|
While I'm poking at obscure corners of the spell description rules, as far as I can tell, the (object) tag is entirely superfluous, in either of its possible contexts.
Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).
So it define, by its absence, what effects that require a fortitude save don't affect constructs.
(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.
Same thing, it define what spells can be cast on objects and what spells work only on creatures.
You can cast Polymorph Any Object on Undead since it targets creatures and objects. Undead tend to have poor fort saves.
When calculating the cost of an item made of Mithril, you use the original weight of the item.
|
When calculating the cost of an item made of Mithril, you use the original weight of the item.
Even if the item was originally made from mithral?
What about if the original item was made of aluminium? Or paper?
The relevant entry on the table is 'other items', which in the context of that table means 'anything made of mithral except armour or shield'.
One could make a statue out of mithral. What would the 'original' material be? Mithral? Marble? Pottery? Wood? Bronze?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When calculating the cost of an item made of Mithril, you use the original weight of the item.Even if the item was originally made from mithral?
What about if the original item was made of aluminium? Or paper?
The relevant entry on the table is 'other items', which in the context of that table means 'anything made of mithral except armour or shield'.
One could make a statue out of mithral. What would the 'original' material be? Mithral? Marble? Pottery? Wood? Bronze?
Here's the FAQ: Mithril Pricing FAQ
To determine the additional price for the mithral (as compared to the normal item's price), use the non-mithral item's original weight and multiply that by 500 gp per pound.
I don't write them (or interpret them), I just post them...
A saving throw entry containing "(harmless)" means there is no save unless the target specifically wants there to be one, so it at least changes the default. That's not the confusing part - I think everyone who knows the rules well enough to be aware of the (harmless) tag's existence realizes this.
A spell resistance entry containing "(harmless)", on the other hand, doesn't work any differently from one without it. The creature still has to lower its SR as a standard action to be affected. So contrary to the first sentence of the rule that ostensibly describes it, (harmless) does NOT have the same meaning in a Spell Resistance entry as it does in a Saving Throw entry. In fact, it doesn't have any meaning at all in the former context.
Technically it's because you can fail a saving throw as a "no-action" wether or not the effect is harmful or not. Lowering SR is a standard action wether the effect is harmful or not...
If i don't want to mentally resist to a charm (i suppress the natural instinct of my mind to resist external influence), i automatically fail, just the same as if i'm targeted by a fireball and i don't move (i suppress the natural instinct of my body to avoid harm). This applies to both beneficial and harmful effects.
So if i want to resist a beneficial effect, it is treated exactly in the same way as an harmful effect, and vice versa.
The "harmless" notation is there to make you notice that you can make a saving throw, just that most of the time you shouldn't want to.
Magic's Effect on Life in a Fantasy World....is Reaper Bones II?
I have missed the reference.
That's... odd, when I made that post, the link sent you to the right place.
Magic's Effect on Life in a Fantasy World
This one is correct though.
|
While I'm poking at obscure corners of the spell description rules, as far as I can tell, the (object) tag is entirely superfluous, in either of its possible contexts.
It's not. Undead are immune to anything that requires a Fort Save unless it also affects objects. Spells that affect object can also be used sometimes as a sort of sunder attempt, if they are not a direct damage targeting spell like Scorching Ray, while spells like Magic Missile specify that they can not.
I never knew that Spellcraft cannot identify a spell by overheard verbal components alone. You must "see" a spell being cast to identify it.
A small one that annoys me enough to have house-ruled it in my game. This is unchanged from 3.5.
A saving throw entry containing "(harmless)" means there is no save unless the target specifically wants there to be one, so it at least changes the default. That's not the confusing part - I think everyone who knows the rules well enough to be aware of the (harmless) tag's existence realizes this.
A spell resistance entry containing "(harmless)", on the other hand, doesn't work any differently from one without it. The creature still has to lower its SR as a standard action to be affected. So contrary to the first sentence of the rule that ostensibly describes it, (harmless) does NOT have the same meaning in a Spell Resistance entry as it does in a Saving Throw entry. In fact, it doesn't have any meaning at all in the former context.
While I'm poking at obscure corners of the spell description rules, as far as I can tell, the (object) tag is entirely superfluous, in either of its possible contexts.
I think the idea is to limit the power of some creatures; dragons can't self buff as fast, stuff like that.
I think the idea is to limit the power of some creatures; dragons can't self buff as fast, stuff like that.A small one that annoys me enough to have house-ruled it in my game. This is unchanged from 3.5.
A saving throw entry containing "(harmless)" means there is no save unless the target specifically wants there to be one, so it at least changes the default. That's not the confusing part - I think everyone who knows the rules well enough to be aware of the (harmless) tag's existence realizes this.
A spell resistance entry containing "(harmless)", on the other hand, doesn't work any differently from one without it. The creature still has to lower its SR as a standard action to be affected. So contrary to the first sentence of the rule that ostensibly describes it, (harmless) does NOT have the same meaning in a Spell Resistance entry as it does in a Saving Throw entry. In fact, it doesn't have any meaning at all in the former context.
While I'm poking at obscure corners of the spell description rules, as far as I can tell, the (object) tag is entirely superfluous, in either of its possible contexts.
Spell resistance (abbreviated SR) is the extraordinary ability to avoid being affected by spells. Some spells also grant spell resistance.
To affect a creature that has spell resistance, a spellcaster must make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) at least equal to the creature's spell resistance. The defender's spell resistance is like an Armor Class against magical attacks. If the caster fails the check, the spell doesn't affect the creature. The possessor does not have to do anything special to use spell resistance. The creature need not even be aware of the threat for its spell resistance to operate.
Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not. A creature can have some abilities that are subject to spell resistance and some that are not. Even some spells ignore spell resistance; see When Spell Resistance Applies, below.
A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature's next turn. At the beginning of the creature's next turn, the creature's spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).
A creature's spell resistance never interferes with its own spells, items, or abilities.
A creature with spell resistance cannot impart this power to others by touching them or standing in their midst. Only the rarest of creatures and a few magic items have the ability to bestow spell resistance upon another.
Spell resistance does not stack, but rather overlaps.
Dragons can buff just as fast as any other caster out there. You aren't hindered by your own SR, but your allies and enemies are.
While I'm poking at obscure corners of the spell description rules, as far as I can tell, the (object) tag is entirely superfluous, in either of its possible contexts.Immunity to any effect that requires a Fortitude save (unless the effect also works on objects, or is harmless).So it define, by its absence, what effects that require a fortitude save don't affect constructs.
(object): The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater. This notation does not mean that a spell can be cast only on objects. Some spells of this sort can be cast on creatures or objects. A magic item's saving throw bonuses are each equal to 2 + 1/2 the item's caster level.Same thing, it define what spells can be cast on objects and what spells work only on creatures.
You (and Devil's Advocate as well) missed my point. The (object) tag is still superfluous in both cases, because the Target/Area line already tells you whether the spell can target objects. There is no need to tell you that twice.
A saving throw entry containing "(harmless)" means there is no save unless the target specifically wants there to be one, so it at least changes the default. That's not the confusing part - I think everyone who knows the rules well enough to be aware of the (harmless) tag's existence realizes this.
A spell resistance entry containing "(harmless)", on the other hand, doesn't work any differently from one without it. The creature still has to lower its SR as a standard action to be affected. So contrary to the first sentence of the rule that ostensibly describes it, (harmless) does NOT have the same meaning in a Spell Resistance entry as it does in a Saving Throw entry. In fact, it doesn't have any meaning at all in the former context.
Technically it's because you can fail a saving throw as a "no-action" wether or not the effect is harmful or not. Lowering SR is a standard action wether the effect is harmful or not...
If i don't want to mentally resist to a charm (i suppress the natural instinct of my mind to resist external influence), i automatically fail, just the same as if i'm targeted by a fireball and i don't move (i suppress the natural instinct of my body to avoid harm). This applies to both beneficial and harmful effects.
So if i want to resist a beneficial effect, it is treated exactly in the same way as an harmful effect, and vice versa.
The "harmless" notation is there to make you notice that you can make a saving throw, just that most of the time you shouldn't want to.
Even if you're correct, that just changes the complaint from "it counter-intuitively means different things in different contexts" to "it doesn't actually do ANYTHING".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not 3.5.
This may just be me being an idiot, but I was unaware until a few minutes ago that bards in Pathfinder can be of any alignment, as opposed to any non-lawful in 3.5.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rapid Shot: When making a full-attack action with a ranged weapon, you can fire one additional time this round. All of your attack rolls take a –2 penalty when using Rapid Shot.
Many Shot: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.
If you make a 'full-attack action' then you can use Rapid Shot and Many Shot. They require a full-attack action to activate, but they don't require a full-attack to be used individually, like how a Charge is a special full-round action, or Vital Strike is a special Standard action, so it can't be combined with Charge or Spring Attack.
A young copper dragon can cast Grease at will. AT WILL. And they love telling jokes. As they grow older, their jokes become deadly too.
Imagine listening to a copper dragon's jokes while every surface, every weapon and everyone in the place is covered in grease.
Well, I guess that fits the thread's purpose...technically...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A young copper dragon can cast Grease at will. AT WILL. And they love telling jokes. As they grow older, their jokes become deadly too.
Imagine listening to a copper dragon's jokes while every surface, every weapon and everyone in the place is covered in grease.
You sure that's actually his grease spell?....
|
|
Both require full round actions so I don't see how they stack.Being an old 3.5er... i recently read the PFSRD FAQ page...
Many Shot feat can now be used with Rapid Shot Feat... which was a big No No in 3.5. Big news to me.
In 3.5 Manyshot required a special standard action, and could not be folded into a full attack.
It was better like that. It let archers move and shoot effectively, while the change to Manyshot in PF gave static archers even more incentive to not move.
if a creature has immunity to cold/fire it automatically has vulnerability to the opposite. though I think this is going to be errattad apparently its so obscure last time it was brought up two of the developers did not know ot existed.
This is not, or is no longer true in pathfinder, it is an old 3.5 rule.
if a creature has immunity to cold/fire it automatically has vulnerability to the opposite. though I think this is going to be errattad apparently its so obscure last time it was brought up two of the developers did not know ot existed.This is not, or is no longer true in pathfinder, it is an old 3.5 rule.As of when? I ask because the PRD currently still holds the rule, though not quite as mentioned by Mojorat - its that having the cold or fire subtype grants you immunity to one and vulnerability to the other.
Cold Subtype: A creature with the cold subtype has immunity to cold and vulnerability to fire.
Fire Subtype: A creature with the fire subtype has immunity to fire and vulnerability to cold.
Yep, but the original 3.5 rule gave you automatic vulnerability to one if you had immunity to the other, as well as having it defined in a separate subtype rule. Pathfinder removed the former rule (although not in the original printing, although the later printings did indeed remove it), but retains the latter rule, making it possible now to build creatures that can be immune to both, or immune to one without a vulnerability to the other.
You can be immune to fire and vulnerable to fire...the vulnerability simply doesn't mean anything, as you are immune. It's not contradictory, it's irrelevant.
==Aelryinth
|
|
You can be immune to fire and vulnerable to fire...the vulnerability simply doesn't mean anything, as you are immune. It's not contradictory, it's irrelevant.
==Aelryinth
I have seen at least one instance (probably in the mythic rules) of an ability that allow to bypass fire immunity, downgrading it to some level of resistance. So it is no longer irrelevant, only extremely rarely relevant.
The armor check penalty for being non-proficient in worn armor applies to initiative checks.
I have always known initiative was a dex check but I never put the two together.
I have seen at least one instance (probably in the mythic rules) of an ability that allow to bypass fire immunity, downgrading it to some level of resistance. So it is no longer irrelevant, only extremely rarely relevant.You can be immune to fire and vulnerable to fire...the vulnerability simply doesn't mean anything, as you are immune. It's not contradictory, it's irrelevant.
==Aelryinth
Well, such abilities typically come with 'half of this damage is by direct divine power' or somesuch, such as a Flamestrike.
So if you're immune to fire, and there's something that bypasses that, it would also stand to reason it would bypass your vulnerability to fire, since it's 'something more then fire'.
At least, that's how I'd play it.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I have seen at least one instance (probably in the mythic rules) of an ability that allow to bypass fire immunity, downgrading it to some level of resistance. So it is no longer irrelevant, only extremely rarely relevant.You can be immune to fire and vulnerable to fire...the vulnerability simply doesn't mean anything, as you are immune. It's not contradictory, it's irrelevant.
==Aelryinth
Well, such abilities typically come with 'half of this damage is by direct divine power' or somesuch, such as a Flamestrike.
So if you're immune to fire, and there's something that bypasses that, it would also stand to reason it would bypass your vulnerability to fire, since it's 'something more then fire'.
At least, that's how I'd play it.
==Aelryinth
MYTHIC ELDER FIRE ELEMENTAL
Inferno (Ex) A mythic fire elemental can expend one use of mythic power as an immediate action to lose its vulnerability to cold for 1 round. During this time, any fire damage it deals ignores fire resistance and fire immunity.
It is not something other, it is super hot fire.
I think I have seen something similar for some non mythical creature, too, but I am too lazy to track it down.
And its mythic power. So I'd have it bypass fire vulnerability, too, in the case of a fire immune creature, ya?
==Aelryinth
No, I wouldn't give it the +50% boost. We're talking about, say a creature with the (Fire, Cold) descriptor, that's immune to fire and immune to cold, but also vulnerable to fire and vulnerable to cold.
So the mythic fire elemental spends mythic power and is now doing mythically charged fire attacks that bypass fire immunity. I'd probably have them bypass the fire vulnerability at the same time, so it would be doing the SAME damage to the (Fire,Cold) as to a (Fire) creature.
But, if you wanted to make this an extremely weird corner case where being two subtypes could backfire, kick it up 50%. I suppose it wouldn't really hurt.
==Aelryinth
The armor check penalty for being non-proficient in worn armor applies to initiative checks.I have always known initiative was a dex check but I never put the two together.
You can't take 10 with init checks though, as those happen in combat :-(
|
So the mythic fire elemental spends mythic power and is now doing mythically charged fire attacks that bypass fire immunity. I'd probably have them bypass the fire vulnerability at the same time, so it would be doing the SAME damage to the (Fire,Cold) as to a (Fire) creature.
So you'd have them take normal damage instead of no damage, and not make it 1.5 damage because it's not fire damage?
Didn't James Jacobs or another developer comment that having automatic vulnerability for an energy immunity was a mistaken holdover that they intended to remove? I recall it being written some place, but I don't remember where.
So the mythic fire elemental spends mythic power and is now doing mythically charged fire attacks that bypass fire immunity. I'd probably have them bypass the fire vulnerability at the same time, so it would be doing the SAME damage to the (Fire,Cold) as to a (Fire) creature.So you'd have them take normal damage instead of no damage, and not make it 1.5 damage because it's not fire damage?
exactly. It's mythic damage bypassing the fire immunity, and so wouldn't trigger the fire vulnerability.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh... I haven't looked at the Mythic rules much, but it says right there in the quote that its fire damage. "During this time, any *fire damage* it deals ignores fire resistance and fire immunity." So... ya fire vulnerability appears to be go.
I'd still rule it that way. Like I said, having the vulnerability kick in when you're still immune makes no sense, either. I'd rule the same thing with flamestrikes, too.
==Aelryinth
Monsters as PCs states CR=LA BUT to also give the only monstrous PC in the party an extra level every three, until they have extra levels equal to half their CR.
|
|
So the mythic fire elemental spends mythic power and is now doing mythically charged fire attacks that bypass fire immunity. I'd probably have them bypass the fire vulnerability at the same time, so it would be doing the SAME damage to the (Fire,Cold) as to a (Fire) creature.So you'd have them take normal damage instead of no damage, and not make it 1.5 damage because it's not fire damage?exactly. It's mythic damage bypassing the fire immunity, and so wouldn't trigger the fire vulnerability.
==Aelryinth
I was fairly sure to have read it before the mythic version, and here we are:
Bestiary 4
LUNAR DRAGON
Absolute Cold (Su) An old or older lunar dragon’s breath weapon can affect creatures immune to cold damage. A creature immune to cold damage still takes half damage from the breath weapon (no damage with a successful saving throw). Resistant creatures’ cold resistance is treated as 10 less than normal.
and
SOLAR DRAGON
Primal Fire (Su) A very young or older solar dragon’s breath weapon can affect creatures normally immune or resistant to fire damage. A creature immune to fire damage still takes half damage from the breath weapon (no damage with a successful saving throw). A resistant creature’s fire resistance is treated as 10 less than normal.
Magic-psionic transparency.
It's one of the basic rules in the front of the book, yet people seem oblivious to it.
If I had a copper piece for every time I see someone say that it's TOTALLY UNDEFINED how psionics and magic interact, despite being explicitly spelled out in the front of XPH/UP, I could afford an epic mythic gestalt wizard//psion hireling by now.
Add to that the metapsionic cap (you can't spend more PP on a power than your manifester level).
So the mythic fire elemental spends mythic power and is now doing mythically charged fire attacks that bypass fire immunity. I'd probably have them bypass the fire vulnerability at the same time, so it would be doing the SAME damage to the (Fire,Cold) as to a (Fire) creature.So you'd have them take normal damage instead of no damage, and not make it 1.5 damage because it's not fire damage?exactly. It's mythic damage bypassing the fire immunity, and so wouldn't trigger the fire vulnerability.
==Aelryinth
I was fairly sure to have read it before the mythic version, and here we are:
Bestiary 4
LUNAR DRAGON
Absolute Cold (Su) An old or older lunar dragon’s breath weapon can affect creatures immune to cold damage. A creature immune to cold damage still takes half damage from the breath weapon (no damage with a successful saving throw). Resistant creatures’ cold resistance is treated as 10 less than normal.and
SOLAR DRAGON
Primal Fire (Su) A very young or older solar dragon’s breath weapon can affect creatures normally immune or resistant to fire damage. A creature immune to fire damage still takes half damage from the breath weapon (no damage with a successful saving throw). A resistant creature’s fire resistance is treated as 10 less than normal.
Flamestrikes, people, flamestrikes. Half the damage is divine damage and bypasses fire res/immunity. Effectively the same thing as above.
Primal, pure, absolute, epic, mythic, divine, eldritch, hellfire, starfire - all the same thing.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Flamestrikes, people, flamestrikes. Half the damage is divine damage and bypasses fire res/immunity. Effectively the same thing as above.
Primal, pure, absolute, epic, mythic, divine, eldritch, hellfire, starfire - all the same thing.
==Aelryinth
Except flamestrike actually says half the damage isn't fire. A solar dragon's breath weapon is still fire damage. The Primal Fire ability doesn't change that, it negates the creatures fire immunity.
Special Attacks breath weapon (80-ft. line, 6d10 fire, DC 18),
channel life (6/day), primal fire