In light of my obsession with magical swordsmen, I have a very simple set of criteria. step one: Am I playing a magus?
Actually, the answer is quite simply "no". Produce flame has a range of "0 feet", whereas normal touch spells have a range of, quite literally, "touch". While produce flame may provide the option to make touch attacks, it only says "with a melee/ranged touch attack". It doesn't say as a free action or as part of the casting of the spell, therefore we must default to an action cost of "standard" (or, depending on interpretation, a full-round action, but the big man upstairs has pretty much stated this doesn't work) in order to use said melee/ranged touch attack. To make a parallel, beast shape costs an action to give you the option to use natural attacks, but does not provide a way to use those natural attacks during that turn.
Are those clothes made of wool? because clearly the lamb they came from would be the first creature struck by the beam.
There has been discussion about this before, and developers weighed in that you can have both activated at the same time. The text in the flaming enchantment is stating that "another command" simply means a command to turn off the enchantment. Yes, it can be worded better.
Are you saying that Phil takes the full effect of a disintegrate that would have missed anyway only because Melkior was targeting Frank instead of Phil? So take the same exact situation, except Frank is hiding behind a wall, so Melkior just decides to target phil. Melkior rolls his one and phil rolls his twenty. So now because melkior was actually targeting phil, and even though phil flawlessly blocks the disintegrate, wherever it would have landed, with his fist, he takes no damage because he was the original target? I'm sorry, but there's RAW that says "the target takes no damage", and there is NO RAW, like there is elsewhere, that the object used takes the damage instead.
What about when using an unarmed strike?Any other effects means what it said, if this was being done barehanded , we wouldn't be arguing that it "still hit your hands so roll a fort save" now would we? Wait. So Commoner Frank is off to the left, Evil Wizard Meklior is targeting him with disintegrate because the GM has a point to prove, and monk PC character Phil has cut from the air, using unarmed strike. Meklior casts the disintegrate, and points his finger at at Frank with an evil grin on his face. Defender of Justice that he is, Phil decides to defend him with smash from the air. Opposing attack rolls are made. To his chagrin, Melkior fumbles completely (a one is rolled), and Phil's reflexive strike could not have been more on point to counter wherever it would have landed (a twenty). Are you saying that Phil takes the full effect of a disintegrate that would have missed anyway only because Melkior was targeting Frank instead of Phil? I personally don't buy into that. I'd say that because the feats lack "the object takes the damage as normal" text that the shield version of the feat has, it's completely deflected.
80. Tripped and fell down the bottomless pit while on his way to clean the Starstone. After, of course, failing the Dc 11 jump check.
*reads the "don't worry about optimization" part and slowly puts away the eldritch archer/gunslinger/vivisectionist/arcane trickster build* It depends on what you want to do, really. For example, while its slow to pick up, if you wanted a combat buddy you could pick up a beastmaster magus. Another example and of two archetypes that stack and mesh well is an eldritch archer and hexcrafter magus. Deliver curses from afar! You could build a whip magus, who uses the maneuver arcana to get full BaB on trip attempts, and use multi-touch spells alongside combat reflexes for great battlefield control. I've been wanting to try the Puppetmaster archetype, that combines martial competence with enchantment and illusion mastery. Notably he gains access to the bard spell list, which means he gains heroism as a level two spell, which can be cast with the puppetmaster spell combat. And, of course, there's always the classic crit-fisher intensified shocking grasp magus. Can't really go wrong with what works.
The trouble is that pathfinder doesn't use that definition for attack, or even the same definition for attack within its own set of rules. You can't just bring real-world definitions into this game, or you start breaking everything very quickly. For example, invisibility breaks whenever you "take aggressive action" as per the English definition, and it also breaks if you attack an ally with something harmful, even if he's willing, so that breaks that definition a little bit. However, it's helpful that this particular definition is found in the core rulebook under magic. Not referenced to a dictionary. In contrast, a rogue's sneak attack also says "attack" in its conditions, yet supporting rules and FAQs suggest that it only works on something that requires an attack roll, and not something as straightforward as magic missile. In pathfinder, "attack" is a well-documented yet not technically written outright term which is defined as "to roll a d20 to hit". And when someone tries to touch you and you decide you're unwilling, it requires an attack roll for them to hit you. For example, if you fail your spellcraft check and think that they're lying about the spell being cure light wounds, they'd have to hit an attack roll to get you with it. So I go back again to this: If the logical function of the armor is to channel magic into someone that touches it, and there's mechanical evidence that it's possible for an ally to require an attack roll to hit you AND there's buff and beneficial spells that use the exact same touch rules, what reason is there that this should not work that actually makes sense in world?
Small nitpick: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. The casting of the spell is a standard action, and then the deliver of it, should it also happen that round, is always a free action no matter how it happens. Whether you touch yourself, an ally, or attempt to touch an unwilling target thus requiring an attack roll, it is a free action that round. Indeed, if you were to use shocking grasp, the attack made against the enemy as the delivery is a free action attack, and the magus even turns this free action attack into another weapon attack via spellstrike. So there's pretty much nothing on the action economy side of things preventing this interaction.
Yes. Essentially, your "normal" speed is your final modified speed after mundane influence, and is the "base" speed of a character. A creature's "modified base speed" is what happens after magical influence, such as haste. Pretty much anything that relies on movement (A move action, acrobatics, a charge, etc) looks only at the modified base speed for how it functions. I can respect that stance, however I wonder why they wouldn't just say current speed - or speed - why the extra words. Because pathfinder is infamous for unnecessary verbosity and casually presented rules. Stack that on top of the fact that it's a collection of many documents written by many different authors, who have different casual styles of writing and different levels of understanding of the rules system they're writing for. It frustrates me endlessly. I'm not saying there's an easy solution, just that the issue exists that basically every "game term" is used in 4-5 different ways.
8 - Tried to initiate a grapple on a succubus.
Human Fighter A is nude. Explain further.
So I just read though this whole thread, and I really have to say... OP, why do you make a post asking for advice and then challenge everyone who offers it? Especially when the ones offering it are pretty much in unanimous agreement?
I would like to see some kind of monk/wizard hybrid. Combining the disciplines of both body and mind in the pursuit of a perfected soul. Could possibly have something similar to magus spell combat, but a flurry of blows + self buff, maybe?
11:59:59:59 on july 14th is before midnight. 12:00:00:00 on july 15th is midnight. 12:00:00:01 on july 15th is after midnight. If a school says an assignment is due on the 14th by midnight, it means that when you've hit midnight july 15th, it is too late. Just because someone can be easily confused by something doesn't mean that there isn't a single correct way to interpret it. EDIT: To make it even more correct: 23:59:59:59, 00:00:00:00, 00:00:00:01.
I don't have any idea how why you think I would be advocating anything like that. I am only saying that according to the second form of measurement listed in acrobatics "The result equals the distance traveled in the jump..." (paraphrased) jumping 10' = 10' of movement. This does not work with the DC equals the distance cleared, which is the... I think the dissonance here is that the jump does not equal the move action. For example, if you were two squares away from a 3 square wide pit, then the total movement cost to enter the square on the opposite side of the pit would be 25. 7.5 to get to the edge of the pit, 15 to jump it with a DC of 15, 2.5 to get to the center of the square on the opposite side. The distance travelled in the jump is 15. The dc for the jump is 15. The distance travelled total is 25, and total is not equal to the jump.
I prefer my monopoly medium-rare.
My current character is a Cross-blooded (dragon/psychic) kitsune sorcerer who took the new "superior shapeshifter" trait to get fox shape at level 1. Fox shape makes him tiny, grants him 1 natural armor, and a +4 bonus to dex, along with a who-cares penalty to strength. At level 1, this makes 10+2(size)+1(natural)+5(dex) for a total of 18 AC.
Also because I'm a psychic caster, I can even cast in fox form in the first place. The dragon part of the bloodline means my fire spells do 1 more damage per die rolled. So already at level 1 I'm an internet web browser of destruction. The best part will come level 15, when I get the wings bloodline ability. This appears to be a supernatural ability that is not dependent on the original form (per polymorph rules of losing supernatural abilities), so I get to use this ability in fox form. I am now an airborne tiny fox dragon of fiery death.
Lesser restoration has no effects that scale with spell level, so there's no benefit to heighten. An important distinction with "heighten spell" is that you're still casting the same spell... It's just that the DC goes up, basically. And as pointed out in the paranthesis, whether it can penetrate a globe of invulnerability. So no, a lesser restoration heightened by 2 spell levels is still a lesser restoration, and will not gain any additional effects.
no, they actually just function only when it's dramatic.
what's that blue skinned idiocy doing in a serious thread? I have to say, I'm smurfing insulted that you would refer to me that way.
Can a warpriest select the feat "weapon focus: Water balloon"?
I've stumbled upon something that might make a gm cry, but I decided I want to make sure before I go around touting it, or even if it's actually all that strong. Tengu Bloodrager
With 20 point buy, I can do:
With bloodrage on that amounts to 20 strength, which means +5 to-hit and damage on all your attacks.
Not too shabby, eh?
If bladed brush's "you can treat it as a one-handed piercing or slashing melee weapon" were meant to simply turn it into a one-handed weapon, wouldn't the wording right after "and as if you were not making attacks with your off-hand" then be superfluous? Because logically, if you were treating it in all ways a one-handed weapon, then the next line would be entirely unnecessary. Either this feat is poorly written (I wouldn't put it past this game) or is using an entirely unique position on handedness and ability interaction.
Simmer down folks. But the instructions on "how to cook up a FAQ" say "bring the thread to a boil and set the timer for one month"
I tell you, every single "Should the paladin fall?" thread are identical and yet so very different. You just never know what to expect- and then you go through the motions all over again. It's very zen. Holy water over a cliff - Paladin Falls.
Have you looked into the puppetmaster archetype? The archetype may be specialized for enchantment and illusion, but it isn't limited to those and has access to both the magus and the bard spell lists.
For my two cents, I'm also pretty firmly in the camp that the hand doesn't specifically count as free. What it's saying is that the weapon itself is being treated as if it was one handed for all feats and class abilities that require it, but not for actual wielding. So the ability will go "okay, so that's totally a one-handed weapon, and he's totally not making any attacks with his other hand". The difference is that you're still actually wielding it two-handed. What this ends up doing in the case of the magus is that spell combat goes "okay, so this is clearly a one-handed weapon being held in one hand, so that totally fulfills the first requirement. Now to check... nope. That hand is occupied by something. Sorry bub, no can do." The idea behind that is the "must have one hand free" requirement is, in fact, not given any exceptions, because you're never actually changing the handedness of the weapon itself, and thus no matter how much wriggling you do, you're still holding something in that hand when any ability happens to specifically check if your hand is free. Now, if you happened to somehow acquire a third limb that was capable of spellcasting and/or wielding a weapon, then you would satisfy both requirements of "Wielding a light or one-handed weapon" and "one hand free".
A well-done medium is rare. ... had to say it.
Pretty sensible, yes, but I was struck by the distinct lack of a general action for making a touch attack. If you're holding the charge to a touch attack, and it's not on the same turn as when you cast the spell, what action does it take to deliver the touch? The rules do not actually say, except to provide an exception to be able to deliver it on unarmed strikes or natural attacks. So what is the exception excepting? What IS the general rule? If I am not given a clear rule on how to make a touch attack when not attached to a spell, what else am I supposed to do other than assume it follows the other rules of making an attack, including that it can replace a regular attack roll during a full attack? I'm actually now of the opinion that not just this topic, but the overall rules of "natural weapons, manufactured weapons, iterative attacks, and touch attacks" need some sort of clarification to make them all work better as they are apparently supposed to.
So you are saying it is a swift action to activate, and a standard action to use or maybe it could be a swift action to activate and use? Swift action to gain the ability to use this attack for the rest of the combat, standard action to make the touch attack.
Argh, now you're going to make me actually do some research. *time passes, none of which you are aware when reading this because you're reading the completed post*Wow. These rules are in no way explicit. First, I tried to search for the definition of "base attack bonus"
Each creature has a base attack bonus and it represents its skill in combat. As a character gains levels or Hit Dice, his base attack bonus improves. When a creature's base attack bonus reaches +6, +11, or +16, he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action (which is one type of full-round action—see Combat) No mention of what kind of attack or weapon he gets to make with that. So I thought, "okay, let's look for the definition of a full attack"
Again, no langauge of what kind of weapon, except for "two weapons or double weapon" to point out two-weapon fighting method of getting an extra attack. So then I decided to go down a tangent and take a look at two-weapon fighting:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6. here, it finally gives the first allusion to even wielding a weapon at all, by saying "if you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you get one extra attack per round with that weapon. To me, this looks like evidence towards but something that would look like something to be quite contrived if they were using it as evidence by itself, which so far from my search it really is by itself. In fact, the only exception to iteratives that I've found is the entry in natural attacks that prevent natural attacks getting extra attacks for having a high base attack bonus. Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack. This shows a clear exception to the general rule that was provided earlier by the base rule of base attack bonus. Instead of getting "iterative"(which hasn't even come up as a word anywhere as far as I can tell) attacks, you get multiple attacks for multiple natural attacks, which you are capable of using as part of a full attack. So do touch attacks provide that kind of exception?
Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor. Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. "Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks). Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. Quite a lot of language seems to exist, in fact, with lumping a "touch attack" into following most general rules of weapons. not only does it continually call you "armed", it also fails to call out exceptions for any of the general iterative "armed attack" rules, and it also fails to even call out an action cost for delivering a touch attack when it is not part of a free action granted by a spell. So, as written, everything I've found seems to point straight to the fact that if you're given a touch attack (for example, multiple charges of "chill touch" or the "slayer's brand" ability or even the attacks granted by the spell "produce flame"), you should by all rights be able to treat them as weapons for your full attack. To the best of my ability, I could find nothing that supports James's position except for the fact that it's James's position, which makes me believe this is FAQ worthy. Huh.
link! Just make a copy of it for your own use, because I don't want internet people breaking this copy in case other internet people who come after end up needing it. Basically, I wanted to figure out what kind of DPR I was doing as a magus, but I ended up being unable to figure out where to put my spellstrike damage. The difficulty is that the dpr is heavily affected if I put the spellstrike damage on one attack, because missing that attack would have the calculator return that the spell does no damage, when in reality the spell can end up doing damage if the next attack hits. So basically, you can calculate all your iteratives separately, then the sheet will calculate the chance of at least one attack hitting, and then multiply that percentage against your spell damage for how much extra DPR your spell does. key:
Green cells are freely editable
And that's about everything. Anyone see any mistakes?
That's exactly the thought process I'm following. If there was a "wizard" spell list, the wizard could not draw from it because he draws from the "sorcerer/wizard" spell list. I think you could actually post this in whatever this forum has that passes for a "CRB potential errors" topic.
nope, you're not reading it wrong. It's kinda illustrating the idea that you're splitting your mental effort between two weapons. It makes more sense when you outline the enhancement progression for two weapons. A normal mindblade magus gets:
A mindblade employing two weapons gets:
Basically, it's slowing down your progression. Fighting with two weapons never gets worse than a previous level, but it also gets better slower than fighting with one weapon. Does that make sense?
point out that if he starts doing those things, then he should reasonably be able to expect his enemies to begin doing those same things, which might turn around and get him killed. Explain that you hold yourself to the same standards. At least that's how I handle similar situations.
I find that to be a pretty unfair accusation. I made the topic because I felt that there was room for confusion or doubt. Yes, the table very clearly says "medium warpriests" or "large warpriests". However, every other size increase in the game deals with the weapon. Even enlarge person specifically calls out that the weapon is also made larger, and thus why it deals more damage. Every single ability in the game that deals size-category related weapon damage is because the weapon itself is either bigger (even monks, whose table may say "monk size" but logically have their fists grow with them), or it is treated as bigger. So why, then, should the warpriest be different, especially if it the size increase otherwise follows all patterns? So yeah, it doesn't stack like that as written, but then again, "as written" follows this odd pattern of both conformity and non-conformity with existing rules and examples. ... thus why I think it's worthy of a FAQ.
The warpriest wielding a huge light weapon also takes a hefty -4 attack penalty on all swings with that thing, the same as a titan mauler wielding a large greatsword at 6th level. As the warpriest levels up, the damage goes up. But as the titan mauler levels up, the to-hit penalty goes down. This is in addition to the full-BaB progression that the titan mauler benefits from. However, I believe that is unrelated. The balance of another class or archetype should have no bearing on the legality of an unrelated rules interaction. If that was always a concern, then anything you could do with a wizard spell shouldn't be allowed.
Arcanists essentially follow the rules of prepared casters then they prepare their spells each day, and the rules of spontaneous casters when they actually cast them. So, in this example, they prepare fireball in a third level spell slot. When they are actually casting that fireball, they follow spontaneous spellcaster rules. So the spontaneous caster that knows fireball as a third level spell can cast fireball at any time, and may spend any spell slot of third or higher level to do so. If he chooses at the time of casting to apply metemagic, the spontaneous caster raises the casting time of the spell appropriately. The only weirdness this creates is when the arcanists specifically prepares a metamagic spell, but this interaction is outlined already. In this case, it essentially treats the "empowered fireball" as a 5th level known spell before metamagic to the spontaneous caster. He can cast it with any of his 5th level or higher spell slots, and if he wants to apply any metamagic(except empower) to it, raise the casting time and minimum spell slot as normal.
D20pfsrd has one, but I've never been able to find out if it has 100% accuracy.
One thing to do is keep a generalized idea of what your world contains, then when the players ask for a specific detail, make it up on the spot and write it down.
Actual FAQ question:
This question came up recently, and I immediately hopped on it with my own answer. However, there was doubt expressed in the thread itself and I decided to do a little digging about it myself. What I found was that it's come up many times on these threads in the past. Sacred Weapon + Bashing Shield Sacred Weapon + Impact Weapon (again) Sacred Weapon + Size Increases And all this was found with a simple search of these forums. In addition, google yielded similar results, where several reddit threads had the same question with varying opinions of the result. Basically, there's two schools of thought. One side focuses on the text in sacred weapon that says: The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–14; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests. Seems to suggest that sacred weapon damage is entirely dependent of the weapon and any of its properties, simply is an alternate set of dice that you can choose to use. In this case, a weapon first increases its own damage with the effective size increase, then the sacred weapon dice are presented as an alternative that the warpriest can use. The other school of thought focuses in the text as follows: Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. This seems to mean that the sacred weapon feature replaces the base weapon damage, and the later clause that allows the warpriest to use the weapon's regular base damage is so that a level 1 warpriest wouldn't be punished for using a longsword. If the base dice are replaced, then an effective size bonus to the weapon would further increase it. The only similar ability I can think of is the monk's unarmed strikes, which contains the same language: The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk are for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage. This seems to have never come up for the monk before, because the monk's unarmed strikes are extensions of himself, but the warpriest's sacred weapon affects weapons that are not part of himself. In addition, any effect I've found that grants effective size increases to unarmed strikes use "as if he were" rather than "as if the weapon were". So is the warpriest's wording a relic of the monk's unarmed strike progression? Is it supposed to limit the size stacking options? I reiterate the original FAQ question and invite discussion as well as a tap of that FAQ request button. What does everyone think?
OKAY! Now that I am fully awake and I've had more time to think about it, I've done some of the fleshing. Spoiler:
Kitsune Cross-blooded Sorcerer Fast Shifter alternate Racial Trait Psychic and Draconic(Red Dragon) bloodlines 20-pt buy
1st level power: Psychic Strike
Bloodline spells:
Character traits: ??? Feats:
That seems pretty solid for now.
Spells I'll figure out later. All I 100% know is that I'll be taking fireball as soon as I can (level... 7?) but as a cross-blooded, spells are precious so every decision counts.
I just wanted to throw out the bare bones of the idea before I go to bed, just to run it by you guys for anything to add to or otherwise optimize the concept. Kitsune sorcerer
key feat: Fox shape. Take it asap. Probably level 7. maybe from retraining at level 6 if you really want. being psychic spells, you don't have any somatic or verbal components to prevent your tiny fox form from casting any spells. The level 15 ability "wings" can make you sprout leathery dragon wings from your back. There appears to be no language that makes this a supernatural ability that "relies on your original form". You are now an airborne tiny fox dragon of fiery death. With 9th level casting. "I am fire. I am death."
Okay, so! Because I got tired of constantly cross-referencing spells and determining whether or not the deep marshal can cast it, I compiled a list visually illustrating every spell available to the deep marshal, including what spells he loses. Fun fact: The deep marshal loses only 58 spells for the 94 extra that he gains! assuming I didn't make any mistakes or duplicates or what-have-you. The main problem with the Deep Marshal is that it loses access to all of its best defense spells (and you don't gain much in abjuration, since the best abjurations were already on your list anyway). So while the Marshal matches the regular Magus in terms of DPR, it is actually weaker in terms of defense and versatility, and it doesn't get anything in exchange for that. Looking at it, I'm definitely noticing a big loss like mirror image, then there's greater invisibility, invisibility, and displacement, but you also gain protection from energy, protection from (alignment), Resist energy, globe of invulnerability (and lesser), stunning barrier (and greater), and a host of toolbox spells, such as stone shape. In addition, you get better armor earlier than the base magus. I still don't think the deep marshal better than the base magus, but I'm also not convinced that its much worse. As a dwarf with all martial weapons, you get the dwarven longaxe long hammer and boulder helmet for free. Those work rather well with this archetype. Are you sure? Unless there's something I'm missing, the longaxe and long hammer are both two-handed weapons, which are both unusable with the spell combat feature. The dwarven boulder helmet looks interesting enough, though. Do you still get the +2 bonus to AC against critical confirmation rolls even when you're using another weapon? From human, you're getting +2 Str, Improved initiative and one more skill point/level. As a dwarf you get +2 Con, Wis and a whole lot of racial abilities including alternates (e.g. stonesinger, +1 CL with spells with the Earth descriptor). I wouldn't say the dwarf is necessarily the bad choice here. I am warming up to it more and more, yes. The only thing I'm not liking so far is that after messing around with my stats given the new modifiers, I'd either have to be down 1 point of strength, putting me behind by 4 levels on that front, or I'd have to get some pretty low charisma or perhaps give up some of the constituation I'm getting. Strength contributes to so much for the build, and constitution isn't something I want to throw away either, so it's a tough call. Don't forget other standard spells. Blink and haste are likely more often useful to you than fireball, glitterdust is always handy to have, bladed dash adds mobility and combines very well with spell combat. Yeah, I'm definitely including all those spells. I'm just thinking that deep marhsal's fireball will probably have more use than the regular magus's fireball until you hit level 14, again because of the extra 2 caster levels. If I go the dwarf route, what kind of spells can I take full advantage of the "stonesinger" racial ability? It sounds nice to be able to stack with the deep marshal's ability and end up with +3 to your CL on those spells by level 5. Related: Do you guys think the "extra arcane pool" feat is more useful than normal for a deep marshal, given it gets only 1/3 his level instead of 1/2?
You could perhaps attempt a disguise check against your deity to avoid falling?
Hope you start enforcing that by making haste not work with the mindblade magus, the warlock, or the kineticist, then. Also, any blade kineticist that takes celerity is pretty boned as well. See, my problem with the word "manufactured" that paizo has been using, is that with these newer "conjured/supernatural" weapons, it creates thematic problems. Why should a dagger that the mindblade conjured up be any less capable than a real dagger for striking that single spot found by sense vitals? Why should someone who can wield weapons made from pure energy just as easily as physical weapons suddenly fall short with haste? It almost seems arbitrary to enforce this kind of limitation, especially when these weapons otherwise function the same as other weapons. To me, I think that this is exactly why the term needs to be either defined or changed. In a rules setting, it is perfectly logical to attempt to find the game definition of a term that is used multiple times throughout. There are two things they can say that would kill the confusion as well. They can say "Manufactured weapons are just that; weapons that were created and have physical and permanent properties." and they can say "Manufactured weapons are typically a catch-all for any weapons that are not natural weapons, improvised weapons, or unarmed strikes." and possibly even a "this will be reflected in future errata". That said, I've personally flagged the post for FAQ.
So, this now seems to be coming up more and more with recent releases. My question is in the title. Is there actually somewhere in the books a clear definition for what is and is not a "manufactured" weapon? Previously, this was fairly simple. A "manufactured" weapon would include anything that was not a natural weapon, an improvised weapon, or an unarmed strike. However, with the most recent release, there's been some injected confusion. Namely the warlock's mystic bolts. The mystic bolts are wielded as if light one-handed weapons, are not unarmed strikes, are not improvised weapons, and are not natural weapons. By previous understanding, this would shunt it into the "manufactured" weapons category. However, they are very clearly not "manufactured" by the layman's understanding of the word, which leaves the mystic bolts in this odd void of non-conformity when it comes to understanding just what type of weapon they are. Back when they released occult adventures, the kineticist and mindblade magus also created this confusion. Kinetic blade conjures weapons out of energy... which means it's not manufactured? unless you're a telekineticist and injecting the blast into a manufactured weapon? It's an odd corner case that is, again, not an improvised weapon, not an unarmed strike, and not a natural weapon. Same deal with mindblade magus. His mindblades are not improvised, not unarmed, and not natural, but are they manufactured? I would also say the same question can be made of the "flame blade" spell. Why is this relevant, you might ask? two immediate examples I can think of: The sense vitals spell only grants sneak attack damage on manufactured weapons, and it's a pretty thematic and powerful option for the new warlock. There's also the combat stamina feat, which keys off of "a manufactured weapon, unarmed strike, or natural weapon attack", which basically discludes only improvised weapons or these nebulous "in-between" weapons that may or may not count as manufactured. So I guess if I were to ask the design team this question as a FAQ, it would be:
The vigilante has a few advantages over other classes to fit its niche. The first is that it goes from "difficult" to "downright impossible" to have someone see through your disguise. The +20 bonus means that you're pretty much only going to get caught by someone with a ridiculous investment in perception and who is like 10 levels over you. In addition, for any other character attempting this, all you need is one smart villain or one curious bystander for everything to fall apart with a single ill-timed scry spell. While anyone scrying for "druid-spiderman" would see him and discover his identity if he were in "peter parker" mode, the scry would actually come up completely blank if he were looking for "vigilante-spiderman" if he happened to be in his social identity. Unbeatable scry protection is the #1 reason that the vigilante has such an advantage in his niche over every other class. The social talents are also quite nice for the role, and something I think a GM should consider if there were a vigilante and a non-vigilante trying to do the same thing.
|
