Search Posts
sorry, I did. I believe RAW to be 1, and RAI to be 2. That's generally my interpretation, too. If you go with RAW, the system encourages and rewards players who only concentrate on their relationships with a single NPC. If you go with (my interpretation of) RAI, then players are rewarded for interacting with every NPC they can.
Did you get the numbers backwards? Your argument seems to be that RAW means you can only give one apple total, but the way you reference the numbers seems to counteract that.
I need a clarification on a particular line from page 14 in the Jade Regent Player's Handbook. You can give a gift or an insult to an NPC once per character level Which does this mean? 1) You can give only one gift or insult total per character level.
Emphasis mine. I see you made the Magus 3rd level, which is probably why you added that, but I don't understand why you are using an underleveled Magus for your examples because it is not the situation I'm asking about. I see you're making the craft DC set to the minimum CL for a Magus, but I feel it's just confusing the issue to compound it with the rules for substituting required spells by upping the DC of the craft check. So your ruling in this case is that the Magus pays the same amount and gets the exact same item, but has a more difficult Craft check? That seems absurd to me, though I can recognize that it at least follows some kind of cohesive rule that you can abstract across all items. But I maintain that the listed items that have precisely the same effects and have precisely the same costs should have precisely the same Craft DC for any two characters that meet the prerequisites to create the item.
One last bump for visibility and I'll let it die if no one cares.
Fly is a Magus spell. Anyway, I feel like we're talking in circles and you guys aren't getting or really addressing my question. I appreciate the input, though.
Sounds exactly right. The key is that you understand that the AoO he provokes by standing up happens before the act of getting up, so you can't triplock him by tripping him every time he provokes. Sounds like a pretty decent use of the teamwork feat if you have one person specializing in trip and can talk both parties into taking the feat. Just watch out when your GM starts giving you untrippable enemies.
So how do you deal with the fact that Sorcerers and Magi can make Winged Boots at the GP cost and spell effects of Fly cast at CL5 when they can only cast Fly at CL6 or CL7? "It's magic, shut up"?
You're missing the point; I have a 10th level Magus. I want to know if I can craft things below the level I gained the ability to cast those spells (3rd level spells at CL5 instead of 7th level, when I gained them). I know how it works for spell levels I can't cast yet; the question is if I can enchant at a CL anywhere between the minimum CL needed to make the item (Wiz5) and my CL (Mag10).
Sorry, I didn't state that too well did I? What I was trying to say was, set the minimum CL of the Item to either the CL of the spell on your list, or the minimum CL of any caster (but then take the +5 for not using the spell). Basically, you're a Cleric trying to make the item at the same minimum CL as a wizard, but you don't have the spell at a low enough CL to do so, so you can't use your own spell, you have to 'fake' it trying to duplicate a wizard's approach, which makes it harder (thus +5 DC). I get how it works when the spells are not on your spell list, but what I'm most concerned with is when they ARE on your list, but where your minimum CL to cast the spell is higher than the cross-class minimum CL to cast the spell. In that situation (a Magus creating a Magus-spell item, or an Oracle creating an Oracle-spell item), can they add +5 to the DC of the item creation to treat it as if they were trying to make the item using Wizard-equivalent or Cleric-equivalent minimum caster levels, respectively?
To the OP, I would say the minimum CL is the minimum CL your class can cast the spell (if it can), and if not, then the minimum CL of any class that can cast the spell (this assumes you are using the +5 DC to craft something who's spell is not on your list). But this makes no sense. What you're telling me is that, for instance, I could only create say, a Cloak of Blink (3rd level Magus spell) as if I were Caster Level 7 (as opposed to 5 for a Wizard, again), but I could create a Cloak of Cloak of Winds (LOL recursion), which is NOT a Magus spell, for just +5 DC to craft it, at ANY level I like, minimum 5. It's easy to min/max skills to make those Crafting DCs not too bad. Why would it be possible for me to have greater control over the caster level of a spell I can't normally cast than it is over a spell I use every day? Even if you stick to that interpretation, would you allow a player to take the +5 DC to craft (pretending he doesn't know the spell) so that he can prepare it at the minimum Wizard level? If so, doesn't this all seem a bit absurd?
I have my first character who is going to be spending time crafting and I have to admit that the crafting rules are making my brain melt. I've got most of it in place (the calculation of costs, etc), but there's one thing nagging at me: Caster level. I've always understood the minimum CL to make these things as "minimum level for YOUR CHARACTER to cast the spell." It gives Wizards an edge as creators, since they are the fastest to gain spell levels. But then while looking through items, I started to doubt that. For instance, let's look at the Winged Boots. They are command-word activated boots that give the user 5 minutes of Fly up to 3 times per day. They are 16000G to buy, 8000G to make. Based on the fact that the user gets 5 minutes of Fly, it seems that would correspond to the minimum caster level for Fly, a 5th-level Wizard. Now let's say we wanted to create a nearly identical item; let's call them Gloves of Fly. Going by the item creation prices, a command-word item is 1800 GP * Clvl * slvl. For a Wizard casting Fly, this is 27000. By reducing it to 3 uses per day, we multiply the cost by (3/5). Doing so, we get 16200 GP. This is in the ballpark for the buy cost listed for the boots, so the creation cost would be 8,100 GP. Close enough. Anyway, now let's consider a Sorcerer and Magus. Wizards get 3rd level spells at 5th level. They can create the gloves for 8100 G.
This means that it is 1620 G more expensive for a Sorcerer to make this minimum-level item, and 3240 G more expensive for a Magus. The only difference is that when activated, the Wizard's gloves last 5 minutes, the Sorcerer's gloves last 6 minutes, and the Magus' gloves last 7 minutes. My question: Can casters create items using a spell below their class' minimum CL for the spell if it is still equal to or greater than the minimum CL for any class to cast the spell? In other words, can a Sorcerer or Magus create these nearly-identical gloves at the minimum level of 5, giving them 5 minutes of use for each activation? If not, why not? Presumably Sorcerers and Magi can create the Winged Boots for the listed effects and 8000 G pricetag. To say they can create the Winged Boots (CL5) but not the Gloves of Fly (CL5) seems to do nothing other than limit player creativity--I'm not going to spend thousands of extra gold for a barely-better item when the CRB already has the item for far less than what I'd pay for it otherwise. I hope this all makes sense. I'm practically losing my mind over these crafting rules. I need someone to weigh in on this so I can stop obsessing about it.
Casting <> maintaining. I'll certainly grant that, but what's the functional difference? If casting is a standard action and maintaining is a standard action and both are the manipulation of magic energy, then what is different about the act of concentration versus spellcasting? To clarify, both are spellcasting and both require concentration. So what's different about continuous concentration to maintain a spell that makes it functionally different from periodic concentration to bring a spell into existence? Is it a harder thing to do? Given that spellcasting provokes AoO (if you don't cast defensively) but maintaining does not, I would suggest that maintaining a spell is actually easier than creating one.
Bumping once for visibility. I would love to see some opinions on whether Magi can count "concentrating as a standard action" as "casting as a standard action" for the purposes of Spell Combat.
well reading it over and over, as long as the magus does not cast another spell he can do aoo. he can not do spell combat because he can not cast a spell and maintain concentration, this would apply to any of his abilities. and since he has to perform a standard action he is left to move only, so he... If the Magus can do an AoO without breaking concentration, and if the Magus can perform spellcraft that normally takes a Standard action as a part of Spell Combat, is there any reason why he shouldn't be able to substitute the Standard Action of concentration in place of casting a new spell with Spell Combat? What I'm saying is, should he be able to maintain concentration AND make a full attack? I understand that if we go strictly RAW, the answer is probably no--concentrating is not "casting a spell," and Spell Combat only deals with casting a spell while attacking. But do you think that maintaining should fall within the bounds of what counts as "casting a spell" for RAI?
I did a few searches and found no thread on the topic, so forgive me if this has already been addressed. I'm specifically curious about what one can do while maintaining a spell with a duration of "Concentration." For your typical caster, this is fairly straight-forward: They cast the spell and maintain it every round as a standard action. When they want to cast something else, they dismiss it. So let's establish what CAN be done while concentrating. Since it only costs a standard action, presumably the character can use their move and swift actions as they please so long as their actions don't cause them to fail a concentration check. So they definitely can 5-foot step or move their full move distance. Can they draw a weapon? Can they reload a light crossbow? Can they drink a potion? Now, if they can do one or all of those things, can they make Attacks of Opportunity (assuming they're equipped to do so and have the opportunity)? If not, why not? The text on concentration only dictates that a caster must spend a standard action each round to maintain his concentration, and that he cannot cast any spell while maintaining the first spell. There doesn't seem to be anything I can find that stipulates the caster cannot make attacks of opportunity. If a caster CAN make Attacks of Opportunity while maintaining concentration, where does this leave the Magus? Since the Magus can cast spells that normally take 1 Standard Action as a part of Spell Combat, does that mean that a Magus can maintain concentration while making a full attack? If not, why not? This has come up in our games and I've scoured the CRB and UM looking for an answer, but have come up empty-handed. Thoughts?
Apologies for coming in with a question after skipping 7.5 pages of the middle of this thread, but does anyone else feel that illusion spells are especially under-represented in this writeup? I know that the focus of these thought experiments is mostly on maximizing damage output and other concrete measures of effectiveness, but I still feel like the Image tree of spells is even better for the Magus than it is for most other casters. Why? Because he can cast them for defense that may (ostensibly) be even better lines of defense than things like Mirror Image. When faced with a particularly scary big-bad, the Magus can use Spell Combat to do his delicious bursty damage (even better if he prepped Shocking Grasp or some other touch spell the round before), and then at the end of the round cast Silent Image to summon a stone wall between himself and the enemy, or Minor Image to have the earth erupt as a column rises from the ground, carrying the (illusory) Magus 30 feet into the air, or Major Image to transform himself into a towering Balor. Now the big-bad you're up against has to at least spend a move action to even recognize the illusion for what it is, and if he doesn't (or doesn't succeed), you are effectively protected from attack. If he does, he can take a standard action, but that's all. Furthermore, if he fails to recognize the illusion for what it is, he's more likely to do something to provoke an AoO, which the Magus can capitalize on at his discretion. Sure, the image will end shortly after you stop concentrating on it during your next round, but near-total protection for a round can be a life saver in the right situation, and with a spell like Major Image, who's to say you couldn't creatively come up with a way to continue to benefit from the spell for a full 4 rounds if your enemy fails his saves? Combine this tactic with the typical buff spells (Mirror Image, Displacement, Shield, etc) or even better, with one debuff (Slow) and you have got a Magus that is almost never going to get hurt if he's smart about it--while still dishing some explosive damage more often than not. Am I off my rocker, here? I guess if nothing else I see this as being a lot more fun to play than a Magus that casts the same 3-4 spells every fight and just tries to dish damage as much as possible.
Regardless, you cannot cast a spell, use Pool Strike, and Spellstrike all in the same round. Spellstrike can incorporate either a spell OR Pool Strike, not both.What about using Pool Strike the previous round, holding the charge, opening with a Spellstrike, which uses up the Pool Strike, then casting your spell as part of Spell Combat for the round? Seems allowable to me, given that one of my most common tactics is to cast a spell like Chill Touch using Spell Combat, hold the charge and use the spell effects for a round or two, and then end a round by attacking using Spellstrike (with the Chill Touch benefits) and then casting a new spell, which dismisses Chill Touch. Yeah, makes sense to me that Pool Strike should function in the same way.
No. While you can use Pool Strike WITH the Spellstrike class ability, you cannot apply the Pool Strike to your weapon--that clause just means that while Pool Strike is normally a Standard Action, you can do it as part of a Spellstrike to allow yourself both a full attack with one weapon and a touch attack with your Pool Strike. On second thought, I will contradict myself here to say that I think you can use Pool Strike with Spellstrike, but its effects would just be applied to the first attack that hits, as with most other touch attack spells. So you could shoot an arrow charged with Pool Strike as part of Ranged Spellstrike, but I'm not sure how that would function in the case of a miss. And on a successful hit, I suppose it would be up to GM discretion as to whether Arcing Pool Strike meant that enemies within 15' took the damage, or whether it doesn't apply because you're (presumably) not within 15'. Regardless, you cannot cast a spell, use Pool Strike, and Spellstrike all in the same round. Spellstrike can incorporate either a spell OR Pool Strike, not both.
Yes and no; it's really more dependent upon your level than the enhancement bonus of your weapon. For example, as a Level 9 Magus, I can apply a +3 bonus to my +1 weapon for 1 Arcane Pool point. This can make it a +4 weapon, a +1 Shocking Icy Burst Weapon, and any combination in-between, so long as the total enhancement bonus is equal to or less than +4 (+1 Weapon plus +3 from Arcane Pool). No matter what, I cannot make my weapon a Brilliant Energy weapon, because that is a +4 enhancement and I can only add a +3 enhancement using my Arcane Pool. Once I hit level 13, I will be able to add +4 enhancements to my weapons, and then I can make any weapon a Brilliant Energy weapon, so long as it has at least a +1 enhancement. It doesn't matter if it's a lowly +1 Longsword or a +5 Vorpal Shocking Longsword of Speed before I spend my point from my Arcane Pool.
No. While you can use Pool Strike WITH the Spellstrike class ability, you cannot apply the Pool Strike to your weapon--that clause just means that while Pool Strike is normally a Standard Action, you can do it as part of a Spellstrike to allow yourself both a full attack with one weapon and a touch attack with your Pool Strike. Arcing Pool Strike opponents have to be within 15' of you, not 15' of your target. If I'm not mistaken, doing a Pool Strike as part of a Spellstrike also prevents you from actually casting a spell as part of your Spellstrike, meaning you cannot apply a ranged ray attack at the same time that you are using Pool Strike. I hope this all makes sense, and that I'm not off-base. I'm still learning my Magus (9th level Quarterstaff Magus), too.
For the Magus I would say no. J'accuse!
Not sure on the rules for this - can you cast spells using a hand that's wearing a spiked gauntlet? Would you be able to use the same hand you're casting with to spellstrike, channeling your spell through the gauntlet? Given that the Magus takes no spell failure from Medium armor at level 7 and Heavy armor somewhere further down the line, and given that gauntlets are a facet of many medium and heavy armors, I would suggest that at level 7, the Magus can cast while wearing a spiked gauntlet (of appropriate armor type) with no problem. And spell failure aside, a Magus could always use a spiked gauntlet for spellstrike, couldn't he? A weapon's a weapon. It should be noted, though, that gauntlets make unarmed attacks lethal but do not grant IUA. So while a touch attack wouldn't provoke as part of a spell, if you tried to punch (without a touch spell to deliver) with the spiked gauntlet you would still provoke.
Not sure on the rules for this - can you cast spells using a hand that's wearing a spiked gauntlet? Would you be able to use the same hand you're casting with to spellstrike, channeling your spell through the gauntlet? Given that a normal Magus takes no spell failure from medium or heavy armor as they level up, and given that gauntlets are a facet of some medium and heavy armors, I would theorize that once you no longer take spell failure from medium armor, you could theoretically wear a spiked gauntlet without interfering with your spellcasting ability. So basically, I would say that before 7th level, you'd incur spell failure if you tried to cast while wearing a spiked gauntlet, but you could certainly spellstrike using the gauntlet if that tickled your fancy. After 7th, you could freely cast and spellstrike while wearing a spiked gauntlet.
When casting a touch spell, such as chill touch, if you choose to hold the charge, will you then be able to attack with a sword in one hand and the use the chill touch as an off hand weapon? Plus if touching a friend is a standard action ,while holding the charge, what kind of action is touching yourself or an opponent? You can hold the charge and attack with an off-hand touch, but you would incur all the penalties for Two-Weapon Fighting, making it a -4/-8 to hit unless you have the feat, in which case it would just be -2/-2. I'm not sure if there are official rules about this, but in our group, self-touch spells are a swift action to apply (though not necessarily a swift action to cast). So it would still be a standard action to cast Cure Light Wounds, but if you chose to hold it and then during your next turn wanted to apply it to yourself, we would treat it as a swift action. Touching your enemy is a standard action unless it's done as part of the "free" touch that is given when casting a touch spell, or as part of a full-attack action with two weapon fighting (as above, in which case it is an attack action).
As for the intentionality of the ability, yes, it was purely intentional. It was intended to encourage you to enter grapples youself, and to give you a measure of protection when you are being grappled by others. You are the king-poobah of brawlers and you should be in there mixing it up; though grappling isn't necessarily your super-deluxe specialty, you can be plenty good at it and you can be ready to deal with others who use that tactic as well. Excellent. That's what I was thinking/hoping, but it's always good to make sure I'm not off my rocker with a given reading.
I can definitely see that reading of the "intent" of the ability/class, but in our play group we were discussing and think that the DR could be made to make sense in a "human shield" sort of way. That is to say, while grappling, the Unarmed Fighter is proficient at throwing his enemy in the way of attacks, granting him minimal DR against incoming attacks from any enemy. Whether or not it gets errata'd, though, it sounds like folks are in agreement that the RAW reading is that the class gets DR whenever they are in a grapple... so that's good.
Bump. I'd still love to hear what others have to say on this. I don't want to build a character thinking one way and then have the community consensus come down on the other side of the issue.
Even if you ruled it in the most favorable way, that DR is not going to make much of a difference at all. How do you figure? Fighters normally gain DR 5/- at level 19. Having small DR at early levels, DR 5/- at level 10, and DR 10/- at level 20 seems a pretty substantial boost. Of course, you lose out on plenty of other things fighters typically have (damage, AC, etc), so I don't think it's in any way overpowered, but it seems pretty nice for a level 3 class ability to me.
Looking at the Unarmed Fighter Archetype in Ultimate Combat, I came across an ability I wasn't sure I was reading right. Tough Guy (Ex): At 3rd level, an unarmed fighter gains DR/— equal to half his fighter level against nonlethal damage or damage taken while he is grappled. If successful, both you and the target gain the grappled condition (see the Appendices). Does this mean that the Unarmed Fighter has DR any time that he has his mitts on someone? That is to say, does he gain DR when he initiates a grapple, or is it only when he is the recipient of a grapple? If it's the former, as I'm reading it, that's a pretty compelling reason to give this archetype a try, no? |
