Azothath's page

***** Pathfinder Society GM. 3,338 posts (3,842 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 50 Organized Play characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,338 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pizza Lord wrote:
Azothath wrote:

If a caster can target an Improvised Weapon with Magic Weapon then I cannot see saying NO to an intended weapon-like object (alchemical weapon). The obvious answer is it says "Weapon" in the title.

Let's not go stealing extra bases here. I don't think anyone's agreed that improvised weapons are considered valid targets for magic weapon. I think they're most definitely not considered weapons. ...

It was a logical statement (If A then B, then B'.) as one of the arguments supporting the usage. The second statement was another 'prima facie' supporting argument based on clearly obvious titles.

on Improvised Weapons (discussing the first conditional statement)
Reviewing the Weapons link to AoN I don't see anything denying that Improvised Weapons are not weapons, quite the opposite. Is there text in RAW that clearly states that Improvised Weapons are not weapons? They are in the Weapon section of the CRB. Again, this hails back to the fact that the game treats it as a Use Case. Please don't quote RAW about objects as they are not weapons. Secondly, the weapon list is a subset of defined specific examples so that will not prove anything for this wider argument based on CRB text.

I'm not going to debate whether the bonus applies, I feel that's a distraction from meeting the targeting requirement of a spell. If targeting can be validated for the wider Use Case of Improvised Weapons then that will allow Alchemical Weapons.

The second statement just takes things at face value. Are Alchemical Weapons weapons? It's a very simple argument that relies on the term Weapons being used in the title and descriptions along with details in the usage of the items (to hit, range increments, etc). It's akin to asking, Are 'spotted dogs' dogs?


commentary

Personally I think it's okay to target an Alchemical Weapon with Magic Weapon. It's somewhat silly and borderline but in a broadstroke they are used as weapons in the game. Nobodies topping off your birthday cake with a bit of alchemist's fire. If a caster can target an Improvised Weapon with Magic Weapon then I cannot see saying NO to an intended weapon-like object (alchemical weapon). The obvious answer is it says "Weapon" in the title.

It is a case of semantics that your home GM will have to decide.
Players and GMs should talk about this before it comes up in the game with the player having made assumptions. If you are running an Alchemist it's more important.

Weapons are defined two ways; by weapon chart, by use case. One could argue that all of the weapon chart items conform to a specific use case and if they are used differently (than implied) then their damage drops as they are now improvised weapons/objects.
Spells (which aren't weapons but everyone assumes they are as they attack casters) are a good case. Rays are called out as benefiting from ranged combat feats. Certainly the spell effects could be considered a weapon and some specifically are. I'm just pointing out that it is hit or miss, some effects are, most are not. Could you target a Force Sword with Magic Weapon? Wands(fancy expensive wooden stick) are considered weapons but don't have a listed damage... it took YEARS to get weapon damage for rods.

I'll also point out that the game plays rather loose with what defines a single object. The flask and contents are sold and used as a unit. If anyone has made a plastic model with connected parts you realize there's wiggle room in Fabricate. Creatures make saves for themselves and all their worn stuff. Putting stuff in a bag a caster can Shrink Item the bag and its contents. There are many examples.
I'd be cautious parsing alchemical weapons into container and contents and saying different rules apply. It would make sense when they are separate but not when sold together as a unit.


sources in the Player Companion line: Adv Armory 2010, Alch Manual 2014. Generally the latest published item supersedes former publications. The Player Companion line doesn't get the editing oversight that the Core line gets.

Archive of Nethys(AoN) is considered the PF1 Rules Source since c2020. It only has minimal text. So from a RAW perspective we have to go with whatever AoN has. See link in my second post in this thread.

Reading the original source materials

Adv Armory, "saltpeter" does not appear (it should be circa pg 26). Bloodblock and several herbs uses the word "dose". Cost is listed in the table (pg 20 & 21) and one has to assume this is per dose.

nothing in Adv Armory 2. I checked for thoroughness.

Alch Manual pg 31, Quick Reference, Alchemical Reagents (Price per Dose) chart lists "Saltpeter (3GP)". The reason is many formulas in the book use this price for crafting specific items (all the formulas appear in the preceding pages). Advertisement pg 32. In a graphic titled Alchemical Reagents on pg 33 Saltpeter is listed as price 3gp (which agrees with the previous Formula Dose cost) then says "Doses 1(1gp)". This is telling you for a spell with a fire descriptor only 1gp or 1/3 a formula dose cost is needed.

So it is not a typographical error. The word Dose is used in two different contexts. The advertisement acts as a paragraph break. "Alchemical Reagents" appear in the front and back inside covers of the book. This hails back to my second post where I state "Doses is whatever the description says" and the conclusion in my first post. So this is a case where the minimal text on AoN didn't clarify if it was a typo, but rather correct as listed without context. AoN does not change RAW text (although quite a bit is deleted/not shown).
As I said before some words in the Game have specific meanings. Dose is not one of them so it can change with the context of how it is used. I believe you assumed it had one singular meaning and that led to the confusion and assumption that the Power Component listing was a typographical error. I'd also caution you that game books are a "Work of Art"(like a fictional novel) and not a technical manual or science textbook.


Alchemical Reagents

there is considerable variance in the write ups. Saltpeter Price:$3 Doses:1($1), Silver Price:$1 Doses:10($10), Smokestick Price:$20 Doses:1($20), Spirit of Wine Price:$0.5 Doses:6($3), ...

The standard meaning of "Price" is what the PC pays (BTB Cost) {and they should have used Trade Good price where applicable}. Doses is whatever the description says and I'd assume it's the amount(by price) a caster needs to get the bonus. "Cost/Use" or "Portions" might have been a better word for prorating it out, thus 3 would be three uses, 1/10 would mean you need to buy 10 for one use.

Given the variance your GM can sort it out.


Julien Dien wrote:
AM 33 wrote:

Saltpeter

Price 3 gp
Weight
Saltpeter is used to create fertilizers, propellants,fireworks, and preservatives.
Power Component
Doses 1 (1 gp); Spells fire descriptor
Effect +1 fire damage
The price is 3 gp, however, each dose is 1 gp. Is it an error?

No. Clearly a power component "dose" is one third of "—"(normal purchasing amount).

RAW is RAW and sometimes it gets rather generic/undefined as the writers considered it unnecessary to define. GMs are free to define it in their home game if they need to. "—" should be less than 0.5lb which makes refined saltpeter very expensive as a fertilizer.


DeathlessOne wrote:

*shifty look*

Bonded Mind & Share Spells

*slow creeping smile*

Share Spells ability converts a Personal spell into a Touch spell which can be cast on a Familiar/other. It doesn't make the target the caster. A requirement of taking 2 Teamwork feats make this a highly impractical route for a single spell and is only an advantage for Personal spell sharing with someone who has the Feat(s).

Contingency requires the caster to cast both spells. In practice this can vary and spells from items have been used as the companion magic. I don't think most GMs are a stickler with this spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For gladiators RAW has +1 performance on weapons. I'm not sure that it is all that practical but if you're going thematic, there ya go.

I'll also point you towards K. Kurtz's Deryni{Fantasy similar to your theme}.


don't forget the headers = Beheaded Families which gives CR adjustments.

Advice
in the same vein of parts iz parts
Crawling Hand which you could reflavor as intestines(slam) w trip bonus, feet(slam{kick}), etc... having your foe fall apart and attack can be quite disconcerting.


while the question is a bit muddled
Yes, a caster can cast spells(such as conjuration summonings) round after round. The spell durations will naturally overlap.
The caster need not issue instructions as the spell has the default It attacks your opponents(foes) to the best of its ability which is usually what is desired. Foes *should* be obvious but the creatures will use their abilities (and spell duration) to seek them out and then the GM has to adjudicate things...

-commentary-
is it a powerful strategy?
hmmm... IF the caster has 2+ feats (Spl Focus(C), Augment Summoning) then yes. Even better if he is a Summoner class but there are give & takes there. Longer spell duration isn't all that given combats end pretty quickly and they don't happen consecutively (it is rare).

I'll refer you to the Class Guides


Matthew Downie wrote:

...

Since Death Ward negates the damage, it should also negate the drain.

IMO this is correct and what I do in practice.


Gronk de'Morcaine wrote:

I am thinking of putting these both on my magus' scimitar.

Could I expend both the stored spell and the dispel magic at the same time with one hit? Hit it with a force punch stored, a dispel magic stored to take away some buff, and also lay in some other spell with spell strike/spell combat.

Awesome nova strike.

Even if not, I might still do it. Just wondering.

both enhancements(special qualities) can be put on the same weapon assuming your GM agrees and you can pay for it.

No, things are sequential (not simultaneous) in the Game. You cannot activate both abilities at the same time. You *could* do both in the same round but the GM is the final arbiter and clearly the spell effects are coming from the same (physical) source (so there's some doubt). The GM *should* inform you when the magical enhancement of the weapon is performed how the weapon will function. If your PC is enhancing the weapon you need to make a successful skill check to see how the weapon will function.

Paragraphs 3 & 4 are comments and don't require a response.

commentary - see post above
For Spell Storing the actual spell level and DC coming out are somewhat in doubt (GM & game dependent). Standard PF1 operation has them coming out at minimal level and DC (OrgPlay does this). Some GMs rely on conservation and have it come out at the caster level and DC it went in (particularly if the user IS the caster). Purchased NPC cast spells are at the minimums. >>> So talk with your GM to see which way they will go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

there are many issues from your account. Besides the trip on de Nile there are unresolved personal & social issues that don't help in leading a game.

after 4 edits I'll say; so, you reach the denouement of Masque of the Red Death{review plot & analysis} (maybe, & other tales) in the FIRST Game... LOL, such a waste. Says it all.


the Game leaves such corner cases or special circumstances up to the GM.

There are many ways in the Game to hinder or prevent self harm. Usually they involved purchased equipment or spells.


Death Ward


Dreamscapes, dream magic and such are very creative realms that are highly dependent on player & GM creativity and cooperation.

dream on AoN. The other source to reference is Occult Adventures.
Dream Travel:C[TP][Mndafct]6, besides being of the teleport type, the spell near the end says, "Traveling to a different planar destination decreases the accuracy of your dream transit. If you exit a creature’s dream onto a plane different from the plane you started on, you end up in a random location on the destination plane." which means you and the spell targets travel physically. Generally the Plane on which you cast a spell does not matter (there are exceptions as listed in the spell description and/or the Planar Traits of said Plane).

Dreamweaver(Witch archetype)


flagged other duplicate posts


while it's normal in the Advice or Discussion forums for threads to derail and go off topic, this is the Rules Forum.
Why not start your own thread on your topic in General Discussion


Kirbdog wrote:

... evil cleric channel energy...

feats that will allow the healing...?

CRB pg41 lets you know (as quoted above) Clerics of Evil Alignment channel Negative energy(harm living or deal undead & spontaneous cast inflict spells).

Unicorn's Blackened Horn $50000. I'm thinking there's another magic item in this style.

some races(wayang, dhampir) can switch their response to channeled energy type via racial options.
The Undead Form transmutation/polymorph spells flip this about.

You'd have to read through the Feats and variant channel feats on AoN.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

don't forget;
W1) Spell Recall items are twice the price for spontaneous casters. Wealth by Level(WBL).
W2) Bonded Object means one high price item is gained at half cost (such as Amulet of Spell Mastery).(WBL)
W3) Wizard's do not need Use Magic Device as most items are on their spell list. CHA does not feed into skill points per level. (Skill)
W4) should a wizard take up crafting he gains a WBL advantage. (WBL)
W5) a wizards learned spell list is usually quite large and with an open slot he can cast a needed spell in 15min (usually an out of combat situation). There are feats to shorten the memorization time. (Casting)
W6) Wizard do have to pay to learn spells but copies are at half price. (-WBL). Stealing spellbooks is a rare event in the game and PCs tend to cry "unfair".

all the above is in the specialist wizard class, no need for archetypes or prestige classes, extra feats to make the build work, and interaction problems.

IMO this is well known and really just stirs up cries of Game Balance issues.


so you are soliciting (the online community) for viable strategies?

hmmm... I'd say the GM may have plans through adventuring.

Many mis/dis-information campaigns rely on sloppy procedures/emotions/having a key to trusted processes/etc and are generally a delaying tactic and to spread confusion and thwart effective coordination.

If you issue a plethora of False papers of one type people will just start ignoring them and the authorities will have to make them harder to forge or create a new document. Obviously silly documents are ignored as is. People are not computer servers, even imaginary models of one.

Still, it is a game and no matter what you make some rolls and the GM has NPCs respond with rolls of their own... it's a skill challenge. How you frame that challenge is up to you. It is probably best to have a series of skill challenges within a part of an adventure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the simple answer (to the title) is No.

it is hard to beat what the Wizard(specialist) class does for its built in costs (which are high). The generalist Wizard class is just behind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

lol... sounds like it's a game to die for


2 people marked this as a favorite.

as a physicist/engineer I've thought about this over the years and editions. I think I've made my viewpoint clear in my posting history as well as my approach to the game. The game is more about having fun, learning some social skills, roleplaying out some situations, and wasting time in a fun/creative/dramatic setting. It does not confer knowledge about Reality or the real world in a technical sense (in fact it is quite misleading).

It's folly to try to make the rules in the game Real. It's a game written by creative people to be engaging, fun, and entertaining. It is a Work of Art.
One could say the general summation of reality is what you get in the game but consider that the game is far rougher that Newtonian physics which we know is wrong in the details. We know that the game fails when it comes to simple things like falling damage, scaling damage with spell level, equating damage to creatures versus objects, scaling ability scores, etc...
The game is more an artful descriptive model using simple rules of a common experience as to what very roughly happens in a game world. So Reality feeds into the Game, not vice versa.
PF2 & D&D5 stepped away from the AD&D to 3.5 design theme to model a game play experience rather than a common descriptive experience.

Why do people want to make it (more) Real? I think that is a common human ego issue. Who wouldn't want to make some aspects of fantasy world real and bring that fun, success, and understanding into Reality.
Truthfully whatever ideas and thoughts you have do not affect Reality. I like to say, "Reality is Perfect exactly as it is, it can't be any other way. It's your idea of perfection that's the problem."


Helpful Suggestion:
use "Paizo Campaign Rules" add-on/extension to your browser to give you the ability to ignore specific posters. This will help to maintain your posting composure on a corporate sponsored forum.


Commentary
FYI some common terms
paralysis
catalepsy {waxy flexibility}
petrified

you can refer to the Conditions link above for those meanings(effects) in the game. Knowing the encyclopedic description can help you describe the conditions in your game.
While paralyzed and petrified (past tense) are different things, the effects in the game are different. If we pretend that the conditions in the game have the same effects it still does not make the terms the same. That's a common logical misstep about how logical relationships(inferences) work.

The Game is just in common american english with descriptive writing that is meant to engage and entertain. People have to interpret RAW into their actual game. I wouldn't mince the text too fine (over sampling) seeking meaning. That's not to say a phrase or two doesn't change the direction of a sentence.
IMO the Game is a descriptive (very poor) model of common experience (notice I did not say Reality). Don't try to seek real meaning in the Game as it's far worse than Newtonian physics (which we know is wrong in the details). You don't quite see this in PF2 where the model is about game play (rather than common experience) with better math underpinning the rules. D&D5 is simpler but I believe gives better general results when it comes to game play than PF2.


there are multiple threads on Spell Combat and Spell Strike.

APG FAQs

Class Guides


as you are posting to the Rules Forum you'll get RAW centric answers, commentary(opinions), along with some GM advice. Quoting Archives Of Nethys(AoN) is pretty standard (saves typing).

As always, the official rules are RAW and any FAQs or official Paizo errata. You read it and similar rules and your GM interprets that for your home game. The Game is a Work of Art and not a technical manual so it can be unclear, inconsistent, and contradictory.

Paralyzed condition, Paralysis Ability, CRB FAQ.
seems pretty clear. Upon failing a save target creature becomes frozen/unmoving/immobile and can only take mental actions. No dropping things in hand, falling Prone from standing, or crawling away. Check couple of FAQs above.
Petrified, like Paralyzed is a condition and usually a "keyword" in the game, something with a defined meaning thus the two are not equivalent.


Kaouse wrote:

Also, another option for boosting Magic Missile is Ascendant Spell. This will allow you to basically double your missile damage from 1d4+1 to 2d4+1. It also bypasses shield and similar effects that specifically block non-mythic Magic Missile.

Unforutnately, Ascendant Spell won't get you the Augmented version, which lets you double your actual number of missiles. With Intensified Spell, Augmented Mythic Magic Missiles can fire up to 14 missiles for 2d4+1 each, for about 84 damage, 126 if maximized. 42 extra damage if empowered, and if you also have Orc Bloodline + Blood Havoc, you're looking at an extra 28 (42 if empowered) damage. At max, that's about 210 unresistable and unavoidable force damage from a single cast.

And you still have a Quickened rod for a total of 420 damage so blaze it, lol. But again, a lot of this requires Mythic.

"unresistable and unavoidable" hmm... I'd say that's overly optimistic, especially in a mythic game or at high level games.


so make your plan with your write-ups and get approval/changes from your Home GM. Make sure you have the needed reagents and skill boosters if you need help on a Heal check or other Skill checks. Craft Construct has a lot of options.

I'd agree that extracts will be of no use in the crafting process as "binds the effects to the creator." but you can use them to access spells.

Start the process and each will take 32days (at $16000 upgrade as Price is usually 2* Cost). 4-5 will take 5-6 months... it might be more practical and expedient to just hire a crew & captain. They can do everything at a fraction of the cost.

that would seem to cover the standard RAW process but check with your Home GM.


with this spell there's simply a conundrum in the spell description, it's not that unusual. In this case other spell descriptions aren't much help. Play History shows GMs deal with it and it's not a problem. It is just unclear RAW and general player hand-wringing. The Game Requires a GM to interpret and implement the rules in a sensible manner when RAW isn't clear.

To determine the usage of the spell in your home game just test it before you use it. Your Home GM will make a decision and your character figure it out. In many cases the GM and player will come to an agreement.

Planar travel can be a tricky business. It is best to research and test things before you commit the party to action as usually only the high level casters have options when things go awry.


orric897 wrote:

Afternoon Everyone,

I am currently playing a 2 handed paladin 10 {level=10?}. My question is, is it common for there to be monsters that can't be hit with a natural 19? I rolled a 19 + 4 for smite to hit + 19 from BAB{+10}/STR{1.5*+4}/Weapon{+3?} for a total of 42 and did not hit the AC of some undead pirate. At that point I kind of checked out of the fight, If I can only hit things on a nat20 it doesn't feel good.

I am planning on talking to my DM at some point, but I also wanted to get other opinions.

Thanks!

{ed}

excellent, your character noticed that an excellent attack missed.
What did you do next round?

If you feel your Paladin is only good at smacking things with his sword then I can see why you might feel out of your league or feeling things are unfair. Paladins can do more than swing a sword. Did you play this character up to Level 10 or just start at Level 10?
I think the proper tactical response if the creature is very difficult to hit is (for The Group) to go defensive, gather what information you can, retreat and regroup covering your withdrawal. Consider other strategies.
Does your character have any skills related to combat? tactics? Anybody Detect Alignment? Detect Magic? Cast Prayer? Circle of Protection vs Evil?

How will you roleplay your character's self reflection after the combat (GM conversation)? New strategy? How to overcome things you can't easily martially overcome?
I'd consider the GM may have made a mistake, or the thing is purposefully hard to hit, or could be immune to your attack and this was just a simple description, magic may be involved. Maybe it's a non-combat challenge? There are many possible reasons.

median AC(by CR) ≈ 1.25*CR +11.75, thus <AC(13)>=28. (there may be a more accurate formula, does not consider spellcasting/magic, APL+3 is considered difficult)


My suggestion is to use Org Play rules.
It really simplifies the game and focuses on core rules and managing WBL(Wealth By Level). The price is mainly in losing (magical) crafting and having generic magic. Most of the overpowered, nebulous, and crazy stuff has been banned, Animal Companions and such constrained, many rulings on how things should work. A lot of the heavy lifting has been done for you.

You need 4 things; Org Play Guide, Add'l Resources, Campaign Clarifications, and the occasional PFS FAQ. Run the PFS1 scenarios or adventures, 3 chronicles = 1 level.

With that as a baseline you can home game it from there adding back in what you want.


Kurald Galain wrote:
Azothath wrote:
well, let us say you can't move unless you make a save versus the spell/condition (may require an action) THEN you can move(take a 5ft step, see Tactical Movement) and Dimensional Slide.

This is almost correct. If you take a standard action to remove the condition (e.g. an escape artist check, or using a spell or SLA to free yourself), then you can take a move action to use Dimensional Slide.

thanks for the commentary. On the second reply we got a specific example to prove my point. Grapple and entangle are common conditions where loss of movement occurs (why I referenced Tactical Movement).

Entangle T1 where the save is a move action (including the Escape Artist check).
Tanglefoot Bag where your buddy can douse you with universal solvent so you don't spend an action OR you can scrape it off or attack it which could take a bit.

There are various times given the situation and how the loss of movement state is applied (be it grappled, entangled, etc), thus I gave an open amount of time in a general answer as it depends on the situation.


*popcorn*
Class defines what BAB, proficiencies, saves, and abilities the player is given and can choose from. There are skill bonuses (class skills) that boost a skill level if taken but it's not a forced thing.
Beyond that it is just normal people simplifying the game. Just saying something doesn't make it true.
Discovery IS part of the game.

Claiming PC's in PFS are more rounded or survivable is frankly laughable and I have a lot of experience in that format. PFS is more RAW centric with no in-game crafting and rather focused on WBL. I'll leave it at that.

For me, Character concept and character design are the core of the character. Implementation (Class choices) make a specific example of that character. The creative process can go top down, bottom up, or mixed.


CRB FAQ:Size increases and effective size increases. There are several FAQs around the posted link that discuss size changes and damage increases. A clear parallel can be drawn for size decreases.

It depends on how a weapon is used. Many melee weapons can be used as thrown weapons(or vice versa) (spears, javelins{see description}, throwing axes etc).
Historically (over several editions, 40yrs) if you use it as a melee weapon you have a possessed/attended object and it gains the size change. As soon as you let it go (thrown/ranged/fired ammunition) it loses the effective size change. Historically players and GMs have kept spare weapons to match the attacker's new (effective) size (omgosh - so many bow & catapult examples over the years along with Shrink Item & Bag of Holding dropping tricks). For lycanthrope/polymorphs dropping a magical holding item(with stuff in it), changing, and then picking it up again is the tired and true method for items that are likely to be "absorbed". The key is to practice In Your Home Game before trying it out in battle. That way your GM can make a decision and you'll both know how it is going to work.

There are weapon enhancements revolving around size changes.

I'd suggest Leaden Blades or Gravity Bow as spells to increase the irony/patch the damage.


well, let us say you can't move unless you make a save versus the spell/condition (may require an action) THEN you can move(take a 5ft step, see Tactical Movement) and Dimensional Slide.


one of the things people forget is that RAW is RAW and it's not a technical manual or science textbook but a Work of Art (and it relies on D&D 3.5 via the OGL). Lastly the Game NEEEDS a GM (and players) to interpret the rules into their actual game and a work in progress. Just running a RAW game doesn't work - too many corner cases and interactions occur especially with Wizards at the table or when 'leveraging the Rulez'.

I find GM styles, themes, and how close they stick to RAW varies (just like how pedantic they are). After read some RAW people naturally develop a Reality Matrix(from RAW lol) or Point of View(Intellectual model of the Game). That of course (naturally) creeps into their postings.


more Commentary
while not PF1, review D&D3.5 Sandstorm: Desert Diversion C[TP]4, If the subject of desert diversion casts one of the above {teleportation} spells, he and those traveling with him (or anyone using the gate or teleportation circle) are diverted.{ed} so this was considered in a previous edition but is not part of the OGL.

The Game plays loose with the concept of attended/possession/a single group. This is why I mentioned "touching". They are "sharing the spell effect" but not the caster of the spell. If they are treated as a single group for teleport then the caster is clearly making the save/rolls as it is his spell and the rest of the group are (lol) encumbrance/baggage. It is also a simple interpretation that reduces the complexity of the situation.
I also comment that a GM may need to separate the group for drama/story plot purposes. I think it's easier to just make a 20*20' jail cell as not every teleporter is of medium size.

>> I think it is very clear that IFF the teleporter does NOT FIT in the destination location it becomes a Mishap.
>> Clearly Teleport Trap makes the destination a new location of which (I assume) the caster is not familiar with, thus a "False Destination".

again, Teleportation Trap is a high level spell with considerable GM's gray area.

side note: Crypt Thing Teleporting Burst(Su), ... but must appear on a solid surface capable of supporting its weight. If there is no appropriate destination in that direction, the creature does not teleport at all.


I'd have to say that the Teleport Trap A7 description lacks detail and glosses over the resolution process leaving considerable GM's gray area.

nothing in FAQs(Inner Sea World Guide ya know), OrgPlay bans the spell in Add'l Resources. Spell names are really just flavor, Trap rules are different than Spell rules and it should be treated as a spell.

After reading Teleport C[TP]5, I'd have to rule that only the caster of Teleport need make the Check and accompanying save vs Teleport Trap. Everyone follows the caster as they willingly allowed the spell to affect them AND they are all touching. The party teleports into the same space(volume) or if they don't fit in the area they suffer a mishap (see False Destination under Teleport)(as in the flavor text's stone cysts example where frankly taking some damage and not being in a stone cyst may be a good thing). I'm ignoring gameplay as the GM has to deal with the difficulties of high level spells in the game, just part of the job.

Teleportation wrote:
“False destination” is a place that does not truly exist or if you are teleporting to an otherwise familiar location that no longer exists as such or has been so completely altered as to no longer be familiar to you. When traveling to a false destination, roll 1d20+80 to obtain results on the table, rather than rolling d%, since there is no real destination for you to hope to arrive at or even be off target from.

Allowing Teleport Trap to split a group into individual cells or an appropriately sized cell adds to its power and gives the spell more discrimination than RAW. It can be thematic and useful if the GM wants it to do this but I'd advise not to add to the spell. It can already detect Alignment which isn't usually observable.

Teleport Trap wrote:
Overly complicated conditions may cause the spell to fail entirely.


excellent FAQ link (and read the one above it)


[PFS Legal] Shield OtherFY A2, short description:You take half of subject's damage.
[3.5] Sympathetic WoundsMR A2[Evil]$250, short description: Force half of the damage you take onto another creature.

1) y, 20 hit points get spread among the three spell targets.
2) as mentioned above by MrC. The shared HP damage doesn't get reduced, just split.
3) no.

commentary
A) this isn't anything new. Don't "spring it" on your GM. Make sure he understands how it works.
B) this isn't a good strategy. You are expending resources to simply spread the damage about rather than PREVENT the damage in the first place. I'd ask Why is the Wizard being attacked in the first place? He's not front line material.
Get your wizard two Pearls of Power and have him cast Shield, Mage Armor, Illusion of Calm (now he can recall and recast 2 for the next battle), wand of Obscuring Mist, wand of Vanish. Maybe an Aegis of Recovery.
C) review Items that can save you


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[PFS legal]Enlarge Person T1, short description "Humanoid creature doubles in size."

[PFS legal]Long Arm T1, short description "Your arms lengthen, giving you extra reach."

I don't see why it wouldn't work together, in any casting order.
Still it takes two rounds to buff with Enlarge Person taking a full round AND Long Arm being Personal spell...


(as this is an ancient thread)
Hallow K[Good]5, with short descriptor, "[PFS Legal] Hallow(M): Designates location as holy."

reading the description is helpful. It is pretty clear it is an AoE from an instantaneous emanation as written. So YES, you can cast it on a bird house (and then produce the magical effect) with GM approval that it is an acceptable target (as clearly it is a variance from the common interpretation of the spell description). The AoE does not move with the touched object as it is an instantaneous effect.
The process of proving in your Home Game that the spell can be cast on a birdhouse or wagon and the effects of moving the original "focus" or touch point needs to be done in the game by the character testing the hypothesis. Likely at least one skill check with a DC set by the GM will have to be made successfully in the game and one Hallow cast with the associated cost. There may be repercussions from your deity as this is a divine spell.

I suspect that if a GM decided that Destroying the building would end the spell they would also conclude that if you remove the originating "focus" from the AoE then the spell effect would end. Seems a pretty reasonable interpretation of RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

you can check the rules yourself:
1) check AoN -> {PFS} Mammoth Rider Prestige class.
2) then check the product page for eratta...
3) then check FAQs for product
4) lastly OrgPlay updates (also helpful for home GMs).


In general farming is all about composting poo and other organics back into the soil (start humming "The Circle of Life") along with crop rotation and access to water for a consistent watering schedule. Keeping local insects & animals from poaching your harvest is also a big concern.

Spellwise just search AoN for Spells using keyword "plant".
There are also several obelisks in Glorian lore that sustain/enhance plant life in a large area.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

Disclaimer: This might belong in general discussion.

I've noticed over the years that many of the disagreements about the rules come down to whether those debating see the rules as "What the devs intended" vs "These words are used and intent doesn't matter".

When I first got here most people were going by intent, but that was over 10 years ago.

However if I'm helping someone in the forums and they don't specify I'd like to know what PoV I should use.

I don't think that duality is true, nor does it characterize why people support their interpretation of the rules. It IS a common support rationale in an Appeal to Authority. I believe people have come to an understanding of the rules in their mind and support that interpretation. How they support that opinion and what science or expertise they bring with it varies.

Personally I have my RAW view for this Rules forum and my Home Game view for my home games and practical usage. Sometimes knowing old D&D rules trips me up.

Personally RAI is moot. The text has been edited multiple times over 20 odd years (DnD3&3.5, PF1) and now we have what we have as RAW.

As a writer you can take various points of view or tones with a posting. I believe most posters use their common conversational style.
I would advise posters to link to AoN quotes and try to support their position using RAW, logic, current usage at the game table (common practice can vary from RAW) and to keep it reasonable. Some posters delight in argument for its own sake. Some posters have a very rigid view of the rules. Some posters believe in keeping their players happy & amused is the goal of the game. Opinions vary.


As I recall this came up in Org Play about a ring of spellstoring. You can store a spell with metamagic but the metamagic counts towards the total Spell Level of the spell. The spell COMES out of the item at MINIMAL Spell Level and DC for the spell ignoring metamagic (metamagics take the worst option). I looked for a citation (J. Compton over a *special* ring of spell storing in a scenario) but didn't find it in the moment. It's probably the closest you'll get to an official ruling though it IS FOR ORG PLAY (which is it's own beast) thus not explicitly RAW.


as this is an expedition into an area of GM interpretation I've found there is considerable table variation. So in a home game "ask your GM". Expect a lot of commentary.

RAW for what it is worth allows changing around held items as a free action. You can have 3 (non two-handed) items but only 1 is usable without penalties (and there may be penalties anyway for having off-handed items etc). Two-handed items take up 2 hands when used without penalties, 1 when not used. Feats, spells, & magic items can complicate things but most GMs will stick to the above.
Personally I advise home GMs to limit free actions to 1+Dex modifier (1 minimum). This cuts down on shenanigans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

while they are game concepts, (Bludgeoning AND Aerodynamic) and (Piercing AND Bludgeoning {weapon damage types}) are somewhat contrary in physical nature so you see these combinations in two headed weapons (which also means separate enchantments). I'd make sure to get GM approval and participation in your weapon project as the rules are for GMs and he should set you a craft DC and price as a goal for the standard crafting process. You should make a crafting roll at the onset to test the feasibility of the project.


SmooshieBanana wrote:

I am wondering if I could get some insight on this problem.

Player 1 and the group: Attacking with a reach weapon through the unlocked and opened doorway of a keep (striking 5ft into the castle).

NPC1: Closes the door (move action) and locks it (standard action).

That's it? Can NPC1 just close a door like that while we are attacking through it? Is there no contested strength check, etc.? Is there no consideration for the weapon reaching into the space inside the keep?

it's not a problem. It is a GM interpretation following basic RAW.

If actions are sequential and independent, then yes, a creature can do what it wants on its turn providing it does not break RAW and seems reasonable to the GM. An opposing creature would need an immediate, readied, or interrupt type action to interfere.
If the creature closing the door does not have total cover it may provoke an attack of opportunity from opposing creature(s) that threaten it when it takes the action with a non-weapon. If it is behind the door it likely has total cover.

It might be easier and more effective to simply move into the doorway and physically block it from closing. THEN there would be an opposed roll. learn from door-to-door salesmen

1 to 50 of 3,338 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>