|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Yes, they were different. How are they different? You keep ascribing that the context specifies but I have yet to see any proof of this. Context is certainly showing they are different, I acknowledged this. But without an example of how 'at will' is different the assumption that it is mental activation is just that, an assumption. It is not the rules.
In any case, we are far off topic. This is not 1st/2nd edition. It is 3.X/PF.
As for silence preventing 'at will' monster abilities like teleport?
If it is an at will spell then the rules are clear, they cannot speak the verbal component.
If it is an at will spell-like ability then there is no verbal component and silence will have no effect.
If it is an at will supernatural ability then again, there is no verbal component and silence will have no effect.
If you mean how would I rule in 1st or 2nd edition I do not have the rulebooks so I could not rule.
Contrasting the items that have "at will" vs "on command" does not provide a definition. It simply illustrates that they are different somehow.
Now, if you can provide an example that states "at will" is "mental activation" then you may have something.
However, the english language definition of "at will" is basically 'when one wants to'. Not 'mental activation'.
I am not saying it is not mental activation, I do not have the 1st or 2nd edition rulebooks. I am asking do you have proof beyond 'contrasting activation methods' especially when the definition you are using for "At Will" is not the same definition the english language uses.
"At Will" in 3.X/PF has never meant 'silent act of will'. It might have meant that in previous editions (I no longer have my 1st and 2nd edition books) but IF it did then that was an english error on the part of the Developers of those editions.
Frankly, I would like to see where it defines "At Will" as 'silent act of will'.
Pathfinder did not change the rules. It has been like this since at least 3.0 (as has been shown). What has changed is your understanding of the rules.
Ultimately, this only matters in PFS games. As you stated, if it is your home game you can house rule it.
BTW, it is still "at will" which means, as much as you want not 'by force of will'. People have been misunderstanding "at will" for decades too. This wouldn't be the first time I have heard someone say "at will" thinking it meant "by force of will".
I was using oversimplified language and my statement still applied in that Charm Person/Monster does not help bypass the process of Planar Binding. You were unclear as to how you were using it (you were using significant simplification yourself). Had you been clearer to begin with the oversimplification could have been avoided.
I am quite aware of the Charm Monster erratas, and the spell description.
As for going off-topic, it was not off-topic. It was central to the whole topic. Whether or not your specific options were viable was dependent upon looking at how you got to that point.
BTW, for those that are unsure of where I got the rules for the duration of these items here you go (I started with 3.5):
3.5 DMG p215 wrote:
Some individual items, notably those that simply store spells and nothing else, don’t get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell’s description in the Player’s Handbook for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it, unless you choose to make it higher for some reason (which increases the cost of the item; see Table 7–33: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values). The main reason to make it higher, of course, would be to increase the power of the spell. This decision is common for spells dependent on level, such as fireball, for which damage is everything, or summon monster, in which duration can increase the power of the spell dramatically.
Hmmm, what does this quote say? That Items that replicate spells (not just potions, scrolls, and wands) that do not get full descriptions use the item's caster level to determine the variables.
Hmmm, is duration a variable? YES.
Here is another quote:
3.5 DMG p215 wrote:
Caster Level: The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power (just as a spell’s caster level measures its power). The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation. This information is given in the form “CL x,” where “CL” is an abbreviation for caster level and “x” is an ordinal number representing the caster level itself.
Yup, level dependant aspects of the powers of the item, if variable. Again, duration is one such aspect.
What did the 3.5 ring say?
3.5 DMG p232 wrote:
No statement that it operates differently from the spell. Thus, being CL3 it lasts for 3 minutes.
This is the source of the rules I was operating under for years. Even 3.0 had these same general statements.
Lets see if Pathfinder has the same statements:
CRB p460 wrote:
Some individual items, notably those that just store spells, don’t get full-blown descriptions. Reference the spell’s description for details, modified by the form of the item (potion, scroll, wand, and so on). Assume that the spell is cast at the minimum level required to cast it.
CRB p460 wrote:
Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item’s saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.
CRB p481 wrote:
Short answer, it has been the same (except the duration of the spell itself changed) from 3.0, to 3.5, to PF.
As shown in the other thread Rings are either Continuous or Command Word. The pricing of the Ring of Invisibility is Command Word and was then jacked up to cover the 'infinite uses'.
Those are the rules. Anything else is/was a houserule or an error.
Kinevon, people have touted how Invisibility is worthless at level 11+ but that is entirely dependent upon what creatures you face. In a campaign heavy with spellcasting bad guys sure, it might not be that worthwhile. However, any invisibility at that point won't work so...why would you buy this ring then?
It's like saying that anti-undead stuff is always worthless without considering whether it is an undead-heavy campaign or not.
Additionally, it is still worthwhile for that first round of combat. The enemy is not going to always have True Seeing up, it costs money and spell slots to cast. Same with See Invisibility.
The only thing you presented that is on all the time is Blindsight and that is a very RARE thing for creatures to have.
It would be nice if you guys looked at this realistically.
Myth: The price is too high, at 20,000gp you only get it at a level where invisibility is worthless!
Myth: 3minutes of invisibility is worthless.
Myth: You can replicate this with potions.
Ahhh yes, the legacy argument. Which has no bearing in 3.5 or in Pathfinder.
Chengar Qordath, please show where the Dev thought it was continuous prior to the FAQ. I have not seen this evidence. (Not that Devs are not wrong themselves from time to time, it happens.)
Kinevon, yes, my mileage does vary from that. It is quite worth the money to start every combat invisible. As for having played with "WotC GMs" which WotC Devs did you play with or was it WotC non-Dev GMs? In any case, as I stated a moment ago, even Devs can be mistaken from time to time.
The rules are clearly 'spell effect' and duration is one element of a spell's effect unless stated otherwise. The FAQ did not change anything other than some people's mis-understanding.
Kinevon, it has always (3.5/PF) been command activated with a 3minute duration. Nothing has changed except for some of you who have been running it incorrectly for years.
People in my games have been buying (not finding) the Ring of Invisibility at 20,000gp for years using "Command Word, 3minute duration".
Really, I have no idea where most of you got the idea that it is command word and continuous. That sort of thing isn't in the rules anywhere in the rules for Rings or Command Word.
Lets put this another way: What part of "Spell Effect" does not mean that you are using a "Spell Effect"?
If you use the item's CL to determine something like the spell's available distance (Cape of the Mountebank) why wouldn't it determine the spell's duration (Ring of Invisibility)?
Edit: added stuff
Not all items are priced as per formula. They (the Devs) may have started with the formula as a baseline and then altered it from there based on some logic.
In this case I could see the logic being: not everyone is going to use every skill so lets reduce the price downwards a bit to account for that.
Avoron, that is the equivalent of bringing in a bunch of house rules into the rules forum and then asking people what the rule is for something based on that. It does not belong in the rules forum because it is not based in the rules.
By presenting, in a rules forum, a hypothetical situation that is against the rules as the premise is faulty.
Claxon, not to rehash the (very long) thread that just died, I (and others) have been running it as Command Word activated with a duration of 3minutes for years.
The ring has a pricing structure of Command Word after which it was bumped up to 20k because the 3.X/PF Devs felt that unlimited uses of Invisibilty was too good for 10,800gp. In Pathfinder this is stated in the GameMastery Guide.
The duration element is because the ring is basically casting the spell on you. Items that say 'as spell' are typically casting it on you.
Of course, many felt as you did that it was continuous.
GreyWolfLord, you seem to be misunderstanding the point. It is not that detect magic is being compared against the stealth or invisibility. It is ignoring it altogether because it does not need line of sight. It doesn't even need the standard line of effect.
Magic radiates an aura that is detectable by Detect Magic. Show me where invisibility counters that statement or show me where stealth counters that statement.
You cannot because no such counter-statement exists and since Detect Magic does not need line of sight or line of effect (except for it's own limitations) it can still see that magic aura. Does it see the creature? NO. Do you know where the aura is? Yes, after 3 rounds.
Note: your idea that the aura could be 'really big' is not held up in the rules. The rules state you can locate the aura. Clearly they are indicating you can find the source by scanning for 3 rounds. Otherwise detect magic would be worthless to find even visible objects.
As for the identification of the aura, I think we all agree that no, you cannot identify an invisible creature's aura because the rules state that you must have line of sight to the object.
Please show me where I ever suggested that Total Defense is a primary solution. I simply stated the bonuses involved. Please do not take me out of context.
Also, as others have pointed out, Daylight is an option to remove some of it's stealth ability.
Ultimately, there are a number of ways to deal with it and as Kinevon said, only an unprepared party has a problem with shadows. Total Defense (or fighting defensively) are just options. Having 3 ranks of acrobatics HELPS those options. Which was what I said.
Level 8 = +8? Interesting character design. I typically would have a +18 (8+3class+1trait+5magic item+1wisdom) as a level 8 human wizard. While not DesolateHarmony's +28 it isn't difficult to get up there.
As a human wizard I might also consider having the skill focus feats (+3@lvl8 or +6@lvl10) and a familiar (+2@lvl8 or +4@lvl10). That would give me another +5@lvl8 or +10@lvl10 boost (probably Desolate Harmony's bonus is derived similarly).
In short, I can easily get a Wizard up to high perception levels and I usually will just so that he can buff/debuff/blast before the enemy can act.
someonenoone111, ultimately, the problem is that you are trying to bypass the normal cost of planar binding in order to get a free semi-permanent servant. At the very least this is a game balance issue.
Compare it to Planar Ally. Planar Ally is clearly friendly. Heck, it is a representative sent by your deity. But, it has a cost attached.
Why should you be able to bypass the equivalent spell's (Planar Binding) cost just because you make it friendly? You shouldn't.
Any GM should toss this out as an attempt to abuse the system even if you may be technically within the rules. (Note: I do not believe you are within the rules on this, I am just stating that if this is technically in the rules it should still be tossed.) Ultimately, you are in a huge grey area as to whether this combination could even work and if it does work whether it works the way you think it does.
I think it could give you a bonus to accept reduced price terms. I do not think it should give you carte blanche to get an unlimited supply of free outsiders.
Isn't that "1.5 x cost" for multiple abilities rule only really there for slotted items, like headbands and rings?
Ravingdork may have a point here. Based on that it would be 2x cost rather than 1.5x cost. But, whether the GM determines it is 1.5x or 2x it is still a higher price per enchantment than normal.
Just a Mort wrote:
Ahhhh, but PC's will at least be given a Perception check (opposed by the Stealth check). This gives them a chance to retain Dex/Dodge bonuses.
Regarding 'swift action' spells, they provoke AoOs just like any other spell. Only certain cases of swift action spells (ie: Quickened spells) do not provoke.
You do not need to specify 30' distance. You only need to specify the trigger and the action. In this case "if the fighter comes within 15' of me I move".
And yes, Cackle is a Move action leaving you a standard action to ready your readied action with.
Situation A is not a readied action, it is two AoOs.
Situation B1: The Wizard 5' stepping does not provoke even if you do move to put him in your threat range. There is no AoO for his movement although there may be if he is in your threat range when he casts.
Situation C1: Since you have already moved on your turn you cannot take a 5' step as part of a readied action.
Additionally, even if you had not moved on your turn, you must make your "Move" move action. The 5' step can be PART of a readied action but since your readied action was "Move" it cannot be part of a "Move" move action.
You are not asking him to slaughter a village. You are asking him to fail the Planar Binding charisma check (surrender to the Binding spell). That is, at the very least, contrary to what any creature summoned by Planar Binding would do.
So lets see what you have done:
Lets see what you would have done otherwise:
Looks like you have actually made your check HARDER by using Charm Monster and never bound it properly. Of course, the GM could ad hoc a bonus to the Planar Binding check based on the Charm Monster but I fail to see how it would be much more than asking it to do what it wants to do anyhow.
So to answer your original question, you violated the Planar Binding spell when you used Charm Monster and failed to get it to agree as per Planar Binding. The moment Charm Monster fails you are in a battle with an uncontrolled creature.
Just a Mort,
No, by RAW once the combat has started and they have acted they are no longer flat-footed unless a creature has some ability to create the flat-footed condition (shadows do not have that ability).
With that said, what I think you are really meaning is does the creature count as invisible or hidden and thus deny dexterity on a subsequent attack.
Unfortunately, the current rules regarding stealth are pretty vague. The Stealth playtest attempted to address this but it never became RAW. If you are playing in a home (rather than a PFS game) game I suggest that you explore the stealth playtest. It makes sense out of a lot of the stealth rules.
Regarding readied actions: As a readied action you can 5' step. Depending on the situation that could give a whole bunch of people an attack before it pops back in.
Lets start by saying everyone has a readied action and on the last turn nobody moved.
In the diagram below "W" is "Wall" while "X" is empty". 1, 2, 3, and 4 are PCs. "S" is Shadow in a Wall.
Now, the rules are silent on who goes first if multiple readied actions occur on the same trigger. I suggest that people allow the basic initiative rules to prevail to prevent chaos (including the ability to wait until other readied actions have resolved). However, that is a house rule I use to resolve these sorts of situations.
S: moves along the inside of the wall and then attacks 4.
Frankly, Shadows are a PITA but not a huge problem for a group that is ready to deal with them.
_Ozy_, and you just explained your whole stance behind the Ring of Invisibility. Ie: You price things way low.
Yes, a Wand of Mage Armor can provide enough for 50 adventuring days. Yes, a Pearl of Power can do the same for 1000gp. But it still takes up a slot to memorize the spell.
But, if we look at 1/day Mage Armor at 8hours then we come up with: 1*8*1800/5 = 2880gp. That is 18% of the normal 16,000gp and effectively the same bonus. Adventuring days rarely last more than 8hours (heck, many last less than 1 hour).
What if we price it at 24hours (Extended Mage Armor with a CL of 12)?
In short, you have a skewed way of looking at pricing. You keep looking at it from the point of view of a consumable. You really should look at it from the constant point of view instead.
Here you go:
CRB p438 Storms wrote:
Thunderstorm: In addition to wind and precipitation (usually rain, but sometimes also hail), thunderstorms are accompanied by lightning that can pose a hazard to characters without proper shelter (especially those in metal armor). As a rule of thumb, assume one bolt per minute for a 1-hour period at the center of the storm. Each bolt causes between 4d8 and 10d8 points of electricity damage. One in 10 thunderstorms is accompanied by a tornado.
In short, GM fiat. However, I would compare the danger to similar hazards or traps. For example, a Cave-In (CR8) does 8d6 (avg 28) damage with a Reflex DC of 15 for half. It also has a bury component that can kill over time although that really isn't a major issue for most adventuring parties.
A lightning storm with 7d8 damage and a reflex save of 15 should be close to a similar CR but maybe a bit lower due to no bury component. I would call it a CR 6 or 7. Also reduce the CR if the bolt only strikes one target at a time.
Alternately, if we compared the CR to a trap then we get:
So, similar to the Cave-In if multiple targets.
Note: I believe Pathfinder CRs (and the Cave-In CR) are too high for traps so I typically treat all trap CRs with a grain of salt. I often drop them 1-2 to represent the actual difficulty for many people.
Regarding the 1.5 multiplier, it should apply to both additional abilities as they are both New Abilities on top of the normal weapon abilities.
This gives us:
Regarding the silence: just specify that it is a full round activation and that should eliminate the problem. Activation times are typically standard action but they can be whatever the item specifies.
Regarding the Shield of Faith: if it is not continuous and it has a short duration it is reasonable to ignore the deflection pricing. But, that would be up to the GM.
I would probably set the price to 1/5th of the continuous effect of a Ring of Protection and then increase by 1.5x (additional ability)
This pricing would be based on the idea that 5 castings of a spell is equal to unlimited castings that spell (as per the chart) which is therefore effectively equal to a continuous item that produced the same effect.
It would also prevent your player from trying to put in an unlimited use Shield of Faith to bypass the Ring of Protection pricing since the price would be identical. (Give an inch and they take a mile.)
1) No, you are misreading the text.
If a shadow in a wall attacks it has Cover only at the moment it is attacking. After it's attack it regains Total Cover.
When a shadow attacks creatures while it is in a wall those creatures have Total Concealment relative to the shadow. Ie., the shadow must roll a 50% concealment check in addition to the attack roll.
2) If the PC was unaware of the shadow then yes.
Well, they wanted Dev input and while James Jacobs is not "the rules guy" he has posted the same thing people are saying in this thread:
Additionally, here is a 2008 post from Jason Bulmahn (who is THE rules guy) specifically addressing Detect Magic's ability to detect Invisible creatures with a possible increase in the detection time to 1 minute.
That increase never occurred but it is clear from his post that Detect Magic was being used to detect the presence of invisible creatures back in 3.5 and that the Devs were considering ways to address that in Pathfinder. It looks like they did not change anything (probably figuring that 3 rounds to pinpoint an invisible creature is pretty significant as it is).
In short, yes, the magic aura from Invisibility is detectable just like any other magic aura.
This meshes with the rules since there is nothing in the rules saying anything to the contrary.
There are two ways to deal with limited slots.
2) Pay double to make an item slotless.
However, Endless Bandolier (Chest) and Beneficial Bandolier (Belt) are different magic slots. There is not a conflict in this case.
Of course, the Beneficial Bandolier will conflict with a Belt of Incredible Dexterity and that is a bigger concern.
Just use the Adding New Abilities rule to add the Beneficial Bandolier to the Belt of Incredible Dexterity.
Note: You cannot use either the Adding New Abilities rule or the 2x price slotless rule if you are playing in PFS.
One of the things to understand here is that Grab was written for critters who generally wouldn't even consider other options.
The problem is when you give Grab to a PC. Then options present themselves that the rules were not initially formatted for.
Here is how I run Grab (not exactly RAW since RAW is so badly written):
If successful you get choice of maintenance option (should default to damage as per Grab rules but if you have a good reason for another option then I see no problem with doing that instead).
If you have constrict then success also results in Constrict damage.
If you have rake attacks and maintained successfully then Perform rake attacks.
The main place I depart from RAW is allowing people to use other options besides damage when maintaining a Grab based grapple check.
Note: people misread the portion of Grab where it states you do not do damage if you constrict. That portion applies only to the '-20 grab' option.
Bestiary p301 Grab wrote:
Grab (Ex) If a creature with this special attack hits with the indicated attack (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself. A successful hold does not deal any extra damage unless the creature also has the constrict special attack. If the creature does not constrict, each successful grapple check it makes during successive rounds automatically deals the damage indicated for the attack that established the hold. Otherwise, it deals constriction damage as well (the amount is given in the creature’s descriptive text).
The FAQ covers Cleave. Basically, it says that you cannot take a 5' step during the cleave attack and re-check who you threaten.
I take this to also apply to other abilities/feats that check at the start of the action (such as Whirlwind attack). Others disagree though.
Basically, my stance is that you can 5'step during a whirlwind attack but that will not allow you to re-check who you are threatening (as per the logic in the cleave FAQ) since Whirlwind attack (like Cleave) also checks who you are threatening at the start of the action.
The opposition stance is that the FAQ only applies to Cleave.
It is up to you and your GM which stance is most appropriate for your table.
Whether the spell required is level 3 (caster level 5) or level 9 (caster level 17) is irrelevant. The spell itself is the requirement, not the caster level required to cast the spell.
Put another way: there is no caster level requirement for "Fireball" or for "Quickened Fireball" in the magic item creation rules (for non-spell trigger or spell completion items).
Additionally, only spell trigger or spell completion items (and potions) would have a requirement of "metamagic spell" since spell trigger or spell completion items would require the actual spell. I have yet to see an item that is not spell trigger or spell completion list it as "metamagic spell". If you could provide an example that would be great.
_Ozy_, CL in magic items do not result in a DC increase if you are not high enough level. Only "Caster Level" in the requirement section results in a DC increase if you are not high enough level.
Most of the Wondrous Items that replicate a spell effect do not have a "Caster Level" requirement. There is no level required to construct the item. This means you can create a magic item of Wish at any level if you have a high enough Spellcraft score and enough gold. (It is the gold that is the major limiting factor.)
Serisan, thinking 3d makes sense within the (necessarily abstract) game rules. Once you go into the details of height, weight, girth, length, etc. things will break down for you. It is best not to go there.
Yes, a medium sized character with a reach of 5' on a large size mount affects 4 levels worth of squares (0 to -5, 0 to 5, 5 to 10, and 10 to 15).