Calthropstu's page

Aside from Artifacts and ghost salts, what ways are there in the rules to interact with a ghost being protected by a permanent anti-magic field from either direction (ghost interacting with others or others interacting with ghost)

A person suffers from possession (demonic, ghost etc) and is then polymorphed into a rock. What happens to the possessor? Obviously, a rock is not a valid target for possession. Are they forcibly booted, or can they remain in possession of the person rock?

I am the gm in this case. My gut says the enchantment acts on your feet, not your whole body, so you fall when knocked prone, but you can use acrobatics to halve damage, or even prevent it if given an extra round in the air (by jumping side to side to slow and stop the fall).
It's an odd case, and given no guidelines I guess I am free to be as creative as I want.

Flying creatures fall, walking creatures go prone instead. If an air walker is walking rather than flying, they just gain the prone condition.

Can you be prone in mid air?

I have done a cursory search and no consensus seems to have been reached.
Air walk is specifically not flying. An air walker is obviously vulnerable to trip. But what happens when he is tripped? Does he fall? Or does he simply lay prone in the air?

Yes, it is a plot device.
As for why people think snowball et al will work is because amf specifically states that the effects of an instantaneous conjuration may be brought into an amf. Since snowball creates a snowball which is then thrown at the enemy and acid spray fires acid from a starting point, you are, in a way, firing conjured materials into the amf.

Holy water was discussed. It would be extremely difficult to get enough holy water on it, given the whole flying through walls thing. And I don't see rules for gallons (or liters) of holy water.

My intent is to have a almost completely invulnerable, but impotent, creature to annoy the pcs in one of my games. A ghost with a permanent amf was the first thing that sprung to mind. I mentioned this in the giant forums, and they came up with instantaneous conjuration damage spells. Because they cease being magical after casting, the thought is that they should affect the ghost normally.
However, my argument is that since they cease being magical, they don't affect the ghost at all since only magic can affect it.

Also, can reach spell for instant conjuration spells such as corrosive touch or cure light wounds be thrown into the amf?

Proposed scenario: there is a ghost with an anti magic field.
Would spells like snowball and acid spray work on it against both the amf AND its incorporeality? There was some debate on this.

Calthropstu wrote:

My entire argument has been that hovering is part of the fly action.

There is no fly action.

Quote:

I had thought flying was, itself, a move action because I could not find anything saying otherwise.

The statement from the fly skill saying that the action is "None" has been quoted several times.

Quote:

Fly is a free action that enables movement of flight.

Hover is enabled by the free action fly.
Hover, being a subset of the free action fly, allows for the use of full round actions.
If you cannot take actions for any reason you cannot take the free action fly during your turn and fall.

The bestiary lists starting or ending flight as a free action. Making a fly skill check is listed as no action. The difference between 'fly as a free action' and 'fly as not an action' is minimal, but could be an issue if you try to take multiple free actions in a round.

Think of it this way: a 5' step is 'not an action'. Making a 5' step while flying is still 'not an action'. It doesn't suddenly take more time (e.g. a free action) because you are up in the air. Ditto standing still/hovering. Not an action. Flying doesn't change the time required to complete an action. It just introduces the possibility of needing to succeed at a fly skill check in order to be able to do the action you want.

Making a fly skill check is not an action.

No where does it say flying is not an action, and the bestiary contradicts you completely.

Making the check is not an action, FLYING is the action which, according to the bestiary, and not contradicted anywhere else that I can see (definitely not in the core rulebook) is a free action, not a nonaction. The check is a nonaction, flying is a free action, using flying to move is a move action. If you cannot take a free action you fall.

All the relevant rules have been posted. Your post is blatantly ignoring most of them.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Movement, yes (as I said in my post). I'm not so sure about hovering though. At most that might constitute a free action. I'd be more inclined to treat it as the absence of movement. Still requiring a 'not an action' fly check, but not actually being any sort of action itself either. Of course, in practical terms there is no difference... save that GMs can impose limits how many 'free actions' you get in a turn.

That is the whole crux of this argument.

What kind of action is "hovering." The issue is not the check itself, the issue is whether or not hovering is an action. My entire argument has been that hovering is part of the fly action. I had thought flying was, itself, a move action because I could not find anything saying otherwise. The post from the bestiary implies "fly" is a free action, thus making hover, which is a subset of the free action flying, a free action itself.

This is the end result of the argument (and I assume most will agree):

Fly is a free action that enables movement of flight.
Hover is enabled by the free action fly.
Hover, being a subset of the free action fly, allows for the use of full round actions.
If you cannot take actions for any reason you cannot take the free action fly during your turn and fall.

I suppose it could be argued that "starting flight" and "ending flight" is not "maintaining flight" but if we go down that road, it is truly nitpicking and rather silly.

Calthropstu wrote:

Not quite far enough actually, but it's a start. Ceasing flight is not exactly hovering is it? And ceasing flight while flying would cause you to plummet.

"A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."

Flying is a free action, as mentioned above. You make your Fly check to hover as part of this free action. Where is the problem?

Hmmm.

Now THAT I hadn't considered. I had also not considered looking at the bestiary, only the core rule book. THAT I can accept, and resolves the issue for me.

Edit: it also proves stun causes you to plummet RAW because you cannot take the free action of flying.

The real issue here is there are no rules for items called "maneuvers."

Listing "hover" under the maneuver list and not explicitly stating it as a free action is a mistake: because there are no rules listed for "maneuvers", we have to go by what we think it SHOULD be, rather than having an explicit guide.

Going off dictionary definitions, a maneuver is movement. Going off game terms, "fly" is dealing with flight, a type of movement. So a "maneuver" of flight, would be in game terms movement.

Wait, I've got it. Bestiary Universal Monster Rules.

Flight (Ex or Su) wrote:

A creature with this ability can cease or resume flight as a free action. If the ability is supernatural, it becomes ineffective in an antimagic field, and the creature loses its ability to fly for as long as the antimagic effect persists.

Hopefully this lays everything to rest.

Not quite far enough actually, but it's a start. Ceasing flight is not exactly hovering is it? And ceasing flight while flying would cause you to plummet.

My argument is simply state: Hover is a free action. It needs to be explicitly stated as an errata. Solves ALL issues. It is not already stated, and when I was researching this, there were several dozen threads started here and elsewhere regarding stun, flight and hover.

So to throw out the "fly checks are non actions" and proclaim it "cut and dry" is ridiculous. More people than just I have run into this issue: but explicitly stating hover as a free action solves every possible rules question regarding it.

And this is why I'm glad you don't play PFS anymore.

Hover requires a Fly check. Hover is not listed as an action. Fly checks are not listed as an action. PROVE that Hover is an action, and I will agree with you.

I already did.

Hover: listed as a maneuver under the fly skill.
The fly skill: listed as a skill that relates to the movement type: fly. While flying is "no more difficult than walking (as per the spell, fly), it is still movement.

To perform a maneuver under a subsection of movement has to be movement, does it not? I can't think of anything else it could possibly be. It is not listed as an action, it is listed as a maneuver... under a skill dealing with the movement type flight. If it's a maneuver allowed by movement, how is it not movement itself under the rules?

Calthropstu wrote:

It SHOULD be, but is not explicitly stated as such. It needs to be explicitly stated as such.

And to this I point to the "Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action." text of the Fly skill. I understand you disagree with this argument, but I can't find any clearer way to say "Hover is a non-action."

That is a non argument. The fly check itself isn't the action. HOVER is the action, a subset of the fly action. Continuing to spout that shows your reading comprehension is SEVERELY lacking.

Calthropstu wrote:

Is flying a move action? Obviously. If you have to perform a check under the fly skill to perform a maneuver, how is that NOT a part of the fly movement action?

Not obviously. Flying is a method of movement. It is a move action to move while flying. Flying itself is not an action, as the Hover maneuver is not listed as an action anywhere. But if you fail the check to continue flying, you will stop flying.

In short, Hover is already a free action unless proved otherwise.

It SHOULD be, but is not explicitly stated as such. It needs to be explicitly stated as such.

Calthropstu wrote:

The check itself is not the action. The action is "Flying."

Hover is listed as a "flying maneuver" ie: a maneuver that is enabled by the fly action. NOWHERE does it state that hover is not considered a move action, nor does it state that it counts as "not moving" for the round.

Now, the fact that your character does not leave his square IS an argument one can take, however not all movement requires you to leave your square. Hover, going by the rules as written there, is a maneuver done as part of the fly movement action that moves you zero spaces.

The problem with this argument is that hovering is not an action. There is no such action listed in the Actions in Combat table. If you are going to claim this is the rule, you need to provide the rule stating it is an action. "It doesn't say it isn't" does not prove that it is. (But it's good to see you still playing, in any event.)

My argument is this:

Flying is a move action. It is a method of movement.
Just as tumbling maneuvers (avoiding attacks of opportunity, getting through an enemy square etc) are movement, just as jumping maneuvers are movement (vertical, horizontal), just as drawing a weapon is movement.

Hovering is a maneuver you can take while flying. Of course this whole argument can be eliminated if we consider that "Hovering is a free action you can take while in flight and relies on the fly skill."

It supports the FAQ ruling, eliminates any confusion (since you cannot take actions while stunned, and since it would be a free action, you'd fall) eliminates the possibility that how I am reading it becomes an issue, and we all go on perfectly happy.

Is flying a move action? Obviously. If you have to perform a check under the fly skill to perform a maneuver, how is that NOT a part of the fly movement action?

If I AM correct, it severely limits flying creatures in many ways: no full attacks in the air (unless you decide to not fly and begin plummeting... in which case you fall 300 feet, and can perform your full attack... which doesn't really make sense.) No spells with 1 round casting time. No full round actions either.

Making hover a free action in its own right eliminates all confusion, and I think is the action needed with this.

Calthropstu wrote:

That ruling implies you are incorrect: hovering is a move action.

"Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action"

You are never going to 'get it' if you insist on ignoring statements patently contradicting your pre-suppositions.

I'm not ignoring anything, you are.

The check itself is not the action. The action is "Flying."

Hover is listed as a "flying maneuver" ie: a maneuver that is enabled by the fly action. NOWHERE does it state that hover is not considered a move action, nor does it state that it counts as "not moving" for the round.

Now, the fact that your character does not leave his square IS an argument one can take, however not all movement requires you to leave your square. Hover, going by the rules as written there, is a maneuver done as part of the fly movement action that moves you zero spaces.

This is why stunned causes you to fall: you cannot perform the fly action.

Seriously, it really is all there. As such, flying creatures do not get their full attacks when hovering, stunning et al causes you to fall, and a plethora of other things happen as well. Maybe it was intentional by the designers, maybe it's an oversight... there are certainly a large number of oversights in the game.

Sorry double post

Calthropstu wrote:

Can you point to me where it changes the rules for magical flight vs winged flight? I read the rules pretty thoroughly, and apart from tanglefoot and similar items, no where does it state "winged" vs "magical"

I believe you may be remembering things from 3.5 vs pathfinder....

I'm not remembering 3.5, I've never actually played it. Without the FAQ, a paralyzed creature flying via a fly spell does not fall (at least there is nothing that states it does). The paralyzed condition only discusses winged creatures, and even states the REASON they fall (which would not apply to magical flight).

paralyzed wrote:

A winged creature flying in the air at the time that it becomes paralyzed cannot flap its wings and falls.

Stunned doesn't mention flight at all.

In the Fly skill, the check that needs to be made when a creature takes damage or collides with something mid-air both are only made during winged flight, NOT magical flight.

Basically, SOME of the rules do differentiate between the two, and logically, I think they should, since magical flyers don't need to keep flapping to keep flying, but some parts don't differentiate. The FAQ definitely doesn't differentiate, and even explicitly changes the way paralyzed characters are affected. If you were to make a ruling prior to the FAQ, then going off the only things that cause a flying creature to fall (failed fly check after damage or collision, or paralysis) which only talk about winged flight, then you'd likely differentiate the two for other unwritten situations based on that difference. Failing to hover is the only thing that doesn't specify a difference, and the direction that would have made more sense would have been to clarify THAT part, instead of changing everything else.

Actually, the rules DO state it falls, I had come to the conclusion from reading the rules, and didn't even know the FAQ had that in it. It does not EXPLICITLY state it, however, the combination of rules regarding flight, magical flight, and other statements in the rules regarding stunned et al pretty much led me to the conclusions mentioned in my original post.

If I noticed it, and those that wrote the FAQ noticed it, and others noticed it, how is it you and others do not? Yes, it's kind of vague, but it IS there. The only reason the FAQ is needed on this is because well... it needs a much higher reading comprehension level than average to notice it. And well... for a game that is supposed to be playable by both adults and kids, that is not a good thing.

Can you be more specific what your question is?

If your question is "does flying always require a move action to stay aloft" the answer is no. That's what the DC 15 hover check is for, you stay in place without expending an action whatsoever.

That's why the rules say "usually" part of another action, but you usually make the fly check in response to trying to do something fancy while flying like climbing at a faster rate than normal, or turning extra sharp. Flying straight forward at constant elevation doesn't require a check. Hovering in place (which doesn't expend an action) does require a check because most things need to move to actually stay aloft.

Well the first portion of my question has been answered by FAQ.

The FAQ ruled it that I was correct on the part that stunning causes you to fall.

That ruling implies you are incorrect: hovering is a move action. You are accelerating upwards at exactly 3.8 meters per second. Hover, looking at the rules, is a move action: ie, a maneuver you can take as part of the flying move action. The ruling that stun causes you to fall not only supports this interpretation but actually kind of confirms it.

Wu Nakitu wrote:

For home game rulings, this is fine, but the FAQ (quoted by Snowblind above) is the most valid resource in the Rules forum, and rules totally differently.

Another example of why FAQ's should only exist for a short duration, and should quickly go into the errata process. An errata to this would involve actually going through and hashing out the discrepancies in the flight rules, instead of the FAQ's overruling 'most conservative' effort. MOST the wording involving flying seems to call out the different in winged and magical flight, including most the flight checks - but the FAQ, in an effort to make a simple answer, ignores this. Which would make sense if you were forced into making a quick decision - but that is not what should remain as the long-standing rule. It just seems odd that getting damaged or running into something while flying under the fly spell cannot cause you to fall (presumably, because disrupting your physical motion is irrelevant when its not your physical motion keeping you aloft), but being hit by Color Spray will automatically make you fall (presumably, because it disrupts your physical motion).

Hopefully errata does come from this, because it really would NOT be difficult to spread the winged/magical difference among the few references to flight in the rules (Fly spell, Fly skill, Paralyzed condition, etc). I think most the rule issues are in the CRB, so it's only one book that needs to be fixed.

(Yet another example of how a rule system this big NEEDS to move away from print as the standard method of distribution. It is insane that there are FAQ's still present from 2010, instead of the rules being clarified in subsequent editions of the book).

Can you point to me where it changes the rules for magical flight vs winged flight? I read the rules pretty thoroughly, and apart from tanglefoot and similar items, no where does it state "winged" vs "magical"

I believe you may be remembering things from 3.5 vs pathfinder. That is some of the wording that was removed.

Calthropstu wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Calthropstu wrote:

Because flying is always a move action

Sez who?

The book text;
"Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."

I don't see the word 'move' in there at all.

Full attack is an action... which would require a DC 15 fly check to hover to pull off.

"A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action..."

Right there is where it says it. "A fly check is made as part of another action."

If you're making a fly check, it means you are making an action that requires a fly check: namely, flying.

...

*sigh*

Missing something, aren't we?

"...or as a reaction to a situation."

If you're making a fly check, it means you are making an action that requires a fly check, OR you are making a fly check as a reaction to the situation that your character finds themself in. Since hovering presumably doesn't require spending a move action, and there are no other listed actions it would fall under, it has to be a reaction to a situation i.e. the flyer didn't take an action to move that turn (whether they can't take an action, or because they chose not to is irrelevant), and the fly check to hover is a reaction to that situation.

You are missing something as well:

Hover is listed as a FLYING MANEUVER. Which means it is taken as part of the flying action.

For situations, it specifically lists example situations (caught in strong winds, et al) SEPARATE from the flying maneuvers. The only RAW interpretation here is that hover is part of the fly action, and is one of the maneuvers the fly action allows.

No where does it say that hovering counts as standing still, and it flat out states it is actually significantly more difficult. "Standing still" is mentioned NOWHERE in regards to flying. RAW, flying is movement, and the only way to be standing still is to NOT be flying.

Calthropstu wrote:

Because flying is always a move action

Sez who?

The book text;
"Action: None. A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action or as a reaction to a situation."

I don't see the word 'move' in there at all.

Full attack is an action... which would require a DC 15 fly check to hover to pull off.

"A Fly check doesn't require an action; it is made as part of another action..."

Right there is where it says it. "A fly check is made as part of another action."

If you're making a fly check, it means you are making an action that requires a fly check: namely, flying.

So I have browsed the issue and it looks like this has been argued a few times. I am currently arguing this on another forum and I think it's time for a serious ruling.

Rules as Written:
"A fly skill check requires no action, as it is generally part of another or a reaction."

Previous to stating this it has the following:
"Flying maneuvers:
Fly less than half your movement rate: DC 10
Hover: 15..."

The Fly spell states "Flying is no more difficult than walking" and then refers you back to the fly skill.

Analyzing every bit of everything that mentions flying it looks like we get the following:

Flying ALWAYS requires an action. The act of flying is an action "no more difficult than walking."

Hover is part of the flying action. If you can't take actions, you can't fly... therefore you can't hover.

Any condition that denies you actions, RAW, denies you flight causing you to fall.

Because flying is always a move action, you can never take a full attack action from the air unless you charge and have pounce (or similar).

This is how it looks going over every inch of the rules as written.

If this is NOT rules as intended, or if I am misinterpreting things, please let me know.

Ok, so two players can spend 3 feats and a one level dip in oracle to gain what amounts to fast healing 1 (or perhaps 2).

May I suggest just taking a one level dip in Verminous Hunter instead? Because, as we all know, their unlimited healing is so broken that everyone does it...

It allows them to provide infinite healing to anyone without expending resources, and has zero monetary cost.

However, I did just look up boots of the earth and well... 1 oracle with these boots would amount to the same thing.
If they had the feats as well, with a high con and a belt of con +4, they could effectively grant fast healing 5 to anyone as a full round action, without ever taking damage themselves.
For an army, that would be an insane boon.

Thanks for the tip... though I don't know if my gm will allow those boots, since it's a golarion specific item and we are in the forgotten realms.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

No one in PFS is going to be binding outsiders on an extended basis...and finding two players willing to play life oracles with the asaimar nerfs is going to be a challenge.

In order to get this working at a reasonable level (3) you would need to be human or multiclass something that gets a bonus feat anyways. Otherwise you don't get this until level 5, which is a long time to wait before your build does anything in PFS

Or multiclass into oracle.

PFS doesn't allow the psionics unleashed material.
This is also for npcs, not pcs. The power I have, psychic reformation, allows me to have people repurpose themselves, reselecting feats, spells, powers, ability score bonuses etc.
Only their class levels cannot be changed.
It is a powerful utility which would allow me to repurpose life oracles to this particular setting, then change them back after the battle.

Thanks evilmonk.
Yes, that was the kami I remember.
The aeon was the Akhana, who gets infinite cure serious, not light.

True, which is why I was looking into alternatives. Of course, when your goal coincides with the intentions of a major deity, those repurcussions are often mitigated.
Still, I saw that combo and wanted to get gm's and players reactions to it.
PFS, which uses RAW as law, this would be clear cut. The wording is about as cut and dry as it comes.
But I can see many GMs saying "infinite healing at 3rd level? Hell no."

Calthropstu wrote:

Nothing says the damage the oracles take can't be healed, in fact the whole purpose is to allow the oracle to take on the damage to others so that the damage is much easier to take care of.

Raw, this is pretty cut and dry.
It isn't pleasant, or even particularly quick, so though the healing is limitless, a simple planar binding of a ghaele azata would be far more efficient time wise.
Infinite healing already exists in the form of creatures able to infinitely cast cure light unlimited.

Name them... AFAIK, no such creatures exist.

Ghaele azata

Nothing says the damage the oracles take can't be healed, in fact the whole purpose is to allow the oracle to take on the damage to others so that the damage is much easier to take care of.
Raw, this is pretty cut and dry.
It isn't pleasant, or even particularly quick, so though the healing is limitless, a simple planar binding of a ghaele azata would be far more efficient time wise.
Infinite healing already exists in the form of creatures able to infinitely cast cure light unlimited.

I am in a psion campaign, and picked up the ability psychic reformation.
I am in the process of building an army in the campaign and was looking into ways to provide for healing and I want to confirm my theory.

If 2 Oracles were to to pick lifelink, and both were to lifelink to eachother, and they both had the fast healer feat, it looks as though they could provide infinite healing to eachother.
Which in turn means they could provide infinite healing for others as well.

Is this assertion correct?

I am currently playing in The Jade Regent and a question has come up.

What is the standing army of the country Amieko is trying to reclaim?

For all intents and purposes, it looks as though the person who sits on the throne of the Jade Empire controls an area similar to china. A friend of mine claimed that there was little to no standing army in ancient China, and for a period of time, he would be correct. A large amount of forces were done via conscription. Conscription, however, fell into disuse in the 6th century.

Does the country Ameiko is trying to reclaim use conscription, or does it have a standing army? And if it has a standing army would it have a standing army similar to that of 7th-13th century China?

Actually, anything with Epic DR counts as being Epic. There's a good number of epic monsters, the most powerful of which is the Tarrasque.

I have been toying with the idea of an awesome campaign idea... where suddenly a group of Mu Spores has somehow found some sort of food source and have begun organizing a colony around one spot. It happens to be close to a human kingdom and they see it as a threat. They ask the PCs to eliminate that threat. However, that food source just happens to be an endlessly regenerating tarrasque.

The way the spell is worded I can see how it could be read that both the caster and the target get +0 to +6 to the cha check. Though my first reading I only thought the caster got the bonus.

I'm 2 levels away from being able to do this, 4 levels from being able to do it well. Though easy to abuse, I think I'm just going to bind a single Nessian Hellhound to follow me around through Eyes of the Ten and other such Seeker adventures, so as to not irk the GM and since they are easy to bind and control. I might try for a bearded devil for some level 10 or 11 scenarios.

I just reached the level I can do this, and I am curious as to how DMs will handle it. I came up with the summon 1 for everyone thing while discussing it with some other people who mentioned it would piss off all the other players. Even just using summon monster hurts gameplay, using perma-summons would be even worse... causing ME to take half the combat. Doing one for everyone, and allowing them to dismiss theirs if they so choose would make it infinitely more enjoyable for everyone involved... especially if you took a nice array of different creatures.

GMs can always add a circumstance bonus or penalty to anything the players are doing per Core. If the only thing you are using is a Charisma check to try and get a powerful outsider's help, then that should be difficult. As a GM, if you called a good outsider during a demon fight I may even give you a bonus. Calling the same outsider to find some esoteric lore that doesn't benefit the outsider's deity would be a different story.

The newest Demon/Worldwound books take an in depth look at what a player needs to do in order to appease the outsider when they call a particular type of demon. I'm sure future Angel/Azata/Archon books will have something similar. I think those are what is meant to be the offering to get the 0 to +6 bonus on a Charisma check.

Building a PFS character that only starts coming into its own at 10th level, with such a 'difficult spell' may not be the best choice for Pathfinder Society.

Standard summoning of planar creatures to accomplish Pathfinder missions shouldn't be any more or less difficult than summoning for any other purpose. If I were to call a creature to perform a very simple or stupid task such as a stupid faction mission, I could see taking a penalty maybe. But to retrieve objects once held by the Runelords themselves? Or to rescue a paladin of a good deity? Or to destroy an evil fortress? I'd say that would probably qualify as good enough. However, on say a mission to go plunder a temple, attend a wedding or other social event... they might take offense.

As for it supposed to be difficult to get a powerful outsiders help? IT IS! VERY VERY DIFFICULT! So difficult in fact, that unless you manage to get a hold of some powerful charisma buffs, AND cast based off Charisma, you don't stand a chance at all (unless you have a True Name which doesn't happen in PFS) Trying to make it even MORE difficult than the game has already made it is pretty much trying to render the ability useless... which is a terrible rotten thing for a GM to do.

"Wait, I am working on plans to fight the ever growing threat to my deity's realm and you call me back to help you find a scrap of paper?"

Circumstance penalty to the Charisma check anyone?

Considering the number of checks (even if you DO manage to get the check up to needing a nat 20, there's still 2 saving throws involved netting a 1 in 10 chance that the whole thing will go poof), the fact that the society is naturally good aligned (since NO evil character can join it... which is kind of odd since the cheliax faction head is evil... the overall actions of the society are good and most decidedly work towards producing good ends), and the fact that the mission itself can be worded to appeal to the good nature of a good entity, and the fact that at higher levels the missions tend to be kind of earth shattering, I doubt such a circumstance would apply. Doing so would kind of be a dick move on the part of the GM, even if the rules made allowance for it.

However, going from just the rules, I see nothing anywhere allowing a penalty on the flat charisma check... though I see a flat out refusal for certain types of orders, and a "twist the designs" on "particularly clever" entities. Simply a bonus of +0 to + 6. I see rules to penalties for SKILL checks, but a charisma check is not a skill.

Calling is really difficult, and in order to do it successfully, you need a character specifically geared and built around this ability. Are you really going to destroy an entire character concept that someone has spent 30 scenarios working towards? Especially when they are trying to find creative ways to make it both table friendly AND effective?

Andrew Christian wrote:

where is it discussed what payment should be? I'm not finding that in the spell's description.

It's not discussed - this is why the spell could be complicated: GM interpretation gets involved.

The way it works is that you call the creature, and if it's trapped (which is very likely, since the DC is pretty favorable to the caller), you get to demand bound service once per day: this is simply an opposed charisma check.

The GM (see? he's involved! uh oh!) decides on a modifier to the outsider's charisma check which could be anywhere from +0 to +6 (I think - this is from memory). If one offers things to the outsider (like gems to eat, or children to slay, or a position of the King's Planar Advisory Board, or whatever, depending on the being involved), the modifier would presumably tend to the +0 side; if one simply says "It is your fate to serve me as my bound servant! You get NOTHING!" then it would trend, one assumes, toward +6.

So, lacking guidelines, a PFS GM (well, any GM) could say "the being demands 20,000gp, or else it's a +6", which could make things tough for the caller. Spells like this, which are subject to GM decisions, will always be problematic for any organized play campaign (where there are, let's face it, judges who only emerge from the cracks in the floor to get free tickets to cons and a free room to crash in).

Consider: Can an outsider Bluff the caster to make him *think* the called is bound, so that he might be released and attack the caster? Or does the caster *know* the result through some sense? The spell really doesn't go into this: fertile ground for GM mischief!

It's just really, really open ended which is why it's *so* important to ask "who will actually be judging me at high levels?" My sorcerer, as I mentioned, considered it at 12 - but I don't want my sole 6th-level spell rendered unusable. Ironic, in a way, because my DC 30 "Mass Suggestion" I'll take instead likely promises greater GM frustration ;)

I'll probably take Planar...

I do not see where it says the MONSTER gets a +0 to + 6, it looks the way I read it, the PLAYER gets a +0 to +6 based on whether payment is proffered or not.

The exact wording:
You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward.

So YOU make a check, opposed by the creature's check, and it is assigned a +0 to +6. Not the monster's check which would make little sense... why would the MONSTER get a bonus for offering IT payment?

I also see two ways this could be used and NOT piss off the party.

1: keep them in reserve, and if the party falls, bring them in as backup to rescue the characters from certain doom.

2: As part of the service you summon one monster for each player, and order them to follow the orders of each player. This would basically give each player control over 1 called creature drastically increasing the party's potential, and not focusing the combat all on one person. This would probably be preferred by all involved... and quite fun. Who wouldn't want their own pet hound archon (lesser) or Couatl (normal)?