Zurai's page

Wow, some of the judge comments on this one really, really irritate me.

It has no strength score because it is an incorporeal creature ("It has no Strength score, so its Dexterity modifier applies to its melee attacks, ranged attacks, and CMB").

It flies because it is an incorporeal creature (not explicitly a rule, but every incorporeal creature flies; in fact, they all have flight as their only form of movement). I would wager a guess that this thing has non-flying movement, and non-perfect flight, because it isn't fully incorporeal. You should have been questioning that, not flight.

Incorporeal creatures (normally) take no damage from nonmagical attacks, not have a 50% miss chance ("It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms"), so no, partial corporeality is in fact a weakness. Normal incorporeal: immune to non-magic attacks. Partially corporeal: 50% miss chance and 50% damage from non-magic attacks.

Seriously, I know incorporeal isn't the most common special quality, but it's not like no common creatures are incorporeal. Shadow demons (also CR 7, incidentally, and quite a bit nastier than these things), shadows, ghosts. It's pretty bad to not even know the rules for them. I can forgive flight because, again, it's not explicitly stated; the other two are just egregious, especially coming from the Pathfinder Rules Guru.

Ahhh, OK. I see where the difficulty is coming from now. And none of them had grappling hooks or pitons either, I am assuming? Whatever happened to the basic adventurer's kit?

I do agree with you in general here--my characters are always the most prepared in the party, I even usually take a pot for cooking in--but I feel forced to point out that a grappling hook wouldn't help with a pit in a traditional smooth stone floored dungeon. There's simply nothing for the hook to grab onto at the top of the pit.

Grappling hooks work for castle walls because of the battlements and crenelations, which enables the hook to grab onto an edge at a 90 degree angle from the direction it was thrown from. The pit presumably is a simple right angle onto smooth stone floor; the only possible direction it could grab onto is parallel to the direction it was thrown to, which isn't a stable configuration.

Pitons might work, but that's still DC 15 (any surface with adequate handholds and footholds, but without ledges to stand on). Probably out of take-10 range for 1st level characters unless someone's actually specialized in climbing.

Theoden: Eomer. Take your Èored down the left flank. Gamling, follow the King's banner down the center. Grimbold, take your company right, after you pass the wall. Forth, and fear no darkness! Arise! Arise, Riders of Theoden! Spears shall be shaken, shields shall be splintered! A sword day... a red day... ere the sun rises!

Ride now!... Ride now!... Ride! Ride to ruin and the world's ending!

Death! Death! DEATH! Forth, Eorlingas!

That's a bard using Inspire Courage, using Perform: Oratory. As for the continuing inspiration, there's no reason it has to actually be anything at all. The bard's spending resources and people still feel inspired by his speech. If something bad happens to the bard, the inspiration he provided falters.

Zurai wrote:

Oh, another problem: how are you hitting touch AC at 100 feet? The revolver has a range increment of 20 feet. You'd have to be spending 4 grit each shot on the Deadeye deed to hit touch AC at 100.

Page nine under Advanced Firearms, they hit against touch in their first 5 range increments.

Ah. Then, yes, refer to Jadeite's point number 1 above. Advanced Firearms are an optional rule and have been specifically pointed out as not being intended for use in standard campaigns.

Zurai wrote:

You can't coup de grace a stunned creature. Stunned creatures are not helpless, they just can't act and have a lower AC.

His cohort (I didn't even go into how cheesy Leadership is) has Dastardly Finish.

Ah, moving goalposts. How fun.

Also, you have to be wielding the dueling weapon to get the initiative bonus from it.

Oh, another problem: how are you hitting touch AC at 100 feet? The revolver has a range increment of 20 feet. You'd have to be spending 4 grit each shot on the Deadeye deed to hit touch AC at 100.

You can't coup de grace a stunned creature. Stunned creatures are not helpless, they just can't act and have a lower AC.

Ancient Gold Dragons have anti-magic field for 25 hours a day (they have Extend Spell and 5 8th level slots that are basically worthless most of the time) and DR 15/magic. You won't be able to harm them except on a crit, and your cohort certainly won't either.

You're just as likely to miss as you are to crit.

All it takes is one dragon not getting stunned to ruin your day. They move faster than you do and are easily able to grapple you. Once you're grappled, you're utterly screwed.

There is a different context in which this comes up: underwater combat.

The rules say that a Bite (for instance) is B, P -and- S. B and S take penalties, P doesn't. So does the bite attack underwater take the penalty?

A little bit of common sense goes a long way. Pretty much every single underwater animal/monster in existence has a bite for its primary (and frequently only) attack.

The same way a level 10 mage can toss a 5dice fireball and still keep the level 10 caster level

Please cite the rule that says you can do this. You can opt to decrease the caster level, and you can choose any option the spell explicitly gives you (such as the choice of element to protect against for the various elemental resistance spells), but as far as I know there is no "scale however you want but leave the caster level at maximum" rule.

What I'm arguing is that it's not a major issue as it wouldn't come up. that often and not everyone tries to cheese +9 worth of weapon enchants on a +10 capable weapon. Nor for that matter is a +10 weapon an automatic assumption even at that level. It's an extreme example, not a common one.

And what I'm saying is: SO WHAT? I get that you don't give a damn. I don't get why you seem so dead-set on never getting this rules hole resolved. If it doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't matter if it's resolved, either, does it?

There's no "MUST" be +5.

Actually, yes, there is. A CL 20 greater magic weapon can only give a weapon a +5 enhancement bonus. You could choose to cast it at a lower caster level to reduce the enhancement bonus, but if you do cast it at CL 20, +5 is the only valid result.

Claiming otherwise is as erroneous as claiming that you can create a +2 enhancement bonus to Constitution by casting bear's endurance or allow 3rd level spells through a globe of invulnerability. There's a very clear, precise method for resolving spell effects: read the spell, then do what it says, taking care not to do anything it doesn't say to do.

Greater magic weapon says "This spell functions like magic weapon [Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.], except that it gives a weapon an enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5)."

There's no options there. You don't get to choose anything other than the target. Thus, when you cast a CL 20 greater magic weapon, you choose the target weapon and that weapon gains a +5 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Period, end of story -- except that the interaction between a greater magic weapon spell and a weapon with +6 or more non-enhancement bonus equivalent enchantments is completely undefined.

As for the +1/+8 weapon with GMW on it...yes, it'd improve to +2, and that's all.

This is not a valid result of the spell as written. As written, greater magic weapon improves the enhancement bonus to a specific value determined by caster level; assuming it's cast at CL 20, that value is +5. There is no scale, no steps along the way where you can get off early. There's also no support for it failing to function at all.

Zurai wrote:

EDIT: Although for the record, the speed enchantment is indeed a bad example. Just replace speed with other single +3 to +5 equivalent enchantment. The actual enchantment doesn't matter as long as it does apply to the arrow.

There's actually a lack of high plus-equivalent enchantments for ranged weapons. Aside from Speed and Brilliant energy, they're all +2 or lower.

Regardless, no one who is arguing it can never go above +10 (including the devs) has said what would happen if you shot a +1 holy axiomatic evil-outsider-bane brilliant energy arrow from a +5 flaming burst icy burst chaotic-outsider-bane longbow. By my rules, the arrow would be an effective +5 flaming burst, icy burst, holy, axiomatic evil-or-chaotic-outsider-bane brilliant energy weapon. That's a +18 (+19 if you let the banes stack, which I wouldn't). And legal per "Bows, crossbows, and slings crafted with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition."

::fires a brilliant-energy arrow for +7 +6d6 +1d6 fire +1d6 frost +2d10 fire on crit +2d10 frost on crit damage::

Your rules directly contradict the actual rules:

A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.

As you say, that specific arrow is a +18 equivalent. That's greater than +10 and, thus, not allowed. There exists exactly no method to determine exactly which enchantments transfer, however, and that IS a problem.

This isn't Warcraft. The end cap of Level 20 does not define the norm of the game. Most campaigns terminate well before the level 15 mark. PFS characters retire at level 12. So again for the vast majority of paladin players this is not an issue.

If nothing matters after level 12, then why are there rules for level 20?

If you don't care about the rules being consistent at levels above 12, then don't reply to threads concerning that. It clearly doesn't involve you.

If even one player is affected by this, then it is a rules issue, and this is the rules forum. There is no valid reason to try and suppress the question.

EDIT: Although for the record, the speed enchantment is indeed a bad example. Just replace speed with other single +3 to +5 equivalent enchantment. The actual enchantment doesn't matter as long as it does apply to the arrow.

It's not even the Divine Bond that bothers me so much. It's horrible game design, but whatever. What bothers me is that any character can trip all over this hiccup in the rules and there are exactly zero rules, guidelines, or suggestions on how to deal with it. Any character can wield a +x bow with +y arrows where the combination of x+y>10. How do the various bonuses stack out? Which bonus is left aside? What if it's a +4 speed bow firing +4 brilliant energy arrows? There's no combination of the three properties (+4, speed, and brilliant) that equals a +10 enchantment. Do you downrank the enhancement bonus to +3? Do you remove one of speed or brilliant energy? Which one, if so?

All of this wouldn't be needed if the errata hadn't been made. The game would still work perfectly well. Better, in fact.

Bump this. I think the point may have been missed here. The spell doesn't just convert energy damage to another type, it seems to take ANY spell's damage (of any type?) and convert it to the chosen energy type. This would seem to include bludgeoning, piercing, any generic damage, and perhaps even non-lethal damage. For a +1 level adjustment, that is sick. Taking this meta a couple times would empower a large group of spells to take advantage of elemental weaknesses, or overcome physical damage reduction. That is completely worth a +1 LA. Would like to see a ruling on it.

Spells already overcome Damage Reduction, even if they deal "physical" damage (slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning). Going from untyped damage to typed damage is not usually a benefit, either, as there are more things that resist <foo> typed damage than there are that are weak to it, and if you need acid or fire for anti-regeneration duty, that's what cantrips are for.

Now, for my second act, I would like to ask what happens the 20% of the time where an Eidolon is Banished but does not return to its own home plane?

Answer: Nothing. Eidolons only exist while within 1,000 feet of their Summoner. The rules explicitly state that Eidolons are only an aspect of another creature; they do not exist independently except when Summoned.

EDIT:

Summoning isn't Calling - check out the differences in the Magic section of the core book (under 'Conjuration'). An eidolon is Summoned, not Called - it's not what it's real self is at all, but an aspect or manifestation (which is why you can change what it looks like between levels and with spells). What the actual 'base' creature is, is anyone's guess (and is a question worthy of an adventure or two itself)!

Actually, Eidolons are only summoned monsters when summon Eidolon is cast. They are neither summoned nor called when the ritual is used, although they're closer to called than summoned (as their hit points and status effects are remembered from the last time they were unsummoned).

Also, if you support Cha based ki and playing HISTORICAL ninja then you need to get your head checked. If I have to explain why, please put down the controller and get yourself some outside time for a little while.

1. There's no reason for the ultra-aggressive preemptive ad hominem attacks.

They have little reason to even be on a conjuration/summoning specialist's.

This is why you fail to understand.

The Summoner is not a conjuration specialist wizard. Remember, one of the primary inspirations for the Summoner class is Dr. Frankenstein. The Summoner is an arcane pet class, not a conjuration specialist caster.

EDIT: And incidentally, almost all of those spells you listed are, in fact, on the actual conjuration specialist's spell list, so your argument is silly even there.

Honestly, the touch AC bonus is pretty much irrelevant unless and until you've got Signature Deed: Lightning Reload. You're a Fighter; you're going to be hitting on your first attack the vast majority of the time even against full AC.

Okay, so Gunslingers actually do get Weapon Specialization?

Correct. Gunslingers are Fighters. They're just a very radical archetype of the Fighter core class. Ditto with Anti-Paladin/Paladin, Ninja/Rogue, and Samurai/Cavalier.

Dorje Sylas wrote:

A Bard does not have to be a "Sound of Music" bard

I'm not saying that's the problem we just used "song and dance" instead of writing performance, I don't want to buff like crazy.

Then take a look at the Sandman and Street Performer archetypes. Both replace essentially all of the Bard's buffing abilities with more selfish ones. Sandman in particular is very much a jack of all trades class, even more than the standard bard.

Note that detect magic does not locate the creature by sight. It locates the spell, namely invisibility, by sight. The spell does not protect itself; it protects the creature it's cast on.

On the other hand, the argument that D&D derives from LotR has an underlying problem for the anti-gun crowd.

What did Saruman use to breach the walls of Helm's Deep? Basically a ginormous Grenade 1.0.

Once you've got powder-based explosives, the step from there to guns is a matter of a generation, assuming you've got somebody clever and of the right mindset. All it boils down to is "pointing an explosion AT somebody."

If the ents hadn't trashed Isengard, you can bet there would have been orcs with matchlocks by the end of the War of the Ring.

-The Gneech

Yup, totally. LotR was heavily shaped by Tolkein's experiences in WW1 and by his reaction to the rapid industrialization of Britain. Mordor and Isengard are the Middle-Earth analogues of those two concepts, respectively. Saruman was all about technology and machines; he even bred super-orcs, remember. Anyone trying to sell a fantasy game based off LotR that doesn't include encroaching industrialization and mechanized warfare doesn't know enough about the basis for his game.

I don't see how Wisdom makes any more sense for Ninja than people say Charisma does. In fact, it makes less sense to me. Ninja are not, in most any instance I've personally encountered, noted as a rule for being wise. Quick? Sure. Devious? Certainly. Sneaky? Absolutely. Wise? Not so much. There are certainly instances of wise ninja, but they're almost exclusively "elder ninja" (Splinter from TMNT, the Kages from Naruto, Eg Shen from Big Trouble in Little China, etc), and presumably that wisdom comes from age and experience, not from being a ninja.

Zurai wrote:

Ultimate Combat is a three hundred and twenty page book. Is spending less than 1/32 of your page count on a concept really "heavily embracing" it?

I thought it was a 256-page book? If it is 320 pages, all the more sweeter, but I thought the product page states 256? Did they up it, cause that would make me swoon.

I just assumed it would be the same size as the Advanced Player's Guide. Mea culpa for not looking it up; I'm sure the product page is correct. That's "less than 5/128" then, which isn't nearly as neat.

Yes. Yes I agree with you. I won't be having guns in any of my campaighns. Nor will I purchase anything that heavily embraces them. I am disappointed that Paizo has chosen to spend their limited resources in this area but what can I do.

The Gunslinger class + the gun rules + the Gunslinger feats + the Gunslinger magic weapon properties take up a total of about 6 to 6.5 pages of space. Even assuming there's a few more feats, magic items, and guns, that's still less than 10 pages of content devoted to guns. Ultimate Combat is a three hundred and twenty page book. Is spending less than 1/32 of your page count on a concept really "heavily embracing" it?

I'm really disappointed that "Ultimate Combat" seems to mean "things that don't belong in any campaign I've ever played in" in some 20 odd years of gaming.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you really think that the Gunslinger, the Ninja, and the Samurai are the entire content of the entire book? Or that the entire book is taken up by Western and Asian themed content? Don't be silly. They're three alternate classes which, combined, take up, what, 10 pages of a 320 page book?

Zurai wrote:

One weapon can bypass as many DRs as it qualifies for. All three of your listed weapons could bypass the DR of a Pit Fiend.

Then what is the intention behind the solar's "epic and evil" DR? Bypassing the epic automatically bypasses the evil.

Bypassing epic does not automatically bypass evil. A +2 brilliant energy vorpal greatsword is an epic weapon. It is not an evil-aligned weapon, however, nor is it a +5 weapon. Thus, it does not bypass DR/evil.

I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game. I know they are very early stages of guns but imagining someone not in heavy armor getting shot a few times and still fighting takes whatever realism there is in fantasy away. I know if I don't want to use it I don't have to, I just think something like this should stay out of one of the core books. Why not put out a book called 'Firearms' or something, the people that want it will buy it. I know I can't be alone, everyone in my group doesn't want anything to do with it. I hope they reconsider.

No one at Paizo is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use the Gunslinger class or the firearms. If no one in your group wants to use them, that's perfect! No one has to use them! Problem entirely solved.

What you're actually asking for here is to screw over other people who would like to have fun in a different manner than you have fun. That's not cool.

PS. Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat are not, as far as I know, considered Core material.

Zurai wrote:

So you're going to be attacking Gargantuan and Collossal creatures (or Large creatures with reach weapons, or Huge dragons, etc etc) from 20 feet away? And you're not going to be taking Lightning Reload and Signature Deed (Lightning Reload)? You're being silly. Stop being silly.

When did we start talking about Lightning Reload? I thought we were talking about Fighter Feats.

You were talking about WF being useless because you can't miss. I countered that by pointing out that, A, you only hit touch AC within 20 feet (assuming you use pistols, and using muskets is just plain moronic as the rules are currently written until level 11, so using pistols is a pretty safe assumption IMO), and B, even touch attacks can miss on the last iterative (ie, when you're using Lightning Reload).

Of course, you don't care to make any actual, logical, internally consistent counter-arguments; you simply resort to ad hominems and straw men. Carry on, then.

Why would a gunslinger need Weapon Focus or Greater Weapon Focus? He'll be rolling against touch AC most of the time. I can definitely see the value of others but I'm not seeing a lot of opportunity for all those feats. The class is feat starved as it is.

So you're going to be attacking Gargantuan and Collossal creatures (or Large creatures with reach weapons, or Huge dragons, etc etc) from 20 feet away? And you're not going to be taking Lightning Reload and Signature Deed (Lightning Reload)? You're being silly. Stop being silly.

Not all Rangers cast spells.

The base class Ranger is a spellcasting class. You have to take a single specific archetype to have a Ranger who doesn't get to cast spells. You're being silly. Stop being silly.

Even disregarding that, Deeds are near magical in their effect if not their description. I think they're a good trade if Grit and Deeds get better.

Lol. Here's the list of things that deeds can do:

• Fall prone in response to being shot.
  
• Clear a jammed gun.
  
• Pistol whip someone.
  
• Quickdraw (as in the inspiration for the "gunslinger" name)
  
• Use covering fire.
  
• Target a specific body part.
  
• Cause a bleeding wound.
  
• Shoot a lock off a door, move a small object by hitting it, or cauterize a wound with a hot gun barrel.
  
• Startle someone with a near miss.
  
• Load a gun carefully enough that it doesn't explode when it misfires.
  
• Stun a creature when it gets crit by a gunshot.
  
• Instantly kill a creature when it gets crit by a gunshot.
  
• Be skilled enough to not provoke AoOs.
  
• Move and shoot.
  
• Reload as quickly as an archer.
  
• Cause a bullet to ricochet.
  
• Store bullets and gunpowder on your person for future use.
  
• Nothing else.

Of those, the only ones that are even vaguely magical are the level 19 deeds (stun on a crit or kill on a crit), and considering that you could just take Stunning Critical at level 17 and get the same effect without having to spend a Grit, the stun one is laughable. That leaves killing something by blowing its brains out. How is that magical, again? You're being silly. Stop being silly.

Ranger Tracking is just a bonus to a skill. If you'll kindly look above to where I suggested a few tweaks based on changing this to Ranger, I suggested that Gunslingers get an equal bonus to Craft: Gunsmith rolls and Craft: Alchemy rolls to make gunpowder.

This makes absolutely zero sense. Name me one gunslinger character in any media that made his own guns, bullets, and powder, and I'll name you 100 more that didn't make any of the above and probably couldn't have made them if you'd held a gun to their heads. You're being silly. Stop being silly.

Holy crap. Is your premise actually that Rangers don't have to specify some sort of, I don't know what to call it, maybe COMBAT STYLE?

No; if you'd bothered to read instead of just having a case of verbal diarrhea, you'd have noticed that I said that Fighters were ALL ABOUT SPECIALIZATION IN A WEAPON. Rangers are not; they are about specialization in a combat style, and casting spells, and having a pet, and tracking people, and getting along well with animals, and hiding in plain sight, and knowing a lot about geography and terrain, and being a skill monkey.

Fighters are all about one thing: being good with a weapon (or occasionally two weapons).

Gunslingers are all about one thing: being good with a gun (or occasionally two guns).

Rangers are about all sorts of things, only one of which is being good with a specific style of combat which could involve any number of different weapons.

You're being silly. Stop being silly.

One weapon can bypass as many DRs as it qualifies for. All three of your listed weapons could bypass the DR of a Pit Fiend.

Yes, guns have been in fantasy before, and there were even guns in 2nd ed of D&D (maybe 1st ed even.)

There were LASER GUNS in 1st edition. Barrier Peaks, anyone?

Hell, there's a magical nuclear reactor in Golarion.

And, anyway, all the "it doesn't fit in my campaign!" complaints are really 100% irrelevant. If it doesn't fit in your campaign, all you have to do is say, "no guns. No gunslingers."; done!

Remember also that because a Gunslinger is a Fighter, it can take Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Critical Mastery, Disruptive, Spellbreaker, Penetrating Strike, and Greater Penetrating Strike (plus whatever other Fighter-only feats there are), assuming it can scrounge up the feats for them. Some of those aren't all that hot for a ranged character, but Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike definitely are, as is Greater Weapon Focus.

A magic weapon with a total bonus equivilent of over +10 is also Epic, IIRC, so it is possible to have an Epic Weapon with a +4 or lower bonus, which would make it not automatically overcome alignment.

Correct. Also, a standard (read: non-artifact) magic weapon with a price greater than a +10 equivalent weapon is also an epic weapon. In Core Pathfinder, that's the same as saying a weapon with a bonus equivalent over +10, but I can illustrate it with armor instead: A suit of +5 glamered heavy fortification full plate is an epic item. Even though it's only a +10 suit of armor, the extra enchantment from the glamered property (which is normally a flat 2,700 gold and doesn't count as a bonus equivalent) pushes it over the price threshold.

That's actually really important to know when buying some of the higher-priced flat fee armor enchantments. For example, if you want greater energy resistance armor, it can't go on anything more than a total bonus of +5, because greater energy resistance costs 66k, a +5 suit of armor costs 25k, a +6 suit costs 36k, and the price cap for non-epic armor is 100k.

I disagree. I see very, very little commonality between the Ranger and the Gunslinger:

• Rangers cast spells. Gunslingers don't.
  
• Rangers have favored enemies and favored terrains. Gunslingers don't.
  
• Rangers have bonds with an animal companion or with their party. Gunslingers don't.
  
• Rangers have all sorts of tracking abilities. Gunslingers don't.
  
• Etc.

Meanwhile, they do fit with Fighters. Fighters are all about specialization in one weapon (or a very small set of them, anyway). So are Gunslingers. Gunslingers sacrifice armor and armor training for grit and deeds.

The rules seem intentionally vague on describing eidolons.

They are. A key point that your questions illustrate that you are missing, however, is that Eidolons, by the rules, do not exist as Eidolons except when they are summoned by their Summoner. They are not independent entities; they are a fraction of an independent entity's power/consciousness. Thus, Eidolons themselves do not have a home plane, do not do anything when they aren't helping their summoner, don't talk to each other or have houses/families/hobbies. When they aren't summoned, they don't exist as independent entities.

Specifically, the rules state that a Summoner always summons an aspect of the same creature; not the creature itself.

This is a good thing, because if they had an existence outside of the Summoner's summoning, they could be permanently killed by simple means of gating them in (or other conjuration [calling] spells).

Is there any source of bonus damage expressed as a dice that doesn't state one of the following: That it isn't multiplied on a critical hit, that it is precision damage, or is not a weapon property?

Yes. Here is another. And another.

A two weapon fighter might be doing less than 10 points average a hit at lower levels.

I covered that. "technically per pair of hits with dual wield"

DM Wellard said: Just one question arises.If you multiclass into ranger or druid do you get a third dog?

Quandary said: Animal Companion Classes always stack, multiple Companion classes don`t grant separate Companions.

Zurai said: Incorrect. In fact, it's the exact opposite, and always has been.

Druid class, Core Rulebook page 51:
Class Level: This is the character's druid level. The druid's class levels stack with levels of any other classes that are entitled to an animal companion for the purpose of determining the companion's statistics.

Huh. Color me wrong, then. I know that was the case in 3.5, though, as there was an entire series of feats to allow different classes to stack their animal companion levels. I just assumed (and there's my error) that Paizo kept it the same given their anti-multiclass leanings.

DM Wellard wrote:

Just one question arises.If you multiclass into ranger or druid do you get a third dog?

Animal Companion Classes always stack, multiple Companion classes don`t grant separate Companions.

Incorrect. In fact, it's the exact opposite, and always has been.

The fact that it doesn't specifically call out the DC for the checks is not relevant.

Not only does it not call out the DC for the check, it doesn't define anything about the concept. The number of checks, the duration of the process, the types of checks, the types of spells possible to create, etc etc ad nauseum. The only thing it defines is minimum price and minimum duration.

The rules don't specifically define how to find a spellcaster who has a spell you want to copy nor the diplomacy/Intimidate check it will take to convince them to let you do it.

That's because cooperation isn't required. You can kill the wizard and get his spellbook that way, or steal it, or any manner of other thing. That is all irrelevant to the rules. You're confusing rules and gameplay.

Adding a spell through research is no more/less automatic than wanting to copy from another caster's book-also a GM fiat.

Incorrect. There are specific rules that say, if you make this skill check, and the spell is in your spell list, you can add it to your book. There is no such rule for spell research; spell research is specifically left up to the GM to adjudicate and thus has absolutely no place in the Rules Forum where we discuss the rules of the game.

Zurai wrote:

Spell lists for Wizards are immutable; nothing can change them. Nothing. There are classes in 3.5 that can add specific categories of spells to their spell lists, but the Wizard is not and never has been one of them.

Not entirely true. Per the Independent Research rule, CRB p.219,

"A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one."
Technically, with successful use of Spellcraft, Knowledge(arcana), cash, and time, any spell (including CLW) could be added to that particular wizard's spellbook.

That's also left solely up to the discretion of Rule 0 (GM fiat), and thus has no place in the rules forum. There is no class mechanic that says, yes, Wizards can automatically add this spell to his spell list at this level.

**EDIT**
My deciding factor was if a wizard could scribe cure light wounds from a bard, then he could scribe it in his spellbook, which in turn puts cure light wounds in the wizards spell list. That broke everything because now the wizard has access to every spell in the game, so it was ruled he could not.

Uh, no, no he could not. Cure light wounds is not on the Wizard/Sorcerer spell list. Thus, even if the Wizard scribed a scroll of it as a proxy for the party Bard, he still couldn't transfer it to his spell book. Spell lists for Wizards are immutable; nothing can change them. Nothing. There are classes in 3.5 that can add specific categories of spells to their spell lists, but the Wizard is not and never has been one of them.

You obviously haven't dealt with IP world before. Its not if somebody is the first to invent, its the first to Patent or Copyright that gets to call it theirs. In this case Blizzard can make the claim as a violation of their video game, their card game, and their PnP RPG. If they choose to defend that claim is up to them, but any case the concept and the phrases exists as part their IP.

Incorrect. The phrases "Go For the Throat" and "Kill Command" are not trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment or its parents or subsidiaries, and they cannot be copyrighted (as they fall in the category of "titles, names, short phrases, and slogans" which are specifically exempt from copyright law; the case could also be made for the "common property/no original authorship" exemption, because neither phrase is original in any way) or patented. Thus, no, they are not Blizzard IP and Blizzard cannot do anything about them. If the art for the World of Warcraft Hunter abilities had been included with the text, then yes, it would be an IP violation, because that art is protected.

That all said, anyone who's ever played a Hunter in WoW would immediately draw the connection and that's not a good thing for the entry. If the names were entirely coincidental, that's one thing (although even a tiny bit of research would have discovered the connection), but if they were taken from WoW that's, IMO, a big no-no for future rounds. Not only would that show a lack of creativity and pride of work, it risks drawing ire from the fairly sizable "D&D is too MMO-like already" crowd. Note that I'm not saying it was on purpose; just saying that if it was, any future entries should avoid it :)

Anyway, I think this is an excellent archetype, and it will get one of my votes.

IIRC the Barb rage points were removed because it was too much book keeping, now I see them back in another form, and as an added level of interest, they can go up as well as down.

The samurai has resolve points and the Ninja has a lot more to spend Ki points on.

From a Dev perspective, is this a step to 'a path not taken'?

Err, no, actually, it only vaguely resembles the rage points. Barbarians in beta had pools of into the hundreds of rage points, which they spent in bits and chunks of wildly varying sizes essentially every single round of combat.

Grit comes in at like 12 points maximum pool size, is spent generally one at a time, and won't generally be used every single round of combat.

Same with Resolve and Ki (monk and ninja).

I like this one and voted for it, though I wonder how wise it will be to have a full BAB character with a druid-level animal companion.

At the least I think it should use Dog stats instead of Wolf stats.

Why are people (judges included) harping on this?

Baseline Cavaliers already get full-strength animal companions. Hell, Small Cavaliers can even pick wolves and dogs!

My guess is that Linguistics is a nod to Calligraphy. Also, nobles tend to know more languages, by necessity, than commonfolk. EDIT: Also note that Linguistics covers Forgery too, which would be mighty handy for Ronin to have.