Fiendish Fire Giant

Ignipotens's page

121 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

All these posts and only 3 people marked FAQ :s

Not sure if that means a majority of people think it is obvious or they don't want to read 7 pages.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to confirm what some of you are saying about what a successful trip is according to Greater Trip.

I have a CMD of 20.
You roll a 25 and beat my CMD.

Many of you say that you succeeded and AOOs will follow.

However:
I have an ability that says I cannot be tripped. Following the logic above, even though I was not tripped you still beat my CMD and take your AOOs. However the trip actually failed and you wouldn't take AOOs. The only thing that fails in this example is that I didn't fall prone.

That example makes me think that there is more to a 'successful' trip than just beating CMD. I would consider falling prone is what determines if you were successful. If you are already prone and cannot fall prone again any additional trip attempts will fail.


Jiggy wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
One thing you may want to include; by default rules, how easy it is to see (and hit) something is based on the light conditions at the location of what you're trying to look at, not where you happen to be standing. So if you're standing on a hill on a cloudy night (ambient level "dark") you can still see a campfire in the valley; it's literally lit up for you to see. A lot of people think that, if you're standing in darkness, you can't see anything, not even the person approaching you holding a torch until they suddenly "render" into existence when their torch illuminates you. You'll see them long before they see you.
The purpose of this post was to deal with the interactions of light and darkness effects. "What it's like to be outdoors at night" is outside that scope, and my "summary" is long enough as it is. ;)

I believe there is a lengthy thread about this somewhere. I remember seeing it a couple months back.


Jiggy wrote:
Ignipotens wrote:
Dispeling on the other hand is a little easier. If you can find the object that had darkness or light cast on it, you can cast the opposite on the same object and it will dispel.

Yes, if you can stumble around blinded and find the correct object (probably a piece of gear on the NPC who cast the darkness spell), touch it (probably requiring a touch attack, if it's indeed on an attended object), beat the 50% miss chance from being effectively blinded, and be using a light spell of equal or higher level (though if it's higher level, you'd be better off just casting it normally, so really this all only applies if it's exactly the same level), you could dispel the darkness effect.

Yay?

LoL exactly! Just wanted to point it out as you made it sound like it could not be done. I find it funny to picture a caster stumbling with their hands out looking/sensing the item only to find that it is on the enemy you could not see :) Blindsight would be useful in this case.


Very nice, thanks for this!

Jiggy wrote:


Part 1 – Forget about countering and dispelling
One of the most frequent errors I see when people try to adjudicate light and darkness spells is the misapplication of this line from the end of darkness:
Darkness wrote:
Darkness can be used to counter or dispel any light spell of equal or lower spell level.

Simply put, if you think this line (or the similar line from light, etc) is going to matter in most cases, then you don't know what it means. There's a mechanic in game by which spells with opposite effects can be cast as dispels/counters against each other; see also bless/bane, cause fear/remove fear, haste/slow, etc.

One thing I would add is while counterspelling is laughable as you mention you and another person would have to be touching the same object.

Dispeling on the other hand is a little easier. If you can find the object that had darkness or light cast on it, you can cast the opposite on the same object and it will dispel.


I would say you are still considered very familiar with the location. Yes the area might look a little different but you are still know where the room is in relation to everything else. Say you always teleport to the center of the room. The center of the room never changes. If someone moves a chair over the center you will end your teleport on the chair.

So in essence you will still arrive on location and not somewhere else. What it looks like when you get there is a different story. As Kayerloth said, it still has a risk. The whole building could be on fire and you teleport right into it! Or maybe the building was destroyed and you teleport to where the room used to be but it is now rubble.


Quote:
Severed parts that are not reattached wither and die normally.

So if I chop the head off and move it away from the body, in 1 hour the head will wither and die. Without a brain to control it I would say the troll dies as the only thing left would be a body but nothing to control said body.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No one is complaining just curious. We actually went up against some nessian hell hounds and a red dragon recently. With the help of the witch in our party I successfully turned them to rabbits :) No need for fireballs. They also failed their will saves unfortunately, a rabbit with a breath weapon would have been awesome!


Hendelbolaf wrote:

Yes, with Magical Lineage (Fireball) you can use all of your 5th level slots to cast Maximized Fireball. Just remember that it will be a full round action instead of a standard action.

There is some debate in the rules as to whether or not you can use higher level slots to cast lower level spells. I personally allow it but there is no change to the DC or any other aspect of the spell. SO, if you wanted to use a 4th level slot to cast Fireball, then go ahead but it will be the same spell effect as if you had used a 3rd level spell. The difference would be if you use Heighten Spell, then the DC and other spell level related variables (such as Globes of Invulnerability) would be at the higher slot used. This would also, however, be cast as a full round action instead of a standard action.

Yep, just talking about using a 4th level for a regular 3rd level fireball. Not saying I would however, since I have better spells than a regular 3rd level fireball. I was just curious how many I could actually cast.


I thought so. Thanks for reassuring me. :)


The other night one of my fellow gamers exclaimed, after my 6th fireball, "how many fireballs can you cast?". My response, "lots".

My question is around casting lower level spells at higher levels. Is this the correct way to think about it?

Example:
My first fireballs of the day are normally maximized cast at a lvl 5 slot. (Using Magical Lineage trait) So I tick off a lvl 5 spell used every time.

Currently I can cast 7 lvl 5 spells per day. So after 7 maximized fireballs I can no longer cast anything from a level 5 spot. But I still have all my lvl 3 slots open.

So effectively, not saying I would actually do this, I can use all my spells per day from 3rd level to 7th level on just fireballs. Is this correct or am I overlooking something?

If I wasn't applying metamagic I can still cast a lower level spell at a higher slot correct? If I am out of 3rd levels I can just cast fireball from 4th level?


Mattaus wrote:
OK so with your version what level do you need to be in order to have 10d6 damage

10th


Mattaus wrote:

Hmm there's definitely two ways of reading this

You must actually have sufficient caster levels to surpass the maximum in order to benefit from this feat

level 6 - check

spell increases the maximum number of damage dice by 5 levels

5 + 5 = 10

And the maximum number of dice is based on caster level.


Mattaus wrote:
But surely if the caster has surpassed the max 5 d6 and now increases it by 5 levels - that's 10d6 ??
Intensified Spell wrote:
...You must actually have sufficient caster levels to surpass the maximum in order to benefit from this feat.


You are correct.

Edit. Read over the "At level 6 part"


Also, now that I am thinking about it. There hasn't been any FAQs since Nov! What's the hold up?


I would go with what the module wrote. Many times the baddies in modules have items or special rules that are not RAW. But just because the Warden doesn't follow the rules doesn't mean your PCs can do the same.


A full round action is one action even if it gives you multiple attacks. Are there any rules against stopping an action in the middle to perform another action then continuing the first initial action? I thought there was but I can't think of any off hand.


FAQ'd

I'm in the camp of they still get it at 4th level and at 6th level it is modified.

The APG has sections that say the wild shape ability is gained at x level and then right below those they also have the shaman sections that omit the text that says they gain it at x level. Instead they say how it functions at level 6 not that they gain the ability at level 6.

All of the descriptions are together on the same few pages in the APG. It is obvious (to me at least) that they intended it to be different otherwise they would have kept the same descriptive text as the other archetypes.


CrazyGnomes wrote:
The gold particles aren't the creature. They also aren't the creature's gear. So, they are not affected by the creature casting invisibility and remain visible.

It's no point, He/She won't listen. This is exactly what I was trying to convey.


Redneckdevil wrote:

Can someone link where it says invisible light still gives off visible light sourse? If so then I'm guessing the magical dust would become invisible around the character but the sparkles it gibes off to outline the invisible target would continue to visible sparkle for the duration of the spell.

Also if glitterdust does go invisble being coated in it, then if u were smack dab in the middle of a bush being coated by its leaves and such I would say the bush disappears by same logic.

Is this what you are looking for?

Invisibility wrote:
Light, however, never becomes invisible, although a source of light can become so (thus, the effect is that of a light with no visible source).


Remy Balster wrote:

If you are carrying the ground, then... yeah, it is yours, and would turn invisible with you. But only to 10ft away. (The spell clarifies this) Can you carry the ground? (If yes, Hi Atlas! ^.^)

I wouldn't say you are carrying dust. The spell also says any gear/item you carry turns invisible. Dust, mud, water, etc are not items or gear and would fall outside of the effects of the spell.


I agree with Blahpers. The other archetypes specifically state you "gain" wild shape at x level and the shamans just say your wild shape ability now "functions" like.

I think what hero lab might be doing is calculating the +2 for shaping in to a dinosaur which would make you level 4 in terms of using the ability.


That is correct and not a glitch. The APG doesn't say the Druid gets wild shape at 6th level. Unlike other archetypes it says the how the ability functions. Shamans are special in that they still get their wild shape at 2nd level and at 6th level it gets modified.

Edit: Not sure why it is giving wild shape at 2nd level. I am seeing the same thing in Hero Lab


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remy Balster wrote:
So your argument is that the dust is immune to invisibility?

Read it again. His/her argument is that this is magical and not regular dust.

If I go with your interpretation of how invisibility works, anything that is touching me at the time I cast the spell turns invisible. So I am laying on the ground when I cast, now myself and the ground are invisible. I jump in to the bushes and cast, now the myself and the bushes are invisible. I go hug a tree and cast, now myself and the tree are invisible.


wraithstrike wrote:

The "never" from the 5 foot step is referring to movement. It does not absolve you from being attacked due to other conditions.

As an example if a feat is made that allows you to grapple as part of a 5 ft step, but you dont have improved grapple then you still provoke because of the grapple attempt.

+1 Yes you can move for free and it doesn't provoke. But being in the same square does provoke no matter how you got there.


I would say the rules for occupying another square overrule the 5-foot rule.

PRD wrote:
Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures: Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2-1/2 feet across, so four can fit into a single square. 25 Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can't reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent's square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can't flank an enemy.
PRD wrote:
Very Small Creature: A Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creature can move into or through an occupied square. The creature provokes attacks of opportunity when doing so.


Remy Balster wrote:
Please note that you are discussing the Darkvision ability, and not the Darkvision spell.

No I am discussing the spell. The spell on PRD describes you gaining darkvision, it then hyperlinks the definition of darkvision. If it was not intended to work like the ability they would not hyperlink it.

Also, as Anguish pointed out the blindness gives you the blind condition. Darkvision does not remove the blind condition thus you remained blind.

Why would a spell like Echolocation ever exist if darkvision were to actually give you sight?

What is also interesting is if you look at the PRD Spell List Index. The index cuts the fluff in spells and gets straight to the point of the spell. Darkvision in the index is stated as:

Spell List Index wrote:
Index Darkvision: See 60 ft. in total darkness.

This is what the spell does, everything else is just fluff.


1) I asked a question about the size a few weeks ago. Feel free to give it a FAQ. See this post:
Air Elemental Whirlwind Size

2) I also FAQ'd the same thread as Skaldi the Tallest in reference to the save DCs. I currently use the DC as if I cast the spell.

3) I agree with Moondragon Starshadow

4) I agree with Moondragon Starshadow


I read it and understand it as the lights in a dungeon for instance will allow you to see but as soon as you cast darkness those light sources have no effect.

You could build a raging fire giving off a lot of light in a dungeon but as soon as you cast darkness everything in the area becomes total darkness. The only thing that will make it lighter is magic of a higher spell level.


To be able to see requires functioning eyes. If a creature with no eyes has darkvision cast on them it does not allow them to see since they have nothing to see with.

If a person is blinded as the spell states "I render them blind as I choose" so I choose to blind them by crushing their eyes to jelly leaving empty sockets, or I choose to sever the optic nerve. Darkvision will not magically create a new pair of eyes or reconnect the optic nerve for you to only see in the dark with. If it was the case you describe other spells like Blindsense would not exist and everyone would just use Darkvision.

As others have pointed out the PRD hyper links the spell to the glossary of the definition of Darkvision.

Darkvision is defined as follows:

PRD wrote:
Darkvision is the extraordinary ability to see with no light source at all, out to a range specified for the creature. Darkvision is black-and-white only (colors cannot be discerned). It does not allow characters to see anything that they could not see otherwise—invisible objects are still invisible, and illusions are still visible as what they seem to be. Likewise, darkvision subjects a creature to gaze attacks normally. The presence of light does not spoil darkvision.

Bold mine. As the bold line states since a blind creature cannot normally see anything, having darkvision does nothing.


So by your interpretation Remy, If I go hug a tree and cast invisibility the tree and myself become invisible? The tree is touching me much like the ordinary flour or gold dust you are referring to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No need for a FAQ. Sequence A is the correct answer. The post by James Jacobs was FAQ'd and the developers said: "No reply required" meaning what James said is correct.

James Jacobs wrote:
So if you take a standard action to grapple a foe, and still have a move action in the round because you haven't moved or taken out a potion or opened a door or something like that, you can indeed make an attempt to pin the foe as that move action.


I'm just not a fan of adding things to a rule just to be on the safe side. The rule says you can communicate with a creature. It doesn't say telepathic creature so why would you rule it that way? Play it the way it is written. By RAW it allows communication with a creature, substituting in communicate with another telepathic creature is fine but not RAW.


blahpers wrote:


Read the first ability again, and parse the sentence with the word "conversation" in it. It never says that a person with telepathy can hold a conversation with someone without telepathy. It only says that holding a telepathic conversation with multiple people is as difficult as holding a normal conversation with multiple people. Assuming that the "multiple people" in the sentence don't also have telepathy is reading more into the text than it actually holds--it is just as likely that the hypothetical conversation is between members of the same species, all of which would possess telepathy.

You're reading too much in to it. It doesn't say the creatures have to also have the ability. Since it doesn't state it in the rule it doesn't have to be, unless a member of the design team chimes in and says yes it is supposed to say you can communicate with any other creature with telepathy.

The second sentence states that you can use telepathy with multiple creatures and also defines the rules for it. Since it is stated you maintain a telepathic conversation with multiple creatures. The rules wouldn't change if you are using the ability with many or one creature and since you actually have a conversation with many creatures you also interact the same way with a single creature. Therefore the term communicate in this instance means to actually have a conversation.


blahpers wrote:
Quote:
The ability allows you to have a conversation with another creature.
Nowhere in the Telepathy (Su) rules states this.

Are you reading the same ability? It is quite clear and stated.

Quote:
Telepathy (Su) The creature can mentally communicate with any other creature within a certain range (specified in the creature's entry, usually 100 feet) that has a language. It is possible to address multiple creatures at once telepathically, although maintaining a telepathic conversation with more than one creature at a time is just as difficult as simultaneously speaking and listening to multiple people at the same time.


I agree with Majuba and it is how I have seen it ruled. I have a similar situation with my sorcerer and a Robe of Arcane Heritage. I treat my level as 4 levels higher when determining bloodline powers, which gives me access to higher level spells. But since I cannot normally cast said spells I cannot actually cast them.


I read and understand it much like Kazaan.

The ability allows you to have a conversation with another creature. You have to initiate the first conversation with the creature then you can converse with them. You have to establish the "link" with that other creature which then allows them to mentally communicate across it.

It does not work the other way around however, someone with out the ability cannot start up a conversation with someone with the ability.

Since there is a line in the rule that says you can speak with a creature that has a language, I would interpret that as the spell magically translates the creatures normally spoken language to one that you can understand and vice versa.


So if you do your first grapple check and succeed and you do your second grapple check and fail are you still in a grapple and just can't take another action or does the grapple fail?


Majuba wrote:
Just for the record, "Rod of Metamagic, Familiar" is a theoretical item, not in any book.

No, It is in the Animal Archive Player Companion.


Happler wrote:
TimrehIX wrote:

Here is how I see it.

Normal light travels out from the torches of guy a and guy b. They can see each other just fine. Guy c inside the magical darkness is hard to see and is having a hard time seeing guy a and b. He also can not see the stars.

To throw some physics at it (that always turns out well) the rays of light pass through the darkness as normal. But the magic dark rays interfere with the light in the in the spells area.

As stated earlier, that is not RAW per the FAQ, but not a bad house rule if you wish:

Quote:

Darkness: Can I see light sources through an area of darkness?

No. If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness (or supernatural darkness, if using a more powerful spell), you can't see through the darkness into what is beyond it.

—Pathfinder Design Team, 05/09/13

You are reading over some important parts. Bolded.

Quote:
If a darkness spell reduces the light in the area to actual darkness

The spell doesn't automatically make it impossible to see through. You only cannot see through it if the spell lowered the light level to darkness.


Fomsie wrote:
Ignipotens wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
It's a magic sphere of darkness. It's like as if a physical black sphere was blocking your vision, except it's not solid. If you're inside, you can't see out. If you're outside, you can't see in or beyond. Also, it's magic. Unless it's covered, it spreads around corners and tower shields to fill its 20' radius. It doesn't obey the laws of physics.
This is only true if you use the Darkness spell in Dim light. The spell just lowers the light level by 1. If you cast this in bright light the area in effect is now normal light. Since you can still see in normal light you can see right through the area. Nowhere in the spell does it say you can't see things inside the area.
As Jiggy pointed out in the FAQ related to darkness, the spell kind of works like a filter over the area, in it or trying to look through it would have the same lighting effect. if you can see through the light level, then it doesn't obstruct your vision, if you cannot, it does.

Yes, I agree. If the spell causes actual darkness (it was cast in dim light) then you can't see through it. You can however see into it if you have darkvision. What it doesn't do (that some thinks it does) is create some impenetrable barrier you can't see through.


Bizbag wrote:
It's a magic sphere of darkness. It's like as if a physical black sphere was blocking your vision, except it's not solid. If you're inside, you can't see out. If you're outside, you can't see in or beyond. Also, it's magic. Unless it's covered, it spreads around corners and tower shields to fill its 20' radius. It doesn't obey the laws of physics.

This is only true if you use the Darkness spell in Dim light. The spell just lowers the light level by 1. If you cast this in bright light the area in effect is now normal light. Since you can still see in normal light you can see right through the area. Nowhere in the spell does it say you can't see things inside the area.


Multiple metamagic feats do not increase the casting time.

See here:
FAQ


I think a lot of peoples interpretation of the spell comes from the old spell:
3.5 Darkness

Paizo has changed it from that version.


As the spell states it just lowers the light level 1 step in an area of 20' radius.

You do not get to change the laws of physics here. Basically your eyes are light sensors, If you are looking through an area that is darker, then light must pass through that area to hit your eyes. If light passes through a darker area you see it darker. As someone said before it is like putting a piece of tinted glass in front of you.

Take this real world example. You have a car with lightly tinted windows. You are standing on one side of the car and a friend is standing on the other. You are both looking through the tinted windows. What you see is a darker version of your friend on the other side.

Also, the FAQ only applies when using the spell in dim light since lowering one step in dim light results in actual darkness.


FAQ'ed Mainly for Number 5 as I am in the camp of you are blind but you also get blindsense since it is a lesser ability of blindsight.

Main reason I think this, is you gain the form of whatever you change in to. Eyes are part of the form, if it doesn't have any you don't get any.

Being able to see is very similar to being able to speak. Not being able to speak if the form does not allow it is called out in the rule. If you can't speak it is because the form physically does not allow it. If the form physically does not allow you to see, well then you can't see.

Common arguments are elemental's since they don't have eyes. This is not entirely true, the description actually says some are bird-like with glowing eyes. Also nothing lists them as being blind.

Plants are another common argument. Some plants are blind and have no eyes, in which case so are you. Others, like a treant, actually have eyes.

Think of it in reverse. If you had your eyes ripped out in battle you would be blind. If you change in to something that has eyes you would once again be able to see since the new form gave eyes. Similarly, if you had your arm ripped off and changed to a dog, you would have all four legs since that is the form you took, you wouldn't be missing a leg.


Drachasor wrote:


By RAW, the rod doesn't increase the spell level, so it lets you store more spells in the familiar.

I think you have to cast the spell to get it in the familiar either way. Nothing says it is done as part of preparation.

The wording for the rod is quite confusing:

Familiar metamagic rod wrote:
The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that affect his familiar as through using the Familiar Spell feat.

Yes, I believe the Familiar Metamagic Rod lets you "cast" spells into your familiar without penalty.

The feat on the other had does say you do it during your spell prep.

Quote:
you can prepare a new spell in that slot the next time you prepare spells.


Drachasor wrote:
Ignipotens wrote:

This feat however is a different metamagic that doesn't follow conventional rules.

The first sentence of the feat says what it does:

Quote:
You can transfer a prepared spell to your familiar...Once your familiar casts a retained spell, you can prepare a new spell in that slot the next time you prepare spells.
When a wizard prepares his spells for the day he can't prepare them with any rods he posses.

And? How does that change anything?

Prepare a spell in slot A.
Cast spell with Metamagic Familiar Spell Rod to put it on the familiar (e.g. transferring the prepared spell to the familiar).
You cannot prepare spells in slot A until the familiar casts that spell.

My apologies, I was in a different world lol. I thought you were all arguing about say you want to use a maximize rod to save a spell.

I would say the rod lets you "cast" them into your familiar where as without the rod you have to do it when you prepare. If not, what good does the rod do other than save you a feat?


Drachasor wrote:
Ignipotens wrote:

This feat however is a different metamagic that doesn't follow conventional rules.

The first sentence of the feat says what it does:

Quote:
You can transfer a prepared spell to your familiar...
When a wizard prepares his spells for the day he can't prepare them with any rods he posses.

Where does it say this happens when you prepare spells? No where.

If you cast the prepared spell and that does the transfer, does it contradict the above text? No.

Seems like you reading things that aren't there.

Read it again, I did a ninja edit.

AlanM has not created a profile.