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

Mathwei ap Niall's page

Goblin Squad Member. FullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,448 posts (2,458 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,448 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Cheliax

Artful Dodger wrote:

So, assuming we can throw out spiked and bashing (three size categories) and cite the rule that Lead Blades and Impact overlap instead of stack, that leaves us four increments short. The Shield Champion is now only bashing for 8d6 at level 12 (4d6 without that druid magic), and 12d8 (6d8 without druid magic) at level 20. Are there any other interactions we can rule out? I'm hoping for more RAW than RAI here, but I'll take what I can get which is well-supported.

Edit: I would also really appreciate some official address to the language to get rid of the ambiguity.

Since Strong Jaw specifies it only works on natural attacks (which a unarmed strike is NOT) then you can remove those size increases as well.

It's also flagged as a size increase so doesn't stack either.

Cheliax

TimD wrote:

Not sure where you're getting that their Int would drop to - as that is not a swarm trait (though it's often a trait of the creatures that make up a swarm).

Their immunities even call out that they are vulnerable to mind-affecting effects if they have intelligence / hivemind...

** spoiler omitted **...

It's not the swarm type that removes their Int, it's the vermin type that does it.

Vermin Traits wrote:

Traits: Vermin possess the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).

Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms). Mindless creatures have no feats or skills. A vermin-like creature with an Intelligence score is usually either an animal or a magical beast, depending on its other abilities.
Darkvision 60 feet.
Proficient with its natural weapons only.
Proficient with no armor.
Vermin breathe, eat, and sleep.

As a normal Worm that walks it has a defensive ability referred to as it's hive mind which lets it think and continue to function as an individual. When it discorporates it loses all of it's defensive abilities which includes it's hive mind ability so it goes back to the default for it's type which is Vermin (it specifically doesn't get the swarm type, it stays vermin) and all vermin have the mindless trait.

A WTW who discorporates loses it's Int score and personality and becomes a non-threat.

Cheliax

For what you are shooting for, if you have the cash then the Homonculus is the best option.
Unlike the rest of the improved familiars on the list this one gives you high customization options (want a familiar with invisibility, mage hand, cure light/moderate wounds, etc.) and able to add all new abilities to it whenever you want?

Throw on top of that more skills/feats/attributes then any other familiar in the game and you can shape it to look like whatever you want. It's just made of win if you have the cash for it.

Cheliax

Onyxlion wrote:

Yet this from the race builder say that you do.

Multi-Armed (4 RP)

Prerequisites: None.
Benefit: Members of this race possess three arms. A member of this race can wield multiple weapons, but only one hand is its primary hand, and all others are off hands. It can also use its hands for other purposes that require free hands.
Special: This trait can be taken up to twice. When it is taken a second time, the race gains a fourth arm.

Yes Kasatha have multiple arms and can make an off-hand attack with any of them. What t doesn't say is that it can make an off hand attack with ALL of them.

They are a PC race so are expected to follow the same design I quoted above, 1 mainhand attack + 1 off hand attack (2 if they invest in improved TWF).

The advantage they get is they can wield multiple items at the same time and use them as they wish. 3 swords at once (cold iron, silver, adamantine) while using a shield/wand or any combination like that.

They still follow the TWF rules on how many attacks they get do Bab limit +1 (or 2 if they have Imp TWF).

Cheliax

Onyxlion wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Well the DEVS have already spoken up on this issue years ago and set down they why's and hows of whether extra limbs actually give you extra attacks.

SKR answering this question 2 years ago

Actually he still is assuming that you are a normal humanoid with 2 attacking limbs but not one with 3+. He even says the default is mainhand + 1 offhand, alluding to being able to more than one off hand.

What it comes down to is multiarmed characters don't work as written if you take the rule of only mainhand + 1 offhand because none have been issued errata.

He is assuming that because that's EXACTLY how they want the rules to be presented. PC's will ALWAYS be assumed to have 1 mainhand attack + 1 off hand attack, they will never change that. They clarified that with the Alchemist extra hand/tentacle discussion. PC attacks per round are based off BaB, X number of main hand attacks + 1-2 from TWF.

If you want to get an attack per limb then you have to use the natural attack rules and that has it's own set of limitations.

Cheliax

Onyxlion wrote:
Yet they do work the same and the rules are the same, this isn't 4e this is pathfinder. Mulitarmed creatures don't have an explicit rule, even the 4 armed PC race has multiple offhands with no rules except having more arms. I understand what y'all are saying but your view is no more supported than mine, saying but you can't see the rule and NPCs are different doesn't cut it. This game is an explicit rules based game, unquantified rules have no place here.

Where in ANY of the rules are you seeing anything saying they work the same. EVERYTHING quoted in this thread so far has shown that they DON'T work the same. Even the 4 armed races added in the race guide still fall under these same rules. 1 extra off hand attack, this is the intention and design of the game. The rules text, the dev quotes and the examples provided in all the published material all shows you that.

Cheliax

Well the DEVS have already spoken up on this issue years ago and set down they why's and hows of whether extra limbs actually give you extra attacks.
SKR answering this question 2 years ago

Quote:

The core rules assume that you're a humanoid creature and you only have two "limbs" to attack with each round if you're using the "fighting with two weapons" option. It doesn't matter if you're making a headbutt and a punch, or a kick and a punch, or 2 kicks, or 2 punches, you're just making two attacks per round. At no time would you ever be able to justify a BAB +0 creature with no natural weapons making 2 punches AND 2 kicks per round: because the rules are assuming you are using your left hand and right hand, but hand-waves the idea that one of those "hands" could be some other body part such as an elbow, kick, or headbutt. The rules don't care, in the same way that they don't care if you say you're making a high swing or a low swing: it is irrelevant to the game mechanics, which say "make an attack roll to see if you hit." The game says, "pick a hand, even if it's not really a hand, make an attack, then pick another hand, even if it's not really a hand, and make a second attack."

The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.

The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.

I bolded the important sentence, unarmed attacks are limited to your BaB number of attacks not your available number of limbs.

The iterative rules are an abstraction of combat, whether you have 2 or 2000 limbs you only get to make a number of actual attacks a round equal to whatever your BaB grants you UNLESS there's something that specifically says you can make more.
TWF says if you wield an additional weapon in your off-hand you can make one extra attack that round wielding that weapon. Now with the DEV clarification above the rules function as if you have a single off-hand to attack with. You may have a thousand arms but you still only have a single off-hand attack each round.
The only way to get another of those 1000 arms into the fight is to take the improved two weapon fighting feat to get an additional off-hand attack each round.

As for existing creatures out there with more than 2 arms wielding weapons making those attacks is very, very simple. THEY are not designed under the core assumption that they are humanoids with 2 arms. They don't follow this design philosophy so they get to break this rule.

Your mistake is trying to look at monsters and PC's as being the same thing following the same rules. They don't, they never have and that's a good thing. Trying to shoe horn critters and players into the same limitations limits the opponents too much and/or overpowers the players too much. Keep them separated and the game works better.

Cheliax

Now I truly think the Worm that Walks template is probably the best ever choice for an arcane caster it does have a huge issue with it's discorporate power.
On the probable chance that a WTW's is ever forced or chooses to Discorporate that creature can never come back. Ever.

There are several major problems with the power as written.

discorporate wrote:
Discorporate (Su): A worm that walks can collapse into a shapeless swarm of worms as a free action. All held, worn, and carried items fall and its Strength score drops to 1. The worm that walks functions as a true swarm while discorporated, with a reach of 0 feet (its space remains unchanged). While discorporated, the worm that walks loses all of its defensive abilities and gains all of the standard swarm traits. It loses its slam attacks and all special abilities and special attacks, but can make a swarm attack that deals damage equal to its engulf attack. A worm that walks can reform into its true form (including equipping all gear in reach) as a full-round action as long as it has at least 1 hit point.

While discorporated, the worm that walks loses all of its defensive abilities and gains all of the standard swarm traits.

A. This means as soon as it is pushed into this form it's Intelligence drops to - (not 0 but an actual dash since it no longer has that attribute) so it can never choose to re-incorporate itself.

B. On top of that a WTW who discorporate lose all their Defensive abilities so the fast healing goes away preventing it from healing itself in any reasonable amount of time as well as increasing all the damage it takes (no DR or immunities from the template).

C. The Diehard feat literally does NOTHING for the WTW. Per the ability score rules "Mindless creatures have no feats or skills". This is a wasted feat and even if it were somehow allowed to work then you have to deal with:

D. Remember,

Quote:
Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or less causes it to break up

so it's no longer a swarm so it loses what little control or survivability it had.

Now being a comatose, non-swarm of worms who can never choose to reform and the character is pretty much worse then dead.

Overall the Discorporate ability is a one way ticket to oblivion and should never be used. EVER.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

This feat is the most poorly written thing I've seen come out of pathfinder in a long time (including original prone shooter).

The issue is not the crit fishing or the DR abuse. The real issue is this line right here:

Quote:
For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage, adding it to any damage the attack has already dealt from previous rolls (if any).

Parse that as it's written (not as it's intended) and watch the damage sky-rocket.

Assuming a simple 4 attacks a round with a D6+3 attack and all of them hit.

1st attack: 1D6+3 for 6 damage avg.
2nd attack: 1d6+3 +6 from the previous attack 12 damage avg.
3rd attack: 1D6+3 +12 +6 from 2 previous attacks 24 damage avg.
4th attack: 1D6+3 +24 +12 +6 from 3 previous attacks 42 damage avg.

Total damage = 84 damage

Remember the sentence specifically states For each roll that is a hit you add the damage dealt from previous rolls.

Stupid, broken and so badly written I can't believe it made it into print.
Ugh.

Cheliax **

Damanta wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
<snip> Fair enough, but this would be the case whether he found the animal in the wild or purchased it.

That's what we were talking about. A lot of animals can be bought combattrained, as long as they are large or smaller. Which means you aren't spending a few scenarios at low level to teach it those six tricks.

A base mammoth is huge, so it can't be bought and I have to train it from clean up.

Also as for the discussion about the charming of the animal, two words:
** spoiler omitted **

Aww, I was saving that point for when the conversation got heated and I could point to it as part of my over-arching reasoning. You stole my thunder.

Ha, but you're right and glad someone else actually looked for the rules as written.
Kudos Damanta!!

Cheliax

graystone wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Drunken Brute Barbarian should be able to drink an Extract, without provoking.

Drunken Brute wrote:
Raging Drunk (Ex): While raging, the drunken brute can drink a potion, or a tankard of ale or similar quantity of alcohol, as a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A potion has its normal effect, while an alcoholic drink allows the barbarian to maintain her rage that round without expending a round of rage for the day (instead of the alcohol’s normal effects). For each alcoholic drink consumed while raging, the barbarian is nauseated for 1 round when her rage expires, in addition to the normal fatigue that follows a rage. Tireless rage does not negate this nauseated condition but the internal fortitude rage power does. This ability replaces fast movement.
Why would you think that? An extract is not a potion, it's used as one but is explicitly called out as an extract not a potion or alcohol and Raging drunk only works with those 2 choices.

But isn't that the point? how much IS it like a potion? You either treat it "as if imbibing a potion" or you don't. So far, from the FAQ's it looks like it's not. If extract is it's own thing, then does it say it provokes?

It's a double standard, catch 22. It's like a potion so it must provoke. But it's not a potion so these abilities don't work...

No, It's just like using a reach weapon against something with cover where it says use the rules for ranged attacks. It doesn't stop the reach weapon from actually being a melee weapon it just says use this part of the rules for resolution instead of the normal rules.

Cheliax

blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Drunken Brute Barbarian should be able to drink an Extract, without provoking.

Drunken Brute wrote:
Raging Drunk (Ex): While raging, the drunken brute can drink a potion, or a tankard of ale or similar quantity of alcohol, as a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity. A potion has its normal effect, while an alcoholic drink allows the barbarian to maintain her rage that round without expending a round of rage for the day (instead of the alcohol’s normal effects). For each alcoholic drink consumed while raging, the barbarian is nauseated for 1 round when her rage expires, in addition to the normal fatigue that follows a rage. Tireless rage does not negate this nauseated condition but the internal fortitude rage power does. This ability replaces fast movement.

Why would you think that? An extract is not a potion, it's used as one but is explicitly called out as an extract not a potion or alcohol and Raging drunk only works with those 2 choices.

Cheliax **

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Stuff...

A. The text of both the spell and the faq on it explicitly give examples of convincing you're new friend to attack a target you choose that most things usually avoid attacking. If getting your new friend to attack something is making them an automaton then there it is in black and white in the FAQ you posted, the text of the spell and the magic chapter.

B. Fine, is the bad guy a horse? If not then it falls under the "something exotic" rule and requires GM permission to do.
Is the bad guy at least one size category larger than you or you have the Undersized mount feat? If not it is an illegal target and you can't ride it.
As for PFS not being a RAW campaign have you not read the direct post from from the leadership (Mike Brock) specifically asking all GM's to run the scenarios exactly as written HERE with the rules as written? That's the point of PFS.

C. Yes it says "would not usually do" and most Tigers would not usually eat people especially their handlers but it does happen (ask Sigfried and Roy about that), surprisingly more often then you'd think.
As for this crazy idea that an animal companion somehow loves and adores it's handler I have no idea where in the world you are getting that idea. There is NOTHING in the pathfinder rules that even begins to suggest the connection between handler and AC is anything other then master and servant. The rules actually explicitly state that the connection is as strong as:

Quote:
A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is

. Period. Heck even the official write ups of every iconic example in the game with an AC shows the bond between them is one of Dominance/submission (Lini), mutual need (Andowyn) or unmentioned follower (Harsk). There is literally nothing in any of the Pathfinder resources showing that a hunters bond is in any way one of friendship or love or any kind of caring relationship.

D. And yet that is exactly how Charisma has been used, both examples I gave were 100% charisma without the benefit of magic. Now add magic to it and imagine how much further those users would have pushed they're target.
As for the Dominate/Charm Monster, well Dominate is a much stronger spell removing the need for language while granting you significantly more control over the target as well as letting you use it's senses. Heck it even makes your target ignore everything that's not a requirement for day to day life (breathing, eating, etc).
Charm a Tiger and tell it to kill a target it'll do it however it chooses and can run away from the fight if it thinks it's going to lose/get hurt, Dominate it and it tries to kill it exactly as you tell it to (kill it but don't use your teeth and dance a jig while your at it is perfectly legal) and won't give up till it's dead or it's target is. HUGE difference.

E. Magic beats EX abilities in the sense that EX can sometimes defy the laws of physics while Magic bends those laws over and spanks them like a 5 year old who gets caught stealing candy. My statement was too vague and wasn't meant as such.

F. AC's are weaker as a rule and I quoted you the rule straight from the Campaign book. They are non moral creatures who are only as loyal to their handlers as any trained creature you go to the store and buy.
As for walking away that is entirely your right but just because you don't like a rule doesn't mean it's not how the rule was intended to be used. All real world examples are exactly the same, I can't tell you the number of pet dogs, cats, horses, Wolves (yes real Wolves) I have simply issued commands to in front of their owners/trainers and watched them obey. That's one of the reasons many professionally trained working beasts are trained in different languages to avoid someone else taking control of them.
Pathfinder has abstracted this into requiring more work from the opponent then the owner (Move vs. Free action)

Cheliax **

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
You might want to read the Charm Monster spell (my bad on that, forgot it was charm monster).

I have read it. The problem is that the spell doesn't say that the opposed charisma check will make the creature violate its core principles and precepts.

Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend. (magic chapter) You do not eviscerate one good friend for another. You might tackle them to get both of your friends to stop fighting, but you don't behead your old best friend because your new best friend said so.

charm monster wrote:
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton
And this is exactly what you want to do.

A. The charm person spell doesn't address the core values question at all, it has nothing to do with it. It simply makes the target your friend and explicitly gives you the ability to make it do something it normally wouldn't (like the examples given Share supplies, tell you secrets, Fight your enemies and do back breaking physical labor) with the only limitation being if it's something it doesn't want to do you need to succeed on an opposed charisma check in a language/communication method it can understand. That's it, that's all the limitation built into spell by RAW. RAI may be different but this is society play where RAW is LAW.

Quote:
Quote:
but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way.

There is no favorable way to read "Kill your best friend"

Quote:
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.

There are levels. The example given is for getting an Orc to plow a field for you. Not kill their best friend.

The spell makes the target your friend. It will treat you kindly (although maybe not your allies) and will generally help you as long as your interests align. This is mostly in the purview of the GM.
If you ask the creature to do something that it would not normally do (in relation to your friendship), that is when the opposed Charisma check comes into play.
For example, if you use charm person to befriend an orc, the orc might share his grog with you and talk with you about the upcoming raid on a nearby settlement. If you asked him to help you fight some skeletons, he might very well lend a hand. If you asked him to help you till a field, however, you might need to make that check to convince him to do it.
This answer originally appeared in the 9/11/12 Paizo blog.

Quote:
Remember there is no magical connection between the tiger and it's owner (Nature Bond is an EX ability so spells trump it)

This is not a rule.

Dominate, a much stronger charm spell, would be needed to do this and even THEN you'd be giving the creatures additional saves with extra bonuses.

Well first there is nothing written in the spell saying you can't convince the target to kill their best friend, it simply says you have to succeed on an opposed charisma check to get it to do something it doesn't want to. Like convincing a target to cheat on their spouse, or feed poison kool-aid to their children (Jim Jones reference) all of these are simply charisma checks, difficult ones but still basic checks. As for the "against their nature" that's a specific written limitation of the Dominate spell by a Dev not a general rule for the Enchantment School.

Finally EX abilities by their nature are non-magical:

Extraordinary Abilities wrote:
Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.

Nature Bond doesn't give you any kind of magical control over this animal, it's still a relatively normal Wild Animal ruled by it's instincts and normal nature. Heck the went out of their way to define this in the Ultimate Campaign book:

Ultimate Campaign, pg 140 wrote:

Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can’t make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this

category.

AC's are even weaker to enchantment magic then the most basic fighter in the game since they are explicitly defined as amoral nature and can be convinced to do ANYTHING you want with a successful handle animal check or failed will save.

Let me guess, you probably don't allow your bad guys do handle animal to control your PC's animal companions either? hint, that's legal too.

You're adding a bunch of conditions and expectations that are written nowhere in the spell or nature bond ability.

Cheliax **

You might want to read the Charm Monster spell (my bad on that, forgot it was charm monster).

charm monster wrote:
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.

Make that Charisma check and you can make that pet tiger do anything you want as long as you can actually talk it into it. Remember there is no magical connection between the tiger and it's owner (Nature Bond is an EX ability so spells trump it) and a decent story for an int 2-3 critter is your hungry and that guy there is easy meat AND he keeps making you fight things that hurt you.

Succubus Charisma check Charisma: 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (6) + 8 = 14
Tiger Charisma check Charisma: 1d20 - 3 ⇒ (6) - 3 = 3

Tiger eats whoever the succubus says to eat.

Cheliax **

pauljathome wrote:
Hmm wrote:

When I reach second level, I think that I am definitely giving Pumpkin a skill in linguistics. The way I see it, knowing a language will work well with some of Pumpkin's tricks, including fetch (fetch what?) and deliver (deliver what?) so that Pumpkin has a better idea of what is going on. It won't remove the need for tricks, but it will sure make the tricks work better.

Hmm

Replying to both posts above in one.

It sounds like your GM was one of those who really hate ACs and goes out of their way to put obstacles in their way that are NOT in the rules. Making you roll an untrained Handle Animal roll for attacking a construct is very clearly wrong.

The linguistics skill is very useful with some GMs as it will cause them to more liberally interpret what an animal can do. With others (like the GM above) it will likely be all but useless.

I always take it, though. It helps to justify what the animal can and should do IN MY MIND. Makes things more realistic to ME. And that is more than worth the skill point

Ok, just remember when you do that your AC is now a valid target for the telepathy ability of outsiders. When that succubus hits your AC with dominate monster and telepathically tells it to kill you and your party members (with an opposed charisma check the AC cannot possibly succeed at) it's your fault.

spoken from experience watching a pouncing tiger turn and murderize his party and a vital striking wolf one shot his Ranger boss.
Those things are nasty.

Cheliax

I personally would prefer to rule they don't stack since it's one of the things that reins in the craziness of the build, I'm just pointing out the RAW. As for the DEV quote it's not in the guide it's in the thread discussing it.
Link to DEV post

Back to your original question it comes down to the poorly written nature of the White Hair ability. It states you "gain the ability to use her hair as a weapon". The hair is now treated as a weapon not as a spell or supernatural ability so the FAQ entry you quoted doesn't apply anymore.

Then you go to the Prehensile hair ability which specifies that "The witch can instantly cause her hair (or even her eyebrows) to grow up to 10 feet long or to shrink to its normal length, and can manipulate her hair as if it were a limb".

Prehensile hair modifies how you can use the weapon that WHW gives you reducing it's base strength (lower damage die) but giving you more control and flexibility with it. So since it's the same weapon (white hair) it does everything it normally does unless the specific text of the prehensile feat overrules it, ie. smaller damage die, Int to hit and restriction on which hair can be used but since it doesn't specifically take away the grab related stuff or state anything the hair can previously do is removed you get to keep it all.
Broken and probably not RAI but I only ever post in RAW so legality is all I deal with.

Cheliax

The usual answer for constructs at low levels tends to be really, really simple, Barbarian with a 2-hd weapon. If you don't have one of those then give the fighter a 2hder, it'll just take an additional round or 2.

Hardness is like DR, just push through it and you'll eventually win it just might take a little longer. As long as someone in your party can consistently do 10+ pts of damage a round your party will inevitably win though you may have to burn a few charges from your CLW wand mid-fight if the construct can hit decently hard it's not that big a deal.

Cheliax

Mike Franke wrote:

I believe the RAI is that all "spell casting" classes use the same rules for "Spell casting". Thus the alchemist is casting a spell even though he is doing something different just like a sorcerer, wizard, witch & cleric are all doing different things but the result is a "spell".

The drinking is really just fluff otherwise as two move actions shouldn't an alchemist be able to quaff two extracts? The alchemist isn't really drinking a potion he is "casting" an extract.

But that is just my take on it.

Well first you have to remember this basic rule.

Alchemist ARE NOT spellcasters, none of those rules apply to them. They don't cast spells so they can't cast defensively. They are simply using a self-powered magical item that they create themselves. It's one of the basic confusions of the class.

Cheliax

Angry Wiggles wrote:

Several points of note here. These interact counter-intuitively in places, so don't worry too much about them being wrong. I believe that they were also incorrect in the guide.

1. Unfortunately the White Haired Witch's White Hair ability is a separate ability from the Prehensile Hair hex, so they are separate attacks. In a home game, it would be perfectly reasonable to interpret that they "merge", and I have indeed done so for characters in home games, but that is not the case as written and cannot be used in that fashion in society play.

2. Final Embrace does indeed change the constrict to a free action that only works on targets of your size or smaller. Further, it grants you the Grab special attack, which you technically did not have prior, granting you a +4 on all grapple checks. Yet further, having the actual special attacks now, these are extended to all of this character's natural attacks and/or unarmed strikes. Additionally, it also changes the damage to be equal to that of a primary attack, assuming that a secondary attack is the one that has grabbed the opponent.

3. The Prehensile Hair states that she "can manipulate her hair as if it were a limb with a Strength score equal to her Intelligence score", while Spell Combat states that "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components)". As Prehensile Hair counts as a "limb" but not necessarily a "hand", it likely does not qualify as a free hand for Spell Combat. I would rule against it, but you should expect table variation either way.

3. Prehensile Hair has a duration, while White Hair does not. Even if you had both, Prehensile Hair would not be always active.

In Summary, as a WHW2/Hexcrafter 4 with White Hair, Prehensile Hair and Final Embrace. You would have two separate hair attacks, that can function together in a full attack as follows:
Attack 1: 5 ft reach, bab+str to hit, 1d4+int damage, grab, constrict, 1d4+int constrict damage.
Attack 2: 10 ft reach,...

Close but not quite since you've missed a few of the DEV errata's and clarifications for these abilities.

First remember the default rule on all natural attacks that that the same limb can only be used once per round to attack with normally. Hair is a single natural weapon so you won't get 2 different attacks you'll only get one but you can use it more then once for AoO's.

Second, there is a Dev quote linked in my original build specifically referencing Prehensile hair as a valid "hand" for spellcombat purposes.

Overall the main point of the build is written around the WHW special hair ability with the prehensile hex as a backup for it and can technically be ignored. It's just there to extend the reach of the character and increase it's damage.

Also (and this will vary based on your GM) both abilities specifically state they modify how you use your existing hair not that it grants you a new ability.

white hair wrote:
At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon.
Prehensile Hair Hex wrote:
The witch can instantly cause her hair (or even her eyebrows) to grow up to 10 feet long or to shrink to its normal length, and can manipulate her hair as if it were a limb

By RAW prehensile hair simply modifies the existing White Hair (since White Hair affects all the characters hair and is always own) by increasing it's length and letting it function like a hand.

Cheap, Cheesy and OP but legal by RAW if not RAI. But since I've always said this build is not something that should be used in actual game play that's pretty much par for the course.

@Elbedor, I still highly recommend you don't do it. It's really not a fun build to play for you, your GM or your fellow players.
It's honestly boring beyond belief after you start playing it and you'll be regretting doing it by within a level of the build coming on-line.
edit: Oh and what you've described IS my defiler build, it already has final embrace as the 5th level feat.

Cheliax **

Galnörag wrote:
Just trying to get an idea how long a level takes to run, can you do it in one sitting 4-5 hours? or does it take 2 or more?

Well I've run the first 4 levels of the dungeon so far and each one was completed in the normal 5 hour slot. The higher levels I'm still getting an estimate on but should be doable if everyone stays on point.

Cheliax **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muser wrote:

Alright that really helps. A couple of minor things:

The scenario states that he scries on the PC's when they spend time (90 minutes or so) inside his office at the Golemworks (B1). I picked a scrying target at random and prerolled their Will save(natural 1!) using an IRC bot on our community channel just in case, but I'd like to know whether or not we are supposed to use the actual spell in that encounter.

On the syringes, yeah I expect they won't come to play much at all. Their range starts at the D3 marker and I epect most of the PC's will be tied down with tentacles and red herrings.

Cheers.

He doesn't have to scry on any of the PC's so they won't get saves vs it. Simply have him scry on one of his animated chairs making it a pretty much automatic success. As for the syringes those are mostly there to interfere and mangle anyone who tries to get close to him.

Cheliax **

Now we're just waiting for it to get added to the scheduling list so we can report the levels we've run.
This has been a very entertaining module to run even if my party wiped on the 2nd level.

Cheliax **

David_Bross wrote:

Monstrification giving Monstrous Physique 3 times a scenario when they can cast the spell themselves isn't a big deal. Likely they could have cast it twice themselves, so I doubt it'll be a huge change from where they were at.

Given you can't ready a charge, you also couldn't use contingent action on this. 125 gold a scroll does seem cheap however for this relatively powerful action economy cheat, although a 3min/level duration means you'd have to have some foresight. You could have a readied action to move to an enemy if it looks hostile, which would get you adjacent to one for your full round.

The ring doesn't state that it gives you the ability to use spell completion/trigger items as natural spell and wild speech do.

Don't forget you can recharge the Staff by burning a few extracts of enlarge person. By the time an alchemist can afford this item the will have 1st level slots and Boro Beads to burn to make sure they can always use this power whenever they want.

As for the ring, theres nothing stating you lose the ability to use spell trigger/completion items when polymorphed either. The only restrictions are

polymorph wrote:
While in such a form, you cannot cast any spells that require material components (unless you have the Eschew Materials or Natural Spell feat), and can only cast spells with somatic or verbal components if the form you choose has the capability to make such movements or speak, such as a dragon.

Being able to speak, move and manipulate items is all that's called for to cast a spell no matter the form. A Sorceror with this ring can cast any spell they want with at most a +1 level adjustment (if the spell had a somatic component) by taking Still spell or using any of the free ways of getting a metamagic feat.

Finally, Contingent Action. Remember all with the rules for charge since the recipient of this spell is restricted to a standard action by the rules of the spell instead of a Full action they CAN charge while under the effects of this spell.
Remember, this Contingent action happens outside of the targets turn so they can only take the readied action the spell provides. And per the rules for charge since they can only take that standard action partial charging is legal here.
And since contingency effects are immediate they can easily occur before initiative is rolled. Every important fight will begin with the melee in melee range with the opponent before initiative is even rolled.

Cheliax **

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just looking over the ACG and putting together a list of items or spells to be on the lookout for from the ACG. Hoping to get a gist of what to expect once these things start showing up in the game.

First thing that I expect to be an issue is the Ring of Elequence.
Giving every caster in the game access to slightly watered down Natural Spell feat for 3500GP is bad enough but giving every Familiar and Animal Companion the ability to speak and understand 4 languages (no matter it's Int) is really going to cause problems.
(Yes I know that most AC's don't have access to the ring slot normally but there are way to many ways to get around that issue long enough to get this item working for them)

Next is the Monstrification Staff is going to be on every melee alchemists list as soon as possible. 12,000GP seems like a lot but having access to a pretty much at-will Monstrous Physique spell at will with all the goodies that brings is pretty brutal. (There are enough forms out there with massive natural attacks and movements to make this an uber item).

As for Spells the Contingent action spells are going to be a problem. I fully expect every party melee'er to run around with half a dozen scrolls of Contingent action of charge X (where x is whatever name/creature type they expect to encounter). Since the target is limited to a standard action that falls under charge exception rule so it should work, otherwise it'll be a simple move.

charge wrote:
If you are able to take only a standard action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed) and you cannot draw a weapon unless you possess the Quick Draw feat. You can't use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action on your turn.

Relatively free Pounce for everyone now at 150GP a pop but technically superior then normal pounce since it gives you an extra attack since you charge and attack off turn then full attack when your turn starts.

These are just the ones that jump out at me but I'm sure more of them are out there.
Do you all see any that will cause GM headaches?

Cheliax

LoneKnave wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

With the Advent of the ACG, the magus is able to take swashbuckler deeds as arcana, powered by his arcane pool. The prereq is an arcana that gives a preset list of useful deeds. After that, each arcana invested allows any 1 deed. The only restriction is meeting the level requirement for the deed.

Examples

  • Precise Strike: add magus level as precision damage while using a one-handed piercing melee weapon and have at least 1 point in arcane pool. (Dervish Dance allows scimitar to qualify.) (3rd level)
  • Evasive: gain evasion + uncanny dodge as long as you have at least 1 point in arcane pool (11th level)
  • Deadly Stab: save or die vs critical hit. DC 10 + 1/2 level + Dex mod. Costs 1 arcane (19th level)

Plenty of other abilities, but I thought these were noteworthy. The first two since they cost neither actions nor arcane pool expenditure.

Wow, these are ridiculous. I'm having to think pretty long and hard just why would I ever play a swash with this available.

Everything we are reading about this book is ridiculous. I'm just going to have to ban the whole book at this point.

Cheliax **

@John
Quick one for you, how are the chronicle sheets for Emerald Spire coming along?
We were hoping to run those at a convention this weekend and that is getting close.

Cheliax

Simon Legrande wrote:
Brom the Obnoxiously Awesome wrote:
ACG is coming!!! What will you do?
Keep waiting for the official release of 5e.

Cancel my subscription to Paizo products and operate under the belief that they stopped publishing new material after December 2013.

It's been a bad year for balance and this is just really the eject button for purchases.

Cheliax

DrakeRoberts wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Quote:
Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.

I'm not entirely sure of the context of the quote you gave, but based on what I bolded, I think that perhaps you don't get the -5. The move action to maintain the grapple and the standard action attack with the weapon are not part of the same attack or full-attack action.

This is more comparable to attacking with a weapon on your turn and then taking an AoO with the natural attack. The -5, it would seem, is not maintained.

This actually makes some sense too... If whether or not you made the weapon attack (or made a second maintaining-grapple attempt) depended on the success of the initial move-action maintain, how would you know ahead of time whether or not to take the -5?

Nope, you are looking for loopholes that the devs hae already closed. Here's a Dev posting on exactly how this works focused on the hair power:

SKR explaining Natural attacks

The normal rule for secondary attacks is if the attack is your only type of attack in the round, it's treated as a primary attack.[/quote wrote:


Now since all combat maneuvers are treated as an attack roll, any round (which includes your AoO's as well) that you use any weapon other then your natural attack all natural attacks becom secondary and suffer those penalties.

The DEV's have been very specific on this kind of tactic.

Cheliax

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Are you using an iterative attack when you take a standard attack action? The maintain is an entirely separate move action, not part of a full attack action with the weapon?

Also, they only get full attacks against you if they have a weapon sized for use in a grapple.

Finally, while I agree that the circumstances are less than ideal, if the OP wants to do it... there's a way at least. Perhaps it'd be better to use just as a response to triggered AoOs. Then the witch would Grab on the opponent's turn and maintain/attack on their turn. If the opponent had already used their standard action, they couldn't attempt an escape or counter attack.

Doesn't matter if it's a separate action any time you use a natural attack in the same round as a manufactured weapon it becomes a secondary attack with all those penalties.

Quote:
Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.

Also the only restriction on weapons while grappling is it can't require 2 hands to use. ANY 1 handed weapon can be used to full attack while grappling and there's nothing preventing a target from dropping their 2hder and pulling a 1hder out and full attacking with that.

Cheliax

Iron Giant wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:


and don't forget you can only brew up to ONE potion per day. No more than that, ever.
While the alchemist can only brew a single potion a day, there are a few tricks to produce more. If he has a tumor familiar with the valet archetype it appears as though the combined efforts can result in two a day (if someone see's a reason why not, let me know). Additionally, he can use the dilution alchemist discovery to produce one more.

Dilution will allow you to get around the 1 per day kinda (it lets you make 2 of the same potion once per day) but unfortunately the familiar is a no-go option due to the exact same faq entry.

Quote:
No. When creating potions, the crafter must prepare and expend the spell used by the potion as part of its creation

since the familiar is the crafter it would need to prepare and expend the spell but since the familiar can't prepare the spell/extract it fails to fulfil the requirements of the FAQ.

And before you bring up the familiar spell metamagic, remember alchemists aren't spellcasters so don't qualify to take the feat.

Cheliax

veneficus83 wrote:

see i do not understand why you would say formulae and not just extracts then, i did not know about the PFS rules about substituting brew potion for more bombs, i will look into that if this es the actual rule

also the 1 potion per day thing counteracts what the brew potion feat says "Brewing a potion takes 2 hours if its base price is 250 gp or less"

You really need to read the magic item creation rules. It doesn't matter how long it takes, you are limited to 1 per day.

magic item creation rules, pg. 549 wrote:
Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day.

Cheliax

DrakeRoberts wrote:

Um.. greater grapple? That lets maintenance be a move action, leaving a standard action to stab with a dagger or shortsword or other weapon of choice (including 2-handed weapons)

So:

Turn 1) Attack with hair. Grapple, giving target (but not yourself) grappled condition. If opponent is not adjacent to you, grappling them pulls them adjacent.

Opponent's Turn 1) Attacks you. Or tries to escape with escape artist/CMB vs your CMD. Lets assume they fail.

Turn 2) Move action (thanks to greater grapple) to maintain the grapple. The maintenance check is made at +5 since they did not escape. If you succeed on maintaining the grapple you can deal damage (via constrict) while Pinning the opponent (you do not do your normal hair damage, just the constrict damage here... if you weren't pinning you would have done 2x your normal damage essentially). Pinning denies dexterity, so you can use your standard action to attack with the weapon you have in hand. This attack would get sneak attack damage added to it.

The real question here is if you get a -5 (basically nulling the +5 you get) at Turn 2 to maintain the grapple since you're using a weapon and a natural attack in the same turn. My gut says 'no' because I think that only applies to full attacks, but I don't have time to research those rules at the moment, so I could be wrong there.

Don't forget you are playing a witch and Greater Grapple has a Bab +6 requirement. That means you can't do this until 13th level (11th if you only do the 2 level dip and the rest rogue) and since you are a poor BAB class your CMB is going to be low and your AC/HP's even lower.

Until you actually Pin the target they will be tearing you apart with their full attacks (or easily breaking your grapple since you only use your Int bonus as Str when making the initiate/maintain action. When they try to break your grapple it goes against your normal CMD (which is going to be a much easier check).

And Finally, ANY time you use a natural attack at the same time you use an iterative attack your hair becomes a secondary attack with all the penalties associated with it.

Good luck.

Cheliax

Don't forget the +3 for being 30' away. The DC is 15-18 depending on how close to the door the target is when the PC notices.

Cheliax

Daniel Thrace wrote:

I assume you are not playing in PFS, if you are Brew Potion is substituted out for Extra Bombs per the Additional Resources. If your potion making is falling flat, I would suggest asking the DM if you could substitute that for it.

I also agree with most posters that the rules indicate that you must prepare the extract then convert it into the potion, using one of your extract slots up in the process.

and don't forget you can only brew up to ONE potion per day. No more than that, ever.

Cheliax

David Haller wrote:

The Nehmain from "Tomb of the Iron Medusa" - con drain with no save is broken and nasty.

One of the toughest monsters I've run as a GM - the party fled it four times, and finally went all the way back to Absalom just to stock up on stuff specifically to fight it. It was "just a tomb guardian", but became the de facto BBEG.

(basic issue is it's under-CRed)

Yeah, she's a monster to fight but she's not the worst thing in there, that honor goes to the ghost you meet early.

28D6 20 ft' range touch attacks that move you up to a thousand feet from your healer. Add on top of that a flat 50% miss chance to hit him and if you DO manage to connect he only takes 50% of that damage. Plus perfect flight and can walk through walls, ugh.
THAT is a nasty fight.

Cheliax

NobodysHome wrote:
Quote:
...huge amount of discussion totally ignored...

Going back to the OP's question/statement, a great rule of thumb is, "Perform your most common full-round action on yourself. If the result is that you are disabled or dead, you do too much damage."

Can your barbarian withstand a full-round attack from himself while raging?
Can your wizard make the obscene Will save to prevent himself from being disabled for the combat?

It's silly, but a great measurement of a gaming system is, "How long would it take you to defeat yourself?"

I know that our particular group would take several rounds to defeat themselves, while I've seen barbarian builds that would utterly destroy themselves in a single round.

So if your build is such that, with a completely average roll on every die, you single-round yourself, then you're doing "too much damage".

Wildly enough this does seem like a valid metric.

If as a player "you don't want me to build critters to do this to you then don't build pc's that do it to me" seems a great basis for a co-op game.

Cheliax

Because he CAN brew any formulae he knows, he just has to prepare it as an extract first.

Cheliax

Your interpretation is incorrect. Per the FAQ update:

Quote:

Brew Potion: Can a character with this feat create a potion of any spell he knows simply by adding +5 to the DC, even without preparing it?

No. When creating potions, the crafter must prepare and expend the spell used by the potion as part of its creation. This is an exception to the normal rules that allow a caster to skip one of the prerequisites for crafting an item by adding +5 to the DC.

Update: Page 549, in the Magic Item Creation rules, in the second paragraph, change the last sentence to read as follows.

In addition, you cannot create potions, scrolls, staves, wands, or any other spell-trigger or spell-completion magic item without meeting its prerequisites.

posted July 2011

Yes, brew potion is now a sub-optimal crafting feat and not really worth investing in.

Cheliax

Scavion wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


On the other hand the martials would do way less damage (the static bonuses are way more relevant than the weapon damage dice) and increasing the number of enemies as a way to balance the martials and spellcaster strengths would be even less of a option.

Currently the martial punching a hole in the line of mooks defending the beeg, downing 2 or 3 enemies in one round is feasible, especially if they have already been weakened by a friend. If we give them a single powerful attack they would be capable to kill only 1 enemy during their round.

That would be what stuff like Cleave/Great Cleave and Vital Strike should have been useful for. Single attacks could have been built to be not an inferior option to full attacks ala mythic vital strike.

And currently, no not even due to the simplest of tactics and the constraints of the full attack paradigm. You move up to the line of mooks and now you only have one attack. Next round the mooks could easily readjust positioning and still deny you your full attack or the ability to kill any more than one of them.

Yup, Cleave and it's ilk would become significantly more useful. We'd also get away from the hyper-inflation of opponent HP's necessary to make things survive the 2-300pt burst damage that the game has grown into these days.

Best thing is it would put casters and martials back to the same action efficiency. Move and cast vs. move and attack, simple and elegant so of course it's never going to happen.

Cheliax

LoneKnave wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:


Well you obviously haven't read this thread.
Whoever said get close and feint? You feint from 30+ feet away and then do a move action (depends on what all is going on).
Magus can't attack but can cast mirror image and move in preparing to attack putting him in melee range.
Bad guys turn he attempts to disarm IF he has improved disarm he makes a CM check vs 10 + Kensais BAB + 0 (no dex allowed) + 0 (tanked str on this dex based build). Kensai is disarmed and since he had no weapons in hand (but did have imroved unarmed strike) he is now wielding the kensai's weapon.
(If we don't have improved disarm then he 5' back and uses a reach weapon, no AoO, same result except weapon is now on the ground behind the bad guy)

Disarming is a maneuver that is made in place of an attack action, it has 1 in *number of images* chance to succeed.

If the henchman isn't even close to the magus he has no reason to even care about him. He can bladed dash right past him (or at him). This is besides the fact that you have to be in melee to feint unless you are an Archer Fighter, or something similar.

Also, this henchman apparently has at least 3-4 feats, and this all hinges on the Kensai not having a backup weapon, or sense motive (which, considering this is a high INT class is entirely reasonable). It's absolutely ludicrous and you can pull it off maybe once until the player wisens up and grabs a backup weapon.

A). Mirror Image isn't that hard to defeat, just close your eyes. Moves it back to a 50/50 chance to succeed and completely ignores the mirror image spell.

B. Feint DOES NOT BEING IN REQUIRE MELEE RANGE, I have no idea where this assumption keeps coming from.
C). I've already shown the build on this mook and it's about as legal as can be. It's everyone else who is making assumptions on what the Kensai has. We've also already shown how poor a defense Sense Motive actually is for Kensai against a feint build.
Try Again.

Cheliax

Diego Rossi wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:

Good lord combat is slow enough.

I think the high damage is part of balancing marshals with magics as has been said.

A fight will last a very small number of rounds. Resolving what happen in a round is time consuming. That has its drawback.

The small number of round remove the option to use more complicated tactics or non swift in combat buffs. The slow resolution of a character action push the GM toward encounters with a small number of powerful enemies and that make the martial ability to continue to make attack as long as they have hp mostly irrelevant and advantage single massive attacks either with save or die spells or as the ability to deal large number of hp in a single attack for martial.

Changing that will require big changes to the mechanic of the game.

The one change I so wished had actually made it into the game was the idea to remove iterative attacks. Instead of making multiple attacks per round when your BaB hit the right level you would just add your weapon dice to the roll again.

1st level your long sword did 1D8+x but at 6th it would do 2D8+x. Made it SOOOO much easier to balance around and made vital strike, charge, power attack, etc. so much more valuable.
Plus balancing the HP's around that kind of damage output actually made evocation spells useful without needing massive amounts of feats, class dips.

Oh Well.

Cheliax

pellinore wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Well you obviously haven't read this thread.

Whoever said get close and feint? You feint from 30+ feet away and then do a move action (depends on what all is going on).
Magus can't attack but can cast mirror image and move in preparing to attack putting him in melee range.
Bad guys turn he attempts to disarm IF he has improved disarm he makes a CM check vs 10 + Kensais BAB + 0 (no dex allowed) + 0 (tanked str on this dex based build). Kensai is disarmed and since he had no weapons in hand (but did have imroved unarmed strike) he is now wielding the kensai's weapon.
(If we don't have improved disarm then he 5' back and uses a reach weapon, no AoO, same result except weapon is now on the ground behind the bad guy)
Magus casts (defensively) Shocking Grasp, 5d6 (average 17) damage drops the 1st level mook and Magus re-arms as a move action (weapon is in same square thanks to weapon cord). GG mook.

Mook disarms kensai and then runs away. Chase him.

Cheliax

LoneKnave wrote:

Okay, you win initiative, go close, feint, Magus fails his sense motive.

He uses spell combat, casts blur or mirror image, then full attacks you.

Your turn, you try to disarm. You miraculously succeed (despite having a about a 1 in 5 chance at most).

He spellcombats, casts mage hand, recovers his weapon, and full attacks you.

EDIT: do note that when you tried to disarm, you provoked an AoO as well.
EDIT II: Mage hand actually needs a move action I think, my bad. I remember some spell that zaps the weapon to your hand, I'll dig around for it.

Well you obviously haven't read this thread.

Whoever said get close and feint? You feint from 30+ feet away and then do a move action (depends on what all is going on).
Magus can't attack but can cast mirror image and move in preparing to attack putting him in melee range.
Bad guys turn he attempts to disarm IF he has improved disarm he makes a CM check vs 10 + Kensais BAB + 0 (no dex allowed) + 0 (tanked str on this dex based build). Kensai is disarmed and since he had no weapons in hand (but did have imroved unarmed strike) he is now wielding the kensai's weapon.
(If we don't have improved disarm then he 5' back and uses a reach weapon, no AoO, same result except weapon is now on the ground behind the bad guy)

@ARTANTHOS, I specifically did not say pick up, I said manipulate. If you are not Wielding, Holding or retrieving the object from storage then you are Manipulating it.
Now if you are going to quote a rule quote ALL of it

Quote:

This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach.

If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

A weapon dangling from a 2 foot cord is not being carried in easy reach. Pulling that back in provokes an attack.

As for accusing me of using multiple henchmen I call foul on that. I have used exactly 1 npc to shut down this kensai, yes he's a mook and built exactly like a mook (I even posted his first level abilities). YOU are the one pulling things out of the air and making assumptions not in evidence. Try again.

Cheliax

Thaago wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

...

@thaago, We aren't talking about a magus here, we're talking about a Kensai. That archetype makes enough significant changes to the base class that it really is a different beast.
As for your "options" to avoid this you are now spending significant resources to cover up the glaring weakness built into the archetype. This has been the point of this examination of the Kensai from the beginning. It has such glaring weaknesses that can be exploted by any opponent in the game with little to no cost on their part. If they did invest even a little to improve this tactic the Kensai is in extreme trouble.
Heck a first level human fighter minion who's been built as a melee support can (improved Feint, Skill Focus: Bluff, improved unarmed strike, fast talker) can easily take away 80% of 7th level Kensai with no problem. Get it up to 6th level and he...

But this 'glaring weakness' is actually a very, very specific weakness to one thing which hardly ever comes up. Meanwhile, touch AC vs regular AC is a tremendous [i]benefit[i] against enemy spellcasters, gunslingers, etc - there are lots of nasty touch attacks. The 'major expenditure of resources' is one feat (blind-fight) that also has other benefits and a spell (mirror image) that the Kensai had better have up anyways for dealing with creatures that actually do damage.

The 1st level against 7th and 6th against 14th examples are silly. Even if they can lower just 1 of the Kensai's defenses for 1 round (armor class from dex and int) the rest (armor from enhancement, deflection, and natural, concealment from mirror image come to mind) are still around. And the Kensai's offensive output is still way too high for those examples to survive a single round, even if they go first.

Their glaring weakness is that their defense AND offense can be taken from them extremely easy. You can feint, or turn off the lights or grease them or do anything that costs them their Dex bonus. THAT guts their passive defensive abilities and has always been the flaw with Dex builds, the Kensai is just double penalized since it costs him his Int bonus as well. Add to that he is restricted from having any armor as a backup and it's much more dangerous. Also as 3/4 BAB class with (usually) a low strnegth score it makes him particularly vulnerable to Combat Maneuvers. Though under-utilized they are a frighteningly effective tactic as the many Tetori Monks and Lore Warden Fighters have shown.

Covering all the ways that their dex can be taken from them costs significant resources which no longer needing to purchase actual armor doesn't quite cover.

The second issue is their dependence on a single weapon. ALL of their offensive class abilities rely on 1 singular weapon, once that is taken away 95% of their archetype abilities go with it. A backup weapon can help protect against this but that simply raises the cost of playing this class even higher.

As for the 1st vs. 7th level if you're not going to address the actual comment and choose to be flippant instead that's your choice, doesn't take away the truth of it.

Cheliax

Artanthos wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:


No, we simply don't care if he does. When he goes to recover that weapon he provokes an AoO letting his attacker(s) beat him down or sunder the weapon cord (or just attack it it has 0 hardness and hp's) or do any other CM on him they want.
Weapon cords don't solve the problem, in some ways they actually make it worse.

Your forgoing dealing damage to accomplish something the kensai can undo in one round, in addition hitting you. (cast a spell, free touch attack, 5' step, recover weapon)

How do you recon equipping your sword when using a weapon cord provokes an attack of opportunity?

Draw of Sheathe a Weapon wrote:

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

Emphasis mine. The whole point of a weapon cord: your weapon is in easy reach, you don't have to bend down to pick it up, which would provoke.

when the weapon cord was a swift action you could argue that you could recover it without provoking but once it was moved to a move action you know look at the move action faq now.

Under the Move action faq
Quote:

Can you pick up or manipulate an object in a square within your reach? Does this provoke an AOO? Does it provoke even if the foe can reach the object, but not your space?

The rules are a little hazy here, but to put it simply, you can affect objects and creatures within your reach. When picking up or manipulating objects, you generally provoke an attack of opportunity, but only against foes that can reach your space.

You are now manipulating an object that you aren't holding or wielding so by this FAQ you now provoke an AoO getting that weapon back.

As for forgoing damage, that's kind of the point of neutralizing a target. the only damage that matters is the last point, before that damage does nothing. I'd much rather a henchmen of mine spend his actions keeping the crit machine caster locked down then wail ineffectually for their measly 1D6+x.
Just like PC's would prefer the Bard to buff first or the cleric to heal when needed a minion who can spend a standard action denying a PC their full round action is a good trade for me. Heck if he just trades his Standard action for a PCs is a net win for the bad guys.

Cheliax

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Bacondale wrote:
MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

share spells wrote:
The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon
enlarge person wrote:
Target one humanoid creature
Quote:

Share Spells (Ex)

The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon (as a spell with a range of touch) instead of on himself.
It's the second line that allows Enlarge Person on an Eidolon.

But a target of "you" is not a target of "one humanoid creature".

Spells that target "you" are personal range spells.

So? The first line is a benefit, not a restriction. The intent of the ability is clearly not to limit Summoners to ONLY casting personal range spells on their Eidolons.

Moreover, given that I'm not sure there ARE any spells that have both a range of "personal" and a "type" restriction on the Summoner's list (or any list, for that matter), it seems like your interpretation would render the second line meaningless.

It actually is a restriction and a benefit. Share spells is there so a caster can use their personal range spells to benefit their bonded companion. It's not there to bypass the built in restrictions of every spell in the game.

Expeditious retreat, Alter Self & Fire Shield are self only spells but share spells lets your companion benefit from them too. That's the purpose of the share spells ability not what you are trying to do.

edit: share Spells doesn't mean that you can only cast those spells on your companion, it's there so you can cast all your normal buff spells on your companion (like any other creature) AND also put your self buff spells on them too.

Cheliax

pellinore wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

No, we simply don't care if he does. When he goes to recover that weapon he provokes an AoO letting his attacker(s) beat him down or sunder the weapon cord (or just attack it it has 0 hardness and hp's) or do any other CM on him they want.

Weapon cords don't solve the problem, in some ways they actually make it worse.
Not sure how the theoretical magus is any worse off with a weapon cord? At the very least it makes it possible to 5' step and rearm and still have a standard to do...something. And are we really going to be spending additional actions on sundering the cord? How many resources in terms of feats and actions are we going to spend to possibly neutralize this one guy? What's the rest of the party doing while all the bad guys are playing keep-away with Elric?

He's worse off because he is now provoking an AoO and depending on what the opponent can do with that AoO against an unarmed opponent.

And as I said this is not a tactic that destroys a Kensai, I said it neutralizes him. Until he gets his chosen weapon back he drops to being an inferior wizard with a much weaker spell list.

@thaago, We aren't talking about a magus here, we're talking about a Kensai. That archetype makes enough significant changes to the base class that it really is a different beast.
As for your "options" to avoid this you are now spending significant resources to cover up the glaring weakness built into the archetype. This has been the point of this examination of the Kensai from the beginning. It has such glaring weaknesses that can be exploted by any opponent in the game with little to no cost on their part. If they did invest even a little to improve this tactic the Kensai is in extreme trouble.
Heck a first level human fighter minion who's been built as a melee support can (improved Feint, Skill Focus: Bluff, improved unarmed strike, fast talker) can easily take away 80% of 7th level Kensai with no problem. Get it up to 6th level and he can actually destroy a 14th level kensai even faster. Give him any 2 helpers and the kensai is dead in 1 round.

This is all I'm saying to everyone thinking about blaying a Kensai. It has great offensive powers and deceptively great defensive abilities but it has a weakness. A great big glaring weakness that it will require a major expenditure in resources to overcome.
Before you decide to play this class make sure you are comfortable paying the price to cover those weaknesses.

Cheliax

Kranchan wrote:
So I know I can use enlarge person via share spell on my eidolon but can I buy a scroll of permanency to then make it permanent? Would this effect stay when unsummoned and then resummoned? I'm wondering because the wording says you only summon an aspect of the creature.

Uhmm, no you can't do any of this.

share spells does not allow you to cast enlarge person on your eidolon, that's an invalid spell.

share spells wrote:
The summoner may cast a spell with a target of “you” on his eidolon
enlarge person wrote:
Target one humanoid creature

You can never cast enlarge paerson on a eidolon.

Cheliax

No, why should it?
Nothing in either ability in any way says anything about reducing it further then to a move.

1 to 50 of 2,448 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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