1) Yes
2) SU is an effect. Yes.
3) Yes, unclear it is heavily implied that dragons bypass magic dr due to possessing magic DR and having explicitly spelled out magic damage. The breath is not subject to this since it's energy.
4) Shadow demons are comically OP. My party was summoning 1d4+2 shadow demons until 20th level due to TK Spam. Time stop exacerbated the issue. If you want a challenge in the later books, ban em.
Nope. No halfling ever doesn't take Fleet of Foot to get a 30ft movement.
Not true.
Okay... no halfling that I've ever seen played.
'
Honestly I was going to take +2 stealth and +2 bluff and stack it with boots of elven kind. Blend is a pretty fun spell when your stealth is >40. The value of 10 move speed drops off hard less than 1 book in when you can get vile leadership by level 7 and use my organization to get a buff wizard who follows me and gives me flight.
Quote:
Can you fit in crane style and slashing grace?
If I could fit it I'd be a kitsune with vulpine pounce instead and not take said feats. Unfortunately I cannot take said feats, no space. Pounce is clearly the right choice but having a wizard who's job in life is to telekinetic charge , fly, and haste me makes it matter less. Crane style is cute but losing 5 feats for vampire makes it a tough sell.
Also - being small actually makes encumbrance be less of an issue, which it certainly can be for a Swashbuckler who dumps STR. With a STR of 7 as a medium creature you can't even wear a chain shirt without the Muscle of the Society trait and remain at a light load. With the trait you still can't wear a chain shirt, buckler, and rapier even if you're naked otherwise.
Small size gives you 3/4 carry capacity while gear weighs 1/2. A small-sized 5 STR is better off with gear weight than a medium 7 STR.
While I am slowly coming over to the side of halfling it's largely due to something my brother pointed out
"I only have 3 traits, the WoTW trait gives me +1 trait will save, fate's favored gives me +1 saves, so does adopted glory of old." At which point since I need a stealth trait halfling improves. Additionally since he ok'ed gloves of dueling to work with swash Weap training my to hit is decent enough. The +1 to will saves basically at all time
as to this
Quote:
The AC applies to all ranged attacks and whenever you're flat-footed. It should also be used against iterative attacks or against mooks. While extremely useful, I think that you're overestimating how consistently you'll be able to Parry.
Plume of panache costs 1k and can be replaced after usage. I'll likely buy 5-6 and just replace them every combat. Along side the +3 from my weapon later on I expect to be able to parry at will by the 3rd book.
for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2penalty on this roll.
From a practical standpoint it's only -1 since you're always getting a +1 size bonus to accuracy.
Undone wrote:
1) Because halflings make terrible swashbucklers and half orcs get a higher bonus to saves, and more skill points without the defensive/offensive penalty.
Of course half-orcs get better if you cheese it out with the Fate's Favored combo. They get higher than everyone except maybe dwarfs.
Why do half-orcs get more skillpoints? More for the particular stats that I recommended, but not in general. Halflings will slightly be better off due to skill bonuses they get.
How are they getting an offensive penalty? They get -1 damage (d4 vs d6) for +1 accuracy. Level 3+ and that becomes higher DPR. Not to mention more panache from higher CHA.
Defensively they take a total of -1 to Parry, but they also gain +1 AC all of the time, as well better Charmed Life due to better CHA and the ability to use Parry more often due to more panache.
1) it is -1 to defend yourself.
2) Half orc's always take FF because it's strong. It's no more cheesy than a warpriest taking the trait for divine favor. Dwarfs get higher.
3) The offensive penalty comes from the lower chance to hit out of turn.
4) Half orc's get 1 more skill point per level. Just like as a fact.
Quote:
Skilled: Second- and third-generation half-orcs often favor their human heritage more than their orc heritage. Half-orcs with this trait gain 1 additional skill rank per level. This racial trait replaces darkvision.
Overall the differences are
Halfling
-1 damage
-1 skill/level
-1 hit out of turn
-1 all saves
-10 movement
+1 panache
Equal saves 3/4/5/6 times a day when you do not riposte
+1 hit on turn
+1 AC
The ac doesn't really matter since you chose to parry pretty much down to 1 panache starting at level 5. Halfling is meh unfortunately. I'll take a deeper look but my initial impression was they are just underwhelming for swashbucklers compared to half orc's, drow, and ifrits.
1) Are you limited to using the same weapon? Can you change it out when answering isn't as important?
I can switch but it'll cost me the half cost of a +3 weapon since my first enhancement is fortuitous because +1 attacks/round is much stronger than +1/+1 to hit/damage. Which is around 9000 some gold. This is a possible option but I'm not sure it's a good one. It's also possible to go something like +1 Answering, Fortuitous, Bane good outsider, Bane Humanoid Human, Unholy exct.
Philo Pharynx wrote:
2) Magus can have a similar feel, but with magic.
UMD and the item mastery feats can simulate magic.
Magus also isn't charisma based and lacks the primary mechanic that makes me want to be a Swashbuckler which is parry which makes defenses feel dynamic.
Philo Pharynx wrote:
3) Iron will, wisdom boosters, resistance bonuses, indomitable faith.
Literally all of that sans 12 wisdom is something I have or will get by a very low level. I was hoping there was something I was missing.
Quote:
1. I'd just use straight + bonuses. You'll be getting enough static damage that the extra accuracy is great, and with Parry it helps you defensively.
The thing about accuracy is that my accuracy will already be absurdly high as it's my defensive stat. I get a 20 starting stat, Weapon training, 2 weapon focus feats, and possibly applying bane to a +5 weapon. I also will NOT have power attack which helps to hit a lot power attack on a 2 handed weapon trails off at the giant 60 total damage. For 1 handed weapons at 40 average damage (which I achieve at level 6-7 or so) it stops being useful. The alternative is the generic vanilla +5 fortuitous, unholy, good outsider bane.
Quote:
2. Nope - it's true of all martials. I can only say that most campaigns don't get that high anyway.
This game goes to 20. I ran it for my group already to 20. It will get to 20. I'm figuring out how to be useful at levels that high.
Quote:
3. Why not a halfling? They make great Swashbucklers, and they get +1 to all saves. Also - there is a Swashbuckler archetype which gets a bonus vs mind-affecting spells (Which is about 2/3 Will saves). I would also put your Wisdom up to at least 12. (14 Con is also nice.) The 20 dex at 1 might be overkill.
Quote:
for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2penalty on this roll.
1) Because halflings make terrible swashbucklers and half orcs get a higher bonus to saves, and more skill points without the defensive/offensive penalty.
2) odd stats are bad. Especially in high level games. You get all 5 stat bumps and a +5 stat book. If you take a lower stat amount you take the 16 instead of 18 but never 17. Con is also not that important in a game where you are told up front you can be undead by level 11-12 which means con will never provide more than 10 hp per 2 points and is later replaced.
My group completed this adventure and now one of them wants to run it for another group. I'll be participating and while not metagaming too much I'm allowed to use the same piece of knowledge I gave them before they built characters.
Charisma matters, a lot. You can also become undead eventually.
With that in mind and the somewhat unique build rules (+2 skills/level, 25 point buy, bonus trait) I saw a chance to play an otherwise underwhelming character in a swashbuckler.
We also have one special home rule, +3,+4,+5 weapons don't bypass anything You need holy/unholy/spell buffs/metals to bypass DR.
Spoiler:
Swashbuckler
Inspired Blade
Half Orc
-City-Raised: Half-orcs with this trait know little of their orc ancestry and were raised among humans and other half-orcs in a large city. City-raised half-orcs are proficient with whips and longswords, and receive a +2 racial bonus on Knowledge (local) checks. This racial trait replaces weapon familiarity.
-Sacred Tattoo: Many half-orcs decorate themselves with tattoos, piercings, and ritual scarification, which they consider sacred markings. Half-orcs with this racial trait gain a +1 luck bonus on all saving throws. This racial trait replaces orc ferocity.
-Skilled: Second- and third-generation half-orcs often favor their human heritage more than their orc heritage. Half-orcs with this trait gain 1 additional skill rank per level. This racial trait replaces darkvision.
Intimidating: Half-orcs receive a +2 racial bonus on Intimidate checks due to their fearsome nature.
STR: 7
DEX: 20
CON: 12
INT: 14
WIS: 10
CHA: 14
Traits
9 Skill/Level :The swashbuckler's class skills are
Bluff (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Intimidate (Cha),Perception (Wis),
Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Knowledge (local) (Int), Stealth (Dex)
3 Traits:
+1 Will save Campg trait (High Treason),
Fate's Favored,
Highlander (Hills or Mountains) You gain a +1 trait bonus on Stealth checks, and Stealth is always a class skill for you. This trait bonus increases to +2 in hilly or rocky areas.
1 Drawback: Paranoid
Feats It costs 5 feats to be a vampire. I will retrain several feats to it when we get there.
1B) Weapon finesse
1B) WF Rapier
1) Fencing Grace
3) Combat reflexes -> Vamp Feat
4) WS Rapier
5B) IC Rapier
5) Iron Will -> Vampire Feat
7) Vile leadership
8B) GWS Rapier
9) Lunge-> Vamp Feat
11) Improved Iron Will -> Vampire feat
12B) GWF Rapier
13) Vampire feat
15) Iron Will
16B) Lunge
17)
19)
20B)
My problems with the character are as follows
1) The best possible +1 weapon enchantment is also terrible later on because answering is like a jump forward but later on is straight up bad. What weapon enchants would you use? I'll 100% be using fortuitous because it's great but I like unholy due to home rules and bane humanoid is a pretty good investment if you go for answering.
2) This character at level 15+ feels like a joke a best due to know magic. Any remedy?
3) I don't really WANT to play a half orc I want a dex/cha -con or -str race but all the races I looked at with those mods don't have a way to improve your will save.
Any advice on these issues would be appreciated. Especially the weapon since it's not unusual to get+7-10 weapons in this game since it goes to 20.
I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.
I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.
I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.
Large difference is that what you just said pretty much is in agreement with the "You can drink it therefor you can drink it as a swift." It only has to be potable for the person drinking it because nearly everything that can be consumed has someone allergic to it.
Hmmm. Can I use this to detect poisons and other harmful liquids?
"Hey, I'm drinking this too slowly! It must not be potable!" <Spits back out>
As hilarious as that is, I have a feeling GMs would create a bunch of "Gotcha!" scenarios with that sort of thinking, since they can be all like "You're drinking this?" And you say "Yes," and then they say "It's poison, make a saving throw or become Nauseated. Oh, and you lost your Standard Action because it's not safe for you to drink."
I'd find that in order for a liquid to be "potable," you'd also have to know what it is, and/or what it does. You can't just be blindly handed a liquid, not know what it does, and expect it to be safe for you to drink.
It can also fall into the realm of GM FIAT as to determine what is "safe to drink." For all you know, that beverage you were handed might contain and undetectable roofie (a shame to have it happen, but certainly possible with the right Alchemy skills).
I use a move action to study them. I use my next move action to study them. I use my swift to drink. If I cannot drink then It's poison. If I can then the GM literally cannot tell me it's poison.
Benefit: The longer the investigator studies his opponent, the greater the damage he ultimately deals with his studied strike. When the investigator makes a studied strike, he deal a number of points of additional damage equal to the number of consecutive rounds he studied the target with studied combat.
If I use this and refresh my studying I've still studied them for X consecutive rounds. Conceptually what I'm thinking is studying my prison guard for say 10 minutes then flicking a stone at the back of his head.
It's a fairly narrow useage but the ability isn't that great so I was curious. I'd be inclined to allow it because it's an interesting power and creates a funny situation where keeping an investigator locked up with someone guarding him is dangerous.
I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.
I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.
I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.
Large difference is that what you just said pretty much is in agreement with the "You can drink it therefor you can drink it as a swift." It only has to be potable for the person drinking it because nearly everything that can be consumed has someone allergic to it.
No. We were very clearly right. From a raw perspective a dex bonus is, gasp, a bonus. Your dex bonus is the source of your bonus. From a power perspective stat stacking is insanely good. When raw and whats reasonable for the game agree there is no other answer.
So with that track record in mind please pause, think, and listen rather than needlessly insult.
Once again there are still bestiaries with antipaladin grave knights and oracle liches with cha to saves twice along with the half a dozen errata'ed feats which prove that it DID in fact work at one point they simply changed the stance they had on it errata was issued and enemies STILL have this functioning on undead.
They had reached a point where such errata is needed to prevent absurd stat stacking and that's OK but acting like it was always that way is simply wrong considering the undead they STILL let stack it.
I think it's funny people want this to not work. I honestly feel like it's the same crowd that didn't want pummeling lances, spirited charge barbarians, Sacred fists in full plate, or any other of things they considered "Over powered" because they weren't RAI.
And stat stacking.
You mean like every time the RAI/Less power crowd was right?
You mean the point where they were clearly wrong and they literally subverted the ruling the next day by publishing undead monsters which were stat stacking? the RAI/Less Power crowd has gotten a bunch of things nerfed because they didn't function RAI but that doesn't mean they were right (It's actually a pretty clear indication they were wrong since errata was required) it just means they complained loud enough to get something nerfed.
The most contentious question is definitely targeted spells.
Even the most conservative readers could be convinced that EFS can cause an attack roll to fail, but some people want spell casters to be immune from absolutely everything.
No I want things to be consistent. EFS can just be banned if you don't like the result but immediate actions being able to interrupt things is somewhat important to other effects like a few immediate action attacks which can disrupt spell casting. If PFS has a problem with EFS ban it for frick sake don't claim it doesn't work that way. Same thing with haste, teleport, or literally any other encounter or mod breaking spell.
This is like the argument that "Free actions can't be done outside of your turn" when at the time they fairly obviously could until errata stated they could not resulting in multiple other feats and abilities being errataed. The same thing happened with the "You cannot stack stats" debacle because the day after they put that out even THEY demonstrated a lack of understanding what the rule meant by publishing an anti paladin grave knight with cha to saves twice. This is after the errata that forced them to errata several other feats and abilities.
I think it's funny people want this to not work. I honestly feel like it's the same crowd that didn't want pummeling lances, spirited charge barbarians, Sacred fists in full plate, or any other of things they considered "Over powered" because they weren't RAI.
In this case it's clearly RAI that EFS protects the caster and bounces an effect but because GM's hate it they are performing mental gymnastics to try and negate it. Please continue to FAQ this so that they can make EFS hilariously solid so that no one can attempt to say "You can't actually use that because I hate it so I'm going to claim it doesn't work how it clearly works".
Except that time does not flow in Pathfinder combat like it does in the real world. Though people are assuming it does.
If you don't have a specific listed way that time flow works, what else do you use? As the current rules for it are sparse to non existent what do you replace it with except causality?>
I think it's better to think of immediate actions as Super actions or ultimate actions.
And I think this is exactly wrong. The Super actions are readied actions, not immediate actions, because they are explicitly capable of time travel, which is not a power given to immediate actions.
Readied actions can't do that. They simply stop an action from happening or interrupt it mid execution. Readied actions do not cancel the effect after it has happened like an immediate action can (hero's defiance, stone shield).
Hero's Defiance has a trigger condition that allows it to supersede general rules: "The instant before you are reduced to 0 or fewer hit points..."
Stone Shield is a spell that is in contention as it does not outline any conditions. It's being used as the basis of the FAQ request. FAQ request here
Just as a point of note. That isn't a special exclusive condition exceeding normal conditions, it is actually a limiting condition which prevents you from using it as a normal immediate action. The existence of the phrase "The instant before you are reduced to 0 or fewer hit points" means that there is an instant, a TIME if you will when you are about to be reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, which as I've stated before is a subset of ANY time similar to how the most frequently asked question to microsoft is which key is the any key.
I think it's better to think of immediate actions as Super actions or ultimate actions.
And I think this is exactly wrong. The Super actions are readied actions, not immediate actions, because they are explicitly capable of time travel, which is not a power given to immediate actions.
Readied actions can't do that. They simply stop an action from happening or interrupt it mid execution. Readied actions do not cancel the effect after it has happened like an immediate action can (hero's defiance, stone shield).
I think it's better to think of immediate actions as Super actions or ultimate actions. Due to the timing of "Any time" whenever another action in the game NO MATTER WHAT ACTION IT IS could take place that action takes place at some time (Counter spelling, more restrictive immediate actions like hero's defiance, exct) immediate actions can be taken.
Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.
Nope. He's still the president even before he's sworn in.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
When should I time travel to so that there is no president of the united states? I want to arrive after Rutherford B. Hayes is president but before James A. Garfield is President.
Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.
That is the point after you've been targeted and before that is resolved.
Lots of games have this meta timing concept, even pathfinder has this concept in a lot of effects. Some effects don't list any timing restrictions so it seems more than reasonable they can operate in the same points of time that all the effects with no timing restrictions.
This might be the funniest correct answer I have ever seen.
.What are you trying to accomplish with a change in AC post-hit?
A miss. That is the whole debate here. With no timing restrictions, one should be able to turn a hit into a miss.
I assume you would be able to do so. After dice are rolled there is still a period in which the hit hasn't happened OR all those effects which can occur post dice roll couldn't happen.
For example on inspiration
Quote:
This choice is made after the check is rolled and before the results are revealed.
There is a point in time in which after dice are rolled other effects can be applied otherwise effects such as inspiration. Note that this is before effects are applied.
I don't see how else people are expected to use some effects.
Since the spell doesn't say that you interrupt anything, you can do it at any time, but you cannot do it to affect an attack upon you unless you take the immediate action prior to the attack.
I don't agree, can you please click on my FAQ post in this.
I feel like his argument is similar to the aqueous sphere+Hideous laughter interaction. "It doesn't explicitly say you drown!" but you do because you are laughing under water. People don't always know the implications of rules they create but that doesn't mean they function differently.
It looks like it was supposed to be "when you're caught in a tunnel collapse you man...." but became one stop shopping for swift action nyah nyah can't hit me!"
The flavor of things has little to do with the mechanics. I could pick 20 feats which say they do something different than they do.
Considering you can use an immediate action while dying at any time means ANY time. Hero's defiance being a strong example that further points to allowing it because frankly going to negatives is faster than the delay between casting as spell and targeting.
1. Hero's Defiance specifically calls out when it can be used.
2. The damage step is somewhat different from the target/effect step. There are many abilities that trigger when health drops below 0. There are far fewer abilities that suggest the target/effect step is somehow two separate points in time.
Just as a point. If there is a time, it is a subset of ANY time similar to how the R key is a subset of any key.
Considering you can use an immediate action while dying at any time means ANY time. Hero's defiance being a strong example that further points to allowing it because frankly going to negatives is faster than the delay between casting as spell and targeting.
Here is how I handle it: every step in resolving something is a point you can use an immediate (or readied) action but some immediate actions are only useful in certain steps.
Example (note: I might be missing a step, this is just a quick example):
Enemy is casting a spell. (first step)
You use spellcraft and identify the spell. (second step)
Enemy's spell is finished and he targets "X". (third step)
Spell effect is resolved. (fourth step)
Now, you could disrupt the spell in steps one and two but by step three it is too late.
In step three you can do something to mess with the targeting (teleport away, throw up a wall, whatever).
In step four you could do something to mitigate the effect but it is too late to avoid the spell being cast and targeted at that person.
With all that said, there are no rules covering when immediate actions can occur. It is all a judgement call. Some immediate actions are useful at certain points while others are not. Thus it is more common sense rulings than anything else.
Step three is still a time. Part of the ultimate phrase "ANY TIME" which means it's interrupt-able.
Saying once you chose a target is absurd because it's illogical and pointlessly silly.
Let's say A and B are players with E as enemies and X as empty square and we'll call it an archer for the sake of simplicity.
AXXXXEXXXXXB
Archer is looking at wizard B when he draws his arrows and EFS to save himself then the archer snaps 180 just before letting multiple arrows fly into A.
There are by the laws and rules of casting clear visual and auditory effects including effects to determine the direction of casting as wizards know to exact geometric coordinates. Spending a life of geometic fire cubing as a wizard would grant him intimate knowledge of knowing if the 3rd finger up or half up meant 3 squares or 4.
As you pointed out in 4 steps there are more steps before "The effect is resolved". At any point before "The effect is resolved" Is a valid moment to take the action. Just to put it in context you can actually FF in the square adjacent to the ground if you want and take no damage because you take fall damage when you cannot fall another square so you could cast it inches from the ground. Until you eat that falling damage you can FF. That Dispel magic is attempted on you and bam you EFS it's stopped.
I get people in this thread dislike EFS. I understand that but just trying to rule it strangely and gut a spell which has been around for a long time because you dislike how good EFS is isn't productive.
Immediate actions exist to "Counter" actions after they have been performed. To negate an action. Falling, full attacks, doesn't matter.
Quote:
Thats the crux of the matter. There's nothing to indicate that there is any time between the target being selected and the spell being in effect for a targeted spell.
A wide variety of spells explicitly describe something traveling such as fireball, cone of cold, ray spells, and so on. Spells which are blocked by line of effect can be inferred to have travel time or else could be cast through a glass window.
Feather fall is an immediate action. It interrupts falling.
Immediate actions can be used at any moment before it is too late and the effect has finished.
Until that ray hits you you can EFS.
Once dispel magic has a target you can EFS.
This isn't so much a raw question it's a "I really hate EFS so I don't want it to work that way" question because your method basically nullified a really common no questions level 1 core spell which has been adjudicated the same way since many editions ago.
In example A you are playing it correctly.
In example B you are playing it incorrectly.
Quote:
Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.
Any time means any time. If there is a moment in the sequence of events where a target has been selected that is part of "any time" because any time is tautologically any time.
Basalisk the problem with being framed is that if a paladin can prove that he still has his powers by definition he hasn't gone over the line because their god would revoke powers.
Clerics not so much but paladins must remain both lawful and good. Evading the law would revoke this status as would breaking it.
This in no way is a justified loss of class features. You didn't kill her and failing to save someone is not grounds for any cleric to lose their powers. Otherwise every cleric would lose powers every second due to someone dying somewhere they didn't save. In fact higher level clerics with fast travel methods instantly result in power loss due to failing to scry, travel, and save those in danger by said logic.
You only lose your powers if you do something consistently which violates your alignment and shifts it away, or if you violate the CoC for your god. Assuming generic good aligned deity X you pretty much lose your powers if you cull children, engage in theft, or other serious evil acts.
It's not always confirmation bias, magic, or whatever. Stats state that a small number of people will deviate 1 SD from the norm and a tiny amount 2 SD's. He just happens to be rare.
While this is true, the mistake is to assume that past results are an indicator of future random luck. It's perfectly believeable for a player to have a strong set of very lucky rolls --- but assuming no other factors e.g. dice weighting are involved this player is no more likely to continue this streak than anybody else.
The correct response is to do nothing or, at most, swap his dice.
A reasonable solution but the person I was referring to has maintained his percentage of going first wins of 55% for over 4000 professional matches of magic. It's not how he rolls dice, it's not how he flips coins, there are just a small number of really lucky people read up on Timothy Dexter. The stuff he did was outright crazy and made less than zero sense since half the time the thing he exploited hadn't happened at the time he made a terrible choice. (He sent coal to a coal mining region for god sake, they had a strike less than a week before it arrived!)
I'm not saying he is that lucky what I'm saying is that if swapping dice, using a roller, or whatever doesn't work just let it go and accept you have a prodigy.
Either every set of dice you give him are jacked/cooked, he has a secret way of rolling dice to get the result he wants, you guys have some massive confirmation bias and are ignoring his poor rolls, or this dude has magic powers.
In any case, I smell BS.
Not true. There's a magic pro who rolls on screen with thousands of people watching who according to professional stats has won 55% of his rolls/coin flips in professional play. A small number of people are just flatly lucky. Just like a small number are flatly unlucky. I know two people who no matter what dice you give them they roll sub 10 over 60% of the time, we know because we kept track of all roles for all 8 sessions in a month.
It's not always confirmation bias, magic, or whatever. Stats state that a small number of people will deviate 1 SD from the norm and a tiny amount 2 SD's. He just happens to be rare.
make all spells that are not evocations take a minimum of one full round to cast (i.e. they go off at the beginning of the next turn).
Not only will you see a LOT more direct damage spells, but huge changes in how wizards act in combat. Being only able to 5' step until the beginning of your next turn, and attracting attention during a full combat round until your spell resolves will hugely change the way casters play.
Or alternatively let it work as written realizing that wizards, clerics, and druids are straight up better than it with nothing but the core rule book.
On the Potion glutton thing, characters are already limited to extracts of a level that they can create. If that isn't limiting enough, limit it like rage. You can only double dose a total number of rounds equal to your con bonus +1 per 3 levels(of anything). After that you are "full" till the next day.
Making it half your level + Int mod (The fervor equivalent) makes it basically infinite instead of literally infinite.
If there are 5 combats a day most combats will be over in maximum 2-3 rounds with some combats ending in 1. Typically at 4th level assuming you have a +3 in your stat (because you should regardless) you'll have 5 quick casts off fervor which is 1/combat but you'll only have 6 total spells. Sure later on you spells balloon up but later on you don't get enough rounds of combat to use em all anyway.
No. It doesn't. War priest gains a power that gives it limited swift action casting and only to spells that are 1 round or lower.
An alchemist already has all spells at a standard action even if it's normally longer. Such as lesser restoration. This feat allows all extracts as swift every round. No pool or limits. So it isn't comparable.
Additionally RAW is exactly what's being argued. RAW over a single words meaning.
Just because you're on one side doesn't make it the only side.
And a barbarian allegedly has limited rage. However I've never seen a 5th or 6th level barbarian run out of rage. I can tell you safely I've never run out of fervor past 6th on any of my 5 warpriests and excluding 4th level I only run out if I run out of spells. Fervor is not a limiting mechanic.
RAW of a single word isn't even being argued. People are trying to ignore the definition of a word. The word is clearly defined, as mentioned earlier the meaning has been posted over two dozen times and attempts to refute the definition of a word in the dictionary have been preposterous to the point of a SNL skit or a political response like arguing that something you drink isn't drinkable, or that potable who's definition is drinkable doesn't include something which must be drank. It's as absurd as saying "If you move up you can do so as a swift action" but then debating UP using not the planet as the original point of reference for just that ability.
Quote:
Full Definition of potable
: suitable for drinking
potability play \ˌpō-tə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
potableness play \ˈpō-tə-bəl-nəs\ noun
See potable defined for English-language learners
See potable defined for kids
Examples of potable in a sentence
<around here, the only potable water comes from wells>
Origin of potable
Middle English, from Late Latin potabilis, from Latin potare to drink; akin to Latin bibere to drink, Greek pinein
First Known Use: 15th century
That is potable. That is the official definition of potable. There's no question or debate that is what it is defined as. It's been posted repeatedly because people keep ignoring it.
It's copyright 1995 so your dictionary might be out of date.
Thank you. I have suddenly realized the feat is well balanced thanks to your insight.
This is the rules forum. We don't argue what's balanced. We argue RAW.
By raw wizards get new spell levels at 1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17. That doesn't make the spell levels associated with those levels any less broken, but no one argues they don't get them.
Also for those who think this feat is horrifyingly OP I assume you believe the WP to also be broken beyond words since it already has this feat as a class feature starting at level 2.
Has anyone considered an alchemist with the enhance potion discovery with Potion Glutton? *this* would be a legal way to get your multiple spells off per round I think...
It's already a way to get multiple extracts a round.
You've yet to refute that extracts are potable and every argument you've made amounts to "It's op look over here!".
Here's a simple guide to if PG lets you drink as a swift.
Potable is drinkable.
Therefore if it is drinkable you can drink it as a swift.
Can you drink it?
Yes -> PG lets you do it as a swift.
No -> PG does not let you do it as a swift.
Do you drink extracts?
Yes -> It's in the description of alchemy that they must be drank to take effect.
My zen archer was the only one who saved against a teleport trap which sent the rest of the party to a dungeon and the gear to another room. We buffed before entry so I ran through the entire dungeon alone because if you are the juggernaut nothing can stop you, only slow you down.
When the only damage you take the entire time is a single magic missile spell you know you've gotten enough defense and offence to go the distance.
I mean it's fairly clear based on the full list of information provided it works as written and allows all potables (Drinkable liquids) to be consumed as a swift. An extract is a drinkable liquid and as such able to be consumed as a swift action. No other logical reasoning has been presented and 100% of other arguments are "its too strong" or "It also requires a move action" The latter of which I'm not sure of but may be correct.
Someone actually tried to argue that the extracts weren't a drinkable liquid at one point is how far gone the people are, which to me signals yes it's pretty definitively clear its over and clear.
It isn't, but the armor enhancement bonus isn't to all the armor and shields you are carrying. It's to a specific suit of armor, clothing or shield. Mage Armor is neither a suit of armor, clothing nor a shield. It's actually a spell effect which grants an armor bonus, so you can't target Mage Armor with Magic Vestments and increase it's AC. You can target some of your worn clothing, but then you have some AC from your clothing and some AC from Mage Armor. Since they are both armor bonuses, they don't stack and you take the highest.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of walking around with a +5 sword and saying that your natural attacks have a +5 bonus because the sword gives an enhancement bonus.
In no way is this true.
The bonus to attack and damage rolls is +5 from the sword to the sword. The only way this would be similar is if you had swords for arms which were +5 and a natural armor amulet in which case the enhancement wouldn't stack because its the same type of bonus, enhancement. Enhancement is a separate type of bonus on the bonus table.
Druid with wild armor doesn't apply a maximum dexterity bonus while shaped.
Monk can get magic vestment and mage armor for +9 armor while having 8-10 dex mod.
Actually, they retail all the penalties. Like Max Dex while wild shaped.
No idea what you are talking about on the magic vestment and mage armor. neither go to 9, Mage Armor is limited to 4 and Magic Vestment is 5. They don't stack so with both you have 5.
When was this errataed or faq'ed.
I ask because that is not the text of wild.
Quote:
Armor with this special ability usually appears to be made from magically hardened animal pelt. The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen.
It explicitly calls out the armor bonus and enhancement bonus but ignores mentioning the penalties. Unless this was FAQ'ed or errata'ed and the version I have is different then it does not apply anything on the armor while wild shaped except for the armor bonus and enhancement bonus (This includes things like shadow, glammered, resistances, and armor penalties.)
Read what you just quoted.
WHile in wild shape, the armor cannot be seen...but it is still there!
He gets to retain the armor bonus.
He's still WEARING THE ARMOR.
So he has to take the bad with the good. Still has the max Dex. Since he's still wearing the armor, he still has to abide by its limits.
The text of Wild shape does say the armor otherwise loses all properties, and merges with him. Merges with him would remove the Dex limits and ACP...that's not happening here. Wild makes the exception to the Wild Shape rules that he gets to keep the AC...but it no longer merges with him, so he's actually wearing the armor again, albeit invisible.
There's no conflict. YOu're...
I found the FAQ. It's interesting because it also implies you get shadow/glam/resists off the armor if it's wild. That's fine by me I did not know they had made that FAQ.
He's thinking you can cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor, and get Mage Armor +5.
Except you can't enhance a spell effect with a spell. Mage Armor is not a suit of armor, it just acts like one. YOu can't magic vestment bracers of armor, either. Providing an armor bonus and BEING a suit of armor or clothing are two very different things.
And if you could do that, why, you could enhance your shield spells, and Magic Vestment your sword for Shield of Swings so it provides more then a +2 bonus!
==Aelryinth
You are enhancing your shirt. It's literally in the magic vestments spell.
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
Uh? And you thought they stacked?
Sorry, two bonuses of the same type don't stack. Having your shirt stack with mage armor would be the same as a suit of plate stacking with mage armor.
Doesn't happen.
I thought you knew that, it's basic armor stacking rules. Hence I thought you were trying to cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor to reach +9 with no Dex top.
==Aelryinth
In what world, is an armor bonus, and an armor enhancement bonus the same thing?
He's thinking you can cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor, and get Mage Armor +5.
Except you can't enhance a spell effect with a spell. Mage Armor is not a suit of armor, it just acts like one. YOu can't magic vestment bracers of armor, either. Providing an armor bonus and BEING a suit of armor or clothing are two very different things.
And if you could do that, why, you could enhance your shield spells, and Magic Vestment your sword for Shield of Swings so it provides more then a +2 bonus!
==Aelryinth
You are enhancing your shirt. It's literally in the magic vestments spell.
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
