Buri's page

For PFS you'd still need to own the original source. It's Paizo's way to make sure they stay in the black at least for "official" events. If they released an Ultimate Spell book that would likely cover it, of course.

No. Supernatural abilities are not subject to SR.

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.

Heresy! Someone must be right!

A player can goof on their own core stats and be insane. This is little different.

Most things in the monster stat blocks are pretty easy to reverse engineer. If it's just 2x a normal attack then simply calculate the base one with adjusted stats and double it. It's perfectly reasonable for a creature who suddenly gets stronger to have their special attacks improve as well.

How would it not? It's just another natural attack damage. Where do you think a + anything in addition to damage die comes from?

If you've got Word, Publisher or Acrobat you can make your own PDF of spells and print it out. You can even publish it online for free under the community use license.

I'm playing a master summoner natural weretiger about to hit level 10. The choices to me are many with lots of good options. Does anyone have a particular suggestion? I very well may end up just taking the most suggested one. The buffs to damage, defense and utility are all very, very attractive.

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!

Nah, adventuring is FAR more lucrative. A single dragon's horde can potentially found kingdoms or set one's family to be rich for generations to come. You can come across several of these adventuring in a year.

Nope. Instead I just do it. I don't even need rest, booya!

A summoner can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level each day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table 2–7.

Quath wrote:

Thankfully doesn't Ultimate Campaign have revised crafting rules in it?

Does it? Well that's good news.

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.

Adamantine full plate for regular mundane crafting... you can only make a few of these in your entire career if you're a human.

So my summoner is unaffected. Woot!

I'm just saying. If it applies to others then why don't they even mention sorcerers? That would take an FAQ.

Recent casting applies to spells, not other abilities. As Nefreet pointed out it also only applies to Wizards. If Paizo intends for it to apply more broadly they should issue an FAQ entry about it.

Even so different style locks require different picks. Knowing what's what can be frustratingly difficult if you can't see the style of lock to begin with.

Are they the same kind of lock? Are they the same locks you've been picking? If you're blind or even effectively so and came up to a new lock in a place like a dungeon I think it could potentially take a while to figure it out.

That is awesome feedback!

The major caveat to this though is that locks today are pretty standardized. Even so, there are different kinds of locks and they require different techniques. You could probably identify this through touch alone but it'd be pretty frustrating.

Paizo said killing evil babies was Good, except when it is Evil.

Forcing people (even demons) to act good does not make them good and is usually considered very close to evil by many Good people.

Protagonists facing monsters in movies may be good, but I would not say that they qualify as Paladins. Also these movies do not represent all the kind of movies that can be done with people facing monsters. Obviously, monsters in these movies are irredeemably evil. Such is not necessarily the case in PFRPG, even for Evil outsiders, who can be redeemed, at least according to Champions of Purity.

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.

I agree that picking a lot is much more of a touch/feel based thing than being sight based.

Why am I spoilering this in a GM thread? Because it's a special kind of bastardy.

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.

SR applies to the target of the spell only unless the spell itself says otherwise. For plague carrier only normal disease rules apply.

Class levels in classes that grant familiars stack. Familiar stats are dictated by their base animal plus changes listed in the familiar section under wizards unless you take the Improved Familiar feat.

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.

Full Round is a general classification, Full Attack is a sub-category within that classification.

Spell Combat is derived from TWF, much like FoB, and falls under the general classification of Full Round. The FAQ made it a distinct action type rather than retaining the Full Attack action type shared by both TWF and FoB. This is the inconsistency.

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.

The core of Pathfinder is intact. The other options are meant to address play concepts outside of core. If you don't like them then don't use them. Nothing compels you to.

Buri wrote:

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.

Yes. Just like Flurry of Blows.

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.

Buri wrote:

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.

While not all full round actions are full attack actions, full attack actions are a type of full round actions.

Before the FAQ there was nothing explicitly stating spell combat was a different action type than TWF (which spell-combat is explicitly derived from).

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 disagree Silentman. Spells as is are fine. My Master Summoner already feels broken. At level 17 when I take Quickened Spell-like Ability I'll feel even more broken.

Spells are a resource issue. You only get so many. Spend them wisely. This is a good thing.

Jiggy wrote:

There's a FAQ on that as well, actually.

Yes there is. FAQ

Thus my grumbling about inconsistent rulings. Two special attack forms, both derived from TWF. One benefits from haste, the other does not.

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.

Link?

Buri wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

Buri wrote:

Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.

Excuse me, where do you get the curious idea that a magus can't use a swift action after using spell combat?

The monk is using a no action (spending a Ki point) to make a extra attack that is still a no action but is part of his flurry of blow.
He don't get any action from that expenditure of a ki point.

Spending a ki point is a swift action. You're excused.

You still haven't replied to the question. what make you think that the magus can't use a swift action in conjunction with spell combat?

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.

Buri, are you really trying to say that you can't take a swift actions with full-round actions? Because if so, note:

prd wrote:

Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below). See Table: Actions in Combat for a list of full-round actions.

If not, carry on!

My bad!

Don't discount damage over time effects. Also, you're comparing hard, granite-style stone hitting your face compared to fire. The stone is going to do a lot more up front damage. It makes sense.

Buri wrote:

Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.

What type of action is a full attack action?

Full Round Action is a generic classification encompassing any number of specific actions, one of which is full attack.

The inconsistency comes from spell combat, an ability derived from twf fighting, being labeled its own unique action while all other abilities allowing iterative attacks or deriving from twf are still classified as full-round attacks.

And yes, magus can use swift actions in conjunction with spell combat. If full round actions precluded swift actions, the monk would not be able to combine ki expenditures with FoB.

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.

Buri wrote:

Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.

Excuse me, where do you get the curious idea that a magus can't use a swift action after using spell combat?

The monk is using a no action (spending a Ki point) to make a extra attack that is still a no action but is part of his flurry of blow.
He don't get any action from that expenditure of a ki point.

Spending a ki point is a swift action. You're excused.

My character in Rise just started renovating one of the buildings you come across and is going to make it into essentially a wizard academy. I cannot state enough how much I'm looking forward to this book.

How often? Considering one of my players is a flurry of maneuvers style monk I would say every session. Having your NPCs almost consistently blinded or sickened is wicked.

Technically, no. They don't have the blinded condition. However, I don't see a GM saying no either.

Except spell combat is a full-round action. Haste only works with the full-attack action. Also, there no other action you can take after spell combat such as the monk can will full-attack and swift actions.

Why couldn't you sneak attack a blinded person?

Blinded: The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any),[...]

It doesn't have to be a weaker one with a greater rod or a spell you have spell perfection feat on.

It's not and it doesn't really matter. The character could no more benefit from the same feat twice regardless if the feat or the character were the source of the benefit.