Conna the Wise

Bascaria's page

652 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 652 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

concerro wrote:
Hayato Ken wrote:

Bardic performance days: "At each level after 1st a bard can use bardic performance for 2 additional rounds per day."

Does that have to be levels in the bard class or can i just take one level bard and then all the rest in another class?

Like bard1/ninja10?

When a class has a duration based on level it is always referring to class levels unless it specifically calls out "character levels".

I think what you mean is, "When a class has an [b]ability[/]b based on levels..." but yeah, any time a class ability calls out levels it ALWAYS refers to levels in that class unless it specifically says otherwise (such as Improved Uncanny Dodge) or if it specifically says "Character Levels" as opposed to just "levels."

Other examples are level pre-reqs for class abilities. A barbarian has to be eighth level, for example, before he can take Improved DR. That means eight barbarian levels, not Wizard 7/Barbarian 1.

Vert wrote:

I have some questions as to exactly how Scent works. I know there have been threads on this before, but none of them seemed to give an definitive, official answer and considering I need this for Pathfinder Society play I need to use the official ruling.

In our Pathfinder Society game we have a player who is a Level 1 Druid and took the snake animal companion. This snake has the scent special quality (as per the Druid section in chapter 3 of the Core Rulebook). The player argues that the ability is automatic, and anything within 30 feet his snake can smell without a check. Quite frankly this seems obscene and after reading the rules on it in the Bestiary I'm still not sure if he's correct or not.
The interpretations I've seen on the forums with my searching are ether automatic or something along the lines of 'it still requires a check, but it is able to preceve things that have a scent where it normally wouldn't, for example in total darkness'.
If I could I'd opt for the latter choice, but as a Pathfinder Society event am I even allowed to do that? What is the official ruling?

It automatically knows something is there if it is within 30' (60' if it is downwind from the source of the smell, 15' if it is upwind). It does not know WHERE the source of the smell is, just that there is a creature within 30' of it. The snake can then spend a move action to make a perception check to pinpoint the creature.

There are ways around this, as well, such as the spell Negate Aroma

AdAstraGames wrote:
ChaosLord29 wrote:

I suppose this is really more of an aesthetics question them. I like your point that the initiative is an abstraction of real time, and considering that everything takes place inside of 6 seconds, it seems to me that there's little time to consider whether or not one is going to charge an opponent or not.

What about the action of readying a spear against the charge though? That's something obvious isn't it? Since it requires bracing the spear against oneself or the ground in order to deal the extra damage. An opponent can still drop their spear and avoid the charge of course, but it seems to me that it should be apparent if an opponent is set for a charge, whatever other actions they take.

I've taught people to use spears as my day job - and swords.

If you're right handed, you usually use a pike or 8' spear in a two handed grip, with your right hand back on the butt, and turn your body sideways to the target. You have a low squat. You're usually choking on the spear to conceal how much reach you have. If you have to be mobile, you'll be standing a little higher, which reduces your striking range, but usually, you'd model a group of guys with spears as taking Move-and-Ready actions.

From the perspective of the person coming at you - there's a thicket of spears, that may thrust out and hit you before you reach them - one spearman by himself is toast. Three spearmen will drop you before you get to any of them.

To brace the spear, you take your hand off the back end and slap it down while shifting your weight to your back leg. Viewed from the side, this is obvious. Viewed from the front, it is NOT obvious, and takes about a quarter of a second.

The other problem with charging spears is this: Horses are self aware, and know they can die. They have several million years of evolutionary instincts to shy away from sharp things poking into their faces especially when they're charging at it at a full gallop.

So just to be clear, as this is something which has come up in my games as well, and the experience of someone who actually knows what they are talking about is valuable, when talking about the "real" action of bracing against a charge, a skilled pikeman can take a spear from the "I can stab at someone normally" stance to the "I am braced to receive your charge" stance in a quarter of a second, and someone charging at them full gallop would struggle to notice this.

So in game, if someone braces against a charge, this does not include the physical action of bracing the weapon, but merely preparing to make that shift in stance. Then, once the charge has happened and the horse and rider are committed (leaving aside the willingness of the horse to charge at a sharp stick), the spearman shifts his stance.

In other words, you don't know that they have braced against a charge until it is too late to stop or their spear is already in you?

So if they all have to be in 15' of each other, then they have to fit in the following grid:

(extra spaces added here so my avatar doesn't mess up the lines)

X = empty square
O = the grid they have to fit it.


R.A.Boettcher wrote:

OK...this is more about a psionic power (DSP's Energy Missile) then a spell but it should all be the same!

Suppose a spell/power says this for Targets:

"Up to five creatures or unattended objects; no two targets can be more then 15 ft. apart."

Does this mean...

a Chain? That is you can select a chain of targets in any configuration as long as each is within 15' of the previous target?

or a Box? No two targets can be further then 15' from each other, which effectively means the two targets furthest from each other, and that each much be within 15' of all other targets?

Less of a box and more of a circle with a 15' diameter. But yeah, every single target has to be within 15' of every single other target. If any target is more than 15' from any other target, then the targets are invalid.

Gravefiller613 wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Gravefiller613 wrote:

I know this is an old topic, but I'm trying to find out if the loophole I found is legit.

If a witch, Wizard or Magus took Preferred spell; does that qualify them for DD's spontanious casting requirement?

As a DM I'd allow it, but if I were to build for somebody else's game or a society session, would this be considered legal? If I don't get a response, I'll post this quandry as a a topic.

I don't think it meets muster for PFS play. I certainly would not allow it. Your game is your game, you don't need anyone else's blessing to validate it.
I am just checking, in case I brought this build to another table for myself to play. As a GM of my own game, I decide things on a case by case basis. If the general concensus is that this is a no go, then I'm not going to make the build.

Dragon Disciple says that you have to be able to cast 1st level arcane spells spontaneously, not just one 1st level arcane spell. Possibly if you took Preferred Spell twice, applying it to a different 1st level spell both times, then it would maybe pass muster, but that is a pretty heavy feat investment where the feats won't be giving you all that much. And I don't play PFS, but it seems likely a complete no-go there.

The Invulnerable Rager Barbarian archetype also specifically applies his DR at 2X base value against nonlethal. That's the only example I know of in which DR on its own is specifically more effective against non-lethal (barring the hypothetical existence of a creature with DR/lethal)

Poor Wandering One wrote:
LazarX wrote:

An oracle changing his type is not an ordinary animal, so the Int drop does not apply.

Any text to support this? No sane GM would play it this way but I think it happens by strict RAW.

The capstone gives you all the traits save those delineated in the capstone. Ability scores are not so delineated so you drop to animial intelligence. Note that Plant type makes no mention of ability score changes so you keep full int when you change to plant.

Because the rule says that the animal gains those traits, unless noted otherwise in the creature's entry. Your entry (your character sheet) pretty clearly states that you have an intelligence score higher than 2, so you get exempted from this, just like your alignment doesn't auto-shift to true neutral.

However, also please note, I'm not even sure that ability grants all traits, but rather, I think it only grants "superficial physical characteristics." I'd be curious what exactly that entails. The fact that they are "superficial" suggests that you gain nothing with mechanical benefit aside from a new type, which can be great for things like animal growth and avoiding pesky hold/charm/dominate/etc. person spells, but you don't gain all of the immunities or vision boosters, for example.

Strife2002 wrote:

If a sorcerer with the earth elemental bloodline were to scribe a scroll of his 3rd level bonus spell, a special version of scorching ray, would it produce the special version of it? That is, would a spell read from that scroll produce a ray attack of earthen fury (instead of fiery)? Since the spell is still called "scorching ray" would a wizard be able to learn that spell from said scroll?

I'm guessing that the scroll would still produce the same effect, but a wizard wouldn't be able to learn it (even though it bears the same name).

I suppose a clever GM could name each individual spell from the various elemental bloodlines something different as a means of distinguishing them for this purpose (ie: scorching ray becomes tempest ray, earthen ray, and spraying ray)

My guess would be that it is just a normal scroll of scorching ray (or burning hands at level 1). I would use Spell Focus, and Augment Summons as the precedent for this (and the various other subsequent _________ Summons feats), which is to say an effect modifying existing spells without metamagic not modifying those spells when they come from a spell-completion or spell-trigger item created by a caster with those feats. So, if you make a scroll of Scorching Ray* it turns out to just be a scroll of Scorching Ray.

* which deals acid damage and has the [acid] descriptor.

On the other hand, since the descriptor is being changed, you could argue that Scorching Ray* is in fact a distinct spell. If cast from a scroll it would deal acid damage and have the [acid] descriptor. However, Scorching Ray* is on no class's spell list, except for the appropriate elemental sorceror, and so anyone trying to cast it from a scroll would need to make an appropriate UMD check and no wizard could scribe it into their book without researching the spell themselves.

nosig wrote:

Silent Image? Disbelieve or not?

and the Illusion of a cavern floor? otherwise why is the area of effect so big?
would you be able to see the translucent outline in the area of the Darkness spell, which you know blocks vision?

The area of effect is so big because

Silent Image wrote:
You can move the image within the limits of the size of the effect.

It's a long-range spell, but if you drop the image of a guard dog next to yourself, and want it to chase someone away, then it can only chase as far as the area of effect, not the full 400+ ft range of the spell.

You can create an image of a single object, creature, or force of size up to your available area of effect. You can then move that image around inside that area of effect, but cannot move it beyond those bounds. So if your image takes up the whole AoE, then it can't move at all.

If you accept my premise that figment, pattern, and phantasm illusions continue to function in areas of darkness, then yes, you would continue to be able to see the outline on a successful disbelieve save. If you don't accept that, then no, you wouldn't be able to. Nothing about the interaction with the visual centers of the brain or darkness (magical or otherwise) changes when you disbelieve.

nosig wrote:
why do all the work yourself? turn your players loose on this one. have them sketch you several campsites and tell you how they are going to defend them. Be sure to have some of the bad guys stumble into their defenses - just because you know the defenses are there doesn't mean the bad guys do. And you can be sure at least one of your players will have fun laying this out is great detail.

This is one of my favorite tools as a DM. If the party rolls particularly well on a survival check to find a campsite or ambush site, then I hand them the markers and tell them to draw it. I might tell them generally what sorts of things they are allowed to have, but they get to define their own battlefield.

If they have been scouting as well and know what is coming at them, it can be particularly gratifying.

As a player, there are a few things you can do mechanically, and a few things you can do non-mechanically.

Mechanically, you can roll survival and appropriate knowledge skills to find a safe campsite and learn what monsters might be in the area and how they track, then plan accordingly.

Non-mechanically, if you don't set a fire, then you are less likely to attract monsters. If you put yourself on top of an open hill, then you will be harder to surprise, but also much easier to spot. If you build your camp inside a huge tangle of vines and trees, then you will be much harder to spot, but also easier to sneak up on if you are spotted.

If you have enough darkvision characters to have at least one per watch, then do so. Keep any animals in the center of your camp so that brigands or carnivorous animals can't make off with them, bypassing your guards. A few hunting dogs can also make a great alarm system.

If you have access to magic, rope trick is a fantastic one. If you can afford it, sticking a stone of alarm to the end of the rope can help, but you risk running afoul of curious woodland critters if you have a particularly pranksterish GM or are anywhere near fey.

However, there are no hard and fast rules for random encounters, so there are also no hard and fast rules for how to reduce them. The best you can really do is talk to your GM, see what he recommends, and if he is hesitant, then roll some dice to justify getting the information.

Verse wrote:

I didn't choose necromancy as an opposed school just so I could pull off thread necros this bad...

Since the topic is pretty much exactly what I wanted to use, my question is simply one to lay out exactly how the smite good/evil versions granted to summoned monsters in the Bestiary works (specifically, animals with the celestial/fiendish templates making them magical beasts):
* +cha to hit, +HD to damage (this part is simple, now we reach0.

* No matter what the summoned creature's HD, its natural attacks NEVER count as magic with regard to harming incorporeal creatures.

* Even if it possesses DR good or evil, and even if it is using its smite ability, the creature's natural attacks NEVER bypass DR good/evil, the only benefit of smite is in the bonuses to hit and damage.
Having not seen a good, clear statement addressing the above in the Bestiary FAQ or on the Paizo blog, I'd like to post it here and see if most of the feedback is in accordance with the above.

All that the template says is:

Celestial Template, Special Attacks wrote:
smite evil 1/day as a swift action (adds Cha bonus to attack rolls and damage bonus equal to HD against evil foes; smite persists until the target is dead or the celestial Creature rests).

So no, the template smite evil does not confer the ability to bypass DR or deal double bonus damage on the first hit vs. evil undead/dragons/outsiders. If the celestial creature has 5HD or more, then it gets DR/evil (5 or 10, depending on HD), which means it would get past someone else's DR/evil.

nosig wrote:
picture a section of cavern floor, with several pits etc. Drop a Darkness in the middle of it. Now enter a Dwarven Wiz. with the spell Minor Image (or even Silent Image). He creates the illusion of a cavern floor (four 10'cubes +one 10' cube per level area), which is exactly what he sees with his dark vision. His companions can move thru the area with no problem? as long as they miss the save vs. his spells. The halfling gang attacking them though are hosed. Cause they MADE thier saves....?

Again, remember that silent/minor allows you only to create the illusion of a single "object, creature, or force," so first you have to get the GM to sign off on the idea that the cavern floor fits that description. The spell doesn't jut let you fill a bunch of 10' cubes with whatever illusions you want.

Second, even if an illusion spell is successfully disbelieved, remember this:

Illusions and Saving Throws to Disbelieve wrote:
A successful saving throw against an illusion reveals it to be false, but a figment or phantasm remains as a translucent outline.

So the halflings would continue to see the illusion, they just would know it was an illusion. They could think, "how helpful of that enemy to show us where the pit traps are," or could cautiously fear that the pit traps are, in fact, beneath the illusions of solid terrain, while the illusionary pit traps cover safe ground.

Charender wrote:
nosig wrote:

wow... (now to add a tangent line to start additional conflict) what about Minor Image over the area of the Darkness spell - cast by someone with Darkvision so that he can give his companions the exact layout of the area complete with the monsters in it.... "Just shoot where you think you see them!" "Wait! I'll Magic Missile the one in the back!"

can you target a Magic Missile at the Minor Image of a monster that is laid over the actual monster that is concealed by a Darkness spell....

I would say that the functionality of illusions in the area of darkness is a huge grey area. Just the fact that you are seeing an illusion of something in the dark might gives someone cause to disbelieve the illusion.

It is definately not black and white....

Of course not. If it were black and white, that would mean you have darkvision, and the whole point is moot.

Nightskies wrote:
They'll have to make their saves again next round, too. Since the poison has a frequency of 1/round for 2 rounds, that is. The duration of poisons stack, so if they fail both their saves next round, its 2d3 hours. Getting another dose of the poison and failing those saves also stack, should these archers really want them unconscious for a while.

Not quite.

He already said they failed both saves. On the first failed save, you take 1 Con damage. On the second failed save, you fall unconscious for d3 hours. There are no more saves. That's it.

And the rules for adding doses aren't quite just "it stacks." Rather, when you receive multiple doses, the DC to resist the poison increases by 2, and the duration of the poison (not it's effects) increases by 50%. So 2 doses of blue whinnis would turn it from a DC 14 to a DC 16 save, and increase the frequency to 1/rd for 3 rounds.

On the third round, there would be another save at DC 16 against the secondary effect of unconscious for 1d3 rounds. However, since effects do not stack with the same effect from the same source unless specifically stated, this would not increase the duration of the unconscious effect. Rather, you would roll 2d3 and take the highest to see how long you would be unconscious for.

nosig wrote:

wow... (now to add a tangent line to start additional conflict) what about Minor Image over the area of the Darkness spell - cast by someone with Darkvision so that he can give his companions the exact layout of the area complete with the monsters in it.... "Just shoot where you think you see them!" "Wait! I'll Magic Missile the one in the back!"

can you target a Magic Missile at the Minor Image of a monster that is laid over the actual monster that is concealed by a Darkness spell....

I suppose it depends on how loosely you define the "object, creature, or force" which minor image allows you to create. Also note that the spell allows the creation of only one such image.

I suppose you could create an image of a specific enemy in a specific spot to be targeted, but I doubt that your control over the image would allow you to so perfectly mirror the enemy's movement there to get past the total concealment issue. RAW certainly not. If one of my players did this, I would probably let them treat it as 20% concealment, rather than 50%.

And magic missile would be a non-starter. The missiles would, by definition, go for the parts of the image where there is no actual monster there to interfere with their ability to hit their target without fail. Because if they hit the monster, then they have NOT hit the image, which they can't do.

EDIT: Also, magic missile has to target a creature, which an illusion is not.

wraithstrike wrote:
I think we should just hit the FAQ button in the opening post. :)


We must continue to fight over unprovable arguments with vehemence of a dire badger defending her nest. It is the internet forum way.

Stynkk wrote:
Bascaria wrote:

So again, the light levels do not matter at all. All that matters is that the target have the mental capacity to see in general, not the situational capacity to see something in front of them at that exact moment, because there is nothing there to see, or to be hidden by darkness.

In your reading then a creature that has been Blinded can be affected by Color Spray? (Because it has the capacity to understand sight?)

This sounds like adding a layer of complexity that way beyond the scope of what we are discussing.

If you can't see an illusion: color spray, mirror image, then you can't be affected by it. It would have no impact on you.

Look at color spray and you'll see that it is an actual cone of colors.

Thus the description:
A vivid cone of clashing colors springs forth from your hand, causing creatures to become stunned, perhaps also blinded, and possibly knocking them unconscious. Each creature within the cone is affected according to its HD.

Or, since we know that an illusion (pattern) spell creates a false sensation already, it could be saving words and actually be intended to be read more as "A vivid cone of clashing colors appears to spring forth from your hand, etc."

EDIT: Compare this to, for example, Suggestion. If you read the Suggestion description, you will notice that it never at any point ever says that the target of the spell actually has to do what is suggested on a failed save. That seems like a critical piece of information! It is, instead, carried in the spell descriptor (compulsion) tag.

And honestly, I don't know how it would interact with someone being Blinded per the spell. If they have been blinded by losing their eyes, I think it would still work (just as they would still be vulnerable to, for example, phantasmal killer, as they would still see that phantasm despite not having functioning eyes. But blinded by the spell? That I can't give an answer to, and I'll admit it is a weakness to my reading, but I don't think it changes the facts of what the spell descriptors mean.

Remember that color spray is a mind-affecting, illusion (pattern) spell.

Let's look at what that means.

Mind-Affecting wrote:
Mindless creatures (those with an Intelligence score of “—”) and undead are immune to mind-affecting effects.
Illusion wrote:
Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others. They cause people to see things that are not there, not see things that are there, hear phantom noises, or remember things that never happened.
Pattern wrote:
Pattern: Like a figment, a pattern spell creates an image that others can see, but a pattern also affects the minds of those who see it or are caught in it. All patterns are mind-affecting spells.
Figment (since it is referenced in Pattern) wrote:

Figment: a figment spell creates a false sensation. Those who perceive the figment perceive the same thing, not their own slightly different versions of the figment. It is not a personalized mental impression. Figments cannot make something seem to be something else. A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the figment produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like (or copy another sense exactly unless you have experienced it).

Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements. Consequently, these spells are useful for confounding foes, but useless for attacking them directly.

A figment's AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier.

I put all the text there so that I could not be accused of taking anything out of context, but I want to highlight two lines. The first is from Illusion, and it says "They cause people to see things that are not there." The second is from figment, which says "a figment spell creates a false sensation."

Remember, that patterns function as figments, which means that it creates a false sensation. So when it says that a pattern is "an image" it might better be put as, a pattern spell creates the false sensation of an image which is not really there.

In other words, the image itself does not exist, and so is completely unaffected by the prevalent light levels. The spell doesn't make a pattern in real life which is then seen, affecting the minds of those who are targeted by it. The spell affects the minds of those who are targeted and causes them to see a pattern which doesn't exist, distracting them in some way via the visual center of the brain.

So again, the light levels do not matter at all. All that matters is that the target have the mental capacity to see in general, not the situational capacity to see something in front of them at that exact moment, because there is nothing there to see, or to be hidden by darkness.

Jiggy wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
However, if the bonus is all the time, this feat is simply better than all of the other feats that grant skill bonuses - since they only give +2 to 2 skills, not three. I know when I read this, I had assumed that it meant when on a water vessel or natural body of water.
Of course it's more powerful. You can't take it until level 5.

And it has 5 ranks in a non-too-useful skill as a prereq, and the skill bonuses don't double upon getting 10 ranks, like all other feat skills do.

EDIT: skill feats, not feat skills.

Vuvu wrote:
concerro wrote:

Concealment does not protect you from AoE's or cone(also a form of an AoE) spells. If you are in the area you have to make the reflex save.

The 50% miss chance only applies to attack rolls.

For spells that force you to choose a target you simply can't select a target with full concealment.

Targeted spells are spells like magic missile, and charm person which have the word target at the top and tell you to select one creature or person as an example.

so i am confused by feats and spells here. so could a baddy with improved blind fight target something in deeper darkness (from dim light) with a cone or line? Does it need to make a perception to find them?

Rules text below put in spoiler tags to avoid wall of text.

Blind Fight and the subsequent feats in that chain only affect melee attacks, so they will not help your baddy make AoE spell attacks at all. The only spells they will help with are melee touch attack spells.

For spells, there are two types that it seems like you are interested in. One is targeted spells, such as Magic Missile, the other is untargeted spells, such as Cone of Cold. The way you can tell the difference is if they have a "TARGET" entry in the Effect section of the spell description.

So Magic Missile says:

Magic Missile:
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets up to five creatures, no two of which can be more than 15 ft. apart
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes

While Cone of Cold says:

Cone of Cold:
Range 60 ft.
Area cone-shaped burst
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes

Note the lack of a target entry in Cone of Cold. It is an untargeted spell.

What this means for casting in areas of magical darkness or where you otherwise have limited perception relates to this paragraph from the "Aiming a Spell" section of the Magic chapter:

Aiming a Spell:
Target or Targets

Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

So, if a spell is targeted, as Magic Missile, then you must be able to see or touch the target. In total darkness, if the target is right next to you, then, you can cast a targeted spell and then attempt a touch attack against the target (if it is a touch range spell, then you can make that attack for free as part of casting), but it will be subject to the 50% miss chance granted by total concealment. Also, since that touch attack would be a melee attack, it would benefit from the blind-fight feat chain.

If the target you want to hit is not adjacent, then you can't target them because you can neither see nor touch them.

If the spell is untargeted, then you CAN affect the area where you believe the person you want to affect is. Here's that paragraph:

Aiming a Spell:

Some spells affect an area. Sometimes a spell description specifies a specially defined area, but usually an area falls into one of the categories defined below.

Regardless of the shape of the area, you select the point where the spell originates, but otherwise you don't control which creatures or objects the spell affects. The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. When determining whether a given creature is within the area of a spell, count out the distance from the point of origin in squares just as you do when moving a character or when determining the range for a ranged attack.

So for cone of cold, your starting point is defined as one of the corners of your square, and it goes out in a semicircle from there to a range of sixty feet. If you think that the enemies are all thirty feet from you to the northeast, then you cast the spell and direct it to the north east.

You plot out the cone on the mat to see what squares it affects. Any creature in those squares is affected, regardless of your ability to see them. They receive no miss chance, because a miss chance only applies against a targeted attack, which this is not.

If you do not know where the enemy is and cannot see them, then you can attempt to pin point them with perception using a move action. If you succeed, then you know where they are, but you still cannot see them, so targeted spells are still a no-go. But, it makes your untargeted AoE spells, like Cone of Cold, much easier to aim because you know it's a sure thing to get them in it.

EDIT: fixed a typo and a erroneous use of the word target for touch.

EDIT 2: The point about making a touch attack to target a non-touch range spell is my interpretation of how it would work, but usually runs into action economy problems for non touch range-spells. It might be safer to say that if you want to target someone in total darkness with a targeted non-touch range spell, then you would have to be grappling them first.

Trooper TK422 wrote:
So then, if you wanted to have Abundant Ammunition on both your black powder and your bullets that would require two uses of the spell right? One for each container.

Since it targets "one container" then yeah, it looks like you would need two castings (barring the possibility of just tying your bullet pouch to your powder horn, claiming the efficient quiver as precedent).

It seems like a reasonable english language argument to say that only the shot and not the powder is ammunition, but the powder is defined in the rules as ammunition, and that leads to issues with an abundant ammo'd cartridge pouch.

If you pull a cartridge out, does the whole thing count as ammo, or just the shot that is in it. So if it is just the shot, does only that get conjured into the pouch? And if it is the whole cartridge, what is the difference between that powder and the powder on its own in the horn?

wolflord wrote:

Yes, no?

Bueller? Bueller?

Bomb's are "a small vial containing an ounce of liquid catalyst." That sounds like it is about the size and shape of a fist-sized rock to me.

From the Mastering Combat, Firearms section:

PRD wrote:
Ammunition: Firearm ammunition takes two forms: either black powder and shot (either bullets or pellets) or cartridges. Unlike other types of ammunition, firearm ammunition is destroyed when it is used, and has no chance of being retrieved on a miss. No part of a cartridge can be reused to create new cartridges. Firearm ammunition cannot be treated with poison, unless you are using a pitted bullet.

So I would say yes, you can cast abundant ammunition on a powder horn or a bullet pouch.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mortiana27 wrote:

Boots of Speed

Aura moderate transmutation; CL 10th
Slot feet; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

As a free action, the wearer can click her heels together, letting her act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 10 rounds each day. The haste effect's duration need not be consecutive rounds.

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, haste; Cost 6,000 gp

The reason the item says CL 10th is because it allows the wearer to use Haste up to 10 rounds per day. In order to achieve 10 rounds of haste requires a person to be a 10th Level Caster. It is totally plausible to craft these at a lower CL but then the duration per day would be lessened as well.

The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet.
Would that +5 allow you to then create a longer duration item?

To the first part, not really, no. Even when the effects of the item are clearly derived via spell effects dependent on CL, it doesn't matter. If someone made this at CL 5 or CL 20, it would still cost exactly the same and operate for 10 rounds per day. The ONLY effect that caster level has on a wondrous item is determining how strong of an aura it projects and how hard it is to dispell.

Now, if your GM is letting you make custom magic items, then you could make your own boots of haste which operate for a different amount of time per day. That, however, would be reflected not in the CL of the item, but rather in the cost of the item. The formula for these boots is

3 (spell level of haste ) X 10 (caster level of haste--not of item's maker) X 2000 (use activated spell effect) X 1/5 (1 use per day) = 12,000 GP.

If you wanted boots usable 20 rounds per day, then it would cost:

3 (spell level of haste) X 20 (caster level of haste--not of item's maker) X 2000 (use activated spell effect) X 1/5 (1 use per day) = 24,000 GP.

Note that you can make either pair of boots at whatever caster level you want. If, however, you don't have the CL to caste haste at the required level, then you increase the DC by +5 for failing to meet the "casting haste" requirement.


You could also get the 20 rds/day by going:

3 (spell level) X 10 (caster level) x 2000 (use activated) x 2/5 (2 uses per day) = 24,000 GP


3 (spell level) X 5 (caster level) X 2000 (use activated) X 4/5 (4 uses per day) = 24,000 GP

Note that they all wind up at the same cost. However, you could make the CL 5, 4/day boots at a lower caster level, thus possibly avoiding the +5 DC.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reebo Kesh wrote:

Hi guys, recently I heard (or misheard) on a popular Pathfinder podcast that the Caster Level listed for magic items can be ignored for the purpose of crafting Magic Items, is this correct?

For example Boots of Speed have a CL of 10th yet both requirments Craft Wondrous Item and haste. can be gained waaay before 10th level.

What gives?

The CL listed for magic items is for reference only if that item is bought from a store or randomly rolled. It is not a requirement for making the item. Most magic items do not have a caster level requirement. There are exceptions (such as magic arms and armor having a CL of 3 x enhancement bonus), but if it is an exception, then there will be a CL listed in the REQUIREMENTS line of the magic item. If there isn't one there, then there is no CL requirement (besides the implied on in the spells required for the item--i.e., if the item requires fireball, you have to be at least 5th level to cast fireball).

King of Vrock wrote:
Happler wrote:

I have always treated it as a percentage roll. For example. If the wizard has 5 images (for a total of 6 options), I would just roll a 1d6 and say that on a 1, it hits the wizards, 5-6 hits an image and destroys it.

If there are 5 total for example, you could still roll 1d6 and just reroll 6's.

Happler and I do this exactly the same way... Add whatever number of images + the actual caster and roll a die closest to that and if you roll 1 it hits the caster, anything else is an image.


I do the same thing, but have the player call out a number as the die in the air. If they get it right, then the wizard is hit. Gives them a bit more of a feeling of agency.

Vanulf Wulfson wrote:

If the roll is high enough to hit the caster assign the caster a number and roll a die based on the number of images plus the caster. EX: a Wizard has six images plus himself for a total of seven targets, assign the wizard #1 and roll a eight-sided die, ignoring eight. If the number rolled is a one it hits the caster, if not it hits one of the images.

Now my question is, what if the roll is high enough to hit an images AC but not the casters?

They all have the same AC. First you roll to see if it is a hit at all, using the wizard's AC. If it hits, then you roll to see if the target was a figment or the real wizard.

KrispyXIV wrote:
Bascaria wrote:

You could go for a cleric/druid/inquisitor multiclass build and take different domains with each of them.

Not saying it's a GOOD idea, but it would give you a lot of domains.

Inquisitor/Clerics still only get 2 Domains; they have to overlap.

You could get a third from Druid AFAIK, and possibly another through paladin with the right archetype.

Hmm... what happens if an inquisitor of Azmodeus is redeemed and becomes a born-again follower of Sarenrae and joins the clergy?

Quandary wrote:

Thanks, I was confused with all the talk of Monk Weapons, etc...

I agree that IUS wouldn´t get around the -4 penalty, to say so would require considering IUS to both simultaneously NOT be a weapon (to allow grabbing the weapon) and being a weapon (to avoid the penalty). Both of those aspects of unarmed Disarm are right next to each other, as mentioned, and since IUS is such an obvious, core part of the rules, if you weren´t meant to apply one of those aspects (while applying the other), I would imagine it would say so directly.

But here is the argument for why IUS would get around it.

You can grab the weapon if you disarm without using a weapon. IUS is not a weapon, thus if you use IUS to disarm, you can grab the weapon.

The -4 comes from attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed. It's a bit subtle, but there is a distinction. And IUS says:

Improved Unarmed Strike wrote:
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.

The clause after the hyphen, I think, is just a clarification of one implication of this, not the sole implication of being considered armed even while unarmed. IUS does not, however, make your fists into manufactured weapons (which I think we can safely read "without a weapon" in the disarm rules to mean "without a manufactured weapon").

So, with IUS, you are considered armed when using your fists, but your fists are not manufactured weapons, and thus you would be able to grab the disarmed weapon automatically, but you would also not be making the attempt unarmed, thus no -4 penalty.

You could go for a cleric/druid/inquisitor multiclass build and take different domains with each of them.

Not saying it's a GOOD idea, but it would give you a lot of domains.

Quandary wrote:

Kaisc006: You seem to be quoting me... but aren´t actually, that´s what Submit2me wrote.

Anyhow, besides the 2 points I made, I think that technically you can´t GRAB THE OPPONENTS WEAPONS as part of the Disarm... Not even Greater Disarm does that, and although I have a feeling there exists SOME Feat to let you do this, I don´t think you will be doing it at 2nd level... at least without a lenient GM. Per RAW, if the weapon drops in an adjacent square you can pick it up, but that would be a Move Action and not be something you can do mid-Full Attack/Flurry and continue attacking.

It comes down to this line:

Disarm wrote:
If you successfully disarm your opponent without using a weapon, you may automatically pick up the item dropped.

I'd say that "automatically" means "without spending an action" in this case. But you'd be eating the -4 from this:

Disarm wrote:
Attempting to disarm a foe while unarmed imposes a –4 penalty on the attack.

As a random side point, just to be clear, IUS does not get you around that -4 penalty, correct? Or does it? I can't decide. It says that you are considered armed even while unarmed... so you aren't unarmed and don't take the -4? Or you are still unarmed so you do?

EDIT: Ninja'd on point 1. I've managed to talk myself into both positions on point 2. Anyone who knows more than me want to help?

Fozbek wrote:
Bascaria wrote:
post claiming you should raise CR for creatures outside of their natural habitat

How on earth are you getting "creatures out of their natural habitat means higher CR!" out of that rules quote?

It specifically says that creatures are designed assuming they have favorable terrain, and that if the terrain is especially unfavorable to the PCs, you can give them extra XP. The Abyss is much, much more favorable to the Shadow Demon than the prime material plane is. Thus, no XP bonus is warranted.

Your logic would mean that encountering skrags in the middle of the desert would be +1 CR. After all, who expects the Skrag Inquisition in the middle of the desert, where their regeneration shuts off automatically and they have no way to turn it back on?

Encountering the Shadow Demon on the Prime Material does not place the party at an extreme disadvantage. It's pretty terrain-independent. It's certainly less dangerous there than on its home plane, where magic to bless weapons is hard to cast and all non-chaotic and/or non-evil entities get stacking -2 penalties to all mental ability score checks (such as, say, concentration checks to cast those bless weapon spells...).

Because the fact that the shadow demon is unexpected, in this particular instance, combined with the fact that the party has had no chance to resupply for a great amount of time and so would not have been able to get what, at that time, should be "standard" gear gives the shadow demon an advantage unaccounted for in the rules.

The shadow demon is outside it's favored terrain, AND that provides a novel benefit to the monster. Thus, higher CR.

omegaman03 wrote:

It appears from the text that you can send a fireball into an area that has "line of effect", if not line of sight as per p215.

For any spell that targets a creature or object, it says on p214 that you must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target.

So really, the mage barrier is a pane of glass. As long as you have at least a window separating you, a mage cannot cast a fireball on you, but could target you with a "targeted" spell, because he can see you. Hmmmmm

Interesting, this is making magic a bit more interesting based on how the spell reads. I never paid that much attention before. I like it.

hehehe, now to craft the ultimate encounter......

Fair warning, while a pane of glass will stop MOST instantaneous duration spells, it won't actually stop a fireball, because fireball has specific wording in it saying that if the AoE radius encounters a barrier, and the damage is enough to destroy that barrier, then the barrier is destroyed and the damage continues to anyone behind it.

Fireball wrote:
If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

The line about being about to define the area of effect without seeing it, I believe does not apply here. I would apply it in two situations. The first is teleport and similar spells, where you have to define the area where you are going.

The second would be casting in darkness, while blind, or while under some similar effect which denies sight while not breaking line of effect.

For example, let's say that a deeper darkness spell creates an area of supernatural darkness around you. You can't see anything, but you know that the caster who put up the spell is eighty feet to your right and thirty feet up. You could cast a fireball, defining that as the target, even though you cannot see that area. If there is a wall between you and there, however, then your fireball will explode when it hits that wall.

Psisquared wrote:

Its a pretty good spell. Cast Mnemonic enhancer in the evening, memorize +3 spell levels.

Sleep 8 hours, then prepare your spells as normal, including the 4th level slot expended >8 hours ago on mnemonic enhancer. You retain the extra 3 spell levels until that evening.

Do this for each of your 4th level slots and you can prepare a fair number of extra spells.

OK... so thread necromancy is fun.

Just to point out to anyone thinking about doing this multiple times, remember that mnemonic enhancer has a 10 minute casting time.

Quantum Steve wrote:
Bascaria wrote:
King of Vrock wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Whether or not a warning is given is not factored into CR so that can't really be counted on.

In the CR system no, but a GM prepping an adventure should be counted on to understand some warning should be given. There's no excuse for the GM not looking how a given encounter will interact with the specific group they have, it's one of their job requirements.

--Vrocky Road

The CR system assumes that you will only be encountering the monster in an area where it would naturally be and that the terrain will not favor either group disproportionately. If either of these isn't the case, then the GM is encouraged to adjust the CR accordingly. If you are in a shadow demon's natural habitat (THE ABYSS!!!!!) and aren't prepared for DR cold iron or good, then you are willfully unprepared. If you encounter a shadow demon outside of it's natural habitat, then either you should have gotten warning, or the CR should be increased accordingly.

EDIT: "Accordingly" means CR+1, which means that the shadow demon is now an APL+3 encounter for our 5th level friends. An APL+3 encounter is one where a full party wipe is a realistic possibility. In fact, 50% of APL+3 encounters should end in a party wipe.

So, any outsider encountered on the prime material plane is CR +1? You think they'd mention that in the stat block or something, seeing as the VAST majority of all encounters occur on the prime material plane.
CRB, Designing Encounters wrote:

Ad Hoc CR Adjustments: While you can adjust a specific monster's CR by advancing it, applying templates, or giving it class levels, you can also adjust an encounter's difficulty by applying ad hoc adjustments to the encounter or creature itself. Listed here are three additional ways you can alter an encounter's difficulty. ...

Unfavorable Terrain for the PCs: Monsters are designed with the assumption that they are encountered in their favored terrain—encountering a water-breathing aboleth in an underwater area does not increase the CR for that encounter, even though none of the PCs breathe water. If, on the other hand, the terrain impacts the encounter significantly (such as an encounter against a creature with blindsight in an area that suppresses all light), you can, at your option, increase the effective XP award as if the encounter's CR were one higher.

Meeting a shadow demon outside The Abyss, where you would expect to find one, and without any indication that there are Shadow Demons running around would be unfavorable terrain for the PCs. They are out of their natural environment, which gives them a previously unaccounted for advantage (being unexpected). If the party has reason to expect them, then this would not be the case.

It is in the realm of GM interpretation, but any outsider encountered in the material plane where:
(1) the party did not have cause to expect that outsider, and
(2) this places the party at a significant disadvantage, and
(3) the disadvantage could have been easily mitigated had the party been expecting that outsider,

yeah, that's CR+1.

joeyfixit wrote:

So how easy is it for an alchemist to end an effect on herself? I'm thinking of things along the line of gaseous form, which one might need for one or two rounds, after which it's a liability, and you want it over. However, elixirs/formulae are along the lines of potions, which don't seem like things you could end at will.

Can an alchemist end an effect at will? If so, is this addressed in the rules?

If the spell has the [D] tag on it's duration line, then the alchemist can dismiss it, just like any other caster can.

Mogart wrote:

The way I have always played it is that the magic handles the ordering of the summoned creature.

The reason is because the handle animal check is fine if you have a pet and have been teaching it tricks over weeks but it falls very short if you are trying to (As a free action) order 1 or more summoned monsters around.

If you have 3 creatures summoned does it require 3 separate checks?
How long does each of these checks take to perform?

What if you get lucky and roll a large number of summoned creatures like 5? How long do each of these free/swift/standard/move action Handle animal checks take to perform?

It takes weeks to teach an animal a trick like "attack", and even then it doesn't happen all the time unless you have 9-12 ranks in handle animal. Now let's look at the summoned creature, you have seen this creature for ~1 second, and in the remaining 5 seconds of that turn you are expected to successfully tell it to perform a trick that it hasn't been trained to do (Attack, Flank, Trip, Grapple). It just seems a little far fetched, even for a D&D/Pathfinder game.

If a wizard has to use a full round to summon the creature, and the next round he has to tell the creature to attack, if he fails he has effectively wasted 2 full rounds of combat and one round of that creatures brief life. He has also wasted a portion of his spell.

If you are a summoner this means that every skill point you have will be tossed either into linguistics so that your summoned creatures can understand you, or into handle animal so you you can hope to control any non-elemental you summon.

It has always made sense to me that the extra planar being that you have chosen to summon to you is loyal to and can understand you unless specified otherwise.

It is loyal, and will attack to the best of its ability unless you tell it otherwise. You need ranks in Handle Animal to train or raise animals, but not to handle or push them. That you can do just as a charisma check, and it is just a DC 10, which is eminently achievable, and even easier with a few ranks.

If you want to be summoning lots of stuff, though, a few ranks in linguistics to cover the elemental languages and handle animal to cover the animals would not be ill advised. Most alignment outsiders will speak common, so you are probably alright on that front.

And again, I think it is safe to assume that if you are summoning an animal for combat that you will get a combat trained animal.

You can only handle 1 animal at a time. If they are trained in the trick it is a move action to handle. If not, it is a standard and the DC goes up to 25.

King of Vrock wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Whether or not a warning is given is not factored into CR so that can't really be counted on.

In the CR system no, but a GM prepping an adventure should be counted on to understand some warning should be given. There's no excuse for the GM not looking how a given encounter will interact with the specific group they have, it's one of their job requirements.

--Vrocky Road

The CR system assumes that you will only be encountering the monster in an area where it would naturally be and that the terrain will not favor either group disproportionately. If either of these isn't the case, then the GM is encouraged to adjust the CR accordingly. If you are in a shadow demon's natural habitat (THE ABYSS!!!!!) and aren't prepared for DR cold iron or good, then you are willfully unprepared. If you encounter a shadow demon outside of it's natural habitat, then either you should have gotten warning, or the CR should be increased accordingly.

EDIT: "Accordingly" means CR+1, which means that the shadow demon is now an APL+3 encounter for our 5th level friends. An APL+3 encounter is one where a full party wipe is a realistic possibility. In fact, 50% of APL+3 encounters should end in a party wipe.

darth_borehd wrote:
Bascaria wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

If I summon Celestial Dogs and I speak Celectial, can I order them to do things other than attack? For example, attempt trips or disarms or attack the spellcasters instead of the warriors?


Summon Monster wrote:
If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.
So are they considered smart enough to understand me?

Oh, woops. Should have actually read the whole post. Sorry, no.

Being celestial does not give the dogs higher than animal intelligence or a known language. You would need to use handle animal to direct their actions. I think you can safely assume that the dogs you summoned are combat trained, so you would be using the DC 10 "handle" action to direct them. It's a move action to do. The DC goes up by 2 if they are injured. 2 intelligence is the higher end of the animal intelligence binary, so I don't think it is too much a stretch to say that you can direct them to disarm or trip rather than attack.

Now I'm really excited about the idea of a 2nd level cavalier who throughout the entire day just shouts out encouragement every 12 seconds telling his friends how awesome they are and how they can totally do this!

darth_borehd wrote:

If I summon Celestial Dogs and I speak Celectial, can I order them to do things other than attack? For example, attempt trips or disarms or attack the spellcasters instead of the warriors?


Summon Monster wrote:
If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.

I agree with Talynonyx. The standard action cost is the balancing point.

Also, based on the 4 orders I just randomly looked at, it looks like the 2nd level order ability is generally not a times/day ability, but rather is instead either an always on or a standard action at will.

wraithstrike wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Or you could simply use the holy water, or that wand of magic missiles. Or the fighter's cold iron weapon (and he should really have one by then). Now it being +1 could be a bit of an issue, but that's why he should have an oil, scroll or wand for the caster by now.

At 5th level you've got 10,500 gp worth of stuff. For a fighter I would be expecting a +1 main weapon, as well as a cold iron and silver weapon (possibly mithril if he's desperate for damage) ending with a ranged weapon that's +1 as well, a +1 armor, perhaps a +1 ring and some potions and oils. Excluding the potions and oils he's got 8.5k stuff there, leaving enough room for a wand of magic weapon and a nice stock pile of potions as well as mundane gear.

The shadow has 3 attacks that do 1d8 +1d6 cold -- not a lot of cold there and it is rather possible the cold damage won't be happening.

With the (now) +1 cold iron weapon the fighter can kill the shadow demon only losing out damage to the incorporeal part.

The solution cost under 100 gold pieces as an oil and under 800 gold pieces as a wand which he can continue getting use out of for a while.

And this is ignoring stuff like channeling against alignment, the paladin's now ghost touch weapon that he's smiting with, the bard's abilities that would add in, the magus's... etc.

All in all it's not an overwhelming challenge unless the party goes in willfully unprepared for adventuring.

The wand will struggle to bypass the SR. Cold Iron is a special material and not common at low levels.

The wand of magic weapon never touches the shadow's SR, and while MAGIC cold iron might be rare, common cold iron isn't (and that's where the wand comes in).

Cold Iron costs twice as much as normal, meaning you can get a back-up cold iron longsword for a mere 30gp. It only gets expensive when you start enchanting it. Alchemical Silver is slightly more expensive with a surcharge of 20/90/180 gp for a light/1-H/2-H weapon. So, for 135 gp the fighter can have a backup cold iron longsword and a backup alchemical silver longsword. Then the wand of magic weapon takes care of the +1. That is a total expenditure of 885 gp (750 of which does not count against WBL). Failure to take these basic steps by level 5 is making yourself intentionally unprepared.

The CR system does not assume absolute knowledge of what you will come up against, but it does assume basic preparations. It also assumes a relatively even playing field. In an uneven playing field, the GM should up the CR accordingly (and total ambush from an incorporeal CE outsider with strong DR and SR without any warning that such a thing might be around would be an uneven field).

There are some monsters where this causes issues, because their CR pegs them as being right on the line of gaining a seminal ability (flight, for example, or dimensional anchor) which is specifically tied to a level. I don't think this is one of those situations, though.

Grick wrote:

DR would be applied after the damage is halved.

Ahh! Thanks! I knew that quote was out there somewhere, but couldn't find it for the life of me.

SinTheMoon wrote:
Paizo said wrote:
A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.

Damage Reduction, just as making a Reflex save for example, is a way to avoid damage. It helps answer the question: do I take damage, and if so, how much?

Paizo said wrote:
Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source.

The incorporeal rules read as: when you take damage from a corporeal source, you only take half. You don't take half hypothetical damage; you take half damage when you are dealt any. It's like you had double HP against physical attacks.

DR makes you ignore damage, ergo not have it dealt. Since you don't get half damage you ignore, I would apply DR first to see what's the damage, then half the actual damage dealt.

But the argument can be made just as easily the other way, and that's where the confusion lies.

DR ignores damage, but that doesn't mean it isn't dealt. It just means it doesn't get taken out of your hit point total while incorporeal halves damage received (as in, half the damage is never received). So if the big guy swings his sword for 30 damage, that is first halved (because half of it never hits) to 15, and then reduced by 10 (because 10 points of damage received can be ignored) to 5.

To look at it another way, DR says that it takes a fixed amount of force to break through your tough hide or overcome your body's natural wound closingness or cause actual damage to your skeletal body or whatever. Incorporeal says that half the force of a blow is never transferred from the weapon to the target. Of the half which is transferred, it still has to get past that natural toughness or regen or boniness or whatever it is.

Bill Dunn wrote:

Tough question. I would definitely not compare the halving of the damage to making a successful save for half damage. I don't think they are comparable. The saves occupy a different, special place in a character's ability to survive, not merely a function of a body type.

I can see good arguments for applying DR first or halving the damage first. I think my rule of thumb would be to apply them in the order that doesn't suit the defender best, but the PCs in the story. I'm quite content to stack the odds in the favor of the players, particularly when the combination of the two defensive powers is substantial.

But remember that one of the goals of 3E, way back when, was the creation of a unified core mechanic. This meant, on the small scale, that everything is resolved by d20+mod vs. DC. It also means, though, that you don't need 2 rules when 1 will do. We can all agree in the case of save for half and energy resistance that you do the dividing first and then the subtracting. Why do we need the exception here?

And "favor the players" is a great starting point for an off-the-cuff response during gaming when a fast answer is better than a fully researched answer, and it might be a good spot for your group for house-rules as well, but it isn't supported by the rules themselves, and I know that for me, at least, I'd be pretty upset with my GM if I knew that he was applying different rules to me than he was to his baddies.

EDIT: fixed a REALLY stupid typo in the first paragraph to make my argument not inane.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aberrant Templar wrote:
Devastation Bob wrote:

"A cavalier's levels stack with any fighter levels he possesses for the purpose of meeting the level prerequisite for feats that specifically select a firearm, such as Weapon Specialization."

Does this mean the cavalier needs at least one lvl of Fighter to stack onto to qualify for weapons specialization? Or as long as it's firearm related, the cavalier lvls count as fighter lvls?

I think this is good candidate for FAQ. This exact topic has bounced around a couple other threads (including the samurai playtest) and I don't see that it has ever really been settled.

A number of people (myself included) agree with Name Violation's reading, which is that "levels stack with any fighter levels" means that your cavalier/samurai levels count as (and are added to) existing fighter levels when qualifying for feat prerequisites. So a 1st level fighter/3rd level samurai (1+3) and a 4th level samurai with no fighter levels (4+0) would both be able to take the Weapon Specialization feat for their katana.

However, as Cheapy pointed out, you could also easily read this as an ability that requires you to have fighter levels to use. Your cavalier/samurai levels don't count as fighter levels on their own, they only do that if you have at least one level of fighter to add on.

Personally, I agree with the first interpretation because I think it makes the most sense for 5 reasons:

** spoiler omitted **...

I think reason 1 is the most compelling. It has been repeatedly stated that Pathfinder wanted to end the ridiculous builds that plagued late-era 3.5 and end the practice of the 1/2 level dip. Of the dips, the 2-level fighter was one of the worst in it's ubiquity and the fact that nobody ever wanted to take Fighter 3.

The end of the multi-class builds is one of the reasons that prestige classes were phased out in favor of archetypes and was the impetus behind the favored class changes, the addition of capstones, and the removal of dead levels.

If this ability only works if the musketeer/samurai has levels in fighter, then it means the devs made a conscious choice to go completely against their previously stated design goals and not just encourage multi-classing, but practically DEMAND a 1-level fighter dip in order to use the class's abilities.

James Jacobs wrote:
Zark wrote:

Missed this last post. Posted before I read your post.

I do change my mind sometinmes you know :-)

Again, as the designer was you intent with infusion:
Alchemist drink CLW and can the cast it on friend?
AS I said again. This would indeed fix the problem
1) Move to friand. Move action.
2) Draw and cast the spell by drinking the elixer = standard action.

Another question.
Does casting the spell provoce AoO? If so, how to you avoid it? There is no word on cocentration checks.

I know this isn't probably done, but if you could give Sean or Jason a nod. Infusion OR Breath of Life is really unclear.

Intent was that when an alchemist uses an infusion, he can do one of 2 things:

1) Cast the spell as an infusion, then carry it around or give it to someone else to use.

2) Cast the spell as an infusion on a legal target as a standard action (effectively replacing the "drinks the infusion himself" part with "anoints or doses the target with the infusion").

Option 1 above provokes an AoO when you create the infusion, and again when you drink it.

Option 2 provokes an AoO from the alchemist when he imparts the effects of the infusion to the target.

And ANYONE can give Sean and Jason a nod. That's what the FAQ button is for. Don't be afraid of it; just because you don't receive immediate feedback that the question has immediately been brought to our attention and that we're dropping everything to address the issue immediately doesn't mean that we ignore it.

Thanks for all the answers!

*looks around sheepishly and hopes you don't notice I was the one who originally disagreed with you*

This makes sense, and clears up what was my original issue with the "using an infusion is a move+standard" response. There is one thing which I don't get, though, which is the distinction between an alchemist "pre-casting" it as an infusion, which would make it a move action to draw, and an alchemist doing it "on the spot."

Since it takes a minute of work to make an extract, we can assume that if the alchy is doing all of this within the 1-round timer on Breath of Life that he has already got the extract prepared. So what's the meaningful difference, then, between the two options? Is there ever a situation where the alchemist would have to spend the move action to pull out the infusion, or is it only that if the alchemist gives the infusion to somebody else, they have to spend a move action to get it out?

And FWIW, I -- and many others I am sure -- love seeing you on these boards, and wish that we (taking blame where it is due) hadn't done so much to scare you and the other devs off so much. In my games, and I think I speak for many on these boards on this point, I will just house-rule something like this to make the most sense. The problems arise, though, when we are playing in someone else's game. For me in particular, I am the most knowledgeable about the rules in my group, and when someone else GMs, they look to me for rules interpretations often, and they are less confident in their ability to house rule, since it takes a fair bit of system mastery in order to change the rules without worrying about it coming back to bite you a few sessions down the line.

That, for me at least, is why I tend to push back against your answers on here. Not because I disagree with you or think the answers are problematic, but because it helps me figure out how to respond to them when I bring your answers.

1 to 50 of 652 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>