Painter Worshipper of Shelyn

Chell Raighn's page

982 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 982 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
@Chell Raighn what are you disagreeing with? You post is confusing in that you strongly disagree that an Arcanist makes a good wizard replacement, but state that the arcanist is better than a wizard in all but one way?

I’m strongly disagreeing with your claim that wizard is fine as is. I agree that arcanist is better, and even actually well designed… wizard though is horribly designed.

Rather than using +2 Two-handed & 2x +1 One-handed… which is a huge price skew giving the Two-handed build 2x the cost investment in their weapon you should use +3 & 2x +2… the price gap is only 2k at 18k & 16k… a far more equivalent baseline… this does unfortunately mean if you’re using level 8 for your comparisons that your using about half your WBL on weapon… another alternative is to ignore magic items and just use ABP to determine your bonuses for these comparisons, which at level 8 would put both builds using +1 weapons.

Not counting games that fell apart due to scheduling conflicts, player disputes, or an unfortunate loss of all prepared work and data for a custom campaign setting…

All of my groups campaigns have run past level 10… we usually aim for between 14 & 18… rarely do we go all the way to 20…

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The arcanist is actually a good replacement for a wizard if you want class features. It does reduce their spell casting ability by delaying gaining their higher-level spells, but wizards are powerful enough that if you want to gain something you need to give something up. The need for CHA makes it harder to dump all other stats to pump up your spells. Overall, the class is actually fairly decent. The exploiter wizard is another alternative to give them more class features.

I strongly disagree… I will say that Arcanist is in a good spot, exploits at every other level and their hybrid casting make them very functional at early game and they feel like they are actually progressing all the time… wizard though… is horrible at low levels, CAN be a god at high levels IF YOU KNOW THE RIGHT SPELLS… which BTW, many of the god tier wizard spells often find themselves on ban lists… and even with them, your only really that powerful for one or two encounters per day… exploiter wizard may seem like a good choice to get class features on a wizard, but the every 4 levels pacing ensures that you never feel any improvements from them, and by the time you get your second one you may very well already be dead. The arcane spellcaster tax is overdone and downright excessive… I can get behind them being feature starved at later levels when their spellbook starts getting some of the most broken spells in the game, but at early levels when they can barely participate in combat encounters because they have only 1 or 2 spell slots… and their complete lack of versatility once they have prepared all their spell slots… theory crafted wizards are uber powerful, wizards in actual play are not.

In my experience Arcanist is in all ways but 1 a better wizard… the ONLY thing wizard has going for them over the Arcanist is Arcane Discoveries… Arcanist can get them as a wizard of half their level, which effectively prevents them from ever getting any of the useful ones. Some claim the delayed spellcasting to be a major downside, but in all honesty a 1 level delay is rarely ever noticeable…

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizard… out of every class in the game wizard is the most feature starved… sure they may be the quintessential arcane spellcaster many consider to be “god tier”… but outside of theory crafting and high level play wizards are quite frankly hot garbage… if your game starts any lower than level 5, you are unlikey to survive to level 7 as a wizard… a wizard at level 1 is really no better than a level 1 commoner. And they really dont get any better at level 2. They should have given wizards a few universal class features that give them some viability in early game while enhancing serving to enhance their late game… for example, an ability that enhances the effects of their cantrips would have done wonders for wizards. Features that play on their familiar/bonded object and scroll use would have also been great additions… also… something akin to bardic knowledge, I mean seriously a class that is all about scholarly knowledge and studious study and yet, somehow the traveling minstrel knows more about every single subject than they do?

Witch… not quite as bad as wizard… hexes can help with their low level game… but they don't really ever improve… patrons dont grant any abilities, they have no class features beyond their hexes and familiar, and they have arguably the worst spell list in the game… to make matters worse their divine counter part the Shaman, has higher BAB, higher HP, more skill points, better saves, more class features, AND a better spell list… the arcane spellcaster tax is way too high, and Witch gets hit the hardest with it… They need some abilities granted by their patron, their familiar should also benefit from their choice of patron given how big of a liability a witches familiar is in actual play…

Sorcerer… just like witch and wizard, the simple fact that sorcerer is a 9th level arcane spellcaster has caused its class design to be short changed… bloodlines do give a nice array of features… but sorcerers could use with some more universal class abilities, and a few bloodlines are in desperate need of a rework… compared to the others though, Unchained Sorcerer would need the least amount of work…

Druid… unlike the others I’ve listed… I feel druid needs an unchained variant for much the same reason that Summoner got one… Druid has too much power core… some of its abilities need to be toned down a bit… others should be granted at different levels than they are now… and a few even should probably be removed… I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… Druid is the single most overpowered class in the game. They can do it everything, and all of it they can do very well too… in some cases they actually fill roles and perform tasks better than classes that are designed for those roles and tasks.

Cleric… out of every divine spellcaster… clerics have it the worst… just like the 9th level arcane spellcasters, cleric has next to no class features… progression is dry, and you hardly gain any real power… sure you can say “their spells ate their class features” but at the end of the day, spell slots are more limited than X/day class features, and at early levels they feel helpless… Druid proves that a 9th level caster can have class features and can feel playable at level 1… now the other 9th level casters need this treatment.

Reading over elemental flurry from the Elemental Ascetic… it says “as the monk class feature” when talks about flurry of blows, but makes no mention of counting the kineticists levels as monk levels for it… which as far as I can tell means one of two things…

1) Elemental Ascetic treats Elemental Flurry as the Monks Flurry of Blows and is able to stack with it for determining power…


2) Elemental Ascetic has an effective monk level of 0 and can’t actually make use of Elemental Flurry unless they take levels in monk.

Either way… you could take a 1 level dip into Menhir Guardian Monk to gain the ability to use some natural weapons with flurry.

Mightypion wrote:
My main problem with shield and board on 6 casters is getting a hand free for spells with somatic components.

This is why sword & board casters are usually either Psychic or Divine spellcasters… psychic dont need a free hand for spellcasting and Divine casters can explicitly cast with a shield in hand as if they had a free hand… for Arcane sword & board spellcasters there is the Skirni Magus… otherwise an arcane spellcaster needs to avoid spells with somatic components if they wish to use sword & board.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AwesomenessDog wrote:
@Chell, how do you reconcile things like the Unchained use of the bluff skill, albeit only relevant at level 20, where you can influence some as by a suggestion? I would assume that's just a mundane copy of rules text from a spell, meaning it isn't really a compulsion effect.

The level 20 Unchained use of bluff is akin to quick hypnotism. You engage the target in seemingly idle chatter and confuse their senses until they are easily manipulated. You then plant the suggestion in their head and wait. There are two things to note though in the ability. First is that it is “as the spell” meaning it not only follows the rules for the suggestion spell but is subject to all the normal limitations of it as well unless specifically called out. Suggestion is a charm and compulsion effect, so as a result so is this specific use of Bluff. Second is the final line, even if you were to ignore the fact that it is a charm and compulsion effect, you cannot ignore that it is explicitly mind-affecting. It being an extraordinary effect simply means it isn't stopped my antimagic or dispel and cannot be countered.

20 Ranks: As a full-round action, you can make a suggestion (as the spell, maximum duration 1 hour) to a creature within 30 feet (Will negates, DC = 15 + your Charisma modifier). A creature that saves against your suggestion is immune to further uses of this effect for 24 hours, and whenever the suggested creature is specifically confronted with proof of your manipulation, it receives another saving throw. This is an extraordinary mindaffecting compulsion.

That all said, I know why you asked me that specifically… my claim that charm and compulsion are specifically magical, and this ability being explicitly non-magical. All I can say is things don’t always fit into a perfect little box.

AwesomenessDog wrote:
Wonderstell wrote:
The idea that the rogue would be balanced around one sneak attack per round is both antiquated and a consequence of 5e's influence.
This is laughably incorrect. Maybe it's antiquated by here Paizo took 1e's design, as evident by my earlier comments about swashbuckler and precise strike, but I further do not think that is in any way a good shift for the game and thus completely disagree with such a change that would further it like making feint a single attack replacement. The "one sneak attack a round" has been a part of the indirect and subtle design of the game since AD&D by the nature of action economy, it was so in 3e, it was at the onset of pathfinder, and even still reasonably is.....

The 1 Sneak Attack per round limitation was a thing in 1e and i believe 2e, but it was NOT an actual limitation in the rules for 3e initially. It only ever became a limitation in 3e after the Sage FAQs declared “precision damage applies only once per round” in response to a question regarding the Manyshot feat. An FAQ so many people on 3e forums LOVE to quote any time someone dares to make a rogue… and also one that many groups throw out because of its implications. I’ve been in many MANY debates about that FAQ back in my 3e days.

Intimidation being a fear effect is perfectly fine since in all uses, that is exactly what it is… you incite fear to either demoralize your foes or to coerce them into doing what you want through intimidation… it is in all ways a fear effect.

While I can see an argument for diplomacy to be a charm or compulsion effect, there are greater arguments against it. To start with, a compulsion effect forces the affected individual to perform an action against their will. Diplomacy doesn’t have that sort of power over someone. It doesn’t matter how high you roll on your diplomacy, if someone is completely unwilling to perform a certain action, you are not going to make them do it with diplomacy. You will have better luck coercing them into performing that action through intimidation.

As for charm effects… charm effects magically alter an individual’s attitude. While the outcome of a charm is the same as diplomacy or intimidation, the effect is not. While you do “charm” someone into being your friend with diplomacy, you don’t place them under the effect of a charm. Immunity and resistance to charm effects is immunity and resistance to the magical effects of charms. An individual’s natural charm and persuasiveness is not affected my such immunities or resistances. This also applies with Bluff, when you bluff someone you are using your natural charm and wit to deceive them, you are not placing them under a charm effect.

thelemonache wrote:
Makarion wrote:
If you're looking at wildshape, anyway, there's always the Flame Blade Dervish Combat feat. The heal/fire theme also lines up with Sarenrae, and a sun-soaked fox druid sounds pretty interesting!
I really like the flame blade idea, but im not sure it works well with weapon shift. It would turn the damage to fire i think, but it wouldn't become a touch attack, nor get the cha to damage while shifted, would it? I think it only gains damage "type" but doesn't count as the weapon. For example, I dont think I could use weapon focus scimitar to get a +1 while shapeshifted with Shift Weapon. Unless I read it wrong?

This is exactly correct. Weapon shift only applies damage type and weapon properties nothing more. Improved Weapon Shift will applies weapon special abilities, and Greater Weapon Shift will apply enhancement bonus from the chosen weapon… your natural attacks will still be natural attacks, they wont count as the weapon itself.

As cheesy as it may seem, nothing really stops the battle poi from changing your damage type to fire through weapon shift… so long as the poi was lit when you shifted, you would deal fire damage.

It is worth noting though, that generally the weapon shift feat chain is not worth it… 3 feats to gain full benefit of a magic weapon while wild shaped is a heavy investment for a class as feat starved as the druid or shifter.

Gustaaf D. Goud wrote:
How does the castingtime work for this spell? The duration is instantaneously and the description is “teleports instantly”. But casting time is 1 standard action. Does it cost 1 standard action to “prepare” the spell and then when the chosen word is recalled you teleport instantly. Or does it cost 1 standard action to cast the spell Word of Recall, and so, you’ll be teleported after 1 standard action to cast the spell.

I’ll start by answering your question. It is a standard action to CAST, so your later understanding of it.

This topic is 9.5 years old, you really should have just made a new topic for your question.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The description specifically states that it does not provoke an AoO, but any other movement used as part of the move does. It also states that it counts as 5 feet of movement so might be considered a 5 foot step.

Dimensional Slide (Su): The arcanist can expend 1 point from her arcane reservoir to create a dimensional crack that she can step through to reach another location. This ability is used as part of a move action or withdraw action, allowing her to move up to 10 feet per arcanist level to any location she can see. This counts as 5 feet of movement. She can only use this ability once per round. She does not provoke attacks of opportunity when moving in this way, but any other movement she attempts as part of her move action provokes as normal

“This ability is used as part of a move action or withdraw action”. This line prevents it from being used with a 5ft step. It is explicitly only available during a move action or withdraw action, two very specific actions. It doesn’t say “as part of an action to move” or “as part of a movement”, no it specifically says “as part of a move action or withdraw action”.

Claxon wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:
There actually isn’t anything preventing a magus from using a two-handed weapon with spellstrike. They are prevented from using spell combat while wielding a two-handed weapon but NOT spellstrike. All this really means is that you can’t use spellstrike on a full-attack action, nor can you cast buffing spells as part of your full-attack actions.

You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.

However, from a playability standpoint spell combat + spell strike is part of how the magus stays competitive.

Obviously I was speaking too inaccurately because I know it's spell combat with the restriction, but again from the playability stand point not being able to use spell combat is a big problem.

Yes… losing access to spell combat does greatly impact the magus, especially at mid-late game… but it is still possible, furthermore, a two-handed weapon magus would actually be incentivized to go into the Eldritch Knight prestige class, ideally with a wide crit range two-handed weapon such as a falchion so they can gain the benefits of spellstrike on full attacks through spell critical.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There actually isn’t anything preventing a magus from using a two-handed weapon with spellstrike. They are prevented from using spell combat while wielding a two-handed weapon but NOT spellstrike. All this really means is that you can’t use spellstrike on a full-attack action, nor can you cast buffing spells as part of your full-attack actions.

Spellstrike wrote:
At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon's critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

At no point does spellstrike restrict them to one-handed weapons, and it is a free action to take your hand off a two-handed weapon and another free action to put it back.

Two-weapon grace does work for magus, BUT ONLY IF you are using it for the dex to damage aspect of one of the prerequisite feats for your mainhand weapon only. Without it, a Magus with Slashing Grace who uses spellcombat would lose the benefit of slashing grace during spell combat since their off-hand would be considered occupied by their spell. Two-weapon grace would let you retain the effects of those feats during spell combat. Two-weapon grace would NOT, however, allow you to use two-wrapon fighting with spellcombat.

I do however see a valid argument against this. Spellcombat does technically involve “attacking with your offhand weapon”, wherein your spell IS your offhand weapon… so from that perspective, the last line of two-weapon grace wouldn’t apply during spell-combat. Since it is only the last line that allows you to treat your off-hand as empty, if you don’t gain its benefit then your offhand is once again not considered empty… but a counter argument is that two-weapon grace specifically allows you to get dex to damage while attacking with two weapons at an added -2 penalty.

Interestingly the feat tax can be greatly alleviated with a 1 level dip into Picaroon Swashbuckler. Despite not getting the effects of two-weapon fighting without wielding a firearm, you are STILL considered to HAVE the feat for prerequisites. And this would give you weapon finesse for free which frees up another feat.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The section on patters does not mention anything about saves. All it says is that it creates an image others can see, but also affects the mind of those who see it. Since there is no mention of saves patterns follow the general rule on saves that all other illusions follow, which is they only get a save when studied carefully or interacted with. Even Phantasms follow that rule, and they are all in the mind.

Some illusion spells may include a sentence stating that you only get a save if you interact with it, but that is a reminder of the rule. RAW you only get a save vs an illusion if you interact with it, unless the spell states otherwise.

This is where your misconception is at. The save if interacted with is NOT the base “all illusions follow this” rule. It is an additional rule that applies specifically when a spell calls for disbelief. If the “if interacted with” rule applied across the board without exception to all illusions, then many illusion buffs such as blur would be nearly useless since the moment an enemy attacked you or took a moment to carefully examine you they would get a save to disbelieve the illusion and if successful would see your true position. But thankfully, that is not how those spells work, and I’m sure we can all agree on that fact.

There is one tiny word at the very start of the rule you quoted that you really should pay more attention to than you have, and that word is “usually”. This doesn’t mean always, it doesn’t mean that this is the baseline, it doesn’t even mean that most illusions work this way. What it does mean though is that the most common uses of illusions follow this rule. There are in fact a fairly high number of illusions that either have no save (surprisingly) or have the harmless tag.

In the vast majority of situations this distinction is rather moot, but it is still better to properly understand the rule for when the distinction does in fact matter. Normally, the illusion spell will specifically call out for disbelief (either in the save line or in the spell description) and thus apply the quoted rule, or it will immediately have an affect on the target and trigger a save automatically anyways (behaving like most non-illusion spells). Where the rule does not apply is to cases like Blur, where the subject of the spell can choose to make a save or not but those who are actually subject to the effects of the illusion do not. Shadow Bard is another that the rule does not apply to, a shadow bard performing fascinate or any other harmful bardic performance doesn't allow a foe to make a will save to disbelieve the illusion and therefore suffer a lesser effect. What about Mirrior Image? There is no save here at all. But if we apply the save to disbelieve rule across the board then as stated above with blur someone attacking you could potentially identify the real you after one attack and no longer have to deal with the duplicates.

You might claim that I’m reaching here, but no. These are the actual consequences of applying that rule to all illusions as a baseline. This is why that rule is specifically only for spells that call out disbelief.

Unchained rogue: at its core this is a huge upgrade for rogue, free weapon finesse, dex to damage starting at 3rd, automatic debuffs when sneak attacking… the only downside to unchained rogue is its heavily restricted talent list. There are a few rogue talents that are a real shame to lose access to.

Unchained barbarian: largely a sidegrade to the standard barbarian. The Unchained Barbarian excels with multiple weapons, is statistically unchanged with natural weapons, and is weaker with two-handed weapons. This is because their rage applies a flat damage bonus and doesn’t care about the handedness of your weapons instead of a strength bonus. Where the Unchained barbarian truly shines though is in rage powers, while they do lose access to a few strong rage powers, they gain access to the rage power stances that are a MASSIVE improvement over many of the rage powers they replace.

Unchained monk: this is only a minor improvement over base monk, mixed with multiple veiled nerfs… for the most part though you wont see much difference outside of the added versatility that ki powers give them, which you can get with the Qigong Monk archetype on a normal monk anyways… the biggest drawback for unchained monk however is archetypes. Unlike all other unchained classes the Unchained Monk does NOT retain access to all archetypes of the original class. As a result, unchained variants of archetypes had to be created leaving the unchained monk severely limited in the archetype department and very few of the desirable monk archetypes made the transition.

Unchained summoner: unlike all other unchained classes, this one is a straight up nerf. The unchained summoner may not have too many differences from the standard summoner, but the changes it does have are ALL for the worse. Some call it more balanced, which in some aspects it might be, but as a whole it was over nerfed.

I could have sworn prismatic wall was under illusion (pattern) before… but apparently the only pattern spell that even relies on being seen is dazzling blade… all others either affect all creatures in their area of affect or do nothing until someone tries to pass through them… which is fairly contrary to the actual rules for Patterns I quoted earlier.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

No, just seeing is not enough to be counted as interacting with it. Seeing an illusion is not enough to be considered interacting with it, you actually have to interact with it in some way. In the case of color spray you are interacting because it is being used to attack you. In one of your earlier posts you stated “they do NOT get a save just by seeing it”. That is and remains a true statement.

In this instance it is a moot point because we are talking about why something would take full damage form an illusion. Being attacked by something or attacking it is enough to be considered interacting with it. Anyone who is taking damage from an illusion will get a saving throw for interacting with it.

Likewise the fact an illusion is a mind affecting effect does not automatically grant it a saving throw. The target of the illusion still has to interact with the illusion. The only difference is that a creature immune to mind affecting effects is immune to illusions that are mind affecting effects.

Allow me to put it a different way to properly clear up your misconception here. Many illusions, not all, have the save when interacted with clause. These, and only these, illusions get no automatic save upon simply being seen. You get a save if the illusion is interacted with in any way involving you, be that you personally interacting with the illusion, taking an action to examine it, or the illusion interacting with you. Patterns trigger an automatic save not only because they lack the “if interacted with” clause, but because even if they were to have that clause, patterns interact with their targets and not the other way around.

If you glance a prismatic wall, it affects you and you get a save. You don’t just ignore its effects until you make a conscious effort to interact with it. Nor do you suffer its effects with no save until you put forth the effort to interact with it. The moment your eyes saw the prismatic wall, the wall interacted with you and you are making a save vs its effects.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:

To me it seems like the illusion covering the object or creature is more like a pattern than a figment or a glamer. Maybe the extra damage from those that believe should be considered a mind affecting effect.

From a gameplay standpoint it would probably complicate things more than it should, but that is what makes more sense. I could easily see a GM house ruling it that way.

Patterns warrant automatic saves upon simply being seen. To rule them to behave like patterns would be a straight up nerf to these illusions.
Can you show where that is stated in the rules? I have never seen that before and the section on illusion does not mention that.
Pattern wrote:

Source PRPG Core Rulebook
Definition Type Subschool
Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.

Even if a pattern were to have a “save if interacted with” line it would still trigger an automatic save upon being seen, because simply SEEING a pattern is enough to be affected by it, and therefore interacted with.

Patterns like colorspray that only affect those inside them similarly trigger automatic saves regardless of if they were to say “if interacted with” since being inside the affected area is enough to be affected by it. Sure, seeing those ones wouldn't trigger a save, but at the same time, this type of pattern wouldn't even make sense for most shadow spells. Sure it would logically fit for something lime Shadow Evocation: Fireball, but those shadow spells are directly interacting with the target immediately anyways and already trigger an automatic save.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

To me it seems like the illusion covering the object or creature is more like a pattern than a figment or a glamer. Maybe the extra damage from those that believe should be considered a mind affecting effect.

From a gameplay standpoint it would probably complicate things more than it should, but that is what makes more sense. I could easily see a GM house ruling it that way.

Patterns warrant automatic saves upon simply being seen. To rule them to behave like patterns would be a straight up nerf to these illusions.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The idea that you cannot willingly fail an attack roll is ridiculous. If someone is skilled enough with a bow they can shot the wings of a butterfly, they can easily avoid hitting a human sized target. Being more skilled at something is supposed to give you more control over the situation not less.

With ranged attacks willingly missing an attack is as simple as targeting a space instead of a creature and then hitting an AC5. So easy that most GMs wont even make you roll for it… at worst you target an AC7 because you’re targeting a space behind a creature which now has soft cover from the creature. If you somehow miss that shot, you still miss the creature, only now you might miss more obviously.

With melee however is when we run into problems with the rules… there aren’t really any riles for melee to take advantage of to deliberately miss… the rules for attacking into a space for melee use the AC of any creature that may potentially be in that space… and if you hit that AC you hit the creature of there is one there. Which means if you try to use “I target the space he’s in instead of targeting him directly” to miss in melee, you very well will still hit your target unless you would have missed normally. In the real world you COULD easily miss on purpose with a melee weapon while looking like you were trying to hit the target, but in pathfinder you would have to target an adjacent space which would be quite obvious that you are trying to miss…

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:

The acid of acid splash is not permanent, so it could not target something inside an AMF.

Acid Splash wrote:

... This acid disappears after 1 round.

Acid splash is still an instantaneous duration conjuration spell. The one round lifespan of the acid may very well just represent its potency and/or the natural abundance of its neutralizing agent in the environment. Some acids can and are neutralized within seconds by exposure to open air.

Regarding stone discus and its DR penetration… whose to say its DR penetration is infact magical? For all we know at CL5 the stone is created with flecks of silver in it, at CL10 it has flecks of cold iron, and at CL15 it gains some adamantine flecks OR is just condensed and compacted until it is as strong as adamantine… the only DR penetration that is undeniably magical is DR Magic.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

What I was talking about is the subjective experience of each individual, if one fails the save they experience it as it's full intensity (instead of say 20% on a successful save).

It's harder for me to imagine what that 20% experience is like vs a non-shadow illusion where you either experience it or don't. And in the case of something like a visual only illusion you can have proof it's an illusion (like hitting it and you feeling no resistance and walking through it) though you still don't "disbelieve" it so you can't see through it.

The whole thing of getting additional saves with a bonus isn't so important to me.

Think of illusions like a haunted house park attraction. One person might be scared by everything inside, even though it is all fake. Meanwhile the person next to them is completely unfazed. When we add in shadow illusions to the mix, it is like adding some practical effects and physical jump scares to the haunted house. The second person might not be scared of anything inside but the jump scares and practical effects will still get them.

Translated to how they would be in the game world…
Player A sees through the illusion and realizes the Balor demon is not really a Balor demon but a shadowy immitation. They still know it is a real threat, just not as big of a threat as they first thought.
Player B failed their save and believes it to really be a Balor demon. Shadow illusions operate on a mind over matter philosophy, so long as you believe it to be real it is 100% real.

Its no so much trying to imagine one having an experience that is only 20% real while the other has an experience that is 100% real… rather the one experiencing the 20% is the one experiencing the true reality while the other is trapped in an illusion.

Claxon wrote:
I mean, if it's an illusion of a summoned creature with shadow magic (is that possible?)

Shadow conjuration does exactly this.

“Claxon” wrote:
What's harder to reconcile is that if they don't disbelieve the illusion, it's treated as completely real. It's hard to reconcile the experience of one creature who will feel the full effects if they fail the save vs a creature that successfully saves. They have different experiences of the same thing. We don't know what allows one creature to realize it's an illusion vs the other.

This is actually why illusions have rules for additional saves. If one enemy recognizes it as an illusion, they can alert their allies allowing those who failed a new save at +2. If they can prove it is an illusion the bonus improves to +4. (i think it was +4)

Senko wrote:
I'm just pondering how you'd interact with a physical thing (aside from taking reduced damage) to realize its a different semi-physical thing.

Thats just it, only the shadow within the illusion is semi-physical… when you go to attack it you might notice that your blade passes through most of the creature without any resistance before suddenly it feels like you’ve hit something… or when it attacks you, a claw might sink into your chest effortlessly and without pain before a sharp stabbing pain hits you as the creature forearm presses deeper. When spending an action to study it, you might see part of the creature pass through a solid object.

In effect, it appears normal and solid until interacted with, at which point you receive a save from noticing an abnormality. If you pass, you recognize it as an illusion, if you fail, you assume your eyes were playing tricks on you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, a shadow is still an illusion. An illusion with substance, but still an illusion. The important thing though is that unless someone puts forth the effort (spend an action) specifically to determine if it is an illusion or not, they do NOT get a save just by seeing it, nor are there any sort of obvious tells. If your DM says “you create shadowy copies of ____” politely remind them that is NOT how the spell works. You didn't create a shadowy image, you created an ordinary illusion and then gave it some solid substance from the shadow plane, the shaodw stuff is hidden INSIDE the illusion.

The 1e rules for clarity

Disbelief and Interaction


All three of the subschools above tend to have saving throw lines that say “Will disbelief,” but they differ in how those saving throws apply.

Phantasms directly assail a creature’s mind, so the creature automatically and immediately receives a saving throw to disbelieve a phantasm. Figments and glamers, however, have the more difficult-to-adjudicate rule that creatures receive a saving throw to disbelieve only if they “interact” with the illusion.

But what does it mean to interact with an illusion? It can’t just mean looking at the illusion, as otherwise there would be no need to make the distinction, but drawing the line can be a bit tricky. Fortunately, the rules can help to define that difference. A creature that spends a move action to carefully study an illusion receives a Will saving throw to disbelieve that illusion, so that is a good benchmark from which to work.

Using that as a basis, interacting generally means spending a move action, standard action, or greater on a character’s part. For example, if there were a major image of an ogre, a character who tried to attack the ogre would receive a saving throw to disbelieve, as would a character who spent 1 minute attempting a Diplomacy check on the ogre. A character who just traded witty banter with the ogre as a free action would not, nor would a character who simply cast spells on herself or her allies and never directly confronted the illusory ogre. For a glamer, interacting generally works the same as for a figment, except that the interaction must be limited to something the glamer affects. For instance, grabbing a creature’s ear would be an interaction for a human using disguise self to appear as an elf, but not for someone using a glamer to change his hair color. Similarly, visually studying someone would not grant a save against a glamer that purely changed her voice.

Your players have an odd way of looking at that… and a complete lack of understanding for not only math, but the rules. You are doing it correctly. While most things on pathfinder tend to stack in a way that is most beneficial to the players, damage calculations do not. Damage, resistances, and vulnerabilities have a fairly standard order of operations. The order benefits the players when THEY inflict damage, but disadvantages them when damage is inflicted to them.

That means you follow this formula:
((Damage * Vulnerability) - Protection) - Resistance

Reduced damage on saving throw is applied to the base damage before anything else applies. Of course, because (X/2) * Y is the same as (X * Y)/2, it really doesn't matter if you apply vulnerability before or after saving throw, but the standard order is saving throw applies first. Note: Saving throw being first is the only thing here ordered to be advantageous to the players when receiving damage.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

The other thing people are forgetting is that if the feat has a prerequisite and for some reason, he loses the prerequisite he can no longer use the feat. Crane Style has a prerequisite of dodge, which has a prerequisite of DEX 13. So, someone with the full crane style feats with a 13 DEX gets hit with an attack that reduces their DEX by 1 does not gain the benefit of dodge or any of the crane style feats. Does it really make sense that an injured person is able do something that a fully healthy person can?

That attack would have to inflict specifically Dexterity Drain, not Dexterity Damage for them to lose access to the feat. The rules spell out the effects of permanent and temporary ability damage and drain quite clearly. Ability Damage is not much different than a temporary ability penalty in pathfinder, both are Temporary and only penalize the effects of the affected ability, they don’t actually change the ability score in regards to prerequisites. Ability Damage however can reduce an ability to 0 resulting in various forms of incapacitation or even death, while an ability penalty cannot. Ability Penalties go away when the inflicting condition expires, while Ability Damage recovers naturally at a rate of 1 point per day. Ability Drain on the other hand actually reduces the ability score by the inflicted amount and does not recover with time.

Using the wording of the feats themselves as well as the wording of a few other feats for comparison…

Point-blank shot wrote:

You are especially accurate when making ranged attacks against close targets.

Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet.

There is no optional wording to be found. While you are within 30ft your attacks simply are improved. As opposed to something like Power Attack:

Power attack wrote:

You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.

Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2. You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

Power attack can be started whenever you wish, but once you choose to use it, it remains active until your next turn starts. This technically makes it possible to attack normally on your first attack then switch to power attack for the rest of the round. You could even normal attack for your entire turn, and power attack on all AoOs. But what you cant do is Power attack at the start of your turn then normal attack at any point after until the start of your next turn.

Now lets look at style feats. For Crane style.

Style Feats wrote:
As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies. Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style. You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style. For example, if you have feats associated with Mantis Style and Tiger Style, you can use a swift action to adopt Tiger Style at the start of one turn, and then can use other feats that have Tiger Style as a prerequisite. By using another swift action at the start of your next turn, you could adopt Mantis Style and use other feats that have Mantis Style as a prerequisite.

From the rules as written, you can only drop a style by using another swift action to switch styles. Presumably this means styless is itself a style that is always assumed to be active if no other style is. I’ve seen people say it is a free action to drop a style, and while I agree that it should be, the rules very clearly define it as being dropped as part of a swift action to adopt a new style stance. Regardless though, it is a conscious effort made on YOUR turn only.

Java Man wrote:
With GMW you use the permanent enhancement on your weapon to grab special abilities.

Are you suggesting making a +1 weapon with +9 in special abilities and then using GMW to enhance it to +5?

As far as I can tell scouring rules information, nothing prevents teleporting INTO antimagic, only teleporting out… in the event of a GM prohibiting teleporting into antimagic, you just set the arrival point to a location above that will immediately drop them into the antimagic field. Perhaps with various other effects to force a target down such as permanently greased walls and a constant powerful downdraft.

Yeah… as the others have stated… prior to a save being made everyone that sees the shadow creature will see it as the exact creature it is pretending to be. Your illusion is indistinguishable from the real deal when merely seen. If a target takes a standard action to observe the creature, attacks the creature, is attacked by the creature, or in any other way interacts with the creature, they can make their save. If they fail their save then nothing changes, they still see the illusion as what you defined it to be. If they succeed THEN AND ONLY THEN do they see it for what it actually is.

If your DM is describing shadow conjurations as shadow demons or anything other than what you defined as their illusionary form, then they are nerfing illusions, either deliberately or accidentally. I would recommend discussing things with them and informing them of the correct rules for illusions before going forwards. If they are doing this deliberately, then it may be time to find a new DM.

The most elaborate teleportation trap ever…

The first circle teleports you into room with a permanent antimagic field in it and the walls are lined with doors. Behind each door is a small room only large enough for a teleportation circle. Regardless of which door you go through they will all send you through a chain of teleportation circles ending in you being teleported back into the antimagic room.

If you truly want to trap someone with looping teleportation circles, it is best to use 3 circles…

The first is the trigger for the trap, can be permanent or temporary, it does not matter. This circle teleports to an indistinct remote location.
The arrival point has a permanent teleportation circle at it. This goes to a second indistinct remote location with another permanent teleportation circle. This third circle returns them to the first.

Bonus points if the two permanent circles lead to rooms with no exits.

This ensures that someone cant just dispel the first circle to end the loop, since the target will never return to the original location at any point in the loop.

Heather 540 wrote:
Sadly, Raging Vitality doesn't work with Unchained Barbarian. That would be a nice combo.

Yeah… especially since Unchained Barbarian is better for two-weapon/natural weapon barbarian builds while standard barbarian works best with Two-handed weapon builds…

Personal experience playing a warpriest in a campaign alongside a paladin who has a very similar build to my own… despite personally having higher AC than the paladin, he’s got greater sustain in close combat due to Lay on Hands. When it comes to attacking however, I tend to come out on top, though that is likely due to how insanely broken Desna’s Shooting Star + Startoss Style is…

Fervor is a huge boon to warpriests, being able to swift-cast self target spells can help to turn the tide of battle quickly.

Paladin is more defensive and has higher survivability in general, but they are only super effective in a couple combats per day if any. Generally they do best acting as a tank until a powerful evil target takes the field. Warpriest, on the otherhand, can be a deadly combatant, party buffer, and/or healer whenever and wherever they are needed.

Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Uh....just run a gun chemist?

Did you read ANY of the OPs post? Or did you just read the title? Gun chemist offers a completely different play style and experience to what the OP is after. It also prevents them from taking the Perfumer archetype which is what ultimately facilitates the playstyle they are looking for.

To answer Tyalis‘s questions and rebut some of their misconceptions anyways…

1) a spell cast inside an AMF will still be successfully cast, but the spell will be suppressed regardless of if the target is inside or outside of the AMF. AMF is quite clear in its wording on this. “An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it.” this means that if YOU are in the AMF your spells ARE suppressed, period. If the spell has a duration it starts ticking down, and when you leave the AMF the spell effect takes hold.

2) a fireball passing through an AMF would be suppressed in the square it enters the AMF. It would not continue to move along its trajectory while suppressed, it would simply wink out the same as a summoned creature. When the AMF is no longer affecting that square the fireball will immediate resume its course.
2.b) It could be argued that since the fireball has an instantaneous duration and is NOT conjuration, the moment it enters the AMF it would cease to exist as the duration would expire before the AMF can be removed.

3) as stated above, the fireball would be suppressed as soon as it enters the AMF. The fireball simply cannot detonate inside an AMF. Depending on how your table rules the fireballs duration within the AMF it might detonate when the AMF is removed or it might simply expire and never have the opportunity to detonate. I lean towards the duration expires inside the AMF.

4) you are correct in how a fireball overlapping but not centered in an AMF would work. Fireball is Evocation and a spread. This means the flames are in fact magical and it can be obstructed. An AMF would be an obstruction.

Regarding something else that was brought up multiple times in the topic before though…

Conjuration spells cast inside AMF… instantaneous conjuration spells result in a non-magical substance but still use magic to either create it or bring it there. If cast into an AMF these spells are completely unaffected by the AMF but if cast inside an AMF they fail to produce anything because the magic facilitating the objects creation or summoning was suppressed and the duration expired moments after casting.
Side Note: if an instantaneous conjuration is created or summoned at a target location and not propelled to that location from the caster, the spell will fail to produce anything if either the target location or the caster is within the AMF.

Heather 540 wrote:
Hammer The Gap's a decent feat when you have 6+ attacks, right?

It is… questionable at best… on a full round with 6 attacks you get a maximum of +15 damage total (before crits) on the round at +0, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5… if any of those attacks miss you reset to +0 again. The bonus damage from the feat is just too inconsistent and unreliable…

There is also an argument to be had that the damage output is actually only +10 total at +0, +0, +1, +2, +3, +4… this argument is due to the exact wording of the feat, that it does damage equal to the number of previous consecutive hits, which would mean that the first hit does no bonus damage, and the second hit is the first consecutive hit which also does no bonus damage since the number of “previous consecutive hits” would still be zero at this point… but this argument is often rightfully dismissed due to it making the feat virtually unusable. Though purely on grammatical accuracy this argument would be correct…. If you have consecutively hit something 2 times, then you have scored 1 consecutive hit. For something to be consecutive it must follow another. The inclusion of the word “previous” in the feat is what creates this problem.

Regardless of which interpretation your table uses though… its just not a good feat…

As Phoebus said, dragon deciple gives specifically the Bloodline power. If qualifying as Bloodrager this means you get the Bloodrager version. If you are a primalist you STILL get the Bloodragers version. If you are an Eldritch Scion Magus you again still use the Bloodrager version. Only Sorcerer and Blood Arcanist (or anyone without access to a bloodline going into Dragon Disciple) get the Sorcerer version.

Dragon Disciple wrote:
Wings (Su): At 9th level, a dragon disciple gains the wings bloodline power, even if his level does not yet grant that power. Once his level is high enough to grant this ability through the bloodline, the dragon disciple's speed increases to 90 feet.

TxSam88 wrote:

RAW, anything in, on, or attached to the backpack counts against it's carrying capacity.

As far as I can tell looking at the rules for backpacks in both PF and 3.0, this is blatantly false. Carry capacity is per container, not the pack as a whole. Some packs have multiple small containers with their own capacities in addition to the main container. Containers without defined capacities, can only hold items of negligible weight (3.0) or space (PF).

As many have stated… the magic missiles would fail to damage the invalid targets, would work as expected on any creatures pretending to be objects, and would trigger a will save to disbelieve on the illusion with their perceived result based on the result of said save.

That said… your player was actually correct in their understanding of how deathwatch works with regards to creatures that pretend to be objects such as mimics or constructs. Deathwatch would in fact alert them to the presence of a living creature in the case of a mimic, undead creature in the case of any undead pretending to be a corpse, or something neither alive nor dead for that construct pretending to be a statue. The spell doesn’t leave room for interpretation, it does precisely what it says it does. If you want enemies hidden from magical detection, simply have them warded with nondetection…

Diego Rossi wrote:

A higher CL isn't a class feature. There is a specific subsection of every class that is called "Class features", that is what you can emulate with a UMD check.

You can use the UMD ability Use a Scroll, but the DC is higher than Emulate a class feature.

Tell my GM that… he insists UMD for Emulate Class Feature is required to emulate higher CL… also… the DC isn’t higher they would both be 20+CL. The difference being that one route requires only one UMD while the other requires two… which is why I said Emulating Class Feature isn’t actually needed because of how the rules for UMD Activate a Scroll actually work.

AwesomenessDog wrote:
I would say its probably intended to extend to that one case where instead of using UMD you use CL, as that is an exception to always using UMD to activate magical items.

UMD covers it already. Emulating a higher CL would fall under emulate class feature… not that its even needed since the rules for using UMD to activate a scroll doesn’t care about your access to spellcasting. A wizard could use either a CL check or a UMD check to activate a scroll of a spell they are not high enough level to cast. Generally the CL check will be the easier choice, but if you have a high enough UMD, then you may as well use it instead of its more likely to succeed.

Elric200 wrote:

Why wouldn't you suffer the -2 to hit? You suffer the -2 [IMO] because you are fulfilling the Material or somatic portions of casting of spell casting and using a weapon at the same time [it is not mentioned why you suffer the -2 penalty]. IMO casting a quickend spell still has to follow

rules for casting spells meaning unless you used the spell combat ability
you would have to have still spell and eschew materials feat.

The -2 to hit represents a reduction in accuracy due to hastening your attacks, splitting your focus between casting a spell and attacking, guarding yourself as you cast, and/or a physical toll of spellcasting that otherwise would go unnoticed.

Lelomenia wrote:
core monk is a weak chassis to start with

I’m sorry, but, what? Core monk is not a weak chassis at all… it’s actually one of the more broken core chassis. It doesn’t take much to optimize a monk. 3 good saves, and only needs the stats associated with all three saves, d8HD, treated as full BAB during flurry, flurry of blows = free TWF+ITWF+GTWF… no offhand penalty, and it is frontloaded with bonus feats and class features… core monk is an amazing chassis even without any optimization. The greatest flaw for monk is that it is a very MAD class, but even as a MAD class it is in a good spot stat wise, Str, Dex, Con, & Wis are good stats, and Str can easily be cut out entirely with a little optimization. With very little optimization a monk can have nearly untouchable AC, all high saves, 7 attacks per round, and hit just as high as a sneak attack optimized rogue with every strike.

And that is before you even factor in any class abilities gained after 1st level. It takes very little system mastery to make a monk overpowered.

1 to 50 of 982 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>