JustynThyme's page

I was researching equipment and augmentations for my backup character. He's an SRO exocortex mechanic. I wanted to have an integrated longarm on his arm or shoulder, but I didn't like the only integrated longarms available. I can simulate the effect with a Tactical Scaffold (Armory, 85), which is fine.

While I was mulling that over, I did what I always do in any roleplaying game I play; I looked to see how much I can save (my current character, and my backup) by crafting their equipment. Nada. I've never seen that in a d20 game before. (Maybe I'm just sheltered?) Instead of a reduced cost, you get a higher quality item (only in artisinal, small batch runs). Faster to repair (due to the refined design), and more durable (built rugged for the adventuring lifestyle, by an adventurer; +2 to the item level when calculating hardness, hit points, and saving throws).

These two things got me thinking. What if you could add a special quality to a weapon you craft? Why not add upgrade slots to armor when crafting, too? Of course, neither of these come without a cost. Since crafting doesn't decrease the credit cost of the item, it shouldn't increase it, either. Instead, there should be benefit swapping. What I came up with was an initial penalty to choosing this option, then a trade that can be made, and finally limitations.

Character-crafted items are of higher quality than their mass-produced counterparts. Certain design flaws are corrected in crafting, and the manufacturing defects of mass production are avoided. These items take half the time to repair, and their durability statistics (hardness, hit points, and saving throws) are calculated as if the item were two levels higher than an identical mass-produced item.

Alternatively, when crafting a weapon or armor, you may reduce the level at which its durability statistics are calculated in order to add other features. If you are crafting a weapon, you may add an additional weapon special quality for each effective level you forfeit. If you are crafting armor, you may add one additional armor upgrade slot for each effective level you forfeit. Weapons cannot gain qualities their class cannot have (such as sniper for non-sniping weapons, or operative for non-melee weapons), and the item cannot have its effective level reduced below normal for the item. Modifying a weapon or armor in this fashion increases its complexity, causing the item to lose the character-crafted benefit of being repairable in half the time that a standard item of its type requires.

So, the initial price you have to pay is the repairing speed. You still corrected the mass produced version's design flaws, but you also added new features, increasing the complexity of the design, canceling out the benefits of fixing those design flaws. Then you have to pay for the alterations with the bonus effective levels used to calculate durability. Instead of shoring up mass-production weaknesses, you instead chose to alter the design. It's not more fragile than normal, you just focused more on adding features than avoiding the same manufacturing defects mass production can cause. And finally, the limitations. You only have two bonus levels of durability to trade, and you can't give cross-classification special qualities to your weapon. (There was never the worry about adding the ability to use other armor weight class upgrades to your armor, such as an autoloader to light armor, because I chose the ability to add slots, not other new features.) You come out losing one more benefit from making this choice than you gain, but for some, it could be worth it.

It might not be attractive to everyone, but I like it, not least of all because it would allow my SRO to integrate any longarm or melee weapon he chooses. He could emulate the Assassin Robot (Alien Archive 2, 108). Microserrated longsword, advanced semi-auto pistol, and advanced shirren-eye rifle, all integrated, all retractable when not in use. None of those weapons normally have the integrated weapon special quality, so this is a special case. I think we should be able to choose those weapons for integrating into our SRO characters or armor, too.

I wrote this up in an email to my GM (making it clear it wasn't an ask). I liked it so much, I thought I'd share. Feel free to use it, or modify it for your own uses. It's just an idea. I hope some of you enjoy it, find it interesting, or find it inspiring!

Implantation

Getting an augmentation installed requires the services of a professional cybernetic surgeon or someone with ranks in Medicine equal to the level of the augmentation. A session with a cybernetic surgeon usually takes 1 hour per level of the augmentation. The price of such implantation procedures is included in the prices listed for each augmentation.

Biotech mostly operates by the same rules as cybernetics and uses the same implantation slots.

For more information on how to implant, activate, and replace biotech augmentations, see page 208 of the Core Rulebook.

Magitech augmentations follow much the same rules as all other augmentations in regards to implantation, activation, and removal (see page 208 of the Core Rulebook).

Necrografts follow the existing rules for augmentations (Core Rulebook 208), but they use different components than biotech and cybernetics. Any biotech or cybernetic augmentation can be created as a necrograft and installed for only 90% of the augmentation’s normal cost, but doing so causes the recipient to gain the necrograft subtype (see below). Necrografts have the same system restrictions that all augmentations share.

For crafting, CRB 235 says you need the same number of ranks as the level of the item. It says Engineering for technological items (cybernetics would fall here). My bet for biotech would be Life Sciences. Magitech is considered hybrid items, so you'd need both Engineering and Mysticism. Necrografts should be the sole propriety of Eox, but if the PC wants to trespass on that territory, I'd say Mysticism.

Materials seem pretty straightforward.

To create an item, you must have UPBs with a total value equal to the price of the item to be created.

Yes, even biotech. Armory 129, the Culinary Synthesizer, changes UPBs into food, so UPBs as a crafting material for bio-compatible products has been established. Necrografts are an exception. Armory 94 specifically states that Necrografts are created from corpses.

Possibly also because Ghost adds nothing to the list of skills that can be used for trick attack.

Oh, right, because Stealth is already on Trick Attack's list of skills for the feature? I hadn't thought of that. Taking Ghost doesn't grant you an alternative to the standard list of skills you can make a Trick Attack with, so it grants a +1 to make up for it. That makes sense.

Pre-FAQ, the Ghost specialization granted a +4 to Stealth when used to Bluff for Trick Attack. Post-FAQ, it was lowered to +1. The FAQ doesn't give a reason for it, but the question being FAQed mentioned it was the only Dex-based skill to get a +4 bonus.

There are two other Dex-based skills that you can use for the Bluff check for Trick Attack, Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand. Since Stealth wasn't lowered to no modifier, does that mean Acrobatics and Sleight of Hand should be raised to +1 to match the other Dex-based skill's (Stealth's) Trick Attack modifier?

My GM was confused by the text in Weapon Specialization. It says "or half your character level for small arms or operative melee weapons". He points out the 'or' between small arms and operative should be an 'and'. I'm still not 100% on why it was confusing, because, to me, it was clear that it meant "this feat adds your character level to damage rolls for these groups of weapons, or it adds half your character level for these two groups of weapons", probably because my brain made the correction for me without me having to think about it. Even then, changing that one 'or' to an 'and' might not clear up the wording completely. My GM suggests 'except for' being put in there, but if they do, they'd need to change more.

I think "or half your character level for small arms and operative melee weapons" is sufficient. He thinks the first 'or', before "half" should be changed to 'except for', which would require a more significant rewrite of the feat. Either way, I think this feat could use a FAQ entry, hopefully errataed, when it's time.

Thank you for this. It's much more elegant of a solution than the Everyman Unchained conversion. Their choices made less sense to me than the one made in the Google doc you linked.

found it here it is

Regardless of the intent of lightning reload, you can already reduce reloading down to a free action through the fast musket deed, rapid reload, and alchemical cartridges.

If your GM won't allow gunslingers if they're able to reload as a free action, then why the sense of urgency over getting a developer response? If the only answer your GM will accept is "no", then what good would it do you? Consider building around dead shot and working with your GM to revise the firearm rules to something you can both tolerate.

Fast Musket is only available to Musket Masters, not all gunslingers. AT first, he banned that archetype. Then when I pointed out that a vanilla gunslinger could do it, too, he said I couldn't make one until Lightning Reload was clarified.

Just because I am willing to bet he'd ban the class if he doesn't like the answer, that doesn't mean he will. He's surprised me before, he could again.

Again, to get the full attack rate and to be able to make attacks of opportunity, Dead Shot is insufficient. You have to have Lightning Reload, because there isn't any other way to reduce a two-handed firearm reload time from a full-round to a free action.

Heya, James. Can you settle a disagreement between my GM and I? He says that gunslingers can't load for free multiple times in a round with the Lightning Reload deed and Rapid Reload/alchemical cartridges, and I say they can. Who is correct?

Also, can you sort out the issue with kobolds with the alternate racial trait Gliding Wings and the kobold feat Draconic Glide (thread here), please?

Thanks!

Anyway, a gunslinger can get by just fine without using lightning reload. I don't see why your GM wouldn't let you play one if you ignored that deed.

The disagreement he and I have is whether a gunslinger can get their full rate of fire with a two-handed firearm or not, and whether they can make attacks of opportunity (with things like the Snap Shot feat). Both require loading as a free action. He thinks no gunslinger should be able to, so I'm betting he'd just ban the class if a dev says they can with that deed.

Dead Shot isn't really a full attack. You only add the base damage dice for each "hit", not the static bonuses.

True, but it seems to me that that is a small price to pay for a smaller chance to misfire, no chance that your weapon will explode, and saving tons of cash. If you have a lot of additional damage you can do, then it becomes less attractive, but if you are low on ammo, it's your best friend. :)

Bump.

My GM just approved the Hunter hybrid class, which was designed around fighting with an animal companion. Now I'm torn between Hunter 9/Mammoth Rider and just sticking to Hunter all the way. I'm finding it difficult to ditch my concept of a big man riding a big tiger, but I also think a pure Hunter might outclass a Mammoth Rider. Plus, as my GM pointed out, a large companion can go more places than a huge one, and is easier to care for.

Lightning Reload is still useful for those non-Musket Masters who want more than 1 shot per round with their two-handed firearm.

Non-Musket Master gunslingers can already get their full attack rate with a two-handed firearm, with the very clear wording of the first sentence of Lightning Reload. Reloading as a swift action is all that's necessary, plus Dead Shot. You even save on ammo over actually firing for each of your attacks, and you have a smaller chance to misfire, or of your weapon exploding. If you take Signature Deed: Dead Shot, by fulfilling the requirements of Lightning Reload, you are fulfilling the feat-adjusted requirements of Dead Shot, too.

Full BAB rate of fire is a big part of why this is important, but so is attacks of opportunity. Say the gunslinger takes Snap Shot. They can't make an attack of opportunity with a firearm without their weapon being loaded - or the ability to load as a free action.

Anyway, what prompted me to necro this (and two other threads on the topic) was because my GM made a ruling that until an official word is released on this, I can't make a gunslinger (Bolt Ace excluded). Comments by an employee, FAQ entries, and errata are prompted by these things being discussed. So, thanks for helping me bring it back into the light. :)

As a heads-up, I will be bumping this thread (and the other two) once a week, until it gets a Paizo comment, or it gets locked. :)

Psst... This thread was over 2 years old.

A lot has happened since then. Even an errata document.

Please look at the date of the last post before you reply to a thread.

I necroed it to try to get an official response. You say there's been an errata that settles this issue? Proof? Where's the link? I would very much appreciate seeing the ruling. Thanks!

You realize you just necroed this thread? No one is really arguing this anymore. There has been lots of FAQs

Yes, I necroed this thread. It was partially an attempt to bring it back up so a community manager or someone might see it, so maybe someone would actually give an official word on it.

If you have an actual link to an official FAQ entry, or a Paizo blog entry - or even a comment in a thread made by a Paizo employee will do! - that clears this up, I would appreciate it greatly if you'd supply it. Thanks in advance!

This will never be FAQed or errataed, because the definitions of "once per" and "each" are factually not the same, and the definitions are self-explanatory. "Per", by itself, is defined as "each". The limiter "once" is what changes the meaning. The confusion stems from saying you can only perform a swift action once per round, when we already know how many swift actions we can take in a round, by the definition of swift action. People read that and they try to think of a reason for the redundancy, and end up assuming the limitation also applies outside of the sentence in which it appears.

If Paizo actually meant you could use the deed only once per round, regardless of how far you reduced the reload speed to, they would have stated that you can't reduce the speed of reloading beyond a swift action with that deed, they would have used the same language in reference to both load speeds, they would have put the uses per round of the deed in a separate sentence, or they would have added a clarification in the FAQ. Since the language is not the same, and Paizo has taken zero opportunities to FAQ or errata the deed in the past three years, then it logically follows that the language is correct. The definitions within the language are clear, allowing the reloading of a single barrel of a firearm with that deed and either Rapid Reload or an alchemical cartridge, as many times as your GM allows the taking of free actions in a round.

The only thing a GM can do to stop a gunslinger from utilizing their full attack rate is to limit the number of free actions creatures can take in a round, or houseruling the deed to say "as a free action once per round". Or ban gunslingers.

This will never be FAQed or errataed, because the definitions of "once per" and "each" are factually not the same, and the definitions are self-explanatory. "Per", by itself, is defined as "each". The limiter "once" is what changes the meaning. The confusion stems from saying you can only perform a swift action once per round, when we already know how many swift actions we can take in a round, by the definition of swift action. People read that and they try to think of a reason for the redundancy, and end up assuming the limitation also applies outside of the sentence in which it appears.

If Paizo actually meant you could use the deed only once per round, regardless of how far you reduced the reload speed to, they would have stated that you can't reduce the speed of reloading beyond a swift action with that deed, they would have used the same language in reference to both load speeds, they would have put the uses per round of the deed in a separate sentence, or they would have added a clarification in the FAQ. Since the language is not the same, and Paizo has taken zero opportunities to FAQ or errata the deed in the past three years, then it logically follows that the language is correct. The definitions within the language are clear, allowing the reloading of a single barrel of a firearm with that deed and either Rapid Reload or an alchemical cartridge, as many times as your GM allows the taking of free actions in a round.

The only thing a GM can do to stop a gunslinger from utilizing their full attack rate is to limit the number of free actions creatures can take in a round, or houseruling the deed to say "as a free action once per round". Or ban gunslingers.

RaizielDragon wrote:

If so, does that mean that using Alchemical Cartridges is the ONLY way to do a full attack action at high BAB?

Yes

No. It doesn't say "as a free action once per round", it says "as a free action each round". If they meant once per round, like the swift action part, they would have said it.

They haven't FAQed or errataed it because the definitions of the terms speak for themselves. "Once per round" is quite literally "one time each round", while "per round" is literally "each round". With no limit stated, it's an unsupported assumption if no limit is assumed to be a limit of once.

The best a GM could do to limit Lightning Reload to once per round when the player can legally reduce the load time to a free action while using the deed is to limit the number of free actions a creature can take in a round to one, which limits all creatures to one free action per round, and eliminated the distinction between free and swift actions, or admit they are making a house rule that adds "once" to the description of Lightning Reload, so it reads "as a free action once per round".

Sorry to necro the thread, but in case someone comes looking, rules for improving homunculi were published this year in the Alchemy Manual (p14). By performing alchemical surgery, you can add various abilities. (Good call, blackbloodtroll.) To answer one of jlighter's questions, you can add 1/day spell-like abilities by including ten potions of the appropriate spell to the surgical process. :)

I just realized that Reduce Monster is a 3rd party spell. I might be able to get my GM to allow it, but I might not. I also noticed that the Celestial Servant (Aasimar) feat specifically says that the companion can be affected by spells that only target animals, so tracking down a low-level druid or ranger to cast Reduce Animal during item creation can still work.

I saw the Hosteling armor. Being a barbarian, he can only wear medium armor, and thus carry the companion in the armor through sixth level. At seventh, the companion is too big. There's no way the character would be able to afford it, anyway.

To be fair, my GM isn't anti-companion. I didn't mean to make him sound like he was, if I did. He just won't wave his hand to gloss over obstacles and such for companions. I wouldn't want him to. I might ignore it if he did for someone else, but I don't want special treatment.

I heard an offline suggestion yesterday, getting a collar of Reduce Animal. Not having an awakened companion, I'm not sure how they'd use a spell-trigger item. I'm reluctant to try to convince my GM to allow the companion to wear anything that requires activation, though I guess it's not unimaginable that my barbarian could teach the animal how to activate it. With only so many tricks it can learn, maybe a collar of continuous effect, placed on and taken off at appropriate times, would be better?

I forgot to mention that the animal has the celestial template, so is a magical beast. I think that means Reduce Animal won't work. I just found Reduce Monster, though. It's a higher level spell, but I think it's a better solution. It's an arcane spell (wiz/sorc 4), so just squeaks in under the wand limit on spell level. As I mentioned, currently we don't have anyone who can cast druid/ranger spells, but we do have a wizard. I can buy the spell for our wizard, if he doesn't already have it by time it becomes necessary, and pay for the creation of a wand. To have another creature between him and an intelligent enemy that might target spellcasters, I think he'd be amenable to using it for me when needed. Looking at the price of making the wand, it would be cheaper to buy the Belt of the Weasel outright. Looking at character advancement and wealth by level, my barbarian should be able to afford one by level 10, if he doesn't go hog-wild with other purchases.

So, between the Narrow Frame feat and the Belt of the Weasel being more affordable than I thought by the time it's needed, I guess I was worried for nothing. It's getting the companion through various obstacles, and feeding it in dungeons, that I really need to worry about, I guess. Ring/collar of sustenance, maybe? Wand of levitation? A Reduce Monster collar would still be useful for these situations.

Okay, I feel better about this character. Thanks! :)

100% paperless. I make characters by hand, using d20pfsrd and books on pdf (if I need context or flavor text to help understand something), and a fillable pdf character sheet (Foxit pdf is free and lets you save filled pdfs). My group has players that use Hero Lab to make their characters, but I find I understand them better if I have to do it by hand.

My group also uses a virtual tabletop (Fantasy Grounds now, but will likely be switching to Tabletop Connect when it is released; almost all of us backed it when it was a kickstarter). We're spread out all over the country, so we need a virtual tabletop to run the game. We use Google Hangouts for voicechat, since we all have some kind of Google account. We used to use Skype, but if the person that starts the call drops off or gets disconnected, the entire call ends. Very annoying. If I was in a face-to-face game, I'd still use a laptop, d20pfsrd, and pdfs. I might also use a virtual tabletop, too, because a lot of things are easier with them, but it depends.

I have a backup character for the Serpent's Skull game I'm in. (The party is currently level 6, and I just replaced a dead character, so it will likely be a while before I need him. I like having a backup ready.) He's a Mad Dog barbarian, and will be taking Mammoth Rider. His companion is a tiger. I have never played a character with an animal companion before. I chose this barbarian archetype because I don't enjoy playing spellcasters. My character's concept was a melee character with a melee animal companion. Pretty simple. I built his combat style around flanking with his animal, and building up the animal to be the best fighting companion it can be without being able to buff it with spells (hence the Mammoth Rider, for the increase to huge size). The party has a wizard, an oracle, and a paladin, so no nature casters.

At first, I was concerned only with feeding the tiger, the logistic differences between having a carnivorous companion and a herbivore, but then my GM said he's pretty sure there are a lot of indoor/dungeon-type areas in the AP, so I could end up being without my companion for extended periods. It would be hard enough to avoid leaving the tiger behind when it gets to be large at level 7, but then it grows to huge at level 10, I fear that leaving him behind will become a constant theme for this character.

One way I thought to reduce the chances of having to leave his companion behind was by taking the Narrow Frame feat for the tiger. I was also hoping to get the tiger a Belt of the Weasel by time it reached huge size (level 10, when the character takes the first level of Mammoth Rider), which grants the compression monster ability, allowing the tiger to fit into spaces as small as a quarter of its normal space (so 3.5', easily able to fit into a normal 5'-wide hallway) without having to squeeze (possibly making the earlier Narrow Frame feat choice irrelevant, but I might need it if I have to bring this character in before I can afford the belt).

Any general advice about animal companions is welcome, especially on how to avoid having to leave the companion behind as little as possible. Thanks.

I'm making a Mammoth Rider backup character, one I hope I won't need to use. This thread was of tremendous value when making him. I went with a flanking combat pet Mad Dog instead of a mounted combat Mounted Fury, though, because I'll have more fun with that, which I think is worth the small sacrifice in combat effectiveness.

My character is a Scion of Humanity Agathion-Blooded (Idyllkin) Aasimar, and he has the Celestial Servant feat. That gives the tiger a lot of great defenses, and darkvision (which I gave him to open up the Nightstalker monster feat, for the benefit of ignoring the size penalty to stealth). Also, the tiger has Narrow Frame and Lithe Attacker, to help limit the situations where my PC will have to leave him behind. I figure that by the time the tiger grew to huge size, my character would have gotten him a Belt of the Weasel. I didn't leave space in the tiger's feat plan for light and medium armor proficiency, so no Rhino Armor for him. I took Improved Natural Attack twice. I would have taken it a third time, but I'm hoping to argue that since the rake damage is the same as claw damage, and is obviously using the claws, then the Improved Natural Attack: claws should improve the rake attack, too. Let's hope my GM agrees.

My concept is a larger than normal human (though still medium), with a tiger that grows to huge size. I made him Mwangi, and named him "Kibwe". It's Swahili for "a very small pebble". I named his tiger "Doa", which is Swahili for "Spot". Essentially, I named a very large man "Tiny" and his striped big cat companion "Spot". I wonder if my group will notice? :D

Anyway, thanks for the great information and discussion. Before I found this thread, I was contemplating a Beast Rider cavalier, or an Empyreal Knight paladin, though neither could fulfill the concept of starting with the tiger, and I hate the idea of just replacing a long-time companion or trusted steed. I also thought of a ranger or druid. All of them had class features I didn't want (mostly spells; I suck at playing spellcasters), and all but the druid needed Boon Companion to make it worth it. I never thought of a barbarian, before finding this thread. Once I did, my first instinct was to make a size small PC, for that added category of difference, but then I found the name Kibwe, and what it meant. It was too perfect to pass up. Not scrapping the size small, but maybe just putting it on the back burner. Gnome sorcerer mammoth rider? Too bad there isn't a tiny race, like the 4e pixie. :)

Thanks again, everyone!

As has been discussed further up in the thread, a race trait is NOT a racial trait - allowing them to intermingle creates a whole bunch of unpleasant rules side-effects, like the afformentioned ability for any race to pick up a free feat via one of their traits.

Unfortunately, the prerequisite for the feat chain in question specifically requires a racial trait, not a race trait.

Silly distinction I know, but it's important because it seems this is being used for a guide and thus must maintain RAW consistency.

I'm aware that a race trait isn't a racial trait. I'm not saying that it is. And it's not a silly distinction, it's a significant one. What I'm saying is that the low-light vision is granted by a trait that is altering your race (however slightly), and thus it could be argued that the ability could be considered racial. I'd say it would be up to your GM on that point. But the Aasimar Scion of Humanity definitely solves the problem. Whether either option is PFS legal or not, I can't say.

@Hayato Ken: Aasimars with the Scion of Humanity alternate racial trait are outsider (native) AND humanoid (human), and they have darkvision as a racial trait. I'm bringing a Scion of Humanity Aasimar ninja into a Pathfinder game this weekend. You can choose any of the variant heritages without taking a feat, thus customizing your ability score bonuses (they get +2 to TWO, and no penalty) and skill bonuses, pass as human without using the Disguise skill (since they are *actually* humans, by creature type), take human favored class bonuses, racial archetypes, you name it. They ARE human, just as much as they are Aasimar. Problem solved.

Okay, they don't get the bonus feat and the extra skill rank, but they gain so much more than humans can have. All of the options humans have available, plus all of the options Aasimars have. If you want to add another humanoid race's options to the mix, add in Racial Heritage. You then get to add any and all feats, racial archetypes, and favored class options from that race, too.

Edit: I just found a way to gain low-light vision. The Blood of Dragons trait gives a choice of benefits, one of which is low-light vision. Any race can take this. It just signifies that you have dragon blood somewhere in your ancestry, and it manifests in you. Since it's a Race trait, I would argue that it adds it to your character as a racial trait.

Amplified Rage requires the creature taking it be an orc or a half-orc. Animal companions are neither, unless your GM has some kind of sick house rule....

Necroing the thread again:

TERRAIN BONUS AT 19th LEVEL:

+32 +20 +18 +16 +18 +16 +14 +12 +10 +8 +4 +2.

If you are attacking a creature native to mountains you get a +32 to attack rolls and damage.

Which means you've got a guaranteed hit on anything but a 1.

Scavion confused favored terrain with favored enemy. Favored terrain bonuses are to initiative checks and Knowledge (geography), Perception, Stealth, and Survival skill checks, NOT attack and damage. Unfortunately, going first or seeing everything while in your eldest favored terrain doesn't help you hit enemies.

P118 - First paragraph of the Power of Faith ability of the Warrior of the Holy Light archetype should include a statement that it alters the Lay on Hands ability (which makes it incompatible with archetypes that replace Lay on Hands).

Yeah, I was letting the archetype table on d20pfsrd confuse me. It doesn't mark a change to Lay on Hands for Warrior of the Holy Light, so I thought an addition might not count as an alteration. Yup, the fault was definitely mine.

I just want to know if I'm reading this correctly. Warrior of the Holy Light takes away a paladin's spells in exchange for more uses of Lay on Hands, and another way to use Lay on Hands. Empyreal Knight takes away the class feature Lay on Hands (as well as all uses for them), giving Warrior of the Holy Light nothing to add uses to, and nothing to fuel Power of Faith with. Therefore, Empyreal Knight plus Warrior of the Holy Light equals the paladin losing spells for nothing in return. Correct?

Being a drow-heritage Tiefling will not get him access to the Drow Nobility feats, like he has already mentioned he wants to take. The difference between human Tieflings and non-human Tieflings is only cosmetic, unless the non-human Tiefling was born to size small humanoids, then the Tiefling would also be small, and have the modifiers of that size.

Dustboy: I am currently playing a Tiefling with See in Darkness. I am making a drow backup character, and plan on taking the Drow Nobility feats, too. I spent a week looking for a way to give him See in Darkness, too, because I love it on my Tiefling. The only way I can see to do it is to get a Rod of Shadows, or create your own item. Unfortunately, both are too expensive for low level characters.

Wow. Can't believe this hasn't been FAQed yet. :/

I no longer have my kobold character, but that doesn't make me less interested.

As a PFS GM, I would have to rule that a ninja could not take the Extra Rogue Talent feat. Nowhere on the ninja write-up does it have a class feature called Rogue Talents, so it does not meet the prerequisites for the feat. I don't agree with this, but I feel it is the RAW.

Incorrect. As I stated, there is a Ninja Trick called "Rogue Talent" which specifically gives them access to Rogue Talents, thus satisfying the requirement of having Rogue Talents. It can't be more clear, and it's RAW.

The reason the answer is 'no', RAW, is because of a pet peeve of mine. I dislike when an improved feat lists the prerequisite feats of the base version as its prerequisites, too. Improved and Greater Snap Shot lists Point-Blank Shot and Rapid Shot as prerequisites, when they are prerequisites for Snap Shot. It's redundant for the Improved and Greater forms of Snap Shot to require them.

That said, it can't hurt to ask your GM. I asked mine the same question before I found this thread. We're only level 6 right now, so he has a couple of levels before he needs to make the call.

As for the range that Reflexive Shot grants OAs: There are two reasons a bow can't make attacks of opportunity normally. The first is because attacking with a ranged weapon provokes. The second, though not explicitly stated, is because not all ranged weapons are load free, and it's prohibited to take actions in addition to the attack of opportunity action when making an attack of opportunity. They could have made load free ranged weapons an exception, but then making an attack of opportunity with a bow would have then provoked, because you'd be making a ranged attack in a threatened square, so no one would ever take it, for fear of the target having Combat Reflexes.

I believe the omission of another 'only' in the benefit description caused confusion, but the Reflexive Shot feature's intention was that it allows the Zen Archer to make attacks of opportunity only in squares that their unarmed strike threatens. While I think attacks of opportunity should be able to be made from a load for free ranged weapon at ranges beyond 5 feet, where do you draw the line? Being able to make attacks of opportunity at full bow range (110 feet for composite long bows) seems... ridiculously excessive. A shot made by trained reflexes is made without aiming, so there is a point where the target is just too far away for that kind of shot to realistically find the target. Improved and Greater Snap Shot are investments that show that the archer has spent time increasing the accuracy of his reflexes in those situations (which is why I think a ZA with Point-Blank Master and Reflexive Shot should be able to take them without the other requisite feats), but the increase in range is impressive without becoming excessive. Reflexive Shot allowing a range limited by the weapon's range is just unbelievable, in my opinion.

No need to bump, guys. It's answered by the rules themselves. As garvdart pointed out, one of the Ninja Tricks is Rogue Talent. Tis means a ninja has access to the Rogue Talent class feature (through his Ninja Trick class feature, just as rogues have access to the Ninja Trick class feature through the Rogue Talent class feature), and thus that prereq for the Extra Rogue Talent feat is satisfied. The feat doesn't say the character can't take the Ninja Trick Rogue Talent when selecting the feat, so a ninja can take the feat to select a Ninja Trick. Just ignore the "can't take a ninja trick with the same name as a rogue talent" stuff to avoid headaches. Obviously, a ninja would learn the ninja version of a rogue talent with the same name.

A ninja who takes Vanishing Trick first, then Underhanded (so, by 4th level) can pull this off quite simply. I would argue that since everything you carry is invisible when you are, then the weapons you're using are considered hidden/concealed while you're invisible. Vanishing Trick is a swift action, so can be pulled off in a surprise round without using up your surprise round action. A rogue can do exactly the same thing by first taking the Ki Pool Rogue Talent before the other two (minimum 6th level to get the three talents). No Sleight of Hand checks needed, either. :)

Good suggestions, all around, but there's a very simple method to pull this off that I think is being overlooked:

A ninja who takes Vanishing Trick first, then Underhanded (so, by 4th level) can pull this off quite simply. I would argue that since everything you carry is invisible when you are, then the weapons you're using are considered hidden/concealed while you're invisible. Vanishing Trick is a swift action, so can be pulled off in a surprise round without using up your surprise round action. A rogue can do exactly the same thing by first taking the Ki Pool Rogue Talent before the other two (minimum 6th level to get the three talents). No Sleight of Hand checks needed, either. :)

Forget human the guys half lemming considering the number of time he jumped to his death by leaping off at an angle I didn't want he may even be straight lemming.

One of the reasons I modeled mine after Edward Kenway instead. (AC4 wasn't out yet, when this thread was started.) Dual-wielding more than just the hidden blades is much more effective. :)

Does anyone know of a 1st party ranged weapon magical abilities that can be placed on a bow that would allow the ammunition fired from it to travel normally underwater? I've searched and haven't found anything, but that could be a lack of searching skill on my part. :)

My bad. I was tired last night (and on a little bit of Vicodin for my back), so I accidentally mixed up some stuff. The hidden blade is actually this:

The hidden blade sheathe, as a custom device, should be masterwork. The blade itself would be a dagger, nothing bigger (wands should be allowed). Pathfinder already has spring-loaded wrist sheathes (Adventurer's Armory, page 9, 5gp, swift to draw, full-round to sheathe) that can carry various objects (including wands), though a hidden blade shouldn't be able to carry anything but a dagger or a wand. Being a customization of the spring-loaded wrist sheath, making the sheathing action swift instead of full-round, it would necessarily have to be a masterwork device. It would have to take up the wrist slot. It provides no defensive bonuses (they aren't bracers/armor), but the mechanism itself isn't a weapon. Of the two masterwork prices, I would argue the lower price for armor (+150gp) should be sufficient for the changes to the standard spring-loaded wrist sheathe that I'm describing (the craft check for creating/repairing a hidden blade sheathe could be clockwork, leather, traps, locks, or any number of others). The dagger can't be thrown, being locked into the mechanism, thus removing the dagger's normal thrown weapon quality. The dagger can't be "dropped" (free action), it must be sheathed (swift action). The dagger can't be disarmed, short of sundering it. Also, you can't use the hand that is wielding the dagger for anything else. Basically, we'd be adding the locked gauntlet features (8gp, +10 to CMD vs. disarm, can't drop, can't use the hand for anything else), so adding the cost of the locked gauntlet makes sense.

A sunder attempt against the dagger (or wand) attached to the hidden blade sheathe that destroys the dagger attached to the sheathe also damages the sheathe, as the remnants of the attached item are typically retracted into the mechanism of the device, fouling the inner workings of the complex machinery. Repairing a hidden blade sheathe requires half the materials needed to create a new one, and requires a craft check at +5 (or +10?) vs. the DC to craft a new one. Once repaired, a new dagger (or wand) can be affixed to the sheathe.

Total cost of the hidden blade would be (masterwork: 150gp, spring-loaded wrist sheath: 5gp, locked gauntlet: 8gp) 165gp. Being a masterwork item, it should accept enhancements that normally would be applicable to wrist-slot items. Any dagger or wand can be attached to the hidden blade sheathe with no physical modification to the dagger or wand.

The part about the saves to avoid disarm, the personal risk to the Assassin, and the potential risk to the hidden blade, was a Brotherhood Assassin-only Ninja Trick I was designing. I accidentally mixed them up. :)

Sorry to necro, but I have been working on a Brotherhood Assassin, too.

Race: Scion of Humanity Aasimar (gives the effect of a special human)
Class: Ninja

As Edward Kenway does, he dual-wields swords. I was thinking Wakizashi (for the stats, maybe flavor-adjust the appearance).

Eagle Vision: High Perception, but eventually the See the Unseen Master Trick would come into play. The Aasimar's darkvision helps a lot.

Hidden Blade: Hidden blades can't be thrown, and can't be dropped without taking the whole apparatus off, but neither can they be disarmed in combat - short of sundering them. Normally, it is a swift action to draw them, and a swift action to sheathe them. It's not a free action in the games, you actually have to draw and sheathe them, but the animation is faster than drawing or sheathing other weapons (which is why I think they are swift, if you equate drawing/sheathing other weapons as move actions). With some attacks (assassinations, be they while falling from above, from behind, etc.), drawing them is much faster, and I equate that to the free action draw as part of a move, if your BAB is at least +1.

The hidden blade sheathe, as a custom device, should be masterwork. The blade itself would be a dagger, nothing bigger (wands should be allowed). Pathfinder already has spring-loaded wrist sheathes (Adventurer's Armory, page 9, 5gp, swift to draw, full-round to sheathe) that can carry various objects (including wands), though a hidden blade shouldn't be able to carry anything but a dagger or a wand. Being a customization of the spring-loaded wrist sheath, making the sheathing action swift instead of full-round, it would necessarily have to be a masterwork device. It would have to take up the wrist slot. It provides no defensive bonuses (they aren't bracers/armor), but the mechanism itself isn't a weapon. Of the two masterwork prices, I would argue the lower price for armor (+150gp) should be sufficient for the changes to the standard spring-loaded wrist sheathe that I'm describing (the craft check for creating/repairing a hidden blade sheathe could be clockwork, leather, traps, locks, or any number of others). The dagger can't be thrown, being locked into the mechanism, thus removing the dagger's normal thrown weapon quality. The dagger can't be "dropped" (free action), it must be sheathed (swift action). The dagger can't be disarmed, short of sundering it. Also, you can't use the hand that is wielding the dagger for anything else. Basically, we'd be adding the locked gauntlet features (8gp, +10 to CMD vs. disarm, can't drop, can't use the hand for anything else), so adding the cost of the locked gauntlet makes sense.

Since a successful disarm against a dagger (or wand) attached to a hidden blade sheathe would technically sunder the dagger, I was thinking that disarming an attached dagger would work like this: The defender would get a +10 to CMD vs. disarm attempts. If an attacker succeeds in a disarm attempt, the defender would get the option of attempting a reflex save as an immediate reaction to sheathe the dagger. If the defender declines the reflex save, or the reflex save fails, the disarm attempt is resolved as a sunder attempt against the dagger, dealing damage to the blade instead of causing it to be dropped. If the save is successful, the defender succeeds in sheathing the dagger, and the attack is instead applied to the defenders AC (using the disarm attempt as the attack roll), and resolved as a normal attack.

Destroying the dagger (or wand) currently attached to a hidden blade sheathe also damages the sheathe, as the remnants of the attached item are typically retracted into the mechanism of the device, fouling the inner workings of the complex machinery. Repairing a hidden blade sheathe requires half the materials needed to create a new one, and requires a craft check at +5 (or +10?) vs. the DC to craft a new one. Once repaired, a new dagger (or wand) can be affixed to the sheathe.

Total cost of the hidden blade would be (masterwork: 150gp, spring-loaded wrist sheath: 5gp, locked gauntlet: 8gp) 165gp. Being a masterwork item, it should accept enhancements that normally would be applicable to wrist-slot items. Any dagger or wand can be attached to the hidden blade sheathe with no physical modification to the dagger or wand.

What do you think?

Although dismissing the creature isn't a command you give the creature, it's simply ending the spell prematurely (because of the (D) at the end of the duration), the spell description clearly states that you are disrupting the bond between the creature and the summoning caster, and that you can control the summoned creature as if you were the caster who summoned it. In other words, the description as written says you are to be treated as the summoning caster, giving the duration of the summoning as the only exception. Since the summoning caster has the ability to dismiss the creature, no one else, that would be you since the spell grants you that position.

In order to regain spells, a wizard must rest for 8 hours. In order to regain ki, a monk or ninja must rest for 8 hours or meditate for 8 hours. For creatures that need sleep, rest typically means sleep. For creatures that don't, rest means "remain inactive".

The rules for using the Heal skill in the core rulebook (first published in 2009?) to provide long-term care for up to six patients says that doing so is considered "light activity". It doesn't say what that refers to, and there's no other mention of "light activity" elsewhere, until Ultimate Equipment was released in 2012.

On page 257 of Ultimate Equipment is the Everwake Amulet, which removes the need to sleep for a few days at a time, the description says "The wearer of this amulet does not need sleep, but must remain at ease for the normal amount of time to regain spells and other abilities that require rest (although the wearer could perform light activity, such as reading or keeping watch)." It doesn't say the amulet magically allows performing light activity while resting when it wasn't previously allowed, it just gives examples of things an awake humanoid can do to keep from being bored or useless for 8 hours.

Thus rest was quietly clarified in 2012. A creature can get the rest they need while performing light activities, such as reading, keeping watch, and, one could assume, the only previously mentioned example of light activity, providing long-term care for up to six patients. Liches can read for 8 hours and still regain the ability to memorize spells, and elementals can keep watch while regaining abilities that require rest to replenish. Oozes and plants, too.

I have a complicated character in this case. I have a Tiefling Monk. I took the Adopted trait, chose Aasimar for the adopting race, and then chose the Aasimar trait Enlightened Warrior, which allows her to be a non-lawful monk. I also traded her spell-like ability for not needing to sleep, getting GM approval first. Based on Ultimate Equipment stating that you can keep watch while resting if you don't need to sleep, I thought this would greatly benefit the party, because she could then be on watch all night, and that made the trade a good one.

Two levels go by, all of levels 4 and 5, and my GM is just now ruling she can't be on watch all night and still get rest. His reasoning is that the description of the ki pool states that a monk needs 8 hours of rest or meditation to regain ki. Since my monk doesn't need to sleep, he is requiring that my monk meditate for 8 hours, even though she can rest without sleeping, and the RAW say she can keep watch while she does. He is seeing it as a "sleep or meditate" requirement, instead of "rest or meditate", and since sleep isn't available, you have to take what's left.

The disconnect is clear. My GM ad I disagree on the definition of "rest". The lich is still my best example of rest not equaling sleep, since undead don't sleep, and, as a wizard, a lich would still need to rest to regain spells. A clear example from the beginning of Pathfinder (and beyond) that proves rest doesn't have to mean sleep for creatures who do not need to sleep.

Yes, I'm a little frustrated. I traded a not-insignificant racial ability for this, the rules say it's allowed, but my GM is ruling that I'm getting less for my trade than I thought, contrary to the rules. I still haven't heard a single argument that convinces me that I'm the one misinterpreting the rules. My GM is making arguments instead of just saying he doesn't like it (which is the one argument that doesn't need supporting), which suggests that he'd be willing to change if facts presented convinces him. So far, none of my arguments, including giving him the pages the rules appear on, and the lack of errata/FAQs changing them, are convincing my GM that rest doesn't explicitly mean sleep. I'm starting to get the impression that nothing short of an official ruling from Paizo, such as a FAQ or errata adding "rest" to the common terms section of the core rulebook, stating you can perform light actions while resting, such as keeping watch, will do, so I'll just have to deal.

What do you guys think? Am I the one misinterpreting? Your opinions won't change the situation, I'm just curious.

Ok if you have both improved feint and the greater feint feats, as i understand it.

It still takes a move action to feint, so you can attck once with which they loose their dex bonus. Then they also loose their dex until you act on the following round.

But as it still takes a move action to feint, you cannot make any other attcks that round, say if you had a 6/1 attack bonus as that needs a full round action and you cannot do a move action in a full attack action.

Then when your action coems around again, the target of the feint regains their dex and you would have to make another feint roll for them to loose their dex again!

So whats the point of the feat as it you can still only make one attack with it. Or am i reading it wrong?

I am making a Ninja backup character, and I came across this thread. I know it's been several years, but I wanted to point out that the OP is incorrect, just in case other people find this thread and have the same question we had. I checked the FAQ and the combined errata from first printing through the sixth, and there have been no changes to Greater Feint on page 125, nor to the Feint description on page 201, since the first printing of the Core Rulebook, so this is how it has always read.

Feint

Greater Feint (Combat)

Just like with basic Feint, that next attack can be taken on or before your next turn. The benefit your party gets ends when your turn starts, but you still get the benefit on your next attack, as long as you take that attack before the end of the turn after you make the feint. Greater Feint does not shorten the duration of the benefit to the character making the feint in exchange for providing the benefit to the rest of your team.

This is likely too late to help you, but hopefully it helps someone. :)

So, I'm about to start playing a Charlatan Rogue and plan on taking Improved Feint to sneak attack more often in combat and my brother suggested that I take Greater Feint when I get the chance so I can deal sneak attack damage when I full attack. Well, I read Greater Feint and was wondering if there was an errata to it or if my brother misread it. Greater Feint says "Whenever you use feint to cause an opponent to lose his Dexterity bonus, he loses that bonus until the beginning of your next turn, in addition to losing his Dexterity bonus against your next attack."

From that I gather that it helps you sneak attack with attacks of opportunity from that enemy (at least I think so) and that the enemy loses his Dexterity bonus against your allies? I think my brother assumed that the enemy lost their Dexterity bonus until the end of your next turn, so you could feint, deal sneak attack with one attack, wait for your turn, then full attack and deal sneak attack damage. However, with the way it's worded, I assume you cannot do that.

I am making a Ninja backup character, and I came across this thread. I know it's been over a year, but I wanted to point out that your brother is correct, just in case other people find this thread and have the same question we had. I checked the FAQ and the combined errata from first printing through the sixth, and there have been no changes to Greater Feint on page 125, nor to the Feint description on page 201, since the first printing of the Core Rulebook, so this is how it has always read.

Feint

Greater Feint (Combat)

Just like with basic Feint, that next attack can be taken on or before your next turn. The benefit your party gets ends when your turn starts, but you still get the benefit on your next attack, as long as you take that attack before the end of the turn after you make the feint. Greater Feint does not shorten the duration of the benefit to the character making the feint in exchange for providing the benefit to the rest of your team.

This is likely too late to help you, but hopefully it helps someone. :)

Gliding Wings is probably supposed to be referenced in a couple of different feats. Draconic Paragon says:
Draconic Paragon
"You can shrug off sleep and paralysis effects as well as any dragon, and your draconic aspects improve.

Prerequisites: Draconic Aspect, either Draconic Breath or Draconic Glide, character level 10th, kobold.

Benefit: You gain an additional +2 bonus against sleep and paralysis effects. You can use your breath weapon twice per day and your breath weapon damage increases to 4d6 points of energy damage. Your wings from the Draconic Glide feat grow stronger, granting you a fly speed of 20 feet (average maneuverability)."

My...

Also note that Draconic Glide isn't a hard prereq (either Draconic Breath or Draconic Glide), yet the feat description says that your wings from that feat get stronger.

That mistake alone suggests that the Special from Draconic GLide could refer to Draconic Paragon. Being born with wings, then investing in a feat to show the time and effort put into learning how to use them, should pay off at some point. It should pay off when you take the feat (my DM says my glide should improve to 5' lateral for every 15' fallen), but it should also pay off later, when you take Draconic Paragon. (My DM thinks a different person made the feats than made the base race, so the person making the feats just assumed a size small creature had a base move of 20. Thus the special should be changed t something that improves Gliding wings, which is why he says having both slightly improves the glide, even if it is only by 5'.)

Paizo customer service told me that they will only release errata if the first printing of ARG sells out fast enough to warrant a second printing. No second printing, no errata. I wish they'd at least FAQ this officially. :/

I wonder if it was somehow meant to reference the 20 foot Fly speed you gain from Draconic Paragon...

*blinks*

SO disappointed! This would have been the perfect opportunity to make some fixes. Specifically, the Draconic Glide+Gliding Wings issue that I've been waiting for. :(

Ah well. I guess my DM and I will just have to keep fudging it.

I know this is resurrecting an apparently dead thread, but since I just joined a Pathfinder game last year, just looked at Ninjas today, and this is the first time I have searched for an answer to having this same question, I thought I'd comment.

RAW: No, they cannot. A Rogue archetype is still counted as being a rogue. Alt classes cannot take levels in their parent classes. Thus, a Ninja cannot take levels as a Pirate or a Roof Runner, even if all of the replaced class features align, because both are actually Rogues.

Again, sorry for the necro-thread. :)