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

Matrix Dragon's page

966 posts. Alias of Matrixryu.


RSS

1 to 50 of 966 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Heladriell wrote:

Suggestion for a new class feature:

Combat Style (Ex)

At 1st level, a Kineticist must select one combat style to pursue: Unarmed, Swordsman or blaster.

Unarmed: The kineticist receives Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat, and may add his constitution bonus to AC as long as he is unarmored and not wielding a shield. The damage from his unarmed strikes increase as a monk of 1/2 his level (min. 1). At 6th, 12th and 18th level he may select a style or monk bonus feat.

Swordsman: The kineticist gains proficiency with a light or one handed melee martial weapon. He receives weapon focus with that weapon at 1st level, and can select bonus combat feats at 6h, 12th and 18th levels. His kineticist levels count as fighter levels for the purpose of selecting Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization for his chosen weapon.

Blaster: The kineticist gains the Precise Shot feat, and may select the following feats for his Wild Blast even without fulfilling the prerequisites: Focused Shot, from 6th level: Snap Shot, from 9th level: Improved Snap Shot. He receives bonus feats at 6th, 12th and 18th level from the following list:
Far Shot, Focused Shot, Point Blank Shot, Weapon Focus (blast) and Rapid Shot.
At 6th level, he adds Improved Precise Shot, Parting Shot and Point Blank Master to the list.
At 12th level, he adds Pinpoint Targeting and Shot on the Run to the list.

The benefits of the kineticist's chosen style feats apply only when he wears light, medium, or no armor. He loses all benefits of his combat style feats when wearing heavy armor. Once a kineticist selects a combat style, it cannot be changed.

I think that this is what the Kineticist really needs in order to feel complete. Right now the class suffers a bit from a case of "I need to spend my first three feats to even have the character that I want to run". Honestly, those sort of feats should be given out by the class itself (or at least an archetype).


Scorpioni wrote:

Mergy has a good point.

Something else I note when reading through the talents is that the different effects come in very late (like KINETIC FORM requiring lvl 10, GREATER KINETIC FORM requiring lvl16,...). How about we lower the prerequisites to the same lvl a wizard gets to do these things but add some burn, like so:

KINETIC FORM
Element air, earth, fire, or water; Type Sp; Level 6; Burn 1
Prerequisites kineticist level 7th
You can call forth your element and infuse it into your entire body. You gain elemental qualities of a type of elemental that matches any of the elements you possess as if by casting elemental body I. When reaching kineticist lvl 9, by accepting 2 additional points of burn, until the next time you recover burn, whenever you use kinetic form, you can instead gain the benefits of elemental body II. When using kinetic form, you never gain the earth glide, whirlwind, or vortex abilities. When you reach kineticist lvl 10, the burn cost to use kinetic form is lowered by 1.

This way you get access to your tools the same lvl as normal casters but they cost burn to prevent at will from becoming too OP.

I like this idea. It could be applied to things like the Explosion infusion as well so we can get fun things like that at a lower level.


Mergy wrote:
A lot of people are commenting on the lack of out of combat options that this class has. The truth is it has some out of combat tricks, but there is very little room for someone who wants to remain competitive with damage to take them.

I think a signifigant boost to skills could help a lot with this issue. Maybe it would be neat if the Feel The Burn power didn't just affect attack and damage, and instead affected certain skills as well. For example, an Airbender *cough* I mean Aerokineticist could gain bonuses to Acrobatics and Fly from Feel the Burn. Fire could gain Acrobatics and Intimidate bonuses, Water could gain Swim and Heal.....

You know, I just looked at the class skill list. Even if this class keeps its skills limited, shouldn't it at least have Knowledge(planes) since its power comes from the planes?


Robert Jordan wrote:
Ahh I missed Expanded Element on my first read through, I'm literate I swear, long as I can make her and other ridiculous Avatar characters I'm happy. Bring on the blood bending!

I have to admit that I was very happy when I realized that I could create Combustion Man with the Explosion infusion. :D

(I just wish it came before level 16!)

Mark, just curious, what are your thoughts on making the various wild talents all have "spell levels" that scale with the character's level rather than having them be based on the ability? I'm worried that characters will be picking abilities that will be useful early on, but then at high levels aren't really worth using because the saving throw DC is so low. Plus, the kineticist doesn't have a 'highten spell' ability like a standard caster to make a low level spell work at a higher level.

Actually, maybe there could be a highten Metakinesis that changes the DC of a power to 10+ 1/2 lvl +Ability Mod?


Soo, I really want to make a Fire Kineticist, so I am only listing all these potential problems with the class out of love ;)

This class seems to have a rather large number of drawbacks compared to the amount of damage it can put out. For example, a Fire Kineticist's main upside is that it gets unlimited touch attacks which do fire damage. However, they are affected by fire resistance/immunity, spell resistance, burn limitations, and medium BAB. They also need to spend at least four feats to be reliably effective: point black shot, precise shot, and two spell penetration feats.

On the other hand a standard archer build, while admittedly overpowered, covers the same role as a Kineticist while having higher damage (more attacks per round and magic item boosts), more reliable damage (ignores immunities/DR), likely higher skills per level (ranger), and a longer range without any investment. An archer needs a lot of feats too, but their classes usually hand these feats to them.

I'm not saying that the Kineticist needs to be as crazy as an archer, but it probably needs ways to overcome its drawbacks and more tricks that distingush it from other ranged damage classes.

At least both archers and Kineticists can't really damage swarms ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing that worries me about the class is its lack of AOE attacks. You can't create the equivilant of a fireball until level 16, and almost every chain lightning or line based attack requires attack rolls. This means that most kineticists can't do anything against swarms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Misnik wrote:

Also it seems to me there is a distinct lack of AoE damage that feels like it should be intuitive of elemental damage. The explosion infusion is very high level for what it does, even if it adds to your simple blast.

I agree. I love this class so far, but it really needs more AOE at lower levels. Especially for the fire element: it is kind of weird that they only get single target attacks that don't affect most swarms until level 16.

Personally, I would also recommend that a burn option be added that lets the character bypass elemental resistance and immunity. Maybe 1 burn per 10 points of resistance ignored, and 4 points of burn for bypassing immunity on a single attack. It would be an expensive last ditch option for players at least.


Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Err, no. Using precision damage makes them very vulnerable to running into the plethora of conditions where said precision damage does not apply. Trust me, I played a Swashbuckler at level 15 for two months. Every second fight (at the very least), I ran into opponents in poor light conditions, with magical concealment, in fog and so on.

The Swashbuckler also suffers from his poor saves, which are only partially mitigated by the Charmed Life class feature. The Slayer at least is better in this regard and is overall the better class in terms of versatility.

Why can't they at some point consolidate rules. You have to look all over the damn book to find a specific ruling. The elimination of precision damage due to concealment is written in the environment section for darkness. Why not put it under every ability or at least under concealment.

That weakens them quite a bit as concealment is easy to come by at higher level. Glad they completely eliminated this rule in 5E D&D. Too many things to keep track of in the game now.

Can you link that to me? I've checked the concealment and vision sections, and neither of them mention anything about about precision damage.

EDIT: AH! Found it. The environmenal rules actually only say that creatures that are *blinded* lose their precision damage. Simple concealment doesn't stop it.


magnuskn wrote:
Err, no. Using precision damage makes them very vulnerable to running into the plethora of conditions where said precision damage does not apply. Trust me, I played a Swashbuckler at level 15 for two months. Every second fight (at the very least), I ran into opponents in poor light conditions, with magical concealment, in fog and so on.

Umm, I know that a lot of people on the forums think otherwise, but (unless I am mistaken) the only type of precision damage that is actually affected by lighting or concealment is the sneak attack. Precise Strike only says that it doesn't work on enemies that are immune to critical hits. It doesn't say anything about concealment like sneak attack does.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
FAQ Friday returns! And on actual Friday this time! Look upon our FAQs, ye mighty, and despair!
Yayy, pummeling style is getting the limits it requires. I wonder if it might get unbanned in PFS now?
I believe Style was never banned to begin with, so I doubt it.

Well, techically it was Pummeling Charge rather than Pummeling Style that was banned I guess ;)


Hmmm, Pummeling Style just got clarified to only work with Unarmed Strikes. I wonder if Pummeling Charge might get unbanned in PFS now?


Mark Seifter wrote:
FAQ Friday returns! And on actual Friday this time! Look upon our FAQs, ye mighty, and despair!

Yayy, pummeling style is getting the limits it requires. I wonder if it might get unbanned in PFS now?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Sooo, I figured I should ask someone about this before I try it in PFS. Yay, my first Mark Question!

The brawling enchantment can only be applied to light armor. The rules for mithral armor says that "mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations".

Does that meant that I could put the brawling enchantment a mithral breastplate, or am I stretching things a bit by doing that? The rules don't really put any limits on what those 'other limitations' are.

Hmm...this one is really interesting. On the one hand "other limitations" is a really vague elastic clause. But I do get the sense that they mean limitations from the character's direction, not the armor's direction. It's just my gut feeling; for instance, if there was an armor quality that could only be put on medium armor, I would think you could put it on mithral breastplate (which wouldn't be true if "other limitations" included enhancement selection). I could really see it going either way, honestly, but I'll make the judgment call that if I have to choose between mithral breastplate having medium-only enhancements and light-only enhancements, I'd want it to have the medium-only enhancements.

Yea, I got a simmilar 'gut feeling' about it, though I wasn't sure. Hmmmm. Since I'm dealing with PFS I guess it is best just to avoid it and stick with the enchantment on a chain shirt.

I may as well throw a related question your way. The brawling enchantment says that "These bonuses do not apply to natural weapons". However, the Feral Combat Training feat says "While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike."

So, a character who is using Feral Combat Training would be able to apply the bonus from Brawling to the selected natural attack despite the enchantment's limitation, right? Because of the entire 'specific trumps general' thing.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Mark has used the FAQs to distract us from the questions that we asked him previously ;) [dice=Sense Motive]1d20 + 3
Considering that the Sense Motive DC to notice something's off is DC 20, you are now morally obligated as a Pathfinder player to ask no further questions of Mark's ethnics or morality until the next time he slips up.

Curses! I'll get him next time!


Mark has used the FAQs to distract us from the questions that we asked him previously ;) Sense Motive: 1d20 + 3 ⇒ (7) + 3 = 10


Ryzoken wrote:
I wouldn't say it's useless per se. I mean, eventually you can start Spellstriking Enervation with Close Range if you take Spell Blending to get it on your list.

Hmmm, yea, a crit on enervation can definately be pretty nasty. In PFS though you'd only get two levels out of it though, so I don't think I'm going to go for that build.


Yea, without snowball the Close Range arcana is basically useless. If you just want another melee attack you may as well just use Arcane Mark.


Azoriel wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I ended up going with Ryzoken's advice and choosing the Close Range arcana at the last moment so that I can spellstrike with the snowball spell. I'm sure that I'll be happy that I took it next time I run into a golem, lol.
Snowball doesn't work with the close range arcana; it specifically says ray spells, which Snowball is not. (The playtest version of this arcana worked with Snowball and other non-ray close range spells, but this was intentionally changed before it went to print.) Right now, the only way to Spell Strike with Snowball would be the Myrmidarch archetype, and even then it's only with a ranged weapon.

...Well, I just wasted five prestige points, since I need to respec out of this now.


I ended up going with Ryzoken's advice and choosing the Close Range arcana at the last moment so that I can spellstrike with the snowball spell. I'm sure that I'll be happy that I took it next time I run into a golem, lol.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Let the FAQoning...begin!

YAAAYY!!! Thanks for starting the FAQs up again :)

Very glad to see that slayer FAQ come out so early. I was hesitant to play it in PFS without that clarification at least.


Pummeling Charge is banned in PFS... I am so glad that I forced myself to wait a bit before spending prestige to respec one of my characters into that feat chain!

Hopefully it will be unbanned when/if it gets errataed so it can only be done with unarmed strikes.


Sooo, I figured I should ask someone about this before I try it in PFS. Yay, my first Mark Question!

The brawling enchantment can only be applied to light armor. The rules for mithral armor says that "mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations".

Does that meant that I could put the brawling enchantment a mithral breastplate, or am I stretching things a bit by doing that? The rules don't really put any limits on what those 'other limitations' are.


I may as well say that Synthesist/Monk and Synthesist/Ninja are both incredibly nasty. One has very high defense, and the other is an invisible, pouncing, sneak attack machine. Make it a scout ninja for extra sillyness.


KnotAguru wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

I can see the logic on both side of the argument, but this post from Mark Seifter makes it seem like the FAQ on the subject of magus precise strike isn't going to be kind. Especially since Mark was the one in charge of FAQs last I checked, lol.

I'm wary about investing in a feat chain that is probably going to get nerfed, and then I'll have to use prestige to get out of it. If it were a home game it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

Based on that statement, Mark wouldn't nerf Precise Strike because of a mechanical issue but due to it being overpowered.

This is true. Though, if he goes with the "this arcana doesn't give you the Panache you need to make a Precise Strike" interpretation and that is used the the FAQ, I'll be able to circumvent things by taking a dip into swashbuckler or getting Panache in some other way ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to say though, Oracles have simply terrible saving throw bonuses without the divine protection feat. They kind of needed something. They get only one good save and none of their saving throws match up with their primary stats. In Wrath of the Righteous our GM allowed Divine Protection because without it the Oracle would have needed 20s to make the DC 35-40+ saving throws that high tier mythic enemies and Demon Lords throw around.


Mark Seifter wrote:
So it doesn't give you an effective swashbuckler level for the purposes of determining the deed's power (only affects precise strike) and it doesn't say that having points in your arcane pool counts as having points in your panache pool, only that you can spend arcane instead of spend panache. The first note is probably an oversight, but I think that the second may have been an intentional decision by the freelancer, since it is far easier for a magus to not have pressure to spend his last point of arcane pool, combined with the fact that they may have been intending to block precise strike particularly (which, if so, was a good call, since it is a massive surge in magus power, given that precise strike was created to balance the damage loss between a one-handed and two-handed weapon for swash, but the magus class already in and of itself is balanced around only having a one-handed weapon). Anyway, long story short, I wouldn't even allow Arcane Deed (precise strike) to begin with.

I agree that Precise Strike on the Magus probably needs to be banned, but by this interpretation doesn't that mean that the Magus can't Parry either?


KnotAguru wrote:

Precise Strike absolutely works with spell combat.

Precise strike: "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler."

Spell combat: "To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free....while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand"

I can see the logic on both side of the argument, but this post from Mark Seifter makes it seem like the FAQ on the subject of magus precise strike isn't going to be kind. Especially since Mark was the one in charge of FAQs last I checked, lol.

I'm wary about investing in a feat chain that is probably going to get nerfed, and then I'll have to use prestige to get out of it. If it were a home game it wouldn't be as much of a problem.


I just thought of something useful. Since Magus generally just use their metamagic with a single spell (shocking grasp), it might be worthwhile for an Eldritch Scion to use the feat Spontaneous Metafocus so he can use it with metamagic as a standard action.

I would never have thought that such a feat would ever become useful.

It is too bad though, I'm not sure if I'll be able to fit it into my build though since it requires two feats.... I guess I could grab them both at level 11, lol.


I've been thinking about how this type of magus would use Opportune Parry and Riposte, and there is one issue. This character is already going to be incredibly swift action starved since he'll need to use a swift action every other round to reactivate his bloodline. That on top of weapon enhancement means he'll rarely have the spare actions to use a Riposte. Plus, when he has displacement running all the time, Parries become less valuable.

I guess they would be useful when this character isn't using his bloodline powers for some reason... I'll have to see how often that situation actually occurs before investing the feat.


Ryzoken wrote:

Oh good, they got around to updating the Additional Resources page!

The arcana isn't a bad idea, but taking the Amateur Swashbuckler feat gives you a pool separate from your Eldritch Pool to power your parries. A pool that you can recover points in over the course of adventuring. Given the amount of parrying one typically does, I suspect you'd end up resource starved if you just take the arcana.

This is the other reason why I'm hesitant about taking Flamboyant Arcana: there is no way I'll have the arcane pool points to actually do dodges and parries! Simply going for it to gain the crazy damage bonus is tempting though.

I like the idea of using the Amateur Swashbuckler feat though. I will have to consider fitting that into my build. I have thought about taking a swashbuckler level, but I don't want to delay the rate that I'll be getting the bloodline powers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As soon as I saw the Eldritch Scion archetype for the magus, I knew that I wanted to build one. The magus class feels much more 'natural' as a spontanious caster.

The issue is that the Eldritch Scion cannot use any of the traditionally good options for the Magus. They cannot use metamagic because spontanious casters use it too slowly. They cannot use Arcana that cost arcane pool points because they need to save those points for activating their bloodline and spellstrikes.

Because this kind of magus is so different from most magus builds, I figured it would be good to come here for advice. The character is about to hit level 3, so I can still make build choices for level 3 and higher.

I choose to go with the arcane bloodrager bloodline for its sweet sweet buffs. Because the very first bloodline power increases the concentration check DCs of nearby casters by 2, I am thinking of going with the following anti-caster build. By having the Arcane Bloodline, Disruptive, and a Distracting (lesser) weapon, I can force casters near me to have a -11 penalty to their concentration checks to cast defensively.

I'm not selecting the Arcana to get Swashbuckler's Precise Strike because there is some question of whether or not it actually works with spell combat.

Kitsune Eldritch Scion
Str 11, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 10, Cha 16 (Using Boon for exta +2 stat bonus to Dex)

lvl 1: Weapon Finesse, Disruptive Bloodrage
lvl 3: Dervish Dance, Familliar (+4 Init)
lvl 4: +1 dex, Arcane Bloodrage
lvl 5: Step up, Combat Reflexes
lvl 6: Disruptive Arcana
lvl 7: Following Step
lvl 8: +1 dex, Greater Arcane Bloodrage
lvl 9: Spellbreaker Arcana, Step Up and Strike
lvl 11: Improved Critical (Scimitar), Improved Initiative

So yea... very heavily anti spellcaster build, but thanks to the arcane bloodrage abilities which can give him Displacement and Resist Energy this character should be very effective as a melee combatant as well.

Any thoughts on ways to improve this build, or builds that may be superior for the eldritch scion? I am aware that certain other races (such as humans) might be better for this than a kitsune, but that aspect of the character is already set ;)


Orthos wrote:
Quote:
That would be strange if they ignored aggressive feedback.

As much as I hate to say it, it has a precedent, going as far back as all the way to the original Pathfinder Beta.

There are a handful of posters here - off the top of my head Magnus himself, Rynjin, RavingDork, and a few others - who are known as being exceptional number-crunchers, who have all but removed themselves from the playtests because their findings aren't acknowledged. And that's not counting the ones who have already left, or who were before my time. Every time there's a playtest, you always end up with the same two camps of complaints: one group like this who complains their findings are being ignored, and another group complaining that the first group's feedback is too forceful, too aggressive, too hostile.

Add to this that Paizo Devs have repeatedly said things like that the martial-caster disparity is not intrinsic to the system but rather a problem of imbalance of skill and/or style among players, and that their games don't have an issue of casters rendering martial characters obsolete at mid-to-high levels.... Yeah. (I'd actually link to the incident in question, as an example, but I don't have the patience to dig through James Jacobs's ginormous thread.)

The thing that throws me off is that I wasn't forceful or agressive at all when I was pointing out Mythic's potential rocket tag issues during the playtest, yet nothing that I said seemed to affect the final product at all.

If feels like you have to make a big deal in order to even get noticed during a playtest (unless you are pointing out something really obvious), but then if you make enough noise that the issue becomes known people will probably complain that you're being a jerk about it. And yea, chances are that at that point you are.


I would totally allow one of my players to do this simply because of how awesome it would be.


I'm assuing that the 4th level longbow proficency is coming from the oracle favored class bonus? Plus you can get the feats that you're missing on a temporary basis via martial flexibility...

This is actually a pretty well thought out build, and I'm going to have to think about running one of these at some point.

The only suggestion I can think of is if possible you may want to see if you can somehow get your strength up to a 14. It will help a lot with composite longbows. If you do that, you could also substitute the lame curse for the legalistic curse. Legalistic fits kitsune pretty well if you are into the old japanese lore about them.

If you aren't concerned about an additional 2 points of damage, then your current build should work pretty well.


Hmmm....

Kitsune, Tengu, Skinwalkers, Wyvarans.


Well, the main thing is that Elemental ray doesn't do 1d6 damage per level. It does 1d6 damage, plus 1 per TWO levels. At level three his elemental ray should be doing 1d6+1.

Edit: Actually I guess he could be doing 1d6+3 if he's using the Ifrit favored class bonus.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Combat Expertise is one of the worst feat taxes. Many people get the feat as a prerequisite and then never use it.


Mergy wrote:
How are you qualifying for Pounce?

This is a very good point. Pounce is only available for quadrupeds. I doubt that your character is going to qualify.


On one hand, I really want that Kitsune pdf you just put out, but on the other hand none of my groups use 3rd party stuff (and especially not pfs) :(

I will probably pick it up, but still hope for official Paizo stuff XD


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Allow me to rephrase then.

The editing in this book is beyond poor. And that's merely a statement of fact.

To repeat what I said almost word for word:

I blame it on the Gencon crunch...but yeah, the editing is deeply problematic.

The problem is that this happens with most of Paizo's major options books at this point. Ultimate Magic, Mythic Adventures, and the Advanced Class Guide all had major editing and balancing problems. The only one in recent memory that wasn't like this was the Advaned Race Guide.

I hope that they find some way to give themselves more editing time for these things.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

These have already been posted elsewhere, but just to make sure paizo knows I may as well repeat them......

Page 90: The Daring Champion has both Challenge and Presise Strike, effeictively giving it double level to damage. I'm pretty sure this wasn't intended.

Page 104: Techically, the Arcane Deed doesn't say that the magus treats his Magus level as his Swashbuckler Level for these deeds.

And just to really make sure that Paizo knows:
Page 154: Pummeling style doesn't actually have anything that prevents it from being used with any weapon.


DRS3 wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
DRS3 wrote:

Yeah almost all Deeds reference 'the swashbuckler' not 'the magus' which some might argue means none of them work. This is obviously the wrong interpretation. I know we all bow at the altar of RAW, but let us not read as if we were mentally deficient rhesus monkeys, because we are not. Use the magus level as the swashbuckler level until they add a single errata line to make it completely RAW legal.

Regards,
DRS

I'd preffer it if you don't say it in an insulting way. The problem is that I play in PFS and I have to follow the rules RAW as written. Not as intended.

This might be obvious enough that we will be able to get away with it, but then again we might not. I could run into GMs that say that I don't get my damage bonus, and I'll have a wasted Arcana choice because of it.

You know what? If a GM at a PFS event says 'no' to it feel free to reference my post if you feel it was insulting. It wasn't intended as such, but I understand written words can't provide inflection clues to make that obvious. I was going for a sense of the ridiculous.

This hyper literal RAW worship gets on my nerves. It's like slashing someone's tires and then when you are arrested you argue innocence on the basis that the knife did the slashing. I believe in that case you are going to be found guilty.

Regards,
DRS

Sorry, I guess I took it the wrong way XD

In any case, I guess part of the reason why I was asking this question (aside from PFS problems) because I was trying figure out if Paizo really intended to give classes like the magus such a random and easy to get damage boost, or if something in the wording meant that they didn't intend it that way. Ah well, I guess they would have to do some darastic FAQing and Erata to take it back now, slight vagueness or not.


DRS3 wrote:

Yeah almost all Deeds reference 'the swashbuckler' not 'the magus' which some might argue means none of them work. This is obviously the wrong interpretation. I know we all bow at the altar of RAW, but let us not read as if we were mentally deficient rhesus monkeys, because we are not. Use the magus level as the swashbuckler level until they add a single errata line to make it completely RAW legal.

Regards,
DRS

I'd preffer it if you don't say it in an insulting way. The problem is that I play in PFS and I have to follow the rules RAW as written. Not as intended.

This might be obvious enough that we will be able to get away with it, but then again we might not. I could run into GMs that say that I don't get my damage bonus, and I'll have a wasted Arcana choice because of it.


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

So, I have been seeing a lot of people on the boards talking about how Arcane Deed can give a Magus a huge damage boost by picking up Precise Strike. However, part of the wording of Arcane Deed makes me wonder if it really works that way.

Arcane Deed wrote:

Arcane Deed (Ex): When a magus takes this arcana, he can

pick any one deed from the swashbuckler class feature as long as that deed can be used by a swashbuckler of his magus level. The magus can use that deed by using points from his arcane pool as the panache points required for that deed. A magus can take this arcana multiple times, each time gaining a new deed. The magus must have the flamboyant arcana (see below) to select this arcana.

Arcane Deed doesn't say anything about gaining the passive effects of a Swashbucker Deed. It doesn't even say that the Magus really gains the dead. All it says is that you can use a point from your arcane pool in place of a panache point to use the deed. Maybe this was intended to place a limit on what deeds a magus could really benefit from?

Yea, I may just be reading into the rules too much, but I figured I should draw attention to this to see if it needs to be put in the FAQ.

EDIT: I just thought of something else. There is nothing in either Arcane Deed or Flamboyant Arcana that gives the Magus a swashbuckler level when using the deeds. So presice strike would give the magus a +0 damage bonus as written anyway....

Another Edit: Just so you know, I am asking this partly because I play in PFS. We often have to follow the rules as written regardless of the intent until the FAQ says otherwise. Because of that, the writting is a bit problematic here.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
It does. Its called carrying capacity.

Ant Haul (which most characters who seriously want to dump Str have access to) fixes that by about level 3.

If you're entering melee with Ant Haul, you're either a divine caster burning spells or you gave up your belt slot.
It costs 1,000 gp for a memorized caster or 2,000 gp for a spontaneous one to get back. That is cheaaaap compared to trying to up an already high stat.

A spontanious caster then has to spend another 1000g to make up for the spell known that they're wasting on ant haul. And then if it is dispelled in mid combat you'd better hope that you're not one of those classes that loses their abilities when they're encumbered...

It is doable, I'm just not sure that I like that method.


Hmmm, if we were able to get an errata for the Dampire variants, I wonder if the same could be done for the skinwalkers? There are a few issues with them.

Witchwolves for example, their name and their description make them out to be all about being witches and that their witches are their leaders and the strongest members of their packs. However, they have a racial penalty to intelligence! They make terrible witches. The only work around is if they're allowed to use that Orc only Scarred Witchdoctor archetype that lets them use Con as their primary casting stat.

Werebear kin are described has suddenly gaining a burst of strength when they first shapeshift, but have a Con bonus instead of a Strength bonus.

There's also the weird issue with several types of skinwalkers gaining mental stats instead of physical stats when they shapeshift, which hurts their spellcasters (they have to stay shifted for a day to get bonus spells) and is thematically problematic.

I'm only pointing these things out of love for skinwalkers and a desire for their stats to match up more with their descriptions ;)


Hayato Ken wrote:

It didn´t show up in the product schedule last i looked.

Some extended options might be a good thing though, now that the kitsune swashbuckler army is on the march!

I actually converted my planned kitsune swashbuckler into a Magus now that it is possible to make a Cha magus. Magic using classes seem to fit the race better :)


*revives thread*

So, I wonder if it has become much more likely that this book could come into existance now that PFS is being flooded with kitsune? ;)


Imbicatus wrote:
Spirit Summoner looks like it was banned from PFS due to theme argument reasons, not power ones. The Eidolon cannot take powers or abilities that are not appropriate to the chosen spirit. This can cause all kinds of angst at the table and is a pain to enforce.

That's a very good point. I was kind of wondering how that would be enforced in PFS, and now I know XD


As much as I hate it, I can see why PFS banned Spirit Summoners. A Spirit Summoner with the Battle or Life spirits can be pretty crazy. One can give bard-like boosts to the party, while the other gets *channel energy*. Crazy, though they do lose their summon SLA's as a cost.

1 to 50 of 966 << 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.