Mahtobedis's page

People are aware that classes only grant weapon specialization for the weapons that a given class gives you right? You would need to spend feats or dip three levels to make longarms better.

Are alchemist fires worth it in PFS?

Swarms still exist too.

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...

There is a feat in the advanced class guide, undersized mount, that would let you ride a dire rat at encumbrance.

Get muleback chords on the rat to remove encumbrance.

Round 1: quicken I'll omen, Icey Tomb

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.

I have not read this document, but I am already in love with it.

I imagine we will also see a number of entries in the clarification document. Sooooooo much strangeness going on in the kinetecist section.

Potions of Shield do not exist

Shhhh, don't feed the troll. If we are very quiet they may go away.

This poor horse has already been beaten to death thrice, raised twice, and is currently in a state of undeath.

If you are worried about the familiar biting the dust, look at the Nycar. RAW a +3 weapon wont kill it. Only an actual cold iron weapon.

Nefreet wrote:

The wand-using-Familiar trick isn't unique to Witches, either, so it can't be used as justification for Witches being overpowered.

That's more an argument for wand-using-Familiars being too overpowered.

Or that one spell, which effectively has no save.

The difference is that a wizard has 2-3 maxed out save or die spells and then has to use the bottom shelf stuff. Witches have 1 top level save or die spell per opponent (or 2 with the right hex) Slumber hex has some severe restrictions, ice tomb does not.

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.

For example:
R1 Move into position, Evil Eye, Swift Action Cackle with Cackling Blouse
R2 Quicken Ill Omen/Familiar activates wand of Ill Omen, Icy Tomb

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)

I am inclined to agree with Jayder22. If you are benefiting in combat from the things presence, it is a combatant.

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.

I almost want to say Paladin, but I think Unchained Monk may be the easiest to play for a brand new player.

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.

Mahtobedis wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

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.

Nefreet answered you with an explanation. You can TWF with your head and an axe and still benefit from a shield. You don't need metaphorical hands to wield a shield. You do need real hands, though. Which is why you can't greatsword and shield at the same 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.

In fact, what you are saying means that having a vestigial arm is utterly useless because if you did ANYTHING with that arm, it would be considered to grant an 'extra attack' to the original hand that otherwise would have been used.

Ridiculous.

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.

Mahtobedis wrote:

I wasnt talking about bucklers, I was talking about great swords and shields. How did you miss that? I certainly didn't use the word Buckler, and you did use the word shield.

On the second point I will not elucidate because I was very obviously straw manning in annoyance.

*checks the title of the thread*

Er, ok. Since we're obviously talking about bucklers, does that change your answer?

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.

I wasnt talking about bucklers, I was talking about great swords and shields. How did you miss that? I certainly didn't use the word Buckler, and you did use the word shield.

On the second point I will not elucidate because I was very obviously straw manning in annoyance.

Mahtobedis wrote:

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.

Uh, what's the difference in 'hands' between using a one-handed weapon two handed vs. using a greatsword two handed? They both require two hands. Please explain yourself.

And while you're at it, can you link to the 'more recent official posts and FAQs' that contradict that post.

Thank you.

Have you not read the FAQ for Ultimate Magic? This was published in 2013.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rc5

Alchemist, Tentacle/Vestigial Arm: What does "extra attacks" mean for these discoveries?

It means "extra," as in "more than you would be able to make if you didn't have that discovery."

For example, if you're low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting, you can normally make two attacks per round (one with each weapon). If you take the tentacle discovery, on your turn you can make
* two weapon attacks but no tentacle attack,
* a weapon attack with your left hand plus a secondary tentacle attack, or
* a weapon attack with your right hand plus a secondary tentacle attack.
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a tentacle attack on the same turn because the tentacle discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round." This language is calling out that the tentacle is not a standard natural weapon and doesn't follow the standard rules for using natural weapons (which would normally allow you to make the natural weapon attack in addition to your other attacks).

Likewise, if you instead took the vestigial arm discovery and put a weapon in that arm's hand, on your turn you can make
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your right hand,
* a weapon attack with your right hand and one with your vestigial arm, or
* a weapon attack with your left hand and one with your vestigial arm,
At no time can you make a left hand weapon attack, a right hand weapon attack, and a vestigial hand weapon attack on the same turn because the vestigial arm discovery says it "does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round."
The exact same restrictions would apply if your race had claws or you had some other ability to add claws to your limbs: the text of both discoveries says they do not give you any extra attacks per round, whether used as natural weapons, wielding manufactured weapons, or adding natural weapons to a limb that didn't originally have natural weapons.

Remember that these two discoveries do not have any level requirements, and therefore are not especially powerful; permanently adding additional attacks per round is beyond the scope of a discovery available to 2nd-level alchemists.

Emphasis mine.

Mahtobedis wrote:

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.

Incorrect: link

Quote:

Sean K Reynolds

Quote:

Jadeite wrote:

But it would be legal to attack with a two-handed weapon, with a one handed weapon and use a shield, right? I ask because I have an alchemist in my kingmaker group who does that.

If you mean "use two hands on one weapon, and use the other arm for a shield," then yes. Though I wasn't really intending for people to do that, either. :p

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.

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
Fact: The off hand is not the hand that is not holding a weapon in pathfinder, but rather the description of space on your character for an item.
Fact: Bucklers are not held in a hand.
Fact: Shields are weilded in your "off hand" (assuming the main hand is occupied)
Fact: Carry is not defined in the rule book.
Supposition: In order to wield an item it must be carried in the place it is being weilded.
Fact: Paizo's FAQs only address what they say they are, so the Slashing Grace faq has no bearing on this issue.

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)
Stats
STR 20
DEX 12
CON 12
INT 14
WIS 14 (16 for purposes of casting spells from divine scrolls)
CHR 08

Defenses
HP 74 (I am very brave and did not put FC bonus into HP)
AC 26 (+3 Obsidian Stoneplate [because it's cool],+1 Dex, +1 Amulet of NA, +2 Ring of Protection)
Fort +11 (+3 Cloak of Resistance)
Ref +7
Will +8 (A little lower than I like, I was going to get the cracked ioun stone that boosts saves by one, and with resolve and a clear spindle resonance I end up being ok)
BAB +10
CMB +15
CMD +26

Attacks
+3 Naginata 20/15 1d8+12 19-20x4 (Power Attack and Challange boosts this to 17/12 1d8+31 19-20/x4) a very painful crit
Natural Weapons Bite Claw Claw 12 1d3+5 (less if I bite as part of a full attack, more for if I am disarmed)

Feats
1) Weapon Focus Naginata
3) Power Attack
Bonus) Quick Draw Naginata
5)Dazzling Display
Bonus) Weapon Specialization Naginata (It is too a good feat)
7) Shatter Defenses
9) Improved Critical

Abilities (I miss a few racials here, but you should get the idea)
Low Light Vision
Gifted Linguist (So good for intimidators)
Claws and Bite (1d3)
Order of the Tome
Challenge (4) +2 on Saves, Bluff and sense motive against target
Mount (Axe Beak)
Resolve (6)
Specialize Knowledge (Religion)
Mounted Archer (meh)
Banner +2
Powerful Knowledge (This lets me cast Divine Scrolls as if the spell were on my spell list. It gets a little weird with all PFS scrolls being arcane and divine, but I have avoided the issue by limiting my scroll usage to scrolls that are divine outside of PFS. I also use linguistics instead of spell craft for checks related to scrolls, nor do I need read magic)
Greater Resolve (aww yeah)
Trait: Dangerously Curious
Trait: History of Heresy (Grandmother Crow is a great bird who wants to take care of all her fledglings, but she isn't very happy with me. I'm not sure why. I know other people think other things about her, but they are wrong. It's in her name, Grandmother CROW)

Skills (For space I will only list ones I have ranks in)
Handle Animal 15
Intimidate 15
Religion 16 (21 for purposes of any check that involves writing)
Linguistics 26 (Aww yeah Tengu + Order of the Tome)
Perception 14
Ride 10
UMD 16

Gear
+3 Obsidian Stone Plate
+3 Cloak of Resistance
+1 Amulet of Natural Armor
+2 Ring of Protection
+3 Naginata
Cracked Pale Green Prism Attack
Belt of Bears Str +2
Travelers Anytool
Sleeves of Many Garments
Oil of Daylight (sadly scrolls of daylight do not work)
Potion of Cure Serious 2 (for when I drop)
Potion of Fly
Circlet of Persuasion
Wayfinder
Clear Spindle Ioun Stone
Scroll of Airwalk
Scroll of Suppress Charms and Compulsions 5x
Scroll of Breath of Life
Wand Magic Missle CL5 (from a The Infernal Vault)
Spring Loaded Wrist Sheath x2(for those scrolls/wands if your GM is not cool)
Potion of Touch of the Sea
Sea Sponge (Has saved my life)
Wand of Cure Light Wounds
Wand of Glitterdust 10 charges (Got it off a Chronicle)
Wand of Keep Watch (Surprisingly useful)
Potion of Mage Armor (Shadows are real. Grandmother Crow told me this in my dreams)
Scroll Carry Companion x2 (For when the Axe Beak is not allowed)
Scroll Reduce Animal x2 (It has come up)
Scroll Daylight (Sometimes you are not in the darkness)
Scroll Remove Charm
Scroll Cure Critical Wounds x2
Scroll Bless Weapon x2
Scroll Endure Elements x2
Scroll Protection. From Evil x15
Scroll Lesser Restoration x5
Scroll Unbreakable Heart x15 (Yes I know it only lasts a round but sometimes that is all it takes to keep the gunslinger from killing someone)
Scroll Crusader's Edge
Scroll Cure Moderate Wounds x5
Scroll Remove Fear x2 (On an Axebeak I"m actually fast enough to catch them running away)
Scroll Remove Sickness x2
Scroll Remove Paralysis x5
Scroll Silence
Scroll Cure Serious Wounds x4
Scroll Remove Curse x2

Animal Companion Chi Chi the 4th Axe Beak (My Dayjob is an Axe Beak breeder. I bought the Vanity to use Handle Animal)

Stats
STR 22
DEX 18
CON 16
INT 3
WIS 11
CHA 10

Defenses
HP 67
AC 28
Fort 9
Ref 9
Will 2
Speed 50
CMB 13
CMD 27

Attacks
Bite +12 1d8+9

Tricks
Attack, Attack, Heel, Flank, Guard, Stay, Fetch, Come, Defend

Feats
Improved Unarmed Strike (Debateable I know, but I and every GM I have run with rule this is ok)
Narrow Frame
Dragon Style (Aww yeah)
Combat Reflexes
Stand Still (You will not run away from me)

Abilities
Low Light Vision
Sudden Charge
Link
Mounted Challagne
Barding Training
Indefatigable

Skills
Linguistics 1 (Tengu)
Acrobatics 8
Survival 12

Equipment
Breastplate Barding

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

16
16
12
10
12
10

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

16
12
12
14
14
8

Given the recent FAQ on what counts as a weapon, and what weapon like means, I think it is save to say the answer to 1) is no.

Diego Rossi wrote:

Rysky wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Anything is debatable, that does not mean there is no clear cut answer just because someone chooses to debate it. In this case DR has given factual statements.

Again, not really. The spells say "good outsider" and "devil's blood".

They don't say Good Subtype or Devil Subtype, or name a specific creature of that type.

Devil descended Tieflings have devil blood in them. Aasimar's have celestial blood in them.

Beside the little fact that devil and good celestial have a specific meaning in the game rules, and that isn't "creatures with an ancestor of that kind", at least check your sources when you cite something.

Pitborns have Demon ancestors.
You want the Hellspawn, those have devil ancestors.

Huh, coulda sworn that Pitborn were the Devil Descended (Hell=Pit)

*shrugs*

Even if you go off that you need a full on Devil and not something with Devil's blood in it there's still Celestial Healing which requires "good outsider" blood, not a celestial. Would a Couatl not work?

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.

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.

Rogar Valertis wrote:

Get your facts straight please: we are not hired mercenaries.

We are murderhobos.
There's a huge difference there.

:P

Not all of us play Andoran characters.

The rest of us are MARAUDING murderhobos.

Get it right.

So what happens if you Channel the Gift and the Wizard uses their arcane bond?

There is a lot of table variation on that point. I have generally seen more tables allow it than not.

I think the general consensus I have seen is that some familiars can use UMD to activate wands. UMD can activate scrolls. If you can use UMD to activate wands then it should work for scrolls too.

2PP one 750gp purchase

Level 3 scroll with two uses 750gp.

Mahtobedis wrote:

1125 gold ... Barkskin +4

1125 gold ... protection from energy?
900 gold 4 elements via Communal Resist Energy?
intensified empowered Shocking Grasp every turn as a magus
staggerlock a boss with Frigid Touch for an entire combat
I can keep going for a very very long time.

Cost is too high.

Cost is too high.
Cost is too high and there is table variance on whether or not you can have 4 active resist energy effects without some of them being deactivated for "same spell different effect" stacking rules.
Pretty much is done already, or close enough that you expect a magus to be able to do similar and if not, they are poorly built.
Requires a to hit, have at it.

I can keep going on for a long time saying it isn't that much of a big deal.

There are literally hundreds of builds that can 1 shot every encounter in a day with little to no resource expended. You going to block all of them with bans?

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".

andreww wrote:

Paul Jackson wrote:

andreww wrote:

If you want the full benefit then you need to take the risk. Mostly it is fine, occasionally a riddywhipple gets chain lightnined to death by a Marut.

Or a poor innocent non wand using fox gets viciously slain by a naaaaassssstttyyy GM :-) :-).

He was out in front when the ambush happened, totally not my fault.

For those who possibly think I'm being serious in my whinging, I should point out that Andrew was being nice and killed my familiar instead of a PC.

If it were a witch I'd rather have the PC die.

Serisan wrote:

it's certainly better than any other 3rd level wand in the game and on par with pre-errata Paragon Surge for versatility.

Then we shall have to disagree. I believe every time you spend 225 gp to recharge a spell slot you make you mortgage your future power for gain today. It something to be avoided.

Wand of "Your Spellbook" is better as: Mnemonic Vestiment

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.

From a balance perspective I think this would accomplish what needs to be done. But it increases the complexity of the system, which is why I did not suggest it.

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.

Exactly!

Even for a Magus this would be useful since it frees up casting resources for more powerful spells.

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.

Another thing I had not considered is the impact this spell has on the 1-4 casters.

Spamable Litany of Righteousness will cripple many scenarios.