Inner Sea World Guide is your friend here. I don't know if they've made splat books for those nations but those would be your next resources.
Basically, wizard 1 pissed off wizard 2. The result was a pissing match that resulting in the mana wastes. The ISWG touches briefly on more particulars but nothing more than a paragraph or two iirc.
My master summoner can easily solo a single monster. He cleared out an island infested with undead all by himself. A dragon isn't difficult when you can bring the powers of heaven, hell and the various planes to bear.
Other classes may not be as soloable but an adventuring party will encounter far more than enough treasure to share.
Just thought of my MS duo-ing with a cleric. Dayam!
It does not. It helps explain the process to clear up misconceptions, give insight into how materials are acquired and so on but the mechanics themselves are not changed.
The black raven wrote:
In the Worldwound AP there is a bonafide good aligned demon. Anything can be of any alignment should they actually do what the alignment does.
Why am I spoilering this in a GM thread? Because it's a special kind of bastardy.
Would Xin use his prepped mage's disjunction to target a party magus' black blade instead of the Sihedron? Similarly, if he recognizes a vocation that is particularly item-dependant other than magus would he also use it on them?
Keep reading. If you use the AoE version of the spell items get a save and are essentially mundane items for the duration of the spell. If you use the targeted version the item makes a save at a neg and if it fails *that* save then it's permanently stripped of any magic that was on it. This can also work against artifacts but there's a 95% chance of attracting the attention of a deity that was interested in it.
The only FAQ close to this is about the synthesist. In that all effects persist on the summoner once the eidolon goes away. I would say they would persist on the eidolon outside that archetype as well. There's nothing about summoned creatures losing effects when they go home outside that FAQ which is limited to a single archetype.
Spell Combat, even though explicitly derived from TWF, had its action type changed by FAQ to an undefined action type within the Full Round category.
I'm just not seeing where you're getting that. In the ability description it's a full round action. The only FAQ I've seen related was the one about haste and that doesn't mention changing the action type of Spell Combat.
I will maintain that Spell Combat was never TWF either. FoB spells out that it is TWF and may even be used with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and is also a full attack action. Spell Combat does not and is not a full attack action. It simply makes makes mention about TWF in the usual flavor section before it breaks down the mechanics of the ability.
The mention of TWF was simply there to provide a mental scaffold that people can point to and be like "oh it's like this." No matter how similar it may read, though, that doesn't make it TWF. You can't nor never have been able to take the TWF feats to affect it. It provides no other hooks by which TWF or its related mechanics can hook on to.
It simply spells out a method by which you can attack with a one-handed blade and cast a spell in the same round. As was mentioned earlier this is something no other class can do and distinctly makes it un-TWF like as that capacity is no wear in the description for Two-Weapon Fighting.
Prior to the FAQ, nothing RAW explicitly stated Spell Combat's action type was different than TWF's, which Spell Combats uses as a reference for mechanics.
It most certainly does not. If that were true where it mentioned the off-hand weapon being a spell you can cast would be been the end of the ability description with maybe one more sentence spelling out you can cast it in the same round a spell with 1 standard action or less. Instead it goes on in a fairly meaty paragraph spelling out exactly what you can do with that full round action. If it were just TWF that would have been wholly unnecessary. As we've seen on this boards several times Paizo fights for more space in their books. They could have easily chopped that off to expound more on something else yet it's there as is.
NOT ALL FULL ROUND ACTIONS ARE FULL ATTACKS
Haste specifically triggers off full attacks. Spell Combat has never and should have never been subject to haste.
Actually my argument, explicitly so as I actually said basically this very same thing just with different terms, is that all sedans are cars but not all cars are sedans.
Spell Combat has always been a full round action and not a full attack action. It's no more inconsistent in that under each other action type there are specific actions such the attack action under standard actions. The paradigm has always been there.
What would you recommend for a PC-founded arcane study group? After looking at the various magic schools it doesn't really fit. It wants to be a general "club," as it were, that accepts all arcane traditions and provides an overall welcome environment for people to use magic and get better at it.
From what I've seen the various schools are either teaching, religious, hidden or the super pragmatic guild type. However, this place would be both teaching for those traditions but also provide mentorship for the more spontaneous ones as well as advocating the use of magic toward good-aligned goals. In short, think Jedi for Golarion.
In other words it seems have a bit of each type of school minus the religious bend. It is staunchly neutral in relation to politics and religion.
No. TWF is a full attack action. Not full round. Spell combat is full round. Thus, it can not be TWF. FoB is a full attack.
Spell combat is not TWF and never has been. If it were then those feats would apply as would those penalties but they do not. You just get to make two attacks at a certain, static penalty. It's TWF-like in a comparative sense but has never been a child of that mechanic.
I don't see it as inconsistent. It's specified as a full round action in the description. This is what I was talking about a = b but b =/= a logic. Even though full attack actions are full round actions the reverse is not necessarily true.
Diego Rossi wrote:
So he can. It still doesn't mean haste applies to spell combat. Full attack actions may be full round actions but full round actions are not necessarily full attack actions. It's a common inheritance problem I deal with in programming all the time so it makes perfect sense to me. It's the same as all caucasians are human but not all humans are caucasian. Since haste specifies full attack actions that means it needs to be that kind of actions. Full round actions do not automatically apply.
In various places in the rules do I see various abilities being used as swift actions in conjunction with full attack actions but never with full round actions.
Diego Rossi wrote:
Spending a ki point is a swift action. You're excused.