Loengrin's page

If the scoundrel takes the 18 charisma, it's certainly true that it's better in social encounters than the 16 charisma thief. Taking the crit system into account, that +1 on the top end means quite a lot. In a game where the social encounters are more important than the combat encounters, the charisma primary is clearly a good option.

I think that's one thing people have problem with... In PF2 a +1 IS important... ;)

I think I haven't made my idea come through when I said that there should be "warning" in the scoundrel entry... I mean that the entry should note that this is THE entry if you want to multi class in a Charisma based archetype... ;)
You can be almost as good as a Scoundrel with more INT at Social interaction with other racket but the "almost" is the point...
And the Racket tells you that CHA is your key ability without giving clue for why...

Having one more skill mean that you can ditch 2 point in INT to put elsewhere... if this is not a powerful ability I don't know what is... ;)

Honestly, I think even if the argument can be made the the Scoundrel is weaker because flanking is easy to get.

It's weaker in combat, not weaker overall, in a game more or equally socially/skill oriented (like a game heavily investigation oriented or with a lot of interaction with people like when you got a fief of your own) than combat oriented the scoundrel can shine out of combat a lot better than the others...

Well, the issue here is that at first sight it seem that the Scoundrel has a good advantage in combat with feint where his real advantage is in the Charisma and Skill one... Leading to post like this...

Maybe there should be something in the Scoundrel Racket description warning that this is a social racket or MC racket and that he sacrifice some of his combat prowess for this, while clarifying that Feint is less useful with PF2... ;)

It's even more impressive if the boat has less than 10' to the water line and you drop the area it's in down 10': suddenly you've got water above the deck coming in from all sides. Or worse is you're on a raft or barge...

Sorry, since it's instant water has no time to rush in the boat, but when the water go up again instantly you throw them into space same upping the water in the first place... :p

Ok, more seriously, with a duration lowering the water can be very powerful since you can cross river with this (if the duration is sufficient making an army crossing is a HUGE advantage) or as said by Graystone put boats in a pinch... ;)

I really hope there will be a duration in an errata...

You know if you want to take it like this the I can say you can't cast any spell on a Hazard since it's not an object, their type are either Traps, Environmental Hazards, or Haunts, having object immunities does NOT make them objects, same as having Fire Immunity does not make one a fire, they're Hazard and no spell can target Hazard... ;)

Umm, is this really topic for rules on how striking hazard or object works?

Well if you want to know if Hazards are overpowered the first things to know are the rules... If you can blast them with spells it's a lot easier to deal with them... ;)

Oh my... This spell makes you the god of Naval Combat... Imagine 50*50 feet area were most of the enemy fleet is elevated 10 feet at instant speed... the boats are flung into space... :p

Well even falling 10 feet give damage to boat... ;)

After careful read :

It seems there has been a great change with PF2, you can attack object and equipment (as well as hazard) with almost anything now, with some rules : "Normally an item takes damage only when a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted items include doors and traps." (core p272)

If it wasn't the case why put these rules :
"Object Immunities
Inanimate objects and hazards are immune to bleed, death effects, disease, healing, mental effects, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, and poison, as well as the doomed, drained, fatigued, paralyzed, sickened, and unconscious conditions. An item that has a mind is not immune to mental effects. Many objects are immune to other conditions, at the GM’s discretion. For instance, a sword has no Speed, so it can’t take a penalty to its Speed, but an effect that causes a Speed penalty might work on a moving blade trap." (core 273)

Per the rules you can cast sleep on a door, you can cast heal on a chest it's immune but you can ;)
But more importantly you can cast entangle on a moving blade trap and it work... (it's the example given in the paragraph)

Ravingdork wrote:

In the case of a lich, I feel it just shouldn't be possible without magical intervention.

It's not a lich if it doesn't follow the "magical intervention". That's part of the whole point about what makes a lich a lich. The more things you change about it, the less it's a lich, which is fine but you should name it something else unless you're deliberately trying to confuse people.

I think he meant that changing alignment to Good for a lich should require some magical intervention, not that there's no magical process in creating a lich... ;)

Or you can male your NPC communicate so when someone spot a PC he tells everyone else where he is, thus having the same status for every NPC... ANd vice versa if your one of your PC communicate the whereabout of a sneaking NPC then the other PC knows there's someone and where he is... ;)

I assume "unnoticed" is being used as more of an informal term to denote that people have no reason to even look for you in the first place. In such a situation you could skulk around with none the wiser while invisible as long as you took no actions that reveal your presence or until someone notices you with a non-vision sense.

Exactly that's why you can't use "unnoticed" as a stealth mechanic, it's not a stealth mechanic, it's a"rp" mechanic.

so if you are invisible+stealth and fail then you are hidden, not undetected, invisibility only give you the assurance to not be "observed" with a critical fail. Well it also give you permanent concealed bonus to stealth while invisible, that's not bad too ;)

No one has ever played a Goblin at my table except for "We Goblins"... But that maybe because the first campaign I always go with with a new table is Rise of the Runelords... :p

Another factor might be that I always enforce that in a human-centric ,and where races exist for real, world some people will be racists...

That's why I usually completely accept Uncommon races at my table provided that they are keen to accept the downside of being a race that is not fully accepted in some town by some people in exchange for advantage in combat... You can find this an easy advantage but, well, you have to rp it to know... ;)

This is something that I find really educative for some people, playing a minority in a RP game can be an eye opener for some... :p

If I am not an adventuring wizard, but an advisor to a ruler, I think the opportunity cost of having one of my daily cantrips be a spell I might cast 100+ times a day is much lower than thinking I need 3 combat cantrips that I might use once in a year. Just because a spell doesn't leap out as adventurer useful doesn't mean that it is not important to the world as a whole.

This.

In my campaigns my players often have the choice to be rewarded with land to rule as they become famous and help this kingdom or that ruler... It's an option I give them and usually they take it at one point or another... That's where they usually think on a variety of spells they didn't think of taking before... Like something to avoid disease on crops for a druid, or a Sigil spell as an official signature for their fief etc.
I have a lot of utility spells specifically for realm rulers that I have taken left and right in very old books and that I adapt to the current rules...

The real question is why is this spell in the core rule-book (well except for historical reasons) and not in a book about realm spells or more rp oriented spells... ;)

My point is that things with alignments is weird, and intention is also a factor. Good intentions is why Paladins dont immediately fall while doing regular adventuring, but its not enough to justify being a murder hobo. Similarly, bad intentions is why a Devil wont suffer for doing good, but its not enough if the Devil is being a goody two shoes.

AND

Regardless, of what weird justification or mentality, the situation caused by the players in the triggering post is evil. And their "reeducating" of the children, is also evil due to the method and blatant ignorance/manipulation of the children's culture. No if and or buts.

I agree with this, it's the planning that was evil in this case, have they fought the Kobold, then spare the surrendering Kobolds, put a "puppet ruler" and some men to rule over them and try to redeem the Kobolds in good faith it would have been another story... But they wanted fast results and well... Dark Side, quicker, easier etc... ;)

Don't worry about a 15th level monk, even if he is optimized to the brink he won't be as disruptive as a Wizard who knows his spells... ;)
Melee MUST be optimized to compete with 9th level casters...

And I can't see how his AC can go so high that a CR 15 will not be able to touch him with a +28 to touch... ;)
More than that almost every CR 15 monsters got spells or spell-like abilities that are way more annoying than 2 claws and a bite... :p

And that's just Monsters... Not a lvl 15 Evil Wizard... :p

A little story from an history book :

At the beginning of the eleventh century, the narrator of the Miracles of Saint Foy de Conques, Bernard of Angers, reported that a tradesman of Conques was engaged in a maneuver who was, in the eyes of the saint woman, scandalous. He was buying all the wax available in the city and its neighborhood, thus acquiring a position of monopoly for the sale of wax candles, which allowed him to draw a high price. [b]The saint did not fail to punish him cruelly.[/b}

Acquiring a monopoly and profiting too much from it is very, very dangerous... Some Aristocrat can be pissed off, some clergy can find this behaviour intolerable and label the owner of the monopoly as Evil etc.

On the other hand, having a monopoly and being very generous with it is a smart move, it can gives you some good political influence with Good clergy and with local population and nobles.... ;)

Please, learn some economics. You're spouting gold-bug gibberish. Even Ron Paul would be embarrassed at this nonsense.

Please learn some Middle-Age economics... ;)

From "On the formation of prices in the economy of the High Middle Ages" by Laurent Feller :

In the West between the sixth and the eleventh centuries, market exchanges and non-market exchanges intersect to the point of becoming confused for the observer, becoming one and the same, the elements of which cannot be distinguished from one another.

In this sense, it was possible to consider that there was no medieval economy, because production, exchange and consumption were not realities distinct from the social rites which surrounded them. Everything takes place as if the social forms and institutions of the early Middle Ages were similar to those found on the other side of the "great partition" among the "prime" peoples who form the object of study of anthropologists: it is henceforth presented as a truth of evidence that the entrenchment of the economic in the social tissue makes impossible, even useless, any effort of clarification and distinction. We are dealing with a structure in which all the elements interact with one another, and it is that interaction which makes sense, and not the evolution of a given object taken separately.

Don't try to compare with nowadays economy...

Food-or-not has nothing to do with it, any more than manufactured-or-not has anything to do with it.

Real[/i] Economics 101: prices are determined primarily by supply and demand. Each producer/seller (more on that in a moment) has a minimum price at which he's willing to participate in the market; each buyer has a maximum price. The market price is the point at which the number of sellers balances the number of buyers. This applies whether you're selling food, jewels, magic potions, or fidget spinners.

Looking at it from the seller's point of view, in general:
1) I need to make a profit, because I need to pay myself enough to eat, clothe myself, etc. And I'd like to make a big profit if I can.

2) If I can make 200 credits a day shining shoes, I'm not going to open a store that nets me only 100 credits a day.

3) All profits are net of my costs, including the cost I pay for items as well as my other costs like rent.

From those, we can see that there is literally nothing that an adventurer can carry that they can sell for the same price at which they can buy it, because the seller will insist on making a profit.

The only exception is something recognized as a universal store of value, like a ten dollar bill (or in older times, a silver shilling). Even there, in a realistic economy, you were unlikely to be able to buy and sell things at the same price. Those bureaux de change in every European capital? They're buying and selling dollars, but they sell dollars for more Euros than they buy them at, because that storefront isn't free, and the...

That's rreal modern economy... Before that you should take in account this :

(Also, what does 'troc' mean? Is it a type of jewellery? A giant bird? Some kind of man-eating gazebo?)

Sorry, it mean Barter :p

arg sorry you should have said so... :/

Yep for PFS no choice, int 13 is only good to take some feat... If you don't plan on taking them then CON 13 is better and losing 1HP, since you're not using the Wounds and Vigor rule, is not a big deal...

Now what's the most plausible scenario : you having to make a swim or climb check and losing a lot of HP or you being KO for 1 point (this could happen, I'm aware) and dying because of -12 instead of -13 (this would never happened, if you're that far under it's too late in any case) ? :p

(grmbl Paizo sometimes made really good optional rules like Background Skill and Action Economy, they should enforce them in PFS too so they can publish PF2 quickly :p)

Frankly, in this case, I would go with 13 CON, 12 INT (You won't go the defensive feat route) and 1 skill point...

Tru to ask you GM to accept to use the Background Skills from Unchained... Since I use those my players are using skills they would never have put a point in before... Like Knowledge Nobility, Liguistics, Appraise, even Perform for non bardic class... ;)

Bards should not be skill taxed to play their role, same for Handle Animal and Ranger/Druid... :p

Frankly they have done a good job separating roleplay skills and utilities skills... :)

It gives you 2 skills point/level you can use on "minor skill" whatever your class... :)

Mor details here

Now the only thing to remember is that there is a Statblock for town and that when on of my player try to sell his +3 sword in a small village of 60 inhabitants his best offer will be 500GP :D

Loengrin wrote:

So, Economy 101 :

Paying with money made in valuable metal is just a gigantic form of troc... Even if the country the money is made from disappear you still have your amount of gold, you can melt the into ingot and sell them in the next country and get more or less as much gold pieces from this country gold pieces than you had in the previous country... ;)
The same apply to all metal and ore... And you should treat the gems the same too... Everything not manufactured should be sold the same price when you buy it and when you sell it...

Yeah,.... not. A smelly nuisance in the stable is valuable fertilizer in the field. There's a reason that grocery stores don't sell me avocados at cost, despite the fact that they're not manufactured.

Yep... But food has always been a special case... Being a necessity it has always been frown upon when you try to make too much a profit of it... ;)

My players understand that very well so they have hired Druid to help for Crops ;)

I usually use this sheet : Time Sheet to keep track of rounds, time etc.

I use this sheet for init

I use thise site for they wondeful calendar on which I or a player notes what has been done everyday if it's important... ;)

I use blank paper for tracking monster hp... :p

You can ask your players to help... Either by using token for the spells in round or taking track of what is done when in the calendar...

Oh I forgot, it does not come often but sometimes you need a weather table it can help... :p

That and kenders... I really hate kenders...

I've played a Kender... Well 2 kenders in fact... The first one died about 1 hour after the game begun 'cause of a lever that I pulled and I shouldn't have... :p

But back on topic... You should not punish the players for what they've done, you should give them opportunities to "make it right"... Rez can be done even if by GM fiat with a not RAW spell with not RAW rules about things disapearing from the common setup (did the players get a Perception, Spellcraft or any Knowledge check to assess the situation and to find something has gone bad ? )... It costs a lot but you can make that a part of the plot, a new quest... Players accepts new quests much more than they accept punition for playing... ;)
Oh... And I can understand that a GM don't want their players to rez easily dead people or to speak with dead and find the BBEG immediatly... So I'm not against "special spell", but you have to make them available to your players too... :p
Make that a Willing target rune spell that goes on when the wearer die, make it available to the players and you can go... ;)

So, Economy 101 :

Paying with money made in valuable metal is just a gigantic form of troc... Even if the country the money is made from disappear you still have your amount of gold, you can melt the into ingot and sell them in the next country and get more or less as much gold pieces from this country gold pieces than you had in the previous country... ;)
The same apply to all metal and ore... And you should treat the gems the same too... Everything not manufactured should be sold the same price when you buy it and when you sell it...

Manfufactured Goods are different...

PF assume 200% price from the fabrication cost as a basis for magic goods... So when you sell your used magic goods you sell them for the same price as if you've made the object yourself...
Frankly I don't know why... Maybe there's an "adventurer tax" I don't know of...
If I decide to set up a shop, make magic object myself and sell them should I sell them the price it has costed me to make them in my shop ? :D

No, I think that if you sell your manufactured goods at 50% of their market price it's mainly because what you're doing is ths same as going to a pawn shop and sell your item... Quickly getting the cash, maybe haggling a little but no more than that... And usually you're selling them with gore and brain on it... :p
Art and Jewelry are also manufactured goods... If you go to town and sold them quickly you most probably get half their pricez for it...

Now if you take your time to polish your goods before selling them, get knowledge on the market and go sell your goods where it can sold well, and are willing to wait for days or weeks before someone buy it you could certainly sell your goods at, at least 100%, and if you play well maybe even more...
It's even more true for Jewelry and Art, if you take your time, make research on who made it, who has owned it before, the market of art and who is interested in buying this type of art for a lot then travel to this person and haggle with him I think you could got 200 to 300% the price... :)
Now my players are aware of this rules and still go to the pawn shop, 'cause you know, as they say "We are adventurers not merchant" :p

Another option is a legendary item. This allows you to create powers that are unique to the bearer, which can explain why they aren't ultra powerful from day 1 with a new owner. That bond is unique and must grow and evolve.

Yuo this is quite good too... But you should'nt let the weapon grow for free, it has to cost the same as for the other players buying their stuff, or you have to give everyone in the party a Legendary weapon... :)

I don't think we will get an answer now since Ultimate Wilderness will hopefully have an new environmental set of rules that will be satisfactory (cross finger... ;) )

Yep, from a strict RAW view I was completely in the "You move you can't 5' step camp", but now from RAW perspective I understand why this need a clarification...
The most clear argument is : If i go 5' Step at the begining of my turn then cast a spell can 5' step deny me the ability to cast Move related spell ? :)
If not why before and not after ? :D

Well, to be frank this doesn't change my games since I use Unchained Revised Action Economy in my games... :p

Same as Cat Whisperer, it's the third time I've run Kingmaker and 2 of my 4 players have played the first book of every two precedent attempt (and If you want to know the first attempt has finished with 2 of the 4 players moving away so we have to stop playing, then the second attempt 1 player was too antagonistic and it end up with so much fight in the group that monsters killed them... :p ).
So, since I had to change most of the encounter in the first book, and since my players are now Seasoned Min-Maxer players, it forced me to change almost every encounter to suit the group...

And for the end of the campaign these books are like heaven to me since it can let me immerge my players who loves circumvoluted plots to freely move "In the First Realm" at their own risks... :p

For Kingmaker Adventure Path those books were much much needed if, as a GM, you wanted your players to develop the "Go in the first World" part and all the Political shenanigans that can arise with killing the BBEG when you're trying to make a Kingdom and fight against real humans at the same time kind of things... :p

The harder the plot the greater the heroes… :D

Mmmh... Nonlethal damage are not untyped damage... If the cold gives you Non-Lethal Damage it's just common sense to think it's Cold Non-Lethal Damage...
If I hit a skeleton with my longsword I do Slashing Damage I do 5 less damage to the skeleton... If I choose to do Non-Lethal Damage by taking -4 to touch, do I suddenly make 5 more damage automatically bypassing the DR? :)
What about a Demon with DR 15 cold iron and Good, if I choose to hit them with a stick and choose -4 to touch, I suddenly bypass the DR with my stick? :p

Merciful Spell say :

You can alter spells that inflict damage to inflict nonlethal damage instead. Spells that inflict damage of a particular type (such as fire) inflict nonlethal damage of that same type.

So Nonlethal damage can be Fire or Cold Nonlethal damage if the source is Fire or Cold… ;)

First the Negative Plane is not Evil, Negative energy is not Evil :

From the Inner Sphere Book:

The Negative Energy Plane An empty, infinite void of entropic darkness, the Negative Energy Plane exists as the antithesis of its bright twin at the heart of the Material Plane, and an eternally devouring hunger that spawned the plane of shadow in flawed mockery of its twin’s creation. Known simply as the Void, the Negative Energy Plane empowers undead just as positive energy is the driving force behind all living things, but contrary to some religious dogma, neither

it nor its destructive energies are evil. As dangerous and antithetical to life as they might be, they simply exist as an opposite to the creative potential of the positive, divorced from any notion of morality.

And all Undead are not Evil as example an undead who lives on the Negative energy plane :

Frome the Inner Sphere Book:

Malikar’s Keep: Atop a massive, drifting island of heavily

teathered bedrock stands the redoubt of the mad, planewalking lich, Xegirius Malikar (CN male unknown lich wizard 20). The lich’s rare visitors find the desolate rock occupied by the ruins of a city, or rather a fragment of a city, apparently wrenched free from its original plane and dragged into the depths of the Void. Most of the buildings have long since succumbed to the plane’s destructive, entropic inf luence, but some explorers have remarked that the architectural details vaguely resemble some of those encountered among the equally ruined debris that comprises the Diaspora of Golarion’s solar system.

Why are Skeletons Evil ? It's written in the bestiary entry :

Skeletons are the animated bones of the dead, brought to unlife through foul magic. While most skeletons are mindless automatons, they still possess an evil cunning imparted to them by their animating force—a cunning that allows them to wield weapons and wear armor.

Same for Zombies :

Zombies are the animated corpses of dead creatures, forced into foul unlife via necromantic magic like animate dead. While the most commonly encountered zombies are slow and tough, others possess a variety of traits, allowing them to spread disease or move with increased speed.

Zombies are unthinking automatons, and can do little more than follow orders. When left unattended, zombies tend to mill about in search of living creatures to slaughter and devour. Zombies attack until destroyed, having no regard for their own safety.
Although capable of following orders, zombies are more often unleashed into an area with no command other than to kill living creatures. As a result, zombies are often encountered in packs, wandering around places the living frequent, looking for victims.

So for these two the answer is simple : Whoever designed the animate dead and other undead creation spells have done it with evil in mind and that is why there's the Evil descriptor in these spells...

For sentient Undead if most of them are Evil it's for the same reason why most Kobold are Evil... It's in their nature to be so but it's not mandatory... ;)

Well... First for Vital strike I've changed like this and explained it like this to my players : Since it's written "you can make one attack" then add "Once per round" and it's ok...
So the feat is now to be read like this:

Vital Strike (Combat)

You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.

Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.

Benefit: Once per round, when you use the attack action that attack deal additional damage. Roll the weapon’s damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together before adding bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), precision-based damage, and other damage bonuses. These extra weapon damage dice are not multiplied on a critical hit, but are added to the total.

Hop... ;)

Well to be clear I have to add that we also use the Armor as DR rules and the Wounds and Vigor rules at the same time...
Oh and all weapon are at 20 for critical with max 19/20 critical authorized 'cause critics automatically ignore DR and hit directly in Wounds, they are dangerous and can kill in one...And we use Paizo cards for critical and fumble... Oh and no confirmation for critic needed... 20 is critic auto... But this is another things... :D

Back to topic, so far my players loves the new Revised Action Economy rules, though the only issue I run with is the Natural Attack action that is way too pricy in actions, I've lowered it to 2 actions 'cause mounts deserve some love too... :p
Most of the time, so far, fight are outdoor and 2 of my 4 players are mounted on their companion animal, and their enemies are frequently Natural Weapon user only... With the DR rules Natural Weapon are already behind (most of the time they are not magic so no bypass DR and it cost a lot more to enchant Natural Weapons than to do it with a Sword) so they deserved to be able to move a minimum...
So far this has not given too much an advantage to Natural Attack but, once again, this is surely because we use the Armor as DR rules that favor slightly manufactured weapon and armor (it also cost less to enchant armor than to have Natural Armor or even armor on Mounts).

Insofar the fights are much more livelier and the PC are much more creative in their fight... Positioning is much more changing in fights and that's good...
I think that with these rules fight are a lot more tactics than before and my players loves that :p

There's nothing official that clarifies, but I can't see any reason to rule simultaneous effects resolve at the same time and can't influence each other.

As for the order issue:
"When the wielder strikes" is equivalent to "making a successful attack". They language may be different but the two conditions are the same.

That's mathematical... 'cause you have to check the condition before the effect take case, if you resolve everythin simultaneously when you check conditions you have to check conditions simultaneously... And when you check the conditon for Cruel Conductive at the same time you check condition of Cruelty then the effect is till not in place... ;)

Greater Transformative wrote:

A greater transformative weapon becomes any other weapon the wielder desires when a command word is spoken. The weapon cannot become ammunition, but can freely change between simple, martial, exotic, light, one-handed, two-handed, melee, and ranged. The weapon retains all of its enhancement bonuses and weapon special abilities.

However, abilities prohibited by its current shape do not function. For example, a keen greater transformative weapon functions normally in the form of a piercing or slashing weapon, but cannot use the keen special ability when in the shape of a bludgeoning weapon. A double weapon that loses the double quality cannot use the abilities on one of its ends (wielder’s choice), whereas a non-double weapon that gains the double quality applies all its abilities to only one end. When unattended for 1 day, the weapon reverts to its true shape.

The first bolded part says it can change to any other weapon, the second bolded part explains precisely what the first bolded part is referring to.

If you make a weapon out of, for example, Adamantine, and then apply the Greater Transformative property to it, then when it is transformed to any other weapon, it is an Adamantine weapon. Keep in mind that you can even transform it into an Adamantine Shield, and convey properties that way. The same goes for other material types, though you would pay the cost for the original weapon type as normal.

Similarly, if you don't have it made out of Adamantine, you can't transform it into Adamantine because Adamantine is a material, not a weapon, and the ability references changing the weapon with a specific list, which Adamantine both does not fall under, and the references not once calling out a special material of any kind.

**EDIT** Also, consider the Double Weapon clauses. If you have an Adamantine Weapon, and then transform it into a Double Weapon, that means both ends are made out of Adamantine.

Similarly, if you don't have a weapon made out...

RAW it seems you're right since they only stated that

However, abilities prohibited by its current shape do not function.

RAI I think they wanted to include the material as well as the abilities in this sentence... ;)

I know that flavor can be unimportant to the calorie-counters, and I accept that a ruling could be made to disallow the reading that this staff, sacred to the God of Magicians, allows the wielder "to cast magic missle". Yes, at 3rd level, but [b]the weilder[/i]. Anyhow, that's the local reading, that it's possible.

So, in one local campaign, when our wizard Terra (who owned the staff) lent it to Maplewing (who had a power via Super-Genius' Youxia similar to the Arcanist's 'cast at +4 levels'), Terra kind of goggled at the white, and black, and red, and green missle-snakes, and hurriedly took back her staff.

It's a fond memory. Far fonder than slamming the 'No!' door would have been. And the damage from two more Magic Missles didn't break the game.

I understand some of you are on very strict diets. But please do consider, occasionally, trying a bit of cheese.

Hey don't assume what we're doing in our homegame... I think a lot of GM are willing to bend the rules for fluff sake if it's fun/dramatic/enjoyable/beacause we feel like it... ;)

Sorry but all of the example of Mithril shield given here are "named MAGIC object", not "generic object"... "Force Tower" and not "+1 Mithral Tower Shield", "Equalizer Shield" and not "+1 Mithral Tower Shield"...
The same for "Celestial Armor" and "Celestial Plate Armor", my players keep asking me if they can make other armor "Celestial" and how this will cost them... But you can't do this.. Celestial is not a valid option for all armor, it's unique armor set...
So are those Mithral Tower shield... It's unique, the guy who discover how to made them only discovered how to make those in a unique way, not in a generic way without magic... ;)

When magic is involved in an object creation you can't imply that it is valid for mundane object creation... The magic object creation process is totally different and never related to mundane object creation :p

KingOfAnything wrote:

...and you can spell combat with a bow.

I'll disagree with you on this point. It hasn't removed the restriction in spell combat of "You must have a hand free." It would need to say it works like spell combat from a magus, or spell combat from a eldritch archer to allow the flexibility of both one handed melee weapons or bows. Or have text that removes the "one hand free" requirement to work with two-handed melee phantom weapons, etc.

You can wield your bow with one hand, you only need two hand to fire with it ;)

bbangerter wrote:

SKR (one time member of the design time) made a comment regarding this here. While the post from him isn't official rules material, it may be sufficient to convince your group that, No, you cannot activate all the MM spells at once.

Thank you for this, every little bit towards clarifying this issue helps...

but SKR also didnt answer how magic items with common words as command words could be activated by accident and ignored how to handle them (though I believe this was unintentional). He specifically said that for a command word to work it needs to be directed at a magic item with a specific inflection (though nothing says it cant be a normal conversational tone) and didnt clarify how magic items were accidently activated if this was the case.

Not saying he isnt correct, but there is previous evidence to the contrary... though it could have been an earlier mistake to say so...

Erf I have looked at the discussion from SK and a little under the one quoted there's that :

Are wrote:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to remove the "the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation" part of the rule? It doesn't seem like that could ever happen, considering the owner must speak the word for the specific reason of activating the item in order for it to do so.

That text wording allows a GM to give the PC a clue about an item's unknown activation word. "Jonas, while you were talking to the blacksmith about your adventures, you felt a momentary twitch from your new sword when you said the word 'dragonfire.'" Then Jonas can try using that word as a command word and see if it works.

Old-school gamers use an abbreviation: TANSTAAFL—there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It's cool from a story perspective for a magic item to unexpectedly activate in the middle of a conversation, but game designers have to expect that players will attempt to cheese as much free magic item activation as possible, and have to disallow freebie activation by using common words as command words.

Coupled with this :

1. Activating an item's command word is a standard action. If your command word is "fire," and you're in initiative, you have to spend your standard action saying the word AT the sword with the proper inflection, you can't activate it for free (without spending an action).

2. You can give several actions the same command word, but that doesn't get around the standard-action-to-activate-each. It just means you only have to remember one word, not multiple words (which means your allies have an easier time using those items to save your life if you're bleeding to death).

3. Activating flaming doesn't deactivate any other abilities on the weapon. If your sword has three different command words, you can spend three standard actions activating each to have them all active at the same time. If the sword has the same command word for all three special abilities, you can spend three standard actions speaking that command word to activate the three special abilities, and have them activated at the same time.

"Until another command is given" means "... specifically to turn off that weapon special ability with the 'off' command." It doesn't mean "any command directed at the weapon turns off this ability" or "any command you speak turns off this ability" or "any command anyone in the world speaks at any time turns off this ability."

That settle the issue it seems ;)

Well, considering speaking is a free action, and activating a command-word triggered item is a standard action, there must be something beyond saying the right word that's beyond a simple password. What that is, we don't know, but it's something that prevents you from doing stuff like this.

What is confusing with the rules is the part where your magic object can activate if you speak the command word in normal conversation and this without willing to really activate it. So if the player use a magic word to activate one Magic Missile and the command word is the same for the others Magic Missiles then he cast willingly one magic missile and unwillingly the others by the rules... :p

The Command Word Rule :

A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

Now what happen when a spell is cast unwillingly ? That's the question... :p

P.S. : Here is what I would do in that case : He can aim one magic missile like normal, for the others since the spells are cast unwillingly I will randomly choose the target of the spell within range :D
But that's me, it's entirely a Houserule since I can't find a rule for what happen when a spell is cast unwillingly...
Remark : Others can't cast the spell on an object with a word command you own per the rule. Only you can unwillingly cast it and we don't know what happen in this case...

The weather section says: "Rain reduces visibility ranges by half, resulting in a –4 penalty on Perception checks. It has the same effect on flames, ranged weapon attacks, and Perception checks as severe wind."

It later says: "In addition to automatically extinguishing any unprotected flames, winds of this magnitude cause protected flames (such as those of lanterns) to dance wildly and have a 50% chance of extinguishing these lights. Ranged weapon attacks and Perception checks are at a –4 penalty. This is the velocity of wind produced by a gust of wind spell."

Does this mean that rain imposes a -8 penalty to perception?

Yes, -8 perception for those who depends on torchs or lanterns to see... -4 to those who don't depend on flame to see (light spell is your friend :p )

Loengrin wrote:

Uh ? Note that a Magus Eldritch Scion Capenia Dancer / Duelist can add his CHA and his INT to his AC while a Magus not Eldritch Scion can't... And if you take this one with monk you can add Wis...

But you find strange that you can't add two time your Wis ac bonus with a monk and Warpriest ?

I'm honestly having some trouble parsing your post.

Sorry I'm going to try to be clearer...

I'm making a Magus, I take the Kapenia Dancer archetype cause I want a Bloodrager Bloodlines Fey... And the faculty to add INT to AC in addition to Dex.
Since I'm a Fey oriented character I want my abilities based on Cha so I take the Eldritch Scion Magus archetype which can be taken when you are a Kapenia Dancer... Now I can add my Cha to AC in addition to Dex instead of my Int.

So far I have not dipped in anything, one class Magus (Eldritch Scion and Kapenia dancer archetype). So as I level up I find that the Duelist PrC synergize well with my character and I take levels in it...
With the Duelist I can now also add my Int to AC (note that if I were not an Eldritch Scion I cannot do that since I will already add my Int to AC with the Kapenia dancer, but now I'm adding my Cha to AC so it work).

Until now NO dipping, just a regular class and a PrC class that let me add Cha and Int to AC...

If I decide that I want to fight a little bit unarmed then I can dip (first dip) a monk level and add Wis to AC...

So that makes me a character with only 1 dip level who can add Dex, Cha, Int and Wis to my AC...

So with that said I can't understand why you find a simple Wis+Wis to AC overpowered... ;)

But if it's not in the corebook you don't even have to ask, because in the corebook alone there's no such case that can come into play, no warpriest in the core rulebook, no magus no etc.

So if you go buy your core rulebook you never have to ask yourself this sort of question...

So if you are a sorcer and cast an Enchantement spell with a DC of 10+Spell level+ Charisma Modifier and an ability gives you "add your Charisma modifier to your Enchantment school spell" this will not work ?

But this will work if you are a Wizard because your DC will be 10+Caster level+ Intelligence modifier ?