Maldollen's page

I know that what i am about to say isn't going to help the OP in his current problem but hopefully it will help him avoid similar problems in the future.

I apologize in advance for any offense, i really don't mean to insult or offend anyone.

@OP
Was there any reason (at all) to have the bandits (or some of them) alive? If not then you always write off the enemies as dead at the end of every encounter, yes i know it doesn't follow the rules and it's metagaming but that way you avoid situations like that.

This.

The moral/ethical/alignment/code of conduct debate going on has been entertaining to read through, and some very good points have been made, but the overarching question is, how/why were there survivors among the bandits that did not flee? Were the PCs, or some of them, doing non-lethal damage? PCs fall unconscious when they hit 0 hit points (barring some ability that states otherwise), and die at -CON, but foes die at 0 hit points, only falling unconscious if dealt enough non-lethal damage or falling victim to some ability that renders them unconscious (sleep spell/sap attack etc.). It is a mechanic of the game that I believe is in place at least in part to prevent "heroes" from having to kill unconscious foes to move on in their adventure.

From here

Size and Magic Items

When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn't be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.

There may be rare exceptions, especially with race-specific items.

Armor and Weapon Sizes: Armor and weapons that are found at random have a 30% chance of being Small (01–30), a 60% chance of being Medium (31–90), and a 10% chance of being any other size (91–100).

Thank you all.

I forgotten about that pesky activation action.
A wiz had used it in a previous game and I wanted to prove/disprove it.
Still wish I could make it work.

Casting a Quickened spell will leave you with your standard action available to re-activate the ring. The balance being, Quickened spells will be in rather short supply.

It's on the d20srd.org site under "Reach Weapons"

Glaives, guisarmes, lances, longspears, ranseurs, spiked chains, and whips are reach weapons. A reach weapon is a melee weapon that allows its wielder to strike at targets that aren’t adjacent to him or her. Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach, meaning that a typical Small or Medium wielder of such a weapon can attack a creature 10 feet away, but not a creature in an adjacent square. A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)

The how and why of it being absent from Pathfinder remains a mystery.

EDIT: Actually, I can't find anything that says opponents w/ concealment don't provoke. I could have sworn that was a rule. Otherwise it leads to counterintuitive results (invisible creatures provoking AOOs). Can somebody confirm or deny this for me?

It's in the section on Concealment:

{snip}You can't execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

It's not a matter of how I run it. I run it that way because there are no rules saying the 2nd diagonal ISN'T 15' on an attack. I don't know how I can possibly rule it a different way unless there's precedence (like from 3.5) or if that rule is hidden somewhere.

It's definitely a 3.5 rule (link, see the "Reach weapons" section)

Note: Small and Medium creatures wielding reach weapons threaten all squares 10 feet (2 squares) away, even diagonally. (This is an exception to the rule that 2 squares of diagonal distance is measured as 15 feet.)

I've never been able to figure out why it didn't make the cut in PF--oversight or intentional.

EDIT: It's also in the 3.5 PHB, but mine is at home, and I am not, so I can't find the page reference right now.

The NPC in this case was moving 50 feet.

So, move 5 feet fighter gets to step up and attack, move more than five feet the fighter does not get to attack.

Thanks alot, really appreciate the rules clarification.

On the surface, this seems to settle things.

But it brings to mind an additional question: Could the character in question move five feet away, and avoid the Step Up? Moving 5 feet is not always the same thing as a five-foot step. In difficult terrain, this would certainly be the case. But what about in normal terrain? Step Up only triggers on a five-foot step. What I'd then be unsure about is being able to declare "I'm moving 5 feet" vs. "I'm taking a five-foot step." Generally, the five-foot step is more beneficial to the person moving, but in this case, it isn't.

...hmmm, I think that with spells like Shocking Grasp and Vampiric Touch, which are touch-attack spells where you can hold the charge, I would say that the person drinking the potion has done the same as cast the spell - and is now holding the charge of said spell. Then all the normal rules for touch attacks and holding/dissipating the charge would take effect. I think this would eliminate a lot of weirdness, and I would guess this could very well be RAI.

Potion rules are very clear about this--the imbiber is both the caster and the target of the spell, so no holding the charge.

"It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects."

I have been under the impression that personal range spells don't qualify for potions. Is that correct? Those seem to target one creature, even it is yourself.

Correct, "personal" spells cannot be made into potions. This rule is found in the magic item creation rules

The creator of a potion needs a level working surface and at least a few containers in which to mix liquids, as well as a source of heat to boil the brew. In addition, he needs ingredients. The costs for materials and ingredients are subsumed in the cost for brewing the potion: 25 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster.

All ingredients and materials used to brew a potion must be fresh and unused. The character must pay the full cost for brewing each potion. (Economies of scale do not apply.)

The imbiber of the potion is both the caster and the target. Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.

The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires.

Material components are consumed when he begins working, but a focus is not. (A focus used in brewing a potion can be reused.) The act of brewing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.) Brewing a potion requires 1 day.

The problem with Sleep and Hypnotism is they don't target a creature or object, but an area. The affect creatures, but do not "target" them. The spell must have a "Target" line in the descriptor to qualify.

I'm not sure if hypnotism, sleep, and magic missile actually qualify, but if magic missile does qualify it would be very comical to see someone drink it.

I'd say yes to Magic Missile, but no to Hypnotism and Sleep, neither of which meet the potion criteria of "targeting one or more creatures or objects", as they have no "Target", only an "Area." Area spells are cast not on a creature or object, but at an area of space.

I've been compiling similar data for a random treasure generator I'm building, and I agree that there are some very odd results for "valid" potions.

The RAW is not explicit, but I would say you add ALL modifiers, then subtract. THEN round up to 1 if you otherwise would have 0 or fewer skill points.

So a human fighter with an Int of 7 would get 2 class + 1 human + -2 Int skill points = 1 skill point (2 with favored class).

But not 2 class - 2 int = 0 skill points, round up to 1, then human bonus +1 = 2 skill points (3 with favored class).

I can see why someone would interpret it differently though. I'd clear it with your GM.

ETA: I also wonder how automated character generators do this... something to check when I get home...

I'd say, based on the verbiage used in the different sections

The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.

Skilled: Humans gain an additional skill rank at first level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level.

that scenario #2 in your post is likely the intended outcome, though I agree the rules aren't precisely clear.

Why else even distinguish between temporary and permanent bonuses.

I can answer this one: it's because a temporary bonus doesn't allow you to qualify for things like feats, whereas a 'permanent' bonus (defined in-game as simply having a temporary bonus for more than 24 hours) does. A Bull's Strength spell isn't going to ever become a 'permanent' bonus, but a Belt of Physical Might can.

The footnote on the chart strongly implies that duplicate abilities are not valid.

Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability, an ability incompatible with an ability that you've already rolled, or if the extra ability puts you over the +10 limit. A weapon's enhancement bonus and special ability bonus equivalents can't total more than +10.

I agree that the intent if Stunning Fist is to stun the target for 1 round, and also that there is likely no official ruling on this uncommon scenario.

I'm somewhat confused by your order of actions; higher initiatives go first, so the original scenario becomes:

Monk init: 15, Goblin Init 10

Monk goes at init 15, does a full attack
Goblin goes at init 10 is riposted and stunned with stunning fist

If the Monk had stunned at 15, it would wear off after 16 the next round, just before the Monk's turn.

With the Monk stunning the goblin on the goblin's turn--in fact most likely after the goblin's turn, since the stunning fist is after the goblin's attack has been resolved. Given that, I'd say the stun wears off after 10 (and before 9) the following round. That is, the goblin is stunned for at least one turn of everyone on the initiative list, including himself.

Grick wrote:

If you have Improved Precise Shot, but not Precise Shot, you will still take the -4 penalty for shooting into melee.

Seriously? The way I read improved precise shot you would ignore anything except total cover & concealment. "Anything" by definition should include the - 4 penalty for firing into melee.

Is there errata or an official ruling on this anywhere? I've never bothered to look because that ruling came from my GM and to be honest it seemed pretty straightforward.

Under normal circumstances, Improved Precise Shot requires Precise Shot, which is what allows you to ignore the -4 for shooting into melee. If you short-cut getting it (eg via ranger bonus feat), without the prerequisites, you do not benefit from any prerequisites that you do not actually have.

You posted most of the relevant source:

Size and Magic Items

When an article of magic clothing or jewelry is discovered, most of the time size shouldn't be an issue. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they adjust themselves magically to the wearer. Size should not keep characters of various kinds from using magic items.

There may be rare exceptions, especially with race-specific items.

Armor and Weapon Sizes: Armor and weapons that are found at random have a 30% chance of being small (01–30), a 60% chance of being Medium (31–90), and a 10% chance of being any other size (91–100).

General rule about items being adjustable or magically doing so, then a line that says there may be exceptions, then a specific exception.

Armor and weapons do not re-size themselves magically, as an exception to the general rule you posted about magic items.

Remember, taking 10 or 20 will do a number of all but hour/level buffs.

Say it with me, everyone:

Taking 10 takes exactly 1 round to complete, just as if a die had been rolled.

The perpetuation of this misinformation must be stopped.

As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action. Charging, however, carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

I'd say no, as both Spring Attack and Charge are full-round actions.

You're right, especially as it can be a ranged weapon. It never states melee attack, just attack.

Here's a question: "The weapon always strikes from your direction." Does the weapon move to a square and attack, staying in that square unless moved (or the target moves)? Or does it zip out, hit, then return to you between attacks? (Like a Spectral Hand)

It could be relevant because the weapon can be targeted with disintegrate, which could target the creature being attacked, but not the caster. If the weapon returns between attacks, then it can't be hit without a readied action.

Can the creature being attacked hit the weapon with his rod of cancellation? What if it's a ranged spiritual weapon?

Interesting scenarios. I found this:

If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers.

which seems to indicate that it does not return between every attack. Maybe "always attach from your direction" is more fluff than mechanics?

I really don't know. We've always played it so that the weapons hovers near the target between strikes, following the target for free if the target moves, but I've never had a player use it to manifest a ranged weapon--it's never come up, so I don't really know what to do. Does the "base" weapon stay near the caster and fire a "bolt" of force to the target for each attack? I think that's what I'd rule, if I were the GM.

Technically, it threatens, but does not grant flanking.

"You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack"

But because it's not a creature or character, you can't flank with it.

The Spiritual Weapon strikes "as a spell, not a weapon" and thus does not make a melee attack into any square, at any time, no matter the visual manifestation of the spell's energy.

Shooting or Throwing into a Melee: "If you shoot or throw a ranged weapon at a target engaged in melee with a friendly character, you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. Two characters are engaged in melee if they are enemies of each other and either threatens the other."

The Spiritual Weapon is not a character.

To add to that, the spiritual weapon can't be attacked, and does not threaten, so is also not in melee.

Is there any reason why an incorporeal creature couldn't 5 foot step into a wall after it attacks? I was using this tactic against the PCs recently, and of course it wasn't very popular. They had a Cleric who could have staggered the spectre with a touch, but for whatever reason he didn't bother. Perhaps he was afraid that the staggered spectre would just withdraw (which it eventually did after discovering that the first 4 PCs it attacked had Death Ward on).

The 5 foot step in and out of solid objects is a very effective tactic though. Maybe it is even too effective. I wonder if there's a rule I missed somewhere that it takes a move action to "meld" into the wall/floor or if a house rule to that effect might be good. That way the PCs would at least get an AoO. Maybe I'm just getting soft hearted or something though. I mean, the PCs can ready actions to attack the monster when it emerges. They were in kind of a tight space and aren't very good at mobility though.

The tactic is valid, and can be brutal if the PCs don't or can't adjust--moving farther from the wall to prevent the 5' step or attacking from within the wall and readying actions to attack when the incorporeal creature emerges.

It also doesn't answer whether the DC is 5 + item's CL or 10 + item's CL.

I don't have the link handy, but I'm pretty sure this was fixed in an errata to make both sections of the rules read as 5 + CL, though this may be one of those 'fixes' that was mentioned on the boards but never actually made it into an errata release.

The developers have been pretty plainly spoken about the intent to make magic item creation very simple to accomplish for the players--thus the lower create DC, and the ability to bypass most restrictions by adding 5.

The magic creation rules are certainly one of those hot-button issues on the forums, despite several faq entries and errata documents to try to clear the water.

Vic Wertz wrote:

These sure have made my life easier.

I did think about getting some of those, but I can't really justify the cost, especially after just spending $260 on flip mats and map packs! :(

One of my players used old wire coat hangers and made his own.

according to PF, they generally frown on non-headband/belt stat increasing slots, but a rule is 150% cost. so to create it, the cost would be 3k for +2, 12k for +4 to a single stat.

I believe the point of the original question is that this rule does not exist in PF. If you have a source that shows otherwise, please do provide a link.

2. A Belt of Physical Might +6 at 3rd level? At a DC of 16 (assuming the character has bull's strength, and bear's endurance)? (5 base + 11 CL.)

By the rules, yes (though the Belt has a listed CL of 12, not 11 so the final DC to create is 17). As a gm, I find it ridiculous; I also would have preferred a different caster level per level of enhancement, but I acknowledge that this is a houserule, and not the written rules.

Why would armor and weapons be ambiguous?

3. Sword of Life Stealing at 5th level? At a DC of 27 (5 base + 17 CL + 5 for not having enervation.)

The armor (and weapon) section includes specific text stating:

Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The creator's caster level must be at least three times the enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the two caster level requirements must be met.

Many, many long threads have derived from the argument over whether this "special prerequisite" can be bypassed with a simple +5 to the DC.

Or does it mean that since CL isn't a prerequisite you don't have to even consider caster level when crafting a magic item?

For items with no CL listed in the "construction requirements" section, it means this.

Some few items (eg the cloak of resistance), and all armor and weapons, have CL requirements that must be met. It seems items other than armor and weapons can bypass this requirement with a +5 to the check. It's still a bit ambiguous to me whether the same applies to armor and weapons.

Either way, I've houseruled that a caster level requirement in the construction entry cannot be bypassed in any way.

To create 1000gp per day (correct me if I'm missing something) it seemed like a character could simply choose to make any item at their caster level, take a -5 penalty to double the speed, then... that's it. You're creating 2k per day and only spending half that in costs for a net gain of 1k per day. I know you need resources to start with, but you are still doubling whatever wealth you may have. The crafting DCs seem trivially low even after tacking on the -5. I think masterwork tools and a decent int bonus is all you need to have no failure chance (other than a natural 1). You could add skill focus if it was really necessary, but I doubt it would be.

Plenty of good advice in previous posts, so I won't reiterate that, but 2 things about this paragraph in particular:

Anyone else hate sword-wielding fantasy warriors?

Yes, actually; that's why I always give mine a battleaxe, heavy pick, or great axe.

In addition, some items cast or replicate spells with costly material components. For these items, the market price equals the base price plus an extra price for the spell component costs. The cost to create these items is the magic supplies cost plus the costs for the components. Descriptions of these items include an entry that gives the total cost of creating the item. link

To me, this says that the answer is really a mix of the 2--the creator pays full price for the costly components, but the cost of components is not doubled for market price.

Let me ask the question from a slightly different direction. Is there ever a time where a 5' step counts as a move action?

Yes, when slowed or moving through difficult terrain, etc. There are a small number of situations where the 'free' 5' step is specifically disallowed, so any movement at all, even 5', is a move action.

Where does the +4 come from?

From the Universal Monster rules for Grab:

Creatures with grab receive a +4 bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and maintain a grapple.

Preston Poulter wrote:

So if you fire a +3 arrow from a +1 Keen, Humanbane longbow... what happens?

Best of both:

+3 Keen Humanbane damage is done by the arrow.

One minor correction: I don't believe you can Keen a ranged weapon. Maybe the ammunition, but not the weapon itself.

fancyman of cornwood wrote:

does the bane property work for ranged weapons or only the amunition?

While it is commonly played that special properties transfer to ammunition, I personally can't find the rules to support it. Some properties (at least in SRD 3.5) specifically called out that this was the case; in many cases, that text was left out of PF.

The passage that I can find about ammunition is: "Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon."

Can someone point me to the text that states that weapon properties universally transfer from a projectile weapon to its ammunition?

I haven't actually looked for specific rules, no; but what good is Flaming or Frost etc, on a longbow, if the property is not transmitted? Logic dictates that this item is available to either screw the PC out of gold or to transfer the property to the ammunition.

So if you fire a +3 arrow from a +1 Keen, Humanbane longbow... what happens?

Best of both:

Taking 10 is feasible but the amount of time you are considered to be using to do one task is significant.

Just wanted to point out that Taking 10 takes exactly the same amount of time on a skill check as rolling the die does (generally a standard action). There is no penalty to time to Take 10 as there is with Take 20.

The only time a 1 on a skill check is any worse than one point lower than a 2 is with UMD. Using that skill specifically, if the you roll a 1 and also fail, then you can't try again for a day. If you can roll a 1 and succeed, then you're still fine. High level characters do that all the time.

That, or a disable device on a trap where the total with a 2 does not set off the trap, but the 1 is low enough to set it off.

And a craft check for making a magic item where a roll of 1 results in a cursed item, but 2 is high enough to just fail.

Firing into melee combat invokes a -4 penalty to the attack if an ally is adjacent.

-2 if the target is 2 size categories larger

0 is Precise Shot feat is taken.

Those are the givens as I understand them.

Where is it written.. in THIS edition (ie Pathfinder, not AD&D 3.0 3.5 4.0) that firing into melee has a "miss chance" of striking an ally?

Isn't that what rolling ones are for?

Slaunyeh is correct, though many, many GMs use a houserule to do so.

Also, the target may be provided cover, giving it a +4 AC bonus. Even so, there is no PF rule provision for striking that cover and/or an ally.

If you were moving through difficult terrain you would provoke even if it is a 5 feet of movement. Because it isn't a 5 foot step, it takes as much effort as moving 10 feet normally.

You would only provoke moving through difficult terrain if you move out of a threatened square. It would not count as a 5' step, so only a standard action would be allowed, but no AoO unless something threatened the original square.

Honestly...without an official response on the topic it's really left up to interpretation. The text can easily be read in a way that supports adding 5 to the DC to bypass the CL requirement, but it can also be read to negate the ability to add 5 to the DC to bypass the CL requirement. The issue here is that there's one set of text that lists how the "add 5 to the DC" rule works, and another set of text in another location that isn't mentioned in the "add 5" rule at all, but is instead listed as being its own mandatory requirement.

Makes me wonder if the 3*Enhancement rule was created after the Add5 rule and they just forgot to update the text on Add5. Or...Add5 came later and they forgot about the 3*Enhancement rule when writing it.

Oh, I know. I've not participated in, but I have been keeping up with this thread. I just don't like partial quotes being used as evidence one interpretation is more valid than the other. Both are valid readings of the rules, and without clarification from the developers, the correct interpretation is, it's up to your GM to tell you how they are going to play it.

Dejavu all over again, but...

...those bolded bits just say it's a "prerequisite," not that it can't be bypassed in the way other prerequisites can be bypassed.

Here's the part about bypassing prerequisites:

Quote:

The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

Definitely full-circle, for what, the third time in just this one thread. But here's more fuel for the fire, and a more full quote of the quote you posted supporting bypassing the Arms/Armor special prerequisite:

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.

The 3*Caster level requirement is not in the item's description, leading some, myself included, to believe that they cannot be bypassed.

In this case the drawn line from cell 8 to cell 1 would touch the bottom right corner and the top left corner

Draw the line between the centers of both squares, and the line from cell 1 to cell 8 passes through the wall between 4 and 5 and then through the wall between 5 and 8, and thus is not flanking.

Other Considerations: Once you have a cost figure, reduce that number if either of the following conditions applies:

Item Requires Skill to Use: Some items require a specific skill to get them to function. This factor should reduce the cost about 10%.

Item Requires Specific Class or Alignment to Use: Even more restrictive than requiring a skill, this limitation cuts the price by 30%.

Link, under the chart after multiple similar, multiple different and 0-level spell instructions.

Page 549 Core Book

"Regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day"

That is your answer.

Potions and scrolls can take less than 8 hours to make, but "regardless of the time needed for construction, a caster can create no more than one magic item per day." Nothing else can even take less than one day (8 hours) to make, so that line you quoted is specific to the case of potions and scrolls taking less time.

The party could then try and use Knowledge (Arcana) to come up with a list of spells of the transmutation school that might be causing the animal before them to behave strangely. Given the school of magic, I don’t think it’s much of a leap for the party to conclude that the animal is something other than what it seems. Perhaps, it’s not an animal at all but a person changed into one. Still, this is all speculation on the part of the party. Knowledge (Arcana) cannot determine with any certainty that the change is the result of spell ‘X’

Knowledge(Arcana) allows you to:

Identify a spell effect that is in place DC 20 + spell level

My group and I have always read that to mean it identifies the actual spell that caused the effect. I suppose it's possible we're reading too much into it, but that seems fitting with the rest of the K(Arcana) uses.

Casting a spell for a full round is longer than casting a spell for a full round action. No way around that as far as I can see.

I posted the link to the PRD above that disagrees with this statement.

1 round > full-round action

Not true, according to the PRD

A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action.

If the target is within reach, you can flank. There is also a feat in the APG that lets you flank if 2 allies are flanking.

Unfortunately, Gang Up requires you to be within reach; it just prevents the fiddling with position bits.

No, still based on negative energy. That's already proved inconvenient once when the cleric channeled positive energy to heal her allies, and was only able to exclude their troll opponents via Selective Channeling: the shadow companion took damage from it. :)

The current channel rules do not allow for damaging of undead and healing the living in the same channel--unless there's some new feat I'm unaware of that allows it. This was a change from the PF beta to PF release rules sets. Unless you're playing with a house rule that allows that. If so, just ignore me.