|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'm not really sure why the 24 hour clause is in there. I know that at least from 2nd edition onwards, there were various suggested bits of optional rule about personalizing summoned monsters and all that. Those never made it into default rules though. I think this is vestigial.
Although, with the more intelligent summoned monsters, summoning you already have a working relationship with might have some advantages; you can teach it some advanced tactics so that you can later on command it to execute complicated plans with only an "attack pattern delta!" order. If your favorite Lantern Archon is dead for 24 hours though, you're stuck with the "temp" who doesn't have that kind of training.
Hmm. That might be an interesting angle to play for a summoner/conjurer/priest actually.
KainPen's point about Alluring is valid: since SLAs from Domains are Divine, even though they mimic Arcane-only spells sometimes, it's possible that the same logic applies to SLAs from religion traits.
On the other hand, Aasimar SLAs are not Divine by default, no matter how celestial the character may seem.
Expect table variation?
I'm not sure it works that way.
If PrC A qualifies you for PrC B, and B qualifies you for A, then it looks self-sustaining to me. As soon as you get it going, that is.
It's a chicken/egg thing; as soon as you have a chicken and an egg, doesn't it keep going by itself?
I agree very much that you need to actually know and enforce the limits of magic. However, this isn't really one of them.
Suppose you summen a lantern archon, and it gets killed. You can just summon a different one. You could even summon a another one if your archon doesn't get killed, to have two of them at the same time.
Why only when entering a rage?
Also, does the object need to belong to the ravager?
Wouldn't it be nastier if you could also trigger this with a well-placed Sunder?
Shouldn't this be "ignore an amount of DR possessed by the enemy equal to..."?
Written the way you do, the reduction in DR appears to be permanent...
Otherwise: nice work.
Diego Rossi wrote:
That's a good point. Although, if two people know the command word, that could still get silly...
@Belafon: let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists a PrC called AT*, which is miraculously identical to the Arcane Trickster PrC in every way, except it's a different PrC so you can have levels in both.
Then you take levels in Rogue and Wizard to get into Arcane Trickster, and take 4 levels in it (earning a 2d6 SA from it). Next you take 4 levels in AT*, also earning 2d6 SA from AT*.
Then you could retrain those rogue levels to wizard levels and be a full caster, beacuse AT* qualifies you for Arcane Trickster and Arcane Trickster qualifies you for AT*.
Cheesy? Sure. But is it actually illegal? I don't think so.
I think it was only meant for Summon Monster. It's in the name, otherwise it probably would've been called Neutral Summons, or Neutral Summoning or something. Compare to the feat names for other summoning-related feats like Augment Summons and Moonlight Summons, or Summon Good Monster for another feat that doesn't do anything for Nature's Allies.
That said, yeah, Druids are missing out here.
quote=Paths of Prestige, 34-35]
Is it me, or would this allow you to reconstruct a spellbook from scratch? You still know the spells even if the spellbook is lost, and you can then use SSM to assign them to Spell Mastery. Thereafter, you can scribe them, because you're allowed to write down prepared spells.
Nifty, if it works.
I think in most cases wielding means the item is in hand and ready for immediate use (weapons), or worn correctly for immediate use (shields, armor, armor spikes).
Ready for immediate use means that NO more actions are required before you can use the item. Not even a Free action to Quickdraw. You're never wielding a sheathed weapon.
Then there are a handful of item properties that are exceptions to this.
Defending is the worst offender, with that weird FAQ. That FAQ is consistent with other "defensive fighting" powers: you can't use Fighting Defensively without making an attack roll, nor can you do so with Combat Expertise. However, if you try to apply the Defending FAQ to wielding in general, stuff breaks because then a whole lot of items can't be used; because they require a Standard action while you're also attacking. So I think Defending is an exception.
Called is an error. The word "wielder" should be replaced with "owner" in the next errata. That makes much more sense.
The base definition makes sense and wouldn't surprise anyone. If you draw a weapon, then spend two rounds running after a goblin, it would be very surprising if you weren't wielding that weapon during those rounds.
Well, if a spell kills the whole creature (like the spells I mentioned) that might not be a problem. Since they're all connected to each other (because it's one WtW) the spell would also kill all worms.
But, it depends on the GM's funky monster. It probably won't be that easy.
How about some Inevitables? This kind of persistence sounds right up their alley.
There is certainly that risk.
Expect not to be able to use Arcane Strike while raging. You are tapping into spells/SLAs which you cannot use while raging.
You're only using Arcane Strike, you're not casting spells. I'm not sure if I would define Arcane Strike as "requiring patience or concentration", since it's something you casually do as a swift action every round, in addition to doing a lot of other things. And it doesn't look like any of the other things you're not allowed to do.
Normal PF is built on 4 classical elements and "associated" energy types; fire->fire, water->cold, earth->acid and air->lightning.
We also have (since Ultimate Magic) some other elemental schools of magic: Wood and Metal. (We'll ignore Void for now.)
These come from the eastern concept of Wu Xing.
So I was thinking. How would it work to rebuild PF to use the elements of Wood, Metal, Earth, Fire and Water?
I thought maybe the damage associations should become:
Wood->Acid (digestive saps)
What sort of ripple effects would this have on the game system? What other things would need to be changed? I'm thinking that sonic damage (and resistance?) would become a lot more common. What else?
I don't see any language in Smite or Fireball that would stop the Smiting Fireball from doing some additional damage to one person in the AoE.
Then again, I also don't see language in Sneak Attack and Magic Missile or Fireball preventing you from adding SA damage to those spells. But the premise of the Arcane Trickster PrC is that you need a special ability for that.
If there's a surprise round, and I move towards the enemy while drawing a weapon. Am I then wielding that weapon? I haven't used it to attack yet.
If I make an attack with a sword, then drop the sword and draw a mace. Am I wielding the mace?
If I hold a staff with two hands, then take one hand off to cast a spell, then grasp the staff with both hands again. Am I wielding the staff?
If I cast a touch spell but don't deliver the touch attack (I'm holding the charge), and I now wielding a spell or weapon in my hand?
If I'm holding a charge, is my hand "free"? If not, can I still do the touch attack with my other hand the next round?
I think the issue of what "wield" means bumps into the issue of what a "free hand" means. They're not the same question, but they are related.
I also fear that even the writers weren't all on the same page about this, so there will be contradictory uses scattered throughout the material.
I think the problem is that people have somehow acquired the idea that there was a deep and significant decision, to make you choose between threatening at reach and threatening close by.
I've seen no evidence that this was ever actually intended.
Most reach weapons happen to be two-handed because they're pretty big (which they have to be, to reach). Those hands are therefore occupied. That's just a verisimilitude thing.
I don't think it was ever the intent to stop you from also giving someone a bump with your spiky shoulder, or to kick them with your boots of curbstomping. That is fine.
I personally prefer the kick over the armor, aesthetically. Sadly, the armor is more optimal because you need a feat for the kick.
FAQ for Ultimate Campaign wrote:
Does the last update supersede the previous update?
For example, let's say I have a Rogue 3 / Wizard 3 and take 4 levels of Arcane Trickster. Now can I retrain those rogue levels to wizard levels?
* I'm not retraining class to prestige.
* I generally trust the GM to have good intentions; have a fun afternoon with players, give them a fair chance to succeed etc.
* I trust GMs to understand the rules well enough until proven otherwise, which is not unusual. PF has some tricky corner cases. If it's not hurting people seriously, I don't make an issue out of it.
* I don't trust rolling behind the screen. That is, if you're rolling behind a screen I suspect you may be fudging. Else, why aren't you rolling openly?
* I trust GMs to be able to balance encounters appropriately, until I see (repeated) proof otherwise. This one has a learning curve with new PCs with new strengths and weaknesses, so I expect it to improve over sessions. If it's done right, no fudging should be needed because the difficulty was placed correctly.
If a GM is fudging "to improve the story", I prefer he be more candid about it. This is an interesting article on that subject.
If a GM is fudging because random chance doesn't seem to be working out that day (for or against the PCs), I don't like that.
If a TPK is looming, I tend to subtly make the enemies act at less than 100% killing efficiency. Let them gloat a bit, act overconfident, neglect to CdG if there are other PCs still active, avoid risks at the cost of speed (thereby giving the PCs a moment to recover), offer surrender (wasting a round) and so forth.
@Liam: it's always nice to have good relations with the local nobles.
However, if you can reliably obtain +3 weapons, it means you have access to a (roughly) level 9 spellcaster. Maybe you ARE that spellcaster. You're not exactly a common peasant that's easy prey for predatory nobles.
These people have, and sell, military grade weaponry to people with dubious morals. You can try to squeeze them, but it's not as easy or safe as squeezing peasants. If they get too upset, they might hire some PCs to kill you, payment in magic weapons.
I'm beginning to think that magic arms dealers might actually become a sort of Military-Arcane Complex that has significant political influence, due to the amount of money they handle and the dangerous people they know.
On the other hand, that changes the whole face of the game, which is a bigger impact than simply putting martials and casters on the same track. Possibly a desired change, possibly not. Sounds like it's good at what it does, though.
I think anything that changes the quadratic/linear thing must necessarily be a major game-changer.