dthunder's page

Actually, you want it heightened to 4th level, because Deeper Darkness is often 3rd level and continual flame will only beat it if it's higher level.

Furthermore, my recommended target item is a shuriken kept in a light-proof pouch. It's a free action to draw shuriken (they draw like ammunition) and it's a free action to drop anything, so without sacrificing any actions you can get your light source out.

Buy several as you can afford it, and you could spend an attack or two expanding the field of light beyond the spot you dropped the first one. Remember a given square has an AC of 5.

That is awfully clever about the shuriken. Kudos!

As for items, I really like the ring of sustenance for any prepared caster, as well as the bookplate of recall/bookmark of deception (I prefer a trashy romance novel or a very boring technical manual of some kind) for spellbook users.

I'll also echo the cracked dusty rose prism ioun stone (+1 initiative for 500GP?! yes please) and the haversack.

Also...has anyone mentioned the Quick Runner's Shirt yet? Its a godsend for melee types.

And, if i choose the magical knack for my sorcerer, will it gain the spell slots and everything or only spells will be at +2 caster level?

The latter.

It gives you a +2 bonus on caster level up to a maximum of your character level, so any variable spell effects dependent on level get calculated with that +2, but you do not gain new spell slots, etc.

MK helps multi-classed casters keep the spells they do have relevant to their level, but doesn't give them any additional spells.

Lots of good stuff

PFS aside (where you're certainly right it would not be allowed, but so is anything in a remotely grey area banned, as is crafting of any kind), I see where you're coming from, but in general terms, can't agree because the basic assumption is that the blade is a static magic item. Magic items, even intelligent ones, don't have to be static. All of that changed when they introduced the rules for adding magical properties to existing magic items in 3.0 (that right? I certainly had a more static view of magic items in previous editions).

Who's to say the BB has always been what it is and that the various Magi who have used it over time haven't given it more power? That would certainly be the case for any other magic item that was owned by a series of adventurers. They would take and use the item, but also likely do what they could to add further enchantments to suit their specific needs.

If those needs coincided with the BB's goals, there would likely be no problem with "permission". The Magus and BB generally share a common interest, else why would the blade have chosen to lend itself to this particular magus in the first place? Certainly, if that changes, the BB might try to reject/save against the enchant, and may try to dominate the magus, heck it might even accept the enchant so domination will be easier to achieve. Besides, if it makes the blade more powerful, I doubt it would balk at such an offer under most circumstances. After all, its got an agenda, and becoming more powerful can only help it achieve what it wants to.

As for pricing, IMHO it doesn't really matter what extra properties beyond flat enhancement it has, as those do not impose limits on further enchantment (i.e. max +5 enhancement and max +5 properties). I'd say most of those powers come from the blade's intelligence and/or from "+flat GP cost" properties rather than being additional extra "+X properties", but of course others will disagree as is their right. If you wanted to call them +X properties, you'd simply need to decide what the value(s) of X are and figure out if anything underneath +10 remains. If so, it could still be enchanted. Note that regardless, those extra abilities may determine whether the weapon is epic or not. At any rate if you wanted to calculate a specific value for some reason, you'd have to estimate based on similar abilities in other items and from the intelligent weapon powers list.

I mean, the Magus can't sell the BB regardless because it won't act like a magic item in anyone else's hands. So who would buy it? This particular point is potentially sticky because if you ruled that its not actually magical in another's hands, obviously it can't hold permanent powers of any kind. I'd counter that by saying that of course its still magical and is simply refusing the new unworthy person access to its powers. Still, it would probably just disappear anyway. "Sell me? Sell ME?! Pfft. I'll show you! Bamf!"

---

At any rate, I'll always keep coming back to the same points that ultimately made me decide to allow additional enchants:

1) Is it a magic weapon? I have a hard time saying no to that question. So, I suppose I'll have to treat it as an item.

2) Does it unbalance things if this is allowed? Not really IMO. Certainly not in my home games, although setting the price for adding to the blade as if its a +5/whatever regardless of its current enhancement is probably a good idea if one wanted to close off any possible abuse.

3) Does it unbalance things if its not allowed? Yeah kind of IMO. If we don't allow this, by higher levels, the bladebound's weapon isn't likely anywhere near as good as every other magus' weapon. This is just an opinion, but that's kind of absurd to me. He paid an effective cost of 2 feats and a 3 level delay in a class feature for this blackblade. In return he gets a scaling enhancement bonus (worth a substantial chunk of gold) and some neat situational abilities. Cool, but it better not also gimp his mid to endgame potential IMO.

Also, if its not allowed, the bladebound can't make use of things like the agile enchant. So black blades don't like Dex Magi. Unless they're scimitars and the Magus is down with the dervish regional fighting style. Huh? All this does is perpetuate the DD cookie cutter builds, and that's a very bad thing IMO. The bladebound also can't make use of probably the most iconic magus enchant in spell storing. Fine, that's not really a deal breaker either. IMO spell storing is usually more optimal on a backup weapon, but what if you want it on you main weapon? What if you would just rather not use any other weapons? I wouldn't as a bladebound. That's part of the draw. Just doesn't sit well with me how limited the archetype would be when its defining feature is this awesome weapon it gets to wield.

So I think it best to remove those limits and put it on an even playing field with all other Magi. Perhaps that falls into the realm of house rules. Maybe, maybe not, but we all make house rules all the time anytime a rule isn't 100% clear.

---

Anyone still alive after that wall of text crit?

Actually, i looked at the archetype, and it is more of a sorcerer archetype than a magus archetype, and looks lame...no offense bro

None taken, just a suggestion.

If you dont like the cabalist, i'd probably recommend going into DD from sorcerer rather than magus. Unless you have some RP or character reason behind choosing magus, it will certainly be a much more seamless transition from a naturally spontaneous casting class.

MTCityHunter wrote:

Thats not remotely the same thing. My argument is simply that an exception is not necessary since rules already exist for enchanting preexisting magic items. A rogue using channel energy would require some pretty specific rules exceptions to be in any way possible.

There are rules for classes getting powers not listed on their CRB progression charts. They are called archetypes, so the examples I listed using your "reading of the rules" are parallel.

I don't own all the books published by Paizo. In the books I do own, every table that charts out gains, and does not specifically spell out alternate options, anything outside of that chart is not available for selection. This has been true 100% of the time. If you have an example of a chart allowing something not mentioned on the chart as an option please share it.

If the class feature simply said they gained a generic magic weapon, or the black blade was usable by everyone(not just the bladebound magus) your interpretation would have a stronger foundation.

The item has a set progression listed on table 1-3, that progression does not include language allowing any flexibility in that progression. This means there is no flexibility in the progression.

Many of us have told the OP that their GM could adjust several things in a home game to allow the player to get what he wants, but we were also telling the OP that what they're asking for is not allowed by the language used in the archetype.

I've already adressed this. Spelling out exaclty how everything works with every newly published option is generally unnecceasry. The rules would go on for 30000 pages if they did that. Only exceptions to the general rules need to be spelled out. Exceptions were not provided in this case, so we (my grpup) use the existing magic item rules.

IMO its either a magic weapon or it isn't. I dont think it being sentient or being treated as a construct is mutally exclusive with it ALSO being a magic weapon. To me, its pretty clearly a magic weapon, regardless of whatever else it is or isn't, so we treat it as such. That's all. IMO the exceptions were not required, because rules for magic weapons already exist.

Now then, considering how often this issue is confused, perhaps it would have been best had they clarified the issue upon publication, but oh well. Until we get official errata its open to interpertation.

That said, let me say that I understand your point, I just don't agree. I'm not saying you are wrong, but Ive researched this topic extensively, and while there are inconsistencies no matter the interpertation, I've already decided how I think things work, and am simply voicing the minority opinion on the matter. I haven't seen anything new (to me) in this thread that would change my mind, although Im certainly open to doing so if we get some kind of official word on the matter. Regadless, I'm not interested in changing anyone's opinion, only in laying out all the facts for the undecided to make their own call.

Anyway, we have presented both sides of the argument. I feel I have been clear about how I interpert things and why, as have those in opposition. Its pretty obvious we're fairlydug in, so I'll take my leave before we start repeating ourselves too much. Hopefully the OP and their group can agree on how to handle things for themselves.

Enjoyed the chat! Happy Hunting!

You've got the right idea(s) IMO.

1) As you described, one good use is for spells that you use in almost every combat but don't need to spam (i.e. Haste, Black Tentacles, maybe Dispel Magic). You'd memorize your bound spell (along with whatever else you want), cast it in combat, then after combat, convert one of your other spells back into your bound spell.

2) A second use would be for any spell you think you may use regularly, but either before combat or outside of combat altogether (i.e. Resist Energy, Detect Thoughts, Clairvoyance, Animate Dead). You'd memorize things other than your bonded spell(s) and swap to your bound spells as needed.

They're both going to be useful in boosting your versatility by allowing you to memorize spells you may not otherwise memorize while still having access to your bread and butter. Combine with Preferred Spell or Greater Spell Specialization for more spontaneous goodness (I prefer using these for spells you DO intend to spam, and ultimately for your Perfected Spell).

Happy Hunting!

They player of the Witch did point out that I do have a bit of me vs. them mentality-that I want to "win" as the GM by killing players, so maybe that's part of it too

I'm just wondering what to do-beyond sitting down with my buddy over a beer.

You've kind of answered your own question. There's not really much in the rules to help you. The wording of that hex is such that it doesn't really provide a way out short of passing the fort save (unless the BBEG has minions/allies around to break the ice).

You've got to sit down and hash it out, then come to some kind of compromise. Explain to him how its proving problematic to provide appropriate challenges and suspense to the party with optimized mechanics like this in play.

Players like this must tone down their gimmick for the good of the game, or the game will die. Once people (especially GMs) stop enjoying things, the game doesn't have long to live.

In return, you've got to stop trying to "win" as well. Adversarial GMs are a nightmare, and tend to indirectly encourage this type of character building and behavior. Its a natural selection-type phenomenon, in that those who don't all out optimize die out. It is ultimately pretty ironic though, in that you're likely encouraging the very types of PC behaviors that drive you crazy by being adversarial in the first place.

Talk. Meet in the middle. Keep the game fun.

This is a bit out of the box, but if you can work it into your concept, a single level dip into Maneuver Master Monk will allow you to perform a dirty trick combat maneuver at a -2 penalty in addition to your normal full attack routine. It does not give your actual attacks a penalty, just the maneuver.

You'd usually want to use it to attempt to blind the target of course, in order to deny them their Dex bonus, but in situations where you've already got the option to sneak attack and another status effect is desirable, you've got the option to hit them with an entangle or sickened, etc. instead. Pretty nice.

In addition, the single level nets you:

1) a bonus maneuver feat (improved dirty trick obviously) which effectively negates the -2 penalty on the maneuver and gets you out of those pesky opportunity attacks.

2) +2 to all saves. Nice.

3) 1d6 Unarmed damage. Now you're always armed and can threaten adjacent if you choose to wield a reach weapon.

4) 1 Stunning Fist attempt per day. Who knows, may come in handy. At least the DC scales with Character level rather than class level.

5) Flurry of Maneuvers, discussed in detail above.

Considering you're a Ninja rather than an ordinary Rogue, the fluff even fits together pretty seamlessly.

Happy Hunting!

This doesn't sound like an issue to me at all. Sounds a lot like first world problems...

I ran through the start of RotRL in a group having similar experiences. Goblin gear being worthless makes sense; its constructed of trash. The amount of wealth you'd accumulate selling anything for scrap is negligible in the scheme of things for an adventurer. We took a bit of exception to "masterwork" dogslicers also being worthless (I blame the module for that...they should have just given them real weapons if they intended it to be treasure, or class levels if they really needed that +1 to attack; giving them masterwork garbage to fight with was a silly thing to do). Still, its not the end of the world. You play on.

As mentioned, 25 point buy seriously counteracts having less wealth. That only goes so far of course, and in our campaign the poverty got pretty absurd. By the time we were level 5 or 6, we didn't even have wealth appropriate for a 2nd level party (i.e. our paladin couldn't even buy the full plate he wanted to wear). That definitely sucked, and it definitely went way too far, but guess what? It was still fun. And in the long run the DM should be able to work things like that out (it shouldn't take until level 5, granted).

I bring this up because, the imbalance in our game was also at least partially CAUSED by the same things you're complaining about. Namely, having a higher than intended point buy (20), and the DM compensating for that by adding challenges. Only, he gave us the XP for those challenges. So we ended up gaining levels faster than intended, and the cycle repeated itself.

Your DM will likely correct the issue at some point (when it becomes an issue, and not necessarily before). Ya'll are level 2 for crying out loud. You haven't even given the DM time to correct any perceived wealth issues. But tracking XP and gaining the levels you're feeling entitled to is NOT the answer.

Why on earth would you WANT to track EXP so closely that you end up out leveling the module? He's adding monsters to give you a challenge, not to have you level faster so everything gets even easier. Just level when he says to level, so you're the right level for the current challenges. Perhaps you track XP to get a rough idea of how close you are or to keep players and DM on the same page about progression, but its the DM's right and responsibility to adjust your level progression to match the module.

Tracking XP precisely when the DM is adding enemies to better challenge you will NOT encourage the DM to give you the treasure you want. You'll end up higher level (and with higher stats) than the module intends, and he'll hold back even more treasure to compensate.

Give him time to work out the balance. In the meantime/short term, he's keeping things challenging by keeping wealth low and expanding encounters. You know, because ya'll are playing 25 point buy superheroes with no weaknesses (you wouldn't have any 20s in a 15 point buy either more than likely, but you'd darn well have some low stats).

Bottom line, TL;DR

--STOP being to self entitled to treasure and experience points.
--TRUST the DM to get you through the campaign while giving you appropriate challenges and telling a compelling story.
--TRY to worry more about the campaign and your characters place in it and less about the numbers on your sheet.
--TALK to the DM as a group if you just can't have fun without adhering to the WBL/XP tables, BUT be willing to take your stats down to a lower point buy if do.
--Have FUN.
--And IF you can't make it work with the DM in question, maybe the game he runs is not compatible with the group, and you may need to swap GMs.

Doesn't sound to me like the DM is the problem though.

IMO, when playing a wizard, you want to play up your potential for versatility. That is, after all, 1 of the 2 major advantages wizards have over a sorcerer (the other obviously being earlier spell access). There are a couple different ways to approach this:

1) Fast Study, as detailed above, can be useful, although personally I fall into the camp arguing its just not worth a feat. It doesn't let you do anything you can't already do, you've already got (and should be using) scribe scroll, and generally speaking, if you can spare 1 minute between combats, you can spare 15. Of course YMMV.

2) Preferred Spell though, is quite simply amazing. The advantage of being able to spontaneously cast your favorite spell whenever you want is HUGE. Now you can memorize all the utility/situational spells you want, and the slots are never wasted again. This also completely mitigates the disadvantage of being forced to allocate one of your slots each level to your specialist school, since you can just sacrifice that spell for your preferred spell. (This is obviously not a biggie for a Conjuration specialist, but for say a Diviner? Yes please.)

You can do something similar with Greater Spell Specialization which can be advantageous if your favorite spell is going to be in a school for which you'll want spell focus anyway, but I usually prefer Preferred Spell because (1) you can get it earlier, (2) it doesn't increase metamagic casting time (edit: either gets around having to actually prepare metamagic'ed versions of your favorite spell), and (3) you can get the feat multiple times to add additional spontaneous spells at the cost of a single additional feat per spell desired. Sure, Heighten Spell (the prereq) wouldn't generally be on the short list of metamagic feats to grab, but it actually synergies pretty well with preferred spell (and later spell perfection) by allowing you to get some benefit (higher save DC, ability to bypass of Globes of Invulnerability, etc.) from sacrificing a higher spell slot than required for your favorite spell.

I'm gonna have trouble ever playing a Wizard without either PS or GSS, unless it was a Transmuter (in which case, just buy annihilation spectacles)...but even then...its just that good to have spontaneous casting ability on a Wizard platform.

...STUFF
human feat spell focus (evocation)
level one feat spell specialization (shocking grasp)
level three feat combate casting
level three magus arcane accuracy
level five feat intisify spell
level five bonus feat elemental spell
...MORE STUFF

This is good advice for a one-shot adventure (although I'd still advise to choose between either STR or DEX; there's really very little to gain by starting with a 14 in your attack stat).

Please note however, that for a long-term character build, you definitely would NOT want to build like this. After level 10, (intensified) shocking grasp damage caps anyway, making spell specialization a dead feat. SF: Evo is already of diminished use considering a presumed focus on touch spells, which generally do not allow a save (some do, so it's still got value, more so if you use more ranged evocation spells). For long-term utility, I'd replace SF:Evo/SS with Heighten and Preferred spell, to let you memorize other spells, which you can swap out for SG.

Also, for a build with a decent focus on INT and a +2 concentration trait, you can easily cap out on concentration checks by the early teen levels. Prior to that, yes Combat Casting can be nice, but later on its also a totally dead feat. Personally, I'd make due with a good INT and a trait, and scrap CC. You can always use careful positioning/5ft. steps and/or warding weapon (level 1 spell) and/or Lunge (level 9+) to avoid casting defensively altogether.

None of this is of any concern in a one-shot or if you think the campaign won't last past level 8 or so, but if it will, build with caution.

EDIT: also, in general terms, one-shot or otherwise, any build investing in specializing in shocking grasp (or any particular spell) should DEFINITELY take Magical Lineage or Wayang Spellhunter as one of their traits.

The good times never end. (Until all your opponents are flying or teleporting, that is)

Someone recently pointed out on another thread that since the create pit line of spells actually create extra-dimensional spaces, rather than an ordinary hole in the ground, normal teleportation may not work to get out, since teleport cannot cross planar boundaries. Its rather like trying to teleport into or out of a bag of holding, or trying to teleport through a planar portal. Even if you can see what's on the other side, it technically isn't possible; you'd actually need to step through the portal, then teleport.

Same with the pit spells. I can totally just see a GM giving you "the look" and saying "NO" though...

Sigh

Sad to me that you just can't create a character and see where it goes anymore. Everyone has to build their character to 20th level at the start. Even my players do it and I can't really blame them.

First of all, this comment adds nothing. Planning a build is not some new wave phenomenon that spits in the face of the good old days. A good character should have an idea of what they want to accomplish, and be built accordingly.

Secondly, its not as if things are set in stone w/r/t advance planning. Things can and often will change when players see the character in action and certain weaknesses and/or party interactions get exposed. Doesn't mean planning a build out is a bad thing, and its certainly not "sad". That would be when you didn't plan, realized later on something would be perfect for your build, and then realized you can't qualify for it.

Anyhow, w/r/t the topic at hand, what do you want to accomplish with your build OP? The martial artist monk is great as a damage machine. In that vein, I'd also recommend power attack. Its not mandatory by any means, but damage is damage.

Dragon ferocity/style will also help out, but you're not getting those until so late you'll likely never see them in action. I know the feats are tough to juggle when you've got (G)WF and (G)WS to fit in, but even the first dragon style feat is fantastic for mobility. My monk uses dragon style and its been a game changer on several occasions. If it were me, I'd try to fit those in earlier.

That is, if damage is the priority. If so, I'd lose II and delay CR and VS until later to squeeze DS, DF, and perhaps PA in earlier.

OTOH, if melee support is more the aim, trip + VS is really a very nice combo, and the build looks pretty good already IMO.

How strange, I guess the core baseline does assume that there are orders of paladins solely devoted to selling wands, if 750 gp is the real market cost.

The Paladins (Summoners, Bards) don't necessarily need the item creation feats themselves, they just need to cooperate with a Wizard (or whoever) who does have the feats by casting the appropriate spell each day during the item creation process.

Thus, it is not the Paladin making the item, the other guy is. However, since the Paladin can cast the spell at a lower spell level, the finished product is easier to make and is thus cheaper. Any sane crafter would seek out a Paladin when crafting something like a wand of lesser restoration, and IMO most Paladin orders would likely be happy to oblige if they weren't otherwise doing something else.