|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I played the entirety of Emerald Spire with a Battle Host. I had started with full plate as my implement and just specialised in being a tank. It wasn't the most fun to play but it was very, very effective.
And you get a decent selection of long buffs from Occultist that are worth keeping as high level as possible. I was transmutation then abjuration, and it worked very well. Especially when such spells as Countless Eyes turned up.
The PFS specific weirdness on familiar weapon finesse introduced here doesn't seem to be in the Campaign Clarifications.
Michael Brock wrote:
Does that mean this ruling is not actually a PFS rule, or am I missing something?
JJ view makes the whole things make far less sense. His rational is weirdly irrational.
James Jacobs wrote:
This approach just doesn't make sense of any sort. And makes it clear that a FAQ is pretty much required, when someone on the team is interpreting the requirement very, very differently from how most of the player base seems to.
It will be a bit harder to get people to play awkwardly merged Pathfinder/Spelljammer once there is this, which will probably do much of it better but with different fluff (i.e. not the fluff my nostalgia wants).
My regular pathfinder group may have run a whole campaign using Spelljammer ship maps and setting fluff relatively recently.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Which is a good thing for casters, I guess. Since it is now basically a caster only item, if now more rigidly once a day.
I understand that some items were a little too good for their price, but this just adds another book to the pile of heavy objects I have purchased from Paizo that become more trouble than they are worth to use.
I think the lesson may be that it really is time to stop giving Paizo my money.
For all the griping, this errata did at least save me some money - the book now offers nothing for my PFS character, so I am no longer under any pressure to buy it....
Poor witches, losing everything appealing this book had to offer. I'd have much preferred the Spirit Talker nerf going some other way - Shamans get to cherrypick hexes from witches, it was nice that witches had the option of getting something back the other way.
I would just like to thank everyone who contributes to this thread.
I have wasted too much of my life being uncomfortable with my own sexuality to really think that much about what is happening out there. It has been a very enriching experience to read through this thread and learn something of the beautiful variety of human experiences amongst the members of this community.
The "Constructs Without Spells" section on p12 of Cohorts and Companions does seem to suggest that alchemists don't need master craftsmanship even without spells, which is going to create some table variation.
Constructs Without Spells wrote:
...In addition to spells and masterful craftsmanship, it’s possible to instill magic into magic items (including constructs) through alchemy.
The text does not attach any riders with that explaining what conditions make it possible, which seems like a declaration that alchemy counts for crafting (the text before it about more reliable ways of using Master Craftsman).
Another occasion when I am left wishing that softcovers had errata/FAQ support.
Congrats to Ireland and to any Irish Paizoites who this affects.
NZ passed gay marriage by private members bill on a conscience vote, I think last year. Our governing party was mildly against it but enough MPs crossed the floor for it to happen.
In an unrelated anecdote of LGBT, I was at a tabletop gaming thing waiting for my GM to arrive and chatting to other people waiting when the conversation revealed that 6 of the 10 people waiting had at some point been involved in the university student union's queer support group and that all the letter of LGBT were being represented. I choose to believe that shows that roleplayers are an inclusive lot, and that everyone feels welcome.
Secret Wizard wrote:
On the one hand, we have racial FCB that are strictly worse than a skill point. To cite a couple, there is the Half-Elf Monk FCB that, with two levels investment, grants a circumstantial +1 bonus to two pre-set skills; a bigger offender is the Dhampir Inquisitor FCB that takes two levels to give a circumstantial+1 bonus to Intimidate. Both are clearly, inarguably worse than taking the skill rank bonus across two levels.
If you are making a build that is trying to maximise a single skill, then these can be useful as it gives a half level bonus above the maxed-out skill ranks you have in it. So for some builds these types of bonuses can be effective.
Healing is a valid approach if you have a little versatility to go with it.
This would solve the problem entirely within the classes, and not affect the core book. It seems elegant enough.
Has there ever been a definitive answer of what happens to items equipped on the eidolon when it is dismissed? As that may complicate things further.
Anyway, having played a summoner for quite a while now (a weekly game since late last year), I've had no problem with the no-shared-slots rule. Though that may be to do with the fact I've not had the money to have much in the way of extra magic about. My eidolon, without gear, still fights almost as well as the fighter while I through around a pretty impress set of underleveled buff spells.
I find race and character concept often go hand in hand.
So far in Pathfinder I've mostly played gnomes and halflings, as they have worked for the character concepts. Next character up will likely be either human or kitsune, depending on the concept I settle on.
I was surprised by how much I like ARG Sylph. I was entirely not taken by them as a bestiary race, but the ARG has won me over to their playability. The other three I-can't-believe-they-aren't-genasi also fared well in this book and are doing a much better job of standing on their own feet as races now, and leaving the unflattering genasi comparisons behind them.
The ARG also increased my like for Ratfolk, while cementing my dislike of Catfolk and Nagaji (as both seem a little mechanically good - the Nagaji, mostly, because of their archetype).
Kitsune have been my favourite since the Dragon Empires books came out, and still are - even if I've yet to be in a game where I've been allowed to play one.
A Wizard can get beast shape I at fifth level - only one level after the Druid gets wild shape. Sure it might not last as long, but it does the exact same thing without requiring familiarity, just to have swung past a market and bought a component pouch.
Unless there is some reason you feel that Wizards need to be better at using beast shape than Druids are?
Also, beast shape doesn't allow anything particularly game breaking. Druids now are not the power houses that they were in 3.5, particularly with point buy as they are a little bit MAD. Is there a reason you feel they should be weakened further?