TheMadPhoenix's page

Rangers need to be more bow focused. I don't mind that shortbows are the preferred bow now for hunters, that actually makes sense. However, I want to see Rangers get more bow feats like PBS and others to make them the best bow uses of all classes. Fighters should be good, but Rangers should be the best.

While we're on bows, Erastil should just have bows as his weapon so Clerics or others who venerate him can take either shortbows or longbows as their holy weapon.

Languages to me seem too limited. There's no way to represent a scout from Nirmathas, say that knows Dwarven because he had to liaise with Kraggodan. Or knowing Sylvan from interacting with Fey, or whatever. Also, I don't like multilingual being keyed to society as total wilderness characters don't care about civilization unless you take a very loose interpretation of civilization. I would also see rules for removing common as a starting language for elves or other characters that only know their regional language. And it would be fun to tie additional languages to a level so that when you're communicating in a language you aren't completely fluent in, you can muff what you're trying to say or what you understand them saying.

I think the other martial classes should get the ability to choose their key attribute. For example, Paladins should get the choice to choose Str or Cha. Actually I think almost every class should have the ability to choose their key stat between a physical and mental. Also, I believe there should be a way to get con at 18 at start for at least martial characters. I like not having a stat over 18 at start but I think humans should be able to take a flaw (-2) to a stat (just one) to add an additional +2 to another stat keeping in mind that it can't go over 18.

If we're going to have to have an Expert rank to qualify for "2nd level" feats, then why don't we just call them Expert level feats? Same with Master and Legendary.

I guess this could also go for the Ex-Monk archetype whether they have to remain Lawful.

Is a Vindictive Bastard from the Antihero Handbook still required to be LG? Changing alignments is one of the ways to become an Ex-Paladin, but unlike the Ex-Druid archetype which calls out an alignment change, there is no such wording for the Vindictive Bastard. So, what is RAW and what is RAI? My reading would be that a Vindictive Bastard is no longer required to be LG.

I think Dasrak has the right interpretation of the wording, however RAI is always difficult to guess. It may even have been intended that the Eldritch Archer can still use Spellstrike in melee as a sort of backup, similar to how the Zen Archer still gets Improved Unarmed Strike and its damage bonus rather than shifting every single melee-oriented class feature over to ranged attacks.

That's kind of why I'm hoping for some kind of official ruling from Paizo about this. Or as close to official as I can get. In my own games I would go RAI meaning no melee.

BUT, I guess I could see the argument that like the Myrmidarch getting ranged spell strike but not ranged spell combat, it could work similarly so that the eldritch archer gets melee spell strike but not melee spell combat.

Ranged Spell Combat wrote:

Instead of a light or one-handed melee weapon, an eldritch archer must use a ranged weapon for spell combat.

Emphasis mine. Spell Combat does not function for the Eldritch Archer unless you are using a ranged weapon. I don't see how you could possibly construe this otherwise.

Ranged Spellstrike wrote:

At 2nd level, whenever an eldritch archer casts a spell that calls for a ranged attack, she can deliver the spell through a ranged weapon she wields as part of a ranged attack.

...
This ability alters spellstrike.

This one, however, is a bit more ambiguous. The Ranged Spellstrike ability alters rather than replaces the original spellstrike class feature, and does not explicitly say you can't make a melee spellstrike, so there's an argument that it retains that functionality from the vanilla Magus.

Given the context of the class, the RAI is probably that this is only meant to function with ranged weapons. However, it doesn't appear this was ever explicitly stated.

That's my argument on the first point is that it specifically says in the description that it MUST be a ranged weapon with spell combat.

And the second point is their argument, in that it doesn't specifically say that you don't get melee, but my reading is like yours, RAI is that their abilities only work ranged.

I am arguing with Lone Wolf Development about their implementation of the Eldritch Archer Archetype from Heroes of the Streets. My reading of Ranged Spell Combat and Ranged Spellstrike is that The Eldritch archer no longer gets the melee versions of these two abilities. Meaning they get no ability to do normal Magus Spell Combat and Normal Magus Spellstrike with a touch attack as a melee weapon. They are arguing that since the words include alter and modify that those two abilities remain. Can I get an official answer on whether the Eldritch Archer retains Melee Spell Combat and Spellstrike?