Regarding The Ultimate Combat Errata


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

John the original post still makes no mention of retraining Combat Reflexes if you took the Snap Shot chain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand that we all have pressing issues with the errata and our characters. However, I am sure that John does have other things on his plate besides stalking this particular thread all day. I am sure that if you leave your specific questions in the thread he will get back to us when he can.

Ohh...can we start a "Ask *John Compton* About Your Rebuilds Here"

Bigguyinblack wrote:
John the original post still makes no mention of retraining Combat Reflexes if you took the Snap Shot chain.

Why can't you just take his response to your question as proof and rebuild?

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Alexander Lenz wrote:
I realy like this kind of rebuildclarification, can we expect something for the other erratas that happened pre Gencon? (There are some siscussions about what qualifies for what rebuild in our region.)
I admit this is a bit of an experiment, fueled in part by having a slice of time in which to review the errata in full with Linda, type up a fairly comprehensive list of likely rebuild-worthy issues and their changes, and bring up a few concerns with the design team.

Thank you! This is a much better way of doing this. Characters are by and large a connected whole and you can't tug on one part without upsetting the entire thing.

A lot of the anger comes from having characters that get reduced from +167 to +98 points of damage, but more legitimate gripes come from character ability or purchase A no longer making parts B C and D work together so that retraining part A isn't sufficient.

An example of that here seems to be people who bought coils of the anaconda to use deadly embrace.

Grand Lodge 2/5

John Compton wrote:
Alexander Lenz wrote:
I realy like this kind of rebuildclarification, can we expect something for the other erratas that happened pre Gencon? (There are some siscussions about what qualifies for what rebuild in our region.)

I admit this is a bit of an experiment, fueled in part by having a slice of time in which to review the errata in full with Linda, type up a fairly comprehensive list of likely rebuild-worthy issues and their changes, and bring up a few concerns with the design team. That was not something I had a good opportunity to do for the Advanced Class Guide or Advanced Race Guide due to the massive number of projects the entire editorial staff was juggling for Gen Con, so Linda and I did what we could there. Those two errata are still on my list of things to revisit, but I am juggling those with my other development responsibilities in addition to acting as the interim campaign coordinator.

It's also an experiment in so much as the extent of the rebuilding allowed. It's more than we've allowed in the past, minus a few playtest-related rebuilds. I started being very strict about rebuilding when I started this job, and I recognize I've gravitated more toward leniency in that regard over the years. This is helping me get a feel for where the right equilibrium point is. I suspect our next campaign coordinator will help to shape that policy, too.

I don't believe this round of errata affected any of my characters, but I'll have to look through it again just to make sure. I know it affected the next character I wanted to make, but I'm pretty sure I can still make that happen. That being said, I do very much like how you addressed each errata point individually with points on what to do about each case.

This very much keeps the idea behind all of this that this is indeed meant to be a game (i.e. have fun). When choices and planning are blown away because of a rule change, as I'm sure you're aware, it can cripple a character that had a lot of planning and intricacy behind it--so this gives a way to reinvision these characters while still not feeling like they have to remain crippled. This kind of post offering these options still allows that character to be salvageable/redeemed and I very much appreciate the effort that went into weighing these options.

Bigguyinblack wrote:
John the original post still makes no mention of retraining Combat Reflexes if you took the Snap Shot chain.

The original post doesn't include any of the clarifications/further allowances he made on the first page that weren't originally in the first post.

Sovereign Court

I guess it goes without saying that if your affected by any of these changes (My case sap chain) and your ok with the changes you can leave them as is ?

I really did need to be dropped a notch or 2 ... 238 non lethal damage to Krune in 1 round was a bit much and 2 of 5 attacks missed

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RoshVagari wrote:
Dude, you guys want to nerf something, leave the Gunslinger archetypes alone and take a go at the Alchemist. I recently watched some grenadier build all but solo The Ruby Phoenix Tournament with his bow launched touch attack toppling force bombs. Now THAT'S deserving of some nerfing by errata.

So an 11th level Alchemist with the Explosive Missile and Force Bomb discovery gets 1 (and only 1) attack a round for 6d4 + INT force damage + Bow damage that knocks the target of the attack prone if they fail a reflex save (and only the target of the attack). It does nothing other than damage against splashed opponents even if you have the Toppling Metamagic feat because Megamagic feats cannot be applied to bombs or extracts as they are not spells. By using the Alchemical Weapon ability and a Hybridization Funnel he can add another 2d6 of energy damage (plus possibly his Int mod again depending on interpretation). If he wants to do this as a touch attack then he has to use a Dye Arrow which would mean he loses the bow damage (and any feats that would be applied to it such as Deadly Aim). So maximally we are looking at a single ranged touch attack doing 6d4+2d6+2xInt damage and knocking 1 opponent prone every round. This might eventually work on those contests in Ruby Phoenix that have a single, non-flying opponent, but many of them do not. So I don't see how he could have all but soloed those encounters. Sounds like it is time for a character audit to me. Many classes are broken when the players don't actually follow the rules on how their abilities work.


Just to put the gunslinger errata in perspective. This effectively cut the maximum damage by over half.

A lvl 11 gun twirling twf pistolero with double barrel pistols could have dealt out 12 attacks at 1d8 + 3d6 + static, for a total of 12d8 + 36d6 + 12Xstatic.
That is now cut down to 6 attacks at 1d8 + static plus an additional 3d6, for a total of 6d8 + 3d6 + 6Xstatic.

That is a much more realistic amount of damage and more in line with other maximized martial classes.

Silver Crusade

So, it looks like MoMS cant pick feats further down the style chain until they get the wild card slots at later levels, since they removed the language about being able to take a style feat further down the chain.

I would like to:

A: Confirm it works like that
B: If so, how do we approach rebuilding?

There are a number of people around here that dipped a couple levels of MoMS for things like Purmmeling Charge (including me), and I would appreciate having a specific ruling to point to, especially with a con coming up.

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lab_Rat wrote:

Just to put the gunslinger errata in perspective. This effectively cut the maximum damage by over half.

A lvl 11 gun twirling twf pistolero with double barrel pistols could have dealt out 12 attacks at 1d8 + 3d6 + static, for a total of 12d8 + 36d6 + 12Xstatic.
That is now cut down to 6 attacks at 1d8 + static plus an additional 3d6, for a total of 6d8 + 3d6 + 6Xstatic.

That is a much more realistic amount of damage and more in line with other maximized martial classes.

Right so a gunslinger needs to now use two weapon fighting and have 6 grits point to be in line with other maximized martial classes. So the gunslingers who don't have that much grit (which is most since wisdom is rarely that high.) and don't two weapon fight are behind the curve of other maxed martials. Which were already behind the curve of full spellcasters.

Of course other martial don't have weapons that can blow up or cost as much to shoot. It's a great nerf for the abusive two weapon fighting builds, but it's tough pill to swallow for the people who didn't build that way and just wanted to contribute as much damage as the wizard.

4/5

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RoshVagari wrote:
Dude, you guys want to nerf something, leave the Gunslinger archetypes alone and take a go at the Alchemist. I recently watched some grenadier build all but solo The Ruby Phoenix Tournament with his bow launched touch attack toppling force bombs. Now THAT'S deserving of some nerfing by errata.

likely that build was incorrect - unless there is something else he was doing you can't apply Toppling metamagic to an Alchemist's bombs (which aren't spells even force bombs)

(and if he was using Explosive Missile he can only make one attack a round with that, no iterative attacks). Also not sure why his attacks were touch attacks

Paizo Employee 5/5 Designer

Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:

Just to put the gunslinger errata in perspective. This effectively cut the maximum damage by over half.

A lvl 11 gun twirling twf pistolero with double barrel pistols could have dealt out 12 attacks at 1d8 + 3d6 + static, for a total of 12d8 + 36d6 + 12Xstatic.
That is now cut down to 6 attacks at 1d8 + static plus an additional 3d6, for a total of 6d8 + 3d6 + 6Xstatic.

That is a much more realistic amount of damage and more in line with other maximized martial classes.

Right so a gunslinger needs to now use two weapon fighting and have 6 grits point to be in line with other maximized martial classes. So the gunslingers who don't have that much grit (which is most since wisdom is rarely that high.) and don't two weapon fight are behind the curve of other maxed martials. Which were already behind the curve of full spellcasters.

Of course other martial don't have weapons that can blow up or cost as much to shoot. It's a great nerf for the abusive two weapon fighting builds, but it's tough pill to swallow for the people who didn't build that way and just wanted to contribute as much damage as the wizard.

It would seem that Lab Rat was using the deed only once for the full attack in calculating his numbers (3d6 rather than 18d6 if he used it on all six).

In any case, please bring discussion of the changes over to the other thread. This thread is about rebuilds for PFS; over the last few posts, I thought I was in the other thread by accident and that's why I responded above.

1/5

Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:

Just to put the gunslinger errata in perspective. This effectively cut the maximum damage by over half.

A lvl 11 gun twirling twf pistolero with double barrel pistols could have dealt out 12 attacks at 1d8 + 3d6 + static, for a total of 12d8 + 36d6 + 12Xstatic.
That is now cut down to 6 attacks at 1d8 + static plus an additional 3d6, for a total of 6d8 + 3d6 + 6Xstatic.

That is a much more realistic amount of damage and more in line with other maximized martial classes.

Right so a gunslinger needs to now use two weapon fighting and have 6 grits point to be in line with other maximized martial classes. So the gunslingers who don't have that much grit (which is most since wisdom is rarely that high.) and don't two weapon fight are behind the curve of other maxed martials. Which were already behind the curve of full spellcasters.

Of course other martial don't have weapons that can blow up or cost as much to shoot. It's a great nerf for the abusive two weapon fighting builds, but it's tough pill to swallow for the people who didn't build that way and just wanted to contribute as much damage as the wizard.

Wizards have to worry about SR and saving throws. Gunslingers pretty much never miss. The bigger monsters get, the lower their touch AC goes. The entire Pathfinder systems is simply not designed to handle a full BAB class that targets touch AC (from range) every single attack. Knocking the damage down means they will still do great damage and it will be pretty reliable. They only stand to miss with the misfire chance really and with a lucky enchant, they can mostly get around that.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the point here was that by virtue of being a force bomb, it topples.

I don't know the details on the rest.

Edit: in response to Rycaut

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:

Just to put the gunslinger errata in perspective. This effectively cut the maximum damage by over half.

A lvl 11 gun twirling twf pistolero with double barrel pistols could have dealt out 12 attacks at 1d8 + 3d6 + static, for a total of 12d8 + 36d6 + 12Xstatic.
That is now cut down to 6 attacks at 1d8 + static plus an additional 3d6, for a total of 6d8 + 3d6 + 6Xstatic.

That is a much more realistic amount of damage and more in line with other maximized martial classes.

Right so a gunslinger needs to now use two weapon fighting and have 6 grits point to be in line with other maximized martial classes. So the gunslingers who don't have that much grit (which is most since wisdom is rarely that high.) and don't two weapon fight are behind the curve of other maxed martials. Which were already behind the curve of full spellcasters.

Of course other martial don't have weapons that can blow up or cost as much to shoot. It's a great nerf for the abusive two weapon fighting builds, but it's tough pill to swallow for the people who didn't build that way and just wanted to contribute as much damage as the wizard.

Meh. Factor in touch attach & x4 on crits and the DPR goes up. I have a Mysterious Stranger7/Paladin3 with a single double-barrel pistol that was doing 8d8+128 damage a round while expending only 1 Grit to do it (more if I misfired). Most of the people I played with thought that was broken so I haven't played him in over a year. Now that he has been nerfed, I will probably start playing him again.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Natalie Saratov wrote:

Regarding the double barrel weapons:

Page 138—In the Musket, Double-Barreled Musket entry, in the first sentence, change everything after the semicolon to “each barrel can be shot independently as separate attacks, or both can be fired at once as a standard action (the attack action).”

It causes some confusing in my group that it says standard action (the attack action) as to some thinking they can still use it as a full-attack options while others, including myself, think it's the same kind of action as vital strike uses.

What is the official way to interpret this new ruling?

The FAQ on Vital Strike should solve this question.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I'm beginning to really, really hate the ongoing parade of erratas, I do want to say thanks to JohnC for how is handling this one.

-TimD

3/5

What, if anything, is the difference between rebuilding and retraining levels in a class? I have a player who went monk (pure monk) in order to have the MoMS' style depth, which has now been errated out in place of emphasizing breadth. Is he allowed to change his levels to an entirely different class, or is he stuck as some kind of monk? I've informed him that even if levels can be changed to an entirely different class type (like the kineticist), he's still locked in for his traits and race even if they're less than ideal (or totally useless) for the new class... Does this seem true to everyone?


Even more errata? They're on a roll here!


Mark Seifter wrote:
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:

Just to put the gunslinger errata in perspective. This effectively cut the maximum damage by over half.

A lvl 11 gun twirling twf pistolero with double barrel pistols could have dealt out 12 attacks at 1d8 + 3d6 + static, for a total of 12d8 + 36d6 + 12Xstatic.
That is now cut down to 6 attacks at 1d8 + static plus an additional 3d6, for a total of 6d8 + 3d6 + 6Xstatic.

That is a much more realistic amount of damage and more in line with other maximized martial classes.

Right so a gunslinger needs to now use two weapon fighting and have 6 grits point to be in line with other maximized martial classes. So the gunslingers who don't have that much grit (which is most since wisdom is rarely that high.) and don't two weapon fight are behind the curve of other maxed martials. Which were already behind the curve of full spellcasters.

Of course other martial don't have weapons that can blow up or cost as much to shoot. It's a great nerf for the abusive two weapon fighting builds, but it's tough pill to swallow for the people who didn't build that way and just wanted to contribute as much damage as the wizard.

It would seem that Lab Rat was using the deed only once for the full attack in calculating his numbers (3d6 rather than 18d6 if he used it on all six).

In any case, please bring discussion of the changes over to the other thread. This thread is about rebuilds for PFS; over the last few posts, I thought I was in the other thread by accident and that's why I responded above.

Yes. I made the assumption that you wouldn't waste your grit to make a dead enemy deader.

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

DrakeRoberts wrote:
What, if anything, is the difference between rebuilding and retraining levels in a class? I have a player who went monk (pure monk) in order to have the MoMS' style depth, which has now been errated out in place of emphasizing breadth. Is he allowed to change his levels to an entirely different class, or is he stuck as some kind of monk? I've informed him that even if levels can be changed to an entirely different class type (like the kineticist), he's still locked in for his traits and race even if they're less than ideal (or totally useless) for the new class... Does this seem true to everyone?

Yes, he can change those levels to any other level, John said " If getting rid of all of your monk levels is your preference...".

He's locked in to race and ability scores. Traits seem to be if it was something super style specific he could trade it (I don't know of any off hand), but otherwise you're stuck with them too.

Scarab Sages 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hrothdane wrote:

So, it looks like MoMS cant pick feats further down the style chain until they get the wild card slots at later levels, since they removed the language about being able to take a style feat further down the chain.

I would like to:

A: Confirm it works like that
B: If so, how do we approach rebuilding?

There are a number of people around here that dipped a couple levels of MoMS for things like Purmmeling Charge (including me), and I would appreciate having a specific ruling to point to, especially with a con coming up.

I believe John addressed that in his original post.

John Compton wrote:

The master of many styles monk archetype has a different way of handling the bonus feats.

Rebuild any monk levels if you have the master of many styles archetype. Retrain all feats. Sell back any equipment desired at full market price (based on remaining charges, if applicable).

Or is there another aspect of it you're asking about rebuilding?

As for confirming it works like that, I think that's a question for the blog thread, since that's not a PFS call. From what I've seen over there, that does appear to be how it works now, as the language allowing the feats down the chain was specifically removed.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:

So, it looks like MoMS cant pick feats further down the style chain until they get the wild card slots at later levels, since they removed the language about being able to take a style feat further down the chain.

I would like to:

A: Confirm it works like that
B: If so, how do we approach rebuilding?

There are a number of people around here that dipped a couple levels of MoMS for things like Purmmeling Charge (including me), and I would appreciate having a specific ruling to point to, especially with a con coming up.

I believe John addressed that in his original post.

John Compton wrote:

The master of many styles monk archetype has a different way of handling the bonus feats.

Rebuild any monk levels if you have the master of many styles archetype. Retrain all feats. Sell back any equipment desired at full market price (based on remaining charges, if applicable).

Or is there another aspect of it you're asking about rebuilding?

As for confirming it works like that, I think that's a question for the blog thread, since that's not a PFS call. From what I've seen over there, that does appear to be how it works now, as the language allowing the feats down the chain was specifically removed.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out in the blog. I missed it.

I actually already asked in the blog thread, and Mark Seifter (one of the developers) confirmed it does indeed work that way.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Andrew Roberts wrote:

Before I ask my question, I have to say I am quite impressed with the quick and awesome response. Thanks John!

Some of the litany spells have saves, which makes scrolls and wands of them pretty underwhelming. Can those be sold?

That should be fine. I would be surprised to hear that someone bought wands, given the standard action to activate what is otherwise a swift action spell. I suppose given the lack of a saving throw, they're still pretty effective.

Litany of Sloth was a life-saving wand for my Merciful Healer to contribute ( UMD)in combat it stopped spell casters without SR from casting on defensive and others from taking AoO

Scarab Sages 2/5

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The proposed changes to the Crane Wing feat don't make any sense. It states to change the first two sentences of the benefit to the updated text but it still mentions a deflected attack... See below:

Before:
Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

After:
Benefit: When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against melee attacks. If a melee attack misses you by 4 or less, you lose this dodge bonus until the beginning of your next turn. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

I'm sure the text in the errata should just say to replace all the text for the benefit to the updated information.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Why does that make no sense? It got a boost.

4/5

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Berinor wrote:

I think the point here was that by virtue of being a force bomb, it topples.

I don't know the details on the rest.

Edit: in response to Rycaut

Except that even with Force Bomb an alchemist bomb isn't a spell it is a supernatural ability- metamagic can't be applied to it unless there is some other means of applying metamagic to non-spells

The Exchange

Rycaut wrote:
Berinor wrote:

I think the point here was that by virtue of being a force bomb, it topples.

I don't know the details on the rest.

Edit: in response to Rycaut

Except that even with Force Bomb an alchemist bomb isn't a spell it is a supernatural ability- metamagic can't be applied to it unless there is some other means of applying metamagic to non-spells

actually creatures who take a direct hit from a force bomb are knocked prone unless they save.

Regardless I am very happy with these changes and their effects on society.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Allonrik wrote:

The proposed changes to the Crane Wing feat don't make any sense. It states to change the first two sentences of the benefit to the updated text but it still mentions a deflected attack... See below:

Before:
Benefit: Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

After:
Benefit: When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against melee attacks. If a melee attack misses you by 4 or less, you lose this dodge bonus until the beginning of your next turn. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

I'm sure the text in the errata should just say to replace all the text for the benefit to the updated information.

The problem is that you're looking at the original text, and not the first errata/FAQ.

Crane Wing, post old errat and FAQ, Pre new errata:
Once per round, when fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you can designate a simgle opponent you can see. You receive a +2 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent for one round. If you are using the total defense action instead, you can def lect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.

Crane Wing, post errata:
When fighting defensively with at least one hand free, you gain a +4 dodge bonus to AC against melee attacks. If a melee attack misses you by 4 or less, you lose this dodge bonus until the beginning of your next turn. If you are using the total defense action instead, you can def lect one melee attack that would normally hit you. An attack so deflected deals no damage and has no other effect (instead treat it as a miss). You do not expend an action when using this feat, but you must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

As an aside, I'd like to thank John for being ahead of things with these errata and showing up prepared. It's really helping ensure a soft landing.

I'm annoyed by some changes (Litany went from very nice to too unreliable to bother with), but think other changes are fair (MoMS actually encourages you to use many styles instead of being the world's cheesiest dip sauce). I think the Crane Wing change is finally right. It's good enough to work, simple enough to work, and not broken anymore.

Silver Crusade 1/5

How do double barrelled pistols interact with Leaping Shot Deed?

ultimate combat wrote:
As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make firearm attacks at your highest base attack bonus with each loaded firearm you are wielding. You can make these attacks at any point during your movement, and if you are wielding two firearms, you can make the attacks at different points during the movement. At the end of this movement, you fall prone. This deed costs 1 grit point to perform.

Only one shot from each double barrelled pistol when using this feat?


Thats how I read it as well.

Grand Lodge 5/5

How does the Errata interact with the FAQ? Does it completely negate it, negate it in the cases where one option (i.e. an archetype) is mentioned, negate it if the two are contradictory, or not at all and both are fully legal?

Grand Lodge

Assuming you mean the new Crane Wing Errata, it completely overwrites the old Crane Wing. -Most of the new errata are the old FAQs or didn't exist at all. In the case of Crane Wing it's the newest ruling from the same source so it's the legal one.

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Maneuver Master change (sell armor/shield and retain monk levels) isn't enough to bring the character to playable state.

If I stay Monk I'll spend all that money and have AC 17, not viable at 10th level.

If I leave Monk I'll lose a 12k weapon acquired via Expedition Manager due to non-proficiency and I'll have a dead weapon focus feat taken.

It would be nice if there was a "retain monk levels and anything no longer legal after doing so" was the verbiage.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Joe Ducey wrote:
Assuming you mean the new Crane Wing Errata, it completely overwrites the old Crane Wing. -Most of the new errata are the old FAQs or didn't exist at all. In the case of Crane Wing it's the newest ruling from the same source so it's the legal one.

And in the case of Feral Combat Training, it completely supersedes it, since the bit the FAQ is talking about no longer exists.

Hopefully in the next week or so, that FAQ will be cleaned up to match the Errata.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

James Risner wrote:

The Maneuver Master change (sell armor/shield and retain monk levels) isn't enough to bring the character to playable state.

If I stay Monk I'll spend all that money and have AC 17, not viable at 10th level.

If I leave Monk I'll lose a 12k weapon acquired via Expedition Manager due to non-proficiency and I'll have a dead weapon focus feat taken.

It would be nice if there was a "retain monk levels and anything no longer legal after doing so" was the verbiage.

Assuming the weapon is a martial weapon and you are proficient with all martial weapons, you could purchase a cracked opalescent white pyramid ioun stone.

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

Michael Eshleman wrote:
Assuming the weapon is a martial weapon and you are proficient with all martial weapons, you could purchase a cracked opalescent white pyramid ioun stone.

It's Exotic Monk weapon, so that won't work. I can't take the main opalescent white pyramid without losing my dusty rose wayfinder synergy.

Scarab Sages 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The cracked white opalescent ioun stone should give you weapon familiarity with it (treat it as martial) for 1,500gp. I don't see why that would affect your dusty rise prism/way finder combo. You don't have to slot the new stone in the wayfinder.

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, I totally misunderstood what was being suggested.

That will in fact work.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Sorry, I posted in haste. Ferious Thune is correct as to what I was suggesting. I'm not sure why I thought the ioun stone only affected martial weapons.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

why nerf abundant ammunition so that it doesn't affect special materials?

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

I mostly survived this. My Savage Technologist owns a double barreled pistol but there's nothing I need to retrain. I also gave my Bloatmage/Pathfinder Savant Litany of Sloth because I thought it was humorous that a morbidly obese caster could force his lethargy onto others.

Regarding the Esoteric Magic ability of the Pathfinder Savant I did run into one weird question, but it's unrelated to this thread. If anyone can help me out with it, I made a thread about it in the Rules Forum.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chernobyl wrote:

why nerf abundant ammunition so that it doesn't affect special materials?

Because it was never intended to negate the actual cost of using ammo made of special materials.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Chernobyl wrote:

why nerf abundant ammunition so that it doesn't affect special materials?

Because it was never intended to negate the actual cost of using ammo made of special materials.

so at this point the only use of the spell is to give you something that effectively costs pennies. so it now has basically NO point.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5

Hence why John is giving people a free retrain.

The Exchange 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Kentucky—Lexington

So I mostly weathered this by selling my armor and retraining into brawler. My AC went from 31 to 26.

Grand Lodge

Andrew Christian wrote:
Joe Ducey wrote:
Assuming you mean the new Crane Wing Errata, it completely overwrites the old Crane Wing. -Most of the new errata are the old FAQs or didn't exist at all. In the case of Crane Wing it's the newest ruling from the same source so it's the legal one.

And in the case of Feral Combat Training, it completely supersedes it, since the bit the FAQ is talking about no longer exists.

Hopefully in the next week or so, that FAQ will be cleaned up to match the Errata.

Thanks Andrew, I forgot there was an FAQ for Feral.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chernobyl wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Chernobyl wrote:

why nerf abundant ammunition so that it doesn't affect special materials?

Because it was never intended to negate the actual cost of using ammo made of special materials.

so at this point the only use of the spell is to give you something that effectively costs pennies. so it now has basically NO point.

There are lots of spells you can cast on ammo, that you can cast on the quiver or container after you cast abundant ammunition, that make using the spell fairly useful.

But consider, why is it balanced that a 2nd level spell can essentially replicate thousands and thousands of gold in adamantine?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Chernobyl wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Chernobyl wrote:

why nerf abundant ammunition so that it doesn't affect special materials?

Because it was never intended to negate the actual cost of using ammo made of special materials.

so at this point the only use of the spell is to give you something that effectively costs pennies. so it now has basically NO point.

There are lots of spells you can cast on ammo, that you can cast on the quiver or container after you cast abundant ammunition, that make using the spell fairly useful.

But consider, why is it balanced that a 2nd level spell can essentially replicate thousands and thousands of gold in adamantine?

because then I didn't have to have a quiver full of whatever special ammunition I might happen to need in the game, only a few. Silver, blunt, cold iron, adamantine. why is it fair that a first level spell (aspect of the falcon) can give you the equivalent of a feat (improved crit) and a good bonus to perception that would otherwise cost you thousands and thousands of gold in magic items to obtain? there are many other examples, but that's probably the most extreme.

because its magic!

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Fabricate is a 4th level spell and has more restrictions on it than abundant ammunition did.

So no, it wasn't balanced.

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Regarding The Ultimate Combat Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.