So the ARG has a alternate racial trait for Samsarans, which lets them (at creation) add spells to their spell list if they're the same type (divine or arcane).
My issue with this is what spell slots do certain spells occupy. So if, as a witch, I take haste, is it a level 3 spell (as everyone has), or a level 2 spell (since summoners get it as a level 2 spell).
If it's the player's choice (as in he gets to cherry pick which spell level the spell is at), then what's stopping me from adding spells to my spell list that I already have albeit at a higher level? i.e. Adding Maze, Dominate Monster, Overwhelming Presence, etc. as level 6 spells, since the bard or summoner has them at level 6. I shudder at the thought of Witches/Wizards being able to cast those kinds of spells at CL 11.
A few new quotes have me intrigued:
Monte Cooke wrote:
Mike Mearls wrote:
Icy Prison has been errata'd here, unofficially. http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3v54&page=7?Ultimate-Magic-Errata#316
My question is why is there some cold damage effects which undead are immune to, and others which they take damage from? It can be flavored or fluffed in a certain way, to justify it, but I just wanted to know if there was a mechanical reason why.
Thanks guys for the responses, despite my not-so-clear initial question.
But later on in the description of Ice Tomb, it does make specific reference to a creature. Moreover, are the undead susceptible to the paralyzed and unconscious effects of Ice Tomb?
If it's the case that Ice Tomb does work on undead, then we have the case that only http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/words-of-power/effect-words/winter-s-wrath is the only Cold spell which does not work on undead, reason being that it does ability damage. Seems kinda wacky when you compare it to Cone of Cold (one cold just does damage and works on undead, but this other cold, which is much colder, does damage and ability damage, but does not work on undead).
So, I know by RAW, Icy Tomb does not work on undead. This seems to be a bit odd to me, since the effect I imagine it has is something like Icy Prison effect, which has been unofficially errata'd by SKR to be Reflex instead of Fort.
This seems like if it was a conscious decision, then it was done for balance reasons.
What say you all?
Also, as per RAW, I believe you can call your eidolon if you've used your SLA. There is a line in the SLA that says "As a result, he can only use this ability when his eidolon is not summoned", but there is no converse in the eidolon description that says "he can only use this ability when his SLA is not active".
Of course, this all depends on your interpretation of what 'use' means in the RAW. Is only the initial casting considered a 'use', or is just having the SLA out considered a 'use'? It is unclear.
The oracle has a much harder time getting significant bonuses to her skill checks though, the bard breezes through that for free.
Oracle of Lore gets to add their Charisma instead of Int to Knowledge skills instead. They also use charisma instead of Dex for AC, reflex throws, and initiative. Overall, they're one of the least MAD classes in the game.
It's actually houseruled in my group that the requirements listed are necessary, and that for every prereq a caster does not meet the DC increases by +5. The kicker here is that they still have to be fulfilled in some way. So if the crafter is not a cleric, and the item calls for a cleric, then a cleric needs to be present for the entirety of the crafting, just to 'assist' so to speak.
As luck would have it, this interpretation is possible from a close reading of the rules.
Is this written anywhere in the rules? I'd like for this to be true, but I haven't seen it be the case anywhere.
There are already a few types that get immortality. Monk of the 4 Winds was mentioned. Oracle of Heavens is another, and her's is also better than the wizard's immortality.
Alchemist, through a combination of Eternal Youth Grand Discovery and Elixir of Life with Alchemical Allocation, can live on indefinitely.
"A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell."
So you can't create potions of spells that you can't know at your level, which is a good upper bound.
"These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet."
The interpretation that I use from this is one of 2 things:
1) The alchemist knows the spell and can create the potion, no problems.
Either way, the spell must be known and cast per each day of crafting.
I think the line is "The synthesist gains the eidolon’s hit points as temporary hit points". If it had said "The synthesist gains the eidolon’s hit points and these are treated as temporary hit points", then you might have more weight to your argument.
However, I do find this kinda stupid and thematically breaking. I would let spells like rejuvenate eidolon work though. Why? Because you are already giving up 1 action by not having the eidolon be a separate being. If you want to heal it, fine, but you've essentially lost another action to do so, which is something the synthesist might not have handy. Also, the normal summoner capstone is completely borked for this archetype, so right now, I don't see any point to not letting a synthesist have a few concessions.
Some call me Tim wrote:
However, I just realized my metagaming cheese could backfire, since my GM plays with critical fumbles as well, so I could just as well be saving him from a critical fumble.
Okay, so I noticed this in the write-up for the dual cursed oracle, where it can get an ability called Misfortune to "force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed as an immediate action". Now there are other classes and abilities that have similar wording.
My question is, at what point do you consider this to be too late? The name of the feat is supposed to make it seem like this is a bad thing, but presumably you could use this to force an ally to re-roll a bad roll.
For example, Jim the ranger tries to shoot an arrow at Phil the Orc, but his attack roll is only a 3. Before checking against the GM to see whether his attack roll with all it's modifiers, Steve the Oracle forces him to re-roll it, and Jim does much better on his second roll. I think this interpretation is okay by the rules. I think that the same would apply if Jim rolled a 1 as well.
Now let's say Phil the Orc rolls a nat 20. I can't see that because the GM is behind a screen, but I can see the GM pick up his dice and re-roll it. Would this be considered meta-gaming cheese?
Hmm, if you make him twice cursed, with Lame as his main one and Wasting as his second, he'll get 2 extra revelations. Also, it isn't clear whether you could use the Gnomish Favored class bonus to advance the curse that normally stays stagnant, so that way, you can advance both curses, although that does sound cheesy and against RAI.
Also, Lame is great, because it allows you to wear and sleep in Heavy armor with no penalty.
Terrible Remorse is way too powerful for a 4th level spell as written, but it's on track to be errata'd.
You fill a target with such profound remorse that it begins to harm itself. Each round, the target must save or deal 1d8 points of damage + its Strength modifier to itself using an item held in its hand or with unarmed attacks. If the creature saves, it is instead frozen with sorrow, can take no actions, and takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class.
And that is at rounds/level.
To be precise, the Tumor Familiar does not grant the Alchemist Fast Healing 5. Only when it is a part of him, does the tumor itself have Fast Healing 5. There is no mention of the Alchemist getting this.
Onto strong stuff, Bladebound seems like a fairly strong archetype. You give up one arcana to get an intelligent weapon that levels with you. Yes, you lose arcane pool points, but the weapon gains them as well (ends up being a net arcane pool gain of +1 if the blade is counted against a normal magus).
There's a lot of debate on the mechanics of a synthesist, but it seems like it could be a strong class, if the mechanics of it end up working like how the optimizers read it as.
Clerics must follow a living God in Golarion in order to have powers. They can venerate a concept as well, but the God must be a Patron Deity of that philosophy.
Inner Sea Guide p. 235 wrote:
False gods and dead gods cannot grant spells to clerics, but other divine spellcasting classes (such as druids or oracles) who gain their power from other sources, rather than directly from the gods, can serve these forces as champions or cultists.
Inner Sea Guide p. 236 wrote:
By that, it seems like classes which either can have a general divine focus or do not need one at all (Druid, Ranger, Oracle) are free to be atheists, whereas classes that require a divine focus (Cleric, Paladin, Inquisitor) must follow some sort of divine faith.
Jaryn Wildmane wrote:
The save for this spell confuses me. Reflex (partial) and fort negates. Nowhere in the spell description does it mention more than one save which I assume is the reflex since it doesn't negate the spell. Where does the fort save come into affect?
Probably a mistake in editing. You should re-post this in the errata part of the forum.
I actually wanted to play a re-animator who would raise corpses of undead, and fill them with plague bombs and harass people like that. I don't know if that's in poorer taste or not though, although I'm pretty sure walking corpse bombs was an intention of Paizo.
To be fair, the first thing I thought of when I saw this, was the guy who had the bomb implant in Dark Knight. Aside from maybe the squick of the surgery, did that make you think of suicide bombers? Because it's pretty much the exact same thing here.
You think that's weird? Witches get the ability to cook people and smell children.
Seeker of skybreak wrote:
I don't see why not. You just let people know there's spoilers.
Thanks for the info.
So a few examples to clarify:
1) You hex someone to sleep and then a tree falls on them (assume the tree would do nothing to rouse the person prior to impact). Does the person sleeping get a reflex save?
2) Person is tied up, bound, and completely restricted, and the same happens. Do they get a reflex save?
3) Person is dying and unconscious. Do they get a will save to resist mind manipulation?
This has been something taken for granted in my group for awhile now, and both DMs play it as if being unconscious results in a auto failed saves, regardless of what it is. This actually resulted in my character death at least once. The clarification provided already has been good, I just wanted to see what other people thought of the situations above.
It seems to be a bit confusing in the RAW. It says:
Core Rules(Magic: Aiming a Spell - Targets) wrote:
Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
However, the context that this is in about some spells being limited to willing creatures only.
My question is two-fold:
1) Are all unconscious creatures considered willing for any spell, or is it just for spells that are limited to willing creatures?
2) If they are willing for any spell, are they also considered willing for saves for other effects (channels, Su abilities, environmental effects)?
Improved Natural Attack has been specifically errated to not work with unarmed strikes. However, Strong Jaw has no such restriction, and as such, would work with monk's strike since they count as "... both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
Put it this way: If magic fang works, then why wouldn't strong jaw work?
Also, your damage die calculations are correct.
Actually, I would like to know what the criteria is for experimental over conventional. I realize it's one of those weird concepts that sometimes one more has an intuition about rather than an actual set of values that define the boundary, but if you guys actually have a good working definition, I'd like to hear it.
James Jacobs wrote:
I realizing I'm using a quote from quite a few months ago, but that last line was what I was referring to. I had thought you had scrapped that idea. My bad.
Actually, if they happen to be playing a homebrew with pf rules, then the Inquisitor can just follow an ideal. However, if it's Golarion, the Inner Sea Guide does specifically state divine spells cannot be gained if the player follows solely an ideal/dead god. Their powers do have to be granted from somewhere, and they're not druids, so they can't get it from nature.
James Jacobs wrote:
Ah, I see. So does that mean the AP after Jade Regent is not the highly experimental one you guys had planned?
Doesn't reincarnate give you a new fresh body? Or does it just give you a body in a body that's in comparable age to what you were in before you died?
The text does spell out that "The spell can bring back a creature that has died of old age", but whether that means they won't immediately die right after, is open to interpretation.
A summoner can have one min/lvl monster at any time, and it can't normally be out while his eidolon is. However, there's no limit on the number of actual summon monster spells that can be active at once, aside from the rnd/lvl duration. So a 20th level summoner could have 21 things in play (20 from spells, and one eidolon/SLA).
Actually that's not entirely true. It says using his SLA while his Eidolon is out will dismiss his Eidolon. There is nothing about the opposite case however, where he calls his Eidolon after his SLA has been used (note, they never notate the summoning of the Eidolon as 'summoning'. It's always 'calling'). And since the SLA lasts minutes per level, it is entirely possible by level 5 or so to have an SLA out and an Eidolon out simultaneously.
James Jacobs wrote:
So, uh, it's been about 8 months since you said "We won't be revealing the plot and nature of the AP after Jade Regent for some time. Probably about 6 to 8 months.". Any chance you're willing to open up the oven a crack and see the bun you got cooking in there? :)
Another question about magic jar. Is it possible to identify allies once inside? It just says 'detect lifeforce' but that's vague enough for me to say that you can't distinguish between friend or foe (unless you're against undead, then you can see what is powered by negative energy), making magic jar much more useless than I thought'd be.