Is this book EVER coming out? I've been waiting a YEAR.
Search Posts
I tried searching the forums for an answer to this but couldn't find anything so my apologies if this has been asked before. The feat reads: "Once per day, when you cast summon monster, you may summon a skeletal version of one of the creatures on that spell’s summoning list (apply the skeleton template to that creature to create this monster)." Here's my question: say you use, for example, the summon monster II option to summon 1d3 monsters off the summon monster I list. Does Skeleton Summoner only change one of those to the skeletal template? Or does it change all 1d3 of them? The technical wording would seem to imply the former, but that seems broken to me.
The choices for the Animal Ally feat are identical to the list for the Hunter's Bond ranger class feature; frankly I don't know why the feat doesn't just say "from that list". The problem is, it *doesn't* say that, and now there's a whole slew of new animal companions for rangers in Ultimate Wilderness. Those should be allowed with Animal Ally, right? That's entirely reasonable, right?
Only 4 years late to the conversation... Yes, unfortunately my time machine was on the fritz so I was unable to post this three years before I even started playing Pathfinder. I'm sorry for any trauma you experienced because you were forced to read my words on the internet.
Sorry to necro this thread, but I was searching for similar clarifications and it came up. I think the main problem here is a conflation of the inhaled poison itself and the delivery mechanism for said poison. A poison in itself is not a weapon. A container that holds the poison may be, as an improvised thrown weapon. This would give said weapon a range of 10 feet, with a -4 attack modifier unless you have the Throw Anything feat (as alchemists do by default). Presuming you aren't trying to hit the creature itself, that means you just have to hit an intersection near it, which is AC 5. The 10x10 poison cloud then spreads out from this central point like any other area effect. I suppose you *could* try to hit the creature as well, if you cared about doing the pittance of damage a tiny vial of poison is going to do on impact, in which case there is no clear ruling on where the poison spreads. Personally as a GM I would allow the player to choose an intersection point from one of the four corners for ease of play. Now, that all said, the rules also state that "a splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects," which complicates things. That would seem to cover any breakable container with a fluidic substance within it. A flask of holy water for example is treated as a splash weapon, and there's nothing inherently different between a flask containing one liquid and a flask containing another liquid, or presumably a flask containing a gas or liquids that vaporize upon contact with air. Furthermore, "thrown splash weapons require no weapon proficiency," which does an end run around the Throw Anything problem as well. So I could *also* see the argument for treating poison vials like splash weapons, because it's frankly absurd to make the distinction that they're not when there are so many other similar items that are. In which case direct hits would resolve like splash weapons and indirect hits would resolve the same as above. There's really no excuse as to why Paizo doesn't have a clearer ruling on this. Potions & Poisons *just* came out; that was a perfect opportunity to errata this problem.
Yeah, the DC increase specifically doesn't apply to things like scrolls, because that's pretty game-breaky. ("Hmm, I don't have this spell I want in my spellbook. I craft a scroll with the spell I want and increase the DC. Then I copy the scroll into my spellbook. Magic from nothing!") I don't think I really explained my question well. What I'm wondering is if once you have an item creation feat from *one* class's caster level, if that can then include every class's resources. I see no real reason why it would not, but if there is a RAW one way or the other I'd like to know.
I'm considering multiclassing my alchemist and I've been thinking about how item creation feats work across classes. For example, if I take a level dip in bard, I now have a caster level (alchemist, RAW, does not) and could then take for example Scribe Scroll. However, since my caster level is a part of my bard abilities, does that mean I could only make scrolls of my bard spells? Or could I also make scrolls out of alchemist formulae? I can see the arguments for both interpretations but I am curious what the community thinks.
Is there a reason goblins and hobgoblins are playable races, but not bugbears? Seems odd to have only two of the three goblinoid races available.
Darn. So no Spell-storing catapult, then. There goes my weekend project.
I've had similar issues with the alchemist interpretation of this spell's text and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one. The way our table ruled how it works is: - instead of the usual alchemist method of drinking to activate, the extract is poured into the volume of liquid to be transformed; this doesn't require an infusion since the alchemist is technically not sharing the extract itself but rather the products of it - the wine created lasts indefinitely (as per the 'natural spoilage' commentary) - the spell effects last 10 min/lvl from the point of the wine's creation, after which it 'downgrades' to normal wine
The thing is, 'universal' isn't exactly a school in itself as I see it -- it's more the lack of any specific school, the default for wizards who choose not to specialize. So I could see an argument being made there that any spell technically falls in the 'universal' school.
I'm considering taking the Material Mastery discovery for purposes of magic item crafting with my alchemist (ftr I'm getting around the whole 'caster level' problem by also taking Spell Knowledge, which is well-debated elsewhere on the forum so no need to address that). Text reads: "By expending an extract of the same school and level as a spell prerequisite when crafting a magic item, you take only a –2 penalty for ignoring that requirement, instead of –5." My question is: what if the spell requirement school is 'universal' (such as in the case of Permanency)? Does this allow me to use literally any extract from any school? Or do I have to find an extract that itself is listed as universal (which upon cursory look, there don't appear to be any of)?
Technically you shouldn't even need the caster level 11 if you take a +5 DC to the craft check for the phylactery. The only things that are really required are the Craft Wondrous Items feat and the 120,000 gp cost. If you could somehow scrape together the money and make a good enough crafting roll, you could theoretically become a lich at level 3. This is all horribly broken, btw, but mechanically it's doable.
There's also the relatively new science of epigenetics to consider, which rather strongly seems to imply that traumatic events in the life of an individual actually change that individual's DNA. So trauma is not simply an illness in the traditional sense that you can feasibly 'cure' like measles or even cancer. It quite literally changes who you fundamentally are as a living thing. That said, I'd invite the idea that PTSD and similar traumas might, mechanically speaking, fall closer to being a curse rather than a disease, and would thus be dealt with accordingly. Just a suggestion, but it makes more sense to me from a gaming perspective.
The problem as I see it is that there are no real points of reference in the open sky. On the ground you can say, "hey, I want to teleport over next to that building" or whatever, but what are you using to gauge relative distances in the sky? "Patch of sky" isn't really something you can see, because the atmosphere is functionally invisible -- maybe if there were some clouds or a few birds around you could use those as reference points, but that's still kind of iffy. I would suggest that you should be able to teleport as far as the horizon, since that's the farthest physical object you could actually see from your vantage point. On planet Earth, the horizon extends to about 3 miles at ground level. At your example of 1 mile up it's at a distance of about 89 miles. Assuming a planet of similar diameter that would be your max limit.
Wow, lots more suggestions and examples! I think I'm starting to get where you're all coming from now. Thanks for having patience with a n00b like me.
These are all great points, and I've been given a lot to think about. Thanks to everyone for their contributions. However, I don't think anyone has really addressed my original query, which is basically: why isn't there a "take 1"? It would make a lot of these situations a heck of a lot less convoluted from a mechanics standpoint.
You're skilled enough to create terrible food. But you may not convince people that you weren't trying to make terrible food.As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp.That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible. I get what you're saying, but that kind of seems like splitting hairs.
As a skilled chef you could get any result you wanted from filet mignon to burnt to a crisp. That actually makes a lot more sense to me. You'd be skilled enough to fake being terrible.
Your first example would be a bluff check, to pretend you don't know what you're doing. That seems... weirdly broken. Technically that means at any point you could roll a Bluff check to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you are, fail that, and end up proving you're a genius. Mind you, since the skill itself isn't involved you don't necessarily need to be good at it in the first place. With a low enough Bluff score you could easily convince everyone you're a polymath. The second example isn't a skill; it's a random quantity, similar to rolling damage on a fireball. You can't choose the value. That one I totally understand, thanks.
Can you give an example? I would think it would be easier to just describe what exactly you intend to do, and try to "succeed" at that. Let's say you're trying to pretend you're not as good at a skill as you actually are. For example: you're playing in the Wormwood Mutiny and you want to end up as a swab so you have access to certain parts of the ship. But, you've got a pretty good Profession (Cook) skill, so you may accidentally end up as the ship's cook instead if you are forced to roll. You "take 1" on the roll so you intentionally screw it up. Or, say you're using the Awaken Construct spell on an animated object, but you don't want it to become too smart so it's easier to control. You "take 1" on all the ability rolls and end up with an INT 3 and a CHA 3, which is better for your particular plans. And so forth. I could probably think of half a dozen other examples but you get the idea.
This is probably a very bizarre question, but I could not find anything in the rules, so here we are. Suppose you genuinely wanted to fail a check -- that is to say a lower roll would be a more beneficial option to you, even though practically speaking it would still be considered a failure by all other means. Is there any way you can choose to "take 1" for an automatic failure, in the same vein as take 10 or take 20? Or are you forced to actually roll the dice?
New player / poster, be gentle. I've been considering making a character I'm about to play in an upcoming campaign a construct crafter (specifically, an alchemist taking the Promethean Disciple route). I get that due to not having an Intelligence score, constructs don't get skill points/ranks, but I can't seem to find any rules as to whether or not they still make skill checks. For example: A Medium Animated Object has a Charisma of 1, which is a -5 ability modifier. Handle Animal, being a trained only CHA skill, would obviously be unavailable. But what about Bluff, or Disguise, or Intimidate? Could they roll a check with the -5 penalty? Or for WIS skills, a Heal or Survival check? My inclination is yes for RAW, but from a roleplay aspect that seems kind of wonky. I think that physical based skills would not be an issue generally -- obviously a construct should be able to make Swim checks or Acrobatic checks, for example. The weirdness comes from the non-physical ones. INT isn't a problem, since no INT means no INT skills. But does it make sense for a mindless automaton to be able to do a Sense Motive check? Or Diplomacy? What would that even entail? Thanks in advance for any replies / advice. |