Rowan Buck's page

This one was really cool (not that they all haven't been) but I liked the subversion of expectations here with his "death" & how it affected Shelyn.

My money is still on Rovagug being the ultimate death though, since so many gods are aligned against him that his destruction is enough to spark a war both because it means something would be stronger than the combined power of several gods (or is simply able to kill them somehow in spite of their divinity) so they have to act in self-preservation and his death would also disrupt the uneasy truce several gods have.

Course, I'm sure they'll do something else just because I said so.

Encountered this as well, definitely felt bad so I changed my weapon away from a Parry Weapon (War Lance to a Lance).

So going to report on my play experiences with my first the Exemplar in this thread partly for discussion purposes but also to keep a record of my own experiences. To start, I did a Pathbuilder build with the custom pack made by Yasesril that I found on Reddit, so I thought it'd be good to link it for reference so folks could see what I picked:

Karuna

Character concept is part Disney princess (hence the singing) part demi-god and draws a good deal of inspiration from Karna from the Mahābhārata, save their brother killing them merely gave them their Body Ikon Scar.

This character joined an existing homebrew game with an ensemble cast of characters (Where PCs all have like 2-3 PCs that are part of a crew and folks rotate PCs around) and the PCs are largely level 7 but new character join at a level lower than the APL and this one was no exception. We play on Foundry so most everything was automated. Anyways the party went after a group of pirates who the crew had an existing beef with (they killed their old Monk) and the Exemplar. There were 6-ish enemies that were level 5 along with a crowd of jeering neutral-ish pirates who functioned like a Hazard (Routine seemed to be they could pushing people towards foes and either booed people when they rolled poorly or cheered them on when they rolled well as some sort of reaction). My Exemplar joined the fray and helped them fight the Pirates as soon as combat broke out, starting on the other side of the battle map than the other PCs. Not gonna describe every character in the scene but just the stuff directly related to the Exemplar.

Initiative - Put My Spark in my Weapon Ikon at the start of combat as part of initiative. Rolled a 19 and was middle of the pack in initiative. I think I may have started out with my Worn Ikon for the AC bonus since I rolled low-ish but idk for sure since positioning wise I wasn't near my allies.

Round 1- I drew my weapon, strode towards an enemy, then struck a nearby member of the pirates that I could put put off-guard/flank with our current Monk. This drew aggro from the pirate (they really didn't like persistent damage) and they attacked twice and hit me once, then stepped to make it harder for me to get flanking.

Round 2 - I stepped to get back into flanking, struck them, then used my Weapon Transcend ability to Drink of my Foes to recover some HP & switched over to my Body Ikon. The guy I hit still had his persistent damage from before and hit me again once but missed the second time & stepped to create room for his ally to flank. Another pirate saw said room and moved behind me, however this triggered my Reactive Strike and getting in a little extra damage. The flanker hit me again though.

Round 3 - I used my Transcend ability on my Body Ikon (No Scar But This) to heal up and thanks to Radiant Epithet I was able to help out the Monk with some passive healing, moved my Spark back over to my Weapon. I made a strike against the target I had been fighting already, rolled low but rerolled with my Hero Point to make it still hit. The Monk at this point stepped & flurried the guy who we had been working on for a while and downed him, triggering my Death Domain Reaction giving me some additional HP. The guy who had moved to flank me attacked (missed since we killed his flanker) but then ran off (no reaction to hit him since I already used Death's Call).

Round 4 - I delayed my turn because the Monk suggested he'd catch the guy who ran off, he chased him down and tossed him at my feet with a Whirlwind Throw after a flurry. I then attacked & crit them to finish them off, followed by another use of my Weapon Transcend ability to Drink of my Foes again after I killed them & switched things back over to my Body Ikon. Then Strode towards a remaining enemy in the encounter which ended up getting finished off at the end of the round.

All in all, I ended up with like 13-ish Temp HP and only 1 damage remaining (so nearly full HP). This was definitely an easier encounter, I think it was technically a Moderate encounter but felt like a Trivial with how the rolls worked (The Crowd Hazard affected the other PCs and not me due to rerolling my only bad roll and always fighting which made them "happy") but considering I was below the APL it probably was less so.

My first impression was the that economy was loop was very good and tactical, though a shorter encounter I felt like my choices of what I put my Spark into mattered a great deal even if the loop would have been similar (Like I missed my extra weapon Ikon damage the turn I too my Reactive Strike). My abilities felt powerful though and though I think I was hit my fair share of times (the monk got attacked about 2 times as often and was hit about half as many as well) my HP total at the end showed how powerful the mitigation was even if it was self-healing. Also having 2, good/versatile reactions was nice.

My Palisade Bangles felt sorta useless but perhaps if the positioning was better I could have started out with them. However after re-reading things I think that the Palisade Bangles Immanence doesn't work with Parry (Both Circumstance Bonuses) and the AoO/Reactive Strike would be better with Reach so I realized I would be better off with a regular Lance over a War Lance. Not sure if that's a bug, a feature, or just poor planning on my part and maybe should consider a different Ikon or give this one another chance. They don't necessarily fit into the combat loop but maybe the forced movement will be more appetizing in the next combat.

I plan on only playing another 1-2 sessions with this character since they were made for the playtest. I didn't get a chance to use Only The Worthy yet (it is sorta niche) but I'll keep an eye out for it too.

Sorry to practice a little thread necromancy, but I figure this might be better than starting a new thread for the exact same issue. Has any recent FAQ, Errata, etc changed the RAW on this?

I'm not the DM in our group but trying to get to the bottom of the situation RAW, but from the above comments seems the RAW is to have to Ready an action to attack then jump? Because if you don't do that (and don't have one of these feats to let you not have to ready) then when you jump to a square adjacent to an enemy above you you start falling if you don't have footing, and you can't take another action until you've finished falling as a consequence of your movement. Does that sum up things correctly? If so, where can I point a player to the rule that falling would happen before they can take their action to attack?

Definitely the right move, very pleased with this decision. :D

In fact, there isn't even one Magus Archetype from 1st ed that encourages or benefits Finesse playstyle so I tend to think that this is simply a mental artifact of the overpowered nature of Finesse and Dex in general in 3.X games to the point where even Classes that are not supposed to lean into that flavor still chose to because it was mechanically incentivized.

Um, have you seen the Kensai archetype? They were light/unarmored to get their Canny Defense and at that point you had a higher Max Dex on your armor so being a Finesse build was pretty much recommended for that archetype. Even without the Kensai, considering their use of Armor type scales and most games were held at lower levels, Dervish Dance offered accessibility to extra AC at early levels. Also, the iconic Magus using a Scimitar along with the accessibility of the Dervish Dancing feat(and later slashing grace for other options), made Dex based Magi a staple in PFS play for a long while. You could still make a STR build, and a lot of people did, but it's disingenuous to say that Finesse builds weren't popular with the class.

Now, does every class need to allow for that kind specialization? No, but I think there is a case for the Magus to get an archetype for one at least.

It makes me wonder if there's some reason they dont make striking spell work similar to eldritch archer, where the spell attack uses the same result as the weapon strike, or at the very least, allow the spell attack to use thw weapons item bonus for attack rolls.

That's a thing?! Seems like that'd be an easy, potential fix for the Magus.

For me there are 3 (somewhat esoteric & cyclical) pillars to the Magus:

-"Blends Martial Combat with Spellcasting Seemlessly"

In 3.5 & PF1 casting & fighting was clunky and most of the core classes weren't good at it, leaving it in the realm a prestige class to even try to blend together full BAB & any casting progression. The Magus did that out the gate and satisfied it in a way better than any previous attempts had(Looking at you Duskblade).

PF2's Magus has a hard time doing that because the 3 action system of PF2 is just so much more flexible and thus is more casting friendly than it was before. I'd say that the current offerings are... flawed but not without some good elements to build upon.

Someone else said that Striking Spell more closely resembles Spellcombat from PF1 and I think that's correct. I also have seen people say that the PF2 Magus "Feels like a class that is trying to full attack in a game that doesn't do that anymore" and I think that's true too. So a problem is that it's not doing it in a way that is seemless for the system.

-"A Magus was (almost) always 'on'"

If you never played a PF1 Magus(I still think most of PF2 players come from PF1 but in case you didn't) the Magus had a great deal of staying power despite their reputation as Nova-ing Crit-Fishers. They got a good chunk of spells, got extra spells from having a high INT, which meant more arcane pool, which also meant more spells via spell recall, and being limited to 2/3's casting meant that pearls of power for your highest level spells were cheaper than the Wizards at mid to higher levels. And even when they finally ran out of spells completely, they could still cast the Arcane Mark Cantrip and with their enhanced weapon(which if they weren't a Black-Blade user, they likely used the last point from their Pool to enhance it) to ride out the remaining combat. My point was that they always felt like they were a Magus. I think one of the concerns I have is that I'm not sure 4 spells is enough and that Cantrips aren't good enough to let them feel like they're still "on". They rarely felt like a sub-optimal fighter or wizard at any point. That one though will totally be subject to each campaign though and largely depend on if encounter design is being framed around the dreaded "15-minute adventuring day" or more closely resemble a traditional dungeon crawl. I'm not sure if 4 spells + cantrips a day will cut it but hey, we'll see.

-"A One-Stop-Shop For your Gish Needs."

By this I don't mean, it's the best at everything, even in PF1 they were still 3/4s BAB And 2/3's Casters. I mean that the suite of abilities the class had were strong enough at both casting and martial abilites that you didn't *need* to multi-class or supplement your features with others. One of the most disheartening things currently is that it seems that other packages(Fighters w/ Wizard Archetype Feats) seem better than the PF2 Magus on paper or that the Magus *needs* to take wizard specialization to get more spells.

The Magus was the Gish class to play in PF1 out the box without more toys, we want it to be so here as well. It was NOT the best at any of those but it was strong enough that it never felt like it was behind.

-----

And these things are definitely cyclical right? Like seamlessly blending spellcasting & combat in addition to always having your features online makes it less likely you'll turn elsewhere for supplemental class features for instance. But just my two copper on this which I'm glad to type out.

I don't play 5e but a buddy of mine said this is almost exactly how 5e spell casting works for Warlocks, but a fundamental difference is that characters in PF2E don't recover spell slots from a short rest and barring the Magus getting a spell recall feat or class feature that lets you convert focus points back into spells I think I'm pretty bummed about this kind of limited casting.

Or am I missing something?

"Shenanigans are going to let you make extra attacks" is just never going to be a thing in Pathfinder 2nd edition. The dex magus being able to cast a spell (even a cantrip), move, and strike in one round is about as good as you're going to get for anyone.

The problem the Magus has is that there's very little in terms of identity for the class previously that is not tied to mechanics.

I for one, do like all the synthesis options and the sliding synthesis, which is different from what we knew of the PF1 Magus but does a decent job refunding some of the action economy, though that does exclude the other play-styles then since those options don't get to move as well but I assume they'll get a feat to let them choose another option later on, so that might just be delayed, which would be okay then. If not it definitely should be in base PF2 Magus.

I'd disagree though that the identity of the Magus is solely tied to mechanics. Where the Magus shined was that they were the "out the box" Gish class, one that you could play from first level and effectively mix swords and sorcery out the gate. Sure and the action economy in PF1 was a big part of that but considering your classic Gish was locked until level 7 or so until they they qualified for Eldritch Knight, it's identity came from the fact it wasn't multiclassing and was already a cohesive package. Or more simply put, it was the thing you wanted to be already: a fusion of sword and magic in one. And it was arguably the best at that thing, even if it cost it other things like full BAB and Full Spell Progression. Add in all the classic archetypes(Kensai, Blade Bound, Hexcrafter, etc) you had a class with a lot of flavor.

While the PF2 Magus does do the Gish thing, it doesn't do it "the best" and as people have been pointing out it's not much better than just casting a cantrip and attacking. Add in the weird spell progression and it looks like taking multiclassing archetypes to combo fighter/wizard or magus with dedications to either and that seems to be better than the base class, in inherently doesn't feel like a real Magus, since it's whole thing was that it was the whole package. At least that's how I feel about it, and why I'd rather look at it as a separate class. Just like Champions are a re-imagining of a paladin-style class but it's not strictly the same thing. Having the same name doesn't help though.

Only time I think I did put my foot down was on an Assimar Sorcerer with a Dragonic Bloodline with gnome parents. I said they either had to be cross-blooded or take the eldritch bloodline feats to represent their clearly angelic bloodline but ultimately the flavor just didn't work for me and he didn't agree to those conditions.

Personally though I have been playing an LE Elf Witch recently and have had a few taboo evil actions that have gotten the character close to retirement. Her list of more notable taboo actions including selling the body of a deceased party member(he was from an unknown plane and thus valuable, it was worth noting that the profits went straight to the surviving party members), on rare occasions she desires physical company she casts dominate person on her potential partners until she finds one who successfully resists(she doesn't like weak willed people), and mind-molesting other party members and NPCs several times mostly to the benefit of the party(making them forget key details that were causing inter-party conflict and brainwashing defeated enemies into being our allies).

I hadn't honestly considered this, but this is a prefect example of false options.

As opposed to having two creatures gain the effects of the charge while also gaining full round attacks (thereby gaining something for nothing for all intents and purposes). We already know that effort is a "thing" despite being unwritten yet implied. This just requires both creatures to "put in the effort" so to speak, and is completely in line with previous rulings.

I'm not going to say that effort isn't a "thing", but the problem is the return in your investment.

I completely disagree on "gaining something for nothing". Aside from the specialization mentioned before, you risk eating an AoOs(if there are any enemies in line), subjecting yourself to a brace weapons too, and even simply getting to charge depends on fighting on favorable terrain(since your mount can't charge over difficult terrain). Your mount is also fairly vulnerable, PC mounts excluded. And you're lowering your AC for a single attack now.

I don't argue that charges can do too much damage under the old charge mechanic, but now they're just not worth the returns and investment. Especially when countered by a Second Level Spell.

"Is less abusable" I think are the words you are looking for ;)

Personally I think it's a rotten option. To get "good" at charging, you have to spec towards it quite heavily in feats and such. Even beyond that you either opt to be a small creature just so you can ride medium mounts to not be restricted in dungeons or you are fighting large enough enemies that even on the charge they get an AoO against you on the charge risking getting hit in the process. It's always been a trade off, just like how archers(Switch hitters excluded) spec very heavily into ranged damage.

I mean sure they do(or did) crazy damage on a charge, but I think it would have made more sense to nerf the options that add to damage and specify they don't add to a charge rather than make it so you only get the one attack. Now, I really can't think of anyone who would make a dedicated charger in my playgroup now.

Darth Grall wrote:

I edited into a comment, but I did see half-orcs had access to it. Seems to me they need to change it so that half-races can't buy into full race archetypes(I think requirements for a class strictly speaking isn't an effect, but that's just my opinion).

Cause yes, effectively 22 INT is silly if this was intended as a nerf. Also, I still miss the synergy con casting possessed, which for full orcs gave a relatively underpowered race a very cool and flavorful option.

I think there's an FAQ on the subject or something.

I'm sure there is, which is the problem to me. It seems to me to be a trend with Paizo's errata's and FAQ's, Instead of fixing the exploit that causes a particular problem.

MoMS getting into style progressions early? Better nerf Crane Wing.
Double barreled weapons enabling effectively 2 full-attacks a turn? Better hit Weapon Chords.
Half-Races getting access to ones designed for a specific race? Better nerf those classes.

It's just disheartening to see a game I genuinely enjoy continue to produce errata that I feel hurts the game. That said, they do occasionally hit the nail in the head, like finally hitting Litany of Righteousness and MoMS' bypassing style feat-lines' requirements. Just can't help but feel like they're currently doing a disservice to players with a lot of these kind of changes, and more bad than good.

Darth Grall wrote:

All in all I'm unhappy with the errata, but at this point I'm apathetic. Some of the changes seem much needed(looking at you litany of righteousness) and other less so. I guess I like it more than the last one since I have nerfs I actually like this time. None of these changes make me want to buy a new hard copy though, nor encourage me to in the future.

FLite wrote:

(By the way, your +5 musket doesn't blow up, it is just wrecked and can be fixed by a very cheap Make Whole spell.)

That is incorrect. Fixing Magical weapons are next to impossible honestly. Oh, you have a +3 sword/gun? That's at least a a CL of 9(it's 3 times the enchantment) and you needed at least 2 times that CL to fix it(18 in this case). So yeah... breaking/destroying your gun is a big deal.

Not saying guns didn't need a nerf though, but you are wrong on this.

Edit: They do get the gunsmith feat though, which lets them repair it when broken, but a proper make whole doesn't work on it very well if damaged or destroyed.

Please scroll to the bottom of this page. ^_^

Wow. On the subject of Errata, that is one spell that certainly fixes a big problem with broken magical items over all that's been a problem for years. I'll have to keep that in mind for the future, though I wish they hadn't squirreled it away in a book better known for it's wacky items. Still, thanks though.

My opinion is that it's great and I wish PC's had a reliable way of getting it at those lower levels.

It is exactly as others in this thread have said, it is an ability that greatly extends a parties day and resources and that's why I like it. In combat, it may only be "Dr once a round", but as stated it goes beyond that. It is, even in combat, much better because of bleed and other effects that make it better. But more fundamentally I like it because it does something really big, it removes the need for a dedicated healer.

Over the years I've grown tired of the traditional party make up and with Fast Healing, you aren't restricted in designing encounters around that paradigm. You wanna run a party of just Fighters or Rogues? Without that kind of ability, most would say it's more than just impractical, you'd have to tailor a campaign just to that party. With Fast Healing these kind of parties are possible in actual play, and increased diversity is a good thing or so I hear.

Best part in my opinion is it doesn't remove the role of a healer either, it just doesn't make it essential for the in between of encounters throughout the adventuring day. There are still many status effects that need curing, ability damage, raising of the dead isn't covered by fast healing, and of course in combat you will likely need some form of in combat healing. But still, it's nice to have until the game turns into Rocket Tag.

I will point out that Mythic Vampires are better than mythic Liches imo. They straight up overcome their weaknesses, get the ability to fly, energy drain multiple times a round, can AoE drain, and get some other cool tricks.

Mythic liches? They get SR, channel resistance, and 7 horcruxes instead of one along with other strange stuff.

Vamps get the better end for sure there.

At high level though, the game becomes a bit of a game of rocket tag, and PCs tend to be pretty good at it. I'll admit, weak encounters bore me too. That's why I tend to alternate between sessions heavy on rp, planning, and meat grinder of mooks, and sessions focusing on enemies whom could easily beat the party if they misplay. Deaths also just a status condition eventually. Just the progression of the game imo.

I wouldn't remove weak encounters tho. Invalidating a PCs power or abilities is generally a jerk move. Letting them feel they are powerful, is a means of preventing that.

Whatever the story needs them to be.

I honestly don't think MoMS is that problematic, it's such a cool archetype. Neutering it would create more problems than solutions, IMHO.

While cool, bypassing the restrictions on those feats via a class dip, was problematic. Besides, mixing the different styles is it's shtick, not cheating into them early.

I've seen so many Masters of "Many" Styles focus on a single style and then leave the class. They should have been allowed to bypass the requisites on the actual style feat, then build into the others in the line(like Crane Wing) with their regular feats/higher tier bonus feats like regular monks. Would get a lot more MoMS PCs with multiple styles instead of rushing for the one they plan to exploit.

seeing as how they are FORCED into gas form when they go below 0, if you change them back to normal, even if it means that they don't have the 2 hours before they die, they are still unconscious and dying in their normal form, so as long as the anti-magic field stays in place, they are going to bleed out and die eventually unless they make their save to stabilize.

Don't undead by rules die at 0? So no bleeding out or anything. In fact I think they're immune to bleeding IIRC. So no dying condition.

So for me I still think it boils down to one of two rules interpretations:

1- They should instantly be destroyed, since they're still undead at 0 and their special trigger to keep them alive doesn't work(or as if they didn't reach their coffin in time).

2- It's though they had reformed in their coffin and are helpless.

Another way to look at/play it, is since it is a forced conversion (assuming gaseous form) it could be similar to how Golems still work inside AMF areas and it doesn't revert.

Just throwing it out there.

I could see someone ruling it that way, however it still is a (Su) and not called out as a thing that would still work in an AMF, so I'm less inclined to rule it that way in my game. I mean I get undead work in it, but it doesn't protect their Supernatural abilities.

Okay, so say you've been fighting a vampire and you finally knock him down to 0 HP, he assumes his mist form and is trying to book back to his coffin. What happens when you say, try and transform him back?

It's a (Su) so you can't dispel it, but at a certain level a Wizard can just cast Anti-Magic on the area. Or an Inquisitor Banish Seeming it back to it's original form?

This happened in my last game, and was curious as to what the RAW stance is. As far as I can tell, it totally works and results in the Vampires instant death(Since they can't get to their coffin). Thoughts?

As he was one of the more active members of the Paizo team on these forums, and a generally influential designer, shall miss his presence even if I didn't always agree with him either. I wish him and his wife the best.

Constant Lighting Stance can be really cool if you get the whole line of feats to make it work. That means you need:

Combat Expertise
Improved Feint
Disengaging Feint
Dodge
Mobility
Disengaging Shot
Winds Stance
Lighting Stance

It requires a TON of feats but... Man, in a solo encounter with a BBEG it's pretty awesome.

Feint works well against the new Crane Wing, but not the old Crane Wing.

True, but only because feinting doesn't actually make a foe flatfooted without significant investment. If it did, even against old crane it would have worked(since they couldn't deflect when flatfooted). I know people prefer to nerf rather than buff, but this could have been an attractive balance change for a neglected subsystem.

IF the player is intelligent, and uses Crane Wing the way it's meant to be used?

No, you really can't use melee against it. He'll smartly deny creatures their full attack actions. The rest of the party will help him do that. Unless you have all hydras that get full attacks on SA's, a good Crane Winger can simply make it almost impossible to melee successfully.

That's a type of invulnerability. It's boring and frustrating after you do it the 10th time for all involved, even if it's cool and stylish the first couple of times.

If you're playing mook creatures...Crane Wing already caters to high AC. The threat from lots of mooks is not a threat. It's just more dice rolling.

==Aelryinth

FEINT. FEINT STOPS IT. If the monk isn't raising his Sense Motive, the DC will even be in their favor since Monks are not actually full BAB.

I feel like no one thinks this is a legitimate thing >.>

You know, it doesn't require any special training to Feint someone. Just a few skill ranks, and bam, you can deal with a crane wing user. No AoO or anything.

I kinda suspect they were thinking the nerf would come across as more reasonable than it does.

I think they must have too. But most players and DMs I think can agree that defensive options are already weaker than offensive ones, and this make one of those better options now one of the weakest for the cost.

See I don't even get the whole reason one would nerf it. Were DMs really that upset they couldn't hit the few PCs with this feat? When I don't hit my PCs I'm glad, I want my players to win against the odds.

You know what would have been a great nerf? Remove/Reduce the reduction of AB penalties from the style. If you don't want them to maintain offense while getting deflection, make it so that they don't hit as easily.

You don't want the deflection to be automatic? Come up with a check or something to make it less consistent.

Because an optimized monk build using this feat chain is a headache for a GM. I speak from experience here. I have one in my game right now.

I now have to generate encounters with creatures that have insanely high attack bonuses and multiple attacks per round just to challenge the monk in the group, at the expense of everyone else playing who can't--like in last night's session--deflect a 4d8+22 damage bite attack from a Gargantuan creature (and thus the subsequent grab/swallow checks).

I have to routinely break the thematic content of the campaign I am running to incorporate monsters that don't fit in just to give the monk a taste of fear for his life.

That's not fun. That's facerolling. It's playing on Easy mode. When there is no challenge, there is no reason to play.

I disagree vehemently.

I recall there being an old DMing axiom: "Don't punish your players for what their good at." Just because a party has terribly low Touch AC but really high AC, doesn't mean every NPC now has Advanced Firearms. Just cause on character has great Will saves doesn't mean you just throw Reflexes at them. And just because there's a paladin in the party, doesn't mean you stop throwing evil creatures at the party to deny him his bonus to hit.

People build their PCs to be good at something, invalidating it is not the right thing to do. If said monk was so durable, let him be durable. Those few moments he has to sweat will be all the more memorable, when he comes up against a well equipped Archer, or interesting monster. That monk's taken penalties to get there, including sacrificing AB and paid several feats Taxes to qualify.

Plus, all you have to do is ignore him for his choice of feats to become useless, you need not throw monstrosities just to counter a single monk. That's just excessive.

Rob Godfrey wrote:

Change wasn't needed, it was balanced and acceptable

We need all martial feats to be gunning at that level, or all spells to be hammered down hard(for example Blur and Mirror image to be removed)

Blur and mirror image both create a miss chance, not a guaranteed miss, which is most of the problem here. It was the automatic nature of crane wing that was the problem, not the fact that it is good or effective.

Was the errata perfect? Probably not, but that doesnt mean a change wasnt necessary.

Again I agree martials should get lots more nice things, but making them invulnerable to lower level humanoid enemies making melee attacks is not an answer.

Then just make it variable. Make them make a WIS/DEX Check or something. As it is, no one will use this now.

Cause you know what DMs already did with Crane? Ignored the Crane user in the short term. You know what's gonna happen now?

PC Monk: I use a swift to go into crane and full defense.
DM: That tactic only works if I attack you, and this enemy is smart enough to realize that. Instead the mooks/BBEG will go around you and attack the Wizard.
PC Monk: They move past me to get to the Wizard right? I take an AoO!
DM: No you don't, you can't AoO when Full Defensing outside of your Riposte.
PC Monk: ...
PC Wizard: I hate you Monk.

Loads of dead monk turns.

SlimGauge wrote:

To those contenting "you can still do it if you go total defense". I can can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen ANY character in Pathfinder go total defense.

might be it is done more if it is more useful... like taking a feat to make it so.

Unfortunately that's not gonna be how it's going to work. You know what that's gonna make enemies do? Ignore you. They will see that you are clearly taking a defensive position, then ignore you and focus on your buddies.

Then OOC your friends are calling that monk an idiot for spending whole turns doing nothing while they actually fight.

Change wasn't needed imo. Defense is a sub-optimal route in Pathfinder as is, nerfing one of the more viable methods of maintaining defense is not something I can agree with.

Even if you believe it needed a nerf, it didn't need to be worthless. Riposte is now worthless too since you don't know when you'll actually get hit.

I'm really flipping mad about this.

My opinion on the matter is that it's fairly simple to close your eyes and start hitting them. If you have blind fighting, it's not a half bad Idea. If not, then you're making yourself more vulnerable.

Obviously you lower your AC unless you have the feats, and even the basic only protects melee. You lose your AoO's since you give you enemies the miss chance, since there is a rule saying concealment does that.

Now would I limit someone by making them take a Move Action? Not a move action, no. Though I would make them keep em closed for at least a round for it to have an effect. Make it a real decision to counter it or not you know?

Can I just say I don't think we need to limit the Arcanist by school of spell? I think the old counter spelling mechanic has always been sorta clunky:

First one has to make a spellcraft check. Which starts fairly hard, then becomes laughably easy as the levels progress.

Then they have to either have one of 4 types of spells on hand:
-A Spell of the opposite energy(spells that specifically counterspell or a dm can allow to dispel)
-The same spell known/prepared
-Dispel Magic
-Spell of the same school(if they have the feat)

What the Arcansist needs:
-Spells of at least one level higher
-Same spell

They then have to succeed on a dispel check, which for non-arcanists they only have to make in the case of Dispel Magic, there is again a variable chance of success.

And given that they don't have nearly as many spells as any other full caster(even witches get more since they have wizard progression) and are largely reliant on consuming their own spells to fuel their reserve, this frankly is a really bad for the arcanist. They can't even use dispel magic with it >.> I seriously think counter spelling just plain needs a buff to be usable, even if it's just for the Arcanist.

I suppose that I'm in the minority, but the drop off in spells per day seems unnecessary, especially when the arcanist has to either expend spell slots or magic items to get his pool anywhere near capacity.

You are not the only one, I think loads of people have voiced a desire for more spells since consuming stuff with be highly circumstantial at best.

An alternative would be to give the class scribe scroll as a bonus feat, so they can consume their leftovers the next day. And it should be a bonus feat imo, so they aren't getting taxed.

I might also recommend the Sword Saint Archetype. You give up your mount & banner, which is circumstantial at best, but in exchange you get some cool de-buffs and extra. Keep in mind the ability works best as a Surprise round type thing since it's otherwise mechanically hard to pull off(so keep high Init if you can).

Surprise Round:
Intimidate & Challenge

Round 1:
Iaijutsu Strike(Full Round) W/ Power Attack

If you do it right, you can OTK a foe with a Keen Weapon since your Challenge damage crits too, and the extra precision damage is just gravy. Or at least this is what a player in my game is doing.

This thread is surprisingly calm. Guess that just shows how bad off the Rogue was...

Okay so there is something of a disparity between the saves among one of my parties, namely a few players saves are through the roof(The paladins and the Magus really) and was wondering has anyone ever has a monster with an ability that inverts the success of saves? Figuring it'd be a good way to mix things up for a fight or two.

For example on a 22 DC save, 22 or higher would fail and anything below a 22 would succeed. A nat 20 would be failure and success would be an auto succeed 1. Thinking it'd be a (Su) Aura. Thoughts?

Firstly, glad the Team has finally decided to take on this issue...

But holy cow, nerfing it into the ground isn't the way to go with it.

First and foremost what part of this is a "good" change for sound strikers? I'll breakdown the new lines:

Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with up to 1 potent sound per bard level (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet.

Um... no, cause I'm sure this was such a problem before >.>

No target can be struck more than once.

Huge blow to the ability.

Each potent sound expends 1 round of bardic performance.

Another huge nerf, people not only can't single target anymore they can't even make attacks to a group of people if they don't have enough performances.

These are ranged touch attacks.

Not new, and as is currently being discussed, this isn't really new and continues the problem that it can't be weapon focused and other various issue.

Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus. At 10th, 14th, and 18th level, the damage increases by 1d8.

Okay, so you get an additional die per hit as you level... but that means a measly average of 4.5 damage per 4 levels. Man, what spells damage go up by 1 damage die per 4 levels? This is still a huge nerf compared to hitting one target with all 10.

Now, removing the fort save is a small boon tho, or at least a less of a headache as a DM, I do have to acknowledge that.

The bard chooses what type of damage each word deals (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing).

And it's still subject to DR. Not a change.

Okay so all in all, I HATE the proposed changes. Perhaps that's a strong word but while change was needed, this feels like a knee jerk reaction to nerf it into oblivion. Or like bullying on Sound Strikers. The ability wasn't overpowered before and this makes it near useless.

However, not just provide vitriol, here is how I would write it:

Weird Words (Su): At 6th level, a sound striker can start a performance as a standard action, lashing out with up to 1 potent sound per 2 bard levels (maximum 10), each sound affecting one target within 30 feet.
Targets can be struck more than once. Each potent sound expends 1 round of bardic performance.
These are ranged touch attacks that count as weapons for the purposes of feats and other abilities relating to weapons.
Each weird word deals 1d8 points of damage plus the bard's Charisma bonus. At 10th, 14th, and 18th level, the damage die increases by one step(1d10 at 10th level, etc).
The bard chooses what type of damage each word deals (bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing)
This performance replaces suggestion.

My Reasoning:
-A soundstriker should be able to hit one target more than once, allowing them to effectively contribute in "boss" fights beyond buffing, even when they have DR.
-By scaling the number of words & their damage die by level will remove the abilty plateau concern that was addressed in the team's response. Also, this will help get over DR at later levels, but not enough to make the ability feel like it's overshadowing true blasters.
-Clarifying that weird words can be weapon focused and so on is sorta essential, and just helps keep the ability consistent.
-Keeping the cost of one performance per word makes sense if we're getting rid of the fort save & letting multiple words hit one person. This lets a Sound Striker "Nova" but not without decreasing his/her continued efficiency.

Course these are just my opinions, but that's how I'd do it.

I second Kensai Magus. It gives you a lot of what I would call Jedi.

-Spell Casting
-Good In Melee
-Ability to Reach High Places(Via Dex is you're a Dexer, spells like Bladed Dash and Force Hook Charge if you're not).

Of course I'd just Convert the Saga Jedi to PF tho if the DM allowed it if that's what you're looking for.

I have a Sword Saint Samurai( with the customizable edicts that the Ronin order provides) in my homebrew game and as a Dm this is my opinion of the class.

-It is the Crit Fishing class given how easy it is to confirm with a Katana/Wakazashi provided it's your chosen weapon w/ expertise. Full Bab & effective fighter levels with that weapon help keep the Samurai lethal in Martial combat.
-Challenges are infinitely easier to use than Smites due to the lack of restrictions on them. And yeah it's still a limited per day, but it is a boss killer ability. Always good to have.
-Resolve is a very strong mechanic all around.
-Order is fine too, largely cause he set his own rules. Mechanically it is useful, not the best but it does have some niche appeal(the time he's fought another Samurai or an anti Pali it's come in handy).
-Now, a Sword Saint's burst move is harder to pull off, but very satisfying when it happens.

All in all, I like the class a lot. I feel it's one of the Strongest Martial classes in the game actually.

Hoping to continue discussion on this topic.

Do you think it is broken or a band-aid?

I think it's a Band-aide for multi-classeers / gimped PrCs. Hopefully tho this won't be needed as much as we get new class options in the future.

Depends on how they do it.

A classic good guy bandit scenario would be a Robin Hood, who doesn't kill but instead just 're-appropriates wealth(CG imo). More neutral would be someone who robs but doesn't kill(CN). Robbing and killing is more evil(NE) as where killing just cause would be the most chaotic(CE).

My take anyways.

I personally hate the old school concept of having to ramp up difficulty just to sate some sort of old dm vs players mentality, thus I prefer players having a modicum of power and durability. That doesn't mean you can't challenge your players in some way though, but I don't see why losing always has to mean the death of a player character. There are often many more interesting injuries to inflict imo.

The best villain I've ever thrown (imo) at my players was back in Saga, in a Saga Edition SW game. Unsurprising to the canny, his name was Darth Grall.

I wrote out this huge backstory for him and he was supposed to walk into the Jedi temple, kill a Senator the party was interrogating, and walk out leaving a mystery in his wake as to his identity. As these things often do, they didn't go according to plan exactly.

A two hour encounter ended with a single player character shooting himself in the head(cause he couldn't live in a universe where he could get a cool robotic replacement hand) and another trying to kill the others by barraging the party with missiles. Grall lived through this, mostly because of how suicidal the party was, and because the encounter sour'd them they immediately began calling him Darth "Ball Sack".

In retrospect, he was a little over leveled and the PC's were overtly stubborn, but this was the first time they out right got beaten and they never really forgot it. They would later go on to defeat him, but he would in turn get his revenge on them. Eventually they even teamed up with him before his ultimate redemption and exile at the game's finish. But in time they came to respect him, and acknowledge him as their long running rival who just wouldn't stay down for long.

He's my favorite because he started off as something my players just genuinely hated and ultimately became something they respected/loved.

Firstly, majorly interested in following this since I loved Saga to an unhealthy degree(name might be an indicator), so dot.

Secondly, I liked using skill based magic systems(particularly for the nat 20 power pool refresh) butI would not require feats to gain access to force powers(or at least make it non-mandatory).

Spell Combat from Magus, first feature I've seen that makes a Gish really work out of the box.

Both? Personally I didn't the shift in art but I'm okay with the catfolk race being as genetically diverse as actual cats and allowing for both.