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

Gauss's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 7,684 posts (7,692 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,684 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

jihilahd,

There is nothing in the rules regarding resizing magic weapons.

However, if you want to borrow from another principle, the peicemeal armor rules (Ultimate Combat p199), only the major portion of an item (typically the torso peice) is carrying the magic. So, resizing a spear (the haft only) should not affect the magic of the weapon.

Alternately, you can provide a magical solution similar to the spell Shrink Item. (Allow it to affect magic items and have it change it only one size.)

Skeld, it is not a house rule that magical equipment (other than weapons and armor) resizes to fit the wearer.

CRB p459 wrote:

Size and Magic Items

When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn’t be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.
There may be rare exceptions, especially with race specific items.
Armor and Weapon Sizes: Armor and weapons that are found at random have a 30% chance of being Small (01–30), a 60% chance of being Medium (31–90), and a 10% chance of being any other size (91–100).


But the Blinkback belt does (with Quickdraw). :)


I believe Oddman80 is correct in his calculations. You do not take TWF penalties to natural weapon attacks. They are completely separate.

Oddman80, the rules state that you make your iterative attacks in descending order. But, when TWF, there is a grey area on if that applies to each weapon in turn or if it applies to all of your attacks from each weapon together.

In either case it is not relevant to your example since both weapons have the same attack modifiers and the natural attacks are not part of the rule. Make them in whatever order you wish.


Note: a cheaper "returning" option is the Blinkback Belt but it will require Quickdraw to make effective use of.


The rules do not cover this, ask your GM.


Rappan Athuk is specifically designed for 6 PCs (not 4-6).

RA p10 wrote:
Difficulty Level: Details the average level of difficulty of the dungeon level. A party of six player characters (PCs) with the suggested experience level should be properly challenged by this level of the dungeon.

There are encounters that are significantly higher than the Difficult Level of the level. (Example: a level with a DL of 8 and an encounter with a CR of 16.) This is what causes the TPKs if the group is unlucky or unaware of the danger. :)


Brimgoth, they will roflstomp many sections and then run into SURPRISE TPK territory in the middle of a roflstomp.


Snowlilly wrote:

Rappan Athuk is a load of fun.

Just make sure players bring back-up characters.

Yeah, my group is at level 9 and have had three party wipes in addition to a number of non-TPK deaths. :)


Flagged for incorrect forum (this should be in the Pathfinder RPG Discussion forum since there is not an actual rules question here).

Also, there is a force option: Force Blast.


First, no you cannot identify magic items worn on another creature via either Arcane Sight or Greater Arcane Sight because neither spell provides an exception to the 3 round clause nor the 'thoroughly examine the object' (usually considered to be handling the item) clause.

CRB p106 wrote:
Attempting to ascertain the properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine the object.

Note: Some GMs may waive the 3 round clause because Arcane Sight gets three rounds of Detect Magic information in 1 round.

Second, it is a standard action to concentrate on a target.

CRB p244 wrote:
If you concentrate on a specific creature within 120 feet of you as a standard action, you can determine whether it has any spellcasting or spell-like abilities, whether these are arcane or divine (spell-like abilities register as arcane), and the strength of the most powerful spell or spell-like ability the creature currently has available for use.


While burning disarm and heat metal state they "boil surrounding water" there is no statement as to how much water they are boiling.

I would not allow this combination to qualify as being immersed in boiling water. I might allow it to qualify as contact (1d6 damage).


Aluvial, under no circumstances are you affected by an area spell when you are outside the spell unless the spell states otherwise.

This is just a basic premise of the game.


No, you are affected if you are inside the area, not outside of it and attacking into it, unless the spell effect specifically states otherwise.

There is nothing in the rules to support being outside of an area and being affected by it when you attack someone inside the area.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, the devs have stated that extra-dimensional spaces such as pits, bags of holding, etc. are not extraplanar (which is what I think you are thinking of).

James Jacobs on the topic and here too.

On a more basic level, you would be giving such a spell far more power than is it's due if you make it extraplanar. You cannot use teleportation magic (D-door, teleport, etc) across planar boundaries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Create Pit does not open a doorway into another dimension. It is an extradimensional space.

Extradimensional is an extension of the existing dimension. Not an entirely different place.

Golems are not immune to all magic other than that listed.
Clay Golem example:

Bestiary p159 wrote:
Immunity to Magic (Ex) A clay golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.

Ie: golems are only immune to spells and spell-like abiltiies that allow spell resistance.

Create Pit does not allow spell resistance.
Golems are not immune to Create Pit. Create Pit works just fine against golems.


Symbol of Death wrote:
When triggered, a symbol of death kills one or more creatures within 60 feet of the symbol (treat as a burst) whose combined total current hit points do not exceed 150. The symbol of death affects the closest creatures first, skipping creatures with too many hit points to affect.
Symbol of Strife wrote:
This spell functions as symbol of death, except all creatures within the radius of a symbol of strife are compelled to attack the nearest conscious creature for 1 round per caster level (similar to the “attack nearest creature” result of the confusion spell), even after leaving the symbol’s area of effect.

Instead of 'one or more creatures whos combined total current hit points do not exceed 150' it is 'all creatures'.

If you look at each of the symbol spells you will find the parts that conflict with the original (Symbol of Death). Those that conflict is the replacement wording.


Negative Energy is not just negative energy damage. There are a number of (spell) effects that use the phrase Negative Energy.

Example:

CRB p277 Enervation wrote:
You point your finger and fire a black ray of negative energy that suppresses the life force of any living creature it strikes. You must make a ranged touch attack to hit. If you hit, the subject gains 1d4 temporary negative levels (see Appendix 1). Negative levels stack.

So, the Life Shaman is immune to Enervation because it is "negative energy" and the Life Oracle is immune to Enervation because it is "negative levels".

There are other spells that are defined as negative energy (such as Ghoul Touch, Touch of Fatigue, and Waves of Exhaustion). The Life Shaman is immune to all negative energy effects.


This is the rule:

CRB p149 wrote:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

Thus, both the +1 enhancement bonus to attack (and damage) and the Masterwork bonus are both enhancement bonuses.


No you cannot do this. There is NO rule in UMD that gives you a caster level. What there is is a rule that gives you an effective level in the emulated class. That is not the same thing.

Relevant quote:

CRB p109 wrote:
Emulate a Class Feature: Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).

If an a magic item gives you a bonus based on the class level (example, Holy Avenger gives SR 5+level of the paladin) then you count your level as UMD result-20.

But that still does not give you a caster level.


XLordxErebusX,

People who come into the community, post what amounts to a declaration that the rules are wrong, and then argue with EVERYONE are not asking for help. They are asking for an argument.

If the OP had actually been interested in listening to people the thread may have turned out differently.

Additionally, it was repeatedly suggested that he move to a different forum where people would be happy to discuss possible house rules to fix his problem but instead he argued that he was in the correct forum. *shrugs*


Well, how much of the weight is the handle? Shouldn't that be subtracted from your calculations if we use your (house) rule?

How about a metal weapon with a wooden haft? How much of the weapon is the adamantine then?

Clearly, the rules do not cover all circumstances.

You are creating your own rule because it does not state that it is 100% adamantine. Just like it does not state that it replaces (or not) the wooden haft of a metal weapon.

And as for including it in the description, no, they wouldn't. They do not expect people to do what you are trying to do. They expect people to operate within the rules or make their own. You are trying to make your own and call it within the rules and then claim the rules are broken.

Anyhow, this is a very dead horse. Or would you like to debate the ratio of meat to bone in the horse? :P


No, I am not acknowledging a ratio, I am saying the rules are silent.

You are saying there is no ratio, you must have rules proof for that statement or it is a house rule.

Pathfinder is a 'rules positive' system. Either it exists in the rules or it is a house rule (yes, this means many things are 'common sense' house rules).

Silence on a rule is not a defacto rule.

Again, it is a moot issue since you are still using a house rule to break down weapons and armor by weight and sell them (or construct them) by the price per pound.


You are misrepresenting my position, again.
I have not stated admantine weapons have non-special material in them.

I have stated that the rules are silent on the ratio.

Any statement of the ratio is a house rule.

If you can produce a rule that clearly states that weapons are entirely made up of adamantine then please show it. Otherwise, the rules are silent on the matter.

Until now, you have only shown misreadings of the rules.

In any case, you are still using a house rule to break weapons and armor down by weight. There is no getting around that.


Again, I am not the one speculating, you are. There is nothing in the rules the states one way or the other.

Anything not in the rules requires GM fiat/house rules. This is normal. The problem here is that you do not understand that you are in GM fiat/house rules territory.

You bring up Steel as an example, steel is an alloy. Do you know the ratio of iron to carbon? Do you know the % of the other materials included in steel? The rules do not state these things.

The point here is that when the rules are silent you can either operate with what is written (the rules that state the prices for various different types of equipment) or you can make up your own rules (such as what you are doing).

You are houseruling things twice.
1) You are assigning a ratio of special materials to non-special materials.
This is not in the rules, therefore is a house rule.

2) You are allowing people to break things down on a per pound basis rather than the quoted prices.
This is also not in the rules and therefore is a house rule.

I don't care that you are using house rules, but you cannot continue to claim that they are rules as written and then claim that the rules as written are broken because of your house rules.

In any case, this thread is now in the correct forum as it was never a rules question. Enjoy designing a new rule, maybe they will accept it in some future version of the rules.


At no point have I made any statement of the ratio. You have done so repeatedly.

There is nothing in the rules that states it one way or another and yet you continually assume that it does.

Put another way, you have yet to show anything that states the ratio is 100%, 50%, or anything. There is nothing in the rules that says that one way or another and because of that you are in GM fiat/house rule territory.

I don't care if you are in GM fiat/house rule territory. Not a big deal to me. But ALL of the problems you are having with this section of rules is stemming from you reading something into the rules that does not exist and then trying to break down items into constituent parts (another example of making a house rule).


Again, necro thread.

To summarize the points though:
1) HL generated characters are generally more accurate than human generated characters are if HL is used correctly.

2) Some people point to HL and say that it must be correct when it might not be due to human error (see point #1).

3) Some people point to HL and say that it trumps the book to justify point #2.

There is no bias against HL. There is bias against people claiming HL is infallible and trumps the books. This has now been (partly) resolved by the "making the most of Hero Lab" article.

We can now point to the article and tell people that HL does not trump the books, the article states that you need to read the rulebooks and understand your character.

As a result, when people are wrong they no longer have that point as a defense and the rest of their house of cards falls.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You have failed to show how the rules are broken.

You have shown how homebrew rules break the rules. What you are doing (breaking things down to sell them by the pound) is homebrew.


You keep overlooking the mechanical advantage of the material property. Adamantine weapons bypass hardness in addition to DR/adamantine.

That mechanical advantage has a flat value, it doesn't matter what the damage of the weapon is.
(For that matter, weapon damage dice is usually the smallest component of damage. The difference between the average damage of an adamantine dagger and an adamantine long sword is 2 points.)

They are not broken rules, you are failing to understand the reason for the rules. This is clear by you trying to compare adamantine to a +1 weapon.

People have been telling you this for the entire thread. It is clear you are refusing to understand this. Moving on now, there is nothing else to be gained by continuing this discussion with you.


Guys, this is a necro thread. Herolab addressed this issue already by adding a disclaimer. I would like for it to have been more strongly worded but, at least I can point to #1 and tell people that it is not a substitute for the books.


Robert Jenkins 953 wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Gauss wrote:
This is not a rules question, it is a rules discussion. As in, changing the rules, not a question to be resolved. The proper forum for this is the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion.

Actually - I think that it should go to the Homebrew board.

Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew wrote:
Post your rules suggestions, house rules, variant classes, homebrew settings, etc. here.
Except I dont want a homebrew solution, I want rules that work. Something my players cannot break an economy with or exploit, and something where I dont have to be one of those GMs that has to make up rules and say my way or the highway.

This will NEVER happen. Gold is not economically driven. It is driven by 'what is the power level of this item'. Get over the economy side of things, it will never happen.

Your players cannot break the "economy" if you do not let them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Jenkins 953 wrote:
Gauss wrote:
Robert Jenkins 953 wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Pricing on many items is not intended to be 'by the pound'. It is intended to be 'how much do we think this ability should cost'.

It is a game mechanic power metric, not an economic value.

Admantine armor has a specific game effect that should cost a specific amount.
Items without specific game effects are typically are charged by the pound. (Not always because game designers are a chaotic lot.)

There is really no rules question here, this appears to be more of a discussion regarding how the games "economy" was designed. I am flagging this as wrong forum.

Say what you will but this does have to do with the pricing rules for crafting and special materials, something they have admitted is flawed for mithral and trying to fix. I am bringing up how inconsistent both adamantine and mithral are together and seperately.

This is not a rules question, it is a rules discussion. As in, changing the rules, not a question to be resolved. The proper forum for this is the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion.

Rules Forum description wrote:
This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. House rules, variants and conversions should be posted in the appropriate Community Content forum.
Pathfinder RPG General Discussion description wrote:
This forum is for general comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing the system with other gamers.
There is no question here, this is a discussion.
Once more I disagree, hes it has become a conversation, and yes I have decided to fix this problem for myself until Paizo decides to fix the problem or give a response. The original question and topic involve rules for special materials that are inconsistant. I prefer playing by the rules written than making my own up, that way the game does not get watered down with house rules. I have identified something that I view as an issue and I want feedback,...

There is no problem. The rules regarding pricing work fine.

Your entire post has come off as a 'I don't like that the pricing rules work this way'. Not as a 'could you help clear up something?' question.

You knew how they worked, you just didn't like it. This is not a rules question, it is a rules suggestion/discussion (starting with your first post) and as such belongs in a different forum.


wraithstrike, the Monk of the Four Winds is in Paizo's Advanced Players Guide.

The ability "Slow Time" the Monk of the Four Winds can spend a Swift action and 6 ki points to gain 3 Standard actions instead of one.

The Monk of the Four Winds can do any of the following with these actions: "...take a melee attack action, use a skill, use an extraordinary ability, or take a move action." and cannot do these actions "The monk cannot use these actions to cast spells or use spell-like abilities, and cannot combine them to take full-attack actions.".

Warrior In Red, you are not going to get an official answer but the rules are pretty clear here. You can take a standard action "melee attack action" and that qualifies you to use Vital Strike.

Considering the extreme cost involved this is really not that big a deal. You will only be able to do this once or twice.


Robert Jenkins 953 wrote:
Gauss wrote:

Pricing on many items is not intended to be 'by the pound'. It is intended to be 'how much do we think this ability should cost'.

It is a game mechanic power metric, not an economic value.

Admantine armor has a specific game effect that should cost a specific amount.
Items without specific game effects are typically are charged by the pound. (Not always because game designers are a chaotic lot.)

There is really no rules question here, this appears to be more of a discussion regarding how the games "economy" was designed. I am flagging this as wrong forum.

Say what you will but this does have to do with the pricing rules for crafting and special materials, something they have admitted is flawed for mithral and trying to fix. I am bringing up how inconsistent both adamantine and mithral are together and seperately.

This is not a rules question, it is a rules discussion. As in, changing the rules, not a question to be resolved. The proper forum for this is the Pathfinder RPG General Discussion.

Rules Forum description wrote:
This forum is for questions and answers about the rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. House rules, variants and conversions should be posted in the appropriate Community Content forum.
Pathfinder RPG General Discussion description wrote:
This forum is for general comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing the system with other gamers.

There is no question here, this is a discussion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pricing on many items is not intended to be 'by the pound'. It is intended to be 'how much do we think this ability should cost'.

It is a game mechanic power metric, not an economic value.

Admantine armor has a specific game effect that should cost a specific amount.
Items without specific game effects are typically are charged by the pound. (Not always because game designers are a chaotic lot.)

There is really no rules question here, this appears to be more of a discussion regarding how the games "economy" was designed. I am flagging this as wrong forum.


Matthew Downie, your order of resolution means that the Bane is being resolved before the target is even decided.

Any arrow placed in the +5 bow is automatically a +5 arrow. That is why it should be first.

But, I think you hit the nail on the head, I think this is more about people not liking the arrow having +7 than it actually being resolved in that order.

Frankly, if you think +7 should be that hard to get you should look at certain Channel Energy feats. My clerics regularly give out bane (to the archer) at the start of a battle for the low low cost of 1 use of channel energy (and 2 feats).

Want Bane for the particular creature we are fighting? Don't want to pay for Bane arrows? Here you go!

Bane is easy to add. Your method would just make one option pointlessly annoying.


I don't understand why you guys are trying to apply the Bane before the bow is even fired. It is a +5 Bane arrow guys, not a +1 Bane arrow that then turns into a +5 'something not quite bane' arrow.

You have come up with this idea that the bane property applies first without anything to back that up. You are coming up with the most convoluted answer when the simple answer is "it is a +5 <insert special property> arrow".


As I see it, it is a +1 <insert property here> arrow being fired by a +5 bow which results in +5 <insert property here> arrow. THEN the <insert property here> is resolved when the attack is resolved.

Really, this is the simplest way of dealing with things and the one with the lowest potential for confusion.

I don't understand why people are trying to resolve properties before the attack is even rolled.


Darksol, the way you phrased your answer sounds like you add 1/2 the cost of the second item. This is incorrect. You add the cost of the second item multiplied by 1.5.

Example: +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists and +2 Amulet of Natural Armor = 28k (16k and 8k = 16k + 8k*1.5 = 16k + 12k = 28k gp).

The way you stated it is that it would be 20k (16k + 8k*0.5 = 16k + 4k = 20k).


As a sidenote, back in 3.5 there was a ring that granted you invisibility to Darkvision (and only darkvision).

It was called "Ring of the Darkhidden", cost 2000gp (ridiculously cheap) and was in the Magic Item Compendium (p122).

If it is a home game (rather than PFS), perhaps you can convince your GM to allow it or a similar item.


Danizibe1989, the answer is basically, yes. It is the exact same as seeing a person in broad daylight.

Darkvision completely negates the effect of darkness up to the range of the darkvision (unless it is supernatural darkness as per Deeper Darkness).


Wolfswift, if you want to make a scroll or wand you just need to find someone to cast the spell for you. Your party cleric can do that.

Regarding learning every spell on their list, sure...you don't even need (more expensive) scrolls for that. You can learn from other spellbooks for much less money (spell level*spell level*5gp + scribing cost). Of course, as a Witch you cannot use a spellbook and must find another witch (a greater restriction than other prepared arcane spellcasters).

Regarding new Witch versions of existing spells on other spell lists, that is up to your GM but as a GM, I wouldn't allow it because that breaks the basic premise of different classes having different spell lists.


Honestly, I think you are overthinking this. If you want to cast a spell that is not on your spell list then buy a scroll or wand and use UMD to cast it.

Any magic item that added a spell to your spell list should be prohibitively expensive (because it is breaking a basic understanding of the game). Not just the price of a Page of Spell Knowledge.


Wolfswift, you do not use Use Magic Device to emulate a class when you are creating a magic item.

If you are creating a Page of Spell Knowledge and you do not have the spell you simply add +5 to the DC. It doesn't matter what class the spell comes from.

Next, you cannot use Page of Spell Knowledge to give your Witch access to cleric spells. Use Magic Device does not get around this.

CRB p109 wrote:
Emulate a Class Feature: Sometimes you need to use a class feature to activate a magic item. In this case, your effective level in the emulated class equals your Use Magic Device check result minus 20. This skill does not let you actually use the class feature of another class. It just lets you activate items as if you had that class feature. If the class whose feature you are emulating has an alignment requirement, you must meet it, either honestly or by emulating an appropriate alignment with a separate Use Magic Device check (see above).
UEquipment p314 wrote:
This page is covered in densely-worded arcane or divine magical runes. It contains the knowledge of a single arcane or divine spell (chosen by the creator when the item is crafted). If the bearer is a spontaneous spellcaster and has that spell on her class spell list, she may use her spell slots to cast that spell as if it were one of her spells known. A page of spell knowledge is priced based on the spell’s cleric or sorcerer/wizard spell level, unless the spell doesn’t appear on either of those spell lists, in which case it is based on the highest spell level as it appears on any other spell list. For example, a spell that is on the 4th-level inquisitor list and the 2nd-level paladin list is priced as a 4th-level spell.

So, while UMD would allow you to activate an item as if you had a required class feature that is not relevant here since Page of Spell Knowledge is granting you an expansion of an existing ability that you do not possess. You are not a spontaneous spellcaster and you do not have the spell on your spell list.

Here is an example that UMD is good for:

UEquipment p156 Holy Avenger wrote:

This +2 cold iron longsword becomes a +5 holy cold iron longsword in the hands of a paladin.

When wielded by a paladin, this sacred weapon provides spell resistance of 5 + the paladin’s class level to the wielder and anyone adjacent to her. It also enables the paladin to use greater dispel magic (once per round as a standard action) at the class level of the paladin. Only the area dispel is possible, not the targeted dispel or counterspell versions of greater dispel magic.

By using UMD you can trick the Holy Avenger into believing you are a Paladin of level <UMD result-20>. The Holy Avenger is not giving you an improvement on a class ability though.

Another example of an item that UMD would not work effectively on:

UEquipment p116 Champion wrote:
This armor special ability works only for good creatures with the challenge ability (such as cavaliers) or the smite evil ability (such as paladins, half-celestials, and creatures with the celestial creature template). A wearer with one of these abilities gains a +2 sacred bonus to AC against attacks from the chosen opponent.

Yes, you could UMD the alignment. Yes, you could UMD the class ability to trick the armor into believing you have it.

But, you cannot UMD actually HAVING the class ability which is required to gain the bonus. (You must be challenging or smiting the chosen opponent to get the +2 sacred bonus to AC against that chosen opponent).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Diego, again, CONTEXT. I explained what he was probably confusing it with.

tchrman35, fine, I take 10, you roll "take 10" and it is still a 10. :P

If I am going to roll (for some bizarre reason) I will make sure I have the spell "Identify" handy to make sure that the item isn't cursed.


Diego, I was referencing this rule:

CRB p93 wrote:
Progress by the Day: You can make checks by the day instead of by the week. In this case your progress (check result × DC) should be divided by the number of days in a week.

I did not state that it was mandatory, I was stating that that was the rule that he was probably confusing it with. Are we really so nitpicky that you had to bring up that it was an optional rule when the context was 'this is probably what you were confusing it with'?


Jeraa, it is easy to confuse especially when the non-magical crafting rules require a check each day.


Jeraa, there is only ONE check. Not a check each day. It doesn't matter how many days are required to craft the item.

CRB p548 wrote:
To create magic items, spellcasters use special feats which allow them to invest time and money in an item’s creation. At the end of this process, the spellcaster must make a single skill check (usually Spellcraft, but sometimes another skill) to finish the item.

Skylancer4, so don't roll. Take 10, and you succeed.

Crafting while adventuring has no additional risk to failure, it is the exact same as crafting while not adventuring. It just takes more time.


Skylancer4, why would crafting while adventuring risk failure if it requires multiple days?


I think people are confusing things. This is not Channel from multiple classes. This is bumping an ability that is 'effective <insert class X> level' with a feat or ability that calls out <insert class X>.

The answer should be yes, for the purposes of that ability you qualify because you count as a "insert class X".


These rules can be found in the CRB on p562.

1 to 50 of 7,684 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.