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

2,964 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,964 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Alex Hey wrote:

*Passes out drinks and snickers bars to everyone* Ok, let's all take a breather here.

I've got a question. Is it possible to create a metemagic version of a page? If so, would it bypass the full round casting issue sorcerers have due to the fact that the spell is, more or less, already "prepared" in its metemagic version?

We did take a breather. Over a year ago when this thread died.


ckdragons wrote:

Can a character with multiple attacks per round declare a "full round of attacks unless the target dies after the 1st attack and then will use a move action instead"? If this is true, where may I find this rule online or in CRB? Thanks.

You don't have to decide to do a full attack until after you make the first attack. Core rulebook, Combat chapter, under the description of a Full Attack.

Quote:
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.


Ultimate Campaign has Talismanic Components.

For use as a spell component, I don't know of a list. You would have to go through and check each spell.


Atalius wrote:
I have question for when a druid is in wild shape form as a Huge Anaconda, should the damage go by 2D6 as per the "Natural Attacks by Size" table in the rulebook or do we follow the creatures actual attack as per its size (in the beastiery) which indicates an attack at Medium size of 1D4 which would scale up to 1D8 at Huge size. Is this question easy to understand?

The "Natural Attacks by Size" table is merely an average. Creatures may fall above or below those values. As such, use whatever the actual creature says.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Genesist wrote:

Does a weapon made of alchemical silver or cold iron have to be masterwork?

I feel like I read that weapons made of special materials have to be masterwork, but cannot find the source. I know some materials require masterwork, ex: mithral or darkwood, but if it isn't explicitly called out in the entry, is it a requirement?

If it is not specifically called out as always counting as masterwork, then no. Making something out of a special material does not require or automatically make an item masterwork unless the special material specifically says so.

Of the core rules special materials, all require the item to be masterwork with the exception of cold iron and alchemical silver. Mithral, adamantine, darkwood, and dragonhide items are always masterwork.

Of the special materials added in Ultimate Equipment, blood crystal, Elysian bronze, griffon mane, living steel, viridium, whipwood, and wyroot are not automatically masterwork. Likewise, the primitive special materials (bone, bronze, gold, obsidian, and stone) are also not automatically masterwork.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Considering that most higher level version of a spell can do everything a lower one can what would be the point? It will not use a lower level slot so you gain absolutely nothing from this.

There may be something to gain - the lower spells generally have smaller material components. For example, lesser restoration has no costly component, regular restoration costs 100gp or 1000gp, while greater restoration costs 5000gp.

If all you have is a greater restoration prepared, but need something fixed that could be done with a regular restoration or lesser restoration, it would be beneficial if you could do what the OP is asking. But unless you have an ability that lets you do so, you can't.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Hmm, where are the pastel dragons?

Pastel dragons are simply the result of white dragons reproducing with another dragon type, resulting in offspring with a softer, milkier color than the colored parent. Additional generations (each breeding with their own white dragon) would result in softer colors.

Or possibly pastel dragons are dragons with the Celestial template.


Shonn@SagaBorn wrote:
If the answer is no to these questions. Then a mage can just write in a magical language nobody can understand. And it seems like no other mage can understand it either, unless they cast the read magic spell. This doesn't make sense to me. Unless you cast a spell to magically hide the meaning, it should not take a magical spell to decipher the meaning if you are a mage and schooled in reading the magical writings of other mages. This all seems to beg the existence of a "scribe magic" spell that I can't seem to find.

Read magic is not required to read the magical writings of others. A simple Spellcraft check works. Read magic just does it automatically.

Quote:
To decipher an arcane magical writing (such as a single spell in another's spellbook or on a scroll), a character must make a Spellcraft check (DC 20 + the spell's level). If the skill check fails, the character cannot attempt to read that particular spell again until the next day. A read magic spell automatically deciphers magical writing without a skill check. If the person who created the magical writing is on hand to help the reader, success is also automatic.


David knott 242 wrote:

I would reference the epic magic item section of the d20srd.org page: Belts of +8 or greater are epic items and thus cannot be made by non-epic characters. Problem solved unless your game actually reaches epic levels.

And that means absolutely nothing in Pathfinder, as Pathfinder doesn't use those epic rules.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Claxon wrote:

This isn't even possible using normal rules, regardless of caster level.

Enhancement bonuses to stats cap at +6.

Is this an actual rule somewhere? I mean, with size bonuses, alchemical bonuses, and 'normal' enhancement bonuses, you can hit +20 without breaking the rules, even before things like rage bonuses, but is there a rule saying that +6 enhancement bonus is the actual limit?

There are a few (non-core) ioun stones that boost an ability score, and specifically say they stack up to a maximum of +6. Other than that, I know of nothing else that even implies a maximum. Unless someone says that there are no enhancement bonuses higher than +6 in the rules already, so that must be the limit. But that would be wrong.

There is a wizard ability that (Temporarily) grants up to +10 to a stat. So an enhancement bonus to a stat that is larger than +6 does have precedent, at least for class abilities.


Rub-Eta wrote:
graystone wrote:
One. Swift. Action.
I never argued against this. I'm just saying that it doesn't make any sense that a Paladin can use LOH twice, but only once on himself.

A lot of things in the rules don't make sense, but that is how they work.


_Ozy_ wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Read the first post. One of the GM jobs is to not allow the system to be broken.

What is broken about following the rules?

How does a 6k wand of glitterdust break the system? Knee-jerk negative reactions are not helpful.

Quote:
If you do not have Extend Spell, you can forgo the requirement and craft it at DC 16 instead.
I doubt this is true. Since the wand is casting an extended spell, you need an extended spell to craft the wand. You can't bypass this prerequisite for a spell trigger (or completion) item.

Unfortunately, the rules aren't clear.

A Staff of Power doesn't list Heighten Spell as a requirement, but 3 of the spells required are listed as heightened. So you wouldn't be able to bypass having Heighten Spell in this case.

However, the Crown of Blasting (major) does list Heighten Spell separately from the spell requirement, so you could bypass it.

Personally, in this case, I would go with how the staff lists it, as staves and wands are very similar.


James Gibbons wrote:

I'm wondering if you can mix specific magic item effects the same way you can upgrade a +1 sword to a +2 sword

for example the Lion's shield costs 9170
it's a +2 shield, which is 4000 gp of it's cost
it's a heavy steel shield which is 20 gp of its cost
that means the lion's effect is 5150 of it's cost

could I using craft magic arms and armor take a celestial shield (13,170 gp) and add to it the lion's effect for 5150?

Is it a +2 shield (4170gp) with an additional 5000gp worth of enchantments (the lion part)? Or was the lion part considered an an effective +1 bonus, so the shield is actually considered a +3 shield for pricing purposes (also 9170gp)?

Because if it is a +2 shield with an additional 5000gp worth of enchantments, upgrading it to +3 would cost an additional 5000gp (14,170gp total).

But if the lion part was considered a +1 equivalent bonus, then upgrading the shield to a +3 shield (+4 equivalent total for pricing) would cost an additional 7000gp, for a total of 16170gp.

That is why you need to ask your GM. Specific magic items don't always follow the formulas. And depending on how it is ruled they are priced will determine how they can be upgraded.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

DC is based on spell level, not caster level.

An extended spell has the same casting time as the non-extended spell, but if you're asking in general, yes. The activation time of a wand is a standard action or the casting time of the spell, whichever is longer.

Crafting wands with higher than required caster level is generally not that money efficient, so the fact that you can shave a bit off if you have the extended spell feat isn't much of a big deal.

I believe he is talking about the DC of the check to make the item in the first place, which is based on caster level of the item. Not the DC to resist the spell.

Crafting the wand at CL 12 does have an advantage over the CL 6 one with Extend Spell added in. If you had to make a caster level check for some reason the CL 12 wand would give you a +12 bonus on the check as opposed to just +6. In this case, that wouldn't help against spell resistance (as glitterdust bypasses spell resistance), but it does help if someone tries to dispel the effect on a creature.

The CL 12 one has higher saving throws than the CL 6 Extended one (+8 compared to +5). So the wand itself is better able to withstand damage. The range at which you can cast the spell is also greater with the CL 12 wand (220 feet compared to 160 feet).

So the two wands are not actually identical in their effects. The CL 12 one does have added benefits over the CL 6 Extended one. The CL 6 one is cheaper and easier to make, but the CL 12 one has a longer range, is harder to damage (as far as effects with a saving throws are concerned), is harder to dispel, and is better able to overcome spell resistance (though again, this part doesn't matter in this case).


Rysky wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

Neither positive or negative energy are aligned. As holy water only utilizes positive energy, by RAW, it does not stop regeneration 10: good.

They probably should be aligned in Pathfinder due to certain design decisions. But this is what we currently have.
Um, Holy Water does say
Quote:
Holy water damages undead creatures and evil outsiders almost as if it were acid.
And bless water is a [Good] aligned spell, so you're utilizing both positive and Good aligned energy.

And Summon Monster, when summoning a celestial badger, also has the [Good] tag. That doesn't mean said badger overcomes damage reduction as if it had the [Good] subtype.

The spell isn't what is doing the damage, so the fact it has the [Good] descriptor means nothing.


WizWar100 wrote:

Ok new question that once again, a search on the internet and the paizo forums did not lead to very much success.

Does a wizard have a limit on how many spells he can have in his spellbook?

What do I mean by this?

Ok, we have a level 2 wizard who can prepare 3 lv1 spells(20 INT) a day in the morning. So for that day he has 3 spells to use. If he doesn't use the spells he keeps them right? So if he didn't use the spells, the next day can he prepares another 3 spells to which now he has 6 spells to use? Or is there a limit to how many spells of certain levels can they have? Or if he takes a week off from adventure he can have 21 spells prepared?

I looked through my own corerule book(May have missed or forgotten a particular rule somewhere) But all I saw is that a wizard can prepare a certain number of spells and bonus spells based on his stats, but didn't find where it would say the wizard can only have a set number of spells, outside of them being only able to prepare a set number of spells based on their level and whatnot.

Thanks to those who are able to answer the question, no stacking now.

You are talking about 2 different things. Spells in your spellbook and the spells you have prepared to cast aren't the same thing. A spellbook can have any number of spells in it (up to the limit of 100 pages, naturally), while the maximum number of spells you can have prepared at any one time is given by your class (plus any bonus from a high ability score).

You level 2 wizard has 3 1st level spells per day. Theoretically, he can have any number of 1st level spells in one or more spellbooks, but each day he can only have 3 of those prepared.


Lakesidefantasy wrote:
Yes, but what if your bloodline came from an actual bloodline? For instance what if you were the progeny of a devil? And that's where you got your power from.

Your body may no longer be of the bloodline, but what makes you who you are, your soul, still is. Or at least that is one way of looking at it.

OR your new body, still being connected to you, may have the appropriate bloodline as well.


Athaleon wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Davia D wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Some people seem to be comparing the basic "spear" in Pathfinder to basically every weapon from history. If an assault rifle with a bayonet is a "spear," than clearly the "spear" is the most powerful/versatile weapon in Pathfinder because it can apply to every weapon in Pathfinder.
The Bayonet part of the rifle was intended to replicate a spear, is a 'point on a stick,' and uses basic spear techniques. Not every weapon is a spear but bayonets have a better claim to it than most.
So are assault rifles underpowered in Pathfinder?
Assault rifles aren't statted out in Pathfinder.

The Technology Guide has some automatic weapons, and one of the adventure paths does as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The word "and" and a comma mean the same thing - you get all those attack as a full attack. If it says "or", you have to choose which of the attacks you are going to use.

Quote:

Ant, Giant

Melee bite +3 (1d6+2 plus grab), sting +3 (1d4+2 plus poison)

Ghoul
Melee bite +3 (1d6+1 plus disease and paralysis) and 2 claws +3 (1d6+1 plus paralysis)

Giant, Cloud
Melee Morningstar +22/+17/+12 (4d6+18) or 2 slams +22 (2d6+12)

The giant ant, when making a full attack, gets both a bite attack and a sting attack. The ghoul gets its bite attack and 2 claw attacks, also as a full attack.

The cloud giant, however, must choose. It either gets 3 attacks with its morningstar, or gets to attack with 2 slams. It has to choose.


Zekarra wrote:

I'm basing this all off of 3-3.5 DND

Your animal companion can be your special mount as per Beastmaster. Beastmaster is level +3 stacks with all other classes that give AC/Mount.

You are in the wrong place for that. The Rules Questions forum is for official Paizo products, not D&D. You want the D&D forum. At best, if trying to combine 3.X and Pathfinder, you could try the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forum as Captain Zoom said.

If nothing else, you need to say where the material you are using comes from. There is a number of Beastmaster classes, and none of them I found have that +3 added to your level for an animal companion. (Edit: There we go. Complete Adventurer.)


Captain Zoom wrote:


I'm not familiar with the "Human Paragon" class. Are you referring to the 3rd party/Fan "Human Paragon" class on the Hypertext d20 SRD web-site? Or something else?

Likewise, I don't know what a "Prestige Ranger" is.

Subject to clarification on the Human Paragon and the Prestige Ranger, I only see a L5 Paladin Mount/AC, which can't be a Dire Wolf.

It isn't 3rdparty. Well I guess it is, as it was written by WotC for D&D and not Pathfinder. Both the human paragon and prestige ranger are official D&D material, appearing in Unearthed Arcana.

Though being Open Content, someone could have made a Pathfinder conversion.

Quote:
+0 for L1 Beastmaster (Beastmasters don't get an AC until Level 4, and then it's only a Level - 3, or put another way, a L1 AC)

There is a 3rd party beastmaster class. It grants an animal companion equal to your beastmaster level.


Neal Litherland wrote:

I'm reading through the description of caster level, and it implies that you pretty much use the level of the class you gain spells from in order to determine your caster level. A point of contention that a player I know has is classes with only partial spellcasting. Rangers, bloodragers, etc. who don't get spells till a later level.

Is there anywhere that states they don't get to count their full level as their caster level, or which confirms that they do?

Thanks!

By default, that is correct. You use the total number of levels in that class to determine caster level. If a class works differently, it specifically says so. Like the ranger:

Quote:
Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3.

Or the paladin:

Quote:
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.


Lintecarka wrote:
Metamagic Feats wrote:
Spells modified by a metamagic feat use a spell slot higher than normal. This does not change the level of the spell, so the DC for saving throws against it does not go up
Metamagic Rods wrote:
Lesser and Greater Metamagic rods: Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower..
The metamagic rod does not seem to care about the spell slot used, but the level of the spell you cast. Metamagic does not change that level, so using your lesser rod of maximize on your empowered intensified fireball should be totally fine. It doesn't matter if you are casting prepared or spontaneous either.

From the FAQ:

Quote:

Metamagic: At what spell level does the spell count for concentration DCs, magus spell recall, or a pearl of power?

The spell counts as the level of the spell slot necessary to cast it.

For example, an empowered burning hands uses a 3rd-level spell slot, counts as a 3rd-level spell for making concentration checks, counts as a 3rd-level spell for a magus's spell recall or a pearl of power.

In general, use the (normal, lower) spell level or the (higher) spell slot level, whichever is more of a disadvantage for the caster. The advantages of the metamagic feat are spelled out in the Benefits section of the feat, and the increased spell slot level is a disadvantage.

Heighten Spell is really the only metamagic feat that makes using a higher-level spell slot an advantage instead of a disadvantage.


thejeff wrote:
Darkness wrote:
Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
So you'd need a Heightened (3rd level) Continual Flame to have any effect at all in a Darkness spell.

Yes and no. A spell level 2 continual flame spell can be used to dispel a spell level 2 darkness spell. That would end the darkness spell (and the continual flame spell would not actually come into effect) and return the light level to whatever is normal for that area.

A continual flame spell heightened to spell level 3rd is needed to raise the light level in the area of a still-active darkness spell.

As for coming into effect in the opposite order - a darkness spell can be used to dispel an existing continual flame spell, ending both immediately and returning light levels to whatever is normal. Or instead of dispelling it, darkness can be cast normally, in which case the continual flame spell wouldn't be able to brighten the area until darkness ended, but both spells would exist for their normal durations.


Ganny wrote:
With the locked duration of a Divine Favor spell, I'm not sure what category to consider it under: Rounds per level, or minutes per level. Or is this just not an item that can be made at all?

Compare to existing items first. In this case, it is most similar to just a +x weapon. The bonus type is different, however.

Look at the chart. An enhancement bonus to AC is "bonus squared x 1000gp", while a different bonus type to AC is "bonus squared x 2500gp", or 2.5 times as much. Using a similar price increase to cover a luck bonus to attack and damage gives a formula of "bonus squared x 5000gp", instead of the normal "bonus squared x 2000gp" for an enhancement bonus on a weapon.

By that guideline, a +1 luck bonus to attack and damage rolls would be 5000gp. +2 would be 20,000 while +3 would be 45,000. Expensive, but as it is a luck bonus it would stack with the other, more common (and cheaper) ways to boost damage and attack rolls.

Using the formula for a continuous spell should only be done if none of the other formulas apply or if you can't infer one from the existing formulas. For example, a continuous mage armor effect wouldn't be priced by the continuous magic item formula (2000gp for a +4 armor bonus), but the armor bonus formula (16,000gp for a +4 armor bonus, same as bracers of armor+4).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Balkoth wrote:
I'm sorry about the necro, but how do I find the relevant FAQ? It says it was answered but I can't find a link to it. I tried checking FAQs for the Core Rulebook, Advanced Class Guide, Advanced Player Guide, and Bestiary but didn't find it in any of those.

"Answered in the FAQ" unfortunately doesn't always mean it was answered. Apparently, they didn't have an option to make it "No Answer Needed" or something, and needed to make it "answered" to clear it from their list. I think they may have a way to do so now, but didn't back then.

Generally, if it was actually answered, they post the relevant FAQ in the thread that started it.


tchrman35 wrote:

I would personally disagree with wraith. Yes, the spell has already been cast. No, that doesn't make it automatically beat the impediment. In fact, it makes it much worse.

Concentration for a wand would be CL+minimum stat. So +1,+3,+4,+6 total for level 1,2,3, and 4 spells. (Possibly higher if the wand is of a higher CL.)

I'd also make my players aware of this interpretation before they started running around in an impeded plane.

You numbers are off.

Level 1: min CL 1; min score 11 (+0 mod) = +1
Level 2: min CL 3; min score 12 (+1 mod) = +4
Level 3: min CL 5; min score 13 (+1 mod) = +6
Level 4: min CL 7; min score 14 (+2 mod) = +9


The leaf leshy isn't wielding a shortspear. Look at the crit range. 19-20. Shortpears on have a crit range of 20.

It appears they are supposed to be wielding a short sword (which does match the stats given, the only weapon in the core rulebook to do so), but someone changed it to shortspear. Or it was always meant to use the shortspear, but someone mistakenly used the stats fora short sword.


For scrolls it is a bit trickier. Scrolls are actually classified as arcane or divine, unlike wands or staves. The scroll must be the appropriate type to be used. Wizards create arcane scrolls, paladins need divine scrolls.

If the wizard is scribing the scroll (providing the Scribe Scroll feat) while the spell comes from the paladin, would the scroll be an arcane scroll (and unsuable for the paladin) or a divine scroll? The actual creator is an arcane caster, but the spell supplier is divine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Um...why wouldn't fox's cunning help a feebleminded individual? Last I checked, 1 + 4 = 5, and there is no rule stating that feeblemind ignores external stat boosts.

The spell itself says those scores drop to 1, and stays like that until certain circumstances are met.

Quote:
Target creature's Intelligence and Charisma scores each drop to 1. The affected creature is unable to use Intelligence- or Charisma-based skills, cast spells, understand language, or communicate coherently. Still, it knows who its friends are and can follow them and even protect them. The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind. A creature that can cast arcane spells, such as a sorcerer or a wizard, takes a –4 penalty on its saving throw.

If fox's cunning was able to boost the score above 1, that would violate the effects of feeblemind, which specifically sets the score to 1.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Keep in mind that virtually all of the posts following mine have absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question.

The OP wants to know about learning a spell from a staff, not creating a staff/wand/scroll or anything else.

AFAICD, there is no such mechanic for doing so.

The OP has more than one question in it.

Quote:

Can you add a spell from a Staff to your Spellbook?

Either directly or by using the Staff to make a Scoll and then copy from the Scroll?

Thanks

The first question ("Can you add a spell from a Staff to your Spellbook? Either directly...) is easily answered - no, you can't add a spell from a staff to your spellbook directly.

The second question ("Can you add a spell from a Staff to your Spellbook? ...by using the Staff to make a Scoll and then copy from the Scroll?") is what prompted the rest of the thread. So the rest of the thread does have to do with the OPs question and is not off topic. As has been shown, yes you can use a staff to make a scroll and learn the spell that way.


PRD, Creating Magic Armor wrote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the armor, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the armor triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the armor's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
PRD, Creating Magic Weapons wrote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the weapon, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the weapon triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the weapon's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)
PRD, Creating Potions wrote:
The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.
PRD, Creating Rods wrote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the rod, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the rod triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the rod's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

I'm not quoting the rest, but Scrolls, Staves, Wand, and Wondrous Items all say the same thing. Every single entry (besides Rings, for some reason) says the same thing. "The creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or know the spells)". Yet we know that isn't totally true.

Quote:
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

The rules clearly allow access through a magic item. That is not bypassing the prerequisite, that is meeting it.

Quote:
In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

How do you meet the prerequisite? By preparing the spell or having the spell known is obvious. But the rules also allows the spell to come from a magic item, and as per the FAQ, a spell-like ability.

And from earlier in the chapter (under Magic Item Descriptions):

Quote:
A spell prerequisite may be provided by a character who has prepared the spell (or who knows the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard), or through the use of a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect. For each day that passes in the creation process, the creator must expend one spell completion item or one charge from a spell trigger item if either of those objects is used to supply a prerequisite.

The rules flat-out state a magic item can be used to meet the spell prerequisite.


Diego Rossi wrote:

What is the prerequisite for making a scroll?

"The creator must have prepared the spell to be scribed (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.

Do you know that the paragraph you quoted about scrolls appears in all magic item types, including wondrous items? I'll quote it again just to make clear which one I am talking about:

Quote:
If spells are involved in the prerequisites for making the item, the creator must have prepared the spells to be cast (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) but need not provide any material components or focuses the spells require. The act of working on the item triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the item's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

Every item type contains that same paragraph, or something along the same lines.

Diego Rossi wrote:

A staff fulfill that prerequisite?

No. You don't have prepared the spell and you don't know it.

The rules specifically say that the spell prerequisite can be met with a magic item. Yet every single item type says the creator must have the spell prepared or as a spell known to meet the prerequisite. Which if true, means no spell prerequisite could ever be met with a magic item (something the rules specifically say is allowed) - obviously that is wrong, as items are usable to meet the prerequisites.

Diego Rossi wrote:

That requirement can be bypassed?

"In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites."
No, you can't make potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion (i.e. scrolls) magic items".
So you can't make scrolls if you don't have memorized the spell or you don't know it if you are a spontaneous spellcaster.

All that means is that you can't bypass the requirement by adding +5 to the DC. It doesn't change anything about how those prerequisites are met. Meeting them with an item is perfectly fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
UlrichVonLichtenstein wrote:

Yes, I know that Ability Score and Bonus are two different things.

"Str bonus of 0 (zero)"

I never mentioned Ability Scores.

Yes you did, in the way you worded the title. "Carrying Capacity for Character with Str of 0 ".

That says a Strength of 0, not a strength modifier of 0. And if you really did mean a strength modifier of 0, that means nothing in this case, as your strength modifier has absolutely nothing to do with your carrying capacity. Your strength score itself does (in addition to size and if you are bipedal or quadrupedal).

You can not determine carrying capacity from a strength modifier. A strength of 10 and 11 both have the same ability modifier (+0), but have different carrying capacities.


The component cost isn't because you are casting the spell during creation. It is because the item duplicates a spell with a component cost.

Quote:
In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item.

So even if you ignore the prerequisites when crafting, as the item still duplicates a spell, the component cost is still required.

If the component cost was based on casting the spell during creation, the books would be much more expensive. At a minimum of 13 days crafting time for the +5 version, you would need to cast wish 13 times, for a total cost of 325,000gp just for the wish spell material component. You don't pay that, so the component cost is not because you cast those spells during creation. (You don't actually cast those spells - they are just expended.)


Nekome wrote:

Newbie here. My local gaming con always has a bunch of Pathfinder Society sessions, so I thought I'd dip a toe in the water this year. I'm trying to create a character with the online documentation, but I got stuck here:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/usingSkills.html#chapter-4

The number of skill ranks my wizard character has available at level 1 is "2 + Int modifier". Okay, but what's the Int modifier?? The table just links back to the basic definition of Intelligence. I've been back and forth through the documentation. tried the search, and can't find anything explaining how to calculate the modifier.

It is the same as all other ability modifiers. If your Intelligence is 10, you have a +0 Int modifier. IF your Intelligence is 18, you have a +4 Int modifier.

When you click the link and it takes you to the definition of Intelligence, scroll up a bit to the chart. IT is actually labeled "Bonus Spells per Day", but also has the ability score modifiers in it as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pikanyaa wrote:

And also thanks for reminding me about sizes, Tacticslion! I think wondering if age imposes a size penalty/bonus was one of the reasons I looked up the young characters page. It's funny they don't have any mention of size penalties on that page, but I think 4'0" 70 lbs would qualify as small. (I came up with her height and weight myself since the random rolling for them wouldn't have made much sense given her age level.

4'0" and 70 lbs actually does fall into the Medium size category. I don't know if Pathfider ever reproduced the whole table, but you can find it here (scroll down a bit to "Big and Little Creatures in Combat"). Medium-size covers from 4 to 8 feet and from 60 to 500 pounds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pikanyaa wrote:

Personal case- I have a young aasimar character. Aasimars reach adulthood at age 60, and mine is 40 years old (about 12 in human years). This would make her a child by any personal consideration (I couldn't find any official age ranges on non-core races). However, wisdom by most definitions is the accumulation of life experience, and considering she's older than any other character is my party, despite being a "child", wouldn't she realistically have as much, if not MORE wisdom than the other characters?

This applies to other races with late adulthoods as well, such as elves and, if you want to stretch it, gnomes and dwarves.

Not necessarily. It isn't just about having those experiences. IT is about learning from those experiences. Something which your aasimar is not as good at as a human. That is why, after 40 years, he only has the maturity of a 12 year old human. The aasimar has experiences a lot more, but the human has learned from those experiences faster.

Likewise with the other long-lived races. They experience a lot, but don't learn much from it. The longer lived races all have a harder time learning from their experiences than humans do, as evidenced by how long it takes to reach adulthood, and the time it takes to learn your first class level). Plus the mental ability score adjustments for getting older accumulate faster for humans than the longer lived races.

If instead all races matured at the same rate (roughly at the same time as a human - all races take roughly the same time to reach maturity, but then aging slows down after that for the longer lived races) then you would have a point. But the longer lived races take much longer to mature, so would have to have a harder time learning from their experiences for that to make sense.

(Note - this all falls apart when you consider that experience points are gained the same for all races.)


The mundane crafting rules didn't really work well when written, and now 17 years later or so they still don't work.

Ultimately, however, the game is about exploring dungeons, killing monsters, and taking loot. So the fact that it doesn't support modeling the village blacksmith or town baker isn't really surprising, as that is not the games focus.

Efforts have been made to fix the crafting rules, but in the end you will just need to find an alternate set of rules that work for you, or make your own.


_Ozy_ wrote:
graystone wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Why would anyone buy adamantine arrows?
The only reason is they don't have access to weapon blanch, like they are on a deserted island with only the core handbook? Or maybe they have too much money and like to throw it away as fast as they can? Who wouldn't want to spend 500gp more than they need to on a regular basis?

So, you admit that adamantine blanch is far more cost effective, and yet when the same argument is applied to figure out silver ammunition cost, you think that means the interpretation is wrong?

Why would silver blanch be more expensive than silver arrows when adamantine blanch is FAR, FAR cheaper than admantine arrows?

Cold iron blanch is already far more expensive than cold iron arrows. So silver blanch being the same wouldn't necessarily be out of line. As I said before, the weapon blanch pricing is off. Adamantine blanch is cheaper than adamantine arrows, but cold iron blanch is more expensive than cold iron arrows. So silver blanch/silver arrows could go either way.


So the existence of an item in a spaltbook (weapon blanch) means no one buys silver arrows as they are too expensive? Then the problem isn't silver arrows being expensive - the problem is weapon blanch is too cheap.

Adamantine ammunition is priced individually. Why would silver ammunition be different? And masterwork pricing is also individual - 6gp per missile.

Why would anyone buy adamantine arrows? At 60gp each, 10 arrows would be 600gp. Or you buy a 100gp adamantine weapon blanch and spend a full round applying it.

So either it is intentional that weapon blanch is supposed to be cheaper than an equivalent number of actual arrows, or weapon blanch is priced too cheaply. (Cold iron arrows are actually cheaper than their weapon blanch, however. 10 cold iron arrows would cost 1gp, while the weapon blanch is 20gp. So at best weapon blanch pricing is messed up.)


SodiumTelluride wrote:
I was in a PFS game once where a player cast a spell and missed with his touch attack. On his next turn he hit with his touch attack, declared that making a touch attack in and of itself (i.e. without casting a spell or using an ability) was a move action, and cast another spell. The GM agreed with this, but I can't find it anywhere in the rules. Is this true?

A touch attack is just a normal attack that targets Touch AC instead of regular AC. All of the normal limits on making an attack still apply to touch attacks. As such, making a touch attack is a standard action (or part of a full attack), the same as a normal attack.

As for proof, it is all there in the Combat chapter. You have the general rules that apply to all attacks. There would need to be a specific written rule saying making a touch attack is a move action. There is none.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WizWar100 wrote:
How would you calculate how much a character can carry? Because in the items page it said certain items like backpack and sacks carry X Cubic meters of items. Do I actually have to calculate how much my party and character carry? And if so how do I calculate it?

With the Beginner Box, you don't. The various containers do give you a general guideline on how much they carry, but nothing gives the dimensions of other equipment. You just have to use common sense.

With the normal rules, your Strength score (and your size) tells you how much you can carry and items have a listed weight.


No, as far as determining what effects them, they really are both.

Quote:
For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger's favored enemy and bane weapons), inevitables count as both outsiders and constructs.


Firelock wrote:

Like the title says. There doesn't seem to be any definition of the "constructed" ability in the PRD.

Please be aware that I know the Inevitables are "constructed" out of different materials, what I'm asking is the exact game mechanic effects of the Defensive Ability listed for them called "Constructed".

It is my opinion that this was NOT meant to imply that they are constructs - they don't have all the same traits as constructs ie: they do have a Con score, their Type is not "Construct" etc. So what exactly DOES it mean?

It is defined in the inevitable creature subtype.

Quote:
Constructed (Ex) Although inevitables are living outsiders, their bodies are constructed of physical components, and in many ways they function as constructs. For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger's favored enemy and bane weapons), inevitables count as both outsiders and constructs. They are immune to death effects, disease, mind-affecting effects, necromancy effects, paralysis, poison, sleep, stun, and any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless). Inevitables are not subject to nonlethal damage, ability damage, ability drain, fatigue, exhaustion, or energy drain. They are not at risk of death from massive damage. They have bonus hit points as constructs of their size.

It does mean they are Constructs, as well as being Outsiders.


Chaine "The Butcher" Alazario wrote:
So what do you actually get with the 'combat trained' horse advancement at 4th level? (pretty significant since 'mount' is a rather important class feature of the cavalier, and seeing that cavaliers have been restricted to horses or camels...)

Nothing, as cavalier mounts are always combat trained.

Quote:

Mount (Ex): A cavalier gains the service of a loyal and trusty steed to carry him into battle. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the cavalier's level as his effective druid level. The creature must be one that he is capable of riding and is suitable as a mount. A Medium cavalier can select a camel or a horse. A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.

A cavalier does not take an armor check penalty on Ride checks while riding his mount. The mount is always considered combat trained and begins play with Light Armor Proficiency as a bonus feat. A cavalier's mount does not gain the share spells special ability.

Though as this is an old thread, that may not have been true at the time of the original posts.

For non-caviliers, in addition to learning the tricks for Combat Training under the Handle Animal skill, the mount isn't spooked in combat.

Quote:
Mounts in Combat: Horses, ponies, and riding dogs can serve readily as combat steeds. Mounts that do not possess combat training (see the Handle Animal skill) are frightened by combat. If you don't dismount, you must make a DC 20 Ride check each round as a move action to control such a mount. If you succeed, you can perform a standard action after the move action. If you fail, the move action becomes a full-round action, and you can't do anything else until your next turn.


Quote:

I wanted to know the official ruling, to avoid talking about it aimlessly at the table.

Well, the animal itself does exist (unless the GM comes up with the bizarre idea that anything unstatted in some book doesn't exist)...
Common house flies do exist... they don't have stat blocks just because no adventurer is ever going to consider them a challenge.
Anyway, any source on the matter of "can/cannot"?

Without a statblock, you don't know what sort of abilities the animal has, so you can't determine what abilities the various polymorph effects can give you.

IF a creature doesn't have a statblock, there isn't enough information to choose it as form to turn into. Does the diminutive lizard swim? Does it have a climb speed? Burrow speed? How fast is it? Darkvision, low-light vision, or just normal vision? Is the lizard poisonous/venomous?

That is why, without GM intervention, you are limited to the creatures in the book. They have concrete stats, you know exactly what you do and do not get when assuming those forms.


Kthanid wrote:
I didn't even bring the matter to the GM to avoid losing time discussing it, but in case it happens again, I'd like to know if I'm limited to what's in the Bestiary or can do what I described above.

That should always be your first step.

That being said, you can only turn into a non-templated animal that exists. Which means, unless the GM has stated up a smaller lizard somewhere, you are stuck with what is listed in the books. You can't just choose to be considered a different size.


Klorox wrote:
the fact that they can't be made into 2 handed weaponry, (at least for obsidian), which is basically what oversized weapons are.

You can make a longsword, yes? Well, a Medium longsword is 2 handed for Small characters. A Large longsword is a one-handed weapon. It just requires 2 hands for a human to use.

Your interpretation has absolutely no rules support at all. Does it make sense you can make a Large longsword but not a Medium greatsword? No. But no one ever accused the rules system of making sense. As far as the rules are concerned, you can make weapons of any size category out of primitive materials.

Basing it on weapon handedness is stupid and does not work, but thats the rules.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
If the spell description says it's a Wizard spell of 0th level and it's not of your opposition school then you automatically know it.

Actually, you know the cantrips of your opposition school as well.

Core Rule Book wrote:
Cantrips: Wizards can prepare a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, each day, as noted on Table: Wizard under "Spells per Day." These spells are cast like any other spell, but they are not expended when cast and may be used again. A wizard can prepare a cantrip from a prohibited school, but it uses up two of his available slots (see below).

No, you don't. That information is about casting it, not including it in your spell book. The spellbook info:

Quote:
A wizard begins play with a spellbook containing all 0-level wizard spells (except those from his prohibited schools, if any; see Arcane Schools) plus three 1st-level spells of his choice. The wizard also selects a number of additional 1st-level spells equal to his Intelligence modifier to add to the spellbook. At each new wizard level, he gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that he can cast (based on his new wizard level) for his spellbook. At any time, a wizard can also add spells found in other wizards' spellbooks to his own (see Magic).

If you want 0-level spells of your prohibited school in your spellbook, you have to add them in yourself following the normal rules of writing spells into your book. You don't start with those prohibited school 0-level spells in your book.

1 to 50 of 2,964 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.