Garuda

Falgaia's page

Organized Play Member. 32 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 27 Organized Play characters.


RSS

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Name: Feo Kephraza, the Carnelian Sage (Called “Keph” casually.)
Alignment: NG
Race: Tengu
Class: Dervish Dancer Bard 1, Counterfeit Mage/Scout Rogue 10

Description: Tengu follower of Sarenrae, clothing usually includes a variety of deep crimson scarves. Feathers are biologically that of a raven, but she paints her feathers the colors of the sun (golds, orange, yellows) as a sign of her faith. Kitted to the brim with hidden wands and scrolls, and always excited to find a new magical implement in a dungeon.

Probably going to edit this with more details later, just played as Keph again today and remembered I still needed to enter this from a scenario last done over a year ago. Jade was my original go-to, but since it seems popular I’ll go with an untaken one that is close to my backup which was Sunstone.

Scarab Sages

Hey there everyone,

Going to be running this multi-layered beast on Sunday for one of the tables at our local meetup, and am still currently dissecting its contents, but I was wondering if there was any mechanical benefit to actually committing sabotage in this scenario? Since it puts some of the PCs prestige at risk, something that will likely be obvious to them as experienced Pathfinders doing their prescribed mission, I am a little nervous that this may end up like my playthrough of Destiny of the Sands P1, where no one committed any sabotage through fear of being found out, despite the moral ramifications of following the instructions to the letter. Any advice on dealing with this sort of thing/am I missing something in the scenario that my initial skim didn't detect?

Scarab Sages

So, I'm calling it now, the other two Oracles are going to be a Troglodyte and a Tiefling. Troglodyte could alternately be a Nagaji with the Wolf-Scarred Face curse from BoA but I have a hard time seeing Paizo pulling from player companions for these. Just my two cents.

Scarab Sages

So I have a Hydrokineticist that I used back during the playtest, and now that Occult has released, I've been looking to dust them off. As a good Hydrokineticist, I intend to grab Kinetic Healer at Level 2 for making the party happy, but the wording in Occult Adventures left me with a few questions.

Occult Adventures wrote:
"With a touch, you can heal a willing living creature an amount of damage equal to your kinetic blast's damage."

So that obviously implies the 1d6+1 per two levels +Con would be healed, but what this doesn't mention is whether or not Kinetic Healer heals based on you Kinetic Blast's current damage output or base damage output. For instance:

Elemental Overflow: Increases Kinetic Blast's damage by current burnx2 up to a cap equal to 1/3 Kineticist's level. In addition, starting at level 6, Elemental Overflow allows Kineticists with Burn to add a +2 Size Bonus to two physical ability scores, which can include Con, which would then increase the Kinetic Blast's damage by one point.

Would this bonus damage translate to bonus healing for the Kinetic Healer Talent? If not, then what about the temporary Con bonus?

Then there's stuff like Inspire Courage, which is a damage bonus that doesn't even come from the Kineticist. Would ally damage buffs also increase the net healing?

Finally, Occult Adventures added in a new magic item as well. The Kineticist's Diadem adds between 1 and 3d6 (depending on the variant) to simple and composite blasts that match the wearing Kineticist's type. Would these bonus damage dice also add to the Kinetic Healing?

Just wanted to check all of this before playing any games where it'll matter with the character. Thanks in advance.

Scarab Sages

The NPC wrote:
Jimmy of the Sad Panda wrote:
Is there a point to the kinetic form utility talent. It doesn't mention any effects other than a size change, which gives you a penalty to hit. It also doesn't mention any cosmetic effects like looking like an elemental. I don't see any point in this ability.

It mentions that you suspend your body in your element. That's a cosmetic change right there.

An increase to reach has been mentioned, but your unarmed damage dice goes up, you can wield a larger sized weapon, natural armor class increases, and the amount you can lift or carry also increases.

Coupled with situational benefits, like being a large distraction or a wall, there are benefits to this talent. Additionally unlike Enlarge person there is no Dexterity penalty.

Technically, you forgot one other benefit: size bonus to CMB. I think that would apply to CMB on Substance infusions, but more importantly, I can see a legitimate Pyrokineticist Grapple Build that utilizes the size increase and their Defensive talents to deal damage every round without needing to roll. It'd probably work well with the Aescetic.

Other than that, I'm getting ready to pick back up my Hydrokineticist who I intend to rebuild into a blood bender, or, as I prefer to call them, a Sanguineticist. Water blasts are the best for Kinetic Healing for Hydrokineticists, but water blasts lack good infusions unless you pick up the blood bender archetype, so I'm going to be using it to my advantage. Probably the coolest thing about the archetype is that you can autohit for a damage penalty while ignoring DR and everything, which is pretty sweet when you're fighting things that aren't immune to it. Level 7 looks like it'll be fun as well, as combining the Blood composite blast with the Bleeding Infusion they get at level 5 can really stack up the bleed damage. I'll be sure to report back once I've planned out the build more and ran it in a few games.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Simple enough question. Can a Druid with the Nature Bond class feature attuned to a Domain qualify for the Warrior Priest feat?

Warrior Priest wrote:

Prerequisites: Ability to cast divine spells, domain or mystery class feature.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on initiative checks and a +2 bonus on concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability when casting defensively or while grappled.

Nature Bond wrote:
At 1st level, a druid forms a bond with nature. This bond can take one of two forms. The first is a close tie to the natural world, granting the druid one of the following cleric domains: Air, Animal, Earth, Fire, Plant, Water, or Weather. Druids also have access to a set of Animal and Terrain Domains. When determining the powers and bonus spells granted by this domain, the druid's effective cleric level is equal to her druid level. A druid that selects this option also receives additional domain spell slots, just like a cleric. She must prepare the spell from her domain in this slot and this spell cannot be used to cast a spell spontaneously.

Basically I'm just concerned that this doesn't count as the Domain Class feature since it is listed as part of Nature Bond.

Thanks in advance.

Scarab Sages

Tbh if he's a high level witch concerned about fighting immunity to Mind Effecting, I'd tell him to either pick up Ice Tomb or more of the utility hexes such as Flight, Healing, Fortune, etc. Your party will never be immune to generic buffs after all.

In the S&S game I mentioned earlier, half of my witch's actions are "I Fortune the Barbarian." I much prefer that to the time at level 3 when our party nearly got killed by coconut crabs because I couldn't hex them, and the free rerolls make me fairly popular.

Scarab Sages

Basically anything that is immune to Mind Effecting will screw you over.

Source: Playing a witch through Book One of Skull and Shackles.

Scarab Sages

Komoda wrote:

Falgaia, I agree with you that Aydin is incorrect in his understanding of the rule. That does not mean his comment is "irrelevant" or meant to "de-rail" the thread. If he was correct, which he thinks he is, he would both be relevant and very much on topic.

I don't know that we can convince him of the error in his ways, but chastising him for coming to a different conclusion isn't going to help him or anyone else.

I get that, but all it ends up doing is distracting from the point at large. He may not have meant to de-rail the thread, but as the person trying to get a question answered, coming back to a thread you created after a few hours to find the discussion going in a direction that does not help to answer the question is somewhat disheartening, as it makes it less likely that newcomers reading the thread will end up answering your question. As such, I made it a point to try to explain how the text of the rules worked so as to refocus the discussion. I never wanted the thread to turn into a discussion of whether or not Furyborn and SS were legal on an AoMF because that goes without saying where I'm from. I stand by my statement that if he feels it is an issue worthy of further discussion, then he should make his own thread about it in order to create a focused, structured environment in which to argue his case. That is all. If it came off as chastisement, then I apologize.

Scarab Sages

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
Falgaia wrote:
By this logic, the set list of enhancements that are viable for an AoMF should include all of the enhancements listed on the Random Melee Weapon Special Abilities table in the Ultimate Equipment book. Vicious, an enhancement on this random table, has the offending text. By extension, Furyborn can also be seen as an analogous Melee weapon special ability, and can thus be placed on a AoMF. Look it up.

Except, as I keep saying, there are restrictions. Like the "Only Melee Weapons" limitation on some enchantments.

Its as if you had a Fighter who could weild One-handed weapons. And then you had a one-handed weapon that said "Can only be weilded by Clerics". Just because one over arching generalization makes one claim does not mean you ignore more specific restrictions.

Falgaia wrote:
And there are ways to make a UAS count as Piercing/Slashing. And again, that is beside the point, as this is a thread about how Furyborn and Spell Storing interact with an Amulet of Mighty Fists, not the Keen ability. I am not here to argue this point. Stop trying to derail the thread with irrelevant issues.
Furyborn and Spell Storing interact with Amulet of Mighty Fists not at all. Anything beyond that is an 'irrelevant issue,' unless you have decided to ignore that simple aspect of the rules.

You are putting emphasis where none exists. They are Melee Weapon Special Abilities, plain and simple. These are enchantments that can be placed on Unarmed Strikes, so they can be placed on an AoMF. There are multiple threads that have discussed issues with Spell Storing and Furyborn in the past, and the general consensus among the playerbase is that you can put these abilities on an AoMF. This thread even goes as far as to show that, with 8/9 posters acknowledging it can be done. I have tried my hardest to explain why your interpretation is incorrect, but you refuse to listen to my arguments. As such, all I can say at this point is to feel free to interpret the rules as you wish, but good luck getting it to fly at a PFS table, or any other for that matter. If you do, then more power to you.

I have received two logical answers to my question based on existing precedent that are framed with reasoning that is sound enough to fly at most tables. I don't see any further reason to argue a question I did not ask and already knew the answer to, as there is no longer a discussion to be de-railed. If you are concerned that the rules with the AoMF are unfair or misinterpreted by the community at large, I recommend you voice your concerns in a new thread in the hopes that Paizo will address them, much like I did here.

Scarab Sages

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
Falgaia wrote:
The phrase "Only Melee Weapons" is only meant to suggest that Ranged Weapons do not qualify for receiving those enhancements. They are still Melee Weapon enhancements, and are still viable for AoMF.

This is, almost literally, Rules As Intended, not Rules As Written. By claiming what the rules 'suggest,' you make a leap of logic not everyone will, or should, follow.

Instead, what I have done is read the words as given. I am not saying I agree with them, or stake claim to know what the Devs wanted, but this is what is written.

One of the things that keeps coming up is the idea that the phrase "this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks" suddenly says "This amulet counts as a melee weapon for the purposes of melee weapon special abilities."

Melee Weapon Special Abilites is a set list of enchantments, as shown in the table given in the item's description.

Now, all that has to happen to solve this is for some FAQ to say "Can the AoMF be enchanted with abilities limited to only melee weapons? Yes."

By this logic, the set list of enhancements that are viable for an AoMF should include all of the enhancements listed on the Random Melee Weapon Special Abilities table in the Ultimate Equipment book. Vicious, an enhancement on this random table, has the offending text. By extension, Furyborn can also be seen as an analogous Melee weapon special ability, and can thus be placed on a AoMF. Look it up.

Quote:
Changing tactics, lets look at a few things: If the 'requirements' of enchantments on AoMF is based on how they will be applied (to unarmed attacks, natural attacks, etc), why couldn't the Amulet be enchanted with Keen? I mean, Natural Weapons (Bite, etc) can be slashing and peircing, as can Unarmed Strike with the right feats. If AoMF takes into acount the end use of the enchantment, then there should be no restrictions on what enchantments can be applied.

And there are ways to make a UAS count as Piercing/Slashing. And again, that is beside the point, as this is a thread about how Furyborn and Spell Storing interact with an Amulet of Mighty Fists, not the Keen ability. I am not here to argue this point. Stop trying to derail the thread with irrelevant issues.

@Horselord and chbgraphicarts, thank you for your replies. They are reasonable conclusions that were achieved using established precedent, and makes the most sense in the context of the question. Unless Paizo raises further FAQ errata for this question, that is how I'll assume in the future that these abilities interact.

Scarab Sages

Falgaia wrote:
For further clarification, the original ruling you cited was to disallow the Brawling enhancement for BoA. Brawling was disallowed because it can only be applied to light armor, not because it could only be applied to Armor. There is nothing in the BoA description allowing it to grant Light Armor enhancements. AoMF allows for Melee Weapon Enhancements, which Furyborn and Spell Storing are, so it is legal for an AoMF to be enchanted with these effects.

The phrase "Only Melee Weapons" is only meant to suggest that Ranged Weapons do not qualify for receiving those enhancements. They are still Melee Weapon enhancements, and are still viable for AoMF. The ruling you are trying to use to discredit this point does not relate to this, as pointed out in my previous post, quoted here for convenience. Reread the ruling your argument is based on, read the posts before it in that thread which frame the context of the question, and then read the above quote.

Even so, this thread was not created to debate this point. It was created to debate the original post, which has been ignored largely because you began to derail the discussion with a ruling that does not apply to this situation. I believe I have given sound reasoning to refute your claim, proving that this is in fact a potential rules issue. As such, I would appreciate it if we could lay this false claim aside and return to the point presented in the OP, which is as follows:

Spoiler:
Falgaia wrote:

If Furyborn is given to each of the wearer's natural attacks individually, then the should hold true for Spell Storing, allowing each of a creature's natural attacks to hold a Shocking Grasp individually. Likewise, if the Spell Storing enchantment is constrained to the Amulet, then the Furyborn enchantment should likewise stack for each individual Natural Weapon hit.

My question is, simply put, which one is it? Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists grant its ability individually to each of the affected weapons, or does it rather allow each of the affected weapons to proc the ability from the Amulet of Mighty Fists itself?[/quote=Falgaia]

And, if both abilities are intended to work as summarized in previous debates discussed in the OP, can we get an official errata to one of the two offending abilities in order to make this clear?

Scarab Sages

For further clarification, the original ruling you cited was to disallow the Brawling enhancement for BoA. Brawling was disallowed because it can only be applied to light armor, not because it could only be applied to Armor. There is nothing in the BoA description allowing it to grant Light Armor enhancements. AoMF allows for Melee Weapon Enhancements, which Furyborn and Spell Storing are, so it is legal for an AoMF to be enchanted with these effects.

Scarab Sages

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:
Komoda wrote:
I am not sure if you noticed, but all the melee magic weapon abilities that can't be used on ranged weapons state that. It is the universal disclaimer, not a special limiter to the AoMF. Anything with that line is basically verifying it CAN be used with the amulet.

This is very much not true. There are more enchantments which do not have the 'This can only be applied to melee weapons' restriction, than those that do.

The limitation to melee weapons only is a restriction on the enchantment, one that the AoMF does not, by RAW, override.

Interestingly enough, this list of 'doesn't have the restriction' includes the newly added Answering quality, so this issue is not a matter of previous language not being up to par with current language.

Komoda is simply stating that the disclaimer is only a disclaimer relating to the inability to place the enhancement on Ranged Weapons. They are still a Melee Weapon Enhancement, and can be placed on an AoMF accordingly.

Also, as stated in my previous post, the Bracers ruling is not analogous to the AoMF, as there is nothing in the Bracers description that classifies them as allowing Light Armor Enhancements while the AoMF explicitly allows Melee Weapon enhancements.

I'm still looking for an answer or ruling that can be applied to the original topic, or, in absence of existing rulings, nominations for the Weapon/Weapon Enhancer or Spell Storing/Furyborn questions to be FAQ candidates.

Scarab Sages

Aydin D'Ampfer wrote:

I don't think you are reading the important part of this discussion. You cannot put those enchantments on the amulet in the first place. It is not a matter of how it transfers to your fists.

Imagine a Venn Diagram, with one section labeled "Melee Weapons", and one labeled "Not Melee Weapons".

They do not touch.

Unarmed strikes are in the melee weapon circle.

The Amulet of Mighty Fists is in the "Not Melee Weapons" circle.

When you look at the Enchantments, they specify "Can only be placed on melee weapons."

This means they can only enchant items inside the "Melee Weapons" circle.

The Amulet is not in that circle, therefore is unable to be enchanted with those abilities.

Unless there is a rule or ruling that grants the AoMF the ability to ignore limitations imposed by the enchantments.

Sorry, I'm responding to this on a phone, so by the time you had clarified your previous statement I had been typing my post for ten minutes and hadn't noticed your reply.

In regards to the Light Armor/Bracers ruling, there is nothing in the Bracers description saying that they grant Light Armor enhancements. That would make it an equivalent ruling to the AoMF if it were the case, but since it only gives untyped Armor Bonuses, it cannot be considered analogous in this regard. The AoMF specifically clarifies that it grants Melee Weapon special abilities, so it would allow for abilities such as Furyborn and Spell Storing, while the Bracers of Armor would only allow for untyped Armor Enhancements.

Scarab Sages

"Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks."

This is typically read to fix the issue you're describing, as a UAS counts as a light Melee weapon.

@Dabbler I agree that that is likely how it works in regards to the monk, as they are effectively using the same attack multiple times in the round. However, as stated in my original post, it seems to me that if Furyborn from an AoMF worked the way you described for natural attacks, then it would follow that same logic that each Natural Attack would be also count as a separate weapon capable of holding a spell. Therein lies the issue with the ability rulings.

I'd like it if we could get a ruling akin to the one the FAQ team did for the Speed enhancement, personally.
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9oaf

Scarab Sages

Claxon wrote:

It's not an all or nothing.

It's a worst case scenario for both because the opposite conclusions are unbalancing.

If that is the case, then we'd need an errata on one of the two enhancements, as otherwise it doesn't make sense from a rules perspective. Its impossible to justify the weaker option in both cases if those cases contradict each other within the context of the item.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Fair warning, this is a wall of text. My apologies in advance, and thank you to anyone who has the patience to read it.

So I'm working on building a Dragon Disciple character, and naturally, the topic of what I should put on my Amulet of Mighty Fists came up after a couple hours of creating theoretical builds. For reference,

Amulet of Mighty Fists:
Ultimate Equipment wrote:

This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.

My question stems from research I have done on two potential Amulet of Mighty Fists enhancements, Furyborn and Spell Storing. These abilities have each had prior discussion in the rules forum as they relate to the Amulet, and I found that the rulings most people resort to to balance these enhancements contradict each other.

First, Furyborn.

Furyborn:
Ultimate Equipment wrote:
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons. A furyborn weapon draws power from the anger and frustration the wielder feels when battling foes that refuse to die. Each time the wielder damages an opponent with the weapon, its enhancement bonus increases by +1 when making attacks against that opponent (to a maximum total enhancement bonus of +5). This extra enhancement bonus goes away if the opponent dies, the wielder uses the weapon to attack a different creature, or 1 hour passes.

Debates in the past have questioned whether or not the Furyborn Amulet of Mighty Fists gets improved with each attack made rather than each weapon enhanced by it. So in other words, the difference between hitting with Right Claw/Left Claw and missing a Bite and getting two +2 Claw Attacks and one +2 Bite Attack versus only having two +1 Claw Attacks.

The arguments essentially boiled down to whether or not the Amulet of Mighty Fists counted as a singular weapon being enhanced with each strike or if it simply gave each of the natural attacks the Furyborn quality individually. Most people seemed to side with the latter, as it was the weaker option and more on par with the weapon enhancement as it appears on manufactured weapons.

Now, Spell Storing.

Furyborn:
Ultimate Equipment wrote:
A spell storing weapon allows a spellcaster to store a single targeted spell of up to 3rd level in the weapon. (The spell must have a casting time of 1 standard action.) Anytime the weapon strikes a creature and the creature takes damage from it, the weapon can immediately cast the spell on that creature as a free action if the wielder desires. (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) Once the spell has been cast from the weapon, a spellcaster can cast any other targeted spell of up to 3rd level into it. The weapon magically imparts to the wielder the name of the spell currently stored within it. A randomly rolled spell storing weapon has a 50% chance of having a spell stored in it already. This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons.

Debates in the past seem to argue that a Spell Storing enhancement stems from the Amulet itself, and that the Amulet does not grant it to each of the wearer's natural attacks separately. Again, this was decided because the alternative of having four fully stacked Shocking Grasps getting released in a full-round attack seemed fairly ludicrous.

That said, the two rulings begin to contradict each other. If Furyborn is given to each of the wearer's natural attacks individually, then the should hold true for Spell Storing, allowing each of a creature's natural attacks to hold a Shocking Grasp individually. Likewise, if the Spell Storing enchantment is constrained to the Amulet, then the Furyborn enchantment should likewise stack for each individual Natural Weapon hit.

My question is, simply put, which one is it? Does the Amulet of Mighty Fists grant its ability individually to each of the affected weapons, or does it rather allow each of the affected weapons to proc the ability from the Amulet of Mighty Fists itself?

I'm partial to the latter ruling, as it seems to make more sense that Furyborn, as the weaker effect housed within a +2 enhancement bonus, should receive the increased power over the superior Spell Storing buff, but I wanted to receive official clarification on this matter before bringing it to a game day, PFS or otherwise.

Scarab Sages

6-06: Hall of the Flesh Eaters Playtest
Party Composition:
Sorceror/3
Bard/2-Cleric/1
Magus/2
Cavalier/2
Kineticist/1 (My brother, playing a pyrokinetic Kitsune)
Kineticist/1 (Me, playing a hydrokinetic Gnome)

So recently, my brother and I built a pair of Kineticists to run side-by-side in order to test the two ends of the Kinetic spectrum, touch-based Fire blasts and high-powered water blasts. While I intend to attach full stat blocks for our characters down below, he was more focused on constant/sustained damage while I was trying to play an M1A1 tank with healing. For first level feats, I chose Medium Armor Proficiency to hit AC 20 while he instead took Tribal Scars for the +6 HP and +5 speed. Which made it hilarious when I was using a speed 15 Gnome in comparison to a Speed 35 Kitsune.

Anyway, we were using these characters in a run of PFS Scenario 6-06: “Hall of the Flesh Eaters.” Among our party listed above, the only really optimized member was our Magus, who was doing respectable damage most of the adventure, while our Cavalier seemed to forget he had Challenge as he never used it. During the scenario, I tried to write down as much useful info as I could in regards to what the party was doing, starting from the first major encounter onwards. I tried to write down attack rolls where I could, as I didn’t want to slow the scenario with my transcribing, but I made a point to record all hits and misses as well as resulting damage and effects that occurred within the scenario. Kineticist turns, or turns where the Kineticists were primary targets, will be bolded. In each combat, I’ll refer to enemy monsters by the first letter of their names followed by a number, as our GM clearly marked each enemy with markers as we engaged them. This way, players unfamiliar with the scenario won’t be spoiled as to the exact nature of each encounter, while people who are familiar with the scenario will be able to easily put the pieces together. Anyways, onto the round-by-round.

---------------------------

Encounter 1: vs K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, KC

INIT: (forgot to record exact numbers)

T1: Cavalier/2 (Cav) throws Alchemist’s Fire at K1. Although I did not record miss or hit on this one, I believe he missed, dealing one splash damage to K1 and K2.
T2: Hydrokineticist/1 (HK) fires Water Blast at K1 for 9 damage. (K1@-10)
T3: Magus/2 (Mag) attacks K2 for 6 damage. (K2@-7)
T4: Bard/2-Cleric/1 (BC) begins Inspire Courage, which most people promptly forget about.
T5: Enemy Turn. K1, K2 and K3 attack Mag; K2 hits for 5 damage; K3 hits for 7 damage. (Mag@-12) K4 misses Cav. K5 jockeys for positioning or did something else unremarkable, since I never recorded it.
(K)T6: Pyrokineticist/1 (PK) fires a Flame Blast at K1, using a point of Burn to activate Burning Infusion after having moved into position. The attack hits, dealing 4 damage and killing K1 before Burning Infusion takes hold.
T7: Sorceror/3 (Sorc) enters into melee with K4, hitting him for 5 points with his quarterstaff.
T8: Enemy Turn. KC attacks PK and misses.
T9: Cav attacks K4 for 2 damage. Wolf Companion attacks K4 and misses. (K4@-7)
T10: HK heals Mag for 7 HP with Kinetic Healer, HK receives 1 Burn. (Mag@-5)
(K)T11: Mag attacks K2 for 11 damage and scores a kill.
T12: BC fires a Lightning Arc (Domain Power) at K3, misses.
T13: Enemy Turn. K4 misses Cav, K3 & K5 miss Mag.
T14: PK passes Perception Check to notice that KC is different-looking. This is the only skill check the Kineticists made that is worth mentioning all scenario. PK shoots a Flame Blast at KC, hits 17 Touch, dealing 8 fire damage and causing KC to catch fire. PK ignores Burn, as his move was spent channeling energy.
T15: Sorc melees K4 for 7 damage. (K4@-12)
T16: Enemy Turn. KC successfully crits PK for a total of 13 damage. (PK@-13-1Burn)
(K)T17: Cav kills K4 with Wolf Bite.
T18: HK fires a Water Blast at K5 who is in melee. HK misses with a d20 roll of 2.
(K)T19: Mag attempts to use Spell Combat with Arcane Mark, but fails the concentration check. He attacks K5 with his sword, critting and dealing 20 damage for the kill.
T20: BC heals PK for 5 HP. (PK@-8-1Burn)
T21: Enemy Turn. K3 hits Mag for 2 damage. (Mag@-7)
T22: PK shoots a Fire Blast at KC, rolling a total of 9 to hit and missing outright.
T23: Enemy Turn. KC attacks PK and misses. PK’s Burning Infusion from T14 deals 4 damage to KC. (KC@-12)
(K)T24: Cav provokes an AoO from KC, KC misses. Cav, now flanking KC, attacks @13 and misses. Wolf attacks at 17, hitting and doing 6 damage for the kill.
T25: Mag attacks twice and misses horribly.
>T26: HK delays while BC attempts diplomacy versus K3.
T27: BC blows his Diplomacy attempt.
T26: HK shoots a Water blast at in-combat K3 @12, miss.
T28: Enemy Turn. K3 attacks Mag, misses.
T29: PK shoots a fire blast at in-combat K3, rolls a natural 3 and misses.
T30: Sorc fires sling at K3 in combat. The attack hits, but miss chance causes it to miss.
(K)T31: Cav attacks K3, critting with Wolf for the kill.

End combat.

-------------------------------

Since I’m a college student with limited free time, I’ll post up this first combat and continue this as I have time. This is about 33% of the notes I took, and I'll definitely post at least the other two primary combats time permitting.

Scarab Sages

Zwordsman wrote:
Falgaia wrote:
ooc, since I've never played a ranged character before and am looking to get into the Kineticist for the playtest, does the Kineticist have the ability to fire off multiple Kinetic Blasts as iteratives once they hit Level 8 and +6 BAB? I know for the Kinetic Blade ability, this is the case, but having never played ranged characters before (and never having ones that specialize in SLA's) I'm uncertain as to how the kinetic blasts would interact with a Full Attack action.

Yes and no.

Ranged wise. the Kinetic blast is a SLA-spell like ability. Which is a spescific standard action to activate. So no iteratives and no full action ability there. Kinetic blade does work off itaratives but it's melee.

So basically no full attacks ever for the sla based range fellow. Which is one reason the damage is scaling as it ddoes.

Gotcha, so that kind of sucks. Only other question I can think to pose is whether or not Point-Blank shot works with Kinetic Blasts, simply because it seems like a necessary evil to take on the way to getting Precise Shot for ranged blasters. Has there been any definitive word in regards to this?

Scarab Sages

ooc, since I've never played a ranged character before and am looking to get into the Kineticist for the playtest, does the Kineticist have the ability to fire off multiple Kinetic Blasts as iteratives once they hit Level 8 and +6 BAB? I know for the Kinetic Blade ability, this is the case, but having never played ranged characters before (and never having ones that specialize in SLA's) I'm uncertain as to how the kinetic blasts would interact with a Full Attack action.

Scarab Sages

Arutema wrote:
First post in the Kineticist thread "clarifies" that only blast talents my be reduced by spending the move action.

Cool to hear. As I didn't actively participate in the ACG playtest, I wasn't aware that each class had a feedback thread. I'll be sure to cross-reference those in the future as I dig.

Scarab Sages

So being interested in the Kineticist, I noticed something recently that might prove to be somewhat overpowered in the bookkeeping department.

Telekineticists and Hydrokineticists gain the ability to select Kinetic Healing as a Wild Talent at first level. If I'm reading this correctly, Kinetic Healing requires the either the Kineticist or their target to receive 1 point of Burn in order to receive a sizeable chunk of healing.

Kineticists also receive the ability to channel elemental energy with a move action, "allowing her to reduce the total cost of a wild talent used in the sameround by one point," presumably down to a minimum of zero.

Assuming Kinetic Healing is a standard action to use (since it is not listed in the ability's entry) then the Kineticist would be able to channel elemental energy as a move action to reduce the cost of this ability to 0 Burn, giving them an at-will heal with no out-of-combat drawbacks.

This seems more than a tad overpowered, as it provides a Level 1 Character to easily and completely top off the entire party's HP after every encounter with no drawbacks.

Ways to fix this to ensure the CLW Wand economy does not dry up:
-List the Kinetic Healing ability as a Full-Round Action, as it would then be impossible to channel elemental energy as a move action during the same round in which the ability is used.
-Simply state that one cannot channel elemental energy to reduce the burn cost of this ability.
-Treat it like the Witch's Healing Hex and put some sort of limitation to the ability's amount of uses per day per target.

If anyone has any thoughts on the matter or would like to point out something I missed, feel free to, as I could have very easily missed or misread something in this ability combo that makes it appear much more powerful than it currently is.

Scarab Sages

Hendelbolaf wrote:

Like Imbicatus said, if it says "as a standard action", then, no, it cannot be used as a part of a full attack which is a full-round action.

If you were to cast, however, an Inflict Light Wounds spell, the following round you could make an attack with your open handing holding the spell. If it was successful and you had a weapon in your other hand, then you could make a second attack with your weapon provided your BAB was more than +6 and you met the other criteria (did not use a move action, etc).

If you missed with the touch attack to deliver the spell, then you could use any other attacks to attempt to deliver it as well.

The domain powers vary by description. What one in particular were you looking to use like this?

Edit: Vision of Madness is a spell-like ability so it by default a standard action. So it would act like the spell situation I described above.

Hell's Corruption is a supernatural ability and still requires a standard action unless mentioned otherwise. So it would be the same as above.

Ah, ok. So basically, the ability type is important in determining what type of action it is. I had missed that part. I'm still somewhat confused as to whether or not it would waste one of your daily charges if you were to miss, although I'm assuming that would be the case?

Scarab Sages

Dustyboy wrote:

So... please tell me this isn't legal RAW.. because it's certainly not RAI

Animal Companion, Takes int bonus to 3, then takes animal ally/nature soul/boon companion

rinse repeat

0.0

No? yes?

I think you're looking for this.

Scarab Sages

Imbicatus wrote:
No, most if not all of those Touch attacks have "as a standard action" in their description. That locks out using them as part of a full attack action.

What about domain powers like Vision of Madness (Madness domain) and Hell's Corruption (Devil subdomain)? They aren't specifically listed as a Standard Action, so would they be viable for something like this?

Scarab Sages

So I have a quick question that I can't seem to find the answer to. If you were, say, a Cleric, and you want to use one of your touch-attack based Domain powers, can you just substitute the touch attack for one of your normal melee attacks?

Example: If Bob the Cleric were to have a +6/+1 BAB and had two different Domain touch attacks, could he choose to use two touch attacks, or would he have to choose between attacking twice with his sword or using only one touch attack?

For all intents and purposes, I'm asking if touch attacks can be subbed in like a Disarm/Trip/Sunder maneuver.

While I'm here, I'm also curious as to whether or not a missed Cleric domain power counts as a wasted charge? I read somewhere that, at least for spells, the spell's energy only discharges upon a successful attack, allowing the caster multiple chances to hit without as much of a chance to blow a spell slot. Do Cleric domain powers work similarly?

Thanks in advance!

Scarab Sages

Alistus wrote:
I believe it does stack, however if you look at what your giving up and what you're gaining there really is no point. You lose 3 BaB and like 3 or 4 levels of casting and don't gain very much in the process because most of the Dragon Disciple abilities are gained through the Dragon Bloodline anyway. Bloodrager is much stronger on it's own.

As I'm building this character for PFS, the only real drawbacks are that I'll be getting my second attack 1 level later if I rush Dragon Disciple ASAP. The extra strength boosts make it so that you still keep up the same accuracy with your attacks while gaining some bonus damage, so it's not too bad of a tradeoff. Also, the added Bite seems like it would work pretty well with an all-in Natural Attack style, which is what I plan on doing anyway, so they're not as bad of tradeoffs as one would initially imagine. Besides, the class concept seems awesome, so that trumps all logic from my standpoint.

If I can use an alternate Bloodrager bloodline and then get the bonuses from the Sorcerer's Dragon bloodline, that seems like it'd be the way to go. It'll be interesting to see how it gets resolved upon the book release, but either way, thanks for the input.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

So, I recently saw the Dragon Disciple class as a great way to build off of the Bloodrager class introduced in the Advanced Class Guide playtest. Since Bloodragers can easily meet all of the prerequisites with ease, it seems like it'd be a perfect fit with the advancements of the prestige class, what with granting the Bloodrager even more bonus Strength, Con, HP while keeping up their spell progression at a reasonable pace. Plus, it just seems like a thematically awesome thing to work towards, essentially becoming a melee terror that form-shifts into a Draconic monster and proceeding to just destroy people with natural weapons.

However, there is one rule I'd like to ask about for errata's sake, as the Dragon Disciple was not made with the Bloodrager in mind. In the Dragon Disciple entry, they gain the following ability at level 1:

Blood of Dragons:
A dragon disciple adds his level to his sorcerer levels when determining the powers gained from his bloodline. If the dragon disciple does not have levels of sorcerer, he instead gains bloodline powers of the draconic bloodline, using his dragon disciple level as his sorcerer level to determine the bonuses gained. He must choose a dragon type upon gaining his first level in this class and that type must be the same as his sorcerer type. This ability does not grant bonus spells to a sorcerer unless he possesses spell slots of an appropriate level. Such bonus spells are automatically granted if the sorcerer gains spell slots of the spell's level.

This ability raises a few questions for me as a player. Bloodragers have their own bloodlines, accordingly known as Bloodrager Bloodlines. These bloodlines share the same overall classifications of all base Sorcerer bloodlines (Draconic, Aberrant, Abyssal, Infernal, etc.) Most of these bloodlines possess traits similar to the normal Sorcerer bloodline choices. Draconic is the one I'm focusing on here. In both cases, the character gains claws at level 1, energy resistance at level 3/4, a breath weapon at level 8/9, and so on. In addition, Bloodragers are a Sorcerer alternate class, being a mix of Barbarian and Sorcerer.

What I'm curious about is whether or not the Blood of Dragons ability should apply to a Bloodrager's bloodline. Due to the class similarities, and even sharing the Sorcerer's bloodline ability under a different name, it doesn't seem like it would be too far of a stretch that the abilities could be ruled as one in the same. Also of note, this wouldn't be without its drawbacks for the Bloodrager. If the Sorcerer bloodlines are treated differently than the Bloodrager bloodlines, then a Bloodrager could take a bloodline other than Draconic while still getting the sorcerer's draconic abilities through the Dragon Disciple class, effectively giving them two bloodlines. If they are considered the same and this class needs errata, then the bloodrager would instead have to pick the Draconic bloodline to enter the class, limiting their choices.

If anything, I'd like to see this get clarified, because either decision greatly alters how this class would be played.

Scarab Sages

Weirdo wrote:


I personally think the fairest way to do it is convert SA to fractional dice, then add those.

Assuming Slayer SA advances at level 1, 4, 7 etc (I don't know):

  • Viv 4 / Slayer 1 has 2.5 dice from Viv and 1 die from Slayer, so 3.5 = 3 dice (round down).
  • Viv 1 / Slayer 4 has 1 die from Viv and 2 from Slayer = 3 dice.
  • Viv 4 / Slayer 3 has 2.5 dice from Viv and 1.6 dice from Slayer, so 4.1 = 4 dice (round).
  • Viv 10 / Slayer 3 = 5.5+1.6 = 7.1 = 7 dice
  • Viv 3 / Slayer 10 = 2+4 = 6 dice

This way one level in a class with a different SA progression won't cause massive swings in your SA die - Slayer isn't a horrible dip for a Viv/Rogue, and Viv/Rogue isn't a fantastic dip for a Slayer. But if you're almost to a new die in two separate SA classes you'll get the boost.

This seems like a fair way to play it. Seems like that'd be difficult to describe in the rules, but this is likely the most balanced way to handle it. Granted, with these rules, it brings up the age-old Viv-Rogue dip issue where two levels gives you as many SA die as a 3rd level rogue, so its definitely not without its flaws.

Also, you have Slayer progression pretty accurate, except they get their first SA die at Level 3 rather than Level 1 like most other classes, and then gain +1d6 every three levels after. It's pretty slow.

StDrake wrote:


Rule lawyerism says Slayer with even 1 level of Viv progresses sneak attack every odd level. Do not argue with lawyers - they have the blessing of Asmodeus :D

Not sure how I feel about siding with a Lawful Evil deity lol.

Also, I just realized that Vivisectionist is banned in PFS play, so this issue doesn't really affect me that much, but I would love to see this errata'd for rules cohesion's sake.

Scarab Sages

James Risner wrote:


I'd probably go with the lowest Sneak Attack value (add Slayer levels to Viv for SA and Viv dice to Slayer and see which has the least number of SA dice.) This is even more complicated if there is a difference.

Yeah, there's definitely a difference. In the case of the Viv rules taking precedence, where you add Slayer levels to the Viv and compare it to a Rogue, it would look something like this:

Vivisectionist Progression:
CL1: 1d6
CL3: 2d6
CL5: 3d6
CL7: 4d6
etc.

Whereas if you added Viv levels to the Slayer's Sneak Attack progression, it would look something like this:

Slayer Progression:
CL1: No SA Bonus
CL3: 1d6
CL6: 2d6
CL9: 3d6
CL12: 4d6
etc.

The second one seems odd as it would effectively negate the Level 1 SA bonus for a Vivisectionist, but I could see it possibly being a rare case where cross-classing makes one of the base classes less powerful. I was originally thinking that it would work by simply adding the SA bonuses together, but then the Viv has that wording which makes that interpretation less likely.

Again, I find it more likely that the second case would be the way it should be treated, but it's one of those things I'd rather be wrong about.

Scarab Sages

So I was recently working on trying to make a Slayer build from the Advanced Class Guide, and I came across something interesting while doing research on cross-class options. From the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack entry, it has the following description:

Ultimate Magic wrote:
At 1st level, a vivisectionist gains the sneak attack ability as a rogue of the same level. If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective rogue level for the sneak attack's extra damage dice (so an alchemist 1/rogue 1 has a +1d6 sneak attack like a 2nd-level rogue, an alchemist 2/rogue 1 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 3rd-level rogue, and so on).

Herein lies my question. In this entry, it states that if the Vivisectionist receives Sneak Attack from another class, then that class's levels stack with the Vivisectionist's to determine the effective Rogue level for the Vivisectionist's Sneak Attack. For people who don't have the Advanced Class Guide, this rule seems faulty with the Slayer, as Slayers gain 1d6 Sneak Attack damage every third level instead of the standard odd-level scaling that Rogues get. However, these levels still grant a Sneak Attack bonus, and as per the Vivisectionist rules, these Slayer Levels would instead grant Sneak Attack bonus damage based on Rogue level progression.

I know that the Advanced Class Guide has some faulty rules still, so I wouldn't be surprised if something like this slipped through. I'm curious to know if I'm interpreting these rules correctly, because if so, a level 1 dip in Vivisectionist greatly increases the Slayer's power level. However, I'm assuming that the RAI for a Slayer was actually meant to be something along the following:

"If a character already has sneak attack from another class, the levels from the classes that grant sneak attack stack to determine the effective Slayer level for the sneak attack's extra damage dice (so a Slayer 3/Vivisectionist 3 has a +2d6 sneak attack like a 6th-level Slayer, a Slayer 3/Vivisectionist 6 has a +3d6 sneak attack like a 9th-level rogue, and so on)."

What do you guys think in regard to this? If this has already been errata'd, I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could point me in the direction of the ruling.