Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Shadows (PFRPG)


Product Discussion

351 to 400 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Erikthered wrote:

I am a little disappointed in the Shadow Transmutation spell. I say this as a huge fan of the other Shadow school spells, but it offers so little flexibility that it seems kind of useless. I'm not going to burn a 6th level spell to emulate the first levels and give extra will saves to enemies. Animal growth and anthropomorphic animal both require having friendly animals on hand. Fins to feet is extremely situational. Polymorph is a cool spell, but I'd rather spend a 5th level slot for it instead of a 6th level for a weakened version.

Someone please sell me on this spell.

Access to Polymorph on classes that normally don't get it. Particularly handy for psychic classes that can go on casting just fine. So while it's a slot higher, that's a better deal than a wizard/sorcerer who needs a magic item and a slot higher on any spell they want to cast in animal form.

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Erikthered wrote:

I am a little disappointed in the Shadow Transmutation spell. I say this as a huge fan of the other Shadow school spells, but it offers so little flexibility that it seems kind of useless. I'm not going to burn a 6th level spell to emulate the first levels and give extra will saves to enemies. Animal growth and anthropomorphic animal both require having friendly animals on hand. Fins to feet is extremely situational. Polymorph is a cool spell, but I'd rather spend a 5th level slot for it instead of a 6th level for a weakened version.

Someone please sell me on this spell.

For sorcerers, it means you know all of the spells you just listed with a single spell slot. And a bunch of those spells (like fins to feat and animal aspect) don't really care if your enemies disbelieve the spell or not. Same is true of wizards, except one prepared spell to have an incredibly flexible spell slot.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
For sorcerers, it means you know all of the spells you just listed with a single spell slot. And a bunch of those spells (like fins to feat and animal aspect) don't really care if your enemies disbelieve the spell or not. Same is true of wizards, except one prepared spell to have an incredibly flexible spell slot.

I am coming at this as a wizard, so I am not really limited by spells known, so I can see how it would be more appealing to a sorcerer. Though I am still not sure a sorcerer would want to spend a 6th level slot on Long Arm. Compare Shadow Transmutation to Greater Shadow Enchantment (also a 6th level spell) which gets you ALL 5th level and below enchantments from Wiz/Sorc and Psychic lists, and it feels kind of weak.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone is missing the most exciting and unexpected feat in the book...

Extra Ninja Trick.

This has needed to exist since Ultimate Combat. I know it could be house ruled that Extra Rogue Talent would work, but for PFS, it's big, as there actually are enough Ninja Tricks worth taking that you might spend a feat to pick one up at some point. After, you know, you use two ninja tricks to pick up feats...

Anyway, not really all that exciting. I just never thought it would happen. Thanks to whoever got that added in.

EDIT: I'm a little disappointed that Wayang didn't get any favored class options for Arcanist.

Overall, though, there's some cool stuff in the book. I'll have to update my proposed PFS build for my Wayang Archaist shadow magic specialist. Shield of Darkness has potential, though the duration isn't great. Shadow Trap is useful as a 1st level spell.

EDIT, EDIT: Scratch that part about the Oracle. They already had a favored class bonus for that one. It's odd that it wasn't reprinted here, but I'd rather have new options than a reprint of old ones.


Shadowcraft ranged weapons are categorized as either one-handed or two-handed. I think this is the first time that I have seen a Paizo product divide ranged weapons into these groups. The Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment tables just lump all ranged weapons together.

Some items, like bows, are clearly two-handed weapons. Others like daggers would clearly seem to be one-handed weapons. But slings or light crossbows require two hands to load, but only one hand to 'fire' so I'm not sure what category they fall into. Are the weapons in each category listed anywhere?

Also, if ranged weapons now come in one-handed and two-handed categories, do any rules regarding one-handed and two-handed melee weapons now apply to ranged weapons as well?


Thinking about this further, I'm a little confused about thrown weapons like daggers. The Shadowcraft Weapon has to have a base type of either melee or ranged. Does that mean that you could have a melee dagger that can't be thrown or a ranged dagger that can't be used for melee?

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:

Everyone is missing the most exciting and unexpected feat in the book...

Extra Ninja Trick.

This has needed to exist since Ultimate Combat. I know it could be house ruled that Extra Rogue Talent would work, but for PFS, it's big, as there actually are enough Ninja Tricks worth taking that you might spend a feat to pick one up at some point. After, you know, you use two ninja tricks to pick up feats...

Anyway, not really all that exciting. I just never thought it would happen. Thanks to whoever got that added in.

Yes! When I was assigned the feat section, the first thing I asked Owen was whether I could do Extra Ninja Trick. :D

Stuff like Extra Ninja Trick is actually the reason I started involving myself so heavily in organized play after I started freelancing for Paizo. Its a great way to hear from, like, a million people about holes they perceive in the Pathfinder rules set.

Quote:

EDIT: I'm a little disappointed that Wayang didn't get any favored class options for Arcanist.

Overall, though, there's some cool stuff in the book. I'll have to update my proposed PFS build for my Wayang Archaist shadow magic specialist. Shield of Darkness has potential, though the duration isn't great. Shadow Trap is useful as a 1st level spell.

Four pages is NEVER enough! I stick by the choices I made for their favored classes in that section, though. I think of the entire list, my favorites were kineticist (I hope Mark beamed a little that I gave the wayang bonuses for being chaokineticists) and druid (the "If you pick this at first level it adds a domain to the list of druid domains you can pick" is one of my favorite ideas ever. That is, until the next thing I did for Paizo....).

Quote:
EDIT, EDIT: Scratch that part about the Oracle. They already had a favored class bonus for that one. It's odd that it wasn't reprinted here, but I'd rather have new options than a reprint of old ones.

Yeah, we aren't typically instructed to reprint stuff in the PC line. We're too spatially constrained. Every word needs to do everything it can to BLOW YOUR MIND! (That last part is all me, nothing in our contracts or anything. ;-P)

Contributor

Gisher wrote:
Thinking about this further, I'm a little confused about thrown weapons like daggers. The Shadowcraft Weapon has to have a base type of either melee or ranged. Does that mean that you could have a melee dagger that can't be thrown or a ranged dagger that can't be used for melee?

Thrown weapons aren't their own category separate from melee or ranged weapons, and nothing in the description prevents you from making ranged attacks with a melee shadowcraft weapon. You could take a ranged weapon that you throw (like a javelin) as a shadowcraft weapon, or a melee weapon that you throw (like a dagger). From there, just chuck the weapon at the nearest target and hope they don't succeed on their Will save to disbelieve!


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Thinking about this further, I'm a little confused about thrown weapons like daggers. The Shadowcraft Weapon has to have a base type of either melee or ranged. Does that mean that you could have a melee dagger that can't be thrown or a ranged dagger that can't be used for melee?
Thrown weapons aren't their own category separate from melee or ranged weapons, and nothing in the description prevents you from making ranged attacks with a melee shadowcraft weapon. You could take a ranged weapon that you throw (like a javelin) as a shadowcraft weapon, or a melee weapon that you throw (like a dagger). From there, just chuck the weapon at the nearest target and hope they don't succeed on their Will save to disbelieve!

Thank you! That makes perfect sense. I love the flavor of the Shadowcraft Weapons. I think a Shadowcraft Whip would be nice. Even if someone disbelieves in it, it doesn't matter much since 1d3 damage isn't much better than 1 damage. A Magus using it to deliver Shocking Grasp or a Rogue using it for Sneak Attack wouldn't care much about that 1d3 anyway. Plus you could put it into Rapier form in between battles and get the benefits of magical scabbards - something you can't do with a normal whip.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I did not want to love Blood of Shadows, but I do! I did not have love or even like for any of the featured races, and only looked at it because I had just gone through the process of stealing all the shadow abilities to present them to a new character, so they were fresh on my mind.
I loved The Taint of Shadow section (alternate racial traits to non-shadow races), and I hope this continues. In fact, I would love to see this approach applied retroactively to the previous Blood books; giving a taste of celestial, fiend, vampirism, or lycanthropy to any race? Yes, please!
I originally saw that each race had 4 pages each, and thought that might be too much. I was wrong. Not only did they need at least that much space, but many of the options presented were not race-specific. Thank you! There has been too much arbitrary exclusion on these type of rules. Obviously I can house rule them, and PFS does not apply to me, but I appreciate the loosening of restrictions. Special note for the gloom chymist - Treating glooms differently than bombs removes all the other discoveries that affect it, so I would like to see the discoveries that were cut before I would consider playing one, but it is a concept I look forward to seeing expanded. The dusk knight was not very powerful and would be difficult to justify playing in a combat or mechanics heavy campaign, but it was a great concept!
I generally only give a passing glance to the back half of the book, but the magic items were very good (though I would still appreciate the add-on abilities to "+1" or specific magic items). The shadowcraft weapons, however, seem like they will require a bit too much additional rolling. Great concept, nice special abilities, and the additional rules make perfect sense for how quasi-real shadow work mechanically, but I would have liked simpler rules.
Great feats! I especially appreciate the "missing feats" that I had actually assumed already existed, and the new love for an old prestige class.
The spells, also something I generally gloss over, were good spells, and much needed to make a shadow-themed caster.
The layout and writing were able to turn a concept I cared nothing for into one of the best Blood of... books so far! But where did the special center spread go? I look there before I even check the contents!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Joseph, You should transfer your entire post into a review.


Gisher wrote:


Thank you! That makes perfect sense. I love the flavor of the Shadowcraft Weapons. I think a Shadowcraft Whip would be nice. Even if someone disbelieves in it, it doesn't matter much since 1d3 damage isn't much better than 1 damage. A Magus using it to deliver Shocking Grasp or a Rogue using it for Sneak Attack wouldn't care much about that 1d3 anyway. Plus you could put it into Rapier form in between battles and get the benefits of magical scabbards - something you can't do with a normal whip.

A magus would care very much about the bad crit and low damage on a whip, otherwise why not just to a touch attack?

Scarab Sages

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:

Everyone is missing the most exciting and unexpected feat in the book...

Extra Ninja Trick.

This has needed to exist since Ultimate Combat. I know it could be house ruled that Extra Rogue Talent would work, but for PFS, it's big, as there actually are enough Ninja Tricks worth taking that you might spend a feat to pick one up at some point. After, you know, you use two ninja tricks to pick up feats...

Anyway, not really all that exciting. I just never thought it would happen. Thanks to whoever got that added in.

Yes! When I was assigned the feat section, the first thing I asked Owen was whether I could do Extra Ninja Trick. :D

Stuff like Extra Ninja Trick is actually the reason I started involving myself so heavily in organized play after I started freelancing for Paizo. Its a great way to hear from, like, a million people about holes they perceive in the Pathfinder rules set.

Quote:

EDIT: I'm a little disappointed that Wayang didn't get any favored class options for Arcanist.

Overall, though, there's some cool stuff in the book. I'll have to update my proposed PFS build for my Wayang Archaist shadow magic specialist. Shield of Darkness has potential, though the duration isn't great. Shadow Trap is useful as a 1st level spell.

Four pages is NEVER enough! I stick by the choices I made for their favored classes in that section, though. I think of the entire list, my favorites were kineticist (I hope Mark beamed a little that I gave the wayang bonuses for being chaokineticists) and druid (the "If you pick this at first level it adds a domain to the list of druid domains you can pick" is one of my favorite ideas ever. That is, until the next thing I did for Paizo....).

Quote:
EDIT, EDIT: Scratch that part about the Oracle. They already had a favored class bonus for that one. It's odd that it wasn't reprinted here, but I'd rather have new options than a reprint of old ones.
Yeah, we aren't typically instructed to reprint stuff in the...

Thanks for the great work on the book (and elsewhere). Extra Ninja Trick is great to finally have around. Now if you can do something about the lack of an Extra Fervor feat... :)

I'm guessing that one was more of a deliberate design decision, since Extra Channel was explicitly limited to Channel Energy for Warpriests.

I'm excited to put some of the things in this book to use. I'd just decided to finally make a Wayang before I saw this was on the schedule. So I've been waiting patiently at 3XP so I could rebuild to add some of the cool new options.


Uh is it intentional that the "Illumination Control" ability of the Shadow Walker archetype has no cap on the amount of illumination points it can store? It says they gain 1/2 their rogue level in points at the start of the day but no mention of a maximum limit.


Slithery D wrote:
Gisher wrote:


Thank you! That makes perfect sense. I love the flavor of the Shadowcraft Weapons. I think a Shadowcraft Whip would be nice. Even if someone disbelieves in it, it doesn't matter much since 1d3 damage isn't much better than 1 damage. A Magus using it to deliver Shocking Grasp or a Rogue using it for Sneak Attack wouldn't care much about that 1d3 anyway. Plus you could put it into Rapier form in between battles and get the benefits of magical scabbards - something you can't do with a normal whip.
A magus would care very much about the bad crit and low damage on a whip, otherwise why not just to a touch attack?

You are absolutely right. Even a keen whip has a terrible crit range. A whip magus is much better with a debuffing approach such as Frostbite + Rime Spell + Enforcer. That's pretty good with a whip. I don't know why I mentioned Shocking Grasp.


The Faithful Lantern is a great little item. I think it's going to be a standard item for my characters.

And I keep coming back to the Gloom Chymist. I think I'm going to have to try that archetype.


I've got a question regarding the Dusk Knight's "Shadow Smite", specifically this line here.

Shadow Smite wrote:
The dusk knight doesn’t deal additional damage with her smite evil ability.

I'm assuming that's referring to the ability to deal additional damage on the first strike against evil outsiders & dragons, and undead. I would just like to clarify that isn't not removing ALL extra damage from the Smile Evil ability, because that would suck. Hard.


Faelyn wrote:

I've got a question regarding the Dusk Knight's "Shadow Smite", specifically this line here.

Shadow Smite wrote:
The dusk knight doesn’t deal additional damage with her smite evil ability.
I'm assuming that's referring to the ability to deal additional damage on the first strike against evil outsiders & dragons, and undead. I would just like to clarify that isn't not removing ALL extra damage from the Smile Evil ability, because that would suck. Hard.

That seems to be exactly what it means. You still get Charisma to hit, Charisma to AC, and bypass all damage reduction. In exchange for the damage (very little at low levels) you get 20% miss chance from your target and virtual immunity to precision-based damage.


Some questions about the new Shadow Spells. Admittedly some of them are probably dumb:

-Animal Growth/Enlarge Person. Does disbelieving this do anything other than reveal that it's an illusion? It doesn't actually grant any natural attacks or new special abilities.

Maybe it prevents a small animal/humanoid under its effects from tripping a Large creature (or rather, giving them a 20% chance to)? That's the only thing the spell enables, but it's not a special ability per se either. That question also gets a bit weird for reduce person (if a Large target disbelieves shadow reduce person, can my normally medium sized character now trip them again?).

-Same question for Anthropomorphic Animal. Do you only have a 20% chance of hearing the animal talk? Does it effect attacks with manufactured weapons or wands since it normally lacks the ability to hold them?

-If I cast Shadow Transmutation(Longarm) on myself and then make an attack from 10 feet away against a target and the target disbelieves the illusion what happens to the attack?

-The description of Shadow Baleful Transmutation's saves seem confusing. I believe the correct interpretation is that you get two saves (will and fort) and if you succeed on either of them the spell does nothing and if you fail on both you're changed for 24 hours (and then get a new will save).

But one of my players seems convinced that if you fail the fort save you lose the will save because it's now permanent (and that succeeding on the fort save just gives you that recurring will save but still changes you).

Both because the description of the initial effects of the will save are described separately and because he's convinced there's no way Paizo would publish a spell as weak as my interpretation of the rules makes it.


Ok, here is a question for someone in the know. The Cloak and Dagger Style has the prerequisite of vital strike, but the second feat in the chain does not, but then the third has it as a prereq again. From the reading of the three feats, it seems the only feat that should need it is the third one. Am I correct in this assumption, or should the second one have it as a prereq too?


Shadowshooting seems not very good. It's a cool effect and theoretically solves a lot of problems certain characters have, but it really only appeals to people using guns (particularly two handed) and crossbows who don't want to expend the effort (or simply can't) necessary to reload efficiently.

Except those are all weapons that rely on their damage dice and the save DC is hideously bad, which basically means the people most likely to benefit from this feat end up being discouraged from taking it anyways because you can almost guarantee a failed save.

As a pistol or light crossbow user you're trading a feat for 3.5 damage and a +1 weapon property. People say weapon specialization's +2 to damage rolls isn't worth a feat, but what about +7 to damage rolls for one feat? That's what you get if you pick up rapid reload and trade shadowshooting for flaming and flaming isn't even that great.

As a heavy crossbow user it's two feats and a weapon property, which is better, but now you're losing 4.5 damage.

Two handed firearm users get the best deal here, since it's a feat and a three level dip to get full attacks, but it's 5.5 damage lost off of a musket.

There's also a unique pistol that gives the same property sans save priced as a +1, which makes the saving throw sting on principle in that regard too.

Seriously, I know shadow's whole gimmick is being only quasi real and getting weaker if people make a will save, but I'm not sure I'd even take the weapon property if it had no save at all unless I was trying to use a two handed firearm.

Speaking of shadow weapons though, how much damage does a Shadowcraft Death Ray do if the target succeeds on the will save but fails the fort save? I'm assuming 100, but I'm wondering if anyone looked at special weapons like that when giving Shadowcraft weapons the ability to turn into any other weapon of the same type.

Contributor

swoosh wrote:

Shadowshooting seems not very good. It's a cool effect and theoretically solves a lot of problems certain characters have, but it really only appeals to people using guns (particularly two handed) and crossbows who don't want to expend the effort (or simply can't) necessary to reload efficiently.

Except those are all weapons that rely on their damage dice and the save DC is hideously bad, which basically means the people most likely to benefit from this feat end up being discouraged from taking it anyways because you can almost guarantee a failed save.

There HAS to be a downside to giving a weapon what basically amounts to a free Rapid Reload feat (its even better then that for some guns, and technically you can make siege engines and cannons into +1 shadowshooting weapons too).

All the math you're doing is essentially assuming that your foe is going to fail its Will save. While the DC is set so that failure can (and will) happen, statistically its impossible for you to always fail the roll. Its not always going to be a flat loss of damage. (But it often will be, and again, that's to balance out against the massive action economy bonuses.)

Quote:
There's also a unique pistol that gives the same property sans save priced as a +1, which makes the saving throw sting on principle in that regard too.

The pistol you're referring to (the pistol of the infinite sky) is a +5 weapon. A +5 weapon is worth 50,000 gold, plus 300 gp for masterwork, plus 1,000 gp for the pistol itself. This adds to a total cost of 51,300 gp, compared to the 73,300 gp price tag on the pistol of the infinite sky. This means that the base price of the ammo ability that you're referring to is roughly 22,000 gp, which is SERIOUSLY more expensive then the +1 of shadowshooting. (In fact, I balanced that weapon ability around the price of this pistol in particular.)

Quote:
Seriously, I know shadow's whole gimmick is being only quasi real and getting weaker if people make a will save, but I'm not sure I'd even take the weapon property if it had no save at all unless I was trying to use a two handed firearm.

We don't always try to design things that you'll always want to take. We're not always looking to plug holes like Ricochet Shot or Extra Ninja Trick. Sometimes we make stuff because its cool or because it fills a niche. Imagine a +1 shadowshooter weapon in the hands of a fighter or slayer who specializes in martial combat. With a shadowshooter weapon, you've suddenly given that character a gun or a crossbow or even a longbow that you A) never need to worry about spending gold that's better optimized in other places in your build on or B) needing feats like Rapid Reload to make the weapon work for you.


Alexander Augunas wrote:


There HAS to be a downside to giving a weapon what basically amounts to a free Rapid Reload feat (its even better then that for some guns, and technically you can make siege engines and cannons into +1 shadowshooting weapons too).

Well I think the +1 property is the cost associated with it. You have a point about siege engines though.

Interacts weirdly with tech weapons too.

Quote:
All the math you're doing is essentially assuming that your foe is going to fail its Will save.

Well no, you won't always, but the scaling is as close to guaranteeing it as you can.

Quote:
There's also a unique pistol that gives the same property sans save priced as a +1, which makes the saving throw sting on principle in that regard too.
Quote:
The pistol you're referring to (the pistol of the infinite sky) is a +5 weapon. A +5 weapon is worth 50,000 gold, plus 300 gp for masterwork, plus 1,000 gp for the pistol itself. This adds to a total cost of 51,300 gp, compared to the 73,300 gp price tag on the pistol of the infinite sky. This means that the base price of the ammo ability that you're referring to is roughly 22,000 gp, which is SERIOUSLY more expensive then the +1 of shadowshooting. (In fact, I balanced that weapon ability around the price of this pistol in particular.)

It's actually not. You have to remember that enhancement bonuses cost more with each +1 already on the weapon. A +6 weapon (i.e. a +5 weapon with a +1 weapon property) costs 72000 gold, which when you include 300 gold for masterwork and 1000 gold for the base cost of a pistol means that a +5 shadowshoot pistol costs the same as the pistol of the infinite sky.

Granted, the latter is a unique weapon and they always have some leeway and by RAW you can't cut it out for another weapon, but the comparison still stings.

Quote:
We don't always try to design things that you'll always want to take. We're not always looking to plug holes like Ricochet Shot or Extra Ninja Trick. Sometimes we make stuff because its cool or because it fills a niche

Well yeah, but you can make things that are both.

Quote:
Imagine a +1 shadowshooter weapon in the hands of a fighter or slayer who specializes in martial combat.

Eh. As someone suggested in another thread, the best idea for them is probably to slap a pair of shadowshoot pistols on a rogue and sneak attack with them. The damage mods from that are enough to make the loss from the will save basically trivial.

The problem I have with giving it to a fighter is

Quote:
A) never need to worry about spending gold that's better optimized in other places in your build on

By the time buying a +2 weapon is trivial enough to make this an option the will save is extremely unreliable and the damage even without the will save has trouble staying relevant, since you aren't going to be adding much beyond the weapon's base damage.

I'll concede it does have some uses though.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
swoosh wrote:

Shadowshooting seems not very good. It's a cool effect and theoretically solves a lot of problems certain characters have, but it really only appeals to people using guns (particularly two handed) and crossbows who don't want to expend the effort (or simply can't) necessary to reload efficiently.

Except those are all weapons that rely on their damage dice and the save DC is hideously bad, which basically means the people most likely to benefit from this feat end up being discouraged from taking it anyways because you can almost guarantee a failed save.

There HAS to be a downside to giving a weapon what basically amounts to a free Rapid Reload feat (its even better then that for some guns, and technically you can make siege engines and cannons into +1 shadowshooting weapons too).

All the math you're doing is essentially assuming that your foe is going to fail its Will save. While the DC is set so that failure can (and will) happen, statistically its impossible for you to always fail the roll. Its not always going to be a flat loss of damage. (But it often will be, and again, that's to balance out against the massive action economy bonuses.)

Statistics? Ok, let's talk statistics.

Here are the assumptions that I am going to make with regards to PC expenditure:
A PC heavily investing in their primary weapon is going to spend no more than roughly 1/3 of their WBL on it
A PC moderatly investing in their primary weapon is going to spend no more than roughly 1/5 of their WBL on it
A PC lightly investing in their primary weapon is going to spend no more than roughly 1/10th of their WBL on it. Lets also say that a character won't spend more than this on a backup or secondary weapon either.

I am going to assume a CR=APL creature. FYI CR-3 mooks will have a roughly 10-15% higher chance of failure, and CR+3 bosses will have a 10-15% lower chance.

I am going off the statistics from the monster creation table and the character advancement table, since they are both reasonably good proxies for what you can actually expect in play - GMs tend to stick roughly with WBL, and the monster table is fairly close to actual bestiary numbers.

Format is:
Level(enhancement bonus): % chance failure on save for good will creature/% chance failure on save for poor will creature

Heavily investing
----------------
Level 07(+1):25%/45%
Level 10(+2):15%/35%
Level 12(+3):10%/30%
Level 14(+4):05%/30%
Level 15(+5):05%/30%

Moderately Investing
----------------
Level 09(+1):15%/35%
Level 12(+2):5%/25%
Level 14(+3):5%/25%
Level 15(+4):5%/25%
Level 17(+5):5%/20%

Lightly Investing, Backup or Secondary Weapon
----------------
Level 11(+1):05%/25%
Level 14(+2):05%/20%
Level 16(+3):05%/15%
Level 18(+4):05%/10%
Level 19(+5):05%/15%

So unless you are fighting weak willed mooks, the enemy will make their save the majority of the time. This isn't particularly great. In fact, against most dangerous creatures (which tend to have good will), you will be fishing for natural 1s unless you blow huge amounts of WBL of your weapon.

Quote:
Quote:
There's also a unique pistol that gives the same property sans save priced as a +1, which makes the saving throw sting on principle in that regard too.

The pistol you're referring to (the pistol of the infinite sky) is a +5 weapon. A +5 weapon is worth 50,000 gold, plus 300 gp for masterwork, plus 1,000 gp for the pistol itself. This adds to a total cost of 51,300 gp, compared to the 73,300 gp price tag on the pistol of the infinite sky. This means that the base price of the ammo ability that you're referring to is roughly 22,000 gp, which is SERIOUSLY more expensive then the +1 of shadowshooting. (In fact, I balanced that weapon ability around the price of this pistol in particular.)

73,300is exactly the price of a Masterwork Pistol with a +6 equivalent enhancement on it. That suggests the ability is worth a +1 enhancement. Comparing this to another somewhat-better-than-a-feat +1 enabler enhancement (agile), it doesn't seem far off what the feat should be. Taking into account the fact that agile enables a fairly strong style (dex based melee) and an infiniammo enhancement enables weak styles (guns or crossbows), +1 seems strong but reasonable.

Quote:


Quote:
Seriously, I know shadow's whole gimmick is being only quasi real and getting weaker if people make a will save, but I'm not sure I'd even take the weapon property if it had no save at all unless I was trying to use a two handed firearm.
We don't always try to design things that you'll always want to take. We're not always looking to plug holes like Ricochet Shot or Extra Ninja Trick. Sometimes we make stuff because its cool or because it fills a niche. Imagine a +1 shadowshooter weapon in the hands of a fighter or slayer who specializes in martial combat. With a shadowshooter weapon, you've suddenly given that character a gun or a crossbow or even a longbow that you A) never need to worry about spending gold that's better optimized in other places in your build on or B) needing feats like Rapid Reload to make the weapon work for you.

A shadowshooter gun or crossbow is terrible compared to a Longbow. Any sane martial combatant is going to pick a +1 longbow every time over an 8000+gp weapon that barely does any damage. Shadowshooter weapons do such low damage that even a 10kgp proficiency granting ioun stone and a mundane composite longbow or repeating crossbow is a better choice, since those do more than 1 damage most of the time. Nobody would want shadowshooter on their bow, either. 6000gp(the cost of shadowshooter on a +1 bow) is enough for a bag of holding I, an efficient quiver, and enough arrows to go in them to last most of a primary archer's career. That gives the PC utility in the form of extradimensional storage and doesn't nerf their damage at all.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Bullets however pierce regular a.c and hits touch a.c. that was the major reason to use guns. The damage wasn't so high, but it was near impossible to avoid getting hit.

Gunslingers can still get all martial weapons (including bows), and her a percentage discount on guns,ammo,and other gunslinger dodads. They can also get a masterwork gun for 500 glod by reparing their starting gun. So there is some advantages to guns. Based on a stat look, a musket seems inferior to a bow, but when you have the ability to inflict touch a.c hits with virtually no reload time (the slowest part of the gun is the reload)...that musket doesn't look too bad now does it.


In fairness. The Endless Ammunition property is a +2 property that generates free ammunition (though it only works on bows and crossbows). So using that as a standard a +1 property that generates free ammunition with a downside makes sense.

Though on the other hand I've never actually seen anyone pick up Endless Ammunition in a normal campaign either, so it might not be the best baseline either.

I think my biggest beef with shadowshoot and shadowcraft weapons though is rolling a will save against every target every round. That seems like it'd get old fast.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

That and that gunslinger doesn't play fair. Remember their grit and deeds? Any normal martial combatant(your fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks, Cavaliers, brawlers,swasbucklers, rangers and slayers) wouldn't be at an advantage using a gun or crossbow to get and do a bows job.

Gunslingers and bolt-aces(their archetype for crossbows) are not like most martials.

Dark Archive

Random question unrelated to shadow ammunition;

There's a Shadow sub-domain 'Whispering Shadows' ability on p. 17 that allows the user to force a target within 30 ft. to reroll a concealment miss chance or saving throw vs. an illusion or necromancy spell and take the second roll.

The implication seems to be that this is meant as a penalty, to force someone to miss a hit they were about to succeed, or possibly fail a saving throw they were about to make, but the rule is worded in such a way that a cleric with this ability could 'force' an *ally* who just rolled a 2 on a save vs. illusion / necromancy, or 15% on a 20% miss chance to 'have to reroll and take the second roll' which would likely be an improvement over their current roll.

Any thoughts on whether this is a cool option that makes the power both a potential bane to foes and boon to allies, or my being overly literal in my reading of the rules text and very much flying against the 'rule as intended?' (The flavor text does make it sound like it was solely intended as a jinx to foes, and not a potential 'second save' for allies.)


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

The Dusksight ability seems to have an error on it. The ability uses low-light vision as it's base and grants Dwarfs and Half-Orcs low light vision. However, Halflings can apparently grab this trait by replacing Keen Senses. Halflings do not have low light vision, and Dusksight does not grant it to them. Any ideas?

Paizo Employee Developer

Gisher wrote:
The Faithful Lantern is a great little item. I think it's going to be a standard item for my characters.

I love the Faithful Lantern! I enjoyed writing and can see many a character growing rather attached to it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

On ranged shadowcraft weapons;

Is there anything preventing you from re-shaping a 'Composite Longbow strength +2' into a 'Composite Longbow strength +3' when your strength increases?

When you fire "other types of ammunition" then the opponent will not actually be "hit with a shadowcraft weapon"... and therefore would not get a save / always take normal damage?

If a shadowcraft weapon is 'broken' can it just be re-shaped into a repaired weapon or would it remain broken in various weapon shapes? I'm thinking of what a Spellslinger Wizard could do with a shadowcraft rifle if it were that easily repairable.


Luis Loza wrote:
Gisher wrote:
The Faithful Lantern is a great little item. I think it's going to be a standard item for my characters.
I love the Faithful Lantern! I enjoyed writing and can see many a character growing rather attached to it.

And vice versa. ;)


CBDunkerson wrote:

On ranged shadowcraft weapons;

Is there anything preventing you from re-shaping a 'Composite Longbow strength +2' into a 'Composite Longbow strength +3' when your strength increases?

That is a really interesting idea. The description does say that it "can assume the form of any masterwork weapon that shares its type and handedness, regardless of its categorization as simple, martial, or exotic." The description for the composite longbow says that "[a] composite longbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score..."

So I think it can become a 'Composite Longbow strength +3' as easily as a 'Composite Longbow strength +2' or a 'Composite Longbow strength +0.'

CBDunkerson wrote:
When you fire "other types of ammunition" then the opponent will not actually be "hit with a shadowcraft weapon"... and therefore would not get a save / always take normal damage?

I would say so. People can't benefit by disbelieving real ammunition.

I'm still hoping that we can get a clarification on which ranged weapons are considered one-handed and which are two-handed. Slings and hand crossbows, for example, take one hand to launch their ammunition but two hands to load. So which are they?


sunderedhero wrote:
Uh is it intentional that the "Illumination Control" ability of the Shadow Walker archetype has no cap on the amount of illumination points it can store? It says they gain 1/2 their rogue level in points at the start of the day but no mention of a maximum limit.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?


sunderedhero wrote:
sunderedhero wrote:
Uh is it intentional that the "Illumination Control" ability of the Shadow Walker archetype has no cap on the amount of illumination points it can store? It says they gain 1/2 their rogue level in points at the start of the day but no mention of a maximum limit.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

As far as I can tell, the only way to add Illumination Points is the Favored Illumination ability which says this:

Blood of Shadows wrote:
When the shadow walker confirms a critical hit with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage while in her chosen illumination level, she regains 1 illumination point (to a maximum of half her rogue level).

So I would say the maximum is 1/2 her Rogue level.


Gisher wrote:


I'm still hoping that we can get a clarification on which ranged weapons are considered one-handed and which are two-handed. Slings and hand crossbows, for example, take one hand to launch their ammunition but two hands to load. So which are they?

Pretty sure hand crossbows at least are one handed. You can two weapon fight with them after all. Plus if you took "take two hands to load" as enough to classify them as two handed weapons then one handed firearms would be two handed and that's just.. weird.


Squiggit wrote:
Gisher wrote:


I'm still hoping that we can get a clarification on which ranged weapons are considered one-handed and which are two-handed. Slings and hand crossbows, for example, take one hand to launch their ammunition but two hands to load. So which are they?
Pretty sure hand crossbows at least are one handed. You can two weapon fight with them after all. Plus if you took "take two hands to load" as enough to classify them as two handed weapons then one handed firearms would be two handed and that's just.. weird.

Having never played in a game using firearms (and not having any interest in doing so), I never realized that they had one-handed and two-handed categories. Reading through that section for the first time, I'm a little confused about the loading process.

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
Loading a Firearm: You need at least one hand free to load one-handed and two-handed firearms. In the case of two-handed firearms, you hold the weapon in one hand and load it with the other—you only need to hold it in two hands to aim and shoot the firearm.

So two-handed firearms require you to hold the weapon in one hand and load with the other. That obviously takes two hands. But the phrase "In the case of two-handed firearms" suggests that one-handed firearms work differently. So can you load a one-handed firearm without holding the weapon in one hand and loading with the other? In that case one-handed firearms only take one hand to load.


It's clearly saying you have to have one hand free in addition to the one holding the weapon to reload both categories. The specific notes about two handed firearms are to prevent really dumb GMs from ruling that RAW you need a third arm to reload two handed firearms - they're only two handed when actually firing.

Back on topic: I liked this book a lot, and found a greater than usual number of the new spells to be well through out, useful, and well balanced. Good job.


Slithery D wrote:
It's clearly saying you have to have one hand free in addition to the one holding the weapon to reload both categories. The specific notes about two handed firearms are to prevent really dumb GMs from ruling that RAW you need a third arm to reload two handed firearms - they're only two handed when actually firing.

I see. The third arm issue never occurred to me. Thanks, that is helpful.

Scarab Sages Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Faelyn wrote:

I've got a question regarding the Dusk Knight's "Shadow Smite", specifically this line here.

Shadow Smite wrote:
The dusk knight doesn’t deal additional damage with her smite evil ability.
I'm assuming that's referring to the ability to deal additional damage on the first strike against evil outsiders & dragons, and undead. I would just like to clarify that isn't not removing ALL extra damage from the Smile Evil ability, because that would suck. Hard.

It does indeed mean you removing ALL extra damage from the smite evil ability, just like it says. It's much more a defensive option than an offensive one.


Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:
Faelyn wrote:

I've got a question regarding the Dusk Knight's "Shadow Smite", specifically this line here.

Shadow Smite wrote:
The dusk knight doesn’t deal additional damage with her smite evil ability.
I'm assuming that's referring to the ability to deal additional damage on the first strike against evil outsiders & dragons, and undead. I would just like to clarify that isn't not removing ALL extra damage from the Smile Evil ability, because that would suck. Hard.
It does indeed mean you removing ALL extra damage from the smite evil ability, just like it says. It's much more a defensive option than an offensive one.

Thank you for the clarification, Owen! That does make sense after looking more in depth. Being able to overcome DR is still a great boon.

Dark Archive

Blood of Shadows notes that most Disk Knights are followers of Abadar. Why is that so? There are a number of Lawful Good Ephemeral lords that have the darkness domain and would make way more sense lore wise, that is unless I a, missing a link that will help me understand?


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DubiousYak wrote:
Blood of Shadows notes that most Disk Knights are followers of Abadar. Why is that so? There are a number of Lawful Good Ephemeral lords that have the darkness domain and would make way more sense lore wise, that is unless I a, missing a link that will help me understand?

I think they were just covering the main deities, though I agree that for me personally, Kelinahat and Tsukiyo were my first thoughts for deities for a dusk knight. Benorus might work too...Ashava would be a great choice thematically, but she's chaotic good, alas. Oh! Right, and Tanagaar would probably be an excellent choice, I think.

Interestingly, Thoth also has the darkness domain and is Lawful Neutral, so he could serve, though that would certainly be an odd choice. But odd choices can certainly be interesting...combining worship of one of the ancient Osironi deities with the paladin could be thematically interesting, a warrior of a time not his own, perhaps...

Scarab Sages Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DubiousYak wrote:
Blood of Shadows notes that most Disk Knights are followers of Abadar. Why is that so? There are a number of Lawful Good Ephemeral lords that have the darkness domain and would make way more sense lore wise, that is unless I a, missing a link that will help me understand?

"Most" certainly doesn't mean "all." For Abadar, dusk knights fall into his plans for being patient, calculating, and far-seeing. It also ties into his role as Master of the First Vault, as well as the Earth domain, which means dusk knight paladins of Abadar are often spending time underground in vaults and similar strongholds. And, of course, cities often have shadowy alleys where law is tough to enforce.

Of course not all non-LG deities have any paladins, but Abadar specifically has them trained in the Tempering Hall in Absalom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has no one commented yet on Dumbledore's lighter being in the book?


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Slithery D wrote:
Has no one commented yet on Dumbledore's lighter being in the book?

I missed the reference. Which thing in the book is that?

Dark Archive

So just to check this stupid question: Shadow Smite still works only on evil targets right?

I know it doesn't say anything to contrary anywhere, but I felt confused for some reason(probably because my int is low), so I felt need to check


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
Slithery D wrote:
Has no one commented yet on Dumbledore's lighter being in the book?

I missed the reference. Which thing in the book is that?

Rod of Delumination, page 26. It's "spoon sized and utterly featureless," i.e. a small cylinder like a lighter. You point it at light sources and say a command word to extinguish them. With a second command word you can reignite something you extinguished.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ah, thanks.


Slithery D wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Slithery D wrote:
Has no one commented yet on Dumbledore's lighter being in the book?

I missed the reference. Which thing in the book is that?

Rod of Delumination, page 26. It's "spoon sized and utterly featureless," i.e. a small cylinder like a lighter. You point it at light sources and say a command word to extinguish them. With a second command word you can reignite something you extinguished.

And it's even called the Deluminator in the HP books. That's really funny. Nice catch.

351 to 400 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Shadows (PFRPG) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.