|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
They do in fact stack. It's on a post somewhere here on the board. The argument was that they don't provide any kind of bonus, named or otherwise, and also come from two different categories of trait, magic(magical lineage) and regional(wayang spellhunter). I don't see any problem with that IMO. As a DM if you had a player that dedicated himself that fully to one spell it would be easy as pie to balance. Resistances, immunities, spell turning, etc are all easy options to challenge a character like that. So both at once... No prob IMO.
I don't see how thIs is legal RAW or RAI. Both traits specifically say "when using the chosen spell with a metamagic feat". Heighten spell does not allow you to lower the spell lvl of a spell, only to raise it for the purposes of save DC or other effects dependent on spell lvl. So with both traits you could heighten a 1st lvl spell to 3rd lvl and still only use a first lvl slot but I don't see RAW or RAI that supports the traits allowing you to decrease a spells effective lvl without first adding metamagic feats and then decreasing the lvl. However, you still can not decrease the lvl below the original lvl of the spell.
Yes! Yes it is. I one round ko'd a worg with my 2nd lvl magus last night with that very same combination. Although I was wielding a scimitar and happened to crit on the Spellstrike. But still, nasty spike dmg.
I know that when you channel you can select to only heal OR harm, but is there an archetype or ability that allows both in a channel? The only option I could find was ARG Fiendish vessel, but that isn't quite what I was looking for as you lose the channel energy ability to channel evil.
There is a feat called Versatile Channeler! Check it out in Ultimate Magic.
Weapon focus requires BAB +1. Magus doesn't have that til lvl 2. So you would have to take weapon focus at 3rd and then specialization at 5th. Unless of course you take fighter as your 3rd lvl then you could get both at 3rd.
Interestingly enough I did just notice that it is not a pre-req for what I see as the two best feats ever created for ranged fighters....Snap Shot and Improved Snap Shot! Although point blank shot is.
@OP I'm sorry you feel like we chastised you for thinking outside the precise shot box. I just don't see it as a wise or viable option for an effective ranged fighter. It is of course your character though and you are always welcome to do as you please. Heck, try it out for a couple games and just take it later if you want or roll up a new character if you decide it was a bad idea. But talk to the rest of your party first and see if they are willing to do the arrow dance with you, don't just expect them to know they need to move for you. If they are willing to try; give it a shot(no pun intended), but I think you'll find it more difficult to avoid that -4 than you think. Especially against opponents with reach since in order to not be engaged in Melee they will have to be 15' from the nearest ally whic makes your Melee out of full attack range.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Tallkid, I don't know what you mean about there no longer being any partial cover. I have not seen a change to the rules in that area.
I stand corrected. I thought they removed the +2 AC for partial cover and just made cover a blanket +4 AC(which by the way I was only calculating as a negative to attack to make the point). But you sir are correct, Partial cover does still exist and is subject to DM discretion and still grants the +2 AC. I will have to let my group know we were wrong about the elimination of partial cover.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Absolutey. So in those situations if you don't have precise shot your looking at -6 to -8(actually I think it would be -8 all of the time as there is no more partial cover). So at least if you have it you remove the possibility of -8 and only have to deal with the penalty from cover. And then later on you can take Improved Precise Shot(of which precise shot is a pre-req) and negate that -4 too. So if you think about it it's not really that big of a feat tax(3 feats) to remove the possibility of ever firing at -8. Thats a big bonus, especially for a character that has less than full BAB. However, if you intend to take Improved precise shot you can't really go the divine archer route for free precise shot because point blank shot is a pre-req for that as well(unles divine archer is what you want and then you could always take point blank anyway).
So IMHO precise shot is definitely worth it:
Plain and simple if your going to be using a bow/xbow/thrown weapon/firearm then you have to take Precise Shot. The only time I see it as a maybe is if your using a firearm. But even then your almost taking away your advantage of targeting touch AC by constantly firing at -4. I know it sucks because you have to take point blank shot but a dip into Divine Archer Pld archetype can yield you Precise Shot w/o the pre-req if you desire.
We have always handled it as spells continue for their duration regardless of a targets status. However, if the caster should die(not unconscious but dead) all non-permanent/instantaneous effects cast by him immediately end. That's just the way we've always handled it. It's magic, the fact that your dead shouldnt make it cease to function if you were just a target to begin with, but if you were the caster and are now dead your life energy in the material plane ceases to exist and thus your magical conduit also ceases to exist; or at least that's how we justified it lol.
There's always the Snap Shot feat chain- which lets you threaten up to 15 feet by level 9, and stops your shots from provoking- but that doesn't stop reloading from provoking AoOs.
Snap Shot only prevents you from provoking when you are making an AoO not when making a normal attack.
Check out the Healer class from the dnd 3.5 miniatures handbook. Limited spell list and no armor. Plus they are totally focussed on healing and status ailment removal. You could just change some of the spells around a lil for Pathfinder and maybe add a few for the flavor your looking for. Just a thought.
Wear a buckler on your main hand. Two weapon fight with armor spikes or unarmed strikes.
Yeah that works for TWF. But you can always wear a buckler on your off hand no matter the circumstances. you just have to forgo the bonus if you want to use that hand for something else.
@Quori-Oh and yeah I guess I shouldn't have said "drawback" I guess restriction would have been a more appropriate word.
Dervish Dancer is pretty awesome. Only drawback is that it's limited to a scimitar. But when you think about it you take weapon finesse to allow you to attack with your Dex. And then a second feat, Dervish Dancer, which not only allows you to finesse an otherwise non-finesse weapon but also apply your Dex to dmg in lieu of Str. Not a hefty feat tax it you ask me, especially since if you build with this in mind str becomes somewhat of a dump stat. Although no matter how much my character relied on Dex I would never totally dump str it does allow you to remove focus from it. And it's from the Inner Sea World Guide which is a Paizo book so it's not really an "odd book". Just my thoughts CheerS!
No. Normally you don't threaten with a ranged weapon at all. Snapshot allows you to threaten 5'. Then Improved Snapshot allows you to threaten an additional 10' when using Snapshot for a total of 15'. Anymore than that(especially with a firearm) would just be ridiculous.
Cpt Jason wrote:
Right! Read the two feats again but carefully. I think I may be right. Your not the only one I've seen state it like that though so it may be a typo or an unintended error. This just happens to be the first time I've decided to ask lol.
Cpt Jason wrote:
Also make sure to go down the improved snap shot tree. This allows you to threaten 10 ft away with you gun (1d8+5d6+ dex x2)
I keep seeing this and I think it may be wrong. Snapshot allows you to threaten 5' with a ranged weapon and improved snapshot reads "you threaten an additional 10' when using snapshot". Would that not mean that you threaten 15' then?? Is this an errata, am I interpreting it wrong or is everyone else reading it wrong? Either way it's a killer especially for a gunslinger. I'm just curious because I keep seeing it talked about as a total of 10' when RAW seems like it adds up to 15'.
Ok thanks for correcting me, I think that may have been a 3.5 thing. I wasn't sure if they changed that or not. But I seem to remember somewhere it being written that a wand was an enchanted club or more specifically that a used up wand was just a club.(again that may have been in 3.5).
Edit: ok just looked at the wand section and it specifically says "A wand that runs out of charges is just a stick." so I guess it has been changed from 3.x.
Isn't a wand that is out of charges just a club?? If so then why wouldn't it still be a club while it had charges?? Ok now can't a club be drawn for free as part of a move?? So then why shouldn't you be able to draw your wand which is a club as part of a move??
Well it is a setting in its own right with unique races,monsters(I.e the H'La'Qu, hehe spelling), spells, feats, etc. and that's what makes it neat. All of that is in addition to the core rules of PFR. What I mean by PnP is not having to change any of the core rules or existing classes to accommodate the setting. You just choose this as your campaign setting when you decide to start a game and it flows smoothly along with all the rules/classes that already exists and everything that comes with the setting is just a nice flavorful bonus.
In terms of how this effects your background story. Maybe remove all mechanical references to any class or lvl from the text and keep the descriptions of the way the world interacts with different classes to a purely social outlook. Then maybe people like me wouldn't feel inclined to place mechanical restrictions on certain classes. For instance if clerics are rare because of the inability of these demigods to hand out unlimited power I am certain as a DM to allow a PC to be a cleric and one of these gifted few. On the other hand if the common description of the world simply says "the gods are cut off" that means to me there is no divine connection available. So I guess it's about giving the proper specific but open ended information for DM's and players alike to build off of. If that makes any sense lol.
Btw I know I'm speaking alot about class power and such here when you just wanted input on the background story. I just wanted to consider the repercussions of how your world interacts with specific classes in PFR. I love the setting and have greatly enjoyed using it in my game. I only wish to help you make it easier to understand and more PnP compatible with PFR.
Trapped outsiders is an excellent way to explain a restored divine connection. So the gods are locked out but perhaps some of their messengers, apostles if you will, were trapped here during the cataclysm or sometime thereafter and have kept the faiths of their respective deities alive in the shadows. They have gathered enough silent followers for the power of faith to be revived and as such can grant clerical powers to a select few. So then the pure power of faith(which is what divine magic is really about anyway), the belief that something good still exists in this god forsaken world is what grants these divine warriors their power not gods per se'.
Something like this restricts clerics from a social aspect rather than a mechanical one. If these apostles or demigods(whatever they should be called) only have the power to grant divine powers to a very limited number of clerics in the world then they would simply be more rare rather than diminishing their ability as written. This makes the OT setting more plug and play compatible with PFR without direct changes to a class' mechanics or power.
Dont know what happened there sorry :)
I read it the same way the first time. That the gods were cut off from the world. So when I used Obsidian Twilight for the current game im running I dis-allowed Clerics all together. To represent the "trickle" of divine influence seeping back into the world I still allowed Pld, Drd, and Rng to operate as normal with a few minor spell list additions for Druid just to balance the loss of clerics in the world. (and I know some would say why allow Druid when all the forests are dead but my PC that played the Druid conveniently chose the Cave domain and an archetype that complemented well.) Secondly, after reading and seeing the little hints about Psionics here and there and more specifically the Khymer race, I decided to add Dreamscarred's Psionics books to the game. This further represented how magic had changed in the world. A drift from the use of raw arcane magic and divine influence to pure force of mind. This also allowed me to add an available class that could heal(Vitalist) without having to have clerics. So actually I didnt mind the gods being cut off so much.
So now I ask this. In a world ruled by the undead wouldn't a cleric be either a huge target always hunted by the strongest of foes or a God? I mean 1 Cleric and 1 Paladin together would be able to lay waste to vast hordes of the free mindless undead that surely rome the world looking for food. When you look at it that way there becomes no reason(other than pure roleplaying) to play as any class other than Cleric or Pld. So with that I think heavily restricting clerics in this world is kind of neccesary.
In old Ravenloft wasn't there a caster level check or something involved to cast divine spells or use divine powers?? Not sure. But something like that could work to both allow clerics and restrict them at the same time.
So I know this isn't exactly the right place to post this but since I designed this build off of this guide I thought I'd ask here. Just looking for a little advice. I'm using the dervish build but with a human so I have an extra feat at 1st lvl. My issue is what to do with that extra feat. I was thinking Extra Arcane Pool just to get it out of the way but I won't really be able to use the extra points until way later as I have plenty to last the day at low lvls. So I considered taking Arcane Strike but then that presents an action economy issue once I get Arcane Accuracy.
For background we are starting at first level and who knows how far we will go.
Dervish Build Magus
MC Templar wrote:
Did you mean take "Extra Arcane Pool" twice at first level?? Because you don't qualify for Extra Arcana until 3rd level as you don't have any arcana until then. Just curious because I toyed with the idea of taking Extra Arcana at 1st level even though I couldn't use them until 3rd. I know it breaks the "don't take feats you can't use yet rule" but it would e awesome to start with 2 or more arcana. But RAW prevents this because the magus arcana class ability is required for extra arcana.