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

kyrt-ryder's page

10,773 posts (10,797 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 10,773 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I owe you a huge apology Wrath, I've been crazy busy lately and only had sporadic moments to pop online and do stuff.

The good news is, I am prepared to complete this and make my initial post tonight. [We're in a sort of RP mode right now so I assume I can introduce the characters (as personalities) even if their abilities require some adjustment.?]


Potion Glutton


Being present for the entire process doesn't identify both individuals as the creator. It's the one using the craft feat at the time that is.

This should by all rights, allow the production of two scrolls per day.

EDIT: at least with the use of the +5 DC such that each crafting was done in 4 hours. I imagine it would work without it but that's a little more hazy.


With a Blackwick Cauldron a Potion Brewer could craft up to 24 CL 1 first level potions, or any other combination that resulted in a total value of less than 1200 gold per day.

Why oh why we don't seem to have a magic item desk that does this for scrolls I have no flipping clue.


If the action is exactly the same as using a potion, does that then transfer to the abilities that accelerate drinking a potion? The Trait Fast Drinker makes it a Move Action and I know there's a feat somewhere that makes it a swift.


I have heard of this Trick. If we can get past the Magic Shuriken problem I just might have to find a way to incorporate it.

Better shuriken flurry is awesome, but if every 50 throws you're buying a new magic weapon [with zero return from selling off the old one] you have a problem.

Reflavoring is usually acceptable, but this time it's more of a thought experiment than 'getting the concept I want to work by any means necessary.'


I'm aware that the Blink Back Belt makes normal throwing weapons viable, but for the sake of the thought experiment I would like to build a Shuriken Specialist.

As for using a Class to temporarily grant an enhancement bonus, I am well aware of this [although examples of it are greatly appreciated.]

Any other suggestions?


I've been a bit out of the loop the last year or two so I'm not quite up to date on all the new options that have been coming out.

How would you build a shuriken specialist? Does Pathfinder have a means of using magical ones without wasting money yet?

While my primary objective here is RAW, I am also interested in RAI of things which don't quite work but *should*, and of slight homebrew tweaks to existing items that make sense.

The two things I'd like to request not included in responses is flat out homebrew material [including custom spell-based magic items] and 3rd party. This isn't because I'm opposed to third party/homebrew, but because I'm making this character as part of a challenge within Paizo's published rules.


Yeah, that's great for throwing weapons.

Shuriken are classed as ammunition though, which is cool in some ways but causes them to be destroyed when they hit the target.

Naturally overcoming this penalty requires a cost of some sort [because Shuriken being ammo is a benefit in ways, the penalty balances that] but to date I've yet to see an actual method of making it work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So guys, has Pathfinder managed to put out a method of actually using magical shuriken without pissing money away?

Either some sort of glove/gauntlet/pouch that bestows its magical properties onto the Shuriken, or a means of having magical shuriken that aren't permanently destroyed?

EDIT: even a +1 magic property tax would be better than the current situation for shuriken users.


Rhedyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Seriously though, turning something that SHOULD be a function of the Disguise Skill supported with a bit of money into an entire class?

This can't have good results on the ability for Rogues and Swashbucklers to use Disguise effectively. [I've excluded Investigators and Bards because magic.]

Disguise can't change your alignment.

Nor should it, but somewhere around level 5 I expect it to be able to successfully fake your alignment. [Yes I know it doesn't do that now.]

Quote:
Disguise doesn't start off with a free +20 bonus.

And how frequently do you suspect GMs are going to start adjusting to such a high bonus to make it less easy for PC's to successfully infiltrate? Personally speaking I'd make no adjustments at all and- in my personal opinion- that's how a GM should be. Many many GMs- however- expect events to present a challenge and want to make sure that their scenarios aren't guaranteed successes for the party. This results in a stealth-nerf to classes without access to heavy buffs like that. [Meanwhile Bards and Investigators do alright, via Disguise Self's +10]

Quote:
If a GM understands that their can be many routes to do a thing, then it's fine. If a GM decides you need X ability instead of Z ability to do Y things because X specifically does Y, then that is going to cause problems.

Indeed.


Diego Rossi wrote:
avr wrote:

An utterly cool mount may be worth the spells, even if you can't get it to attack.

An official nerf does seem likely though I do agree; it'll be interesting to see if any use is left in the spell post-nerf.

Sure, having a dire tiger willing to work as a mount for you is very good.

Way more hp than a regular horse and way better combat abilities if attacked.
Simply you don't get the versatility of the summon monster spells where the tiger will immediately attack your enemies and try to grapple them.

A mount who is serving 'willingly and well' will protect you as best he's able. In the case of a default not-combat-trained horse that basically means running away unless you override his instincts with the Ride Skill.

With something more combat capable though, things change a bit.


Part of what they need is for Martial Skill [aka BAB] to naturally improve reload rates.

Couple that with higher base damage [and perhaps slower default reload rates] and you're good to go.

Say a Heavy Crossbow deals 2d10 damage and takes a full round to reload, while a light deals 2d8 and takes a standard and a hand deals 2d4 and takes a move.

Every 5 BAB reduces the action rating by one [move could either go directly to Free or to Swift first, depending.]

Rapid Reload increases these by one step with an explicit free retraining option baked into the feat for use at any time the feat-taker's BAB reaches a new reload speed tier.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seriously though, turning something that SHOULD be a function of the Disguise Skill supported with a bit of money into an entire class?

This can't have good results on the ability for Rogues and Swashbucklers to use Disguise effectively. [I've excluded Investigators and Bards because magic.]


I can get down with what Aelryinth is saying as well. Giving the Fighter ridiculously high SR and pretty high saves is a good way to go here. Certain spells just don't work, so the Wizard has to dig into the rest of his pack for tactics that are a bit less ruthlessly effective but still have a chance to work.

Things like summoning monsters to fight on his behalf, or self/minion buffing.

One thing though in conjunction with this- I'd like to see blasting Evocation removed from Spell Resistance. It's already the weakest school in the game, there's no good reason SR should apply to simple energy damage [or even worse physical things like Hydrolic Push blasting water at the target.]


One thing to bear in mind is that mounts that are serving 'Willingly and Well' are working WITH their master to the best of their ability. There are times that such a mount [just look at Goblin dogs for an animal type example] will fight alongside of or in front of [dismount, mount charges into combat while master supports from behind with spells or ranged attacks.]

One thing I would NOT allow someone using this combo to do- regardless of ability to communicate- is give a mount an order and expect it to fulfill the instructions alone while the caster is off doing something else. A mount's place is with his master even when it's not beneath his master. Overriding that would require a Dominate or a Geass.

Also self preservation [either the instinct in a non-intelligent mount or a fear of pain in an intelligent mount that realizes it won't really die, barring certain demons who are such psychos they'd probably rock the battle for the hell of it, cackling all the while] is a thing, if the Mount feels that it's losing it's not going to just stand there and keep fighting, it's going to run away and grab its master on the way by [even horses are known to bite the shirt of their partner and drag him away from danger now and then, it happened to my grandmother in her youth.]


J4RH34D wrote:
you want maybe a maybe a 25% chance of failure?

More like 15%


I wanted Batman and I got The Green Hornet.


Incidentally now that I've read your story I've got to say I rather agree with you... in that instance.

If a mage is going to be glouting about his power and glory and all that BS I'd totally understand the intelligent creature rebuffing him.

Now on the other hand if the mage had cast a few protections on himself and the angel and treated it with some dignity "Please endure the shame, the people who live in the town I shepherd are in grave danger, and through a quirk of the laws of magic I've been able to bring you to aid us in our time of need for an extended period. I've collected several suits of gear in my travels that you are welcome to use, though none of it of terribly potent magic."

When the Angel was suited up, the Wizard would ask the Angel how he wished to carry him and travel in that manner- with the insistence that it be a fairly dignified one [on the angel's back as in your story, or perhaps carried in his arms in some method but not sack-of-potatoes-over-the-shoulder style.]

From there the two progress to deal with the dragon however they see fit.

I suppose my views on the spell are at least partly tainted by my view of what a mount is and how it should be treated. There are some people who abuse a mount, but in my opinion a mount should be a trusted and valued companion.

One thing though, the way you wrote that and given a few of the posts I've seen you make it seems you're equating this tactic with Gate. I can assure you my friend there isn't anything close to a Planetar in Summon Monster. With Gate a Mage could Call [big difference there too, putting the Called creature into mortal danger] and control a Planetar, meanwhile with this the most powerful angel he could call is a Deva, which are messengers or perhaps low-mid grade officers rather than generals.


Not a problem Wrath, I'm glad you were willing to go with a system you're retiring for the sake of an experiment.

As for your idea, it is true that missing with the bolt in question wastes the opportunity to use it in that combat, if all of the bolts in question are Durable then they can still be recovered after the fight [unless they can't, but at least at low levels those sorts of scenarios don't come up terribly often.] But it does save on space and weight.


^This comment was funnier before I realized it wasn't Dr. Death posting it.


I thought the way we were doing it was each bolt required a separate channeling, for its own charge?

And yeah, 4 Wizards. Originally it was going to be all Spellcasters of varying classes but somehow the original conversation got warped into all Wizards and I'm going with that. Lacking certain spells on the cleric list REALLY hurts my personal sense of paranoia [and has resulted in one of the Wizard's being a Samsaraan for the expanded spell list option, thankfully Witches carry many of the spells I want.]

EDIT: on rereading your last post I see you talking spell in regards to the Consecrated Bolts? They're Channel Focuses, objects which absorb a Channel Energy from a Cleric for some effect.


You got it. Is the Consecrated Bolts thing ok then?

And it's mandatory to have a campaign trait on each character huh... that makes things a bit more challenging, but alright I'll reshuffel things a bit to make it happen.

EDIT: my ninja was kind of dependent on a different campaign trait in order to fulfill the trap-detector role. If you feel that isn't that important it won't be a big deal to drop it for one from the guide.


Indeed, I was envisioning a cluster of 20 bolts were crafted with the property as a single event- but each one requires a separate Channel Energy invested into it.

Also, should I be downloading the Original or Anniversary Edition Rise of the Runelords Player's Guide?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Actually a powerful, and legal use of this combo is to effectively nearly double the effectiveness of your highest level summons. Especially with Superior summons, if you use your high level summon spell to get multiples off a lower level list, then use Alter Summons to change one of those back into a monster from the high level list, you've nearly doubled the power of your Summon Monster IX with a 2nd level spell.

Action economy still bites you in the butt, unless you're a Summoner in which case buy a wand of this as soon as it becomes reasonably affordable [maybe 20% of WBL?]


So are we using the original or the anniversary edition? There's a separate Player's Guide to each of them and given that a new PG was printed for the new one I'm assuming there are some changes between them.

On another note, does Consecrated Weapon apply to ammunition? On the one hand it says it functions 'like Channel Smite' (which normally only works on melee weapons)... while on the other hand, it's charged with channel energy before-hand [up to 24 hours before] and it makes a point of emphasizing how it works with 'weapons of any type.'


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
"Nerf Martials!!!!

Paizo does a pretty good job of that without any encouragement.


Just to confirm, this is set in bog standard Golarion, not adapted to a homeworld?


Nobody ever said you altered that spell.

Please carefully read Alter Summoned Monster.

Then do it again.

Alter Summoned Monster functions entirely off the spell level of the spell it is altering.


Despite my previous belief otherwise, those skills do apply to an intelligent mount.

A blog post some time ago even highlighted the Griffon was handled as a Mount via Ride and Tricks/Handle Animal.


Alright, while you're picking away at that story I'll buckle down and finish these characters.


Wrath wrote:

Yeah Diego, I was thinking more about the handle animal thing last night.

If you want to force this thing to act as anything but a mount you're going to need more stuff.

Domination comes to mind. And of course, with that spell in play this can become a very powerful exploit.

How is this any different from the Magical Beast mounts that are sold on the open market?

Axe Beaks and Griffons serve as mounts, and given the proper instruction [some of it via Handle Animal] they do a ton of fighting as well- in the capacity as Steed AKA Partner-Who-Is-Sometimes-Ridden.

DinosaursOnIce wrote:
Can't we just use Summon Accuser (in the hypothetical scenario that a GM is actually game for these shenanigans) and enjoy the 10 min/level (20 with a rod of extend!) summon we get. No fuss needed about language saying its a mount.

The problem is that doesn't come online for another four levels after Alter Summoned Monster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A Fighter reaching level 20 and only moving 20 feet per move action is pretty unrealistic.

That being said, it was just one possibility. The key is to make sure they have comparable powers not to shove the exact same ones down every fighter's face.


First, sorry for the very slow reply, that comment about Griffons needing to be Combat Trained despite sentience really threw me for a loop and plunged me into some deep deep research.

It stands to reason that for practical purposes Wrath's interpretation of Template Animals Summoned-through-mount requiring Handle Animal to do anything other than carry a rider is acceptable to me.

This spell combo sort of pieces together the functionality of one of my characters from 3rd level through 5th or so and I'd really rather not lose it entirely.

As for you Jazzai, I wasn't referring to the mount 'going wild' but rather the rider directing it via the ride skill.

Control Mount in Battle wrote:
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for horses or ponies trained for combat.

However in my research almost everyone has come to the conclusion that that particular action doesn't direct the mount to attack and just keeps it 'under control' aka not going wild.


I was having a very deep conversation regarding the capabilities of mounts [and what exactly Combat Trained is required for] and I can't for the life of me figure out what a Rider must do in order to get a mount to attack when he has no interest in attacking himself.

The rider in question can easily keep at least one if not two hands on the reigns.

The Mount doesn't require a specific trick for a rider to direct it to attack does it?


Wrath wrote:

Really, making stuff up?

So, if you summon a monster to attack baddies, and it happens to be a devil. The encounter ends but the devil is still there. Your Paladin companion now kills it, to send it back to the hell it came from.

Would your players be happy that the Devil attacked back, to defend itself?

I'd totally expect it would, unless its summoner relied on the compulsory service of the Summon to force it not to [hell as a GM I'd even give it a Will Save against that, though this is houserule territory.]


Wrath wrote:

Yeah mate, saw that. The rules allow you to make mounts attack untrained, if you PUSH them using handle animal.

That requires your action to do so, which for me is a great balancing factor.

Also, I'm not running this thing to swing the ban hammer. We discussed why casters in my games die when in yours they don't. I actually want this to be a bit of fun.

The last week I've been struggling with my meds and moods, so I've been "Feisty". Normally I stay out of threads like that, but if I'm in the mood for some good robust discussion, I'll chip in with my view and then defend it robustly. :)

Makes sense ^_^ And I totally agree that's exactly how it goes for mounts who aren't suited to combat.

As for your comments about a mount hating its situation and rebelling against the most explicit of tasks, I'd like to take this opportunity to parse a very specific sentence out of the Mount Spell.

The steed serves willingly and well. Now, this is prefaced by the statement that it is summoned to serve as a mount, but what is 'well' for a given mount differs from creature to creature.

For an untrained horse or pony, that means carrying its rider to the best of its ability [unless it gets spooked by something that terrifies it beyond its ability to willpower on.] For a Combat Trained Mount, that means fighting alongside its rider.

Now what about these creatures on the Summon Monster List? A Goblin Dog, for example, is expected to fight alongside its master.

What about a Griffin steed? Would not a Griffin Steed who serves well swoop to his rider's rescue, or perhaps work together with his rider to carry out aerial harrasment whilst his rider shoots or casts the enemies being harassed?

I could go on and on, but the point is that a 'Steed who serves well' is in many cases more of a partner than simple transportation- dependent on the steed in question being capable of such support.

'War Training' as such, is a bandaid with a steed of Animal Intelligence and not one relevant to a mount that can think for itself.


Communication is an issue with many lower level summons [and a decent chunk of the upper level lists] Casual Viking.

But yeah, if you're using Alter Summon for a Demon or Devil or Fey or something like that, so long as you have the same language you're golden.


Wrath wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Wrath wrote:

Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

Summon monster says it will.

Changing the mount to a devil means the devil will let you ride it. Period.

You can only use spells as described in the description. By raw.

In Raw discussions, the default is unless the description states it exactly, the default is no.

Anything else is DM discretion.

Given that this is relevant to one of the characters I built for your campaign [decided before this thread popped up- actually- as a result of research] I'd like to question this.

The mount spell is very explicit in what it provides, as quoted below

Quote:
You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.

At no point does this say the creature can not or will not attack. There are absolutely zero restrictions on the creature except its obedience.

Light Horses and Ponys, for example- can and do attack when they feel threatened and escape is not an option. Without combat training, their attacks are secondary attacks but this is a function of the creature summoned, not the spell itself.

If you wish to houserule it, I'd appreciate a restriction such as 'Altered Summons can not be sustained longer than 1 hour per caster level, regardless the duration of the original spell] but as you were posting about running 'raw with interpretations' I suspect we may need to continue this discussion in the Discussion Thread for our campaign.

As Dieago pointed out, you can PUSH a mount to attack. It requires handle animal to do so. For our game, I'm trying to minimise the need for DM calls at all. When we have to do it, you and I will discuss it and go from there.

In all honesty, the point of our challenge for me has become something fun rather than something to prove. I'll DM like I always do, and hopefully you'll enjoy it.

I too am looking forward to it, getting my dad settled in has been a pretty full job, but I expect to present my characters for review tomorrow.

As for a mount spell, could you explain for me exactly how the mount spell restricts the creature's actions? The only restriction I see is that it can't reject its rider [which presumably could be the caster or someone else the caster dictates.]

Are you claiming a mount is unable to attack? That if cornered it wouldn't use its Hoof attacks? Or that a rider with Handle Animal couldn't push it into attacking a target within reach?

The only restrictions I'm seeing here are based on the innate nature of the beast, nothing to do with the spell itself and nothing that would be transferred over to an Altered Summon.

Now, neither Mount nor Alter Summon Spell compels the creature to attack nearby enemies automatically as Summon monster does, but if an enemy attacks it's going to attack back, and if the caster has a means of communicating with it the 'The steed serves willingly and well.'

'Direct to Attack' is one means of communication the caster could via the ride skill - if he were mounted on the creature. EDIT: unless you assume a creature from the Summon Monster list [a list of battle-ready creatures] wouldn't qualify as a 'wartrained mount.' Granted this is one of those GM calls you love to bring up, but it makes perfect sense to me.


Casual Viking wrote:

Once you summon something that is above animal intelligence though, all this talk of tricks and pushing goes out the window. Claiming that my Bearded Devil, who "serves willingly and well", who is a Conjuration effect as described in the Magic (not Spells) chapter, and understands every word I say, is *only* willing to give me piggyback rides and nothing else....is not specifically *against* the rules, but it is a *biased interpretation* for the purpose of nerfing Alter Summoned Monster.

I totally agree that this spell is crazyballs overpowered, btw. But what it needs is errata (changing the post-change duration to a maximum of 1 round/level would be decent), not tortured interpretation.

Because of action economy restricting it to 1 round/level [which- if not written carefully- could even preclude the use of the Extend Spell feat] is rather extreme.

Now, what I would like to see- is excluding this spell from functioning on Spell Like Abilities [no freebie for Summoners and not turning it into a Crowd Control/Debuff against Demons and other creatures that frequently summon via SLA] and perhaps restricting it to no more than 10 minutes per level.


Hey Wrath, I noticed a comment you made in the thread about Alter Summons and responded to it in-thread.

I figure we may need to take that discussion here rather than clutter that thread with it.

Here is the link to that post


Wrath wrote:

Anzyr, since you want to go rules as written. Mount spell does not say it will attack.

Summon monster says it will.

Changing the mount to a devil means the devil will let you ride it. Period.

You can only use spells as described in the description. By raw.

In Raw discussions, the default is unless the description states it exactly, the default is no.

Anything else is DM discretion.

Given that this is relevant to one of the characters I built for your campaign [decided before this thread popped up- actually- as a result of research] I'd like to question this.

The mount spell is very explicit in what it provides, as quoted below

Quote:
You summon a light horse or a pony (your choice) to serve you as a mount. The steed serves willingly and well. The mount comes with a bit and bridle and a riding saddle.

At no point does this say the creature can not or will not attack. There are absolutely zero restrictions on the creature except its obedience.

Light Horses and Ponys, for example- can and do attack when they feel threatened and escape is not an option. Without combat training, their attacks are secondary attacks but this is a function of the creature summoned, not the spell itself.

If you wish to houserule it, I'd appreciate a restriction such as 'Altered Summons can not be sustained longer than 1 hour per caster level, regardless the duration of the original spell] but as you were posting about running 'raw with interpretations' I suspect we may need to continue this discussion in the Discussion Thread for our campaign.


Lemartes wrote:

I believe one can state their opinion if a rule is exploitative or not with manners intact.

I think peoples opinion on how they feel about a rule is valuable because if many people happen to have a problem with a rule it might clue you in on how you want to use it regardless of how it works by RAW.

Simply if people don't behave as jerks then opinions shouldn't be a problem...but that's just my opinion.

Stating their view on how the rules should be is totally fine by my book [as DmBlake later acknowledged, though he started out the other way I'm about to grumble about.] What is not cool is deliberately trying to twist the rules in such a manner as to make something that does work, not work.

In order for LazarX's claims to be true, Heighten Spell would not penetrate Globes of Invulnerability, nor would Heightened Light Spells overcome Darkness, or any of the other actual functional uses of Heighten aside from its simple use as a DC booster [which the feat explicitly calls out as being only a part of its purpose.]

I can totally respect the distaste for this rules-interaction, I can even see people lobbying to hit it with the Errata-bat [and likely the FAQ bat, even though that's not actually how FAQs are supposed to work] but to outright twist the rules for the sake of your own argument... that's exactly what many posters accuse the optimizers of :P


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Honest truth? I like the foundation under the game [d20 mechanic, 1-9 spellcasting, etc] far more than I like the game itself.

It's not that I don't find pathfinder fun, it's that I find the rules structure and design philosophies rather oppressive, especially as regards characters lacking significant spellcasting.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Incidentally, we finally have a means for Sorcerers to be good summoners. Rather than blowing spell known after spell known into the summoning concept every spell level, they don't even take Summon Monster. Start with Mount and Summon Monster 1, picks up Alter Summon and trades out Summon Monster 1 at level 4 and never looks back.

Unfortunately, this does have the negative effect of only allowing the Sorcerer to bring a summon with him into battle rather than call the right one at the right time but it's actually viable and leaves him with spells known for other things.


Incidentally, we finally have a means for Sorcerers to be good summoners. Rather than blowing spell known after spell known into the summoning concept every spell level, they don't even take Summon Monster. Start with Mount and Summon Monster 1, picks up Alter Summon and trades out Summon Monster 1 at level 4 and never looks back.

Unfortunately, this does have the negative effect of only allowing the Sorcerer to bring a summon with him into battle rather than call the right one at the right time but it's actually viable and leaves him with spells known for other things.


LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Silly Blake, that's not what the spell says.

The key point is that it requires a creature of the same Spell Level. Heighten spell genuinely changes the spell level.

You're doing a bit of selective reading there champ... let me fill in the rest .... ONLY for purposes of calculating the spell's save DC.

Allow me to quote the feat

Heighten Spell (Metamagic) wrote:


Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.
I'm not sure how you can argue Alter Summoned Monster's effect isn't dependent on spell level.
Sure it is.. but as far as it goes, that only means that Summon Mount now has a save DC as a 9th level spell, which is inapplicable, and that it can now penetrate a Globe of Invulnerability, again not that applicable to situation. Heighten Spell does not change THE EFFECTS of the spell, which is what you're trying to pull.

It doesn't need to change the effects, that's not what I'm trying to pull at all.

A Wizard could research a custom 'summon harmless goldfish' spell as a 9th level spell, and cast Alter Summon on it and turn it into anything in the 9th level Summon monster list.

This isn't about the effects of the spell, it's about the spell level.


Ravingdork wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
It's not the CharOp people who get screwed by errata. Sure a build or two of theirs get's screwed, but...
I'm at FIFTEEN and counting!!!

Out of what, fifty? :P


LazarX wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Silly Blake, that's not what the spell says.

The key point is that it requires a creature of the same Spell Level. Heighten spell genuinely changes the spell level.

You're doing a bit of selective reading there champ... let me fill in the rest .... ONLY for purposes of calculating the spell's save DC.

Allow me to quote the feat

Heighten Spell (Metamagic) wrote:


Benefit: A heightened spell has a higher spell level than normal (up to a maximum of 9th level). Unlike other metamagic feats, Heighten Spell actually increases the effective level of the spell that it modifies. All effects dependent on spell level (such as saving throw DCs and ability to penetrate a lesser globe of invulnerability) are calculated according to the heightened level. The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level.

I'm not sure how you can argue Alter Summoned Monster's effect isn't dependent on spell level.


Silly Blake, that's not what the spell says.

The key point is that it requires a creature of the same Spell Level. Heighten spell genuinely changes the spell level.

Is it a little exploitive? Sure. Less so than Planar Binding though, that's for sure. [Granted it comes online significantly earlier.]

One thing about Summon Monster though? In the vast majority of cases these things are designed to die pretty quickly in combat, many times you're burning the Alter Spell in order to turn your highest level summon monster into a pre-casting that still dies in the very next fight.

It actually seems like a fairly reasonable-ish thing to me, though I'm not accounting for the spellcasting of higher level summons in this analysis.

1 to 50 of 10,773 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.