Scripps's page

As an American who spent 5 years living in Hungary in my late teens/early 20s, I was shocked by the vast difference in connotation the "g-word" carries in Europe versus back in the States.

Because it's so largely associated with the romanticized version of the Roma/Sinti people, I agree with earlier posters that most folks in the US don't realize this is a hateful, prejorative word.

And if some folks wish to self-identify that way, that's ok.

But for anyone doubting, let me assure folks that -- at least in Central and Eastern Europe -- it very much is intended as an insult, evoking prejudice and abhorrent stereotypes.

I can't speak to other people's conscience but -- for myself -- having learned the difference, I would not use it.

Honestly, if you aren't planning on getting to very high levels anyway, I would recommend going Inspired Blade swashbuckler 1/Blade Bound magus X.

This. Plus they're easy to hide, can be carried in spring-loaded wrist sheathes and -- in a pinch -- can be thrown. Not to mention that, for fluff purposes, the rather generic term "dagger" is broad enough to include all manner or shorter edged weaponry -- a nice plus if you're largely concerned with style, which is of course the most important stat.

OK. That makes sense. I still think the wording is off -- it perhaps should read:

"If you are already proficient with any of these weapons you additionally ... " as opposed to "instead," but I think you've managed to clarify it.

Ok let's break this down:

1: You have weapon familiarity as a racial trait. This is required for the feat. Trading the trait away doesn't come into play.
2: Your trait grants you proficiency with a handful of martial weapons (as is the case for dwarves, elves, half-orcs etc. Basically everyone but gnomes). Let's call this Weapon Group A.
3. Your trait also lets you treat certain "race-flavored" exotics as martial weapons. We'll call this Weapon Group B.

Our hypothetical half-orc/elf/dwarf wizard now gains proficiency with assorted martial weapons but not the various exotics.

The first part of the feat grants proficiency with all weapons named in your trait -- of which group A and group B are subsets. This works great for gnomes, since their trait only covers group B.

But our hypothetical wizard isn't a gnome, so he or she already is proficient with SOME of the weapons mentioned in the trait.

The second half of the feat stipulates that IF our wizard friend is proficient with ANY of the aforementioned weapons, he or she INSTEAD receives the floating weapon focus option.

SOME -- specifically Weapon Group A -- here is a subset of ANY.

IF ANY INSTEAD THEN.

Because we're already proficient with Weapon Group A, we INSTEAD receive the bonus, but Weapon Group B remains out of reach.

For elves there is this.

Arcane Focus: Some elven families have such long traditions of producing wizards (and other arcane spellcasters) that they raise their children with the assumption each is destined to be a powerful magic-user, with little need for mundane concerns such as skill with weapons. Elves with this racial trait gain a +2 racial bonus on concentration checks made to cast arcane spells defensively. This racial trait replaces weapon familiarity.

An elven wizard with that alternative racial trait would not be proficient in any of the racial weapons.

Yes but in that case you do not possess the weapon familiarity trait and thus do not qualify for the feat.

This is one sentence, and syntactically one logical statement. (IF THEN)

If you're already proficient with any of those weapons, you instead gain Weapon Focus for one of those weapons as a bonus feat.

If you take them separately they are meaningless. It is correctly self referential.
The rules are rife with ambiguous and badly syntaxed statements. This is not one of them.

My issue isn't with the syntax of the feat's IF/THEN benefit. If proficient then get weapon focus. Simple enough.

My problem with the feat is that the inclusion of the word "any" covers many martial weapons mentioned under the various racial familiarity traits. By virtue of having the trait in the firstplace, you will always (except for gnomes) be proficienct in at least some of those weapons, thereby making the first part of the feat useless for most characters.

You'd get your cool version of weapon focus instead, but no extra proficiencies.

The obvious solution is to interpret it as "any of 'race name' weapons" as earlier posters have suggested, which I believe is the original intent of the feat.

PS: Apologies to the mods, it occurs to this should really be under Rules -- I was very sleepy last night. Mea culpa.

Scripps wrote:

Apologies for the unclear wording. I should have said "not proficient with ANY of the weapon familiarity weapons." That "any" appears to be the crux of the matter.

Sorry, I got busy with something else in the middle of typing up my last post so this post slipped by me. Maybe I still missed your point. Were you originally talking about a Dwarven Wizard who traded out the Weapon Familiarity racial trait?

No, just responding to your comment about the question of "can anyone think of a scenario ..." There are obviously cases of "proficient with some of your racial weapons but not all." So I should have said "Can anyone think of a scenario where you have weapon familiarity but wouldn't be proficient with ANY of your racial weapons."

Various posters have done so: Gnomes.

All of that is merely illustrative though. A way of explaining my confusion over the wording of the feat. The existence of one race that does meet the requirements for what I'll call "option A" -- as in my original post -- doesn't really make the funky wording any better.

Incidentally, I do believe the "intended to give proficiency with 'race name here' weapons" interpretation is obviously RAI and should be played that way.

Apologies for the unclear wording. I should have said "not proficient with ANY of the weapon familiarity weapons." That "any" appears to be the crux of the matter.

Yes, precisely what Bob said.

Good catch on gnomes, too.

I assume the feat is intended to do what the earlier posters suggest, but the odd wording makes it very confusing.

Oh, I understand the whole martial proficiency side of it. But, and I apologize because I don't mean to be contrarian, I don't think that's how the feat is worded, which is the source of my confusion over it.

The elf is still proficient with some of the weapons in that group (lonbow, rapier, all the martials etc.). Hence, because the wording of the feat is "any of the weapons in that group" our pointy-eared wizard still can't use a curve blade proficiently but DOES get to apply the weird weapon focus.

Unfortunately the feat isn't worded "weapons named after your race" or what have you, it specifically mentions those listed under your weapon familiarity trait, which always seem to include martials.

Although that does help me see the intent, which appears to have been granting proficiency specifically with "race name" weapons and just suffers from unclear wording.

I'm a little confused about how this feat works.

It requires racial weapon familiarity and either A) grants you proficiency will the weapons mentioned in your race's trait or B) if "you are proficient with ANY" of those weapons instead grants you a flexible version of weapon focus.

The thing is, if you have weapon familiarity then you will always be proficient with at least some of the weapons in the group.

There is never a scenario where option A plays out.

Take a level 1 wizard for example: Not exactly a paragon of martial aptitude. Proficient with the club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff. That's it. But, you're no regular wizard, you're a dwarf wizard. You're automatically proficient with the heavy pick, warhammer and battle axe.

Ergo, option B goes into play and you get the weapon focus version of the feat instead of say, proficiency with a longhammer.

Is that how it's supposed to work? Can anyone think of a scenario where you have the weapon familiarity racial trait but still aren't proficient with your race's weapons? Should it instead read "if you are proficient with all" then etc.?

I don't think it works but FAQ'ed all the same.

I'm also wondering whether folks think a magus/swashbuckler can use his panache points to fuel deeds he gets from arcana.

Palpatine.

Hey boards:

I recently accepted a new position in central Texas -- New Braunfels to be precise -- and I'll be moving soon. Have a great group here outside Dallas and we're going to try to keep playing via Skype, but was wondering if there's anybody from the boards down that way.

Tiefling is quite good if allowed, especially if you can use the alternate heritages.

A Scout Rogue 4/Beastmorph Vivi Alchemist 10 gets Pounce with full SA dice on a charge -- albeit a little in the game.

The scout, knife master rogue/weapon master fighter mentioned above is excellent build, although I humbly submit the brawler archetype as an alternate for weapon master.

A thug build can do some fun things with intimidate -- especially when combined with Bludgeoner and Enforcer, or an Order of Cockatrice Cavalier and Shatter defenses, or any other myriad demoralizing antics.

A while back I had tried this dirty fighter, lore warden build -- it was really based largely around the RP (this character is the Ur-Scoundrel) but worked quite well really.

Lv.1 (R1): TWF/Weapon Finesse
Lv.2 (R2): Weapon Training: Dagger
Lv.3 (R3): Shadow Strike
Lv.4 (R4): Offensive Defense
Lv.5 (F1): Agile Maneuvers/Step Up
Lv.6 (F2): Combat Expertise/Improved Dirty Trick
Lv.7 (R5): Following Step
Lv.8 (R6): Pressure Points
Lv.9 (R7): Greater Dirty Trick

Edit: Just remembered this is for Society play, so never mind the vivisectionist stuff. I'm not really familiar with Society play (only recently available in my area) so if there's anything else I mention that isn't applicable, my apologies.

String, or nothing!

Clever.

I had a wizard in one game who liked casting Call the Void and invisibility on his mephit. Pretty nasty combo for anything that needs to breath.

Dotted because cool combo.

If the Channel Energy Ability opens up Crusader's Flurry this might be quite the nice Archetype.But from the wording I don't think you get the Channel energy Class Feature...

the rest of the abilities seem too specific to outsiders to be of great use in a normal campaign.

I was more interested in the possibility of it opening up Holy Vindicator for Inquisitors.

This post seems to indicate it might.

Sean's a great designer. This is a huge loss for Paizo, but they've got some of the best folks in the industry there and I'm sure they'll weather the loss. Good luck to Mr. Reynolds though!

I actually think Absalom might be at least partially inspired by Great Britain. They have a parliament with 2 houses, what are essentially the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and what boils to down to a Prime Minister. Maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but the presence of a House of Commons-in-all-but-name seems rather unique and telling. Jerusalem is definitely there too though.

Also, if we're being accurate to real-world history, Ustalav is arguably as much Hungary as Romania, since Translyvania was part of Hungary until the Treaty of Trianon after World War I. Like Ustalav, Hungary also has a legendary founder and ancient king in the person of St. Steven.

Andoran as a U.S. expy is apt and I, like other posters, agree with Cheliax as at least somewhat reminiscent of 15th century Spain.

Varisia does has a Baltic feel, although it could be almost anywhere in Central Europe.

I see Taldor as Byzantium and the River Kingdoms are the Holy Roman Empire, which was none of the three and was really just a bunching warring German duchies and petty kingdoms.

Galt and Osirion are obvious.

Let's keep in mind though that it's highly doubtful any of these are meant to be spot on. They're inspiration, not direct representations.

I've seen people mention Hexcrafter magi with the prehensile hair hex as well, although I'm not entirely convinced that works RAW -- I could see it either way.

Anyone have any thoughts on the Cold Iron Warden archetype from Demon Hunter's Handbook?

Dotting, I'm curious what folks think about this one.

Thanks for the input! I'll talk to my GM, I'm not sure that's even how I want to build the character, but I like to understand the options available to me. I put a lot of theorycraft into building chracters, even when they're knowingly less-than-optimal. If I do, I don't really think he'll balk since, as I said, channel smite is mechanically less optimal than a lot of other things I've run at his table!

Thanks again!

P.S. That's an awesome archetype, FYI. Nicely done, Sir!

Invisible post is invisible.

Does an Inquisitor with the Cold Iron Warden archetype qualify for Holy Vindicator? He does Channel Energy and gains Alignment Channel as a bonus feat, but as above I could see it both ways.

Please note, I realize Channel Smite isn't great mechanically, I just wonder if this works.

Damn. Why didn't I think of that? It would suck to lose Enduring Blessing but yeah, going Champion does seem preferable.

Thanks for the tip on Eldritch Breach -- I probably won't end up dipping, especially if I can save feats by dropping the Vital Strike line -- won't mind blowing a feat on Heavy Armor prof. so much then. But the Piercing Judgment can help with SR too.

LOL, thanks -- it's good advice.

Like I said, vital strike was taken to make up for not having access to those, but I know it's not ideal for the character. Bane benefiting from more whacks per round is a good point. I will talk to him again, but I'm not sure I can convince him.

Let's pretend I can't -- what would you take instead to make up the DPR?

Ah, I didn't think it would come up, but our DM wants to limit Dual Path to 1st Tier abilities only -- a shame really, as I'd practically lusted after Fleet Charge and Precision, easily the stand outs for a Champion.

I don't agree with the move, but he's the DM -- and I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable limitation either: There's kind of 50/50 split in our group when it comes to system mastery, and I believe he's worried Mythic could widen the gap, so to speak. Hence, the vital strike line instead.

I had totally overlooked Fate's Favored and the Jingasa though. My traits are fixed (I could try to talk him into letting me change it) but I'll definitely have to try and grab that helmet!

I'll have to work up that build and play around with it a bit. Thanks!

My regular group recently started running Wrath of the Righteous and I'm playing a tiefling Inqusitor of Ragathiel with the Cold Iron Warden archetype and Archon domain. Right now we're only level 3 and I think it's a solid character so far, but I'm new to the Inquisitor and was wondering if I could get some advice/critiques. Particularly on my idea about a *gasp* dip.

Stats were done at 20 point buy and are:
Strength 16
Dexterity 14
Constitution 14
Intelligence 10
Wisdom 14
Charisma 9

Based on the guides I've read and some posts here on the boards, I've come up with this build:
1 Intimidating Prowess
3 Power Attack
5 Furious Focus
7 Cornugon Smash
9 Vital Strike (I know, I know)
11 Heavy Armor Proficiency
13 Ancestral Scorn
15 Improved Vital Strike
17 Quicken Spell
19 Dreadful Carnage

I don't know yet how the mythic stuff will work out in game, but I've looked over the Mythic book -- I'm going Heirophant and like Sustained by Faith, Enduring Blessing, Eldritch Breach and Legendary Item abilities -- obviously (given the above feats) I'll be taking Mythic Vital Strike and also eventually Mythic Spell Lore.

As for the dip, at first I was thinking Crusader Cleric, which would get the proficiency and a good aura (hello Litany of Righteousness and Greater Bane/Mythic Vital Strike) and also not halt domain advancement.

I also thought of 1 level of Paladin with the Sacred Shield archetype. The Bastion of Good ability that replaces smite is less charisma dependent (good for me) and 1 level also nets me the aura, heavy armor AND martial weapons, which is less important since I get bastard sword prof., but still nice.

Now, I realize that normally just spending a feat on Heavy Armor Prof. is better than dipping but given this particular AP, does it work? Or am I crazy, multiclass-mad grognard lost in hazy memories of running fighter/magic-user/thieves?

Greetings boards,

I'm working on an Tiefling Inquisitor for Wrath of the Righteous and was looking at the Cold Iron Inquisitor from the Demon Hunter's Handbook.

The archetype probably isn't optimal, but it seems really flavorful and appropriate from an RP perspective. It grants alignment channel and some limited channeling, but only to harm evil outsiders. My question pertains to a clause stating that the Inquisitor can take feats to improve the channeling, like extra channel or whatnot, but not to ALTER it, such as command undead.

Since, like many a two-handed melee Inquisitor, I've dumped charisma, I was looking for a way to improve said channeling and thought about channel smite. It won't give me more channels, or improve my DC but at least I can whack something while I do it. Is this kosher? Does this count as "altering?" Personally I see it as "improving" but I could see a point to both sides. However, unlike the example of command undead, it's still being used to harm evil outsiders. What say you all?

Figured I'd get a consensus before I brought it to my DM.

We just ran our first session, which sadly got cut a little short, but so far has been really fun.

Here's our party breakdown:

Tiefling Inquisitor -- My own character, a "preist" of Ragathiel who will mostly be melee. Spells will largely be self buffs, with some debuffing ability via spells, Intimidate and (when applicable) Ancestral Scorn. Stern and stalwart, but with a slight tendency toward defensiveness, lame self-pity and brooding. Took Touched by Divinity and shooting for Hierophant with dual path for some Champion goodies.
I let the others choose their scales first and got the resistance one.

Dwarf Barbarian -- An Invulnerable Rager from that guy in our a group who almost always plays dwarves. If he's built it anywhere near as well as he usually does it should be a monster. He usually plays comic relief in our group but this character seems to be more serious. Taciturn, grumpy and violent. You know, a dwarf. So far works for the campaign. Exposed to Awfulness and he's going Guardian.
He got the levitate scale.

Aasimar Paladin -- Not to sure about this build but I know the player is going for a Sorcadin, so probably only plans on going to Pally 2 or 3. So far played as a humble and very devout type, although too weathered and hard to be a real Goody Two-Shoes. Has hit it off with my Inquisitor and now they're buddies. Think he's planning on specializing in rays, which would be great -- we need more ranged damage. He also took Exposed to Awfulness and will go Archmage/Guardian I believe.
He got the align weapon scale.

Aasimar Bard -- A dex-based, Arcane Duelist rocking an Elven Curve Blade. Big on party buffs, as befits a bard. Also backup-melee focused (I know, I know: Too much smash, not enough pew pew), but less so than the Inquisitor. So far played as rather stuffy and self-righteous, although well-meaning. He grabbed Child of the Crusades and will go Marshal all the way I'm sure -- this player loves him some tactical movement.
He picked up the disguise scale.

Well said.

Lot of great suggestions here, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the classic switch-hitter.

Strength build, go with a big two-hander and use your regular feats for power attack, quick draw and anything else you might want, whether furious focus, the step-up line or any archery feats for which you meet the requirements.

Combat style feats are for archery feats you might not otherwise qualify for. Get bored pew, pew, pewing? Charge in with dat greatsword! Alternatively, a reach weapon and combat reflexes have some utility as well, and can put you in a situation where it might be easier to drop back to archery when you need to.

As an editor by profession, all I can say is that if I only lived in Seattle, I would PAY YOU GUYS to let me do this.

Oh stealth rules, you so crazy.

I have a wizard in Rise of the Runelords that does just that. Continual flame on ALL THE THINGS. Our Ragathiel-worshipping pally especially appreciates it, because style is the best stat.

Does anybody remember Shadowbane? A now-defunct MMO with a branching class system. Scouts, one of the rogue-based advanced classes, could spot other rogues-based characters sneaking about.

I was my guild's chief scout and, as a journalist IRL, I thought Scripps Howard was a pretty amusing name for a character whose job was running out ahead of everybody and reporting on what was going on.

It just kind of stuck.

That's precisely my point. In this instance, commons sense dictates that HiPS must defeat darkvision -- otherwise the ability is literally useless to any character with at least 2 levels in the PRC.

Given Shadowlord's detailed analysis and James Jacob's comments on the matter (even if they don't represent a 100% official ruling, per se) I would think we can all assume that common sense wins out and, in the very specific case of HiPS, the general rules for lighting/darkvision/concealment do not apply.

It's worth pointing out that the Shadowdancer PRC itself grants darkvision. If darkvision trumps HiPS, then a Shadowdancer would not even be able to hide in a pitch black room while ALONE.
Which is, of course, patently absurd.

I love creative encounter design and I think this is a really, really fun idea ... which just happens to be suffering from some bad execution. It just isn't going to play well without some changes.

+1 for goblin junk mail and the touch ac/damaging the armor idea above.

I do like the idea about the alchemist's fire, but you should probably add some other solutions to a "puzzle fight."

Maybe some tied-up prisoners the PCs could free to help out, or even a couple lost ponies they might find and drive through the camp -- since goblins hate, and are terrified by, horses and dogs.

Maybe the goblins even have some internal conflicts the PCs could exploit.

Finally, there's no reason you can't describe the goblins as hilarious, waddling piles of junk armor and get all the flavor you want but still drop the ac (and the gear value) to a more reasonable level.

The wealth guidelines are perhaps one of the most picked-over and thus specifically balanced parts of the rules. Sure it's OK to fudge them a bit now and then, but this is just too much for PCs that level.

The one you need when the wizard is mind controlled and the cleric is bleeding out on the ground, but then realize you forgot and/or neglected to buy.

That's how I read it. It's not entirely without precedent: Obviously there are a variety of traits/feats and other means of increasing your CL for your own spells, this merely takes a similar approach to item use.

A nice ability, too -- I hadn't noticed then one yet, but having taken a second look at it, think it's pretty solid.

First this and then the "Powerslave" comment on the Paizo Facebook -- love it. Incidentally, my brother just saw them in Austin -- first time in years we haven't gone together. Apparently I missed a hell of a show!

For the first part, it specifically calls out the need for other sources. You could talk to your DM about it, but at my table you have to have a source. Captured spellbook, scroll ... I could even seeing getting creative studying an item or creature and learning a spell that way, but you still need a source. Unless your group just wants to hand wave it.

And yes, you should be able to choose ... within what's available. Don't think of it as an either or, there's a middle ground, or at least, that's how I rule it.

I have no idea about the last bit either.

Bump, as I appear to have accidentally cast invisibility on this thread. ;)