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

Shalmdi's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 144 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

So I am thinking of working Form of the Dragon and a Polymorphic Pouch into my wizard's repertoire. I am wondering if I would still be able to use all my wands and other held items. My initial thought was a big "no," but I remembered that dragon's can cast spells with material components. This lead me to look up pictures of the different, base dragon types. I can see that many of them are grasping things with their claws. Now, this may just be artistic license, but it seems to indicate that this is at least possible. A final factor is that dragons have Use Magic Device as a class skill. I just want to see if anyone could think of a reason this would not be legal or if there is some definitive ruling here. Thanks in advance!


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I am looking to splash my Lore Warden fighter into Armored Hulk to regain my Medium & Heavy Armor proficiency. I noticed that Indomitable Stance says the following:

D20PFSRD wrote:
An armored hulk gains a +1 bonus on combat maneuver checks and to CMD for overrun combat maneuvers, and on Reflex saves against trample attacks. She also gains a +1 bonus to her AC against charge attacks and on attack and damage rolls against charging creatures.

So my question is this; is that +1 bonus on ALL combat maneuver checks or just on overrun? I feel like the answer is "just overrun," but the wording here is really throwing me off. Does anyone know where this might be clarified? Alternatively, I would like to know your thoughts in case I am just trying too hard to read what I want it to say. Thanks!


This is a perfectly legitimate combination, but as Defraeter points out, it will take four twenty-foot cubes (area of Hide Campsite) to cover one zone with a twenty-foot radius (area of Grove of Respite).

Enlarge won't help, Defraeter. That only increases the range not the affected area. I don't even think Widen Spell will help here as Hide Campsite is not a "burst, emanation, or spread-shaped spell." Even if it did, it would still take two casts to cover the whole area of a Grove of Respite. That is just my two copper though.


I'll admit, I have never played Swift Actions that way either. I was all set to say no myself, but when I looked them up on the SRD I found the following line on this page:

Swift Action wrote:
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

On the same page, the section on free actions says they "don't take any time at all" and the initial description says they occur "while taking another action normally." I would have a hard time not letting them occur mid-action based on that wording.


1) A swift action can be taken during your turn anytime you would be capable of taking a free action. The entry for free actions says you can take them during other actions, so yes to your question.

2) The -2 is an untyped "bonus." Untyped bonuses from the same source never stack.

That's my two copper.


I would point out, mounts usually benefit from Improved Unarmed Strike just by virtue of having natural attacks, so you wouldn't be getting anything out of that feat. If I were running this, I would waive the IUS requirement for a creature with a natural attack. That isn't RAW obviously, but unless this is PFS, I would talk to the GM about house-ruling it. Not much of a stretch really, but that's just my two copper.


The only things I know about Carpenden are that it has hills, farmlands, and a sizable military. I have this map that should work for those specifications. This is a map of a military city in hilly country that is surrounded by farmland. Might fit the bill. Let me know if there are any problems with the link.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would have to say no here. The corpse is never referred to as alive, so at best, it would be considered undead. It is probably still an object as all corpses are and is immune from the start. If it is undead, it is immune to mind-affecting spells and is not subject to the Zone of Truth. Either way, the net result is "No." At least, that is my two copper.


EDIT: Eh. Ninja'd.

Sean H wrote:

1) I have heard there is errata for the WHW, specifically one changing it's free actions to swift actions. However, I cannot find it. Can someone point me to this?

2) Does the WHW use STR or INT for attack rolls with her hair?

3) Can the WHW simply choose to grapple normally with her hair without the attack roll? If so, does she use INT or STR for the attempt?

1) According to the SRD, there has been no errata regarding this change. This means that the RAW stands and the grapple attempt is a free action.

2) Strength I fear. Since the power doesn't specify otherwise. If I was GM'ing this, I would agree that INT was probably the intent and rule it as such, but RAW is king in PFS.

3) RAW says "no" here too. This is a special attack type, if it doesn't say she can just make a grapple, the GM does not have to allow it. Again, this is not how I would run it, but I don't play PFS.

I fear that this entry is far too vague, my friend. I would not try to bring this into a PFS game at all. Also, with a witch's BAB and strength, this would be a very ineffective ability. Sorry. That is my two copper at least.


Entilzha wrote:
First Question: If I have a Maneuver Master Monk, and I make an Overrun attempt as part of my Flurry of Maneuvers, how far do I go?

I do not think this is directly covered anywhere, but it does not seem like Overrun would qualify for the Flurry of Maneuvers. The Flurry allows you to ignore the action type (standard or attack) but not other requirements. Overrun also requires you to take a move action or charge when you use it. For a flurry, you clearly aren't doing either. That is just my two coppers though. I think that one will probably need to be decided by your GM.

Entilzha wrote:
Second question: does the movement for the overrun provoke? Provoking from other creatures during the move sounds likely, but what about the creature I just overrun'd? I think this question has come up in the past, but I don't know if it's been answered yet.

This one is much easier. Yes, you provoke an AoO from both the target of the Overrun and his allies. Unless of course, you have Improved Overrun. In that case, you only provoke from the others and not the target.


Ugh. I have seen this attempted, and it usually just makes things more complicated. The ranged combat rules are fair as-is, so any changes have to be carefully balanced. You cannot just add penalties; that will make the game unfair for a ranged character. I could create justifications for leaving the rules the same, but in the spirit of discussion, I will focus on what I feel is the largest hurdle in implementing realism-based archery: there are no simple modifiers.

As you say, double moving from left to right would make a target very hard to hit, but double moving directly away from an archer would only add a slight penalty. Moving at a diagonal would make a target harder to hit, but not as much as left-to-right. Nothing would make a target harder to hit than zig-zaging, but how many turns would you require for a target to get this modifier? Would the target get a lesser bonus for a single move and standard? Could a target successfully zig-zag with a single move? You would probably need to leave the game the same for a single move, apply a to-hit penalty against double moving targets based on the pattern of their move, and grant a bonus to hit stationary targets or those that only moved 5 feet. Unless the players and GM are very like minded, prepare to argue the specifics of this with archers and those shot at by enemy archers.

Your next obstacle would be range. What you propose is not unreasonable. Sans the Point Blank feat, there is no difference between 30 feet and 100. This is unrealistic, but where do you draw the line? For balance, the archer would need to get a decreasing bonus up to a certain point and a stacking penalty after that point. This is less arguable than motion, but it is harder to pin down. Too large a bonus will reward close-quarter archers and make indoor combats a breeze. Too heavy a penalty will make outdoor combats the archer's bane. He is supposed to be a ranged character. Ten feet increments are probably your best bet. Create a "Zero Point" and give bonuses until that point and penalties after it.

I want to be clear; I am not saying this cannot be done. I am saying it is very complicated. The more realism you try to inject into combat, the more convoluted it will become. Be careful here and make sure both players and GM are on board for any rule variant you put into effect. That's just my two copper though.


Check the entry under the Alchemy heading on the srd.

Alchemy(Su) wrote:
An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so).

Scrolls are spell-completion items, so Alchemists cannot use them. The ability or inability to read magic is not a factor here.


Jupp wrote:
would having 2 of the dan bongs stack?

They would not. As it states on this page, un-typed bonuses always stack unless they are from the same source. It would be just as if the same spell was cast twice.


No, Deflection bonuses do not stack with each other. Check this page for verification.


I don't know what level this character is, but I don't think Gravity Bow can be the reason you are breaking the game. Presuming you just got this spell, you are at least level four. It lasts one minute at that level so usually one encounter. In a short fight, it probably isn't worth it. It only increases your average damage from 4.5 to 7 for a difference of 2.5. Your standard arrow from a +2 composite longbow is at least a d8+3 or average 7.5. Two arrows means you sacrificed a potential 15 points of damage to increase that bow size. If the fight doesn't last long enough for you to fire seven more arrows, it wasn't even worth it. Also, the round you spent casting is a round your enemies weren't being killed or pelted with arrows. I would hesitate to cast Gravity Bow unless you knew the fight would be prolonged or you had time to prepare. This is definitely not game breaking in my opinion.

I would lobby strongly against the every-arrow-lost house rule, but if you are okay with it then fine. You will only be losing 50% more of the arrows that miss anyway. I usually work on the presumption that all my arrows will be destroyed anyway since I always plan to hit :D. That's my two copper anyway.


Depends on the mechanics I suppose, but there are already a few similar abilities that may serve as precedent. Have you looked at the Antagonize feat? The Diplomacy variant is a pretty good substitute for the Mark with the exception that it takes a standard to activate. Even if this isn't close enough for you, I think it would work as a good baseline.


Sharp objects still can! Now if they were smart captors, they probably stripped you of any weapons, but they didn't check to see if you needed to eat, drink, or sleep so maybe they missed a dagger or hat pin. There is no other RAW way to leave a bag of holding.


master arminas wrote:
Well, actually, I am not recommending removal of inherent bonuses, just that by adding them, you cannot exceed your racial maximum.

I understood that, but you will always be removing it from the attribute(s) that actually matter to the character. I realize now that I did not state that clearly enough. My apologies.

You know, I originally thought this would be a bigger blow to casters like some of the previous posters have mentioned, but after some number crunching, I realized it wouldn't be too bad.

By removing inherent bonuses, you will be removing an average of 2.5 from spell-save DC's. You are also removing 2 on average because they cannot raise the base above 20. Spells at the level cap already fail 50% of the time from SR anyway. Your average -4 to their top level saves will end up increasing their total chance of failure by 10%. That will have some game balance issues, but not as many as I originally thought. If you allow Inherent bonuses to exceed the cap (Magic!), this failure rate increase is closer to 5%. Both of these failure rate increases are manageable if you are willing to do some game-balance work on high level encounters. Just keep those kind of things in mind. Still just my two copper.


master arminas wrote:
...does the ability to expand ability scores ad infintium have a postive or negative effect on the play of the game?

Neutral? I too have struggled with increasing attributes by non-magical means. I have a wizard on the cusp of level 12 and his next point it Int will give him an instant 12 skill points on top of what he normally gets. This is hard for me to fully accept. I could in one level go from knowing nothing about nobility to knowing everything about it without neglecting my other skills. I won't, but it is an option. The increasing ability scores do make me feel heroic, and I like that. However, it can be difficult to imagine a person improving attributes in game. Attributes in RL usually refer to things about you that you cannot really change. Strength is one of the ones I find the easiest to imagine improving, but it is true that a person will eventually reach their personal cap. You are almost focusing on the wrong attribute here, but I will admit that it is the easiest to quantify.

As for your rule variants, I would not finding it too limiting. The fighter may not have as high too hit from strength, but he would have more hit point or a better AC because he was forced to diversify. Your limiters would create more balanced characters. I do have a few issues though. The humans and halves should not be limited to 18. They should get one 20 to the attribute in which they put their +2. Otherwise, they are losing out to all the non-humans that get two 20's and one 16.

The changes to Barbarian Rage are unnecessary. Just call it adrenaline. As Hexen mentioned, humans have done some incredible things under duress. The part about getting a bonus to-hit and damage instead of more Strength makes no sense to me. At this point, it is all semantics. If a person can apply themselves to hit harder, they could do the same to move a rock. The Strength Surge stuff isn't bad, but again, we are only looking at one Attribute. There would need to be something for nearly every attribute. Just make such things an attribute check versus a DC and don't worry about the specifics.

Finally, I cannot recommend the removal of inherent bonuses. Not only is this actually integral to game mechanics, it is also a product of magic. Once magic gets in the mix, all bets are off. If you want true realism, you will need to remove magic from game play. I have played in a low-magic campaign. The game was a lot of fun, but I know the GM did a lot of work to keep the game balanced. Even just removing inherent bonuses will change the game balance significantly in late level. Anyway, this is just my two copper.


Lamontius wrote:
I think one thing, though, is that "Shock Shield" is available to a Summoner, while "Shield" isn't. (I think.)

Actually you have this backwards. Shock Shield is not on the summoners list, but Shield is.


Hmm. I would agree. This spell is not that great. It is a poor mix of Shield and Shocking Grasp. It isn't good tactically either. Since it does damage to you as well, you need to shock at least two enemies to even make a positive you-to-them damage ratio. The only good time to activate the shock is when your wizard is surrounded. Yeah... that's a great time to lower your defenses.

While I agree with your assessment, I would not bother to improve this spell. If you need defenses, Shield is fine. If you need offense, use Shocking Grasp. If you want both cast a higher level spell. A level one spell is only going to be so good.

If you absolutely need to house-rule this spell, I would recommend a lower, more-frequent damage. How about a d4 of damage done when an enemy attacks and misses thus impacting the shield? No burst damage at all. Even with this spell, a wizard can still be easy to hit, but the threat of electrocution may make enemies think twice. You could argue more damage to metal weapons or unarmed/natural attacks, but for simplicity on a house rule, I would just stick with a d4. Now that's just my two copper.


MendedWall12 wrote:
I looked at the Ring of Force Shield, but their base spell was Wall of Force, and that's not really what I was looking for,

I too question the use of Wall of Force instead of Shield. As a GM though, I recognize how powerful this item would be if it used the Shield spell and just the base pricing chart. RAW always gets fuzzy here. First they give you a guide for figuring out a custom item's price; then they use the very ambiguous part about modifying price based on actual worth. For point of reference, a +4 no-handed shield that also stops Magic Missiles is better in several ways than a +2 Animated heavy shield which would be priced at 16,000 GP.

You are in a grey area here, my friend. You have stepped out past the rim and entered the territory of "GM says." For my two copper, I would talk to my GM. Maybe they will let you use the base pricing of 4000, but I would not. If you are the GM, I think the pricing info above should be considered a good guideline.


That is a fairly powerful magic item you are trying to make, but it isn't impossible. First thing, your item cannot be activated by command word if you want it to be less than a standard action to turn on. Using the pricing for continuous/use-activated, I got the following.

Base Price(2000) x Spell Level(1) x Caster Level(1) x Duration Modifier(2) = 4000. This is the absolute least it could cost.

However, pricing magic items is never an exact science. As it says in the pricing rules, worth must always be factored in at the end. This item would be worth quite a lot. Additionally, the first rule of pricing a custom item is to find something similar and work from that point. The Ring of Force Shield is very close to what you want. That ring has a price of 8,500 GP and it only provides a +2 to AC. It can be activated and deactivated as a swift action. A free action would be an even bigger price hike. The spell Shield - which mysteriously isn't the base spell of this ring - provides a +4 to AC. If you are looking for that, I think we would have to presume another big jump in price.

As a GM, I would not allow the item you wanted for less than 8500 GP, but I would allow you to get a custom one made into bracers instead of a ring. If you want anything more powerful than the Ring of Force Shield, expect to pay a higher premium. That's just my two copper.

EDIT to your EDIT: That isn't actually a factor.

Magic Item Creation" wrote:
A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell


Chernobyl wrote:
does water walking allow someone to ignore slippery effects of ice?

Yes. Ice is one of the surfaces mentioned in the description of the Water Walk spell. Go to this link and read the entry.


Nothing. Intensified Spell is for increasing spells like Fireball that have a max damage die limit. No other variables or effects are increased as the feat says. The spells you mentioned do not have a maximum number of damage dice as the feat specifies. They do a flat amount based on number or rays, bolts, or rounds. These are all other variables.


Sereinái, I would agree that strong doesn't have to mean loud, but a whisper cannot by any definition be considered a "strong voice." You need to at least speak in a normal tone.

As I said earlier, you cannot do something for free if a feat exists to allow you to do it. Still Spell, Silent Spell, and Spellsong are the feats in this situation. I support the use of house rules here, but the RAW is not going to help you be the stealthy caster you want to be. If you want to be stealty, you probably shouldn't be playing a primary caster. You need to be good at the actual Stealth skill. Talk to your GM and work out how they want to play this. I don't think we can help you.


I am not sure, but I think this is a typo. I cannot find an official errata on this. There are two magic items with similar names: Ring of Protection +1 and Cloak of Resistance +1. The price of a Cloak of Resistance is 1000 GP, but the Ring of Protection is 2000 GP. For my two copper, I would say they are referring to the Cloak of Resistance. If there is no entry for the Cloak of Resistance, just use this link.


Yes. There is no way frozen water can be considered earth or dirt.


EDIT: Lab_Rat is correct in his rulings, so I deleted the parts of my answer that just copy him.

Sereinái wrote:
Can a vocal component be delivered like a regular spoken sentence? If I have the spells vocal component as part as a password or other sentence can I then cast a spell without anyone noticing the vocal part?....

This seems like a definite "no." Verbal components are described as incantations and thus would sound out of place in most speech. Secondly, the feat Spellsong allows a bard to mix a spell in with his performances by making checks and losing a round of Bardic Performance. If it takes a feat, you cannot do it for free. This also answers the later question about dance I feel.

Sereinái wrote:
Can I use surrounding sounds to mask vocal components, can I sit in a bar full of loud people and cast on someone the other side of the room without them noticing me?

Well now this one could be yes. If a person cannot hear you or see your hands, the chance of them recognizing your casting is slim. There are already rules for hearing in a crowded place, so this would be a difficult perception check. To go unnoticed visually, I would probably use a stealth check with some bonuses to the caster.

Sereinái wrote:
Is it possible to hide somatic components? If possible in what ways?

I have allowed it as Sleight of Hand versus either Spellcraft or Perception as a house rule. Not saying this RAW at all. I have seen other good rulings, but that is just the way I do it for simplicity.

Sereinái wrote:
...what skill would be used to sound like someone else, be it a specific person or just not yourself?

I can't say there is a clear winner here, but I would go Linguistics in a pinch. Bluff is for lying not sounding different and Disguise is visual not audible. If a GM wanted to rule Bluff, I would not argue it. Anyway, all this is just my two copper.


Quandry, I cannot find the entry that says tiny creatures use their dexterity automatically. I remember that from somewhere, but I couldn't say where. Hogarth may be right, and it is just a 3.5 holdover.

As for the reach, you probably don't need to worry about it. Enlarge Person only works on humanoids and there is no Enlarge Monster equivalent to my knowledge. If you did increase its size somehow, I would rule that its reach increased just as it would for any other size change. Five would become 10. That however is just my two copper.


Quandary wrote:

Charge doesn't actually have a requirement that you can move only in a straight line...

Moving directly towards the closest valid square usually RESULTS in that,

Quandry, it may not say the words "straight line," but I would have to argue that this is the clear definition of "directly towards the target." The reading of the charge entry from the srd is as follows:

Movement During a Charge wrote:
If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge.

If a curved line as you suggested was legal, the entry above would make almost any charge illegal as some curved line from the target to charger would be blocked by something. Now before some one says that this means the entry is too vague, I will point out that the default definition of "line" is a straight line. At every other point I could find in the Pathfinder book where "line" is not preceded by a descriptor, they mean a straight one. If you do not believe me, check flanking, cover, concealment, or line of sight.

To me, the real dispute here comes not in whether it is straight or not, but in deciding if a bull rush hinders your movement. I would say it does. If we look at the overall movement of the charger after a bull rush, he has moved in a zig-zag that he never would have been able to use for a charge. Even if we argue that a bull rush is not hindering, every path I tried on a grid resulted in the charger having to use an extra square of movement to reach a target on the other side of the defender. This should at least qualify as slowing him down as mentioned in the quoted section above. I don't really think we have even gone off RAW at this point.

If we are off RAW as you suggested, I am forced to go with realism. The charge represents a reckless action that boosts your attack and movement in exchange for weakening your defense. To have such an action interrupted by being forced backwards mid-run, I cannot imagine any warrior instantly recovering from that. A turn represents six seconds. Somewhere during those few seconds, your momentum was stolen from you and you were forced off path. I think our charger is done for his remaining seconds this round.

Either way, I think the OP's slammer has come up with a clever method of protecting his wizard. As stated, a tripping character could accomplish the same thing for less feats, and the enemy would now be prone as well. If this is the path he wishes to take, I say good on him. That is my two copper.


The action under the skill listing is "none." It may take a second for your character to convey what he knows to the rest of the party, but when you make the check, you have the knowledge.

For the "what is useful" part, there is no exact science here. The entry gives an example of "special powers" and "vulnerabilities." I would give the players one piece of that type of information for success and each plus 5 as the entry states. Immunities and resistances also seem like good choices. As for how to decide, I would go with a quasi-random choosing, but I may pick a specific piece of information for cinematic reasons. That's my two copper.


BltzKrg242 wrote:
Started at 1st but up to 2nd now. GM is willing to let us adjust feats up to 3rd level.

You are considering taking some useless feats to get some far future results. If you were starting at about 10, this might be even considerable. A lot of what you see above is mostly theory. I would ask if anyone has actually tried to take a feint rogue from one on up. I doubt they made it very far. The furthest I have ever played a rogue is from one to eight. That is a dangerous time for rogues, and you do not need to be alone in melee with several weak feats (Combat Expertise). Consider Improved Initiative and boost your Acrobatics. If you need to feint, just do it as a standard and do not sacrifice your movement. If you are standing still, you are asking to get surrounded and you do not have Improved Uncanny Dodge yet. Take Dodge to boost that AC. Power Attack to pour on some non-sneak damage. Get Leadership and a cohort. I know, you can't get it until seven, but that will still pay off long before the feat trees above. You are never going to be a great tripper, and it will take you two feat to get there.

The more I read and think on this, the "trap" part of the feint path is the illusion that a rogue can be by himself in melee. If you cannot flank, that means you have no nearby allies. You are alone, in light armor, with one or more enemies, and a rogue's hit points. This sounds like a deadly trap to me. That's my two copper.


SlimGauge wrote:
The wizard gets a concentration check to complete the casting anyway, despite being damaged. What does the charger get ?

A fair question, but the answer is nothing. Casting is not charging. I used it as a simple example of precedence for losing an action. To be interrupted, the wizard needs to be damaged and fail the concentration check. For the charge to be "interrupted," the charger just needs to have his path obstructed or hindered in any way. Only one thing needs to happen to make a charge illegal. Two things have to happen for the spell to fail. In my experience, I have seen far more casters lose spells to damage than warriors lose charges to obstructions.

However, I kind of like the idea of giving the charger some save or check like a wizard's concentration to salvage his turn or remaining move. I wouldn't let him continue the charge, but I would allow him to complete his double move or take a standard if he had not already moved more than his speed. This might be a fun house rule, but it is clearly not RAW. Anyway, still just my two copper.


Jiggy wrote:
What should a PC (who has neither a climb speed nor the ability to cast spider climb) do to be ready for create pit, or a similar circumstance?

This is a really specific situation. I cannot imagine there are many similar circumstance other than a pit trap.

I will presume really low levels as their are potion of spider climb that do the work (300 G). Have one or more PC's designated to carry pre-knotted ropes attached to grappling hooks. These PC's should be capable of making a ranged attack versus AC 9 (The AC for a grappling hook to catch -4 for being 30 feet deep), and should be able and willing to use his round putting it in place for others if he is not at the bottom of said pit. This will cost someone a round, but it creates a DC 0 climb check for all those at the bottom. DC 5 to climb at half speed. The best part is, it works for any number of people in the pit. Presuming Silk Rope, 11 G per person and 9 Pounds. That's just my two copper though.


SlimGauge wrote:
There's not enough RAW on interrupted charges.

This is true, but I think I would rule it differently. The charge rules state that anything hindering your path makes charge impossible. As soon as the charge is interrupted by the shield slam, it has clearly been hindered. As RAW doesn't quite cover this, I am going to go with realism. The charger put everything into a run and was violently knocked off his intended path. I say the turn is over here. That may seem harsh, but I think that would be a reasonable response to being knocked back while moving full speed. Also, I don't think this would be a regular enough occurrence to be an unbalanced ruling. Remember, the charger could have charged the player with the shield as he clearly is closer but chose instead to run past him and provoke an attack of opportunity.

If you need game precedence, think of a wizard who is interrupted while casting a full round spell. He did not choose to abort this action and thus retain his move. He was violently interrupted during a span of 6 seconds. That is the nature of a lost action. I don't see why charge would be any different. Admittedly, this is just my two copper on the matter.


Hehe. Awesome. I am always looking for new paths to character immortality if they make it to the high levels. This one is easier and cheaper than most. I like the idea of a wizard with this rod coming back to the "mortal" plane every now and again to solve problems or resupply. Good find, Duskblade. I may use that as a plot device in a future campaign.


I hate to repeat, but the section on ability drain mentions both your skills going down based on the ability loss...

Ability Drain wrote:
Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability.

And it mentions skill points specifically in the same vein as hit points.

Ability Drain wrote:
This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points, and other bonuses.

Skill points are very different from ability bonuses to a skill. Your Intelligence modifier is never referred to as "Skill Points". I fear you lose both. The points should be able to come from wherever you want, but they are definitely lost. When you gain another +2 permanent Intelligence, you gain one skill point per level. Unless your GM decides to be merciful, those points are gone. I hope the trade off for permanent Ability loss was worth it. That is a harsh penalty.


Vestrial wrote:
Never heard 'a penny saved...' eh? Saving cash is how you make cash with creation feats.
Vestrial wrote:
Normal item: pay more, make more on resale. Restricted item: Pay less, make less on resale.

So you were talking about making money by paying less in your prior post? I presumed you were talking about making money by selling things. You mentioned resale twice.

The player in question is attempting to create a custom version of a magic item that already exists to save even more money than the half-price that a crafter normally pays while still getting the full functionality. You don't see this as twisting the rules or being a munchkin? The GM doesn't need to change the rules as you stated to disallow this. Read the section on pricing. It lists this discount as something to check for not something you can add. As in seeing if a staff can only be used by a cleric. If yes, it clearly gets the price discount. There isn't even a section for adding an alignment limiter to weapons or most other things.

Finally, as I quoted before:

Magic Item Value wrote:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth.

A simple sword that can detect alignment may actually be worth more. Yes, fewer people can use it, but what church wouldn't love to have a Scimitar of Proving?


I am not sure if their is a RAW way to decide what is lost, but the entry for ability drain specifically says you can lose skill points to it.

Ability Drain wrote:
Ability drain actually reduces the relevant ability score. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to lose skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. Ability drain can be healed through the use of spells such as restoration.

Presuming that magic can later restore your Intelligence, I would mark one skill point per level as gone, and if you regain the lost Intelligence, you regain those exact skill points. I would rule that you can remove the skill points as you please, but that is just my two copper.


EDIT: What Riuken said.

Thaylen wrote:

I was reading a build thread that someone was working on and noticed that they had taken Quicken SLA for a sorcerer bloodline power (obtained using eldritch heritage. I thought the Quicken SLA feat could only be taken for spell like abilities not any ability. Did I miss something?

Here is the Linky.

Touch of Rage is listed as an (SP) under the Orc Blooded entry. This means it is a Spell-Like Ability.


Goth Guru wrote:
Well, every merchant will try to bill their +2 cold iron longsword as a holy avenger.

No they won't. Anyone that can afford one would be able to tell the difference and would be foolish to drop that much cash without doing so. A merchant caught doing so by a Paladin (His target market with Holy Avengers) could expect to be brought before the local magistrate. However, there will always be people selling "genuine" fakes.

Goth Guru wrote:
Adventurers will have a hard time selling +2 cold iron longswords, unless identify will tell you if it's a holy sword.

Why wouldn't Identify do exactly that? And why would a merchant be dealing in magic items if he couldn't verify their authenticity?

We are getting off-topic, Goth. If you want to debate this further, start a new thread, and I will chime in.


Goth Guru wrote:
As I understand it, the Holy Avenger is supposed to be indistinguishable from a +2 longsword. You are getting a 30% and maybe a 10% discount in crafting, but it sells as a +2 longsword unless you sell directly to a Paladin. If the object being crafted functions as a masterwork weapon in the wrong hands, the resale value is pretty worthless.

Actually, the discount for the Holy Avenger's "Paladin Only Abilities" is already factored in to its market price. Also, it doesn't say it is indistinguishable from a +2 longsword in the entry. It simply says it functions as one. A merchant is only going to sell the Holy Avenger cheaper if they don't know what it is. This is unlikely considering they are in the business of buying at least +2 cold iron longswords. Merchant's in Pathfinder games are usually more easily compared to a pawn broker. They get the item as cheaply as they can and sit on it until they can find someone willing to pay their price. They would be foolish to sell something like a Holy Avenger at a lower price simply because the person buying it couldn't use all the abilities.


Winterwalker wrote:
I think I'm leaning, no check to enter/pass through an enemy square, but maybe using a check for the prone part of it.

That isn't necessarily unfair, but it doesn't seem to mesh with the Trample ability as it is written. The CMD would definitely be +5 since the Overrun knock prone only happens on success plus five anyway. Presuming that this is a PC, you need to ask the GM what he thinks because he would use the same ruling for the monsters that have Trample as well.

You probably don't want to run this exactly as Overrun. If you do, this means the enemy can choose to just let you pass by to not risk the prone effect and avoid all your damage. At that point, it is just a good way to get on the other side of the enemy.


Vestrial wrote:
He effectively paid a feat to make a little money, why let him take the feat in the first place if you don't want to let him make the money that the rules allow?

This argument is completely invalid. If he is using the feat to make money, he could just make the item at full price and sell it for the market value. However, PC's seldom make market value on an item as they are not shopkeepers and cannot afford to hold onto it for months or years until a buyer comes along that will pay full price. Player's are not merchants. I have yet to meet the player that takes a Item Creation feat to make money. They take them to save money. Slight but important difference. They pay half what the item costs in exchange for their skill points, feats, and time. This player is attempting to save even more money by twisting the established rules in the Magic Items Value section. A rules section that mentions how it is not an exact science and is subject to GM ruling. The player is trying to twink a feat to make it better than it is.


ryric wrote:
It's tough to make the CMB check with 3/4 BAB, and you need a seperate feat (Agile Maneuvers) to use your Dex for combat maneuvers. It'll be great when it works but expect to need pretty good rolls to pull it off against any major bad guy.

It is hard even with Agile Maneuvers. You could use feint here to get rid of their Dexterity bonuses to CMD, but if you use it as a move, the enemy needs to be adjacent to you.

This adds two more feats to the group you need. What level are you starting at, BltzKrg242?


Ahh, see I missed that the Two Weapon Feint and Improved Two Weapon requirements. This means that the Improved Two Weapon Feint tree has Combat Expertise, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two Weapon Fighting, and Two Weapon Feint as prerequisites. Five feats. And you still need to wedge Weapon Finesse in there somewhere unless you blow a Talent on it.

Forget this, man. Make a strength-based rogue with Dex secondary and take Power Attack. One feat. Or better still, forget combat and be an awesome skill monkey. They always need those on ships. If none of your allies are going to be melee - a reasonable choice on a ship - you do not want to be out there alone. Lets presume you did go with this expensive feint train, what happens when a rogue is the only person in melee? You die.


If this were so, the players would almost never be able to use any magic item they found as it would always have some restriction. That alone should be enough reason for them not to jump down that particular rabbit hole.

Magic Item Gold Piece Value wrote:

Other Considerations: Once you have a cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies: Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill

to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%. Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

Anyway, this rule doesn't refer to adding these restrictions. It refers to seeing if the restrictions already exist. A +1 Scimitar exists already and it has no alignment restrictions. However, a Ring of Wizardry already has this price discount factored in as it usable only by Arcane Casters. If he cannot explain why a person of opposite alignment cannot wield his scimitar, then he cannot factor in the discount. Also, neither of the discounts can be applied more than once. Whether it requires one skill or four, it can still only qualify once. However, I see no reason they would not stack if both apply.

EDIT: Oh forgot to include this too:

Magic Item Gold Piece Value wrote:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth.


The Greater Feint path is a pool into which you throw feats. Combat Expertise is almost worthless for you. If you are going to take a penalty to hit, you might as well just take the total defense action. With Improved Feint, you are still only getting one attack per round and you cannot move even 5 feet. The mobility loss means you probably won't be getting sneak attack much more often than if it were your standard. Greater feint is only good for you if you can somehow get another attack before the start of your next turn. If you do not think you will get flanking from your group, you can go this route, but it is a really terrible use of your feats and a poor overall way to do damage.

Better option? Boost your acrobatics and get on the other side of your enemies. Battlefield mobility and flanking are your real friends here.

Improved Two Weapon Feint people, see my arguments for the first two feats in that tree. You won't even be eligible for this feat until level 8, so you will probably pick it up at 9. That is a long time to suck. If you are going to wait that long, take Leadership at level 7 and get a guy with plate and a tower shield. His AC should be great and he can flank with you. Anyway, that's my two copper.


Jiggy wrote:

It's under "Touch Spells in Combat" in the Combat chapter of the Core Rules.

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:
You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Thanks, Jiggy. I have always played with this rule, but I couldn't find it. I would still stand by my ruling though. If allies always succeed on touch attacks and combat maneuvers, then the first attacks from a charmed ally or an NPC you believe to be on your side would be an automatic success. A combat maneuver is closer to a real attack then a touch attack too. At best, I would say a character would be considered flat-footed against a perceived ally's first attacks. Huh. This just makes me more dubious about touch attacks not requiring any type of roll. I am going to chalk that one up to magical BS. Again, just my two copper.

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 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.