Shisumo's page

As a GM who is not the OP, I'd see utility in greater re-readability (i.e., smaller chunks that are self-contained), the psychological "break" of starting over with a new section, and greater ease in tracking down specific events that might not show up readily with the forum's rather-uneven search thread function...

You know, I've just realized: the sword saint gives up "mounted charge," which isn't actually an ability that exists from what I can tell - and if it is, as I suspect, supposed to be a reference to the cavalier's charge ability, samurai don't have that either, since they sacrifice it to gain the weapon expertise ability. Since sword saints have no mount, perhaps the brutal slash ability of the sword saint archetype is supposed to replace the mounted archer ability of the samurai? If this is the case, should the sword saint still get brutal slash at 3rd level, or should it be delayed to 4th?

Grr. Yes, I meant Psionics Expanded. That thing.

I can't say for certain, but I believe there is also a soulknife archetype in Psionics Unleashed that gives the soulknife a manifester level.

"I get rogue talents in place of major hexes" rogue.

I've got an idea for a musketeer of the order of the book, dedicated to the protection and control of the knowledge of gunsmithing and gunpowder creation.

The Yokai Hunter and the Lotus Geisha are being contemplated at my table. Any vague spoilers?

The lotus geisha is a bard archetype that can focus his bardic performance on a single target to either increase the save DC or boost the bonus. He also gets Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus for enchantment. These abilities come at the price of the bard's regular skill- and knowledge-based abilities.

The yokai hunter didn't impress me too much - it's got a weaker favored enemy (it doesn't increase as you level, you just get new types added at the base +2, and the list is limited), in exchange for the ability to recognize a favored enemy when shapeshifted or detect them at range. I'm not sure it's worth the tradeoff.

They're part rogue, part Inhumans-style Medusa - and they lose hexes to pay for it. All of them.

Sword saint loses banner, which strikes me as extremely disappointing for a samurai archetype.

Just a quick reminder too: this is your last chance to sell/buy stuff before you go traipsing through the woods.

I would like to suggest that fans of 4E L5R check out Heroes of Rokugan, the officially-sanctioned living-style campaign for L5R 4E. At the risk of blowing my own horn, it's pretty awesome.

B) She's seen as something of a non-traditionalist upstart by old fogeys who are wrapped up in the 'first born sons inherit' way of thinking and 'knights are men' paradigm.

I don't have my books handy to check, but isn't that roughly the way Erastil's opinion of her reads?

Why wouldn't I? I love gaming, and I've usually got an opinion or two to share. I might not care for 4E in the slightest, but that doesn't mean I might not like 5E just fine. More things to spend my gaming dollars on! Huzzah!

(and I went all the way through the PF Alpha and Betas, so yeah, been here done this)

The Scarnettis don't like that Cyrdak Drokkus and Sir Jasper have a relationship; furthermore, they really don't like that no one in Sandpoint seems to mind but them.

Homophobia is already in Golarion's canon, though it's apparently rather out of fashion and something of a minority view - if we can take Sandpoint's culture as indicative of a Avistani mainstream, anyway.

I note with some disappointment that the Ritualist doesn't seem to have made it in. I am not completely surprised, but I was looking forward to having John Constantine as a option alongside Sherlock Holmes and Temperance Brennan.

I refuse to buy the Investigator from DriveThru, but I saw it was there! just gotta wait a teensy bit longer!

breathes in...

breathes out...

Patience....

Shisumo wrote:

When I was playing around with using Exalted-style ticks for combat instead of traditional initiative, I decided to make initiative (at the start of combat) an initiative check - DC 5 = tick 6, DC 10 = tick 5, DC 15 = tick 4, DC 20 = tick 3, DC 25 = tick 2, DC 30 = tick 1. It would be not anywhere near as a big a deal to apply ACP to that kind of roll than to a straight init = roll kind of deal...

This is interesting and I may take a look at something like this sometime.

A couple of questions:

How did you generate initiative when you did this?

It seems like you would have a lot more simultaneous actions. Did that bog things down?

Initiative was calculated as normal, though I wasn't and am not wedded to that idea.

I haven't had a chance to play d20 with this system yet, but it doesn't bog things down as much as you might think in Exalted, because of the way the tick system works. Actions take a certain number of ticks to perform, with different actions requiring different numbers of ticks. That tends to spread out the actions fairly quickly, even if they start out fairly bunched up.

When I was playing around with using Exalted-style ticks for combat instead of traditional initiative, I decided to make initiative (at the start of combat) an initiative check - DC 5 = tick 6, DC 10 = tick 5, DC 15 = tick 4, DC 20 = tick 3, DC 25 = tick 2, DC 30 = tick 1. It would be not anywhere near as a big a deal to apply ACP to that kind of roll than to a straight init = roll kind of deal...

As far as I can tell, Shaitan Skin isn't even a supernatural effect, let alone a spell.

It's the arcane discovery Opposition Research, found in Ultimate Magic.

I'm playing around with a build for an oread monk who picks up Shaitan Style. Oreads have resist acid 5 innately, and Shaitan Skin would grant the character resist acid [monk level]. Would they stack? The resistance rules that I have so far found in the PRD only talk about energy resistance specifically from spells - "This resistance does not stack with the resistance that a spell might provide" - but otherwise appears silent on the topic of stacking. By calling out that resistance from spells doesn't stack, the text implies it would stack otherwise, but that's inference, not an explicit rule.

Anyone got a reference that I'm overlooking?

I really don't think Dragon Ferocity changes the Power Attack calculation at all. The damage multiplier of your natural attack isn't changing because of DF. DF is giving you a separate bonus that is also calculated off of your Strength modifier, but the two effects have no reason to combine. It might make your math easier to think of it in those terms, but that's a whole different deal than what Power Attack is looking at.

Happy Christmas and Merry New Year.... or something... to everybody too!

It is a pity that none of the Dragon Empires races are getting the 6 page treatment. On the one hand they are a bit new without much recognition at this point - but on the other hand they are the core-assumption of an entire continent of the Golarion setting. I think Paizo has missed a trick here. Especially if the Dragon Empires prove popular and precipitate into a hardcover, say around 2015.

Given the popularity of ninja and samurai archetypes, I wouldn't be surprised.

I think that's likely exactly the reason they aren't getting that treatment now. If the demand is there, a hypothetical Tian Xia World Guide would be the perfect place for a 6 page writeup, which leaves more space for races that aren't likely to have another opportunity like this one again for some time, if ever.

AA: The Investigator is scheduled for some time in December!

doubletake

Say wha....?

looks at calendar

WOOHOO

What little we've gotten has largely just been claimed by people who need it, which suits me fine - but I'm also willing to hear any alternatives.

Of course, that is predicated on the idea that he lives that long...!

The plan has always been for Torch to take rogue levels as we go - he's going to bounce between rogue and ranger until we hit level 6, then prestige out. I certainly don't object to others with rogue levels as well, but if that's the only reason you're thinking about it, then don't sweat it.

Woot! Now I can stop shanghai-ing Clint down from Omaha just to have a V-L handy. Congrats, Seth!

Just to toss out a build that hasn't been mentioned yet (because conceptually it amuses the heck out of me, not because it's actually good): empyreal sorcerer 4/Zen archer monk 6/arcane archer 10. I call it the Celestial Archer build. AC, casting and attack rolls all off of Wisdom!

I'm hip to the idea as well.

And he's not wrong there. Depending on the plan they're on, each DDI subscriber nets Wizards between $5.95 and $9.95. For us, though, a Pathfinder Tales subscriber nets us just $9.99 every few months, while a Paizo Superscriber might sometimes spend $100 in a single month.

wince And don't I know it.... (and I'm not even a superscriber!)

I hear and obey.

Eeeeeeexcellent. :D

Asim Chigaru wrote:

We just use the dice roller on the site here:

Hunh. That appears to be new... Thanks!

Yeah, it's a new century around here! ;)

Very glad to hear people are digging these. I have been thinking about them and obsessing about them since before we even had the idea to do the Beginner Box, and I am thrilled to hear that they are being received so positively.

GIVE ME A SUB.

Please.

Thank you.

Out of curiosity, for those of you who bought this product (or think you might be interested in buying these kind of products), which AP would you like to see us do next?

For various reasons, I think I would like to see a collection of pregens for an AP detailing the return of an ancient wizard and his army of giants as they threaten a frontier wilderness town.

(In case it matters, I am one of those who did drop the $5 on the Gothic pregens.)

I can jump in if y'all need someone, but I would prefer to use my own character if I did. Maybe I'll make up a cleric and submit him for approval. ;)

If you're up for it, go right ahead, man.

Depending on how much 3.0 OA/L5R flavor you want, I would make a couple suggestions for you. First, consider a class variant that drops the mount for a bonded weapon similar to the blackblade magus, replacing references to arcana with resolve uses instead. Then write up Orders that mimic the Clan Schools you're wanting to copy - one that focuses on heavy weapons and heavy armor, for instance (call it the Order of the Wall), or one that focuses on quick draw and high initiative (the Order of the Perfect Strike). I've played around with that idea in my head a little, but I haven't actually sat down and hammered anything out yet.

Having a spell-like ability is not the same as being able to cast a spell. SLAs do not qualify you for Arcane Strike. (The FAQ covers this specifically with regard to wands, but the same logic applies.)

EDIT This and the being able to one level dip for all the benies for the class are two things I am anxiously awaiting FAQ's on. (The one level dip just seems so anti-PFRPG)

I'd add to that list the mage bullets ability, because the way it's written I have no clue whether using mage bullets stacks with an already-enchanted gun, overrides the enchantments or interacts with it in some other fashion that Paizo might be making up just for the spellslingers...

As a separate question, does a spellslinger with a masterwork but not magical arcane gun get any benefit from casting a spell through the gun? The masterwork quality gives an enhancement bonus to attack - is that enough to give the bonus to the spell, or does it have to be a magical enhancement, either naturally or through the mage bullets abiliy?

gbonehead wrote:

While your gun is jury-rigged, it's not counted as broken, but it is broken. The question is which takes precedence?...

Malk_Content wrote:

Specific trumps general and the spell text is more specific than the misfire rules. Which makes the spell super awesome, especially when loading up with special ammunition.

The spell DOES seem super awesome, which is why I thought I should ask and get some other opinions ... ;)

I read it the same way as well.

Shisumo wrote:

Reloading or not, I pretty much refuse to accept any interpretation of "through" that doesn't involve pointing the barrel of the musket at your target and/or intended origin point for the AoE. And pointing a musket one-handed just isn't going to fly with me.

I do not see that Sean's interpretation disagrees with you. He said the somantic component is part of the act of the aiming and shooting...that would require both hands with a two handed weapon.

Unless I misinterpreted his post :P

Greg

If that's his position - and it might be, I admit, and I even first started writing my response with that belief in mind - it's definitely a houserule, albeit one I would seriously consider using myself. There's certainly nothing in the RAW that says that's the case whatsoever.

The problem with that interpretation and calling it RAW is that you have to decide that casting a spell 'through' your arcane gun requires the same things as firing the weapon normally (obviously casting a ranged touch doesn't require reloading or a whole host of things) but it doesn't define this one way or the other.

So you really can't call that a RAW interpretation.

My opinion is that it is clear that the intent is to allow the archetype to use two-handed weapons. (they are mentioned in the ability).

In my game I would probably rule that the somatic components of the spell are completed while holding the gun. But I am not going to say that is RAW... it does look like RAI though, and RAW is unclear.

Sean Mahoney

Reloading or not, I pretty much refuse to accept any interpretation of "through" that doesn't involve pointing the barrel of the musket at your target and/or intended origin point for the AoE. And pointing a musket one-handed just isn't going to fly with me.

Thunder_Child wrote:

Using both ends is equivalent to 2 one handed weapons and so no you would not get the benefit of a 2H weapon.

Not quite sure about that.

"A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it."

It says specifically attack penalties, it doesn't say anything about damage. It's a two handed weapon, it deals damage as a two handed weapon which is strength and a half.

From your own quote:

"The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it."

If you're using it two-handed and getting the two-handed benefits, you're only attacking with one end.

The advantage double weapons have in that regard is the ability to switch between the two uses, getting the two-handed benefits on rounds when you only get one attack (surprise rounds, rounds, you have to move, attacks of opportunity) while getting the TWF benefits when you have a full-attack action available. It's very nearly the best of both worlds.

Shisumo wrote:

I think pistol has to win over musket because of the option to keep a hand free for casting all the time; some GMs will let you let go of your musket to cast, but some won't, so the hands-free option wins out. It also raises far fewer questions when using an arcane gun specifically...

When you shoot your spells with your arcane gun you dont shoot bullets also. So its pretty much like holding any big object, like a quarterstaff for exemple. If some DMs are house ruling it different its fine but that interpretation is not supported nowhere in RAW.

Well, except for the bit where it says you are casting the spell "through" your arcane gun. Sorry, man, but if you sit at my table, you are going to have to explain to me how you are casting through a musket while only holding it with one hand. It's not going to be an easy task.

(Also, if you're holding a quarterstaff in a way that lets you use it as a weapon, you're *also* not going to be casting anything with your free hand. It's a two-handed weapon, just like the musket.)

You can, in fact, cast through a musket according to the RAW - you're just limited to spells without a somatic component or that you've prepped with Still Spell. But without one of those two things, using a musket seems like a pretty bad plan for a spellslinger, awesome art notwithstanding.

I'm actually playing a spellslinger who is going to pick up a level of fighter and then go EK, so there's that option as well.

You might also consider gunslinger/myrmidarch (magus), but I haven't really looked to see whether that's viable.

I think pistol has to win over musket because of the option to keep a hand free for casting all the time; some GMs will let you let go of your musket to cast, but some won't, so the hands-free option wins out. It also raises far fewer questions when using an arcane gun specifically...

If you want gunslinger/arcanist/EK, I'd have to say sorcerer, either a standard sorcerer with a mysterious stranger or a straight gunslinger with an empyreal sorcerer. Tying grit to casting stat seems like the winning combo to me.

Why Skilled cost 4 points and Advanced Intelligence only 4, the second is more important for anything (languages, skills, skills modifiers, abilities rolls, spellcasting, etc)?

From what I can tell, the costs of the system appear to be at least partially balanced in two ways: RP cost and tier access. Any nonstandard ability requires an advanced or monstrous race, which looks like it is supposed to automatically bump you up in APL calculation. So you're paying the cost in RP *and* in threat level. (Of course, that just winds up getting them more XP faster, so I don't know how much of a cost it actually is...) Regardless, the cost of Advanced ability scores pretty much has to be taking into account the tier access to work.