Shimesen's page

You are confusing a class feature with a sub category of said feature. A class feature, such as rogue talent, slayer talent, ninja trick, rage power, or magus arcana is a whole class feature all together, within that feature, you are granted multiple "abilities" that come at specific times in character progression. The abilities that you can get come from a list outlined withing the class feature its self. So the slayers one and only class feature of thus type, is called "slayer talents". Each ability you get within that class feature is a talent (no plural).

When you pick the rogue talent talent as a slayer talent, all its letting you do is chose one option from a different list. It doesn't grant you an entirely new class feature.

OK, so simply put: its bad grammar on behalf of the writers....too easy. I apologize for my California education. ;)

My group and I are having a debate on this, and I completely believe I am the one who is correct, so please enlighten me if I am not:

The half-elf reads as follows:Multitalented
Half-elves choose two favored classes at first level and gain +1 hit point or +1 skill point whenever they take a level in either one of those classes. See Classes for more information about favored classes.

The way that reads to me, is that the half elf gets 2 classes he can pick a favored bonus is, and can select that bonus at every level, and also gets either a hip point, or a skill point on top of that. Alternatively he could choice HP or skill point in both his classes and so long as he stayed within both classes while leveling, he would end up with one of each at every level. Am I wrong? Or is that not exactly how that reads?

ok, so my group is starting a new campaign. Our last two have been an Epic followed by a Mythic and this time we're going for "normal".

i've decided on a Bloodrager (Blood Conduit) for my character, however i have absolutely no idea what i want to do beyond that. no idea on race, build, background, or anything. I cant seem to come up with an idea of what to do....any advice is welcome.

Claxon wrote:

As Diego said the round you cast you will only get 1 attack because the casting only comes with one free touch attack. On subsequent rounds you can make attacks based on your BAB and the number of available attacks you have. If you have BAB 6 you can make two attacks, both as touch atatcks. Conversely if you have 3 natural attacks you could make 3 attacks (against normal AC). Though either of these would be a full-round action.

All of this should be qualified with the "limb holding the charge" as well. If you have 7 natural attacks because you have 7 limbs, only one of them (that you choose) is holding the charge. They might all be tentacles but only one tentacle has the charge on it, so only the attack that has the charge can deliver/use the charge.

That also brings up another issue when using natural attacks to hold charges. Charges are held on a limb, when that limb is used for "things" it will discharge the spell. That means don't use limbs that will be needed for locomotion if you want to be mobile though the fight. When you use the limb to move, you'll be forced to touch the ground and discharge the spell.

Also, are you 100% sure you can make 2 touch attacks as part of a full attack? I was under the impression last this came up that making the touch attack was a standard action. If you decided to make multiple attacks using your BAB you'd be choosing to go against the full AC on normal attack resolution. I have been absent from the boards for awhile so if this is a new-ish ruling I've not run into it yet.

This is untrue. I will try to find the thread I posted explicitly about this, but it was in regards to being able to deliver touch spells with unarmed strikes. A held charge is not "held in a specific hand" as you say, its simply charged to the characters whole body. Any part of the body used to deliver a touch attack (I.e. using a foot, knee, elbow, or forehead to make an unarmed strike) also would deliver a held charge. This would also apply to using either hand, or limb if you have many, to make a touch attack.

Again, I'll post the thread later, I must return to work now...

1) ninja'ed.
2) no, you still confirm before passing it on, so you still get pinache back.

Ummm, doesn't the swashbuckler regain pinashe when crit confirms? So just passing it on wouldn't all together stop this? You still confirmed a crit, you just did nothing with it...

....never correct me! ;)

Yes, I was referring to the full damage on off hands that monks get via their modified IUS class ability. I thought I was clear, but apparently not....

...then again, perhaps Nefreet has just made it his lives goal to tell me I'm wrong on every post I make...seems that way sometimes.

If you gain IUS via a 1 level dip in monk, all your unarmed attacks are treated as primary attacks and therefore do not take x.5 on off hand attacks via twf

POKEMON!!!! EVERY EIDOLON EVER THOUGHT UP IS NOTHING MORE THAN THAT CHARACTERS POKEMON!

I don't know if I'm more astounded by the question "does one-handed weapon mean one-handed weapons or something else?" or that so many different answers have been given.

You know....I was thinking the same thing...the sheer fact that its even under discussion makes me wonder if I've been playing this game wrong...

Op&r is hands down the better option, especially when you consider the fact that if gained via a dip in swash, it comes with a list of other very nice deeds tacked on as well, swashbuckler finesse (which ohh by the way, if coupled with snake style can qualify your unarmed strikes for all swashbuckler deeds! Tack on a decent dex and something that also makes unarmed strikes slashing and you can grab slashing grace and you're golden) which is very nice for a dex build, and when you take snake fang you get a free opposed attack roll, then a free AoO and haven't even spent your imidiate action yet!

I was playing a kansi magus/MoMS2 character before the ACG came out. With chosen weapon unarmed strike (don't care what anyone says, yes that's legal) you I already had snake fang. I grabbed flamboyant arcana after the book came out and instantly became untouchable once I tacked on mirror image and mirror dodge (mythic campaign)! Granted I often ran out of arcane points, but I'm also a "if ive got it, I'll use it" kinda player and tend not to reserve resources. That said, this combo in conjunction if my frostbite build made for a lot of pain for opponents. Imagine what could be done with a a combo of swashbuckler/magus levels!?! Not I'm doing even more cool stuff, have a higher bab, and still doing the same stuff.

...I will say this much for my GM though....my character DID die! Enemies widdled down my mirror images, forced me to mirror dodge and stay withing melee range because they'd triggered snake style already so I wanted that hit, and doubled teamed me so that after I killed the one, the second hit me with a 17th level mythic vital strike that critted ( so I couldn't beat the attack roll) and wound up taking around 360 damage while only having 90hp left....I was cleaved clean in half....moral of the story is: no matter how good it might look on paper, if your GM knows how you plan, and can force you into a play you can't resist - he's gonna take your head off...

Well, why not a swashbuckler 1/slayer X? Sawtooth sabres are the weapon of choice, full bab+ favored target+ SA+ great rogue/ninja talents tossed in....still not a broken dip?

So let's sdo some example play again:

Lvl1 - swash1: pinache, all level 1 deeds, exotic weapon proficiency (sawtooth sabre), weapon focus
Lvl2 - slayer1: slayer talent:ranger style feat (two-weapon fighting)
Lvl3 - slayer2: slashing grace.

Now you have a bab of three, -2 to hit with both weapons, full dex damage on both, all kinds of nifty tricks to use, and a scaling AC that goes up with your +to hit and +to damage. The ability to take another deed again later via the grit rogue talent if you want, and some nifty other things. The only thing this misses out on, is the invisible blade ninja trick that only the ninja can get...ohh well...

there ARE however ways to make that damage remarkable, such as maximizing an already intensified empowered SG, tagging on SA for another 7D6, then tagging on the weapon and weapon SA for another 7D6 + weapon damage dice + damage from things like power attack and what not. that's getting pretty ridiculous for something that targets FF AC...

I'm actually thinking Eldritch Scion with Slayers levels. it will take a while longer to get the SA dice needed for the cross to AT, but the character its self will have many more possibilities and tricks to use. plus the BAB will be higher, so hitting will be easier.

[Edit] and while im at it, the need to pick up the magus arcana Precient Attack is a nessesary evil if you are going for this build because once you can force a SA using impromtue sneak attack, you can then force the rest of your attacks that round to also become sneak attacks, resulting in even higher damage! this requires 6 levels in magus, however, so this build might well end up being a level 20+ build. still a fun idea though...

Actually, I think it would actually work just that way....neat!

1) yes, you lose it, then get it back. thats how that would work.

2)precise Strike cannot be used with spell combat (although nothing is stopping spellstrike if you are already hold a charge) because no matter what kind of spell you cast, buff, attack, haste, whatever, it counts as an attack being made with your off-hand for the purpose of spell combat, thus also counts as an attack being made with the off hand for precise strike.

3) they would not stack unless you took more levels in swashbuckler and for it from both classes. the magus levels will give you extra damage = you magus level, but it doesn't combine with swashbuckler. if you took more levels in swashbuckler and got the deed normally, you would have extra damage from swashbuckler AND extra damage from magus that would BOTH apply to your total damage with the attack.

4) your arcane pool points do not count or work the same as panache, nor does it work the other way around. therefore, you cannot intermingle them. you will have to specify, before using a deed, weather its coming from your level of swashbuckler, or from magus, and keep track of them separately. if you could do as you want to do, using a high crit chance weapon would create a refueling scenario for the arcane pool tht it not supposed to exist.

Just so you know, there are 4 "precise strike" abilities in the game now....all 4 of which stack together and can be used on one attack....so yeah...

Unless an ability/trait/feat/etc specifically states that it can be taken more than once, it cannot be.

I personally think that Thor would be better off as a Magus or Eldrich Knight with a throwing/returning war hammer who focuses on lightning spells.

I'd try to tack on the dimensional dervish feat chain to the quicksilver build as well.

Hulk should be a rage chemist, no alchemist.

some people just dont play well with others...tell him to go graduate kindergarden again, then he can come back...

Shimesen wrote:

we are discussing Precise Strike, the swashbuckler deed.

Indeed!

very punny bbt, very punny...

we are discussing Precise Strike, the swashbuckler deed.

this question is pretty cut and dry, but i can seem to find a "which one wins" answer to it.

What happens if someone casts a spell such as Teleport or dimension door with a target location inside of an anti magic field?

understandably, once inside the field, all magic stops working, but because of the way teleportation magic works in PF, the movement from one location to another is not effected by AMF if the movement is only passes through it, but not ends in it. what happens if the desired location is within it?

AMF says "Anti Magic Field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it."

teleport spells do not make mention of not being able to be cast with a location suppressed by an AMF. the only conclusion i can therefore draw, is that you would succeed in hitting your location with no problems, but be unable to do anything once there, or you simply would fail at casting the spell as if it were an "area of strong physical or magical energy". my only concern with that, is those areas are supposed to be things like important magical places, just just a position covered in a spell.

The thing is that if a strength build really wants to, they can spend a couple of feats(which, incidentally, is exactly how many are required for dex builds) to shore up their poor reflex save and initiative if they choose.

true, but they still suffer from the lack of high skill usage given that there are not only more skills total that rely on dex, but they happen to be some of the more useful ones. swim, climb, etc are honestly useless skills in most cases, so having a high STR is really unnecessarily. acrobatics, fly, and ride, on the other hand, are far more useful in the average campaign, and often require high skill checks to be made. acrobatics namely so. avoiding an AoO via that skill is something any melee combatant would love. couple that with a high AC for the dex build and it really starts to outshine a STR build...

the issue here, is that substituting dex for str for almost everything except a very few skills it is needed for, ultimately makes the STR stat irrelevant and useless if you can do more with a single other stat (DEX). because of this, you currently have to pay a "feat tax" and "build tax" to acomplish this. this is a balance issue. and a damned good bit of balance it is. imagine a character such as a barbarian that didn't need STR, and instead loaded everything he had into DEX and CON...if this character never needed to take feats, or design his build around accomplishing this, then that would leave ALOT of space open for those things that 1) he didnt have space for because of the dex build, 2)all those things that a STR build already benefits from. So now we have a barbarian that can pump his dex to 35-50, wear no armor, and hit just as hard, if not harder, than a STR build, with a single stat. just from combat alone, we have something thats literally better than both current builds combined. now take into consideration all the stats and abilities that rely on dex compared to the ones that rely on str. you are giving up alot less than you are getting.

as far as the two builds separate from one another go, they both have their merits. a STR build with always be the better and more versatile option for combat and DPR. the Dex build gives you fewer options to build with, but makes a good combatant and adds skill versatility to the equation. the question is really down to how do you want to play. are you the guy who wants options inside the initiative ad who hits the hardest, or the one who wants options before/after the fight?

if you allow precise strike to be used in conjunction with spell combat, then you are asking for the "but if the spell isn't an attack spell, then i shouldn't take the -2 penalty when i cast a buff" argument to hold some water, which it currently does not.

if you have no choice but to take the penalty when casting a spell, regardless of the type of spell cast, then it is being used as an "Attack" for this purpose. this was clearly the intent of spell combat as it was written and as it has been argued and ruled upon by dev's in the past with regard to combining other things with it.

simply put: casting a spell is equivalent to making an attack, regardless of what type of spell you cast. therefore, you cannot combine precise strike with spell combat. and while i dont think that this combo is entirely overpowered, i do feel that allowing it to work would open up a can of worms with spell combat i'd rather not have to see.

Shimesen wrote:

even if the FAQ didn't "change" the rules, as you put it, it did at the very least, clarify something that was previously a grey area. all we want is more clarification because the FAQ does not specifically make mention of bows, and as i've already mentioned, ranged weapons are not specifically part of the two handed weapon group. there are four groups: light, one handed, two handed, and ranged. there are categories such as martial, simple, exotic, but nothing to separate one handed and two handed ranged weapons aside from the weapon description its self. a "two handed ranged" weapon does not, its self, have a category, as it should. this causes issues with regard to the FAQ because it calls out two-handed weapons for its clarifications.

Click the spoiler tab.

i do specifically state in that post about "other than the weapon descriptions" and make mention about the need for 2 separate groups...

and just so we are clear: if we argue that a composite longbow is the effective equivalent of a 2HW, then for arguments sake, the strength bonus to damage granted by the composite quality should be in line with the strength bonus granted to a 2HW...its not. its only a x1 which would make it comparable to a 1HW.

i'm not saying that i think a bow is a 1hw, but to play the devil's advocate, the rules on the different types of damage seem to suggest the comparison is equal as i've stated above.

and for anyone who's ever actually used a Bow in the real world, they can tell you that it does take a lot of strength to draw, and the power the arrow receives is comparably higher than the strength used to draw it. so by all rights and rules of physics as transferred into game mechanics, a x1.5 strength bonus to damage for a composite bow is actually the more accurate way to go....

even if the FAQ didn't "change" the rules, as you put it, it did at the very least, clarify something that was previously a grey area. all we want is more clarification because the FAQ does not specifically make mention of bows, and as i've already mentioned, ranged weapons are not specifically part of the two handed weapon group. there are four groups: light, one handed, two handed, and ranged. there are categories such as martial, simple, exotic, but nothing to separate one handed and two handed ranged weapons aside from the weapon description its self. a "two handed ranged" weapon does not, its self, have a category, as it should. this causes issues with regard to the FAQ because it calls out two-handed weapons for its clarifications.

Subparhiggins wrote:

Sorry if this is a derail, but reading this thread has got me thinking about a strategy one of my players uses in my game. The player is a monk who wields a longbow to attack, but takes attack of opportunities from any enemy that provokes them from her with an unarmed strike (specifically arguing that shes kicking people). Is this actually valid by the rules? Or would this count as kind of two weapon fighting being discussed, even though the character only ever uses the unarmed strike for AoOs?

It is fine so long as the character has IUS. Even if the poo-poo'ers come in here and say otherwise, the character can take their hand off the bow at the end of their turn as a free action and threaten. Then regrab the bow at the beginning of their next turn as a free action.

you dont even need to take your hand off as a free action. the IUS from monk means that you are always armed, and that you can attack with any part of the body. meaning that an unarmed strike from a monk as an AoO can be made with both hands full. it actually specifically makes mention of this under the monk IUS description.

Well, the reason there is no specific wording allowing Bow to be used with two-weapon fighting, is because there never was a restriction before.

RAW was altered.

thats a good point. the FAQ on armor spikes changed the rules on TWF to DENY certain combo's, but prior to that, those combos AND this one we're entirely legal by technicality. so now the question is, does that ruling stand for ALL combos of this manner, or just melee/melee?

having said that, i have to argue no it doesnt, because it really is the same as using a 2hw and armor spikes. its netting you an extra attack you haven't paid for, and thats simply unfair. if this we're allowed, then the armor spikes should also be allowed.

Shimesen wrote:

you all DO realize that there is already a way to do this with Crusader's Flurry from the Warpriest, right? he can FoB with his bow and unarmed strikes. effectively TWF with both...there is mechanically no difference....

The Sohei has been able to do this for some time now.

well then, there ya go.

if Flurry in all its formats can be used to accomplish this, then honestly, from a mechanical standpoint TWF does the same thing and should be capable of being used the same way.

Flurry of blows is mechanically identical to two-weapon fighting in every way EXCEPT the handiness. and fyi, it is entirely possible to TWF with unarmed strike without FoB and never use your hands. the number of attacks you can make per round (weather or not your using FoB or TWF) is still determined by how many hands you actually have. since an unarmed strike is, as you've said, not a primary or an off hand (and there is no way to determine which hand is which without a weapon in it because they are equivalently identical as far as the rules go), meaning that primary or off hand suffers no difference in penalty assuming you have the feats, and given that you can use any part of your body as an unarmed strike (even without being a monk) then it is entirely possible to kick with an unarmed strike via the Improved Unarmed Strike feat while holding a 2HW in both hands. i have, however, just take my one attacks for the primary weapon away from said 2HW by doing so, because im only allowed 1.

[Edit]ninja'd by BBT and a better explanation...

you all DO realize that there is already a way to do this with Crusader's Flurry from the Warpriest, right? he can FoB with his bow and unarmed strikes. effectively TWF with both...there is mechanically no difference....

The general rule is if you use a limb as part of making an attack (drawing ammo, and drawing/firing a bow), then that limb is considered "occupied." So you can't for example make claw attacks, or punch, or (strict raw) qualify for TWF.

well if that is the case, then a Bow cannot make multiple attacks a round without the rapid reload feat because you cannot reload a bow with the same hand you used to draw and release with....but wait.....thats how that works....hmmm....see how confusing it gets...

i already used my "offhand" to shoot with my bow...how then could i use that hand to reload it?

the answer that that reloading a bow is a free action associated with firing it, but no one had ever clarified not being able to take a -2 penalty on all your attacks to add an extra UAS at the end. given that all i'd need to do is choose not to take the free action to reload and now i have a whole fist free to punch with....

Strict RAW a bow takes 2 hands to use so regardless of whether it's a "two-handed weapon" or not you are not considered as having an "off-hand" with which to make the extra attacks.

strict RAW, there is no distinction between 1 handed and 2 handed ranged weapons. a ranged weapon is simply ranged. anything to do with how many hands are needed to use any of them is either dealing with reloading, or is fluff. everything else (all that "common sense" your about to throw back at this post) is simply not written down, and needs to be.

FAQed.

why not just put conductive on your weapon, do a sneak attack as normal, then add Dazing Touch via conductive? this is an easy fix...

Not having them stack just sounds like way more of a mess, than just having them stack.

im sure it is, but again, this is about simply having two so they can argue in your head. i gives two hoots that the paperwork is terrible...

spells are easy. by taking Eldritch scion, you can grab arcane bloodline from bloodrager and use the booodline powers to buff faster and better than a normal magus anyway. then, using a glove of storing you can keep one hand free for when you plan on using a spell. Blackblade enhancement+arcane pool+exploits more than makes up for the terrible bab.

Seeing as it the exact same feature as the Bladebound Magus feature, and even refers to it, and counts it's levels, as Magus for the ability, then they should stack.

Much like multiple classes with a Familiar.

we beat that argument to death once before when discussing the merits of 2 bonded objects with a wizard/sorcerer cross class....that thread was exausting, and if i remember correctly, it was never very clear as to how that would be ruled. this would be much the same idea as 2 bonded items. nothing clearly states that gaining a second one instead increases the one you already have. either way, this is just a concept build, so lets go with it works, so the sake of this thread.

They don't just stack?

That seems more reasonable.

there are no lines in either Blackblade description that illude to stacking. essentially when you take one, you get one, ten you take the other and its entirely separate of the first. the only thing that stops it is the "no familiar" line, but the blackblade its self doesnt count as a familiar, so that line does not prevent a second blackblade.

Dex build is a good idea, but this build requires TWF, a mass of proficiency feats, and to take all the fun toys from either class (exploits and arcana) we already need to burn feats for the "extra X" feats to get them. So is it really doable?

this is why the sawtooth sabre is the perfect weapon for this. it meets everything we need, and can be used for TWF with the minimal penalties.

ok, so this was discussed in another thread and a few of use realized that it is now entirely possible to make a character that gets two Black Blades. I am endeavoring to make this character a reality and would like some help to flesh it out.

aside from the obvious issue with a single character wielding two Black Blades (they are obviously going to hate each other). If we assume that they are actually willing to work along side one another, either out of mutual necessity, or some plot point about being twins, or copies or whatever else. the Mechanical aspect of how this character would work needs fine tuning.

So here is what i have come up with so far:

as a base, just to make it playable, the character needs to start at level 6 just to have acquired both blades. so in any combination, we need to take:

3 levels in Magus (Bladebound)
3 levels in Arcanist (Blade Adept)

aside from needing these two archetypes to function, i also think that because we are taking levels in arcanist we need to take the Eldritch Scion archetype so that we can focus on just CHA as our main stat for both classes. This also lets us do some cool things later on by taking the Arcane Bloodline for the Bloodrager.

so.....last thing I'll add is that in order to make this work we are going to need 2 weapons: we can either do the popular idea and make both ends of a double weapon the two black blades, which would be easy enough to pull off by just adding on the Staff Magus archetype to everything else but theres still the requirement of 1 handed slashing weapons for Blackblades to overcome. My personal Idea, though, is to take two Sawtooth Sabres for weapons. both qualify and are identical so there is no disperity. the exotic weapon proficiency makes them easy to TWF with as well.

I will be posting my initial build later (i need to build it first). any ideas on race? traits? build concepts?

ok, so i am gonna take this 2 Blackblade thing into a new thread. i'm actually going to try to build this thing. perhaps those interested could give some beedback.

as much fun as two black blades sounds: if you read into the black blade section, they resent the wielder using any other intelligent items. the two would end up being mortal enemies. more than likely they would either both stop functioning for the user while he still had possession of the other, or on a more extreme note, they would try to kill each other, and in doing so probably injure or kill the user....

...all that said. i love the idea of a character being driven mad by the constant bickering he is forced to her inside his head because his weapons wont stop arguing with each other!

to answer the OP's question: you are correct. only the bonus feats can be qualified for as if you are a fighter. the "normal" feats you gain at every odd level cannot be of those that require fighter levels.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

It's in the description:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:

Axe Musket

Statistics
Cost 1,600 gp Weight 6 lbs.
Damage 1d6 (small), 1d8 (medium); Critical x4; Range 30 ft.; Type B and P; Special — Misfire 1-2 (5 ft.); Capacity 1
Description
This short musket features an axe blade at the end of its barrel. It can be used as both a musket and a battleaxe. It is considered a double weapon for the purposes of creating masterwork or magical versions of this weapon. If this firearm gains the broken condition, both the firearm component and the axe are considered broken. An axe musket uses either a bullet and a single dose of black powder or an alchemical cartridge as ammunition. This is an early firearm.

A Battleaxe is an One-handed Melee weapon.

Yes but an Axe Musket is a two handed firearm and a double weapon. So if the axe half is eligible for a black blade then why not a two-bladed sword* or orc double axe*?

Edit: *by which I mean one sword or one axe half.

simply answered: its quite easy to enchant only a single side of a double weapon. we've been doing so for years, and their a many examples of specific items such as artifacts that have both sides enchanted entirely separate from each other. the problem lies in the fact that "normal" double weapons cannot be broken apart or wielded as only half of themselves. the axe musket, however, quite simply, can. incidentally, it cannot be wielded as a "traditional" double weapon can, showing that every once in a while the dev's actually DO put a bit of balance in the game.

my 2 cents: nothing is stopping the weapon from being a black blade., however, the user of such a weapon would need the EWP-(musket) feat to use it as a firearm. the firearm would however not receive the benefits of the bonus enchantments or the other cool things a black blade can do because as its been already stated, that it not the half of this particular double weapon that has received the enchantments.