|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
1/6 seconds = 10/minute = 600/hour = 4800 in 8 hours. Providing he has the bags of stuff right there to make it all. At 1/3 cost, 100 gp each item, that is 480,000 gp worth of items in a day (cost: 160,000). Which is... enough to sell in 4-5 MAJOR CITIES for an entire year (give or take). Or are you planning on throwing 4800 alchemical fires/whatever at the castle? 8 hours of throwing later you are TIRED. lol.
Lower PC would need to step to C3 or D4. Then they would be flanking - NOTE: if they are both threatening. The lower PC would need 15' reach (two diagonals = 5'+10' for the second one), if I am not mistaken.
I might be wrong about the reach (it might be ok at 10' still).
Alternately Upper PC could move 5 to B1 and Lower PC could move to B4 (or B3) and be flanking (with proper reach to threaten).
Rogue gets: Int Mod bombs per day
So, no. The feat doesn't really allow the Rogue to make the same use of bombs as an alchemist. The get no "insight" (INT BONUS) to using these splash weapons, nor the quantity that Alchemists get.
Here's an interesting idea for a Vivisectionist though: what happens when they dip Rogue to get this Rogue Talent?
If you roll a 15+ on a knowledge check it is because you have read many books, seen many zoos, watched the bazaars, and travelled all over tarnation looking for weird and exotic animals and can identify them ON SIGHT. Hate to say this, but your GM is wrong on this one. The whole "well you never have seen this before" makes no sense in the face of the FACT that you just IDENTIFIED IT FROM MEMORY. Knowledge checks aren't an "analysis of what is in front of you" (I gained the knowledge right this second) - they are a "OH I RECALL THOSE CRITTERS!" (I already have the KNOWLEDGE)
I have a question regarding the "enhancement bonus" to armor.
I understand that only the highest armor bonus, and only the highest shield bonus, and only the highest natural armor bonus apply to AC.
Now there are spells which give both ARMOR BONUS and ENHANCEMENT BONUS to AC. How does this work with regard to overlayed armor bonuses.
Here is the situation: Mythic class character has Enduring Armor (which is a force effect "spell" which gives ARMOR BONUS = Tier + 3). The character has been wearing Leather Armor (just in case they get the EA dispelled). Now along comes a possibility to drink a potion of Magic Vestment, which puts an enhancement bonus on, presumably, the leather or the regular clothes he is wearing. As it doesn't affect the force spell (as far as I know). So the question is: would he still get the enhancement bonus added to the highest AC BONUS, since it is "from another source" (ie. the highest enhancement bonus he has)?
It seems RAW that it would do this; and only the highest ENHANCEMENT BONUS would apply to final AC, and only the highest ARMOR BONUS also applies. So you could have Clothes +5 and throw on leather over them for a total AC Bonus of +7, even though the leather is not enhanced. Is my understanding of this "overlapping" of bonuses correct? I understand the person could also have Natural Armor, Natural Armor enhancement, Shield and Shield enhancement bonuses - which makes me also wonder about having multiple shields (one for attacking and one for defending); If I have a +5 Shield Enhancement Bonus on a buckler, and a Kite Shield +5 to hit, can I use the Kite Shield's AC bonus and the Buckler's Enhancement Bonus? (only the highest of each type applying to AC per RAW)
Double Barrel Pistols + TWF + Rapid Shot + Quick Draw + Gun Twirling = 10 attacks at 9th level Trench Fighter?
Like I said, it all depends on where you parse those "or"s... lol. We agree, btw... common sense rules and all. :) (I was just playing devil's advocate cause I am bored today, lol)
Well, in theory, the same character with monk training could make ... it might be argued: MWF attacks PLUS TWF attack for FOB. Since they make a full round attack (which with MWF allows multiple attacks to begin with, just like having a high BAB does), and then adds one more attack, two more at 8th, etc... It doesn't say FOB replaces your normal attack routine (MWF), just adds attacks to it.
Also, the Character you are talking about getting 9 attacks is 15th level or so before they are getting 6-7 attacks. With haste, the Kasatha is getting 5 from first level, and depending on class, would keep up just fine. Multi-armed player characters don't ever "lose viability" simply because certain classes can eventually catch them. IMHO.
(ps. my house rule on monster feats is this: they are feats. If you qualify, you can use them. Feats, by their nature are stupidly outrageous things people can do - why limit it because you are human? Humans make the best monsters most days!)
Correct. And the only invisibility potion that can be made is one that affects OBJECTS, not creatures. All depends on where you parse that "or".... but I concede, invisibility potions exist in game, ergo, someone see's the variant (original, and how you understand it) parsing.
Except the caster is not an object (dead) and the spell thus fizzles when it can't see a valid target (object weighing less than 100 pounds per level)...
Invisibility: Range personal or touchTarget you or a creature or object weighing no more than 100 lbs./level
Is the OR in there applied to both RANGE categories or is it a separator for the target section? If so, no, you cannot create a POTION with a RANGE PERSONAL, affecting YOU. PER RAW.
Um, no. For potions, the drinker becomes the target of the spell automatically.
Yes, but the creature is not an "object" unless they are dead. Therefore the RANGE would be "personal" which doesn't allow a potion to be made to affect you in the first place....
mostly it comes to parsing the phrase of the spell:
"the creature or object touched... etc..." OK. So does this mean "the creature that casts the spell, OR the object touched" becomes invisible. Or does it mean the object touched OR creature touched becomes invisible?
Because the RANGE makes it seem like it is either a PERSONAL spell or a spell that affects one OBJECT. Not a spell that affects a CREATURE TOUCHED (as an object). (ps. yes, I know how it has historically been used both ways... I am arguing semantics of the spell descriptor at this point).
ps. this also brings into question the classic "invisibility potion." As it would not (per RAW) work on someone drinking it (it couldn't be made into this kind of potion per RAW, only into a potion that let you touch something and make THAT invisible). Greater Invisibility has no Range descriptor, but "works like invisibility" - so it would be out for potions too?
ps. from that same section you quoted: "The character must pay the full cost for brewing each potion." - but, yeh, the formula works out to being half cost of what is on the chart. 25*3*5 = 375 for a 3rd level wiz, etc... potion. kk.
TYVM. Also straightened out the whole "cost" thing. All potions cost full cost even if crafted. Good to know. (unless there is a feat which reduces the cost somewhere).
Again: 5th edition of the rule book does NOT have this exception in the potion section (like the old 3.5 used to have):
Spoiler:I don't see the whole "personal" range discussion anywhere in there now... Updated PRD doesn't mention it either (despite the quote without a link).
A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when
imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance. Magic oils are
similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather
than imbibed. A potion or oil can be used only once. It can
duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting
time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or
objects. The price of a potion is equal to the level of the spell
× the creator’s caster level × 50 gp. If the potion has a material
component cost, it is added to the base price and cost to create.
Table 15–12 gives sample prices for potions created at the lowest
possible caster level for each spellcasting class. Note that some
spells appear at different levels for different casters. The level
of such spells depends on the caster brewing the potion.
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character
taking the potion doesn’t get to make any decisions about the
effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done
so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and
the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster
level, the drinker still controls the effect).
The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the
object is the target.
Where in the world did you pull the "personal range" thing from?
"It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects."
page 477 of the CR... if it affects one target, doesn't "you personally" qualify? 5th edition of the rule book doesn't say what the old 3.5 used to say... on the line you quoted.
Example: Potion of True Strike = exist don't they? Overland flight? Plant Shape? Read Magic? See Invisible? Alter Self? Blink?
None of those have ever been in potion form? Seems like I have seen at least SOME of them as potions before...
Is Alchemical Allocation available to be made into a potion or to be bought in potion form in PFS play?
Here's the reason:
A handy haversack makes it easier to recover potions you need (move action from haversack, no AoO), and drinking them is standard action (provoking AoO unless you have a feat)... so one AA, then one potion the next turn seems viable.
Also regarding this and an extract: could you put two AA on the same extract/potion if you have the Combine Extract discovery - combined with two fisted drinker, can you then spit them both (two potions) into their own (or ONE?) bottle. This gets more RAI than RAW since there isn't really anything covering this situation, really. RAW might be determined that "one potion" is the first one spat out - but technically with TFD you are drinking them both at the same time and spitting them both out at the same time... so you would need two AA effects to do so... so... well, anyway. Thoughts?
Why would you be limited to "manufactured weapons per" limb you had originally? I don't see anywhere in the polymorph or any other place I looked which states that you are limited to manufactured weapon attacks you used to have. Besides for the aforementioned "game balance" I don't see that a 4 or 6, or 100 armed person would be limited in MWF by anything other than the number of arms they have. (Granted, there would be no way to polymorph into a colossal sized race to begin with) - all the polymorph rules I see are for natural attacks and such... don't see any mention of manufactured weapon attacks. So the feat's benefit (of allowing each off hand a melee strike in a full attack action) would be in play.
And yes, MWF is an available feat, at level 1, to any character with more than two arms (and perhaps the monster subtype?). So the presumption would be that anyone with such a physical advantage would try to leverage it at the start - level 1 character with 4 attacks at -2 each, instead of one attack at +1, yes please...
Diego Rossi wrote:
Right. So if you start a Kasatha, with MWF, you could use MWF for every arm of the new form? That is kind of the question (now that you answered the "two armed" version). So if someone polymorphs into say a Hekatonkheires (B3) from a 4 armed race, can you choose to resolve 100 attacks individually with MWF?
on the bonus question: if I am a person with MWF (Kasatha start race or something) and unarmed weapon mastery, and polymorph into a giant centipede, can I get 100 melee attacks? Even though traditionally the centipede doesn't have any weapon attacks (only a natural bite attack)? (and technically they are legs... I guess... alas)
Ok, I have a question regarding polymorphing into a monstrous humanoid such as a Kasatha (4 arms) or a Calikang (6 arms) and what happens with Two Weapon Fighting when you do.
Do you A) get no extra attacks with off-hand weapons (UNLESS you take Multi-weapon fighting), B) Replace Two Weapon Fighting with Multi-weapon fighting (per the feat description), C) Just go on a rampage regardless of the number of attacks you have.
Also if you are already a Kasatha with MWF, and polymorph into a Calikang, do you now get 6 attacks (because you have 5 offhands). Seems legit. Then your vivisectionist with feral mutagen, enduring (improved)invisibility is at 6 normal attacks and bite claw claw natural attacks (9 total attacks a round) while invisible... not too shabby, right?
Anyway, besides the uberness of the above, does the feat actually get replaced / updated due to having more arms? (and despite the discovery saying you don't get any extra attacks, with MWF do you get extra attacks for limb discoveries with alchemists??? or just the grapple for a tentacle?)
ps. bonus question: is there anything out there with more arms for a Kasatha to poly into? Like a giant squid or something?
my group of 3 rogue/shadowdancer mixed levels would have eaten those guys alive at 10th level... (not so much at 6th). HIPS + bookoo high stealth (shadow armor, skillz, darkness) and some sniper goggles (2 were primarily ranged rogues, one was "more melee" with str crits)...
It beats throwing some Red Mantis Assassins at them... that is for sure. lol (we took the title "Red Mantis Assassin Assassins" after a while in Korvosa).
If you want to challenge them: make them fight themselves (the old "you have been copied"), or make them fight someone who could kill them but choose to capture them for someone else (like a highly trained group of invisible / shadow dancing ninjas (they never know if See Invisible works or not... but get hit with 3-6 poisoned shuriken every round... etc...)).
The problem that the "NPCs" in the campaign I was going through eventually had is that most "mook" type fighters can't see for crap (seriously, lvl 16 fighter with +4 perception... no way they are seeing a stealth based character until it is too late). One of the times we got into trouble, though, involved high level fighters and a anti-magic sphere... This would work pretty well against a casting party like this as well. Couple grapple mooks with an anti-magic mage boss...
I have a question about the fame rewards for adventure paths... namely the additional "adventure" that they tag in.
"Complete an adventure with a CR appropriate for your APL7 +3Fame" = every time your APL goes up, you should get something, like a module?
note 7 states:
Which has a second "adventure" (lower case) indicating that this is a PART of the AP? Or is it the whole thing?
Seems like if you got +3 for a module (1 level) then you would get one for each level/section (usually how they are written) of the adventure. Does this make sense?
Modules being like 16-20 pages, and APs being 96 or so for 1-5 levels.
The rats/vipers can't see the thrower, so they have no reason to leave the safety of the pit... Yes, it is absolutely a silly mathematical exercise.
Pointless? Let me think about that.
For 2.25 gp in PFS you can buy 225 rats. For about 1 GP you can hire a ditch digger to dig a pit to put them in. For 20 GP you can buy an alchemical fire. It is 100% PFS legal to do all of this... You just have to survive the wrath of the GM....
For about 360 GP (Rich Parents trait works - I think it is PFS legal anyway) you can repeat this until you are the first level 20 character in PF play. You might have to find a new GM every time you try it... lol.
I have a player who has Speedy Summons (from Mythic Adv) and am curious as to the ruling on how long these critters last.
I mean, typically it is 1 round/level...
But does this mean that because he can cast the spell in less than one round that the duration is the casting round PLUS one more round per level? In other words, it comes into being, attacks, then attacks again on the next round, then disappears (level 1)?
I was discussing splash weapons in another thread and the general consensus of people is that splash weapons affect every creature within 5' of where they land (and the square they hit if not a directed attack).
So, as a SCHMOOOOZE to see how well one could level, I decided to see what the cheapest way to level using the core rulebooks is.
Vipers are CR 1/2. 225 of these tiny critters can fit in a 15'x15' pit.
Two Splash weapons at Point Blank Range (with PBS) or three without would kill all the vipers in the pit.
45,000 XP. That gets you to level 7 on medium.
Now, how much did this cost? 5 gp per Viper = 1125 GP. Which you could get to using the "Rich Parents" trait (900 of it) and perhaps a good roll on your background money (225 more)?
Alternately, you could use rats or cats (CR 1/4): But you would only get 22,500 per pit full. (cost 1cp and 3cp x 225 = 225cp to 675cp - affordable on anyone's salary). (using rats is only 160 pits full to hit level 20... well, sorta - because you don't get any more XP after the first or second pit full, right?)
Rat swarms would be ideal (perhaps starting with rats and somehow making the swarm?) as they are CR 2. (but with 16 HP you would need 8-16 splash weapons/rounds unless you are an alchemist). But 60,000 XP in a few rounds might be well worth the investment. (higher level, so XP reduction for next pit is "better")
Anyone have any other cheap ways to level and "SCHOOOOOZE" the "system"? Just for fun, post your most ludicrous VIABLE method of leveling. Speed counts (and casting usually summons things you don't get XP for, recall) - as does viability (use by everyone - specialists can speed it up, but everyone should be able to level using the methods posted).
GM's don't exist... just pure SCHOOOOOZE... ;)
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Why would a medium creature, who is covered entirely by the splash area, take less damage than a large creature, who just got hit on one side?
Because the medium creature only got 1 ounce of acid on them. the large creature took 2 ounces of acid, and the huge one took 3 ounces of acid splash... each ounce did 1 damage... why can't people understand the logic behind this?
Or as a rebuttal: Why would a large creature standing where acid splashed over his whole side take the same damage as when just half his side was splashed? 50% less acid does the same damage/has the same effect... hmmm... never learned THAT trick in College Chem class...
I think I win for most XP in one turn after discussing this:
Pit full of vipers, 15'x15'... 225 vipers. One splash weapon. Add int to damage as an alchemist. 675 Damage (well, not counting hp below zero).
45,000 XP. Thanks 1st to 7th level jump!
(ps. if you can buy a viper for less than 1 GP, I think this is the best value for XP ever :) )
OK. My final ruling on the entire "splash effects" thing are thus:
A targeted splash weapon hits one creature and splashes 5' in each direction PROVIDED that direction is not blocked by a creature (partial cover) or object (partial cover).
This keeps a splash weapons thrown by ANYONE from doing 900 points to diminutive creatures in a 15'x15' grid, 225 points to tiny creatures in a 15'x15' grid (room full of cats... are they alive or dead?), or 36 points to small creatures trapped in a 15'x15' room (Gnomes, Halfling slaves, Svirfbenlin, etc..).
The splash effect pattern is the same for diminutive, tiny, small as it is for medium. Large creatures block the other three squares they occupy when struck. Huge creatures block the other squares they occupy when hit in the middle square (and thus take no additional splash damage).
This allows a splash person to indirectly hit a Large creature with 2 points of splash damage by targeting the square next to them (they got hit with 2x as much acid, so why wouldn't they take 2x as much damage) and a Huge creature to possibly take 3 points of splash damage in the same manner (again, they were splashed with 3x as much acid).
It prevents any splash weapon person from effecting more than 9 combatants at a time (a reasonable limit ignored by sizes as pointed out above by the "regular" rule).
I think this is fine and logical. Sorry if you disagree with the idea that a large or huge monster might be affected more than once, but I see this as entirely logical (and they get DR versus all splash damages as separate attacks... its not magic, after all...).
They had 3x the acid land on them... they still have a tough hide in all three spots... only 1 point in each spot... soak it if you can Mr. Monster. Their entire side got sprayed (right front foot, torso, right hind foot), so they should take more damage than if only their right front foot got sprayed... if DR doesn't nullify it.
(also, I am not talking about alchemical BOMBS... I am talking about normal SPLASH WEAPONS - non-magical ones; a fireball and an alchemical bomb would affect everyone in the area of effect... splash weapons I don't really see working that way, from a physics standpoint)
Well, thanks for the discussion... I am going to run it based on logic and RAW instead of the failed "its like a fireball" - which it isn't.
If I rained acid down all over the top of a monster
It would be covered in acid and take 9 points of acid damage (one for each square). It would count as separate attacks (so if it had DR OR resistance it would do basically nothing).
I just can't equate
with being "exactly the same" as
Of course you would do more physical damage to something the more of it you hit. Anything else is like saying that if you smash all your fingers on one hand with a hammer, it won't hurt you any more than if you just hit your thumb. Which, just... makes... no... sense... to... me.
Also, the fireball argument is completely horrible, fallacious, and wrong... fireball is magic, and only affects something once... lasting fire walls and obstacles (terrain) affect per 5' squares you move though... acid is way more like that than a fireball. Splash weapon damage is not magical, it is physical, like terrain damage.
I've had similar discussions regarding magic damage versus physically manifestations before... I have to run with the "logic" of real physics when dealing with real physics items.
"area affects" and "splash damage" are simply. not. the. same. thing. "if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage," - ALL being the important part to me... not ONE/ONCE/only once... Are you in an the first adjacent square? Take damage. Are you in the next adjacent square? Take damage. Are you in the next? Take damage... and so on... Not "are you a creature in at least ONE adjacent square, take damage once please."
It just seems to be the logical (if abuse-able) way to run it.
Do you move through the first 5' of fire/bramble wall? take damage. Do you move through the next 5' of fire/bramble wall? take damage. The next? Take damage.
(ps. I'd love a FAQ quote to lay out a logical reason otherwise... but splash weapons are "real physics" weapons, and I think they should be treated as such, as opposed to magic area effect spells which are not (typically))
Also in interesting "each creature gets hit once" variant of the "accepted" interpretation...
I have the following setup:
8 Swarms of 100 creatures... does that mean I do 800 points of damage with one splash weapon? Or are now you suddenly going to apply 1 point of damage against the SQUARE instead (thus applying only to the entire swarm once)? (and if it were a single huge swarm it would do even LESS damage, taking either 1 damage or 1d6 from the x square (which it would also occupy, being 15x15) and NONE else from your interpretation... which makes little to no sense, when you think about it...)
Jeff Merola wrote:
Each creature within the splash takes damage once, regardless of how many squares they occupy.
Any FAQ to support this? The implication is there - but is kind of silly....
If I have the following setup:
Then everyone takes splash damage, including the two orcs in the back. So the splash affects those squares... right?
But "magically" if I have
Then the splash has NO EFFECT on the L.L squares... Why shouldn't a creature be considered 5' from x 3 times? He covers three squares that are 5' from x. We're saying that a creature basically "soaks" the acid in the other two squares (for no good reason) that would otherwise damage creatures in those squares (if they weren't a single creature). This is what makes little sense (logically) to me.
(ps. please ignore my ignorance to the number of squares a Large critter takes up (10x10)... I was more illustrating a point than trying to worry about this)
No, for the same reason a large creature doesn't take quadruple damage from a Fireball.
RAW: "If the target is Large or larger, you choose one of its squares and the splash damage affects creatures within 5 feet of that square."
ONCE is implied? Alright. I might accept that, even though it makes perfect sense that a fireball (magic effect) would only affect something once. While all rules for physical effects tend to be able to affect things more than once (going through a wall of flame as a conjured effect or just as a trap someone made does damage for each 5' you move through, etc... )...
But I would point out that a large creature stepping in two acid traps at the same time would take damage from each square a trap was in (ie. each square acid was in).
A.A. LLLL comes along and moves into position over A.A. - sets off two traps of acid, and is affected by both... so why, when a splash of acid hits AAA. would it be any different (being non-magical, and thus "different" from magic damage)?
See why I am thinking they SHOULD take multiplied damage? All rules on PHYSICAL manifestations do multiple damage per SQUARE... not per spell effect (like magic). Keeping in mind, also, you can DODGE a fireball, but apparently not splash damage... go figure.
Ok, so for the first time I am playing something that throws things and am reading the splash weapon rules with due diligence.
My question is this:
Does a splash weapon that did not target a large creature deal splash damage to every square it affects that the creature is in?
In other words: Normally a splash weapon would deal splash damage to a 9x9 area (centered on the middle square, AC 5). Does each SQUARE take splashing... or each MONSTER in "a" square?
A = Alchemist throws a splash weapon at x. L's represent the Large opponent. O's are say Orcs. The alchemist does 1+Int Bonus to each Orc... but what about the Large creature? Does it take 1+Int or 1+Int times three?
Seems like all three squares would be splashed... but at the same time I see the obvious abuse possibilities.
RAW says that you can pick a square to hit a large monster, and it damages all the squares around it with splash... which indicates that the large monster, aimed directly at, might take additional splash damage from the splash weapon as well (for each 5 foot square the splash hits). Help?
Since the x rules only mention summoned monsters, wouldn't we apply the "if it doesn't specifically say" rule against the GM? The rules on summoned critters DON'T mention gates, so you get full xp on gated monsters.??? We seems to apply this logic everywhere else in PF.
Unless there is a rule specifically saying you don't get xp for gated monsters, you do. There is a rule specifically for summoned, so you don't.
ps. A gated monster is a fully functional additional foe, so of course you should get xp.
I am attempting to make a spellslinger, but are they seriously broken or what? Some of the enhancements from magic bullets only apply to melee weapons, so what gives? Additionally, do these enhancements work on spells cast through the firearm? Such as "seeking" allowing you to target invisible targets with spells (thus breaking "that rule") by hitting the right square?
Lots of questions like this arise from this class. Do you only get the enhancement from the magic bullets? Or can you use a normally created +5 firearm and get that bonus? Can magic bullets give an already magic item a bonus combination greater than +10?
Any help/discussion would be appreciated. Thanks.
Rogue or Bard skill monkeys: bring intimidate/performance feats/flat footed foes/and sneak attacks (which can be stacked with sniper goggles and greater invisibility to ensure death to the opponents). Bards are particularly good at making every knowledge roll with a take 10 and no effort per se. Rogues are better if specialized in a subclass, granted, or crossed over slightly into a spell casting class.
In fact, most classes are best with a dip here or there. That's the nature of the game, I guess. It's not a "mundane" world, after all.
One moving greater invisibility spell caster/other archer/rogue/etc... can probably down the ranger if your intent is to kill them. 8th level is spell level 4, so there you go.
Now, if the ranger is the one who has gone greater invisible... well he will dominate combat.
I don't know exactly what their build is, but I had a rogue with a composite bow doing this sort of thing for 4 flaming arrows a round (3 sneak attacks at 4d6, so 22d6 total) with a +4 composite bow (+16), pbs +4 (within 30'). Something like that. So while not quite 280, it hit 152 max nicely. If they had known about sniper goggles the encounters would have taken place after a round of running away or something most likely.
Anyway, being able to pump out 140+ damage is possible even with the "weak" rogue class at level 8. (3 8d6 spells do 24d6 = 144 damage - so a "fast" spell and two more (one via a staff/weapon and one cast) and mages can do in the same neighborhood of damage).
The Archive wrote:
This one kills people in PFS, so I have heard...