Rageling's page

I... Huh. Can't believe I missed all that. (sigh)

Thank you though, very much. The information will be put to good use. :)
(take THAT, demons using Teleport at Will)

This may be a silly question, and it'll point out a total miss on my part as a GM, but here goes:
Today (seriously) I realized that Spell Like Abilities draw an Attack of Opportunity, unless cast defensively. I always assumed (that dangerous word) that due to their lack of somatic components, they wouldn't, but turns out I'm wrong. Huh.

I've technically found the answer to the below in a d20 SRD for 3.5ed, but I'm wondering if there was specifically a Pathfinder answer that I could reference when called upon to do so.

The real question I have though, is this:
If you take damage while casting a spell, such as from an AoO, it's Concentration or lose the spell.
So...
If you take damage while using an SLA, is it Concentration vs Fizzle as well?

I've checked all the core books, and they imply that it would. They make the point to reference time and again, that it behaves in almost all ways as spells, except the general lack of verbal/somatic/material, and the "Does it Provoke" chart in the core book confirms that they do in fact draw attacks. But among all the pages, there's nothing (that I've noticed - may have missed something) that clearly states a SLA can be lost to damage.

This would be very good knowledge to have, especially tonight. :)

Yeah... It's nice to be able to enchant each end separately, though it can also be a tremendous pain in the rear. I think the GM would allow him to enchant it as a single weapon if he didn't seek to vary each side, but that's up in the air.

It's looking like he can get what he's after for 8,616gp using the above Pike as a guideline, though only at +1 on each end. Then again, he's getting it for style more than power - his unarmed strikes will easily be doing more.

As for the Guided property... It IS actually on the pfd20srd under a Pathfinder source. Weird that it hasn't been filed in with the regular stuff yet, considering there's a Dex equivalent one there. Huh.

Yebng: True about the Transformative property - and pretty interesting option. Would require a total of 12,300gp wich is 850gp over half his starting total, though I'm sure the GM would be OK with that. Good additional option.

Gluttony: That is a really interesting thing to use for a base... I'm thinking if you couple that idea (reduced to 10ft) with Shuriken Nekogami's suggestion of a longer staff, it could mechanically fill the gap with a preceding official example.

Hmm... Considering all of the above, how does this sound?
Long exotic staff meant to be held in such a way that one end has Reach, while the other can strike adjacent. Apply the premise of "Boarding Pike of Repelling", allowing a swift action command to change its threat from 10ft/5ft to 15ft/10ft (giving +5ft to each end and leaving 5ft without threat until reverted)? Using the double-weapon rules, which you'd need to for the purpose of the long staff suggestion, it would cost 8,608gp to enchant each side respectively at +1.

That actually sounds really neat!
If the GM wasn't actually good with that specifically, Yebng's Transformative idea could fill the gap reasonably when applied to the staff concept, though it would still probably be an Exotic weapon.

I'm liking this - thanks for the assistance so far!
Does the above I suggested sound reasonable?

(I'll take that as a "no such thing exists")
Well, it sounds good and all, but there are still two things:

1) "Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe."
True that reach doesn't need to be a magical property (that it's possessed by mundane objects), though all mundane reach objects that don't involve chain disallow you to threaten adjacent with it. We're looking to make a weapon that can strike 10ft away, and within 5ft as well, preferably without a feat or bending (ba-dum-tiss) the rules if at all avoidable.

2) In the legend, the staff could extend to strike targets, and it's the feel we're trying to match, though still within reasonable guidelines for the game itself. Also, he's interested in keeping it magical to fit the story. I guess the idea is to have it be a sort of unspoken gift from his role-model, though still applying it to his 7th level starting wealth pool (he's joining in later).

Do you think: "Extending" - adding +5ft to a weapon's threatened area, applicable only to wooden-body weapons, would be a reasonable +1 Enhancement mod? Magical extension of course. Would actually probably require some Druid-ish spell to make (Possibly Warp Wood).

This would make a +1 Extending, Guided staff cost effectively cost 18,300gp - which is easily within his budget.

The real trick is to maintain threat at both 5ft and 10ft without the spending of a feat, and he is willing to pay for it. It's just a matter of coming to a reasonable solution, which I personally don't think is hard (I'm mediating with him and our GM for a resolution though the GM thinks it should probably take a feat and he's already accounted for his - though the GM is open minded).

@ Umbranus / Lemmy: Staying 30ft away from Gunslinger is actually what you don't want to do. The Deadeye lets you make the attacks as Touch Attacks beyond the weapon's range increment. They don't need to tag his actual AC unless he's within the firearms's base range.
"Deadeye (Ex): At 1st level, the gunslinger can resolve an attack against touch AC instead of normal AC when firing beyond her firearm’s first range increment..."

@ BigNorseWolf: That's what I was thinking too, but with a CR 17 BBEG, chances are the Gunslinger has Improved Precise as you said (BAB 11 to take). I was thinking instead that a full-class Gunslinger won't have "Point Blank Master" because it requires Weapon Specialization, meaning if you swarm the 'slinger with little guys and they chose to focus on the BBEG, that would be a lot of Attacks of Opportunity - and even the lucky can only avoid probability so long.

If the villain knows the party well, what about general or mass debilitation? Minions or Henchmen that can bestow minor conditions that stack up, such as the Bane spell or the Sickened condition? With knowledge of what the Gunslinger can do, you could add in a Cavalier cohort that could further decrease the Gunslinger's chance to hit the Efreeti - this in general could/would force the party to deal with a smaller threat while the bigger threat was free to act, as they try and bring down the Cavalier. Summoned creatures and/or minion swarms could yield a similar effect. Salamanders (Nobles maybe) seem oddly fitting to this purpose, though many options exist.

Also the Efreeti is a fighter... Noticing how easily the Gunslinger tags and trashes their target, chances are they'll want to engage directly, especially if any ability to teleport exists (standard to use or swing and move to keep in range). If he can get up in the Gunslinger's face, that would be a serious problem for them. This could seem like a hose to the 'slinger touch-shot specifically, but it could also force the team to run interference - combat maneuvers and human walls to give the marksman their range.

For his backup, with an assumed Leadership score of 25, I'd personally consider:
* 1x (Cohort Lv 17) Summoner (Broodmaster variant for harassing, aids in counterspelling)
* 2x+ Genie-kin and/or Salamander types, varied classes, possibly a Magus or two to create abnormal combat situations.
(Side note: A Magus Cohort with Dimensional Assault tree could be a serious headache for a Gunslinger)

I understand the difficulty - It's hard for the players to appreciate a truly difficult fight when four of them are trashed, while the ranged guy's like: "What's your problem? I'm fine!" It's even harder to make all the players feel equally pressured without making someone feel entirely hosed. I run into this from time to time, and the players usually feel they need to solo their opposite, not realizing how mirror-matches usually end up.

In summary, the best I can think of would be minions, + the Wall of Fire suggestion made by others for obscuring.
Teleport to close distance, standard swings to save move to keep up. Little critters won't pose a vital threat to the Gunslinger, though with enough attacks of opportunity from a lack of Point-Blank Master, probability alone should make them feel the pressure. This will either force the party to help clear off the Gunslinger if they want their full support, or force the Gunslinger themselves to get rid of the pests at their feet - effectively buying the BBEG some fire-free time. I stand by the use of Summoner, Magus and/or Cavalier as support henchmen to toss out blanket debilitation and interference. I like the idea of making the players feel like they had to wade through an insurmountable river of filth and fire, before finally claiming their Nemesis' head.

Minions that can close the gap. Even if they're little piddly guys that don't pose a critical issue to the Gunslinger, they can still run interference by standing between the bullet and the target.

Though... I'm assuming they've got the feats to negate that, and to avoid AoOs from firing while threatened. Hmm.

Does this big baddie have a series of established henchmen, or are you free to drop in a few wild-card cohorts? If that's the case, I think I can help you out with that.

I've got more, but I'm about to head out to a graduation dinner: I'll think it over there~

One of the games I'm involved with right now has a Vanara Monk, who is looking to trail the "Monkey King Legend" closely - in fact, worships the entity as a God and aspires to be like him, so they can feast in the beyond. Pretty neat, considering he went straight for the original legend, and not one of the anime spinoffs... Heh.

ANYWAY - the complication.

The player wants a magic weapon that basically does the Monkey King's extending trick. This would essentially be a staff that can threaten up to 10ft away instead of only 5ft. For the purpose of the character (and considering the party's on the cusp of 8th level), it doesn't seem like it would be too bad a thing to allow. I'm just not sure such an enchantment option already exists. Does it?

Is there a magical property that already exists (preferably 1st party Pathfinder), or will I need to roll with a custom ability to compensate?

If there isn't an existing option, here's what I propose:
* Weapon must be +1 first (of course)
* Use system for continuous spell effect, with a modified function. In this case, Enlarge Person, though the spell would be applied effectively to the weapon provide no other bonus than the reach effect.
* Total cost being about 4,000gp for the constant effect, or 6,300gp for a +1 "Extending" quarterstaff. Probably double the 4,000 for cause of purpose.
* Or 22,300 for a +1 Ki Focus, ???, Extending Quarterstaff.
(Note: The ??? are because I can't remember the weapon mod... It was a +1 that allowed use of Wisdom in place of STR for Attack and Damage rolls - it was from a 2008 Pathfinder resource, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was called or where it was from).

So to reiterate: Is there an already existing ability to fulfill this need?
If there is no such thing, do you feel my compromise is a reasonable one?

Edit: The weapon property was called "Guided", for a +1 it let you use Wisdom in place of strength (though not x1.5 with a 2h), and imposed a -2 on attacks with it relying on Strength instead. It's technically non-core, but as from "Pathfinder 10: History of Ashes"

Holy whoa!~

There was some deadspace in the conversation for a while, then this fell by my thought-process wayside, but I come back to it and it's got a lot more than it had in the first place! Thanks everyone, and sorry to keep you hanging on a response.

The class is still somewhat unfinished... I thought I had it done, but then new ideas started fluttering in, and it's been going through a series of revisions to account for new abilities without busting the balance issue. Still doing good on that I think, but it's certainly a challenge!

First the suggestions I'm most fond of:
- Incantus
- Harbinger
- Spellreaver

Sorta like Spellward too, at least in terms of what it implies, but the more I say it out loud the clunkier the words feel rolling off the tongue. Also you're all right on Archon... I love the term, but yeah it's already a creature and doesn't really seem fitting.

Some insight into the class...
There is a source of inspiration for it, but I'll leave that a mystery - there are certainly bound to be people pick up on it, but Shh~ Trying to make something all its own in a pen-and-paper arena.

The class is meant to be a rough-and-tumble type, "meat shield" if you prefer, that is particularly defiant of magic. Most people take a hit from a Magic Missile and think "Why you little..." - but these guys just smile and change course for the caster that doesn't realize what they've just done.

The basics of it are d10 HD, full BAB, Fort high, 2+ Skill points.
I'll cover abilities up to the first few levels, as those are mostly set.

They get their charisma modifier to saves vs Spells and Spell-Like effects (like the Hexblade did).
They eventually gain the equivalent of "Evasion" for all save types, but ONLY against Spells and Spell-Like Abilities (so more like Mettle).

The most fundamental feature of the class is the ability to store "Ether" (term may change but going with that for now). Ether is obtained from being subjected to any spell of at least 1st level (cantrips and orisons don't work for reasons that'll become obvious). Ether is used to fuel most of the classes abilities, and without it, the character is not much unlike a fighter without all the bonus feats. A character can initially hold a maximum amount of Ether equal to their level x2 (this improves later). At the end of the day when resting, you lose all ether in excess of your int modifier, though on the other hand if you had less than your modifier you gain up to that much.

Ether is gained primarily by being subject to a spell - you gain one charge of Ether (drinking in residual spell energies). If you make your save vs the spell there are other benefits, and at later levels rolling a natural 20 on a save can let you absorb the spell entirely, negating it and gaining Ether equal to its actual level. If it's not too painful for you to accept, you can think of it like an advanced version of the older Spellfire idea (that was not the inspiration), but with a total retooling which also removed the healing aspect. Stored ether will eventually make the eyes glow (color up to player) with energy, possibly granting low-light or darkvision or more with enough stored.

They posses a "Tome" as a class feature. A Tome is similar to a spellbook, though really it functions more like a notebook where-in they write their understanding of how certain magics work. They can share their findings with others with a Tome, and a Wizard can provide information from their spellbook for understanding, but a Wizard can not learn spells from a Tome - it's not the complete information. Tome provides a number of benefits such-as on spellcraft checks to identify spells they know of, UMD checks to emulate spell effects they understand, and craft checks to make a magic item that requires something they've studied (reduces the penalty from a +5 DC increase for unknown spells to a +2).

They begin the game with a number of Zero-level spells equal to 2 + Int mod, and can use them at-will as long as they have at least one charge of Ether. They can be drawn from any spell list, and represent their broad understanding of magic.

They can spend stored ether to replicate spells they've analyzed with a spellcraft check (as a SLA), going as far as 3rd of 4th level at 20 (undecided as of yet).

They gain the anti-caster feats (Disruptive & Spellbreaker) as bonus feats, and use their class level as their caster level when taking craft feats or using items that allow it (such as Staffs). There are at least 3 other ways for them to spend Ether, but they're still in production so I can't really say... but one of them is to release the raw energy dealing damage to all adjacent creatures (friend or foe alike), and another allows them to use it to counter a spell if the situation is right.

And there! There's the basic understanding without any of the truly advanced features. Trust me, the writeup is much more concise and far less wordy in the text document.

If I were to post the class in its entirety at some point, would anyone be interested in play-testing it (or letting their players play-test one), like they've done with the Magus and Gunslinger?

Arcanist

Arcane Guardian
Arcadius

Arcane Guardian forces into two words, which I'm trying to avoid.

Arcanist makes it sound like it can do more than it can... Heh.
Arcadius on the other hand might work. Makes me think of a city or nation though.

Thanks for the first-round suggestions!
Got at least one more to consider for final call.

Without giving away all that it does, here's the summary:
- Fighter'esque, leaning more towards Paladin in an ability sense, but Arcane in nature.
- Specialist in dealing with Magic and SLA opponents
- Not really packing any bonus feats that aren't granted by class.

I have the class all written up, and for all purposes it seems balanced enough.

Problem is, I need a name that I like.
I can think of a few that are two words, but the thing with Pathfinder is that they prefer all base20 classes to have a single word for the name, so I'm trying to keep it in line with that standard, with limited luck.

Magus (even if they didn't use it already) doesn't really fit the class.

I was considering "Archon" - like the sound of that.
I'd like a few other suggestions though from people willing to offer.

So, what do you think would be a good single word name for a fighter-type class that's good at dealing with magical threats?

Problem with savage though was that all the anthromorphs had racial hd and level adjustments which made it too clunky to use.

Someway of adjusting a character to the point that there is no racial hd or la would be really good. its the HD that bothers me the most.

Soooo... A level adjustment would be ok, if there was no HD requirement in your case?

If so, I'll work on that at the same time I work on a rebuild of CWC.
It'd be useful for me too. Almost done with the class I'm working on... Just need a name, really.

In one of the upcoming Paizo products there will be a flesh crafter PrC but I cannot recall which one it is.

I'll guess the upcoming "Ultimate Magic"

If they also include their own up-to-date version of the previous "Create Wondrous Creature" feat, that would be super awesome.
I'll get around to it... Probably this weekend - working on a new base-20 at the moment, and loving it.

I'd love a class like this myself as well.

It is my dream to forcefully create a whole slew of PC races that tare anthromorphic animals or some other nonsense and force a way for them into our local games.

The older book, "Savage Species" (which sadly didn't see a 3.5 reprint) had a huge section on anthropomorphic type creatures/character, and it was really useful for weird stuff. Used a few of them in a custom campaign world to explain where a few classes were from. Heh. I guess the weak alternative would be Polymorph Other - not like a commoner is going to ever have any way to break out of it, so BAM! New creature of your mind's design! Too bad replication (if possible) would take too long.

Part of me thinks they might be playing the Witch, considering their defense of the phobia...

People aren't trying to bash you or the game - they're just trying to pick up each problem they see and offer suggestions to alleviate the cleric a bit. Despite confusing wording, good is intended.

Back in 3.0/3.5 (can't remember if it was specific to 3.0 or not), there was a feat I had taken... it was technically a homebrew, but from a compendium of custom feats that were tested and rated on power and balance - I want to say it was called "The NetBook of Feats" or something.

Anyways, there was one feat in there called "Create Wondrous Creatures" or something like that. Maybe Craft instead of Create? It's been a while. Long story short, I had an epic level Wizard by the end (Lv27) that was creating planes of existence (9th level spell in epic handbook), then populating them with whatever he thought would be interesting.

Maybe this bears a re-visit... Perhaps I'll take a stab at a new one.
Creatures weren't loyal to you by default, though depending on how you made them, they'd be happy at least. There were 3 spells you could cast during creation to mood-swing them... I think Charm Monster would make them loyal to you, Limited Wish would make them totally obedient to you, and Wish would make all their progeny (if you gave'em an ability to procreate) totally obedient to you as well.

This is great for someone with a god complex, but the equation for figuring out approximate GP cost vs CR was a bit of a headache, and it certainly caters more to high-level if not epic individuals. Think I had to be 12th or 15th level before I took it - you'd need a relatively lenient DM as well.

Other than that (and the Fleshshaper and Fleshcrafter PrCs mentioned above), I'm not sure if such a thing exists... Frankly it should though. Lots of arcanists get cocky, and this is sort of like the ultimate "Ha-HAH!"
(I totally didn't create or modify each of the creatures I got from Leadership... nooooo... that'd be wrong! ...and fun)

...(everything above)...

Brass hit something I'd like to double support: Running away.

Sometimes a fight is tilted too far against you - and running away is NOT a dumb thing to do! "Live to fight another day" is better than "struggle in futility against overwhelming odds while painting a ranged target on the healer's head"

A lot of players approach the game with a videogame mentality these days (MMO or Console - take your pick). They've got this idea in their subconscious that there's no point in running away because you can respawn/reload, though in Pathfinder/D&D that's not really an option, and their ego often stops them from realizing it until it's far too late.

Wish I knew a way to teach new players that escape is sometimes the best option - and it IS an option!

There's really not cross class skills anymore. It's either a class skill or it isn't and the only difference if you max your ranks (=to HD) is that +3 bonus. You're not paying 2 points for the skill like in 3.5 are you?

Nope. Paying 1-for-1 as intended, so I'm keeping it up with my other skills for now... I just think the extra +3 would be nice. To a previous comment on dipping a level in Rogue to get it as class... I was actually considering dipping 2 levels in Ninja (the Combat Playtest version), for that "Spend a Ki point for +20 to a single Acrobatics check" just so I could do some crazy stuff, but again, trying to stay straight Inquisitor.

Chavamana - He'll let me take something out of a book I don't have (just saying those are the 2 I have physically on hand). That... might actually work. He travels a lot, and he's not a mooch. If he's gathering information or buying passage on a boat, he's always helping people with their tasks at hand while he does. Even have a rank in Profession Sailor at the moment. I think my DM might be cool with that - Thanks! Might be a lot of fun to aim for owning a boat in the long run too!

Still might take Skill Focus anyways... Heh.

Big thanks to everyone.

Erian_7: Yeah, most of them are specific. Guess I'm out of luck. Heh.

Alexander Kilcoyne: I've been considering that for a number of reasons, but I'd want to go 2 for Evasion if I dipped one, and I hope to hit 20 on this guy... Hard to give up the Inquisitor bonuses.

King of Vrock: He's 4th level at the moment, and I've been buying cross class... so yeah, Skill Focus will probably be the best bet here. Gives the same effect and gets better later. I'll have to figure out where my feats are going first, but that's probably what I'll do - thanks for the suggestion.

Hmmm... I was considering that, but I don't want to multiclass. :)
I'm running an Inquisitor of Cayden Cailean (I know right?).

He's basically turning out 1/3 Indiana Jones, 1/3 Robinhood, 1/3 Batman.
I totally love it - but if I could work in Acrobatics without MC, it'd be perfect.

If there isn't a trait for it, I'll either go with the faith one (+2 to mind effects after drinking - which he always is), or the +2 Initiative one. (shrug) Either is good.

This is a difficult one without theoretically shafting the party, but I had a similar issue pre-Pathfinder. The cleric eventually snapped at the party and insulted their intelligence in the process - "I'm a warrior of my god, not a magical bandaid! I'm capable of tending to wounds after battles, or during in the case of extreme injuries, but I'm not running a nursery for children playing with knives! Sharpen your wits and stop leaving yourselves so open to attack, before my god decides you're not worth healing anymore..."

While that is pretty harsh, I've ran (and been in) a few games with a large number of players where the divine guy felt like a nurse with patients that pressed the button for fun.

If you can think of a tactful way to say it, I'd go with suggesting a more tactical mindset. While the Fighter and Barbarian might be in their comfort zones cutting a path through minions, diving-head first into a pool of goblins isn't always the best idea. Make the enemies come to you if you can. I'm assuming the Rouge isn't diving in head-first too... If they are, that's added stress - possibly total defense into flanking position, then letting loose? People at range (ranger/wizard, sorc, witch) could try to make use of environmental concealment or cover if/when it's available (again this assumes they don't).

Smarter combat can often lead to fewer wounds and less healing, but sometimes the dice are just against you. Making use of an area buff or two at the start with smart tactics could leave you open more often to do what you want, with a selective divine channel in the mix. Melee could also try to be a defensive wall until the sorc and ranger thin the crowds a bit, then tear open the remainder?

Sorry that I can't offer any suggestions outside tactical things...
Last game I was in had no healer, so that's my combat mindset. :)

Hopefully you can find a solution before your Cleric snaps, and tells them to do it themselves... Heh.

4 sessions into a game I'm playing in (I joined late), I find out I should have selected a single trait at character creation, and now I'm looking at my options.

My source for trait selection is limited - APG & Armory.

I'm trying to find a trait that gives Acrobatics as a class skill...
Does a trait like this actually exist (if so where), or am I wasting time?

I have 2 fall-back traits I'll decide on if there isn't one, but for the character, having Acrobatics as a class skill would be absolutely perfect, considering I was sad it wasn't class for him in the first place.

Pre-thanks for any help that could be spared on this one.

Blunt and accurate, it seems, which is good. No sugar in play-testing.

I'm sure many things will change, so as a blind fan of Swords & Spells mixes, I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic for changes that will doubtlessly come in time.

The real question though, A Man in Black, is what might you suggest to fix and improve?
Something other than "scrap it" or "make it a full caster/melee" and the like, that is.

I'm sure through class features and Magus Arcana, there's bound to be a redemption though development. I for one would like to see the ability, when BAB allows for more than one attack, to simply forfeit an attack to cast a spell once per round during a full attack action - no penalties. Thinking like +6/+1, swing with the +6 and drop the +1 for a spell. Likewise possibly some built-in class feature that improves the DCs as you level for any spell you cast against a target you've attacked (up to +4 by 16th, bringing the DCs closer to a casters at least).

It's off to a rough start - but we'll see where it leads.

That's what I figured - as long as your hand's still able to move, you can go back to wielding it.
It simplifies a lot, and doesn't really break anything. As a DM myself, I'd allow it.

Though honestly, it'd probably be much better to snag Exotic for a Bastard Sword instead of Monkey Grip for your greatsword. Bottom end is 1 lower and top is 2 lower, but you can change style pretty freely without ever having to worry about penalties for it. Besides, if we're going with the Sorc into EK idea, a mix of Str and Weapon Spec will help fix it. :)

Always been a fan of Sword & Spell types, so I love talking about'em.
Duskblade, Hexblade (with Dev forum fix), Abjurant Champion, Jade Phoenix Mage, Eldritch Knight (even before Paizo's re-do but WAY more after) - and looking forward to what the new Class/Book will offer and become.

I'm actually running a Half-Elf Summoner right now, with melee focus and a family blade type thing - I'm not even trying to abuse the class, and we're pretty well ticking off the Half-Orc fighter... Heh. We're only level 2 at the moment though, so the fighter will rock it harder in a few levels.

Even had a DM once that was cool with me taking Eldritch Knight by letting my Warlock meet the requirements... Friggin loved that character so much.

I generally don't care so much about numbers and top-ends really, as long as the character's interesting, invested, and fun to play. Mechanically, I only really care if it works or not.

...Arcane Resonance

A magus with this magus arcana may sacrifice one of his prepared magus spells as a swift action, the magus and allies within 30 ft gain a +1 competence bonus to attack for a number of rounds equal to the spell level of the sacrificed spell...

I like this, but suggest a revision.

Might it be more interesting if you limit the friendly targets to one per two Magus levels, and limit the bonus to one round, but let the bonus equal the lost spell's level?

I think that would be a friggin awesome party and self buff.

An 8th level Magus would spend a swift action, drop a 3rd level spell...
Up to 4 allies (this may or may not include the Magus), get a +3 to attack rolls for one round. This could result in a bigger instant bonus (up to +6 really), and though it only lasts for one round, it can offset or enhance Spell Combat's penalty and help your Barbarian friend's Power Attack and/or your Summoner's Eidolon.

Just an idea. :)
Maybe the +Damage one could be similar

"You can ABSOLUTELY cast spells while holding a 2H weapon in one hand. But if that 2H weapon is your bonded object, you can't use it as a bonded object and may run into troubles. If you're playing a 2H weapon wizard, your best bet for arcane bond is something NOT your 2H weapon is all this means."...

...@Rageling:

In regards to using a greatsword and casting a spell:...

...In regards to threadjacking:

Thanks much! This almost entirely answers my question, leaving only one left:

If you choose to cast a spell, does this render you as "not wielding" the 2h until your next turn, or would a free/move action to re-grab it allow you to make AoOs as normal?

From the quoted line, it seems that there is no problem switching from held to wielded at all for any purpose - except in the terms of a bonded item. Seeing that this situation (Greatsword Wielding Sorcerer/EK) doesn't care about a bonded item, I'm pretty sure casting a spell doesn't interrupt their flow - that is unless there's some very well hidden rule that nobody has yet found. =P

As for "Threadjacking" - don't worry one bit about it!
While not in this particular case, I could see 2h/Double weapons coming up in the same idea, so it's technically on-topic.
I don't mind a little deviation - I just want people to play nice, y'know? S'all good.
(Edit: Plus, thanks for fixing my Haste ignorance... Heh. Can't believe I didn't read the new version... Dumb move on my part)

So what I've gathered so far, this is my standing understanding:
- While wielding a greatsword, you may cast a spell, and resume wielding it when the spell is done.

- If the greatsword is a bonded item, freeing a hand for somatics interferes with casting by default, as the bonded item isn't wielded at that moment.

Let's go a step further with the whole 2h/Double/Bonded thing though while we're here and my question's been answered... :)

Let's say you throw a feat into the mix: Monkey Grip (WotC Complete Warrior).
It lets you use weapons one size step up as if they were one lower, with a penalty to attack rolls. Remember that a greatsword is mechanically a longsword one size step up.

If a Wizard were to choose a 2h weapon as his bonded weapon, and actually took Monkey Grip, would this allow him to still wield his Bonded Item while casting spells with a somatic component, as it can now be "wielded" in one hand with the penalty?

Point of reference for this question, double-1h-aside, is that a double weapon can be used as a 2h weapon by default in the entry. Step back one, and it's 1h equivalent.

I'm seriously almost regretting making this post. -_-;;

Wish I could get something more official than opinion - it's getting crazy.

I'm still doubling back to my one thought though, which hasn't come up again;
You can cast a spell, and climb a ladder in the same round. Both take hand(s).
So why couldn't you cast a spell with a free hand, simply holding the greatsword in the other (already drawn and out mind you), then with your haste action reapply your other hand, and swing?

Now people... Respectful and constructive please. :)

"stop cheating. and watch your tone. " - Really?
C'mon man... that's not even close to helping.

SabreRabbit, and everyone else who's walking down that path again...
This is NOT about the Magus, or I would have put it in the Magus forum.
It was merely a conversation there that rekindled this thought about rules in general, which is why I'm posting it here! (sigh)
Please don't make me go back to my first post, and edit it to remove that class name.

Please base opinions and rules related thoughts on the following actions only:
--- Weapons used: Greatsword (2h)
- Standard (cast a spell)
- Move (???)
- Haste (single attack)
- Swift (???)
- Free (???)

Is there a rule that says you cannot temporarily relinquish your hold with one hand to cast a spell before attacking, and if so where?
If there is, would this not prevent you from doing any other hands-required action during the same turn you cast a spell?

(I'm still thankful for the feedback - I just don't want people stabbing at others here)

"Adaptive Casting"
A Magus that selects this arcana may cast any 1st level Magus spell they know without needing to prepare it ahead of time. Casting a spell in this fashion still counts towards their maximum number of 1st level spells for the day. A Magus must be 9th level before choosing this Arcana.

I'm apprehensive about this one. I like it, but only because I wish a Magus could sneak into Dragon Disciple... Heh. Though on the flipside a Magus that didn't MC or PrC would gain a nice bit of extra versatility by making his first level spells spontaneous. Considering it's only their 1st level spells, I don't think it's unbalanced - with the possible exception of DD... Thoughts?

I'm actually very fond of how easily the Magus can slip into most Prestige Classes without MCing.

I like that you can drift into Eldritch Knight to focus on the melee, but I also like how it can slide into Arcane Archer as well. I just wish there was an Arcana that let you cast your first level spells without preparation, so I could sneak one into Dragon Disciple... Heh.

I agree with your interest in allowing them to split their focus though.

Eldritch Knight fulfills the melee focus for them.

Who knows though... we have yet to see all of the new book.
There might be a PrC opposite the EK to shift towards casting instead.
There ARE others out there that trade attack for spells (mostly bard-based though).

Because a somatic component is a complete set of actions during a phase. You essentially need your hand free for entirety of your turn just like you would need to have your weapon in hand in order to attack.

One way to ameliorate this would be a Mage Arcana worded thusly...

First off let me say that this question actually in no way-shape-or-form is actually directed AT the Magus. The topic on the class is merely what got me thinking about it and little more, as noted by Stringburka.

I continue to contest though, that the line on somatic components isn't entirely true. I don't think it is a "Complete set of actions during a phase" - because a standard action is not your entire phase, nor would some extra action such as with a quickened spell or haste type effect (I know haste doesn't allow spellcasting - just using it as a comparative event). You can cast a spell, then climb a ladder for your move, which requires your hands - provided the cast time is a standard action or less. Or in reverse, you can climb the ladder and then cast a spell. I don't really see this as being any less of a use of one's hands.

As far as wielding and holding go, I suppose I allowed too much room here... I was mainly using them simply in a descriptive sense, without meaning to tie them in so much.

I guess the simplified question would be;
"Can you temporarily hold a weapon with 1 hand to cast a spell with the other, then grab it again?"
I believe the answer to this (per apparent rules and opinions) is "yes".

Even then though, I wonder.
Wielding is to have in both hands ready to use. Holding is different, sure, but I wonder how much this actually comes into play. I'm imagining a Sorcerer into Eldritch Knight that prefers a greatsword. At the start of your turn, you're still wielding the sword as you were previously. You drop one hand to cast your spell, then grab the weapon again, and take your haste-action attack. Far as I can tell, this works.

I see the important difference between wielded and held. Mainly that you can't make any AoO if you're merely holding a weapon. At least not with the weapon you're simply "holding".

But when does the change between held and wielded occur?
Myself as a GM, I think I'd say "wielded" would resume when next you made an attack, but I'm apprehensive considering you can wield a weapon without actually using it to strike. Oh sweet confusion... Heh.

By the way - posted this before I went to work this morning, and just got back. Glad to see this much upon returning home. Thanks to everyone who's contributing. :)

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I did a little searching on 2h weapons to try and find the answers, but technically didn't find one, so here goes.

I've been reading a lot of feedback on the Magus play test, where what I thought an old question keeps surfacing - the concept of having a hand free for casting a spell.

I'll start by admitting that I haven't combed entirely through the PF Core book, because enough of the mechanics remain the same to 3x, though likewise I haven't really gone over the rules for that in a while. I did once, and I usually run games, and everything seems to be working out.

Now here's the real question:

If you're wielding a 1h weapon and have a hand free, you can cast, right?

It seems though (through post conversations) that you're not allowed to cast while using a 2h weapon. Is this true, and if so, why?

Let me explain my thought process.
As far as I'm concerned about it, releasing the handle of a weapon with one hand takes pretty much no effort. My searches returned the general idea that loosing a hand from a 2h weapon (or re-grasping one) would essentially be free actions. Clearly you can't cast a spell in the middle of a full-attack-action, but what about before or after?

Let's say you're wielding a greatsword, and somehow you have the ability to cast a spell in the same round as a full-attack. What's preventing you from letting go of the handle to cast your spell, then grasping it again and hacking them up (or the reverse for casting after)? I personally think it's totally reasonable to hold a 2h weapon in one hand, especially for such a short period of time, but you'd need both to use it properly still.

Is there some rules law that I'm missing here that would prevent this? Does it actually state somewhere that this can't be done? Is there even really anything stopping you from wielding a 2h weapon and casting at the same time, or is this a wide-spread phantom fear without substance?

Thanks in advance for any answers I can get.

I love the flavor of this class just fine.
The name does seem a little off, but I like it none-the-less.

As for someone with a split interest in both Book Casting and Melee, I wish this class existed back when I last played a Duskblade. Fits the flavor I was going with WAY better. Then again I'm a sucker for sword & spell hybrids, and tend to blindly love them all (except Hexblade, until the unofficial-official forum fix).

Character was a human with a shared interest in swords and spells - trained under two separate masters, a fighter and a wizard. When they found out he was moonlighting with the other and failing to properly devote himself to their art, they both disowned him as a student, both feeling the other focus was worthless. He set out into the world determined to prove the two could work together, and make BOTH his teachers proud.

Loved that character. :)
Magus seemed like it would've been far more fitting than Duskblade.

Many good ideas... Don't think they'd all work, but a lot of good ideas.

This class really sings to my love of Swords & Sorcery in a way that few others have (PF Eldritch Knight, Jade Phoenix Mage, and Duskblade mainly).

I like in particular one of Abraham Spalding's ideas, with a change;
"Wand Combat" - You may substitute the use of a wand for your spell action when using your Spell Combat class feature. (I think Scroll, Staff and Potion seem a little more awkward - but I think wand is right-on).

As for some of my own...
"Absorb" - As an immediate action, a Magus that has chosen this arcana may sacrifice an available spell to gain 2 (maybe 3?) temporary hit points per level of the spell sacrificed, until the end of their next turn. Cantrips provide no temporary hit points. (My original thought was to allow these temporary hit points to possible stifle injury-based attack effects, such as injury poisons, if they fail to overcome the temporary hit points).

"Reactive Warding" - As an immediate action, a Magus that has chosen this arcana may sacrifice an available spell to grant their armor a temporary ability with a bonus not exceeding the sacrificed spell's level. This ability lasts until the end of their next turn, and may be chosen from the following list: Fortification, Spell Resistance, Ghost Touch, or Invulnerability. Requires 6th level?

I'm sure I have a few other ideas rattling around in my head. Just need some time.

Reading lots of this, I'm trying to think of how I'd home-brew it.

I think I'd pretty much just strip-mine both Rogue and Scout, leaving only Sneak Attack and Skirmish on the charts, and let you choose between the two. Opportunism, or Mobility, basically.

I'm really surprised Rogues don't have some +Move class talent.
As suggested above, I'd put in a +10ft move talent. Seems fitting.

Personally, I've always been fond of a MC Barbarian / Scout, especially if you can trade out the Barbarian's Fast Movement for something else (seeing they didn't stack). Now that a Barbarian's Fast Movement ability does stack with others, it seems even better.

As an aside - kinda funny how a Fighter question shifted into Skirmish. Heh.

Sorcs are my personal preference between the two, though I love all arcane casters.
I absolutely adore having both in a party, and watching the rivalry.

I swear I will never forget a player conflict I DM'd for between a Sorc and a Wiz...
The two let their egos get the best of them, and decided it was time to throw-down. The Sorcerer baited the Wizard with his Reserve Feats, then used his larger per-day allotment to systematically counter almost everything the Wizard cast above 2nd level. The Wizard got so ticked, and really played up the "You can't possibly beat someone who actually knows what they're doing" mentality (loved the flavor).

When the Wizard was out of spells, the Sorcerer threw him in a Force Cage, walked over to the Wizard's spellbook, and turned it to ash.
He then turned to the Wizard, who had a devastated look on his face, dropped the Force Cage and said;
"Wow, you're right! That book gave you way too much of an advantage! Good news though - now that it's gone, we can have a fair fight in the morning. After breakfast of course. Most important meal of the day, y'know..."
Then walked away.

Awesome.

The whole ability is poorly worded and nigh on useless as is but you are putting to much emphasis on the specific wording. Read in context it is clearly meant to prevent you from taking any damage that would kill you as long as you have your Eidolon available as your health battery.

I think for now we should all just flag this for a FAQ and interpret it as we feel is best until it is resolved.

Man, I always knew I'd lose to the metric system eventually... Heh.

But yeah... when it comes abilities, I tend to rely heavily on RAW. If something seems off, I usually house-rule it until some errata or clarification comes to light, but this time I'm actually a player (WOO-HOO! Finally after so many years DMing... *sniffle*). I've always wanted to play a summoner type character honestly, and was considering a specialist Wizard until I saw this - and the class made me happy. :)

I think the APG is a really neat resource, despite gripes - You'll never please everyone. Someone will always feel left out.
I'd still like clarification on Life Bond (pref from a Developer), but my heart still remains open to this class, and I look forward to playing it.

I think the DM's cool with me making a magic item that allows the Eidolon to remain when I'm out (sleep or other). I might talk to him about Life Bond also granting the Diehard feat. He's pretty easy going - we'll see. :)

(Side Note: I think all the new classes are very interesting, and kinda wanna try each one - except Cavalier - not my style. Gonna make a Book of Vile style Witch for my next NPC Villain... Woe is players)

This ability was given to the summoner before the rule about eidolons disappearing when the summoner goes unconscious, so my guess is that it just wasn't changed to reflect that now you need Diehard or a similar ability to get any use out of it.

It's very very strange to give a class an ability (especially so far in) that provides no benefit without a feat being taken. When I saw how it was worded, it took me a while to wrap my head around it - I tried to figure out how it was useful, but came up empty every time, except for the Diehard feat... which isn't provided by the class itself.

"Damage in excess of that which would kill the summoner is transferred..."

With a little reading, the only real resolution I got was that this ability prevented a 1-shot from positive HP, but I'm sadly certain that it doesn't even work like that.

Per core: "When your character’s current hit points drop to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score or lower, or if he succumbs to massive damage, he’s dead."

Let's say you have a CON of 16 for argument's sake.

Then you're hit for, say, enough to put you at -20.

Life Bond would make your Eidolon soak 4 points of damage, because that's what is in "excess" of what it would take to kill you.

You drop to exactly -16hp.
You pass out, unless you have a specific feat (not provided).
Your Eidolon goes poof, leaving you at exactly -16hp.
You die, because you're at negative your Constitution.

Without Diehard, this feature actually does nothing. You figure as part of this ability, either it would also allow the Eidolon to stay out, or would also give you the Diehard feat to go with it. If it left you at -15hp instead (using the above example) that would be slightly better, but you'd still have a decent chance of dying on the following turn (because you're not stable and Fortitude isn't a good save for you), and that's not how it works anyways.

I'm really sorry if I seem like I'm ranting, but this makes me really sad.
When I first got to see this class, I was very excited and drawn to it.
But to see a class ability, in excess of 10th level, that requires a specific feat to benefit from (a feat with a pre-requisite at that!)... and that the feat isn't even provided by the class, thus dictating you either spend 2 feats or lose this class feature... That's frustrating. :(

I can't help but think this was an oversight. I saw a few posts in my searches (from last month) from Jason Bulmahn in regards to the class, and I agree with him that this class has plenty of potential the way it is, and that people are being too harsh too quick, but he never said anything about Life Bond. I could have wished for 4+ Skill Points or a few more per-day spells, but what I really want most of all... is an official comment (and/or errata) on the Life Bond ability.

My friend's starting up a game next week, and I plan on playing one, but this ability leaves a hulking shadow of confusion in my leveling future.
I really don't want to spend 2 feats to make this ability work, but I also don't want an ability that doesn't work. :(