Order 2876314 is listed as pending because supposedly the Paizo catalog was never shipped. However, I have multiple copies of your latest catalog, including one that was shipped with the minis in that order. So please close out that order when you get the chance.
Taladras Kith'Eron wrote:
But this question was asked about a synthesist's eidolon, not a standard eidolon. Your answer would be correct for a standard eidolon, but the eidolon of a synthesist can indeed be healed only by Rejuvenate Eidolon or similar magic that specifically targets an eidolon.
Yes, I would say that persuading somebody to change deity would be comparably in difficulty to persuading him to change liege lords. The costs and benefits would be comparable for divine spellcasters.
Anyway -- have we gotten any word as to when we will see the revised Arcanist? With such a short playtest period, the developers would need to get it out quickly if we are to playtest it at all. Or should we assume that what we got in the playtest package is radically different from the final product and that we won't see the revision until the book comes out in August of next year?
Of course, if the person you are trying to convert is already getting tangible benefits from his current belief system (as would be the case with a cleric or paladin of a different god, for example), the Diplomacy roll should become far more difficult if not absolutely impossible.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
But it is quite a bother to remove a heavy shield from your arm when it is inconvenient and then put it back on afterwards. The ring lets you swap the shield in and out with free actions. That is highly convenient for many character types.
Xaratherus -- Thank you for an excellent statement of the general issue. I think other answers may be possible, but you gave the only ones that do not require the creation of new rules.
Then James Jacobs is also wrong. (But I will admit that that does happen on occasion.)
His line or reasoning, which apparently is based on a WotC ruling for D&D 3.5, appears to be that you can add as many ability score modifiers as you like to any single roll or statistic (as many such cases have been identified) but you cannot add the same ability score modifier more than once. So far there seems to be no clearly cited example where it is definitely legal to add an ability score modifier more than once to the same die roll or game statistic -- and also no statements beyond an official ruling for D&D 3.5 and a non-binding statement from James Jacobs saying that it is not legal to do this.
Even the chocolate cake example does not help. When you get to the phase of adding chocolate frosting to the chocolate cake, do you add more frosting (so that the chocolate frosting is extra thick) or do you look at it, say to yourself that it is already covered with chocolate frosting, and add no more?
We need a FAQ entry that either directly addresses this rules area, or a more general one that addresses the applicability of D&D 3.5 rulings not specifically contradicted in any Paizo source.
If we need to retain the Warpriest name and general concept, how about going with a full BAB wisdom based prepared caster with 4 levels of spells from the Inquisitor list? This class would only compete with the paladin, with the advantage of not being limited to the lawful good alignment.
But there are a few cases where figuring out the type is not so easy. For example, you encounter a creature that looks vaguely human. Without positively identifying exactly what it is, are you sure that it is a humanoid? Or is it a native outsider? Or is it the shapechanged form of a monstrous humanoid or something weirder?
The Arcanist is actually my favorite of the new classes. It can be thought of as Paizo's take on Arcana Evolved's spellcasting classes. I think it is a very nice system to have a caster who can prepare spells out of a list that is theoretically but not practically unlimited but who does not need to decide in advance how often he thinks he will need to cast each spell.
I would very much like to see this mechanic extended to other spellcasting classes.
The spellcasting classes are not a problem at all. Sorcerer/wizards and cleric/oracles are already valid (and weak) multiclassing options. Even those classes that share spellcasting attributes would not be very strong. These options are weak because there is no way to make the caster levels stack.
To break the system in regard to multiclassing, I would look for options that are granted by both an old class and a new class and that don't scale with level.
Yes. Others have mentioned that, and none have mentioned actually downloading the thing. They probably should have set up the download page before announcing it.
Anyway, I take that to mean that the upload is at most minutes away.
Here is a form of the question that uses only rulebooks from the main core line: A character multiclasses as a paladin and an oracle. He takes the Sidestep Secret revelation from the Lore mystery, which enables him to modify his Reflex saves with charisma instead of dexterity. He is already adding his charisma modifier to all saves because of the paladin divine grace feature.
So what happens in this case? Does he get to add his charisma bonus twice? Or does he only get it once with the choice of which version to take (presumably divine grace if his dexterity modifier is positive, or Sidestep Secret if it is negative)?
Wizards of the Coast said something about ability score bonuses for the same ability score not stacking (specifically in the case of a multiclassed monk/ninja, since their version of the ninja also added wisdom to unarmored AC) -- and I am pretty sure that article can still be found.
To date I have not seen any similar statement from Paizo -- so all we have at this point is an inference from the way Wizards handled it. Paizo could ignore such cases as long as they did not generate any on their own, but now that that no longer seems to be the case, it it time for them to make their own statement on the subject.
I created a Life Oracle cohort who was not particularly good at direct combat (no attention paid to improving weapon attacks or offensive spells). Of course, given that the player of the party cleric had just left the game, she has been quite useful at keeping other people going in combat.
Okay, so here is what we have:
1) Regardless of debates over when seasons begin and end, it is clear that Paizo understood "this fall" to mean "some time between the autumnal equinox in September and the winter solstice in December" and that most readers of that blog had the same understanding.
2) So far, no Paizo playtest has started later than November. I do not have any days of the month for prior playtests readily available, so I have no idea when is the latest they ever realeased one. Are we close to that day?
3) In conclusion, that would mean that we can expect the Advanced Class Guide playtest no later than December 20th, and probably before Thanksgiving. So we most likely have less than two weeks to go, if I were to place a bet on it.
I would start with magic -- bull's strength or a belt of giant strength (or cat's grace or a belt of incredible dexterity plus the Weapon Finesse feat), a magic weapon with the highest enhancement bonus you can get, a stone of good luck, and the ioun stone that boosts attack rolls.
For feats, go with Weapon Focus and add Weapon Finesse if (as is likely) your dexterity modifier is higher than your strength modifier.
If you want to keep up your spellcasting and are not too worried about hexes, you could always take a level as a fighter and then go into the Eldrith Knight prestige class. The net result of doing that is full BAB for your fighter and Eldritch Knight levels at the cost of two levels of spellcasting.
Is there any reason you can't take Racial Heritage (Half-Elf) or Racial Heritage (Half-Orc)? The feat seems to mention humanoid races, not humanoid sub-types. If those options are valid, then there is no reason to take Racial Heritage (Elf) or Racial Heritage (Orc) and the problem that spawned this thread is solved.
Half-elves make the whole sleep issue really weird, as they are also immune to sleep effects but there has never been the slightest hint that they do not sleep normally. So my half-elf summoner sleeps normally but is immune to sleep spells and effects, while his eidolon never sleeps normally but is vulnerable to sleep spells and effects.
Another option to consider would be Epic Meepo's Aspect Armiger fighter archetype. Healing is not an issue because the eidolon armor cannot be damaged, and the only way to banish or dismiss the armor against the wearer's will is to make its wearer lose consciousness for three rounds. The armor bonus of the eidolon armor scales with level, and he does not get any actual evolution points until 5th level.
What is your opinion of the idea of mixing and matching the archetype packages given for the core/base classes? For example, is there any reason not to have a sorcerer give up his bloodline package for the paladin package that grants smite evil and lay on hands?
The main three problem areas I could see would be the following:
1) Some archetype packages don't work well as add-ons (as they modify or supplement abilities that are not part of the package and thus won't work with a new class).
2) Archetpe packages from classes with alignment restrictions could present issues. (For example, the substitution that I proposed above could be highly questionable for a sorcerer who is not lawful good). I suppose this one could be fixed by imposing the alignment restrictions of the original class.
3) Assuming that you did not originally envision people making these substitutions, some combinations could be overpowered (although I must admit that I have not located any such combinations yet -- just underpowered ones because of issue 1).
Are there any other problems we should look out for?
Anyway, I definitely would support the idea of combining all of the archetype PDFs into a single book whenever you get to a point where you don't think you will be adding any more archetype packages for a while.
You are making the claim that there are "tall" and "long" distinctions. Please find for me where this is stated in the rules, thanks
Look at the Combat section of the Core Rulebook or the corresponding table in the Combat section of the PRD. The table "Big and Little Creatures in Combat" explicitly distinguishes the natural reaches of "tall" and "long" creatures for creatures of size Large and Larger.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Where is this FAQ? Ultimate Campaign does not have a FAQ yet, and I cannot think of any other book that mentions retraining.
The optimization is based on your original spellcasting class. Some of them have the ability to cast spells in light armor with no risk of arcane spell failure. Assuming you did not do that, you need to find a way to replace the armor and shield bonuses to AC.
For the shield bonus, go for mithral to reduce arcane spell failure chance to nothing.
For the armor bonus, you can choose between a haramaki or silken ceremonial armor (both with arcane spell failure of 0%) or bracers of armor. Check prices and availability to get the best bonus. If speed of movement is not important to you, throw an armored kilt on top of that armor for an additional +1 to AC. Alternatively, if you are a high enough level caster, you might get by with castings of Mage Armor.
Then focus your resources on the other contributors to AC -- amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, belt that improves dexterity, and so forth.
The contradiction is in the fact that the Core Rulebook definition of the the table limit for maximum cohort level only mentions "attracting" the cohort, not advancing him. The limitation of cohort level to no higher than player character level minus 2 is specifically mentioned for both purposes (attracting and advancement).
In the absence of the rule from Ultimate Campaign, would anyone see any reason to limit cohort advancement to the limit on the table if it is lower than character level minus 2? The Ultimate Campaign rule looks like a rule change because in the absence of that rule there seems to be no reason to limit cohort advancement by the Leadership table. Furthermore, it is given in the context of abusing cohorts, so it is unclear whether the GM should apply it in all cases or just when the player character's Leadership score drops because of his abuse of the cohort.
Ultimate Campaign has this interesting statement:
"If you exploit your cohort, you'll quickly find your Leadership score shrinking away. Although this doesn't change the cohort's level, the cohort can't gain levels until your Leadership score allows for a level increase, so if you're a poor leader, you must wait longer for your cohort to level up. In extreme cases, the cohort might abandon you, and you'll have to recruit a new cohort."
According to the above, the maximum level that a player character's cohort can advance to is set by his Leadership score on the Leadership feat chart. Furthermore, this does not seem to be presented as a new rule but as a restatement of the existing rules.
However, the Core Rulebok has this:
"Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself....
<irrelevant material snipped>
"If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level."
In the case where a player character's level minus 2 is higher than the cohort level for his Leadership score on the chart, we have a contradiction, as the Core Rulebook makes no mention of the chart's maximum cohort level for cohort advancement (just for recruiting). It is also not clear whether anything in the Ultimate Campaign statement applies if you are not exploiting or otherwise mistreating your cohort.
For a charismatic player character who is an excellent leader, the problem crops up at 20th level, when the level minus 2 rule would let the cohort advance to 18th level but the Leadership chart would not because it tops out at 17th level. The problem could crop up earlier if the player character does anything that reduces his Leadership score even if it does not involve mistreating his cohort.
So -- was the intention here to apply a new general level limit on cohort advancement, or just a penalty on player characters who mistreat their cohorts?
Note the spell Control Summoned Creature as a reference point. That spell was created explicitly for the purpose of seizing control of a summoner creature away from its original summoner.
A Charm Monster spell is of about equal power but less specific in its effects. In the case you describe, the summoned creature would by default attack all of the summoner's enemies except for the charmer. If the charmer tries to give orders to the summoned monster, there should be an opposed charisma check between the summoner and the charmer. Note that any attack on the summoned monster by the charmer or his allies would breack the Charm spell and that the summoner would retain the ability to dismiss the summoned monster if it becomes useless or harmful to him.
Silver Surfer wrote:
So for example could one humanoid use it to pick up Steel Soul from the dwarf feat list?
That feat's prerequisites are "Dwarf" (which the feat Racial Heritage (Dwarf) would give you) and "hardy racial trait" (which you do not get from Racial Heritage). If you can find another way to get the Hardy racial trait, then you would qualify for Steel Soul -- but I am not aware of any way for a human or half-human character to do that. Maybe Bastards of Golarion will provide something there?
They must have delayed some items -- I know I had some November items set aside in my shopping cart, but I don't any more. Given that each line now seems to have two items coming out in January and none in November, my best guess is that the releases previously scheduled for November and December each got pushed back a month.
unless they go Zen Archer you're good. did you have them roll in front of you? Ive seen problems in the past where people create characters alone and rolls always tended to be a bit too good then...
Of course, if they did roll in front of you, you will have an even harder time convincing your players that their rolls were "too good".
There is a good reasons that every organized play system uses some sort of point buy system. It eliminates the need to watch players roll their stats as well as the haggling over rolled stats that they players think are too low -- and the even worse problem that the DM has little or no recourse when one player rolls much better stats than oany of the other players.
A 5' by 5' square is actually 25 square feet. One human size corpse would not be a significant obstacle in a space that big -- stepping or jumping over it would not be a challenge even for the least athletic among us. By the time there are enough bodies to pose an obstacle, most of us will have lost count of just how many foes died in that one square.
Now I know how I missed it -- that item has some limitations that made it not work for the purpose I was looking for (casting Alter Self on a size Huge eidolon to make it Medium or Small until combat breaks out). But I think you answered the original question.
AD&D 2E had versions of spells that boosted the spell durations by a similar amount.
Super Genius Games published a metamagic feat called Continual Spell that does what you describe. If there existed metamagic rods for metamagic feats that raised spell level by +4, you would have the desired item.
I frankly don't think this item exists, but if you ever do find it, please post -- I have been looking for ways to extend spells that change size and/or shape and so far have come up empty.
If you are only willing to go so far as to vote for a 3rd party candidate that you don't think can win rather than go all the way over to the opposition, then you do still identify with your original party to some extent. Both major parties will pay far more attention to you and to other people like you if there is a real risk that you could vote for either major party. If you are not potentially willing to do that, then your original party will take you for granted, the other party will not evey try to win your vote, and you lose half of the political power that a voter whose vote truly is up for grabs would wield.
The above, of course, applies only to the United States and other countries with similar party systems. In a country with an open parliamentary system, you can actually accomplish something useful by shifting your vote from a major party to a minor party that could potentially negotiate its way into a ruling coalition.
I saw another post that said it was stated in the CRB that you could not raise the level, but I could not find the same text in the PRD.
Take a look at the Brew Potion feat itself. That feats sets a maximum caster level of your own level for anyone making a potion.
I remember buying this PDF some time before Ultimate Magic came out. The Broodmaster archetype from Ultimate Magic is the official counterpart to Summoner's Menagerie -- I would use that instead of the Summoner's Menagerie feat.