Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible. She still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized. A rogue with this ability can still lose her Dexterity bonus to AC if an opponent successfully uses the feint action (see Combat) against her.
If a rogue already has uncanny dodge from a different class, she automatically gains improved uncanny dodge (see below) instead.
Deflect Arrows:
You can knock arrows and other projectiles off course, preventing them from hitting you.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn’t count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can’t be deflected.
I'm of the impression that flat-footed does not make you aware of an enemy's location, but it does make you aware of an attack itself to dodge it. This opinion comes from the wording 'cannot be caught flat-footed', and flat-footed being the literal condition of being unaware of an attack coming. If you somehow possessed Uncanny Dodge and something like Snatch Arrows simultaneously, could you react to a shuriken thrown at you from the darkness to catch it?
Let's take this a step further.
Cut From The Air:
Your powerful and swift attacks can slice ranged attacks out of the air.
Prerequisite(s): Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +5, weapon training class feature with a melee weapon.
Benefit(s): When a ranged attack is made against you or a target adjacent to you, you can cut the weapon (or ammunition) out of the air, deflecting the attack so the target takes no damage. As an attack of opportunity, make a melee attack roll at your highest bonus. If the result is greater than the attack roll total of the ranged attack, the attack is deflected. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by spell effects cannot be deflected.
Cut From The Air deflects attacks with attacks of opportunity, and in acquiring it you have Combat Reflexes. Does this mechanical interaction cause things to differ?
Answers to question 2 and its follow-up are what I surmised as well. I'm interested in what people think now about whether multiple spell effects from the spell can occupy the same space?
I don't see a problem damage-wise with it apart from bloat on dice rolling at higher caster levels, but it does seem to have a powerful niche with rider effects that can be problematic.
Hmmm, maybe reducing it to 1 to pool or weapon pool would make it more reasonable, agreed.
I can definitely understand the need to prevent adding enhancement bonuses and equivalent special abilities to black blades. It would be impossible to balance the price, and would cause annoying moments like "I need to add holy before level 9 or the price will raise from 24,000 gp to 32,000 gp!"
I wonder if Paizo just didn't want to complicate their answer? It doesn't seem like non-+ abilities would have a different gameplay effect when considering a black blade.
I've never read those weapons. The fact that you can just have the dominant one on your person and negate three potentially-devastating effects per day make it an excellent pseudo-slotless item if you ever have some excess gold.
To be more accurate, I have a character that is in an Iron Kingdoms inspired game using effectively a 'black rifle', and it wants to put sniping on the 'sort of black blade' and fire moving between cover / taking cover.
Are there any positives or negatives to allowing this that wouldn't exist just from allowing such an effect to be enchanted upon a normal magical weapon?
I have a DM that is allowing me to add magical enhancements to my black blade weapon, but with the condition that it is not a +# ability (for example, not keen or flaming).
It got me to thinking...
Is there any mechanical reason that this shouldn't be the default? The black blade can't mimic abilities like impervious so it seems to be reasonable.
I petition the psionic network of the Elder Brain, what are your thoughts?
Yes, we were going to keep such things in mind. The assessment was whether or not an iterative attack would apply penalties to the attached grab or trip ability.
I am aware that the story changes once the full-attack ends, though keep in mind there are exceptions (Such as when using Power Attack).
Diego Rossi wrote:
All of them say "with the same bonus". I fail to see how you read differently from "with the same bonus of the attack you made".
I believe he was running with the logic chain of 'If many sources list a specific as if an exception, then the standard is not the listed exception', citing that those feats are examples of specific cases of rider effects using the delivery attack's bonuses, and thus it might not be the norm for rider effects to do that.
Is that assessment of your point correct, Firebug?
Thank you, everyone. In order to be as fair as possible, I wanted to see if my conclusions were reasonable before informing a player of the penalties.
Excellent feedback as always, Elder Brain.
Iterative attacks and secondary natural attacks have an attack reduction. For example, the second attack in a full-attack routine at +6 Base Attack Bonus or higher is made at -5, as is a secondary natural weapon attack when attacking in concert with other weapons.
If one of these penalized attacks strikes and features the grab universal monster ability, does the grab feature also use the -5 penalty?
I've seen developers say different opinions in regards to this feat:
From Michael Sayre, a Designer of the d20 system working with Paizo:
Quote:
"It basically just lets you make a melee attack at any point in your mounts movement. Normally your charge would end your movement adjacent to the enemy, this just lets you hit him and keep moving."
Can a rider move partially past an enemy before performing his attack? Such as striking it from the side instead of the front to take advantage of flanking.
I'm interested in the balance perspective of just making Intelligent undead have emotions, but removing blanket mind-affecting immunity. How would that work out? Do any of you have experience with it?
Vhok I did have a question, about whether or not there are sources in the game that show undead as a general rule can have emotions in spite of being immune to morale effects / mind-affecting.
Azothath that emotion auras link was interesting. I might have to dig my book up and read over it.
Undead are not just immune to morale effects, they are immune to all mind-affecting effects. If you are using that as a basis of being unable to feel emotion, than they also should not be able to think. Since intelligent undead exist this is obviously not true.
The reason undead are immune to mind-affecting effects is not that they don’t have a mind. Instead it is because what gives the energy that gives animates them is completely different than what animates a living being. In fact undead are actually not immune to all mind-affecting effects, they are just immune to most of them. There are two ways that an undead can be affected by a mind-affecting effect. The first is the bloodline arcane for an undead bloodline sorcerer. The second is the meta magic feat Threnodic Spell. Both of these will allow an undead to be affected by any mind-affecting spell including those with the emotion descriptor.
The fact that my undead bloodline sorcerer can affect a vampire with crushing despair seems to disprove your theory that undead do not experience emotion.
Agénor wrote:
There are other beings in the Golarion universe that do not have biology yet have emotions. How do you integrate those in your model?
Keep in mind my concepts were developed to try and have consistency at a table, not as some sort of attempt to be an aficionado on the subject or to suppress creativity. Here are some of my thoughts and speculations, and I am keen to hear input or opinions of others.
I've often tied mind to soul in a fashion, and responses to mind. With mind tied to soul I have described that the ability to affect the mind is more about targeting a vessel (hence being unable to target souls and soul gems with mind-affecting) to deliver the effect, and certain delivery methods deal with it.
A creature with a mind is able to remember its past and have its typical responses, reacting to stimuli similar to emotions. It can even somewhat appear to the creature to be dulled emotion, but the source of what developed the habits isn't there.
Certain constructs which are gifted minds which never possessed bodies have no basis for emotional responses, and indeed respond as automatons without even an echo of such a past. Some particularly advanced artificial minds or constructs are developed to mimic the world around them or understand that being accepted will improve their station or ability to function, so they learn to mimic these responses to stimuli they see in creatures (but usually have something off about them).
Indeed in the case of intelligent undead who have either become hyper-jaded or never had an emotional foundation such as this, they might work towards such simulation for similar reasons.
Certain undead created by a supernatural response to a moment of great drive in life have the activities and mannerisms they were manifested by as core to their being, which can include hunger as well as emotion. Note that these undead typically have two responses to stimuli that should produce a different emotional response:
A) They ignore it and continue with their manifested faux emotions to cause their havoc or persist on the plane.
B) They are calmed in a way similar to a haunt, so they are disjointed from their existence and pass on.
Undead which were once living, such as vampires, begin their existing faking breath, smiling, and being even akin to depressed at their physical and emotional numbness due to the ceased biological functions and the negative energy circuit in their bodies. As they grow older and no longer either care nor habitually perform these actions, they need to basically put them on as a show for others to manipulate them and might be old enough to have no urge to perform them whatsoever.
I'm of the opinion that undead who have minds don't receive biological feedback, which is a big source of emotions, and that most of their 'emotional responses' are actually just them reacting to visual stimuli with their minds in a way similar to muscle memory (kind of like how a lot still perform the action of breathing for a while).
A player in my group is trying to argue that anything with a mind is fully capable of real emotions, and that biology doesn't matter at all.
I've ruled that the mind is tied to the soul, hence soul trapping, soul-swapping etc and as a result they remember emotions and react to stimuli in a way based on habit more than anything, or with responses based around accomplishing what they want. Basically, that they aren't feeling emotions, they're actually just reacting as they would as a trained response.
I've tried to compare this to works in which vampires become progressively more jaded as those memories fade (or they can't be bothered pretending anymore).
I've also ruled that ghosts are manifested based on their last experience and they're exempt to the general logic.
When specifically discussing vampires I've described the thirst and sating it as the only thing close to emotions they feel, and the rest of their emotional displays are them mimicking the living to put forth impressions, through force-of-habit or to accomplish goals. Baring teeth and hissing to scare people is effective, whether you're mad or not.
The hardest part was trying to explain to her that vampires and other intelligent undead that used to be mortal typically see their existence as a curse, that they're numb to the world around them beyond supernatural responses such as the thirst or being held at bay, and only continue lingering due to having self-preservation.
I'm interesting in others' opinions. What are your thoughts on undead and emotions?
Ironically, Karzoug has a wand of blood money meaning its a completely useless item when you can't swift action use it.
The module is probably made by old hands. It's been a rule for the longest time in 3/3.5 that wands of swift action spells require a swift action to cast. The same goes for the few move action and immediate action spells that could go into wands.
The writer likely presumed this rule (which never broke the game) was still in effect. It's odd that it isn't in effect anymore. Perhaps this does go under the umbrella of legacy rules and is expected to be in effect?
I'm aware that spell trigger activation methods have the line that they usually use a standard action, and this used to be observed in 3.5 as evidence that wands always use at least a standard action to activate.
Later it was clarified by the Rules Compendium that wand activation does 'usually' require a standard action, but that is due to spells typically having that cast time. It updated the rules so a wand is activated using the action required by the spell contained within.
That said, I haven't seen that rule updated in Pathfinder. I'm aware that certain rules are grandfathered in by common sense or the community, or that many of them are clarified in obscure FAQs. What is the consensus on the action required to activated a wand with a swift action spell within, and where is this information listed?
I think re-reading this multiple times I've inferred the real meaning of the phrase with context. I believe you are meant to multiply the base carry capacity by these figures instead.
So instead of this:
Large ×2, Huge ×4, Gargantuan ×8, Colossal ×16. A smaller creature can carry less weight depending on its size category, as follows: Small ×3/4, Tiny ×1/2, Diminutive ×1/4, Fine ×1/8.
You do this:
Fine ×1/4, Diminutive ×1/2, Tiny ×3/4, Small ×1, Medium ×1-1/2, Large ×3, Huge ×6, Gargantuan ×12, Colossal ×24.
Meaning a tiny quadruped would have 1/2 carry capacity instead of 1/4. Does anybody support this assertion?
Quadrupeds can carry heavier loads than bipeds can. Multiply the values corresponding to the creature’s Strength score from Table 7–4 by the appropriate modifier, as follows: Fine ×1/4, Diminutive ×1/2, Tiny ×3/4, Small ×1, Medium ×1-1/2, Large ×3, Huge ×6, Gargantuan ×12, Colossal ×24.
So a tiny quadruped actually carries 25% less weight than a tiny bipedal creature? I'm thinking of situations like bugs or tiny faeries pulling carriages or such. Is this a typo?
By the way it is worded, a quadruped gains no benefit at small size, and actually is weaker at smaller sizes for having four legs.
Thoughts on these adjustments for a nymph coven, guys?
animate dead -> awaken?
baleful polymorph
blight -> plant growth?
bestow curse
clairaudience/clairvoyance
charm monster
commune
control weather
dream
forcecage
mind blank
mirage arcana
reincarnate
speak with dead
veil
vision
Makes me wonder what other fey would add. Maybe hamadryad can join and add regenerate?
I searched the world "coven" in the S&S adventures (only the adventure part) and the only mention of a coven I did find was:
"Irons’ successor as Hurricane King, his former first mate Glick Hyde, allied himself with a coven of sea witches and slew a great bronze dragon that sought to guard the sea lanes."
Then I did found an old thread that interests me in the books section and was lost for 8 hours reading links, Wikipedia pages, and ordering books on Amazon.
Mikaze should have prepared a trap with Charm person and Suggestion and I failed the Will saves.
;-)
I can totally relate. I get dragged into that chain of reading all the time with game systems. I feel like it's similar to how normal people end up chained into Wikipedia, or Gordan Ramsey Youtube videos.
Those are pretty thematic for fey, but they don't fit the sort of out-of-combat coven casting stereotype. I know not all coven spells are meant for outside of battle but all of those are combat SLAs.
The weird thing is I'm sure I saw something about nymph covens, but it was years ago. I've been racking my brain trying to figure out where I saw it, but I remember thinking "Wow Paizo that's super cool" when I read it.
I'm hoping a cassisian will see this thread and use its Perfect Memory to tell me where I saw it!
I'm really unsure how it's double posted. Honestly I'd like to have deleted the previous post but I can't see any option for it (perhaps I ran out of time to?).
I'd heard there was a naiad in Skulls and Shackles that had a coven?
We have a player in my group that is a nymph. I have seen a lot of discussion online about certain non-hag monsters leading and having covens, and the nymph class of monster seems to be one of those creatures. My understanding was it was even canonized in Skulls and Shackles?
In any case, it seems this nymph will be able to complete and lead a coven. The problem then arises...
What spell-like abilities would a nymph coven have access to with coven casting? What rules already exist for fey covens (if any)?
(I realized this was more of a rules questions post, so it's cross-posted from Advice.)
We have a player in my group that is a nymph. I have seen a lot of discussion online about certain non-hag monsters leading and having covens, and the nymph class of monster seems to be one of those creatures. My understanding was it was even canonized in Skulls and Shackles?
In any case, it seems this nymph will be able to complete and lead a coven. The problem then arises...
What spell-like abilities would a nymph coven have access to with coven casting? What rules already exist for fey covens (if any)?
(I realized this was more of a rules questions post, so it's cross-posted from Advice.)
We have a player in my group that is a nymph. I have seen a lot of discussion online about certain non-hag monsters leading and having covens, and the nymph class of monster seems to be one of those creatures. My understanding was it was even canonized in Skulls and Shackles?
In any case, it seems this nymph will be able to complete and lead a coven. The problem then arises...
What spell-like abilities would a nymph coven have access to with coven casting?
We were having a quite interesting and tense race against time to liberate his corpse from undeath to then use breath of life before his soul fully departed.
The DM allowed it due to 'rule of cool' and I was on the side of it working due to the spell's fluff seeming to suit the situation, but the player decided he wanted no fiat and said he would accept death due to no official ruling.
Yeah it sounds like an awesome moment.
I may be misreading this, but did the player turn down the revive? If there's no official ruling the GM fiat IS the ruling.
The DM is known for being a bit of a cinnamon roll so we sometimes enforce harsher results on ourselves to show it's okay. The player felt there was too much fiat in his favour, even though the DM and I noted...
Tyrant's Grasp Spoiler:
...that the breath of life was a special one time SLA granted during Tyrant's Grasp as a spell tattoo by a Pharasman official in the Boneyard to deny death once, and was imbued with the power over life and death beyond that of even a normal spell, so it was basically a one-time McGuffin anyway...
...which makes it even more awesome and less fiat.
I had a character who was a full-blooded devil PC have a child with an aasimar PC. We went with RAW and the child was a half-fiend aasimar, humorously.
We were having a quite interesting and tense race against time to liberate his corpse from undeath to then use breath of life before his soul fully departed.
The DM allowed it due to 'rule of cool' and I was on the side of it working due to the spell's fluff seeming to suit the situation, but the player decided he wanted no fiat and said he would accept death due to no official ruling.
My 2 copper thrown in the jar: undead are puppeted by negative energy that does not persist when they are destroyed, so asserting positive energy damages a corpse which was once an undead creature doesn't make sense.
I get the impression from the OP it was something like
Initiative Order
Character A
Mohrg
Character B
Character C
Character A attacks the Mohrg in melee range.
The Mohrg attacks back and drops Character A putting them at -25 hp this is lower than the character's con stat and so they are dead. The Mohrg's ability triggers causing character A to immediately turn into a zombie as per it's create spawn ability.
Character B attacks the Character A zombie killing it.
Character C casts breath of life on Character A since it's still within 1 round of Character A dying, though they were a zombie very very briefly between when they originally died and now.
We had a player die to a mohrg, raise as a fast zombie, then we destroyed him immediately and the healer was able to use breath of life on him within 1 round of his original death.
The spell is not meant to be able to restore an undead creature that has been destroyed, but the wording has a player convinced we can't save the downed player:
Breath of Life wrote:
Like cure spells, breath of life deals damage to undead creatures rather than curing them, and cannot bring them back to life.
What I mean is that we're playing an official AP and it already features plants and fey local to the Boneyard. With both plants and fey, surely there are animals?
Which animals (if any) exist in the Boneyard? It appears to have something like an ecosystem of flora, but beyond the mention of some psychopomps I can't find any mention of them.
Do fauna (bears, wolves, animals in general) exist there?
Ghoul touch states it has a save to negate, but in the text it mentions the save to negate is for the stench it creates.
People at my table are in conflict as to whether the initial paralysis allows a save.
Can I petition the elder brain for their common consensus (or an FAQ to refer them to)?
I had a character a long time ago which had something to allow it to use wild empathy on an intelligence 3 magical beast.
I'm currently struggling to remember what it was. It was an item, feat, or mythic ability. I was playing a druid. For the life of me, I can't recall what it was, and this is a problem as the character is apparently recurring in another game. Again, I have no recall of any more than that, but I remember for sure that it was legit.
Do any of you know of ways to wild empathy a 3 intelligence magical beast?
Back in D&D 3.5, for Eberron, the changelings, which were descendants of doppelgangers (not hags), couldn't shapeshift if they were pregnant.
Yes, you're correct. Some races couldn't even attempt to shapeshift while with child. I suppose for many races that inhibitor just triggered and prevented shapeshifting.
I don't know. I could understand a wizard turning into a rabbit while pregnant being seen as irresponsible.
This is swerving hard into a political discussion that is against the rules of this forum. I suggest a course correction.
Also, while I don't speak for approximately half the world's population, I myself find that kind of stuff patronizing and possessive; far from "sweet".
Agreed on the first point. We don't need this to become a political discussion about the merits of either/or perspective. However we can make it a purely anthropological statement and leave it at that.
However I must disagree with your second statement. If this was the real world I would agree, but these are times in a world where feeding yourself can be a full-time job... in a world that in-context is literally full of terrible monsters, and some of which specifically have it out for mothers. It's probably the smartest thing to have a community put a carrying mother at its center for a while.
Your player told you how she wants it to work-- can you honestly think of a single halfway decent reason that it should not work that way? Can you think of a single, solitary way that making it work any other way is going to make the game more fun for anyone sitting at the table?
Whoever wrote the rule you think you remember is obviously a tremendous a!~*&&!, and the biggest tragedy here is that you don't remember his name so you won't know not to take anything he says seriously in the future.
There's no need to be this way when I'm clearly neutral on the subject and keeping my opinions out of it. If you were fishing for my opinion then fine, it's "The child is a part of the natural process of the creature's body until it tries to separate, AKA birth, and shapeshifting should just be dangerous near birth." This is something the DM also came up with independently, and what we are going with.
Blanket-declaring previous writers of material as jerks because there was some mechanical detriment to carrying a child, you know, like there actually is? That's rather rude.
You have to remember that for the longest time in culture a child was considered a separate entity entirely. It's only during recent times that people as a whole have started thinking differently due heavily to pressure for body rights for women, and whether or not you're comfortable with a child being just a biological process of a woman, it just wasn't viewed that way, AT ALL, not too long ago. To the headspace of a lot of people, shapeshifting with a child inside of you was like a transformer changing form with a human in the car seat. Dangerous.
The question was asked out of curiosity to see if rules or books exist that approach the subject of shapeshifting while already pregnant.
In regards to the cruelty of shapeshifting with child in 3.5, I think 3.5 was more grimdark in general. However there was a sweetness about it.
You see, on the other side of it, the fluff would ramble on for paragraphs about shapeshifting races treating pregnant mothers with greater protection and understanding than most races that existed. They were pampered and treasured until birth as a general rule because a part of what made their motherhood precious was how much of a commitment to it they had to make. They would use words like 'vulnerable' and 'sacred'. This was present in a lot of the race-specific splat books, even if they didn't approach shapeshifting in such a way at all.
I have a character in my game playing a kitsune who loves to enter fox form with Fox Shape.
Fox Shape wrote:
Fox Shape (Kitsune)
You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.
Special: A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat.
Benefit: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.
Said character wants to have a child. What happens if the character tries to enter its tiny fox form while pregnant?
I'm aware of the scattered splats in 3.5 that had the rule that it killed the child and caused Constitution damage to the mother, but how does it apply in Pathfinder?
The player's input: "My shape shifting is a natural part of my race. It would be really weird for them to be unable to use one of their best natural defense options during one of the most vulnerable times"
If a creature is possessing the body of another, such as with a magic jar spell, and the possessed body is then hit with an enervation, one of two things should happen:
1) The creature's puppet body suffers the negative levels and protects it. The penalties to things unrelated to the body are side-effects.
2) Negative levels are tied to soul energy (canon) and thus affect intangible things like caster levels, so affect the possessing creature and potentially force it to abandon the body to escape.
Under the ability 'Immunity to Magic', an iron golem is said to absorb fire damage and heal for an amount instead.
Iron Golem's Magic Immunity wrote:
Immunity to Magic (Ex)
An iron golem is immune to spells or spell-like abilities that allow spell resistance. Certain spells and effects function differently against it, as noted below.
A magical attack that deals electricity damage slows an iron golem (as the slow spell) for 3 rounds, with no saving throw.
A magical attack that deals fire damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for each 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. An iron golem gets no saving throw against fire effects.
An iron golem is affected normally by rust attacks, such as those of a rust monster or a rusting grasp spell.
Mythic fireball bypasses resistance and immunity.
Mythic Fireball wrote:
If you expend two uses of mythic power, the maximum damage increases to 20d10, the area increases to a 40-foot radius spread, and any fire damage dealt by the spell bypasses fire resistance and fire immunity.
So the question becomes thus: Is the absorb component considered an immunity, as it is listed as part of an immunity ability? In addition, does it block the mythic fireball high level mythic ability intended to let it punch through such things?
Yeah it's more that the sphere is a McGuffin and there are likely to be RP consequences to using it willy-nilly. My character will likely carry it around as a show of force and a deterrent.
Note it's a mythic game, by the way. It doesn't have a talisman per se, but rather used a true wish (the really good kind) to mimic the Control Sphere ability some creatures and classes can get, which gives immunity to spheres and a talisman-mimic passive. This was as much part of the story as something we did for power. Involved winning the wish in another adventure.
The character will actually walk around with the detriment of having one hand dedicated to holding the sphere to guard it (it's sought after by Evil Dudes™ and is technically called a Void Orb; an advanced sphere needed to complete an artifact BBEGs (plural) want) which it keeps in its demiplane spherical holding cell and guards when it's home. So it will move easily enough with it, but it'll pretty much ruin the ability to use all its staves and wands between casting, and then its metamagic rods are almost useless.
As a general rule though, it'll only sling the thing if it has no choice and has to to protect the orb. I just want to know what that would involve if the fecal matter hit the rotating wind blades.
So general consensus so far is basically "One guy gets screwed over when you control check it if it's in range."?
That seems insanely powerful. I understand my character will have it as a McGuffin sort of thing and it's meant to be, but does that seriously mean that if something is in range it can just move the sphere to it and destroy it instantly, no save, no attack roll?
It's come to my attention that I may soon be in possession of a sphere of annihilation on my arcanist, and it already had a talisman of the sphere.
My question is simple: How would you use a sphere of annihilation in combat?
Reading what it does, it seems like it might be the control check vs Touch AC, but it could also be a Reflex save by the enemy to avoid when you push it into the square. What resolves whether an opponent suffers the effects of a controlled sphere of annihilation?
