Mako Senako's page

Does remember a book that was all about this, it had races that were of mixed ancestry including the first iteration of the mongrelfolk, (people who had more than 2 ancestries), it had various half races and mixed races, and a ton of feats built around these ideas, it was super powerful but I cant remember the name, it may have been a 3rd party book.

nevermind I found it, it was a Dreamscarred Press book called "Blood Forged"

So yeah, I can't login to my account on chrome, had to use Edge to post this. Anyone know how to resolve this?

I'm gathering opinions on which is the preferred undead transformation for players to pick, or for DM's to run? From whatever vantage points you wish to choose.

I knew something was wrong with this.

I'm playing Wrath of the Righteous, and it seems a Sage Sorcerer can still enter Dragon Disciple and gain all the benefits of being a sorcerer of the combined level, bonus spells, Arcane bloodline ability, grow claws and so on. Is this correct?

I see

If a Succubus use a Supernatural or Spell-like ability that emulates "Daze", does it exceed the limitations of the spell? ie can it effect more than 4 HD creatures?

I was of the opinion that that they still function like the spell and thus in the example above, the succubus would fail if she used it on any creature with 5 or more HD.

thank you guys for all your tips and suggestions, i have a lot of think about now.

I really have no clue, i know its a video game and she seems to be able to do a lot of different things but is likely not a master in any one particular thing. so probably a magus?

For a moment I had a glimmer of hope for Extra Hex.
The Chuspiki improved familiar sounds interesting.

Pounce wrote:

I know that's what it says, but the text underneath it doesn't impose any restrictions, rather it says

Quote:

This ability alters the witch’s familiar and replaces the witch’s 1st-level hex.

Where do you then draw the line? The text doesn't really seem to match the crunch.

And winter witch says

Quote:

A winter witch must choose her patron from one of the following patron themes: ancestors, deception, enchantment, endurance, moon, occult, portents, stars, transformation, trickery, water, winter, or wisdom.

Without saying it alters patron. I guess we could select a unique patron for winter witch then as it doesn't do anything to the patron class feature. /s

Sarcasm aside, the ability tells you that you don't select a normal patron, instead you select an element as your patron. It does not need to say it affects the patron class feature, it tells you what patrons you can select.

Um, for clarification, you do have to pick a patron, but you don't get the bonus spells correct? I was reading you guys conversation and i got a little confused.

Also since the archetype says you gain the kineticist "Elemental Focus" that means the Havocker gains the basic wild talent associated with her chosen element, as well as the bonus class skills correct?

I had not known of this archetype..

and now I find myself rather curious!

Also wonder what if any other archetypes work with it..

This could be quite fun honestly.

According to Path Builder Witch Watcher also works with this archetype.

Havocker is actually decent if you think about using energy blasts. First off, you're a witch with 9th level spellcasting- you'll already be accounting for things with energy and spell resistance, and will have the tools a pure-energy kineticist dreams they could have.

Take pyrokinesis for example. A kineticist who wishes to ONLY use fire is in a bad spot pretty much any time they come against someone with high fire resist or immunity. A havocker instead just casts one of their spells they have prepared for the day.

This is pretty much why I liked the idea. It also fits my ideal mage, a being who has the ability for destruction indefinitely, while still having access to traditional spellcasting when the situation requires more variety. Like a Dragon Age type of mage (hence my preference for spontaneous spellcasting.)

really wish something like this archetype existed for oracle, i really would have loved it if the spontaneous casting witch archetype was compatible with this archetype.

i ask because pathbuilder seems to suggest you can.

Or no?

Since im having trouble finding a on-going gaming group, and not really sure if DMing is my thing. I've decided to look into Solo adventures and playing by myself. To be honest it seems really awed, but maybe its something I could get into, but how does it work? I assume you have to be honest with yourself, but is there some outlining bigger difference that im not seeing when playing solo game?

is there a resource for people who want to play solo adventures?

this also seems like a cool trick they could have added to signature skill.

I've never seen the rules cover this but it seems super plausible considering its a real world feat. I can't help but think of the implications. Being a Bard or a Monk, or anyone with perform (sing), and just going harassing people with keen senses, or shattering wine glasses without using any actual magic or class features.

I've never seen the rules cover this but it seems super plausible considering its a real world feat. I can't help but think of the implications. Being a Bard or a Monk, or anyone with perform (sing), and just going harassing people with keen senses, or shattering wine glasses without using any actual magic or class features.

the cleric thing i forgot about, was thinking about 3.5 clerics i guess.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/outsiders/aoandon

just wanted to point out something i just saw thanks to a reddit post, that creature has weapon focus (touch), not saying its thus a valid option but that apparently the writers of the bestiarys don't follow the rules as the players seem to be beholden to.

I guess the best way of doing it would be weapon focus (unarmed strike), dazzling display. You are proficient with unarmed strikes, though unless you have improved unarmed strike you'll provoke an attack of opportunity, however you can deliver touch attack spells via unarmed strikes or natural weapons, and when armed with such spells and making a unarmed strike you don't provoke correct?

Yeah gonna have to disagree with you on that then, because "Rays" are the weapon, not just the type of attack, they are considered the weapon and if in a spell did/does exist that gives you the option to use multiple "Rays" with a duration longer than instantaneous then all criteria to use it with any feat that utilizes a weapon to perform a action are then met so long as you can take such a action at that given time. If there is a ray spell that you can keep doing after the intial casting of it for a time, then you definitely should be able to do Dazzling Display with that spell, not because spells are a weapon, but because the spell created a effect that resulted in weapon.

Weapon Focus Ray is a valid option, this isn't about whether or not spells are considered weapons the rules state that spells aren't weapons So stop using that as a argument, no one is arguing that. However the effect a spell creates if its weapon like is valid because now its no longer the matter of the spell but the effect it created being again weapon like. A spell like Force long sword, creates a long sword of force for you or someone else to wield, its a spell though and thus by what some of you are saying is thus not eligable for all the feats that are normally applicable to long swords and their use, that is wrong, its a weapon like spell and the rules specifically cover that weapon like spells can be used with feats that require you to use a weapon.

https://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9nef
^
FAQ backs up this view point.

Also again back to the melee touch it does in fact work so long as the spell in question is a weapon-like spell, example Flame Blade, you could take weapon focus Scimitar, or weapon focus (flame blade) because the effect creates a scimitar like weapon effect and the bonus will apply, therefore there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to do a dazzling display with a flame blade the bonus and benefits of weapon focus scimitar apply to the spell as well as it does the weapon, a flame blade resolves as melee touch attacks. However normal the spell doesn't grant proficiency with scimitars thankfully druids are automatically proficient with scimitars, however Shamans are not, so you would have to take weapon focus flame blade anyway if you were a shaman, (flame blade create scimitar like weapons).

Spiritual Weapon works similarly in that it creates a weapon like effect but you don't even have to be proficient with the weapon it creates and likely wont be (Clerics of Gorum aren't likely proficient with greatswords), but the weapon doesn't necessarily get wielded by the cleric or divine caster anyway, however since its a weapon like spell any feat that would apply to greatswords that the cleric has would apply to this spell assuming the spell creates a greatsword, now i can't think of why cleric would have any such feats unless the option to qualify for the feat was proficiency with "Spiritual Weapon"... (spiritual weapon isn't a touch but i thought i should show at least two examples of two types of attacks with spells that still qualify for weapon feats.)

So no you can't take weapon focus Melee Touch Attack but so long as a spell creates a weapon like effect whether it resolves as a touch attack or weapon attack the spell as the focus of the feat should be allowed.

So basically unless I can find or create a spell that resolves its attacks as a melee touch attack, has duration greater than instanteous, and creates a weapon-like effect then the answer is yes, it can be used with Dazzling Display, assuming I have weapon focus with either the weapon it resembles, or until that spell specifically.

So I have a new observation after looking at some of the post. If there were a spell that gave you multiple rays that could be used over the course of a duration longer than instantaneous, then could you on a proceeding round use dazzling display with a "Ray"?

Also in the vein of "melee touch" I assume the problem is that it's "melee touch attack" that weapon focus and thus dazzling display cannot be used with, but if you were to get Weapon Focus "Specific Melee Touch Spell" like "Elemental Touch" then you can do that so long as you have the spell cast, and thus charges left in it before the spell expires to use dazzling display with the spell?

Would you only be considered as having the prerequisite fullfilled when you have a spell charge in your hand? im working out whether or not using dazzling display would thus require two rounds to prepare?

forget about what i said, im certain i saw that faq before, but if it doesn't exist now then i wont argue over it.. i dont like the decision cause to me contextually it doesn't make sense, but im an old man, my views dont matter anymore.

So does this work?

Could I take Magical Lineage which reduces the effective spell level a chosen favorite spell when a metamagic feat has been applied to it by 1 to a minimum of +0? Then make a Wand out of said metamagicked spell?

Example: I pick Favorite Spell Inflinct Moderate Wounds as my Magical Lineage feat, (dad was lich or something), then I take the feat Reach Spell, reach spell increase a spells level by +1 if improving the spells range by 1 step, or 2 if two steps ect ect, then I apply it to my Inflinct Moderatw Wounds spells then craft a Wand, is the cost of creating this wand that of a 2nd level spell or 3rd, I presume the spells range is close for example sakes, and thus 25ft + 5ft per two levels of the wands crafter level at the time of creation?

Resurrection
Thread Resurrection!

I have a problem with this because i remember years ago, this specific issue was addressed by a designer in a FAQ/Errata, and it said the exact opposite as the witch was a special exception to the rule, because the familiar stores all her spells/teaches her magic, so going up in a prc that grants increases to your spellcasting class has to improve the familiar as well because of the reasons aforementioned. Its not the same thing as a Wizard Spellbook because a Wizard doesn't get bonus spells from a outside source like a witch, when he gains a spell caster increase he just gains however many spells he is normally allowed to add to his spellbook for going up a level. The Wizard's Spell Book=/=Witches Familiar.. One's a book that only harbors the wizards collective knowledge up until a present point, he still knows all his spells regardless or not of him having access to his spellbook he just can't prepare his spells after losing the book but he still knows all the spells he's ever learned, he just needs a new book to scribe them all into again, as well as any spells he may have added to the previous book overtime. A witch is the exact opposite, she doesnt have a book to keep her formulas and such in, her familiar a totally different medium, helps her focus and prepare the spells she wants to know that day in her mind by teaching her new spells or reminding her of previously used spells, so if the witches familiar isn't improving with caster level via prestige class there is no way the witch should be gaining access to higher level base witch spells, since again its the familiar that teaches her that, she can't teach the familiar so that it can later teach her, the student does not become the master.

Someone please tell me im not the only one who remembers this faq/errata. I get that people might not like that witches back then kept their bonus patron spells because of how it was tied to the familiar and that the familiar had to go up with prc because otherwise it'd make no sense in how they got new spells, but there is no such thing as total class balance, witches can't just add new spells to their familiar like a wizard can to their spellbook even though they are a prepared spellcaster like a wizard, them getting potentially 9 bonus spells even if they prestige class out of witch is nothing compared to the wizards ability to add potentially any number of spells to his spellbook(s).

thanks

Reminds me of The Death Gate Cycle's answer to why everybody of moderate means doesn't just use resurrection or reincarnation magic all over the place.

I dont suppose you'd be willing to share what it says, you can send it as a private message if you don't want to spoil it for anyone else.

Well here's the next question then,

If the force bullets do count as force and magic and thus hit incorporeal creatures 100% of the time, does the spell attached also hit or does it still have to role a miss chance?

You can improve your arcane ammunition with more powerful magic.

Prerequisite(s): Int 15, Arcane Strike, Spell Cartridges, ability to cast 4th-level arcane spells, proficient with firearms.

Benefit(s): While your gun is imbued with power from the Arcane Strike feat, you can spend a standard action to cast a spell of 3rd level or lower and deliver it via a force bullet. The spell must have a range of touch or produce a ray; if the spell would produce multiple rays, the bullet delivers the effect of only one ray. If the force bullet strikes a target, it deals its force damage and also delivers the effects of the spell. If the force bullet critically hits a target, the spell deals double damage.

the feat allows you to imbue touch spells into your firearm and deliver them via ranged attack, it covers what happens with rays that fire multiple rays, but it doesn't cover what happens with touch spells that grant multiple charges like chill touch, or frostbite or elemental touch. Does each subsequent attack with the firearm grant a delivery of the spell in question or is it just one casting one charge when delivered via gun?

So I guess my 2nd question is, does the standard action permit you to fire the weapon after the casting/imbuing occurs? Like when you cast a touch spell you are usually allowed a free touch attack on the same turn, or if you cast a ranged touch spell you usually fire the spell at the sametime, do either of those matter here with this particular situation? or is it cast then wait until next round to fire the gun/spell?

Do you fire in the same manner or is it altered?

Is the damage the same damage for all creatures effected by the cone spread? ie 4d4 at 20th level?

does the feat just not work for any gun that only fires in a cone?

The blunderbuss has two options do I get to pick which type attack?

Spell Cartridges does specifically mention bullets, and says each bullet does xd4's damage. So perhaps its only for bullet based options?

This thread is basically for thsoe of us who have either thought about how a spell or power works, and realized that within the context of real life looking in some of this stuff is hilarious.

Example and True story. Back in 3.5 when the expanded psionics handbook came out, I decided to role a Psychic Warrior, i think we were around 8th or 9th level, I had bought a nice greatsword (my personal favorite weapon), and during the course of the game a monster or something sundered my greatsword, the DM was feeling pretty smug at moment, so on my next turn I used a power that I just so happened to have called "Call Weaponary", now originally I had got in for the off chance that i needed a ranged weapon, never thinking i'd need it for the express purpose of replacing my primary weapon. So I call forth another +1 greatsword, and the DM is like, "What the hell is that?! How?" I'm like "Call Weaponary says I can do this." thats when another player named Mike, chimed in, "Some where in the multiverse a Fighter who was charging in for an attack just realized his sword is now missing." We all shared a hearty laugh over that, and finished that particular encounter within the next few rounds.

^
That's an example of what I kind of mean by the topic. Please share any similiar insights into the awkwardness of magic that is magic and powers that we've all experienced.

Aww...

hmm... Arcane Duelist then? for ease of use and simplicity i guess while still being able to enchant my firearm with weapon abilities, and increase my accuracy/damage via inspire courage? or is Arcane Duelist limited to melee weapons as well? I know some of the bonus feats are meant for melee, but it gives arcane strike for free and thats needed for spell cartridge.

at a glance it seems like this should work with either class.. but would the special weapon properties from the arcana pool be applicable to a firearm? In the case of the bladebound anything in the class prevent the class features like spellstrike not work with it? I assume ranged spellstrike would still work normally. I'm curious if using Spell Cartridge + Spellstrike has any limitations that i should know about before hand.

Also if im using spell cartridge i assume i don't actually have to reload anything since im shooting magic bullets, so since i dont have to reload, and assuming spellstrike works with the gun and confers it on to the bullets, then does that mean if i cast frostbite or some other spell that allows for multiple touch attacks, i can just keep making triggering the spell on each shot until the charges for the spell runs out, while still getting the full effect of spell cartridge?

nevermind, Google has told me my answer. :( unfortunately, the answer seems to be no.

and in relation qualify me for feats that require arcane strike, or arcane caster level?

Example: Say I want to be a Oracle, but I want to take Arcane Strike. Arcane Strike says you need to be able to cast arcane spells. Does taking a trait like Magical Talent where in which I pick a 0 level arcane spell as a spell-like ability count for this prerequisite, or does the fact that its a spell-like ability disqualify me for it?

sounds great, so would one casting of frostbite effect both unarmed strikes, one from the primary hand and one from the off hand when two weapon fighting with two cestus or if i decided to take the improved unarmed strike feat?

Thank you, can you direct me to where i can show where it says touch spells can be used in conjunction with natural attacks and unarmed strikes as rider effects?

So only spellstrike allows for a magus to make multiple touch attacks or weapon channeling spellstrikes?

Sort of. You can make exactly one touch attack per round, or you can tack the damage/effect on to unarmed strikes or natural attacks but those are made as normal attacks not touch. If you're doing the latter TWF will work.

but i thought after the inital casting a spell that grants multiple charges of a touch attack spell allowed you to use as many charges as you could normally make attacks. like chill touch.

Weird words gives one word per 4 bard levels, not one plus one per 4 bard levels over 6, so your first guess is right there.

A good touch attack spell with multiple touches - frostbite maybe - is the best way of increasing unarmed strike damage. In Paizo material there's no arcane spell which gives a serious bonus to unarmed damage itself but I'm sure there's a decent 3rd party spell somewhere.

Does that mean if I had two weapon fighting, I could make as many touch attacks as I could make regular attacks including a touch attack with the off hand?

I had an idea for a Magician Sound Strike Archetype Bard who used Perform dance as her primary performance, the whole idea is that magic and dance blend into her own unique style of martial art, her weapon of choice being a cestus, and when in melee combat range using either various kicks and punches empowered magic to be of greater effect. So yeah frostbite sounds like a good way to empower those attacks by basically just using melee slaps (melee touch attacks).

okay...

Also is Weird Word capped at 20d6 (4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th level?) or 16d6 (6th, 10th, 14th, 18th?)

Also looking for a arcane spell that empowers unarmed strike to deal greater damage akin to a monks.

determining the effects of a spell? When I see Caster Level Checks, I usually think about overcoming SR, or using Dispel Magic. However I've come to accept that gathering opinions from others helps. So yeah would this ability of the magician bard archetype make me cast say Fireball as a 9th level caster as oppose to a 7th level caster?

update, my available days Saturdays and Sundays..i work nights so weekdays are probably out unless the game is over at around 8pm pst.

Table 2-7 spells out bonus types. "Natural armor" and "armor" are both on the table as types of bonus that apply to AC. They are bonus types, full stop.

I can understand wanting multiple sources of natural armor bonus to stack, both from a "but I wanna" standpoint and from a "tough hide + tough hide = tougher hide" standpoint, but it generally doesn't work. The exceptions are (a) those abilities that explicitly say they stack and (b) those abilities that say that they increase the characters existing natural armor bonus--i.e., that explicitly modify an existing natural armor bonus rather than attempting to apply a second, separate natural armor bonus. Those situations do work. Otherwise, you get the highest single bonus and that's that.

thats not what we were really arguing though, its not so much as wanting multiple sources of natural armor to stack, but rather there is a seemingly clear intention of when a spell or ability is improving natural armor, vs just replacing it. I already know natural armor doesn't stack with itself, but there are exceptions (prestige class in point). The issue was and still is in my opinion with the +4 nat armor from the spell vs the dragon resistance from the bloodline, one is a class feature, which doesn't hinder the polymorph subschool explanation on what stays and what doesn't. Again the bloodline isn't granting you natural armor, its just improving what you already have which was my understanding of the ability, so if a spell grants you a form that has natural armor like the dragon form ability, then the improvements you got from draconic bloodline should then improve the actual natural armor the spell dragon form provides not be replaced by the dragon form ability.