Garuda-Blooded Aasimar

C4M3R0N's page

144 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Blinding spittle is worth it. I wish this was updated.

Not to resurrect a dead thread... But I've been looking into fleshcrafting, and horror adventures kinda brought it back. It's a little different and I don't see rules about making your own (probably for the best haha).

But they redid the blinding spittle too. So it's finally been updated. I can't find a link on the web, but it's in the horror adventures book under the fleshwarping stuff

I had no idea there were so many feats of the same name or idea... Haha

Nefreet wrote:
C4M3R0N wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
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.
That sentence didn't exist when this thread was created.

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?

Snakers wrote:
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).

Imbicatus wrote:
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?

Imbicatus wrote:
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...

Gisher wrote:
C4M3R0N wrote:
Gisher wrote:
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? ...
It isn't a quote; it just seemed obvious to me. It makes it's own ammunition so no loading necessary. If there is no loading required then I assume there is zero loading time.

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

True... True... Maybe that was the goal here, to make it quite a unique magic weapon/armor.

Gisher wrote:
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.

brief thoughts/rant:

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:

Reading this, I found myself wondering about the will save and create your own ammo.

a) Is the save only for shadow ammo? Or will my normal arrow fired from my Shadow bow do minimal damage?

b) When it says 'makes ammo'... Can I make raining arrows? Dye arrows? (evil grin) tangleshot arrows?

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.

Alan_of_Q wrote:

Authors are only human, could be they made a mistake? Personally I suspect they meant "Arrow Catching" instead of "Arrow Deflection" since this appears to be more in theme with the other on use ability.

That would make it a +2 equivalent cost shield with an extra ability placed at around 4k.

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.

Yeah that's true!
It probably should be errated though...

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...
Here's a link to the normal wrist launcher so you can see the details relevant to the heavy version (like reload time).
As is its a weapon you never have to draw and can fire once, then full-round reload, but Shadowshooting makes its reload time void. Therefore you have a full round worth of ranged attacks from a weapon you'll never have to draw...
I'm thinking grab this as a backup weapon and if you kill your target with melee and have attacks left then snipe another guy.
You might could even work something out about the sleight of hand check to hide you shooting it helping with the save against the damage if your GM is extra nice.

Unless of course the no need to reload part isn't exactly true...

Snowlilly wrote:

Ahhh... Now I see. I feel dumb for not being aware of that...

Snowlilly wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Well, yes, a GM can house rule a baking soda golem that functions identically to an iron golem into existence. A GM can also houserule an iron golem's DR 15/Adamantine into DR 15/Potato if they want.

But house rules are just that.

I really want to summon a vinegar elemental to attack that baking soda golem.

In the caldera of a dormant volcano.

You might have more luck summoning titanium or chlorine elementals.

Vinegar is not going to happen. Not an element.

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.
Please continue debating though haha. It makes me laugh

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.
I figured they would count as metal from the fluff as you guys have said. And I double checked the Dazzling Blade description and it never said anything specific to manufactured weapons so I figured natural could be valid targets, if they're metallic.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I want to check if this is a valid combo, it makes sense to me...
First an aasimar takes Angelic Flesh and Metallic Wings (and all other other necessary feats).
And a sorcerer casts Mass Dazzling Blade, are the wings valid targets for the spell?

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...
So please let me know if you would or would not allow this and why please.

So my initial questions still remain regarding the use of this spell from a scroll... Has anyone tried this? In PFS or otherwise?
Or does anyone have any opinions on how they'd play it or want to see if played out?

Snakers wrote:
Could you share the contract? I'm always interested in reading that kind of stuff.

I second this motion haha

Belafon wrote:
C4M3R0N wrote:
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...)

Two things you should know:

1) I am a PFS Venture-Lieutenant so I can tell you the official answer is "expect table variation." The slightly less official but based on years of playing and organizing answer is that you should avoid trying to use a scroll because it's going to vary from GM to GM though the majority will not allow it.
** spoiler omitted **

2) I played a cleric of Asmodeus all the way to 15th level in PFS (though I haven't played him in about 3 years). I did use both the lesser and standard versions of the spell (with spell slots). However before each session I had to have a conversation with the GM and show him or her the page from Mother of Flies. "Here's the spell. Notice the discrepancy on the bonuses. I think it works this way. Do you agree?" Most of the time they agreed though one decided it wouldn't apply to AC.

I had a lot of fun with it and printed a contract that I made any player who got the spell cast on them sign (for their character). It had all kinds of legalese and required them to pray to Asmodeus once a day and to cast any of the granted spells whenever I requested. I could dismiss it at will but they couldn't. (And of course it ended at the end of the scenario per PFS rules.) Grace was a particular favorite to be granted.

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.

Belafon wrote:

I notice you skipped

c) Asmodeus doesn't like it when people try to out rules-lawyer him.

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.
Belafon wrote:
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 consumed provided while making the scroll and the scroll user does not have to supply them.

But like my assessment of Asmodeus, I could be wrong and there be an FAQ on it.

Belafon wrote:

The two other reasons I would say you can't cast from a scroll are:

1) As you pointed out even if you can use the scroll there's no guidance on how it would work when it comes to choosing the spells to imbue. There's multiple interpretations that are not explicitly wrong but are mutually exclusive.

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.

Belafon wrote:

2) The simple reason I say you can't cast it from a scroll is that it violates the "something for free (or almost so)" rule. If I can go around giving every one of my Asmodeus-loving buddies the opportunity to cast a 5th and 2 4th level cleric spells until he or I dies for no spell slot cost and only 1900gp each, that's a lot. A staff containing nothing but greater spellcasting contract would be even worse. I mean sure it's 61,200 gp to make in the first place but at 17th level that's peanuts to give that ability to one person each day. "One flame strike and two divine powers every day for every 5 HD fighter in my army! Bwah haha!"

I suppose the fair way to implement it would be to have the creator of the scroll lose a spell slot. That seems reasonable but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone that high of a level willing to sell a scroll that would cost them a 9th level spell.

** spoiler omitted **...
So using it as a scroll doesn't have a clear "Rules as Written" answer. There's so many reasons it might not work that I would just say it doesn't. Another GM may allow it, but she needs to keep an eye on possible exploitation.

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


Belafon wrote:
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?

Belafon wrote:

1. One fifth and 2 fourth only (though nothing prevents you from also having a normal and lesser contract with the same creature)...

b) That could lead to a neverending loop where 2 clerics of Asmodeus give each other unlimited 4th and 5th level spells. Clearly not intended...
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.

Belafon wrote:

2. I don't believe you can cast this from a scroll. The reason is that the focus component is a signed contract between you and the recipient explaining the terms and conditions. When a scroll is created the maker provides the focus component. But the contract is between "you" and the recipient.

3. See 2
4. See 2

It's possible to do hoop-jumping to make arguments about various ways of providing the focus component in a scroll but it's something that just doesn't work and no GM should really allow.


a)"It just says 'a written contract' not that it has to be the one you sign!"

b)"I could sign the contract then give it to a priest of Asmodeus to create a scroll, then I could cast it and no one would lose the slot!"
a) Pretty clearly that's the focus as intended.
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 mine

since 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.

Belafon wrote:
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...

Snakers wrote:
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.

  • 1. Does the greater version of this spell allow for 1 5th level spell, 2 4th level spells, and everything allowed by the lower version?
    So basically a net of 1 5th, 2 4th, 1 3rd, 2 2nd, and 2 1st? I may have counted that wrong...
    Or does it allow only 1 5th and 2 4th?
    Or does it allow anything up to 1 5th and 2 4th? So I could give 3 4th level, or 1 5th, 1 4th and 1 3rd?
  • 2. What happens if this is cast from a scoll? Does it not consume the casters spell slot but still allow all the benefits?
  • 3. What happens if another class UMD's this from a scroll, say a wizard for example?
    Can they grant wizard spells?
    Or can they perform more UMD checks to emulate possible cleric spells for the recipient to get?
  • 4. What happens if a non-spell caster casts this? Like a rogue. Can they perform successive UMD's as referenced above? Or does nothing happen?

I was hoping for something to regain the bloodline power uses like a sorcerer can with the feat...

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.
  • 1. Is this a single use item? I am under the impression it is, it seems to be priced so. (7*5*50=1400) But it isn't really spelled out one way or the other. Being able to reuse it would make it dirt cheap and very useful...
  • 2. Can you cast a personal range spell into it? You can imbue person range spells with Imbue with Spell Ability, so does that extend to this item? To my understanding you don't have to physically cast the spells into the recipient with imbue with spell ability, but you do have to with nagaji scale polish, so I can see an argument as to why you can give personal range spells with the former but not the latter. Because it isn't required that they be cast on/into the recipient with the spell but they must be with the item.
    Imbue with Spell Ability:
    You transfer some of your currently prepared spells, and the ability to cast them, to another creature. Only a creature with an Intelligence score of at least 5 and a Wisdom score of at least 9 can receive this boon. Only cleric spells from the schools of abjuration, divination, and conjuration (healing) can be transferred. The number and level of spells that the subject can be granted depends on its Hit Dice; even multiple castings of imbue with spell ability can't exceed this limit.

    The transferred spell's variable characteristics (range, duration, area, and the like) function according to your level, not the level of the recipient.

    Once you cast imbue with spell ability, you cannot prepare a new 4th-level spell to replace it until the recipient uses the imbued spells or is slain, or until you dismiss the imbue with spell ability spell. In the meantime, you remain responsible to your deity or your principles for the use to which the spell is put. If the number of 4th-level spells you can cast decreases, and that number drops below your current number of active imbue with spell ability spells, the more recently cast imbued spells are dispelled.

    To cast a spell with a verbal component, the subject must be able to speak. To cast a spell with a somatic component, it must be able to move freely. To cast a spell with a material component or focus, it must have the materials or focus.

  • 3. Are the same limitations present regarding only being able to imbue abjuration, divination, or conjuration(healing)? Or can you imbue any spell? I'm unsure here cause the wording regarding the cleric spell limitation isn't a limitation for this item.
  • Edit: 4. Are the spells that I cast into this unavailable to me until they are cast by the user of the scale polish? For example, if I cast resist energy into it, would I have one less level 2 slot available to me until they used it? Or would I get that spell slot back the next day when I regain spells?

Cult of Vorg wrote:

I allowed a reversed share spells in a game I ran once, but it was a deliberate boost to the weakest character in the party.

His xbow rogue(scout) 10 / diviner1 mostly used my extra liberal interpretation to have his UMD mephit activate scrolls of Arrow Eruption or True Strike for him on the same turn as his shot.
I can see how on a stronger build it could be abused heartily, but it was a fun way to get this player around his lack of contribution frustration.

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

The title says it all.
Is there something for Bloodragers that has the same, or similar, effect as Sorcerous Bloodstrike?

Yeah. Which makes sense.
I'll probably see how the GM feels about sharing them backwards though. But I'll make it 100% clear to him that the rules as written do Not allow for it. Just to see his personal opinions on it.
Even as written, casting the spell on a familiar is a nice improvement to action economy despite the level 2 limit

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 figured why not make use of what we have though... At this point, level 14, nobody has used all their spells per day in a while... so why not expend a few lower leveled ones for some small buffs.

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.
Resist energy and such would still work fine though so I still like the way it'd work out. It just could be better...

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.
Can your familiar then cast those personal range spells as touch spells in regards to casting them on the master? Basically using share spells in "reverse"? Share spells is in the spoiler below for convenience.

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:
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).

SlimGauge wrote:
C4M3R0N wrote:
Does the same "must make attack roll" apply to the allying special ability?

The "defending" special ability requires an attack be made because it is use-activated

rules wrote:
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.

The "free action" refers to the act of choosing how to allocate, not the act of using the weapon.

So your question becomes Is the "allying" special ability use-activated ?

I would think so, yes.

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:

The weapon would activate when making an attack of opportunity.

This is another case of "and" being mistaken for "or".
You are wielding a weapon when in combat.
You need to be holding the weapon to wield it.
You are holding the weapon while you are wielding it.
You can attack the incoming arrows.
You can charge in and attack where you suspect an invisible enemy might be.

...*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...

Atarlost wrote:

The problem with defending is that it really is worthless.

You pay the scaling cost of a +1 enhancement to get the ability to trade your 2000*bonus^2 weapon enhancement for a 1000*bonus^2 armor enhancement. This is never worth doing unless you weren't attacking anyways.

It was a stupid FAQ that confused the meaning of wielding to defeat an "abuse" that was the only actual purpose a still not very good enhancement had.

That's how I saw it as well.

Dave Justus wrote:
C4M3R0N wrote:

If you look at it, it is saying that you're only wielding the weapon if you make an attack roll with it.

That isn't exactly what they are saying.

You can be wielding the weapon just fine, but unless you use a weapon you can't activate its magical properties. For some things this doesn't matter because they are always on (basic enhancement bonues) or have enough or unlimited duration (like the flaming property.) When the ability has a one round duration though, you can't have it be active unless you use it.

There is of course weirdness in that you have to activate it at the start of your turn, before you can actually possibly have 'used' it, but treating it as a declaration to activate that will only come into effect when actually used makes it work out, and is really the same thing.

I didn't think about it like that. That actually makes a lot more sense.

James Jacobs wrote:
C4M3R0N wrote:

I'm sure that has been brought up many times before but it Blows my mind still. What is the point of the defending weapon enchantment with this FAQ?

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?

Although I normally avoid weighing in on these types of threads... I think this is a great example of where common sense could help resolve a problem. Personally, I see no problem with someone deciding to take a standard action to "attack" a nearby square in order to activate a weapon's defending ability. After all... you can already do this when you're attempting to attack something you suspect is invisible in any adjacent square. This would allow the character facing a row of distant archers to activate his weapon's defending property by, essentially, spending a standard action to make a fake attack against a non-existant adjacent enemy. He'd still have a move action to try to get closer to the archers to attack for real or to otherwise escape their line of fire, and it certainly fits with the thematics of the weapon itself and doesn't "break the game."

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.

TOZ wrote:
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.

Claxon wrote:

Tilting at windmills again TOZ?

In the end, the whole idea was for there to be an opportunity cost to using the property, not just holding a +5 defending weapon to get 5 to AC.

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 you actually think about what that FAQ says then it's kind of trying to make a distinction between wielding and holding something. And it doesn't make sense the way the FAQ has put it.
If you look at it, it is saying that you're only wielding the weapon if you make an attack roll with it. But this doesn't make much sense.
Lets look at it. Youre in combat and you and your opponents started a little ways apart. So turn 1 was spent buffing/closing the gap/ranged attacks. Its turn 2 and the fighter with his longsword drawn is positioned in front of the wizard. Well your opponents identify the wizard and decide he's the more important person to kill first. So they move past the fighter, who hasn't attacked, to get to the wizard. But you see, the fighter hasn't attacked, so if we're going by that FAQ then he's technically not wielding his longsword despite having it in his hand with the intention of attacking. And if he's not wielding his longsword then he can't make an attack of opportunity with it (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression you can't make AoO's with something you're just holding and not wielding). Which means he would have to attack first with the longsword just to be able to make an AoO. Since he hasn't attacked with it, he's not wielding it, so no AoO.

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 feel that the defending property should have just been errated to add a line about only working when you make an attack roll, not the FAQ'ratta that they did instead.

Azten wrote:
FAQs only apply to what they are talking about. Nothing else.

That's what I thought, but I've seen multiple posts refer to it and say they both have the same language and therefore both should follow that FAQ. They do both follow the intent idea of losing the attack bonus to gain one.

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:

It is reasonable to house-rule that you can spend a standard action to activate the property without actually making an attack.

The reason for the FAQ is to stop exploits like just holding a defending dagger to get an AC bonus while casting spells or something. If you use at least a standard action to activate without an attack, it still prevents that sort of thing, but does allow a bit more versatility in the use of the weapon property.

I can certainly agree with this. It does seem to go against the whole "free action" statement in the ability description though.

I'm sure that has been brought up many times before but it Blows my mind still. What is the point of the defending weapon enchantment with this FAQ?

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.

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

The Shield of Covered Retreat seems to be incorrectly priced...

If you break it down
8157gp original price.
-157gp; for masterwork(150gp) heavy wooden shield(7gp)
-(3^2)1000= -9000gp; 1 for +1, 2 for arrow deflecting.
You're at -1000gp... So it's 1000gp less expensive than a +1 arrow deflecting sheavy wooden shield. And it comes with other(more) benefits too. How is this??

Imbicatus wrote:
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.

This makes more sense.
The way Fuzzy-Wuzzy put the barbarian's example makes a lot more sense as to why it would like that.
Thanks for clearing that up guys!
So assuming you keep your cloak up to date, most other resistance bonuses aren't very helpful

Nefreet wrote: 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?
Assuming the barbian example is correct, I've seen it referenced many times so I hope it is... Does this not apply to the resistance bonuses too since they're bonuses to "different things" that both affect the roll kind of, like the barbarian's?

Edit: fixed typo

Yeah... I'm guessing there will be no weigh in from any team members, but it'd be nice to know their intent for this. Like how long the strength buff should last for...

I just checked the additional resources for PFS and conveniently Bloodpyre is NOT listed as allowed. So this luckily won't be coming up in PFS! Cause that sounds like it'd suck to have to play by the rules.
Cause by RAW, this can be used as a permanent +6 to strength. Correct?

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>