Let's Be Clear

An issue that has bothered me quite a bit is how to read Dragon Totem Resilience. RAW it adds 2 to a barbarian's DR per Dragon Totem rage power (plus some other things), but due to how powerful that would be and the general context of the rage power many think it's a typo, and was supposed to be energy resistance. I know that as is I would feel very dirty bringing it to a PFS table without some official source saying how I should read it.

In case people are still wondering about this one, the design team answered your question in a FAQ a few weeks after you posted it.

I keep running into the question whether the Stone Shape spell can be used to make a hole in a cavern wall, or only to reshape existing loose boulders or statues. The former makes it very useful in dungeon crawls, the latter makes it a cosmetic-only spell similar to Prestidigitation, and the GMs in my area are more-or-less 50-50 split on the issue.

Is there any official word on this, and if not, could this be Clarified?

In the newly appproved Magic Tactics Toolbox player companion, the Questioner Investigator archetype exchanges alchemy (which normally doesn't risk arcane spell failure) for bard spellcasting. Is the questioner supposed to ignore arcane spell failure chance due to light armor, just like a bard?

By RaW, no.

The bard ignoring spell failure is part of its armor profiences, not its spellcasting.

RaI? *shrugs*

By RaW, no.

The bard ignoring spell failure is part of its armor profiences, not its spellcasting.

RaI? *shrugs*

I agree on you from a RAW perspective. RAI, I suspect the idea was that questioners cast "just like bards", including the spell failure.

Given that investigators get a sweet melee combat ability as their way to contribute in combat but no ranged ability, it would be a death sentence to this archetype to send it into battle without armor.

Given that investigators get a sweet melee combat ability as their way to contribute in combat but no ranged ability, it would be a death sentence to this archetype to send it into battle without armor.

Mage armor is a thing in the meantime.

Rysky wrote:

By RaW, no.

The bard ignoring spell failure is part of its armor profiences, not its spellcasting.

RaI? *shrugs*

I agree on you from a RAW perspective. RAI, I suspect the idea was that questioners cast "just like bards", including the spell failure.

Given that investigators get a sweet melee combat ability as their way to contribute in combat but no ranged ability, it would be a death sentence to this archetype to send it into battle without armor.

I've always considered those archetypes (The other from OA) granting your primary combat ability. Hell take Bonded Investigator and now you are playing really weird Wizard variant.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Given that investigators get a sweet melee combat ability as their way to contribute in combat but no ranged ability, it would be a death sentence to this archetype to send it into battle without armor.

Mage armor is a thing in the meantime.

You do realize that mage armor isn't on the list of spells an Investigator, Alchemist, or Bard can cast?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Given that investigators get a sweet melee combat ability as their way to contribute in combat but no ranged ability, it would be a death sentence to this archetype to send it into battle without armor.

Mage armor is a thing in the meantime.

You do realize that mage armor isn't on the list of spells an Investigator, Alchemist, or Bard can cast?

You do realize a potion of mage armor only costs 50gp and lasts an hour, making it easy to use precombat?

Since UMD is a class skill, a wand seems more cost effective.

True. It's a toss-up, though. The extra cost of a potion gets you added reliability at lower levels. On the other hand, the wand isn't that likely to get shut off, and there is usually someone in the party that can activate a wand of mage armor. Usually.

Do what my Monk with no UMD does. Get both. The Wand is just 2 prestige, and you can hand it off to someone to use on you. But carry a couple potions in case there isn't someone around with UMD or with Mage Armor on their spell list. That's worked well for me for 11.2 levels. I've never been without Mage Armor when I really needed it.

nosig wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

Given that investigators get a sweet melee combat ability as their way to contribute in combat but no ranged ability, it would be a death sentence to this archetype to send it into battle without armor.

Mage armor is a thing in the meantime.

You do realize that mage armor isn't on the list of spells an Investigator, Alchemist, or Bard can cast?

You do realize a potion of mage armor only costs 50gp and lasts an hour, making it easy to use precombat?

SURE! In PFS I run a lot of Alchemists (6), Bards (4) and an Investigator - one of the Alchemists is even a Wizard/Alchemist so I know about Wands of mage armor. I also often have a potion of it on my PCs for when my Martial PCs get caught outside their armor (or for fighting Shadows).

But I also realize the downsides of relying on Potions and Wands. (CL 1 for dispel magic's, Only last an hour, often take an action to put up due to not expecting combat to start yet, etc.). In fact, once my Alchemists have 2nd level spells I start looking at ablative barrier... Until the last errata nerfed Mistmail, many of my Alchemists & Bards used that, so often relied on Wands of mage armor.

After about 6th level, I also often pick up a 1st level Pearl of Power. For when I play with a Wizard - he puts up his spell, I get him to put it on me (using the Pearl). If there is no Wizard at the table? Normally SOMEONE has a use for an extra 1st level spell...

True. It's a toss-up, though. The extra cost of a potion gets you added reliability at lower levels. On the other hand, the wand isn't that likely to get shut off, and there is usually someone in the party that can activate a wand of mage armor. Usually.

And at lower level, often it is more than one potion... my average for scenarios runs 3. So 150gp or about a third of the money made in the sub-tier 1-2 game.

There are many times where the party knows that they are going to be going into a situation where combat may break out, which makes prebuffing pretty easy, especially since a CL1 Mage Armor lasts an hour, and most scenarios don't have long gaps between combats, so a single mage armor can often last more than one combat.

But, the point is that mage armor not being on a certain class's spell list doesn't keep it from being an option for that class.

There are many times where the party knows that they are going to be going into a situation where combat may break out, which makes prebuffing pretty easy, especially since a CL1 Mage Armor lasts an hour, and most scenarios don't have long gaps between combats, so a single mage armor can often last more than one combat.

But, the point is that mage armor not being on a certain class's spell list doesn't keep it from being an option for that class.

Off the top of my head, checking the Evergreen Intros...

First Steps. 3 combats spaced by more than an hour apart each. One of those is "surprise!"... Unless the judge takes pity on you and puts you in two back to back... so, 2 or 3 potions. Say 100gp?

Confirmation 3+ combats (maybe 5?), all spaced more than an hour apart... 150gp? or 250gp?

Masters of the Fallen Fortress ... more combats, but it is possible to do this in an hour. It is just as likely the judge will rule it as over an hour though... but call it 1 Potion, Say 50gp.

but this is silly. My question directed at BNW was: "You do realize that mage armor isn't on the list of spells an Investigator, Alchemist, or Bard can cast?" and the unsaid part was "so it would be harder for those classes to use it than say... just wearing armor?"

edit: I mean another option would be to just wear armor and live with the Arcane Spell Failure chance. 10% for Leather or Mithril chain shirt... My wife did this for years in LG running a Sorcerer - 10% failure on spells. She liked to roll a die when she was casting a spell - and a 1 or 2 meant the spell just fizzled.

You could also wear a haramaki. It's only 1 AC but it's also only 3gp and 0 ACP/ASF. Everyone that isn't a monk should have one as a backup.

I wear two sets of full plate at a time in case the first gets sundered I'll already have on my back-up!

I don't think it's reasonable to say that the Questioner was "supposed to" rely on a spell that's not actually on it's spell list, just because it can eventually UMD it reliably.

No caster class is expected to rely on spells not on its own list.

Every semi-caster arcane class that's supposed to be in melee can cast in some kind of armor: magi, bloodragers, bards, skalds; and investigators and alchemists as well because normally armor doesn't hinder them.

It looks pretty clear to me that this archetype is not meant to be a noncombatant (it keeps all the fighting abilities of an investigator, including armor proficiency). It's just the arcane spell failure that was overlooked in a transition to a different spellcasting style.

...

Every semi-caster arcane class that's supposed to be in melee can cast in some kind of armor: magi, bloodragers, bards, skalds; and investigators and alchemists as well because normally armor doesn't hinder them.
...

There are archetypes that are exceptions to that general design principle, though. The Kensai Magus, Bladed Scarf Dancer Magus, Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue, and Geisha Bard leap to mind.

Although there are other archetypes where it looks like there was an oversight. For example, Spell Trapper seems to be missing the ability to disable magical traps.

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

...

Every semi-caster arcane class that's supposed to be in melee can cast in some kind of armor: magi, bloodragers, bards, skalds; and investigators and alchemists as well because normally armor doesn't hinder them.
...

There are archetypes that are exceptions to that general design principle, though. The Kensai Magus, Bladed Scarf Dancer Magus, Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue, and Geisha Bard leap to mind.

The Kensai is supposed to build his AC in a different way and receives Canny Defence. Also, he does have Mage Armor on his own spell list. The Geisha looks like she was intended to be less of a combatant than traditional bards, explicitly losing armor and weapon proficiencies.

The Questioner doesn't lose light armor proficiency, but the ability to properly use magic in such armor fell through the cracks.

Gisher wrote:

Lau Bannenberg wrote:

...

Every semi-caster arcane class that's supposed to be in melee can cast in some kind of armor: magi, bloodragers, bards, skalds; and investigators and alchemists as well because normally armor doesn't hinder them.
...

There are archetypes that are exceptions to that general design principle, though. The Kensai Magus, Bladed Scarf Dancer Magus, Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue, and Geisha Bard leap to mind.

The Kensai is supposed to build his AC in a different way and receives Canny Defence. Also, he does have Mage Armor on his own spell list. The Geisha looks like she was intended to be less of a combatant than traditional bards, explicitly losing armor and weapon proficiencies.

The Questioner doesn't lose light armor proficiency, but the ability to properly use magic in such armor fell through the cracks.

Your earlier statement suggested that this was a unique situation. I was just pointing out that it isn't. I'd love it if the Questioner could wear some armor without worrying about ASF, but it simply isn't true that "[e]very semi-caster arcane class that's supposed to be in melee can cast in some kind of armor." That some classes have ways to compensate for that loss doesnt change the truth value of that statement.

P.S. Kensai actually don't have Mage Armor on their spell list.

I agree with Lau. This is something that easily could be missed. You think, I know I'll give them casting as a bard and forget that it's the armor section that determines ASF. Similar to the sohei, which overwrote armor and could then flurry in armor even though that wasn't the original intent.
I feel it would be completely reasonable for the PFS people to pop in and ask about this and potentially create a PFS ruling that they can cast in light armor. Because I'm not aware of any casting class with armor prof. that can't cast in the armor their proficient with.

I agree with Lau. This is something that easily could be missed. You think, I know I'll give them casting as a bard and forget that it's the armor section that determines ASF. Similar to the sohei, which overwrote armor and could then flurry in armor even though that wasn't the original intent.

I feel it would be completely reasonable for the PFS people to pop in and ask about this and potentially create a PFS ruling that they can cast in light armor.

It may very well be an error. I hope it is and that we can get some clarification on the issue.

Because I'm not aware of any casting class with armor prof. that can't cast in the armor their proficient with.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one either. That does make an error seem more likely to me.

edit: I mean another option would be to just wear armor and live with the Arcane Spell Failure chance. 10% for Leather or Mithril chain shirt... My wife did this for years in LG running a Sorcerer - 10% failure on spells. She liked to roll a die when she was casting a spell - and a 1 or 2 meant the spell just fizzled.

The polyhedral gods know when your life depends on the spell and will wait until such time to unleash their vengence for your impertinence.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one either. That does make an error seem more likely to me.

Weirdly enough the Alchemist and Medium are the only two that I can think off. Kind of a pain in the butt because I was planning on taking the Discovery for that too but nope has the same issue that we are talking about.

Gisher wrote:

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one either. That does make an error seem more likely to me.

Weirdly enough the Alchemist and Medium are the only two that I can think off. Kind of a pain in the butt because I was planning on taking the Discovery for that too but nope has the same issue that we are talking about.

Alchemist uses extracts, not spells.

And the Medium is only affected by this if they use the Archmage spirit, their other casting abilities, whether Psychic or Divine, are unaffected by armor.

Unless you were talking about something else?

edit: I mean another option would be to just wear armor and live with the Arcane Spell Failure chance. 10% for Leather or Mithril chain shirt... My wife did this for years in LG running a Sorcerer - 10% failure on spells. She liked to roll a die when she was casting a spell - and a 1 or 2 meant the spell just fizzled.

I used to do this in a 3.0 campaign. The problem that I had was that the chance of failure was so low that it was very easy to forget to roll the dice (especially since casters already have so many things to consider during combat) and inadvertently cheat.

I eventually replaced the shirt with mage armor to stop that accidental cheating.

The arcane armor feat lets you do it, but you then have to remember to use the swift action to do it. I agree, it's very easy to forget this.

I used to do this in a 3.0 campaign. The problem that I had was that the chance of failure was so low that it was very easy to forget to roll the dice (especially since casters already have so many things to consider during combat) and inadvertently cheat

*starts making notes*

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one either. That does make an error seem more likely to me.

Weirdly enough the Alchemist and Medium are the only two that I can think off. Kind of a pain in the butt because I was planning on taking the Discovery for that too but nope has the same issue that we are talking about.

Alchemist uses extracts, not spells.

And the Medium is only affected by this if they use the Archmage spirit, their other casting abilities, whether Psychic or Divine, are unaffected by armor.

Unless you were talking about something else?

Alchemists can in fact cast arcane spells with a Discovery. Also, I completely forgot that Investigators and Magi got archetypes that completely render their melee abilities useless to the point you need to change tactics too.

Rysky wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one either. That does make an error seem more likely to me.

Weirdly enough the Alchemist and Medium are the only two that I can think off. Kind of a pain in the butt because I was planning on taking the Discovery for that too but nope has the same issue that we are talking about.

Alchemist uses extracts, not spells.

And the Medium is only affected by this if they use the Archmage spirit, their other casting abilities, whether Psychic or Divine, are unaffected by armor.

Unless you were talking about something else?

Alchemists can in fact cast arcane spells with a Discovery. Also, I completely forgot that Investigators and Magi got archetypes that completely render their melee abilities useless to the point you need to change tactics too.

-_- Had to look that up cause I originally thought you might have been referring to an archetype or something.

Taking an optional ability that lets you cast one arcane spell in no way makes your whole class about casting the way that the Questioner archetype does by revamping the whole magical part of the class.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Rysky wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Off the top of my head, I can't think of one either. That does make an error seem more likely to me.

Weirdly enough the Alchemist and Medium are the only two that I can think off. Kind of a pain in the butt because I was planning on taking the Discovery for that too but nope has the same issue that we are talking about.

Alchemist uses extracts, not spells.

And the Medium is only affected by this if they use the Archmage spirit, their other casting abilities, whether Psychic or Divine, are unaffected by armor.

Unless you were talking about something else?

Alchemists can in fact cast arcane spells with a Discovery. Also, I completely forgot that Investigators and Magi got archetypes that completely render their melee abilities useless to the point you need to change tactics too.

-_- Had to look that up cause I originally thought you might have been referring to an archetype or something.

Taking an optional ability that lets you cast one arcane spell in no way makes your whole class about casting the way that the Questioner archetype does by revamping the whole magical part of the class.

No but Magus and Investigators having a +20 instead of the normal ten concentration check to be able to cast their spells in melee sure as hell does make it seem that this isn't a mistake (Note: Not really different for the Investigator). Hell in the case of the Investigator your better off not in melee because most of your spells aren't even melee focused at that point.

An interesting question just came up again in the forums. What's the intelligence of an improved familiar? Do they keep the monster's base intelligence, or do they go by the familiar int table in the Core Rulebook, even if that's less than what they have in the Bestiary?

The Campaign Clarifications document has been updated!

The Campaign Clarifications document has been updated!

Where is it? The link at the top of this discussion gives me a copy last modified 1-8-2016 that internally says it was modified Jan. 5th. I can't find another.

Check the link in Additional Resources. Apparently, that is the new permanent home for it.

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

The Campaign Clarifications document has been updated!

Where is it? The link at the top of this discussion gives me a copy last modified 1-8-2016 that internally says it was modified Jan. 5th. I can't find another.

It's here. The updates to the Potion Glutton and Shield Brace entries are interesting.

DesolateHarmony wrote:

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

The Campaign Clarifications document has been updated!

Where is it? The link at the top of this discussion gives me a copy last modified 1-8-2016 that internally says it was modified Jan. 5th. I can't find another.

It's here. The updates to the Potion Glutton and Shield Brace entries are interesting.

At first I was disappointed with Potion Glutton (it's understandable, at least--it's not the butchery that was inflicted upon Fencing Grace). My warpriest makes extensive use of it. I literally used a swift action every round of combat with my warpriest. So this actually gives me WAY better action economy.

Previously I did Move (retrieve enlarge person potion from handy haversack) + Swift (drink) + Standard (vital strike).

Now I can do the ever more impressive Free (retrieve one pre-defined potion from Gloves of Storing) + Move (drink) + Swift (any one of the awesome warpriest swift actions that was delayed previously) + standard (vital strike). Of course this costs me 10k, but I also have a jingasa that I'm going to sell back because I haven't played this character in a few months (and he's level 11 so I have some cash to spare at this point).

At first I was disappointed with Potion Glutton (it's understandable, at least--it's not the butchery that was inflicted upon Fencing Grace). My warpriest makes extensive use of it. I literally used a swift action every round of combat with my warpriest. So this actually gives me WAY better action economy.

Previously I did Move (retrieve enlarge person potion from handy haversack) + Swift (drink) + Standard (vital strike).

Now I can do the ever more impressive Free (retrieve one pre-defined potion from Gloves of Storing) + Move (drink) + Swift (any one of the awesome warpriest swift actions that was delayed previously) + standard (vital strike). Of course this costs me 10k, but I also have a jingasa that I'm going to sell back because I haven't played this character in a few months (and he's level 11 so I have some cash to spare at this point).

I've always found it odd that you can't perform a Swift Action using a Move Action or a Standard Action or even a Full-Round action. I understand that it's for the sake of balance (and not casting 3 spells per round), but it doesn't make sense from the viewpoint of effort (Free -> Swift -> Move -> Standard -> Full-Round). I guess I'll just consider a Swift action an act of heroic exertion so strenuous that you can only perform it once every 6 seconds.

Previously I did Move (retrieve enlarge person potion from handy haversack) + Swift (drink) + Standard (vital strike).

Maybe a noob question but does a potion take effect immediately if the spell is a one round cast spell?

Thanks!

claudekennilol wrote:

Previously I did Move (retrieve enlarge person potion from handy haversack) + Swift (drink) + Standard (vital strike).

Maybe a noob question but does a potion take effect immediately if the spell is a one round cast spell?

Thanks!

Yup, that's one of the major advantages of it being in potion form--even wands/scrolls take a full round if it's a full round spell.

Added a thread HERE to request clarification on the Kapenia Dancer Magus Archetype and the Medium and Heavy Armor abilities.

Gary Bush wrote:

claudekennilol wrote:

Previously I did Move (retrieve enlarge person potion from handy haversack) + Swift (drink) + Standard (vital strike).

Maybe a noob question but does a potion take effect immediately if the spell is a one round cast spell?

Thanks!

Yup, that's one of the major advantages of it being in potion form--even wands/scrolls take a full round if it's a full round spell.

Guess I never realized that! Thanks!