|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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 :)
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.
Sean K Reynolds 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.
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
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 = sin22 * v
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
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.
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
Commune With Birds
Veil Of Heaven
EDIT: SEE A COUPLE POSTS DOWN FOR CORRECT LIST
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:
EDIT: added touch injection, Veil Of Heaven.
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
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
I suppose it should really be
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).
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.
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 http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/religion-traits/defensive-strategist-torag
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.
james maissen wrote:
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? http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attacks-of-Opportunity
eh... debatable if magical lineage would stack w/ Wayang Spellhunter (the minata region trait he's referring to), plus its another magic trait, so you shouldn't be able to take it with gifted adept.
i never like delaying spell progression... eg no haste till level 9. but if you aren't playing much past level 6 it should be awesome. as you approach 10 a lot of the +CL stuff will be wasted since you still cap at 10d6 w/ intensify, and you will be able to afford plenty of pearl of powers so the extra spells won't really be so critical.
Not like my wife reads these forums so I think I'm safe... nuts that just leaves stupid or insane :'(