|
Pg. 162 - Spells
A suggestion for space saving (should anything on this page need serious changing and you can't afford the page space to do so). You don't need the little blurb right before the spell lists titled "A Note on Alchemists". There's only one communal spell featured in this book, communal align weapon, and it's not on the alchemist's formula list. Now if there's some archetype that allows alchemists to add cleric spells to their list of formulae, then nevermind.
Interesting. The slayer document I sent over to editing had a list of slayer talents and advanced slayer talents (listed in the Slayer Talents and Advanced Talents sections for the class), and "feat" was one of the choices.I think when I was working on this post, I fiddled with the wording and the end result is unclear. Let's try that again:
In other words, just like in the playtest, slayers selecting slayer talents were originally supposed to also have a list of rogue talents as options.
Sorry, folks, I have to correct myself again. (I blame my insomnia.)
The paragraphs about selecting rogue talents and advanced talents are in the final version of the book, they're just in a different place than they were in my Word document (in the Word doc, they were listed before the first talents). The only difference I'm seeing is that "feat" was an advanced talent choice in the Word doc but isn't now. So that must be why the vanguard lists "feat" as an advanced talent suggestion even though "feat" isn't on the final list in the book (it was in the earlier list, was removed at some point, but vanguard wasn't updated to account for that change).
Sorry, Lou, that would put me in a position where I'm second-guessing the design team, and I don't want to do that. I've been restricting myself to a very limited role, basically about whether or not X is present in the book and if that matched my last-day version.
Hi Sean, I've got a question on additional Talents for the Slayer.
In the Scout Arch-type they have Scouts charge and Skirmishing attack
do you think it would unbalance the slayer to let them choose these two abilities at 4th and 8th levels respectively.
You're basically asking if the slayer can take rogue archetypes, right?
Since the slayer isn't an alternate class, it doesn't qualify for rogue archetypes the way that a ninja would. Even if it did, the slayer doesn't have uncanny dodge or improved uncanny dodge to trade.
For that reason, it is entirely up to your GM whether or not that trade is "unbalancing." Personally, I wouldn't allow it as a GM. Besides, what are you trading for it? The 4th and 8th level rogue talents? I'd say that uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge are more powerful than a rogue talent, and therefore the trade isn't balanced.
|
No I am not asking if a slayer can use a rogue arch type. Slayers have talents. What I would like to know is if a Slayer can use the exact same
replacement arch type abilities as talents at the same level that they would have gotten them as an arch type ability.
to clarify it further what I want to do is add Scouts Charge and Skirmishing attack to the Slayers list of talents.
Why should I have to replace an class ability if I can buy it as a talent?
Most Rouge talents are very weak really with the exception of Trap finding, trap spotting and fast stealth and are not worth taking IMO.
More Slayer Talents need to be added by Pazio. IMO Pazio needs to look at the Talent list for The Spell less ranger from Kobold Games and make some talents like those of the Spell-less Ranger.
One of the big gripes of the Rogue class was that the rogue basic talents were very week. Nothing was done to upgrade them. IMO that is the only weakness in the entire slayer class which is very good IMO the only stronger class in the APG is the Arcanist which just kicks butt.
Scout's Charge and Skirmisher aren't rogue talents; they're class abilities specific to the scout arcketype. You can't add them to the slayer's list of talents any more than you could add, say, Lay on Hands, or Spells.
Lou is asking if it would be overpowered. In my opinion, slightly. The Scout replaced Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge. These abilities are probably considered slightly more powerful than talents in terms of class design. Would a player want to trade one of these for another talent? Sometimes, yes. But they are abilities that are incredibly strong at shutting down other Rogues and are probably given a bit of weight. Trading two talents for something equal in 'power' to Uncanny Dodge and Imp Uncanny Dodge is a bit much.
Of course, it's tough to argue this when Barbarians get this on top of all their other goodies and would still be great without them.
As a DM, I think a Slayer is strong enough where I wouldn't give a player access to the Scout's abilities as a talent unless he was building an otherwise very weak character and I wanted to keep him in-line with the rest of the party.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
p. 53: Under Rogue Talent:
unwitting allyUC, or weapon training. Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times. If the rogue talent
has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent
requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulfill
the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent. This
talent can be selected multiple times; each time, it grants
the slayer a new rogue talent.
My bold.
Some of the text is listed twice. My guess is that it should read:
unwitting allyUC, or weapon training. Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. If the
rogue talent has a prerequisite (such as the major magic
rogue talent requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer
must fulfill the prerequisite before taking that rogue
talent. This talent can be selected multiple times; each
time, it grants the slayer a new rogue talent.
The cut down on words count saves a whole line.
p. 55: Under Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents:
Question have been raised why so few options are available.
According to Sean K Reynolds “Feat” was one of the choices he had in the Slayer document he sent over to editing.
Edit:
Question Should "Feat" be one of the advanced talents for the Slaye?
If the text on p 53 is edited correctly there is space to add feat to the list.
Also:
p. 55:
Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select
any of the following advanced ninja or rogue talents
in place of an advanced slayer talent: deadly sneakAPG,
evasionUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG, knock-out blowAPG, master
of disguiseAPG, opportunist, and stealthy sniperAPG. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times
My bold. Why add the advanced ninja or rogue talents twice?
Isn’t it obvious the text refers to Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents?To save space I suggest:
Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select
any of the following talents in place of an advanced slayer
talent: deadly sneakAPG,evasionUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG,
knock-out blowAPG, master of disguiseAPG, opportunist, and
stealthy sniperAPG. A slayer can select this talent multiple
times.
You could also add:
; each time, it grants the slayer a new talent.
|
Pg. 150 - Improved Flexible Wizardry feat
Says you can prepare a number of spell slots equal to your Int mod + 4. Flexible Wizardry (its pre-requisite from p148), says you can prepare a number of spell slots equal to your Int mod (minimum 1).
The improved version can be awkward if you have a negative int modifier. Is this intentional?
Erm... Possibly a dumb question, but would a wizard be able to prepare any spells if he had a negative int modifier?
|
|
No. In order to prepare a spell, a wizard would need an Int score equal to 10 + the level of the spell. In other words, a Wizard with an Int score of 12 would only be able to prepare 0-, 1st-, and 2nd-level spells, whereas a wizard with an Int score of 10 would be stuck to only casting cantrips. 9 or lower and one wonders why the wizard college even let him in, as he is incapable of casting anything.
This goes for all casters, by the way, with regards to the ability they use to determine their casting prowess. Clerics with a Wisdom of 13, for example, can only cast 0-, 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-level cleric spells.
Erm... Possibly a dumb question, but would a wizard be able to prepare any spells if he had a negative int modifier?
Only if there is an archetype that lets him use something other than intelligence as his spellcasting attribute. There is such an archetype for the witch class but as far as I know all wizards use intelligence.
I wonder about this. Is anyone keeping count relative to other books? I wonder if error on the cover (which admittedly is embarrassing) is biasing things.
According to Deadmanwalking the numbers of errors in this book is extraordinary high and he is usally right, especially when it comes to hard facts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also oticed that Improved Spell Sharing, Pack Flanking, and Share Healing are all teamwork feats that technically only function if your animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount also possesses the feat...which normally it can't because it does not have the ability to acquire one (and if it could that would be pretty silly). Pack Flanking I could let slide as being a Hunter-only feat, since it only lists animal companions, but the other two specifically call out eidolons, familiars, and special mounts as options, so it seems problematic. Mind you, I think most DMs would allow your animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount to take it anyways, since that seems the intent...
It's not an error; there are many ways to legitimately get around that prereq. For example, the cavalier class's tactician ability allows him to grant a teamwork feat to *all* allies, and those allies don't need to meet the prerequisites. So if your party has a cavalier with Share Healing, a witch with a familiar, and a summoner with the eidolon, when the cavalier uses tactician to share Share Healing, all three of those characters can use the feat to split healing with their companion creature.
Also, many time the designers leave in some things as options for future content, even though there's no content in that book that allows it. For example, there could be a future summoner archetype that grants his eidolon a teamwork feat, or a witch archetype that does the same thing, and so on.
|
According to Deadmanwalking the numbers of errors in this book is extraordinary high and he is usally right, especially when it comes to hard facts.I wonder about this. Is anyone keeping count relative to other books? I wonder if error on the cover (which admittedly is embarrassing) is biasing things.
In fairness, I haven't actually counted the errors in the first printing of Ultimate Magic...but I have read and used the first printing of Ultimate Magic, and even if the number of errors in the ACG is technically not greater (and I suspect it is, for the record), their severity and relevance sure as hell are.
I used Ultimate Magic without any real confusion about much of anything...a fact that cannot be stated about the ACG. Now, I didn't use every spell in UM, so some of those might've been deeply screwed up, and didn't even try to use Words of Power, but almost none of the archetypes have anywhere close to the problems of those in the ACG, just for example, nor does the Magus Class.
So even if the absolute number of errors in the ACG is no greater, their location is more generally relevant.
I actually think the Magus is an example of an extremely well-edited class. I've seen dozens of people try to break the Spell Combat restrictions for weapons and free hands and so far the only option I think was remotely legal involved a dip into alchemist for two vestigial arms.
That said, Ultimate Magic does have a few conundrums, like how the Myrmidarch ranged spellstrike and spell combat doesn't really interact very well. Overall I'd still say it's in much better condition than the ACG.
Ultimate Magic was well-edited.
Ultimate Combat was mostly well-edited.
Advanced Race Guide was . . . well, edited.
Mythic Adventures has some pretty heavy issues outside of path abilities, particularly in mythic magic items, legendary items, and the various mythic spells and their augmentations. The path abilities were solid, though, and the campaign portions are primo.
I haven't read a copy of the Advanced Class Guide itself, but I've seen more than enough errors pointed out to worry about a worsening trend.
UM: I do remember the problem with antagonise and Cold ice strike. Both were flawed but we're errata quickly.
|
|
Ultimate Magic was well-edited.
Ultimate Combat was mostly well-edited.
Advanced Race Guide was . . . well, edited.
Mythic Adventures has some pretty heavy issues outside of path abilities, particularly in mythic magic items, legendary items, and the various mythic spells and their augmentations. The path abilities were solid, though, and the campaign portions are primo.
I haven't read a copy of the Advanced Class Guide itself, but I've seen more than enough errors pointed out to worry about a worsening trend.
One can find similar sentiments expressed about every major Paizo release. Here's one for Ultimate Magic.
Having been around for the releases of everything after the GMG, my vague impression is that ACG is pretty well in line, error-wise.
I personally don't believe that the biggest RPG publisher should be publishing books of this quality. I shouldn't come to expect Paizo releases to be messier, have worse editing, have worse balance, and have a worse organization of information than 3PPs.
It's not an error; there are many ways to legitimately get around that prereq. For example, the cavalier class's tactician ability allows him to grant a teamwork feat to *all* allies, and those allies don't need to meet the prerequisites. So if your party has a cavalier with Share Healing, a witch with a familiar, and a summoner with the eidolon, when the cavalier uses tactician to share Share Healing, all three of those characters can use the feat to split healing with their companion creature.
Also, many time the designers leave in some things as options for future content, even though there's no content in that book that allows it. For example, there could be a future summoner archetype that grants his eidolon a teamwork feat, or a witch archetype that does the same thing, and so on.
So basically you're saying the Devs Steamflogger Boss many times through out the development of the game?
Well It wouldn't be too bad honestly, if well, you didn't need to jump through hoops even after the the future stuff comes in. Its actually a problem I've seen quite a lot honestly. Hoop jumpin feats and features, that by the time you've managed to jump through all the hoops, you find you haven't even gone five feet yet from your starting position.
Obviously I can't comment on what could come in the future, but in the past, many Rogue talents are like this. Where you've gotta get sneak attack, after taking a -2 penalty to hit, take a full round action, shout out the name of a saint as a free action, sacrifice the damage you would have have gotten from sneak attack, to preform a combat maneuver from a limited pool of maneuvers that most could have been used in place of an attack, as a swift action, that still provokes attack of opportunity while wearing white after labor day.
I also oticed that Improved Spell Sharing, Pack Flanking, and Share Healing are all teamwork feats that technically only function if your animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount also possesses the feat...which normally it can't because it does not have the ability to acquire one (and if it could that would be pretty silly). Pack Flanking I could let slide as being a Hunter-only feat, since it only lists animal companions, but the other two specifically call out eidolons, familiars, and special mounts as options, so it seems problematic. Mind you, I think most DMs would allow your animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount to take it anyways, since that seems the intent...It's not an error; there are many ways to legitimately get around that prereq. For example, the cavalier class's tactician ability allows him to grant a teamwork feat to *all* allies, and those allies don't need to meet the prerequisites. So if your party has a cavalier with Share Healing, a witch with a familiar, and a summoner with the eidolon, when the cavalier uses tactician to share Share Healing, all three of those characters can use the feat to split healing with their companion creature.
Also, many time the designers leave in some things as options for future content, even though there's no content in that book that allows it. For example, there could be a future summoner archetype that grants his eidolon a teamwork feat, or a witch archetype that does the same thing, and so on.
I wish there would be some better and easier options for oracles with an animal companion.
An animal companion gets an ability score increase at 4th level, at which point you can use it to bump their Int to 3, or use a headband, and it can then take any feat it can physically perform.
Pg. 55
Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select
any of the following advanced ninja or rogue talents
in place of an advanced slayer talent: deadly sneakAPG,
evasionUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG, knock-out blowAPG, master
of disguiseAPG, opportunist, and stealthy sniperAPG. A slayer
can select this advanced talent multiple times
The last part bolded by me
It doesn't make sense. It says THIS advanced talent and that could be the mistake but none of the Advanced talents can be taken multiple times (normally as far as I read)
It is as if it was meant for another talent and that was deleted and this piece of text was left. It isn't in the revised Playtest.
Pg. 55
Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select
any of the following advanced ninja or rogue talents
in place of an advanced slayer talent: deadly sneakAPG,
evasionUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG, knock-out blowAPG, master
of disguiseAPG, opportunist, and stealthy sniperAPG. A slayer
can select this advanced talent multiple times
The last part bolded by me
It doesn't make sense. It says THIS advanced talent and that could be the mistake but none of the Advanced talents can be taken multiple times (normally as far as I read)
It is as if it was meant for another talent and that was deleted and this piece of text was left. It isn't in the revised Playtest.
I read that to mean that you can choose to take a Rogue or Ninja Advanced Talent in place of another Slayer Advanced Talent more than once. Though I do see how that wording could be confusing.
If it had said "A slayer can select these advanced talents multiple times" and then had correct punctuation at the end I wouldn't have seen it. It would have just been a part of Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents.
I tried to be careful before posting. I looked over each talent and they don't look like the type that can be taken multiple times.
I read that to mean that you can choose to take a Rogue or Ninja Advanced Talent in place of another Slayer Advanced Talent more than once. Though I do see how that wording could be confusing.Pg. 55
Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select
any of the following advanced ninja or rogue talents
in place of an advanced slayer talent: deadly sneakAPG,
evasionUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG, knock-out blowAPG, master
of disguiseAPG, opportunist, and stealthy sniperAPG. A slayer
can select this advanced talent multiple times
The last part bolded by me
It doesn't make sense. It says THIS advanced talent and that could be the mistake but none of the Advanced talents can be taken multiple times (normally as far as I read)
It is as if it was meant for another talent and that was deleted and this piece of text was left. It isn't in the revised Playtest.
Basically, there is a Slayer Advanced Talent called "Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents". This talent may be selected multiple times. Each time it is selected, pick a Rogue or Ninja Advanced Talent from the available list.
Basically, there is a Slayer Advanced Talent called "Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents". This talent may be selected multiple times. Each time it is selected, pick a Rogue or Ninja Advanced Talent from the available list.
What I was trying to say but more eloquently, and clearly, put. :)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
by it's current wording extra panache doesn't stack with itself (and if it did, one could say it works like 3.5's font of inspiration, which would get cheesy very fast).
definitely needs an edit.
by it's current wording extra panache doesn't stack with itself (and if it did, one could say it works like 3.5's font of inspiration, which would get cheesy very fast).
definitely needs an edit.
Beat me to it, got my own thread tagged for FAQ on such a question.
Beat me to it, got my own thread tagged for FAQ on such a question.by it's current wording extra panache doesn't stack with itself (and if it did, one could say it works like 3.5's font of inspiration, which would get cheesy very fast).
definitely needs an edit.
that's actually why i made this post--i saw your thread and thought it worth noting here. didn't mean to steal your thunder there.
It's not an error; there are many ways to legitimately get around that prereq. For example, the cavalier class's tactician ability allows him to grant a teamwork feat to *all* allies, and those allies don't need to meet the prerequisites. So if your party has a cavalier with Share Healing, a witch with a familiar, and a summoner with the eidolon, when the cavalier uses tactician to share Share Healing, all three of those characters can use the feat to split healing with their companion creature.
Also, many time the designers leave in some things as options for future content, even though there's no content in that book that allows it. For example, there could be a future summoner archetype that grants his eidolon a teamwork feat, or a witch archetype that does the same thing, and so on.
So basically you're saying the Devs Steamflogger Boss many times through out the development of the game?
Well It wouldn't be too bad honestly, if well, you didn't need to jump through hoops even after the the future stuff comes in. Its actually a problem I've seen quite a lot honestly. Hoop jumpin feats and features, that by the time you've managed to jump through all the hoops, you find you haven't even gone five feet yet from your starting position.
Obviously I can't comment on what could come in the future, but in the past, many Rogue talents are like this. Where you've gotta get sneak attack, after taking a -2 penalty to hit, take a full round action, shout out the name of a saint as a free action, sacrifice the damage you would have have gotten from sneak attack, to preform a combat maneuver from a limited pool of maneuvers that most could have been used in place of an attack, as a swift action, that still provokes attack of opportunity while wearing white after labor day.
becuase certainly those OP rogue talents should get toned down--i mean just LOOK at greater beast totem! getting pounce on a PC is ridiculous, or being able to vital strike+spring attack (which is obviously broken if the devs are to be believed) with bestial leaper! and don't even get me started on superstitious and spell sund--oh? those are for the barbarian?