Agreed. The reason why almost no one uses counterspell now is it requires you to give up your action (which might be wasted if your opponent doesn't do as expected), then make the spell identification check, and finally make the dispel check. Usually, there is better things you with your action so it rarely sees play. Converting the standard action to an immediate actually makes counterspelling useful. Given that it still involves making two checks along with burning an arcane point and a spell slot I think it is balanced.
My only issue with the class right now is that it seems a bit too easy to recover arcane points. Consume magic items in particular seems problematic. A high level arcanist could afford to carry around a bundle of 2nd level wands effectively granting an unlimited number of points. I'm not a fan of using gold cost to balance a core class mechanic.
Lord Snow wrote:
Could a wizard beat an arcanist of equal level who has the counterspell arcane exploit? I honestly don't see how.
A game of rock-paper-scissors where the wizard actually loses? Awesomesauce.
I *love* this class. It adds an entirely new play dynamic to the game and mixes up the order of things a bit. Kudos to the designer.
Excellent! Totally excited about this new concept.
One mechanic I wouldn't mind seeing is something that makes counter spells viable. I've been playing 3.5 and Pathfinder from the beginning, and have never seen anyone actually pull one off. Right now, they are tricky to attempt and require a rather boring reactive style of play. The flavor of the new Arcanist is perfect to shake this up, and offer a new dynamic way for spellcasters to interact with each other.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
I agree with this. Once spells are prepared for the day the Arcanist severely lacks in flexibility. My prediction is that it will be very swingy in practice. Very strong in situations where the handful of spells prepared work well, but will struggle when things don't line up right. I still don't particularly like this class, but it is because of this swinginess and general lack of flavor, rather than it being overpowered.
In the game I am running now I'm using Core, APG, and Mythic. I allow stuff from UC, UM, and other sources on a case by case basis. I also backed the new DSP Ultimate Psionics, and might consider that for my next campaign. Not a big fan of bloat, and think the game was still great with just Core, but I try to accommodate players if want another option.
If necessity is the mother of invention, then constraint is the father of creativity. Personally, I don't find having tons of additional sourcebooks to improve the narrative or roleplaying aspects of RPGs much at all. Mechanics can be fun in their own right, but being dependent on them to flesh out your character shows a lack of imagination. Limiting options can encourage players to develop their characters through actual roleplaying rather than through numbers and mechanics. Sometimes less is more.
In the Mouth of Madness with Sam Neill is very heavily inspired by Lovecraft's work and is not bad at all.
Yep. In the Mouth and Madness and Event Horizon are two of the best examples of the genre that are not direct translations of Lovecraft's work. John Carpenter's body of work in general does a really good job of exuding a Lovecraft vibe. His Apocalypse Trilogy (The Thing, In the Mouth of Madness, and Prince of Darkness) all do a great job of building dread in a Lovecraftian sense, and I highly recommend all of them if you have not seen them yet.
By raw, I'd have to say no since the feat specifically calls out that the spell must from a class. If class was not important the prerequisite would have just been, "ability to cast an arcane fire spell". However, I might allow it at my table since it fits flavor-wise and since fire is a very common resistance the feat is not particularly strong.
Other groups may be playing more flexible classes to offset their lack of a healer. How strong of a tactician are the players playing the wizard and arcane archer? They are the main hope for improved tactics as the other classes in the group are pretty rigid in their roles. In addition, to control spells, there are lots of tactical options available. Approaching enemies with invisibility sphere and silence up, dimension dooring into the midst of the enemies...that sort of thing. The group needs to think beyond the typical kick in the door approach and be more cunning in how they deal with their foes.
Is an NPC cleric out of the question? That would be the easiest fix. Otherwise gifting the group with a powerful magic healing item could be helpful.
If those options are not desirable, there is always the UMD route plus loads of consumables. However, that can get expensive plus none of the classes in that group are charisma based (maybe the Arcane Archer?) so that might be tricky. Still doable if they buy a skill boosting item though. The rogue is an obvious choice for the UMD duty, however, rogues have a bad habit of failing fort/will saves themselves so they might not be of great assistance in the middle of a fight. Having multiple people in the group invest in UMD would probably be a good idea. Alternatively, having someone splash a level in a divine casting class could be really helpful too in using items.
Sub boot blade, and you're good though.
Given the current trend of errata, I'm pretty sure that boot blade will inevitably be fixed so that it occupies your "off-hand" (man they need to clean up their terminology in the next iteration of the rules). They seem be to steering away from creative ways of holding weapons to gain extra attacks.
IMO, you give up too much with Stalwart. Diehard and endurance are not fantastic on their own, and that DR only works when you take specific actions. For example, if an enemy is shooting you ranged weapons from a distance the only way to get the DR would be through Total Defense...but then you are just sitting there as a pin cushion and you don't even get the AC boost.
Probably no to all of those. The planar travel portion of the spell mentions it works like a plane shift except that anyone who chooses to step through the portal is transported.
The first two are out because the Gate transports creatures that chose to pass though it, and does nothing to affect the general environment on either side of the Gate. If it did the spell would say so, and describe how it works.
The others are out because the Gate transports creatures that choose to walk through it. All of your examples do not involve the creature specifically choosing to use the Gate so I would say no. Gate is extremely powerful as is, and turning it into instant kill spell with no save is taking things too far imo.
Exactly. A Mite is just "eww... gross," while a Hag is a thing that cannot be unseen. And, as I said before, Eldritch Horrors are things who's appearance literally breaks your mind if you gaze upon them for even a moment. And that's just regarding appearance; go back to my example of the relationship between God, Metatron, and Humans from Dogma to see how it translates from the visual sense to the auditory sense.
Agree with this sentiment. Aboleths are another great example. Their description starts off with "As befits their hideous primeval appearance..." and they pack a 17 Cha.
Appearance in this case clearly means how well your form can influence others. An aboleth is a truly alien and terrifying creature, and they use their appearance to cow lesser beings into doing their will. Also, Intimidate is keyed off of Cha as well, and being having a terrifying appearance doesn't hurt here.
Edit: That said, appearance is just one piece of the package. Cha is just a lump sum total of a number of factors (personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance), and you can't single one piece out and make a definite claim.
No. Natural attacks work differently than TWF. The cat folks claws are primary attacks so both attacks are at full BAB with no penalty just like a monster attack. Now if you try to combine natural and weapon attacks things get a bit tricky, (for example the Tengu's bite attack would become a secondary attack at a -5 penalty when combined with weapons), but otherwise the two systems operate separately.
There is a difference in playing against a machine and with real live people. The dynamic is so different they are not really comparable. Besides in those games the computer does not fudge (at least in games I find enjoyable at least). I, as a player, may "cheat" and reload, but in general computers don't fudge because they feel sorry for you.
Like I said read those posts. Very strong opinions on both sides, and I am done posting on the subject.
Rather than get into to it please see:Fudging Rolls
Why fudging is happening
Both of those are over 800 posts long with vehement argument on both sides of the issue. My advice is solicit your players opinion on fudging at the beginning of the campaign and reach a consensus on what is ok.
Personally, as a player gm fudging fills me with nerd rage and sucks all the fun out of game. Your mileage may vary.
Edit: Ok, I admit as a GM to have occasionally fudged. Mea culpa. But almost always to prevent a TPK and the end of a campaign, and now that I have more experience as a GM I rarely have need to use it any more.
Also, always be ready to fudge rolls or hit points.
Do this sparingly. Some GMs think they are being all clever in hiding this, but trust me eventually the players will catch on if you do it with any regularity. I had a GM do this at least once a session, and it wrecked the game for me.
I came across a neat article on slimemolds today. Slimemolds are single cell creautres with no brain or nervous system, but they are capable of remembering, making decisions, and anticipating change. According to the article, when researchers placed oat flakes or other bits of food in the same positions as big cities and urban areas onside laboratories slime molds have effectively re-created Tokyo's railway network in miniature as well as the highways of Canada, the U.K. and Spain.
That's pretty darn impressive for an ooze. In terms of the game, I guess that shows you that "mindless" creatures, while probably not particularly inventive, would be capable of fairly effective tactics at least in a fairly narrow and predefined way.
Will the Mummy's Mask adventure path incorporate rules from Mythic Adventures? Or will Wrath of the Righteous be the only adventure path to do so?
I'm running a mythic Shattered Star campaign now, and am finding the adjust to be pretty straightforward. Most of the encounters work fine as written, but mythic templates/tiers are easy to add for extra flavor or challenge.
Mythic templates/tiers are awesome for this sort of thing and particularly for bosses. Mainly, because it grants extra actions and options without jacking things up in terms of raw numbers to the point the individual characters need nat 20s to save or hit. Abilities like dual initiative and second save go a long way to offset the action economy advantage.
Since it is WotR you will be gaining mythic tiers. As a rogue she will probably take Sudden Attack which bypasses DR. However, you are constrained by mythic points here. Impervious Body will also give you DR/Epic, which solves the problem, but it is a 3rd tier guardian path ability so will she have to wait a bit to pick that up.
Ross Byers wrote:
The build posted shows a 7 str with others suggesting a more viable 10. Melee is a weak option here due to the need to boost charisma. Any offensive cleric spells will be limited by the 14 wisdom. Of course no spontaneous healing. Which, yes, leaves buffing but not a whole lot else. Negative energy clerics give up a lot for what they get.
Ross Byers wrote:
Yes, but how many monsters with SR do you fight at low levels? Also, wizards have access to great single target damage spells where the channeler has very limited options. Rolling 3d6 (save for half) at 6th level is very underwhelming when fighting a boss. I'm not say it is not viable, but you won't be wowing the table with your offensive prowess.
Another thing to be aware of is that in PFS tables are often quickly put together from the pool of available players, often on the basis of class, to create a semi-balanced group. You may find yourself at a table where the other players look to you for heals, since you are a cleric, only to be disappointed that you are woefully inadequate at healing. You might feel pressured to play against your intended role to meet expectations.
Viable, yes. Underpowered relative to other blasters, maybe. You will have to invest a lot into feats to make it comparable to what 5th or 6th level wizards/sorcerers get for free. At base, by 6th level will be rolling 3d6 to their 6d6 for fireball/lightning bolt, although you'll have access to all your spells too and may have lots of uses of channel.
Maybe something like the medieval equivalent of a repo-man? Although technically that is not theft. While I think it is possible to be lawful and have the skills of a thief, I'm having a hard time thinking of how someone could be a thief (Thief being defined as someone who steals someone else's property) in practice and still be lawful.
So we should just ignore that Druids have a more powerful resurrection spell?
Yes. We are talking about BoL which is cleric spell. Please compare it to other cleric spells in terms of power and functionality.
Regenerate is relevant because some are claiming BoL can restore missing parts.
Reincarnate is a 4th level spell that by all means is better than Raise Dead AND Resurrection with a far less cost. You might say "Oh man but at what roleplaying cost", but honestly its just a cool roleplaying opportunity with the bonus of coming back to life.
Please address the regenerate issue directly rather than throwing out a spell that comes from a different class and functions in a different way. The druid spell list differs from the cleric list both functionally and in terms of spell power per level.
I'd say no here. Allowing BoL to work in this situation implicitly allows it to work as a regenerate spell as well. Actually, it would be better than a regenerate since regenerate only works on living creatures, takes 3 rounds to cast, is two levels higher, heals less damage, and requires multiple rounds to restore missing body parts.
If BoL can restore a person turned to a pile of dust, by extension it would have to be able to restore missing limbs or organs as well on whomever it is cast. This is far beyond the intended scope of the spell and makes it better than a higher level spell in most situations.
If you're not making an actual die roll, then you can't have a "natural 20".
However, they don't say in feat "as if you had a result of 20."
They used "as if you had rolled a natural 20", which specifically added the words "rolled" and "natural". IMO this makes the intent fairly clear, by RAW at least, that it is a rolled natural 20.
At high levels stealth is vastly better than invis as there is no easy way to defeat it. Invisibility can be defeated with low level spells, but there is no spell that automatically defeats stealth (or if there is let me know!). As far as I know all you can do is make perception checks, which may impossible against a ECL 25 stealth based character who can always take 20.
I still think the ability is appropriate though.
It does say use-activated and "wielder," but that blatantly conflicts with the rules for rod activation and the sentence bolded, which implies you only need to possess the rod to use it.
Thanks for that. I'm probably over thinking this, but I wonder if holding the rod is a necessary but insufficient condition, and if some sort of manipulation is still necessary.
Can you point me to that rule? All I'm seeing is that metamagic rods are use-activated which is pretty vague. Some use-activated items you need to actively manipulate (sword, potion) while others you don't (wearing an item).
Since the Grasping Tail feat specifically says you cannot manipulate objects other than putting them in your hand I am leaning towards no. Actually using a metamagic rod would count as manipulation in my opinion. By the extension just having the prehensile tail without the feat would not be possible either.
Edit: On the other hand, that manipulation clause is in the unattended object part of the description. However, it doesn't make sense to have differential ability to manipulate objects depending on whether it was unattended or stowed. Once your tail is holding it what difference would it make?
City of Strangers features a lawful neutral vampire who is a merchant lord. Apparently he keeps a harem of women who he drinks the blood of, but he does not kill them and effectively buys their consent.
So maybe redemption and free will of a sort exist for intelligent undead.
A lawful evil character playing his alignment wont betray the party, a chaotic good character would.
This is over generalizing a bit. While a LE character may have a code and loyalties, they may not align with that of the party, which might result in a conflict or betrayal. Similarly, while ethically a CG character is not opposed to trickery and deceit, they most likely would not betray the party in a harmful manner as the group is not doing something morally reprehensible. Depending on the circumstances there are exceptions.
Honestly, alignment issues in a group rarely have anything directly to with alignment. Most of the time it is a jerk player who is using the old "But that it what my character would do!" excuse. While the popular jerk alignments are LG, CN, and CE, a jerk player will find a way to have a grand old time at the expense of the other people at the table regardless of whatever two letter combination is on their sheet.
My advice is just to not play with jerks.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
I think a key point here is that in real life practically no one thinks of themselves as evil. Most people do what they think is right, even though others may think it is wrong.
In Pathfinder, however, most evil gods and their followers hold up evil as a philosophical ideal. They aren't just misguided or hold a different perspective on things. In fact, they generally hold the same views on right and wrong...however they embrace and revel in doing the wrong thing because they are frickin evil.
Ok. That seems like consequentialism. I get that.
Of course the rub is that everyone values the good and harm of an act differently. It is entirely possible for two consequentialists to view the net good of an act in very different terms.
The fact of the matter is that moral relativism and alignment systems simply don't work together. The development of such a system requires moral cutoff points which can not be defined under relativism.
Out of curiosity, for Rynjin or others in his camp, what does constitute an evil act? So far you've been saying what is not evil and that the ends just the means. Is something only evil when the ends are not worthwhile? Are there any means that are evil on their own without consideration of the ends?
Actually, based on the mini-bestiary in MA, I think that Adamantine Golem should have DR/ Epic and Adamantine. The pattern appear to be that if normal version of the creature had no DR, then the mythic version gets DR/Epic. If the normal version has a pre-existing type of DR, the mythic version gets DR/Epic and whatever it had before. The exception appears to be elementals, which logically keep DR/-. I think this pattern is why you see the silly result of having DR/Epic and Magic on the dragons(You know, just in case someone had a +0 Weapon of Ultimate Badass).
I'm mulling it over and am not sure if I like it. DR/Epic seems to be the new DR/magic in the sense that it is a somewhat trivial form of DR.
Edit: On an unrelated note, is anyone else slightly disappointed that the Mythic Blue Dragon does not have the ability to turn the blood of adventurers TO SAAAAAAND?
Alright. I think that I'm going to rule that Supreme Stealth counts as concealment versus the chosen sense which would allow stealth rolls. Invisibility, or other types of existing concealment, will be ignored as normal. Does this sound reasonable?