Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 5,365 posts (5,428 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 24 Organized Play characters. 6 aliases.
A monk finishes his sequence of attacks but hasn't quite finished the opponent so he decides to spend a ki point to gain an extra attack. Do you tell the monk no, he had to spend the swift action to gain the attack at the start of the round because now he is making a highest BAB attack after a lowest BAB attack?
Or how about Medusa's Wrath? If you make a full attack and knock your opponent unconscious with the last iterative attack, can you not use the Medusa's Wrath attacks because they are made at your highest BAB?
There are a few edge cases where players could cheese things up if they were allowed to take their -5 or -10 BAB attacks before their normal full BAB attacks. (Two-Weapon Feint requires you to give up your "first" primary hand attack.) But as long as you are requiring them to take their normal attacks in descending BAB order it really doesn't matter where full-BAB bonus attacks are made.
No, not really. You're adding a first level spell that only takes affect if they fail the reflex save and even then is CL1, DC11.
Even with those limitations, are there still spells you might want to add? Sure. Ill omen has no save. But parchment swarm is a 5th level spell. By the time you can cast that, 25 gp each for a bunch of ill omen scrolls is peanuts.
Parchment swarm's best use (other than a cool visual) is with a 2nd level scroll. That can turn the spell into a physical (not energy) damage fireball with a 15d6 cap.
Anyway, it seems like this discussion is at an impasse; what am I to do going forward?
Since you are planning this character for Organized Play, the default answer of "ask your GM" isn't as helpful as usual. However, if you are planning to play with the same Lodge a lot, it wouldn't hurt to go over it with some of the more active GMs before taking the feat.
I'm not sure what the overall vibe of PFS1 games are these days. Back when PFS1 scenarios were being released and I was a very active GM (yes, I'm a 5-star) the large majority of GMs had a similar viewpoint to me: If a player's interpretation of a mechanic was reasonably possible (even if doubtful), we'd allow them to use it. We may not like it, and we may think the player is stretching, but that's not a reason to shut down their character. Your use of False Focus is nowhere near the most dubious reading players try. If you need it for your character idea, go ahead and take the feat.
Spoiler:
On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put your interpretation at around an 8 or 9.
1: The player is deliberately ignoring a published rule
2. The player is not aware of a contradicting rule
3. The player is using Pretzel Logic and a lot of "it doesn't say I can't!" reasoning
4-5: Highly dubious reasoning, but it's an argument that can't be absolutely ruled out
6: There are multiple reasonable interpretations, but the player is probably wrong
7: There are multiple reasonable interpretations
8: There are multiple reasonable interpretations, and the player is probably right
9: The player is almost certainly right, but a logical argument can be made against them
10: There is a published rule that explicitly says that is allowed
I would generally allow anything four or above. 3 is the breakpoint where I would say no. 4-5 requires extremely generous assumptions that almost certainly are not intended. That's the range where I would roll my eyes and maybe give a lecture about how other GMs might not be as accomodating.
I think if GMs are being intellectually honest even those opposed to the feat would rank your reading at 6 or better. Not always, though. Sometimes you run into that GM who sees anything that doesn't exactly agree with the way he thinks it should be as "unreasonable."
And here's the key takeaway – if you are a fair PFS GM, it doesn't matter whether you rank the player's interpretation at a 6 or a 9. For Organized Play purposes they are equally valid.
If an archetype replaces a class ability that is part of a series of improvements or additions to a base ability (such as a barbarian’s uncanny dodge or a ranger’s favored enemy), the next time the character would gain that ability, it counts as the lower-level ability that was replaced by the archetype. In effect, all abilities in that series are delayed until the next time the class improves that ability. For example, if an archetype replaces a rogue’s +2d6 sneak attack bonus at 3rd level, when she reaches 5th level and gains a sneak attack bonus, her sneak attack doesn’t jump from +1d6 to +3d6— it improves to +2d6, just as if she had finally gained the increase at 3rd level.
The Chirurgeon gets Poison Resistance +4 at 8th level and that's where it maxes out.
My question is: Could someone with False Focus spontaneously replicate its choice of a 0 (12.5 gp) or 1st-level (25 gp) scroll to apply to parchment swarm? In that spell's case, a scroll, too, is an optional material component.
If so, would there be any reason such a mage could not potentially mock-up a scroll from a spell list other than its own?
For what it's worth, this is with Organized Play in mind.
Yes, they could. And it could be any scroll. Parchment swarm itself doesn't require you to be able to cast the spell on the scroll, so neither would using False Focus to provide a suitable scroll. As you are probably aware in Organized Play all scrolls are assumed to be minimum caster level, so you can't use False Focus to replicate a 1st level scroll at CL4. And of course at minimum DC, so the DC for a 1st-level spell is 11.
Quote:
EDIT: What about contingent scroll, which actually REQUIRES a scroll as material component?
You can use False Focus, but in this case the spell contained on the scroll explicitly has to be on your spell list.
I'm more ambivalent about False Focus as a game mechanic than it appears Azothath is. It breaks WBL (Wealth by Level), which I don't generally like. But it's not by a huge amount, just by enough that players may be encouraged to use an unusual spell they would ordinarily avoid because of the gold cost. I do like players trying different things. There just aren't that many arcane spells with a material component less than or equal to 100gp that can be game-changers. If it was 250 gp and you could cast stoneskin for free... yeah, that would be too much.
I don't like the idea of a player adding a dose of black powder, a flask of liquid ice, and 4 doses of urea to every cone of cold for free but I don't see a rules-based reason to draw a distinction between "required material components" and "optional material components" for False Focus.
I'll admit I never really understood the Kineticist.
The idea of *ever* accepting burn, which is -1 hp / class level *for the rest of the day* per point of burn (and can't be healed or recovered without a full nights rest), seemed a bit much for me. And there are powers that want you to accept burn at the beginning of the day to get some sort of buff (Elemental Overflow), or powers with costs like '4 burn' which, is, like, all of your non-Con bonus hit points! Yes, I'd like to throw this big zap and then die in the very next round because I literally burned 40 of my 48 hit points *before the bad guys even attacked me!*
This is a completely valid reason not to want to play the class. Just like "I don't like memorizing spells" or "Fighters are boring" are valid reasons.
I personally like the way the kineticist was a new (to PF1) way of implementing risk/reward tradeoffs. Spellcasters have to decide whether to spend a spell or save it for later. Kineticists have to decide whether to trade HP for combat power. It is worth noting that burn is non-lethal damage so even if you have taken your full (3 + Con Modifier) burn, you aren't likely to *die* from one hit, but it is very possible to be unconscious and unhelpful to your party.
The kineticists I have played and played with tend to be conservative with burn. Go a little wild in the first encounter or two until you have maxed out your elemental overflow benefits. Then throttle back and only use blasts that have no burn cost once you count in your abilities (Gather Power, Infusion Specialization, etc.). Unless you're in an "ah, everyone is about to die!" fight.
I've said it many times - the kineticist class design is really, really tight and really, really well balanced. But extremely difficult to visualize when you are reading the class. Only play can make it obvious.
The better method ("physics"-wise) would be to create water a whole bunch, then magic it into ice. The expansion of water to ice could fracture the rock.
Like Pizza Lord mentioned, transmute rock to mud does the job more directly than bothering with the whole fracturing process.
As for mercury (or similar metals) you could temporarily make it with major creation. If you picked mercury in particular because of it's use in gold mining (binding to gold in a slurry, then sinking while the non-gold rock and earth are sluiced off) then doing that process with major creation is quite clever. When the spell ends the mercury disappears leaving you with pure gold; no need to bother with heating the amalgam to remove the mercury. Plus it would be better for the environment if the mercury just magically disappears :)
I've played a couple of arcanists and it can be painful for the first three levels as you desperately hoard your precious spell slots. Wizards and sorcerers aren't much better (though a lot of them will have a school or bloodline power usable 3 + casting stat times a day). Here's what I do once I run out:
-Get a wand of magic missile ASAP.
-Flank while fighting defensively. (If I'm at least 2nd level. 1st level is almost guaranteed unconscious if hit.)
-That attack while fighting defensively? Might as well make it an Aid Another attempt.
-Did the bad guy hit you? Don't let that happen again! Withdraw and start using acid splash.
Honestly once you get the magic missile wand that's almost always your best choice of action.
Up to about 4th level there are a fair number of useful spells. Animate dead or magic vestment, for example.
5th level and above doesn't actually have that many "awesome" spells in my opinion. Mythic breath of life lets you bring people back who died more than one round ago, heal can act as restoration (with no material component!). Break enchantment is amazing if you need it, useless otherwise. On the offensive side, the only high-level mythic cleric spell that is really a great upgrade is orb of the void. You can just smash it through enemies giving automatic negative levels round after round.
2) 10 minutes to perform the ceremony (during which no effects are granted) then the effects last for the next 10 minutes immediately following the end of the ceremony.
3) 4 rounds for each creature. If you want to inspire courage in 3 allies, it will cost 12 rounds of bardic performance.
Finally:
1) This has never been officially answered. Most people assume and play as if you can only grant bonuses with the tea ceremony that you can otherwise grant with bardic performance. No inspiring heroics at level 1. However it is possible that the other reading is correct and you can inspire heroics at level 1. Tea Ceremony is its own ability and doesn't replace or alter any other class feature. So it could mean you get all the options immediately. But if that's the case, then why should you get increasing bonuses as your bard level goes up? If an Inspire Competence Tea Ceremony can provide a +2 bonus at level 1 (instead of the normal level 3) why should a level 7 Inspire Competence Tea Ceremony grant +3? If you're tying the bonus to your bard level, the ability to use it at all should be tied to your bard level. So — up to the GM.
It's worth noting that the 10 minute ritual/10 minute duration makes the ability only useful when you are sure there will be enough downtime before a fight, and the fight will happen almost immediately after you are done with the Tea Ceremony. Probably a prearranged duel or combat. In which case the other side might hire their own geisha. . .
This is also the reason why the "all options at level 1" interpretation isn't completely irrational.
Spoiler:
For the typical adventuring party, I think the Inspire Competence option is the most useful. You are far less likely to run into some bad guys who say "hey let's have a fight in 15 minutes" than a tall cliff where one of your allies says "boy, sure would be nice if we all got better at climbing for a while." Or a key figure you need to Diplomacize who has set a fixed meeting time for you, a tricky knowledge puzzle in a dungeon, and so on.
Unexpected Shift: Dazzled ends at the same time as the benefits.
Flash of Grandeur: Protects your ally from some damage and allows you, as well as any allies that happen go go between the reaction and you, easier attacks on the enemy.
Delay Consequence: Lets you (hopefully) keep an ally up until your turn starts and you can immediately deal with the negatives instead of being savaged by enemies until your turn come around.
These are reactions that last until the start (or end) of your turn. That's what they are designed to do. Provide a benefit until you have a chance to take your normal actions. What you are asking for would make these abilities stronger. That's a power increase, not fixing something that is broken.
The simplest thing to do is to say "Yes your hand is occupied." Otherwise - because the player has fire in their hand you have to make ruling after ruling depending on what the player is trying to do.
1) "I want to read a scroll." Hmmm. The flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment.
2) "I want to cast a spell." Hmmm. Would it ignite your component pouch when you dipped your hand inside? What happens if your somatic gesture happens to include pointing toward yourself?
3) "I want to pick up my unconscious ally." Hmmm. Fire damage?
The point isn't "how would you answer these three situations?" It's that these situations, along with many, many more, exist at all. And almost all of them are going to require a GM ruling.
I would probably charge him a flat price per spell of 1.5 times the scribing costs (as given by Toshy above) to have the spell in his spellbook. That's an easy compromise between the possible costs.
Over the course of a campaign there are several ways he could have gotten additional spells.
1) Found a wizard selling access to copy a spell - scribing cost plus half scribing cost.
2) Found a scroll and copied it into his spellbook - just the scribing cost
3) Bought a scroll and copied it into his spellbook - scribing cost plus the cost of the scroll.
Buying a scroll is by far the most expensive, and therefore also the rarest, while finding a scroll is cheapest. So I'd take the middle ground and assume the median cost is somewhere around the borrowed spellbook cost.
There are (deliberately) very few ways to get a flat boost to CL. Most feats and traits are specific to one spell. But here’s one for your wizard.
Take the Faith Magic wizard Arcane Discovery. That in turn lets you use the Bead of Karma from a Strand of Prayer Beads, which can only be activated by characters capable of casting divine spells but affects all spells.
The Magaambyan Arcanist is a good class (alignment-wise) and Altruistic Guardian is a “sacrifice myself for my allies” ability. Paladins have similar abilities. So yes, it can be massively hurtful to the Arcanist.
There are plenty of situations where it can be used without sacrificing the Arcanist. If she has resist energy up she could eat a fireball for all her allies and maybe get away with light scorching. She doesn’t have to use it on ALL her allies, so if there is a spell cast that would kill a single alky (but not the Arcanist) she could take it for that one ally and save him.
A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature. For example, a paladin could not be both a hospitaler and an undead scourge since they both modify the smite evil class feature and both replace the aura of justice class feature. A paladin could, however, be both an undead scourge and a warrior of the holy light, since none of their new class features replace the same core class feature.
Wild Caller (APG) and God Caller do stack, as they do not alter or replace any of the same class features.
However as DeathlessOne said, it looks like you are misunderstanding how archetypes work. If you take the Wild Caller archetype, you are taking it for ALL summoner levels. It’s always a part of your character - both the benefits and the restrictions. Same for the God Caller.
In your example above, you are not a summoner 5 (wild caller) summoner 1 (god caller). You are a summoner 6 (wild caller, god caller). You will have all the benefits and drawbacks of 6 levels of each archetype.
Are 7.62x54mmR (listed for machineguns) the same as metal cartridges?
They are a type of metal cartridge. All the firearms listed in RMD are generically “metal cartridges” with the same price, regardless of the actual caliber.
Rasputin Must Die wrote:
By this era in their development, firearms use brass cartridges loaded into a chamber rather than shoved down the muzzle.
There are no costs listed for the magazines. That’s an oversight, so you’ll have to come up with something. The ammunition itself costs the same as any other advanced firearm - 15gp per metal cartridge.
Also, note that the costs listed in the Adventure Path (and replicated on AoN) are not correct for Golarion.
Rasputin Must Die wrote:
The costs listed for the various weapons and gear in this article represent the costs associated with a world where guns are everywhere, and thus cost 10% of the amount they would cost in a place where they are rarer.
Does it all come down to Divination though? Or, are there other class features that can provide insight/guidance/luck to make "better" preparation choices?
Basically, yes.
Your premise is that you are in an information vacuum, and have no idea what would be good choices. There are tons and tons of things you could do to get out of the information vacuum if you had that option (send the party rogue to scout before you prepare, ask your commanding officer what your mission for the day will be, etc.), but that's not the premise. And there are quite a few class and feat options that give you more flexibility (like Magical Epiphany or Planned Spontaneity). But again, not what you are looking for.
But even the class features that would give you a "sneak peak" are divinations. Usually some variation on divination or commune. Examples: Wind Listener wizard or Rivethune Emmisary prestige class.
Agree with Magda that there are a lot of useful Teamwork feats with solo tactics. However I am compelled to point out that Swap Places doesn’t work with Solo Tactics. Because…
Quote:
…your ally moves into your previous space as an immediate action.
It requires your ally to actually do something. And the only reason they can do it is that they have the feat.
Belafon, it's interesting from a "these are technically legal options within the context of the game at large" viewpoint, but if you tried to bring such a character to a table where I'm the GM, the items you outline in points 2 through 4 wouldn't remotely be allowed.
I think that was covered by my comments, especially "Here's where I reached where no sane GM would allow." :)
Weapon Design rules are kinda fun and not particularly powerful. Until you start playing around with crit range and multiplier. Race Builder rules just shouldn't be a player option, period.
I dabbled in a couple of other builds after this. A myrmidarch magus casting a Quickened named bullet and then spellstriking with a Maximized, Empowered, Intensified disintegrate was frankly ludicrous. Particularly after I took a dip in sorcerer for the orc bloodline. Make the save or take 750 + (0.5 x 100d6) points of damage just from disintegrate...
Named bullet is the star of any of these builds because it automatically threatens a crit.
I second the suggestion of warrior poet archetype.
I have Organized Play in mind, so that's a non-starter.
All the strong damage-dealing, solely Dex-based, two-handed finessable builds are (deliberately) not PFS legal, so that’s probably not the best path to go down. So here are a few suggestions:
1) Go ahead and use a shield. The Finesse penalty isn’t terrible, and disappears completely once you have a darkwood or mithral shield (which you should be able to buy after just one PFS scenario). Light weapon with the typical piranha strike, agile weapon.
2) Be a reach tripping build (with Agile Maneuvers). You do have to build specifically for this, and it is feat intensive, but once you get Greater Trip you control the battlefield and deal damage.
3) Two-Weapon Fighting. (Though as you say it is feat-intensive.)
Witch: If I take levels in a prestige class that advances my spellcasting, do I continue to gain bonus spells from my patron as I gain levels?
No. That is a class feature of the witch class, and the standard "+1 level of spellcasting" prestige class ability only advances spells known, spells per day, effective spellcaster level. (You retain the patron spells from your familiar based on your actual witch level, of course.)
The text in the CRB is the most recent and was changed to correct the problem of the creature taking a full round action when it can't take actions (Hold Person still has that problem, the person is Paralyzed but attempting a save is a full round action).
Hold person doesn’t have a problem because it makes you Paralyzed. While paralyzed you can still take “purely mental actions.” As opposed to hideous laughter, which flat out says you can take no actions. If attempting a Will saving throw isn’t a “purely mental action” then nothing is.
Hideous laughter was always fairly obvious how it worked (you get one more try as a full-round action next turn, if you fail it runs the full duration) but it also had a rules issue as discussed above. The latest printing fixed the rules problem.
Inquisitor is the most "versatile" because in addition to good damage from judgments and bane their spells let them adapt to a wide range of situations, and are good out of combat as well.
Alchemists are the most "mutable" (he-he) because it doesn't take many feats or discoveries to make them a good ranged attacker, so you can make all kinds of builds. The bombs target touch so even in the 2nd or 3rd range increment the attacks are still pretty good.
Gunslingers are the "easiest" to play. Good range on 2-handers and target touch in the first increment. Be a musket master and fill the air with lead.
Kineticists are the most "technically challenging." They can be among the most phenomenal ranged attackers but you have to really understand they can and cannot do - probably by playing/playing with one in an earlier campaign and seeing the mistakes in action.
Multiclass/multi-archetype characters are the "strongest." But again, technically challenging. I played a Gunslinger (bolt ace) 5/Warpriest (Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain) X that was ridiculous. Honestly: too powerful and I didn't play it very long because combats were boring for me and the rest of the party.
No, I do mean “Judeo-Christian.” It’s a reference to the cultural touchstones our society had in earlier decades, not any kind of appropriation. My first sentence was the main point.
Quote:
We have changing sensitivities, but we also have changing reference points.
It’s not just sensitivities.
I might have muddied it a bit:
by saying “church.” But in 1974 some 90% of Americans identified as either Christian or Jewish. And that permeated every facet of culture. Political speeches would sprinkle in references to events in the Torah. Characters in Hollywood movies would use a bible verse (not explicitly cited, just the words) in conversations. Even school textbooks that weren’t explicitly religious might throw in a religious reference in passing. (I believe I was first introduced to the concept of the golem in an elementary school reading assignment!)
That’s not as true anymore. Both because of changing sensibilities and because not as many people have those touchstones.
This kinda made me realize most of the name changes were made to Abrahamic-based things in the Remaster. Obviously it isn't exclusive to them, but most of the stuff that would have an equivalent in some real-life myth or religion that happens to be Abrahamic-inspired received name changes it seems. I feel this is likely because most of the people playing the game would be from one of the major Abrahamic religions so it would be a little insensitive to put it alongside other stuff that is clearly being referenced as something merely mythological and not something that could actually exist.
We have changing sensitivities, but we also have changing reference points.
What I mean is that in 1960, some 60% of Americans attended a church regularly. Many more irregularly. So when D&D gets published in the 70s, all but a tiny percentage of the country were very familiar with Judeo-Christian references. Just saying "demon" or "devil" was enough to set an expectation. You didn't have to educate people as to what they were. Abrahamic names - and creatures based to a greater or lesser degree on preconceptions of those names - were a way of bringing a bit of familiarity to a strange world.
Nowadays we are exposed to a much wider variety of influences growing up, and have instant access to information if we encounter something we don't know. Fantasy RPGs, computer games, movies, and shows have given a much broader introduction to worldwide culture. Relatedly; the church-going percentage has dramatically declined, meaning that those references aren't as universal as they used to be.
Golems for example:
Were easily the most recognizable example of a large, strong, manufactured being made out of base materials and brought to life to serve the creator. (Fantasy period, I mean. Pre Industrial Revolution, so no robots.) Simply saying "golem" would conjure up an image in many minds.
Here's a silly thing I did one time that both made me feel good about my contributions AND got the other players to realize how important support characters are.
We were at 11th level and I was playing an evangelist cleric. I think on average I made about one attack roll every four sessions. Sometimes another player would count up numbers they had written down and say something like "wow, I did over 150 points of damage that fight!" One fight I said "I'm going to track my damage too!" So when the barbarian said "I did 70 points that round!" I said "Nope. You used my blessing of fervor to make an extra attack, so all the damage from that attack is mine. You missed with a 28, but the 30 hit, so that damage is all mine too (inspire courage). You did hit with your first attack on your own, so you get to count all but 3 of that damage (inspire courage, again)."
Note, that this was all said in fun and we were enjoying it. It wasn't really a competition.
I think I am in the wrong thread...I never seen damage being considered selfish. It's a core part of game play though?
i've unironically seen damage being considered selfish and not an important part of the game, it might be the reddit effect but it's insane how people stop listening the SECOND you say "dpr" even if contextualized
It's not a "crusade against damage." But you are right that saying "DPR" does usually lead to a response of "don't focus on damage." I'll offer three points.
1) Especially for those who play/organize PFS, there's a desire to see less-than-optimized characters. For a very noble reason: new players who sit at a table with a dominating damage dealer may not feel like the game is for them. This was more of a problem in PFS1, where I saw more than one player decide not to come back after a player with high system mastery (and low social understanding) ended fights in one round before anyone else could act.
2) There are players who come from MMOs and Pathfinder is their first experience with a tabletop RPG. People saying "don't worry about DPS" really are trying to help new players understand that it's easy to succeed without high DPS. And that you can be a much more rounded character.
3) Start your thread with "Theorycrafting:" Many people (including me) are happy to engage in min-maxing and that word signals that you understand your are working in hypotheticals.
Sort of. I have only done this for single-encounter NPC enemies, not for a recurring character. And when you are doing that it is much easier to just give them one or two abilities than the whole class.
For example I gave a Nabasu an ability that was essentially the Eldritch Knight's Spell Critical. Didn't give it any class levels or anything, just that one ability. It probably made it CR+1, could have been +2 or more if it had a high-crit threat weapon and/or Improved Critical. (I didn't actually write down a CR. It was intended to be a very challenging fight, and was appropriate for that party.)
That's what I'd recommend for NPCs. Actually adding prestige class levels to an enemy monster is a temptation to attempt to "game the system" (see recent thread about CRs of monsters with class levels). Way more work than it is worth if you are just trying to come up with a fair fight for your players. If you are thinking of letting a player have a character with prestige levels... I'm leery of the power possibilities but any campaign that allows monster PCs is already playing in a high-power, high-GM adjudication environment anyway. Go for it and adjust as necessary.
Iron has dozens of alloys, and that's only counting the ones with names instead of just a chemical formula. Even an ancient "iron age" weapon would have been an alloy of some kind (unintentionally, at least at first) as it was not possible to remove all impurities with smelting processes of the time.
Honestly most alloys just come down to the names that we have adopted (in a somewhat haphazard fashion). Cast Iron and Steel are both alloys of Iron and Carbon. Steel actually has less carbon than Cast Iron.
I grok do u has the simple answer. The base axe happens to be black in color. In the magic item destruction information, "plain iron axe" just means "non-magical iron axe." Color wouldn't change.
While the Hit Dice at which you gain boons via Fiendish Obedience or Deific Obedience (from Inner Sea Gods) are identical, the prestige classes in Inner Sea Gods (the evangelist, exalted, and sentinel) that allow accelerated boon achievement have lower entrance requirements than the prestige classes in this book. As a result, if you wish to use one of those three prestige classes for a character who wishes to gain the boons presented by one of the fiendish divinities in this book, increase the requirements for entry into evangelist, exalted, or sentinel so that a character must be 7th level before selecting the class, as summarized below.
Evangelist: Base attack bonus +7, 7 ranks in a skill other than Knowledge (religion), or ability to cast 4th-level spells.
Thanks for reading/answering, the main question is "how do those guys using PF1E source material actually obtain those sources?"
In the case of d20pfsrd or Archives of Nethys the answer is:
"As each new book was published they bought the book then added the material from that book to their site."
Spoiler:
Game mechanics can't be copyrighted, so they were in the clear adding the rules material. Intellectual Property isn't free use normally, but Paizo allowed non-commercial entities to use them in a limited fashion. Which is why AoN (non-commercial) can use the published name of Milanite armor but d20pfsrd had to rename it (runs their own storefront) to avoid the deity "Milani." Foundry - I believe - has a license from Paizo.
I suspect the same is true for Combat Manager though I'm not sure what Foundry's primary source was. If none of those sources is sufficient for your use, you're going to have to go through the books on your own one by one.
As to the original question: It's completely up to the GM.
But if you want to try to stay as close as possible to "the rules" as expanded by Planar Adventures, you have a few options. For Elysium in particular, you're in luck. It's one of the common 20, so it only costs 100gp to buy a fork. Likely available almost anywhere. For the inhabitant of an unknown plane, your first step is probably to use powerful divinations to determine what plane it is from. Then you could call (not summon) a creature native to that dimension with access to plane shift as as spell-like ability. One of the things Planar Adventures did NOT do is require a fork for spell-like plane shift.
If you're asking how I would handle accessing new planes in general (as a GM) - very carefully.
Assuming that my campaign isn't based around hopping will-nilly around the planes (in which case I would make it very easy) I would probably have them go on a quest for some McGuffin to transport them to the plane the first time. If I don't want there to be a permanent gate, a Planar Keystone is perfect. If I think the campaign will be helped by them having tuning forks after that then they will find a unique feature to strike. If I want the plane to be a one-off they won't. Straightforward GM fiat.
The description of Plane Shift list the focus as a forked metal rod attuned to the plane of travel. It also does not list a cost so the cost of the fork is of negligible cost and is assumed to be in your spell component pouch.
That was true for the first nine years of PF1. Then Planar Adventures was released. . .
Page 85 of Planar adventures adds a lot more complexity to plane shift. Forks for the 20 most common planes (including the material) cost 100 gp each. Less common planes get much more expensive. Forks for forgotten or deliberately hidden planes are completely unavailable for normal purchase. It's up to the GM to decide how - or even if - players could access those planes.
It also includes rules for tuning untuned forks to a plane. For common planes like the First World, Axis, or the Plane of Earth it's as easy as striking the fork on a solid surface and letting it sit for 24 hours. And again; the less common planes are harder.
The point of the build is the Ragecaster ability. When you activate it you add both your Charisma modifier and your Constitution Modifier to the DC.
Here is a link to a build I did a couple of years ago for a "highest DC challenge" that ended up at DC64. That was for an illusion spell and didn't allow mythic material, but there are some generally useful tidbits in the build.
I’ve decided to my next campaign to do the traditional 4d6 and drop the lowest for stat generation.
What’s a fair reroll for my players? I was thinking if you get less than or equal to a combined of 66 points they can reroll.
Have you considered using the "Heroic" method of ability score generation? Roll 2d6 and add 6.
That automatically sets a minimum of 8 in any stat, and the mean (13) is just a bit more than the "4d6 drop lowest" mean of 12.25.
Spoiler:
It does mean you are more likely to get the top-end numbers, though. Chance of getting 16 or higher is 16% each, vs. 13% for 4D6 drop lowest
Personal Opinion, but if you're doing rolled stats and get re-rolls because they are "too low" it kinda mutes the whole reason for rolling. Do point buy instead.
Spoiler:
And yes, I meant to say "mutes", not "moots." It softens the point of rolling.
A lot of pointed (and accurate) criticism of the HHH Pact Wizard
I strongly suspect that the text was submitted by a freelancer and ruthlessly cut by Paizo staff in order to fit everything in the book. That's a problem with a fair number of the softcovers.
Spoiler:
It's a nitpick, but the thing that always jumps out to me and screams "this archetype really, really could have used another editing pass" is:
Quote:
If an oracle curse would add spells to the oracle’s list of spells known, the pact wizard instead add those spells to the wizard’s spell list as well as to his spellbook.
Subject-verb agreement isn't rocket science.
The intro to the archetype sounds like there's going to be some kind of cost associated with using the abilities. But it's just "you have an oracle curse." I wonder if the original text used some kind of influence mechanism like the medium's spirit.
My advice would be to wait on Trappings. If you're a frontliner, you are likely going to take Abjuration and Transmutation Implements first. So pick a sword and shield. Keep picking up additional implement schools until you say "eh, I don't really feel like adding a new school is an improvement on learning more abjuration or conjuration spells known." That's when you take the Panoply. Level 10, most likely.
Is there a way to trip and deal damage? Greater Trip is the most straightforward. When you trip an enemy it provokes AoO (from everyone threatening, not just you).
Unsolicited advice:
While the image of a polearm with a shield is cool, I would probably not want to take the required feats if you are interested in a tripping build. I'd rather take Power Attack and Improved Trip earlier and add in Greater Trip and Combat Reflexes.
You're not wrong. The ability should either be (no save) or should have a listed save type such as (Reflex half).
After reading the ability several times — If I was the GM I would change this to (Reflex DC31 half) and "the save is Constitution based."
This is based on exactly what the ability does. It's very similar to the Fiery Fault and Rain of Boulders. And according to Bestiary page 292:
Quote:
Most special abilities that cause damage, such as breath weapons, give a save (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will depending on the ability). The DC for almost all special abilities is equal to 10 + 1/2 the creature's Hit Dice + a relevant ability modifier (usually Constitution or Charisma depending on the ability). Special abilities that add to melee and ranged attacks generally do not allow a save, as they rely on the attacks hitting to be useful.
Not saying everyone must do what I say, etc. Just that's how I would do it.
After a little more thought, this could make for a really fun campaign base. Every party member starts out at old age. So what you have is a group of retirees who got bored of playing shuffleboard and decided to go off adventuring. No 9-level casters or Spring Rage allowed. (Probably no summoners either. Basically: No cheese)
Are they going to survive through the low levels? Probably not. But if they do get up to level 7+ (and have at least one alchemist or investigator to hand out extracts) they'll start to kick the butts of those young whippersnappers thanks to their life experience and magical fortification. Look out for dispel magic!
I can see great role-playing potential in that concept.
Off topic, but Mark Seifter has a really good post analyzing why the Extra Revelation feat (while problematic) is nowhere near as powerful as an Extra Vigilante Talent Feat would be. The Ultimate Intrigue playtest document had a sidebar that flat-out said "vigilante talents are intended to be as good as or better than a feat."
Tottemas wrote:
AFAIK there's only two ways to get Lay on Hands as a non-paladin, and only one way to get Mercies in addition to that.
There's a few. Psychic Pain Discipline, Medium Agathion Spirit, Believer's Hands feat. There's a spiritualist phantom that gets LoH. Oracle (Pei Zin practicioner) has an ability called "Healer's way" but the effect is essentially the same as LoH and counts as LoH for other rules purposes. As you can see, all these came really late in the lifecycle of PF1.
I have an offbeat class ability for this thread - Still Mind.
By itself it's not that powerful but it's needed for some fun material. Monastic legacy, vows, Champion of Irori prestige class, and others. Not only is the monk the only class that gets Still Mind feature, many monk archetypes trade it away, blocking off access to those options.
Neither I nor Joynt Jezebel is arguing that the sorcerer is the best option for a crafter. You don’t have to convince us! All we are saying is that if Heather wants to have a crafter in the party (and this is the last PC she’s building for the group) there are ways to do it and still do other things. Specifically the Impossible Bloodline - which gets Craft Wondrous for free, has Craft Arms&Armor as a bloodline feat, and gradually can ignore more and more spell prerequisites when making most items other than scrolls, potions, wands, and staves - and Mnemonic Vestments for those.
My personal opinion is that being an Impossible sorcerer and taking just Arms&Armor as a bloodline feat and the free Craft Wondrous can add up to huge cost savings for the party for very little feat investment. And I agree that Shadow is a great utility path. There are lots of Shadow-Boosting options such as the fetching alternate race trait, Shadow Stencils, and Rod of the Wayang. Combine the two of them and you become a force multiplier for your party as well as being capable of offensive casting.
Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 5,365 posts (5,428 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 24 Organized Play characters. 6 aliases. 
