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

5,803 posts (5,815 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,803 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:

This is not correct. Protective Penumbra keeps the character in shadow. This prevents the condition for the penalty, IE being in bright light, from occurring. "This spell keeps the target slightly in shadow."

This is different from an ability that causes a character to actually be immune to the curse.

"I'm in enough shadow that there isn't enough bright light to trigger my curse's condition and thus affect me" and "I can be in bright light because I have an ability which prevents my curse from penalizing me even when its condition is met" are not the same things. At all. They only end up with the same outcome, you not taking penalties. How this is achieved should be important.

Nice try with the flavor text, but I could be in an area of a Daylight spell, something which I could argue that, based on the flavor text, Protective Penumbra doesn't apply to due to the rule of Darkness and Light spells countering each other. So really, the only thing the spell really does at that point is provide the ignorance of penalties.

Whereas Lightbringer provides immunity, which is actually even better for removing penalties, because it treats it though as if you're never affected by it.

And as I've pointed out, the rules don't care about any of this except in the cases of removing the curse, which cannot be done without deific interference. Anything else? Is just wishful thinking on your part, and has zero basis in the RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:
Halek wrote:
Answer this. Would casting protective penumbra temporarily negate the curse?

No more than never getting into combat negates the tongues curse.

But that, like the horse, is an external thing that prevents the curse from harming your activities. Not an internal ability negating the curse. Negation being preventing the curse from harming you when it should be and it is not the same as overcoming the harm from the curse.

Protective Penumbra would prevent the curses condition for harm being met. But it doesn't allow you to ignore the harm when it should be affecting you. Which is what Lightbringer would do.

Your argument makes no sense. Protective Penumbra negates the effects of the curse in question in the same way that Lightbringer negates the effects, in that the penalties associated with the curse no longer apply to the character who has said curse, because the two effects in question negate the penalty the curse afflicts.

So, because they negate the curse in the same exact way, why would you allow one subject to work, and the other not?

Is it because one is permanent versus temporary? The Curse rules make no such distinction of permanent solutions or temporary solutions to a penalty, because you aren't removing the curse, which cannot be done without the help of a deity, you're negating the penalties associated with the curse, something that the Curse rules or deific intervention don't give two damns about. You're adding a restriction that, while the context of the rules maybe should care, the actual rules text doesn't.

Is it because one is a racial trait and the other is a spell? Again, Curse rules don't care, because the rules only state for removing a curse, does the help of a deity matter. Anything else, such as negating, or even amplifying said curse? Doesn't require a deity to do. Which means this sort of argument won't work in terms of negating penalties associated with a curse.

Is it because you hate the player trying to cheese the system? While an understandable concern, it's not one vocalized in the rules except for the case of removing it. As a GM, you can say that you won't allow him to be a munchkin and circumvent curse penalties, and that if he doesn't like it, he can walk, but that's not so much an iron-clad rule than it is a failsafe for when the rules aren't absolutely clear.

And in this case it is clear; effects which negate (but do not remove) a curse's penalties will apply normally, regardless of whatever source they come from. It is only when attempting to actually remove that curse from the character, does the type of solution (i.e. deity only) make a difference.


Reverse wrote:

The problem is in determining the difference between a standard threat which Dnd adventurers can take care of, and a mega-threat that they can't.

PCs routinely recieve rumours of the Necromancer's Lair that nobody has ever returned alive from, the Cave of Deadly traps that slay treasure seekers, the dragon menacing the village that they are helpless against. These are standard adventure hooks, not clear warnings to not engage. How do you define between that and epic god monster without warning the players "Guys, based on the nature of these rumours, you think this thing is very high CR".

It's not as if the villagers report "It was huge, with at least a +18 to hit! I'd guess it was a 300 hp beastie!"

You're right, they don't give game mechanics out like that. It ruins the atmosphere of the scenario in question.

But there are ways to immerse the players into how powerful the creature is without actually fighting it.

One example would be to have a high-level mystical NPC take them on a "dream trip" to fighting the creature, having the experience affect the PCs directly and when they awake from the dream trip, having experienced the power of the creature first-hand, realize that they aren't strong enough to face it at their current level.

At the end of the day, it is the PCs who chose to fight a creature that they've been told was an immortal, mythical being, numerous times, and that fighting it was basically suicidal. You can't sit there and encourage player stupidity like that; you gotta put the foot down at some point, otherwise you'd be better off amputating said foot because of how pointless it is to have.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

People are assuming that all the players will be okay with just rolling up new characters if they all die in a TPK to a +10 CR creature. If the players don't realise that this fight is is not meant to be fought and go into expecting they can win then this is no garuntee.

It's all very well taking the moral high ground saying they should know better and deserve what they get, but will it really be worth the verisimilitude you preserved so delicately if the game group collapses around it?

I'm not saying this will happen but surely it's something to consider.

If the game group collapses because the PCs made bad judgement calls after getting ample warnings in-game not to pursue the creature at this time, then quite frankly we have bigger problems with this game group besides the apparent PC invincibility complex that the GM is trying to rid them of right now.

Hell, there are even published APs that punish you severely if you take certain actions in relation to specific events, whether your character is aware of them or not. At least in this case, the PCs are (or at least should be) aware of the risks of challenging a Mythical creature whose seemingly immortal power cannot be stopped by mere fleshlings.


John Mechalas wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I find that having to explicitly tell the players out-of-character to not engage a certain creature defeats the purpose of providing an authentic adventuring experience, and is railroading the campaign just for the sake of continuity, something that can equally irk players.

Look at this way: one problem with any RPG is meta-gaming, where the players have and act on knowledge that the PC's don't. Good GM's try to keep this in check.

Well, the opposite problem exists, too. Because the game takes place in the theater of the mind, players don't really see and experience the world the way their characters do. Sometimes, that results in situations like this. A GM should try to address this, too, preferably before it causes a TPK that makes everyone bitter, and sends them running to the forums to complain about what a dick their GM is. (Not that that happens, right?)

While a fair counterpoint, there are threads like those that arise and after some talk (and even the appearance of the supposed problem GM once in a while), the threads amount to the OP crying wolf. I'm not saying that there aren't threads where the OP is right, all I'm stating is that just because they create the thread doesn't mean they're in the clear.

And meta-gaming is a problem that, while in a similar vein, is different from a discussion about table expectations, most specifically in regards to the sense that not all encounters are "Victory by killing the enemy," and conveying that concept in-game to the PCs.

Back on topic to the OP, another concept he could introduce is that the lore presents the Linnorm as being immortal; it cannot be killed by mere mortals because of its mythic power, meaning they'll need to get something of an equivalent power to stop it.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


I find that having to explicitly tell the players out-of-character to not engage a certain creature defeats the purpose of providing an authentic adventuring experience, and is railroading the campaign just for the sake of continuity, something that can equally irk players. (After all, there are several threads and posts that point out this very same flaw: Railroading is bad, unoriginal, and if I wanted to railroad I'd play a Diablo game.)

For an authentic adventuring experience, biting off more than you can chew should be something that not only you as players should learn, but is also something that realistically happens to a lot of adventurers. See that bed of bones next to the dragon? Those were probably all adventurers who thought they could just waltz in, take all of the dragon's s#!^, and waltz back out with the dragon being A-OK of having his stuff taken. Or, they could be Dragonslayers who just weren't cut out for defeating a dragon of that caliber. Point is, those bed of bones that the dragon sleeps on is testament to numerous adventurers who underestimated their enemy's (or overestimated their own) capabilities.

Realistically, if the players do want to engage it, and do die, even after the GM has dropped multiple in-game hints that the creature is well above their paygrade, then their death should not only be deserved, but also demonstrates that not everything that's adversarial to them in the GM's world can be (or even should be) killed. It could even potentially result in creating new characters to follow-up on the sidequests to eventually defeat the creature that the previous adventurers thought was killable without some...

I really don't get people's hangups with railroading. Paizo makes its living off railroads (APs and modules) and frankly, many groups function better with a more structured (Or *gasp* railroaded) adventure whether due to personality type, lack of experience, or laziness. Yes, there's numerous ways to handle...

The problem with the assumption that is railroading is that you're no-longer playing an open-ended adventure where the plot and character involvement matters, you're basically just "watching" a movie that could probably be accomplished better in a cinematic setting. Wide-open player interaction (and GM creativity) is the biggest source of fun in Pathfinder (and similar genre'd games), which also serves as its greatest advantage in terms of playing that sort of game compared to other games, and when you take that sort of concept away, you'd end up having more fun with linear-based video games due to how much better executed it is in terms of what you're wanting to get out of such an experience.

I'm not saying that railroading is inherently bad, all I'm saying is that railroading shouldn't feel "obvious" that it's happening. Railroading should be "optionalized," in that, if the players want to go down the basic path, then they can. But, if they want to do something different because they would have more fun that way, then they should be able to do that as well, and the game should be able to progress in a logical sequence that accommodates their experience.


quibblemuch wrote:
Is there a statement about "order of operations" of character qualities anywhere? Because it seems like that is the issue.

I don't see how the order matters in this case. Immunities are Immunities. Paladins who are affected by a Disease at 2nd level automatically negate possession of that disease by 3rd level, because they are immune to it. It doesn't matter if I get immunity before or after I'm affected by a disease in terms of possessing the disease, (of course, ability damage prior to acquiring it still remains until healed, that's not the point;) the fact of the matter is, when I acquire the immunity to it, the disease doesn't affect me any more than it already has once I have immunity to it.

Same concept here. If I acquired some item or ability that negates light sensitivity/blindness, then I shouldn't still be affected by anything that provided those flaws anymore, since the real-world definition of immunity is to "not be affected or influenced by something," in this case, the light sensitivity/blindness that the curse provides.

While I understand it's a cheap means to circumvent something as inherently limiting as a curse, that's really only the case for this particular curse, and even if it wasn't this particular curse (as you've pointed out), being immune to the effects of a curse doesn't mean you still don't have that curse.

Also, re-read this passage here:

Oracle's Curse wrote:
The oracle's curse cannot be removed or dispelled without the aid of a deity.

So, while you cannot remove a curse, you can certainly negate the penalties associated with that curse without some deific interference, such as with the Lightbringer racial trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:

Yeah, I agree with the other folk that a simple "Real talk guys: Do not engage Lu Bu" is probably for the best. Some players take IC hints, yours seem to be cut from the cloth that "if it exists, it's handily within our ability to kill it,"

Nothing wrong with that, but losing a campaign over that logic is pretty naff.

I find that having to explicitly tell the players out-of-character to not engage a certain creature defeats the purpose of providing an authentic adventuring experience, and is railroading the campaign just for the sake of continuity, something that can equally irk players. (After all, there are several threads and posts that point out this very same flaw: Railroading is bad, unoriginal, and if I wanted to railroad I'd play a Diablo game.)

For an authentic adventuring experience, biting off more than you can chew should be something that not only you as players should learn, but is also something that realistically happens to a lot of adventurers. See that bed of bones next to the dragon? Those were probably all adventurers who thought they could just waltz in, take all of the dragon's s#!^, and waltz back out with the dragon being A-OK of having his stuff taken. Or, they could be Dragonslayers who just weren't cut out for defeating a dragon of that caliber. Point is, those bed of bones that the dragon sleeps on is testament to numerous adventurers who underestimated their enemy's (or overestimated their own) capabilities.

Realistically, if the players do want to engage it, and do die, even after the GM has dropped multiple in-game hints that the creature is well above their paygrade, then their death should not only be deserved, but also demonstrates that not everything that's adversarial to them in the GM's world can be (or even should be) killed. It could even potentially result in creating new characters to follow-up on the sidequests to eventually defeat the creature that the previous adventurers thought was killable without some special Macguffin.


I'm going with the majority here in voting that you don't have to make them avoid the inevitable TPK fight. Just don't make it a "real" fight.

While it's quite clear on your side of the screen that they're not powerful enough, they as players aren't aware of that sort of issue until they either A. see it in action, usually against themselves, or B. roll 60+ on their Knowledge checks (which it appears they basically did since they researched it thoroughly). Or C. metagame and look at the creature's stats and compare it to their own.

Personally, I'd suggest that if the PCs still want to go after the beast, that they assemble a task force to retrieve the dead ally, with a commander significantly more powerful than a given PC (perhaps with ties to the ally, and when he sees the creature, charges it with reckless abandon). When the creature basically one-shots the commander, and then absolutely slaughters the remaining men, they'll see first-hand how powerful it is, and from there it's left to their adventuring instincts to either run and fight it another day, or stay and continue to be part of the creature's three-course-meal. Hell, you can even have it nibble one of the PCs for minimum damage and see how easily they can be dropped by the creature, for a more hands-on experience for them to "enjoy."

Needless to say, if PCs have a death wish, you as GM don't have to sit there and circumvent it for the sake of continuity; it defeats the purpose of being adventurers, braving dangers that are an actual threat, and realizing that sometimes there isn't a happy ending for every adventurer. (Because if there was, nobody would be a merchant, bar owner, farmer, and so on, since there's no upside to being any of those in comparison to being an adventurer.)

Of course, one other subject you haven't brought up yet was a quest to get a Macguffin to weaken/nerf the beast to a more adequate power level (i.e. remove its mythic capabilities), which will both A. get them to not focus on fighting the monster right away, and B. give them more experience so they're at a more adequate level to fight said monster. However, if you aren't in the mood to create a side-quest for them to fight a nerfed "BBEG," then a simple "let the chips fall where they may" approach is more than acceptable to convey the point you're trying to make, which is "You can't screw with this creature just yet."


The problem is, Tels, is that the people ruled the way it was before the FAQ based on what the rules actually say.

That's what he's been getting at this whole time.


I vote Arcane Duelist Bard instead of Oracle, personally. A lot of the Oracle stuff doesn't really mesh too well with Paladin, whereas Performances and such from the Bard do.


skizzerz wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
skizzerz wrote:
PFS is not a factor into any of this, as they can issue their own clarifications as need be.

PFS is Paizo's most trusted and reliable "playtesting" source, since A. Paizo is hands-on in relation to the gameplay and tables associated with PFS with their official GMs and VCs, and B. They record relevant information that Paizo can look over and, when they notice any irregularities, inconsistencies, or any other stuff that just looks off in relation to what they assume the rules are, they can bring the relevant rules up to the developers to make changes as needed.

On top of that, a lot of rules/options were outright changed and/or nerfed into oblivion due to PFS feedback (instead of them simply issuing bans onto the problematic options/rules), so suggesting that PFS isn't a factor when it comes to issuing "printing errata" is inherently false.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear with what I meant. I'm not delusional enough to think that PFS has zero impact on what receives FAQs or errata, I meant that the PDT having an official stance regarding whether or not reprints of things are meant to supplant the old versions as a general statement should not take PFS into account as they can modify the PDT stance via campaign clarifications should they disagree. In other words, such a stance would primarily be for the benefit of home games where the GM wants to know the intent behind such reprints before they issue their own rulings that apply to their tables.

I know what you meant. It doesn't change my stance that issues that PFS has with rules or options aren't always left with PFS to deal with, and we have precedent of this being the case with issues that are extremely problematic that Paizo is given no choice except to go the nuclear option.

I'm not saying that this will be the case, but I will say that for PFS organized play, everything that the Adventurer's Guide publishes (I can't WAIT for them to take Dervish Dance into that book, or even another future book, and apply the nuclear option to it like they so desperately want to) is something that PFS will adhere to, due to the ideal that Hardcovers have more weight in rules authority compared to Softcovers.


Java Man wrote:

So this dragon has mystic powers unlike other dragons, derived from the fact that, unlike normal dragons, this one has dragonblood in its lineage.

I know RAW is fine, but the ridiculous factor on that is massive.

Not really. A dragon descended from other dragons would, of course, have dragon blood in his lineage. There's no denying that it's extremely meta, but it's not really ridiculous when you factor in the most basic of genetics.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the point is that the PDT team weighing in doesn't really matter to people running home games. It's not exactly hard to decide "should I use the old version or the new one" one one's own and arguments like "I like this one better" or "this one's newer" are going to get people to come down one way or the other. I'd honestly prefer to just leave it this way because that's how people are going to play it anyway. I'm reasonably certain some people in home games are going to want to play the old Lore Warden.

For PFS though, they can just say "use the new version" without any input from the PDT. There's precedent, and this makes sense.

I know that's the point. But even then, a lot of tables will play the updated rules whether they like them or not, simply because they value playing the game as it's meant to be over the game as they want it to be, and even objectively speaking, some players who are wanting to play a game would view tables not taking updated material as playing with houserules that they, as players, may not be comfortable with playing.

I know my table plays the rules as they're updated, since I personally pushed for the pre-nerf Crane Style feat chain, but the GM insisted that we play the nerfed Crane Style feat chain. Sure, the Monk player didn't get absolutely slaughtered like I assumed he would, but he would've had a lot more fun (and it would've been less of a bog-down due to the implicating mechanics impeding the tempo of the game) if we played with the original rules.

Especially when we weren't abusing the Master of Many Styles archetype.


Cantriped wrote:
No they aren't, they cost you a share of the loot, and increase the difficulty of encounters. They also cost you a player that could have been more useful playing literally any other class. Ant Haul and Mount do not.

They only cost you a share if you make sure they live. If they die, not only can you keep their share, but you can also take any gear he has on him as an added bonus for the fact that you (inadvertantly) killed him! Hurrah!

If they increase the difficulty of encounters by being there, then inversely, they decrease the difficulty of encounters by not being there. Or to put it more properly, if the Fighter is 6 feet under (like a good Fighter should be).

As for them costing a player, the God Wizard does not care about the other players of his one-man party. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, God and Satan, all wrapped up in one fashionably-knit robe. And over a dozen protective spells.

Ant Haul is too costly for levels that you'll want it (i.e. Levels 1-5), and pointless to cast for levels that you won't need it. Mount is great for lower levels, but it falls off when you actually face smart enemies who don't care about a stupid horse being in the way.


skizzerz wrote:
PFS is not a factor into any of this, as they can issue their own clarifications as need be.

PFS is Paizo's most trusted and reliable "playtesting" source, since A. Paizo is hands-on in relation to the gameplay and tables associated with PFS with their official GMs and VCs, and B. They record relevant information that Paizo can look over and, when they notice any irregularities, inconsistencies, or any other stuff that just looks off in relation to what they assume the rules are, they can bring the relevant rules up to the developers to make changes as needed.

On top of that, a lot of rules/options were outright changed and/or nerfed into oblivion due to PFS feedback (instead of them simply issuing bans onto the problematic options/rules), so suggesting that PFS isn't a factor when it comes to issuing "printing errata" is inherently false.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

So, if you already have the components out (such as in the Tankard, ready to drink), you're still spending a Standard Action to consume it; you just don't have to spend the relevant Free Action to draw the components out in the first place.

Also, nobody's suggesting we get 12 extracts consumed in a round by dual-wielding two tankards. That's a strawman argument (I think), so using it as a basis for defense isn't really feasible.

Actually it was suggested in the post i cited (12 in 2 rounds, to be exact, one for each attack that you use to drink an extract instead of attacking). 6 spells in a round is already 4 above the maximum allowed.

Having the components in hand allow you to cast a spell at a faster speed than standard? If the reply is yes, why the quicken spell feat, with its heavy cost, exist?

The problem is that while my argument is valid for extracts, it is weak when we speak of infusion.
As already said, the whole set of the alchemy rules need a serious clarification.

The speed at which you cast/drink the spell can be changed?
There are several spells with a range or a target of "an object" in the alchemist list that can't be used with extract or infusion. Some are really thematic. How we should treat them? They are errors, they are there to allow the use of wands and to make oils?

Yes, but it doesn't particularly matter if it's an Extract or a Potion, the latter of which is explicitly allowed, because consuming 6 Potions as a Full Round action is similarly broken (even if costly).

Never said that. All I said is that the Standard Action for consuming an Extract also includes the action required to draw spell components (normally a Free Action in the Combat Actions Table), and that if you already have your Extract out, you don't spend the (assumed) Free Action to drink it. We have a FAQ that explicitly tells us this.

A more silly interpretation would be that you can't ever have Extracts out ready to drink, and/or that whenever you'd spend a Standard Action to drink an Extract that you already have out, you have to draw a second one. Different perspective, equally ridiculous, and regardless of which side you take, a middle ground would be required to avoid mechanical catastrophe.

Not the entire rules, but some parts of them do. The biggest one being is "Do Extracts count as Potions for abilities and effects?" Which, based on its current wording, it is "Yes, unless the rules tell you otherwise (or explicitly mention Extracts)." Another big question is "Do Communal spells (which are on Alchemist spell lists) let you consume only part of the Extract/Infusion so it can be shared with allies, or is it just a bunch of holdover for posterity's sake?" Which, based on how Potions work (and Extracts/Infusions have mechanics identical to Potions), the answer would be "No, you can't share it."

The action required to drink an extract doesn't change unless we have a rule that tells us that it changes, which this feat does. It changes the Extract consumption from '1 Standard Action' to 'In place of an attack while TWFing with a Tankard.' Problem is that they didn't take into account iterative attacks in the feat design (ironic, since the feat requires hefty BAB to acquire it), and instead assumed a 1/round limit.


I'd take the Chaplain archetype and stack it with VMC Fighter for some crazy bonuses.


Considering how often existing softcover options have been reprinted in hardcover books lately, I'd say it would count as errata, especially in the case of PFS, because PFS will rule the hardcover option over the softcover option, even if you bring the respective source(s).

As an aside, it doesn't matter what SKR said, because these things still happened even while he was employed at Paizo. I won't say that he's a liar, all I'm saying is that, like official rules, unless the PDT account comes in here and clarifies things, SKR's word is just that: his word.

And nothing more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:

The fighter pulls out his adaptive longbow and shoots you.

or

The fighter has Step Up.

or

The fighter invested in a mount and the mounted skirmisher feat

or

The fighter tripped/disarmed/blinded/staggered you

or

The fighter took Item Mastery: Teleportation and Dimensional Agility

or

....

Unless the Fighter was originally built to be an Archer, that's not really anything intimidating, since at best it's a +1. At worst, you're dealing with a dedicated Archer, in which case there are actually better classes to accomplish this.

The Step Up feat in and of itself isn't scary. It's the Following Step and the Step Up And Strike feats that are worth mentioning, and quite frankly, it doesn't really work in flying (a very common form of movement by mid-level). Besides that point, the Fighter had to invest 3 of his feats to make use of this, so it's still not really an excellence of combat. There are better feats he can get with those 3 feats, so Isonaroc still has a point here.

Unless the Fighter's Mount scales with level (which he can't get unless he multi-classes or spends even more feats for one), that's not an issue. Also, Mounted Skirmisher can only be acquired by 14th level, whereas other classes get Pseudo-pounce by 10th level, or are so badass they don't need it.

Fighter's ability to Trip or Disarm or Blind someone requires them to not have dumped Intelligence, and to have spent a bunch of feats into making it not absolutely suck nuts. Trip is generally crappy unless you're Gargantuan size or bigger. Disarm isn't particularly applicable to numerous enemies, and Blind requires sacrificing your entire Full Attack routine to pull off properly. Only way I know of that a Fighter can Stagger is with Critical Feats, which has even worse problems than the previous maneuvers.

Not a whole lot of GMs permit content like the Toolbox books or the Master Handbooks, and very rarely will players actually have the opportunity to make use of said feats due to the difficulty of acquiring them. Also, Dimensional feat chain is a lot of feat investment, which can't be balanced with anything else besides a giant two-handed beatstick.

Trust me, the Fighter isn't as well-off as people say he is, even with the "boons" that the splatbooks offer.


thaX wrote:

The point, Darksol, is that the Extract would not be able to be used in conjunction with TWF with the Tankard, which is what the thread is about. Diego is talking about a high level character using his iteraves and TWF to keep "casting" the extracts contained within the Tankard. Even a Wizard can only cast one "quickened" spell.

We both agree that Extracts and Infusions would take a "standard" action, it is using it in the full round action that is questioned, which is the OP question who compared it to a Magus Spell Combat.

Because the limit of how many consumables you can take is based off of your BAB (and TWF attacks), which is broken even without Extracts.

Take a Drunken Monk. Out of Ki? After a Full Round Action, I'm back at Max Ki because I drank a dozen pints of booze. Take a character with Brew Potion. Need time to superbuff your martial, but don't want to waste time in-combat to do so? Just give them the tankard and they can spend a Full-Round Action applying all of their favorite buffs.

I imagine there are other equally absurd things you can do with this combination, but really, everyone's problem should not be with Extracts being applicable to the feat, and be with the poorly written mechanics of the feat itself allowing such abuse to begin with.

Ironically, the fix is simple: it should only replace the highest BAB attack you get, and you only get to drink from the tankard once per round. It's basic, it's consistent (most other rules function like this), and it makes the idea of Extracts being used with the feat not broken.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Pounce wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
toastedamphibian wrote:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but someone on page 1 said the tankard had to be the offhand weapon, but the feat does not say that. It says light weapon in one hand, tankard in the other.

It also lets you treat a tankard as a light mace (a light weapon).

3 (11bab) +2 (improved twf) +1 (haste) = 6 attacks.

Dual weild magic tankards. 4 from A and 2 from B in one round, 4 from B and 2 from A in a later round. 12 extracts in 2 rounds, plus 3 more in a third round if you use your swifts to fill it...

Also would work well on one of those druids that make free potions.

Unless your tankards teleport the extract from the vial as a free action, I don't see how you can do that. You are missing "a few" move actions to refill the tankards.

Get a couple of Cailean Fighting Tankards, and you're set :)

Also, I'm decently certain that the best usage of this is a Separatist Cleric with the Alchemy subdomain. It even specifically calls out that the cleric is creating "potions", so there's no question of whether it should work with the Fighting Style or not.

So, theoretically, if we allow this, this feat could allow the "casting" of 12 spells in a round.

PRD wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.

Unless you have 12 Standard Actions to spend, you wouldn't be able to do that.

I suggest you re-read this relevant FAQ, which states that, for a Bomb, Mutagen, or Extract, the Standard Action includes the requirement of drawing the relevant components, akin to spellcasting (which the Combat Chapter notes drawing such components is a Free Action).

So, if you already have the components out (such as in the Tankard, ready to drink), you're still spending a Standard Action to consume it; you just don't have to spend the relevant Free Action to draw the components out in the first place.

Also, nobody's suggesting we get 12 extracts consumed in a round by dual-wielding two tankards. That's a strawman argument (I think), so using it as a basis for defense isn't really feasible.


Lady-J wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
retraining is a thing

Retraining doesn't bypass the limit that you, as a Fighter, don't have a caster level in which to take Crafting feats with, or that you can only take Master Craftsman for one Craft or Profession skill, period, and you can't take the feat multiple times to cover all forms of crafting. If you're going to argue that you can retrain Master Craftsman for each type of craft, then you're going to have to retrain every time you craft something different than what you crafted prior, which costs time (5 days per switch) and money (300g+ per switch), the former eating into your downtime, the latter eats into your WBL, resulting in less crafting money (and crafting time) for the stuff you're proposing (meaning you may not even craft what you propose).

You can try and justify your argument all you like, but the fact of the matter is that your playstyle is too much of an outlier to consider as something typical to a given table, which means suggestions like these aren't very helpful to the discussion.

while true you just need to be carful with what profession and crafting you choose that will allow you to do so with one skill

You wouldn't be able to craft both your belt/gloves and your weapon with this feat, whereas your calculations assumed that you could.

Needless to say, even giving you the most favorable outcome, you're still overbudget, and also, the likelihood that a Fighter will have the skill ranks or desire to take Crafting feats is a rarity of its own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

Clerics aren't weak, a well played one is actually very powerful.

Clerics can be very, very boring, especially since a great many tables demand that they be so. If your table demands a heal-bot and wonders why they have to twist people's arms to play one, you might have a problem, or you might even be the problem.

If you demand an optimal, sole focused healer, you darned well better be the one playing it.

Even if they demand a healbot, there are better ways of accomplishing this than by playing a Cleric, such as Oracle or Shaman, and they have more/better tools for the job than a Cleric does.

So really, even if their argument is "Cleric is a Healbot, and we want a Healbot," the problem stems from Clerics still lacking very boring options that other classes with identical roles aren't symptomatic of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
retraining is a thing

Retraining doesn't bypass the limit that you, as a Fighter, don't have a caster level in which to take Crafting feats with, or that you can only take Master Craftsman for one Craft or Profession skill, period, and you can't take the feat multiple times to cover all forms of crafting. If you're going to argue that you can retrain Master Craftsman for each type of craft, then you're going to have to retrain every time you craft something different than what you crafted prior, which costs time (5 days per switch) and money (300g+ per switch), the former eating into your downtime, the latter eats into your WBL, resulting in less crafting money (and crafting time) for the stuff you're proposing (meaning you may not even craft what you propose).

You can try and justify your argument all you like, but the fact of the matter is that your playstyle is too much of an outlier to consider as something typical to a given table, which means suggestions like these aren't very helpful to the discussion.


Lady-J wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
MichaelCullen wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Lady-J,

Your comparison's aren't usually helpful since you play a game very different from most people. As shown in the other thread your games run at about 3x the normal power range for characters.

And it's especially not helpful if you don't show how you're getting your "insane" numbers.

+6 from bab +6 from str=12 +3 from weapon training and +1 from weapon focus will get a fighter +16 at level 6 add in +2 from the weapon and you have +18 and thats just a flat fighter nothing else added onto it other than a +2 str belt a +2 weapon and gloves of dueling so no nothing special about it if it where i would of added in atleast another +5-8 somewhere

Well there is the problem. A level 6 character should have 16,000 wealth by level. The gloves alone are 15,000. The belt is 4,000, the weapon is 8,300.

So assuming no other gear you are 170% of your budget.

crafting gear reduces cost by 50% so the gloves are 7500 the belt is 2000 the weapon is around 4000 for a total of 13500 and you have money left for some defense items

Because every GM allows crafting, and gives you ample time to craft all the items for yourself and your party members, right?

That's also assuming that PCs in your party taking crafting feats, which, depending on their playstyle, and whether the GM permits the feats in the first place, is hardly a guarantee.

the fighter can take the feats himself

Really? Does he have the proper feat slots for it? Because you can't spend bonus feats on them, which means any time before 3rd level, he can't because he doesn't have a high enough Caster Level for the feats, so the odds of him taking the feat while having things like Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and so on, are slim.

And that's assuming he has a Caster Level, which he doesn't. So then he can't craft anything until he takes the Master Craftsman feat, which requires 5 Skill Ranks in a Craft or Profession, which can't be acquired legally until 5th level. And even then, it only applies to a specific Craft skill (which means you can't blanket-craft via Spellcraft), and can only be taken once, ever, which means its benefits are limited.

So, regardless of how you try to justify your claim of applicability, you're still too highly-powered for what a majority of players and GMs expect, which means your experience is an outlier compared to the rest and therefore not exactly helpful for those who play games different from yours.


Lady-J wrote:
MichaelCullen wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Lady-J,

Your comparison's aren't usually helpful since you play a game very different from most people. As shown in the other thread your games run at about 3x the normal power range for characters.

And it's especially not helpful if you don't show how you're getting your "insane" numbers.

+6 from bab +6 from str=12 +3 from weapon training and +1 from weapon focus will get a fighter +16 at level 6 add in +2 from the weapon and you have +18 and thats just a flat fighter nothing else added onto it other than a +2 str belt a +2 weapon and gloves of dueling so no nothing special about it if it where i would of added in atleast another +5-8 somewhere

Well there is the problem. A level 6 character should have 16,000 wealth by level. The gloves alone are 15,000. The belt is 4,000, the weapon is 8,300.

So assuming no other gear you are 170% of your budget.

crafting gear reduces cost by 50% so the gloves are 7500 the belt is 2000 the weapon is around 4000 for a total of 13500 and you have money left for some defense items

Because every GM allows crafting, and gives you ample time to craft all the items for yourself and your party members, right?

That's also assuming that PCs in your party taking crafting feats, which, depending on their playstyle, and whether the GM permits the feats in the first place, is hardly a guarantee.


The Barbarian will hit a lot more than the other two. But, as Matthew Downie said, they're either buffed, or have very favorable dice rolls.


icehawk333 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

It appears to stack, but because it lacks explicit wording, like stated in the Dragon Disciple Prestige Class, I can see a GM ruling it won't stack.

Personally, I would rule it not to stack for balance purposes, especially because you can sit there and have like +30 Natural Armor, which is overpowered.

*takes dodge, improved unarmed, and crane style on the eidolon instead*

What was that? A +1 to AC per feat is OP?

How about a +5 for 3?
And another +4 to melee attacks for 1 more?

It scales higher than that, which is precisely the point behind my post, in that it's not balanced compared to assumed existing options. Spending 1 Feat and 1 Evolution Point for +3 AC (which could all stack indefinitely) isn't exactly balanced, and look at what we're talking about: The Summoner. The fact that "Summoners are OP" is a staple on these forums has "probably not supposed to work that way" all over it.

So, it stands to reason (and balance) that he either takes the evolution progression, which is heavily staggered (and therefore balanced), or he takes the feat progression (which is similarly staggered and balanced). Both require sacrificing or delaying other valuable options as well.

Lastly, that feat chain comparison is heavily flawed. Why? For starters, it was nerfed into oblivion due to cheese acquired from PFS abuse. Second, it's now only useful for very few niche builds, a lot of which can't even benefit from it due to how their mechanics work. (Slashing/Fencing Grace can't benefit from it, for example.) It's really only good for Monks and little else.


It appears to stack, but because it lacks explicit wording, like stated in the Dragon Disciple Prestige Class, I can see a GM ruling it won't stack.

Personally, I would rule it not to stack for balance purposes, especially because you can sit there and have like +30 Natural Armor, which is overpowered.


Lune wrote:
That would be Darksol with the "disingenuous" comment but I don't see any of you complaining at him even though that is apparently the comment that got to James.

A quick search on the first page of the thread would point out that Graystone is the first to use the term "disingenuous." Not saying that I didn't use it or that it's unacceptable, just pointing out that I didn't start anything.


Cantriped wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is precisely what I mean when I reference "Hardcover."
Hardcover and Softcover are terms for bookbinding styles. They have nothing at all to do with publication hierarchy. Misusing those terms confuses the issue, and damages your credibility.

That's a childish claim to make just because I have preferred terminology to refer to a specific subset of books (that ironically, quite a few messageboard users share).

Most importantly, you're arguing the semantics of my post, and not the point that it was meant to convey:

Paizo can take options from non-Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line sources, (re)print them into Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line sources, and make changes to them however they see fit, and we already have a precedent of this happening, which is the Fencing Grace feat.

Because we already have an example of Dexterity-to-Damage being reprinted and nerfed considerably because of it, it stands to reason that future Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line sources can likewise add other Dexterity-to-Damage options, nerf them into niche application/uselessness, and accomplish the intent that Dexterity-to-Damage is a no-no in this manner.

In fact, this can be done with any non-Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line sources that contain subjects that don't follow their original intentions, and expands to something well beyond what has been examplified so far.

That's it.

If all you're getting from my post is "You're using the wrong terminology because I like using this word instead," then you're not adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.


Melkiador wrote:
The naming is a bit confusing. Advanced weapon training is the name of a class feature and also a feat to get more of that class feature. The weapon master doesn't get the class feature but can take the feat to get it instead. So at 4th level, they can take the feat with their bonus feat and then they can take it again everytime they gain a bonus feat. If they take it at 4 with a bonus feat, they wouldn't be able to take it again at level 5, because they already have it once, and if it's not a bonus feat it still has to obey the limitation about how often you can take it.

Yes, they can take it at 5th level. And again at 6th level. Read the text again:

Advanced Weapon Training wrote:
A weapon master can select this feat as a bonus feat; if he does so, it doesn’t count for the purpose of the requirement that it can be taken at most once per 5 fighter levels.

So, you can pick it at 4th level, not have it count against your once per 5 levels limitation, pick it again at 5th level, have it count against your once per 5 levels limitation, and pick it at 3rd time at 6th level, not having it count against your once per 5 levels limitation once more. You wouldn't be able to select it at 7th level, since you are stuck with the once per 5 levels limitation, but every even level afterward, you could take this feat with the Fighter Bonus Feat.

The general idea is that you can take this feat with both regular and bonus feat slots; the bonus feats don't count as and aren't limited to the once per 5 levels limitation, whereas the regular feats are.


pad300 wrote:

Ok, what is the definition of "standardized race"? I was basically assuming anything in the Advanced Race Guide...

Also, why does a waves oracle "wreck my whole whole plan"? They can only use water sight to see through mist and fog, not smoke. At worst, they can only put you on an even footing with them by blinding you back with fog.

Area effect spells are not really going to cut it against a smoke radius that starts at 50' and gets bigger...

Standardized Races would include the Core, Featured, and Uncommon Races in the ARG. A Ghoran and Wyrwood are none of those things, which means they aren't available for choice. Same goes for things like Wyvaran and Ogres.

I'd rather not dump half my WBL on something that can easily backfire against my teammates as well.

And no, you cannot have mounts. Same goes for familiars or other similar creatures (which is why we didn't opt for Shaman in place of Oracle, even though I wanted to).


Chess Pwn wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Michael Hallet wrote:


For example, what happens if a magus uses his arcane pool to increase the enhancement bonus of his weapon from +1 to +3. I believe it should still bypass cold iron/silver DR, but someone might broaden the scope of this question by trying to apply it to all temporary bonuses.

Kinda wondering on this myself now does this affect any other methods of only temp. boosting an item.

The Magus has to use his Arcane Pool to boost a weapon. Same goes for Paladins with Divine Bond and other such effects.

Ammunition isn't a weapon.

Therefore, the bonus applies to the weapon, which gets transferred to the ammunition.

So, the temporary boosts won't work because they don't directly enhance the ammunition.

I believe they are asking if temp enhancement boosts let normal weapons bypass DR. can a magus with a +1 adds +2 can he now break cold iron?

Well yeah. After all is said and done, it is a +3 weapon. It doesn't have language like Greater Magic Weapon, which only provides the bonuses and none of the other benefits associated. And this is assuming that you aren't using a Ranged Weapon, which has specific limitations (spelled out by the FAQ).

Similarly, if I was a Barbarian with a +1 Furious weapon, I'd be able to bypass Cold Iron and Silver DR while Raging, because my weapon is now +3, which normally bypasses those DRs.


Yes, the Advanced Weapon Training feat would let you pick it twice, once at 4th and again at 5th. You could even take it again at 6th level if you wished, but not at 7th level.

For the Weapon Specialist option, you wouldn't be able to select it with any of your feats if you are a Weapon Master Fighter.

As for the Gloves of Dueling, it increases the Weapon Training bonus you have by +2. Which means any effects scaling with Weapon Training bonus are likewise increased.

**EDIT** And no, that doesn't mean you get 2 extra Advanced Weapon Training options.


Yes, you need to have that many levels within the listed class in order to select those options.

Weapon Specialization requires 4 levels of Fighter to take.

Mad Rush requires 10 levels of Vigilante to take.


Talonhawke wrote:
Michael Hallet wrote:


For example, what happens if a magus uses his arcane pool to increase the enhancement bonus of his weapon from +1 to +3. I believe it should still bypass cold iron/silver DR, but someone might broaden the scope of this question by trying to apply it to all temporary bonuses.

Kinda wondering on this myself now does this affect any other methods of only temp. boosting an item.

The Magus has to use his Arcane Pool to boost a weapon. Same goes for Paladins with Divine Bond and other such effects.

Ammunition isn't a weapon.

Therefore, the bonus applies to the weapon, which gets transferred to the ammunition.

So, the temporary boosts won't work because they don't directly enhance the ammunition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Dervish Dance is from the Inner Sea World Guide... Which is a most definitely a Hardcover. However, it is part of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting line instead of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line.

The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is precisely what I mean when I reference "Hardcover." So, figure the Beastiaries 1-X, Core, the "Advanced" Books (ACG, ARG, APG, the "Ultimate" Books (UM, UE, UC, UCamp), and the "Adventures" Books (OA, HA). Of course, that's not including things like NPC Codex, GMG, Unchained, and so on.

And considering they took a softcover option like Fencing Grace, and republished it in a Hardcover just to nerf it down to being a niche option across the board (still has use, but again, is extremely niche), I still don't see why they wouldn't do the same thing for Dervish Dance.

After all, allowing Dexterity to Damage and Extracts to work with niche options is game-breaking and a big no-no, but having spells which end entire encounters before they even start is all fine and dandy, right?


Well, we limited summons because there was a lot of cheap trickery to be done with consumable items that do just that. Hell, at this level I could buy a few scrolls of Summon Monster IX, create a Balor (or something), and have it absolutely destroy the enemy party as long as I didn't absolutely botch the Caster Level check. Because of crap like that, we banned summons. (Thankfully, the reason we banned them wasn't because of this same exact situation.)

The "no higher than level 2" spells rule was implemented to get players to think out of the box and not rely on common 3rd level spells like Haste and Fireball all the time. Also, because a lot of 3rd level spells are pretty overpowered.

As for fifth level, I don't think our group particularly appreciates higher level PVP, simply because of the Caster/Martial Disparity escalating exponentially past 10th level or so.

Regarding Races, Wyrwood wouldn't be allowed because it's an advanced race. Same goes for the Ghoran.

The Ifrit option wouldn't work simply because the enemy can be a Waves Oracle and wreck my whole plan. (By the way, one of the Oracle players asked me about how I'd make an Oracle well before the Bard player did, and I told him the Waves suggestion that was mentioned in this thread.) The plan, which, by the way, can be destroyed with a simple Area of Effect spell like Burning Hands or something.


James Risner wrote:

Grace feats are in PDT books, Dervish Dance isn't under the PDT purview.

The "they are not liquids" is using the same kind of RAW interpretation skills. You can argue they are not liquids because they are described as being like potions but no details as how like plus they are never called out as liquids.

So if someone can assert they are liquids because they are "like potions" then someone else can assert they are not. Neither positions are strictly right, as there are no rules saying they are or are not liquids.

Slashing Grace was under the purview, yes, but Fencing Grace wasn't until they decided to release it as a feat in Ultimate Intrigue to apply the Errata they wanted (since it wasn't in a hardcover). Before then, it was in a softcover which, at the time, the PDT didn't give to shakes about fixing due to the source it came from.

Considering Dervish Dance is likewise from a softcover, all they gotta do is throw it in the next Hardcover they publish, and then they can errata it into useless oblivion.


Mr. Jerkpants V3:
N Human Arcanist 5
Senses Perception +6, Darkvision (60 ft.)
Attributes (15 Point Buy)
Strength 7
Dexterity 14
Constitution 13
Intelligence 22 (17 + 1 + 2 + 2)
Wisdom 12
Charisma 7

Spells Memorized
0th (6 spells, DC 16)
-Detect Magic
-Light
-Flare
-Touch of Fatigue
-Prestidigitation
-Acid Splash
1st (6/day, DC 17)
-Vanish
-Grease
-Shadow Trap
-Ray of Enfeeblement
2nd (5/day, DC 18)
-Blindness/Deafness
-Haunting Mists
-Glitterdust

Spellbook
0th - All
1st - 14 Spells (8 Base + 2/level until 3rd) (Vanish, Grease, Shadow Trap, Ray of Enfeeblement, Obscuring Mist, Snowball, Stone Shield, Bungle, Charm Person, Expeditious Retreat, Burning Disarm, Color Spray, Ear-Piercing Scream, Feather Fall)
2nd - 4 Spells (2/level beyond 4th) (Blindness/Deafness, Haunting Mists, Glitterdust, False Life)

Feats
1. Spell Focus (Necromancy), Greater Spell Focus (Necromancy)
3. Additional Traits
5. Expanded Preparation (Glitterdust)

Traits
1. Lore Seeker (Blindness/Deafness, Ray of Enfeeblement, Shadow Trap)
2. Pragmatic Activator

Exploits
Arcane Reservoir - 8 Points
1. Potent Magic
3. Dimensional Slide
5. Bloodline Development (Arcane)

Equipment
-Headband of Intelligence +2 (4,000)
-Cloak of Resistance +1 (1,000)
-Amulet of Natural Armor +1 (1,000) [ARCANE BOND]
-Spell Component Pouch X3
-Haramaki
-Scroll of Mage Armor (25)
-Scroll of Shield CL 3 (75)
-Scroll of See Invisibility (150)
-Scroll of Mirror Images (150)
-Scroll of Remove Paralysis (150
-Light Crossbow w/ 20 Bolts
-Adventurer's Sash (5 Scrolls, 1 Potion)
-Quick Runner's Shirt (1,000)
-Potion of Cure Light Wounds (50)
-Smoked Goggles
Total Cost 7,600 Gold

Skills

2 Base + 6 Intelligence = 8 X 5 Levels = 40 Skill Ranks

Acrobatics MAX (+6)
Climb MAX (+4)
Escape Artist MAX (+6)
Perception MAX (+6)
Spellcraft MAX (+14)
Stealth MAX (+6)
Swim MAX (+4)
Use Magic Device MAX (+14)

I noticed that Remove Paralysis is on the Wizard Spell List, but is a 2nd level Cleric spell, so it'd be prudent for me to nab it as a Divine scroll to UMD in the event the enemy Oracle decides to go Hold-Person-happy on my teammates.

Are there any other Divine spells worth taking as a Scroll or even a Wand? Save-or-Suck/Die wouldn't be too effective.

**EDIT** I looked up the Dangerously Curious trait, but I found the one that did what I was looking for (Pragmatic Activator), so no big deal.


The 2,500 would be factoring in removing the Boots of the Cat, the Armbands, and replacing the Ring with the Amulet, not including the amount of money I'd have left over prior to any of this, which can easily put me over 3K to spend.

I'd say they are spontaneous. Sure, they have a spellbook to prepare spells, but from those spells that are prepared, they cast them spontaneously. That being said, I think having 6 1st level spells is more than enough, especially with all of the scrolls I currently have, so while a Runestone of Power is worthwhile in the long run, it's not worth it for a one-shot.

Hmmm, I'm not sure about making my Wand a bonded object. While we banned Trip, Disarm and Sunder tactics are certainly applicable, and if anyone decides my Wand should go bye-bye with a certain spell or action, that will put me in a major bind. Making it my Amulet or Ring would make such tactics a lot less likely to happen.

Though, I could make the Wand of a 1st level Divine spell, and take the Dangerously Curious trait so that Use Magic Device keys off of Intelligence (and not Charisma) in place of Reactionary. The question boils down to what spell I'd want.

Good suggestion on the attribute allocation, since the Strength loss from 8 to 7 is negligible due to carrying capacity subjects. I'll post a quick revision soon enough.


Vexer Update (V4)

Notable Changes:

-Clarified that the Trapfinding option does not grant a bonus equivalent to half class level for Disable Device.

-Clarified that the Meta-Hex talent does allow you to change Metamagic effects with each usage of a given hex.

-Buffed "Playing the Odds" to be selectable multiple times, increasing the uses per day. (Never know how often you may need to Take 10...)

-Added "Precognition" as an Advanced Vexer Talent. It is similar to "Playing the Odds," except it allows a single Take 20 on any D20 roll he makes. Unlike "Playing the Odds" it cannot be selected multiple times for more uses, does not allow Critical Hits, and requires the "Playing the Odds" talent to select it.

-Added "Greater Meta-Hex" as an Advanced Vexer Talent. Functions identical to the normal version, except it allows (basically) all Metamagic feats. Requires the "Meta-Hex" talent, and the Major Hexes class feature to select it.

-Other minor typo fixes and clarifications.

**EDIT**

I am considering making an archetype involving Oracle or Shaman features, though I'll need to configure what substitutions I'll want to make for certain features to emulate.


Hmm, I thought I did the math right, but thanks for clearing that up. I'll just drop my Wisdom down to 10 (since I have the good Will save progression), no big deal.

Ring of Protection +1 costs 2,000 gold, not 4,000 gold, so I paid full price for it. I just simply made it my Arcane Bond for the class feature, and that's it.

Good call on the Amulet, though, since I could beef up the Amulet for half the price, and save me 1,000 gold for a Wand or something.

Mithril Buckler won't compare to the Shield spell. Objectively, I get why you'd take a Mithril Buckler, but for a one-shot PVP it's not worth it.

Boots of the Cat was honestly something I bought just to buy. I highly doubt the enemy is going to bother pushing me off the ledge when they can just as easily kill me (presumably). I could scrap that, and combined with the Amulet cost, it'd save me 2,000 gold to spend. Same goes for the Armbands (though being grappled by the enemy Brawler is certainly a likely outcome).

With that being said, I'll have 2,500 gold to spend, so if anyone has any bright ideas on what to spend on it with (no standard action consumables, preferably), I'm open to it.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
The worst thing about Sorcerer progression to me is they get their new bloodline spell on odd levels rather than even, I never understood why that was the case.

It's an attempt to give the class less levels with dead features, to be quite honest. Though, some of the bloodline spells are pretty powerful, and otherwise not even accessible to other types of Sorcerers, so it's not like the bloodline spells are all that bad.


The "editions" of printing are when they apply a numerous set of errata to the book that it's worthy of making a reprinting, which usually coincides with them running low (or out of) their previous printings. That's really all they are.

Even with newer printings that apply the errata created from FAQs and other undisclosed changes, you can still look up the actual changes on the Help/FAQ page in relation to the released Hardcover Products.

**EDIT** Changed a sentence. Also, Punctuation is hard...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
Gwaihir Scout wrote:
Tels wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

What about mythic DR? Special materials are cheap and easy, but overcoming mythic dr with a bow is going to get really expensive.

And how does bane work? Is the +2 from bane considered to be on the bow or applied to the arrows?

The table for ranged weapon properties in the magic items chapter gives Bane a superscript, and if you check the superscript it says, "3 Projectile weapons with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition." So you have nothing to worry about with Bane. If you shoot +1 arrows of a +2 bane how, you will be able to bypass cold iron and silver and the actual name property with increase the enhancement of the arrows to +3. Good news for Inquisitors, and before you ask, the Band Baldric won't help as it can only be used with light or one-handed melee weapons.
But they're not actually +1 arrows, right? Just magic for damage purposes? So Bane should make them just +2.
You know that you can buy magic arrows, right?

For the same price as buying Magic Bows.

Which makes Magic Arrows the most expensive consumable in the game, since you can have an effective +10 Arrow be worth 1/4 of a Level 20 character's WBL.


You know, the GM doesn't even have to do anything, and honestly, imposing these current rules may create more problems than it fixes. To reiterate what I said before:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
...if the players are enjoying leveling up and stuff at the table, then that means you, as a GM, are succeeding at your goal (which is to make the players have fun at your table).

So really, while the OP can impose these expectations, it can create an unfun table (and by relation, gaming experience). Leveling up, to the players, is part of the fun of the game, so I'd say leave it as it is.

Also, as I've said before, even if they do work on their sheets on their own time, the sheets are still going to have to be presented to the GM, which means the GM will have to audit their choices anyway, and if any illegal choices are made, will be brought up either outside the table (which can create frustrations for the players), and if not at that point, then of course it'd be at the table, in which case you're back at Square 1 with "Leveling Up at the Table."


CWheezy wrote:
You could use that race that gets mystic past life and cast level 2 summoner spells. I guess it's just haste and slow but it's funny.

I believe that we're defaulting to Unchained versions of characters and abilities (which is what we did with our last PVP session), so the referee will most likely veto any attempt to get Haste/Slow as a 2nd level spell.

1 to 50 of 5,803 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.