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

Kazaan's page

3,437 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

@Raving: Of course. Ninja is Rogue, just a Rogue that has more complicated changes than a simple archetype would warrant. This is also why both Samurai and Cavaliers can choose any order; there are no "Cavalier only" or "Samurai only" orders. They have no archetypes that they can share because no Cavalier archetypes replace abilities that Samurai still have and vice versa. Anti-Paladin is also an alternate class, but Paladin archetypes, again, don't have any replacements for abilities that Anti-Paladins retain (iirc. APs have no abilities in common with Paladins; just related mechanics). This is also why, if you have levels in Rogue, for example, you cannot ever take levels in Ninja. It would be equivalent to taking 1 level in Two-Weapon Warrior fighter, and then 1 level of Brawler Fighter to be a Fighter 1/Fighter 1 using two otherwise incompatible archetypes.

So if there is an ACG class that has the same class abilities as one of their constituent class alternates, and those abilities are changed by an archetype, by the principal of mechanical parity, they are entitled to choose that archetype.


I guess I misread one of the posts; could have sworn it mentioned Bloodrager.


Zwordsman wrote:

hum right they are technically archetypes I guess.

Probably not then.

Technically, Wildblooded is an archetype. But also, technically, Bloodrager is an alternate class for both Sorcerer and Barbarian. Ninja is an alternate class for Rogue, which is why Ninja can take Rogue archetypes, albeit, limited to archetypes that trade the only set of abilities Rogues and Ninja have in common (Uncanny Dodge and IUD). So Ninja can take the Scout, Sanctified Rogue, and other Rogue archetypes that trade out no other Rogue class abilities other than UD and IUD. Therefore, if there is an archetype for either constituent class in one of the "combo classes" from ACG that only relies on changing class abilities that both the standard and alternate class have in common, you'd be able to use it. So, if Bloodrager has the Arcana and the respective class powers just as Sorcerer does (I'm not sure off-hand, I've only skimmed the ACG), then you'd be able to use the archetype. Same goes for Barbarian archetypes that only trade abilities that the Bloodrager also has.


Tiny would be the smallest Longspear a Medium creature could wield. It would take a Small creature to wield a Diminutive Longspear; and yes, it would still give reach by RAW ^-^


Thax, quit spreading disinformation. A one-handed weapon is one with an effort category of "one-handed". That could be a properly sized Longsword, it could be a Greatsword one size too small, it could be a Dagger one size too big, or it could be a Quarterstaff wielded one-handed via the Quarterstaff Master feat.


Maybe not a complete fix, but a quick patch would simply be to take the linearly scaling abilities for Martial classes (ie. Fighter weapon training, Ranger Favored Enemy bonus, etc) and quadratically scale them. For example, the Fighter, instead of getting +1 at lvls 5, 9, 13, and 17, he'd get +1 at lvl 5, +2 at lvl 9, +3 at lvl 13, and +4 at lvl 17, for a total of +10.


I've always viewed the action economy as follows:

1) You have 6 seconds in a round, in which all participants perform their allotted actions.

2) Most actions on your turn are, more or less, performed in parallel, with adjudication happening in sequence out of necessity. If you move, you're taking some amount of time to get to your destination while possibly also performing some standard action. This could be spending 5 seconds to move into position and "winding up" your attack to deliver at the end, or it could be delivering your attack first and then getting to your destination afterwards. It's fuzzy out of necessity.

3) Full-Round actions serve two purposes.
- A) Actions that preclude either movement or standard action. Standing there and attacking for the full round precludes your opportunity to move, for example.
- B) Actions that synergize movement and action for some added benefit. Charging combines a double move with an attack and grants a bonus for the combo.

4) Swift/Immediate actions take "almost no time, but a large expenditure of effort". Moving up to your speed as a Swift action is done much faster than moving up to your speed as a Move action. So it makes sense that you can fit in the opportunity to move as a Swift action in the same round that you've performed a Full-Round action.

5) Extra actions are about overlapping. You don't extend the time for your turn so how, exactly, do you fit another standard or move action in there? Because you're more efficient with your action; you're able to fold actions into themselves and multi-task to use your time more effectively. It's just the adjudication that happens in sequence; the actual actions are smooth and fluid and have overlapping elements with other actions. So you're executing your move while making your full-attack because you know how to execute your attacks and recover your stance on the run.


The First World may kind of work as a model or even a de facto plane of wood.


@Diego: Care to explain how the Staff Magus works, then?


The Tiefling alternate trait is worded, functionally, the same as the Redcap special ability; the only difference is the Redcap is a Small Fey so it references Medium weapons while the Tiefling trait references Large weapons. But the Redcap's ability, otherwise, works the same exact way and it's pre-equipped with a Medium Scythe. Ergo, the Tiefling can wield a Large two-hander just fine.

Other options include feats like Thunder & Fang and Quarterstaff Master which allow you to treat a specific type of weapon (Earthbreaker and Quarterstaff, respectively), as a 1-h weapon. That scales up to a 2-h weapon if it's one size too big. Lastly, the Sunblade is a Bastard Sword that spoofs a Shortsword insofar as handling goes. The Shortsword is a light weapon so you can wield the Sunblade as if it were a light weapon (taking reduced penalties to TWF, wield it in only one hand, whatever). This means that a Sunblade one size too big would be wielded as a one-handed weapon and one two sizes too big would work as a two-hander. A Medium creature could wield a Huge Sunblade with -4 to attack as a 2-h weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In Golarion cosmology, outsiders, if killed on their home plane, dissolve into the "background energy" and become a part of that plane. I view Eidolons as finding an outsider who has been killed and calling their energy (or, at least, some of their energy) back and giving it a form with which to interact with the world. As the summoner grows stronger, he is able to pull out more of the energy and also imagine a stronger, more complex form for them.


The only inconsistency is with Jotungrip. It says "in one hand", but goes on to add in that you count it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of Str to damage, Power Attack, etc. So it effectively falls under the "as a one-handed weapon" category.


@Ciaran: Welcome to Golarion, where the physics are made up and your AC points don't matter.


@Tesoe: I think I understand the source of your misunderstanding now.
You have to read the full FAQ, including the question that prompts the answer:

FAQ wrote:

Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?

If you're wielding it in one hand (even if it is normally a two-handed weapon), treat it as a one-handed weapon for the purpose of how much Strength to apply, the Power Attack damage bonus, and so on.

It is, specifically, asking about feats and other special abilities that say to "treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one-handed weapon". So the answer, even if it uses the "in one hand" phrasing for ease of understanding by the reader, is still addressing only the question of "wielded one-handed" and doesn't extend to "wielded in one hand" as illustrated by the Lance FAQ. Ergo, no inherent contradiction.


If you're wearing your boots, they are a "part of you" so "you" are touching the ground. Same goes for wearing fully covering clothing. Hypothetically speaking, if you were flying in the air, but your belt were long enough to reach the ground, you'd still be "touching the ground".

A more pertinent point is: what counts as "ground"? Foundation of a building? Paved road? Dirt? Bedrock? Blanket of leaves? Snow? Ice? Mud? If I hold a clot of dirt and then start flying, am I still "touching the ground"? If I levitate a big chunk of "ground" and stand on it, does that still count? What if I'm climbing up a cliff? Standing on the ceiling of a natural cave?


Maybe, but if the distinction is something that was either intended to be different or is a posteriori determined to be beneficial, the distinction will still be there; just with better clarity of language. It's just how "Shooters" was used to categorize both the good shooter games as well as the Modern Warfare/CoD mass-produced FPS. That's why Yatzee came up with the term "Spunkgargleweewee" to refer to the latter. If they were to, for example, categorize the weapons as Light, Medium, and Heavy in place of Light, 1-h, and 2-h, then there would be a much clearer distinction between a Heavy Weapon wielded in one hand and a Heavy Weapon wielded as a Medium Weapon.


To be blunt, it's a complicated game. The solution isn't to dumb down these fine distinctions in the rules but to "smart up" the average player. Space may be limited in written rulebooks, but with online resources available, there's ample space to adequately explain these subtle differences. What we need is an Annotated PRD that expounds on the subtleties of rules interactions like this.


How about a Two-Weapon Warrior? Wield a pair of whips, move into position as a swift action, then full-attack away. Improved Balance lets you suffer penalties as if wielding a light off-hand. Half-Orc and Half-Elf can get racial proficiency with whip. Another option would be Magus. The Whip is a one-handed slashing weapon so it can qualify as a Black Blade.


What we really need is a way to apply Wisdom to get a "vibe" off the item. We've all seen this before, a magical item that a character just "knows" is bad business, but he doesn't know how he knows. Essentially, we need a way to apply Intuition.


The difference is in the wording; "wield in one hand" is mechanically different from "wield one-handed". One-handed is a mechanical term referencing "effort to wield"; light, one-handed, two-handed. By default, a weapon is treated as whatever its base category is; you wield a Greatsword "two-handed" and two-handed, by extension, means you wield it "in two hands". The clause "wield in one hand" is a specific exception to the general rule that two-handed weapons require two hands to wield, and only to that specific rule. It has no bearing or impact on other rules regarding two-handed weapons (ie. get 1.5x Str to damage, get +50% Power Attack bonus, subsumes both a main-hand and potential off-hand attack, etc). A weapon wielded in such a manner would also still qualify for feats/abilities that require you to wield a two-handed weapon (ie. Overhand Chop, Pushing Assault, Shield of Swings, etc).

By contrast, skills/abilities that specify you wield it "one-handed", "as a one-handed weapon", or any variant thereof that involves the term "one-handed", are overriding the base effort category. You are no longer treating it as a 2-h weapon but treating it as a 1-h weapon instead. In this case, it no longer qualifies as a 2-h weapon for feats/abilities that require the use of a 2-h weapon, but it now qualifies as 1-h for feats and abilities that require the use of a 1-h weapon. For example, Spell Combat requires you to wield a light or one-handed weapon and cast spells with your other hand. Even if you were mounted and wielding a Lance, the Lance still counts as a 2-h weapon so you cannot Spell Combat with a Lance just because you wield it "in one hand" because it still isn't a 1-h weapon. But you can Spell Combat with a 2-h weapon that specifies you wield it "as a one-handed weapon" or any variant thereof.


It depends on the size of the settlement in which you shop. For smaller towns and villages, they may have a very limited selection of magical weapons available a la carte so you'd roll to see what's readily available and, if it isn't available, you'd have to make a custom order (which would take crafting time). For larger cities, there may be a presumption that "anything lower than such-and-such gold is considered readily available" and only higher-value items would need to be rolled for.


I guess that would work if you were pistol whipping... but who even does that?


2 levels of Cavalier/Samurai with the Cockatrice order will give you Dazzling Display that you can use w/out a weapon and as a standard action.


So, strictly speaking, it comes down to this now:

Is it Untyped Energy damage, or is it Untyped non-Energy damage that is not part of the Weapon's damage (as it's caused by the energy arc), but is still subject to DR? The PFS Scenario seems to indicate the latter, but that's an isolated case that may simply be the result of either writer's fiat or misunderstanding of the rules.


"Touch AC" and "Flat-Footed AC" are de facto terms to describe your AC with certain modifiers omitted for the purpose of specific kinds of attacks. They aren't mechanical terms in the sense that you have "normal AC" and a separate "Touch AC" and a separate "FF AC"; they're just pre-calculated values to be used in certain circumstances.

If the target is flat-footed or otherwise denied Dex to AC, you leave out Dexterity modifier (or alternate stat if an ability like Nature's Whispers swaps out Dex for some other ability score), Dodge bonus, and any other particular bonus that specifically calls out being lost if you're denied Dex to AC. If you target Touch AC, you leave out Armor bonus, Natural Armor Bonus, and Shield bonus. If your attack targets Touch AC and the target is denied Dex, you leave out all of the above, meaning they are left with just base 10, deflection bonus, and any other particular bonuses (ie. Monk AC bonus) that aren't affected by either rules element.


Nefreet wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Re-reading the RAW, it specifies the energy disruption itself dealing the damage, meaning it wouldn't make sense to have it follow the same damage as the weapon being wielded.
Vicious wrote:
When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder.

It specifies the weapon dealing the damage.

The same as Merciful.

This was mentioned in the OP.

Are you sure you're reading the right passage?

PRD wrote:
When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder. Only melee weapons can be vicious.

It quite explicitly states that the weapon creates a flash of disruptive energy and it's the energy that deals the extra damage, not the weapon itself; analogous to how the sheathe of flame on a Flaming weapon is dealing the extra 1d6 Fire damage. By contrast, Merciful simply states that the weapon deals an extra 1d6 damage and converts all damage done to non-lethal. But we're tackling one battle at a time here; if it is additional weapon damage, analogous to Sneak Attack or Bane, it plainly is subject to Merciful's non-lethal conversion, without question. If it's a type of Energy damage, on the other hand, or even neither physical nor energy damage but simply untyped and unspecified "damage", then it falls to a secondary question; are rider effects like Flaming or Vicious or delivered Touch spell effects (in the case of delivery via Unarmed attack or Spellstrike) included in Merciful's non-lethal conversion. But that's a separate question that can be considered in its own thread (since the devs ask for a FAQ thread to be a single clear question).


9 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
PRD wrote:

Vicious

This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. When a vicious weapon strikes an opponent, it creates a flash of disruptive energy that resonates between the opponent and the wielder. This energy deals an extra 2d6 points of damage to the opponent and 1d6 points of damage to the wielder.

We've been having a discussion in another thread and determined we need to know exactly what category the extra damage from Vicious falls into. It has been narrowed down to the following:

1) Extra damage dice as part of the weapon's damage (ie. Slashing weapon deals 2d6 slashing damage)

2) Untyped Energy damage

3) Negative Energy damage

By a strict reading of RAW, one would presume it's option 2. No mention of Negative Energy is made, but it is explicitly called out as an arc of energy. Some propose that, since Enervation is used in the making, it deals negative energy damage but this has less support as Merciful isn't taken to be positive energy damage just because it uses CLW. But there is, apparently, an AP featuring a BBEG with a Vicious weapon that doesn't harm him because he has sufficient DR, indicating it is option 1; physical damage. Is there an official statement regarding this that someone could link? Lacking that, FAQ it up and provide your support or suggestions for a possibility that wasn't included here.


Well, losing spells doesn't mean you lose being able to use wands; it just means you need a UMD check to do so.


Well, even though it uses a spell that deals negative energy, that doesn't mean that the effect itself is negative energy damage. Merciful uses Cure Light Wounds but it doesn't deal positive energy damage. The damage that Vicious causes is Untyped Energy damage. Furthermore, the damage is caused by an "arc of energy" generated by the weapon, just as the extra damage for a Flaming weapon is generated by the "sheath of flame" around the weapon. The primary disagreement is whether or not arcs/sheathes of energy generated by a weapon are considered part of the weapon's damage.


Have we ever had an official or at least semi-official ruling that the Merciful property even applies to rider effects like Flaming? If so, I'd say that sets a distinct precedent for it also applying to the rider damage provided by Vicious, both to the opponent and the user.

Furthermore, the damage to the target and the damage to the user is coupled in the same clause so if it can be reasoned that Merciful applies to the damage dealt to the target, it also applies to the damage dealt to the user.


For more explanation on non-lethal damage and how it works:

Say the enemy has 50 max HP and 30 current HP. If you attack him for 20 non-lethal damage, he'll be at 30 current HP with 20 non-lethal HP (tracked separately). Now lets say he suffers 11 lethal damage, bringing him down to 19 current HP. He still has that 20 non-lethal damage and it is now greater than his current HP (19), so he falls unconscious. He can still keep racking up non-lethal damage up to a total of 50 (his max HP). Once he hits 50 non-lethal, any additional non-lethal damage is converted to lethal. So lets say you load him up on 50 non-lethal damage, and start working on that remaining 19 "actual" HP. Once you eat through that 19 HP and take him down to -1, only then does he start dying and needing to make stabilization rolls. To completely kill someone with lethal damage, it takes their max HP + their Con worth of damage. To do so with nothing but non-lethal damage, it takes 2x their max HP + their Con.


I dunno, why is Steal based on Strength? Because it's a combat maneuver and CMB is based on Strength. Why is Overrun based on Strength? How does Strength have anything to do with running past someone? Both Grapple and Bull Rush talk about moving and pushing your opponent. Drag talks about pulling your opponent. Reposition, however, is worded distinctly different; "attempt to force your opponent to move". If it were just a matter of grabbing them and shoving them around, it would just say that you "attempt to move your opponent". The fact that they use passive voice indicates that you aren't "moving" them but making "them move".


It's more like it's a limb with a new natural reach. A reach weapon doubles your natural reach but also excludes your natural reach. So, with 10' natural reach and a reach weapon, you double your reach to 20', but you can't attack at 5-10'. The vine is more like a limb with 15' natural reach than a reach weapon, since you don't lose the ability to attack at less than this new reach. So it's like replacing your 10' reach hand with a 15' reach hand.


Keep in mind that the 5' square your character occupies is rather quite a bit bigger than the space an actual person takes up. Measure out a 5x5 foot square on the floor and stand in the middle; take a look at how much free space you have in which to move around. Now put another 5x5 square next to this one and have someone else stand there and see how easily you can reach them. Pick up a 5' stick (roughly the size of a Greatsword) and see how easily you can reach them. Combat involves moving around in your square and temporarily "invading" someone else's territory to make attacks before returning to your own tactical spot. You're "anchored" to your 5' square, make short excursions out of it to reach your opponent, then return to a ready stance. This isn't incorporated into using the Tanglevine; it's presumed that you just stay in your own spot and manipulate the vine from there with out much tactical excursion. So, even if you have a natural 10' reach, you just disregard that because you're using a whole different set of mechanics here with Tanglevine.


Keep in mind that the 5' square your character occupies is rather quite a bit bigger than the space an actual person takes up. Measure out a 5x5 foot square on the floor and stand in the middle; take a look at how much free space you have in which to move around. Now put another 5x5 square next to this one and have someone else stand there and see how easily you can reach them. Pick up a 5' stick (roughly the size of a Greatsword) and see how easily you can reach them. Combat involves moving around in your square and temporarily "invading" someone else's territory to make attacks before returning to your own tactical spot. You're "anchored" to your 5' square, make short excursions out of it to reach your opponent, then return to a ready stance. This isn't incorporated into using the Tanglevine; it's presumed that you just stay in your own spot and manipulate the vine from there with out much tactical excursion. So, even if you have a natural 10' reach, you just disregard that because you're using a whole different set of mechanics here with Tanglevine.


LoneKnave wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Furthermore, since the last square of movement can be to a non-adjacent square, you aren't directly moving them because you couldn't do so to put them in a spot out of your reach unless you are physically shoving them; and that's already covered under Bull Rush.

you aren't directly moving them because you couldn't do so to put them in a spot out of your reach unless you are physically shoving them;

Here you are LITERALLY saying "you aren't physically moving them unless you are physically moving them". Think about that for a second.

Bull rush covers pushing someone in a straight line. Reposition covers grabbing their arm/leg/head/tentacle and swinging them around. Both can end their movement out of your reach because you physically push them out.

So riddle me this; if Reposition is actually physically moving them... why can't you physically shove them into a trap or over a cliff by default? The fact that Reposition inherently prohibits you from doing something that, logically, you should very well be capable of doing in the case of a physical, forceful movement, we can conclude that Reposition, by default, is not physical, forceful movement. Using a Trip weapon just means that the shape of the weapon is better for goading them into movement and can be used to, at least to a degree, physically move them; though not to the point that you can forcefully move them into a dangerous position.


LoneKnave wrote:
Reposition does not say that the target has to be capable of moving.

It doesn't say explicitly that the subject must be capable of moving. It does say, however, that it forces them to move. That carries the implication that you are compelling them to move by some means. Furthermore, since the last square of movement can be to a non-adjacent square, you aren't directly moving them because you couldn't do so to put them in a spot out of your reach unless you are physically shoving them; and that's already covered under Bull Rush. So the only remaining logical conclusion is that you are goading them to move themselves; which requires that they be capable of performing said movement. So it does say that the target must be capable of moving in the same way that Bleeding Attack says that the target must possess blood or something equivalent; implicitly rather than explicitly.


I wouldn't say that using a device to fly is inherently "unnatural". It's a natural extension of our ingenuity. You might as well say that a Beaver damming a river is "unnatural" or a bird making a nest is "unnatural". It's a matter of using resources at our disposal and our brains.


It's a free action to activate a Ring of Force Shield, not a standard. Ray Shield states explicitly that the shield takes the full effect of a spell so deflected so it would work against the Disintegrate ray, be deactivated, and then you must wait until your next turn to turn it back on again.


Thrown weapons, by default, are weapons that are otherwise effective in melee. Some exceptions apply (ie. Shuriken). Projectile weapons not effective in melee is to include all other ranged weapons; they have no "melee" use. Hybrid ranged/melee weapons are, effectively, treated as double weapons; you can use it either as a melee weapon (using appropriate weapon stats) or as a ranged weapon for a given attack.


For Monks, off-hand Unarmed Strikes get full Str to damage, even if not made as part of a Flurry. So they'd still get full Dex to damage if you're using an Agile AoMF.


I think you need to read the rules more carefully:

PRD wrote:


Thrown Weapons: Daggers, clubs, shortspears, spears, darts, javelins, throwing axes, light hammers, tridents, shuriken, and nets are thrown weapons. The wielder applies his Strength modifier to damage dealt by thrown weapons (except for splash weapons). It is possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn't have a numeric entry in the Range column on Table: Weapons), and a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll. Throwing a light or one-handed weapon is a standard action, while throwing a two-handed weapon is a full-round action. Regardless of the type of weapon, such an attack scores a threat only on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. Such a weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

Throwing a weapon that doesn't have an inherent range increment does not treat it as an improvised weapon. An improvised ranged weapon would be throwing a rock or a bottle. Throwing an actual weapon that's not made to be thrown is a different animal entirely. It suffers an automatic -4 peanlty, separate from any non-proficiency penalty that might apply. Furthermore, you don't do this as simple ranged attacks as with attacks with actual ranged weapons; it specifically calls out it is "a standard action" to do this with a light or one-handed weapon (not an attack action, not as "a ranged attack" which could be made as part of a full-attack) and "a full-round action" for a two-handed weapon.


rosscook wrote:

In the Fly skill, it says:

"You cannot take this skill without a natural means of flight or gliding. Creatures can also take ranks in Fly if they possess a reliable means of flying every day (either through a spell or other magical manner, such as a druid’s wild shape ability)."

Since you must have a natural means of flight to have the skill and Garuda-Blooded Aasimar automatically get this as a skill, (in my head) that means Garuda-Blooded Aasimar have usable wings. This may be me wanting things for free.

It's a non-sequitur. Just because they get a racial bonus to Fly doesn't mean they have the ability to fly any more than a Sorcerer having Fly as a class skill means they can Fly before they take a spell that grants flight. The vestigial wings make you better at flying, provided you have some other means of flight, compared to most other races, but unless it specifically calls out that you gain a flight speed, you cannot fly.

Here's another example; the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype for Fighter has numerous abilities that revolve around using TWF, but the archetype does not grant TWF nor subsequent feats from the tree as a bonus feat. Would you say that a Two-Weapon Warrior can use the TWF feat or ITWF without actually taking the feats? Of course not. Likewise, a Plumekinth still needs a way to fly to fly and to train flying, but once he has said method, he'll be better at it by default.


Ooh, take Racial Heritage (Halfling) and pick up the Underfoot Adept Monk archetype because it specializes in fighting opponents larger than yourself.


For those unfamiliar, he's trying to make Edward Elric from Fullmetal Alchemist. But, here's the thing: Alchemy from FMA isn't Alchemy from Pathfinder. FMA Alchemy is more like wizardry and those able to use it without a transmutation circle are more like spontaneous wizards (or maybe Arcanists). So I think you're barking up the wrong tree and conflating the principals based on just the name applied to the class. I think, for Edward, I'd go for Arcanist from ACG as the best option.


Even better, pick up a Huge Sunblade. Sunblade counts as a light weapon but still deals damage as a Bastard Sword and a Medium creature can wield a Huge Sunblade as a 2-h weapon. Then tack on Enlarge and Lead Blades and you're good to go with your fighter jet-sized sword.


Ranger is a divine caster. Arcane Training requires you take an Arcane caster class. So Sorc, Wizard, Magus, Bard, Summoner, or Witch are your essential options.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
deuxhero wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
The best counter to a wizard is more wizard, unfortunately.
Magic must defeat magic!

ONE MORE THING...


Arcane Training is a specific exception:

PRD wrote:

Arcane Training: Half-elves occasionally seek tutoring to help them master the magic in their blood. Half-elves with this racial trait have only one favored class and it must be an arcane spellcasting class. They can use spell trigger and spell completion items for their favored class as if 1 level higher (or as a 1st-level character if they have no levels in that class). This racial trait replaces the multitalented racial trait.

It's not just the declaring it as a favored class; it's the specific effect of the Arcane Training alternate trait. Instead of having two favored classes, you have one favored class that must be an arcane spellcasting class and, in addition to the normal favored class benefits, you also treat your level in that class as 1 higher for the purpose of spell trigger/spell completion items. If you're "lvl 0" in that class (you have no levels in it), you treat it as if you were lvl 1. So you can use wands, scrolls, etc. for that class's spells, even though you don't have any levels in it (and never intend to take any levels). With this alone, of course, you'd be giving up favored class bonus for the class in which you actually do take levels, but that's what the Eclectic feat is for; to recover the favored class bonus for your "actual" class.


Here's a trick you can use:

Arcane Training works even if you have no levels in the favored class so you can pick, say, Witch and have access to wands of Cure Light among other things, then pick up the Eclectic feat. It has a racial prereq of Human (which a H-Elf can satisfy) and it gives you an additional favored class. This will let you recover your favored class bonus for your Monk levels. Bing-bang-boom, for the cost of 1 feat, you get an effective level of Witch for spell-completion/spell-activation and your normal favored increases for Monk.

1 to 50 of 3,437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.