Archaeik's page

1,552 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,552 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Spell Perfection would allow you to double the caster level bonus from Spell Specialization, that's about it.
There's that ioun stone with +1 caster level, I'm sure there's a few more tricks.

Ask you GM what kind of caster level boost you can get from burning a Wish. (probably will not be cost effective)

2) Divine restrictions represent the portfolio of the source of your magic. In the case of Clerics and the like, it should be generally assumed that the divine source granting powers refuses provide adherents with abilities contrary to its own goals (Pharasma is a great example of this).

Eidolon:Evolutions:Head wrote:
An eidolon grows an additional head. The eidolon does not gain any additional natural attacks for the additional head, but the additional head does allow the eidolon to take other evolutions that add an additional attack to a head (such as a bite, gore, or breath weapon). This evolution can be selected more than once.

Seems like a pretty clear delimit on the number of times you can take things to me. It's probably designed this way since the first(default) head isn't considered it's own evolution (otherwise an eidolon could "survive without its head" probably, or at least cause questions of the like).

It's unlikely you will get any developer attention since this system is half defunct after the release of the new one.

I don't see any issue with virtual ranks granting bonuses as actual ranks.

Herolab is notoriously wrong for weird interactions and should never be considered an authoritative rule source. Pretty much comes down to ask your GM, but words like 'substitute' are pretty compelling to me.

Fair enough, however, I personally take it as sufficient evidence to understand intent (combined with the interaction of DR with secondary effects), that secondary effects require at least 1 point of damage to get through defenses in order to trigger.

If you absolutely have to have a written rules source on this to prove it, you may be out of luck.

As a comment on intent, Weapon Focus clearly calls out grapple as a distinct choice separate from unarmed strike or anything else. The rules are pretty restrictive about grapple in particular. If it's reasonable to do so, I second "just ask your DM".

dragonhunterq wrote:

Forgo - "to go without or lose the right to".

When a term does not have an in-game definition you use the normal English definition. If you lose the right to something/or are without it it is no longer available - I really don't think you have a case at all. Plain English is simply not on your side.

There's an 'or' there, and it's a stretch to claim you 'lose the right' to your sneak attack dice because it's voluntary, you do 'go without', which is the only stipulation of the abilities care about.

And again, this assumes the abilities consume sneak dice (they don't say they reduce your pool, you simply voluntarily "go without").

Everyone here is solely arguing RAI (which I do pretty much agree with).
Exploitative RAW is nothing new, I'd be surprised if this specific case was confirmed as RAI (and if it was, I know many of you would ignore it), but there have been many other cases where curious RAW interpretations have been confirmed to the dismay of some.

I stand by my statement that the text is ambiguous.

I completely disagree that I have no case.

The benefits section includes a permissive description about what you can do, "forgo X to increase Y", it then includes a mechanics statement about the process, "if X forgone, then Y increased".

The problem as I see it is that people are approaching the text with assumptions and biases as to what it should do based on comparative logic and past experience.

The abilities all clearly state that you gain an effect if you elect to forgo sneak attack. There is nothing that directly indicates the abilities themselves buy that sneak attack damage, nothing at all (it is all implied).

Sure, implicit meaning has value, but it shouldn't have more value than explicit meaning. (<-This statement is not about RAW vs RAI, but a general comment on communications)

You can still full-attack while grappled, so it certainly doesn't reduce the number of actions you can take, ergo it only prevents you from taking any action that allows you to move (or rather those actions automatically fail and are wasted).

The real kicker here is that you said this was a Su ability, so no concentration check and no real way to stop it short of antimagic.(There may be a few extremely specific anti-teleport abilities out there, but a bear is unlikely to have them.)

I think we're finally getting to the crux of why this seems wrong (outside of blatantly doubling+ up on a benefit from a single resource); ie "lose X to gain Y", it is certainly how they read at first blush.

However, that is not how the benefit is mechanically generated, they say "for every X you lose, gain Y" and in the case of Careful injection it is much closer to "for every X you have lost, gain Y".

Further, I don't think this is particularly sketchy logic, it is just a very literal parsing of the language (and this is the rules forum).

To be more specific, the word "to" you are referring to is in the permissive statement (which can give us clues as to intended function), and appears nowhere in the mechanics description.

Quite frankly the real problem here is the word "forgo", because they almost certainly meant "exchange", which forgo is not (you can always forgo your sneak attack, you just won't always gain a benefit).

Simply put, you qualify for the conditions of each mechanic when you forgo, intended or not.

Getting into the weeds:
Poisons are awful, so this particular combo isn't really as bad as it sounds, and requires relatively heavy investment

That's assuming the act of forgoing is per feat. Both interpretations are valid here.

This is especially true in the case of Careful Injection which uses the past tense(it actually looks like the perfect tense to me) of forgo instead of the imperfect(this implies an ongoing action) tense like the others.

RAW, each ability can be read to only care how many dice were forgone rather than having its own greedy hand out waiting for dice.

Well, quite frankly, I'm not even that convinced that Celestial Poisons doesn't apply. It's a Su ability that modifies the application of a poison to a weapon. Contrasted with the Elemental version which happens during creation.

RAI certainly seems to be that no other discoveries outside those the archetype introduces apply, but the wording is extremely strange to me, it would have been easier to say "only the discoveries listed here may modify arcanotoxins" than try to be cute.

See, I tend to agree that what you all say is RAI, but I see nothing RAW that disambiguates the issue.

Each ability is it's own source, and it isn't asking to spend the sneak attack dice in a direct exchange (that part is implied), it is asking you give up the dice. Once the dice are sacrificed, it grants a benefit based on the amount lost.

This is more about it being poorly worded based on some convention set by precedent in some rogue abilities a long time ago(ie "forgo") and then sloppiness not accounting for the potential existence of similar abilities (as demonstrated by the feats that actually do account). The fact that some abilities restrict max DC while others do not typically implies that it is an intentional choice on the part of the author. Very murky here.

Alchemist discoveries that affect mundane poisons do not apply to an arcanotoxin.

It's a pretty stupid rule, but it's there.

Given that it's there, does RAI exclude tasty goodies like ?

A rogue with this talent can apply poison to a weapon in such a way that it is effective for a number of successful attacks equal to her Dexterity modifier (minimum two) instead of one. This poison has a reduced effect, however, and saves made against the poison gain a +2 circumstance bonus. Applying poison in this way is a full-round action, or a standard action if the rogue has the swift poison rogue talent.

You are trading alchemist progression to get it, but the interaction with other abilities didn't seem to be considered.

Does arcanotoxin only count as/act like a poison in certain contexts? Why wouldn't the author just spell that out instead? It's clearly called out as a poison in the first paragraph.

Additionally, qualifying discoveries as "mundane" is confusing to me, as it implies there are also discoveries that cover more than mundane. Further, I'm confident I could work out something mechanically to use Poison Conversion on something like Cloud Kill (unintended, almost certainly), so does that mean it's exempt now?
Coupled with the RAW that I absolutely can use this talent together with arcanotoxins, this is what I mean when I say it's a stupid rule.

So is it RAI to be able to manipulate arcanotoxins with abilities that are not "alchemist discoveries"?

Specifically, I'm going to be asking about features that improve poison DCs, but the discussion shouldn't be limited to that as there are other abilities out there that forgo sneak attack as well(should multiple abilities ever affect the same mechanic as these do poison).

I put forgo in quotes as the meaning seems a bit ambiguous RAW vs RAI...
RAW, it is clear that forgoing the sneak attack grants a benefit
RAI, this benefit seems to be intended as an X->Y exchange that is not express enough to directly count it as RAW (such an exchange prevents the same currency[X] from being exchanged again by another ability)


At 5th level, when a Daggermark poisoner makes a sneak attack with a poisoned weapon, she may forgo some of her sneak attack damage to increase the save DC of her poison, increasing the poison’s save DC by 1 for every 1d6 points of sneak attack damage she forgoes.
Careful Injection (Ex) wrote:
At 4th level, an eldritch poisoner can forgo some of her sneak attack damage in order to increase the save DC of a poison or arcanotoxin on the weapon used to make the sneak attack. The poison’s DC increases by 1 for every 1d6 points of sneak attack damage forgone. This ability replaces the discovery gained at 4th level.
Pernicious Stab wrote:
When you hit an opponent with a poisoned weapon and would deal sneak attack damage, you can choose to forgo some or all of the sneak attack damage to increase the poison’s chance of success. For every 2d6 points of sneak attack damage you forgo, add 1 to the saving throw DC of the poison delivered with your attack. This increase to the poison save DC does not apply to creatures that are immune to precision damage.

Additionally, this talent

Accurate Poisoner (Ex) wrote:
A rogue with this talent delivers poisons with deadly precision. When the rogue successfully hits an opponent with a poisoned weapon and would deal sneak attack damage, she can forgo the sneak attack damage and increase the poison’s potency. If she does, the poison’s duration increases by 2 (for example, large scorpion venom lasts for 8 rounds instead of 6 rounds, and drow poison lasts for 4 minutes instead of 2 minutes).

Other abilities seemed to keep this potential stacking in mind

When you make a sneak attack with a poisoned weapon, you can forgo some of your sneak attack damage to increase the save DC of your poison, increasing the poison’s save DC by 1 for every 1d6 points of sneak attack damage you forgo. This can’t cause the save DC to exceed 15 + 1/2 your character level.
Powerful Poisoning wrote:
When you damage an opponent with a Power Attack while using a poisoned weapon, you can forgo the bonus damage from Power Attack to increase the save DC of the poison by 1. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every +4 thereafter, the bonus to the poison’s save DC increases by an additional 1. This can’t cause the save DC to exceed 15 + 1/2 your character level.

So, the question is, RAW what stacks? and RAI what stacks?

What is the key language that indicates it must be an X->Y exchange if that is your position?

Does a horse have two natural attacks (bit, hoof) or three natural attacks (1 bite, 2 hoofs)? Also, are the hoof attacks considered secondary if the animal companion is trained for combat, or are they considered primary, like normal combat-trained horses?

Relevant Rules (natural attacks will be parsed for illustration purposes)

Docile (Ex) Unless specifically trained for combat (see the Handle Animal skill, a horse's hooves are treated as secondary attacks.

Natural AttacksMost creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon).

These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks.

Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls.

1. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one.

2. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.

3. Table: Natural Attacks by Size lists some of the most common types of natural attacks and their classifications.

Natural Attack ... ... Attack Type
Hoof, Tentacle, Wing ... Secondary

1. The context of "attacks" almost always refers to 'attacks' rather than 'weapons'.

I am fairly confident that this means your horse has 3 attacks.

2. The Docile SQ of the base horse is what overrides this rule.
A standard wartrained mount uses this rule because it is not longer docile.

3. However, your AC no longer uses #2 because it now has more than one type of attack, forcing the hoofs to default back to secondary as per the table.

I hope this was helpful.

Rysky wrote:
Because the summoned monster is the one doing the damage, not the spell.

I find it more accurate to say that it's because the arcana requires casting.

In the case of flame blade and SM, the effect can be argued to be part of spell; but that's irrelevant because their damage isn't directly tied to having cast the spell.

Rysky wrote:

It's like other spells and caster with Foci, you have it in hand and it lets you buff up your spells. Don't lose it either, as you would a material component.

Don't know what this has to do with damaging Divination spells since there wasn't any in your question (are there any damaging Divination spells?)...

My recollection is that most of the spells this trait was intended to boost (ie. ones that gain a mechanical benefit prior to Occult Adventures) have a ritualistic fluff (ie. take longer than a standard action to cast).

I strongly suspect "use as an additional focus component" also intended that same fluff of sitting down and actually manipulating the deck over the duration of the cast.
Simply allowing it to be held in hand seems to defeat this intent.

If you use this specific harrow deck as an additional focus component when you cast a divination spell, your caster level is treated as being 2 levels higher.
Occult Adventures: Psychic Magic wrote:
Focus components work the same way with psychic spells as they do with other spells.

What does the bolded part mean?/How does it function?

At a minimum, I assume it has to be in hand, but is this less exploitable than it seems at first glance? (My point being that the trait was never intended as a more broadly applicable Spell Specialization for blasters)

Benefit: When you hit your opponent with a charge attack, you can attempt an awesome blow combat maneuver against that opponent as a free action.

1. Does the Awesome Blow maneuver granted by Awesome Charge benefit from bonuses to the weapon you are using? (since it is ostensibly the delivery instrument)

Awesome Blow doesn't seem to normally utilize a weapon.

2. Do you still get to make the Awesome Blow check if you used a reach weapon to make the charge attack? (ie. your target is outside of your natural reach)

3. Charge attacks may also be a Bull Rush; may you follow your opponent so the Awesome Blow is more effective (knocking them into an obstacle)?
3b. If you do not follow them after a successful Bull Rush, do you still get to attempt your Awesome Blow (effectively adding it to the distance)?

I suspect the answers are
1. No, the AB maneuver is its own action, as such it would function normally.

2. Yes

3. Yes
3b. No, but they would move the farthest distance and fall prone if AB was successful.

I am most interested in opinions on #2

Undead aren't killed, they are destroyed.
Ghosts have a specific method to permanently destroy them.

Diego Rossi wrote:
"having the ghost touch special ability"

Ghost Touch does not change the base nature of the item to which it is applied.

A spectral copy is still incorporeal and may pass through solid matter.
I'm not arguing that it should target touch, only that there is a way for incorporeal weapons to offer the same benefit as material ones.
The line about "being part of the ghost's form" is not indicative of anything other than the objects' inseparability from the creature.
I would agree that the weapon, in the case of Grave Trappings, may be used either to make the normal incorporeal touch or as the object it appears to be using the Ghost Touch rules. (keep in mind, this special does not actually count toward the +10 limit of the weapon, it's quite broken in that regard)

Sandal Fury wrote:
Why bother? Incorporeal creatures have no strength score. Barring swashbucklers, dex-to-damage, etc, they're better off using their touch attack.

This is generally the case, but Conductive can really help this. Coupled with certain abilities like Sneak Attack, multiple attacks (from BAB) end up being more advantageous for a few edge builds.

Also, regardless of dex to damage, incorporeals always use dex to hit.

Diego Rossi wrote:
Archaeik wrote:

Ghost Touch only makes a material object "count as incorporeal", it is still material and must target normal AC. (Additionally, this means such an object cannot pass through solid material like the creature can).

'spectral copies' of weapons cannot affect the material plane without Ghost Touch, but because they then also "count as corporeal" I would not let them target touch AC.

"Spectral copies" of equipment are only visual props. The headless ghost in full plate wielding a greatsword is still using its corrupting touch to damage you, even if what you see hitting you is a greatsword.
Classic Horrors Revisited wrote:

Grave Trappings (Su)

Challenge Rating: +0.

The ghost died with a strong attachment to a specific item or set of objects. A ghost with this ability may choose a number of items it died with equal to its Charisma modifier to carry with it into death. The ghost continues to be able to use and benefit from these spectral duplicates just as though they were the real things. Weapons and armor are treated as having the ghost touch special ability, while other items act as being incorporeal themselves and can be manipulated by the ghost. Regardless of the type of object, all selected items are treated as being part of the ghost’s form and cannot be disarmed or removed from the ghost (even by the ghost). Should a ghost be destroyed, its equipment reappears with it upon rejuvenating. (CR +0) Occasionally, and at the GM’s discretion, the transition into death might imbue a single ghostly item with strange powers, granting it powers comparable to a magic item suited to the ghost’s character level.

Ghost Touch only makes a material object "count as incorporeal", it is still material and must target normal AC. (Additionally, this means such an object cannot pass through solid material like the creature can).

'spectral copies' of weapons cannot affect the material plane without Ghost Touch, but because they then also "count as corporeal" I would not let them target touch AC.

Attacks do not need to have attack rolls
Smite does not specify physical damage (a good point of reference is Power Attack, which does specify "all melee damage rolls" but restricts touch attacks without actually requiring an attack roll otherwise)

Isonaroc wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's way worse than magic missile damage. Good catch.

I brought up ability damage, like, a page and a half ago. :-(

*takes ball, goes home*


Damage wrote:
Damage reduces a target's current hit points.

It's true that "ability damage" is defined in this section, but it is defined separately.

Master of Shadows wrote:
Nah, bleed isn't rolled.

Many bleeds are defined as a die.

I'm more interested in Rend or Constrict though as it can make certain templates more dangerous to PCs.

FCT still has the Special line about FoB

I disagree that this "isn't game breaking" (well, maybe not breaking, but problematic)...

30ft on an optimized Channel Negative Energy is already fairly powerful for a number of reasons (regardless of your opinion on the merits of such a build). 1 ring makes this better than it should for the cost, but 2 starts to get silly since the total area is going up geometrically.

Now, realistically it is taking up the ring slots, but experienced players will still be able to work within that limitation, if only situationally, to optimize performance (especially given how cheap the item is).
And if you're letting 2 stack, how about 2 more ring slot tattoos for a total of +20ft? (all for 54k gp)

kinevon wrote:
Soft Cover wrote:


Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.

So, this implies that cover applies against all ranged attacks, with a weapon or otherwise.

I disagree with "all".

They defined the term "ranged attack" earlier in the chapter and now want it to include "ranged touch attack" which they defined separately.

Either "ranged touch attack" is a subset of "ranged attacks" and they are all weapons, or they are not, meaning you can't gain cover vs ranged touch attacks. You can't have it both ways.

kinevon wrote:
TomG wrote:
Ranged attack rolls are only for weapons.

Wow, this is the crux of the issue.

Combat wrote:
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn.

However, Melee Attacks clearly differ from Melee Touch Attacks.

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).

Touch Spells in Combat: Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) as a free action. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll.

Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

So the issue is that "melee touch attacks" are not strictly a subset of "melee attacks", yet the vast majority of feats and rules treat "ranged touch attacks" directly as a subset of "ranged attacks". (So this is a problem because they elected to save on word count, but that's something I won't blame them for.)

Chess Pwn wrote:
Well they released the Errata for this right? And it wasn't changed. Make it seem less like a mistake and more like it was intentional now.

This kinda overlooks the sheer volume of errata that was issued for this book and the fact that at least a few items which were thought to be on the list were not addressed (although this part is sadly typical...)

I think it's fine to ask for another review because it may not have actually received one (but I also think this thread is close to its diminishing returns threshold in terms of interest regarding FAQ clicks).

RegUS PatOff wrote:

IMHO you'd get two pools of Command Undead with 7HD for each.

Take a look at Brewer's Guide to Undeath. It has a well thought out approach to building your undead control capabilities.

Agreed, nothing about VMC or Command Undead indicates that you stack levels to determine effective cleric level. (and in fact, RAW, Power over Undead doesn't actually grant an effective cleric level for the purposes of CU)

James Risner wrote:

I only said it had been discussed by WotC developers in 3.5 era regarding Monk Wis to AC stacking with other Wis to AC effects and that it had been discussed by multiple Paizo staff to not stack.

Does that make my position clear?

While that is certainly pertinent, RAI is way more obvious there than a stacking of "X in place of Y" and "add X" which is the more common scenario.

Do you have any WotC commentary regarding that kind of stacking? (since you're bringing them into the discussion)
Was there a "wisdom to AC in place of dexterity" ability?

Counterpoint: Spells are "the most important class feature" to wizards.

Enjoy your ruling.

Cevah wrote:
RAW, a bow would go from 20/x2 to 20/x3.

Bows are already 20/x3, so you're advocating that it does nothing RAW.

alexd1976 wrote:
Archaeik wrote:

I agree, it's fairly hard to adjudicate based on available examples.

From a simulationist standpoint, a quick search indicates that iron is 9-10x more dense than oak, so the question primarily becomes one of difference in volume, because equal volume would be nearly impossible to use in combat.
It likely wouldn't be as thick, because iron/steel is far tougher than wood.

I understand, I already addressed this in my first response.

A more complete analysis would use item HP and thickness guidelines.


Light wooden shield 7

Heavy wooden shield 15
Light steel shield 10
Heavy steel shield 20
Tower shield 20

So it appears that steel items have roughly 1/3 more HP than wooden ones. (And I'd argue pretty strenuously that the precise value for light wooden is 7.5)


Wood 10/in. of thickness

Iron or steel 30/in. of thickness

Given the values above, steel shields should be 4/9 as thick as wooden ones (assuming no other dimension changes).

The listed weight values don't back this up however, and would suggest they are much closer to 1/8 the thickness of an equivalent wooden object by simulationist standards, (that or the game world has some very dense wood).

I agree, it's fairly hard to adjudicate based on available examples.
From a simulationist standpoint, a quick search indicates that iron is 9-10x more dense than oak, so the question primarily becomes one of difference in volume, because equal volume would be nearly impossible to use in combat.

Drimoran wrote:
You get the domain spell slots, but you do not get any domain spell. You can use these higher level domain spell slots with lower domain spells that you already know.

This is wrong, acquisition of domain spells is expressly tied to slots, not class level (like sorcerers).

Force Tower

Note: For some reason they halved the weight of wood when applying mithral to this item, it's not unreasonable to houserule it to weigh more because it likely should (metal items may be thinner than wooden ones, but there's a practical limit to that reduction, and comparing the few items that exist with both materials suggests steel increases the weight by ~50%; the 60lbs suggestion seems quite reasonable in this regard)
It's also enough weight, that I'd consider increasing the ACP as well, since we're already talking houserules and the item was never really intended to be made from metal.

Kaouse wrote:
It sounds a lot more overpowered than it actually is.

Not really.

Mount lacks some of the restrictive language present in Summon Monster, specifically teleportation and SLA's with costly material components, so there's almost no difference to a called creature in this respect.

Also, Augment Summons is almost guaranteed (which doesn't affect called creatures).

Touching Planar Binding, how often do you allow PCs to gain such service for free?
ASM effectively does this without the rigmarole and inherent dangers associated with Planar Binding (you just need to refresh it more often).

Ki Pool wrote:
The ki pool is replenished each morning after 8 hours of rest or meditation; these hours do not need to be consecutive.

Ki is only increased otherwise if the ability expressly states it is.

Considering Ki needs rest, you would need a permanent Wis increase. But it should temporarily increase the maximum for things like Ki Leech.

However, I'm confused by what you mean "like rage"? Rage increases Con, which provides both (real) hit points and increases any DC's based on Con for the duration. Edit: nvm, I understand what you meant now, but I would not compare it to rage at all

ps. the spell you were looking for is Owl's Wisdom

Nigrescence wrote:
Plant Type wrote:
This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores; even though plants are alive, they are objects, not creatures.

Treants are indeed creatures, and can be targeted by Animate Dead.

Edit: It's subtle, but I just noticed the current wording on the PRD is different than yours.


This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not creatures, but objects, even though they are alive. A plant creature has the following features.

Variant Channeling

When you create a cleric character, decide whether she uses the standard form of channel energy or a variant presented here based on one aspect of her deity's portfolio. Once this choice is made, it cannot be altered.
A character who has the channel energy ability from a class other than cleric may use these variant channeling rules if the class's abilities are tied to serving a deity.

It appears to me that the choice affects all channeling possessed by a creature and that you cannot apply it "per pool".

As a matter of RAI, I would say that "when you create a[n eligible] character" means "when you first acquire the ability to channel energy".
There is zero indication that it can (or should) mean "each time... decide".

I would point out, however, that DA used on an arrow with riders still only increases physical damage, not the energy damage which is typically the desired increase for this question.

Wizards can prepare "at any time" however, taking a minimum of 15 minutes.

He should be able to prepare spells in his 9th level slots provided the duration of the bonus lasts long enough (it does).

It's a rather obnoxious way to have to do things (because the duration is unlikely to last long enough to also use them in combat). You're probably better off using metamagic, but it's safer just to prepare 8th level spells if you want to avoid all table variation.

Not really, Bestow Curse does not penalize AC to make your subsequent attacks more favorable (unless you pick the ability penalty option), so it's not really an apples to apples comparison regarding prioritization relative to an enemies weakness.

The only case where ToC significantly loses out is when your opponent has excessively high AC for their CR (not just "above average").

Touch AC is irrelevant to the current discussion however, unless you have a way to extend the duration of ToC. If you could reliably target touch AC and also personally make use of it, it's value skyrockets compared to Bestow Curse. (So Quicken SLA?)

If that's the way you need to think about it, the math is equivalent.

Their AC is reduced by 2 by virtue of penalizing Dex by 4.

Your bonus doesn't actually change that I see.

You should be able to complete your full attack, especially if you do not gain the grappled condition.

A 5ft is a miscellaneous action that can be taken when you don't otherwise move any distance.

I know of no way to reduce maintaining a grapple to a free/swift action in order to enable a full attack during the same round.

However, you can release your current grapple as a free action which should allow you to attack with your hair each round (but this risks missing and/or failing the grapple check).

Alternatively, nothing actually stops you from making a full attack other than automatically ending the grapple when your turn concludes without successfully maintaining it.

1 to 50 of 1,552 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>