Search Posts
Using Magic Items Creation, you can make a quiver + Abundant Ammunition spell to have a quiver with endless ammo in it. Costs just 2.000gp or so to have a 1st level spell always on. Upside is, you can manually switch what arrow is inside, so by putting an adamantine arrow inside, every arrow you pull out will become one, as it's still nonmagical.
Wondering the same as Aeshuura. What makes ya think that Shohei can flurry in Armor? It can't be the light proficiency, since you can get it as a feat anyway.
I wouldn't make a PC enchant it as a double weapon. It doesn't use the double weapon abilities. It truly is a crappy weapon any way you slice it even with enhancements. That -4 to hit with proficiency is a killer. If they had made it a -2 it would have been reasonable putting it in line with rapid shot. Even if it didn't have any penalty it wouldn't be overpowered since it takes so long to reload. It was one of the better weapons in 3.5 though, imo. When you enchanted it with splitting, and then explosive, it was a 4 shot rocket launcher. Though nowhere close to bows still, but within crossbow class.
Blegh Ninaje'd by karkon, whose statement is like iceberg vs titanic.
Don't think you need to use quarterstaff enchanting unless it says so specifically, like, you can't enchant each end of a spear. Double-crossbow is the Manyshot variant of crossbows, which is why it also gives a -4 to firing. Safest bet is to treat it as manyshot, full weapon property per arrow, save precision damage, because that's specifically left out.
This should allow the alchemist to wield two greatswords as op asked.
But, if you think back to 3.5, the Dragon Magazine's, you might remember a race called Dipsid, in issue #267, january 2000. They are an insect/human race with four arms as their key feature, and mention this to make it clear. "A diopsid can wield a pair of two-handed weapons by using all four of its limbs. The diopsid gains the full benefits of wielding a two-handed weapon, such as 1-1/2 times its Strength bonus on damage rolls. The diopsid suffers the standard penalty for fighting with two weapons and carrying a non-light weapon in its off hand. " Just worth noting that it's been done, that the Summoner can do this, so why not the alchemist that spends two discoveries, who are harder to come by than 2 evolution point(2 pt gives 2 additional arms and hands). Except the synthesist could wield 4 great swords using Multi Attack.
Huh, that's a nice way to use a 0 lvl spell.
Pretty sure it'd be like manyshotting with a bow, each arrow/bolt get's the full effect of weapons property.
Think it could balance out by removing the Spell-like Abilities, and then counting it as a Intelligent Item for effects and purposes of spells and crafting? The reason I can't just get a transformative intelligent weapon is because as a tumor familiar, it can reside inside me as well as heal itself up fast this way, meaning I'll always stay armed. Not to mention that intelligent weapons have some interesting abilities, such as Leaping and Proficient.
A paladins god might actually approve, as an evil character in the company of a paladin is less likely to sin. Well, the other solution is using the code against the ode. The paladin cannot strike down an evil character without witnessing an evil deed against innocents, as he is first and foremost bound by law.Killing in self defense will be allowed anywhere more or less. Killing a guy because he hurt someone, rather than restraining him for the city watch, is against the law(in most places).
While frowned upon, it actually does not hinder you in teaming up with an evil alignment character that doesn't play Evil Stupid. A paladins god might actually approve, as an evil character in the company of a paladin is less likely to sin. Remember that if the paladin decides to smite him without witnessing an evil act, he himself will be the sinner and loose his class abilities. It's not all that set in stone, and it helps when the player and gm co-operate.
So, I'm playing an Artificer themed Alchemist, and this fun idea brewed in my head. The Imp Familiar is in Bestiary 3, p229, the Rakshasa, Raktavarna.
The other reason is, so it can be enhanced normally as well.
We ended up adopting Sandstorm and Frostburn mechanics to make ER5 count as level 3 protection, but thanks for input.
On the other hand, if ER 10 is enough to survive any environmental damage, and most native creature's frost attack, why the need for a fire weakness from fire subtype. Note, in Advanced Races, +4 to resist environmental effects, same as Endurance, costs exactly the same as ER 5. Meaning for 1Rp I can be immune to fire/cold/acid environment, and to energy attacks of that type. Vs a +4 to resist freezing my ass off for the same cost.
So, got a player arguing his point across that ER should count against environmental damage, as he found himself in Land of the Linnorm Kings, and he happens to have Cold Resistance from being Aasimar. Now, my problem with that is, that for one, environment damage is untyped, and is not a direct energy attack, which is what Energy Resistance applies against. Just as DR applies against attacks, and not falling damage. The second problem is that ER5(basic one) makes a person immune to cold environment, as cold enviroment deals 1d6, making you maximally take 1 non-lethal point of damage, which is healed up in an hour at a rate of 1 non-lethal point per class/hit die level. That makes Cold/Fire/Acid subtype not needed to survive a denizens environment, as ER10 will defend them, without slapping on a vurnability. It's not a typo either, as both ER and DR specify attacks, where immunity from subtype mentions conditions, effects, and so on.
actually, i'm all for an alchemist archetype that does away with that bloody mutagen Using the bloody mutagen to gain +dex and then wielding a pistol alone is one of the better combo's the Alchemist can use. It sure beats the low level grits. What you can't use with guns is Poison Use. If you don't use poisons, there's no real need for Poison Resistance or Immunity. The bombs are awesome combination, especially with Explosive Missile.
Not to mention it lasts longer than Snake Style, which lets you use Sense Motive as AC vs one attack. Which arguably fits what Holmes fought like.
Slams are usually two arms going HULK SMASH.
On other hand, two limbs -> two slams -> improved slam damage = 4d6 total damage. That's same as 4 claws(2 pairs of limbs) + improved claw damage, but you roll 2 less attacks, meaning you'll miss less.
Well, concept wise, both excel at hunting specific targets. Spell breaker or witch hunter archetypes for inquisitor make him especially good at taking down heretics and spell casters. Conceptwise; Could it be something along lines of the inquisitor hunting down a very elusive heretic, after a while, he tracks him down, and beats him down, but learns that his methods aren't especially effective. At the same time, he teamed up with a Red Mantis rookie, who was a frightful close quarter fighter, tearing down enemies both in frontline fight, as well as from the shadows (sneak attack), which fit the inquisitor very well, as he enjoyed teamwork (sneak attack flanking). Or something like that, either way, both are essentially humanoid hunters. The inquisitor's bane ability mixes nicely up with sneak attack as well. Human would be a good choice, there's lots of feats required to become one.
I think the crush line referes to using this offensively, like enlarging someone inside a cage, they either break out, or the spell doesn't work, but they don't get crushed by suddenly becoming too big for the enviroment.. On the other hand "Make a Strength check to burst any enclosures in the process." That I'd rule as sploding whatever ate a player.
What bout Intensify Metamagic Feat mixed with Shocking Hands?
A bunch of riders with lances and that teamwork feat where if one of you charges, all charge as well. It's a stupid good combo that's situational but kinda funny.
Dunno bout you guys, but if you go to WoTC Character Optimization forums, you will find any and every min-max shenanigan there is. That's why I think Adamantine Dragon, much as me, took this as such an attempt.
It's used as a class ability for the Zen Archer monk archetype.
*drumroll* *badum-tish*
Think it's mostly because of their ability to scribe spells into their spellbook, which bard and sorcerer do not possess ability to use. On the other hand, the Magic Chapter text allows using Independent Research for any arcane or divine caster. Though your quote says "select spells they gain fron new and unusual spells they come across." that could be read as "from spell researched" spells I suppose. Anyhow, main point, Magic Chapter says you can. Classes don't say you can't. Therefor, go nuts. Personally, I used that to copy Artificer spells from Ebberon setting onto my alchemist :D
Short of Deity intervention or wish, how do you propose to get the artifact to the plane? I haven't checked out artifacts. I'm merely saying that by anti-magic rules, therefor dead magic rules, artifacts are unaffected. While a dm would be houseruling to make a teleporting/plane jumping artifact, using the artifact to enter the dead magic plane would be a-ok by raw.
I keep wondering if we're reading the same anti-magic field. Deities and Artifacts yes. Wish we can just disagree on because we don't agree on which text trumps which. "Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this."
I didn't notice that. That IS funny.
It's a decent solution if you want to imprison someone or you feel you're a threat to others, and solitude yourself. Fun Combo:
Voila, you got a prison that can only be broken by Deities, Artifacts, and in our games, wish. Also no saves if you trick the target to willingly come with you, say, by promises of wealth and treasure or a magic library?
Having no offhand means having no extra attacks. What this does, is give you TWF penalty to Flurry of Blows, giving you bonus "TWF" attacks when flurry attack bonus ramps up. Flurry is effectively your TWF + iterations attacks, and it scales up.
I am going to go crazy with Pathfinder. They changed such little stuff--stuff I've never thought to bother looking at. People in 3rd edition always tried to claim you could forego or auto-fail rolls, and I was correct then when I said you couldn't. Not trying to state how you should use it, use it any way you prefer. Just saying how I read it.And I didn't really notice the difference until Thunder Fire was mentioned. But there's a clear distiction in how they used (object, see text) & (object), see text. One called specifically for two saves, other for one, the followed up with a text. I can't complain though, I learned something new today :D
Nothing in the quote states that a permanent planar portal can't be established after the fact. The fact that you can't throw a spell 'inside' does. "Alternatively, when cast within your demiplane, you may add (or remove) one of the following features to your demiplane with each casting of the spell, in which case it has an instantaneous duration." You need to be inside to add a portal feature using Create Demiplane.
As written, it does. " A plane with the dead magic trait functions in all respects like an antimagic field spell." But I think all's been said unless someone much savvier in the rules has some input. We always played as specific text trumping general rule, which is what Wish teleporting into Anti-magic is, as written. Whatever you're happy with, roll with it.
Except using Wish would be like creating a field of water surrounding you that lets you swim in the desert. Note that if you make a portal before dead magic, it stays fine. So a magic effect can survive there. On the other hand, Wish is instant effect with a clause, it doesn't use the magic within the zone it's teleporting to, but from, which is why I can't argue that it wouldn't work to throw inside.
Supernatural (su) have even less chance than wish.
Where the Wish specifically writes to override any condition. Antimagic is a condition, as well as a force field surrounding the place, a circle against evil, and so on. The fact that it's not a teleport makes it more powerful, as it doesn't obey any teleport rules that are already in place.
"Certain spells, such as wall of force, prismatic sphere, and prismatic wall, remain unaffected by antimagic field."
"Summoned creatures of any type wink out if they enter an antimagic field. They reappear in the same spot once the field goes away." Sounds like you can get inside the field before you fully disappear if summoned. On the other hand.
Not too far fetched to imagine the Wish poke a hole in the field, throw you in, and leave you there like a bag of puppies. Now, I can't and won't argue about throwing wish inside the field, that's just not gonna happen.
On the other hand, when you swap out spells know when leveling, you can dump it, then take it later on again. Also, sidenote, general cost for making spells in this way is 1.000gp and 1 week per spell level. Tho if more fancy or powerful, like Wish or Create Demiplane, it might cost more, take longer, or require special materials or tomes.
The key difference between the two spells is:
2nd is Save Negates (Object), see text. <- allows object save, then outside parentheses it says how to deal with a failed check. So you see, there is a difference in Save Negates (object). Burning Disarms;
The Thunder Fire on the other hand;
,See Text
One spell says Reflex save -> wielder saves.
Two different save text, two different descriptions, one target says reflex, then who uses reflex. The other says Will negates (object) then it's see text for handling Fortitude. Edit:
The fact that Burning Hands uses Reflex instead of normal Will Save like Thunder Fire, and then states that user makes the Reflex Save, should count for something.
Dead Magic says spells don't work there. Wish is a spell.That. On the other hand, Wish specifically nullifies the local conditions, and is cast outside the plane. So I'd say it works to get in, but not to get out, as once inside, any access to wish is gone.
As I've said, I'm just interested in the intent and mindset as to why the crafting abilities are the way they are. What was in their head? Did they originally envision the crafter being an occasional tinkerer or the mad Wizard locked in his tower coming up with god-knows-what? I know both are possible per the rules but it is that way through various permutations of ideas over time. I'm just curious to know where it started and how it evolved and how they see it working with the world at large. I would love to sit down with a dev/designer/whoever and have even just a 10 minute one-on-one about it but that's not practical so I made this thread. Again, assuming that a crafter that will use his money explicitly to double his amount of wealth is a fearful assumption that's not a good thing to base anything on. He might use 10%, or 25% of his gold to make stuff. Locking down the whole thing because some ass out there might abuse it is like locking down barbarian or fighter because some asses have min-maxed them to the level of stupid. You should assume the player won't abuse it, just get something out of it. And then assume that his DM will keep his hands on reins and keep things under control, slapping on a limit of his own if it comes down to that. 50% of starting gold for crafting in my games as example. Since the crafter spent all his feats on making stuff, he never really shines in combat because he got a +2 bonus to saves earlier than our ninja who is a menace both in and out of combat.
Under Magic chapter in corebook, after Arcane casters, in the Divine section, it says a divine caster can use independent research. Does not limit it to any class. So yeah, you can.
Not really...a creature can voluntarily forego a saving throw. An object can not. If that does it for you, goodie good. I know a bunch of people on the other hand that won't slap an additional save on a so-so spell just cause they think they can.
Fluffwise, I get the idea.
I suppose you could adapt the Ray Shield feat that Stabbitty linked and make it work with flat, bladed weapons such as swords. Anything else would almost have to be a new chain of feats or a specific spellbreaker archetype.
You're not a ninja. You're a spy, assassin, or fixer. :D He's a red spy. You're a blu player. Nice knowing you ._.
Which is why you should handle it as it says, you do not gain it as a class feature. Nowhere does it say you replace it, or remove it, just not gain, that leave it bit open to "you can have this if you don't have Still Mind, but if you have Still Mind, you have to drop it."
Why would he sell his class feature? Would you expect the wizard to sell his spellbook and bonded item? These characters would then be without the ability to function in their classes.This will probably get ignored, followed by the line "he can sell it for 4d10". Which magically reduces the market value.This is where I say you must reasonably use the Market Value. a +1 long sword that was crafted, commissioned, or found, is still a +1 long sword and it's actual value doesn't change. Therefore it doesn't make sense to use any value other than Market Value to determine wealth. Why would the devs assume that it should be any other way? How else would you figure out the wealth of a character? I don't track every gp the PCs ever get, and I doubt any GM does. A fighters sword is his class feature, a fighter without a sword is just as useless as a wizard without his spell book or the gunslinger without his crappy gun, don't see people reducing their wbl because he'll never sell it. But hey, if you think that adding a "no one but you can use it" clause to an item makes it okey for you to ignore wbl, then that's a simple solution to pre-game crafting.
This is where I say you must reasonably use the Market Value. a +1 long sword that was crafted, commissioned, or found, is still a +1 long sword and it's actual value doesn't change. Therefore it doesn't make sense to use any value other than Market Value to determine wealth. Why would the devs assume that it should be any other way? How else would you figure out the wealth of a character? I don't track every gp the PCs ever get, and I doubt any GM does. This will probably get ignored, followed by the line "he can sell it for 4d10". Which magically reduces the market value.
Well, tell your gm that mixed spell list isn't that bad.
Paying 1.000gp or more for a spell really isn't that bad, it's not much different than buying a wonderous item. You still have to spend spell slots and spells known on it.
You can use Independent Research and spell research & designing rules to make new spells, or simpler, copy another casters spells into your list. The simplest way is 1000gp and 1 week spent per spell level.
|
