Toff Ornelos

Lokiron's page

Organized Play Member. 44 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blue_the_wolf wrote:


on a side note.
I always considered Mithral to be the fantasy version of titanium. more of an alloy or special proces like steel than a specific metal.

Can't help myself, I need to burst your bobble here. Titanium IS NOT an alloy, but an element (no. 22). Correctly, steel is an alloy, but fun fact about it, it's more pure iron than what we'd call iron. Completely pure iron is hard to make and is fragile and useless.


Dear James,
It is very gracious of you to satisfy so many curiosities so fulfillingly as you have done so far.
I have a boring, technical question which I've seen cause enough confusion to warrant a FAQ (maybe).

Does strength penalty affect carrying capacity?


I think there is some fairness in allowing it as it would make a 15 dexterity better than a 14, which it is.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
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..


WWWW wrote:
Personally I dislike rolling because it encourages min-maxing and makes people focus more on mechanics then role playing.

lol :P


Since this thread was necroed already, can anyone tell me where to find the errata that apparently answers this question?


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Crits are not included, but favour the use of Arcane Mark.

Your chart is missing the most important reason to do this. Crit fishing.

You use that arcane mark to get an additional chance to critical hit with your weapon and since all the weapons the Magus use should be at 15-20 crit range it makes for a LOT of extra damage.

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.

DEX BASED:

Avg dam
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

STR BASED:

Avg dam
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.
Furthermore, the AM trick adds so very little when you care for it (low level) that it is in no way overpowered and thus allowing it, which is RAW and RAI, is not a problem.

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 don't understand the advantage of Haunted Gnome. Can someone explain, please? I appears weak to me...

EDIT: So Shroud is the big thing in this feat chain, right? But you missed it on your updated list.


I like the idea, I have been wondering how to get reach without being unable to attack adjacent targets.

Gignere wrote:
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.


I don't think haste grants an extra standard action.


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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
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.


Benly wrote:
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 :-)


As a house rule (or part of a set of house rules with tumble balance in mind) existing feats could be altered. Combat reflexes could give a bonus to anti-tumble.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Gnomezrule wrote:
What you would do as a guide is already covered by survival, knowlege local, and others. A new proffession skill would be a pretty good way to get free skill points and posibly bonuses depending on the relevant stats.
This...isn't quite how Profession work. Profession (Blacksmith) totally exists, as does Profession (Soldier), despite other stats governing how good you are at fighting or smithing. Profession measures how good you are at making money at that profession. Someone with the skills you list might be an excellent guide, but he needs the Profession to make good money at it.

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.


Marthian wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
The setup to rogue cheese if this would allow sneak attack...
If it was houseruled in, I wouldn't allow sneak attack damage. From my understanding, Sneak Attack targets weak points. It sounds rather difficult to hit a vital point if your essentially grazing it.

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.


A level one spell with meta magic is always at least level one.


Be aware of the rogues' sneak attacks...


Unklbuck wrote:

to[o] many Anime inspired drow katana wielding sorceror kensai wannabe nitwits out there.

You think anime is the only (most common) inspiration to sorcery?? wth...


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.
This rule allows illusion spells to either change reality or waste opponents' time. Either may be worth a spell.

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.


VRMH wrote:
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.


Ashiel wrote:

I've never used any of those cords. Likewise, I've played quite a few PCs (and NPCs) who tanked Strength. There's not a lot of downside to carrying a medium load, unless you plan to be swimming. The DC to climb a knotted rope is low enough that even with a pretty mean penalty, you can take 10 and do it. Meanwhile, medium load means your Dex is capped at +3 and you move 20 ft. Not killer. Likewise, most classes that tank strength don't wear armor (biggest contributor to weight), and tend to easily adapt without lots of the common tools.

For example, if I'm playing a Wizard at 1st level, and I've tanked Strength, then I need to carry my spellbook, and my component's pouch. Everything else past that is optional. I wouldn't even be out of my light load.

Incidentally, I track all my carrying capacity, including my ammo.

I wonder how many people track encumbrence from clothing...


In PFS play, are you required to buy the appropriate book to use the DD feat?


Umbranus wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Umbranus wrote:

Ok, let's agree to disagree.

For me what the dhampir does is evil.
For me it would not be evil to kill someone like that when caught red handed.

Why? I'm honestly curious what moral system causes this response.

For me the human body is sacred. Even when it is dead.

Something in me screams KILL IT! When I think about some humanoid creature eating/drinking from a recently slain, still warm human (humanoid).

It's the same instinct that would make me hit someone hard who is willingly injuring a child or raping a woman.

And it is really shocking me deep within that everyone else here is so relaxed about it.

I don't think anyone is really relaxed about it, rather used to this kind of theoreticals.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
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.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
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...


Lune wrote:
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.

Guide wrote:
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..


Kalavas wrote:

So in comes the RAW vs RAI. Most smart DM's will go with the RAI without giving it a second thought.

But the Dazing Rod is different. It is RAW and RAI and its simply overpowered. It does exactly what the dev's intended and its unbalancing.

It seems, though, that RAI is very difficult to decipher at times..


PJ wrote:
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:


Traits: lineage shocking grasp, +2 concentration checks

-James

How do you get concentration as non-magic trait?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Lokiron wrote:


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.

What about being a Bard is a thematic problem? Bard's actually a VERY flexible Class thematically. Yes, you need to know how to perform somehow...but if you're planning on taking Dervish dance you need to be able to do that anyway. You certainly don't need to make a living at it.

And a Dawnflower Dervish can very definitely be an effective melee combatant, their Battle Dance eventually granting +6 to both hit and damage by level 11.

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?

@James
Thanks for the analysis and your explanations. I do like the Stealth trick you found, as I am always looking for unordinary ways to play classes. Having found my favorite gish so far, I even try to mess that one up! :P
Maybe Hexcrafter is a good idea, it looks to add a lot of utility, which is really what I'm after, while not sacrificing too much.

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.


Oterisk wrote:
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..

Oterisk wrote:
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.

James wrote:

So for example:

<Pure Magus build attempting to meet specs>

-James

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:


My advice- make a list of what the character *must* deliver in you mind, then what you'd *like* it to deliver. On the flip side what it *must* not have, and then what you'd *rather* it not have.

For each point label 'mechanics' or 'RP'. Many times people will confuse the two here surprisingly enough.

-James

The quick list would look like this. Thanks for making me think that way. Good approach.

Must have
Pathfinder Society Compatibility
Half-elf (RP)
High INT (MECH/RP)
High DEX (MECH)
Decent CHA (RP)
Melee capabilities (MECH)
Arcane spells (MECH&RP) including spellcraft (MECH)
At least 1 rank in Craft(blacksmith) (RP)
1 rank in Profession(merchant) (RP)

Nice to have
Magus (MECH)
Appraise class skill with ranks (MECH)
Enough skill points to get knowledge skills (RP)
Sufficient STR for carrying capacity (MECH)
Damage cantrip (MECH) - I don't want the Arcane Mark argument coming up at the table
Functional Acrobatics (MECH)
Functional Stealth (MECH)
Enough diplomacy to not be an idiot in conversation (RP)

Allowed features
Bard (offensive)
Rogue, Fighter, similarly "bland/flexible" classes

Must not have
Levels in Sorc, Pala, Barb, Monk, similarly strongly flavored classes (RP)
Evil alignment (MECH&RP)

Rather not have
Terrible Perception (MECH)
Terrible Sense Motive (MECH)
Religious restrictions (RP)
Not be too Performance oriented (RP)


Looks like a strong choice, mechanically. I didn't know that archetype. However, it has a restriction on deity. I was going for a non-devoted, but this is not a long stretch for him I suppose :-)


Actually, maybe a Bard (Arcane Duelist) dip could achieve the same basic thing, but with better synergy. Maybe?


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.


Hi all,

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).

Here goes:

Race
Half-elf
Dual-Minded alternate racial trait

Abilities
20 pt. buy.
STR 13
DEX 18 (16+2)
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 8
CHA 12 (Bad choice #1. I don't like playing mentally inferior characters. The low wisdom is enough...)

Traits
Magical Knack, I know the awesomeness of Magical Lineage. I think this is better for my build. I welcome advice on this choice.
Elven Reflexes, my guess for a good second trait. Advice is welcomed.

Level Progression
1 Rogue
Skills: ACRO, APPR, 2xCRFT, DPLO, DSBL, KNW(dun), KNW(loc), PRCP, PROF(merchnt), STLH)
Feat: Weapon Finesse

2 Magus
Skills: Catching up on spellcraft, arcana, UMD, and 1 more in a craft.

3 Rogue - This second rogue level is not certain. I think this is a good level as I can get evasion and weapon focus.
Skills: Keeping SPCR, ARCA, UMD maxed. Buffing ACRO, STLH, DSBL, and utilizing class skill in CLMB, SWIM.
Feat: Dervish Dance and Weapon Focus(Scimitar) from Rogue Talent.

4 Magus - Magus from here on.

5 Magus
Feat: Arcane Strike (which I believe works with Magical Knack)

6 Magus

7 Magus
Feat: Extra Arcana or Extra Arcane Pool
Bonus feat: Intensify Spell

... And so on

Magus Arcana considerations (not sure here)
Spell Blending for a damage cantrip (Avoiding discussions on Arcane Mark validity...)

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).


Hi all,

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.
Do material components require a hand? No, they don't, but why?
Can the hand that does the somatic component handle the material component as well, or does the material component not need to be retrieved from storage to be consumed.

Hoping for enlightened answers and thanks for your time.