|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It's fine that magic is normally obvious. But for spells like Charm Person and Suggestion, I want there to be a way to hide the casting. So that you can try to publicly Charm people.
It's okay if it has a hefty price. If Silent+Still+Eschew did the trick, that'd be fine. But it appears that's not sufficient, since you can somehow still identify those spells with Spellcraft.
An interesting side effect might be a general change in the wizard's attitude. Instead of having a choice between a PC fighter or a faceless minion, he is now almost always dealing with faceful minions/colleagues. It means a sociably played wizard will have an edge over a total dork.
Another idea I had: the monster you summon is basically a projection of an actual monster somewhere out there. So if you summon devils to do clandestine jobs, there are devils out there who know what you've been doing...
That might make summoning a lot more powerful/risky though; you could summon a monster, ask it a question, and next day he might know the answer. Or you could use it to lobby the gods.
Diego Rossi wrote:
But arguing from common sense - if the maker of the armor intended you to use the gauntlets, presumably they're required to get 100% of the armor's benefit. If you don't wear the whole armor, you're not getting the whole protection.
If I sold armor I'd put it in the warranty; we can't be held responsible for armor failure if you don't use the armor as intended.
I disagree that something is not armor (or something else) because it's (also) listed in the weapon tables. Gauntlets are part of armor, they can be used as weapons as well. Shields are part of [shields and armor]; they can be used as weapons as well. Fists can be used to make unarmed strikes; fists are also still body parts.
I think slams are mostly hands, yeah. Although you could probably come up with a legitimate mythological monster that slams in a different way.
Bites do all damage types and that's a pretty rude surprise for a GM who thought he was being clever by having (for example) skeletons with DR/bludgeoning, only to have two animal companions go wild on them.
How DO you keep everything going then? I found it hard to keep up speed with 7 players. WHAT DO YOU KNOW?! :P
Seriously, I'm quite interested in how you manage to handle so many players. Is your group unusually well-organized? Do you have tricks to streamline combat?
About Carrion Crown: you might like all the little bits without liking the whole. Just like a movie might have ten things in it you like, except you hate the director's style..
But it might be a good place to look for interesting tidbits.
Nature adapts. Even to a zombie apocalypse. I've heard that these days, Chernobyl is actually a lush and green place, since most of the people have gone. Nature just comes back, but with species that can survive in the local horrors.
You rarely see bunny-wights or rat-wraiths. (Although those could be scary in their own way.) Most undead are anthropomorphic. It would seem that animals that feed on corpses, like rats and bugs, rarely have trouble surviving in undead-rich environments. Maybe they're beneath the notice of undead, maybe they're just fast and good at hiding, or maybe they're actually resistant to negative energy. For some reason undeath doesn't seem to kill off diseases either; you'd think negative energy might be a good way to sterilize medical equipment (like radiation), but that doesn't work...
Some animals might actually evolve to have both undead and living tissue. Maybe jackals actually eat careless/slow zombies.
Bottom line: you have an excuse for introducing quite weird and scary animals and plants. Those aren't Evil, so it's not quite so trivial to kill them with divine magic; but they're also just animals, so you can scare them or use more intelligent tactics. It should be a good break in the routine.
I like this a lot. You could make a cool summoner/conjurer out of this, not nearly as sterile as the classic god-wizard. More like a general who wants high morale among his troops. And summoning within alignment becomes relevant.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
I think this is the real background to the rule, yes.
But what if I cast SM3, and cast SM3 again the next round? There's no text anywhere telling me I can't summon two lantern archons if I use two spells, nor is there text saying that if the monster you summon is out to lunch, you don't get a replacement. You cast the spell, you get a monster.
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.