Wolfenix's page

Loreguard wrote:

Based on what I read, they don't seem to be really wanting it to be more powerful. They are trying to use the same number of boosts, same number of non-lore skills. It was inflating the number of lore skills, but I think those are 'generally' considered weaker skills, although not necessarily always the case. In any case, I think they weren't trying to make it more powerful, just more varied.

They wanted their process and character sheet to reflect they were born into a farming family, who dreamed of becoming a pathfinder (hopeful), that ran away to travel with a circus that was headed to the Absalom.

Technically, a character with this story, with rules as is picks one of the three aspects of their background story as being the 'most important' aspect of their background, and the others mechanically vanish, although may still be part of the story.

The proposal was to make these choices have mechanical meaning without substantially bloating the attributes, normal skills or feats. [the proposal would add 2 lore skills, if I understood correctly, however]

I think I remember someone else recommending splitting the backgrounds in two, picking one of the choice attribute boosts from each backgroud, choosing the feat from one of the backgrounds, and choose a lore skill from two. (I think it was brought up during the playtest, so I don't think they had the training choice in them there, but presumably, it would be a choose one from the two backgrounds) It gave the same number of items, but pulled parts out of two backgrounds, to give someone the feeling that they were pulling from more than one aspect of their past.

Traits used to be a way to provide multiple ways to pull in their past, but I supposed for some it appeared to just be used for mechanical benefit rather than roleplaying purposes. Backgrounds are actually mechanically more significant, but provide only a single 'item/background', rather than being able to potentially tie in two different aspects in a

...

I honestly think your intent is easy to understand and makes total sense. Nice job. If I may take a stab at it, I have some suggestions. Proposal:

Starting with a pool of 6 boosts, each of these costs 2 boosts:

"Primary" Background = Main boost + Free Boost, All skills and Feats
"Secondary" Background = Main ability boost, All skills and Feats
"Tertiary" Background = Main ability boost, Lore skill and any Feats

So, taking all three options reduces your overall stats by two boosts, representing the sacrifice in focus within their lifestyle in exchange for a more varied skillset, life experience, and discovered feats.

Balanced?

Considering gunslingers typically get a superior weapon from the start, would it be at all appropriate for me to request a better than typical starting crossbow? Perhaps a masterwork repeating crossbow?

Also, on a side note, what kind of crossbows do you consider the best? Repeating is obviously better than standard, but what about heavy vs light vs double?

So the "Bolt Ace" gunslinger variant has what I would call a thematic problem in that it doesn't explicitly replace the base gunslinger gun proficiency with all guns, the "gunsmithing" feat, nor the "heirloom gun" class features. What gives?

I am using the bolt ace variant gunslinger in a game without any guns. Any advice for replacements of those class features listed above, since paizo clearly goofed on the purpose of being a bolt ace in the first place? :P

I'm thinking of starting with a masterwork crossbow, proficiency with all crossbows, and perhaps a special crossbow-only crafting feat(with +2 to craft perhaps since it's limited)?

There is a math involved in the weapon size charts. I forget exactly how it works, but yes, you can continue increasing it.

Yes.

It means you get 3 more each day, and the cap is increased by 3. It follows the same line as feats like "extra grit" and "extra panache."

Although, personally, I would likely nerf the feat down to 2 more points to bring it in line with the other feats.

(Note: your title says it's an exploit, but is actually a feat, and it's called "Extra Reservoir")

First things first:

"The tumor has all the abilities of the animal it resembles and familiar abilities based on the alchemist’s caster level..." (UM)

So I'm starting a game with an Investigator(ACG) and 2 levels of alchemist for the purpose of having a tumor familiar while not sacrificing any spell(extract) progression. The thing is, since the alchemist class was the ONLY "alchemy" using class at the time of UM release there is no specific writing stating that an Investigator's alchemy levels stacks with that of an alchemist for certain things. In this case, I think alchemy levels should stack for the purpose of tumor familiar levels and abilities.

Personally, I consider anything in the alchemist class that refers to "alchemist class as caster level..." should also transfer to investigator seeing as the class uses the exact same type of magic.

Thoughts/opinions?

Slashing Grace

Prerequisite(s): Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler's or a duelist's precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon's damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

The description is fine as is, considering "weapon finesse" requires a "light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain...", this seems like a very odd feat.

Unless you SPECIFICALLY only use this feat for a slashing light weapon or the curve blade you either get to use weapon finesse, or slashing grace exclusively.

For example:

Longsword uses STR for hit, but DEX for damage

OR

Rapier uses DEX for hit, but doesn't qualify for the feat because it's already piercing (wha...?)

It just seems very counter-intuitive to me.

in strict rules, they are right.

In regards to powerful build, though, I would GM rule that assuming appropriate size(large) if the weapon equals or exceeds the length of a long spear then it gets reach. Anything else simply makes no sense.

I would also rule an extra 5 ft for a large long spear.

You don't have line of effect, so this doesn't work.

If there are holes (say, 4-5 inches wide) does that not give me line of effect? Maybe not for a fireball, but for many other spells (ranged buff/debuff type stuff) it seems enough. Also, I'm thinking more for buffing the actual eidolon via touch spells and using bond senses to not metagame. :P

If you cast something or do something that breaks invisibility while in the backpack, it breaks it for both of you."

I agree, but I was asking for a more nefarious purpose than simply hanging out. Lets say I'm in the backpack of an invisible rogue. I hold my action to cast invisibility on him(from inside the backpack) at the moment he backstabs someone. Does he not turn visible for a split second, then via my turn go invisible again in time to simply walk away without provoking?

For the box... I'm not sure; probably have concealment both ways, or the box might interfere with somatic components of your spells. Also, expect to have enemies come smash the box up.

It would likely be a metal box, and I could either cast reduce person on myself to make more room or simply use a metamagic rod still spells.

I believe the point of the question is about a full round of attacks using quickdraw.

The answer is yes. If you ignore that he's holding 2 weapons in one had for a split second it makes more sense. Assuming a BAB of +6/1 he hits with main hand, sheaths main hand, draws a knife and throws it, draws main hand, attacks with off hand.

As long as there are only 2 iterative attacks plus one more for 2-weapon fighting you may sheath and draw as many times as you want because free actions are free.

Lets pretend I have a gnome witch with a tiny sized familiar in my backpack and I cast invisibility on myself. Familiar is invisible too, right?

Also if I cast reduce person on myself in the same situation, the familiar is equally reduced in size until it leaves the bag, right?

Well... what if I have my familiar in the gnome's backpack and cast reduce person, climb into my medium sized summoner friend's backpack who casts enlarge person on his large sized humanoid eidolon, then climbs into ITS backpack... and casts invisibility on the eidolon?

Bonus questions! If I have a large sized quadruped creature(I'm thinking eidolon for buffing purposes, but can be any) and I strap a small specially designed sized box to it's back with a chair and small holes for vision can I cast spells with full concealment? What if I forego the holes entirely and rely on the "bond senses" summoner ability?

What if I take a huge sized winged eidolon and I put a seat/strap system on it's back and use it like an airship?