|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It doesn't say it is restrict to Duergar, like pretty much any other spell limited to a race.
The GM can do whatever they want, textual pretense or no. I just think it's a pretty dumb way to answer the question.
When I GM I believe in a fully collaborative process where we discuss rulings and figure out ambiguous situations together. Obviously, I don't permit a 2 hour argument at the table. But I am only right by GM fiat if I am houseruling something.
I don't see an actual textual reason to restrict the spell to Duergar, absent that any in game restriction is basically a house rule (unless someone has text that suggests Ironskin is actually restricted according to the rules).
1 is such a silly circular rule. No one is coming to the board just to hear the GM is always right. I wish people would stop saying it when people have specific questions.
Nothing in the spell description on pfsrd says duergar only: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/ironskin/
I am usually pretty liberal about race-specific spells, but this doesn't even list it, such as spells like http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/paragon-surge which specifically list half-elf as a requirement.
There is a difference between a race developing a spell and it being specific to a race.
Most of the time it is easy enough to learn as I go along. When players level up, I look at their choices and, if I am not familiar with something, I look it up and discuss it with the player.
This really comes up with 1.6 players per campaign so it's no big deal and fun to learn about new options I don't know of. Core only is painful for the weaker classes; I prefer to allow options and restrict only where it's a huge problem.
Communication is key.
All of these factors matter. The real question comes down down to context. Is this one player or a party and what other classes are in that party.
I would probably have wizard and cleric higher than, say barb, no matter what. But if it was a 1 man party, I'd be more inclined for cleric, despite the wizard's overall power adtvantage.
So tiers may be both subjective and objective. It depends on the goal of this exercise.
That's my ranking, if we're going to rank and assuming competent use. In terms tiers, I'd classify Wizard-Sorcerer as 1; Alchemist to Barbarian as 2; Fighter to Unchained Monk as 3.
It's more spectrum than tiers and depends on what you're going for (and the rest of the party, but in terms of the ability to handle any situation, there you are)
Nonsense. Philosophers and scientists have not determined an absolute morality so constructed alignments are completely open to interpretation too. Nothing is absolute, there are grey areas in everything, including a simulation like pathfinder. You may have an absolute view of how things work morally, but I guarantee you it won't hold universal. It will always be based on assumptions and interpretations.
There are practically correct decisions in certain situations. There might even be morally correct decisions in certain situations. But each is fact-dependent and culturally, socially, and personally contextual even if Pathfinder does try to put them in a box, that box is too limited by human nature and words to ever be absolute.
Since the spell effect of create pit is a 10 x 10 hole you should be able to create pits on the sides of the castle by the foundation. The sloped edges of the pit are ancillary to the actual spell effect, so technically there should be no need for line of sight or effect to create sloped earth under various parts of the foundation of the castle.
The exposure of those slopes should allow you to target them with transmute rock to mud. That and grappling hooks or tk or other ways of pulling the castle foundation down into the extradimensional space of the pit should do some serious damage, and when the pit rises, some real foundation breaking.
Enchantment and Necromancy. Get Necromancy back at 9 with opposition research. A ton of creatures in the bestiary are immune to mind-affecting spells.
Necromancy doesn't have a ton of great spells below fourth level, save false life.
Evocation is the other standard choice and although conjuration has some good damage spells, some of which even ignore spell resistance, but it's always nice to be able to drop a fireball (and later daze with it and some of your conjuration spells like acid arrow and pellet blast).
But ear-piercing scream, magic missile, and flaming sphere are all useful lower level spells that you'll probably find yourself using before anything in necromancy, until you get enervation and other decent offensive options.
(As for the remainder abjuration and transmutation have too many spells (and too many useful spells) to work. Divination gives you detect magic and some other interesting options; but can be dropped if you plan ahead.
Illusion is another drop possibility, but giving up (or wasting two slots on) mirror image, blur, invisibility, displacement, and at early levels color spray is almost definitely not worth it. Miss chances and evasion through flight and invisibility are a wizard's best defense (especially if you are going to summon; you can summon as much as you want while invisible).
I assume you also intend to take teleportation subschool, shift is probably the best defensive school power in the game.
Early feats to consider: Improved Initiative, Spell Focus (conjuration), Augment Summons, Craft Wondrous Items, after that it depends if you want to focus mostly on summoning or mix it up. I recommend taking Persistent Spell or at least grabbing a persistent rod at some point.
If you have any more specific questions feel free to ask.
I think the rules probably do not allow you to intensify magic missile. However, it is not unreasonable to argue that the number of missiles is effectively a damage dice cap. That fifth missile is the cap on the damage dice.
I think by intention it should be allowed, and I would permit it. The only consideration I have is that missiles may have multiple targets and intensify is granting you extra targets if you so choose. However, only in the case of an intensified toppling spell is this an issue.
I think the fair reading is no, but an interpretation leaning the other way exists and it should probably be permitted.
It depends on the feat or item you are trying to determine. If it affects spell preparation, then they are prepared. If it involves actual casting and recall, it appears to be spontaneous.
I think this is a context dependent question and the correct answer is that some aspects of arcanist casting are prepared and some are spontaneous. I think you are much more likely to get specific questions about items and feats answered than a question that is this broad.
General consensus has a different meaning than general v. specific meanings of a rule.
Doomed claimed that it was a general developer consensus that you have to have the prerequisite for 24 hours.
Greystone correctly pointed out that this is not true, and provided a specific example of where the developers discussed how this rule applies to brawler's flurry. This is pretty compelling evidence that there is no general consensus that 24 hours of the prerequisite is required.
Of course, you are literally correct, maybe it is the general consensus. But I have never seen it, and the specific example in the case is strong evidence that there is a lack of such a consensus.
There's no need to go round and round. There's rules and realism. You have to separate the two because you are playing a game. Melt stone, by the rules, is a different action, than breath weapon.
If you need a flavor change to make it more explicable pretend that dragons have to use hotter, more focused breath that drills directly in the ground to actually melt stone.
It's always easier, to the extent possible, to figure out the rules and then add flavor where necessary than get stuck on realism issues like this (where the game rules are trying to prevent using this action simultaneously with the breath weapon, otherwise it would simply be a feature of the breath weapon).
Here's how I read it, melt stone and breath weapon are different actions. One targets the ground, the other is an area of effect.
Although they are superficially the same action, as a matter of action economy they are not. The dragon has to choose to target ground or people (even if the people are standing on the ground). They still take the lava damage, but they don't take breath weapon damage the round the ground is melted.
Obviously in subsequent rounds if they are still in the lava and get breath weaponed the PCs, if not dead, will take both damages.
Yes, there are examples at other levels of creatures that can be quite deadly. But anecdotal evidence aside level one is really the level where a single crit (or a single hit) can easily take down a number of characters.
The risk diminishes, certain encounter types notwithstanding, at level 3 or so. I don't mind beginning from level one, but I do hate to see a character concept cut down prematurely.
Level 1 is definitely the most vulnerable stage for a PC. This seems incontrovertible.
Stories that start from the very beginning are sometimes great and sometimes not, depending what you want to do. But it can be restrictive a lot of the time.
Level three is usually the sweet spot for starting stories; distinctive class abilities. Hard to die from sheer poor luck.
(I have no idea why people post on here to say, "the right level is the one the GM says." People have such a weird need to fetishize the GM is always right philosophy and this is one of those topics that benefits from collaboration. Getting everyone on the same page about what level to start a campaign from is great idea for any GM.)
Ability scores actually have very little relation to the actual character. They just constitute plus and minuses to certain types of checks.
For GMs trying to enforce some sort of balance by ascribing attributes to a -2 CHA you being a bad GM mechanically and creatively. Let the players play; let them roll their social checks; don't tell them what they look like.
If you want to avoid dumping, just make a rule. I don't suggest doing it, and wouldn't want to play at the table where it's done. But hands off character description, personality, and history (unless the history directly affects the story itself).
Being a good GM is about actualizing characters for players and having fun. Not creating a world that you, as GM, feel support the numbers on the page as you interpret them.
conjuration (teleportation subschool) grants perhaps the best defensive power in the game, in shift. The ability to swift action teleport, from level one, and get an extra movement in a turn is almost certainly the best power in the game. And you get it, in part, from level one.
Foresight is not bad either.
Earlier access and lack of MAD-ness would be enough of an edge alone.
Seriously, this sounds amazing. At least sixty percent of our table would love this game. And what a beautiful title.
I am trying to cogitate a build for a mathemagician. I am wedded to nothing yet. Probably won't use the sacred geometry feat. I recognize that it probably has to be mostly fluff. So far bard or a sorcerer focusing on buffs and number oriented spells, but I also think it should probably be int-based.
Show me what you got!
I love people with the "never question the almighty GM attitude."
Just be honest with the GM. If it was a mistake still his call how it goes. You didn't have special knowledge beforehand, you just thought this was particularly strange in this combat and checked.
If you get kicked out of the game for bringing it up in a nonconfrontational, reasonable manner, you should find a more reasonable GM.
Eh, either or. A conjuration wizard would also go well in that party. You're going to need to protect yourself a lot; the shift power of the teleportation subschool is really useful for that. Summoning will also be helpful.
On a whole you'll have access to a whole lot more spells than tthe sorcerer so it's another form of avoiding list duplication.
Either are fine, but I'd say wizard.
Conjuration lasts longer for many reasons:
1) Many spells that are no SR.
2) A lot of creative use of spells and bf control can also be used on conjuration damage spells with dazing metamagic/
3) Chains of Light might be the most devastating spell for its level in the game. Reflex save, no size restriction, no sr, paralysis. Maze doesn't even give a save. Pits and clouds continue to get more useful and can provide all sorts of advantages at all levels (rift of ruin is a pretty neat high level pit-like spell).
4) There are great bf control spells that are not conjuration at higher levels that are still amazing like reverse gravity and mass icy prison.
On the whole necromancy has some decent spells, but conjuration or evocation (with dazing metamagic) gives bf control with lasting power and is usually more useful than the debuff/sod of necromancy, but you can make it work.
I think this is very hard to do without wrecking a caster's sense of agency.
I don't know how good the reward is, if casting all your spells is just going to lead more corruption.
In general I try to stay away from screwing with major class features. But if you're going to do this, the rules should be clear, there should be other ways to be useful or avoid the taint.
Nobody likes spending their turn, should I do nothing or risk harm to my character.
strange fluids is both the best and the worst drug in pathfinder, you can get any were from being disintegrated to going into a coma for a day and gaining a level
Strange fluids has terrible downsides and its best upsides only occur 1/100, and even then the real best effects are about 2/5th of that 1/100.
Not worth the risk I'd think.
I am often neutral in games that use alignment, because I find alignment simplistic and irritating. It takes away from the actual verisimilitude of the game. Also, unless you're trying to do something specific (like sacred summons) there are mechanical benefits to neutrality.
But the best reason to do it is to express your moral compass as you see fit. If you have a good GM, this isn't an issue.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.