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

Kazaan's page

5,329 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 5,329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Enzo Chittock wrote:
How are you getting 2x2 from two weapon fighting?

I think he was mistakenly thinking that TWF, on its own, doubles all your normal attacks and ITWF/GTWF add extra off-hand attacks on top.

For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that the correct attack sequence, presuming +6 BAB, TWF, ITWF, Rapid Shot, and Flurry of Stars is +6/+1 main-hand as iteratives, +6 for your standard off-hand attack, +1 for your extra off-hand granted by ITWF, +6 for the extra granted by Rapid Shot, and +6/+6 for Flurry of Stars. You'd suffer a total of -6 to attack on all of these. For the sake of example, we'll say your ranged attack bonus is normally +11 (including BAB). With all these together, you'd have the following combination: 4x +5, 2x +0. It should also be noted that, while your main-hand attacks (from iterative) and off-hand attacks (standard off-hand and extra from ITWF) are obligated to follow descending BAB order (though, each hand is handled independently of the other), extra attacks from other sources (eg. Haste, Rapid Shot, Flurry of Stars, etc) are under no such obligation. So long as the +1 main-hand comes after the +6 main-hand, it doesn't matter what other attacks are before, between, or after. Same goes for the off-hand attacks.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Why does Darkness work differently than Light?

Well, to be fair, they are a little bit different, given that "radiating darkness" isn't actually a thing whereas "radiating light" is. Also, the darkness produced by Darkness is "thick darkness" because it even blocks light coming through the affected area from the other side. Normally, for instance, if I'm standing under a streetlight next to a pitch-dark alleyway, I could see someone standing under a streetlight at the other end of the alley despite the intervening darkness. But if the darkness were from a Darkness spell, I wouldn't be able to see past it. So ambient light wouldn't be able to reach that inverse shadow to illuminate what's inside of it, hence, the effect is spoiled.

Additionally, the hard thresholds of light states in Pathfinder are an abstraction of the smooth gradient they would actually be. Light doesn't just drop off abruptly after a certain distance. So, even if you create "inverse shadows" by "blocking" the path of a darkness spell, there may technically be light, but not enough to make a technical difference within the abstraction of the Pathfinder system. For instance, people cast shadows, but you can't say that you hide in the dim light created by your own shadow (unless you have some special ability that says you can). Abilities like HIPS even explicitly call this out. Furthermore, you also have to account for the equivalent of an umbra and penumbra of the inverted shadow. You have a full shadow (the umbra) and a partial shadow (the penumbra) and, unless the "source of darkness" is put right behind your back to maximize the "inverted umbra", the penumbra where everything is dimmed down is going to be significant; and, by extrapolating the rules at hand, it would probably be equivalent to a "light -1 level" which would probably be darkness anyway if you're relying on artificial light.

Now, if we really wanted to show how light worked in the game, there would be better light rules involving direct and indirect lighting, how light travels around corners, and the like. But, the sad truth is that the Pathfinder system just isn't robust enough to tackle those kinds of issues.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If you really want to go for style, cast it on your glass eye then put on an eyepatch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Yeah.

How the everliving f&&@ am I able to damage the Titan attacking me using a lonsgperar and the lunge feat from over 65ft away?!

You smack his weapon as he attacks and it vibrates, giving him nasty blisters on his hands.


SCKnightHero1 wrote:

Yeah a variant multiclass could work actually.

I haven't read much about the unchained action economy rules. Can you explain that a bit more please?

And for the other posters, so pretty much you can't use both smite evil and challenge at the same time under normal circumstances? Why do I say normal circumstances? Take for example, a paladin/samurai under the effects of haste, could he use both abilities? Haste has always given me difficulty when I gm.

Unchained Action Economy


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ok, it could work with a few tweaks. First, you'd want to go Paladin and use Variant Multiclass with Cavalier as your secondary. At level 3, this lets you challenge as if you were a Cavelier of your character level - 2. To illustrate, if you were lvl 6, you'd be a level 6 Paladin (with all that entales) and you'd use challenge as if you were also a level 4 Cavalier.

Second, you'll want to use Unchained Action Economy. This gives you 3 "acts" per round and different actions subsume a different number of acts. By this method, Smite Evil and Challenge are, each, simple actions and take 1 act each, allowing you to activate both on round 1 (and still have 1 act left with which to move or attack).


It's more weird that Bucklers and Light Shields are actually swapped from their real-life counterparts. Real Bucklers would be held in the hand, not on the wrist, so you wouldn't be able to still use that hand for other purposes. By contrast, other shields would be strapped to the forearm. A light shield would be small and light enough that just the forearm straps are needed and you wouldn't need to use a hand-hold on the shield, leaving the hand free for other purposes (though, not enough to wield a weapon). A heavy shield, on the otherhand, would need a hand-hold. Also, traditionally, Bucklers were used for bashing attacks.

But, to the point at hand, yes, there are two separate rules elements at play here; proficiency with shields (as armor) and proficiency with shield bashing (as weapons). The Shield Trained trait fills a niche; for characters who have shield (armor) proficiency (either by taking the feat or from their class), but only have general simple proficiency and lack general martial proficiency (eg. bards).


Question 1
Yes to all. Ascetic Style lets you count your Sansetsukon as if it were an unarmed strike and Snake Style lets you deal piercing damage with unarmed strikes, hence, anywhere in the Snake Style chain (all of which are feats with Unarmed Strike as a prereq) where it says "with unarmed strike", you may substitute "with a sansetsukon".

Question 2
This one is a bit more tricky. It isn't really clear if enchantments like Flaming are "joined at the hip", so to speak, with the enhancement bonus or if they can be freely divorced. If joined at the hip, you can't consider it as, separately, +2 enhancement and flaming but, rather, must take them as a complete unit, (+2 Flaming). In this case, the entire unit, including the Flaming effect, would be overridden if you decide to use the +3 Impact Ki Intensifying bonus from the sword. But in the other case, it's only the numeric enhancement bonus that doesn't stack so you'd get the best of the two (the +3 from the sword) and combine the three other effects. The jury is still kind of out on this one.

Question 3
In short, yes. It was clarified that "augment" doesn't just mean adding bonuses, but can include changing damage dice as well. So Monk increased unarmed damage "augments" their unarmed strike, hence you can even use your Monk damage with your Sansetsukon. So, right from the get-go, with a +3 enhancement bonus, the Sansetukon can defeat DR/Magic, Silver, and Cold Iron. Once your Monk level gets high enough, you'll add the others to the list as appropriate. Basically, if the attack would be improved, it's an augment.

Question 4
Yes, though, for Punishing Kick, the feat doesn't technically require you to make a "kick" to use it. It just says, "if your attack is successful" meaning it could be used with any weapon; unarmed strike or otherwise.

Question 5
It depends on whether it is an "augment" or an ancilliary effect. Augments are already covered by Acetic Style, but most of the style strikes either use ancilliary effects or specify a particular body part that must be used which is above and beyond what Acetic Style allows (ie. just because your sword counts as an unarmed strike doesn't mean it counts as a fist). So I don't think there are any style strikes that technically qualify to apply just using Acetic Style so I'm gonna say, technically, yes, you'll need Ascetic Form to use style strikes with the sword. However, other things like improved unarmed damage and stunning fist are fine.

Additionally, no, the Brawling Bracers of Armor are a no-go. Brawling must be put on light armor and Bracers of Armor are not light armor.


Qaianna wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I don't see why worshiping a god would have any impact on your alignment on it's own. If you participated in a religious ceremony that included an aligned action, that would affect your alignment, but simply paying homage to a god you agree with or simply worshiping the god your family worshiped wouldn't necessarily have any affect on your paladin-ness.

The question is how worship works. A paladin who worships Iomedae (goddess of being a goodly knight in shining armour) has an easier time staying in touch with the Force of Law and Good. Abadar? Well, Law is a good thing, rgiht? Sarenrae? Good is a good thing, right?

Deviate too far from that LG core and it's hard to really justify. Asmodeus and Gorum are not exactly the gods of altruism. You can still honour them, and acknowledge their dvinity ... but when you worship Asmodeus, you're saying that his vision of the cosmos is the right one. If you worship Gorum, you're more interested in fighting than much of anything else.

Well, again, going back to the Hellknights, they do believe Asmodeus's vision of the cosmos is the right one... just so long as it's run and staffed by "people" and not "devils". And there are Paladins in the Hellknights; an organization dedicated to the order and structure of Hell as a proactive social model for the material plane. The Paladins in this case believe that Good will be served by having a strict social hierarchy. Sure, it's a bit Orwellian, but that's aside from the point.

Basically, each "step" away from your own alignment means that deity is "less" attuned to you, but that doesn't make it a boolean function. The only deities that should be completely denied on principal alone would be CE and it's a gradation from one corner of the alignment chart to the other. I'm sure that LN followers of a LG deity may chafe a bit at the Good expectations that are quite a bit more than they'd normally lean on their own. So there would even be a little contention if you're within that one allowable alignment step. So the presence of alignment contention isn't necessarily a deal-breaker. So I can perfectly well see a LG Paladin who includes Pharasma in his pantheon of worship or, even, were a dedicated member of her church, basically encompassing the best of a LN and a NG follower simultaneously. He doesn't need to strongly resonate with her particular alignment like a Cleric or Inquisitor does because he isn't getting his mojo directly from her (unless he's a Sacred Servant, in which case this would not work). And, for Gorum, yeah, he's interested in fighting and not much else, but for a Paladin focused on fighting off enemies (eg. fiends, undead, etc.), that can be a good chassis to build off from; he can temper that fighting spirit with the trademark Paladin attitude. Granted, this would likely be the furthest you could stretch the connection, but a Paladin wouldn't otherwise have a problem working with a CN player, so paying due reverence to a CN deity shouldn't be much problem either. But another thing to keep in mind is the lopsidedness of Good vs Evil. Good is cooperative and works well together. A LG Paladin works a lot better with a CG ally than he would with a LE ally. So I probably wouldn't extend the allowance to associate with CN religious organizations along the other path to associating with NE ones.

And, of course, the further you go, the more roleplay work there is to do to reconcile the disparate world-views. To break this all down:

NG: Easiest to relate to. Sometimes, rule-bending to ensure good is done is OK. It likely won't be the Paladin himself doing it, but it's nice to have friends willing to do so.
CG and LN: Next easiest to relate to. An honest-to-goodness Paladin would be hard-pressed to fault Robin Hood's technical breaking of the law in order to help the disenfranchised. Meanwhile, he also values how a strict, solid social structure is proactive towards ensuring that bad things don't happen in the first place; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
TN: Middle-ground in all ways. A Paladin in this kind of religion recognizes that he represents an extreme in a zero-sum game, but that he's also dedicated to playing that extreme to the best of his ability. He relates best to the NG and LN members, but still acknowledges that everyone has their own path in life, even if that path brings them into certain conflicts.
CN: Second hardest to relate to. CN, while opposed on the "lesser" axis for a Paladin, at least isn't completely opposed on the more important one. If it's a fairly simple and straight-forward order that isn't dedicated to evil (eg. Gorum, Sun Wukong).
NE: Hardest to relate to. Most of these are going to be beyond redemption, but some of them might need to be saved from themselves (particularly the TN and LE followers). NE is, predominantly, the alignment represented by nihilism so even a Paladin might harbor thoughts of, "It doesn't matter how much Good I do, eventually everything will end." But that must be reconciled with, "But in the meantime, I'll do the absolute best I can."
CE: Totally unrelatable. A Paladin simply can't get along with a CE organization in any way. It is diametrically opposed so just don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing to keep in mind is that the Paladin can "revere" one or more particular deities without actually being a core follower. Even in the real world, ancient polytheistic religions were typically a pantheon. When you set sail, you pray the deity of the seas, but when your wife is going to give birth, you pray to the deity of childbirth. Most people didn't pick a single deity to whom they devoted their entire spirituality. Even an ordained priest of a particular deity still revered and respected the others in the pantheon; it's just that their day job involved devotion and service to one in particular. That's basically what Clerics and Inquisitors are; they exclusively service (and gain divine power from) a singular deity. All their spiritual mojo (which normal people can't really do) comes from that one deity. But they would still pray to other members of the pantheon for things outside the portfolio of their deity. The Paladin, on the other hand, doesn't' get his mojo directly from a deity; but he still reveres the pantheon as any one else would. He may join the service and leverage his divine powers (from a different source) for the benefit of that deity's cause and the deity, in turn, may reinforce their powers (granting spells at lower levels, feats, etc.) but that's another matter entirely. However, evil religious organizations are generally out-of-bounds for a Paladin. Realistically speaking, even a LN deity, otherwise within the "one step alignment" rule, might be technically out of bounds based on the Paladin code. If it were a LN deity of, say, executions who insisted that legal conviction takes priority over known innocence, and the Paladin would be responsible to carry out an execution upon someone he knows to be innocent, that is a fundamental incompatibility between the Paladin code and the religious group and the Paladin would be required to pick one and only one to follow; either lose his paladin mojo or abandon the religion.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Because Odysseus CLEARLY used wisdom as a dump stat. Do not EVER taunt the son of the god who rules the domain you're currently crossing, that you just put his eye out. Reasonably high intelligence, wisdom as far below sea level as Louisiana.

You know who Polyphemus hates more than Odysseus?

Spoiler:
Nobody


2 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
RealAlchemy wrote:
Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in your fruit salad. Charisma is selling a tomato based fruit salad. Strength is squishing a tomato with your bare hand. Dexterity is dodging the tomato that gets thrown at you. Constitution is eating a rotten tomato and not getting sick.

Who says anything is wrong with tomatoes in fruit salad? Should work just fine with the right kind of tomatoes (admittedly NOT the ones you usually find in the regular produce section of a supermarket -- on the other hand, it's starting to get really hit-or-miss to find suitable oranges as well).

Isn't tomato-based fruit salad just salsa?


I don't know what people find so confusing about the Cestus, but I'll lay it out just for clarity's sake.

The Cestus is a light weapon and is used as a light weapon. It benefits from Weapon Focus (Cestus) and the like and does not benefit from Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike) and the like. You can put an enhancement bonus on a Cestus and it will enhance attacks made with the Cestus, but not attacks made with Unarmed Strikes.

Additionally, a special feature for Cestus that other weapons normally don't have is the following: they let you count as armed and make Unarmed Strikes deal lethal damage (as if you had the IUS feat). Also, if you are proficient with them, you can make your Unarmed Strikes deal P or B damage. Not that this still doesn't apply enhancement bonuses on the Cestus to your Unarmed Strikes; you're using specific rules elements attached to the Cestus to modify your US, but other rules elements don't just come along for the ride of their own accord.

To illustrate, imagine the following:
Say you had a hypothetical weapon called a Hammerfist. It looks kind of like an oversized Cestus with a fist-shaped hammerhead on the end. The weapon is a hammerfist, so you'd need things like Weapon Focus (Hammerfist) for it. But it has a special rule that you count as having IUS and Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike) while wearing it, even if you don't meet the prereqs. Now, it wouldn't be logical to say that, since the weapon grants Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike), that means that enhancement bonuses to the weapon also apply to Unarmed Strikes, because the rules for the equipment never say that; neither implicitly nor explicitly. The same logic applies to the Cestus. It says your Unarmed Strikes count as armed and lethal and that, (if proficient with the Cestus), your Unarmed Strikes can deal B or P damage. That's all. It doesn't say that rules elements that apply to Unarmed Strikes also apply to the Cestus, it doesn't say that enhancement bonuses on the Cestus apply to Unarmed Strikes, or anything else of the sort.

Now, as for the question at hand, given that Ifrits have a racial Wis penalty, an outright Monk might not be best for the task. Even Brawler is going to lose out a bit in that area. But there is one more... unorthodox approach. There's a Paladin archetype, the Irorian Paladin (listed as Enlightened Paladin on SRD for copyright purposes). That would mesh a lot better with Ifrit's Cha bonus. You can use a Cestus for consistent damage early on, but you'll also get Paladin's Divine Bond (which must take Unarmed Strike as per the archetype) for a more dynamic Unarmed Strike. So, for times you want to use your fiery fists, you throw punches. Other times, you use your Cestus. Overall, the archetype gives you a lessened Monk unarmed scaling, Cha to AC, Sense ki pool, a mechanic similar to Cavalier's Challenge in place of Smite Evil, a ki pool of your own, aura of rerolls, and forced reroll immunity. You can even wear light armor which keeps the Brawling enhancement easily available.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
Wasn't Jesus the guy who cursed a fig tree, because it didn't carry any figs? The same guy who chases people around with a whip? This doesn't sound like low Int, just the regular player character killer-hobo way (in short, all of our characters are a bit of Jesus).

Jesus was the guy who proclaimed that a certain fig tree would never again bear fruit because the budding leaves indicated it should be bearing fruit, but the fact that it wasn't indicated it was a barren tree. So this was a matter of perception on his part, not a curse. This was used symbolically as it happened on his way to visit a temple that was displaying the trappings of spirituality (the leaves), but was spiritually barren (bore no fruit).


The Sideromancer wrote:

Lawrence, I have one minor issue with your list. You state that humanoids have organs in "standard positions."

Lawrence Dubois wrote wrote:
Does it have fairly standard organs in fairly standard locations?
If the anatomy of all humanoids are very similar, you wouldn't need multiple different Favoured Enemy effects for all of them. Also, in the original series of Star Trek, Spock often gets away without serious injury because his heart is not where a human heart is. I'm pretty sure Half-Vulcan as a race would still be humanoid.

I think by "standard organs in standard locations", he meant within the race itself, not compared to another race. Vulcans have hearts in a different spot compared to Humans, but all Vulcans are going to have their heart in about the same spot compared to one another, just as Humans do. But, for an aberration, its organs aren't necessarily in the same spot compared even to other members of their race. Or it might have organs that don't really have a humanoid counterpart, like a gloobak. Furthermore, aberrations "could" have normal anatomy compared to other humanoids, but be considered aberrations based on one of the other criteria, such as alien mindset. Their manner of thinking and forming ideas could be completely and entirely incomparable to our own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's another game where item weights were listed in AUM (arbitrary unit of mass). It explained that the unit was used entirely for balance purposes and did not reconcile actual weight differences between items but merely how they interacted with encumbrance limits. I get the feeling that the weights in Pathfinder, even though listed in "pounds", are a similar concept; not meant to be accurate descriptions of physical weight but more for mechanical purposes.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).
So, if someone drinks a potion of cure light wounds, they can then touch someone to heal them?

No, because, when you drink a potion or an extract, you are the target of the effect. A potion/extract of CLW affects the imbiber with CLW; it heals them. A potion/extract of Shocking Grasp affects the imbiber with Shocking Grasp and should probably be labeled "Power Thirst: Rawberry".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think your GM misread that item to a great degree and you kind of won out. First, the duration for the stunned effect is 5d4 rounds so the longest possible duration, if he rolled 4s on all 5 dice, is 20 rounds. Average would be 12.5 rounds. Secondly, though it's worded badly, the item says that creatures within the area of dust exposure fall into fits of sneezing and choking. So anyone in the area is going to be sneezing and choking (stunned). In addition, those who fail the save take immediate Con damage. It isn't an either-or kind of thing; you're stunned for 5d4 rounds for certain and, if you fail the save, you also take 3d6 Con damage. So, presuming there were other enemies waiting to wail on you while you were disabled from the dust, your character should be very, very dead right now. If I had to come up with a word to describe how dead you are, it would be 'Cadaverific'.


Rub-Eta wrote:

Keep in mind that specific spells, feats, traits (and etc) does not prove anything about how a class functions. What's writen within the class' rules does not change because certain spells/feats/traits/etc are worded strange. Slight indications should not be held as highly as explicit rules.

I'll admit that Touch of Slime is a weird spell, it doesn't have a listed range (not even personal, which it probably should have).
The only way I can interprit it (aside from it being a suicide spell) is that Touch of Slime produces an effect that allowes you to perform a touch attack with a special effect. Unlike Shocking Grasp/Cure Light Wounds (where the touching is part of the delivering of the spell before it takes effect), Touch of Slime does not require a touch attack to take effect, as the slime in your hands are already part of the effect (like Produce Flame). It's still strange, since the duration is instantaneous, which would either mean that you still need to hold the charge (unlike Produce Flame) or that it stays untill the slime is delivered/destroyed.
This, however, does not prove anything about the Alchemist's class features.

There's plenty of ambiguous cases within the Alchemist as a class, this is not one of them.

Uh, Touch of Slime has a range of Touch. It functions exactly like any other touch spell (eg. Shocking Grasp, Cure/Inflict spells, etc.).


taks wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
I read up on it and, it seems, that one of your premises of your argument (the function of extracts of Touch spells) is erroneous, thus invalidating your conclusion. Nothing I could find indicates that an Alchemist can direct the effect of a Touch spell extract towards a foe; Extracts always function as potions, by default, and cast the effect upon the drinker. So if the Alchemist drinks an Extract of Slime Touch, it doesn't allow him to touch a target to give them green slime but, rather, it affects the Alchemist himself. This would go for any spell with a range of Touch. Now, he can use Infusion and, maybe, try to trick a target into drinking a harmful touch extraction, and he can also use a Wand to cast the spell against some other target since he can use Spell Trigger items, but he can't drink a Touch Spell in order to use it offensively. I would think this is an oversight on their part and it probably should be addressed officially.
My only argument was a hypothetical, so there was no premise nor any subsequent conclusion. "I read up on it" hardly constitutes an official ruling, just an opinion based on your interpretation of the rules, equally hypothetical - unless you have some other citation than the PRD? Indeed, the formula list includes at least one spell that grants a touch attack, which at the very least makes it an ambiguous point.

Ok, first off, cut the sass. This is a rules discussion so I researched the pertinent rules from the rules books (official sources) and applied standard logic to determine how they would apply; you've got no business getting offended by that, especially since I wasn't responding to you in the first place, I was referring to the OP. And don't confuse matters of fact with matters of opinion; just because I constructed a logical interpretation of the available rules doesn't magically make it a matter of opinion. Opinions are things like, "I like cheese". Two people can differ on a matter of opinion, but neither is "wrong". But two people cannot differ on a matter of fact while neither being wrong. Also, just because your argument was hypothetical doesn't mean it has no premise nor conclusion. That's part of being an argument. You formulated your own logical position and that involves looking at the information at hand (your premises) and coming to a result (conclusion). If you had neither, then you were just blathering for no purpose. Lastly, are you seriously asking for rules citations other than the rules in order for the conclusion to be valid? That's not how this works; that's not how any of this works. If there is some other official citation that contradicts or changes the rules in the book, that takes priority, but in the absence of such, the rules in the book take priority. There are no other pertinent citations that counter the analysis I presented, thus, the currently available information (the actual rules in the book) takes precedence.

Now, Paizo might make an official comment on the matter. It might be something along the lines of, "Oh, yeah, we flubbed. Add a line into extracts that says, 'When you drink an extract of a spell with a range of touch, you are only the caster, not the target.' Sorry, our bad." Or, it could be along the lines of, "Yeah, certain spells were included thematically even though it doesn't make sense to make an extract out of them. This allows the Alchemist to apply other rules elements like using wands, syringe spears, etc." Who knows, but that's neither here nor there. I even said at the end, earlier, that I suspect it might be an oversight on their part so I'm leaning more towards the "they flubbed" option. But just because my conclusion is different from your is absolutely no good justification for the manner in which you responded.


Given the nature of magical forces in the Pathfinder system, I'd have to presume that the pulling effect hits a dead stop once it gets to the 10' range. Fireball, for example, creates fire in a given radius, but no appreciable heat or pressure wave is produced outside that radius. By the same reasoning, the bag/hole trick would not create a "black hole" in the normal sense, but a "gate" (as the rules, themselves, explicitly state) and the effect of that gate is to draw in any creatures (not even objects, but creatures specifically) within 10' of it and anything outside that 10' is absolutely unaffected. So it would not affect the structure of the cave and cause a collapse. Also, it would not "shear off" a creature that is bigger than the effect because being affected by an area effect in Pathfinder is binary; you either are or you aren't. If a large creature is partially standing in the area of a Fireball, it takes full damage no matter how large or small a proportion of their tactical space intersects with the spell's area of effect. Hence, logically, we have two entirely separate binary conditions; are you inside the area of effect (t/f) and are you outside the area of effect (t/f). And only the first of those, whether you are inside, is being checked to determine if you get sucked into the gate. If you straddle the boundary, then you are both inside and outside at the same time; but that means you are inside and, if you are inside, your whole body gets sucked in. Ergo, logically, the dragon must be alive and well in the Astral plane, probably very pissed off, and weighing his options, planning what to do next. Maybe he will make the Astral his new home. Maybe he'll try to get back immediately to extract revenge. Or maybe he'll let it simmer, wait until the party has forgotten and strike when they don't expect it at a very inopportune time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I read up on it and, it seems, that one of your premises of your argument (the function of extracts of Touch spells) is erroneous, thus invalidating your conclusion. Nothing I could find indicates that an Alchemist can direct the effect of a Touch spell extract towards a foe; Extracts always function as potions, by default, and cast the effect upon the drinker. So if the Alchemist drinks an Extract of Slime Touch, it doesn't allow him to touch a target to give them green slime but, rather, it affects the Alchemist himself. This would go for any spell with a range of Touch. Now, he can use Infusion and, maybe, try to trick a target into drinking a harmful touch extraction, and he can also use a Wand to cast the spell against some other target since he can use Spell Trigger items, but he can't drink a Touch Spell in order to use it offensively. I would think this is an oversight on their part and it probably should be addressed officially.


If you are trading out FoB (or any other armor-restricted class ability), the ability you gain is not considered to be the original ability unless it functions in the same way. For instance, a Fighter might trade Weapon Training for Polearm Training. Since Polearm Training functions exactly the same as Weapon Training, save for being limited to a single weapon group, it is treated as Weapon Training. But just because you're trading out FoB doesn't mean the replacement automatically qualifies as FoB. By the same logic, if a Ranger archetype traded out Combat Style feats (which don't work if you wear Heavy armor), that doesn't necessarily mean that the new class abilities he gains don't work in Heavy armor (unless they specifically say so).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
Five. Your right, Chess Pwn, I should have just left it at the first one.

No, the first one was one too many. And don't insult the rest of us here. We are trying to clarify and explain things to people seeking information. You are spreading disinformation and then hiding behind feigned innocence and good intentions and I honestly consider that a personal affront. You are taking what I do in earnest and twisting it into some delusional game for your own benefit. I don't know why or how you find it entertaining, but it's abhorrent none the less.


Olaf the Holy wrote:

I dunno, I think the Rage subdomain of Destruction is better, if he can get it with the VMC. It should be about as legal as taking inquisitions with it.

That one gives more rage rounds, and allows him a couple rage powers besides.

Kind of a give-and-take. Both would be earned at lvl 15 through VMC (despite the Inquisition normally getting rage at lvl 6 while Domain gets it at lvl 8). Inquisition treats your effective Barb level as (Inquisitor/Cleric) -3 while the Domain treats it as Cleric/2. So, at lvl 15 when you get it, the Inquisition gives you 12 effective Barb levels meaning you have Greater Rage while the Domain gives you only 7 effective Barb levels. The Inquisition gives you level-4 + wis rounds so, assuming 14 Wis for this kind of character, that's 13 rage rounds at lvl 15, compared to 15 for the Domain. The domain gives 1 rage power to start, and 3 total, but none of them can have a level requirement; that cuts out a lot of useful ones. Honestly, I'd consider the Inquisition version better. You're only about 1-2 rounds/day behind the Domain (depending on how much you invest in Wis), even at level 20, it's Greater Rage right from the start while the Domain never gets Greater Rage benefits. The Domain gets 3 rage powers, but excludes any with a level requirement which is all the totems above "lesser" tier, as well as several others, and your effective level caps at 10. The first power you get is also a bit lackluster for the domain; a single attack with a morale bonus to damage. The inquisition, instead, gives you an immediate action reprisal attack. The domain also gives you a bunch of spells you can't use anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No, don't listen to thaX; he is entirely incorrect. There are two things to consider here; the "effort category" of the weapon, and the "virtual effort category". Effort category is the light/one-handed/two-handed quality of a weapon (daggers are light, longswords are one-handed, greatswords are two-handed). Virtual effort category comes into play when you need to treat a weapon as something other than its normal effort category. For example, Phalanx Fighter can wield a two-handed spear or polearm one-handed while wearing a shield. This means that, for rules elements pertaining to how you wield or use the weapon, it no longer counts as two-handed but, instead, counts as one-handed. It occupies only one hand and also only takes one hand worth of attack economy for the purpose of TWF. It also only gains normal Str and Power Attack bonuses to damage rather than two-handed benefits. Additionally, rules elements that require wielding a two-handed weapon (eg. Pushing Assault) no longer function. You treat it as if you were wielding a one-handed weapon for all purposes except physical properties of the weapon such as HP and enchanting purposes (ie. if a rules element tells you to treat the weapon as one-handed, it doesn't have fewer HP nor does it qualify for enchantments that must be placed on a one-handed weapon).

There is one notable situation concerning the Lance. When wielding a Lance while mounted, it uses different wording that makes a large difference; instead of wielding it "one-handed", you wield it "in one hand". This is not applying a virtual effort category but, rather, providing an exception to the rules for wielding a two-handed weapon. Normally, wielding a two-handed weapon occupies two hands. Wield a Lance while mounted only occupies one hand, but does not change any other rules elements; it still counts as two-handed for any and all other purposes, including Str and Power Attack bonuses, feats like Pushing Assault, and subsuming your potential off-hand attack economy.

In summary, if the ability says you wield a normally two-handed weapon "one-handed" or "as a one-handed weapon", then you treat it as a one-handed weapon for everything except physical properties inherent to it as an object. But if it says, "in one hand", then it only frees up one of your hands for purposes that require a free hand (eg. guiding your mount with reins, using a shield, catch/deflect arrows, etc).

That having been said, there's only one valid option I can see for this person to TWF with large bastard swords and that is to use Sunblades. Sunblades are Bastard Swords and deal damage as Bastard Swords, but are wielded easily as if they were Shortswords (light weapons). So a medium character can treat Large Sunblades as if they were large shortswords and their virtual effort category becomes one-handed; so he's wielding a pair of one-handed weapons. But keep in mind he'd probably do somewhat sub-par damage like this, especially compared to someone wielding, say, a pair of Sawtooth Sabres or Kukri/Wakazashi.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Base" refers to the normal speed without other bonuses. Base speed is reduced by encumbrance. So lets say your Base Speed is 40 feet, and you're wearing medium or heavy armor. That reduces your Base Speed from 40 to 30 feet. Now, lets say you get some feature that grants you a +10 bonus to movement speed. You add that +10 after you reduce the base speed from armor or encumbrance, so your final speed is 40 feet (30 reduced base + 10 bonus). By contrast, if it were a +10 bonus to your base speed, then that is a bonus increasing the base, before you adjust for reduced movement speed. Other movement that is derived from base speed would benefit from this, but it would also be subject to reduction from armor or encumbrance. So now, using the same example parameters as above, your base speed goes up to 50 and reduced speed for 50 is 35 feet.

Land specifies a movement type; over land is considered the default, but when it's specified, it's important. Other modes include fly, swim, and climb. A bonus to base land speed means that, for the purposes of land speed (and land speed only), you treat your base speed as if it were the appropriate value higher. So, if all the parameters have been correctly given in your situation, then the other guy is actually correct; the bonus to base land speed only applies to land movement and it would be reduced by armor or encumbrance. It's similar to the effect of Ant Haul which treats your strength as if it were higher, but only for the purpose of calculating encumbrance level; you can't use Ant Haul to qualify for Str prereqs and you can't use an increase to your base land speed to derive a larger value for your fly speed.


Oh, another thing I just thought of if you decide to take Cleric VMC. Since you won't have any spellcasting as a Fighter, a Domain isn't very useful to you so pick up an Inquisition instead. Anger or Tactics inquisitions would both be very nice. Fervor is also very good. Another possibility is to go for Warpriest to more fully combine Fighter and Cleric abilities. You'll be far less Fighter and far more Cleric so, if you're looking for a stronger Fighter lean, then disregard.


Well, unless you're interested in specific rules elements reliant on worshiping Szuriel specifically or one of the horsemen in general, the choice of deity is largely arbitrary for a Fighter.

A Fighter has plenty of feats so it wouldn't be disadvantageous to take advantage of VMC and, maybe, take on Cleric as your secondary class. That will give you Channel Energy at lvl 7 which, in turn, opens up Aura of Succumbing. This makes dying foes within the aura bleed out faster and (more importantly), whenever a foe dies within the aura, you gain temporary HP. You'll need to put a bit more into Charisma to, mind you, but that just makes you more intimidating and opens up possibilities to take advantage of intimidation feats like Dazzling Display. It can also open up Eldritch Heritage for a bloodline like Orc or Abyssal which give a Str bonus option for the Improved level of the feat.

As for archetypes, Two-handed Fighter is good since you're already focusing on a two-handed weapon. Weapon Master might also be good if you're fully and solely devoted to using the Greatsword, as you'll get early weapon training. Last option might be Gladiator (if you go for Cleric VMC) as it will leverage that inflated Charisma score so you can do impromptu performance combat and get "free" benefits mid-combat.

Additionally, if you do go Cleric VMC, you'll be a little bit MAD so take the Human alternate racial that gives you the two +2 attribute option. You trade out your Human starting feat and bonus skill point, but it's best for MAD characters. If you decide against the VMC option, go for Focused Study instead. It trades your single general feat lvl 1 for 3 Skill Focus feats at levels 1, 8, and 16. Since you won't have a broad range of skills as a Fighter, focusing on a select few important ones can be a significant advantage.


Hank Daggerknife


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

@ Kazaan: I didn't realize there was more than one kind of Hybrid. For the last couple fights, I've been wading into melee, but I do throw out the occasional combat utility spell (Burning Disarm, Summon Nature's Ally, etc).

Since I have the relevant Summon Monster Feats, the summons are fairly durable and can create a good enough distraction for the bad guys. (They certainly lack AC though.) The only thing that could make this better would be to be able to summon them as a Standard Action instead.

Druid is, by and large, an "Arm" class if following the Forge combat model. Your job is to buff up the group so they hit harder and tank better. You're a support class so damage isn't really your job. But it could be a side-job since you have Wildshape. I phrased it in reference to hybrid cars; some hybrid cars only use the electric motors to assist the engine and improve gas mileage while other hybrid cars can shut off the engine entirely and run completely on electric. In terms of a hybrid assist/bruiser, do you want to be able to continue supporting your group even while dishing out supplemental damage (electric assist only) or do you want to be able to drop the support role entirely when it isn't needed and be a dedicated front-line damage dealer? Both approaches have their merits.

For some fights, you don't really need support. Support helps cut fights short and is more effective for longer, harder fights. For short little skirmishes, having a completely dedicated support is kind of a waste of party space. A "switch hybrid" Druid could just drop into Wildshape and help maul the enemies that much faster; dead enemies tend not to be as dangerous as the live ones. This won't be useful when you go up against anything challenging; in those cases, you'd want to stick to supporting your team. On the flip-side, you could be a "parallel hybrid" where you are continuing to support your team even from the front. You'll still want to let your dedicated tank and damage dealer do most of the dirty work, but you'll be in there, setting up flanks or using aid another, but still throwing down spells when necessary, just from much closer to the combat. Which sounds more your style? Everyone can better focus in that general direction if we know your preference. Also, does your team have a dedicated Hammer and Anvil member?


Shield Brace is probably going to be your best bet. It still lets you retain 2-h wielding of your weapon despite wearing a shield. Alternatively, if you're aiming for a more defensive character, don't worry about weapon training and leave the damage dealing to another character in your group. I mean, you're already making a "phalanx of 1 person" so, right from the get-go, it it's a "phalanx-inspired character" and not a "phalanx character". Maybe get down to the actual character you are designing; a lone Hoplite. Normally, hoplites would work together to form a Phalanx. The damage of an individual soldier wasn't so pertinent as the threat that the entire formation posed. It was primarily a defensive formation to prevent opposing forces from reaching your rear forces and to gain entrenchment into your opponent's territory. It only makes sense to be wielding the longspear in such a formation when you have the formation. If you won't, just use a one-handed spear. Even better, maybe go more for a Roman Legionnaire style which was a more versatile and robust improvement on the Greek Phalanx. Hoplites in a phalanx were typically conscripts; farmers with a shield and sword rather than professional soldiers. But the Romans used far more professional soldiers. They'd use versatile weapons and tools and such. So, if you are aiming for more of a Hoplite non-professional fighter, go for the Phalanx Fighter archetype and don't sweat the loss of Weapon Training; focus on defense and let the actual damage dealers dish out the damage. Or go for a Legionnaire style, grab a shield brace and a tower shield and a longspear with a gladius as a sidearm and have at them.


In Psionics Unleashed (3pp for Pathfinder), the Elan were changed from Aberration to Humanoid(Aberrant), so there's that.


Well, I guess it depends on what kind of "hybrid" you are going for. Are you going for a battery assist only hybrid, or are you looking for a full-electric cruise option? What is your primary role in the party?


Z. Zedduces wrote:
Yeah, I think so. Not sure how a Dire Rat falls into a Celestial Archtype, but ok.

Dire just means big, aggressive, and dangerous; not inherently evil. Dire Rats are big, aggressive, and dangerous; you're just summoning one that lives in Elyssium rather than on the Material plane. A Celestial Dire Rat is no more or less viable than a Fiendish Dire Rat or even just a mundane Dire Rat from the Material Plane.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
I think that's the way to think about it, except that spellcasters without Spellstrike don't have enough control over their magic (and their fists) to deliver a spell effectively with an actual unarmed strike.

Actually, they do. Anyone, not just those using Spellstrike, can deliver a touch spell using an Unarmed Strike or Natural Weapon.

PRD/Combat wrote:
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren't considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack normally doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack. If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Is the bird Garundi or Avistani?

I don't know... AAAAAAAAAAAAaaaahhhhhhhh......


Feat: Genre Savvy
Prerequisite: 1 rank in any Knowledge skill
Benefit: You may reference an OOC information source (such as a Bestiary) in place of making a Knowledge check. You may not use this in place of an untrained Knowledge check. You can use this ability 3 times per day.


You need to understand that "hitting" in the PF system (as well as HP, for that matter) is an abstracted concept that doesn't just encompass contact. A "hit" in this system means your attack had a meaningful effect upon the target. A "miss" means that it didn't. You might "miss" because your aim was bad and you hit empty air, or because you would have hit but the target juked it, or because your attack glanced off their armor. It's that part that really sets the pace; you might actually "hit" your target without scoring a "hit" as far as the system is concerned. The d20 check is boolean in nature so far as hit or miss is concerned. You don't really know if you "missed" because of bad aim on your part, good dodging on their part, or because of a bad angle against their armor. And a hit doesn't really indicate whether you scored a solid, dead-on hit or you barely nicked them. You might rock an attack roll of 55 against their AC of 15, but still roll low on your damage. Likewise, you could beat their AC by just 1 point, but get a max damage x4 crit. Moreover, with HP also being an abstraction for your vigor and "fighting mojo", even if the armor did absorb the hit, it's still fatiguing to get hit even while wearing armor. Even attacks that never contact flesh can bring a target down by pummeling their armor enough.

Ultimately, it's a matter of give-and-take; they abstracted the system to reduce bookkeeping. If you want to make it more realistic, that inherently means more bookkeeping. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Moreover, once you start introducing the concept of armor "taking the damage for you", you start getting into the realm of "how much damage can the armor absorb before the armor, itself, suffers damage? For that, you need a way to determine whether the "miss" was due to you not getting hit, or the attack going *ping* off the armor.

That having been said, personally, I think the armor should give both AC and some DR. If you really want to get down to it, the attack roll should roll 2x d20 rolls. The higher of the two rolls targets AC as normal and the lower of the two targets touch AC. If you score a hit for both, then you deal full damage, no DR applies. If you hit against normal but miss against touch, you deal damage but the armor's DR applies to the damage. If you miss against normal but hit against touch, their armor absorbed the attack and might suffer damage itself. If you miss against both, then it's a total miss; you never touched them.


Well, given that we have half-construct and half-undead subtypes, why not design one for half-aberration? Give some benefits of aberrations, but in a lesser form. Say, they get a +2 bonus to saves against effects that target Humanoids and a +4 bonus to AC against critical confirmation rolls? And they can qualify for rules elements as if they were aberrations; you can give them racial traits that require Aberration, but they are also vulnerable to Favored Enemy, Bane, etc.


I guess it really depends on what you envision as the details for your race. When you say "created magically", do you mean something along the line of growing living tissue and then animating it to life? Or do you mean something more along the lines of conjuring a living being directly out of magical energies? Or maybe something like combining Stone to Flesh with some kind of animating magic?

Half-Construct is also a possibility; a being with a construct endo-skeletal frame but living organs and other tissues, for instance. But, regarding the Aberration type, it is defined as applying to creatures with 1) Bizarre Anatomy, 2) Strange Abilities, 3) Alien Mindset, or 4) some combination of those factors. If you create a creature that pays respect to all normal biological factors, doesn't have any "strange abilities" that living creatures normally wouldn't possess, and has a mindset comparable to other sentient beings, then it wouldn't qualify as an Aberration.

So, here are your best options:

1) 3-D printed: Use Humanoid(Half-Construct). A constructed skeletal frame but with living organs and other tissues grown over top of it and vitalized by magic.

2) Formed from stone: Sculpt the form of the creature from stone then combine Stone to Flesh with Wish to make make it "a real boy". If it is generally Humanoid in shape, use Humanoid or Monstrous Humanoid the type as appropriate. If it is "weird", use Aberration instead.

3) Adult Birthed: Get your Genesis on and combine transmutation, conjuration, and maybe Wish to form a ready-to-go body out of the dust and dirt, transmute it into a fully-functional living body, pull Positive energy into it, and infuse it with a soul. Again, Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, or Aberration as appropriate.


"Most prevalent" doesn't necessarily mean greatest quantity.

Prevalent can mean "superior in force or power" and comes from the same Latin root from which we get the word "prevail". In a more archaic usage, it can mean "effectual or efficacious". When attacking with a spear, the strength of the tip prevails because it is the effectual end; the "business end" of the weapon, if you will. But when attacking a spear, the strength of the shaft prevails; or doesn't if you deal enough damage.


It still uses the same language, establishing a difference between a "touch attack" and "resolve as touch attacks". Something like Scorching Ray is an "actual" Touch attack and is treated, in all ways, as a "touch attack". Early and Advanced Firearms are not Touch attacks, and are treated in all ways not as Touch attacks, with the singular exception that within a certain number of range increments, they resolve against Touch AC, despite not being touch attacks nor counting as such for other purposes. It is a specific and narrow exception. In the case of technological firearms, their "resolve against Touch AC" clause is always in effect, not limited by range increments, but otherwise is the same kind of specific and narrow exception, only applying AC factors, but not affecting other rules elements such as Deadly Aim.


Xaimum Mafire wrote:

It's the attacking with a limb that you've already attacked with that bothers me, not the casting through a weapon. Doing that from a full attack with +6 BAB doesn't bother me because of the huge penalties on the iterative attacks that represent how difficult it is to attack that quickly in a short period.

It just feels like you shouldn't be able to essentially two-weapon fight with a single weapon, especially when you're casting a spell AND focusing that spell though a weapon that you're in middle of swinging.

It's absolutely no different than casting a quickened touch spell in the middle of a normal full-attack. In fact, barring the increased slot from using metamagic, a quickened spell is better because you don't even get the -2 penalty from Spell Combat. You could Full-Attack at +6 BAB and get +6/+6/+1 by using a quickened Shocking Grasp. It's only the actual process of casting the spell that uses your off-hand attack economy in Spell Combat, the attack to deliver the touch spell is completely divorced from any kind of attack economy and should not even be considered as either an off-hand or a main-hand attack; thus having already used your main-hand weapon for your attacks is a moot point.


master_marshmallow wrote:

I don't know, the language seems inclusive since the ability treats you as a different class, rather than giving you an effective level.

The difference is subtle, but important. Uncanny Dodge references the opponent's effective rogue level, and has no stipulation on what class it comes from.

Martial Training specifically says treat your level as x. If you already have levels of x, you shouldn't automatically assume that the abilities that function identically (be they intrinsic or not) do not function as written.

To clarify, Uncanny Dodge and/or Sneak Attack require language to allow them to stack across different classes because they aren't themselves class levels. Since you have effective fighter levels, RAI implies that other fighter levels will stack, because you have apples, and a different kind of apple, but they are still apples.

In any case, I would recommend asking the DM before attempting to build a character assuming one rule or the other.

If I'm preparing a recipe that calls for 12 apples, it wouldn't matter much what kind of apples I use. But if it specifically calls for 12 Granny Smith apples, it does. Likewise, Caster Level doesn't stack between spellcasting classes unless provided with an explicit exception. If you want to rationalize it, a Fighter and a Brawler are using fighting systems that are different enough that they don't cross-train with one another; you can take Weapon Specialization with 4 levels of Fighter experience, or you can substitute 4 levels of Brawler experience for those 4 levels of Fighter experience, but you can't use 2 levels of each. By the same reasoning, if an ability lets you use your levels in Bluff in place of your levels in Diplomacy for a feat prerequisite, you wouldn't say that, automatically, you get to combine both, would you? Now, if it said outright that they stack, sure. But the point is that it needs to say that they stack. If they wanted Brawler levels to stack with Fighter levels, they need to write that in. You might presume intent, but that doesn't count for much unless the written rules match that intent.


Ultimate Magic/Magus wrote:
Fighter Training (Ex): Starting at 10th level, a magus counts 1/2 his total magus level as his fighter level for the purpose of qualifying for feats. If he has levels in fighter, these levels stack.
ACG/Brawler wrote:
Martial Training (Ex): At 1st level, a brawler counts her total brawler levels as both fighter levels and monk levels for the purpose of qualifying for feats. She also counts as both a fighter and a monk for feats and magic items that have different effects based on whether the character has levels in those classes (such as Stunning Fist or a monk's robe). This ability does not automatically grant feats normally granted to fighters and monks based on class level, such as Stunning Fist.

Note the significant difference between the two. Magus's Fighter Training explicitly specifies that, if you have levels in Fighter, the fighter-equivalent levels you gain from Fighter Training will stack with actual Fighter levels. By contrast, Brawler's Martial Training has no such specification. Therefore, a character with levels in both Brawler and Fighter uses either their Brawler level or their Fighter level, whichever is higher, for the purpose of feat prerequisites as well as feats that function differently based on class.


Squiggit wrote:

@Kazaan: That's all well and good, but it's largely a difference without distinction. The only meaningful difference between using magical energy to create flame or using magical energy to summon flame from the plane of fire is how you describe it. Likewise the only difference between 2e's necromancy healing and 3e's conjuration healing is how you describe it.

And if you stretch it far enough you can describe a pretty significant number of spells and effects from a conjurer's perspective. Which is why I'm not sure it's great design space to explore.

Drejk wrote:
And there is unclear overlap between them, especially Conjuration and Evocation, but also Necromancy and Transmutation.
Necromancy and Enchantment too. Most fear based mind-effecting abilities end up being given to the former despite being completely in line with the latter's sphere.

There are certain distinctions. For instance, if interplanar travel were blocked, Conjuration to call up Fire energy from the Fire plane would not function while Evocation to generate fire on the spot would have no problem. It also opens up possibilities for creatures with elemental or alignment subtypes to draw upon their own personal energies to fuel their magic, such as refreshing an expended usage of a spell/SLA of the appropriate type using their own HP.


Drejk wrote:
Another argument is that manipulation of energy should fall under Evocation instead of Conjuration (and there shouldn't be spells like 3.5 acid/cold/fire/lightning orb as moving things from Evocation purview to Conjuration).

Well, to be fair, Evocation deals with using magic energy to create objects or effects while Conjuration deals with moving fundamental energy, as well as other things, between or through the planes. So if you are using magical energy to increase the temperature of the air until it sparks a fire, that's Evocation. Whereas, if you open up a small conduit to the Elemental Fire plane and bring Fire energy (note the capitalization), that's Conjuration. Handling Negative and Positive energy, by and large, should be matters of Conjuration because there is no physical parity for these energies as there are for the four elemental forces. Fire energy from the Fire plane shares a certain parity with physical forces that generate fire. In Norse Runes, there are three that represent fire. Fehu which is "Raw Fire" or "Primal Fire"; the fire of Muspelheim representing motion and expansion which, in conjunction with the primal fire of Nifelheim, created the multiverse of Norse mythology. Then, you have Kenaz, the Torch Fire, which represents fire under control by humans; fire used to bring light, to cook food, to warm yourself, or to cremate the dead all fall under the scope of Kenaz. Lastly, you have Naudhiz, sometimes translated as "need-fire", or as "friction". It represents the despair we experience in life, but also how that despair leads us to great accomplishments. In other words, "no pain, no gain". If you apply this kind of thinking to uses of fire in Pathfinder, you could say that the Fire energy, nascent to the Elemental Plane of Fire, and which composes the bodies of Outsiders with the Fire subtype, is like the Primal Fire of Fehu. Magically generated fire made through Evocation, rather than called by Conjuration, could be equated to Naudhiz; spawned by magically generated friction. Lastly, mundane fire, the kind you spark using flint and steel, can fall under Kenaz. If you expand this concept to encompass Positive/Negative energy, we have the Primal energy types, nascent to their home planes, called forth to power living and undead bodies. Then, we'd have magically generated life; I can't really think of a pertinent example, but this would be life (or unlife) sparked through "magical friction" without drawing on the energy planes and, like evoked fire, shares physical parity with the principals of our normal understanding of biological principals. Lastly, is mundane healing not involving magic.


I guess this revolves around the more fundamental question of, "is the damage caused by an object created by a spell considered damage from the spell itself?" If you had a hypothetical metamagic that caused spells with the Fire descriptor to cause burning damage over time, would that extend to the damage caused by a Flame Blade? What about the damage caused by Produce Flame? If you use Summon Monster to summon an Ice Elemental, then Summon Monster gains the cold descriptor; could you summon an Ice Elemental with a Rimed Summon Monster and then have the attacks of the Ice Elemental carry the Rime effect?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another weird interaction:

Conjuration magic involves interplanar and intraplanar transport of objects, creatures, and energies. Conjuring fire involves pulling Fire energy from the Fire plane, for instance. Healing fits well as a sub-category of Conjuration because you are pulling Positive energy from the PEP. But spells that involve pulling Negative energy from the NEP, which should be a sub-category of Conjuration magic, are instead given their own whole school of magic (Necromancy). Realistically, shouldn't Necromancy be a sub-category of Conjuration magic, alongside Healing?

1 to 50 of 5,329 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.