Faskill's page

Hi,

I really like this guide.
However I think it needs a build example with detailed level by level feats and maybe also spell choices.
Also, do you have any strategies in the lower levels? It seems like this build is more designed for higher level play

Keep up with the good work and thank you for the guide;)

Faskill

I disagree with this. The fact that the spell gives an additionnal melee attack is irrelevant to how this would work. Even if I miss my first spellstrike on the beginning of the next turn I'm gonna attempt to do exactly the same thing which is declaring spellcombat, doing a spellstrike (assuming I'm still holding the charge), casting defensively SG and trying to deliver another Spellstrike.

It makes no sense that those two Spellstrikes would be treated differently.

Diego, I think your reasoning is wrong because you've misread the Enforcer feat. I'm not arguing that a Spellstrike Frostbite deals non lethal weapon damage. The bold part of the Spellstrike ability you quoted is actually exactly why i think it works. [b] The melee (weapon) attack deals regular weapon damage AS WELL AS the effects of the spell [\b]. In this case, it will be the melee weapon attack that will deal the non lethal spell damage from Frostbite.
Now the Enforcer feat says that's it's the weapon melee attack that has to deal non lethal damage, not that it has to deal non lethal weapon damage which is a completely different thing.

That´s why I think it's difficult to argue against it working.

Is it for real, a vampire synthesist? S*** just got real :p

Slightly unrelated question, how would this work in PFS?

Rynjin, I don't know why you're being so psycho-rigid about this. I've read the whole thread and it's sad to see you countering everyone's arguments because you don't want this to work.

Even if I agree with some of your points that by pure RAW it would not work (but it's still contested) it is clear that RAI casters could get their spells back. I also don't think that you have played a mythic campaign and actually now what the power level is in those settings.

Mythic adventures is a new book that is not sanctioned for PFS use, so DMs can actually use their common sense to make rulings based on the plethora of new rules introduced in this tome. It's time to stop being so stuck up about the exact wording of the mythic power and to realize how it is supposed to work.

If only all rulings could be made based on common sense and not on RAW quotes ...

Your melee touch attack deals 1d6 points of nonlethal cold damage + 1 point per level

Whenever you deal nonlethal damage with a melee weapon, you can make an Intimidate check to demoralize your target as a free action.

Do these abilities work together?

Naysayers will say that Frostbite is a spell that just happens to be delivered by a touch attack, and that the weapon itself, not the weapon attack, has to deliver the nonlethal damage.

However it has been proven by FAQ that rays count as weapons.

Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

In that sense, can we have a consensus as to whether Enforcer can apply to a Frostbite (more specifically to a Frostbite delivered through Spellstrike)?

Thanks in advance ;)

Hello everyone,

I'm currently building a magus for PFS with my newly gained GM credit.

I've got a question as to the utility of Frostbite, especially if it's useful to take Wayang Spellhunter to be able to use the Rimed Frostbite + Enforcer combo.

My magus will be a dex based elf, which means that he doesn't have much rooms for feats. I may take Rime Spell at 5th level (1st and 3rd level feats are weapon finesse and Dervish dance) but what I'm really wondering about is the usefulness of Frostbite, specifically, does it work with Enforcer?

If it does, what happens when I use it? l

Let's say I'm level 7, with two attacks from Haste. The round during which I cast frostbite I get 3 attacks with spellcombat/spellstrike. Then the two following rounds I get two additional frostbite attacks. If any of my attacks hit, the target will be Entangled + fatigued + shaken on a successful Intimidate check. If any of my attacks crit, my target will be frightened and will be dealt double damage from frostbite. Is that all correct?

That seems quite the powerful combo, and I'm not sure i'm understanding it well.

Thanks in advance for your insight !

Except that they were doing it also when I tried to move through the ennemy space ;)

But I guess you can't expect every GM to know all the rules

I got ninja'ed here.

Actually your explanation is the most concise and complete that's been posted in this thread, and I agree even with the "GM calls".

Just one thing though, would you say that the enemy could choose to aoo me instead of my mount?

I accept that the chances are very high I'm wrong and I thank you all for pointing me in the right direction.

What I don't get however is why I'm wrong, and more importantly which consequences stem from my being wrong.
The problem as I see it is that most of you, when contradicting the really original and mostly useless thing I want to do here, ( I mean how often do you think this'll come up in games?! ;) ) are also negating any use to the Ride-by-attack feat . This is why it is very hard for me to accept my being wrong.

Essentially it was "proven" at the beginning of this thead that I could ride by attack A and that my mount would be able to attack B when using Ssalarn's diagram. Now in this case, would you also argue against my getting double damage from my lance? If yes, WHY ? :'(

In this case, how is the case presented here different from that? Im essentially moving in the same direction, attacking in the closest square in which I can attack. That's what I really don't understand, and I will appreciate it if you would be so kind as to enlighten me.