Captain Zoom's page

I've been assuming you get get one more missile each time you heighten (+1 at level 3, +2 at level 5, etc.), BUT I just re-read the spell and now I'm wondering if I have been wrong about this (plus it wouldn't make sense given how the spell works).

The spell says:

Heightened (+2) You shoot one additional missile with each action you spend.

That sounds like you can fire up to 6 missiles when heightened to level 3 (2 per action spent), or up to 9 missiles when heightened to level 5 (3 per action spent). I.e. one additional missile per action (normally you get one per action spent casting).

So am I correct about getting 2 per action (1 + 1 additional) when heightened to level 3?

I just wanted to confirm with everyone that I'm not off-base here.

Thanks

A thought occurred to me and I thought I'd ask to make sure I'm not going to be doing something incorrect (I have an Animal Companion in a game and was thinking of doing this):

Do the increases to damage from Improved Natural Attack and Evolved Companion (taking the Improved Damage evolution) stack?

For example, Wolf Animal Companion has a bite attack.

Wolf takes the Improved Natural Attack feat for the bite.

Master takes the Evolved Companion feat and selects the Improved Damage 1-point evolution for his Wolf's bite attack.

Does the Wolf get the benefit of both feats? Or do they not stack?

Thanks

The Shaman archetype Spirit Warden has a supernatural ability called Restless Magic. It seems contradictory and I was wondering if others agree that there's a wording problem, or if someone thinks they have a resolution:

It says: "The spirit warden adds the following spells to the list of spells she can cast using spirit magic:".

Then it gives a list of spells.

Then it says: "This ability replaces the spirit magic spells gained from the shaman’s spirit."

So, are the spells on the list added to the spells you would get, or do the spells on the list replace the spells you would get? Is this a mistake/typo, a badly worded ability that slipped through editing, something else?

If it does replace the spells gained from the shaman's spirit, what does that mean? You get spells from your Spirit and your Wandering Spirit. Do you just lose the spells from your Spirit, but not those from your wandering spirit, or do you lose both sets of spells?

My personal guess is that it replaces the spells you would normally get from your Spirit, but not your Wandering Spirit, otherwise you would get something for nothing, which doesn't seem right. On the other hand, the text specifically says spirit, not "spirits", so I don't think you lose the spells from your wandering spirit. Also, losing both would be disproportionate, losing 2 spells for 1, which also doesn't seem right. Finally, this interpretation seems to fit the actual language the best insofar if correct, then the text is correct (thus, the editors did not miss anything).

But I thought it would be good to see what others think, or maybe the Devs or the guy who originally designed the Slayer might chime in (if we're lucky!).

You have a Large Ogre with the Undersized Mount feat riding a Large Wolf with the Narrow Frame feat. An opponent runs into a building using a standard 5' doorway and the Ogre pursues at the Wolf's full movement. The Wolf easily passes through the doorway without slowing as the Narrow Frame feat allows it to move in a 5' space without taking the half-movement restriction of squeezing. The Ogre does not have Narrow Frame or any other similar ability/feat to move at normal speed while squeezing, so would normally have to move at half speed while squeezing through the doorway, but the Ogre is not moving, the Wolf is.

What happens?

1. The Ogre's player argues that the Ogre is not "moving" so is not slowed while squeezing through the doorway - the Ogre and Wolf pass through the door.

2. The GM decides that the Ogre is moving even if the Wolf is using its action to move (as per the Mounted Combat rules), then describes a hilarious situation where the Ogre forcefully dismounts himself as his Wolf zooms through the doorway while the Ogre gets stuck (and everyone has a good laugh).

3. Something else?

Seems like a strange question as everyone I know has always assumed it does, but I happened to have reason to parse the language of Glitterdust and Faerie Fire, and now I'm not sure. So, let's see if anyone has any opinion, unofficial insights, or (heaven forbid a developer sees this and responds) official rulings:

Glitterdust (Conjuration/Creation): "A cloud of golden particles covers everyone and everything in the area, causing creatures to become blinded and visibly outlining invisible things for the duration of the spell. All within the area are covered by the dust, which cannot be removed and continues to sparkle until it fades. Each round at the end of their turn blinded creatures may attempt new saving throws to end the blindness effect.

Any creature covered by the dust takes a –40 penalty on Stealth checks."

Faerie Fire (Evocation/Light): "A pale glow surrounds and outlines the subjects. Outlined subjects shed light as candles. Creatures outlined by faerie fire take a –20 penalty on all Stealth checks. Outlined creatures do not benefit from the concealment normally provided by darkness (though a 2nd-level or higher magical darkness effect functions normally), blur, displacement, invisibility, or similar effects. ..."

Faerie Fire specifically calls out that it negates the benefit from concealment provided by invisibility, BUT Glitterdust does not.

I think both spells basically say the targets are outlined, so everyone just assumed that Glitterdust negated invisibility like Faerie Fire.

What does this mean? Does it mean that we've been wrong all along?

Maybe an invisible target hit by Glitterdust doesn't have its invisibility negated, and just gets -40 to its stealth rolls (which means they become pretty easy to pinpoint, but still are invisible)?

Secondary item to discuss: Also, note that Faerie Fire specifically states that the targeted creature(s) glow (and it is a LIGHT SPELL) while Glitterdust doesn't mention glowing or emanation of any light (and it is a CREATION SPELL). Does this mean that Glitterdust (in regards to perception) does not help someone who cannot see the target because of darkness? For example, a Dwarf Wizard (who has Darkvision) and a human (who does not have Darkvision) are fighting 3 orcs in total darkness (and no light source is available). The Wizard hits the orcs with Glitterdust (possibly blinding them). Can the human see the orcs?

Before you reply, please read the two spell descriptions and think about it. This question goes against how everyone I've ever met plays Glitterdust, so most knee-jerk responses (mine included) would be that it does negate invisibility (and I'm now wondering if I was wrong all along!).

I'm going to bed now, so feel free to discuss this matter.

I just noticed that the FAQ allows the Eagle Shaman (and ONLY the Eagle Shaman) to fill holes in the size of totem animals available when wildshaping by applying the Giant Template to Eagles. I believe that some of the other Animal Shamans have similar holes in their size line-up, but according to the FAQ, the other Animal Shamans cannot fill those holes by using the Giant Template.

Shouldn't the rule be more even-handed, such as if there is any animal matching the Animal Shaman's Totem animal type available in a size category, then the Animal Shaman is limited to that animal(s), but if a particular size category has no animal matching the Animal Shaman's Totem, then the Giant Template can be applied to an animal of the appropriate type from the next smaller category? Or something along these lines.

If the Devs are worried about abuse (where someone might get to choose which of several animals to apply the Giant Template to), they could simply identify which Animal Shamans have holes in their available animals and specify which animals get the Giant Template.

For example, the Boar Shaman has small (Pit Boar), medium (Boar) and large (Dire Boar) sizes, but is missing any huge boar.

Similarly, the Bear Shaman has medium (Black Bear) and large (Grizzly, Polar and Dire Bear) sizes, but is missing any small or huge bear.

I've seen GMs, as a houserule, allow the Giant Template to be added to an appropriate animal, but a RAW option would be nice (for PFS if nothing else).

So if you think all Animal Shamans should get the same treatment as Eagle Shamans, please hit the FAQ button!

Thanks

Background - Our play group alternates between two GMs running two APs. One of them is Kingmaker in which the group is 10th level, and consists of:

Samsaran Wizard (Admixture) - my character
Small Tiefling Paladin of Saranae mounted on a Boar
Human 2-Handed Ranger
Human Mad Dog with Badger Companion
Rogue Swashbuckler using a 2-handed Elven Curve Blade

As you can see we have 4 melee characters and 1 arcane spell caster. Samsaran wouldn't be my first choice for a Wizard, but I went Samsaran to get Cure Spells and was the party "healer" until I hit 7th level and took leadership to get an Oracle of Life Cohort.

So the playtest comes out and I ask the GM if I can re-build my character (the Wizard) as an Arcanist, and she says OK. In rebuilding the character, I keep the same stats and spell books, but changed my class and equipment (e.g. my pearls of power don't work with Arcanist). The character remains the same person, same name, same place within the campaign, just a new class. Also, the intent is the finish the AP with the Arcanist.

Note 1: The Paladin also elected to re-do his character, but unlike me, he chose to essentially retire his existing character and build a new one. So, for the playtest, we lost the Paladin and gained a Swashbuckler.

Note 2: I was playing the "Revised" Arcanist as posted to the web by Jason, not the version from the 2nd playtest document. So I didn't have access to all the exploits. Now that I've seen the 2nd playrest document, I'll probably re-select my exploits for the next time we play. It also appears that there were some small changes I'll have to incorporate.

SPOILER ALERT - I forgot to ask our GM what book we're in, but our group had just snuck into a castle in a fortified city looking to depose the Duke who ruled the city. I hope that didn't spoil anything for anyone, but if you're familiar with the AP that should let you know where we were in the AP.

Here's the basics of my character build (we use 25 point buy):

Samsaran
STR 10
DEX 12
CON 14
INT 25 (after +4 Headband)
WIS 10
CHA 16 (after +4 Headband)
Note: These are the same stats my Wizard had, except I swapped out my +6 INT headband for a +4 INT/CHA Headband when I rearranged my equipment.

Traits: Valashmai Veteran, Magical Lineage (Fireball)

72 hit points

AC 11 (15 with Mage Armor)

+10 Fortitude, +9 Reflex, +12 Will (+5 Cloak of Resistance)

Craft/Alchemy 20, Craft/Cooking 11, Diplomacy 13, Fly 14, K/Arcana 20, K/Nature 18, All other knowledges at 11, Linguistics 11, Perception 14, Profession/Ruler 13 (I'm the King), Spellcraft 20, Perform/Stringed 5

I chose the following Exploits:
Potent Magic
Spell Tinkerer
Metamixing
Force Strike
Metamagic Knowledge

Feats: Spell Focus (Evocation), Mage's Tattoo (Evocation), Craft Wondrous Item, Leadership, Spell Specialization (Fireball), Intensified Spell

Prepared Spells: 0-bunch of cantrips; 1-Burning Hands, Cure Light Wounds, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Shield; 2-Burning Arc, Create Pit, Knock, See Invisibility; 3-Dispel Magic, Intensified Fireball, Fly; 4-Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility; 5-Animal Growth

Magic Equipment includes: Headband of Mental Prowess +4 INT/CHA, Ring of Freedom of Movement, Ring Of Sustenance, Cloak of Resistance +5, Blazing Robe, Quick Runner's Shirt, Handy Haversack, Bunch of Scrolls & a couple potions, Metamagic Rod Lesser Rime, Metamagic Rod Selective, Metamagic Rod Extend, A couple of minor wands (Magic Missile, Burning Hands). I also carry around some group magic items like a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, some more scrolls and more potions.

We had several combats. Most were against non-spellcasters - basically soldiers and melee characters, some hill giants. One with a high level Wizard (I'm going to guess 11+ level as he cast several 6th level spells).

My Arcanist performed well. I let the 4 melee guys do most of the fighting (so they had fun), but when I saw an opportunity to hit a lot of opponents, I did toss in a 14d6 fireball or two (10th Level + Intensified + Specialization + Mage's Tattoo + Blazing Robe). As I did with my Wizard, I cast Mage Armor (Extended) at the beginning of the day. During the typical melee combat, I cast Greater Invisibility on myself and the Oracle, and See Invisibility on myself.

In the combat against the enemy Spell-Caster, I used Dispel Magic to good effect a couple of times. The enemy Wizard ended up teleporting away and that was the last we saw of him (at least that night, but who knows?).

Impressions:

I found the Arcanist to be fairly well-balanced. I know some predict the doom of the Wizard or Sorceror, but I think I can honestly say that I rate all three classes about the same. Wizards are my long-time favorite, and I still see myself running Wizards. I sometimes run Sorcerors because, after 30 years of playing, I sometimes get lazy and don't want to manage spells - the bloodlines are nice, but usually not the reason I go Sorceror. Arcanist blends the spellcasting of Wizard and Sorceror, but in a way that makes it different. Sorcerors still have the most spells per day and Wizards, in their way, still have the most flexibility in spell selection. Some might find that a bit odd for me to say, but what I experienced in switching the character from a 10th level Wizard to a 10th level Arcanist, is that my spell selection for the day was more restricted in terms of variety, but what spells I did prepare I could use alot. For example, here is my Wizard's typical prepped spells:

0-bunch of cantrips; 1-Burning Hands, Cure Light Wounds, Mage Armor, Magic Missile x2, Shield, Snowball (Note that I had 4 1st level Pearls of Power); 2-Burning Arc x2, Create Pit, Knock, Mirror Image, Resist Energy, See Invisibility (I also had 1 2nd level Pearl of Power); 3-Blacklight, Dispel Magic, Fly x2, Mass Feather Step, Pellet Blast (no Fireball prepared as my Wizard could spontaneously cast them using Spell Prodigy); 4-Ball Lightning x2, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility x2; 5-Animal Growth, Icy Prison, Overland Flight, Wall of Force

So I had more spells to select from as a Wizard, but I wouldn't be able to cast multiples of these spells. For example, when we faced the enemy spellcaster, I used two Dispel Magics, which I could not have done with my Wizard (who normally only memorized one). But as a Wizard, I'd have (at 5th level) 4 different spells available versus 1 spell as an Arcanist (but the Arcanist could cast that 1 spell 3 times). This can make for some hard choices. It also tends to make you focus on spells you know you will use versus spells that are good to have in case you need them (e.g. Fireball must have, but Mass Feather Step too situational to select as one of my 3 prepared spells. Now I am NOT saying this is bad, just that it's different.

As to the specific exploits...

Potent Magic is very nice. Combined with Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus, you can get a very high DC. I used this with my Fireballs.

Spell Tinkerer. I like the concept, BUT actually never got to use it during the session. I guess I could have used it to extend my Mage Armor from 20 hours to 30 hours, but I'd still have to cast Mage Armor once per day. As for tinkering with other people's spells, I tend not to like to get within melee touch range with my arcane casters, so that's kind of scary! I'll have to read the new rules as I think they changed this exploit a bit, but we'll see. Actually, Spell Tinker was taken as I couldn't find anything else I liked. With the new exploits, I'll probably swap it out for our next session, not because it's bad, but more because it doesn't fit my character and play-style too well.

Metamixing is good for my character as he uses metamagic feats.

Metamagic Knowledge is also good because I've built this character around Metamagic feats, and could use another.

Force Strike and the other "Attack" exploits are ok. I don't see them as necessary, but if you look at them as super-cantrips they are ok. In the action-economy, however, I would usually just fireball or magic missile an opponent. I found the other Attack exploits a bit weak due to the saving throws, which is why I took Force Strike. Now that more exploits have been introduced, I'll probably drop Force Strike and select one of the new exploits for the next playtest session. But if I had to select one, I'd personally go with Force Strike.

Overall I was happy with the Arcanist. I'd readily run one again. In fact, our Kingmaker GM is planning to run an Arcanist in Reign of Winter (which the Shattered Star GM plans to start running in January).

Power-level I think the Arcanist avoids over-powering the other full arcane classes, so power creep is minimal. The Arcanist can exist side by side with Sorcerors and Wizards (and Witches and the Summoner).

I hope I covered everything. I kind of feel like I didn't do a good job because I can't think if anything particularly problematic with the Arcanist, or identify any problems I had with the class. It just worked great as far as I was concerned.

I'll post again after our next session, which will probably be the last before the end of the playtest.

Maybe I'm missing something, but...

The Mad Dog Archetype is built around the concept of a barbarian who has an animal companion which he uses in combat.

Barbarians often RAGE in combat, and the Mad Dog does get the Rage ability.

But the Rage ability says: "While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration."

Handle Animal is a Charisma-based skill and I don't see anything anywhere which says a Mad Dog can use Handle Animal while raging. It just somehow doesn't seem right.

1. I know a lot of GMs don't make PCs use Handle Animal with their animal companions, but RAW purists exist and they do require the checks.

2. I know you can probably get around this by giving your animal companion an INT of 3, so you arguably don't need Handle Animal checks.

That aside, I was wondering if this was an error in the Archetype (something to errata?), or was it intended to work that way?

Unfortunately, I suspect the only way to answer this question is if the designer of the Archetype chimes in, or if the Paizo staff comments.

Me, personally, I'd let a Mad Dog make Handle Animal checks while raging, but only as to his/her animal companion, but that's just me.

Anyone out there see something I'm missing? Or can I attract the attention of someone who can comment authoritatively?

Thanks!

Are there any official rules or setting material in Pathfinder that talks about the spellbooks of true aquatic spellcasters?

A sahuagin wizard isn't likely to have your standard paper-bound spellbook. I'd assume an aquatic spellcaster's spellbook will at the least be waterproof. On the other hand, I'd assume it'd be (for game balance purposes) roughly as cumbersome as a land-dweller's spellbook.

If there truly is nothing official, rules-wise or setting-wise, then I guess this post might get itself moved to general discussion or advice, but I'm mostly interested if anyone has seen any official rules, or any mentions in the official setting.

Thanks!

Hi, I originally posted this elsewhere, but just located this sub-forum and it seems more appropriate here...

Our group is looking for 2-3 new Players. Also open to people who want to GM.

The group has been in continuous play for about 20+ years.
Plays most Friday Evenings (about 6 pm to 12 midnight, give or take).
Plays in Downtown Honolulu Office Building (Parking available). As we play at a business, players do need to accept some limits on their behavior - no smoking, stay in the designated areas (no wandering about), keep the area clean, etc. Frig and Microwave available on site.

On the Roleplay <---> Hack'n'Slash scale, the group trends more to Hack'n'Slash. That might change a bit with new players, but don't expect high drama or intense roleplaying.

The group tends to favor the ides that PCs are heroes/extraordinary, not ordinary people. For example, using 25 point buy for non-PFS Pathfinder.

The group plays a variety of RPGs which vary from time to time depending on who wants to GM and what they want to GM. In the last couple of years, in addition to Pathfinder, we've played Star Wars Saga a couple of times, Savage Deadlands, Classic Deadlands, Dresden Files, and Deathwatch.

Even if playing other RPGs the group generally plays Pathfinder 50+% of the time. There is always one Pathfinder Adventure Path being run, and one other game. Currently, the group is ONLY playing Pathfinder as we have finished playing Serpent's Skull and will be starting Skull & Shackles (making characters right now), and our current "alternate" game consists of playing PFS home games.

So this is a good time to join if you want to play Skull & Shackles, as we'll be starting that next. Also, we've just reached Level 2 in PFS play, so it's also a good time to join in on that.

Please either PM me if you have questions or are interested, or post below if you prefer.

Thanks!

The PFS Additional Resources states that for the Racial Spells in the ARG, that you must be a member of the race to take that race's Racial Spells.

There is no similar restriction stated anywhere in the PFS Additional Resources for the various Pathfinder Companion books, like Halflings/Gnomes/Humans/Elves/Dwarves of Golarion. The books themselves don't seem to say the spells are restricted to the race in question (e.g. Gnomes of Golarion specifically states that the spells can be learned by other races). Is there a restriction in PFS? Or are the spells found in those books "associated" with the races, but not "exclusive" (so anyone can take them)?

If it is currently allowed to take the spells from these books even if you are not the race covered by the book, what happens if PFS changes the rules to disallow such a selection later?

Mostly I'm interested in finding out if there's any official answers as this is not an issue in our home games, just when playing PFS.

Thanks!