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. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 2,472 posts (2,482 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

kestral287 wrote:

1. As you explicitly pointed to Natural Spell Combat (Bite) as something that would never work without your ruling, pointing out that it does not work without Natural Spell Combat is simply a statement of fact, regardless of the status of rulings regarding hands. You do not Bite with your hands.

2. "Functioning as a hand" and "associated with a hand" are not the same thing. A prehensile tail can also function as a hand with the right feats, but it is not legal for use with Spell Combat.

3. Excellent. Now, if that rule regarding unarmed strikes is true for everybody, explain why it got specific mention as a special ability of the monk? Given that the rule is in the combat section explaining what you can do with an unarmed strike, rather than what it is, it doesn't really help your case... but then we still have the Monk issue.

Really, this is all rules lawyering of the worst sort. An attack associated with a hand doesn't actually use that hand? Really?

You are adding conditions to the ability that don't exist. There is no requirement for it to "Function as a hand" it simply has to be associated with a hand. The Developers have stated this over and over Claws work with Spellcombat, Slams work with Spellcombat and all Unarmed strikes work with spellcombat. Why it works is unimportant, they say it works so it works. Period.

Monks get a special mention because they can do everything everyone else can and more. Normal characters can't use Knees and Elbows with UAS Monks can. Normal characters provoke when making UAS, Monks don't and Normal characters do 1/2 damage with their offhand attacks, monks don't. THAT'S why monks get a specific writeup, they simply do it better.

If you want to play a game where the rules of the world match ours then go play life. DnD/Pathfinder is a simulationist game with different rules and a more flexible meaning of the term WHY.

Dark Archive

Weirdo wrote:

I can't argue my side. I don't have one. I am undecided on how the natural weapons magus stacks up against the manufactured weapon magus. I was just lurking and hoping you'd convince me (I'd really like to try this build!) but I'm noticing some inconsistencies and I can't ignore them because I'm stubborn. It's a character flaw.

A)

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion however the Faq says what it says.

B) We are agreed that the natural weapons magus has a higher average number of hits in a round. We are not agreed that makes the build "better."

C) I notice that your Transmorgifist build #2 takes Eldritch Claws to bypass DR/magic and DR/silver - at level 9. At that point WBL is 46,000gp and even if you haven't got a +3 rapier you can make one with arcane pool, so why are you spending a feat on getting through less kinds of DR than a +3 weapon does? That's not easier and cheaper.

In terms of value, a rapier also gets the +1 bonus on its free spellstrike attack and any iteratives, so you need more than twice the number of natural weapons for AoMF > rapier. With six arms an AoMF is a better buy than swords - but that doesn't make it less necessary for the build, which was your original assertion. Goal-posts should stay put, thanks.

D) Maybe I'm blind. Bold it for me.

Two Touch Spells wrote:
In general you shift into a Form with multiple natural attacks, say a Gargoyle for example, and then close and use the Frostbite spell. From this point on every attack you can burn an arcane pool point to add your Int bous to your attack bonus for normal weapon damage + 1D6 cold + CL in non-lethal damage and Fatigue as well as Entangle the target(s) because of the Rime Spell metamagic. That is usually enough non-lethal damage to knock most things out in a round and if it lives being entangled lets you 5ft away and it can’t follow you to retaliate. Also each successful hit will
...

Fine I'll spell it out for you as simply as I can. That is an optimization guide designed to squeeze out every advantage possible. None of it is necessary for a functional character, it's designed to show you the limits of what's possible.

As for why it's unnecessary I'll say it again "Melee damage from the natural attacks is unimportant, it's all about hitting the target with the spell effect." If your spells are doing 30 or 40 or 90 points when they hit that makes the 1D4+whatever from the actual weapon a joke.
The reason you choose natural attacks over manufactured attacks is because it's SOOO much easier to get more natural attacks and they all have a higher chance of hitting and discharging the spell.

Here's the best way of looking at it, let's say you do have that rapier +3 and you're hasted and you spell combat to get your frostbite off. Best case you are going to get 4 possible attacks that round with at least one of them having a less then 50% chance to hit. Your +3 rapier is going to add 3D6+9 (19pts of damage on average) to your total damage.
Or you can use natural attacks and get 6 (8 with the same haste and spellcombat) attacks there with all your attacks having an equal chance to hit. At 9th level without the rapier and use the slams the natural attack build gives you an extra 5D6 + 45 (ave 62) pts of damage without spending the cash for the weapon. That's a return of over 3x the damage of the weapon and saving over 18,000GP which you can use to buy more spells, wands, rods and attribute boosting items.
It is overwhelmingly a better return on your investment.

As for the Eldritch claws feat you don't take it to get through the DR, you take it so you can freely attack every type of creature you are likely to encounter. Being treated as magic lets you freely hit incorporeal or creatures that require magic weapons to affect. We don't care about the DR since your spell damage ignores DR.

As for the rest of your post we have no idea what you are asking there.

Dark Archive

kestral287 wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
A). Hand Associated not limited to just hands. UAS strike is explicitly called out as valid but it doesn't require you to use a hand. UAS (kick) is valid for spellcombat since UAS is explicitly declared as valid. If it was limited to hand only then Natural Spell Combat (bite) and prehensile hair would never work.

You are aware that they don't work without Natural Spell Combat, which is a specific rule overriding the limitation, right? Specific beats General, this is old news.

In other news, only Monks and Brawlers can explicitly make unarmed strikes with body parts other than their hands.

No. That is not true and I showed you direct FAQ quotes stating that you do not need Natural Spellcombat for claws, slams or unarmed strikes. The Devs have also directly stated that since prehensile hair functions as a hand it also doesn't need it either.

Now if you do not want to listen to the people who created the game telling you how it works then there's nothing that's going to convince you so I'll just stop trying, it's not worth the effort.

Secondly you are wrong on the unarmed strikes as well.

Unarmed Attacks, Core rulebook, pg 182 wrote:

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon,

Monks and Brawlers are allowed to add elbows and knees to this list but ALL characters can make unarmed strikes with Kicks, Headbutts and punches.

Honestly, would you just stop making things up? Your attempts to confuse the actual rules of the game are wearing thin.

Dark Archive

Artemis Moonstar wrote:

Edit (for misinterpreting what you said to me): True.

Regardless, the perception to notice someone effected by something has always been played in my groups as common sense, regardless.

Common sense has nothing to do with a world where people can stop time with a word and tell the laws of physics to take a hike.

Follow the rules of this world as they have been laid out by the game rules and accept that common sense here is more flexible then in our world.

Dark Archive

Weirdo wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

OK Wierdo, at this point you are obviously not reading the clear cut rules quotes provided and just making things up.

...
Now if you wish to continue in this discussion you should probably read what you are replying to first.

Take your own advice.

A) UAS are normally full-body weapons and can be delivered with any body part (general rule), but when using Spell Combat you must use hand-associated weapons (specific rule). The FAQ allowing UAS with spell combat still requires that the attack be hand-associated, which means a punch, not an elbow or kick.

** spoiler omitted **

B) Your argument was that a claw/claw/bite user has a higher chance to deliver a spell because your third attack is at full BAB compared to an iterative attack. While I agree this is true, I was pointing out (1) the difference is only meaningful with multi-touch spells (2) there are trade-offs which you are not mentioning. Both of these are important points for the OP when considering how effective a claw/claw/bite build will be.

C) Magic weapons aren't just about weapon damage. They also increase to-hit, help you overcome DR, and can add properties like Keen or Holy. The former amplifies the rapier magus' crit advantage and the latter is very useful in certain campaigns. Rapier magi also derive much of their damage from spells and they still want magic weapons.

D) Your guide doesn't mention using a wand or spell scar to pull off the Frostbite + Chill Touch combo, so you can hardly fault me for failing to read your mind and anticipate...

A). Hand Associated not limited to just hands. UAS strike is explicitly called out as valid but it doesn't require you to use a hand. UAS (kick) is valid for spellcombat since UAS is explicitly declared as valid. If it was limited to hand only then Natural Spell Combat (bite) and prehensile hair would never work.

B). Good, we agree that natural attacks are better as long as you don't use sub-optimal spells that ignore what the build is designed to do.

C). Everything that you are referring to applies to natural attacks as well and depending on your build is easier and/or cheaper to do with natural attack. A +1 enchant on a AoMF for 6 natural attacks (calikang form) cost 667gp per weapon as opposed to the 2300+ for that +1 rapier. Honestly once you get past 2 natural attacks it's cheaper to have Magic natural weapons then manufactured weapons. Throw on the fact that natural enchants don't require a base +1 to enchant ALL of them makes the higher bonus enchants an order of magnitude cheaper.

D). That's a reading comprehension fail on your part since all of that is written into the guide. Read it again.

At this point you sound like you are more invested in proving my argument wrong then proving your argument right. Don't argue with me on why I'm wrong, show everyone else why you are right, you'll do better going that way.

Dark Archive

Standard actions can only be done on the characters turn and since Grave touch is a standard action it can't be done as an AoO.

Option 3 is the only legal choice.

Dark Archive

Malag wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

D). Chill touch & Frost bite. Again you are showing you aren't reading what you are replying to. The Chll touch came from a wand/staff/spellscar which is NOT considered casting a spell and doesn't cause the Frostbite to dissipate.

Faq wrote:
Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation
...

I am not gonna further clog the topic about "personal opinions" about natural attacking magus, but your D point is very very unlikely correct. The FAQ you quoted explains that feats and special abilities do not effect spells stored inside items which makes sense but it does not state that you can have multiple touch spells active at any such time.

Please don't spread incorrect information. If you can further dispute, go ahead, but include topics or designer responses in it otherwise you are fishing in muddy waters.

Adam

You are entitled to your opinion however the Faq says what it says. The only thing that causes you to lose a held spell is if you CAST another spell. Period.

Using a wand, staff, scroll or rod does not count as casting a spell so does not cause you to lose any charges. Now retrieving one of these items will probably cause you to discharge one of your charges but that's what Weaponwand and Spell Scar are there to prevent.

Dark Archive

That Other Guy wrote:

Thanks for the responses.

Mathwei, your points; I checked them. THEY ARE SO VALID. The bonus spells loss really poops on the archetype IMO...

I think I'm going to work towards a reach witch build, like Brewer's Reach Cleric, but only with hexing and Glaive coup de grace's...

Evil Eye, Cackle, 5 foot Step back, Combat Reflexes, shimmy shimmy shimmy 'till the break of dawn YEEEEAAA

Regardless,
One thing remains:

Any thoughts about Spell Hex?

Spell Hex is awesome and I've been singing it's praises since it was introduced. Grep Hex vulnerability and watch everything every GM cry at your awesome Fortune, Healing, Slumber everything as often as you want.

Dark Archive

OK Wierdo, at this point you are obviously not reading the clear cut rules quotes provided and just making things up.

A). Nowhere and I mean NOWHERE does anything state that adding an UAS replace a mainhand attack. UAS are explicitly called out as being valid spellcombat weapon choices and don't impact the mainhands attacks at all. UAS strikes are full body weapons, this has been stated over and over agin. It CAN be a punch, or a kick or elbow or whatever other choice you want. IT specifically allows you to break the Hand requirement by the definition of the attack.

B). I never said anything about the highest Bab attacks. I Specifically said the iterative attacks. EVERY example I wrote only addressed the later attacks with the lower attack bonus. Did you skip reading that part?

C). AoMF is a Nice addition for a Nat Weapon Magus but it is not a necessary one. The only use a magus has for the AoMF is if they want a spell storing strike, no other enchant is needed. Here's the simple fact that you keep ignoring, Nat weapon Magi don't care about weapon damage. It's unimportant to them. You use natural weapons for the faster access to extra attacks and the better attack bonus on all those attacks. All the real damage comes from the spells you are channeling which massively dwarfs the weapon damage from the nat attacks. If you want to scrape every single point of damage you can then go ahead and buy the amulet an take power attack, etc. but end of the day the spells ill easily do 8x as much damage for a fraction of the work.

D). Chill touch & Frost bite. Again you are showing you aren't reading what you are replying to. The Chll touch came from a wand/staff/spellscar which is NOT considered casting a spell and doesn't cause the Frostbite to dissipate.

Faq wrote:

Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?

No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.

Now if you wish to continue in this discussion you should probably read what you are replying to first.

Dark Archive

Adhesive Spittle is a good spell hex vulnerability is really a better choice.
Hex vulnerability allows you to do something that the devs tried very hard to kill, keeping Fortune on your party for as long as you want.

Hex vulnerability lets you drop a fortune on your party member up to 4 times a day instead of the measly once that it currently does.
That alone makes it awesome but through on extra uses of the healing hex, Major Healing and Ice Tomb/Agony really makes it the best option out there.

Dark Archive

Well then lets directly address your points then.

Quote:
Quote:
Anytime a Caster touches anything other than his weapon with a touch spell active the spell goes off. Swinging a claw and hitting the target counts as touching and triggers the spell.
Hitting something with a claw certainly discharges the spell, but without spellstrike hitting a target with a claw requires an attack action. Which means you cannot NORMALLY (without spellstrike, quicken, or some other exception) deliver a touch spell using a natural weapon in the same round as you cast the touch spell. Which is exactly what the OP and Artoo were saying, so your objection was unfair and inaccurate.

Incorrect. Casting ANY touch spell grants you a free action to use it. That has nothing to do with spellstrike, quicken or anything else.

Quote:

Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Quote:

I'm not forgetting it. But you also get that extra attack if you are using a manufactured weapon. Again, the specific thing I'm objecting to is:

Quote:

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

A magus using spellcombat can attack with ALL their hand based weapons

You can't spell combat with all your hand based weapons because you can't spell combat with your off-hand claw. The usual advantage of claws is that you get two attacks at full BAB, but when using spell combat you lose one of those attacks. That means that spell combat with claws, assuming you have only two arms, is not an improvement over spell combat with a manufactured weapon in your main hand. In fact the claw is worse at BAB +6 or higher. Using Monstrous Physique to turn into something with multiple arms resolves this issue, but that doesn't come into play until high levels.

And you are essentially wrong here as well. Yes, a claw wielder technically gives up one hand to use spellcombat which would cost one attack. But since spell combat with a touch spell gives you an extra attack he's back up to 2 attacks a round. Yes a manufactured weapon wielder with a BaB over 6 can get a 3rd attack but that attack will be at a -7 to hit and will usually miss. However the natural weapon wielder can invest in a Natural Spellcombat arcana and add another weapon into the rotation or simply cast a spell granting a form with extra claw/slam attacks OR simply use an unarmed strike. (The UAS does require burning two feats to do it safely without to extreme a penalty but still an option)

Add to this that the Natural Weapon wielder will almost always have a better to-hit chance then the weapon wielder for their extra attacks usually makes it a better option.

For example a 8th level rapier wielding magus would have a attack routine of +4/+4/-1 (before stat/magic adjustment) vs. the identical Natural weapon magus with a +4/+4/+4 with a claw/claw/(bite, Slam, gore, etc.)
Since the most important thing is to connect with the target to discharge the spell the natural weapon wielder has a superior chance to do that.

I think the big issue here is in your understanding of what an off-hand is. It's not a real term, there is no off-hand in spell combat, there is only "the other hand". It's just the hand that is occupied with casting the spell, it doesn't impact anything else, it's just busy during this round is all.

Overall between levels 1-8 the natural weapon wielder will be better then the weapon wielder since it has the same or more attacks each round. Once the Weapon wielder gets an iterative attack at 8th it starts to pull ahead IF the nat weapon wielder doesn't find a way to add another attack to their rotation. If they do they will rapidly shoot ahead of the weapon wielder since they will ALWAYS have a better chance to hit with their additional attacks. The will also have significantly more cash since they don't ever need to buy, improve or replace a weapon.
Eventually they will probably buy an AoMF but it's not a mandatory purchase like a magical weapon is for your weapon wielder. Plus the ability to wield a rod/wand/staff while doing spellcombat and still being able to attack that round is a small but very powerful advantage.
Normal Magi cannot use any of these during spellcombat since both of their hands are full and drawing/sheathing/picking up a weapon takes an action which they don't have. Natural wielders simply drop the rod and attack.

End of the day, Natural weapon Magi have a clear edge in attack bonus, number of attacks and utility over weapon wielders. They have a few different drains on their resources but the flexibility and potency more than make up for it.

Dark Archive

Hazrond wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Int is your most important stat, it controls how powerful ALL of your attacks are (Int gives you spells which is where 80% of all your damage comes from), it controls your defenses (it powers you shield spell, your mirror image, your invisibility, etc.) and if you want it can be the source of all your melee direct damage as well (Hair Hex, Pool Strike, Flamboyant Arcana).

EVERYTHING is secondary to that stat since it powers everything a magi can do.

about that, i have mentioned several times now that i am actually going to be using the Eldritch Scion archetype for this magus, which switches everything from Int to Cha

Also, thanks for the help, the stuff you have posted has been quite helpful so far :)

Yes, I know you mentioned it I'm just trying to convince you not to do it.

It's a bad archetype and it costs you more than it gives you.

You're spells known drops to nearly nothing (bard spells known, really?), you have to burn your swift actions AND arcane pool points to be able to spellcombat and you don't get the ability to improve your weapons until 4th level.
You can't use your arcana when you want to since your swift action is used every 2 rounds just to be able to do the main schtick your class is designed around. Add to that you are going to be burning through your pool points 2 or 3 times faster than every other Magus type in the game.
Finally you are giving up all your extra skill points from having a high Int score. Remember Int is still used for skill points AND skill modifiers.
Playing this is going to really destroy your action economy and you are going to hate trying to juggle everything you have to do just to function.

This archetype is really, really bad and is a trap option don't do it.

Dark Archive

Secret Wizard wrote:
Quote:
5) Not unless you learned how to spellstrike from the magus class. A dip in monk would make the hair damage go up, since a monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon.

This is incorrect. The fact that unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured and natural weapon does not mean it increases the damage of all manu/natural weapons.

That being said:

1. Prehensile Hair is not worth it. Having high Intelligence is not that interesting for this build. Any damaging potential is sure to fall off later, as your BAB fails to climb and your attribute investment goes to CON.
If you want to make a dark gish, you probably want to go Hexcrafter Magus with crazy INT, straight no dips.

2. If you MUST dip, you could do worse than starting out as an Arcanist, perhaps a Black Blade one.

This is not correct.

The hair damage would go up if you dipped monk AND took the feral combat feat. That would bump your damage up to 1D6. It's not worth it but it does work.

Second your Hair Hex would be getting it's damage from your Con bonus not your Int bonus, SWD specifically changes that. That COULD be worthwhile after a certain level but it makes your character burn their first standard action each feat activating their weapon. Can work with a AoO build but takes some work to do it.

For the OP I personally don't like the SWD archetype. It trades away a LOT of the innate power of a Witch for very little in return. Yes it gives a good boost to your HP's and Fort save but you lose all your bonus spells, the action economy of having a familiar, and makes you wait until second level before you actually get the hex class ability. The last one really strangles you on putting together your feats and hex abilities.

Overall this is an archetype that's trying to force a pure caster into melee range which is the LAST place they should be. You don't get anything to help you cast in that range and your Int is low so casting defensively is almost impossible, you lack most of the defensive/offensive spells so you can't blast from a distance or buff for melee combat. There aren't many offensive hexes so you are forced to use weapons (which you aren't proficient in). You have Hit points, and that's really all you get from this archetype

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

FIRST you don't need natural spellcombat for claws, those are already hand based weapons so automatically work with spellcombat/spellstrike. Natural spellcombat is for natural attacks that aren't hand based (like Bites, Gores, Pincers, etc.) As for it only allowing you 1 natural attack a round, well that's just completely wrong.

A magus using spellcombat can attack with ALL their hand based weapons as well as any natural attack they defined with natural spell combat.

Not quite. Spell combat requires that you wield a spell in your off hand, which means you can only use one of your hand based weapons. You can't spell combat with two daggers, you can't spell combat with two claws.

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
FOURTH, some of you really need to re-read the rules for touch spells. ANY offensive touch spell allows you to cast then move and attack. Base rules allow you to swap that with a natural attack. Natural Weapon Magi don't even need spellstrike at all as long as they focus on just their natural weapons.

It's my understanding that delivering a touch spell through a natural weapon normally (without spellstrike) requires you to be holding the charge from a previous round, and that the free touch you get in the first round (when you can cast as a standard, move, and deliver as a free action) only works for a touch.

** spoiler omitted **...

Weirdo is right, Mathwei is only spewing half-truths. For spell combat one hand is wielding a weapon the other is wielding a spell. You cannot do claw (main), claw (off), spell + claw (main) in a single turn.

Also, casting a touch spell in combat gives you a free touch attack. You can also deliver touch spells via natural attacks, but casting a touch spell does not give you a free natural attack. The only exception is if you're a magus--then you can use a natural attack. Normally you have to wait til following rounds to deliver spells with natural attacks.

This is even plainly...

OK, I see where the issue is, You haven't kept up with the faq updates on spellcombat and Magi. Lets address the points where you are mistaken.

A). Spellcombat doesn't restrict you to only attacking with your main hand. Spellcombat was errata'd to function as a full attack action here:

Spellcombat action type:
Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes (revised 9/9/13) This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.


Since it is considered a full attack action you get to make ALL of your legal attacks possible that round as long as the fulfil the requirement of being a hand based attack or have been flagged as one by the natural spellcombat arcana.

B). You do not need to take natural spellcombat for Claws or Slam attacks, ever. Those natural weapons have been officially stated as working with spellcombat normally and don't need any extra rules to channel the spell..

spellcombat weapons faq:
When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.

C). Using touch spells through natural attacks can be done the same round they are cast. This is addressed in the spellstrike rules you just quoted.

Quote:
whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell.

See where it says ANY weapon? As the previous faq quote just directly said that all natural attacks are light, 1-handed weapons that makes them a valid choice for spellstrike allowing you to use any of them as a delivery method for that spell.

I have multiple faq posts showing how these rules work. There's also about a dozen direct Developer quotes agreeing with my explanation on how this works as well. Now if you have anything to show that your ideas are correct and mine is wrong I'd be happy to see them.

@Hazrond
Before you go much further into building your Magus I'm going to give you some advice that should really hammer home what a Magi is.

"Magi are casters who know how to fight, not fighters who can cast."

Think on that for a bit, Magi can't really wear real armor for most of the game, have rogue Hit Points, Rogue Base attack bonus (but worse since they suffer a -2 to hit on all their best attacks), Cleric saves and Wizard stat requirements. They are not frontline fighters or meatshields. Trying to build a basic magus like a fighter means you are going to be hurting for most of the game.
Int is your most important stat, it controls how powerful ALL of your attacks are (Int gives you spells which is where 80% of all your damage comes from), it controls your defenses (it powers you shield spell, your mirror image, your invisibility, etc.) and if you want it can be the source of all your melee direct damage as well (Hair Hex, Pool Strike, Flamboyant Arcana).
EVERYTHING is secondary to that stat since it powers everything a magi can do.
Just remember, a Magi who tries to fight without spells is just a second rate rogue without sneak attack, and we all know how effective they are.

Dark Archive

Weirdo wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

FIRST you don't need natural spellcombat for claws, those are already hand based weapons so automatically work with spellcombat/spellstrike. Natural spellcombat is for natural attacks that aren't hand based (like Bites, Gores, Pincers, etc.) As for it only allowing you 1 natural attack a round, well that's just completely wrong.

A magus using spellcombat can attack with ALL their hand based weapons as well as any natural attack they defined with natural spell combat.

Not quite. Spell combat requires that you wield a spell in your off hand, which means you can only use one of your hand based weapons. You can't spell combat with two daggers, you can't spell combat with two claws.

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
FOURTH, some of you really need to re-read the rules for touch spells. ANY offensive touch spell allows you to cast then move and attack. Base rules allow you to swap that with a natural attack. Natural Weapon Magi don't even need spellstrike at all as long as they focus on just their natural weapons.

It's my understanding that delivering a touch spell through a natural weapon normally (without spellstrike) requires you to be holding the charge from a previous round, and that the free touch you get in the first round (when you can cast as a standard, move, and deliver as a free action) only works for a touch.

** spoiler omitted **...

Don't forget casting a touch spell with spell combat grants you an extra attack with your hand. You give up 1 of your hand based attacks but get to make 2 an extra attack with the other. It's pretty much a wash when it comes to natural attacks.

.
For holding a touch spell that quote comes into effect BUT there is another errata that makes this a non issue.
faq update wrote:

Can a magus use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, move, and make a melee attack with a weapon to deliver the touch spell, all in the same round?

Yes. Other than deploying the spell with a melee weapon attack instead of a melee touch attack, the magus spellstrike ability doesn’t change the normal rules for using touch spells in combat. So, just like casting a touch spell, a magus could use spellstrike to cast a touch spell, take a move toward an enemy, then (as a free action) make a melee attack with his weapon to deliver the spell.

On a related topic, the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell. A magus could even use the spellstrike ability, miss with his melee attack to deliver the spell, be disarmed by an opponent (or drop the weapon voluntarily, for whatever reason), and still be holding the charge in his hand, just like a normal spellcaster. Furthermore, the weaponless magus could pick up a weapon (even that same weapon) with that hand without automatically discharging the spell, and then attempt to use the weapon to deliver the spell. However, if the magus touches anything other than a weapon with that hand (such as retrieving a potion), that discharges the spell as normal

Anytime a Caster touches anything other than his weapon with a touch spell active the spell goes off. Swinging a claw and hitting the target counts as touching and triggers the spell.

Natural weapon builds are AWESOME for any caster focused on touch spells, Magi just have a LOT of advantages to make it extra awesome.

Dark Archive

kestral287 wrote:

I had the long version a few posts above, but the biggest one is that he never takes Natural Spell Combat, which makes some of his forms nigh-useless when using Spell Combat, though most are just "marginally less useful". Calikang works out fine (probably, see below), which is the most useful of them, so it's not all bad.

Second problem is that Spell Combat specifies singular weapons in a few places. How this pans out, then, is dependent on the GM and how they feel about four-armed characters. It could be ruled, by the letter of the rules, that Spell Combat specifying a singular weapon means you would require another dose of Natural Spell Combat to use additional attacks with it, even if you have four or more hands with natural weapons. I don't think I would rule it that way... but I'm not your GM.

Third problem is that Enforcer, part of the Frostbite setup, says that when you deal nonlethal damage with a weapon its effect activates. The standard method of activating it is with Frostbite, which is a spell that does nonlethal damage. It's delivered through a weapon, yes, but the actual nonlethal damage is coming from a spell. Again-- it's something to ask your GM about.

I'm also not a fan of a number of the Arcana/Hex choices but that's a personal thing. It's a very different fighting style from my own Hexcrafter, but that one is built around Unarmed Strikes and Hex Strike.

The reason natural spell combat was never taken is A). this is an old build from before that was available and B). it was never needed since most all your attacks are using hands which don't need that Arcana. That arcana is only required to use the natural attacks the round the spell is cast AND you are using non-hand based natural weapons.

As for the enforcer question it's a non-issue. Either your GM will allow it as is or you'll burn 4,000GP for an AoMF with the Merciful enchant and go from there (I spend 8,000 to make a +2 amulet for merciful & spell storing myself but that's not a significant amount of money).

Finally Spell combat has ALWAYS stated that you get to make all your attacks with your other hand no matter how many hands you have.

Faq post wrote:

When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.

That's why the calikang is the king of forms for Magi, it has 6 hands. You give up 1 hand to cast the spell but since spell combat gives you an extra attack (when casting touch spells) one of your other hands gets to attack twice.

Also I made a mistake on the Defiler part of that post. It's not double INT triple Power, it's 4.5x INT and 9 times power attack bonus. It's minimum damage before adding in spell damage and AoMF is well over 100 damage a round, through on the spell damage and AoMF effect and it's usually around 200 pt's of damage on average.

@kestral, any build that actually makes Unarmed strike/hex strike worthwhile interests me. I have never been able to make that combo worthwhile no matter how I've crunched it. I'm interested in how you've built it to be functional, care to share?

Dark Archive

Long commutes and broken links.

Here's te Hexcrafter Optimization guide with the 3 most effective natural attack builds (Last 5 pages).

Warlock- The complete guide for dealing with the devil

But for those who choose not to go through the whole guide here is one of the more straightforward builds.

Basic Nat weapon Magus:

This Hexcrafter is mostly oriented on Melee damage via using Magic to acquire Natural Attacks to maximize his channeled touch spells. This build works best as a standard strength based hexcrafter since his focus is on using his natural attacks to deliver his spells this is the least weapon focused Hexcrafter out there and should be avoided by the Staff Magus and Blade Bound archetypes.

Half-Orc & Half-Elf make the best normal races for this build (Strength based Tieflings are second place due to not being able to use enlarge person spells but that's not a MAJOR deal and Tengu are best for any game not expected to get past 7th level).

Trait: Magical Lineage (Frostbite), Wayang Spell hunter (shocking grasp)
1- Arcane pool, cantrips, spell combat, Rime Spell
2- Spellstrike
3- Arcana: Arcane Accuracy, Enforcer
4- Hex Magus: Prehensile Hair
5- Bonus Feat: Combat Expertise; Power Attack
6- Hex Arcana: Flight
7-Knowledge Pool, Medium Armor, Intensify Spell
8-Improved Spell Combat
9-Arcana-Hasted Assault, Eldritch Claws
10-Fighter Training
11- Spell Recall, Extra Arcana – Accurate Strikes
12- Hex Arcana- Ice Tomb
13- Heavy Armor, Quicken Spell
14 Greater Spell Combat
15- Spell Perfection, Arcana – Hex: Retribution
16- Counterstrike
17- Extra Arcana – Accursed Strike (Use Bestow Curse:Amnesia)
18- Hex Arcana- Summon Spirit
19- Greater Spell Access, <undecided>
20- True Magus

How it Plays:

From 1st through 4th levels this build focuses on making use of the Stonefist/FrostBite spell combo to maximize the number of charges and melee damage the Magi can dish out each round. (You’ll be averaging 2D6 +str +level each hit and can routinely get 2-3 attacks a round by 4th level)

From 4th till 7th level you’ll be dedicated to using the Alter Self spell to assume the form of a Trogolodyte. This gives you 3 natural attacks a round (4 with spell-combat) and lets’ you dish out a significant amount of damage each round and can easily last for more than 1 combat.

From 7th through 10th level you’ll be using the monstrous Humanoid I spell to assume the shape of either the Four-Armed Sahuagin Mutant (5 attacks & darkvision), the Charda (Five attacks, swim but Small sized), the regular Gargoyle (4 natural attacks, Darkvison & Flight) or the Witchwyrd (also 4 nat attacks & Darkvision). Choose which one based on your specific encounter needs.

From 10th on you'll be focused on just using the Monstrous Humanoid II spell to assume the Calikang form as much as possible (or when space is an issue using the Four-Armed Sahuagin Mutant or Charda form) pending new monstrous forms being introduced since nothing else really comes close to it in terms of damage output, maneuverability and special abilities.
Your weapon will spend most of its time hanging from your hip so don’t invest much cash into it instead spend your funds on Amulet’s of Might Fist instead (I recommend at least 2 of them, swapping based on need).

In general you shift into a Form with multiple natural attacks, say a Gargoyle for example, and then close and use the Frostbite spell. From this point on every round you can burn an arcane pool point to add your Int bous to your attack bonus for normal weapon damage + 1D6 cold + CL in non-lethal damage and Fatigue as well as Entangle the target(s) because of the Rime Spell metamagic. That is usually enough non-lethal damage to knock most things out in a round and if it lives being entangled lets you 5ft away and it can’t follow you to retaliate. Also each successful hit will allow you to Intimidate the target for the Shaken condition.
At higher levels You’ll replace the Arcane Accuracy with Accurate Strikes to resolve all your attacks against Touch AC while power attacking and using your AoMF to drop an Intensified Shocking Grasp on each target you’re fighting. At this point you should have 2 touch spells running for each attack (Frostbite & Chill Touch from wand) stacking with your regular weapon damage and the elemental effect from your AoMF. On average you should be doing 4D6 +str +level +PA bonus on 6-8 attacks each round all at full Bab against touch AC.

Nothing should live through any full attack you unleash.

This is the basic Hexcrafter natural build and is the most basic and least damag focused of the three and routinely hits for 4D6 +str +level +PA bonus on 6-8 attacks each round all at full Bab against touch AC.
That averages out to 198-264 damage a round while entangling and fatiguing the target before adding in the spike damage/effect from whatever spell the Magus has decided to load into the AoMF.

If you choose to go to the other end of the spectrum of Natural Weapon Magus builds then you run into the Defiler builds who who on any single target fight can one round any opponent in the game no matter what they are. That's a cheesy build but auto grapple builds that at 7th level can inflict Grappled, Staggered, Fatigued, Entangled, Prone and Shaken onto a target with a single standard action while doing Double INT bonus in damage and triple power attack bonus. Not one I advise players to use but legal and very effective when needed.

Dark Archive

kestral287 wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Finally, Natural attack based magi (hexcrafters especially) are frighteningly powerful and dangerous combatants.

I, and probably the original poster, would love to see you support that with a build.

How about an optimization guide built around it?

We have 3 separate natural attack builds in this one and each one absolutely destroys any single target in one round and most groups of 4 opponents or less in under 3 rounds.

Dark Archive

Ok, let's clarify several of the really, really bad misconceptions and mistakes here.

FIRST you don't need natural spellcombat for claws, those are already hand based weapons so automatically work with spellcombat/spellstrike. Natural spellcombat is for natural attacks that aren't hand based (like Bites, Gores, Pincers, etc.) As for it only allowing you 1 natural attack a round, well that's just completely wrong.
A magus using spellcombat can attack with ALL their hand based weapons as well as any natural attack they defined with natural spell combat.

SECOND, Arcane pool CAN enhance your natural attacks but only one of them at a time. ie. A claw or A bite. It can be done but usually it's a waste for time. Save those pool points for use with better arcana like arcane accuracy, accurate strike and hasted assault.

THIRD, yes, Natural attack builds are strength based but Magi are spellcasters first and foremost. The weapon (whether melee, ranged or natural) are strictly secondary to that. The weapons are a method of delivering spells on your target as quick and hard as possible and natural attack builds are the best at that. Intelligence is a Magi's primary stat, all their damage comes from that stat and if built properly it also controls their to-hit chance. Any strength score of 13 is usually a waste.
Focus your attention on Chill Touch, Frostbite, etc. and leave the Shocking grasp spam for later. Multi-use touch spells will do far more damage and grant better secondary effects more efficiently then any shocking grasp build.

FOURTH, some of you really need to re-read the rules for touch spells. ANY offensive touch spell allows you to cast then move and attack. Base rules allow you to swap that with a natural attack. Natural Weapon Magi don't even need spellstrike at all as long as they focus on just their natural weapons.

Finally, Natural attack based magi (hexcrafters especially) are frighteningly powerful and dangerous combatants. Focusing on natural based weapons massively increases their flexibility, gives them better debuff crowd control abilities then normal magi and lets them fill their spell slots with far more varied and situational spells making them more of a jack of all trade

Dark Archive

Cuup wrote:

I can't find any RAW on this...If I create a creature using Shadow Conjuration in a room with 4 enemies, and 2 of them make the saves to disbelieve, am I aware of this fact? Do I inherently know if a creature believes/disbelieves my Shadow Conjurations? Strategically speaking, I would want to target the enemies who would be most effected by the spell.

The closest thing I can think of for how to handle this is making a Sense Motive check vs. a flat DC to judge a creature's reaction to the illusions, unless a creature was purposely pretending to believe they were real, in which case we'd make opposed Sense Motive/Bluff checks. Can anyone shed some light on this, please?

You always know when someone makes a save against your targeted spells but since you are not targeting the opponent then no you do not sense that they made the save.

magic chapter wrote:


Succeeding on a Saving Throw

A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. Likewise, if a creature's saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

Artemis, No, as far as observation goes if you fail the save you can't determine it that way. Either you make the save and see through it or you don't and everything is perceived exactly as if it were real.

Dark Archive ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
a good GM needs to feel confident in that they are making the right call
Why?

Because feeling confident in yourself and what you are doing matters. Nothing is more immersion-breaking in a game as a GM who doesn't feel comfortable in what they are doing. A GM who is unsure of what's going on has serious problems keeping the story flowing and track of everything that's happening in the game.

It's like the new guy at the office who has no idea of what processes or tools the team has or is using and is lost in every meeting. That is intensely uncomfortable and really does not inspire respect or confidence from the rest of those at the table.

Quote:


What gets hurt if you instead trust the players to make the right call for you, in the areas in which you're uninformed?

Speaking of trusting players to make the right call...

Quote:
Trusting your players is not the issue, they can be 100% honest and do everything above board but you not knowing or understanding how any of this works...

"I believe you're not cheating" is only half of what "trust" means, and frankly, it's the easy half. I think most GMs act on the assumption that no one is cheating until they encounter evidence to suggest otherwise.

Then there's the other half of trust: "I believe enough in your competence that I'll let you handle it." This is the bigger part of trust, and the one that I think way too few GMs are willing to engage in.

You say that trusting your players is not the issue. But if you're not willing to let THEM tell YOU how something works, if you're not comfortable with character options unless you know them well enough yourself that you'll be able to spot any errors, then you do not trust your players.

It's not about cheating or needing to be in control, those are immaterial to this. What we are all talking about is not us trusting the players, it's about inspiring trust FROM the players.

We want to run a good game and give the players a chance to use their characters how they want to use them but without knowing what that is how can we do it?
You say trust the players to handle it but I say can you tell a story that lets everyone have their moment in the spotlight if you don't know where to point that light?
A GM NEEDS to know what a character can do so they can give them a chance to do it. Not knowing the rules for those characters doesn't let you know how to make those moments happen.
Ignoring what makes a character/class/build special is like having a party of dedicated killing machines and putting them in a all politics/RP adventure. You run a game around the players game style and that's really hard to do if you don't understand what that style is.

Quote:

Unless you can gauge what is and isn't a challenge or whether a party can or cannot overcome a challenge based on their abilities you are either going to have a cakewalk session or a frustrating slog.

No one wants either option so a good GM studies and learns the new rules and then the next book comes out with even more crazy new rules that conflict with other older rules and you just want to scream.

Well, there's part of your problem: you mistakenly think that part of the GM's role is to produce a specific type of experience with a specific challenge level.

If so, you're wrong.

Your role is to present the setting, then step back and see what happens when the PCs are added to the equation. Maybe they lack crucial thing X and struggle, or maybe they have perfect solution Y and succeed with ease, but either way they're getting the chance to help tell the story. If you try to enforce a certain difficulty level instead of letting it be a product of setting plus characters, you've stolen something precious from the players.

I can't speak for everyone, but I loathe tables where I realize the difficulty is always going to be approximately X no matter what abilities I do or don't have. At that point, I'm just watching a bad movie disguised as a roleplaying game.

I have to disagree with this, you are wrong here.

Your job as a GM is to present a fun, involving experience where each player gets to use their character to explore, have fun and overcome a series of interesting and DO-ABLE challenges. It should take into account what the party can and cannot do and should give each of them a chance to contribute. The players are the stars and should be treated as such. If you as a GM don't know what one of your stars can do its impossible to set the stage for them to do it.
Example: If you have a player who is a dedicated trap solver as one of their main abilities and you never put a trap in the game that's that's bad but not knowing what a trap IS is far worse.
That's what we are talking about here, if we don't know what the characters CAN do then how can we ever give them the chance to actually do it?

Quote:

But really the worst thing is nearly ALL of the new material is all about giving players more and better options while really giving the GM next to nothing to challenge those options with.

This is one of the most disturbing GM comments I've read in a long time. I've sometimes suspected that this or that GM had nasty "GM vs Players" attitude, but to have someone literally just come right out and complain that they're losing the arms race... Wow.

That is not what we said, we said Challenge not Compete.

No one enjoys playing a game where Bob the almighty steam rolls over everything and never takes damage or even has the hint of risk. That's boring and those games fall apart, quickly. The goal is for it to be exciting, fun and require some expenditure of resources. If the party can defeat/bypass/overcome every obstacle in their way naked with a stick they found outside then it's no fun for anyone.
Players who use these options want to actually USE them and when everything they run into is instantly destroyed by the basics of their build that is incredibly frustrating for the Player.
THAT'S what we are talking about, PC's power level has reason so drastically because of the glut of options that what is supposed to be a challenging encounter for the party isn't even a speedbump for ONE of them. One of my worst PFS examples was literally player A said wait here at the beginning of the scenario and walked straight through the dungeon to the boss (one shotting everything on the way) and killed it in 1 hit.This took all of 15 minutes. The downside was 2 of the other players admitting they could have done it faster. This is not fun or interesting.

Everything Paizo has released this last 1-2 years has been about increasing PC's options but nothing to actually make those options necessary. There needs to be something appropriate to use those options against.

Dark Archive ***

6 people marked this as a favorite.
dwayne germaine wrote:

I can definitely empathize with what the OP is feeling. I'm encountering tables with over half the characters coming from the ACG, using combinations of rules that seem overly powerful to me. We don't really have time for me to track down all the rules they are using to find out if they are misinterperating something, It would take way too much time. Stores close, people have jobs in the morning to go to, etc...

So the party walks through the scenario, I feel like I didn't do a good job as a GM because there was no challenge, some players feel like their time was wasted because they were mostly just spectators.

I'm actually worried that a lot of the drop off of people willing to GM in our area is because of this. I don't know that it is, but from conversations I have had with other GMs I strongly suspect that it is a factor. I know I'm considering not GMing PFS anymore, and its directly related to the ACG, I haven't even seen anything from Occult Adventures yet.

As one of the Drop out GM's THIS right here is a big part of it but not all.

Mostly it's a confidence thing, a good GM needs to feel confident in that they are making the right call when running a game and this massive rules glut is making that a lot harder. When you sit down at a table planning on providing half a dozen people a good time and realize you have no idea how the majority of the classes, powers, rules, etc. for your players work is really shaking to that sense of confidence.

Trusting your players is not the issue, they can be 100% honest and do everything above board but you not knowing or understanding how any of this works really does make it a LOT harder to provide an enjoyable challenging experience. Unless you can gauge what is and isn't a challenge or whether a party can or cannot overcome a challenge based on their abilities you are either going to have a cakewalk session or a frustrating slog.
No one wants either option so a good GM studies and learns the new rules and then the next book comes out with even more crazy new rules that conflict with other older rules and you just want to scream.

But really the worst thing is nearly ALL of the new material is all about giving players more and better options while really giving the GM next to nothing to challenge those options with. How many coordinators have had to just stop scheduling season 0-1 (and sometimes season 2) stuff simply because the players will just waltz over it in 45 minutes and ask is that it?

Finally, and this is the big one, some GM's just really don't like the new options. They find them overly complicated, powerful or just distasteful and the only option they have is to suck it up and watch it drain their fun out of the hobby or walk away and only do home games and ban huge swaths of material.
I enjoyed PFS for a long time but had to walk away, it just stopped being fun any more.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And what good do you see coming from those hexes at any level?
Ward can't be used on the witch and doesn't stack with any other resistance bonus (cloaks) or deflection Bonuses (rings of Protection or most defensive spells).
Fortune eats your move action every round of the day from the moment you use it.

What do you actually expect to gain from burning all your feats/hexes in this manner?

Dark Archive

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
Spring Attack only prevents attacks of opportunity based on movement. Maneuvers you do not possess the requisite "Improved <maneuver>" feat for would still provoke from the target. I understand your reading but it would not fly at any PFS table or a game in which the GM knew what they were doing.

... Or in games where GM's disagreed with your statement and that spring attack ignores all AOO's from the designated target.

And PFS it would be illegal for them to ignore it.

That is the most inane interpretation I've heard of a feat in ages. Look at the prereqs, one of them is mobility, which works only on movement. Was this GM drunk at the time?

Try it at a PFS table, let me know how it goes. I'm genuinely curious to see whether they are that shackled to a mindless, word-by-word interpretation. If so, I'm not sure anything from an 'adventure path' like the Advanced Class Guide would be allowed.

Eh it's worse then that. It only protects you from AoO's from the target of the spring attack. Everyone else still gets their free whack at you if you provoke.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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).

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people 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.

Dark Archive ***

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!!

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive ***

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)

Dark Archive ***

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.

Dark Archive ***

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.

Dark Archive ***

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive

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.

Dark Archive ***

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.

Dark Archive ***

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.

Dark Archive ***

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.

Dark Archive ***

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.

Dark Archive ***

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?

Dark Archive

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.

1 to 50 of 2,472 << 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.