Ultimate Intrigue - Thoughts and First Impressions

[NightbringerGGZ]

Well, its available on PDF now so I've been reviewing it as I can. I was wondering what everybody thought so far. I've only taken a look at some of the archetypes and the Vigilante so far. I'm not all that impressed with the Grey Paladin that was teased. You basically weaken most of your abilities just so you can play either a Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good alignment. I haven't dived deep into the Vigilante yet, just skimmed it and its archetypes, but the basic abilities don't seem all that different from play test. Am I mistaken, or do we still have the problem of not being that useful outside of your territory?

[Giddonihah]

Havnt paid to much attention to the new Class myself. Though it does look like it has access to some alright damage boosters, but nothing really powerful.

Favorite thing from the Archytpe section I've seen so far is the Skald that can share teamwork/Combat feats instead of rage powers.

Things that stuck out for me from the new feats:

Another Dex-to-damage feat, this time for Star-knives. However the wording of the feat I believe might be such as to allow for dex to damage for when you throw it.
If that's the case, then Startoss Style will actually work well with its namesake weapon.

Mediums got a bandaid feat chain to let them actually use their flexibility.

Three new style feat chains. They are odd, with Fox and Owl being pretty good for low skill characters.

Fox seems rather unsynergetic, with the first two feats concerning Feinting/resisting feints and the third allows for AoO Dirty Tricks. It certainly supports a theme of character.

Owl again is also rather odd, I think I'd put it down as a Charge style, especially if you have pounce.

Street Style.. Its a cool Bullrush/knockdown/unarmed strike style, but it turns off if you aren't in Urban terrain.

From Spells:
A spell that grants Truesight for one round, for when you absolutely need the effect but are too low level to have actual True seeing yet.

Oh and spell clarifications.

[Kurald Galain]

There's quite a lot of high-level feats for social campaigns (e.g. prereqs of 12+ skill ranks, that sort of thing). Which strikes me as odd because social campaigns tend to be rather low level.

[Slithery D]

I like a lot of the new spells. Conditional Curse is a great way to mess with someone's head or blackmail them. Pick an extreme condition to mess with their head (loudly and profanely curse your god in the public square at noon for 99 consecutive days) or a plausible one to get them to do what you want (pay restitution to victim X).

[Mehangel]

I will say that I am mostly disappointed by the content in Ultimate Intrigue. I was disappointed that maybe 90% of the Social/Vigilante talents had a level requirement (which when you have talents that require level 15+ you might as well say they dont have it.) I was also disappointed that the Magical Child's transformation was only shortened to 5 rounds. I feel like they could've simply gave them the quick change as a free talent. I was also disappointed that the warlock did not have nearly enough mystic bolt talents (of which could've changed the shape or effect). I was disappointed that several feats had unnecessary prerequisites.) I was disappointed that paizo would write an archetype with a class feature that says that 'they cannot gain Mutagen/Cognatogen EVEN from another class'

Yeah, in short I was disappointed.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Mediums got a bandaid feat chain to let them actually use their flexibility.



This perks my interest. Does it let them manage the damn influence system?

[Slithery D]

This perks my interest. Does it let them manage the damn influence system?

No, they give you permanent feats associated with all of your spirits that you can access by paying extra influence. So you don't have to devote your feats to only working with one spirit load out, at least.


Legendary Influence
Each legend grants you more of its power in return for greater inf luence.
Prerequisite: Lesser spirit powerOA class feature.
Benefit: Immediately select one feat (other than an item creation feat) for each spirit you can channel. Whenever you perform a seance to channel a spirit, you can allow the spirit to gain 1 point of influence over you to gain access to that spirit’s Legendary Influence feat for as long as you channel that spirit. You can use this bonus feat as a prerequisite for any feats granted by a spirit power (such as the champion’s legendary champion ability), but not for any other feats.

Improved Legendary Influence
Each legend grants you more of its power in return for greater inf luence.
Prerequisites: Legendary Inf luence†, lesser spirit powerOA and propitiationOA class features.
Benefit: For each spirit you can channel, choose a second feat other than an item creation feat. Whenever you allow a spirit to gain 1 point of influence over you to gain that spirit’s associated feat via Legendary Influence, you can allow that spirit to gain 1 additional point of inf luence over you to gain the second feat.

[CockroachTeaParty]

@Slithery D:

... :C

That doesn't help at all! It's just another gosh-darned Influence tax! GRRR!!!

The poor Marshal spirit is crying. It's crying.

[Kira_the_5th]

After reading it over, I feel like my primary reaction to the book as a whole was "I thought we had gotten beyond pointless resource taxing?" The Vigilante's social talents are set up in a way that you basically have to choose "take Renown" or "take these 10 specific social talents, because they're the only ones that don't have Renown as a prereq/are significantly weaker without Renown". Renown on it's own is still ridiculously tiny, so you have to spend more talents in order to have a reasonable size. Lastly, I still can't think of a use for Everyman that isn't just being a tax on the way to Any Guise.

Then, there's the problem that about 30 out of the 100 or so new feats in the book that require junk feats like Deceitful or Persuasive, which really don't serve any purpose other than making you take terrible feats before you can take something actually worthwhile (and sometimes, not even then...)

There are a few good things in there, but there's a whole lot of clutter you have to work through to get to the decent stuff.

[Slithery D]

Kira,

I don't agree that Deceitful is a terrible feat in an intrigue campaign. Someone is going to be making lots of Bluff and Disguise checks, after all. I'm sure you'd rather just get the final feat in the chain, but it's not a literally uselss feat like normal taxes.

[Deadkitten]

So that's basically the only reason the champion spirit would give a damn about influence huh?

Yea, the "flexible" class keeps having a clear winner in roles.

It's like in MtG when in return to ravnica, every guild playstlye just seemed to underperform compared to the boros guild.

[NamelessNPC]

So, how awesome is the spontaneous druid? Is it awesome?

[Kurald Galain]

I don't agree that Deceitful is a terrible feat in an intrigue campaign. Someone is going to be making lots of Bluff and Disguise checks, after all. I'm sure you'd rather just get the final feat in the chain, but it's not a literally uselss feat like normal taxes.
The problem is not so much that a +2 to two checks is terrible (although it's pretty weak as feats go), but that intrigue campaigns tend to be low-level and at low level you just don't have feats to spare for complex prerequisites.


So, how awesome is the spontaneous druid? Is it awesome?
It's not a spontaneous druid, but a charisma-based druid, who loses SNA and gains a handful of wizard ench/ill spells.

[NamelessNPC]

Really? Wow, I'd assumed that a cha druid was going to be spontaneous, but it seems it's even less spontaneous than the regular one. So no, it's not very awesome.

[Psyren]

Oh and spell clarifications.

Can you (or someone) elaborate on this?

[Giddonihah]

Can you (or someone) elaborate on this?

Theres a good 10 pages of it, so Ill summarize first.

It goes over how to properly deal with as a GM: Enchantments (Charms, Dominate, Suggestion), Practically all the information gathering Divinations (Notably pointing out that Scry and Die doesnt work because Scry doesnt actually give you the location enough to teleport to it, and I was blown away by the bit on detect evil), Illusions (clarrifying when to roll vs disbelief), Necromancy(Speak with Dead specifically), and Conjurations (Ddoor and teleport specifically)

For Detect Evil: NPCs dont register as an alignment until they have atleast 5 hitdice (exception of Clerics, Undead, Evil outsiders).
!!And creatures (5HD+) register different alignments based on their current intent, regardless of actual alignment!!

Book example
"So a selfish merchant whose heart is moved by an orphan’s
plight into an act of largesse would register as good at
the time, and a loyal knight forced to kill an innocent
child to stop a war could appear evil while she formulates
and executes the deed."

[Slithery D]

Yeah, the Detect Evil bit blew my mind because it falsely pretended the spell has always worked that way regarding the subject's current intent rather than this being a novel, optional suggestion.

Most of the divination stuff is really good, though.

[Slithery D]

The Hallucination line of spells are really excellent, they're phantasms that recreate the the Image line with the advantage that they're in the target's head so they can't see through them with True Seeing if they fail the initial save, and you can put them on a script that reacts how the target would expect to certain actions. There's a permanent version, so you can actually put a nagging devil and angel on someone's shoulders to follow them around and critique their actions for the rest of their lives...

[Milo v3]

You know it's disappointing when you can't make your playtest character...

Also, some of the archetypes are disappointing... I mean the spiderman archetype doesn't even get webswinging properly till 18th level.

edit:

For Detect Evil: NPCs dont register as an alignment until they have atleast 5 hitdice (exception of Clerics, Undead, Evil outsiders).
!!And creatures (5HD+) register different alignments based on their current intent, regardless of actual alignment!!

Yeah, the Detect Evil bit blew my mind because it falsely pretended the spell has always worked that way regarding the subject's current intent rather than this being a novel, optional suggestion.
Both of these things were already true, why is this surprising and how it is a new rule? :smallsigh:

Detect evil says aligned creature's with 4 or less HD have no aura and "Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."

[Serafina]

So, let's see what the Vigilante class actually does:
Basically, it's a bunch of classes in one that shares some class features (the second identity and the social talents). So you should look at each individually really.

The Avenger is a D8 HD, Full BAB, good Reflex&Will, 6+Int Skill points chassis who gets social talents, bonus combat feats every two levels with plenty of unique picks, and class features for intimidating people.
Yep, it's a Fighter done Right in many ways. Yes, you have less hit points than the fighter and slightly less bonus feats, as well as no weapon/armor training. So admittedly not quite the same thing as a fighter, but if you're looking for a Full-BAB class with no magical talent, but who is good at indimidating people - well, this is better than the Fighter.
The Vigilante talents allow some nice things, such as outright improved versions of common combat feats:
Improved Unarmed Strike with +5 to damage
Improved Combat Maneuver with an additional +2 to it when you surprise an enemy
Weapon Finesse with half-level as bonus damage (as long as you don't get Dex-to-damage
Power Attack that also grants you a shield bonus equal to the penalty taken
Improved Shield Bash with the option to ignore the prerequisites for it, all further shield-bash feats and the two-weapon fighting feats
Weapon Focus&Specialization as one pick
Blind Fight, Improved and Greater as one pick without prerequisites
Die Hard where you don't loose HP from taking standard actions (!!), and later don't even die for one round no matter how low your HP drop.
Vital Strike that allows you to use it on AoOs
Note that most of those things are available to non-avengers, but it's worth mentioning here.
And most of the below types also get the Intimidate-related abilities.
Your Renown-talent can grant you between +4 and +8 to Indimidate-checks. There is also a social talent that grants +4, though that doesn't stack.
Frightening Appearance only comes online at level 11. If you attack an unaware foe, you can intimidate them and enemies within 10 feet as a free action. Better yet, the main target can be frightened. Only works once per day per enemy, but that's still good.


The Stalker has the same chassis, but no BAB. So D8 HD, Medium BAB, good Reflex and Will, 6+Int skill points. Also with social talents, second identity and vigilante talents every two levels.
Instead of the better BAB, they get to inflict D4(+D4 every two levels) precision damage on flanked enemies or those denied their dexterity bonus, which increases to D8s under some circumstances (mostly at the start of combat).
They also get access to some talents that the other specializations/archetypes don't. This includes Evasion&Improved Evasion (one choice!), Hide in Plain Sight at 8th level, Rogue talents and Uncanny Dodge, as well as some stuff that interacts with their Hidden Strike.



And then there's the Archetypes. Almost all replace your specialization, and quite a few are casters.

The Casters replace a lot of vigilante talents (only gaining one at 2th, 6th, 12th and 18th level), but in exchange they gain medium casting (up to 6th-level spells etc.) They also only get 4+Int skill points and lose medium armor proficiency.
So effectively, they are D8 HD, Medium BAB, good Reflex and Will, 4+Int skill points with a new spell level every 4 levels.
The Cabalist casts as a Magus, but uses the Witch spell list. They can also deal bleed damage equal to their level against flat-footed enemies, gain advantage against bleeding enemies and can take special vigilante talents to augment bleeding, gain shadow-jump, a familiar or extra spells.
The Magical Child casts as a Unchained Summoner. She can swap identities in five rounds, then as a standard action, then as a swift action (with the proper social talents). She also gains an Improved Familiar that can use some of her class features (the ones related to hidden attacks) and can look like a normal animal.
The Warlock casts as a Magus, but uses the Wizard spell list. They gain mystic bolts that do 1D6+(1/4 levels) damage and can be used in melee or with a range increment of 30 feet (you can switch freely) - at least they are touch-attacks and can add an ability score (strength by default) to their damage. They can also spend vigilante talents to add a flexible weapon property to their mystic bolts, gain a slightly scaling at-will fire shield, gain a familiar or (at 8th level) create a lesser simulacrum of their social identity.
The Zealot casts as an Inquisitor and also gets proficiency with their deities favored weapon and one inquisition. They gain some stuff for their limited vigilante-talents, most notably an ability to ignore on-save effects on fortitude- and will-saves (like evasion, only for other saves). Oh, and Stern Gaze if you really really want to optimize your Intimidiate-score.

Yes, a lot of those are somewhat lackluster compared to their normal casters. The Cabalist is probably the most unique, while the Magical Child actually has some nice utility for a intrigue campaign due to the very quick identity swap.

The Brute is all about going Hyde/Hulk and replaces your good Reflex&Will with a good Fortitude save. You can become Large, but without ability score bonuses. There's some talents that help with smashing things.
The Gunmaster can take some gunslinger-deeds as vigilante talents, but nothing really good. You gain a slight attack/damage bonus (+1/4 levels), but you might be better off just playing an Avenger due to the better talents.
The Mounted Fury does unsurprisingly get a mount and charge-related stuff. Well, and lots of teamwork feats (shared with the mount, and at 10th+ level you can take them at a two-for-one price with talents). You can take Avenger-talents, but won't have full BAB on a melee-centric class.
The Psychometrist gains Occulist-implements. Interestingly, this does not replace your Avenger-specialization, but rather some talents. You don't get spellcasting though. Both an Avenger- and Stalker Psychometrist would be interesting.
The Wildsoul basically replaces some talents with fixed picks while losing their specialization. Generally not that great.



Overall, the Vigilante does at no point get as powerful as a full caster (unsurprisingly), and the caster-Vigilantes are less powerful than the classes they take their casting from. However, they do get a different type of versatility (social talents, some unique or early-entry tricks). If you want a non-spellcaster, the Vigilante offers some very nice options - certainly it is more versatile than any other non-caster class, and much better outside of combat than most of them.

[Serafina]

From the Archetypes of other classes, I am rather excited about two of them:

The Feyspeaker Druid Archetype would be perfect for a Reincarnated Druid (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hzA1yye_11SwcEpQ2ccXvmLJGogjY39y4TI94v7JKMA/edit). The archetypes stack - and it's perfect for playing "the Doctor" (see the guide, or know Doctor Who) since it has high Charisma, gets more fitting spells and gets more skill points!
Sure, it's otherwise not as good, with lesser wild shape, no spontaneous summons and losing BAB. But it's still very nice, especially with that combo.

The Cipher Investigator gets some really powerful abilities related to sneaking.
First, you start out with the ability to use inspiration on Stealth-checks (as well as Disguise, Escape Artist, Knowledge (local) and Sleight of Hand). That right there should make you really good at sneaking.
Then you gain a unique ability - if you are spotted, enemies must beat a scaling Perception-check or outright ignore you. It's mind-affecting, it starts out with a limited range (10 feet per level) and you can only affect a few enemies at a time. But it's a seriously good ability - not just for sneaking, but for going into the middle of a bunch of enemies and sowing confusion.
And then you gain Hide in Plain Sight at 7th level. That's just really good.
In addition, you are really hard to find with Divinations and gain Evasion and Improved Evasion. And all it costs you is the ability to use Inspiration on a few social abilities, the trap- and poison-related stuff you'd otherwise get, swift alchemy and some talents. Well, and Studied Strike - but you keep Studied Combat. And you keep Inspiration and Alchemy.

[Milo v3]

at least they are touch-attacks and can add an ability score (strength by default) to their damage.
This is not true according to the dev's.

[Serafina]

Oh hey, it's even weaker then.
Seriously, a 12th-level Warlock would deal a mere 2D6+6 damage per bolt, and that's while using Arcane Strike. With two-weapon fighting and haste, that's likely four attacks. At least they'd hit semi-reliably and are usable at range. Say all four attacks hit, that's 8D6+24 damage. An average of 52. At 12th-level, and I don't see many ways to optimize it further.

[Milo v3]

Oh hey, it's even weaker then.
Seriously, a 12th-level Warlock would deal a mere 2D6+6 damage per bolt, and that's while using Arcane Strike. With two-weapon fighting and haste, that's likely four attacks. At least they'd hit semi-reliably and are usable at range. Say all four attacks hit, that's 8D6+24 damage. An average of 52. At 12th-level, and I don't see many ways to optimize it further.
In the playtest the only way I was getting decent damage with my warlock was with a weapon that was enchanted with conductive.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The Gray Paladin kinda sucks. You can be LN or NG and have a relaxed code for the low low price of losing all your immunities, and delaying Smite until 2nd level. In return they get a few more class skills, a bonus vs poison, and the ability to burn two smites to smite a non-evil target. They do benefit from their own auras, of course, but it still doesn't save the archetype for me. I'm not exactly sad to say it does suck, though...

Also, surprisingly, there's text that outright says casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act which would cause them to fall. Pretty much the exact opposite of what devs had said before. Not surprising.

[Hunter Noventa]

So it's a decent book but has some issues? Like every other pathfinder book?

Doesn't matter, still have it ordered from Amazon and can't wait to get it. We had a pretty intrigue-heavy campaign that could benefit from a lot of the expanded social rules.

I also want to play a proper magical girl dammit.

[Milo v3]

Also, surprisingly, there's text that outright says casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act which would cause them to fall.
That's really really annoying and stupid. Thank god I play without alignment.

[Psyren]

Both of these things were already true, why is this surprising and how it is a new rule? :smallsigh:

Detect evil says aligned creature's with 4 or less HD have no aura and "Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell."

Correct, this is how it's always worked in PF (CRB pg. 266.) I always worry that when they reiterate existing RAW, folks who didn't read it closely the first time see it as a retcon.



Also, surprisingly, there's text that outright says casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is an evil act which would cause them to fall. Pretty much the exact opposite of what devs had said before. Not surprising.

Pretty sure they've been saying casting evil spells is an evil act from the get-go.

[Corlindale]

I only had time to skim the PDF this morning, but it seems quite interesting - even if some things are a bit odd.

I still think the merging of fluff and crunch in the Vigilante class is a bit odd, but on the other hand I think it would be tons of fun to play one in the right campaign. I like how customizable it is with all the archetypes - it seems feasible to play an all-Vigilante campaign with a team of superheroes with diverse abilities.

I especially like the Occultist-style archetype, there seems to be many possibilities for creating some sort of "techno-mage" character with this.

I agree that it seems odd that "Spiderman" can't swing from his webs until level 18 - especially since the falcon-variant of the same archetype gets proper flight at level 12(!)

It also seems a bit weak that the Ursine variant gets the ability to turn into a bear as Beast Shape II at level 18 - if you literally play an archetype based around turning into a bear, shouldn't you be better at it at level 18 than a wizard is at level 7? I know they can make a bit more use of it due to their martial chassis, but still...

I'm pretty sad that there are no Medium archetypes. That class is so close to being my favourite thing in all of Pathfinder, but it really needs some more love and support (and rule clarifications, for that matter). As mentioned they at least get a couple of new feats, but I agree that they shouldn't burn influence - that resource is horribly stretched as it is.

[charcoalninja]

Yeah I can't understand what the Evil descriptor meant to people if casting those spells wasn't an evil act...

[Slithery D]

Yeah I can't understand what the Evil descriptor meant to people if casting those spells wasn't an evil act...

It meant that that they were questionable enough that they weren't in synch with a good deity, and he couldn't/wouldn't grant spells of that type. Any more than that means you can cast good spells to become good, which is nonsense.

That said, some of the [evil] spells are probably objectively evil acts because they do things in particularly unpleasant ways. Like I guess using a [pain] spell to kill/hurt someone is more morally loaded than burning them with a fireball...

[Mehangel]

Yeah I can't understand what the Evil descriptor meant to people if casting those spells wasn't an evil act...

I just wanted to point out that there are many times when a good person might be casting a spell with an Evil descriptor. For example, when a good creature Planar Binds a celestial, they may want to create a Magic Circle vs Good to temporary bind the celestial being while asked a few questions before dismissing. Or maybe two holy knights or priests are on opposite sides of a conflict and decide to protect their minds from the mental influence of the other via Protection vs Good. The entire line of Protection vs Good spells could be used by good characters for good reasons and probably wouldn't cause an alignment change no matter how many times the spell is cast.

[Psyren]

I just wanted to point out that there are many times when a good person might be casting a spell with an Evil descriptor. For example, when a good creature Planar Binds a celestial, they may want to create a Magic Circle vs Good to temporary bind the celestial being while asked a few questions before dismissing.

Or you could... opt to NOT do that, and give them the freedom to leave. If you're truly good, and truly in need of their aid, they'll stick around. If you have to coerce angels into staying and hearing you out, that says quite a bit about your character's own moral outlook.


Or maybe two holy knights or priests are on opposite sides of a conflict and decide to protect their minds from the mental influence of the other via Protection vs Good. The entire line of Protection vs Good spells could be used by good characters for good reasons and probably wouldn't cause an alignment change no matter how many times the spell is cast.

Again, if both sides are truly good they should be resolving their differences at a debate table, not fearing mental domination/enslavement from one another. These examples don't seem particularly reasonable to me.

[Mehangel]

Or you could... opt to NOT do that, and give them the freedom to leave. If you're truly good, and truly in need of their aid, they'll stick around. If you have to coerce angels into staying and hearing you out, that says quite a bit about your character's own moral outlook.

Just because a creature is good doesnt mean that it wont attack you or those around you. Maybe you are summoning a celestial who is a worshiper of Deity which is in direct opposition to your own. Again, not all good creatures get along and simply being smart about your summoning is a smart move.


Again, if both sides are truly good they should be resolving their differences at a debate table, not fearing mental domination/enslavement from one another. These examples don't seem particularly reasonable to me.

You can have two lawful good nations each worshipping a different deity who are in conflict with each other. If the two gods order that their two nations go on a crusade against each other, I am confident that multiple situations may arise where casting Protection vs Good or Dispel Good may be not only appropriate, but also necessary.

As for diplomacy, that is not always an option. What if the two nations are sent to recover or destroy a sacred relic devoted to deity X. With nation X, recovering the relic will bring an end to the drought that is killing off the crops and the people. But with nation Y, destroying the relic will result in a cure to the plague killing off the people in sickness. Both nations equally need the relic and no form of diplomacy will stop the fact that one nation will suffer.

[Slithery D]

Interesting (not always useful) spells from this book:

The Hallucination line of spells: (includes Auditory Hallucination, Audiovisual Hallucination, Complex Hallucination, Permanent Hallucination, Scripted Hallucination, Triggered Hallucination) These introduce phantasms in a group that take cues from the targets own mind, so you can describe what effect you want and they fill in the details. Example given is you have orc warriors believe their chieftain is calling for help, which they hear even if you don't speak Orcish and don't know what the chieftain's voice sounds like. Upsides are you can mess with someone in a crowd without others perceiving the same thing, no True Seeing vulnerability, extra flexibility on effects. Downsides: everyone gets an initial disbelief save, extra saves are likely if someone saves and compares notes with his friends who are acting oddly, doesn't effect immune to mind affecting targets.

Break, Greater: Break every object within 30' (including yours) that fails a saving throw. For visiting china shops.

Conditional Curse: Curse is harder to remove, but subject is aware of a condition it can fulfill to automatically lift it. Good for blackmail or psychological warfare. ("Donate 5000 GP to the church of Sarenrae to remove this curse.")

Conditional Favor: Revoke a buff or healing spell you cast after this if they violate a condition.

Conjuration Foil: Immediate action to boost your saves against hostile teleportation (e.g. Plane Shift) and/or damage anyone who teleports in/out of your immediate area and bounce them to a random location. Would be better if you could pick where they go.

Crime Wave: It's Confusion, but for crime. Act normally but with suspicion imposed defensive/cooperative limitations, steal something (usually causing a AoO), attempt to break nearest unattended object/structure (requiring movement and possible AoO), or attack nearest person.

Deadman's Contingency: A limited number of spells (including Teleport Object for your body or Sending to alert an ally/healer) can be set to go off shortly after your death.

Demanding Message (Mass): As Message, but you can use a standard action to send a suggestion to one target during the duration. They're still going to see you cast the original spell, so not a way around IDing spell casting like I originally thought, but may have some sneaky use I haven't thought of beyond betrayal of allies.

Detect Anxieties/Desires: Like Detect Thoughts, but you see what those you scan are most worried about or desire, and you get their exact Wisdom/Charisma scores. Finally a way for Wisdom/Charisma casters to identify candidates for training.

Detect Magic, Greater: Find spell auras for day/level after, identify spell signatures associated with specific casters, concentrate to ID last spell cast by someone.

Entice Fey (Lesser, Greater): Planar ally, but for fey.

Hidden Presence: Unbeatable invisibility (vs. True Seeing, Blindsight, etc.) but only against those you target and if they fail a save. There is not a Greater version that lets you attack with impunity.

Know Peerage: Has the distinction of being the most useless spell in the book. You can grant up to 5 ranks of Knowledge (Nobility) to an ally. Paizo, fire someone over this.

Life of Crime: A permanent curse that prevents you from working with others including accepting harmless spell effects, so stack this with a regular curse and even if they ask someone to remove it, they'll try to save against the removal. Once per hour they must save or do a 1 round Crime Wave, so that's 16 opportunities per day to attack someone, steal something, or smash something. They aren't likely to live/stay out of prison long if they stay in a community.

Mage's Decree: Send a 25 word message to those meeting identifiable, visible criteria. Range is up to 1 mile per level. So tell the whole city/county that their ruler's mother was a hamster, and his father smelled of elderberries (as often as you care to expend 5/6th level slots), or pass secret messages to your conspirators throughout a city wearing a special mark (e.g. a flower in their lapel), everyone wearing your deity's holy symbol, every non-drow wearing chains in the drow city, etc.

Magic Aura, Greater: Fake spell signatures (see Detect Magic, Greater), fool Arcane Sight (nope, I can't cast spells), hide/fake multiple spell effects on a creature.

Matchmaker: Two people become romantically attracted to each other. Both must fail their saves.

Obscure Poison: A way to get around the Detect Poison effect applied to the king's food.

Overwhelming Poison: Delay poison doesn't work, Neutralize Poison has a higher DC, and you can replace the poison DC with the spell DC. Lasts 10/min, so you could buy it from a friendly witch specializing in necromancy to have really hard to resist poison on that bolt you're firing at the king, I guess.

Peacebond, Greater: HAHAHAHAHAHA. Suck it, dex to damage builds! Multiple targets make a will save or you have to make a Strength check equal to the spell DC to prevent your weapon from being sheathed. (It's going to be 20+) Once it's sheathed you have to spend a standard action to attempt the Strength check and eat an AoO to draw it. You should have gone for a +10 to Str if you didn't want to be a monk or a caster, weaklings!

Phantasmal Affliction: Give an illusion of a curse (-4 to everything version for hour/level), poison (at least six rounds, 1d3 damage to a physical stat of your choice), or disease (fatigued and 1d4 Con damage per day). Curse gets 2 Will saves to avoid, disease/poison get Will save and recurring Fort save. Not likely to work well without some illusion spell focus and/or Persistent Spell, but nice idea for the flexibility.

Prognostication (and True version): Divination, but receive advice on things 1 year or 100 years in the future. A useful GM tool to guide long campaigns.

Red Hand of the Killer: Marks whoever killed your target corpse, 1 day/level and over any distance. Fixable with gloves (or Dispel Magic), but it's worth a try or wait for a lineup of suspects. Or combo with Mage's Decree. ("Citizens! A killer lurks amongst you! Do you see a man with a hand marked red? Report him to the nearest constable at once!")

Resplendent Mansion: Create yo' crib, you earned it, shorty. (Succubus strippers in the hot tub not included, standard Planar Ally rates may apply.)

Shamefully Overdressed: You have a compulsion to spend a move action every turn taking off a random item of clothing that can be removed with one move action. It doesn't say it, but this should invoke AoOs, right? You still get your standard/swift action.

Trace Teleport: It's sort of what you wanted. Maybe. Lets you know if someone teleports in/out within 40' (uh...thanks?). You can also concentrate for 1 round to get a glimpse of where they went to or came from. Not good enough to Teleport "or similar effects," but I'm going to assume this spell isn't entirely useless and you can still follow them with Greater Teleport.

[Psyren]

Just because a creature is good doesnt mean that it wont attack you or those around you. Maybe you are summoning a celestial who is a worshiper of Deity which is in direct opposition to your own. Again, not all good creatures get along and simply being smart about your summoning is a smart move.

That wouldn't be grounds for an attack, unless the creature in question is actually evil. It might simply leave, and if you didn't really need its help, I would expect it to - coercing angels against their will cannot credibly be described as a Good act.



You can have two lawful good nations each worshipping a different deity who are in conflict with each other. If the two gods order that their two nations go on a crusade against each other, I am confident that multiple situations may arise where casting Protection vs Good or Dispel Good may be not only appropriate, but also necessary.

Too bad, it's still an evil act (however minor.) And it makes sense for it to be so - Good deities wouldn't want their followers resorting to such obviously hostile measures to deal with one another.



As for diplomacy, that is not always an option. What if the two nations are sent to recover or destroy a sacred relic devoted to deity X. With nation X, recovering the relic will bring an end to the drought that is killing off the crops and the people. But with nation Y, destroying the relic will result in a cure to the plague killing off the people in sickness. Both nations equally need the relic and no form of diplomacy will stop the fact that one nation will suffer.

We're getting off-topic, but let's assume for the moment that there is absolutely no way around this kind of hackneyed moral dilemma. So in your opinion, the Good answer to such a problem is for both nations to self-interestedly gird their loins for war and buff up with all kinds of "X Against Good" spells to keep from being annihilated or enslaved by their neighbors? That has to be the strangest definition of "Good" that I've ever seen in print :smallconfused:

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I like Urban Step. Level 3 version of Dimension Door, teleports between doors. Flavorful, if a bit hard to use, but could be quite useful in lower-level games. Some of the Ruse spells open themselves up for fun uses as well; I'm of the opinion that if you aren't willing to take a fireball for the team, you're not willing to win (and I have been on the receiving end far more often then the casting end), so Controlled Fireball looks fun. Using a Selective Metamagic rod is better, yes, but if you don't happen to have one of those or the feat itself, its fairly good. Plus, you can determine where the bead originates from, I'm sure people can do something with that.

[Kira_the_5th]

I like Urban Step. Level 3 version of Dimension Door, teleports between doors. Flavorful, if a bit hard to use, but could be quite useful in lower-level games.

Well now I want to write a boss fight/chase sequence against an enemy in a hallway full of doors that have this permanency'd onto them.

[Gildedragon]

Well now I want to write a boss fight/chase sequence against an enemy in a hallway full of doors that have this permanency'd onto them.
Party consists of a Human Paladin: Fred, a Half-Elf Bard: Daphne, a Gnome Wizard: Velma: a Mongrelfolk Druid: Shaggy, and his wolf animal companion

[Milo v3]

Yeah I can't understand what the Evil descriptor meant to people if casting those spells wasn't an evil act...
It means that good clerics/druid/etc. can't cast that spell if your class says you don't get spells of the evil alignment. But now.... it also means you can do horrible acts and change your alignment to good by spamming protection from evil.

[Psyren]

It means that good clerics/druid/etc. can't cast that spell if your class says you don't get spells of the evil alignment. But now.... it also means you can do horrible acts and change your alignment to good by spamming protection from evil.

No, it doesn't mean that either. This isn't NWN, you don't get to apply your "helping old ladies cross the street points" to your "baby killing negative balance" until they net zero. A single, sufficiently heinous act can in fact cause you to fall no matter how good you were prior to that (or even since, if you show no remorse.)

Yes, this means turning evil is easier to pull off than turning good. That's the point!

[Sayt]

I believe the wrath of the righteous players guide has a redemption/damnation track, and getting back up into the good after you've fallen is significantly harder than falling.

[digiman619]

So it's a decent book but has some issues? Like every other pathfinder book?

Doesn't matter, still have it ordered from Amazon and can't wait to get it. We had a pretty intrigue-heavy campaign that could benefit from a lot of the expanded social rules.

I also want to play a proper magical girl dammit.

Then you want the Aegis.

[Slithery D]

I hereby make note of the Quick Study feat. Between this and the Bravery to mind affecting feat they're really trying to give Fighters a reason not to dump mental stats or take archetypes.


Quick Study (Combat)
You can learn quickly, although you do not always retain what you learn long.
Prerequisites: Int 13, bravery +3 class feature, fighter level 10th.
Benefit: Once per day, you can train with someone who has a combat feat you do not possess to gain that feat. You must train with that person for 8 hours and must meet the feat’s prerequisites to gain it this way. You gain this feat until you learn another one using this feat.

[Milo v3]

No, it doesn't mean that either. This isn't NWN, you don't get to apply your "helping old ladies cross the street points" to your "baby killing negative balance" until they net zero. A single, sufficiently heinous act can in fact cause you to fall no matter how good you were prior to that (or even since, if you show no remorse.)

Yes, this means turning evil is easier to pull off than turning good. That's the point!

There is no text that supports this. You might run it that way, but that doesn't change that now casting a good spell is a good act. There is no reason to assume casting an evil spell is more evil than casting a good spell is good, thus, they should be able cancel each other out. If good actions couldn't counteract evil actions, then neutral would not exist as an alignment and you would not be able to change from an evil alignment to a good one.

Also, I will always dislike how someone can be completely and utterly Lawful Good, but count as Lawful Evil because they use animate dead without having been told it was an evil effect. Without any malicious action at all, a LG character is designated as evil.

Thankfully I play PF without alignment but it's still rather annoying.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I hereby make note of the Quick Study feat. Between this and the Bravery to mind affecting feat they're really trying to give Fighters a reason not to dump mental stats or take archetypes.

Wow, that's pretty damn cool. Makes me want to play a swordmaster-type character that takes the other 'learn a feat' feats.

[Psyren]

I hereby make note of the Quick Study feat. Between this and the Bravery to mind affecting feat they're really trying to give Fighters a reason not to dump mental stats or take archetypes.

I'd rather just take Martial Master and save myself 8 hours :smalltongue:

Personally, I'd just give out a "training slot" like this to every full BAB character, and let it be usable for teamwork feats. That way, you actually have a mechanical reason for teamwork feats to work - you actually train with the guy who has it and learn to work together.


There is no text that supports this. You might run it that way, but that doesn't change that now casting a good spell is a good act. There is no reason to assume casting an evil spell is more evil than casting a good spell is good, thus, they should be able cancel each other out. If good actions couldn't counteract evil actions, then neutral would not exist as an alignment and you would not be able to change from an evil alignment to a good one.

It is certainly possible for good acts to cancel evil ones. Just as murdering a child can turn you evil in one stroke, so too can a vile villain repenting and sacrificing his life to save multiple innocents end up escaping Hell (Darth Vader anyone?) The second though is harder - redemption generally is.

If however you think sitting around and spamming Blessed Fist is enough to cancel out that puppy you just strangled, you'd have a rather rude awakening at my table.



Also, I will always dislike how someone can be completely and utterly Lawful Good, but count as Lawful Evil because they use animate dead without having been told it was an evil effect. Without any malicious action at all, a LG character is designated as evil.

Well, that's what houserules are for, as it seems you've discovered. It's nevertheless how it works in Golarion without them.

[Beowulf DW]

In the Golarion setting, there is a sect of Pharasma that believes that magic is intrinsically evil because it frees people from the suffering that they are meant to endure on the path to paradise. The faith of Nethys believes that magic is just about the greatest good there is. Obviously, such beliefs will likely clash, perhaps violently. At the very least both parties might take precautions in the presence of the other. Both faiths are true neutral-based, meaning that their followers can be Neutral Good and still within alignment.

So, in theory, it is entirely possible for good characters to end up fighting each other. In fact, Pathfinder and the Golarion setting in particular seem to imply much more fractious (and thusly, believable) faiths than their D&D counterparts. Hell, in the Pathfinder novels, the "good" guys actually ended up fighting villains that were backed by literal angels. And the angels in question didn't fall.

[Serafina]

A hopefully decent build for the Vigilante
Human Vigilante 12 with the Avenger Specialization and the Psychometrist Archetype.

In Combat: You should take care to open combat without your enemies being aware of your presence. To this end, you have a good stealth-score and can cast Invisibility on yourself. You open up combat by frightening one enemy and possibly shaking some others. Follow that up with Disheartening Display, and you'll frighten even more of them and can cause panic.
Other than that, you're doing normal power-attack routines, but can also use Illusions or Summon Monsters (as a standard action even).
Despite your low hit dice, you can soak up quite a bit of damage - you'll be able to act below 0 HP without losing any more hitpoints, and won't die for one round no matter how low your HP get (and can even be healed up to stay alive).

Out of Combat: You have 8+ skill points per level. You have Occult Skill Unlocks. You can summon Monsters for SLAs. You have Object Reading. With the right Implement picks, you can cast a small amount of spells.

Alternate Racial Trait: Dwindweller (Blood of Shadows): Darkvision 60 feet, +2 to Perception, Stealth and Intimidate in darkness or dim light
FCB: +hitpoints all the way
Ability Scores: Strength, then Constitution, then Intelligence. No real dump stat unless you shift Intimidate to Intelligence, then you can dump Charisma
Traits: Bruising Intellect if you want to use Int for Intimidate and forget about the other social skills.
Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus, , Furious Focus, Hurtful, Cornugon Smash, Dazzling Display, Dreadful Carnage
Social Talents: Renown (Great, Incredible), Social Grace (any three skills), Quick Change
Vigilante Talents: Vital Punishment, Armor Skin, Unkillable
Implements: Illusion (Minor Figment, Unseen, Shadow Beast), two others with their base power and the first with one other. You'll have ~8 charges between them, so uses are somewhat limited.
Skills: lots. You'll get +8 to Intimidate in your Vigilante identity, and in your social persona you get +4 to three others.
Equipment: Any two-handed weapon you want (consider something that has reach for AoOs), and medium armor without a speed penalty.

Sure, the main part only comes online at level 11, which is a bit of a shame. But appearing in the middle of some enemies and scaring most of them off is pretty neat.
And you can swing a two-handed weapon pretty well, with some good damage on your AoOs.
Better yet, you have tons of skills and some extra utility, so you won't be useless out of combat either.


Edit: Aw damnit, forgot that this Frightening Appearance needs an attack to trigger. So we'll need a reliably source of free- or swift-action Dazzling Display. Violent Display (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/violent-display-combat) is the only one that comes to mind, but it relies on a critical hit (or getting sneak attack from somewhere) so it's no longer as reliable.

Sequence would then be:
- standard-action attack against unaware enemy.
- before the attack is rolled, trigger Frightening Appearance. Free-action Intimidate against your attacks target, and any enemy within 10 feet. Primary target must save or be frightened.
- Attack is rolled. If it is a crit or applies sneak attack, go to the next step. if not, sequence ends.
- Immediate-action Dazzling Display. Thanks to Disheartening Display, it increases the fear by one step - hopefully to frightened, and possibly to panicked for one enemy.

Or you can of course just wait until the next round and use Dazzling Display as normal there.

[Lord_Gareth]

The scrying stuff conflicts with how the spells are explicitly worded. I hope we're getting some errata to back up this rule change or new players will be confused.

[Psyren]

RE: the monk archetypes - Black Asp isn't great, but it does stack with Monk of the Mantis to make you one hell of an assassin though. You can get all your weapons confiscated, hide all your magic items from detection, poison your fist, get close to the king and then poke him full of holes in the surprise round before blinking to safety.

For Sage Counselor, I have no idea what its meant to do. The abilities don't match the flavor text at all. It's built around bluffing/feinting but isn't compatible with the sneak attack archetype. The fluff doesn't match any of the abilities at all.



In the Golarion setting, there is a sect of Pharasma that believes that magic is intrinsically evil because it frees people from the suffering that they are meant to endure on the path to paradise. The faith of Nethys believes that magic is just about the greatest good there is. Obviously, such beliefs will likely clash, perhaps violently. At the very least both parties might take precautions in the presence of the other. Both faiths are true neutral-based, meaning that their followers can be Neutral Good and still within alignment.

Your conclusion does not follow. Yes, both deities/faiths can have good followers, but they can also have neutral and evil ones. You haven't proven which alignment(s) those two offshoots consist of, and even if some of the NG followers do number among both of them, you haven't proven that the good members of each would result to hostility/violence to pursue their goals.

I would instead posit that any Pharasmans who truly advocate effecting/prolonging the suffering of sapient beings, especially innocent ones, can only be Neutral at best.



So, in theory, it is entirely possible for good characters to end up fighting each other.

Your theory has not proven this. At best you've shown that (a) there are extremist factions under both deities, and (b) their overall faiths can potentially include Good followers. You have yet to prove that these two groups intersect, and you also have yet to prove that even if they do, they would resort to the kind of violent conflict that would necessitate casting Evil spells for protection.



In fact, Pathfinder and the Golarion setting in particular seem to imply much more fractious (and thusly, believable) faiths than their D&D counterparts. Hell, in the Pathfinder novels, the "good" guys actually ended up fighting villains that were backed by literal angels. And the angels in question didn't fall.

Of course the faiths are fractious - each one allows three alignments, and thus three philosophies about what that faith's priorities are and how they should best be advanced. It's not surprising there would be internal conflict.

As for the angels, even if you're accurate and they faced no consequences (source?) fiction has multiple angels that have done heinous things and not fallen right away. For example, Gabriel from Constantine and Saruman from LotR.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The scrying stuff conflicts with how the spells are explicitly worded. I hope we're getting some errata to back up this rule change or new players will be confused.

How so? The scrying entry lines up with the spell.

[Lord_Gareth]

How so? The scrying entry lines up with the spell.

The spell explicitly qualifies you for a teleport.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

There is no mention of Teleport in the Scrying spell. Teleport says "possibly using magic such as scrying." Not an explicit qualifier; UI's interpretation is valid. Depends on how the GM would qualify how much of a location it takes to view it secondhand.

[Psyren]

The spell explicitly qualifies you for a teleport.

It qualifies you for a teleport if you've seen the place. All they're doing here is emphasizing the "10-foot radius" clause in the core spell. If all you do is glance at some featureless floor tiles around your target for a few seconds, can you really be sure which place you've seen? You'd need a landmark or distinguishing feature of some kind, and even if you spot one right away, you've got to spend a long time watching to lower the failure chance more.

Also, I love that they officially called attention to the "areas of strong physical or magical energy" clause that I've been pointing out to people for months now. Vindication! :smallbiggrin:

[Slithery D]

The (new?) intent for Teleport (but not Greater Teleport) is that you have to (1) have a decent idea of the targeted arrival layout, which a 10' snapshot may not give you unless it's a closet, and (2) you have to know where that target location is, in the sense of being able to find it on a map and walk/fly there to the general vicinity if you had to. So a vague picture of a part of a warehouse fails the (1) condition even if you're standing outside it, but a good, detailed view of a small room with a unique layout isn't enough if you fail the (2) condition and don't know what city it's in.

I don't see a way to impose this scheme on Greater Teleport, but I guess they are limited by the original text and at that level opponents have more defenses available against scry and fry.

[Serafina]

They reprint feats all the time, they could easily reprint spells as well.
And there are a ton of high-level spells that just make any sort of traditional intrigue very hard to pull off. Teleport is certainly an offender, glad to see that there are efforts against it.

[Psyren]

I don't see a way to impose this scheme on Greater Teleport, but I guess they are limited by the original text and at that level opponents have more defenses available against scry and fry.

UI pg. 159: "This advice applies equally well to greater teleport, although the results of a failed teleportation are less dire."

Greater Teleport itself says "If you attempt to teleport with insufficient information (or with misleading information), you disappear and simply reappear in your original location." They're pointing out that if all you see are featureless floor tiles around your target, that counts as "insufficient information." You need him to stand near a window or statue or something. All GT does is remove all the negative consequences beyond wasting the spell.

[Cosi]

Full disclosure: I do not play PF, have not read this book, and have very little respect for the people who work at Pazio.

That said, the argument that this is "totally what the spell said all along" is stupid. I've taken the liberty of quoting the relevant section of the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/teleport):


“Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.

That's an example. It's incredibly obviously an example. There is literally no reason to mention scrying in that context other than an example. For there to be any ambiguity about scrying working, it would need to say nearly the opposite of what it does (something to the effect of "using magic such as scrying can count as "viewed once").


And there are a ton of high-level spells that just make any sort of traditional intrigue very hard to pull off. Teleport is certainly an offender, glad to see that there are efforts against it.

I don't see how that is even a little bit true. "Who killed the king" is one of the plots that is most resilient to teleport. You can't use the spell to travel to "where the Assassin is hiding" under any version of the spell. teleport obviates a lot of plots. Any plot where the principle obstacle is "go to a place" doesn't work with teleport, but there are plenty of plots where it doesn't matter if you have teleport. Any plot dependent on getting information (for example: intrigue plots) is essentially agnostic about teleport, because the spell doesn't give you information!

[Slithery D]

On a tangent, this book introduces a Cartogramancer and Planar Wanderer feat to let you Greater Teleport to a geographical area without a description based on a Knowledge (Geography) check or more closely Plane Shift to a desired area with a Knowledge (Planes) check.

[Lord_Gareth]

Full disclosure: I do not play PF, have not read this book, and have very little respect for the people who work at Pazio.

That said, the argument that this is "totally what the spell said all along" is stupid. I've taken the liberty of quoting the relevant section of the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/t/teleport):



That's an example. It's incredibly obviously an example. There is literally no reason to mention scrying in that context other than an example. For there to be any ambiguity about scrying working, it would need to say nearly the opposite of what it does (something to the effect of "using magic such as scrying can count as "viewed once").



I don't see how that is even a little bit true. "Who killed the king" is one of the plots that is most resilient to teleport. You can't use the spell to travel to "where the Assassin is hiding" under any version of the spell. teleport obviates a lot of plots. Any plot where the principle obstacle is "go to a place" doesn't work with teleport, but there are plenty of plots where it doesn't matter if you have teleport. Any plot dependent on getting information (for example: intrigue plots) is essentially agnostic about teleport, because the spell doesn't give you information!

Thank you. I'm away from home and phone posting; couldn't dig up the links to cite.

So, again, I hope there's errata coming for these rule changes. I also hope Paizo actually calls them what they are.

[NightbringerGGZ]

I'd rather just take Martial Master and save myself 8 hours :smalltongue:

Personally, I'd just give out a "training slot" like this to every full BAB character, and let it be usable for teamwork feats. That way, you actually have a mechanical reason for teamwork feats to work - you actually train with the guy who has it and learn to work together.


You can also pick up Barroom Brawler and Abundant Tactics, for a similar ability and the ability to use it via swift-actions through Combat Tricks. Alternatively, the Varisian Free-Style Fighter gains Martial Flexibility at first level and can combine combat styles at third level (in a similar manner to Maneuver Master).

Quick Study is really hampered by the 8 hour training time. Otherwise that would be another feat that could benefit from Abundant Tactics. I've been looking to see if this would be useful in a party where many players have varied Teamwork Feats, but honestly it isn't.

[Slithery D]

This is a good metmagic.
Tenacious Spell (Metamagic)
Your magic is difficult to unravel.
Benefit: Increase the DC of caster level checks to
counter or dispel a tenacious spell by 2. If a tenacious spell is dispelled or dismissed, it lasts for 1d4 further rounds (to a maximum of the spell’s normal duration) before ending (this does not occur if antimagic field or a similar spell or effect suppresses or ends the spell’s effect without dispelling or dismissing it). The lingering auras of tenacious spells detectable with detect magic last for twice as long as usual after the spells end. A tenacious spell uses up a spell slot 1 level higher than the spell’s actual level.

Psychics can double or triple up the raised dispel DC with Complex Countermeasure phrenic amplification, and since this is a 1 level increase it's also a good choice for Mimic Metamagic major amplification.

Since this book sort of backhandedly clarifies the intent that Mindblank beat True Seeing (confirmed by some dev comments when I noted this), at high levels a Tenacious Spell Mindblank and Greater Invisibility are going to be extra painful to deal with if you don't get lucky on the dispel check or have a Disjunction available.

Edit: Also good for Major Curse and Conditional Curse to crank those DCs to remove even higher.

[Cosi]

Since this book sort of backhandedly clarifies the intent that Mindblank beat True Seeing (confirmed by some dev comments when I noted this), at high levels a Tenacious Spell Mindblank and Greater Invisibility are going to be extra painful to deal with if you don't get lucky on the dispel check or have a Disjunction available.

What is wrong with PF's dev team? scrying + teleport is too good, but it's totally fine to have mindblank trump true seeing?

[Slithery D]

What is wrong with PF's dev team? scrying + teleport is too good, but it's totally fine to have mindblank trump true seeing?

It's kind of necessary to have any reasonable high level intrigue, though. If you can't use magical disguises, possession, or shapeshifting to pretend to be someone else it kills a lot of options. You should be able to infiltrate an outer plane!

Really the only serious issue I see is the Mind Blank plus Greater Invisibility combat problem. Which is going to require dumb stuff like tossing flour, AOE spells, or Greater Dispel to combat, or high level polymorph for some natural Blindsense/Blindsight. Not insurmountable, but definitely an issue people need to plan for.

Overall I'm a fan of True Seeing being beatable. It leaves something open for Sense Motive and mundane/practical security precautions. And always be looking hard to try to disbelieve illusions when you meet someone new (or familiar and acting odd), I guess.

[Cosi]

It's kind of necessary to have any reasonable high level intrigue, though. If you can't use magical disguises or shapeshifting it kills a lot of options.

I don't see it that way. Intrigue, for me at least, is about wheels within wheels and pawns of pawns engaged in bizarrely circuitous plans. It shouldn't matter if I have true seeing up or not when I meet my source, because he should generally be a normal human (or for higher level intrigue, normal demon) who works for the conspiracy. The challenge of intrigue shouldn't be "who is X", but "what is going on" followed by "why do I care" followed by "how do I set up the outcome I want".

If I meet the end-boss at the beginning of the adventure, but can't know that because he is 100% immune to detection magic, that doesn't feel like intrigue. It feels like the DM is jerking me around by making me jump through hoops to get the guy who came to me.

[Slithery D]

"What is going on" can be more interesting if the answer is "someone is pulling a false flag on you" by imitating your client/witness/seeming ally. And you can discover that through through roleplay and skills, not a an instant "I win" button from a spell.

Yes, your mastermind nemesis could just use pawns who are who they appear to be to mislead you. But there's also a place for him to make an appearance himself to throw you off the trail, and there's lots of things the Disguise skill can't do that you make good story telling and plotting.

[Cosi]

"What is going on" can be more interesting if the answer is "someone is pulling a false flag on you" by imitating your client/witness/seeming ally. And you can discover that through through roleplay and skills, not a an instant "I win" button from a spell.

You can false flag people in ways that true seeing does nothing to prevent. False messages, controlling information, bribes, mind control, suborned emissaries, double crosses, or just discovering your plan and setting a trap. Honestly, what does true seeing do to tell you that the guy you're talking to is planing to betray you?

But even if you do have a false flag that gets beaten by true seeing why is it legitimate to defeat it by using Sense Motive (an ability your character has) but not true seeing (an ability your character also has)?

Finally, if true seeing doesn't beat mindblank, magic is still an "I win" button. It's just an "I win" button for planning false flags rather than preventing them.

[Anlashok]

It's kind of necessary to have any reasonable high level intrigue, though. If you can't use magical disguises, possession, or shapeshifting to pretend to be someone else it kills a lot of options. You should be able to infiltrate an outer plane!
You mean like with the disguise skill?

Oh wait, now it makes perfect sense why the Paizo devs would make a ruling like that.

Cosi is right, it doesn't make magic less of an "IWIN" button. It just changes which sort of magic wins. If anything the opposite is true, given that one of the biggest advantages of mundane skill was that it wasn't foiled by true seeing and the like.

[Slithery D]

Disguise skill has serious limitations for big alterations. If I want to infiltrate a fortress in Hell where I need the party to look like high CR devils, I can either use Disguise skills (relying on each character's own skill, if any) with big penalties against high Perception rolls, or I can cast Veil and Communal Mindblank to avoid any reasonable chance of being found out by observation, even against a devil with True Seeing. Now instead of being doomed to failure and having an option foreclosed, I can have a face character rely on Bluff and roleplaying try to talk the party as far as he can. That's good!

[Cosi]

Dressing everyone up as Erinyes or Barbazu only takes a -2 penalty (for "different race"). It uses personal language, but the phrase "create a disguise", implies that you should be able to disguise other creatures.

mindblank is an 8th level spell, so infiltrating that way isn't available until 15th at the earliest. I'll assume 16th, because there's a CR 16 Devil in PF (the Cornugon). It rolls +24 to Perception. Whoever makes your Disguise is looking at +19 for ranks alone, and if they have some sort of magical bonus to the skill check (i.e. guidance of the avatar in 3e) or happen to be a CHA-heavy class, they could easily make a disguise good enough to get past the Cornugon.

[Psyren]

Full disclosure: I do not play PF, have not read this book, and have very little respect for the people who work at Pazio.

Who the heck is "Pazio?" :smalltongue:


That's an example. It's incredibly obviously an example. There is literally no reason to mention scrying in that context other than an example. For there to be any ambiguity about scrying working, it would need to say nearly the opposite of what it does (something to the effect of "using magic such as scrying can count as "viewed once").

You're neglecting the key word there is possibly. Meaning Scrying can work, but it also can fail - it depends on what you see. This line is empowering the GM not to make "Ok I cast scrying and glanced at it, let's go" be a foolproof solution. It provides a mundane solution to scry-and-die tactics, such as making your immediate surroundings as generic/ambiguous as possible.

[Beowulf DW]

Your conclusion does not follow. Yes, both deities/faiths can have good followers, but they can also have neutral and evil ones. You haven't proven which alignment(s) those two offshoots consist of, and even if some of the NG followers do number among both of them, you haven't proven that the good members of each would result to hostility/violence to pursue their goals.

I would instead posit that any Pharasmans who truly advocate effecting/prolonging the suffering of sapient beings, especially innocent ones, can only be Neutral at best.



Your theory has not proven this. At best you've shown that (a) there are extremist factions under both deities, and (b) their overall faiths can potentially include Good followers. You have yet to prove that these two groups intersect, and you also have yet to prove that even if they do, they would resort to the kind of violent conflict that would necessitate casting Evil spells for protection.



Of course the faiths are fractious - each one allows three alignments, and thus three philosophies about what that faith's priorities are and how they should best be advanced. It's not surprising there would be internal conflict.

As for the angels, even if you're accurate and they faced no consequences (source?) fiction has multiple angels that have done heinous things and not fallen right away. For example, Gabriel from Constantine and Saruman from LotR.

There is one sect of Pharasmins that believes in something like martyrdom, not unlike certain ancient sects of real world religions that still managed to do good in the world (feed the hungry, spread their faith despite oppression and suffering). Additionally, the belief that magic is good is not by any means extreme in Nethys' faith. That's one of the core beliefs. The Pharasmin sect in question is never called out as being specifically evil. They simply believe that people's suffering is one way of making an offering of sorts to their goddess. Are there evil people among them that take this philosophy to extremes? Of course there are. There are also people that can be good-aligned in there, too.

Additionally, you've missed one of the points of my argument, which is that they might still take precautions if they met each other (protection from good cast in advance). If I was meeting with somebody who's particular belief system seemed to be in utter opposition to my own, I would naturally be at least suspicious. Even if the person in question was a "good" person, I wouldn't know that. So I cast Protection from Good as a precaution. Does that make me an evil person? All I've done is make an effort to prolong my own life in the event that something goes awry.

In the book in question, The Redemption Engine, the angels in question never fall. They never lose their powers (which they would in this setting; that's already well established, and it makes me wonder why you even brought it up), and die with those powers intact. The people that killed them? True Neutral outsiders. Meanwhile, their mortal forces faced off against other mortals. One side believed that they had been given a divine mission from an angel (they had) and the other was fighting to take back their home, and was led by the clergy of Caiden Caylean (the clerics in question being Chaotic Good). Both sides had good people that had been pushed to extremes by circumstance, and ended up killing each other. They didn't "resort" to violent conflict. Violent conflict came about as a result of both parties refusing to budge on an issue in which they deeply and genuinely believed that they were in the right, and couldn't understand why the other side wouldn't stop trying to interfere.

[Psyren]

Advocating for prolonged suffering of sapient beings is not Good. Period.

Best if we move this to a new thread so that this one can stay focused on UI.

[Beowulf DW]

Advocating for prolonged suffering of sapient beings is not Good. Period.

Best if we move this to a new thread so that this one can stay focused on UI.

Clearly, I'm not explaining it well. Agreed. Dropped for now. Suffice to say that some on these forums believe that good-aligned characters can come into conflict with one another and some don't. Discussion over.

So....

How about that renown system? Heard that it can only affect a city district at most?

[Ssalarn]

The Hallucination line of spells are really excellent, they're phantasms that recreate the the Image line with the advantage that they're in the target's head so they can't see through them with True Seeing if they fail the initial save, and you can put them on a script that reacts how the target would expect to certain actions. There's a permanent version, so you can actually put a nagging devil and angel on someone's shoulders to follow them around and critique their actions for the rest of their lives...

Is there something I missed about them changing the way phantasms work in Ultimate Intrigue? Because according to their FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qg0) that's not how phantasms work.

"True seeing lets you "see all things as they actually are." Because phantasmal killer is an illusion (phantasm) spell and creates an image directly in the target's mind, a target with true seeing would (mentally) see the image and (physically) see that there is nothing really there, and would therefore immediately recognize that the mental image is actually unreal. Because phantasmal killer says the target "gets a Will save to recognize the image as unreal," the creature with true seeing automatically succeeds at that saving throw (no roll needed), and therefore never has to deal with the Fort-save aspect of phantasmal killer."

[Milo v3]

Is there something I missed about them changing the way phantasms work in Ultimate Intrigue? Because according to their FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qg0) that's not how phantasms work.
No, Slithery D simply seems to have misunderstood.

The hallucination spells do not have anything that would allow them to bypass Trueseeing, their benefit is that because it is a phantasm, it is subjective so the caster doesn't need to know the details of what illusion they are making. You can do things like make an illusion of a group of worker's boss, despite the caster not knowing who their boss is because the target's mind fills in the illusion.

[Shadowscale]

Very interested in book.
How would y'all say the zealot and warlock are class wise? Decent enough to play at a tier 4 or higher level?

Anything interesting on gray paladin? Gray guard was my favorite 3.5 PRC

[Serafina]

The Zealot is basically a somewhat weaker Inquisitor:
- D8 HD
- Medium BAB
- good Reflex and Will
- 4+Int Skill points
- a Vigilante Talent at level 2, 6, 12, 14 and 18
- a Social Talent at level 1 and every two levels thereafter
- a Social Identity that can be used to build different reputations, and hide from divinations
- class abilities that benefit from opening combat from stealth
- casting just like an Inquisitor
- one Inquisition

Compared to an Inquisitor, you lose 2 skill points, have a good Reflex-save instead of a good Fortitude-save, don't get Judgments, Monster Lore, Stern Gaze (though you can take it via a talent), Cunning Initiative, Track, Solo Tactics, Teamwork Feats, Bane (though you can take a Smite) or Discern Lies (though again available via talent).
You gain - well, the second identity, the social talents, the combat openers and can take a Smite, Channel Energy or a permanent Consecrate/Desecrate around you.

Still, despite all that - it's probably still a T3 class. You can still cast spells, you can still pull off some good tricks, you can still fight decently. At the very least it's T4.


The Warlock?
Well, same chassis as above, except you cast as a Magus, but off the Wizard-list.
Your main trick is that you get to attack with a weapon that does 1D6+(1/4 class levels) elemental damage, which can be used in melee or with a 30 foot range increment and targets touch-AC.
You also get the option to take a familiar (always good), can create a Lesser Simulacrum of yourself (not to fight, just to distract and misguide people) and can hide items inside an extradimensional space at will.

Just from the casting and having some decent class features that's low T3 or T4, too.



The Gray Paladin?
Sorry, that one's bad.
You can be lawful neutral or neutral good in addition to lawful good, and won't fall from code-violations - but you still will upon performing any evil act.
You can spend two smites to smite someone who is not evil, and at 11th level you get some protection against divination.
In exchange?
You never get Divine Grace. You get Smite later. You can't channel energy. You gain less benefit from your auras (no immunities for you!) and you never become immune to disease to boot.

Overall, the Gray Paladin is far far weaker. And you really don't gain anything interesting in return other than not having to follow a code.
The sad thing is, there's already a better way to do a non-code Paladin with the Enlightened Paladin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---paladin-archetypes/enlightened-paladin-paladin-archetype), who can just write their own code.

[Shadowscale]

The Zealot is basically a somewhat weaker Inquisitor:
- D8 HD
- Medium BAB
- good Reflex and Will
- 4+Int Skill points
- a Vigilante Talent at level 2, 6, 12, 14 and 18
- a Social Talent at level 1 and every two levels thereafter
- a Social Identity that can be used to build different reputations, and hide from divinations
- class abilities that benefit from opening combat from stealth
- casting just like an Inquisitor
- one Inquisition

Compared to an Inquisitor, you lose 2 skill points, have a good Reflex-save instead of a good Fortitude-save, don't get Judgments, Monster Lore, Stern Gaze (though you can take it via a talent), Cunning Initiative, Track, Solo Tactics, Teamwork Feats, Bane (though you can take a Smite) or Discern Lies (though again available via talent).
You gain - well, the second identity, the social talents, the combat openers and can take a Smite, Channel Energy or a permanent Consecrate/Desecrate around you.

Still, despite all that - it's probably still a T3 class. You can still cast spells, you can still pull off some good tricks, you can still fight decently. At the very least it's T4.


The Warlock?
Well, same chassis as above, except you cast as a Magus, but off the Wizard-list.
Your main trick is that you get to attack with a weapon that does 1D6+(1/4 class levels) elemental damage, which can be used in melee or with a 30 foot range increment and targets touch-AC.
You also get the option to take a familiar (always good), can create a Lesser Simulacrum of yourself (not to fight, just to distract and misguide people) and can hide items inside an extradimensional space at will.

Just from the casting and having some decent class features that's low T3 or T4, too.



The Gray Paladin?
Sorry, that one's bad.
You can be lawful neutral or neutral good in addition to lawful good, and won't fall from code-violations - but you still will upon performing any evil act.
You can spend two smites to smite someone who is not evil, and at 11th level you get some protection against divination.
In exchange?
You never get Divine Grace. You get Smite later. You can't channel energy. You gain less benefit from your auras (no immunities for you!) and you never become immune to disease to boot.

Overall, the Gray Paladin is far far weaker. And you really don't gain anything interesting in return other than not having to follow a code.
The sad thing is, there's already a better way to do a non-code Paladin with the Enlightened Paladin (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin/archetypes/paizo---paladin-archetypes/enlightened-paladin-paladin-archetype), who can just write their own code.

Thank you that helps a lot, I very much look forward to playing a warlock now. Thus was missing from pathfinder for a while I felt.

Very unfortunate the gray paladin is even worse than the 3.5 version even in flavor it'd appear. Enlightened paladin seems to be a monk paladin mixed in as well. to an end It appears the criminal underbelly paladin working with evil to root it out wont come to pathfinder like it did in 3.5. I see them using essentially the pathfinder equivalent of complete scoundrel for this archetype as a parallel, too bad it appears to be awful.

[Milo v3]

The sad thing is, there's already a better way to do a non-code Paladin with the Enlightened Paladin, who can just write their own code.
The issue isn't the code, the issue is not being able to be neutral good or lawful neutral.

[khadgar567]

is there any toys for mesmerist from google fu returns they get some sort of archetype that allows them to act as lethal legal adviser for pc in king maker camping so can some one spoil the bean for every body

[Milo v3]

is there any toys for mesmerist from google fu returns they get some sort of archetype that allows them to act as lethal legal adviser for pc in king maker camping so can some one spoil the bean for every body

There are a fey toys for mesmerist:
Enigma - Makes it so your psychic stare obscures you from the mind of your victim, it also get's bonuses to stealth, sneak attack, and a capstone that makes subconsciously ignore you.
Eyebiter - Your eye can fly out of your face and act as a familiar and use it for spying, and instead of touch treatment you can mess with peoples eyes.
Fey Trickster - Casts from druid/ranger spell list instead of mesmerist spell list, gets various druid powers like resist nature's lure and woodland stride, can put a fey-veil on people so they are more charming or disguised, and as a capstone they get a specific power from a fey which is very homebrew friendly.
Thought Eater - Makes it so you can disguise yourself of people you stare at, and get knowledge out of the minds of people you stare at.
Vizier - When you cast a spell, you can alter everyone's senses and memories so everyone thinks that someone else casted the spell rather than yourself.
Vox - You get a hypnotic voice rather than hypnotic stare.

[khadgar567]

There are a fey toys for mesmerist:
Enigma - Makes it so your psychic stare obscures you from the mind of your victim, it also get's bonuses to stealth, sneak attack, and a capstone that makes subconsciously ignore you.

usefull


Eyebiter - Your eye can fly out of your face and act as a familiar and use it for spying, and instead of touch treatment you can mess with peoples eyes.

I dont think some one uses this


Fey Trickster - Casts from druid/ranger spell list instead of mesmerist spell list, gets various druid powers like resist nature's lure and woodland stride, can put a fey-veil on people so they are more charming or disguised, and as a capstone they get a specific power from a fey which is very homebrew friendly.

sexier version of druid


Thought Eater - Makes it so you can disguise yourself of people you stare at, and get knowledge out of the minds of people you stare at.

again usefull


Vizier - When you cast a spell, you can alter everyone's senses and memories so everyone thinks that someone else casted the spell rather than yourself.

know we are talking an archetype that turn mesmerist to what class really is aka some one can rule from shadows
Vox - You get a hypnotic voice rather than hypnotic stare.[/QUOTE]
for people one to play hatsune miku or modified siren and also make good politician

[Cosi]

You're neglecting the key word there is possibly. Meaning Scrying can work, but it also can fail - it depends on what you see. This line is empowering the GM not to make "Ok I cast scrying and glanced at it, let's go" be a foolproof solution. It provides a mundane solution to scry-and-die tactics, such as making your immediate surroundings as generic/ambiguous as possible.

No, it doesn't. Because you aren't reading the sentence. The spell is 100% unambiguously using "possibly" to describe an example. Like how if I said "you can drive there in a car you own, possibly a Ferrari" there would be zero ambiguity as to whether you can drive there in a Ferrari (you can). I know you don't like this, but the rules say things, and you have to change the rules to make them say different things.

Also, having the mundane solution to scry-and-die be "the bad guy's base looks as bland and indistinguishable as possible" is actively worse than no solution, because it encourages people to set up shop in warehouses and featureless 10-by-10 rooms rather than volcanoes and ice palaces.

[Psyren]

No, it doesn't. Because you aren't reading the sentence. The spell is 100% unambiguously using "possibly" to describe an example. Like how if I said "you can drive there in a car you own, possibly a Ferrari" there would be zero ambiguity as to whether you can drive there in a Ferrari (you can). I know you don't like this, but the rules say things, and you have to change the rules to make them say different things.

I did read the whole sentence. "Possibly using magic" means that magic may work, or it may not. Success is not guaranteed, that's what the word "possible" (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/possible) means.



Also, having the mundane solution to scry-and-die be "the bad guy's base looks as bland and indistinguishable as possible" is actively worse than no solution, because it encourages people to set up shop in warehouses and featureless 10-by-10 rooms rather than volcanoes and ice palaces.

So every square inch of a volcano is visually distinct from that of every other volcano? Could you glance at a random 10 square feet inside one and immediately tell whether you were looking at Etna, Vesuvius or Stromboli? This is exactly the kind of ludicrous mindset they need to buttress GMs against.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Well I'm sure a geologist might be able to do tell some difference...

[Cosi]

I did read the whole sentence. "Possibly using magic" means that magic may work, or it may not. Success is not guaranteed, that's what the word "possible" (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/possible) means.

No, it means that magic is an element of the set of things that work. Like the example your link uses: "It is possible that he has already gone." That's describing a state of affairs where he either had already gone (possible) or has not already gone (also possible). Similarly, the phrase "a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying." Implies that "using scrying" is an element in the set "ways to have seen something once".

For your interpretation to be valid, the text would need to say "it is possible for scrying to provide information equivalent to 'viewed once'". But it doesn't say that, and your (and the Dev's) interpretation is not valid.


So every square inch of a volcano is visually distinct from that of every other volcano? Could you glance at a random 10 square feet inside one and immediately tell whether you were looking at Etna, Vesuvius or Stromboli?

They seem pretty distinct from Google Images. Etna is snow-capped, Vesuvius is rocky with a big crater, at it looks like Stromboli is wooded all the way to the top. I'd imagine a genius Wizard with superhuman knowledge of geology, geography, and climate could probably identify which one he was looking at from a look at a random patch of land.

But this is kind of missing the point (although I will admit the fault is to some degree mine for talking about volcanoes and ice palaces). scrying doesn't effect "a random 10ft square", it effects the location of the guy you're observing. So even if we accept that volcanoes might look alike at "random point", the enemy probably has a distinct throne room. Or at least, it is cool if he does, and if the defense against scry-and-die works this way, he won't. If you use these rules, the king of the Seven Kingdoms won't sit on the Iron Throne, forged by dragonfire from the swords of his enemies. Because if he does, he makes it easier for people to assassinate him. That's stupid.


This is exactly the kind of ludicrous mindset they need to buttress GMs against.

You mean the mindset of "I have an ability that solves this problem, I should use it to solve this problem"? If you don't want people to scry-and-die, don't give them the ability to scry-and-die. Play an 8th level campaign. Ban casters. Run plots where scry-and-die isn't good. Make teleport higher level. Make instant teleport higher level. But the proposed solutions of "the double secret dev rules are the literal and exact opposite of RAW" and "no villain ever has a throne-room that is visually distinct" are terrible for the game.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Yeah, I asked someone who has a doctorate in English, and she said that the sentence does not explicitly mean that scrying always works as a way of getting information for teleport.

[Psyren]

Well I'm sure a geologist might be able to do tell some difference...

Precisely - so the GM may call for a Knowledge check in conjunction with what you've seen to make sure you can truly distinguish it. If you fail, you could be "teleporting with insufficient or misleading information." Or it may simply be indistinguishable regardless of your smarts, or you may only be able to narrow it down to 2 or 3 possible locations etc.


No, it means that magic is an element of the set of things that work. Like the example your link uses: "It is possible that he has already gone." That's describing a state of affairs where he either had already gone (possible) or has not already gone (also possible). Similarly, the phrase "a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying." Implies that "using scrying" is an element in the set "ways to have seen something once".

For your interpretation to be valid, the text would need to say "it is possible for scrying to provide information equivalent to 'viewed once'". But it doesn't say that, and your (and the Dev's) interpretation is not valid.

Of course scrying is a possible way to see a place once. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your assertion that it will work perfectly 100% of the time regardless of what the scry actually shows you. Better hope they're standing near something you can distinguish.


They seem pretty distinct from Google Images. Etna is snow-capped, Vesuvius is rocky with a big crater, at it looks like Stromboli is wooded all the way to the top. I'd imagine a genius Wizard with superhuman knowledge of geology, geography, and climate could probably identify which one he was looking at from a look at a random patch of land.

Nothing you've described is from the inside of the volcano. Scrying doesn't let you zoom out. Try again.



But this is kind of missing the point (although I will admit the fault is to some degree mine for talking about volcanoes and ice palaces). scrying doesn't effect "a random 10ft square", it effects the location of the guy you're observing.

A 10ft. square around them, yes. The random element comes from the fact that you don't know exactly where they're standing when you cast it. If you already knew exactly where they were after all, there would be no need to scry on them. QED.


You mean the mindset of "I have an ability that solves this problem, I should use it to solve this problem"? If you don't want people to scry-and-die, don't give them the ability to scry-and-die. Play an 8th level campaign. Ban casters. Run plots where scry-and-die isn't good. Make teleport higher level. Make instant teleport higher level. But the proposed solutions of "the double secret dev rules are the literal and exact opposite of RAW" and "no villain ever has a throne-room that is visually distinct" are terrible for the game.

You seem to always run to the extremes of "{tactic} doesn't work perfectly 100% of the time in every circumstance? Just ban it completely then! Why do you hate players! Taking my dice and going home!" Removing guaranteed success is not the same as forcing guaranteed failure; the whole point of guidance like this is so the GM doesn't have to resort to banning every single thing that could end a campaign prematurely. Maybe instead of scrying on the Big Bad and leaping right into his chamber, you have to scry on the nearby goblin village his enforcers have enslaved, teleport there, and enter the volcano base on foot. You know, actually playing the game instead of skipping all of it just because you hit 9th level.


Yeah, I asked someone who has a doctorate in English, and she said that the sentence does not explicitly mean that scrying always works as a way of getting information for teleport.

Your friend is correct and please thank her on my behalf.

[Cosi]

Nothing you've described is from the inside of the volcano. Scrying doesn't let you zoom out. Try again.

I would imagine that most volcanoes don't contain the villain's base. As such, anything you see inside the volcano is necessarily unique. The only case that could be ambiguous is the outside.


Removing guaranteed success is not the same as forcing guaranteed failure;

It's not "guaranteed failure" it's "you succeed if the DM thinks you should", which is exactly like not having the ability. The effects of abilities must be absolute to be meaningful. You can change what those effects are (for example, the "40ft of stone" rule in the Tomes). But once the ability works "if the DM lets it work", it stops being an ability.


Maybe instead of scrying on the Big Bad and leaping right into his chamber, you have to scry on the nearby goblin village his enforcers have enslaved, teleport there, and enter the volcano base on foot.

So what exactly did your ability do? You had scrying and teleport, which allowed you to have the "goblin village" that the DM planned. If you hadn't had those abilities, you would have ... had the "goblin village" encounter the DM planned.


You know, actually playing the game instead of skipping all of it just because you hit 9th level.

Strawman. There are plenty of adventures you can't skip with teleport. For example, the Bug Hunt. If the goal is to kill all the monsters in the area, having teleport doesn't do anything particularly impressive. Similar, intrigue or war adventures. Or enemies who plan around the limitations of teleport. If you can't write adventures that teleport doesn't circumvent, you are bad a writing adventures.

[Psyren]

I would imagine that most volcanoes don't contain the villain's base. As such, anything you see inside the volcano is necessarily unique. The only case that could be ambiguous is the outside.

Putting aside the parts that are not simply unworked volcano interior that they left alone, not every part of a base is unique either. When you scry, he could be walking down a featureless corridor, standing in a generic storeroom, exhorting his orc troops in a spartan barracks, or any number of other places that are not visually distinct from a 10ft.-radius glance.


It's not "guaranteed failure" it's "you succeed if the DM thinks you should", which is exactly like not having the ability. The effects of abilities must be absolute to be meaningful.

Only Sith deal in absolutes :smalltongue:

This is a tantrum attitude. Why have dice in this game at all then, if all abilities should succeed absolutely? Why is it wrong to give the GM the right to plausibly make abilities work some times (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html) and not others? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html) So long as the player is aware that it may not work in advance and there's a plausible, in-universe reason why, they can make an informed choice.



So what exactly did your ability do? You had scrying and teleport, which allowed you to have the "goblin village" that the DM planned. If you hadn't had those abilities, you would have ... had the "goblin village" encounter the DM planned.

If you didn't have those abilities, you'd have to find the BBEG's base the hard way (Gather Information, poring over tomes, finding escaped slaves to interrogate etc.), narrow down the location over time, then charter an airship etc. to get you there. All of which would give the BBEG more time to bolster his defenses or further his other plans. In this particular example, scry + teleport helps you be more efficient without removing all legwork from the equation.


Strawman. There are plenty of adventures you can't skip with teleport. For example, the Bug Hunt. If the goal is to kill all the monsters in the area, having teleport doesn't do anything particularly impressive. Similar, intrigue or war adventures. Or enemies who plan around the limitations of teleport. If you can't write adventures that teleport doesn't circumvent, you are bad a writing adventures.

And there are plenty you can. Should you be able to? That should be based on other factors beyond the wizard's player throwing a tantrum if he doesn't get his way all the time.

[Cosi]

Putting aside the parts that are not simply unworked volcano interior that they left alone, not every part of a base is unique either. When you scry, he could be walking down a featureless corridor, standing in a generic storeroom, exhorting his orc troops in a spartan barracks, or any number of other places that are not visually distinct from a 10ft.-radius glance.

With the exception of "unworked cavern", all of those are very likely unique, unless there are several identical volcano bases in the world.


This is a tantrum attitude. Why have dice in this game at all then, if all abilities should succeed absolutely?

They don't have to succeed automatically. They have to do what they do automatically. When you swing your sword, it should work or not work based on your attack bonus, the roll of the die, and the opponent's AC (plus whatever other defenses may apply). Whether the DM thinks your sword swing should succeed or not does not and should not enter into the equation. If he wanted the enemy to be harder to hit, he should have given it a higher AC.


Why is it wrong to give the GM the right to plausibly make abilities work some times (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html) and not others? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html)

Because it is, in your own words, "throwing a tantrum". The PCs found a solution the DM didn't anticipate, and he didn't let them use it. If he didn't want wind walk to solve the plot, he should have written a plot wind walk didn't solve.


And there are plenty you can. Should you be able to? That should be based on other factors beyond the wizard's player throwing a tantrum if he doesn't get his way all the time.

Yes, you should. Just like you shouldn't have to worry about the threat posed by 1st level Orc Warriors at level 20 just because the DM wants to run LotR. The point of advancement is to have there be some things that no longer challenge you and some new challenges you can face. Calling it "throwing a tantrum" when players ask to be allowed to use the abilities they have is bad DMing.

[Psyren]

With the exception of "unworked cavern", all of those are very likely unique, unless there are several identical volcano bases in the world.

Unless you've already been inside that specific room, no, immediately distinguishing one generic corridor or storeroom perfectly from all others on sight is not plausible. And if you've already been there, what the heck are you scrying for?


They don't have to succeed automatically. They have to do what they do automatically. When you swing your sword, it should work or not work based on your attack bonus, the roll of the die, and the opponent's AC (plus whatever other defenses may apply). Whether the DM thinks your sword swing should succeed or not does not and should not enter into the equation. If he wanted the enemy to be harder to hit, he should have given it a higher AC.

"Do what they do" - you mean the effect of the spell, where it says "X is possible" and therefore not guaranteed success? It's right there in core.



Because it is, in your own words, "throwing a tantrum". The PCs found a solution the DM didn't anticipate, and he didn't let them use it. If he didn't want wind walk to solve the plot, he should have written a plot wind walk didn't solve.

It looks to me like he did anticipate it, and came up with an in-universe reason why it plausibly wouldn't work ahead of time (i.e. putting the objective in a desert, which typically have strong winds.) In short, GMing correctly.

Similarly, if the lich places his phylactery in a lead-lined box, is that bad GMing to you, or in-universe common sense?



Yes, you should. Just like you shouldn't have to worry about the threat posed by 1st level Orc Warriors at level 20 just because the DM wants to run LotR. The point of advancement is to have there be some things that no longer challenge you and some new challenges you can face. Calling it "throwing a tantrum" when players ask to be allowed to use the abilities they have is bad DMing.

They are allowed to use those abilities - just not 100% of the time for every situation just because they've cleared a level threshold.

[Cosi]

Unless you've already been inside that specific room, no, immediately distinguishing one generic corridor or storeroom perfectly from all others on sight is not plausible. And if you've already been there, what the heck are you scrying for?

I very much doubt the storerooms are completely identical. Also, remember you're not talking about what you can do or what I can do. You're talking about a genius with superhuman perception and what he can do. I'd imagine he can probably notice something like "different scuff marks on the floor" or "bags of grain oriented differently", even if it might escape me or you.


It looks to me like he did anticipate it, and came up with an in-universe reason why it plausibly wouldn't work ahead of time (i.e. putting the objective in a desert, which typically have strong winds.) In short, GMing correctly.

No. Because the rules don't support that. As soon as the DM starts unilaterally modifying the rules to make things work the way he wants, the experience stops being "playing a game" and starts being "hearing a story". And frankly, very few DMs are going to produce a story as good as The Prince of Nothing or Jhereg.


Similarly, if the lich places his phylactery in a lead-lined box, is that bad GMing to you, or in-universe common sense?

That would be common sense. Because spells do what they say. I would even consider it tolerable, if not good, DMing if the DM did so on an post facto basis. But if the DM declared that my attempt to find the lich's phylactery didn't work because of "quantum muons" or "fluxing arcanofields", I would consider that bad DMing. The point of the rules is to fairly and objectively arbitrate disputes. As soon as someone starts unilaterally altering the rules to win disputes, they cease to have any meaning.


They are allowed to use those abilities - just not 100% of the time for every situation just because they've cleared a level threshold.

You are allowed to use those abilities to do what the DM wants you to do. As the point of abilities is to be able to direct the plot when you think one thing should happen and the DM thinks another thing should happen, that's not really "having those abilities".

[Slithery D]

Is there something I missed about them changing the way phantasms work in Ultimate Intrigue? Because according to their FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qg0) that's not how phantasms work.

I hadn't seen that FAQ, which is of course a nonsensical misunderstanding of consciousness and theory of the mind. There's no such thing as a distinction between seeing something mentally and "physically." Taken to the logical extreme that would make Mindscapes pointless against True Seeing, too, which I doubt is their intent. They just didn't want an optimized legacy 4th level spell that is inconsistent with the Pathfinder spell design philosophy to kill high level outsiders on somewhat lucky rolls.

Thanks for the pointer!

[charcoalninja]

With the exception of "unworked cavern", all of those are very likely unique, unless there are several identical volcano bases in the world.



They don't have to succeed automatically. They have to do what they do automatically. When you swing your sword, it should work or not work based on your attack bonus, the roll of the die, and the opponent's AC (plus whatever other defenses may apply). Whether the DM thinks your sword swing should succeed or not does not and should not enter into the equation. If he wanted the enemy to be harder to hit, he should have given it a higher AC.



Because it is, in your own words, "throwing a tantrum". The PCs found a solution the DM didn't anticipate, and he didn't let them use it. If he didn't want wind walk to solve the plot, he should have written a plot wind walk didn't solve.



Yes, you should. Just like you shouldn't have to worry about the threat posed by 1st level Orc Warriors at level 20 just because the DM wants to run LotR. The point of advancement is to have there be some things that no longer challenge you and some new challenges you can face. Calling it "throwing a tantrum" when players ask to be allowed to use the abilities they have is bad DMing.

QFT.

D&D levels are not interchangable. High level D&D is nothing like low level D&D and the differences should be embraced as it makes for better, less frustrating gaming. There seems to be an undercurrent of sentiment that all character types and all plotlines be viable at all levels... This does not work and is also why Fighter and Rogue don't get nice things because people keep trying to fight Martian Manhunter with Eddard Stark...

I don't understand why people seem to dislike staying within their level range. E6 exists for just such a reason after all.

[Milo v3]

I hadn't seen that FAQ, which is of course a nonsensical misunderstanding of consciousness and theory of the mind. There's no such thing as a distinction between seeing something mentally and "physically." Taken to the logical extreme that would make Mindscapes pointless against True Seeing, too, which I doubt is their intent. They just didn't want an optimized legacy 4th level spell that is inconsistent with the Pathfinder spell design philosophy to kill high level outsiders on somewhat lucky rolls.

Thanks for the pointer!
The FAQ makes perfect sense, you see it mentally as the horrific thing you're afraid of, but because you have true seeing up you see it immediately go translucent like any other illusion you look at so you know it's an illusion.

The FAQ doesn't actually change anything since trueseeing specifically "sees through illusions", it was not some agenda to stop a 4th level spell from killing high level creatures. It is simply reading the spell descriptions and making the most accurate judgement on the situation they could. I am really getting annoyed with people saying that the design team is writing FAQ's with agendas rather than just.... they are answering the FAQ.

As for create mindcape, it is not pointless. Trueseeing would cause the individual to see through the mindscape, seeing that it is an illusion immediately and disbelieving it. But disbelieving a mindscape functions differently to most illusions:

Disbelieving a mindscape reveals to that creature that it's within a mindscape and gives it the knowledge needed to leave the mindscape, but doesn't free it from the mindscape. For example, if you create a mindscape that takes the form of a parlor inside a stately mansion, and your target creature succeeds at its Will save, it gains the understanding that walking out the front door of the mansion allows it to return to its physical body, but it must actually move through the mental landscape of the mansion to reach the front door and exit in order to flee the mindscape. If the mindscape is overt, the creature automatically knows how to exit if it so chooses.

[Anlashok]

Metamorph alchemists are really weird. They trade away mutagen so they can give back mutagen. Because apparently even though mutagen is its own class feature it's also a subfeature of the Alchemy class feature at the same time.

Between this and a long thread on the Paizo forums arguing over how much damage Bombs do if you lose Throw Anything I'm starting to realize that the Alchemist is a really badly written class on a fundamental level.

[Slithery D]

Someone needs to write a guide to (Improved) Conceal Spell in this book vs. Cunning Caster feats. Conceal Spell is really complicated, but basically it's for Sorcerers who have put in some skill (Sleight of Hand and Bluff or Disguise) investment (and Cha/Dex, which duh). Cunning Caster is for psychic casters. Wizards can use Conceal Spell, but will suffer from questionable skill investments and lower Cha.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I wouldn't say badly written... On its own, its quite a good class. Start tinkering with it too much and you start breaking stuff, though. One could say it's badly written, I guess, but there is the caveat that it works better than fine most of the time. More than could be said for monk.

[Anlashok]

The class is pretty nice on its own, I'll concede that, but it does have a lot of small issues with how you play one and in this particular case it works terribly with archetypes because for some reason all the class features are interconnected.

On another note. What are people doing with the Magical Child? I can't figure out many ways to build this class.

Improved Familiar is solid, but it's not something you can design a character around and the Unchained Summoner list is... not bad.

You get some nice buffs, SM1-7 and some good conjuration control spells, but your progression is increasingly slow as you level up, so your summons start getting relatively weaker and your buffs come online later than a wizard and there aren't enough of those latter spells to really justify a high enough charisma to make the saves on what you do have competitive.

And unlike other sixth level combat casters, you have no action economy improvement either.

So essentially as a buffer all you're doing is sacrificing your standard actions to save your other casters spell slots. As a summoner you're increasingly behind what full casters can do and you don't get enough BFC and offensive spells to really play a dedicated caster.

Being locked out of specialization talents and losing half your vigilante talents hurts too. Lethal Grace TWF is obvious here, but I can't think of much else you can really do with what the archetype gives you, since most of the other good combat talents are specialization only.

This might be the first 6th level caster archetype I've seen for a class that's actually worse off than its pure martial counterpart.

[Serafina]

Yes, it's rather lackluster, especially with not getting any new talents to take to give it any unique features. Which is a damn shame because...well, magical girl!

Okay, so let's take a look at what the familiar actually does there.
Obviously, you get early access to it, and access to Improved Familiar very early as well. That's nice, worth 2-3 feats.
Your familiar gets multiple forms. This can be nice for, say, having a more combat-oriented form, a more sneaky form, or something like that. However, the ability is not exactly written very well, so...
Your familiar gets DR/magic equal to your class level. That's potentially very good damage reduction, though of course it being /magic makes it quite vulnerable.
Last but not least, your familiar gains Startling Appearance, Frightening Appearance, Stunning Appearance and Vengeance Strikes.

So the best option I can think off here is this:
- one of your familiars forms must be good in combat, with good physical ability scores and natural attacks
- two of it's other forms have nice supernatural - or spell-like abilities.
- in combat, it uses stealth or greater invisibility to apply it's Appearance-effects to multiple enemies.

That's...well, let's call it "solid" at early levels (having a decent second combatant is nice), and gets good at 11th level where you can scare a lot of enemies (if done right, twice per combat - if done well, more than that due to greater invisibility or such).
But it depends on a pretty vague rule. Do your familiars ability scores change between its social and vigilante identity? Does it gain new abilities, especially supernatural- and spell-like abilities? How exactly does it work with the change shape ability, which is already somewhat vague (it functions like A polymorph spell, which one does your familiar use)? How does it work with familiar archetypes improved familiars can't take? (especially mauler)
The best possible interpretation is "yes" - it does change ability scores, it does gain abilities, and can swap between four such sets at will at 9th level. This would give nice flexibility and combat-options.

Of course, you also have the inherent weirdness of a magical girl relying so heavily on frightening enemies by suddenly pouncing from the shadows. That's just not a very fitting image for most of them, though I suppose at least it has very nice charisma-synergy. But then you remember that most familiars of magical girls don't fight her enemies directly either....yeah.

[Peat]

Are any of the new Archetypes for existing classes worth getting excited about?

[khadgar567]

Are any of the new Archetypes for existing classes worth getting excited about?

For mesmerist vox speaker and vizier which have good synergy with bard ( now their songs can kill instead of buffing and debuffing)

[Serafina]

There are plenty of nice archetypes, yes. Here are some that I like:

- the Masked Performer Bard gets access to the Vigilantes Dual Identity shtick, along with some decent songs and some of the better rogue talents without losing anything substantial.
- the Wit Bard gets a nice standard-action attack that uses bardic performance, which later also debuffs it's target quite a bit (nausated, dazed). Also gains bonuses to Initiative and social skills.

- the Cipher Investigator becomes really really good at sneaking. In exchange for trapfinding, poison-related abilities and quite a few talents, they gain Hide in Plain Sight (at 7th level!), Evasion, constant Nondetection, the ability to use Inspiration to Stealth and some other skills at level 1 and a unique ability that just makes other people ignore them, even if they are within line of sight (and it even works in combat).

- the Battle Scion Skald gains combat feats instead of rage powers, and can grant them to allies as well.

- the Shadow Caller Spiritualist gains a Shadow-related phantom and quite a few nice shadow-related abilities

- The Courtly Hunter transfers a hunters skillset very nicely into a non-wild, more urban context. An intelligent animal companion that can shapeshift into a tiny animal and shares the hunters skills is very nice.

- the Fey Caller Unchained Summoner gains a very nice skilled eidolon with plenty of skills and nice SLAs


There are way more archetypes, and a lot of them have other nice things, but those are the ones that have stood out to me personally so far.

[Slithery D]

I was impressed with the first couple of Ranger srchetypes for doing exactly what you'd expect for a social infiltrating Ranger. Not too flashy or surprising (except maybe the one with Bard list casting), but very competent and not the very specialized and weak combo you get from something like the Cardinal.

[Psyren]

I very much doubt the storerooms are completely identical.

Your doubt is irrelevant. Terrain is in the GM's purview, not yours.



No. Because the rules don't support that.

Wrong again. Wind Walk:

"You alter the substance of your body to a cloudlike vapor (as the gaseous form spell) and move through the air, possibly at great speed."

Note the use of "possibly" yet again. But the important part here is the reference to Gaseous Form, which states:

"The creature is subject to the effects of wind, and it can’t enter water or other liquid."

Prevailing wind in an area - e.g. a desert - is also in the GM's purview. Every bit of that is RAW. Your recurring problem is that you simply ignore any rules in an ability that require GM adjudication, and declare any attempts by a GM to use that adjudication to be unreasonable. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't stop them from being rules.


That would be common sense. Because spells do what they say. I would even consider it tolerable, if not good, DMing if the DM did so on an post facto basis. But if the DM declared that my attempt to find the lich's phylactery didn't work because of "quantum muons" or "fluxing arcanofields", I would consider that bad DMing. The point of the rules is to fairly and objectively arbitrate disputes. As soon as someone starts unilaterally altering the rules to win disputes, they cease to have any meaning.

"Your character has not memorized the fine details of every corridor or storeroom that exists on the Prime Material and therefore cannot distinguish the 10-square-feet you're currently seeing from that of every other corridor/storeroom that exists" is not a "quantum muon." Similarly, "volcanoes contain a lot of energy and therefore have a non-zero chance of messing with teleportation" is not a "fluxing arcanofield." These are common sense.


You are allowed to use those abilities to do what the DM wants you to do. As the point of abilities is to be able to direct the plot when you think one thing should happen and the DM thinks another thing should happen, that's not really "having those abilities".

So if an ability works the way you want it to some times, but then not others because of a plausible in-universe explanation, you don't have that ability? How did you use it when it did work then?

[Cosi]

Note the use of "possibly" yet again.

If you'd read the whole spell, you would notice that it contains two speeds: 600ft per round ("great speed") and 10ft per round (not "great speed"). You can't read one sentence and assume that it means exactly what you want, because spell descriptions are more than one sentence long.


"The creature is subject to the effects of wind, and it can’t enter water or other liquid."

You're abusing inheritance structures. wind walk's reference to gaseous form is in the context of physical form, not movement speed. The spell has its own movement rules (you move at 600ft/round if you want to), which override the rules of gaseous form. Otherwise it wouldn't need to explicitly give you a 10ft fly speed, because gaseous form does that already.

Also, even if we accept that the text applies, wind walk specifies: "a magical wind wafts a wind walker along". The effects of wind on someone under the effects of wind walk are that a magical one wafts them along. No contradiction, and no room for the DM to "adjudicate" the ability into not doing anything.


Your recurring problem is that you simply ignore any rules in an ability that require GM adjudication, and declare any attempts by a GM to use that adjudication to be unreasonable.

None of the rules in question require "DM adjudication". The spell has a very clear effect (you move like wind, possibly with a 10ft fly speed, possibly 600ft per round), and that effect happens to make some things not challenge players with wind walk. I don't know why you think this is a problem. Your arguments in threads like this one, or the wish thread make it clear that you're very creative. You should try turning that creativity towards writing adventures that use player's abilities, not excuses that take them away.


These are common sense.

I prefer something I call "the rules". It turns out that "common sense" isn't something people universally agree on, and having objective answers to questions like "can a 26 INT Wizard see enough with scrying to use teleport" is essential to allowing the game to proceed.


How did you use it when it did work then?

You used it. It just doesn't do anything. Let's use the example you cited: OotS. When the players want to use wind walk to travel long distance, but the DM doesn't want them to, they can't do it. When the players want to travel long distance, but don't have wind walk, a zeppelin conveniently shows up. Their abilities don't do anything, because the DM fiats that whatever he wants to happen happens, regardless of abilities or lack thereof.

[Starbuck_II]

The class is pretty nice on its own, I'll concede that, but it does have a lot of small issues with how you play one and in this particular case it works terribly with archetypes because for some reason all the class features are interconnected.

On another note. What are people doing with the Magical Child? I can't figure out many ways to build this class.

Improved Familiar is solid, but it's not something you can design a character around and the Unchained Summoner list is... not bad.

You get some nice buffs, SM1-7 and some good conjuration control spells, but your progression is increasingly slow as you level up, so your summons start getting relatively weaker and your buffs come online later than a wizard and there aren't enough of those latter spells to really justify a high enough charisma to make the saves on what you do have competitive.

And unlike other sixth level combat casters, you have no action economy improvement either.

So essentially as a buffer all you're doing is sacrificing your standard actions to save your other casters spell slots. As a summoner you're increasingly behind what full casters can do and you don't get enough BFC and offensive spells to really play a dedicated caster.

Being locked out of specialization talents and losing half your vigilante talents hurts too. Lethal Grace TWF is obvious here, but I can't think of much else you can really do with what the archetype gives you, since most of the other good combat talents are specialization only.

This might be the first 6th level caster archetype I've seen for a class that's actually worse off than its pure martial counterpart.


A nice buff for Magical Girl if it seems weak/bad at casting: grant it the Chained Summoner progression.
This would grant a faster progression of higher level spells (you get SM 4 instead of SM 3 at 3rd level spells).

[Cyrocloud]

On another note. What are people doing with the Magical Child? I can't figure out many ways to build this class.



One of the nice things it allows is for the mauler archetype to be applied to improved familiars, So creatures like earth elementals get ridiculously strong (though I'm more partial to aether elementals so that you can be shoot yourself or the party barbarian like a cannon up to 480 ft a round for only your familiars standard action). It also combines nicely with Fighter (Eldritch Gaurdian) so that your familiar gets to share your combat feats. This can allow for some fun twf unarmed/gauntlet builds, like full attacking an enemy from above(flight) while your earth elemental goes nuts from below. Not saying it's optimal, but there are some neat combat tricks that can happen now, especially since many of the improved familiars have humanoid forms and can be more easily decked out in magic equipment.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Looked through the feats today. People were right, they did nerf Slashing Grace to only work when doing nothing with your off-hand. There are a bunch of surprisingly combat feats that buff fighter: Improved Bravery which turns your bravery bonus to work vs all mind-affecting, Social Bravery (grants some NPC bonuses like making them harder to affect with intimidate and diplomacy, but also adds to diplomacy and bluff), and one that counts your BAB as ranks in Intimidate. Also another one that turns your bravery bonus into an aura, which has synergy with Improved Bravery.

[Slithery D]

There was a thread a couple of months ago looking for a build that could safely use the Codex of the Ultimate Planes. I'm pretty sure the Phantom Thief rogue archetype can do it without even having to go full optimization with unrealistic stuff like epic Wizard levels of intelligence.

[Giddonihah]

Theirs a Hunter archetype that I found solid, its not amazing or game changing, but I think it will get used.

Its called Roof Runner, it trades out all the tracker stuff, medium armor and shield proficiency in exchange for a bunch of abilities that boost mobility.

So Track is replaced by a Half level boost to jump, Woodlande Stride is replaced by the ability to move faster across ledges and climbing, Swift Tracker is replaced by Fast Stealth Rogue Talent, and Master Hunter is replaced by an ability that gives Climb speed.

I find it quite nice for any Hunter that doesn't want to do the entire tracking theme. Probably a straight improvement for dex Hunters.


The other Hunter Archetype Courtly Hunter is cool thematically, but trades away a significant portion of the hunters combat power.

[Spellbound]

So I feel like i'm a bit late to the party but doesn't the teleport spell require knowledge of both the location and the layout of the destination? It seems that scrying provides knowledge of only the layout as a guarantee and merely provides the option of recognizing the location based on things you viewed. So if you know the location where the villains lair is but have never seen it you could use scrying to gain familiarity with the layout equivilant to having "seen once", where as if you don't know the location of the person even if you've seen it once you still can't teleport there, since you need both knowledge of location and layout.

[Starbuck_II]

So I feel like i'm a bit late to the party but doesn't the teleport spell require knowledge of both the location and the layout of the destination? It seems that scrying provides knowledge of only the layout as a guarantee and merely provides the option of recognizing the location based on things you viewed. So if you know the location where the villains lair is but have never seen it you could use scrying to gain familiarity with the layout equivilant to having "seen once", where as if you don't know the location of the person even if you've seen it once you still can't teleport there, since you need both knowledge of location and layout.

No, you don't need layout, that just avoids teleporting into to a wall.

[Spellbound]

No, you don't need layout, that just avoids teleporting into to a wall.

The text, for pathfinder's teleport at least, doesn't make a mention of needing layout to avoid walls.


You must have some clear idea of the location and layout of the destination. The clearer your mental image, the more likely the teleportation works.

Basically my logic is that seeing a room through scrying can provide the layout but if you don't know where what you are seeing is located you wouldn't be able to teleport. Like, if I look at a picture of a room I know the layout but have no idea of where the room is located. If I see something that clearly provides a location (though it's hard to come up with something within the 10ft scrying provides that would visually identify a location that you haven't already seen) then the picture would provide both location and layout

[Psyren]

If you'd read the whole spell, you would notice that it contains two speeds: 600ft per round ("great speed") and 10ft per round (not "great speed"). You can't read one sentence and assume that it means exactly what you want, because spell descriptions are more than one sentence long.



You're abusing inheritance structures. wind walk's reference to gaseous form is in the context of physical form, not movement speed. The spell has its own movement rules (you move at 600ft/round if you want to), which override the rules of gaseous form. Otherwise it wouldn't need to explicitly give you a 10ft fly speed, because gaseous form does that already.

Also, even if we accept that the text applies, wind walk specifies: "a magical wind wafts a wind walker along". The effects of wind on someone under the effects of wind walk are that a magical one wafts them along. No contradiction, and no room for the DM to "adjudicate" the ability into not doing anything.

1) The "context of physical form" is exactly what I was referring to, actually. Gaseous Form causes your physical form to become gaseous (hence the name) and that is precisely why you become "susceptible to the effects of wind." Therefore, the Giant was correct to rule that Wind Walk inherits that limitation from Gaseous Form.

2) The magical wind is not the only possible wind that can exist on the Prime Material. Magic does not always trump non-magical things - you cannot Fly through a hurricane, even though the Fly spell specifies your fly speed, and a violent earthquake can reshape your teleport destination such that trying to return to the place you remembered can put you off-target or even cause a teleport mishap. The effects of spells can indeed be trumped by prevailing conditions.



None of the rules in question require "DM adjudication". The spell has a very clear effect (you move like wind, possibly with a 10ft fly speed, possibly 600ft per round), and that effect happens to make some things not challenge players with wind walk. I don't know why you think this is a problem. Your arguments in threads like this one, or the wish thread make it clear that you're very creative. You should try turning that creativity towards writing adventures that use player's abilities, not excuses that take them away.
...
I prefer something I call "the rules". It turns out that "common sense" isn't something people universally agree on, and having objective answers to questions like "can a 26 INT Wizard see enough with scrying to use teleport" is essential to allowing the game to proceed.

The effect is indeed clear - it gives you the same form as a gaseous form spell, a spell which is subject to the effects of wind. That it comes prepackaged with one wind does not mean all others cease to exist, regardless of strength.

Thank you for the compliment by the way. Yes, I am creative, and it is for creative GMs that clauses like these were included in spells in the first place. They could have easily and plainly said "Scrying always shows you what you need to teleport to your desired destination without mishap." They didn't - instead, they used hedging language like "possibly using magic" and "you must have a clear idea of the location and layout." The whole idea is to give the GM grounds on which to rule that this tactic is not foolproof.

If you refuse to accept that there are circumstances under which this language can be used by the GM to countermand a players absolute wishes, we will be forced to simply agree to disagree.


You used it. It just doesn't do anything. Let's use the example you cited: OotS. When the players want to use wind walk to travel long distance, but the DM doesn't want them to, they can't do it. When the players want to travel long distance, but don't have wind walk, a zeppelin conveniently shows up. Their abilities don't do anything, because the DM fiats that whatever he wants to happen happens, regardless of abilities or lack thereof.

That zeppelin didn't "conveniently show up." It was a direct result of the PC's abilities and actions - Durkon's Sending spell, coupled with Elan's connection to the subject. Is sending not an ability? Would Julio have shown up without it? Clearly PC actions do matter, even if they are not the specific solve-the-plot-in-one-stroke actions that you prefer.

[Cosi]

1) The "context of physical form" is exactly what I was referring to, actually. Gaseous Form causes your physical form to become gaseous (hence the name) and that is precisely why you become "susceptible to the effects of wind." Therefore, the Giant was correct to rule that Wind Walk inherits that limitation from Gaseous Form.

No, it doesn't effect movement. If it effected movement, wind walk would say "as gaseous form, except subjects can travel at up to 600ft/round at their option". It doesn't say that, and in fact specifically enumerates text in gaseous form (10ft perfect fly speed), which means it does not inherit movement restrictions.


2) The magical wind is not the only possible wind that can exist on the Prime Material.

That's true. It is, however, the only wind that matters. Specific trumps general and all that. The general effect of strong winds may be to check creatures, but the specific effect of wind walk is to transport people under the effect of wind walk at a rate of 600ft/round.


The whole idea is to give the GM grounds on which to rule that this tactic is not foolproof.

The designers did want that, but they achieved it by creating abilities that countered other abilities, not empowering DMs to mess with players. Spells like forbiddance and nondetection exist to counter spells like teleport and scrying. Insisting that "possibly" means "only if the DM wants" is just an excuse to avoiding writing new plots when players get new abilities.


That zeppelin didn't "conveniently show up." It was a direct result of the PC's abilities and actions - Durkon's Sending spell, coupled with Elan's connection to the subject.

The zeppelin's pilot is a NPC, under the purview of the DM. Any of his actions are necessarily DM fiat. sending contacted him, but him going was 100% "the plot would not have advanced if the DM didn't fiat that it did".


Clearly PC actions do matter, even if they are not the specific solve-the-plot-in-one-stroke actions that you prefer.

This is a strawman. teleport doesn't "solve the plot in one stroke". It solves low level plots in one stroke. Because it is a high level ability. If Gandalf could cast teleport, that would have handily resolved the plot of LotR quite quickly. On the other hand, if Sam could cast teleport, it would have had very little impact on the plot of Lord of Light.

[Milo v3]

The zeppelin's pilot is a NPC, under the purview of the DM. Any of his actions are necessarily DM fiat. sending contacted him, but him going was 100% "the plot would not have advanced if the DM didn't fiat that it did".
.... if your splitting characters into PC and NPC in oots.. all characters would be NPCs....

[Cosi]

.... if your splitting characters into PC and NPC in oots.. all characters would be NPCs....

Well, yah. There are a whole host of problems with talking about OotS (or single author fiction in general) as a direct approximation of D&D. Not least that the Giant is on record as saying that the comic is only 3.5 compliant insofar as the plot demands. I was sort of assuming we were talking about "what if OotS was actually a campaign log, rather than a webcomic the Giant was writing?" when making arguments about it.

[Psyren]

No, it doesn't effect movement. If it effected movement, wind walk would say "as gaseous form, except subjects can travel at up to 600ft/round at their option". It doesn't say that, and in fact specifically enumerates text in gaseous form (10ft perfect fly speed), which means it does not inherit movement restrictions.

"You alter the substance of your body to a cloudlike vapor (as the gaseous form spell)" pretty clearly means the creature's physical form. Which is then "subject to the effects of wind." Again, just because the spell comes packaged with one does not mean all other winds cease to exist or are negated. You are inventing language that is not part of the spell.


That's true. It is, however, the only wind that matters. Specific trumps general and all that.

And where does it specifically say that that's the only wind that can affect the subject? Can you wind walk through a tornado?


The designers did want that, but they achieved it by creating abilities that countered other abilities, not empowering DMs to mess with players. Spells like forbiddance and nondetection exist to counter spells like teleport and scrying. Insisting that "possibly" means "only if the DM wants" is just an excuse to avoiding writing new plots when players get new abilities.

If they wanted only magic to counter teleport, they would not have included a "physical energy" clause.
If they only wanted magic to stymie scrying, they wouldn't have included the "clear idea" or "possibly using magic" clauses.
If they didn't want wind walk to inherit gaseous form's qualities, they wouldn't have mentioned that spell at all - there was no reason to.
And so on.


The zeppelin's pilot is a NPC, under the purview of the DM. Any of his actions are necessarily DM fiat. sending contacted him, but him going was 100% "the plot would not have advanced if the DM didn't fiat that it did".

So any spell that involves NPCs requires fiat? Congratulations, you've banned half of Conjuration, Divination, and huge swaths of Enchantment and Illusion to boot.


This is a strawman. teleport doesn't "solve the plot in one stroke". It solves low level plots in one stroke. Because it is a high level ability. If Gandalf could cast teleport, that would have handily resolved the plot of LotR quite quickly. On the other hand, if Sam could cast teleport, it would have had very little impact on the plot of Lord of Light.

Why is a bad guy having a volcano base a "low level plot?" It seems to me that maintaining such a structure safely would require pretty powerful magic. Why would the designers include such flaws in these spells if they wanted them to be as absolute as you seem to want? If you want teleport to ignore physical energy and work perfectly regardless of what scrying shows the caster, just houserule those lines out, it's not difficult.

[Slithery D]

Not sure why this one got created:
Extra Contingency
You can manage multiple contingency effects.
Prerequisite: Character level 19th.
Benefit: You can have two contingency effects active at one time. If they would both trigger on the same round, one (chosen randomly) does not trigger until 1 round later.
Normal: You can benefit from only a single contingency active at a time.

But this one is amazing, a non-magical Ill Omen/Misfortune!
Feign Curse
You can fool others into believing you have ensorcelled them.
Prerequisites: Deceitful, Bluff 5 ranks, Spellcraft 1 rank.
Benefit: As a standard action, you can feign placing a curse on a target. The target must attempt a Sense Motive or Spellcraft check (whichever skill that target has a higher bonus with) against a DC equal to 15 + your number of ranks in Bluff + your Charisma modifier, with a bonus on his skill check equal to any conditional bonus he has on saving throws against hexes or curses (like from the spell hex wardUM). If he fails, he becomes plagued by self-doubt and second-guesses himself. For his next two attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, or ability checks, he rolls twice and takes the lower result; for every 5 ranks of Bluff you possess beyond 5, this ability affects an additional roll. This is a mind-affecting affect, and it doesn’t work if the target is immune to curses. Once you attempt to feign putting a curse on a creature, you cannot do so again against the same creature for 24 hours, and if the target succeeds at detecting your ruse, he gains a +10 bonus against future attempts.

It's a shame it's the same static DC mechanic as Conceal Spell, though, you won't be able to boost your own roll (or add in feat/class rank bonuses) to optimize it.

[Sayt]

Not sure why this one got created:

Obviously, wizards are too vulnerable with only one contingency. Well, at least it isn't Craft Contingent Spell :/

But this one is amazing, a non-magical Ill Omen/Misfortune!

It's a shame it's the same static DC mechanic as Conceal Spell, though, you won't be able to boost your own roll (or add in feat/class rank bonuses) to optimize it.
That, is actually a pretty cool debuff. But I like it as a Static buff. If you could just go "Hurf durf, here is my custom item of +10 competance to bluff, skill focus and deceptive" that might be problematic. Besides, 10+bluff ranks+cha+ability focus should give you a decent DC.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

With only a 14 charisma it's a 17 DC at level 5. If you're maxing out bluff, you're getting 10+character level+charisma as a DC, which to me is amazing. Bit of an investment, but it's basically nonmagical Misfortune hex. Hell, a COMMONER could pick that up. Combo that with a Jinx halfling and you have a witch-lite. Good on a caster mesmerist that is picking up the feat to hide spells from Heroes of the Streets, since Deceitful is a prerequisite.

[Psyren]

With only a 14 charisma it's a 17 DC at level 5. If you're maxing out bluff, you're getting 10+character level+charisma as a DC, which to me is amazing. Bit of an investment, but it's basically nonmagical Misfortune hex. Hell, a COMMONER could pick that up. Combo that with a Jinx halfling and you have a witch-lite. Good on a caster mesmerist that is picking up the feat to hide spells from Heroes of the Streets, since Deceitful is a prerequisite.

Eh, it's not quite that amazing I'd say. Misfortune isn't mind-affecting while this is, so right out of the gate you've got a whole swath of creatures/creature types this won't work on. It's also opposed by a skill check, so many targets it can affect will be getting a bonus every bit as huge as that of your DC, and a nat 1 won't make them fail.

Also, I find it curious that this uses Bluff ranks but isn't technically a bluff check, so it ends up working on things that are normally immune to bluff like Animals. I personally find it odd that creatures operating wholly on instinct could end up being "filled with self-doubt and second-guessing themselves," and would hope that they'd errata this to not work on animal intelligence. An animal shouldn't even know what a curse is to be fooled in the first place.

[Cosi]

"You alter the substance of your body to a cloudlike vapor (as the gaseous form spell)" pretty clearly means the creature's physical form.

Yes.


Which is then "subject to the effects of wind."

No. wind walk does not inherit movement rules from gaseous form. You can tell, because it explicitly gives you the 10ft perfect fly speed gaseous form gives you, which it would not need to do if it inherited movement rules.


And where does it specifically say that that's the only wind that can affect the subject? Can you wind walk through a tornado?

Where explicitly does it say wind walk is stopped by tornadoes? Not gaseous form, wind walk. Or make an actual argument about inheritance if you want to cite text that is not repeated in wind walk.


If they wanted only magic to counter teleport, they would not have included a "physical energy" clause.

Sure. But just as the "magical energy" clause refers to specific things (forbiddance, anticipate teleportation), the "physical energy" clause is a mandate for things to exist that explicitly block teleport without being magic. Not for the DM to declare that things which are "high energy" are off limits.

Interesting that you didn't keep bringing up the "magical energy" clause when people started mentioning forbiddance. It's almost like you know you're wrong.


If they only wanted magic to stymie scrying, they wouldn't have included the "clear idea" or "possibly using magic" clauses.

Well, if those clauses were in fact different clauses that meant the things you want those clauses to mean, then you might have a point. But they are not and you do not.


If they didn't want wind walk to inherit gaseous form's qualities, they wouldn't have mentioned that spell at all - there was no reason to.

You don't understand how inheritance works. wind walk enumerates new rules for movement (see: the fly speed clause) and as such does not inherit the rules for movement in gaseous form. Any of the rules.


So any spell that involves NPCs requires fiat?

The ability in question didn't do anything to influence the NPC. "Hey, you should come here if you want" is not going to make anyone do anything.


Why is a bad guy having a volcano base a "low level plot?"

A bad guy not defending his base against high level abilities is a low level plot. Plots that are solved by high level abilities are low level plots. Scenery swaps don't make things higher level. At minimum, the bad guy should have some defenses (like anticipate teleportation), and should probably have a plan where teleport doesn't short-circuit everything (maybe he has a bunch of bases and you have to clear all of them).


Why would the designers include such flaws in these spells if they wanted them to be as absolute as you seem to want?

I don't know, because they didn't do that. Before you can ask "why", you have to establish "that". Which you have failed to do on every level.

[Psyren]

Yes.



No. wind walk does not inherit movement rules from gaseous form. You can tell, because it explicitly gives you the 10ft perfect fly speed gaseous form gives you, which it would not need to do if it inherited movement rules.

That's not a "movement rule." When you are checked by strong winds and cannot walk or fly forward, none of your movement rules have actually changed - you still have all the movement modes and speeds you did before - there is simply something external stopping you from moving. Your argument is like saying you should be able to walk through walls because you have a land speed on your character sheet. Walls never actually remove your land speed, right?


Where explicitly does it say wind walk is stopped by tornadoes? Not gaseous form, wind walk. Or make an actual argument about inheritance if you want to cite text that is not repeated in wind walk.
...
You don't understand how inheritance works. wind walk enumerates new rules for movement (see: the fly speed clause) and as such does not inherit the rules for movement in gaseous form. Any of the rules.

Except I did. The spell inherits from Gaseous Form - CRB pg. 369 / PHB pg. 302 - and specifically refers to your physical form. Just as your normal physical form can keep you from walking through solid objects or squeezing into openings the size of a pinhead, so too can a gaseous physical form be subject to the effects of wind.


Sure. But just as the "magical energy" clause refers to specific things (forbiddance, anticipate teleportation), the "physical energy" clause is a mandate for things to exist that explicitly block teleport without being magic. Not for the DM to declare that things which are "high energy" are off limits.

Interesting that you didn't keep bringing up the "magical energy" clause when people started mentioning forbiddance. It's almost like you know you're wrong.

Since you ask, Ultimate Intrigue presents a non-spell example of magical energy that interferes with teleportation too (a "ley line", on pages 155 and 159 - note that 155 explicitly states that this is magical energy.) I'm only focusing on physical because these are easy and plausible terrain features to incorporate into any story - for example, an evil spellcaster might be needed to find a ley line, but any bad guy (e.g. an orc warlord) with rudimentary geography skills can find a volcano or waterfall in their setting, if one exists.

The very existence of the "physical energy" clause proves you are wrong, because those cannot be specific counters by definition - the GM has to decide what those are, with the only real requirement being that they are plausible. You might desire that only specific counters work, but tabletop gaming does not work that way. These clauses are inclusive, not exclusive.



A bad guy not defending his base against high level abilities is a low level plot. Plots that are solved by high level abilities are low level plots. Scenery swaps don't make things higher level. At minimum, the bad guy should have some defenses (like anticipate teleportation), and should probably have a plan where teleport doesn't short-circuit everything (maybe he has a bunch of bases and you have to clear all of them).

You can keep trying to demarcate "low-level and high-level plots" but there is no such distinction made in the rules. The designers are specifically telling GMs that they can use mundane terrain features to counter effects like teleportation, and whether you personally agree with that approach or not is irrelevant.



I don't know, because they didn't do that. Before you can ask "why", you have to establish "that". Which you have failed to do on every level.

Simply declaring your opponent's failure because you have no argument doesn't make you correct. Fact 1: these clauses are included in the spells. Fact 2: The GM gets to decide what they mean or what constitutes examples of them. Fact 3: That ruling can go in the player's favor or against it. Fact 4: They will not be errata-ed out anytime soon, so you must houserule them yourself or deal with it.

Or you and Gareth or whomever else can angrily demand "errata" for text that's existed since before Pathfinder existed. I wouldn't hold my breath or anything, but that's just me.

[Cosi]

That's not a "movement rule."

Yes it is. It's in the paragraph describing speed. It says "you are subject to the effects of wind". If you have something that functions like gaseous form but does not have that clause, people under it are not subject to the effects of wind. Since that's in the paragraph that describes your speed (you can tell, because it starts by giving you a fly speed), a spell that replaces any part of your speed replaces that effect. As wind walk explicitly grants you the same fly speed gaseous form does, wind walk's effects are in no way influenced by those of gaseous form (as it pertains to movement).


Your argument is like saying you should be able to walk through walls because you have a land speed on your character sheet. Walls never actually remove your land speed, right?

No, because at no point in the inheritance chain that runs from "movement" to "your land speed" is there any text that indicates anything changes.


Since you ask, Ultimate Intrigue presents a non-spell example of magical energy that interferes with teleportation too (a "ley line", on pages 155 and 159 - note that 155 explicitly states that this is magical energy.)

And this proves your point how? Citing specific examples of things that count as "magical energy" is the literal and exact opposite of demonstrating that the DM is allowed to assert that PC abilities don't work because he was too lazy to write a real plot.


The very existence of the "physical energy" clause proves you are wrong, because those cannot be specific counters by definition

Yes they can. Watch closely:

Otataral: A type of metal found in draconic burial grounds, Otataral exists in multiple dimensions. An Otataral structures project a "shadow" into other planes (such as the Astral and the Ethereal) which prevents travel into the structure. For example, while a castle with Otataral walls could have normal rooms inside it, any attempt to use teleport or similar effects to travel to a point inside the castle fails. Use "False Destination" or closest equivalent to resolve the failure.

Look at that. It counters teleport (check), is specific (check), and isn't magic (check). If you want specifically a type of energy, Shadowrun has "background counts" which impede magic.


The designers are specifically telling GMs that they can use mundane terrain features to counter effects like teleportation, and whether you personally agree with that approach or not is irrelevant.


No, they aren't. What the spell actually says is that it is possible for there to exist physical effects which counter teleport. Not that DM's can arbitrarily declare that PC abilities don't work. I understand that you hate the idea of players influencing the game, but repeatedly asserting that the devs are as bad at game design as you are doesn't make it true.


Fact 1: these clauses are included in the spells.

True: You are quoting spell text.
False: The spell text you are quoting means the things you claim.


Fact 2: The GM gets to decide what they mean or what constitutes examples of them.

No, not any more than the DM gets to declare that "2d6" means "1d4" or "Long Range" means "30ft".


Fact 4: They will not be errata-ed out anytime soon, so you must houserule them yourself or deal with it.

Or I could play 3e, where the devs don't repeatedly insist that there are double secret rules only they can see.


Or you and Gareth or whomever else can angrily demand "errata" for text that's existed since before Pathfinder existed. I wouldn't hold my breath or anything, but that's just me.

I actually don't care what the PF devs do. I will never give them money for their game, so they can errata or not errata anything they want. I care that people are misrepresenting what spells say to support DM laziness, because that hurts a hobby I enjoy.

[Anlashok]

The main issue I think with the "clarifications" on teleportation are that it and several other similar rulings are pushing the game dangerously into "just make your PCs' abilities not work whenever it's inconvenient" territory, which is the realm of shoddy GMing and the mess that is fifth edition.

[Psyren]

Or I could play 3e, where the devs don't repeatedly insist that there are double secret rules only they can see.

They did exactly that - you simply plugged your fingers in your ears, shouted "FAQ/CustServ/Rules of the Game/Sage Advice/etc isn't RAW!" and proceeded to do things however you wanted, reason be damned. But because you can't do that in PF, you resort to sour grapes about the entire system instead. For someone who hates PF as much as you repeatedly claim to, you spend an awful lot of time in PF threads.


The main issue I think with the "clarifications" on teleportation are that it and several other similar rulings are pushing the game dangerously into "just make your PCs' abilities not work whenever it's inconvenient" territory, which is the realm of shoddy GMing and the mess that is fifth edition.

If your GM was ignoring that clause in 3.5, chances are they aren't going to pick it up now and you're safe. If they were like me and noticed it even back then, UI changes nothing.

[Cosi]

They did exactly that - you simply plugged your fingers in your ears, shouted "FAQ/CustServ/Rules of the Game/Sage Advice/etc isn't RAW!" and proceeded to do things however you wanted, reason be damned.

In slightly more accurate language: The rules said that what the devs shouted on the internet had no meaning, and you followed the rules. This is bad because the point of rules is to twist them to cripple PC's ability to do anything.

But you are also missing an important point. The rules from those sources mostly aren't mandates for the DM to pimp-slap uppity players. The worst responses are things like the answer to a question about awaken that points to Savage Species. Those things are bad because they point to stupid rules, but they do point to actual rules. They're actually pretty good about that sort of thing, with page references and everything.

The closest it comes is stating that freedom of movement doesn't work with stunning. Which, while it is a change, is not nearly on the same order as "teleport retroactively only works if the DM lets it". I assume something about polymorph changed, but no one ever knew what that spell did, so I don't care.


For someone who hates PF as much as you repeatedly claim to, you spend an awful lot of time in PF threads.

Well, yeah. Because PF is a bad system, and the people who like it believe things which are bad for the hobby. So I argue with them (because they are wrong) and not with people who like 3e (because they are right). It's the same reason vegetarians don't spend a lot of time convincing other vegetarians not to eat meat.

{Scrubbed}

[Psyren]

I have made some corrections, which more accurately reflect the relevant rules.

And now you've resorted to quote-fixing, which is actually against the forum rules.

Rather than continue to engage your obvious provocation, I think I'll do what I should have done weeks ago and just block you and move on. Cool? Cool.

[Cosi]

Oh, I'm on ignore. So now Psyren will loudly refuse to respond to my points, but nevertheless change his points when I make arguments against them. Fun times.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I'm with Psyren on this one. If you don't like Pathfinder and you don't like Paizo, why are you here?

Looking at a few subsystems. Rivals look like mostly filler, but verbal duels look very fun; can't wait to try them out. They might work the best as a team, though. Also, I really appreciate that they gathered together all the variant leadership feats into one place. Pity most won't use them...

[Psyren]

I'm with Psyren on this one. If you don't like Pathfinder and you don't like Paizo, why are you here?
{Scrubbed}


Looking at a few subsystems. Rivals look like mostly filler, but verbal duels look very fun; can't wait to try them out. They might work the best as a team, though. Also, I really appreciate that they gathered together all the variant leadership feats into one place. Pity most won't use them...

Verbal Duels made me think of this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6xCtNZMAnU) Beyond that, no opinion, I doubt we'll use it.

The Heist rules are probably the most interesting subsystem to me - we'll definitely have a session or two built around something like that.

[Cosi]

I'm with Psyren on this one. If you don't like Pathfinder and you don't like Paizo, why are you here?{Scrubbed}

[TiaC]

{Scrubbed}

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: If there is any substantive discussion to be had here, please feel free, but the personal attacks need to stop.

[squiggit]

Playing a Cardinal in a campaign and the extra skill points feel really nice, but I feel the loss of a whole domain is excessive, both from a balance perspective and insofar as that Cleric is one of the emptiest classes in Pathfinder and I don't think making it even emptier helps.


We have another player running a Sorrowsoul and while he kind of struggles to keep the buffs up with how expensive they are and not getting lingering performance, it's an interesting archetype.

Still feel like it's misnamed though. Sorrowsoul sounds like a debuffer, not a selfish warrior, but eh.

[Slithery D]

Sorrowsoul makes me think of the Crow, self involved emo warrior is fine.

[squiggit]

I suppose that's a good comparison actually. Just when I first read the title what popped into my mind was bardic performances that debuff.

[Psyren]

Playing a Cardinal in a campaign and the extra skill points feel really nice, but I feel the loss of a whole domain is excessive, both from a balance perspective and insofar as that Cleric is one of the emptiest classes in Pathfinder and I don't think making it even emptier helps.

I found Cardinal interesting - basically they brought back the Cloistered Cleric, but made it more of a savvy politician than a sequestered acolyte prodigy. Less Cadderly and more Frollo.

My major issue with it is that I have no idea how you would justify entering this thing without retraining. The fluff is that you're an experienced cleric who has eschewed the adventuring life for politics and intrigue, and been elevated from the ranks of the clergy. It doesn't really fit a cleric who starts at 1st level. This is one of the rare instances where I'd say they should have gone with a PrC rather than an archetype.

Having said that, I'd still like to play one. A cleric who actually has the skill points to be a charismatic face is a big deal.

[squiggit]

It's a good archetype, and a cleric with reduced offensive capabilities and more skills is a great idea. The fluff is a bit odd for first level, but you can always fluff it as a religious scholar type character. It works!

If it kept that second domain (or at least the domain powers) and lost something else it'd be my favorite archetype in the book. As is it's fun, but I'm not sure what it loses and what it gets compares very well to say, Herald Caller or Roaming Exorcist.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I don't think its hard. Just a normal cleric that focused on other things rather than theological advancement.

[Psyren]

It's a good archetype, and a cleric with reduced offensive capabilities and more skills is a great idea. The fluff is a bit odd for first level, but you can always fluff it as a religious scholar type character. It works!

If it kept that second domain (or at least the domain powers) and lost something else it'd be my favorite archetype in the book. As is it's fun, but I'm not sure what it loses and what it gets compares very well to say, Herald Caller or Roaming Exorcist.

I think it's better off than the Roaming Exorcist, which is aimed at a highly specific type of campaign (occult w/ haunts.) The Cardinal is aimed at a intrigue campaign, but a cleric face is at least a role that can be of use even in moderate to lesser social campaigns too.

Herald Caller is going to be superior in combat-oriented campaigns, because summoning is just good to have there. The most all-around useful "give-up-one-domain" archetype though is still probably going to be Theologian, which can prepare domain spells in regular slots and get free metamagic on domain spells. For a haunt campaign you can grab a Theologian with an anti-undead domain like Sun or Repose; for an intrigue campaign you can focus on a domain that contains illusions or enchantments and grab metamagic like Silent/Still, and for combat heavy you can go with a more offensive domain. So Theologian is likely to remain the overall winner.

[Togath]

Trying to decide on a character...
15pb, probably a changeling, ghoran, or catfolk as the race.
Magical child(vigilante),, avenger vigilante, and stalker vigilante all look decent, but I'm unsure of the pros/cons of the latter two(I'd prefer to use a greatsword or claws[catfolk/changeling]).
I'd also wondered how viable phantom thief rogue and urushiol druid were.

[Serafina]

Well, I already posted a good build for the Magical Child here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20639717&postcount=2).
The build would work just fine with a Greatsword, although it'd be not-as-good on account of the lower crit-range. A Falchion would work though, and all of the races you mentioned would work with the build.
The build could use natural weapons, but honestly you'd suffer quite a bit from the low crit-range. However, you can use a high-crit range weapon in one hand, and attack with the claw in the other for, effectively, free two-weapon fighting. Plus, if you take combat feats for it it could improve your familiar as well

The main draw of the Stalker Vigilante is the ability to take Hide in Plain Sight at 8th level, the ability to take Evasion and of course their bonus damage. You can trigger it off the same things as a Rogue for 1D4 damage/2 levels, which is almost as good as a Rogue (it's on average 1 damage less per dice). You'll get 1D8/2 levels out of it if you start the combat in stealth/invisible, and with some other tricks.
As usual, the main trick with such bonus damage is to get as many attacks as possible. Two attacks from natural weapons will be better of just as good for most of your career - only at level 15 would you get a third attack from manufactured weapons, after all. However, you can't use two-weapon fighting this way, which would be a loss of attacks. And neither Catfolk nor Changelings have an easy way to get additional natural attacks.
For the same reason (no two-weapon fighting) the greatsword would also be at a disadvantage, or rather not fully optimized.

The main draw of the Avenger Vigilante is the full attack bonus (meaning better to hit, more attacks but most importantly earlier access to combat feats), the ability to just outright take combat feats in place of avenger talents, very high survivability and eventually (level 12) getting pounce.
The Avenger would work fine with either the Greatsword or the Claws, though between the two the greatsword would win out.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The nonmagical and alchemical gear in the book, while some of it tends toward the expensive, are pretty good. A few items that grant large bonuses on Sleight of Hand to conceal them, like the switchblade and compact thieves tools.

The alchemical gear introduces some new concepts; alchemical burn (user can accept burn, like a kineticist, during the item's duration to achieve an affect) and alchemical inspiration, which is what it sounds like. Investigators also get an extra bonus, I believe, when using those items. All are expensive, the burn items especially, but some are quite handy. Accuracy lozenge allows one to uses their full BAB on their second iterative attack (only their second), rake's friend allows the user to regain a grit/panache (my opinion the best of the set, since gunslingers/swashbucklers want at least 1 point at all times), and one for bards and skalds, where 1 burn equals 4 rounds of performance, which is also pretty good. There's also one to increase sneak attack or hidden strike by one die, but only if you have the ability already. Other alchemical gear includes what's basically a thermite cord and some stuff for augmenting disguises, to counter penalties accrued for disguising as a different age or race.

[Starbuck_II]

Brute seems to multi really well into Wild Raqer, 2 levels is useful for extra attk.

Still need a Will save, but you can build for that.

[Sayt]

One thing I've noticed that I don't think has been brought up, is the new Ranger combat styles. I don't see them being used by the Ranger itself, so much as the Slayer. The intimidate based style lets them grab Shatter defenses without needing Weapon Focus or Dazzling Display, making the Shatter Defenses+Hurtful+Cornugon Smash a a little less tight to build.

Underhanded Combat Style gives the option of Combat Expertise+counting as int 13, which I think is a nice touch, and lets you do some dirty trick stuff, and deceptive gives a much of feinting feats.

[Hunter Noventa]

Finally got my hands on the book this weekend, but I only really looked over the Vigilante and some of its archetypes. It looks like a fun and solid class, it's almost a real shame there isn't an archetype that modifies the social side of it to make the whole thing more useful in a more traditional hack and slash campaign, because the Vigilante has a lot of great combat options.

[Serafina]

Turning the social side into combat aspects would be pretty bad though.
Because even if you take it away entirely - the different identity and all the social talents - the vigilante still gets a talent (which are feat+ equivalent) every two levels and some decent class features.

And if you want to play a Vigilante in a non-social campaign? That's actually doable, and you can just ignore the social side for the most part. Just use it for downtime/shopping:
- you can't be tracked via divinations, and your alignment can be different. Even if it's just while you're in town, that's very useful.
- Celebrity discount allows you to buy things that cost <500/2000/8000 gp for a 10% discount. That's great for consumables such as potions, scrolls or alchemical items.
- Double Time in combination with Social Grace can outright double your downtime gold-earning, if that's a thing you do.
- In Vogue doubles your profits again
- Social Grace can give you +4 to several skills, just use it for downtime stuff

And if you want to enhance your performance in your Vigilante-identity?
- Mockingbird functions regardless of your current guise. And it's a combination of one 0th-level and two 1st-level spells that you can use at will.
- Renown (and Great/Incredible Renown) provide a +4/6/8 bonus to Intimidate. Granted, it's limited by location so it's no good if you travel all the time, but that's still quite good.

Actually, I'd have liked it if "social talents" provided more "cantrip"-like options like Mockingbird does. Limiting it purely to non-combat spells would have been nice, but getting, say, a combination of Alarm/Hold Portal, a Comprehend Languages/Tongue effect, Disguise Other or Obscure Object would have been nice as social talents.

[Hunter Noventa]

Turning the social side into combat aspects would be pretty bad though.
Because even if you take it away entirely - the different identity and all the social talents - the vigilante still gets a talent (which are feat+ equivalent) every two levels and some decent class features.

And if you want to play a Vigilante in a non-social campaign? That's actually doable, and you can just ignore the social side for the most part. Just use it for downtime/shopping:
- you can't be tracked via divinations, and your alignment can be different. Even if it's just while you're in town, that's very useful.
- Celebrity discount allows you to buy things that cost <500/2000/8000 gp for a 10% discount. That's great for consumables such as potions, scrolls or alchemical items.
- Double Time in combination with Social Grace can outright double your downtime gold-earning, if that's a thing you do.
- In Vogue doubles your profits again
- Social Grace can give you +4 to several skills, just use it for downtime stuff

And if you want to enhance your performance in your Vigilante-identity?
- Mockingbird functions regardless of your current guise. And it's a combination of one 0th-level and two 1st-level spells that you can use at will.
- Renown (and Great/Incredible Renown) provide a +4/6/8 bonus to Intimidate. Granted, it's limited by location so it's no good if you travel all the time, but that's still quite good.

Actually, I'd have liked it if "social talents" provided more "cantrip"-like options like Mockingbird does. Limiting it purely to non-combat spells would have been nice, but getting, say, a combination of Alarm/Hold Portal, a Comprehend Languages/Tongue effect, Disguise Other or Obscure Object would have been nice as social talents.

I guess it is true that a number of the social talents are useful even without an intrigue-focused campaign. Granted, my group just started a new campaign so it'll be a while before I'm making a new character anyway.

I have to wonder what the best way to reconcile your separate identities with party members is though.

[Serafina]

You don't have to?
The ability says "must be done out of sight from other creatures to preserve the vigilantes secret". This just means that if somebody sees you change, they know that you are both identities.
There is no penalty if somebody finds out.

The only drawback is
- they know your secret identity. This can lead to all sorts of roleplaying-issues, but no rules penalties are in place.
- they can use divination regardless of your current identity if you know that you are both identities.

That's not something you have to worry about from your allies (well, depends on your campaign), so just tell them about this. "Hey, when we get back into town - I'm really good at pretending I'm a rich socialite. Which will help us, so just let me do my thing, okay?" or somesuch.

[Florian]

So far, I can´t really make heads or tails of UI, especially the new class and most of the subsystems.
Part of this might be based on me not being familiar with the genres that they try to emulate here. I´m not really familiar with comics of any kind, so the whole vigilante-schtick simply stays a closed topic for me.

[Milo v3]

So far, I can´t really make heads or tails of UI, especially the new class and most of the subsystems.
Part of this might be based on me not being familiar with the genres that they try to emulate here. I´m not really familiar with comics of any kind, so the whole vigilante-schtick simply stays a closed topic for me.

It's not really based on comics outside of the non-zealot vigilante archetypes. Everything else (including the Vigilante itself) isn't based on comics.

[Florian]

It's not really based on comics outside of the non-zealot vigilante archetypes. Everything else (including the Vigilante itself) isn't based on comics.

What, Magical Girl and stuff?

[Milo v3]

What, Magical Girl and stuff?
Magic Child (so Magical Girl) is from manga so I counted that as being of comic inspiration. Though, I did forget the gun and mount based archetypes. Those aren't based on comics either.

[Triskavanski]

Heres' my thoughts, (beyond my previous thread)


1) Archetypes -

Metamorph Alchemist - This guy sucks pretty hard IMO. You don't have access to bombs. So bomb Discoveries are out. You don't have access to Extracts. So those ones are out. You don't have access really to poisons. So those are pretty much out. What you do have access to is body based discoveries and mutagen discoveries.

But LoL. IF you use one big class feature, The polymorph one, You lose any Ex or SU class features that depend on your body's form. Apparently this also means if you drank a feral mutagen and then transformed. But if you transform and then drink it, you keep the claws and teeth. Oh and the other class feature is lost too whenever you transform. :/

But hey, You can still brew potions.


Magical Child

Honesty, I'm not too impressed with this one. The whole transformation sequence is pretty ho-hum to me. Cause mostly it just serves to get you caught more than anything, and you kinda end up being mostly a summoner with a really weak pet. It might be because personally I was hoping for a character who would get more powerful themselves when they transform.




Weapons

The wrist shooters are kinda disappointing to me too. They're heavier, more expensive and a bit weaker than some options we've seen in the past.. like Arrow Tube Shooter

[Triskavanski]

Magic Child (so Magical Girl) is from manga so I counted that as being of comic inspiration. Though, I did forget the gun and mount based archetypes. Those aren't based on comics either.

I'd say He-Man is closer to Magical Child. Because most Magical Girl don't really have a pet that transforms. And he-man has cringer/battlecat

Though there is one Magical Girl I think can fit. Card Captor Sakura, as she has that little animal with her.


Gun Vigilante
While not very common, there are a few gunbased vigilantes. The Shadow for example, he knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men and he's going to shoot it out.

[Hunter Noventa]

Though there is one Magical Girl I think can fit. Card Captor Sakura, as she has that little animal with her.


Yeah, I was hoping for something more Nanoha than Card Captor Sakura. I mean, sure Improved Familiar is nice, but having it in place of any combat ability is not a path you want to go down.

If they'd added some kind of Eidolon features on top of that perhaps, when you transform your pet gets X evolution points worth of stuff, it might be more interesting.

That said, I really like the Warlock archetype, and would probably play one if I hadn't recently played a Magus AND wasn't currently playing an updated version of the 3.5 Warlock.

Though I'm sure I could come up with an archetype that takes features of both of those to create a more Nanoha-like Archetype...

[Slithery D]

Some developer comments on the Paizo forums made me realize what's wrong with the social feats in this book. They've basically created variations of a "Gaydar" feat. Sure, you might be able to figure it out (for various values of "it" in the feats in this book) eventually with normal Sense Motive as clues drop, but the feats represent a particularly special social sense that lets you do it faster and more easily. Which is an ok concept in a game where you get three feats per level to spend on situational or trivial flavor stuff like this, but not in Pathfinder.

[Triskavanski]

Yeah, I was hoping for something more Nanoha than Card Captor Sakura. I mean, sure Improved Familiar is nice, but having it in place of any combat ability is not a path you want to go down.

If they'd added some kind of Eidolon features on top of that perhaps, when you transform your pet gets X evolution points worth of stuff, it might be more interesting.

That said, I really like the Warlock archetype, and would probably play one if I hadn't recently played a Magus AND wasn't currently playing an updated version of the 3.5 Warlock.

Though I'm sure I could come up with an archetype that takes features of both of those to create a more Nanoha-like Archetype...

In one game I played a magical girl by using Summoner and archetype that could put the eidolon on you.

But yeah, if you had the ability to get a handful of evolution points when you transformed it would be okay.

[Togath]

Mauler archetype familiars do help a little with magical child.
While they're nothing saying for 100% certain that it works, their familiar is worded in such a way that by RAW at least their familiar can go from cute floating thing to a big warrior mode(which may or may not be intentional. I'm of the "it's intended" camp though, especially given that a lot of people make a connection with Cardcaptor Sakura).
It's not as good(probably?) as evolutions, but a massive str boost is still something.

[Psyren]

Yeah, the wording is weird. As written, it becomes a creature on the Improved Familiar list without actually being an Improved Familiar, thus you don't lose "speak with animals of its kind" and can make it a Mauler. All of this is a pretty roundabout way to make something that's still probably going to get beaten up by an eidolon, animal companion or even a phantom, but it's something.

[Serafina]

Dunno, if you do this right a Improved Mauler Familiar can be pretty nasty.

Just the Strength-bonus going from Tiny to Medium is huge: +8.
Then you add another +2 from Battle Form.
Put that on a familiar with strength 8, and you get Strength 18 right away. That's two more than a Biped Eidolon
Then you add another +1 every two levels after 1st.
At 9th-level, an Eidolon adds +3 to it's Strength - at that point, a Mauler has +4. At 15th level, it's +6 vs. +7, and at 20th level it's +8 vs. +9.

The Familiar will have medium BAB - just as good as the Eidolon (which has full BAB, but it's HD scale differently).
The Familiar will have two +12 and one +6 save. The Eidolon will have two +9 and one +6 save. That's not counting ability scores, which mostly will benefit the familiar (since it uses yours for the saves).

Now, the big benefits of the Eidolon are Skills, Feats and the Evolution Pool.
Familiars share skills, which can be pretty nice at least.
Feats - well, a two-level dip into Eldritch Guardian effectively gives the Familiar a bunch of feats as well, though it will be much less flexible that way.
And the Evolution Pool - yes, that'll make the Eidolon more powerful, no questions asked.

But still, a well-chosen Improved Mauler can wield weapons and make a very good flanking buddy, especially if you build for paired opportunist with the right weapons.


Alternatively, you can do this:
Go Guardian-Archetype and optimize Aid Another.
It fits the magical girl theme - and if you do it right, you can use Bodyguard and Swift Aid to provide ~+9 to AC and attack rolls. For both yourself and another ally. That's pretty effective too.


Plus, Small Aether Elementals are awesome. Permanent Invisibility and full BAB for ranged combat maneuvers, anyone?

[Psyren]

Dunno, if you do this right a Improved Mauler Familiar can be pretty nasty.

Just the Strength-bonus going from Tiny to Medium is huge: +8.
Then you add another +2 from Battle Form.

This is incorrect - Tiny to Medium is only +4. (See the Ability Adjustments From Size Changes (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#Table-Ability-Adjustments-from-Size-Changes) table.) Then you add the +2 from Battle Form for +6. So a Str 8 familiar actually only goes to 14. Note that if you're using an Improved Familiar (i.e. Vigilante form) then you're likely starting at Small anyway and get nothing from going to Medium, just the +2 from Battle Form, so it's nearly a wash. Now, most Improved Familiars do have strength in the 8-12 range before stat increases and buffs, but the Biped Eidolon starts with 16 Strength before increases and buffs.

You also forgot that Eidolons, unlike familiars, actually gain HD. Therefore, on top of the bonus Str/Dex increases they get from their eidolon progression, they're also getting stat increases from leveling too, just like animal companions and cohorts do. As Eidolons are brutes, Str is the most likely candidate for these, meaning an Eidolon gets a total of +11 strength just from leveling - already ahead of the +9 the mauler gets. On top of all that, Eidolons have size increase evolutions (up to Huge) to get even stronger, for a total of +19 Str before buffs and items. The two aren't even close. Even an Unchained Eidolon can stomp a Magical Child familiar into paste.

[Togath]

Actually, it seems that the amount gained per size seems to vary depending on the table.
The most common I've seen would give a tiny familiar(foxes shave 9 str and are tiny, for example) +10 str just from the battle-mode alone.

[Psyren]

Actually, it seems that the amount gained per size seems to vary depending on the table.
The most common I've seen would give a tiny familiar(foxes shave 9 str and are tiny, for example) +10 str just from the battle-mode alone.

A fox would get +4 (Tiny -> Medium) +2 (Battle Mode) for 15 Str base, then +9 from levels for 24 total.
A biped eidolon would start at 16, 11 from levels for 27, then if you wanted you could add Huge size for 35 total.

But more importantly, the fox's strength doesn't matter in this scenario, because the Magical Child's familiar starts from an Improved Familiar form first. Most of those are Small and so get nothing from going to Medium. You actually might lose strength in this case.

Foxes are not the norm either. Most tiny familiars are much lower - Bat 1, Cat 3, Lizard 3, Monkey 3, Rat 2, Owl 6, Raven 2, Toad 1, Viper 4, Weasel 3 etc.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

According to table 2-2 in the Bestiary appendices, a tiny familiar going up two sizes would gain +8 strength, +4 constitution, and -4 dexterity. Have been considering a peacock as a mauler, which is one of the Small familiars; it's not quite as ridiculous as it sounds, but the audacity is definitely a reason behind it.

[Ethereal Gears]

I think a developer has clarified that maulers don't use that table, but instead use the polymorph table from the magic section of the CRB?

[Serafina]

Psyren, you are quite incorrect.

First, the table you linked only shows the change from tiny to small. That is +4, yes. Going from small to medium (which the maulers battle form does) adds another +4. See the Size Change table here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-advancement).

Second, most improved familiars are actually tiny too. Plus, you can just take a Celestial version of a normal familiar, if you'd like to keep it. Last but not least, the Magical Childs familiar (at 9th level) can always change into it's first avenger form - which is actually that of a normal familiar.

Now yes, I forgot about the Eidolons variable ability score bonus, which ends up as another +3 to Strength. But then again, I wasn't trying to argue that the familiar would be as strong as an Eidolon - just that it does a rather respectable job, if you do it right


Just consider the Imp.
Which, funnily enough, a Magical Child could actually have as a familiar while being Neutral Good (if her avenger idenity is just true neutral, at least).
It ends up with a Strength of 20 plus level bonuses, which would be 29 plus magic at level 19.
It would end up with a DR/magic of up to 20, and has a DR/good or silver of 5.
It has half the characters hit points (so D8, maximized with some retraining, plus constitution-bonuses) and hast fast healing 2.
It comes with two feats that can be retrained, and can easily gain ten or more feats if they are shared via a eldritch guardian dip.
It would have base saving throw modifiers of +6/12/12 and add whatever ability scores it has (just unmodified, that'd be +4/-1/+1).
It would have Improved Evasion.
It has a perfect fly-speed of 50 feet.
It can cast Invisibility at-will.
It can wield weapons and has one natural weapon. With the Evolved Familiar feat, it'd be easy to add two wing attacks too.

That is pretty good. It does get beaten by a well-done Eidolon, yes. But give it a high-crit range weapon, build for paired opportunist - and it's quite a good flanking partner.
And it's invisibility will be very useful for triggering Staggering/Frightening/Stunning Appearance.


Actually, that's probably one of the major class features of the Magical Child that gets overlooked a lot.
With the familiar, it's easy to trigger Staggering/Frightening/Stunning Appearance twice per combat. If you build for that, it can be quite strong.

[Psyren]

I think a developer has clarified that maulers don't use that table, but instead use the polymorph table from the magic section of the CRB?

That's correct. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rwp5?Familiar-Folio-fun-What-else-can-you-do-with#33) It functions like a polymorph effect, not like adding HD to create a custom monster.


Psyren, you are quite incorrect.

Nope, see above.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

But there isn't even a section on that table for small OR tiny creature going to medium size. That table would only used when calculating what your familiar's ability scores would be if you cast, say, Form of the Dragon III on it, so your Huge-size lizard-turned-dragon doesn't have a 13 strength. Dammit Paizo, your advice doesn't even work!

[Psyren]

But there isn't even a section on that table for small OR tiny creature going to medium size. That table is only used when calculating what your familiar's ability scores would be if you cast, say, Form of the Dragon III on it, so your Huge-size lizard-turned-dragon doesn't have a 13 strength.

That's because you get nothing from going Small to Medium. He even specifically states this is intended. If the spell itself gives you no stat boost, you get none, because Small and Medium are the standard humanoid sizes. Any increase you get would have to specifically come from the spell itself (e.g. Alter Self) and not from the polymorph descriptor underlying it. He even goes on to say that the Bestiary chart is not meant for state changes (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2saj9?Mauler-Familiar-Strength#40), but for advancing/homebrewing monsters from whole cloth.


But there isn't even a section on that table for small OR tiny creature going to medium size. That table would only used when calculating what your familiar's ability scores would be if you cast, say, Form of the Dragon III on it, so your Huge-size lizard-turned-dragon doesn't have a 13 strength. Dammit Paizo, your advice doesn't even work!

If you cast Form of the Dragon on a lizard (or more accurately, shared that buff with it) it would first go to Small size (+4 Str) and then go to Huge (+10 from the spell) for a total of 17 Str. This would be like a 7 Str Halfling Sorcerer casting the spell.

[Serafina]

Yeah, just found that statement myself.
Though of course, it's not written as a polymorph-effect, and not part of any actual errata.


But eh, I liked my Protector-Familiar (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/familiar/familiar-archetypes/protector-familiar-archetype) build better anyway.
Bodyguard feat to add to a friendlies AC via aid another.
Swift Aid feat to add to a friendlies attack via aid another.
Harrying Partners to make the boost last an entire turn.
You start at +2 AC/+1 attack. You take the Fools for Friends trait yourself, so you boost it to +3/+2. Your familiar uses a Ring of Tatical Precision, it's +4/+3. Your familiar has helpful armor and an amulet/gauntlet, it's up to +9/+8. If your familar can retrain feats, it takes extra traits and helpful, now it's +10/+9.

+10 to AC is actually pretty damn good, especially if you consider that it can be given to multiple allies in the right situation.
+9 to attack is ALSO really good and basically ensures your iteratives will be a significant threat even if you use power attack.


In addition, it can take the Sage-Archetype, so now it's really smart as well and can give you great advice. Very Magical Child-fitting, I think.

Of course, all that still hinges on the familiar being able to take the archetype. Which...yeah, really not trusting this not to be done away via errata/developer statement.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

That's because you get nothing from going Small to Medium. He even specifically states this is intended. If the spell itself gives you no stat boost, you get none, because Small and Medium are the standard humanoid sizes. Any increase you get would have to specifically come from the spell itself (e.g. Alter Self) and not from the polymorph descriptor underlying it. He even goes on to say that the Bestiary chart is not meant for state changes (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2saj9?Mauler-Familiar-Strength#40), but for advancing/homebrewing monsters from whole cloth.

Well that's a load of bull I will not be using. I refuse to accept a tiny-size chicken advanced to medium size could out-muscle a small-sized bird advanced to medium size.

[Psyren]

Well that's a load of bull I will not be using. I refuse to accept a tiny-size chicken advanced to medium size could out-muscle a small-sized bird advanced to medium size.

Presumably, the small-sized bird should already be outmuscling the tiny one. If they're not, the designers of those birds dropped the ball somewhere. The rule itself though is fine.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I mean, okay. Take... a pacock, for example, the one I've had my eye on. At level 3, would have 10 strength with the mauler archetype in battle form, according to the unofficial errata. A chicken would have 10. Okay, I might have miscalculated, but come on.

[Psyren]

I mean, okay. Take... a pacock, for example, the one I've had my eye on. At level 3, would have 10 strength with the mauler archetype in battle form, according to the unofficial errata. A chicken would have 10. Okay, I might have miscalculated, but come on.

Exactly - a chicken that's the size of a peacock is as strong as a peacock. What's wrong with that? :smallconfused:

Chicken = Tiny (3) -> Small (+4) = 7
Peacock = Small = 7

Whether you say Small -> Medium is another boost (Bestiary) or not (CRB/Mark), they'd still be equal. (Both 11 or both 7, respectively.)

[Ninjaxenomorph]

No, the peacock mauler would have a 14 strength at level 3 using the Bestiary rules. +6 str, +2 con, -2 dex from the size and mauler bonus, on top of the normal 8 from being a mauler.

[Psyren]

No, the peacock mauler would have a 14 strength at level 3 using the Bestiary rules. +6 str, +2 con, -2 dex from the size and mauler bonus, on top of the normal 8 from being a mauler.

Right, and so would the chicken - 3 base, +4 (tiny to small), +4 (bestiary - small to medium), +2 (mauler battleform) +1 (increased strength level 3) = 14 Str, exactly the same as the peacock.

[Ethereal Gears]

I wish there was something like an "official" way to handle size increases/decreases that applied universally. Like, if for whatever reason you alter a creature's size, here's what happens, unless otherwise specified by the spell/effect, et cetera. I suppose the giant/young templates are the closest thing out there.

[khadgar567]

Am i the only one thinks magical child can get bat as small familiar than ( inseart shenanigan) end up using succubus as combat familiar

[Milo v3]

Am i the only one thinks magical child can get bat as small familiar than ( inseart shenanigan) end up using succubus as combat familiar

You probably are the only one.... Since succubus is not an improved familiar.

[Triskavanski]

One I want to know about is the Metamorph alchemist.

One, I'm not sure they understand what is written to be 'Alchemy' for the class feature. They did clarify that they're including Mutagen, and Bombs (two separate class features). And then they gave back mutagen. Then take away swift poisoning and swift/instant alchemy

But for whatever reason.. You can still brew potions

[CockroachTeaParty]

The Vigilante class is now on the PFSRD. I haven't read everything yet, but I'm actually kind of digging it.

[Togath]

It also seems like a good piece of a heavy armor build~
Shadow's speed works regardless of armor(so a human with it could have a 30ft move speed in full plate~).
I've used it in a sort of experimental/just-for-fun build that combines it with Titan Fighter for a "warrior wearing super heavy armor and swinging a massive blade" character(using vital strike, cleave/great cleave, and lunge to help with the theme).:smallbiggrin:
Still sort of torn about how to get vital strike and cleave/great cleave. Fighter 1, Vigilante 3, Ranger(two-handed style) 6 can get Great cleave(ignoring the cleave prerequisite) and vital strike by level 9(and Lunge too, possibly, depending on how the GM rules retraining feats to work), while going until Vigilante 6 lets you grab vital strike through a talent, and use it on AoOs.

[Triskavanski]

Corsair gives you it at level 6 fighter as well. You ignore the pre-req and you don't take the hit to AC

[Molosse]

It's probably immensely niche but beyond the archetype additions for Rogues, Consilierge being a stand out for me, Intimidation based Rogues got a bit of a leg up through the Shadows of Fear feat and the Stalker Talent: Twisting Fear. Enforcer/Bludgeoner your enemy across the back of the head to cause fear, Twisting Fear triggers and does SA damage on the attack and then next round take advantage of Shadows of Fear to count as flanking versus an enemy suffering a fear effect. Rotate to your hearts content and enjoy consistent applications of bonus damage, SA talents, Intimidation and Debilitating Injury.

[Slithery D]

It's probably immensely niche but beyond the archetype additions for Rogues, Consilierge being a stand out for me, Intimidation based Rogues got a bit of a leg up through the Shadows of Fear feat and the Stalker Talent: Twisting Fear. Enforcer/Bludgeoner your enemy across the back of the head to cause fear, Twisting Fear triggers and does SA damage on the attack and then next round take advantage of Shadows of Fear to count as flanking versus an enemy suffering a fear effect. Rotate to your hearts content and enjoy consistent applications of bonus damage, SA talents, Intimidation and Debilitating Injury.

That's actually a very good catch and great combo when fighting enemies vulnerable to fear.

[Psyren]

One I want to know about is the Metamorph alchemist.

One, I'm not sure they understand what is written to be 'Alchemy' for the class feature. They did clarify that they're including Mutagen, and Bombs (two separate class features). And then they gave back mutagen. Then take away swift poisoning and swift/instant alchemy

But for whatever reason.. You can still brew potions

It seems pretty straightforward to me. And it's not a bad archetype actually. The loss of extracts and bombs hurts of course, but all-day shapeshifting gives you a pretty decent toolbox to make up for it, and the Monstrous Physique line gives you both a lot of combat power (pounce and overwhelming) and out-of-combat utility. Even in a low-combat/intrigue-heavy campaign for instance, you can change your appearance without illusions, gain fly/climb/swim/burrow speeds for infiltration, secrete poison and gain useful abilities like scent, sound mimicry, freeze, and natural cunning (who needs a map?) And Mimicry, holy crap - it's Deceive Item on steroids, and by the way you're also proficient in every exotic weapon and armor ever. Did I also mention that none of this is dispellable?

On top of that you keep all your discoveries, many of which are very useful in an intrigue campaign, e.g. Chameleon, Collective Memory, Dilution, and (Inspiring) Cognatogen. Imagine using Doppleganger Simulacrum to let you attend two rival parties simultaneously, or give yourself the perfect alibi while commiting a crime. ("Officer, 45 eyewitnesses can corroborate that I spent all evening at the duchess' relaxation class.") Without bombs, you free up a lot of discoveries that would normally be spent on them.

[Ethereal Gears]

I cannot say I'm thrilled about metamorph. I mean, wouldn't it have been far more balanced and fun if they'd only made you lose bombs, mutagen and the poison stuff, but let you keep discoveries + extracts and gain the shapeshifting ability? I'm not saying the archetype is boring or unplayably bad, but I would just much rather have kept extracts, rather than mutagens. I cannot imagine anyone would think that would be overpowered, either.

[Psyren]

I cannot say I'm thrilled about metamorph. I mean, wouldn't it have been far more balanced and fun if they'd only made you lose bombs, mutagen and the poison stuff, but let you keep discoveries + extracts and gain the shapeshifting ability? I'm not saying the archetype is boring or unplayably bad, but I would just much rather have kept extracts, rather than mutagens. I cannot imagine anyone would think that would be overpowered, either.

It would be better, sure, but hours-long undispellable shapeshifting is still enough to stay in T3. (I'd say it's really weak until level 4 though when it can stay shapeshifted for 8 hours a day with two forms, but quickly gets better from there.)

[Starbuck_II]

It's probably immensely niche but beyond the archetype additions for Rogues, Consilierge being a stand out for me, Intimidation based Rogues got a bit of a leg up through the Shadows of Fear feat and the Stalker Talent: Twisting Fear. Enforcer/Bludgeoner your enemy across the back of the head to cause fear, Twisting Fear triggers and does SA damage on the attack and then next round take advantage of Shadows of Fear to count as flanking versus an enemy suffering a fear effect. Rotate to your hearts content and enjoy consistent applications of bonus damage, SA talents, Intimidation and Debilitating Injury.

Don't forget scent of fear:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/scent-of-fear-monster

[Slithery D]

The Diviner's Blight unique armor is pretty great as a decoy method. Only 8th level divination skill can tell the wearer isn't who he imitates, at a 15k cost I'd expect lots of important people to use his on decoy bodyguards or just on a low level employees to sit in a room wearing it in shifts to pull away any scrying or location effects.

[Molosse]

That's actually a very good catch and great combo when fighting enemies vulnerable to fear.

For a decent jump in a ranged Rogue's potential, without the fear shenanigans, Ranged Feint allows for long-ranged chances to deny Dex to AC and, in turn, grab some ranged SA. Shame it doesn't interact with Opening Volley at all.

[Palanan]

So, I'm just now coming to this thread, and I have a pretty basic question:

For someone relatively new to Pathfinder, who's more likely to run a low-level campaign, does Ultimate Intrigue have enough good content to be worthwhile?

[Pyromancer999]

So, I'm just now coming to this thread, and I have a pretty basic question:

For someone relatively new to Pathfinder, who's more likely to run a low-level campaign, does Ultimate Intrigue have enough good content to be worthwhile?

It depends. What are you aiming to do with this campaign? What are you looking to take from this book? If you're intending to do a campaign that involves more skill-based(or Intrigue) stuff, or a campaign with an even mix of that and combat, it could be. However, I'd say that even the Core books(Core Rulebook, the Bestiary, and GM Guide) by itself is sufficient for a beginner campaign. It has plenty of material, and certainly more than enough for a newer person to absorb.

[Togath]

Ultimate Intrigue is pretty fun though...
Or at least the classes and archetypes are. I should point out though, this place (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) does have a lot of pathfinder content free and legally. So it could help with filling out your collection of information while you are starting out(I do really like physical books though, but that may just be a personal quirk:smallredface:).
(also while there is a lot of non-combat stuff in Ultimate Intrigue, the vigilante class itself could work well in any campaign, especially given that it doesn't have to keep it's identities separate)

[Kurald Galain]

So, I'm just now coming to this thread, and I have a pretty basic question:

For someone relatively new to Pathfinder, who's more likely to run a low-level campaign, does Ultimate Intrigue have enough good content to be worthwhile?

No. Almost no content in the UI book is low-level. There are a lot of high-level spells, feats with high-level prerequisites, and expensive items. Which I still think is an odd choice, because in my experience most social campaigns are low-level..

[Molosse]

So, I'm just now coming to this thread, and I have a pretty basic question:

For someone relatively new to Pathfinder, who's more likely to run a low-level campaign, does Ultimate Intrigue have enough good content to be worthwhile?

To answer your specific question: Yup.
There's a plethora of Archetypes/Feats and Options that work in both social and combat situations as well as the new Vigilante class which, when added to the ammount of free content provided on sites like d20pfsrd, throws a good few extra options for players.

Beyond that it throws in some clarifications on how certain spells function in differing ways that could be helpful for newer players.

[Florian]

Finally had the time to really read it front to back and I must actually say, I´m a bit impressed.
The subsystems can really transform how PF is handled. I know similar subsystems from other games, so I can do a bit of comparison, and they´re pretty solid _unless_ someone wants to enforce a mechanical solution, like using a spell, to circumvent the interaction with the subsystem. (Like: Spamming Dominate Person instead of engaging in social combat). But that was to be expected.

In this context, and this context alone, I like most of the new options, no matter if they´re archetypes, feats or spells, as they fit into the overall theme and create nice synergies there.

On the downside, I see problems with whole-hog integration of that stuff into regular play that is not especially fitted to incorporate them and the heavy level of GM fiat that is necessary then.

[Psyren]

My favorite bits are the spell clarifications and some of the new archetypes like the Metamorph Alchemist. As far as an intrigue campaign though, I'm less interested in social-heavy play so there's not much there for me. I'd probably just run a psychic magic user in a situation like that and mentally bludgeon most problems.

[Hunter Noventa]

No. Almost no content in the UI book is low-level. There are a lot of high-level spells, feats with high-level prerequisites, and expensive items. Which I still think is an odd choice, because in my experience most social campaigns are low-level..

I think the reason most social campaigns are low-level is that there exists so many high-level options for bypassing any need to be social, so that might be why they've included more high-level options here, to help alleviate that issue.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Almost no content in the UI book is low-level. There are a lot of high-level spells, feats with high-level prerequisites, and expensive items. Which I still think is an odd choice, because in my experience most social campaigns are low-level.


Originally Posted by Hunter Noventa
I think the reason most social campaigns are low-level is that there exists so many high-level options for bypassing any need to be social, so that might be why they've included more high-level options here, to help alleviate that issue.

This aspect is disappointing, and sounds as if they're assuming most of their audience is playing higher-level games.


Originally Posted by Molosse
To answer your specific question: Yup.
There's a plethora of Archetypes/Feats and Options that work in both social and combat situations as well as the new Vigilante class….


Originally Posted by Florian
Finally had the time to really read it front to back and I must actually say, I´m a bit impressed….

In this context, and this context alone, I like most of the new options, no matter if they´re archetypes, feats or spells, as they fit into the overall theme and create nice synergies there.

But it also sounds like there's still some worthwhile material here.

I tend to be wary of subsystems, but if there's something that allows for complex social maneuvers, I'd be interested. Do the archetypes and social subsystems have any utility for low-level campaigns?

[Triskavanski]

Well one thing is Bluff can be used now to create a surprise round. Which is nice for rogues, like the waylayer, who might not always be able to sneak and surprise.

[Serafina]

First, let's take "low level" as "below level 10" for now.

The Vigilante is obviously viable right from level 1. So that's a whole new class to play with, with all it's archetypes.

All three of the Alchemist-Archetypes get all their abilities before Level 10.
The five Bard-Archetypes get all but a few Songs and upgrades before level 10.
One of the three Cavalier-Archetypes gets most of it's stuff before level 10, though the other two only get started around that level.
The three Druid-Archetypes get all or most of their stuff before level 10, and only get upgrades thereafter.
Four of the seven Inquisitor-Archetypes get all of their stuff before level 10, the others get a good portion thereafter.
The five of the Investigator-Archetypes get all their abilities before level 10.
The six Mesmerist-Archetypes get stuff before and after level 10.
The five Ranger-Archetypes get all of their stuff before level 10.
The seven Rogue-Archetypes get all of their stuff before or at level 10.
The four Skald-Archetypes get their stuff both before and after level 10, though the later stuff is mostly upgrades.
The two Spiritualist-Archetypes change your phantom, so they're active from level 1 and all the way to level 20.
Only one of the three Swashbuckler-Archetypes get all of it's stuff before level 10, the others also replace later deeds.
The one Antipaladin-Archetype gets all its stuff early.
The one Cleric-Archetype gets all its stuff early.
The one Gunslinger-Archetype gets all its stuff early.
The two Hunter-Archetypes get all their abilities before level 10 (excluding one alternate capstone).
One of the Monk-Archetypes gets all of it's stuff before level 10, the other mostly can replace high-level powers for other Ki-powers.
One of the two Occultist-Archetypes gets all of its stuff early, the other gets some after level 10 as well.
The Oracle-Mystery has stuff spread over the levels as usual.
The one Paladin-Archetype gets most of it's stuff before level 10.
The one Slayer-Archetype gets most of its stuff before level 10.
The one Summoner-Archetype replaces the Eidolon, so it matter all the way from 1 to 20.

So in summary:
Most of the archetypes get their replacement class features reasonably early, before the campaign goes into anything I'd call "high levels".


As for feats:
A lot of them are chains or have prerequisite feats you'd not otherwise take. That is of course an impediment at low levels.
A lot of them have a requirement of 5 skill ranks, or 5 levels
Several have a requirement of ~10 skill ranks, or a similar BAB.
I'm not going to make an exact count right now, but it's not ALL high-level feats really.

[Kurald Galain]

First, let's take "low level" as "below level 10" for now.
That doesn't help. Level 9 is well into mid-levels, and is actually pretty high for many campaigns including PFS. It's obviously not low level.

Try again for level 1-5. Yes, forum discussions tend to assume level 20 builds for everything, but actual gameplay really doesn't.

[Anlashok]

Level 9 is well into mid-levels
Specifically it's one level below mid level.

Though I think 1-6, 7-12, 13-18 and 18-20 is a pretty good breakdown. low, mid, high, endgame. Ish.

[Kurald Galain]

Though I think 1-6, 7-12, 13-18 and 18-20 is a pretty good breakdown. low, mid, high, endgame. Ish.

Yeah, 1-6 is fair. That matches the classic "E6" pattern, as well as the level at which most social campaigns actually play. And UI just doesn't have a lot of options for that level span. Unfortunately.

Vigilante is fun, but basically assumes the campaign revolves around a single city (which, well, most campaigns don't).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Serafina
Most of the archetypes get their replacement class features reasonably early….


Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Yeah, 1-6 is fair…. And UI just doesn't have a lot of options for that level span.

Yoicks. Do most of those archetypes really not come online until after the 1-6 range?

[Psyren]

Yoicks. Do most of those archetypes really not come online until after the 1-6 range?

The ones that I was interested in, like Metamorph Alchemist, Cardinal Cleric and Black Asp Monk, did. I haven't read all of them but didn't really care about all of them either. The alchemical items are handy at low levels too.

[Milo v3]

Vigilante is fun, but basically assumes the campaign revolves around a single city (which, well, most campaigns don't).
Not really. Only some of it's abilities require renown, you can easily make a vigilante that doesn't have any renown abilities.

[Serafina]

Fair enough on the interpretation of "low level". Though really, you can't call level 7 or so high level either.
Of course, there's still plenty of archetypes that swap out important stuff at level 1 or 3 or so and are thus perfectly viable no matter the level.


And yes, the Vigilante doesn't "revolve around a single city".
There is one class feature that revolves around a locale - about half the social talents are related to Renown. But you can gain renown in another community within a week - which can go down to 3 days if you were already there at level 3, and down to only 4 hours at level 13. Plus, you can later have renown in two communities at once, and the effect always works within (level) miles of your community as well.
But even if you skip Renown entirely there are useful social talents:
- Many Guise, Everyman and Any Guise allow you to appear as anyone (first a normal person, then a specific laborer, then any specific person) instead of your social identity, including all the bonuses you gain from identity-switching (+disguise, can't be scryed easily).
- Double Time and In Vogue make your crafting better (up to double speed, and +30% value), which is great if your campaign uses the downtime rules.
- Gossip Collector halves the time for Gather Information. It works better if you have renown, but functions without it.
- Quick Change and Immediate Change just make it easier to switch identities
- Mockingbird just outright duplicates the effect of three spells, it even works in your Vigilante-identity.
- Social Grace gives +4 to one non-physical skill per four levels.

So if you want to make a wandering vigilante? It's perfectly possible:
Take Social Grace at level 1. It can enhance Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Linguistics, Perform or Sense Motive - but also any Knowledge Skill, Spellcraft, Survival or Heal, as well as Craft of Profession.
Take Gossip Collector at level 3. You can now Gather Information in just 1D2 hours, that's pretty useful on the move.
Take Many Guises at level 5. You can now appear to be just an innocent peasant, who'll cease to exist for Divinations as soon as you drop the identity!
Take Quick Change at level 7. You can now quickly appear to be said peasant, but also your social identity.
Take Mockingbird at level 9. You can now very convincingly fake voices and other such sounds.
Take Everyman at level 11. You can now appear to be a specific peasant/farmer/laborer, and have an easy time (+10) to play said individual. That's very easy access to protected locations with servants.

Except for the last bit, I'd say that actually describes Aragorn pretty well.
There's Strider, a fearsome ranger of the north who travels the land, slays orks and is generally mistrusted by most (Vigilante identity).
There's Aragorn, the heir of Arnor and Gondor - known only to a few, mostly in Rivendell where he can rest (magic can't find Strider while he's Aragorn). (Social Identity)
And when he wants to fit into a community, he pretends to be an ordinary farmer, but is still adept at collecting information about the land and people. (Many Guises, Gossip Collector).

The Vigilante is really quite versatile like that, which is one of the reasons I really like the class.
For example, you could also make a build about a travelling salesman (or craftsman) if you take Double Time and in Vogue.

[Florian]

But it also sounds like there's still some worthwhile material here.

I tend to be wary of subsystems, but if there's something that allows for complex social maneuvers, I'd be interested. Do the archetypes and social subsystems have any utility for low-level campaigns?

I actually play some other RPGs that use similar subsystems to have a grander, more sweeping effect than simple one-on-one conversations and also can handle more than single action steps.
Stuff like: Ok, let´s handle this seasons political affairs in one simple go and work from here are good for that. I only find it problematic when someone wants to change the scale used at some point to, say, include the casting of a single spell when working on a complex situation. That breaks verisimilitude then.