Joshua029's page

And it is.

But you have an alternative. So it all worked out.

Have your parting quip, and stay in your delusion. It doesn't matter to me, because I'm not approaching any table you run with a ten-foot pole.

All it took was for you to say what you actually wanted for someone to help you. I'm also coloured impressed.

Actually, from the beginning I was posting here about its combat use being defensive, and out-of-combat being roleplay, it's just that nearly everyone lacked anything useful to say because they were hung up on the idea that a wizard having a combat-capable creature for longer than a few turns would be "broken and overpowered".

so something like this feat does https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Animal%20Ally

Color me impressed. That is the single most helpful comment on this thread, and it only took I think 15+ people, and 96 comments to get here.

Thank you, I wasn't aware of those feats. The animal companion does most of what I wanted, and my caster build isn't feat intensive, so it can afford the two feats. For me at least it's worth it to not be bound to a specific Sorcerer bloodline to get a companion.

Maybe you missed my question, so will all again. What creatures per spell level are you looking to summon all day? What about templates or add on's? Why don't you focus on standard action summons so you can have what you need?

(Celestial template)

My personal interest isn't focused on the combat aspect of having a summon with a long duration. I like the idea of the spellcaster having a bonded spirit that falls somewhere between a Familiar and an Eidolon. A companion that is summoned fresh each day fits that role nicely.

The concept is that the spellcaster befriended a spirit (roleplay it being the same summon each time), and the casting of spells to summon it is essentially an invitation which it accepts, and it takes the form it believes will best suit the expected day's events (within the limits of its abilities, which grow with the caster). Most days are out of combat more than they're in combat, so a fuzzy mammal that can have its ears scratched is usually the better choice over something like a fire elemental that inadvertently sets everything ablaze.

I don't like the idea of summoning angels or other sentient humanoid beings. For one, they certainly have their own plans that don't include some mortal ripping them out of their plain of existence to follow him around all day. Another thing is that they're people, so it basically makes the game master control a character in the party (at least out of combat)if you summon one of them for an extended duration.

It is much simpler when the summons are of animal-level intelligence, when it's not a full-blown additional character. If the player roleplays the animal's personality like any real world pet he/she knows, there shouldn't be any issues, and it might even end up a party mascot.

The forms I chose are animals that can conceivably travel with the caster under most circumstances. In the real world people have had pets ranging from dogs to tigers, so the choices aren't that crazy in a world where dragons burn cities.

That's the short answer followed by a longer explanation. I hope it answers your question to your satisfaction.

Joshua, I think you're getting a little too into the arguments of what other classes can do. You're not going to convince the people on the other side (myself included) that it's ok. I think it's neat, but I wouldn't allow it, personally.

Also, while the Aether Kineticist can do that... can they cast wish? Can they create their own demiplane? Can they create simulacrums/clones? Wizards and other full progression arcane casters get a LOT of power. Near universally, the Wizard is considered the most powerful class in the game. You're adding a little bit of power to a class that really doesn't need it (IMO).

While you aren't abusing it, I can see many who would try, and if I were an unscrupulous GM and used it, could have a single Wizard with an army of summons at his disposal that lasted long enough to wreak havoc on cities/settlements/armies/etc.

I think this is just one of those situations where we're going to have to agree to disagree. But definitely be polite in doing so. I appreciate the opportunity to bring this to forum for the discussion even though I won't allow it in my games :)

This combo (outside of stacking it, of which I've long-since acknowledged the issues) isn't an increase in power for a wizard, rather it's a step sideways from how most people play wizards.

Note: to point out something that a Kineticist doesn't do, you went straight for 9th level magic. Kineticists abilities may stop short of wish, but the vast abilities they have are at-will, as opposed to limited spell slots, and that's significant.

I never challenged the right of anyone to decide what to allow at their own tables, so you do you, and have a nice day.

Kineticist has free at will dimension door, free healing, ethereal monsters with negative energy touch attacks and the ability to spend a second level spell to gain a decent set of spells? Either you're making things up or I've missed some interesting kineticist abilities. What are those abilities called?

And dude, use your advanced weapon training for warrior spirit:bane instead. Better yet, dump rogue for brawler so you only need one weapon and can swap around your weapon master options. It'll also stack with fighter for how many advanced weapon feats you can have. Then slap versatile weapon mod:close on a fauchard and you're effectively dual wielding a reach weapon with similar crit and damage stats at the same level without needing to spend 3/4 of your gold on two +2 weapons. And you don't need to waste actions or attacks feinting. Taking an actual weapon master feat, rather than a temporary one, locks you out of swapping through item mastery feats for utility, it's a huge waste.

At that level you're playing across from the guy who can summon the at will dimension door monster, or medium aether elementals. A melee only martial isn't going to be able to participate in as many encounters as the monsters being summoned.

The Kineticist has unlimited access to wild talents that simulate the effect of a bunch of medium and upper level spells. Telekinesis, Flight, Invisibility, Animate Object, Wall of Force, Breath of Life, Suffocate, Spell Turning, and those are just some of the options of the Aether Kineticist, which is only one of SEVEN elements available in addition to the Universal Wild Talents.

Ride the Blast: The kineticist literally targets a blast anywhere in range and appears at the end of it. It can even beat dimension door because it's not blocked by Dimensional Anchor... and did I mention... it's also an at-will ability.

Since you're perfectly capable of looking at the Kineticist's Wild Talents, I think this suffices to prove my point that almost anything you can accomplish by using a summon, the Kineticist can do without one.

As for the second part of your comment, That was just a quick concept of a character that with average rolls will deal more damage per turn to a target than a wizard with his summon can, and you immediately leapt into how you'd make it "better".

A spellcaster having a level appropriate summon (regardless of duration) is not mechanically broken compared to what other classes can do at similar levels.

I think it's a bit harder to estimate their survival without a list of scenarios, and eventually full day summoning gives you endless healing as well through Akhana on the neutral summoning list. That is at top level though, so the games a mess by then anyway.

Using the expanded/evil/neutral/good summon monster feat to pull out Aghash for free all day dimension door, without the usual self only limit, as a 4th level spell seems pretty extreme regardless of whether or not they die right off in combat. You're spending the same slot as dimension door and a 2nd level spell, in order for it to be usable for 14 hours. Just have him dimdoor out of combat so your free dimdoors don't die and you're all good.

Animate Dreams as a 6th level spell also seem like they'd be a pain as you can just send them ahead of you without risk to yourself and being incorporeal means they're going to face a few things that can't touch them anyway.

I doubt all your summons would last all day every day, but I'm sure some would and others have enough of a non-combat benefit that how well they'd survive wouldn't matter, they'd just be cheaper versions of the spell's they can cast. Dismissing the idea that the spell could be over powered out of hand doesn't seem fair.

Note: The Kineticist can accomplish all of that as at-will spell-like-abilities from their Wild Talents, without summoning exploits. You're pointing out how extreme this can be, but it's still comparable to another class in the game.

try a little test. Play in a group where you use a martial and the others use or can use this combo.

Let's see how fun it is for you and how long you will play.

L3 Unchained Rogue, Fighter L4+, Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree + Two-Weapon Feint = I can ignore Str & Int (adding Dex to Attacks and Damage), and I use the first attack each round to Feint so I get an extra 2d6 Sneak Attack damage on every hit, with Keen Kukri (Crit threat on 15-20)and the advanced weapon training feat that make them deal damage as if my fighter levels were Warpriest levels (the equivalent of dual-wielding two-handed weapons at mid-level, without penalty and with the larger crit range).

OP, you do realize that Clerics and Paladins, as well as some other classes, the typical healers, can channel energy, right? Meaning no extra effort is spent to heal the Alter Summoned Monster between combats. Meaning it does in fact last 16 encounters. Meaning IT IS IN FACT OVERPOWERED EVEN IF YOU ONLY USE ONE!

Two things. One, you need to take a deep breath and chill out. Two, a single failed save can take out a summon, so even with a L20 healer, there's no guarantee of it surviving any encounter, including the first.

And if you're using your precious healing on a summon instead of the party members, those are additional payments on the summon. It costs you more to keep it alive the more you use it... and that's IF it isn't killed before you get a chance to heal it on your turn. And what's more, most classes don't have any significant ability to heal it, even if they wanted to.

It's not lasting 16 encounters even with healing, it's not over-powered.

Spell-Casting *is* a class feature. Spells are not a class feature. Things listed on the class page in the class description in the section "Class Features" are class features. What your argument was is the equivalent of saying "I get proficiency with medium armor, so this Breastplate is a class feature for me". Yes your class features let you use that piece of gear, but it doesn't make the gear a class feature for you. The same way your class features let you pick up spells from a list, but those spells are not class features.

Using a trick to have a summoned monster that normally lasts rounds now lasts hours and casting them before you get in combat is the equivalent of Quickening (+4 spell levels) if you use 1 altered mount spell. If you use more than 1, its the equivalent of using Time Stop to get that many extra actions before combat begins to cast summon monster. Both of those are far more costly than a 2nd level Alter Summoned Monster, no matter how you want to dress that up. Having to explain this twice makes me believe I'll have to explain this a third time because someone is in denial.

When Mount is cast, no matter what level the spell has been heightened to, it produces exactly the same mount. A CR 1 light horse or pony. How you can claim that using Alter Summoned Monster doesn't give you a better creature is baffling.

No Rider's Bond... fine, it was a side path branching from the core topic. It's not vital to the core question.

Quickening a summoning spell gives you a surprise summon on the spot, whereas if the creature is already there, it's not a surprise, and is subject to getting nailed in an enemy's surprise attack. It's not a 1-for-1 correlation. It's two spell slots being used to produce a similar effect to a single higher-level spell slot. You're drastically overstating the advantage of a single summon joining combat one turn sooner.

As I've said multiple times, any stacking issue with Alter Summoned Monster has NOTHING to do with its use with Mount. Other Conjuration(Summoning) spells have durations measured in tens-of-minutes. If you're unable to read what's already been said, perhaps you should take some time to have someone read it to you.

You can try to conflate Alter Summoned Monster with Time Stop a third, time, but it won't be any more accurate than it was the first two.

Regardless of which spell level you use, and regardless of which Conjuration(Summoning) spell you use, Alter Summoned Monster turns one summoned creature into an option from the same spell level as the one expended. If you use an 8th level spell to cast Summon Monster VIII, you get a Summon Monster VIII summon. If you cast Mount heightened to 8th level and cast Alter Summoned Monster, you still get a Summon Monster VIII summon. The only difference to the combat is that you spent an additional L2 spell, and the summon is already there at the start of combat (meaning it gets to attack, and the enemy already knows where and what it is and can adjust their plan accordingly).

You get what you pay for (in spell levels and slots). It's not broken, and it won't unbalance a game. Any gamemaster worth his/her salt shouldn't have any trouble with this.

But really, your courtesy's failing. My courtesy's failing. Can we just agree that I'll never have a slot at your table and you'll never have a slot at mine, and let the matter rest?

Seriously, PFS doesn't allow Alter Summoned Monster at all, so this clearly isn't about organized play.

If this combo were anywhere near as powerful as a lot of you seem to think (which it's not), then just give the other party members some cool class-appropriate loot and scale up the encounter. It's not hard to balance.

You play your tables how you like,but please learn the difference between your preferences and how things actually mechanically balance.

I already recognized that stacking is an issue (unrelated to the Mount spell, I might add) and agreed that setting a limit to one at a time would be fair.

Regarding the duration, the main argument presented for it being over-powered was "because it is", which is asinine. If that were the case, Draconic Ally would be the single most powerful spell in the game (which it clearly isn't). It's good enough to take, but it's not going to break the game unless the game-master isn't up to the task of being the game-master. I think a lot of game masters would be up to the task, but are too afraid to try.

Joshua029 wrote:

The initial question:

Mount + Rider's Bond + Alter Summoned Monster ... Is it RAW legal?

So are the Cyclops Helm, the Candle of Invocation or Pun Pun.

You are missing the premises of the game, that the writers are prone to error and that the game happens through a game master, whose, among others, role it is to keep things from getting out of hand, using his wisdom, with help from the rest of the table.

We've done a show of hands asking which G.M. present on those boards would run Heightened Mount + Altered Summoned Monster as is, the answer is a resounding zero.

I asked about RAW. The answer has been confirmed that it is.

The most common response received though was various people's "how I would rule at my table", which wasn't the question.

However, you've over-stated the consensus. Several people stated that they'd allow it with a slight home-brew tweak, or with prior discussion about what would be done between the game master and player. So you're incorrect in saying that absolutely no-one would allow it.

It's also frustrating that you've made an appeal to the majority to assert your "correctness", when no one has provided any compelling argument against my points against the presented complaints. You didn't win the argument, you just made a logical fallacy.

Joshua029 wrote:

I also posed the possibility of using Rider's Bond with Mount, giving it the Attack Trick, making it a combatant, shortcutting around the argument of the Mount not fighting, by giving it the abilty to fight. The most reasonable challenge to this was that the wording of Rider's Bond says that the mount has to be from a "class feature". My position is that the Mount in question is produced via spellcasting, which is a class feature, which I believe resolves the challenge. He didn't respond after that so this line of the conversation just ended there.

Every other detractor has had no other argument than,"Long duration must be broken!!!" When asked why, They can only point to what happens when Alter Summoned Monster is stacked, or fall back on the faulty assumption that the summon is somehow invincible and is guaranteed to be at full-fighting power for the full duration of the spell.

Rider's Bond very clearly states it works with class features. Spell effects are not class features. Things listed under a class description are class features. Nobody else bothered to refute this because your argument is ridiculous.

Well, the largest benefit from being able to summon stuff before combat is that it doesn't take your actual actions during combat. Which has been pointed out quite a few times. In effect, you've gotten the benefit of Quicken Spell or Time Stop depending on just how many summons you have running. Getting the equivalent of a +4 level metamagic or a 9th level spell is very good for the additional cost of a 2nd level spell on top of the mount spell you're abusing to turn into a higher level summon monster.

You are breaking action economy. Get it?

Can you point to any official ruling that states spell-casting isn't a class feature? That would give credence to your argument.

Also, Rider's Bond was a proposed fix for one chain of assumptions, a chain that's broken before that point when you consider that Alter Summoned Monster says it swaps the summoned creature with another, explicitely stating that it keeps the duration, hit points, and status effects/condition, and nothing else (supposed limitations on what the original creature could and couldn't be asked to do).

Using multiple spell slots instead of a higher spell slot isn't a bad trade, and won't break the game.

Time Stop is completely different, giving you multiple turns to set up before combat commences, and with the normal summon monster spell could be used to summon an army that all comes into existence on the next turn. That's a far cry different than having a single creature already with you that the enemy can see and plan for before commencing the fight.

Also, you're objectively wrong when you say that Alter Summoned Monster is turning a Mount into a higher level monster. To get a higher-level monster, you have to expend a higher level spell slot via Heighten Spell. The monster you get is appropriate for the spell slot you expended. Alter Summoned Monster gives that summoned creature the ability to act on the first turn of combat (at best typically dealing a few dice with a single-digit modifier on each in damage, Not any more than the Spellcaster could do with another spell).

The only instance where Alter Summoned Monster raises a creature's level without raising the casting level is when you're using it will a spell that summons multiple creatures (each a lower level because the group is the appropriate level of power for the spell), and that condition doesn't apply to Mount, and what's more, the spell itself doesn't say that such use is against its intent, because it specifically rules that when a spell summons multiple creatures, Alter Summoned Monster only affects one of them. So again, you're wrong about RAI.

It doesn't break the action economy.

Why does there need to be another option? Your claim was that there are no options you are aware of. You are now aware that there is an option. How many options are required to satisfy the condition of an existing option? Moving goal posts is very poor debate.

If archetypes granting standard action summoning and minute long durations are widely recognized as exponentially more powerful than their base classes and are, in at least one case, banned from PFS play as a result, it boggles the mind that you claim a spell combo granting hour long summons and eliminating the need to cast more than one summon per day is somehow balanced.

I always wonder what purpose posing a question or theory on which your stance is 100% settled serves. Bored? Need attention? Seeking approval for something you know deep down is horribly wrong but can convince yourself otherwise if just one person agrees with you? *shrug* Play what you want. Well, play whatever you can convince a GM to let you play. Best of luck with this one.

Dude, you misinterpreted everything I said. I said that I didn't know of any archetypes that granted an animal companion to the Arcanist, Wizard, or Sorcerer. That wasn't an assertion that they didn't exist, it was a statement of fact that I wasn't aware of any.

I never "moved the goal posts". When you brought up the Sylvan Bloodline, I accepted that as a Touchdown. However, Tallyn said that animal companions were easy to get through archetypes (plural) so I inquired about that, which in the Football metaphor is giving you the chance to go for the additional two points, NOT moving the goal posts.

In my experience, PFS is excessively overhanded in how restrictive it is on what it allows, because they're running modules that are more or less on rails, and they can't deal with a table full of creative people with a plethora of tools to solve problems in ways the writer of the module didn't expect.

A summon that lasts all day ONLY IF IT DOESN'T DIE IN COMBAT (which it most likely will, because it has exactly no durability beyond what it would have under normal summoning conditions)isn't likely to be effective (if present at all) in more than one combat unless great pains are taken to restore it to health. It's a summon, not an elder dragon. One failed save can remove it from the table. It's not broken.

When I posed the question, I was largely sure that I'd read the rules correctly, but made the terrible decision to turn to the most hyper-critical killjoys available... an internet forum, just to see if any of them knew of a rule, or caught a wording I'd missed. And if you read through the thread, I applauded when a decent, rational argument was presented. The problem is that nearly all of the rest are like you, who already had in your mind what sort of player I must be, and condescendingly shot down the idea without addressing the arguments. So of course, I didn't place much weight on these comments.

The initial question:
Mount + Rider's Bond + Alter Summoned Monster ... Is it RAW legal?

Alter Summoned Monster's only stated requirement is that the creature being swapped out has to be from Conjuration (Summoning). That pans out.

There was an argument that since Mount isn't a combat spell, that the replacement creature wouldn't be either. This can be countered by the wording of Alter Summoned Monster, in that it says it swaps out the summoned creature, meaning it's a different creature, not bound to the initial limitation.

I also posed the possibility of using Rider's Bond with Mount, giving it the Attack Trick, making it a combatant, shortcutting around the argument of the Mount not fighting, by giving it the abilty to fight. The most reasonable challenge to this was that the wording of Rider's Bond says that the mount has to be from a "class feature". My position is that the Mount in question is produced via spellcasting, which is a class feature, which I believe resolves the challenge. He didn't respond after that so this line of the conversation just ended there.

Every other detractor has had no other argument than,"Long duration must be broken!!!" When asked why, They can only point to what happens when Alter Summoned Monster is stacked, or fall back on the faulty assumption that the summon is somehow invincible and is guaranteed to be at full-fighting power for the full duration of the spell.

It's not that I was 100% sure of my position when I asked the question. It's that I haven't been confronted with any arguments that hold up.

Sylvan sorcerors can have an animal companion IIRC.

This combo doesn't effect combat less than or even equally to haste. You cast your summon spell once and then have the remainder of your spell slots to use freely on other things for several hours, enough that it is fair to say that you only have to summon once per day. Haste has a duration of rounds. The haste caster has to cast haste as many times per day as there are combats to compare to your single summon. The haste caster is limited in the way that summoners are intended to be--by their number of spells per day and having to choose carefully which spells to cast--but you have significantly altered the way this character is limited on that spectrum.

Props to Sylvan Wildblood option for having an animal companion.

Anything for Wizard or Arcanist that doesn't just borrow the Sylvan bloodline?

Your critique was a false comparison though.

One casting of Alter Summoned Monster, requires two spells to be expended, because it alters another spell. It doesn't grant any increased durability or damage potential to the summoned creature swapped in, beyond being able to fight on the first round of combat, instead of starting on the second. Its frailness means it is highly likely to die in any given combat, and even if it survives, it will need significant healing to be able to be of use in a second combat (likely more spell slots to heal it, or monetary cost from other sources of healing).

One casting of Haste buffs the entire party for the entire combat, increasing the entire party's potential to deal damage every round. It's guaranteed to last for a known number of rounds (longer than most combats I've been in), and a single failed save doesn't remove that from the party, the way a single failed save can wipe out a summoned creature.
A second spell slot... that's a whole additional combat of the entire party being Hasted.

Haste deals more damage throughout a combat than one round of s Summoned creature. It's just less direct. and more consistent.

A summon having a long duration isn't any different than a person not aging but not gaining any other powers. A bad fall down the stairs or something equally mundane can still kill either of them. There's no guarantee that it will last its duration, and the spellcaster saving a slot isn't any different than someone getting a combat spell as a spell-like ability from a race, class, or trait. It is balanced.

The only real issue is stacking, and I don't understand why the internet keeps conflating that with duration.

Internet: Duration is OP
Me: No Stacking is the problem.
Internet: No! Duration is OP.
Me: Why is Duration op?
Internet: When you stack it...

When I'm running, if you want an animal companion/or other type of companion, they are easy enough to get through archetypes. You've got your answer, and you're free to do it in your campaign (and in your GM's campaign if you're the player), but don't expect us to accept it because you like it.

The duration is the game breaker, and we basically have to create another house rule to deal with it, because otherwise you could summon armies that would last for hours. It nearly makes trivial any other classes with abilities to summon, or animal companion features (without summoning).

I can't describe to you exactly why I would tell you no, but it sets off something in my gut--my GM intuition sense (from 30 years personal experience) where it breaks my feeling of cohesive immersion with what is there in the game world, as I interpret as what is intended.

Anyways, you do you... feel free to use it, I just wouldn't allow it personally. It's an interesting tactic though.

What archetype do you suggest for a Sorcerer, Wizard or Arcanist to get an animal companion? I'm not aware of one existing.

A character having a pet is a roleplay issue, whether it's an Eidolon, animal companion, familiar, a very-long summon, purchased, or even captured. The duration outside of combat isn't a "power" issue, it doesn't break a game.

In combat, already having the summon as opposed to having to summon it once combat starts, only nets the spellcaster and summon the ability to engage the enemy on the first turn, instead of the second. That affects combat less than Haste. A L2 spell affecting combat less than a L3 spell seems pretty well balanced to me.

After the fight, if the summon is alive at all, it will be the worse for wear, and lacks a significant chance of surviving a second unless the spellcaster takes great pains to get it healed up, the same as any animal companion or purchased animal.

I hope you can see now that the duration isn't the problem. The only problem is the stackability (which is an issue with Alter Summoned Monster with any spell that summons more than one creature). Limiting the stackability to one-at-a-time completely resolves the problem, and makes this spell perfectly balanced for where it is at a L2 spell slot.

...
I think I would counter your example with your own example that it is OP. But lets compare things equally.

as a 12th level wizard and assuming 1 potential encounter per hour for 16 hrs.

Option A: Combine 6th level mount with Alter Summoned monster to get a 24 hr summon monster VI that can fight in 16 of 16 potential encounters.
...

Look at the summonable monster stats compared to what the players have at the appropriate levels. No summon has any significant chance of surviving to the third encounter unless the spellcaster is taking great pains to keep it alive, particularly if you use the house rule of limiting the use of Alter Summoned Monster to one-at-a-time.

As such the idea of there being "potential" for a summon to survive into the 16th encounter is laughable. Besides, outside of a dungeon crawl, it'd be a lot to get 3 combats in a day, never-mind 16.

My general assumption is that there is time to roleplay the character in a "roleplaying game".

Detractors,

What does Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally give you?
They consume the spellcaster's first turn to give you a creature from the second turn, through the rest of the battle or until it dies.

What does having a longer duration summon give you that Summon Monster or Summon Nature's Ally doesn't?
It lets the spellcaster and the summoned creature act in the first turn of combat, rather than one being busy producing the other. That's however much damage two attacks can make on the enemy, not inappropriate for a L2 spell.

Compare that to Haste, which typically gives your entire party an extra attack for the entire battle. That's a L3 slot, which at CL5, brings up to 25 additional melee hits against the enemy, dealing as much or easily more damage than the round one attacks of the spellcaster and his long-time summon.

The same goes for higher levels. The spellcaster and the summon can do more damage on the first turn, but so can the rest of the party.

Some might ask, "What about after the battle?". After the battle, the summon is likely the worse for wear, and in need of healing, if it's alive at all. Keep in mind, one failed save can kill or otherwise remove a summon from combat.

Why should this be denied until Level 11, when Haste is available at L5, and causes MORE damage to the enemy than this does (at comparable party levels)?

It's creative, but it's not a Munchkin tactic unless you are maintaining a pack of all-day summons, but the only house rule needed to completely eliminate that problem is a One-at-a-time limit, like Draconic Ally has.

Regarding higher level summons, many of them are intelligent beings, so there's plenty of material and opportunity for the Game Master to make the player earn them via roleplay. Ex: an angel who's happy to help in a pinch may object to being asked or forced to stand around for hours on end, a summoned demon with idle hands is going to cause trouble, etc.

The issue I see is that a lot of people see the duration of the summon and lose their minds, because if it works well with a short duration, then a long duration must be exponentially more powerful. I hate to break it to you, but you aren't a WH40k Ork, painting it red doesn't make it go faster. You need to actually look at how the rules interact to have an accurate idea of how powerful a rule actually is.

Just because you can break it with other spell combinations doesn’t mean it isn’t broken. You could also try switching out the two horses from conjure carriage. It’s still broken.

And an entire class feature is different than a couple of combined spells. Having a companion is a feature of those classes. And those companions are fragile things that are expensive to replace. It’s not a meaningless thing.

I believe you're abusing the meaning of "broken".

Something is "broken" if it ruins the gaming experience. A spellcaster having a companion similar but weaker to the Summoner's Eidolon is not going to ruin the gaming experience. It's not grossly overpowered, especially when another spellcaster of the same level could kill it with a single spell. Look at the other classes and get some perspective on what the power-level of the game is.

Outside of combat, an all-day summon is just there. Its significance is dependent on how well the player and game master roleplay. The roleplaying is arguably the more important part of the game.

In combat, it doesn't matter if it has been walking around with you all day, it's the same creature when the fight starts, and it doesn't re-start with fresh stats each combat like regular round-per-level summons do.

It's not broken.

Joshua029 wrote:

Tallyn,
I'd allow it. If a player decides to abuse it and it starts hurting the enjoyment of the other players, then I ask that person to rein it in...

No pun intended? ;)

Happy accident. :)

I believe this question has been fully resolved.

Mount + Riders Bond trait + Heighten Spell + Alter Summoned Monster = a summoned Monster or Natures Ally that will fight for you, and lasts for 2hrs per level, per the rules published by Paizo.

This is longer than if this combination used "Summon Flight of Eagles" as the base spell (10min/lv duration), but it is significantly shorter than the duration of the spell "Draconic Ally" on its own, which gives you a medium dragon for a DAY PER LEVEL.

The effect of this combination of feat, trait, and spells is roughly that of a Ranger's animal companion, except you summon it each day like an Eidolon.

Given the ability to buy magical creatures, figurines of wondrous power, and summon even celestial hosts, this combination of feat, trait, and spells is not over-powered, or even exceptionally unusual when used with any restraint at all.

This is a tabletop role-playing game, where the game master can literally create worlds for the player-characters to inhabit. There are plenty of ways to fix munchkin behavior without just banning everything that can be abused for everyone.

A wizard with a Dire Wolf following him around is not going to be any more disruptive than the ranger having a bear at his side, or the ork having an elephant for a mount.

I don't challenge game masters having the right to set the rules at their tables, but they should have enough humility to not thrust their house rules at others as how we "should" do things. I also wish more people would show more restraint before declaring what "Rules as Intended" are, and consider the chance that they might not be right about what the writers intended.

There have been numerous threads on the subject. What novel argument do you have to dislodge the current consensus?

Why did you bother writing a question that's literally answered in the initial post of this thread?

Read the title of this thread. There is a significant reason why Heighten Spell is mentioned. You make a wand of alter summoned monster, then prepare as many spell slots of 2nd level or greater you want to with Mount, heightened to the level of the spell slot. Your Mount spells can be turned into a summon monster X where X is the spell level that the mount spell was heightened to.

Most dungeon crawls don't last more than a few hours. But your caster can blow through all of his mount spells before he enters the dungeon and will have those summoned creatures through the entire run.

The most limited resource in Pathfinder is actions. Having your caster take most of his actions hours before combat begins and being able to take a dozen more actions than the rest of his party is not only unbalanced, but will also make combat drag on while the caster controls his mob of summons.

I think you've latched onto the worst case scenario, which wasn't my intention. The fun of a spellcaster is to cast spells in and out of combat. One or two summoned creatures on the spellcaster's flanks is a precaution in case some barbarian or fighter comes running at him. Thus the spellcaster gets more protection out of 2-4 spell slots, and has the rest of them to BE THE SPELLCASTER.

The reason I mentioned Heighten Spell, was so each day the summoned bodyguard(s) would be of the highest summonable level to remain relevant.

This combination is RAW legal, and the way I'd use it doesn't cause the problems you're concerned about. I believe it's better to deal with a problem individual than to take recess from the whole class (talking with the player or bringing in story elements that disadvantage the summoned hoard, instead of banning a legal rule because someone abused it).

The spell Mount states that the steed serves "willingly and well". Nothing in the wording precludes it from fighting. Even if lacking combat training were an issue, the Rider's Bond trait gives it the "Attack" trick, making it a combatant. At the beginning of combat, you can tell it to attack a specific target (DC10 Handle Animal check to make it perform a trick that it knows), but nothing in the rules suggest it would need any more coaxing.

I believe this is a compelling argument for the horse summoned by the Mount spell being a combatant for the summoner. Then you swap this horse for a creature from a list of creatures from a spell that specifically summons combatant creatures to serve the summoner. The result is that per Rules As Written, there are no hurdles to using Mount to get other summoned creatures for a number of hours per day as combatants.

If a game master is concerned about abuse, there are plenty of options to handle the situation without just banning it. For one, you can set a non-zero limit on how many summons can be maintained at a time. But I'd rather handle it in story. If a person has a herd of dangerous creatures following them around, what issues might this create outside of combat?

Did your summoned elemental inadvertently set a building on fire or wash out the road, causing the guards to come looking for the person responsible for them?

Did the angel you summoned get angry that you wasted hours of its time, and inform you that it won't answer your next summon (removing it from the list of options you can summon for a period of time)?

Did the Griffon lay an egg, and then get into a fight with townspeople trying to steal it?

The Alter Summoned Monster spell swaps out the summoned creature from a Conjuration (Summoning) spell for one from the same spell level of the Summon Monstrous Creature or Summoned Nature's Ally lists.

Mount is a Conjuration (Summoning) spell that produces a horse for 2 hours per caster level.

Heighten Spell is a metamagic Feat allowing you to cast a spell as a higher level spell.

Thus, a Mount spell heightened to the appropriate spell level, then followed by Alter Summon Monster results in having any creature from the Summon Monstrous Creature or Summon Nature's Ally lists with a duration of 2 hours per caster level. Correct?

A friend of mine argued that the horse produced by Mount isn't combat trained and that any creature it was swapped with wouldn't fight on command either. I'm inclined to disagree, but if that is the case, then applying the Rider's Bond trait should resolve the situation by making the summoned horse know the Attack trick before it is swapped.

I'm interested in the rules as written. If I've missed something please provide the location of the relevant rules (book w/ page number or link)so I can review them.

Thanks.

I do like 5E's advantage system, so I used the Citadel Wine to to add a little piece of it to Pathfinder.

Thanks, I've put a lot of time into building this setting, and trying to avoid the standard cliches. And like the reverse dungeon crawl, I've done similar with some of the characters.

Ex:
Lich: overthrown in the distant past, he came to the conclusion that he couldn't take over the world by force. So he disguised himself as a priest, earned the trust of a small remote village, and used their dead to create Phantom Armor, which keep keep watch over the citizens, protecting them from bandits and beasts alike. Playing the long game, the Lich is protecting the people, growing their population so he can collect the dead and grow his army without raising the attention of anyone who'd wish to stop him until his army was too big for them to have a plausible chance.
(This eventual reveal is why the initial crypt won't have any undead in it)

TheGreatWot,

The party will be able to make Survival checks to locate safe food and water, but I'm also considering including a magic frying pan that produces food when it is swirled, though they'd have to kill a Rat Swarm to claim it (I figure the rats fighting over the food is active enough to keep the pan skittering across the floor and producing enough food to feed them).

Story:
In the distant past, Dwarves lived on the surface, spreading their influence across the continent and beyond with airships. Their seat of power was the magnificent Blooming Citadel, which as its name suggests appears from a distance to be an gargantuan flower rising above the forest, a sight that wouldn't be out of place in the Fey Wilds.

In truth, each of the "petals" of the Citadel was an enormous balcony serving as a dock for an airship. The exterior was covered in stained glass, lit from the inside so that at night the glow of the citadel bathed the surrounding farms in dim light and made it visible for great distances, the descending and rising airships looking like bees pollinating a flower.

The top of the central column of the Citadel had the palace the royal family lived in, a small lake with a statue in its center pouring an ever-flowing pitcher of water into the lake, a vineyard that produced the only grapes suitable for the fabled Citadel Wine.

Citadel Wine was sold in 3oz bottles, and drinking a dose would magically bestowing advantage on all D20 rolls for 3 minutes.

The core of the central column of the Blooming Citadel was the mausoleum/crypt of the kings and heroes who had served the Dwarven empire since time immemorial.

The day came when a Great Wyrm, a Red Dragon descended from the northern mountains and laid waste to the Dwarven kingdom. The surviving dwarves fled south, and eventually expanded a mountain fortress into their new capital, safely hidden below the surface from the dragon's wrath. The Citaded was ravaged, its many "petals" broken off and scattered across the countryside. The dragon landed on the top of citadel to feast on the Dwarves who hadn't managed to escape, but the force of the landing had cracked the stones and pitched the lake-statue into the water, so that over the following thousands of years, the constantly draining water through the crypts would erode supports, until they finally gave away and a section collapsed.

When the dragon had thoroughly dominated the Northwest, it continued south (not finding the dwarves hiding in what still amounted to caves at this time), and it proceeded East until if found a coastal city, populated by Elves and Humans. The city evacuated as quickly as it could into water-crafts in what would have been a futile effort to escape, if not for the actions of a band of heroes, who harnessed the power of nature, arcane and divine magics to tear the dragon from the sky and slay it. The final battle against the Dragon occured in a hazardous mountain range that would eventually be renamed for the Kobolds that would come to live there to worship the bones of the Great Wyrm.

Upon the dragon's demise, one of the Heroes took a bone and crafted it into five swords, imbuing them with alchemy and magic to make them unbreakable.

When the dragon moved south of the Citadel, some forward-thinking people concluded that it was only a matter of time until it came for them, so they resolved themselves to go where the dragon had already been to avoid its wrath. They eventually fought their way through dangers to the Citadel. They ascended to the top level, saw the good farmland the vineyard had been destroyed by the dragon and the stones of the palace had been scattered across one side of the lake. These refugees sealed off the way they'd gotten in so no threats could follow, and they developed an agricultural society that collectively forgot how they came to be where they were within a few generations, and without any real threats, no one got higher than Level 3 in anything other than farming.

No one outside of the Citadel knew where to look for the refugees, and the Dwarves after having lost so much to the dragon, had no intention of returning to the exposed position of the Citadel.

The Player Characters make their way out through the crypt out to the entrance where the ancient farms have long-since been overtaken by a forest. The nearest "intelligent" (using the term loosely) creatures are a goblin tribe just to the east of the Citadel, whose leader is considerably more crafty than the rabble.

This is running long, but that's the basics of the introductory setting. There's other wars, and four other continents, as well as about a half-dozen immortals in the world who are basically demigods without the worshipers. For the most part these immortals have assigned themselves tasks that anchor them to a location (typically protecting something or making sure something stays lost)

TheGreatWot,
Thanks for the feedback, though I do have a few points to address.

They're not going to encounter anyone who can/would pay them for the magic sword any time soon, because the closest villages don't have any scholars who'd recognize the sword, and its tendency to burn the wielder would make it incredibly hard to sell for a profit. They may be able to gift it to a goblin chieftain for safe passage through his lands, but if they hold on to it until they reach someone who would know about the sword, they'll get richly rewarded.

I think a dozen floors of crypts collapsing after them produces enough rubble to plug the hole so they can't get to the opening. Also, as a L1 party, they won't be levitating yet.

I have the map set up so the monsters make sense where they are (such as the Giant Black Widow has its web were it will catch some Fire Beetles, but not so close that its web will get clogged and torn up too quickly. There's also a Gelatinous Cube in a different hall, so which paths the players take will actually effect what they encounter. I'm planning a goblin encounter at the entrance that should be an extremely difficult fight.

One of my goals in the campaign is for the goblins to be a legitimate threat. Player reactions should be: "Oh ****, Goblins!"
not "Hey, time to slaughter some more goblins."

One of the things I've given the goblins to make them more dangerous is a custom item I made up, Firesnuff.

A goblin literally shoves some of it up its nose, the shoots out a ball of fire at its target that explodes in a 10ft radius for 3d6 fire damage, Reflex Save to halve damage. It's a full action for a Goblin to use Firesnuff. If a goblin is somehow prevented from shooting the fireball after shoving the snuff up its nose, on its next turn, its head explodes (15ft radius, 3d6 damage, half fire, half slashing).

I'm planning a campaign where the player-characters lived in an isolated community inside an ancient fortress on a plateau, and they're thrust into the adventure when eroded supports in the depths of the plateau (actually an ancient, long-since forgotten, 20+ story tall crypt)give way and a massive sinkhole swallows a festival.

The party consists of the survivors of the fall. There's no way back up, and they'll have to find their way past the various creatures that have made their homes in the crypt between the party and the entrance (their exit).

There's no undead in this crypt. It's a custom setting where necromancy is all but forgotten, so it's a big deal later in the campaign when the dead start rising.

Creatures they encounter will include Rats, a Rat swarm, Fire Beetles, a Giant Black Widow spider, a Rust Monster, and a Gelatinous Cube. The party may try to fight everything, but they also have the options to try to out-wit or out-maneuver these creatures.

There will be a few traps, mostly on the caskets of royals, since these crypts were originally visited, but there were precautions to prevent tomb robbing.

I really like the idea of the party making what they need out of what's there, but so far the only thing I've come up with is the lighting being Lantern Staffs, giving them access to replacement weapons, and to fire-damage.

I also plan for there to be a few unique items in the crypt for them to acquire, that will have large payoffs later if they keep them (such as a Flaming Burst +3 Longsword that deals its fire damage to the wielder every round if the wielder isn't of the correct bloodline, carrying the sword in its sheath would not have a penalty).

Thoughts?

Suggestions?

A kineticist with the Aether element gives you just about everything telekinetic that Pathfinder has rules for, from telekinetic shields, to punting giant objects, to flight, to healing, and even invisibility.

"Also to any DMs how would you translate this race into Pathfinder rules"
In Pathfinder's rules, probably the closest you'd get to a Dragonkin as described would be the Half-Dragon template.

It's a question of what type of person chooses to become a killer for hire. To be willing to make a profession of killing anyone for the right price, a person needs to have a disregard for the value of life which is an "evil" disposition from D&D/Pathfinder standards.

In my mind James Bond is probably a True Neutral Gunslinger or Rogue (mechanically the assassinations being Sneak Attacks).

At the center of the demiplane is a comfortable log house, a grassy clearing, and a large freshwater pond with a short dock and a rowboat tethered to it. Around the clearing sparsely spaced deciduous trees. There are also scattered berry bushes that are always producing berries.

It's permanently a cool, late-summer night, but the ground is dimly lit by glowing flowers, and by stars above. It's positive-energy aligned causing injuries to heal more quickly, and time in the demiplane flows at twice the speed of the material plane. It is a permanent demiplane whose boundaries loop back on itself into an endless forest.

Thanks. I was thinking about wealth-by-level.
But how do you feel about the relative power level of the weapon if given out at lower levels? I tried to make it so it would level with the player.

The Serpent's Embrace is a Furyborn Scorpion Whip with a unique enchantment. At the beginning of each Turn, the wielder may voluntarily "feed" a number of hit points up to the wielder's character level, increasing the weapon's damage by 1d4 for each hit point so fed to the weapon that turn.

I don't know how I'd calculate the value of this.

Good points, Thunderlord. Thanks for the feedback!

Thunderlord,
The distinction in my mind between absolutism and lawfulness is that a lawful character adhered to absolutism, but an adherent of absolutism isn't necessarily lawful.

If a Paladin is in a city with evil laws, The absolutist Paladin would break the evil laws to do what is good, without any contradiction with his alignment. A lawful Paladin has to choose between acting in a way that is lawful, or acting in a way that's good.

The polite discussion is appreciated.

Fair enough, that's two well-reasoned votes against.

I still personally think that rather than trying to classify a person's entire morality in one of nine 2-word descriptions, charting two generally unchanging aspects of a person's belief system would be much more useful and accurate.

General lawfulness can vary quite extensively within individuals. For example, look at the real world, Generally lawful people who wouldn't consider theft, or homicide, have no problem with speeding or certain other laws relating to roads. That's why I'd opt to replace it with absolutism vs relativism rather than law vs chaos.

Thunderlord,
I understand the "it's so messy, just ignore it" position. My attempt is to make it NOT messy, so if everyone ignores it through gameplay, it gives the Game Master a better measure of how player-characters will respond to situations placed before them. It's also to remove the stigmas of certain alignments.

The problem with "Lawful" is that different regions have different laws, so what should the lawful character do in a place where the law tells them to do something evil, or alternatively, if being lawful is a measure of adherence to a personal code, then what's to say that everyone isn't lawful in their own way, regardless of their conduct?

True Neutral also tends to be interpreted as "I'll do what's best for me, regardless of any outside standards," which means the actions taken by the player actually tend towards chaotic and evil. So by redefining the axes, I'm also redefining True Neutral.

On the Good-Evil spectrum, the Neutral Character is the average citizen, not feeling the need to protect strangers from harm, but also choosing to do anything that would cause harm to strangers as a general rule.

On the Absolutist-Situationalist spectrum, the Neutral Character understands the standards of right and wrong, but sees the world in shades of grey rather than black and white. (ex: Theft is wrong, but that child is starving, so it's not fair to hold the child accountable if it doesn't have other options)

With this interpretation, True Neutral becomes the average, reasonably empathetic member of a society, and not a self-centered ***.

Since the Alignment grid only measures alignment on two axes, it should be a measure of two aspects of the character, rather than trying to sum up every entire personality and value system into one of nine pairs of words.

I'd say the vertical Axis (Good/Evil) should be a measure of how safe are innocents in your presence?
Good: You will go out of your way to save innocents from unjust harm.
Neutral: You're not going to harm innocents, but their wellbeing isn't your concern.
Evil: You don't have a problem with harming innocents if it accomplishes your goals.

The horizontal axis
Absolutist: Right and Wrong are black and white absolutes. There is no justification in doing bad things, regardless of the outcome.
Neutral: Life is messy, and you see value in some morally grey actions, but don't revel in morally grey decisions.
Situationalist: The ends justify the means. You justify your actions based on the outcome.

I believe that by reducing the allignment grid to covering two aspects of the characters, is increases the meaning/usefulness of the alignment system, such that it now informs the game master of how he/she can expect the player/characters to respond in any given situation.

Let me know what you think.
Thanks

But if you were to pop a Pathfinder adventuring party out of their universe into the 40k universe, there'd be a few distinct things of note.

1: they'd be psychic blanks, casting no shadows in the Warp, limiting the ability of the Chaos gods to perceive them or mess with their heads.

2: Unless their patron deities came with them, Clerics would be cut off from the source of their power, so they'd lose most of their magical abilities.

3: Wielding Arcane magic (especially at higher levels) would give the Pathfinder party the advantage of having abilities not seen before in the 40k universe. Even the ability to teleport around without risk of teleporting into a wall or having your mind scrambled by Warp demons is something virtually non-existent in 40k.

The biggest threat is probably the Imperium, who tend to kill everything that's not status-quo, and declare everything they aren't currently using "heresy". So as awesome as a L20 Sorcerer would be for confronting the forces of the Warp without any significant risk of corruption, the Imperial officers would likely try to kill them before finding that out.

How do the rules relate to to damaging spells on Wondrous Items?
Ex: can I enchant Burning Hands with a Command Word onto a glove?
(SL1 x CL5 x 1800 = 9,000gp) deals 5d4 Fire Damage in a 15' cone.

This happens because you're using d20pfsrd, which has to change the names of game material that includes world-specific names. The trait you're looking for is Nightstalls Escapee. ^_^

Thank you! I wasn't aware of the reason for the difference.

I found a Regional Trait attributed to PPC Blood of the Elements,
"Light Sleeper", which grants the full benefits from a full night's rest with only 4 hours sleep.

It's listed on d20pfsrd, but not on Archives of Nethys.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/light-sleeper/
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/Traits.aspx?Type=Region

I haven't spent much time with the Blood of the Elements yet, but I haven't found this Trait in it so far.

My question is whether this trait officially exists or not?
If so, what page is it on?

Thanks everyone!

The Scion of Humanity alternate racial trait states that the Aasimar doesn't have to make Disguise checks to appear human.
The Angelic Flesh feat imposes a -2 penalty on Disguise and Sneak checks.

So if an Aasimar has both, can he/she appear human without a Disguise check?
RAW seems to say that the character can, even though logically metallic skin would be a major tell.

A Sorcerer/Spirit-Guide Oracle can have Spell-like Abilities coming out of your ears, on top of having access to the vast majority of spells in the game.

I built a Kitsune, because there's an Oracle Curse for the Kitsune that I really like:
The Bad: poisons, diseases, etc. have a duration 50% longer.
The Good: You can exchange any Oracle Bonus Spells you don't want for Magical Tails, getting you more Spell-like abilities without having to spend Feats on them.

I have essentially two concerns with Oracle//Unchained Rogue. The first is heavy reliance on sneak attack for damage. The second is low accuracy - it doesn't matter how many d6s you're adding to damage if you can't reliably hit. For the unchained rogue, these issues are related, since your best accuracy boost (Debilitating Injury -

Bewildered) relies on you first hitting with a sneak attack.

I've adjusted rating to "green if you can consistently sneak attack" and given some suggestions regarding how to do so.

What option gives Kitsune a Greater Invisibility SLA? Magical Tail only grants Invisibility (and then only after a 4-feat investment). Or are you talking about the Wind Mystery's Invisibility talent?

I also notice the Flame Spirit gives you an ability to see through smoke and fog, which could also be helpful in engineering concealment.

Adding Dex to both damage and accuracy almost makes Str a dump stat, so Dex should be pretty high, maybe not as high as a Fighter's attack bonus, but still solid.

My mistake with the Greater Invisibility. That comes from the Invisibility Revelation from the Wind Mystery at L9.
Turn 1 (if not before combat starts)Turn invisible as a standard action using one minute of the duration.
Turn 2+ (use up another minute of the duration for each round you attack to make it count as Greater Invisibility).

You can also get the Wind Armor Revelation that eventually becomes a +8 Armor Bonus and imposes 50% miss chance on incoming ranged attacks. On top of this, it also doesn't have any Max Dex bonus restriction, or Armor Check Penalty. So your Armor Class isn't limited any more than anyone else (and as stated above, you should be invisible for most combats anyway.

The value of the Kitsune is that you can take a feat to be able to turn into anyone you've ever encountered (or at least any human), making it easier to infiltrate most locations, especially with Sleeves of Many Garments to disguise your outfit. It also makes the Wrecking Mysticism curse accessible, which allows you to get all 9 tails without spending any feats on them.

The game I built this character for is starting at L12, and I built the character to dual-wield +3 Daggers (Two-weapon Fighting/Improved Two-Weapon Fighting)
To-Hit (4 attacks, with +7 Dex Mod): +17/+17/+12/+12
Damage for each hit: 1d4+10(P or S) +1d6(Fire) +1d6(Shock)+6d6(Sneak Attack), for an average of 69 damage per non-critical hit.

I don't have much experience playing at higher levels, but I'd assume being able to dish out roughly 280 hit points in damage per round would be pretty good.

If I might provide an alternate perspective on an Oracle/Unchained Rogue Gestalt Character, especially if you include the Spirit Guide Archetype:
You can have a character with full Divine spellcasting progression, 8 base Skill Points per level, and add Dexterity to your To-Hit and Damage rolls with Daggers, which if you pick the Wind Mystery, and the Flame Spirit, will always count as Flaming and Shocking even if you never bother to enchant them, and then you get Sneak Attack damage on top of that, so I believe this build can be extremely effective.

I'm building one that's a Kitsune, so as a Spell-like Ability he can benefit from Greater Invisibility each day for a number of rounds equal to his level, maximizing access to that extra Sneak Attack damage.

I'm in the process of building a similar character, but my Kitsune is an Oracle because the Wrecking Mysticism Curse allows you to replace your Mystery Spells with tails, without spending any Feats on them. You won't have all nine tails quite as soon, but you'll have healing and some utility spells, and I suspect you'll have just as many available Feats for enhancing your combat ability.

I personally went with the Wind Mystery, because its Revelations include turning into a cloud, Greater Invisibility, and Perfect Flight as spell-like abilities.

Joshua029 wrote:

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

People are really undervaluing the distinction of DR/magic (which is amazing at low levels and nearly useless at higher levels) and DR/- or DR/adamantine. Simply put, DR/- is exponentially more valuable than DR/magic.

If I'm understanding this correctly, actual spells ignore all DR, but DR/Magic means that weapons with magic enhancement also ignore the DR.

This means DR/- is only bypassed by spells, but that's all spells, regardless of level?

Could you or someone point me to the page number where all of this is laid out in the Core Rulebook, because I seem to have missed it.

Not some spells. Certain spells create physical attacks with special materials, for instance pellet blast:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/pellet-blast/

These are subject to damage resistance. But this is the exception to the rule, largely spells and dr don't interact (summoning being another major exception).

Here is the pfsrd section on DR, ask any clarifications you'd like, happy to help out: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/special-abilities/#TOC-Damage-Reduct ion

But as for the pricing of magic items, in cases like this, it's more an art than a science. First, look at pricing for comparable items, then use the rule set that breaks magic items down by elements.

Personally, this feels like a 5k item to me. It's very good at low levels and middling as you go along. But you're not going to find a correct answer, just jury-rigged guesses.

Thank you! That's very helpful.

Step one of the magic item pricing rules.

That's ferociously unhelpful. "Step one" where? And how does that answer my question?