MrTheThird's page

MrTheThird wrote:

OilHorse wrote:

I always thought it was fairly common sense that you use the classes abilities with the features it gives you.

The class allows you to use a feature in conjunction with its spell list. Seems straight forward to figure that only the spells that are readied as that class are usable for that feature.

Spells memorized as a magus are the ones usable for spell combat and spellstrike. Spells memorized from another class do not transfer over.

Except that the wording of things like scrolls, wands and other magic items indicates otherwise. also sure this would make perfect sense if it were a reoccurring thing but then you get classes like the Spellslinger whose class abilities allow you to use spells from ANY spell casting class, so the idea of basing it off of other common similarities is a no go.

This is the thing that pisses me off about this system, the exact same wording means two different things depending on where you read it. How the hell is anyone supposed to figure that out on their own?

This kind of bad editing or bad writing or what ever is going on with them is unacceptable. They keep coming out with all this new material and they can't/wont bother to make the old material make any damn sense. Each PHB should come with a tablet like device that only goes to these forums because the only way to be able to understand half of the rules is to sit on these forums for up to an hour per rule, it's ridiculous!

I've already begun speaking with my group about abandoning all pathfinder products in favor of a better system, so far everyone is on board, pretty excited about the change actualy.

What is a spellslinger? Is it an archetype of a magus?

Pretty sure you're feigning ignorance for some reason as I know you have been a part of this community for a long time now but just in case you have some how miraculously overlooked this calss all this time HERE is the link anyway.

I always thought it was fairly common sense that you use the classes abilities with the features it gives you.

The class allows you to use a feature in conjunction with its spell list. Seems straight forward to figure that only the spells that are readied as that class are usable for that feature.

Spells memorized as a magus are the ones usable for spell combat and spellstrike. Spells memorized from another class do not transfer over.

Except that the wording of things like scrolls, wands and other magic items indicates otherwise. also sure this would make perfect sense if it were a reoccurring thing but then you get classes like the Spellslinger whose class abilities allow you to use spells from ANY spell casting class, so the idea of basing it off of other common similarities is a no go.

This kind of bad editing or bad writing or what ever is going on with them is unacceptable. They keep coming out with all this new material and they can't/wont bother to make the old material make any damn sense. Each PHB should come with a tablet like device that only goes to these forums because the only way to be able to understand half of the rules is to sit on these forums for up to an hour per rule, it's ridiculous!

I've already begun speaking with my group about abandoning all pathfinder products in favor of a better system, so far everyone is on board, pretty excited about the change actualy.

Based on the oddly rude designers input that supports the "NO" opinion and based on all the other rules in the books that support the "YES" opinion, I think the Devs need to reread the material they wrote.

In all Honesty I'm starting to hate this game and it's lack of rules clarity. I think I'm going to go with a better written system with less BS that seems to be intent on shunning those who want to create anything outside of what the Devs think you should make. I mean really all this number crunching is stupid, I'm sick of playing a tabletop video game that's full of bugs and stupid rules.

All that aside thanks for the replays this forum has been pretty helpful in the past. Good luck forum goers.

I am saying that if a spell is on both list it still has to be specifically prepared as a magus spell. You cant expend a bloodrager slot to empower spell combat. If I am misunderstanding feel free to explain again.

Well first off I wasn't intending to insult you by saying you may have misunderstood, sorry I guess. The misunderstanding you are making is that I'm talking about Spell Combat, where as I am talking about Spell Strike, these are 2 separate abilities.

Wraithstrike is wrong.

Wraithstrike is attempting to apply the answer to ONE question to a DIFFERENT question.

The question being asked in that other thread is this:

Quote:

The spell combat description says, "...cast any spell from the magus spell list..."

My question is that literally any spell for the magus spell list? Or any spell my magus has prepared that day?

That question is quite different from your question about a situation. I'll summarize your situation like this:

IN a case where you know a spell, you prepared a spell, you have the ability to cast the spell any round you choose, it's on the magus spell list, you have enough magus levels to spell strike...does the spell strike go off if the spell slots you happened to use to prepare that spell that is on the magus list are spell slots not actually provided by magus levels?

But to that other thread's original question "...literally any spell for the magus spell list? Or any spell my magus has prepared that day?

SKR provides the answer:

Quote:

"... and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action."

The above text refers to magus spells that magus has prepared with his magus class spell slots. It does NOT allow you to just pick any magus spell and cast it.

It has to be a magus spell you know.
It has to be a magus spell you have prepared.

YOUR question is more accurately summarized and answered not by SKR, who, wraithstrike believes, has negated the opportunity to spell strike with bloodrager spells that are also on the class list...

YOUR question is more accurately summarized and answered by seebs who rebuts that (mis-)interpretation of Reynolds statement by clarifying it thusly:

Quote:

Quote:

Sean K Reynolds said:

"... and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action."
The above text refers to magus spells that magus has prepared with his magus

...

Oooohh I see. I didn't actually read the beginning of the thread just from where he linked and a onward. I can also see where Wraithstrike may have confused my question, kind of why I put in an example. I figured the spell I spell strike would have to be on both spell lists to work, I'm not trying to use it with spells a Magus wouldn't normally have access to.

Hmm after reading on I see that this is actualy an ongoing issue.

Actually with the magus the spell also has to be a spell prepared with your magus slots if you want to use it with spellstrike.

Click me

ok that entry also use the vague "Spell List" term so it doesn't reall state that it has to be prepped useing the magus slots, witch is brought up a bit further down that thread.

No

Can you explain you're view on why not since I have also a yes and an explanation on why yes?

Quote:

Shocking Grasp is on both spell lists, so could I use the bloodragers shocking grasp to spell strike a foe while in bloodrage?

RAW? Yes. But it wouldn't work in the closest version of "other way round".

If you learn a spell as a magus, you may not cast it using Blood Casting ***even if that spell is on the Bloodrager spell list***.

Why? Your bolding:

Quote:

he can cast and concentrate on only his bloodrager spells (see below); spells from other classes cannot be cast during this state

"Your bloodrager spells" are the spells you learned as a blood rager.

The magus ability doesn't say anything about which class allowed you to **learn** the spell, or which class's spell casting you are employing during spell strike. The condition put on spellstrike is that the spell is on the magus class list, not that you learned it as a magus, nor that you are casting it using magus spell slots.

Ok so as long as I actualy have the spel known for the bloodrager class I can spell strike with it. Awesome, that's all I needed to know thanks a ton sir.ma'am.

Spellstrike (Su)

At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell. If successful, this melee attack deals its normal damage as well as the effects of the spell. If the magus makes this attack in concert with spell combat, this melee attack takes all the penalties accrued by spell combat melee attacks. This attack uses the weapon’s critical range (20, 19–20, or 18–20 and modified by the keen weapon property or similar effects), but the spell effect only deals ×2 damage on a successful critical hit, while the weapon damage uses its own critical modifier.

Blood Casting (Su)

At 4th level, the bloodrager gains the ability to cast spells even while bloodraging. He can also cast these spells defensively and can make concentration checks for these spells while bloodraging.While bloodraging, he can cast and concentrate on only his bloodrager spells (see below); spells from other classes cannot be cast during this state.

With those bolded parts in mind, can I spellstrike with Bloodrager spells as long as they are also on the Magus spell list?

For example, Shocking Grasp is on both spell lists, so could I use the bloodragers shocking grasp to spell strike a foe while in bloodrage?

WOw, thanks a bunch everyone.

Ok I think I have an Idea in mind, but it's going to take some finagling. I'll post what I come up with later if anyone is interested.

MrTheThird wrote:

a lot of your build I find interesting but something I noticed that I can't seem to figure out is how is a Nacreous Gray Sphere giving you a +6 to STR, DEX, and CON?

By negating the -6 Age penalties he has in the same block.

Figured it out just before you posted :D

a lot of your build I find interesting but something I noticed that I can't seem to figure out is how is a Nacreous Gray Sphere giving you a +6 to STR, DEX, and CON?

EDIT: Nevermind I see now, it's not a bonus but a way to avoid the age penalty right?

I don't really want to just leave it at just a race, I'm looking for maybe a combination of race, feats and traits or anything else I could use to better embody a creature whose heritage is that of a realm of madness and alien physics.

What I want to make is a planetouched that doesn't seem to exist in pathfinder or as far as I could find in 3.5 either. I want to make a planetouched from the Far Realm. I don't want to make a new race or anything because I want to be able to play this character in other games later on, so I gues what I'm asking is what would you use (Race, Feats) to make a Far Realm Planetouched?

Thunderbolt is a word that never made any sense to me.

OOHHH, I must have over looked the swashbuckler part, thank you sir.

I came across that little bit of info but regardless of that people still seem to be making dex builds with it and using WF, I'm just checking if it's just being house ruled or if and FAQ or Errata exists.

I've come across a few builds on here that use the saber in a dex build using weapon finesse but after reading I find that nothing states that the saber is a finessable weapon. so I guess my question is, is their an FAQ or an errata somwere that makes the sawtoothed saber a finesse weapon?

Is this a real argument?
I'm still amazed that people still try this kind of stuff in non-competitive games.

Anyone have anything to chime in with?

The wording in this ability kind of confuses me.
Can I make a full attack then use a swift action to activate Slow Time then use the the extra standard actions in one turn.

Pleases explain the reasoning behind your answer.

It seem s pretty clear that INA improves your Natural attack damage and that FCT REPLACES your Natural attack damage with your monk unarmed damage. I think the part that says you may use you monk unarmed damage in place of your natural attack damage says no, you either use your improved natural attack damage or you replace it with your unarmed strike damage.

Also based on your responses, it doesn't sound like your looking for an answer of weather or not you can do this, it sounds more like you just want someone to agree with you.

This is stupid. Using the "But it's ok for a person to conjure a ball of fire" reasoning is invalid on a topic such as this. The world these games take place in have clearly marked boundaries stating what is and is not magical and assumes that everything not magical (with the exception of extraordinary abilities) follows the basic rules of the real world, stating that a Halfling with no access to magic of any kind can Grapple and inflict all the penalties that come with a Grapple onto say a Great Wyrm Red Dragon is simply ridiculous and even more so to say he can Pin the Dragon. There is no argument that could ever make me allow this type of thing to happen in my games and I think it's absolutely rediculous that this is even in the rules.

Hemomancer: Can take control of an enemy as though they were a puppet(will save = 1/2 HD + Charisma). However this puts a large amount of stress on the user without their notice, and after using this ability the controller collapses from exhaustion and is stunned for 1D4 rounds.

How's that look?

A lot of the abilities drawback so far look like they could kill the user. They look pretty deadly.

Deadly is the idea. I want the powers to be, when used kind of a win button but I don't want the players using them constantly. They can only use the abilities a limited number of times per day and only for a limited number of rounds each use.

For the blood ability I'm looking for it to have more of a physical aspect to it.

Man I'm feelin the love tonight. does no one have anything to add?

One more thing. I didn't make these powers myself I let the players come up with them, I just help balance them a bit.

So I'm going to be GMing a game on Wednesday, the plot will revolve around all the players having these really op special powers with severe drawbacks that will gradually get stronger as they advance in the story. The powers so far are:

Temporary Invulnerability: Cannot be damaged by any means. Drawback: After deactivating the Power the user receives 1/4th of the damage every min.

Clone: Can create a Clone of himself that has all the same stats and gear and can be summoned anywhere within range. Drawback: Any negative effect the Clone is suffering from (including damage of any kind) when dismissed the user then becomes effected by.

Soul Summoning: Any time something is killed within range of the user he can take a portion of the targets soul, this allows him to summon the creature to attempt any single attack the creature was capable of in life. Drawback: The souls retain a portion of there consciousness and can interfere with the users day to day tasks. When summoned the user must make a will save to control the creature or be attacked by the creature.

Pyrokinesis: The user can create and manipulate fire in any way she chooses. Drawback: Takes Damage every time she deals damage.

Ok so that's all the powers, their are some other details here and there that I don't think needed to be typed out (I'll get more detailed if needed). What I need now is one more Power that revolves around blood and a draw back of some kind.

After typing all this up I realized that all the powers drawbacks are very similar so I'll take any ideas for more varied drawbacks too.

MrTheThird wrote:

Well the increased cell growth isn't gonna make you wolverine or anything, if anything it'll increase healing by a couple days at best.

It also helps relieve stress.

Yeah, but why worry about physics now? Catfolk cleric uses Channel Energy to heal ... PUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. :D

LOL

Well the increased cell growth isn't gonna make you wolverine or anything, if anything it'll increase healing by a couple days at best.
It also helps relieve stress.

Well, if we're going off of cats for an example, I'd imagine it would be something that happens when the catfolk is relaxing or receiving a positive stimulus; massages, back/foot rubs (pawrubs?), that sort of thing. A primal instinct that the catfolk has trouble suppressing when their guard is down, perhaps.

But as others have said, its really your choice as the PC. How over the top do you want to go? It really depends what you're comfortable with.

Actually it wouldn't just be from positive stimuli. When a cat is hurt or injured they have a tendency to purr as well, many tests have shown that a cats purr stimulates cells causing them to heal faster, this effect has even been proven to increase cell growth in other animals and even humans near the cat while it purrs.

This question was a bad idea and was interpreted as expected, I'm sorry and you may now return to your regularly scheduled program.

MrTheThird wrote:

TheSideKick wrote:

tetori, dimensional agility, abundant step (qinggong) and a colossal red dragon...

so we get surprise attacked by a colossal red dragon. my tetori saves against both frightful presence and the breath weapon as it strafes by us.
i abundant step over him and trustrike grapple his ass as he plummets to the ground, the barbarian and fighter run over and start beating the s!$! out of him while my tetori snapping turtle clutches the dragon into a pin maneuver.

the dragon didnt stand a chance.

needless to say the GM was so pissed he got up from the table and started watching TV. when he cooled down i asked him what was wrong he said " YOU GUYS ARE ONLY LEVEL 15 YOU SHOULDNT HAVE WON THAT FIGHT!! you screwed up all my plans". he is a gm who doesnt like fudging things and we killed the red dragon who was supposed to be the main antagonist, after our first encounter lol.

How is any of that even possible?

Pretty simple really... dimensional assault line of feats lets you attack after using dim door and the like. Teleport next to the dragon or on top using abundant step. Use an ioun stone for truestrike and grapple the dragon.

Once you have a flier grappled, they either need to escape or pass a fly check to stay up. Dragon attacks the tetori, misses an attack, this allows the tetori to make a grapple check with snapping turtle style/snapping turtle clutch as an immediate action. He uses that check to pin The dragon both interrupting the dragons full attack and preventing it from flying. Dragon has no choice but to fall to the ground into the waiting arms of melee buddies.

But how is you tiny little medium sized self preventing the colossal sized dragons wings from working and how are you able to pin it for that matter? Is this rules cheese, are you enlarged or is something else happening here that I'm missing?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I would truly like to know.

tetori, dimensional agility, abundant step (qinggong) and a colossal red dragon...

so we get surprise attacked by a colossal red dragon. my tetori saves against both frightful presence and the breath weapon as it strafes by us.
i abundant step over him and trustrike grapple his ass as he plummets to the ground, the barbarian and fighter run over and start beating the s!$! out of him while my tetori snapping turtle clutches the dragon into a pin maneuver.

the dragon didnt stand a chance.

needless to say the GM was so pissed he got up from the table and started watching TV. when he cooled down i asked him what was wrong he said " YOU GUYS ARE ONLY LEVEL 15 YOU SHOULDNT HAVE WON THAT FIGHT!! you screwed up all my plans". he is a gm who doesnt like fudging things and we killed the red dragon who was supposed to be the main antagonist, after our first encounter lol.

How is any of that even possible?

I do not think the monk feature is enhancing your unarmed attack, it is just giving you one that is better than the norm. Much like a bastard sword is better than a long sword, but the bastard sword isn't an augmented long sword, it is a different weapon.

Of course, my alchemist grappler with FCT and monsterous form extracts would love it to be otherwise.

I don't think this works. The monks unarmed strike damage isn't augmented its assigned a value based on level. If the monks used any words that said the unarmed strike damage increases with level then it might apply instead it says "A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would."

The value is assigned not an increase or an augment

An Augmentation does not have to be an enhancment to be an Augmentation it just has to be a change.

By the definition of Augment, by change it in any way makes it an Augmentation. You can Augment to make it do less damage, more damage look different, smell different, light up and say hello it doesn't matter it''s all an augmentation.

DOT

MrTheThird wrote:

don't want to be wrong no matter how obviously wrong they are.

The cool thing is that I can't be wrong, as I'm saying there is no RAW that either side can show that proves which side is right.

But there is, all the proof you need has been posted already but you have chosen to ignore it as to better validate your own argument which is why arguing with you is pointless.

@Red Ramage:
There is no point in arguing with people that don't want to be wrong, no matter how much proof you show them they will refuse to except the facts because they don't want to be wrong no matter how obviously wrong they are.

Wow that's an impressive post sir and I'd say that about sums up the argument so far.

MrTheThird wrote:

this is NOT a grey area.

It is grey to me, and I'll continue to rule this way until errata or FAQ alters it.

But only because you refuse to accept the proof that has been laid in front of you.

I'm sure your an absolute pleasure to play with.

Also do you understand what RAW means exactly? Because you and the others seem to be arguing RAI not RAW

Red Ramage wrote:

proftobe wrote:

No my argument is the same one I've been making. Without a in game definition of augment or that word appearing in the monk increase in damage to unarmed strike its completely up to the GM because its a grey area. Some will some wont and IMO the pro argument isn't very strong basically breaking down into it makes it better therefore its an augment. Well it isn't called one its called an increase in damage so once again GM's call even in PFS.

From my original post:Caution. A lot of what you're trying to do is very grey area requiring a lot of DM approval. Some Dm's are all for it and others are gonna say its cheesy, but allowed and others are just gonna say NO. Even in PFS.

I am incredulous that you think this is a grey area that requires GM approval. The rules are right there in plain english. Please, explain why increased damage is not augmenting the unarmed strike. Please give an example of something you consider to be an augment to an unarmed strike, and explain how it is more applicable than monk damage increases.

You're the one missing the point. Without a FAQ its NOT plain English its not called that in the monk description. It doesn't follow the pattern of size augmentation. Its not called an augmentation therefore to some GM's(call it a class ability instead of an augment if that helps) making it GM call. Its called something else therefore without FAQ its gonna stay a grey area. The burden is gonna be on the player and a number of GM's will say no as evidenced by the above posts.

Unless stated otherwise a class ability is by definition an Augmentation.

MrTheThird wrote:

proftobe wrote:

No my argument is the same one I've been making. Without a in game definition of augment or that word appearing in the monk increase in damage to unarmed strike its completely up to the GM because its a grey area. Some will some wont and IMO the pro argument isn't very strong basically breaking down into it makes it better therefore its an augment. Well it isn't called one its called an increase in damage so once again GM's call even in PFS.

From my original post:Caution. A lot of what you're trying to do is very grey area requiring a lot of DM approval. Some Dm's are all for it and others are gonna say its cheesy, but allowed and others are just gonna say NO. Even in PFS.

Sir I hate to tell you this but if you INCREASE the die type your AUGMENTING the attack. Also there have been plenty of posts that have clearly proven pathfinders definition of the word augment.

Pal I hate to tell YOU this, but a number of people disagree with this and getting pissy doesn't change the fact that I think its a grey area. At least 2 PFS GM's have come out and stated that they wouldn't allow it at their table so once again I say GM call.

Who's being pissy and that is exactly what I don't understand, How is this a grey area and what is the reason to not allow it. So far what I've gotten is that it's a grey are because you said so ("you" not meaning you personally) and it's not allowed because you (again not you personally) don't think a claw should do the same damage as a monks unarmed strike.

How much evidence do you guys need? How much more clearly doe the word Augment need to be defined before you realize that this is NOT a grey area.

No my argument is the same one I've been making. Without a in game definition of augment or that word appearing in the monk increase in damage to unarmed strike its completely up to the GM because its a grey area. Some will some wont and IMO the pro argument isn't very strong basically breaking down into it makes it better therefore its an augment. Well it isn't called one its called an increase in damage so once again GM's call even in PFS.

From my original post:Caution. A lot of what you're trying to do is very grey area requiring a lot of DM approval. Some Dm's are all for it and others are gonna say its cheesy, but allowed and others are just gonna say NO. Even in PFS.

Sir I hate to tell you this but if you INCREASE the die type your AUGMENTING the attack. Also there have been plenty of posts that have clearly proven pathfinders definition of the word augment.

MrTheThird wrote:

I don't understand why so many of you are against this, so he wants to use claws instead of fists, as far as I can tell it's just a flavor option whats the big deal? Why would anyone want to tell someone they can't add a little flavor to their character?

I've used the feat in this way many times, both as a PC and a GM and it has never caused any balance issues.

No if that were the issue I'd agree its just a flavor thing. What he's saying is that after his unarmed attacks he gets his natural attacks and that the natural attacks use the better damage of the unarmed attack.

Since variable damage is on average unimportant does it really matter? It's not like he can flurry twice a turn. All he gets to do is add on add on one additional attack, which even if the feat didn't increase the die he would get anyway.

Also your response make you sound as if the only reason you disagree with the others is because of a couple points of damage. If your going to argue about RAW you should try to be a bit less bias.

I don't understand why so many of you are against this, so he wants to use claws instead of fists, as far as I can tell it's just a flavor option whats the big deal? Why would anyone want to tell someone they can't add a little flavor to their character?
I've used the feat in this way many times, both as a PC and a GM and it has never caused any balance issues.

Yes, yes you can. You do not have to be an inquisitor. Do I count as my own ally?

I completely forgot about that FAQ

People in this thread don't seem to like it when others play the gunslinger.

Ok the thanks guys I think I know what I'll be doing now.

Ok so basically to do this I would need an ally or to be an Inquisitor?