DM_Blake, Wraithstrike: You both seem to prefer giving no bonuses for a "good" description. Would you give bonuses (or raise/lower the DC) based on specific points they want to make? Even if it's not particularly eloquent, explaining that they would like to appeal to the dwarf's ancestry and honor should grant them some advantage, yes?
Nope, not unless the NPC is affected by such things, but that would be decided before the RP even began.
As an example Mcgruff the Grumpy dwarf hates being reminded that his sister married an elf, and any mention of it makes him angry. Any mentioning of this results in a -5 penalty to any diplomacy checks.
Giving McGruff 200 gp or more as a bribe gives you a +5 bonus to diplomacy checks.
[CUT]
Wraithstrike: You actually answered affirmatively to my question with your example. I was asking whether there should be a bonus for specific topics/actions, not charisma and eloquency. Thanks for your input!
Thanks for the insight everyone, I find the different opinions to be quite interesting.
Lamontius: that's how I've mostly been running it. It seems effective.
DM_Blake, Wraithstrike: You both seem to prefer giving no bonuses for a "good" description. Would you give bonuses (or raise/lower the DC) based on specific points they want to make? Even if it's not particularly eloquent, explaining that they would like to appeal to the dwarf's ancestry and honor should grant them some advantage, yes?
Dementrius: I quite like your application. Seems like a nice combination of both. I may try it out.
I'm planning on experimenting with letting the players decide how they want to operate, the second option (rolling first) has been brought up and they are interested in trying it out. I expect it to be more humorous because it (somewhat) forces roleplaying grand failures, but it may detract from more important, serious situations.
I've had some discussion with my players, and we're pondering whether a player should roleplay things they say/do before or after rolling the relevant skill check.
To me, there are two options:
Roleplay first - Say what you want your character to say/do, then roll to determine success, potentially with bonuses for good descriptions
"I give the dwarf an eloquent speech, describing how his ancestors would be angry with his actions and appealing to his history to join us"
*Rolls a 3 on Diplomacy*
"The dwarf looks furious with your ignorant words"
Rolling first - Roll to determine success/failure beforehand, then roleplay the results.
I want to roll Diplomacy to convince the dwarf to join us
*Rolls a 3*
"Dwarf! Your ancestors are ugly and their beards are short and mangy!"
I find this discussion interesting. Roleplaying first will usually only determine the response, where rolling first would determine how good your words actually are, plus the potential response. This was brought up because we usually operated by roleplay first, but the potential for humorous roleplay was greater by rolling first and acting out the (potentially terrible) results.
This is less applicable to action skills, where one can easily say "I attempt the thing", then check for success, then roleplay.
My main consideration is that some players may expect that their successful speeches grant them bonuses to diplomacy or bluffing, and it's difficult to give these bonuses if they roll first.
A possible add-on question: Does a successful social skill check mean that your delivery is more successful, or their response is more favorable?
Personally, I've ruled that it operates like Mythic Invisibility with a cut-off equal to your Tier (Max 5):
Mythic Invisibility:
The invisible target can't be detected with detect magic or other spells that detect magic auras.
The invisibility can't be penetrated, revealed, or dispelled by spells of 2nd level or lower (such as see invisibility or glitterdust), thoughtrue seeing and dust of appearance can reveal the invisible target's presence.
Meaning that spells of 6th level or higher can always penetrate undetectable, but otherwise the target is completely impossible to spot. In addition, special abilities from Mythic creatures of a higher tier than the player would also work (tremorsense, blindsense, etc.)
What this meant was that the Undetectable was a very powerful, Mythic ability that allowed the player to create an incredible reputation amongst those who weren't as powerful, but wasn't as useful against their biggest foes.
Another way to look at it is "Does it matter that this ability is on a +1 sword vs a +5 sword?" For the lightning bolt, it doesn't. For holy or bane, it does (since the +5 is more likely to hit and deal that extra damage). If it matters, it should cost quadratically more to apply more and more stuff.
Does that make more sense out of it?
That does make a lot of sense, thank you for that. It especially makes more sense once you see how the wealth by level scales in basically the same way, exponentially, allowing the players to keep investing in these abilities.
It's always interesting to work with the endless struggle: Balancing rules and roleplay. As it stands, I'll likely allow my players to have a "free" +1 special ability on each item that still costs gold but doesn't subtract from the attunement bonus. Naturally, the approximate ~2000gp (Actual value highly variable) extra wealth gained will be accounted for. In this way, the net wealth gain/loss should be about zero but the players feel that they have the ability to make their items more interesting.
Math is hard, especially when we pull out the guts of a system that tries to hide some of those wheels to make it easier in play; you're not being dense at all!
It's my explanation that needs improvement. I'll explain better.
Normal system: I am a fighter with a +3 battleaxe that cost me 18,000. I want flaming. I must pay 14,000.
Attunement with capacity: I am a fighter with attunement +3. This cost me nothing (but the secret math of ABP works out that it took...
I can see how the math works out. I guess at this point I'm basically asking why we don't rewrite even the core rules to accommodate the special abilities, which is rather extreme!
My last little problem with the core ABP system (as if) is when a player wants to have a special ability instead of a +1, it feels like they're "paying double": once in gold, and once in losing the +1 on their weapon.
Nicely, with the capacity system, that is dealt with by allowing them to put that "lost" +1 into another weapon. Lots to think about
Thank you for your explanations. I'm sure ABP will fit in nicely in our group.
The quadratic scaling for items that get better and better is actually one of the cleverer pieces of math in the 3.X chassis. It's not "penalizing" so much as realizing that adding more and more benefits to the same item becomes nonlinearly better. It's why no flat cost can accurately gauge the value of weapon enhancements that continue to add to the weapon's offense (though they work fine for weird utility abilities that don't relate to using it as a weapon), and it's also why every time an item comes out that gives a weird stackable bonus on, say, attack rolls or AC, the math starts to break a little bit more (since those are flat costs that bypass all this).
I definitely agree that the quadratic scaling is a good system, it prevents one-track upgrading and only being good at one thing while allowing for a broader array of skills, talents, and upgrades.
However, I'm surprised there was no rule or exception that reduced the costs of adding on special abilities once attunements become higher. As it stands, I can't really see any characters justifying the cost of any special abilities at +3 attunement or higher, pushing everybody back into simply having their +3 battleaxe or pair of +2 daggers because the special abilities are simply too expensive when compared to spending nothing and still having a powerful item.
Forgive me if I'm appearing dense, perhaps there simply isn't a nice solution that can keep special abilities cost-effective even at higher attunements.
Joe M, I'd like to ask about your writeup and your experiences with the system. After some more thought, it seems to have the same problem that I initially had with the system which almost punishes players for using special abilities. More examples!:
Player 1 (+3 attunement) ignores the system and happily swings his +3 attuned greataxe without any money spent
Player 2 (+3 attunement) wants to use a flaming greataxe, but has to keep shelling out money whenever his attunement goes up to be able to use his full bonus, ending with a +3 flaming greataxe that cost him 14,000gp just to be able to use the flaming enchantment. I know this adheres better to the original rules in the CRB, but it penalizes those who want interesting abilities on their items rather than just enhancement bonuses.
The capacity system allows you to keep the gp price for the special abilities the same as it was before (taking into account that you have the enhancements already but also half gold). It's not necessarily easy to implement (I thought the chart was pretty intuitive at first, but it was my baby), but it covers you exactly. As you have surmised, pretty much every house rule (including Urath's) will generate a significant "effective gp"/power boost in weapons over a character who was at wealth-by-level standards in the CRB system.
I think I'm starting to understand that system. One problem with the description is that it never actually describes how it interacts with characters once they attune to it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but capacity works by letting players spend money to allow special abilities to be used WITHOUT subtracting from the enhancement bonus granted from attunement. Thus:
Lvl 10 (+2 attunement) character picks up a Flaming sword with +0 Capacity and attunes to it. It becomes a +1 flaming sword because +1 is subtracted from the character's attunement
Lvl 10 (+2 attunement) character picks up a Flaming sword with +1 Capacity and attunes to it. It becomes a +2 flaming sword because the capacity is used "first"
EDIT:
(Turns out I'm wrong, as seen by Joe M's writeup. Struck through so nobody gets the wrong idea)
Correct?
EDIT: I see your writeup Joe, that makes a lot of sense and means that I didn't quite interpret it correctly. Thanks for that! I think it does make sense to implement. Have you had any issues with power disparity?. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how the blazes a Druid fits into all this. Can they attune to an Amulet of Mighty Fists? How much bonus does their companion get, if any?
I have some rulings already set for all of this, it's just a bit maddening when you see something like ABP being right on the cusp of being excellent, but it doesn't account for many of the edge cases and strange interactions
That's interesting, I like it. So basically if they usually would have a +2 attunement, they now have +2 enhancement as well as a +2 budget (Or Capacity) to "spend" on magical abilities that are already present on the item before drawing from the attunement bonus.
However, this is nearly the same as removing the section about special abilities subtracting from the attunement bonus, and I'm hesitant to do that considering that it might be a bit unbalanced to allow players to be carrying around +2 keen spell-storing longsword for merely an 8k gold investment.
A possible middle ground would be to grant half the attunement bonus as the Capacity budget. Meaning that at the +2 enhancement, they have a +1 Capacity to spend on special abilities on wielded weapons before the bonus begins to subtract from the enhancement bonus. So, with a +2 attunement bonus:
Level 10 character picks up a keen(+1) longsword and attuned to it. It becomes a +2 keen longsword.
Level 10 character picks up a keen(+1) spell-storing(+1) longsword and attunes to it. It becomes a +1 keen spell-storing longsword.
Hello all! I've been considering restarting a campaign of mine using Automatic Bonus Progression from Pathfinder Unchained, but I'd like to hear some thoughts about how to progress with regards to weapon/armor special abilities (Like flaming, or vorpal)
Special Abilities:
To determine an attuned magic item's enhancement bonus, subtract the cost of its special ability from the enhancement bonus granted by attunement.
For example, if a character with a +3 enhancement bonus from weapon attunement wields a keen scimitar, she subtracts 1 point of her enhancement bonus (for the cost of keen), leaving her with a +2 keen scimitar.
My main issue centers around the cost of special abilities. In a system that appears to be designed around letting the players use interesting and flavourful options rather than basic "+1"s, it feels strange that players who want special abilities will still have to pay for them, from their reduced supply of gold.
For example: A player who wants a flaming burst sword and has an attunement bonus of +2 will pay 8000gp and end up with a basic Flaming burs, spending about 34% of a level 9 character's wealth.
In comparison, a player who pays nothing has a 2 sword, which can be considered to have equivalent power to the flaming burst sword.
I know that the cost is reduced from the core system, but basic enhancement bonuses were often better than most special abilities anyway because they were always relevant, where the special abilities often didn't have much of an impact. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to be paying gold for a special ability on an item, when you would be getting the enhancement bonus for free anyway.
I've seen a few possible ways to deal with this issue, such as halving the cost for special abilities, allowing users to attune their weapons to a special ability at the start of the day, or the strange Capacity system that was originally designed for Unchained. But I'm curious what other players and DMs think about the system. What have you implemented or played with, how did it work?
For the Rogue, the debilitating injury ability doesn't increase as you think.
For "Bewildered", the AC penalty does not increase by -2 each time, only the -2 penalty against YOU increases. Same with disoriented.
So at level 16, the AC penalty is -2, and -8 against the rogue.
Spoiler:
Bewildered: The target becomes bewildered, taking a –2 penalty to AC. The target takes an additional –2 penalty to AC against all attacks made by the rogue. At 10th level and 16th level, the penalty to AC against attacks made by the rogue increases by –2 (to a total maximum of –8).
Benefit: As a standard action, the alchemist can infuse a single arrow, crossbow bolt, or one-handed firearm bullet with the power of his bomb, load the ammunition, and shoot the ranged weapon. He must be proficient with the weapon in order to accomplish this. When the infused ammunition hits its target, it deals damage normally and detonates as if the alchemist had thrown the bomb at the target. If the explosive missile misses, it does not detonate.
Alchemical Weapon:
Benefit: At 2nd level, a grenadier can infuse a weapon or piece of ammunition with a single harmful alchemical liquid or powder, such as alchemist’s fire or sneezing powder, as a move action. This action consumes the alchemical item, but transfers its effect to the weapon in question.
The alchemical item takes full effect on the next creature struck by the weapon, but does not splash, spread, or otherwise affect additional targets. Any extra damage added is treated like bonus dice of damage, and is not doubled on a critical hit. The alchemical treatment causes no harm to the weapon treated, and wears off 1 minute after application if no blow is struck. At 6th level, a grenadier can use her alchemical weapon ability as a swift action. At 15th level, this ability becomes a free action.
Void Bomb:
Benefit: Benefit: By combining the spores from strange fungi with slivers from extradimensional voids, some drow alchemists create bombs that cause bursts of gravity capable of crushing those inside. Void bombs deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage, plus 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage for every 2 alchemist levels beyond 1st, instead of 1d6. A creature hit by the bomb must succeed at a Reflex save against the bomb's DC. If it fails, it is knocked prone and can't get up for 1 round. If it succeeds, all of its movement speeds are reduced to 5 feet for 1 round. Other creatures within 5 feet of the bomb's target take no damage, but must succeed at a Reflex save against the bomb's DC or have all their movement speeds reduced to 5 feet for 1 round.
So I have a few questions here about how these abilities interact:
1. Can I use Explosive Missile to apply a Void Bomb to a crossbow bolt? Essentially I'm asking whether discoveries that change bomb properties would apply to explosive missile
2. If I attach a tanglefoot bag to my crossbow bolt using Alchemical Weapon, then attach a void bomb using explosive missile, THEN hit that orc with it - in what order do the effects resolve? Prone then entangled? Entangled then prone?
So if I swing dagger with crit range of 19-20 and I roll a 19 is that a possible crit.
Whew, that's a two-year revive on this one. This topic is very old.
Interestingly, it is now possible to have a 14-20 crit range with the Inspired Blade archetype, but only at level 20. I think this may be the only way to have a range greater than 15-20
It even says you can wear it without penalty, I presume that goes beyond the whole not metal thing.
The fact that it specifies druids implies to me that it's only referring to the "Cannot wear metal part". However, simply stating "Without penalty" can be theoretically extended to wearing it even if you are not proficient.
Overall, it's pretty poor wording, but having it act as anything besides a regular breastplate might be a bit too powerful, considering the 1 hour/level casting time and the benefit druids already get.
Recently, I've stumbled across the spell Ice Armor, and I'm curious how it works with regards to Arcane Spell Failure and Proficiency.
Ice Armor:
You create a suit of armor made of ice. While cold to the touch, it does not harm the wearer, especially if worn over normal clothing (though it can hasten the effects of exposure in cold environments). It offers the same protection as a breastplate, except it has hardness 0 and 30 hit points. If the intended wearer is immersed in water when you cast this spell, you may form the armor around the wearer (who may be you); otherwise the wearer must don the armor normally. Attacks against the wearer that create heat or fire degrade the armor, reducing its armor bonus by 1 for every 5 points of fire damage the wearer takes; when the armor's bonus to AC reaches 0, the armor is destroyed and the spell ends. Because the ice is slightly buoyant, the wearer gains a +2 circumstance bonus on Swim checks, except when swimming downward. Druids can wear ice armor without penalty.
So, a few questions:
Do you need medium armor proficiency to wear this without penalty?
Do you suffer the usual spell failure chance?
Can a druid wild shape into a tiger, then cast the spell to be wearing a breastplate?
The main reason for my confusion is the phrase: "It offers the same protection as a breastplate". Nowhere is it stated that it has the other benefits/drawbacks of breastplate.
A quick related question, when using Linguistics to Bluff (as per Orator feat), do any bonuses to Bluff rolls apply? From the Deceitful feat for example?
I believe not, because you are replacing the bluff skill entirely with Linguistics. Otherwise, you could essentially "double-dip" by increasing both your bluff and linguistics skills to result in a ridiculously high skill check.
I understand the theme you're going for, just please understand that the theme of your character is negated at level 1 by a cleric, wizard, bard or anyone with access to those spell list and the choice of Comprehend Languages.
I disagree. Linguistics is more than simply being able to read languages, it is also the ability to speak, write, forge, and detect forgeries. In addition, comprehend languages does not allow you to read magical texts, while the Esoteric Linguistics feat does.
One thing to remember when creating this NPC is to decide what exactly this NPC can do and how it can benefit the party. In addition to simply translating texts, a very skilled linguist should be able to:
Read lips from a distance
Forge important documents for entry
Forge documents to deny entry to other people
Fake speaking a language to impress people
Specifically speak or teach a certain accent (Bonus to disguise or diplomacy, I'd say)
Develop a sign language that your party can use when attempting to be stealthy (A great idea when the spell Message isn't available)
After reading the Legendary Item rules for mythic, I'm currently uncertain whether the user casts the spells, or the item itself:
Quote:
Spellcasting: This item allows its bearer to cast a limited number of spells as spell-like abilities. This ability can be taken more than once. Each time it's taken, the bonded creature gains 5 points to spend on selecting what spells the item can cast. A spell costs a number of points equal to its level (minimum 1). The bearer can then activate the item to use each spell-like ability once per day. By spending double the cost, the bearer can use each spell-like ability three times per day. All spells must come from the same class's spell list...
So I cannot quite tell whether the character or object gains the spell-like abilities. From repetition, I would assume that it is the bearer.
The main reason I ask is that being able to cast spell-like abilities with the item would mean that one could qualify for prestige classes and feats with this ability quite easily.
I would also assume it's the bearer because allowing for an item to cast spells would let you really break action economy with two spells every round
I believe that, for the purpose of simplicity, ANY excess damage is carried over to the person. Otherwise, there's going to be a mathematical nightmare every time you attempt this ability, dragging everything down.
Although it doesn't make much sense to deal more damage through this ability than simply hitting the target, you can explain it in several ways:
Target is unused to having no armour, expecting it to protect them so you strike a critical blow where they expected a deflection
If metal armour, pieces of the armour stab into the exposed enemy.
The magical nature of your weapon gains strength on shattering armour, pushing further into your foe
The enemy is greatly demoralized by the strike, reducing their ability to defend themselves.
Interestingly, there is a wondrous item somewhere that boosts will saves, but also allows you to fake being charmed/dominated in order to deceive the caster into thinking the spell succeeded. I'm doing my best to find it right now, seems like it has a lot of potential.
I've been DMing for some time, and I and my players have been discussing this issue and are curious about other opinions and inputs.
Imagine a situation where a hated enemy is engaged in combat with the party, and then surrenders, appearing visibly afraid for their life. The rogue steps in, stating that they want to immediately end the enemy's life with a dagger. Another player, a ranger, states that they physically restrain the rogue out of compassion for the person's life.
Should this be something that should be allowed by DMs? It is an interesting consideration because every player wants to voice their opinion through their actions, either by destroying a potential threat or by protecting a person who may have information or a hope for redemption.
As DM, if I deny the ranger the ability to halt the rogue's attack, I effectively remove their ability to act upon their motivations and thoughts, going down one path without the ability to at least discuss the other.
However, it could be said that I am doing the same for the rogue if I allow the ranger to halt his coup de grace, preventing him from demonstrating his cold, calculating nature.
For 1st level spells, it's often more efficient to use 5 pearls of power rather than a Ring of Wizardry for 1st level spells. You're mostly going to be expending them on the Shocking Grasp anyway, so you can simply prepare one or two SGs and recall them with the pearl on command.
The only problem I see is that you need to be careful in extended fights because speaking a command word is a standard action.
However, you are saving 15,000 gold (5000 for 5 pearls, 20,000 for the ring)
I'm somewhat confused about the STR bonus that I am to add in this spreadsheet. I think I may be confusing the Beast Shape functionality.
The STR bonus is the modifier that I, as a druid, have before beast shaping, correct? So, does the STR value for say, a leopard, have any effect on my damage or attack rolls once I've changed?
What level Wizard are you? Wizard is one of the best classes for defending a fort, with huge area control and denial spell such as Create Pit, Wall of Fire, and Wind Wall
Where a Wizard becomes even more helpful is in the conjuration of illusions. If you use Images to show an approaching allied army, they may divert forces to deal with the "Threat". Show great burning pits in their path, modify your forces to be much much larger. Hell, make another fort beside yours so they aren't sure which one to attack.
However, I'm constantly asked to roll concentration checks before I spellstrike
The -2 penalty is only for Spell Combat. Spellstrike doesn't reduce your attack bonus.
The concentration checks only apply if you attempt to cast defensively, which removes the attack of opportunity the enemy normally gets if you cast a spell. The concentration check does weight it slightly against you in that you must roll extra rolls in order to succeed, but this is a method to mitigate the Magus' power. It feels well balanced to me, since spending a feat (Combat Casting) allows you to almost ignore concentration checks for a while.
Quote:
STR: +1
DEX: +3
+1 Scimitar: +1
I'm looking at 1d6 + 4, right? Dervish Dance makes the dex mod take the place of the STR mod to the weapon output, correct? Or do they stack?
Also, are there additional modifiers to damage that I might be missing? I am not wearing any gear that enhances either dex or str.
Thanks.
That looks correct. Dervish Dance replace the STR mod to attack and damage with the DEX modifier. Nothing else would be adding to your damage at this point.
What intrigues me is how Mythic Invisibility works, specifically the augmented version
Quote:
The invisible target can't be detected with detect magic or other spells that detect magic auras.
The invisibility can't be penetrated, revealed, or dispelled by spells of 2nd level or lower (such as see invisibility or glitterdust), though true seeing and dust of appearance can reveal the invisible target's presence.
Augmented (3rd): If you expend two uses of mythic power, the invisible target is undetectable by blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense.
To me, this feels like a fair interpretation of Undetectable. Invisibility is not cleared by lvl 2 and lower spells, and is not detectable by blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense.
I make this logical step because if it is possible in the first place to become undetectable in these ways, then it's not absurd to suggest that a magical item can do the same thing.
Flame blade does NOT critical on 18-20. Mythic Magic allows you to increase it to 18-20. Thus, it does not usually function with such a crit range. Also, augmenting it allows you to increase the critical range to 15-20, so improved critical also does not appear to apply.
Flame Blade (Mythic):
Flame Blade (Mythic)
The blade's damage increases to 2d6 points of fire damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +20). The blade threatens a critical hit on a natural 18–20 as if it were an actual scimitar.
Augmented (3rd): If you expend two uses of mythic power, the blade threatens a critical hit on a natural 15–20, and bypasses hardness, fire resistance, and fire immunity.
I would like a FAQ on this, because the strength of Undetectability drastically changes between the two interpretations.
To say that even mundane methods do not work is to say that swinging a large stick in your square will simply pass right through you, preventing detection. It also means that if you're hit with a spell, there won't be any grunts of pain or the like; all sound is muffled. In which case, does it also block blindsight? Tremorsense?
To me, Undetectable makes the most sense by stating that it blocks all magical methods of detection. Perhaps certain forms of blindsense/blindsight could be included in that. A specific entry may be included for things like Invisibility Purge to either allow or deny its effectiveness
Early bayonets were called "Plug Bayonets" because you did literally plug them into the barrel. Obviously, these were not as effective as later socket or ring bayonets, but they did exist for a time.
It seems a bit odd that plug bayonets would be the only ones around, and I would personally house rule that bayonets don't prevent ranged attacks. But they would provide a penalty such as -5 to range increment due to the greater weight.
The feat doesn't mention multi-save spells either way, and since the vast majority of spells are single-save (including most of the iconic spells, like fireball or disintegrate), it makes sense to me that the feat was probably designed with single-save spells in mind. The lack of mention of multi-save spells was probably an oversight.
For spells like suffocation, I think Persistent is still a good deal. It increases the chances of the target failing that initial save, which opens the door to all those subsequent saves and the horribleness they bring. Same for something like hold person or glitterdust. Having the target reroll every save seems like it'd make it way too hard to shake those effects, and those spells are built with the idea that they won't last their full duration.
Mm, perhaps you're right. Though I see no problem with making a spell like Glitterdust that much harder to resist on subsequent saves, considering that it would now be a 4th-level spell.
Then again, applying it to really difficult save spells like Mass Suffocation could result in nigh-impossible saves.
Overall, I think it could be taken either way, with DM discretion to keeps things balanced. It seems to me that it's more RAW to apply it to every save, but more RAI (and perhaps balanced) to apply it once. Whatever is more fun, I suppose!
I don't see why it wouldn't apply to the second save. It feels like that would be specifically mentioned in the metamagic description if it were the case.
One could argue that the Aqueous orb has two effects: the damage and the engulfment. The Persistent metamagic states that:
Quote:
Whenever a creature targeted by a persistent spell or within its area succeeds on its saving throw against the spell, it must make another saving throw against the effect
Thus, each effect requires that the target reroll a successful save.
Also, what about recurring saves? For instance: Suffocation. Do you believe that Persistent only applies to the first successful save, and then never again? I feel like that makes the metamagic too weak for a spell slot increase of 2 levels.
I'd say it's pretty clear now. The only argument that could be made would be to say that the first save is rolled twice, but if the target fails, the second save would only be rolled once. I do not see how this case could be argued for, considering that the the intent of Persistent Spell is to make saves much harder to succeed.
So: Roll every save from a persistent spell twice, take the worst result for each.
To simplify, I would have affected targets roll the same save twice and take the worse result. This will give the same result but it's easier to read and understand. Specifically, I would reword Persistent spells as this:
Quote:
Whenever a creature must make a saving throw for a persistent spell, it must roll twice and take the worse result
The fun part is when all four of those techniques are used at once. You can get up to 5 spells off in one round. The magus is excellent at nova for this very reason.
Nova: Burning a lot of resources at once for a lot of damage.
Though not simultaneous, there are a multitude of ways to get multiple spells delivered through your sword in one round of attacking:
Quickened spells can be cast in the same round as another regular spell, allowing you to cast two. Both will be delivered through your sword.
The Critical Strike arcana is made for this, but only at level 12.
Casting a spell the round before allows you to deliver two in the next round. EX: Cast shocking grasp. Next round, Spell combat. Once the first spell is delivered, cast the second shocking grasp, next hit will discharge it.
There is that to consider. What types of things might trigger on a crit?
Any of the Critical Feats. Or Magi can cause the spells they deliver to critical with the increased crit range. This is limited to x2 damage, making the x3 damage pointless for extra spell damage.
Well it would be no different from a single lance. You simply make two attack rolls with the penalty(One for each lance) and add the damage from power attack. Being mounted doesn't really change this.
Unless, of course, you are charging. I assume this is the important question here: Is the damage from Power Attack doubled on a successful charge and lance attack?
I would presume that it would. After all, Power Attack grants a bonus to your damage roll itself and the doubled damage from the charge is simply "a lance deal double damage".
However, because of the rules of charge, you may only make a single attack at the end of a charge, making two lances completely pointless for charging.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10 + the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimidate checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.
Otherwise, having a high ability score (Say, 20 intelligence at first level. Not difficult to do), would grant access to 5th level spells for a wizard. That's incredibly powerful for what's supposed to be a weak, 1st-level character who should barely be more powerful than a commoner at this point.
We're actually going to be in the air, fighting a dragon. So this significantly limits the ability to mess around with terrain. Normally that's what would be done; with a wizard using walls of force, pits and the like. But now it's going to be an aerial brawl.
Myself and my party are about to enter deadly combat with a great creature and it has blindsense, oh no!
What kind of defensive spells could be cast to boost AC or general survivability that isn't countered by blindsense? Normally we would use spells such as displacement or mirror image, but these no longer work. We can cast up to 4th level wizard/sorcerer spells.
However combining with a smoke bomb or stink bomb should work since they don't do damage. That would be annoying: having your stuff dispelled and end up in the middle of a stinking cloud.
According to the Smoke Bomb page, the smoke bombs and stink bombs still do damage.
I would say that any bomb that dispels magic does no damage at all, since you are replacing the damage with a Dispel Magic effect. Thus, combining it with something like Frost Bomb would not suddenly allow it to deal damage. You'd just dispel the magic with cold or something.
