Gurior's page

Hi.

So, I'm looking at Fast study :

Benefit: Normally, a wizard spends 1 hour preparing all of his spells for the day, or proportionately less if he only prepares some spells, with a minimum of 15 minutes of preparation. Thanks to mental discipline and clever mnemonics, you can prepare all of your spells in only 15 minutes, and your minimum preparation time is only 1 minute.

As far as I understand it, the purpose of the Discovery is leaving spell slots open, to fill them "on the fly" during adventure with minimal time. As written, it sounds like a good use of a feat, and very practical.

Here's why I have a problem. Under the general magic rules and wizard spells preparation, we find this :

To prepare his daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but he must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period.[...] and he must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing his spells.

(emphasis mine)

So, this would mean that even if a Wizard purposely leaving some slots open and then in the middle of the adventure decides to study a spell, he needs :
A) 1 hour of uninterrupted rest
B) 1 min to study the spell (rather than the normal 15 min needed)

Is this the intended ruling ?

I can't see any situation where fast study is useful, if all it can do is reducing the time for studying on the fly from 75 to 61 min.

(It also reduces total studying time from 1h to 15 min, but I've never had a single game / campaign where this would have had any impact)

Hi.

I'm looking at the Veneficus Witch Archetype. Which states :
"This ability replaces the witch's 2nd- and 10th-level hexes."

I'm having trouble with the interpretation here.
the witch normally gets a single [normal] Hex at 2nd level, and both a [normal] Hex and a Major Hex at 10th level.

Does the wording indicates it replaces both the normal and major 10th level hexes? or just the normal hexes, leaving the Major one intact?

When reading other archetypes, it is pointed when one's references to a normal, major or Grand hex, such an exemple here :
"This ability replaces the major hex granted at 10th level."

I would like to combine two archetypes, but I must first make sure both do not replace the same class powers, which would make the combination invalid.

Thanks for your help.

In my current campaign, I’m playing a scrollmaster wizard, an archetype that replaces the arcane bond class feature. I’m willing to spend some feat investment in order to regain it. At the moment, I have 2 open feats at level 1, then another on 3rd ,5th, etc.
So far, I found two ways of doing this, which are as follows:

First Path: Grab Iron will and
familiar bond at 1st level, and improved familiar bond on 3rd.
It’s a 3 feat investment for a full-familiar, or 2 feat if I’m ready to forgo most of the advantages of having one (wich I'm not). It allows carrying the little friend beginning on level 1, and gain the full advantages on level 3.

This path was initially my first choice, since as far as I knew it was the only one. However, I just discovered another way:

First, get Skill focus (any knowledge) to fulfill the next feat prerequisites. The other level 1 feat is unspent.
At level 3, grab Eldritch Heritage (Arcane bloodline).

This gives me the first level power of the associated sorcerer bloodline :

So, the second path only necessitates a 2-feat investment, but asks for a 13 Cha prerequisite. Although both end up with a full familiar at level 3, the second path gives me nothing until there.

However, considering the second path, I’m not sure how to consider my effective caster level both for the powers of the familiar, and for qualifying for the improved familiar feat.
Eldritch Heritage goes like : “ For purposes of using that power, treat your sorcerer level as equal to your character level – 2, even if you have levels in sorcerer.”

Howerver, the Arcane bond sorcerer power says : “ you gain an arcane bond, as a wizard equal to your sorcerer level. Your sorcerer levels stack with any wizard levels you possess when determining the powers of your familiar or bonded object. "

My question is this:
So… suppose I am a level 5 wizard. Am I considered a level 3 wizard (character level -2 ) for calculating familiar powers and minimum caster level for improved familiar, or do I follow the Arcane bond rule from the sorcerer, where my 5 Wiz levels stacks with my effective sorcerer level (3) ?

(Note : Altough, RAW states I would be “level 8” (5+3), I think RAI I should be considered 5, wich is my total Character level.)

edit : I don't know how to spell Which.

Hi ! not sure if the advice forum is the appropriate place to ask for help DM'ing an adventure, but here it is :

Soon, I'm going to bring my players in an adventure through Hell in order to retrieve one of their captured companions.

Obvioulsly, it is played at high level (in the range of 18-20)

At some point, I want to have the party Fight Cerberus (as shown here). Which will guard a particular Portal leading to another destination in Hell.

however, In his description, Cerberus " never willingly moves more than 60 feet from the Gates[...] " Which I find is appropritate, And want to keep.
However, I'm having trouble imagining what kind of environnement to place around him that would prevent the group from simply hitting him from a safe distance until the beast in slain, then continue on their way. (the party, having a "full-archer", is fully capable of doing this)

I've thought that the plains around him could be heavyly covered in obcuring flames, but that dosen't prevent the players from flying above. If I obscure the Skies too, then that goes against my view of the encounter, where the Gate Cerberus is guarding is visible from far away.

I don't want either to force or imprison the players within 60 feet of Cerberus, as I want to leave them a way of escape if the fight goes badly.

Giving Big C. a fly speed dosen't adress the problem either.

I guess I could make it so the Gate he is protecting is un-passable were Cerberus to be slain, but I'm not sure that's the best approach.

Any ideas ?

Thanks :)

(edit: typos)

So , one of the characters in my game has this ability, wich goes as follows :

Transfer Magic (Su): Your mythic nature allows you to take magic from others as easily as you could take their gold. By expending one use of mythic power as a standard action, you can make a melee touch attack to transfer an active magical effect from a target creature to you. If you succeed, the highest-level effect on the target transfers to you (determine randomly if the target has multiple effects with the same level), ending the effect for the target and continuing it on you with the remaining duration as if you were the original target. You may end the effect on yourself as a standard action; this doesn't cause it to revert to the original target. If the transferred magic can't affect you (for example, if it doesn't affect creatures of your type), it ends immediately as if dispelled. You can't use this ability to transfer continuous bonuses from magic items, such as an armor bonus from bracers of armor.

So, basicaly, the "dispel" on self is always an automatic sucess.

My question is , what happens if you try to transfer a negative effect to you, and then dispel it.

for example, let it be a bestow curse. After discussion , we agreeed that this would be no exception. So Player 1 Transfers the (currently permanent) curse on player 2 onto himself, effectively suffering form the curse until he psends a standard action to end it. (were that curse to impair his future actions, incluing spending that standard action to end it, would still do so.)

So, we kind of agree that transfering a condition into oneself does not allow you a save against the condition. you agree to suffer the full effect until you get rid a it.

As another example, if trying to save a character life by "transfering" a suffocate spell affecting him, you would have to suceed a fortitude save by yourself on the beginning of the next round, or risk falling inconscious (and then maybe die).

So far, so good.

But what if the spell in question as as partial effect in case of a suceeded save, and you want to transfert it to you?
would you :

1) Suffer the full effect of the spell, as if you had failed the (or all) save(s)
2) Suffer the exact current effect affecting the target, including what you partially saved against
3) Re-roll your own save upon transfering the spell unto you, in order to determine the outcome?

I'm thinking of a situation with baleful polymorph, where the target as failed the foritude save (transfering it into a tiny animal), but may (or may not, the players don't know yet) suceeded the will save.

What would happen if the trickster transfer the polymorph into himself?

Edited for clarity

So.. I had this situation (as DM) last game night, and was wondering what you would have house-ruled, were you to be in the same situation.

3 of my players attacked an army of orc. (crazy, those things you can do at mid level against Cr 1/3 creatures...)

After some fighting, they got surrounded by a hundred of them. (litteraly, one orc on every heaxagon around them, no free space, aorund 4 or 5 row thick in every direction).

An orc caster then casted a fog cloud in the melee.

Then, the 3 players each drank potions of invisibilyty (happy the the new 20% concealement avoided them all AOO from drawing and drinking the potions).

Then everything went down to a crawl, as the players suggested that they just "pass through" the rows of orcs in a non-threatening way, in order not to break the invisibility effect. I was at a loss at to how to rule that, since that is not covered by either invis nor Acrobatics.

So...

My reasoning went like this :
If you want to push your way through, that equals to an overrun combat manoeuver. You still avoid all AOO (from the fog), but were you to fail the roll you would still break Invisibility and not move from your square (or hex, in that matter).

And then came acrobatics. Corebook goes like this :

" In addition, you can move through a threatened square without provoking an attack of opportunity from an enemy by using Acrobatics. When moving in this way, you move at half speed. You can move at full speed by increasing the DC of the check by 10. [...]
Move through an enemy's space DC = 5 + opponent's Combat Maneuver Defense "

I ruled that, altough being invisible [g] should help [/g], it should not assure you of finding a way throught the rows of orcs without chance of failure, because you can still bump into one while trying to find a way through (or not find a way at all) even when your opponent can't see you (yet is still aware of your presence).

So, I decided that the roll would be Acrobatics vs CMD + 0 (effectively, giving the player a +5 bonus for being invisible) to move through an enemy square. The DC raises by +2 for every successive enemy you want to pass trough in the same round (from corebook).
Were you to fail the roll, you bump into an orc (which reveal your presence), but stay invisible.

So the players went like this :

The fighter decided to try his way at overrunning, instantly breaking the invisility he drank the round before (making the alchemist cry a little at those 300 gp), succedded at the manoeuver, and ran through 4 rows of orcs.

The paladin was wearing a shirt of freedom of movement. After some deliberation, I allowed the magic to allow him to move through the orcs unhindered (altough at half-speed). My reasoning was that, if freedom can allow you to pass through a web spell by moving between the strands (without getting stuck, altought still vs difficult terrain) it should do the same for creature trynig to stop you from passing through (since they cannot grab you or anything to impede your movement). There is room to argue about that, but since he was ALSO invisible, I allowed it.

The Slayer decided to try his way at acrobatics.
He rolled a 17, wich allowed him to move past the first orc, but the first cumulative +2 to the DC stopped his move as the second. I decided this was the outcome, an exception to the rule than you can never end your movement on the same space an an enemy. I decided this because it made no sense that the DC of the roll would start at (CMD + 8, for example, for squeezing through 4 orcs), if you are unaware of how many orcs you have to run through because of the fog. So he stopped his movement there.

Anyway, in the end he was grabbed, pinned down, and stabbed repetitively. But after having three great rolls in a row, he managed to free himself and run away.

So, I was wondering how you would have ruled such a situation, specially for the acrobatics part.
such a situation is kinda likely to happen again, with the strategy style of the group.

Thanks, (and sorry for the long post)
Gurior.

Hi,

I've been following the forums for about 2 years now, finding a great deal of answers during that time for pathfinder ruling that were not covered in the books. So thank you, to the community, for that.
End of new user introduction.

I'm DM'ing a game where one of my player's character (arcanist) got baleful polymorphed (BP) into a squirrel by a BBEG.

At the moment, the arcanist in question was several dozen feet up in the air (despite the close range of BP, the BBEG had a reach metamagic rod)

After failing its fortitude save, the group argued that since the character would be killed by the ensuing fall damage where he to change to a squirrel, he should be allowed the +4 on its saving throw, as :

"If the new form would prove fatal to the creature, such as an aquatic creature not in water, the subject gets a +4 bonus on the save."

I agreed with them.

Nonetheless, that was not enough to succed the save. However, then comes the will save, and my question is as follow :

Would the +4 bonus to the saving throw, in that case, applies to BOTH the Fort and will save, or just the Fort save ?

I would argue that it would just applies to the Fort save, because that's the save that changes you to "a form that can be fatal". That would be my guess at "rules as intended".

however, your interpretation of Rules as written my be different.

Any opinions ?

Thanks,
Gurior (new member !)