Ive been theorycrafting on this archtype for an AP in the future
and for PFS I think they will require it to be an elven archetype (just like Spire defender was)
I think Id have to make it an elf with the alternate racial trait for Katana(from the same book) since my GM doesn't allow Aasimars
using the glaive is cool and maybe I could go with it there is just a lot of nuances I'm having issues with particularly around slashing grace as well as the fact that its 4 freaking feats to pull it off
20 point Id probably go 14 Dex, Con, Cha, Wis so that no stats are tanked .... all of this is without racial bonuses
you'd likely have to wear light armor until Samurai 2 because of the Samurai level restriction on your cha bonus to AC (monk and Samurai AC Bonuses = 4 at this point)
Gary Bush wrote:
exactly ... tho recently I was told that rulings made by Sean K. Reynolds are no longer Valid along with several other individuals
I have yet to search for validity in that statment
also Mikes Ruling was based on the CRB Text ... not UE text
Ferious Thune wrote:
As has been pointed out this particular one is in questionI know Mike Brock Ruled there was no path ... but the description from UE changed and removed the Gold silver stuff and simply lists it as +3 chainmail
if any of them need a clarification ... its this one
Akim the Crafty wrote:
Im in this boat with 4 PC's .. and 2 of them are 14+
I have a Ninja, Monk, Ranger build that I am weighing the option Full UC Rogue or dumping the Monk and adding 4 Ninja Levels
I have a Whip Magus that Im at a loss on what to do with
I have an inquisitor of Achaekek who's story I love that I have no clue on
and finally a staff magus / Card Caster that may just end up just dropping the lore warden archtype
Celestial Armor had a rewording between CRB and Ultimate equipment that snuck through a lot of peoples windows
I brought it up in another thread
CRB PRD wrote:
PRD UE wrote:
so while I personally will still ascribe to Mike Brocks Ruling if you read the UE Version there appears to be some wiggle room ... would be nice to have a clarification on this in light of these revelations
that's my gut ... but the rules on this seem very open and with almost no forethought
also the fact that you only record the card on the Hero Chronicle ... not on the one for the specific part .. and the fact that as an AP it could be Months between Sanctioned parts of the Path ... having to wait till you apply credit to record information seems very illogical
so Im looking at this and trying to wrap my head around it
Relavent text from the Additional rules is as follows
The first time a character participates in a
so I am playing Campaign mode ... and intend to apply all chronicles to 1 PC
Part 1 is a 1-2
so my question is how does Hero of the harrow Work with Saving the Chronicle
the PC which is getting this Stack is Currently level 2 (after applying part 1) so I know that I have the 1 Harrow point
we've completed part 2 and I have recorded the Harrow points on the chronicle sheet as specified in the Rules Document but when do I have access to the Points from part 2 ... when I apply the chronicle ? or now
1st Animate dead is not Permanent its Instantaneous ... and there are some important distinctions
the Differences areInstantaneous
The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
PFS Rules that only 4 Spells can go between scenarios
hard and fast rule is ---
PFS Says that "All spells and effects end at the end of an
Animated dead "The remain animated until destroyed"
so if you take those 2 pieces ...
and it doesnt matter how .... those are the rules
and this is an excellent reason why the fact that this is taking so long is a bad thing ... the abusive Ideas and loopholes not only start to flow ... but begin being discussed in public
and as soon as these things become public it puts a sour taste in the mouths of the people whom are making the decisions
I have played a trip based magus with a whip and the supporting feats and I can tell you that once you start hitting Huge + on a regular basis ... that it breaks
Grapple will always be good because there is no size limit on grappling
Sunder builds will always be good because while yes thy focus on breaking weapons and armor ... they focus just as much if not a little more on raw damage
Disarm builds are fair ... but they fall apart if the opponents aren't wielding manufactured weapons
Dirty trick can be useful but isn't overpowered on its own as you can clear the condition with a move or a standard action depending on the feats , there's even a dedicated fighter archetype for this - Cad
I have seen the steal Maneuver do some amazing things but to say its situational is being generous
Trip, reposition, bullrush and Drag all suffer from the same issue - you cant do these if the target is more than 1 size category larger and breaking this cap is extremely difficult as there are only a handful of ways I can think of to crack the huge barrier and they consist of the following:
Ki Throw (Max Colossal at 4 ki points)
there might be a few more but when I did my research these were the only ways I found
in the end the potentially OP CM Builds are grapple and Sunder and I would even argue that grapple from a fighter is not really that OP ... Tetori monk is a different story ... but we have a fighter archetype banned ... not monk
Gregory Rebelo wrote:
Not to take away from the jist of your argument, but some things mentioned here do not originate with the campaign or the coordinators. The early access into prestige classes for example was something that originated with the design team. In the spirit of displaying a better argument for folks out there like myself could you go through those issues and separate those originating with the design team and those originating with the organised play team? Also, if I may make a petty request: could you not make video game comparisons? I feel like the tabletop industry is a very different beast from the video game industry, and when you use examples mixing the two I take your argument less seriously. And I feel like there's a point you are making there that deserves to be understood.
you actually have highlighted the argument ... the majority of things I mentioned was in fact from the design team's hands with only the delays in AR and the lack of transparency on how and why things are being done the way they are falling at PFS Coordinators feetand note I did not include the Tiefling / Aasimar thing because lets face it ... there was abuse ... and no matter how you shake that tree ... there was gonna be - when you take a product away from people the knee jerk reaction is to of course stockpile - RL instance of this is as soon as you threaten to take peoples guns away .... sporting goods stores have a run on them
and yes ... the table top industry is a VERY Different beast from the MMO Market that is true ... but the reason I used them as an example is that there are simply So many more instances of where MMO's have gone down this path to self ruination and Consumer alienation than I can come up with for table tops
Sure I suppose I could have used 4th ed. as the example that drove its player base away but debating using a vehicle I truly care nothing about (D&D 4th ed. +) ends up not conveying the same feeling and I really could care less about 4th ed or even 5th ed for that matter
Saw 80 New posts and thought we had gotten a ruling
a lot of what is being Glazed over is the track record of the design team over the last few years - and yes many of us are ignoring the fact of what they have done to add to this issue
ARG alternate racial favored class bonus Nerf
the list goes on and on .. its not just 1 thing that has undermined the credibility of the Company ... its everything .... its watching the bridge get made from lego's in Still motion photography ...
Heck I would be welling to bet Dollars to Donuts thats how the company sees it as well
Yes this is a living campaign
but really Heavy handed change one after another after another is Not the way to Keep people playing your game
all in all I think what the community is asking for is transparency and Speed ...
once you put everything onto the scale it starts weighing heavily in favor of the "Why should I bother" ... now yes MOST of that is on the pathfinder design team ....
should the Community have a say in what rules changes become legal vs not legal .... I dont know ... Implementation of such a system would be difficult to do - even the most simple one like having a yes / no / don't care straw poll added to the PFS Forums based on each book would be simply too Cumbersome to implement
last I knew if you run hero lab prints with full descriptions you could use "My downloads page" of your paizo.com account if everything was digital
but we are WAAAAAAY Off topic
so yes .. you can Weapon Spec Grapple
What Changed: Lore Warden Archetype
How much is Celestial Armor made of Steel?
wanted to save this for another thread but meh whatever
we all know Mike Brock said there is no path to upgrade to Celestial Armor back in 2012 ... which I still Ascribe to
Ultimate Equipment pg. 125 wrote:
This +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
CRB pg. 465 wrote:
This bright silver or gold +3 chainmail is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence. It has a maximum Dexterity bonus of +8, an armor check penalty of –2, and an arcane spell failure chance of 15%. It is considered light armor and allows the wearer to use fly on command (as the spell) once per day.
now while Im not saying its legit, Right or should override what Mike said in 2012 but a discussion can happen on it once again because the "Silvery Gold" description was removed
the issue the Necro is having is that "upgrading isn't the same thing as Creating or Visa Versa"
I spent several hours last night Trying to correct him that the Process of creating a Magic Item IS a series of Upgrades
Base Item is a MW <Insert Item Here> THEN you apply the enchantment
as soon as the Base Item is of a Material that the Named Item is not it is no longer an option to create
the end result was "its Too Risky to sell a GM on anyways"
I gave up
there was a silver lining to the conversation tho but thats a discussion for another thread
I agree that there seems to be incomplete information but there are defiantly some things to consider
I'm kinda surprised that they didn't go with 1st come 1st serve but like has been stated there may have been some extenuating circumstances
but on the flip side 8 players and a GM is very doable ... you break into tables of 3 and 4 with 2 GM's and a a pregen at one table - I know that when I coordinated with and ended up with 8 players and a GM this is what we did and this is something that the VC in attendance should have thought of
but on that note it is very possible that none of those players wanted to GM - or noone had anything prepped (even though there are always evergreens)
again without complete information its hard to make a judgment
Most of what I am stating is a Observation of whats going on from being in PFSOP for 5 years now
but if I had a say ... things need to be banned at onset not allowed to settle for Months (or in the case of the Ioun stone or Lore Warden years) before getting hit ... however the biggest issue is that this would hit their bottom line as PFS is one of the biggest drivers of sales - weve seen that with the recent paths of the rightous book which IIRC Very little to None of it was legal in PFS causing sales of that particular book to be less than its counterparts
the problem is that the nerfs and table variations are hurting PFS as a whole
of my group of 7 players I am now the only one that still even regards PFS as fun
DM Beckett put it perfectly with regards to his wife
we get invested in our characters and then have them nerfed out from under us
I realize that 6 players is a relatively small number of people compared to the grand scheme of things ... but look at all the contention on the forums as a whole ... this thread alone is 529 posts long ... others crack into the thousands
BNW also stated it well ... "if the day ends in a Y someone will argue about it"
there are people that I know that refuse to come onto the forums because its so toxic ... all of these things hurt the health of PFS as we know it ....
Pathfinder and Specifically PFS have always been very heavy handed when it comes to "Must buy Items"
here are a few that come from the top of my head (Pre nerf obviously)
just based on the track record Im not suprised to se this nerf
math looks right aside from the Onyx cost with reguards to desecrate .... tho there are some mechanical concerns
the amount of Onyx isn't Set by the spell its set by the HD your animating
Scrolls are always assumed to be bought at Min CL ... which you've taken into account ...
I dunno this is above my pay grade, tho Id expect a lot of GM's (if not Most) would go by the minimum's in play
also Desecrate doesn't Reduce the cost of the Onyx it only Doubles the Limit of Undead you can animate ... 20 HD still = 500gp of Onyx
Society field guide was a $20 Book - which most people have had for 3 years
I am personally against a $40 "Tax" to be able to Continue playing a character that is Legal at the time of this Posting and has been for 3 years... but Will not be legal in 1-3 Months Time and on top of that Removes the entire reason for (at least me) taking the Archtype (for me it was the Skill point bonus and not loosing the 2nd level bonus feat - I could care less about expertise)
this Marketing Strategy is getting Dangerously Close to an EA Style Cash Grab or Micro-transaction for my Liking
Notice Im not arguing the Clear Spindle ... it was a 100% Necessary Item to buy ... Im just a little annoyed that it took 7 years for the nerf hammer to come down ... that's a Relatively absurd amount of time to let something go before Nerfing it ...
Im not 100% but I think it may be the Longest period of time for an Item to be Nerfed ...
Lots of people went 2 level Dip into Lore Warden for Totally different reasons ....
TBH Im Really hoping that old style Lore wardens are grandfathered in ... the Retroactive changes because of this are gonna be steep Especially for high level PC's
Yuri Sarreth wrote:
minimum level create an Ioun Stone is CL 12
OGC because its easier to quote wrote:
caster level of Continual flame is 3 (Minimum) .. vs Dispel magic you would check vs the CL of the Spell not the Ioun stone... and dispelling the Ioun Stone would only make it stop floating for 1d4 Rounds
Michael Clarke wrote:
Michael Clarke wrote:
I would assume so but the Everburning torch is an Item in the Core book so maybe it plays differently
Michael Clarke wrote:
2. Is there any official spell level for the Continual Flame? Do you assume it is cast by a wizard, similar to potions, scrolls and wands, or do you specify when you buy it as one or the other? Does the price change if you want a higher level version?
Official level is 2 and buying a higher level is not an optionhowever IF you adventure with a PC that has the Highten Feat you can get a Higher level Version
Michael Clarke wrote:
3. Is the spell level different between the two items? Does the increased cost of the Everburning Torch indicate a higher level of spell, and therefore a higher caster level
by the way it reads its a standard Continual flame and the cost doesnt add up to higher level[3(Spell level) X 5 (Caster Level)x10] = 150
[4(Spell Level) x 7 (Caster level)x10] = 280
TBH Im not sure why an Everburning Torch is more expensive than an Ioun Torch asidse from the fact that the Ioun Torch is in Seeker of Secrets IIRC
having now run it .. these mechanics make Mass battles Look Normal
a bit upthred I asked for some assistance in interpreting the Rules - and I have to say that when noone wants to assist with these rules and instead debate the merits and flaws of adhocing the rules as they are presented .. thats sort of indicative of a REAL problem
- note Im not complaining .. after seeing this in action I wouldn't want to touch them either ... in fact I wonder who signed off on this going live .. this is hands down the worst scenario I have ever run and so bad that I would honestly suggest removing this from circulation
not only are the rules in the scenario fuzzy ...but they dont fit into the one on one Verbal duel Rules OR the Team Duel Rules
were supposed to build debate as if it were a 1 on 1 ... but PC's can be targeted ? so is this really a 1 on 1 ... or is this a 1 on 4-6 where each PC assigns their own skills to a worksheet but share a determination pool .... scenario doesn't say or even hint at an answer
this is the only scenario I have felt physically angry at prepping .. and that is not a good thing
as far as everyone not running it as written ...
so yes ... PFS does Log these Actions and keeps note of them if they catch wind about it
As Such my only statement is - Dont Do it ... but with these rules as presented and how much of a charlie foxtrot they are especially with all the changes to the base Rules ... I cannot Blame the ones who are changing things for trying to clean it up ...
its an impossible situation and your Damned if you do Damned if you dont
this is so confusing
so for Determination ...
is this for 1 PC or all PC's?
Skills - is this made for each PC or as a group ?
and what effect does the fact that they are supposed to loose have on determination