise.

Shocking Image seems fairly silly, even if it fits thematically. It only deals 2D6 Electricity; if it scaled, I'd be infinitely intrigued, but 2D6 at 7th/8th level is like throwing a level 1 Goblin with a Large Bastard Sword at a level 8 party. There's also the matter that, because it's an "Image" spell, I have to Concentrate on it, which means I'm not being able to do the other cool stuff that Shaco can normally do, so mechanically speaking, even if it wasn't that great of an option, it's a complete bust.

I do wonder if it's worth it to simply go pure Rogue and capitalize on Talents, while improving Debilitating Injury, but lacking (mostly) full BAB seems like a downer, especially for being combat oriented.

So after I've been theorycrafting a few character concepts, and playing games besides this, my fellow players jokingly suggested about if I were to create a PC based off of This character here. I do like a bit of challenge, and to be honest, it would make for a very interesting BBEG to face later down the road (if I decide to GM).

The sad thing is, I believe that I may have found a way to accomplish this, but I am unsure as to whether it will be functional or not. Without further ado, let's begin:

To start, he has 4 signature "skills," so to speak, that should be attainable in order to properly capture the playstyle of the original character. The first is the ability to go invisible, which can be easily replicated either through talents or a magic item. The second is his Jack-in-the-Box, which is fairly difficult to attain (looks like a trap of some sort, maybe available through a feat?), the third is the ability to throw a dagger-like weapon onto an enemy (can be done with a special weapon property with his basic weapons), and the last one is the ability to create a false clone of himself that can attack, deal damage (but can't use any abilities), and explodes upon death (dealing further damage).

The level scheme is fairly simple. I will probably pick up 4 levels of UCRogue (Knife Master archetype), which makes him Dexterity-based, gives him Debilitating Injury, and access to the first of his special abilities via the Minor and Major Rogue Talents. Since he runs around with two dagger-like weapons (plan to use Kukris because stats), TWF seems to be the go-to here. From there, I project going Slayer to capitalize on Sneak Attack, grab Studied Target, bonus feats, and so on, but if there are other acceptable options, I would consider them.

For race, it's difficult to say. He's known as "the Demon Jester," so perhaps Tiefling, since they are demonic in nature? Maybe with one of the variants (like the Rakshasa-Spawn)? I wouldn't know, but some guidance here would be appreciated. Prefer to have bonuses to Dexterity, and some other attribute.

Anyway, here's my current thoughts. Some community insight would be appreciated here; I would like to see this come alive, so to speak, and give my fellow players a shocking stab to their imaginations when I propose playing a "Shaco" for a campaign or two.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rysky covered it. An ability does what it says it does.

There's nothing in the Heroism spell that says they must engage an enemy in battle, regardless of whatever outcome that may follow, nor do they have to apply a sense of honor or bravery to their activities (in other words, it's flavor text).

Quite frankly, if it was supposed to incite a sense of honor or bravery or comradery or any of that stuff, in a literal and by-the-book sense, it would probably have a [Good] descriptor, and that if an Anti-Paladin were to benefit from it, they would be stripped of their Anti-Paladin powers, and probably converted into a Paladin right then and there.

Thankfully, nobody is insane enough to suggest that sort of conclusion...right...? Right? Right?!

bitter lily wrote:
La Chanteuse wrote:
When I think about you I touch myself...

I'm so bad, I hopped on here just to see the jokes. I knew they'd be good. Or bad, depending... ;)

But waah! I clicked on your url and got taken to a list of YouTube videos for dog food and Fallout 4. (Yeah, what can I say -- my husband researches Fallout, but I just obsess about the food our dogs get. :) )

So -- what was that? I wanna know!

The link is broken. I'll put up a fixed version here:

Content Warning:

Now to pay for an Atonement spell for what horrible thing I have done...

Chess Pwn wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
lemeres wrote:
But really... the only thing this gets that can't be summed up as 'a few specific discoveries' is the paralysis/sleep resists.
Noooooooooooooooooope. Mummification gives those immunities. AND cold and nonlethal immunity on top. And technically, 25% Fortification, since that's a prereq.

So this is mostly a weaker version of things you could already do as a regular alchemist?

...just make a beastmorph and make yourself scal-y. You can get a similar build. Stick to str/con, and you will notice few to no problems.

Yup, people pointed this out 2ish weeks before release as they got their early pdf and spoiled some.

So while the book has some options worth looking at, there's lots of trap options because dragons??? Because I'm official dragon fluff is part of the bonus factored in to these archetypes?

It's not a trap because dragons. It's a trap because it gives the illusion of being better without actually necessarily being better. See: Dexterity-based characters V.S. Strength-based characters.

A lot of people don't want to sacrifice character effectiveness for "fluff" purposes. Especially when that same "fluff" can apply to the original options just as well. (No surprise I'm in agreement with such ideals.)

Quite frankly, a lot of the suggestions being made so far (granting more and better natural attacks, flight, vision, etc., like most Dragons are supposed to have), not only makes it not a trap option, but also provides better, more fulfilling flavor to the archetype as well.

Yeah, this isn't worth it. Simply put, Greater and Grand Mutagens provide increases to your entire physical attributes, and a ton of Natural Armor, and are 100% worth the discoveries if you build toward being melee oriented.

Sure, you're suffering mental penalties across the board, but a single 20,000 gold Chest slot negates all of that; most specifically, the Vest of Stable Mutation from Ultimate Equipment, which says that "While under the effect of any type of mutagen, the wearer takes no penalty to mental ability scores from that mutagen." So really, by 12th level (when you can afford to take the Greater Mutagen discoveries), you should be able to obtain this item without issue.

Ranger? Naw, he has spellcasting, Favored Enemy/Terrain, Quarry, Evasion, and some interesting archetypes (Divine Marksmen, Witchguard, and so on).

UCRogue? Naw, he has Dex to Attack and Damage, good Talent options, and Debilitating Injuries, and has 100% archetype compatibility.

Chained Rogue? Oh god yes. But to be fair, that's been dead ever since the release of the APG and archetypes, since most everything poached from the Rogue's biggest features, and did the same thing the Rogue could do, except better.

Rogue/Ranger? Probably. But primarily because I have no idea why you would go this route. There's no point. Rogues have zero Sneak Attack unless they get levels. Rangers don't get Spells, Favored Enemy/Terrain, and so on, unless they get levels too. VMC is plausible, but that again poses the question: Why? There are better dips (or to be more accurate, multiclasses) than Ranger/Rogue. Ranger/Barbarian, for example.

So, the Slayer didn't really change anything. It just further cemented what has already been present. If the Slayer class wasn't ever released, my above statements would not change, even in the slightest.

If the Barbarian died once, he'd be down a level or 2 just from revives alone. This makes him much easier to be killed, so really, him dying once, and then being revived once or twice only serves to make him weaker and weaker.

This isn't something that "a little houseruling" can really fix. The Barbarian is way down on his game, and quite frankly, him not playing the TVTrope stupid-awkward Barbarian is costing him; lacking the necessary stats is getting him killed. Not having good enough Constitution or Strength means he's having less HP and to-hit/damage to kill the enemies before he gets killed, which then translates to him dying easier, more often, and perhaps before he can even do anything.

Quite frankly, the ending rage killing him when he's unconscious is fixed by a single feat (that he should've took to begin with), RAGING VITALITY, which boosts his HP gain further, and lets him maintain his Rage even while unconscious, meaning when he gets dropped, he isn't instantly dead. Seriously, any Barbarian worth his salt that doesn't want to get insta-murked because of Rage mechanics would pick this up. Boom. Problem solved. He should have over 24 rounds of Rage, and the average Combat lasts 3-5 rounds, tops; that's plenty of time for the rest of the party to clean up, heal him back up to snuff, and push forward.

There's also the matter of why your divine spellcaster isn't smart or wise enough to use spells like Breath of Life to save the stupid Barbarian when he knows (or should be well aware, especially after he died the first time,) that he's going to drop dead. I don't care if it's "bad action economy" on the spellcaster's part, it's worse action economy to carry around a Barbarian whose 4 levels under you and to keep spending 5,000+ gold to haul around what is nothing more than a speed bump that keeps constantly being tamped down to nothing more than ground level.

I'd let him either rebuild/optimize his character, or create another one that won't die so easily (Paladins with Lay On Hands are ridiculously OP in that regard). Simply applying a bandaid to the real issue (he's not optimized worth a damn) isn't going to keep someone who's well underleveled compared to the rest of the party from being a drag and/or dying all the time.

So then what's the point of having the "easily worked" materials in comparison to standard materials, when it costs over 5 times as much to craft, and by association, takes longer to craft as well?

My understanding? It's broken. It doesn't work the way the developers think it does, or they decided that for Unchained rules, that special material costs were too cheap, so they really beefed them up to make them more "special." It's certainly possible, as Unchained serve as alternate rules-sets. But there's no denying that compared to the original rules-set, it sucks, and makes no sense.

"Don't worry guys, this stuff is 'easily-worked,' so we're going to make it cost 5 times as much, and therefore take 5 times as long to craft!" It's about as "easily-worked" as trying to dig through raw rocks and gravel with a broken shovel. Your bare hands would probably make a better digging tool...

MageHunter wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
Kobolds make excellent Gunslingers. Just saying.
Their racial archetype, racial feats, and size make them perfect snipers.

They also make good Swashbucklers (Mouser archetype especially), UCRogues (whatever archetypes suit your fancy), and so on, presuming a 20 point buy.

As long as you play to their good attributes (they have good Dexterity, but garbage Strength and Constitution), it shouldn't be an issue to make them effective.

Thanks guys. I just wanted to make sure since we had some debacles with this FAQ's examples that I was running it correctly. I wasn't sure that critical multipliers and threat ranges were to be treated differently or the same for effects that improve them (and by relation, whether they fall under bonuses to the same attribute for the purposes of stacking).

The next big question boils down to when I'm going to take it, but that's for another thread, at another time.

The long and short is: Do they stack?

Crossbow Training improves the critical multiplier by 1. Improved Critical doubles the threat range. This would lead to a theoretical 17-20/X3 (AKA, Falcata level strength) if they stacked.

But I'm not sure if they do, or if they're supposed to.

Axmandan wrote:
I'm looking at brawler in the SRD and I quite like it. What book is it from I can't find it anywhere else.

Advanced Class Guide.

Here's the Paizo PRD Entry.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bandw2 is right; it says MANY traits have a trait bonus. Not ALL like you're treating the word "MANY" to mean.

It's also not a FAQ, it's a rule entry in a hardcover book, so of course it's going to be redundant, because there IS no FAQ in regards to Trait Bonuses, because there doesn't need to be. It's already clear as day that a Trait usually, but does not always, grant(s) a Trait Bonus.

Rager's Aid only ignores the effects of the Fatigued condition, it does not remove or treat you as not having the actual condition; this is evidenced by the factor that after the 6 rounds of Rager's Aid is up, your condition worsens to Exhausted.

So even with a Rager's Aid, you're still unable to simply rage cycle and get a bunch of Bolstered Resilience benefits.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Backpack wrote:

Ok I'll give my crack at this:

Base of +20
Spell focus/greater spell focus +2
Mage/varisian tatoo +1
Prayer beads +4
spell spec. +2
spell perf. +5 (*2 to spell focus, mage tatoo, and spell spec.)
The two traits listed by others a +1 and +1
Orange prism Ioun stone in a wayfinder 1d4-1, potentially a +3
20+2+1+4+2+5+3+1+1=39 CL
(I feel as though my math must be off somewhere in this, as i got higher much easier than others it seems.
Side note if we go half elf you could get a CL 43 for spell duration using this.
Spell Focus doesn't raise caster level, only DC's.
No, but it's generally a prerequisite for other things that do.

But you're counting Save DC increases as Caster Levels.

They're not the same thing, nor are they added to the same things.

I don't care if they're required for other Caster Level increases, the point is not to treat them as if they grant you actual Caster Levels, because they don't, they never did, and they never will. It's not okay, man!

But even without them, I can make it higher.

Base 20 + 1 Allied Spellcaster + 2 Traits + 2 Arcanist Exploits + 4 Beads + 1 Mage's Tattoo + 1 Bloodmage Initiate + 2 Spell Specialization + 8 Spell Perfection + 1 Ioun Stone + 1 Robes of the Summit = CL 43.

If we're talking flat caster levels, it's not feasible, nor would it probably be intended. If we're talking caster levels for certain spells, then yes, it's possible.

Arcanists with Potent Magic grant an extra +2 Caster Level to their spellcasts by using their Arcane Reservoir (with Potent Magic Exploit). Spell Specialization improves the Caster Level of a single spell by 2. Varisian/Mage's Tattoo adds another Caster Level to the spell school in which you took Spell Focus. Bloodmage Initiate adds another +1 Caster Level (but reduces your overall mobility). Traits can add +1 Caster Level to specific spells. Spell Perfection doubles the benefits of Feats that apply to the spell you chose.

To review, we have:

20 Base + 2 Exploit + 1 Trait + (2 Spell Perfection(1 Bloodmage Initiate + 1 Mage's Tattoo + 2 Spell Specialization)) + 1 Ioun Stone + 1 Robes of the Summit + 4 Prayer Beads = CL 37 on a single specialized spell. Without a specified spell, you're getting at-best CL 29/30, which is still impressive, but not the 32 CL you're desiring.

I am curious as to why a CL 32 is needed. The only thing I've thought of that would need Caster Levels is Battering Blast, since at CL 35, you can throw out 7 Blasts that deal 5D6+5 Force Damage onto a single target, and that can likewise be Quickened and further amplified with Metamagic feats like Intensify, Empower, Maximize, and so on, with little to no effort.

Also, it appears I've found a major flaw with the Empty Quiver feat chain, and that's with it being a melee attack.

Sure, I get Dexterity to Damage as a class feature with my Crossbow with the 2nd Empty Quiver feat, meaning I'm still Dexterity-based that way, but I do not get Dexterity to hit with a Crossbow as a class feature or feat, meaning that it still uses Strength to attack (which is only a 10, and is effectively a -4 to hit at this stage).

The only way I can think of to get Dexterity to Attack is by picking up the Weapon Finesse feat, and attaching an Effortless Lace to my Crossbow (and therefore treating it as a Light weapon, meaning I can Finesse with it), though I'd prefer not to spend 5,000 gold and have the risk of the GM screwing with it and having me constantly spending 5,000 gold just to maintain my melee effectiveness.

Again, it's only the D20 site that says it's a substitution, but the PRD just gives it to me and doesn't say it replaces the 2nd level talent. But, considering I get a 2nd level talent, and it's an ability that's gained at 2nd level, it seems fairly obvious that it's intended to be a substitution.

Trapspotter would be pointless, as I'd be grabbing the Trapfinder Campaign Trait (GM gave the OK on this) via our "special points" system (which rewards players for out-of-the-box thinking, accomplishing encounters, and other similar activities). Combat Training is still useful, since bonus feats are always nice.

We abolished Weapon Focus/Shield Focus (and their greater counterparts) as feats; they don't exist, nor do they serve as pre-requisites for feats that require them. This cuts down on the fact that they're basically feat taxes that give bonuses.

Blood Reader doesn't seem like a meta ability; if anything, that's very unique (something the group would prefer), and helps stop the ideal that our GM always says a creature "is hurting" (which our other players use as an invitation for a rather inappropriate rhyming joke)...having an exact note as to how much life a target has left is a big boon as well, as it would tell me how to distribute my attacks if we have more than one focus target.

nicholas storm wrote:
4 levels of fighter (weapon master) gets you weapon training 1 and 1 Advanced weapon training feat that you can use for warrior spirit.

The Warrior Spirit is a pretty nice idea, and actually fits thematically with my specially crafted crossbow: Altair, the Eagle's Shriek. Although I personally dislike abilities like Warrior Spirit towards the endgame, having an effect like that to supplement my character options is pretty nice, since we almost never have reached anything more than +2 weapons in most all our games.

I could also qualify for Point Blank Master as early as 9th level with the Fighter levels, even though Weapon Specialization would be required; still, lacking static damage bonuses as a Crossbow specialist bites, and Weapon Specialization helps out with that a lot.

The killers are 2 skill points/level, worse saves, and a lot of dead features for just a better Weapon Training progression (which isn't horrible, but let's be realistic, there can be better class features than +1 to attack and damage, Advanced Weapon Training and all, even though Bravery sucks and Armor Training for me is kind of meh). It's certainly an option to consider, thanks!

@ Java Man: BAB and skill points are always good. Slayer Talents are kind of meh until 6th level, where I get the talents I really want. As others have suggested, retraining feats to take advantage of my combat style is a big boon to not having to waste a 2nd level combat style feat on basically garbage (though whether the GM will let me is a whole different matter). Studied Target is nice; a lot better than Favored Enemy (though Divine Marksman fixes that problem for the most part). Sniper archetype with Far Shot would make me actually have 0 penalty for firing into as far as three range increments (~360 feet with a Heavy Crossbow), which is hilarious.

Adding your level to sneak attack damage helps too, but we're again stuck with "ranged sucks for applying Sneak Attack." If I can't reliably apply Sneak Attack with a Ranged Weapon (seriously, the only thing off the top of my head is Improved Invisibility), it's basically a dead feature that's usable for at-best one round of combat. That's stupid, especially considering Sneak Attack is a feature that, if not reasonably invested, dies out in effectiveness real fast. I'm not expecting 10D6, but if I'm getting no more than 4D6 from this, then I should really consider Ranger instead, since at least then I won't have (a significantly) dead feature(s).

As a side question, does the 2nd level ability replace your 2nd level Slayer Talent? The D20 site says it does, but it makes no such mention on the PRD; I'm inclined to say yes, since that's probably what it is.

@ Deighton Thrane: If I was going for a purely optimized standpoint, I'd definitely consider taking those options; Mutagens are overpowered and require little to no investment on the player's part. (Makes 1 level Alchemist dips amazing for certain classes.) Unfortunately, the players would see right through that and call me out for being a cheesing powergamer (which I kind of am, but still).

@ Gulthor: Hmmm, interesting. That actually makes me wading into melee without diverting resources (and still having ranged versatility) a viable thing. I'd also qualify for Point Blank Master via the style feats at 11th level (as I presumed would probably happen), and any ranged-reliant abilities apply to those melee attacks. Wow, that is something very important to consider, thank you!

As a bonus question for you, would you believe that the Snap Shot feats are worth it? (Specifically, Improved Snap Shot.) To be honest, the only reason I'd take the feats is for the 10 feet threatening range, but since I don't have to worry about enemies attacking me (or me shooting enemies with a larger/invisible creature threatening my attacks) with Point Blank Master and the Empty Quiver feats, it doesn't seem particularly worth it.

@ All: So here's what I've come up with from the suggestions with you guys:

Sniper Slayer (with Empty Quiver Style feats)
Weapon Master Fighter (with Advanced Weapon Training feats)
Divine Marksmen Ranger

It's not much, but it's definitely something that I can propose to my players to suggest that I dip into. The best part is, with the extra race points we were given (every PC got 15 race points to spend), I get 2 favored classes, so whatever I decide to progress next, will gain full Favored Class benefits. Thanks so much for the advice (so far)! I'm still open to suggestions, as we won't be hitting 6th level for a while yet (we'll be hitting 2nd level by the next session), so keep sending them, and I'll consider them carefully!

Long title is long.

Also, that's some inception stuff right there.

Divine Marksman seems promising. The whole "half favored enemy" stuff is really neat, even if it takes me 9th level to get it (because to be fair, I dislike Favored Enemy as a feature; too situational and it becomes crazygood or useless. WTB Inquisitor's Bane feature, where I can apply Bane for whatever I'm fighting, PST price).

Skirmisher is something that a previous player already did, so I'd prefer not to.

MageHunter wrote:
I think Crossbow Fighter can be pretty fun. Good bonuses to readied action which would make me want to make a Vital Strike spell disrupting build. I am a bit biased though.

Too bad it's based off of readied actions (which is meh), and I already get full Dexterity to damage rolls with Crossbows via Bolt Ace at 5th level (which won't stack with Crossbow Fighter).

@ Ryzoken: We'd be using the Unchained Barbarian rules, meaning Urban Barbarian doesn't apply. If it does, it's pretty gimped either way. The Rage bonuses (as well as things like Accurate Stance) are still pretty nice. Savage Technologist wouldn't really stack or work with Crossbows, so...

@ PossibleCabbage: Though that shores up the skill loss I'd be dealing with, I'm already putting max ranks into those skills, so it's not really doing me any good.

@ wraithstrike: Problem I have with Slayer is that Sneak Attack is basically a dead feature for anything ranged-related. You have zero reliability to apply Sneak Attack outside of a surprise round or winning initiative in the first round of combat (likely for me, but still not a guarantee). There's also the matter of having a dead 2nd level combat style because the only options I could feasibly take are Far Shot (which is meh), and Focused Shot (which is completely garbage), but the 6th level one (Point Blank Master) and the 10th level one (Improved Precise Shot) are both still good.

Zwordsman wrote:

Originally I was going to suggest going into the good trap alchemist archetype. but you want full bab and such.

How much do you move around? If you wanted to be a turret you could take that sentinal prestige..

Honestly just seems like a varient of fighter or slayer sounds like the best bet to me. it opens enough abilities that boost you and all.

i don't know much about PBM though

It's a flavor thing man. I'm designed to be an "ultimate sniper" sort of character, using a Crossbow because the whole "guns" thing isn't exactly invented yet (nor probably intended for the current AP we're running).

At 1st level, I can only 5-foot step because it takes my Move Action to reload. Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with any major movements yet. By 3rd level, I can reload as a Free Action (Crossbow Mastery feat), meaning I can move and shoot regularly, and in instances where I don't need to move, I can use Rapid Shot as a Full Round and get 2 attacks.

The problem I have with the prestige class is that it's too deity-oriented; having the ability to gain Fighter-specific feats helps me in taking Point Blank Master, but that's about all it's good for.

I really wanted to play with the Slayer, as Studied Target is nice, but Sneak Attack just does not work with ranged weapons. At all. Unless they're flat-footed (which is impossible to work at a range outside of the beginning of combat), it's not happening.

Point Blank Master basically lets you shoot enemies that threaten you without provocation, and it applies to the weapon you have Weapon Specialization with (which incidentally requires Fighter levels to get). There's always the Ranger bonus feats, though that won't be available until 11th level, and I'd like to take it a little sooner than that.

As the title says.

Basically, I'm going to have most of my relevant feats and abilities with my 5th level Bolt Ace, specializing in an Underwater Heavy Crossbow. The problem I have is that I don't know what I'm going to do afterward.

I'm also our group's trapspotter/disarmer. My biggest worry was dealing with magical traps, and having to shoehorn my class choice based on the ability to disarm them really sucks. Thankfully, the GM is going to let me pick a trait that lets me disarm magic traps, and treats Disable Device as a class skill. (Basically, the Trapfinder Campaign Trait.) So, I won't be forced to dip a Rogue level (or 4), or have to pick up the Urban Ranger archetype.

I would prefer little to no spells (or anything associated with spells) to enforce character flavor, and to maintain full BAB (because I'm our only full BAB character in the party, multiclassing into something that isn't seems like setting ourselves up for failure).

I would like to obtain Point Blank Master eventually (or a similar equivalent), so that I don't have to worry about dealing with enemies being in my face, because Snap Shot feats just aren't enough, but the GM would also probably expect me to play something different; something that the group (or even I) haven't heard of or played before.

I mean, I always could go the full Bolt Ace, but the only real reason I'd want to (the Signature Deed), won't apply to my Sharp Shoot Deed, and I won't have any other good deeds to spend Grit on (because they otherwise all suck, and I'll have the bases covered well before then).


So, for those who are TL;DR, here are my big questions:

1. What full-BAB spell-less class should I work into, that we don't know about? Archetypes should be welcome, but prefer to not have dead features, and no 3PP stuff. (Nothing personal, just expect the GM to be more willing to accept Paizo stuff than 3PP stuff.)

2. Is Point Blank Master a real concern I'll want to work on, or should I just not worry about it and focus on other things? If it is, how would you go about taking it?

Prince Yyrkoon gives an optimization point; social identities are kind of stupid and clunky at 1st level, and moving forward, it just simply becomes an annoying formality that you try to pull off and find it sucks, and then when you finally are able to pull it off the way you originally wanted to, it becomes "Wow, I finally did it, I'm glad I wasted X of my character levels to do something that would've been much more convenient by 1st or 3rd level."

Anguish gives a proper point. Batman wouldn't have been nearly as effective a character if he worked solo all the time. The fact that Robin, Alfred, etc. knows his identity (and helps him as needed) only serves as a boon, and not as a detriment (like the concept thinks). If you've seen the Flash and Arrow T.V. series, you'll see several subjects that further reinforce that point.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

The trigger doesn't really matter regardless. The source does.

These are two different sources (one class feature, one Feat). Stacking issues aren't a problem.

The main issue is, as Set says, Strangle is not Sneak Attack in the same way Close Combat is not Weapon Training for the purpose of Feats and such. So a Strangler alone does not qualify for the Feat, you'd need to dip a level in Rogue or something.

As already said, the feat don't give sneak attack, it only allow you to apply the sneak attack you already have. You can't add the same sneak attack twice. So the sneak attack you get from the strangler archetype can't be added to itself trough the feat.


But if I were to be a Strangler 1/Rogue 1, and I picked up the Strangler feat, wouldn't I be able to apply 1D6 (from Strangler class feature) from Grappling, and then spend a Swift Action to apply my 1D6 from Rogue features via the Feat?

Considering it's been ruled that an Invulnerable Rager's Invulnerability feature wasn't valid for the Improved Damage Reduction Rage Power (because it follows the Damage Reduction class feature, which Invulnerability apparently is not), it's most likely the case here that the Strangler feature doesn't count as Sneak Attack +1D6 for the purposes of qualifying for the Strangler feat. You'd have to dip a level into Rogue, or some other class/archetype that grants 1D6 Sneak Attack, to qualify for it.

Even if you do pick it up, it scales with your Sneak Attack class feature, not your Strangle class feature.

Here's a somewhat relevant FAQ.

Melkiador wrote:
Cat-thulhu wrote:
Interestingly I though there was a stand that no stat could be added more than once. I can't find it so I could be mis-remembering.
Technically, that only applies to bonuses. This is a resource. It's like how you can get channel from multiple sources and each source can benefit from your charisma.

They benefit because they are technically separate resources; if they were the same resource (as is the case with Grit/Luck/Panache, that treats them the same, and combines them into a singular resource), you're getting 1x Charisma modifier to your total resource, from 3 separate features.

Even if RAW would allow it to have 3x Charisma, I can assure you it's not intended based on FAQ publishings.

Melkiador wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

If anything, it's more strange to ignore FAQs that specifically state that spells aren't weapons. From what the FAQs say, they only count as weapons for feats that requires specific choices, and for applying bonuses/penalties to attacks and (conditionally) damage rolls. Nothing else.
That's just specific vs general. Spells aren't treated as weapons, except when they are. Spell combat is one of the cases where they are.

All you can say with absolute certainty are the examples where the FAQ says they count as weapons, and the FAQ says for anything that doesn't follow the listed example, they are not considered weapons.

To reference the relevant FAQ text once more:

FAQ wrote:
Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still aren’t considered a type of weapon for other rules; they are not part of any weapon group and don’t qualify for the effects of fighter weapon training, warpriest sacred weapon, magus arcane pool, paladin divine bond, or any other such ability.

There you go; it outright says that special abilities (which by the FAQ title, includes spells,) are considered valid choices for feats that require specific weapon choices, but are not a weapon for other rules, whether it's for selecting via weapon groups, enhancing as manufactured weapons, and so on. Based on that, and the fact that it's an inclusive/exclusive sentence structure (because any rule outside of the listed exception becomes rules other than the listed exception, or as the FAQ stated it, "other rules"), there's plenty of evidence to support the ideal that spells, no matter how they're cast (Spell Combat or not), are not weapons.

Melkiador wrote:
Spell combat says, "This functions much like two-weapon fighting", so it's strange to say the magus' off hand spell isn't considered as being very similar to a weapon.

Kind of. But then it lists an exception from the general rules regarding TWF (that is, two weapons must be used), which is stating that instead of the off-hand being a weapon, it's a spell that you cast with a casting time of 1 standard action or less.

If anything, it's more strange to ignore FAQs that specifically state that spells aren't weapons. From what the FAQs say, they only count as weapons for feats that requires specific choices, and for applying bonuses/penalties to attacks and (conditionally) damage rolls. Nothing else.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
If either or both of these are in fact contrary to what the designers intended, then they need to fix this by officially changing the rules.

Next hardcover book is going to include the errata'd Dervish Dance feat.

Don't worry, the Dexterity builds for Magi and other classes will be buried very soon.


Source? When is this hardcover coming out?
It's primarily a joke, though I have a feeling that chances are, considering how much attention Dervish Dance has gotten as of late (similar to Fencing Grace, which was errata'd to "uselessness"), it wouldn't surprise me that they give Dervish Dance the Fencing Grace treatment.
Dervish Dance is still useful for the folks IT WAS INTENDED FOR. It's even still useful for magi who don't insist on having spell combat at the same time. I mean really Shocking Grasp crit fishers who belt out 20d6 of carrier electrical damage on a first level spell slot, are really going to miss a measly extra 8-10 points of damage?

And then you run into the Slashing Grace issue.

The first thing you need to ask yourself in relation to Dervish Dance, is "What was this feat intended for?" Think long and hard, and come up with multiple answers, because you'll be surprised how applicable the feat is.

For starters, a lot of people will call it a buff to a flavor choice, which is wielding a weapon without another weapon or shield, like most everyone else usually does (because not doing so is not taking advantage of what could be very helpful to you). Guess what? The classic Magus class does exactly that; fight without using another weapon or shield, they fight with spells, which are neither "another weapon or shield". Based on that factor alone, they're intended for it.

If you're still not convinced, there's some that may say it's intended for those who want to not be some giant brute, but still be effective for combat. For players who want to make their Magus Dexterity-based, because being stuck with Light Armor and D8 Hit Dice is shaky as hell without some other sort of supplement, they'd certainly view it as being intended for their playstyle.

Of course, others might say something completely different, such as it being a part of character flavor (i.e. The feat concept is a part of their heritage, backstory, aspirations, etc). This is even more stringent than the other two options above, but the factor still remains that some Magi players would certainly value it in this matter, especially if they roleplay their character accordingly.

Now, with three different "tiers" of intentions for the feat, the first being the most obvious (and backed by JJ's and SKR's statements), and then having two lesser grades of likely intentions, regardless of how you put it, a typical Magus can certainly fit the bill for being a class or character concept that the feat was designed for. No surprise, really, considering how well it fits their bill currently; they wield a weapon in one hand, and spells in the other (which is neither a weapon or a shield).

We clearly know that Slashing/Fencing Grace were options for the Swashbuckler to take to supplement their class features. But I already went in depth as to why that's a bad design choice, and provided an example (or two) of what would've resulted in good design choice, examples that Paizo themselves have already done.

Not gonna lie, 20D6 per Shocking Grasp, as cool as that would be, is physically impossible to accomplish without some major cheese of the current system (which still only results in 10D6 tops). At best, you're doing 30D6 per round, by utilizing your Spell Combat, Quicken Spell, and Spellstoring Weapon (which likewise holds a Shocking Grasp, and the question of whether you can even store a metamagick'd spell into a Spellstoring weapon is a whole different matter entirely; I imagine it's plausible, but still..).

Even so, lacking Spell Combat for use with Dervish Dance means you're missing out on an extra attack, at your highest BAB, no less. Considering Magi are 3/4 BAB, with no immediate means to boost their to-hit without considerable sacrifice on their part, that's a good chunk of your offensive power. You know how big of a deal people make with Martials being buffed with Haste? You're basically taking the #1 benefit of Haste away from the Magus by saying Spell Combat doesn't work with Dervish Dance, despite multiple FAQs saying that Spells, even Weapon-like Spells, are not weapons.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Also, it's good to know if it can be Darkleaf, Mithral, or Dragonhide.
No. it can't. because it's significant parts that distinguish it as it's type of armor ARE metal enough to disqualify as hide, but not enough to make it PRIMARILY metal.

That makes no sense.

It must be made primarily of one material, in which case that would be the material that can be made special and benefit from being "primarily made" out of said material.

If you're going to argue that it's neither primary, nor secondary, inbetween two material types, then it's a split between the multiple materials involved, and in that case, you can use any special material that the ones involved can be replaced with, but if you try to use more than one special material, only one special material's benefit functions at any given time (probably determined upon being crafted).

The only exception to that sort of rule are Double Weapons, which state you can make each head out of different materials, and those materials' benefits apply when making attacks with the respective head.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
If those feats are meant only for swashbucklers then they should be class features of the swashbuckler and not feats that anyone can take.
There have been class specific feats since the CRB (or, if we look at D&D, since there have been feats). I don't see why they should change that JUST for the Swashbuckler.

To be fair, a lot of Fighter-only feats shouldn't have been Fighter-only feats (Weapon/Shield Specialization, Greater Weapon/Shield Focus/Specialization, etc.), and the ones that should be (such as Critical Mastery, Penetrating Strike, Disruptive, and so on), should've been class features, not feats that requires the Fighter to forcefully invest their primary class feature onto in order to acquire (since they're already low on the totem pole as it is).

So really, it's not a matter of "It's designed only for one class." The thing that people are upset with (myself somewhat included) is why something that's essential for their class design, is implemented as a general feat, and not a feature of that class. I mean come on, at least the UCRogue gains Weapon Finesse at 1st level, and then proceeds to gain Dexterity to Damage with Finessable Weapons by 3rd level, as part of their class, no questions asked. Swashbucklers not getting similar treatment (such as by adding a "Swashbucklers receive either Slashing Grace or Fencing Grace [swashbuckler's choice] as a bonus feat, even if they do not meet the pre-requisites." feature), is just bad class design.

Design Tangent:
It's the same reason why feats like Point Blank Shot, Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat, et. al. shouldn't be feats, when most everyone takes them (whether they want to or not), and should otherwise be considered generic combat options that everyone can perform if they fulfill the "feat" pre-requisites (in other words, if they have at least BAB +1, and 13 Strength or Intelligence, respectively). The way it's currently done, in my opinion, is also bad game design (no real offense to Paizo here, since it's just a copy-paste from 3.X).

A very good example of something that accomplishes something similar to this is the option to be able to draw a weapon as part of a movement action. The only requirement? BAB +1 or more. And it's not a feat that everyone has to take, all that matters is that the creature in question has a BAB of +1 or higher. Think about this for a minute; do you know how stupid and clunky combat with manufactured weapons would be if you had to spend feats to do any of that? Spending your first level feat, just to be able to draw a weapon as part of a movement action, and have to spend another feat to then be able to draw weapons as a free action? Madness. Absolute madness, I say!

I'm not sure if Pathfinder changed that rule, or if it was copy-pasted over from 3.X, but in my opinion, if the rules were written to allow those "staple" feats as generic combat options anyone could perform if they met the "typical" pre-requisites (as would've been the case with being able to draw a weapon while moving), Pathfinder (and by its predecessor, 3.X,) would've resulted in a much more fluid and interesting combat system, and by freeing up feats for not having "staple" options (as I've exampled), it allows for more intriguing character customization, since players don't have to spend feats to be able to do this thing that most every single creature in the game either always does, or can do (but never does because it sucks, and is only taken because pre-requisites are stupid).


Added a spoiler for what many would probably call a tangent. For me, I call it a band-aid for a potential Wall of Text syndrome.

johnlocke90 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
If either or both of these are in fact contrary to what the designers intended, then they need to fix this by officially changing the rules.

Next hardcover book is going to include the errata'd Dervish Dance feat.

Don't worry, the Dexterity builds for Magi and other classes will be buried very soon.


Source? When is this hardcover coming out?

It's primarily a joke, though I have a feeling that chances are, considering how much attention Dervish Dance has gotten as of late (similar to Fencing Grace, which was errata'd to "uselessness"), it wouldn't surprise me that they give Dervish Dance the Fencing Grace treatment.

Melkiador wrote:
If magus lost all dex to damage feats, I'm sure there would still be dex based magi. I doubt the numbers would even be that impacted.

So now, instead of Dex to Damage requiring feats, the Magi have to give up precious class features to get what they want. If "I" were a Dex-based Magus player who had to deal with that, my retort would be "Are you f!@#ing serious? First it's Slashing Grace, then Fencing Grace, and now THIS?!"

By that point, you're better off playing a Swashbuckler, because if you have to take away a Magus' Spellstrike or Spell Combat or any other sort of core class feature to feel comfortable in giving them the benefits of Dexterity to Damage (which by the way, Magi are one of maybe two or three classes that can make serious use of it), the question then becomes "Why were those options created in the first place?"

Of course, PFS could simply ban it, and it'd likewise cause a similar backlash compared to outright nerfing it, but let's face it: Paizo hates Dexterity to Damage. It doesn't matter if they made it for the UCRogue (they'd probably call it a mistake when they decide to reprint the next Unchained book, and the UCRogue will be Strength based like every other class in the game), it's going to get nerfed into absolute uselessness, where the only way you are getting Dexterity to damage is to severely inoptimize your character.

Objectively, I don't really care what happens to the feat. Considering that there are millions of Dexterity-based Magi in PFS (and other games, of which I am not one of them), it doesn't impact me, my games, or any plans that I may have for the future.

But from the standpoint of trying to design something, the reasoning behind it being some illusion of having Dexterity be your go-to stat for "everything" is ridiculous. The math already shows that Dexterity is only extremely powerful by 1st and 2nd level (assuming you even get access to it, which you probably don't), then falls off (because the reasons the Strength based guys were behind no longer exist by that point), and then towards the end of the game, it dips slightly ahead. Did I also mention it requires a lot more system mastery to get even the best of results, meaning most people trying to go a Dexterity route would probably still end up being worse than someone who isn't?

If there were options that allowed, for example, Strength to AC and Reflex Saves, Initiative, and so on (in place of Dexterity, I might add), how many people would take them and effectively dump Dexterity down into uselessness? A lot more than you think, I'll tell you that much. Considering every Strength-based character would only have one, maybe two must-have feats (Power Attack and either Raging Vitality or Improved Initiative), the idea that they're "behind feats" when they're just spending the excess feats they have left from grabbing the ones that were absolutely necessary, it's hardly considered being "behind," as would be the case for Dexterity characters, who are grabbing those options just to stay on par with something that was already strong to begin with.

So really, I don't think Paizo nerfs these options because they think it's overpowered. Because they're not. They nerf them because they hate them as options for whatever reason, just like how they nerf stuff because their idea of "balance" is by making sure that for every 1 good option, there are 4 or 5 bad options that follow with it.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
If either or both of these are in fact contrary to what the designers intended, then they need to fix this by officially changing the rules.

Next hardcover book is going to include the errata'd Dervish Dance feat.

Don't worry, the Dexterity builds for Magi and other classes will be buried very soon.


It's not said anywhere that an off-hand attack must be made with your actual hand. If that's the case, then the example weapons we've talked about could never be Off-Hand Attacks, because they can't even be wielded in your hand, as Off-Hand Attacks supposedly require.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Surely, you're not saying that a Greatsword is a Double Weapon, being able to be used as both main hand and off-hand simultaneously...are you?

No, I'm saying that the rules state;

1: Characters have one main hand and a number of off hands equal to their number of arms - 1. That usually means one main hand and one off hand.
2: Two handed weapons require two hands to use. That usually means the main hand and the only off hand.
3: Most weapons that do not occupy a hand (e.g. armor spikes) still use a main hand or off hand attack.
4: A hand cannot be used for two different attacks in the same round.

I think all of these are quite clear from the rules. You seem to be claiming that the two hands required by two-handed weapons in item 2 are somehow NOT the main hand and the off hand... but as characters with two arms only HAVE those two I just don't see how that works.

From the Hands of Effort unwritten rule standpoint, you're right. But that's not what I'm arguing.

What I'm saying is that the Hands of Effort unwritten rule doesn't take into consideration the actual hands that you're using; the only thing that the unwritten rule demands is that you're not overpassing the standard 1.5x Strength allotment from TWF.

That doesn't extend into actual hand territory.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Greatswords aren't both main-hand and off-hand weapons.

We'll have to agree to disagree on a creature with only two arms having 'hand options' other than those two.

Off-Hand has specific meaning because it's a game term with a listed definition, which is a weapon you designate one of your two sets of iteratives when taking the TWF action.

I disagree. The term 'off-hand' is used in other ways than the above (TWF only) in the Pathfinder rules. It refers to one of a character's hands... with most characters having one main hand and [arms - 1] off hands.

Even so, that would be a rule specific to Armor Spikes. Doesn't explain Barbazu Beards, Unarmed Strikes, Boot Blades, and so on.
Do you dispute that all of those require use of either an off-hand or main-hand attack? If not, and we accept that two-handed weapons require the use of both those hands, then my interpretation applies to all.

Greatswords are defined as being two-handed weapons, not a "main hand and off-hand" weapon, like you're implying. That's what Double Weapons are, and that's only in the case of performing the TWF action. Surely, you're not saying that a Greatsword is a Double Weapon, being able to be used as both main hand and off-hand simultaneously...are you?

Just like how the game term "morale bonus" was used to refer to a character's actual morale, such as fear effects, in the case of the Courageous Property (which was since errata'd), those entries likewise referring "off-hand" to a more literal sense, would only result in both interpretations being equally valid. That being said, since "off-hand" is specifically defined, it beats the general assumed real-world definition of "off-hand," so technically, they aren't.

I only stated that in relation to Armor Spikes having a special exception to requiring a hand to attack. If you're making the assumption that anything that can be used as an off-hand requires an actual hand to use, then I demand a citation, because blanketing a specific rules exception to apply to similar abilities with no indication that it does, is a bold claim.

1 to 50 of 4,594 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.