|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I might like to join in on this if there's room.
With a level 5 dwarven ranger and his animal companion.
I have to check some stuff before I can fully commit, but wanted to post for now.
Should know tomorrow.
Jaklyn the Red wrote:
You're ignoring part of the text that you quoted.
Lets requote it:
The strangler is always considered flanking her target for the purpose of using this ability.
The important part bolded...You are not considered flanking for all purposes when you grappling them. You are *only* considered flanking for purposes of the Strangle ability. So the sneak attack from the Striker archetype would not apply as you are not flanking for purposes of that ability.
The sneak attacks from the two archetypes wouldn't really work together would they?
The Stranglers sneak only happens when its grappling, so the Strikers won't apply as it does not. The Strikers sneak applies to normal sneak scenarios... so the Stranglers won't apply as it does not.
Suppose there's the odd case where you're grappling a flat footed/flanked opponent where they both might kick in.
Seems like you won't get more sneak attack damage... just the ability to use some form of sneak attack in a few more situations. Martial Flexibility seems way to handy to give up for this.
Master of Shadows wrote:
Take 1 level of sorcerer, cast magehand before fighting. As long as you can maintain concentration and point a finger between shots then mage hand can rotate the barrels for you. This should allow you to get up to your full number of attacks granted by your 2 weapon fighting feats.
As MoS mentions, mage hand requires concentration to maintain.But he missed the fact that concentrating is a standard action in and of itself.
So the number of shots you'd get while using mage hand to rotate the barrels, is zero.
The fact the grab ability only works on creatures one size category smaller is somewhat limiting (this is different then the universal grab rules!)
I've tried making grabby eidolons, but usually get hung up on that size restriction and abandon the idea.
Having four legs via evolutions does not qualify you for quadruped evolutions. You have to be a quadruped to start with.
All evolutions limited to quadruped or serpentine base forms a PC can never qualify for.
This is a small list mind you, as there are only 4 restricted to non-bipeds (Pounce, Mount, Constrict, and Rake)
You are missing part of the Large evolution description. The important part being: The eidolon must be Medium to take this evolution.
So it can not be taken at all on a small, large or huge sized critter.
Giving your troop shields and allowing them to use bows seems kinda like cheating... because you know their ac isn't going to change depending on if they're using ranged or not.
Be a lot less paperwork if you didn't make it necessary. Lose the shields!
Personally, as someone building up a PC for a similar sort of schtick, I view it as this:
The weapon attack only has one of the wierd words attached to it. If the weapon hits, that word hits... and all the other words follow, each requiring their own seperate attack roll, and all having to target the same person.
So delivering it via the weapon really isn't that advantageous (it only affects one of the words (the rest resolve normally), you have to hit normal AC with that one (instead of touch), and all the other words go towards the same target (instead of being able to split them up). The upside being one of action economy as you get to do both instead of just one).
I like to think of it as a tracer round =)
Just as an aside... in the bard/cleric example above...
Inspire courage is not affected by silence for more then a single round (they can just switch to a visual performance to get around the silence). The problem was the obscuring mist blocked the visuals too!
If the bard had switched to dancing, and moved in, to be adjacent to her comrades inside the mist (you can still see 5'!), they would have benefited from her performance just fine... perhaps she wouldn't get everyone, but she could have positioned herself to get some of them that were in melee.
Someone should have explained that to her, and she might have been ok with it.
Ya, electricity spells are a bit sparse.
The new ACG book has an electric version of 'flaming sphere' (including a higher level version)... so at least something, but still.
Your best bet is to go with something that can swap one energy type for another and just use fireballs or burning hands or cone of colds, et al.
Evocation (Admixture School) specialist wizard can do it.
Probably a few others ways, but those are the most basic ones.
Um... no it doesn't
All the baldric does is give you more rounds of bane, not early access to it.
Isn't saying that the limits do not apply to your animal companion inferring RAI as well?
I see people saying they don't apply, but not sure what makes them think that other then wanting it not to. Is that stated somewhere?
This is for PFS!
I'm trying to build an undead animating necromancer Mystic Theurge, using the spell-like ability early entry stuff. And could really use some advice. There's a lot of complicated necromancer stuff happening later on that will be affected by the lack of class levels that I'm not too sure how to judge early on.
Only level 1 now, so lots of time for rebuilding as needed...
Sadly, needing Wis, Int, and Charisma is a bit MAD. I had starting stats of: 10, 10, 10, 16, 16, 16 (peri-blooded aasimar)
My intention was to do cleric and wizard (necromancer) before jumping into Mystic Theurge full on from level 4 onwards. This will have me one level behind in casting for one class, and 2 levels behind in the other (though full caster level for one of them)
Would it be better for 2 levels of cleric and one level of wizard, or visa versa? (leaning cleric for earlier animate dead access)
Given the above choice, would it be better to apply the Magical Knack trait to bring the cleric or wizard spells up to full caster level? (leaning wizard here). Is there another trait that could give a +1 or the like to CL, so I could bring both up to full, to avoid math errors?
My god of choice was Anubis (LN), as non-evil gods with the Death domain are few and far between.
I chose the Death domain and Fate inquisition as my starting domains. In PFS, is the Fate inquisition legal for clerics of Anubis? If not, can I get around this using the Separatist archetype? If I don't have to take the Separatist archetype, then I was pondering taking the new Ecclesitheurge archetype from the ACG ... can I make the Fate inquisition my 'secondary' domain as defined by that archetype? (it had no spells associated with it anyway)
The Command Undead feat (that comes as a bonus for the necromancer) only works when channeling negative energy, which the necromancer gets a pool of. Should I keep the clerics channeling pool positive? or have both sides negative? (Versatile Channel is out, since I won't have enough channel dice to qualify).
Any advice or insights would be welcome!
PFS: necromancer to mystic theurge build advice wanted
The mask doesn't apply to feinting.
I wouldn't allow it with most shields... they do not count as an obstruction, any more then the person wielding them does.
But I'd certainly consider it if they had a tower shield... as that can provides cover and you can define an edge of your square to be treated as a solid wall which could therefore perhaps 'intercept' the fireball.
So am I missing it somewhere, or was this indeed the design decision to not allow investigators to use spell-trigger items for spells on their formula list?
The Alchemist parent class has specific language under their Alchemy class feature that allows them to use them...
The investigator's Alchemy class feature does not contain this language.
This has been an error for some time, but since there might be a lot of other 'fixes' going on I'll mention it here.
on the Spell List page for the Core Rulebook, under the 1st level cleric spells, the spell Doom's summary information states: "One subject takes –2 on attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, and checks."
The problem is the bolded portion.
So either the summary info in the spell listing is wrong, or the description of the shaken condition is wrong.
Hmm... never looked in the book to see what it says in the actual printed copy.... perhaps this isn't strictly a PRD thing.
I really am not liking the format change at all.
Although this may have made things better on tablets and devices (dunno), it is a great deal less useful on PC's now.
Navigation menus that scroll off the screen, or not really useful for navigating.
If you could make a way for the menu to stay on the screen, despite scrolling down the content, that would go a long way to improving it.
When the menus were horizontal across the top like before, this was not an issue... those worked wonderfully. Having them in a panel to the left, however, just scrolls them with everything else... and given there's a lot of info on the content pages sometimes, this means they're pretty much always out of sight.
The best part of the feral gnashers improvised abilities, is that they can pick stuff up off the ground as a free action.
So you should be using your environment. Tossing the weapons/helmets/shields/boots/et al from downed enemies (or the enemies themselves), tables, chairs, rocks, sticks, chests, candelabras... basically anything you can get the GM to describe as existing in the area. =)
Also, check out the Refine Improvised Weapon spell from the new Advanced Class Guide, might be relevant.
The text you quoted says 'every alternate class feature you add/subtract/replace'.
Poison Lore and Poison Resistance are not alternate class features are they? The first part of your quote refers to them as standard class abilities.
Sounds to me like you're just adding one alternate feature, by replacing two standard class features. And thus should only count as one change on the retraining radar.
Technically, by a strict reading of the trait, it would do nothing for a 1 level difference.
Now, I've never seen anyone interpret it that strictly... but there's always one out there somewhere... 8)
I suspect that the adventure path bits would do more to confuse a narrative story then contribute to it though... if the intention is not to continue said adventure path.
So the hope, for now, is to stick to PFS scenarios... if any exist.
So I've recently started some friends of mine playing through various scenarios using PFS rules, me as GM.
But to make it more interesting, I'm trying to string the scenarios together to tell a story, or at the very least, not seem so disjointed going from one to the next.
So far, so good.
Recently, I ran them through Frozen Fingers of Midnight
but they used up too much of the lamp oil, and once Natalya returned home, she couldn't send them back, so they were unfortunately stuck in Irrisen
Which then lead well into The Frostfur Captives
as the local undercover pathfinders used the recently arrived folks to escort the prisoners safely out of Irrisen to Trollheim (and got themselves safely out as well)
This then will lead them into Shades of Ice, Part I
having the prisoner pickup team from the previous scenario give them the chest to deliver for this one
Which of course will lead to Shades of Ice, Part II
Not sure how they'll feel about having to go back to Whitethrone
And eventually to Shades of Ice, Part III.
What I would like, however is another scenario to introduce between parts 2 and 3 above. Mostly to bump them up to level 4 before they go into part III, but also to break up the railroad just a bit.
So are there any other lower level scenarios (1-5, 1-7, 3-7) that take place in or around Irrisen (or perhaps in the Land of the Linorm Kings, or Realm of the Mammoth Lords) other then the ones mentioned above that I could insert?