UnitedWeStand's page

No.

HeroLab is not a rules source.

HeroLab bugs do not constitute a rules change.

Never said it did which is why I said it seemed odd to me. Just wanted additional opinions. Thanks for yours.

I noticed Hero Lab was doing something odd with my multi-classed Ninja/Slayer and it made me curious about some things. What Hero Lab was doing was adding my two classes together to determine if I qualified for Advanced Rogue Tricks so my Ninja 8/Slayer 2 qualified for advanced talents. This seemed...incorrect to me but it also makes a small modicum of sense since they both come from the Rogue base class one being an alternate and the other being a hybrid.

So, my question is this: do you add the classes together to qualify for level 10 abilities or not?

Necro because there's still no answer to this as far as I can tell.

I don't see anything in the rules that would prevent an undead creature from healing on the positive energy plane. It says it grants fast healing 5, not that it causes positive energy damage (and heals living creatures). And since the end result is a Fort save that doesn't affect objects, undead could stay there forever and get infinite HP.

And that was unrelated to what I was actually looking for, which was anywhere in the rules where it says that positive energy always heals humanoids, living creatures, anything. I can't find that line on the PRD, please let me know if you know where it says positive energy always heals.

As far as I'm aware no where says positive energy always heals but that was never my argument. My argument was that positive energy can't harm living just like negative can't harm undead.

Perhaps immune was the wrong word. However, positive energy used to harm only damages the non-living while negative energy used to harm only harms the living. At least that's the typical reaction. From what I understand the positive energy plane causes living creatures to become "overhealed" and once they reach a certain point they explode. That's not exactly the same thing as being damaged by positive energy.

But it says damage. Thus it is damage.

All living creatures are by default immune to positive energy damage. Otherwise when a cleric channeled to harm all living creatures within the area would take damage like undead which is obviously wrong.

So I have a player using the Inquisitor archetype "Kinslayer" which gives him a brand ability

Slayer's Brand (Su): When using this judgment, the kinslayer gains the ability to brand undead creatures with positive energy. To do so, she must make a successful melee touch attack against the undead creature. This attack deals an amount of positive energy damage equal to 1d6 + the kinslayer's Charisma score, and burns her personal symbol into the undead creature's flesh, bone, or even its incorporeal form. From that point onward, the kinslayer can sense the existence of the branded creature as if it were the target of a locate creature spell (caster level equal to 1/2 the kinslayer's inquisitor level). A slayer's brand lasts until the undead creature is destroyed or until the kinslayer uses this ability on another creature.

and also for a Greater Brand he picked up Holy Brand

Holy Brand: The kinslayer can use her brand on creatures with the evil subtype as well as undead.

Now, he tried to use this on an evil-subtype creature and say that it dealt damage to the creature. No where do I see that the Holy Brand changes the damage type from Positive Energy, so I have to assume that even though he can "brand" evil creatures, the damage does not apply.

Am I reading that correctly or am I missing something?

18-20 no, you're right about that. Double bladed sword has 19-20 but that's the closest

You are missing something in terms of Improved Balance vs Perfect Balance.

Note the wording on Improved Balance; it says "Alternatively". This means Improved Balance has two possible scenarios, of which only one apply depending on what your off-hand is wielding:
A) Wield light weapon in off-hand at -1 penalty.
B) Wield one-handed weapon in off-hand at -2 penalty (the normal penalty for light off-hand).

By contrast, there is no Alternatively in Perfect Balance, there is only one scenario:
A) Wield light or one-handed weapon in off-hand at 0 penalty.

What makes you believe he gets 0 penalty? Perfect Balance says specifically you use "normal light weapon penalties" which implies the typical -2/-2 modifier, the same that Improved Balance provides. Perhaps it's simply worded strangely?

Well there is a bit of a trade off. Since he can wield two one handed weapons at low penalty he can do something like wield two scimitars. Two good high crit range weapons. And since he can wield the same weapon in both hands instead of needing to use a dagger or a kukri or something all of his weapon focus and weapon specializations apply to both weapons. That +4 on two attacks easily equates to the same thing as weapon training and a single attack. Plus now you can two weapon rend on standard attacks which makes your standard attacks match a two handers attack easily.

A typical fighter could also just wield a double weapon which would allow all his weapon focuses and what not to apply to both attacks.

Not really sure if this is the correct forum to post this in but we shall see.

Anyways, I've been trying and trying to figure out a way that the Two-Weapon Warrior archetype makes more sense for an actual dual wielding fighter than the base fighter class but I'm having so much trouble due to the lack of synergy between the archetype's skills.

For example,

Twin Blades

At 5th level, a two-weapon warrior gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a full-attack with two weapons or a double weapon. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels after 5th.

This ability replaces Weapon Training 1.

The archetype replaces the default fighter's weapon training with this piece of crap that requires you to full-attack to get the bonuses. "But they get more abilities for each level of weapon training like Double Strike and Equal Opportunity!"

Wonderful! NONE OF THEM WORK with Twin Blades. So in addition to removing the default fighter's bonuses from his REGULAR attacks and his attacks of opportunity, you don't even get your bonus on your special, archetype abilities.

In addition to that, take a look at Improved/Perfect balance.

Improved Balance (Ex)

At 11th level, the attack penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced by –1 for a two-weapon warrior. Alternatively, he may use a one-handed weapon in his off-hand, treating it as if it were a light weapon with the normal light weapon penalties.

This ability replaces Armor Training 3

Perfect Balance (Ex)

At 15th level, the penalties for fighting with two weapons are reduced by an additional –1 for a two-weapon warrior. This benefit stacks with improved balance. If he is using a one-handed weapon in his off hand, treating it as a light weapon, he uses the normal light weapon penalties.

This ability replaces Armor Training 4

The way it is written if a Two-weapon warrior is using a one-handed weapon in his offhand, Perfect Balance GIVES NO BENEFIT whatsoever (unless I'm not understanding something here). Considering how long this archetype has been around without any changes I may be missing something in the actual use of this archetype but from where I'm standing it seems...lacking at best. Does anyone see something I'm missing?

Unfortunately as far as I'm aware "Sleight of Hand" doesn't help with sneak attacks. Feint does, but feint is limited to melee attacks only and Deadly Dealer is ranged :(

UnitedWeStand wrote:

Dotting for interest. Considering a rogue with Deadly Dealer. I'm trying to decide if that would allow me to treat my decks as "concealed weapons" xD

As long you can make your slight of hand for concealment, sure. Getting them out during combat may be an issue however!

See, that's what I was trying to avoid. A "deck of cards" isn't usually considered a weapon. So would I even have to bother attempting to hide them? xD

Dotting for interest. Considering a rogue with Deadly Dealer. I'm trying to decide if that would allow me to treat my decks as "concealed weapons" xD

Considering a Human Samurai. Would that be acceptable?

dotting for interest. Are Samurais allowed? I know some DMs aren't a fan of the alternate classes xD

-snip-

EDIT: @Sevence - Although totally except able a paladin's code of horn might make it hard to fit into a group who has to follow orders regardless of there personal thoughts. Feel free to give it a shot though, ill just want a good reason as to why his faith has brought him here.

Yeah that's why I made my samurai submission a Ronin. I get to chose my own code/edicts xD

Introducing the hard-hitting samurai Felix:

How should HP rolls be handled?

True random?
Minimum Half?
All average?

etc.

Question: I'm attempting to build a samuri but an issue I've run into before is Samuris get a free mount but a lot of Campaigns or DMs say "Sorry, you're mount can't enter X dungeon" and so he loses some of his bonuses. Obviously I can take an archetype and I'm cool with that I'm just curious to if that's needed or not.

Very much interested. Dotting for interest.

Zanac wrote:

I do have a question though, what's your opinion on the third party feat "Melee Archer?" Yes/no/probationary? If it's allowed I might pick that up :)

Lean against. Sneak attack is balanced against it being challenging to set up, this feat makes flanking VERY easy. You'll have to have a pretty compelling (in character) reason that this feat is essential to shift my opinion in the other direction.

The only reason I was considering it was because zanac's main weapon is going to be a shiriken. Shirikens by themselves don't deal terribly much damage and you have to be really close in order to use them so the 10 foot sneak attacks are only there to prevent being aoo'd with my main weapon of choice. My target still only has to 5 foot step to swing and hit me so it's not like I'm sniping from across the room xD. But I'm cool without it'd just be awesome to have lol

Alright thanks guys :)

The final paragraph of the "Deadly Dealer" feat reads:

A spellcaster with this feat can enhance a deck of cards as though it were a ranged weapon with 54 pieces of ammunition. This enhancement functions only when used in tandem with this feat, and has no affect on any other way the cards might be used. Only a character who possesses this feat can make use of an enhanced deck of cards, and must still use the Arcane Strike feat to activate the cards’ enhancement.

When I first looked at the feat it seemed to me that in order to use this feat one would have to pay for the enhancements as if the cards were ammunition. However upon reading that paragraph I'm not quite as convinced.

So my question is this: does this feat allow us to treat a deck as a weapon for which we simply have to buy more ammunition for in order for the enhancements to stay with us or do we have to spend gold on enhancing the cards as if they were ammunition?

aw...fair point. forgot to take that into account :/

So I recently acquired a spell storing set of full-plate for my paladin and so I've been considering multiple choices for what types of spells to put in the armor. The fact that the stored spell only targets the person who hits you limits the options to mostly offensive spells, which the paladin is sorely lacking in as his spells are mostly oriented towards himself.

Thus you usually need someone else to store the spell for you, except in a few instances. Now, currently my paladin claimed the Oath against Fiends which, at 4th level casting, gives him Plane Shift. So my question is this: Can I store Plane Shift in my armor and use it to shoot some other creature into another plane? From everything I'm reading I can but that just seems too...trollzy to be fair XD

You sir have piqued my interest. character incoming

Can we add points to a low RP character? Sometimes if you're playing, say, a sylph, who only has 6 RP the GMs will allow you to take alternate traits up to a certain value. For example add "Like the Wind" without taking away the trait it replaces, that sorta stuff. Brings lower RP races up a bit.

I'm perfectly fine NOT doing that I was just curious if it would be considered

tagged for interest if you need another :)

Hrm...I like the plan. Western makes me think of gambling and there's a character concept I've been trying to get off the ground.

Race: Human
Class: Magus(Myrmidarch)

Background: Grew up on the street and developed a history of gambling, using various magic tricks to ensure he always got a favorable outcome. Used proceeds to help family/friends/others who needed it. Got caught stacking the deck one too many times and had to fight his way out. Throws card's as his main weapon (look at Deadly Dealer feat if you're wondering how lol).

Personality: Alignment is Chaotic Good. Obviously he's not afraid of skimping the rules now and then if it serves his purpose and helps out someone who needs it. A bit of a flirt but never seems to do it very well.

Interested. Thinking Magus...we'll see

I might possibly be blind but I don't see it mentioned what the starting level is. I assume it's level 1?

I believe we were actually talking about this the other day lol.

The thing is I'm not sure you can use spellcombat with ranged weapons such as a bow since two-weapon fighting is not allowed to be used with a bow or any other two handed weapon.

Thus I interpreted it as the only way to use spell combat with ranged spellstrike is with throwing weapons. Throwing weapons are specifically mentioned as being allowed to be used with two-weapon fighting (one throwing weapon in each hand) and thus, to me, should be allowed to be used in conjunction with ranged spellstrike since spell combat says it functions similar to two-weapon fighting.

I'm pretty sure the intent of Myrmidarch is to make a magus that is more of a fighter who casts then a caster who fights.

Not sure "fighter" is the term I'd use. The Myrmidarch seems to push the Magus into a more ranged combat role than a frontline fighter. Although in my specific case he's gonna be a dart throwing caster so the range is still gonna be short but...meh that's the fun part XD

LoneKnave wrote:

Cyrad, that can't be right. Ranged spellstrike has it in it's description that spells with multiple rays need multiple attacks; which you can't do since you can't full attack because you can't spell combat!

So the intent was to give him the ability to do that at least. Probably. Maybe.

Oh, yeah, that's quite right! I think the intent was that ranged spellstrike allowed you to full attack as part of the spellcasting action. I think this deserves its own thread to FAQ it.

The issue I see with the level 11 part of this ability is that it specifically mentions using a "full-attack" action. However, Spell Combat is clearly labeled as as "full-round" action and not a "full-attack" action and I keep having people remind me that those two things aren't exactly the same...

@ UWS: no, spell combat specifies you need one hand free "while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand". No exceptions for ranged attacks, unless you're throwing daggers (which count as both, i think?). But I still think you dont "maintain" a chrge for a ranged touch attack, since you've "sent it out" in a way. Maybe it's like the fact that after you've thrown an encahnted arrow, even if it misses, it looses it's enchantment? This isnt exactly something I'M 100% clear on.

Neither am I, hence the question XD lol.

But I believe this is what allows ranged spellstrike to work(taken from the rules on two weapon fighting):

Thrown Weapons

The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapons when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.

Thus, you can use spell-combat with "light weapons" which include darts and shurikens in reference to two weapon fighting. Yes I know spell combat specifically mentions "melee" weapons but I believe the intent of Ranged Spellstrike is to allow use of spellcombat with it. i.e. it needs an errata or FAQ as you suggested XD lol

The ability to hold a charge as far as I know is unconnnected to holding a charge. If the question is can I hold a charged on a ranged touch spell the answer is no.

Hrm...that's not quite what I'm asking but I think I've gathered enough pieces of the puzzle to figure it out.

Ignoring ranged spellstrike, a ranged touch spell is a hit or miss with no holding, as opposed to a melee touch spell, correct? Thus ranged spellstrike would have to work the same way.

Bleh. Lame. Ah well.

Reach Spell (Metamagic)

Your spells go farther than normal.

Benefit: You can alter a spell with a range of touch, close, or medium to increase its range to a higher range category, using the following order: touch, close, medium, and long.

Level Increase: Special. A reach spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell’s actual level for each increase in range category. For example, a spell with a range of touch increased to long range uses up a spell slot three levels higher.

Spells modified by this feat that require melee touch attacks instead require ranged touch attacks.

I believe the bolded part allows shocking grasp to be treated as a ranged touch attack.

However that's not quite my question. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Lets try it this way:

You cast Acid Splash, ranged touch attack with only a single charge. Using Ranged Spellstrike grants you one free ranged attack via the casting of Acid Splash that you can transmit through a ranged attack along with a normal attack.

Now under regular spell-strike you can miss with the free attack granted by the touch attack and then hit with the normal attack to discharge the spell. So my question is does the same work with ranged spell strike?

Situation would be this:
Cast Acid Splash (Ranged Touch Attack) with Ranged Spellstrike

Ranged Spellstrike allows you one free attack with a ranged weapon augmented by Acid Splash=>Miss first attack

Use normal attack with another ranged attack=>Hit. Since Acid Splash was never discharged can you apply it to the second hit?

Edit: Whoops I think I figured out the confusion. Most ranged weapons require two hands, thus no spellcombat. However, thrown weapons such as darts apply to ranged spell strike and only take one hand, thus can be used with spellcombat which is what I'm doing here.

Aw...no one has opinions? Or answers? Answers would be good XD

I am currently rolling out a lvl 6 Myrmadarch Magus who specializes in landing spells via throwing cards. Will submit character once I have him established on this site.

At 4th level, a myrmidarch can use spellstrike to cast a single-target touch attack ranged spell and deliver it through a ranged weapon attack. Even if the spell can normally affect multiple targets, only a single missile, ray, or effect accompanies the attack. At 11th level, a myrmidarch using a multiple-target spell with this ability may deliver one ray or line of effect with each attack when using a full-attack action, up to the maximum allowed by the spell (in the case of ray effects). Any effects not used in the round the spell is cast are lost.

So I have a question about the above. When one uses "normal" spellstrike one can miss with an attack while holding a charge and hold it indefinitely.

In the Ranged Spellstrike ability the phrase "Any effects not used in the round the spell is cast are lost." I'm assuming prevents me from holding charges between rounds. So like say I had 3 charges of Chill Touch and could only attack twice in the round I cast it, I'd lose the third charge, right?

If that's the case it sucks, but I can deal with it. However there's another situation that isn't quite so clearly labeled to me. Say you cast Shocking Grasp with metamagic Reach (or simply Snowball if you'd prefer since it has to be a ranged touch). You only get one charge of it but the damage goes up based on caster level. The way the ability is phrased sounds to me like you put the charge into the ranged weapon which then transfers into the projectile. That's well and good if you're using a bow of some sort...but say you were using a throwing weapon?

If I'm reading this right you imbue the charge into the thrown weapon (shuriken, dagger, whatever) and then throw it. So my question is this: What happens to the charge if you miss? If the ranged weapon clatters to the floor does it discharge the spell and it's just wasted? Or do you get to hold on to the charge until you make a successful connection assuming you make one that round via multiple attacks?

I hope it's the latter but the former does make sense in some respects XD

I'll hop in if I can get some background on where things are at.

It's been years since I last read the Shannara series but I'd be more than interested in joining if there is still a slot.

What you're referring to is not an officially sanctioned pregenerated character. We do not currently have one for Alahazra, though when we do, she will receive cure light wounds as a 1st-level spell as normal. The complete set of official pregenerated characters can be downloaded for free on the Player Resources page in the Pathfinder Society section of the site.

I'll also note that the page you linked to lists this statblock as appearing in the Pathfinder NPC Codex, which is untrue. For proper OGL section 15 attribution, it should refer to the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Player's Guide. I don't see a link on that page to flag the content as being improperly attributed, however.

Fair enough. One of my friends was going to be using the pregenned Oracle because I told him he could but when I started going over it I realized things looked...strange.

So thanks I'll work around it :)

durp. Wrong forum then. But they are backwards then as i thought.

So I was scrolling through some of the iconic characters and I realized the level 1 Iconic Oracle gets Cure Light Wounds as an "At will" spell for level 0 spells.

How is that possible considering CLW is a lvl 1 spell? Am I missing something in her description?

For reference here is what I'm looking at:
Iconic Oracle

Guide to Organized Play pg 20 wrote:

One Character at a Time

You may only play one character during a specific scenario session. You may have more than one active character in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, but playing more than one during a specific session is considered cheating. GMs are allowed to play one pregenerated character during a session, but only to make a legal table.

Ahha! I am officially blind. Thank you, kind sir. That works out well enough for me.

So I know back in the old days when my group of gamers was fluctuating a bit I (as the GM) would run a PC of my own to help round out the party whenever it was needed. It was fun but also...difficult at times especially when I ended up killing my own character but hey that's simply being fair.

So my question is this, in PFS is there a rule preventing GMs from running their own characters through a game? I'm assuming there is but I was unable to find any direct reference to this in the manual (wouldn't be the first time I missed something though). Obviously there would be an issue of playing fair but whenever that comes into question I tend to use dice to roll to decide who my monsters attack instead of me personally picking them.