Ellessen's page

All bonuses are retroactive when an ability score increases, be they bonuses to damage, to skill ranks, to hit points, to saves, to skill checks... all of them. Skill ranks not being retroactive are a 3.5 convention we specifically removed from the game because it was a weird exception to the rule, and since now there are no exceptions to this rule, there's no need to specifically state that skill ranks are retroactively granted if your Intelligence goes up.

If that is the case why does the item specify that you put all ranks into one skill per +2 bonus decided at creation? Retroactively gaining them should allow to to put them where you want.

Working toward balance is fine but if you focus on it too much you stifle the creativity and imagination of your players and DMs. 4E did this with a constant flow of errata and severely limiting magic items and feats and that is why I no longer play 4E.

In my opinion it is the job of the DM to watch for things he thinks are unbalanced or damaging to the campaign and correct them. It is not the job of the creators to find every possible uber combination and correct it. It is the job of the DM to see if that exists in HIS world and if he does not like it or thinks it is unfair to the other players then he bans it or changes it.

I do not like having a top cap on my Characters. We tend to play campaigns for 1-3 years playing once or twice a week and having a hard top cap is very annoying if you are near the end of a campaign and have to slow down leveling because plot is going slower than expected and the players wish to stay in a world for a little bit longer.

I do want rules for how to expand beyond 20th level, preferable with no top cap and leave it up to the DMs on how to integrate it into their worlds or not. The fact that they have not done this yet is annoying. They have a lot of material for up to level 20 but not even loose guidelines for going even to level 25 to give a buffer for long campaign players.

James Wilber aka The Magus wrote:

I am hanging myself out in the minority again. I wish Paizo would spend their limited time and resources on things other than epic level rules.

I think epic only feeds players who refuse to give up their favorite character. As someone who's been in the hobby over thirty years I am telling you now that sometimes stories end. New heroes take up the mantle. Villains are vanquished and those who do the vanquishing become legends. There's plenty of high fantasy and adventure in levels 1-20 to handle it.

The only people who have more fun at 20th level than 1st level are the rules monkies. People who live to destroy everyone else's fun by finding that combination loop-hole that is totally unstoppable.

I say, no sir. I need no epic.

And I don't like them new fangled mechanical horses!

I do. I do not like having a top cap on my characters.

To Bane Wraith:

My statement was about there not being a boost penalty was about the entry for Summon Servitor. It also shows that level 7, 8, and 9 Summon Servitor spells can be boosted which is impossible under current rules if the level is increased by 3 because there are no spell slots higher than 9 in pathfinder. You can boost Summon Servitor because it specifically gives an entry for it.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/wordsOfPower/effectWords/s ummoningWords.html#_servitor-i-(summoning)

On the other hand the Burning Flash wordspell does state that it is increased by 1 level if boosted.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/wordsOfPower/effectWords/f ireWords.html#_burning-flash-(fire)

Also the disappear word that is also a selected target word does give a level adjustment in it's boost entry but that adjustment is 2 levels higher.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/wordsOfPower/effectWords/c oncealingWords.html#_disappear-(concealing)

Why is there wrong information in these publications if the adjustment is suppose to be 3 levels?

Ah found it. It is under the Target Word Entry. Thanks for leading me to it.

The fact does remain that the Summon Servitor Entry lists a Boost gain but does not state that the level is increased as the other Wordspell Entries that have a level increase from Boost do.

Truly? I'd award this witch, with the significant research and creativity of it all... but you're free to houserule otherwise, naturally!

The boost metaword is pretty set in stone. Since it's a metaword, it can only be used a certain number of times per day; For a sixth level spellcaster, the Lantern Archon Gestault is a once-per-day deal. She got lucky with the 1d4+1 per casting, and managed to get 9 out onto the field. She could have easily gotten as few as 4.

...If you're going to houserule Anything, I'd suggest the Gestault rule. Personally, I'd recommend you don't. A single dispel that works against Any of the 9 lantern archons would eliminate the gestault as well.

Anyways. Awaiting input from others, as always.

EDIT: Ah, that's true. Forgive me. Boosting the Selected target word would actually increase the level of all effect words by 3.

Your witch is in hot water.

Personally, I'd send a few vengeful archons on her arse.

The entry in the PRD for Summon Servitor says nothing of a boost increasing the level by 3. They also left out in the Meta Word description that some of them increase levels. That would actually solve all of the issues that occurred with the session. It is annoying that such a major line was left out.

To Talynonyx: The summon Servitor Word, specifically does have an entry for the Boost Meta Word to be used on it. It appears that that entry is not complete but it is there. I will have to borrow another DMs hard copy of Ultimate Magic to get a full description it seems.

I am running a game with a level 6 Words of Power Witch. She and I both only have access to the PRD for the use of Words of Power and so may not have the full knowledge of how to use them.

During the game she used two level 3 Summon Servitor Spells with the Boost Meta word. According to what the Boost Meta word says in the PRD it does not increase the level of the spell it is used on and therefore and got 9 Lantern Archons on the field. Something that can only be done with two 4th level spells as a normal spell caster.

He then had these 9 Lantern Archons form a Gestalt as per their ability. Since this is not stated to be a summoning it is not banned by the summoned creatures cannot summon clause. Thus he has summoned a Large Air Elemental with the Celestial Template. Something that is equivalent to a Level 5 Spell.

This does not seem balanced at all and I was wanting to check if there is a perceived error in the PRD before I house rule it for the future.

The house rules I am thinking of are:
1)That the combining ability of the Lantern Archon does count as a summons and is banned by the summon creatures rule.
2)That the boost Meta Word increases Summon Servitor spells spell level by 1.

These house rules would bring them into balance with other casters but I would like to know if those are already in place and just entered into the online PRD wrong or in a manner that is not easily navigable.

Ellessen wrote:

Once again it does not say you have to be in contact to confirm the trigger. The trigger is if you deal damage you can cast the spell stored.

No when the spell storing weapon deals damage, the wielder may as a free action discharge the spell. Since you are not wielding the weapon when it deals damage, you cannot spend the free action to discharge the spell.

Sorry. No throwing a half dozen daggers to get a half dozen does fireballs to discharge for a single full round action.

If Keen or Vorpal required the wielder to spend a free action to activate, they would not work when thrown either.

Ok I can see that. The feats and class abilities for fighters and such do not use the word "Wield" in pathfinder. The word wield means to hold or use a weapon or tool which would include throwing as that is how you use thrown weapons. I will concede that it is primarily used to indicate that you are holding a weapon and doing so in a threatening manner and therefore can be interpreted to dictate that you must be in contact to trigger the spell.

I have heard this explained as a fear of the thrown weapon but more and more people phrase their views on it as a fear of multiple spells being used. The spells used must be able to target a single creature and therefore the powerful AOE spells that you fear like fireball cannot be used anyway. AS for the others I can see the issue but you have that just the same with a dual wielder and quickdraw if your limitation is wield. A more appropriate limitation to me would be to house rule that you can only trip that ability on one weapon per turn, and the ranged aspect is not any more powerful.

I asked this question because I was trying to find a purpose for the school granted ability of the Universalist Wizard and was finding that they would only ever use it if they were completely out of all spells and for some reason the mob was immune to their cantrip ray of frost or they walk around with a large melee weapon for some reason rather than the standard dagger. Allowing this enchant to work on thrown as I still insist the language allows would validate a class ability with little negative as the enchant greatly limits what spells can be stored.

** spoiler omitted ** "...if the wielder desires." You are not in contact with the weapon to pass on that desire - It may work for an Intelegent Item able to communicate with Empathy or Telepathy - see your GM.

Once again it does not say you have to be in contact to confirm the trigger. The trigger is if you deal damage you can cast the spell stored.

The issue is how thrown weapons interact with enchants. I have always assumed that they can take both as a dagger is undeniably a melee weapon and can receive enchants like keen and vorpal, but it also can take things like returning that are on the ranged weapon list. For most enchants they are either always working like keen or distance, on both lists like the elemental enchants, or situational like spell storing. The situational ones all specifically dictate their function and triggers.

Returning for instance is a ranged weapon enchant that states that it must go on a thrown weapon and when an attack is made by throwing this weapon it will return before the start of the next turn.

Spell storing is also specific in that it requires the weapon to deal damage. As said above it says nothing about needing to be in contact to utilize this ability. I was wondering what peoples interpretation of this is.

By stating that you must be in contact because it is on the melee list means that enchants like vorpal or keen shut off if thrown which makes no sense to me.

I know that the Spell Storing Enchant is a melee weapon enchant but how does it interact with thrown weapons such as a dagger that are melee weapons as well?

The trigger of the enchantment says nothing about you having to be in contact with the weapon and only says that said weapon must deal damage to the target with the attack. Therefore I would think that if you had some way of dealing damage ranged with the weapon such as throwing it or the Universalist Wizard's "Hand of the Apprentice" ability you could trigger a spell assuming the spell is legal to put in the weapon. Is that the agreed upon interpretation?

In the Item creation section for scrolls it states:
"Scribing a scroll requires 1 day per 1,000 gp of the base price. Although an individual scroll might contain more than one spell, each spell must be scribed as a separate effort, meaning that no more than 1 spell can be scribed in a day."

I understand the time comments for the entry but what I do not understand is what having multiple spells on a scroll means.

For our thoughts lets say you have a scroll with Mage Armor and Shield on it.

Does this mean that the scroll sheet holds both spells and is only consumed after both spells are used up? Thus being treated as two separate scrolls but space being save by them being on the same piece of parchment?

Does it mean that the two spells are activated at the same time?

Also how would you calculate the cost?

If they are two independent spells I would assume that you simply charge as though you have crafted two scrolls, but if they activate together then would it be multiple different abilities with the cheaper item being multiplied by 1.5?

The only way to compare an existing item accurately is to deconstruct it's cost via the formulas they have presented us for crafting items. That is what I was attempting to do because I got the idea for an item of Mnemonic Enhancer before I found the Amulet of Spell Cunning and was wondering why the amulet is more limited than the spell and the item I was stating out was a different cost.

My issue after thinking about it is that it is not limited to Wizards explicitly as the spell is and that it does not match their formulas more than it's actually price in gold. It is also really confusing for say a Sorcerer who chose the Arcane Bloodline or any character who took who took the Eldritch Heritage Feat and chose said bloodline.

Interpretations:
1) It is limited to Wizards though it is not stated to be and the price does not indicate that it is.

2) It is not limited to Wizards and grant anyone who can bond it as a bonded item is granted up to 3 levels worth of prepared spells, as it specifically only grants prepared spells. So your Arcane bloodline characters such as sorcerers gain a little bit of prepared spells. Also allowing your charismatic Rogue to gain 3 levels worth of spell casting with the use of a single feat.

3) It is not limited to Wizards but only functions for those who prepare spells. So a charismatic Divine prepared casters can add up to 3 levels of their spells with this item chosen with the proper feat.

4) It is not limited to Wizards but only functions for arcane prepared caster who can choose it so it effectively is only limited to wizards. Wizards are the only arcane prepared spell casters other than Witches who cannot use the Eldritch Heritage feat to gain a bonded item since they already have a familiar and that bloodline feature cannot be use to gain both a familiar and a bonded item.

By not following their own rules they have left it vague, though possibly entertaining for your rogues.

this is why they should have left it the way 2nd edition had it. was so much simpler. you had to have the spell and had to have permancy cast on the item which was 25000gp to do. And it was up to the gm. No craft feats, it was easier to go find an item then to buy it since it was suppose to be rare. The day that 3.0 came out and I read the craft feats I knew they jumped a shark.

I prefer wands anyway, 50charge true strike wand is 750gp... so much easier then getting magic item made.

I played 4.0 for a while and was very glad when my friends started playing pathfinder. 4.0 has limited magic items and item creation so much that the game is almost not fun anymore. Item design was always one of my favorite aspects of 3.5 and pathfinder all the more since I no longer have to pay XP for the items.

Quote:

A Wondrous item craftier can create a functionally identical item via the above equation with the wizard only 30% discount for 7,056G market and 3,528 crafting.

No, he cant. The rules require you to compare costs to current items before using those item creation rules. Thus, you cannot use those rules to make the item how you'd like, they are a last ditch effort if you cant find a similar item.

Otherwise we'd all have rings of permanent true strike and mage armor for 2k each.

For the Ring of Truestriking you would actually use weapon bonus rules since they would trump standard spell into item rules. The equation is bonus squared * 2,000.

This would be (20*20) * 2,000

800,000G base price.

As such the specific rule makes it more expensive to have a ring of true striking than the standard spell of that level would indicate.

Quote:

A Wondrous item craftier can create a functionally identical item via the above equation with the wizard only 30% discount for 7,056G market and 3,528 crafting.

No, he cant. The rules require you to compare costs to current items before using those item creation rules. Thus, you cannot use those rules to make the item how you'd like, they are a last ditch effort if you cant find a similar item.

Otherwise we'd all have rings of permanent true strike and mage armor for 2k each.

I have never read a rule that states that the item creation tables are last ditch efforts if an item cannot be found. Item creation feats are numerous and the charts were printed in the core book therefore it must be assumed that we can and will use them.

First is your Ring of True Striking:
It would be an item with continuous item thus calculated as though it uses 100 charges a day.
It is also a spell with a duration of a round or less thus you multiply the gold variable by 4.

(Spell lvl * Caster lvl * 2,000(4))/(5/100)

Thus:
(1 * 1 * 8,000)/(.05)

160,000G market cost minimum assuming there is not an unpublished modifier for on next hit spells for your Truestrike ring.

Mage Armor Ring:
Mage armor is a spell that grants Armor bonus in the form of enhancement bonus thus falls under a specifically set of rules for armor bonuses. It's equation is: bonus squared * 1000. This specific rule trumps the standard spell into items rules.

Mage armor give a +4 by default so it would be 16,000G market price for an armor bonus of +4 and happens to be the same price and required spell for the Bracer of AC that provide +4.

Under normal spell in to item rules it would be:
(1 * 1 * 2,000)/(.05)

40,000 Market Price since it is also continuous as the truestrike ring. The specifics of an AC bonus item rule makes it cheaper for you.

Amulet of Spell Cunning costs 10,000G and 5,000G to craft. I am not sure of the equation used to design it but I can get a close price by using the command word one charge per day equation :
(spell lvl * caster lvl * 1,800)/(5/charges per day)
which for this item would be:
(4 * 7 * 1,800)/(5/1)= 10,080

The item appears to only grant one use of said spell per day as it grants only 3 levels of spells and only the prepared option of the spell at that. By using a Wizard only spell and requiring the arcane bond feature it is also implying that it is only usable by Wizards.

A Wondrous item craftier can create a functionally identical item via the above equation with the wizard only 30% discount for 7,056G market and 3,528 crafting.

Even if you do not make it wizard only it still only gives you half the options of the original spell and requires your arcane bond item feature so should either have additional benefits or additional discounts. As it stand the item is a rip off for what it does.

I am not sure how it would work with Sorcerer. The spell it is based on is a Wizard only spell that states:

"Casting this spell allows you to prepare additional spells or retain spells recently cast. Pick one of these two versions when the spell is cast.

Prepare: You prepare up to three additional levels of spells. A cantrip counts as 1/2 level for this purpose. You prepare and cast these spells normally.

Retain: You retain any spell of 3rd level or lower that you had cast up to 1 round before you started casting the mnemonic enhancer. This restores the previously cast spell to your mind.

In either event, the spell or spells prepared or retained fade after 24 hours (if not cast)."

As such by default it should be Wizard only but the way it is stated in the item it seems like it sacrifices the retaining feature to work for anyone who has the arcane bond feature, but only if you prepare your spells.

According to the spell used the equation to design said item is that for a command word item with one daily charge.

(4spell lvl * 7caster lvl * 1,800)/(5/1 charges per day) = 10,080.

They appear to have rounded to 10,000 but remove half the spell and require that you make it your arcane bond item.

With it being a Wizard only spell it should be a Wizard only item thus discounting it 30% making it cost 7,056. I am not sure how to discount half the spell being taken away or making it have to be your arcane bond item but both of those should make it cheaper.

A Wondrous item craftier could make the Amulet for 5k gold according to it's listed price but if they were to make say Glasses of Mnemonic Enhancement using the equation listed above and adding the Wizard only qualifier it would cost 3,528 gold, would have the option of using the retain feature of the spell instead of the preparation only, and would not require it to be your arcane bond item.

Even if it is not a wizard only item and costs 5,040 to craft it should have the full use of the spell and not require your arcane bond unless it has further discounts.

I have some questions about the Craft Construct Feat but have not been able to find any rulings from the Devs, only references to some mysterious previous post from months ago dealing with this feat and some of it's issues.

I am working on a crafting specialist Wizard and have gotten permission from my DM to take the Craft Construct Feat. My intent is to eventually craft Golems but in the meantime I was wondering about animated objects.

In the Animate Objects monster entry we have this line:
"Permanent animated objects can be built using the Craft Construct feat."

But we are not given any prices or requirements for the use of the Craft Construct Feat in this manner. I want to know them so that I can animate carvings and such.

I am aware of the Arcane Discoveries that grant you the creation of a single Golem type but since I want to take Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armor I find taking it wasteful and restrictive since they can be taken without the other item creation feats.

Can someone link me to the Devs post or give a quote of what they said about this matter?

I had always assumed that the somatic component of a touch spell was the action of making the touch attack or included that as part of the somatic component. Therefore if that portion of the somatic component can be replaced with the weapon it seems logical that all of the somatic components can be done with a weapon to me.

If this interpretation is viable then is it still necessary to have your off hand free to use Spellstrike in conjunction with a full attack action of a Quarterstaff wielder? Specifically if that full attack was Two Weapon Fighting thus having the first off hand of the TWF attacks also being a touch attack?

The reason I ask is because it seems that the Staff Magus Variant would lend itself to this particularly style since the Tripping Staff feat and the Tripping Twirl feats both give precedence for Spellstrike being use while both hands are on the weapon.

The clause about needing one hand free even if the spell has no somatic component for Spell Combat does not make sense to me and seems like an unbalance handicap at first glance.