no, i agree with BigNorseWolf on this one. People had a big problem with monks flurrying with one weapon. But Magus gets to do it and cast spells and all that jazz? no, big problem. please bring down the nerf hammer Paizo.
Or... Fix the monk instead. In fact, wait for the monk fix that's actually promised..
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
This is true. It was a quick sketch for my own use that validated the AM trick which I thought would cost me DPR in my last session (my character not being optimized and all).However, by the time you get 15-20 range, are you still using cantrips in combat? (Don't read this the wrong way, I'm not being snarky, but curious).
From what I understand this tactic is mostly relevant at lower levels. I did a short analysis assuming +6 hit (18 dex/str, +1 masterwork, +1 arcane pool), +4 concentration (16 int, level 1) and a rapier(dex) or scimitar(str). Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.
AC no AM with AM
8 4,950 6,380
9 4,675 5,981
10 4,400 5,583
11 4,125 5,184
12 3,850 4,785
13 3,575 4,386
14 3,300 3,988
15 3,025 3,589
16 2,750 3,190
17 2,475 2,791
18 2,200 2,393
19 1,925 1,994
20 1,650 1,595
21 1,375 1,196
AC no AM with AM
8 9,450 9,860
9 8,925 9,244
10 8,400 8,628
11 7,875 8,011
12 7,350 7,395
13 6,825 6,779
14 6,300 6,163
15 5,775 5,546
16 5,250 4,930
17 4,725 4,314
18 4,200 3,698
19 3,675 3,081
20 3,150 2,465
21 2,625 1,849
Ok, these tables look terrible, but the conclusion is that using AM requires good hit chance and low damage. If enemy AC increases you end up losing damage. A str based magus loses damage from not two-handing his scimitar.
EDIT: As WRoy indicates, you can sometimes do the trick without a concentration check. It these cases, go ahead if you're a dex magus.
I played my level 1 magus for the first time a couple of days ago and I didn't use the AM trick as my hit and concentration were too low to validate (I roughly calculated). So at the low levels where you are low on spells it's difficult to pull off. Later, when you have a better chance at doing this you'll have more powerful options.
I like the idea, I have been wondering how to get reach without being unable to attack adjacent targets.
Use a small reach weapon, you take a -2 but it becomes a one handed reach weapon in the hands of a medium creature.
This strikes me as a fun way to do it and I took a look at the options. I like glaives but why ever use one instead of a halberd. Am I missing something?
EDIT: F@#% me, the halberd doesn't have reach, duh. Assumed it did.
Remco Sommeling wrote:
Thor is an example of a deity in which case favored weapon is fitting, many others it doesn't really come into play thematically and feels forced, just my opinion.
The Norse pantheon is one of almost only warrior gods (of varying extent). Maybe the standard pantheon of Pathfinder is too, why favored weapons make sense.Examples: Frey, the male norse god of fertility and crops, was still a powerful warrior. Thor is not even THE god of war, but rather of weather. Odin, mostly god of death and knowledge, was also a mighty warrior favoring the (thrown) spear.
I know he is not suggesting a free feat. There is already a feat that allows a cleric of Iomedae to count his cleric levels as fighter levels for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites of weapon specialization, with the Goddesses favored weapon. Perhaps you could create a feat like that for simple favored weapon gods.
That would be +2 damage for two feats (and access to Greater WS so +4 for 3 feats) bringing them well above martial favored weapon. The only problem is it requires a lot of focus on your weapon because you also need Weapon Focus. So at least 3 feats to gain anything. I don't know how to build clerics, just commenting.
Given that what's being suggested is to allow Weapon Specialization qualification and not granting it as a bonus feat, it seems fine to me. It's probably not an option most PCs would take, but having it there is a nice idea.
Agreed, the option seems balanced.But what's prefereble, a free trait or access to a feat? What's the more entertaining option? (I don't pretend to know the answer, btw).
Blackbloodtroll seems to not understand that you want to allow clerics to buy WS. Not have it for free. From his rhetorics it seems he would find this balanced. He suggests +1 attack + masterwork for free. Seems equivalent to having the option of taking WS.
Alternatively, you could give +1 damage trait for free / +1 crit range. That would close the gap between simple and martial weapons. Dagger -> Shortsword/kukri, longspear -> glaive, and so on.
EDIT: Keep in mind that some simple weapons are good in their own way. Many can be thrown and the morningstar has B+P damage simultaneously.
As I tried to express earlier, and with your help here, Profession(guide/scout) could be rendered useless (depending on GM) because it overlaps with over skills. Sailor very clearly does not. If I were your GM here I think I would quick-fix the skill overlaps by allowing you to use Profession with a penalty (where appropriate).
I love these odd skills for background and often have a few, but I don't get my hopes up on their usage. On that note I would support the soldier suggestion as it works for your concept and has rather obvious usage :-)
So a character with Craft(blacksmithing) would need Profession(blacksmithing) to make money? That's not what the rules say.
On topic: I think Profession(guide) makes sense, but this skill would never replace the other skills associated with it (knowledge(local), survival, knowledge(geography) maybe). So it's useful for making money and perhaps other situations if the GM is generous.
Indeed. This needs to be clear is all I'm saying so the rogue is not disappointed when he's told he can't do it.
I think the problem with illusions is usually the save to disbelieve. Not long ago I saw a similar thread where someone quoted an official statement saying that getting a save to disbelieve usually requires a standard action.
I don't know if this has anything to do with your specific problems, but I think this is a nice rule to have in mind.
Your best bet is to alternate illusions and conjurations to confuse the enemy and "train" your GM. If a monster doesn't ignore what's real, it shouldn't ignore what's illusionary.
Good advice. This will make clear when the GM is meta gaming. Maybe the GM doesn't realize he's doing it and will learn from this.
I wonder how many people track encumbrence from clothing...
I don't think anyone is really relaxed about it, rather used to this kind of theoreticals.
Just to repeat, I want to rid myself of my distaste of elves. Okay, moving on. I am slowly forming a primordial ooze of concepts, thanks to helpful posters. Additional concept ideas are welcome. What classes do elves succeed well in?
They are supposedly the best dex-magus (magi, whatever).
I guess they make strong archers and wizards as well. This is known..
Their bonus to dex and their inherent weapon prof make them good rogues.
Alright, maybe playing an elf that completely lacks the elf flavor is the way to redemption. If someone has any ideas how to do this, I welcome the advice.
Play a mentally ill elf?Or a really, really stupid one.
Or a complete nerd (crafter, perhaps) who is frowned upon by his peers, but he never noticed.
There are so many (valid, even) ways to do what you suggest, I wonder why you don't just go ahead and do it...
At least you said she is attractive. We are still cool.
Touchy subject it seems...
To blackbloodtroll, I think you're right on all your points on disliking elves. For some the reasons, I like them so we agree on the premises, not the conclusion. Anyway, I have a suggestion.
You could make an elf who actually IS superior, wiser, and all that jazz, but who IS NOT a dick about it nor is he preachy. He (or she, whatever) is the elven paragon, the reason for other's arrogance. Like Jesus, who apparently was the saint of saints, is the reason for Christian arrogance (oh, it's there).
I realize this may not be what you're looking for, but there it is :-)
I realize this guide is old, and I have no idea how much it will be revisited, but I have a disagreement with the rating (more the explanation for said rating) of Major Image.
Major Image: ** Now you are creating significantly more convincing illusions, including smell, taste, etc. You are starting to see enough options to reduce the redundancy with silent image - now it's a matter of personal taste and the style of your character. Illusions can be really good, or really useless depending on how creative you can be with them. NOTE: Thanks to Crosswind I've lowered the rating of this spell. Crosswind pointed out that soon as you add smell, sound etc. to an image (the whole point of using this instead of silent image), then, interaction becomes pretty much automatic, allowing everyone a saving throw. This actually means that adding smell, sound, etc. brings a major opportunity for those who witness the illusion to make a saving throw...not good.
This says that you get a save for hearing a sound based illusion, smelling a scent based, and so on..The why don't you get a save for simply seeing a vision based illusion? I don't think the Major Image so easily grants saves..
It seems, though, that RAI is very difficult to decipher at times..
I've added Improved Weapon Finesse in our campaigns and so far it hasn't caused anyone to be unbalanced. I used Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite and Wpn Focus with said weapon.
Sounds like a good way to do it. I'm making a dervish build as it is, and was looking forward to using a scimitar until I realized everyone was...
Sorry guys, I didn't mean to ignite your argument from Walter's thread. You both have really good arguments, indicating that both probably work fine :-) Thanks to all for the advice.
james maissen wrote:
How do you get concentration as non-magic trait?
I guess, even though I like the Bard and all it stands for, I still share some of the prejudice towards bards... Should try and shed that.
EDIT: If I could have an INT based Bard I'd be all over it!
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Well first things first, you can't have MAGICAL KNACK, it's banned in PFS play so forget that.
I didn't know that. Why is this not allowed, and where can I find a list of eligible traits?Anyway, thanks for pointing out the spell based alternatives to skills.
Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Everything you are trying to do with level dips or workarounds will be gained automatically by your 5th magus level.
Are you referring to something specific happening at 5th level?
I'm still considering a bard if it can be built to do melee damage and not be especially "bardish" (with the perform and stuff, this is not for this character). I really don't know how to build this (original concept) as a bard.
A two level dip into Alchemist (Mindchemist) can get you double your intelligence boost on knowledge skills. It can free you up a bit since you don't have max them out to still do good checks. The Cognatogen can bump up your intelligence and as such your DCs. It may not be the flavor you are going for, but it can work.
Looks interesting. A lot of reading to do on this subject..
I almost think that going straight Arcane Duelist might be better for you instead of Magus. If your reasons for doing Magus are Mechanical, you might want to weigh the effectiveness of a straight bard over a multiclassed Magus. If you want to dip bard for two levels, I would go without the Arcane Duelist because it gives up Versatile Performance which you can use to really pimp out your social skills. (full ranks in oratory give you full ranks in diplomacy and sense motive).
This comes off as weak to me. Please explain why it's not, because I do like the idea behind it.
Establishing your dislike for multiclassed magi, I see. Still, I thank you for your contribution.I was interested in seeing your take on this, and since you still choose a bad pure magus over any multiclass magus, I suppose either you're biased or multiclass magi really are crap.. (I do not mean to imply that you're wrong, btw).
I do have a question. You chose to emphasize Stealth over Acrobatics. Do you mean to say this is more useful to a magus?
Also, do you think the scattered skills are, at all, useful?
james maissen wrote:
The quick list would look like this. Thanks for making me think that way. Good approach.
Nice to have
Must not have
Rather not have
Besides your mentioned reasons, whatever the rogue brings is icing (sneak attack, trapfinding, evasion)
The dervish is pure effectiveness, not important for the character. However, I like dex over str.
13 STR is not for Power Attack, but Carrying Capacity (which I still find is very low). I even invested in a donkey with saddlebags at 1st level.
I'm building a character that's inferior in a few ways due to RP reasons. I would like to optimize from these inferior initial conditions in order to make it acceptably effective for Pathfinder Society.
He's basically a dex magus dipping into rogue to get a heap of skills making his background as smith/merchant more valid and to make his acrobatics/diplomacy/stealth/appraise not suck. He is a curious fellow, thus the wide area of interest (and lack of dedication to one thing).
3 Rogue - This second rogue level is not certain. I think this is a good level as I can get evasion and weapon focus.
4 Magus - Magus from here on.
... And so on
Magus Arcana considerations (not sure here)
Wand Wielder looks good if I can get some wands and it doesn't drain my low arcane pool
Arcane Accuracy is apparently good. I admit, I think it looks expensive.
Familiar would be cute, but I can't see the effectiveness of this.
That's about all of it. I hope someone will find the challenge of making this not suck, interesting, because I really like the flair of this jack-of-all-trades.
Pre-emptive to the "pick a Bard instead" I would like to say, present me a bard who is as offensive as the magus, and doesn't dump intelligence (I'm picky with my way of roleplaying).
I have two questions.
1. Could a gish type cast a spell (with somatic) while merely holding his greatsword in one hand?
2. How many hands are required for activation of scrolls? Is it one hand to hold the scroll and one hand for any somatic component? The logic says yes, but the balance says no (it would suck..).
Related question, but I think I know the answer here.
Hoping for enlightened answers and thanks for your time.