My gut instinct is that an attached weapon with a shifting rune should only be able to shift into other weapons that can be attached to the item it's attached to.
So a Shield Spike with shifting could shift into a shield boss and vise versa.
An attached reinforced stock could shift into an attached bayonet.
This isn't RAW and it's probably not even RAI, but it seems reasonable to me.
So, in conclusion to my question:
Taking over each other "Rogue"/"Ranger"
Ah. So the two parent classes are kind of vaguely like the hybrid class.
Edit: proposal, two slayers. 1 is a rogue racket that grants rangers "hunt prey" feature. The other is a Ranger Hunters Edge that grants Sneak Attack.
S. J. Digriz wrote:
A shout out for cockroach people! It could be so very fun to play a cockroach person, and the general toughness, stealth, and creepiness of the species would make for some great abilities.
"No no, look I'm sorry but you can't ALL name your characters Gregor Samsa. It'll get confusing."
Good, but for PFS reasons I still want a core line book with common options or ancestry/region linked uncommon options.
An AP that comes out tomorrow may well not be sanctioned till after a core line book that comes out in august of 2023. And any options in it will probably be chronicle based for PFS.
A book and companion 3 part AP focused on exploration.
Mounted combat at speed.
Vastly expanded mount options.
Archetypes to fit.
I remember during the playtest a certain amount of arguement about whether a wave caster could still cast spells from a staff if they were below the casters lowest spell level.
I.e. your magus has 3rd and 4th level spell slots. This staff has 1st and 2nd level spells on it. Some argued that since you couldn't cast spells of that level you couldn't cast those spells using a staff either.
Did that ever get definitively clarified?, and if not i really hope it does in the book.
All Right, going with this.
Everything else same as before, but class feats as follows.
(Decided Finishing Precision before Flying blade, because at least that way I get the bonuses to melee)
Well, Fane's lets us treat the cards as Daggers (or darts) so I can use them as over-sized daggers in Melee as well, but yes I'll probably carry some sort of oversized blunt object just in case of Damage resistances, etc etc etc.
But my inclination is to make the cards my Primary weapon, and use anything else ONLY in specialized circumstances. The sort of "Just in case" like a normal Barbarian carrying a Bow for flying enemies, or a Wizard resorting to his Staff/Dagger in melee.
Ah, yes, there was another thread where we established that large weapons don't actually have any rarity restriction, just increased cost and bulk. And since they provide no mechanical benefit except to a giant instinct barbarian, no reason or rule was found to indicate you COULDN'T buy large weapons.
So we're using an oversized deck of playing cards.
Essentially, I think Swashbuckler is better for this build because the dedication benefit is more useful.
Rogue gives me trained in 3 skills.
That said, I'm open to Rogue build if it brings something good to the table.
With Giant Instinct it's adding 3, and at 7th it's adding 5.
My ideal is to deal acceptable damage at range.
My understanding of the Stance concept it's that it would use the Monk's Wild Winds stance as inspiration.I.E. You enter a stance and it gives you access to a basic elemental blast as a ranged unarmed attack. Thus your attack scaling would be via Handwraps with runes, not cantrip leveling. Also your attacks would be 1 action strikes, not 2 action spells.
Blast upgrades could then be either Focus Spells, Meta-Magic like actions, or some mix of the two.
Alright, i have a silly build idea, which i know is going to be sub optional, but I'd like help making it as good as it can be while retaining a few core components.
Fixed points that cannot be changed:
Building to level 10
Going for an intimidation build to synergize with Swashbuckler dedication.
Giant Instinct Barbarian
Aspiring Free Captain
Stat @1 @5 @10
Str. 16 18 18
Dex. 16 18 18
Con. 14 16 18
Int. 08 08 10
Wis. 08 08 10
Cha. 14 16 18
So Giant Instinct gives you access to a Large Weapon.
Does Giant Instinct give you the option to buy more/other Large Weapons?
It specifies that it may be "of any weapon type otherwise available at character creation". Does this mean you could take an Advanced weapon if you have access via a 1st level feat? (i.e. Gnome Flickmace)
Does this mean you can never have a Large Exquisite Sword Cane?
And Lastly, if I MC into Rogue or Swashbucker and take Fane's Fourberie, can I get an oversized novelty deck of playing cards?
Precious Materials is actually a ruled mechanics term in 2e.
Gold and Platinum aren't on the list of "Precious Materials" nor are they ever listed as "Uncommon or Rare" materials. Nor is Diamond.
And, since again they can't be used to pay any costs, and are obviously magical and not saleable, does it in any way violate the "To good to be true" sniff test? I'd say no.
How to Adjudicate making a 5' block of Metallic Sodium.
I can think of a lot of ways to misuse a 5 ft solid cube of lead for a start.
A number of leading questions, some statistics on the commonality of certain minerals on earth, and a few carefully worded justifications and we can do all sorts of things.
Arsenic is a metal...
A 5" diameter spherical mass of pulped Titan Arum (corpse flower)
You know diamonds aren't actually rare, De Beers crushes like 90% of jewelry grade diamonds to dust to maintain artificial scarcity. And since it's clearly conjured and can't be used as either a component or solid for money there's no good reason I Couldn't create a metal frame holding a Sixty Million carat diamond. (~27,000lbs)
A playlist entitled "Kineticist, Shifter, Occultist, & Inquisitor", but the only songs on it are "Never Gonna Give You Up" and "I Am Very Glad, as I'm Finally Returning Back Home"
Counterpoint: Ancient Elf, the heritage that requires you to be over 100 years old, gives you just a Multiclass Dedication.
"Henlo, i am a human who has been adventuring for 3 weeks, I'm now a level 5 wizard and can lob massive magic explosions"
"I am an aged and wise elf, who has lived for centuries. My stats are actually worse than yours because im a level 1 investigator with the wizard MC. I can't quite cast magic missile."
I'm excited for all of it, but my personal hope is for the inclusion of some extra wild-west style stuff that hasn't been revealed yet.
Things like Lassos as a net variant. 0 damage weapon that allows ranged grab and dragging.
Possibly (both because I think it would fit thematically for inventors and because I'm hoping for a decent sized equipment section) bringing the 'equipment trick' feats into 2e.
One thing, in general, that I'd want from any D&D or Pathfinder book on Dragons is a moderate length section on roleplaying and portraying a dragon as GM.
Most adult dragons have 16+ int and wis, some have 20+.
And yet all too often they're played as mindless ravening beasts. Oh they may be cunning or use tactics, but actually they don't even do that most of the time, they're just played as direct power combatants.
I'd just really liked to see more dragons justifying and using their +4 to +7 int/wis/cha mods.
Cordell Kintner wrote:
My concern wasn't the cost of formulas, rather it was to gauge common interpretation as to extent of the limits placed on poisoner's (and by extension herbalist's) 'basic alchemical benefits'.
Primarily, is it:
B> you gain (Alchemical Crafting exactly as if you took the skill feat normally) & (Advanced Alchemy and Infused reagents, which are only usable for this limited set of things)
I had suspected it was A, but considered that I might be being overly strict in my reading.
While there are clearly divided opinions and I see reason in both arguments, it seems like there's more support for A within RAW than B.
So while for home games I would argue for the more open option, for Society play I'm just going to assume A unless they specify otherwise in some future errata.
Well, that can held a lot more worms than I expected.
Let's open a second one!
The Herbalist Dedication grants you "Basic Alchemy Benefits" only for Herbal items (which it then defines), but then LATER in the same feat says
So it gives you Alchemical Crafting but then specifies that you don't need it.
Ok, poisoner dedication gives "basic alchemy benefits" with the caveat "... they can be used only for alchemical poisons."
Basic Alchemy Benefits (BAB) gives you the alchemical crafting skill feat, and that gives you 4 common level 1 alchemical item formulas.
There are only 2 level 1 poisons in the PHB.
A> Can I use the Alchemical Crafting feat to craft non-poison alchemical items normally (i.e. not with advanced alchemy, but with time and money).
B> If yes to A, can I take non-poison formulas for my other two free level 1 formulas?
I understand that even if A&B are yes I can't use my advanced alchemy or infused reagents to make non-poisons, but being able to CRAFT minor elixers of life and lesser alchemist fires sends like it would still be useful.