Haster's page

Hello Haster,

I have sent you an email with the tracking information. You should have received the package by now so I am setting up a replacement to ship out to you along with your next subscription order. If the original does turn up please let me know.

Thank you so much! If I find it I will certainly let you know,

Hello Haster,

This order shipped out on August 4. The tracking indicates that it was delivered on August 10. I don't see any pending orders on your account.

My orders page still shows oddly, but maybe thats b/c its a sub? say items shipped and items not shipped in red.

Can you provide me with a tracking #? I have not received the book yet...

Hello!

Just wanted to get a quick update on the shipping date of my physical copy of the Star Finder Core Rule Book.

Thanks!

Haster wrote:

Seriously, we need to stop thinking about this as though it makes some sort of real life sense. Its a game mechanic.

Sorry, never thought about it like something that make real life sense. Exactly because it's a mechanic I see a bit of inconsistence.

Quote:

also, just to be clear, you stop the bleed condition with an ability that CAN restore HP.

Nope. The percise wording is "through the application of any ability that restores Hit Points", not "that CAN restore hp". If you want to point out the single word, please stay on the text.

Quote:

- this is similar to PF and, correct me if I am wrong, but when used in this way the ability ONLY stops the bleeding and does not cure any HPs.

In pf a cure stop the bleeding AND cures pf. Exactly as mystic cure do when the bleeding reach (one way or another) the hp limit. You can't ocmpare Pf, though, because a bleed damage is always a damage cured by cure spells (there's some ability that deal ability score bleed, but those are exceptions.)

Quote:

Last, they used the term "bleeding" for the condition b/c its a recognized condition and easy enough to understand.Then they also applied a similar system proven to work in PF, that of the cure spell stopping bleeding. - they simply did not bother to address the fact the SPs dont really rep bleeding very well THEMATICALLY.

But they always specify, in SF, if the cure is on the stamina or the hp. Always. And in pf a cure cures all. In SF it cures only hp, never stamina.

Quote:

give up on the "this seems inconsistent" angle or you'll go nuts.

Thanks for the advice. Anyway I'll give up when I'll get an official answer. I'll not go nut, really.

This won't be the only one in SF, and I can't even begin to tell you how many exist in PF, let alone any number of other systems.

Eh, I am not sure why I went to so much text. The main point was that I think the intent of the rule wasn't thought through far enough to be that explicit and used the basic mechanics of the PF system rules.

and well, I did say "correct me if I am wrong."

anyway, good luck to ya.

Voss wrote:

Not in the rules, no. If mystic cure is doing something weird, it doesn't show up in Keskodai's write up.

I'm not sure what 'stop your stamina' means. If you mean stop the bleed, that's entirely consistent with the rules presented. Hence, the lack of any ambiguity or inconsistency- the presented rules really do function.

Nowhere in mystic cure says there's any effect on stamina loss. Indeed, it specifically call out for hp, never stmaina. But you stop the stamina loss.

Quote:

If your point is that magical healing and hit points is inconsistent with how injuries work in the real world, well, welcome to D&D, circa 1974, but that doesn't have anything to do with the rules being consistent

That's not my point, sorry. Wrong directed sarcasm.

From bleeding staus: "Your bleeding can be
stopped with a successful DC 15 Medicine check as a standard
action, or through the application of any ability that restores Hit
Points."

So, I stop a stamina loss by restoring hp, while restoring hp never affect stamina?

Oh, and by the way, you're also saying that the Envoy's Inspiring Boost doesn't stop bleeding even if it restores stamina points ("through the application of any ability that restores Hit
Points", not stamina points). So not only you're saying that there are no problem with bleed going on stamina that can only be stopped by restoring hp (you stop a stamina loss by restoring hp, even if you don't restore a single hp), but you're also stating that, since the envoy's ability don't restore hp, it cures stamina points but can't stop the continual loss of stamina points.

You call that consistent?

Seriously, we need to stop thinking about this as though it makes some sort of real life sense. Its a game mechanic.

also, just to be clear, you stop the bleed condition with an ability that CAN restore HP. - this is similar to PF and, correct me if I am wrong, but when used in this way the ability ONLY stops the bleeding and does not cure any HPs.

Last, they used the term "bleeding" for the condition b/c its a recognized condition and easy enough to understand.Then they also applied a similar system proven to work in PF, that of the cure spell stopping bleeding. - they simply did not bother to address the fact the SPs dont really rep bleeding very well THEMATICALLY.

thats it, its tried and true mechanics used again here. If they said only abilities that restore SPs stop bleeding then that would seriously reduce the available ways to stop bleeding,

give up on the "this seems inconsistent" angle or you'll go nuts. This won't be the only one in SF, and I can't even begin to tell you how many exist in PF, let alone any number of other systems.

Anyone know where I could find where construct or object are defined in game terms? Or how they're differentiated and where it says it?

Because if they're distinctly different things, then it also means that constructs don't qualify for the Falling Objects rule if they happen to fall and land on a PC or enemy. Which is kind of a weird thing.

Are there any examples where something can effect an object but not a construct, other than us just reading into the rules and assuming they're different?

Or maybe it's like how an Android is both a humanoid and a construct, maybe drones are both construct and an object.

I'm trying to find a way to make it work. :/

Mending spells and such, effect both constructs and objects, but other spells such as inject nanobots (pg 361) and others effect either only constructs (with tech or magic subtype) or constructs and living creatures.

Objects are subjectively different in that they have zero awareness, are not sentient in anyway... I think. computers are objects and maybe they muddy that concept up some...

Haster wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I don't know of any, but would interested to learn what they are.

Since HP pools are much smaller, killing someone by ignoring SP and going straight for HP seems like it could be useful.

/beginsnark

"Oh my god dude, you lost like a pint of blood!"

"it's cool, gimme 10 minutes and Ill make more"

/endsnark

Seriously though, it does work like that. You can't prevent all the weird little thematic vs realities issues out of a game.

I can't find any effects that go right to HPs either, though I thought it would be cool if crits could go directly to HP instead of x2 damage like in the old SW game. but HP are high is SF so maybe not as cool an idea.

Probably more like,

"Oh my god dude, you lost like a pint of blood!"
"it's cool... I have a protein bar and a few minutes to rest and get my breath back."

I prefer to use the imagery of sitting quietly while mentally yelling at my cells to make more or else, but that's just me.

Do SP healing effects even exist? Seems so far that all healing just says HP.

But anyway, a thematic inconsistency isn't a rules inconsistency. After so many years of absurd rationalization about what HP are and what they mean, I can't care. They're ridiculous abstractions, and having some seperated out as a slightly different abstraction for a less 15 minute and healbot free workday is fine to me.

Envoy I believe (but may be Operative-at work, no book handy) can heal SP, but that's the only instance I or my group has found.

Good point too in general.

Bleed stops with an HP healing while dealing SP damage. For me it is an inconsistency.

I would have called it "lingering pain" to go on SP and then HP.
And Bleed directly on HP and far greater in risk factor.

Just think in any imagery, everyone shouts that "I can't stop the bleeding! he's bleeding out!"

In SF this is completely inverted.
"Whoa dude chill i'm JUST bleeding."

IDk it sounds wrong with the distinction between SP and HP so clearly defined. It was ok with the Pathfinder HP that was one nebulous pool of "how close you are to get the real kill blow"

That's about the same place I am with it, though I think it's simply an issue where they had too tangled a web to make an exception or just didnt think about it.

Ima just force my mind to ignore the thematic inconsistency an just be mildly annoyed by it.

I don't know of any, but would interested to learn what they are.

Since HP pools are much smaller, killing someone by ignoring SP and going straight for HP seems like it could be useful.

/beginsnark

"Oh my god dude, you lost like a pint of blood!"

"it's cool, gimme 10 minutes and Ill make more"

/endsnark

Seriously though, it does work like that. You can't prevent all the weird little thematic vs realities issues out of a game.

I can't find any effects that go right to HPs either, though I thought it would be cool if crits could go directly to HP instead of x2 damage like in the old SW game. but HP are high is SF so maybe not as cool an idea.

Way cool! Whatever the official ruling, at our games "generating a spell effect" is going to be interpreted as originating from the computer.

This doesn't negate the target requirements though. Computers don't see, for example. For some implementations cameras and rigger-like correspondence will be a requirement.

Absolutely agree on the target requirements and LOE/LOS issues. You cant make a computer "touch" nor could you force the holder of a remotely access computer do it.

Core Rulebook > Equipment > Computers (pg. 216) wrote:

A user capable of utilizing an equivalent spell gem with access to the computer in which such spell chips are installed can cast the related spells whenever controlling the computer and gains a +2 circumstance bonus to any skill check involving these spells.

Sorry, it looks like spell chips can only be cast from a computer held by the a spellcaster with that particular spell on her class's spell list. You may, however, be interested in the Spellthrower weapon fusion (pg. 195).

Hmm. I can see that being the interpretation, but a spell chip is a module, and in the Computers Skill rules (pg 139) it states that

"If you have access (but not root access) to a computer, you can attempt a Computers check to activate, add, disable, or manipulate any countermeasure or module"

Again, Spell Chips are modules, so, I do not think you have to be holding the computer to activate a spell chip, you could be hacking a computer connected to the infosphere on the other side of a planet and activate a spell chip via this method. The issue to me is then where does the spell effect originate? The computer containing the spell chip or the caster activating the spell chip?

The rules governing spell chips seem to be spell gems and the computer skill, from page 216:

"A user capable of utilizing an equivalent spell gem with access to the computer in which such spell chips are installed can cast the related spells whenever controlling the computer" (in this case "access" is a specific state in the computer rules to determine your level of access to a computers systems)

To sum up my thought and question:
- Spell gems allow a caster to cast a spell without using a spell slot
- Spell Gems need to be held in the hand
- Spell Chips are modules in a computer system
- In order to activate/use a module you only need to have access to the computer with the module
- you can, through various means such as hacking, gain access to a computer on another's person within sight or even across the planet through the info sphere.
- I can't find a reference anyplace that states a spell MUST originate from the caster of the spell, that spell gem is the originator of the spell effect or not, but I think it is strongly implied, even though the spell chip (to me) seems to muddy this up

Last, another fun example of how spell chips could be used, regardless of this question...If you think an enemy in an encounter has spell chips in his computer, you can hack them and use HIS spell chips against him (um, or they could do it to you...)

OK, I suspect I know the answer here, but want some feed back.

Spell Chips, in general, are rad. I was kinda waffley on playing a Technomancer but for whatever reason Spell Chips tipped the scale for me.

So, here is the meat of my question: Where does the cast spell originate when you cast it from a spell chip? the Casting Technomancer/Mystic or the Computer that it is loaded in?

Background things:
Say my whole group has x2 miniaturized and upgraded, comms attached tier 1 wrist computers that the Technomancer bought for them all and has root access to. She has also installed multiple spell chips in them all...

Can she now cast the spells on those chips with an origination point of the chosen computer?

The shenanigans this could produce are epic, diabolical, GM confounding and just damn fun... "whats that! A grenade?" ... "No, it looks like they tossed in a data pad...OH CRAP RUN!"

Unfortunately, the details of Spell Gems, the governing item/rule seems to tell us that no, it can only originate from the caster... Someone please convince me otherwise!!!

GIMME MY STARFINDER CORE RULE BOOK!

(ok, got that out of my system, sorry for the yelling)

Hi fellow gamers.

I have posted this sheet link a few times, but this is a much newer version, with a complete instruction tab included, since the sheet is a little complicated at first glance.

Details:
This sheet is designed for touch screens and set up for a 1080 screen size. It can be used on a standard laptop w/ pad or mouse.

It does not have a class or archetype or feat database.

It is designed to AUTO CALCULATE all rolls, and does so very well. It uses a simple macro that manually operates the " calculate " function in excel. You must set, under the formla tab in excel, to manual calculation.

Basically, you fill in a quick and simple data tab and a few other details on the character sheet and then use check boxes to apply modifiers and feats like power attack and so on, then use clickable buttons to activate calculations.

So, if you use tablets and or laptops to game, this is the sheet you may have been looking for. Check it out and let me know what you think!

Google drive download link
(it gives you a Whoops! error because you can't view the sheet in google drive, but just click the download button that shows up below the whoops)

Here is the actual, working link... =/

Excel PF auto-sheet

Forgot to mention, the sheet has many check boxes, which you much check to activate. Some of the check boxes activate die rolling and result formulas on the sheet, other activate modifying variables for calculations.

When you check a box or boxes, you need to hit the "Calculate All" button (bottom center) to propagate all of the changes, then you can use the relavent "Roll" button with the new modifiers calculated in.

two more things I should mentions: the weapons section to the right of the sheet might be somewhat less than obvious in regards to how to use it.

First, fill in the blue shaded info boxes with the relavent details, such as Stats to use, bonuses to hit and damage.

Second, in the right section of the 4 weapon areas, check the "Equiped" box to use that weapon in an attack when you click the attack and damage button.

Good afternoon!

I know this sheet does not have a lot of application to most players, but for those of us who like to game with tablets, and use Windows tabs, this is an optimised excel sheet

Much of the sheet is auto calculating based on input in a data tab, and carried over to the character sheet tab.

Just fill in the light blue shaded areas and use the buttons on the character sheet tab to caclulate the relevant areas.

- the skills area of the data sheet requires a Yes or No answer to be input in the trained and class skill collumns.

- Some areas require you to input a stat to use (those that do already have a stat input), always use this format: STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHR.

- Eventually I will get around to making a better instructions tab, ignore the one already included.

- This should fit about perfect at 100% zoom on 1080.

- Shared on Google Drive Here:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BzPPLvYQtQDGfmJCNm05T1drTEVna2ZGYnJ kaFY1M2daQWx6MGJ1bzl6Z0NZM2tDbjRUcWM&usp=sharing

- This IS an Excel sheet and uses various simple marcros to allow calculating using a touch screen. Because of the complicated formulas, most or all of the non-windows excel programs probably will not work with this.

I respectfully disagree. Fervor is a suoernat ability that allows you to use one of its uses to cast a spell (not an SU) as though it were quickened.

Its an SU ability that allows you to use another, non- SU ability.

It's a little unclear if you even need mad magic to cast spells with fervor.

Mad Magic is for casting while in a bloodrage...

Seriously, you almost have to try hard to make a Bad Warpriest... This is my build

Half-Elf (+2 STR)

16, 13, 14, 10, 14, 12 (bit spread out and not maximized, but thats me)

Traits:
Ancestral Weaponry (exotic prof: Falcata)
Magical Knack (up to +2 caster level for non-caster class levels)

1st level - Bloodrager
2nd - 11th Warpriest (only built out that far, PFS)

Feats:
1st - Extra Rage (total of 12 rounds), Exotic: Falcata
2nd - Focus: Falcata
3rd - Mad Magic (can now cast my spells while raging)
4th - Power Attack (I will be using the Falcata 2-Handed)
5th - Weapon Versatility (Falcata is/can now be piercing 1 handed weapon)
7th - Amateur Swashbuckler (Parry and Reposte, 2 panache, 1 at the start of the day)
7th - Extra Panache, now have a total of 4 panache and start the day with 3)
9th, 10th and 11th feats are still TBD.

So, obviously, raging, swift casting buffs AND parry / reposte at 7th level. Further, with the Falcata and Imp. Crit if you can get it, your crit and kill rate for regaining panache will be through the roof. at 4th level I am 19-20 X 3, power attacking and 2 handing thats 1D8+11 damage per hit. over 40 average on crits.

At 5th level you start swift buffing bull strength and go to +11 to hit and 1D8+14 per, min crit damage of 45, almost 60 on average. Once you get that imp. crit and go to 17-20...

O, wait, you can do that with fervor...

Do you know anything about getting an excel spreadsheet like this to work in Calc?

I just plain do not use Microsoft, other than things like this I have absolutely no reason to buy Microsoft Office.

Is there any magic bullet to get it to work?

I feel your pain. I have looked quite a bit but have not found anything. Its the Macro I think that prevents it from working in alt programs. that and the specific "IF" statements that link to different tabs in the sheet.

I know Apple is working on a program and updating it frequently to work with excel sheet as much as possible so people can use excel at full capacity on iPads.

Found a minor error in the AC calculation. It was not adding the armor enhancement bonus from the character sheet screen. Fixed.

Found a minor error in the CMB and CMD calculations. It is not calculating in weapon enhancement for CMB and CMD is not correctly adding any relevant buffs to AC, such as deflection bonuses from thing like SoF. NOT fixed yet, later today...

pretty cool just one thing i noted is your stat section calculates the number as the bonus so you need to put 4 not 18 for example

Yeah, should have noted that. Sorry.

You put the actual stat in on the data sheet tab. The character sheet only shows the modifier, since that's what really matters. the blue box on the character sheet is also for misc. modifier + / -.

It seems to not work in Google Drive. I hope to be getting excel soon so I will look at it then.

Yeah, Drive wont process the macro enabled excel sheet, and even if it would open it, the formulas wouldn't work.

Any of the free excel versions out in the webs should work. Student version, free trial running outside of the trial period (with the red bar and notice that your time is up...)

Good evening people.

I have a bit of an obsession with excel nesting. Did you know that you can nest a maximum of 64 "IF" statements in 1 cell?

Any who... I have created a few auto calculating excel sheets for touch screens and this one here is my max effort.

It is designed specifically for a 1920x1080 touch screen, though a laptop will work just fine as well. Obviously, that's a specific, if growing, group of gamers.

Regardless, I have spent about 3 weeks and many, many hours creating it and I wanted to share it for those that think they might be able to use it.

Some more details:
-If you use the sheet, set "auto-calculate" off (google can show you how)
-The sheet uses 1 macro, so you will get a security wanting most likely, this is the macro:

Sub CalcActiveOnly()
Application.Calculation = xlManual
For Each sh In ActiveWorkbook.Sheets
sh.Calculate
Next sh
End Sub

(it basically recreates pressing F9 to force the sheet to calculate)

-The Macro is activated by buttons on the sheet.

-Check boxes are used to swicth variables off and on, such as feat effects, condition effects, spell and class buffs...

-I have tested the sheet exhaustively, but its pretty friggin complicated with all the formulas, so something might be off... I dont think so though.

-the sheet is set up to be as flexible as possible, and includes natural weapons, 2 weapon fighting (.5x STR), flurry, 2 handed weapon (1.5x STR).

-If your making an archer, you can delete the sections for 2 weapon fighting, for instance, without effecting the other calculations. (save a back up first... just in case)

-It includes an Instruction tab for helpful hints.

-Generally, to avoid errors in the attack calculations, be sure to check the correct weapon(s) and feats/effects. For instance, if you have 1 or more of the 3 two-weapon fighting feats checked AND Flurry checked, the attacks wont calc correctly.

Here is the link to the shared google drive where the sheets are located. Google drive sheet location. I included a filled in sheet as well as an example.

Let me know what you think! If you find any errors, I will try to fix them, but I can't promise it will be very quick, I have 2 kids and not a lot of time... also, will entertain requests, but again, 2 kids...

AH! my mistake, and apologies for the misunderstanding.

I will stop infecting your thread with inappropriate information.

As a side note, apparently you learn something new everyday... every time I read "gestalt" in these or other threads, I think it's being used generically based on it's definition...

ge·stalt
ɡəˈSHtält,-ˈSHtôlt/
noun: gestalt; plural noun: gestalts; noun: Gestalt; plural noun: Gestalts
An organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.

I was unaware of any actual rule regarding Gestalt character building, having run away from 3.5 after... well, I can't remember but the net result was prepping as a GM became extremely time consuming to keep up with the players and it was just too much.

Edit:

Look I know the Bloodrager can cast spells while raging, but it does not gain very many good spells, not when compared to other class spell lists. It also does not start gaining spells till 4th level.

But I am not looking to cast a little bit of spells on top of physical attacking, I am looking for a way to be at least functional in both fields, 9th level spells gives a lot of power and wide array of uses outside of just "Bomar make big boom". Brawler gives the ability to punch and use a few close range weapons to some degree at least enough to keep from being one shotted as a caster type.

OK, thats a bit more info.

First, if you want to actually use those 9th level spells, you need to get to 18th Arcanist, leaving 2 levels for brawler.

Thats a BAB of 11 at 20th level.

Then, you need STR, CON, INT, CHA at 14 or better at a minimum, presumably at least one of those at 16. But, you said you assume build points to take care of that.

1 bonus feat, so 11 or 12 feats over all (if you get the human bonus feat)

An arch exists for a free focus weapon with the arcanist, so thats something.

Over all, this would be a very, very difficult build to make viable and would take some real crunching to put together. Also, obviously, you would have to focus on the Arcanist b/c of the level slit between the 2 classes.

If your building this more for Roleplaying reasons, it could be cool, but from a min/max or optimized build stand point, I think you would be hard pressed to make it anything but a slightly different Arcanist overall.

Sorry, I wanted to be more helpful overall, but I can't think of anything that makes this worthwhile, at least based on the idea that you want to get to 9th level spells.

I love crane style, and if you have the feats / pre-reqs, it always worth a look.

Have you thought of maybe going to the spell gun arch of the gunslinger for touch attacks to make up for the lower over all BAB, focus weapon for crafting easily and casting spells with the gun attack? that is a possible build I could mix with the Arcanist. And as a ranged build the stat need is a little less spread out. (DEX, INT, CHA with a minor in CON)

I wanted to gestalt together the Brawler with the Arcanist.

Yes I know Arcanist needs Int and Cha for its abilities and Brawler needs Con and Str at least in good portions.

But lets assume I have the point buy to cover the needed MADness.

The reason for this combo is a build that can adapt and is flexible and with the Flexible feats and the ability to choose spells known per day I would say that gives a good bit of flexibility to it.

Um. Bloodrager?

Raging, Power Attacking Barbarians can also mounted lance charge. There's also nothing stopping you from 2handing a lance from horseback besides basic human decency.

Yes, mounted charges require a lot more work to set up, present tactical difficulties, and are much more easily foiled than regular, foot charges, but that's why the payoff is what it is.

There's nothing about making a mounted charger that autogimps your damage. If you play with low str, or few static bonuses, that's your business.

Yep, All true.

Though it was 3.5, I have played a mounted lance using character. A lot of options exist, and just b/c my falcata wielding barbarian example was all on/off as opposed to passive doesn't mean that's all I play.

A halfling mounted on a boar and charging with a lance using mounted combat, ride-by attack and spirited charge, in 3.5, was awesome. and had few of the space limitations that a large mount brings with it.

Last, its just... hard for me to think of using a lance 2 handed. Sorry, just doesn't occur to me. But then, reloading and firing a flint lock pistol or rifle 6 times in 6 seconds, while aiming and hitting your target all 6 times at more than 25 feet also hurts my brain, so whatever.

Don't even get me started on how you do that while dual wielding them...

Its Magic!

The lance is good but it's definitely not, as the OP posited, "a must have weapon for a martial class at lower levels"

You need more money for the mount (barring the one class/alt class that get a mount and a handful of archetypes).

You need the battlefield to cater to the mount.

You need to make skill checks to make the mount useful (not necessarily a given).

And then you have an effective weapon for a martial. If you can support all of that, congratulations you have an effective weapon. And you're probably a Cavalier.

As far as best weapons go, for general use:

one-hand: Scimitar or rapier; katana or falcata for exotic
two-hand: nodachi; bardiche for reach; fauchard for exotic reach
Light: Varies wildly depends on why you're using a light weapon. Generally kukri.

Specific setups might make better use of certain weapons (lance fits in here), but that's the general point.

Not only all that, but a 1st level raging Barbarian using Power attack is roughly +10 to damage when 2 handing, if your using a falcata, thats a min of +33 on a crit.

A Mounted lance charge will do 2-16+4 at MAX for 20 max damage when the above will do 1-8+10 for a MAX of 18. AND the crits with a Falcata come more often.

Also, if you are able to afford a mount at 1st level, or even 2nd level, what are you going to do when, and I do mean WHEN the mount gets killed? Not only do you have limited battlefields with which to take mounted advantage, let alone constantly charge, you have to wait until 4th level to get a reliable mount for any reasonable class.

AND, feat heavy to make the mounted choice viable in the longer run, since Mounted Combat helps the critter stay alive and so on.

Now, A mounted gnome, halfling or other small race can have a much easier time making the mounted option work, since mounts for them are medium and fit in dungeons.

Only thing I see that I wouldn't like is that while raging you can't use your fervor charges to buff yourself with your WP spells (because you're raging). Which completely negates a lot of the WP is really good at.

Mad Magic allows you to cast while raging. Its really very awesome and something I have been trying to do effectively for a long time. Finally! =)

PFS Legal Mad Magic (Combat)
Source Advanced Class Origins pg. 27
Magic is in your blood, allowing you to cast spells no matter how furious you become.

Prerequisites: Bloodrage class feature or perfect clarity rage power.

Benefit: You can cast spells from any class that grants you spells while in a bloodrage, and you keep your rage benef its when using moment of clarity during a rage. If you have the greater bloodrage class feature, you also gain a +1 bonus to the save DCs of spells you cast while in a bloodrage.

Soooo. I like sharing and giving/getting advice on character builds. So many of us do, it seems.

Here is my Half-Elf Bloodrager 1 / Warpriest 10 build. I dare you to find any flaws!

PFS build rules, but home game. 20 point buy
STATS = 16 (14) / 13 / 14 / 10 / 14 / 12
Worshiper of Kurgess

1st - Bloodrager 1
Abilities: Blood Rage(4+CON rnds 6)
Feats: Extra Rage (+6 Rounds,12 total)
Bloodline: (Draconic; 1D6+3 claws while raging, 2 attacks, full BAB)
Traits: Society Rager (+3 rage rounds 15 total) , Ancestral Arms(Falcata)

2nd - Warpriest 1
Abilities: Aura, blessings (minor, STR,Travel), free focus weapon (Falcata), orisons, sacred weapon-chosen Alignement(good)
Option: Change Society Rager to Magical Knack?

3rd - WP 3
Abilities: Fervor 1/2 lvl+Wis (3), Good Healing 1D6, swift cast self only buff
Feat: Mad Magic (cast while raging)

4th - WP 3
Feat(bonus): Power Attack

5th - WP 4
Abilities: Channel Energy, Sacred Weapon +1, Fervor up to 5
Feat: Weapon Versatility

6th - WP 5
Abilities: Ferver 2D6

7th - WP 6
Abilities: Fervor 2D6, Fervor up to 7
Feats: Bonus-Amateur Swashbuckler, Parry & Riposte (start w/ 1 panache, can up to 2), Level-Extra Panache (Start w/ 3 panache, can go up to total of 4)

8th - WP 7
Abilities: Sacred Armor +1

9th - WP 8
Abilities: Fervor 3D6, Sacred Weapon +2, Fervor up to 6
Feat: Undecided; Raging Vitality?

10th - WP 9
Abilities:
Feat: Bonus-Undecided

11th - WP 10
Abilities: Blessings (Major), Sacred Armor +2, Fervor up to 8
Feat: Undecided

Noteworthy Details:
-Falcata is a 1 handed weapon, I will normally use it 2 handed. I purchased a Light steel quickdraw shield allowing me to walk around with the extra shield AC and put it away as a swift when I need to go 2 handed. also put it back on as a swift.
If I take quick draw in the late levels, mounting and putting it away is a free action (i'm sure you can see the cheese in that w/ a sufficiently enhanced magic shield).

-Obviously, straight barbarian type early, good HP, though slightly lower than true barbarian b/c of stat need for Warpriest.

-Falcata is exotic, 1D8 - 19-20 x3. 1st level raging power attack damage is 1D8+10, Crit minimum is 33. I have crit 5 times in 2 sessions now for over 40 each. =) I killed that Wood Golumn in 1 hit, charging, raging and jumping through the air. He hit me with his AoO, but I still had 3 HP left...

-5th level I can start adding Imp. Crit to the Falcata, 17-20, though its expensive (1 Fervor / round)

-Raging Power Attack damage at 7th level is 1D8+19, +20 if +2 weapon. 17-20x3 with Imp Crit (from Fervor), min crit damage is 60

-Weapon Versatility allows me to qualify for Amateur Swashbuckler with the Falcata.

-The advantage of Parry & Riposte for the build is significant.
*I gain/recover panache with kills or crits, which I should get a decent amount of, allowing me to use, on average, 6 parry's per day(?) I suspect including the 1 free AoO per round.
*This helps overcome the normal, very low AC of the barbarian builds and adds more offense.
*Additionally for the P&R build, a high to-hit number is good to have, which I should. It stays pretty much at the levels of front line fighter. For instance, I start at +6 at first level while raging, +15 with a +2 weapon at 7th level.

-Extra rage is mandatory since I wont take but the one level of Bloodrager.
*Should Society Rager get changed out at 2nd level for Magical Knack (+2 caster level, so would be full CL. would drop rage rounds to 12). Mainly effects buff duration...

-Should I take Combat Reflexes at the higher levels filling in one of those 3 undecided feats...

-WIS is low, save DC's for my spells are low, so mostly those will focus on healing and self buff, since, obviously this is more front line fighter than spell slinger.

-CHA is not dumped b/c Amateur Swashbuckler.

Haster how do you have the wand arcana as a lvl. 2 kensai?

Sorry, had the break down wrong, it has changed a few times. Flowing monk 1, Brawler (fighter arch) 1, Kansai 3 at 5th.

( 1 ) I read it the first post in its entirety.

( 2 ) While a beaten dead horse for many, this is the first time I've come across this.
( 3 ) I've played for 30 years and DM'ed for about 25 of them.

And I would absolutely, totally, irrevocably and in all other ways TOTALLY allow this!

There are a few provisos, quid pro quo's, as it were:

( A ) You would have to take the -2 penalty for the Spell Combat and stack it with the penalty from the Flurry of Blows.
( B ) I would want a compelling backstory for a monk/magus. If this is just power-gaming . . . well, that's what's boring.
( C ) Any damaging attack would have it's verbal component changed to "HADOUKEN", "SHORYOUKEN" and/or "YOGA FIRE/FLAME." I'd even increase the DC of the reflex save by 1 if you shouted these out loud in a very dramatic way.

And, yes, I'm completely serious. Whether it's RAW or just semantics doesn't matter to me. If I've been playing with this guy (the OP) for years and he comes to me with this idea, I'm going to allow it if for no other reason than he's my friend and I want him to have fun playing the character he wants to play.

I'm the DM. I create pantheons! If I can't make the campaign at least challenging for the players, regardless of what they're playing, then I should sit down, shut up, pore over some old Dungeoncrafts from Dungeon and let some one else have a go.

Love it, and after all, your job as a GM is to make sure you players have fun, not to kill them.

Accidents can happen sometimes, of course.

I just had a discussion on another thread about this exact thing. I'll highlight the important bits:

1) You are correct that Flurry of Blows is not really an action in itself; it is something that "kicks in" when you make a Full-Attack action just as Vital Strike "kicks in" when you make an Attack action. As such, you could easily combine FoB with, say, Pounce because Pounce lets you make a subordinate Full-Attack at the end of a Charge action (in lieu of the single attack you'd normally get). In other words, using FoB isn't a full-round Use Special Ability action as Spell Combat is.

2) Flurry of Blows offers four distinct benefits:
-a) You can make your off-hand attack (which you could make with or without the TWF feat) with penalties set at -2/-2 no matter what weapons you use. Additionally, at later levels, you get extra attacks as if using ITWF and GTWF.
-b) You can use the same weapon for both main-hand and off-hand attacks.
-c) You get to treat your Monk levels as full-BAB rather than 3/4-BAB.
-d) You get certain options concerning ki usage such as the ability to get an extra attack.

So FoB doesn't "allow" you to make an off-hand attack, it just sets the penalties for doing so at -2/-2 and lets you use the same weapon for all attacks.

There are two direct conflicts conflict under consideration here.

1) Spell Combat says that your spell is cast in place of your off-hand attack(s). So, if you were to combine FoB with Spell Combat, you wouldn't make your off-hand attacks because they have been replaced by a spell. Even though FoB allows you to use the same weapon for all attacks, you are already obligated, by the nature of the Spell Combat ability, to "spend" your entire off-hand potential on the casting of your spell. If this were the only consideration, I'd say you can still get your Monk BAB and could spend a ki point on an extra attack. However...

2) Flurry of Blows requires you to use Monk weapons and/or Unarmed Strikes. Casting a spell is neither. Unless...

Hmm, had not considered the issue of the off hand spell being considered a non-monk weapon. I would have to agree with you, and that in and of itself would end the argument.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Both Flurry and Spell Combat use up your "off-hand," which is why they both reference TWF. Your confusion comes from assuming your off-hand is an actual hand, it is not.

Yeah, see that is exactly the kind of unclear I am talking about.

Flurry actually specifically says you do not need to use more than 1 weapon, meaning you can flurry with 1 fist, not using a off-hand of any kind.

Also, Flurry specifically uses the Two-Weapon fighting feat as an example, just after it notes the -2 penalty. This means they are referencing ONLY the negation of penalties, since that is the only thing that the FEAT they reference is for.

Again, though, I'll say I get that they most likely meant it to be similar to 2 weapon fighting, they just chose a poor way to do it, and should have been much more clear with regards to how it worked and how it could be combined with other actions.

Both Flurry and Spell Combat use up your "off-hand," which is why they both reference TWF. Your confusion comes from assuming your off-hand is an actual hand, it is not.

Yeah, see that is exactly the kind of unclear I am talking about.

Flurry actually specifically says you do not need to use more than 1 weapon, meaning you can flurry with 1 fist, not using a off-hand of any kind.

Also, Flurry specifically uses the Two-Weapon fighting feat as an example, just after it notes the -2 penalty. This means they are referencing ONLY the negation of penalties, since that is the only thing that the FEAT they reference is for.

Haster, help me out with some understanding? Are you suggesting that someone could cast a spell and get the full series of attacks from flurry or are you suggesting that the spell would replace one of the attacks from flurry? In either case are you taking the -2 from spell combat AND the flurry penalty or are you only taking one of those?

My reading would is that you would cast the spell and get your full series of attacks, from whichever full attack action you used. (full BAB or Flurry)

Also, yes, you would take all the penalties from whichever actions you used, so Flurry -2 and Spell Combat -2 (-4 total), though, you get that higher BAB from flurry equal to Monk levels, so that can mitigate some of the negatives here.

You would also have to contend with a concentration check, unless using a wand from the wand arcana that allows a wand to be used with spell strike.

Frankly, I think the penalties are too much for the gain over all, though perhaps at higher level the advantage gets significantly greater.

Now, all that being said, I understand my reading is the one generally frowned upon and I even tend to agree that the rules were intended to mean you get your normal attacks (from BAB ONLY) and can cast a spell all as one full round action.

I just dont think they wrote it clearly enough to be sure, used a poor example for expediency when you are also considering flurry, and have not chosen to FAQ it at all to be more clear. which is, of course there prerogative.

What you have here isn't really "reasons" in the usual sense.

Honestly, the killer for you is the haste ruling. If you look at the way the haste ruling explains why you get an extra attack when using spell combat, even though it is not "the" full attack action, it clearly indicates that "things that are basically full attacks" are a category.

Therefore, flurry and spell combat are examples of actions which substitute for a full attack action, they are not modifiers to the full attack action. You can take a full attack, you can flurry, or you can use spell combat. You can't "stack" them, because you have a single full-round action available, and you have to take one of those actions to make your multiple attacks, and whichever one you took, you aren't taking the others.

I understand that, completely, and if you read through the wording of Spell Combat and believe that it is just another version of 2 weapon fighting, no problem, all your main hand attacks + spell as off hand attack. Done, and 1 full attack action used.

No other full attack actions allowed.

My issue has always been with how the wrote the ability (spell combat) as well as the way the wrote Flurry. When I read Spell combat, it sounds to me like you are getting your normal full attack action and the ability to cast a spell. (whether full BAB attacks or flurry attacks, both = same action type, though no 2 weapon b/c your other hand is filled with spell)

Essentially, my reading comes down to Spell Combat being a Full Round Action where you get to cast a spell and take a full attack action.

The confusion for me comes from them using examples from other rules on multiple /= abilities.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, I am poking at semantics b/c they chose to take an easy route and reference an existing well know rule instead of fully flesh out and define Spell Combat in and of itself. When they do that, they always end up with confusion one or more books later when unknown actions want to be used in conjunction.

Damn expensive strategy. 3750gp wand.

Yes, yes it is. I dont use the wand all the time, I have a couple of 1st level pearls and cast it as well (at CL4 from trait). I took craft wondrous to save cash as well. Made my own amulet of Agile Striking.

My build works out pretty well and has a but load of feats. Its just really light on the magus side. I had to decide if I wanted to focus more on combat, straight up or spell striking, and I went kensai, so straight combat (since the reduced spell casting).

Also stat need heavy, so skimpt on INT, thus the wand arcana in general.

Haster wrote:

DISAGREE with the consensus on the topic and it frustrates me so I want to argue my reasons with you all. =)

You are not the first, this isn't brand new territory. I appreciate you want to argue, but you present nothing new.

Plus players that like to argue semantics in a pedantic way are the players nearly all GMs would wish never return to their tables.

Because this frustrates the GM and the tables very often, you should focus your energy in making unique characters within the generally accepted rules. It is why I stopped playing a Overrun specialist. Very few could agree on how the rules works, so why have to interrogate a GM before each game. Just stop playing those types of characters.

I appreciate your sentiment. Luckily I only play with the same 5 friends and have for years and we don't really break heads over this kind of stuff. Also, I argued my point within my group, got voted down and we moved on with no hurt feelings.

This forum topic is my own thing, though yes, born out of that discussion at home.

Also, you strike true about the difficulty in groups of playing overly complicated characters specializing in wonky rules. Alas, it is my way. I just can't seem to enjoy the game as much playing vanilla.

I am also playing a straight Wind Oracle (seeker arch) in Shattered Star right now, 13th level and bored to death of it.

The character before that was a monk / gunslinger with the full crane style suite and it, hands down was the most effective, deadly and fun character I have ever played. Though the DM for that game (King Maker, and we rotate GM's) started to not attack me out of spite b/c he could never hit me... heh.

I read your argument. You're trying to use a semantics loophole to allow you to perform two full-round actions simultaneously. Yes, the language is sufficiently vague that if you take only the two sentences in isolation and forget everything else you know about the game, there is a slight grey area which makes it only 95% clear that the two can't work together. That's why we have a GM for the game.

You state that you play well "in a group", but it seems like you are coming here to get ammunition to force your GM to accept your version of things despite the fact that they've already ruled on it. Your GM is "in the group", too, you know...

I suppose I am using semantics, b/c the rules are sufficiently vague. I don't like that. I hate when rules are written by just referencing another actions example, especially when more books and rules and actions will be added later. Like in this case. Flurry and Spell combat should both be actions fully explained unto themselves.

That is likely the issue that bugs me so much about it.

No, I am not trying to get ammo, I argue this with them, with a smile all the time. And other things, and they do it too, with other things. We have been playing together in multiple systems for years.

If I read spell combat and agree that the whole thing is just a re-write of 2 weapon fighting, with the off hand weapon being the spell, then it is air tight. No problem.

I just don't see it being that clear. Though I can cave on that being RAI.

Sorry if this came off as one big troll attempt, it wasn't meant to be, I just am really frustrated by rules written like this and wanted to, as the topic said, have an argument about it.

(and by the way, Constance is a Monk 1, fight (brawler)2 and Kensai 2 with the Wand Arcana that allows spell combat with wands, but not spell strike.
She uses them to cast blur from a wand sheath (with moonlight stalker) and then has a wand of Frostbite lvl 5 (5 touches, delivered with punches as normal attacks instead of touch attacks, for an additional 1D6+5 damage and auto fatigue.

Yes, I realize I normal monk with UMD could do that too. If I could spell strike, then I could hit 3 times instead of 1 touch and 1 attack but with the additional -2 from spell strike on top of the flurry penalty to hit... its not a big deal at all.

Right now I just spell combat frostbite in round 1, get 1 free touch attack and 1 punch, they both proc frost bite, then round 2 I flurry for with the remaining frostbite attacks...

Constance is actually very effective as is with the rules for spell strike as they are excepted. and would not get much better if they changed.

Didn't read, didn't need to.

You can't combine TWF and Spell Combat. You are not the first to make assertions that you can.

I'd recommend building some other type of build instead of having this debate with ever GM and/or trying to brow beat the GM into submission.

Christ, why reply when you specifically wont read the argument? just to be a troll?

Here, I will simplify the argument:
Spell Combat is a "Full Round Action" that also allows you to take, through insinuation based on the wording "all your attacks", another full round action (attack) + cast the spell.

The wording for a full attack action is this: If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The ONLY type of full attack precluded in the wording of Spell Combat is 2 weapon fighting b/c is specifically notes your other hand is used for casting the spell.

I LIKE making complicated characters, I have no problem with them, and I play in a great group.

I make characters like this b/c everyone and his mother has made and played an effective shocking Grasp Magus. I have played various RP's for 25 years, I am 42. I can't stand to play straight up anything anymore. No straight Barbarians, monks or wizards. Yes, they are effective and easy to play. They also BORE me to tears.

I need to play unique and different characters and try to make them as effective as possible.

Also, No, I don't think Flurry and Spell Combat are particularly effective together and its a very small part of my build, I just DISAGREE with the consensus on the topic and it frustrates me so I want to argue my reasons with you all. =)

Regardless as to whether or not you win this war of semantics, a monk magus hybrid sounds weak, difficult to play, flavor, and you'd have to have this argument with every GM.

It's just not worth it, Billy.

Fair enough opinion. I am having it with my GM. Although, it is only a minor issue with my character.

Also, it is not weak at all, though it is way overly complicated, full of flavor.

PLEASE read the my whole argument before trolling or flaming me, or even forming a reply!

Spell Combat (and maybe Spell Strike) Magus Ability + Flurry of Blows.

The overall consensus on the message boards says NO WAY. I disagree, completely.

The message board consensus is based on the idea that Spell Combat is a full round action AND Flurry is also a full round action, and as such you cannot combine them. If that were true, I would agree.

Here are the pertinent texts to see how each ability is written:

Spell Combat
At 1st level, a magus learns to cast spells and wield his weapons at the same time. This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast. To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). If he casts this spell defensively, he can decide to take an additional penalty on his attack rolls, up to his Intelligence bonus, and add the same amount as a circumstance bonus on his concentration check. If the check fails, the spell is wasted, but the attacks still take the penalty. A magus can choose to cast the spell first or make the weapon attacks first, but if he has more than one attack, he cannot cast the spell between weapon attacks.

Flurry of Blows
Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action.
When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).

OK, so things to note about these 2 abilities...

Both abilities reference two-weapon fighting. Spell combat notes it is like 2 weapon fighting, which is a type of full round action (attack). Flurry of blows references, specifically, the 2 weapon fighting FEAT, which specifically only effects the penalties associated with 2 weapon fighting, nothing else.
flurry specifically notes a full attack action, spell combat notes a full round action. This, I think, just helps show how poorly written spell combat is, but is also an important difference.
Now, to the core of the problem for me...

Each of these 2 actions note that they are, effectively, full round actions. Fine, you can't make 2 full round actions in 1 round. I get that, but here is the problem, Spell combat specifically says in its description that you get to make all of you attacks... As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell. I think the wording of FULL ROUND ACTION was intentional b/c taking all of your attacks is already, in and of itself, a full round action (attack). So, spell combat is already combining 2 full round actions.

Taking all of your attacks in a round, either from 2 weapon fighting, Flurry of Blows OR BAB is a
full attack action. All 3 of these types of attacks are a full round action. period.

The conclusion MUST be that spell combat is meant to be combined with a full attack action, yes? which means all of your attacks from BAB or Flurry of Blows because they are both full attack actions.

I would not say that you can 2 weapon fight though, b/c it specifically also notes your other hand is casting a spell and is counted as a weapon.

Text from actions in combat, please note how it applies examples of how you would get additional attacks per round...

Full Attack:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough (see Base Attack Bonus in Classes), because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon, or for some special reason, you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

CONCLUSION!: Spell Combat + Flurry of Blows is COMPLETELY ALLOWED PER THE RULES AS WRITTEN.

=)

In order to illustrate the above post, here is the Magus/Monk I was talking about...

Constance Magus / Monk

So I looked at your character sheet on my PC and it looks very good. However, like most character sheets it does not take into account the Monk.

I know you can't do EVERYTHING, no one can. There were important things missing. Take the CMB. The Monk replaces BAB with his level. He also adds Wisdom bonus.
There isn't a KI pool that I can see.

If I was building a magus (like for my next game) there would be no place for the Arcane Pool.
Also there is the Ninja's Arcane Pool.

Which Classes is this sheet for?

Thanks for checking the sheet out. I actually began this sheet with just that in mind, that I can't take everything into account. Not without making it very, very complicate.

First off, when I say auto calculating, I mean your die rolls. I am actually using it very successfully with a Magus/Monk right now. How? First, for flurry, on the character sheet tab, when you click the it on, you need to enter your adjusted flurry BAB in the box to the right (which has a little note on it to do so).

For "pools" of various kinds, I placed little check boxes to the right of the condition track boxes to be copy/pasted into the class ability section. So, you would type in "Arcane Pool" and copy/paste in a number of appropriate check boxes to track your pool.

For more difficult to calculate things, like monks CMB bonus and other wonky class abilities like INT to melee attack I left those selections as user input. You'll notice that on the attack matrix on the character sheet, the far left and right have boxes for Attack and Damage Stat as well as generic attack and damage bonuses (or penalties).

For CMB and CMD, on the Data Sheet, the Stats also get input manually, as well as sections for misc. bonuses or penalties (like size). Same goes for the Armor Class section on the Data sheet.

As I write this, I realize I may not have included the size modifiers for CMB/CMD for the spell/condition mod check boxes... anyway, fix that later.

Last, for skills that use an alternate stat, I decided to leave them auto populating the stat bonus as normal, and the user can adjust the difference in the misc. bonus/penalty box on the data sheet's skill tracker. The idea is that all the various bonuses that add up to your total are input and visible on the Data Sheet, but only the final product is visible on the Character Sheet.

Updated the sheet, fixed a redundant math error in the Stats section of the character sheet and changed the color to a much lighter blue to make the text easier to read.

Haster wrote:

Aioran wrote:

This doesn't work for me though.

Updating my base stats doesn't change any other cell. I assume that's supposed to be immediate looking at the equations.

EDIT: That was already a link, I put it in the formatting for you :P

EDIT 2: What version of excel did you do this in? :S I have 2010 so that might be too old.

I actually work on it in 2010 at work, 2013 at home. and though some of the formatting gets wonky (like fonts and sizing) all the calculations seem to work fine.

I did have some issues with the calculations on the datasheet not updating right away. This may be something you already tried, but once you input data, go to the Formula Tab and hit "calculate now" to be sure it updates everything.

Ah, right. Works perfectly now that I know to press that. Thanks :D

Fantastic. That is essentially what the button does on the character sheet (emulates clicking calculate now). Once you have used it some, let me know what you think or if you find any errors.