Leisner's page

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is a Heightened Dazing Fireball in a 7th level slot a 4th level or 7th level spell for the purpose of saving throws? I've never heard this debate resolved. The way heighten is written, I'm tempted to think 7th level. Also: how does heighten interact with Magical Lineage? Would casting a Heightened Fireball from a level 3 spell slot result in a 4th level saving throw?

I would say it depends on the sequence in which you apply the metamagic feats. You are allowed to apply feats in any order you want.

If you apply the Dazing Spell first, and then Heighten Spell, the spell would be +3 for both saving throw and spell slot.

An example.
The Fireball.
If you apply Dazing Spell first, it becomes a 6th level spell, then you apply the Heighten Spell, and the saving throw DC is as if it is a 6th level spell (or higher if you want). The daze period stays as 3 rounds.
Now if you apply the Heighten Spell first, you gain nothing unless to raise the spell level to 4 or higher, so a Heighten Fireball 4th level would become a 7th level spell when Dazing Spell were applied, having a saving throw as a 4th level spell, but having 4 rounds of daze.

I believe this to be RAW. I'm quite certain of the first part. There is nothing that stops you from applying a Heighten Spell to a spell without raising the level. You could take a 3rd level spell and "raise" the spell to 3, just as you could take a Dazing Fireball spell (6th level) and raise it to 7th level, and thus gain a +4 on the saving throw for a 1 spell level increase.

I'm not as certain about the second part, because that depends entirely on the interpretation of "original spell".

Also, a Magical Lineage does interact with Heighten Spell. Why should that be the only metamagic feat it does not interact with? And the feat states that "A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal", this means just that. It does not mean that it has to be cast as a higher spell level, it means that it has a higher spell level, so metamagic reducers (which are pretty much always banned in my games BTW) does lower the spell slot required to cast it. A Heighten Fireball level 5 with Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter, cast as a 3rd level spell, but gets the DC from a 5th level spell.

Some other shenanigans you can do with these, you probably know these, but here goes.

Produce Flame, a 1st level Druid spell, coupled with Dazing Spell and the metamagic reducers, and it is a 2nd level spell. Now this lets you attack a number of creatures a round as you have attacks, unfortunately it requires a touch attack (ranged or melee), and Dazing gives you a save versus the daze effect. Will save though. Now you can quicken this spell with a simple lesser Rod of Quicken Spell, and use all your attacks for the round (unfortunately Rapid Shot does not allow you to get an extra attack AFAIK). This might not look as effective as a Fireball or Burning Arc, but it does allow you to get an awful lot of balls of flame (1 per level), and it also lets you attack the same target over and over, practically ensuring the daze effect, which, unfortunately, only last for a round. You could still stun-lock the BBEG quite effectively, while dealing a little damage on the side.
You could make a 1 level dib in Admixture, get Rime Spell, and then everyone that you hit, that isn't immune to frost damage, is entangled. Not all that effective, but you can do it.

Another fun one is the Flaming Sphere.
Again with the reducers, this is a 3rd level spell, so it can be quickened with a lesser rod. If you are a conjurer with the subschool of teleportation, you can move around the battlefield with a swift action that doesn't provoke AoOs, move the sphere with a move action, and cast spells with a standard action.
You can also sprinkle some Acadamae Graduate on top, so now your Summon Monster spells only take a standard action (you might become fatigued, so, Oh no! You can't run when you are fatigued! And you become exhausted if you fail twice, Oh noes! You now move at half speed! You also get a bit of penalty to the Dex, still a bargain).
Also, elves can get more teleportations a day with their favourite class option. They can dimension door as a swift action around 13 times a day, for 20ft at level 8.
A fun PrC for this one is the Bloatmage. His biggest drawback is that he cannot move, Conjuration/Teleportation fixes that, and now he has something to do with that move action.

Leisner wrote:

In history, there is no longsword like the one presented in D&D. It is an D&D invention, or a distortion of the arming sword.

Respectfully, this statement is bull-pucky. The late Roman Spatha, Viking Sword, Celtic War sword, Straight bladed Arab and Turkish swords, all fall under the single handed "longsword" category. Later in european history (10-13th centuries) the hand and a half sword became more popular as plate armor improved, and much later than that the 2 handed models (13th -15th iirc?) were used to break up pike formations. A light, fast, single handed sword was the single best weapon for almost a millennium.

But yes, the overall weapons classification is a bit muddled, but I find it works best that way. one handed, long straight blade, slashing weapon? LS. Done

The name longsword was specifically used because it had a longer blade than any of those. There is no "single-handed longsword". Why not call it an arming sword, a war sword, a straight sword or just a sword. Hell they could be calling it a broadsword, and it would be far more correct than longsword.

Calling a one-handed only sword a "longsword" is akind to saying that the Falchion is a two-handed Scimitar, when the two have actually very little in common. The one is a fast and agile stabbing and slashing sword often used by cavalry because of its lightness, the other is a meatcleaver. Or that the Claive and Naginata are two different weapons, when they are both a curved blade put on a stick.

Edit: The Zweihänder was used in only a short period of the late 15th century to half-way through the 16th. And was used more like a polearm, a friend of mine (former actually, but that is another story) uses a zweihänder in reenactments, he showed me how to used it to brace for a charge. It wasn't really used "to break up pike formation" per se, not alone at least, but used in the front line of said formations.

When you summon a monster, they can't use some of their powers due to:

A summoned monster cannot summon or otherwise conjure another creature, nor can it use any teleportation or planar travel abilities. Creatures cannot be summoned into an environment that cannot support them. Creatures summoned using this spell cannot use spells or spell-like abilities that duplicate spells with expensive material components (such as wish).

Yes, this means that True Seeing is out *cries*, and so is Continual Flame, Commune and Wish. As is Dimension Door (teleportation effect) and Plane Shift.

Those were the ones I spotted in the summoning list.

You can get both by being a wizard and taking two feats, Skill Focus: Knowledge (smurfs) and Eldritch Heritage (Arcane).

Enchanting shields with shield spikes.

How do you enchant a shield with a shield spike? Do you enchant the spikes separately? Or is there some rule I have missed?

Can you take 10 on a craft magic item roll? I see no rule that says otherwise, so I assume you can, but with such an important roll I would like a definitive ruling.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Leisner wrote:

The real world longsword were a bastard sword (hand-and-a-half sword), or a claymore (the difference between the claymore and the longswordn is the hilt. The claymore's hilt is V-shaped, whereas the longsword is shaped like a cross). The originally Scottish Gaelic is claidheamh mòr, meaning great sword.

In history, there is no longsword like the one presented in D&D. It is an D&D invention, or a distortion of the arming sword. Of course, classification of weapons are not a precise thing (just look at the morningstar weapon), but this never did exists.
Hell, D&D is rife with distortions of real world weapons (the falchion is two-handed? How does that work?)

While this is true, you can go even further. After the Longsword (Bastard Sword/Hand-and-a-half Sword) came into more predominant use, the arming sword was largely regulated to side-arm status and called a short-sword.

So if the name "Longsword" starts to apply to Bastard Sword as an alternate name, and the d8 Longsword gets downgraded to "Arming Sword" or "Short-sword" then what do we call the d6 short-sword to distinguish it from the arming sword? Sure, you could just call the d8 weapon an Arming Sword, and the d6 weapon a Short-Sword but then we'd be right back to square one with the same problem we had with the Longsword in the first place (except now instead of the longsword and bastard sword being technically the same, instead we're talking about the short-sword and the arming sword being technically the same.)

tl;dr - If you stick too hard to real-world analogies, things tend to fall apart easier.

Wikipedia - Classification of Swords

Which is why I wrote that weapon classification is not a precise thing.

But it doesn't fall apart. Short sword is just a category of swords, not a type of sword. Again D&D got it completely wrong. There should never be a type of sword called short sword, unless you go the way of Warhammer, and use classification such as "main weapon" and "great weapon".
Short sword just means a sword with a blade shorter than one meter.

My peeve is that the name longsword is used for something it never was, and the other names for the same sword is used for two other, distinctive, swords. Longsword and Bastard Sword are the same weapon, and should all function, mechanically, like the bastard sword (to a degree at least). Of course, great sword also refers to longsword and other large sword types, like the two-handed sword.

When you use real world references, D&D does fall apart rather quickly. Just look at how armour is handled (you can run in full plate, hell you can do cartwheels, well someone can, I can't, but I can't do cartwheels outside armour).
It is a darn shame that D&D is so far removed from the real world. I prefer my fantasy a bit closer to what is reality (not counting magic of course).

And it is not "chain mail", it is just mail! Plate mail means that there is both plate and mail. Mail is small rings joined together to create armour. The chain part is a pleonasm.

Edit: History nerd rant is over, move along, nothing to see here.

The real world longsword were a bastard sword (hand-and-a-half sword), or a claymore (the difference between the claymore and the longswordn is the hilt. The claymore's hilt is V-shaped, whereas the longsword is shaped like a cross). The originally Scottish Gaelic is claidheamh mòr, meaning great sword.
In history, there is no longsword like the one presented in D&D. It is an D&D invention, or a distortion of the arming sword. Of course, classification of weapons are not a precise thing (just look at the morningstar weapon), but this never did exists.
Hell, D&D is rife with distortions of real world weapons (the falchion is two-handed? How does that work?)

Another thing to remember, is that real world infantry combat were rarely a man-to-man affair, and most often a group combat thing, which is a quite different beast altogether.
The pike, one of the most important weapons in medieval and renaissance Europe, is a lot more difficult to use effectively man-to-man than in a group.

Leisner wrote:

Couldn't you just make a custom magical quiver, based on the spell abundant ammunition?

If my calculations are correct, it would cost 8000 gp to get a magical container that would copy any non-magical ammunition (including masterwork and paper cartridges).

That should prove a whole lot cheaper than a +2 enchantment.

Edit: the +2 enhancement cost, at minimum, 17000 gp (18000 for the minimum +3 enchantment -1000 for the +1 enchantment that both can use)

That was one of the first items I had made for my ranger. Abundant ammunition on a quiver is pretty handy.

By the formulas under creations rules, you end up with (1)(1)(2,000)(1.5)= 3,000gp for the price of the item, meaning you can create it for 1,500gp. My GM decided that was a fair price to pay to quit tracking arrows.

That is not the correct price (but neither were mine).

The formulae is (Spell level x caster level x 2,000 gp) time 3 for a spell effect meassured in minutes. So the cost is 6000.

Only if your GM agrees to it. Of course, when he compares it to the weapon property, he may not price it to your satisfaction... :)

Well, obviously, with it being some 9000 gp cheaper than the enhancement's minimum cost, not taking up precious enhancement bonus and not taking up a slot space.

:P

Couldn't you just make a custom magical quiver, based on the spell abundant ammunition?
If my calculations are correct, it would cost 8000 gp to get a magical container that would copy any non-magical ammunition (including masterwork and paper cartridges).

That should prove a whole lot cheaper than a +2 enchantment.

Edit: the +2 enhancement cost, at minimum, 17000 gp (18000 for the minimum +3 enchantment -1000 for the +1 enchantment that both can use)

Ravingdork wrote:

Not in Pathfinder that I'm aware of, TCG. There was such a thing in a hard to find online article on the v3.5 D&D web site though.

I know there is a spell. Perhaps that's what I'm thinking of.

Well, I guess you could make it as a custom magical item, for, oh 8000...

(1st level spell * 1 caster level * 2000 for an "use-activated or continuous" effect * 4 for spell effect measured in rounds, for course, that would make the item duplicate any non-magical ammo with Abundant Ammunition)

Edit: Forgot the times four for a spell measured in rounds.

Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules.

I don't have a problem with this item. It's gone through the Paizo development process, and is therefore clearly balanced and written in such a way as to be consistent with the general Paizo understanding of what the rules mean and how they should be applied. Unlike your typical 3rd party product that shows no understanding of the game mechanics, fails to follow the usual item syntax, and is horrifically overpowered.

I give this item my seal of approval and suggest that it should show up in every game.

;)

Preferably in the hands of the enemy, a bugbear wizard named Karlhp (the p is silent), and can only be used by by bugbear wizards named Karlhp (the p is silent).

I dunno if you would call it a rule bending trick, but it is a fun trick nonetheless.

Toppling Spell + Magic Missile.

Get Magical Lineage or Wayang Spellhunter with it, and it is still a 1st level spell.

Tenebrous Spell gives it a +1 to CL.
Spell Focus is +1 CL.
Spell Specialization adds another +2 to CL.
Varisian Tattoo for +1 CL.
Bloat Mage Initiate is +1 CL.
I'm not sure they stack though, they should IMHO.
If they do stack, you can have CL 9 for 5 missiles at level 5 (Toppling Spell and Spell focus at level 1, Spell Specialization at level 3, and Varisian Tatoo or Bloat Mage Initiate at level 5).
5 trip attempts, at a CMB of 9 + attribute modifier, probably around 4 or 5, with a final CMB of 13-14, at level 5, is not too shabby, for a level 1 spell. And it increases in potency as you level up, few level 1 spells does that, CMD does catch up, slowly, with full BAB characters though.

It gets a little silly when you combine Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter (spell level 1 (spell) +1 (feat) -1 (trait) -1 (trait) =0 or cantrip).
You could argue that "regular" spells can't be turned into cantrips, because there are special rules for cantrips, but cantrips are regular spells, there are just special rules for casting them.
I would personally never allow this, nor do it, and I hope I am wrong and have missed a rule somewhere. Metamagic reducers should never be allowed IMHO, they open up for a whole lotta abuse.

Also, Merciful Spell + Magical Lineage/Wayang Spellhunter with a level 1 spell, and it is a cantrip. Can even work with Heighten Spell or Tenebrous Spell, though the last one is limited to shadow spells.
Or both Magical Lineage and Wayang Spellhunter + one of the above metamagic feats, and a 2nd level spell is a cantrip.
This is, however, clearly in the bending-of-the-rules part IMHO.

One use of this, could be a Magus with Frigid Touch. Put Magical Lineage and Wayan Spellhunter on it, take Merciful Spell and cast Frigid Touch all day long. Sure, its damage is now non-lethal, but you stagger your enemy, without a save, with each hit.

Another, completely unrelated, trick, which in no way is rule bending, but often overlooked, is the trip/disarm strength of the lowly lightning elemental you get from Summon Monster II. Now these are weak as a kitten, but when used against, say, an archer-ranger (few non-druids use non-metallic armours at these levels), you can make a trip or disarm attempt at a CMB of 11 (13 with augment summoning). With a level 3 spell, you can get, at minimum with Superior Summoning, 2 of these, probably disabling the archer completely, at least for a couple of rounds.
The trick does peter out at around 7th level though, as the CMD of any archer target will get too high. But then you should be able to summon stronger things by then.
It doesn't work all to well against opponents with AoOs, as they are, as mentioned, quite weak, and might very well die before they can do anything.
One benefit of them trying to disarm an archer, is that the disarm combat manoeuvre let you automatically pick up the weapon you have disarmed, if you do not wield a weapon yourself. Lightning elementals are even often proficient with simple weapons (they are often humanoid shaped), so can use a "borrowed" crossbow against your enemies.

It has been fixed. Or was never broken; I don't actually know.

Good to know.

I'm somewhat new to PF, but it was legal in 3.5

(still, I somehow missed it when reading the spell on PFSRD, which is kinda embarrassing)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is the "misuse Summon Monster SLA", unless it has finally been fixed.

With Summon Monster III, you can get a Lantern Archon that can cast Continual Flame at will.
A master summoner casting this at level 5, could have 10 of these for 5 minutes each. That is 5 (minutes) * 10 (rounds in a minute) * 10 (number of SMIII) for a total number of 500 continual flame torches per day.

So a master summoner could easily deck out an entire village with with continual, maintaining free, non-flammable light.
The negated fire hazard alone should earn him the eternal thanks, and quite a bit of cash, from the town folks.

And then there is the Glabrezu. It has Wish for 1/month as a SLA. That is easily 10 wishes, material component free because it is a spell like ability, per day, for a master summoner.

Of course, this could have been changed, because it really should never have been part of D&D, and certainly not part of PF. Please tell me it has been fixed?