Dispari Scuro's page

I think the whole "Fate's Favored is good (in specific scenarios), therefore it should be nerfed or removed entirely" is a little extreme. Fate's Favored can be better than a lot of traits, but only for specific characters or items. I've used it, but only on one or two characters who were built around it. There are a lot of traits that I use more often just because they're universally good. I can't really utilize Fate's Favored on every character, and even if I could, there are other things traits are good for that help flesh out characters in better ways.

Feats are the same way. There are definitely feats out there that are better than normal feats. Some are just really good, and work their way into my builds quite often. There are also hundreds of absolutely awful feats. That doesn't make me want to destroy the ones that are actually good.

People keep going back to this "traits are supposed to be half a feat," but I don't think that's a rule anywhere. It's barely even a guideline. You can look at traits like Reactionary or Deft Dodger and say, yes, that's equivalent to half a (specific) feat. But traits like Firebug are just as good as a feat -- it's equivalent to Weapon Focus if you're an alchemist. Actually it's better, because it works for all thrown splash weapons AND bombs. Armor Expert is something you can't even get with a feat. If you look at Muscle of the Society, that's again something you can't get with a feat, and it's better than a masterwork backpack at helping you carry things. Any of the "gain skill as class skill" traits are basically a +4 bonus, and many of those buff more than one skill. Extremely Fashionable is +1 to three different skills and makes one a class skill (another +3). That's comparable to full strength Skill Focus, with a little bit more spread, and no level restriction. I know I consider taking that trait every time I make a social character -- does that mean it needs to be removed?

And really, "half a feat" is meaningless when feats are all over the place. Some feats are like "If you have this, your character is amazing." Others are like "Well uh, once a day any time there's a full moon and your HP is exactly 0, you can get a +1 to perform (dance) checks." Yeah, Fate's Favored is better than some feats. But Hunter's Knack is better than "some feats," and it's one of the worst and most situational traits I know of.

There are other traits I flock to at every opportunity. Instead of trying to remove the ones that are actually good, maybe make less of them that are terrible?

What about the repair line of spells here. Perhaps cheaper by the rules than a wand of Make Whole.

Yeah, I believe the GM in the game I'm going to be doing is going to have those spells, which will make it A LOT easier to heal. I'm still curious how you're supposed to heal them, and what the DC is, if any, for Craft Construct.

This sounds awesome for an Archaeologist Bard.

Can confirm. I played one of these, with this trait. Great bonus.

I'm looking at making a Construct Rider alchemist from the Cohorts and Companions book, but I'm curious how to go about healing the thing when it inevitably takes damage.

As a construct (even if it's also a companion) it seems I can't use normal spells or extracts on it. Alchemists don't have access to Make Whole unless I want to take the Spell Knowledge discovery at level 10 and cast it as a 3rd level extract (ugh).

I don't know if any of the alchemist discoveries would heal it.

Lastly, it says you can heal it with Craft Construct which you get at 4, but... that costs 100g per 1d6 HP restored, which takes a day or more... It also says I have to make a craft check though, based on the DC it takes to make the construct, but there is no DC to craft the construct -- you just have it. So what's the DC? Or is there one?

So besides Craft Construct, what are my options? Buy a wand of Make Whole?

Also, can I use Craft Construct to make construct modifications to it?

d20PFSRD accidentally linked the words "divine power" to the description of the spell Divine Power. This is clearly an error. Not sure if someone made a manual mistake, or if they use bots to speed up their web-scripting and the bot accidentally thought the term "divine power" in the class ability referred to the spell.

Pretty sure they use an automated process of some sort. There are all kinds of amusing links that get parsed on a variety of pages. Gets especially muddied when a term is used for multiple things and it links to the wrong one.

I just got this deck and I'm actually really confused about some of the rules. Mostly about when and why you'd enter a tide, and what that actually gets you.

If I'm understanding tides right, starting a tide with a tide card allows it to last indefinitely until you're stopped by one of the listed conditions?

The rules state that you can begin a tide any time you want using any card. If it's not a tide card, the effect only lasts until your next round. You don't even gain any benefit for being in a tide (if anything, it's a detriment). I don't see why you'd start a tide with a non-tide card.

Being in a tide indicates that you can only play cards from your hand. What does this mean? Normally you replace a card when playing it, so do you stop doing that and just keep your current cards until your tide ends? Do you discard the one you just played? Do you discard each one you play until you're out? Or is this referring to something else? Am I missing something?

You stay in a tide until you play a card without a continue effect. But if you do play another one, do you start stacking all those continue effects? Let's say I start with a bonus +1 to Fort saves, then play a card for +1 to dodge, then play one for free rerolls for half damage. Do I get all three of those until the GM stops me?

There's more to it than just TWF or not. Are we talking vs two-handing, or vs sword/shield? Because two-handing can go all Strength and gets a big perk out of higher stats and power attack. If we're talking about sword/shield, it might be "better" at damage, but you're missing a shield.

There are tons of factors, too. What if they have high DR? Stronger attacks are better than a lot of small ones. What about the fact that you have to have really high Dex, which reduces your overall Str, reducing your damage per hit? Especially if you're swinging 1d4+1 while the other person is swinging 2d6+7. Are we comparing two characters with 12 Str/20 Dex with different fighting styles, or are we comparing the 12 Str/20 Dex TWF to a two-hand fighter with 20 Str?

What about the fact that two weapons costs twice as much? What if the not-TWF person uses those 3 or more saved feats to get something much better? What about all the feats that just don't pair well with TWF, or pretty much negate the fact that you're doing TWF (like Cleave)?

What about every time you CAN'T make a full attack? Sword/shield is just as good, but at least they get a shield bonus. And two-hand still gets that juicy 1.5x on everything. You suffer a lot here. AoOs too.

You can't just say "statistically TWF is better than not doing it," because there are far more variables than "TWF or not."

While getting something like blindsight free is a bit over the top, asking for something like the blind-fight tree is more reasonable. It's definitely not going to offset all your disadvantages, but it would make you better at dealing with things than a normal sighted person.

Still, all those d100 rolls would get old.

If someone is really, really good at something, then let them be good at it. Eventually they will pass static checks, yes, but those generally don't matter much. There are a lot of sliding scale or opposed checks that should keep things competitive for the most part. There are some real issues to moving the bar, mostly revolving around just making the game less fun.

For one, the more someone invests in a skill, the further they are from the average. If you keep rebalancing skill checks for the highest person in the party, nobody else is going to have a shot at them. Imagine you have someone who has about a +5 in all knowledge checks just to be able to roll on them. And then you have one guy who has a +15 in two of them. Well, if you start balancing all the knowledge DCs to be 25+, the first guy is NEVER going to make any checks, and even trying is a waste of time and character investment.

Also, if I become aware that the GM is just moving the bar... why even invest in the skills at all? Why not just slap 1 skill rank in there, not worry about stuff like Alertness or Skill Focus? If I have a 50% success rate with a +5, and a 50% success rate with a +20, I may as well just go take something else. If I knew that I was playing a bard with maxed knowledge skills, with bardic knowledge, amateur investigator, and skill focus, and the GM was still going to make me struggle with skill checks, I'd just stop trying and ask for a feat refund.

Sometimes I make characters who I know will be able to blow certain checks out of the water, because that's what they're SUPPOSED to be good at. A character with +18 to intimidate at level 4 SHOULD be really impressive, because I put a lot of work into making the character excel at that. And if I invest heavily in being able to lie to people, I should be better at it than most people, instead of creating some sort of warped reality where I'm the only person in the world who's capable of pulling it off.

So basically, if they get to the point where some checks are trivial, don't worry about it. Most really important checks will scale, and even if they don't, that's what the character is built for. You wouldn't take away a fighter's sword because he's too good at stabbing people compared to the wizard.

Wouldn't the fact that it's nearly impossible to do prevent it from being overdone?

The only actual differences:

Barbarian: d12 vs d10, gets trap sense (meh), gets rage powers, has knowledge (nature), can't be lawful

Bloodrager: d10 vs d12, gets spells, bloodline powers, bonus feats, has knowledge (arcana), can be any alignment

So basically, a bloodrager is a barbarian with an average of 1 less HP per level, with a bloodline instead of rage powers. They get all the rest of the same class features at the same level.

You can take the primalist archetype with bloodrager, getting just as many rage powers (though maybe at a slightly later level) as a barbarian, while still having spells and bonus feats. You can offset the d12 HD by picking up Toughness if you really care, considering you get more feats than a barbarian. OTOH, bloodline powers are generally really good so you may not want to take all rage powers. You'd probably be best with 4-6 rage powers, and capitalize on the really good bloodline abilities.

So basically, outside of some specific barbarian archetypes (invulnerable rager, urban barbarian, mounted fury), there doesn't seem to be much reason to play a barbarian over a bloodrager. You can still get the good rage powers, so all you miss out on is a little HP (of which you already have tons). What you trade for it is way better anyway.

They lose the AC bonus from the brawler feature because they use a shield and depend on wearing light armor, so I'm gonna say yeah, they need Shield Master.

And the fighter gets 10 bonus feats and they are still crap, amount of feats gained does not equal power.

Actually just a good example that the class needs work and probably shouldn't be analyzed too hard. They don't swap AC Bonus for anything, but are given a shield which, if they actually use it, cancels out a class ability. Awkward? Super. Intended? Who knows.

Seems like they should've replaced the class feature, or included a sentence saying it still works. Similar issue, the picaroon swashbuckler archetype asks you to dual wield, which would cancel out your ability to use Precise Strike, yet the archetype makes no mention of allowing it and doesn't replace it. See also: the two cavalier archetypes that expect you to use a ranged weapon, yet don't alter challenge to work with ranged weapons.

Shield Champion is a weird archetype and it wouldn't surprise me if it gets revisited at some point. Being given feats you have to qualify isn't unheard of, but it is unusual. But a lot of things in the ACG are questionable or clunky, so I wouldn't consider the archetype gospel regarding anything.

Still, considering the huge number of feats brawler already gets, giving up a couple to get even more feats for free doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Brawlers already get 7 bonus feats, plus the entire TWF tree (+3 feats), plus Unarmed Strike, plus martial flexibility for up to 3 more feats, and this archetype gives THREE MORE FEATS. If my math is right, they have approximately fifty jillion feats. So having to take Shield Focus to get Improved Shield Focus for free doesn't seem like anything to complain about.

And +1 to not rolling hp. I will not play another game of D&D/PF with rolled hp and will be very wary of other RPG games with rolled hp.

I've been doing the PFS method in my game and so far I really like it. It really sucks rolling a 1 or 2 on HP, especially if you're a d10 HD class. In another game I'm playing, the GM allows rerolls on HP, with a stacking -1 for each reroll. But really that tends to just amount to the PFS method, so I think I'll just stick to that.

Ecaterina Ducaird wrote:

I don't believe there is a matching one for casters for Move, Cast, Move (thank the gods).

Well... A Valet-archetyped Familiar can deliver touch spells like that.

Yup, it's fairly useful. It can travel up to its speed and deliver a friendly touch. Pretty nice for a raven or something that can fly up to 20 feet out, touch an ally, and fly back.

You can hit the 17 with only +1 AC from Int at level 1. I worked it out in an above post. 27 at level 6 is a tougher stretch without getting some natural armor in the equation but with some items (stat-boosting or straight up armor boosting) it's very possible.

Shield (the spell) is +4, and Cat's Grace is +2 (and +2 damage if you're dervish dancing). If you really stretch it, Reduce Person is another +2. By that level you also have stuff like Mirror Image and Blur, so even if your AC isn't 27, you probably won't get hit.

Opps. I meant the magus doesn't get Mage Armor, and that can be a bigger deal for the Kensi.

Nah, it's not a big deal for kensai. They add their Int as a dodge bonus to AC, and can still at least wear a haramaki or silken ceremonial armor. Since a magus is incentivized to just dervish dance, you should also have high Dex. You can have about 17 AC at level 1 (21 with Shield). My kensai at level 6 has about 27 working AC in combat. I haven't even worked on any AC gear yet.

My take is that you have 2, but each glove is a separate command to activate.

You couldn't use this through a weapon like one would with spellstrike as it is not a magus spell. You would get additional damage if you cast say shocking grasp and then touched someone with the glove activated.

It says it works with weapons though, so I would imagine it triggers anyway. You get the +1d6 whether you touch them with the glove or hit with a weapon that's being held by the glove.

Okay, so basically my question is if this is one glove or two.

"Deliquescent Gloves

The wearer’s gloved hand is protected from the acid ability of oozes, allowing him to use that hand to attack oozes with unarmed strike or natural attack without risk of harm from contact with the ooze. These unarmed strikes and natural attacks never cause an ooze to split."

I'm looking at getting it for a magus, and it would be nice to have +1d6 on both my weapon and my touch attacks. But I can't tell if that's possible or if it only applies to one hand. If it only applies to one hand, I'm guessing I can't get two, one for each hand?

Pick the primalist archetype. That allows you to trade some of your bloodline powers for rage powers. The 8th level power is neat, but not the best, and you could trade it for two rage powers instead. Namely, Fiend Totem (Lesser) which gives you an extra gore attack, putting you up to 4 natural attacks at level 8.

Your other option is to go down the beast totem tree, the first of which will sadly be pointless, but at level 12, you can have pounce.

Primalist also lets you pick up some really useful rage powers like reckless abandon.

Iteratives only matter on full attacks. You don't get many of them since you seem to be always moving toward a moving target. Without locking the target into position, melee does not get full attacks often. You also need to flank for your bonus damage, something the target will actively try to keep you from getting.

Targets should only be moving intelligently if they're intelligent, unless the GM is just a big cheater making 0-2 int animals move around every round so they don't get flanked. At any rate, as a ninja I would think that flanking necessity would be lessened due to invisibility.

Anyway, when I am limited to one attack per round, claws would be the best due to full BAB and d8 sneak. So I will probably go the claws/bite route. Is there any other way to gain natural attacks? Magic items maybe?

A one time only extra fervor feat would not break the character. I mean the Warpreist needs help anyways. It is one of the weakest of the new classes out of the book. I have seen dozens of brawlers, bloodragers, and arcanist in my local PFS but I know of only one other Warpriest besides myself.

I wouldn't say that's because they're BAD. They are, however, extremely complex. They have 4 different class currencies, plus spells, plus scaling damage dice. They have a ton of stuff to keep track of. A lot of people would rather do something way more simple.

As far as Extra Fervor goes, I hoped for one too. It's possible they consider the "fervor for swift spell" too good though, which is why they excluded it. But with the reduced dice on fervor and needing it to buff yourself, I do feel like they need a way to get more. Even if it was a feat you could only take once, I'd be happy.

I'm not going to pretend I read any of the gigantic novel posts here. But the fact remains that swash is intended to be able to finesse any light or one-handed piercing weapon, regardless of its normal ability to be finessed. It's how the class was designed throughout the playtest, is part of its uniqueness and style, and one of the perks of playing the class. Furthermore, the Slashing Grace feat extends this to being able to finesse all one-handed (but not light) slashing weapons. The feat even suggests longsword (a non-finesse weapon) as an example of what to use it with.

If you're just looking for someone to justify your stance, I don't think you'll find that here. Okay, maybe you will, but I wouldn't ignore the hundreds of other swashbuckler discussions that never resulted in people thinking you can't finesse things. In fact, people frequently joke about how you can finesse bastard swords and axes, and that's never been contradicted by anyone, least of all a developer.

As the GM you're free to ignore all that for whatever reason you see fit, but expect the player to want to change characters if you're going to nerf it for no apparent reason.

I did this with a bard and picked up a fox with the pilferer archetype, which I advanced to a lyrakien.

Pilferer gets non-detection and a bonus to stealth checks. Foxes are already tiny, so they have a very large stealth bonus. While not the highest among familiars, they also have good perception and a 40 foot move speed. They end up being very good at sneaking in and checking things out and escaping.

Lyrakiens are even better at this, with an 80 foot perfect fly speed, constant freedom of movement, and a high initiative. They also have a handful of useful abilities to keep around, like a free cure light and the ability to remove fatigue and exhaustion.

Dispari Scuro wrote:

Inquisitor with the conversion inquisition can use Wisdom for bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate. All three are class skills, so you can just ignore Cha and still be the party face. You get to be a good combat character and get a lot of good skills (including a strong boost to identifying monsters). Make a half-orc and get another +1/2 level to intimidate and identifying monsters. Get sacred tattoo and fate's favored while you're at it.

This is a great suggestion if you don't want to be a full caster. A dwarf is also VERY good in this class. The dwarf and his favored class bonus makes him the better combatant and can have better resistance against spells (more favorable attributes as well). The half orc has slightly better saves against non spells, better mouth skills, and has better weapon proficiencies. Both are rock solid.

Oh yeah, that dwarf favored class is pretty good. If you throw it on something like attack or damage it could see a lot of use.

I built a character just like this and I'm extremely satisfied with the results. Inquisitors already get 1/2 level to intimidate, plus half-orcs can add another half level with their favored class, and they just get a +2 in general. My build includes Cornugon Smash, with +15 intimidate at 3, +30 at 10, and +50 at 20.

I grabbed a trait to give local as a class skill, and along with adding Wis as well as 1/2 level to identify monsters, the character has +12 to all the knowledges for that purpose at level 3. I also found the flavor of sacred tattoo worked well with getting a holy symbol tattoo. So all around you get huge bonuses to identifying monsters (for use with bane), really strong saves, and the ability to shake anyone you hit. All that while still being good at bluff and diplomacy, plus a few other skills.

Multi-classing has its ups and downs, but it's almost entirely downs for spellcasters.

If you want to do something like samurai/sorcerer, I recommend just making a magus. Tiefling even suits magus better than sorcerer, unless you're using an alternate racial. I'm actually (interestingly enough) playing a tiefling magus in a current game, whose backstory is that she used to be a samurai.

If you do kensai you can just focus entirely on Dex/Int (with Con for HP) so your stats won't be stretched as far. You could also do an eldritch scion if you'd rather still have the sorcerer feel. Eldritch scion is a spontaneous caster that casts off Cha, like a sorcerer.

Dispari Scuro wrote:

It's also worth noting that while the feat appeared in the tiefling book, there's no feat referenced in the aasimar or dhampir books (which also allow alternates). Seems like it slipped in by mistake, or they later changed their mind on needing a feat to get different ability scores.

I read through Blood of Fiends and didn't see the Fiendish Heratage feat. Did I miss it?

Actually checked my book and you're right. Apparently after a google search, the feat is from Bastards of Erebus by SKR? I don't have that one.

That could be a good argument to the GM. Show them the tiefling book and say, "What feat? I don't see any feat."

It's also worth noting that while the feat appeared in the tiefling book, there's no feat referenced in the aasimar or dhampir books (which also allow alternates). Seems like it slipped in by mistake, or they later changed their mind on needing a feat to get different ability scores.

Inquisitor with the conversion inquisition can use Wisdom for bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate. All three are class skills, so you can just ignore Cha and still be the party face. You get to be a good combat character and get a lot of good skills (including a strong boost to identifying monsters). Make a half-orc and get another +1/2 level to intimidate and identifying monsters. Get sacred tattoo and fate's favored while you're at it.

The claw blades are actually interesting. A little pricy though, if I'm reading it right, and also kind of clumsy. It's 305 and already gives you a +1 enhancement on attack rolls. But to actually make it magic you have to make it masterwork, which is just an extra 300gp with no actual benefit since it already gives a +1 to attack? So now it's 605gp each? Weird.

I was thinking it might be better to do an Amulet of Mighty Fists and grab the Mother's Teeth trait, which gives me a bite attack. The bite is only 1d2 and a secondary attack, but that'd give me a third attack when full attacking. So I'd have two attacks that do 1d8 sneak and one that does 1d6 sneak. That, plus the ability to spend ki to get an extra claw attack should be pretty good sneak from invisibility and would be a good bang for buck ratio, since I could go all Dex and get an Agile Amulet for 5k ASAP.

Only downside is having crap damage outside of sneak up until then.

Actually you are better off with claws until 15th level. At 8th you get a single extra attack at -5, with claws you have the same number of attacks but at full BAB. Even when you get your third attack its chance to hit is so low that you are still better off with claws.

Yeah I'm trying to figure out the math on how it would work out.

With weapons I'd have, let's say, +12 at 8th level. But since I'm dual wielding that's -2 to all. So I'd have +10/+10/+5. With another feat, that's another attack at +5. With claws, they'd just be at +12/+12.

There are other factors though. If I'm invisible I get a +2 and I hit against their flat-footed AC, so the iterative attacks may have a better chance of hitting. OTOH, dual wielding would pretty much require TWF, Improved TWF, and Weapon Finesse, and my Str would end up being crap. If I did claws, I could actually go all Str, and save at least 3 feats. But... then I'd need an Amulet of Mighty Fists.

Lots of pros/cons either way.

I'm making a catfolk ninja. That's about all I've decided on. I read a couple guides and got some solid ideas. But I'm stuck on what sort of weapon style(s) I should use.

Originally I wanted to dual-wield wakizashis, which is still an option, though that requires feats and will require very high Dex to make use of.

Then I realized, not only can I get claws which don't require feats and don't lock me into needing 17+ Dex, but catfolks can take a talent to get d8s on sneak attack when using claws. Downside there is, once I hit level 8, I start missing out on iterative attacks. At that point it might be better to switch to dual-wielding. Also, claws are just x2 crit, which matters a little.

I briefly looked at doing katana, but even two-handing it when sneak is impossible, there's not much benefit to doing that over just attacking with claws. Doing a daisho would be nice thematically, but that would create a mess with feats and ability scores.

Anyway, it looks like the best option is just using claws UNTIL I hit level 8, but then I suddenly need two feats and to have at least 17 Dex, and after that point I wasted a rogue talent. Or I could stick with claws for the d8s, but how much would I be losing out on compared to having iteratives? Or is there some easier/less obnoxious path I can choose instead?

The feat was changed last minute to do something it wasn't originally designed for (Dex to damage). And although the feat is technically available to everyone, it's really meant to be a Swashbuckler feat, who can finesse one-handed weapons.

But yes, the way the feat is now, there are only two weapons you can actually get Dex to attack and damage with, and both are exotic: Whip and Aldori Dueling Sword. This makes the feat EXTREMELY difficult for anyone but a Swashbuckler to use.

I believe a dev said he assumed it was meant to work with light weapons, but admitted he is not a rules guy. We will have to wait for an errata.

In the meantime, you can wait for Fencing Grace to come out, which will allow Dex to attack and damage, but only for rapier.

We're trying out a ban on belts and headbands that add to ability scores in two games. Mostly because that's all anyone would ever buy or craft. I'd much rather see people get magic items that do special things instead of just "I want +1s to things."

Plus, the DCs do get a bit high when people streamline for that.

Let's be clear. Skeletons and zombies can have a few feats, but they are only BONUS feats. Skeletons get improved initiative and zombies get toughness. They can, with some other templates, get other feats specific to that form/template.

Mindless creatures "gain no feats or skill points." This means they never gain those things as the result of leveling up. No matter how many HD they have, they won't have any skill points and can never "learn" feats. They can, however, have bonus feats which are determined by the template, which can't be changed.

blahpers wrote:

The class feature specifies that you're getting an advanced ninja or rogue talent. Therefore, it stands to reason that what you get is an advanced ninja or rogue talent--in this case, the advanced ninja trick.

Agreed. While it might make sense and not ruin anything for letting them use the "Ranger" version, RAW it is the Ninja trick, which only works with light armor.

It seems pretty clear that that's what RAW says, but as RAW is often obnoxious I was hoping for a better clarification on the intention. Is it intended for them to get a class ability that conflicts with their proficiencies?

At level 10, slayers can pick from advanced slayer talents. One option is: "Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select any of the following advanced ninja or rogue talents in place of an advanced slayer talent: deadly sneak, evasion, hunter's surprise, knock-out blow, master of disguise, opportunist, and stealthy sniper. A slayer can select this advanced talent multiple times"

Evasion is not a rogue talent (they already have it) but it is a ninja trick. For ninjas, it only works in light armor. Slayers get medium armor proficiency though. And one of their parent classes is ranger, which also gets Evasion, but THAT Evasion works in medium armor.

So can a slayer use Evasion in medium armor, or no?

I... have no direct advice to give. If I were your DM I'd say "pick some trinket on your person - that is now a beloved heirloom of your people, and your divine focus for spell casting." But that has no basis in the books.

I was actually going to do an heirloom weapon (a scythe handed down in her family line), which could work. But that's purely in the line of house rules.

Clerics and paladins need a holy symbol to present to channel and to cast certain spells. Oracles ignore that restriction. But shamans say nothing about it, and their kit doesn't come with one. So I'm curious what the actual intent was with shaman.

I'm building a shaman and so would like to bump this. Their spellcasting block says nothing about divine focuses, and some of their spells (protection from evil, and others) require one. The shaman kit doesn't come with one, though. Some of the above posters said you could use your spirit animal, but I took the speaker for the past archetype which has no familiar. So... do I need to buy a separate divine focus? Why didn't the kit come with one if I need one?

It's worth noting that to upgrade a mundane weapon or armor to a magic one, it needs to be masterwork first (I finally found this rule under magic item creation; I was second-guessing myself for a while there).

A lot of special materials like adamantine and mithral already count as masterwork.

Special note, the allies won't receive any benefit against demoralize, since they don't get a saving throw versus the Intimidate action.

Always wondered why intimidate is based on a weird DC. Building for intimidate can be useful, but requiring the GM to calculate what every creature's "demoralize DC" is can be annoying.

Dispari Scuro wrote:

My assumption would be the magus does not count as a swashbuckler, but the daring champion does. If it's ruled another way, I would be fine with that. Just means my kensai is going to get a lot more powerful.

What is the difference, RAW, in the wording between how the ability is applied to the two classes?

None, but I'm of course not discussing RAW, I'm just saying how I assume they were designed and intended. The daring champion clearly uses it as a core class ability, and is given it directly, and clearly meant to be able to use it. The magus gets it from an ability which, by and large, has very weak and crappy bonuses. If they're intended to count as a swashbuckler, I'll be taking it on every magus I ever make.

Oracle mysteries seem to allow for a lot of weird stuff, especially since there are some favored class bonuses that allow you to count as a higher level when determining the abilities of one revelation.

Incidentally, two player examples, which presumably could be exploited with dhampirs or black blood oracles:

* Anatomy Doll: All the healing you could want for 1000g. Give it to the rogue and tell him you like it rough.

* Lesser Spirit Totem rage power. Ask the barbarian to rage and then hit you with spirits. Or, he could maybe even heal himself every round while raging. That could get interesting.

Dispari Scuro wrote:

kestral287 wrote:

The only reason Precise Strike + Spell Combat has been up for debate is because some people point to the language that Spell Combat is like Two Weapon Fighting, and thus continue it out to you have a 'weapon' (spell) in your off-hand and are attacking with it (probably) and thus you can't use Precise Strike.

To me it seems pretty clear that it's intended that you can, but I suppose Magus level = Swashbuckler level isn't specifically called out in that way.

If Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat (which it does), then Precise Strike would. But that assumes that Precise Strike works with Arcane Deed, which isn't clear. It's entirely possible you count at as a level 0 swashbuckler and therefore add 0 damage to your attacks.

Preaching to the choir. I pointed out the Dervish Dance thing in another thread... which basically just turned into people insisting that Dervish Dance + Spell Combat isn't legal. Still.

On the primary subject, the way I read the Flamboyant Arcana/Arcane Deed, you're pretty much just supposed to replace every instance of 'panache' with 'arcane pool' and 'Swashbuckler' with 'Magus'... but that's not explicit, that's my reading. If this doesn't get a 'yes' I'll be shocked, because that'd make me wonder why the Daring Champion is explicitly given Precise Strike without a Cavalier level = Swash level note.

My assumption would be the magus does not count as a swashbuckler, but the daring champion does. If it's ruled another way, I would be fine with that. Just means my kensai is going to get a lot more powerful.

The only reason Precise Strike + Spell Combat has been up for debate is because some people point to the language that Spell Combat is like Two Weapon Fighting, and thus continue it out to you have a 'weapon' (spell) in your off-hand and are attacking with it (probably) and thus you can't use Precise Strike.

To me it seems pretty clear that it's intended that you can, but I suppose Magus level = Swashbuckler level isn't specifically called out in that way.

If Dervish Dance works with Spell Combat (which it does), then Precise Strike would. But that assumes that Precise Strike works with Arcane Deed, which isn't clear. It's entirely possible you count at as a level 0 swashbuckler and therefore add 0 damage to your attacks.

Is there any reason why Precise strike and spell combat wouldn't work together? PS is passive, unless you mean spending a point to double the damage bonus, but that would only take up your swift action anyway. It's possible I'm missing something though.

FWIW, it seems clear to me that magus levels are supposed to be used as swashbuckler levels for these arcana. Though I admit that PS seems like such an overwhelmingly good choice for an ability like this, that I can't help but wonder if it was overlooked.

My magus is still grabbing it unless it's changed, though ;P

Assuming you count as a swashbuckler, it's probably BY FAR the most powerful magus arcana. While most arcana are on the power level of "once a day you can reroll a concentration check," gaining your level to damage is extremely strong. Arcana are one of the most boring things about magus. In a lot of cases I would probably even be happier with a trait, and I generally just get a familiar because it actually does something. The most common build, a bladebound kensai, gives up two arcana and nobody really seems to care. Counting as a swashbuckler would probably make the arcana a no-brainer just due to the huge power and versatility it would have.

Quote:

Benefit: While raging, the barbarian is surrounded by spirit wisps that harass her foes. These spirits make one slam attack each round against a living foe that is adjacent to the barbarian. This slam attack is made using the barbarian’s full base attack bonus, plus the barbarian’s Charisma modifier. The slam deals 1d4 points of negative energy damage, plus the barbarian’s Charisma modifier.

Since it would replace "Barbarian" with "Skald" it specifically states it would use the Skald's full base attack bonus plus their Charisma modifier. There is nothing in the ability that would suggest that it uses someone else's BAB.

If that's the case, why did they feel the need to mention using the skald's charisma modifier, if it's implied everything works that way already? And actually, it says:

"When starting an inspired rage, the skald chooses which rage powers (if any) to add to the song, and all affected allies gain the benefit of these rage powers, using the skald's level as their effective barbarian level."

THEY use the rage powers, using your level as THEIR barbarian level, so of course they would use their own stats (except ability scores, since that's specifically called out). Similarly, THEY would get to decide who the spirits attack, not you.

It specifically states that it uses your stats, including your Charisma modifier, for the Spirit. That means your BAB, as well.

It doesn't really say, although I would assume that they use their own stats. The only exception is ability score, since it specifically mentions it. It doesn't say "your stats," or anything that mentions BAB. The actual text only says: "If the rage power's effects depend on the skald's ability modifier (such as lesser spirit totem), affected allies use the skald's ability modifier instead of their own for the purposes of this effect."

Using their own BAB actually seems to make more sense. Otherwise any rage powers that grant natural attacks would get really confusing. And it's more beneficial anyway. It means anyone with full BAB gets to use that. People with 1/2 BAB will probably be declining the buff anyway.

Use an Elixir of Sex Shift. If it doesn't work, the character is pregnant.

So if an alchemist wants to throw a bomb 100 ft at a square, he has to make an attack roll at a -8 to hit that square.

But if an ally is standing in that square 100 ft away, the alchemist can automatically hit that square every time?

Does that make sense to you?

Me personally, I don't have an issue with there being an attack roll, but I WOULD find it stupid that you're forced to dodge a beneficial effect.

But this raises other questions. A cleric with reach spell, does he have to make an attack roll against allies too?