Avh's page

Organized Play Member. 689 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 689 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
Seems like Sohei Monk is the martial with the best chance at high levels. Pick up weapon training (bows), rapid shot, manyshot, far shot, deadly aim, clustered shots, and a bow with distance and seeking. Also include boots of speed. Round one you have a chance of winning initiative, and can unleash 11 attacks before the caster can act. Add brilliant energy to the enhancements and you might get through Emergency Force Shield (though I doubt that is on the prd, and thus is legal). Of course, while it has the best chance of working at level 20, it still will probably be faced with the problem of the caster having survived (akashic form, greater possession, clone in a bag of holding, bad luck, facing a caster with a lot of HP, etc).

Emergency force sphere is not in the PRD.

Fickle winds is, and will nullify the whole sohei build past the first attack using PRD only (which is a common strategy for a 20th level PRD-only wizard).

My Self wrote:
EvilMinion wrote:

15th level druid, using Control winds (a 5th level spell) (possibly with a rod of maximize spell or incense of meditation).

Note, that's a 600' radius tornado at that point. (or a diameter roughly the length of 4 football fields)

Give it an updraft, and anyone that does get ejected, gets sucked right back in.

Won't be much of an army left after that, typically.

Depends on the base wind level. There are 7 wind strengths: Light, Moderate, Strong, Severe, Windstorm, Hurricane, and Tornado. To get a tornado from light winds, you'll need CL 20 - probably 20th level casting and a CL booster.

Except not.

It's 3 caster levels per wind strength.

If you start at light wind (less than 10 mph), you need to be CL 18 or more to make a tornado.
If you start at moderate wind (less than 20 mph), you need to be CL 15 or more to make a tornado.

And moderate wind is not that rare. You can even probably trigger such wind with other spells (such as Control Weather).

Xaimum Mafire wrote:
LOL! "Make an example of this outsider", aka, call down the wrath of the heaven, if it's a good outsider. Or, in the case of an evil outsider, guarantee his own death/enslavement because devils and the like will have a plan to kill this wizard based on his reputation.

Yes, "Make an example of this outsider".

As in : "If you are my enemy and try to kill me, then even if you're a millenia old entity I utterly destroy you until not even a trace of your soul exists in the multiverse. Oh, and that's not just talk. Now, it can go 3 ways : either you're an enemy, an ally or you stay out of my way."


There's a reason I didn't mention Stealth; you obviously can't be hidden when you use this feat. It also doesn't have a range.

And your "worst thing" isn't even relevant because:
There are no "unaffected creatures" with a successful check. Any creature that isn't mind controlled stops fighting. And if there's a mind controlled creature, the feat doesn't work at all.

Yes, the feat works. It targets every creature, but only the "not mind controlled, not fanatics, ..." are affected.

In a room where there are 6 creatures, including 4 affected creatures and 2 simulacrums, the 2 simulacrums can still attack.

Oh, you didn't post anything regarding the 1 round thing anyway.

Since our hypothetical Rogue has a +21 on his Sense Motive, he can automatically recognize mind controlled creatures. And sit down for this one, because I'm about to blow your mind: He can try something else.

Yes, I can.

First, if this a standard wizard, where are you getting 100hp from CON?

I said earlier in this thread that I considered a standard wizard as having 10/14/14/16/10/10 as his "before racial" attributes.

You add a belt of +6 CON and you have +5 modifier. +5 modifier x 20 levels = 100 CON hp.

That is standard common knowledge wizard equipment coming from the core rulebook.

Second, if the rogue goes first, the Wizard's flat-footed.

Nope. The wizard can be immune to flat footed in several ways. One very common form to be immune to flat footed is Foresight in a ring of continuation.

Against a diviner, it's not even fair without Foresight : unless you can beat his initiative during the surprise round (which is probably very difficult to do), you won't even get a surprise attack in a surprise round where the wizard failed his perception check to notice the rogue.

But being immune to sneak attack is much easier anyway.

Greater Sniper Goggles + Rapid Shot + a Masterwork Shortbow + 20 DEX (i.e., low balled numbers) = +19/+19/+14/+9. Admittedly, not that great, especially since even if all of those hit that's only 33 per hit average or something. If only the rogue could do something, like Master Strike to one shot the wizard...

Master strike needs a lot of things, and you can only try it once againt one person.

Then, you forgot about contingency (which could very well be a spell that can prevent attacks).

Close! You're Forgetting The Inevitable "Well Then The Wizard Would Just Cast 'X'" type of hindsight that comes with all these threads! And a character wealth of infinite proportions in order to summon bind and bribe an army to fill every plane, all of which will adjust by the very hindsight mentioned before.

All that I wrote can be used by a single wizard with one build with normal WBL (so, not a Schrodinger wizard). Things I used are Core rulebook, Ultimate Magic (only the demi plane thing) and ring of continuation (Ultimate equipment ?) until now. What do you think a wizard could do when I pick in every PRD ressources ?

EDIT : I don't know if I will have time before this week end, but i'll try to post a build very soon.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xaimum Mafire wrote:
Call Truce just means that you guys stop trying to kill each other for a second and talk. And why do you think a Wizard would have all of these contingencies that a TIMELESS BEING would both be unaware of and unable to prepare for? And that wizard would have to take to figure out exactly what happened

It is easy to know what happened : a rogue managed to get through the room unarmed, so the outsider didn't do its job.

The wizard decides to make an example of this outsider, calls it and utterly destroy it.

All of this is pretty simple to understand. Having such a wizard as an enemy is very dangerous, and having him as a friend is a blessing.

I'm assuming that you meant Diplomacy, not Stealth.

No, I meant Stealth, as you have to be in plain sight to affect people with your feat.

On one side, if you win the check, affected creatures will stop fighting.

On the other side, unaffected creatures (which may well be in the same room) will be aware of your presence automatically and attack you.

And the worst thing is that if you draw a weapon/wand/... to fight back, not only the affected creatures won't help you, but the effect from the feat will be uneffective and they will also attack you.

I even forgot you have to use a full round to activate the feat. This means that you are on the open, for 1 full round, and enemies have that whole round to attack you if they want (just as with 1 round spellcasting, the effects start on the start of your next round).

Noting that we're talking about bound outsiders, but a level 20 rogue a 7 WIS can still have +21 to Sense Motive and automatically recognize a simulacrum, anyway.

It doesn't matter if you recognize them or not.

If the affected creatures are not alone, your whole plan goes down.

Assuming that the Wizard has 14 Con, max hit dice, and has Toughness, there's no way a Rogue could do 160 damage in one round?

Assuming a standard wizard with no toughness and assuming standard spells and magic items, I'm finding more like 223hp (72 base + 100 con + 20 favored + 31 greater false life).

Then, the wizard has his contingency, his long last buffs, etc...

Finally, the first round, it is very unlikely the rogue will do a full attack. He has very little chance to do a full sneak attack.

Accounting for to-hit chance, defense spell(s), damage per successful attack, etc... I guess doing more than 200hp damage is pretty damn difficult for a rogue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Call Truce

You forgot something important :

Special: If the parley would inherently result in the opponents surrendering or losing, if the opponents are mind-controlled or fanatics, or if there are other appropriate circumstances at the GM's discretion, you might not be able to use this feat.

I guess that betraying a wizard with the means to escape, call you again and permanently destroy your very essence is similar to losing.

I guess that having accepted a contract through Planar binding is similar enough to mind controlled to at least give a bonus to the DC (if not just forbid the check).

I guess that 35% chance of failure when you forgoe any stealth attempt is a risk high enough to make this strategy dangerous.

Noting that it won't affect simulacrums (they are under absolute control of the caster) and many other minions.

And all of that would be better to use and way more reliable than trying to bind high-level outsiders for the sole purpose of a killing a single rogue.

A 20th level wizard doesn't need those to kill a rogue (even a 20th level rogue).

A wizard needs 6 seconds. And too bad, a rogue can't kill a wizard in those 6 seconds.

Bound outsiders are for real threats, or when you want to do something of great importance (or protect your base from those threats).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
All devils have their own names. Finding out which ones are being called is a matter of espionage.

And yet, knowing an information that no one in the multiverse knows is impossible.

Even the use of a "know the future" spell will be impossible (because the answer is ofter "Yes" or "No", not "The devil Apfqlmqoznqmalna will be the one randomly called the 10th of this month by Joe-the-wizard").

So no, no one (not even the wizard) will know which unique devil will be called, unless the wizard use a true name (which he can, and probably will if he manages to be friends with an outsider).

Unlikely, given it's instantaneous nature. As far as he knows, a contingency with no visible effects just went off.

But contingency can't be cast by the outsider and on the outsider.

So, even in the miracle that you manage to find which outsider will be called and manage to make friends with that outsider before the call, it won't be of use.

For the record, nothing prevents the wizard to add a Mind blank/mage's private sanctum/... to its list of spells to cast when he call an outsider.

If Wish is banned, then I would stipulate that limited wish is as well. And if it is not, limited wish would do just as well to accomplish what needs to happen.

Honestly, wish is of no importance. The rogue will use a scroll, which doesn't have a component.

I don't see that in the details. Moreover, divination can determine the next one that the wizard calls to narrow down the options. You guys seem awful ready to stipulate details that for some odd reason are favoring the wizard despite the fact that he is all knowing and all powerful -- and eager to gloss over details that may show a chink in his armor.

Divination can do a lot of things, but they can't be precise enough to do what you want it to do.

Contact other planes, which is one of the most powerful divination of the game, can provide answer like "Yes, No, Maybe, ...".

Nothing in the game can do what you want to do with it. Otherwise, the wizard would know you want to do that too (if you are allowed open and clear answers, there are no reasons the wizard isn't allowed too, and he can aks if someone will interfere with his calling and how).

So, wait, the Wizard can call and bind npc allies, but the rogue can't use diplomatic skills to subvert said allies?

I don't have a problem with it personnaly.

Remember though that the wizard too can use diplomatic skills with said npcs, and he can be amazingly good at it (even moreso if he invests skill ranks in diplomacy, which wouldn't be a huge sacrifice for his 12 skill ranks per level).

And the wizard doesn't need to buy a bunch of scrolls just to be able to talk to them, as he is able to move through planes and between planes easily (and for free).

You should also remember that a reward/offer can be in gold/items, but also in help or services.

Wish can't be used. By agreement. If the rogue can't use it, the wizard can't wither. There isn't much a wizard can give an outsider that the outsider doesn't already have other than not constantly being called by a mortal to play rent-a-cop.

Wish is one of the weakest 9th level spell. Why would a wizard use it to fulfill a demand of an outsider ?

You can already do pretty much anything Wish can do (except +X to attribute) with your other spells, without having to spend 25000gp everytime.

Xaimum Mafire wrote:

I think the point was lost as to why summoning super powerful outsiders for this scenario isn't feasible.

A. Good outsiders aren't going to stand around in a box waiting to kill some random person

But protecting an entity that has enough power to influence even planar conflicts would be in the very best for Good outsider.

Knowing that the project of the rogue is pure and simple premeditated murder, I don't know what would prevent an angel to kill that rogue in retribution.

Of course, an evil wizard won't call an angel...

B. Evil outsiders, devil in particular, are going to skew any contract or negotiation heavily in their favor

Knowing that it is the wizard that does the contract and that he makes use of the most powerful spells to make sure that contracts stands, I doubt devils would betray such contracts.

Especially if the wizard offers them something they want (and the wizard can offer pretty much anything).

C. A level 20 Wizard is going to smart enough to know all of this and bind lesser creatures or just use golems.

Those high level bound creatures are not the whole defense of a 20th level wizard. It's only a little part of what he is able to bring to the battlefield if he wants to.

There is also Dominate person (for giants), Dominate monster, Animate Dead, Create Undead, simulacrum, Lesser bound monsters, Summoned monsters (in a timeless plane), ...

And minions are not his only strength : the wizard is one of the best in battlefield control (through walls, clouds, ...), has access to shapechange to be on par with a rogue in physical combat without much problem and can even manage without much problem to kill the rogue in one spell if he uses AMF.

Finally, even if the rogue manage to get pasts the minions, escape the battlefield control and deal with the wizard in combat, the wizard may be entirely safe through the use of clones, magic jar, Astral projection, bound outsiders, charmed/dominated clerics/druids/..., etc...

I don't know how a rogue can kill a 20th level wizard, even moreso when the rogue wants to use as little magic as possible.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:

For a wizard, you don't know your own spells?

Upon being called, a contingency sending to the rogue with the word "now" executes on the outsider, which the rogue follows up with a Discern Location on the outsider.

First, how did the rogue find that specific outsider ?

Second, Contingency is a personal only spell, how do the outsider has it ?

Third, you will need a very high UMD to cast Discern location reliably.

Then, nothing says the wizard will call the same outsider twice, and nothing says the outsider has any blame against the wizard to accept such thing (and risk the wrath of the wizard to boot).

Now you know where he is.. and you know that the location is not protected against planar transportation.

Even if you know the location of the plane where the wizard called the outsider (and honestly, it's very unlikely), this plane is one of the numerous that the wizard has.

It doesn't mean that it is the main plane of the wizard (it would be stupid).

For example, a "simple" chain of planes :
1 - Material plane - Wizard's tower, linked to 2
2 - Permanent Demi plane - Front porch, linked to 1 and 3.
3 - Permanent Demi plane - Dead plane with outsiders, linked to 2, 4 and 5.
4 - Demi plane - Trapped the way you want, linked to 2.
5 - Permanent demi plane - Hall of security, linked to 3 and 6
6 - Main plane of the wizard.

The wizard will call the outsiders in the plane 2, then take the portal to go to plane 3.

The plane 4 can be trapped how you want. For example with a dead magic + fire energy plane, to inflict a lot of damage, eventually even killing him.

The plane 5 will be very high in defense while still preventing anything from going through. I'm pretty sure I'm able to make a plane 5 that is not possible to break through.

Alternatively, the wizard can simply create a demiplane and be sure no one except himself know about it. Being protected against mind reading and discern locations, nothing but a god will be able to know its existence.

Because the rogue isn't yanking the outsider from their own plane against their will and enslaving them. This pretty much immediately puts the rogue on better negotiating footing...especially since the success of the rogue would ensure that the outsider won't be called by that particular wizard ever again.

You expect the wizard to be a dick with called outsiders, while it's the worse way you could deal with it. You even seem to believe that a couple days means a lot in the lifetime of an outsider, and that a wizard can't provide anything to him (while the rule itself provides such rewards.

If the wizard really treat its called outsiders badly (which is very stupid IMO), it would be much better to just kill them afterwards.
Leaving an powerful influential outsider with ill-intent the possibility for a revenge is way more dangerous.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

So, I just meant flippant in that the exact numbers and type weren't chosen carefully. It's not like 18 wouldn't be enough, or that you couldn't summon 21 instead. Ice Devils get the same regeneration, but pretty much any other 20 CR 16+ would murder the Rogue just as hard (just without being literally unkillable). It wasn't a "serious" suggestion in that the actual numbers and monsters didn't matter. Just the "Wizard summons a horde of big beefy monsters, forces Rogue to fight them on a dead magic plane".

We've actually been using several different Wizards. Unfortunately, Schrodinger's Wizard is absolutely appropriate here. The enemy Wizard will have one very specific build. The Rogue's only going to find out what that is when they open the box. So we have to throw out any hypothetical Wizards they might fight, otherwise when they encounter one of them they won't be prepared to fight.

And there is a lot less "possible rogues" than "possible wizards".

Especially when the wizard can change his whole prepared list every day.

But seriously, even finding the wizard in the first place is probably beyond the power of most mortal creatures.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Initially, the binding allows for a Will saving throw. A planetar has a will save of +19, A DC 30 save isn't exactly insurmountable. This is not including it's spellcasting abilities.

DC 27 actually (10 + 8 spell + 9 intelligence).

And I accounted for it in my list of examples.

Moreover, the protective aura of All angel subtypes includes a "magic circle vs evil which prevents compulsion (mental control).

As said by other, it doesn't prevent neutral source of mental compulsion.

However, Planar binding isn't a compulsion, so even an evil wizard can call an angel and bind it.

So, you are down to doing the whole bargaining for cooperation bit. Which may be a charisma check that the wizard can easily make given additional spells, but even then the Planetar is a caster as well, and should have buffs running as much as any prepared PC.

Fair enough. The "standard" spell list doesn't include any buff that last more than a couple minutes however. At best, we're looking at +2 to its charisma modifier, but that won't be a game changer.

We will suppose the nature of the service is opposed to the outsider but not impossible or unreasonnable (+6 to the outsider's opposed charisma roll), and the wizard will not offer any rewards (+0 to the wizard's opposed charisma roll).

If this is the case, that is perfect. It plays right into my tactic. Now, here's where the lawyer in me says you need to write out the terms of this planar binding's service.

This is where the great weakness of the planar binding spells exist. Unless you cover every eventuality, the rogue will be able to essentially bypass these "guards" via diplomacy.

Except that I implied those modifiers in order to have the worst possible chance for the wizard. In a real negociation, the wizard will offer rewards (which may or may not cost money), and will ask things that are well received by its target.

You know, when you don't want your favorite(s) outsider(s) to pursue you afterwards, or even better, when you want to have more than magical binds between you and the outsider.

And then, i wonder how the rogue will know how to find the loopholes in a contract established by an entity with at least 29 intelligence prepared for as long as he needed to prevent such loopholes.

See the other problem is you have to fight the wizard completely on his terms he gets to choose where the fight is and the weapon not many people can win in that situation. why is it the mage doesn't have to come after the rogue (then its a stalemate right?) or a neutral ground instead of the wizards fortress a giant arena both combatants come in unprepared for the other one and go at it (much fairer then infinitely prepared mage with infinite resources)

Honestly, it is even worse for the rogue if he was the prey and not the hunter. Unlike the wizard, he wouldn't have any clue as to when the wizard would attack (so, probably no buff). And nothing the rogue could have would prevent a wizard from obliterating him (and his house).

An neutral arena/fortress would be different, but even then, the wizard will probably be victorious.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant about the hand-waving. Granted that resisting the spell is largely a moot point, but preventing reinforcements that will free them would be a sticking point. So a "bargain" that is agreed upon would by necessity be very short in description. That in and of itself would allow for some pretty large loopholes.

It depends.

Feeling something is wrong is not the same as knowing someone tried to call you from another plane.

And finding said wizard is not that easy if he protects himself with Mind blank.

On the other side, trying to rescue the planetar once called can be tricky, as the planetar may have to fight its own allies (or command them to go away), depending on the deal made during Planar binding.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quintain wrote:

Magehunter: thanks

Ok, looking at the planar binding spell line: Wizards are an Int based class. How many have the charisma that are sufficient to overcome the opposed charisma checks of these extraplanar creatures?

I don't know... maybe that spell can help a lot ?

Let's "simulate" a call.

The standard human wizard (10/14/14/16/10/10 pre racial, with everything put in intelligence) will try to call an outsider. This wizard is at level 20 at 10/20/20/29/10/10.

Before casting greater planar binding, he will cast Magic circle against Evil (or other appropriate Magic circle) in the form of a diagram. Having +32 in spellcraft (20 ranks +3 class + 9 inte), he has no problem doing it. The called outsider will have to win a charisma check DC 30. As it is a attribute check, there is no auto success even with a natural 20.

The wizard then casts Moment of Prescience (+20 at one D20 roll, lasts 20 hours) and Eagle splendor (+4 charisma for 20 minutes). He then casts Dimensional anchor and Planar binding greater (DC 27).

We will suppose the nature of the service is opposed to the outsider but not impossible or unreasonnable (+6 to the outsider's opposed charisma roll), and the wizard will not offer any rewards (+0 to the wizard's opposed charisma roll).

Now, let's see what are the chances for a wizard to bind an outsider.

Elder earth elemental : 80% chance of being summoned (will save 1d20+10 DC 27), no chance of escape (1d20 DC 30), 97.5% chance of winning the opposed charisma roll (1d20+6 vs 1d20+22)

Ice devil : 70% chance of being summoned (will save 1d20+12 DC 27), no chance of escape (1d20+5 vs DC 30), 88.75% chance of winning the opposed charisma roll (1d20+11 vs 1d20+22)

Horned devil : 65% chance of being summoned (will save 1d20+13 DC 27), no chance of escape (1d20+6 vs DC 30), 86.25% chance of winning the opposed charisma roll (1d20+12 vs 1d20+22).

Planetar : 35% chance of being summoned (will save 1d20+19 DC 27), no chance of escape (1d20+7 DC 30), 83.5% chance of winning the opposed charisma roll (1d20+13 vs 1d20+22).

All supposing a standard wizard with no specialization, no wish factory, no borderline trick and using core rulebook only.

Are extraplanar entities subject to dismissal/banishment?

Yes, they are. Any entity that is outside its own plane can be dismissed or banished.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, i don't see how AMF will help the rogue kill the wizard. In fact, i believe that it is way more dangerous for the rogue than for the wizard.

Why ? Because once the AMF is cast, the rogue will lose a great deal of her power, while the wizard just have to move 15ft to get away (and with Overland flight cast a few hours ago, it's easy).

On the other side, undeads and called creatures are not harmed at all by the AMF for their "martial prowess", and I dare any rogue to fight a single ice devil without any magic items (I won't even write about Horned devils or greater devils, demons or angels).

Or the wizard can cast a quickened prismatic wall and cast whatever she wants to obliterate the rogue with what's left (prismatic wall is unaffected by AMF).

Zwordsman wrote:

This isn't mine.. there is a wonderful guide for benchmarking and such around the forums if you look for it.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CCxnAb8apicr3fOrSCEFNRwHlzRieMrXm6l d9-uLAFc/edit#gid=0

Link fixed

Well, even if you somewhat managed to be efficient at level 20 with shuriken thanks to the capstone ability, you will still be very bad from 1 to 19.

And you will have to use every feat you have on this :
- Two-Weapon Fighting
- Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
- Greater Two-Weapon Fighting
- Point-Blank Shot
- Rapid Shot
- Precise shot
- Shadow strike
- maybe Improved Precise shot

That leaves you with 2 free feats for ninja stuff or other things.

You take full DR againt adamantine and aligned.

Against someone that can't be sneak attacked, you do 1d1+6 per attack, maybe (the capstone reduces the risk of being detected, but does not eliminate innate immunities, or well Dispel).

Against someone that is not at 10 feet, you take -2 per 10 feet (for example, you take -4 to attack rolls against someone at 30 feet). You can't attack a creature that is more than 50 feet away.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Tomos wrote:

The problem is not the dagger.

The difficulty that you're having as GM is due to the fact that you're trying to challenge PCs with obstacles that are totally outmatched by their equipment and skill.
This. A locked chest is a challenge at low levels; not at whatever much higher level they are now.

A locked chest is never a challenge. Period.

The same for a locked door.

The challenge will come from other things, such as opening the door or the chest quickly and/or silently, while being chased by opponents or things like that.

If the whole challenge is opening a door (or a chest) without anything else, power attacking the door (or the lock) will open it even at first level.

DominusMegadeus wrote:
cablop wrote:
For me, a class don't need to have the "niche" thing, just need to be balanced enough and the best at doing X thing.
That's called having a niche.

The rogue isn't even good at disabling traps before mid levels...

I mean, a rogue need to be at least level 4 to find a trap reliably (accounting for 12 wis). And by reliably, I mean by taking 10. In a stressful situation or in combat, a rogue need to be at least level 10 to find them without a fault.

To find a magic trap taking 10, a rogue need to be at least level 8 (accounting for 12 wis and a spell level 1 trap). In stressful situations or in combat, a rogue need to be at least level 14 to find them without a fault.

On the other side, a cleric/druid can find a trap taking 10 by level 3 (accounting for 18 wis). In a stressful situation, it raises to level 8.

To find a magic trap, a cleric has Detect Magic at will.

This is to find a trap. Disabling a trap is possible via many ways anyway, so the skill is not the most useful. I think that the main problem is already to perceive them and the rogue is not the best at doing so.

All of this to say that a rogue is not the best at dealing with traps, even staying in core.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

Interesting points.

From a flavour point of view it makes perfect sense to me. Spell casting is using magic, it shouldn't be too predictable otherwise it becomes too much like a science.

I don't think it will play the way you expect. The player does not know how long their magic has to last, they can't game the system and plan for their spells to last x number of encounters. There will be no leaving the table, the player just has to hope the magic will come back soon. I've played in games where magic is fickle and it works very well, Wizards become richer characters, not just magical Swiss army knives with a spell for every occasion. That is what is boring for me, having every interesting situation made trivial by the wizard because they have just the right spell.

The not knowing brings in an extra element of tension, which can make the game exciting. Also since the GM rolls in secret they can bring the magic back early if it fits the story and the players need never know!

Your houserule could be sumed up in one sentence : the DM decides if and when the caster are allowed to cast spells.

That is just one of the worst and least fun houserules i've seen in all my gaming experience (which is nearly 15 years).

Qayinisorouse wrote:
Avh wrote:

You can only cast 2 level 1 spells and nothing else, because you don't have the ability to cast higher level spells yet.

You can't cast level 2 spells until level 7.
You can't cast level 3 spells until level 10.

That's odd, looking at this:"To prepare or cast a spell, a paladin must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level." (), says that i need Charisma of 13 in order to cast a level 3 spell, i have 16.

Yes, having a high enough charisma is necessary, but it is not the only requirement.

You need to have a number of slots different than "-" in the table to be able to cast those spells and gain bonus spells per day from your charisma.

At level 6, you have 1/-/-/- spells from your class. You can only cast level 1 spells.

At level 7, you have 1/0/-/- spells from your class. You can cast level 1 and 2 spells.

The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, and rangers; and Charisma for bards, paladins, and sorcerers. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. See the class descriptions in Classes for details.

You can only cast 2 level 1 spells and nothing else, because you don't have the ability to cast higher level spells yet.

You can't cast level 2 spells until level 7.
You can't cast level 3 spells until level 10.

No, you can't because Vital strike is its own standard action.

Alzrius wrote:
I'd argue that having even 1 rank in Spellcraft very much distinguishes you from being mundane.
Given that skills usually represent what you know/what you've learned, whereas abilities represent what you can do, I'm of the opinion that having a single rank in a skill isn't quite a high enough bar to separate "those with a mystical ability to sense eldritch powers around them" from "the mundanes."

This is true for some skills (knowledge, linguistics, ...), it is way different for most of them.

For example skills like Craft, Escape Artist, Acrobatics, Profession, Heal, Disguise, Disable Device, Diplomacy, ... all represent things you can do.

Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:
But didn't add other things that happen during spellcasting beyond components.
I never said it did (please stop rebutting with irrelevant stuff). You said that was the only change. That was completely false. There was a change, a change that implies that you don't need to see the components to identify a spell (the foundation of the FAQ).

That wasn't a real change, because Pathfinder rules didn't add anything beyond components (nowhere in the CRB anyway).

"See the spell as it is being cast", when components are the only thing that happen when spellcasting, is not a real change.

Taking into account perception modifiers IS a change.

Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:

The only written change in Pathfinder from 3.5 is the fact that you have to apply perception modifier on your Spellcraft check to identify spellcasting.

THAT is the only modification concerning spellcasting : counterspell mechanics didn't change, AO mechanics didn't change, no manifestations are written in the rules.

um... I think your forgetting a pretty major change.... pathfinder removed the line "You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components" from the spellcraft skill.

But didn't add other things that happen during spellcasting beyond components.

Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
I doesn't go against how the book is written. No one has been able to state any manner that the rule goes against the Core Rules.

Quote one rule indicating that there are manifestations during spellcasting.

There is none.
People try to interpret the spellcraft rule "you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast" to imply that there must be something beyond components to identify it, but nowhere in the rule you will find that there is actually something beyond those components.

THAT, is what is written in the rules.

I think you misread what I said. I'm saying, there is nothing that goes against the FAQ in the core rules. It is a valid interpretation.

And there is nothing in the rules that goes in favor either (as nothing in the rules is written that deals with manifestations, mundane or otherwise).

The only written change in Pathfinder from 3.5 is the fact that you have to apply perception modifier on your Spellcraft check to identify spellcasting.

THAT is the only modification concerning spellcasting : counterspell mechanics didn't change, AO mechanics didn't change, no manifestations are written in the rules.

I don't have a problem with the fact that some people want to have sparkly things that happen during spellcasting, or otherwise, for example when the character has strong emotions, at their table, depending on the character. I am, however, opposed to the fact that all spellcasters has obvious manifestations during spellcasting, every time.

Milo v3 wrote:
I doesn't go against how the book is written. No one has been able to state any manner that the rule goes against the Core Rules.

Quote one rule indicating that there are manifestations during spellcasting.

There is none.
People try to interpret the spellcraft rule "you must be able to see the spell as it is being cast" to imply that there must be something beyond components to identify it, but nowhere in the rule you will find that there is actually something beyond those components.

THAT, is what is written in the rules.

DM_Blake wrote:

I did. How could you forget; you even quote-mined me on it. Remember? That was in this June 2010 post. My response to your quote-mining is here.

So why are you still carrying on like this?

The lead developer gave his opinion years ago. At least some forum posters have understood it and used it for years. There are even posts that you yourself have found to prove it (though you seem to want to sweep that under the rug so you can keep sounding the alarms for some reason).

Yeah, sure, many people have posted that they didn't think it worked this way. Many people have posted that they don't like it. Great. Everybody should play it the way they want. House Rules and Rule-0 for the win - for everybody. Even you. Even me.

But what I don't get is why you are beating this dead horse into the ground?

Who cares?

You didn't know. Now you know. Move on and use the FAQ or ignore the FAQ however you like.

But why keep rallying the troops or fanning the flames when you could just let it drop and enjoy the game?

I have found, including your post and one post from Jason Bulmahn that foes toward what I called the "Second interpretation", or the "Jason Bulmahn 2010 spell can be identified beyond components" interpretation.

Until yesterday, where someone did actually quoted a post where he did said he used magical manifestations during spellcasting (it was Mythic Evil Lincoln), I didn't find any post using the Magical manifestations (what I call the 3rd interpretation, or the FAQ).

Actually, on the only single post that I could read where someone used magical manifestations (glowing runes), someone actually answered to him that everyone is free to add houserules if they want but that is not how the rules are written. And not even Mythic Evil Lincoln (the one that wrote about the magical manifestation) corrected him at the time, no more than any one else.

In the actual written rules (so, Jason Bulmahn post aside), spellcasting can be identified if you can see the spell as it is being cast. And the only written things that happen when you cast a spell are the components. Nowhere in the book you will find something that indicates that there is something else (mundane or magical).

So, I'll repeat again : the FAQ goes againt how most people interpreted the rule and how the book is written.

I expect this FAQ to be deleted or seriously modified.

Milo v3 wrote:
Avh wrote:
No one is actually able to describe how they interpreted it before the FAQ, despite claiming they interpreted it the way the FAQ does now for years.
Except for the people who have... like me... in this thread... slightly above your post... Why do you keep saying things like this?

No, you didn't.

You said you interpreted things the way the FAQ is written, but you didn't give any examples, unless I'm missing something.

_Ozy_ wrote:

How is it pointless, I want to know how people ran it pre-FAQ to see how they are specifically interpreting how the rules worked.

For example, since asking Jeff the question of how he played it before the FAQ, were the manifestations visual only, did they become invisible with the caster.

I received 3 replies, none of which contained answers to those questions. Even though I repeated the question multiple times.

It's not really a trick question.

No one is actually able to describe how they interpreted it before the FAQ, despite claiming they interpreted it the way the FAQ does now for years.

No one ever mentionned obviously magical manifestations during spellcasting anywhere in the forum from 2008 to 2014.
I can back my claims through the whole paizo forum, and have quoted a lot of topics relating to the topic.

It should be clear to everyone that the FAQ does not clarify a point in the rule, but create a new rule. I suspect that this rule is added to advertise Ultimate Intrigue.

I'm definitely expecting Jason Bulmahn to rectify this FAQ when he goes back from vacation, for many reasons.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Avh wrote:

First : they agreed with what is inside the book, and so they didn't believe in magical manifestations while spellcasting (obviously).

Second : they just put their name on the book, didn't check what was inside, and by such didn't do their job.

Third: Secret Signs is a feat that allows you to attempt an opposed skill check to hide the manifestations of spell-casting for somatic only spells.

That would imply that MORE than a feat would be required to hide manifestations of a spell with multiple components OR to do so automatically. Which seems consistent with the standard rules on spell manifestations to me.

Manifestations that doesn't exists in the book, that is not written a single time in Pathfinder rules.

Actually, in another thread I showed that most people on this forum never interpreted the rule that way, at least before 2014. I have every single thread of this whole Paizo forums to back my claim.
I can also prove that it wasn't the case in Dnd 3.0 and 3.5. I can't say for previous editions though, but I wouldn't be surprised it doesn't have those magical manifestations either.

All of this to say that before the coming of Ultimate intrigue (and some other) book, there was no indication whatsoever that spellcasting had magical manifestations.

Some sources indicates that there are some manifestations, maybe coming with the need of concentration, allowing to make a spellcraft check to identify a spell.
However, those manifestations could very well be mundane in nature (as Jason wrote : "change of breathing, wiggle of a finger", or you could imagine closing your eyes to concentrate, pointing a finger at your target, cracking your bones, ...).

Or you could also interpret things more strictly. Seeing the spell as it is being cast meaning seeing the things that manifests during spellcasting. And the only thing written in the book that happens during the casting of a spell are the components. Without the post of Jason Bulmahn from 2010, the only RAW interpretation we can make concerning the identification of spells is that without components, you can't identify a spell, because you can't "see the spell as it is being cast".

So, we have 3 possible interpretations :

  • Without components, you can't identify a spell. Components being the only manifestations coming before a spell, you can't notice a spell that doesn't have components unless the spell itself have visible effects (fireball is noticeable, charm person is not)
  • Without components, you can identify a spell through mundane manifestations (wiggling of a finger, changing in breathing, cracking your bones, ...). Noticing a spell as it is being cast is hard, because those manifestations are not obvious, and could come from other reasons that spellcasting, as they are neither magical in nature nor unique to spellcasting.
  • With or without components, spellcasting is obvious because there are magical manifestations that comes during spellcasting (swirling runes, glowing eyes, thunder, hair that change colour, ...). Noticing a spell is easy for the same reason.

Before Pathfinder, it was the first.
Since Jason Bulmahn post, it should be the second.
The FAQ is written as it was the third one.

Make your choice.

Personally, I believe it should be the first, have no real problems with the second but am firmly opposed to the third.

Xexyz wrote:
nicholas storm wrote:

Unless the fighter's DPR is really high - like high enough to one round a glazebru (186HP), then he may be better off using a shield. A fighter that level can easily get to the mid 30s AC with a shield and up to 40AC if he was specced for defense.

An AC40 fighter with a moderate DPR can kill probably 20 glazebru while a AC25 fighter with a high DPR can probably kill 1 glazebru.

Heh, he's a two-weapon warrior, so him using a shield is a non-starter.

As far as the rest of us:

cleric of abadar 8 / holy vindicator 5 dwarf (me)
two-weapon warrior fighter 13 human
red dragon bloodline sorcerer 13 gnome
divine hunter paladin 13 halfling
conjurer wizard 13 half-orc
cleric of cayden calien 3 / ranger 2 / shadowdancer 2 / sky seeker 6 dwarf

If he took the Two weapon warrior archetype, his AC gets a buff each round he makes a full attack. Adding magic armor, a high dex, an amulet of natural armor and either ring of protection or your shield of faith, he should have pretty high AC.

I'm guessing he should have between 30 and 35 AC, without a shield (a two weapon warrior with a shield as its second weapon will be around 35 to 40 AC, without optimization).

DM_Blake wrote:

I agree, Secret Signs is contradictory to the core rules. Bad form, Paizo!

Maybe with a little finagling we can make it work.

What if, the person who learns this feat ALSO learns how to bury that visible spell manifestation, too. No, it doesn't make sense that they should, not from the feat's description, but clearly, with this feat, they can, somehow, make that manifestation go away.

Maybe this feat is now (and really has always been - since 2011 when it was published), one clever way to hide that visible manifestation (for whatever unexplained reason). For Somatic-only spells, of course.

A book that was written by... Jason Bulmahn and James Jacob, amongst other.

So, 2 solutions here.

First : they agreed with what is inside the book, and so they didn't believe in magical manifestations while spellcasting (obviously).

Second : they just put their name on the book, didn't check what was inside, and by such didn't do their job.

I am in favor of the first one.

_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

Just because people are saying something doesn't make it a fact.

Spellcraft DC is modified by Perception modifiers. So if you can't perceive the caster you can't see the spell casting. If you're invisible whatever makes people aware that you're casting is also invisible because it would get modified the same penalty.

Depending on the GM's interpretation, that's not even close to true.

Invisibility hides you and your gear. If spellcasting brings up a visible magic rune circle, why would that be invisible? It's not you, it's not your gear.

If casting creates a identifiable musical buzzing sound, that certainly won't be hidden by concealment.

If it's your assumption that this is a visible effect, able to be hidden by invisibility, thus you don't see a problem. Then I suggest that we're arguing about the wrong thing.

The fact that the FAQ doesn't specify what are the obvious manifestations does implies that there are no official answer to your questions.

DM_Blake wrote:
Avh wrote:
For starters, not every spell can be countered.

Care to explain that?

It's pretty clear that they can. The Core Rulebook says so:

SRD, Magic, Counterspells wrote:
It is possible to cast any spell as a counterspell.

There are only two ways to counterspell. One of them uses Dispel Magic. The other uses a spell to counter itself.

Since and spell can be used as a counterspell to counter itself, that means that EVERY spell can be countered by somebody else using that same spell to counter the original caster.

This is the general rule. It applies ALL THE TIME unless you have a specific rule that overrides it. Even if you do have a specific rule that overrides it, that doesn't invalidate the general rule that says that any spell can be used as a counterspell.

You have a first limitation with the range of the spells you want to counter.

You can't counter personal spells. You need to be in range for every other spells (touch spells implies you need to be in touch range, ...).

I suppose Dispel Magic could suppress the Range limitation.

You also need to be able to target the spellcaster. It means that a caster that can't be targeted, such as an invisible caster, prevents counterspell EVEN if you can identify the spell.

hiiamtom wrote:

It went from: "Is a spell being cast with visible spell components?" and "Can I see/hear the components?"

To: "Is a spell being cast?" and "Can I perceive the spellcaster?"

This is not complicated, there is no deeper layer of questioning that is needed or explanation required.

It is complicated because we don't know how it is perceived.

Does it affect vision only (runes, glowing eyes) ? Sound ? smell ? Other senses (a shiver through your spine, change in temperature, ...) ?

Does it affect people differently depending on the spell ? Depending on the spellcaster ?

Can you hide it with mundane means ? For example, glowing eyes could be hidden with a bandage or something covering them, the same for tatoos, but swirling runes moving around the caster would be much more difficult to hide.

How do you handle the perception of spells behind a wall/door ? Does it depend on the manifestation that happen in your world and/or with this form of magic ? How does it interact with spells such as Invisibility, Darkness and Clouds/fogs ? How does it interact with Stealth ?

And I could go on and on with questions like those.
Questions that are answered easily with 3.0/3.5 version of spellcraft.
They are somewhat way more difficult with the Pathfinder version. And with the FAQ version, it's just a huge mess that will vary for each table even with "RAW" rules or PFS.

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that this is not a change, the core rulebook SAYS explicitly that every spell can be identified (during casting) and countered, that Spellcraft if how you identify them, and that it's visual.

For starters, not every spell can be countered.

Draco Bahamut wrote:
Aren´t Buhlmann on vacation ? They should be busy.

You mean that PDT made its decision without the lead designer and author of Pathfinder ?

I start to understand one of the reason why this FAQ is so bad ... :)

hiiamtom wrote:
How is that better than the current standard of "you cast a spell showing no outward appearance and there is no penalty to spellcraft checks"? By RAW since 3.0 you identified spells by sight with no penalties. Are you telling me a fighter with ranks in spellcraft can just figure out an unseen magical casting?

No, RAW you identified a spell through its components.

No components = no spellcraft possible.

One or more components = spellcraft with DC 15 + spell level (and no other modifiers).

That's it. It were simpler.

Pathfinder modified it so that you needed to see the spell as it is being cast (without any precision on what it means).
It added modifiers about distance and circonstances as a perception check too. It removed the need to perceive the spell components.

Spellcraft became very complicated.

With the FAQ, it is becoming even more complicated.

DM_Blake wrote:
Avh wrote:
I find it curious that no dev came here to express their personal opinion on the matter...

I don't.

They often stay out of arguments like this.

They also sometimes come in to express opinions. Still, the staying out happens often enough that it's not a curiosity for me.

Frankly, with all the vitriol, with people saying "This is the worst thing ever!", with people saying it's a deliberate rule change to sell their product, well, I don't blame them at all for not volunteering to be the volunteer punching bag.

In my opinion, I think it is a bad move. I believe that when something divide the community like this, a dev (or someone officially appointed by a dev to do this) should go a clarify things calmly, trying to explain why they do this and to understand why it provokes such reactions.

Not hide themselves and turn a deaf ear anticipating being stoned by the community, despite having the power to shut down posters that get carried away too much.

In fact, it looks like they don't even care about their game anymore. It looks like the only thing they want is to sell yet another rulebook. I'm sick of this situation (and firmly believe i'm not the only one).

I find it curious that no dev came here to express their personal opinion on the matter...

DM_Blake wrote:

Ahem. Yes. Speaking of consistency:

In Alex's post about using Charm Person to get past city guards, the guards will now get to the local constables guild, a few hours later, and will ask for payback from the douchebag who ensorceled them and sneaked past them and could be perpetrating who knows what other crimes in town.

The difference lies in the action of the PC/NPC who do it.

Going past some guards patrolling during a curfew or at a gate at night won't cause major problems.

Things would be different if it was used to penetrate inside the king's castle, and either attempt to kill the king or steal his treasures.

The example with the merchant would go vastly different if the wizard just used a little charm to get some discount (-10 or -20% for example) or access to a more restricted part of the shop, instead of stealing everything from him. If the merchant doesn't feel he was played by the wizard, he doesn't have any reason to ask for help in retribution, does he ?

I further submit that using any enchantment spell on a citizen is a personal violation and is very illegal.

Not in every country. And again, it's hard to go after someone you don't feel bad.

Yet, Alex (and I'm sure many others) seems to be perfectly OK with a character violating the mind of a guard and nobody, not even the guard, cares. Then they somehow say that doing the same thing to a merchant either violates the parameters of the spell and/or causes immense legal problems. Why? There is no palpable difference between the two illegal violations other than the mindset that one is cool narrative and the other is cheating the WBL system.

Nope : it has absolutly nothing to do with WBL.

The king's throne room guards won't let anyone pass, even their closest friend. However, guards from the night patrol arresting people because of a curfew may very well forgive a late friend with just a warning.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
In my games, you can sometimes use Charm Person to sneak into a town after hours.

The problem isn't necessarily the narrative of a PC hero sneaking into a town by charming the guard and walking through the gate. Or even the similar of a villain using the same trick to get into town and do some nefarious stuff.

The real problem, for me, is the verisimilitude of the entire game if you take it to its logical conclusion:

The same low-level guy who sneaks through a gate by charming the guard could also walk into any store in town and charm the merchant. "Hey, good buddy, you look tired. Worn out. You know I"m your best friend and I worry about you. Why don't you take the afternoon off and I will watch your store for you. I'll handle your business, take care of your customers, because I care about you. So have a nice afternoon!" And now that low-level wizard loads up his bag of holding with as much merchandise as he wants and destroys his WBL value.

No big deal. One guy getting rich (maybe that was a gem shop) isn't world-breaking.

But let's not forget that the merchant is now out of business, his merchandise stolen, his loans unpaid and now unpayable. Still not a big deal.

Indeed, not a big deal. The merchant will now get to the local merchant guild, a few hours later, and will ask for payback from the douchebag who stole from him, in addition to the law enforcement and his friends.

With little help from magic, they will find the one that dared to do that, and make an example of him in plain sight.

Now, no one will ever dare to do that again. EVER.

It's wonderful how most people forget that a world should all have something incredible : consistency.

hiiamtom wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Not all media has visual magical effects BEFORE the spell is cast. Some do, some don't. Please be more careful when making blanket statements (and really, just try to avoid making them at all, as such sweeping absolutes almost always end up being wrong).
Which is why I specifically said I can't think of any. Spells involve trances, writing, glowing bits, etc. If you would provide counterexamples it would refute what I said, and would be welcome but just dismissing it outright isn't exactly useful.

Just some examples from various sources :

- Lords of the Rings
- Harry Potter
- The Sword of Truth/Legend of the Seeker
- Witcher
- Naruto (well, jutsus, not spells but that is close enough)
- ...

Ian Bell wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
You also provoke from your party members every time you walk past them to check your pack. That doesn't mean they take the AoO. Same with the guards. They would only take the AoO of they wanted to. Assuming they have combat reflexes and can take AoOs while flat footed.

If someone walked up to you, was standing right in front of you, and began casting a spell while staring and motioning directly at you, what would you do?

If nothing else, you would disrupt the caster's concentration, break the spell, and demand to know what the hell he was doing--that or you'd run away and hope for the best.

I haven't acted yet, so I'm flat footed and can't take an AOO to stop him. :P

Unless you have your weapon in hand or Improved Unarmed Strike, you wouldn't be able to do the AOO even if you weren't surprised.


It's bad because...

...it makes the game far less intuitive.
...raises far more questions and corner cases.

Indeed : what makes the spell obvious ? Is it visual ? Does casting makes sound ? Does it smell weird ?

Is it obviously magical (as the FAQ) ? Or is it just weird things but not obviously magical (as Jason Bulmahn posted a few years earlier).

Does those hints enough to identify the spell ? Does not perceiving those hints enough to prevent the spell identification. For example : if casting makes glowing runes appear around the caster, does being invisible or behind a door prevent the spell from being identified ?

I could go on for a whole day with question like that.

I won't even add the spellcraft limitations : if the caster is far, or in the dark, or everyother situation that could make identification harder.

The 3.5 ruling was more intuitive : the spell had components, you could identify it. The spell didn't have components, you couldn't identify it.

...restricts player options.

Absolutly : why would a caster try to be subtle if magic is always obvious ?

...is a clear political move to push their new products, such as Heroes of the Streets with its Cunning Caster feat.

And they're not even hiding it : the FAQ itself declares that there will be rules in Ultimate Intrigue that will help hide spellcasting. IT IS A FREAKING ADVERTISEMENT !!!

And it's not what Jason Bulmahn said spellcasting should look like when he answered years ago, meaning the rules have indeed been changed by that FAQ.

...has only served to divide the Paizo roleplaying community.


Nessus_9th wrote:
2. How long does it last? There does not appear to have any time limit on the creature who is called.

It was badly copied from 3.5

You first call one or several outsiders, costing you 10000gp. You control them for 1 round/level for free.

Beyond that, you need to bargain with it/them as with lesser planar ally.
The maximum duration you can have one outsider with you is 1 day/level.

Nessus_9th wrote:
At lv. 19 a summoner acquires the gate spell as a spell like ability. Since a spell like ability does not require material components am I right in assuming that the summoner would waive the 10,000 gp cost of calling a creature?
Summon Monster I (Sp): Starting at 1st level, a summoner can cast summon monster I as a spell-like ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Charisma modifier. Drawing upon this ability uses up the same power as the summoner uses to call his eidolon. As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned. He can cast this spell as a standard action and the creatures remain for 1 minute per level (instead of 1 round per level). At 3rd level, and every 2 levels thereafter, the power of this ability increases by one spell level, allowing him to summon more powerful creatures (to a maximum of summon monster IX at 17th level). At 19th level, this ability can be used as gate or summon monster IX. If used as gate, the summoner must pay any required material components. A summoner cannot have more than one summon monster or gate spell active in this way at one time. If this ability is used again, any existing summon monster or gate immediately ends. These summon spells are considered to be part of his spell list for the purposes of spell trigger and spell completion items. In addition, he can expend uses of this ability to fufill the construction requirements of any magic item he creates, so long as he can use this ability to cast the required spell.

Yes, you have to pay the 10000gp.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:
CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:
Hence, magic during casting should not be possible.
So if a caster is in an antimagic field he is allowed to start casting a spell that takes several minutes to cast as long as he finishes the spell after the antimagic field ends?
Sure, why not ?
Well on that note I'm going to bow out. I can see that you're not going to change your mind if your interpretation on that point is such.

Well, you CAN cast a spell inside an antimagic field.

An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell's duration.

So, I see no problem to have a spell beginning to be cast in an antimagic field.

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:
Hence, magic during casting should not be possible.
So if a caster is in an antimagic field he is allowed to start casting a spell that takes several minutes to cast as long as he finishes the spell after the antimagic field ends?

Sure, why not ?

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Avh wrote:

However, what the FAQ and some people in this topic implies is that spellcasting have magical visual aspects during the casting, making it obvious to anyone (even untrained ones) that there is a spell being cast.

They are implying things like : swirling runes, glowing eyes, change in atmosphere, auras, etc..., that are magical in nature.
Casting magic is magical in nature.

But the spell is active once the casting is complete. Hence, magic during casting should not be possible.

CBDunkerson wrote:


Logically, a 'rule change' has to include something which changes/contradicts a previous rule. This FAQ doesn't have any text which qualifies. No changes need be made to existing Pathfinder (or v3/3.5) text due to this FAQ... the existing rules text and the FAQ text are complementary rather than contradictory. Ergo, not a 'rules change'. Possibly a rules 'extension' or 'addition' for some, but merely a 'clarification' for others.

Except you're wrong.

In 3.0 and 3.5, you needed to have components (verbal and/or somatic) to identify a spell. If you didn't have them, you couldn't identify the spell at all.

You can check HERE for the actual ruling.
I quote : "Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry."

We also know from several books, including the spell compendium that spells start to have visual effects once the casting is finished ("as you complete the spell", "with the last words of the spell", "as you complete the motions that unleash the spell", ...

Both implies that spells do not have any visual components to identify that someone is casting the spell until the very moment the casting is already complete. Well, not beyond the spell components anyway.
So, in 3.0 and 3.5, there were no runes at all.

In Pathfinder, all we have is Spellcraft (which had some changes : you don't need component(s) but the check is affected by perception modifiers and you must see the "spell as it is being cast").

We also had words from the author/lead developper of Pathfinder, Jason Bulmahn, who said that spellcasting had manifestations beyond spell components. He made some examples : wiggle of a finger and change in breathing, and other.
All of his examples have in common that they are not magical in nature : snapping your fingers, cracking your neck and fingers, or briefly closing your eyes before opening them widely looking at your target could be variants of the examples he gave us.
He also said that those manifestations were enough to use spellcraft to identify the spell. Despite not agreeing with the ruling, I have no real problems with it.

However, what the FAQ and some people in this topic implies is that spellcasting have magical visual aspects during the casting, making it obvious to anyone (even untrained ones) that there is a spell being cast.
They are implying things like : swirling runes, glowing eyes, change in atmosphere, auras, etc..., that are magical in nature.

And THAT, my friends, is why this FAQ entry is a new ruling/errata and not a FAQ.

And not only I firmly disagree with this FAQ entry, but I believe it is very dumb and ruin the mystery about magic in the game world.

Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
No need for it to be swirly runes, the faq says "The choice is up to your group, or perhaps even to the aesthetics of an individual spellcaster, to decide the exact details"
Missed that sentence on my first read. Not as bad as it could be, then.

That's not the swirling rune that is the problem. It's that casting is obvious for everyone.

1 to 50 of 689 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>