I wanted to rebuild the Samurai alternate class. It wasn't to my liking. Mainly the samurai alternate class doesn't take into account that samurai were well educated, rather than just great warriors. Anything from performing tea ceremonies, to teaching others to read was normal. So with that in mind here is my rebuild. I'm hoping this is the right area to post this.
Samurai Alternate Class rebuild using the Class Construction engine, and CP of 250.
Grand Total 249 CP
Few warriors are more dedicated to Bushido than the samurai. Trained from birth by their a samurai in the art of war and sworn to the service of a lord, the samurai holds a position of power and respect in many lands, often serving as the voice and justice of the local noble. The samurai takes on his training with zeal, learning the art of war in all forms. The samurai is often the most trusted soldier in his lord’s employ. In him, the common folk see honor and sacrifice. He is an honorable warrior, dedicated to the realm and the leaders that guide it.
Iaijutsu Strike (Ex)
If the samurai chose the tetsubo they gain heavy hitter.
Heavy hitter (Ex)
If the samurai chose the wakizashi they gain equal opportunity.
Equal balance (Ex)
If the samurai chose the Naginata they gain Naginata Fighting.
Weapon master (Ex)
At 20th level the samurai automatically confirms all critical hits with his selected weapon.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Does this mean that on a normal combat maneuver (grapple) you wouldn't get to add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects?
The wording used would suggest that only on a follow up attack do you get to add those bonuses.
No as the second sentence doesn't mean what you think it means. If you read the whole post I've stated that three times now.
You're only using the attack roll for the purpose of rolling a d20. It's not an actual attack. It's a combat maneuver. Since CMB and combat maneuvers make an exception to the rule by negative any attack bonus. You wouldn't add any spell bonuses to the CMB, or combat maneuver check. Unless a feat, or ability state to do so.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Though I'm still not sure if that is the case or not. Many of my questions have gone unanswered.
Then why isn't this stated in the discription of CMB? Yet those bonuses are stated in CMD? It's a contradiction to what you just said. CMB as RAW doesn't allow any other bonuses that don't specifically state adds bonus to CMB, or that specific maneuver. I've listed it above in my question if you'd like to read that again.
Sean Reynolds states that is not the purpose of the second line in that rule per the link I posted. Go read that first before replying to this please.
Is grappling someone a melee attack?
Is grappling someone not an attack at all but rather a combat maneuver that only requires a attack roll for the purpose of determining success?
Since CMB excludes any miscellaneous bonuses.
Combat Maneuver Bonus
Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Bonus (or CMB) that represents its skill at performing combat maneuvers. A creature's CMB is determined using the following formula:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
Special Size Modifier
Creatures that are size Tiny or smaller use their Dexterity modifier in place of their Strength modifier to determine their CMB. The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus is as follows:
Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8.
Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMB when performing specific maneuvers.
While CMD allows for miscellaneous bonuses.
Combat Maneuver Defense
Each character and creature has a Combat Maneuver Defense (or CMD) that represents its ability to resist combat maneuvers. A creature's CMD is determined using the following formula:
CMD = 10 + Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + Dexterity modifier + special size modifier + miscellaneous modifiers
Special Size Modifier
The special size modifier for a creature's Combat Maneuver Defense is as follows:
Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8.
Some feats and abilities grant a bonus to your CMD when resisting specific maneuvers.
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
Does that mean spells that add bonuses to attack rolls don't affect CMB (specifically for grapple).
I ask this as Sean Reynolds specifically clarified this only for disarm, trip, and sunder.
I have a brawler at level 5 with a CMB of 19, this could get up to 24 if spells are allowed into CMB as well. Pretty out there I think as the highest CMD is 26 for CR5 monsters.
I'm with the RAW of the spell seems to say both must be cast.
However my two friends insist that isn't the case. The whole it doesn't say you can't specifically deal.
Since scrolls are a thing it would seem you could do just about anything you wanted as long as you are casting the spell.
I don't allow it in my games. If you are the caster you can on yourself, however if you can't cast the spells yourself you can't do any on those lists.
Why would any caster make a scroll of permanency? They wouldn't that is just crazy talk.
Do you have to be a caster to use the self only list on permanency?
I would say yes you have to be a caster to use that list, even though I highly doubt anyone will agree with me. Why have two lists if anyone can do it with a scroll? Why wouldn't they just say these are spells you can permanency? Then also explain you can do it with a scroll. Since (you must be of a minimum caster level) doesn't this mean you have to be able to cast the actual spell, and be of that caster level? I don't see anything that says you can scroll that list of self only permanency.
Do you have to be the minimum caster level to use the self only list for permanency or can you use a scroll to meet the qualification?
In the permanency spell it states "Depending on the spell, you must be of a minimum caster level". So how can you use a scroll to meet this requirement? The scroll doesn't make you a caster level of the scroll itself. The scroll caster level is only used to determine the quality and bonuses to the spell in the scroll.
The wording disqualifies anyone that isn't the actual caster level from using the self only list in my opinion and by RAW.
You want me to say you were right? Okay you are right, as is the OP. Duh. Jeez man chill it was a joke.
Yes, it was. You caught on the fastest, and even before It was April fools. Guess it was only right you picked up on the fact that it was April fools.
I apologize for any confusion or heartache I caused to get this internet prank going. It was worth the time and effort. Remember to not take things so seriously folks after all April fools could be right around the corner.
Thanks for all your patient replies and dedication to this forum and to those whom actually don't know the rules, and need honest opinions on things they truly don't understand.
Best forum ever~
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." Einstein
Interesting point with the tail weapon. There are I'm sure many ways to get both 10' and 5' squares threatened in the same round using monster rules, or some other not normal means available to custom builds using races not normally played.
However that takes a feat to accomplish and a tail. It's also a natural weapon. Which means at 1st level you still wouldn't be able to accomplish what I'm asking unless a monk/brawler with combat reflexes.
To be specific we are talking about 1st level monk/brawler holding a two handed-weapon and using IUS to accomplish this threatening of 10' and 5' in the same turn when multiple enemies get up from being tripped provoking AOO on each one at different ranges. Using combat reflexes to gain more than 1 AOO.
Those are some nice weapons that have interesting applications. Though not what we are talking about at all. I apologize for the lack of being specific enough for you without you having to go back and read some of the previous posts.
That's a lot to digest. Though most of it doesn't make sense.
Multiple 5' steps over multiple rounds (no more than 1 per round as long as another movement isn't made). Hope that clears up what I meant.
The only way to use weapons with IUS is during flurry of blows. So most of your argument is invalid. At least unless you wanted to take some nice massive penalties. You know two AOO, and the negatives from two weapon fighting if you use a weapon/knee/kick. If you aren't a monk, or have IUS, TWF, and FOB.
I'd rather leave the actual ruling to a dev since they can errata or not anything they want without a house rule.
Yes I realize this. I'm just wondering if Paizo intended this with IUS as it would seem monks/brawler are the only class able to threaten both 10' and 5' squares during the same turn.
It looks like team yes.. and straph. Thats not usually sides.
Just because many people agree something is right, is not an indication of being correct.
500 years ago team yes thought the world was flat.
Today the majority of people think global warming isn't a thing, however they are not correct.
Yes I'm on my own side. Still makes it two sides.
There isn't one listed. You can only hold as many weapons as you can carry with your load limit. The question is can you use them all at the same time. I highly doubt it. Though you cannot use that weapon with IUS during a full round attack unless it's a monk weapon.
My intention was to illustrate that there is nothing saying you can use a non monk two handed-weapon and IUS at the same time. It's a technicality but still I want to know what Paizo intended for the Monk. A free reach weapon 10' AOO with any two hand-weapon while still being able to use IUS full attack.
The same "it doesn't say I can't" thought process is coming into play.
I'm new to the forums, not new to the game scene been playing for 20+ years. However it's impossible to know every rule in the game with 50+ books and all the small exceptions to the rules. Granted I know a lot of the rules. I just view the rules differently than most looking at them logically from the standpoint of it doesn't say you can so you can't. Most people look at it from the other direction, it doesn't say you can't so you can. So why wouldn't you be able to?
It does say in IUS that you can hold something in your hands and still use IUS. It doesn't say that you can use, or be armed with those items in the hands.
This rule specifically works around that concept of it doesn't say you can't. Even though technically you can't wield both weapons without a feat (multiweapon fighting), and multiple arms.
My misunderstanding of the 5 foot step also makes the above less broken. As you can't continually trip them after taking multiple 5 foot steps each round with a full attack. So it balances slightly better than I thought. Thus I agree that you could do it. As it isn't as broken as I thought it was.
However would still love to have Paizo come in and say if that was their intention with IUS, and holding a two handed-weapon that isn't a monk weapon. Can the monk/brawler get an AOO with both weapons if there is someone threatened at 5' with IUS, and someone threatened at 10' with a reach weapon during the same enemy turn due to two enemies standing up from prone?
Oh yeah that does clear it up. I totally forgot about the 5ft step when getting up from a prone.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Shucks Kobold Cleaver your on to me and my Paizo's Law of Argumonics. Shh don't tell anyone.
Natural attacks have a totally different rule set specifically for them that states you can use weapons and natural attacks to use both in the same turn thus making you armed and able to make a melee attack. I'm not disputing this fact.
I however don't see any rule that says you can do the same with IUS. In fact on my first point I go into a long rant on why you can't. Thus far I haven't been proven wrong.
I was very clear in my first post. Also that link doesn't have anything about IUS and two handed-weapons. I'm not sure you're being clear on what you are debating over.
Lets quote the whole rule not just the part that makes you right. You missed that little bit that says you have to be armed in the last sentence to get an AOO. Can't be armed with two different weapons with out TWF, which doesn't allow two handed-weapons oddly enough. Also Paizo's site doesn't update errata like SRD does.
You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
False, you do not threaten with any weapon you can attack with. I can attack with a bow, long sword, gauntlet, and whip all of which I have on me and can attack with. Yet I can't use them all to make a AOO. I can only make an AOO with the weapon I'm armed with.
If you read my above statement about two weapon fighting, and FOB you would know I'm not disputing you can use two weapons while using IUS. You can even AOO with both in the same round just not on twice on the same AOO.
The dispute is about getting an AOO with a two handed-weapon with reach (long spear) and AOO with IUS at the same time even though you can't be armed with both weapons at once.
Interesting how exactly would you do that? Please site rules, and sources. I'm interested to see where you are going with this.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I was disputing that fact. I wasn't, you are correct you can use IUS while holding a weapon.
@Lessah you are right you can use IUS with a reach weapon in your hand. I'm not disputing that. I also wasn't disputing attacking twice on an AOO (not okay).
I'm disputing using both a two handed-weapon with reach and using IUS for AOO at the same time on different targets. The two situations are completely different from one another. In one case you aren't using the two handed-weapon with reach weapon with IUS you are simply holding the two handed-weapon (okay), the other you are using the two handed-weapon with reach weapon and IUS (not okay).
However if you look at my points above again, specifically the Threatened Square rule you must be able to make a melee attack with the weapon, and be armed with it to be able to make an AOO in the first place. You cannot be armed with a two handed-weapon with reach and IUS at the same time. Neither IUS rules or FOB rules say you can do that. Specifically states that in FOB, which says you can use monk weapons only with IUS during a FOB full attack thus making them armed weapons, and able to make melee attacks with both the monk weapons and IUS. This also lets you AOO with both monk weapon and IUS.
If you look at FOB it also states it treats this exception as two weapon fighting with a -2 to all attacks. You can't use two weapon fighting with two handed-weapons per the feat description. You'll also want to read the multiweapon fighting feat I mentioned. In order to use multiple weapons in this case a two handed-weapon, and an IUS (two different weapons not covered under the two weapon fighting feat) it says you'll need 3 or more arms to use multiple weapons at the same time.
To make my point clear it doesn't even mention weapons at all in IUS feat. Only in the monk class feature does it mention using fist, elbows, knees, and feet. Again the word weapon wasn't used.
The only time weapons are mentioned again as I stated above is with FOB. These are only Monk weapons. No monk two handed-weapons weapons have reach. You couldn't even use any two handed weapons in order to threaten in the first place as you wouldn't be considered armed with them the moment you use IUS.
I agreed with this at first as well (positive intent), until I read the flurry of blows, Improved Unarmed Strike, and threatened square rules, and ran a few scenarios at different levels to see how broken this would be if allow. It is super broken with 6~7 attacks per round at 1st level. No supporting evidence/source quoted from any of the replies that answered yes that specifically states you can use a two handed-weapon and flurry of blows, or two handed-weapon and IUS at the same time anywhere in the rules.
The great cleave comment "It doesn't say you can't do it" was the dead give away that people will read the rules as they want to see them, rather than the mechanics they were built for. I am guilty of this as well from time to time. There is the rule of law, and then there is the spirit of the law.
FOB specifically states flurry of blows can be done with monk weapons only. Since it states this is the only time you can use IUS and monk weapons only, you wouldn't be able to make a melee attack with IUS and a two handed-weapon at the same time. Which means the two handed-weapon becomes unarmed and wouldn't grant you an AOO even if you are holding it during combat. Clearly stated in Threatened squares rules you must be able to make a melee attack with the weapon, and be armed with it to be able to get an AOO.
I.E. if you had a kama, sickle or other monk weapon you could make an AOO with it and IUS as you could make a melee attack normally with both per FOB, and are armed with both as well.
FLurry of Blows: Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so, he may make one additional attack, taking a –2 penalty on all of his attack rolls, as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes and attacks with a monk special weapon (he does not need to use two weapons to utilize this ability).
Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away. However, Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten more squares than a typical creature. In addition, most creatures larger than Medium have a natural reach of 10 feet or more.
I don't see anywhere in that wording nor in the IUS rules that state you can use two handed-weapons and IUS at the same time for AOO. Also see multiweapon fighting feat, and two weapon fighting feat for further details on how IUS/FOB works with using multiple weapons. I'm positive Paizo didn't want a monk/brawler to have AOO on reach and adjacent squares at the same time at 1st level without having to taking a single feat while using two weapons (unarmed, and two handed-weapons).
I would also like to see someone from Paizo make a ruling either way, and erreta either to say yes that was our intention, or no that wasn't our intention. Making it clear for the Monk/Brawler wanting to use two weapons, ISU and a non monk two handed-weapon for AOO at the same time in one round while someone is adjacent, and in the 10' threat range.
I wrote something similar about the Greater Spell Combat that seemed to be broken. I have a similar feeling about this capstone feat.
After looking through all the capstones it would seem the Magus gets the stinker one. DR 10/evil for a paladin? Versus a +2 on of the following... Normal feats do +2. Capstone feats don't do +2 to an option of things. Some capstones are stop aging. Yet Magus gets a +2. Hmmm lets get this addressed by Paizo shall we?
The wording used in the capstone feat isn't backed up by the bonus provided.
At 20th level, the magus becomes a master of spells and combat.
I'm still taking a -2 to any melee attack while using spell combat (doesn't sound like a master of combat to me taking that penalty).
Whenever he uses his spell combat ability, he does not need to make a concentration check to cast the spell defensively.
I already can't fail my concentration checks with my +30 (+32 during spell combat) at level 20 with a DC 27 for my highest level spell. I'm actually over by 3, or 5. Looks like I wasted a feat early on due to bad scaling of concentration.
Whenever the magus uses spell combat and his spell targets the same creature as his melee attacks, he can choose to either increase the DC to resist the spell by +2,
Magus aren't a DC focused class since the idea was spell combat which means focusing on strength, or dexterity to hit rather than maximizing your intelligence for spells, with no possibility to hit with a weapon. So the DC +2 is useless on all the spells that don't have DC's on them. Useless for my spell list. As I don't have many combat spells with DC on them. The magus list only has a few as is.
grant himself a +2 circumstance bonus on any checks made to overcome spell resistance,
+2 spell pen is nice but underwhelming at level 20. 24 spell penetration at level 20 if you take both feats for more spell pen. Also both the spell pen feats are +2 capstone shouldn't be the same as a regular feat.
or grant himself a +2 circumstance bonus on all attack rolls made against the target during his turn.
This +2 bonus on all attacks should have been addressed during Greater Spell Combat per my other post about how useless Greater Spell Combat feat is. Also a +2 to attack on all rolls is underwhelming by itself as a capstone feat since you can only choose one of the options.
The following should be the Magus Capstone feat. Something that backs up the wording used in the first sentence.
At 20th level, the magus becomes a master of spells and combat. Whenever he uses his spell combat ability he gains a +2 circumstance bonus to all attack rolls, a +2 to spell penetration, and +2 DC to any spell cast.
This would reflect true master of spells and combat. If the magus can only choose one option he is either master of spells, or combat not both. Not to mention the first item is completely useless.
Fixing this as well as greater spell combat would free up 2 feats wasted on combat casting, and improved spell combat to not lose your spell for the round.
Thank you for your time.
I haven't seen any official response from Paizo on this and would like this topic addressed.
I have been playing a Magus for a long game over a year and just got to level 14 (slow progression). After reading the Greater Spell Combat feat I feel it does nothing for the Magus. In fact I didn't even right it down on my character sheet and even asked the GM for a free feat in it's place.
My main issues is that I have a +24 concentration check at level 14, and +26 while using spell combat. Using concentration feats. I simply cannot fail any concentration check, and never will for even my 6th level spells once I get them. I have a 18 intelligence. Even if someone has a feat to make that concentration check harder the likely hood of my failing the spell completely is less than 1%. So taking a negative to attack for more concentration is literally useless. Even for a magus that didn't take any concentration feats by level 14 this feat is very unlikely to be used.
Also there is the wording "At 14th level, the magus gains the ability to seamlessly cast spells and make melee attacks." Yet there is no bonus to back this statement up. It's simply a false statement. There is nothing in this feat that makes the magus gain the ability to seamlessly cast spells and make melee attacks. If nothing it makes your attacks worse, and in my case I get no bonus from doing so as I can't fail a check normally. So either Paizo forgot to add the you don't take a -2 penalty to attack during spell combat, or they just didn't understand the word seamlessly.
Seamlessly: moving from one thing to another easily and without any interruptions or problems
A -2 to attack is a problem, also taking a penalty to attack so you can concentrate on a spell to cast during combat is a problem. This feat doesn't make it easy to make melee attacks and cast spells seamlessly if nothing else the feat is making matters worse. I formally request this feat be updated to it's proper usefulness, and changed to reflect the wording used in the feat.
The feat should state the following:
At 14th level, the magus gains the ability to seamlessly cast spells and make melee attacks. The magus no longer takes a penalty to attack during spell combat, and gains an additional +2 on concentration checks during spell combat.
This would allow anyone playing a Magus to not have to waste 2 feats for concentration just to be able to do what the class was designed for spell combat. It would also allow them to do what the feat says seamlessly cast spells and make melee attacks.
Thank you for your time.
I couldn't find an answer to these questions after a GM hit us with a Incorporeal Spell Caster we faced.
First does a incorporeal monster cast corporeal spells, or incorporeal spells?
Also how would these incorporeal monster cast spells on himself like a force spell such as shield, or stone skin?
Can they even cast spells with class levels?
To break down what Gary McBride thinks is a problem and what I think isn't a problem is very interesting.
1) Evil must be proactive
Evil doesn't have to be proactive at all. Evil can be lazy, or take it's time to find the best way to be evil. The idea that a good guy will just randomly try to trash the evil guy lol. Evil things happen all the time in real life, and sometimes they go unpunished, and even unnoticed. so no evil doesn't need to be proactive. this isn't a problem at all. evil can be reactive as in the good guys are doing a good deed which we think needs to be stopped cause it is interfering with our evil thing we have going over here. Good guys have plans and plots just as much as the evil guys do. good guys can be proactive in an evil campaign. you see that is the beauty of being a GM you can play either side of the field. you have no restriction on alignment you are simply engineering fun. and your tool is good, rather than evil.
a problem lmao noob. only a unskilled GM or gamer with no real experience playing would say minions are an issue. in fact minions in an evil campaign are more needed than not. i love the leadership feat period. it gives you so much more to work with role playing wise, socially, and even to thicken the plot. how pissed does a character get when his/her favorite minion gets killed by a good npc. evil plots thicken at that point.
interesting that many players have bad encounters with pvp. the pvp that i've been apart of is rather harmless. being sapped, or an arrow in the side, maybe some non lethal damage. i've never been killed in pvp, and i've never killed anyone in pvp evil or not. at some point someone gives in and say ok you made your point. taking that killing blow means even as an evil character that you want to be in a solo campaign not a group. at which point you need to remind the player this is a group/team game in which you simply can't kill everyone on your team all the time. at some point your character will be retired since no one will work with him/her due to reputation of killing. if you look under the leadership feat it explains this quite nicely. if you caused harm or killed someone in your service like another player you have a lower leadership score. I used this once on a new player explaining that if he kills a player character he receives a -2 each time and that at 9 or less his character retires due to lack of companions available to him in a team game. that is just a lack of knowledge of the player. pvp isn't an issue.
4) Squick factor:
you are playing a evil campaign right? so rated R and pg 13 comes to mind. again lack of knowledge and experience in gaming come to mind. this one is simply not an issues either. you don't have to explain your torture or rape methods, and you can keep it pg 13 evil. the rated R should be for a group that is ready for it. start with the PG 13 evil campaign if you are unsure. pg 13 means you keep it simple. you do evil stuff as in saying you raped, or tortured someone and keep it at that. no need to go all into it during a finding out if people like or don't like evil campaigns.
5) The banality of evil. Having a PC just "be evil" can be kind of stupid. Evil PCs need clear and strong motivations.
this author clearly doesn't game often enough to even begin writing on the subject of gaming evil, or gaming at all. no disrespect Gary McBride but really? being evil is only stupid if you are playing with 13 year old kids. Every PC needs clear and strong motivations evil has nothing to do with that. going into an evil campaign is designing the game around evil characters rather than good. having a evil pc and an evil campaign is a really good flip side to normal game play. lets face it fire ball is just a bit more fun when casting it on the orphanage randomly. this is something you get away with in evil campaigns simply because you are an evil character. this exploration as a player is new to most. it's the GM's job to bring those players back to reality. that orphanage has a 16th level paladin inside that will all kinds of smite your dumb ass for not thinking that fire ball through after he saves ever last kid in the place. biting off more than you can chew as an evil character is just as much a lesson in good as well as evil campaigns.
false all around. evil is a good change up to good. playing a true neutral campaign is in my mind the hardest. I simply don't have enough experience in that type of game to know where to start. and i'll be the first to admit to it.