What is a good gish in Pathfinder?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm interested in making a Gish character in Pathfinder, primarily for level 5 through level 10, and I would like to get some advice on what classes or prestige classes are good for this. Paizo material only.


Magus seems like a clear choice, at 3/4ths BAB and a spell level every 3 levels, plus it gains armored casting and channeling ability.
Arcane Trickster prestige class, using 3 levels of witch or wizard, and 3 levels of rogue or ninja (maybe there's a fighter archetype somewhere so I can get 2d6 sneak attack in just two levels). It has only 1/2 BAB but gains a spell level every 2 levels, and presumably deals lots of damage with sneak attack.
Eldritch Knight prestige class, with 5 levels of witch or wizard and one level in anything that gives full martial weapons. Full BAB and a new spell level every 2 levels. This seems numerically the strongest option, but it gets less class features than the Magus does.
Bard seems to kind of work, but not really fit. I'd prefer to avoid the summoner as that's more of a full caster than a gish.
Other ideas also welcome.


Thanks for your help!

[Kudaku]

The main difference between the other gish classes and the Magus is primarily Spell Combat and its implications. For instance, the eldritch knight is a wizard who can choose to cast spells or instead fight with weapons.

Because of Spell Combat, the magus does both at the same time.

Bards can make excellent gishes with the right archetype, but they run into the same action economy problem as the eldritch knight.
I've seen some interesting arcane trickster builds but I've never seen them in play so I'll refrain from voicing an opinion there.

For levels 6-10 I'd probably play a magus unless there was no other arcane casters in the party.

[Saph]

Yeah, I'd just go with a magus. Eldritch Knight is a decent runner-up and gets more pure spellcasting power, but the magus is built from the ground up to be a gish and a fighter/wizard isn't.

With the Magus you get the ability to cast in armour, blade enhancement with Arcane Pool (which makes up for your missing BAB), the ability to cast and attack in the same round with Spell Combat, and the ability to channel touch attack spells with Spellstrike. The other abilities like spell recall and magus arcana are just freebies.

The main draw of Eldritch Knight is that at the very high levels, you get access to 7th/8th/9th level spells, which the magus doesn't. But if you're only going to level 10 then you'll never get those anyway.

[Snowbluff]

The main draw of Eldritch Knight is that at the very high levels, you get access to 7th/8th/9th level spells, which the magus doesn't. But if you're only going to level 10 then you'll never get those anyway.

Aasimar can enter Eldritch Knight without any class levels. An Insight Wizard1/EK10 can preroll each round to crit fish swift action spells. Only going to level ten, you still hey fifth level spells and 9 BAB...

[stack]

I favor the magus, but it is worth pointing out that a wizard can spellstrike if they get a wizard hook (www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/specific-magic-weapons/wizard-hook)(or a decent weapon instead if the DM allows changing out the base weapon).

[Kurald Galain]

Aasimar can enter Eldritch Knight without any class levels.
How do they do that, then? As far as I can tell, Aasimar in PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-aasimar) neither get martial weapon proficiency, nor the ability to cast 3rd level spells.

Also, what's an Insight Wizard?

[charcoalninja]

How do they do that, then? As far as I can tell, Aasimar in PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/featured-races/arg-aasimar) neither get martial weapon proficiency, nor the ability to cast 3rd level spells.

Also, what's an Insight Wizard?

Assimar are outsiders and thus are proficient in all martial weapons and you can cast daylight as an SLA which IIRC is a 3rd level spell.

For gishing though, go Synth summoner. You get at will flight by level 5, a solid full attack routine and can take a hit like a beast. Summons monster X for utility magic and out of combat healing, and spells like evolution surge and haste for buff smash. Add Samsaran and one level of Crossblooded sorcerer and you're tossing out scorching rays for crazy damage as well. Could be rocking 8d6+16 scorching rays at level 5 if you went the spell specialization route. Take magical lineage scorch ray and by level 7ish you can empower it for 12d6+24 damage.

Summoner can heal itself as well so its rocking!

[Kudaku]

Aasimar's spell-like ability to cast Daylight qualifies them for the 3rd level arcane spell - this was stated in a Pathfinder FAQ a while back.

However Aasimars do not get weapon proficiency for being outsiders - this was clarified in the ARG. You'd need at least one level in a class with martial weapon proficiency. That said, to the best of my knowledge aasimar Fighter 1/Wizard 1/Eldritch Knight X is a legal build - including for Pathfinder Society.

Edit: Partially ninjaed :smallcool:

[Spore]

I am unsure if divine classes even qualify for being a gish but if you go by the definition of magically talented melee instead of arcane/mage then clerics, inquisitors and oracles are also very competent base and core classes.

[charcoalninja]

Aasimar's spell-like ability to cast Daylight qualifies them for the 3rd level arcane spell - this was stated in a Pathfinder FAQ a while back.

However Aasimars do not get weapon proficiency for being outsiders - this was clarified in the ARG.

Edit: Partially ninjaed :smallcool:

Seriously? What's the point of having type rules if you arbitrarily ignore them half the time... Ah well, tossing one level at fighter is no big loss anyway.

[Spore]

Seriously? What's the point of having type rules if you arbitrarily ignore them half the time... Ah well, tossing one level at fighter is no big loss anyway.

I don't get what your problem is?

SLAs are arcane by definition. I would still argue this does not qualify because you do have one spell and not an entire spell list. The FAQ is very wonky and widely regarded a bad decision although being RAW now.

[grarrrg]

Magus 10 has 7 Bab, and just gained 4th level spells.

Wizard 5/"fighter" 1/Eldritch Knight 4 has 7 Bab and 4th level spells.

Hell Knight Signifier can be a good alternative to Eldritch Knight, but doesn't do a whole lot in only 10 levels.

I'd go the Magus route since you are limited to 10th level anyway.


Arcane Trickster prestige class, using 3 levels of witch or wizard, and 3 levels of rogue or ninja (maybe there's a fighter archetype somewhere so I can get 2d6 sneak attack in just two levels).
Trickster is really not much for Gish material, but...
No one ever has any imagination.
1 level "rogue", 4 levels "wizard", 1 level of "sneak PrC", 4 levels of Arcane Trickster.
"rogue" can be Rogue, Ninja, or Vivisectionist Alchemist.
"sneak PrC" has, I think 5 choices now. Assassin, Inner Sea Pirate, Master Spy, Red Mantis Assassin, and Sleepless Detective.
Red Mantis is more trouble to qualify for than it is worth, and Master Spy cannot be entered until level 8 or higher.
Assassin and Pirate are easy enough to enter, but don't really "give" you much.
Sleepless Detective (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/s-z/sleepless-detective) is where it's at, easy Reqs, and some INT synergy.


Bard Archetypes
Arcane Duelist: Good number of bonus feats, can cast in Medium at level 10
Dawnflower Dervish: Dervish Dance as a bonus feat at level 1, so you can kiss STR goodbye from level 1, and the performances effect ONLY you, but the bonuses are doubled.



Assimar are outsiders and thus are proficient in all martial weapons and you can cast daylight as an SLA which IIRC is a 3rd level spell.However Aasimars do not get weapon proficiency for being outsiders - this was clarified in the ARG. You'd need at least one level in a class with martial weapon proficiency.
To further clarify, if you take a Racial Hit Die they also get Martial Proficiency.
The "natural" proficiency Outsiders have with martial weapons is tied to the Hit Dice, NOT an inherent ability.

[Urpriest]

To further clarify, if you take a Racial Hit Die they also get Martial Proficiency.
The "natural" proficiency Outsiders have with martial weapons is tied to the Hit Dice, NOT an inherent ability.

If the designers actually wanted the rules to say this they would have put the proficiency in Features, not in Traits, since that's precisely what the distinction between those two is for.

[Kudaku]

If the designers actually wanted the rules to say this they would have put the proficiency in Features, not in Traits, since that's precisely what the distinction between those two is for.

There's been numerous designer commentaries on this topic, but I think this is the clearest:


While it was always the assumption that 0-HD creatures, no matter their type, had weapon and armor proficiencies based on their class levels, we did not state that explicitly in the Bestiary. That is why we did in the Advance Race Guide.

A link to the post can be found here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qb14&page=2?Zero-HD-Native-Outsiders-and-Weapon#92). He goes into the original phrasing in rather more detail here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qb14&page=4?Zero-HD-Native-Outsiders-and-Weapon#154), but I won't quote the full post to keep this relatively brief.

[Urpriest]

There's been numerous designer commentaries on this topic, but I think this is the clearest:



A link to the post can be found here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qb14&page=2?Zero-HD-Native-Outsiders-and-Weapon#92).

That doesn't change the fact that they already had a way to say that within the rules. They didn't need to make any assumptions, they just needed to exercise basic quality control.

[Kudaku]

That doesn't change the fact that they already had a way to say that within the rules. They didn't need to make any assumptions, they just needed to exercise basic quality control.

I'm guessing you replied before I edited in the link to the second post - he goes into some detail on why they phrased it that way there. Actually the entire thread is a good read if you're interested in the topic.

[genericwit]

I am unsure if divine classes even qualify for being a gish but if you go by the definition of magically talented melee instead of arcane/mage then clerics, inquisitors and oracles are also very competent base and core classes.

Seconded. Inquisitors are probably my favorite class. Sure they got a medium hit die and bab and don't get any flashy bang bang spells, but they get massive floating static bonuses (to hit, dr, ac, damage, whatever you want), they got skillz yo, pretty good spell list, they can get a pet (animal/feather domain), what more do you want?

[Urpriest]

I'm guessing you replied before I edited in the link to the second post - he goes into some detail on why they phrased it that way there. Actually the entire thread is a good read if you're interested in the topic.

Ah, I hadn't thought about it in terms of intentional ambiguity. Of course, that still doesn't excuse them from not just changing the original rules to do what they expected them to rather than writing a new rule to patch things over, but it at least explains their attitude some.

Anyway, on the thread topic, I've heard people assert that you can build a competent Gish out of a Witch without taking Eldritch Knight. Does that have any basis in reality?

[Kudaku]

Ah, I hadn't thought about it in terms of intentional ambiguity. Of course, that still doesn't excuse them from not just changing the original rules to do what they expected them to rather than writing a new rule to patch things over, but it at least explains their attitude some.

I agree. I think an errata for the Bestiary and clarifying the description in the later Bestiaries (leaving the line unchanged in B4 in particular was short-sighted) would have been a much better solution than leaving an (easily missed) line in the ARG.


Anyway, on the thread topic, I've heard people assert that you can build a competent Gish out of a Witch without taking Eldritch Knight. Does that have any basis in reality?

I've seen some interesting concepts using either the white haired witch archetype or the prehensile hair hex. Never seen it in play though, so I'm not sure how viable it actually is.

[watchwood]

Anyway, on the thread topic, I've heard people assert that you can build a competent Gish out of a Witch without taking Eldritch Knight. Does that have any basis in reality?

Half-Orc Scarred Witch Doctor. Use your Slumber ability to put people down, and then coup-de-grace with a great ax (racial weapon proficiency). I built a character around this once, it was pretty entertaining (and occasionally, a very anticlimatic boss fight)

[Gnaeus]

I'm pretty fond of Sorcadins in PF. Paladin got a lot of love in the system change. So did sorcerer. Dragon Disciple also, if you choose to go that route. Paladin 2/Sorc 3/DD 5, sadly, only gives level 3 spells and +6 BAB, but you get some nice features like blindsense, self heals, great saves, stat bumps, natural armor, better HP and some free feats.

[grarrrg]

Overall, I'd say Magus, or Eldritch Knight are your best options.


they just needed to exercise basic quality control.

Paizo + Quality control?
*5 minutes of uncontrolled laughter*
Let's start with "Paizo + Basic Proof Reading Skills" first.
*okay..it was really only 3 minutes of uncontrolled laughter*

[Snowbluff]

Seriously? What's the point of having type rules if you arbitrarily ignore them half the time... Ah well, tossing one level at fighter is no big loss anyway.

Catastrophe. We can't have anything fun...

[Kurald Galain]

Ok, based on the advice here I think I will go with the Magus. The EK may get its spell levels slightly earlier, but the Magus has superior class features for a gish.

Any tips for archetypes, racial favored class bonuses, or traits worth loooking into? I get the impression that the Magus doesn't really want to take a prestige class, based on its class features.

[watchwood]

I'm not aware of any PrCs that are worth taking as a dedicated magus.

My suggestion for archetypes is Bladebound and/or Kensai.

At this point though, you should probably just read a good magus guide for tips.

[Feint's End]

SLAs are arcane by definition. I would still argue this does not qualify because you do have one spell and not an entire spell list. The FAQ is very wonky and widely regarded a bad decision although being RAW now.

Actually it depends on which spelllist the spell replicated is from. It goes from Wizard/Sorcer // cleric/druid/oracle ...... // other classes. So basically you look on which spellist the spell appears and go from left to right -> if it doesn't appear on wizards spelllist but on cleric then it's divine (even if the spell also appear on lets say the magus spelllist)

Link (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow) (pretty much end of the page)

On topic (I think of gishs as classes/build which combine fighting and some sort of casting/manifesting ... all the 6th grade/level classes only because with less you technically aren't a gish and with more you are basically just a nerfed caster):
-Inquisitor (awesome gishes which are skillmonkeys too)
-Magus (burstdamage hello)
-Alchemist (focusing on Mutagen make for very hefty gishes with good utility)
-Bard (with right archetypes ... ist more on the utility side spellwise though)
-Summoner (the straight summoner is basically a "gish" with better action economy ... if you don't think so then go Synthesist (straight up nerf but at least you do stuff yourself))
-Cryptic (Brutal Disrupter Archetype + Two Weapon Fighting ... nuff said. Similarly to Inquisitors they have the added utility)
-Psychic Warrior (very strong gyshs with some free action manifesting added ... can make for a lot of strong builds)
-Dread (Nightmare Constructors rule here but even regular dreads make for pretty solid gishes with some debuffing added on top of it)
-Wilder (I say gish because while they can make solid blasters they just don't have enough powers known to be full blown manifesters. They work best when buffed up and meleeing ... probably with the Fighter Wilder Archetype)

[Nihilarian]

Ah, I hadn't thought about it in terms of intentional ambiguity. Of course, that still doesn't excuse them from not just changing the original rules to do what they expected them to rather than writing a new rule to patch things over, but it at least explains their attitude some.

Anyway, on the thread topic, I've heard people assert that you can build a competent Gish out of a Witch without taking Eldritch Knight. Does that have any basis in reality?Scarrred Witch Doctor, probably. It's kind of nuts.
Ok, based on the advice here I think I will go with the Magus. The EK may get its spell levels slightly earlier, but the Magus has superior class features for a gish.

Any tips for archetypes, racial favored class bonuses, or traits worth loooking into? I get the impression that the Magus doesn't really want to take a prestige class, based on its class features.I like the Hexcrafter and/or the Staff Magus.

[Gwaednerth]

I'm pretty fond of Sorcadins in PF. Paladin got a lot of love in the system change. So did sorcerer. Dragon Disciple also, if you choose to go that route. Paladin 2/Sorc 3/DD 5, sadly, only gives level 3 spells and +6 BAB, but you get some nice features like blindsense, self heals, great saves, stat bumps, natural armor, better HP and some free feats.

Hey,someone else did notice that! [insert high five here] Although I'm going to speak up for the bard/paladin who gets light armour, free buffing, and a whip.

[Psyren]

There's been numerous designer commentaries on this topic, but I think this is the clearest:



A link to the post can be found here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qb14&page=2?Zero-HD-Native-Outsiders-and-Weapon#92). He goes into the original phrasing in rather more detail here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qb14&page=4?Zero-HD-Native-Outsiders-and-Weapon#154), but I won't quote the full post to keep this relatively brief.

Ssalarn's post at the bottom of that page is a perfect example of why I have unending mancrush on the guy.

[137beth]

If psychic warrior or soulknife is available, I'd recommend one of those. I'm not sure if you'd consider it a gish, but psychic warrior got a lot more customization in pathfinder than in 3.5, while I feel the magus is too narrow of a class.

[Snowbluff]

Ssalarn's post at the bottom of that page is a perfect example of why I have unending mancrush on the guy.

I don't find anything particularly impressive about his post.

Anyway, I read the thread and now my head hurts. I'll echo the complaints about monster typing being pointless if having a type means nothing for players. "We're all in the monster manual" used to mean something, you know? :smallfrown:

[Psyren]

I don't find anything particularly impressive about his post.

Given the side of the debate you're on, I'm not surprised :smalltongue:


Anyway, I read the thread and now my head hurts. I'll echo the complaints about monster typing being pointless if having a type means nothing for players. "We're all in the monster manual" used to mean something, you know? :smallfrown:

What happened there was basically a PF version of the "primary source rule." The ARG is the primary source for using those particular races as PCs, so it was the logical place to put information that supersedes the Bestiary on that topic.

[Snowbluff]

Given the side of the debate you're on, I'm not surprised :smalltongue:
He's been really dismissive. Saying what you just said would be like me saying you only like PF because you like the books. Saying what this dude is posting is doing something I could do with much less text.



What happened there was basically a PF version of the "primary source rule." The ARG is the primary source for using those particular races as PCs, so it was the logical place to put information that supersedes the Bestiary on that topic.

That's not why, though. Examine the suggested entry for EK.

Aasimar can cast third level spells for qualifications.
"Fine. PrCs aren't crazy good. It has little impact on the game. It's all okay with us."

They have martial weapon proficiency, since type rules used to be a thing.
"Well, if it was an NPC, it wouldn't have a real effect on a game. Hell no about players doing it."

See the problem here? Regardless of what I think is good game design (typing not being relevant is what I consider really bad), this is terribly inconsistent.

[charcoalninja]

He's been really dismissive. Saying what you just said would be like me saying you only like PF because you like the books. Saying what this dude is posting is doing something I could do with much less text.



That's not why, though. Examine the suggested entry for EK.

Aasimar can cast third level spells for qualifications.
"Fine. PrCs aren't crazy good. It has little impact on the game. It's all okay with us."

They have martial weapon proficiency, since type rules used to be a thing.
"Well, if it was an NPC, it wouldn't have a real effect on a game. Hell no about players doing it."

See the problem here? Regardless of what I think is good game design (typing not being relevant is what I consider really bad), this is terribly inconsistent.

Exactly.

It's terribly sloppy and annoying to randomly create exceptions to rules that otherwise work just dandy.

More to point, I'm going to suggest Synethist summoner again as the ideal Gish, you can fly at will from level 5, buff yourself to crazy throughout and can teleport charge at level 9, full attack teleporting at level 11. Lost one level into crossblooded sorcerer (Dragon/orc) and go Samsaran to put fireball and scorching ray on the summoner spell list and you've got insane blasting as well. Oh and you can heal yourself and others while having the most HP in the game.

[grarrrg]

Lost one level into crossblooded sorcerer (Dragon/orc) and go Samsaran to put fireball and scorching ray on the summoner spell list and you've got insane blasting as well. Oh and you can heal yourself and others while having the most HP in the game.

Skip Crossblooded, not worth it in this case.
Samsaran has potential though.

Also, how are you healing other people as a Summoner??

[Feint's End]

Also, how are you healing other people as a Summoner??

Umd Wand of cure light wounds? It's about as good as you have to get.

Summoners definitely are along the best out of the box gishes in pf.

Edit: I agree on the sorcerer part though. Loosing one level of eidolon progression isn't worth loosing over something you don't want to spend actions on in combat.

[Snowbluff]

Umd Wand of cure light wounds? It's about as good as you have to get.

Summoners definitely are along the best out of the box gishes in pf.

Infernal Healing is a Summoner Spell. It's usually one I pick up. It makes a good wand.

[Feint's End]

Infernal Healing is a Summoner Spell. It's usually one it pick up. It makes a good wand.

Yeah you are right. For some reason I thought it only works on people with the outsider type. Infernal healing it is then (almost gets to lesser vigor in terms of wand efficieny).

Edit: also note that healing doesn't work on a synthesist's eidolon so you'll need a second wand of lesser rejuvenate eidolon for that. That's just another reason to go regular Summoner though you are probably not technically a gish but you do all the fun stuff of one.

[Coidzor]

Ssalarn's post at the bottom of that page is a perfect example of why I have unending mancrush on the guy.

It's pissing away time and money to do a trivial typographical change that doesn't take effect until a new print run anyway and otherwise is a simple copy+paste job + denoting the chane on their PRD, but it wasn't to print up entirely new rules to cover it in a new book? :smallconfused:

[Urpriest]

That's not why, though. Examine the suggested entry for EK.

Aasimar can cast third level spells for qualifications.
"Fine. PrCs aren't crazy good. It has little impact on the game. It's all okay with us."

They have martial weapon proficiency, since type rules used to be a thing.
"Well, if it was an NPC, it wouldn't have a real effect on a game. Hell no about players doing it."

See the problem here? Regardless of what I think is good game design (typing not being relevant is what I consider really bad), this is terribly inconsistent.

Agreed.

Also, from what I can tell in those threads, there still isn't an actual answer for NPCs. The answer appears to be "you can give NPCs whichever proficiencies you want", which entirely ignores the fact that Paizo is in the business of writing adventures, most of which contain NPCs!

Basically, suppose a PFS DM is handed an Aasimar NPC equipped with simple weapons. Over the course of play, those weapons are destroyed, but the NPC is able to steal a Longbow from one of the PCs. Can the NPC use the longbow, or not? Most NPC statblocks don't list proficiencies. Normally, the way that the DM would find out would be to look at the Outsider type, since that is the only reason why the designers put that information there to begin with. But apparently that won't work, so there is no way to rule on this without asking the designers whether that particular NPC was supposed to be proficient with martial weapons or not.

[Psyren]

He's been really dismissive. Saying what you just said would be like me saying you only like PF because you like the books. Saying what this dude is posting is doing something I could do with much less text.

I'm not seeing anything particularly dismissive; we'll have to agree to disagree here.


That's not why, though. Examine the suggested entry for EK.

Aasimar can cast third level spells for qualifications.
"Fine. PrCs aren't crazy good. It has little impact on the game. It's all okay with us."

They have martial weapon proficiency, since type rules used to be a thing.
"Well, if it was an NPC, it wouldn't have a real effect on a game. Hell no about players doing it."

See the problem here? Regardless of what I think is good game design (typing not being relevant is what I consider really bad), this is terribly inconsistent.

I'm not seeing inconsistency either. They want a character's proficiencies to either come from their class, or from a specific set of weapons that have some thematic or fluff-based tie to the character's specific race, rather than having to balance around yet another attribute that comes from the broad category of type. If anything, that is bringing Aasimars et al. in line with every other race, which is moving toward consistency rather than away from it.

Yes it's a departure from the 3.5 FAQ ruling on the matter, but it's not the first such and it likely won't be the last either.


It's pissing away time and money to do a trivial typographical change that doesn't take effect until a new print run anyway and otherwise is a simple copy+paste job + denoting the chane on their PRD, but it wasn't to print up entirely new rules to cover it in a new book? :smallconfused:

It's not "new rules." It's a clarification of something that already existed. I suggest you reread the thread Kudaku linked above.

[Coidzor]

It's not "new rules." It's a clarification of something that already existed.

"New rules text," then. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Agreed.

Also, from what I can tell in those threads, there still isn't an actual answer for NPCs. The answer appears to be "you can give NPCs whichever proficiencies you want", which entirely ignores the fact that Paizo is in the business of writing adventures, most of which contain NPCs!

Basically, suppose a PFS DM is handed an Aasimar NPC equipped with simple weapons. Over the course of play, those weapons are destroyed, but the NPC is able to steal a Longbow from one of the PCs. Can the NPC use the longbow, or not? Most NPC statblocks don't list proficiencies. Normally, the way that the DM would find out would be to look at the Outsider type, since that is the only reason why the designers put that information there to begin with. But apparently that won't work, so there is no way to rule on this without asking the designers whether that particular NPC was supposed to be proficient with martial weapons or not.

The answer is actually pretty simple. in a home game, it comes down to the GM's choice; in a PFS game, you would simply ask "was there a longbow in that NPC Aasimar's entry?" If so, he's proficient with longbows, and if not, not*.

*not considering his class(es), of course.


"New rules text," then. :smalltongue:

It's text they were going to write anyway, since the goal was for the ARG to become the main starting point for players rolling up a race in PF and especially PFS. So clarifying it there as opposed to issuing further errata for the Bestiary, which is not a player book anyway and was not intended for the purpose of character creation, makes sense.

[Urpriest]

The answer is actually pretty simple. in a home game, it comes down to the GM's choice; in a PFS game, you would simply ask "was there a longbow in that NPC Aasimar's entry?" If so, he's proficient with longbows, and if not, not*.


Why? If you did the same thing with a Pit Fiend, say, the NPC would be proficient with longbows in either case. If the rules for 0HD outsiders are only relevant for PCs (or even only came to the designers' attention when they considered outsider PCs) then what rules apply to that NPC?

More on the thread topic: I can see how Scarred Witch Doctors can at least be very resilient. If you layer on various buffs (Strength patron or something) can they be competitive in melee?

[TuggyNE]

I'm not seeing inconsistency either. They want a character's proficiencies to either come from their class, or from a specific set of weapons that have some thematic or fluff-based tie to the character's specific race, rather than having to balance around yet another attribute that comes from the broad category of type.

That being the case, they should use HD features as the preferred mechanism for proficiencies, since those are precisely analogous to class levels, and (in the case of Aasimar) would not be present, neatly solving the problem.

I disagree with their idea of how the rules should operate in this case, yes, but I disagree much more strongly with their idea of how the rules should be structured to get the desired outcome.

[Psyren]

Why? If you did the same thing with a Pit Fiend, say, the NPC would be proficient with longbows in either case. If the rules for 0HD outsiders are only relevant for PCs (or even only came to the designers' attention when they considered outsider PCs) then what rules apply to that NPC?

Pit Fiends have outsider hit dice - Aasimar don't. So naturally the two would be treated differently.



More on the thread topic: I can see how Scarred Witch Doctors can at least be very resilient. If you layer on various buffs (Strength patron or something) can they be competitive in melee?

Certainly; in addition to hex and patron-based buffs, witches also get a handful of polymorph spells (Namely, Alter Self and Vermin Shape) which a SWD can combine with strong physical stats to be fairly dangerous in melee. Even at low levels, a strong Orc or Half-Orc witch 'morphing into, say, a Lizardfolk, will get a rather nasty bite.


That being the case, they should use HD features as the preferred mechanism for proficiencies, since those are precisely analogous to class levels, and (in the case of Aasimar) would not be present, neatly solving the problem.

Perhaps they should have. The point is that they didn't, and clearly don't need to since the message got across anyway.

[watchwood]

Why? If you did the same thing with a Pit Fiend, say, the NPC would be proficient with longbows in either case. If the rules for 0HD outsiders are only relevant for PCs (or even only came to the designers' attention when they considered outsider PCs) then what rules apply to that NPC?

More on the thread topic: I can see how Scarred Witch Doctors can at least be very resilient. If you layer on various buffs (Strength patron or something) can they be competitive in melee?

Not for very long. Poor BAB nerfs their ability to hit things, and decent armour would trash their ability to cast spells.

Although by the time they're melee capability really starts fading away, their spells and hexes should have them nicely covered in terms of abilities.

[Coidzor]

Perhaps they should have. The point is that they didn't, and clearly don't need to since the message got across anyway.

I think you just Oberoni'd real life. :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

I think you just Oberoni'd real life. :smallconfused:

Errata costs time and money. While it may seem worth it to you to make the change that you want, clearly they do not see it that way, and ultimately it's their game.

To quote Stephen: "If you find this disappointing, I'm sorry. But it is the truth. It is highly unlikely we will change the wording in any of the Bestiary books. Frankly because this is not a issue, and those books have a different focus. The definitive answer for PC creation of 0-HD non-humanoids in general is covered in the Advanced Race Guide (a book designed to expand on that subject in greater detail) and I have talked about the rationale in depth here."

You're certainly free to label it Oberoni or whatever else you like.

[Snowbluff]

I'm not seeing anything particularly dismissive; we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Yeah, that's fine.



I'm not seeing inconsistency either. They want a character's proficiencies to either come from their class, or from a specific set of weapons that have some thematic or fluff-based tie to the character's specific race, rather than having to balance around yet another attribute that comes from the broad category of type. If anything, that is bringing Aasimars et al. in line with every other race, which is moving toward consistency rather than away from it.

Yes it's a departure from the 3.5 FAQ ruling on the matter, but it's not the first such and it likely won't be the last either.
Nah, this textbook Oberoni. The operating factor is that Paizo deemed both irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It's not internally inconsistent.

You know how errata is expensive? They could have maintained the status quo, left the rule alone, and avoided having erroneous and contradictory rules in their texts. The only downside was having an option that meant next to nothing in terms of narrative or gameplay balance. The more I think about and the more people post the more reasons pop up as to why this was a bad decision.

As for it being total crap as far as rulings go:
Keywords are great. It's nice that Shatter Defenses works with Cornugan Smash. This ruling sucks because our type keywords only work on a specific basis.

[Psyren]

The only downside was having an option that meant next to nothing in terms of narrative or gameplay balance.

It might not matter to you, but the simple fact is that it was an option they didn't want in their game. And the fact that some folks were suggesting it as a way to do things like get into Eldritch Knight without levels in a melee class means it matters to them too.

Would allowing it be the most broken thing ever, probably not. But you have to draw lines somewhere and this just happened to be a line.

Also, Oberoni refers to the DM fixing things with houserules, not the devs clarifying things in official sources.

[Coidzor]

Errata costs time and money. While it may seem worth it to you to make the change that you want, clearly they do not see it that way, and ultimately it's their game.

What, are they still printing using archaic typesetting methods or something? Last I checked modern printing uses digital files instead of metal plates, meaning there's no cost incurred for materials so long as the amount of ink and paper used does not change when next they'd do a printing.

As the amount of text wouldn't have, only where it appeared and then only by a small degree, I'm not convinced that this would have incurred extra costs, especially in comparison with the cost of paper and ink for including the new rules text in the ARG(or, y'know, more extensive errata that they've already done). It takes time, sure, but it doesn't take much time, especially since they realized the issue enough to address it in the ARG, demonstrating an awareness of the issue.

And unless I'm very badly mistaken, their editors are salaried employees rather than paid by the individual job, so it's not like they're having to pay a special cost for the copy+paste change to the master template for printing or updating the other files.

I'm not quite sure why you're so married to the idea that they're above reproach, criticism, or critique and that there's no possible way they could have done it better than the way they did, really. :smallconfused:


Also, Oberoni refers to the DM fixing things with houserules, not the devs clarifying things in official sources.

Insisting that there's no problems because of a kludge, even when the kludge itself is problematic, mostly.

[Psyren]

As the amount of text wouldn't have, only where it appeared and then only by a small degree, I'm not convinced that this would have incurred extra costs, especially in comparison with the cost of paper and ink for including the new rules text in the ARG(or, y'know, more extensive errata that they've already done).

As I said above, this is sunk cost fallacy. They were going to include that text in the ARG regardless, since as Stephen noted, the ARG's purpose is the primary PC-creating book. So comparing errata in the Bestiary - again, not a PC book - to text they were already going to put in the ARG is pointless.

And I'm sorry to say, but whether you are convinced or not is really besides the point; the choice is theirs to make.



I'm not quite sure why you're so married to the idea that they're above reproach, criticism, or critique and that there's no possible way they could have done it better than the way they did, really. :smallconfused:

The issue was brought up. They responded "here's what we chose to do, and here's why." You can continue to besiege the gates if you're not satisfied with that answer, but I don't think it's the best use of your time.

[Coidzor]

As I said above, this is sunk cost fallacy. They were going to include that text in the ARG regardless, since as Stephen noted, the ARG's purpose is the primary PC-creating book. So comparing errata in the Bestiary - again, not a PC book - to text they were already going to put in the ARG is pointless.

And I'm sorry to say, but whether you are convinced or not is really besides the point; the choice is theirs to make.

No, not really, it's more a fundamental difference of perspective.

And I'm allowed to disagree with them because that's my prerogative. But you don't seem to feel that I can or should be capable of such. :smallconfused:


The issue was brought up. They responded "here's what we chose to do, and here's why." You can continue to besiege the gates if you're not satisfied with that answer, but I don't think it's the best use of your time.

And yet you continue to reply as if that's going to make any difference in my opinion of the decision and then act like the cool cucumber who doesn't care what my opinion is in the first place. :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

No, not really, it's more a fundamental difference of perspective.

And I'm allowed to disagree with them because that's my prerogative. But you don't seem to feel that I can or should be capable of such. :smallconfused:

Where did I say you weren't "allowed" to disagree?


And yet you continue to reply as if that's going to make any difference in my opinion of the decision and then act like the cool cucumber who doesn't care what my opinion is in the first place. :smallconfused:

Who's acting? :smalltongue:

And in any event, I was simply explaining the situation, i.e. that the Bestiary rule was an ambiguity and that ambiguity was clarified in the ARG.

[Saph]

You know, when I saw this thread my first thought was "Oh yeah, it's been ages since I posted in this subforum". Now I'm remembering why.

Anyway, yeah, there's not much reason to multiclass or PrC a Magus. Some of the archetypes like Hexcrafter are pretty decent, though.