Dexinis

Ryze Kuja's page

Organized Play Member. 4,203 posts (4,320 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd allow Reactions to Flee or Defend while Fleeing, but I wouldn't allow Reactions to do anything otherwise.


In pf1e, I had a PC who made a Thrallherd (psionic version of Leadership feat) and he wanted to set up a veritable sweatshop of mind-controlled Thralls crafting items to make money to start a Religion and build Temples all over the world. I agreed because it sounded rad as heck tbh, but we decided for game balance reasons to keep his "Religion Gold" separate from his "PC's Gold", because he was making a crapton of extra gold and we didn't want him showing up to a level 8 encounter with a +5 Brilliant Energy Greataxe and a Ring of Three Wishes.

So I've seen what crafting looks like when it's done well and tbh it really did get out of hand, so keeping the two gold piles separate was an absolute must.

TLDR: the reason PC's sell items at 50% is purely for WBL game balance


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I can't wait for the re-master, it looks promising ;)


Tbh, I think it works as written (but I agree it could've been written better). Undead are immune to death effects associated with the death trait, but they're not immune to weapons. I mean, imagine I enchanted one of those huge boulders from Wile E. Coyote Looney Tunes cartoons with a death trait, and then catapulted it at a ghoul. Does the boulder just bounce off the ghoul for 0 dmg? I certainly hope not.


ElementalofCuteness wrote:
1) I do not see the Undead Trait is actually added to PC Undead using just Archetypes. So does this mean that they are not immune to other none-Positive (Vitality) healing effects? I.e Soothe and Elixirs of Life.

Undead are immune to all healing, whether it comes from positive energy, non-positive energy (like alchemy), or mundane (like Medicine checks). They can only be healed by negative energy and special abilities/feats (like Stitch Flesh).

=============================================================

ElementalofCuteness wrote:
2) Where does it say RAW (Rules as Written) that Undead PCs are not longer considered living?

Right here. The undead trait specifically says that an Undead Creature was "once living" and "infused after death". So undead are definitely not living.

Undead Trait wrote:


Undead
Source Core Rulebook pg. 637 4.0
Once living, these creatures were infused after death with negative energy and soul-corrupting evil magic. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, an undead creature is destroyed. Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don't benefit from healing effects.
ElementalofCuteness wrote:
2) For the purposes of stuff like treat wounds or other living creatures only effects. Does a PC Undead for example NEED Stitch Flesh to use Medicine?

Yes, you would need Stitch Flesh to perform medicine checks on Undead.

=============================================================

ElementalofCuteness wrote:
3) Does it say we are treated as Undead for effects such as the Spell Searing Light? I do know RAI (Rules of intended) yes.

Yes, if you have the undead trait, you're definitely undead. And if you get hit with a Searing Light spell, or any other spell that causes specific effects to undead, you would suffer any of these extra conditions/damage noted in the spell description.

Quote:

PFS Standard

Searing LightSpell 3
Attack Evocation Fire Good Light
Source Core Rulebook pg. 367 4.0
Traditions divine, primal
Bloodlines angelic, psychopomp
Cast [two-actions] somatic, verbal
Range 120 feet; Targets 1 creature

You shoot a blazing ray of light tinged with holy energy. Make a ranged spell attack. The ray deals 5d6 fire damage. If the target is a fiend or undead, you deal an extra 5d6 good damage.

Critical Success The target takes double fire damage, as well as double good damage if a fiend or undead.
Success The target takes full damage.

If the light passes through an area of magical darkness or targets a creature affected by magical darkness, searing light attempts to counteract the darkness. If you need to determine whether the light passes through an area of darkness, draw a line between yourself and the spell's target.

Heightened (+1) The fire damage increases by 2d6, and the good damage against fiends and undead increases by 2d6.


SuperParkourio wrote:
if the Quick Recognition crit fails, and the wrong spell is actually in the PC's spellbook, could the PC potentially waste a slot trying to match the wrong traits?

Yes, the spell is essentially wasted.


SuperParkourio wrote:
Quick Recognition already makes Recognizing the Spell a free action. The problem is that you can't respond to the same trigger with two actions, even if one of them is a free action.

You pretty much HAVE to allow your player to Recognize Spell as a free action during the same time as the Counterspell Reaction, otherwise Counterspell is worthless. Your PC's aren't going to have any fun when they Counterspell and then *guess* what school and level of the spell to use.

Free Actions wrote:

[free-action] Free Actions

Source Core Rulebook pg. 17 4.0
Free actions use this symbol: [free-action] . Free actions don’t require you to spend any of your three single actions or your reaction. A free action might have a trigger like a reaction does. If so, you can use it just like a reaction—even if it’s not your turn. However, you can use only one free action per trigger, so if you have multiple free actions with the same trigger, you have to decide which to use. If a free action doesn’t have a trigger, you use it like a single action, just without spending any of your actions for the turn.
Reactions wrote:


Reactions in Encounters
Source Core Rulebook pg. 472 4.0
Your reactions let you respond immediately to what’s happening around you. The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.

Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and reaction. You can use 1 reaction per round. You can use a reaction on anyone’s turn (including your own), but only when its trigger occurs. If you don’t use your reaction, you lose it at the start of your next turn, though you typically then gain a reaction at the start of that turn.

Some reactions are specifically meant to be used in combat and can change how the battle plays out drastically. One example of such a reaction is Attack of Opportunity, which fighters gain at 1st level.
Attack of Opportunity
[reaction]
Source Core Rulebook pg. 142 4.0
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action. This Strike doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to this Strike.
This reaction lets you make a melee Strike if a creature within reach uses a manipulate or move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action. The Triggering Moves diagram on page 474 illustrates examples of movements that might trigger an Attack of Opportunity from a creature without reach and one with reach.

You’ll notice this reaction allows you to use a modified basic action, a Strike. This follows the rules on subordinate actions found on page 462. Because your Attack of Opportunity takes place outside of your turn, the attack roll doesn’t incur a multiple attack penalty.

Actions with Triggers wrote:

Actions with Triggers

Source Core Rulebook pg. 462 4.0
You can use free actions that have triggers and reactions only in response to certain events. Each such reaction and free action lists the trigger that must happen for you to perform it. When its trigger is satisfied—and only when it is satisfied—you can use the reaction or free action, though you don’t have to use the action if you don’t want to.

There are only a few basic reactions and free actions that all characters can use. You’re more likely to gain actions with triggers from your class, feats, and magic items.
Limitation on Triggers
Source Core Rulebook pg. 462 4.0
The triggers listed in the stat blocks of reactions and some free actions limit when you can use those actions. You can use only one action in response to a given trigger. For example, if you had a reaction and a free action that both had a trigger of “your turn begins,” you could use either of them at the start of your turn—but not both. If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they’re effectively the same thing. Usually, this decision will be based on what’s happening in the narrative.

This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger.

I would talk to your DM about this verbiage: "If two triggers are similar, but not identical, the GM determines whether you can use one action in response to each or whether they’re effectively the same thing.", "You can use 1 reaction per round." and "A free action might have a trigger like a reaction does. If so, you can use it just like a reaction—even if it’s not your turn. However, you can use only one free action per trigger, so if you have multiple free actions with the same trigger, you have to decide which to use." You should be allowed to Recognize Spell and Counterspell in the same action, otherwise Counterspell is worthless. This is a no-brainer and your DM should agree, tbqf.


You still have to choose an appropriate spell for the spell being casted, so you definitely have to Recognize the Spell first.

Quote:

Clever Counterspell

Feat 12
Wizard
Source Core Rulebook pg. 212 4.0
Prerequisites Counterspell; Quick Recognition
You creatively apply your prepared spells to Counterspell a much wider variety of your opponents’ magic. Instead of being able to counter a foe’s spell with Counterspell only if you have that same spell prepared, you can use Counterspell as long as you have the spell the foe is casting in your spellbook. When you use Counterspell in this way, the prepared spell you expend must share a trait other than its tradition with the triggering spell. At the GM’s discretion, you can instead use a spell that has an opposing trait or that otherwise logically would counter the triggering spell (such as using a cold or water spell to counter fireball or using remove fear to counter a fear spell). Regardless of what spell you expend, you take a –2 penalty to your counteract check, though the GM can waive this penalty if the expended spell is especially appropriate.


Recognize the Spell as a Free Action
Counterspell as a Reaction

Tbqh though, Paizo screwed up when they wrote their Counterspell rules/feats, especially when they made Recognize Spell feat cost a Reaction. Identifying a Spell used to be a free action Knowledge Arcana/Religion check to identify a spell in PF1e.

Personally, I use D&D 5E's Counterspell mechanics with PF2's Average DC's by Level to determine the Counterspell DC. It's so clean and uncomplicated and everyone is happy.


Honestly you don't need a dedicated healer as a class anymore as long as at least one person in your group is going Legendary Medicine, so you don't "need" a cleric. They're nice to have, don't get me wrong, but you don't need one.

I'm currently playing a level 8 gunslinger and this is my first character going full Medicine skill, and Battle Medicine is hands down one of the best feats in the game. My party doesn't have a healer, we have a Champion (ToC instead of LoH), Rogue, and myself, and so far we've had no issues with healing. We've used a grand total of 12 healing potions this entire campaign.

As far as what caster you should play, any caster would fit well in a group like that, but I'm going to agree with Dr. Frank Funkelstein, a Bard would be amazing simply for the inspire courage bonus.


Personally, I wouldn't require a Strength or Climb check unless you're trying to hold the rope for Andre the Giant or heaving/hauling up a grand piano or something. It bogs down the session with unneeded, easily fail-able checks, and if you fail, it leads to more nonsense and further derailing my sesh away from the important/fun stuff I have planned.

That being said, if you're still wanting to make your players do a check for this, I would only require a climb check for the player who is climbing the rope (PC 2); the player who is holding the rope (PC 1) will be "Aiding" the climber, so PC1 would also make a climb check to Aid Another for a +1 circumstance bonus to PC2's Climb Check, or a +2, +3, or +4 circumstance bonus depending on the Athletics Proficiency of PC1 and if the Aid roll is a critical success.

As far as setting a DC, if it's a flat wall with no grab-points or footholds (like a castle wall or a guard shack), that's probably a 30-35DC on a 20ft wall. If it's a wall with grab-points and footholds (like an unworked cavern wall), I would consider a 20ft climb as "Average", so I'd set the climb check at 15-20DC.

Athletics - Climb wrote:


Climb
[one-action]
Move
Source Core Rulebook pg. 241 4.0
Requirements You have both hands free.
You move up, down, or across an incline. Unless it’s particularly easy, you must attempt an Athletics check. The GM determines the DC based on the nature of the incline and environmental circumstances. You’re flat-footed unless you have a climb Speed.

Critical Success You move up, across, or safely down the incline for 5 feet plus 5 feet per 20 feet of your land Speed (a total of 10 feet for most PCs).
Success You move up, across, or safely down the incline for 5 feet per 20 feet of your land Speed (a total of 5 feet for most PCs, minimum 5 feet if your Speed is below 20 feet).
Critical Failure You fall. If you began the climb on stable ground, you fall and land prone.
Sample Climb Tasks
Untrained ladder, steep slope, low-branched tree
Trained rigging, rope, typical tree
Expert wall with small handholds and footholds
Master ceiling with handholds and footholds, rock wall
Legendary smooth surface

TLDR: GM sets the Climb DC at whatever his lil heart desires


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Currently playing a level 8 Gunslinger and this is my first character going full Medicine skill, and tbh if you want to be able to heal well, just get Battle Medicine and some Healer's Gloves and then a nice collection of healing potions. So far this entire campaign, we've used exactly 12 healing potions total.

Current party is Champion (doesn't have Lay on Hands, has Touch of Corruption instead), Rogue, and myself (gunslinger), and so far we haven't had a single issue with healing because of how good Medicine skill + Battle Medicine feat are naturally.

Also of note, my party is pretty handy with the Aid Action, and Aid is a godsend for the Medicine skill because critical heals are the bee's knees.


Set wrote:

557. Stone Eggs. Most cockatrice eggs are normal, and hatch normally to produce yet more of the noisome creatures, but one in ten is petrified by the mother's touch, and is a normally-shaped egg made of granite, that obviously never hatches. It weighs about 5 lbs, and, due to it's shape, is neither useful as building material, nor paperweight, being useful only perhaps as a sling stone for a stone giant...

Casting stone to flesh ends the petrification and turns the stone egg back into a fertile cockatrice egg, which, if properly warmed and nurtured, will hatch into an advanced cockatrice.

So fricken cool, nice


What QoL wands should I be going for besides Longstrider or See Invis?

Also, if not Pacifying Rune, what would you suggest in lieu of this?


Ah k, ty


Sorry gents, I'm pretty new to PF2E, what is a QoL wand? I tried googling it but couldn't find anything.


Hey all,

This is my first time playing a Gunslinger and we're starting at level 5. The GM is allowing items up to level 7 to start out with. We're using the Free Archetype rule, and I'm going as the Inventor Archetype and choosing the Construct Innovation.

I was going to start off with a Pacifying Property Rune for the -2 Attack vs. anything I attack, as well as a +1 Striking rune. I was also thinking of Hat of Disguise, since my character is highly reliant upon stealth and blending into crowds.

What are some of the go-to items for Snipers and Inventors? Thanks in advance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

88. The PC's are traveling through a forest on a trail that is not known/used by many, and they come across an old, abandoned library just as nightfall is approaching, and this is probably the easiest place to find shelter for the night-- despite being abandoned and in disrepair, the library's doors, windows, and roof don't leak. The mystery here is that the first 144 pages of every single book in this library have become blank, and seemingly no spell can restore the information or pictures these pages once had. The number twelve (12) seems to be a common "theme" throughout the library, such as 12 bookshelves per section, 12 tables per row, every clock shows 12pm and chimes 12 times at the top of every hour (regardless of the actual time), etc. The answer to whatever riddle at the end of this could be "L" for being the 12th letter of the alphabet, or the answer could be "Greataxe" for being a d12 weapon, etc.

Each time the party guesses the answer to the riddle wrong, you hear the echo of a witch's sinister cackle gracefully fleeting and dancing its way across the ceilings and walls into your ears.


PF1E CR Calculator is what I use. Just plug in all your numbers and voila! *chef's kiss*


Tbh, I am absolutely glad that you have come up with discrepancies in this build, because there were indeed discrepancies.

I sincerely hope that you use this build :) And, please let me know how it turns out in your game, if you use it :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bleed them dry with Tucker's Kobolds and bathe in their tears! I'm j/k :)


One other thing you can do is to document your encounters on an excel spreadsheet and then use it as a resource for customizing your monsters. The most important thing to document here is each action that your players use in every given round, how much damage they dealt (if any) with the attack/spell/effect, or whether it was crowd control (how many monsters saved/failed), as well as if there were any environmental factors, such as a Wide-open battlefield, was there a chokepoint that they abused, etc.

This can help you understand your party's average Damage-per-Round, and this affects how many HP you should put on your monsters. If they're lacking in the DPR department and things aren't dying fast enough, then consider dropping the monster's HP or give the encounter a beneficial environmental effect that the players can abuse to their advantage, or w/e you feel is right for the encounter.

After you have about 10-ish encounters documented, that's a reasonable amount of data you can pull from to help you create challenging encounters that won't kill the party.

Last thing, some encounters that you design are going to be a little dicey on purpose, such as BBEG fights, and for these fights, you can incorporate some fun stuff as "contingencies" just in case the PC's start losing. Turn it into a 3-way fight. Mid-fight, a pair of drow assassins swoop in and steal the mcguffin! Oh my, plot twist! The assassins are getting away, meanwhile the BBEG and the party are fighting each other as well as trying to run down the drow! Spice it up even more? The assassins have commandeered a carriage and are now speeding down the crowded street like a bat outta hell while the BBEG and PC's steal some horses from a nearby stable! Now the BBEG is "mostly" distracted and will be spending some of his Action Economy on attacking the drow rather than 100% focused on the PC's, and who doesn't love a good ol' fashioned Indiana Jones chase scene.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PF CR Calculator

I use this----^ when customizing encounters and it works out great. If your PC's are struggling with the module's encounters, this tool can be used to calculate an appropriate CR for them. I'd take each encounter that they do and plug in the numbers here and gauge how they did with the encounter, and adjust the future encounters up or down accordingly, and if you're finding that the module's encounters are actually APL+1=CR or APL+2=CR, then try bringing them down to APL=CR or even APL-1=CR, if necessary.

Any encounter that is APL=CR should use about 25% of the party's resources in a given battle, and PC's should have about 3-4 APL=CR encounters per day <--- this is your ideal target, you want them spending about 25% of their resources in a given encounter, so if they're struggling with APL=CR, then try removing one or even two of the monsters/NPC's from the encounter or simply nerf the level of the monsters by -1 and see how they do.

This calculator tool cannot account for everything though, it's just a gauge. Some factors can't be calculated properly due to party composition. For example, if you have a group that doesn't have a lot of Cold damage options and you're facing creatures that are fire-based, they're obviously going to struggle with fire enemies-- similarly, if they're facing enemies that poison, disease, and curse, and if they don't have a lot of condition removal options, they're going to struggle with that as well. Vice-versa, your party might do exceedingly well vs large groups because you have a PC with Cleave-->Improved Cleaving Finish, or if you have a 2handed Paladin and you're facing a lot of undead or evil enemies. This is something the CR calculator cannot gauge, but you as the DM can.

It's a pretty cool tool, but don't rely on it 100% because of the unaccounted variables like these --^.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
The stuff we create is balanced. It's not for power gaming.
Indeed. While I'm not the best at figuring out balance by numbers, I do my best to keep things along the same levels as the rest of our campaigns. I only change things for flavor, not to "fix" something I see as wrong.

Yep absolutely :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The stuff we create is balanced. It's not for power gaming.


Tbh, I don't see any actual rules violations with this, because the Tempered Champion and Mind Sword archetypes are not "technically" changing, modifying, or replacing different class abilities, even though they really are. Lay on Hands is getting modified in both archetypes, as well as spellcasting in both archetypes, but at the bottom of each ability in each archetype is replacing different class features.

Quote:

Mind Sword

Contents [show]

Mind swords merge psychic and divine power, probing and cleansing minds while their telekinetic blades cleave demonic flesh.
Mind Arsenal (Su)

At 2nd level, a mind sword can make a telekinetic attack with a melee weapon. This functions as the hand of the apprentice universalist wizard school ability, but any calculations of that ability based on Intelligence are instead based on Charisma. At 6th level, a mind sword can expend two uses of this ability as a full-round action to attack the same opponent multiple times, as if using the full-attack action. At 12th level, a mind sword can expend one use of this ability as a full-round action to combine melee attacks and ranged attacks aimed at different targets within 60 feet as part of a single full-attack action.

This ability replaces lay on hands.

Touch Treatment (Su)

At 3rd level, a mind sword can expend one use of her mind arsenal ability to remove minor harmful mental conditions, as per the mesmerist touch treatment class feature.

At 9th level, she can remove moderate conditions, and at 15th level, she can remove major conditions.

This ability replaces mercy.

Spells

A mind sword adds the following psychic spells to her paladin spell list at the listed spell levels:

1st—detect psychic significance, mage hand, telekinetic projectile, thought shield I

2nd—apport object, enshroud thoughts, mental barrier I, thought shield II

3rd—intellect fortress I, mental barrier II, telekinetic maneuver, thought shield III

4th—intellect fortress II, telekinesis, thought shield IV, thoughtsense, tower of iron will I

The mind sword can prepare and cast these psychic spells as divine paladin spells. However, the mind sword cannot use these spells for item creation, including making potions or scrolls of these spells.

This ability replaces channel positive energy.

Quote:

Divine Weapon Specialization (Ex)

At 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter, a tempered champion gains a bonus feat from the following list:

Disruptive, Divine Fighting Technique, Greater Penetrating Strike, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Penetrating Strike, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Weapon Trick.

If a feat requires choosing a weapon or weapon group, the tempered champion must choose her deity’s favored weapon, or its group. The tempered champion must meet the feat’s prerequisites, but treats her tempered champion levels as fighter levels for this purpose.

In addition, the 4th-level tempered champion gains the increased base weapon damage of the warpriest’s sacred weapon ability at her tempered champion level.

This ability replaces spellcasting.

Divine Bond (Su)

At 5th level, a tempered champion must select a weapon for her divine bond. If she is out of daily uses, she can expend a use of lay on hands to activate this ability.

Personally, I would allow this, because per RAW there are no actual violations here. However with that being said, your GM might not agree. I would consult your GM and make sure this is all kosher with them, because these two archetypes ARE indeed modifying spellcasting as well as lay on hands. But, like I said, I'd allow it, but your GM may feel differently.

========================================================================

Next thing, to what end are we going here? What weapon did you have in mind, and do you have a build concept and/or playstyle concept that you're specifically looking for? Is there a specific reason that you're choosing to do this rather than just building a fighter who has a ton of feats and class features who could do the same equal concept, if not better? The reason why I ask is because "switch-hitting" can be done with other classes that might be more beneficial to the concept/playstyle you're looking for. So gimme the deets, and we can help you accomplish what you're looking for.

After lay on hands, mercies, channel positive energy, and spellcasting have been removed/modified, you're left with aura of good, detect evil, smite evil, divine grace, aura of courage, divine health, aura of resolve, aura of justice, aura of faith, aura of righteousness, and holy champion. Tbh, if you're looking to do a ranged playstyle, most of these class features are not going to benefit your party as much as you might think because you're not in the fray with a ranged build, so your auras are only going to function while you're very close to your ranged compatriots. Smite Evil and Aura of Justice are some of the best buffs in the entire game tho, and the rest of the paladin class chassis is pretty darn good too so if that's what you're after then I completely understand.

TLDR: What's the endgame goal here? Tell me what/how/why you'd like to build a character like this. What's the playstyle you're looking for? Because "switch-hitting" can be done with a myriad of classes and build concepts, especially if you consider the multi-classing potential here. Why are you choosing the notoriously feat-starved paladin class as a chassis to accomplish this when rogues, slayers, brawlers, fighters, or possibly even monk might do it your playstyle goal better.


I must've miscalculated, I'd go with this instead:

20 Str (18 + 2)
12 Dex
11 Con
10 Int
10 Wis
14 Cha


I will re-flavor or custom create just about anything; races, archetypes, feats, spells, or special abilities, whatever a player wants. You should play whatever you want to play. Games should be fun.

Honestly, if a player is asking for custom stuff, it means they're invested and imaginative, and I would do whatever it takes to make that spark never go out.


I am highly inclined to agree with DeathlessOne, but then I came across the True Silvered Throne archetype.

Ritual Hex is given as a bonus feat in the True Silvered Throne archetype, and the archetype makes no specific rules/exemptions that modifies or disallows being able to select Major/Grand Hexes from Witch Hexes while using the feat. Since Shaman don't have major/grand hexes, this leads me to believe that they indeed CAN select major/grand hexes, as well as normal hexes, from the witch hex list; and it leads me to believe this is meant to be a feature of the archetype.

I would also say that this would be a feature when selecting the Ritual Hex feat normally, even without taking this archetype as well.

Quote:
Witch Hex: The shaman selects any one hex normally available through the witch’s hex class feature. She treats her shaman level as her witch level when determining the powers and abilities of the hex. She uses her Wisdom modifier in place of her Intelligence modifier for the hex. She cannot select major hexes or grand hexes using this ability. The shaman cannot select a witch hex that has the same name as a shaman hex.

Shamans are only disallowed from selecting major/grand hexes while using the Witch Hex ability.

Tbh, I could see this going either way. My advice: ask your GM.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Not trying to argue your points RK, but I just wanted to offer:

Shatter Defenses relies on Intimidate to Demoralize. This is a check of 10 + the foe's HD + their Wis modifier. Creatures smaller than their opponents receive a -4 penalty.

Improved Feint relies on a Bluff check against a DC of 10 + your opponent's BAB + Wis modifier unless they're trained in Sense motive, and then use 10 +Sense Motive bonus if higher. There is no modifier for size difference.

Now, a Small sized PC with a 3/4 BAB needs to be L8 before they can get to Shatter Defenses. By this point, if they've maxed their ranks in Intimidate and have it as a Class skill, that's Intimidate +11 as a base, further modified by their Cha bonus, feats, items and so on.

Many CR8 monsters have 11-12 HD and can be Large or larger. An 11HD, Large sized foe has a base DC of 21, modified by their Wis modifier, feats, immunity to Fear effects and so on. The PC also suffers a -4 penalty to their roll. Even if this PC uses a Size altering Transmutation effect, the Size penalty will still be there.

Many CR8 monsters have 3/4 BAB and Size would have no effect on a Bluff check. The Small sized PC would start with a +11 if they maxed their ranks in Bluff and had it as a Class skill as a starting point. Their foe's DC would have a starting point of 16, modified by their Wis modifier or their Sense Motive skill bonus if higher.

Last but not least, there's one other thing that keeps a Feint build from being great, IMO: you need Cha for Bluff, Int for Combat Expertise, and then you need an attack stat depending on your favored method, Dex or Str.

In Shatter Defenses you need only your attack stat and Cha. With certain other feats, you could roll all of this under Str. Ok, I'm done.

Check this build out one post up, it's pretty damn good tbh.


This is the kind of Shattered Defenses Build nonsense I'm talking about. Tbh, this is one of the scariest, pivotal Slayer builds I've ever come up with.

Not every enemy is going to be affected by fear, but for those that cannot be feared, you can use invisibility via Ring of Invis or a wand of Greater Invis.


Chell Raighn wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
When feats like Shatter Defenses exist, there is no real good reason to be good at feinting, imo. The Action Economy is free and the Feat list is minimal.

Not every build can justify the feat cost of Dazzling Display + Shatter Defenses… a few skill ranks in Bluff is easier to work into a build than a couple feats… that said… Shatter Defenses might be a better choice than specifically specializing in Feint for abilities like Sneak Attack… however, Uncanny Dodge would negate Shatter Defenses, while Feint could still function.

Flat-footed = Denied Dexterity
Denied Dexterity =/= Flat-footed

If you can justify getting Combat Expertise + Improved/Greater Feint, then you can certainly justify getting Weapon Focus, Dazzling Display, and Shatter Defenses. Shatter Defenses allows for Full Attacks while Feint doesn't. It's going to cost you a Move Action every time you Feint. You could get Moonlight Stalker Feint to turn it into a Swift Action, but the pre-req list is substantially higher.

Shatter Defenses is just far superior in almost every way you want to slice it compared to Feinting, both Action Economy-wise and Feat Cost-wise. But, you should always have multiple paths to SnAing, you can't expect every single enemy to be affected by Shatter Defenses (but a significant majority of creatures/monsters are). That's why you carry a Wand of Greater Invisibility for denying Dex vs enemies immune to Shatter Defenses.

Coming across creatures with Uncanny Dodge is pretty rare anyway. Just go hit something else and let your party kill it. You'd have to be doing a Barbarian Lands campaign of some kind, or taking on a Rogue's Guild to see a lot of things with Uncanny Dodge. Then, sure, Feint would be worth it.

Generally speaking though, Shatter Defenses > Feint.


When feats like Shatter Defenses exist, there is no real good reason to be good at feinting, imo. The Action Economy is free and the Feat list is minimal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shamans typically dump Str, so I'd get a Bag of Holding or Handy Haversack. Ring of Spell Storing is also really handy, keep a Get Out of Jail Free spell in it so you always have an ace up your sleeve. If you have a friendly neighborhood wiz/sorc/bard in the party, dimension door, gaseous form, greater invisibility, or freedom of movement are great spells to keep in your Ring of Spell Storing for emergencies. Frigid Touch or Frostbite in Spell Storing Armor is also a nice defense mechanism.

Reach Metamagic Rod is really handy, because most of your core healing spells are touch range, and sometimes that can force you down AoO Alley to get to your near-dead compatriot-- turning a touch-range Cure Wounds spell into a close-range spell 3x day can save your own life as well as your ally's life, and it's only 3,000gp. Alternatively, use an offensive Touch spell from close-range so you don't have to wade into melee. An absolute bargain if I ever sawed one.

Persistent Metamagic Rods are nice for your Save or Die spells.

Ring of Protection, Amulet of Natural Armor, and Cloak of Resistance are always welcome for shoring up defense. Headband of Wisdom is also nice for offense and extra spell slots.

Shamans have a diverse, fantastic spell list and some spells you'll definitely want to cast more than once but don't want to prep two of the same spells, so Pearls of Power can really come in handy. Runestones of Power can help you with your spontaneous spell slots.

Rather than spending gold on flying (like a magic carpet or flying broom), I would definitely take the Wings Hex (x2 @ lvl 8). That's 16 minutes of flying per day right out of the gate at level 8, so you can stay out of range of melee enemies every encounter of the day plus have roughly 8-12ish minutes left for utility/scouting. This can save you quite a bit of money.

Since you're Wisdom-based, Gloves of Reconnaissance and Eyes of the Eagle is a nice little combo for 1) nailing all your perc checks, and 2) making perc checks through doors and walls up to 5ft thick. Perception is the most rolled skill in the game and knowledge is power, so you might as well capitalize on Wis being your primary ability score.

Quick Runner's Shirt is handy to have for the times you need to use Chant Hex and still perform a Move Action.

Amulet of the Spirits (Life) is 12,000gp but it's worth every penny for a Life Shaman, because when you Life Link you'll be taking damage almost every single battle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, if you're cornered and disarmed, and all you have left is your buckler, I'd unbuckle it, hold it from the strap, and start swinging it like it was a light flail. It beats taking an AoO for each unarmed strike you make. <--- I'd allow AoO's in this scenario

Chell Raighn wrote:
if they do threaten then any character wielding a ranged weapon would threaten without the need of snapshot

I wouldn't allow a Bow user to make an AoO with the Bow unless they were specifically wielding like a baseball bat or something, but if they were, I'd let them take AoO's (albeit -4 penalty). If you're wielding the bow appropriately because you're firing arrows, then I wouldn't allow it. But if you're out of arrows and cornered/outnumbered, you gotta fight back somehow-- choke up on that thing and start swinging for the bleachers <--- I'd also allow AoO's in that scenario.


Improvised Weapons can be used to threaten AoO's. If you can convince your DM that you're "wielding" the buckler as an Improvised Weapon (and take a -4 penalty to the AoO), then you could threaten. In a tavern brawl, there's a difference between "holding" a chair and "wielding a chair as an improvised weapon" though, so ymmv at different tables with regards to a buckler that is equipped for defense and not actively being used as an improvised weapon. It all depends on what your definitions of a "weapon" and "wielding" are.

Your DM may rule that your buckler is not being used as a weapon, and he wouldn't be wrong to rule it that way either. Personally, I wouldn't allow it if you're using it as a shield though, but if it's unbuckled from your forearm and you're actively swinging it around as an improvised weapon then I'd allow it.


Chell, there's no use arguing about this. This is bad writing, there are logical inconsistencies everywhere, and it's honestly not worth any of our time, effort, or patience to argue about it. You're getting worked up trying to prove something that is impossible to prove due to BAD WRITING by the developers.

Common Terms wrote:

A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.

All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting.

Dazzling Blade will break one of these two quoted above rules whether it's a Mind-affecting spell or whether it's not a Mind-affecting spell.

- If it is NOT a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting."

- If it IS a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher."

Therefore, it is not possible for this spell to be in compliance with the general rules one way or another, and it's because it's a Pattern spell that targets an object.

The same ----^ is true for Apparent Master, Draconic Malice, Business Booms, and Prosperous Room. It's not possible for any of these spells to comply with the general rules.

So, since we're dealing with Bad Writing, the best way to handle this is to go back to Specific Rules of the Spell > General Rules of the School/Sub-School of Magic, and then house rule as you see fit. This isn't worth arguing about anymore. Your list of poorly written spells blows every argument in this thread out of the water, including your own.


Don't need to house rule them. They already don't have the mind-affecting descriptor.


For experienced players, I'll usually start at level 3, 8, or 12, depending on the campaign.

For new/inexperienced players, I'll usually start at level 1.


I'd say Business Booms and Prosperous Room can also be added to your list of exceptions. These spells increase production and cash flow, and it's not a requisite to have a "mind" in the room/building for these spells to function. You could have a crew of undead, constructs, and permanent unseen servants or unseen crew, or simply no crew at all if you're creative enough with your business idea.

For example, you could cast Business Booms on an import/export business and your customers across the ocean would never even see the building, but you'd still benefit from the increased influx of activity that the spell provides. Likewise, Prosperous Room could be cast on an underground ore refinement or smithy manned by nothing but constructs, and the spell would still cause it to produce more labor/materials even though no minds are present. Necromancers could similarly use undead for their manpower for any business they could conceive and still benefit from these spells even though no minds are actually involved. The physical presence of customers isn't even required, because what if you're shipping your products via courier/mail or overseas to customers who put in their orders for your product via magical or mundane correspondence.


Tbh, most of those on your list probably could and should be mind-affecting. When I was going thru your list, I was just looking at the mechanics and fluff text of each spell and trying to understand from the developers' point of view as to why they might rationalize each of these spells as not mind-affecting. And in this list, there were at least 7 that were undeniably mind-affecting (mechanics and/or fluff) that didn't have the mind-affecting descriptor.

This is just bad writing, and it's not worth anyone's time arguing about bad writing. If it makes more sense for you to house rule [mind-affecting] descriptors on each and every one of these, including keep watch, the construct spell, or building/room/area spells, then you do you at your table.


Java Man wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Does anyone know how to say "you are only making yourself look stupid, you should be quiet now" in a way that is within the forum rules? Asking for a friend.
It wouldn't help. People who grew up playing D&D grew numb to looking stupid.
He was talking about you.
Ryze, please refrain from attempting to speak for me.

Sounds fair. Please refrain from insinuating that I'm stupid.


Chell Raighn wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:

Okay, I'll start.

Common Terms wrote:

Mind-Affecting

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.

All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting.

See Magic for additional details.

Dazzling Blade will break one of these two bolded rules whether it's a Mind-affecting spell or whether it's not a Mind-affecting spell.

If it is not a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting."

If it is a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher."

==================================

It is not possible for this spell to be in compliance with the general rules one way or another, and it's because it's a Pattern spell that targets an object. Frankly, they should've made this spell a Glamer spell.

If you think the lack of the [mind-affecting] descriptor suddenly makes the spell no longer mind-affecting then I guess all of these spells must not be mind-affecting in your book.... despite the fact that the rules very clearly state they are and no specific exception is made in all but one of them.

Alluring Light - Enchantment(Compulsion)
Apparent Master - Enchantment
Bestow Insight - Enchantment
Bite the Hand & Bite the Hand, Mass - Enchantment(Compulsion)
Bungle - Enchantment(Compulsion)...

Honestly this is the best, most-compelling argument against mine thus far. But enchantment spells can affect other things other than just minds. They can affect objects, bodies, weapons, armor, constructs, and even buildings, however there are quite a few in this list that don't have the [mind-affecting] descriptor but really ought to.

Alluring Light - creates an emanation of light that compels others, this probably should have a [mind-affecting] descriptor, but I could understand if the developers felt this targeted their bodies. This one is iffy.
Apparent Master - targets a construct, not mind-affecting
Bestow Insight - targets a humanoid, this probably should have a [mind-affecting] descriptor, unless the developers envisioned this to target the creature's body
Bite the Hand & Bite the Hand, Mass - targets summoned creatures, which may or may not have minds (summon swarm, for instance) - highly iffy
Bungle - Enchantment(Compulsion) - should definitely have a [mind-affecting] descriptor, unless the developers envisioned this to target the creature's body
Business Booms - targets a building
Compelling Rant - definitely [mind-affecting]
Covetous Urge - this is a curse that is language-dependent, and probably shouldn't be mind-affecting. Mind-affecting things wouldn't care about languages.
Curse of Keeping - also a curse, probably shouldn't be mind-affecting
Delay Pain - definitely mind-affecting
Draconic Malice - not mind-affecting
Foster Hatred - definitely mind-affecting
Instant Enemy - probably shouldn't be mind-affecting
Keep Watch - shouldn't be mind affecting, this affects the physical body and physical brain (REM sleep, alpha waves, etc.)
Litany of Dependability - definitely mind-affecting
Opportunistic Loyalty - definitely mind-affecting
Prosperous Room - targets a room or building
Severed Fate - targets... destiny? Not mind-affecting.
Spirit Call - targets spirits, but also yourself and increases your own CL... not mind-affecting
Swallow Your Fears - definitely mind-affecting, targets the fight or flight response in psyche
They Know - definitely mind-affecting, also affects fight/flight response
Utter Contempt - definitely mind-affecting
Mad Hallucination - absolutely, unequivocally mind-affecting, honestly it even says that it directly affects the target's mind in the fluff text
Obscured Script - targets book, paper, or existing inscriptions - probably not mind-affecting, but should have the [language-dependent] descriptor
Shadowmind = targets a creature's sight, not mind-affecting. Tbh, probably should be [glamer] or [shadow]
Trail of the Rose - not mind-affecting, targets a rose and affects eyes/sight

Tbh, after going thru this list, I'm just going to chalk this up as bad writing or at least bad rationalization for why some of these wouldn't be mind-affecting.


Okay, I'll start.

Common Terms wrote:

Mind-Affecting

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.

All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting.

See Magic for additional details.

Dazzling Blade will break one of these two bolded rules whether it's a Mind-affecting spell or whether it's not a Mind-affecting spell.

If it is not a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting."

If it is a mind-affecting spell, then it breaks this rule: "A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher."

==================================

It is not possible for this spell to be in compliance with the general rules one way or another, and it's because it's a Pattern spell that targets an object. Frankly, they should've made this spell a Glamer spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
"oh yeah, this disrespect is just peachy, lemme just make a polite rebuttal."
Umm. I did exactly that. Did you not see my clever reply to what Java said? Didn't matter if he was talking about you, me or both of us. I nailed that one.

Want to re-start this conversation politely? I'm down if you're down.


Melkiador wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
That's because we're posting back and forth to each other at neck-break speeds. It would be easy to make single posts at a time if we were posting 1+ hour apart.
You can go back and count... You've been double posting at me over and over in this thread. Everyone does it once or twice. It happens. But you've made a bad habit of it, bud. It's not making you come off as calm and collected.

That's because I'm not calm and collected. You can't be overtly rude saying stuff like "Dude. Just Stop." "You're blatantly wrong" and "you're embarrassing yourself" and then expect me to just be like "oh yeah, this disrespect is just peachy, lemme just make a polite rebuttal." If you want to get down in the mud and start flinging crap my way, you can expect artillery fire from me every time. I was perfectly respectful before you said that.


Melkiador wrote:
Ryze Kuja wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Does anyone know how to say "you are only making yourself look stupid, you should be quiet now" in a way that is within the forum rules? Asking for a friend.
It wouldn't help. People who grew up playing D&D grew numb to looking stupid.
He was talking about you.
Maybe... But then I'm not the one making two separate posts every time I post, so maybe not...

That's because we're posting back and forth to each other at neck-break speeds. It would be easy to make single posts at a time if we were posting 1+ hour apart.


Common Terms wrote:

Mind-Affecting

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior. A mind-affecting spell works only against creatures with an Intelligence score of 1 or higher.

All enchantments, illusion (patterns), and illusion (phantasms) are mind-affecting.

See Magic for additional details.

^----- Look. They break both of these general rules with the same spell.


You can't just add spell descriptors to whatever you feel should have that descriptor because of a general rule.

That spell targets an object, and Mind-Affecting Spells can only affect creatures with 1 Int or higher. An object has an Int score of "-". That's why they dropped the [Mind-affecting] descriptor for this particular spell. It breaks the rule of "all patterns must be mind-affecting."


Melkiador wrote:
Java Man wrote:
Does anyone know how to say "you are only making yourself look stupid, you should be quiet now" in a way that is within the forum rules? Asking for a friend.
It wouldn't help. People who grew up playing D&D grew numb to looking stupid.

He was talking about you.