Bugbear Cat's page

So I just noticed the errata show up on hero lab. Just got to say this NERF if mostly crap. the 1/6 thing was already fairly useless for rogues. Even still I'd say 3 extra talents (2 of them advanced) is far more powerful then a whole +3 to one single revelation at 18th level. WTF!!!

Not to mention that an absolute maximum +10 level count to one revelation at 20th level really did not make that much of a power difference.

My original point remains; if that is how they wanted the spell to work then they could have used different descriptive text. Something along the lines of; "You create a finished product of the same type of material used as a component..." or something similar.

On the other hand it is entirely possible that convert was used deliberately to avoid the possibility of using something like Blood Money or the Feat False Focus (up to 100gp) to avoid the material cost, while overlooking that the Components Mechanic didn't allow for the spell to actually work that way.

I personally agree that the spell can be easily abused and therefore is broken. Also, there are a lot of other things about the Fabricate spell that should be changed, including the spell level, but that wasn't my point.

@DualJay. You need to drop the argument till you read rise of the rune lords clrearly. If you had read it you wouldn't sound so ignorant. Also research is research regardless. And a spell like that would require at least a DC35 knowledge check to have even heard about let alone be able to recreate it as a level up spell.

@Ryxaut. I've noticed a lot of arguments stem from lack of understanding of the English language on these boards. Convert defined: causes a change in Form, Character or Function. Nothing about destroying and then recreating from nothing in there...

I thought I made it pretty clear already that it does state that in RotRls.
And the leveling spells are spells that are researched, DMs purview, no way in hell that's going to happen.

Again as of 4707AR it only exist in the one place as far as I can recall.. Though I am curious as to where else in RotRl it shows up kestral287?

@DualJay Um, your response hurts my brain so much I don't know how to reply without sounding like I'm being mean, but here goes:

I guess if your playing in the Golarian year 14707 AR (4707AR being the start of RotRl campaign), then yes that could be a common spell. However I'm pretty sure most campaigns follow the official timeline and calender a bit closer than that.

@DominusMegadues Thankfully researching spells is left to the DMs purview. Not many DMs are going to allow such a stupid broken spell.
In my games, I might allow a wizard who spent his whole career looking for to create a spell like this to succeed; but I wouldn't see a spell like this being any lower than 8th level, with lots of other changes to the spells personal cost besides

Did anyone mention that Fabricate as its written needs a FAQ check? Cause the Component (M) and the Description of the spell contradict each other.
Per the description The component should be (F). Does one supersede the other?
Also, if used with Blood Money I would have whatever is made with fabricate turn back into blood the next round, unless the spell is supposed to be (F) in which case they wouldn't work at all.

Finally, and I can't stress this enough, HOW ARE ALL THESE WIZARDS GETTING THEIR HANDS ON A SPELL SPECIFIC TO A CAMPAIGN AND THAT HASN'T BEEN AROUND FOR 10,000 YEARS?! Oh and only exists in Karzoug's personal spell book at that!

Sorry about the caps but damn it irritates me that so many people ignore the fluff requirements in a ROLE playing game, in favor of power-gaming. Often the fluff is there for the very reason of limiting things that will other wise be abused.

And damn if I didn't fall into the trap of saying fluff. Roleplaying elements aren't fluff in a Roleplaying game.

In second edition I had a wizard that I played for 2 and a half years in a round robin DM game. And by the time the campaign ended my list of prohibited spells was pretty extensive. Every GM has that option, even during play, if your player is exploiting a loophole and It's ruining the game for you (the GM) for one reason or another, then take them aside and explain why that can't be allowed any more..

Also unless your playing Rise of the Runelords, why would you allow blood money and how did the players get their hands on a spell that hasn't been around for 10k years?
Of course many casters just take the false focus feat instead, but that only helps up to 100gp.

The Acid lasts one round longer, the Conjuration spell is instant I should think...
But then the wording does say spell in the adventurers armory, odd. Wonder if that was a miss print or dropped word for space.

Still changing the spell duration from instant to 1 round WOULD make it eligible for extend spell but that would only make it last 2 rounds total.

Um how exactly would Extend spell work? Acid splash has a duration of instantaneous.

I'd think this wouldn't work on multiple levels. Seems rather straight forward to me:

First off Mystic Theurge Prerequisite;

Spells: Able to cast 2nd-level divine SPELLS and 2nd-level arcane SPELLS

Whether that's talking about spells known or spell slots is a whole different argument, but still, a SINGLE once per day spell like ability wouldn't seem to qualify.

Also for Evangelist;

At 2nd level, the evangelist must choose a CLASS she belonged to before adding the PRESTIGE CLASS to be her aligned CLASS.

Seems to delineate between the two pretty clearly, even in the core rule book the language is generally good about separating prestige classes and standard classes.

The clearest separation to me being:

Characters that take levels in prestige classes do not gain any favored class bonuses for those levels.

But hey, a DM can allow whatever they like in the game, for me if there was a interesting RP reason behind it, or if it had flowed naturally because of the way the game went, I would probably allow it since the penalty to spell progression seems rather steep.

Never mind found the answer I was looking for.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=414?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#20660

Your repeating nonsense. Spell description reads:

You can sense the presence of evil. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.

1st Round: Presence or absence of evil.

{Notice that up till this point no mention of auras}

2nd Round: Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present.

If you are of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura's power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura's source is at least twice your character level, you are stunned for 1 round and the spell ends.

3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.

It then goes on to define WHAT auras are....

Thus my question, though maybe I wasn't clear enough, Is there an official mention / errata / etc. of this working one way or the other anywhere?

Can anyone show me where it says that detect evil doesn't detect evil until 5 hit dice? It doesn't mention auras till round 2. I've always interpreted that to mean that you know there's evil somewhere in the cone but without an aura you can't pinpoint it.

Also why would a bard or alchemist need undetectable alignment at lower levels than 5th if they can't be detected by the detect alignment spells?

keep in mind that see alignment does detect at lower levels but didn't get released till ultimate combat.

Btw, someone mention stirges not being able to get past damage reduction...

The stirges shouldn't have been able to affect the dragon AT ALL. People always discount flavor text when trying to rule lawyer, but its usually there for a reason. Stirge Description- "They are fond of hiding near watering holes and waiting for travelers to drop their guard, then swooping out to attach and drink their fill by thrusting their long feeding tubes into UNPROTECTED VEINS."
At best I might rule that a dragon has a few veins that could be affected by a stirges tube giving the dragon a limited space to have to attack stirges.
In my game however, with a dragons natural armor protecting those veins i'd tell a player to try something else. I don't even have characters in full plate worry about stirges.
Even allowing the stirges to attack as is the dragon should have been able to use crush to roll over and kill them before they drained much, if any, blood.

So, where strategy tracks are concerned, I've been running the damage modifiers as applying to both the damage dealt and taken.

A reckless army might do more damage but should also take more, while a defensive army should effectively have DR vs attackers that don't take the time to wear down the defenses first, and so on...
Of course two armies going at it recklessly should slaughter each other in an orgy of blood and destruction, with the luckier or tougher army winning out.

Also, on the note of tougher armies, haven't seen any notes on hit points and victory, as a higher hit die means more health for equal CR armies... Though in my games the armies with less health usually had more special abilities, and my players were using SA and tactics to run roughshod over npc armies.

I've been searching for some clarification but no luck so far, also didn't see anyone making this point so I thought I'd throw into the mix and see if anyone has good responses.