oneplus999's page

Organized Play Member. 261 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Sisyphean hell is yelling "peek!" at cartmanbeck for eternity, reminding him to use his examine power before he draws his hand, as I had to do through all of S&S :D

Then he played Leyrn... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Mark L. Crowell wrote:
the other location was temp closed easily enough.. ok that was easy.

Would have been in a great spot if you hadn't temp closed!

First World Bard wrote:
I remember deciding that Lem used his Masterwork Tools to lock the Shopkeeper's Daughter in the bathroom while he ran away from the awkward situation and kept adventuring.

Your gaming group is FAR more mature than mine if that's how you explain it.

"Amulet of Fortitude + 3xPotion of Healing" -DM Sajan

Mike Selinker wrote:
My fault. I did not notice the parenthetical in cartmanbeck's comment. Yeah, let's leave stuff like that inside the playtest group, please.

Got it! Will stick to talking about how fun it was :)

Whups, my bad, took "you can say that" as an "ok" to discuss difficulty.

So, we used to do this for a lot of cards where it's just a way to store information we know. Eg if we peek at the bottom card of a location deck, we'd put the card back faceup, cause we know it's there, and then if the location deck gets shuffled, we'd flip it back first.

Except then I realized that the game is easy enough as it is; its more fun and more challenging to force ourselves to try to remember the various cards we've revealed, so now I've made my group put cards back facedown (even though I was the one who started the face-up business), and sure enough, we'll forget what they are half the time, and so it's a part of the game we can try to get better at.

I took the same attitude towards Seelah. He's really just storing information he could have written down with pencil and paper, so it's not the worst violation, but it's missing out on part of the fun and challenge of the character, imo, to not have to keep track of that stuff in your head.

Unless he's actually doing something with the card-orientation to know where his blessing are, even after shuffling, then that's just outright cheating.

Steve Geddes wrote:
Is it true the game is getting harder in future APs?

I'm in cartmanbeck's group, can confirm. We breeze through RotRL but S&S was pretty hard for us. After lots of balance changes, by the end of the playtest it felt like it was in that sweet spot for us of still letting us win most of the time, but always convincing us the odds were against us and death/loss was imminent :)

That said, in the RotRL beta I remember parts being pretty hard that aren't this time around. but that might have more to do with going from a 2-player game to a 4-player one and knowing the game better now.

On +1 hand size vs magic fists:

The two situations are equivalent in terms of available cards in your hand: either your hand size is 4 and you have magical fists OR your hand size is 5 and you have AOMF in your hand at all times, leaving you with the same 4 slots to do what you want with. +1 Hand size + AOMF has the benefit of the "free" d4 (its not costing you an Erastil or anything since you wouldn't have that 5th card slot otherwise), but you won't always have the AOMF when you need it, its possible to have to discard it, and it takes up an item slot, unlike the magic fists ability.

Given all that, that's why I decided to take weapon as my first card feat. I was hoping to get Deathbane Light Crossbow, but the bard beat me to it. Instead I have +1 daggers, which is still slightly better than the AOMF and gives me the recharge option if I know I won't need to fight for a little while. I know most people take blessings, but recharging the daggers adds an average of 6, versus recharging a blessing adds 5.5, so while its not quite as flexible as a blessing, its just as good for combat.

Note that both ZAM and DM can get weapon proficiency available. The only thing you gain with ZAM is the recharging weapons instead of discarding, and the bonus on acquiring ranged weapons. Since DM also gets an effective hand size of 8 (extra draw at the start of every turn) and the nifty potion of healing recharge opportunities (hoping to combine it with standard bearers and/or amulet of fort) DM really seems a lot more appealing.

For myself, I saw picking up a weapon slot as a way to avoid having to get the magic fists feat and upping hand size. I keep daggers +1 so if I want to get them out of my hand, I always have the option to recharge them instead of revealing (gives 2d4+1, which is even slightly better than using a blessing). And if I'm doing several explores per turn (pretty common with Sajan since I play in a large group with lots of healing opportunities) its an extra 1d4+1 on every combat, instead of an extra d10 on just one combat.

I think in a smaller game with fewer explores per turn, just getting more blessings probably makes more sense for the versatility.

Fundamental rule of the game: cards mean what they say.

"May" is not "must", so you don't have to close the location. Very common strategy if you think you still have plenty of turns to find the villain.

It's not announced yet.

The announcement is supposed to be soon, definitely by early December :) Vic said "in the coming days" 10 days ago.

I'd assume its option number two.

Not sure about the other issues, like the damage die changing, and the fact that its a +1 reliable pistol in her "gear" and a +2 on her "Ranged" line.

As I highlighted in my last post, "If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks" is true, but it has nothing to do with prerequisites for spellstrike, so it does not allow you to use Wand Wielder to spellstrike with a wand.

Pendagast wrote:
Wand wiedler specifically calls out it can be used in lieu of a spell cast, as part of spell combat. Spell strike specifically states it can be used in conjunction with spell combat. The two go together.


faq wrote:

Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?

No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.

Therefore, no, you cannot cast from a wand and spellstrike, since spellstrike requires casting a spell and casting from a wand is not casting a spell.

Spellstrike wrote:

Spellstrike (Su)

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier. See FAQ/Errata at right for more information.

I've highlighted the only part of spellstrike that mentions spell combat, and there is no exception made for emulating spellcasting being usable.

Wand Wielder wrote:
Benefit: The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat.

Mentions and exception to spell combat, still no exception to spellstrike here. An exception to one does not imply and exception to the other, they are two different abilities.

Xyllen wrote:
Wand wielder with spellstrike works.

Eh? No it doesn't. As I said in my last post, you have to have cast a spell to spellstrike, and using a wand does not count. Wand wielder allows you to sub in a wand when doing spell combat, it does NOT let you spellstrike from a wand, nothing does.

Combat casting works, spellstrike does not, so you don't actually get a 2nd weapon attack, just a touch attack using your swords attack bonuses. IOW if you were you have a wand of shocking grasp in a greatsword, you get a greatsword attack and a 1d6 shocking grasp. So, depends on the spell as to whether or not its useful.

The reason is that weaponwand doesn't let you do weapon damage, and spellstrike requires that you be casting a spell, which a wand does NOT count as.

Michael Brock wrote:
Brian Lefebvre wrote:
graypark wrote:
If so, does that mean my "Master of Trade" Qadiran character could add the determination quality to his armor for 27,000 gp instead of the 30,000 gp list price? Seems like a very good prestige award that scales quite nicely at the higher levels.

From the wording of the vanity the discount only applies towards purchases, which would not include upgrading items. As an example you buy a +2 mithral breastplate in a single purchase you get the disount on the full cost of the item.

If you bought a non-magical mithral breastplate with the discount. You would have to pay the full 1000gp difference of upgrading it to a +1 item.


Thank you! People have been waiting for a response on this one for a while.

I found a site with an awesome list of shoelace builds

That said, the thread title is "why is AC so much weaker", to which the answer is a resounding "because otherwise it wouldn't be balanced". A CR3 creature, such as a level 4 druid, cannot include a CR4 creature.

So the message from this thread is coming off as "wouldn't it be nice if this class was overpowered"... which I don't see the point of.

The simplest way to think about why this would be bad is to remember that enemies can be built by the same rules, so when you are level 5-6 your GM could "fairly" put you up against a level 8 druid with a fully buffed/equipped dire tiger AC. Then think about how "fun" that would be :)

Ed-Zero wrote:
Just seems like it's better to try and adopt a tiger as a pet instead of having a stuffed animal as an animal companion. If your GM will let you have an actual tiger rather than the simple tiger then congratulations!

A DM who lets the power curve get out completely out of whack might seem like fun, but really it's just asking for trouble. It makes the CR system completely useless, so he is on his own for figuring out what an appropriate challenge is.

And as cartmanbeck points out, the idea that a level 4 druid SHOULD have a cr4 creature as his buddy is an oxymoron.

relevant to the UAS/UAS/Bite/Claw/Claw idea...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Rathyr wrote:
Respectfully, even if that was the original intent of how IUS and natural attacks were supposed to interact, I'd say it fell pretty short of the goal. Barring claws, most natural attacks don't even conflict with "regular limbs" used to attack at all (Bite, Gore, Tentacle, Wings, Tail...). Is it "more intended" for a player to use IUS (punch) with Bite/Tail than IUS (kick) with claw/claw?

The system is built assuming the PCs are normal PC-race humanoids, not freaks. Deviating from that is going to deviate from the game's default assumptions. That's what happens when you have a living game system that continues to publish options that potentially bend or break all of the core rules... especially when you combine them together.

Just because you can build something with the rules doesn't mean you should build it.

And yes, I think "let me if I can break the normal limit to how many attacks I can make per round at level 1" is attempting to abuse the system.

Ah okay, didn't realize Cthulhu was that old, but yup...

Also the Cthulhu worries me. Should at least not CALL it Cthulhu.

cartmanbeck wrote:
Casting a spell using a scroll is still considered casting a spell


Jiggy wrote:
Oh, that scenario? Yeah, that one's brutal

Glad we weren't the only ones to think so!

If I were to ever run it, I would probably be a little more descriptive with the hazards, since one of them is actually avoidable with a simple tactic if the players have enough detail on how it's functioning.

Nevermind yup no wands... spell trigger needs a word spoken.

In this SPECIFIC situation, if you read the text about this fight before the stat blocks, it does say that this caster is NOT prepared for combat* (due to being slightly crazy) and that also explains why he was a level 10 character with multiple hazards in the room, which should have been cr 10 or 11, but was still marked as CR 9 since he wasn't fighting at full capacity. And, to be fair, the hazards did knock out two of the other players in the group, and ONE die roll different could have easily led to a TPK, so I don't think there's that much to worry about. It was like 6 or 7 rounds of combat... so I don't know why you think it should have gone on longer? I guess it was a little anticlimactic since there was pretty much nothing he could do once we got him locked down, but that's just smart play I think.

In GENERAL, wand of dimension door in a spring loaded wrist sheath, problem solved!

BTW I take full credit for causing this situation :) I pointed out the awesomeness of Silence to the Inquisitor in our group when he was picking spells, and I was the one who suggested the paladin taking a dip in UAF to get dragon style :D

*Other than the weakness to silence, he was really not that bad off. He had a TON of buffs, the his spell DCs were pretty high, and the hazards were pretty rough, so it really probably was a legitimate CR 10 encounter designed for a group of level 5-6 players (and we actually had 2 Level 4s).

Speed when you hit the ground is proportional to the square root of the height you fell from. Kinetic energy when you hit the ground is proportional to the square of the speed you are going. So kinetic energy is directly (linearly) proportional to the height you fall from (still ignoring air resistance).

h = v^2 / 2 g
KE = mv^2 /2

No pythagoeans necessary... unless gravity works funny in your world and things don't follow a parabola.

I'm almost sure there's no rules answer, so here's the google+math answer.

This suggests that 22 degrees is the optimum take off angle for a jumper. Assuming your players don't want to land prone we'll treat the landing height as the same as the takeoff height...

Quick answer: a little over 1/5 the jump distance.

v is velocity of jump
vy is vertical velocity at start
xy is horizontal velocity (assuming constant ignoring wind resistance)
h is vertical distance traveled
s is seconds in air
d is horizontal distance traveled

vy = sin22 * v
vx = cos22 * v (so v = vx/cos22)
d = vx * s (so vx = d / s)

h = vy * s / 2 = sin22 * v * s / 2 = sin 22 * vx * s / 2 / cos22 = sin 22 * (d / s) * s / 2 / cos22 = tan22 * d / 2 = .202 * d

Are the monsters lawyers? I thought whoever has the scarier monsters wins in these cases.

You have a lot of spells on there that already last 24 hours (Age resist, threefold aspect, etc), so I wouldn't count those.

I'm not sure what was going on w/ my filters before, but I think this is the list.


Comprehend Languages

Disguise Self
Find the Path
Freedom of Movement
Meld into Stone
Read Magic
See Invisibility
Ancestral Gift
Aura of Greater Courage
Follow Aura
Honeyed Tongue
Veil of Positive Energy
Perceive Cues
Aura of Doom
Ghostly Disguise
Holy Shield
Play Instrument
Cultural Adaptation
Seducer's Eyes
Aram Zey's Trap Ward
Absorb Toxicity
Resinous Skin
Whispering Lore
Veil Of Heaven
Cloud Shape
Commune With Birds

Yeah that's a better list than I thought, not sure why all those are getting filtered out on mine.


Does the ring of continuation (Ultimate Equipment, page 168) allow you to cast time stop with a duration of 24 hours?

This item has had some unintended consequences and needs a fix. Change the second sentence of the description to read as follows: "Whenever the wearer of the ring casts a spell with a range of personal and a duration of 10 minutes per level or greater, that spell remains in effect for 24 hours or until the wearer casts another spell with a range of personal (whichever comes first)."

10 minutes per level? Not 1 min per level? How many spells does that leave really...? No shield, no beast shape... a quick look using d20pfsrd only shows the following personal, 10min/lvl or hour/lvl spells:

Resinous Skin
Terrain Bond
Planetary Adaptation
Whispering Lore
Cloud Shape
Commune With Birds
Touch Injection
Veil Of Heaven

I might be missing some... can anyone add anything else?

Some of these aren't terrible spells, but the item is suddenly a lot less useful.

Also the wording about the spell replacement probably needs changing too, something like:
"that spell remains in effect for 24 hours or until the wearer casts another spell with a range of personal and a duration of 10 minutes per level or greater(whichever comes first)"
Otherwise, casting another short personal spell would end your 24 hour spell, despite the fact that short spells can't be extended anymore, unless that's intentional... in which case... supernerf?!

EDIT: added touch injection, Veil Of Heaven.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At low levels, with my kensai bladebound Magus, my AC is often high enough that enemies need a 20 to hit,so I just provoke instead of doing a conc check.

I was curious about this, so I made a table of "blade value vs WBL", and unsurprisingly it's really useful in the lower levels, but isn't as important at higher levels.

Level WBL Blade Percentage
3 3000 2300 77%
4 6000 2300 38%
5 10500 8300 79%
6 16000 8300 52%
7 23500 8300 35%
8 33000 8300 25%
9 46000 18300 40%
10 62000 18300 30%
11 82000 18300 22%
12 108000 18300 17%
13 140000 32300 23%
14 185000 32300 17%
15 240000 32300 13%
16 315000 32300 10%
17 410000 50300 12%
18 530000 50300 9%
19 685000 50300 7%
20 880000 50300 6%

So its effectiveness maxes out at 5th level, when its worth ~8,300g and your WBL is only 10.5k. At 13 it's still 23% of your wbl, so that's not too bad, but at super high levels it's maybe not worth it.

Here's something I've never been sure about. Do all swift actions not provoke? I know swift spells don't, but what about other swift actions (eg Battle Oracle's Surprising Charge, getting an item from a spring loaded wrist sheathe, this item)?

Interesting find :) but this is just a case of poor wording.

Where they say
"If a creature has only one natural attack"

I suppose it should really be
"If a creature has only one attack, and it is a natural attack"

When in doubt, go with the rules written for the more specific case, which would be "weapon+nat attack".

Haven't done this myself but might be cool to do scorpion whip, just pick up 1,500g ioun stone and you can do lethal damage from 15' away with a slashing weapon :)

Alternatively do standard scimitar+dervish dance build. I'm doing it w/ kensai and it feels pretty broken (I think straight magus looks pretty broken too tho, so it might not be from the archetypes).

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Been skimming through the thread...

Next person who says "3/4's bab classes shouldn't be as good at damage as full bab classes" needs to take a look at the magus.

Also, if you are impatient for crane wing, dip a level in unarmed fighter. I'm debating doing that at level 7 for my monk... currently played him through level 5.

I'm playing a flowing/sacred mountain monk and really enjoying it, this is not in PFS though.

I am doing high dex, otherwise pump con and wis of course. Feats are finesse, combat reflexes, vicious stomp, then into crane style chain. Bodyguard might be useful as a bonus feat, but of course one problem is that allies won't always be adjacent. That's the nice thing about redirect... you can use it on any enemy you threaten at level 4.

Vicious stomp is particularly fun, though it does get to be a LOT of rolling... poor you. You trip a guy, aoo him on the fall, then aoo again when he gets back up. Each aoo hit forces a reflex save, and so does the redirect (if that's how you tripped him). And of course you can trip during a flurry, so it's potentially a LOT of AOOs.

One warning: your flat footed AC sucks, so I might recommend
also is good for this, since your AOO hits don't get full bab.

Keep in mind that if you do dex based, you'll have pretty much no damage until you can pick up an Agile AOMF for 5k. I actually went through that period, since we started at level 1 in my campaign, but survived it. Like most dex-based meleer's, it'd be good for a GM toon starting at mid levels.

Does he think that improved TWF is necessary to get both your mainhand and offhand iterative attacks? Just direct him to the Improved TWF description, which doesn't say anything about that. So the only interpretations are that you never lost your mh attack (which makes sense) or that you'll never get an iterative mainhand attack (which doesn't).

Yes you still get your iterative attack when using TWF, so you get 2 MH attacks and one OH attack.

Similarly, at level 11, you'll have 3 MH attacks and one OH attack, until you pick up improved/greater TWF.

No it was for my monk's AOMF, not his kama.

Btw "They're pretty much made to be used together" is an understatement... you can ONLY use agile on something finessable, which, as pointed out, does not actually include scimitars.

Solution? Read the rules the way they were obviously intended, and don't let staggered players ready a charge.

So do any of you actually let staggered players ready a charge or are you just trolling?

james maissen wrote:
Vrischika111 wrote:

you can charge as a std action ONLY if you(re somehow limited to std action on your turn.

you cannot chose to carge as std action if you have your full-round action available.

Which is patently silly. I tend to normally 'house rule' that one can restrict themselves to a standard action instead of a full round action for a given round should they wish to charge as a standard action.

It makes no sense to me that having a debilitating effect (staggered or slowed) would empower someone to have abilities that they wouldn't normally have.

Ehh...? This isn't making any sense. In no way are you empowered. The point is just that charging takes your whole turn, whether you are staggered or not. You are still impacted by the staggered effect, since you can only do a 1x move charge. Letting someone "restrict themselves to a standard action" accomplishes nothing, except making their max charge distance lower.

There's nothing special about zombies being staggered. Anyone who is staggered can still charge 1x their move distance (compared to 2x move distance of someone who isn't staggered). So even if you assume that the staggered condition applies to their current turn, there'd be no problem with a 1x move charge, since they could have done that anyway.

If they were doing a charge more than 1x move? Up to the GM I guess. Personally I'd say they finish the charge. Primarily because Archers are broken enough as it is :p

PS: You only get 1 AOO, unless there's something special about snap shot feats that I'm not seeing?
"Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent"

1 to 50 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>