Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Dwarf

Diego Rossi's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 10,341 posts (10,900 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
Empathy
Is a terrible feat. First, the prereq is very high, as androids have a penalty to charisma. Second, the feat takes away at least as much as it gives, where a good feat should always give a little more than it takes.
Yeah, Empathy should have been an alternate racial trait or something.

Actually you can do some interesting trick if it is a feat that you can't do if it is a racial trait and still require cha 13.

To get the feat you need cha 13, but that can be achieved trough a headband of alluring charisma. And if you get it by using a magic item you can deactivate it by removing it. Taht should remove both the benefit and penalty.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Again, always hand, singular. Unless you can show a special rule that allow you to bypass that "hand" limit, with spell combat you can use 1 hand with a one handed or light weapon and 1 hand with a spell.
How many hands or other figthing limbs you have don't matter.

Back to multiple developer statements: The rules are written with the assumption of a standard human body configuration.

As soon as an extra hand is added, that assumption becomes invalid.

Only half true.

You are arguing that "the basic assumption is not longer valid" is the same "my assumption that I can get the attacks from the extra limbs is valid". Instead the situation is "the basic assumption of two arms is no longer valid, we don't have a rule saying that a creature with more than 2 arms can use more than 1 weapon and 1 spell in spell combat, giving it more than the basic attacks allowed by spell combat is dubious."

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowlilly wrote:


Example 2: a kashatha magus can spell combat with a longsword held in two hands. The longsword remains a one-handed weapon regardless of the number of hands used to wield it.
Spell combat wrote:
while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Hand, singular.

FAQ wrote:

Magus: When using spell combat, can the weapon in my other hand be an unarmed strike or a natural weapon?

Yes, so long as the weapon is a light or one-handed melee weapon and is associated with that hand. For example, unarmed strikes, claws, and slams are light melee weapons associated with a hand, and therefore are valid for use with spell combat. A tail slap is not associated with a hand, and therefore is not valid for use with spell combat.
posted April 2013 | back to top

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

Again, always hand, singular. Unless you can show a special rule that allow you to bypass that "hand" limit, with spell combat you can use 1 hand with a one handed or light weapon and 1 hand with a spell.

How many hands or other fighting limbs you have don't matter.

Spell combat isn't a full attack, and, barring the abilities of some archetype, it don't work with natural attacks or other extra attacks you can get in a full attack. And using your 2nd and 3rd to attack require a full attack.

The only possible loophole is:

PRD wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?

Yes.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling did not allow the extra attack from haste when using spell combat.

Getting an attack from your 2nd and 3rd limb is a "effect"? Questionable.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Khudzlin wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Derek Dalton wrote:
I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.
That is decidedly wrong.
What's wrong about getting to use all of your arms for attacking with weapons, especially when they're described as normal arms rather than limited ones?

Because the limitations for spell combat are:

1) at least 1 free hand
2) the use of a light or one handed weapon.

Using a two handed weapon is blocked by 2).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Derek Dalton wrote:
I never said the feat granted extra attacks it merely reduced penalties which as a four arm creature it applies for. No it's not clear but our group having four functional arms allow me to use all four for weapon attacks if I wanted.

That is decidedly wrong.

Spell combat wrote:
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand.

Even if you are a Hekatonkheires with 100 arms, you are still limited to light or one handed weapons, you can't use 2 handed weapons.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Of course, since you only roll one miss chance, you just use the higher percentage, since nothing in the rules says multiple miss chance values interact with each other. If you roll a 67%, that is greater than both 20 and 50.

A interesting idea. I am not convinced you are right, but it is a possible interpretation.

About the specific example of blink+concealment, blink already include a concealment effect:

blink wrote:
If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%. (For an attacker who can both see and strike ethereal creatures, there is no miss chance.)

I read that as "you are on another plane and invisible 50% of the time, but if your attacker can see invisible creatures he can see you even when away and try to time his strike to hit you when you materialize."

So normal concealment (20%) would not work together with 50% invisibility.

If you use invisibility together with blink I would give you 2 miss rolls, one at 505 for invisibility and one at 20% for blink without invisibility, and roll them in sequence.

But that is a personal interpretation, not rules.

For sure I wouldn't allow anyone to add the two miss chances together.

Liberty's Edge

14 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

As the title say, some people think it is not necessary to maintain a grapple to be able to rake or use other abilities that require you to have a grapple to use them if they are a free action.

There are a few example in that thread.

Who agree with that?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is interesting to see that now we have the Schrodinger grappler, that is capable to grapple and not grapple at the same time.
If you are using an ability that require you to have a grappled target you should maintain before using it.
If you use an ability that require you not to be grapple, you have to release/not maintain the grapple before using it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?

You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.

Always singular, like the text in the ability description.

FAQ wrote:

Magus, Spell Combat: If I use spell combat, how many weapon attacks can I make?

You can make as many weapon attacks as you would normally be able to make if you were making a full attack with that weapon. For example, if you are an 8th-level magus (BAB +6/+1), you could make two weapon attacks when using spell combat.

Edit 9/9/13: This is a revised ruling about how haste interacts with effects that are essentially a full attack, even though the creature isn't specifically using the full attack action (as required by haste). The earlier ruling implied that spell combat did not allow the extra attack from haste (because spell combat was not using the full attack action).

"That weapon", not weapons.

Conclusive evidence? Not at all, but that is a problem of the description of the kasatha race, not of the magus. Simply the rules are written for a race with 2 hands, and the kasatha don't change that.

Note that the first FAQ seem to rule out natural weapons, too, so I would say that it limit you to only 1 weapon, regardless of the number of limbs you can use to attack.

Derek Dalton wrote:

Had this argument in another thread. Kasatha have an archtype where they can with hefty minus use two Longbows at once. It supports the theory they can use melee weapons in all four arms with the multiweapon feat. Our group ruled it but a lot of discussion on this site say otherwise. I as a GM allow a Kasatha to use all four arms since the design and intent of the race supports that concept.

An archetype allow you to do something outside the normal rules =/= the normal rule is what the archetype do.

What an archetype get as a special ability isn't an indication of what a character can normally do.

Honestly the kasatha race description is too short to be really clear on how it work. the bestiary example don't make multiple attacks, multy armed say "Multi-Armed (Ex) A kasatha has four arms. One hand is considered its primary hand; all others are considered off hands. It can use any of its hands for other purposes that require free hands." and that can be read both ways.

And for the hundredth time, please, read what the multiweapon feat do. It don't grant attacks, it only reduce the penalties.
Maybe Multi-Armed grant them, but having or lacking the multiweapon feat don't change that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:
How high is that save DC at that point? Fort tends to be the beefiest of the monsters' save bonuses at that CR range, so how often is a failed save against disintegrate getting through?

Decapitate has a ST: fortitude, partial, so they are in the same boat.

You cast them against monsters with weak fortitude saves.
Both are subject to SR, too.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the level cost of it being a immediate action, compare it with true strike, you have to cast it the previous round to benefit from it (unless you are a magus) or memorize it as a 5th level spell to cast it as a swift action.

Disintegrate: sure, if you have taken Close Range. AFIK a magus hasn't so many nice ray spell to make that a mandatory choice unless you build your character around it. Sure, you can take Spell Blending and add enervation to the list or some other option, but you are creating a character around the use of Close range.
On the other hand decapitate only require you to:
know the spell
select keen as one of your weapon abilities
use a scimitar as your weapon (and a lot of maguses use it)
Note that all 3 requirements are requirements for your use of disintegrate, too.

Note that decapitate can be cast in addition to disintegrate, you cast disintegrate as part of spell combat, decapitation as a reaction after scoring a critical.
BTW, on a critical disintegrate is a minimum of 64d6. If I am fighting a magus and have access to greater spell immunity I will select it as one of the warded spells.

It is all about circumstances. Generally disintegrate is better, but depending on your build and goals sometime Decapitate can be a valid choice.

"Finger of death or slay living" are standard action casting time spells. Comparing them to a immediate action spell is comparing two widely different things.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
vhok wrote:
are there any items with 19 hardness?
None that I know of. Mithral has a 15. That is the highest number in the core rule book for substance hardness.

+2 mithral weapon. 15 base, +4 for the magic bonus.

On the same vein +5 wood weapon.

Plenty of magic items can have a hardness of less than 20 but more than 15.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:

Not supported by the rules anywhere. You are saying that no free actions can happen before the grapple check. That means that you could not release the grapple (free action) before you try to maintain the grapple, which is in direct conflict with the rules.

You are completely missing the point. You can't take any action that depend on maintaining the grapple before you make the check to maintain the grapple. You can't play the Schrodinger grapple where you are maintaining and non maintaining it at the same time.

You can't take the free action "release the grapple2 before maintaining the grapple as the two actions boil down to the same thing. You either maintain the grapple or you release it.
The free action "release" is a separate action from the "non maintain the grapple" decision only if you take it when you aren't forced by the rules to decide between "maintain" and "non maintain".

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:
Calth wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
Rake is a free action, and all are primary attacks, so technically you can rake (free action), release the grapple (free action, and then full attack (full round action). Some GMs may be offended by this, however.

Eh, while I see where you are getting that reading, that's most likely not what the rule means.

The relevant passage: In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two free claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe.

The "in addition to" is referring to the actions you can make when maintaining a grapple, so I would read it as the rakes occurring as a free action as part of the maintaining action.

Free actions are discrete actions, not part of another action unless explicitly so stated. Drawing a weapon while moving is the only example I can think of that has a free action that is part of another action. Since neither rake nor grapple have such limiting language those free action rakes are not part of the grapple action; they are discrete.

Before you can rake you need to maintain the grapple.

If you don't maintain the grapple the target is released at the start of the turn.
You can't say "I will later try to maintain the grapple, so now I can rake", you need a confirmed grapple.
Similarly you can't move and move your target with you and then confirm the grapple. For that kind of actions you need to have already confirmed the grapple for that turn.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would say that, if you are a prepared caster, you need the feat when memorizing the spell, not when casting it, but I don't think there is a official rule.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1) Generally extra dice are never multiplied.
2) If the target fail its save it increase your critical multiplier and that can be a lot of extra damage.
3) Magus 6, immediate action, cast after you confirm the critical. About 30% of my magus attacks are a potential critical. I confirm most of them, so calling it "a rare occurrence" is misleading, it is reasonably common, With a full attack I get a critical at least every other round.
4) if the target save the spell do little, as most spells. Normal.

"losing their heads it no big deal"
1) You don't die until you get as many negative hp as you have constitution, so it can be a big deal;
2) breath of life. Even if you go under constitution it can revive you, but it will not reattach your head.

Spell level: turning a spell into a swift action cost 4 spell levels. Immediate actin is even better than that. So we are speaking of the power level of a level 2 standard action spell.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DebugAMP wrote:

Yes, step up and strike allows you to take an AoO if someone takes a 5-foot step away from you. Note: They have to be moving away from you, they cant just be taking 5-foot step to step into a square that nets them a flanker.

Also, yes, combat reflexes does allow you to use step up and strike more times in a round.

You don't get an AoO, you get a melee attack that use up one of your AoO.

For some feat and ability that can make a different, so it is worth specifying that.

Step Up and Strike wrote:


...
Benefit: When using the Step Up or Following Step feats to follow an adjacent foe, you may also make a single melee attack against that foe at your highest base attack bonus.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
And if so, by how much? I know Small armor weighs have as much as armor for Medium folk, but I can't easily find anything about Small folk's weapons. This matters for purposes of, for example, the price of my Wayang Psychic's darkwood heavy crossbow.
[auote=PRD]Weight: This column gives the weight of the armor sized for a Medium wearer. Armor fitted for Small characters weighs half as much, and armor for Large characters weighs twice as much.

In your post there is a typo and I am sure if you mean "half as much" or not, so I put that citation here.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
As Mahtobedis pointed out, this would depend on whether you need a Good Outsider or a good Outsider.

Text of the spell Celestial Healing:

D20PFSRD wrote:


You anoint a wounded creature with the blood of an outsider with the good subtype (such as an angel) or holy water, giving it fast healing 1. The target radiates the aura of a good creature for the duration of the spell and can sense the righteousness of the magic, though this has no long-term effect on the target’s alignment. If the target has its own evil aura, this is not suppressed by celestial healing, and can also be detected normally.

So the spell specify that you need the good subtype.

D20PFSRD - Infernal healing wrote:


You anoint a wounded creature with devil’s blood

Infernal healing only say devil, but a devil is a specific subtype of outsider with the Devil, Evil, Extraplanar and Lawful subtypes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Rysky wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Anything is debatable, that does not mean there is no clear cut answer just because someone chooses to debate it. In this case DR has given factual statements.

Again, not really. The spells say "good outsider" and "devil's blood".

They don't say Good Subtype or Devil Subtype, or name a specific creature of that type.

Devil descended Tieflings have devil blood in them. Aasimar's have celestial blood in them.

Beside the little fact that devil and good celestial have a specific meaning in the game rules, and that isn't "creatures with an ancestor of that kind", at least check your sources when you cite something.

Pitborns have Demon ancestors.
You want the Hellspawn, those have devil ancestors.

Huh, coulda sworn that Pitborn were the Devil Descended (Hell=Pit)

*shrugs*

Even if you go off that you need a full on Devil and not something with Devil's blood in it there's still Celestial Healing which requires "good outsider" blood, not a celestial. Would a Couatl not work?

Couatl LG Large outsider (native)

Again, no good subtype, so, no.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yes, you can make diamonds if you can make the appropriate skill check.
Now the problem is what is the appropriate check and the DC.

Probably it is something like a 400 DC profession Engineer skill check.
The appropriate tools add that +390 to the check that a good engineer need to make it in RL. But when you use magic you don't get the equipment bonus, so the skill check is almost impossible unless you have some huge bonus from some source.

Then there is what The Sideromancer said. Diamonds are hardness 10 on the Mhoss scale, but that only mean that they can scratch less hard materials, but that don't mean that they are hard to break.
To use common materials, glass has a hardness of 5.5, iron a hardness of 4. But if you use a hammer of glass on a piece of iron the glass hammer will probably shatter and the iron will surely suffer no damage.

A glass chain, while harder on the Mhos scale would be easy to break, a iron chain work way better.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Anything is debatable, that does not mean there is no clear cut answer just because someone chooses to debate it. In this case DR has given factual statements.

Again, not really. The spells say "good outsider" and "devil's blood".

They don't say Good Subtype or Devil Subtype, or name a specific creature of that type.

Devil descended Tieflings have devil blood in them. Aasimar's have celestial blood in them.

Beside the little fact that devil and good celestial have a specific meaning in the game rules, and that isn't "creatures with an ancestor of that kind", at least check your sources when you cite something.

Pitborns have Demon ancestors.
You want the Hellspawn, those have devil ancestors.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Murdock Mudeater wrote:
SheepishEidolon wrote:

I am pretty sure it's intended to be 0gp. Because on the one hand the power level of the spell is roughly en par with Cure Light Wounds.

And on the other hand it doesn't list a price for the 'dose of unholy water'. Usually they don't expect people to check other books for component prices.

Finally, on the third hand (because eidolon), it would be quite odd to have two different prices. Can't remember another case like this (but I didn't max out Int, so feel free to correct me).

Didn't even occur to me. Yeah, Eidolons now have subtypes, so their blood could potentially qualify for this. Suggestion to Paizo, eliminate the drop of devil blood reference, and just require the Unholy water. Way easier and eliminates the potential issue with Devil Eidolons giving out free spell components.

They are summoned creatures, when the summoner go to sleep they disappear and all their parts disappear with them.

I doubt that you can use something that isn't completely here as a material component for a spell.
Maybe it could work if the eidolon blood is used while it is present and summoned, but surely it can't be stored for the next day.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SheepishEidolon wrote:

I am pretty sure it's intended to be 0gp. Because on the one hand the power level of the spell is roughly en par with Cure Light Wounds.

And on the other hand it doesn't list a price for the 'dose of unholy water'. Usually they don't expect people to check other books for component prices.

Finally, on the third hand (because eidolon), it would be quite odd to have two different prices. Can't remember another case like this (but I didn't max out Int, so feel free to correct me).

As it give the capacity to cure wounds to classes that normally can't do it, it is not so linear.

You can as easily say that it is worth 19 skill points in use magic device (or less skill points but some trait or feat to compensate) as that is what is the "cost" of getting a 100% chance of success when using a wand of CLW if CLW isn't in your spell list.

Infernal healing is a big boon for several arcane casters.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I like how water is a lot of gold... blood of hells spawn? Negligible. Hilarious.
Not listed is not the same as negligible, which is the reason for the question.

Oh I absolutely agree. Same with celestial. Like the blood of angels is something everyone has for no cost?

I think the reason it's given no price is because the almost certain "my aasimar just bleeds into a bucket. Let's buy that armour!" Comes up.

A aasinmar is an outsider, but lack the good subtype.

A tiefling isn't a devil and don't get the devil subtype.

Both fail as material components for Infernal and Celestial healing.

Eh, that's debatable.

How it is debatable?

Aasimar Medium outsider (native) - no good subtype, required by the spell.
Tiefling Medium outsider (native) - no devil subtype, required by the spell.

There is nothing to debate, the requirements are clear.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cavall wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I like how water is a lot of gold... blood of hells spawn? Negligible. Hilarious.
Not listed is not the same as negligible, which is the reason for the question.

Oh I absolutely agree. Same with celestial. Like the blood of angels is something everyone has for no cost?

I think the reason it's given no price is because the almost certain "my aasimar just bleeds into a bucket. Let's buy that armour!" Comes up.

A aasinmar is an outsider, but lack the good subtype.

A tiefling isn't a devil and don't get the devil subtype.

Both fail as material components for Infernal and Celestial healing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shroud of water wrote:
The shroud can either cover your body, functioning as armor, or float around you and block attacks, functioning as a shield.

As written the shroud is a single effect, even if you have it multiple times from different sources.

Generally when you have multiple identical abilities only the strongest work.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tyal-Kelvar wrote:
Ah, thanks, that makes sense now. Was just confused by it working differently for stuff like stacking sneak attack from different classes, causing me to look at the issue the wrong way.

Note that stacking work only if the source is different.

Let's say you get sneak attack from 6 rouge levels and 6 Alchemist (Vivisectionist). You get sneak attack as a 12 level rogue.

Then you take an ability that let you treat your alchemist levels as rogue levels for sneak attack. You still get only the sneak attack of a 12 level rogue as the alchemist levels are the same source.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Belefauntes wrote:

So, I decided I didn't want to be pissed off on my birthday weekend, so I ignored further responses from the rules lawyers for the remainder of the weekend.

wraithstrike: Thankfully, I don't play PFS. My GM is being a little weird about the True Seeing thing, though. Allow me to explain: This weekend we encountered a group of holy NPCs (clerics and paladins) who had been tasked to "keep trespassers from entering these lands, lest they bring back the dark one." After smoothing things over, we discover they had a caged "witch" whom they were planning to take back to a nearby city for an exorcism. First I use Detect Magic... no results. Then I use Detect Evil. Minuscule traces of evil detected. Then I cast True Seeing. I see a sinister, shadowy presence surrounding, penetrating, and enveloping the "witch" (just an old gypsy who became possessed). With True Seeing active, I turn to my comrades to advise them of what I was seeing. My GM did not permit me to see through the illusions and transmutations concealing the vampire in our midst (which is CLEARLY within the parameters of the spell). Nor did he allow me to see the demons (plural) possessing two of our party members in a very similar fashion. Our party cleric also used the same spells and took the same actions, and he was limited in what he saw the same as I.

It would seem I'm only permitted to see what is true (including any effects influencing the "soul") if I am explicitly looking for them. That's frustrating, because I'm not going to always know when to look through an illusion or transmutation, let alone when to expressly look into someone's soul.

It seems as if the GM didnt want you to access certain information so he either ignored how the spell worked, which I think is unfair*, or he misunderstood that the illusion should have been a nonfactor.

*Sometimes this happens when GM's run things for higher level parties, and are not ready when they have an easy way to unravel whatever he has planned.

Or the demons/vampire have Mind blank and (maybe) Non detection.

I am not convinced that Non detection work against True seeing, but some GM think so.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Belefauntes wrote:


1. If a spell caster is using Detect Magic as a bad guy detector, they deserve to have their face ripped off. A slightly better option would be a permanent Arcane Sight. But if your adventurers aren't expecting everything to try to rip off their faces, they will learn to do so soon enough.

Useless against invisible creatures/objects.

Arcane Sight wrote:

This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you.

...
You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.

with both Detect magic and Arcane sight you need to see a creature /object to see his/its aura.

Detect magic can sense the presence of magic when it has total concealed, Arcane sight don't.

You can see auras even when you can't see the object, that's why detect magic has this text:

Quote:
The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
Quote:
The spell can penetrate barriers, but 1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt blocks it.

The spell specifically allows you do analyze auras that not only have concealment, but total cover, as long as that cover isn't thicker than what is permitted by the spell.

Arcane sight is the same:

Quote:
The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.
The only difference, as specified by the rules, is that arcane sight doesn't require concentration or the multiple rounds of study.
Arcane Sight wrote:

This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you. The effect is similar to that of a detect magic spell, but arcane sight does not require concentration and discerns aura location and power more quickly.

You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.

Note how it say that you see the auras within your sight, not that you detect magical auras, and that the effect is similar to detect magic, not that it work like detect magic.

Total concealment block arcane sight.
Quoting detect magic don't help, as Arcane sigth don't work as Detect magic, it is only similar, and the spell explain in what is similar to detect magic:

1) An aura's power depends on a spell's functioning level or an item's caster level, as noted in the description of the detect magic spell
2) As with detect magic, you can use this spell to identify the properties of magic items, but not artifacts.

Essentially, arcane sight isn't See Invisibility.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is not a official rule, but I wouldn't allow a mount to make a pounce while hindered by a rider only one size smaller than it.

Fling mounts could be an exception to that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote:

Does anyone saying 'no' have any particular reason why using a command word for a wand with a magus spell is any different when it comes to spell combat compared to using a command word for a wand with a non-magus spell?

How would one interfere with spell combat, but not the other?

Casting magic missile memorized as a magus work with spell combat, while using magic missile memorized as a wizard don't.

Same spell, but using a different slot to memorize it make it unsuitable.

So spell combat isn't very flexible, apparently. It seem reasonable to keep it limited even when using a wand.
Adding 1 or 2 wizard spells to your list of spells require 1 arcana, it seem unreasonable to allow you to add any spell that can be stored in a staff or wand to your repertoire at the same cost.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaouse wrote:
Use Magic Device wrote:


Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge.

If you use a wand with a spell not on your list, you'll need to UMD it. If you UMD it, it counts as iff it is a spell on your class list. I personally don't see a problem with combining Wand Wielder with Spell Combat.

PRD wrote:
Use a Wand, Staff, or Other Spell Trigger Item: Normally, to use a wand, you must have the wand's spell on your class spell list. This use of the skill allows you to use a wand as if you had a particular spell on your class spell list. Failing the roll does not expend a charge.

There is a big difference between adding a spell to your spell list, even for a moment, and using something as if the spell in it was on your spell list. UMD allow you to use a wand as if the spell was in your spell list, it don't add it to your spell list for any other purpose.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
brock, no the other one... wrote:
SKR comments that you can't grapple something you can't hold — a gas. Elementals are not gaseous, and a person affected by Windy Escape is gaseous only briefly, which puts it in the realm of GM ruling as to whether that is sufficient to foil a grapple.
Great suggestion! As a GM I'd be inclined to allow it against grapples wholesale just to speed the game, keeping in mind that it's an immediate action to cast 'just' before the attack/grapple reaches you. Another way I'd consider is to make it a 50% miss chance on the grapple (akin to how Blink works), depending how my players feel about it (most of my players would prefer the former as it advantages the PCs).

I would easily agree that if you avoid all the damage from an attack a grapple/grab attempt fail, but only if you avoid all of it.

Windy escape don't give 100% protection from an attack, so it shouldn't give 100% protection from effects not listed in the spell description.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:

Given that wand wielder does not state any restriction on the wand/staff effects which can be activated this way I'd allow it.

You cannot simply parse out 'activate a wand or staff' from Wand Wielder to replace 'cast any spell' in the Spell Combat description... there is no 'formal definition' or 'transitive property' of text to validate such cutting and pasting... and even if there WERE it would be just as (if not MORE) 'valid' to replace 'cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time or 1 standard action';

RE-integreated spell combat + wand wielder wrote:
Spell Combat (Ex): As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a -2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action activate a wand or staff (any attack roll made as part of this spell activation also takes this penalty).

Wand wielder say that can use the wand in place of in place of casting a spell, it don't lift any other limitation from spell combat. When something isn't specified the most conservative interpretation is the best approach.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Invisibility/stealth/breaking line of sight + silent metamagic makes spellcraft checks literally impossible. You can get rods if feats are an issue.

Not with the "magic has manifestations" FAQ. Invisibility and total concealment will make it way harder, but not impossible.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nennafir wrote:

I dunno...

Without SKRs comment, I would have said Windy Escape did NOT escape grapples.

With it, I have to conclude that it CAN escape grapples. The wording of the abilities is almost identical (despite Diego Rossi's attempt to highlight the differences--without ever quoting the vast blocks of text where they are almost identical.)

I am not playing a Sylph and do not plan on doing so. I think the ability is too powerful. But absent any ruling from "higher powers" I think a logically minded person has to let windy escape escape grapples.

Can you find the part where Windy escape say that you can pass trough mere cracks?

I will bold the parts where the text is the same for you.

Gaseous Form wrote:


The subject and all its gear become insubstantial, misty, and translucent.
Its material armor (including natural armor) becomes worthless, though its size, Dexterity, deflection bonuses, and armor bonuses from force effects still apply. The subject gains DR 10/magic and becomes immune to poison, sneak attacks, and critical hits. It can't attack or cast spells with verbal, somatic, material, or focus components while in gaseous form. This does not rule out the use of certain spells that the subject may have prepared using the feats Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials. The subject also loses supernatural abilities while in gaseous form. If it has a touch spell ready to use, that spell is discharged harmlessly when the gaseous form spell takes effect.

A gaseous creature can't run, but it can fly at a speed of 10 feet and automatically succeeds on all Fly skill checks. It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists. The creature is subject to the effects of wind, and it can't enter water or other liquid. It also can't manipulate objects or activate items, even those carried along with its gaseous form. Continuously active items remain active, though in some cases their effects may be moot.

Windy Escape wrote:


You respond to an attack by briefly becoming vaporous and insubstantial, allowing the attack to pass harmlessly through you. You gain DR 10/magic against this attack and are immune to any poison, sneak attacks, or critical hit effect from that attack.

You cannot use windy escape against an attack of opportunity you provoked by casting a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using any other magical ability that provokes an attack of opportunity when used.

Your armor and natural armor become worthless when you cast Windy escape?

You can't attack if you cast it if you attacker provoke an AoO?
You are flying for the brief time ti last, and so are immune to trip attacks?
You can cast it to avoid being disarmed, as you are insubstantial and can't be touched?

You guys are giving this spell a lot of powers that it hasn't.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do you know that is against this forum etiquette to put "FAQ request " in the title?

FAQed

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

My position is not a creation out of thin air (pun intended).

It's a recent transition after reading SKR's comment.

That is what I have as supporting evidence.

If you deny his statement, then you must also deny that gaseous form prevents grapples.

You can't have it both ways.

The ability of gaseous form to prevent being grappled does not exist anywhere beyond his statement.

Nefreet, SKR statement is valid for Gaseous form. Full stop. He cited almost verbatim the spell text:

SKR: "A centipede is not a gas. You can't grapple a gaseous creature, that's obvious and we shouldn't need to state that in the rules. èb]If a gaseous creature can slip through any crack because it's gaseous, it can easily slip through the gaps between your fingers or arms.[/b]"

Gaseous form: "It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists."

That applies to a gaseous creature. now try to find the piece of text that say that an air elemental is a gaseous creature.
The closest thing that you can find make it a cloud, not a gas: "This cloud-like creature has dark hollows reminiscent of eyes and a mouth, and a howling wind whips it into ominous shapes."

You ae trying to apply RL "logic", but it don't work as in RL we can't have a creature made of a single element.

Now look the creature and the rules.
Pathfinder has the rules to simulate a creature made of inconsistent gases? Yes, it is Incorporeal Universal Monster Rule. You know, that thing where a creature has no solid body, can't grapple or be grappled, can't apply its strength bonus to damage, etc., etc.

So if Paizo wanted a an Air elemental made of inconsistent gases, they had the way to depict it.
Instead we have a creature that applies its strength bonus to damage, with several variants that need a physical body to do what they do and
with special rules for the time when they are not solid (both the belker and the standard air elemental in whirlwind form).

If the not solid air elemental was something intended it would have the incorporeal subtype. Or some specific rule.
Without it it is solid.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?

No.

Nefreet wrote:
2) an Air Elemental?
Yes.
These cannot be different answers.

Why? Because you are imposing your rules?

They can be different, they are different.

Gaseous form "a creature in gaseous form can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists.

Air elemental: that text don't exist.

Invisible Stalker: N Medium outsider (air, elemental, extraplanar)
i.e an air elemental is often summoned to retrieve objects.

Aerial Servant: Medium outsider (air, elemental, extraplanar)
Again, an air elemental, it has grab and constrict.

Belker: Large outsider (air, elemental, evil)
another air elemental
It [b]need[/b[] a special ability to become gaseous!

Quote:
Smoke Form (Su) A belker can switch from its normal form to one of pure smoke or back again a swift action. It can spend up to 20 rounds per day in smoke form. In smoke form, the belker acts as if under the effects of a gaseous form spell, except that it retains its natural fly speed of 50 feet (perfect).

So Paizo think that air elementals are solid. They need a special ability to take a non solid form.

Your problem is that you have decided unilaterally that air elementals aren't solid, while Pathfinder rules assume the opposite. so far you have been unable to prove that there is some rule supporting your position, while I have show several examples where air elementals need to be solid to do what they normally do.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Nefreet, just as a curiosity:
As you feel that Air elementals can't grapple, what you think about Invisible stalkers and Aerial servants?
One of the tasks for which they are rutinely summoned is to retieve items. How can they do that if they can't manipulate objects as they are made of gases?

Especially the Aerial servant, as its attack routine is:

Melee 2 slams +19 (2d8+6 plus grab)
Special Attacks constrict (2d8+6), smother, sneak attack +2d6, wind blast

So it can grapple someone and constrict him, but the grappled creature can't use a combat maneuver to free himself as the Aerial servant can't be grappled?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Anything that come with a summoned creature disappear when that creature disappear. Included its milk.

Is this official? It would mean conditions like poison and disease vanish when the summoned creature that inflicted them does.

It is explicit only for spells and spell effects, but it seem a logic consequence, especially as it has been explained by the devs that all the creature equipment disappear.

The damage dealt by the poison or disease stay, but unless the microbes had the time do spread a disease would disappear, same thing for the poison in your body.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

But that part has no in game effect. Otherwise I could ready a gust of wind spell for the moment in which you become vaporous and insubstantial and disperse you body over a large area, effectively disintegrating you when you try to reform.

As you see, everyone can invent new powers to existing spells and try to justify them with "logic".

Why couldn't you ready a Gust of Wind? It's a standard action to cast, it should work as normal.

I don't know where you're getting the notion that Gust of Wind disintegrates gases, though. The spell plainly states that gases and vapors are pushed to the edge of it's range.

In the same location where Kaliel Windstorm "find" the notion that Windy escape or being an air elemental make you immune to a grapple attempt.

I.e. it is made completely of dream stuff.

I was simply showing what is the result of attempting to apply RL logic to the game.
Kaliel Windstorm feel that,in game, a gaseous creature can't be grappled (and that being gaseous is sufficient, you don't need extra text like in gaseous form). By the same kind of logic if you are subject to a Gust of wind wile in gaseous form your molecules are dispersed on a wide area. When you reform your body is a myriad of small pieces dispersed in a volume of several cubic meters. Something that would dismember you.

Except Windy Escape doesn't state how it interacts with grapples. Gust of Wind explicitly states how it intereacts with gases and vapors.

Applying common sense is necessary in PF when the rules are silent, but when they are not, common sense shouldn't contradict the rules.

Let's play the same game that has been played with Windy escape.

Gust of wind wrote:
In addition to the effects noted, a gust of wind can do anything that a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do.

What will do a sudden gust of wind to a insubstantial patch of gases? disperse it.

Sure, the further text will limit how far it is dispersed,

Gust of wind wrote:
blow gases or vapors to the edge of its range.

but by Kaliel Windstorm logic you still get the part where it do what a sudden blast of wind will do to a gas.

If you support that kind of logic you should always use it, not only when it is convenient.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nennafir wrote:
NobodysHome wrote:
"Obvious to whom?"

SKR evidently.

Seriously, please read previous dev quotes on this.

They all point toward windy escape escaping a grapple. Now, granted, these are quotes by a now former dev--and who knows what current devs think. Pretending that the first sentence of the spell description is all fluff and should therefore be ignored, however, is disingenuous.

No, they point out at the text that windy escape lack and gaseous form has: "A gaseous creature can't run, but it can fly at a speed of 10 feet and automatically succeeds on all Fly skill checks. It can pass through small holes or narrow openings, even mere cracks, with all it was wearing or holding in its hands, as long as the spell persists.

Windy escape lack that text as it don't make you gaseous long enough to escape a grapple.

Nefreet wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Yourself, and a good half of the ppl in this thread.
Then, as usual, you assume much that isn't true.

I think we've been in this position before, so for clarity's sake:

After reading SKR's comment, do you believe it is possible to grapple:

1) someone under the effects of gaseous form?

No. the text cited above allow him to escape a grapple.

Nefreet wrote:


2) an Air Elemental?

Yes. None in the creature description say that it is insubstantial and can move trough tiny cracks,

It is a creature of solidly bind together air.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Kaliel Windstorm wrote:
Apparently the paizo game designers should note in their spells things like...

...rules. Which is what this forum is about.

All that speculation up thread? Perfectly reasonable rulings.

But not rules.

At what point do "obvious" realities (such as the inability to grapple air) need to be put in print?

Do we really need to have the discussion about decapitated PCs remaining active, again?

So, in your mind, air elemental now can pass trough tiny cracks, can't open doors, can't carry something or someone, can't grapple, can't enter water (read gaseous form for that), and so on?

And fire elementals? No solid form, for sure, even more than a creature made of gas. Clearly our characters can pass though them (taking some fire damage), they have no solid form.

A water elemental is a bit more solid, but still a puddle of water.

Paizo should really expand the type description if that is true.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No.

PRD wrote:
Wand Wielder (Su): The magus can activate a wand or staff in place of casting a spell when using spell combat.

That piece of text only replace the "cast a spell" from the spell combat ability, not other parts of the text, so we get this:

integrated spell combat + wand wielder wrote:


Spell Combat (Ex): As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell use a wand from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty).

Spell combat still require a spell from the magus spell list.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Belefauntes wrote:

I am willing to admit that, BY ITSELF, True Seeing MAY not be able to pick up on some "things" that are "changed" if they are imperceptible to the naked eye (such as a soul). But... in conjunction with other spell affects (Detect Magic, Detect Alignment, Detect Convoluted Rules Lawyering, etc), True Seeing should allow the perception of "things" which would otherwise be undetectable with those spells alone. The demon-possessed character may not yet detect as evil via the spell Detect Evil, but True Seeing may reveal the evil soul residing within when used in conjunction with Detect Evil. Used with Detect Magic or Arcane Sight, it could flag an otherwise unnoticeable effect, such as a curse (it's a noun, so it's a "thing"), which has altered or "changed" a subject's true state of being.

While I would accept this as a caveat to detecting things otherwise imperceptible, I think a spell at the power level of True Seeing should always allow the recipient to see that "something" about the target of a curse, possession, or otherwise imperceptible "change" is "not right", "altered", "untrue", or........ "CHANGED".

I know everyone wants me to be wrong so that they can be right, but until you can tell me how Paizo and Pathfinder have defined the terms "changed" (as opposed to "polymorphed" and "transmuted") and "things" (as opposed to "creatures" and "objects") as they relate to this iteration of the d20 system, it is not possible to prove me wrong.

This is why I've repeatedly asked if there is anything "official" that precludes the detection of effects such as possessions and curses via True Seeing. And with these ambiguous words mixed into the officially defined parameters of the spell, I'm not wrong unless Paizo says so.

....

Or... Maybe everyone wants me to be wrong because they tried something similar, their GMs disallowed it, and they didn't notice the ambiguous terms gently nestled amongst the defined parameters?

PRD wrote:
True seeing, however, does not penetrate solid objects. It in no way confers X-ray vision or its equivalent. It does not negate concealment, including that caused by fog and the like. True seeing does not help the viewer see through mundane disguises, spot creatures who are simply hiding, or notice secret doors hidden by mundane means.

As you are playing with indefinite terms, we can play with indefinite locations. Where is someone soul? Probably within his body, as long as he is alive.

A body is a solid object and true seeing can't penetrate it.
Ergo you can't see a soul.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Belefauntes wrote:


1. If a spell caster is using Detect Magic as a bad guy detector, they deserve to have their face ripped off. A slightly better option would be a permanent Arcane Sight. But if your adventurers aren't expecting everything to try to rip off their faces, they will learn to do so soon enough.

Useless against invisible creatures/objects.

Arcane Sight wrote:

This spell makes your eyes glow blue and allows you to see magical auras within 120 feet of you.

...
You know the location and power of all magical auras within your sight.

with both Detect magic and Arcane sight you need to see a creature /object to see his/its aura.

Detect magic can sense the presence of magic when it has total concealed, Arcane sight don't.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Belefauntes wrote:

The only scenarios I can imagine where True Seeing is FAR superior to the Detect Magic/Arcane Sight plus Dispel Magic/Greater scenario? Multiple staggered illusion and transmutation effects. Likelihood of this scenario happening often enough to worry about True Seeing? Minuscule. So much so, that I can't see the point of True Seeing. True Seeing needs to have a wider range of utility, again in my humble opinion, to be considered far superior to lower level options. Greater Dispel Magic (level 6, like True Seeing) can defeat multiple effects in a 20' radius for everyone in the party, making it still a better option than True Seeing.

The other factor here is economy. Any spellcaster worth their salt is going for the most bang for their buck. By the time you get 5th or 6th level spells, it's much easier to throw away some lower level spells, but those high level slots are too valuable to be selfish with. Unless True Seeing has far more utility than the rigid text examples, it's just not economical to waste a high level spell upon. If it lasted an hour per level? Okay, that would be a lot better. Ten minutes per level? Better, but now it's a maybe option. One minute per level? That's a couple of encounters if you're rushing the dungeon and have good reason to expect illusions and transmutations. The utility to economy just isn't good enough if you limit it to the few examples given in the spell text. This is (supposed to be) a POWERFUL divination. But it isn't. It's garbage if it can be trumped by lesser spells. And it can be. I'm not even all that well versed in all that is Pathfinder, and I can easily blow True Seeing away with lower level spells. And just core spells! I'm sure there are spells from other sources that would make the job even easier.

You are thinking from an Inquisitor (or a wizard) point of view. A 5th level spell is very valuable as you get it late and you have See invisible and Arcane sight as lower level spells.

For a cleric or Oracle that isn't generally true.

A spell can be great for a specific class and way less great for other classes than still get it.

BTW, note that casting 2 or more spells generally is less efficient than casting only one, even if of an higher level.
And none of the other spells beat Blur or Mirror image, AFAIK.

Belefauntes wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The benefit of True Seeing is that it always works. Wasting a Dispel Magic on the enemy's Displacement sucks when you fail the CL check. True Seeing lets you or your ally see through all magical darkness, blur, displacement, illusions, without fail. In fact, when my crew realized we had forgot to have someone with daylight available, my oracle spammed True Seeing on the party to get them into the fight. Analyze Dweomer gives you an idea, True Seeing gives you a fact.

Yes, True Seeing guarantees that the recipient, and the recipient alone, can bypass a limited number of effects 100% of the time. How many level 5 or 6 spells are you going to cast to make that work for the whole party? What level do you have to be to consider "spamming" a level 5 or 6 spell??? I don't feel that getting around a few effects for combat purposes should be the focus of this spell. It's a utility spell. I feel what it does allow you to see as "true" should be more broadly encompassing. I don't want a trump-all spell. I want it to work as advertised in the first line of the spell. Even if that means it only last 1 ROUND per level. True Seeing gives you SOME facts, and that's the problem.

I think I would need to know more about your scenario to understand why someone would want to spam a high-level spell to get into a fight, where daylight would have sufficed had it been available. It was dark? You could spam True Seeing, but nobody had Light or an everburning torch? I'm guessing not, and it must have been a desperate scenario, but I can't see this being a regular thing. I'm imagining the party learned to have a lower level utility spell available at all times for those poor saps who cant see in the dark.

With an oracle? 10th.

Belefauntes wrote:
Pit Fiend is a frog. Are situations like this a common occurrence or very, very, EXTREMELY rare ones?

You can ask that to the 1st edition barbarian with a Githyanki vorpal sword that was polymorphed into a fly in one of my campaign and was never found by his friends.

Or the the sword that contained a pit friend and released it when it was shattered (suppressing the magic with dispel magic would have had the same result).
Or even in your current campaign if, as it seem, the demon possessing your companion is inside hin physically.

I would say that using dispel magic on random enchantments will release something nasty once or twice in a long campaign, about 50% of the time in a AP.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Why you assume that true seeing would automatically detect that your friend character has become a vampire?
You see things as they are, but a vampire don't have a glowing sign saying "vampire".
Recognizing him as a vampire will require a successful knowledge check, probably against a disguise check of the vampire character.
Otherwise you could notice that he is paler than usual, but nothing more.

Possession ... the old version (1st/2nd edition) of true seeing would have discovered that immediately, but now it is way less clear.
There is nothing in the spell text that say that you see the soul/soulf present in the body.

The possessed creature is:
- under blur or displacement effects? No
- invisible? No
- the possessing demon is invisible? ... depend on what he used, but if it is a form of magic jar the reply is No.
- an illusion? No
- polymorphed, changed, or transmuted? No
- in the Ethereal Plane? Again, it depend on how the possession was achieved, but if it is magic jar, No.

1 to 50 of 10,341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.