Jerhidar's page

Imbicatus wrote:

Yes, that's it exactly. You can use your Belt of Giant Strength +2 as your transmutation implement, add focus to it, and use the +2 Con resonate power. You have the equivalent of a belt of physical might for 4,000 gp instead of 10,000 gp.

That comes down to getting an enhancement bonus from 2 different sources and they already stated that was intended effect so why penalize it if they want you to be able to do that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you give an example?

the enhancement ability doesnt allow you to enhance 2 stats. im saying the ability is on par with the magic items that a 5th lvl character will have.

I believe what Imbicatus was meaning, is how an Occultist could be wearing a Belt of Dexterity +2, and add a Transmutation Implement belt with a resonant power that raises, say, Strength. Since Implements don't take up magic item slots, the Occultist can double up on some things like belts, rings, or what have you.

Or just, you know, add their psychic empowerments to the existing enchantments of an item. Nothing says you can't use magic items as Implements.

I like to think that the game master is just another player in the group, albeit with a slightly different role and set of tools at their disposal.

The first rule for me, when I GM, is to preserve player agency as far as possible. I'm training myself to avoid saying "no, you can't do that", and instead going "sure, but then". Always asking questions about what a character is doing in the process of performing an action, asking the player to describe how they succeed (or fail) in a task.

"So, yeah, I got like a... a 5 on my Diplomacy, here," says the Player.
"That's fine. Tell me how your character goes about unintentionally insulting the satrap of Katheer?" The GM looks expectantly at the Player.
"I tell him his turban looks flaccid!"

Involving players in the scene is the best form of GM-Player cooperation, I feel. Yes, the GM's role is to adjudicate the success of tasks and populate the world with people and events for the characters to interact with, as it is the players' role to engage their characters in those things.

I also believe in the difference between a Story and a Plot. The story could be about the various events surrounding two countries at the brink of war, whereas the plot would be the acts of a corrupt baron who tries to provoke an open conflict by implicating either royal houses in various scandals. The characters are there to *experience* the story, but to *interact* with the plot.

In the end, though, everyone is there to have fun - and it's everyone's job to make sure that happens. It's equally the players' as the GM's responsibility.

Well, at least that's how I like to play.

Kalan wrote:

If an Occultist took Expanded Arcana would he be able to cast the spells with his chosen implement or would he need a second implement to cast those spells?

If he took the feat at 5th level when he could cast 2nd lvl spells and chose to gain 2 1st lvl spells would he have to chose them both from the same school or could he add 1 spell to 2 different schools.

Example 1
Transmutation: Mending(0), Enlarge Person, Feather Fall, Magic Weapon(1st), Spider Climb(2nd)

Example 2
Transmutation: Mending(0), Enlarge Person, Feather Fall(1st), Spider Climb(2nd)
Conjuration: Create Water(0), Cure Light , Unseen Servant(1st), Cure Moderate Wounds(2nd)

Does no one have an answer to the above?

There are also a few corner cases that presents odd situations with classes that has no spell-list entirely of their own, but who receives it from Implements or Spirits. Such as, what happens if you play a Samsaran Occultist or Medium, using the Mystic Past Life to be able to cast, say, a number of Spiritualist spells?

Though, there's a difference between spells *known*, through that feat, and spells added to your spell *list*.

It's a bit of a new circumstance that I don't remember seeing in previous classes.

If I were to hazard a guess about the Expanded Arcana feat, it would just modify the spell allowance by a single implement, making it so that the implement adds a spell of each spell level to your spells known (just as normal) - and then the feat tacks one or two extra spells on top of that to this particular implement.

Comments have been made about how the Occultist isn't an investigator, or a bard, or a skald. How it can't gish it up as well as a Magus, or be as powerful a caster at some other class.

To me, that's a *good* thing. If it was more like either of those, then... well, then what need would there be for an Occultist?

Arguments that the Occultist is second or third best at a little bit of everything, but not truly *good* at anything makes me kind of happy, actually. If I wanted to play a specialist, I'd do that instead. I very much like the idea of an adaptive generalist.

Sure, you can lock yourself into a role through your choice of spells or feats, but the base class gives you an option to participate in a lot of different scenes, be it in social or investigatory settings, in magical or physical combat, or even restorative efforts. Yes, it can't buff itself (or others) like a bard, but then again a bard can't easily match the mobility and magical firepower of an occultist. They're different classes, and that's a good thing.

Though, I do have to join in on the idea that it's peculiar how the Occultist has no way of gaining Trapfinding, since it allows them to handle magical traps. With their Magic/Binding Circle ability, you'd think they know all about mystical seals and dangerous glyphs.

Other than that, I find the decisionmaking whether to save or spend Mental Focus very interesting. It's like an Alchemist who loses access to their discoveries as their daily bomb-count goes down, which makes the choice to use that resource an actual choice, where either option presents something you want, and something you don't.

Also, like StratoNexus suggests, each spell-level should present a choice of several spells. Otherwise there would be much less incentive to revisit a specific Implement Group. Necromancy, for instance, is a little starved.

All-in-all, I find the class to be *interesting* and flexible with a lot of potential, especially with later addition of feats and archetypes to focus on certain aspects, should you want to.

What is this Logical Spell feat I keep seeing mentioned? No one will answer that question in the other thread and I have found it no where in the player not on d20pfsrd.com. if it is a fast that won't come out till Occult Adventures and isn't in the playtest, there should be no reason it's getting mentioned since we can't use it yet regardless.

It is most likely a metamagic feat in the lines of Silent Spell or Still Spell. Since psychic magic used Thought and Emotion components for Verbal and Somatic, respectively, the hinted-at "Logical Spell" is the one to remove the need of the "E", Emotion, component.

Well, at least that's what I've gathered.

EDIT: Also, I clearly need to type faster (tips Ioun-stone at mplindustries)