Shasthaak

Vattic's page

Organized Play Member. 15 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS


My Self wrote:
Items, not feats. Thanks for the suggestions, though.

Whoops! Sorry.


How bad would it hurt things just to let it have armor that doesn't fall off when it changes forms and just becomes one with the phantom? We are talking +16 ac from phantom levels at max + armor doesn't sound game breaking to me, especially when a 20CR red dragon hits on a 38, 38, 38, 36, 36, 36. Enchanted/Magic weapons shouldn't muss things up that badly either.


Chess Pwn wrote:
bludgeoner and sap adept and sap master

What this guy said. You can make an extremely effective strength rogue build using this feat tree. It's also nice to pepper in some other things like the Underhanded talent, Scout archetype (for generating sneak attacks) etc..


lemeres wrote:
Anyway, thinking about it, have you considered arcane armor training? It is not exactly an optimal choice (you can't use quickened spells to double dip the most versatile ability in the game... oh noez!!!111) but it could reduce your arcane spell failure by...a bit. It would work better in mythic play since the mythic version reduces it by more and takes no action.

yup, i've definitely considered it. it does seem like my best option moving forward is to simply gestalt with synthesist summoner. otherwise i would suffer a lot of spell failure chance and no one digs that. it's too bad, because the only thing that i want from that side of the gestalt is the ability to customize my own "armor" whether it's an eidolon or psionically created. the myriad of other abilities that summoner offers (although mechanically very strong) don't appeal to me very much, i felt like the aegis was much closer to the concept i was trying to go for. it's much more focused on the armor.

anyway, thanks guys! i think all of my questions were answered pretty well.


ErrantPursuit wrote:


Vattic wrote:
as far as my intentions go...

Let me stop you here for a moment. Nobody in this thread is confused about why you came here. What's getting tempers agitated is that you reply to very astute feedback as if it were an opinion or point of view.

A perfect example is this post. Prior to that point, many individuals had tried to explain with greater and lesser comprehensiveness that growing extra arms...

yes, but as you admit, there is a disconnect in the rules as written. i see no reason for tempers to get agitated here. the astute feedback that you mention is opinion masquerading as fact, after all. i'm very grateful for people taking time out of their busy day to respond, but i'm interested in their arguments, not their dogma. people were just saying "no" without getting into their reasoning other than (and forgive me for summarizing) "well if it's not specifically called out or addressed then it can't happen." i'm sorry, but to me that's unsatisfactory.

can you imagine what a life unexamined would look like?

well, gee, my medical textbook doesn't discuss this particular interaction of chemicals in the brain so i guess i'll just stop trying to find underlying causes of depression, ptsd, addiction, etc..

this map doesn't mention or show any islands off the coast, so i guess they don't exist.. etc.. etc..

i think any fan of gaming needs a certain degree of flexibility where rules are concerned. in cases like these where i have questions i like to hear what other people think so i can judge if i'm being to loose with the rules or not.

and for some reason you and a few others deliberately choose to put on airs and get hostile because you assume incorrectly that i'm the type of player who wants what they want and is trying to force others to agree with them. Well, i'm not, and you are, quite frankly, over reacting and jumping at shadows.

it's silly and not necessary. if you are going to continue with this distracting style of posting, i politely submit that you don't need to bother.


lemeres wrote:
Well, I think you are a bad forum goer to be asking rules questions in the advice board (those are separate).

i'm looking for advice on some rules questions that i had :p

seriously though, what is advice meant for? relationship issues? legal matters? maybe i should ask for the thread to be moved in that case.


lemeres wrote:

So unless you just have an itch to deal with all those points and such found with psionics, is there a particular reason to not go with the synthesist?

i honestly just like the fluff better :)


i'm not exactly sure why i'm being described as petulant for asking people for rules clarifications and opinions on such, but so be it. at this point i'm reasonably certain that RAW doesn't address these issues 100% so that's why i'm turning to the community for well thought out arguments, for and against.

some people seem to assume that i am a bad player for seeking rules clarifications in order to make optimal decisions about classes and so forth, but with all due respect, you folks don't know me, the GM or my game so i would appreciate keeping the sniping and character assassination to a minimum.

i thank all of those who took the time to post, to those copping an attitude, that's great, have fun, not sure why you are choosing to be this way but that's on you.

to ErrantPursuit, i am listening to you, thanks for your comments. i think you make an interesting argument. i think that we can both agree that there is a strange no-man's land area between armors in PF and their spell failure chance compared to their interaction with the text about somatic components. the language is unclear, and like you, i support the premise that casters shouldn't have all of the awesome spellcasting + amazing ac on top of it right out of the box. but since i'm contemplating a gestalt class, considerations must be altered somewhat, right? the point is to shore up weaknesses, build on strengths, etc.

as far as my intentions go i've been very forthright that i am planning on playing a gestalt character and that i'm comparing the benefit of rolling either a synthesist (pathfinder specific) or an aegis on one side, wizard on the other. if one class limits spell casting through arcane spell failure chance and the other does not, then that's a pretty strong argument for not taking that class, is it not?

the silliness that i was referring to stems from the fact that synthesist is, in my humble opinion, a far better mechanical choice because you are getting all sorts of things in addition to an increased armor class (extra hp, summon monster as a sla, and replaced ability scores for starters). in light of this, making the aegis weaker by invoking spell failure seems a bit silly to me.


EvilPaladin wrote:
Does the aegis's "armour" have a listed Arcane Spell Failure chance?

not really, no. this is the section that mentions specifics on astral suits. i admit, i might be too dense to see the info right in front of my face, this is why i turn to you fine folks!


so it sounds like everyone is cool with a synthesist boosting their NA through the roof and not incurring spell failure (never mind size increases etc..) but is against the aegis psionically creating "armor" and being able to cast?


Zhayne wrote:

That's not how it works in PF rules.

Unless an exception is explicitly called out, it operates by standard procedure.

Nowhere in the rules does it say multiple arms can bypass ASF, so they do not.

If your group wants to houserule, knock yourself out, of course.

fair enough. good to know your stance. i'm wondering though, because technically the synthesist IS NOT WEARING ARMOR but the aegis is, though it happens to be psionic. so the solution would seem to be go synthesist because the rules are silly.


oh, and for those unfamiliar with the aegis, he creates the armor he wears psionically, not sure how much that bears on the discussion, but i thought i'd point it out for those not in the know.

in fact, here's some links:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/aegis

and

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner/archetypes/paizo---su mmoner-archetypes/synthesist


crystal clear, yes, but they do not address other possibilities. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. they do say literally that armor inhibits the somatic gestures. but.. as thinking rational creatures, we can imagine situations where one can use magic to create arms unburdened by armor. you mention instances where the rules are bent and i would argue that the specific incidence i have mentioned has not been adequately addressed.

To Are's point: the arms would be psionic or just plain super natural in nature (based on whether or not i went aegis or synthesist) thus they could grow out of the base form of whatever i could imagine. they wouldn't necessarily have to be armored in and of themselves. both of those classes can increase ac by simply spending customization points (or evolution points) and using whatever fluff floats your boat.


Sorry, I should have clarified. I'm looking into playing a gestalt game. I would go wizard on one side, and either Aegis or Synthesist summoner on the other.

I understand that your take on the question is that the weight on the body prevents the somatic gestures from taking place hence the spell failure chance, but if I could respectfully direct your attention to this bit of text:

"Armor interferes with the gestures that a spellcaster must make to cast an arcane spell that has a somatic component."

So.. I'm wearing armor, but on top of that the Aegis grows two additional arms to cast using customization points, or the summoner grows two with evolution points, and it would seem to circumvent that little bit of Raw, right?

The text doesn't mention anything about the weight or whatever, just that it interferes with "gestures." So to me, that suggests that arms unburdened with armor and free to gesture should be able to negate spell failure chances regardless of the body being covered with armor.

I understand this is definitely a GM call, and YMMV etc.. etc.., I guess I'm just looking for well reasoned Raw based arguments for and against.

Thanks for responding man!


So, serious question. The rules for arcane spell failure while wearing armor are quite clear, but they assume that you are a humanoid with no more than two arms capable of somatic gesturing. But what if you are a psionic character, perhaps an Aegis, or a synthesist summoner, capable of generating additional limbs at will? Can't you simply designate a set of arms for spell casting and be done with it? I've been looking for clarification for a bit, and if anyone knows if this issue has been addressed anywhere I'd be infinitely grateful!

Thanks!
Vattic