Alright. I tried to find my answer, and it seems to be vague at best. So, here we go:
I want to take a Ring of Sustenance and upgrade it later to add the +1 Ring of Protection ability to it. From my understanding there's debate on whether you can modify specifically named items. That's fine. Since that's not really clear (or if it's been clarified, let me know), I'd like to get to the meat of my question, and assume I crafted this ring.
So, this Ring of Sustenance costs 2500, and then I add protection +1, which 2000*1.5=3000gp, for a total of 5500gp. This gives me a Ring of Sustenance & Protection +1. I then later decide to upgrade the Protection ability on it to +2. Do I then have to pay 50% additional for that upgrade? Is upgrading from +1 to +2 considered a "separate ability" for the magic item upgrade clause?
Adding New Abilities wrote:
Ah, excellent points. This is a wonderful conversation. So much so, I think I need to annotate my post. I think we're making some great progress here. It's like some sort of murder mystery! I think the Butler murdered the Shadow Blending in the pantry with the candlestick!
@Seraphim's first reply:
So perhaps with that theory, it's the reverse. They wanted to remove the words "effectively invisible" from Shadow Blending, as using the word "invisible" complicates things rules wise (we are having this discussion, after all). So perhaps the Shadow Demon's ability needs to be updated? Or perhaps it's different because it's a Shadow Demon from the Abyss, while those other two examples seem to be more related to the Plane of Shadow. I'm not really sure, but you may be on to something here.
@Seraphimpunk's 2nd reply:
Invisibility Purge: Does this work on creatures that are naturally invisible? wrote:
Emphasis added. According to the FAQ, it works on all forms of invisibility, whether it be spell-like, supernatural, extraordinary, or otherwise. It doesn't work on the invisible stalker because it calls it out as not working. He did use the words "in general" though.
Concerning your 2 situations
(Just a sidenote real quick: This is actually very interesting since the way the rules are written, you can stack invisibility with attacking a creature that cannot see in darkness, thus giving the attacked creature a -2 to AC and giving the attacker a +2 Attack Bonus, for an "effective" total of +4AB for the attack. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Situation 2.) The human priest will have canceled out the invisibility on the dwarf rogues, but unless he has some ability to see through the darkness or a source of light, then they will still remain hidden to him. However, he will have removed (as mentioned in the sidenote) their bonus to attack against him, as well as their +20 or +40 bonus to stealth checks against him. This means that he will have a greater chance of at least perceiving them.
This actually leads into another interesting point: Spot and Listen were combined into Perception, while Move Silently and Hide were combined into Stealth in the transition from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Previously, in 3.5, that +20 bonus would have only applied to Spot checks. In Pathfinder, perception is perception, and stealth is stealth, so Invisibility became more powerful... And this is where we are today.
Thank you for that, I hadn't been as clear on the rules previously until this discussion. I think with our discussion so far, and the discussion to come, the topic is FAQable, no? I'd appreciate it if folk went ahead and hit the FAQ button. Because we've made it clear, I think... that this really isn't all that clear :D.
Oh, and yes, I'd like parties to prepare light spells as well. In our case, our current party doesn't have a Tier 1 character. No wizard, no cleric... we did just get a bard though. I had access to a special form of Invisibility Purge via a magic item.
You make some good points, Seraphimpunk. And would you interpret that they take a move action to become invisible in those lighting conditions until they do something to break invisibility?
As for Natural Invisibility and Shadow Blend being different, this is a great direction for the conversation, since I didn't check this before... I'd agree in theory, except they're worded very closely, and function similarly. We'll use the Will-o'-wisp's Natural Invisibility, since the Will-o'-wisp was referenced in the FAQ. I'll line them all up.
Shadow Blend(Su) wrote:
During any conditions other than bright light, a shadow demon can disappear into the shadows as a move-equivalent action, effectively becoming invisible. Artificial illumination or light spells of 2nd level or lower do not negate this ability.
Natural Invisibility(Ex) wrote:
Will-o'-wisps have the ability to extinguish their natural glow as a move action, effectively becoming invisible, as per the spell.
Invisibility Purge: Does this work on creatures that are naturally invisible? wrote:
I added some emphasis with italics. For me, with this consistent phrasing, it clears it up better for me, and makes a strong case for Invisibility Purge making Shadow Demons become visible, despite the logic that they'd just be shrouded in shadows. Though of course they'll still have their other defenses.
Thank you for steering the conversation this way Seraphimpunk. I wouldn't have made that connection otherwise. I'm not sure if this definitively answers the question, but there seems to be a stronger relationship here.
On the note of the creature, Kayerloth... What I find hilarious is it cannot see through Deeper Darkness. It has Darkvision to see through normal darkness, sure (but it can't cast normal darkness, except through shadow conjuration). And it has +20 perception. But it doesn't have any blindsight. To make up for this, they gave it Blind Fighting to let it roll twice on miss chance :D.
And see, that's a good point Seraphimpunk. "Effectively" isn't part of the standard rules vocabulary where you can pull a specific meaning from it, or as far as I've read anyway.
Yet the FAQ implies that Invisibilty Purge purges all forms of invisibility, not just magical/spell sources, except in the example used where the invisible stalker is said to not be affected by it.
The other part I see is that shadow blend isn't a result of deeper darkness, it just tends to accompany it since Shadow Demons can cast it at-will.
Anyone else have other thoughts? Or think this is FAQ-worthy?
Thanks! I also noticed this was semi-addressed in the FAQ afterward. Link here.
Paizo CRB FAQ wrote:
Hello. We came across a Shadow Demon, which has Shadow Blend. You can find the creature entry here.
Here's the specifics of the ability though:
Shadow Blend (Su) wrote:
Since they "effectively" become invisible, how does this interact with the spell Invisibility Purge (link)?
Here's the spell description:
Invisibility Purge wrote:
Ah, apologies for going off topic, but I thought I'd ask: Did you keep bit from the "Armor as DR" rules about magic armor, a separate source of DR, and natural armor combining to make a superior DR? I found that tended to make Barbarians wearing magical armor with some access to Natural Armor gods among adventurers.
And how do those rules play overall? What weaknesses do they have?
It seems I prepared a casting of Wall of Text today... I apologize in advance.
From my understanding, they didn't overtake them quickly due to production, cultural (including military culture), and religious issues; not because melee and non-gunpowder ranged weaponry just happened to be better. You can also cite the 1300s as the beginning of the "gun", and their effectiveness in the Hussite wars later in the 1400s, but those were very early prototypes. This is fairly good reference here.
But, the "early firearms" presented in Pathfinder seem to be more of the variety closer to the 1700s. It's hard to really say, as Pathfinder doesn't go into great detail about their firing mechanisms, barrel crafting techniques, and what have you... But the introduction of paper cartridge, along with the way they function, really seems to lean things towards that period. If they tossed in rifling, we'd be there for sure.
But this discussion is generally futile anyway, as Bows and Crossbows are far from being accurately represented, much like the firearms you do so despise. Afterall, Pathfinder and 3.5 are abstract systems.
So at the end of the day, it's about giving every weapon a unique "gimmick" to allow some different type of mechanical play. Shortbows and Longbows require martial training (or special class features), and can reload as free actions. With enough "training" (i.e. Feats), they become flexible weapons of death. Crossbows require little to no training, but deal more damage per shot from the start, as well as slightly greater range, but reload slower. Early on, the feats limited your ability to pursue greater levels of mastery with the crossbow. Later books changed that.
So what is left for the firearm to do, that would somehow follow its iconic history? The fast-firing, mastered weapon has been done by the Bow. The slow-firing damage dealing weapon has been done by the crossbow. They could just make it an "improved heavy crossbow", doing more damage, as historically that's what the musket pretty much was. But that's not iconic enough, and WotC did that already. Perhaps they could go with making it scare people in an area for firing! Except people are used to seeing fireballs going off, so the psychological effect of firearms are lost. Perhaps they should highlight how they were produced and trained cheaply, and have encounters with masses of soldiers firing muskets. But no, that's not very heroic.
"Ah-ha!" says one of the game designers. They cite how firearms more or less nullified plate armor. True, some armor perhaps could withstand the firepower, if crafted using the most modern and secretive armor crafting techniques at the time (Don't have the link handy, but I remember History channel having a show exploring some of the later armor techniques with hollow spaces between plates, much like tanks did later on), but most armor didn't stand up to firearms well. Plus, why create a whole new set of complicated rules when you can just recycle Touch Attacks, making the reading much easier for new players?
So they decide to run with that, and just go with touch attacks, since those more or less bypass armor. Now firearms have their unique gimmick. Shouldn't smoothbore firearms have limitations on mastery though? Well, Crossbows used to have limitation on mastery, and then splat books expanded upon them to make them masterable much like a bow. So they applied the same mastery to firearms, to make them in-line with all the other ranged weapons. Because if they didn't, every player would complain that their snowflake weapon of choice couldn't access all the other feats that popular weapons had (I can't be the only one who remembers the D&D ranged feat arguments of yore applying to crossbows).
Is this the best implementation? Probably not, but then again, what fantasy game DOES have a good implementation of firearms? Does it give it a unique gimmick to make firearms "feel" like firearms? Most certainly, and Pathfinder LOVES unique gimmicks that make classes and fighting styles feel unique, and by extension, awesome.
I could say how I'd design it, but hell, that's useless, as I don't have hundreds of hours of playtesting to cite like Paizo (and WotC before them) does. But, I do think this is how firearms got to be where they are today. They bother me a little bit, but not all that much, as it just becomes a game of balancing towards that type of gameplay, and dropping the price on firearms greatly, as enemies will start carrying them around as well.
Anyhoo, apologies for the wall, but I get a hunkering to spit one of these out now and again.
James Jacobs wrote:
Thanks James! Appreciate the feedback. Wish you the best on your diet!
Hey James, hope you're having a good Memorial Day Weekend. We're going to be putting ribeye, tiger prawns, scallops, and hotdogs on the BBQ ourselves. If you're really into BBQ, get a BBQ basket (The one with the handle) for BBQing scallops, basting them in olive oil and garlic ahead of time. Then, get a BBQ going using grapewood for your smoke. The scallops -really- soak in that wonderful grapewood smoke flavor. Even though we can't get the fresh scallops here in Fresno, with that nice smoke to it they taste awesome.
Anyhoo, time for my... I believe it's yearly question? Seems about the frequency I toss these at you.
So, my question is on the Stonelord, and one of his abilities.
The Stone Servant ability is described with the following (With emphasis added):
Stone Servant(Su) wrote:
At 5th level, a stonelord may call a Small earth elemental to her side, as a paladin calls her mount. This earth elemental is Lawful Good in alignment and possesses the celestial template, and it increases in size as the stonelord gains levels, becoming Medium at 8th level, Large at 11th level, Huge at 14th level, Greater at 17th level, and Elder at 20th level. This ability replaces divine bond.
So for me, it's understandable that you can call it to your side magically with a Full Action 1/day (And more at later levels). Though, what isn't clear to me is... if it dies, does the Stonelord suffer the usual penalty of not being able to summon it for 30 days, along with the -1 to AB/Damage? At the beginning it only has 13hp, so that makes it likely that it will die often.
What do you think was intended and/or how would you rule it?
Thanks again James!
Yes. Just as he said.
Also, I had a bunch of questions answered related to the Tetori Class and grappling with a bunch of feats, and the nice folk here answered it. Might give you an idea on how to further use Grapple:
Alright, rules for Radiant Charge (Bolded emphasis mine):
When you charge, you do so with the power of faith.
Prerequisites: Lay on hands class feature.
Benefit: When you hit with a charge attack, you can expend all of your remaining uses of lay on hands to deal extra damage equal to 1d6 per use of lay on hands expended + your Charisma bonus. This damage comes from holy power and is not subject to damage reduction, energy immunities, or energy resistances.
With a Lance on Horseback and/or a Critical Hit, I know you don't multiply the additional damage dice, but how about the additional Charisma Bonus Damage? And why not? I took a look at the "Multiplying Damage" rules in the combat section, and nothing really jumped out at me.
Thanks guys. Appreciate it.
@ Lantzkev/Drakkiel: Yeah, I had already mentioned how silly the whole pin thing was, and how easy it is to do to my GM. I'm sort of just evaluating all my options, to perhaps make things more interesting. You can't charge/grapple/pin/tie up in one round though, can you? Move is consumed by charge, attack initiates grapple, and then with rapid grappler you use the swift to pin them, so you'd need to tie up next round? Or does the character have some means of getting an extra move?
So while you grapple experts are here... Pin takes the whole body, so as your standard humanoid I can't grapple multiple characters/monsters without taking -20, right? The actions are there to maintain multiple grapples.
@Drakkiel: Hmmmm, right. "Hold" is that thing where you only grapple them with your attacking limb from a Grab, right?
So then the Grab damage only applies to Hold then. Interesting. I appreciate the help! Thanks again!
@Neo2151: Yeah... but I'm in the Wounds and Vigor system in our game, so theoretically with this double non-lethal damage thing from Knockout Pin, I can do a lot of HP damage (Since non-lethal does vigor damage). Anyhoo, it's painful, hence I haven't built one until now, but I'd settle for an Official Paizo Grapple Flowchart, personally. I know no tabletop game company likes to admit a flowchart may be needed, but it'd be a great help.
@Neo2151: Excellent point. I have considered this... And since the Tetori Monk unfortunately doesn't get Flurry of Blows, arguably the most desirable ability of Monks, I'm tempted to get in a level of fighter or something, and grab some heavy armor, forgoing bonus movement and WIS AC bonus. It's nice that the Tetori doesn't get any of the grappled penalties either. This would mitigate some of the full attacks wailing on me, with all the penalties they'd take.
I suppose I also get Stunning Pin as well. So that may be able to mitigate it some.
@ Drakkiel Ah, excellent! Thank you very much. That makes more sense. Definitely forgot the PIN part, figures when I'm writing this stuff late! :D Also makes sense that one cannot make the fire non-lethal.
If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. Unless otherwise noted, grab can only be used against targets of a size equal to or smaller than the creature with this ability. If the creature can use grab on creatures of other sizes, it is noted in the creature's Special Attacks line. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).
Does this not mean that Grab deals bonus damage?
Also, separate question: If I only made an attack action for the first attempt to initiate grapple, could I then use my move action to immediately maintain and pin?
I'm attempting to go down the rabbit hole that is The Grapple Rules. Tetori seems interesting, but it throws in Grab and the like, which makes things complicated.
I did some research beforehand, so I just wanted to confirm if the following are true:
And then confirm that I'm getting the steps right:
Alright, so, let's say it's a level 13 Tetori, since I think that's the most murky.
I have Improved Grapple, Greater Grapple, Rapid Grappler, Pinning Knockout, and Grab that can be activated on creatures my size or lower for 1 ki, or one size larger for 2 ki. Let's say I also have Power Attack, and an Amulet of the Mighty Fist +1 Flaming, with a 16 STR.
So, If I wanted to grapple someone, I'd...
1.) I spend 1 ki point before I start any attacks, to make ALL of my attacks gain the ability to Grab creatures my size or smaller. Nevertheless, I decide to do a move and then an Attack Action with Unarmed Strike and Power Attack. Power Attack lowers my AB and CMB by -3. But, I add +4 to my CMB from Improved+Greater Grapple, and by virtue of simply possessing the "Grab" ability, I gain another +4 to my CMB.
2.) Round Passes, the creature tries to escape my sexy oiled wrestler body, and fails.
3.) New round starts. I decide I still want Power Attack activated, giving me -3 to my AB/CMB. I take a move action to maintain my grapple via Greater Grapple, and succeed. I don't need to spend anymore Ki points, as for the rest of the grapple, I'm treated as having Grab. Therefore, after my success, I deal automatic damage from Grab, which is equal to 2d6(Unarmed Base)+3(STR)+6(Power Attack)+1d6+1(Flaming +1)=3d6+10. After that, as part of my maintain, I decide to use the "Damage" action, and decide to do nonlethal damage. I deal the aforementioned damage again, and after getting my damage result, per Pinning Knockout, my non-lethal damage result is doubled.
4.) I use my second move action to make another Grapple Check as per Greater Grapple, and succeed. I get bonus damage from Grab again, and I decide to do the "Damage" action again with nonlethal damage once more. Effectively I've done the same as I did with the previous move action.
5.) I use my swift action to make yet another Grapple Check, as per Rapid Grapple, and repeat the process over again.
6.) In the second round, with the three grapple checks, I have now dealt 6d6+30 Bludge + 3d6 Fire Lethal Damage, and 12d6+60 Bludge + 6d6 Fire Non-Lethal Damage.
Please tell me what I did wrong. I phrased things in no uncertain terms so as to make it easier to pick on. Once there's enough input, I'll edit as necessary and post a new step-by-step for review incorporating corrections.
@ Quandary: I hit favorite because I don't know how to "subscribe to posts" in this forum where they e-mail me. I figured maybe this would do it.
Your reply has made this much clearer, and I thank you for that. It's most appreciated.
I'll mark it for FAQ as well. It's not high priority, but they could have written this much better.
Question: What the heck does Soften Earth and Stone do in regard to creating collapse/landslides? Everything seems centralized on the Bury-Zone, but the spell says to not use the "bury zone". If there's no bury zone, where is the slide zone? This seems very vague, so any help is appreciated.
Relevent texts and links:
"...While this spell does not affect dressed or worked stone, cavern ceilings or vertical surfaces such as cliff faces can be affected. Usually, this causes a moderate collapse or landslide as the loosened material peels away from the face of the wall or roof and falls (treat as a cave-in with no bury zone, see Environment)."
Cave-Ins and Collapses (CR 8)
"Cave-ins and collapsing tunnels are extremely dangerous. Not only do dungeon explorers face the danger of being crushed by tons of falling rock, but even if they survive they might be buried beneath a pile of rubble or cut off from the only known exit. A cave-in buries anyone in the middle of the collapsing area, and then sliding debris damages anyone in the periphery of the collapse. A typical corridor subject to a cave-in might have a bury zone with a 15-foot radius and a 10-foot-wide slide zone extending beyond the bury zone. A weakened ceiling can be spotted with a DC 20 Knowledge (engineering) or DC 20 Craft (stonemasonry) check. Remember that Craft checks can be made untrained as Intelligence checks. A dwarf can make such a check if he simply passes within 10 feet of a weakened ceiling.
A weakened ceiling might collapse when subjected to a major impact or concussion. A character can cause a cave-in by destroying half the pillars holding up the ceiling.
Characters in the bury zone of a cave-in take 8d6 points of damage, or half that amount if they make a DC 15 Reflex save. They are subsequently buried. Characters in the slide zone take 3d6 points of damage, or no damage at all if they make a DC 15 Reflex save. Characters in the slide zone who fail their saves are buried.
Characters take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage per minute while buried. If such a character falls unconscious, he must make a DC 15 Constitution check each minute. If it fails, he takes 1d6 points of lethal damage each minute until freed or dead.
Characters who aren't buried can dig out their friends. In 1 minute, using only her hands, a character can clear rocks and debris equal to five times her heavy load limit. The amount of loose stone that fills a 5-foot-by-5-foot area weighs 1 ton (2,000 pounds). Armed with an appropriate tool, such as a pick, crowbar, or shovel, a digger can clear loose stone twice as quickly as by hand. A buried character can attempt to free himself with a DC 25 Strength check."
Hm, interesting points.
Mildly related... I also considered how this compares to say... wielding a one-handed weapon and then two-handing it for the strength/power attack bonus as a free action, and then free-actioning back to one hand to satisfy the requirements for Crane Wing, etc.
Not sure if that really helps stimulate any arguments or not, I'm new to natural weapons, so *shrug*.
I appreciate the arguments so far though, and I look forward to any other findings!
Figured I'd ask. There's things like Crane Wing, or Deflect/Snatch Arrows, and a number of other feats and class abilities, that have a "when you have at least hand free clause".
So, do claws count as hands? Logically, claws can come in all sorts of shapes and sizes as part of a hand, and for things like Deflecting it would make a sort of sense.
Mechanically, I'm imagining these things were worded to specifically exclude people who have a weapon in their offhand, which people with claws do.
So, thoughts? rule quotes? erratas?
I'm asking since I think a Barbarian raging, deflecting arrows and/or attacks... is pretty awesome :p
Oh, saw your post in the google group.
Anyhoo, I used this one in our last campaign, was a lot of fun, though it's long since been abandoned:
I'm currently editing this on the d20pfsrd, but I thought I'd let you know...
For Words of Power, Under the Acid Words section, you guys misapplied the latest Errata.
Corrosive Bolt is supposed to be "2 rounds", and Acid Wave is supposed to be "1 round/level (see text)". You guys have them in reverse :p.
No wonder I originally thought I was going to destroy stuff :D.
Edit: Actually, I just noticed, it seems like a lot of the errata is missing. I guess this will get updated with the rest of the errata?
Thanks, your speedy reply is most appreciated, as always! I found that by multiclassing the Weapon Adept Monk Archetype with the Inquisitor... that you get some class that slightly resembles the Avenger from 4th Edition D&D, which is spiffy.
Playing fanatical nutjobs from esoteric religious orders is always fun :D. Especially if you roleplay them like Alexander Anderson from Hellsing Ultimate! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN, hahahaha.
Hey James... Asked you a question back in November of last year, appreciated the answer. But of course, as you know, players are never satisfied... especially since I couldn't find any satisfying answers on the forums :p
Here's a question for you:
Do you reroll both d20s? Only one? Or...?
Here's some context (links lead to Paizo PRD entries):
The Perfect Strike ability lets me roll two dice for an attack roll, and choose the higher result.
The Inquisitor's Preacher Archetype has the determination ability, which can let me re-roll an attack roll before the result is known.
Hence, if you use both of these abilities on one attack roll, what is supposed to happen, or at the very least, intended to happen? Apart from my GM throwing his rulebook at me, anyway :P
I was going to make this long question thread, and then I found this, and I'm like "Wow, James is a totally agreeable dude".
Also, I read about your intention for this spell here, and it's most appreciated, I always found the "save the magic items over myself" to be silly as well. So Thanks!