Sunrunnerii's page

As I read Versatile Evocation it seems that it would work with any evocation spell you could cast not just your wizard's spells.

Here is the discription of the ability.

Versatile Evocation (Su): When you cast an evocation spell that does acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, you may change the damage dealt to one of the other four energy types. This changes the descriptor of the spell to match the new energy type. Any non-damaging effects remain unchanged unless the new energy type invalidates them (an ice storm that deals fire damage might still provide a penalty on Perception checks due to smoke, but it would not create difficult terrain). Such effects are subject to GM discretion. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.

Anyone see a reason that it wouldn't work on all evocation spells? (Not just wizard evocation spells)

Total Con is in Feb.
TotalCon - February 23 - 26, 2012
http://www.totalcon.com/

Looking forward to seeing you again Don! I don't know that I will be able to make any of your other games...but glad to have you on board.

Okay thanks for the help WRoy! I appreciate it.

Also, you may not be able to cast a spell requiring a target on a swarm, but any caster in your party can zap it with damaging spells that create effects requiring attack rolls (not targets). Even 1st-2nd level arcane casters can pick away the hp of a CR1 spider swarm with a ray of frost or such if they don't have real prepared damage spells.

This was something that Jason mentioned in one of his posts...I guess I am not sure where this rule is outlined...where is target defined?

While I agree that would indeed solve the problem so would having a sorc/wiz with burning hands. I don't have access to any of those things so that is moot.

Having searched through the boards for an answer I find myself having more questions than when I started.

The swarm traits make them bascially immune to weapons and any targeted spell. Clear enough...but as I searched for a recourse (other than having a bunch of flasks of acid/fire or a arcane caster with burnings hands) I happened upon several posts which brought in the possibility of a lit torch doing damage.
The first thread was rather old but the most promising I thought...
Vulnerabilities Of Swarms

It has some comments from Jason Jacobs which I am always happy to see, but in this case his comments seem to support the fact that a torch would do damage to a swarm at least at first but then later seems to be changing his point of view.
He also suggests adding it to the errata thread Problem Errata In Bestiary PDF
I found said post but no one seems to have address this...does that mean it wasn't changed?

I have also found other places where Jason has stated similarly that elemental damage does work on a swarm here

I don't suppose someone *cough*Jason Jacobs*cough* would be willing to clear up my confusion? Thanks to all in advance for any assistance.

I don't really like the idea of using only heal to gather poison. I do like using (Craft: Alchemy) for someone with Poison use because heal might teach you were a poison sac is but it wouldn't teach the harvesting of poison. I would also let heal skill work but I think someone who focused on healing would find it repugnant. Live animals would be a double check, Handle Animal and Craft: Alchemy or Heal.

I think the amount of poison gathered would be based on size of the creature rather than the CON score. I mean if you get a tiny spider what is poisonous it would take several to get one dose. Exceptional skill checks would increase the that amount gathered beating the check DC by 10 gets double what it normally would for a creature of its size.

Size would change the dosing amount by factors of 2. Starting at Medium 1 and then for each size step up times 2 and each step down divided by 2. The creatured being killed in combat would half the amount able to be gathered (To account for the amount that the creature used in the fight because even if it missed it still attempted to activate its poison injectors even if it didn't hit flesh.)

So a large creature would be ((1 x 2)/2) = 1 dose after a fight. A Small creature would be ((1/2)/2) = .25 of a dose after a fight.

I am still thinking on the DC I want it set it at. I am considering a variable DC because a snake is easier to harvest than a spider or wasp...but I don't know if I want to add that level of complexity. to the game.

Maybe the DC of the poison plus some constant?

I think DC + HD of creature would make it trival.

Thoughts?

PS:The second sentence assumes the "friend" is a spy and this was just discovered. For the sake of the druid not killing a party member it sounds good, but the flip side is that if the is continually enforced the animal would not be useful at times. A smart DM might use disguise check and spells that alter appearance to keep the animal out of the fight at times.

I don't think that would be unreasonable reaction. But animals don't depend on just sight so it would have to be more than just an appearance. I mean if someone looking, smelling, and sounding showed up and told your dog to do something it probably would react as if it you had said it.

To me this says the control isn't complete. They just cannot stop themselves.
"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take
actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a
+2 bonus." Pathfinder CRB pg 274 in Dominate Person Spell.
(Oh I think animal int is usually 3, but that is off topic)
I am not saying you are wrong...because I can see your side of the argument. Just looking for the correct answer.

I am saying that the person wouldn't have common sense. They would have the dominator's sense. I don't think that a dominated person would have the sense to exploit weaknesses that a friend would know either. That part of the mind is still fighting the control.

Let me clarify my position on dominate. I know it isn't a physcial effect that controls them. They are still acting under their own movement but not their own will. (Like Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom). But they are also not acting at full ability. All the creativity and improv that a person has would be suppressed those are personality traits. They are just "following orders".

This may have been covered, if so I apologize for the double post; I looked and didn't see anything that covered this.

I suppose simply stated the question is:
Would a dominated person who was given the command to attack think enough to tell his animal companion to attack as well?

To give you an example:
Our druid was dominated, he was told to kill the party. He proceeded to attack the party (as expected). However his Animal companion also attacked the party. Should it have?

Our party is fairly close so we aren't evil and just waiting for the chance to kill each other. I would even say we are friends.

Would the pet have stood around being confused bereted of orders. Its allegiance didn't change...I know it certainly wouldn't attack its master but I don't know that it would turn on the party either.

As I understand it the animal companion will do whatever its master tells it to but, would the dominated person have the presence of mind to give commands to the animal? It seems as though the dominator would have to tell him to have the animal attack.

I guess it would depend on how exactly dominate works…I always saw it as, “Oh look, I can’t seem to control my movements anymore.” It’s not a change of moral or perception it’s a loss of control. So you are going to follow instructions with the best of your abilities. However does your pet count as “your” abilities? Or because it is separate from you, would that be different command from the dominator to get it to attack. To command an animal since you would have to “think and decide” to a degree I am not sure you could do.

Thanks for any feed back!