e-Spaceshot's page

I'm going to be the one to say it, the Warlock in the playtest was better and more diverse than the 3 Arcane casting Archetypes we got given in the end. I can understand why they'd want to have the base vigilante to be no spellcasting to make it easier on themselves but in the end we got 3 specific archetypes with none of the diversity the original Warlock had.

The Magical Child focuses on the familiar and uses the summoner's spell list. The summoner's spell list is lacking because it expects the character to also have a strong combatant with them and not a familiar. Familiars != eidolon or animal companion, either would have made sense. Even a Familiar with the animal companion progression would have made sense. In the end you don't have much effectiveness and are resorted to be somewhat useless in combat or be a fighting type.

The Cabalist right off the bat wants you to be attacking with weapons. It's bleed ability is interesting and the magus list is all about attacking which helps with it's honed in concept. It doesn't have much diversity but for an Archetype that's fine.

Now the Warlock, which was once a part of the base class with 15 specific Talents (not counting casting increase) now only has 5. It was once a class direction that itself had options and ways you could play it. Did you want your vigilante side to be a sneaky caster? or cunning? or attacking from the shadows? or throwing bolts or bombs? Well now your choice is Bolts. No choice, just bolts. You get them at 1st instead of 4th but still just bolts.

Everyone complained that they had to spend vigilante talents on spellcasting improvements. They had the option to not spend them, to have lighter spell casting and more interesting abilities. The Archetypes don't give you that ability, you're forced into having less Talents and full level 6 casting progression. This subclass should have been kept within or Split with a Caster Vigilante class and a Non-caster vigilante class. That could have given Caster based social traits which aren't going to be a thing ever because casting is only specifically archetypes.

There is my rant. I liked the Warlock Vigilante. I can't find myself to make a spellcasting vigilante I enjoy. I don't want to blast, I don't want to stab and Magical Child is lacking in effectiveness. Hopefully they'll make a better spellcasting archetype in the future but for now it's shelved.

Thanks for the answers.

With question 5, I was referring to the fact that the Spelldeck of the Cartomancer is their Familiar replacement. They commune with it daily to get their daily spells, they feed it scrolls (how that happens is up to the Cartomancer) to gain new spells and they use it to deliver touch spells. So I'm not sure if because it replaces the Familiar it is cheaper or it is still normal cost/s because it doesn't explicitly say it becomes cheaper.

Also another question came to mind.

6) If I am Using Deliver Touch Spells, do I still have to spend a swift action to 'activate' Arcane Strike/Deadly Dealer? I believe I do but I'm not 100% on it.

I've been playing Cartomancer for a few sessions now in PFS and just played my first level 3 scenario where I ended up using Deliver Touch Spells. It went well but there are a few questions I have about the archetype when it comes to combat.

1) Am I limited to the range increments of the Spelldeck, aka a dart, when using Deliver Touch Spells and thus get negatives for going past them?

2) Do I gain the +x of the Spelldeck to my to-hit when using Deliver Touch Spells?

3) Do I gain the +x of the Spelldeck to the damage of a damaging spell when using Deliver Touch Spells?

4) If I am casting a positive spell on a party member do I need to hit them or is it auto success using Deliver Touch Spells?

5) this is a side question, but do I have to pay full price for enchanting the Spelldeck or does it get the same treatment as an arcane bond does (allowing me to pay half/crafting costs)?

I know feats and effects that boost ranged touch spells effect touch spells being delivered at range, such as Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, but I'm not sure if the weapon/Spelldeck enchantments do.

As the player in question, I have stated that Two-Weapon Fighting dictates 2 weapons, flavour wise it has a very, very brief notion of 2 hands, but all it's rules state 2 weapons.

2 Weapons, be they in 1 hand each, one in 2 hands and 1 in another hand, or each weapon taking up 2 hands is still 2 weapons, which Two-Weapon Fighting is all about.

I know the Vestigial Arm Discovery is also mentioned here, but I believe that's been worked on to death about attacks in the past, I am only wanting to know about the Weapon Fighting.

My understanding is that Multi-Weapon Fighting does not even come into play, I am only using 2 weapons, sure on 4 hands, but I could easily use 2 weapons on 2 hands so why does the added help of 2 additional hands (to literally just add more 'oomph' to the attack) require an entirely different feat? I am not gaining more attacks, the discovery explicitly states it does gain additional attacks, it just allows it to help attacks (again, it's not about the discovery, there are probably other ways of gaining additional arms in Pathfinder).

I did state that if Multi-Weapon Fighting is required, it does not exist because it is unuseable by PFS character and thus does not replace Two-Weapon Fighting (which I only believe is the case here) so it is still takeable.

I've also noticed something that both the witch and oracle have that the shaman doesn't have a large choice pool (hexes or revelations for the base classes). It has the mandatory large choice that both classes have (patron for witch and mystery for oracle), but not a stream of little choices. it has hexes, but there is only so many choice and you practically get all of them in the end anyway. I'd prefer more choice and less set in stone abilities, which is what the witch and oracle were about. I know there is wandering to give more versatility, but neither base class had constant choice each day over spells to prep for the witch.

I have the feeling that the shaman is more or less set in stone for most of it's thematics, which I don't blame because I bet the development time has been quite some. Instead I could see another witch/oracle hybrid class that is all about the special abilities and less (or not even) about the spell casting, which as I've previously stated was what I envisioned for the shaman class, but everyone has different views.

I bet there is going to be class creation rules/guides in the book akin to the ARG, but those don't fly in society which I know many people solely play.

All in all, class itself is built well, but feels like a cleric alterative or a possible oracle replacement than a different way of playing a witch/oracle. I don't believe we need another full divine caster, but we got it, it works and will give those who want to a different class they can take

I came into the Advanced Players Guide playtest expecting shaman, a combination of my favourite class (oracle) and a class that combined with it felt like it'd go somewhere awesome (witch) and expect something unique.

I Opened up the playtest, jumped to Shaman and what I saw was a cleric caster with a familiar and slightly altered revelation system. I do not understand why there was a need for another full progression caster with a good spell list. There is already Sorc/Wizard/Witch/Cleric/Oracle/Druid/Arcanist, why another?

I was looking forward to a shamanistic, primal visage of pure nature who commands spirits with their totem and curses/hexes those who are against the shaman. A 1-4 caster or not a caster at all, who gained curses/hexes from a general list, and totemic powers for a specific chosen list, most likely chosen from a list of animals like most shamans devote themselves too. They would be strong enough to be front-line if needed, but wouldn't out pummel the melee warriors (fighter/barbarian/cavalier/paladin, not including those added in this book or alternatives).

I'll review what I saw, expecting them not to change the core class concept entirely just on one person's (but I doubt I'm the only one who dislikes the shaman as it is) preference and I understand that.

The spell list is good, why? because the cleric spell list is a really strong spell list. They also get the similar bonus spells that clerics get from their domains with their spirit list. I see why they chose cleric list because the oracle gets it, but a personalized spell list for the class would have been better, yet I doubt they wanted to deal with another new spell list, as that is probably why they haven't made one this whole book/playtest.

The class stats (skill/day, hit dice, saves, BAB, profs) are all acceptable for the sort of concept/role the shaman portrays. The shaman can be in the front for a few rounds, but wouldn't want to stay there the whole fight due to the lack of shields and heavy armour. The skill ranks are good, even if the list is low because the class is MAD (as others have stated and disliked) and would doubtfully have any more than 12 int.

The familiar is expected because it's one of the witch's major abilities. It's interesting that the familiar gets a buff, chosen based on the spirit you decide upon. I doubt this was needed, but seeing as the buffs aren't that strong it's good and they work with the spirit choice (flame spirit familiar is immune to fire, allowing you to fireball directly on it and not worry).

The hexes are the main issue I have with it, they don't feel like hexes. They feel more like oracle revelation abilities that weren't seen as strong enough to be spirit abilities. Some of the hexes are literally taken from the revelation the spirit is copying and are word for word, even those which are offensive the only difference is that it gets the hex limitation of 1/24hrs per target.

The spirit abilities are either clones of oracle revelations (such as the channel for life spirit or touch of flame for flame spirit) or close enough.

Not much of the class was new except for new wording for cloned abilities/keywords.

I can see the class as being good and because it's so close to oracle it's basically choose which one is better out of the 2 for the spirit/mystery (battle is better for oracle because they get martial weapon and heavy armour prof, whilst life would be better as a shaman because they get a familiar to cast cure spells through). The shaman doesn't look nor feel like an oracle/witch, to me it's an oracle who decided to exchange the curse for a familiar (because that's an equal trade...) and somehow speed up the spell progression one level by doing so.

I can see people playing it and I can also see people going "Why ever play this if I can choose an oracle" or "Why ever play an oracle if I can choose this".

This review/critique might sound harsh, but good feedback isn't feedback that's just all good, it's feedback that is straight to the point and expresses your unsugar-coated views. To me I can see myself playing the shaman as it is, but I'd play it as an oracle archetype, not a shaman, which I doubt is the intent they wanted to get out of this class.

I've gone over the heritages in blood of fiends a bit and found that they're quite interesting (more so than just getting the stats I want).

I have a few questions about them though.

1) If I choose a heritage do I gain the racial traits at the bottom of each of the entries, in addition to the alternate stats/spell-like/skills? EDIT: thanks for the answer, thought it was a racial trait, not a race trait.

2) If I do gain the race traits from the the heritage, do I gain them for free or do I have to replace current tiefling race traits with them, at one heritage race trait replacing one tiefling race trait? EDIT: again, confusion of race v racial.

3) Am I able to choose alternate racial traits that replace the spell-like or the skilled traits EDIT: if I have a heritage which gains an alternate spell-like and different skill bonuses (forgot to add that part in the first time)?

4) This is just a flavour/appearance question, but can (or even must) a rakshasa-spawn (beastbrood) tiefling have reversed palms/hands like rakshasa do?

These questions may have been answered already before, but my google-fu/search-fu have failed me if it be true.

I know this should be asked in the rules board, but I'd like to get a strict PFS ruling, rather than the usual "up to GM discretion" answer.

I'm at a loss here. I'm not sure if it's just a kick in the nads to the vivisectionist archetype for the alchemist or it's a rule that will eventually be added to existing sneak attack places, but it seems to me that sneak attack damage comes down to the form of add all levels in classes that give you sneak attack and count that total as your rogue level for calculating sneak attack total.

Unfortunately this isn't stated anywhere else besides in the vivisectionist archetype. The rogue's sneak attack entry doesn't specify what happens when you get sneak attack from different sources, neither does assassin, master spy or arcane trickster. So in theory with RAW level 1 rogue/level 1 master spy or assassin (with enough of another class in between to make up the prerequisites) becomes 2d6 sneak attack, add in the other prestige class out of master spy and assassin it becomes 3d6 out of 3 levels. Then if you add vivisectionist (no idea why you would, but hear me out) you end u going back to 2d6 because you then start counting effective rogue level for sneak attack which is 4 levels.

This just doesn't make sense. Is vivisectionist not meant to multiclass as well into a sneak attack supplying class as any other or is it because it's the most recent (at least that I could find) sneak attack source that it just happens to have the most recent rules?

I've made a vivisectionist alchemist with the TWF feat.

My issue is that if I take the Vestigial Arms discovery, I then get a 3rd arm. This would automatically mean my TWF feat is then replaced by MWF feat, but since PFS characters can't take monster feats if that is the case my character becomes illegal.

Now The way I see it since monster feats aren't allowed/existent for PCs that then MWF feat can't replace TWF feat since for my PC, the MWF feat never existed and thus is unable to replace it.

I would like someone who knows a bit more about PFS specifically (I don't care for normal rules, since I could just take MWF feat or whatever) to share their thoughts on the matter. And yes I do realise that I can just not take the discovery, but I like it and would like to work it in.

If an alchemist with two arms and two vestigial arms wants to use 2 two-handed weapons, is this possible? If he tries, what happens? What are the penalties, does it auto-miss, is it improvised?

I'd like to add to this. Even if it is possible, can TWF feat work or is MWF feat needed since it's more than 2 arms (though only 2 weapons).

This is a very questionable build, especially for PFS since it not only can't use MWF feat (monster feat), but it also needs some reasonable evidence to it working since PFS will most-likely be more than one GM you have to have your character allowed by.

RAI (rules as intended) no. This is specifically something the Devs did not intend people to do with the feat. Linky

I did read that first, I know it's not intended, but there are other RAW builds that aren't RAI, doesn't make them any less viable. The only issue is that for PFS you practically need an offical rule/rulings to allow something otherwise a judge/GM can just say no to it at the table.

That is what I'm trying to find, an offical rulling, or at least something already made that has the same set of rullings to it (such as a 4armed monster using two two-handed weapons and only using TWF to get the decrease). You can in theory go two-handed weapon and off-hand/main-hand weapon TWF with a lot less trouble, the trouble seems to come from wanting to get that second two-handed weapon in the fight.

I know this has been posted a lot, but I haven't found the answer out of any of the ones I've found.

My question is with that current build; Alchemist, 2x Vestigial Arm discovery (earliest level 3 and wielding 2 two-handed weapons (lets say greatswords), would I be able to dual wield them?

Now if I can dual wield them, can I use TWF feat to reduce the tax on my to hit?

If TWF does alter it, does it go down to -4/-4 in which RAW says, being a main-hand and the off-hand isn't light? Or does it get a special alteration for the circumstance

The issue here is, is that most, if not all of the rules in the core rules are built on the assumption that players only have 2 arms. I doubt that would be the issue otherwise they would have made additional rules in APG (where eidolon's can get 4 or more arms) or in UM (Vestigial Arm/s) or have FAQed this by now.

Once all that is answered, we can then worry about the off-hand (and possibly even main-hand) bonus Str damage.

I am asking these TWF questions because the character in question I'm thinking of building is a PFS character, thus multiweapon-fighting isn't available. If someone know's of the answer, and could point me towards it I will be very thankful.

If a synthesist summoner gets the skilled evolution in a skill in which they can make a day job roll do they get the +8 bonus to the day job roll?

Lets say a synthesist summoner chose +8 in craft(alchemy), do they get get to make an awesome day job roll or does that +8 only work in session like most other abilities that could give a non-permanent bonus to the day job roll (crafter's fortune, eagle splendor, mutagen/rage/cognagen for skills where necessary) they don't give a bonus.

Tyrale

The way I'm looking at it is that there is no need to get additional spells at certain levels, instead give the oracle a spell list depending on what foci they took. This is like how the Wu Jen from complete arcane has their wood/earth/fire/water/air spells.

Each oracle would have the basic curative and buff cleric spells, but then depending on the chosen foci would also get a bunch of spells from druid or wizard spell list.

I've been spending the last few weeks getting a level 1 oracle ready for a campaign and its been hard to choose which foci.

The foci's in whole don't work with its parts. Many of the revelations require spells of a type which there is only 1 every 3 or 4 levels. There are also a few revelations which are melee touch attacks or help CMB which doesn't make sense with the oracle's light armor.

The foci additional spell list is largely filled with spells that the oracle can get them self at a lower level. The only reason the oracle waits to get the spell on the foci list from the next odd level is because they only get 1 spell to start each new level and is most of the time filled by a cure spell.

What would help the oracle and make it different to a cleric is a new spells list, or to be precise multiple new spell lists. Instead of the the oracle getting foci extra spells they instead have a list of spells based on what foci they choose. The spells would be a mix of cleric spells and druid/wizard spells of the type (so battle would get combat buffs whist fire would get protection from as well as fire based damage). They would also need to get +1 or +2 spells known per level to compensate.

These are just observations made from having a hard time deciding on what foci is good both flavourful and somewhat mechanical.