Killebrew's page

City in the Lion's Eye, the 4th Book in the War for the Crown AP, features an Abadaran Tyrant (the LE archetype of the antipaladin). He's not a central figure, but if you get your hands on the book it has a good description of the guy. No code as such, but you get a sense of his outlook and personality. Combining 1) the description of his personality and tactics along with 2) the philosophy of the Abadaran splinter sect he founded and rounding that out with 3) a twisting of Abadar's paladin code seems like what you're looking for: Discipline and order, submission to strong and financially-minded authorities (which might even be you depending on your backstory), strict social hierarchy, and profit superseding individual freedom. Prosperity theology with a militant arm to rival Bioshock. Skip Ayn Rand and Gordon Gekko to find religious justifications, but keep their overall rhetoric. Abadar doesn't really want people relying on the church or the government for their prosperity anyway, so Rand and Gekko might even give him a nod. Historically, there's potential precedent for what you're looking for in the buying and selling of Indulgences in the Catholic Church (condemned by people like Dante Alighieri, Geoffrey Chaucer, and Martin Luther before being outlawed in 1567). Pile on some Manifest Destiny instead of the Crusades and you've got your Abadaran Tyrant.

An Abadaran Tyrant is still advancing society's aims, but doing so regardless of the individual cost *except* to the self (and key supporters/your own boss). There's probably still a focus on protecting travelers for trade purposes, though they'll be levied the highest taxes currently legal. You probably still hate bandits. But corruption in the courts is probably acceptable, and maybe even something that you're a part of, especially if the corruption is about exploiting loopholes. To an Abadaran Tyrant, the march of civilization is probably the most important thing, and squabbles over rights, the protection of the wilderness, and charity are anathema....

Thanks! That is an awesome response. I'll look into all of that.

So I was toying with things while reading through the Hell's Vengeance players guide and the thought of a Tyrant archetype Antipaladin of Abadar came to mind. The issue I have is, I'm not entirely sure what the best way to derive an Antipaladin code from the Deity and Paladin code. I have that it would be much more Law focused than evil, but not sure how that would interact with the default Tyrant code.

So, I had an interesting event occur, and I decided to roll with it. When one of my players went through the joust and was up against Lady Mona Sittas, they got a critical hit, and rolled their max damage, killing her instantly.

What I'm curious for is any thoughts or ideas people have for recommended backgrounds for tying her into to either make her stand out as heroic, or crueler side.

As well, should I consider somehow her living, or go with my initial gut response of the crowd that was bribed to come watch the games cheering for the death of the noble?

Killebrew wrote:

Blakmane wrote:

There is an explicit exception to this: paladin and ranger spellcasting is called out as being different, presumably because their spellcasting class feature is always active (they just don't get any spells or a caster level until 4th level). The fact that it needed to be called out as an exception proves the rule. Note that this rule doesn't apply even for other ranger/paladin abilities: you cannot take boon companion until level 4 as a ranger, for example.

Where does it state that explicit exception? I knew that they could use them, but don't recall there being anything other than the blurb about them having no caster level through 3rd level and at 4th level their caster level is their level -3. That could be a pretty good example to use to show him that his reading is incorrect, in combination with your class feature thing.

This seems to have gone unaddressed.

PRD wrote:

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Relevant section is bolded. Paladins and Rangers can still use wands from their class list, even though they can't actually cast spells yet.

And again, it's "anyone whose class can cast the spell", not "anyone who belongs to a class a member of which can cast the spell", which is how your friend is reading it. At this point, there's likely nothing you can do. Your friend is undeniably wrong and unwilling to budge. You can lead a horse to water...

Aha, thanks. Though I feel blind for having missed it now.

And you're correct, I tried to point out how illogical it was to say that because some members of a group can do something, that the group can do it, he shrugged and said that we'd have to agree to disagree.

Killebrew wrote:

Blakmane wrote:

I just thought of a very clear-cut example:

ask your player if he thinks all sorcerers are capable of using a wand of bless.

By his interpretation, they can, because the celestial bloodline grants bless as a bonus spell. In fact, all non-arcane bloodline spells should be castable via wand if this was the case.

This is clearly farcical, even moreso than the cleric domain example.

Alright, so they said that yes, because their is a bloodline that can cast it, the class can cast it.

So, because somewhere in the multiverse a sorcerer with the celestial bloodline is capable of casting bless, specifically via his connection to the upper planes..... an abyssal or draconic sorcerer can now use a wand of bless that a cleric has prepared in an entirely unrelated circumstance?

Really? I'm beginning to think your player is lacking even a modicum of common sense. Thankfully, there's an FAQ which touches on this:

New Spells Known: If I gain the ability to add a spell that is not on my spell list to my list of spells known, without adding it to my spell list, can I cast it?

No. Adding a spell to your list of spells known does not add it to the spell list of that class unless they are added by a class feature of that same class. For example, sorcerers add their bloodline spells to their sorcerer spell list and oracles add their mystery spells to their oracle spell list. The spell slots of a class can only be used to cast spells that appear on the spell list of that class.

Their bloodline spells. Not all bloodline spells. The spells need to be actually added by a class feature in order to be on the spell list (you don't just get them for nothing). We know that sorcerer spells are added on a per level basis, not at level one (obviously) because of the wording of the bloodline ability:

At 3rd level, and every two levels thereafter, a sorcerer learns an additional spell, derived from...

No, he straight out admits that it's pretty dumb, he's just stating that that is the rule as written, that basically if any member of a class can cast something, it fits the criteria given under the spell trigger rules that their class can cast it. I was trying to show that that is an illogical way to read the way that it's written, but he doesn't seem to agree and keeps saying that I can read it that way, and he even says he can see why I'm reading it that way but that it's not what it says.

I thank you for trying, but he's pretty much said that because that's the rules as written, unless a developer says something, or it's in an FAQ, he doesn't care what anyone says.

I just thought of a very clear-cut example:

ask your player if he thinks all sorcerers are capable of using a wand of bless.

By his interpretation, they can, because the celestial bloodline grants bless as a bonus spell. In fact, all non-arcane bloodline spells should be castable via wand if this was the case.

This is clearly farcical, even moreso than the cleric domain example.

Alright, so they said that yes, because there is a bloodline that can cast it, the class can cast it.

Edit: Corrected their to there.

I just thought of a very clear-cut example:

ask your player if he thinks all sorcerers are capable of using a wand of bless.

By his interpretation, they can, because the celestial bloodline grants bless as a bonus spell. In fact, all non-arcane bloodline spells should be castable via wand if this was the case.

This is clearly farcical, even moreso than the cleric domain example.

Alright, thanks. I'll do so and see what he says, I'll let you know.

A cleric without the fire domain cannot use a wand of fireball for the same reason a spell-less ranger cannot use a wand of entangle.

You don't actually have a class feature unless you have that feature. If you make a choice that means you no longer have that feature, you no longer have that feature. The FAQ is really, really clear on this and it's not just an archetype thing.

Otherwise I could say that all paladins can use wands of 1st-4th level arcane spells because those spells are potentially obtainable via unsanctioned knowledge. Likewise, domain spells are potentially obtainable via the domain class feature: but you don't actually have them unless you have them.

There is an explicit exception to this: paladin and ranger spellcasting is called out as being different, presumably because their spellcasting class feature is always active (they just don't get any spells or a caster level until 4th level). The fact that it needed to be called out as an exception proves the rule. Note that this rule doesn't apply even for other ranger/paladin abilities: you cannot take boon companion until level 4 as a ranger, for example.

Where does it state that explicit exception? I knew that they could use them, but don't recall there being anything other than the blurb about them having no caster level through 3rd level and at 4th level their caster level is their level -3. That could be a pretty good example to use to show him that his reading is incorrect, in combination with your class feature thing. Unfortunately, I know that he's going to say something along the lines that Domains as a whole are a class feature if I use that by itself. There is a reason I am being very particular about the reasoning behind this, like I said, he's very much RAW, extrapolating something that doesn't explicitly call it out is essentially RAI to him and he won't go with it unless the FAQ or a Developer explicitly addresses it.

Killebrew wrote:

kinevon and fretgod, re-read what I have stated. I have pointed out repeatedly that Spell List is not what I'm interested in at all, since that doesn't have any bearing on Spell Trigger items per the Spell Trigger Item section on page 458 of the CRB.

The wording does not say spell list at all, and thus it isn't a factor. It's whether the class can cast it or not.

Spell list is how you determine if members of the class can cast the spell.

If it is not on the spell list, then it is not available as a spell trigger item BECAUSE it CANNOT be cast by the CLASS.

Casting a DOMAIN spell is NOT casting a CLERIC spell.

DOMAINS and their spells do not exist for any Cleric which does not have that as a chosen domain.

Note that, in base, what I am saying, and what you and your friend should be taking as a given, is that there is NO Cleric class.

There are a very large number of sub-types of clerics.
Fire Domain & Travel Domain Cleric, not just Cleric.

Domains are very similar to archetypes. A Cleric with Domains X & Y is a different class than a Cleric with Domains A & B. And they are both different classes from a Cleric with Domains A & X, even though both of them have significant overlaps.

If you read through my post, I explicitly agreed with you about that, and have repeatedly stated that I disagree with what my friend is stating. I simply cannot find explicit RAW that supports the fact that I don't think Cleric is a class in and of itself but rather that it'd be Cleric of X Deity and A/B Domains. While my friend keeps saying that the Class is "Cleric" everything else is a part of being a Cleric and it's simply choice.

I keep trying to make it clear that I'm looking for something refuting specific things, and as I said, if the wording of Spell Trigger items on 458 still said spell list then this would have been moot.

Did you miss the part where I quoted the rule saying you normally have to have a spell on your spell list to use the magic device? Whether you are interested or not, your spell list is what is relevant. If a spell is not on your spell list, you need UMD to use the relevant wand. That a Cleric can cast a spell doesn't make it a Cleric spell. If it's not a Cleric spell, you have to UMD.

And that's the crux of the reason why I'm ignoring spell list. I quoted and put the relevant section of the Spell Trigger items in my opening post. The other persons argument is basically that since there are Clerics that can cast something, the Class can cast it even though not all members of the class can, and in a technical sort of way they are correct. The wording isn't that it has to be on the spell list, just that the class has to be able to cast it. In all honesty, if the wording was with the 3.5 version it wouldn't be a problem at all, since it clearly stated spell list instead of the ambiguous "whose class can cast it."

kinevon and fretgod, re-read what I have stated. I have pointed out repeatedly that Spell List is not what I'm interested in at all, since that doesn't have any bearing on Spell Trigger items per the Spell Trigger Item section on page 458 of the CRB.

The wording does not say spell list at all, and thus it isn't a factor. It's whether the class can cast it or not.

Okay, again I'm not concerned about whether it's on the spell list or not. That is not an issue in the slightest, because that is not the wording of the text in spell trigger item rules. What I'm concerned about is the fact that, and the person I'm arguing against with this is correct by one reading of the text, anyone whose class can cast the spell, the wording is ambiguous because of the fact that it doesn't say all characters of a class have to be able to cast it, just that the class itself has to be able to do so.

I very much disagree with that, but I am having a hard time arguing against it outside of me saying that Cleric isn't a class in and of itself but rather an aggregate of multiple classes as determined by the Deity and Domains.

For instance, take a Ranger. A Ranger at 1st level is not capable of casting any spells, but they are capable of using wands because the Class is able to cast spells even if the 1st level character is not. Even if they only ever took one level of it, the Class of Ranger can still cast spells. Same for a Paladin.*

So again, their argument is the fact that it doesn't rely on whether a specific character can cast it, but whether can the Class do so. And in a technical way, yes Clerics (if viewing Domains as a whole part of the class features and not a fundamental determining part of the class) can cast things like Fireball or True Strike, because there are domains that allow Clerics to do so. Even if one character cannot cast them, the Class can when viewed overall. Again, I'm not saying that the spell is on the Class Spell List, and the other person has admitted that they don't see it as being on the list for all Clerics either, just that the Class can cast it.

Effectively it seems that their argument comes down to the fact that if a Class has the potential to cast something, whether at higher levels or based off of Domain choices since domains are part of the Cleric Class, means the Class itself can cast it even if an individual member of that Class cannot. And this is the part I have a hard time arguing against, because there are explicit examples that seem to support this, as I have given.

I disagree with this view as I have stated multiple times, I just have a difficulty finding a clear cut RAW that supports my disagreement. And just to make it known, they very much view RAW as superior in all cases to RAI without FAQ or a designer explicitly stating it. Their reasoning being that RAI is inherently an interpretation and it may or may not line up with what the designers actually intended, so unless there is a RAW, FAQ or designer input that supports it, the RAW will win. Even if the RAW results in ridiculous results.

*Barring certain archetypes that explicitly say that the character cannot cast spells or use wands.

I ignored nothing. The cleric class cannot cast those domains spells. But clerics of those domains do gain the ability to cast those spell.

That is the difference to me.

Without clarification of the part of the developers, clerics shouldn't even be able to use wands of their domain spells.

We have clarification from the developers already, Sean K Reynolds in my second link, and the link that Nefreet posted says that Domain spells are spells that are on the characters spell list, just with the rule that is in the book already that if they aren't normally on the list, they can only be prepared in the domain slots.

It seems to me you are basically saying my same argument that the class that would be in question for the line "whose class can cast it" is not "Cleric" but rather "Cleric of X Deity - A/B Domains." I'm specifically seeking logic and citations either backing this, or refuting this. Because yes, as it stands I can see where they are coming from that because Domains are a class feature, there are Clerics that can cast spells that others cannot, and thus the class "Cleric" can cast it, even if some, or even most, individual Clerics cannot. However, just because I can see where they are coming from does not mean I agree with their reading.

Clarification since it seems it's needed, I am not the GM, this is just a disagreement on the rules between two individuals and I was seeking any reasoning supporting either side to weigh and judge, unless a developer weighs in on it for some reason.

The common sense way to understand this regardless of RAW is that you can use the wand if the spell is on your spell list. Technically the spell does not appear on the class spell list, but it makes sense for a cleric that has that spell on their list (because of the domain) to be able to use a wand as though it was on the cleric spell list. I believe this is the intention.

Regardless of anything else, as the GM your word is law. Even if they want to continue to argue about "RAW" you can tell them it doesn't work that way in your game.

Don't let your players bully you.

Yeah, I'm not seeking a common sense way, I think the argument I presented that effectively shows that view point. That Cleric itself is not the whole class but that the Deity and Domains are just as much a part of what your class is: IE Cleric of Nethys - Destruction/Defense. Meaning that Cleric is actually an aggregate of a huge number of classes with a large amount of overlap, so lumped under the Cleric name.

And again, you're dropping back to the wording of on your class list, that is not the wording of the rules for spell trigger items, so I can't use that unfortunately. Again, they are focused on that one particular line that says 'whose class can cast it', nothing about spell list at all.

The spell needs to be on the class spell list, not any domain list. That's what it means. Domains are not part of the cleric casting list. If you were to take that statement to mean that you could cast any domain spell, consider this:

With miracle you can cast any spell 7th level or lower. Cleric can cast miracle. Therefore every spell 7th level or lower is castable by cleric, therefore no umd check is necessary for any spell 7th level or lower for any class that can cast miracle or wish. This is really really stupid.

Even if it could be said that raw domains as a whole are part of the cleric casting spell list, rai that is clearly not the case. He needs to umd.

Also rule 0 he is wrong, you are right. Too bad.

You seem to have glossed over the links I posted, even Nefreet reposted the one in particular from Sean K. In it, he states that Domain spells are on the characters spell list. Also, you're doing the exact same thing that Claxon did, dropping back to the "on the spell list" instead of reading the fact that the rules clearly state "whose Class can cast it". There is a big difference.

Also, Miracle does not let you cast any other spells when it's cast, it can just duplicate them, IE it has the effect of that spell. It's still Miracle that is cast though.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/m/miracle

Yes, you should consider those spells as part of the character's class spell list.

(until someone quotes Stephen saying that Developer commentary is worthless)

Did you read that I specified the domains that a character does not have? Say, a Cleric of Nethys with the Destruction and Defense domains. Though a Cleric could have the Arcane subdomain, and thus have Magic Aura, the specific Cleric does not have it.

Let's try a basic reductio ad absurdum.

Rodinia is a Cleric with the Plant(Growth) domain.

Rodinia can cast the first level spell Enlarge Person, which is not normally on the Cleric list. Because she has the Plant(Growth) domain that spell is on her spell list. Rodinia can reliably use a wand of Enlarge Person, without needing to UMD.

Rodinia can not cast the first level spell Truestrike. Some domains, like Luck and Destruction, get that spell. Rodinia does not have any domain that grants Truestrike, and it is not normally on the cleric spell list. Rodinia would not expect to be able to use a Wand of Truestrike without needing to use UMD. Nor should your friendly cleric with [some other domains that do not give Truestrike].

It sounds like your friends are trying to argue that if any type of cleric, ever, has access to Truestrike, then it's on the 'cleric' spell list and therefore every cleric can e.g. use a Wand of Truestrike without UMD. That way lies madness. E.g. Paragon Surge exists, so every spell has been on some Cleric's spell list sometime. Therefore a cleric never needs UMD, because all the spells are already on their list. Uh huh.

All in all, this sounds like a fatuous claim by someone wishing to use certain wands without needing to UMD. I 100% agree with you, OP.

The 'rules' may not be 100% clear on this distinction. The best we have is what's quoted above. Go with what seems reasonable. I know what seems reasonable to me.

They aren't arguing that if any spell ever appears as a domain spell that it is on their spell list, they are arguing this one line in particular.

Which does not say a spell has to be on the spell list, just that the class can cast it. Therefore, to apply your example to theirs, since Truestrike appears on a domain list the Cleric class can cast it, even if one particular cleric cannot because they do not have that domain, the class can, which means that a cleric can use wands of Truestrike even if they do not have the domain that grants it.

Okay, so I know that a Cleric can use wands of spells that are on their selected domains even if it is not on there normal spell list as discussed here:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2meka?Cleric-domain-spells-scrolls-and-wands

and

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mzdz?Scrolls-and-Domains#14

However, I have someone that is trying to take the bold part here and extrapolate:

Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

They are saying that because domains are a part of the class, that the class is therefore capable of casting it as long as it appears in the domains. Thus any cleric could use a wand of any spell as long as it appears on either the cleric spell list or the domains somewhere, even if they did not select the domains that they appear in.

I personally disagree, and have argued that effectively the Cleric is an aggregate of multiple classes that are grouped under the 'Cleric' name, since the Deity and Domain choices fundamentally determine the spells that a character is capable of casting, therefore your class would be something like "Cleric of Nethys - Destruction/Defense" and not simply Cleric. Meaning you could use wands of spells that are on the Destruction and Defense domain list or the actual Cleric spell list.

So my question is, which is correct? And more importantly citations and logic backing up the way the answer was obtained.

I'm not sure why it's in the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game forum now, it actually started out in the Pathfinder RPG Rules Questions forum and was moved here by a moderator. It even shows up on the forum still, showing that it was moved here.

So, reading through the ship actions, I keep looking back at the daytime Sneak and Shirk. Shirk seems like it's an all around inferior action. There does not seem to be anything indicating that you cannot take 10 with the Sneak action, so what exactly is the benefit of Shirk over Sneak?

So, I've been trying to figure out how this works, if at all. If you take Improved Eldritch Heritage selecting the Arcane Bloodline and taking the 9th level power, New Arcana, with an Alchemist, what happens? Since they don't have spells or spells known, does this do anything or is it effectively a useless bloodline for them?

Alright, thanks.

Alright, my apologies if this has been asked before, but a search did not turn it up.

So Lifesense says that the creature sees all living creatures within 60' just as if it had Blindsight. While Dampen Presence allows you to use stealth against foes with Blindsight/Blindsense, but doesn't say anything about Lifesense. Considering that Lifesense functions as Blindsight with a particular subset, am I correct in my understanding that you could use Dampen Presence to stealth against a foe with Lifesense?

Thanks.