Here's a link with a couple of good Staff Magus builds, as well as some lively discussion:
This is going to be a homebrew starting at around level 7. Maybe I can get the GM to push it to level 8 ;)
But thanks for all the suggestions.
Thanks for the thoughtful post, Axebeard!
In looking at the Magus abilities above 7th level it looks like I'm going to give up a lot in the way of melee combat for a much larger spell progression. If starting from level one, I see this as being very difficult in the beginning. Levels 4-7 would be REALLY painful.
james maissen wrote:
Sorry you feel that way James. Personally I think the build has potential and I'd like to try it.
Perhaps in theory the build might seem to sacrifice too much in some areas, but experience leads me to believe that it may be different in actual practice.
Okay so he won't be a front line melee guy, maybe an opportunistic mid range spell caster.
I'm going to go with human for the race (flavor purposes). Looking at the point buy a build like this may be a little MAD, though I don't have to emphasize strength as much.
Here's a question...which deity should I select? Magic would be the obvious flavorful choice. Any others with better domain powers?
james maissen wrote:
I was actually looking at Broad Study and thought it would make sense to try to multiclass a Magus and use it.
As far as what I'm trying to accomplish, I just wanted to see what it would be like to have a Magus who can use both arcane and divine at the same time using spellstrike and spell combat.
The concept intrigued me, so I wanted to try it out.
Some good options there. I'm kind of concerned that the build may be a little too "broad" as far as what to do when, but I like versatility. I think Toughness would be a good addition as well.
Thanks for the reply Wraithstrike :)
I figure with this kind of build I can focus on making good use of touch attacks insted of straight weapon damage. Since I'll have a good supply of spells to choose from, I will also be able to self buff and improve my attack and damage. I believe this build is versatile enough to cast from the mid to back ranks as well.
So no. That way madness, and projectile-launched rulesbooks, leads.
I have definitely been here during 3E and 3.5 lol.
I'm leaning toward the Oracle dip route as well, as my DM has ruled the same way Jason did above. It might take a little longer to get there but it's worth it once I do.
Once again thanks for all the suggestions. Looking back, I think this is a very informative thread :)
Please explain. I would think you can rage cycle every round with allnight, since you ignore the effects of fatigue while using the herb. One of the effects of fatigue being that you can not enter into rage while fatigued. I think to argue otherwise is just semantics and rules lawyering. If you can ignore the effects of fatigue, then for all intents and purposes, you are not fatigued.
Hard to explain it any better than Jason Nelson did above but here goes: Fatigued is a condition. While Allnight and Invigorate remove the EFFECTS of the condition, it's not the same as removing the condition itself.
Therefore a fatigued barbarian may not be suffering the effects of the fatigued condition, but he's still fatigued and cannot rage until that condition goes away.
My DM has ruled the same way, so I have to take a hard look at Optimistic Gambler and see how that works.
Interesting take on that Deadmanwalking, so would the potion of Invigorate work? Or is it the fact that it's an illusion make it fall under the same effect as Allnight?
Okay so as I look at these two builds, I see that Stream's uses a dip into Lame Oracle to avoid the fatigue problem post raging, and STR Ranger uses allnight herbs (potions of Invigorate work as well). Both are solid in their own right. Man I want to play them both lol.
But from level one I think both are very viable. I'm definitely dropping this thread in my favorites tabs. Thanks to everyone for the builds and advice. :)
Thanks for all the responses and the builds. I really like them both. Calain's is good because he goes Barb all the way. StreamOfTheSky's build is awesome because I like the idea of a cursed person, raging in battle...the background could be amazing.
I've seen multiple suggestions on reach weapons. My question is once the enemy gets inside (within 5 ft) you can't use them right? Or is that only with certain reach weapons.
I was going to go with human (for feats and skills)with a 20pt buy along the lines of Calain's build. Maybe I should keep a reach and a 2 hander ready for all circumstances. Perhaps take quick draw for fast weapon switching.
Oh, and what is Rage Cycling?
Thanks for the reply Martiln! For a weapon I was going to go with a 2 hander. Perhaps a greatsword or greataxe (falchion if 1/2 orc). Combat Reflexes is a must. With Power Attack, should I also use Furious Focus? Would be good to get rid of the penalty for Power Attack. I'm not really looking to specialize in sundering things.
Beast Totem sounds awesome, I have to look into that. Is that an archetype that can be used with invulnerable rager? I'll check out Reckless Abandon as well.
I'm about to start a new campaign and decided to give the Invulnerable Rager a try from level one. I want to build into the CAGM rage power in the most optimized way possible.
Going to use a 20 point build, Pathfinder stuff only. Race doesn't really matter (though I don't like small races much).
So are there any links to decent builds I can use (my search didn't turn up any :( )?
Hey Mathmuse :)
It's the second interpretation. "Targets in the area" are his allies, and his caster has enough of a bonus to select all of them before casting. So those "targets" are unaffected. And yes, they have ignored the debilitating effects of acid fog, black tentacles, and fog cloud. The problem is, as I adjust for these things, it gets more difficult for the rest of the party.
Difficult to tell how many sessions are left at this point because it really depends on what actions the players take. If I had to ball park it, I'd say at least 8-10. That's me guessing on the low end.
I've been reading this for a while and thinking about how I would handle it in my own games. I would like to mention that your thread title and the actual problem are not the same. If this was the middle of the campaign, I would enforce the errata. This isn't the case though. You are at the end and have already dealt with the feat up to this point. As GM, you have adapted already. I would let him keep things the old way with the understanding that future characters will follow errata as it comes out and that if these characters are played in the future, then he will have to deal with the errata at that point.
Good call on the thread title. I should have said in the middle of an adventure.
I like your suggestions (replace the feat or allow it to apply to the first round only), but I'd let the players vote on it. If they were all happy with the too-good-to-be-true old version, I probably wouldn't be a killjoy and insist on nerfing it.
My players are of the mind that whatever is fastest so they can play. We only play every 2 weeks after all, so it would be a shame to waste a bunch of time on it debating the issue.
Black Moria wrote:
Unfortunately, by adding casters it changes the complexion of the encounters. To me, it feels a little contrived...like I'm doing it to balance what the player is doing (and I am). It also breaks immersion. ANother thing, if I DO add wizards to dispel, that won't be the only spells that they cast. I'm sure the other players won't appreciate that nastiness.
If he feels the need to rebuild his character for one adventure, I guess he can. That said, one of the major limitations of an AOE Conjuration caster is where to place his spells to greatest effect, and without harming his allies.
Selective Spell (pre errata) got rid of that completely. It was too good. It was changed for a reason.
In this case, I think his caster has a LOT of different options other than just this feat. And respeccing this late in the AP just seems inefficient at this point as it will take up a lot of time, either in or out of game.
As far as the 'too good ometer' statement, those are words to live by.
The only reason I allowed it is because I though it was legit by the book. I *felt* something was off with it, but never thought to check the errata.
But I know if I were to use this tactic on the players, I doubt it would be a fun encounter.
Thanks for this insightful post, Selgard.
The only thing I would point out is that if this were a feat that I personally thought was too powerful and I was 'houseruling' it, that would cause more friction because I'm moving away from the guidelines (rules). In this instance, the rules (errata in this case) support what I'm doing.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Thanks for the post Steve :)
As far as the other players, they are of the mind to alter the feat in some way to make it balanced for the remainder of the campaign.
If I were to alter encounters and/or have a bad guy use the feat on them, they know how powerful it would be. I'm not really for making things more difficult for everyone to balance things out. I would rather attack the source if possible. In this case, the feat itself.
I can see both sides of the argument but in the end if it was my character I would go with the change. Especially since you offered a feat change to compensate for the errata. I believe you are being more then fair.
I'll chalk that one up to the "a feat respec is enough" list. Appreciate the reply Narrater.
Thanks for the reply MD. Actually I thought it was too good when he first used it, but when I checked the APG (1st printing) I thought it was legit, so I let it go. Unfortunately I didn't think to check the errata and I'm noticing that I seem to have to adjust more and more for the pre errata feat. I don't blame the player mind you. He's using the rules as they were printed.
Just imagine being able to cast AOE clouds, debuffs, etc without ever having to worry about your companions. I think if the feat had remained that way, it would be a must have for every caster. Thus the errata.
Also, an excellent suggestion on using the PFSRD for character creation! I'm definitely going to do that from now on.
Well that was one of my ideas. I was hoping for others, but confirmation that this is the best way is also good. Appreciate the post Interzone :)
Robb Smith wrote:
Agreed. In a homebrew campaign this would be less of a problem. But this is an AP I'm running, and I want to keep the flavor as much as possible.
All good points, wraithstrike. I really don't like using DM influence (ie, using the power against the players, or using DM fiat to "balance" it)to metagame overpowered feats away. My position is that it should be either changed or respecced. I'm hoping to find other options if those don't work.
Robb Smith wrote:
Thanks for the post Robb :)
A couple of things. First, you're right I should have checked the errata the very first time he cast it. I failed in that regard.
The only issue I have with "toughing it out" as is is that it's rather powerful and potentially game breaking at this level. As far as retuning, or respeccing the feat, I think his 13th level caster is MORE than a one trick pony. He's perfectly viable without the pre errata feat. Convincing him of that may be a different story, but the feat just puts it over the top, so to speak.
As for your exclusion suggestion, he purposefully places the spell after everyone gets in the AOE. One of the main drawbacks of a battlefield controller character is trying to not catch your allies in the spell. I think it's one of the things that balances the tactic. The feat pre errata makes it a little too easy to bypass that IMO.
Lesson learned as far as errata is concerned. I'll have to stay on top of it, and for the next campaign if errata is found, it takes effect immediately. It just hasn't really impacted the campaign very much until now.
Really, all I'm looking for is a decent compromise so that we can do more playing than debating come game time.
Using the feat against the party would be pretty cheesy at this point I think. It would drive the whole thing home, but really wouldn't be fun for any of the players.
And though we're on the last adventure we're definitely more than 3 sessions away from finishing the whole thing.
Your offer to replace the feat, or use it post errata sounds very reasonable. Any character concept based solely on one feat alone is a poor concept. If you feel rather generous, you can offer to allow him to recreate his character from the ground up. Let him know that as errata effects players, it also effects NPCs and monsters. Fair is fair.
Thanks for the reply BBT. This is a level 13 campaign currently and rebuilding just about ANY character from the ground up is a very time consuming process for the last adventure. I'd like to avoid that option if at all possible. And honestly his character is extremely viable even without the feat. I think part of the problem is just getting him to realize that.
Here's the situation. I'm running a campaign that's just about to end. We use all Pathfinder content (hardcovers).
I will say that everyone at the table (myself included) dropped the "errata ball." That is to say that we usually don't keep up with the printed errata as it usually doesn't affect game play that much.
Well now that's come back and bitten us in the collective rear end.
We have a party mage that has the metamagic feat Selective Spell (APG168). On at least three encounters he's cast a selective black tentacles, and at least two selective acid clouds.
When he did this, my BS detector went off, but as I read and reread the feat in the first printing of the APG, it appeared to be legal. So when I went to build a caster for a different campaign, that feat was the first one on the list to take. But when I read it on the SRD it was worded differently. Then I checked and saw that it had been changed via errata.
I advised the player of this and his solution is to keep the feat as usual (pre errata) until the end of the campaign (we're in the last adventure). My solution is to change it immediately, and offer him the chance to change the feat out if he wants.
I want to keep him at the table as he's an excellent player, but there needs to be a middle ground here.
This feat pre errata is very difficult to deal with in the current campaign without a lot of DM fiat. My current solution is to alter the feat so that the first round it acts pre errata, then after that it acts post errata. That essentially gives the players one free round of actions before being affected.
Does anyone have any other thoughts on fair compromises to keep him at the table?
This is what usually happens with some of my players. I think what I'm going to do is reduce the number of trait choices to one, and have the other come from a Campaign Setting. Not sure which campaign we're going to play next, but it will most likely be an Adventure Path starting from level one.
I also like the idea of just customizing two lists based on the Campaign Setting and having the players pick which traits they want from each list. It's a good way to cull the ones that don't really fit, that they probably won't pick anyway.
Another solution is to combine both those ideas and have them pick one trait from my list, and one from any list.
Much more food for thought :)
I've been running Pathfinder on and off since Beta. One of the many changes that I enjoyed was the addition of traits. Traits allowed for flavor to be added to the character, while at the same time giving the player a 'hook' for some background information.
Some of my players absolutely hated doing character backgrounds, but giving them the benefit of traits caused them to write some very decent and involved character histories! It was wonderful!
Now I'm noticing that most of the players are taking the same traits over and over again for different characters. Reactionary, Magical Knack, Heirloom Weapon...etc. The character histories are rather short and only serve to explain how the character got the traits.
Here's the problem: What do I do about it? Should I just ban traits completely (starting with the next campaign of course)? Or maybe restrict them in some way?
Any advice from the Pathfinder community would be appreciated :)
Playtest conducted at level 9. Samurai is Human. His feats include Step up, Following Step, Step Up and Strike, Vital Strike, Power Attack, Imp. Trip, and Weapon Prof. Meteor Hammer.
Other players in the party were a Gnome Cleric of Sarenrae, Human Druid, and a Halfling Ninja.
The Samurai found himself going solo for a few rounds because of a failed Perception check. Basically he got nailed with two rounds of sneak attacks from a roguish robbery attempt.
He was going up against 4 roguish types that got the drop on him. He suffered over half his hit points in sneak attack damage before he even knew what was going on.
The villains were doing fine until they started trying to adjust for sneak attacks with 5 foot steps. It got pretty ugly after that. They lost two of their number to vicious katana strikes before the cavalry came to help him out.
The Samurai did an average of about 30 dpr, and he didn't even activate the Flaming burst quality on his keen weapon. He didn't have to use any of his special abilities in this fight, but not a bad warm up. More to come when we play again.
Here are some new play test results for the Ninja. Let's get the general stuff out of the way first:
Party was level 9 and also included a Human Samurai (will post his results in a different thread), Gnome Cleric of Sarenrae, and a Human Druid. Ninja is a halfling.
We had battle against four rogue types. Basically the Samurai got jumped and they wanted to take his stuff.
While the Samurai fought downstairs, the rest of the party could hear the sounds of combat coming from upstairs in their room. the Ninja quickly made the 15 foot leap and managed to land in flanking position with the Samurai behind one of the bad guys. Unfortunately, he missed on the attack.
Cleric tossed out a long distance channel and the Samurai cut down two of the four baddies. Druid turned into an air elemental and used whirlwind, providing the lead BG concealment by accident and negating the Ninja's critical threat (classic).
Things got a little ugly on a round of misses as the BG tried to run away, but the Ninja ended things with a timely Ki Charge. He also used a point of Ki to increase his speed for a round. Vanishing Trick was also used to get an absolutely wicked sneak attack in that really weakened the lead BG (causing him to try to run away to begin with).
All in all, some good stuff there.
The Weave05 wrote:
Good catch. What I should have said was that the Ninja was able to run over the triggers that opened them. The Rogue, of course, was able to call them out.
I wonder how well a Gunslinger will do with a Ninja, a Cleric, and a Samurai. All in the same group.
There's a possibility that all three might be at my table next week for playtesting. Not quite sure on the Gunslinger though. The player is still debating that, or a different character class.
Either way, I'm going to go with an AP instead of my standard homebrew. I'm a little concerned about party balance, but I have faith in my players so I think they'll find a way to make it work.
Should be interesting if the Gunslinger decides to show up.
Well, I thought that the Ninja playtest was done for me, however someone else in the group wants to play one. So he will now build a Ninja character and I will post the results of the next adventure on this thread as well. There will also be a Samurai in the group, but those results will be posted in a seperate thread for the Samurai alone.
I will change things up a bit and include raw damage numbers and try to include more of what the other characters do. Unfortunately that will probably make for pretty long posts. You have been warned.
This is going to be fun...
My apologies for not seeing this earlier. Baddie was flat footed at the time, Ninja charged, Light Stepped over Grease and struck, scoring a critical hit. I wasn't really sure at the time if you could combine Light Step with a charge, but it sure as heck looked cool cinematically, so I allowed it. He even finished with a kneeling follow through, bloody katana in hand while the baddie slowly slumped to the floor.
Based on the playtesting, the Ninja player said that he thought he was still on par with the Rogue. The Rogue player said that the only time he felt that the Ninja outshined him was when he burned all his Ki at once in the final fight to do a bunch if tricks.