|
Say I cast SM II to summon a Small Lightning Elemental and have it do a charging disarm to make enemy drop his (metal) sword.
Will Metal Mastery and Spark Leap stack? And the disarm would gain the Charge bonus too?
Metal Mastery (Ex)
A lightning elemental gains a +3 bonus on attack rolls if its opponent is wearing metal armor, is wielding a metal weapon, or is made of metal (such as an iron golem).
Spark Leap (Ex)
A lightning elemental gains a +10 bonus on bull rush, disarm, overrun, and trip attacks when it charges a creature against whom its metal mastery ability applies.
-
Base CMB: +1
Metal Mastery: +3
Spark Leap: +10
Charge: +2
= +16
Part 2) Disarm says you take a -4 penalty if you perform a disarm while unarmed, however you can also choose to automatically pick up the weapon if you are unarmed. So can the elemental (who has a slam attack and is therefore armed) decide to treat himself as unarmed and take the penalty but also pick up the weapon? Would this remove the Charge bonus?
1) Yes.
2) By strict RAW, no, it couldn't, but RAI seems reasonably clear that it means if you don't have your hands full of a weapon, so I'd allow it without removing the charge bonus.
You cannot use Summon monster spells to summon elementals outside the bestiary.
That is incorrect. The summon spells refers to Elementals. It never calls out fire, water, air, and earth specifically.
|
There's a dev quote somewhere that says it's intended to be fire, water, air, and earth only.That is incorrect. The summon spells refers to Elementals. It never calls out fire, water, air, and earth specifically.You cannot use Summon monster spells to summon elementals outside the bestiary.
For PFS?
There's a dev quote somewhere that says it's intended to be fire, water, air, and earth only.That is incorrect. The summon spells refers to Elementals. It never calls out fire, water, air, and earth specifically.You cannot use Summon monster spells to summon elementals outside the bestiary.
Got a citation on that one? Pretty sure it was intended to be the opposite of what you have stated.
PFS restricts summoning to the core four, but that's not relevant here.
Can someone just provide the citation? I'm playing an arcanist with the occultist archetype and this would be good to know. My DM's already okayed this, but if it genuinely is a ruling then I won't summon any non-core elementals.
My search fu is lacking. Please help.
Can someone just provide the citation? I'm playing an arcanist with the occultist archetype and this would be good to know. My DM's already okayed this, but if it genuinely is a ruling then I won't summon any non-core elementals.
My search fu is lacking. Please help.
There's no citation: the poster was likely confused about the PFS ruling.
*edit*
To clarify, if you are going to a Pathfinder Society (PFS) game, you are restricted to the elementals in bestiary 1. If it isn't PFS, it is safe assume any of the elementals are free game until proven otherwise.
|
|
SKR was quoted here as noting that the spell didn't include elementals outside the Bestiary because that would expand the list every time a new book came out.
SKR was quoted here as noting that the spell didn't include elementals outside the Bestiary because that would expand the list every time a new book came out.
Paizos complete unwillingness to expand the summoning list has pissed me off since day one. There is nothing wrong with expanding the list with each bestiary release. If anything it encourages players to buy a copy of the books so they can reference their beasties.
Of course I can expand the list myself, but not when I'm playing in someone else's game. /rant.
|
|
The problem with expanding the list is increasing the scope of its power with every release, and making the list long and cumbersome to use, not to mention increasing in power and versatility every time a new Bestiary or AP that contains "Elementals" comes out this forces designers and writers to include additional time evaluting these options for player use.
Furthermore, list expansion occurs in other places, usually at some cost. Feats and items can expand the list such as Summon "alignment" Monster and the new rings. Priests of specific deities can also add a small amount to their list. So expanding the lists is not unprecendented, but requires a specific game mechanic to do so.
In a home game I like the idea of tailoring SM/SNA lists to the caster specifically rather than using the generic list, but this involves removing one monster to be replaced by another. In the case of Elementals I could see giving up one to be replaced by another, like an Air Druid losing Earth Elementals to get Lightning or a Elemental Wizard that loses other summons on the list in the favor of more elementals.
|
|
Actually the AP ones are limited to worshipers of specific deities, which provides both a Patron limitation (you can only have one god) and an alignment limitation (be within one step of Deity) this means you may only pick up one list. That adds what 2 - 4 options over the entire list? Some are even weaker than other options currently on the list.
There's a dev quote somewhere that says it's intended to be fire, water, air, and earth only.That is incorrect. The summon spells refers to Elementals. It never calls out fire, water, air, and earth specifically.You cannot use Summon monster spells to summon elementals outside the bestiary.
I will FAQ it. That is something that needs to be in writing if that is the case.
SKR was quoted here as noting that the spell didn't include elementals outside the Bestiary because that would expand the list every time a new book came out.Paizos complete unwillingness to expand the summoning list has pissed me off since day one. There is nothing wrong with expanding the list with each bestiary release. If anything it encourages players to buy a copy of the books so they can reference their beasties.
Of course I can expand the list myself, but not when I'm playing in someone else's game. /rant.
I do agree with them not expanding it. That spell is really good already. They do however have alternate list you can use. I think a compiled list is on d20pfsrd.
As it currently stands...
default Pathfinder - Yes to Bestiary 2 elementals, by RAW they are allowed, no ruling, FAQ, or Errata has ever been issued saying otherwise
PFS - No to Bestiary 2 elementals, by specific system rule
Houserules - YMMV
SKR was quoted here as noting that the spell didn't include elementals outside the Bestiary because that would expand the list every time a new book came out.
If it didn't come from the Design Team account (or I guess maybe Bulmahn as lead) then it's still only RAI until one of those two verify it. That was the whole big hubbalo when they moved to this system.
The fact PFS has to make a specific rule about it tells you what even they consider the default to be. If the rules didn't allow as written the Bestiary 2 elementals PFS wouldn't have to include a clause.
I will FAQ it. That is something that needs to be in writing if that is the case.
I agree with FAQ'ing however it's been flagged before, I remember this coming up a few times a year since at least 2012, they've chosen not to address it [ Edit: I see you made a formal post on the issue, will take the discussion there, maybe this time's the charm. :) ]. I hope they finally do, though I hate to see the already nerfed SNA list nerfed more, but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect they've been doing it to deliberately leave it as a semi-ambiguous GM call in everyone's own games.
Right now, a GM can say Yes to it and he's got RAW on his side.
Right now, a GM can say No to it, and he's got some RAI and PFS's system rules on his side.
Basically everyone can be happy and sort of right.
My guess is that's why it's been deliberately back burnered.