|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
A. sounds plausible, you'd just be using the off hand as a wand and not attacking with it which seems to fall in line with the rules.
B. Weapon Wand specifically states that the weapon can be used as a weapon or as a wand, not both. This would seem to preclude using it as a wand then making TWF attacks with it. Even if the spell requires an attack roll you are limited to a single attack at your highest bonus but do no actual weapon damage.
Probably regional. Using 2nd Edition D&D rules and definitions in Pathfinder is pretty much straight up homegrown and house ruled and not RAW Pathfinder. It's a totally acceptable way to play of course but not really what I was asking. I'll certainly look you up next time I play a 2nd Ed game though ;)
I do agree that keeping track when a non-continuous item is *on* can be fun, my definition is based on what the books actually said. I have 1sd ed books, but not on line. Otherwise I would have looked there.
Sure, and while I played 1st and 2nd Ed's, that was a long time ago with an incredibly long stint of Rolemaster, Spacemaster, Traveller, Twilight 2k and a bunch of others in there. I may not be remembering my rules correctly, but it still doesn't seem to jive with the verbiage in Pathfinder per say.
Definitely a better estimate of OP than mine. I tend toward OP, even when I am GM. I like high magic campaigns.
Completely legit, I've played and run a few high fantasy games myself. This particular one however we are trying to keep to the standard wealth by level chart at medium progression - so permanent/continuous Unseen Servant would certainly be overwhelming compared to the "flavor" of the rest of the campaign.
There are numerous intelligent items that have daily charge limits. The exclusion is against things that run out of charges and become non-magical.
Right, there are intelligent items with #/day abilities in addition to a permanent effect(s) (+1, Holy, flaming, etc) - so in effect even depleted of charges they would still be magical. I can't think of any that have a set number of total charges (like a wand) that is intelligent though. If we wanted to stick to RAW, there are costs associated with adding abilities to already magical items - it's simple to say that an Intelligent item had the charges added to it's abilities at the end of (or even after) the creation process.
Words can be so fun. My intent was not to be a devil's advocate, but to rather to be sure you knew your options. What you choose, is entirely up to you.
The description says nothing about it not occupying space, or that it has the ability to move through solid objects. I keep re-reading it and honestly I don't see where there's an implication that it can be tangible or intangible as needed. All the listed examples of what it can do involve it interacting with the environment, there's nothing that says it can reach inside a closed box for example.
The definition of "invisible" states it's only visually undetectable, it can still be heard, smelled, or felt if you are into that kind of thing :)
Invisible: Invisible creatures are visually undetectable.
Further defining invisibility from the Special Abilities definition:
The ability to move about unseen is not foolproof. While they can't be seen, invisible creatures can be heard, smelled, or felt.
Invisibility makes a creature undetectable by vision, including darkvision.
Invisible creatures leave tracks. They can be tracked normally. Footprints in sand, mud, or other soft surfaces can give enemies clues to an invisible creature's location.
An invisible creature in the water displaces water, revealing its location. The invisible creature, however, is still hard to see and benefits from concealment.
A creature with the scent ability can detect an invisible creature as it would a visible one.
To be able to not physically be there, we would be looking at two other abilities - Ethereal and Incorporeal, neither of which describes the Unseen Servant.
Ethereal creatures are invisible. Since ethereal creatures are not materially present, Perception checks, scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help locate them. Incorporeal creatures are often invisible. Scent, Blind-Fight, and blindsight don't help creatures find or attack invisible, incorporeal creatures, but Perception checks can help.
Incorporeal: Creatures with the incorporeal condition do not have a physical body.
Completely agree. That's what prompted my question as it's inexplicably cheap and seems a bit over powered. Taming it with a 1/day charge with a 24 hour duration is a good balancing point between players and GM I think though, if you abuse it it'll be gone until the next game day. Not a bad trade off.
Can unseen servant really block movement? I was under the impression that they were a formless, shapeless "force." In effect, not really physically present.
Not "visually" present, if it wasn't physically present than saying it's invisible would be redundant. It has a movement speed, a STR value, and interacts with the environment to the extend of making skill checks. Nothing in the text says it's incorporeal or insubstantial, even the name alludes only to being unseen, not untouchable :) Allowing it to shift/phase through solid objects like a charging bad guy means it would also be able to move through walls and doors and interact with things on the other side - seems a bit much for a 1st level spell.
I actually looked at those but ruled them out based on the following:
Both Mage Hand and RoT require concentration to use which means that while active the caster can't cast another spell and only has his movement action available each round - so they are in effect self policing. Mage Hand only has a fraction of the usefulness of RoT which in turn only has a fraction of the utility of Unseen Servant. There's actually a ton of neat tricks you can do with an invisible mindless entity of force that you can't do with mage hand or telekinesis such as:
The ability to attempt any DC10 or less skill that can be tried untrained.
Blocking movement through a square (charges, etc.)
Dragging a heavy sack over traps (they can only lift 20 lbs. but can drag 100 lb).
Throwing a robe on it and marching it 30' in front of the party.
Concentration free menial tasks like clearing a room of caltrops.
If I had to adjust the price of a continuous Unseen Servant based on the Ring of Telekinesis, I'd multiply the cost of RoT by 10, at least!
It's also important to note that the magic item crafting price guidelines are not absolute. You need to compare the finished item with others like it in order to determine it's real value.
Absolutely! I couldn't find much for items that utilize Unseen Servant though, not on a permanent/continuous basis anyway. :/
The item in question is neither a ring nor intelligent - it's actually a dumb Lucerne Hammer :)Your ring passage is obviously talking about permanent effects such as feather fall. Your intelligent items passage is obviously stating that a thing with finite charges can't be intelligent, which makes sense because as you said earlier once you run out of charges the item becomes mundane.
Both of those passages seem to go against the impression that anything with "charges that don't run out" is permanent, per your last post and the crux of my initial confusion with your stance, specifically this quote:
The latter are usually referred to a Permanent magic items, because they last forever. Some are limited to charges per day, others are continuous or at will.
Your ring and intelligent item passages seem to indicate that something with charges (even daily) is not actually a "permanent" magic item. I beginning to think maybe we are closer in opinion that we think, just words getting in the way ;)
Actually, there are two kinds of magic items. Charged ones that become non-magical after all their charges are used (potions, scrolls, wands, etc.) and those that retain their magic no matter how often or long they are used. The latter are usually referred to a Permanent magic items, because they last forever. Some are limited to charges per day, others are continuous or at will.
30 years of roleplaying and I've never heard items referred to as permanent unless the bonus conferred was on all the time (e.g. Boots of Springing and Striding). Anything with an "on use" ability that can be depleted for a time (such as a daily charges item) isn't "permanent" in the sense that the player and GM need to know if the item has been activated, it's not a "given" that someone with 3/day Shield item is "permanently" protected by Shield.
Maybe it's a regional thing, but it's not a vernacular I've heard applied to anything that isn't on all the time.
The linkage with the Permanency spell was left back in 2nd edition. 3.0, 3.5, and PF do not have that requirement. Not sure why you keep linking the word "Permanency" when used with magic items with the spell. There is no such link. In fact, the spell is designed as a way to cheaply simulate a magic item.
With the last paragraph, I think I'm linking it because you keep referring to "permanent" magic items, and I didn't realize you were talking about every magic item that doesn't have a finite number of uses.
Right, but if you aren't invoking a continuous one that it's not a continuous item, it's a user-activated one.
Since you have found a version that you think is fair, then go with it. Just know that you have chosen not to allow something many would also find acceptable.
A few searches on this and other forums shows a defined lean towards 24/7 unlimited Unseen Servants as being horribly overpowered. A few may find that scenario acceptable, but we aren't necessarily running a Monte Haul campaign :)
Still not verbiage I'm used to. I understand what you are saying but I still find it weird to equate "permanent" to a ring with 1/day charge of Fireball. I get that you are focused purely on the fact of what "Dispell Magic" affects, where I'm looking at the duration of the bonus applied in use. With that in mind I do understand more where you are coming from, and I appreciate your devil's advocacy in the thread.
Per RAW magic item creation, there aren't any "permanent" magic items that you can actually create. There are "continuous and user-activated" items.
We can view this two ways, that "continuous" and "permanent" are synonymous and this allows permanent items to be created but in return links the permanency spell to the creation of permanent magic items... or they are completely different mechanics in which case there are no rules for creating a "permanent" item.
The word "permanent" isn't mentioned anywhere on the magic item creation page, but nor is the rules for "continuous" spelled out on how they affect spells that summon entities that can die. Per RAW, wouldn't they basically be a summon spell with unlimited duration but once the summon is dead the item is useless? As far as I can tell, it's purely a duration modifier and not one that imparts immortality/resurrection or multiple castings in the case of something like a "continuous" summon monster I item.
Without clarification on the relationship between the two, I think the proposed CL12+1 (extended) for 24 hour duration works well. It prevents abuse while allowing a 24/7 Unseen Servant (with care), and it fits within the established RAW rules for item creation without needing to answer if "continuous" = "permanent" or not.
I was more concerned with the possibility of abuse. A dozen Unseen Servants that die in a fireball are dead, and there is a monetary loss because you paid for those charges. The player now needs to decide and budget if he's willing to eat more charges and summon more. A continuous Unseen Servant is another beast all together.
Literally forever, 24/7. No charges to ever worry about.
The last sentence in the Permanency description right here in the PRD:
The GM may allow other spells to be made permanent.
I'm reading this to indicate that only the spells listed (and there are quite a few) in the Permanency description are covered by the spell per RAW, but your GM may allow others or he may not. If there's another way to interpret that I'm missing it.
That's a fantastic solution! I'll present that to the crew, thanks!
We have a player that would like permanent Unseen Servant enchanted to one of his items. I guess the first question would be is that even possible per RAW?
Second would be how much would it cost?
The rulebook says [spell level x caster level x 2,000gp], since it's "permanent" we don't need anything more than a 1st level casting of it, so cost would be [1 x 1 x 2,000 = 2,000gp]. There is some subtext offering multipliers and divisors depending on if the spell is usually timed in rounds, minutes, or days. Unseen Servant is timed in hours which isn't listed.
My confusion comes in when you compare 2,000gp for permanent to the costs of just having a number of charges per day, which breaks out like this:
CL1 = each cast lasts 1 hour
With these numbers, why would you ever purchase this item with charges of Unseen Servant as opposed to having it permanent? Am I missing something?
EDIT: may have answered my own question, looks like the spells given in the Permanency description are the only spells allowed without GM approval.
Those are not rules but guidelines, so basically ask your DM.
Good to know. Since Pathfinder doesn't allow +1 stat items, I was curious if there was a hard rule in place since I didn't see any 'official' items with mixed values of stat adds. If it's GM discretion that makes it easy!
Going off the rule that you can add an ability from a slot item to a same slot item for 1.5x the price of the second item. For example, you can "add" boots of the cat to boots of springing and striding for 1,500 gold (1.5 times the cost of boots of the cat).
Assuming that is correct, could you "add" a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2 to a Belt of Giant Strength +4? Or does it have to follow the existing items and have a +2/+2, +4/+4, or +6/+6 pattern?
Thanks in advance!
Why not make it strictly a flavor change for the original spell? Why complicate matters if you don't have to? Just say his god has a variant spell that makes a lesser animated object that works like a skeleton or zombie from bits and pieces of junk instead of a body.
Because as part of the flavor he wants to carry it in a pack like Chewie carried C-3PO in Star Wars, his pet name for the project is C-3PO actually.
Under what circumstances would you go down then? If a Giant has hold of your head and falls off a cliff, how would you not go with it? Is there a rule for that?
2) i'm not clear what happened on the round 'the demon grappled with sterling'. maintain grapple for damage?
Yeah, grappling, though admittedly I was calling the roll an attack and not to maintain the grapple.
Which is what it did after two rounds of grappling with both prone if I recall.
otherwise, the only reason to maintain would be to pin or use the move option to move thru this mirror.
I figured the mirror move would be out of the question as both were prone?
I didn't know if that was an option. The demon had been enlarged in a 5' hallway by a rod of wonder, so it had the squeezed condition. It was also prone while grappling with a prone Sterling.
3)it's also unclear if 2 rounds passed between 'Next round the Demon grapples with Sterling, the following it decides to let the grapple go...', and if so, what Sterling DID during that round... Try to escape the Grapple (unsuccesfully)?
Two rounds, demon decides standing is the best option, Sterling continued making his attacks from the ground.
True, he could have dropped the grapple and did full attacks from the floor, but he was being jumped by a ninja and catching Sorcerer spells as well. Mobility was a consideration.
Good to know, maybe next time it'll stand while maintaining the grapple and use Sterling as a human shield. ;)
if you are maintaining for damage, you don't roll a separate attack roll to do 1x natural attack damage, that is included in the effect of the grapple maintain roll. that roll does target CMD, not AC, and thus this IS a way to do melee damage to a character without targetting AC... you just can't full attack with it.
So even though the verbiage was off, making a roll against CMD and doing a single attacks worth of damage is the rule, so the combat was handled properly. I should have called the roll a maintenance action instead of an actual attack, I can see where the confusion may have been but the end result would be unchanged which is good.
i am baffled why DQ thinks initiating a grab/free grapple in the middle of a full attack would prevent one from continuing the full attack. being grappled yourself doesn't prevent one from full attacking, after all. if you are grappled yourself (didn't take the -20 option from grab), there are certain limitations and penalties, but they don't prevent you from taking iteratives. you can't take AoOs if you are grappled, but that's irrelevant to completing your full attack. you will take a penalty to DEX, and apply a -2 penalty to non-grapple attack rolls, but you can still make those attack rolls.
Agree, the rule for grab specifically states it affects the grabbing limb and no other.
the only thing that MAY apply is the wording saying you can't take actions which require 2 hands, which means 2-handed weapons would be unusable, and plausibly that may preclude 2WF with 2 actual hands (vs. headbutts, etc). i'm not sure if that is truly intended to apply to EVERYBODY though, or only the HUMANOIDS that the -4 penalty for not having 2 hands free applies to. per RAW, it applies to everybody... but if they are using natural attacks and/or 1-handed weapons, there is no restriction.
I guess the interpretation would be up to whether or not the demon fell under a humanoid type?
It continued it's attacks after initiating a grab and hold, which the rules state only affect the grabbing limb. A grapple is different.
It stood so the next round it could make a full attack as opposed to a single one. Trust me, Sterling trips enough things constantly that we are all intimate with the rule of standing.
Again, correct, I don't have to roll for attacks, I should have just straight applied the natural weapon damage from one attack. That's what I'm saying. Nothing really changed, I made a roll, it was well above his CMD and he took one attack worth of damage.
I never said it did and that's not what happened in the game. When the grapple condition was set, one natural attack was made - though I did roll it against his CMD which was wrong. We play with a guy that has been roleplaying since the 70's and owned his own game shop, he's a great rules lawyer and more than one attack was quickly nixed.
Here's the timeline:
Demon attacks Sterling with attack one and opts to grab and hold
since sterling is still held and Demon is Large to Sterling's Medium I ruled it drags him down as well.
This particular demon grabbed with intent to drag into a mirror, not 'just because,' so no caveat necessary in this case :)
The PRD is worded like this for the one being grappled:
Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn't require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you.
The wording for the one doing the grappling is:
Damage: You can inflict damage to your target equal to your unarmed strike, a natural attack, or an attack made with armor spikes or a light or one-handed weapon. This damage can be either lethal or nonlethal.
It doesn't say you need to make an attack as the grappler, just that you can choose to inflict damage. As written, the person getting grappled needs to roll an attack, the grappler does not. This doesn't negate the AC, but does seem to completely bypass it for that one attack per round if that's what the grappler decides to do. Technically I was still wrong by rolling against Sterlings CMD, as the single natural attack the demon took should have automatically hit per RAW. I think that's what you are saying, just clarifying in case I'm misreading it.
I have a player (cleric) that wants to replace Lesser Animate Dead with a spell that animates a clockwork humanoid construct. His idea is to carry the construct in his pack, and assemble it when needed and animate it via this spell. He has said it will never be for attacking, more for doing mundane tasks and maybe eating a trap or being a target.
I'm more than willing to work with him on it but have a few questions.
Weight. How much would a man-sized construct weigh? A human skeleton is @ 30 pounds. A human skeleton made of solid brass would weight on the order of 260 pounds. Obviously the construct wouldn't be solid brass, what is a good middle ground weight to assign it?
The spell itself is looking like this so far, any holes?
An Animated Clockwork is a mindless automaton that performs simple tasks at your command. It can run and fetch
The Clockwork cannot attack in any way; it is never allowed an attack roll. It cannot be killed, but it
GM for Sterlings here, the adventure spanned two looong sessions each deep into the wee hours... so some facts got muddled. Let me clarify some stuff:
The demon wasn't making 3 attacks per round while in the grappled state, it was making them while it had the player grabbed. Basically the first attack hit, Sterling was grabbed, the rules state the grab is only via the limb used so it took it's next three attacks. Sterling tripped it the same round (of course). Once they started rolling around on the floor it only made one attack until it released the grapple and stood up.
Sterling was only grappled by one monster as I recall, and that was the demon. He was however hit by an adhesive slam attack from a mimic which gives the grapple condition, but it was that or justify the mimic walking past the dwarf standing right in front of it to get to another party member that hadn't attacked it yet.
In fact, to quickly recap the fights:
So out of two sessions, Sterling was actually CMB vs. CMD grappled once, and had to deal with touch attacks once. I wouldn't really call that targeting him with only those abilities. Other than touch of corruption, every bit of damage he took (and it was a lot) was with weapons against his AC. This is also only the third time I've GM'ed for him and the first time had zero grapples and zero touch attacks.
In fact, in 9 levels Sterling has only ever been grappled once and dealt with touch attacks once - though admittedly we pass around the GM hat and he hasn't played every session.
Two sides to every story folks.
I guarantee that if one of his players played like he does his Cleric with the constant chain tripping, he'd be in here asking for advice on how to counter it. :D
Does it have to be a cursed item?
I'm not sure if Undines have gills or rely on lungs, but what about a parasite that has infected his gills/lungs that prohibits his ability to breathe underwater. Due to the unknown nature of the parasite and it's very aggressive attachment behavior, surgery is out and spell based cures have failed (though if you wanted to be nice, you could say a cure minor reduces the damage to the gills/lung enough to breathe under water for 5 minutes, a cure moderate 10 minutes, etc).
Turn the level 8 water breathing into a side quest to have the parasite removed, maybe it's an issue that has all but wiped out his clan - not to go changing back stories, just on a roll :)
Lots of RP ability in there too, maybe it's sentient and hostile? Who knows!
I understand the value in starting core and slowly expanding, but citing the number of threads on the forum questioning a mechanic as an indicator of GM complication and the forerunner to banning means we can run a series of searches and reduce even the Core to a pamphlet of a few pages, and that will most likely be the table of contents and the index :)
I don't know that this spell fits into that category, given that the pit can be bypassed freely with no save via the 5' of mandatory sloped ground that surrounds it and is ineffectual unless the being stops on it. The slope also prevents completely blocking a passage. In my experience Glitter Dust or the many wall spells are more powerful. RAW appears to include the sloped ground as part of the spell effect, meaning it needs a 20x20 area, leaving that easily passed 5' rim around it in every situation.
I was going off the OP's ending statement of the giant being in the pit. But your post did make me think, and I believe the answer to his question is answered in the description of the spell.
You create a 10-foot-by-10-foot extradimensional hole with a depth of 10 feet per two caster levels (maximum 30 feet). You must create the pit on a horizontal surface of sufficient size. Since it extends into another dimension, the pit has no weight and does not otherwise displace the original underlying material. You can create the pit in the deck of a ship as easily as in a dungeon floor or the ground of a forest. Any creature standing in the area where you first conjured the pit must make a Reflex saving throw to jump to safety in the nearest open space. In addition, the edges of the pit are sloped, and any creature ending its turn on a square adjacent to the pit must make a Reflex saving throw with a +2 bonus to avoid falling into it. Creatures subjected to an effect intended to push them into the pit (such as bull rush) do not get a saving throw to avoid falling in if they are affected by the pushing effect.
That clearly states that the adjacent squares are considered part of the pit.
That being the case, and the fact that it describes the 10x10 area as "the hole" of the pit and not just simply "the pit," I believe the spell needs a 20x20 area to accept the pit casting. This means you can create choke points but never completely block a hallway or anything.
- you need 20x20 to cast the pit, you cast it in a 20x20 hallway. You now have a 10x10 'hole' in the center, and a 5' path on each side that can be bypassed with no save needed unless they end their turn on it.
- You have a 40x40 area and cast two pits next to each other. You would have a 5' path along one wall, a 10' hole, then two 5' squares adjacent to each other for a 10' total width path, then another 10' hole, and finally a 5' path on the other wall.
At most, the pit will either trap a bad guy, or force a +2 reflex save for ending a turn on an adjacent square. Otherwise they can simply travel over the adjacent squares with no ill effect, bypassing the pit completely.
This makes sense as it solves the issue of planting one interdimensional space right next to another, and lowers the actual value of the spell to something more level equivalent. In our games we have been assuming you need a 10x10 area, but reading it I think that's incorrect.
james maissen wrote:
I'm familiar with the scenario SterlingEdge is talking about, and the 15' giant in a 30' pit didn't have a line of sight to anyone since the closest party member was a solid 25-40' from the pit. Instead, it spent a round climbing out as a full action, then the following round sundered and broke the Clerics shield while it's Worg pet tripped and mauled the Sorcerer that cast the pit. The giant did go down a few rounds later, but not until cure XXX wounds where being spontaneously cast and the Ninja was in full retreat. The pit literally only affected the BBEG for 1 round.
Other instances of pit use in the adventure:
In the last fight of the adventure against two oncoming frost giants. Group set up a ruse with disguise + enlarge person to act as the BBEG previously mentioned and order the two giants front and center. Before hand the party cast a pit and put an illusion of ground over it - the lead giant failed and went in, the following giant went into a second pit cast directly on him. Party rolled a wagon into the first pit, which the giant sundered so he could climb out, but ended up creating a bunch of kindling which just made the fires worse when they were cast in the next round. The other giant probably was handled poorly, while in the pit he was surrounded by good guys with long spears who proceeded to attack repeatedly (an idea that came from Sterling if I recall correctly). Nobody knew how to handle bullrushing out of a pit, and it was the last mob and getting late, it turned into a pin cushion and died.
Over all, I don't know that the pit itself was an issue, it certainly did almost nothing to stop the BBEG. Glitter dust was more devastating on the Ogres, and the final fight was an afterthought from the get go.
The pit is an extradimensionary space, can burrow be used in this example or would the beasty be opening a portal to a level of hell or something? Interesting :)
People fall into wells all the time, and those are pre-existing (not suddenly appearing beneath you) and usually have signs and walls to prevent falling in. Having a 30' well suddenly open up underneath you is probably a more difficult situation to avoid than stepping over a 5' hole you are approaching as you walk/run.
Spes Magna Mark wrote:
It would take a caster level of 4 to make the pit 20' deep, and by the time you get Spiked Pit (6th level)you are looking at 30'. Roll a cask of oil into it at that point and throw in a torch. :)
Wow, long thread, so these may have been mentioned already...
- Allow thieves the tabletop utility of picking locks and disarming traps. This was one of the most exciting aspects of DDO, a pleasant departure from thievs/rogues in other games being "stabby stabby" all the time.
- Randomly generated dungeons, similar to what was introduced in EQ's Dungeons of Norrath expansion. End game content consisting of running the exact same handful dungeons over and over with the exact same monsters placed in the exact same locations is, well, boring.
- Some kind of system in place to limit the constant jumping around common in pretty much every MMO today. In PvP especially, if you are constantly hopping up and down, you should take some kind of hit - be it accuracy or stamina or something.
Scott Betts wrote:
I can attest to this. My first beta weekend was Skyrim release weekend and I waited over three hours in queue to get into the game. This weekend there have been queues of 8+ hours to get into the game. Will it be a "WoW killer?" Nobody can tell the future, but it's a solid bet that even if it never sees half of WoW's [questionable] clientele, it will still be a success as a product.