Gardner

Decorpsed's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 65 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Having played Keskodai at GenCon through 2 of the 3 scenarios, i can give the following observations from my play experience.

1.) Between his moderate Diplomacy skill and the Share Language spell he was an effective face. Especially when making first contact.

2.) Mind Blast does really good damage for its level. I managed to finish off a monster in one battle with an amount of damage that made the vesk soldier stand up and take notice.

3.) Having the Healing connection made using my spells for offense not seem detrimental to the parties survival.

4.) He made a passable Science Officer during space combat.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kevin Willis wrote:

Example:

Focus Weapon: Kukri
5th level: Weapon Training - light blades
6th level warpriest Bonus Feat: Weapon Specialization: Kukri
9th level Weapon Training - thrown weapons (whatever, really)
9th level warpriest Bonus Feat: Advanced Weapon Training - Weapon Specialist (Light Blades, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization)
Result is Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization with all light blades for the cost of one feat. Also now allowing Weapon Training to apply to all of them. But honestly - a fighter can do the same thing. And as pointed out above most characters focus on only one weapon. Shields don't share a weapon group with any of the high-crit weapons so even sword-and-boarders won't be gaining that much.

This path is potentially interesting for a Natural Weapon build


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Necroing this thread to post the FAQ for future searches.

It works how everyone hoped.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The only requirements for Weapon Focus are that you are proficient with the weapon and that you have a BAB of +1. Holy Book states that you are proficient with it, so i would think that Weapon Focus(Holy Book) should work.

It definitely seems to be in this odd grey area of "improvised weapon that's treated like a normal weapon" though. Is there any other precedent for something like this to compare against?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Decorpsed wrote:
xevious573 wrote:
The rules on combining weapons and natural attacks are present and very clear. If you really must get even more mystic bolts, strong arm your way into playing a kasatha or something.

Thank you for the clear examples. This helps illustrate why doing a conversion from Natural Attacks to Mystic Bolts would be a bad idea, but there is still no place that say you cannot do conversion. Once it is converted it is now a 1-handed light weapon attack that uses up a hand. So it has to play nicely with all of the examples you pointed out. In almost every example you're going to have already used up your existing hand attacks so the conversion is wasted. But the conversion itself is not prohibited.

An example:
At lvl 1 with a BAB of 0, 1 Gore and, 2 Stomp attacks you can do the following:

With only 1 weapon in main hand:
1 Gore (+0), 2 Stomps (-5/-5) Stomps are always Secondary
1 Mystic Bolt (+0), 1 Gore (-5), 2 Stomps (-5/-5) Melee Attack converted to Mystic Bolt
2 Mystic Bolts (-4,-13) (w/o TWF), 2 Stomps (-5/-5) Melee Attack and Gore converted to Mystic Bolt.
2 Mystic Bolts (-4,-13) (w/o TWF), 1 Gore (-5), 1 Stomp(-5) One of the Stomps is converted to a Mystic Bolt.
2 Mystic Bolts (-4,-13) (w/o TWF), 1 Gore (-5), One of the Stomps is converted to a Mystic Bolt and used the other is converted and lost because you're out of hands.
2 Mystic Bolts (-4,-13) (w/o TWF)All Natural attacks converted to Mystic Bolts and lost.

All Natural Attacks are Secondary because of using Mystic Bolts, which are 1 handed light melee weapons. The -5 COULD be -2 if you had MultiAttack, but is most likely -5. You can convert any number of the Natural attacks to Mystic Bolts but they are going to be lost because you are out of hands.

If you're using a weapon in the off hand it only gets worse since all of the conversions are wasted. This seems silly, and you're almost never going to want to do it, but it is allowed by the rules.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
xevious573 wrote:
The rules on combining weapons and natural attacks are present and very clear. If you really must get even more mystic bolts, strong arm your way into playing a kasatha or something.

Thank you for the clear examples. This helps illustrate why doing a conversion from Natural Attacks to Mystic Bolts would be a bad idea, but there is still no place that say you cannot do conversion. Once it is converted it is now a 1-handed light weapon attack that uses up a hand. So it has to play nicely with all of the examples you pointed out. In almost every example you're going to have already used up your existing hand attacks so the conversion is wasted. But the conversion itself is not prohibited.

An example:
At lvl 1 with a BAB of 0, 1 Gore and, 2 Stomp attacks you can do the following:

With only 1 weapon in main hand:
1 Gore (+0), 2 Stomps (-5/-5) Stomps are always Secondary
1 Mystic Bolt (+0), 1 Gore (-5), 2 Stomps (-5/-5) Melee Attack converted to Mystic Bolt
2 Mystic Bolts (-4,-13) (w/o TWF), 2 Stomps (-5/-5) Melee Attack and Gore converted to Mystic Bolt.
2 Mystic Bolts (-4,-13) (w/o TWF), 1 Gore (-5), 1 Stomp(-5) One of the Stomps is converted to a Mystic Bolt.
2 Mystic Bolts (-4,-13) (w/o TWF), 1 Gore (-5), One of the Stomps is converted to a Mystic Bolt and used the other is converted and lost because you're out of hands.
2 Mystic Bolts (-4,-13) (w/o TWF)All Natural attacks converted to Mystic Bolts and lost.

All Natural Attacks are Secondary because of using Mystic Bolts, which are 1 handed light melee weapons. The -5 COULD be -2 if you had MultiAttack, but is most likely -5. You can convert any number of the Natural attacks to Mystic Bolts but they are going to be lost because you are out of hands.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
xevious573 wrote:

Sigh. Natural Attacks can't benefit from Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Only BAB attacks can benefit from Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Magic Bolts can benefit from Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Ergo it follows BAB rules for the purpose of determining number of attacks.

Ultimate Intrigue pg60 wrote:
The warlock vigilante attacks with mystic bolts as though they were light one-handed weapons, and the bolts can be used for two-weapon fighting (with each hand creating one mystic bolt) and feats and abilities that apply to weapon attacks (unless they’re excluded from that feat, such as with Power Attack).
Take special note of the "one-handed weapon" bit. Now please stop trying to tie this thing to natural attacks.

Yes he attacks with the Mystic Bolt as a light weapon. But the Mystic Bolt starts out as a "normal attack" that is then converted into a Mystic Bolt attack. A conversion which does NOT have to take place. If you have 2 normal attacks you could convert the 1st into a Mystic Bolt attack at which point you resolve the attack as a Mystic Bolt and it is now a light weapon. Then you can still take your 2nd attack and NOT convert that attack. Leaving it to resolve as normal. There is no action to use the Mystic Bolt by itself, you have to take an attack action first and then convert it.

Since Natural Attacks appear to fit the criteria for "normal attacks" they can convert into Mystic Bolts 1 for 1 just like any other Melee Attack or Ranged Attack action. And after conversion they are now light weapon attacks that can interact with Two Weapon Fighting.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

From the Combat page again. This time from the Special Attacks section.

Special Attacks wrote:


This section discusses all of the various standard maneuvers you can perform during combat other than normal attacks, casting spells, or using other class abilities. Some of these special attacks can be made as part of another action (such as an attack) or as an attack of opportunity.

Leads me again down the path of thinking that anything in the Attacks section is considered a "normal attack" as well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Carnithia wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
Unless there is a clear definition for "normal attack" somewhere that i am missing.
There isn't, but natural attacks are clearly not normal attacks. They are primarily defined in the Universal Monster Rules section, and class progression charts show iterative BAB rather than just the highest BAB value used by natural attacks. Things that can replace natural attacks don't specify "normal attack", but rather just "attack".
Natural Attacks are defined under the Attack section of the Combat page ( LINK) along with Melee Attacks and Ranged Attacks. That seems to be a pretty comprehensive page for what qualify as "Attacks". I assert that all of those attacks are also "Normal Attacks" as well.
Okay. I mean, I'm reasonably confident that's not the intention or meaning, but it's just going to devolve into a RAW fight because the term isn't actually going to be defined anywhere.

That's sort of the point of the Rules forum right? To have these discussions to hammer out RAW vs RAI for our games.

RAI i agree they make no sense. RAW i don't see a problem with them.

I believe the intent was to have MB work similar to combat maneuvers. In that they can replace a normal attack. A situation could be that, during full attack action of melee attacks, you drop your foe. With your remaining attacks, you can attack another foe within 30ft. I believe that is why it is mentioned in conjuction with a full attack action.

Combat Maneuvers replace "attacks" and Mystic Bolts replace "normal attacks". The question on the table still is if "normal attacks" are the same as "attacks" or if they're a subset.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
Unless there is a clear definition for "normal attack" somewhere that i am missing.
There isn't, but natural attacks are clearly not normal attacks. They are primarily defined in the Universal Monster Rules section, and class progression charts show iterative BAB rather than just the highest BAB value used by natural attacks. Things that can replace natural attacks don't specify "normal attack", but rather just "attack".
Natural Attacks are defined under the Attack section of the Combat page ( LINK) along with Melee Attacks and Ranged Attacks. That seems to be a pretty comprehensive page for what qualify as "Attacks". I assert that all of those attacks are also "Normal Attacks" as well.
Okay. I mean, I'm reasonably confident that's not the intention or meaning, but it's just going to devolve into a RAW fight because the term isn't actually going to be defined anywhere.

That's sort of the point of the Rules forum right? To have these discussions to hammer out RAW vs RAI for our games.

RAI i agree they make no sense. RAW i don't see a problem with them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
Unless there is a clear definition for "normal attack" somewhere that i am missing.
There isn't, but natural attacks are clearly not normal attacks. They are primarily defined in the Universal Monster Rules section, and class progression charts show iterative BAB rather than just the highest BAB value used by natural attacks. Things that can replace natural attacks don't specify "normal attack", but rather just "attack".

Natural Attacks are defined under the Attack section of the Combat page ( LINK) along with Melee Attacks and Ranged Attacks. That seems to be a pretty comprehensive page for what qualify as "Attacks". I assert that all of those attacks are also "Normal Attacks" as well.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
A mystic bolt is not a natural attack. You can't make natural attacks with light weapons that are not themselves natural attacks.

A Mystic Bolt is not an attack on it's own. You do not take an action to use Mystic Bolt directly. You take some sort of "normal attack" action and then replace the attacks with Mystic Bolts. So if Natural Attacks are "normal attacks" they should be able to be replaced by a Mystic Bolt.

My problem is the use of "normal attack" in the replacement section. Any "normal attack" can be replaced by a mystic bolt. Melee Attacks, Ranged Attacks, Unarmed Attacks, and Natural Attacks all fall under the Attack action. So that would seem to indicate that they are available for conversion into Mystic Bolts.

Unless there is a clear definition for "normal attack" somewhere that i am missing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
QuidEst, do you have a link to where in the rules that your "Normal Attack" definition is defined?
Nope, I don't. Don't worry about it, though. If it's treated as a light weapon, then it can't replace natural attacks.
Why not? Natural Weapons are considered light weapons all the time. See Weapon Finesse for example.
All natural weapons are light but not all light weapons are natural.

Right. So then why does the light weapon portion of the Mystic Bolts description keep getting pointed out? The only qualification for being able to replace an attack with a Mystic Bolt is that the attack is a "normal attack". Which we do not seem to have a clear RAW definition for.

Once an attack has successfully been converted then the light weapon portion of the text would apply to the attack since you are now using the Mystic Bolt, but it is the conversion part i am interested in. Not the post conversion part.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
QuidEst, do you have a link to where in the rules that your "Normal Attack" definition is defined?
Nope, I don't. Don't worry about it, though. If it's treated as a light weapon, then it can't replace natural attacks.

Why not? Natural Weapons are considered light weapons all the time. See Weapon Finesse for example.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

QuidEst, do you have a link to where in the rules that your "Normal Attack" definition is defined?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
Ultimate Intrigue wrote:
Attacking with mystic bolt takes the place of one of the warlock's normal attacks.

Does this mean that if a Warlock has any natural attacks that each of them can be replaced with a Mystic Bolt attack? Or are Natural Attacks not considered "normal attacks"?

No. A Mystic Bolt is treated as a light weapon, not a natural attack. You cannot replace natural attacks with mystic bolts.
The Mystic Bolt itself is a light weapon, so if you replaced a normal 1 handed weapon attack it would now be a light weapon attack. But that does not answer the replacement question itself. All the replacement text says is that it can replace a "normal attack". But i'm unclear on the definition of what a "normal attack" is.
A normal attack is one made using the basic rules for attack, an iterative attack based on your BAB. Natural weapon attacks aren't iterative attacks.

Doing a bit more digging on the Paizo Combat Page "Normal Attack" to me would seem to indicate anything that is part of the "Attack" sub-section of the "Standard Actions" section. Natural Attacks are included in this section.

I think it would be silly if it did work to replace Natural Attacks, but i'm just having a hard time at the moment finding a RAW definition for "normal attack".


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:
Ultimate Intrigue wrote:
Attacking with mystic bolt takes the place of one of the warlock's normal attacks.

Does this mean that if a Warlock has any natural attacks that each of them can be replaced with a Mystic Bolt attack? Or are Natural Attacks not considered "normal attacks"?

No. A Mystic Bolt is treated as a light weapon, not a natural attack. You cannot replace natural attacks with mystic bolts.

The Mystic Bolt itself is a light weapon, so if you replaced a normal 1 handed weapon attack it would now be a light weapon attack. But that does not answer the replacement question itself. All the replacement text says is that it can replace a "normal attack". But i'm unclear on the definition of what a "normal attack" is.

--EDIT--
Doing a bit more digging on the Piazo Combat Page "Normal Attack" to me would seem to indicate anything that is part of the "Attack" sub-section of the "Standard Actions" section. Natural Attacks are included in this section.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ultimate Intrigue wrote:
Attacking with mystic bolt takes the place of one of the warlock's normal attacks.

Does this mean that if a Warlock has any natural attacks that each of them can be replaced with a Mystic Bolt attack? Or are Natural Attacks not considered "normal attacks"?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Any idea how this faq plays in to the Rageshaper's (Bloodrager archetype) Bestial Aspect ability? Since it increase the damage by one die and not a die type or die size?

Bestial Aspect (Su):

At 4th level, whenever a rageshaper gains a natural attack through the use of a polymorph spell, he can increase the damage done by that attack by one die. If the spell grants multiple natural attacks, the rageshaper must choose one kind of natural attack for the ability to enhance. At 9th level, if the rageshaper's altered form grants him a new mode of movement, that movement's base speed increases by 10 feet. This is an enhancement bonus. If the rageshaper's bloodrage powers already grant natural attacks or alternate modes of movement, then the bonuses granted by bestial aspect also apply to these bloodrage powers.

This ability replaces blood sanctuary.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Follow up questions in regards to the ritual itself.

Quote:
The caster gains access to one additional hex for which she qualifies.

In regards to Shamans, how does one determine if you "qualify" for a hex? Shamans have such flexible access to Hexes already, I can see multiple interpretations for what you "qualify" for on any given day.

Does this list include just the basic shaman hexes? What about the Witch Hex? Can i take that from the Ritual and select a different Witch Hex each time?

Are Spirit Hexes included? Just your base Spirit? All Wandering Spirits? Or all Spirit Hexes in general?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To the folks in this thread, i would encourage taking a look at the mechanics of a D&D 4.0 game.

I love the Pathfinder community and have been playing vastly more Pathfinder lately than D&D 4.0. But, man, the mechanics for D&D 4.0 are just so much smoother.

Move, minor, Standard. At-Will, Encounter, Daily. No martial vs caster disparity. Healing surges for everyone. Yada, yada, yada. There's a lot to like there. It's not all perfect, but damn does it feel like it all ties together better than the mess that is the Pathfinder rules.

I really wish WotC would have gone the Pathfinder route with their game license. Still one of the biggest tragedies to modern table top gaming in my mind. They have a good system, it's just not being used by nearly as many people as it could be!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree with Anzyr for multiple reasons, but the biggest reason i always come back to "Shaman" hexes being just the "Generic" ones is this:

If we strip the shaman of all class features and then add features back one at a time, "Hex" is the only one that can stand alone and both give a shaman the ability to cast hexes as well as give the class access to a list of hexes to cast. In fact we don't need any other class feature outside of Hex to be able to be a decent debuffer. If we have Hex already, adding back the "Spirit" class feature then gives the shaman access to 1 spirits for of additional hexes. It's not until we add back BOTH Wandering Spirit and Wandering Hex that we get access to everything else.

What people are calling the "Generic Shaman Hexes" are really just the "Shaman Hexes" everything else is a "Spirit Hex" and requires some class feature related to spirits to actually access.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Playing a Heavens Shaman at lvl 11 at the moment in Carrion Crown. I've been playing as the main debuffer in the group. Advice from my experience:

I took Heaven's Leap as my first extra hex at lvl 2 and it has been amazing. The amount of mileage you can get out of a 30ft teleport is pretty amazing. It's a little less cool since the Hex Vulnerability errata, but it has still been useful every session so far.

The single target Deeper Darkness from Enveloping Void can be quite handy too.

The various "sight" hexes make a Goz Mask pointless. I believe both Flame Sight and Water Sight can see through mist.

The flame spirit has been my default wandering spirit for awhile now. It gives good Spirit Magic options and Cinder Dance can be very nice at times.

I picked up Defending Bone (lvl 2) as one of my FCB spells and have been getting great mileage out of it along with False Life for defenses.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Silver Surfer wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:


The biggest oversight in my mind is still that a shaman has Spiritual Weapon but not Spiritual Ally on their list.

The Shaman has all manner of things it shouldn't have and is already OP.... it should consider itself fortunate to have been given SNA

After all neither the Oracle or Witch get SNA...

Fairs fair... if the Shaman wants Spiritual Ally cos its all about the spirits then fine.... but no SNA

Personally, i find the fact that druid abilities keep creeping back into the shaman's kit to be pretty annoying. I know they at least partially started with druids in the play test, but they're supposed to be all Oracle and Witch now. So if anything, they should be getting the SM line not SNA. Neither spell line makes very much thematic sense though, so i'm all for expanding the Spiritual Weapon/Ally line of spells instead.

Regardless the Spiritual Guardian Feat makes the absence of Spiritual Ally on the shaman spell list feel like a glaring omission. At least they get access to it once a day if they take an Ancestor Spirit, but it still feels odd.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Castilonium wrote:
Shaman spell list is still missing a lot of spells that both its parent classes have, most notably Communal spells.

The biggest oversight in my mind is still that a shaman has Spiritual Weapon but not Spiritual Ally on their list.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
The wording of archetype + base class = you are left with a Class Ability referencing an ability you no longer have... In other words, a confusing loose end that should be tied off. = Errata

The wording on Spirit Magic is just fine. It mentions that you should reference the Spirit and Wandering Spirit class features. When you go to reference Spirit you then just swap in Minor Spirit as the reference. Just like any other archetype replacement.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Some other changes potentially relevant to this Guide:


  • Battle Cry Feat now only works against failed fear effect saving throws
  • They added a wooden holy symbol to the shaman kit
  • All of the Hex based rods had their prices adjusted:
  • Rod of Abrupt Hexes: Now 75,500 gp
  • Rod of Grasping Hexes: Now 11,000 gp
  • Rod of Interminable Hexes: Now 11,000 gp
  • Rod of Potent Hexes: Now 54,000 gp
  • Rod of Voracious Hexes: Now 32,500 gp

I bring up the holy symbol because that seems to imply that our familiar is not our focus, which i always assumed it was before.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The part at the end pertaining to undead has always been interpreted at my table to mean that you can't resurrect a dead zombie and have it come back as a zombie. It is treated as destroyed and is resurrected as the person it originally was. Basically i've just seen it as a limit to make sure you can't use resurrection as method for (re)creating undead.

So i would go with them being able to be ressurected.

I could be wrong though. Dhampirs are just plane odd :-p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Srtz wrote:
Corpse wrote:
That right there might be the problem. You've been sitting in the back, quietly working on building this golem and no one in your party knew about it until now? How long did it take you in game to make this thing? You never once mentioned it? They never once noticed you disappearing into your workshop for long hours? That's all perfectly fine. But that means you've been building a giant surprise for your party this entire time. It shouldn't be that big of stretch to see that some people are going to react poorly to that. Especially the one guy who your secret impacts the most.

It wasnt even like that. Yeah ive been on my ass, but we've had alot of travel time in game, which gives me alot of time to craft, which is very useful for me. The power of the guy was a bit of a shock, but it wasnt supposed to step on toes. His purpose, even in my pitch of him i said, this is a big body that will make sure my sorry ass doesnt bite the dust in this fight against this Dragon.

The rager in terms of gameplay always runs up to the first thing, buffing as he goes, then swings. So i guess he assumed thats what i would do with it too. Thats not how i play, not even a little.

Of course crafting is useful to you. That's sort of your character concept. So i'm sure your party knows that you craft a lot. But did they know you were building this specific golem? Or did they just assume you were building some minor small stuff like more scouts, or some alchemical weapons or such? It's not like you're churning our a giant golem like this every session. Your party probably wasn't even aware you could do something like this. So to them it's a giant surprise. People handle surprises in a multitude of ways. You're now seeing that first hand.

A tiny bit of communication can go along way in these sorts of situations. If you had RPed a few instances during your travels, you could have dribbled out little bits of information ahead of time. At the very least your party could have known you were working on something "big". The level of surprise wouldn't have been nearly as high, and you may have received a completely different set of reactions.

Your path is set at this point. You're going to have to play that next session and see how it all actually goes. Chalk this up as a learning experience in effective roleplayer communication and go smash a dragon!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Srtz wrote:
This is literally the FIRST time ive even hinted that i have potential to do more, and he gets pissy.

That right there might be the problem. You've been sitting in the back, quietly working on building this golem and no one in your party knew about it until now? How long did it take you in game to make this thing? You never once mentioned it? They never once noticed you disappearing into your workshop for long hours? That's all perfectly fine. But that means you've been building a giant surprise for your party this entire time. It shouldn't be that big of stretch to see that some people are going to react poorly to that. Especially the one guy who your secret impacts the most.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

It would probably vary by the type of "suitable vessel". A clone made specifically for the spirit would have an infinite range as far as i can tell. But if you treat any gem or crystal worth 100GP as a "suitable vessel", as from magic jar, then you could potentially jump into any of those that are within medium range.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yes, the range for possession should be that of the magic jar spell. The touch range would be for returning to it's own body. Honestly not sure what the range for "transfer into a suitable vessel" is at the moment though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The supernatural portion of the ability is everything else described on top of the magic jar possession. If it was a spell-like then you would just be using magic jar and none of the fun "sharing a body with your familiar stuff" would apply.

Spell-like abilities in general are just copies of actual spells that you can activate without having to use your normal casting abilities. Once you start modifying them and throwing other nifty stuff on top they generally become supernatural.

Thus it is not uncommon to see supernatural abilities to have spell-like components to them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TheTheos wrote:

@Decorpsed You mean 10+spell level+casting stat? Which in witch's case would be 10+5+INT.

And range is spell's range.
EDIT: It's logical but also kind off strange as it is supernatural ability and not spell like ability.

Yup. Since it gives no additional rules governing possession you would just flip over to magic jar and pretend you started there all along.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Twin Soul wrote:

At 10th-level, if the witch or her familiar is gravely injured or about to die, the soul of the dying one immediately transfers to the other’s body. The two souls share the surviving body peaceably, can communicate freely, and both retain their ability to think and reason. The host may allow the guest soul to take over the body temporarily or reclaim it as a move action. They can persist in this state indefinitely, or the guest can return to its own body (if available) by touch, transfer into a suitable vessel (such as a clone), or take over another body as if using magic jar (with no receptacle).

This replaces the witch’s major hex at 10th-level.

The only part that requires a DC is if you're trying to take over another body. In which case you resolve the possession attempt exactly as if you were using magic jar. So use magic jars DC when attempting to possess.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thanks, Brogue The Rogue. That was my conclusion as well. I wanted to open the discussion up to the forum quick just to make sure i hadn't potentially missed anything.

I really want to like all of the spirit hexes but some of them just have too many darn limitations on them.

I'm not in a PFS game with this character, so i may run it by my GM just to give the idea a test to see if it's actually helpful at all.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Brf wrote:

It takes a standard action to deliver the held charge.

You would gain nothing by "casting" it earlier.
SRD wrote:


Deliver Touch Spells (Su)

If a shaman is 3rd level or higher, her spirit animal can deliver touch spells or hexes for her. If the shaman and the spirit animal are in contact at the time the shaman casts a touch spell, she can designate her animal as the "toucher." The spirit animal can then deliver the touch spell just as the shaman would. If the shaman casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates. If the shaman activates a hex, her spirit animal can be used to make the touch; she doesn't have to be in contact with the animal to use this ability with hexes.

The shaman's spirit animal can deliver the held charge using its action.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
KingOfAnything wrote:
How do you imagine this to be useful? My first inclination is to answer no, because it is not spell-like, but I am curious what you are trying to do.

Their are a lot of buff hexes that are on the spirit lists that are potentially interesting, but that have horrible durations. Or they are just not powerful enough to warrant the use of a precious action in combat.

However, if they could be pre-cast ahead of time and held, the shaman can use his familiar to deliver the touch using it's actions and the crappy durations would not be as big of an issue.

I'm trying to look at ways to make some of the currently less interesting hexes more useful.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

With a normal touch spell, you can cast the spell and then hold the charge to be discharged at a later time. Does the same apply to supernatural touch abilities?

As an example:

The shaman has access to the following hex from their Flames spirit.

SRD wrote:

Ward of Flames (Su): The shaman touches a willing creature (including herself ) and grants a ward of flames. The next time the warded creature is struck with a melee attack, the creature making the attack takes 1d6 points of fire damage + 1 point of fire damage for every 2 shaman levels she possesses. This ward lasts for 1 minute, after which it fades away if not already expended. At 8th and 16th levels, the ward lasts for one additional attack. Once this ward ends, the creature cannot be the target of this hex again for 24 hours.

Can the shaman use a standard action to activate the ability and then hold the charge to touch a subject and grant the ward multiple rounds later?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Corrik wrote:

Is there any rule stating I can't create a magical disease (or bacteria, virus, parasite, etc.) which heals ability damage, or the like, instead?

No. There is not an explicit rule prohibiting a player from creating a magical disease, beneficial or otherwise. However, there are also no game mechanics currently in place that govern the creation of player designed diseases that i am aware of. Thus, to actually create such a disease in game would be the realm of home brew at the moment.

As such, the remainder of this discussion should take place over in that forum i believe.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:


I'm curious if you/your familiar can "hold the charge" for a touch Hex. Leaving Ghost Blade charged on your Familiar.

That is a great question actually. Could make a lot of the shamans touch hexes slightly more usable if you can.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The new Ancestors Spirit is pretty solid. Playing in Carrion Crown, this would have been my primary spirit of choice if it had been around for me back at level 1.

My feedback for your guide:

I personally would bump Ethereal Jaunt up to green. Being able to walk through walls and be invisible is pretty sweet. It's probably not a combat spell, but it can find a use in pretty much any given day. I can see the orange vote as well though. Since all of our ways to Fly/teleport negates some of the usefulness of this spell.

I think you're under valuing Ancestral Blessing a bit. It's a competence bonus so it will stack pretty well. But, more importantly, it has no 24 hour limit and is only discharged on use or re-cast. So whoever needs a good opener should ALWAYS have this on them for the first round of combat. Potentially has some uses with the Imbue Hex. It's not blue for sure, but i think it's better than red.

Other than that i agree with the rest of your assessment on the spirit.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ashram wrote:

You can't suddenly start vocalizing verbal components underwater if you can't breathe water, or you'll very obviously start sucking down water and potentially drowning.

Since the shaman no longer needs to breathe to survive can't they just suck in the water and not drown? The act of having your lungs full of water is not inherently dangerous itself. It's the fact that we normally can't breathe that water that causes panic and suffocation. (AKA, drowning.)

I would expect that the shaman could breathe in water and then, with a little more effort than normal, start to vocalize.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A Heaven's Shaman gets the following Greater Spirit Ability:

Quote:
Void Adaptation (Su): The shaman gains darkvision 60 feet. If she already possesses darkvision, the range instead increases by 30 feet. In addition, the shaman can see in supernatural darkness, is constantly under the effects of endure elements, and doesn't need to breathe.

My question is this: Since a Heaven's Shaman doesn't need to breathe i assume they can survive underwater or in the void of space, (assuming no crushing pressure or anything). But can they cast spells at all without any other special magic? I.E. would they need water breathing to be able to cast spells underwater?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kiqjaq wrote:

What's the advice proper on an Improved Familiar/Mauler style build? I've heard tales it's awesome, I've heard tales it's illegal, I've heard tales that it's just anti-flavor.

'sup?

Improved Familiar is still up for debate for shamans because of the last line of the Spirit Animal text.

Quote:
The new spirit animal must be of the same sort of creature as the previous one.

Some people believe that while you can still take the feat, the above line basically makes it useless.

Aside from that yes IF/Mauler can be pretty nifty.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

While it's a slightly older thread i believe this is one of the threads that is being used to support the above claim: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qbj5?Clerics-and-Druids-with-Eldritch-Heritage

While i don't particularly agree with the interpretation i can see the threads reasoning.

Luckily for my shaman the spells that i favored classed are actually at levels with pretty crappy Spirit Magic options, so it won't be that major of an issue. In general though this interpretation of the rules does make the favored class bonus not nearly as exciting.

The shaman is a class that needs a LOT of clarification and errata in my opinion. Here's hoping we get it eventually.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just ran across this little tidbit while looking at another WIP shaman guide (Power's Shaman Guide)

Quote:


Question: The favored class bonus lets me prepare Cleric spells, right?
No. The human favored class bonus adds "spells known." Prepared divine casters do not have or use a "spells known" mechanic. Otherwise almost all Clerics and Druids would be running around with Eldritch Heritage (Arcane) for an Arcane Bond to cast their entire spell list spontaneously. This debate has been played out definitively many times over. Only spontaneous divine casters have a "spells known" mechanic. So, you can only cast these Cleric spells with your Spirit Magic feature, the spontaneous slots. However, the Fluid Magic hex from the Water spirit will let you prepare Spirit Magic spells in regular slots, so you can prepare Cleric spells that way.

Might want to add that little tidbit to your guide as well. I hadn't realized it myself!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kiqjaq wrote:

Hit level 3 on my latest Shaman, so I've noticed a few level 2 spells you're missing. :x

Burdened Thoughts, Raven's Flight, Vine Strike, and Wild Instinct by my count.
Mostly useless stuff, although Raven's Flight could be exceptionally handy at times. Turning Tiny has its moments.

He probably missed them because those last 3 are from source material published in the last month or so, lol.

That swift action Raven's Flight does sound potentially handy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The cleric in our group last week made a statement that i think sums up the debuffing shaman quite well.

"You know when you're in the heat of battle and you feel the pendulum of fate swing against you? The shaman over there is controling that pendulum!"


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Battlefield positioning is key if you're running a primary debuffer role, since 30 ft is the standard range for all of your non-amplified hexes anyway. (Which is why Fly/Airwalk end up being so key to a lot of builds) So you should be in position to make good use of Divine Interference most of the time. But you're right, being deep in melee means you probably have more potential targets to use it on.

I don't see how any melee shaman could ever have enough actions to make Chant+Misfortune worthwhile. Evil Eye could still be useful if they fail their save, or as a 1 round softener for your allies. But having to use your move action every round to Chant for Misfortune means you're never going to be full attacking. Which, if you're going melee shaman, seems to be pretty counter-intuitive.

As a debuffer shaman though i don't know how you do NOT run the Trinity Hexes. Misfortune+Chant is just so amazingly good at shutting down an enemy. Throw Evil Eye into the mix and you've made it even worse for the DM. Throw in Divine Interference and it feels almost a bit unfair.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>