Bugaboo-X's page

Heard someone discussing a "Munchkin" adapted product for Pathfinder. Any legitimate news on that?

I think Super Awesome Sentient Species would be a much better title.

So many names being thrown about.

I don't know ANY of them.

Corbin & the Blue Meanie

It's not like it would kill you to call your mother once in a while. Why can't you get a better mount, like your brother the paladin? That hair cut makes you look like a poor monk...

Wait - does critique mean the same thing as being critical?

A sorcerer in my Legacy of Fire campaign has taken a liking to a certain lucky cat. She would really like to take the cat as a familiar, mostly to protect it from harm. Unfortunately she has a bloodline that does not include the Arcane Bond ability. I'm considering allowing her to spend her next feat to get this ability. Is this a viable solution, or can anyone think of a better way? Or do we already have a way to make this happen that I'm not aware of?

Thank you for your advice.

What they said.

Take a look at the character's progression so far and consider the possibility that a less-than-optimal choice was already made that could justify this sort of exception. Or an upcoming class feature that can be traded instead of a feat.

The relative "balance" issue is close enough for your purposes. At the end of the day, it's YOUR game anyway; not like you're going to submit the character and campaign for a federal grant under super-strict guidelines.

Ah. ... I need glasses, definitely.
I opened this thread because I thought the topic was EROTIC summoning.
Nevermind.

multiclass spellcasters, though, seem to have a major upper-level spell cost. I'm not sure which level cut-off is minimally problematic

I like the Rogue/Fighter interchangeability -- Several of the rogue abilities serve effectively as fighter combat feats, so it becomes a matter of determining how much BAB you're willing to sacrifice for sneak attack and balanced survivability (plus skills). A 12/8 split with that combo makes me happy.

Let's say that you adopt a fledgling character from another player -- for whatever goofy reason, you're going to play and develop a multiclass character that you might not have otherwise intended. Just go with it.

Anyhoo, the basic material before you already three levels of one class and three levels of another. You'll never reach the tip-top level benefits of a single class.

So what's your long-term plan for class level balance? X levels of Class A and Y levels of Class B. And why? You can offer specific examples or in general -- you get to pick the classes for the purpose of this discussion.

You guys! So serious, so dedicated to the cause. ... Thanks for brightening my weekend.

(By the way, I'm gonna have my rogue use his Arcane Strike feat later today. I'll bet the DM doesn't even notice how much it messes up his game. Bwah-hah-hah-hah!)

The games developers have said it doesn't work.

So point to the citation, please. Simple solution.

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Has there been an official company-backed FAQ or errata response to this issue? If not, I maintain that the text is not specific enough to disallow the application, especially in light of other feat examples that do specify class abilities as a prerequisite -- if arcane strike required that the character's spell-casting be based on class or level, it would have said so.

You're right, of course. Such a wise man you are.

Thank you.

... ALTHOUGH, I feel a responsibility to point out a loophole in your argument that others have missed so far. Note the following description of arcane strike:

for every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1

By your own assertions earlier, you maintained that this is not a class-depending casting prerequisite. And yet here's a very clear reference to class. The arcane striker must have levels of spell-casting ability; the rogue talent is not level-able.

Sorry. You lose.

DANG IT! You're correct.

I give up.
Dang, dang, dang...

... Oh shoot. The rogue talent further states, "The caster level for this ability is equal to the rogue's level." Doesn't that also qualify?

Nevermind. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Until I see an official company ruling, I think it's allowed.

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Has there been an official company-backed FAQ or errata response to this issue? If not, I maintain that the text is not specific enough to disallow the application, especially in light of other feat examples that do specify class abilities as a prerequisite -- if arcane strike required that the character's spell-casting be based on class or level, it would have said so.

You're right, of course. Such a wise man you are.

Thank you.

... ALTHOUGH, I feel a responsibility to point out a loophole in your argument that others have missed so far. Note the following description of arcane strike:

for every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1

By your own assertions earlier, you maintained that this is not a class-depending casting prerequisite. And yet here's a very clear reference to class. The arcane striker must have levels of spell-casting ability; the rogue talent is not level-able.

Sorry. You lose.

DANG IT! You're correct.

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Has there been an official company-backed FAQ or errata response to this issue? If not, I maintain that the text is not specific enough to disallow the application, especially in light of other feat examples that do specify class abilities as a prerequisite -- if arcane strike required that the character's spell-casting be based on class or level, it would have said so.

You're right, of course. Such a wise man you are.

Thank you.

... ALTHOUGH, I feel a responsibility to point out a loophole in your argument that others have missed so far. Note the following description of arcane strike:

for every five caster levels you possess, this bonus increases by +1

By your own assertions earlier, you maintained that this is not a class-depending casting prerequisite. And yet here's a very clear reference to class. The arcane striker must have levels of spell-casting ability; the rogue talent is not level-able.

Sorry. You lose.

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Has there been an official company-backed FAQ or errata response to this issue? If not, I maintain that the text is not specific enough to disallow the application, especially in light of other feat examples that do specify class abilities as a prerequisite -- if arcane strike required that the character's spell-casting be based on class or level, it would have said so.

You're right, of course. Such a wise man you are.

Thank you.

Has there been an official company-backed FAQ or errata response to this issue? If not, I maintain that the text is not specific enough to disallow the application, especially in light of other feat examples that do specify class abilities as a prerequisite -- if arcane strike required that the character's spell-casting be based on class or level, it would have said so.

You're right, of course. Such a wise man you are.

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Nah. The verb is a perfect match between the description of the rogue talent and the feat. You need only be able to CAST a spell, and it doesn't specify that casting must be either a learned class ability or unclassed innate spell-like ability.

So arcane strike is an acceptable use of the feat by rogues. :-) The rest of you are wrong.

Except you must be able to cast an arcane spell -- spell like abilities are not arcane -- and are not spells.

Almost, almost, but still not a good enough exclusion. The text: "A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." Those wizardy spells are arcane.

Again, you forgot "as a spell-like ability". (Sp) are neither arcane or divine.

And you continue to shift the focus to the description or nature of how the spell is cast, rather than the mere casting itself.

Has there been an official company-backed FAQ or errata response to this issue? If not, I maintain that the text is not specific enough to disallow the application, especially in light of other feat examples that do specify class abilities as a prerequisite -- if arcane strike required that the character's spell-casting be based on class or level, it would have said so.

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Nah. The verb is a perfect match between the description of the rogue talent and the feat. You need only be able to CAST a spell, and it doesn't specify that casting must be either a learned class ability or unclassed innate spell-like ability.

So arcane strike is an acceptable use of the feat by rogues. :-) The rest of you are wrong.

Except you must be able to cast an arcane spell -- spell like abilities are not arcane -- and are not spells.

Almost, almost, but still not a good enough exclusion. The text: "A rogue with this talent gains the ability to cast a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list." Those wizardy spells are arcane.

Nah. The verb is a perfect match between the description of the rogue talent and the feat. You need only be able to CAST a spell, and it doesn't specify that casting must be either a learned class ability or unclassed innate spell-like ability.

So arcane strike is an acceptable use of the feat by rogues. :-) The rest of you are wrong.

RAW...

arcane strike, Prerequisite: Ability to CAST arcane spells.

Minor Magic (Sp): A rogue with this talent gains the ability to CAST a 0-level spell from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. This spell can be CAST three times a day as a spell-like ability.

Note that the Arcane Strike prereq does not specify a spell-casting class ability. And although the rogue talent provides a spell-like ability, that spell-like ability still requires that the spell be cast.

In other words, your honor, my client has followed the letter of the law.

Feh. I shouldn't have let it slip out. I didn't need to be publicly grumpy. Sorry about that.

Viktyr Korimir wrote:

You have use magic device on your skill list. The most a dead familiar should ever cost you is 5,100 gp. By the time you have enough spells that losing your familiar is a significant loss, it's cheaper than the Wizard's spare spellbook.

Could you elaborate what you're getting at and why 5,100?

If you're refering to a Raise Dead scroll or so, I think that's abit more expensive than 5,100, and also not sure it can actually resurrect a familiar.

Bugaboo-X wrote:

Have none of you actually ever experienced the risk of losing something valuable and the challenge of recovering it? Gawd, the complaining here.... If you don't want to be hurt, don't go out into the big, dangerous world to attack monsters. Or at least have some contingency plans in place.

Did you actually read the thread or just assumed you know what's been said? Because we've been discussing just that, contingency plans, and what a witch can do when the worst case happens.

Also "Sorry, it's all gone, you have to relearn it from scratch" is not exactly my idea of "recovering it"

Did YOU actually read the thread, or just assumed it was your turn to be grumpy and dismissive? ... "Sorry it's ALL gone" doesn't exactly reflect earlier observations that a character does NOT have to relearn everything from scratch.

But, yes, I should not have said "none of you." MANY of you seem to expect zero-loss risk.

Quandary wrote:

What about the Metal/ Wood Wizard Schools?

The metal and wood wizard schools opens the door for traditional Asian elemental relationships. Instead of the traditional crucible elemental relationship in the west (fire and water oppose each other and air and earth oppose each other) you can get the wheel relationship used in Asia (wood overcomes earth, earth overcomes water, water overcomes fire, fire overcomes metal, and metal overcomes wood).

Asia is a much larger place with more varieties of people, cultures and beliefs than most Americans would seem to appreciate.

Have none of you actually ever experienced the risk of losing something valuable and the challenge of recovering it? Gawd, the complaining here.... If you don't want to be hurt, don't go out into the big, dangerous world to attack monsters. Or at least have some contingency plans in place.

Communing with a mutt familiar (i.e. fox, which has previously been identified as functionally equivalent to a dog with the young template):

"Who's a good boy?! YOU're a good boy! Yes you are! Such a good boy!..."
A lot of tummy-rubbing is required as well.

Afterthought: This can actually be play-acted at the game table, with the appropriate pet assistance.

Communing with a mutt familiar (i.e. fox, which has previously been identified as functionally equivalent to a dog with the young template):

"Who's a good boy?! YOU're a good boy! Yes you are! Such a good boy!..."
A lot of tummy-rubbing is required as well.

Yes, its somewhat silly, the best familiars seem to be those that can fly (so you can tell them to fly up high into the sky when the battle starts and out of harms way) or really small ones that you can hide in your pocket so they can't be targeted.

The stereotypical black cat of a witch is one of the worse ones though.

Just realised that a new familiar comes back with 2 spells of every level, so I guess that already covers most of the important ones actually, a wizard would probably not have every spell in his backup book and only the most important ones.

Two plus the patron bonus spells. Not such a huge loss after all.

>> If a familiar is lost or dies ... A new familiar begins knowing all of the 0-level spells plus two spells of every level the witch is able to cast. These are in addition to any bonus spells known by the familiar based on the witch’s level and her patron. <<

I've been stymied by the Rules As Written, in that sharing spells is only approved for those with Target = You. Seems like that limitation is slightly off kilter when so many good spells can be cast on self via other targeting identifiers.

Another basic tactic, with many improved familiar, is to share ranks in Use Magic Device and to have the familiar use wands and scrolls. It's a strong tactic since it's like being able to cast an extra secondary spell each turn in battle.

Hadn't considered that. But you'd need a familiar that can legitimately manipulate the gear in question.

Birds with wands are a cool idea. Scrolls would be more problematic.

Bugaboo-X wrote:

(much chortling over monkey images)

I'd never considered sharing menial tasks before this thread, either. Handle animal skill? : "Hey, Inkwell, round up the horses."

The new Unlimited book provides a an "evolution" feat to improve familiars which taps into eidolon list. That feat indirectly provides a +8 skill bonus.

The same list provides a +2 armor bonus as well, if you want to send your familiar scurrying into combat (usually not a good idea).

Flying monkey familiars?

Soulbound Scarecrows would know fear.

In the eidolon construction set, I think wings are worth 2 points. Outside the reach of this feat.

I like the "wing buffet" attack option for ravens and owls and other already-winged familiars.

(much chortling over monkey images)

I'd never considered sharing menial tasks before this thread, either. Handle animal skill? : "Hey, Inkwell, round up the horses."

The new Unlimited book provides a an "evolution" feat to improve familiars which taps into eidolon list. That feat indirectly provides a +8 skill bonus.

The same list provides a +2 armor bonus as well, if you want to send your familiar scurrying into combat (usually not a good idea).

I haven't bothered yet to collect a spell list that fits this criteria. Has anyone created a database of spells that includes a "target" item?

>> The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast). <<

With the release of the Eldritch Heritage feat and greater character access to the oft-unloved familiar through the arcane bloodline, it seemed an appropriate opportunity to ask: How the heck do you use that critter, anyway?

One of the most overlooked applications requires no additional prep, really -- familiars provide a second roll in several skills, notably knowledge areas and sense motive. Since the familiar gets to use the master's skill levels (using its own modifiers, naturally), you've basically given your character a another chance to know something.

>> For each skill in which either the master or the familiar has ranks, use either the normal skill ranks for an animal of that type or the master's skill ranks, whichever is better. <<

Yes, I know the following exclusion limits the usefulness of such skill-sharing for, say, diplomacy or bluff or healing ...

>> Regardless of a familiar's total skill modifiers, some skills may remain beyond the familiar's ability to use. <<

... But it's still not a bad benefit, regardless.

"I don't entirely trust my gut about what you're telling us. Let's see how my little furry friend here feels about about you..."

Next?