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

Magicdealer's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,461 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Pathfinder Society characters.


1 to 50 of 1,461 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Magicdealer wrote:
Give us something positive, something that adds more value to our books
Good thought Magicdealer! I'm a big fan of this perspective, and we try to do this when we see something that's an obvious issue in that direction as well, but those tend to be less visible because the original option was usually weak, so no one really remembered it. Cunning, for instance, was a terrible purchase in the 1st printing even if your character was already going to have 5 ranks in Knowledge skills because it was still worse than just getting another +1. The new cunning is actually really nice for a crit-focused smartypants character (perhaps a shocking grasp magus who can get the enhancement bonus in other ways), but it hasn't gotten more than one mention so far (by an extremely thorough poster who went through every item as a line item) and it'll take a while for builds to start including it. I'm excited to see it show up more often and am considering it for my falcata-wielding lore warden fighter in PFS.

So then, I guess the question is whether or not the total reduction in useful book options is offset by the total increase in useful book options. I'm not trying to be negative or insulting. The work that paizo has done with pathfinder overall has been amazing.

Everything from the beginning reworking of the basic classes, to the addition of new, flavorful classes, to archetypes, and on through the mythic and unchained content has been great to see, and I've spent hundreds of hours pouring over the content and working and reworking characters. It's not like I haven't gotten my money's worth :p

It's just this one, little area that regularly frustrates me.

The change you mentioned for cunning is a useful change, but it doesn't really open up new or different character types.

In return, this errata removed mistmail builds, conductive builds, ring of revelation builds... well, I could go on but this thread is full of examples. These are items that people could, and did, create entire character designs around. They provided unique, and interesting abilities. In comparison, a flat +4 bonus to confirmation rolls doesn't really match up.

Now, I understand that some things need to be fixed. I'm not arguing that. But maybe there are ways to do so that keep them interesting.

Take the Jingasa for example. What if, instead of making the critical negation a once ever thing, it had been changed to this: "Once per day, when struck by a critical hit or sneak attack, the wearer can spend an immediate action to delay the effects of the critical hit or sneak attack for one minute."

It's still useful, and useful daily, but now it requires more tactical use and possibly some hilarious last second scrambling for temporary hitpoints and such. Heck, you could drop the time delay lower and still have it useful. I mean, obviously I'm not a game designer so there are probably plenty of examples as to why this would be a bad change. Yet I can also envision a meta build using the delay and a friend with a kukri to set off some interesting on-damage events.

But this is a good example for the sorts of changes that I'd prefer to see. If there's an item that paizo thinks is too good, or too useful, instead of burning it to the ground it would be nice to see it reworked when possible to still allow for characters to be built around it. That way, we're not losing build variety or diversity when these changes come out.

I half-expect though that if someone tossed out something comparable to the jingasa rework I suggested, someone else would want to use it in a new book as a new item since new books are where paizo's operating budget comes from :D And I get that, too. If paizo doesn't make money, then we don't get any more pathfinder updates. But it leaves me saddened because I expect that's the reason errata releases will continue as they have been.

Scarab Sages

18 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty disappointed by the changes as well. Errata should be an opportunity to correct the wording on things that aren't functioning properly, or to correct obvious mistakes. Not as an avenue to weaken or completely rewrite items, feats, and so on.

These erratas rarely end up making options stronger, unless that option simply didn't function in the first place.

It's starting to feel like paizo is sticking these stronger, attractive items into their books in order to entice the item hunter/optimizer crowd and then removing those things in order to make their next release more attractive.

I'm not really going all paranoid conspiracy hat here. I don't think that's what is really going on. But that's what it's starting to feel like.

It's disappointing to me when I realize that a particular book is less valuable to me after errata than it was pre-changes. And it's happened multiple times. I've lost count of the number of actual characters I've had to retire because of errata or faq changes, not to mention the characters that have never gotten past the concept phase because they've been errata'd away before I got a chance to play them.

If there was one thing I could request from the paizo team here, it would be to make as many positive changes as negative ones. If you want to burn the jingasa to the ground, go for it. But in return add something interesting and USEFUL to another item.

Give us something positive, something that adds more value to our books, when you're going through and weakening or destroying options in them. Give me a reason to look at the release of errata as something to be excited about, instead of the day more character builds will die.

Just sayin'...

Scarab Sages

Since the feat requires you to be human, if you stop being human you no longer gain the benefits of the racial heritage feat.

If you no longer meet the prerequisites for your favored class bonus, you can no longer use that bonus until you regain the prerequisites.

So if you come back as anything other than a human, elf, or half elf (I think), you'd lose access to your elf favored class bonuses.

Scarab Sages

So, here's my issue with it. From the spell, "The target takes an amount of damage equal to the damage you took this way"

If the undead is receiving healing from the effect instead of damage, then the damage dealt is 0.

Alternatively, you might interpret "You take 1d6 points of negative energy damage" to mean you take damage instead of the normal healing an undead would receive.

Scarab Sages

The easiest fix is to tell your player that, due to the complexity of the rules and the requirement that you evaluate each item's price and adjust it, you're just not going to allow custom magic items any more.

OF course, this type of player will try to find some other way to exploit the system, but now you know to watch out for it :p

Scarab Sages

Well, there's a hint of intent in the retraining rules:

"Therefore, if you retrain out of the base class and that causes you to no longer meet the requirements of the prestige class, you no longer have access to the class features from that prestige class, and therefore can't use that prestige class to meet the requirements of anything (including itself)."

That implies that if you lose the prerequisites, you lose access to all the class features.

In the case of the MT, that'd include the spellcasting advancement.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. It seems like a lot of folks dislike fast healing.

There are a billion reasons why a hunter would kill their animal companion, and a billion more why they wouldn't choose to replace it. Heck, probably more than that. Roleplaying can justify a lot.

But roleplaying isn't needed to justify anything here.

There aren't any rules preventing this from working. Just people who don't like it and who plan on punishing their players if their players like it.

If you hate it so much, toss a ban on it in your houserules, along with summoners, mindchemists, disable device, diplomacy, stats over 16, skill bonuses over 10, and any weapon that isn't simple.

But house rules aren't relevant in the rules forum.

Scarab Sages

_Ozy_ wrote:

Otherwise, why include the magic item creation table and rules in the first place?

I just want to point out that the table itself is called "Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Value".

Basically the chapter exists because players exist, and using it relies on dm approval because 3.x editions couldn't come up with a good crafting chart that wasn't inherently exploitable.

You can follow the estimations to make an amulet of cure light wounds at will for something like 2k gold. A dm will look at it, and either adjust the price upwards, or just start laughing.

It's useful when trying to guess a ballpark for yourself for many items, but you can't ever say "This custom item will cost this much."

We can suggest our version of the estimation cost, but there's no hard fact behind it. That's why it's a more fitting question for the homebrew forum.

Personally, given the implications involved with allowing humanoid specific spells to cross those boundaries, I'd price such an item closer to 40,000g or more myself, if I allowed it in my game in the first place.

But, as is always the answer when discussing custom items, you need to ask your gm. Also, explain how you're planning on using it. Better to be upfront than to put your dm in a position to have to adjust it after you paid for it.

Scarab Sages

First off, I love the deck of many things. Use it every chance you get!

Second, my suggestion would be to extend the size benefits from the card to the eidolon.

Scarab Sages

Hmm... here's the relevant bonded item text.

"A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell that the wizard has in his spellbook and is capable of casting, even if the spell is not prepared. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities."

The line that makes me question the whole thing is the first line. A bonded object can be used once per day to cast any one spell...

That seems to imply that the bonded item is casting the spell effect.

The sentence that talks about the limitations starts with, "This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard"

If feeblemind is preventing the wizard from casting spells, then those spells are no longer applicable thanks to the wording. The spell through the bonded item has to be treated like any other spell CAST by the wizard. Not any other spell the wizard normally has the ABILITY to cast.

As written it seems to imply that the bonded item is the caster, and would actually bypass that particular restriction for one spell.

Scarab Sages

Well, keep in mind that the price is not necessarily 10k. Custom items all have their final prices determined by the dm.

+10 is a hefty bonus, so the dm might see fit to increase the price, especially if the skill is unusually valuable in his or her campaign.

I'd suggest crafter's fortune as well for the spell requirement and caster level.

Scarab Sages

From the PRD:
"It's possible for a creature with a humanoid-shaped body to wear as many as 15 magic items at the same time. However, each of those items must be worn on (or over) a particular part of the body, known as a “slot.”

A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of the following groups, keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn."

I'd say it's physically impossible to don more than one set of magic gloves at a time.

Scarab Sages

claudekennilol wrote:

You're seriously trying to tell us that the first thing you think whenever you see someone is that they have the potential to attack you? What a sad state of life to be in..

You're seriously trying to tell me that when you look at another person, you suddenly lose all understanding of the physical capabilities of their body?

Gee, I don't know of they could flail in my direction with their limbs! Or move at all! And what's that slit in their mouth for?!

That's a pretty sad state to be in, indeed.

There's a big difference between being aware that a person has the capability of punching you, and expecting every person ever to punch you. The ability in question talks about awareness of the weapon, not expectation that it will be used on you.

Scarab Sages

Yeah, I'd never allow someone to use disguise self to turn into the same person over and over again. And I don't allow rings of invisibility to be perma-active either. You get the duration and have to reactivate it as a standard action. Or the dragon size changing either.

If you want those capabilities to be available in your game, there are always better ways to go about it than to allow a spell to do more than it should.

You want a succubus to be a continual presence somewhere, taking on the same visual appearance multiple times? Give the succubus a magical item to assist, or put more focus on the disguise skill in the feat choices.

You want dragons in general to be able to turn into medium sized creatures? Give them a unique ability.

You want continual invisibility from a ring? Price a constant effect greater invisibility ring.

If you want to override the rules in your game, feel free. But I don't see the need to change existing abilities, and by extension the options that the pc's have, to make that happen.

Scarab Sages

Here's my take: how many people do you look at and go, "There's no possible way they could ever attack me with a part of their body!"

Very, very few.

When I look at another person, I don't automatically assume that they couldn't try to slap me, punch me, or kick me. It's part of the basic toolkit people are born with.

Unless the person literally has no body, I'm going to assume they could lash out with their limbs. It's tough to argue that an enemy will look at another person and assume they don't have the default capabilities of any humanoid.

So, it's the "didn't know about" part that catches me. If the opponent has the opportunity to recognize another person is present, and possesses arms and legs, they're not going to get that ability.

If, on the other hand, the attacker has been invisible/stealthed the whole time, and the opponent is unaware of their presence/physical form, then it would work.

Scarab Sages

Since the blindness isn't stated as coming from the mask acting like a blindfold, it's not coming from the mask acting like a blindfold.

As written, the mask afflicts the wearer with blindness, as opposed to merely blocking their vision completely (which would be obscurement). So the signifier would have a mask that gave them the blinded condition even if they had two sets of eyes and only one set was covered.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Magic Dealer wrote:
You need more than that to prove it.

No. We don't.

Arbitrarily picking one side of the debate and insisting that that side requires absolute proof but the other side is just fine with some suggestion from how a spell might work is disingenuous bunk.

And, in the case of ability scores, nothing so far in these discussions has made wisdom bonus look more like a bonus type than a governs bonus.

Ok, I have officially lost any pretext that the stacking side even has a genuine point now. It is nothing less than epistemic nihilism to say that that you need to PROVE that a wisdom bonus is a bonus.

When you take the position to declare something new in contradiction to a long-accepted assumption, the proof of burden IS on you. Sorry.

It is absolutely reasonable to ask you to prove that a wisdom bonus is actually referring to a specific subset of rules about bonus types for the purposes of stacking, rather than just using the terms bonus, penalty, and modifier interchangeably. I've already shown several places where bonus follows another word where it's pretty obviously not meant to declare a bonus type.

It's not an overly skeptical to ask you to provide evidence that a wisdom bonus refers to typed bonuses for stacking purposes when there's obvious evidence that not everything that follows (something) (bonus) format is a bonus type.

But if you don't feel like doing it, then don't. *shrug*

We ALL know that the devs will read through the thread, their eyes slowly glazing over at the repeated arguments, before having a discussion about how each side would affect the longer view of the game system.

In reality, declaring ability scores to be bonus types will require a lot of additional rulings for the game system to hold together. The one I've seen thrown about is con bonuses and hitpoints, but I'd expect issues to start popping up like weeds.

So I don't expect to see ability scores being recognized as bonus types any time soon.

Scarab Sages

The Mask itself doesn't obscure the signifier's vision. Unfortunately, the Mask of a Thousand Tomes gives the wearer the blinded condition.

So the mask isn't blocking the vision of the Signifier, but the signifier is blind so it's irrelevant anyhow.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As an aside, I took a quick look through my pdf of the core rulebook for other words connected to the word bonus. We have:

base attack bonus (that'd suck if it didn't stack)
combat maneuver bonus
highest Bonus (strange bonus type)
of bonus
additional bonus
the bonus
a bonus
shows bonus
governs bonus
strength bonus
constitution bonus
and bonus
gains bonus
get bonus
dodge bonus
racial bonus
+1 bonus
+2 bonus
saving throw bonus
size bonus
his bonus
this bonus
morale bonus
enhancement bonus

I stopped at the top of page 34, out of 575 pages.

The point I'm making here is that just because the word bonus follows another word doesn't mean that the word that precedes it is a type of bonus, or the source of a bonus. You need more than that to prove it. And, in the case of ability scores, nothing so far in these discussions has made wisdom bonus look more like a bonus type than a governs bonus.

Scarab Sages

Andrew Christian wrote:

This is a revisionist viewpoint though. You have access to all this information currently.

But when the Core Rulebook was the only book that existed, there had to be a way to determine what bonuses had types and what didn't.

Actually, there absolutely didn't have to be a way. Simply look at the faq system. It clarifies plenty of rules elements from the core rulebook where there was no definitive ruling.

Tons of things in there that, when the core rulebook existed alone, there was no way to determine the correct choice beyond dm abjucation.

The fact that we have errata and a faq for the crb should be proof enough that not all answers fall between those pages.

Scarab Sages

Wisdom would be water in general. Water from the creek? Comes from rain, or ice melt, or a spring, ect. Stopping at the creek is arbitrary. The origin of the water from your tap can be called tap water, pipe water, creek water, rain water, or just water. It really has no meaning.

andreww wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Except there is no list of types.

Apart from the one that you Keep ignoring.

The one which is first in a list of results when you search the PRD for "Bonus Types".

Except that the list, as has been stated before, is a: part of the spell creation section which means it's specifically relevant to spells and not everything, and b: not comprehensive since it's obviously missing the trait bonus type, and thus probably missing other types that wouldn't be appropriate for a spell to provide.

As such, the list cannot be used as a definitive bonus list since it's from a specific subset of rules and already proven to be incomplete.

There is no good comparison chart to put against the 3.5 chart. Even if there were, pathfinder isn't 3.5 and in vague situations it makes no more sense to assume 3.5 applies than it does to assume pathfinder intentionally changed it. Either is possible, so neither is relevant to a rules argument.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that wisdom is not a source, because I haven't seen anything in pathfinder that says wisdom is a source. So I go to the class abilities to see if they're the same. Since there is a difference between them, (Su vs Ex), they are not the same. So at default they should stack. That is how I see the raw in this case.

Now, in the game that I run, I'd look at the intent (unclear) and then determine whether or not it would be unbalanced for the type of game I run. (Probably unbalanced for a low magic campaign, less so for a high magic one.)

But that part is interpretation and application. Nothing else to do but wait for the faq response.

Scarab Sages

"Bluff is an opposed skill check against your opponent’s Sense Motive skill."

For what it's worth, given that d&d is a collaborative game, I don't consider players to be opponents to other players and so bluff doesn't apply.

Scarab Sages

A human with racial heritage drow and the drow feat Spider Step qualifies for the 2nd level arcane.

Aasimar, drow, half-elf, tieflings, duergar, and svirfneblins all have ways to qualify for 2nd level arcane.

For 2nd level divine, you're looking at being a wood oracle with wood shape, or picking up the trickery domain or fate inquisition. Aasimar can also grab a feat for it.

With a wisdom of 13, and the right god, you can use believer's boon to gain access to the trickery domain's copycat ability.

That way, you can enter with any combination of arcane/divine classes you like.

Scarab Sages

From the viewpoint of the character, it can be a HUGE benefit to have your missed attack hit you, instead of your angry barbarian party member who will smash you into pieces if you shoot him again.

From the viewpoint of the party, dealing that botched damage to a character not in melee range of the enemy is much better than having it dealt to a pc who will be in range to take hits from the bad guys.

There's no way this would count as a curse.

I suggest you convince the ranger to stop using that feat, or start spreading protection from arrows around the party.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This isn't really a rules question but -- I'd go with the feat granting you the ability to conceal the normal obvious usage of magic.

For what it's worth, I think if spellcasters could cast whatever they wanted and be able to use stealth to conceal it, it would be significantly unbalancing to the game world. And it's not like caster's aren't pretty unbalancing to it already :D

Scarab Sages

The last we heard, you were running archetypes incorrectly, gaining inherent bonuses and stat enhancement bonuses from items that are greater than what pathfinder allows, ignoring dm's ability to restrict magic items (anti-magic on armor?), and so on and so on. You never mentioned what, if anything, you changed.

Crynn wrote:
dimensional anchor I get as a chosen effect when using the spell hallow. The anti magical field is an expensive ability that can be put onto an item if you are willing to pay for it.

I got my impression that your items were still working from this quote, though I see now that I was probably mistaken on that front.

I am still trying to figure out how you're casting anti-magic field. In previous comments, it seemed to be implied that you'd had it added to an item as a special ability you could activate. From what you're saying now, being able to modify the caster level, it sounds like you picked up the actual ability to cast it somewhere. If it is from an item, then yes, having it isn't normal pathfinder. The item creation rules specifically say that the dm should determine the final price of any custom items, adjusting it based on how powerful it is. If they think it's too powerful, they're completely within the rules to set the price impossibly high.

For the character sheet, some content is ogl, some is not. You might not be able to post your character sheet openly without violating content laws. Depends on what you've slapped into it, and the policy those sources has.

I am curious as to what level you're at. You mentioned that you planned the character up to level 20. Have you actually hit level cap yet?

Here are some interesting notes that your dm might take advantage of to challenge you if you wish to keep playing. In the advanced class guide the arcanist, and an archetype available to wizards, allows casters to counterspell as an immediate action. That would give them an excellent chance to block your anti-magic field before it comes into effect if you're casting it at cl 11.

A wizard with a standard overland flight buff should be able to move out of your antimagic field and take position overhead, assuming they bother being adjacent to the ground. A simple windwall, and your ranged attacks wouldn't affect them either. The wizard would be free to use various shenanigans to deal with you, or simply wait for you to dismiss the spell. Sometimes things that feel overpowered only feel that way due to misunderstandings of the rules, or constantly poor tactics from the enemies. For example,

Crynn wrote:

To give you an example of how easy it is to beat a dragon when you are just a bit creative I'll show you how I reached my armour class that a dragon cannot touch.

base = 10
full plate +5 = 14
Heavy shield +5 = 7
Legendary Beauty = Charisma bonus to AC = my charisma started at 18+4 for half celestial +4 from 16 levels of putting each point it and a helm with +8 charisma total 34 for a total of +12 =12
Divine portfolio - godling ability chose nature mystery and natures whisper which is again charisma to AC as apposed to dex to AC = 12
dodge = 2 (up crane style feats)
Amulet of +5 natural armour = 5
ring of +5 felectio armour = 5
total = 67 without spells
with crane style I ignore the first strike in melee combat that strikes me each round so with all this I am practically immune to and physical attack a dragon can muster.

Saves are all through the roof using force of personality and legendary beauty again both giving char bonus to saves is a total of +24 to all saves.

Legendary beauty, for example, would be simply negated by an opponent closing their eyes, or dropping a darkness effect. It's also supernatural, so it drops in an anti-magic field. Nature's whispers from the divine portfolio is still limited by your max dex bonus from armor. I'm not sure what a ring of +5 felectio armour is, or where it's from. But mithril fullplate +5 has a max dex bonus of +3.

So base 10, +14 fullplate, +7 from +5 shield, +3 from whispers, possible +11 from divine *or 50% miss chance, unless other senses in use* amulet of natural armor +5, and maybe ring, maybe not since it may not stack with armor.

So a possible minimum of 44 ac, or a maximum of 55 otherwise.

Against a red dragon with antimagic aura up? base 10 + 9 from fullplate, +2 from shield, +2 from whispers for a total of 23 ac.

A cr 22 red dragon has blindsense, so it bypasses legendary beauty and takes the 50% miss chance. It has six attacks a round. with a 50% miss chance, assume it only hits with three a round. Since its lowest bonus is twelve points over your applicable ac, that's reasonable. it's dealong, minimum, 40 points of damage a round against you. Ignoring the first attack each round from crane style drops it down to 20 points a around. Or the dragon could use tail sweep and deal a minimum of 13 damage and not worry about crane style or miss chance.

If you're NOT using the antimagic field, your ac is anywhere from 44 to 55. Then the dragon might drop ama itself, or time stop and buff up, or use any of the other caster things that you hate.

You can push each of the ac's up a notch or two if you're still using that homebrew +8 to cha helm.

The dragon can also still fly around, out of reach, or many other tactics.

This is an example of why specifics are good. You mentioned that a cr 22 red dragon wouldn't be able to affect you, but on analysis, we see there were some errors in that assumption.

It's not a matter of believing you or not. I don't really have that much interest in 3rd party content. I just think that if you're going to be posting a negative review and affecting their income, you should supply as much detail and fact as possible to better support your allegations. You bothered to post on the forums, so while you may not care if "I" believe you, you cared enough to bring it up.

Scarab Sages

Working within the rules, you'd be right up against the wall. For magic items that don't have a similar one to compare pricing to, your next step is to use the estimating magic item chart.

Since the chart doesn't cover the myriad things that feats can do, you're down to asking the dm to price. Of course, once you started working on custom items, you were in dm-pricing-adjustment territory anyhow.

The ocher rhomboid is handy, if you don't mind the ramifications. There are three important parts to note about it though. First, you must already meet the prerequisites for the feat. Second, it IS cursed. Third, depending on how you interpret "This can be any feat she meets the prerequisites for.", you may or may not get to choose the feat. It may be randomly determined.

A wayfinder is a magic item that acts as a light source and a nonmagical compass. A wayfinder can hold one ioun stone. That ioun stone has a %chance of resonating with wayfinders.

Honestly, the best thing to do is to check with your dm and make sure it's alright with him for you to craft wondrous items that grant feats, because if he has a problem with it he could choose to price the items(since all custom items are at dm discretion for price) high enough to make them impossible to obtain.

Now, assuming the dm has already approved these items and is just looking for a fair'ish price, I think the easiest way to go about it would be to reprice it first as a non-cursed item, and then to price a greater version of it, that ignores prerequisites.

I'm assuming you want these slotless, too.

So some breakdown here. The ocher stone has a 50% chance of forcing a character's removal from pathfinder society. So for non-pfs, we should factor in the risk change to the valuation. Anyone who makes this will be sure to have appropriate precautions in place to remove the curse.

So a standard curse on ioun stones *mindborer* seems to reduce the cost by 50% of the normal item. For now, let's go with that.

A non-cursed version might cost 60,000g. Still, that seems awfully low.

Given that the effects of the curse, once the pfs module is over, aren't reversible, and because the module chose not to present a non-cursed version of the item, I suggest we double the price again.

120k for any feat you meet the prerequisites for. Expensive, but it feels like it's in line for the potential power it offers.

But when we come to removing prerequisites, we come to a greater problem. There are some feats out there that are just silly strong. So I'll just make everything up as I go.

Perhaps in this case, we'll do better by using the metamagic rod style and choosing lesser, normal, and greater versions.

A lesser version might ignore one prerequisite, and only function for feats that are second in a feat chain, or that a character of 8th level or lower could qualify for.

A normal version might ignore two prerequisites, and function for feats that are up to third in a feat chain, or that a character of 15th level or lower could qualify for.

A greater version would ignore all prerequisites, and grant any available feat.

Now, if we lock these ones down to a specific feat, instead of any feat at all, we can reduce the price of the stone we've already priced.

Let's try taking off that 50% increase. So we'll start with a 60k base. Now, how valuable is it to remove one prerequisite, and to be limited to the second tier? Also level 8, for things like bab requirements and such. I'm feeling 15k or so for this one.

So a lesser version would cost 75k. That doesn't seem too bad.

A regular version? Well, let's quadruple the price. Considering the amount of flexibility written into these things, that doesn't seem unreasonable. So 300k for a regular version.

We can already see a greater version is going to be out of reach for 20th level characters with normal wealth per level. That's ok though.

If we quadrauple it a third time, we're looking at 1.2 million for any feat ever, even those requiring bab +16.

That's a fairly expensive item for most people. With 1.2 billion to spend though, that's still pretty much every feat ever made. Though you'd be peering through a literal cloud out ioun stones. Considering we're talking about rods here, I think it'd be reasonable to limit the ioun stones to three of each feat-granting type.

Would I allow these items? Nah, no way, not in a normal game. Maybe an epic one, that was already over the top cheesy. But I wouldn't give a player that much gold unless they were well into epic levels anyhow.

So anyhow, there are some pricing ideas, for what they're worth :p

Scarab Sages

Well, you shouldn't complain about the archetype when you're not running your character consistently with the pathfinder rule set. You're not getting a real comparison when you slap on an antimagic aura that doesn't affect your gear :p Given some of the other stuff you mentioned before, such as the maximum +6 enhancement bonus to a stat, or the max +5 inherent bonus, I expect there are probably some additional errors or oversights that got you where you are now.

Heck, an accurate pricing for an antimagic aura that you can cast through? Way, way, way beyond the wealth of the average 20th level character.

If your group enjoys that sort of play, that's fine. But don't malign a 3rd party class if you feel it's too powerful when coupled with all this extra stuff.

Here's a thought for you. Try replacing your gear with only magic items that already exist in the books. No custom ones. Then play that and see where you're at.

I'd love to see your character sheet, but sadly the 3rd party limitations probably prevents you from sharing it openly :(

Scarab Sages

CommandoDude wrote:

My point is, why should archers, who are acknowledged as being better than melee, get a feat that does TWF but they don't need to invest in a second weapon? And if a Monk can fight with one weapon, so should any melee class.

Because they don't get improved two weapon rapid shot, or greater two weapon rapid shot. Because when these feats came out, clustered shots wasn't a thing. Because not provoking when firing a bow wasn't a thing either, when those feats came out.

But most importantly, because it follows the vision that the game designers have to make each class and combat style feel unique.

Monks can flurry with one weapon. While flurry shares some characteristics with two weapon fighting, the two aren't exactly the same. Just because one class gets a special ability doesn't mean they all should. For example... If a rogue can deal extra damage by hitting a vulnerable spot, then so should any melee class. All melee builds should get sneak attack. And if a barbarian can deal extra damage just because he gets angry, then all classes should be able to do that. Rage for everyone!

If you don't like it, run a homebrew where you change it and share the results on the forum. Maybe in time, you can change the dev's minds and we can all rage and sneak attack as we two weapon fight with our two handed falchions, using a charge action to make a full round attack and critting on all of the attacks if one of them crits.

It'll be fun!

Scarab Sages

blackbloodtroll wrote:

That is a bit like saying a player can craft a +1 Weapon, but not a +1 Mithral Weapon, because it's "not standard".

It's more like not allowing the leadership feat. Free extra minion that you craft to be as powerful as you like? Sure, it costs some money, but not THAT much money. And doubling up on actions is always extremely powerful, even before you get to handpick the skills and feats.

Scarab Sages

Uleaum wrote:

Read core P 113 again.

If a character has the same feat
more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated
otherwise in the description.

"NEED" means you can't take the feat without the special line. The way that sentence is written you can take the feat even if it doesn't do anything. I don't know of...

To use your own quote, the benefits of a feat don't stack. Not unless the feat specifically says they do. Which means, when a feat has multiple options, you choose one. If later you take the feat again, the benefit doesn't stack and allow you to choose a secondary option.

One of the benefits in these cases is allowing you to pick multiple options. And yes, you'll absolutely be shot down in PFS. But if you want certainty on that account, hit up the PFS forum and ask if it's legal for PFS play.

Considering it's not legal for normal play, I doubt you'll get what you want.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Congratulations! Since you've begun a profession re-purposing materials, you get to make a profession check to determine how much money you earned this week!

Scarab Sages

Eh, killing a goblin that's trying to kill you is fine. Torturing it by using it as live bait, thus unnecessarily prolonging its fear and pain? Yeah, that's evil.

Scarab Sages

Well, pummeling style contains the following:

"If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit."

So if you hit with three scythe attacks and three kukri attacks, and one of the kukri attacks threatened a critical hit, you'd make one roll to confirm it. If successful, all three scythe attacks, and all three kukri attacks are now critical hits.

I'd assume that from there, you'd just apply the appropriate critical modifier to each damage roll you made, and factor in whatever "on critical" abilities the weapons possessed.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rushley... if you're complaining about power gamers, you're in the wrong forum, my friend.

On reading the relevant passages, I think that the intent of the ability is to allow the brawler to use whichever damage value is most beneficial. Also, given the line about not affecting any other aspect of the weapon, I believe the damage comparison and choice is limited to the base weapon damage, before magical effects.

A spiked shield isn't a magical enhancement, but rather a specific type of weapon. It's listed as such on the paizo srd. (

So I'd say you could either use the spiked shield damage, or the unarmed strike damage. After choosing your base, you would then apply bashing to increase the damage dice from there.

Scarab Sages

Ehh... I kind of have to disagree with you there, blackbloodtroll.

Even if you're making attacks without using limbs, two-weapon fighting requires a main hand designation and an off-hand designation. Even if they're not actual hands.

Copypasta from two weapon fighting section.
"If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon."

In order to get that extra attack, you must have a designated off-hand, regardless of what limb or non-limb ends up being used.

Even when you are two-weapon fighting with no hands, you're still two-weapon fighting with two hands :D

Scarab Sages

Well, the feat in question is being debated. It might be better to wait until there's a ruling rather than risk your character becoming non-fuctional.

That being said, I have a thought.

Two levels of Titan Mauler Barbarian.

Main hand scythe. Off-hand Kukri.

The idea here is to use the critical range with the Kukri to allow you to treat your scythe hits as critical hits, through the pummeling style feat. Keen or improved critical on the kukri would be a good choice.

Given this is for a lenient-ish dm, here's something you might be able to get away with.

Take a level dip to grab channel energy, and spend a feat on weapon focus, and then pick up crusader's flurry, which allows you to use your deity's favored weapon as a monk weapon.

Urgathoa has a scythe as her preferred weapon. Then you stack the rest of your levels into brawler.

So this would look something like titan mauler 2/cleric 1/brawler 17

And you'd be two-weapon fighting with a x4 crit weapon in one hand, and a 15-20 crit range weapon in the off hand.

Scarab Sages

Well, the wording implies that you select one hand to benefit from precise strike. Attacks with that hand only will get the benefit (so no two weapon fighting).

Furthermore, your non-attacking hand may hold a weapon or object, but cannot attack with it, or use a shield other than a buckler.

Scarab Sages

1. Well... I believe a dagger is a light weapon, not a one-handed weapon, so you couldn't select it as a valid weapon for Slashing Grace.

2. Precise strike requires melee, not ranged.

May I suggest you consider the flying blade archetype for your dagger hurling needs? It's not dex to damage, but it allows precise strike to work with daggers.

Scarab Sages

If your possibility about how something works requires rules that you cannot quote, then you are not dealing with raw.

You can certainly make an argument about it being rai, but don't misrepresent yourself about it.

Your argument about all writing being a matter of interpretation is a non-argument. These are the rules forums. raw and rai have clearly understood meanings here.

You're arguing rai, what was intended to happen by the rules. This is great, but accurate raw readings are also necessary to adjust and correct future printings of the book, so that what is written matches together clearly and understandably with what is intended.

Kazaan wrote:

It would most certainly be an error to suggest something that were impossible. Moreover, what I defined is not RAI. Implicit RAW is not necessarily the same as RAI. Intent is what it was meant to allow you to do.

Intent is pretty much the definition of a rai argument. If a strict reading of an ability means that it's impossible to use, that doesn't mean the reading is wrong. It probably means the devs need to go through and fix the ability so that it DOES work.

And arguments about how it's SUPPOSED to work are fine. But, by definition, they fall into rai.

Scarab Sages

1) There's nothing that would stop both abilities from working together. Nothing in the phrase, "gain wisdom to AC" prevents it from stacking with a different source that also adds wisdom, or charisma, or dexterity to ac. They clearly stack. Bonuses from different sources stack. In this case, one source is ex, and one is su. Different sources. By raw, they stack. Just like a +1 from luck and a +1 from dodge.

2) These guys don't stack.

3) debate ongoing. Raw would seem to imply the damage is delivered by a punch, but makes no mention as to the attacks that can contribute to the total damage that is delivered.

Scarab Sages

Well, I wouldn't argue that headbutting would be fine. It's not a punch. I WOULD argue though, that pummeling style has to be DELIVERED via a punch. At least, as it's worded.

If there are other attack types other than unarmed strike that specifically reference a punch as the method of delivering your attack, then by all means, use those in place of an unarmed strike.

That seems appropriate to the way it's worded, at least. As far as the intent? Maybe it was meant to be limited to unarmed strikes, or close weapons, or weapons you could flurry with. Until we get feedback though, there are too many different ways the actual intent could go to make a solid argument of one over the other. Not that that will stop anyone from trying :D

Scarab Sages

I'd absolutely disagree about the intent of Pummeling Style to only apply to unarmed strikes.

It seems to me it was intended to work with any weapon you could flurry with (monk or brawler), and ended up using some unfortunate word choice.

Scarab Sages

You only get one swift action a turn, and can't trade for more, so no. Pick one :D

Scarab Sages

I have to say, I like the flavor of martial monk that the brawler is. And I would love to see flurry of blows errata'd to use the same mechanics as the brawler's flurry.

Given the wording used on pummeling style, I have a couple thoughts about the strangeness here.

The benefits section specifically says "one devastating punch."

So I think the cumulative damage is delivered via that subset of unarmed strike.

Here's where it gets weird.

You make a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with a full attack, or a flurry of blows. Ok. This wording implies that if you were wielding two shortswords with three attacks each, you'd roll six attacks to hit, and total up the "normal" damage. (I'll come back to this.)

Ok. Here it's basically working like clustered shots.

If ANY of the attack rolls are critical threats, you roll once to confirm at your highest bab. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit. Ok.

So, let's say I'm a titan mauler barb wielding a scythe in one hand, and wielding a kukri in my off-hand. The kukri crits, and now I get my x4 scythe crit damage. This is delicious, but very strong. But ok, let's roll with it.

Now, all that damage is delivered via a punch. It's specifically a punch in the benefits section. So, do we HAVE to have a free hand to make this attack? If we're fighting with a temple sword, do we need to drop it to deliver the attack? Or, if we don't HAVE a free hand to punch with, does the ability fail?

Clearly, the ability is delivered through a punch. So, do you apply the +5 from your +5 scythe to overcome damage reduction? Or does your damage suddenly suffer from dr/magic because you don't wear an AOMF?

Now, let's revisit the above comment. "Normal" damage. Does normal damage include precision damage like sneak attack? How about damage bonuses from things like hammer the gap, that deal additional damage on multiple hits? How about something like elemental fist damage? I'd like to think that normal means all the damage you'd deal if you were making the same attack routine without using pummeling fist.

I think Ravingdork's right. There's something worth discussing here.

Scarab Sages

1) the arcanist isn't limited to spells that are only in the core rulebook. The arcanist cast spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. That list is presented in chapter ten of the CRB, and modified by other officially released content.

The sentence says the list is presented in chapter 10, not restricted to chapter 10. Which is true. The list IS presented there, and expanded in other books.

2) The arcanist can't leave spell slots open. "An arcanist must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting 8 hours of sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the arcanist decides what spells to prepare and refreshes her available spell slots for the day."

There's nothing in the chapter about preparing spells like a wizard, so for now, it appears that they can't hold out slots for later use.

Scarab Sages

Soo... the plume of panache. I keep staring at it, feeling like I'm missing the obvious reference to what it actually does. It reads like it should be referencing a specific deed, but I don't... *shakes head*

Maybe I should get some sleep.

Scarab Sages

First, holy thread necro batman!

Second, let's take the pit trap and compare it to a fireball trap.

Rick James the bard has managed to slide his feet sideways, and grabs the edge of the newly revealed pit. He sighs with relief and continues on.

A few steps down the hall, he is assaulted with a violent burst of flame that appears instantaneously and immediately vanishes. Despite having literally no time to react, he manages to avoid much of the flame. Somehow.

Saves don't just represent reactions. They also represent a healthy chunk of luck. Against an instant effect, you've got no time to move. But you still get a reflex save without any penalties.

Scarab Sages

By default, specific magic items can't be modified. No changing materials, enhancing bonuses, and the such.

That being said, ask your dm.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that the assumption has been made that initiative begins at 300ft away, where the telepathy and unspeakable presence kicks in.

If that assumption changes, then execution becomes much trickier.

Let's assume, for example, that initiative begins a thousand feet out. After the time stop ends, the Nalfeshnee will not be close enough to trigger the runes.

And here's something else interesting that I noticed. Cthulhu has triple treasure and the craft wondrous item feat. I don't see any reason why the majority of that loot wouldn't be items he'd forged at cost for himself. Why have the feat if he doesn't use it? It's in the stat block, so it must be intended. Anyone want to deck Cthulhu out with appropriate amount of silly gear?

1 to 50 of 1,461 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.