I had no idea there were so many feats of the same name or idea... Haha
That makes a lot more sense then. I wonder why it was changed...
Java Man wrote:
There are two, separately named versions of this feat in two different books. One, Firebrand from Faiths of Corruption is Asmodeus only. Torchbearer in ISG is not restricted.
Ahh I see. You guys calling it torchbearer keeps throwing me off too. Cause that's a different feat than torch handling (torch handling is the one that adds torches as a simple weapon and all the other jazz, torchbearer gives a companion that has torch handling).Firebrand seems like a bad deal though... Torch handling gives you the same thing and more. Or am I reading it wrong?
because that feat is an Asmodeus-only feat - the PFSRD files off god requirements due to OGL requirements
I'm not seeing this? I even flipped to the page in the book to make sure, I don't see it listed as requiring you worship Asmodeus (which wouldn't make sense anyway, he doesn't strike me as the god of torches... Much less the only one you could worship to be better with them).
A torch is an improvised weapon, so it would require GM approval. You normally can't take weapon focus in improvised weapons. That said, if you are a warpriest of Asmodeus and you have the torch-bearer feat, I would allow it. If it is allowed, the sacred weapon damage would be applied to the mace damage, and you would do one point of fire damage as normal.
I'm assuming you mean the torch handling feat, cause torch bearer gives you a companion that holds your torch basically haha. I understand the logic of saying you need the feat though, it makes it a simple weapon which gets past the whole improvised debate. But why do you say if you're a warpriest of Asmodeus? Why would it be exclusive?
Fire damage is energy damage, so sacred weapon wouldn't affect it.
That's what I thought. So I guess that everybody in this thread previously missed that sentence. Which is understandable, I did at first too. That sentence is a little disappointing though.Similar question though, would you be able to apply sacred weapon damage to a torch? (Ignoring the debate about improvised weapons and all that comes with it and assuming that it is valid to select weapon focus with a torch).
I'm assuming it would affect the bludgeoning damage of the torch and you'd still get to add the fire as normal
I apologize for the necroing... But I was looking into a battle poi warpriest and stumbled across this post... I too wondered if the poi could be a sacred weapon and how it would work. But then I stumbled on this sentence of Sacred Weapon...
Sacred Weapon wrote:
This increase in damage does not affect any other aspect of the weapon, and doesn't apply to alchemical items, bombs, or other weapons that only deal energy damage.
So that would mean a warpriest using a battle poi would do nothing, right? Or is the fire from the battle poi not energy damage?
This also would apply to the ray mentioned by gnoams also, it wouldnt change the damage of it...
Well I do hope you're correct then. That's the way I thought it worked but I don't want a stickler/rules lawyer GM to try and say otherwise and ruin a character concept/investment
When in the form of a projectile weapon it can be used with real ammunition or it can generate its own, quasi-real, ammunition. When making shadow ammunition it eliminates your reloading time.
Not that I disagree with you here, but where did you find this bolded part?I very much want this to be true, and I know it's in the shadowshooting special ability that it eliminates reload time, but I didn't explicitly see it in shadowcraft weapon's. Although it does seem to be the intent that it function as shadowshooting...
I would much prefer shadowcraft to shadowshooting if this is the case. Because the 12.5k may be more up front than the +1 of shadowshooting, but it'd save a lot more gold in the long run, and leave more room for other enchantments and such. Plus, shadowcraft has a much better save (shadowcraft = 15 + twice the enchantment bonus vs shadowshooting = 15 + the enchantment bonus). With bonuses and penalties to shadowcraft based on ambient lighting and previous saves.
Shadowshooting double crossbow gets upgraded to shadowcraft double crossbow. Throw interfering on that... That'd be an awful lot of damage. May want the point blank master feat or something similar though just in case. 30 feet isn't a lot of breathing room.
But that brief rant aside, my real goal is a shadowcraft wrist launcher/heavy wrist launcher. Never reload, always have it "drawn", and always be able to finish a full attack if the melee target dies. Of course the first bolt in it would be a splitting bolt or something, but the rest would be shadow.
Matthew Morris wrote:
For A, I'm 99% sure the intent is real ammo functions the same as always. So no saves.For B, I also second the question regarding what types of ammo it can make...
Edit2: while I'm here and it's on my mind, is the price to make a masterwork weapon included?
shadowcraft weapon wrote:
A shadowcraft weapon can be enhanced like any other masterwork weapon...
This seems to imply it is masterwork, but it's never stated plainly that it is.
Hmmm... That's an interesting thought. Now I'd like to have an author comment on this to clarify if that was in fact the intent or if there legitimately is a pricing error.
I saw this too. I also was looking at the heavy wrist launchers from ultimate intrigue and realized that if they never have to be reloaded then these become way better...
Unless of course the no need to reload part isn't exactly true...
Fire is not an element if we're going with the periodic table of elements.Neither is water. H2O is water, that's no more an element than vinegar.
Electricity isn't in the table, nor air or earth really.
So definitely no chlorine elementals or titanium if there can't be a vinegar elemental.
But back to the topic at hand, it seems to be a consensus that the wings would be valid targets unless your GM is the biggest rule laywer and utilizes fallicies to make his claims.
So I thank you guys for the help here.
Hahaha well I definitely appreciate the opinions and comments. The spell was in fact Mass Dazzling Blade, sadly I was unable to link specifically to the mass version from d20pfsrd.
So I want to check if this is a valid combo, it makes sense to me...
I feel like logic and common sense say yes, they're metallic due to your metallic (like?) flesh. It's in the name of the feat for the wings even. But I want to make sure this is legit...
I greatly appreciate the PFS insight on these in play then. As I've never actually seen these in play.
Your comment about asking them ahead of time though, did they agree that the profane bonus applied to attack, AC, saves, and checks? Aside from the one who said no AC? You didn't make that 100% clear, but judging from your comment above about it applying at all 4 I'm assuming that's what you meant.
Yeah I skipped that bit cause I don't know Asmodeus well enough. All I know is what the spell says about him and the little bits I skimmed from inner sea god's.He's seems to be an ends justify the means guy though so I could see him "letting someone pull one over on him" so he could collect their soul in the end. But I could easily be wrong.
I agree that using a scroll normally doesn't require a focus. That's in the scroll creation rules. I'm a bit iffy on shield other, actually. The rings are quite literally the link between the two. There's other spells like that too. Contingency specifically requires an ivory statuette of you worth 1500gp as a focus. Why would a scroll work for you if the maker used a statuette of herself? If you buy one made with a statuette of you as the focus, shouldn't that be calculated into the cost somewhere? I'd really like to see a FAQ on scrolls and focus components.
I don't foresee any FAQs on this since the focus components are
This is why I wondered if it'd take additional UMD checks. Or maybe you could just use additional scrolls of the intended spells? It doesn't consume the caster's lower level spell slots though, only the one actually used to cast spellcasting contract.
I can see how it could be abused though. If that was the case then I'd increase the cost of the scroll significantly in a home game. (There's not much you can do in PFS about the pricing or anything and these spells are PFS legal, so I'm doubly curious how they would play out there...)
I had just planned on using it on a familiar to get him a couple spells and to get me the profane bonus. Haha
it violates the "something for free (or almost so)" rule.
I'm not sure I've seen this rule written. I'm fairly new to Pathfinder, so is there somewhere I can find and read this rule? Or is it an "unspoken" rule?
I have to disagree with you here. There's this clause in the spell description that prevents that.
Spellcasting Contract wrote:
This spell cannot be combined with imbue with spell ability or similar spells to give a target more spells than the limit.
So I'm sure two clerics could cast it on each other and get an additional 5th level and 2 4th but they'd be out a 9th each and then that's all they could do.
I have to say that the focus and the contract points are a reach. Would you also say that you cannot cast shield other from a scroll because you would be lacking the focus component which is integral to the spell...
shield other wrote:
F (a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target)
emphasis minesince if you cast it from a scroll then there are no platinum rings on either the caster or the target?
I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that the caster makes a contract that the recipient signs when using the scroll. Or even that the scroll serves as the contract. Especially since it is a 0gp focus, not even a divine focus... (assumed to be in a spell component pouch) but the platinum rings are 50gp.
Spell Component Pouch:
Spell Component Pouch wrote:
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch.
Edit: I want to make it clear that using a scroll does not require the focus components or material components, those were consumed when the scroll was scribed, I'm just trying to make a point with my statement.
relevant scroll links for those unfamiliar with how scrolls work:
And question 5. Dunno. Doubtful that we'll get an errata considering that Mother of Flies was published so long ago. I kinda assume it was meant to be all four (attacks, AC, saves, and checks) but there was an error in editing.
I would be happy to see it apply to both AC and attack. I don't see it being too overpowered (it's a +5 from a level 9 spell that costs that spell slot for as long as you have the bonus). I'm sure there's much worse someone could think of to do with a level 9 spell...
My question is, why does it say you get a profane bonus to AC in the first time but in the exapmle says you get a bonus to attacks instead?
Haha ironic you say that cause that was gonna be my 5th question... But i figured i should get the first 4 cleared up before asking that. Since thats gonna require an errata or something probably.
So here's the link to the relevant spell(s) Spellcasting Contract.
So I have a few questions regarding the Nagaji Scale Polish.
Nagaji Scale Polish:
This small clay urn contains a scintillating paste which works like imbue with spell ability, except the spell effect is not limited to cleric spells. Any caster may cast spells into the jar. The creature that applies the paste to its scales (a standard action) gains the ability to cast the imbued spells (assuming it has enough Hit Dice and the requisite ability scores). Only a reptilian creature (such as a dragon or a humanoid with the reptilian subtype such as a nagaji) can use the polish to cast spells.
Cult of Vorg wrote:
I'm all for finding ways to make sure everyone has fun so I agree 100% with doing this. As long as everyone is OK with it being a one time thing haha
Yeah. Which makes sense.
I'm actually a Magus. So it'd require the cleric to cast it on my familiar. So it's not exactly as easy and as simple as that. But yeah I understand.
I wouldn't say interested in a specific spell. Just the whole subset of spells. It was a more of an I had the idea and realized that if it worked backwards then it'd open up a lot more options like true strike and shield to save the caster some actions.
So you have a familiar, whatever one you want that meets the requirements of the spell imbue with spell ability. And it has share spells. So you have a cleric cast imbue with spell ability on the familiar and he gives him whatever personal range spells you want that are 1st or 2nd level according to the spell.
I'm assuming the answer is no from the use of the phrase "wizard may cast a spell" in the share spells description. But I wanted to check.
Share Spells: The wizard may cast a spell with a target of “You” on his familiar (as a touch spell) instead of on himself. A wizard may cast spells on his familiar even if the spells do not normally affect creatures of the familiar's type (magical beast).
Thanks for the response. That makes sense.What if you can attack as a swift action for whatever reason? Like by expending ki or something. Would you be able to activate defending then? Since that is an attack roll still?
Goth Guru wrote:
...*scratches head* what??... I'm not seeing the point here? What are you trying to get across that is relevant to what's been said? I feel like I'm missing something...
That's how I saw it as well.
Dave Justus wrote:
I didn't think about it like that. That actually makes a lot more sense.
James Jacobs wrote:
I definitely appreciate the weigh in here so thank you. That was basically the conclusion I'd come to with the help of these guys here. So thanks to everyone.
Though I do still wonder if allying is in fact subject to that FAQ or not. Since I've seen people argue it both ways here alone.
You could attack the invisible windmill in front of you, I'm sure.
I'm definitely gonna be doing this if I ever make a defending weapon haha.
The opportunity cost makes sense. And I believe that's most people's argument as to why allying should be the same.
My point isn't that the defending property is useless. The title of the post is a question because I'm asking if it's useless.
If this is incorrect, which I fully feel that it is, then someone please show me how. But that is what I'm seeing the FAQ implying from its distinction between wielding and holding.
I see the intent, lose the bonus to gain the AC. It just doesn't make sense to me to be useless against archers. But if the GM would let you use a standard action to activate it then it'd be about the same as attacking the ground. The only difference is if you're attacking the ground then you could do it in a charge then.
Does the same "must make attack roll" apply to the allying special ability?
Dave Justus wrote:
I can certainly agree with this. It does seem to go against the whole "free action" statement in the ability description though.
For example, if you're a paladin with a +5 defending longsword and he's up against some archers up a cliff or on a balcony then there's no way you can get the benefit from your defending property. It requires an attack roll, despite saying it's a free action at the start of your turn. Unless you can convince your GM that rolling an attack against yourself, and hopefully missing, is legit to get the bonus to your AC. But I doubt that'd fly. Plus, that'd hinder your ability to get to the target. And that doesn't seem like the intent of this ability. It should help you, not hinder you, right?
On a very similar note, does the same FAQ apply to the allying property?
Do you have any reason for saying it's a +2? By that I mean is there anything you've found to support the logic that the additional effects are worth 4000gp?
I mean I assumed the same thing but I couldn't find anything supporting that the other effects are valued at 4000gp. Granted I couldn't find anything at all... So what I'm trying to say is, is there any support?
Cause if we're gonna rule it as being more expensive in our games then everyone is gonna want some backup to support it. And that's not cause we're trying to be cheesy and get discounted arrow deflecting++, but because we don't know that if we just adjusted the price to a +3 +4000gp then it shouldn't be more than that still.
The Shield of Covered Retreat seems to be incorrectly priced...
If you break it down
For what it's worth, nothing in the Gamemastery guide is a legal rules source for PFS.
I understand that. I was referring to the "by strict RAW" part and that's actually why I omit the PFS part of the quote. And responded with by RAW.I don't play PFS and therefore don't know enough to speak for it.
...by strict RAW ... there is no such thing.
Alec Colasante wrote:
Lesson...number...1, Darkwood bucklers...there's no such thing.
Not that I want to cast raise thread, but this is wrong. By RAW you can have a wooden buckler.
If you flip through the Gamemastery Guide, on page 116 (I could be wrong cause last time I checked I used a PDF and wasn't paying close attention and don't feel like double checking the page number now, so correct me if I am) there's a table for random loot, table 5-4, that references rolling random shields. On that table there's a special material column to indicate what special materials you can roll for if you get that. Buckler says "wood, steel" and then on the appropriate random material table, table 5-7, you see that darkwood is one of the materials listed.
So it's pretty clear that bucklers can be made out of wood and darkwood for that matter. Otherwise why would that be there?
Edit: typos and grammar
I tried searching for this but it turned up nothing. I'm sure it's been asked before and I just couldn't find it. But it's a simple question really.
Say you have a racial ability or item or class ability or anything that gives a +3 resistance bonus against poison and you have a cloak of resistance that gives +4 to all saves.
Would these bonuses stack for a +7 resistance bonus against poisons since the poison resistance is a specific subsection of other saves?
Another example could be the same cloak but a +2 resistance bonus to mind-affecting effects? Would that be a net of +6 against mind-affecting?
If a barbarian rages and has a +6 morale to strength and also get a +2 morale to attack rolls (from whatever source) then he would have a net of +5 morale to attack rolls right ((+6/2)+2=+5)? Even though they're the same bonus type, they still stack due to the specificity of them right?
Edit: fixed typo