Duraxis's page

Organized Play Member. 29 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


Thank you. That’s what I was thinking as well, but wasn’t certain it could be ruled as a class feature or not. 4 sessions to change isn’t too bad

So, in an attempt to keep this short: I created a half-elf warpriest of sarenrae, so he could start with longswords at trained (elven weapon training) and thought he would improve as he levelled up, but it seems a warpriest only becomes expert in their deity’s favoured weapon, and nothing else.

While I do like the role play side of playing a worshipper of sarenrae, being stuck at trained forever seems like a major hindrance to a warpriest.

Are there any ways in society to retrain religion after level 1, as it seems roleplaying it out isn’t possible. Iomedae seems like a perfect choice, as my character is basically a pseudo-paladin.

I think the current warlock and zealot progression is really really weak.
Avenger gets full base attack bonus
The rogue type gets full sneak attack progression (weakened when flanking, sure)

The casters get... 2 level 1 spells.

Wow. The talent tax is ridiculously heavy on the casters in my opinion. You have to burn 5 of them just to keep up with a magus or a bard

Logan Bonner wrote:

We're working on some methods to increase the existing debuff abilities of the mesmerist. The tricks will probably remain more like buffs because once we do that putting even more debuffs in would be overkill and unbalance the class. :)

You're quite welcome.

I'll have to hope for an archetype then that fits the "beguiler and master of men's minds" or "The Shadow" style character I had in mind when I heard of this.

Now that I think of it, The Shadow is a perfect example of how I imagined the class. Not too bad in combat, but mostly because he can play with the minds of the weak to make them see/do whatever he wishes.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

There would still be the issue of MAD caster using save or suck effects.

It wouldn't be too big a problem. All oof their big spells are enchantments or illusions, so you take spell focus and greater spell focus on one of the two, and your stare should do the rest. It's a lot easier to pick a school to specialise in when you only really get 2 choices

Logan Bonner wrote:
Quick note for everybody: I'll be on vacation the rest of this week, so I'll pop back in to look at questions Monday. (Or later today, time permitting.)

Have a nice vacation

I just wanted to say that I think people are putting too much focus on buffing allies with this class. We don't really need a contingency bard and there are other classes in the occult book alone that make better supports. I think the focus should be shifted more to controlling the fight, as I've said previously. Keep the tricks, but rework them a bit to add status effects to enemies. That way you're as effective protecting yourself in combat as you are with a team. Maybe they require touch attacks or close range, which give the class a reason to be up close with their 3/4 BAB (as they currently have little reason to be anywhere but the back lines) I think the most effective way of supporting the team is stopping the enemies hurting them to begin with, by trying to lock down monsters rather than increase defenses. I'd at least like an archetype (if the main class can't do this) to let the Mesmerist get through combat and other situations purely through mental control and a little bit of swordplay (both solo play and with a team)

EltonJ wrote:

My player changed to a kineticist, because he felt that the Mesmerist wasn't offensive enough. Bull, actually. The class has very subtle attacks. But if my player passed it up, that probably means that you guys will have to give the class a very obvious attack.

Some players just care about damage dice, which is fine, but not the only way to play. A good dominate monster ends a combat before it even begins. I'd rather play a class that leans heavily on enchantments and guile to take down foes rather than killing them (or making it easy for my team to kill them). There are more than enough classes that do that, and enough support roles in this book alone. I was hoping this class would be the "psychic rogue" of this book. then again, what I want to play and what devs want to make are two different things entirely

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the class should have more of a focus on controlling and debuffing the enemy rather than buffing allies/self. It just doesn't seem to fit with how I picture a mesmerist, especially when a lot of their abilities specialise in enchanting others, yet none of their tricks really do. This way they could even make use of their medium BAB (with the right build/archetype) and do some solo, rogue-style adventures

I think being able to use tricks to give more assorted penalties to opponents would be nice. Confusion, flat-footed, forgetting the mesmerist etc.

I like the theme of this character a lot. I like the manipulators who can control battles from the shadows without needing obvious magic or big AOE spells.

I think in practice it's kinda boring however. They sacrifice level 7+ spells in exchange for a medium base attack that they don't really have any ability to use. If they had mental feint attacks, it would be useful, or at least a reason to be anywhere near combat.

I'll have to play one of course, but from first glance, it seems their abilities are very situational in comparison to just playing a pure psychic who specialises in enchantment or something.

They just don't really have anything that makes me go "wow, that's unique and cool" as most of their tricks have analogs in wizard/sorcerer schools/bloodlines or rogue talents.

Torbyne wrote:
eh, give me a retro-victorian repeating crossbow (possibly with steam resevoirs and pnumatics?) and i'll bite though.

I was actually going to suggest an air powered crossbow to my GM. you'd pump it rather than cranking it (I've been playing too much Metro: Last Light)

Proficiency with all crossbows would be a lot easier, it also opens up stuff like double crossbows and great crossbows, assuming they're allowed

plaidwandering wrote:

The -4 is because -2 for TWF, and -2 for shooting a light crossbow one handed, you care until you are hitting touch everytime

Herp derp

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd house rule that you start with repeating crossbow proficiency (edit: possibly even hand crossbow proficiency, so they can use one something one handed) instead of firearms, and rapid reload instead of gunsmith, as this archetype will mostly be used in worlds without firearms.

Also, you only get a -2 to fire two light crossbows. They count as light weapons

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Yup. Says so in the sidebar where it talks about Panache and Grit being one pool.

"For purposes of feat prerequisites, a character with

the panache class feature satisfies the prerequisites as
if she were a grit user, and vice versa."

I understand that part, but does that mean a swashbuckler counts as the gunslinger class for feats? Signature deed specifically requires "Gunslinger 11"

Arachnofiend wrote:
Signature Deed, and likely other the other things you're looking for, are Gunslinger feats. The Swashbuckler can use Gunslinger feats for any of his panache deeds.

I was wondering this myself. Does it say that anywhere specific? Just so my GM doesn't think I'm cheating :P I want Signature deed for my Parry/Riposte

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hmm, I'm not sure this is an error, but I think it is.

"Studied target: A slayer can study an opponent he
can see as a move action. The slayer then gains a +1 bonus
on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive, and Survival
checks attempted against that opponent, and a +1 bonus on
weapon attack and damage rolls against it. The DCs of slayer
class abilities against that opponent increase by 1."

"At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels, the bonuses on weapon
attack and damage rolls, as well as the bonus to slayer ability
DCs against a studied, target increase by 1."

Nowhere on the slayer does it ever say that the skill bonuses ever increase, while they used to in both version of the playtest if I recall correctly

Edit: This also means that Stalker isn't too specific.
"a slayer gains his studied target
bonus on Disguise, Intimidate, and Stealth checks against
his studied opponent."

Is that the skill bonus, or the scaling attack bonus?

Yeah, because the game treats extracts and potions differently for actions, half of the feats don't work. I'll have to run Potion Glutton by my GM though, as it doesn't state anything specifically about extracts (nor are we playing inner sea, but we usually re-fluff stuff like that)

I know I'll get into the old dilemma of "do I stab or do I buff?" every turn

Hello. I've had a quick search through the boards and SRD, but have yet to find something.

Is there any way to speed up the use of extracts for an alchemist? I've been thinking of making a Grenadier Alchemist who fights with a sword on the front lines, steps back to pop an extract now and then before getting back into the fray. Not optimal, I know, but that's not the point here

Also, does using an extract provoke? I would assume it does, but it doesn't say so anywhere in the extract section

Probably long past anyone caring, but empower adds 50% to both variable dice rolled AND any bonuses on those dice. If you rolled 6d6+4 on a fireball for a total of 30 damage, it becomes 45 with empowered spell

I'd personally say to switch the base strength and dex. Have a bear that is more agile than strong seems a little odd. Other than that, I like it.

I'm really hoping for something akin to a Spellthief. Even something close to a Bard, but with more focus on stealth than buffing. A Monk/Cleric mashup would be awesome too.

normal sword +0
+1 sword +1
+2 sword +2

+1 balanced sword +1 or +3 if dual wielding
meaning it increases by 2, but only in certain situations, making it both less and more useful than a +2 sword, depending on who uses it and when. The same could be said for bane weapons, but they ALSO get a 2D6 damage bonus, meaning the risk/reward is greater

as for the arrows. lets say, as a normal player, you DON'T know what you'll be up against next week, and we use your example of getting 50 ghost touch arrows. useful. Then we spend three months fighting iron golems, where the 5 or 10 construct bane arrows MAY have been useful. that is again the idea of situational items, you never know when you'll need them, but its better to have a bit of everything then stick all your proverbial eggs in one basket and hope that the DM lets you fight undead because you have undead slaying arrows.

I'm not arguing that the price reduction is there, I'm simply saying when its the difference between 80 gold to create a single +1 flaming arrow, and 20 gold to create a flaming arrow, enchanters would learn a way to do that, especially when the +1 is useless the second anyone picks up a +1 or better bow

For the balanced weapon, its not equivalent to a +2 weapon, it's equivalent to a +3 weapon, but only while dual wielding, a +1 for any other situation. I think the lowering of the penalties would be an easier choice anyway, perhaps with a greater version as a +2 or 3.

as for the arrows, the entire point is that you never want a whole batch of 50 bane (demon) arrows. You want maybe 5 or 10, unless you're specifically fighting that type of creature for a campaign arc. that is the point of situational equipment.

I know of the clustered shots feat Diego, thank you. It is the one saving feature of archers. Fighters on the other hand get to simply ignore damage reduction all the time with penetrating strike. Id rather know what a creatures weakness is and use it, than simply fire enough arrows that it's a moot point anyway. difference in style I guess

The two weapon fighter in my group spent most of his time charging, having to reposition, struggling not to get swallowed, etc. just because you hold two weapons doesn't mean you'll always be able to use them both. It was quite rare he managed to perform a full attack action. I know bane is less useful in most situations, but the extra 2d6 damage seems to balance that out. Ah well. I'm mostly asking for opinions on these things before I ask my gm, so I'm not basically saying "hey, can I have this insta-win mcguffin?"

Then again, this was the gm who gave my changeling rogue a ring of infinite use dimension door >.> that wasn't even asked for

1. It's for any ranged character who uses situational arrows. First room, iron golem "all I have are normal arrows and a flaming bow, damn" next room, demon "all I have are normal arrows and a flaming bow" etc etc. having bane/elemental/different material arrows are ALWAYS useful

2. It's only effective when dual wielding, and there are other enchantments that do even better. Bane for example it gets +2 enhancement AND +2D6 damage. I didn't think the net +1 enhancement while dual wielding only would be that powerful. The other option would be "two weapon penalties with this weapon are 2 less" but that's weak for a +1 bonus in my opinion

Hello. I hope this is the correct section for this.
I have two questions, and I thought I'd save time by putting them in one place
1. When creating magic ammunition, would it be too powerful to remove the "+1 enhancement before special abilities can be applied" rule and replace it with "usable with magical weapons only"? I personally see little problem in it. By the time you are buying/crafting magic ammo, the character will almost always have a magic weapon to fire them from, which doesn't stack anyway.

2. Balanced weapons. I want to add a weapon enhancement for a game. +1 bonus, melee or ranged. Whenever using two weapon fighting or any attack that uses both weapons and the twf penalties (fighter's double strike for example) the weapon gets +2 to hit and damage. Alternately, it increases the enhancement bonus by 2. Any thoughts?

*edit* edit, added the "usable by magic weapons only" as I realised it could be abused, giving 800 villagers a single arrow of dragonbane each for example

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but spell storing weapon is a must for my magus. Free shocking grasp? (usually once a combat) hell yes

personally, I agree with spell storing weapon. My magus always gets one if he can. (getting it on a keen scimitar is fun, for the 15-20 crit range, which applies to any spells cast through it, though sadly not the stored spell, just spellstrike)

Spell-storing weapon
Bladed belt (AEG) (turns into any slashing or piercing weapon)
Ring of arcane mastery (AEG) (stores arcane points and gives you other benefits, like pool strike arcana for free)
Gloves of arcane striking (AEG) (if you have the arcane strike feat, which I always take, it allows you to do "splash damage" with it, as well as give the benefit to either damage or AC of allies if you use aid other on them)

The archer Archetype is actually pretty well balanced if you simply replace the word "bow" with "thrown." in fact it makes more sense to disarm with a starknife than an arrow really. The only awkward part is the volley ability. that would either be several throwing weapons in one action, or one that "bounces" somehow. It works with my intended build of a starknife with the ricochet hammers ability as it makes sense. Granted, it will be weaker than an archer, but a lot more fun

Edit: after looking up the chakram (which I believed were equivalent to starknives) I think I'll be going with them instead

Hi, first time poster, though I've lurked and searched for answers to queries I've had a few times here. If I was to take the ricochet ability of the ricochet hammer and turn it into a feat, how do you think it should work? I'm just thinking of a starknife wielder using it to effectively cleave attack with ranged weapons. Obviously limit it to thrown weapon that would feasibly ricochet? If such a feat existed, what do you think the requirements should be? the ricochet ability on the hammer costs about an extra 12,000 gold, so I'd assume lvl 5-8 before it was obtainable, maybe with some heavy specialization into throwing/ranged attacks. Any recommendations?

alternately, as a static +2 ability?