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

Maezer's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Pathfinder Society Member. 877 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 877 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Franko a wrote:


WBL in my opinion does not award good roleplaying and good roll-playing.

Wealth by level is a game balance guideline. It the tool by which authors/GMs can estimate some of the variable power of the party. If you have 10x WBL, then what challenges a 1x WBL party will probably be significantly easier for you. If your GM is customizing encounters based on the actual play of whats going on at the table, than by all means throw wealth by level out the window.

Fabricating instant wealth doesn't strike me as particularly good roleplaying either, irregardless of how much weight/size mathematics and the detailed compilation of what raw materials are consumed. Unless there is a lot more going on not mentioned, this looks like a hand my GM a printed list, and ask for the appropriate amount of coins in return.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The price of iron is irrelevant. The material to create a product, whether via fabricate or via mundane crafting is 1/3 the finished price of product.

You attempt to be less cheesy fails. Asking for an instant profit of 32,721gp for what an NPC would change 450gp+material compent cost. You ask how many 9th level wizards there are in the world?

Answer: Most large towns (population 2,000-5,000) have 5th level spell casting services available. Otherwise read as, anywhere that would want to buy 66,000gp worth of chain probably has them available.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Raw material to craft product X with value Y costs 1/3 of value Y. The are no recipies for crafting beyond that. But yes, you have found a path to infinite wealth. By RAW, pathfinder is not a very complicated economic simulator and can essily be broken.

If your game is interested in flushing out economic details expect the GM toake lots of house rules to make the ecomony less trival to manipulate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DrakeRoberts wrote:
Okay, but the question is, by RAW, can I choose them? Be it because I want to look like them, or I like their particular (granted) ability set, or whatever? Its for PFS, so I need to know rules-wise as opposed to functional-wise. Thanks!

At present nothing from mythic adventures is PFS legal without being list on an adveture record as it is not listed on the aditional resources page.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly the being blind doesn't really change anything. You still have to define you own arbitrary standards.

If you want a general answer, I'd go:

Viewed Once: spent rounds there. (And you can't see it currently)
Seen Casually: spent minutes there. (or you can see it currently)
Studied Carefully: spent tenss of minutes there. (or searched the room, for hidden stuff)
Very Familiar: spent hours there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Most people recoginize that hypotenuse of a 1" by 1" triangle is not equal to 1.5". Its an approximation to give the player easier numbers to work with than 1.41421" which would be more acurate.

The majority of time it works out in the players favor allowing for small diagonal corrections at no cost. Its only on fairly long diagonal runs that the difference exceeds a square of movement.

But if you and your players want a more accuate number, than please house rule a more accurate diagonal movement pattern. But for my game players have enough trouble with the 1 2 1 2 pattern.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The same reason they are personal rather than target person spells to begin with. When designing spells restricting the target to personal only allows the designer to put a little more power into them. Notably with regard to martial enhancing abilities.

That said, I can't tell you how many martial's I see walking around with cracked vibrant purple ioun stones to circumvent this restriction.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My knee jerk response is to drop spell combat. Force the magus to make the same cast or full attack trade that bards make.

That is probably will crush the class though. Instead perhaps have spell combat replace you highest bab attack in a full attack sequence while retaining the free hand requirement. I would probably also nix the ability of spellstrike to replace the free touch attack assoicated with touch spells. Though still allow discharge via a weapon attack is if it wrre an unarmed strike or natural weapon attack.

This puts you 1 attack behind a full bab character, but still allows for spellcasting and melee attacks in the same full round action.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Monkeygod wrote:


I mean, if I'm a Sorcerer, I can cast Shocking Grasp in round one, and forgo my free attack. Then, in the second round, I could hit my opponent with my staff, which would deal its normal weapon damage, and then the Shocking Grasp damage, correct?

No. Normally you can only discharge a held spell with a touch attack or a natural weapon/unarmed strike attack. Also the ability to trade in your free action touch attack for a free action damage dealing attack is non-trivial as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rogar Stonebow wrote:
Do you know where I can find this general consensus?

A charge is a specific full-round action, distinct and different from a full attack action. Thus you cannot combine them.

Otherwise everyone would take full attack actions after a charge, and pounce would have no value.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bob_the_monster wrote:

Is there a simple rule that prevents min-maxing and power gaming? Maybe some suggestion in the SRD that deals with this. Inevitably in my games, one player ends up creating a cheesy min-maxed silly character.

Play a different game. Since every choice you make that benefits the party or yourself can easily be defined as min-max (because there is a choice that would make you less effective) play a game with fewer choices.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Use the performance combat section of ultimate combat (same book as the Urban Barbarian.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Technically you get would get 2 separate similar abilities. But often its the result of a typo.

Ala, the pistoleer's pistol training not replacing the gunslinger's gun training (pre errata). But it was pretty obvious it was suppose to. Try to use common sense, and consult with the GM.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:

So here is my question:

If crafting personal magic items is it possible to make an item auto-cast something under certain circumstances?

I would assume just use standard spell pricing, and add in the cost for a contingency spell for however many charges/day. That would seem to be the best starting point at least. Possibly adjusting price based on how exacting/useful the predefined contingency trigger is in combination with the given spell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:


You're the second person to ask that in this thread. Does the existence of their separate entries in the CRB not mean the same thing to you as it does for me?

I see them as two clearly distinct items. Separate, with their own cost, and their own weight.

I can't be wrong on that, right? It's just people not cracking open their Core book and looking for themselves, right?

I see them as separate parts of the same item. Much like the a sword's hilt and a sword's blade. But I can indeed read that section of the core rulebook. Even under the shield spike heading on page 153, it says the 'spiked shield' can be made into a magic weapon, nothing to me implies that you enchant only the spikes independently from the shield.

Irregardless, what I can't do is find professionally published (preferably WotC/Paizo) material with stat blocks with character having +1 flaming (or anything weapon) enchant on their shield spikes particularly when the shield has a separate shield enchantment on it.

What I want is examples to work with. For example, if I wanted to state that the bashing property the the shield spike modification stack (argued at length on these boards), I could back it up by saying look at the Scarred Barbarian (NPC Codex, p. 25). The scarred barbarian NPC, by being a useable Paizo printed example amply demonstrates that the Bashing shield property and spike shield property both do seems to stack becoming a weapon that's base damage is 2d6. (Unfortunately the fact that the stat blocks appears to ignore that shield master eliminates the two-weapon fighting penalties and that it seems to treat the dwarven waraxe as a light weapon discredit this particular stat block a fair bit as well.)

I would be most appreciative if you happen to know where I could find some NPC stat blocks in published material with shield spikes enchanted as weapons I'd like to know where they are located. I do realize that the core rulebook does state that 'shields' and 'spiked shields' can be I would like to see stat blocks where it has been done. I think this will require more effort than just cracking the core rulebook.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mojorat wrote:
Does anyone have a book example of a shield being enchsnted seperate as a weapon? Usually its shield spikes that get enchanted.

I think the shield (spiked or otherwise) enchanted as a weapon is something authors avoid like the plague. I've tried to keep my eye out for a shield having both concurrent weapon and armor enchant (again spiked or normal) and never seen one in Wotc or Paizo print. That said I am curious as to where you have seen shields spikes enchanted separate from the shield.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In general, when using dimensional travel and arriving in solid object (ala Dimension Door, Blink) you a shunted to an available free space and take a minor amount of damage. I think this would qualify as a reasonable expectation as to what would occur, though I fully expect significant variance from GM to GM.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

1. No, its a musket with the battered quality. All the archetype does is eliminate your option to select a pistol or blunderbuss.

2. No. Early firearms explicitly state that you must reload each barrel individually. This remains true whether its a one handed firearm or two.

3. I don't see a question here.

4. In general if it says muskets it means musket in the same way longswords refers to a longsword. ie rapid reload (muskets) is different and non-inclusive of rapid reload (double-barrel muskets). If they want to be inclusive of all types of two-weapon firearms they will state such. Or if a particular weapon should benefit from abilities of a similar weapon (like longbows and composite longbows) it would state such in the weapon description.

I doubt you see a PFS specific ruling as this doesn't appear to a be a society specific question rather they appear to be general questions about game rules.


33 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Please tell me how you can do anything and have it not be offensive to someone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SlimGauge wrote:

I disagree. Figure the cost of your barding as if it was regular armor, all inclusive. Then multiply. Otherwise you can buy mithral Mammoth armor and dismantle it for a profit just from the weight of mithral.

If you could dismantle for profit, then a medium sized mithril chain shirt dismantles profit just as well. The chain shirt 12.5 lbs mithril, you have 6250 gp worth of mithril for 1100. If dismantling for profit is your concern, then mithril would have to have it cost tied to weight irregardless of size, shape, or classification of the armor.

The cost should be generally be balanced against the in game benefit. So in general I'd just add mithril as a flat cost. That said it does get debated and several related threads were linked.

That said, the 3.x FAQ more or less says multiple x4 with some stupidity about the mwk cost worked in. So I'd expect so much debate on the issue, I'd suggest playing conservative and pay the full x4 price unless the individual GM you are working with says otherwise.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Belabras wrote:
Anyone know? I think they are both untyped bonuses, but I'm not sure.

Piranha strike explicitly states that it cannot be used in conjunction with power attack.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When creating a new world you need to ask yourself how many gods am as the GM going to present to my characters. The gods either need to be very simple. Or relatively few. It takes a lot of effort to get an entire pantheon across to your players.

I generally find myself with 4 or 5 primary gods. And then tell my players there are other Gods, but they are comparatively very small, without much organization (ie don't expect to encounter them and if you worship them, don't expect people to know what you are talking about until you tell them and they'll likely think you're a crazy foreigner.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Phosphorus wrote:


Sadly, SKR's interpretation of the rules have flaws that were discussed in the thread. He wrote that he would be lobbying for change after his errors were pointed out but no changes have occurred, and it has been several years since this thread.

Very much in agreement. Its a worth an FAQ (or a charge errata) if you ask me. That is the closest thing to an official answer I've seen on the subject and I think it should be included in any thread on the subject as at least a reference point. It is a different answer than the 3.x WotC ruling as I remember it.

That said, I think SKR's answer works reasonably well mechanically and thus it is what I use at the moment.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While this probably needs an official FAQ at some point, this has come up multiple times on the forums.

SKR post on the matter: *note he posts multiple times in the thread so reading the whole thing might be worthwhile.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b9?Mounts-with-attacks-and-the-RideByAttack- Feat#13

Here are some pictures he made on the subject:

http://s248.photobucket.com/user/seankreynolds/media/angled-charges.jpg.htm l


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adam O'Dell wrote:

that takes a standard action to use though. in many ways what I want is weaker since it can only be used for one bow shot and then only once per day. needs to be swift of free action though

This is such a losing proposition. I'd but if I really wanted to put this in the hands of player, I'd go:

standard action +1,000gp. (Slightly more than the old unlimited wand because its much more convenient on on a primary weapon than on a wand)

swift action +10,000gp. (Quicken SLA, require CL+9, so I multiple the effect by new CL 10.)

free action +20,000gp. (Clearly better than a swift action, and has the potentially troublesome mechanic of stacking with itself so I double the price but would probably just deny this outright.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They list the source: Pathfinder Player Companion: Dungeoneer's Handbook at the bottom of the page.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Flanking is an attackers bonus anyhow. Not a defenders penalty. If being aware of the flankers was to be requirement, it should be a requirement of the person making the attack taking advantage of the target having a foe his opposite side, not the defender pretending blissful ignorance.

And in general most groups attacking together can probably coordination something to let each other no when they are in position.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ilja wrote:


This is the interpretation we use, and it works very well. As far as I know, defending is the only thing in the game that can really be abused through "wielding" (though again, it never mentions it). So for me, the weapon property that should be considered as an exceptional case, and potential ramifications from it should not force a sweeping ruling that severely changes how other things function (such as the ominous dagger).

The Guardian weapon ability ability is similarly though written differently.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The DC = critical hit confirmation number after all modifiers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xaratherus wrote:
Would you only grant the Magus that AC bonus if he had made an attack with it during that round? That's not generally how I've applied such abilities.

As a GM (not a rules forum lawyer) I'd probably let it slide. Its not prone to nearly as much abuse as defending or anything that expects you to actually take a penalty to receive a bonus.

I certainly would not want to take it away because you cast a spell, then closed with the enemy. That said I feel you should be making a token effort to use your iconic item it at least occasionally. If you go through encounter after encounter and don't use it ever then I'd start to find it mildly annoying and feel you are going might be overboard to game the system. And if you are a player who is far above the curve in terms of power (if you read these forums and the rest your fellow players don't you probably are above the curve) I'd have no problem tell you to use it or lose it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Well, take a moment, and imagine the Defending weapon doesn't exist.

Try looking through threads about arcane bond and wielding as well. Here's an SKR post:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n316?Wield#23

The discussions raged quite a bit. There is a lot of information out there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The devs have said wielding for a weapon is attacking with. Generally this is in reference to things like the defending weapon property. And for the actually defending FAQ they state you must attack with it.

They have said they would adjust the text for things like arcane bond as it cannot easily meet this standard of wielding (ie if you bond a weapon and have to attack with it to wield it, it would be very difficult to cast spells) though I don't believe they actually have altered any text.

In regards to this I think you might find some table variation. Its probably not something I'd bring to a convention and spring on an unsuspecting GM.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There is no savings.

A +1 weapon is 2,000 + cost of weapon.
A +2 weapon is 8,000 + cost of weapon.

The cost to upgrade a +1 weapon to a +2 weapon is 6,000.
The cost to upgrade a +2 weapon to a +3 weapon (18,000-8,000) = 10,000
The cost to upgrade a +3 weapon to a +4 weapon is (32,000-18,000) = 14,000gp.

Etc. By the time you get to a +10 weapon, you've invested 200,000 gp into the weapon.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The description given makes it seem likely that you left a threaten square via regular movement and that is what provoked. If the monster could not attack your starting position (or any position you left during your movement) then it would not provoke.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

2) You don't get monk bonus feats at level 4 or 8. Also, in general I think you get far more damage out of clustered shot in comparison to hammer the gap.

4) Most of the harping came before the FAQ was released the question is answered in the Paizo FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9qnl


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Trainwreck wrote:


Figuring out the cost for these arrows would use the single-use, use-activated rules for creating wondrous items, but since a composite longbow can deliver arrows to a range of 1100', should there be an additional cost to these items?

They should be very expensive. I'd probably cost them as if they had +7 or 8 metamagic bumps (50*CL*(SL+8)). As you can cast them faster than a quickened spell. 7 fireballs a round, even if the save DC is trivial is likely to kill all non evading party members. Unless they have prebuffed with resistances/immunity.

If it takes a standard action to launch them, then I'd go with standard potion like pricing (50*CL*SL) each.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Some Random Dood wrote:

I'd say prone shooter is still better than crane riposte.

Prone shooter got a healthy buff. Its should now sit comfortably in the feats no one takes pile with oh so many other feats. Rather than in the feat people laugh at as the worst feat ever.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Eirikrautha wrote:

I'm sure that Paizo tested this on their own (and got feedback from VOs in PFS) before changing it (which might explain the long wait to fix it).

No as so far as timing goes. They only issue errata's with new printings. For whatever reason they are starting new prints run of UC/GMG so we got errata's for those books. Its a deliberate design decision rather than change the game by frequent errata's ala WotC in 3.x/4.x which leave the books themselves with inaccurate information.

It might good from a business prospective. (I can see some advantages even though I don't like it) But its always really painful that we have to wait around with obviously broken things (ie pistoleer pistol training not replacing gun training) for so long. And then when the errata's do come out, its feel really awkward to make a change because you've been using those rules for years as opposed to weeks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Aleron wrote:
I'm curious, where was this found?

http://paizo.com/products/btpy8mcz?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Ultimate-Com bat


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do want to say. I despise the fact they waited 2.5 years to make this change the various other changes. That's an awfully long time for people to settle in and accept things as they are.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, I think its a change for the better. I think it still holds it own as a viable feat. +4 ac to a melee attack per round isn't bad at all. And I very much like that you have to use it before the attack role (which was my house rule fix though it still autodeflected.) That said, I do regret what it does to crane riposte as I don't think that feat has much value at all after this change.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Your stats alone will not dominate the party. A well built/played character can dominate, but this largely depends on how well built/played the surrounding characters are compared to yours rather than you initial stats.

Stats might give you head start, but the rest of character devolpment will have a far larger effect on your ability to dominate or fit in.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, nothing in the spell description say its negative energy, don't see any reason negative energy resistance would apply. Even if it were, it doesn't deal damage thus resistance would have no effect.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hendelbolaf wrote:
Not trying to argue with you here as it is not an important point but there was no facing in 3.0 either. If it was, I would be interested to know where it is in the rulebook, because I have not been able to find it.

Page 131 in the players hand book. Its wasn't really facing, as there was no action to rotate one's self, but it is where they defined how wide a creature was vs. how long it was. ie a horse was 5'x10'. A bullet was 10'x20'. And the width was used to determine how many could walk side by side through a corridor. So presumably the face was on one end of the width.

There's probably more too it in the DMG. But as there were no rules for turning (beyond those in fight) it didn't play out real well and thus was changed in 3.5 to make every creature a cube and thus have no difference in width and length.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ZomB wrote:
I would guess that when the Blood of the Elements book arrives that at least one of the 5 elemental races in it becomes core for PFS. Similar to what happened with Aasimars and Tieflings. (i.e. it makes business sense)

I would not hold my breath. They haven't made skinwalkers or dhamphir core yet. Though I have seen dhamphir boons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ignore the first line of text, its just flavor text. To actually use its ability you have to be hit by an attack. If your relevant AC is greater than the attack roll, it misses and you cannot trigger your shield ability.

Yes you can do it repeatedly so long as you have an immediate action available.

And yes, if you include allies in the area of effect they would need to make saves as well.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Typically I apply this wholesale. If you try to fit a large creature through a 5 foot hallway, then its squeezing. If you try to fit a human into a halfling house with 4' ceilings then he's squeezing.

When if something comes up that I have to break it down square by square, I generally go with if more than half the square is covered then you have to squeeze. If more than 3/4 of square is covered then its inaccessible. If this regularly becomes an issue, just move the walls so they fill any questionable space.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Knowing a 1 is a failure, and knowing the results are different things.

If you roll a 1 on a reflex save what happened? Did you take 10 damage, or 1,000. Did you just fall prone or were you teleported to the bottom of the ocean?

Its the results not the failure or success of a save that the GM is suppose to keep hidden, far more than number of the die.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the double barrel pistol deserves a mention even if I wish it didnt exist. Anything the doubles your attacks is pretty potent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The price of material component should be static (ie not reduced in the creation cost) so there is obviously no material component covered in the creation cost.

A scroll of gate for this purpose should cost, 25*9*17+10,000 or 13,825gp. Putting it in the form of a candle that anyone can use should make it more expensive not less. And adding in the 4 hour duration of psuedo mass heroism, and letting the cleric pretend his gained 2 full levels of spell casting should further make it more expensive.

The price doesn't seem remotely high enough to justify covering a 10k material component to a spell. As the GM gave it out as loot, I let a one time slip go by, but as a general rule its not nearly expensive enough for such a thing.

1 to 50 of 877 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.