Painter Worshipper of Shelyn

Chell Raighn's page

1,255 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Yes. The description of the class feature serves to ensure that the alchemist can infact make potions since normally, extracts are not considered spells, the alchemist has no caster level, and normally all extracts are self targeted. The feature just tells you that your exteacts are spells for the feat, your caster level is your alchemist level for the feat, and use the spells original target line to determine eligibility for potions.

Claxon wrote:
If you had Snap Shot you threaten at 5ft. If you have Improved Snap Shot you can threaten at 10ft. This is the largest distance I know of that you can threaten with a ranged weapon.

30ft… Interfering weapon… hefty +5 bonus cost though…

Pack flanking requires you to still threaten your opponent… you cannot threaten with a ranged weapon.

To gain the flanking benefits for coordinated shot and enfilading shot you should just have your animal companion flank with an ally… neither of the feats require both flanking allies to have the feat, only one of the flankers needs the feat, and as a hunter that ally is automatically your animal companion. You could coordinate a teamwork feat for easier flanking with an ally for one for your companions normal feats BTW…

TxSam88 wrote:
Senko wrote:
Which is fine if you want to focus on evocation/direct damage spells but I really don't. Especially at the cost of an archetype and two feats.

which is fine, there's tons of ways to play a mage, however, as mentioned a mages job is to either kill the bad guys or help the party over come obstacles. this means evocation spells, or buff spells, or things like knock, teleport, etc.

your initial spell list had very few of these.

That is a very narrow minded outlook… thats like saying a clerics job is to heal the party and proceeding to say that someone building a combat focused cleric is not contributing. Or a Rogue’s hob is to open locks and find traps, so any archetype that trades out those abilities is counter productive…

There are several ways to play every class, not all of them will fit into your narrow scope of what each classes job is. You think their spell list is bad and non contributing because its not damage and/or buffs… and yet what I see is a versatile spellcaster prepared for a multitude of scenarios… they have crown control (sleep/color spray, and grease), they have AoE damage (burning hands), they have a multipurpose deception/stealth/diversion spell (silent image), they have buffs (mage armor {personal}, protection from evil {party}), they have environmental precautions (feather fall, and endure elements), and they have a general utility (unseen servants)… that is not a bad spell list at all… are there better options for some of those? Absolutely… but that doesn’t make them bad choices (except Sleep… that spell is unfortunately a terrible spell for player characters… great for low level NPCs though….)

Derklord wrote:
On the topic, there's been a few builds where I wished I could multiclass with the same class again (with different archetypes). Don't remember them all, but there was definitely a Shifter...

There have been a few times I have wished I could take levels in both Unchained Rogue and Ninja…

A potential lore friendly way of doing it would be to say that their deity blessed them with those specific spell casts for that day… you could do this either by defining what new spells they gained for those new slots that day based on that deities domain spells, or the exceptionally generous way of just letting them prep whatever they want as usual…

But as others have stated… typically level ups happen over a period of rest or downtime to avoid these such issues…

Zepheri wrote: ually-work/58689#58689

This page explain the situation

There is quite a bit of contradictory information in that stack exchange discussion including someone who quoted the FAQ, highlighted an important detail from it, and then proceeded to directly contradict what they highlighted.

The AA version is society legal because it is follows very simple rules. The UC version is the official version however and as states in the FAQ can be treated in all ways like a normal whip if you have both proficiencies with the exception that it always does lethal damage and isn't negated by armor.

If you use the AA version you have a one handed slashing wepon woth the reach, disarm, and trip properties… if you use the UC version you have a light slashing weapon with the performance property. The AA version doesn’t require exotic weapon scorpion whip to use and is available to anyone proficient with whips… the UC version does require exotic weapon scorpion whip, and if you are proficient with whip it gains all the statistics of a whip in addition to its normal statistics.

As for the OPs original question… this is a tricky matter… in a PFS game it 100% can be a black blade without question since the AA version of the weapon is infact a one-handed slashing weapon… but outside a PFS game the answer isn't quite as cut and dry… on one hand it is a light slashing weapon, but on the otherhand it is also still a one-handed slashing weapon for someone who has both proficiencies.

Gravewalker Witch is not half bad for Necromancy… also the Necroccultist Occultist has some really nice abilities for necromancy and being a psychic spellcaster gives you some extra versatility with your casting…

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wonderstell wrote:
Oh and yes, Mark did not say whether or not a "no effect" touch attack is allowed to be made or not. That's the important part. He didn't say it wasn't allowed, but instead assigned the decision to individual GMs.

That is NOT what he said… what he said comes across as “it is not really allowed by the rules, but if a GM wants to allow it, this is how I would rule it”.

When someone says something along the line of “if a GM want to allow it,” that doesn’t mean “its not not allowed,” it means “its not intended to be allowed, but if you want too…”

MrCharisma wrote:

Honestly, even if that interpretation were correct it wouldn't explicitly follow that allowing iterative touch attacks would automatically allow Spellstrike to target touch AC.

Spellstrike is still specifically a Melee attack, not a Touch attack. You would be able to use your offhand to try to touch an enemy between attacks if you wanted to, but this would not use the weapon's reach, critical threat range or enhancement bonuses (or anything else for that matter), making these "Touch attacks" nothing to do with the Spellstrike ability.

I’m not sure this is entirely correct… you are probably right about crit threat range and enhancement bonuses as well as any other bonuses or effects applied to the weapon itself… however reach is an entirely different story. If you deliver a touch spell through a reach weapon, there is nothing preventing you from using the full reach of the weapon. Its no different than a witch with prehensile hair delivering touch spells at 10ft reach, or casting long arm on yourself to get reach.

That aside… it isn’t entirely clear if a magus can in fact deliver a touch spell as a touch attack through their weapon, though the wording of spellstrike does seem to heavily imply that they can.

For an ability that affects spells to apply to a spell-like ability the spell-like ability must directly replicate a specific spell, and the ability being applied to it must specifically affect the replicated spell.

Kinetic blast does not fit this criteria.

Empowered spell does NOT add dice. It multiplies the result of the dice rolled and any modifier applied to that roll by 1.5… Intensify Spell adds dice rolls. Also this is Pathfinder NOT dnd 3.5, do NOT apply Sages FAQ to empower, adding Xd3 when you normally roll Xd6 is from that and does not apply here.

So long as they aren’t trying to use it to get more uses per day out of the chalice everything checks out. The chalice still only works once per day.

bbangerter wrote:
Question for you: If I qualify for sneak attack damage, does my sneak attack damage get multiplied by 50% on an empowered flame blade?

Sneak attack is NOT a bonus yo any roll. Sneak attack is explicitly extra damage and its own separate roll from the damage it is attacked to. So no, sneak attack would not be multiplied. Nice try though.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
More specifically the of is being ignored. If it said “All variable, numeric effects to an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls”, that would make it clear that it would include any bonuses including those from external sources. The word of can be interpreted as being part of the spell, which is what we are saying.

No. I am in no way shape or form replacing the word “of” with “to” or ignoring the meaning of that word. It is 100% clear that the variable numeric effect must be from the spell, but that is the ONLY thing that must be from the spell. Do note, it doesn't say “including bonuses of that roll” it says “including bonuses to that roll”. Bonuses is also plural, implying there can be multiple.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
@Chell Raighn I can understand your reading of the feat but disagree with it. RAW is not clear on this point so as Diego Rossi states no developer is going to respond with a clarification, nor is the FAQ going to be clarified. This means it is going to be up to the GM to determine what is RAW in their campaigns.

Except ya’ll aren’t arguing RAW. Ya’ll are arguing a possible RAI, but without and dev input it’s nothing more than your opinions on what the RAI is. I am arguing hard RAW. By RAW it does not matter where the bonus comes from. The RAW states in black and white “including bonuses to that roll”. Inspire courage is a bonus to weapon attack and damage rolls. Flame blade is a weapon spell and benefits from inspire courage. Because inspire courage grants a bonus to the damage roll of flame blade an empowered flame blade will multiply that bonus by RAW. Is this RAI? I don’t know, maybe not, but it is RAW.

This is not an interpretation, it is exactly what it says to do. Your reading is an interpretation. To get your result, restrictions that do not exist in the wording of the feat are added. To get my result you apply the feat exactly as it is written, no additions, no subtractions, no replacements… just the exact wording as written.

AwesomenessDog wrote:
@Chell, Another way to look at is would say a scimitar Fighter who dipped 3 levels into druid because they *really wanted* a touch to hit without burning +4 special abilities to get a worse version in brilliant weapon. Should their weapon training, weapon specialization, etc. also apply to the empower effect even though they have nothing to do with the power of the scimitar itself but in the wielder's skill with it?

If they are using an empowered flame blade, then yes. Weapon training, weapon specialization, etc are bonuses too the roll and are RAW affected by empowered spell metamagic. Its no different than a magus using weapon specialization [ray] and casting an empowered scorching ray. The bonus from weapon specialization would be multiplied by 1.5 as well.

The FAQ doesn’t point any more in your direction than it does in mine. The FAQ on this literally does nothing. It was a question about something that a people could answer for them selves by actually reading the full feat and not stopping halfway through the first sentence.

Does empowered cure light multiply the CL bonus? Well lets see… is it a bonus to the empowered roll? Yes? Then yes it multiplies it. The answer was literally already in the feat and in no uncertain words. The part people have constantly had issues with is “what exactly is a variable, numeric effect”. If you try to look up any information on the topic of this thread you will find a lot of discussions and arguments about what is and isn’t a variable numeric effect.

Unless you can find a quote from a dev, FAQ, or anything even remotely official that directly supports your claim, the RAW is not on your side. By RAW, if it is a bonus to the empowered roll then empower spell multiplies it.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Empower Spell: If I use Empower Spell on a spell that has a die roll with a numerical bonus (such as cure moderate wounds), does the feat affect the numerical bonus?

Yes. For example, if you empower cure moderate wounds, the +50% from the feat applies to the 2d8 and to the level-based bonus.

The FAQ does not address this both the question and answer are talking about bonuses that are part of the spell. In fact the answer specifies that it increases the level based bonus. Nowhere in the FAQ does it mention any other bonuses that are not part of the spell.

Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

The wording of the feat is that it increases the numeric variables of the empowered spell. To me that suggests it only affects the spell itself not anything else. RAW are not in fact clear on this point.

Stop ignoring this line.

Empowered Spell wrote:

Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.

Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. An empowered spell uses up a spell slot two levels higher than the spell's actual level.

Diego Rossi & Mysterious Stranger, you are both in homerule territory… RAW it empower spell doesn’t care where the bojus modifiers come from. Your reading might by RAI, but unless you can find a statement from a dev in that regard its purely your opinion. Per RAW you are wrong.

They can qualify for and take the feat so long as one of their forms has three or more natural attacks, but they do not gain its benefits when in a form that has fewer than 3 natural attacks.

Diego Rossi wrote:

This is how I think it works:

We should look at what each bonus does:

Let's start with the metamagic:
"Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls."
So it affects the spell and the modifiers to the spell, but not the modifiers to the weapon damage you do when you use the spell.

a) Inspire Courage, Good Hope, and similar abilities: they add their bonus to the weapon damage rolls, not to the spell. The Flame blade is a weapon, so it applies, but it applies after the spell damage is determined.
They are not multiplied.

b) A sorcerer Orc and Draconic (fire or gold) Bloodlines, and similar abilities: they increase the spell damage, so they are multiplied.ù

c) Flame Blade Dervish: "You add your Charisma modifier to damage rolls with your flame blade". Again, an ability that adds to the weapon damage, not the spell effect.
So, it is not multiplied by Empower spell.

The chances for a reply from one of the developers are around 0, so you (Visandrix ) can look at what other people and I say and speak with your GM. Your GM interpretation is the final answer.

Incorrect. Read the metamagic feat again.

“Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of an empowered spell are increased by half including bonuses to those dice rolls.
if inspire courage adds a bonus to the dice roll that is affect by empowered spell, then it is multiplied. The charisma bonus with flame blade dervish is a bonus to the damage rolls with flame blade, an empowered flameblade would multiply it.

The variable numeric effect must be from the spell for empowered spell to affect it, but it doesn’t care what the source is for additional bonuses, only that those bonuses are to the affected roll. This means that weapon spells multiply ability modifiers and inspire courage, but spells that add extra dice to a weapon only multiply those extra dice if empowered. This is because the affected roll for a weapon spell is the entire damage roll, but the affected roll for something like sun metal is only the extra fire damage.

You 100% can wear multiple magic items that take up the same item slot, but you can not gain benefit of more than one… with rings think of it this way… sure you can wear a magic ring on each finger, but only the ones on your ring fingers impart any magical effects on you, the rest lack sufficient access to the flow of magical energy within your body to function. And if you think “i’ll just wear multiple rings on my each ring finger them”… only the first ring functions… (note: this is not actually how it works, but this is a logical representation of rules for visualization, the actual rules are open ended on the exact world mechanics for why only 2 rings work.)

For creatures with extra arms, only their primary set of arms is capable of utilizing magic item slots unless the race has an ability that explicitly lets them access additional item slots..

Temperans wrote:

Wizard is the gifted kid at the orphanage that likes science (Meet the Robinsons).

Magi is the kid that was trying all the dumb moves everyone else though was crazy.

Nah… thats the Alchemist… and the Vigilante…

Assuming no use of magic items, and that its not a monstrous companion… the only way I can see for an animal companion to have a 7 int is the Precocious Companion archetype… and even then only after character level 14… by which point power level of players should be high enough that it honestly doesn’t even matter if you let them allow their per full autonomy as an intelligent creature or require them to still direct them as usual…

If they have an int of 7 through a magic item much earlier in levels… it may make them more intelligent and understand things easier, but they are still not fully sentient.

If they are a monstrous companion that started with a higher int, like gryphons… consult the monster entry.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:
maguses (it is the correct plural of magus?)

One Magus, many Magi.

There are three typical outcomes you can regularly expect from thr orphanage… Paladin, Monk, or Rogue… though on occasion a future Paladin might turn out to be an Antipaladin instead…

Diego Rossi wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:

I would love to know what book you’re finding an archetype for magus that allows for the use of natural weapons… there are three different (realistically only two, since two of the three are almost identical) unarmed combat archetypes… but none for natural weapons…

Probably I was misremembering some third-party material that I have seen.

And thinking that this FAQ wasn't simply covering all the possibilities, even if none exist in the Paizo books:

FAQ wrote:

Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
posted April 2013 | back to top

The FAQ does clarify that Claws and Slams don’t require the Natural Spell Combat arcana to be used with spell combat… though the other FAQ about multiple weapons makes it clear that you don’t get to use them in addition to spell combat… they must be used as your main-hand attack, and still follow your normal limitations for natural weapons… which makes using natural weapons for spell combat a horribly ineffective choice… natural spell combat grants the chosen natural attack in addition to your normal attacks, which is better… but an arguably terrible use of arcana… I’d love to play a natural weapon magus, but sadly its not possible without burning multiple arcana on natural spell combat… and more often than not would be better off using a weapon or taking an unarmed archetype…

Diego Rossi wrote:
None of that works for the Magus, unless he takes one of the archetypes that allow him to use spell combat with natural weapons. As we have already seen the Natural Spell Combat arcana is limited to wereshark-kin.

I would love to know what book you’re finding an archetype for magus that allows for the use of natural weapons… there are three different (realistically only two, since two of the three are almost identical) unarmed combat archetypes… but none for natural weapons…

And as others have pointed out multiple times now… Natural Spell Combat is NOT wereshark exclusive. Members of absolutely any race can qualify as “those who associate with [weresharks and wereshark-kin].” It basically just says give a reason why your character might have been able to learn this. You need only have associated with ONE wereshark or wereshark-kin in your life to qualify… perhaps you met one in your youth while visiting a far away island with your family… if you associated with one ever, then the arcana is available.

Julien Dien wrote:

CRB 83: Familiars treat Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim as class skills.

Familiars retain their own creature types' class skill, and get the above 6 as additional class skills, right? It doesn't means "instead".

1) Familiars are Magical Beasts not Animals. Improved familiar prevents type change to magical beast if the original creature type was not animal.

2) familiars get all class skills of their creature type.

3) the skills listed in the Familiar features are class skillls for all familiars regardless of creature type in addition to their normal class skills.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I'm not sure what the point of this current derail is about.

Me neither brother.

UnArcaneElection wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
<Spell Combat requires a 1 handed weapon>
I see this as being indeterminate, because the Magus text (from 2011) was obviously written without consideration of somebody having more than 2 hands.
Spell Combat also references TWF, which generally doesn't allow 2-handed shenanigans. Honestly, I basically agree with you but I think RAW it's not allowed. RAI who knows, but RAF (Rules As Fun) I'd allow it.

Its the otherway around though… RAW it is allowed, RAI is still unknown though. The wording is open ended enough that it doesn’t actually shut down two-handed attacks with one-handed weapons if you have 3 or more hands. It does still firmly shut down using more than one weapon though, and the FAQ backs up the only one weapon ruling. The FAQs are silent on use of extra hands though.

Two-handing a one-handed weapon with an extra hand meets all requirements and restrictions of spell combat.
Do you have a free hand with which to cast a spell? Yes
Are you using a light or one-handed weapon? Yes
Is the weapon in your other hand? Yes
Are you using only one weapon? Yes
Are there any more explicit requirements or restrictions? No

Also, for the record, a super strict reading of spell combat treats the free action attack from touch spells (and by extension spellstrike) as an off-hand attack. The spell cast is an off-hand attack, therefore any attacks made as part of the casting of said spell are also off-hand attacks. For most spells this is meaningless, but it does mean spellstrike with spellcombat is supposed to be at half str. Spellcombat lacks the wording included in flurry of blows that removes offhand damage penalties, and it does explicitly call out the spell cast as being an off-hand attack. I doubt there is a single table that applies the rules this strictly though.

Strictly RAW, spellcombat does not prevent two-handed attacks with one-handed weapons if you have extra limbs, and spellstrike with spellcombat is an offhand attack. RAI, these both may be unintentional or intentional we simply don’t know.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
To someone playing that Fighter, it definitely feels like their Magus ally casting Arcane Mark is getting an extra attack.
How many fighters will be happy to trade one of their class abilities for "You can take a full round action that allows you to make all your attacks with one weapon and an extra attack at full BAB, but all your attacks suffer a -2 to hit and when using this ability you are limited to one-handed weapons used in one hand"?

Minor nitpick here… but otherwise I agree with everything you just said… the limitation of spell combat isn’t “a one-handed weapon used in one hand”. It is a light or one handed weapon with an empty off-hand. It doesn’t actually strictly limit you to one-handed attacks, although under most circumstances the limitations as written will result in only being able to use one-handed attacks. A character with extra hands or a prehensile limb that counts as a hand can in fact by RAW use spell combat while wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands. It does still limit you to only one weapon, and you still can’t use it with actual two-handed weapons, but any weapon classified as one-handed is perfectly usable with spell combat when used in two hands provided you still have a free hand. Using a free action to take a hand off a weapon doesn’t work here either because spell combat requires a free hand for the entire action and only permits that free hand to be used to cast a spell.

You won’t be able to get any more attacks with a manufactured weapon this way than you would have normally with spell combat, but… you can use those extra arms to use tour weapon two-handed provided it was a on-handed weapon to start with, since spell combat explicitly calls for the use of a “light or one-handed melee weapon”. Using a one-handed weapon in two-hands is still attacking with a one-handed weapon. Natural spell combat only allows you to add extra natural attacks to your normal spell combat attacks.

Natural Spell Combat (Ex) (Blood of the Moon pg. 21) wrote:
The magus can use his spell combat class feature with a natural attack of his choice. If he does, he gains a +2 bonus on concentration checks. If the natural attack is made with an appendage that would normally hold a weapon (such as a claw attack), the magus cannot wield a weapon in that appendage while making natural attacks with it. If the natural attack is a bite or other attack that does not require a free appendage to make, the magus can use the natural attack in addition to all of the attacks he could make with his melee weapon, if he has one. A magus can select this arcana more than once. The bonus on concentration checks does not stack. Each time he selects this arcana, he selects another natural weapon. For example, a magus could select this arcana twice, choosing claw attacks and bite attacks. This would allow him to use a full-round action to make all of his claw attacks with his free hand and all of his bite attacks in addition to casting a spell. This arcana otherwise functions exactly like the spell combat class feature.

A few things to note here… it only lets you add natural weapons, if you have a manufactured weapon in that a hand with a claw attack you cannot add it, and natural spell combat in claws actually allows you to make a claw attack with the hand that was used to cast a spell.

Also, the very last line of the arcana is rather interesting as it implies natural spell combat is not just an arcana that adds to spell combat, but a whole separate spell combat ability entirely… which may have some unintended implications with a few archetypes that don’t normally get spell combat…

TxSam88 wrote:
The shield also has to be hung from the belt, then drawn and thrown to cause the blinkback to work. having the shield clasped somewhere else would not activate the blinkback belts ability.

Very true… and unless you properly clasp the shield it doesn’t provide its free action unclasp.

Even if whirlwind attack didn’t stop this dead in the water or you picked a different tactic to start the combat maneuver chain… Combat Style Master isn’t the feat you wan’t for this combat manuever chain. You want Weapon Style Master.

You only get the free bullrush while using Smashing Style, if you switch styles before the bullrush you nolonger get the bullrush. You need to be in bullette style before the bullrush to benefit from it as well… switching with combat style master doesn’t work for the interaction you want, but two style simultaneous through weapon style master does. Smashing style requires weapon focus so if qualifies as weapon style.

It should also be noted that a throwing shield is an exotic weapon made through the use of an armor mod and considered a modified weapon, as such it is subject the the rules of modified weapons… meaning, they don’t automatically gain proficiency just by being proficient with shields…. Not that shield proficiency actually even applied to using a shield as a weapon in the first place… shield proficiency from classes is an Armor Proficiency, not a weapon proficiency… the weapon proficiency for most shields is Martial Weapon.

As Temperans suggested, the Conductive weapon enchantment can be highly useful with your build… conductive chakrams would let you channel your mystic bolts into every attack starting at 5th. If you somehow got conductive chakrams before that then 1 attack per round can add your mystic bolt damage. You said you chose Acid and Electricity as your current elements, and you get a 3rd element at 13th… I’d recommend Ice since fire immunity is so common from what you’ve said… and from what little I’ve played of Shattered Star it was hinted at that devils and demons will play a big part, so fire and electricity immunities are the biggest problems going forwards… and some things may be immune or highly resistant to acid… but Cold is something you should find fairly reliable in that campaign… though the low damage of Mystic Bolts is easily shut down by a mere 5 resistance… (1d6+1/4Lv = 8.5 average at 20th)

They most certainly mean denied dexterity… since the common tactic to ignore mirror image is to close your eyes (therefore willing accepting the blind condition)… which if applied properly means you are blind until the start of your next turn.

Name Violation wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:
More accurately Medium & Bloodrager have full CL, while Paladin, Antipaladin, & Ranger are the explicit exceptions as noted in their Spells class features.
I don't know if "exceptions" is right either. The core classes are copied from 3.5, so they have that CL-3 spellcasting. The newer classes didn't see an advantage to wasting text on that semi-confusing limitation.
In 3.5 the CL was half level IIRC

Indeed it was…

3.5 Paladin wrote:
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level.
3.5 Ranger wrote:
Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is one-half his ranger level.

Name Violation wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
If that is the way your GM wants to run it that is fine, but RAW they are 3 levels behind.


bloodragers are specifically and exception

ranger class wrote:
Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3.

More accurately Medium & Bloodrager have full CL, while Paladin, Antipaladin, & Ranger are the explicit exceptions as noted in their Spells class features.

Mediums get cantrips starting at level 1 and advance their CL from there. Bloodragers have their bloodline powers and gain a CL at first to support their bloodline. Even the Child of Acavna and Amaznen archetype of fighter gets full CL from their cantrips starting at 2nd, though they start with no CL at 1st they are CL2 at 2nd level.

It would give you some real use out of feint… but its still ultimately not very useful… the feat investments required to get not only a high enough feint that you can reliably pull it off as well as to get the action cost and down and feint duration up enough to make it good is pretty heavy…

Until now I thought Skald had full BAB…

ForsakenM wrote:
As for Mr. Rizz (cringe I know, sorry), I dig the math but MAN does the math not dig me. In a different PF1 campaign with a different DM, I rolled under 10 back-to-back in a battle where the AC to hit was like 22 or something. This is why I stress out sometimes about trying to either min-max at least my to-hit bonuses or just play a caster because rolling poorly consistently in combat feels awful. I don't remember, but my first PFS character was a gnome alchemist and I'm pretty sure my to-hit with my bombs at 3rd lvl was fairly high.

Funny thing about probability calculations… they are purely theoretical… probability calculations assume all variables are equal, which in reality the variables are rarely ever equal. Take the classic coin toss, you have a 50% chance of getting either heads or tails, but if you flip the coin slightly higher or slightly lower on different tosses the result can actually be changed increasing the probability of one side over the other. The same thing happens if you change how you flip the coin to get more or fewer flips. Which side is up at the start of toss, if you catch snd flip before the reveal, if you catch it in the air or let it hit the floor… every single variable factors into the final result and can skew that 50% chance heavily in one direction or another. The same is true with dice as well… even funnier though, probability with dice actually breaks down even more when all variables are actually equal too… if you could perfectly duplicate a roll from the starting position of the dice, the number of shakes, how heavily they are shaken, how many times and in what directions the die roll in your hand or cup, the number of bounces, direction if the roll, down to the distance of the roll… you’d always get the same exact result, every time.

Probability with digital dice rollers is even more unreliable since the moment a random number generator enters the equation all results are predetermined to a certain degree and don’t follow standard probability for anything.

ForsakenM wrote:

Wow, this thread really did stay active after I said I had moved on since the second page of this thread, that's wild. I figured that since I agreed to disagree while stating I have much less PF1 experience than pretty much everyone here, that would have been the end of it. It seems there are a couple of folks that agree with me though, partially or in whole, which is cool I guess.

I want to post some stuff about my character here for people to analyze and understand my position/figure out what I may have done wrong in the creation process.

~First off, this campaign is set currently in a frozen wasteland area with very few successful civilizations and lots of danger in just traveling alone. It grim-dark, and in just three battles we fought a group of goblins with a shaman that used a blood tsunami spell of some sort; a smoke haunt that nearly made us sweat to death just trying to fight it; and some evil Bogeyman guy with crazy fear powers and a bunch of amalgamated children made faux flesh golems as his lackeys. I've learned that I can't be running around with low AC and HP naturally my next character is a frail Witch. More on that in another post.

~Tonga was a 2nd lvl Aphorite Magus whose final stats (so including rolls and racial bonuses and everything like that, in order of STR to CHA) were 18, 13, 15, 18, 13, 10. Her entire character was that she was an 8ft tall 300 lb crystalline woman who was raised by a volcanic dwarf, which lead her to be an exceptionally tough and talented blacksmith. Her call to adventure was to protect people and learn how to fight in different environments, with the goal that as she traveled she would make weapons that benefitted each community in her travels so that mortals had a better chance of survival in the harsh conditions, and her innate magical ability was something she was learning to adapt into her blacksmith work by studying various types of magic and magic...

I agree that classes shouldn’t be designed to punish players or prevent them from actually playing the class at low levels… and I’ve voiced this opinion many times regarding spellcasters (a very sinple fix for which is to give all primary spellcasting classes at least 3 bonus 1st level spell slots at level 1)…

however, as you’ve identified, your choice to put one of your rolls of 16 into int with a +2 racial rather than putting the 13 there and bumping your dex to 16 very well could have negatively impacted your experience by making you squishier than you should have been. And while Magus does get some benefits from high int, they really aren’t significant enough to sacrifice other stats for, and most of them you have to choose to gain as an arcana.

Combat casting is more beneficial on magus than most spellcasters, but it’s ultimately not necessary even for them and just a wasted feat… and power attack is a good feat, for full BAB classes… 3/4 BAB classes however struggle to make good use of it… especially at low levels… Magus would be better served with Arcane Strike at level 1-5 than power attack… power attack really isn’t worth it till BAB 4+ which for Magus is level 6…

Matthew Downie wrote:

I tend to assume all the images are in the character's own space. After all, it still works the same when the character is trapped in a box.

But as for the 'close your eyes' trick, I say you have to close your eyes for a full round and suffer all the penalties of blindness for that time.

I can actually agree with this… if you close your eyes to avoid it, you are willingly accepting the blind condition for the entire round. You shouldn’t gain the benefits if you are unwilling to accept the penalties.

AwesomenessDog wrote:

@Chell, I'm not sure if the example you made follows the "shooting while blind" rule either, where in you miss-perceive something so you don't get to "needle in a haystack" pick out your target, but simply choose the closest target in a general direction, roll your concealment chance, and then get to roll against whatever you happened to shoot at, friend or foe, real creature or image.

There's also still my point earlier, because while yes you can make a downward slash that will only barely trim off a bit of a would be target/image's flesh, a more obvious to be useful (at least in theory) attack would be sideways or at least diagonal (or even a thrust to center of image cluster) so you could cut through every image until you hit your target, but the game does not allow this and somehow the insubstantial images are enough to stop an attack outright. (Side point, this is also part of why X months back when I asked if illusory wall should be "solid enough" to stop someone who didn't disbelieve from just walking through. Because if a lower level figment spell can stop a violent and intentional force, why couldn't a higher level one stop a much calmer attempt to walk through a wall?)

An illusory wall would in fact prevent someone who failed to disbelieve it from simply walking through. The illusion is tactile, meaning you can in fact touch it, and it feels real. While illusions may not be mind-affecting, they still play off deceiving a targets mind and perceptions. If you believe it to be real, then you do so in every way. When you reach out to touch the wall to see if it really is there, your mind tells you it is and you feel a real solid wall despite the fact that there is no solid matter there. If you disbelieved it however, your hand would pass through because your mind isn’t telling you that something is definitely there… if you were pushed into the wall, ran at it, or jumped into it however, you would pass through regardless because your false perception cant stop external momentum from throwing you through the wall. Simply walking or touching however, you would encounter resistance as your mind creates a real object where there is none.

If you want a RAW quote for that, it is simply the fact that the illusion is tactile. An illusion cannot be tactile unless it is either partially real (shadow) or creates a tactile resistance within the mind of those who are affected. Which, some might argue should mean illusions with tactile touch must be mind-affecting… but really they don’t… there are plenty of optical illusions in reality that create tactile sensations that aren’t actually real.

Matthew Downie wrote:
Why the image can only be destroyed when you have your eyes open is harder to explain; I have to fall back on, "because magic".

Actually have an argument against the popular belief that you can aim at a target affected by mirror images, close your eyes, and then attack to ignore the images… the fact that your eyes were open when you aimed means you are in fact still affected by the illusion… you picked a target to swing at or shoot with your eyes open, just because you closed your eyes before making the attack doesn’t negate the fact that you may have already been targeting a fake. To illustrate this better, imagine a wizard created 8 illusory copies of themself with a silent image spell, each copy occupies a different space on a 15ft square area. The wizard and his copies start running around those spaces randomly and then stop. You pick one to attack and then close your eyes before you make your attack, do you now automatically target the real wizard? Of course not, you still attack the one you chose before you closed your eyes, real or not. This situation doesn’t actually change with mirror images. Unless you are blind for the entire aiming process, you are subject to mirror images.

Melkiador wrote:
It's reasonable to assume that if you occupy more than one square then the images also occupy those squares. Don't try to game it or logic it too hard. The spell makes attacks against the target miss based on 1 out of x copies chances. Any interpretation that doesn't lead to that result is almost certainly wrong.

Its also reasonable to assume that mirror images are constantly shifting places merging and unmerging with one another as well as with the caster themselves… thus slightly distorting attackers causing them to swing too shallow, too far to the left or right, or overreach and swing past the actual target… mirror images don’t have substance to them, they function by misleading an attacker’s perception… they images don’t even have to surround the caster, nor is the casrwr necessarily standing still, the caster can very easily be taking small steps and moving as if they too were an illusory image standing to the left one moment and the right the next… the more images there are, the harder it can be to pin down the real one.

MrCharisma wrote:
Running out of spells: Regardless of your thoughts on my choice of spell (it seems like you were thinking Snowball her, but no matter) the Dervish Magus, the Shocking Grasp Magus, the Strengh Magus, the non-Dervish Dex Magus all have the same number of spells, so they'll all have problems running out. None of them have any better or worse time with this than each other. If you're really worried about this, try plying an INT-Magus, you'll have more spells and more Arcane Pool to play with. Regarding Frostbite, this spell lasts 1 hit per level, to a maximum of 1 round per level. This means it will last an entire combat if you need it to, thus saving you spell slots. This at least could get you away from the "cookie cutter builds you seem to see too often.

In one of their replies to one of my earlier posts they did say that the Kensai archetype IS the cookie cutter dervish dance dex magus… so… apparently their overpowered dex magus is more limited in spells due to both diminished spellcasting and replacing spell recall… but that should be a point against the Dex magus…

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You don't seem to be arguing that the Dervish Dance Magus is a good build (which I would agree with), or even that its the Best build (which I would disagree with but still understand). You're arguing that its the Only viable build -

Repeatedly refuted word for word.

Other builds are certainly VIABLE. The thing is that they are the worse without being substantially different (The gun magus would be too different to really be comparable)

It's not that other builds aren't viable enough to be played, I just consider it bad class design if there is one cookie cutter build and any deviation from that is just getting worse.

You keep making this claim but you can’t prove it or back it up. It has just been YOUR personal experience that dervish dance magus is “the one and only cookie cutter build” for magus and YOU personally have seen it played in games you’ve participated in a lot. The rest of us have had a very different experience. I’ve rarely actually seen Dex magus played. I’ve heard it discussed a lot on theory crafting boards, but in actual play it has almost always been Str magus. Its no different than the previously mentioned “god tier divination wizard”. People theory craft and discuss how amazing it is, but it isn’t actually played that often.

Think about this for a second too… you are arguing your view and not just one or two people are saying your wrong, but almost everyone who’s posted in this topic are. If dervish dance dex magus were as overplayed as you claim it to be don’t you think you’d have more support in this argument? Based on what we’ve all been saying, you have had the minority experience on this.

Just to be perfectly clear here… the issue isn’t that you believe dervish dance dex magus to be “the only magus build” or anything like that… the issue is that you are arguing it as a fact when it is your personal experience and opinion. It isn’t a fact. We’ve all had different experiences on this and none of us can say for certain what is “the fact of the matter”. We can all only give out opinions and experiences and let eachother decide for ourselves what we believe to be the fact.

AwesomenessDog wrote:

Just be a low (<8) dex bloodrager (you dont need AC anyway) and carry around a +1 agile dagger, use it to deal 2d4+2enhancement-4dex for an average of 3 damage or max of 6, take improved greater fortitude and stop using your crit ability after your have to spend the reroll on a 1 for the day. With some of the DR bloodrager gets you're basically losing nothing but a very unlikely but still possible 1:399 chance of double nat 1'ing and dying as you wrench the dagger into your guts to apparently get some an extra +3 str mod.

Like this is the only way this ability really gets any consistent, (in)sane use.

They would need Weapon finesse… or the training enchantment with weapon finesse for that to work…

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do make note though… what has been stated above is all general rules. If the ability or item that grants the insight bonus to AC says anything about being lost when you are denied your dexterity, that takes precedence.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Chell Raighn wrote:

Ideally you want to target Str18+, Dex16, Con12+, Int16, Wis10+, Cha dump.

Depending on your point but, stat array, or dice roll luck this may be easy or hard. To hit those numbers exact you need a 35 point buy, which I know most games will not do.

Yeah.. do you think your expectations of an unreasonably high point buy, 10 full points above what the rulebook calls Epic fantasy, a point buy the books don't even LIST might be skewing the value of a MAD class contracting its ability score needs a fair bit?

And you didn't think that the assumption was worth mentioning when you "Ran the numbers" on their respective ACs?

Do you know what a target value is? Its not necessarily the value you start with, but it is the values you are aiming for. Your starting values should be as close to those targets as you can comfortably get with your point buy, array, or dice rolls. Did I in any way state that it is a reasonable expectation to start with those exact stats? No, quite the contrary I straight up stated most groups are not going to get these stats right away since a 35pt buy is highly unlikely. So I gave a rough 20pt buy that comes close.

Personally, I’m used to using a rather generous stat array… so I’m not very good at optimizing point buy… the group I play with has been running an array of 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8 for years… which on its own is equivalent to 32pt buy… Melkiador seems more accustomed to point buy so… lets use what they posted….

Melkiador wrote:

If you were optimizing for combat, I'd expect this 20 point array before racial modifiers:

STR 17 / DEX 14 / CON 13 / INT 14 / WIS 8 / CHA 7
Then level 4 ability increase in strength and level 8 in constitution.

Personally, I prefer something more well rounded like this:
STR 16 / DEX 14 / CON 12 / INT 14 / WIS 10 / CHA 8
With ability increases going to strength.

Using either of these point buys only lowers the AC numbers I gave for my str magus examples by 1… not a big deal at all, and by mid-late game you can still reach the target values easily enough.

Oh also… by what standards is a scimitar “the best weapon”? 18-20/x2 crit? Ok, str magus with exotic weapon prof estoc would like a word. Average roll of 5 from 2d4 vs average roll of 3.5 from 1d6. Both are one-handed weapons with 18-20/x2 crit. And one of them doesn't have to wait till 3rd level (or retrain a feat at 2nd as a human) to get their primary physical attribute to damage.

1 to 50 of 1,255 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>