As the title states, I would like to know what actions if any may be performed during a short rest. Specifically the short rest used to recover stamina. I am already aware of the mechanic being able to repair his drone but what about other actions?
For example: can a bombardier soldier created a grenade while recovering? Can a solarion perform his one minute of meditation whole recovering stamina? Ect...
Flurry actually gives a bonus. It makes you have full Bab (before TWF penalties) and increases power attack damage accordingly. Flurry is also a full attack. Because flurry requires a full attack, I rule that once you have attacked with a flurry attack you are forced to make a full attack or forfit the remaining attacks. You do not get to move. This prevents players from circumventing the requirement of a flurry being a full attack.
Actually the Ice Tomb also has some restrictions. It does not work on things that are immune to fort saves or can negate the cold damage. So objects (aka constructs) and undead are immune to it to, because poor writing.
The wizard has 2-3 maxed out spells, but its spells list packs more a wallop than the witches. A witch doesn't have the same spell versatility but gets good, and in some cases really good, abilities it can spam.
Kurald Galain, if you do not understand why a -4 penalty is amazing then you probably need to spend more time playing classes oriented towards making the team stronger as a whole, rather than classes that try to be as self contained as possible.
If you have too many spells consider throwing some long term buffs on your party.
A lot of the remove/delay stuff spells also grant bonuses if the spell is already up too.
@Kurald Galain, that requires you and your familiar to act on the same initiative (and is one of the main reasons at my table familiars and casters roll separate initiatives). R1, one of you is unfavorably delaying. It also depends some on how likely the monster is to make the save, but you are correct that it is a quick R1 incapacitate in most situations. I personally prefer the -4 to saves because it helps more party members and gives others a chance to have fun.
I disagree with people saying spells are more powerful than hexes. Case and point Evil Eye, Fortune, Slumber, Icy Tomb. The four most powerful hexes in PFS.
It really depends on the party and the witch.
That combination will end most fights. With a really high save an Ill Omen Icy Tomb combo can also be a good Ace in the hole. (I saved a party by freezing a fire elemental once)
In a group that is high melee it is often better to open up with an Evil Eye for -4 AC.
In a group that has another full caster it is often better to open with a -4 to saving throws to help make their save or suck stick
In a fight against a monster generating a lot of attacks a -4 to attack rolls can end up saving a great deal of damage.
That is not to say that you shouldn't use spells, but you should pick your spells and hexes to do different things so that you have the correct tool for the situation. I found that picking spells that removed debuffs or had good utility, or let me deal with enemies that my hexes could not hurt worked really well.
Edit: Another point to consider is that the Witch spell list simply doesn't have the same power as the Wizard spell list. This is because hexes are very good and they don't need to depend entirely on super good spells. (Witches don't get Liberating Command or Haste by default)
It strikes me as mildly petulant to insist that John, or another developer respond to your idea (I'm very sure I've done it myself. I am such a hypocrite), although it is really cool when they do so.
I have met John, and I can assure you he has given your idea at least a passing consideration. He doesn't usually dismiss ideas out of hand.
If you are lucky John may have time to respond some time this week when he is no longer enjoying his extended vacation, and if anyone needs a vacation it is John Compton. I honestly don't know when the guy sleeps between all the work he does to make PFS as amazing as it is. I also would not be surprised if he doesn't respond, since he did answer your original question, with a little bit of follow up.
It is unlikely that extra hex will be moved to a lower level because it speeds too far ahead of other shamans hex progression and makes dipping more attractive. The Shaman does not naturally gain a hex at 2nd or 3rd level and neither does the archetype you want. A shaman which did gain hexes at a faster pace would be considerably better than a shaman that did not. It would be a three level dip for two hexes (evil eye and chant are two good ones) only one off of full Bab progression and second level spells. By making you have to take the fourth level it keeps the archetype for speeding ahead of other Shaman hex progression too much (50% more hexes as opposed to 100% more hexes when the feat is gained) and does not make it a more attractive dipping option.
Bumping threads repeatedly is a bit of a faux pas. John has already responded multiple times when he did not have to, and it seems that how the development team wanted this implemented has been made abundantly clear.
I think you might be best served letting the issue rest. You do still get the extra hex feat eventually, and continuing to pester the development team is not likely to help your cause. It certainly didn't work for my campaign to have the improved familiar rules looked at again.
I would be very surprised if at this point John, has not added this to the list of thing to possibly reconsider when there is time.
Clearly, Nefreet and I disagree. It must be a day that ends in y.
And how is holding a shield using it as a weapon...?
I will ask that you reread what I wrote.
I didn't use the word hold, I used the world wield, which has an important definition in Pathfinder. Holding doesn't present an issue, wielding does.
If you read the entries on shields you will see that they are weapons with an entry on the weapons table. Just because a player chooses not to bash with the shield so they can keep their AC bonus does not mean that it couldn't bash at a moments notice.
For example: A fighter has quickdraw, a quick draw light shield, and a greatsword. He uses the greatsword during his turn to pound away at the enemy. Then at the end of his turn he lets go of the greatsword with one hand (no longer wielding), and uses free/swift actions to draw and don the quickdraw shield (now wielding), for the AC bonus. (Note: he is no longer wielding the greatsword. Just the shield.) During his enemies turn, an AoO is provoked and the fighter decides he wants to take it. But the only weapon he is wielding is a shield. So he bashes with the shield and loses his AC bonus from the shield for the rest of the round.
Except that isn't what I said. I suggest rereading again.
Vestigial arm has lots of uses. It can get a potion, hold a potion, hold a scroll, scratch an itch, pick up an item, hold an item in preparation for it being wielded later that round (such as after you have generated all of your attacks).
It just can't contribute to the number of attacks you generate in a round by wielding a weapon at the same time you have your other hands occupied with generating attacks (and in case you have forgotten, shields are weapons)
What would you call an entire off hands worth of attacks if not extra attacks?
The use of vestigial arm in the manner you are describing is generating extra attacks (and is therefore not permitted). It is generating extra two handed attacks where before there were none. If you tried to wield a shield and wield two weapons that would also be generation of extra attack as you are generating an off hand attack where before you had none.
If you are using vestigial arm to wield a shield, and doing so is allowing you gain an attack you could not gain using a shield with just your two natural arms than you are in violation of the FAQ.
This entire alchemist fiasco is one giant red herring. It doesn't change the fact that a shield must be wielded to use. Even if Alchemists COULD use shields and greatswords (using vestigial arm). That would just mean that vestigial arm is granting an extra off hand to wield a shield.
No it does not. Your point was about alchemist and shields, claiming shields do not occupy the "Off Hand" that because Alchemist can use shields and greatswords. My rebuttal was to that point. I have pointed to the official FAQ which pretty clearly indicates that you were being mislead by old information (a 2011 post by SKR), and that the FAQ pretty darn clearly shows that you can not wield a weapon two handed and a shield simultaneously using vestigial arm.
So I stand by my position that wielding a shield REQUIRES the use of the offhand and the chain of logic that follows from that and the other facts and single supposition I posted.
If you wish to move the goal posts and talk about alchemists and bucklers that is your prerogative. It really isn't relevant to issue of Dervish Dance and Bucklers.
Have you not read the FAQ for Ultimate Magic? This was published in 2013.
That is a not official ruling post, by a person who no longer works at Paizo, that is five years old, and I am pretty darn certain has been superceded by more recent official posts and faqs. Please try again.
Also he was saying using a one handed weapon two handed and switching to a shield, not using a great sword.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Wielding a shield doesn't use your off-hand. The multi-armed alchemist can use a greatsword and a shield, even though you can't gain more "hands" with the discovery. Thus wielding a shield doesn't require a "hand" else you couldn't use a two-handed weapon with it.
I don't believe this is true. It is my understanding that he has to choose which one he is weilding at any time. However, he is free to change them when ever he wants during his turn.
_Ozy_ reread what I wrote. I did not say WEARING a Buckler used the off hand but rather wielding a Buckler used the off hand. Also, that entire point of being able to TWF isn't really relevent. If someone at my table wants to lose all benefit for dervish dance at the end of their turn for an AC boost that is fine by me. However, I do not think it would be unreasonable for a GM to rule that the -1 penalty to attack rolls is a sufficient impediment to the hand for the hand to be considered carrying the buckler. As I said before carrying is not defined in the rule book.
Yondu, you are correct, and I was over simplifying.
Fact: Buckler is a shield
So a Buckler is strapped to the wrist, and weilded in the "off hand". Because the Buckler is an item that is being weilded in the off hand, it is also being carried there. Therefore, you cannot weild a Buckler and use Dervish Dance. If you want Dex to damage and a Buckler, spend the extra feat and learn Slashing Grace.
Turbo fact: I and other GMs who have this interpretation are not cheating or changing the rules. We just disagree with those who think they can use bucklers with dervish dance. Get over it.
Ooh boy we are back into monk vs unchained monk. I don't think this debate is ever going to beettled for certain. If we leave out truly broken things that help one way more than the other (looking at you ascetic style) they come out about the same. It really will come down to play style and preference. The unchained monk is certainly easier to build and optimize though since it has fewer trap options and is more straight forward in accomplishing what a monk wants to do. To some that is better. But I personally prefer the approach of the core monk plus archetypes. I have never made a core monk that was outshined by an unchained monk in what it was trying to do, nor did the unchained version of the character get outshined.
Edit, dear lord my cell phones auto correct butchered this post. I think i fixed it all
Kiro Yamasaki Level 10 Samurai(note this character predates inventory tracking so I cannot say when I bought all of the items)
Abilities (I miss a few racials here, but you should get the idea)
Skills (For space I will only list ones I have ranks in)
Animal Companion Chi Chi the 4th Axe Beak (My Dayjob is an Axe Beak breeder. I bought the Vanity to use Handle Animal)
Piranha Strike only works with light weapons. Not one handed slashing weapons that can be finessed.
I'm heading out at the moment, but either tonight or tomorrow I will post my Order of the Tome build.
I acquired the Axe Beak by completing all three parts of quest for perfection with my Tengu. Alternatively, I think I have a boon floating around here to grant Tengu's access to an Axe Beak that I would not mind sending to someone who would actually use it.
I would not bother with trying to add dex to damage. Just settle on a 16 base STR. Samurai is a full BAB character and will be hitting things all the time anyway.
Also Sword Saint simply isn't very good. If you really want to you it that is your prerogative.
I personally would go
Make sure to put FCB into HP, pick up toughness if you are worried about it, and bump STR every 4 levels will be just fine.
My own Tengu Samurai in PFS is Order of the Tomb. He rides around on an Axe Beak which is a great combat animal for his Naginata, and lets him move pull out a scroll and deliver it in the same round if he has to. I have successfully pulled off at least two Breath of Life's doing this.
His starting stat line was
It really all depends on if you read that as needing a good outsider, or a [Good][Outsider]. I think both are reasonable interpretations. At my table I will go with the latter.
There is also the fact that thematically it is VERY strange for an android, which emerges fully formed to be raised by fey, since an android never has a childhood.
It is also strange that the fey would raise an artificial creature made out of, in part metal, when the fey are VERY strongly associated with nature.
Desna makes a lot of sense as a deity though. Androids being enslaved in many instances by the technic league. Butterfly sting is a very good feat.
Now if you want an example of a bad feat look no further than vital strike. Unless you have a very good reason not to be full attacking the feat will always under perform.
Secret Wizard wrote:
Weapon specialization is a terrible feat. You don't wait for it, you avoid it.
I disagree. +2 damage is pretty solid as far as feats go, even if you are not focusing on generating a ton of hits. It is literally damage that does not cost you anything once you have taken the feat. (No penalties to hit, or AC, or need to keep investing in it.) I do agree that there are better feats out there, but there are also a lot of worse feats out there too.
Pathfinder is a game where large numbers come from getting incremental increases, not large chunks of increase (barring a couple of exceptions).
+2 damage is the equivalent of ignoring 2/5s of most early/mid level dr. and 1/5 of most mid level hardness. Not too shabby.
Over the course of a fight that +2 damage over the course of the fight adds up. The extra 6-8 damage that is netted is often the difference between a monster getting an extra turn to hurt the party or not.
James Risner wrote:
Well clearly you and I place a different value on the rest of the party being very difficult to kill.
Also for frigid touch it needs to hit touch AC. That is very easy to pull off so I guess I will have at it.
From a pure gold cost (wands aside)
375gp for a one use Pearl of Power 3 that can also be used as a Pearl of Power 2 or 1 is much better than 9k for a full Pearl of Power 3. So much so that I cannot consider a single scenario where I would bother purchasing a Pearl of Power 3 now that I can spend prestige for "Channel the Gift".
Paul Jackson wrote:
If it were a witch I'd rather have the PC die.
James Risner wrote:
Would you consider it worth 1125 gold to give every single person in your party Barkskin +4 without impacting the availability of other spell slots for other spells?
Would you consider it worthwhile to pay 1125 gold to giver everyone in your party protection from energy?
Would you consider it worthwhile to pay 900 gold to give everyone in your party resistance to all 4 elements via Communal Resist Energy?
Would you consider it worthwhile to be able to throw an intensified empowered Shocking Grasp every turn as a magus without impacting the availability of other spells?
Would you consider it worthwhile to be able to staggerlock a boss with Frigid Touch for an entire combat without hurting your ability to cast other spells?
Would you consider it worthwhile to not have to wonder if you need to prepare 1 or 2 glitterdust, 1 or 2 hast, 1 or 2 delay poison, 1 or 2 unbreakable hearts ect...
I can keep going for a very very long time.
My experience in high level play disagrees. It is not just about the haymakers. It is also a the lower level support spells and bring able to buff your allies. A balance that every prepared caster has to figure out. Unless they have a wand/scrolls of Channel the Gift. Then they just do both at impunity.
Again, the familiar will just duel wield spell storing weapons to accomplish the same thing as using wands to abuse Channel the Gift. Most fights don't last more than three rounds.
Furthermore combat effectiveness aside a wand of channel there gift is amazing out of combat even without a familiar because it allows for a party to become super buffed while not impacting in combat utility in the slightest.
The only way to keep Channel the Gift from wrecking the balance of prepared spell caster is to either nerf it severely, or ban it outright.
Once again Andrew and I are on the same page. The issue with with Channel the Gift is only in part the abuse available from a familiar. The worse part of the spell is the added versatility it gives prepared casters by allowing them to only prepare one of any spell of third level or lower, but cast those third level or lower spells as often as they like.
Edit: for everyone trying to redirect this thread at familiars please keep in mind that a spell storing amulet of mighty fists accomplished the same goal on a familiar as umd for the purposes of channel the gift.