Jedi Maester's page

48 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS


Strill wrote:
Jedi Maester wrote:
It's weird to me to place limits to the variety of the class options. If you don't like arcane witches, that is fine. The other choices are still there. But why do you want to take the arcane witch from someone else? Why does your concept of the witch get to invalidate someone else's?
Because things are defined by what they are not, especially in fiction where a character's limitations are generally the source of drama. If something is anything, then it's undefined, and is meaningless.

But choosing a spell list already places these limitations. Having an arcane witch option doesn't change this at all. It just seems wrong to me to limit someone else's fun based off of a preference and no real mechanical or strong reasoning. The only argument I could really see is if the witch made the wizard redundant. Which is why I suggested focusing on the things that make the witch unique: the dependence on a patron and a familiar.


I like the idea of not knowing your patron and can appreciate the versatility of option one. I think the issue isn't so much that the patron isn't strongly cohesive, but that option one doesn't include patron motivations. This is of course partly solved by options 2 and 3 where the specificity of the patron creates a motivation. I think option one could work if patron goals were also selected or part of the lessons. Maybe like the anathema of the cleric, but new requirements are imposed as more lessons are taken.

I also think more emphasis should be placed on the familiar in this regard. They are the link between the witch and the patron. If the familiar feels like the witch isn't acting as the patron prefers, maybe the familiar doesn't commune with the witch that morning until an agreement can be made. I'd like to see mechanics that encourage some form of relationship between the witch and familiar as a pair that need each other. Not to mention the role play value as a with realizes their patron may not align with their morals and how the witch handles that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's weird to me to place limits to the variety of the class options. If you don't like arcane witches, that is fine. The other choices are still there. But why do you want to take the arcane witch from someone else? Why does your concept of the witch get to invalidate someone else's? Flavor seems like a weak reason to me to permanently limit someone else's fun. It's all weird magic granted by weird beings, why is one list inherently more "witchy" than another one. I'd like to see a witch for every spell list so that everyone can be their best witch!

I do think the witch is lacking something. Patron influence and hex mechanics are the strongest ways to differentiate a witch while keeping the diversity of the class. I suggest we target along directions that minimize the the yucking someone else's yum.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:

Isn't that gonna happen with a lot of classes and weapons and armors though? Said wizard also has expert in crossbows, but are you actively using them, if not, aren't you wasting them in the same manner as unarmored proficiency while in light armor?

I don't understand this argument. :/ If the crossbow was better than my preference, then yes, this would bother me. It's a wasted bonus if I could be using it and I'm not. Because all my class weapons are the same, the expert bonus applies equally to all. I'm not losing that +2, I'm just applying it to the other weapon, like a dagger. Because light armor isn't a class armor, I'm not using that +2 expert bonus. Which, with critical hits, could be a key difference.

And maybe the math works out and what I get from having a DEX cap to distribute to other stats balances out using unarmored. But I'm not an optimizer so it's hard for me to know. I'd be open to seeing if it balances out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I just feel like for our own sake, it's best to focus on the things that are currently possible to play rather than those things which are not. While it's potentially useful to point out for the designers "hey, here's a thing I want to do but can't", it's interesting to me that there are many more threads about classes in this space than ancestries or backgrounds. Moreover it's probably more useful to talk about "characters we would actually like to play which are not covered" than just broad generalizations about "a wizard cannot do this" or "a fighter cannot do this".

Since most probably the tools we get to resolve the "I want to be an arcane spellcaster in medium armor who uses a polearm effectively" dilemmas are not maximally general solutions.

I think part of the issue is that with this specific situation, the issue could have easily and quickly been fixed. Then a specific archetype for this situation wouldn't be needed. I personally like the idea of having more options in the core book so that more unique options can be presented later.

And if you want something specific, I was building a wizard who takes rogue dedication at 2nd level. I like the idea of the character wearing leather (light armor.) This is for no other reason than looks. I think it looks cooler and it makes me happy. The rogue dedication gives me this, which is awesome. But then I noticed at level 13, I get expert in robes and not my leather armor I was so happy to wear.

As some have said, I can just wear the leather anyways because I want to. But knowing that I have expert in unarmored will bother me. As a player, I want to be the best I can be (within role-play concept) I can for the party. I want to help as much as possible so that hopefully we stop what ever terrible evil is coming. I'd like to do that in the leather armor, but I'll always know I would be a little more helpful in robes. Which, if life and death is on the line, matters for my character.

I guess for some people, getting expert in light armor is a big deal and requires more investment for my character. For others it seems like a small issue that is easily fixed by letting everything your are trained in gain expert when your class proficiencies already do.

Fo me, I was happy in leather armor from levels 2 - 12. And now I'm slightly less happy, either knowing I could be more helpful or using robes I don't really care for. It feels like the game is pushing me back to what everyone presupposes a wizard to wear as appose to letting me pick what I wear.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I said it in a different post and I still think it's true. This wouldn't be an issue if the wizard's class equipment didn't auto level. If everything could stay trained, no one would care. From my perspective, people aren't complaining they aren't as good as another character with their equipment. It's that their character is better with equipment they don't want than equipment they do. And as someone else pointed out, it shows how great Paizo did at making characters really customizable. This point is really contentious because it is the ONLY part of my class that doesn't allow me to adjust or swap it out in some way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I agree that it'd be too strong to make all martial weapons increase. But a feat that simply adds a single weapon to your class list doesn't seem too crazy. Or, have a different option than increasing my wizard weapon proficiencies. I think it's less the feats that are the issue and more the level 11 automatic proficiency increase.

I'm actually not a huge fan of that either, but it came about when the bonus from proficiencies jumped from +1 to +2. All classes have to get expert in everything they start with or else they just fall too far behind to be inherent parts of the class chassis. I really hated that change when it happened in the playtest because I felt like it meant that they were giving up on the idea that proficiency in things was more than just a numeric bonus, but I guess the problem was that that was all proficiency was going to be for somethings, like saves (extras are determined by class, not proficiency) and armor especially.

Ok, so now I understand why it's there. Thank you! In that case, it's going to constantly bug me that on paper, my wizard is better at a weapon he's never used after he reaches level 11. I don't like it, and I think that's a fair thing to be bothered by. And like I said, it stands out because it's the only thing in the entire class that isn't optional or adjustable.


Unicore wrote:
Having your class abilities rank up automatically is not really relevant to what you can get from multi-classing. All classes will gets boosts to some weapons that they choose not to use, by default of not being able to use every martial weapon or simple weapon at once. I get feeling left out about not being able to get Expert in the weapons that you want, yet, but like many people have pointed out, that will probably come with time. But expecting all martial weapons to advance automatically seems like it is asking for a bit much. If they are features that you get from feats and not innate class abilities, it seems like things that are going to have to increase from feats.

I agree that it'd be too strong to make all martial weapons increase. But a feat that simply adds a single weapon to your class list doesn't seem too crazy. Or, have a different option than increasing my wizard weapon proficiencies. I think it's less the feats that are the issue and more the level 11 automatic proficiency increase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Do you feel the same way about the spell casting feats? Because you definitely have to keep taking more feats to gain those class abilities. If the dedication feat gave you that much stuff, it would wildly overpower any other feat you might want to take.

I think it's different in that something I'm NOT using isn't increasing in your situation. I'm only increasing the spell casting when I want to. But under the current rules, my dagger proficiency is increasing and I don't want it/never plan to use it. It's a wasted bonus, which doesn't feel fun. I'd rather, like your spell casting scenario, have the option to get something else rather than a weapon proficiency increase I'll never use.

EDIT: I'm bad at quoting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea that my class weapons upgrade and nothing else bugs me too. Even if a new feat is introduced, that just means I need to waste a feat on a largely flavor choice. Let's say I want to play a wizard that uses a long sword. I take a feat to be trained. At level 11, suddenly weapons I've BARELY used I'm now an expert at. I can either use the long sword anyways, knowing I'm purposely wasting the expert attack bonus on my staff, or use a second feat so that I'm just as good with the long sword.

I think it sticks out because with all the feat options and class modularity, it's rare for a character to have an ability that the player doesn't want. The limited weapon proficiency increase feels like the unwanted class abilities from first edition that archetypes were needed to fix. I have a feeling that if increasing weapon/armor proficiencies wasn't automatic but could be traded out like other feats, it wouldn't be an issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As classes level, they get proficiency bonuses to their class equipment. But depending on the class, this makes little sense. For example, a wizard takes the armor proficiency generally feat to be trained in light armor. However, their level 13 defensive robes ability makes them expert only in unarmored. I'm curious why this design decision was made? Why not make it so that you become expert in any armor you're already trained in?


Is there a way to lower the reload on the hand crossbow to 0? I have this awesome picture in my head of a half-orc cowboy who uses a hand crossbow like a revolver to hit multiple enemies in a turn. Is this possible?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:
Jedi Maester wrote:
I wonder if this Maverick could be a rogue archetype.

The rogue focus is centered around enhanced proficiencies, stealth, and underhandedness. On a roleplay level they can be loud and forthright if they want to, but their abilities are geared towards being sneaky as their default setting right down to sneak attack.

The conceptual Maverick I'm thinking of can be sneaky if they want, just like any class can in PF2, but their default setting is loud and or visible.

I don't think this is true anymore. It used to be that the rogue was always the sneaky guy, but I think the class has evolved to be more swashbuckling as well. It already gets light armor and the right weapon proficiencies. And sneak attack is just as much a distract and stab a swashbuckler does as it is an assassination attempt. And every famous swashbuckler was known for some level of skulldruggery. It's just my opinion, but I think it works very well.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Jedi Maester wrote:
I wonder if this Maverick could be a rogue archetype. Get increased weapon proficiencies and a guile pool. This pool can be used to purchase fighter class feats for one off uses. Because it is a good point that fighter already can do what a swashbuckler used to do. So to me, it makes sense beef up the rogue a bit to make it more fighter-y.

Careful.

This sounds like the Ninja from PF1. Which was quite literally Rogue++ (at least Core Rogue).

@Temperans
I'd rather try to add Class Feats inside of the Fighter to compensate for lacking concepts than add a new Class that would "compete" in the same space. Some aspects will require Archetypes, but the types of playstyles you mentioned in your previous post are definitely currently available now.

Jedi’s example sounds closer to Brawler. Especially the ‘one off uses’. Maybe Ninja did something similar though. Either way, a pool to buy another classes feats sounds too dependent on the other class.

The reason I like the dependency is that as fighter gets better things, so would this archetype. There would be no need to reprint the same feat for each person that needs it. I know some feats are getting that treatment this edition, but I personally feel like there is a more elegant way to handle repeat feats. And I see the problem with the ninja. The rogue would need to lose some things, probably a few skill feats and a sneak attack die.


I wonder if this Maverick could be a rogue archetype. Get increased weapon proficiencies and a guile pool. This pool can be used to purchase fighter class feats for one off uses. Because it is a good point that fighter already can do what a swashbuckler used to do. So to me, it makes sense beef up the rogue a bit to make it more fighter-y.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a fantastic discussion, but it makes me feel like my insanely crazy idea isn't so crazy. I wonder if PF2 was a missed opportunity to make the first high fantasy classless system. This way combat styles aren't gated, almost everyone already multiclasses, and PF2 is already so modular it's already easy to trade feats between classes. I know it's a terrible idea, but I'd love to see a major developer tackle a classless high powered system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm worried about enchantment. It's a favorite school of mine, but had major issues in first edition with everything being immune to mind affecting spells. The save or suck nature has been resolved with the adding critical affects to these spells, but having major portions of the bestiary immune to an entire school of magic felt like a poor decision to me. Why have such a major option if it's just a trap?

In the playtest, daze causes the same effect as flanking. So why can I flank a slime, but not daze it? Whatever mental taxing the slime is having with being attacked from both sides, I'd like my spell to reproduce that. Otherwise, it should be able to defend both sides equally well. It doesn't attack other slimes, so why can't my charm spell just make it think I'm also a slime? I know they don't have a physical brain, but they obviously have a magical one or they would just follow the chemical reactions affecting their surface.

I don't think all enchantment spells should affect brainless creatures, like verbal ones shouldn't work, but spells that rely on base impulses should work perfectly well. Even constructs and undead consider their surroundings and make decisions. They have a mind of some sort.

I don't think it's too crazy because back in the day, many of these examples were also immune to sneak attacks, but first edition made a great choice making that immunity an exception to the rule. I'd like for the same treatment applied to all character options, but enchantment is the most annoying to me right now.


Now my only hope is they make a similar mechanic for spell DC's so we can have a version of the beguiler back!


graystone wrote:
Garretmander wrote:
Though I prefer the 'prestige' archetype approach that can work with multiple different class combinations.
The last think I want to see is any former base class emulated with a "the 'prestige' archetype approach" as that means you can expect to go through several levels NOT being your class. Waiting until 6th level for the concept makes it feel more like eldritch knight/arcane trickster/ect than magus IMO.

I agree that waiting to play your character until 6th level is no fun. And that includes playing an eldritch knight or an arcane trickster. Which is why I really hope that multiclassing feats can now be taken at level one. If so, a magus could take their multiclass feat at one, and then the spell strike feat at level two or three.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Also, multiclassing costs several feats and still doesn't get you more than a couple spells per level. If you want class feats to be the thing Magus gives up compared to Wizard, that's valid, but I imagine a lot of people would take exception to that.

Then there are two routes to take, you can primary the spell caster or the martial class. A primary martial class would be more like the kensai and focus on fighting. A primary spell caster with martial multi classing would focus more on spell casting with less martial ability. A singular feat that works for both versions of all classes would allow for the most versatility in gish builds.


I don't understand the problem with magus having 9th level casting either. There already exists the wizard multi classing that lets you get up to 8th level spells. You can already make essentially and eldritch knight by going full fighter and taking all the wizard multi class feats. You can do the same with any casting class actually. So simply adding a feat that lets you deliver a touch attack through a weapon doesn't seem like a big deal when these feats are already freely available. Keeping as a feat means that any class combo can use it with out waiting for a specific archetype to be written for the class. Druid/rogue, Cleric/ranger, and Wizard/monk could all work right out of the gate with one feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:
A Universal Magus-like Class Archetype would be a good idea, but with how differently each caster plays it sounds easier said than done.

A level two archetype feat. Requires any form of spell casting. Gives spell strike, weapon proficiencies, and unlocks further feats. Other feats include grabbing fighter feats and different arcana. That's how I'd do it off the top of my head.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd actually prefer the gishes to be a prestige feat so that it can function with any kind of magic. In first edition, you needed a magus archetype for each kind of casting, and you hoped your preference wasn't a trap option. As a prestige/multiclass feat, any spell caster/martial combo can use it and make it work for their preference. I think this would increase the diversity of available builds. You'd just need to make it available at low level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know I'm about to say heresy, but here goes. I think sneak attack should be completely replaced with the critical hit mechanic. Hear me out! Both systems cover the exact same situation, hitting the weak spot. So every time a rogue would typically get sneak attack, make the attack an automatic crit! Extra sneak attack die become an increased multiplier.

This way, a rogue can sometimes pull off the epic damage without a flank buddy. And the extra crit affects apply to the sneak attack stuff.

It's something that's bothered me since 3.5. Rogues focusing on crits make so much sense, why not make it the core feature? Insanity over. Pease continue your regularly scheduled program.


I was looking at the Crystal Tender archetype and I have a question. How does the Reciprocal Resonance ability from the archetype work with the Body of Earth ability from the Stone Spirit? The archetype and spirit seem intended to work together, but both grant DR/adamantine. Does it stack? I doubt it, but then the archetype ability feels like a waste.

Thank you.


I wanted to share something I've been thinking about on class feats. First, I'm super happy with the flexibility they provide. Letting me choose the abilities I want to better customize my character was a much needed change. It significantly lowers the need for many archetypes and a few hybrid classes that were necessary in the more rigid 1st Ed class structure.

However, I find it weird how class feats were executed. Certain things, like animal companions or wizard school powers, make sense. They are very specific to the class and are hard for more than a select few classes to accomplish. But some things are more universal, like two weapon fighting and metamagic. Because of this, certain feats need to be repeated word for word with each class that gets them. In fact, if you wanted to, instead of locating each feat under each class that gets it, you could consolidate space by listing all the feats together and listing each class with the level the feat becomes available.

Which might sound familiar: it's how spells were handled in 1st Ed. I love how spells are handled in 2nd Ed. There are four spells lists and you get one. When a new spell is created, you don't have to go through each class and see if it fits, just add it to the appropriate list. This way classes aren't "missing" spells that might make sense (I will never understand who decided witches didn't get the image spells.... Just why!?)

So I guess feats feel like they are a step behind. Characters can choose between them as they grow, much like spells, but with them listed for each individual class they can easily ruin a character idea someone had in mind. Much like I wanted to build an illusion based witch but struggled, dual wielding rogues are currently a common concept that are hard to implement. I'm sure rogues will eventually be given the necessary class feats, but it seems like a problem that will continue each time new classes and feats are introduced as the edition continues.

I wanted to mention it because the four spell lists are a great implementation to help as new options are added. It's pretty elegant. I don't see a reason why class feats couldn't be just as elegant.


Hi James,

I'm preparing a campaign that will essentially be a tour through the Darklands, starting in Nar-Voth and working it's way down to Orv. Because they are a fairly similar, how can I make sure the Aboleth and Neothelids feel distinct in both personality and combat, aside from one being a fish and the other a worm?


That makes sense. I look forward to seeing how they handle it. Thank you!


I don't know if this question was asked already. I may have missed it, and if so, I apologize. But I'm really curious.

In most RPGs with hit points, people stop being a threat. I can surround my players with guards, but with their hit points, crossbow damage just stops being relevant.

Hit points are great for that long drown out fight with a dragon, but hurt role-playing in other ways.

Does Starfinder have a way to address this, so a child playing with a blaster is actually scary?


Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Jedi Maester wrote:

I'm playing a Sandman now, and my biggest challenge is finding something useful to do in combat. As a normal bard, I could rely on Inspire Courage. Now I have to be more creative to contribute.

Out of combat, I'm great. I'm the face, I can sneak, I can pick locks, and cast spells. That's where the archetype shines. Everyone is flat-footed outside combat so everyone gets the DC boost.

In an urban environment, the Sandman is awesome. Outside of that, the standard Bard is better. That being said, the difference isn't that huge, and I like the challenge of trying to find something useful in combat to do.

I can think of a few methods to be useful in combat with the sandman, For starters I realized that you pretty much need improved feint to play the sandman to it's fullest potential.

But my issue is that there's pretty much no point in putting points in perform as a sandman without versatile performance and spellsong.
If you can think of anyways to make use of perform as sandman i would love to hear it.

Right now I'm mostly using performance to make money. ;) The Sandman can definitely afford to skimp on performance. It's funnest use has been as a cover though. It's easier to go places if you have a profession outside of murder-hobo. Wooing a noble women through dance is particularly fun.

Improved feint isn't necessary either. With spells it's not hard to find ways to keep foes denied their dexterity. Hold person and vanish are great for this. And if all else fails, I'm a great flanking buddy!


I'm playing a Sandman now, and my biggest challenge is finding something useful to do in combat. As a normal bard, I could rely on Inspire Courage. Now I have to be more creative to contribute.

Out of combat, I'm great. I'm the face, I can sneak, I can pick locks, and cast spells. That's where the archetype shines. Everyone is flat-footed outside combat so everyone gets the DC boost.

In an urban environment, the Sandman is awesome. Outside of that, the standard Bard is better. That being said, the difference isn't that huge, and I like the challenge of trying to find something useful in combat to do.


I love the flavor of this crystal tender archetype. The idea of a hermit that lives alone in the Darklands growing a crystal garden is super cool. But I have no idea how to build an effective one. I've never played a shaman before. Looking for some advice to help me out with this particular archetype. Thank you!

Crystal tender


Stealspell wrote:
The sandman may choose a spell to steal, but if the target does not possess the spell, the bardic performance immediately ends. Otherwise the spell stolen is random, but it is always of the highest level that the bard can cast, if possible.

It reads to me that the highest level clause is for the randomly selected spell. Otherwise, if I choose a spell, do I have to choose one at the highest level I can cast? That doesn't make sense to me. How I read it seems to indicate there is no limit if I choose the spell.

Runestone of Power wrote:
Once per day, a spontaneous caster can draw upon a runestone of power to cast a spell—doing so is part of the spellcasting action, and expends that runestone’s power for the day rather than one of the spellcaster’s actual spell slots for the day.

Runestones don't recharge a slot. It says here their power is directly expended. Nothing is mentioned about needing spell slots.

I apologize if I'm being annoying. I just want to understand how I'm wrong if I'm wrong. Thanks for the feedback! I do appreciate it!


Chess Pwn wrote:
no. Runes lets you cast a spell you normally can without using up your slot. No slots means no casting. So a lv1 bard that happened to have a lv5 rune couldn't cast a lv5 spell.

Is there somewhere that specifies you need to be able to cast the spells first? What I'm reading doesn't say so. I'm hoping it's based on spells known, which Sandman does specify the stolen spell is added to his spells known list.


Can a Sandman bard steal an above 6th level spell and then use a runestone of power to cast it?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/runes tone-of-power/

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo-bard-arc hetypes/sandman/


I never considered the warlock. That is an interesting consideration. However, would a 6th level caster be a good enchanter? With DCs tied to spell level, I worry about my effectiveness. If it could work, that opens a ton of 6th level options like Eldritch Scoundrel. And that brings us back to Sandman. FULL CIRCLE!


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Jedi Maester wrote:

Thanks for the thoughts, everyone!

For those suggesting arcane trickster, how do you suggest I get use out of my sneak attacks with a focus on enchantment? It feels like ignoring a main part of the class.
{. . .}

If you are willing to be a Gnome and mix some Illusion focus in with your Enchantment focus, you can pick up the Threatening Illusion Metamagic feat (requires Spell Focus (Illusion)) and cast Figments that flank for you.

If you use things like Color Spray (Illusion) and Glitterdust (Conjuration) to blind your enemies (at low levels, Color Spray can even do more), you can potentially set up a Sneak Attack on them...

That makes sense, but I'm not sure how to survive long enough in a flanking position. I'll be pretty squishy and have terrible bab. I guess I'll need to keep mirror image and a touch spell if I need to get in close. I don't think I'll be able to hit anything with a rapier after a few levels.

The puppetmaster is an interesting choice, Bearserk. I've never played a magus, much less an archetype that completely changed its nature. I'd have no idea how to build it.


Thanks for the thoughts, everyone!

For those suggesting arcane trickster, how do you suggest I get use out of my sneak attacks with a focus on enchantment? It feels like ignoring a main part of the class.

I will say that the sandman gets dramatic subtext, which while not giving silent spell, does let the sandman cast in public unnoticed.

I think I'm leaning toward trickster. Only losing 1 spell casting level is nice. And the extra utility is more what I'm going for.

I'm hoping to play this guy soon and welcome any advice! The party looks to be a hunter, slayer, and me. We all want to focus on stealth, so I'm trying to fill the arcane slot on the party.


I've been wondering which of these would be better for building an enchantment focused magical thief.

Using wizard for spellcasting, a trickster gets a ton of utility spells thanks to being a prepared caster, which they can cast silently. However, the trickster has an emphasis on damage spells as apposed to enchantment. It feels like wasting class features not to focus on damage instead of control.

The sandman gets a boost to its DCs while casting at someone denied their Dex, which is very thematic. Charisma is also synergized between casting and skills.

So if you wanted to play an enchantment focused arcane thief. How would you build it? I'd be curious to hear your response even if it isn't one of these two.


If you were going to make a character with the feel of Boba Fett from Star Wars, would you use an Inquisitor, Ranger, or something else and why? This does not mean that technology is that advanced or the character is in the Star Wars universe. The character, because of flavor/mechanics, just feels like Boba Fett.


Magnu123 wrote:
I don't necessarily think they would. combat maneuvers require much specialization and focus of character materials. This character is already spread very thin on what niche it fills in a party. (something along the lines of glass cannon) I would say that combat manuevers would just further diffuse it away being successful in any one field. At present, I would play him as a damage dealer/battlefield control type. He draws attention in his direction and dodges hits while his allies get off scot-free. At the same time, he'll be mowing down spellcasters with just the right boost to his own damage (in the form of a number of different swift/move action buffs)

I see what you mean. Bards don't have enough feats. If I'm going the teleporter route, I need to focus on that. Besides, with a whip, I can just teleport 5 ft away and do manuvers without worry, especially now that UC made the scorpion whip a light weapon. Thanks for all your help. Speaking of swift actions, do you know of a way to get more than one swift action in a turn?


Ok. I'm not sure if I'm gonna keep combat patrol. I know it works well with the arcane duelist bonus feats, but the full round action requirement would mean no dimensional dervish. I might go with whip mastery to increase my threat range instead. Or snap shot if I feel like going with a more range specialization. You think some combat maneuver feats could help the build?


Thanks everyone for all of your comments! Davor is right about what I meant with arcane duelist and TWF. I liked the idea in my head but I wondered if it was decent enough to play. And the Nightcrawler I was thinking of is his more swashbuckler-y style. Like in Wolverine and the X-men episode where he acts like Errol Flynn.

Thank you Magnu123 for your build! I was wondering how you would play it? Is it capable of doing damage enough with TWF to be decent at combat?


Magnu123 wrote:
In the process here. Do you want the whole chain of feats up to dimensional savant? that'd be pretty high level by the time I get all the feats. I'll just assume level 11 (the minimum for a bard to have dimension door and then get the first feat in the chain.)

You don't have to be too specific. The feats you feel are required to make the character achieve what you feel it needs to achieve.

Lastoth wrote:
Actually a magician bard could get it sooner via summoner list and that special class ability I think. Last I checked it was 8th, but bard would be sub optimal.

Why is bard sub optimal? I figured the arcane duelist would be gish enough to actually make good use of the feat.

nategar05 wrote:
The best Dimensional line of feats user I can think of is Monk. Full Action = Flurry + Dimension around all over the place.

I know a monk could do it, but I wanted to see a bard that made good use of the feats.


Magnu123 wrote:
Well that's a broad question. What are the specs of the character you're building? You need a certain level minimum for the feat chain, you need to decide a stat build system (the standard being 15pb), traits? How much detail do you want? Should they be duel-wielding swords as Nightcrawler is depicted doing? what about races? give me a few more parameters, and I'll post a build.

OK! 20 pb, as much detail as your willing to give, TWF preferred. The reason I like TWF is because arcane duelist gets something most spellcasters don't get, the ability to cast and duel wield. Races and traits can be whatever makes the character work. I have this idea for an arcane duelist pirate captain, but I don't want to limit it to this idea just to see what other build themes may come up.


Hi everyone. I was wondering, if you were going to build an arcane duelist with the dimensional agility feat chain from UC, how would you do it? This seems to me to be at least an incredibly fun idea. Thanks for your responses!


Hi people of the messageboards!

I would like advice on building this character of mine. He is a pirate captain for our crew, with the rest of the party serving as various officers. I want to build a character who can lead his crew to fight the enemy. I like the idea of the arcane duelist bard for the buffs and combat ability. My question is how to make him fight effectively so that he isn't just talk.

I would like to focus on TWF with a rapier and dagger, along with a whip and pistol for support. This is the flavor I am looking for, with weapon finesse. Can this be combat effective? I would like to be mobile as well, but don’t know how to work that in with TWF.

The idea is to yell his battle cry (Inspire Courage), charge with the frontlines, and be able to survive with his reflexes and wits. Are there any suggestions to make this work?


I have a question about the spagyric devices. It says that the devices cannot have charges, but can have uses per day. A staff has charges, but they replenish each day, so does that mean a staff can be made into a spagyric device?