Ultimis's page

28% damage in a situation that may come up 1 every 4 encounters depending on GM and campaign. Good against targets you are one shotting, because else it is better to focus two attacks onto the same target to remove action economy of foes.

Ideally this is a trash clearer, where the trash lines up for you. The very same class adds cleave and greater cleave and whirlwind for trash clearing.

Typing this from phone. Not as easy to switch back and forth. Looks like I typed the wrong number in when adding up the accumulative damage.

Yes, this is an effective +5 attack bonus in this unlikely situation. A still fairly terrible feat, but not as bad as it originally looked.

Which if the second attack had a bonus of +5 attack (which is what you are arguing, not damage):

45% for 1 hit/1miss for 20 9
20.25% for 2 hits for 40 8.1
5% for 1 crit/1 miss for 40 2
4.5% for 1 crit/1 hit 60 2.7
.25% for 2 crits for 80 .2

Average Damage: 33.9 Damage

Seems to suggest you are not getting a +5 attack on the second attack effectively.

At best this swipe feat is giving you maybe a +2.5 atk bonus in a highly situational scenario.

It is roll twice in this example because you specifically lose both actions from swipe and if you roll low on it you *miss* both. Which means while yes "you get double damage" on a hit, you also lose double the damage on a miss. So you're example of missing one of the rolls for half damage is meaningless.

This seems to be one of those feats that Pathfinder 1 suffered from a lot. Highly situational with little bonus to make it worth while.

In this case the feat actually seems worthless, but maybe someone can provide some perspective on how this is not.

---

(2 Actions) SWIPE FEAT 4
You take a mighty swing against two adjacent
enemies. Make a melee Strike and compare the attack
result to the AC of up to two foes, both of whom must be within your
melee reach and adjacent to each other. Roll damage only once, and
apply it to each creature you hit. If you critically hit one target and
not the other, roll the extra critical hit damage separately. A Swipe
counts as two attacks for your multiple attack penalty.

---

- This requires two enemies to be adjacent to each other. A situation that isn't likely to come up all that often. Which is fine... if the bonus is powerful enough to make it worth it. Or if there were ways to help make certain the "situation" was more common. Which there isn't.

- You are sacrificing 2 attacks to do this, which means you could have already hit both of these "adjacent" foes with the number of actions being expended.

- You are gaining a +5 attack on the second foe, due to the first attack action not suffering any negatives. This seems like a net positive at first. Except you could roll badly on that first attack. Based on pathfinder 1 experience and reading on "Rolling twice" vs. "Rolling once". Rolls done at "advantage" effectively give you a +5 bonus. So you are sacrificing the ability to roll twice, which could result in a low roll. Which means the +5 bonus gained from this ability is effectively nullified by the fact that you are not rolling twice.

---

I just don't understand this design philosophy. If you're going to introduce a feat that is only beneficial in limited situations, it should be worth it. Or you should have additional feats within the class that can help to ensure the situation is more likely. But even in the case of this ability/feat the benefit isn't really worth it even if you could consistently make this situation common.

I know you don't want to make situational feats overpowered... but the benefit should be large enough to warrant it being useless in most circumstances. Or there should be tools to help the character force the situation.

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/spirit-share/

School transmutation; Level alchemist 1, bard 1, cleric 1, druid 1, occultist 1, shaman 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1

CASTING

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, F (liquid to be shared)

EFFECT

Range personal
Target you
Duration 1 round/level

DESCRIPTION

For the duration of the spell, as a standard action you can touch a willing target to deliver 1 dose of a potable liquid (including alcoholic drinks and potions and elixirs, but not poisons or other liquids that are primarily harmful when drunk) in your possession (though not necessarily held in hand) into her.

----

This sounds pretty powerful, though it does not elaborate on what 1 "dose" is supposed to do. I doubt it means gain the full effects of the potion/elixir you "shared". This would be more powerful than the extract option that investigators/alchemists can get (which is pretty broken already).

My guess is that it shares the effects for the duration of this spell? So for Class Level rounds you can touch people and up until the end of those rounds you will benefit from shared potions/elixirs? It would still make this powerful, but not completely broken.

First off, it's about the wording choice. Second having a temporary increase to caster level over X/rnds is not the same as a semi-permanent effect. Third a ioun stone is a slot less item and is not really comparable. I already made mention that circlets or belts have much more powerful effects for less gold cost.

Either the item creator butchered the writing of the description or they initially had a different idea of what it would do.

The wording of the item does not support the default consensus on its use. I would have been fine with people saying "Yeah it was poorly worded, but based on similar based items and its cost this is the most likely effect". Instead I have people stating opinion as fact after being confronted with the fact that Pathfinder has established precedent within the feats that contradicts this interpretation.

You literally have to read into it in order to come to the conclusion that it is just providing 5 extra rounds of duration to the bane ability. It is mind blowing that I keep getting people responding as if the opposite is true. The English language is not that hard people (unless it's not your first language). Especially when I provided pathfinder citations of similar abilities or similar effects to what you're reading into to show that they are worded differently.

The majority of posts are taking personal shots at me instead of being intellectually honest about the subject. What a community.

@Weirdo

I think you are correct.

I forgot about stern gaze. I think there are some feats like Improved Monster Lore that scale off of level as well.

Bane wouldn't really get buffed. Essentially the effect (based on this wording) is triggered on bane being active but would result in no changes to bane. As say you were level 10, used bane you would have 9/10 rnds remaining, and then you would have 9/15 rounds remaining. I wouldn't imagine the rnds be fabricated out of nothing.

Similar to Judgment Surge Feat; you don't get an additional Judgment due to being treated as 3 levels higher (as the class gets another judgment use every three levels).

Essentially this would make an inquisitor who is spell focused more powerful/effective (not sure if anyone builds an inquisitor that way). It also gives the inquisitor a step up on judgments being used.

Stern gaze would mean a bonus of 2 for intimidate and sense motive for those bane rounds. Which would make a intimidate build inquisitor more powerful.

Track would increase by 2 ranks as well for survival checks. Though I doubt anyone would be burning their bane ability for tracking; but I guess power to them if they do.

As I already pointed out if you have bane up you're not likely wanting to be casting spells as you're losing out on a lot of damage from the missed full round attack.

I would say the biggest effect is a much better Judgment Surge. Though theoretically judgment surge could last longer if you don't have that many levels of bane and you have a long boss battle.

I wouldn't know how to price that; as chest piece items are typically not all that great. It would be effectively 2-3 feats of power with the serious limitation of only being active while bane is up. 10,000 seems cheap. Circlets like +2 Wisdom are equivalent to 3-4 feats and those go for 4,000 gold. But different slot, different power level.

@Jurassic Pratt

Good point. I guess it depends on the divine caster; I think paladins need to meditate for 1 hour a day. I don't recall the inquisitor limitation right now.

@DerkLord

You don't gain access to spells until you have rested. While technically you would have the ability to cast spells 2 levels higher for the 10 - 15 rounds of bane; you would have 0/day for those spell slots.

I haven't planned it into a character concept. I was pouring over various magical items while bored and found it to be really powerful. I went looking to see how far others interpreted it as applying and was shocked at the mediocre interpretations. I am just surprised at how casually the community has accepted this interpretation.

As for the limitation; "Treat" is the operative word. You are not gaining temporary levels, you are treated as a higher level for the effect.

Similar to the Judgment Surge; you don't get a bonus use of judgment due to the feat. You are treated as a higher class level. If Treated worked as is implied by the Pathfinder community that feat should give you a extra use of judgment every day.

I list the cost; as all chest pieces of similar cost are not nearly as powerful as the interpretation I put forward. So it makes sense that this would be similar to those other effects but was poorly worded.

There are a dozen different ways that they could have worded it to mean "5 additional rounds of bane".

"Prerequisite: Bane class feature.

Benefit: You can use your bane ability for 3 additional rounds per day."

There is extra bane for you guys. The wording matches better with "Spell Bane" which has a very different effect.

"Prerequisites: Bane class feature.

Benefit: Add your Wisdom bonus to the number of rounds per day that you can use your bane ability."

Even in my original posts "in regards" would have been a better use if the intent was to increase the number of rounds of the ability.

They have feat based language that contradicts the widely accepted meaning. They also have feat based language that supports my interpretation. The only thing going for the widely accepted position is the very low cost. A chest item providing that much benefit for so cheap is fairly incredible.

The benefits of my interpretation:

+1/2 steps to all Judgments. 1-2 damage, 1 to chance to hit, 1 to saving throws, 1 to AC, etc.

5 to the "Caster Level" when casting spells. Increasing damage of spells and increasing their duration.

All of which only occurs while Bane is active on the Inquisitors weapon. Which when you have bane up you want to be doing a full attack round; not casting spells. As assuming a level 10 character you could be missing out on 4-5 attacks worth of bane; which is equivalent of 8-10d6, or 16-20d6 on greater bane for a higher level inquisitor.

Since the word "Treated" is used; you wouldn't gain abilities that unlock at higher levels (like additional judgments). You also wouldn't get additional rounds of Bane, as you would need to rest to make those temporary activation of bane be usable.

It is also questionable if your Class Level could exceed 20 (even though it is "treated as"); so this would diminish in value as you reached max levels.

"It seems perfectly clear that bane/greater bane last 5 rounds longer."

I think the wording makes it perfectly clear that it does not. You have to read into the item (based on its low cost) to come to that conclusion.

The bane ability is not always on. You have to swift action turn it on and have so many rounds per day that it is active (equal to your CL; unless you have additional feats/items).

There is actually a feat based on this exact concept; where while bane is being used you treat your CL as 2 higher for the DC of your spells. And if your bane is not "active" you do not get the mostly worthless effect of the feat.

Spell Bane:

"Prerequisite: Bane class feature.

Benefit: While your bane class feature is affecting a creature type, the saving throw’s DCs for your spells increase by +2 for creatures of that type."

----

"I can see where you are coming from, but the item only effects the bane and greater bane class features."

That seems to be the consensus which is why I am challenging it. How the item is worded I don't see that as the case. Which is why I asked if it should be worded differently.

"This ornate sash of embroidered velvet stretches across the chest from shoulder to waist.

If the wearer is an inquisitor, she is treated as five levels higher when using her bane and greater bane abilities . If the wearer is not an inquisitor, she gains the bane ability of a 5th-level inquisitor, but must first attune a light or one-handed melee weapon to the baldric by hanging it from the cloth for 24 hours, and can only use the bane ability with the attuned weapon. Attuning a new weapon to the baldric ends the attunement for the previous weapon."

----

This seems a lot more powerful than a lot of people are making it out to be for an inquisitor. Nearly every post I read suggests this just increases the Bane ability for 5 additional rounds (effectively making it worse than an extended Bane feat at higher wisdom mods). Some even suggest it gives access to Greater Bane early; which many argue isn't true.

Obviously the cost is a bit low which is why people are reading into it like that. But this seems pretty clearly worded to mean:

"While Bane is active you are treated as 5 levels higher."

As in a similar but much more powerful "Judgment Surge" feat. So while bane is active your spells treat your level as higher, your Judgments treat your level as higher. Essentially any class feature that scales off of level is treated as 5 levels higher. Now you of course wouldn't have higher BAB or saving throws or hp. But your judgments clearly are more powerful the higher levels you are.

Non-Inquisitors are gaining access to a level 5 ability unique to the inquisitor class with an effective "Treated As" a 5th level Inquisitor for the duration of the buff.

If this was meant to just increase the number of rounds an inquisitor could have bane up; they worded this horribly. It also makes this inquisitor unique chest much better for non-inquisitors. Is this just a matter of the cost being too low to justify such a powerful effect?

Should the wording be: "If the wearer is an inquisitor, she is treated as five levels higher **in regards** to her bane and greater bane abilities."?