bycot's page

Ezekiel Brimstone wrote:

I will be slotting 3 points into Spells.

Just to be clear: That isn't "slotting", it is a one time choice you have to make, and is permanent.

Sorry, I knew that, just tripped on my phrasing.

Okay that's a start, it's a class,and the necromancer archetype does sound interesting.

It is a studied summoner, how does studying improve its summoning? Does it learn how to apply new templates? Does it learn how to summon specific individuals for a pseudo-consort relationship? Learn how to add new monsters to the available summon monster lists?

Now maybe for other people saying "this is a scholarly summoner" does it for them, but for me that's like describing the ranger class as an "outdoors person."

To me that doesn't sell ranger, but a "combat oriented class that can track and enjoy an animal companion while specializing in a form of combat and limited nature based spellcasting," that sells ranger.

Necromancer Archetype will be released at a later date. I'll look into possibly doing a more detailed summary. The summary we produced was based off of class/archetype summary samples from other third party publishers.

The basics of the class are as follows

1: Intelligence is used as the primary casting stat.
2: The class uses a spellbook for preparation casting rather than spontaneous casting.
3: Gain access to new templates for Summoned creatures.
4: Gain the ability to summon creatures with specific spells cast on them ahead of time from your prepared spell list.
5: Gain access to additional spells not normally available to summoners.

So would anyone who's bought this one feel up to providing at least a mini-review?

The concept is interesting, but the description doesn't even make it clear if this is a base class or a summoner archetype.

I'll update the description. In function it's a base class and not an archetype. There were a few reasons for that, largely because of how much we stripped away, gave the class a spell book, and swapped the casting stat, it became impractical to think of it as an archetype due to such large changes. For all these reasons it was much easier for us to program the herolab files as a class all its own rather than an archetype.

The other reason we wanted to go with a class rather than an archetype was because in the future we want to build archetypes off of this class. For instance we're working on a Necromancer version of this class that would swap out the standard templates for Undead templates instead.

I'd like to add to it that I feel this needs clarification. I played Part 1 of the module last night, and the GM ruled that it didn't add to the Splash damage. I asked the Reddit Discord feedback group to add it to the list of rules needing clarification, and they refused stating that "the rule is not unclear in the least. If it's an alchemical item or spell that does fire damage, you add to it. There's nothing in there explicitly prohibiting it adding to splash damage, nor is there a rule in splash damage making it exempt from added bonus damage like this feat."
Regardless of how "not unclear" people think the feat is, it needs clarification because we're seeing inconsistent rulings.

They're interested in archetypes for CORE CLASSES in 2nd Edition (same as 1st Edition + Alchemist)

They can't work on archetypes for classes that don't yet exist in 2nd Edition.

I understand that, but I included those archetypes because they can be readjusted for other classes like the Cleric or Monk.

Alchemist: Preservationist
Letting Alchemists do summons in combat really changes up their combat options and gives a great "pokemon" feel to the class.

Inquisitor: Monster Tactician
I consider this a better version of the Summoner because this archetype is actually designed to "summon" rather than just be a glorified pet class.

Bard: Arcane Healer
Gives a fairly decent arcane option for a healer. Not the best archetype, but I like the idea and it could be expanded/improved.

Warpriest: Sacred Fist
I absolutely LOVE how this archetype works. Best of the cleric, best of the monk, and everything just works so well together without being overpowered. This is really a great archetype and it'd be a shame to lose it in the change over to 2E.

Summoner: Studied Summoner
Okay, this is a shameless plug for my own Archetype for the Summoner. Basically I've always loved the "concept" of the Summoner but hated it's implementation. A classing about Summoning that, if played correctly, doesn't actually Summon much. A Spell-Like Ability that, again if played correctly, can't actually be used. Hence why I designed the Studied Summoner. It patches the more annoying features of summoning while introducing new options for it that makes the option of summoning more 'tactical.'

@VanceMadrox If you already have a discord server up and running, you can send out invite links to people through Private messaging and we can start discussing campaign details.

I also work at home and I'd be done for some activity during the work day. Like dwilhelmi said, things might kick up in activity that might limit posting some days, but otherwise I'd be able to participate fairly well.

Also, I second the idea of using discord in conjunction of some other program.

LF PBP game. I'm developing a custom class/archetype called the Studied Summoner. It changes the summoner class by dumping the Eidolon in favor of focusing on the SLA Summons. It switches to using Intelligence and using a spell book, and puts new restrictions on Summons (to reduce abuse) while adding new flavor.

My goal is to play test this Class for inclusion in a possible published adventure later down the road, but I need to stretch it out and run it through some paces. So I'd like to get it in a PBP campaign where I'd be very open to feedback from both the players and GM on how the class performs and what tweaks it might need.

Homebrew/custom isn't allowed for this campaign, I'm sorry to say.

Fair enough, everyone have a great time and a fun campaign!

@Vakr, I'm wanting to play test a custom archetype/class called the Studied Summoner. It drops the Ediolon in favor of focusing on the SLA Summons ability. It changes the primary casting stat to Intelligence and makes the class a Prep caster with a spellbook. The class is limited on how many active summons it can use (It can't have 2 active summons till level 8) and patches some of the more annoying aspects of summon monster (Such as abuse of actions per round).

The real meat is the Spell Laced Summons class feature that turns the SLA Summons back to a 1 Round action which brings the Summons in with a free buff cast on them from the casters prepped spells (A failed concentration check blows both the SLA usage and the prepped spell).

Anyways, take a look and if it's okay with you, I'll put together an application with the class.

I've weighed the class versus a normal summoner and against the potential issues which could arise during the campaign that could hamper or alter his abilities. I'm sorry but I feel I must decline allowing your custom class for this campaign.

No problem, thanks for the consideration. Have fun everyone! I'll go ahead and withdraw my application.

My vision of Durwyn is a Paladin that is at home in the wilds like a ranger. He is not your typical dwarf in that he actively seeks to help other races and believes that the dwarven race is stronger when united with the other goodly races.

Makes sense if you're from The Low and High Kingdom of the Wise of the Lortmil Mountains. They maintain open relations with humans and other races to the benefit of trade and mercantilism.

Does Durwyn believe the Torobid Dwarves still live? What is his opinion on the tensions between the Eastern Clans (Cletlandi and Cayzendos) and the Lortmil Dwarves?

I wanted to put something together to give you a better idea of the build I had in mind with the story flavor. Here's my submission using the Studied Summoner custom class.

"Barbariany barbarians" in Greyhawk have a few potential sources in-world:

* In the "frozen north" category you have groups like the ice, frost, and snow barbarians of the Thillonrian Peninsula. These guys are Viking-like, descended from migrants of the old Suel empire, fair-skinned and boisterous.
* In the "king of the jungle" category you have Hepmonaland, where you can find Touv and Olmans (though technically they have civic polities, just more along Uto-Aztecan lines) and degenerate remnants of Suel refugees.

The barbarians of Oerth have a very Conan-esque sensibility, because many of them are descendants of the Suel people, who had a large and decadent magical empire until it was destroyed in a magical war. Now, generations later, Suel descendants have fled to remote areas, but unlike the Suel of old, they are not predisposed toward magical or scholarly pursuits; instead they are hardy warriors who live in difficult climates and have lost their old cultural roots excepting worship of old gods. (Compare with Howard's depiction of Conan as coming through a roundabout descent from a civilization that fled the fall of Atlantis.)

(Note that there are some Suel refugees who kept their culture and their learning. They form a group called the Scarlet Brotherhood. They are xenophobic racists. Probably not a good character...

This is all really good lore, and I'll throw out another option for Barbarian is being from the Bandit Kingdoms. There the people of the land fight their hostile surroundings to survive on a day-to-day basis living under the tyrannical rule of an evil demigod Iuz. It's a harsh place that breeds tough citizens. Basically there's a giant "Paladins should not enter" sign along the borders.

Link for more reading on lore of the Bandit Kingdoms.

I will review the write up over the next day or so as requested. I admit at first glance I am leaning towards denying the request out of a sense of balance and fairness to other applicants for whom I have rejected published options from unapproved sources. I hope you understand. I will have a decision soon.

I totally understand and I appreciate the consideration. Whatever works best for your campaign :)

I'm a huge Greyhawk fan myself (I played Living Greyhawk a ton back in the old RPGA days and now I've made myself feel old).

I'm super interested in the campaign but I'd like to ask if a custom class is allowed? Basically there's a class I'd like to play test called the Studied Summoner. I know you use Hero Lab to track the players and stuff, but there's actually a Hero Lab file that has the class implemented that I could provide you.

Basically the class is designed like the Summoner but it ditches the Eidolon in favor of focusing on the SLA Summon Monster feature. However, it's not broken like the Master Summoner as the class also introduces new limitations on Summoning (It sets a Maximum number of Summons that scales in level, and it plugs the loophole that allows a summoned monster to active, then be replaced by a new summon with a full set of actions).

It's an interesting alternative and if you have issues with the class features they can be adjusted for balance purposes.

Here's a link to the Studied Summoner write up.

And here's a link to the Hero Lab file for the class. The file just needs to be dropped in C:\ProgramData\Hero Lab\data\pathfinder and it'll compile the next time you run Hero Lab.

If you're okay with it I can work up a Hero Lab file for the character real easily.

bycot wrote:

If all people do is bring up how powerful it is and it's banned from Organized play potentially because it's too powerful, then doesn't that indicate it might need a Nerf?

Please allow me to introduce to you several hundred thousand people that disagree with you.

Alright, I think we've hit the saturation point for this part of the discussion. Initiate virtual handshake and lets drop this.

I believe that most games are home games.

This is a hard one to prove either way without any really good statistics.

As far as the "the barn is on fire" I don't think it is either. I'm simply posting an request to have an archetype approved for PFS play.

It wouldn't even happen until the second printing anyways, and that will take years.

This is a far better point than "It just can't happen." and I appreciate the question.

I think it goes back to my previous point about adding versatility to an under utilized class (Again, this gets to be a more regional specific thing but in my chapter of PFS I can't honestly remember the last time I saw a player run an Inquisitor other than my friend, and he stopped playing PFS years ago).

Increasing the desire to play the hybrid/versatile classes means more skills at the table (Seriously, I don't know what it's like for other people but we have a horrible time with skill versatility.), more people who can cast CL Wands, and the Monster Knowledge feature really helps with the encounters as well. All in all I think it'd help an under utilized class get more play time.

In the same vein I think the should let the Investigator utilize Wands (Another woefully under utilized class) but that's a conversation for a different thread.

bycot wrote:

If the core Leadership portion of PFS has 0 ability to communicate and interact with the Pathfinder product group that's a business failing there at an organizational level.

That's. Not. Their. Job.

It's not that they *can't*.

Also consider the ramifications of what you're asking. You're essentially wanting a nerf. That rarely ever goes well. It usually goes badly.

What is the incentive for Paizo to spend time and resources to nerf one of their newest releases?

It wouldn't even happen until the second printing anyways, and that will take years.

I propose we drop this line of discussion because it's serving no purpose to the larger conversation.. I didn't pull Tonya's name out of a hat. I had tried a few different points of Contact and was told directly by the @Paizo representative to contact her about this request. I will agree that making changes to the Archetype isn't her responsibility, but I offered that as a possible solution to the problem. PFS absolutely influences the Pathfinder product, and seeing as Tonya is responsible for the Pathfinder Society program, she's a part of that feedback loop.

Also, the part about nerfing is also a weird point. If all people do is bring up how powerful it is and it's banned from Organized play potentially because it's too powerful, then doesn't that indicate it might need a Nerf? Reworking it to fit better in PFS play and letting it be legal is better than just wiping it off the table completely and never allowing it at all. I'd imagine Paizo want people to utilize desired aspects of their product, and PFS is where the most play of various builds happens (Due to a larger pool of rotating characters).

bycot wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

what you're asking can't be done.

Of course it can. Maybe I'm not asking in the right place (I know this is PFS but PFS is a part of Paizo as a larger organization, so it's not irrational to think they'd know "who" to talk to as far as the "product group" goes.) but the archetype can be errata'd to fit PFS.

No, it can't. That's what we're trying to tell you.

That's simply not what PFS is for.

Campaign Leadership is not responsible, in any way, for creating content for Pathfinder.

They are not, in any way, responsible for Pathfinder errata.

Sometimes PFS Campaign Clarifications make their way into the Pathfinder FAQ. That's a decision made by the Pathfinder Design Team, however, and not PFS Leadership. Errata and FAQs are different things.

The role of Campaign Leadership is to create content for Pathfinder Society and run the Campaign.

That's it.

So Tonya Woldridge doesn't work for Paizo? Unless they specifically don't work for Paizo (Which I believe they do since on Twitter it lists them as living in the Redmond/Seattle region which the Paizo headquarters are located) then of course it is. It's just a matter of one part of the business communicating with another part of the business. If the core Leadership portion of PFS (Which is owned and operated by Paizo) has 0 ability to communicate and interact with the Pathfinder product group (Also owned and operated by Paizo) that's a business failing there at an organizational level. The implication there is that Pathfinder can influence PFS, but PFS can never influence Pathfinder.

It's a toned down Monster Tactician. Writing that out suddenly makes me want to make this...

That's really interesting, I hadn't heard of that archetype before. I'll need to crunch it through Herolab and see how it plays out.

Another one I REALLY like (I have a level 4 character with this Archetype in PFS) is the Preservationist for the Alchemist. All you have to give up in Poison Use and you add Summon Nature's Ally to your Formula List that scales better than the normal Alchemist progression (IE at level 8 you get Summon Nature's Ally IV as a 3rd level extract).

Warpriests get in on the fun too with the Good/Evil/Lawful blessing with their Battle Companions. Unfortunately that doesn't kick in till level 10, but it's still a standard action and scales well too.

Hence the suggestion to help you, since what you're asking can't be done.

Of course it can. Maybe I'm not asking in the right place (I know this is PFS but PFS is a part of Paizo as a larger organization, so it's not irrational to think they'd know "who" to talk to as far as the "product group" goes.) but the archetype can be errata'd to fit PFS. These things aren't written in stone.

The best hope for that would be an changed reprint, there are too much problems with this archetype to fix it easily. Summon monster SLA is one of the best classfeatures that exists (after Full spellcasting and on par with stuff like Hexes)

Also the summon Tactics is a massive powerboost and can lead to some very broken combinations.
This archetype additionally only looses one fluff feature and one (the worse) of its combat boosters. So there is little reason for any inquisito to not take this archetype over the base class (except the purely combat ones)

This archetype might be salvagable if you were to remove bane, the domain and lowered its spells per day but as written it is a straight upgrade to the class.

I al[so] would very much like an summoner archetype without an Eidolon but the closes we got (the master summoner) is banned for good reasons and it "blocks" the niche the new arch[e]type would need to fill.

Reducing the spells per-day seems extreme. I'd be okay with Bane being tossed out and the domain being removed. Keep the Summon Tactics in unless that's just determined to be crazy too good. Again, the Summoner can just choose not to pull out it's Eidolon and they have all their SLA Summons and a good Arcane Spell casting list that's Spontaneous just like the Inquisitor.

I think the Master Summoner was blocked not because it was "too good" (because the Eidolon gets such a massive nerf that it basically becomes useless) but it falls under the same "Too Complicated" category of running Summons AND a Pet based class. I get that, but oddly there are many other ways to accomplish this exact same type of "build" with other classes/archetypes. Back to my Animal Totem example. You get a full caster class, with Spontaneous Summons (That are Standard Actions at level 5) along with an Animal Companion.

Instead of asking for a change, maybe we can help you formulate one.

Summoner: Took much reliance on the Eidolon. Again, I'd be happy for an archetype here that dumps the Eidolon for the SLA Summons to get a buff. I know I could just run the Summoner without the Eidolon, but then it feels like I'm having to just ignore a rather major feature of a class (Hence hamstringing myself) to get it working way I want. I also have a minor bias against Charisma based casters, I just don't like Charisma as a casting stat Since it provides very little other benefits. At least Int grants a lot of additional skill points and applies to a bunch of other skills. Wisdom applies to a bunch of really important skills (Perception, Sense Motive, Heal, Survival) while also bumping your Will save.

Cleric: I've crunched the numbers on the Herald Caller a bunch of times and while it kind of works, it's also a bit confusing and I argue makes the class far more complicated than anything with normal summons because now you have to check if your Summons are something in line your Deity. It adds additional layers of complexity that frankly don't really add much flavor in my opinion and like the Shaman Druid, I think overly complicates the summoning mechanic (Though I love the Mighty Heralds class feature at level 4).

Arcanist: So full disclosure, I am running an Occultist archetype for the Arcanist in PFS currently (He's level 3). He's fine, but doesn't fit the mold I'm going for (IE the "Tactician" with group buffs, support, and healing). Dumping your Arcane Reservoir to summon as a SLA is rough, but I totally get it because it's a very versatile class that is also a full spell casting class with an unrestricted spell list.

Druid: I've thought about running the Animal Shaman build but like I said previously, it's that archetype that actually concerns me from a complexity standpoint with all the templates. Not a bad option and I keep playing around with the build.

I also don't see the harm in asking for a change though. Obviously some people feel the archetype is too powerful for PFS, so why not bring it in line and make it so that it does work for PFS?

@Korlac

I see that you asked Tonya for a reason why the archetype is not for PFS. As a heads up, Leadership rarely provides reasons as to why a specific decision is made. Just that a decision has been made.

We may actually get an official "why" but it is not likely.

I figured. I also figured it wouldn't hurt to ask. Worst they can say is no.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

If you're looking for a "divine summoner" there are still several ways to go about it. My buddy plays a Cleric with Summon Good Monster (small list but Standard Action), and I play an Unchained Summoner who flavors her Eidolon as a servant of Pharasma and her summons as "giving mortals one last chance to tip a neutral judgment more in their favor".

I've played around with a few other builds, but I've been a bit disappointed with how they operate. I'd even be okay with going full on Summoner if there was an archetype that ditched the Eidolon to buff the SLA Summons.

Frankly it's the Eidolon that annoys me about the Summoner because with that in play I don't really "feel" like it's a summoner. It becomes just a Pet class, which isn't really the flavor I like.

And just for clarification if people think I just want to play an Over Powered archetype, I'm more than willing to discuss options to bring it into balance to make it playable. The Double Barrel Musket used to be massively over powered but rather than ban it, they changed it to make it much more balanced.

So if people aren't for this archetype getting approved what could change to make it more reasonable from a power perspective? Dump the Summon Tactics ability? Remove the Bane class feature? Strip out Domain access? Some combination of all three of those options? I'm perfectly okay with the archetype getting nerfed if that will get it approved. I'd rather see things get errata'd to get approved for PFS play rather than just get outright banned.

Cavernshark nailed it - it's two burdensome for the org play setting. It's a turn time-eater. Ain't fun to be at a table with this archetype, as you'll be waiting and waiting and waiting...

I disagree with this argument because the Animal Shaman doesn't stop the class from taking different forms with Wild Shape, it makes other non-totem based forms operate at different levels. Meaning if the character finds themselves in a situation that taking a non-totem form would be more advantageous then they need to not only look up that shape, but they'll then also need to calculate how they operate at -2 effective levels for that shape. Hence why it overly complicates an already massively complicated class feature.

Korlac wrote:

I've contacted both @PaizoOrgPlay and @PFSOPC on Twitter, along with making a Reddit thread to discuss the benefits and flaws of allowing the Monster Tactician in PFS.

The whole discussion is moot, guys. I found the Twitter post. Tonya herself replied, and denied his request.

If the leader and chief decision-maker of PFS says "no" then appealing to us low-level non-decision-makers is going to do no good. Or maybe it'll make things worse and annoy her -- she literally rejected this request just 2 weeks ago, so coming at her with this AGAIN so soon probably would not exactly please her. I think she'd wonder why people were not listening to her very clear and unequivocal "No."

While I appreciate that perspective, I'm just a consumer of their products who pays appreciatively for what they put out there. If they're going to get annoyed with a customer simply because that customer is respectfully and politely advocating to further consume their product (IE I want to play an Archetype they developed from a book I happily paid for.) then the problem isn't with me.

This is a weak argument because those other classes do get shunned, all the time, for complexity when they don't understand the options at their disposal when it comes to summon shenanigans. I've played a wizard to 14 and even with full-round summons I have to have carry around a tome of monster stat sheets to be able to respond to emerging situations. Even with that prep then I try to do it sparingly so as not to slow down combat (which I cannot always say works). The complexity of summoning and wild shaping isn't the fact that it's different at different levels -- it's the number of possible forms or bodies each with edge case rules on the table. In fact, the Animal Shaman is arguably less complex than a standard druid in practice because they're probably only going to have 1-2 forms they use...

Shunned is different than Banned. I don't disagree, but the teamwork feats aren't nearly as complex to calculate as the Young, Advanced, or Giant templates are that the Shaman Druids gain access too.

It's an Inquisitor archetype, not a Summoner archetype.

I agree that the Summon ability is far more powerful than the abilities it replaces.

Giving them Teamwork Feats is extra icing on the cake.

It's powerful, but remember that Judgement scales ridiculously well as a class feature. I have a buddy who's is an Inquisitor freak (that's basically all he plays for campaigns) and when I mentioned this Archetype he was instantly put off because it losses Judgements.

Also, keep in mind that the class does not have as-powerful a spell list as the Summoner does. Again, the Summoner loses Evocation, but keeps all of the most powerful Conjuration spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer list, which also scale insanely well. You would be in a CR 15 encounter and Grease, as a level 1 spell, would still be a complete game changer, especially as a spell that bypasses SR.

bycot wrote:

So there's been a lot of criticism thrown my way for stating that I'd rule in favor of the old reading for Fencing Grace. I avoided bringing up this point because it doesn't really matter since I stand by my statement (As in that's how I would rule for running a PFS Pathfinder module) but I don't actually GM for PFS.

The only reason people were correcting you is because this is the PFS Forum, and stating that you were ignoring an official FAQ is something that is not condoned.

I guarantee nobody was giving you flack for ruling that way in your homegame, but it wasn't clear that's what you meant.

Many posters in this Forum would probably agree with you in your decision.

I know, which is why I didn't correct them. As I stated, I would stand by that ruling were I running it for PFS so I didn't feel the need to clarify that then. Mostly this was a comment to commiserate that I play PFS because I GM too much.

Yet more reasons for me not to play PFS I guess, which is a shame because I get tired of always being GM sometimes.

So there's been a lot of criticism thrown my way for stating that I'd rule in favor of the old reading for Fencing Grace. I avoided bringing up this point because it doesn't really matter since I stand by my statement (As in that's how I would rule for running a PFS module) but I don't actually GM for PFS.

Basically within my group of friends I run 2 campaigns, an online game for 7 players in Redmond and table session for 5 people in Texas. I've been the only GM for 2 groups of friends for the last 5 years and I never get to play, so I go to PFS purely to be a player.

While this ruling does annoy me for my current character (You guess it, an Inspired Blade Swashbuckler/Magus) realistically it's not going to affect my build too much. I'm currently level 3, so at this point I'll just Spell Strike stuff (Since Spell Strike doesn't interfere with Fencing Grace, which is kind of ironic and weird but whatever) and get my extra attacks through Parry/Riposte. Once I hit 6th level I can Agile enchant my blade, and get back to full attacks :)

bycot wrote:

Sufficient to say...

I think the phrase you intended to use was suffice it to say.

Did it twice too in the same post didn't I.

That may be being a jerk by context, but it is not against the rules for the GM to choose whatever spell they want with Limited Wish.

It is against the rules to enact a grudge against another player. Again, as I posted in the GM 101 book it specifically says not to make the game about you vs another player, which this GM did. Please trust me when I say he had a history of being a jerk to this other player.

claudekennilol wasn't.

I recognize that was aimed at me but as I said previously, I sleep fine when I rule in favor of the players.

sigh

Please don't do this thing. :(

Now this, this is a fair point. I sincerely apologize for drudging up the thread. It was legitimately not my intention to ruffle any feathers and I'm sorry for any trouble I caused. May everyone have a good day/night and may we all roll 20's.

bycot wrote:

Sufficient to say that GMs do not consistently rule.

There's no way you can remotely expect all .. what, 10,000 of us? to agree on every aspect of the game. hell, hungry me doesn't even agree with not hungry me half the time. (feed the dm people. It cuts down o

But to try to take that and knowingly and deliberately wriggle something explicitly banned and outlawed because you disagree with it is cheating. There's no other word for it. It's a walking either or fallacy where you're trying to insist that either PFS is 100% objective or absolutely anything goes and neither pfs fantasy or any part of reality work like that. It offends me as both a gamer and the product of 4 billion years of evolution.

1: If me ruling in favor of the player rather than against as I listed in my other examples makes me a horrible person, I'm okay with that.

2: If you are this easily offended by an idiot (me) that you'll never meet and will have no effect on your life due to his ruling of a fantasy rpg game of make believe, then I'm afraid the real world might crush you a little.

Finally the reason I find this silly is that I'm not finding any obvious posts or rules that affect the use of Spell Strike and Fencing Grace so long as your only action is to cast through Spell Strike while opting to not use Spell Combat.

"At 2nd level, whenever a magus casts a spell with a range of “touch” from the magus spell list, he can deliver the spell through any weapon he is wielding as part of a melee attack. Instead of the free melee touch attack normally allowed to deliver the spell, a magus can make one free melee attack with his weapon (at his highest base attack bonus) as part of casting this spell."

So if the ruling were actually to stop you from both casting and attacking, yet I choose to just use Spell Strike to cast Shocking Grasp and deliver it through my Rapier (Which is both casting and attacking) I apparently still get my Dex bonus to damage. Unless I'm still missing something?

Erm.. no.

I wasn't there, and there may have been indications that it was personal, but you're not articulating any evidence for that.

** spoiler omitted **

The evidence is too localized and wouldn't really "mean" anything to the context of the story. Sufficient to say that there was beef between the player and the GM so the GM specifically choose a spell he knew would only have any affect on 2 of the 6 players. You're right, death is on the table and I'm not arguing that. But a specific player was targeted and that flavored spell selection by the GM.

I'm willing to let this part rest with agreeing to disagree as it's not adding anything to the rest of the commentary. Sufficient to say that GMs do not consistently rule. Same killer GM ruled that to-hit penalty a Gunslinger suffered due to using double-barrel musket (Before the errata) stacked with additional shots. IE the first pair of shots suffered -4, the second pair of shots suffered -8, and so on.

bycot wrote:

I recently saw a GM use Circle of Death through a Limited Wish in Waking Rune just so he could kill some players he wasn't fond of. So lets not pretend GMs run/rule 100% favorable for either the player or in the spirit/intention of Paizo. There are no sacred cows here.

I think krune's tacts IS "kill em all" so I'm not sure if that example is against the rules.

Sorry, context was missing here. Out of the 6 players only two were bellow level 9, the primary target of the GMs wrath being one of those 2. This is specifically covered in the PFS GM 101 guide.

"Killing PC s
PC death should be fairly rare. A GM’s job is to create a fun
time for the players, so don’t adopt a GM vs. player mentality.
That said, PC deaths do happen for any number of reasons.
A GM should try to avoid PC deaths with less-experienced
players and lower tiers. PC death is more acceptable at the
higher tiers and with more experienced players."

So he specifically made it about him vs. this other player.

You can express dissatisfaction without using insults.

or so i've heard.

Hey, those that can't do...

You're making the wild assumption that I think I'm any better. I never claimed to not be an idiot also.

So you necro a thread with the express purpose to say that you are going to not going to follow the rules? Okay....

Yeah, that's totally my fault. I've been reading through the variety of threads on this (The information is all over the place on this) but somehow I never found that link to the rules clarification for Slashing Grace that explicitly called out to use the Slashing Grace rules with the Fencing Grace rules and use the same FAQ clarification (Honestly they're handling of the rules clarification has been handled atrociously.

Second, lets not pretend that GMs at PFS games follow the rule 100% completely. I've seen GMs tack on additional hit points to Monsters because they felt the players were beating it too easily. I recently saw a GM use Circle of Death through a Limited Wish in Waking Rune just so he could kill some players he wasn't fond of. So lets not pretend GMs run/rule 100% favorable for either the player or in the spirit/intention of Paizo. There are no sacred cows here.

Nope.

Search through the Rules Questions Forum for discussions regarding the Slashing Grace errata.

This Campaign Clarification is simply following that precedent.

It was needed because Fencing Grace, being from a splatbook, would likely never receive an errata of its own.

Ahhh, they're referring to this section.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gw#v5748eaic9tmm

Meh, I still heavily disagree with this reading and won't run it this way. It's a stupid rule and doesn't actually add or balance anything in the game. Frankly whoever decided that it doesn't officially stack with Spell Combat is an idiot.

Am I the only one reading the Campaign Clarified piece as intended for actual physical weapons only?

Any mention of "Two-Weapon Fighting" uses that same verbiage, same way they refer to "using Flurry of Blows."

In the case of the campaign clarification here's how it reads.

"You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied."

So they refer to "Fighting with two weapons" rather that using "Two-Weapon Fighting" as it is usually referred to everywhere else.

Now lets read the Magus section.

"This functions much like two-weapon fighting, but the off-hand weapon is a spell that is being cast."

So it functions like two-weapon fighting, but never states that it is two-weapon fighting. This is further clarified with the Mind-Blade Archetype.

"When using two-weapon fighting with two psychic weapons or a psychic double weapon, the mindblade can use her spell combat ability as though she had a hand free."

So normally Magus can't use TWF with Spell Combat because their hand is occupied, but this archetype specifically allows Spell Combat to be used with TWF and both hands occupied. So obviously while it functions like TWF, it's obviously not the same as the class feature can stack with TWF with the right archetype.

Honestly if GMs are ruling that Spell Combat can't be used with Fencing Grace I think they're being a bit overly strict as based on the rule readings I think it's obvious that the feat and class feature were intended to stack.

Does my current subscription to the Rise of the Runes lords auto convert to a subscription for Skulls and Shackles, or will I have to setup a new subscription?

do you only have one PC?

Does your "Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter who is super optimized" only have one weapon?

I find having a second (or 12th) PC to be a real advantage... kind of like having another weapon when the Ooze eats the first one.

I have other characters, but I don't always bring all my characters with me to the game days if I'm expecting to play my main.

"Then why don't you just play a pregen?"

That's a great question, and why don't the other people who don't want to play up just play a pregen? This argument works both ways.

Yeah? "But do you respect the other players" sounds like a pertinent question.

This is a weird question and I don't know what you're fishing here for. If I respect the table well enough to yield to their decision then obviously I respect the players. If I didn't, then I'd just walk away from the table.

"Well obviously you don't respect them if you play a character that steals the thunder from them in a game."

If this is where you were going with that statement, then you're obviously misguided and lacking context. Let me give you the scenario for how this happens.

My group signs up for a table using Meetup.com. We do our due diligence and all sign up a week ahead of time making a of 4 that will play up. Game day rolls around and some people show up who didn't officially sign up at Meetup.com and want to be squeezed in. They end up at our table and drop our effectively level down and don't want to play up. In this situation I have no problem running my character that I signed up at the table for, even if we end up playing down and I outshine some folks.

If I'm forced to play down then I don't want to hear any complaining about how I dominate the encounters. I had this happen once with my Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter who is super optimized. First round of combat for the first encounter I killed everything on my first action (thanks to improved cleave and finishing cleave) and the other players started moaning about not even getting a chance to shoot a single arrow or cast a single spell.

I may not like playing down, but I will respect the majority vote of the table.

Who do I need to contact to get my Pathfinder Society Accounts combined? A long time ago I played 1 module under the PFS number 28863 -1 and I've recently got back into playing under PFS number 72911-1 (It's the same character for both numbers).