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

Jeraa's page

1,590 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,590 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Buri wrote:
Undead are immune to ability damage. It'd have to be drained.

Incorrect. Undead are totally immune to ability drain. They are only immune to ability damage to their physical ability scores - undead can still take ability damage to their mental scores, and Charisma is a mental score.


BillyGoat wrote:
Since Con has been reduced to 0, they're dead.

Con - is not the same thing as Con 0.

By RAW, only reducing Constitution to 0 causes death. Charisma is never mentioned. Whether or not an undead creature with a Con - dies at Charisma 0 depends on how you interpret the following:

Quote:
No Constitution score. Undead use their Charisma score in place of their Constitution score when calculating hit points, Fortitude saves, and any special ability that relies on Constitution (such as when calculating a breath weapon's DC).


When crafting a magic item, a skill check is required (DC 5 + items caster level). For every prerequisite you don't have, the DC increases by +5.

So, don't include the spell, and just up the crafting DC by +5.

If you want to hire a spellcaster, the cost is (spell level x caster level x 10gp), plus any expensive material components. (Core rulebook, equipment chapter). If the cost is above 3000gp, the spell generally isn't available for sell. Remember, you need to cast any required spells every day you craft the item. So this can add up fast.

Likewise, you can use scrolls or wand charges (also 1 per day of crafting).


Ravingdork wrote:
Jeraa, Ultimate Magic specifically calls out constructs as an exception to that rule. You DO need to meet the CL requirements.

You mean this part?

Quote:
The Craft Construct feat allows a spellcaster to create all manner of permanent constructs in a process much like magic item creation. Each construct has a purchase price and a crafting cost, along with a list of requirements and the skills used to create them. Some require special materials in addition to the cost for basic crafting supplies, generally for the construct's body. Special material costs increase both the purchase price and the crafting cost of the construct. The DC to craft a construct is 5 + the default caster level of the construct, just like for a magic item. Like when crafting magic items, a creator with a sufficiently high skill bonus may ignore these requirements. Each missing requirement increases the Craft DC by 5. Regardless, the creator must meet all item creation feats and minimum caster level requirements. Crafting a construct takes 1 day per 1,000 gp in the item's base price, excluding any special material costs. This process is identical to the process for crafting a magic item, including the rules for accelerating creation and handling interruptions (see Magic Item Creation).

Because that is no different then other magic items.

A clay golem has a minimum caster level:

Quote:
Requirements Craft Construct, animate objects, bless, commune, prayer, resurrection, creator must be caster level 11th; Skill Craft (sculptures) or Craft (pottery) DC 16; Cost 21,500 gp

A wood golem has a minimum caster level:

Quote:
Requirements Craft Construct, alarm, animate objects, cat's grace, geas/quest, limited wish, creator must be caster level 12th; Skill Craft (carpentry) DC 17; Cost 8,800 gp

A Homunculus does not have a minimum caster level:

Quote:
Requirements Craft Construct, arcane eye, mirror image, mending; Skill Craft (leather) or Craft (sculptures) DC 12; Cost 1,050 gp.

Its not a requirement unless it is listed as a requirement. That is the entire point of having a Requirements line - it lists what is required. If a minimum caster level is not mentioned there, then there is no minimum caster level required.


Quote:
I saw in the Acid damage section that exposure to acid fumes can cause 1 CON per round damage, so I think the above quoted rule is just an indication and not a hard rule, as otherwise that 1 CON per round damage would never reduce hit points and saving throws, because each round the damage is less than two....

Its still damage - it adds up over time. 1 con damage in the first round won't do anything, but when you take another point of damage in the second round, you now have 2 Constitution damage and start taking penalties.

Quote:

That uses the same term (Constitution score) for both the limit at which a character dies, and the value after ability damage or drain. This implies that it is always the current CON that is used, after any CON modifiers (positive or negative). That makes CON damage absolutely deadly - it reduces your hit points AND the point at which you die. The higher level you are, the deadlier it becomes, since you'll be losing more hit points for every two points of CON loss. It's also reducing your saving throw to stop poison or to stabilise....

RAW, I think it has to be current CON that determines when you die. RAI, I don't know, but I'm very happy for a house rule to say it's your permanent CON that's used to determine when you die.

Again, read the rules. Ability damage NEVER changes the actual score. Only ability DRAIN does that.

Quote:
Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.


Remember, like all other magical items (constructs are created the same as any other magical item), the listed caster level is NOT a requirement, unless it actually appears in the Requirements line. You can craft a homunculus, iron cobra, or soulbound doll at any level.


Graeme wrote:

Consider the following scenario. A 3rd level character with a 10 CON was knocked down to -3 hit points. The hit that did that also poisoned the character and he lost 3 CON due to ability damage.

The core rulebook says the following on constitution damage:

PRD wrote:
Constitution: Damage to your Constitution score causes you to take penalties on your Fortitude saving throws. In addition, multiply your total Hit Dice by this penalty and subtract that amount from your current and total hit points. Lost hit points are restored when the damage to your Constitution is healed.
Since his CON has dropped from 10 to 7, that's a bonus change from 0 to -2. Therefore he lost an additional 6 hit points, taking him to -9.

When dealing with ability damage, your actual score (And so your ability modifier for that score) is never changed. Instead, you take a -1 penalty to some stuff for every 2 points of ability damage you take. Yes, that means that 3 points of ability damage has the exact same effects as 2 points of ability damage.

With 3 points of Constitution damage, that is a -1 penalty. -1 x the characters level of 3 means the character loses 3 hit points from both his maximum and current hit points. So in this example, the character would be reduced from -3 hit points to -6 hit points. Still alive.

Quote:

A character dies when they reach negative CON hit points, but which CON will be that be - the permanent CON (10) or the temporary CON after ability damage (7)? In one case he's still alive and in the other he's dead.

Which is it?

Ability damage does not change your actual score. The character would still die at -10.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

If I'm looking for the prices of weapons made using special materials, I'll check the equipment chapter and check the weapons tables and the special materials section. Maybe even the non-weapon equipment section to get mithral examples.

What I would not do is trawl through spell lists hoping to find the price of various material components.

Of course you wouldn't. But its still a RAW, officially priced mithral item. One that shows that the cost of a mithral item is based on the items original weight.

Combine that with the fact that the only other special material in the core rulebook that also reduces an items weight is priced based on the items original weight, and thats 2 points of precedence in favor of pricing mithral items based on the original weight.

In contrast to that there is only a single instance of pricing mithral items with the reduced weights - the mithral cookware.

Now obviously, one of the things must be wrong. With two things backing it up, I would suggest that the correct pricing for a mithral item is based on the items original weight. Pricing mithral items by using the items original wight just keeps things consistent. Granted, thats not actually necessary, but its probably best.

(There is actually a third special material that halves the items weight. Darkleaf Cloth. However, like mithral, its pricing is vague as well. So whatever method of pricing is used for mithral should apply to darkleaf cloth as well.)


Zhayne wrote:

I'm reading the text for full-round-cast spells as ...

Ranger uses his action to cast Howl. His initiative is 18.

Spell goes into effect at Initiative 18.1, a hair's breadth before the Ranger goes.

Init 18 comes up, Ranger's 3rd round begins. This round, he has the How effect on him. He will continue to have it until Initiative 18.1 rolls around again.

Hunter's Howl is a standard action. At caster level 1, you cast it on your turn, and it end just before your turn in the next round.

A full-round action casting time doesn't change anything. The spell still end before the ranger can act again. Even if it had a 1-round casting time, your example is still wrong. Assuming a 1 round duration:

1) Start casting on your turn on Round 1.
2) Spell finished casting right before your turn in Round 2, so you have the effects on that round.
3) Spell ends right before your turn on Round 3.

Quote:
You're making this group sound far larger than it is.

I never said it applied to many rangers. Just that it does affect some rangers.

Still, the spell does have an effect for every ranger who casts it. Even at caster level 1, it effects would still apply to attacks of opportunity (if targeted at a non-favored enemy), or cause the target to be shaken (if targeted on a favored enemy).


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Since these are the only official Paizo mithral objects published (that need the 'price by weight' calculation), they're as 'official' as you can get.

No they aren't. The Wreath of Blades spell requires 4 mithral daggers. The spell says these must cost at least 502gp each. Seeing as how 502gp would be the exact cost of a mithral dagger if you priced it by the original items weight and not the newly reduced weight, the rules contain examples of both pricing methods.


Rangers don't actually get 1st level spells until 5th level, where their caster level is 2. You only get 1st level spells at 4th level if you have a Wisdom score high enough to grant a bonus spell of 1st level. So not all rangers would even be able to cast it at 4th level with a caster level of 1.

Besides that, the spell is still usable at 4th level. If the creature you cast it on is one of your favored enemies already, the creature is shaken. You don't get the bonus to hit or damage, but the target takes penalties to those.

So, even at a caster level of 1, there is still some benefit. (Also, if cast on a non-favored enemy, you would still get the bonus on any attacks of opportunity that the target provokes.)


The rules contain evidence for both ways of pricing. Mithral cookware is priced using the reduced weight, but there is a spell that requires mithral daggers as a focus, and it specifically says each costs 502gp (which is correct based on the normal daggers weight).

Pricing based on the items original weight is consistent with darkwood, which also reduces an items weight. Darkwood specifically says to use the items normal weight to determine price.


Quote:
Characters with low-light vision (elves, gnomes, and half-elves) can see objects twice as far away as the given radius. Double the effective radius of bright light, normal light, and dim light for such characters.

Assuming an area of total darkness, a torch illuminates everything within 20' tin normal light, and everything between that and 40' as dim light. For an elf, those numbers are doubled.

So someone 30 feet from the torch is in dim light when a human looks at him, but normal light when an elf does.


Material components are totally destroyed during the casting. The vials don't weigh 5 pounds - the 5 pounds of silver cease to exist.

Quote:
Material (M): A material component consists of one or more physical substances or objects that are annihilated by the spell energies in the casting process. Unless a cost is given for a material component, the cost is negligible. Don't bother to keep track of material components with negligible cost. Assume you have all you need as long as you have your spell component pouch.

AS for it selling for the same cost as it takes to make, thats covered in the description:

Quote:
Temples to good deities sell holy water at cost (making no profit). Holy water is made using the bless water spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

By RAW, the only penalty wielding a non-proficient weapon gives is you a -4 penalty on attack rolls. Everything else remains unchanged.


Quote:

No. Whatever gives the highest AC bonuses totally suppresses the properties of the other. your temporary armor would make the physical armor essentially "not there", you'd have the DR but not the fire resistance.

This was to prevent cheese items such as +1 Bracers of heavy Fortification being worn with +5 Platemail of Wonderfulness.

Unless I am missing something, that is only true for Bracers of Armor, as that is the only place the rule appears. That rule is never mentioned in the section dealing with magic armor. Its not a general rule of how magic item interact, its a specific rule about how Bracers of Armor interact with magical armor.

So while the armor bonuses would not stack (and you would take the highest one), you should still get all the bonuses from both your armor worn and the other effect. As long as you aren't trying to combine magical armor with bracers of armor.


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
The only way I know of to use Weapon Finesse with a katana is to use a katana sized for a creature one size smaller then you. But then you also take a -2 penalty on attack rolls for using a weapon that isn't sized for you, as well as doing less damage.

Even that won't work!

Weapon Finesse wrote:
Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

I even read the feat before I posted that, and still missed it.


Unless I am missing it, the kensai never mentioned Weapon Finesse at all. The only thing it does mention is Weapon Focus, which only gives a +1 bonus on attack rolls.

Weapon finesse can only be used with light weapons, or weapons that specifically say you can finesse them (such as rapiers.)

The only way I know of to use Weapon Finesse with a katana is to use a katana sized for a creature one size smaller then you. But then you also take a -2 penalty on attack rolls for using a weapon that isn't sized for you, as well as doing less damage.


Lord Phrofet wrote:
So my character got trapped in a fairy realm and did the whole came out 20 years older thing. So now my carefully made stats are all messed up. So I wanted an item that would fix this which I thought the best way way would be to do a +1 to all my stats but use a non enhancement bonus so it will stack with my existing and future stat bonus items. Can anyone tell me the pricing formula for this?

There is no pricing formula for this, or even vague guidelines. Its entirely up to your GM.


Majuba wrote:

I get you Buri - the UMD text hasn't really changed since 3.0. The text about emulating an ability score was written to be very generic, in case someone devised a magic item that required (for example) an 18 Charisma to use.

Sadly, no one has, so the text sounds very odd.

Actually, they have. Kind of. The Maul of the Titans (Core Rulebook; not the mattock, the one below it) requires an 18 Strength to wield properly. You can still use it without that strength, you just take a penalty.

And of course scrolls, which have a required minimum ability score to use.


insaneogeddon wrote:


In my experience their just piercing but hey they have always been slashing.

Claws are slashing. Ever been scratched by a cat? It doesn't like a hole - it leave a line.

Piercing goes in, and come straight back out, leaving a hole. Slashing attacks leave a line.


Brogue The Rogue wrote:

Yes, we'd played it that way previously, but now I'm not so sure.

Situation A) Cast the standard action spell as a full round action, touching up to six friends within range.

Situation B) Cast the SA spell as a SA, then, next round, use a FRA to move around and touch people.

Situation C) Cast the SA spell as a SA, then, next round, touch up to 6 people as a FRA with no moving.

Which of these seem right to all of you? Or did I miss some?

Its noty A. You can't just change the casting time like that.

Its not B. The rules say you can touch up to 6 people as a full round action - it doesn't say you can move during that action.

So the correct answer is C. Note you can move after you cast the spell in the first round (assuming you still had a move action left). You should also be able to take a 5' step in the second round.


existence123 wrote:

Great, that part is crystal clear now.

I do have one more question about surprise, however. Creatures that are surprised can take no actions at all in the first round of combat. That's easy enough. But what about those who are NOT surprised, and are on the side of the "surprisers"? In other words, say group A sneaks up on Group B. All appropriate sneak and perception rolls are made. Do even the members of group A suffer the "only one action in round one" penalty? My reading of the rules - both in the BB and on d20srd.org - suggests this is the case. I only ask because it seems a little strange that members of the ambusing party would suffer a penalty (seeing as how they're the ones doing the ambushing!)

The single action is not a penalty. The surprise round is not actually Round 1 of the combat. The surprise round takes place before the combat actually begins. If the enemy is surprised, and the players roll well on initiative, its possible for the players to act twice (one in the surprise round, and once in the normal round) before the enemy gets a chance to act.


I apologize. I didn't notice this was a question about the Beginners Box. I gave the answers to the questions from the Core Rulebook. The Beginners Box sometimes uses different rules.


existence123 wrote:

Hello all. Two questions:

1) To cast a spell from a scroll, does a wizard or cleric still have to be the appropriate level? In other words, can a first level PC cast a second level spell from a scroll?

[Edit: these answers are based on the Core Rulebook, not the Beginner Box.)

No. As long as the scroll is the correct type (Arcane or divine), and the spell appears on the casters spell list, any level character can use the scroll. However, if your caster level is not high enough to actually cast the spell your self, you must succed on a caster level check (DC is equal to the scrolls caster level + 1) to successfully cast the spell.

So, a 1st level caster trying to cast a 2nd level spell(minimum caster level 3) from a scroll would have to make a DC 4 (scrolls caster level +1) caster level check. Succeed, and the spell is cast. Fail, and the spell is not cast and there is a chance of something bad happening (a mishap). But if you fail the check, the scroll is not used up, so they can try again next round.

Quote:
2) If the PCs successfully ambush an enemy, ie., the enemy's perception check falls short of the DC set by their sneak checks, do the PCs get to attack the enemy's lower flat-footed AC?

A character is flat-footed at the start of every battle, and stays that way until he gets a chance to act on his turn. If the PCs surprise the enemy (or, if no one is surprised but the PCs roll a higher initiative), then the enemy is flat-footed until its their turn to act.


[QUOTE"]

Quote:
Adventurer is a very vague title which includes a lot of things.

Up to and including robbery, murder, desecration of holy sites, impersonation of an official, breaking and entering, fraud, slander, libel, grand larceny, destruction of property, child endangerment, conspiracy, treason, smuggling, slavery, illegal spell use, contraband, assault, aggravated assault, manslaughter.

Well you get the picture.

Calling them "adventurers" is the nice way of calling them bandits, thieves and thugs.

Maybe adventurer guilds and charters are similar to the real world Letters of Marque. They didn't change the fact you were still a pirate, you were just a legal pirate in one country. So they may be bandits, thieves, and thugs everywhere else, but they are adventurers to the country where they are registered.

Joining a guild and registering could give benefits - more relaxed policy on wielding weapons, less severe punishment for non-major crimes committed, free room and board if your guild has a guildhall in the area, etc. Adventurers from more renowned guilds could be in higher demand, and could demand higher pay from any job(quest). Registering and maintaining your membership requires a yearly/monthly fee of course, and you could be subject to being called up to serve your country in a time of war.


Well, sling bullets are lead. 5 pounds of those cost 1 silver piece, or 2 copper pieces per pounds.

Of course, firearm bullets are also lead. 1 pounds of those (assuming you use the "Guns Everywhere" price, so its not artificially inflated) cost 6gp.

The price of trade goods in the core rulebook follow a pattern (more or less):

1 sp (0.1 gp)- 1 pound iron
5 sp (0.5 gp) - 1 pound copper
1 gp (1 gp)- none (maybe steel?)
5 gp (5 gp)- 1 pounds silver
1 pp (10 gp) - None
5 pp (50 gp) - 1 pound gold
10 pp (100 gp) - none (older editions had electrum pieces, worth 2x the price of gold. So 1 pound of electrum.)
50 pp (500gp) - 1 pound mithral* or platinum

Following that, lead could be priced at 5 copper pieces per pound. Though that does mess with the price of sling bullets, which would have to be increased to at least 2 silver, 5 copper per 10 bullets.

*(Mithral is listed at 500gp per pound. However, its not mentioned if that is per pound of the normal item, or per pound of the reduced weight. If it is 500 gp per pound of the items newly reduced weight, that makes mithral actually cost 1000gp per pound. Convenient, as that is actually what the next step on the table would be.)


jerrys wrote:
but you'd still have the armor check penalty, right? Particularly in the case of a cleric wearing heavy armor, for which he is not proficient - I think you get the penalty on your attack rolls.

Correct. The only thing being a dwarf does is remove the speed penalty - any other penalties (such as armor check penalty, or arcane spell failure chance) still apply.

Someone who is wearing armor they are not proficient in takes the armors Armor Check Penalty as a penalty on all attack rolls, in addition to the normal penalty (the penalty on Strength and Dexterity-based skill checks). Which is why mithral bucklers and mithral chain shirts are commonly used - with an ACP of -0, there is no penalty while wearing them if you are non-proficient.


Quote:
Its 5280 feet to a mile.

See there, proves my point. Even someone who has used they system for almost 3 decades can't even remember how many feet to a mile. (OK, was actually a typo, but still. I just hit the wrong button.)


Correct. Normally, medium and heavy armor slow a character down. If that character was a dwarf, he speed remains unchanged.


No matter what system of measurements you use, someone isn't going to be happy with the decision. For instance, instead of measuring in feet, you could just measure in squares (like 4e did). The just place a not somewhere in the book that say "1 square is equal to 5 feet or 1.5 meters". But then you make the people who don't use a battle grid mad, as well as those that just want actual distances listed (in either feet or meters).

In the end, you either have to include multiple systems of measurement, or you just write the rules for you largest player base. And as Pathfinders largest player base uses feet, inches, and Fahrenheit, thats what the rules use. Never mind that the majority of the world uses the metric system, and ignoring that the metric system is actually a whole lot more intuitive then the other*, thats what the rules use.

*(Come on, the metric system is all based on multiples of 10. Its easy to convert between different units of metric measurement. 1000 meters in a kilometer (kilo=thousand. So kilometer = 1000 meters, kilogram = 1000 grams, etc.), 100 centimeters in a meter. None of this "12 inches per foot, 3 feet per yard, 5280 feet/1760 yard in a mile; 16 ounces to a pound" stuff. 2000 pounds in a ton, or 1000 kilograms in a metric ton.)


Bill Dunn wrote:
Wait, that XKCD conversion chart has length and volume for Summer Glau, but not mass?

No, but it does give a close enough approximation, as it gives her volume.

If you completely submerged a 55 liter person in a tub of water, it would displace 55 liters. And 1 liter of water (the human body is mostly water) has a mass of (conveniently) 1 kilogram. So a 55 liter person would weigh roughly 55 kilograms.

And remembering that most people float in water, and are therefore less dense then the water they are displacing, and so an equal volume having less mass then water, means that 55kg is an upper limit on her mass. She would have a mass somewhat less then that.


Not really. The formulas are actually the last place to go to when determining an items price. Many items have had their price adjusted, because they are either too powerful or too weak for what their cost would be if you follow the formula. Many items were just given prices that sounded right. Thats why the first step in pricing a new item is to always compare to existing similar items first.


Still Learning wrote:
I think the touch attack part is being overlooked a little. A giant can out damage it In a single hit with power attack, if it hits. The stone giant for example also has +16 to hit but doesn't target touch ac. Power attack +14 for avg 27 or avg 27 damage with +16 touch. So just based on damage it may be a bit high.

A fireball doesn't require any attack roll. A 9th level caster (which is also CR 8) would do 9d6 damage, or an average of 31.5 damage, roughly 16 on a successful save. To the whole party. He could also get 2 rays from Scorching Ray, for a total of 8d6 (28 damage average), or 48 damage total if maximized. His Maximized Shocking Grasp does 30 damage.

A CR 8 warrior type could have a strength of 24 (18 base, +2 racial bonus, +2 from level ups, +2 from a magic item) for a modifier of +7. Wielding a greatsword, thats 2d6+10 damage per attack, and he gets 2 of those for an average of 34 damage. Not a touch attack, but deals more damage then the Animate Dream per round (if both attacks hit).

And the stone giant also gets two attacks. Each does 21 damage on average (42 total with both) without power attack. With Power Attack, the damage increases to 2d8+21 (30 damage on average), or 60 damage total if both attacks hit. (Remember, Power Attacking with a two-handed weapon gives 3 damage per -1 attack, not +2 damage). Even if only 1 of his attacks hits, he is dealing more damage then the Animate Dream. IF both hit, he deals double the damage as the Animate Dream.

It seems the monsters damage is withing reason when compared to some other creatures of its CR.


By RAW, the damage from cold weather is not cold damage. Its untyped damage. Cold resistance does absolutely nothing to prevent the damage.

Note that under the Heat Dangers section (just a little ways past the Cold Dangers section), the same thing applies to the damage that deals. There is only says "damage", while a bit later, under Extreme Heat, specifically says "fire damage". If it all was supposed to do fire damage, why leave that out in one part, but include it in the next?

A damage effect always tells you what kind of damage it does. If it doesn't say, then its untyped damage. Cold weather does untyped damage, by RAW. You can interpret it any way you want, but by RAW cold weather does not do cold damage.

Umbral Reaver wrote:
For hilarity's sake, note that fire resistance 1 grants immunity to lava.

Actually, not anymore. Thats finally been changed in the 6th printing of the core rulebook (check the errata) and on the PRD. (Prior to the errata, any amount of fire resistance actually did serve as immunity to lava. The rules specifically said so. The errata changed "serves as immunity to lava" to "serves as immunity or resistance to lava".)

Quote:
Quote:
Also, white dragons freeze to death.
That's impossible. Since they have the cold subtype they gain immunity to cold and vulnerability to fire.

By RAW, they do. Cold resistance offers no help against the untyped damage that exposure to cold weather deals. The same way red dragons can die from the heat in a desert. (As long as its below 140 degrees. At that point, the heat starts to do actual fire damage.) Red dragons can survive just fin in normal conditions, and inside a volcano. But in that band of temperatures between 90 and 140 degrees, its in danger of heat exposure.

Its wrong, but thats RAW. But as this is the Rules Questions forum, RAW is all that matters.


Quote:
Yesbut they are two different skills, based upon different stats. The mage with spellcraft first would have to notice the other guy is doing something before he'd have a chance to id it.

Doesn't matter. In this case, its only a single skill check.

It should be two - the Perception check (with the normal penalties)to notice the guy doing something, and the Spellcraft check (with none of the perception penalties) to determine what spell is being cast. But Pathfinder simplified that, just like they simplified Hide and Move Silently into one skill - you almost always use both together anyway.

yes, this does lead to some strange cases. Such as the case where a character has a +0 Perception modifier, and a high Spellcraft modifier. Such a character would have a hard time spotting someone at a distance, but can easily identify what spell someone is casting from the same distance. Or a person who can clearly spot a fly from a mile away not being able to see clearly enough to identify what spell is being cast across the room (High perception, low Spellcraft).

If it was meant to be two separate checks, then the Perception modifiers would not of been included in the Spellcraft check.


You are correct - as a full attack, the balor can get all of his sword and whips attacks, or he can do 2 slam attacks. As a standard action, he can perform a single attack with either his sword, whip, or slam.

If the listed attacks are separated only with a comma, then they are all part of the same full attack. Only when they are separated by "or" do you have to choose one or the other.


leo1925 wrote:

What Jeraa said.

With that rule in mind i think that it's impossible to identify the spell or even know the spellcaster is casting* unless you have arcane sight on.

i assume that there is no material component

Even with no verbal, somatic, or material component its still obvious you as casting a spell, as you still provoke an attack of opportunity. So whatever it is that still causes the AoO with on components whatsoever, may still make it possible to identify the spell being cast with no components.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
I'd say a Perception roll before you get that Spellcraft roll would not be inappropriate.

Actually, it probably is inappropriate. The Spellcraft check already includes the Perception modifiers.

Quote:
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.


Vamptastic wrote:
But, you can't find anything that says a lion's pride -can't- use muskets and blunderbusses and cause your party to literally cry at the table?

No, noting specifically says that. You won't find it because its common sense that they can't use them, because its simply impossible for the rules to cover every situation.

The only thing you will find in the rules is tat animals are proficient with their natural weapons only. However, you don't need proficiency to use a weapon. You just take a -4 penalty with non-proficient weapons.

Quote:
Proficient with its natural weapons only. A noncombative herbivore treats its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature's attack rolls, and the animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Common sense says that a normal lion can not wield a normal sword. You have to use common sense when reading the rules - its simply impossible to include every single little thing in the rules.

Though it should be possible to make certain weapons for animals. I know that in some rooster fights, a razor blade can be attached to its leg to inflict greater injuries on its opponent.


By RAW, there is no difference between identifying a normal spell and one being cast with Silent and/or Still spell. You just have to see the spell being cast to be able to identify it. In 3.5 D&D, it specifically said you needed to be able to see the spells somatic component, or hear the spells verbal component, to identify the spell. This was dropped in Pathfinder. The Spellcraft DC to identify any spell being cast is 15 + the spells level.

The Knowledge(Arcana) DC to identify an existing spells effects is 20 + the spells save DC. (In 3.5, you had to see the spells effects in order to identify it. Like with identifying a spell being cast, this was removed in Pathfinder, as it isn't mentioned in the Knowledge(Arcana) skill.


Lord Kakabel wrote:
Is there a way to transfer magical bonuses and/or special abilities to another magic item? For example, if the party obtained a +1 flaming spiked chain from an enemy, and no one in the party can use it effectively, is there a way to transfer either the +1 or the flaming ability to a masterwork longsword?

There is no way to just transfer an enchantment (or part of one) from one item directly to another.

As DEXRAY said, sell the item. You'll get half price for it. Then, enchant the other item yourself. It costs you half the price to make. So you break even.


The dwarven dorn-dergar and the meteor hammer are both very similar. Both are chains with a ball on the end (one on each end for the meteor hammer.) Both can be used with or without reach.

Because of the similarities in their use, I would say they fall into the same weapon group. The meteor hammer is part of the Flail group, so the dorn-dergar should be as well.


The mechanics of a spell trigger item have remain unchanged since 3.0. Its been the same for 14 years now. There have been minor wording changes, but nothing that changed the mechanics. 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder all even use the same example - the 3rd level paladin. So if anyone has ever argued "No they can't.", its because they never bothered to read the rules.

The only thing that might change this is the following quote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You don't have a class feature unless you actually have the class feature. So if you're not high enough level yet to have it, or your archetype swaps out that feature for something else, you do not have that feature and can't use it as a prerequisite.

By that, you wouldn't have a spell list until your class is capable of actually casting the spells. However, this is a case of Specific vs General. The general rule is you don't have a class ability until you are the appropriate level. The specific rule is that for Spell Trigger items, a spellcasting class has a spell list at all class levels, even if you can't cast spells from it yet. What a specific rule says always overrides what a general rule says.


Its in the description of Spell Trigger tiems.

Quote:
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Both wands and staves are spell trigger items.


Ashiel wrote:
Also, none of the things you mentioned about fighters were true at 4E launch in Core. Fighters in core 4E do not strikers make. They have pretty consistent damage but they can't even dual wield. Rangers destroy them in striker damage. Come and get it didn't even exist, unless it's not listed as that name in the manual.

Its in my copy of the PHB 1. Says its a first printing. 7th level fighter encounter power.


Driver 325 yards wrote:
Let's say I charge and bull rush. I have greater bull rush so my bull rush makes the target provoke. I shield bash as my attack of oppurtunity. I have shield slam. Shield slam gives me a free bull rush on a successful shield bash. I bull rush.

Greater Bull Rush doesn't let you make an attack of opportunity. It lets your allies do so.

Quote:
Benefit: You receive a +2 bonus on checks made to bull rush a foe. This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Improved Bull Rush. Whenever you bull rush an opponent, his movement provokes attacks of opportunity from all of your allies (but not you).


Rob80 wrote:
2) casting this spell breaks invisibility? It's similar to a summoning spell (I know it's a creation effect and not a summon one but it's still a conjuration spell) or it is considered a direct attack?

Maybe.

Quote:
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions.

If you conjure up the black tentacles so that an enemy is already inside the area, it counts as an attack and so breaks invisibility. If no enemies are within the area when you conjure it, then its not an attack and does not break invisibility.


Unless I am missing something, you can not make a bull rush as an attack of opportunity. A bull rush is either a standard action or a replacement for an attack during a charge. As opposed to Disarm and Trip, which can be made in place of any melee attack (which includes attacks of opportunity.)

1 to 50 of 1,590 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 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.