At lvl 10, the Ranger will get the instant enemy spell, which will help him even more.
as for the gloves of dueling- items are only found. never bought or created.
Does anyone else feel like this makes for an incredibly easy solution to this whole thing?
Drop nice gear for the fighter, don't drop any nice gear for the magus. Problem solved.
Sounds like your best player is playing magus, or at least the only player who read a guide and purpose built for combat. Have him go archer or barbarian next time if you want to have some perspective on what high sustained DPR does.
Drop nice gear for the fighter, don't drop any nice gear for the magus. Problem solved.
Why are you trying to force a fix for sub optimal builds? If the players wanted to be really OP at combat they'd have done some reading and built a character who is good at combat. Maybe the fighter just wanted to wield two weapons, the fighter was focused on role playing and image and that's fine.
I'm kind of curious as to which character is the OP's.
I'm also curious - are the ranger and the fighter actually bothered about the magus outperforming? It almost sounds like they're cool with just experimenting with weird/possibly terrible stuff and letting the magus do the heavy lifting.
The fighter and ranger COULD keep up if they wanted to.
I'm kind of curious as to which character is the OP's.
I'm also curious - are the ranger and the fighter actually bothered about the magus outperforming? It almost sounds like they're cool with just experimenting with weird/possibly terrible stuff and letting the magus do the heavy lifting.
The fighter and ranger COULD keep up if they wanted to.
Exactly my point. The magus used a high DPR build and the ranger and fighter chose not to use a high DPR build. OP is pointing out the disparity as though it's a class problem, but the problem is really that when you build for performance you perform better.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
" The Two Handed Fighter is OP because my EK/Wizard has 13 int"
" The Knifemaster Rogue is OP because im playing a Geisha Bard"
A recomendation, this player knows more than you, usually he will always be better than you. He has much better system mastery than you. You have two options, learn, ask him to teach you or else kick him from the table, because this will not change even if he changes of class. He´ll always be a step ahead
another thing, magus has the whole spell list, like a cleric.
they have a power that allow them to gain ANY spell on the list even if they lack it in their spell books. than he use scribe to make a scroll than he copy to spell book...
Anyone know what he's talking about here? A Magus's spell use is in no way like a Cleric. It is mechanically exactly like the Wizard, with fewer slots per level, and fewer spells to choose from.
Is he talking about Knowledge Pool? If so, that's a significant drain on the arcane pool, and is in no way as versatile as the cleric.
What he's referring to is the fact that you can add any spell you have prepared to a spellbook, and knowledge pool allows you to prepare anything from the Magus spell list. If the GM allows it (none that I personally know do), a Magus can gradually scribe the whole list.
And btw - the wizard isnt OP, he is at least not well defended...
The wizard IS OP and, if build right well defended as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knowledge pool allow any spell right?
Scibe scroll / scribe to spell book.
After a week you got from nothing to all known spells...
That is a very expensive prospect, in both gold, time AND a feat. Scribing a scroll just to learn the spell is more expensive than simply paying for access to a wizard's spellbook and learning the spell directly - which is something a wizard can do as well.
Knowledge Pool is not available until 7th level. Based on that, we'll look at learning a 3rd level spell:
Via Knowledge Pool
- Spend 1 arcane pool point to prepare an unknown spell.
- Spend 12.5gp x 3 x 7 = 262.5gp and 8 hours, then a DC-12 skill check to see if it worked, if not, time and gold are wasted.
- Decipher the scroll (automatic since you wrote it)
- Spend an hour to study the scroll, and make a DC-18 spellcraft check.
- Write the spell into you spellbook. This will take 3 hours, and cost 90 gp.
- Congratulations, you just added a new spell to your spellbook. It took 12 hours and cost 352.5gp and one arcane pool point.
Via another wizard.
- Pay the other wizard for access to a 3rd level spell in his/her spellbook (45gp).
- Study the spell for an hour and make a DC-18 spellcraft check.
Write the spell into your spellbook. This will take 3 hours and cost 90gp.
- Congratulations, you just added a new spell to your spellbook. This time it only took 4 hours and cost 135gp and one arcane pool point.
Tell me again how the knowledge pool method make the magus overpowered?
another thing, magus has the whole spell list, like a cleric.
they have a power that allow them to gain ANY spell on the list even if they lack it in their spell books. than he use scribe to make a scroll than he copy to spell book...Anyone know what he's talking about here? A Magus's spell use is in no way like a Cleric. It is mechanically exactly like the Wizard, with fewer slots per level, and fewer spells to choose from.
Is he talking about Knowledge Pool? If so, that's a significant drain on the arcane pool, and is in no way as versatile as the cleric.
I believe he is indeed talking about knowledge pool, and the magus player has realised that since he has the spell prepared he can craft a scroll of it and use that scroll to scribe the spell into his spell book. This way he never needs to use knowledge pool more than once for any given spell.
Of course the less roundabout way to do this little exploit is to say that "since I have this spell prepared, I can just straight up scribe it into my spellbook".If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would.
Thymus, the problem is that that text is clearly intended for spells you've actually learned.
Knowledge Pool is goofy because it lets you prep spells that you never made a check to actually learn.
I'd say you have to do the scribe scroll method to use knowledge pool to actually learn spells, but if your GM agrees with the easier method, than more power to you.
It still takes time (so much time...) and money to do it.
Heh. Wizard OPness varies wildly based on both the system mastery of the wizard player and the permissiveness of the GM.
another thing, magus has the whole spell list, like a cleric.
they have a power that allow them to gain ANY spell on the list even if they lack it in their spell books. than he use scribe to make a scroll than he copy to spell book...Anyone know what he's talking about here? A Magus's spell use is in no way like a Cleric. It is mechanically exactly like the Wizard, with fewer slots per level, and fewer spells to choose from.
Is he talking about Knowledge Pool? If so, that's a significant drain on the arcane pool, and is in no way as versatile as the cleric.
I believe he is indeed talking about knowledge pool, and the magus player has realised that since he has the spell prepared he can craft a scroll of it and use that scroll to scribe the spell into his spell book. This way he never needs to use knowledge pool more than once for any given spell.
Of course the less roundabout way to do this little exploit is to say that "since I have this spell prepared, I can just straight up scribe it into my spellbook".If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would.
The problem with that line, is that it is in the section for 'Replacing or Copying Spellbooks', which you are not doing here. You cannot cherry pick sentences from paragraphs that are not related to the action you are trying to take.
The problem with that line, is that it is in the section for 'Replacing or Copying Spellbooks', which you are not doing here. You cannot cherry pick sentences from paragraphs that are not related to the action you are trying to take.another thing, magus has the whole spell list, like a cleric.
they have a power that allow them to gain ANY spell on the list even if they lack it in their spell books. than he use scribe to make a scroll than he copy to spell book...Anyone know what he's talking about here? A Magus's spell use is in no way like a Cleric. It is mechanically exactly like the Wizard, with fewer slots per level, and fewer spells to choose from.
Is he talking about Knowledge Pool? If so, that's a significant drain on the arcane pool, and is in no way as versatile as the cleric.
I believe he is indeed talking about knowledge pool, and the magus player has realised that since he has the spell prepared he can craft a scroll of it and use that scroll to scribe the spell into his spell book. This way he never needs to use knowledge pool more than once for any given spell.
Of course the less roundabout way to do this little exploit is to say that "since I have this spell prepared, I can just straight up scribe it into my spellbook".If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would.
Ah, but the magus is treated as having the spell in his spellbook, so he is indeed "copying" his spellbook ;)
I'd like to put it out there that I wouldn't do it if I played a magus, and I probably wouldn't allow it if I were a GM.
CraziFuzzy: You missed two big advantages that the Magus has.
1. He doesn't need the help of a friendly Wizard. He can do it by himself without the help of the Wizard which is more than can be said for the Wizard himself. This can be a big deal depending on the campaign. Not everyone has easy access to spells.
2. He gets the keep the scroll after he has scribed it and at reduced cost for purchasing a scroll. And again, it is always available.
I do not think it is overpowered by the way, just something tricky that RAW Magus can do.
That still doesn't negate the fact that it would be both a huge timesink and a waste of money to do that instead of paying an NPC wizard for access to his books.
CraziFuzzy: You missed two big advantages that the Magus has.
1. He doesn't need the help of a friendly Wizard. He can do it by himself without the help of the Wizard which is more than can be said for the Wizard himself. This can be a big deal depending on the campaign. Not everyone has easy access to spells.
2. He gets the keep the scroll after he has scribed it and at reduced cost for purchasing a scroll. And again, it is always available.
I do not think it is overpowered by the way, just something tricky that RAW Magus can do.
1 -> Normally, the 'friendly wizard' doesn't even have to be known. This is often considered a service available in most settlements, similar to spellcasting for hire.
2 -> He actually does not get to keep the scroll.
The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
I remember when folks first discovered the knowledge pool "exploit" during the early magus days, only to have a developer turn around and tell them that it was a "feature."
|
keen - was a special weapon given by DM, not bought.
magus is int\dex based. he has str of 16 with a belt, dex of 16-18, ont of 18, con of 12 and toughness.
AC is : breast plate, mithral +2 (8) + 4 (dex) +2 (ring) +1(natural) = 25 pre spells.
shield is cast by his familiar from a scroll = 29.
that is really high, highest in the group. and that is pre spells like deflection \ mirror image etc that can be used.
You should see the AC on an optimized magus, 29 is on the low end for a dex-based build. My level 8 magus has a 32 with Shield up, and he's far from optimized for combat. An AC of 35+ is obtainable by 10th level.
But yes, most of your issues stem from one player being better at optimization than the rest. My suggestion would be helping the other players improve, not placing arbitrary restrictions on the magus.
|
our group has a bard, cleric caster-summoner, 2 kukri fighter, archer ranger and the magus. we are lvl 9.
the magus is WAY WAY better than all when combat starts.
he got amazing armor\defences (mithral breast plate, ring +2, dex based). round 1 mostly goes to mirror image.
he he doing about 90+ damage a round, with huge to hit...way more than all the rest.it feel's useless to do anything other than heal and keep him alive.
are all magus like that?we mostly have bard song, and haste form the bard.
having 4 attacks (1 spell through the weapon, 1 weapon, 1 bab, 1 haste).
his scimitar is +2, he mostly add shocking,flame and keen to it.
he attack with intensified shocking grasp (9d6), scimitar (1d6), flame&lighting (2d6) = 12d6 with 25% for critical (10d6 more...). add some static bonus (about 7).than he attack again, using a swift action to add extra 4d6, so his attack is 7d6+7.
and last 2 attacks are 3d6+7 (all with crit of 25%..)
thats... like a charging cavalier but without a charge...
Yes, magus is overpowered. Are you the DM or another player?
Why would he not get to keep the scroll?
As I said, not all groups have another "friendly wizard" in them and not all campaigns operate under the Ye Olde Magic Shoppe mentality. Table variation does exist.
I remember when folks first discovered the knowledge pool "exploit" during the early magus days, only to have a developer turn around and tell them that it was a "feature."
It always looked like a bug to me so i give magus two extra skill points and 2 more skills as a replacement for the knowledge pool class feature.
|
|
i'll add some info.
all can be better, non optimize, not even the magus.
the fighter took 2-3 feats fro performance combat as he is a gladiator.
the cleric took 3 feats for improve familiar
the ranger took boon companion although his cat is a tank, not melee.
the magus took scribe, toughness, improve familiar.non optimize.
as for the gloves of dueling- items are only found. never bought or created.
the magus need nothing other than fineness, intensify and combat casting.another thing, magus has the whole spell list, like a cleric.
they have a power that allow them to gain ANY spell on the list even if they lack it in their spell books. than he use scribe to make a scroll than he copy to spell book...
From another thread:
I'm inclined to say no, as spell kenning just allows the skald to cast the spell, it doesn't add it to his spells known. And you can't cast a spell unless it's a spell known. (Related question is "can a magus use knowledge pool to prepare a non-magus spell, then scribe it into his book?," and I think the answer to that is also "no.")Can a skald write a scroll (or otherwise create items) of a spell gained via Spell Kenning?
While it is a "I think" reply, it is from one of the Developers of the game.
Writing a spell into a spellbook require to understand it:
Writing a New Spell into a SpellbookOnce a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
but understanding a spell require this procedure:
Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll: A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.Knowledge pool bypass the part where you study the spell and then make the spellcraft check, so you have the spell memorized but you don't understand it.
It work if you are replacing a lost spellbook, as you have understood the spell when you did write ti the first time, not if you are trying to write a spell you don't have studied.
another thing, magus has the whole spell list, like a cleric.
they have a power that allow them to gain ANY spell on the list even if they lack it in their spell books. than he use scribe to make a scroll than he copy to spell book...
RAW he doesn't even need to scribe a scroll. As he knows the spell he can write it in his book. But I haven't seen any GM allow it yet. Even with scribe scroll.
@Gloves of dueling: If the fighter is to weak, why not just have the gloves drop?
He don't know the spell, he has it memorized. It is different.
Regarding the Magus vs the Fighter, based on my recent experiences attempting to play Fighters I'd say that the Magus is probably much more powerful not because he has high DPR but because he doesn't have a horrible Will save. If the DM is the sort who targets weak spots on the PCs the typical Fighter's path is a pretty tough one.
SKR's point regarding Spell Kenning is interesting. I wonder if there has been any additional developer input on that. The current rules for Spell Kenning say, "Once per day, a skald can cast any spell on the bard, cleric, or sorcerer/wizard spell list as if it were one of his skald spells known"
SKR had previously ruled that multiple spellcasters can cooperate to make magic items including scrolls and wands with one caster supplying the crafting feat and the other casting the requisite spell. You can also supply the spell via a magic item, possibly even using UMD, so it would seem odd to me if being able to cast the spell wouldn't meet the spell prerequisite for item creation. On the other hand, I'd consider a Magus trying to write a spell into a spellbook quite a different matter, especially if that spell wasn't on the class spell list.
He don't know the spell, he has it memorized. It is different.
If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook
Sorry I used the wrong word. With the right word it works. He has the spell prepared and if he has the spell prepared he can write it down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember when folks first discovered the knowledge pool "exploit" during the early magus days, only to have a developer turn around and tell them that it was a "feature."Citation please, as SKR said the opposite.
Not quite as I remember it. Still, they were well aware of the potential problems and never once bothered to close the "exploit." Such an omission of errata/change is tantamount to a general acceptance of it, at least on the "ask your GM" level.
I've also shown in other threads that, mathematically, using this "exploit" only saves you ~25,000gp at 16th-level, the price of a single Medium-power magical item. Hardly a balance problem at those levels (and the lower level you are, the less it saves you, so relative balance is maintained at all levels whether you use it or not).
|
|
He don't know the spell, he has it memorized. It is different.If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbookSorry I used the wrong word. With the right word it works. He has the spell prepared and if he has the spell prepared he can write it down.
Quote the whole piece.
Replacing and Copying Spellbooks
A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook. If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would. If he does not have the spell prepared, he can prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into a new book.
Duplicating an existing spellbook uses the same procedure as replacing it, but the task is much easier. The time requirement and cost per page are halved.
You are replacing a lost spellbook or copying one? You can write the spell.
The spell isn't in a spellbook you have lost or one you own? You can't, even if you have the spell prepared.
Very simple if you read the whole rule.
In both cases you prepare a spell and write it down.
So would you disallow a player who has not lost his spell book but can't access it right now to write a new one just because the rules are only for lost or borrowed books?
The core of the ability is that you can write spells you have prepared into a spell book. You might not like it but that is what the Magus does.
When the quoted rule was written there was no Magus class. So they could not add that it is also possible when preparing it via a Magus class feature. Your Argument is the same as people claiming that oracles can't use metamagic feats because the rule about how they do is not in the core rulebook.
Sorcerers and Bards: Sorcerers and bards choose spells as they cast them. They can choose when they cast their spells whether to apply their metamagic feats to improve them. As with other spellcasters, the improved spell uses up a higher-level spell slot. Because the sorcerer or bard has not prepared the spell in a metamagic form in advance, he must apply the metamagic feat on the spot. Therefore, such a character must also take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than he does to cast a regular spell. If the spell's normal casting time is a standard action, casting a metamagic version is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. (This isn't the same as a 1-round casting time.) The only exception is for spells modified by the Quicken Spell metamagic feat, which can be cast as normal using the feat.
Look, with your reasoning oracles and skalds can't use metamagic feats. There is not rule for how they do it.
I remember when folks first discovered the knowledge pool "exploit" during the early magus days, only to have a developer turn around and tell them that it was a "feature."Citation please, as SKR said the opposite.
He did no such thing.
Take the time to actually read the quote you posted.(Related question is "can a magus use knowledge pool to prepare a non-magus spell, then scribe it into his book?," and I think the answer to that is also "no.")
Still not getting it?
Here, let me help you with that.(Related question is "can a magus use knowledge pool to prepare a non-magus spell, then scribe it into his book?," and I think the answer to that is also "no.")
How about now?
non-magus spell
Now?
I would not recommend trying to enforce the standard to activate flaming/shocking. You could bring it up, but I'd avoid pushing it. It's iffy and there are good reasons it is a debated subject.
It's not a debated subject. It's of the same lines as the failing a reflex save on a 1 against a Fireball destroys a piece of random gear.
People like to ignore rules they don't like. That does not mean they are not rules. If the DM would like to enforce this rule to tone down the Magus' damage, he is well within his right to do so as it is in line with the rules itself.
The Magus/Paladin/Arcane/Divine Bond ability allows you to add the weapon property to your weapon. Abilities do what they say they do and nothing more or less. The ability does not then ALSO activate the weapon property as it does not have language that allows it to.
When one allows their players to stretch their abilities beyond what their abilities actually say they can do, they often deal with the overpowered consequences. Full casters get slightly bit more flak than they should because DM's allow "creative" applications of spells that bypass obstacles/obviate skills or party members through their use.
Full casters get slightly bit more flak than they should because DM's allow "creative" applications of spells that bypass obstacles/obviate skills or party members through their use.
In this case people ignore this (or assume it was meant to come online activated) because it lessens the full caster's superiority.
I would not recommend trying to enforce the standard to activate flaming/shocking. You could bring it up, but I'd avoid pushing it. It's iffy and there are good reasons it is a debated subject.It's not a debated subject. It's of the same lines as the failing a reflex save on a 1 against a Fireball destroys a piece of random gear.
People like to ignore rules they don't like. That does not mean they are not rules. If the DM would like to enforce this rule to tone down the Magus' damage, he is well within his right to do so as it is in line with the rules itself.
The Magus/Paladin/Arcane/Divine Bond ability allows you to add the weapon property to your weapon. Abilities do what they say they do and nothing more or less. The ability does not then ALSO activate the weapon property as it does not have language that allows it to.
When one allows their players to stretch their abilities beyond what their abilities actually say they can do, they often deal with the overpowered consequences. Full casters get slightly bit more flak than they should because DM's allow "creative" applications of spells that bypass obstacles/obviate skills or party members through their use.
I doubt the PDT team intends for you to spend a standard action to give your weapon the ability, and another to active it. I agree that by RAW you could be right, I doubt that is the intent. That is basically what the others are saying also.
Full casters dont get more flack because of creative uses. They get flack because in theory(on the boards) they are judged on what they can more than what they actually do most of the time.
While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.
Minor insight into what they think about it. Devs believe it takes a standard action to activate and then one can leave it on in the sheathe. Unfortunately for those who gain the property suddenly, this is not feasible for them.
RAW I'm not "could" be right. I am right. You can argue intent, but the RAW is clear. The Magus ability grants the weapon property. It does not then also activate said weapon property.
I also believe you are wrong about full casters not getting more flak from folks because many DMs allow "creative" solutions with magic. This is however more of an anecdote over the past few years I've realized. The countless threads of "Hey my DM let the caster use this spell to do this, is that right?" that are responded with "No the spell doesn't work that way." are a testament to that.
While it's a command word to activate or deactivate a weapon like a flaming or a frost weapon... once activated it stays on. Sheathing it suppresses the energy automatically, and when you draw the weapon later it's ready to go. You'd only want to turn off the energy effect, as a previous poster said, when you're facing something that using that type of energy against is a bad idea.Minor insight into what they think about it. Devs believe it takes a standard action to activate and then one can leave it on in the sheathe. Unfortunately for those who gain the property suddenly, this is not feasible for them.
RAW I'm not "could" be right. I am right. You can argue intent, but the RAW is clear. The Magus ability grants the weapon property. It does not then also activate said weapon property.
I also believe you are wrong about full casters not getting more flak from folks because many DMs allow "creative" solutions with magic. This is however more of an anecdote over the past few years I've realized. The countless threads of "Hey my DM let the caster use this spell to do this, is that right?" that are responded with "No the spell doesn't work that way." are a testament to that.
Some GM asking a question of being corrected is not a testament in my opinion. It is just someone asking a question.
And as for Jame's statement the entire conversation would be nice since I think he is referring to the normal use of the ability, not when it is used by a paladin or magus through a class feature.
So what I'm getting from the "doesn't come online activated ruling" for elemental enchants is this: A number of bad enchantments just became horrible.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So what I'm getting from the "doesn't come online activated ruling" for elemental enchants is this: A number of bad enchantments just became horrible.
It depends on how you view the RAI. Scavion has a valid point. By RAW he is correct, but I don't think it is RAI.
It may be worth an FAQ however. Even if the PDT team say that the RAW is the RAI, I will likely houserule it, but I am curious now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you as it is RAW, but also a rather wtf ruling. Adding on an extra standard action to use elemental enchantments for things like Divine Bond/Arcane Pool is like kicking an old man's cane out from under him while he's on the stairs, with the elemental enchantment being the old man in this example. Hasn't the old man suffered enough without kids like you disrespecting your elders?
Standard...Action?
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
First, note that it says "command", and not "command word", i will get into this later.
I get it that activating it requires a command, but only because you always have the option to turn them off (you might NOT want to start a fire on a ship, afterall), but i dont see anywhere that they must be turned off so they can be sheathed. All of those enchants, as far as i know, specifically mention they do not harm the wielder, if they dont harm the wielder, they dont harm his equipment either, which includes the scabbards or little cords or whatever you use to carry the weapon.
Again, the "command" in there (to me) exists only because the effect can be turned off, which prevents another can of worms in the hands of crafty GM's and players alike.
So that leads me back to:
Are flamming swords command words or use activated?
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. a character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.Many use-activated items are objects that a character wears. Continually functioning items are practically always items that one wears. A few must simply be in the character's possession (meaning on his person). However, some items made for wearing must still be activated. Although this activation sometimes requires a command word (see above), usually it means mentally willing the activation to happen. The description of an item states whether a command word is needed in such a case.
Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item's activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all.
Use activation doesn't mean that if you use an item, you automatically know what it can do. You must know (or at least guess) what the item can do and then use the item in order to activate it, unless the benefit of the item comes automatically, such as from drinking a potion or swinging a sword.
Bolded the relevant parts.
... Wait, you really think that Flaming and Shocking are the balance issues here?The Magus/Paladin/Arcane/Divine Bond ability allows you to add the weapon property to your weapon. Abilities do what they say they do and nothing more or less. The ability does not then ALSO activate the weapon property as it does not have language that allows it to.
When one allows their players to stretch their abilities beyond what their abilities actually say they can do, they often deal with the overpowered consequences.
Nope. My statement was, "If the DM wishes to curtail a portion of the Magus' damage, he is well within his right to do so by enforcing this rule."
The true matter is simply that the Magus makes a lot of Martials look bad because it has 6/9 spellcasting, 3/4ths BAB, and really good class features. Especially if it's competing against a Fighter or Ranger.
|
And a tiny resource pool and a number of mechanics that make it difficult to actually do that kind of damage all the time until high levels?
Between a small number of spells/day, the rather small arcane pool, and the need to make lots of concentration checks to get spells off in melee (or messing around with the cast -> 5ft step -> spellstrike stuff, which prevents you from doing it every round), I find it difficult to really see how the Magus is even remotely overpowered.
And a tiny resource pool and a number of mechanics that make it difficult to actually do that kind of damage all the time until high levels?
Between a small number of spells/day, the rather small arcane pool, and the need to make lots of concentration checks to get spells off in melee (or messing around with the cast -> 5ft step -> spellstrike stuff, which prevents you from doing it every round), I find it difficult to really see how the Magus is even remotely overpowered.
Level 9. We're looking at a common 7 times per day of high damage strikes, more if the Magus wants to sacrifice utility for damage output. Arcane Pool has 9 points at this level with Int being 20(Fairly common). A 4 encounters a day paradigm means he'll have atleast 2 points to use in every combat and the most common use of the Arcane Pool lasts the entire combat. Fantastic AC from being Dex based with access to the Shield spell. Access to Mirror Image which also provides incredible durability in combat.
The Concentration checks may as well not exist. DC17 to drop a Shocking Grasp on the enemy. The Magus is going to have atleast a +14 from Caster Level and Int alone. A simple trait removes the possibility of failure.
Add the ability to change up what kind of utility he brings day to day and yes, the characters built more solely for combat are going to feel overshadowed when Magus man shows up, deals out more damage and has tons of utility abilities.
Is a Magus overpowered compared to full casters? Not really. But it'll absolutely show up people playing less optimized characters and classes which is what is happening here.
Shadowkras it does take a command word to use elemental properties of magic weapons if they are not activated. Command words are standard actions, and it takes a command to turn on the flaming property.
... Wait, you really think that Flaming and Shocking are the balance issues here?The Magus/Paladin/Arcane/Divine Bond ability allows you to add the weapon property to your weapon. Abilities do what they say they do and nothing more or less. The ability does not then ALSO activate the weapon property as it does not have language that allows it to.
When one allows their players to stretch their abilities beyond what their abilities actually say they can do, they often deal with the overpowered consequences.
Nope. My statement was, "If the DM wishes to curtail a portion of the Magus' damage, he is well within his right to do so by enforcing this rule."
The true matter is simply that the Magus makes a lot of Martials look bad because it has 6/9 spellcasting, 3/4ths BAB, and really good class features. Especially if it's competing against a Fighter or Ranger.
How is it making rangers look bad? Let's assume he is going against a fair amount of favored enemies.
Most rangers if build well have decent utility and can compete in damage.