bobsayshi's page

single melee attack (undefined) == melee attack (undefined) != attack(melee) (defined)
That is just annoying and awkward dealing with as it opens it up to RAI instead of making it RAW.

What they effectively did is,
AoO -> defined as single melee attack -> defined as nothing
SUaS -> defined as single melee attack -> defined as nothing

Instead it would have been much cleaner to go
SUaS, you get a free AoO
instead of the convoluted way they wrote the Feat. It still leaves one undefined term, but at least there are less floating RAI having to be used.

...

The action called "Attack" is a standard action. It allows one melee or ranged attack. It is much like the action "Move" which allows you to displace your position by your move speed.

Abilities that grant "a single melee attack" are not granting "a standard action which may only be used to do an attack action".

...

I think this is the key point. That what constitutes a 'single melee attack' is not defined within the rules. So any interpretation on how it interacts with the various actions is just RAI and not RAW.

And if there's still disagreement with that RAW is unclear, i'll add another approach.

Can Disarm or Trip be used when using the Step Up and Strike ability?

bobsayshi wrote:

Dallium wrote:

bobsayshi, my understanding of your confusion is that you think that 'single melee attack' and 'attack action' are or should be synonyms. They are not. They are related, but different things. Not because of an FAQ or special instructions on reading Pathfinder, but because that's how parsing English works.

If this is NOT the source of your confusion, I am in error and apologize in advance.

That I believe is the source of the confusion. Without some outside knowledge, the available 'Actions in Combat' don't define a 'single melee attack' as a term which leaves only really two options, it isn't in the list or it is equivalent to an attack action which is a single attack. As a standalone either are really equivalent, only after considering the weight of balance for each can you start to make assumptions about what is intended or not.

The jump from, it's a term undefined but should be handled separately, is one that is really only found through FAQ and general past interpretations and not any rule set.
It doesn't appear even a direct FAQ tries to correct it, just answers that you can compare to. I still think that they should have just added a line to table8-2 to resolve all the confusion clearly and future questions while keeping with the intent.

I think it's at least possible something is getting lost in translation here. I don't think "single melee attack" needs to be rigorously defined. You are correct, in that it's not listed in the 'Actions in Combat' section, because you can't ever just make a 'single melee attack' in isolation. It's always brought about by something, like a Charge, spell, feat, class feature or magic item. It always in sentences like :

"As an [action type] and/or when you (use) [feat/ability or prerequisite action occurs], make a single melee attack. [Stuff happens]"

Charging wrote:

After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll and take a –2 penalty to your

...

I suppose then that it's just my interpretation that as there is a difference between a 'single melee attack' but not 'attack (melee)' (that only is just a single attack) that it should have been defined and it would have resolved all possible confusion. Then by having indicated that an effectively untyped action exists and could be used, it clearly indicates that 'single melee attack' doesn't fit in other actions, rather than making the leap.

bobsayshi, my understanding of your confusion is that you think that 'single melee attack' and 'attack action' are or should be synonyms. They are not. They are related, but different things. Not because of an FAQ or special instructions on reading Pathfinder, but because that's how parsing English works.

If this is NOT the source of your confusion, I am in error and apologize in advance.

That I believe is the source of the confusion. Without some outside knowledge, the available 'Actions in Combat' don't define a 'single melee attack' as a term which leaves only really two options, it isn't in the list or it is equivalent to an attack action which is a single attack. As a standalone either are really equivalent, only after considering the weight of balance for each can you start to make assumptions about what is intended or not.

The jump from, it's a term undefined but should be handled separately, is one that is really only found through FAQ and general past interpretations and not any rule set.
It doesn't appear even a direct FAQ tries to correct it, just answers that you can compare to. I still think that they should have just added a line to table8-2 to resolve all the confusion clearly and future questions while keeping with the intent.

Yeah, like I said in the OP, I know the general consensus is that it doesn't work but it's not 100% clear.

For instance just saying that 'harmless' doesn't mean anything in the description is either a) true and sloppy writing by Paizo or b) not true and means something. Either way you would think they would make a ruling on it.

I guess the fact that SR comes up so much in play and there is no ruling probably means they're happy with the consensus.

Wish i knew the answer to your question. I concur though that the answer should really be an either (a) or (b).

If anyone knows which answer, what a (c) could be instead, or can find a FAQ clarifying it would help out greatly.

bobsayshi wrote:

It's nice to know that in the Rules Question section, barely anyone references the rules or any errata'd or added rules from FAQ, and instead constantly implies i was trying to cheat.

Apparently my sarcasm in my last post was too slight for many here.

Hmm, didn't think the cheating commentary was directed at you, rather another poster who admitted knowing how the rule works, but advocated slipping past the GM if they were less savvy, bit a a siderail from your question.

Some where.

It's nice to know that in the Rules Question section, barely anyone references the rules or any errata'd or added rules from FAQ, and instead constantly implies i was trying to cheat.

Apparently my sarcasm in my last post was too slight for many here.

<standing on soap box>

...

<-- using rules correctly to allow the poster to do what he looks like he is asking.
</standing on soap box>

Thanks for telling me what i was asking.

I was just asking if it could or could not. As mention here have implied lying and cheating is not fun and i didn't want to be doing this. I had my assumption, but i couldn't find a clear rationale for the decision, additionally i couldn't find a previous discussion of a feat with a similar language - so i figured i'd ask.

To me there was some implied knowledge that you had to have from a FAQ or other decisions to learn that an attack vs attack action were difference, it wasn't clearly spelled out in the core rules.

I found a bit more clarity in that connection, to me however it is still not a clear tangible line without some background knowledge, but regardless it seems the consensus is clear either way.

bobsayshi wrote:

The annoying part is that none of the books i've found differentiate this.

The core is crystal clear, if you understand the words.

They define two types of generic actions to attack.
Attack action - standard action single attack.
Full attack action - full attack action more than one attack.

All this was bashed out in 2009, and never since.
Now a days you get posts like yours and a choir of people like me stating what we think is obvious to us. Those around in 2009 when it wasn’t obvious to us or others.

Sure but that isn't the confusion, the confusion is that

Attack action is listed in the types of actions a player can perform.
Single attack is not a listed action a player can perform.

Now I think i'm in agreement with the intent, but i still can't see that line connecting the two without a leap and an assumption.

The annoying part is that none of the books i've found differentiate this. They don't spell out that an attack action is a melee attack, but not a 'single-melee attack' - even though a melee attack is just one attack.

Most feats define their attacks and it's more a matter of learning the definitions, but both Spring attack & Cleave define it properly. Specifically with SUaS, it leaves the vague statement of single melee attack and then compounds it by having a useless 'normal' statement

'Single melee attack' has made a lot of trouble it seems. It would have solved so many confusing debates if they had just simply added 'single melee attack' to the Table 8-2 (CR) and stuck it to the 'action type varies' and be done with it.

I guess my confusion is how SUaS is worded. The Normal case of SUaS is completely wrong for a AoO being used for the SUaS, whereas if intended as a single attack action, it makes sense.

How do you parse 'single melee attack' to be AoO and not attack action?

The way it reads 'may also make a single melee attack' and the normal case of 'you can usually only take one standard action and one 5-foot step each round' implies that you can perform these multiple time (if multiple people 5-ft anyway) and would include the standard action (as a single attack action) and a 5ft (potentially further augmented to 10ft by following step).

I tried finding an answer, but none of the results seemed to answer this clearly.

Can Vital Strike be used when using the Step Up and Strike ability?

Vital Strike (Combat):

Vital Strike

You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as f laming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).

Step Up and Strike (Combat):

Step Up and Strike
When a foe tries to move away, you can follow and make an attack.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Following Step, Step Up, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When using the Step Up or Following Step feats to follow an adjacent foe, you may also make a single melee attack against that foe at your highest base attack bonus. This attack counts as one of your attacks of opportunity for the round. Using this feat does not count toward the number of actions you can usually take each round.
Normal: You can usually only take one standard action and one 5-foot step each round.

Following Step (Combat):

Following Step
You can repeatedly close the distance when foes try to move away, without impeding your normal movement.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Step Up.
Benefit: When using the Step Up feat to follow an adjacent foe, you may move up to 10 feet. You may still take a 5-foot step during your next turn, and any movement you make using this feat does not subtract any distance from your movement during your next turn.
Normal: You can only take a 5-foot step to follow an opponent using Step Up.

Step Up (Combat):

Step Up
You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.

Generally Vital Strike is considered an attack action, and an attack of opportunity is a no action. As written however SUaS doesn't state that it is an attack of opportunity, only that it uses one - this would make sense for the basis of doing more than one in a round.

Does anyone know any clarification, specifically on how SUaS interacts with VS?

Compression isn't augmented, unless i missed it?

Metamorphosis... this one is nice.
You'd have to make yourself Tiny first, then do it - but it seems possible. The duration is crappy, but it's a start.

And... Rod of Wonder.. that is glorious.
... Seems like the item for when you get bored. You craft/find it and secure it to a middle of a random square... and sit back and watch the peasants have some really weird days playing with that thing.

Get back to my computer and see some awesome responses. Thanks all.

...and for all you people talking about carrying stuff.. HA, be creative. Portable holes are good in a pinch... and lackeys, party members, familiars, etc.

Mythic Reduce Person, as i'm reading goes to only Tiny.
Druid wildshape goes to Diminutive.
Sylvan lvl15 is saying 1 size smaller (or am i mistaken), not 2?
which, Fox + Fey Wings = Diminutive.

Any way to get to Fine? I'm not seeing one yet.

I'm looking for a way to shrink a character 2 or more size categories??

Reduce person and similar don't stack, i'm looking if there is another way, item, ability, spell, feat, etc that would stack?

Forget cost really, i'm just trying to determine a possible way for it to happen. I have an idea for a character creation that his goal in life is to be as small as possible, because it makes you more awesome (... not entirely correct... but he'll believe it as part of his odd backstory). It can be exorbitantly expensive, but that just mean his end goal will be there for a long time... but if it isn't at all possible, i'll have to come up with another idea.

Any spellcaster even witch, so there are normal races that are small, and very few tiny characters that have ever made it to player type characters (i likely won't be able to play those anyway). But still the question made me try exploring many pathfinder and even 3.5 books to find an answer - no real luck yet.

How can you change yourself 2 or more size categories smaller?? Any ideas will be appreciated.

I'm trying to play a witch on a new campaign i'm about to start. The main issue i'm having is the limited book selection and my DM's homebrew rule to make slumber a range-touch & not a SU.

I'm wondering if you all think a decent witch character can be made while only using,
- Core Rulebook
- Advanced Player's Guide
- Kingmaker Player Handbook
... that's it.

Any item from other books can only be individually decided by the DM and I. Class or Character options however are restricted to the above books.

Every strategy or plan i'm working around inevitably gets hit by a limited class abilities from the book limit. It's proving to be difficult, and i'm trying to figure out if it's worth it to simply try and maybe end up playing with a half fleshed out character, or not bother.

Thoughts?

Side note, we're starting at level 1, but i'm trying to get a generic plan up to level 10. I was initially thinking an Elf, and my raw int is only 15 to start.

bobsayshi wrote:

My GM has never utilized the 'massive damage' rule before, this may change but if i can avoid it, it might save one of us players one day too.

I guess i was envisioning something a little more elaborate, but i guess a pick & manacles would suffice.

I was thinking like a portable guillotine, only functional against helpless creatures or something. I guess something hasn't been built or put into normal practice yet. I might have to put some skills into craft Engineering.

The problem is how do you 1 shot someone with 50+ health (without Massive Damage optional skill in effect).

In the past we as a group surrounded the target and made a decision to Coup De Grace all at once, our GM was ok with that because it's possible (everyone swing at a stationary target at the same time). We can as a group do a stupid amount of damage if we all critical. But for one person you're limited to the max damage output.

Don't forget the Fort save effect on coup de grace (this is separate from the massive damage effect).

Level 10 fighter with a Greataxe takes a CdG on a helpless monster with 200 HP. He deals ~3d12 + 75 dmg (3x crit modifier + Power attack) -- say 95 damage. This is not enough to invoke the (optional) 'massive damage' modifier, and would only bring the monster down to 125 HP. But now the monster has to make a DC105 (!) Fortitude save or die because of the coup de grace. It dies.

If you can get a DC30 fort save at mid levels (20 dmg dealt on CdG), you've probably killed most things because of the fort save. Also, remember this doesn't work if the opponent is immune to critical hits (Ooze, Aeon, Elemental, incorporeal among others).

I must have completely forgotten that part of the rule. A little while ago we pulled out the Massive Damage rule and guess it was assumed that was where the Coup de Grace fort save came from. Rereading it again, its clear that it is required.

My GM has never utilized the 'massive damage' rule before, this may change but if i can avoid it, it might save one of us players one day too.

I guess i was envisioning something a little more elaborate, but i guess a pick & manacles would suffice.

I was thinking like a portable guillotine, only functional against helpless creatures or something. I guess something hasn't been built or put into normal practice yet. I might have to put some skills into craft Engineering.

The problem is how do you 1 shot someone with 50+ health (without Massive Damage optional skill in effect).

In the past we as a group surrounded the target and made a decision to Coup De Grace all at once, our GM was ok with that because it's possible (everyone swing at a stationary target at the same time). We can as a group do a stupid amount of damage if we all critical. But for one person you're limited to the max damage output.

So this game up in a discussion at a table last week.

Situation:
Witch is by himself (or her) comes across a fighter equal level. The witch probably can't kill him before he dies with just hexes. Sure slumber is great, but a coup de grace is only a critical... what witch can do that much damage with a range or melee weapon?

Yes yes, not the character's design but whatever bare with me, its a probably that should be solvable.

Is there a weapon a witch can carry that will 1 shot any (virtually any) character with 1 coup de grace. A critical hit is nice sure, but when you don't have a good weapon it can be still not that effective as running to your survival.

You're a witch, so think basically 0 strength. I'm envisioning some guillotine thing that can be carried out and setup to kill a sleeping enemy - mechanical, magical, or whatever.

Any ideas? You'd have potentially several rounds if necessary so it could take some time to setup. Just having an item in your inventory that can eliminate a sleeping threat would help.

Going to bring this back because I thought about doing this for a new character.

This is what i was thinking for a level 12, as our campaign has another 1-3 levels in it.

Monk3/Witch9 (future into witch)
Race - Human

Benefits of Monk3
- Evasion
- Deflect Arrows
- Fort/Ref/Will Saves
- Combat Maneuver Bonus
- 10ft speed bonus

More mobility and higher saves, and blocking 1 arrow a round - saves my life. With 'Magical Knack' only the hex's suffer too much. While i agree it's not the most efficient, it might work and give more life protection - i'm hoping.

side note,
I might go full witch in the end, but i'd like to have a few options.

Split hex is a single hex on two targets within 30ft of each other, not two hexes.

Hmm... i guess it could be argued that is two hexes... Just not what i was thinking. Thanks for clarifying though.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength).

Nothing else.

Not according to Bull's Str:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/bullSStrength.html#_bull-s-streng th

"the usual benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, and other uses of the Strength modifier."
Strength mod used in carrying capacity thus is affected.

Just so this isn't misused. Temporary Ability = Permanent Ability.

Temporary Ability Score Increases vs. Permanent Ability Score Increases: Why do temporary bonuses only apply to some things?

Temporary ability bonuses should apply to anything relating to that ability score, just as permanent ability score bonuses do. The section in the glossary was very tight on space and it was not possible to list every single ability score-related game effect that an ability score bones would affect.

The purpose of the temporary ability score ruling is to make it so you don't have to rebuild your character every time you get a bull's strength or similar spell; it just summarizes the most common game effects relative to that ability score.

For example, most of the time when you get bull's strength, you're using it for combat, so the glossary mentions Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, Strength-based weapon damage rolls, CMB, and CMD. It doesn't call out melee attack rolls that use Dex instead of Str (such as when using Weapon Finesse) or situations where your applied Str bonus should be halved or multiplied (such as whith off-hand or two-handed weapons). You're usually not using the spell for a 1 min./level increase in your carrying capacity, so that isn't mentioned there, but the bonus should still apply to that, as well as to Strength checks to break down doors.

Think of it in the same way that a simple template has "quick rules" and "rebuild rules;" they're supposed to create monsters which are roughly equivalent in terms of stats, but the quick rules are a short cut that misses some details compared to using the rebuild rules. Likewise, the temporary ability score rule is intended as a short cut to speed up gameplay, not as the most precise way of applying the bonus.

A temporary ability score bonus should affect all of the same stats and rolls that a permanent ability score bonus does.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 10/29/13

So, i guess the lack of response means that a witch can only hex once per round then as i understand it? Please correct me, as this would be great to find out how.

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

...
If someone wants to through around 10d6 damage 1x a round (avg 35 points of damage out of a 2nd level spell slot) more power to them, I'd rather fling out 2 DC 30 Fort/Will save or die hexes a round, every round and leave the spell slots for utility spells and quickened debuffs.
...

Maybe i'm daft, but how can you cast 2 hexes a round? Cackle as a move action isn't the same as a 'hex'. I've been looking to see how this is possible but so far I've not seen it myself.

As a fighter in a group with only an Eidolon as the other melee guy it's hard to hold targets, or they die quickly.

I went with a two pronged approach, Standstill/Step Up & Vital Strike. This allows myself to be better and more threatening. Keeping targets near me to get the iterative higher damages (and less allies getting hit), or being able to hit harder to new or recently evaded targets.

Win/Win - it is going fairly well and I've been playing with him from level 3 to 12.

To reiterate, solo optimized build - no. Useful and helpful in a group - yes. It all depends on your group composition and your role in it.

...
If someone wants to through around 10d6 damage 1x a round (avg 35 points of damage out of a 2nd level spell slot) more power to them, I'd rather fling out 2 DC 30 Fort/Will save or die hexes a round, every round and leave the spell slots for utility spells and quickened debuffs.
...

Maybe i'm daft, but how can you cast 2 hexes a round? Cackle as a move action isn't the same as a 'hex'. I've been looking to see how this is possible but so far I've not seen it myself.

FAQ addresses the cackle is silent issue.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9pkc

Witch, Cackle Hex: Does my character literally have to cackle madly when I use this hex, or is that just flavor text?

Your character actually has to cackle—probably in a strong voice, akin to the volume and clarity necessary for verbal spell components.

Edit 7/19/13:
If the witch is in a silence effect, she can't use the cackle hex.
If the target is in a silence effect, it is unaffected by the cackle.
This may require some clarifying text in the next printing of the Advanced Player's Guide.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 06/06/13

That said, Invisibility + Ventriloquism will work as long as you're not making sound moving... and is what i'm planning when targets are willing to try hitting me when i'm invisible.

Thanks for the ideas, i'll throw it by my DM and see what options i can come up with.

Is there any guideline on cost for acquiring new spells by learning between witches?

ie, go to a huge town and find a coven or some other group. Provided you don't immediately hate each other, what sort of price figuring is there to have familiar's swap spells?

1hr/level so back and forth is 2hrs/level for each to learn an equal spell. Or if you don't have anything they want its just 1hr/level.

... i mean provided the other witch doesn't need his familiar for a few hours in town, its only time lost.

Any idea on a rule or guideline for a cost - I've found nothing so far. The closest I've come up with is the cost to make a scroll, but that doesn't fit the expenses and time being traded here.

ideas?

I get the RAW, but where i see this as being poorly worded is the following case.

Two targets,
1 - target is 50ft away
2 - target is 10ft away

Slumber has a range of 60ft (ratfolk levels)
Split hex has a range of 30ft

It just seems like an odd ability to not be able to cast Slumber on both, when you can get both targets individually.

I'd like to assume this simply wasn't a considered situation when the feat was created and it was instead simply poorly worded... But I agree with your guy's RAW interpretation as well. *sigh*

...Oh well, i'll make my DM do this call in case he has my opinion... knowing his loathe for my witch though i'm doubtful.

Thanks for the clarification.

So my question comes from the Ratfolk favored class bonus and how it applies with the Split Hex feat.

For reference, Ratfolk & Split Hex.
Ratfolk - favored class bonus
Witch: Add +5 feet to the range of one hex with a range other than “touch.”

Split Hex
Benefit: When you use one of your hexes (not a major hex or a grand hex) that targets a single creature, you can choose another creature within 30 feet of the first target to also be targeted by the hex.

example of normal hex,
- Cast slumber - 30ft range - simple

If you've changed Slumber from 30ft to say 60ft (6 levels as a Ratfolk), there are three scenarios,

- Cast slumber - 60ft range - simple
- Cast slumber, split hex - 60ft range & 30ft from target
- Cast slumber, split hex - 60ft range & 60ft from target

Reading the RAW i can read it both ways, how does everyone else read it? This becomes increasingly important when you combine Split hex with Scar.

Does the split hex '30ft' exclude the hex range, or is it a poorly worded hex description?

Little side question, related but not for gear.

Ratfolk - favored class bonus
Witch: Add +5 feet to the range of one hex with a range other than “touch.”
The question relates to Split Hex,

Split Hex
Benefit: When you use one of your hexes (not a major hex or a grand hex) that targets a single creature, you can choose another creature within 30 feet of the first target to also be targeted by the hex.

so now,
- Cast slumber - 30ft range - simple

If you've changed Slumber from 30ft to say 60ft (6 levels as a Ratfolk), there are three scenarios,

- Cast slumber - 60ft range - simple
- Cast slumber, split hex - 60ft range & 30ft from target
- Cast slumber, split hex - 60ft range & 60ft from target

Reading the RAW i can read it both ways, how does everyone else read it? This becomes increasingly important when you combine this with Scar.

Can't use the witching gown and corset together.

They both used the body slot.

Great minds it seems... just caught that myself.

Hmm, apparently i missed the fact that the corset and gown are both body slot items. I'll see about turning the Witching Gown into a Witching Cloak... cause that would be awesome.

lol geez... 4 tries to pass 1 witch spell... i like it. i'll need to make sure my spell list is up for it. i've gone a lot of control spells over damage, but this might make me changes a few.

So lets see, so far for a level 12 witch...

- Rod of Quicken, Lesser - 35,000g
- Headband of int, +6 - 18,000g (craft wondrous item)
- Intelligent Carpet - 15,500g (craft wondrous item, intelligent with telepathy and darkvision = 31kg)
- Ring of Reduce person - 4,100g
- Witching Gown - 17,750g (craft wondrous item - DM discretion)
- Corset of Dire Witchcraft - 11,000g (craft wondrous item)
- Handy Haversack, Bag - 1,000g (craft wondrous item)

102,350g
total for lvl 12 starting = 108,000g
left over = 5,650g

Thoughts???
Any problems - cost, item choice, etc.???
Any other suggestions???

It's from the advanced players guide. Good point about it being an obstacle. It was more for the image of some mad b*stard popping out of a cauldon and firing off hexes while laughing maniacally.

If you capture baddies you can use the scar hex on one and mess him up even further by taking some of his hair for a hexing doll. It might not fly with the geneva convention but it would make the whole 'follow him back to his master' tactic a bit more solid.

Personally i like the scar hex + split hex combo for a point that was originally pointed out by someone else on these forums... who says it has to be an enemy. A small squirrel, worm, turtle (my favorite), etc can be scared. You have your fighter put this in his backpack... and presto you have a enemy scared that is near the other enemy (cause honestly what decent fighter is not near enemies). From 1 mile away you can aid your allies as if you were right next to them.

Mathwei ap Niall wrote:

Don't take the corset. Go and buy a Witching Gown instead.

Between that and a headband of INT +6 should eat up a bit more then half your cash. From there I'd stock up on scrolls, rods and a decent staff to keep you flexible.

I'd also drop one of your feats and replace it with Improved Familiar. It's far to useful for a witch to not take the superior familiar (unless you have a crappy alignment choice, I'm fond of the Imp or Homonculous myself).

I wasnt sure if his GM was allowing Witching Gown... many GMs avoid items that come out of an adventure path and not a main book. And TBH, for the cost I think that a witching gown is fairly meh. The only really good thing about it is the +4 resistance bonus to saves, but that is easily replaced by a 16k (8k crafted) cloak of resistance rather than having to pay 35k for a Witching Gown.

And the Hex DC bonus is pretty amazing and unique. I usually prefer unique bonuses that can't be obtained elsewhere when I look at items.

As far as the magic carpet/cauldron of flying go... I think that for the listed purpose, you can just memorize overland flight. Or if you want the thematic usage, just get a broom of flying.

The GM hasn't approved the witching gown yet, but it'll be easier to get them approved if i give it all to him premade :) it'll be harder to pick and choose - i hope anyway.

The intelligent carpet came up as an idea when talk of if you can cackle while mounted. The instructions are quite vague what actions you can do while you are moving a mount. By making it intelligent most of the time no instructions or actions at all can be done, and even when needed it s a free action, rather than a move action.
... if you can find some rules that says i can cackle while i move with the knees, or some other method of moving i'd greatly appreciate it.

The act of making it intelligent relives my move action to cackle constantly. As a witch, this would be amazing - weave in and out of combat while keeping full combat capabilities... at least that's my thought.

Instead of the flying carpet how about the flying cauldron?

I just like the idea of a mad witch flying around in a cauldron like oscar the grouch in his trashcan. It gives you partial cover to boot!

Heh, yeah i saw that item somewhere. My main reason why i'd not want to, again is that it encourages the DM to consider it as an obstacle... and obstacles can be overcome (or destroyed). The cost of the added cover isn't worth it when it there are many other ways to add miss percentages.

Was that item in one of the core books, or another, i can't recall and my googlefu is failing me.

So, I have a question then.

Looking at the rules for crafting ordinary magic items, gold (for raw materials) isn't the only requirement. We also need time, workspace, and spells that must be cast to create magic items. Yes, I know, we can skip a couple of those requirements if we raise the DC.

But so far in this thread we've talked about simply allowing Intelligent magic items to be created for a few extra gold pieces:

For the price of 25,160 gold you can create a +5 sword. You need the gold, a place to work, 51 days of your life, and you must cast Greater Magic Weapon 51 times.

or

For the cheap, cheap, cheap price of 25,660 gold (only 500 more gp) you can create a +5 sword with INT 10, WIS 10, and CHA 10, can "see" up to 30 feet, and can communicate with you empathically. Furthmore, almost anyone who tries to take it from you suffers immediate pain and suffering (loses a level) and would probably drop it on the spot. You need the gold, a place to work, 51 days of your life, and you must cast Greater Magic Weapon 51 times.

Note: that's less than a 2% increase in cost. The time to make the weapon does not change, nor does the spell requirement. In fact, nothing changes except the 2% price increase. Oh, the other change is that you get an incredibly useful extra set of powers added onto your new sword.

So my question is, shouldn't there be requirements on this other stuff? Every other possible magic item you can make requires at least one spell related to the item's magical effects, but for some reason, crafting intelligent items doesn't follow the same logic.

Why not?

(Entering houserule territory)

For example, you must give it INT, WIS, and CHA. This should require Fox's Cunning, Owl's Wisdom, and Eagle's Splendor to be cast every day while crafting the item. And it gets an alignment, which might require Align Weapon. 30' of sensory perception might require Arcane Eye. Empathy might require Telepathic Bond (not fond of that choice but at a glance I didn't see much else)....

Well first off, your cost is wrong,

"Intelligent items must have an alignment, mental ability scores, languages, senses, and at least one other special ability"

The cost of the item is the (normal +5 sword) +500g +0 (stats) +0 (languages) +0 (empathy & 30ft see/hear) +Special ability (lowest is 1000g)

So that is a minimum of +1500g not +500g.

+1500g to add 30ft senses on the sword, where all it can do is urge the player to look a particular direction. It won't help when the player is sleeping, nor during combat, when i'd argue your emotions and urges are too busy about other things.

Thanks for getting this fixed.

Looking over the Witch character sheet, i'll definitely be using this one to put my next character. I'll let you know if i find anything odd or out of place once i've worn in the paper.

A half orc witch doctor is neat, but from what I've read the raw is orc only. Ill need to confirm it'll be accepted.

I think I'd rather stay out of direct combat though. 30ft is a little scary in many fights. The scar + split hex does wonders for increasing your hex ranges. And now rules that would prohibit players from carrying small or smaller animals on them.

Headband of int +6 is definetly a given. At 16k to craft it is a steal.

For improved familiar, thats really only helpful if your familiar is going into combat. I'd rather keep it as far as possible and stealth. It does two things, avoids combat and by doing it often enou the dm stops looking for it, both of which stops it from dying and crippling me.

corset looks awesome, ill add it to my list.

any other items to look at?

Title says it all. I'm joining a group as a level 12 witch. My current fighter is expected to die soon when everyone teleports away leaving him behind - expecting, anticipating, etc... it will be soon.

Anyway my main goal if for support / crowd control mainly. The group already has good direct attackers and it would be helpful for some more support.

So here we go,

Book allowed - CR, APG, ARG, UM, UE - Anything else is on a DM approve per item basis.

My main idea is to go full witch, they're quite good at support and can do a lot of fun things too. I'd like to keep my mobility as high as possible, because well ... getting hit by a charging giant won't be fun.

Race - Ratfolk
Class - Witch

Familiar - Bat

Feats:
Accursed Hex (UM)
Extra Hex (APG)
Improved Initiative (CR)
Potent Hex (Witch's Brew - allowed)
Split Hex (UM)
Craft Wondrous Item (CR)

Hex:
Flight (CR), Slumber (CR), Evil Eye (CR), Cackle (CR), Misfortune (CR), Scar (UM), Ice Tomb (UM), Fortune (CR)

Ratfolk Favored Class Bonus (+5ft to Hex):
Slumber = 60ft (+30ft for 6 levels)
Evil Eye = 40ft (+10ft for 2 levels)
Misfortune = 50ft (+20ft for 4 levels)

Items:

I'm wondering what items will be helpful for this type of character and the role i'm trying to play. lvl 12 character, so thats 108,000 gp total. I'm planning on having Craft Wondrous Items so if you need to, use it.

My thoughts so far,

Intelligent Carpet of Flying, 31,000g ego+8, telepathy, 120ft Blindsense, Mending lvl0, int=14, wis=12, char=12 (small - ie, smaller than 5ft by 5ft)

To help the fact that i'm dead if anyone comes close to me i'm getting a flying carpet, but making it intelligent - yes yes Aladdin carpet, so sue me, it would be fun and it'll be useful. It keeps the mobility aspect, plus the intelligent part helps with keeping my move action open.

Handy Haversack (because why not) - 1000g

Ring of Reduce Person, Permanent - 3130gp

Witching Gown - 17,750 gp (still waiting on the ok for this one)

But anyway, feel free to post items or an entire gear set. At this point i'll take any ideas. the 100k gives a lot of options and a lot of approaches, i keep getting lost in the pages and pages of items.

Anyone else getting an error? I cannot create/download any character sheet.

One Character, i've tried several characters and multiple, along with various other configurations, all when you click 'download' results in "Oops, an error occurred" page.

Ideas? from all the good comments about this, i'd like to give it a try.

also, i've tried using both Chrome and IE.