sysane's page

As a "fix" for the group upset at having to take up a 2nd-level slot for Summon Eidolon. Instead of having to memorize Summon Eidolon you could house rule that summoners can spontaneously cast/sacrifice a 2nd-spell in order to re-summon the their Eidolon.

Another option would to making the spontaneous casting a feat instead of it being automatic class feature.

Here's the thing, is the damage delivered by the grapple considered a melee attack? No "attack" roll is made to successfully hit the target being grappled and the power attack feat states that it improves the damage dealt by a melee attack.

This is what my group is little confused/hung up on.

Quick question about an issue that came up in last night's Council of Thieves session.

Can a character, specifically a monk, use the Power Attack feat to increase the damage delivered by grapple?

wraithstrike wrote:

Abraham spalding wrote:

AvalonXQ wrote:

Caineach wrote:

And yet in Planscape, you have a chaotic society that maintains control on limbo through the shear force of their minds. They understand chaos, and can therefore shape it to their will, bringing cities to the landscape.

... shaping chaos into order? How is that not fundamentally lawful behavior? But the creatures that do this are considered chaotic in alignment?

They are not he's simply leaving all the important parts out.

Which society is this. I am not to familiar with planescape other the Sigil, and its ruler.

The Githzerai.

More specifically, a planar Sect called the Anarchs

"The Slay Masters"

I can't see it being abused. Its not like a character can level dip into the class just to get Stalwart. The ability isn't gained till 11th-level. I personally think the armor restriction should be removed due to that.

I'd suggest looking over the 1e adventures "Dungeonland" and "Land Beyond the Magic Mirror".

They're Gray Gygax adaptations of Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, with the various characters from the books translated into AD&D terms.

I played them back in day and figured they were worth mentioning.

On a more useful note, I'm a little confused about the alchemist's ability to use Craft (alchemy) to ID potions "as if using detect magic." Does the Craft (alchemy) check replace the usual Spellcraft check?

I took it to mean that so long as the alchemist holds a potion for 1 rd its treated as if he had cast Detect Magic and is able to use the Craft(alchemy) skill in place of Spellcraft to identify it.

In addition, an alchemist can use Craft (alchemy) to identify potions as if using detect magic. He must hold the potion for one round to make such a check.

Thought this was an nice added perk. Makes the Craft(alchemy) skill a bit more usefulness in the hands of an Alchemist.

I think that would make sense for the Alchemist to receive some sort of bonus when using Spellcraft to identify potions or other alchemical based magic items. I think a competence bonus equal 1/2 or full class level would be fitting.

Actually want to revise this idea. I think that the alchemist should be able to use his Craft(alchemy) skill in place of his Spellcraft skill when identifying potions or alchemical based magic items with a +2 bouns.

I think that would make sense for the Alchemist to receive some sort of bonus when using Spellcraft to identify potions or other alchemical based magic items. I think a competence bonus equal 1/2 or full class level would be fitting.

Don't know if its been suggested before but think it was worth mentioning.

non-magic variant... bombs, extracts, etc., mundane and not magical...

Thats an interesting premise. I could see the alchemist creating non-magical bombs that could work in dead magic areas, punch through spell resistance, ignore anti-magic field or globes of invulnerability. It would fill an interesting niche.

Might be overpowered however. Making it a Discovery that could be applied to bombs may balance it out somewhat.

I'd like to see craft(alchemy) play a bigger part of this class. How, I'm not sure. I could come up with a few things with time.

As I've mentioned in another thread, what Preform is to Bards, Craft (alchemy) should be to Alchemists.

no Evasion has been a part of the game since created and is used only for save for half damage spells.

Mettle doesnt just work for save for half, but also partial I think it an odd function for those spells.
generally such a spell has an effect which you do not have a save against, but BECAUSE it adds something extra to the spell you get a save to negate the spell completely.

I see where I would want it to apply and where not, the mettle per RAW will cause problems though and it will cause discussion with players.

Thus I think mettle is too crude to implement as an ability.

I will agree that Mettle as an ability could stand to be revised and wouldn't take much to do so.

Limiting it to just damaging effects that allow Will or Fort saves (like evasion) for half would do it IMO.

my main problem with mettle as an ability is it wasnt well thought out and at times in 3.5 seems.. weird.

for instance an evocation spell deals 10d8 points of damage on one target no save just ranged attack roll, excellent, now we have an improved version of that spell besides also dealing 15d8 force damage it also stuns you IF YOU FAIL A FORTITUDE SAVE.

In this case the improved version could very well suck more, because you get a save to negate the whole spell.
In my opinion mettle is best left alone, unless you are willing to test every spell against it.

I think spells like the one in your example are far and few between. While I'm not positive, there are probably reflex spells that would fall into the same category. Does that mean that there's a problem with the evasion ability or a problem with the spell? I think neither. I think its just a matter of a DM judgment call on whether the damage is negated as well as the Stun or just the Stun and Mettle was just not applicable in this instance (I opt for the latter).

Subject pretty much nails it.

Does a first level character gain the bonus +1 hit point and skill point right off the bat, or is it gained at all levels after the first level in the favored class?

Evasion ability is nice, though I think the ability is quite weak without good reflex saves, also I think reflex saves deserve a good save rather than fortitude. Since it strikes me of a character thinking on his / her feet rather than a robust warrior type.

the ability in itself is a good stimulant to not wear heavy armor.

Someone in another Inquisitor thread suggested replacing Evasion with Mettle.

Those unfamiliar with the Mettle ability. It allows the character to completely ignore effects that allow a Will or Fort save on a successful save.

Think this is more fitting than Evasion. Using force of will and fortitude over nimbleness is thematically a better representation of what the Inquisitor embodies and meshes well with their good Will and Fort save progression.

Then how about Trapfinding becomes a Discovery.

For anyone who wants to play a trapfinding Alchemist they have to use a discovery to show their advanced research in the area for all traps and not just chemical based.

Like having to take Traps 101 before you get to choose the cool ones like Magic Traps 207. :B

I could live with that. Makes it more of a focused pursuit rather than it being something that all Alchemist are assumed to be able to do.

Prior to this class, when I thought "Alchemist" trapfinding and the dismantling of traps were the furthest thing on my mind as to abilities they would posses

Then with that knowledge would it not make sense that the Alchemist is capable of disabling said traps?

Maybe traps that use poison or explode but things like pit traps, or a whirling floor scythe, no.

I could see the disabling of poison/explosive traps as a special use of the craft(alchemy) skill that the Alchemist is only able to preform, but to have it extend to non-alchemical trap types doesn't fit IMO.

If the Alchemist wants to be able to find traps take a level dip into rogue to represent trap focused pursuits. I could even see it as an alternate ability for the Alchemist but not something that all Alchemist should be able to do.

You can justify any class having access to disable devise if spun the right way.

Monk: Uses his mastery of self to harness the vibrations of his unarmed strikes to open chests and doors without damaging them(Can't help but think of the Fonz here).

Bard: Uses the harmonics of his instruments to render traps inert.

Ranger: Uses his hunting skills of setting snares and pit falls to disable traps.

You get my point. Just because there can be reasonable explanation for it does mean that its good cause to give a class access to a certain skill. I'm not saying that no other class should be able to disable traps or open locks, but I don't believe the Alchemist is best class to give it to.

A directed blast that can unlock a lock without damaging it? Or unstring a tripwire so it can be put back in place later? That doesn't even remotely make sense. A directed blast is just an explosion that destroys one specific thing, not a magical wave of energy that allows you to bypass locks and traps without ruining them completely.

Agreed. As I stated earlier in the thread, Disable Device just doesn't fit flavor wise. I understand the whole "demolitions" aspect that people are pointing out, but I don't see how the disposal of explosives equates to opening locks and the disarming of non-chemical traps.

I would really like to see some feats to allow the Monk to use his Ki points in a different way, in order to allow him to become more of a Mystic Warrior (if you want to specialize in that way). That would also be a 'fix' for those who are unsatisfied with the DPR of the Monk (and no, I'm not one of them, but I see that there are some people who complain about the damage dealt by Monks); in that way, a Monk character could become less a 'regular' martial artist and more of a 'magic warrior' empowered by Ki.

Mentioned the same thing earlier in the thread but with different abilities. Hope they go this route. I can't see them not doing this. Its a no brainer.

I'd like to see feats which expand the Monk's Ki abilities. Feats that allow monks to spend ki points to crack DR, empower their fists with an energy type, or run up walls and the like.

Don't know if this has been mentioned but couldn't the wraps be tied to specific DR type without any enhancement bonus? Meaning you could have something like "Monk Wraps of Silver" which would simply allow the monk's unarmed attacks to bypass DR/Silver. That way the wraps would still work in conjunction with the Amulet of Mighty Fists?

Probably not an original idea but thought I'd put it out there in case it hadn't.

It makes more sense for the Artificer or Tinker type classes getting Disable Device more so than the Alchemist. Those classes are more mechanically inclined than the Alchemist.

Acid I could see. I think it would be better represented (if not more flavorful) as a special use of Craft(Alchemy). I could even see the use of low impact explosive bombs to blow open locks and doors.

Now that begs the question of why would a chemist be any good at picking locks?

Sorry, I can't comment as I don't own the book.

The temple sword is an exotic weapon that basically a long sword that aids the trip attacks and allows a monk to use their flurry ability with it.

Can't decide if its worth the feat to be able to flurry with a long sword. The trip option is okay but as you said in your guide, the monk is better off bull rushing or overrunning.

Thoughts?

Beliers Bite was written oddly. While it references that it does extra 1d4 bleed damage in addition to unarmed damage it doesn't state that the target continues to take the damage. The way it reads it sounds that the target just takes 1d4 additional damage from each unarmed attack and thats it.

Don't know if this has been mentioned yet. Being lazy and don't want to look thru some 100 odd posts.

How do people feel about the temple sword from Pathfinder Campaign Setting? Viable option for the Monk to spend a feat on or is it better spent on something else?

They do have some ways to bypass, but it is very limited. The adamantine is quite useful for sundering. Maybe having a way to use ki points to alter what DR they can bypass

One thing I would like to see is a combat maneuver feat tree that is monk only, similar to the way fighters get their own feat trees. That would give the monks a niche of disabling and disrupting foes, which would work out well I think.

I posted this earlier in the thread but thought is warranted repeating.

A feat similar to this would help resolve the monk/DR issue.

Shattering Palm [GENERAL]

Prerequisite: Must have Ki pool, base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: As a swift action you may spend 1 ki point to add your Wisdom Modifier, in addition to your Strength Modifier, on damage rolls when making unarmed strikes against an opponent whose damage reduction is effective against your unarmed strikes for 1 round. The benefit of this feat does not apply against targets whose damage reduction do not apply to your attacks.

If I want to summon and the Summoner isn't the best class to do it, it is incorrectly named. I recently played a Conjurer, and felt that summoning was rarely my best option.

I have no problem with the class as is (except its name)...

I voiced this same opinion in another summoner related thread. The main focus of the class (as it stands now)is the binding of a specific outsider to the character where summoning is secondary.

Its like making a class called the "Master of Blades" and the major abilities being tied to one specific bladed weapon where the class' others abilities only make the character marginally better with others blade weapons. Its a bit of a misnomer.

I don't know. I might be needlessly splitting hairs. In the end, so long as the class is a solid concept with some cool perks the name doesn't really matter.

I understand that not every ability can or should be replicated thru feats hence the creation of base and prestige classes. But to say every archer based idea is best represented by feats rather than a class is nonsense. Granting something like precision damage, or as a full round action resolving a single ranged attack as a ranged touch attack, or whatever, shouldn't always come down to new feat creation.

Anyway, I see that this is going nowhere. I'll concede to disagree at this point (I hate that saying).

All the class features? I mentioned three as possible ideas. Only one was pointed as being replicated by a feat and only marginally so.

As for new feats. Couldn't most, if not all, of the new classes being put forth by the Advanced Player's Guide Playtest be achieved thru new feats and improved/greater feat chains?

Don't really understand the resistance to an archer based class. Wonder if WotC had the same issue with the Barbarian or the Monk when they first created 3.0.

"So, whats this barbarian class concept? A savage warrior who gains increased fighting prowess thru rage? Sounds like an angry ranger to me. Just make rage a feat chain and nix the class idea."

"Now tell me more about that monk class you were talking about? An enlightened warrior who fights with nothing but his bare fists and feet? Sounds like a lightly armored fighter who specializes in unarmed combat. Make a few unarmed feats and throw in a PrC or two and no need for a base class."

"So how many non-spellcasting base classes do we have now? Two??? Hmmmm...thats...errr...bad. Tell me about the rage ranger and the no weapon fighter concepts again."

sysane wrote:

You actually don't even need a feat to have the ability to do either of those things. They're both usable out of the box as a level 1 Commoner, let alone as an actual PC class.

You can take the Catch Off Guard and Improvised Weapon Mastery feats to actually make it a semi-useful option.

Commoner would be -4 on the attack so not so good at it. As you stated, a semi-usful option that no one would typically use feats on. As a class ability that lets the archer/marksmen do it while keeping the base damage, crit threat range and multiplier of the arrow/bolt all at lower level a decent perk to a class.

All of that sounds like feats to me, sept the hawkeye/green arrow tricks which are the realm of a PRC or magic items

That could be said of most base class abilities but thankfully they're not.

You might want to check the feats section again.

Unless I've missed something (posible) I don't think any of those are feats.

Dude thats a fighter with a feat chain. Really there is not much I can think of for an archer that can not be done with a fighter and his 21 feats

I can think of plenty things that can't be done with a fighter. Shooting while threatened without giving an AoO, perform a Combat Maneuver with an arrow/bolt, use an arrow/bolt as improvised melee weapon, etc..

The class doesn't even have to bow focused. Name it something like Marksmen and have two paths, one for the bow another for the crossbow. Give it abilites beyond the scope of a fighter just taking bow/crossbow related feats and you got yourself a base class. Granted, might be better as a PrC but that could be said of any class.

Wouldn't mind seeing as true archer base class. While there are fighter, ranger, and rogue builds that optimize the use of the bow they just don't capture the true archer feel.

I can see the argument that its to "nichey" to warrant full class but think it would be cool none-the-less.

sysane wrote:

Why do Alchemist get Disable Device as a skill? I'm not seeing the connection between mixing elixirs and alchemical concoctions and the ability to disarming traps and picking locks?

"Hold on, you purse-cutting twit! That's a gelatinous acid spray trap! If you botch the job you'll melt your fingers off! Let me handle it..."

Good, if not colorful, justification. +1

Why do Alchemist get Disable Device as a skill? I'm not seeing the connection between mixing elixirs and alchemical concoctions and the ability to disarming traps and picking locks?

But the Eidolion is the summons, it's the mother of all summons. A permanent creature, bent to you will. It can't die, can't be banished long term. It's the ultimate expression of the summoning arts. To bind an outsider not only to your will but to your very soul

Hence why a suggested binder. Its binding the aspect of the same creature which returns over, and over, and over again. Its what distances the class from a wizard who just merely specializes in summoning.

Just a suggestion. The class is first and foremost geared around the Eidolon and the summoning other creatures second.

I think people are taking to name "Summoner" to literal. Perhaps a name change more suited to the classes abilities is needed to give more of a distinction between a wizard that specializes in summoning and a class that binds specific creature for it services (i.e. Binder)?

Maybe its just me, but I feel that the Craft(alchemy) skill should play a bigger part in this class than it does now. What preform is to the bard craft(alchemy)should be to the alchemist.

Again maybe its just me.

Thoughts?

Fair nuff, well have to agree to disagree is all. Still thats a very hard concept to balance without slots or something going on

Agreed. Something along the lines of the alchemist's extract formulae mechanic would need to be worked into such a class.

Again, see where your coming from but don't see where a tinker like class wouldn't fit in your "standard" setting. Having a class that could create non magical spell-like effects, much like the alchemist, would fit in most campaign worlds IMO.

The issue with this is unlike the other classes it is very, very pigeonholed. It will only work in a few settings or it becomes very jarring. Really good for a streampunk themed source book though, but not great for a base class

While I see where you're coming from I still have to disagree. I don't see a gadget based class being anymore restrictive than the alchemist. One achieves wondrous affects though chemical concoctions the other through mechanical devices. Both have their place and fill different roles.