TreeLynx's page

Mirror, Mirror wrote:

Good thing I never made that arguemnt, then ^__^ What I DID say what that the ability to match the upper tier damage potential coupled with the asvantages of full BAB, armor, good HD, etc. without ANY drawbacks, either RP (faith/alignment) or mechanical (armor/weapon) places them in the upper part of the old 3.5 power curve.

How is full BAB an advantage separate from the ability to do damage?

Duskblades do about as much damage as druids and clerics, have similar HD and armor proficiencies, but don't do all the other stuff that clerics and druids can do on top of doing damage.

Thus, they're not even in the same ballpark.

Then I think the real point, going back to all the conversations about Tiers, is that the Duskblade class seems outside of the bounds of Tier3, because they are quite good out of the box at being a melee armored warrior with arcane spells, and very solid at damage, but actually fit into the box, because the spells known and limited spell list are not sufficient to give the duskblade enough flexibility to boost them over the line into tier2. This comes back around to the fact that the Bard spell list and casting and the Beguiler spell list and casting are more flexible than the Duskblade.

I will then posit that the PF Paladin is awesome, and the ideal Arcane/Warrior should fall somewhere near the powercurve and versatility of the PF Paladin.

houstonderek wrote:

OP asked what a "gish" was, he didn't ask for the quadratic equation.

Then...I don't think you got the point.

The point is that people are decrying the use of the term Gish because it was "only" used by powergamers and munchkinds. Prof's point is that is a silly reason to rage on the boards, because like it or not optimization is part of the game. Even assuming that Gish was only used by powergamers and munchkins it would be a lousy reason to stop its use.

Plus, there is still substantive dissonance as to what consititutes an acceptable level of "stabbing dudes magically" to qualify as satisfying the concept.

Char-OP wise, +16 BAB and 9th level spells is one way to define it, but I think that is not what most people are looking for when they are worried about the effectiveness of the Fighter(Barb/Ranger/Paladin)1/Wizard5(Sorc6)/Eldritch Knight4 build, and specifically the portions of that which are Fighter1/Wizard5, or any of the alternatives. Builds and math are important, as there is really no way to make a level 6 Jedi right now in the RAW without dipping into both 3.5 sources and alternate mechanics, like psionics and the duskblade's altered casting mechanisms. The Bard doesn't currently have any great synergy with casting blasts and debuffs and melee, and while the APG Beta Alchemist does a solid job at buffing, the flavor of extracts doesn't read as casting spells to people.

Since the standard of what people are actually looking for when they use that word is literally all across the map, bringing the maths into the discussion is necessary, in some ways, since combining the fluff and crunch in a useful and meaningful way is important.

I'm a veteran of 3.x, but new to Pathfinder. Our gaming group is just about to start a new PF campaign, and I'd like to play a monk, specifically a wuxia-style monk, ala Crouching Tiger (impossible leaps, grace over strength, etc.) or even the Matrix movies (yes, I know this was covered more by 3.x's psychic warrior feats). I see this character as generally peaceful and with the goal of personal enlightenment (probably LN).

Our DM has asked us to start at 3rd level and use the 24d6 "dice pool" method for generating ability scores. I've divided my dice up as such:

Str: 4
Dex: 5
Con: 3
Int: 3
Wis: 6
Cha: 3

I want a character that's combat-viable, but I really do want to concentrate on that acrobatic grace that so defines Crouching Tiger. I'm planning on a human character, and I'd prefer to stay as core as possible.

So, am I dividing up my ability dice in a reasonable manner? Which feats should I move toward (both for my first three levels and for farther down the road)? Any other suggestions?

Thanks!

Read through Treantmonk's excellent Monk guide.

I recommend following the advice in the guide to rank Strength higher than Wisdom and Dex, so I would probably go with Str 5, Dex 5, Wis 5, which would still follow the advice in the guide, and stay true to the concept.

A Man In Black wrote:

That's one.

There are also Jedi, fighting characters with magic effects which strictly support the fighting style.

There's also the Grey Mouser, chiefly a fighter (or rogue, depending on the story and your interpretation of the classes) who always has One Big Spell...which may or may not actually be helpful or relevant or not entirely imaginary.

Marvel Comics Thor and Gandalf also come to mind.

Exactly. The word is completely meaningless and tends to provoke flame wars. Seems like a dumb word to use if you are trying to talk about a subject if nearly everyone who uses the term has a different idea of what it means and it's bound to start arguments.

Heck, we can even add Wonder Woman, Etrigan, or maybe even Green Lantern to the mix, if we want to. The Jedi certainly aren't off of concept. I left out the Grey Mouser, mostly because I've found the actual mages in Leiber's Lankhmar stories to be more like outsiders or aberrants, and Grey Mouser always seemed to be mostly Magical Knacking it.

The idea of arcanist/warrior hybrid is not, in and of itself, horrible, and is partially supported. The new APG alchemist is a solid self buffing transmutation based Warrior/arcane hybrid. The new APG summoner happens to do alright as a Arcanist/warrior. The bard manages well as a Rogue/arcanist.

Some of this may be problems with certain arcane spells perceived as being a concern if put on a forward or halfback chassis. This leads to "balance" adjustments, where the arcanist/warrior who wants full arcane power misses out on a big chunk of being a warrior in order to have unrestricted access to the spell list. The worst part of it is, that I'm really convinced most hybrid concepts don't even want unrestricted access to all arcane spells. I don't really see most hybrid arcanist/warriors going after planar binding or scry, over, say, telekinesis.

I would hazard a guess that most people's idea of a gish, as used in this context, is something akin to Elric.

Personally, I rather like the idea of a warrior finding a weapon of staggering power, which awakens their lost arcane/aberrant/demonic/infernal/fae/destined heritage, and coming to a point where they can master the complexities of their sentient weapon with their arcane power, and command some portion of the magical heritage that was inborn.

The battle sorceror variant from the d20srd works fairly well in Pathfinder for this, although it is not, per se, core PF only.

Some people want something a little bit different. They want something like a bookish fighter, who has studied enough to gain some mastery of magic, but has not in turn neglected the practice needed to pick up a longsword, or halberd, and fight off a tribe of giants with it. This character is well read, reads and understands the arcane well, speaks many languages, but is also rough and tumble enough so that if there isn't a spell remembered for something, they can still manage a bar fight. I would hazard a guess that for many players, this is perhaps some mirroring, as IRL, you can study a martial art, and science, engineering, law, medicine, or any other fairly arcane subject, and still be able to carry some expertise in both fields.

For these people, what ends up happening is that for many levels of their characters progression, it appears that they have been letting their focus slip from their martial studies to be a wizard. They end up having to take off armor that they know how to use because they will have spells fail if they leave it on. They end up having to give up the use of a shield other than a buckler, because the rules which say they know how to use a shield tell them that haven't figured out how to hold bat guano or colored sand in their shield hand. And they end up losing "bar fights" when they don't use spells to give them enough of an advantage.

Cold Napalm wrote:

Once again, DM fiat doesn´t count for fixing bad rules. The crafting rules are broken...even if your strictly in WBL. In the RAW oriented game, we are very much within WBL and yeah, crafting is still uber broken. There is no custom items and such either. Strictly playing by RAW with good players who have a mind for using a system and this system breaks...horribly.

I'm curious, how does it break "horribly"?

Are you running an ongoing adventure or starting at higher levels assuming they can craft everything?

What sort of treasure does your GM give out? Is it the typical mix of magic items and gold?

We have several players in our group who craft and the only time it was seriously broken was when the GM let us build characters at higher level and one player 'crafted' 100% of his items doubling his treasure. Other than that crafting hasn't been bad for our group. Even with 100% crafting the player in question lost out on a lot of otherwise useful feats which weakened his core character to some extent.

The rules are only really problematic if you assume, which the rules do not, that the correct components to create a specific magical item are readily available. While the RAW does not specifically address what goes into making a +6 belt of physical perfection, it does advise that creation of said belt requires components totalling 77,000 gp. Regardless of level, that is remarkable amount of wealth, which has to eventually end up making a 36" to 40" ish belt and buckle.

Dabbler wrote:

Fact: all RPGs have a greater or lesser part of 'strategy board-game' in them.

That's not a fact. You can't have a 'strategy board-game' part if there is no 'strategy board'.

Dabbler wrote:

Whether or not this precludes them from being an RPG is pretty irrelevant. A game can have a great strategy system and still be a great RPG, because the two don't actually impinge on one-another except in the minds of the players.

That's absolutely not true. For example, there was a recent thread in these boards talking about a guy who was causing all kinds of problems because his character was a summoner who insisted on being in melee.

I think this bears clarification, not that I completely disagree. While all RPGs, by definition of the being games, must have conflict resolution Systems, whether those are bidding systems, card pull systems, dice based systems, or Rock Paper Scissors based systems, or combo systems, there is, in point of fact, always present a Gaming system. Whether it is specifically 'strategy board-game' is moot, at the end of it, because, much like poker, the gaming component is a key part of this. Otherwise, while it may be narrative role playing, without the gaming element, it becomes something different, that isn't actually an RPG. The strategy element is, in my opinion, quite orthogonal to the actual gaming element.

Question:

Do you apply the community size g.p. limit (now base value on table 15-1)for purchassing magic item creation components?

Or I am just mean?

This is my fundemental dissonance with the magic item crafting system, as well. In point of fact, I would guess that the most profitable job is in making components for magical items, not in creation of magic items themselves. After all, the hundreds of gold pieces of rare inks and premium paper for scrolls, or rare herbs and extracts for potions, are likely making those who produce them quite wealthy, not to mention the cobbler who is capable of crafting a pair of boots that can be made into boots of speed, or the woodcarver and jeweler who work together to make the base component for a staff of power. It is not as simple as saying that the forge in which a +2 flaming longsword is made has a goldpiece insertion slot, or that there are literally platinum pieces being worked into the magic items.

Well.. I for one am VERY happy to see someone building a ninja by using a bard. Well done! :)

You know, the funny thing about it is, the traditional black outfits ninjas are typically portrayed in are, in point of fact, theatrical outfits, backstage outfits specifically. Since the historical ninjas were in fact keen on disguising themselves as travelling performers, and since one can watch countless jidageki films (thanks Netflix!), which show ninja types carrying shamisen and other instruments, I think it works great.

Next you will tell me that the battle Oracle is meant to allow someone to play Zatoichi...

Not that I haven't thought about it.

In my most recent session, one of my players got killed by a Wight's energy drain ability, and is now becoming a Wight. It was really meant to be a bad thing but he is a necromancer and is getting all excited. He is the kind of player that plays necromancer every time and tries to take over the world and enslave everybody.

What happens when a character becomes a Wight?

How should I handle megalomaniacal player?

The wonderful thing about spawn is that they lose all class levels and abilities. He will reset to his first level stats, plus whatever stat adjustments would be for the wight, if you really want to be kind. All skills, class levels and feats are overwritten to that of a wight. Savage Species had a wonderful short prestige class called Emancipated Spawn, which, if the commanding Wight who created the PC Wight has died, the PC may qualify for. But, the PC will have to level up as a bestiary standard Wight for as many levels as the PRC goes to regain class abilities that the PC had before becoming a Wight.

Becoming a spawned undead, like a wight, wraith, or vampire spawn, is not a shortcut for becoming the equivalent of a Lich or Templated Vampire.

They do not possess any of the abilities they had in life.

The Wight will likely be below the party level in power, actually has a number of weaknesses, which, if you GM it correctly, will result in a fairly short career of unlife as emancipated spawn. If the creating wight is still alive, however, then the PC wight can have off screen adventures trying to come out of the control of the elder wight, while trying to survive. This can be fun.

Now, a spawn creating undead, like a Wight, is a problem if there is trivial opposition that the wight can drain into also becoming wights under the control of the PC wight. Peasant villagers that seem like tasty snacks are the real problem you will have to address. Although the rules suggest that spawn creation is open ended, I recommend keeping a control limit, much like for animate dead. Since wight is not a template, you will not have to contend with troll wights, or dragon wights, which will mean that only humaniods slain with the energy drain will become spawn, and will only fall into the two alternate types, either brute, frost, or the standard wight. I would not as a GM allow cairn wights except through create undead.

Edit to add: Keep in mind that Wights, while intelligent, are hungry for the vital essence of the living. Therefore, you are, as many other posters have suggested, completely within rights to slap a big shiny N in front of that PC, take the sheet, take all the advice I mentioned up above, and create a memorable adversary for the party in the future. A highly intelligent Necromancer specialist Wizard wight was, in fact, a notable bad guy in one of my campaigns back in 3.5, although in PFRPG I would rebuild as an Undead or Arcane bloodline Sorceror, as the stats of the wight are not condusive to being an Int based caster.

The point about d6s being common is that the game is built on original designs that were done pre-internet (when dinosaurs walked the land) and there was a much greater access to d6s vs special game specific polyhedrons. As a result you would have more d6s than anything else. This in turn would lead to that being the first die you would think of for rolling many of them at a time.

Add in the sacred cow factor of spells that have used d(n) since (x)ed. and you get the current trend toward the d6.

Anecdote time.

I don't know if anyone here played the original Deadlands system. The system itself required poker chips, playing cards, and up to 5 (if I recall correctly) of every d(x) up to d12. While I have a solid dice set, this was in many ways an obstruction to playing that particular game, which otherwise had a robust, flavorful system.

I enjoyed playing the game, but when I was downsizing my gaming library, those books were amongst the first to go, because I didn't want to keep around all those extra d12s that I wasn't going to use frequently. I certainly didn't want to keep a dice set for every potential player of the game, if I wanted to GM it.

A stack of d6s is common enough to be a non-issue. A stack of anything but d10s (thanks to Whitewolf and percentile rolls both) is sufficiently uncommon that I would consider it bad system design to rely on it. In fact, more than 2 of any non-d6 or d10 is an obstruction to player adoption.

Back to heighten spell, though. If the concept of a heightened glitterdust does not seem useful, then I suppose trying to continue to sell the value of the metamagic feat will be a problem.

one though i was having on the power race between spells and saves is that heighten spell seems like a weak metamagic. Why heighten a fireball to level 5 when I could just cast a cone of cold?

I was thinking about a change to heighten spell. Add +2 to the DC of a spell, this uses a slot 1 higher than normal.

Then bring in an improved heighten spell with a +4 for 2 slots higher.

Heighten isn't really useful for Evocation. Heighten is for Illusion and Enchantment, and sometimes for Transmutation and Necromancy. And Heighten, as written, can be applied multiple times.

Arcane does not have these classes, if you (like me) exclude the bard, since it has a completely different focus then melee combat, there are none- zero - nadda. I am talking about BASE classes.

Except for the Alchemist, which, while she does not cast spells, does prepare extracts (like a wizard prepares spells), keep a formula book (like a wizard keeps a spellbook), buff herself with magic to become a reasonable combatant (with a selected spell list that includes transmutation and some personal illusion spells, and mutagens). I suggest that the alchemist is actually the arcane equivalent of the wildshape druid. I further suggest that the summoner is the arcane equivalent of the summoning, caster druid.

Now, this still leaves a lot of the arcane spells which synergize with melee out, and the person who wants an evoking meleer out in the cold. But ignoring the non-Vancian arcane meleeist that exist just because they do not cast spells exactly like a wizard with the spell list you want is perhaps a touch unfair. I personally do not disagree that a melee equivalent of the AA PRC would be great, that can use somatic weaponry, that gets an action discount (from swift to free) on the arcane armor feats, and that can cast some selection of spells through a weapon, like the AA PRC can cast spells through an arrow, and can make their weaponry and maybe their armor do magical things as they level up. Strip out however many caster levels as necessary from a design perspective, but this might plug the gap the way the AA does for archer mages.

A "spear of vengeance" with a market price of 36,103gp?

A "spear of vengeance" with a market price of 45,552gp?
A "spear of vengeance" that is somehow both CL 8 and 15 (and worth 36,103gp)?

I believe the last one would be accurate. For the purpose of dispelling, and minimum caster level to create, the "spear of vengance" as a +5 spear would hit CL 15. But for creation, I can think of no reason to have a staff created using anything but the minimum caster level needed, unless the staff was deliberately created for non-casters to use through UMD.

The caster level on spells cast from staves pull from the caster level of the user, not the item, if I have read the rules correctly.

EK work poorly as evokers, which is what many people want from the class, because they have to split their time between fighting melee and using damage dealing spells.

+1. In fact, without anything other than the capstone, I would consider it a weak option to combine Evocation and melee. Only one of the touch attack spells, shocking grasp, is evocation, with the rest, ghoul touch , chill touch, touch of idiocy, vampiric touch, contagion and bestow curse being either Enchantment or Necromancy. But the EK sometimes has problems using these spells right now, as swinging a sword means that touch spells can't go off unless channelled through a spell storing weapon.

Ideally, a feature in the early levels of EK to allow touch spells to be cast without provoking, and delivered through a melee weapon, would be pretty solid.

But honestly that aside it seems you and I at least are in agreement. I do think EK style on a bard chasis would fill alot of what people want. So long as they figure out a way to allow its principal feats and abilities to actually mix.

I don't per se disagree with you either, but think the full sorceror/wizard spell list up to level 6 spells on a bard chassis isn't going to happen, either. What I think makes the most sense is to figure out what portions of 6 levels of that full list would make a reasonable and useful martial arcanist, who swings a sword to cast spells. Then, features have to be added to open up, IMHO, arcane casting of that list in medium armor, with a sword and shield. The Psychic Warrior does this very well, although psionic powers aren't spells, just as much as elixers aren't spells either.

I think there is a question that has been begged over the past couple of pages of this thread.

The question is one that is brought up with the bard, which gets deep access to arcane Illusion and Enchantment schools, brought up with the Summoner, who gets solid access to the Conjuration school, and the Alchemist, who gets solid access to the Transmutation school, and reasonable access to Divination. The missing arcanist hybrids, as I see it, are the hybrid martial Abjurer/Evoker/arcane Necromancer, as the negative energy cleric is covering the martial divine necromancer pretty well.

Adding to that missing type some of the useful in melee Illusion and Transmutation spells, and you may end up with too much. The Alchemist is a very capable melee hybrid in the testing my wife did, although it does play similar to a bard in some ways. Nothing in the way extracts work prevent them from working with armor, so the armored hybrid already exists well in the Alchemist, if you invest the feats to make it work, assuming you want Transmutation and personal Divination spells.

But if a EK does not want to get into a melee fight with a melee based opponent, then it is not 'capable in melee combat'. You are suggesting we deliberately weaken an opponent so the EK can take it on. If you then say the EK is just fine against a deliberately weakened opponent you are indeed proposing we base our results on a fallacy.

If you want to say the EK is competant in combat, he has to want to get into combat with things that are good in combat, otherwise you are proving MIB's original point, that the EK is better off staying back and casting spells which makes the class pointless. What we are currently discussing, is that a properly built, properly equiped and buffed EK is able to stand toe to toe with an enemy that he is likely to face at level 20. If you or your dm use half baked monsters that dont work well, great, but most people use enemies that are actually good at what they do, and dont add caster levels to brute monsters. If you want to add class levels to a stone giant that work with what it has, fine, we can look at that, but adding caster levels to it proves absolutely nothing except the fighter/mage mix REALLY doesnt work without a prestige class for it.

The Stone Giant Elder with Sorceror levels is actually recommended in the SRD as an advancement option for a Stone Giant Elder. That is not something half baked, that's in the Bestiary as an option, despite the fact that the Stone Giant has no inherent Cha bonus. I think it fair to look at something like a lower CR Outsider advanced, something that has some competence in casting or spell like abilities, and some competence in melee. And yes, I consider Dragons outliers, as they are frequently at the top end of the bell curve, in terms of melee, due to number of attacks, and as servicable casters. I agree that if the EK is meleeing a CR14 or so plus Melee challenge, she is likely to be rendered into a negative hp paste pretty quickly, even with mirror image, stoneskin or any other Wizard buffs.

Fair and appropriate are not the same thing. We are trying to determine if the mixed focus of the EK is too much of a handicap. Putting it up against another mixed focus class does not prove or disprove that, its not in the argument. Give the stone giant fighter or barbarian levels and we can talk, but making the EK face something with the exact same problem it has doesnt prove anything.

Part of the issue is that for level appropriate melee encounters, the EKs response should be to cast at it until it isn't a problem anymore like any other caster or partial caster would do. I think it is absolutely appropriate to discuss monsters for which that would not be the appropriate response, where the ability to enter into melee and cast partially would be an advantage. This isn't a fallacy because I am not picking a bog standard Melee challenge, because it has been thrown out that a bog standard Melee challenge is not something an EK would want to actually melee.

TreeLynx wrote:

I think the Stone Giant Sorceror is fair, as it would be mixed focus, like the EK.

....isn't a dragon mixed-focus?

Maybe white and blacks could theoretically count, but most dragons don't count, as they are too good at both focuses. White and Black dragons tend to be less capable casters, and most ancient dragons don't count, because they are dragons.

Perhaps an Efreeti Wizard, or other advanced lower level outsider could work, as well, like a Rakshasa. Mostly, this is to play devil's advocate, pun intended. Mostly, because most higher CR monsters are set pieces, and what constitutes high level opposition in games I have played are not stacks of CR16 critters, but rather stacks of lower CR critters advanced to CR16.

TreeLynx wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

No, I'm saying that to be a melee character, it's necessary to survive in melee for some amount of time against level-appropriate foes. Seltyiel is not a melee character, since he can't survive in melee against level-appropriate foes.

What about a CR16 Stone Giant Elder, with sufficient class levels in Sorceror (Earth Elemental Bloodline) to make up the CR. That is effectively likely to be the Iconic EK's equal, roughly. Would that sorceror rip him apart with magic at the correct CR, or would the iconic hold his own? Anybody feel like building out the math for this?

That is like asking if the EK stands up to an EK. It doesnt represent an iconic CR 16 monster.

Conceeded, but the top end of CR monsters, from CR10ish up, reads mostly as Caster, Dragon, Giant, linnorm, neothelid, Caster, Outsider, Outsider, Outsider, ad nauseum. Finding something at CR16 that isn't an outsider or a dragon is hard, without tacking class levels, or otherwise advancing, lower CR monsters. I think the Stone Giant Sorceror is fair, as it would be mixed focus, like the EK.

No, I'm saying that to be a melee character, it's necessary to survive in melee for some amount of time against level-appropriate foes. Seltyiel is not a melee character, since he can't survive in melee against level-appropriate foes.

What about a CR16 Stone Giant Elder, with sufficient class levels in Sorceror (Earth Elemental Bloodline) to make up the CR. That is effectively likely to be the Iconic EK's equal, roughly. Would that Stone Giant sorceror rip him apart with magic *and* melee at the correct CR, or would the iconic hold his own? Anybody feel like building out the math for this?

Caineach wrote:

24.5 Average damage without magic or buffing is not bad.

Interesting fact: if you punch someone, you do 22.5 average damage without magic or buffing, and you always get to cast a touch spell at the same time, rather than relying on a crit.

You know, it is quite possible to two hand that longsword, which changes some of this, although the stat block does not reflect it. What is the action type for changing from a one handed to a two handed grip? I know this option is one that I would frequently take advantage of. I cannot find this action type in the PRD.

Because using your mind and wilpower to alter reality is way more sience fiction related then the magic system cribbed from a serious of science fiction books in which alchemy and science are combined in complicated formulas to give the caster the spell Telekinesis.

...Right. Yeah. Of course.

I totally get your first complaint, but your second doesn't work. Like, at all.

Now, now. Bringing up the source material for the Vancian magic system isn't fair. To some part, this has been patched with the sorceror.

I agree, that XPH psionics and the core sorceror better represent most of the fantasy magic systems that have been presented in literature. And frankly, if I want a game based around Indian subcontinent myth structures, then in some ways the alchemic magic presented by the wizard class is a problem. But at the core, I believe that treating power points as an alternate metamagic system, which is, at the core, what it is, is a cleaner way to integrate it into the core magic system.

rkraus2 wrote:

It's not a matter of logic, it's a matter of US copyright law.

In your game, a player could say "Hey, I'm using Splinterbolt from the SC", and you would say "That's cool". A person is legally entitled to use information they purchased for personal use.
--SNIP--

The limitations regarding use of IP and copyright law apply whether or not profit is involved.

Sorry, I think this bears repeating. If I own a book, and use the contents of the book in a fashion consistent with the publishers stated use of the material, then, although IANAL, I believe IP-wise I am fine.

Otherwise, Disney would be suing everytime someone watches Mulan on DVD in their home, after having purchased it through legitimate channels.

If, however, I take my home licensed DVD of this same movie, and show it at my local community center, then I may end up served legal notice by Disney.

Now, taking that metaphor, I believe using a Spell Compendium spell in a Pathfinder/3.5 hybrid game at my FLGS is okay, as it falls within the license provided for use of the material. However, using it at a Con game in a more formal PF only type of scenario, even if I specify that I researched the spell as a custom spell using the core rules provided for such research, would still potentially be actionable.

Offiziersmesser’s Blade

This strangely light object is roughly the size of a dagger hilt. Its somewhat oblong in shape, and seemingly made from wood, but it has been lacquered and painted to a cherry red shine. Off center on one of the smooth sides is Offiziersmesser’s arcane mark.
...
Upon command folds out a +1 Mithral Dagger

Be prepared!

I see what you did there.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

There's nothing actually broken about the power point system, it's just different. Sure, some people don't like it; this is cool, some people don't like Vancian casting, after all. The answer is simple: if you don't like the system, don't use it.

The power point system is pretty fundamental to psionics in the same way that 'vancian' casting is fundamental to wizards; without it you just get another slightly different wizard or sorcerer, and we already have those. It's the mechanics that help make make the thematic idea of psionics work, and make it different and to some people interesting. Further, one of the foundation stones of Pathfinder was backward-compatibility - the idea that you can switch system from 3.5 mid-campaign and still have all the fundamentals of your character relatively unchanged. This was used as a reason to hang on to all sorts of legacy things, and justifiably so, it was a good thing. So why abandon it now all of a sudden?

Oh, I'm a fair fan of 3.5 psionics. And I'm hardly suggesting that the entire power point system be chucked out. However, and this is important, if we want to have anything other than psions as PCs, and want support for psionic characters within printed material, some of the center of the 3.5 power system has to give ground. Powers like psionic charm shouldn't have to be defined every time they show up in print. It should be able to be described by referencing established core spell effects, and if it can't be, then the powers may need to be redefined to be linked into core spell effects. Power points can be expressed in a short blurb, along with augments and focus, which should be no more difficult than describing extracts for Alchemists. If this isn't the solution, then I don't know that support for psionics can exist outside of SRD documents and PCs built from those sources.

I wonder if some of this could be resolved, as was suggested upthread, by turning some of the powers, like psionic charm and psionic dominate or #^%^&$ construct, into base powers with fixed effects that use slots, and augments which use power points or higher level slots for the cost of focus. I still wouldn't want to figure out a way to put the flexibility of construct into a higher level NPC statblock, unless the polymorph spells were used to model it, as it is realistically impossible to do so without a wall of text. Refer back to Core Spells to define powers where ever possible. Instead of defining astral construct as a nebulous thing, define a fixed effect, i.e. summon nature's ally I, with augments allowing various shape spells to also apply, or what have you. By comparison, the Eidolon is cake, as it will not be reconfiguring itself between encounters, or even within the same encounter.

I think the issue, as I perceive it, is that the EK doesn't have combat features usable, due to action economy, to fight equal to an equal level Warrior, let alone a Fighter, Ranger or Paladin. Sure, loading up on miss chance spells helps some, but any character can buy a minor cloak of displacement. In addition, due to non-synergy of actions, the EK lags behind many 3/4 casters, like the bard, and the new alchemist and summoner. Further, the EK tends to compare poorly to the Dragon Disciple.

The EK can cast mirror image in every fight, but between that, greater heroism and haste, how many rounds does the EK have to buff for each fight? Consider that any equal level 3/4 BAB class, like the bard, or the new alchemist, can reasonably fight and still cast, without worrying about the action economy imposed by medium and higher armor proficiency feats.

Would it be terribly weird to change the monk weapon proficiency to all simple weapons, and allow the monk to flurry with simple weapons and the shuriken? This opens up a decent number of options, really.

Essentially, the monk weapons are all essentially better constructed versions of other simple weapons, with the exception of the nunchucks, which are essentially a light flail, a martial weapon.

I'm fine with those, actually. As someone who's played an Atavist in Eberron ;p

Or take a PrC that was build around lycanthropes, and being in the PrC increased your lycanthropy abilities. That would be pretty awesome.

I'm not trying to say that all racial PrCs are forever bad, just that those two issues are the major traps they fall under. What's worse is when they do it at the same time - a stupidly powerful PrC that's limited to one race for no reason other then gushing over said race.

Like, you know, most things in 2e connected with elves ;p

Some of what may have been a unique feature of the elvish race in the beta, like favored class in ranger and wizard, before racial favored classes were eliminated altogether, would perhaps have justified Arcane Archer being elf only from a mechanical standpoint. Therefore, elf only may be a relic of the beta ruleset.

I personally think that racial prestige classes can be fine. For example, I created a racial prestige class for goblinoids who found a way to gain a bite attack, that I called the Worgfriend, that basically allowed the goblinoid to eventually gain several of the racial abilities of the barghest, minus, of course, the feed ability, while advancing as a natural weapon focussed barbarian. Opening that prestige class up outside of the fluff of goblinoids, barghests and worgs having an established relationship would have been weird, but I could imagine recasting the abilities into something that could break loose of the fluff.

EDIT: I guess Cold Napalm supported that claim in this particular thread, but nobody else.

I'm about to as well, so here goes.

Part of the basic concern of the Vancian casting system, and the Caster Level scaled effects on spells, and most specifically the way that arcane spells known work, especially for the wizard, is that losing spell slots is a very difficult challenge to the versatility that is the core strength of the wizard. When an arcanist is assumed, it is frequently assumed that the arcanist within the scope of the adventure will have access to a certain number of spells per encounter. Because arcanists who lose Caster Levels cannot ever have the same versatility of an arcanist who has all caster levels, there ability to address challenges as an arcanist is lowered. Likewise, an arcanist that, after a certain point, has not invested WBL into being a useful arcanist will not be able to bypass level appropriate arcane challenges.

This becomes true whether we are talking about wizards, where it has no real effect on spells known, and a higher effect on socerors and bards, where it directly impacts not just power, but also versatility.

But Shields can, and can have the entire range of weapon-specific bonuses to do so.

Oops, missed that, but that's only specifically through Feats. Otherwise, even a +3 bashing heavy spiked shield gains no specific bullrush bonus, or does it?

Hey people, can we PLEASE keep this civil?

That includes not just not directly insulting other posters,
but not trying to negate the validity of their posts or questions.
If you don't find a personal need in having a question answered or the particular topic of a thread, just don't participate in it.

@FH: Try not to take this sort of stuff personally. I'm glad because you were one of the main people BUMPing this topic for so long until it at least came to Paizo's attention, which I couldn't keep up after 3 or 4 months. We still can hopefully get a full response from Jason, e.g. if Unarmed is the default vector ala 3.5 or what. Don't lay too much imnportance to the people who by their own representation, should have no further interest in the thread/topic.

I think it important that every post that utilizes something verging on an impolite tone be flagged.

I am not kidding about this. The number of people who are verging on referring to the dissenting side of this arguement as stupid has become annoying, and is preventing reasonable discourse. Mr. Jacobs kind attention to this has resolved only one of the concerns. That concern is that, by RAW, Trip bonuses only happen when you are using a Trip weapon, not when unarmed, and not in any other circumstance. Otherwise, Trip is just a Trip.

Quandary, you are correct, in that vectors need to be assigned to manuevers. Grapple has a vector set aside just for it, although it is unclear as to whether magic fang or an amulet of mighty fists apply to grapple check. This is no longer a question just about trip, but rather about the vectors used for combat manuevers, and the bonuses which apply to CMB checks. The arguments being used to justify no bonuses to a longsword, shield or longspear to a trip check could just as easily be applied to disarm checks, as in many ways, a disarm is using the weapon in way that it is not designed for.

Has the rule become that only trip, disarm, and "sundering" weapons, and non-existent bullrushing weapons, can apply bonuses to those manuevers? Can I sunder with a +2 rapier and obtain a +2 bonus to my sunder check?

Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

There is no rule limiting me from using a piercing weapon for a Sunder.

Does my +2 rapier improve my Disarm check? The wording is similar to Sunder and Trip, but that may mean that only flails, whips, ranseurs and spiked chains gain bonuses to disarm.

I go with a houserule that individuals that are armed with a reach weapon can generally strike with the haft of a polearm but that the haft strike is the equivalent of a strike with a club (d6 x2). If a person armed with a quarterstaff can strike with various parts of the staff, I fail to see why someone armed with a glaive can't do something similar.

That way the reach weapon is useful at all ranges but you are generally going to want to step back with a 5' step and use the pointy end of the stick.

Caveat: In the case of magical polearms the + to hit/+ damage part of the reach weapon is only the sharp pointy end of the stick. If you want to be + to hit with the haft you'd have to enchant the other end of the weapon like you would a quarterstaff or double weapon.

Essentially this turns a polearm into a double weapon that can't be used for twf. It's a marginal improvement over the spiked gauntlet backup weapon but I don't find it to be especially gamebreaking.

I had recommended that this be allowed during the beta, but that didn't end up making it into the final. Instead, the spike chain nerf happened. There was some debate as to what was actually referred to by reach weapons, whether they were 7'-8' or 11' polearms, and no real consensus was ever really reached.

EDIT: You too, TreeLynx. I am curious which school.

My wife trains in Nami Ryu.

Can we just stop this moot line of discussion at this time, as I asked above? Grounding techniques exist which use weapons as an extension of the body for leverage, some of which do not involve throwing off your center or hooking, or touching a leg at all, some of which happen to also be cutting techniques, which the game cannot model in a balanced way. Going way off into the nuts and bolts of how it happens is something I think no one on this board is qualified to discuss, as those people usually don't spend their time playing and arguing about role playing games. At our best, we have some training and observation, but we certainly aren't usually at a level where we could be starting our own martial traditions.

Edit to reiterate:
The rules do need to include some element of clarification to indicate that "as a melee attack" means one thing for bullrush and trip, and something else for disarm and sunder. That is all there is to it right now, because, as Quandary has indicated, the same phrase means two different things.

Jasper Phillips wrote:

Having fenced for a good 15+ years, I find the idea that you can practically trip someone with a sword completely ridiculous.

So you couldn't sweep someone with the flat edge (or even the blade) of a longsword? Bull. I agree that FENCING swords (rapiers/foils/epees) you wouldn't be able to trip with, but a saber, or any sword with a solid heft and rigid blade can most definitely be used to sweep (or just smack them on the back of the knee). Hell, they teach you tripping techniques with the katana in Kenjutsu.

BTW, I'm not arguing RAW or RAI, just that your fencing experience, which uses bendy bladed "swords" (more like metal toothpicks in my opinion), applies to all swords is not correct.

Full stop on this line of discussion, please.

I have fenced with a gim for a couple of years, and while I know that a demonstration wushu blade on a tai chi sword can in no way be used for a trip, an actual battle usable gim with a fuller that doesn't react like a whip when using techniques might be usable to overbear an opponent and bring them to the ground, which is, in fact, part of what I was arguing for originally. I can conceive of describing a gim as a rapier, although it is most certainly more a slashing blade than a piercing blade.

Chris, you are absolutely correct that there are grounding techniques using the katana, the tanto, and the wakazashi in kenjutsu. My wife has been taking kenjutsu for two years, and I know this, as she has demonstrated these techniques with a boken on me. I would consider a boken to be best represented within the game as a masterwork club.

Jasper, just because the sword techniques you have trained in for 15+ years do not including grounding techniques does not mean these techniques do not exist within many weapon forms, both eastern and western, and aboriginal, including german broadsword techniques, native american fighting techniques, kung fu, and various jutsus. They are considered unsportsmanlike, and generally unsafe unless you are trained in taking rolls and breakfalls, so most competition forms deliberately exclude grounding techniques.

With all that said, this particular line of discussion cannot bear any positive fruit. What can happen with in the real world is ultimatelty moot. Either the rules allow sticks and axes and other weapons to overbear and bring an oppenent to the ground without a flexible element or a hook, or they don't. This was never for me about munchkin points, as I play casters, usually. For me, this was a simulation question. Per JJ, they don't, so in order to allow a stick, axe or other weapon to overbear and bring an opponent to ground, someone would have to create a feat for it, at this time. The rules do need to include some element of clarification to indicate that "as a melee attack" means one thing for bullrush and trip, and something else for disarm and sunder. That is all there is to it right now, because, as Quandry has been indicated, the same phrase means two different things.

If one rules that you could make a melee attack with a spiked gauntlet at a reach of 10 feet, because one is weilding a longspear, I think it would be clear that they were violating the RAI.

By the same token, grappling, tripping, etc, at the same reach seems to violate RAI. From a RAW standpoint it seems that you could make a case for it, but I think the RAI here is clear. Any player or GM with any sense, I think, would rule that a player could not - for example - start a grapple at longspear-range.

I would think, by dint of the same logic used to apply to the Trip Weapon allowing one to trip and gain weapon bonuses, that the Reach property of the weapon is what allows one to threaten or melee attack squares outside of ones natural reach. This means then, that the only way to trip at 10' for a creature with a natural reach of 5' is to wield a weapon with both the reach and trip properties. This also gets wierd if you are talking about using a lance to disarm from horseback, as it is a one handed weapon in that case, and you, could, by RAW, with a high disarm check take a weapon from an opponent and pick it up 5' away, as you have an empty hand.

It seems cleaner now, at least.

At dissonance with simulation, but cleaner.

One question, however, remains.

Can you trip any creature up to one size category larger within your current reach? Assuming, of course, that the reach is not a natural reach.

So then basically it is your opinion that all weapons and melee attacks can be used to attempt to trip someone (to which I at least conceptually agree) and that the sentence "You may use this weapon for a trip attempt." should effectively be ignored.

I'd love to see *@paizo.com make that statement :)

Yes, that's my stance. The RAW seems to imply it. But the rules and that sentence leave a grey area, where the question of what bonuses apply to the CMB check to trip an opponent comes up. A clarifying sentence, which doesn't exist anywhere, like "Only weapons specified as usable for trip attempts apply any related bonuses to trip attempts made with a weapon." would clean this up pretty quickly, although I think the better change would be to remove the offending sentence from RAW, to make it easier to trip with masterwork quarterstaves.

Which makes perfect sense, since some weapons may be used to trip, as notated in their individual entries. Fighters specializing in those weapons may apply the bonuses from Weapon Training. This would also apply to disam and sunders, etc., which also makes sense. : )

Mechanically, it is very much like bull rush, overrun, and most other maneuvers. As with most other maneuvers, nothing connects a trip CMB check with a weapon (though certian weapons are notated as being specially compatable with a trip).

The only question remaining residual from the other thread is whether a +5 quarterstaff wielded by a fighter with Weapon Focus (quarterstaff), Weapon Training, et al. gets to add all of those bonuses to trip attempts made by hir when wielding said quarterstaff. By RAW, the answer is yes, but some people have made the exclusionary argument that this would only be true if the quarterstaff had the sentence "This weapon can be used to make trip attempts."

So, the real question is whether a +5 quarterstaff gives a +5 enhancement bonus to trip attempts, or whether only a +5 halberd or +5 spiked chain and similar other "trip weapons" give this bonus.

Could you summarize in each bump the thread's consensus (like "pros" and "cons") so that people not interested in browsing 330+ posts (most of which are bumps) can have the short version? You can even do it in a spoiler :-)

Thread consensus:

A Trip is a melee attack, which can be used as part of any attack sequence or flurry of blows.
Trip weapons can be dropped, and you cannot be tripped in return if you fail your CMB check. Bonuses which apply to unarmed attacks and trip weapons apply to trip attempts done with these attack forms. The Improved Trip feat adds to these trip attempts. Trip weapons can be dropped, and you cannot be tripped in return.

At debate: The Pathfinder RPG has updated the Trip combat manuever. Trip can be done with any melee attack, applying all bonuses available with that attack form, whether it is a greatsword, greatclub, kukri or rapier. Improved Trip adds to all trip attempts, regardless of whether it is done with a trip weapon or not. This may be what is indicated by RAW, but the sentence, "You may use this weapon for a trip attempt." seems to some readers to be a clause that indicates an exception property.

Coincidentally, this was discussed during the beta, if I recall correctly, during a long thread regarding the spiked chain or reach weapons, where it was determined that it made more sense for all weapons to be able to trip.

On Wizards Has anyone found the appropriate ac protection for a 9th level wizard other than 'don't get hit'?

According to various guides, mage armor and mithril bucklers and light shields can be a backup line of defense with 0% ASF, if the various illusion spells that grant greater or lesser miss chances (invisibility mirror image & blur) fail. Typically, though, there isn't a huge way to get up to meaningful AC as a wizard that won't be less effective than various miss chances.

Running the numbers, an AC of over 27 would be needed against an average CR9 high attack monster to beat a 50% base miss chance with no effective AC under it. Any AC over 18 will be effective enough to increase the total miss chance to more than the standard miss chance %.

So, assuming an effect that gives a 20% miss chance, a monster with +17 to hit, which is considered what a melee CR9 critter should have will miss 20% of the time regardless of what your actual AC is. Any AC over 18 will increase this accordingly.

Assuming an AC of 20, you will only increase the overall % to miss to 28% with a 20% miss chance. A 50% miss chance and the same AC means a 55% chance to miss. Each additional point of AC will only increase the percentage by 4% and 2.5%, respectively.

I see it differently. You are using planar binding to create cannon fodder. Remember, this isn't planar ally we're discussing here. Now, you can turn the good guys (eladrin) into critter chow or you can turn bad guys (demons) into critter chow.
It makes more sense to preserve the good guys. It's called "fighting fire with fire".
But, this whole subthread points to what I've said before. Morality in DnD is written in crayon. RAW moral codes are at the third grade level. There is no one true answer to the issue of which of these two options is the most good - it's gonna rest with the GM.

My gut feeling on planar binding is that Calling effects aren't generally intended as cannon fodder, barring Malconvokers, since RAW, that outsider is at a real risk when Called, versus Summoned. While there is no shortage of demons available to be called, they are part of a society of sorts. To be sure, demons aren't huge on hierarchy, but there is a definate pecking order, and a marilith may wonder what happened to some of the cannon fodder they had otherwise planned to use for a raid on some shore of the River Styx. Aggreived parties may start sending out quasits to check on things, and be annoyed when they go missing, because few casters who can use calling effects will be at any real risk from a quasit. Devils will of course be wondering in short order why their tally sheets are off, and may end up hiring third parties to find out. Frankly, this is all good plot in the end, as far as I'm concerned.

Mostly, the reason that some outsiders have SR and others don't, getting back to the meta point regarding Spell Penetration, is that by design some outsiders are riskier for Calling, and riskier in general to be using magic against. Setting up a character that can win big is sometimes a really good thing, but has to be a real choice. Taking a feat that improves your odds at sticking a Save or X spell or a Calling effect at opponents who are intended to be chancy versus direct magic may subvert some of the design intent of those creatures.

EDIT to add: This is completely immaterial of the alignment system and rules and the way in which spells that carry the Evil tag formally impact character alignment. I am a big fan of using Rule 0 to chuck the Good and Evil tags altogether, leaving Law and Chaos as the two teams. Generally, I like to think of the Chaotic Demons and Azatas as rather like cousins who tend to not get along very well at family parties.

Also there is an intelligent item section in the magic item description of the Core Rulebook. This details different options for an intelligent item and how that effects it's "ego" score. Based on the pathfinder version, the ego score is effectively a will save for the character wielding the item.

Slightly OT:

For the most part, this game is a GROUP game. Every class should not be weighed on their ability to solo creatures of their same CR. All that math and DPS jargon don't take into account a player's tactical ability or ingenuity, just two brainless, computer controlled robots attacking each other toe to toe. This class was play-tested by REAL people for a year, not ran through tons of computer sims.

Not to be glib, but the playtesting of the prestige classes started much later in the beta cycle. How much actual playtesting occurred with the EK Prestige Class were, by intent and structure, less than the PF Fighter or Wizard. So, to say that the EK has been fully vetted through the beta test process is perhaps inaccurate.

However, a cogent niche has been mentioned for the EK--the touch spell and close range spell master. I am wondering how that would work if optimized around being effective at delivering touch attacks, with say, a spiked gauntlet/tower shield/quickdraw reach weapon combo. Granted, the tower shield is in some ways a trap option, as taking cover against most high CR monsters can result in your shield gaining the broken condition. However, I can see a way to build around this idea, particularly with easy access to mending and make whole. Anyone want to do the build on this? And can the aberrant bloodline sorceror do it better?

bump

Bumpity bump.

In my wife's iaijutsu training, some of it is involved in draw techniques, with one hand on the saya, and the other on the katana, and using the tsuka (handle) to catch a joint (wrist or elbow) to bring the opponent to the ground. Likewise, a single edge knife like a k-bar can also be used to apply a lock and bring an opponent to ground. Typically, it is more effective to jam the knife in your opponent's collar bone, and bring your opponent down that way, but some of these things are opportunity techniques. An axe with a fixed, unsharpened edge, like a tomahawk, can be readily used for hooking techniques.

But this is a friendly local bump.

For what it's worth I do think there was a quite a bit of overreaction to what you posted because I know you weren't trying to offend. In all fairness though, your exact argument had been posted in the thread earlier (specifically that trip worked this way in 3.5, that both sage and the rules compendium clarified how it worked, and that when things are unclear default to 3.5) and your argument is one I agree with, but it was repetition. The reason this is still an issue is because even people who played 3.5 don't agree with how 3.5 worked, and so with the ambiguity released in pathfinder are rehashing the argument. It's one I've had with a player who was wanting to use his glaive to trip with reach and I told him that to trip at reach you need a trip weapon with reach like a guisarme. He felt that you could trip with any weapon, because he could see how you can trip with any weapon. That is why I want clarification. Fake healer I think is a little sensitive because no one pays attention to how well he does on chore wars anymore ;)

This. +1, BUMP, et al.

While according to 3.5 RAW and Errata, Sage, Skip Williams, et al. you could not trip with a quarterstaff, club, or any other weapon which was not specifically a trip weapon, my experience IRL is that you can trip with a dagger, shortsword, longsword/bastard sword, greatsword, axe, quarterstaff, and club. It certainly would provoke in most cases, as it requires closing to use leverage, or reverse grip on a dagger, and is difficult to do, and failure by more than 10 would in fact result in being knocked prone. However, the 3PF RAW does seem to imply that this is possible, and if this is not the intent, it should be clarified.

Enlarge Person potions and extracts are easy to make. If it is clarified that the extract discovery to blend extracts and potions allows you to combine an extract with a mutagen, then this becomes pretty reasonable.

Magic item creation is a fraction of the disruption to get something that's actually meaningful. Two days for a +1 sword as opposed to more than half a year for a suit of masterwork full plate.

Magic Item creation works fine, until you try to model where the components to make a sword +1 come from. Assuming they come from any Craft skill quickly scales into absurdity, but I would assume most forges or item creation labs don't have gold piece slots.