Jeraa's page

3,568 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 3,568 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

blahpers wrote:
Does the +2 per additional opponent actually appear in the text, or was that a stealth erratum? I don't see it in the description for Acrobatics.

It is a footnote on the table. Column labeled "Base Acrobatics DC".

* This DC is used to avoid an attack of opportunity due to movement. This DC increases by 2 for each additional opponent avoided in 1 round.

And as it was part of the old 3.5 D&D Tumble skill (which was rolled into Acrobatics), it isn't a new rule and likely has been there since the beginning.

DoubleBubble wrote:
The rule is not very realistic though. On the street, I have have two people charge at me one on the left and one on the right, the don't have to have centre to centre line between their squares to flank me, because the moment I turn to one, the other will attack, depends of my stance, eventually I will leave one side open for their attacks. So to solve this, I had to move around one and use that person to block the other and out punch that person before I take down the next. I guess it will be hard to play against if flanking become more realistic though.

There is a lot about the rules that isn't realistic.

And just as a note, you are responding to a 2 and a half year old dead thread. I almost said the same thing to Jokem ("I don't think the poster has been waiting 2 years for someone to find the thing"), until I realized he was responding to himself. Hopefully he didn't spend all this time looking...

Atalius wrote:
Can this be used with spell-like abilities such as Touch of Madness, Bit of Luck etc?


As a spellcaster's knowledge of magic grows, he can learn to cast spells in ways slightly different from the norm. Preparing and casting a spell in such a way is harder than normal but, thanks to metamagic feats, is at least possible. 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 feats do not affect spell-like abilities.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
If an enemy has a tough time using escape artist and also lacks the strength to break the high DC, what does the 15 Hardness and 30 HP do? Can they just attack the manacles for 30 HP and they break or? Would the 15 Hardness be DR 15 essentially?

Hardness is similar to Damage Reduction, but different. Hardness applies to all forms of damage (Even energy damage). Even better, energy damage is usually halved before you even apply hardness - so a 30 damage fire attack is reduced to 15 damage, then the hardness of the manacles is applied, reducing the attack to 0 damage.

Another difference between damage reduction and hardness is that damage reduction usually has some form of damage that overcomes it. Hardness does not (with the general exception of adamantine ignoring hardness 19 and less).

Atalius wrote:
with a 7 Cha, do I have 1 use of Channel Energy? Or is the minimum 3x per day?

Unless something specifically states a minimum, then there is no minimum.

Kix276 wrote:
So there is some confusion on my part to how to calculate the hp for creatures I animate undead on. Do the creatures get d8's or d12's for calculating hp?

Undead use a d8 for their hit dice, and gain bonus hit points from their Charisma modifier.

Also, a creature like a wendigo that the way it moves is by flying, would it retain the flying? I have read it does, I just want to confirm.

That would likely depend entirely on what you animate a creature as. The various undead templates don't necessarily work the same. With just the standard skeleton or zombie template, a creature with magical flight does retain it when animated.

Captain Morgan wrote:

Say someone gets bit, fails their fortitude save, and contracts lycantrhopy. How soon do they gain the allergic reaction to silver, the penalty to CHA and the bonus to WIS, and the Shapechanger subtype? When would a Shapechanger Bane Dagger start doing extra damage? When would a ranger with Favored Enemy: Shapechanger get his bonuses?

Would it be after their first transformation? After the 3 day window for Remove Disease? As soon as they fail their fortitude save

I'm running Broken Moon right now, so it seems likely they may get hit with some of this.

A creature that catches lycanthropy becomes an afflicted lycanthrope, but shows no symptoms (and does not gain any of the template's adjustments or abilities) until the night of the next full moon, when the victim involuntarily assumes animal form and forgets his or her own identity. The character remains in animal form until the next dawn and remembers nothing about the entire episode (or subsequent episodes) unless he makes a DC 20 Will save, in which case he becomes aware of his condition.

You don't apply any of the effects of the template until the next full moon.

A living creature is neither an object nor a substance.

You can improve the spell's chance of success by presenting at least one object or substance that the target hates, fears, or otherwise opposes. For each such object or substance, you gain a +1 bonus on your caster level check to overcome the target's spell resistance (if any), and the saving throw DC increases by 2.

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I guess “gem quality” vs “power” is the only way to discuss it in character.
But it isn't really quality either. A larger (but flawed) uncut gem may be a lot more expensive than a tiny well cut one. The larger low quality one may work while the smaller higher quality one may not.
Expense of a gem is relative and not a good analogy for this. I mean you could buy a gem at a discount and technically it wouldn’t work for the spell. There’s a comic strip about that somewhere. Maybe OOTS

Just because you manage to buy a 1000gp gem for a discount doesn't mean it stops being a 1000gp gem.

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
I guess “gem quality” vs “power” is the only way to discuss it in character.

But it isn't really quality either. A larger (but flawed) uncut gem may be a lot more expensive than a tiny well cut one. The larger low quality one may work while the smaller higher quality one may not.

AzureDemon wrote:

With the way crafting works it gives the option to roll for either the week or the day. I want to know if I roll high enough to craft something with the days roll do I finish it that day or does it still take the week.

For example I'm trying to craft a buckler which is a dc of 11 with a cost of 17 silver so either I can take 10 for a 17 with my 7 to craft which means 17x11 so 187 which beats it and then some. My question is since you can roll by day my roll becomes a 26 which still beats the cost in silver does that mean I can make my buckler in one day over one week?

The entire point of making a daily craft check is to make the item in less than a week. So yes.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Good evening Paizonians, and good morning to others. I was wondering if I could use a 5th level spell slot to memorize a 4th level spell instead?

Yes, but it is still treated in all ways as a 4th level spell unless you apply the Heighten Spell metamagic feat.

Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower levels.

Derklord wrote:
*) Let's say you're trying to craft a +4 belt/headband. You need 16 non-nat1's in a row, which is a mere 44% chance. That means crafting such an item at half cost isn't profitable on average.

Magic item creation only ever requires a single check, made at the very end of crafting.

Palidian wrote:
ProfPotts wrote:

Humour aside...

Core Rulebook, Magic section wrote:
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
... emphasis mine.
Yeah ok but what if it could though? What's the damage die? Is there a crit range? These are the questions OP is asking, I believe.

Then it would follow the normal rules for falling objects.

By those rules, velocity has nothing to do with anything. Weight doesn't even matter. Size does. A 45 pound coconut likely isn't a Small object (which we know from 3.5 D&D is 2 to 4 feet), but that is the smallest object on the table. So 2d6 damage at most, but likely less. As coconuts aren't as hard as stone, the damage may be halved as well.

As the coconut is falling, not throw, there is no crit range (or attack roll at all). There is a DC 15 Reflex save for half damage.

If we go by the 3.5 D&D rules (which do account for weight and distance fallen), then it would deal no damage. A 45 pound object needs to fall at least 40 feet to deal any damage, and then it only deals 1d6 damage.

Curghann wrote:
Or simply Bracers of Armor +4, Balanced and Leather Armor +1, Deathless.

Bracers of armor have language that specifically prohibits this.

Bracers of armor and ordinary armor do not stack. If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.

One item completely shutting off is because of how the bracers work.

The same does not apply to any other interaction, however. Only trying to combine an item with bracers of armor causes one to shut down. There is no language anywhere else in the rules that says special abilities shut down if the items enhancement bonus is lower than another items.

Lady-J wrote:
the bottom link leads nowere but the 1st one is ok so thanks

It does if you remove the space before "html".

Fixed link.

Java Man wrote:
3.5 had a rule for higher HD monsters bypassing DR, similiar to how enough plusses on a magic weapon bypass other DR types. Pathfinder did not retain this rule.

Got a source for that? Because I don't recall that being in 3.5 at all. As far as I am aware, the only difference between 3.5 damage reduction and Pathfinder damage reduction is the ability for higher enhancement bonus to overcome more types of damage reduction.

PhoenixScientist wrote:
There is an errata in the original question you should all take into account.

Can you be more specific? I can't see a problem. The only errata I know of is the price, and Helpful Harry and wraithstrike are correct only that. A +4 amulet with corrosive (+1 effective, for a total of +5) costs 100,000gp to buy and 50,000gp to make.

Secondly, can one have a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists with corrosive? (I don't think so, but want to check?)

No. The amulet is limited to a maximum effective bonus of +5. That includes any special abilities on it. The best it can be is a +4 Amulet of Mighty Fists with corrosive.

Also, can an Amulet of Mighty Fists have Impervious? (look... monks punch a lot of things, it might me useful)

No. The amulet doesn't let you apply just any special ability. It seems to only function with those special abilities that have an effective bonus cost, like +1 or +2. IT has no language that allows for special abilities with a flat cost (likely because no such abilities existed at the time).

Even if you could, it would have absolutely no effect. Natural attacks/unarmed strikes aren't metal, so can't rust. They aren't wood so can't warp or rot. They don't have hardness or HP, nor do they have a break DC and they can't be sundered. There would be no benefit at all.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Sara Marie wrote:
This is pretty far from what helps make the forums a welcoming and friendly place so Goeman, I think it’s best if we take a break for the weekend.
Are you aware that you didn’t lock the thread.

As she specifically called out a poster, I don't think the intention was to lock the thread, but possibly a temporary ban for the specific poster.

nikita krivogin wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
nikita krivogin wrote:

Hello, guys! Please, help me understand how its work.

We have a raw
Use-activated or continuous Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp2 Lantern of revealing

I open example (lantern of revealing) and calculate the price. 5*3*2000*2=60000. In fact it cost 30000. What I missed?

Only continuous items have a multiplier for duration. Use-activated items do not.
Thanks a lot! But what about ring of invisibility? It cost 20000 in the book. If I calculate it without multiply 2*3*2000=12000

The formulas are the last place to look when pricing an item. Many items have had their price adjusted (or were just given a price that sounded right, ignoring the formula) for balance reasons. Not all items will match what the formula indicates.

Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.

nikita krivogin wrote:

Hello, guys! Please, help me understand how its work.

We have a raw
Use-activated or continuous Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp2 Lantern of revealing

I open example (lantern of revealing) and calculate the price. 5*3*2000*2=60000. In fact it cost 30000. What I missed?

Only continuous items have a multiplier for duration. Use-activated items do not.

Java Man wrote:
Trying to find the translation from size category to typical height and weight ranges. All I have come up with is on d20pfsrd, but it appears to not have a citation for source. Can anyone point me to where this information has been printed?

It hasn't. Paizo never copied that table for Pathfinder. The 3.5 D&D table should still be valid, and that is what d20PFSRD is using.

graystone wrote:
Secondly, the cost of a 30% reduction on 1d8+4 is 200gp - 60gp = 140gp and not 35gp. So either way, the price is WAY, WAY off.

I was going by Claxons post, not the OPs.

If you did 1d8+1 you're just looking at a potion of CLW that has been re-flavored to work on constructs. So that should be 50 gp minimum. I would argue for a slight increase in cost since being a construct is supposed to be more difficult for healing.

CL 1 potion, not CL 4. Then applying a discount for only affecting a single race instead of all living creatures.

Claxon wrote:

Agree with greystone.

You're version is too cheap (partially because the +4 requires a 4th level caster which increases the price).

If you did 1d8+1 you're just looking at a potion of CLW that has been re-flavored to work on constructs. So that should be 50 gp minimum. I would argue for a slight increase in cost since being a construct is supposed to be more difficult for healing.

Unless is only works on constructs, in which case a price cut can be warranted. It could be worded wrong, but the item the OP is talking about seems to only work on Wyrwoods, not all creatures.

Using an altered version of their creation ritual Wyrwoods have made a "living" patch of fiber that when attached to a damaged Wyrwood will fill in the cracks and reassemble pieces as need be.

That could justify the "requires specific class or alignment" discount (-30%), if you decide a specific race qualifies. That would make a CLW potion equivalent for Wyrwoods only cost 35gp.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The actual reason is because that isn't the sort of world people generally want to play in. Your typical game setting and the game setting implied by using the rules as written are two very different things (For those who haven't heard of it, look up the Tippyverse). Most people want medieval Europe with magic and monsters thrown on top, without regards to how different such a world would be.

Any other answer is just trying to find a way to justify that, even when it doesn't make sense.

Solanine wrote:


I am quite new to Pathfinder and not a native English speaker. So, I would need an explanation for climber racial trait of catfolk. The part of trait that I don't fully understand is the +8 racial bonus. My GM (who is not native English speaker either) wasn't sure.
"the +8 racial bonus on Climb checks a climb speed affords"
I get feeling that the character gets +8 bonus only in some special cases, is that right? Could someone try to explain that to me with other words?


If you have a climb speed, then you always receive a +8 racial bonus on any Climb checks you make. That applies to all Climb checks, not just some of them.

Kotello wrote:
jbadams wrote:
Dispel Magic should do the trick. :)
I thought dispel magic didn't work on permanent things?

As far as duration are concerned, permanent does not actually mean permanent. It just means time won't end the spell. Other things can end the spell just fine.

Spells with a duration of instantaneous are the ones that are truly permanent. You can't use dispel magic to bring back something destroyed by disintegrate, or to undo the healing of a cure light wounds. The magic that caused those effects is already done and gone.

Gorbacz wrote:

That I knew, but given the fact that I recalled James state that there will be archetypes and magic items, the "0 player content, author told me that" comment made me somewhat curious.

Alchemist 23, care to elaborate?

Best guess, it is this:

Alchemist 23 wrote:
Hey why cant this book have some Wyrwood stuff in it? I mean the Legacy of Dragons had stuff for Wyvarans.
James Jacobs wrote:
Because I made the decision to refocus the book on new constructs and not on player options.

Which he took to mean 0 player options, despite that not being what was said.

Gorbacz wrote:
Alchemist 23 wrote:
Browolfe wrote:
Do you mean like the Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Construct Builder's Guidebook that is coming out in March?
Yes the one that I say in the post will have 0 player content. Its just a bestiary. The author has told me that in his own words. It will not talk about players making constructs.

Could you direct me to a post stating that it will have 0 player content?

0 player content? Maybe, maybe not. But it likely mostly a GM book, not one oriented to players.

James Jacobs wrote:

Hi folks! Just as a heads up... this IS in the Campaign Setting line, not the Player Companion line. As such, I suspect this book will be geared far more toward GM use than player use, perhaps with several new constructs as monsters to use in games. Not sure yet if there actually WILL be archetypes in here, since that's not really as appropriate for what I'm envisioning this book to be... There'll be more information, perhaps, on how to adjust constructs in your game as well as maybe an exploration of the roles constructs play in various parts of the world. We'll likely be looking at updating the text for the book listed above to be more accurate about its contents soon!

(And of course, if you as the GM are fine with having your players build constructs, the rules here will help there as well... but again, this is not likely at all to be a player-facing book when all is said and done. The core assumption of the game is that constructs are monsters you fight, after all, not really player options...)

James Jacobs wrote:

As it stands now, about two-thirds of this book is going to be focused on presenting new constructs and new templates for use on constructs for GMs to use in their games (of course, if you allow players to build constructs, you can as the GM allow them access to building these constructs as well). The remaining third of the book spends a little time talking about building constructs, famous construct builders in the Inner Sea Region, and then has 4 pages of construct-themed magic items and 4 construct-themed archetypes.

There will be a little player-focused content in the book (those four archetypes and some of the magic items, I guess), but the bulk is GM facing.

And another later post saying about 75% new monsters, 25% "mostly focused on a few magic items, 4 construct-adjacent archetypes, and then a few pages talking about how constructs are built." So some player content, but mostly a construct-themed bestiary.

Edymnion wrote:

Rather simple sounding and straighforwards question.

If you take Skill Focus (Linguistics), would you get languages known from it? Or just the decipher script/forgery/etc side bonuses?

You get languages from the ranks in the skill. Skill Focus doen't grant ranks, so no. You just gain a bonus on the other uses of the skill.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Goemon Sasuke wrote:

4. I've always found the "well [insert professional here] doesn't fail" argument, because it's farthest from the truth. Many tight roe/trapeze artist have fallen to their deaths. Just as many a fireman has sadly died in a fire... in short, s&+$ happens to the best of us.

If you consider that for example, a fighter has an attack modifier +10 vs a fighter of lower stat value (we'll say an attack of +5); their chances of success/failure is not statistically the same being that the +10 will hit more often with lower average rolls.

Yes, tight rope walkers do somethings fall to their death, and firemen burn. But I can guarantee you it isn't 1 in 20 times (the rate of a critical failure).

On a normal attack, yes. But that isn't what we are talking about. A critical failure is only on a natural 1. It doesn't matter what your total attack bonus is. If both those fighters have the same number of attacks, their chance of a critical failure is statistically the same. If the +10 attack bonus fighter has 2 attacks (likely), his chance of critically failing in any given round is more than the other fighter, as it is based entirely on the die roll. The higher level fighter has more chance of doing something really, really, bad in a round than the less skilled one.

And no one has said anything about people not failing. Just that more skilled individuals should have less of a chance of it and not more. Less of a chance is not the same thing as no chance.

5. Comparing Feather Fall to Slow-Fall is a big, no-no. One can be used to leap off a dragon or what have you mid-flight. Doing so with Slow-Fall will likely still kill you. That's my two cents anyway. Feather Fall is more like insurance where as Slow-Fall is you actively trying to do something.

No, it is completely valid. You said you rules he couldn't use his Slow-Fall because of a critical failure. What sort of critical failure happens if you have feather fall on you? If you aren't applying the result of critical failures every time it happens, you are cherry picking and playing favorites. Either a critical fail happens and something bad happens, or it doesn't. Playing it both ways is bad form.

3. In the 22+ years I've been gming and 26+ years I've been playing; there has been little to no issue with critical success/failure mechanics.

Personal experience ultimately means absolutely nothing. Just because you don't have a problem with it doesn't make it right. My personal experience (and based on the responses given at other times people ask about it, the experience of many others as well) is that a critical failure is ultimately a bad thing. You are already punished for rolling low, no need to make it even worse.

Of course, not like any of this really matters. You already have your own opinion. You likely just want the validation of others instead of a real discussion anyway.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Goemon Sasuke wrote:

So, I've always been one to punish critical failures to varying degrees pending on the action involved much like critical successes. Not sure what the stance is with people here, but I've heard people gripe about how punishing for critical failures can "kill their mood".

So the drop is sufficiently safe enough for the Monk to normally slow-fall without harm. He however rolled a critical failure on his acrobatics check on an attempted 20ft leap across a room.

I ruled that, based soley on the fact he got a critical failure, his monkly grace could not save him at that time. The damage was negligable, but he insisted that he should benefit from it anyways.

Thoughts and opinions?

Was the possibility of critical success/failure on skill checks told to the players before hand? If not, I'm totally with your player. You can't critically fail a skill check. On top of that, no check of any sort (successful or otherwise) is needed to use Slow Fall. As long as he was within arms reach of the wall, he should of got it. From his point of view, you stripped him of a class ability with no just cause. The failure of the Acrobatics check already caused a problem - he fell instead of making it across. No need to double punish someone for 1 failed roll.

Critical success/failure with added stuff is just a bad idea, even more so with attack rolls. A high level character is more likely to critically fail on any given round than a low one. (5% chance with any d20 roll, higher level characters have more attack/round so more chances to critically fail.) That doesn't make sense. Nor does an expert climber having the exact same chance of a critical failure as a complete novice. Personally, if a critical success/failure mechanic is needed, it should be based on how you rolled compared to the DC of the check, not based on whatever number the die itself landed on.

DarkstarDSE wrote:

Nefreet thanks for your response.

However, resist energy(sp) does not equal energy resistance(ex).

In the spell descriptor for resist energy it does not say it grants energy resistance. It says it grants resist energy.
This might be a glaring typo in the spell descriptor. However it needs clarification because these effects aren't type specific since one is from a magical effect and another from ash extraordinary effect.

I don't even like this argument, but it is the argument of line of my players and I can't find a great counter point.

Yes it very well does.

This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. The subject gains resist energy 10 against the energy type chosen, meaning that each time the creature is subjected to such damage (whether from a natural or magical source), that damage is reduced by 10 points before being applied to the creature's hit points. The value of the energy resistance granted increases to 20 points at 7th level and to a maximum of 30 points at 11th level. The spell protects the recipient's equipment as well.

"Resist energy" and "energy resistance" are the same thing. The ability is called "energy resistance", but every creature lists it as "resist (energy)". They mean the exact same thing.

Defensive Abilities uncanny dodge; DR 10/evil; Immune acid, cold, petrification; Resist electricity 10, fire 10; SR 25

One being magical and the other not has no bearing whatever on how they interact.

Ellias Aubec wrote:
Couldn't the druid just have wildshaped out of being polymorphed during the fight? Or does that archetype trade it out?

It does trade out wildshape. (Which is good because at 15th level, it becomes immune to polymorph effects and could no longer wildshape anyway.)

If you use the barbarian class from Pathfinder Unchained, then the android can gain all the benefits from rage (they are no longer morale bonuses).

Yqatuba wrote:
Just wondering since it says they have no emotions would that mean they couldn't use rage?

Technically, they can be barbarians and can use rage, but gain limited benefits from it. The bonuses are morale bonuses, which have no effect on androids (so no boost to Strength, Constitution/hit points, or will saves). The AC penalty would still apply, as would the limitation on skills. Any rage power would still work fine (assuming they don't grant a morale bonus).

Emotionless Androids can never gain morale bonuses and are immune to fear effects and emotion effects. They have problems processing emotions properly, and thus take a -4 penalty on Sense Motive checks.

They are immune to fatigue, however. So an android barbarian can rage cycle easily - ending rage then reactivating it to get more uses from 1/rage rage powers.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Jeraa wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Huh. Usually those have the deity's name in their names. How bizarre. ^_^
It isn't bizarre. The actual name is "Desna's Shooting Star". d20PFSRD isn't allowed to use proper names of gods (or other Golarian names), so it changes many things. In this case, it became "Way of the Shooting Star".
Me thinks there might have been a smiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidge of snark in her response.

I did just notice the face at the end. Anyway, for those that don't know, that is the explanation why some things have their name changed and may be hard to find.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Huh. Usually those have the deity's name in their names. How bizarre. ^_^

It isn't bizarre. The actual name in the book is "Desna's Shooting Star". d20PFSRD isn't allowed to use proper names of gods (or other Golarian names), so it changes many things. In this case, it became "Way of the Shooting Star".

Some requirements (such as worshiping a specific deity) may be left out because of this. It is one of the reasons d20PFSRD isn't a good source for official material.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atalius wrote:
Jeez, can the enemy just move outside the 20ft radius and snap the effects of the spell?

No. The 20ft radius just determines who is potentially affected. Once affected, the effects of the spell continue for the duration (in this case, however long the caster concentrates, up to a maximum of 1 round/level). Moving out of the original 20ft radius area does nothing to end the spell.

And yes, the spell affects everyone (friend or enemy, and including the caster) in the area, just like a fireball spell would damage everyone in the area. Spells that only affect some individuals in the area but not others specifically state so.

Marc Radle wrote:
hellatze wrote:

Or wish only ?

Or no at all.

Do you mind saying if English is not your native language? No disrespect intended, but your posts tend to be rather difficult to understand ...

He has said before that English is not his native language. In one of his first posts on the forum.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can see in a darkness spell. All it does is make the available light a bit darker. Only if you are already in dim light when you cast darkness does it create total darkness. In that case, you would also have whatever penalties would apply in such conditions:

In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.

Phast wrote:
I am thinking about taking Intensify Spell for my next feat. If I prepare a 3rd level spell such as fireball as an intense spell (which means using a 4th level spell slot), can I use a rod of maximize, lesser (which works on 1-3rd level spells on that spell? Rules seem more unclear than most on this issue to me. The forums also seem divided on this issue. Do either of you know or have an opinion? I really could see this one either way.

From the FAQ:


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.

So you use the higher level when determining the metamagic rod to use.

Chess Pwn wrote:


Where's the rule that normal flight is reduced by armor? I believe it to be true, but I have a player that says that rule is only for the fly spell and not generic for flight.

The armor table and rules make no mention of the reduction being limited to land speed, so it applies to all speed. The same with the encumbrance rules. And if you check any of the Bestiary flying monsters in armor, you will see it applies. The solar angel:

Speed 50 ft., fly 150 ft. (good); 35 ft., fly 100 ft. (good) in armor

Medium and heavy armor reduces speed to 2/3rds normal, and you can see the same is applied to the flight speed above.

The rules changed between 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, you can flying any sort of armor. Armor reduces your speed while flying in the same way it does while walking.

So I guess that would be answer B.

There are example of flying creatures with heavy armor in the Bestiaries. The solar angel is the one I usually go to as an example. In Pathfinder, A is not correct for anything except mounts with barding. (And likely that is just a holdover from 3.5 D&D - the rest of the flight rules changed, but someone may have forgot to change that section as well.)

Lausth wrote:

İnherent invis and fly speed?

Just like this one. ntal-aether/aether-elemental-small/

The aether subtype has no added mechanics. It is just a descriptive subtype. Not all subtypes have associated mechanics of their own.

Aether Subtype: This subtype is usually used for outsiders with a connection to aether, a "fifth element" formed from a blend between the substance of the Ethereal Plane and the energy of the Elemental Planes.

2ndGenerationCleric wrote:
Or take eschew materials. What's the Polymorph chart?

True, but Eschew Materials is already listed. The rules imply the only way to cast a spell with a material component while polymorphed is if you have Eschew Materials or Natural Spell. That is wrong. If you have access to a component pouch somehow (like dropping your first before changing shape) then you can still cast such spells, even without Eschew Materials or Natural Spell.

In the Magic chapter, under the Polymorph subschool rules, there is a chart. If the caster of a polymorph spell is not already Small or Medium sized, you first adjust their ability scores with that chart, then add whatever the appropriate spell gives. If the caster is already Small or Medium sized (And most PC casters will be), then you ignore that chart.

Stoic Gorehard wrote:
so then I could still cast spells, yes?

Potentially yes, depending on the form.

When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor and shield bonuses, which cease to function). Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form. While in such a form, you cannot cast any spells that require material components (unless you have the Eschew Materials or Natural Spell feat), and can only cast spells with somatic or verbal components if the form you choose has the capability to make such movements or speak, such as a dragon. Other polymorph spells might be subject to this restriction as well, if they change you into a form that is unlike your original form (subject to GM discretion). If your new form does not cause your equipment to meld into your form, the equipment resizes to match your new size.

Dropping your spell component pouch before transforming, then picking it up again afterwords, would also allow you to cast spells with material components.

Lady-J wrote:
Lathiira wrote:

I have a silly question, so feel free to have a silly answer:

How can you have an attack that is both silver and fire outside of a flaming silver weapon? Or molten silver I suppose? Since the regeneration requires both to be shut down, a feature common to DR, this stands out to me. Regeneration normally requires one option or one or more options (e.g. fire or acid for trolls). Just figured I'd ask, I spent all night trying to puzzle this out.

you have have a martial hit it with a silver weapon and a caster hits it with burning hands, you could have a lit torch made out of silver, the regeneration shut off doesn't need to be from one source just needs to happen in the same round, so as long as there is enough people fighting it you could have something with (regen x/ silver and adamantine and cold iron and acid and fire and cold and electric and wood) and still have it be bypassed

That isn't how it works at all. If something says "and", it needs to be both at the same time. Repeated attacks are not at the same time.

Doki-Chan wrote:

Thanks Jeraa, I realized that and edited the original bit to make it Channeling instead, as low level clerics would do 1d6...

The biggest flaw would be using a friend's Ioun stone that healed 1HP per time period I think, depending on a DM ruling harshly...

If there is no minimum listed, then there is no minimum. You could potentially receive 0 points of healing. And an ioun stone is an item, not an allies "class feature, spell, or spell-like ability". It is unaffected.

1 to 50 of 3,568 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>