I wouldn't use the lich in actual combat. It may be around casting Gates, creating undead etc., but a party of level 19's should give it some concern. I like the idea of the wraiths and using gate to summon very powerful critters. You have multiple avenues of attack you should exploit. Attack the defenders. Attack the populace. Attack the rulers of the city. Attack the city itself. Attack the PC's. I'd look at doing all of that all the while not revealing the lich itself. The lich may want to focus on wearing out the PC's (no 5 minute workday encounters) before thinking of engaging the players.
Keep fey foundling and use the favored class bonus to increase what's gained from lay on hands. Really you don't need anything else, Furious Focus is good, but you can pick it up later. I like armor of the pit a lot. Unsanctioned Knowledge is nice. Reactive Healing is solid - but if you buy lots of pearls of power, it's not really needed. Ultimate Mercy is good as is the lay on hands feat that lets you raise dead. All depends on the group make up though as far as what would work best for you. Radiant Charge could be awesome with a Smite and Litany of Righteousness.
A good GM will approach running a game like writing a story. Every character needs to have agency. Said good GM will write in scenes where the poor Aquaman will be able to shine and not feel like a sandwich maker. This might be backstory quests, roleplaying with certain NPC's, facing down a baddie in a duel, etc. The story needs to move forward without the player party's wizard's magic being the most pivotal thing. The emotions of the npc's and player characters should be defining, then the feelings of martial inadequacy are lessoned. Magic doesn't make a player heroic, what the player's doing that does. At the crux though, Pathfinder is a game about magic. It's everywhere. It's really hard to try and limit it/work around something that's inherent in the system and not cut large parts of the game out (e6/e8/spells).
Do a grammar check. You have lots of sentences that need revision. Poor grammar kills the credibility of your work.
It's not that the characters can't be well known, it's that the BONUS is applied within the confines of the renown. You can have a character be well known, but only the vigilante gets a bonus. The mechanical widget doesn't preclude other classes from being well known.
You could see if the GM would allow the Vigilante to qualify, or do Vivisectionist Alchemist. Three levels of either of those. Then take Rogue VMC and get 5d6 more sneak attack on top of the Trickster/Vigilante(Alchemist). 2d6 (Alchemist), 5d6 (Trickster), 5d6 (VMC Rogue) for 12d6 sneak attacks at 20th.
No reason not to combine all of them together. Give the players the toolbox to make the super hero type character they want. There is no point I can see to divide the Vigilante up into 2-4+ "specializations". If the point of the class is the dual personality thing, make that shine. As it stands now, the "specializations" are what's shining. One class, open up the talents. Make dual personality awesome.
Seems to be calculating shield AC and flat footed twice.Initiative (MISC) doesn't appear to be calculating.
Also, the build sheet is only for record keeping correct? Or is data pulled from it?
If all targets are flat footed / denied dexterity and the gloves damage effect hits the adjacent targets, is sneak attack applied?
The population problem could be funny in a game.
I'd like all the talents to be available to the base Vigilante and let the players decide what kind of mish-mash they want.
Also the amount of talents you have to dedicate toward spell casting is a bit much if they are keeping specializations. You get talents every two levels and it takes five talents to get full casting? So half your progression goes to casting.
Remove the specializations and just have the vigilante pick what it wants to do.
What would the secret identity do in an AP that matters? This is a major class feature and seems to do nothing of substance except impose limitations. I feel a major class feature shouldn't limit players, it should give options thematic to the class.
Chiming in about the primary, secondary, tertiary etc. part of the Medium. What purpose is it serving from a design standpoint? Is it to make each spirit interconnected with each other somehow? Something else? Perhaps if the designer would fill the community in on what the intent is, better suggestions can be offered up to assist with refining the class.
So, I'm looking to create a antagonist for my campaign, and would like to base it off 4e's Warden class. The hard as a rock, nature transforming, difficult terrain tank. Thoughts on how to pull this off as closely to the abilities the 4e version has?
I've seen thoughts on making it based off of a Barbarian, and Druid. While those classes certainly share some of the traits the Warden has, I'm unsure how to really build it out and not feel like I'm missing something. As this is a likely antagonist for my players, I'm open to building it via classes, templates on existing monsters, class levels on monsters etc.
Thanks for your time.
So, I figured I could use a sanity check here - the spells known for the Occultist:
1 spell from each spell level the Occultist is able to cast (1-6) for each school known?
So 7 schools (chosen from Abjuration, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Illusion, Necromancy, and Transmutation) by level 18.
Total spells know are 42. 6 from each school. 7 schools total.
6 spells being able to be swapped around by 20th level (5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20).
Is this correct, or did I miss something obvious?
Instead of abilities that mirror the Summoner, ones that have ties to the Ethereal Plane, the emotions of the Phantom, or perhaps Shadow Magic would be a nice twist. There are all sorts of fun things one could come up with as far as % real effects and the Spiritualist. I look at the Spiritualist as the ghost twins from the Matrix Reloaded.
That's going to be hard to do when so many of the abilities the class gets are direct mirrors of the Summoner.
Raphael Valen wrote:
hmm i have a question about the Soulbound doll, if i use a doll as the focus, what are the "familiar" limits? is it just the base Familiars i could use or is it any Familiar a wizard could have? lol just a question that passed my mind when re-reading the Soulbound doll section
I'd assume it would have the same limitations of any familiar as far as how far it can travel. It specifies "familiar", so any of those choices. Improved familiar would be out as far as my reading of it is concerned. So yes to a bat, no to an imp.
Perhaps the devs. decided to make the spell list in a sort of vacuum. Where they added what's most thematically appropriate. It would be nice to be able to customize the spell list. Also, it's unfortunate they are missing Greater Planar Binding. At end game, with all the spells they know, and abilities focused on binding, end up being much less useful if they are limited to 12hd creatures. No Gate either (but Summon Monster 9 is available). No Permanency either, which feels right for an artificer type character. I hate to say it, but Simulacrum seems to fit also. I'm mulling over in my head if the rote Summon Monster 1-9 really fits for them. I think the bindings are more appropriate. Perhaps they should learn true names like wizards do through their work binding creatures?
Something that might be interesting is having Occultists able to recharge items in a fashion similar to the Arcanist. Or use MP as charges.
Feats/MetaMagic - How do they apply to Focus/Resonant Powers? Is Servitor compatible with the summoning line of feats (Augment, Summon Good etc.)? Can you apply meta magic to the Evocation Powers (Ray, Blast, Shield)?
The more I look at the class, the more it feels it looses oomph at later levels. A 3/4 BAB class should have the option to build itself to be good in melee. A Summoner without the Eidolon and Summons is better in combat if you had focused on that angle. Armor and 3/4 BAB is just the chasis, we still need the engine, wheels etc. to do well.
Some people are either intimidated by the amount of options, or not confident that everyone will be able to make sense of all of them (ala how people make mistakes all the time with creating a legal Summoner's Eidolon) is my interpretation.
My only concern is that due to the huge amount of options, some will be outright bad, others to good and some utterly niche that will never see use.
Another point that kind of annoys me about the Occultist is that many of the resonant and focus powers are redundant with the spell list. For instance, he can invest 2 MF into a divination implement to get darkvision... or just take the darkvision spell with a transmutation implement. He can invest 4 MF in that divination implement to get a constant see invisibility... or just pick it as his divination spell. It's the same story with haste, fly, telekinesis, and so on. Because MF is such a scarce resource, it's almost always a better idea to take the spell, which leaves him with fewer useful focus powers to choose from.
The focus powers should be better than / more useful / role defining, than the spells. If the class ends up relying on spells because they are better than the class features (more useful to save the MF than spend on focus powers), why be an occultist?
Someone also brought up the lack of accuracy. That's something I noticed when I was looking at its spell list. I can't see how the Occultist can maintain a decent hit ratio without a spell to buff up it's accuracy. Either Heroism / Divine Power(Favor). For the most part, I like the spells on the spell list. I think the designer nailed the flavor of the class.
If this class may, or may not be, based on Harry Dresden - where is the "power in a pinch" that he displays? Dresden gets out of some hairy situations by digging deep into his emotions and unloading a Forzare, or surviving against crazy odds. A feature to emulate that may be interesting.
Burning MP to power weak magical attacks. I can't say I'm onboard with the expense to throw out a blast. It starts out expensive, but alright. Though it ends up lackluster. At 5th level you have say, 14 MP. It costs you 2 MP to use a 5d6 blast. 12d6 as a capstone attack? I can't imagine actually using this very much. I think this should be more akin to a Paladins Smite. Something awesome, to use in a pinch or vs. bosses and appropriately awesome.
Items mimicing enhancement bonuses. This is just a pet peeve of mine, class features mirroring enhancement bonuses. Or, as someone in the thread showed, WBL expense relief. I would prefer that the class features don't just supplement WBL expenses. It's boring to me to have another class be able to add +# as an enhancement bonus to stats as an example. I think people can do better, and come up with unique, thematically awesome powers that don't just mirror published spells/magical items.
edit - An example of what I consider an awesome ability that is unique to the class. Binding Circle. "If a living creature of the corresponding alignment steps inside it, the trap triggers
What are folks thoughts about the abilities that are pretty much mirrors of the Summoner's? I'd like the Spiritualist to have more unique abilities, not copies and close thematic mirrors to the Summoner. This isn't an archetype, it's meant to be a new class.
Shared with Summoner:
Bond Senses -> Bond Senses
The Phantom is a weaker Eidolon. The Spiritualist is a 3/4 BAB class, why not put some abilities in there that make use of that? I like that the Phantom isn't a natural attacking Ginsu machine, however I think the Spiritualist itself could use some more unique, class/role defining abilities. Perhaps tied to the emotional focus the Phantom has. As the two grow together, they take on shared emotional traits perhaps.
Can you Planar Binding / Ally a Phantom since it's a creature from the Ethereal Plane?
Outsider: An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane.
The Phantom is really feeling like a neutered Eidolon to me, though I get the impression it's meant to be different. I'd like to see a removal of the planar aspects of it and make it into something more unique.
Another note - The summoner never actually summons the entire entity represented by the Eidolon. The summoner pulls down an aspect of the creature. The actual creature this aspect comes from is un-classified, and who's home plane is never specified. The spiritualist is getting the entire Phantom entity, from a specific location. Seems open to more rules interpretation imo.
I have a question regarding the phantom residing on the ethereal plane. It states in the description that:
"The phantom forms a link with the spiritualist, who forever after either harbors the creature within her consciousness[b] or manifests it as ectoplasm or incorporeal essence." [...] "Fully
So, really, where is the Phantom living? In the mind of the Spiritualist, or on a plane? If it's on the Ethereal, and the spiritualist is on the material plane, without the Phantom manifested and an enemy jumps to the ethereal, what happens? Is the Phantom hovering over the place/point where the Spiritualist is on the material plane? Is it targetable? Can it be destroyed now? Can it be interacted with if you use Blink?
I don't see how something can reside in the mind of a creature and reside on the ethereal at the same time. I'd pick one or the other. Use the ethereal as an origin, but do away with potential abuse by stating the Phantom is driven back to the mind of the Spiritualist, not sent back to the Ethereal. It's not a Summoner who specializes in planar stuffs There are a lot of ways for characters to reach the ethereal pretty easily and having to deal with an ethereal remora without clear rules could be a pain in the rear.
Question for those more rule savvy than I.
1. If you cast summon monster (I-IX), and the creature picks up an item, would that item return with the summoned creature to its home plane once the spell duration ends? (I'm unsure on this one, I haven't found any rules pointing me one way or another)
2. Same scenario, except the creature is summoned via planar ally. (My thought is yes, due to the payment/bribe system in place)
3. Same scenario, except the create enters the material plane via gate. (My thought is yes, same as #2)
4. If you plane shift to a known entities location, hand over an item to it, then planar ally / somehow call it to the material, can it bring the item back with it? (My thought is yes, as you are face to face with the creature)
If there are other interesting ways for summoned / allied creatures to make off with things from the material plane, sing out. Much obliged.
I believe the rules provide this answer.
You have a section titled "Special Abilities" and one Titled "Magic".
Special Abilities states:
1. Extraordinary abilities are non-magical.
Taking those as RAW, lets move to the Magic Section and see how the rules work together:
"A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells."
Lets review the Special Ability section. Does that statement in quotations invalidate any rules as written? No, as written both sections exist in concert together.
Now, in the Magic section lets define (Su) as a spell. Lets look at the rules as written. Is there a contradiction? Yes. Special abilities ->#3 is now invalid/conflicting.
Don't forget, (Sp) makes the statement in the Magic->special abilities true no matter how we classify (Su). Also, something I think is important. All the rules being tossed around regarding how magic is working, is under sections specifically for "spells". I believe that that is an important distinction. They are not under "Magic Rules", they are under "stuff about spells". In my eyes, there is a difference between magic in Pathfinder and spells in Pathfinder.
So what's more likely? That an interpretation is correct, which invalidates the main section of rules governing special abilities, or that the interpretation is incorrect?
The special abilities are included in the Magic section to tell us, the consumer how they interact with various magical effects (dispell, provoking aops etc). They are not there to be defined. That's the province of the rule section devoted to the Special Abilities. Furthermore, if you look under Magic->Descriptors you'll see the following:
"Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on."
This is telling us in another location that special abilities are not spells. They are separate.
Taking it one step further and applying the logic I believe is being displayed, that special abilities, through virtue of being in the Magic section must be spells:
Lets take a look now at two common (Ex.) abilities. Blindsight and Blindsense. They both call out specifically they require Line of Effect. If special abilities are treated as spells because they are included in the Magic section, this would not be needed.
On d20pfsrd, or whatever Bestiary's you have available, search for (Su) abilities with Line of Effect, or Line of Sight. You'll find a number of them have that included in the ability. Why include it, if it's already working that way? The opposite would be the case, it would say it doesn't require Line of Effect or Line of Sight. Not that it does. Same with Abundant Step calling out it's to be treated as a spell. They are not spells and not subject to the spell rules unless it's spelled out in the (Su) description/effect data.
There are two choices, go with an interpretation which contradicts a rule as written, or go with RAW that works in harmony with everything written. I feel there are enough supporting examples of (Su) not being spells that upon examination, one should reach the same conclusion I did. That they obey only the rules their descriptions and effects specifically call out, otherwise they work as written.
On a note regarding the examples given above (Vrock, CR 25 Balor Lord): Nothing is contradicted rule wise going with what I'm asserting is correct regarding (Su) abilities. They are only tougher opponents. Maybe they are designed to be harder than originally thought?
Very tired, signing off.
James Risner wrote:
The magic section clearly tells us which by default follows LoS and LoE. Spells and Ranged attacks (bows etc). All spells and spell like abilities are subject to the spell rules.
I'm saying, because (Su) is specifically called out as NOT being spells, it is not subject to spell rules. UNLESS the description and/or effects say it is.
James Risner wrote:
Ok, lets look at these two (Su) abilities I'm making up. (I think I wrote em properly).
This (Su) power is stating it is a line. Therefor, it inherits the rules associated with lines, which are in the Magic section.
This (Su), you only have to see the target. It's clearly stating what it does, and what the targeting requirements are (Sight).
Line of effect matters on one, <edit> only seeing the creature for the the other. Seamantle blocks the LoE for the first one.
Another (Su) I'd like to point out. Abundant step. It's clearly calling out it is subject to spell rules by stating it's working "as if using the spell Dimension Door". In my eyes, there is a reason for these distinctions.
You have a vague statement, "A number of classes and creatures gain the use of special abilities, many of which function like spells." in a subsection of the Magic rules talking about Magic and Special Abilities interact. These special abilities are -> (Sp), (Su), (Ex) and Natural. If "many" function as spells, then some do not. Nothing calls out explicitly in that section which are considered spells, which are magical and which are not. It just states some of them are, and some are not.
You also have in a section devoted to Special Abilities, a clear statement, "Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like.". Extra-Ordinary is listed as "not magical". Spell like is listed as, "very much like spells". Taking (Su) as not being a spell, both statements are true. Taking (Su) as being a like a spell, the statement in the Special Ability section is false.
So, you're saying a vague statement is superseding a definite?
Pasha Cassius Ardolin wrote:
Everything you quoted is from the section titled "Spell Descriptions".
(Su) abilities are NOT spells.
Supernatural Abilities (Su):
Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). A supernatural ability's effect cannot be dispelled and is not subject to counterspells. See Table: Special Ability Types for a summary of the types of special abilities.
There is a differentiation between (Su) abilities, and Spells/ (Sp) abilities for a reason. (Su) abilities, by design are more powerful, and less constrained than spell casting. This is so the designers can create whatever cool magical powers they want to, without being stuck in the box that is called spell rules. (Su) abilities are meant to be the opposite of spells - unconstrained to start with, being limited by the creators intent and wording of the abilities. Spells on the other hand have loads of rules to them, and generally have to spell out if they deviate from them. Spells = explain how they are NOT limited. (Su) = explain how they ARE limited. Anything that dictates how the (Su) ability works, or is limited by, or what rules it is subject to, is found in the description and the effect of said (Su) ability. If they were meant to be spells, they'd be Spells, or (Sp) abilities.
A great example of an (Su) ability is Channel Energy (Su). Channel Energy is specifically called out in the magic rules to obey the [Spell Rules - Attacks], and in the effect portion of the ability, it is specifically described as a burst; which dictates how it can be used (obeys Line of Effect). If this was NOT spelled out, it would not follow LoE, and would plow through walls because it is an (Su) ability.
This same description/effect data is shown in the Dragon Breath (Su) quoted above. It's specifically called out it obeys Lines/Cones, and therefor, LoE. That's how hiding behind a wall helps you.
Is this pedantic arguing? No, it's exactly how (Su) abilities work per RAW. The abilities themselves dictate what rules apply to them outside of the following blanket rules:
These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
If someone can show me where in RAW (Su) abilities are bound by spell rules by default, I'll change my tune. As it stands, I'll repeat myself one last time -> (Su) are not spells. (Su) works as written per the descriptions and effects of each ability.
My only concession is that some (Su) abilities are invariably going to be poorly written, confusing, OP, and in need of GM fiat to fix them per the abilities RAI. One could follow a precedent set by a similar (yet more clearly written) (Su) ability (Channel Energy being referenced against another burst/AoE power). That's the prerogative of each GM and their table/group (aka House Rules). I don't think there needs to be a FAQ, though ultimately that will be determined by the community and developers.
It seems like you are willing to look at abilities that inherently are limited and per effect/description data, give it more flexibility without doing the opposite. Taking an inherently flexible ability and limiting it based on effect/description.
If a (Su) ability states it's a cone, it inherits all benefits and limitations. As there (to the best of my knowledge) only 1 set of rules pertaining to cones, burst etc., it's logical that the ability must obey said rules.
You appear to want a blanket rule for (Su) abilities. These abilities are to me designed to do stuff spells don't/can't do, so by design and intent they don't all inherent the rules that spells are forced to obey. Some (Su) abilities will conform to LoE, some won't. Some will be unclear due to poor wording. In all cases one has to read the descriptions and effects to determine what does and does not apply. Also rules for Pathfibder are spread out, sometimes in multiple locations.
I believe it's as I said. Take each (SU) ability, read the description and effect to determine if LoE is required. A (Su) to cast Scorching Ray, that clearly states "as the spell" would require LoE because it's mimicing a spell that is required to have LoE. An (Su) to understand languages shouldn't require LoE to understand spoken words. I think it's fair to say you can understand someone through a 4 inch hole in the door, or through a thin glass window. Both of which, per RAW, block LoE. Each (Su) needs to be looked at, because they are not spells.
As for scar, per raw it does require LoE to scar hex the target - it requires touch. Either by the target willingly being touched, or a touch attack. The effect of being able to deliver any hex the witch can cast within a 1 mile range happens after it's delivered, and it's clear what it's meant to do.
Pretty simple question, prompted by an argument that has annoyed me far to much.
Q1: After a target has been scarred by the Witch (either willingly, or via touch attack), does the Witch need "Line of Effect" in order to hit the scarred target with its Hexes (say healing hexes, or misfortune) within the effects stated 1 mile range?
The effect of the hex specifically states, "The witch can use her hexes on the scarred target at a range of up to 1 mile". My view is that this is to allow a Witch to hex people they don't have LoE on, or LoS. They met LoE/LoS by putting the Hex on the target in the first place, now the effect happens regardless. The entire point of the Hex is to be able to Hex targets within 1 mile, not within LoE.
This hex curses a single target touched with horrible scars of the witch’s choosing, whether something as simple as a single letter on the target’s forehead or blotchy, burn-like scars on his body.
Effect: The target may make a Will save to resist this hex. These scars do not interfere with the target’s senses or prevent it from using abilities, but may affect social interactions. The witch can use her hexes on the scarred target at a range of up to 1 mile, and she is considered to have a body part from the target for the purpose of scrying and similar divination spells. They persist through disguises and shapechanging.
The witch can withdraw this hex from a target as a move action at any range. The number of supernatural scars the witch can maintain at once is equal to her Intelligence bonus; once she reaches this limit, she must remove the scar from a current victim in order to mark another. Effects that remove curses can remove the scar.
Witch, Scar Hex: Does the scar hex (page 81) have any effect on the target's Diplomacy or other social skills, or any other effects?
The hex needs some clarification and a little bump.
First, the sentence "These scars do not hinder the target's actions or abilities in any way" is there to indicate that you can't scar over a target's eyes to make them blind, ears to make them deaf, or mouth and nose to keep them from breathing. However, large, visible scars may have a positive or negative effect for the target, depending on who he's interacting with--a tribal culture may see scarification as the mark of a deadly warrior, while the upper echelons of a decadent urban nobility may see scars as a sign of childhood poverty or general thuggishness. Rather than trying to present a system of game mechanics for all these possibilities, the GM should use the Fiat Rule (Core Rulebook page 403) to modify Bluff, Disguise, Diplomacy, and Intimidate checks as appropriate for interactions with the scarred target.
Second, the scar is a magical curse, and it should persist through changing shapes (lycanthropic, the change shape monster ability, polymorph spells, and so on).
Third, the hex needs a range. Touching the target to scar it is thematically appropriate, so the witch has to make a melee touch attack.
Fourth, the hex could benefit from a mechanical boost. Therefore, scarring a creature with the hex has two benefits: the witch can use any of her hexes on that creature at a range of up to one mile, and the witch is considered to have a body part from the target for the purpose of scry and similar divinations.
The book will be updated with these changes, though the exact wording will depend on the space available when the page is typeset.
Update: Witch scar hex, page 81, add notes about skill modifiers, shapechanging persistence, melee touch attack, increased range for other hexes, and scrying boost.