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

Skylancer4's page

3,508 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,508 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Aren't there some prereqs that cannot be "ignored"? I seem to recall some posts about it, but I never really followed them all the way to conclusion.
Not quite. There are some item types you can't ignore prereqs for. You can't ignore prereqs for potions, spell completion, or spell trigger. Totally can ignore racials, though.
I have a problem with that though. If you could ignore the "racial" requirement, why is it even called elven chain, since any tom dick or harriet ogre would be able to make it then?

Unfortunately while I don't agree with it, it is easy enough to explain. Once a product is out there, someone is going to figure out how they did it. Elven chain was made originally by elves, doesn't mean no one else can make it, it's just the origin.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

If the Soulknife was solid then the Aegis and Psywar were broken OP.

Psychic Strike previously was kind of lame and almost universaly Gifted Blade is the preferred Soulknife build.

Your opinion is noted, but that doesn't change what it is.

I'm not seeing why it is "unviable" due to being called "lame" however.


Nyaa wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
The class was solid by just about every critical opinion when DSP put it out. So what is so unviable about it in your opinion?
Soulknife is solid T4 class. Guess that was fine back in UPsi days, but with PoW and Akashic Mysteries where pretty much all the classes are T3, soulknife needs a little buff.

So the arms race is actually on with your own material?


Aren't there some prereqs that cannot be "ignored"? I seem to recall some posts about it, but I never really followed them all the way to conclusion.


It is something also seen in free to play MMO's. There are "whales" that will spend tons of money on the game due to their enjoyment of playing and/or desire to get everything they can as fast as they can. Where the vast majority will be spending what they can, when they can with the micro transitions on the shop. I've seen A LOT of money spent in some of these games (upwards of a thousand dollars easy from one person). So what you probably need to do is feel out how many of those interested are willing to invest at that price/product point and if it is worth it on your end. Worst case scenario, if the demand is significantly past what you expected you can increase the limited edition print numbers as a stretch goal or something of the sort.

People who want the limited edition hardcover want it for various reasons. Not just that it will be one of twenty five. If this is the only time you are printing it, increasing the number in circulation won't really be an issue I don't think. Especially if you state upfront that you might open up more of those print slots if demand requires it. I think limiting the print option is probably a good idea, especially considering what the poor guys at DSP have been through to date with UltPsi, if you are unsure on how much interest and funding you are going to get. They are still going through fulfillment issues on physical products and it has been one of the major headaches they ran into from most updates they sent out.


What is unviable about psychic strike? What is unviable about self increasing weapons with modular enhancement? The class was solid by just about every critical opinion when DSP put it out. So what is so unviable about it in your opinion?


Forseti wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Forseti wrote:

Flank {DC 20): You can instruct an animal to attack a foe you point to and always attempt to be adjacent to (and threatening) that foe. If you or an ally is also threatening the foe, the animal attempts to flank the foe, if possible. It always takes attacks of opportunity. The animal must know the attack trick before it can learn this trick.

Nothing in the text of that trick implies that a companion can't chose to flank when it's convenient for the companion.

It isn't stated anywhere, but isn't it a fair assumption that animals in general (like the ones in the bestiaries) have a basic understanding of how to use their feats to their benefit? What makes companions different in that aspect?

There are no rules anywhere that tell you how the animals attack.

Then flank got published, which gives guidelines.

If you (as GM) or your GM (if you are a player) declares that you get the benefit of the Flank trick for free, great.

Otherwise, I would stick with the published materials.

I agree that ACs would use their feats. Outflank doesn't talk about the animal placing itself in a flanking position, it DOES however, talk about it USING the flanking position to it's advantage.

Seems pretty clear.

When in doubt, ask your GM.

The first thing I posted in this thread was: "It really depends on the GM how this plays out."

So you're telling me that all the nay-sayers in this thread are just repeating a made up not-quite-consensus instead of referring to rules? That's not very helpful in the rules forum.

As I stated before, the flank trick offers no insight or guidelines on how animals might behave if they don't know the trick (or if they know it but aren't told to flank). The trick forces them into a behavior that threatens their own safety to a far greater extent than regular combat would, and that's something I agree animals wouldn't do without coercion.

There's no reason, rules or common sense, to assume that animals are too dumb...

Following an adventurer puts them in harms way by default. They aren't some super animal just because they are your AC "by default". You are coercing them into danger by making them follow you. Your argument is invalid.


Cap. Darling wrote:

I realize this is the rules forum but i am gonna say it any Way. In my game a AC Will move to flank if it Can do so with out provoking, with out special training. The attack command include this, for me.

Needing a special splat book for this is silly and a example of how the material bloat by creating options actually take option away.

And that is fine, Rule 0 allows you to do what you want in your game. The rules make no mention of ACs automatically flanking for combat, so when you tell one to attack, it would essentially make a bee line go the target to attack. It does what it was told to do in the most basic and simple way possible.


cerhiannon wrote:
Urath DM wrote:
Advanced Class Guide, Hunter, Precise Companion wrote:


Precise Companion (Ex): At 2nd level, a hunter chooses either Precise Shot or Outflank as a bonus feat. She does not need to meet the prerequisites for this feat. If she chooses Outflank, she automatically grants this feat to her animal companion as well.

Does the granting of the Outflank feat's benefits to the Animal Companion assume that the Animal Companion knows how to flank with the Hunter, or is it up to the master to maneuver into flanking position?

Must the Hunter train the Animal Companion to flank in order to do it on command (using the "Flank" trick from the Animal Archive or "Other Trick")?

I agree with the player, they do not need to teach the AC the flank trick. Here is why:

Sentence two specifies that prerequisites do not need to be met.

The trick flank isn't a prerequisite.

The animal doesn't flank unless trained or pushed to do so normally. Having the feat doesn't change that. It just gets a better benefit when it is in such a position.


Depends on if they decided to up the power level by leaps and bounds by everything in the publication instead mild power creep over several publications.

More options is okay, options that blow anything else out of the water and give significantly more than the previous baseline isn't. They aren't options at that point, which is the problem.

Besides the Soulknife isn't nearly as crappy a class as the fighter, so it isn't even a valid comparison.


Dallium wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Dallium wrote:

It doesn't make any logical sense for an AC to have feats that enhance it's ability to flank without knowing how to flank.

But it makes PERFECT Pathfinder sense.

The animal doesn't have to know.. remember it's an animal companion so you get that druid speed bonus in pushing it into maneuvers you need to have it done, which I think is a swift action? There actually IS a reason to make some investment in Handle Animal for Druids, Rangers, and Hunters.
Handle Animal wrote:
Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle an animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.)
Not as good as people want it to be.
But it is an option that takes minimal investment to use. And you are better at attempting it than normal. Which is the point. You don't want to use the trick for "reasons", then don't. But don't expect the trick to be easy or free for "reasons" either.
Minimal investment would be "Hey, I'm teaching my AC the flank trick. Has it been a week yet? No? Ok, tell me when it has so I can make my check."

That would be something handed to you for free.

The term investment assumes using resources to gain something. In this case skill points spent over a character's career to gain access to something they want. Like an auto flanking AC. You could do it by investing in the skill trick or by investing in an actual skill that allows you to command the AC as you wish despite not investing in said skill tricks. This investment gains access to all the skill tricks essentially, so it isn't like it is a resource "tax" or requirement for one specific use. The character actually gains significantly from it.


Archaeik wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Dallium wrote:

It doesn't make any logical sense for an AC to have feats that enhance it's ability to flank without knowing how to flank.

But it makes PERFECT Pathfinder sense.

The animal doesn't have to know.. remember it's an animal companion so you get that druid speed bonus in pushing it into maneuvers you need to have it done, which I think is a swift action? There actually IS a reason to make some investment in Handle Animal for Druids, Rangers, and Hunters.
Handle Animal wrote:
Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle an animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.)
Not as good as people want it to be.

But it is an option that takes minimal investment to use. And you are better at attempting it than normal. Which is the point. You don't want to use the trick for "reasons", then don't. But don't expect the trick to be easy or free for "reasons" either.


I am 100% sure no one in our group would have used "unfun" as a descriptor for Psychic's handbook. Especially considering it was one of the only books we had several copies of.

If anything, in a fanstasy setting like the core setting that has readily available healing through magic items and multiple other means, it was rather easily abused. Never mind the fact that PFRPG gives away more feats and skill points than 3.5 so it would be significantly stronger than it was.


If they are moronic enough to lay down AoE's on the rest of the party for no really good reason there is nothing you can do to help.

Play the character you want and enjoy it while it lasts (aka until the party implodes due to stupidity).


Davor wrote:

Well, what I really enjoy playing is support characters, but support characters don't work when the party doesn't actually function like a normal party. I'm playing at this point because I really like our DM, and despite their tomfoolery I actually really like my fellow players. They're just terrible at the game. The adventure we're going through is also interesting, and I'm enjoying the setting.

My main problem isn't that they aren't invested in their characters: They're enjoying the roleplaying aspect of the game. The issue is that they've been making TERRIBLE combat decisions that have not only resulted in the deaths of two party members before (one of which was mine), but would have resulted in several other character deaths if not for the poor luck of the DM.

My desire to carry the group doesn't arise because I care about the game, but from the fact that I want to enjoy doing something on my turn, and helping them in almost any capacity through support/debuffing has, thus far, been a complete waste of time. Therefore, I just want a character that can, himself, survive and be productive without the need for the others.

We're almost 8th level.

Core rules/Paizo products only or 3PP allowed?


Urath DM wrote:

Thanks, but the question is raised in the context of the Class Feature that offers the Outflank and Precise Shot feats as options. Other feats, even if possibly better choices, are not relevant to the question.

Tricks or Handle Animal checks.


You can use the Enhancement bonus of a belt of DEX +x to qualify for the feats after 24 hours. This saves you from having to heavily invest stat points into DEX but also makes you vulnerable to Dispel Magic or the like (you would lose access to the feat because of prereqs being lost).

It does what you are looking for.

Also this isn't a MMO, a "tank" isn't a role. If you are hard to hit but don't do much damage, any semi intelligent creature will pass you up for another target. So the question becomes what exactly does a "tanky" character do in your mind? There is no aggro or taunt ability in PFRPG.


What level?


What level? A flag bearer buff hard is going to give significant flat bonuses to all allies, the benefits can't be used improperly or messed up.

A witch slumber/evil eye bebuffer with cackle to extent it is another flat out penalty that the group can't mess up. Just tell them ahead of time to use coup de grace on the slumbering enemies. If they ignore that, just target opponents that are out of the way.


Dallium wrote:

It doesn't make any logical sense for an AC to have feats that enhance it's ability to flank without knowing how to flank.

But it makes PERFECT Pathfinder sense.

Well assuming that character trying to take advantage of the flanking bonus is smart enough to maneuver into a flanking position (send AC in and move character to correct position). As opposed to the assumption everything works to the best benefit of the character.


There is always pushing the animal too, as a skill check.


Use or command activation is still an activation.

A reactive spell cast isn't a constant bonus , it is a benefit to wearing a certain item. Strictly speaking a constant bonus is completely different from a benefit which is granted while wearing an item. Mechanically speaking, a bonus is a numeric addition to a roll or statistic.

A Ring of Protection +3 is a constant bonus of +3.

Boots of the Enduring March grant a benefit when worn, which isn't a numeric bonus.


There is none to date.


Telekinetic Blade: Completely nullifies any "drawback" to taking soulbolt. Not only do you get your choice of soulknife but you can choose abilities that were not available to the soulbolt because of your choosing the archetype. If they were meant to have access to everything, they wouldn't have been designed to have limited melee support through mind daggers.

It is a little too good for a single blade skill choice. Maybe 2 blade skills.

Telekinetic Bolt: Why even have the Soulbolt archetype? Same deal as above.

Fountain of Blood - With this wrath augment, the brutality blade’s rage blade inflicts bleeding wounds when he(?) activates his psychic strike or upon(?) making a successful critical hit on the target.

Raging Assault/Rend the Body: Essentially do the same thing. Yes in different ways, but basically the same. It is a little redundant to have both. And you could stack them (psicrystal holding a focus, or schism, abilities that regain focus, etc.) for two additional attacks from blade skills alone. Then we get into speed weapons, Haste, things like that.

Psychokinetic Combat: Two feats for the cost of one? It was okay with the athletic blade skill as both abilities are rather weak. These are two feat's anyone using ranged combat will take, hands down. Needs to cost more than one feat, first feat and the first blade skill probably.

Soulknives, High Psionics Campaigns, and You: So essentially you want to make the Soulknife the equivalent of a gestalted character? Take these pretty potent archetypes (that don't really have any drawbacks in comparison to say, the original archtypes published) and give them additional casting on top of it?? Archtypes are there to fill a niche, yes, but they should also have some sort of limitation to prevent them from being flat out better than the core class they modify. Otherwise you are just falling into the "trap" of PrCs where you flat out boosted the power level of the character without taking anything away. It stops being an option, and becomes a no brained, because why wouldn't you take it?


In PFRPG, as Bandw2 said, your type doesn't change when swapping forms (barring a specific rule stating it does). This is different from 3.5 if you played.

If you need the rules it should be under Magic Schools, Transmutation, Subschool Polymorph, I believe.


Any particular reason for crossbow instead of comp. long bow?
This would allow you to just focus on DEX(AC & hit) and WIS (damage on all attacks with the mindbolt and PP/powers), as well as ignore STR.

1 Soulbolt: Weapon Focus- Mindbolt[b], Extra Blade Skill (Focused Offense)[1st]
2 Marksman: Point Blank Shot[b]
3 Soulbolt: Emulate Ranged Weapon-Comp Long Bow [blade skill], Precise Shot[3rd]
4 Soulbolt: Enhancement +1, Psychic Strike +1d8
5 Marksman: Sniper Style etc, Favored weapon CLBow, (Your Enhancement feat)[5th]
6 Marksman: Style Mantra etc,
7 Marksman: Style ability stc, Clustered Strike[7th]


They did a "create a class options book" in 2e, anything you made as pretty much broken. There might have been one in 3.x (but I might be recalling a pretty extensive race builder book too).

Generally speaking, just don't do it unless you let everyone do it. And then be prepared for what you let them do and to toss most balancing mechanics out the window.


Ryzoken wrote:
My Self wrote:
"I want to use magic" -> "You're a wizard, Harry!" (Sorcerer, Arcanist, Cleric, and Oracle may also apply for this role.)

Until that SLA FAQ got reversed a while back, I had grand designs for a PFS character that had zero spellcaster levels but insisted he was a powerful mage. He'd pull it off with a slew of scrolls and wands, UMD, and a heaping helping of some PrC's that normally only mages qualify for, letting him get better CL and stat usage out of those scrolls.

So very sad, losing him to a rules reversal...

If you read up on that, you'd know it wasn't a reversal, they stated when they put out the FAQ that it wasn't supposed to work that way and they were letting it slide to see how it ended up working out.

If anything it was an enforcement of the rules.

As for the topic, it only becomes an issue when you start mixing metagame with in-character. There is a difference between a Fighter and a fighter. One is a mechanical construct for the game, which your character would have no knowledge of.


Tsutsuku wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
+1. In my opinion stand still is a waste of a feat as it only works for adjacent squares and as a tiny creature you don't threaten adjacent squares.

Your own square is considered to be an adjacent square.

Rules text: (Under Attacks) Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.)

Within 5' is completely different than in your square though. The general rules are written assuming you are taking up at least a 5'x5' area. Going tiny changes things.


The main problem is, why? Like, a paladin can stack their bonuses, but if it goes past the cap, they don't get it. A magus, same. A fighter who has multiple bane abilities on their weapon and goes against that very specific monster doesn't get it.

All these other classes are in an equal to "worse" position than the Soulknife, but because they are Mary Sue or special snowflakes, they can break the cap? In 3.5 Epic was the only way to do it, in PFRPG mythic is probably the only way to do it (and I didn't look so they might not). So we're just going to start baking in mythic tier abilities to archetypes now?

Power creep is getting a tad ridiculous at this point. Yeah it is inherent to splat books BUT normally they come out over the course of months and it is just one or two items in of each book which a GM can go though sort out and deal with. Lately the DSP stuff is more like a power deluge, numerous books with numerous abilities pushing the power level up even past their own material just put out.


TheOddGoblin wrote:
Also, does Improved Natural Weapon(Claws) feat and the Improved Damage(claws) evolution stack? For example, if I have a Large Eidolon with both, would he then count as having Gargantuan claws for damage purposes?

Both the feat and the evolution are "effective" size increases so wouldn't stack as per the FAQ.


I was pretty non-plused about the whole breaking the hard cap because I'm not really planning on buying the boom regardless. But the more I think about it, breaking the hard cap is a very very bad idea. It is there for a reason, just because it is a "cool idea" isn't a good enough reason to remove the limit. Like you said, nothing else does it.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:

Mechanics wise, I think Augmented Blade is pretty release worthy unless I missed wording that somehow enabled something silly. RAI seems like a good balance.

Pious Blade I really need to study up on. I like the concept of a divine Soulknife, just not the power source being divine.

Brutality Blade I feel might be a little too strong. It can ramp up the enhancement bonus to ridiculously high amounts, and for enough rounds a day for the duration to be less of a problem. The enervation is definitely a risk, but not enough of one as it is now. Thing is, if the rage blade is nerfed, the enervation might be too big a risk. Tough balance point in my perspective. The unique blade skills look fantastically fun, but I need to look them over again before I have more feedback on that front.

Well it's not a Soulknife who gets a psychic powers from a deity.

Remember Base Soulknives don't have powers, the Gifted Blade list is an archetype. The Pious Soul is like a base Soulknife who was blessed by a deity to have spells, like a Ranger or something.

But that kinda defeats the purpose and flavor of psionics in the most fundamental way. It would make more sense to make an archetype that modifies an actual divine class and grants access to the soulblade in that case. Warpriest or Paladins would probably be the most logical choice, but Inquisitors would probably fit the bill as well.

There is blurring the lines and there is is outright ignoring established baseline mechanics you may not agree with in an attempt to correct the game into what you want. If you are under the impression class division is a "sacred cow" PFRPG/3.x is the wrong game for you. Archtypes that give options are good, archtypes that completely rewrite a class into another class's "spot" are horrible. You should just be using the other class.

I'm not saying divine psionic mesh isn't okay. But if you are going to do it, try to have it make some sense and modify an appropriate class for the the concept. Seeing as archetypes are taking the place of PrCs and we don't have the requirements of taking X and Y classes, it makes less sense overall to integrate it into psionic class when you could take an already appropriate class and give it the ability to manifest a soulknife.

At least to me, and I'm guessing that it has a little to do with Adam's uneasiness about it as well.


You are SooL sadly. Is there a reason the GM isn't just making the arrows bolts? As in, is there someone who can use them or are they just miscellaneous treasure that is going to be sold off and split by the party?


Defiance_v wrote:
Philo Pharynx wrote:
Defiance_v wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Well, it is not past argument.

If you do take the feats Augment Summoning and Spell Focus (Conjuration, it seems a pity not to take Superior Summons.

That allows you to make better use of your Summoning SLA. Its a good option, and allows you to do more things, Summoners should not neglect it.

Personally, I believe the better use of my Summoning SLAs would've been spent on Blood-God Summoner to tie in on my Synth, but he was quick to dismiss that.

It'd kinda difficult to use those SLAs when you're always in your "eidolon" which count as being out... and which means you can't really use the daily SLAs...

Synthesists generally don't use their free summons in combat. So spending feats to boost them is sort of pointless. If there were a legal way to trade them out, most people would. As it is, the class is very powerful and I'd suggest just using them to summon creatures that can act as servants when you camp for the night.

-----

Now a master summoner is a different beast altogether. There you want every feat to improve your summons you can get. Expanded, superior, versatile, summon (good/evil/neutral) monster, evolved (multiple times)

Oh yes on multiple evolved summoning.

Haha. I'm rather new to the Pathfinder world as a whole -- so I wasn't too comfortable when looking at the action economy required of a Master Summoner from Point A.

Its definitely something to look forward to in the future, but in the meanwhile Synthesist Summoner is where I'm at.

This might be of no real use to you but I'm going to toss it out there, but does your GM allows for character rebuilds? If so I would suggest you take a look at the Aegis, Soulknife, and possibly the Metaforge.

Power wise you will be a bit less powerful endgame due to not being a caster. But those classes will give you exactly what you are looking for concept wise. And the Aegis can fudge the casting a little bit (with assistance from magic items) if there are specific abilities you want to get your hands on. As an added bonus, they don't really use psionics so you don't even have to get into new rules as a newish player. And you won't feel like you have "dead/unusable" abilities.


I am 99.9% sure this has come up before (if you use the search function).


Quite honestly anyone who had published more than a handful of products of any moderate length already knows at least half of what people have been posting about "requiring" in terms of how they would produce the product.

The thread wasn't about how to do it, they have a clue. It is about what you would be interested in seeing from them as a collaboration and what would get you to invest in... Not how you want them to run their business or police their own.

You guys are pushing it way off topic with all that.


Superfluous thread about rules that work?

Sorry... Someone had to... It is getting entirely too serious in here.


It was an implied question, I don't need to link anything as the whole entire point is that the Launch Mindbolt actually covers the effects of Manyshot. Manyshot has no prerequisites that include "must be using a bow to take this feat" so the Soulbolt can take the feat no problem. Followed by the language in the Launch Mindbolt that states the Mindbolt can benefit from additional attacks.

Therefore, the only (even unnecessary) thing that might be helpful is an FAQ from DSP saying "yeah you can do that like we said you could in the ability".


shroudb wrote:
Fury of the Tempest wrote:
Ummm, so if I grab Katana Expertise, what does the damage dice of the Katana become?

1d8 becomes 2d6

you just can't stack it with other virtual increases in sizes (like lead blades, impact weapon enchant, primal warrior stance and etc)

you can stack it ONCE with an actual size change (like if you become enlarged) but if you find a way to enlarge only the sword, pick it up, and then enlarge yourself again, the blade won't grow any bigger (1 virtual+1 actual size increase)

To expand on that, you cannot stack it, but if another ability does the same thing better (for instance the stance treats your weapon as 2 sizes larger) you get the better of the two. Which isn't a horrible thing as that keeps you from being reliant on the stance 100% all the time.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

That would be an errata, not an FAQ though.

Though at least now ErrantX knows of the issue and can address it somehow. Since sometimes people just wanna use a cool mindbolt and not emulate a bow.

It isn't an errata, DSP can't change Manyshot. They can explain Launch Mindbolt was intended to allow Manyshot however. Basically it amounts to flavor text in the feat limiting what you can do. I mean, if you were in PFS and asked to take Manyshot with a crossbow, can you?
RAW, no. Are you allowed to take Manyshot with a crossbow in PFS? I wouldn't know because I avoid PFS like the plague.

Point is, flavor text overriding mechanics. Which is leading to this discussion. If they can, we don't need anything else done, Paizo allowing it to work with a non bow ranged weapon sets the precedent. It isn't bow only.


Quintain wrote:
Emulate weapon was intended to provide specific weapon damage and critical range changes. It was not intended to allow for feat qualification.

But Insain is correct in that it does. If you want to use weapon specific feats, you need to have that weapon not some amorphous blob soulknife. That is why they stated in the emulate that it replicates that weapon.

As for Manyshot, it is an easy fix like I just posted. Poor wording on the feat that seems to imply being used with one type of weapon.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

That would be an errata, not an FAQ though.

Though at least now ErrantX knows of the issue and can address it somehow. Since sometimes people just wanna use a cool mindbolt and not emulate a bow.

It isn't an errata, DSP can't change Manyshot. They can explain Launch Mindbolt was intended to allow Manyshot however. Basically it amounts to flavor text in the feat limiting what you can do. I mean, if you were in PFS and asked to take Manyshot with a crossbow, can you?


I see what you are saying now, but I don't think that a bladeskill is necessarily the way to fix that. If anything a FAQ by DSP stating that manyshot can be used with Mindbolt is what is in order, as it already has the wording in Launch Mindbolt that says it can gain the extra attacks and none of the prerequisites for the feat specifically call out it being bow only.

I know awhile ago they mentioned they were compiling stuff for errata for/from UltPsi and I believe Jeremy responded positively when I asked if they could make sheet for those of us who got the hardcover. Maybe ErrantX can sent this one up too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is also easily augmented for damage and when you are a larger size you have the capacity to be a "persistent fireball" through reach and things like Whirlwind Attack.

Claws of the Beast is in a position to be fairly easy to abuse being a first level power. It is a prime example of how you want to give martials (psiwar) nice things but have to be conscious of the fact it is is such a low hanging fruit, a caster could cherry pick it so you aren't just helping the martial.


DHAnubis wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
DHAnubis wrote:
I know this archetype isn't mentioned in this playtest, but I've always kind of hoped there were a couple blade skills specifically for the Feral Heart Soulknife that let it emulate some other natural attack types. I've always wanted a Feral Heart with a bite, two claws, and a dragon-esque tail like the Dragon Tail power back in 3.5 (I wont get into how much I wish the Diamond Dragon prestige was brought to PF and updated). Im not sure if the ability to emulate natural weapons would be worth it to any other Soulknife archetype, but I think it would fit the wild feel of the Feral Heart.
What does it trade out? Gifted Blade with Expanded Knowledge (CotB and BotW) does that for you without having to create niche blade skills using existing material.
Feral Heart, from what I remember, trades out Psychic Strike, which I think the Gifted Blade does as well.

Yeah, well I just looked and the feat Expanded Knowledge just requires a ML of 3, so theoretically you can still swing it with feats alone. Sleeping Goddess might even help a bit on that, I haven't looked at it recently.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

Why do that when you can just take the feat? Launch Mindbolt states you can make all attacks with it that you gain via feat like Rapid Shot and the like without reforming it. So there is no restriction preventing you from using it with that (unlike the normal soulknife).

Unless you are basically +1'ing the above suggestion to get access to combat feat's via blade-skills.

That doesn't help manyshot.

Bladeskill: Manybolt
The Soulknife gains Manyshot as a bonus feat. In addition the effects of Manyshot apply to any ranged full attacks made by the soulknife.

Or I'll do you one better...

Bladeskill: Martial Proficiency
The Soulknife can choose any combat feat, or feat that has a combat feat as a prerequisite, that they meet the requirements for when they gain this bladeskill. This bladeskill can be take multiple times, but must be used on a different feat each time.


DHAnubis wrote:
I know this archetype isn't mentioned in this playtest, but I've always kind of hoped there were a couple blade skills specifically for the Feral Heart Soulknife that let it emulate some other natural attack types. I've always wanted a Feral Heart with a bite, two claws, and a dragon-esque tail like the Dragon Tail power back in 3.5 (I wont get into how much I wish the Diamond Dragon prestige was brought to PF and updated). Im not sure if the ability to emulate natural weapons would be worth it to any other Soulknife archetype, but I think it would fit the wild feel of the Feral Heart.

What does it trade out? Gifted Blade with Expanded Knowledge (CotB and BotW) does that for you without having to create niche blade skills using existing material.


Why do that when you can just take the feat? Launch Mindbolt states you can make all attacks with it that you gain via feat like Rapid Shot and the like without reforming it. So there is no restriction preventing you from using it with that (unlike the normal soulknife).

Unless you are basically +1'ing the above suggestion to get access to combat feat's via blade-skills.


Due to the fact that actual hands of effort and metaphorical hands are not the same, there is still the implication of it being on a metaphorical hand and so restricted to that "limb".

Unfortunately as the hands of effort weren't spelled out, we can't specifically say what they end up influencing.

Monks and Magus are no way to decide on a working rule, as they carry exceptions to the general rules.

1 to 50 of 3,508 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.