The creation time is identical to the equivalent potion created via brew potion, which does not have a cost of 0.
So even though the concoction costs the druid 0, its creation time still depends on what the potion would have costed. So 2 hours for a potion of 250gp or less,or 8 hours for up to 1000gp.
It still is a ridiculously powerful ability, allowing you to generate up to 1000gp worth of potions for free each day, selling them for half that for pure profit. With any kind of downtime it just completely breaks WBL.
This becomes irrelevant at level 7, when you can craft them in 1 minute regardless of equivalent potion cost, completely breaking wealth by level even if you don't have any downtime.
Ghost Syrup is a poison which turns you permanently incorporeal if it causes enough Str damage to drop your effective Str to 0.
Normally, Undead are immune to Ghost Syrup, because it's a poison, it requires a fort save and doesn't affect objects, and it inflicts ability damage to Str. Undead are immune to those effects due to the Undead Traits (Ex) ability.
However, there are various ways to use Ghost Syrup to become incorporeal while undead, or to become undead while already incorporeal, and I'm wondering if there's a clear cut answer on how these effects would overlap in such cases.
Case 1. A corporeal undead (doesn't matter what kind, but we'll say a Juju Zombie since that's a relatively easy template for a PC to get, via an Onyx Spear) polymorphs into a human using alter self. As a spell from the polymorph subschool, Alter Self causes the undead to lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on [its] original form, which would include Undead Traits (Ex). While polymorphed, the undead creature is susceptible to poison, ability damage, and effects requiring fort saves. It drinks the Ghost Syrup, intentionally failing its saves until its effective Str is 0. It becomes incorporeal due to the Ghost Syrup's permanent effect. Later, Alter Self wears off, and the creature regains its Undead Traits (Ex) ability, including the immunity to poison.
There are two rulings I can see for this, and I don't know which is right (or if some other ruling is better).
Possible Ruling 1: When a creature has immunity to poison (such as from undead traits), it becomes immune to the permanent incorporeal effect from Ghost Syrup. This would also imply that for a non-undead character, Delay Poison would grant corporeality in addition to the listed spells like Wish (although the ability drain would still need to be dealt with separately).
Possible Ruling 2: The poison itself only has a duration of 6 rounds, and if the permanent incorporeality was a poison effect, it could be healed with Neutralize Poison instead of Remove Curse. The permanent effect of Ghost Syrup is not itself a poison and immunity to poison has no effect on it once the permanent effect is active. This ruling would allow a polymorphed undead to gain incorporeality via Ghost Syrup and keep it when returning to normal form.
Case 2: Very similar to case 1 as far as rulings, so see above for the possible rulings. A character who is already incorporeal due to Ghost Syrup could undergo the Eternal Apotheosis ritual to become a Lich (or any other method of gaining an undead template that isn't limited to corporeal creatures). After achieving Lichdom, would the incorporeal quality be lost due to Ruling 1, or would it be retained due to Ruling 2? I'm guessing most people would rule similarly for both cases.
Personally I think Ruling 2 is correct. Given that remove curse and not neutralize poison is listed as able to cure the incorporeality, I would rule that the permanent effect from Ghost Syrup is a curse effect and the poison effect is only the 6 rounds of poison.
Looks like you already took some paladin, but for regular sorcs who are good alignment a wand of Bestow Grace is great, since you have high CHA.
Offensively, you could consider Fog Cloud, and have your party use Goz Masks or Fogcutting Lenses to ignore the effects. Course if you're investing that much in this strategy, you'd probably just take it as a spell known.
Another similar option is Deeper Darkness if your party has Darkvision.
If your party mostly has range or flying, the difficult terrain you get from Entangle can be very useful if there are plants around, and it;'s only a level 1 spell.
Strong Jaw is good if you or someone else in the party polymorphs.
Natural Weapons are weapons. Not only is weapon called out right in the name, but they are also explicitly considered 'light weapons,' as stated in Weapon Finesse. When an effect only targets manufactured weapons, it must specify manufactured, as opposed to natural (For example, the Disguise Weapon spell)m, because simply using the term "weapon" would include both.
There is the statement that natural attacks are attacks made without weapons (wouldn't that be an unarmed strike, which is not a natural weapon?). And when discussing when creature's attacks are considered magical based on their DR, it is stated that natural weapons (but not attacks with weapons) are counted as magic. So there is certainly room to rule either way, but it seems much more reasonable a ruling to say natural weapons are weapons, they just aren't manufactured weapons.
Most natural weapons are melee weapons. You can verify this by locating them in the melee section of every monster that has them. Any attacks that are not ranged are melee.
So I would say you could deal nonlethal by taking a -4 on the attack.
And as Claxon stated, blunt arrows are a good way to do nonlethal damage at range, and without that (or the Merciful weapon abiity), there is no general allowance for doing nonlethal damage at range.
Unfortunately, most major forms do not specify what natural attacks you get, so the interpretation that the major form always only gives natural attacks it specifies seems undoubtedly wrong.
Examples: Bat, Bear, Monkey, Mouse, Snake, Stag, Wolverine. Many of them list abilities you get later with specific attacks, but don't specify you actually getting that attack (see bear for instance).
It seems that natural attacks are only specified when they need to be, either because special abilities like grab or trip need to be assigned to them, to limit the number of attacks you have at a lower level (deinonychus), or to (for whatever reason) change birds' talons to claws (falcon and owl). The last one is probably to allow usage of feats or abilties that require claws, since there is more content for a player to use with claws than with talons (And it looks like they based the falcon form off the eagle rather than the hawk for natural attacks by giving it a bite).
This is also how form of the Dragon, Undead Anatomy, and Ooze Form work with respect to natural attacks. If the effect specifically tells you what natural attacks you get, I think it overrides the general polymorph rules that say you get all the target form's natural attacks.
But the rules as written are unclear and poorly written and could be read either way. To my knowledge Undead Anatomy also hasn't been FAQ'd despite there being many threads concerning confusion about what natural attacks you get, and that's from a much older book.
Based on context, it's quite clear what the intent is, and that's to override the natural attacks you get rather than add to them. Unless we're suggesting that a Shifter in Deinonychus major form is supposed to have 2 bites, 4 talons, and 4 foreclaws.
"Neither the synthesist nor his eidolon can be targeted separately, as they are fused into one creature."
After they fuse, they are one creature. That fused creature is still wearing that belt of mighty constitution or ring of protection, so it would benefit from that item. Items worn do not benefit just one portion of that fused creature, they benefit the entire creature.
As you noted, synths are hideously overpowered. A lot of GMs don't allow them in their games. A lot of GMs don't allow chained summoner at all.
Quote:
2. Twin Eidolon. This is slightly different mechanic as its a polymorph effect (similar to wildshaping) and clearly states that items with continuous effects are absorbed. From the perspective of a synthesist there is very little reason to use this ability.
The only benefit the synth gets out of this ability is that he can do a temporary fusion with his eidolon as a standard action if he needs to fight right after waking up.
As someone who modded a currently running custom campaign world to the PF ruleset (aka, not in Golarion), I don't see how this game has anything to with PF. To me...PF is a ruleset, not a campaign.
I am also not sure what is meant when people keep stating the mechanics do not translate well...what you need when you build any program are clear rules for implementation. I am not sure how much more clear one can get than PF's fabulous rulebooks and occasional errata.
It does not translate well to real-time play. The rules are for turn-by-turn play, with each character taking their turn one after another. It's so different than what an MMO has to be that it simply couldn't be feasibly done.
The original question was whether or not it would work with claws, which are essentially your hand, not whether all touch attacks would be eligible.
Rules-wise, it's clear that it either works with all natural attacks (this would be the case if it behaves like a touch spell) or it does not work with any natural attacks at all (this would be the case if it doesn't count as a touch spell - since there are no rules for using natural attacks in combination with the touch attack you gain from produce flame unless it counts as a touch spell).
I mentioned that I might let it work with claws as a house-rule, but house rulings are not what the OP is asking for (just noticed that's you - I presume that's not what you're looking for since this is the rules forum). For a non-house-ruling, it can be used with either all natural attacks or none, and I think both the rules and the flavor support the latter interpretation.
In PFS, I would not allow it to work because I do not use house rules in PFS games I run (neither should any other PFS GMs).
No, produce flame does not work with natural attacks.
It's not a touch spell, so there's no charge to hold and therefore no discharge upon a successful natural attack.
It's just a spell which is not a touch spell but which gives you the ability to make touch attacks. Thus, any rules for touch attacks will apply for the attack you gain via produce flame, but the rules for touch *spells* will not apply, as it is not a touch spell.
You're holding flames in your hands - your body is not holding a charge of a spell.
In addition to the technical correctness of my approach, it also makes sense flavor-wise. There's no reason a Raptor-form Wildshape Druid's bite should do extra fire damage when he uses produce flame. The other ruling - where it's treated as a touch spell - would have the "charge" go off when you bite an opponent, even though the spell's flavor is that you're holding flames in your hands. "Holding flames in your hands" doesn't mean "any time anyone touches your body, fire damage discharges through you to them," it means "if you want, you can shove fire in someone's face."
I'd probably house rule that produce flame could work with arm-based natural attacks like claws, pincers, etc. as you might be able to shove the fire in someone's face as part of attacking them, but in PFS I would not let it work as I think the rules indicate that it does not work.
By Andy's argument, we can use Jump to evade attacks. Since it is no action, and is applied during an unspecific action or reaction, if someone decides to charge me, I'll just make a jump check and leap 20 ft away as a nonspecific reaction.
No. Well, maybe by his argument, but not by the rules. Using acrobatics to jump still counts as using your movement for the round. To that end, you may only use acrobatics to jump when you have movement you are able to use - for instance, if you're charging, or if you're using a move action, or if you're withdrawing, or if you're running. If you're running or charging, the movement of your jump will require you to keep moving in a straight line via the movement rules for charging and running.
Yes, it does say that acrobatics checks can be used as a reaction to a situation, but that is not referring to all acrobatics checks. It is referring to the reactive uses of acrobatics (for instance, you make a check when you take damage while balancing). Jumping is done as part of another action, because it uses movement and you have no available movement unless you take an action which allows movement.
That may all be RAW, but it doesn't make any sense.
I always understood the flanking bonus (and the ability to sneak attack) came from the defender having to split his attention between attackers on opposite sides. If that's not it, why does it exist?
As a mechanical benefit for getting attackers on both sides of the enemy.
Part of the fluff behind flanking can also be that you have less options for dodging when there's a guy ready to strike you from the back, even if you're not immediately aware of the threat, etc. Rather than making you provoke from an invisible attacker just for being attacked by someone on the opposite side (due to dodging the attack in a way that leaves you open to the unknown threat), a different mechanic is used, granting the attacker +2 on their attack and the ability to sneak attack.
It's also there because the rogue needs a way to do sneak attack damage and get attack roll boosts on a full attack, because mechanically it would not be a viable class otherwise. Flavor these sneak attacks however you like. If the target is aware of the opposing threat, cite its split attention giving the rogue an opening at the guy's vitals. If the enemy is not aware of the flanker, flavor it as the enemy attempting to dodge the rogue backwards only to find something blocking his way, which then diverts his attention. Or if you don't like any of that fluff, just flavor it as a mechanical necessity for making the rogue viable, and don't think too much about it.
I. When you make an attack, you can either hit or miss. There is no middle ground.
II. When someone makes an AoO, they make an attack.
IIIa. If they would ordinarily have missed with that attack, then they have missed - no modification here.
IIIb. If they would ordinarily have hit with that attack, they instead do not hit with it. This is evident with the "one melee attack that would normally hit you" phrasing. It would normally hit you, but because of crane style it does not. Not hitting is equivalent to missing, whether it's due to a failed attack roll, a failed roll vs. concealment, mirror image, crane style, or any other ability which can cause an attack to fail to hit its intended target.
Therefore, whether their attack roll ends up beating your AC or not on that AoO, they miss.
So, say my Eidolon has four attacks, and has taken the feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword) and Multi-Attack. He has two arms, in which he hods a pair of bastard swords.
The questions are:
Would he have two bastard sword attacks, or four?
And
Would these attacks be at a penalty (other than the one Multi-Attack gives?
Second Scenario:
A synthesist summoner has three levels of Monk, cause the Monastic Legacy Feat is pretty much awesome. Because of the Monk's Unarmed Strike rules working as both natural and weaponized attacks, could this synthesist summoner (Eidolon has for arms, but not the Claws evolution) do the following:
Use his Unarmed Strike Damage, from appropriate Equivalent Monk levels, and get four attacks using that damage?
And
Would he be able to apply Reach and other similar evolutions to the Unarmed Strike?
1. You'd get a number of attacks based on your BAB with your primary hand bastard sword (for intstance, a level 7 summoner's eidolon would get two attacks with it at +6/+1 BAB), and one additional attack with the offhand in accordance with two-weapon fighting rules (you'd be attacking with a -4 penalty, and that's if you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat). If you had improved two-weapon fighting, you'd get a second attack with the offhand in accordance with that feat.
Using primary natural attacks will work significantly better than dual-wielding bastard swords. Instead of attacking at BAB +2/+2/-3/-3 with two-weapon fighting and improved two-weapon fighting, you'd make attacks at BAB +6/+6/+6/+6 without having used any feats (assuming level 7 here).
Multiattack has nothing at all to do with manufactured weapons, and only has any effect on natural weapons.
2. No. Monks cannot attack with their unarmed strikes as natural weapons. They still attack with unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons. They simply count as both for the purposes of spells and effects.
He could apply the reach evolution to unarmed strike. He doesn't even need to be a monk to do that, he just needs to have an unarmed strike attack, since reach does not require the attack to be a natural attack.
As far as anything besides reach, he cannot take it. As far as I'm aware, the Eidolon would have to qualify for the evolution separate from the synthesist. The eidolon is the one taking the evolutions, you just temporarily gain the use of them when fused. So it could not use Improved Natural Attack on your unarmed strike, for instance. You could use aspect for that if you're a monk and you get far enough in synthesist, though.
There's absolutely no sense in which two claws can be considered to be one natural attack. It's the same natural attack FORM, but two different natural attacks.
Even the two rake attacks from rake are two natural attacks. They just COUNT as one attack against the eidolon's limit due to a specific exception in their rules text.
If you made it 1D8 per two levels for the main effect it could probably be a level 2 spell, considering it has a material component and is only effective against such a limited subset of creatures.
Ah yes, seeing that reminds me of something else. The splash effect should probably be 1D8 + 1 per level (maximum +10) and the main effect should be 1D8 per two levels (maximum 5D8). Then I'd say it's a balanced second level spell. Shouldn't be much of a problem if you're hoping to see this more in the earlier levels anyway, as it doesn't max out until level 10.
The spell also consumes a vial of holy water (25 gp). Not a very steep price to be paid, but a price none the less.
Considering dropping the damage down to 1d6 (or maybe 1d8) per two levels. That might bring it down a spell level or two (really want to see this one in-game, and since not too many games get to high levels, I'm inclined to make it a lower level).
If you made it 1D8 per two levels for the main effect it could probably be a level 2 spell, considering it has a material component and is only effective against such a limited subset of creatures.
Holy Water Bomb School: Transmutation [Good]; Level: Cleric ?, Inquisitor ?
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, M (vial of holy water), DF
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area: See text
Duration: Instantenous
Saving Throw: See text
You hurl a vial of holy water, which bursts into a radiant flame.
When you cast this spell, make a ranged touch attack against one target within range. If the creature struck is an undead or evil outsider, it takes 1d6 damage per caster level (maximum 10d6). Each round thereafter, it may attempt a Reflex save to quench the flames which consume it; failure results in another 1d6 points of damage.
Undead or evil outsiders adjacent to the primary target of this spell are dealt 1d8 points of damage +1 per caster level (maximum +10). A successful Reflex save reduces this damage by half.
There are a few problems with the way the spell is written. First I'll say that I agree that this is a good 3rd level spell.
But the problem is that you don't define the 1D8 + 1/level damage as splash damage. Thus, if you miss the original target of the spell with your ranged touch, by the way this is written it takes no damage rather than taking the 1D8 + 1/level damage that seems to be equivalent to splash damage.
I'd re-write it thusly:
Holy Water Bomb School: Transmutation [Good]; Level: Cleric ?, Inquisitor ?
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Components: V, M (vial of holy water), DF
Range touch
Target one touched vial of holy water
Duration see text
Saving Throw see text, Will negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)
You enhance a vial of holy water such that it bursts into a radiant flame when thrown.
A direct hit by this enhanced flask of holy water deals 1D6 points of damage per caster level to an undead creature or an evil outsider. Such a creature must make a reflex save or be consumed by holy flames, which deal 1D6 points of damage each round at the beginning of the creature's turn. Such a creature gets a new saving throw at the end of their turn each round, with success ending the ongoing effect. This effect lasts 1 round per caster level or until a successful reflex save is made to end the effect.
Each undead creature or evil outsider within 5 feet of the point where the vial hits takes 1D8 + 1 point of damage per caster level from the splash. This splash damage is halved on a successful reflex save. The range increment of this vial increases to 15ft.
The normal restrictions for using a vial of holy water against incorporeal creatures still apply.
As part of the action of casting this spell, you may attempt to throw the vial at a creature within range as a free action. The vial reverts to a normal vial of holy water if not thrown before the end of your next turn.
The answer to that question is that if reduce person is cast on someone under the effects of enlarge person, the caster has to make a caster level check - if they succeed, then the enlarge is dispelled, if they fail, the reduce has no effect. Permanency has no effect on this (a permanent spell is just as easy to dispel as a regular one).
I'm fairly certain that no roll is required to use "opposite" spells to dispel...if one spell "counters and dispels" another it just works. Yes, that means your permanent enlarge person can be permanently smushed by a 1st level wizard with reduce person. Unless I've missed something I see no indication that the specific rules for dispel magic should be used.
Nah, dispelling another spell always requires a dispel check. Counterspelling (which is done during casting) does not ordinarily require a roll, but dispelling an active effect requires a dispel check AFAIK. I'll check up on that though. [Rules for dispel magic seem to be the only rules for dispelling at all that I can find, but I'll look on the forums for a bit].
I'd probably make it a 3 pt Evolution or something.
I really don't think that's necessary.
1. Serpentine base form is not overpowered compared to quadrupeds or bipeds. There's nothing specific about moving fast and not being trippable that synergizes particularly well, so moving faster is equally valuable for all of the base forms.
2. When quadrupeds or bipeds pay 2 points for additional legs, they get the following: a] +10 movement speed and b] they become harder to trip.
3. Since "+10 movement and harder to trip" is a balanced ability for 2 evolution points, it is reasonable to make "+10 movement" cost the same amount for the already-untrippable serpentine. It's just not a RAW option and thus you'd need to convince your GM to allow it.
StabbittyDoom wrote:
I'd at most make it a "3 point the first time, 2 thereafter". You're basically paying the 1pt for the trip immunity (which is circumstantial at best).
I really don't think that's necessary either. The serpentine already has trip immunity. Why is he paying another 1 evolution point for it?
As far as the gunslinger and the time it takes him to make a gun:
1. Crafting anything is generally doable with no checks. An wizard with int 18 (or an artisan with int 12 and skill focus craft [armor]) who has masterwork tools could automatically succeed on making a masterwork suit of full plate (i.e. could take 10 and succeed). Crafting is generally something people take 10 on. The wizard succeeds by spending only a skill point and the money for tools, a much lower investment than a feat.
2. Gun crafting obviously should not follow the same time rules as normal items. A level 1 gunslinger with 14 int and masterwork tools, using the normal crafting rules, would get an 18 when he takes 10. Let's say the DC for making a pistol is 15. If that's the case, it would take 37 weeks for this particular gunslinger to make a single gun.
Likewise, if the DC for creating black powder was a 15, he would only be able to create about 3.8 doses of it each day if he spent the full devoted day on just crafting the black powder (presumably an uninterrupted 8 hours of work). If he's out adventuring and is merely using his downtime to craft, then he makes just less than 1 dose per day, assuming you're even allowed to devote partial time to crafting mundane items like you can with magical crafting. Better save those shots, bro.
3. From #1, we can see that auto-succeeding on crafting isn't a problem, as it's already the status quo. From #2, we can see that the timescales simply don't work if we use the normal crafting rules.
However, you'd be correct in saying that this doesn't show that the current solution is a good one. I would even agree that it isn't. I mean come on, one feat and you're pumping out a pistol every single day? One a week would be acceptable. One a day is a little ridiculous. 100 doses of black powder per day is acceptable. 1000 doses per day is pretty unrealistic.
The problem is really just that the gunslinger creates stuff absurdly fast. He should create stuff a lot faster than other mundane crafters (lest it take him 37 weeks to craft a replacement weapon if his breaks and no gun shops are around), but it's a little ridiculous for him to mundanely craft 1000gp in items every day. Especially when some of that is being done at 1/10th of market price. With even a few of these guys as NPC crafters, the sheer amount of profit those NPCs could make per day, and the amount of black powder they'd sell, would bring the price down closer to 3x the material cost like other mundane items. We're talking about one day of work being able to produce 900gp in profit for a merchant. He could craft for literally one day out of the year, run the black powder shop in town for the rest of the year, and live a life of luxury.
Though in other news, if you thought the economy of pathfinder was realistic to begin with, you probably didn't understand the economy of pathfinder.
Are you jhust being stupid on purpose or are really that ignorant?
So why does everything have to be about giants? or dragons? demons or devils?
Do other things...heck run non-combat adventures.
Or reall all you have to do is just increase their HPs. HPs is by far more important than AC anyway.
Wow ok, so I guess I should refrain from blowin up on you.
Giants and dragons and demons and devils are iconic thats why.
Just ignore the fact that all higher CR monsters have a great disparity between their AC and Touch AC.
I already showed that an archer could out-DPR a gunslinger even against monsters with high AC and low touch AC like dragons or golems.
The only way a gunslinger is going to get the advantage is by using questionable double-barreled full attack cheese or by dual-wielding pepperboxes and spending off-rounds reloading (doing more nova damage during the first two rounds, but about the same amount of sustained damage after that).
Not having manyshot or weapon training hurts the gunslinger more than targeting touch AC helps him. The gunslinger isn't an OP damage beast, even against the big monsters. He'll hit more reliably than an archer, but he'll still do less or at best comparable damage on average per round.
1. The ability to cast a spell-like ability is sufficient for spell-trigger and spell-completion items. This is because spell-like abilities function in all ways as spells, except for the differences listed in the section on SLAs. Metamagic feats of course don't work, since they modify an aspect of spells that SLAs don't have - spell slots. However, any other feat or ability or mechanic that requires spellcasting will work with SLAs as well, since it still is spellcasting for most rules purposes.
2. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL THOSE SPELL LIKE ABILITIES ARE ON THE EIDOLON'S LIST. There's a rogue talent to cast a given level 1 sorc/wiz spell as a SLA. This does not mean the rogue has all level 1 sorc/wiz spells on its class spell list. The rogue does not have a class spell list, so he does not naturally have the ability to use spell completion or spell trigger items. However, he can manage to gain the ability to cast those spells (as SLAs) through an optional class feature, so IF he chooses that class feature, he could use spell trigger or spell completion items for those specific spells he chose.
Likewise, to use a wand or scroll of vanish, an Eidolon would need to first take the evolution which grants him access to vanish as a SLA.
I noticed that it's possible to increase the Base Speed of an Eidolon through the Limbs Evolution (thus growing extra pairs of legs). It's also possible to increase an Eidolon's Climb, Swim and Fly speeds through multiple Evolutions.
My question is this: How does one increase the Base Speed of an Eidolon with the Serpentine form? 20 feet is rather slow... and I don't want my nice, sleek serpent body to suddenly start sprouting legs just so I can move faster. Am I missing something somewhere?
RAW you have yo take limbs(legs) and that gives you actual legs (making you trippable).
If your GM is kind, he may let you take a 2-point evolution that does not give you legs and only increases base speed by 10ft. I would certainly allow my players to do this, since the serpentine form is the least min-maxed of the base forms and thus I don't think I'd be creating a balance issue by allowing this.
The core of the issue is, can the summoner take feats based off of the stats of his fused Eildon?
I have a player who believes that since the summoner and the Eildon are fuzed he is able to take feats because the Eildon qualifies for them, for example, he has taken improved natural attack (Feat) and Improved Damage (evolution) in order to make his 4 claw attack into a d8.
Does anyone know a ruling one way or the other, and if so either the link or page number?
Yes, it is legal to qualify for feats based on your fused statistics. I don't think it was in the official FAQ, but I'm pretty sure SKR mentioned this in a thread somewhere. Here's the link.
A pistolero would get a slight damage bump from his pistol training giving him an extra +1 to damage. He'd also do more damage if he used the up close and deadly deed, but I'm not keen on using such limited-use abilities as part of DPR. I mean, if you're using 4 grit every turn to get +3D6 on each of your bullets, you'll be out of grit in no time.
Signature Deed feat : gaining +3d6 then doesn't cost any grit point.
This is admittedly powerful. Adding an extra 10.5 damage to each attack (but not multiplying it on crit damage) would probably put the pistolero ahead of the archer for DPR. I might crunch it later. Of course, this is not really on the topic of the brokenness of guns or the gunslinger in general.
Quote:
Omelite wrote:
Note that using two pistols is a no-go, because you need a free hand to reload. You could dual-wield and full attack with some pepperboxes that you reloaded before the battle, but then once they're empty you need to stow one and reload them each individually.
About this, please check my attack method using weapon cords :
I was under the impression that you had to make iterative attacks from highest BAB to lowest. If that's incorrect though, and you're able to make your attacks in any order you want, then either the weapon cords solution or the quickdraw/drop solution should work. Of course, with quickdraw/drop you're ending the round with one of your weapons on the floor, and not only does it take a move action to pick up but it's also vulnerable to AoE attacks at that point.
These results are really surprising. When I did the DPR with NPC array stats, the gunslinger didn't look so much lower in terms of damage, and even could outdamage an archer by a pinch of points if taking the risk to be at close range, and only against especially low touch-AC creatures (without adding the damage penalty from misfiring, though).
I wonder what would be the DPR of a pistolero with a free +3d6 by bullet and using two pistols - or even worse, two double-barreled pistols (admitted, shooting with both barrels and both hands is a base -8 to attack, but still).
Beware while calculating the DPR with double-barrel, even if I myself am interested in the results, the way they really work with normal attack/full-attack/vital strike has yet to be completely clarified in the FAQ or errata.
The risk of misfiring that I calculated in didn't actually affect the values all that much for the normal gunslinger.
A pistolero would get a slight damage bump from his pistol training giving him an extra +1 to damage. He'd also do more damage if he used the up close and deadly deed, but I'm not keen on using such limited-use abilities as part of DPR. I mean, if you're using 4 grit every turn to get +3D6 on each of your bullets, you'll be out of grit in no time.
Also at level 13, like the musket master, he would no longer have to worry about misfiring, which is nice.
Note that using two pistols is a no-go, because you need a free hand to reload. You could dual-wield and full attack with some pepperboxes that you reloaded before the battle, but then once they're empty you need to stow one and reload them each individually.
I don't know if you accounted it, but the Master can use Deflect Arrows against both the first attack of an archer (manyshot is clearly defined as only one attack, and DA allows to deflect "one ranged attack", so both arrows are deflected) and a gunslinger's shot (since bullets can be deflected).
If the gunslinger keeps firing after a misfire, he would have a higher DPR, but a lot of penalties, and a greater misfire risk applied to his attacks. :)
I hadn't taken deflect arrows into account.
The gunslinger's DPR against him would be 49.15*, while the archer's DPR against him would be 85.16. Updating the above post now.
*this is using a figure for "chance the gunslinger will hit AC at least once" that is not 100% accurate (misfires and the first hit not being 95% likely to hit made the equation for that fairly messy so I approximated slightly). The resulting figure should be off by no more than 1%.
Anyway, here's DPR for the double-barreled pistol wielder. Same build as the other gunslinger, but a +3 reliable double-barreled pistol instead.
Note that this assumes the barrels of a double-barreled pistol can be fired as a full attack so long as reloading is a free action
Attack routine:
+3 Reliable Double-Barreled Pistol +16/+16/+16/+16/+11/+11/+6/+6 1D8+20 (19-20/x4) [v. touch AC, misfires on a 1-2]
DPR for Double-Barreled Gunslinger:
1. 156.35 (archer was 141.63)
2. 138.65 (archer was 133.39)
3. 158.42 (archer was 154.88)
4. 164.11 (archer was 114.46)
5. 140.02 (archer was 104.59)
1N. 160.03 (archer was 154.88)
2N. 155.29 (archer was 156.65)
3N. 165.35 (archer was 156.65)
4N. 164.11 (archer was 162.55)
5N. 73.83 (archer was 85.16)
Note that this build will chew through paper cartridges, and it will also only make it through each full attack without misfiring 43% of the time, so not calculated is that fact that on subsequent rounds it's likely you'll have to fix the weapon.
The DPR is better than an archer, but not by much, and a lot of gold is being spent on ammunition even if you make it yourself. I'd say probably not worth it, and honestly it's pretty cheesy loading and firing 8 barrels per round.
For those who don't mind the cheese, at level 13 and onward, a Musket Master with a double-barreled musket will far and away outperform this. Rather than a 10% chance to misfire on every shot, he'll have a 0% chance to misfire. He'll do 1D12 instead of 1D8, he'll get an additional +2 damage from a class feature, and he won't have to waste an enhancement bonus on reliable so he'll get another +1 damage and attack. His DPR at level 13 would be well over 200 against most of these enemies, and he doesn't ever have to waste actions fixing his gun.
Didn't you do a mistake with the way you calculated the archer's damage ?
Derp, looks like I did forget the +5 damage from weapon training. Note that even with that mistake, the archer still outdamaged the gunslinger on average. Now his damage is 1D8+25.
Also, I meant for it to be a reliable pistol all along (no DPR advantage for a lucky pistol, after all). My bad there. And you're right that he could afford a +3 reliable instead of +2, so I'll go with that and his damage and attack are now 1 higher.
First I'll recap the enemies:
1. AC 24 TCH 8 DR 10/Adamantine and Bludgeoning [Clay Golem]
2. AC 25 TCH 16 DR 15/Piercing and Good [Rakshasa]
3. AC 23, TCH 14 [Lich]
4. AC 31 TCH 10 [Mature Adult Black Dragon]
5. AC 31 TCH 17 DR 10/Good [Handmaiden Devil]
1N. AC 23 TCH 13 [General]
2N. AC 22 TCH 15 [Guild Master]
3N. AC 22 TCH 9 [Saint]
4N. AC 15 TCH 10 [High Priest]
5N. AC 25 TCH 24 [Master] - Has Deflect Arrows
And the attack patterns for each build:
+3 Reliable Pistol +20/+20/+15/+10 1D8+20 (19-20/x4) [v. touch AC, misfires on a 1]
+3 Composite Longbow [+4 STR] +26/+26/+21/+16 1D8+25 (19-20/x3) [first shot manyshots]
Note that the numbers for the Master (who has deflect arrows) assume that the Gunslinger/Archer is the first person to make a ranged attack against the master during each turn. If someone else made a ranged attack which was deflected already, then DPR would increase by about 30 for the gunslinger and by about 66 for the archer.
Again, I'll note that the gunslinger numbers assume that if and when a misfire occurs, you stop firing for the rest of the round. If misfires simply didn't happen, the numbers would be ~6-8% higher than those I listed. Still in almost all cases lower than damage from an archer.
Also note that each full attack uses an average of 22.26gp for the gunslinger if he crafts the paper carts himself while the archer is using 0.25gp each round if he buys the arrows (except against the lich and other /bludgeoning DR - then he uses 0.5gp each round).
Cheese might allow for the gunslinger to potentially double his shots by using a double-barreled pistol; since his reload is a free action he could reload both barrels with paper carts between shots. Even with a reliable pistol, it would still have a 1-2 misfire, though, and a chance to misfire on each of the 8 shots. I'll roll up the DPR for it in my next post for my own and anyone else's curiosity.
Also I should note that my DPR numbers for the Gunslinger were too low on my previous post. I was using a 10% misfire when it's only 5% with this setup. For instance, against enemy 5 it would have been 90.46 DPR rather than 83.70.
12 BAB
-4 deadly
-2 rapid
-2 many
5 weapon training
1 competence
2 focus
8 dex
1 point blank [if within 30]
3 enhancement
Manyshot doesn't have a -2 penalty to attack.
Whoops. Managed to fix the problem in my previous post and calculate the fixed DPRs for the archer.
Talonhawke wrote:
jyster wrote:
Ok, just a quick question.
Deadly Aim cannot be used with firearms because they use Touch attack rules right? Same with bombs?
Can't quote the exact rule but but i believe there is one in the first part of the firearms section stating that you can use deadly aim with firearms.
I was unaware of that rule, but I just looked it up and there it was.
"but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purpose of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim." I've redone the gunslinger DPR with this in mind, and posted the fixed results in my previous post.
Alright I'll throw up some DPR comparisons for an archer and a gunslinger. Both are damage-focused classes and builds. I'll go with level 12, with normal APL. I'll put each of the builds up against three different enemies to compare DPR. I think I'm optimizing both builds fairly well.
Gunslinger Build:
The weapon of choice will be a pistol, filled with paper cartridges. With rapid reload, this ends up being a free action reload, so it doesn't matter that the pistol only holds 1 shot at a time.
Specifically, the weapon will be a +2 lucky pistol. The overall misfire will be on a 1 only.
Stats:
STR XX
DEX 20+2levels+4belt=26
CON XX
INT XX
WIS XX
CHA XX
Equipment [108k]:
+2 lucky pistol [19.3k]
+3 cloak of resist [9k]
+1 Ioun Stone of Resist [4k]
+1 Ioun Stone of Attack [4k]
+1 Ioun Stone of Insight AC [5k]
+4 belt of DEX [16k]
+2 ring of deflect AC [8k]
+2 amulet of natural AC [8k]
Celestial Armor [22.4k]
Miscellaneous and ammo ~10k
Attack modifiers
12 BAB
1 point Blank
2 enhancement
8 DEX
1 focus
1 competence
-2 rapid
-4 deadly
Damage Modifiers
8 DEX
2 enhancement
1 point blank
Within 30, Ranged touch +19/+19/+14/+9 1D8+19 (19-20/x4)
Archer Build:
Weapon Master Fighter 12
STR 15+1 level+2 Stone
DEX 20+2 levels+4 belt
CON XX
INT XX
WIS XX
CHA XX
A little more MAD here. Gunslinger technically needs WIS, but he doesn't really need much for his actual DPR as it mostly just gives him utility.
Equipment [108k]:
+3 composite longbow (+4 STR) [18.85k]
+4 belt of DEX [16k]
Gloves of Dueling [15k]
+3 cloak of resist [9k]
+2 stone of STR [8k]
+1 stone of saves [4k]
+1 stone of attack [4k]
Celestial Armor [22.4k]
+1 ring of deflect [2k]
+1 amulet of natural AC [2k]
Other and ammo ~6k
Less AC, but it's still good, especially for a non-frontliner
Within 30, ranged +26(x2shot)/+26/+21/+16 1D8+20 (19-20/x3)
So now let's set up a bunch of opponents:
First, some CR 10's. A lot of encounters have enemies a few CR lower than the party's level, and multiple enemies.
1. Clay Golem: AC 24 TCH 8 DR 10/Adamant+Bludg
2. Rakshasa: AC 25 TCH 16 DR 15/Piercing+Good
Next, some CR 12's. A lot of battles will have CR-equivalent enemies.
3. Lich [Human Lich Necromancer 11]: AC 23, TCH 14, DR 15 Bludgeon+Mag
4. Mature Adult Black Dragon: AC 31 TCH 10, DR 10/Mag
Next, a CR 14, for a difficult enemy
5. Handmaiden Devil: AC 31 TCH 17 DR 10/Good
Since clustered shots is so good against DR, I'm going to assume both builds aren't even wasting a turn on taking out and using an oil of bless weapon against the folks with DR/good. I'll assume the archer is using blunt arrows if that's all he needs to bypass DR (Lich). So now, the DPR Results:
Against the High-AC opponents, the two builds are close in damage output, but the gunslinger falls behind on more typical enemies.
Also, a full 18.5% of rounds, the gunslinger's gun will misfire, and I have assumed that the gunslinger will stop firing at that point in the round. It will then take a standard or a move action (if a grit is spent) to fix the gun, meaning at most one attack the next round (if it misfired on the first attack, this won't be a problem).
Note that especially at level 13 and above, the Musket Master archetype will far and away outperform the normal gunslinger in damage. A musket master with a double barreled musket at level 13 could fire twice as many shots as a pistol (since he can shoot both barrels at the same time and can reload them both as a free action with paper carts), never misfire, and do 1D12+21 instead of 1D8+19 damage. THAT could be called overpowered, but the normal gunslinger is not overpowered.
If you're wondering how I calculated any of those DPR numbers, ask for a specific one and I'll provide the math.
well they gotta spend a feat on armor to atleast use celestial armor, so in your example they are only getting 1 extra feat. But then they are also spending more money on celestial armor. So that is a pretty neutral change.
And currently their saving throws are terrible. To the point that, only a biped is useable after later lvls since a quadruped maxes out at a base +5 to will save.
Also, those hd based evolutions are currently terrible as well. All I do by boosting their hd is make those evolutions usable. Look at frightful presence for example. RAW, when you get access to it, an eidolon can only make creatures who have 9 hd or less shaken. So currently it is a dc 14 save that only affects 9 hd or less creatures. Unuseable. If it can atleast make 11 hd enemies of a lvl 11 summoner shaken, it has some value(not a ton but atleast some). All this does is turn those abilities into options. Which they currently are not. In a guide
To count it all... so its really,
1. skill point boost
2. a save boost(sorely needed)
3. (5.5+con mod)*5 so ~ 50 extra hp in the end.
4. net armor change of 0.
5. 2 extra feat( 10 feats vs 8)
6. hd related abilities already discussed above.
1 is nice but not breaking much. 2 is necessary. 3 is a small change. 4 is no change except now you have to spend atleast 1 feat on armor proficiency and cash on armor(so actually a nerf). 5 is a buff that is atleast partially compensated for by needing to pick up armor proficiency.
I am personally of the mind that if a summoner is going to lose 3 lvls of spells, then his eidolon should be clearly better than an animal companion. So annoying rules that were dropped on the eidolon but not the ac I felt had to go out the window. Just how I dealt with it. A druid is much better anyway since he is like a regular summoner(gets a pet) and a synthesist(wild shape is his own power armor) and he still ahs 9th lvl spells. Further more, the ac doesn't pop inside an antimagic field and it can't be banished. The changes I made do not push...
Devotion. +4 on will saves vs. enchantment effects. That's the most common type of will save to have to make, and eidolons get a flat +4 on it from level 6 onward.
This means at level 20 they essentially have a +9 on will saves whereas a fighter has a +6, without your modifications. Even without devotion, it's +5 for the quadruped eidolon vs. +6 for the fighter. Why does the eidolon need to be a better frontliner than the frontline classes?
Oh, and I forgot that now they'd get 5 ability score increases instead of 3.
The summoner isn't "losing 3 levels of spells" quite. A lot of spells are lower level on the summoner list than on the sorc/wiz list. He doesn't keep up on spells per day, admittedly. He also has Summon Monster, one of the most versatile spells in the game, as a spell-like ability that's way better than the actual spell (it's a standard action and lasts minutes instead of rounds) that he can cast a lot of times per day.
The eidolon is clearly better than the animal companion. At a few of the early levels, and at level 7, you can probably get better animal companions, but after that the eidolon is going to consistently be way better and way more flexible than the animal companion.
There's debate on it. The rules are silent on this specific topic, but they do say you can upgrade "magical items". I personally see them no different from "normal" magical items, and fervently believe that by saying you can't enhance them you're saying that there are two different types of magical items in the world, which is preposterous.
Figure out the extra cost added on for the magical abilities, and then upgrade the item to what you want. Then add on the extra cost. In effect, the extra cost *is* the cost of the special abilities.
This is roughly how it seems to work out from my perspective as well.
However, some items may have additional "+x" abilities. For instance, while a Dwarven Thrower is only a +2 warhammer, it's a +3 returning warhammer in the hands of a dwarf. It could very well be that "additional +1 and returning in the hands of a dwarf" is calculated as a +1 bonus on this item, and the rest of its abilities are a fixed GP cost. After all, every other "add an additional +x to the enhancment bonus in these specific circumstances" enhancements are always priced as enhancement bonuses not fixed GP bonuses, and I think that's for balance purposes.
The pricing ambiguity makes me think this might not be RAW possible in ambiguous cases, or maybe not at all with specific weapons and armors.
Sometimes, lack of funds or time make it impossible for a magic item crafter to create the desired item from scratch. Fortunately, it is possible to enhance or build upon an existing magic item. Only time, gold, and the various prerequisites required of the new ability to be added to the magic item restrict the type of additional powers one can place.
The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item. Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword.
I'm not sure if this allows players to, by RAW, upgrade specific magical items. For instance, a suit of mistmail costs 2250 (market price), and is a +1 chain shirt. Could one pay 3000 more to upgrade it to a +2 chain shirt (1500 more if crafting it oneself)? Or would that require a houserule?
That may be a ton of buffs but I dropped their na progression down 5 to account for the allowed armor bonus. So it ended up only a slight buff.
Umm, let's see. First, they're getting about 4/3 as many feats, since they're getting 4/3 as many HD. They're getting about 4/3 as many saving throw increases for the same reason, and skills too. Oh, and all those evolutions which depend on the eidolon's HD, those are better now. HP too. Endgame their armor is the same, since celestial armor counteracts the loss of mage armor and the 5 natural armor you removed (while still allowing for builds with DEX up to 26). They're getting more flexibility in their build - for instance, you can have an eidolon who just uses a bunch of tentacles, and they count as primary because he only has one type of attack. There's no way to classify all of that as a "slight buff." You made the class way more powerful.
I'm curious as to the nature of interaction between Arcane Bond and a gun in PFS.
Example:
Wizard takes Gunsmithing as his first level feat and chooses Arcane Bond (Pistol).
By doing this, does he acquire a masterwork pistol?
I've searched the archives and found this question briefly touched on but haven't found a definitive answer. If one exists, please link me to it. Otherwise, discuss
P.S. I'm aware of the inability to properly use said pistol without the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat (-4 attacks) but since spellslinger is not a viable option I was curious if this was.
Pretty sure the PFS rules specifically say that only a Gunslinger is even allowed to use a gun.
Thus, you'd have to be a Gunslinger 1/Wizard X to do this in PFS. You would then get a masterwork version of any type of gun for 0 cost. No advanced firearms because they don't exist in PFS.
If you cast a buff on an eidolon, and he gets sent back to his plane. Assuming you re-summon him immediately, does he still have that buff?
Yes, if the duration has not expired. There's no rule stating that all buffs on him immediately end.
Quote:
Now for the fun question. The Eidolon for the most part can be a crappy caster or a decent tank. Through evolutions he can learn to cast the following spells.
Blah blah blah
Can the eidolon use wands and scrolls that are on his spell list without using use magic device?
No. The Eidolon does not have a spell list and is not a spellcaster. He has evolutions which grant him spell-like abilities, but he does not even have the ability to cast spells. He doesn't even have the ability to cast spell-like abilities unless he specifically takes those evolutions.
He might be able to use the wands if you actually give him the ability to use the corresponding SLA, but in that case you'd probably be better served by getting Skilled [UMD] if you're just trying to use some wands.
Same for scrolls. Eidolons in general being capable of getting evolutions which give them access to SLA versions of particular spells does not constitute a spell list.
B) Does the Claws ability state you grow your claws from your hands? I think it's pretty inventive of a player to come up with this idea as it's not one I would have thought up.
-The pattern for usable natural attacks is usually claws on the hands talons on the feet. I can go through the monster manual if you want me to but i think you know I'm right there.
You say inventive, i say cheesey. I realize...
The "pattern" that they've designed most monsters by is irrelevant. I don't care if there isn't a single biped with tentacles, that doesn't make tentacles illegal on a biped eidolon, or on any bipedal creature with a "gain a tentacle" ability.
You won't see many bipeds with gore attacks, either. Does that mean gore is something bipeds are actually not allowed to have? No. For that to be true, there would have to be actual rules text saying "bipedal creatures cannot have a gore attack."
The fact is, the eidolon's rules text is the only text that says where you're allowed to have claws, and it specifically says "you're allowed to apply this to legs once." NO OTHER TEXT LIMITS WHICH LIMBS MAY HAVE CLAWS ON THEM. So by the actual rules, you're absolutely allowed to have two claws on a biped's feet, both in the case of the Eidolon and in the case of a human barbarian.
I am making a Bipedal Eidolon that uses weapons instead of natural attacks.
My question is can I spend 1 Evolution Point to remove the claws from my base form and make them hands?
Under limbs (arms) you may only use weapons if the Eidolon has hands. Now, you can replace claws with either pincers or slam for 1 Evolution Point, would it works the same as for hands.
I appreciate the help.
If you have claws, you still have hands. You just can't use the claws if you attack with something in those hands. For instance, if you attacked with a two-handed weapon, you wouldn't get the claw attacks.
Same with a slam, but it uses two hands, and you lose it if either hand is being used for a manufactured weapon attack.
"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type."
Note that you can also have the claws on your legs rather than arms, but this is an awkward concept and not appealing to everyone.
The original question is really irrelevant if he's only getting 4 claws, since he need not use the same limb for two claws. A biped can have 4 claws, two on its feet and two on its hands, as is made clear with the rules text for eidolon claws. Unless both abilities say "you grow claws on your hands/arms," he can go ahead and just have one pair be on his feet.
Yes, it is awkward to visualize, but there is precedent for allowing feet/legs to have claw attacks.
Also, there is no text to back up a RAW ruling that a limb cannot have multiple attacks on it. There are limitations on the eidolon's claw evolution, but those specific rules do not apply to anything except eidolons or summoners who get their claws from that evolution. You'll be exercising rule zero if you rule against multiple natural attacks on the same limb, unless there's text I'm unaware of that prevents this.
You will, however, have to give up one natural attack with that limb per weapon attack you make with that limb. So for instance if you had four claws all on your right hand, and you made an attack with a weapon using that hand, you'd only get three of your claws.
However, until an errata comes out, or a Pathfinder officiator chimes in, its really up to the DM to decide.
Via rule zero it is, but not by the rules. Untyped bonuses always stack unless they come from the same source. The "this bonus stacks with the one from spell focus" line is probably just there to clarify for people who might mistakenly think that spell focus and greater spell focus are the same source and thus wouldn't stack.
You could ask your GM if he'll consider Expert Archer to be the equivalent of Weapon Training for the purpose of Gloves of Dueling. If so, they'd be a nice thing to buy once you have the cash (one of the must-have fighter items).
Other than that, just get items and feats that boost your attack rolls and whatever specific combat maneuvers you'll be using.
Assume the party is fighting a swarm of a creature with intelligence (crows, perhaps).
What happens if a single swarm is hit by Confusion? Might its member creatures attack each other?
What happens if a swarm is hit by Charm Monster? Does this charm "one monster" (the whole swarm) or "one creature" (a tiny part of the swarm, so no in-game effect)?
Charm monster targets individual creatures, so you'd be wasting a spell.
Confusion is an AoE, so it would affect the swarm. RAW I don't think they would attack one another because they are not individual targets (also, good luck rolling a ridiculously high number of D100 to see what each individual creature does). Realistically I think most GMs would simply roll its D100 as one creature, and on "attack nearest creature" they'd make up a mechanic for the individual creatures to attack one another.
I don't see that you have to level in (or have any levels in) your favoured class to take the alternative benefit, whatever race you are. You just have to choose the appropriate class as your favoured class.
PRD wrote:
For example, a human with paladin as a favored class may choose to gain 1 point of energy resistance each time she gains a level;
edit: Semicolon at the end of the clause in the original.
You only get favored class benefits every time you put a level in a favored class. Anyone but a half-elf only has one favored class, so this issue doesn't come up for them.
All of Haloy's class levels count towards her favored class bonus since she is a half elf and has two favored classes. Therefore she gets 4 bonus evolution points, not 2.
No, you can only take class-specific alternate favored class bonuses when you take levels in that class. When you're leveling in magus, you'd be able to take either a HP, a skill point, or whatever magus alternate bonuses there are. You can't only take the summoner alternate favored class bonus for levels that you put into summoner.
Edit: it looks like this isn't stated in the rules anywhere, but come on. I'd probably at least ask for your GM to rule on it.
Another question..............
Magical Knack ( Caster level in chosen class gain +2 Trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice)
and Missionary ( +1 Save DC for three chosen spells, and those spells FUNCTION AT +1 CASTER LEVEL).
do those Trait bonuses stack ( I am doubtful, but depending on the reading, could be argued). The Caster is not a higher level, but the spells function at a higher level.... just curious what you all can say to that inquiry :)
Yes, they would stack.
Let's say you're a level Wizard 5/ Fighter 1/Eldritch knight 1. You have missionary applying, among other things, to Magic Missile.
Magical Knack makes your caster level IN THE WIZARD CLASS be a +7 instead of +5. The +2 bonus that it adds is a trait bonus.
Missionary lets you cast your magic missiles at a CL 1 higher than your wizard caster level. This is an untyped bonus, but moreover it is a bonus to a different statistic, and would stack even if it was a trait bonus. Magical knack actually increases your caster level in a class, while missionary just lets a few spells function at a caster level 1 higher. It would be like a trait bonus to natural AC and a trait bonus to untyped AC. They would stack, even though both have an effect on overall AC, since they are modifying different core statistics.
With that a Dervish Dancer can make a number of attacks equal to his level? then 20? Or it can make the maximum number allowed by his bab?
20. However, none of these attacks can be against the same target, so he'll either need some good reach or some really packed in enemies if he wants to get all 20 off.
