|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Ooo, I know. Maybe it is a bar on top that is ran by vampires. But below the bar... that is an ancient subterranean temple. The purpose of it is to attract patrons and the unlucky ones become food.
The bartender seems very familiar... almost like you have seen him as a bartender at another bar somewhere before...
Nothing says you can't use Spectral Hand in melee. I'm pretty sure others (including myself) have already given the best advice on your ranged touch spells: don't use them, it is a lost cause. You get -4 for firing into melee and most often another -4 for your allies providing cover. I would not recommend taking precise shot to counter this.
If your major concern is hitting NPCs with class levels that have a high touch AC then you are further ahead not using a touch attack to deliver your spell and just using an Unarmed Strike. That way you get to hit the same AC you would be hitting with your touch attack spell and delivering damage via the strike as well. A Deep Red Sphere Ioun Stone gives you Improved Unarmed Strike when socketed into a Wayfinder. The +2 Dex that it gives isn't going to go to waste either. If you have established that it is better to deliver touch attacks with Unarmed Strikes instead then it makes it much easier to gain enhancement bonuses to attack via spells like Greater Magic Weapon. Grab a +1 Spiked Gauntlet of Spell Storing to make to spells get delivered at once.
+2 to hit, the closest equivalent is the enhancement bonus
Well, no. That isn't true. The closest equivalent is the effect of the spell.
It isn't an enhancement bonus and it doesn't apply to all attacks. It is more limited. It only applies on touch attack spells, not ranged touch or anything else. There isn't any way to gain an enhancement bonus when using that spell. That is something you give up by being able to use it from range. You work only within the constraints of the spell. Otherwise, if using your OWN hand you COULD get an enhancement bonus. So stacking isn't really an issue either.
And as far as giving you the use of several feats, again, I disagree. what it gives you is the use of a single spell. Continuously. At this point I think what your argument may actually be is that the spell itself is more powerful than it should be for the level of the spell. I'm not sure I would agree with that either. There are several spells that give casters a boost beyond what is easy to acquire for martials. Transformation, as an example, gives a lot of power to a caster and it isn't easy for a martial to gain such bonuses. But then again, the only ones who can truly make use of it is casters. ...which is the same for Spectral Hand. The chapter on estimating item values even has information on discounting cost for an item that is only usable by certain classes, etc.
So while we may disagree on the exact pricing of the item, we do still agree that this is something that should be discussed with the DM. ...which is why I suggested that. If this player wanted such an item what advice would you give them? Would it be to use the chart as a rough guideline and discuss the finer points of pricing with the DM? Because that is what I suggested to begin with.
gustavo iglesias: Well, I wont take it personally. However, I do feel that you are trying to invalidate my suggestion which I can only see as being helpful.
I wonder how you do things in campaigns that you run, or would run if you do not run currently. If someone wants to craft wonderous items and wishes to do so with continuous effect what do you use for a base line? Or do you make your own rules?
Look, regardless of your personal opinion on those rules they are the base lines that are printed in the book. Several items (both balanced and unbalanced) follow those rules. Some of them do not follow the rules and have a unique pricing. But the concept that I was suggesting of having a constant use item for Spectral Hand is sound. How you get to the price is something that we both agree should be discussed with the GM. I said that in first post that I suggested that specific item.
So, unless you have a better suggestion for establishing pricing for an item of it's sort?...
I am fine with making characters that break the mold for race/class or iconic archetype. That doesn't mean the character is "gimped". Roleplaying and creating an effective character are not two sides of the same spectrum. They are not mutually exclusive. You can do both.
Purposefully making an ineffective character... well, that is just being a jerk. No one wants to carry you. There is no excuse to carry around a ball and chain with an adventuring party.
As to concepts, I have made several. Here are some ideas:
2. There are several caster classes that make good tanks and come across as breaking the mold for their "intended purpose". Among them Alchemist is my favorite. I played a Hyde type tank build with a single level of barbarian and played up the alternate personality side of it quite a bit. It was great RP fun and a blast to play. It was also very effective and there were several times that I kept fighting while deep into negative hitpoints and still came out ahead. Definitely one tough cookie and he could dish out decent damage as well.
3. Small (and Tiny) sized martials are fun. I currently have a couple concepts I just started playing. One is a Halfling Paladin/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple. The other is a Kitsune who fights in Fox Form. Both are a lot of fun and the looks you get from your party when you explain that you aren't the scout or weakling that they might expect from looking at you and pull out great martial prowess in game play are priceless. This goes well with the Kobold Dragon Disciple mentioned earlier. I have played that concept as well. Unfortunately, I didn't get to play it out to it's higher levels as it would have been entertaining to have the highest Strength score by far in a party of other martial characters ... on a Kobold.
4. I took on a personal challenge inspired from a thread on these boards. It was one of the many rogue-hate threads. Someone made the assertation (I think it was BBT) that almost any class makes a better rogue than a rogue. Someone defended the rogue stating that surely can't be true. They tried to think of classes that would make the worst rogues and said Barbarians would surely make worse rogues than a rogue. I thought about it and decided to make it a personal challenge. So I have a Barbarian Liberator/Breaker with a single level in Trapper Ranger and the feat Trap Wrecker. She carries a Adamantine Greatsword with the letters B.L.P. She doesn't tell anyone what it means until she has to use it. Her normal schtick is she tries to disable the trap first but if she fails then she says, "Welp, looks like it is time to pull out the B.L.P.!". And then if someone asks she will kindly explain it means, "Big Lock Pick... you may want to stand aside." She then typically rages, uses Trap Wrecker, her B.L.P. and destroys the crap out of the trap. Tons of fun. And she is far more effective in combat than a Rogue as well. I consider that challenge met, succeeded and exceeded. :)
...I got more if you find any of these fun.
Scott Wilhelm has good suggestions ... so long as the claws from Bloodrager are permanent.
On that topic I think I'm just going to bow out. I have done research on it and it boils down to bad writing/editing in the ACG. In fact, it is so bad that I feel any attempt to debate the topic is pointless as it can be taken any number of different ways and without a Dev post clarifying intent, a FAQ or errata (which is what is really needed) there is no way to determine the correct meaning. None.
With the number of posts I found on the topic (both on these boards and elsewhere) I would think that this would have qualified for a FAQ by now but I see there are only 4 questions for the ACG FAQ currently. That is absurd.
Honestly, I think I am just going to avoid debates on rules from that book because as far as I can tell everyone loses on such debates. Also, it appears that Paizo doesn't care to clarify anything on this.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
To me (and apparently others), when it says "At first level, you grow claws." I believe that it means that at first level, you grow claws. To me it is specifying that you grow claws at first level. It does not have the verbiage that the other abilities (both within that bloodline and in other bloodlines) have.
I guess we could ask for intent of the Devs but I doubt we are likely to get a response. Until then I am thinking disagreements on this will be rampant.
Also, I am trying to be helpful, here. Perhaps rather than attacking my suggestion of a rules based resolution just because you do not like the particular rules that are used you could try being constructive?
The pricing on those charts is meant as an "estimation" anyway, and I did advocate talking it over the the GM. I'm not sure I deserved the rules hate being directed at me for offering that suggestion.
Skylancer4: I think it would be fair to increase the item's price by 8,000gp to include the +2 effect. However, this isn't an "enhancement bonus" so I think you are getting into muddy waters by trying to imply (or apply if you prefer) the bonus is an enhancement bonus. Trying to double charge for for the reach ability doesn't make sense, though. There is nothing that says or even implies that in the item creation rules. I couldn't find an item that justifies it's cost to be like that, either.
There is a difference between an item that gives a feat (which typically costs 10-15K and isn't represented in the table, but is exemplified by other items) and an item that gives a constant use spell.
All this being said, I'm pretty sure that I suggested that the player talk to the GM about this. Is that not also what you are advocating?
gustavo iglesias wrote:
If you are going to follow those horrible guidelines for constant spells, a use activated lvl 1 True Strike glove gives you +20 to hit for really low price (somethink like 2000 or so)
That is not correct. By the rules you are not able to make a Truestrike item as it does not have a duration that is measured in "rounds". Plural.
Right. It doesn't say while bloodraging. The others do. Even those that aren't part of the bloodrager bloodlines limit when you can use the claws. It would take the addition of text that does not exist as part of the ability to make it only happen while bloodraging.
It says, "At first level, you grow claws."
How is that unclear? This is definitely different than Abyssal which says, "At 1st level, you grow claws while bloodraging."
That is clearly different. In other words, it is "otherwise specified". It says that he grows them at first level. It does not say that he grows them only when he bloodrages. How else would you word something to "otherwise specify"? I can't even fathom why anyone would think that the text being written as such would not, in their mind, count as "otherwise specified". I mean... do you think the difference in the wording between bloodlines was just a mistake? If they intended for it to be purposeful how do you think they could have done that?
However, in an effort to understand the other side to this discussion... am I to believe that those who think that the claws are not constant also believe that Draconic's natural armor boost and energy resistance is also only active during a bloodrage? What about the Power of Wyrms abilities? Is that only during a bloodrage?
Regardless of the general rule the Draconic Bloodline does have specific wording stating that the claws are up all the time. This differs from both other Bloodrager Bloodlines that grant claws (like Abyssal) and Sorcerer Bloodlines that grant claws (like the Draconic Sorcerer Bloodline).
I fail to understand how that is not "otherwise specified".
Also, if you want to have Invisibility made permanent on an object that only costs an additional 5,000gp. This is going to require some DM interpretation as you are the attacker but the hand is the delivery mechanism. "Attackers" become visible after making an attack which touch spells are considered. It might rub some people the wrong way that the hand gets to retain it's invisibility while attacking.
Personally, I do not take issue with it as that hand is never going to have more than 4HP and those are taken from the caster each time it is used. If the hand is destroyed it would likely be from an AoE that the caster and hand are both in. It seems more likely it would hurt the caster slightly more than helping them with delivering touch spells. But it is better to bring these things up to your DM before doing them. It is something you would have to do anyway as the item I was referring to is a custom item regardless of whether it follows the item creation rules or not.
Yeah. Forget rays entirely. -8 is too much to contend with. Precise Shot isn't worth it likely for the amount you will likely be using it.
If you aren't going the Familiar route that has been suggested earlier (and this is a good suggestion) then I would talk to your DM about getting a use activated/continuous item that does Spectral Hand. Cost should be calculated like this:
(spell level x caster level x2000) x2 for duration of 1min/level.
You can sneak attack with any weapon. The louder the better. Normally I recommend yelling "SNEAK ATTACK!" a split second before you attack. It is too soon to grant your opponent their Dex bonus. They are still flat footed if they don't know you are there before you attack. Imagine their surprise when bury your greataxe in their torso! It works the same with a party popper like a culverin except that you don't need to yell anything before hand. The gun does the yelling for you.
FYI - I also have a "Ninja" (Cleric) who "sneak attack" (channel smite) and yells "SNEAK ATTACK" just before he attacks. It is super effective. Another character I have names many of his combat maneuvers things like "Cheetah runs up Ogre's back!", "Farmer lashes his jackass!" and "Pluking the apple from branch.", etc. Sometimes you can even do something silly like, "Tiger uppercut!" or "Sonic Boom!" but I recommend you have some kind of energy attack to accompany a maneuver like that.
Every single word in every post Aelryinth has made has included only personal opinions. This is strange for him. I honestly do not understand why he is pushing the issue without posting any rules quote to back him up.
Aelryinth: You know what would make this real easy? If you just posted something in the RAW that shows something saying that if you attack with an offhand weapon you lose your shield bonus to AC. But that isn't what the rules say. They say, "If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn."
And as Seranov said, "Not that that is relevant at all, because you don't need to attack with your buckler arm to use armor spikes, and therefore wouldn't lose your shield bonus to AC when attacking with them."
And since we aren't talking about the armor spikes FAQ that isn't applicable either.
In fact, Seranov hit the nail on the head with this statement:
I have always thought of Arcane Archer as more of a martial class than a spellcasting one. They way I see it go full martial aside from one level for an arcane caster. Take 2 levels of Arcane Archer and the rest into Eldritch Knight for a strong build. When you finish with EK, go back to AA.
As for the Zen Archer Monk concept, my son has tried it and it can work very well. Some suggestions:
3 levels of Zen Archer Monk is a decent cut off point. At that level you are basically getting Weapon Focus, Rapid Shot ("Flurry of Bows" as my son likes to call it) and a feat (probably Precise Shot because you probably took Point Blank Shot at first level) for free. Perfect Strike isn't overly useful but a nice perk. What you are really after is your level 3 abilities: Zen Archery which allows you to apply Wis to hit and Point Blank Master as early entry (usually only Fighters can take this and only after 5th level) which allows you to not provoke when firing in melee.
4th level will net you some extra attacks per day with Ki if you want to go that deep. You need to think about at this point which is better for you though: feats that give static bonuses all the time or per day abilities. For me I think taking a couple of Fighter levels is better to meet the BAB requirements of AA. 3 levels of Weapon Master Fighter will get you 2 bonus feats which you will really need and Weapon Training so you can use Gloves of Dueling. Bonus attacks only matter when you can full attack anyway which you can't do with Imbue Arrow. And doing so expends a resource.
For your arcane level I recommend Empyreal Bloodline Sorcerer to stack Wis as a primary stat. This makes Wis apply to hit, AC, Will Saves and spell save DCs and bonus spells. If you take 4th level of Monk it also helps determine your Ki Pool. It decreases the need to focus on Dex and combines your spell casting stat with your accuracy stat and more. MAD issues are a big problem for many Arcane Archers and this helps that problem. It has it's downfalls but I feel the benefits outweigh them.
So how does this build look?:
Fleet of Foot alternate racial ability.
Sorcerer levels are all Gold Draconic Bloodline
1st - Paladin 1: Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil 1/day, Fey Foundling (1st)
I couldn't really decide if I wanted 2 or 4 levels of Paladin. Both builds had their merits, I just decided I would rather he be a bit more fighty. By 13th level he will have 3rd level spells and be caster level 9th from Magical Knack. That puts him at +3 bonus from Arcane Strike. He will be 3 points of BAB behind full Paladin, but due to getting +2 Str it will be only like being 1 BAB behind. It may actually be beneficial to be behind in ACTUAL BAB though due to hitting more often when Power Attacking. At 13th level he will be BAB +10 so his Power Attack will be at -3 rather than -4 if he were a full BAB class at that point. Between Power Attack and Arcane Strike he will be adding 9 damage per attack. With his Str bonus at that level it goes up to +12 damage. That isn't including items. He will be one BAB short of gaining a 3rd iterative attack at that level but will have a total of 3 attacks/turn with his sword and shield, 4 if he activates his bite attack. Oh, and he will also be at +1 to hit from size.
That should make his attack routine something like:
His saves will look like this prior to items:
His AC should be something like this considering +3 mithril armor and shield (which seems certainly attainable by that level)
And going with PFS style HP it should be something like:
Does that seem fairly respectable? I mean, that is just a cross section at 13th level but it should be fairly competitive all the way up, I think. He will be a bit behind due to his small size on damage but the bonus to hit should help make up for that. I'm thinking it wouldn't be hard to get another few points of hit and damage in there with items, 4-5 points on each save shouldn't be hard with items as he gets to double up on ability bonuses and can still get a resistance bonus. AC is similarly easy to raise with other items like Ring of Protection, Dusty Rose Prism Ioun Stone, Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, etc.
If there were another way of lowering Arcane Spell Failure short of Mithril and Arcane Armor Training then I would probably go for chain mail instead of a chain shirt which would up my AC by 2 more. It probably doesn't matter though as I can just grab Celestial Armor and only deal with a 5% spell failure. Any ways to lower this to 0% outside of throwing another feat at the issue (not worth it)?
Totally agree with BBT and Nefreet before him. While typically I find Aelryinth a respectable upstanding guy who looks for balance within the rules I think he is way off base on this one.
Aelryinth seems to be stating his opinion as fact without posting rules that back him up. He has claimed repeatedly that rules exist in some phantom posts by Devs that no one remembers seeing. The ones I remember are the ones that Nefreet linked and seem completely contradictory to what he is stating. And as far as the FAQ goes it doesn't reference what is being discussed here at all.
It honestly is as simple as BBT just spelled it out.
Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence?
Is it intended for monsters to grab -> constrict -> release -> grab -> constrict in one attack sequence?
This just came up in my last game. We went through all the arguments in this thread on both sides. No one was firmly entrenched on either side of the debate. We never figured out how it was intended but it came down to that we didn't think an animal would do this so it didn't happen.
...that still doesn't help for intelligent creatures, though. Or even knowing if it was intended in the first place. I hit FAQ.
Well, I suppose there is no reason to argue what another person meant with other people as no one really knows. However, I did not reach the same conclusion as you two. To me, it sounded an awful lot like he was stating that Paizo had ruled on shields before.
Now, truth be told, I had entirely expected him to backpedal to this applying directly to the two-handed sword and armor spikes FAQ question but indirectly to shields as well. But then I would fully expect someone (myself as a possibility) to offer the rebuttal that the FAQ said nothing regarding shields.
But he didn't say that. He referenced "three-hand fighting" in conjunction with shields occupying a hand. I honestly do not think his words need any more interpretation than what is written right there.
No, he wasn't. To put it in context with the sentences that came both before and after it:
Pretty sure he was talking about shields since he said "shield". Hence my question.
Welp, I feel we just plain disagree on the interpretation of the rules here. I doubt we will convince eachother either way. So, since I respect your opinions on everything else I have seen you post on and would rather not debate the issue with you as I see nothing to gain I would rather let the issue rest. There is nothing to be gained from debating it as I don't believe it has been ruled on in an errata or FAQ. I think it mostly hasn't been ruled on because I haven't seen your opinion shared by anyone outside of this thread before. Not to say your opinion has no merit but perhaps it is worth a FAQ if you believe in your viewpoint so strongly? I would hit that. (pun intended)
My interpretation of the rules matches Imbicatus' exactly. In fact if he hadn't refuted with what he did I would have with very close to the same words. ...its kinda spooky, actually. Like maybe Imbicatus is actually me posting when I think I'm sleeping. But I'm not. I'm sleep posting on a completely different account I created while un(sub?)conscious.
Oh, and kestral287: You were asking for a build that is "so specific that you require Precise Strike, TWF, and unarmed strikes all working in conjunction"? I happen to have one. When I get home, if I remember, I will send it to you in a PM. I believe you are familiar with it though. It is my Kitsune Mighty Fighting Fox build. I have been switching some stuff around and included both more Monk and Swashbuckler levels. While I wont say that the build depends on those things working together I will say that it uses all of them. I wouldn't be overly heartbroken if it was ruled upon that Precise Strike couldn't apply to all of his attacks. Honestly, he probably could use a little nerfing.
Alex Mack wrote:
Unarmed strike is a single weapon whether or not you use Two-Weapon Fighting or not. The weapon is Unarmed Strike. There is no difference in this respect.
Hm. I dunno. I can see both sides of this one. Samy and Rynjin both seem to have perfectly valid opinions and it is a bit ambiguous in the rules.
I am inclined to go with Samy's interpretation as it seems like the most literal interpretation of the rules. It does say that Adamantine bypasses hardness and doesn't specify just one type. There is nothing that states that Adamantine works as if Energy Resistance.
Now, I would agree that if it had Hardness (or Damage Reduction) and Energy Resistance that both would apply before resolving damage but that isn't the question here. Hardness seems to be a single number that only needs to be bypassed once. It doesn't matter how you accomplish bypassing it. If it is bypassed then all further damage applies if it is done on the same attack. Now, separate attacks it would apply to separate times, sure. But if it is damage that is all being applied on the same attack then hardness only reduces damage once.
That is how I see it, anyway. It is ambiguous enough to allow for other opinions obviously or this thread wouldn't exist or have gone on this long. I'm FAQing it.
Yeah, I'm not seeing Sohei helping at all. It doesn't really have anything that ups damage output over the Swashbuckler except Weapon Training which is arguable because for every level you don't take in Swashbuckler you are giving up damage. I don't know if the levels required in Sohei are worth it.
Kata/MMS Monk on the other hand only takes a single level.
kestral: I never mentioned the TWF thing with this. You can do perfectly fine with just your iteratives if you wish to forgo the entirely legal use of TWF with Unarmed Strikes routine. On TWF and Precise Strike, while I can see where you are coming from it doesn't work that way. Feel free to house rule as you like but if you use that same logic I think you know how it would affect a number of other Styles that require an open "off hand". I would just ask you to think about how that change would affect things with similar wording before settling on resorting to house ruling it.
IMO, it is fine balance wise (monks need a boost anyway), thematically (works for a pugalist or stylist type of monk fine in my creative mind) and mechanically (well, this one is obvious and I don't think argued by anyone). So I don't see any reason to purposefully disallow it for a Monk, Swashbuckler or any martial character. Hell, even the full casters can take it if they want to throw feats away at things they aren't likely to benefit from. ;)