The Great Rinaldo! wrote:
I have generally followed the rule of thumb that your height is 1/4 of your distance, based on the fact that the DC for a high jump is 4 times the height, and the DC for a long jump is 1 times the distance. That takes you a bit higher than oneplus' math indicates it should, but is easy to calculate and has at least a tangential rules basis.
That's also the way it was calculated in 3.X, and it's what I use, too.
I know that will detect magic and spellcraft, the properties of a magic item can be determined with a DC 15 + spell level. How do you use this to determine the properties of say a +1 longsword or a +2 light hammer of bane? What is the spell level in this case? I thought I read this somewhere, but now I can't find it again.
As Domingo says, the DC is actually 15 + Caster Level, not Spell Level.
All magic items have a caster level - for the longsword +1, it's probably 3 (the absolute minimum) or 5 (the minimum for the creation feat).
The +2 light hammer with the bane property is probably CL 6 (the minumum for the +2 enhancement) or CL 8 (the default for the bane property).
So, to identify a +1 longsword, the Spellcraft DC is probably 18 or 20, which is easily doable for most Wizards / Magi at the appropriate level by Taking 10. For the +2 light hammer of [whatever] bane, it's likely DC 21 or 23.
Mort the Cleverly Named wrote:
Seems pretty straight forward. "If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon." Did the Magus use his Scimitar (and its associated bonuses) to disarm him? Is a Scimitar a weapon? Yes? Then he doesn't automatically pick up the disarmed weapon.
Yep - that's how I read it, too, especially given then "Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack" line in the Disarm description.
You don't always need agile maneuvers and weapon finesse. It really depends on your character build. Sometimes you can just use weapon finesse if the combat maneuver in question uses a light weapon.
I don't think that's correct; your CMD is always Strength-based, regardless of weapon used, unless you take Agile Manuevers (a feat whose existence stinks, personally stinking).
Yeah - different in what way?
Maybe it wasn't "like 13 damage;" maybe it was 16, save for half, so you'd take 8, but then your energy resistance kicks in, which reduces that to 3?
Yeah most people I know just hand-wave away the fact that you have to take off your magic items to bathe properly, it just struck me as funny that DnD seems to gloss over certain bodily needs and functions, even in the more gritty and realistic settings.
... what do you think Prestidigitation is for? :D
If he had all the materials needed and the money required, then sure. It gets a little fuzzy around what specific spells are required, and whether or not you need to set the CL high enough to cast each individual spell, but there are examples where the CL of an item is less than the CL needed to cast the spells to create it in existing items, so I don't think you have to do so.
For instance, check out the "Ghost Touch" special ability. It's CL9 by default, costs a +1 bonus, and has a spell prereq of Plane Shift; you can't cast that as a wizard until 15th level, though you could cast it earlier as a cleric.
Is it actually specified anywhere that the CL listed in the special ability description is optional?
The listing there is the exact same as the listing on any other magic item, and is explicitly not a prerequisite.
Note, instead, the Spell Storing weapon quality:
PF SRD, Magical Weapons wrote:
This is a caster level as a prereq. Thus, to create a spell storing weapon - even a +1 spell storing longsword, which is just a +2 equivalent weapon - you need to be 12th-level.
Because it results in a +2 equivalent weapon at minimum. All of the abilities which result in that are around CL 10 standard, even if PCs can craft them earler.
I think those aren't generic examples
They are exactly the same as the listings in any other magic item. They follow the same rules, and are "stock examples."
If you, the GM, generate a random flaming longsword +3, the CL of that weapon is 10.
If you hand generate one, you can make it pretty much whatever you want.
Yep - but, again, that's just for a generic example. For a PC-created one, the PC can pretty much independently set the CL to whatever they want it to be.
I don't think it's 3x the base price modifier because "If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met."
Yep - but, again, Bane doesn't have a CL requirement (just like pearls of power don't have a CL requirement).
I assume it's not the total bonus base price (+1 & Bane = +2 total, CL 6) or they would have said so.
It would also make it really hard to craft +10 effective enhancement weapons. :)
But in the crunch text it says you can only make potions from spells you know.
Which is just a restatement of the item creation rules.
The only prereqs for Power Attack are Str 13 and BAB +1, but the crunch text says you have to also be making an attack roll to use it.
Actually, you don't. You must declare Power Attack on your turn before you make any attack rolls, but you need not actually make any attack rolls on your turn.
For instance, a character could declare that they were using Power Attack, double move, and then apply the appropriate modifiers on their subsequent AoO made on an enemy's turn.
It's actually really, really easy. Pearls of Power are slotless, but they aren't exactly bonus spell slots, so I consider that a wash for pricing (e.g., Price * 2 for Slotless * 1/2 for limitation).
That being said, you aren't changing them, you're just adding them to something else, so we'll take their prices as a given when calculating the final price of the combined item.
Whenever you are combining items, the order in which you do it should not matter - the final price to create a ring of sustenance and invisibility should be the same regardless of whether you were starting with a ring of sustenance or a ring of invisibility.
So, you have:
Ring of Sustenance: 2,500 gp
The most expensive item is the 3rd-level Pearl, so we start with that, and everything else gets a *1.5 multiplier.
3rd-level Pearl: 9,000 gp
Now, if you wanted to adjust the pearls to their nonslotless price (but retain the "can only return a spell you have actually memorized and cast" limitation), you get:
Ring of Sustenance: 2,500 gp
The 3rd-level Pearl is still the most expensive item, so in the end you get:
3rd-level Pearl, Slotted: 4,500 gp
Note that there are no "incorrect slot" costs in Pathfinder.
I'd probably go with the first quoted price, because it's less fiddly to calculate, but I suspect the second one might be more accurate.
It should say "extra damage dice."
So, for instance, let's consider a flaming two-handed sword +1 in the hands of a moderately strong person. It has a 19/x2 critical range. On a normal hit, it does:
2d6 (the two-handed sword's base damage) + 3 (+2 Strength * 1.5 for two hands) + 1d6 (Fire) (Flaming property)
On a critical hit, damage dice over and above the normal damage are not multiplied; they're just added once. So, with a x2 critical, this weapon and wielder will do:
Quick notes on otherwise good advice:
You do not need to be a CL8 to create a Bane weapon. Rather, the average CL of a randomly generated Bane weapon is at least 8.
... or Spellcraft. And note the effect of the weapon's CL on the crafting DC.
You've already addressed the "daily vs. single skill check," so I won't say anything else about it. :)
On another note, there is a difference between divine potions and arcane potions.
On another note, there is no such thing. ;) Potions, like wands and staves, are neither arcane nor divine. Just like Boots of Teleportation are neither arcane nor divine; they're just magic.
Scrolls, on the other hand, contain arcane or divine spells because they're spell completion items - but they are the exception.
Specifically, all divine casters can make curative potions, but only the bard and alchemist (so far) can make arcane curatives.
This is irrelevant; don't worry about it.
what would the total addition to the DC of brewing the potion for an alchemist, since inflict spells are not on his list, and are not considered arcane spells by anyone.
The bolded part is the only important part.
Would he have to add 5 (for not having the spell)
This. The arcane / divine split is, in this case, immaterial.
Now read the rest of the sentence that I quoted:
What's your point?
After the round in which he cast the spell, he can't make free melee attacks anymore - which, incidentally, is exactly the same situation that the guy not using his sword to deliver Shocking Grasp is going through.
After that, you need to take the attack action to deliver the spell - and the first sentence says you can still deliver it with your sword.
Patryn, your last point is actually incorrect; the last sentence of that paragraph was taken out with the 3rd printing errata. The caster level of the item sets the DC of the Spellcraft check, but the creator does not need to meet the caster level him/herself. Otherwise, nobody would ever make Pearls of Power 1 (caster level 17? I think I'll just make 9th level Pearls, thanks...).
I understood that to mean that if a 3rd-level caster made a pearl of power, he'd make a CL <= 3 pearl of power; he could not make a CL 17 pearl (and the DC is set based on the desired CL of the item; for most items, the CL doesn't matter too much).
Also, I grabbed the text from the PF SRD; I wonder why that hasn't been updated with the errata. But thanks!
I have a question; say a small sized character hides in a barrel with a shortbow. Can the character use an attack / move action combination to fire and then hide down within it? Would the barrel provide full cover while hiding within it as such?
Depending on the size of the barrel:
Move action to stand from prone (going from full cover to partial or no cover)
He'd just want to be wary of enemies with ranged attacks readying their actions to shoot him when he pops out. :)
A +1 flaming sword has a minimum caster level prereq of 3, not 10 - but you couldn't make it until you were a 5th-level caster, anyway, because you need that many levels to take Create Magic Arms and Armor.
So, for that sword, the prereq definer is the enhancement bonus, which is 3 * Bonus.
Effective bonuses - like that which the flaming property adds - do not count for creation prereqs (unless they actually have a prereq of "Caster must by Xth-level or higher," which flaming does not; instead, CL 10 is the standard example CL for a randomly-generated flaming [whatever], just like every other item).
He therefore has no chance of failure or of making a cursed item.
And, as continually mentioned in these threads, the wizard is the one optimally designed for creating magic items, but he not the only one doing so. Clerics with low Int can also make items; they have a much higher chance of failure than Wizards. It's like complaining that a high Strength Fighter with Weapon Focus and Weapon Training doesn't miss a whole lot.
but you can create boots of teleportation without either access to teleport spell, or even being high enough level to cast it, just by taking +5 to your DC? That is provided you have the time, the money, the Craft Wonderous Item feat and are able to make the roll?
Yes. But, keep in mind, the caster level is important for the Boots of Teleportation; a lower CL on the boots reduces the teleport's range (100 miles / CL). Note that:
PF SRD wrote:
So, you cannot make CL9 boots if your own CL is only 5.
First off, there's no such thing as a "divine potion." Potions, like wands and staves, are neither arcane nor divine. There is no difference (bar minimum caster level) between a potion of cure light wounds brewed by a bard and one brewed by a cleric.
Second, potions are neither spell trigger nor spell completion items. They are "use-activated" items.
PF SRD wrote:
So, in order to create a potion, you must "know" the spell you are putting into it. Fortunately, that is a common prereq which can be sidestepped by increasing the DC by 5, per the rules on meeting prereqs.
So, for instance, in order to create a potion of cure light wounds (CL 1), you need to meet the following prereqs:
You must also be able to hit a DC 6 Spellcraft or Craft (Alchemy) check (5 plus Caster Level).
You must, per the rules on meeting prereqs, meet the Brew Potion prereq. The spell knowledge prereq, however, may be met or ignored (which increases the DC by 5). So, if you can hit a DC 11 Spellcraft of Craft (Alchemy) check, you can brew CL 1 potions of Cure Light Wounds without the knowing the Cure Light Wounds spell.
Actually, such threads do serve a purpose: they point out the absurdity of the arguing poster's behavior and, by publicly showcasing it in a humorous fashion, shames them into stopping such ridiculous behavior without having anyone feel like they've been personally attacked.
You might think that they do, and you may even want to accomplish this, but they never actually do this.
Seriously - you know this from your many, many years of posting on the internet.
Get over yourself.
Aw. And here I thought we were friends.
Let the exploits begin.
Protip: They don't exist.
Or, if they do, they're not meaningfully more powerful than anything else going on out there. Otherwise, let's see some. I just showed you how one particular claim of cheese was not particularly substantial, so let's address the others that you think are so heinous.
But first - in clear, unambiguous terms, what are they?
*happily munches on a bucket of popcorn*
These sorts of posts need to die in a fire.
They add absolutely nothing to the discussion at best, and cause a cascade of "Passes RD some butter" me-too posts cluttering up the thread at worse.
So ... it's worth +2 to +3 damage, on average?
And if you're shield bashing, wouldn't you have a spiked shield, making it a 1d6 damage to start with, making the difference +1 to +2 damage?
What's a standard feat value for damage ... +2 for Weapon Spec?
Sounds balanced to me.
He can't do that, actually.
PF SRD, Arcane Magical Writings, Adding Spells to a Wizard's Spellbook wrote:
CLW isn't on the wizard spell list, so he can't learn it, and can't copy it into his spellbook.
The rest of your post, though, is good stuff. :D
For the purposes of this discussion, which is about the fundamental nature of magic and the potential differences or lack thereof between "divine" and "arcane" magic, whether it is more difficult to cast a scroll than a wand is completely immaterial.
Then why did you ask the question?
You can do it. This whole "wizards can't use cleric scrolls" thing is bogus, they can. And clerics can use wizard scrolls. All they have to do is make a "Use Magic Device" check.
UMD is a way around the normal requirements. A wizard does not need to make a UMD check to use an arcane scroll of Protection from Evil. He does not need to even make a Caster Level check if his own arcane caster level is equal to that of the scroll or higher.
A wizard does need to make a UMD check to "fake being a Cleric" if he tries to use a divine scroll of Protection from Evil.
Nowhere in the RAW have I ever seen it stated that a Protection from Evil scroll you pick up in a magic store has to be identified as "divine" or "arcane."
Then you need to get your eyes checked.
PF SRD, Magic Items, Scrolls, Activation wrote:
PF SRD, Arcane Magical Writings wrote:
PF SRD, Divine Magical Writings wrote:
PF SRD, Magic Items, Using Items wrote:
A scroll holds a spell, which can be either arcane or divine. Ergo, there are divine scrolls of Protection from Evil, and there are arcane scrolls of Protection from Evil.
It is up to the DM to determine whether any particular scroll is arcane or divine when the treasure is placed. PCs who create scrolls determine which it is by virtue of their class; a multiclass Cleric / Bard can create both arcane and divine scrolls of Cure Light Wounds. A wizard could not then scribe an arcane CLW scroll into his spellbook, because the spell is not on his class's spell list.
Name Violation wrote:
Yep - ranged touch atack spells generally can't be tried again (and usually can't be held), but melee touch spells can be held forever (or, at least, until you accidentally touch something! :D ).
Mage Evolving wrote:
I've just created a Monk/Sorcerer who specializes in touch spells for a new campaign. However, the question arose can he make unarmed strikes while holding a touch spell, and gain the effects of both the spell and the unarmed strike damage?
Absolutely you can. It even says exactly this in the section on "Holding the Charge" in the spellcasting rules.
The trick to remember is that on the round you cast the spell, you can make a touch attack only as a free action to deliver it. You cannot combine an unarmed strike with casting a spell (without a special ability that says otherwise, like the Magus class's Spellstrike ability).
On subsequent rounds, however, you can make a normal unarmed strike attack to deliver the spell's effects as well as your unarmed strike damage. This attack is made against your opponent's normal AC, and if you miss, the spell stays held.
Not without "faking" a Caster Level, no.
PF SRD, Scrolls, Activation wrote:
PF SRD, Use Magic Device wrote:
Scrolls get harder to activate based on their caster level for UMD (and non-UMD) users; the same is not true for wands.
Wands are spell trigger items and scrolls are spell completion items; they have different threshold requirements to be able to use them. Scrolls have more stringent requirements to use.
... including Caster Level requirements.
Kriss Lambert wrote:
That's correct! :)
Under optimal circumstances, taking that extra attack applies a -2 penalty to your other attacks that round.
That penalty does not apply if you only make one attack on your turn, and it never applies to things like AoOs.
It appears that the DC for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +2 is the same as for creating a Belt of Giant Strength +6. Is this correct?
If the caster level is the same between them (and it can be), then yes, the DC is the same.
The *cost*, however, is not.
No, you cannot. Unstoppable Strike is its own standard action, and therefore is not used with the Attack action, and therefore does not mesh with Vital Strike.
Sorry, that's wrong.
The Attack standard action includes an attack.
Ergo, taking the Attack standard action breaks those spells.
Ergo, you're still wrong.
In the PFSRD, you have the Attack standard action, which comes in various flavors (melee, unarmed, and ranged).
The description of the Attack standard action says "Making an attack is a standard action." Note that this is no different than the language for, say, activating a magic item: "activating a magic item is a standard action."
Or, in other words, "Making an attack is a standard action" applies only to the Attack standard action.
It has to, because you also have thinks like:
Touch Spells: "Most spells require 1 standard action to cast." "In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action." "Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack" (Here, an attack is a free action.)
Charge: "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." (Here, an attack is part of another action, not an action in and of itself.)
Full Attack: "If you get more than one attack per round [...] you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks." (Here, multiple attacks are part of another action, not actions in and of themselves.)
Attack of Opportunity: "These free attacks are called attacks of opportunity." (Another not-an-action attack.)
Cleave: "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach ... and can make an additional attack ..." (Here, up-to-two attacks are part of a standard action.)
These are all things which are not the Attack action, but which include attacks.
Ergo, "attack" and "the Attack standard action" are not the same thing.
And to be technically clear: Vital Strike is not a standard action in its own right. Vital Strike is an ability that happens when you take the Attack action, which is a standard action.
Thus, if you had a different ability that said "When you take the attack action, you gain a +3 bonus to attack rolls," both it and Vital Strike would apply at the same time.
No, it doesn't.
This is the key distinction you are missing.
Spring Attack does not allow an "Attack action."
It allows "an attack." Just like an AoO allows "an attack." Just like Charge allows "an attack." Just like Full Attack allows "one or more attacks."
And, importantly, just like the Attack action allows "an attack."
This is a distinction which has existed since 3.0, which 3.5 and PF inherited.
There are many ways to get attacks. The Attack action is merely one of them.
Maxx is right on with the interaction of Vital Strike and Full Attack.
Actually, you've got that backwards.
You must first declare a Full Attack (full-round) action. Then, after seeing how your first attack turns out, you may change your mind and give up the remainder of your attacks for a move action.
You may not declare an Attack (standard) action and then, after seeing how that attack turns out, change your mind and give up your move action to gain additional attacks.
This is an important distinction - reviewing the TWF rules will show why.
Vital strike works "When you use the attack action."
The "attack action" is a specific standard action.
It is not a generic word for any attack; attacks are not actions at all, but are rather the result of other actions and non-actions (e.g., you can make an attack on an AoO, but an AoO is not an action; you can make an attack as part of a charge, which is a full-round action; you can make multiple attacks when you take the Full Attack action).
So, no - they don't work together.
Spring Attack is a full-round action in its own right, and Vital Strike only works when you take a specific standard action.
Pushing your opponent "straight back" would encompass any of lines A, B, or (A-)C.
You would not be allowed to push him along line D, below.
Talon Stormwarden wrote:
My current (16 Dex, 16 Int) Magus has, so far, not taken Combat Casting, and I think I'll be able to avoid it, since my Caster Level will advance faster than my spell levels do (vice a wizard, who is much closer to parity).
I did, however, take the Focused Mind trait for the early bump to concentration checks.
I have, on occasion, dumped my attack bonus to gain a +3 bonus on my concentration check, when I really, really, really needed a spell to go off this round and I couldn't (or didn't want to) 5' step away for some breathing room.
There was one time where I failed 4 or 5 defensive casting checks in a row, but the dice gods come for us all, on occasion.
Elsewise, careful movement and a good AC (chain shirt, high Dex, shield spell) has obviated most of the AoOs I'd've suffered.
You're overlooking a significant detail here. :)
Take the item's price in silver pieces - in this case, 500.
Your progress in one week's worth of work is your roll times the DC. Let's say you could hit a DC 25 when taking 10. In one week, then, you'd make:
DC * Check Result = Weekly Progress in SP
625 is greater than 500, so it takes you a little under a week to make a single dose of antitoxin.
It is not an action at all.
It is not an "attack action," which is a specifc brand of standard action.
E.g., if something says, "In place of an attack, you may ..." then you can use it on an AoO. If something says, "When you take the attack action, you may ..." you may not use it on an AoO (or as part of a full attack).
If included, that belongs on the, "Been that way since 3.0" list.
Is it also correct that Scorching Ray victims do not get a saving throw unless they have Spell Resistance?
You never get a saving throw vs. scorching ray. Spell Resistance is different entirely, and is rolled by the person casting the spell, not the person being hit with it.
Also, I'm a bit confused about item damage and magic.
Generally, this stuff won't come up in most games, so you don't have to worry too much about it. :)
Is the touch being delivered successfully by the spellcaster the same as failing a saving throw?
No, it is not. Scorching ray cannot damage carried items; fireball, however, can.
When a monster has 3 attacks, for instance 2 claws and a bite, are the 2 claw attacks primary attacks and the bite a secondary attack? I am having trouble figuring this out.
It depends on the type of attack. For instance, bites and claws are always primary attacks (unless the specific monster entry tells you otherwise).
Note, though, that in order to make an attack with more than one natural weapon, you need to take the Full Attack action (this goes similarly for characters with swords, etc., who also usually need to take the Full Attack action to attack more than once on their turn).
Check the attack bonuses - most of the time, they'll either all be the same (in which case they're all primary or secondary), a few will be off by 5 (in which case the lower ones are secondary), or by 2 (in which case the lower ones are secondary and the monster has the Multiattack feat). If they are different from that, it'll take a bit of investigation.
Also, if the druid is on a horse, can the horse get all 3 attacks as primary, or just the 2 hooves as primary and the bite as secondary. Can the horse even make these kinds of attacks if the druid is riding him?
Most horses are not trained for combat, and therefore do not have a bite attack.
The horse can make those attacks if he has him, even if he's being ridden, so long as the horse doesn't move on its turn (i.e., the horse has to take the Full Attack action, too).
If the Raptor was knocked prone, he still would get his 3 attacks,albeit with -4 penalty to-hit, correct?
To clear up "Favored class," the player who chose druid as his class and doesn't have any plans to take on another class can still choose Druid to be his favored class, correct? Meaning every level up, he gets +1 HP or Skill rank.
Yep - if you're never going to take another class, it would be silly to not pick your current class as your favored class!
Yes, it does.
Yep - just as if he'd taken a level in Rogue, he'd be a Fighter 6 / Rogue 1, and in total a 7th-level character.
Does this mean a character has a CLASS level limit of 20? For instance, can a multiclassed guy be level 18 monk, level 15 rogue, and go all the way to 20 monk/20 rogue?
Yes - but it'll take a long time to get to epic levels (those greater than 20th character level), so you won't have to worry about it for a long, long time.
First, I agree with ProfPots - this isn't a retcon, this is Peter Parker getting bit by the spider. :)
A ret-con would be more like, "Oh, actually, you were always a Magus."
That would actually be my preferred way of handling this (and its the way I handle nigh-100% of character retraining / rebuilding issues in my campaigns).
That being said:
I'm requiring that he go with a Blade Bound Magus
Is the player okay with this?
I mean, I love the Magus class, but I'm not 100% sold on any of the archtypes being great trade-offs.
The confusion with the example is that MM does 2-5 damage which is its variable number. Where Ray of Enfeeblement only has 1d6 as variable and the plus is a static number that increases with level.
There is no meaningful difference between 1d4+1 and 1d4+1/2 levels.
They both generate random, variable, numeric ranges - the first between 2 and 5, the second between 3 and 6 (for a 4th-level caster).
This is a weird change that PF made.