Matthias_DM's page

This item is much better than some of the other chosen items.

I would have taken out the "attacks on either creature" affect both section. I would also use etherealness instead of plane shift, to achieve some of the same effects at a lower cost..... 70k is a bit much.

I don't think it's "dull" at all. Kudos.

Meh, I still think RAW it works. RAI, I believe you are right. Then again, RAI I believe that the below section of rules should take care of this problem as well.... allowing the items use.

I am not able to use smite, but it lets me activate the item as if I had smite.

What item was this rule written for? Surely there must have been a reason to write this rule? Which item is it viable for?

Where does the item say I need to activate the ability?

It just says I must have the ability. I get a +2 AC against the chosen opponent.

RAW, I just have to make a choice.

I think this is exactly the problem with this sort of interpretation though.

Clearly, UMD was meant to work with items like this. You chould be able to gain the benefits of the item because you are "tricking" it into activating for you.

Here is why I chose this item, Maouse.

Because RAI, I feel as you do that the "+2 sacred bonus to AC against attacks from the chosen opponent" is referring to who you choose with Smite.

However, RAW it doesn't say that. It just says "chosen opponent." not "opponent chosen with the relevant ability"

Finally, I believe that RAI, UMD was meant to work with items like this. I think most people read too much into the whole "you aren't actually given the ability" portion of UMD.

Really, that is just there to stop me from ACTUALLY trying to smite or ACTUALLY trying to channel positive energy. It's not there to stop me from using this item, which seems like a legitimate RAI way to use Use Magic Device.

I agree that greyflame is different. It requires you to actually channel.

I guess my point is what item does emulating a class feature actually work for if you cannot use it the way you suggested?

"This armor special ability works only for good creatures with the challenge ability (such as cavaliers) or the smite evil ability (such as paladins, half-celestials, and creatures with the celestial creature template).

A wearer with one of these abilities gains a +2 sacred bonus to AC against attacks from the chosen opponent."

Armor works only for Good creatures (I'm good) with the smite evil ability (UMD 21). Check.

A wearer with one of these abilities gains a +2 sacred bonus to AC against attacks from the chosen opponent. I choose everyone. Check.

"Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment."

Yeah. Read the next sentence.

Am I right that if I have UMD 21 or greater... then the champion enhancement will grant a +2 sacred bonus to AC vs.... everything.

UMD is not an action.
So, I UMD having smitten all creatures in my sight.
The item is automatic, not activated.

No. I would not allow them with Fabricate/Masterwork Transformation. I would not allow them because the sword you wield after using this spell cannot be dispelled. It's no longer a spell.

The Shadow Weapon is a spell. It has a duration, it can be dispelled.

It would hit harder than an actual weapon because the wizard who cast it has mastered that spell to such an extent that all of his knowledge which benefits that spell... benefits it doubly so.

If the wizard took weapon specialization(longsword) and then made a longsword... it would do +4 damage because even though the wizard is good at dealing damage with longswords.... he is AWESOME at dealing damage with his shadow weapon longsword.

In that case the +2 and +4 would be doubled, but the +1 for level dependent would not.

Don't forget, that bonus is a set numerical bonus... which is modifying a level dependent number.

Regardless, you think the original portion should be doubled.

So, here is another question:
Why is a bonus which is increases depending on character position (or spells) "set", while a bonus which increases depending on character level is "not set"?

ok, i think i have found the answer to how power attack works with this. i was rather disappointed that i found this, because i was rooting for it working, but it turns out that it doesn't, and here is why:

earlier i stated that i believed that there were two kinds of numerical values within spells and feats. those were dice and numbers not rolled on dice. turns out i was wrong. there are three - dice (1D6+1 per caster level and 5 fire), set numerical values (1D6+1 per caster level and 5 fire), and level based numerical values (1D6+1 per caster level and 5 fire).

this is where i found the third number type:

** spoiler omitted **

so because i found this i have no choice but to say that Spell Perfection would not apply to Power attack because Power attack ready identically to other Level-variable effects that you find in spells, so i have to consider it a level-variable effect and thus does not get doubled by Spell Perfection.

here is power attack and a similarly worded spell to affirm my belief:

** spoiler omitted **...

This seems plausible. That is the point that I mainly wanted to touch on, the other arguments in this thread seem obvious.

My main inquiry is: Is power attack considered a set numerical bonus.

the word "set" to me can mean different things... but mainly I take it to mean "fixed to something or not random, arranged in advance."

In that way, power attack would be a set numerical bonus, because it is fixed to level, it's not random, and it is arranged in advance.

Level dependent bonuses seem to be set bonuses to me. They are determined by outlying circumstances.

Let me give another example. Allied Spellcaster.
The bonuses in this feat, are they not set numerical bonuses?
Does the fact that I need to be adjacent to a spellcaster mean that they are not set?
Does the fact that they have the possibility of increasing mean that they are not set? (if the spellcaster shares my spell)

I think this spell would benefit by spell perfection.

What do you think would happen with Allied Spellcaster + Spell Perfection?

I wouldn't allow Weapon Focus (relevant weapon) or Power Attack to have their bonuses doubled by Spell Perfection. The bonuses from Improved Trip and Greater Trip also wouldn't be doubled if I use the weapon to make a trip attack.

These are bonuses associated with the casting of the spell. These bonuses don't apply to aspects of the spell, not how I understand it anyway.

Weapon Focus (Ray) is relevant if your Perfected Spell is something like Enervation. If this works as is claimed, then shouldn't it work in perpetuity if your chosen spell was Masterwork Transformation?

Thanks for pointing this out, improved trip would work as well. Think about using telekenesis to trip, improved trip would be modifying what you can do with the spell.

Also, weapon focus(relevant weapon) seems to be stated in the description of spell perfection.

Weapon Focus(Ray) is a feat that modifies your attack roll with a spell that is a ray.

Weapon Focus(Scimitar) modifies your attack roll with a spell that is a scimitar.

What is the difference? I think you are mentally adding limitations to the feat that aren't there.

So, logic should go like this:
Is is a feat?
Is it applying a set numerical bonus?
Is it applying that bonus to any aspect of the spell?

Then double that numerical bonus!

Necro?

Let's see what others think, so that at least some more people can hit faq.

You guys should play GURPS Supers if you want to play at that power level.

Well, I thought there might be some reach and travel issues.... but I guess there aren't, seeing as it's always a single attack after you change targets.

Nevermind

I'm not seeing anything for the size of the weapon it creates.... now.... I'm not trying to break the game by creating a GARGANTUAN mace, but here is my question....

Does a spiritual weapon increase and decrease depending on the size of the person casting it?

So.... an "Additional Favored Terrain" is cannot be the same one?

Some Favored Terrain Questions

1) Can you select the same terrain 2x? Like this:

1st Favored Terrain (Mountain)
2nd Favored Terrain (Mountain) and +2 to Mountain

Ending up with a +6 to mountain terrains.

2) Does the first choosing of favored terrain grant a +2 bonus to itself by way of the second paragraph.

"In addition, at each such interval, the bonus against any one favored enemy (including the one just selected, if so desired) increases by +2."

Does that count the First Interval?

So Favored Terrain Forest +2 and +2 at the 1st favored terrain?

The reason it seems out of whack is.... because if you are flanking with someone, you're rogue partner can sneak attack. If you grapple that same person, from the same location, he is no longer flanked because he is not "threatened" by you anymore. (you cannot attack of opportunity).

That seems a bit strange.

Matthias_DM wrote:

--------STUFF--------

This is not the thread to discuss revisions and changes to grapple.

And the non-rules description of being flat-footed is that you are unaware of and unprepared for something. You're being surprised by an attack, basically. When you're being grappled, you should be very much aware of the fact, and so to me, calling that "flat-footed" is nonsensical.

Oh. I thought of it more as to catch "off guard" or someone is off their guard. After all, the Scout archetype is able to treat people flat-footed that see him charge round after round after round, not because they are unaware that he can use that ability. So, I think of someone grappled as "off their guard." I just like to offer solutions to problems, that's all.

The suggestion wasn't my point, I guess. Question is this:

1. Why not add being grappled to the list of people where sneak attack applies? It seems to go with the theme and similar mechanics.

2. Is there a forum where people can offer ideas and suggestions to the developers to improve upon the product and they can glance at it?

3. Are their plans for a Pathfinder 2nd Edition in the works which might implement improvements on design and cut some of the unecessary, complicated fat from the pathfinder system?

Having the grappled condition doesn't allow sneak attack.
Is that person not distracted/off balance/and the target of a coordinated attack?

Do you think simply saying "Grappled creatures are considered flat-footed" is a good fix?

This would replace the bolded text of the grappled condition below.

Pros:
- escape artist now doens't recieve a penalty for those trying to escape the grapple, similar to how CMB checks aren't penalized, see above.
- sneak attack can be used slightly more often.
- you save money on ink
- rules become more uniform
- grappling becomes more realistic when it comes to slowing down "agile" targets, reducing their AC by more, but not denying them their skill at escape artist. Players with low dex weren't "moving much" anyway.

Cons:
- your hand is going to hurt from all the high fives you get for doing this.

Also, I think there is a way to simplify and combine "squeezing" rules with "grappling" rules.

I disagree that Power Attack and Spell Perfection would work together on attacks with this spell. The reasons I disagree are as follows:

1) The only set numerical values in the spell are the 1 point of damage it deals per attack if the Will Save is passed, which would become 2 points with Spell Perfection. At 5th and 10th levels the effective enhancement bonus of the weapon would go from +1 and +2 to +2 and +4.

Spell perfection wouldn't double the "minimum" damage of the spell from 1 to 2, because only FEATS you possess are doubled on the spell.

The last sentence of Spell Perfection says:

In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.

Spell Perfection lists Spell Focus [ray] because when a ray attack is made, it is the spell. Thus the bonus would apply since it's applying to the spell, not an effect made after the spell is cast.

Where is this false notion that spells are only spells as they are being cast???? I do say, SHOW ME! In fact, multiple rules suggest (and even outright say) exactly the opposite.

Here are a few:

So, AGAIN. The ray IS the spell, the flame weapon scimitar IS the spell, the illusion sword IS the spell, the mage armor IS the spell, the delayed blast fireball IS still the spell.

Spell description + spell effect = the spell.

sry. acid arrow is conjuration creation.... so that might not apply. Although, the more I look at it the more I think it should.

Attack rolls and damage bonuses are not aspects of the spell.

The spell IS the sword!

Similarly, the RAY is the spell in Ray of Frost. It's not just a ray created by the spell. The ARROW IS the spell in Acid Arrow. The creature IS the spell in summon monster.

It has already been shown in the spells description that Attack rolls made with the spell can be modified. So spells CAN be modified by such things.

"works because it is used on an attack directly caused by the spell"

I am making attacks directly with my spell (which is in the shape of a sword.

"Those feats are not part of the act of casting the spell (which is where Spell Perfection applies)"

This is not what the feat says. The Italicized portion is separate from the bold.

If what you say is true, then I shouldn't be able double Spell Penetration on a Vampiric Touch if I held the charge because it was applied after I cast the spell.

Do I have the feat power attack? Yes.
Does it apply a set numerical bonus? Most likely yes (this is where I have the question.)
Does it apply this bonus to any aspect of the spell? Yes.

@Claxon
So what? You think that the sword is more powerful than Augment summoning and superior summoning with a summoner build? +8 Str, +8 Con, and +2 monsters automatically?

Quote: "Also, the blade or weapon you create is not the spell, it is a result of the spell."

Care to cite a source for this? Every spell creates an effect.
Spell effects ARE the spell. Just because they remain with a duration, doesn't make them NOT a spell. Do you believe this is true about mage armor?

A good rule of thumb is, if you can dispel it gone, then it is a spell.

When the spell effect is a ray, weapon focus(ray) applies and gets doubled by spell perfection.

That's why it makes sense to me, that when the spell effect is a Shadow Scimitar, then weapon focus(scimitar) would apply and get doubled.

You seem to think that I am using something similar to Wood Shape. Look closely at how Wood Shape is different from the things I am descibing. Wood Shape has no effect, so whatever I make with it is permanent, cannot be dispelled, aren't spells. Notice how there is no Spell Effect and the duration is instantaneus.

Driver 325 yards wrote:

I don't know for sure if Power Attack would work, but the Feat specifically says that Weapon Focus would work. Am I missing something?

What the OP wants is for Weapon Focus(Lonsword) to apply to Shadow Weapon (which creates the Illusion of a weapon) when he creates a longsword with it. I agree that Weapon Focus (Longsword) would apply normally to a longsword whether it is real or a shadow version of this spell and Power Attack would apply normally too. However, I don't think it makes any sense to double it with Spell Perfection because those feats in no way directly modify the spell. They modify something created by spell.

Weapon Focus(Scimitar) can effect Flame Blade.

Why wouldn't the same apply to a Shadow Weapon Scimitar?

Here is what spell perfection says:
"In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell."

If I have Spell Focus(illusion) and use it on Shadow Weapon, does that not increase the will save of the spell? Wouldn't that be doubled if I had Spell Perfection(Shadow Weapon)? I think yes. It seems to me that this blade that I create is the spell and not just some object created by it!

Therefore, things like weapon specialization, weapon focus, and power attack would apply as well, since they apply to the damage of the spell.

Link please?

1) It says nowhere that the feat must affect the spell at the time of casting.

2) Shadow weapon isn't an object, that would be conjuration(creation).

Let's say you had something like Spell Perfection (Shadow Weapon)

Since Weapon Focus gets doubled on similar spells.... would Power attack?

Guys, Sneak attack + Scorching ray is super dee duper powerful if it goes on every single ray.

Drachasor wrote:

Given that FAQ response seems to be from today, I'm not sure much thought was put into the answer.

We really, really, really appreciate this sort of comment.

Thanks, Sean.

You guys take all the hate so that the DMs don't have to. That's making our jobs easier. :-)

(even though, I'm the player on this one.... *cries for his arcane trickster*)

Edgar Ripley wrote:

It looks like the guy that makes the game says that they all get sneak attack. This doesn't make a lot of sense from a flavor perspective, or with regard to how other rules logic applies, but mechanically it's probably the best decision so I don't have an issue with it.

The part of the FAQ about magic missile only applying the sneak attack damage to one missile suggests that only one of the scorching rays should get the sneak attack damage ("This damage is only applied once per spell").

I'll point out that Manyshot, which fires two arrows at once, says this:

Benefit: When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows. If the attack hits, both arrows hit. Apply precision-based damage (such as sneak attack) and critical hit damage only once for this attack. Damage bonuses from using a composite bow with a high Strength bonus apply to each arrow, as do other damage bonuses, such as a ranger's favored enemy bonus. Damage reduction and resistances apply separately to each arrow.

So there is another precedent (having nothing to do with the arcane trickster) for simultaneous attacks only applying sneak attack damage to one of the shots.

I've got no problem with it being one sneak attack per spell.... but that doesn't follow from either of these two cases. It just needs its own faq entry. "When doing damage with a spell requiring an attack roll, precision damage and sneak attack only apply once per spell."

Quote 1: That is a rule from a specific ability of a class. So no one is going to apply it to a general rule any more than someone would apply the rules for Summon Monster I (sp) of the Summoner class to any summon monster spell cast.

Quote 2: It's only one attack on the two arrows. Whereas, scorching ray is a separate attack for each ray.

Unless Pathfinder v2.0 is being released anytime soon and this isn't an issue? :-)

Thanks for taking an interest in this once again Sean.

Do you think you might take a moment and consider adding another FAQ which deals with this a little more clearly?

Slathering a full attack of sneak attacks on whomever you like feels like it's above the scope of a 2nd-level spell. Especially when they're already targeting flat-footed touch AC.

By this point, you have given up much of your higher level spells in order to improve the lower ones.

It opens up more floodgates than that.. other spells could then deliver 8 or 15 sneak attacks in a round simultaneously.

"15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata."

When and where was this answered in the errata??

Wizards > Sorcerers by a longshot.

1) Can have EVERY spell (more options).

2) Get higher spell levels sooner - HUGE advantage... HUGE HUGE HUGE.

3) Intelligence is a better stat than Charisma. More skills vs better party face.... but the reason INT wins is that there is better versatility and more skills require INT.

4) Improved Familiar (basically another character that can do rogue-ish things, has your skills and CAN ASSIST YOU ON EVERYTHING for +2, and can cast lowbie spells through wands. Invest in a Wand of Dimension Door (or an item that can cast it 3/day).

5) Leave 1 spell slot open per level and prepare it as needed. This pretty much means out of combat you can have ANY spell of ANY level you know.

6) Wizard Schools have nice abilities, often better than bloodlines.

7) Save Metamagic Mastery for boss fight wins.

Now, if you are the guy that doesn't leave any spell slots open, doesn't know what spells to prepare when you know you are going into a graveyard tonight (or all the enemies were ghosts/outsiders/humanoids), and doesn't every use your familiar's abilities..... the Sorcerer is for you.... niiiiice and safe.

Neat concept. I was adamant (har har) about not putting any mithral or adamantine golems in my game because I didn't want the players ending up with a big pile of metal worth more than its weight in gold... but with a simulacrum of the golem all they'd end up with is a pile of snow, which I'm OK with.

I've known groups that would take 3-4 entire game sessions deciding what to do with all of the adamantine and travelling to cities selling it.

I understand you completely, lol.

I do want to keep the same feeling of "this thing is like an adamantine golem" though.

I don't want to just cop out and put a stone golem in. Perhaps I can change it up a bit... instead of needing to be destroyed by an adamantine vorpal weapon... I can just say needs to be decapitated by a keen weapon.

Damage is easily halved, life and HD easily halved. I can half the DR and the fast healing.

Hey all,

Just some tips on how an Adamantine Golems powers work with Simulacrum?

What do do with DR/epic, fast healing 10, and indestructible ability

Well, you can prepare better than the "clone" can prepare.

-You can have others there waiting to capture it.(summoned angels or allies)
- Ready an action against being attacked by a creature after looking into the mirror.
- You can fool it with abilities it has no way around; ie, you cast invisibility and it (you) have no way to counter invisibility.

- You can have spells in place that you have already saved against (but the duplicate hasn't.

I just want to know what constitutes defeat. Is it capture? Removal of threat? Knock out? Death? Being Held?

Knowing someone is hiding and being able to find them are two separate things. Invisibility.

Bump for interest.

Mirror of Opposition creates duplicates of people and is often used as a trap. What if it was used on Purpose?

If I create a duplicate of myself in the mirror and then Dominate it.... do I have a fun little friend that I can send in before battle?

What if the duplicate cannot find me? Does it wander around looking for me? If it is attacked by someone else, does it attack back?

I know what counts as "Destruction" in the description... but what counts as "Defeat"?

Sry, lots of questions.

Mathias_DM wrote:

Following the "rules of the game" created Pun-Pun.

Following the rules of the game also led to a lot of people having fun playing Pathfinder, because, y'know, Pathfinder is the ruleset you're playing in. This faulty logic can be used to justify anything.

"You have a 5 ft. base speed."

"But that's too slow! And my race said I have 30 ft.! Why?"

"Because following the rules led to Pun-Pun. Screw the rules, they're broken."

You are correct. It is not only the DMs job to limit players from being overpowered... but also to limit himself.

However, the fact is that I already have the limitations in place on my side. The only time you see the chains are when they are placed on you and your character making decisions. Instead you assume that a DM is unfair for placing limitations on you.

Does not pathfinder society limit your game play options? are they unfair?

Do you restrict yourself to the Bestiary 1? Because as a company like Paizo comes out with more bestiaries, you start to get power creep; power creep works both ways, and with an attitude like yours, I assume what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Bestiary 2 for the most part. Other ways that I limit myself is by not leveling my monsters with Ultimate combat/magic classes, feats, spells or special abilities.

I recognize that I, too, could create a monster that is unstoppable. I'm not trying to make a game impossible to beat... I'm trying to even make it a challenge for my players!

No challenge = no fun, imho

Matthias_DM wrote:

Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition has become cakewalk for my group of players because they have an alchemist throwing fire as a touch attack for like 90-100 damage a round at range +50 splash damage reflex half. He almost completely turned the Black Magga into a JOKE!

He can do that for 3-4 combats a day no problem. I as a DM will not allow an alchemist in further games, or I will limit the touch attack to a normal attack.

Um...how?

9th Level Alchemist (Blessing of Fervor by party cleric)

3.5*5+10= 17.5+10 = 28

Ever single touch attack hits an AC of 6 because he never rolls a 1.
28*4 = 112 Fire Damage a round that is unstopable by the black magga.
Splash damage (doesn't matter against Magga but for other creatures) is 60.

....

.... that is ... ONLY the Alchemist against the Black Magga. 3rd turn a CR 15 was running from a party 6 levels beneath it.

@Dekalinder

Sorry. I disagree. Rewarding xp based off merit isn't favoritism.
Wait, I guess I'm not sorry.
Also, I don't understand the rest of the gibberish you put down. I'm not going to get into some petty discussion about who has DMed longer or discussions about your use of hyperbole or other obvious issues.

I'm only saying whoever takes part in the encounter should gain experience for that encounter.

You are saying "gimme gimme gimme xp, don't take it away from me I need to level"<--I guess that's how I use hyperbole!

@Claxon

Yes, but that removes storyline experience rewards.... you know, the extra you get for completing the story a certain way or discovering hidden truths? That is extra experience that might place the PCs at a different level at different times.

It also assumes that everything before that point was completed (or doesn't care if it wasn't). Because of that, it makes players' actions seem unimportant.

That seems so fail to me.

Seems we're all in disagreement, although I admit I errored in my first post. Let me amend my statement:

Rogue with 3d6 sneak attack, wielding a sap, would deal (1d6) + (6d6) + 12

With Sap Master you roll your Sneak Attack dice twice, which in this example means 6d6 total dice rolled. Sap Adept then kicks in, granting you a flat damage bonus equal to twice the number of Sneak Attack dice you rolled, which would be 6x2=12.

Wow. I might just have to make another Rogue character.

This is correct.

PS - I do believe that selecting your class for you was a bit rough though. Usually, I just let parties without healing suffer the consequences....
.. but these might be new players.

Things I (as a DM) have disallowed from my campaigns.

Anything NOT Core Rule Book or Advanced Players' Guide.
-APG classes - Summoner, Alchemist, Gunslinger
Touch attacks scale horribly and Summoners can cast creatures and send them into dungeons en masse.

There was once a campaign world I created where I flat out told players that Arcane Magicians would be sought out and burned at the stake because the only way to get arcane magic in this world was through demonic favors.

They were, of course, welcome to play an evil character. Magic items and artifacts became extremely sought after and they started out as professional archeaologists, treasure hunter style. They had fun.

Following the "rules of the game" created Pun-Pun.
Life is not fair. As the arbiter of the rules, sometimes the DM will not be fair.

I once had a player riding on the back of a gecko who complained that he wasn't able to charge attack with his lance in dungeons enough and that the rooms were too small for him to do it. He said I was doing it on purpose to limit him. (I copied them from the adventure path).

My answer to a player will always be the same when they have problems with my decisions/rulings:

"The good news is that a monster, NPC, or villain will never have that opportunity either!"

DMs have the right and responsibility to limit their players. It's not like you are being asked to pick your class, then roll your stats 3d6 down the line. I'd like to see your tears for that oldschool style.