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. 6,943 posts (6,951 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,943 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Dave Justus,

The encumbrance limitation of the fly rules were removed from pathfinder.

There is not (and wasn't in 3.5) a limitation on Medium or Heavy armor in the fly rules.

The only limitation holdover from the 3.5 fly rules is Barding which is a subset of armor. It does not apply to the Armor or Load rules in any way. The section in the load rules that state it applies to Armor does not apply to Barding (at least, not without a FAQ stating it does) because Barding is a sub-rule not the general rule that the Load rules point to.

Frankly, they should do away with the line in Barding. I believe it is a remnant that escaped them in the move to PF. Limiting natural flight to light encumbrance wasn't a good rule in 3.5 as it was needlessly complicated.


Spike_Rs, necro much?

Also, according to this FAQ the Paizo Devs have decided that starting language acquisition is retroactive. Ie: You get extra starting languages anytime your intelligence goes up.


Things that affect AC (may not be a complete list): Armor, Shield, Dexterity, Size, Dodge, Deflection, Natural Armor, Insight, Luck, Sacred/Profane.

Armor, Shield, and Natural Armor also have enhancement bonuses that modify the value before it is added to AC.

Example: +3 Breastplate has an enhancement bonus of +3 adding to it's armor bonus of 6 for a total armor bonus of 9.
If you also have Mage Armor cast upon you the Mage Armor (Armor bonus of 4) is trumped by the armor bonus of 9.

Shield bonuses work the same way.

Natural Armor is slightly different.
You have the base (usually zero) + enhancement to natural armor.
Some abilities are written to increase Natural Armor while others are written to grant a natural armor bonus (replace it). This happens prior to the enhancement bonus.

Example: If you are a Kobold you have a +1 Natural Armor bonus (base). If you then use a polymorph effect you lose that +1 Natural Armor bonus (it is replaced by the bonus gained from the polymorph effect).
Then you add on any enhancement bonus to Natural Armor (such as from the spell Barkskin) that you may have.


CRB p11 wrote:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
CRB p13 wrote:
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.

Basic design principle: the same benefit does not stack unless the benefit states otherwise.

Any reference to stacking anywhere in the game will reinforce this.

further references:

CRB p113 wrote:
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
CRB p208 wrote:
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works (see Combining Magical Effects). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one, although most penalties have no type and thus always stack. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
CRB p208 wrote:

Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves. More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).

Different Bonus Types: The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different types. A bonus that doesn’t have a type stacks with any bonus.

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the one with the highest strength applies.

Summary: if you have two sources of the same benefit they do not stack and you take the higher one unless the benefit states otherwise.


Rikkan,

Regarding your spoiler:
You may want to read your own quote again.

It states that if your negative hitpoints are equal to or greater than your constitution score you are not dying. Ie, the dying condition does not apply.

Of course, it is silly that you are able to act while dead, but the rules really do not provide a clear statement that you cannot. This is just one example of an obvious concept not being clearly defined.

As for my 'interpretation' the rules are pretty clearly written.

Medium or Heavy armor does not prevent flying creatures from flying. The Solar, a creature wearing heavy armor and having a listed reduced flying speed due to that armor, is an example of this.

Medium or Heavy loads do not prevent flying creatures from flying. The rule that prevented them from flying was left back in 3.5 and did not make the move to Pathfinder.

Drawing a line from Medium/Heavy barding (which has a rule restricting flying) THROUGH Medium/Heavy armor (which has no rule restricting flying) to Medium/Heavy loads (which has no rule restricting flying) in order to say that if you have a medium or heavy load then you must be unable to fly is completely and utterly incorrect.

Summary: Medium/Heavy barding restricts flying. Medium/Heavy loads and Medium/Heavy armor does not. If you have rules to the contrary please show them.


A_psychic_rat, I wasn't being silly. You misunderstood the point I was making.

I was making a point that not all obvious things are in the rules. It is not stated anywhere in the rules that a dead person cannot act and yet, obviously, they cannot act.

This is related to the current discussion in that some people like to say that a rule does not make sense because it does not spell out what should be obvious to everyone (ie. what is a mount).

In any case, the rules state that you cannot wear medium or heavy barding and still fly. Whether this makes sense or not is irrelevant, it is what the rules state.

There is no similar rule for medium or heavy armor preventing flying nor is there a similar rule for a medium or heavy load preventing you from flying. Clearly, it is barding that is different and unique.

The line that a medium or heavy load counts as medium or heavy armor for restrictions does not extend to barding. You can fly in medium or heavy armor, you cannot fly in medium or heavy barding.


Really? It has been often stated that there is no specific rule stating that the dead cannot act. There is a rule that states if you are disabled you cannot act but disabled is not dead.

If you could give me a page number where it shows that rule that would be great.


A_psychic_rat, you can fly while medium or heavily encumbered because Pathfinder has NO rules to the contrary. They dropped the rule that you are thinking of.

Even in 3.5 medium and heavy armor did not restrict flight but medium and heavy barding did.

Rikkan, I really don't know what answer to give you. This is the rules forum and the rules state that mounts wearing medium or heavy barding cannot fly.

The rules do not state what qualifies as a mount but neither do the rules state that dead creatures cannot act.

Does this make barding pointless? Possibly, it is up to your GM to figure out what qualifies as a mount.


Rikkan, the rules are silent. I would ask your GM but if you intend to ride it then it is probably a mount.


Rikkan, because barding is for mounts, non-barding is for non-mounts. Basically, is your beast a mount? Then you need barding.

Is this clearly defined? No. But that is the clear intent.

The rules are clear though, Medium and Heavy loads and Medium and Heavy armor does not remove the ability to fly. Only Medium and Heavy barding does.

Note: I feel they should have removed the barding rule when they moved from 3.5 to PF since they removed all of the other rules that went with it. It is clearly a relic.


Nawtyit, it says "equivalent" because +3 is "equivalent" to DR/Cold Iron or DR/Silver, +4 is "equivalent" to DR/Adamantine, and +5 is "equivalent" to DR/Alignment.


Ok, once again (because this keeps coming up), the rules for load does not have ANYTHING to do with the rules for what kind of barding fliers can wear.

People keep assuming that the rules for Barding (a subset of Armor) apply to Armor and thus to light loads. They dont because they are a subset of the Armor rules.

If Barding the barding rules regarding flight applied to Armor then a Solar would not be able to fly (which a Solar is clearly doing in it's statblock).

Thus, Barding is a subset of the Armor rules.

In short, you can be medium or heavy loaded and wear Medium or Heavy Armor and still fly. You cannot wear Medium or Heavy barding (a subset of armor) and still fly.

Bonus history comparison:
3.5 stated that anything over a light load prevented a flying mount from flying (DMG p204-205). This statement was removed from Pathfinder.
3.5 also stated that while fliers are limited to light loads medium armor does not in itself constitute a medium load (Monster Manual 1 p312). No such statement exists in Pathfinder because the light load rule was removed.


Well, as I said, I only count 28 when you include all Paizo sources (including the Blog). Maybe a few I am missing but certainly not 148.


All zero level wizard spells.

However, allowing other sources is totally GM fiat.

BTW, I don't see 148 zero level spells. At most I count 28 unless you are going to non-Paizo publications (which require GM approval).


Archaeik,

In the case of lunge the distance from your hand to the tip of the weapon does not change. Ie: you are still just as close to the enemy when you strike him. The same can be said for natural weapon +reach.

A reach weapon means your flesh is much much farther from the creature you are striking.

In any case, the ability specifically states 'non-reach melee weapon'. If we move the negation it becomes 'not using a reach melee weapon' which is a pretty clear statement. A 'reach melee weapon' is a specific type of weapon, not a statement of how far your reach is.


Having greater than 5' reach is not the same as a "reach melee weapon". A "reach melee weapon" is a specific type of weapon.

Unless the melee weapon the person is using has the "reach" note in the weapon's notes then he would suffer the effects.

Lunge adds to your reach but unless your weapon is a "reach weapon" you are still affected.


Wow, I think I am going to have to re-write the entire book's encounters.

The Linnorm wont be more than a speedbump to my group (Vampire Inquisitor, Half-Fiend Arcanist, Shadow Lord Zen Archer, Graveknight Anti-Paladin).

I am really regretting allowing them to become non-humanoid creatures. It has made my life as a GM very very difficult (having to rebalance for that on top having to rebalance due to their existing maxed builds).

Even without that I don't understand making a CR "16" encounter comprised of 6x CR 11 critters. They cannot touch most level 16 PCs (ACs in the high 30s) without even accounting for my players ACs.


_Ozy_, again, you didn't answer my question that I directly put to you.

Again: Do you feel that the Devs intended that Magus can ignore the cost of learning (not writing) spells and the GM control over how a level 7+ Magus acquires spells?


There are several components to putting a spell in a spellbook. Two of them are learning and scribing. These are two different steps to the rules and to learn a spell you must first purchase access.

Yes, they can temporarily gain access to a spell...for a cost. This completely bypasses even that.

Finding a spellbook on an enemy is similar to purchasing spells. Finding spellbook = money the GM gave you (ie, money he is not giving you otherwise because of treasure limits).
Purchasing spells = money you spent (ie, money you are not spending on other things because of treasure limits).
See how they are similar?

Finding a spellbook on an enemy is similar to finding a wizard to buy spells from.
Finding spellbook = GM has given you the 'wizard' in the form of a book.
Finding wizard = GM has allowed you to find a wizard to buy spells from.

Again, this ability if interpreted this way removes the cost of purchasing spells and the GM control over you finding the spells.

However, you are correct, my initial question was to _Ozy_ but since you answered the rest of my post I figured you should answer that question too. :)


I thought I was pretty clear. I did not state 'write every magus spell in existence for free' I stated 'learn every magus spell in existence for free'. Ie. free = you do not have to purchase the spell like normal.

Also, you do not have to find access to the spell like normal. Many GMs control when/where people can buy spells, such as towns etc, this would bypass that entirely.

Your statement of 'finding spellbooks on enemies' is completely irrelevant. A spellbook on enemies has a monetary value equal to the cost to purchase the spells and scribe them plus the cost of the book itself. Ie: not free. It is treasure as much as a +1 sword is.

So now that we understand my question, how about answering it. Do you believe it is the Devs intent to bypass the cost to purchase spells?


Your response to my last post was: "Gauss, the level 7 magus ability. There might be other methods as well that I'm not aware of, or future abilities." so, no, you did not answer the questions in my last post.

If you will actually read my last post I was asking which stance was correct and I was trying to figure out why you have been arguing in favor of IwSA doing this.

Ok, so we have now established that for other reasons than the ones I have been discussing you do not believe IwSA works. We can now move on to your issue, the Magus ability.

Ultimate Magic p12 wrote:
Knowledge Pool (Su): At 7th level, when a magus prepares his magus spells, he can decide to expend 1 or more points from his arcane pool, up to his Intelligence bonus. For each point he expends, he can treat any one spell from the magus spell list as if it were in his spellbook and can prepare that spell as normal that day. If he does not cast spells prepared in this way before the next time he prepares spells, he loses those spells. He can also cast spells added in this way using his spell recall ability, but only until he prepares spells again.

Ok, one simple question, do you believe it is the intent of the Devs to allow a Magus to learn learn every magus spell in existence for FREE just by spending arcane pool points?


DC = 5(base)+17(CL) = 23.
The DC goes up by 5 if you accelerate the crafting (half the time required to craft) or by 5 for each requirement you do not have (for example, if you were not a spontaneous spellcaster or did not have some way of getting the spell).

Regarding the check, if your Spellcraft score is maximum you will have a 7(ranks)+3(class skill)+Int = 10+intelligence.

In order to succeed automatically by taking 10 you will need to come up with at least +3 to your spellcraft score. Possibilities are a +3 intelligence score or Skill Focus <Spellcraft>.

Yes, a wizard can supply the spell. You do not need a scroll if you have a friendly wizard willing to stick around for each day of crafting to help with the spell requirement.


So, _Ozy_, which is your stance regarding IwSA? You evaded answering the questions in my last post. This thread is discussing IwSA, I have not been discussing any Magus abilities.


_Ozy_, why have you been debating Imbue with Spell Ability (IwSA) this entire time if you don't even think it is prepared?

The ONLY thing that is being debated in this thread is the effects of Imbue with Spell Ability and writing into your spellbook a spell granted by IwSA.

My stance:
IwSA does not allow you to sidestep the 'learned spell' requirement when writing a prepared spell into a spellbook.

Your stance (as perceived until your last post):
The writing a prepared spell into a spellbook clause allows you to sidestep the learned spell requirement thus allowing you to use IwSA to write a prepared spell into a spellbook.

Your stance (as perceived via the last post):
IwSA is not prepared so you cannot write it into a spellbook.

Which of your stances (if either) is correct?
Why have you been arguing for IwSA writing into a spellbook if stance 2 is correct?

Note: if your stance #2 is correct, then we have been debating for nothing. I am not aware of any other method of granting a prepared spell (that is not learned) to a person in which case (by your second stance) there is no method for having a prepared spell that is not already learned.


Your argument is circular and irrational. A method has been found to prepare a spell you have not understood (learned). Thus, you have not understood (learned) it.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that having prepared the spell via Imbue with Spell Ability means you have understood (learned) the spell. Please show us where it means this.
Note: finding that you must learn a spell before preparing it is not the same thing as preparing it = learning it.

Your arguments thus far have been:
1) The section on Replacing and Copying Spellbooks is self-contained.
This argument has been shown to be false because the section on Replacing and Copying Spellbooks references rules outside of it's section thus showing it is not self-contained.

2) That to prepare a spell you must already understand it.
This argument is circular and is clearly not true in all cases. There is at least one method of preparing a spell (Imbue with Spell Ability) which do not require you to have learned/understood the spell.


Except that is not an exception to the fact that you must have learned the spell.
It is an exception to the source of the spell to be copied.
You have repeatedly shown an exception that is an exception to the wrong thing.

Lets put this another way:
1) It lists that it follows the rules of learning a spell.
2) It lists an alternate method for providing the spell to be copied.

1 has no exception, 2 has an exception. Until you provide for #1 then what you are attempting does not work.

Declaring that it is 'self contained' does not work either because it is not self contained. It specifically references rules outside of itself. Thus it violates the very definition of 'self contained'.

Pathfinder has specific exceptions. Until you provide an exception to the fact that you must have learned the spell you have failed to prove your case.

And to put it in your phrasing: The words tell you explicitly that it follows the rules for learning a spell. Then it explicitly tells you of an alternate means for copying a spell. Those are two separate (but related) rules.


_Ozy_ wrote:

No, this has nothing to do with Imbue Spell Ability. That doesn't work because of the divine/arcane barrier, though it of course would allow our wizard to scribe a divine scroll. Furthermore, it's not clear when Imbue Spell Ability says:

Quote:
You transfer some of your currently prepared spells, and the ability to cast them, to another creature.

that it means the recipient has a truly 'prepared spell' since you cast prepared spells using spell slots, and the recipient doesn't have any actual divine spell slots.

A learn check is required to learn a spell from a written source, that's right in the rules. Since a prepared spell isn't a written source, those rules do not apply. There are no rules in the section you point at that describe how to 'learn' spells from a non-written source, therefore clearly those particular rules are not what they are referring to when they say it follows the learn a spell procedure.

These are the words you are ignoring:

Quote:
If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would.

Those are specific rules governing the situation. Just what do you think the word 'directly' means in that situation? And what is required to do that? The previous phrase identifies it: 'If he already has a particular spell prepared'.

Clearly, already having a spell prepared trumps the process of learning and copying a spell from someone elses spellbook. Frankly, I can't see how it gets any more clear than that.

A learn check is needed to decipher the writing in another person's spellbook. If you already have the spell prepared, you comprehend it well enough to 1) scribe a scroll, or 2) write it in your spellbook.

I think I see your problem. You are glossing over the rule regarding you having learned the spell in order to write it into your book. The recreating a spellbook section does not provide an exception to get around this.

Having a spell prepared does NOT trump the rules especially when the rules for writing down a prepared spell specifically call out the section stating you must have understood (learned) the spell.

For an exception to be provided it must state it is. You are treating it as an exception without it being stated as one.

Until you show an exception (which you have failed to do) you cannot prove your case.

In any case, until someone comes in with something different to say I think you and I are at an impasse.


_Ozy_, I am not ignoring the words in Replacing and Copying spellbooks, you are.

I have cited several times the rule IN that section that states you use the learning a spell rules. It doesn't state an exception.

So, you have no exception. Until you provide one you cannot write down a spell you have not learned and the only general rules for learning a spell are for learning written spells.

However, since you keep ignoring the quote and it is your game (unless PFS), do what you want.

Edit1: do you think that this is even the intent of the rules to use Imbue with Spell Ability this way?

Edit2: Do you think that a learn check is even required or is that bypassed altogether?


I don't even think the Divine vs Arcane issue comes up. That is primarily a division for scrolls and how spells are designed.

This is an issue that the person with the borrowed spell has not learned (understood) the spell and has nothing with which to learn it from.

Personally, I think this makes total sense. You have a borrowed power which is gibberish in your head. You can use it but you don't understand it. However, if you saw this power written down and took the time to understand the spell in it's written form you would be able to understand it. (Try having someone walk you through a page long complex equation without using a written medium.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes).
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again.
CRB p106 Spellcraft wrote:
Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll 15 + spell level
CRB p219 Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook wrote:

No matter what the spell’s source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell’s level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.

If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
CRB p219 Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook wrote:
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.

So, where does that leave us? The only general rules for learning a spell are from a spell that is written.

There are no general rules for learning a spell that is not from a written source.

Then we have that the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section directly references that you use the procedure for learning a spell.

Do you have anything in the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section that provides an exception? Anything at all?

The rules are clear, you cannot write a spell down until you learn it.
Without a stated exception to the contrary, you cannot learn it unless you have a written source to study.

This really seems like a case of 'starting with and ending in mind and trying to make the rules fit'. This is appears to be an attempt to sidestep the normal process of learning a spell.


_Ozy_, so, when I say that the intent is that this replaces copying only with the premise that you have learned the spell to which you say that is not what RAW says but when you say that the intent is separate then I am supposed to accept your word over RAW?

Lets be clear, one more time.
The rules state that it uses the procedure for learning a spell.
The rules then provide an alternative method for copying a spell (which is a different section than learning a spell).

Can you provide anything that states that the procedure for learning a spell is not followed despite the RAW?

Until you do, I think we are at an impasse, the RAW is pretty clear, you have to follow the learning a spell rules.

The learning a spell rules does not reference learning a spell from a prepared spell, only from written sources.


Correction _Ozy_: the rules indicate yes, if he has learned it previously because he must still learn the spell and to learn a spell requires a written source and a check unless a specific exception is provided otherwise (such as Blood Transcription).

Let me ask a question, can you please point to the line that provides an exception to learning a spell in the Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section?

I have pointed to the line that states it uses the learning a spell rules. Now we need the exception so that it does what you say it does.


_Ozy_, yes, there are specific exceptions, and nowhere in the Replacing and Copying section does it provide a specific exception to having learned the spell previously.

In fact, since the norm is that a wizard is going to have learned the spell that he has memorized wouldn't it be reasonable that they would not need to provide such an exception?

Summary: this is a corner case, talk to your GM, but in the case of PFS you still have to learn the spell in order to write it because the Replacing and Copying section references those rules.


As Bradley Mickle said, Perfect Maneuverability does not mean what it did in 3.5. It is just a skill bonus, it does not grant you any additional abilities.


Lessah, thank you for the reference.


_Ozy_, actually, it does...it SPECIFICALLY states that it uses the procedure for learning a spell. It then ADDS an alternate method of writing the spell. It does not alter the learning part. Since it has not altered the learning part that part must still be in effect.

Yes, the rules explicitly allow a wizard to prepare a spell from someone else's spellbook AFTER learning it.

Yes, he can copy a spell IF he has learned it.

1) Does the Replacing and Copying section state that this uses the procedure for learning a spell? Yes

2) Does the procedure for learning a spell require that you must learn the spell before writing it? Yes

3) Does the Replacing and Copying section provide an alternate source for writing it? Yes.

4) Does the Replacing and Copying section remove that requirement? No

5) Can you use Imbue with Spell to replace a spell you have already learned? Yes.

6) Can you use Imbue with Spell.. to replace a spell you have NOT already learned? No. Why? Because the procedure for learning a spell requires that you must learn the spell before writing it.

I really don't see how this can be any clearer. You keep quoting one line without considering the whole of the rules.


_Ozy_, how is it wrong that it assumes he is replacing a spell he has learned? That is exactly what is written when he creates his spellbook.

Jokem, actually it does.

What is the normal method (the one the book assumes) for having a spell memorized? He memorizes it from his spellbook.

How is it in his spellbook? He deciphers the writing, learns it, then he can write it down.

Until he learns it he cannot write it down. It even states that this is the same procedure for learning a spell. Ie, go look at those rules.

CRB p219 wrote:
A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook.

Learning a spell is the pre-requisite for writing it down. Until you learn it you cannot write it. Now, if you had learned it and put it in your spellbook, then a cleric gives it to you via Imbue, THEN you can write it down.

Edit, to put this another way: you are taking the RAW entirely out of context. The context is replacing or copying your spellbook. Not learning a brand new spell. Until you figure out how to learn a spell without written material you cannot write it down.

Edit 2: Blood Transcription would work, it specifically provides an exemption for learning it, but you have to kill the spellcaster and it is an evil spell.


Even if he qualifies as having it prepared, he still doesn't have written material to LEARN it from. Until he learns it, he cannot write it.

Replacing and Copying Spellbooks section assumes he is replacing a spell he has learned.


Jokem, the question is moot until you show how Imbue with Spell Ability can be cast by a sorcerer, that is your first problem.

Assuming you do get Imbue with Spell Ability, AND it is on the Wizard list AND you grant it...then MAYBE you can do this. But it probably wont work in PFS.

Why? because you have to show that you can have Imbue with Spell Ability as a Sorcerer in a PFS approved resource.

So, until you stop evading the please cite the rule part, there is really not much to discuss in the rules forum.


Hero Labs is not a substitute for the rules, if this is organized play you will need to show in the rules where it allows you to do this.


If you look at the 'why' of the creature, it is blind. Creatures who are blind are immune to illusions. However, that does not make them immune to the quasi-real component of shadow conjuration/evocation.

I would say in this particular case it is not blanket immunity to the school but immunity due to being blind. However, it could easily be read as blanket immunity. It is a GM call.


Do you have a specific creature in mind?

My thought would be: no, treat it as if they automatically saved against the illusion side of the spell and suffer the quasi-real portion only.

Of course, it depends on the wording of the creature, it could be immunity to the school of illusion in which case, yes.


1) Please cite how a Sorcerer who follows Nethys gets the spell Imbue with Spell Ability.

2) Assuming #1, please cite how a Sorcerer who follows Nethys gets around the clause that states that only Cleric spells (of certain schools) can be transferred.


richard develyn, I am interested in how Stonecunning (a mental ability) would be lost. Could you explain your logic?


No, typically bonuses and penalties from the same source do not stack unless stated otherwise.


Human Fighter wrote:

Gauss, the spell states nothing about it having to be about dying from hit point loss.

Breath of life wrote:
Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the creature.

Wraith, with respect, please go read the rules for how ability damage works. You add the damage up in a total, and it doesn't go to 0. You could have a million ability damage to a score.

The question I keep mentioning that I feel is the most important is do you keep track of the damage differently? Is there anything but "ABILITY DAMAGE", because I haven't seen any evidence otherwise.

Human Fighter, did you read the part where I discussed "intent"? Please keep my posts in context. Are you going to ignore my other points regarding intent?


The fact that BoL heals hitpoint damage and that is the mechanism it uses to bring someone back clearly indicates that it is intended to revive characters who die from hp damage UNLESS that hp damage is a death effect (as some are).

So what that leaves us with:
1) If you died from hp damage BoL can bring you back unless that hp damage was a death effect.
2) If you died from some other means healing your hps does not help, you died from something unrelated to hp damage (despite what the section Fergie cited states).

This is not the spell that beats everything, why would a spell that is lower level than Raise Dead do something that Raise Dead cannot even do?

Really people, try thinking about this a moment. When James Jacobs created this spell he wrote it with the intent that it can undo hp damage that killed you. Just ask him.

Go ahead, ask him if he intended it to bring you back from the dead due to non-hp related death. If he says yes then I am wrong and you will be right. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems pretty clear to me, Breath of Life was intended to bring you back to life if you died from hit point damage.

It is not intended to bring you back from everything else. Is a FAQ even necessary?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Human Fighter, I don't see how the RAI of an over glorified cure spell is EVER intended to bring someone back from what amounts to a death effect (without the moniker "death effect").

Breath of Life is clearly intended to bring you back from hp damage and hp damage alone.


kestral287, the DPR of the Tarrasque is even worse than that, you forgot to subtract -4 from each of the UAS attacks due to doing lethal damage.

Nonlethal damage is strictly worse than lethal damage since it can be healed simultaneously with lethal damage (1pt nonlethal is healed for each point of lethal damage healed) so it needs to be -4attack unless the creature using UAS has Improved UAS.

1 to 50 of 6,943 << 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.