|
In ultimate equipment a lot of the adventurers kits as written seem to have some weights that are quite off from the actual combine weight of all the gear. Is there something reducing the weight or is the amount of gear quoted within off?I have no idea. Sounds like a calculation error to me and should be fixed in an errata. Or if it's something that's like "This kit is packed well so that it reduces encumbrance a bit," but then doesn't actually SAY that in the text, then THAT needs to be fixed in an errata.
I've not really had the chance to look through the book yet so I can't say for sure. Sounds like something that should be posted over on the book's thread and then tagged with a FAQ button push.
K thank you james, as a gm who likes weight tracking and the idea of kits to streamline starter gear it sucks when I find stuff like that and have to tell the sorc or wizard that he's over weight and that carefully constructed gear list needs to be pulled apart so he can cast spell failure free.
James Jacobs:
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).
The spell Enlarge Person has a target of 'One humanoid creature'.
Which of the following is true?
1A) A wizard cannot cast Enlarge Person on his familiar because in order to bypass the Creature Type restriction the spell must have a target of You.
OR
1B) A wizard can cast Enlarge Person on his familiar because the Creature Type sentance is separate from the Target sentance.
Phrased another way which of the following is true?
2A) The first sentance (Target: You) and the second sentance (Creature Type) must both be satisfied.
2B) The first sentance (Target: You) and the second sentance are separate statements and are satisfied separately.
As usual, thanks for your time.
- Gauss
Creative Director
|
The Bestiary 3 raktavarna rakshasa has a new use of the Change Shape universal monster ability, with the SQ line:
SQ Change Shape (tiny living object)And Special Ability text:
In ** spoiler omitted ** Over in the rules forum there's a somewhat lively discussion among the players about this here.
So, what can Creative say about this? Particularly, how does the form the raktavarna takes interact with feats, targeting, etc?
Is 'living object' healable both by cure light wounds and damaged by shatter, and if it is shortsword-shaped, magic weapon, and finessable and receives +1 to hit with Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus (shortsword)?
Raktavarnas can indeed be used as the item they change into. That's the whole reason we invented them in the first place back in Pathfinder #7. While in this form, it functions as that item. If it takes ANY action at all, it reverts immediately to its monster shape.
While it's in object form, it functions as that object. So yeah, a raktavarna in dagger form would allow you to use Weapon Focus (dagger) as normal.
It's also a really unusual creature with a really unusual ability, and as such, it probably shouldn't have been put into a PFS scenario, in my opinion, since we don't give GMs enough of a leash in the society to ad hoc stuff.
To answer a few specifics:
It's a living object. It can be healed via effects that heal living objects. Cure light wounds restores its hit points, but make whole does not. Canny PCs can use this to realize that some sort of trickery is afoot.
It's a non-crystaline creature and is treated as such for the purpose of shatter; aka it doesn't take damage from that spell.
Magic weapon can only be cast on an object. Casting it on a raktavarna in weapon form causes the spell to fail without revealing why, but again, the caster at this point would likely get the clue that something funny is going on.
If it's short sword shaped, you can use Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus (short sword) with it.
|
Creative Director
|
James Jacobs:
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar’s type (magical beast).The spell Enlarge Person has a target of 'One humanoid creature'.
Which of the following is true?
1A) A wizard cannot cast Enlarge Person on his familiar because in order to bypass the Creature Type restriction the spell must have a target of You.
OR
1B) A wizard can cast Enlarge Person on his familiar because the Creature Type sentance is separate from the Target sentance.
Phrased another way which of the following is true?
2A) The first sentance (Target: You) and the second sentance (Creature Type) must both be satisfied.
2B) The first sentance (Target: You) and the second sentance are separate statements and are satisfied separately.
As usual, thanks for your time.
- Gauss
1A is correct.
2A and 2B say the same thing, but they're both correct.
Hmmm, A LOT of people interpret the two as completely separate sentances. I am very surprised to hear this response.
Regarding 2A and 2B the intent was to ask if spells that used the rule of the second sentance MUST also be Target: You spells.
Enlarge Person is now out. Alter Self is in, Polymorph spells are in. Oh well.
- Gauss
|
Creative Director
|
Hmmm, A LOT of people interpret the two as completely separate sentances. I am very surprised to hear this response.
Regarding 2A and 2B the intent was to ask if spells that used the rule of the second sentance MUST also be Target: You spells.
Enlarge Person is now out. Alter Self is in, Polymorph spells are in. Oh well.
- Gauss
OH! Actually, the way you phrased your initial question was confusing.
The way you rephrased it above is more clear to me.
So, going back to the original question...
1B and 2B are correct.
Sorry for being confusing. Lets ask one more time just to clarify confusion.
Can a wizard cast Enlarge Person on his familiar?
- Gauss
In ultimate equipment a lot of the adventurers kits as written seem to have some weights that are quite off from the actual combine weight of all the gear. Is there something reducing the weight or is the amount of gear quoted within off?I have no idea. Sounds like a calculation error to me and should be fixed in an errata. Or if it's something that's like "This kit is packed well so that it reduces encumbrance a bit," but then doesn't actually SAY that in the text, then THAT needs to be fixed in an errata.
I've not really had the chance to look through the book yet so I can't say for sure. Sounds like something that should be posted over on the book's thread and then tagged with a FAQ button push.
Just to give you the heads-up James, SKR popped into the Ultimate Equipment product thread and explained that its not an error; the kits were averaged between their Small character weight and their Medium character weight so that space wasn't wasted providing separate weights for each type of character.
Hey James, if a medium druid with a cheetah animal companion takes a level in cavalier, which of the following happens?
1. The character gets a new mount like any other 1st level cavalier would be able to get.
2. The cheetah gets light armor proficiency and combat training but loses share spells. The druid and cavalier levels stack for determining the new mount's abilities.
3. Same as 2, but the cheetah keeps share spells.
4. The cavalier must choose a new creature to serve as a mount (since he is too big to ride his cheetah, and a cavalier mount must be an animal that he/she can ride), and the new creature has combat training and light armor proficiency but not share spells. The druid and cavalier levels stack for determining the new mount's abilities.
5. Same as 4, but the new mount keeps share spells.
If you had your way, what would the next Ultimate book be? Ultimate Campaign excluded.
The darkness spell reads "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
Does the sun count as a 'nonmagical source of light?'? If it is magical, can a disjunction spell snuff out the sun? XD
|
The darkness spell reads "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
Does the sun count as a 'nonmagical source of light?'? If it is magical, can a disjunction spell snuff out the sun? XD
No one has the needed range and/or area of effect.
Diego: Someone came up with Interplanetary Teleport combined with Contingency+Disjunction combined with Lichdom. Keep trying until the Lich succeeds.
- Gauss
What goes into building a random encounter table? Is there a certain probability that you try to shoot for or do you kind of wing it?
|
Creative Director
|
Just to give you the heads-up James, SKR popped into the Ultimate Equipment product thread and explained that its not an error; the kits were averaged between their Small character weight and their Medium character weight so that space wasn't wasted providing separate weights for each type of character.In ultimate equipment a lot of the adventurers kits as written seem to have some weights that are quite off from the actual combine weight of all the gear. Is there something reducing the weight or is the amount of gear quoted within off?I have no idea. Sounds like a calculation error to me and should be fixed in an errata. Or if it's something that's like "This kit is packed well so that it reduces encumbrance a bit," but then doesn't actually SAY that in the text, then THAT needs to be fixed in an errata.
I've not really had the chance to look through the book yet so I can't say for sure. Sounds like something that should be posted over on the book's thread and then tagged with a FAQ button push.
If that information's not indicated in text in the book though, THAT'S an error.
|
Creative Director
|
Hey James, if a medium druid with a cheetah animal companion takes a level in cavalier, which of the following happens?
1. The character gets a new mount like any other 1st level cavalier would be able to get.
2. The cheetah gets light armor proficiency and combat training but loses share spells. The druid and cavalier levels stack for determining the new mount's abilities.
3. Same as 2, but the cheetah keeps share spells.
4. The cavalier must choose a new creature to serve as a mount (since he is too big to ride his cheetah, and a cavalier mount must be an animal that he/she can ride), and the new creature has combat training and light armor proficiency but not share spells. The druid and cavalier levels stack for determining the new mount's abilities.
5. Same as 4, but the new mount keeps share spells.
1. The cheetah gains no benefit from the cavalier class. The cavalier gains no benefit from the druid's animal companion ability. The druid animal companion and the cavalier mount result in two different creatures. If your GM wants, he might allow you to synergize between the two, I guess.
|
Creative Director
|
The darkness spell reads "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
Does the sun count as a 'nonmagical source of light?'? If it is magical, can a disjunction spell snuff out the sun? XD
Since the sun is a big enough object that portions of it would extend out of the area of effect of a darkness spell... no, darkness can't blot out the sun.
|
Creative Director
|
What goes into building a random encounter table? Is there a certain probability that you try to shoot for or do you kind of wing it?
We determine which monsters should be encountered more often by nature of the area and the monster and the overall average challenge rating of the area and then we wing it.
1. The cheetah gains no benefit from the cavalier class. The cavalier gains no benefit from the druid's animal companion ability. The druid animal companion and the cavalier mount result in two different creatures. If your GM wants, he might allow you to synergize between the two, I guess.Hey James, if a medium druid with a cheetah animal companion takes a level in cavalier, which of the following happens?
1. The character gets a new mount like any other 1st level cavalier would be able to get.
2. The cheetah gets light armor proficiency and combat training but loses share spells. The druid and cavalier levels stack for determining the new mount's abilities.
3. Same as 2, but the cheetah keeps share spells.
4. The cavalier must choose a new creature to serve as a mount (since he is too big to ride his cheetah, and a cavalier mount must be an animal that he/she can ride), and the new creature has combat training and light armor proficiency but not share spells. The druid and cavalier levels stack for determining the new mount's abilities.
5. Same as 4, but the new mount keeps share spells.
Thanks for the clarification. There was some confusion about how the line "this mount functions as a druid's animal companion", and whether that meant that it counted as an animal companion or just used similar mechanics.
Since the sun is a big enough object that portions of it would extend out of the area of effect of a darkness spell... no, darkness can't blot out the sun.The darkness spell reads "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
Does the sun count as a 'nonmagical source of light?'? If it is magical, can a disjunction spell snuff out the sun? XD
I meant to ask whether the sun would count as a nonmagical source of light
for the purpose of increasing the light level within the aoe of darkness spell. Sorry that it wasn't clear. XD|
Creative Director
|
Since the sun is a big enough object that portions of it would extend out of the area of effect of a darkness spell... no, darkness can't blot out the sun.The darkness spell reads "Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness."
Does the sun count as a 'nonmagical source of light?'? If it is magical, can a disjunction spell snuff out the sun? XD
I meant to ask whether the sun would count as a nonmagical source of light
for the purpose of increasing the light level within the aoe of darkness spell. Sorry that it wasn't clear. XD
The sun itself is nonmagical. It's also a natural force that's powerful enough to destroy artifacts and kill gods. It's not going to care about a darkness spell.
Sunlight, on the other hand, is not the sun, and darkness does indeed affect sunlight. If you cast darkness on something outside in the middle of the day, it'll work normally.
So in other words. Deeper Darkness utterly ignores daylight? Drops the light down to magical darkness level (rather than two steps from Bright to Dim)?
- Gauss
So in other words. Deeper Darkness utterly ignores daylight? Drops the light down to magical darkness level (rather than two steps from Bright to Dim)?
- Gauss
I think what James means is that darkness/deeper darkness do not disregard the sun as a source of light (the way they would disregard torches and lanterns), but still lowers the illumination provided by the sunlight. So basically in most cases, sunlight will determine the base level of illumination for an area, and then you adjust that level of illumination based on the spell you cast.
FiddlersGreen: thats how I run it which is why I was surprised. I didn't interpret what he said the way you did.
- Gauss
|
|
Diego: Someone came up with Interplanetary Teleport combined with Contingency+Disjunction combined with Lichdom. Keep trying until the Lich succeeds.
- Gauss
The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).
So no mage disjunction + contingency.
All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell
40' radius burst vs a diameter of 1.390.000 km. I doubt a sun could be considered as a single magic item, so you would end disjointing a very small volume, smaller than what is lost to the solar wind every round.
A question to James: if you try Mage disjunction on something that is noticeably larger than the burst volume, the whole structure (as an example the pyramid ad the end of the Crimson Throne AP) will be disjointed if it fail the ST or only a small volume will be affected?
|
Creative Director
|
FiddlersGreen: thats how I run it which is why I was surprised. I didn't interpret what he said the way you did.
- Gauss
Okay. When you asked me about the SUN, I assumed you were trying to cast darkness on the actual star itself, which seemed weird and obviously not a way to put out the sun, but there's been weirder questions.
When you cast darkness or deeper darkness in an area of bright light (such as an outdoor area in sunlight) it reduces the light level as appropriate for the spell... dropping it by one step for darkness and 2 for deeper darkness.
|
Creative Director
|
So, how do we find the line where a living object is not an object? I'm trying to figure out if this is a viably cool reason to take the Familiar arcana for a magus (and get something with a worse attitude about the PC in question than that PC has about Aram Zey...), or something that wouldn't work with the Arcane Pool class feature.
While it's in object form, it functions as that object. So yeah, a raktavarna in dagger form would allow you to use Weapon Focus (dagger) as normal.Magic weapon can only be cast on an object. Casting it on a raktavarna in weapon form causes the spell to fail without revealing why, but again, the caster at this point would likely get the clue that something funny is going...
My advice here is the same I give everyone who wants to build a really weird character for Pathfinder Society... and a magus with a raktavarna is weird. And that advice is prepare yoruself for disappointment. The PFS does not have the flexibility a home game has, and as such, when you have weird characters, the weirdness interacts differently at every table with every GM.
Beyond that... I'm hardly an expert on how things should work in PFS. Ask Mike or Mark if you want the OFFICIAL response.
My response to this, though, is that in the case of a raktavarna... It's ALWAYS a creature.
Another way to look at it—if something has ability scores, it's a creature.
|
Creative Director
|
Diego: Someone came up with Interplanetary Teleport combined with Contingency+Disjunction combined with Lichdom. Keep trying until the Lich succeeds.
- Gauss
The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).So no mage disjunction + contingency.
All magical effects and magic items within the radius of the spell40' radius burst vs a diameter of 1.390.000 km. I doubt a sun could be considered as a single magic item, so you would end disjointing a very small volume, smaller than what is lost to the solar wind every round.
A question to James: if you try Mage disjunction on something that is noticeably larger than the burst volume, the whole structure (as an example the pyramid ad the end of the Crimson Throne AP) will be disjointed if it fail the ST or only a small volume will be affected?
First off... the sun's not magic. It's science. So you can't disjoin the sun.
If you do the burst version of mage's disjunction, anything not wholly inside the area of the burst is safe from being disjoined.
When you target a single object, that size restriction is removed. But remember that really big magic items are often likely to be powerful enough (or at least just big enough) to count as artifacts, which runs a good chance of you losing your spellcasting powers if you mess with it.
...This use of a raktavarna intrigues me. :)
If the game is non-Society... never mind the magus' pool for the moment, can a raktavarna's weapon form be enchanted? (At absolute best I'd assume that the raktavarna's normal and other object forms would gain nothing from such twinkery.)
|
|
We've pretty much finished that semi-linked arc of adventures for Darkmoon Vale, but there's always a chance of going back there. Alas, with only 6 modules a year, and with them needing to serve several masters... it's kinda tricky.Dear JJ
Any chance of having any more modules or even an AP in the Darkmoon Vale?
The Darkmoon Vale module series are really well done, and would like to see that part of the game world built up a bit more.
Signed AZ
I miss monthly modules =(
How do you pronounce Ymeri?
If you had your way, what would the next Ultimate book be? Ultimate Campaign excluded.That's coming dangerously close to "what's the next Ultimate book?" Since my way is pretty influential around these parts. SO. I'm not gonna answer.
Fair enough. If you magically had a ~billion more hours in the day and had to spend many of them working on a 3rd party book, what would it be?
...This use of a raktavarna intrigues me. :)
If the game is non-Society... never mind the magus' pool for the moment, can a raktavarna's weapon form be enchanted? (At absolute best I'd assume that the raktavarna's normal and other object forms would gain nothing from such twinkery.)
I've always thought it'd be fun to slightly bend the rules and make a bladebound magus that has a raktavarna as his blackblade / familiar. OK, so not so slightly bend the rules.
Diego: I didn't say it was possible. I was just repeating what someone else came up with in another thread.
- Gauss
|
Creative Director
|
...This use of a raktavarna intrigues me. :)
If the game is non-Society... never mind the magus' pool for the moment, can a raktavarna's weapon form be enchanted? (At absolute best I'd assume that the raktavarna's normal and other object forms would gain nothing from such twinkery.)
Nope.
A weapon must be an object for someone to turn it into a magic weapon. You can't enchant a raktavarna in weapon form as a result.
If you DO allow that in your games... be ready for the PCs to start asking about having their bodies turned into magic weapons as well...
|
Creative Director
|
Fair enough. If you magically had a ~billion more hours in the day and had to spend many of them working on a 3rd party book, what would it be?If you had your way, what would the next Ultimate book be? Ultimate Campaign excluded.That's coming dangerously close to "what's the next Ultimate book?" Since my way is pretty influential around these parts. SO. I'm not gonna answer.
Unspeakable Futures.
|
|
...This use of a raktavarna intrigues me. :)
If the game is non-Society... never mind the magus' pool for the moment, can a raktavarna's weapon form be enchanted? (At absolute best I'd assume that the raktavarna's normal and other object forms would gain nothing from such twinkery.)
Nope.
A weapon must be an object for someone to turn it into a magic weapon. You can't enchant a raktavarna in weapon form as a result.
If you DO allow that in your games... be ready for the PCs to start asking about having their bodies turned into magic weapons as well...
"Return of the masterwork monk"
I think it has already been requested in this forum, James :-)
|
Creative Director
|
Hi James,
rule questions here.
If something in the pathfinder universe is charging another something and the charge is successful and the charging subject has several attacks at the end of the charge, maybe cause of the Pounce feat or something similar, does the +2 attack roll modification count for
a)The first attack of the charge only
or
b)All attacks made at the end of the charge movement
Furthermore the +2 attack roll bonus from the charge is gone after the charge ends or stays, maybe for attacks of opportunity, until the beginning of the chargers next turn?
Thanks for answering in advance.
The +2 attack roll modification counts for the first attack only. Because it has the momentum of the charge. Once you make the second attack, you've used up the charge's momentum, and as such no longer gain that bonus. You suffer the AC penalty until your next turn, though.
AKA: Ragelancepounce doesn't work the way people want it to work.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...This use of a raktavarna intrigues me. :)
If the game is non-Society... never mind the magus' pool for the moment, can a raktavarna's weapon form be enchanted? (At absolute best I'd assume that the raktavarna's normal and other object forms would gain nothing from such twinkery.)
Nope.
A weapon must be an object for someone to turn it into a magic weapon. You can't enchant a raktavarna in weapon form as a result.
If you DO allow that in your games... be ready for the PCs to start asking about having their bodies turned into magic weapons as well...
"Return of the masterwork monk"
I think it has already been requested in this forum, James :-)
And it's still a silly idea no matter how much time has passed.
What's the innovation or rules change from 3.5 to Pathfinder that you're most proud of?
And when you introduced Archetypes in the APG, did you know you had your hands on a big-time winner of an idea that would legitimately change how a great many people approach the game? That's certainly how it turned out -- I know for me personally, new archetypes are my favorite piece of crunch and the first thing I look for in any new product.
|
Creative Director
|
What's the innovation or rules change from 3.5 to Pathfinder that you're most proud of?
And when you introduced Archetypes in the APG, did you know you had your hands on a big-time winner of an idea that would legitimately change how a great many people approach the game? That's certainly how it turned out -- I know for me personally, new archetypes are my favorite piece of crunch and the first thing I look for in any new product.
The changes to the bard, or the addition of the breath of life spell, both of which are some of my specific influences on the rules. But getting shoggoths into the core Bestiary is pretty good too.
And as for archetypes... that's Jason Bulmahn, not me.
If that information's not indicated in text in the book though, THAT'S an error.Just to give you the heads-up James, SKR popped into the Ultimate Equipment product thread and explained that its not an error; the kits were averaged between their Small character weight and their Medium character weight so that space wasn't wasted providing separate weights for each type of character.In ultimate equipment a lot of the adventurers kits as written seem to have some weights that are quite off from the actual combine weight of all the gear. Is there something reducing the weight or is the amount of gear quoted within off?I have no idea. Sounds like a calculation error to me and should be fixed in an errata. Or if it's something that's like "This kit is packed well so that it reduces encumbrance a bit," but then doesn't actually SAY that in the text, then THAT needs to be fixed in an errata.
I've not really had the chance to look through the book yet so I can't say for sure. Sounds like something that should be posted over on the book's thread and then tagged with a FAQ button push.
Actually to clarify my own mistake, each individual kit lists the weight for a Medium character and the tables at the beginning of the chapter note the weight different for Small characters.
SKR's quote that I mentioned was about how the kits weigh less than the items would normally weigh when packed outside of the kit. According to him, they assume that the kits are packed extremely efficiently or something. This, however, is not mentioned anywhere in Ultimate Equipment.
Sorry for the confusion!
The changes to the bard, or the addition of the breath of life spell, both of which are some of my specific influences on the rules. But getting shoggoths into the core Bestiary is pretty good too.And as for archetypes... that's Jason Bulmahn, not me.
Breath of Life FTW! It's an idea that never occurred to me, but as soon as I saw that spell I slapped my forehead and said, "OF COURSE we needed this all along!" Wonderful addition to the game.
And thank Jason Bulmahn for me next time you see him. :-)