I've got a fairly large order that is pending. Originally it was pending due to a change in credit cards but that was changed on 11/11/13.
Can someone tell me why it is still pending?
Search Posts
On page 561 and 562 of the Core Rule book are rules for Damage Reduction and Overcoming Damage Reduction. Included on page 562 is a chart that shows how some magical weapons allow you to overcome damage reduction even if your weapon is not made of the material normally needed to overcome that damage reduction type. I show the paragraph before the chart and the chart itself below for reference. "Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater
DR Type Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
* Note that this does not give the ability to ignore hardness,
While the text before this chart refers to the need for the "enhancement bonus" to be +3 or better, the chart uses the column heading of Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent". I've checked the magical weapon section and no where does it use the same term "Enhancement Bonus Equivalent" but my interpretation is that a "+1 Icy Burst" weapon has a Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent of +3 (+1 for the enhancement bonus and +2 for the icy burst.) This has been debated among our group and another theory is that only if the enhancement bonus itself meets or exceeds the values above will the weapon overcome the corresponding damage resistance. Any thoughts? As an example: The party encounters an iron golem with DR 15/Adamantine. 1. Fighter A has a masterwork adamantine sword.
Which one of these characters will be able to overcome the damage resistance of the iron golem? Theory A (Equivalent Bonus) Theory B (Enhancement only)
2. Fighter B's +4 sword overcomes damage resistance under both Theory A and Theory B. 3. Cleric C's +2 Flame Burst weapon overcomes damage resistance under Theory A but is inneffective under Theory B. So if Theory B is the correct answer, the Cleric probably dies a painful death when he realizes his weapon is inneffective. 4. The wizard dies a horrible death. This was somewhat a trick question but the spell itself states that the bonus "does not allow a
So which is right? Theory A or Theory B? I'd appreciate informed responses as this situation comes up in a Pathfinder AP mode I'm running and no one has a +4 weapon.
I'm playing an Invulnerable Rager archetype in a new campaign and at level 2 when I was hit by an attack I began to reduce the damage from the attack by my DR even though I wasn't in a rage. My DM stopped me and said I couldn't because I wasn't raging. In looking closer at the rules, I think the Invulnerable Rager's DR should apply whether the character is raging or not since it is a class ability. The Uncanny Dodge ability that it replaces would always work, even when I'm not raging, so why wouldn't the DR. Does anyone disagree? Also, if I later take the rage power, Increased Damage Reduction, since it is a rage power, I would assume that it only applied if the character was raging since it is a rage power. Does anyone disagree?
Based on your interpretation of the rules what happens when the caster of a compulsion spell such as dominate person dies? Is the person dominated still dominated and under the compulsion of the caster? Or does he carry out the last command and then sit mindless for days until the spell wears off? I ruled that the compulsion was removed upon the death of the evil villian but I got arguments about that. I was too damn tired of fighting over rules after an seven to eight hour session of play even though the spell says they complete the task they are ordered to do to the exclusion of all else. There is nothing under duration in the magic section that covers what happens to a spells duration after the caster dies. Unfortunately there could be a lot of variations and questions raised by this but my thought is any spell that is not permanent or instantaneous would end upon the caster's death. So illusions would cease, the affects of blesses and buffs would end, and compulsions and enchantmens would end as well. I'm just curious if others agree or disagree and why they believe that?
The Adventure Paths seem to have artifacts in them quite often. When the party got one of them in the campaing I'm running, the wizard rolled to identify the item and got a 41 on his check which was enough to identify the item per my interpretation of the rules using Detect Magic and Spellcraft. However, one of the DMs in the group said that the abilities of an artifact can't be determined that way. The Detect Magic spell doesn't say this. Analyze Dweomor says specifically it won't work on artifacts. Legend Lore only gives you legendary information about an item and doesn't specifically say that it will tell you the abilities of an artifact. The artifact rules don't specifically say how the abilities of an artifact are determined nor how the ways to destroy the artifact are discovered. So my big question, is how does a person determine what the abilities of an artifact are? And how does a person determine how to destroy an artifact?
I was running Kingmaker AP this weekend and the party cleric cast Silence on a point which the enemy spellcaster was in. The spellcaster was large and on his next turn took a five foot step and only 1 of his 4 hexes was in the Silence spell. In my mind, the spellcaster was out of the silence spell and should be able to cast a spell but the two other DMs in the group disagreed. Their argument was that a large creature with one square in a grease spell or even a fireball would still have to save. I agreed but I have a bit of a problem with that. Where do you draw the line. Does a colossal dragon who has one of his hexes enter a grease spell have to save vs te grease spell or fall down? If one of his hexes from the back part of his body was in the silent spell, would he not be able to cast a spell? This seems wrong but by a strict reading of the rules, this seems correct. Anyone have any thoughts or opinions on this? |