ACW's page

That does indeed sound Gygaxian, and not in a good way.

Or to look at it from another point of view: It sounds like a reasonable scenario for a one-shot, time-limited convention session with pre-generated characters (as often was the case in Gygax's time)... but perhaps not for a session with ongoing characters in which character death will render the characters unplayable, especially when it's still time-limited by a convention slot.

Erik Mona wrote:

LOL. I'd love to see the place where we admit that we've "deliberately hidden" the FAQs.

I don't think you''re deliberately hiding the FAQ's. My problem is that you choose to leave the FAQ's as threads which seriously hampers their usefulness as opposed to making a properly formatted FAQ document which could be updated on somethinglike a semiannual or quarterly basis. Naviagating threads to read an FAQ is not the way to produce a helpful document.

As you'll see a few messages after the one you replied to, they *did* deliberately hide the FAQs (and are apparently working on changing that). :) And they did a good job, as evidenced by the fact that you, someone motivated enough to read and reply to a long thread, apparently haven't found the official FAQ lists. They're in a tab at the bottom of each products page *in the store* (?). Example:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-of-swings-combat

The feat explicitly says that the you apply the bonus to CMD. However, it's a shield bonus, and shield bonuses don't apply to CMD. Is it an intentional exception, and increases CMD? Or just an oversight, and doesn't? Or do we use the strictest and (silliest) reading, and say that the feat grants a +4 shield bonus to CMD, but since shield bonuses don't apply to CMD, it doesn't actually increase your CMD? :D

IMO, specific overrides general, so SoS (heh, just noticed the abbreviation, very appropriate) adds to CMD.

By the way, I'm just starting a greatsword-wielding Paladin in Kingmaker, and he's got some AC issues; would anyone who's actually used Shield of Swings at low levels care to comment on whether or not it's worth it?

Lokie wrote:

If I only used rage to show "extreme effort" I think that works well. I think of it more like a adrenaline surge and less like a screaming frenzy.

Another point in favor of Barbarian for my Jaws is the Invulnerable variant. Think about what jaws has survived...

1- He survived having a half constructed building fall on him.
2- He survived a fall over a waterfall.
3- He survived a massive crash with the gondola he was in going through a building.

I don't know what level you're aiming for, but these are things that mid-level PC's can do all the time.

Don't forget the pre-credit biggie: Falling from a plane without a parachute. Sure, he landed in a circus tent, so maybe knock it down from 20d6 to 18d6?

LOL. I'd love to see the place where we admit that we've "deliberately hidden" the FAQs.

Ask and ye shall receive.

We know the FAQ is hard to find... and it's intentional, for now.

As some of you know, the FAQ system is still young—in beta testing, really—and as a result, the FAQ doesn't *contain* much yet. So at this point, we don't want to draw a lot of attention to it, as it isn't putting our best foot forward. Once it has enough content that it's no longer so embarrassing, we'll do more to make it more visible.

With Bestiary 2 wrapping up, I've been assured that we'll be able to pay some more attention to expanding the FAQ in the very near future. Maybe by the time Gary gets back from his vacation, we'll be ready to make it a bit more prominent on the site.

Darn you, Evil-Lincoln-Ninja! But hey, it was your post originally, so no foul. ;)

I can't (and won't) defend the first part of you comment, but we've added errata to every single reprint of the Core Rulebook (and other rulebooks) to date, so I think the idea that Paizo has "never released" adequate errata or clarifications is not completely fair.

We just hired another designer in part to help with the flow of errata and FAQ issues, and my hope is that things will improve on this front shortly. I get the frustration, but the dismissiveness and hyperbole is, in my view, a little misplaced.

I suspect there might be less frustration and hyperbole if Paizo hadn't (by their own admission) deliberately hidden the FAQs from casual users, and if you weren't still doing so, instead of linking to them all from some obvious location (say, http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/resources, plus from all the other "FAQs" lurking on the site to mislead the unwary).

(Hit the FAQ button? As if that helps... It's like hitting the elevator button multiple times. Or hitting the button for the crosswalk signal. I swear those aren't actually connected to anything.)

I've done so, for the original post. Hey, sometimes FAQs are answered. Although to be fair, this Q hasn't really been A'd very F yet. :)

I'd say no to this. I mean you can't use the skill UMD to cast wizard spells so why should be able to use that skill to use the Alchemists Mutagen. Both are class features not magic items.

But, you're not using UMD to create the mutagen (which would be analogous to casting a spell). You're using UMD to emulate the Alchemist class feature that allows them use another Alchemist's mutgen.

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play

"Can I improve my companion's Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats? Yes. Following the guidelines for animal companions as established on page 52 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, this is legal. Your companion must be physically capable of wielding the weapon (no tigers with longswords, for example). Bear in mind however that an animal's natural attacks nearly always yield better results than spending feat slots and gold pieces to equip your companion."

Apes are physically capable of wielding weapons (one of the distinguishing characteristics of all primates (humans and apes are both primates) is that they have opposable...

So, since some apes arguably have 4 hands, can I have my ape wield a 3-handed sword while standing on 1 "foot"? Or dual-wield Greatswords while lying down? ;)

ossian666 wrote:

Depending on the circumstances if I were the GM I may say something like, "The wind keeps blowing because the wall starts 6 inches from the gound." So since it is 1 inch thick for every 4 caster levels it can't possibly be used for the implication you'd like it to. Heck...you may even say, "As the wall begins to fall over you realize that the wind wall appears to be blowing the wall back in your direction. Make a Reflex save."

That is the problem with so many spells...the wording is left vague and open to interpretation so you can make the game yours.

Who's breaking the rules now? If I was one of your players and you told me the wall was six inches off the ground I'd call "shenanigans!" The wall must clearly be on the ground. It says so in the spell's text, "while the wall must be vertical, you can shape it in any continuous path along the ground that you like."

I agree that "the wall starts 6 inches from the ground" would be an unwelcome use of DM fiat, and contrary to RAW. It's not as if this is some broken exploit that needs to be stamped out; it's a clever use of a 6th-level spell to counter a 3rd-level spell.

The problem is that the mutagen isn't a separate magic item apart from the alchemist.

Mutagens draw from the alchemist's own innate magic and separated from him they're just jars of swish. there is literally nothing to UMD with.

No, that's extracts. Mutagens can be separated from the alchemist, and even used by another alchemist (though they go inert if the creator makes a new mutagen).

An alchemist's Mutagen can be used by any Alchemist.
Could/should a non-Alchemist be able to Use Magic Device to "Emulate a Class Feature" to be able to use a Mutagen?
RAW, I'm thinking probably not, since a Mutagen isn't technically a magic item. RAI, I don't know.
(And it definitely wouldn't work on Extracts, since only their creator can use them.)

Fatespinner wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

The brew potion feat says you must know the spell to be put into the potion.

Does that mean a sorcerer can't up the crafting DC by 5 points to make a cure X wounds potion?

Correct. You cannot brew a potion that you do not know the spell for. Some GMs will allow others to "assist" the crafter, meaning that as long as the crafter can find someone who does know the spell (like the party's cleric for instance), then they can craft it normally.

Can you quote a rules source please?

I can do so, just like in the previous two threads on this topic (for the benefit of any readers who may have missed them):

Yes, Brew Potion needs spell prerequsites. The reason is in the rules as written (quoted below with some *added emphasis*):

Note that all items have *prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites* must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

"All items have prerequisites in their descriptions". These are specifically the prerequisites that can be omitted, at the cost of a higher creation DC.

Potions have no prerequisites that can be omitted by the mechanism described in the paragraph; thus, they work as their creation feat (and other similar text) describes, which specifies that you have to know the spell.

In addition, it seems clear to many commenters (including myself) that the original intent was not to allow potions to be made by crafters who don't know the spell. I can't see why they would have wanted to allow it for potions, but not for wands and scrolls. Which isn't to say that some herbalist class (or new Alchemist ability) might not let you do so, but it's not the RAW.

Umm wrong. If you have a non idiotic, non gimped party, you should be able to wipe the floor with a 15 HD zombie at level 5. It's like facing a 80 HD vermin at level 10. Easy peasy if your going by basic level assumption of the game (i.e. you can fly by this point).

An entire party definitely can't fly at Level 5, unless they *all* happen to be single-classed Wizards who happen to have the spell and have memorized it (or unless the DM has been unusually generous with specific magic items).

I'll grant you that many, possibly most, 5th-level parties will include a 5th-level single-classed Wizard. Many (probably not most) of those Wizards might take Fly as one of their starting 3rd-level spells. But even if they memorized it, and happen to still have it available when the giant zombie lurches out, that means that *1* party member can fly for 5 minutes.
Depending on circumstances, perhaps that 1 person can distract the zombie while the other people get out of sight, and perhaps that 1 person (with possible assists from sniping friends) will be able do enough damage from range (preferably via spells or slashing weapons, to overcome the DR 5/Slashing) in 5 minutes to drop the zombie (before running out of spells and ammo). But it's not an automatic cakewalk, and using Fly may not be a better strategy than just surrounding the thing and slashing it apart (and/or shooting spells, and the occasional throwing axe).

To be fair, I suppose a Wiz-5 (or more likely a Sor-5) could spam a whole party with Levitate, and if they rolled well enough (at minuses for bobbing around) and had enough arrows, they might drop the zombie in 5 minutes. But that's also rather circumstantial.

Or, if you're talking about buffing other players, you can always discover infusions, put a phial in the player's hand, and tell him to drink it.

Yes, but the OP was asking for a way for the buffing to occur as a rssult of the Alchemist's own action, so the recipient doesn't have to spend an action drinking the infusion.

Arnim Thayer wrote:

I figured as much, but it has never come up before. Thanks!

...don't let people talk you into 'the trip attempt allows me an AoO against the wolf!' or 'if it missed by 10 or more it goes prone instead!'.

:)

What he said.

Trip (Ex)

A creature with the trip special attack can attempt to trip its opponent as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity if it hits with the specified attack. If the attempt fails, the creature is not tripped in return.

Format: trip (bite); Location: individual attacks.

You missed a criterion: "nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles)"

So the question is: "Does the movement penalty for flying upwards count as hindering your movement?"

I think I'd rule that it does count as "hindering movement".

Mynameisjake wrote:

Pretty sure there was a Mythbusters episode where they made a "dimpled" car that got better mileage than a regular one, despite the hundreds of pounds of modeling clay they used (to allow for the "dimpling").

I can confirm this, as I saw that episode. The coated the car in 800 lbs of modelling clay, recorded the fuel economy of the car. Then they "dimpled" the car and placed the cutouts IN the car so that the weight would not change. Then the measure the fuel economy again, and it was markedly improved. As the car was not "spinning" this lends credence that dimpling a sling bullet should work.

Given their method of launching, and the fact that angular momentum is conserved, I'd be very surprised if sling bullets *don't* spin in flight. Note that lead sling bullets were typically almond-shaped, not spherical, though that may not matter for dimpling effectiveness.

http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/weapons/sling.html

Not that this really resolves anything, but if anyone cares, James Jacobs has made an offhanded (backhanded?) comment on this thread in general (not necessarily on the specific arguments) here :

If I were to weigh in on that thread, though, my advice would be: "Ask your GM and don't be a jerk if your GM responds with an answer that won't let you cheat."

ACW wrote:

Fortunately, a close reading of the rules still yields the result that is almost certainly the intended one: No, you can't make a potion of a spell you don't know.

I'm still not seeing it. There is just as much evidence refuting such a notion as there is supporting it.

Okay, if you think the text is ambiguous, then what about "framer's intent", as they say in the Constitutional Law biz? Is there any reason to believe that the game designers *wanted* people to be able to make potions of spells they don't know?

Are you seriously arguing that, because the game designers didn't want to waste space typing out every possible kind of potion, that potions don't have prerequisites? That's absurd.

They could have just said "Potions: Prerequisites: The spell to be made into a potion." They didn't.

Now, maybe they forgot that this left potions potentially ambiguous. Or maybe Person 2 said "Hey, what about Potions?", and Person 1 said "That would be even sillier. No point in wasting the word-count." :) Really, though, I think they just forgot. Fortunately, a close reading of the rules still yields the result that is almost certainly the intended one: No, you can't make a potion of a spell you don't know.

Since this thread has been resurrected, I'll throw my 2 cp in here as well:

yes, Brew Potion needs spell prerequsites. The reason is in the rules as written (quoted below with some *added emphasis*):

Note that all items have *prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites* must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

"All items have prerequisites in their descriptions". These are specifically the prerequisites that can be omitted, at the cost of a higher creation DC.

Potions have no prerequisites that can be omitted by the mechanism described in the paragraph; thus, they work as their creation feat (and other similar text) describes, which specifies that you have to know the spell.

That means you need some other determining factor to prove your interpretation true. Are there any OTHER passages that you know of?

No need, since one of the passages we've both already quoted provides sufficient evidence. You seem to have missed my argument concerning it, so I'll repeate the quote (with some *added emphasis*), and the analysis, below:

Note that all items have *prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites* must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

"All items have prerequisites in their descriptions". These are specifically the prerequisites that can be omitted, at the cost of a higher creation DC.

Potions have no prerequisites that can be omitted by the mechanism described in the paragraph; thus, they work as their creation feat (and other similar text) describes.

If you can beat the higher Spellcraft DCs, you can create most any potion you like. A wizard with brew potion could craft cure potions for example.

No, you can't. See the post immediately before you for the reasons why not. It's not RAW, and I'm pretty sure it's not RAI either.

Just to play devil's advocate, that assumes they want the spell to work on undead creatures...

Given that the spell is called "Ghostbane Dirge", I think that's a safe assumption.

ACW wrote:

So, RAW, can you take Weapon Focus/Specialization for "type" B, or P, or S? RAI, almost certainly not. But as written...

The part you're quoting is the flavor text part of the feat description. It should never have any bearing on game mechanics.

I'm not sure I'd agree on "never", but I can agree in this case. Thanks.

Defraeter,
I disagree, but this isn't the place for details. Instead, I've put them in my response to you in the "Brewing Any Old potion with Brew Potion?" thread.

All other requirements can be "skipped with a penalty to the roll", as "knowing himself the spell" to make a potion...

Not quite correct, and the difference is crucial. Let's look at the full text (core Rulebook p.549, or http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items#TOC-Magic-Item-Creation):

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

"All items have prerequisites in their descriptions". These are specifically the prerequisites that can be omitted, at the cost of a higher creation DC.

All that being said, it does seem like an oversight for the writers to have specified "you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites," but not to mention potions. I can only imagine that they thought it went without saying, which shows that they lacked imagination. ;-)

That's damage type, not weapon type.

Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain *types of weapons* {my emphasis; and this seems to be the only place in the rules that "type(s) of weapon(s)" is defined}.

Heck yes, it's a silly argument. However, it seems to me to be a *less*-silly argument than the one about Brew Potion.

"Brew Potion" says you have to know the spell, *and* the entry on Potions in the section on creating magic items says you have to know the spell, *and* the Item Cost section says that "The caster level must be low enough that the spellcaster creating the item can cast the spell at that level"; thus, no, you can't make a poition of a spell you don't know.
No, knowing the spell isn't a "prerequisite in it's description" for a potion that can be skipped with a penalty to the roll, it's a requirement of the feat. Potions don't have "prerequsites in their descriptions", since they don't have descriptions per se (in the magic item lists).

Uh no, the feat states "selected weapon" , B/P or S are not weapons. They are damage types. No where does it even imply you may select a damage type. This really does not need to be made more clear then it is man.

Before it says "selected weapon", it says "type of weapon", and the entry on weapon damage types says "type of weapon".

Weapon Focus (Combat)

Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.

Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

So, apparently like everyone else, I've always assumed that "type of weapon" meant "Longsword" or "Dire Flail" or "Hunga-Munga" or whatever.

Type: Weapons are classified according to the type of damage they deal: B for bludgeoning, P for piercing, or S for slashing. Some monsters may be resistant or immune to attacks from certain types of weapons.

Some weapons deal damage of multiple types. If a weapon causes two types of damage, the type it deals is not half one type and half another; all damage caused is of both types. Therefore, a creature would have to be immune to both types of damage to ignore any of the damage caused by such a weapon.

In other cases, a weapon can deal either of two types of damage. In a situation where the damage type is significant, the wielder can choose which type of damage to deal with such a weapon.

So, RAW, can you take Weapon Focus/Specialization for "type" B, or P, or S? RAI, almost certainly not. But as written...

bcpeery wrote:

evedently my search fu is bad.... i cannot seem to find the beta.

Link please?

Try here.

Note that this link is for Release Candidate 5.16.4 RC2, released today, which is presumably even better than RC1 (though still not "Stable").

.

I have a character with a Toad familiar.

TOAD STATS*

The most surprising thing I learned in this thread is that a normal, non-familiar toad, with no attacks (and apparently no ability to swim), is worth 50 xp!

I think a lot of people get the wrong impression when they see "small dog". The question you have to ask yourself is: Is this dog bigger than a halfling? Is it smaller than a dwarf?

Seriously, to be a "Medium dog" you are talking Mastiff, Great Dane, or Irish Wolfhound.

I would probably say that anything that isn't on the last two columns of this Dog Size Chart would be "small" sized in Pathfinder.

Edit: Looking closer, even the second to the last column might still be "small". I kind of think a dog needs to be at least 100 lbs to be "medium".

At least in D20, "Small" tops out at 60 lbs (oddly enough, I can't find any definition of the size categories in Pathfinder; anyone else see them?). So, a Border Collie (4th column from the right) would still be Small, but an American Bulldog, German Shepherd, or even Labrador Retriever (3rd from the right) would be "Large".

I don't see much of a problem with that, a small dog would work perfectly well for a guard dog. It would alert you of something's presence as it is supposed to, but not necessary attempt to then attack and kill that something. If you want a dog to do both of those things, buy/train an attack dog, which is labeled as a riding dog in PF.

The problem with this is that a Riding Dog (150 gp) is also trained (and has an appropriate build) for, well, Riding (and riding into combat, at that), as well as (probably) wearing armor.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Errata is changing the "Dog, Combat-Trained" to "Dog, Guard," and it'll be a Small dog. The "Dog, Riding" remains Medium and the text will note that it is also a combat-trained dog.

NOOooo!!!!

Who on earth would buy a chihuahua guard dog? They are supposed to be big, vicious mastiffs and the like! What is the rational behind such an errata?

Chihuahua's would by Tiny at best, probably only Diminutive. ;)

And this isn't really an Adventurer's Armory problem; the same questions arise from the Core Rulebook.

Thanks for letting us know about the upcoming errata, Sean.

Great, thanks!

Hi. I've purchased PDFs of the Core RPG and the APG, no problems with those. I'm interested in buying a hardcopy of the Core RPG, but only if it's at least 3rd printing. If I was to order one through the Paizo website, what printing would it be? And when do you expect 4th Printing hardbacks to be available?

Thanks.

Allen W.

Excellent points, Tem.
Is there a general consensus as to whether or not Power Attack + Cleave are effective starting feats for a human two-handed fighter, as opposed to (say) Power Attack + Weapon Focus or Power Attack + Shield of Swings?

AvalonXQ,
Thanks! One hopes that a 1st-level character won't be fighting AC22 or greater, so it looks like the general rule for him would be "always use Power Attack, with or without Cleave".
Are the numbers for the FTR-1 case simple enough to post here? And since you mention it, how does the net result change for a FTR-4 (assuming normal damage goes up by, say, 3 points by then)?

Thanks. Note that I've seen some excellent posts concerning PA in general; what I'm curious about is the specific case of using PA while one is Cleaving. Under what, if any, circumstances does the penalty to hit (and thus the increased chance of missing the first attack, and thus not getting the second attack, which is also at reduced chances to hit even if you get to make it) outweigh the additional damage to whatever attacks hit?

Let's say a level-1 human fighter-type (Power Attack, Cleave) with +1 BAB, an additional +5 to hit due to traits, feats, and STR (so a total attack of +6 under normal circumstances), swinging a 2-handed sword with a 16 STR (so, 2d6+4 normal damage)

Has anyone out there done some analysis on whether (and when) it makes sense for someone doing a Cleave attempt to also use Power Attack? If so, please share. I'm especially interested in the outcomes at lower levels (1-5).

Thanks!