As somebody who's grappled for most of my life, it really triggers me that people keep ringing up martial arts not relying on strength. BJJ and Judo both explicitly have weight classes because of how much strength and weight distribution matter. And unless you think you're going to imanari roll an orc I dont see how it's that relevant in a weapons based system to begin with.
Seriously. Try rolling with someone who's 40 lbs lighter than you or has no muscle mass. Tripping is absolutely a move that requires strength as well as technique, and it shows when you give against people significantly weaker or stronger than you.
Haha, Imanari rolling an orc - with a greataxe in hand (I mean the orc...)! xD
I absolutely agree. I have some years of experience in Karate, Krav Maga and still practicing BJJ.
If I had to go to war (without guns), I'd definitely grab my heavyweight training partners, maybe a few middleweights, but not the lighter ones.
Dexterity is the best stat anyway, and it really bugs me that you get dex to damage in 5e. Apart from the not so much liked real world example, dex is good enough anyway.
So if you wanna do damage, get strong and grab a big and heavy pointy stick (e.g. greatsword).
So the finesse weapons and attack rolls with dex makes sense, but not dex to damage. Maybe some precision damage extra, but that should require some extra skill / feat / whatever.
I've seen it in 5e with my players: not many strength fighters/paladins anymore, why take strength when you can do it all with the "über-stat" dex?
Thanks for your input, bad for my PC though... ;)
That was my first thought, I only got the idea with the hardness after reading the very few comments in the www that exist about that path ability.
Has this been subject of any rules clarification / FAQ from Paizo?
Hello,
anybody have a clear idea if the shield's hardness can save it from any damage?
E.g. I have this path ability and use a light mithral shield +1 with a hardness of 17. Then I get hit for 13 hp and I use sacrificual shield to block it.
So does my shield get the broken condition now if I do not use mythic power, or can its hardness prevent that?
It's a good ability when using a magic shield anyway, but it would be even nicer if its hardness would prevent burning MP...
I had a half-elf druid in my group, so simply high wisdom, skill focus, the racial +2 beat everything almost always.
It was a little bit frustrating for the GM and other players alike, so he shifted the skill focus to something else...
This FAQ, which came out a while ago, states that being able to use spell like abilities counts as being able to cast spells of the level of the spell like ability.
...
To qualify to become an eldritch knight, a character must fulfill all the following criteria.
Weapon Proficiency: Must be proficient with all martial weapons.
Spells: Able to cast 3rd-level arcane spells.
How can you get 3rd-level arcane spells before level 5 ?
I guess getting some 3rd-level arcane spell does not count.
Sounds like everybody - including the DM - play chaotic neutral...
I've found that these "non-heroic"/evil campaigns are not really satisfying over a longer period of time.
One liar and a handful of destroyers can still BS their way along as a skilled hit squad working for another devil or the demons. I mean it's not your primary plan, but it makes a good backup.
If you are level 17, you are higher level then some rulers on the material plane. You "should" have access to a number of wanna be heros who would follow you into the depths of hell. Also, having an army of servants makes you look more like a VID (very important devil) if you wanna go the "hide in plain sight" route.
Taking some cannon fodder with us? Not our style...
And there's only one of us with a good bluff skill, so we better try to be stealthy than going the VID route.
boring7,
looks like we need that banner + dim. anchor, I haven't found any other
anti-teleport-area yet, our druid will start some further book research.
Concerning damage reduction / epic:
does a +4 fauchard evil outsider bane count as +6 (vs evil outsiders) and thus as epic?
Another thing that just came to my mind:
Wasn't there a problem with bags of holding and inter-planar travel,
or has that also changed from older editions?
Haven't ever done any planar stuff in PF yet as you can see.
We're level 17 now, and recently I can only trip every 4th opponent or so. Too many monsters are too large, flying, have no legs, ...
On the other hand I recently shut down an anti-paladin's melee power completely by tripping him (being enlarged with 20ft reach).
The good thing if you're a fighter you will have enough feats to have some other tricks up your sleeve.
My other specialty are criticals - did I mention that I hate oozes? ;)
Talked to our GM...
No wayfinders, no ampoule of false blood.
But we'll be able to get that planar adaptation spell.
I actually haven't mentioned what we're supposed to do in hell:
We have to find and get some artefact which Asmodeus uses as a "proxy"
to pretend being some other good deity to deceive a big city's clergy
on our prime. I think we'll get some hint where to look.
So we must stay undetected as long as possible, because of this
"divinely morphic" thing. Cause if we know where to find the artefact,
but the controlling deity changes the plane... well, that's it.
Some more ideas to not let the devils teleport?
BTW: embarassing, but I always forget that my fighter is half-elf, not that it matters, but playing that PC for 2.5 years now and 17 levels... no racism towards my elvish side meant! ;)
A few comments:
- bane + bane is not allowed by our GM
- my weapon is already holy, so it will be an extra +2 / 4d6+2
- one of the few things our GM mentioned was to keep a low profile, so I'll forward some hints you gave to the spellcasters.
- as we have some time to prepare available, we'll try to find out as much as possible in advance how our GM's hell works (sounds strange!)
Any other ideas for ranged weapons?
Problem is I don't have quick draw, and the bow won't do enough damage unless it's holy, which might get a little too expensive.
What is "wayfinder"? Which ioun stone do you mean?
Bane (Evil outsiders) - OMG, how could I forget that one?!
But does that work in hell?
I remember from older editions that enhancement bonusses went down, some stuff didn't work at all on the outer planes, that still so?
Flying... hm, always relied on the sorcerer, but some more potions make sense, also at least a +1 adaptive comp. long bow.
Any ideas what to bring?
I still have 60k gold to spend. (all Paizo books allowed)
Here's my (fighter) equipment list (which is quite great, cause I got
most of that custom made and for half price):
fauchard +3, holy
mithral full plate +4
amulet natural armor +5
ring deflection +5
ring freedom of movement
cloak resistance +4
headband wisdom +4
belt str & dex +6
ioun stone con +2
gloves of dueling
boots of speed
quickrunner's shirt
many enlarge potions...
things that come to my mind:
- improving the +: fauchard, armor, cloak, belt (to con +6)
- luckstone
- jingasa of the fortunate soldier
- cap of the free thinker
- bracelet of second chances
Does that work for a domain-only spell?
If yes, you can use any spell slot above and incl. 3rd level to spontaneously cast fireball. Including metamagic!
Just talked to the other player, and when I told him that I'm thinking of playing a druid, he told me that a saurian druid is a must have... Well, this is something I don't like at all, maybe in a campaign where dinosaurs are typical animals, but we're playing in a world where even dragons are more common. So only for min-maxing, meh.
Thinking druid melee-shaper with ape companion now (tiger later), sounds okay, fits the campaign better. Any ideas for archetype?
The ranger animal companion is a little too squishy at level 4.
Is there any other class out there with a full animal companion?
I usually don't like it, when other players summon like crazy or have a whole zoo with them - but mostly because it slows down the game for everybody else.
But in a 2-man party I might consider the summoning druid with his pet...
"The wolf pack": druid has wolf companion, wildshapes into wolf, summons some more wolves... surely not the optimum, but sounds somehow cool.
Thanks for the advice!
I forgot to mention: alignment must be good, so no undead stuff.
The alchemist / barbarian combo sounds interesting, I'll have a look at that.
we recently had the question coming up:
A monk using a reach weapon and doing a whirlwind attack - can he attack using the reach weapon PLUS attack adjacent foes with unarmed strikes?
One of our players said yes, because the monk doesn't need to have free hands for unarmed strikes...
I'm thinking of buying a Windows 8 notebook with touch screen.
(I need Win 8 for work.)
So I'd like to use it for gaming sessions:
- character sheet as pdf
- scribble on that with a digitizer pen for changes like hitpoints, notes, buffs, ...
What kind of software do I need for that? Or has Win8 everything needed for that? Like using Acrobat + some "overlay" for writing with the pen?
Concerning which squares a creature can (whirlwind) attack, is this right?
(open spoiler please)
Spoiler:
O = origin, square of attacker
X = can attack
- = can not attack
medium creature with lunge can attack those squares (24):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 - - - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - - - -
3 - - X X X X X - -
4 - - X X X X X - -
5 - - X X O X X - -
6 - - X X X X X - -
7 - - X X X X X - -
8 - - - - - - - - -
9 - - - - - - - - -
medium creature with lunge & reach weapon can attack those squares (40):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 - - - - - - - - -
2 - X X X X X X X -
3 - X X X X X X X -
4 - X X - - - X X -
5 - X X - O - X X -
6 - X X - - - X X -
7 - X X X X X X X -
8 - X X X X X X X -
9 - - - - - - - - -
large creature with lunge & reach weapon can attack those squares (96):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
1 X X X X X X X X X X X
2 X X X X X X X X X X X
3 X X X X X X X X X X X
4 X X X - - - - - X X X
5 X X X - - - - - X X X
6 X X X - - O - - X X X
7 X X X - - - - - X X X
8 X X X - - - - - X X X
9 X X X X X X X X X X X
0 X X X X X X X X X X X
1 X X X X X X X X X X X
Edit: damn, sorry, formatting got lost due to non-courier font in actual post. :(
TPK is not common.
It should only happen if the party does a big or a lot of mistakes. If these mistakes are not so obvious, some warning by the GM (via NPCs or whatever) are fair.
If you find an encounter is unbalanced and might kill the whole party without their fault, you can always improvise: reduce monsters' hitpoints, send some help, ....
As for better armor, yeah it would be smart, but unfortunately I'm pretty deep into roleplaying this character as opposed to advanced technology.
She also hates money...
Sad that the system would break down so quickly from such a small thing.
Combining all that with your not so optimized character (even with the wrong ruling concerning the buckler - and even worse the ranger archetypes!!!!): bad idea, friend.
2 major questions arise:
- do you contribute to your party's success or just barely surviv with using up too many resources from the other party members?
- do you have fun playing that character?
You know that you don't get the buckler's AC bonus when using a weapon two-handed? AND you get -1 to attack.
Better get better & magic armor. In fantasy RPG you can make any armor look like you want it to look - ever heard of the chain bikini? ;)
Using that leather armor for role-playing reasons is like coming with a knife to a gunfight in the real world.
If you can use better equipment without any significant penalties, then do it.
For leveling, take the next ranger level for the feat and the will save, and prepare for horizon walker.
Selective Channeling first!
It the best low-level multi-target ranged healing.
We had it so often recently that our cleric could not use healing channeling in combat because there were too many monsters around also getting healed - becaus he did NOT choose that feat.
I don't use Herolab, i do all the maths when building magic items myself.
Adamantine weapons are automatically masterwork, so they have a non magical +1 to hit (only).
So, from the corebook:
Adamantine bastard sword +3000 gp (cost of the sword itself not included)
+1 enhancement +2000 gp
Keen property +2000 gp
for a total of 7000 gp if this is what you were asking.
"A magic weapon must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to have any melee or ranged special weapon abilities."
So keen would need to be +1 keen so 8000gp
Cathal, and FoC, the issue isn't the technology, but rather the uses to which you put it.
A couple weeks ago, I walked past a PFS table where one person was playing a video game during a game. I passed by again an hour later and he was cruising sexy pictures on the internet, during combat. That's well and different from taking a call from your family.
The next morning, he was hoping to stop by and play at my table. (I was full-up, but he was hoping there's be a no-show.) If you were in my place, how would you feel?
Now, he could just as well have pulled out a deck of cards and played Solitaire, or opened a copy of Maxim at the table, and it would have been just as rude. It's not the technology that's at the heart of the objection; it's the sort of use.
Which is why both of us quoted DragonCats rule which singles out phones as something which should be banned at the table. I think I (might be possibly able to?) speak for FoC when I say that the rule should be more along the lines of:
"You are there to play PFS, you should not be entertaining yourself in other ways like checking facebook on your phone or reading that book you can't out down"
5. Don't bring your phone to the table, and especially don't text people in the middle of the game.
I'm guilty of this and don't particularly feel bad about it, I bring my phone because although gaming is my hobbie and interest I have a life outside of it. I don't mean that "hey I'm so cool I need to be on twitter and facebook with an update every five minutes", what I do mean is that if my Wife needs to know where I hid the TV remote this time or my Mam and Dad need help with something or Work rings asking about the latest project, then I will text them back, if needed I will even apologise and step away from the table to take a call.
It's not ideal, but I try keep it to a minimum, I don't do it just because I am bored with the current box text, and if I feel I am being disruptive I always apologise.
That said, very few GMs will argue with you if you've got a tablet with an internet connection and just show them something on the prd. But do you really want to take the chance of being at a table with a GM who enforces the letter of the law and won't let you play your character?
Eh, to be fair I think you are misusing the term "letter of the law" here.
If I had bought a book, pdf etc and used it to create a character but then accidentally left that at home and had to make use with the PRD but the GM said no (despite me actually owning the material but just having forgotten it) that would be a GM enforcing the letter of the law, as he is correct about the technicality but the spirit of the law was actually to ensure people owned their own copies of additional resources items, which in this case would be incorrect.
But for a player who wants to use the PRD without owning the actual additional resources and a GM enforced it then that GM would really be upholding the spirit and the letter of the law. (Because we support PFS with our money)
I agree that there are not many GMs (I have seen) that call people out on this too much (unless its a HUGE part of the character), but I think its highly unfair to those who do call people on it, if you are to make out like they are blindly following the letter of the law.
My Pirate Captain Killian Jones is gonna buy himself a nice Ship with his PP in his next game does that count?
As I thought a ship was TOO much fluff without anything to back it up I made his backstory for the first few levels that he had lost his ship and that was his main reason for joining the Pathfinders, money and the chance to travel on someone else dime for now!
He has funnily though played through three different scenarios with ships in them, all of which he claimed. I have assumed in all three cases that he had to begrudgingly part with them when asked by the venture captains. But the last one he confiscated will have just been examined for evidence and will be returned to him (at a cost of 10pp).
Wow didn't know that, that's a real pity especially on this particular topic. People can't take down their trade if it's no longer on offer. You can't even delete your post.
That has to be the most genteel internet fight I've ever witnessed. :P
Oh, You think you can come waltzing in here with your awesome forum name and just sling accusations like that around? Well you can sir, because you are completely entitled to your opinion.
I will state this much (which is probably obvious), I imagine that one of the biggest reasons you find online play so different is time constraints.
I know when I'm playing at a venue and there tends to be a time limit that even though a lot of us would like to stop and smell the roses (or make cool battle plans) that we also don't want to finish our slot without finishing the scenario.
This can lead to people not taking the time to really get to know other characters and formulate plans etc. Is it ideal? No, but unfortunately its a reality. Obviously online play does not have these time constraints, there is no venue and you can type out a nice battleplan while other people are still doing things, ie there is no worry of "talking over people".
Now I don't suggest you give up, maybe just try and lower your expectations of planning;
For example if you try and coordinate a surgical strike that would make the special forces proud then other players will probably get annoyed at the time slipping away and be less and less likely in future to listen to ANY plans. "Right Joe, you take up this position then wait for me to hoot like an owl three times, John you are going to stand here with a readied action, while Susan stands on the ledge over here, right thats the first 6 seconds, now then we....."
On the other hand if you just try and get the team to settle on vague tactics, then they will be more likely to at least try it, and if it works out well they well listen more and more; Ok, guys I don't know what we are going to find, but if we see them bunching up lets try get the casters to blast off first while the fighters delay and then step up to defend them after the initial volley, then just take it from there"
Erm... I'd go off what has been hashed out in the other threads like this. Threads like this tend to turn nasty.
If a player is violating the "don't be a jerk" rule, the GM should take the responsibility into his or her own hands to do something about it, and not rely on other players to do it for them.
Very much this, if the player is being Jerkish the other players can (IC) talk to him ask him to stop etc.
If the behaviour continues and is disruptive it is (IMO) completely the GMs responsibility to enforce the Don't-Be-A-Jerk rule. I know a lot of people dont like to be the authoritarian bad guy, but sometimes you need to.
EDIT: Also any PVP even if its to alleviate the dont be a jerk rule can be a slippery slope.
One thing to note, is that in Pathfinder as opposed to previous versions of DnD, is that large is a standard 2x2. There is no 1x2 large or 1x3 etc, everything is abstracted so they use a square area (2x2).
Large creatures can squeeze through areas with a width of 1, but they take squeeze penalties (unless they have the Narrow Frame feat).
We need to stop allowing six people to show up for a table.
Six people is allowed though by the rules of PFS, yes you are entirely welcome to state to your VC your opinion on the matter and that you personally don't want to GM to tables of 6, but I would urge you not to try and impose this on other GMs as this just results in less players getting a game.
Patrick F wrote:
With that said, I don't think GMs should bother to post suggestions for harder scenarios modifications. That's not what the Society wants, obviously.
This just isn't fair, I again don't mean to be rude, but at this point you are coming across as the kid who is taking his ball and going home because he didn't get his way.
1) The "society" is all of us, and from the posts in this and other threads you are not the only one who would like to see a hard mode.
2) If you are talking about the society administration (ie the likes of Mike) then again you assume they a)aren't working on a way to increase difficulty (who knows?), b)don't care about the issue (the fact he posted in this thread says otherwise), and c)haven't done anything so far (most people agree season 5 is more challenging).
Also just read BNWs post, and "eisegesis", what a cool word!
Eh, I guess I'm a pretty decent case for average. Only started playing PF (and DnD in general) for PFS, and although I try and make characters effective they invariably aren't anywhere near Powergamer levels.
For me, I have not found most games to be too hard, but neither have I found most to be walk overs. There were definitely some hairy moments, and in the same way there were some scenarios we walked (whether due to luck or writing who knows!)
I guess my point is just that on average the game difficulty is average if you are average :)
"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition
or subtraction to number of monsters (unless indicated
in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills,
spells, stats, traits, or weapons. However, if the actions
of the PCs before or during an encounter invalidate the
provided tactics or starting locations, the GM should
consider whether changing these would provide a more
enjoyable play experience."
I interpret the meaning of the word 'invalidate' the provided tactics akin to someone who invalidates an argument. Basically rendering it weak or ineffective. Either you have sound tactics and arguments or you don't. That simple.
So if the written tactics are weak or the starting locations are ineffective, the GM has a right to consider changing them or not to provide a more enjoyable play experience.
Invalidation of anything doesn't make it weak or ineffective it makes it flat out null and void. If the big bad is supposed to throw a lightning down the corridor but only one pc approaches then that is now a weak tactic but it is in no way invalid. If instead the players tunnel around the bb and pop up behind him THAT is invalid because lightning down the corridor would not be targeting anyone, therefore no benefit, therefore NULL (as opposed to weak).
To me (and this is just my opinion) you seem to be trying to stretch the bounds as far as possible on how much you can adapt scenarios and when.
Apologies for any typos my phone doesn't like posting to forums!
What do we say to the guy who hits 3rd level and still expects to sponge off the girls mom? after all - she's running a HEALER and it's her JOB.
I am loathe to get back into this discussion, but here I am. The problem I have with this anecdote is that her mother isn't necessarily giving her good advice. I touched on this in the other thread and I'll repeat it here. Everyone bringing CLW wand doesn't make the party stronger than when a few people spend those Prestige on something else.
Others have pointed this out and I'll echo that sentiment. Assuming someone is not a team player because they don't have a CLW is simply exhibiting prejudice. I believe a party is better off if the heavy duty front-liners who cannot use a wand per their class/build purchase something other than CLW wands. I believe a party is better and more fun to play with when they leverage things their class/builds are able to do.
When my support characters team with fighters who have CLW at low levels, I find myself wishing they'd spent those resources on something that helped them fight better. The fact that they brought a wand means I might save 30gp if we use a lot of charges. If we don't have any way to beat a devil's DR, we all might lose a lot more than 30 gp.
No, I don't believe in preparing for the worst case scenario where nobody brought a healing wand because in my experience that hasn't happened. If it did, it's probably because no one can use it. In which case, I wouldn't play the scenario.
So I'll ask those who do bring CLWs not to auto-label people who don't bring such wands. Don't form an attitude about someone until you play with them. You might find out that the guy without the CLW was a much better teammate than the guy with the wand.
The "loathe" and the "touched upon" made me lol.
Ok to my actual point, you seem to be arguing for the corner cases and the exceptions to the rule. Fine, not every experienced player who doesn't pick up a wand of CLW will be a drain on resources and not a team player. Thats 100% true, not EVERY one will, but the thing is MOST will be.
You keep arguing that people are tarring everyone with the same brush essentially and I agree with you that in general thats bad (as is most tarring of people), so my advice to all would be, give the benefit of doubt and advice together:
-Continue to advise everyone to buy their own CLW wand because it is a good step to teamwork and is a good way not to be a sponge AND/OR not to be seen as a sponge.
-BUT-
-Dont assume everyone without a CLW is a sponge or not a teamplayer (although if they turn out to be then don't hesitate to point out to them that in your STRONG opinion they could benefit from being more of a team player)
One of the biggest issues in the debate for more level 12+ content is that only a relatively small amount of PFS players have completed Eyes of the Ten. While not getting into why there are issues with EotT, that would be a good way to narrow down potential candidates.
For Example: A new scenario/module is announced for PFS that would include the test of the Starstone. The level cap is set high, 10-12, to limit absolutely everyone from creating a submission. If it's announced early enough, you can give players plenty of time to prepare for the scenario.
Then Paizo can have some sort of contest for those few players that wind up completing the scenario a chance to become a canonized deity.
While still a rough idea, I think that this is something that could be done.
*smiles*
I'm glad someone likes the idea enough to suggest ways it can be done and not writing it off.
Its really appreciated, thanks honestly
Well don't sound like that, the last page is filled with people who said they like the idea they just think its unfeasible. By suggesting only the person who proposed a solution which achieves your goal is the only person who "liked the idea" you do a disservice to those who agreed with the "coolness" of the idea, just because they had reasons to say "I like the idea BUT"
I also think its cool, I'd love to be all goddish, but my liking of the idea is dwarfed by the potential problems and complications it would cause.
To be fair, on a martial you always seem to feel a little gold starved. I'm always planning the next ac increase, weapon increase (because DR is annoying), or cloak of resistance buy because that's whats going to keep me alive. Budgeting for something that MIGHT come in handy or might sit at the bottom of my backpack for a year seems less attractive.
On a caster sometimes i'm scratching my head going "Huh, when did i save up 10k gold...."
Ha, just imagining this in-character.
Wizard stops after an hours march complaining of sore feet. Pulls off socks and a pile of gems falls out. "Oh I forgot about those things"
You also need to spend 2 standard actions to use it. 1 to conjure it and the other to throw it.
Eh, is this the case? I thought the throwing of it was part of the standard action to cast. I mayyyy have been doing this spell wrong, ah well at leasts my character is just starting out.
Ok, so I figured I would chime in with my thoughts, opinions and experience, everything below is just that, they aren't facts or assertions, just opinions and my own experience.
Disclaimer I am also a MMAM (Married, Middle aged Man)
So I guess firstly regarding the "Talking over people issue", I have seen this done to both males and females, it happens a lot to me actually because I tend to be pretty quiet in groups. It could just be the PFS in this country, but I really havent noticed people talking over any sex more than any other, its more often they will talk over people who dont stop them.
Second, I have seen on this thread a couple of examples of "Well just because you're a guy and you have had a few bad experiences, it doesn't mean that guys have it as bad as girls". This just annoys me, I don't pretend to know who (if anyone) has it better, and everyones situation will be different. But what these statements seem to boil down to is "Hey your experiences are just anecdotal we can't accept them as fact the way we will if a woman says she had bad experiences". That just seems odd to me. Unless anyone here has conducted a study on this (and I'm not ruling that out!) then EVERYONES experiences are anecdotal. (By the way I in NO way mean to say everyone is saying that or even the majority, just a few people and it annoyed me).
Third, and I dont mean this to sound in any way inflammatory, its really just a random thought, but PFS is a social game. I agree that straight up flirting and making people uncomfortable is not part of PFS, (I have seen it done -thankfully outside PFS, and dear god it made ME uncomfortable and I wasn't the target!).
But heres the thing, it is still social, so maybe some of those guys who seem to be more willing to go over the character sheet or "help" a girl aren't doing it because they think they need it, maybe they just want something to talk about. I know I used to suffer from crippling shyness, and was genuinely scared of talking to girls. For me having something in front of you that you both have in common, that you know its "safe" to talk about (ie your not flirting or trying to pry) its a great way to try and talk to people you otherwise wouldn't be able to.
I don't mean that to sound like its for "picking people up", but lets be honest here, IF someone had an attraction to someone then, If the first step is trying to talk to them about a mutual interest, is that really that much of a crime? Surely that's how most relationships (of all kind, platonic, romantic, etc) start? (Again I dont mean to suggest that this is the reason for all people to "offer help" Im sure a lot of people do underestimate others, but maybe its just worth thinking, does this person think im incapable, or are they just trying to strike up a conversation).
Again the above is all just one guys opinion, so take it as you will.
If the rabbit is without template or other similar adjustments, Can I take Improved Familiar at 1st and get a rabbit that way?
Improved Familiar wrote:
Prerequisites: Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, sufficiently high level (see below)
Can you take Improved Familiar at 1st level - I don't see why not.
Can you get a rabbit at 1st level - This might be a bit more murky, since the rabbit has no Arcane Spellcaster Level defined in the table for the feat. Does that mean level 1 is a sufficiently high level? Perhaps.
I think that this is a yes (for my money anyway).
Improved Familiar gives you access to a list of guess what? Improved Familiars ;) However if you are a winter witch this ability ALSO allows you to expand your usual list of familiars to include all the regular familiars (those available from Level 1 for most familiar classes).
Can you take Improved Familiar feat at level 1 - Yes
Is a rabbit (or regular familiar) available at level 1 - Yes
Can you start with that rabbit - Yes, (you are aquiring a new familiar, you have taken the feat to allow any familiar, and your level (1) is high enough to qualify for a rabbit.)
This is how I read the rules, it seems clear to me (by which I mean I dont think I am interpretting the rules), and it seems to be ok by both RAW and RAI.
This has probably been mentioned before about familiars but I didnt see it, and personally I think its much more thematically in keeping:
The Tattoeed Sorcerer archetype has the perfect template for a "spirit animal" shaman, from the text:
Quote:
Unlike most familiars, her familiar can transform itself into a tattoo that she carries in her flesh. Transforming into a tattoo or back to normal familiar form is a move action for her familiar. In tattoo form, the familiar looks like a stylized version of itself, but does not count as a creature separate from the tattooed sorcerer. In tattoo form it continues to grant its special familiar ability, but otherwise has no abilities and can take no actions except to transform from tattoo into creature. A familiar tattoo cannot be erased or dispelled.
To me THAT sounds perfect (with tweaking), this way the shaman can protect their spirit animal during battle, but if they need a scout or anything they can "summon" it forth.
Okay...for all you Dex damage junkies, we are looking into options that allow you to do it, but they will probably be more like Dervish Dance -- that is options that you feat into.
Yay, more feat tax!
If you are getting Dex to atk for free then I am accepting of having to pay feat tax for that extra step of Dex to damage. And tbf its a significant step on the part of the devs to at least try to implement this. So fair play to them.
There are already several ways to get DEX to damage. The class ,as is, is fine with the only real weakness being the lack of a good Fort save. The STR build is definitely not better. I will gladly pit a DEX build vs a STR build anytime. As far as tweaking goes, besides the Fort save issue, I really like Throne's idea for CHA abilities as a level tiered effect.
Which are?
Dervish restricts you to scimitar and results in cookie cutter characters who all use the same weapon.
Agile weapon quality is not an option at levels below 7 or so.
Personally (and I doubt I am alone) I would very very much like to have the option to Dex to damage with any weapon finesse weapon (even if the feat makes you specify a single weapon only) This will lead to a better variety of characters imo and also finally let's the theme of a Dex fighter work.
EDIT: Sorry that sounds more snide than I intended. The question of "which are" is a genuine question. I was just adding my own thoughts about the only two option I knew of.
