Baron_Yves's page

Normal: Only spellcasters can qualify for the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item feats

A spellcaster is very well defined by pathfinder rules : it is someone who casts spells (no kidding) !

Spell-like abilities does not make a character a spellcaster.

I dig it. This is something tangible I can get behind. Thank you for the RAW reference.

Taking the item creation feat itself requires your character to have a caster level, or some substitute.

The CL determined exclusively for the use of a SLA is not the same as a character's CL for the purpose of meeting the prerequisite for a MIC feat.

Sorry to beat a dead horse here, but MM do you know of any place that "caster level" is defined as spellcasting class levels? I am fine with it being a RAI explanation, and I even get where you're coming from, but based on what I can find as written rule, caster level is a measure of spell power and not character experience.

That being the case, I can't see why SLAs would be excluded from Item Creation as they use the same casting level mechanic.

Thanks for your indulgence.

It is similar to the fact of having a +4 weapon : it has a caster level of 12. Does it allow the fighter using a +4 weapon to take Magic Item creation feats ? Of course not !

Magic Items with a CL listed are explicit in what that caster level is referring to.

Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.

A magic item cannot be created by spell-like abilities, by the way.

PRD Paizo wrote:

Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed).

You are right. It seems that SLAs do not count as spells or have the ability to spell-trigger. Thanks for the clarification on this.

The SLA itself had a caster level, but you yourself do not, unless you take a class that grants a caster level or otherwise find a way to bypass that prerequisite. Master Craftsman qualifies.

This is an interesting take on caster level, master_marshmallow. From what I can find, no character has a caster level. Not a Wizard, Sorcerer or Cleric. The spells and abilities do, however.

RAW from PFSRD

Caster Level

A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.

Based on this definition from the Magic section, Caster Level is not a character trait at all but simply a measure of a spell's power. That power level is derived from class levels mostly, but not exclusively, and when specifically defined in the scope of a spell-like ability, I think it would qualify.

What do you think?

I am in search of some RAW explanation of how I reconcile the following situation:

Can a Gnome Fighter-3 still gain access to Item creation feats that require a caster level? The argument is the racial spell like abilities grant a caster level equal to the gnome's class level, which in this case would be 3rd level.

As far as I understood, when legitimately creating a magic item, the use of spell like abilities can be used as a source for magic, so long as they can reproduce the spell needed. If that's true, it would seem reasonable that they could also fill the requisite caster level needed for the feat.

I'm interested in people's thoughts on this, and any hard rules I can go to.

What page of what book is the rule you quote from ?

EDIT: Found it, it's on page 443 under the rules for darkness, but my book is slightly different

Core wrote:

A blinded creature can grope about to find unseen creatures. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent squares using a standard action. If an unseen target is in the designated square, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack.

If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has pinpointed the unseen creature’s current location. If the unseen creature moves, its location is once again unknown.

EDIT2: Found your version on page 563

Your examples -

1) Sure, roll a touch attack, but anyone with spellcraft is going to be able the make the check to identify the spell you're casting as ... not a spell. A generous GM might allow a bluff check on others. Also, since you're not actually armed with a spell, you might provoke, again GM call.

2) I don't think you can make a touch attack at range with anything OTHER than a ranged touch attack (like a ray or a net).

3) Sure, just make a melee touch attack and be sure to use the verbal component of "Tag, you're it !"

Thank you for the response and the help with referencing the Core rule pages.

Two followup questions:

Let's switch the cleric in example 1 into a druid and they have a claw attack due to druid powers. So even though a spellcraft check would reveal the non-spell usage, just touching someone with a claw melee touch attack for zero damage would work without provoking an attack of opportunity, yes?

In the example I quoted earlier, it mentions being able to make a melee touch attack into 2 adjacent squares as a standard action when groping for invisible creatures and it looks as though there are similar rules for groping in the dark. Would the druid in my last example be able to perform two claw melee touch attacks to the same target for zero damage even in a well lit room and the target being visible?

Thank you for your indulgence.

Would a player be able to make a touch attack (ranged or melee) simply for the effect of having touched the target?

A few examples:

-A cleric wants to give the appearance that a touch spell is being delivered to an enemy, but casts nothing prior to the attempt.

-An archer wants to show that he can hit the broadside of a barn, but doesn't really care about a specific point.

-Two kids are playing tag. They are unconcerned with critical hits or penetrating armor.

There is a rule for 'finding an invisible creature' that kindof does what I'm talking about in terms of melee touch attack.

"A creature can grope about to find an invisible creature. A character can make a touch attack with his hands or a weapon into two adjacent 5-foot squares using a standard action. If an invisible target is in the designated area, there is a 50% miss chance on the touch attack. If successful, the groping character deals no damage but has successfully pinpointed the invisible creature’s current location. If the invisible creature moves, its location, obviously, is once again unknown."

So let's say the target is visible and you just wanted to get a melee touch attack for zero damage to pinpoint his completely visible form. Could you get two of those if you targeted the same adjacent square twice?

Thoughts?

Yves

Baron_Yves wrote:

I noticed that the "-20 In Combat" adjustment got applied.

My first post had two sections, one out of combat, and one in combat. The second section on stealth was all in combat, though it would be pretty easy to modify it if you're using stealth out of combat.

Baron_Yves wrote:

I am wondering is your take on that modifier that once combat starts, the invisible creature gets the -20 In Combat applied if they are participating in the combat, regardless of actions?

I didn't want to include it in the examples, because it's kind of up to GM discretion.

Personally, I would say someone is in combat if they're participating in any way. If the invisible mage wants to stay out of combat, he's got to dedicate himself to not being involved. He won't be in initiative, and he won't be able to react to what's happening.

So, if the invisible mage is creeping around a dungeon, and some goblins nearby start a fight with some bugbears, and the mage thinks "Holy cow! They're doing all the work for me! I'll just hang out and see who wins." then he can stay out of combat, not be in initiative, and basically hang around until the goblins kill all the bugbears. (Because goblins are cool)

Anything else I would probably have to make up on the fly. If the mages party wanders into the middle of the fight, I would either let the mage join init with them (and be in combat) or if he really wants to stay out of it, he can join in by rolling init at the top of a round and then acting on his init that round (and being flat-footed until that turn). I would try to avoid having the mage be "out of combat" and have the higher DC if he's prepared to act at any moment. Hiding, making perception checks, things like that are fine, but combat spells or any kind of potentially hostile action should put him in init and apply the penalty.

None of that has any real basis in the rules, though.

It does seem pretty vague in the books for this particular spell. Thank you for explaining your logic on it. It very much helps.

I think I will have to adjudicate based on the individual actions taken after the initiative rather than trying to paint it all with a huge 'in combat' brush, but I guess that's a GMs job, huh?

Wish me luck.

Yves

Baron_Yves wrote:

A mage casts Invisibility prior to combat. Combat ensues. Mage is casting Summon Monster from within 30 ft. of enemy. Mage is not moving. Enemy wants to use Perception to pinpoint where mage is.

Before combat:

DC 20 Perception check: notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet

DC 40 Perception check: pinpoint an invisible creature's location (Base 20, +20 invisible)

If the mage is moving at half speed: DC 35 (Base 20, +20 invisible, -5 moving half)
If the mage is moving at full speed: DC 30 (Base 20, +20 invisible, -10 moving full)

Combat ensues:

DC 40+X Perception check: pinpoint an invisible creature's location

Base DC 20, +20 from invisible, -20 due to in combat, +20 due to not moving, +X (+1 per 10 feet away)

I'm taking this primarily from Invisibility in the glossary. The reason I'm breaking out the base 20 from the +20 from being invisible is to fit with the increase in DC listed in the Perception skill.

You don't get the +20 bonus for not moving outside of combat because the table only applies if you're moving or engaged in a noisy activity.

This all gets weird if the mage is using Stealth.

Grick, I'm copying your examples into a quick-reference sheet and I noticed that the "-20 In Combat" adjustment got applied. I am wondering is your take on that modifier that once combat starts, the invisible creature gets the -20 In Combat applied if they are participating in the combat, regardless of actions?

Thanks again for the write up.

-Yves

Stealth Time!

Mage uses Stealth to move at half speed: DC 55+SC+D

Base DC 20
+20 Invisible
-20 In Combat
-5 Moving Half Speed
+20 Using Stealth
+20 Bonus to the Stealth Check
+SC (Actual Stealth Check, not including bonus)
+Distance

Mage somehow uses Stealth without moving: DC 80+SC+D

Base DC 20
+20 Invisible
-20 In Combat
+20 Using Stealth
+40 Bonus to the Stealth Check
+SC (Actual Stealth Check, not including bonus)
+Distance

However! If the assumption is the chart listing for "Invisible creature is Using Stealth" is intended to be/include the same bonus listed in the stealth skill, that puts the DC at a slightly more reasonable value.

Moving half speed: DC 35+SC+D

Base DC 20
+20 Invisible
-20 In Combat
-5 Moving Half Speed
+20 Bonus to the Stealth Check
+SC (Actual Stealth Check, not including bonus)
+Distance

Not Moving DC 60+SC+D

Base DC 20
+20 Invisible
-20 In Combat
+40 Bonus to the Stealth Check
+SC (Actual Stealth Check, not including bonus)
+Distance

Grick, this is exactly what I needed. Thanks for the work on this.

Yves

For the purposes of determining a Perception Check penalty / bonus when pinpointing an invisible creature, could I get some clarification as to what is meant by 'in combat'?

Would an invisible mage casting a spell (from within combat) with only somatic components (no verbal) and not taking a move action apply the +20 Perception Check DC for non-movement, or does the movement of casting violate that?

In the following scenario, what would be the Perception Check DC to pinpoint the invisible creature? (Please break out the modifiers so I can follow along, if you don't mind)

A mage casts Invisibility prior to combat. Combat ensues. Mage is casting Summon Monster from within 30 ft. of enemy. Mage is not moving. Enemy wants to use Perception to pinpoint where mage is.

I am about to introduce Invisibility into my game and I've never had to deal with it tactically. I was hoping that the players around here could give me some examples of how invisibility can be properly used from a Wizard point of view, and what might need to be avoided to minimize rules misunderstandings.

Thanks,

Yves

I see. So the first part of the section is simply stating that when affected by certain types of spells a concentration check is needed, and the subsequent sentences go on to explain those specific types.

Is it defined somewhere what counts as 'interference'?

For instance, would the effects of a Cleric's Bane spell act as interfering with someone?

-Y

In doing some research on my magic wielding NPCs I ran across this bit in the SRD:

Spell

If the spell interferes with you or distracts you in some other way, the DC is the spell's saving throw DC + the level of the spell you're casting. For a spell with no saving throw, it's the DC that the spell's saving throw would have if a save were allowed (10 + spell level + caster's ability score).

Is this saying that a player, while under the effects of any spell, must make a concentration check to cast another spell?

Example: Player A has Mage Armor cast on them, then in a following round tries to cast Magic Missile. Does the Magic Missile spell require a concentration check?

Thanks for any insight.

-Yves

In looking at the higher level spell Air Walk, I am further convinced that external forces not controlled by the spell should be considered and may even penalize the character when they are extreme.

Thoughts on the comparison between the two?

-Y

In the description of the spell provided above it states, "The transmuted creatures can tread on any liquid as if it were firm ground. Mud, oil, snow, quicksand, running water, ice, and even lava can be traversed easily, since the subjects' feet hover an inch or two above the surface."

To me, the compelling phrase is "transmuted creatures". The person is transmuted, not the liquid. The spell does not mention conveying added stability, only that previously untraversable surfaces may now be used as if they were firm ground. Regular firm ground can have its own set of circumstances that would require acrobatics checks and Reflex Saves, so why not the same with firm ground that is provided through this spell?

Thank you for the responses thus far, they have already helped a lot.

-Y

Hello all. I am hoping to get a rules clarification from the community. An official ruling would be great, but I am happy to take informed opinions and make a GM judgement call.

Here's the question:

If a PC has cast water walk on themselves and finds the water surface turbulent, would that surface becomes a more difficult terrain, or in extreme cases even require Reflex Saves to maintain footing?

A practical situation is a PC uses water walk to traverse an ocean and the waves are crashing all around and the tide is rising and falling quickly.

As the GM, I read the spell to provide to a PC the ability to treat liquid surfaces as firm ground. However, if firm ground were to begin undulating (an earthquake for instance) a PC would most definitely be at risk of falling.

My players may contribute to this thread as well, so I look forward to a discussion that will help me adjudicate this fairly.

So, game masters, please let me know how you would rule on this. Players, please tell me how you would expect water walk to work in an turbulent ocean setting.

Thanks for your attention.

-Yves