Secrets of magic ama?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roquepo wrote:
The attack trait is an eligible trait to craft a custom staff, right? It would help out Magus significantly.

It is not explicitly banned, but the trait is not supposed to be "overly broad." I wouldn't get my hopes up about GMs being excited about "attack" as a sufficiently-narrow trait.


Shisumo wrote:
roquepo wrote:
The attack trait is an eligible trait to craft a custom staff, right? It would help out Magus significantly.
It is not explicitly banned, but the trait is not supposed to be "overly broad." I wouldn't get my hopes up about GMs being excited about "attack" as a sufficiently-narrow trait.

Don't know how things have changed with SoM, but right now there are only 11 attack non-cantrip spells (a little bit more if you count some curses that probably will be errata-ed somewhere in the future). The fire trait has 18 and already has a staff.

I think spells that involve aiming are narrow enough.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roquepo wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
roquepo wrote:
The attack trait is an eligible trait to craft a custom staff, right? It would help out Magus significantly.
It is not explicitly banned, but the trait is not supposed to be "overly broad." I wouldn't get my hopes up about GMs being excited about "attack" as a sufficiently-narrow trait.

Don't know how things have changed with SoM, but right now there are only 11 attack non-cantrip spells (a little bit more if you count some curses that probably will be errata-ed somewhere in the future). The fire trait has 18 and already has a staff.

I think spells that involve aiming are narrow enough.

The existence of already-extant staves should not be taken as making a trait a valid choice. Traits based on schools of magic are explicitly banned, and yet we have the staff of divination and its cousins. (Also, AoN has 14 non-cantrip, non-focus attack spells.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Shisumo wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
roquepo wrote:
The attack trait is an eligible trait to craft a custom staff, right? It would help out Magus significantly.
It is not explicitly banned, but the trait is not supposed to be "overly broad." I wouldn't get my hopes up about GMs being excited about "attack" as a sufficiently-narrow trait.

Don't know how things have changed with SoM, but right now there are only 11 attack non-cantrip spells (a little bit more if you count some curses that probably will be errata-ed somewhere in the future). The fire trait has 18 and already has a staff.

I think spells that involve aiming are narrow enough.

The existence of already-extant staves should not be taken as making a trait a valid choice. Traits based on schools of magic are explicitly banned, and yet we have the staff of divination and its cousins. (Also, AoN has 14 non-cantrip, non-focus attack spells.)

If you get the chance to read the section on creating a staff in SoM it seems clear that something like 'attack' is broader than they intended. Obviously, it's up to every GM to decide but it's much more in the vein of - Staff of Healing, Staff of Fire/Earth/Wind/Water, Staff of Shadows, Staff of Plants, etc. than it is Staff of Attack Spells. I think thematic is a good descriptor for the intent rather than just based on a trait. That's probably why staves based on a school are banned right off the bat. Since if you had a Staff of Necromancy that could have Heal and Harm on the same staff which doesn't seem to fit their motif.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the intent seems to be to have the character working within a theme rather than simply selecting literally all the spells you want for around the same cost as a wand.


nephandys wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
roquepo wrote:
The attack trait is an eligible trait to craft a custom staff, right? It would help out Magus significantly.
It is not explicitly banned, but the trait is not supposed to be "overly broad." I wouldn't get my hopes up about GMs being excited about "attack" as a sufficiently-narrow trait.

Don't know how things have changed with SoM, but right now there are only 11 attack non-cantrip spells (a little bit more if you count some curses that probably will be errata-ed somewhere in the future). The fire trait has 18 and already has a staff.

I think spells that involve aiming are narrow enough.

The existence of already-extant staves should not be taken as making a trait a valid choice. Traits based on schools of magic are explicitly banned, and yet we have the staff of divination and its cousins. (Also, AoN has 14 non-cantrip, non-focus attack spells.)
If you get the chance to read the section on creating a staff in SoM it seems clear that something like 'attack' is broader than they intended. Obviously, it's up to every GM to decide but it's much more in the vein of - Staff of Healing, Staff of Fire/Earth/Wind/Water, Staff of Shadows, Staff of Plants, etc. than it is Staff of Attack Spells. I think thematic is a good descriptor for the intent rather than just based on a trait. That's probably why staves based on a school are banned right off the bat. Since if you had a Staff of Necromancy that could have Heal and Harm on the same staff which doesn't seem to fit their motif.

Hope I get the chance to read it soon :D


nephandys wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
roquepo wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
roquepo wrote:
The attack trait is an eligible trait to craft a custom staff, right? It would help out Magus significantly.
It is not explicitly banned, but the trait is not supposed to be "overly broad." I wouldn't get my hopes up about GMs being excited about "attack" as a sufficiently-narrow trait.

Don't know how things have changed with SoM, but right now there are only 11 attack non-cantrip spells (a little bit more if you count some curses that probably will be errata-ed somewhere in the future). The fire trait has 18 and already has a staff.

I think spells that involve aiming are narrow enough.

The existence of already-extant staves should not be taken as making a trait a valid choice. Traits based on schools of magic are explicitly banned, and yet we have the staff of divination and its cousins. (Also, AoN has 14 non-cantrip, non-focus attack spells.)
If you get the chance to read the section on creating a staff in SoM it seems clear that something like 'attack' is broader than they intended. Obviously, it's up to every GM to decide but it's much more in the vein of - Staff of Healing, Staff of Fire/Earth/Wind/Water, Staff of Shadows, Staff of Plants, etc. than it is Staff of Attack Spells. I think thematic is a good descriptor for the intent rather than just based on a trait. That's probably why staves based on a school are banned right off the bat. Since if you had a Staff of Necromancy that could have Heal and Harm on the same staff which doesn't seem to fit their motif.

Interestingly, there is a Fortune cantrip now, Wash Your Luck.

My Lucky Staff Level 5
Fortune Trait
Cantrip Wash Your Luck
1st True Strike, Baby!!


what does that cantrip do?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Seeing as shocking grasp is the big boy single target attack spell I expect many Magi to run around with custom staves of electricity


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seisho wrote:
what does that cantrip do?

Wash Your Luck

One minute duration. Two action cast.

Once during the spell’s duration, before rolling a check,
you can cancel out a misfortune effect on that roll. After canceling out the misfortune effect, the spell ends, and you're immune for 10 minutes.

It's not bad, but you've either gotta know what's coming or be paranoid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can already see all the prepared casters running to the next magic shop when they hear they have to fight a cyclops

Customer Service Representative

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post that included copied text from the book as well as other posts that quoted it. Let's refrain from copying exactly from the book and try to paraphrase instead.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Attack is probably allowed because it's really not going to be strong, a staff full of damaging spells is not a great staff, in fact it's barely better than a wand of the strongest spell.


Do they do anything more to differenitate the fairly samey eidolons from the playtest?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
siegfriedliner wrote:
Do they do anything more to differenitate the fairly samey eidolons from the playtest?

The ones from the playtest are basically the same with minor improvements.

You mainly gain a new Evolution feat at lvl 1.


I heard there was an archetype that worked well with champions, something about bonded weapons or super saiyen modes? Is that true? Does it give any special Champion only feats or did paizo just think it would be cool for Champions? Is it cool with the champion class?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rfkannen wrote:
I heard there was an archetype that worked well with champions, something about bonded weapons or super saiyen modes? Is that true? Does it give any special Champion only feats or did paizo just think it would be cool for Champions? Is it cool with the champion class?

The Soulforger. Summon a weapon, shield, or armor for one action. Pick a special ability from a list you can use once per day. Most are pretty strong. You pick a tenet, oath, or goal, you have to stick to, or you pick up a penalty based on your special ability. The benefit for the Champion is that your tenet can just be your Champion Tenets.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
siegfriedliner wrote:
Do they do anything more to differenitate the fairly samey eidolons from the playtest?

There are more of them now and more stat lines.


Vampiric touch is a save spell....are there any health steal attack spells? I only need that and animate dead for a lich magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
Vampiric touch is a save spell....are there any health steal attack spells? I only need that and animate dead for a lich magus.

Blood Feast


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well that's horrifying.


perfect


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Thunder999 wrote:
Attack is probably allowed because it's really not going to be strong, a staff full of damaging spells is not a great staff, in fact it's barely better than a wand of the strongest spell.

It does not appear that 'Attack' meets the qualifications. It has nothing to do with strength. The idea behind all of the examples given (deep sea and plants) is a strong theme and spells with the Attack trait wouldn't meet that threshold. Obviously, it's all GM fiat, but the material doesn't really support this staff.


nephandys wrote:
Thunder999 wrote:
Attack is probably allowed because it's really not going to be strong, a staff full of damaging spells is not a great staff, in fact it's barely better than a wand of the strongest spell.
It does not appear that 'Attack' meets the qualifications. It has nothing to do with strength. The idea behind all of the examples given (deep sea and plants) is a strong theme and spells with the Attack trait wouldn't meet that threshold. Obviously, it's all GM fiat, but the material doesn't really support this staff.

So do they have to share both a theme and a trait or one or the other? For example, do you have to specify that your staff is a staff of communication, can you make your staff one with spells with the liguistic trait or do you have to do them both?


roquepo wrote:
nephandys wrote:
Thunder999 wrote:
Attack is probably allowed because it's really not going to be strong, a staff full of damaging spells is not a great staff, in fact it's barely better than a wand of the strongest spell.
It does not appear that 'Attack' meets the qualifications. It has nothing to do with strength. The idea behind all of the examples given (deep sea and plants) is a strong theme and spells with the Attack trait wouldn't meet that threshold. Obviously, it's all GM fiat, but the material doesn't really support this staff.
So do they have to share both a theme and a trait or one or the other? For example, do you have to specify that your staff is a staff of communication, can you make your staff one with spells with the liguistic trait or do you have to do them both?

By RAW, Nephandys is incorrect. By RAW it's a Trait all the spells need to have. That's it.

Nephandys is correct though that it's a Rare process making a Unique item, so "RAW" is on shaky ground already. It's pretty much totally GM fiat, and while "Attack spell" will be good enough for some GM's, (myself included) expect table variation if staff creation is allowed at all.

Dark Archive

Can you trigger an Arcane Cascade stance from the shield spell, or does the spell have to be offensive?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It just says Cast a Spell or Spellstrike.

If you choose a spell that doesn't do damage, you get a damage type determined by the school of the spell. If you choose one that does damage, you get that damage type.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Narxiso wrote:
Can you trigger an Arcane Cascade stance from the shield spell, or does the spell have to be offensive?

Probably going to be my go-to for getting into stance most of the time, in fact. Shield, stance, 35-foot Stride to get into flank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you get the haste focus spell you can cast it, stance, stride, whack.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shisumo wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Can you trigger an Arcane Cascade stance from the shield spell, or does the spell have to be offensive?
Probably going to be my go-to for getting into stance most of the time, in fact. Shield, stance, 35-foot Stride to get into flank.

Use the Jump spell, 30ft movement, cascade and Strike.

Guntermench wrote:
If you get the haste focus spell you can cast it, stance, stride, whack.

Don't work though, the extra action from Quickened only comes on your next turn as you only gain them at the start of your turn.


Kyrone wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Can you trigger an Arcane Cascade stance from the shield spell, or does the spell have to be offensive?
Probably going to be my go-to for getting into stance most of the time, in fact. Shield, stance, 35-foot Stride to get into flank.

Use the Jump spell, 30ft movement, cascade and Strike.

Bit red mage vibe, front flip over the ennemy and strike.

Your swash buddy will be either jealous or proud


Logan Harper She/Her wrote:
Removed a post that included copied text from the book as well as other posts that quoted it. Let's refrain from copying exactly from the book and try to paraphrase instead.

Yeah, sep 1st rules...

Sovereign Court

Ooooh Jump/Cascade that's neat.


Kyrone wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Can you trigger an Arcane Cascade stance from the shield spell, or does the spell have to be offensive?
Probably going to be my go-to for getting into stance most of the time, in fact. Shield, stance, 35-foot Stride to get into flank.

Use the Jump spell, 30ft movement, cascade and Strike.

Guntermench wrote:
If you get the haste focus spell you can cast it, stance, stride, whack.
Don't work though, the extra action from Quickened only comes on your next turn as you only gain them at the start of your turn.

Ahhhhh poop.

Liberty's Edge

Kyrone wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Can you trigger an Arcane Cascade stance from the shield spell, or does the spell have to be offensive?
Probably going to be my go-to for getting into stance most of the time, in fact. Shield, stance, 35-foot Stride to get into flank.
Use the Jump spell, 30ft movement, cascade and Strike.

Great idea if you really need the alpha strike, but that's a spell slot, and those are expensive. Save for bosses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Kyrone wrote:
Shisumo wrote:
Narxiso wrote:
Can you trigger an Arcane Cascade stance from the shield spell, or does the spell have to be offensive?
Probably going to be my go-to for getting into stance most of the time, in fact. Shield, stance, 35-foot Stride to get into flank.
Use the Jump spell, 30ft movement, cascade and Strike.
Great idea if you really need the alpha strike, but that's a spell slot, and those are expensive. Save for bosses.

Maybe on a staff or scroll, though...

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Does it bother anybody else that the Beast Eidolon's 7th level ability gives it an AoE demoralize, but neither statblock has ANY bonus to CHA to help it land that demoralize? I mean, both options for stats have on CHA 10 when one of its signature abilities relies on CHA!

This has sapped any excitement I had for making a Beast Eidolon Summoner as it seems it will have a terrible time landing it's 2-action "specialty"


Invictus Fatum wrote:

Does it bother anybody else that the Beast Eidolon's 7th level ability gives it an AoE demoralize, but neither statblock has ANY bonus to CHA to help it land that demoralize? I mean, both options for stats have on CHA 10 when one of its signature abilities relies on CHA!

This has sapped any excitement I had for making a Beast Eidolon Summoner as it seems it will have a terrible time landing it's 2-action "specialty"

At lvl 7:

7 (lvl) + 6 (Master Intimidation) + 1 (charisma) + 1 (item) = +15 check

Martial at lvl 7 to hit a weapon +16

Not horrible the +15, have a decent chance hitting, but yeah, I do wish that could have an option with started with 12 or 14 charisma. I think that Intimidating Prowess might work with the ability if the person picked the lvl 4 evolution feat for skill feats.


How much Int does a magus need if he's only concerned with spell attack rolls and buffs?


8.


Guntermench wrote:
8.

Lol, maybe 10 then. Not a fan of having a net loss of skills from base.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I guess youd want at least enough int for a witch or wizard dedication if you so choose.


That's not what you said though... >_>


Does the Spellstrike for non-attack spells (feat-enabled, right?) give any advantage on those spells?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Seisho wrote:
Does the Spellstrike for non-attack spells (feat-enabled, right?) give any advantage on those spells?

Aside from collectively saving you an action from a Strike + 2-Action spell? No, not really.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Too bad, with recharge again it would be also 3 actions again, so there is actually not much saving going on, just dispersing the usage a bit different

I kind of expected something like a bonus for the dc on a crit (like the playtest spellstrike)


I had this revelation in the bounded accuracy thread. Does the Expansive Spellstrike feat protect you from the damage of casting spells? Or does it make an AoE spell into a single target spell?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Temperans wrote:
I had this revelation in the bounded accuracy thread. Does the Expansive Spellstrike feat protect you from the damage of casting spells? Or does it make an AoE spell into a single target spell?

It makes multi target spells single target, but AoEs are still AoEs, they just have to start at the target of your Strike.

There's no special protection though so yeah you can blow yourself up with fireball.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why wouldn't you want your casting stat to be at least be 14? If cantrips are your bread and butter that's more damage. With a 16 in int and str that's +6 to damage per spellstrike.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While those are of course some damage points I can see the appeal of running a 'dumb magus' who buffs out his other stats to get save advantages/hit points/down with the ladies in favor of 3 points of damage

251 to 300 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Secrets of magic ama? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.