Manufactorum's page

Thanks for the responses. The GM seems fine with it, so it's a matter of flavor at this point. I do think I will go with master summoner though, it just seems more flexible. If you want heavy hitters, they're on the list. If you need utility, that's there too.

Also, Secane is correct about master summoner's Summon Monster ability.

So my nifty wizard/gunslinger was murdered by a finger of death. Many tears were shed, then I decided to reroll a summoner.

I built a pretty mean Eidolon concept for a vanilla summoner, serpentine form with huge, constrict, and final embrace master feat tree. Ended up with something like 12d6 on a constrict after feats and evolutions.

But...

Master Summoner seems pretty shiny too. Multiple fiendish Tyrannosaurs? Yes please!

However, there is a problem. We're playing the last module of 'Second Darkness'. Seems like every map in this campaign has been tiny and cramped indoor or cave environments, and I have no reason to think that would change now. I honestly think I will have a difficult time using the summons from either concept.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Hey James, no smart questions right now, I just want to thank you for attending to this thread for the past year; it's helped many of us in our games!

Anyone?

I am currently creating a summoner eidolon with the burrow evolution and the huge evolution. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) we are in an underground setting, which creates some cramped environments.

My question is this.

Is it possible, RAW, for a large or larger creature with burrow to stick out of a cavern wall, with the bulk of its body in the wall? Think of a worm sticking its head out of the ground, with most of its body still underground. Something like that.

What do you guys think? If it is permitted RAW, do you think there would be any kind of penalties? Squeezed perhaps? I really don't know.

This was easily one of my favorite games of the year. I'd rank it slightly below Deus Ex, only because there does not seem to be much replayability in the campaign. But what a campaign it was... finally we have a 40k shooter that delivers (Unlike Fire Warrior for the Ps2, lol). I liked it so much I even made an alias.

Unfortunately it looks like it did not sell well. The game recieved great reviews but had the unfortunate timing of coming out at around the same time as several other major titles (Dead Island, Deus Ex, and importantly, Gears of War 3).

Bonded object: Pistol

Here's a list I made when I was building my spellslinger concept (which I discarded, wasn't the kind of character I wanted to play): all of the cone/line/ray/touch attack spells below level 7 you can use through your gun. Some of them are terrible or make no sense, but the point is you CAN use them through your gun.

I only went up to level 6 spells because the character I was making was not going to reach a level that high for a very long time irl.

Spells with (reach) mean you have to boost them to ranged touch attacks with the reach metamagic feat. I may have missed a few, but there you go. It was how short this list was that made me drop the concept, personally, and just play as an 'eldritch knight archer' type that used guns instead of bows.

Wizards are excellent, and shouldn't be hated by anyone. However, you'll commonly see some board-hate along the following lines:

B) Some feel that memorization-based casting sucks, and want it removed, and the Wizard class gets caught in the crossfire

Mage: the Awakening by White Wolf handles this very well, I'd say.

There ya go. You got those right. What is baffling is the CONTINUED assumption that I'm calling anyone evil or a bad GM for doing this stuff. You just wouldn't be MY GM.

If you ignore dice rolls, WHY USE DICE?!

Well put. I like this guy :P

Manufactorum wrote:

Somehow, I think that the people who make money off this (Paizo, Wizards, White Wolf, etc) might have a better idea how to balance stats and create an engaging and believable adventure rather than the guy who just talked about spamming 30 kobolds that use nothing but magic missile at his players because they dared to buff themselves to a higher AC. Immersion much? Got a backstory to back that encounter up, that isn't written like a bad fan fiction?

Sorry, but at least when I run a game, I use rules as written. Not GM says. And I try to make it believable.

/Off Topic Tangent

Well speaking as a DM and a kobold expert (player of one for 4+ years and actually running a kobold campaign for the last year and a half) kobolds have the highest rate of birth for sorcerers among any of the humanoid races.

Taking into account your average clan (they could also belong to a tribe which is at least 10 clans banded together) which contains somewhere between 100 to 1000 kobolds, if you average that you get somewhere around 500 odd kobolds. Around half the kobolds in a given clan are battle trained which would be around 250.

With the kobold's proponent for magic in their blood, it wouldn't be out of the question really for there to be 30 kobolds with some knack for sorcery. The chance of 30 having magic missile is pretty low, but that many with magical talent wouldn't be out of the question for certain.

Most of this information can be found in the "Slayer's Guide to Kobolds" and the "Races of Dragon" books.

/End Off Topic Tangent

Thats a very good argument, and in that specific scenario where you just happen to be in the midst of the kobolds I can agree that it's possible. The way it was presented was however, not conducive to belief.

See, I was imagining 30 kobold sorcerers appearing as some kind of random encounter, designed specifically to punish your *buffed* big dumb fighter.

Manufactorum wrote:

Sorry, but at least when I run a game, I use rules as written. Not GM says. And I try to make it believable.

How does a golem react to an illusionary wall cast by a wizard it is chasing?

There's one of three ways that could play out, in my opinion.

A) Golem stops completely. Being incapable of 'complex strategy or tactics', it might not have the capacity to attempt to smash through the illusory wall. Now the wizard can make his escape, or summon monsters to fight the Golem for him.

B) Golem tries to smash through wall, gets a will save. Either it succeds passes through the illusion, or it facewalls against the illusion. In Pathfinder, magic immunity only applies to spells or abilities that provide spell resistance. Silent image does not allow spell resistance (not sure how to word that).

C) Golem creator is present, dispels the illusion and/or orders the golem to go through the illusion.

Edit: I'd go with option B, personally.

Somehow, I think that the people who make money off this (Paizo, Wizards, White Wolf, etc) might have a better idea how to balance stats and create an engaging and believable adventure rather than the guy who just talked about spamming 30 kobolds that use nothing but magic missile at his players because they dared to buff themselves to a higher AC. Immersion much? Got a backstory to back that encounter up, that isn't written like a bad fan fiction?

Sorry, but at least when I run a game, I use rules as written. Not GM says. And I try to make it believable.

skrahen wrote:

wonder about these late night/early morning threads sometimes.

immortality or increase in lifespan is not a too good to be true ability for the game. it is a non game affecting flavor only fluff thing that you can take if you want your high level caster to have found the secret to everlasting youth without having to become a lich, or vampire, or reincarnate via limited wish or whatever. it has no affect on the game. really how many of your characters have ever died of old age? they just gave it a name. Immortality. sheesh.

from a players point of view, perhaps no, but from a DM's point it ruins the game. This would mean as fast as any wizard reaches level 20 they are immortal. This would mean the world would be crowded with immortal wizards. It would mess with the game world.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the Runelords. Besides, how many NPC wizards do you know of that reach level 20? And this type of feat should be supported by RP anyways, a long long sidequest (or even main party quest).

So I guess what I should really be asking is this: How do you call out a GM who you know for a 100% fact is cheating, or making stuff up?

Manufactorum wrote:

Here's a great example of GM cheatery I just experienced. The party was fighting 6 Driders, our APL was 10, driders are CL 7, therefore this was a "Hard" encounter according to RAW. One of the characters was a gunslinger, firing within the first range increment (Touch attacks). The GM was making the gunslinger hit a 21 to hit the Driders with touch attacks, the rest of the party had to reach about 30.

Lets break that touch AC down.

** spoiler omitted **

You missed natural armor but that still doesn't work out to explain such a high AC. Wait, no you didn't, natural armor doesn't affect touch AC, although it would explain some of boost had he included on it ... But not the 30 the rest had to roll unless it got added twice.

Unless those things had some sort of spell or magic item in place, I don't see how those ACs were reached. He nearly doubled the touch AC and make it half again as much for the rest of you.

So yeah, with the caveat of not knowing his side of the story and going purely with your side, I'd agree with you.

Did anybody ask him why so high an AC?

Yep. He just says, as he always does when he blatantly boosts the stats of monsters far beyond what their EL allows, 'Thats just what their stats are' or some other nonsense.

For instance, I've seen characters with a buffed AC 34 be hit by multiple drow posion bolts in one round by a squad of EL 2 soldiers with a +8 to hit. We're talking 5 soldiers, about 4 hit every combat even though it would require them to each crit to hit. Oh, and it takes a 20 to save vs poison on these puppies instead of 15; so fail one save that shouldn't have been that hard to begin with and you're out of the combat. (unconscious if you fail). Yeah, I looked at the module when I became convinced he was b!&#!!#*ting stats, sue me.

Here's a great example of GM cheatery I just experienced. The party was fighting 6 Driders, our APL was 10, driders are CL 7, therefore this was a "Hard" encounter according to RAW. One of the characters was a gunslinger, firing within the first range increment (Touch attacks). The GM was making the gunslinger hit a 21 to hit the Driders with touch attacks, the rest of the party had to reach about 30.

Lets break that touch AC down.

Voidworm proteans, brownies, nuglub gremlins, cassian angels, homonculus, all seem like valid options to me too. Voidworms and cassians can shapeshift into a form with hands, and arbiters have weapon finesse for their shortsword so I'd argue they can UMD too.

I also have a problem with mage bullets. Here's the list of what you can put on the gun.

Distance is nice, but you should have that enhancement built onto your gun as well as reliable (not listed of course). Ghost touch is situational but you'll be glad you can do it at will when you need it. Merciful and seeking are also situational. Spending an action to give your gun wounding is a waste of time, I think.

That leaves us with Flaming and Flaming Burst, Frost and Icy Burst, Shock and Shocking burst, and Thundering to boost damage. Thats great, really. But where's Holy, Axiomatic, Anarchic, Unholy (all +2 bonus) and Corrosive/Corrosive Burst?

Bane might be a little too good for this though, it would obsolete every other enhancement.

I'm still going to give this archetype a shot (no pun intended) as part of a Gunslinger/Wizard/Eldritch Knight build. We'll see what happens.

I don't think anyone is arguing that cheezing items to have multiple built in discounts 'just because' should be allowed. As someone else said, it would have to make sense.

My question regarding discounts was HOW they were applied exactly when you are doing class AND alignment restricted. Subtract 30% of the base price twice (in essence 60% off)? Or subtract 30% from base price, then subtract 30% from the discounted price (this method gives a smaller discount)?

The RAW really needs more than just one sentence in this case.

As a DM, I roll in the open. The players deserve to know whether success is their own or the result of DM fudgery. To fudge a roll takes that feeling of deserved success away from them. If they're having trouble and you need to fudge something, fudge the HP of the guy they're attacking or some other "can't be seen" quantity (maybe the floor the bad guy stepped onto wasn't as sturdy as it looked...)

The key is to avoid letting the players know you're interfering.

However, that isn't to say that I won't rig things that happen off-screen or when they're otherwise not directly against the PC. That I do all the time in the interest of brevity. The only time fudging/rigging is not acceptable is when the PCs are currently influencing that situation in some way.

I wish my GM respected players like you do.

It's more simple than that. Spell penetration is a feat. AFAIK the only items that grant feats are Ioun stones, and they are slotless so double cost. Half the price of a dark blue rhomboid ioun stone is 5000 gp, times 1.5 for extra ability so 7500 to add spell penetration to an item.

This is the formula that I use as DM to add any feat to any item. And I do allow my crafters to take one discount (the best one) on an item, as they will take that hit on sale if they decide to sell it down the road. Any found items with class or level restrictions also take the sale penalty, so it balances out.

Edited for clarity

I think this makes the most sense too. Nicely done.

Bump

HATE!!!!

You give up too much, in fact, you give up ALL of your class features but your wizard feats AND THEN SOME! Not only do you now have two more opposed schools than normal to deal with, you risk your very expensive gun exploding in your face and killing you and your allies. Even if you all survive, you just lost practically all of your class abilities until it can be replaced (and it's generally a rare hard to find item to boot)!

What do you get in return? The only thing really worth mentioning is the DC increase to your spells.

Oh, wait. That only works with cones, rays, and ranged touch attacks.

That pretty much just leaves disintegrate and perhaps scorching ray as semi-reliable options.

I think I will stick to my flesh to stone. It doesn't require a save AND an attack roll. I also get to keep all my worthwhile class features.

Gunslinger just leaves a lot to be desired.

You can also cast melee touch attack spells as ranged touch attack spells through the application of the 'reach' feat, but there are only a few spells worth casting in this manner (calcific touch as a ranged touch attack looked nice).

I think if you want to play a 'gunwizard' just dip into gunslinger one level, and take your gun as a bonded item. Much better than giving up your specialization school for a max of +5s on saves for a very small group of spells.

Out of the very few spells that can benefit from the +dc, the ones that stood out to me are:

You can always offset the penalty of having 4 opposition schools by spending feats on "Arcane Discovery: Opposition Research" once you reach 9th level. However, I'm not sure that the bonus to the save DC/attack rolls is enough to justify giving up familiar/bonded items and specialization school slots and abilities.

I've been trying to figure out how much this magic item trait is worth. It's not listed and the only item I can find in the RAW that offers a bonus to overcome SR is the robe of the archmagi- and that has so many bonuses and discounts in one item it has bested my efforts to try and deduce the formula that went into coming up with its price.

The problem is that the robe of the archmagi stacks multiple bonuses onto one body slot, which in RAW states that

The wording on this is incredibly vague especially when you take into consideration items like Robe of the Archmagi that stack multiple different abilities onto the same item. Which powers receive the extra 50% cost? Which one is considered the 'first' power (the one that does not receive a cost increase)

The second problem is the cost reduction for alignment and class restriction. I'm assuming that the Robe of the Archmagi also has the two -30% in cost as stated here (Since its Wizard Only, Alignment Restricted)

Is the 30% discount subtracted from the original base price twice if there are both class AND alignment restrictions?

To top it all off, the RAW then basically allows for the hand waving of prices, saying

I hope you can see why uncertainty begins to mount (at least in my mind) when you start stacking multiple abilities and discounts onto one item.

If I was GMing, I'd come up with my own formula for this to tell the truth, but I'm not. My GM actually looks to me for clarification on these rules, since he allows characters with the requisite feats to create their own custom magic items based off the RAW. So I'd like to have a clear understanding of how the discounting and price increases are applied, at the very least.

The whole point of this was to deduce the price of SR as a magic item trait anyways, and failed utterly, so I turn to you, community.

Spoiler: It was possible to deduce a formula for "+X caster level" using some math and precedence set forth by other bonuses.