Any interpretation that hinges on "bluff check" and "bluff skill check" being substantially different things, intentionally distinct, is on very shaky ground.
Using Gloves of Storing to dual-wield crossbows is "insane cheese" now? Chill. The f!~!. Out. guys.
Except for those in the magic chapter, and those in the raise dead spell.
Not at all unreasonable. Other RPGs manage it just fine.
No, if this were law, we would see that we already have a system of rules for determining when spells end. The proposed exception, spells end when the target dies, is not supported by those rules, even though it could easily have been written in if it was supposed to apply, is not necessary for smooth functioning, and can easily be shown to raise more questions, for example under the interaction with Breath of Life. "Reasonable expectations" is the method of last resort.
Consider this: Spell like Bestow Curse (and many others) would need a specific continuation-beyond-death clause if termination at death was a rule.
There are rules in the Magic (not Spells) chapter about the duration of spells. None of them mention the death of the caster or the subject. Furthermore, the rules about dying and returning to life say nothing about ongoing spells. Furthermore, as a general principle, effects that are rendered invalid (because Enlarge Person targets persons not corpses), they are suppressed, not ended.
That's a nice demonstration of the point. On one side, you have a mountain of evidence. On the other, you have: *It's not a problem, to my knowledge, right now, for me personally, so the problem doesn't exist.*I don't like the conclusion, so I'm going to deny it, with no arguments at all. *Some guy with a title and a vested economic interest in telling me it isn't true is telling me that it isn't true. Those are exactly the same argument you hear from climate change deniers. (and make no mistake, USians. To the entire rest of the world, your debate on climate change sounds exactly the same as 9/11 Trutherism and Moon Hoaxers).
Deirdre, from the archives. A human woman in severe scholar's robes, thick glasses and her hair tied in a severe bun. Also, unbelievably curvaceous, with luscious platinum-blond hair, perfect skin and teeth and a husky voice. She klutzes around the room, knocking things over, scrunching up her adorable face to peer across the table, and seems to confuse herself with the pile of scrolls she's carrying. Deirdre is a diligent member of the Scrolls, and not really sure why she's on any particular mission, given that she's just a linguistic researcher. She believes herself to be a mousy little nobody, completely unaware of the effect she has on others. Stats:
Feats: Skill Focus (Linguistics), Orator
Curse: Clouded Vision (of course!)
Spells known:
That's not "torture".
It part of the Cleric's "Spells" class feature, "Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells" sub-heading. Not relevant to Oracles.
The most thorough (and useful) interpretation of "arcane spellcaster level" ends up at "effective wizard level".
Melkiador, stop it. You have been shown what "as noted" means in the context of both Witches and Warpriests. Your question has been answered decisively. There is no argument left.
A level 10 party with good tactics will wipe the floor with any number of stupid melee brutes.
Honestly, WTF is the point of the magic item creations rules if so many are so against them?Who is against them? Not a single poster in this thread has been against them. Every single item in every book published used the item creation rules. I don't see the problem, unless you wanted to jump to the "last resort" instead of following the rules/guidelines. That is...wov. So...wov. So, so unbelievably wrong. There are lots and lots of legacy numbers, guesstimates and anally extruded numbers.
Don't feel constrained by real-world chemistry. Clearly, blackpowder requires 3 components:
plus various bits and pieces for bullets (gold coins can be smelted and are properly dense) and maybe some leaves for holding the powder charges. Once you have the materials, crafting takes 1 day per 1.000 gp cost.
I updated the guide.
The OP asked about getting to Aucturn, a location in the Golarion Campaign Setting (but not on the planet Golarion). Therefore, dismissing Distant Worlds because it's part of the campaign setting, not the rules, is missing the point entirely.
"No, I don't need to check that things actually work before I submit my writing that people actually pay for". Not only did the author assume that there was a Crow statblock with claw attacks in existence. He also didn't look at a single statblock (or wikipedia page, for that matter). Because birds don't have claws, they have talons. Use the Hawk statblock, it's tiny and has two talon attacks. The Steal combat maneuver doesn't use Sleight of Hand, so that doesn't matter.
I will write a background for my character that reads like the damn Pokemon intro song, see if I won't.
It's a year later and I'm still hoping for a response to this. There's no clear, easy-to answer question in the OP, so don't expect a FAQ answer anytime soon. In the meantime, we have developer intent that the feat is supposed to be level-restricted but not specific to arcane casters. We also have RAW in favor of easy familiar access. The argument has two steps: The requirement is for arcane spellcaster level. That's a unique concept referenced nowhere else; the rules consistently say "caster level" or "CL" when they mean caster level. This indicates that it means something other than "caster level". The only interpretation that makes sense is "levels in an arcane spellcasting class". When Improved Familiar was printed in the 3.5 PHB (and the PF CRB version is unchanged), both Sorcerers and Wizards automatically came with a familiar. Also, familiars in PF (and 3.5) progress by class level, not caster level, which supports the idea that Improved Familiar checks for class level, not caster level. Specifically, all familiar-related abilities check for effective wizard level. How fortunate, then, that everyone who has a familiar also has an effective wizard level for that familiar. Given that Improved Familiar requires "Wizard class level" and is entirely about familiars, I find it self-evident that "effective wizard levels (for the purpose of familiars)" qualifies. [b][/b]
Furthermore, abilities that allow you to take a class feature of a given class do not extend to the abilities of archetypes of that class, even if they do quack like a duck.
Did Razmir cause the rain of fire over Melcat, or did he predict it, and lay his plans accordingly?
Okay, that was added in the late 2010 second printing. The first printing didn't mention that; apparently the writer in question thought it was sufficiently clear. Field Guide was written about the same time. So I'm still not convinced on this point.
I disagree, because the ability isn't just "move action to infuse". It's like this: At 2. level, where you only have one attack per round, you spend your move action. At level 6 (should probably have been level 8, TBH) it becomes a swift action, so you can do it once per turn and still full attack. At level 15, when you have 3 attacks, you can do it on every attack. It's not like level 15 suddenly adds the need to use swift actions for something else. So, I maintain that "must spend a separate action to draw the item" is neither written nor obviously intended, and conflicts with how the ability seems to be intended to work.
"Free hand" is a vague concept. The closest thing to a definition is this:
You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. This interpretation has been confirmed by SKR on the forums while he was still employed, but not as an official FAQ answer. However, there seems to be two ideas about what a "free hand" is: Either a hand holding nothing, or a hand doing nothing. For the defensive, off-turn abilities, "a hand holding nothing" seems to be the intent, whereas the Singleton archetype ability or Dervish Dance seem to have meant "a hand doing nothing", but failed to write that. Paizo has tried to move away from even using the "free hand" concept in later books, but it's still not solved. For example, Slashing Grace needed new rules for the FAQ that were in no way stated in the feat. Suggested solution: While making an unarmed attack, your main hand is considered to be "holding a weapon". If you make an unarmed attack as an off-hand attack, or as part of a Flurry of Blows or similar ability, your off-hand is considered to be holding a weapon. This applies regardless of what you're actually holding, and regardless of which body part is actually making the attack. It applies from the beginning of your action until the end. It also applies to natural attacks made with slams, claws or anything else assigned to a hand.
Spell Combat: As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty). So, that's -2 for Spell Combat, -2 for Rapid Shot; +6/+6/+6. Note that attacks that aren't part of the full-round action, such as from opportunity shot or snapshot, do not take the penalty.
Really, dude? Really? The Cavalier-as-a-gunslinger archetype, who gains class abilities specifically requiring the use of his firearm against the target of his challenge, doesn't benefit from challenge on his firearm attacks, and you won't agree that it's obviously yet another writer-hasn't-read-the-rules f+&@up? I think our disconnect goes all the way down to how language works.
Given that those, when intended to cause unease, are rape threats, I think the skill in question is pretty clear.
The problem, Devilkiller, is that if touching the shield doesn't count then neither does touching armor. But there's touching and then there's touching. Apparently.
The boar and the viper next.
Seriously, what's the deal with Swift Alchemy? It changes crafting time from "downtime" to "a smaller amount of downtime", and you're still working nowhere near the 1.000 gp/day speed of enchantment.
Bard.
Be level 10, and use the good ability of the archetype?
Could we have just *one* of these threads without people: *Belittling the thread starter by stating that real roleplaying games don't need that kind of mechanic,
...please?
If you want to play a simpler, more down to earth, less rules-intensive fantasy RPG, I suggest not using 5E. There are plenty of other games out there, almost all of them better.
It would be all too easy to simply reinvent a certain tome of profaned shadiness. Hopefully there'll be good stuff for evil NPCs of good intentions for GM use too. Ironically, the original (3rd ed) Book of Vile Darkness was merely immature and disjointed, while the Book of Exalted Deeds was the morally reprehensible book.
You roll 26 on a DC 15 crafting check, that's 26*15=390 sp of progression in a week, more than enough for an acid flask. Going by the day instead of the week, you divide your progress, not your check result, by 7, so that's 390/7=55 sp of progress per day, so you can make an acid flask in 2 days. For faster crafting, use accelerated crafting, that puts your DC at 25, then get crafter's fortune for +5 to skill, then you're just one +1 away from crafting in a day with a take 10 skill check.
But precedents from the Bestiary series suggests that spellcasting feats and the like that can apply, do apply to SLAs. So that anything that doesn't specifically reference [class] spells, spell slots, spells known or prepared, or components, does already apply. As a corollary, the Summoner class Augment Monster ruling was an explicit clarification of unclear rules, not a new exception.
Wov. just....Wov. That's terrible. How can Owen, 15 years into the development of 3.X, still not be immediately aware that X=1 for almost every case, 2 in rare outliers, regardless of the number of weapons in a group?
I'll take an easy one: Arcanist. Note that I really hate how archetypes don't say "you must take this special exploit/talent/revelation at level 1 and 3", they replace your exploits/talents etc. with other abilities, and prevents you from taking Extra Special Sauce feats until you actually have a sauce of your choice. I hate it, and it colors my valuation of archetypes that replace both the level 1, 3 and 5 archetypes. Blade Adept (bad). Pay 3 Exploits to get a magic sword. On a ½ bab class. Also, you can pay more exploits to gain some magus abilities, but Spell Combat is not one of them, so nobody cares. Also, locks you out of other archetypes, except Unlettered, which is a terrible combo. Blood Arcanist (good). You get the goodies of a sorcerer bloodline, except you're an Int-based prepared caster, which is much better. Brown-fur Transmuter (average): Did I mention you're a half-bab class with no melee support abilities? Still, it doesn't cost much, and the level 9 ability is very decent for buffing your meat shield. Eldritch Font (average): If you keep running out of spell slots and Arcane Pool points. The cost in flexibility is too steep for me, but it's not necessarily a bad trade. Elemental Master (bad): Being forced to pick bad abilities with very little upside. Ugh. This archetype isn't even your third-best pick for making an element-focused Arcanist blaster. Occultist (good): Awesome, even after the enormous nerf hit (Consume Spells limited to Cha/day). Even if you can't trade up all your low-level slots, being able to trade spell slots for equal-level standard action minute/level summons is a good use of a single feat-equivalent ability, and Extra Exploit is only pushed to level 3. The level 7 replacement is bad, but consider it payment for the other things you gain. School Savant (average): Decent trade, but you really have to know why you're not just playing a Wizard instead. Spell specialist (bad): Being forced to memorize your speciality spell at each spell level, then paying pol points if you want to use the very modest benefits of the archetype, should be cost enough. Not worth your level 1, 7, 13 and 19 exploits. Seems half-baked. Twilight Sage (average): This archetype requires you to walk around after each battle, killing the wounded, if you don't want to nerf yourself. Make sure your party and GM is okay with this. Unlettered Arcanist (the worst): Don't kid yourself, the Witch list is nowhere near as good as the wizard list. Also, you trade away cheap, easy spellbook scribing for the fragile, expensive Witch method. If you want a Familiar, just take the Exploit. White Mage (bad): The ability to cast Cure Wounds spells with your spell slots is superfluous by level 3, and the White Mage isn't even good at it. Not worth the exploits.
I am having trouble following your logic, Goth Guru. First you justify houseruling magic item creation with the fact that PFS does it, which I don't really get. Then you seem to be bailing out when someone disagrees with you? Your drama is tiresome. Your initial post indicated that you wanted to talk about PFS-specific scroll rules - and that discussion obviously belongs in the PFS forums. If you want to talk about house rules for scrolls, that's fine. But how about giving people the benefit of the doubt on that misunderstading before putting on the victim shirt?
The ring is even worse than you think. Casting a new spell with a range of personal ends the continuation spell, whether or not the new spell is eligible for continuation.
Please don't confuse depression with grief.
*pique. And if you're not absolutely certain you're gonna retire to do lines of celestial cocaine off your succubus harem in your gold castle, you shouldn't be in adventuring.
Adopted. In addition to being very good, it also infuriates the purist grognards when my magical sparklepony, in addition to being a lost princess, was adopted by a very reclusive tribe who usually hates all outsiders. |
