Ector777's page

OK, I understand the common opinion. Can I order a summoned elemental to attack the object then? The elementals have INT 4, and they aren't animals, so there are no clear way to "communicate" with them.

I honestly don't expect a creature with Int < 3 to consider an object to be an "opponent".

How can you expect a creature with Int < 3 to determine who is "opponent" and who isn't then?

I treat this rule simply: the summoned monster attacks the closest non-friendly living creature, if there is some. If there isn't, it attacks everything the caster attacks. A communication is needed only to make it stop attacking or attack another target.

The spell text states: "It (the summoned creature) attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions."

Our party summoned a dinosaurus to help break a magical object last session. Now our DM is unsure whether the beast could attack the object, as it isn't an "opponent". I see no problems here, since the summoned creature should attack anything I attack if it doesn't see other targets for the attack. What do you think?

Thanks for your reply!

1. Yes, having the chance of creating the golem with missing spells is good, but actually the Clockwork Golem needs two sor/wiz spells (Grease and Telekinesis) and two cleric spells (Animate Objects and Blade Barrier), so a single character isn't likely to create it alone anyway with DC + 10. So I guess, the golem creation is intended to be performed by at least two characters.
Some golems can be created by a single character, though - a Cleric can create a Clay Golem alone.

3. If I use an assistant, does he need to have Craft Construct feat as well? I guess he does, since it isn't the usual spell casting, it's integrating the spell into the golem.

Definitely, the classic four classes are Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard, and they should remain. My additional 4 classes are:

Bard - something like fighter/wizard, but CHA-based and having the rich roleplaying flavor. It isn't just a strange mix like Magus, but quite a natural adventuring class: who would know about the heroes without the bards?

Oracle - a very rich field for roleplaying again, especially the oracle's curse. She can perform many various roles, from "fighter/cleric" to the very specialized clerics with unique abilities.

Cavalier - a great fighter variant, much better than the classic Paladin. He can have any alignment, and his abilities (mounted attacks, duels) add a lot of flavor to the game. He may not have the fighter's martial training, but he provides aid for the entire team instead.

Summoner - not just a "fighter/wizard", but a very interesting and specialized class that can potentially be very powerful with Augment Summoning.

Why not the other classes? Well, Barbarian is essentially a fighter variant that trades some martial training for the rage power. Druid is the Cleric of Nature. Monk should be removed from the base classes at all, since the very idea of unarmed fighter contradicts all the western fantasy traditions. Paladin is just stupid. Ranger is essentially a fighter specialized to fight versus special enemies; this could be abused sometimes (if the whole adventure is about fighting the Orcs), and if it couldn't, the Ranger is just a bad fighter. Sorcerer is essentially a wizard, but I don't like the whole theme of "stupid, but charismatic wizard with powerful heritage". Alchemist is just too weak. Inquisitor is a fighter/cleric without much essential flavor; does all deities support their own Inquisition? Witch has the great flavor, but she is just a specialized wizard: she also casts Int-based spells, she also has a familiar, and the differences aren't that much to justify having a separate class. Magus doesn't seem believable to me, and even if he's powerful enough in combat, his abilities lead to much more debates and calculations than the abilities of the other classes.

I am seriously interested in golem creation, but I've got a lot of questions about this topic.

1. Most golems require both divine and arcane spells. For instance Clockwork Golem (Bestiary 2, p. 137) requires Animate Objects (bard/cleric 6) and Telekinesis (sorcerer/wizard 5). How such golems are supposed to be created? Do they require the cooperative efforts of several characters, or are there some other ways to create such golems?
2. If the golem is created by the two chars with Cooperative Crafting, do they both need to qualify the required caster level or one is enough? Logically, one should be enough, especially if the golem is supposed to be created by a single person somehow: the level should be needed for "activating" the golem.
3. Some golems have strange requirements. For instance, Flesh Golem (Bestiary 1, p.160) has CR7 and requires caster level 8th, but it also requires Limited Wish (sor/wiz 7), which itself requires 11th level minimum. Was there any errata on this?
4. Can the Arcane Builder discovery (Ultimate Magic, p. 86) be applied to golem creation? The text says about "magical items", but aren't golems the magical items too? :)

That it has nothing to do with weapons is wrong, since it mentions range increments, not to mention critical range and multiplier.

Yes, it mentions range increments. Guess how? "Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell's range, not the weapon's normal range increment". And the spell's range is NOT a range increment here: it's absolute maximum range! Read this: "If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, of if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers". Thus, ANY weapon (including ranged) goes close to the spell target and attacks it.

This is one viable interpretation, and falls in 'it's a force the pummels people no matter what it looks like', but then there's absolutely no difference between melee and missile weapons. Unfortunately, some of the text implies that there is a difference between weapons that goes beyond critical stats.

Which text implies there's a difference? I see right the opposite. All weapons are treated in the same way. The spell uses the weapon's critical range and multiplier, right, but they are more or less balanced for all weapons: better range usually means weaker multiplier.

Remy you are mostly right, but if it manifests as ranged weapon it functions like any other ranged weapon attack.

No, your character isn't attacking or making a ranged attack. But a manifested bow is. It takes all the penalties normally associated with doing so.

It only _appears_ to be a ranged weapon. Actually, it's a spell that has little common with the weapons.

Thanks Remy, that's what I've thought initially!

Think of it like this. It's like a magically animated intelligent weapon capable of moving itself and you tell it to attack "that goblin there". Then it does it on its own...

Now, if your deities favored weapon was a reach weapon you could take penalties for soft cover, etc. But that's a specific problem to how reach weapons function, not melee weapons.

But actually it isn't a "magically animated intelligent weapon", it's a manifestation of my deity's force - that's why it takes a form of his favorite weapon, right?

Thanks guys, my 6-level cleric is going to craft this powerful circlet soon for our sorcerer :)

It does make the ranged option somewhat less attractive until you remember that melee=close and ranged=shooting dudes up to hundreds of feet away.

Please read the spell description prior to posting. The melee spiritual weapons strikes at range as well. And the spell doesn't depend on the weapon's range increment at all; it has its own range.

The spell doesn't allow "you" to attack at range. You manifest a magical weapon which attacks as you direct (but you do not "control" or use your action to manipulate).

If you direct the weapon at range, then the melee spiritual weapons should take *the same penalty* if the target is in melee, since you're aiming at range. The nature of the penalty is the difficulty to get the true aim, right?

OK, a concentration check is a check, right? So the circlet grants a sorcerer +3 on all concentration checks?

If my spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, does the -4 penalty to attack roll applies to it if the target is engaged in melee?
The spell description says nothing about that, but I feel that the penalty should be ignored since:
1). The spell allows you to attack even with "melee weapons" at range without such penalties - why should the ranged weapons suffer then?
2). Even if your character has Precise Shot, which removes the penalty, the spiritual weapon doesn't use the feat (see spell description).

In other words, the ranged spiritual weapon would be significantly weakened compared to melee spiritual weapon if the penalty would apply, and there are no reasons for that.

The item description (Core Rulebook, p. 506) reads: "This silver headband grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer's Charisma-based checks".
Which checks are affected by the circlet and which aren't? I guess the skill checks are affected. How about the checks to destroy undead? The checks made by sorcerers, whose spells are Charisma-based?

Thanks for the Obscuring Mist advice, but it blocks even darkvision, so my oracle will see absolutely nothing until 10th level :) I guess a Deaf oracle has much better synergy with Silence. Unfortunately, an Oracle of Lore has no Survival, and I'm not going to pump her wisdom, so the scent is going to be wasted...
I may simply gain a heavy armor proficiency someway and ignore the DEX bonus to AC :) It's a pity though, as Sidestep Secret is a very good revelation. Alternatively, I can take another curse.

Well OK, guys, I'm not taking this curse then :) There is absolutely no sense of playing an oracle of Lore if you have no DEX bonus, and all "ranged touch" spells hit you almost automatically (no AC bonus, no DEX bonus). Even the blindsense/blindsight don't compensate for that.
Thanks for your rulings!

Samasboy1, the Oracle isn't blind - or would you argue that he takes -2 penalty to AC as well? And -4 on Strength and Dexterity skill checks? :)

Are there any "rules guru" here? Opinions may differ, you know.

Thanks for the responses, guys, but the main question still needs a clarification.
ArmouredMonk13, I wasn't asking about the first arrow at the beginning of combat. It's clear that the oracle is more likely to be ambushed by the archers, if they don't produce any sounds. I was asking about the regular shooting in combat. The oracle already knows that SOMEBODY is shooting at him and his teammates. He already knows the direction of arrows and he had already see the arrows at their last 30/60 ft of flight.
Why should he lose his DEX bonus to AC then? Yes, he didn't see the archer, but he could hear the shot (it's almost impossible to shoot silently), and he was ready to dodge. If we rule that he always loses his DEX bonus, he's going to be easily killed, as he cannot wear heavy armor and is likely to rely on DEX for defense.
Disclaimer: I don't play any oracle yet :) But I'm going to make an oracle of Lore, which can use CHA modifier instead of the DEX one. So the ruling isn't of life importance to me, as I can choose another curse, but I'd like to make it clear.

1. Does an Oracle with clouded vision lose his DEX modifier to AC versus arrows if the shooter is farther than 60ft away? Rules aren't specific enough for this. On the one hand, he isn't flat-footed, on the other - he didn't see the attacker so he cannot dodge or block the arrow.
2. If an Oracle with clouded vision casts Oracle's Burden, the victim will his sight reduced to 30ft, right? The spell says that he isn't going to get the benefits of the curse, and 60ft is a benefit.
3. How should an Oracle with deafness (curse) communicate with the others? Is there a body language, and if it is, does it count as extra language in game terms?