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

Lune's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,942 posts. No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 10 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,942 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

HMM: I get it. I am more abrasive than some people. It is just me. In person it doesn't come across as bad as it does in text because despite my bitterness I am still a generally happy person. I like you and can't think of a less abrasive way of putting this so I am just going to say it: By pointing out my abrasiveness did you think I would become less abrasive? I can tell you that in practice that rarely works. I will try to take your words positively, though I think your message may have been more appropriate in a private message rather than publicly pointing out a character flaw.

Ragoz: You have a good point here. I mean, paying for a whole book and being able to use almost none of it isn't a very good value. I think from now on I will have to wait to see what is allowed in PFS before deciding to purchase a book. If it goes the way this one did then I likely wont pick it up at all. I do kinda feel dooped. :(


Could Celestial Armor ever be made of Mithral?

Could you upgrade Elven Chain into Celestial Armor?


No. Not just "certain specific abilities". It counts for "all feats and class abilities". You don't get to cherry pick things it does count as a one-handed peircing or slashing melee weapon for and other things that it does not. It counts for all.


RSX Raver: That is how it should work for those games as well. The same thing annoyed me in M:TG. If it was too powerful to play with then why did it make it to print in the first place? Either print it and allow it or don't print it at all.

Sebastian Hirsch: Well, thanx for stopping by. You gave it your best to try to talk sense into me but I just wouldn't have it. ;) At least we have the same goal in mind.

Michael Clarke: There are several other ways to qualify for Bladed Brush. Not sure I understand your point being that you still don't get Dex to Damage with your build. Maybe if you added 2 more levels of URogue? Or if you added Slashing Grace? Either way I think you'd at least need one more level in there or an Agile Weapon or something.


What about just items from the Core Rulebook? *puppy dog eyes*

While I have your ear on the topic I have a question about the way upgrading to Celestial Armor would work. I'm almost sorry for asking this as it has been a bur in the rules for years before Pathfinder. Lets say I have +3 Mithral Chainmail and I want to upgrade that into Celestial Armor. ...what is the armor's Max Dex Bonus?

Or can that just not be done because Celestial Armor isn't made out of Mithral? Or is it already made out of Mithral which accounts for it's already crazy high Max Dex thus meaning you would HAVE to make the base item out of Mithral?

In my case this isn't just academic. I will likely be doing this with one of my characters. Or at least considering it.


John Compton: While I understand what you are getting at I'm pretty sure I can successfully reverse engineer any of the items you are referring to. With the example of the Dagger of Venom it seems like an easy answer: is it something that appears on the list of weapon enhancements? No. So it is a special ability and has a price that doesn't correspond to a weapon enhancement bonus.

I mean, I kinda think that Alex's method does work for all items. It doesn't account for why, but I'm having trouble finding how it doesn't work.

I'm not going to badger you on the point especially being that others have already tried to convince leadership. If Alex is unable to sway your opinion then I doubt I will be able to. So, I guess just throw my name into the list of people who would really like to see this happen. Hey, you could always add it to a chronicle sheet, right?


KingOfAnything: Alex is a designer. He has designed some of my favorite content, in fact. I also agree with him here. For example he was the coauthor of Weapon Master's Handbook among other things. He also designs a fair amount of third party content. Mad props to you again, Alex. :)

BNW: Well, I respect that you stick to your opinions especially because I mostly agree with them. I think the only one we disagree on is the Mammoth Hide but I would rather it work the way you say.


Hm. I didn't actually realize it was as bad as Weirdo pointed out. It seems I have only hit the tip of the iceberg here.

I hate to make John's job any harder than it is but it seems like this would be something good to include in the Familiar update that he is working on. I don't want to delay that any more than has already been done but I also don't want ambiguities left after he is finished.

It seems like the only internal consistency is with Elementals. It makes me wonder why even have a general rule of choosing "an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis" with so much wild internal inconsistency. I would think any rule adjustment would be better than what we currently have to work with.

To me it seems like the simplest resolution is to keep close to the general rule. Perhaps change it to just ignore the individual entries entirely. And I hope after Weirdo's post people understand that isn't just my bias talking. The individual entries are what seems to be in contention for a lot of the Improved Familiars.


Oh, so there was actually a ruling on this? Or barring that there were threads where miraculously everyone agreed? Or did the original designer weigh in and provide us with their intention?

I doubt any of these but if I am wrong then please point me to the ruling or thread where this happened.

Regardless, I disagree. I pre-apologize if my disagreement gets anyone's panties in a bunch. The feat outright says that you "treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities".

Also, rereading my posts I see nothing wrong with them including the line you quoted. While I am not upset at the designers, editorial staff, campaign support or anyone about the feat I do not think I am in the minority when I say that if it was too powerful then it shouldn't have been printed in the first place. This kind of policy is what helps to prevent power creep. I have never bought into the theory that there are things that are powerful enough for home games but too powerful for organized play. It is either too powerful and shouldn't have been printed as is or it isn't too powerful and should be allowed in organized play. I don't mean that just for Bladed Brush but as a standard across all printed material. (the obvious exceptions being crafting things and things that are out all together in PFS)

Also, you took my quote out of context. The denial that you were quoting was in reference to the feat being too powerful. It had nothing to do and did not reference designers, John or anyone else. It didn't even imply that. I feel like you made that comparison to vilify me. I hope I'm wrong but making something I said into a personal attack when it clearly wasn't seems like an attack on me.


I did. Not sure how I missed that one post. I do, however, feel that when he says "...the current FAQ wording does not support upgrading the weapon into a +5 Dawnfire." that I am not the only one who disagrees. The current wording very much looks like it DOES support that and I am apparently not alone in this judgement. Alexander Augunas posted a few times in that thread with the same concerns I had and he is a designer.

This is further proof that it needs clarification.

And honestly, saying that there is no way to price such an upgrade is just patently false. It is pretty easy to deconstruct special item pricing. Dawnflower is no exception. Alex even spells it out in his very next post.


Azothath: I am assuming that. I assume that when they mean "true neutral" that they type that. They have elsewhere. I assume that when they say "true neutral" that is what they mean.

You are the one taking the leap of logic and saying that when they say "neutral" they always mean "true neutral".


So the Karmic Monk, Reliquary Guardian, Pysche Serpent and all other references to true neutral are just coincidence? Despite the fact that several of these are from fairly recent books (Occult Adventures, 2015). Neutral could only mean true neutral ever?

So when it says, "A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that she did not prepare ahead of time." on Cleric it only means a true neutral Cleric? Of course it doesn't mean that. We know this because the rest of the text shows the context it was used in is referencing good vs evil. When we approach the Envoy of Balance and it says, "Alignment: Neutral". But we know it means true neutral because it provides context.

Without context saying "neutral" is not enough to go on. It could mean neutral on either axis. Like Outer Dragons it only means neutral on the Law/Chaos axis. There are several situations where you need more to go on to make an impartial judgement. Several familiars say that you need to be "true neutral" or "within one step of neutral" (Psyche Serpent and Brain Mole respectively). Brain Mole was printed in 2015 and it is still using this precise language.

The Bestiary 2 has went through 2 reprintings. If they wanted to correct it to match the other Improved Familiars they have certainly had time since 2012. Some may think that it was given this wording as an inadvertent slip. Some may think that it was on purpose. But making any kind of blanket statement that it was clearly one or the other in all circumstances the word is used is folly.


Wait, what? The link he gave was the same one I did saying that "true neutral" is an alignment. You know, as opposed to any other partially neutral alignment. That link and your quoted text is defining what true neutral is. It isn't defining all other partially neutral alignments.

I just pointed out where "true neutral" was used for the Psyche Serpent but that verbiage was specifically not used for Brownie. Are we just back to ignoring that now?

There exists a difference between "neutral" and "true neutral".


QuidEst: So then what would you do with me sitting down at your table? Declare the character illegal and not allowed to play at your table? Request it gets edited at the end of the scenario? Remember, we are talking about PFS here.

I'm not arguing a point to try to convince you but I don't see how someone can take a leap of logic to say, "Even though other Improved Familiars have specific language spelling out that you need to be 'true neutral' and Brownie only says neutral I am going to declare designer's intention and say that in all cases 'neutral' always means 'true neutral' to the point of telling you 'no'."

I mean, a home game is one thing. You can house rule stuff and I'm typically ok with that. But in PFS they have their own set of house rules and all GMs need to abide by those. Sadly there is still table variation for ambiguous rules. The crux of my issue is that I would like to take Deadly Bowman which is an Erastil specific Trait. There has been brought to my attention the possibility that an Erastil worshiper may not be able to obtain a Brownie Improved Familiar. In a home game I would be willing to bet most people here would be fine with that trait being taken on a different deity or a Brownie being able to be the familiar of a NG Erastil worshipper. But in PFS you have to go by what is written (which has as much support for my perspective as against it) and deal with table variation.

...unless you get a ruling. Which is what I'm shooting for.


BNW:
1. To be fair this was originally your question. I dig that you have now established your opinion but are you ready to lay money down on that opinion? Are you positive that the other GMs you play under will have the same opinion and won't tell you that you made an illegal purchase? I agree with your assessment, I'm really just playing devil's advocate here.

2. See, I couldn't find anywhere in the Celestial Armor description that talked about what it was made of so I assumed that it was made of the same thing that normal chainmail was made of.

3. Where are you getting that from? I mean, I know you said you are paraphrasing posts but I was under the impression that the new FAQ specifically allowed for upgrading to existing named items. Reverse engineering Celestial Armor or pretty much any magic item is pretty easy. Most of us have been doing that for years.

4. See, I'm actually slightly on the other side of this one. While you could say that it could be made of wooly rhino fur I could see a GM making the judgement that Mammoth Hide is made of mammoth hide. I mean, I want it to work but there is enough ambiguity that I wouldn't spend money on it without a ruling. Would you?

5. Well, I agree with you here too. But for me it is more about requiring a change in their actual physical makeup. And yeah, Ioun Stones are a muddy issue.

More than anything I think that there needs to be a bit of clarity in light of the recent FAQ as it opened up a few questions. The way I read the rules in both the Guide and FAQ seems to allow for the upgrading of specific named items. I see nothing barring that and rules which state that it is allowed as they meet the requirements laid out. Pre-FAQ posts notwithstanding.


Azothath: I did. But only me clicking it will not matter. Others need to.

Orfamay Quest: By that logic neither is saying "but a whole bunch of randos on the Paizo forum said it wouldn't be ok" a reason to NOT do it. Table variation already exists on this one prior to a ruling. Just as many people could think that it is fine as there is a distinction between "neutral" and "true neutral" even within Improved Familiar entries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Blake's Tiger: Technically it is reach OR close. It isn't both at the same time. It takes a move action to switch your grip.

Also, again, you are applying a Dex to damage argument to a feat that doesn't grant that. Slashing Grace (or Agile) does. I would say that if you have a problem with that then you should take it up with Slashing Grace. But I wish you wouldn't. Dex to Damage builds have already taken several heavy hits from the nerf bat. And it already wasn't a strong option, just a different one.

...its almost like they lined up the nerfing of Dex to Damage with the release of URogue, but I'm sure that is just WILD speculation. ;)

Ragoz: Heh. Thank you for that.

edit: Also, I do very much hope that Bladed Brush is at least one of the reserved options. I mean... I think it is already pretty reserved what with the feat taxes and deity requirement. But if it isn't then I would just like to ask for it to be allowed.


QuidEst: Or I could, you know... get a ruling before playing the character in PFS so I don't have to get an individual ruling from every GM. I don't want to make a character on shaky ground. I would think I would be applauded for trying to do the responsible thing and ask for a ruling rather than expect everyone to play by my interpretation rather than ridiculed for it.

And anyway, hashing things out on the board is a good way to discover parts of the rules you didn't see before. It wasn't until minutes ago that I found the distinction between requirements for the Psyche Serpent and the Brownie Familiar. One says "true neutral" and the other says "neutral".

If you were put in the GM chair and had to rule after this was pointed out would you make an impartial ruling? Or are you still sticking to your guns and declaring that there is no distinction between "true neutral" and "neutral"?


quibblemuch: Not sure why you posted in the first place then being that I said that "I admit I am bias" in my opening post. I mean... do you only post in rules threads that contain people who do not have rules preconceptions or a preference for how they would like something to be? Maybe this forum isn't the place for you if that is the case. ;)


Orfamay Quest: See my previous post. Paizo does indeed use the phrase "true neutral". Even particularly when describing Improved Familiar requirements. They just didn't use it for the Brownie.

Since they apparently didn't care about word count (literally one single word) when they typed up the Psyche Serpent in Occult Bestiary why would they care about word count for Brownie in Bestiary 2? In fact, if they cared about word count in both cases why mention alignment at all? That seems to support my point, not yours. That way neutral would be the short way of saying "some neutral component in their alignment" but with less words and "true neutral" can mean, well... true neutral with as few words as I can figure.


quibblemuch: You are incorrect, sir. Search the Alignment Rules, yourself. It is there plain as day.

The Alignment Rules wrote:
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”).

It is also referenced in several other places in the rules. Such as the Karmic Monk, Reliquary Guardian, and the Psyche Serpent which, ironically, is an Improved Familiar choice.

Again, Brownie doesn't use such language. It only says "neutral". Assuming that it means "true neutral" when it could have outright just said it like it does for Psyche Serpent is just as much conjecture as saying that they intended "some neutral component in their alignment". In fact, with having found another Improved Familiar that does use "true neutral" in the language that makes me lean even heavier in the direction of "some neutral component in their alignment".


Azothath: Why? This is a rules forum. I am looking for a ruling. It doesn't have to be specific to PFS. If it did than any non PFS rules question ever could be answered with "ask your GM". "Ask your GM" is a cop out answer. Anyone can do that even in PFS.


FYI - Conversation on whether an Erastil worshipper can select a Brownie Improved Familiar is going on here.


Blake's Tiger: Did someone get insulted? I may have missed it.


Kevin Willis: I disagree. See my previous post regarding the Elven Curve Blade comparison. The optimization community at large does not consider Dex to Damage builds to be powerful builds (with the noted exception of Gunslinger and for good reason). I am also not convinced that the Paizo devs believe this.


Azothath: This character is being considered for PFS play. Asking the GM is not an option during character design.


Maybe it would help to take a different perspective on this. If I were playing my NG Eldritch Guardian and the DM asked me if I were a "5th-level neutral spellcaster" would I be wrong to answer him "yes"? What if I were LN?

The character is neutral regardless of whether he is true neutral or not.

Or if we take it from a purely RP perspective I still can't see a Brownie not wanting to be a Familiar for a NG Eldritch Guardian worshipping Erastil while an Imp or Quasit would be absolutely fine with it. A elven archer Erastil worshiper would have FAR more in common with a Brownie than with an Imp or Quasit. Their alignment would even more closely match. I don't buy in to Erastil not drawing a difference between Demons and Fey.


Orfamay Quest: I believe the opposite. Contrast the rules for Lyrakien vs the rules for Imps and Quasits. These are all representatives of the alignment extremes but do not have those alignment extremes as part of their requirements.

Brownies aren't even a representative of an alignment extreme. They don't even possess a subtype like a Psychopomp or Inevitable. Judging from their ecology they don't even champion a cause like other Improved Familiars might. So even from a fluff standpoint I can't see them caring that much about your alignment.


QuidEst: That is not true in all cases. As an example take the Imp. The Familiar epitome of all that is evil and devilish. It has no further text in it's entry about who may select it. Similarly the Silvanshee says you only need to be "Good". Sure, you could claim that this is due to them not having another alignment component in their subtype the same way that say a Quasit does but that has no further alignment restrictions on it the same way an Imp does. There are some like the Lyrakien that specify that you have to be Chaotic AND Good.

The Brownie lacks such language. It doesn't say say you have to be "true neutral" even though such language does exist elsewhere. It just says "neutral". It is possible that reasoning would be that Brownies are only aloof enough to care if you have some neutral alignment component and aren't as inflexible as something like a Lyrakien.

That is why it is a judgement call either way on what the intention of "neutral" is. You could just as easily claim that it is "some neutral component in their alignment" as "true neutral only. Both of these are making an assumption as to the intention of the rule without developer input.


You are correct. This can be taken as more of a general question:

Are the individual Improved Familiar entries language to be taken as more restrictive language than the Improved Familiar feat itself says?

Again, I reference the fact that Paizo already disclaimed the overly pedantic reading of such related topics as "arcane spellcasting class" and the specific individual Improved Familiar entries regarding the same text. And as it doesn't say "true neutral", "completely neutral", "neutral in regards to law and chaos" or some other more precise language we are left with trying to assume what they meant. It is just as possible that they mean "has a neutral component in their alignment" as "true neutral only". Either one of those is an assumption.


Kris Verschaeve: Hm. That does look good.


Oh... Slashing Grace isn't even compatible with Bladed Brush? Hm. I'm going to have to disagree with that. I mean with a pedantic reading I can see where someone could claim that because Slashing Grace specifically says "Choose one kind of light or one-handed slashing weapon..." rather than "Choose one kind of weapon that can be wielded as a light or one-handed slashing weapon..." that it isn't usable. But if we want to fight pedantics with pedantics then a small sized Glaive is one handed to a Medium character and technically it would still give reach. Is it ridiculous? Yes. But no more ridiculous than that reading of Slashing Grace. Especially when Bladed Brush says, "When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike)."

As long as you have Bladed Brush before you take Slashing Grace I do not see the issue as it counts as a one handed slashing weapon for all feats. How is that unclear? It says "all". Not "all except Slashing Grace".

Hell. For that matter even Agile would work too.


While I agree that it is a powerful option when combined with other feats/abilities so too are many other feats and combinations (like finessing and power attacking with an elven curve blade) that are already allowed. I know I'm beating a dead horse with my viewpoint here but if it was too powerful then it shouldn't have made it to print at all. Allowing it to be printed and disallowing it from use (especially with the tasty art that you mentioned) is cruelly presenting a carot on a stick. Especially for something so thematic.

As far as power is concerned, I do not think it is overly powerful. It is funny how many people (even people in this very thread) have expressed that a Dex to damage based build is strong here, yet many of these same people would argue in other threads that Dex to damage builds are weak by comparison to Str focused builds.

And, as Claxon pointed out, the feat does not even give Dex to damage. It allows for you to take a Dex to damage feat. An opportunity that you only get after worshipping only a specific deity, spending the feat tax on Weapon Focus to take Bladed Brush in the first place, picking up Weapon Finesse (either as a class ability or the feat itself) and then, finally, taking Slashing Grace. So, the argument being made is that getting Dex to damage on a Glaive (not just any polearm, only the Glaive) is too powerful for the expenditure of 3 feats and the worship of only a single deity?

I deny this claim and I think if anyone actually thinks about it they would too. If it were such a problem then why isn't it an issue for the Elven Curve Blade? You can already do it with that weapon for only a 2 feat investment and it has the same damage as a Glaive (wider threat range, lower crit multiplier, so better). Spending another feat and requiring the worship of a specific deity seems like a fine balance to allow the same thing with a specific reach weapon. No one complains about this with the Elven Curve Blade. In fact, most people say that it is underpowered compared to Str based options.

In fact, to me this seems to all be part of a subplot to nerf Dex based martials. It happened with all (most) of the X Grace feats. Dex Magus got nerfed into oblivion. It makes me wonder why Paizo keeps printing Dex based options if they think it is too powerful. This is also confusing when contrasted with the advice board's collective majority opinion that Dex to Damage builds are weaker than their Str based counterparts. It is really bizarre to me. I would kind of like to lock some Paizo devs into a room with some of the optimizers from these boards so they can hash out what is "too powerful". No offense to either party intended.

I do agree with Sebastian on a couple of points though. It would be a fairly powerful option for the Magus. I mean, we can't let them have Dex to damage, right? (partial sarcasm) So fine. If this is something that had been planned to be included on chronicle sheets perhaps release it with a Magus caveat. But don't reduce the power attack ratio unless you do the same thing for the Elven Curve Blade. It would be an internally mechanically dishonest move.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Improved Familiar

Spoiler:
When choosing a familiar, the creatures listed here are also available to you. You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).

Brownie
Spoiler:
A 5th-level neutral spellcaster with the Improved Familiar feat can gain a brownie as a familiar.

One thought is that the Brownie entry is a case of specific trumping general. So regardless of the general rule of who can pick which kind of Improved Familiar there is more restrictive specific information regarding who can take a Brownie as a Familiar. I mean if we want to get overly pedantic with the reading of that line from Brownie then it would also mean that Eldritch Guardians and the like cannot take Improved Familiar at all (supporting arguments in these two threads). But we know that isn't true anymore due to the this ruling.

So you can be a LN or NG follower of Erastil. Both of those alignments have a neutral component. I know I'm a bit of a grognard by making this reference but back in my day we used to call an alignment with two neutral components "True Neutral". In fact, that term is still in use today even within the rules text. Take a look in the alignment chapter, it is still there. My point is if they wanted to be succinct and precise in their writing they could have used "true neutral" rather than "neutral". I believe there is an argument to be made that they could have meant neutral along one of the axis and not explicitly True Neutral. To infer either way requires one to make a statement about what the intention of the wording is. Without developer input I am afraid we will never know what the intention was.

If it matters this is for a character concept I have for an Elven Eldritch Guardian with a Brownie Familiar. Personally I think it is a little weird that one of the most naturey gods in Golarion is going to be all, "Ew! A Brownie! You aren't allowed to both associate with one of those disgusting Fey and still worship me!" while Gozreh is saying, "Chill. I like the little dudes. ...but I don't like archers enough for you to be a Deadeye Bowman."

Since we know that Paizo does not prefer an overly pedantic reading of individual Improved Familiar entries regarding what constitutes as a "5th level spellcaster" the only thing we need to know is if they prefer an overly pedantic reading of "5th level neutral spellcaster". Personally, I believe that them stating "neutral" is just reinforcing the general rules for Improved Familiar. I admit I am bias but I just can't see Erastil disliking Brownies that much.


Hm. Actually, I'm thinking about which axis that is referring to or if it means both. It could mean only one of the axis in which case it isn't a case of specific overriding general, just reinforcing the general rule regarding Improved Familiars.

In other words a NG character is still Neutral to some degree. Welp... might as well make a post about it in the rules forum to see if I can get anyone to argue about it. ;)


Brownie:

Brownie wrote:
A 5th-level neutral spellcaster with the Improved Familiar feat can gain a brownie as a familiar.

Well, you obviously edited that into the site. It clearly wasn't there before.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, honestly, IMO if it is too powerful then it just shouldn't be printed at all. That doesn't make it a good reason to not make it into PFS. If it is a balance issue then something else should have been added to balance the feat. They could have added more skill or feat requirements or split it into two feats. But they stabbed themselves in the foot if it was a power issue during editing.

Kalindlara could be right about wanting to avoid Magus arguments. I could see that. But, outside of that I'm not sure why it was banned. As far as flavor goes, well... I don't know if a more flavorful feat exists for Shelynites.

Unfortunately for the players that means that regardless if it was banned for balance reasons or not that we get a carrot on a stick that we can never reach. That is why I'm trying to make our voice heard. Apparently I am either failing or alone in the wish to have this made PFS compatible though as I didn't get a single like.

By the way, the whining bit was a joke. Well, kinda. When people come to the boards and ask for things to be changed it is tantamount to whining. Calling it anything else is really just a euphemism. I'm not deluding myself. When I know I am basically just complaining about something I am as honest with myself as I am with my intended audience. Still, if you prefer "petitioning" I did mention that in my opening post.


Also... where is Order of the Hero from?


So, my sleep addled brain remembered this line over night:

Improved Familiar wrote:
You may choose a familiar with an alignment up to one step away on each alignment axis (lawful through chaotic, good through evil).

And since a Brownie's alignment is N I could still be LG, worship Erastil and take Deadeye Bowman. In fact, I believe you can be one step off from your deity so I could probably be NG or LN and still pick it up. Though I'm leaning more towards NG.


Not sure why I didn't even think about it for Magus. I can see where that speculation would come from. Still, I think I'm firmly with swoosh on this one. It seems targeted at the martials.

Anyway, I'm sure if enough of us whine loud enough that Paizo will listen. PaIzO!! PLEASE?!


Bladed Brush

Spoiler:
Note: This is associated with a specific deity.

You know how to balance a polearm perfectly, striking with artful, yet deadly precision.

Prerequisite(s): Weapon Focus (glaive), must be a worshiper of the associated deity.

Benefit(s): You can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with a glaive sized for you, even though it isn’t a light weapon. When wielding a glaive, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a duelist’s or swashbuckler’s precise strike).

As a move action, you can shorten your grip on the glaive, treating it as though it lacked the reach weapon property. You can adjust your grip to grant the weapon the reach property as a move action.

I wonder why this was disallowed for PFS but allowed into the book. If it was a power issue then it seems like it should have just not made it to print. If it isn't then I'm not sure why it was ban hammered.

Regardless of the reason I would love the opportunity to use it. I have a very concept rich setting specific character I would love to play that would use it as I am sure others do. It hits right at the heart of Shelynites and seems like exactly the kind of thing you would want to have available to accomplish the types of followers Shelyn would have.

From a Designer standpoint I know some of the people who worked on the book that this is in: Paths of the Righteous. I'm sure they didn't intend to create options for them to not be usable. I see that there is a section in the Additional Resources stating, "Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets." Without giving spoilers if it is better to just tell me to shut up and wait to play some newer scenarios and I might get what I would like then I'm all ears.

Otherwise... can we please have this cookie? The underpowered martials want to have nice things. :)


Yeah. I saw that. So they are after you with the nerf hammer too.
The obvious way around this is to just run home games. So.... when are you starting a home game? ;)

I am off to find someone to yell at about this...


Gr. I think you are the mole!

Hm. Actually, maybe you are also a target considering I think you had a hand in the Bladed Brush bit. I'd think that Alexander Agunas was the mole but he also had a hand in much of my content of my concepts. I doubt you guys don't want us using the stuff you helped design. Hrmph. What gives?!

Maybe there is some hope in this sentence:

Quote:
Several options in this book are being withheld to appear on Chronicle sheets.


Wonderstell: Son of a b~#!@! How did I miss that those feats were banninated? Hell, this is a preemptive retaliatory strike on Paizo's part. See! I told you they are after me!

Well, I guess that makes my build choice easy, huh?


Kalindlara: I was going to check it out on Archives of Nethys. Thank you for saving me the work. I have learned my lesson on sourcing those traits. ;)

And yeah, I know about the initiative thing. I'm not sure if I want Paizo to make a ruling on that or not as I think it could be something better left in the DM's hands. However, to date, you are the only one who has ruled that way at a table I have played at. Ever. Even dating back to 3.x. Well... actually before that too. I don't slight you for making that judgement. In fact, you are not only within your rights to do so but I think you are likely correct within RAW. But for myself and likely the other DMs I have played under they choose to ignore that rule due to record keeping.

Either way, I am prepared to play within either interpretation. I am, however, curious as to why you make an exception for mounts? I assume that it is for the same record keeping issue previously mentioned? ...what if I have my Familiar "ride" my character? hehe Either way, I think it is better to give him Extra Item Slot rather than Improved Initiative. If I give him a Dex belt he would mitigate the loss in initiative that way and also pick up more AC and attack bonus.

By the way, I should mention that this character will likely be playing alongside my son's new Grippli character. (thanks, Kalindlara!) He decided to make it a ninja (Urogue/Hunter mix) riding a Giant Chameleon. He plans on only taking 5 levels of Urogue to pick up the Dex to damage and wanted to go deep enough to get the skill unlocks and get to 3d6 sneak attack. Boon Companion will help keep up the Animal Companion for all but one of his levels. He will be going with Knife Master, River Rat and Blade of the Society. He also wants to pick up Accomplished Sneak Attacker and TWF with daggers. When mounted he will have a constant flanking buddy with Outflank and Pack Flanking. He plans on getting Skill Focus: Stealth on his Animal Companion and some Shadow Barding. He should make for an interesting scout.

I had a few concepts ready to go. I was considering a Halfling Slipslinger that I have been meaning to play for a while now. I also have a Shelyn worshiping Glaive user with the Bladed Brush, Spear Dancing Style, Slashing Grace and Crane Style that I have been considering. Very Matrim Cauthon themed there. But I decided to go with this one and have us both be from the Mwangi Expanse. I plan on playing my character(s) like a pair of sylvan bruhs. Lots of high fiving, in-jokes, secret handshakes, healthy male comradery and victory dances.


So. Here are my ideas for the build. The first one is basically the same as the one posted in my first post with the exception of the removal of the Witch levels. There is no longer a need to take them as I can get Extra Item Slot on my Brownie just by swapping out his starting feats.
So basically I would switch out those levels and add on some extra archery feats. I would probably tack on Improved and Greater Snap Shot.

For either build I would be going with the following retooled stat array:

Spoiler:

Str 14
Dex 16 (+2)
Con 14 (-2)
Int 8 (+2)
Wis 12
Cha 10

The other build is as follows:

Build 2:

1st
Fighter 1
Familiar, Point-blank Shot (1st)
2nd
Fighter 2
Share Training, Steel Will
3rd
Fighter 3
Armor Training, Precise Shot (3rd)
4th
Fighter 4
Deadly Aim (Fighter 4)
5th
Fighter 5
Weapon Training, Improved Familiar (5th)
6th
Fighter 6
Steel Will +2, Rapid Shot (Fighter 6)
7th
Fighter 7
Armor Training, Weapon Focus: Longbow (7th)
8th
Fighter 8
Overwatch Style (Fighter 8)
9th
Fighter 9
Weapon Training: Trained Initiative, Concentrated Fire (9th)
10th
Fighter 10
Steel Will +3, Overwatch Tactician (Fighter 10)
11th
Fighter 11
Overwatch Vortex (11th)
12th
Fighter 12
Hindering Shot (Fighter 12)

For this build I would be taking the Disinterested Observer racial trait instead of Elven Magic and Weapon Familiarity since I wont benefit from either of those. Hindering Shot didn't seem overly important as I will not be triggering saves much myself and it will be a largely situational bonus. Actually, I was considering taking it out entirely.

On either build I would likely be taking Deadeye Bowman as Wonderstell suggested and probably Reactionary on at least the second build if not both.

Also, as this is for PFS and you cannot buy Tiny sized weapons I will end up having to buy Iron Lord's Transforming Slivers at least once for the Brownie's bow (thank you, Lorewalker, for pointing this out).

There are also some clarifications coming down the pipe soon that I am looking forward to seeing that may have some impact on my concept. To that I say: Please, Paizo gods...I implore you! I know you like to watch my posts and counter them with nerfs. Don't let me go the way of prototype00. Don't nerf my concepts into oblivion. I beg of thee!

So... unless this gets pounded into oblivion with a nerf hammer, which build do you guys like more? Which do you think I will have more fun with? The second one seems like it would be situationally better but dependent on readied actions triggering. I can probably get pretty good with that but sometimes it is better to just spray arrows and kill as many things as you can. That would make the first build better.

Is there anything you think I'm missing? I've been entertained watching this thread to look for some good items I may have missed. Any issues or areas of concern? Things to look out for in PFS? I saw that they just allowed the purchasing of ammunition of other types from chronicle sheets... that is a nice plus. :)


Alright, I'm resurrecting this thread because I am likely going to make this character now. So, I might as well answer the last couple of posts before I get to what I have come up with for a build.

Wonderstell:
Deadeye Bowman: Nice catch. I will likely go with that. :)
Toughness: Unfortunately, I think I'm too feat starved to fit it in which is ironic seeing as I am going with a full Fighter build. Also, pretty odd for me to go for a full single class build even for a martial character. Still, it is what fits the build here.
Brownie Feats: Yep. I will only be switching out a single feat to allow the little guy to get Extra Item Slot. I am a bit torn between Belt slot (Dex belt) and Wrist slot (Bracers of Archery).
I don't need to worry about the Brownie getting proficiency. He will get it automatically from my Eldritch Guardian's Share Training ability.

Markov Spiked Chain:
Yep. Thanks for chiming in with that.

Wonderstell... again:
Well, regarding saves the Eldritch Guardian comes out ahead of standard Fighter with Steel Will being a far better version of Bravery. It might as well be a progressive Will save bonus. Fighter has a good Fort save and with a Dex that I plan on improving frequently Reflex shouldn't be too bad either.
Regarding your first build that has Improved Familiar not coming available until 8th character level. As the Brownie is the entire point of this build that is definitely out. Plus, Monk doesn't progress your Familiar at all. I also do not plan on getting Manyshot at all. And having Wis to damage doesn't help the concept at all as I do not plan on having a high Wis.
Your second build has the same issue.
However, you are onto something with this "Concentrated Fire, Overwatch Style and Weapon Trick: Hindering Shot" combo. I like it! :)


So with the recent change in how to upgrade items in PFS I feel like the original post needs to be updated or a new thread needs to be made stickied.

For reference:

the new FAQ entry:
What are the rules for upgrading weapons, armor, and wondrous items?

You may upgrade one weapon, armor, or wondrous item to another as long as the new item occupies the same slot, is made of the same material, has the same general shape, and has all of the abilities of the original item. For example, you can upgrade a +1 longsword into a +1 frost longsword or a cloak of resistance +1 into a cloak of resistance +2. You may also upgrade a magic weapon or armor into one of the named weapons or armors, such as upgrading a +1 banded mail into a banded mail of luck. As another example, you can upgrade a belt of incredible dexterity +2 into a belt of the weasel from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment , which grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity as well as other benefits.

To upgrade a magic item, pay the difference in price between the new item and the original item.

I also have questions on this as do several others.

1. Can you upgrade a Bag of Holding Type I to a Bag of Holding Type II?

2. Can you upgrade +3 chainmail to Celestial Armor?
I ask because throughout several editions of this game many people have assumed that Celestial Armor was made of Mithral even though it doesn't say this in the description. So that leaves the question open for other items like Rhino Hide armor. Does the original armor have to be made out of rhino hide to be able to upgrade it to Rhino Hide?

3. Can you upgrade Celestial Armor to +4 Celestial Armor?
The rules seem to indicate that you can. Pricing should be pretty easy to determine. I will admit, I really want this to be true as there hasn't existed a Pathfinder game I have played outside of PFS where this wasn't allowed.

4. Can you upgrade Rhino Hide to Mammoth Hide (from Inner Sea Combat)?
It is true that it is not made of the same material but it even mentions in the text of the item "Made of tattered mammoth hide and bone, this +3 hide armor is similar to rhino hide, but is fashioned in the harsh lands of the mammoth lords using beasts common to that region."

5. What about cracked and flawed Ioun Stones?
Several of them offer the same type of bonus as their normal counterpart but not to all scores or abilities. In these circumstances can you upgrade from a cracked to a flawed and finally to the normal Ioun stone by paying the difference in cost? I assume at least that the versions that that offer different bonus types are out due to not being like the original enough.


Please?...


I had not. I do not own the book it is from and hadn't seen it. It appears it is cleverly hidden on pfsrd.

It actually would work pretty well and I would only lose a single BAB but gain 6 more skill points, a bonus language and some decent fiddley bits and allow me to keep the nice things from Druid I wanted. It is also very thematic. Hm. So it is between that and Hunter....

1 to 50 of 2,942 << 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.