phantarch's page

Hi,

I am still checking out the PrCs and try to make an decent build for a "Pathfinder Society" Char.

I was thinking about the Arcane Archer, but the requierements are too high, too less Wizard/Socerer too much BAB. Also the spell progression sucks. Given this, the arcane bond feature (from the Wizard or the Sorcerer Bloodline), which would have bestowed the archer a nice tool, isn't expedient anymore.

With no "practiced spellcaster" on the horizon and the "magical knack" trait disallowed in the campaign...
- Why should anyone play an Arcane Archer?
Sure, not every Prc choice has to be effective, but the archer can't even compensate this with fancy or unique roleplaying abilities.

Well, not that this is an argument to play one, but did you see what the arcane archer was before in 3.5? Talk about useless...

That said, the class should be viewed as an archer with some cool arcane abilities, not as an arcane caster with some cool archery abilities. That said, I've been playing with a couple of builds on this front...

Ranger 6/Wizard 1 (evoker)/Arcane Archer 10/Eldritch Knight 3.

You can pretty much fill the role of the archery-focused ranger just as well as a ranger 20 with this combo, with some nifty special abilities. You end up with 10 arcane caster levels, 19 BAB, lots of good skills, most of the archery focused feats, and some other goodness. You just need to focus on spells that either buff you or are area effect spells you can place on your arrow. Burning Hands is an obvious one. Who doesn't want to shoot somebody 100 feet away with an arrow and then have it spray a 15 foot cone of fire?

Also, depending on what you want to do with the Arcane Bond, you get a few choices. A familiar is going to have killer skill ranks, hit points, and BAB. Improved Familiar might even be a decent choice for this. You'll also get a weak animal companion out of the mix, but maybe a horse so you can do full archery attacks on the run? Also, I think that Master Craftsman is a must have feat for this build. If you take it in Craft (bowyer) or whatever that is, you can enchant your bow as early as 5th character level, make spell storing arrows, and a bunch of other goodness. Master Craftsman should work with your arcane bond if you choose a weapon, but it might be worth while to just take the Craft Arms and Armor feat. You could also take Master Craftsman for a different craft to work with the amulet, but I think it gets less use.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. I think it could be fun. Oh, another possibility is Fighter 1/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 4/Arcane Archer 10

That would get you 15 caster level, but your BAB and Feats would suffer.

So, I'm not sure if this falls under errata, house rules, or what, but am I reading the animal companion descriptions right that the animals no longer get their racial modifier to skills?

For instance, in the Bestiary Preview, a tiger gets a racial +4 to acrobatics, +4 to stealth (with an additional +4 in high grass). But this isn't in the writeup for large cats under druid.

Another example is the dog gets a +4 to Acrobatic jump checks and a +4 to survival when tracking by scent.

So, are animal companions really that sub-par to their counterparts? Was this an oversight? Would people house rule these back in? Animal racial skill modifiers always were what made the animal "normal" for its type due to the lack of intelligence and subsequent skill points. Without these, the animals seem to be very subpar. "Everybody sees my stalking tiger. My hunting dog can't pick up on the trail. I guess I'll just use handle animal to train a decent mundane animal."

Also, and I think this may be an actual errata, but on the PRD the Wolf animal companion is listed as not having low-light vision. Basically every other animal companion does, as does the wolf write up in the bestiary preview. Is there a reason they wouldn't get low-light vision? Or is this just a mistake?

Hydro wrote:

Boggle wrote:

However no one has shown me why they should work one off examples are poor at best i can give hundreds of examples where they dont work.

I'm not sure if you're having the same conversation as the rest of us.

its my converstion

so unless im a split personality i must be lol

I hope

Perhaps you need to clarify your question. You asked why people play bards, and a number of people have stated why they like to play bards, and you are saying that their reasons are false or aren't good enough.

What exactly are you asking? Are they better at one thing than any other class? The obvious answer is no, because they are a Jack of All Trades, MASTER OF NONE.

Now, what do they bring to the table? I did play in a large group where there were a lot of melee focused players...and 1 bard. All he wanted to do was buff the party, and for the first time I thought the bard was actually TOO powerful of a class. Now, obviously that's not a typical group, but when your fighters are all out power attacking because they get enough buff bonus that they'll hit anyway, some serious damage gets put in play. Also, by the way, later in that game I played a buffing Wizard, along with the bard, and there was a cleric who occasionally buffed others (he was more into self buffing). The group became unstoppable, because most of the buffs stacked. I think the DM went bald after this campaign...

Anyway, why play a bard? because you want to heal and buff AND you want to be a skill monkey AND you want to be a spontaneous caster AND you want some fun arcane spells (that clerics don't get) AND you want some of the fun that is druidic spells AND you want to be a Use Magic Device expert for those spells you can't cast on your own AND you want to hold your own in melee...it's not because you want to do one thing, it's because you are indecisive and want to do everything.

Where a bard particularly shines is in large and small groups. Small group? Well he can fill multiple niches, though perhaps not one of which is filled as well by another class. Large group? His buffs quickly change the tide of battle. Standard Group? Well, you may be better off with a Rogue, a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Fighter.

dulsin wrote:

The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.

Yes, I read this but it still seems to say that if the caster doesn't know the spell then its a +5DC to get someone else to cast it ... (combined with the quote saying all requirements must be met).

Maybe I'm the only one who reads it that way?

I can understand the confusion, but I think the way it is worded, it is saying that having the spell available through a magic item or another caster qualifies as meeting the prerequisite. Without getting to grammar nazi about it, the statement is included in the sentence talking about meeting the prerequisites. The statement about not meeting prerequisites is in a new sentence, so is a separate statement.

I'm curious if these two work together. If a Fighter 3/Wizard 2 has an arcane bond for a weapon, and the master craftsman feat in craft weaponry, does he qualify to enchant his bonded weapon as if he had the Craft Magic Arms & Armor feat?

"A wizard can add additional magic abilities to his bonded object as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat."

And Master Craftsman lets you substitute your ranks in craft for your caster level for the appropriate item creation feat.

It seems like it should work, but I'm curious about what others think.

under skills for perception is

Action: Most Perception checks are reactive, made in
response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching
for stimulus is a move action.

and under the rogue class we have

Trap Spotter (Ex): Whenever a rogue with this talent
comes within 10 feet of a trap, she receives an immediate
Perception skill check to notice the trap. This check should
be made in secret by the GM.

with this i would say that you have to be Intentionally searching for traps to find them unless you have the trap spoter class feature

This seems to be the intuitive answer, especially based on the trap spotter ability. I'm not sure how much this is colored by my experience with 3.5, however. I'd like to see an errata or FAQ that specified how traps should specifically be handled. It'd be nice to have a change to the "I move five feet and search for traps. I move 5 feet more and search again." Of course, I guess that maybe all rogues should just take trap spotter.

It'd be nice if "observable stimulus" were actually defined. Is a person using Stealth not observable? They are theoretically hidden, so should possibly require an active perception check rather than reactive. To me, how well a trap is hidden is comparable to how well a person is hidden. I guess it's just left to the GM to decide...

So, in 3.5 you used search, which was a standard action for a 5-foot square, to find traps. However, with Search being rolled into perception with pathfinder this is no longer specified. I can't find it, but does it state anywhere that this is still the case? The Perception skill text seems to vaguely indicate that it might be reactive.

So reactive perception check to notice traps, or active searching?

Combat:

Under Combat Statistics, Armor Class. there is a reference to "see Table: Armor and Shields". Should probably have a link to that table (as it's on a different page).

Under "Big and Little Creatures in Combat", Table: Creature Size and Scale appears as jumbled text.

Additional Rules:

Table: Random Starting Ages appears as jumbled text, not a table.

Under Carrying Capacity, 4th paragraph, references Table: Encumbrance Effects, which is not on the web page.

Under Tactical Movement, 2nd paragraph, references Table: Hampered Movement, which is not on the page.

Under Overland Movement, 6th paragraph, references Table: Terrain and Overland Movement, which is not on the page.

So, I haven't seen it anywhere else on the boards, but did anybody else notice that the Str/Con bonus from rage became a morale bonus instead of an unnamed bonus? I haven't found anything else yet that gives a morale bonus to Str or Con, so it might not be a big deal, but it's interesting that it's there to prevent future stacking.

Perhaps you are right.

I just would like to get Jasons feedback on why.
Especially on the see invisibility issue and why Inspire Greatness hasn't been fixed. I don't like that the Song of Freedom got cut out, but it's not a game breaker.

So...just out of curiosity, are you saying that See Invisibility should have been fixed and wasn't? Because it's a third level bard spell in the 3.5 SRD...